Re: Havas: Some Questions for You

I M Openmind wrote in message <c6cdf9f8.0210131528.33fb92ff@posting.google.com>
> Steve Havas wrote in message <bQgq9.500093$v53.21021556@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>
>> I M Openmind wrote in message <c6cdf9f8.0210130206.3c78d90d@posting.google.com>
>>> You are quoted at http://www.zetatalk.com/teams/rogue/shavas11.htm as saying
>>> ---------
>>> 10/11/2002 Time/Date/Location
>>> The time of the images was between 12 and 1 am on Oct 11. So it looks
>>> like it would have started off looking mostly east at about 37 degrees
>>> above horizon and then moving to a EES position at 50 degrees above
>>> horizon. So these images would have started and finished at a higher
>>> position in the sky than the Oct 4 images but looking approximately
>>> the same direction east. I don't know if this has been mentioned or
>>> not but with the earth rotating over the time the images are taken the
>>> light from PX should be moving to a different spot just about every
>>> image? I'm just wondering how much over say the hour the images are
>>> taken the light position could change based on our expectations of the
>>> light passing over the equator or not, elevation in sky etc.
>> >
>>> It's kind of hard to say what the coordinates would be for Oct 11
>>> being in between the Zeta given coordinates of Oct 3 and Oct 25. The
>>> RA goes from 4.400986 to 4.400546 and the Dec from 12.13942 to
>>> 12.13215 over those dates.
>>> Steve
>>> ----------
>>> - Please explain (no ... do not quote Lieder ... use your own words)
>>>   why Lieder's planet should be moving but the stars whose light is
>>>   following the same path over the horizon/equator etc. are not moving
>>>   in concert.  That is, why should you think the light from PX should be
>>>   moving relative to the stars?
>>
>> IMO, I do not have any explanation to give as to why the red light 
>> from PX is slightly changing positions as the earth rotates etc. while the 
>> light from the stars is not over and above what ZT has commented on about it.
>>
>> In short, the Z's said that since the stars are so far away the frequencies 
>> of light that are more easily bent literally gets lost before it reaches earth 
>> so that the light we see from the stars is what was not lost and still able 
>> to reach earth and be seen. Hence we see the stars as one object
>> and not moving.
>
> So why don't we see Mars, the "Red Planet" wandering around in similar
> fashion ... or Io which is quite red in color and at the distance to
> Jupiter ... or Quaoar which is farther than Pluto but closer than the
> supposed distance to PX?  The wandering that Lieder has gotten you to
> accept is many seconds of arc and would easily have been seen if it
> were actually occuring in the objects I have just listed.

In one of the last IRC chats the Z's said that the distance between the white 
light, red light spots on the images would close and eventually become one as 
PX nears. So I guess Mars, Jupiter etc. don't wander around being that they are 
relatively close to us, reflecting lots of light or something like that.
Heck, I don't know - just keep watching for new images and see what's 
happening there!

>>> - Please explain why you think the single pixels you have picked out
>>>   on the Oct. 11 images 1 and 5 could possibly be of an object in the
>>>   sky when all the stars on those images form much larger images.
>>
>> Because they fit the pattern from what showed up on the Sept 21 and 
>> Oct 4 images. Location wise, it is following the Z's predicted movement 
>> with the white light spot showing up exactly at the coordinates and with 
>> the red light below and to the left as expected. The spots in question 
>> from all three images have very similar characteristics from image to 
>> image. So they have at least three things going for them that makes me 
>> believe they are an object - they are showing up at where expected, 
>> moving exactly as expected in concert and showing continuity in 
>> appearance.
>
> This is not science ... this is circular reasoning.
>
>> You ask why the stars appear much larger and I guess all I can say to 
>> that is because they appear much larger being much brighter. How
>> big would you expect PX to show up on these images if it's only
>> approximately an arcsecond in diameter at it's current distance and 
>> reflecting very little sunlight? If we keep watching maybe we can see 
>> the spots in question grow larger than those stars over the coming months.
>
> The stars have actual outside the atmosphere angular sizes hundreds of
> times smaller than one arcsecond.  All objects being viewed through
> the Earth's atmosphere are subject to "seeing" which spreads their
> light out so that they are "unresolved".  Typical seeing is 2 or 3
> arcseconds (and the images you have taken show that it appears at
> least that bad in this case) so all the real objects will appear
> similar in profile, just different in total integrated intensity.
> Technically, if PX is actually an arcsecond across, its image should
> appear slightly larger than those of the stars, not smaller as is the
> case with the pixel defects you have adopted.

