Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Uranus and it's Ring

  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#26 Kokatha man

Kokatha man

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12904
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2009
  • Loc: "cooker-ta man" downunda...

Posted 15 January 2017 - 11:14 PM

I said I wouldn't comment further unless serious questions arose - it's over 5 days since I posted my summary & it's  fairly evident nothing more needs adding re the Jan 9th claim to what I last posted...but as the number of views has gone up by over 400 since then it probably needs a summary of my objections.

 

I also think from a sense of fairness etc to Phil & Anthony I need to make some sort of statement about what happened while I was putting together a "critique" to put to the BAA re their 2 separate claims of Uranus ring detection.

 

As the image in the post above clearly demonstrates, there is no correlation between the real position of the rings with those they thought were detected in Phil's image. (Jan. 9th 2017)

 

However, upon subjecting the same level of analytical determination to the previous image (Dec. 13th 2016) to my surprise I discovered that defining (again, quite accurately) by extrapolating where they considered they had detected the rings, the entire outline corresponded quite nicely with the rings' real position!

 

Accordingly I now re-appraise my (earlier) objections & now consider that this image (Dec. 13th) could be considered as a "possible detection" - certainly not as "positive detection" as claimed because of several factors - not the least being their "detection" is quite obscure in appearance...& required at the very least another image taken on the same night using a different rotation of their camera for confirmation...with no "ifs" or "buts" wrt this requirement.

 

Nonetheless, I do agree that there is plausible reason to suggest it might be there!

 

I freely acknowledge that a large part of my doubt focused on Anthony's failure to explain why the incorrect JPL-simulation for their claim could be used as "proof" for nearly 3 weeks up until I pointed this error out to him...& by being unable to overlook this major concern I did not go on to apply the same level of critique that I later applied to the Jan 9th image in this thread.

 

For clarification of this point, the incorrect JPL simulation could not possibly match with the correct simulation on Dec 13th to give the same results: this can easily be seen in the images below (middle & right)...but I still should have gone through the entire process of analysis - that is my fault, for which I apologise.

 

But we are all human & I suspect attitudes on both sides conspired to prevent anyone from debating this both freely & fully...intransigence is a common human foible & I am no more free of it than anyone else.

 

That said, hopefully we can all move forward - this type of imbroglio between 2 senior planetary imagers such as Anthony & myself is never beneficial...& for myself I can only apologise again for the part I played in it...I reiterate once again that their Dec. 13th outcome is a plausible claim although it needed much more to be considered "positive" - but it does point to the very real possibility that the rings can be "positively detected" in the manner that Bernd Gährken did using his 800mm scope.

 

The images below clearly demonstrate that when an ellipse is drawn to fully-encompass the extent of the Dec. 13th 2016 ring claim...ie, extrapolated from that portion "detected" in their image.(see left hand image below)

 

THAT:

 

(a) There is no correlation with the real ring position as was claimed in the original threads etc using this incorrect JPL simulation. (middle image below)

 

(b) But there is a good correlation with their real position when using the correct JPL-simulation! (right hand image below)

It is not for me to speculate as to why they originally thought that the middle image "proved" their case, although it's fair to suggest that my heavy questioning might have fomented intransigence from both sides, as already mentioned...a salient lesson for both of us I think.

 

I make no excuse for my "forensic" analyses btw - I have absolute belief that extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary critiques!

 

ps: btw we are now at Carrieton hoping for a decent morning to begin our Jovian imaging for the New Year...last night we imaged Uranus at low elevation & processed one iR685nm image showing an almost "carbon-copy"of the artefact revealed in this thread's  image of Jan. 9th - but more on that later when I post our own Uranus etc thread.....where tonight we attempting to use a "jerry-rigged" occulting bar if all goes well..! 

 

UranusRingClaimDec13th-BothUTs-FIN.png




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics