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

What Is This

  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 LDW47

LDW47

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 8,069
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2012
  • Loc: North Bay,Ontario,Canada

Posted 02 May 2021 - 10:28 PM

Is this Zodiacal Light, this is in the SW at my camp Sagittarius ls to the left right on top of the hills ? I took this with my simple p&s camera, every once and a while it shows up, sometimes much brighter, I took this about an hour or so after dark about 11 pm if I recall. My skies are Bortle 1 !

 

D0B3A08A-4EAD-4D72-9C2F-5D98D94A6FD8.jpeg



#2 asf

asf

    Vostok 1

  • ****-
  • Posts: 135
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2020

Posted 02 May 2021 - 10:32 PM

Yes, that would be Zodiacal Light, unless, of course, you have a city nearby 


  • LDW47 likes this

#3 petert913

petert913

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,694
  • Joined: 27 May 2013
  • Loc: Silverton, OR

Posted 02 May 2021 - 10:59 PM

Bortle 1 skies....drool !


  • LDW47, Chirp1, DSOGabe and 1 other like this

#4 asf

asf

    Vostok 1

  • ****-
  • Posts: 135
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2020

Posted 02 May 2021 - 11:05 PM

Yes, you are sooooooooooooooooo lucky!!!!! I envy you :( 


  • LDW47 likes this

#5 dave253

dave253

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 56
  • Joined: 08 Oct 2010
  • Loc: Australia

Posted 03 May 2021 - 12:02 AM

The ZL from here at 24S is prominent and definitely triangular. One can easily imagine it as a conical scattering of debris. Naturally it’s best seen when the ecliptic is almost at 90* to the horizon. Our visitors are always amazed at what they are looking at! 

Clear skies 


  • LDW47 likes this

#6 LDW47

LDW47

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 8,069
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2012
  • Loc: North Bay,Ontario,Canada

Posted 03 May 2021 - 04:12 AM

Yes, that would be Zodiacal Light, unless, of course, you have a city nearby 

Over that hill is nothing but miles and miles of bush country, no habitation of any sort ! Some nite I will get a photo of it with my good dslr so I can capture the MW through Sagittarius as well.


Edited by LDW47, 03 May 2021 - 04:16 AM.

  • dave253 and chrysalis like this

#7 petert913

petert913

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,694
  • Joined: 27 May 2013
  • Loc: Silverton, OR

Posted 03 May 2021 - 03:46 PM

So...no problems with door-to-door salesman, I imagine.



#8 Tony Flanders

Tony Flanders

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 19,600
  • Joined: 18 May 2006
  • Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA

Posted 03 May 2021 - 04:31 PM

That doesn't look at all like the zodiacal light as I have seen it, nor as I have photographed it. The zodiacal light's most striking feature is that it is tall and triangular. And from mid-northern latitudes -- yes, that's you -- it's always tilted over pretty dramatically, since it follows the ecliptic, which is likewise tilted over. Moreover, the center line of the triangle would cross through Sagittarius, which is on the ecliptic.

 

This looks exceedingly much like a small light dome from an artificial light source -- low, symmetric, and elliptical in outline. But if there is no artificial light source out there, the only remaining alternative is the Sun. An hour after sunset, the Sun's glow is still overwhelmingly strong. Especially in the summer.


Edited by Tony Flanders, 03 May 2021 - 04:33 PM.

  • payner, Matt Lindsey, dave253 and 1 other like this

#9 LDW47

LDW47

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 8,069
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2012
  • Loc: North Bay,Ontario,Canada

Posted 03 May 2021 - 06:46 PM

That doesn't look at all like the zodiacal light as I have seen it, nor as I have photographed it. The zodiacal light's most striking feature is that it is tall and triangular. And from mid-northern latitudes -- yes, that's you -- it's always tilted over pretty dramatically, since it follows the ecliptic, which is likewise tilted over. Moreover, the center line of the triangle would cross through Sagittarius, which is on the ecliptic.

 

This looks exceedingly much like a small light dome from an artificial light source -- low, symmetric, and elliptical in outline. But if there is no artificial light source out there, the only remaining alternative is the Sun. An hour after sunset, the Sun's glow is still overwhelmingly strong. Especially in the summer.

Remember two things, I took that photo with a simple p&s camera with a small ccd sensor, it was not the best to take that pic but most of all I can guarantee you there is no small light dome in that direction ! Also the camera could not, save for a small glimpse, pick up the MW that extends through Sagittarius as you know. The MW would be glaringly bright, running almost overhead but not for that camera. That is why I am asking, ‘ what is it ‘ ? If its the sun it is quite a bit to the SW from where it sets ? It is interesting, thats why I showed that photo. But you are correct it sure is not like the photos that I googled which are probably the best of the best, with the best AP geared cameras. I wish I would have had my dslr handy !


Edited by LDW47, 03 May 2021 - 06:51 PM.


#10 LDW47

LDW47

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 8,069
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2012
  • Loc: North Bay,Ontario,Canada

Posted 03 May 2021 - 07:07 PM

That doesn't look at all like the zodiacal light as I have seen it, nor as I have photographed it. The zodiacal light's most striking feature is that it is tall and triangular. And from mid-northern latitudes -- yes, that's you -- it's always tilted over pretty dramatically, since it follows the ecliptic, which is likewise tilted over. Moreover, the center line of the triangle would cross through Sagittarius, which is on the ecliptic.

 

This looks exceedingly much like a small light dome from an artificial light source -- low, symmetric, and elliptical in outline. But if there is no artificial light source out there, the only remaining alternative is the Sun. An hour after sunset, the Sun's glow is still overwhelmingly strong. Especially in the summer.

When I regoogle all the photos of the zodiacal light shown, my photo doesn’t look completely unlike some of them save for the quality of my cam that I took the picture with. Some shapes are very like mine ie symmetrically projecting at right angles to the ground and not necessarily related to Sagittarius and the MW from what I can gather. I really don’t know how it forms or where it begins in relation to the ground, the horizon but maybe I caught it in its initial beginning ? I really don’t no anything about it until now through google and as I went through my astronomy photos !



#11 LDW47

LDW47

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 8,069
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2012
  • Loc: North Bay,Ontario,Canada

Posted 03 May 2021 - 07:08 PM

That doesn't look at all like the zodiacal light as I have seen it, nor as I have photographed it. The zodiacal light's most striking feature is that it is tall and triangular. And from mid-northern latitudes -- yes, that's you -- it's always tilted over pretty dramatically, since it follows the ecliptic, which is likewise tilted over. Moreover, the center line of the triangle would cross through Sagittarius, which is on the ecliptic.

 

This looks exceedingly much like a small light dome from an artificial light source -- low, symmetric, and elliptical in outline. But if there is no artificial light source out there, the only remaining alternative is the Sun. An hour after sunset, the Sun's glow is still overwhelmingly strong. Especially in the summer.

I really do appreciate your input !



#12 Tony Flanders

Tony Flanders

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 19,600
  • Joined: 18 May 2006
  • Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA

Posted 03 May 2021 - 07:53 PM

Remember two things, I took that photo with a simple p&s camera with a small ccd sensor, it was not the best to take that pic but most of all I can guarantee you there is no small light dome in that direction ! Also the camera could not, save for a small glimpse, pick up the MW that extends through Sagittarius as you know. The MW would be glaringly bright, running almost overhead but not for that camera. That is why I am asking, ‘ what is it ‘ ? If its the sun it is quite a bit to the SW from where it sets ? It is interesting, thats why I showed that photo. But you are correct it sure is not like the photos that I googled which are probably the best of the best, with the best AP geared cameras. I wish I would have had my dslr handy !

Actually, I see quite a lot of the Milky Way in your photo. An award-winning picture it's not, but M8, M24, and the Scutum Star Cloud all show up just fine. The brightness of the light in question is part of what makes me doubt that it's the zodiacal light. Yes, the zodiacal light can indeed outshine the Sagittarius Milky Way, as I was startled to discover the first time I experienced it. But not by that big a margin.

 

The Sun, as you know, moves to the west as it sets, and this does not stop after the Sun goes below the horizon. Around the solstices it hits the horizon at quite a severe angle, so yes it would have moved quite a bit farther west than it was when it set.

 

The photo has to have been taken well over an hour after sunset. That early in the evening the whole sky would be lit up. I guess the real test of whether you're looking at the residual glow of the Sun below the horizon is how it evolved over time. If it was indeed twilight glow, it would have continued to change in direction, and also gotten dimmer fairly rapidly. That's true of the zodiacal light as well, to a lesser extent. An artificial source, by contrast, would normally stay in exactly the same spot and typically dim slowly if at all.

 

You may be underestimating just how far artificial light pollution can travel. Especially when there are clouds hanging over the light source, the glow of a city can appear quite bright well over 100 miles (160 km) away. The presence or absence of clouds changes the brightness greatly, which is perhaps why you only see this on some nights. I do see some prominent clouds at the right-hand edge of your photo. Lit up by something, presumably artificial.



#13 LDW47

LDW47

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 8,069
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2012
  • Loc: North Bay,Ontario,Canada

Posted 03 May 2021 - 08:07 PM

Actually, I see quite a lot of the Milky Way in your photo. An award-winning picture it's not, but M8, M24, and the Scutum Star Cloud all show up just fine. The brightness of the light in question is part of what makes me doubt that it's the zodiacal light. Yes, the zodiacal light can indeed outshine the Sagittarius Milky Way, as I was startled to discover the first time I experienced it. But not by that big a margin.

 

The Sun, as you know, moves to the west as it sets, and this does not stop after the Sun goes below the horizon. Around the solstices it hits the horizon at quite a severe angle, so yes it would have moved quite a bit farther west than it was when it set.

 

The photo has to have been taken well over an hour after sunset. That early in the evening the whole sky would be lit up. I guess the real test of whether you're looking at the residual glow of the Sun below the horizon is how it evolved over time. If it was indeed twilight glow, it would have continued to change in direction, and also gotten dimmer fairly rapidly. That's true of the zodiacal light as well, to a lesser extent. An artificial source, by contrast, would normally stay in exactly the same spot and typically dim slowly if at all.

 

You may be underestimating just how far artificial light pollution can travel. Especially when there are clouds hanging over the light source, the glow of a city can appear quite bright well over 100 miles (160 km) away. The presence or absence of clouds changes the brightness greatly, which is perhaps why you only see this on some nights. I do see some prominent clouds at the right-hand edge of your photo. Lit up by something, presumably artificial.

They were pretty thin but not wispy and as I mentioned there is no light sources any where near that direction. This is not like the glowing sunsets we see every clear night. I would estimate it was taken about 1-11/2 hours after sunset but I sure didn’t record the time or exact date but I would suggest August. 


Edited by LDW47, 03 May 2021 - 08:32 PM.


#14 LDW47

LDW47

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 8,069
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2012
  • Loc: North Bay,Ontario,Canada

Posted 03 May 2021 - 08:19 PM

If I read it correctly the Zodiacal Light is due to residual dust particles suspended in the atmosphere that are reflected to different levels in or from the direction of the sun after sunset or at sunrise in the east ? I am still trying to get my head around this which I haven’t paid much attention to up till I posted this. So having said this the set sun had to be somewhere in that direction ?



#15 LDW47

LDW47

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 8,069
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2012
  • Loc: North Bay,Ontario,Canada

Posted 03 May 2021 - 08:36 PM

Actually, I see quite a lot of the Milky Way in your photo. An award-winning picture it's not, but M8, M24, and the Scutum Star Cloud all show up just fine. The brightness of the light in question is part of what makes me doubt that it's the zodiacal light. Yes, the zodiacal light can indeed outshine the Sagittarius Milky Way, as I was startled to discover the first time I experienced it. But not by that big a margin.

 

The Sun, as you know, moves to the west as it sets, and this does not stop after the Sun goes below the horizon. Around the solstices it hits the horizon at quite a severe angle, so yes it would have moved quite a bit farther west than it was when it set.

 

The photo has to have been taken well over an hour after sunset. That early in the evening the whole sky would be lit up. I guess the real test of whether you're looking at the residual glow of the Sun below the horizon is how it evolved over time. If it was indeed twilight glow, it would have continued to change in direction, and also gotten dimmer fairly rapidly. That's true of the zodiacal light as well, to a lesser extent. An artificial source, by contrast, would normally stay in exactly the same spot and typically dim slowly if at all.

 

You may be underestimating just how far artificial light pollution can travel. Especially when there are clouds hanging over the light source, the glow of a city can appear quite bright well over 100 miles (160 km) away. The presence or absence of clouds changes the brightness greatly, which is perhaps why you only see this on some nights. I do see some prominent clouds at the right-hand edge of your photo. Lit up by something, presumably artificial.

You say you can see quite a lot of the MW in that photo but if you could see it visually you would know, would see the difference and thats what I said, that photo doesn’t do justice to my actual views of the MW, its well beyond the capabilities of that camera for photographing the MW.



#16 LDW47

LDW47

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 8,069
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2012
  • Loc: North Bay,Ontario,Canada

Posted 03 May 2021 - 09:19 PM

I looked at all my astronomy photos, that is the only photo I took of that, I didn’t record the date but I would estimate 5-6 years ago before I bought my Canon dslr with AP capabilities.



#17 LDW47

LDW47

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 8,069
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2012
  • Loc: North Bay,Ontario,Canada

Posted 03 May 2021 - 09:41 PM

Here is another photo of the same area that I found it appears to be dated mid July, 2018 at about midnight. No bright whatever ! Jupiter is dead ahead and on the far left edge is Antares, I checked this time frame with SkySafari plus.

 

D167B835-116B-4447-B9C9-941052835A14.jpeg


Edited by LDW47, 03 May 2021 - 10:11 PM.


#18 LDW47

LDW47

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 8,069
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2012
  • Loc: North Bay,Ontario,Canada

Posted 03 May 2021 - 10:15 PM

After all of this the mystery appears to continue, lol ! What is it ?



#19 LDW47

LDW47

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 8,069
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2012
  • Loc: North Bay,Ontario,Canada

Posted 03 May 2021 - 10:57 PM

I think I tracked this photo down to mid Sept. 2018 at about 10:30 pm by cross referencing with SkySafari plus and the date recorded on the original photo. Its not Zodiacal Light, it appears the full  moon had just set and was down below the hill at just that location based on the position of Sagittarius to it ! The evidence is there but its been fun, it shows what happens when you don’t document your photos, even just a bit. My apologies for all of this, taking you all away from more important stuff ! And thanks to Tony F for all his time and knowledge !


  • dave253 and byi like this

#20 Voyager 3

Voyager 3

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,033
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2020
  • Loc: Near Bangalore, India

Posted 04 May 2021 - 12:50 AM

If I read it correctly the Zodiacal Light is due to residual dust particles suspended in the atmosphere that are reflected to different levels in or from the direction of the sun after sunset or at sunrise in the east ? I am still trying to get my head around this which I haven’t paid much attention to up till I posted this. So having said this the set sun had to be somewhere in that direction ?

I think zodiacal light is light that is reflected by the dust that is hanging around in the space . The dust was the leftover from the formation of planets and the sun itself .

If it is reflected by atmospheric dust it is called haze lol .

Edited by Voyager 3, 04 May 2021 - 12:51 AM.

  • LDW47 likes this

#21 NorthernlatAK

NorthernlatAK

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,096
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2018

Posted 04 May 2021 - 01:44 AM

I just watched a video on youtube which suggests that zodiacal light we see is from dust in the orbital path from Mars. All the inner planets seem to have dust in their orbital paths and the light being scattered from the dust in Mars's dust ring is what we see as zodiacal light.
  • LDW47 likes this

#22 Tony Flanders

Tony Flanders

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 19,600
  • Joined: 18 May 2006
  • Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA

Posted 04 May 2021 - 05:47 AM

I think I tracked this photo down to mid Sept. 2018 at about 10:30 pm by cross referencing with SkySafari plus and the date recorded on the original photo. Its not Zodiacal Light, it appears the full  moon had just set and was down below the hill at just that location based on the position of Sagittarius to it ! The evidence is there but its been fun, it shows what happens when you don’t document your photos, even just a bit. My apologies for all of this, taking you all away from more important stuff ! And thanks to Tony F for all his time and knowledge !

Doh. I said the only alternative to artificial light pollution was the Sun. I should have remembered the Moon!

 

Those lit-up clouds pretty much prove that there was a bright light source still above the theoretical horizon -- though below the hill. Without the Moon there, the clouds would have been darker than the background sky, and wouldn't have showed up at all in the photo.


  • dave253 and LDW47 like this

#23 LDW47

LDW47

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 8,069
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2012
  • Loc: North Bay,Ontario,Canada

Posted 04 May 2021 - 01:01 PM

One thing I learned from this is that if you have an astro photo and can’t figure out what it represents, like this one and you can get a date of the photo you can use SkySafari to go back to that point and as in this case it explained the situation, the photo. And it was kind of interesting, fun to sleuth it out ! But you have to know the where and direction it was taken, I did.


Edited by LDW47, 04 May 2021 - 01:03 PM.



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