Maybe it would appear larger than the stars in the images if it had more 
light coming off of it. If it is an arcsecond in size and just barely emmiting 
enough light to spark up four pixels it still has a ways to go before it's 
going to appear larger than any of the stars there or have similar intensity.

>>
>>> - Please explain why PX shows on only 1 of the 10 images you took (OK
>>>   once in its "white" persona, once in its "red" persona).
>>
>> My best guess would be that there are a few factors currently working 
>> against PX showing up consistently on these images. One would be the 
>> small angular size (<1 arcsecond) Dealt with above ... and faintness in
>> predominately one light spectrum making it difficult to be "seen" by 
>> the CCD. I have been using binning 3 for the images which is the most 
>> sensitive to light and is also the lowest resolution with binning 1 being 
>> the highest resolution and lowest sensitivity. So perhaps this object is 
>> bright enough to be picked up but is just on the borderline of being 
>> resolved by the CCD. For all I know maybe it is showing up on some 
>> of the other images only requiring more extensive processing and
>> carefull looking.
>
> No ... none of the objects are "resolved" but the image of any object
> being detected though the atmosphere would have the profile that is
> clearly seen in the stars on your images.  The reason your "personae"
> are not seen on more than one image is that they are random noise, not
> real objects.

You lost me there...

>> Another factor could be errors in tracking during the imaging causing the 
>> delicate light from PX to be lost in nearby surrounding pixels and 
>> therefore not readily seen. I understand that there is the possibilty that the 
>> tracking software used could have been trying to lock onto two reference 
>> stars in the images and hence some of the star double up occuring in many 
>> of the images. This is currently being looked into in an attempt to discover 
>> what is causing the problems on the images. 
>
> The problems with the scope certainly need to be looked into ... did you get 
> a refund on your money?
>
>> Another problem could be changing atmospheric conditions over the time 
>> the images are taken possibly causing some inconsistency in the seeing or
>> transparency of the sky. On one night there was a rapid temperature drop 
>> and the focus needed to be rechecked so that could be a factor.
>
> Again, this would affect all the objects similarly.

Except it would be more easy for an object barely registering to get washed out.

>> And yet another factor could be the red light slowly "creeping" over the 
>> time of the images as the earth rotates. Perhaps this makes it more difficult 
>> for the light to register with enough intensity in one spot to show up well 
>> on the CCD.
>
> ???

What I mean is the red light changing position on the images as the Earth 
rotates. Red light coming from the south bending down more on the images 
due to the greater mass over the equator than when the light is coming from a 
more eastern direction. Nancy talks about it here:
http://www.zetatalk.com/teams/rogue/nancy1.htm

>> Again, these are just my best guesses. Obviously I would have preferred 
>> that these spots were showing up brilliantly in every image. However, 
>> with all the factors listed above I just don't think it is the nature of this 
>> object to show up well yet. Maybe someone with more powerful equipment
>> could get better results and  we would be able to see greater consistency. 
>> As time goes on however I'm sure that the results will improve, showing 
>> up on more images, tracking to the coordinates, growing in size and 
>> brightness etc.
>>
>>> - Please explain how PX can show up as both "white" and "red" when 
>>>   the CCD taking your images had the red filter in place and hence only
>>>   red light was hitting the detector.
>>
>> Good question and here is my best guess...  The red filter being used 
>> is not completely filtering out all other light frequencies beside red and 
>> therefore some degree of other light including white light does pass 
>> through and is being detected by the CCD.
>
> We do not have to guess.  The characteristics of the filters the CFW-8
> are plotted at
> http://www.sbig.com/sbwhtmls/online.htm . Please now clarify your
> answer.

It looks like the passband for the red filter is 612-670nm. And to quote 
the Zeta's, there's red light, and red light and then there's red light... So 
what exactly frequency of light is coming though on the white light spot 
I have no idea. I actually don't even really care, seeing that it is there is 
enough for me.