Re: Planet X: EARTHQUAKE Increase

Charlane wrote:
> 
> Using a red filter won't help you see a red object against a dark background.
> Think about it. Nancy didn't.
> 
> Best Regards,
> John.
> 
> OK then, how do you go about viewing a red object against a dark background?  I
> will use this in my viewing when searching those coordinates.  I am going to do
> it anyway, so give me what you think is the correct manner in which to approach
> it.
> 
> Charlane

Personally, I think the red filter is somewhat of the proverbial red
herring.  (Pun intended).

The eye is composed of rods and cones, with rods being sensitive to any
light and cones being sensitive to a restricted portion of the
spectrum.  In the fovea (the central region of your vision where you can
see best), there is a lack of rods, and in the most central region of
the fovea, there is a surprising lack of blue sensitive cones.  Because
the cones are less sensitive than the rods (simply because the cones
throw away so much of the spectrum) you sacrifice absolute sensitivity
for color.

To prove the point, go outside some night and allow your eyes to become
dark adapted.  Stare at a particular region of the sky and remember what
you see.  Move your gaze slightly off that axis and notice that suddenly
you can see stars you could not see before.  As you shift your gaze
back, those same stars will dissapear.  This makes visual inspection
problematic and it is highly unlikely you will be able to see any
meaningful color anyway.  (Mars is a good example, it only looks
"reddish" not "red".)

Also, visual inspection is subject to interpretation "yes I saw it" vs.
"no you didn't" and you end up in something like the Monty Python
"Argument" skit that happens so often in this news group when the
subject of Planet X comes up.

A MUCH better alternative is a CCD camera as an attachment on your
telescope.  Take a picture and contrast invert it (i.e. black becomes
white and white becomes black).

What you are then looking for is something that is a slightly darker
shade of gray at the coordinates.  However, anything you find will be
argued to death because the picture will be somewhat noisy.

However, differential image processing can come to the rescue.  After
some time, take another picture and align the two EXACTLY over top of
each other so that as many of the objects exactly overlap as possible. 
Then subtract one picture from the other, and set the baseline contrast
to gray.  (Unfortunately, doing this will require some image processing
software that is relatively sophisticated, like PhotoShop).

If there is something there AND IT IS MOVING what you will see is a sea
of noise in which are two relatively distinct spots, one where the
object used to be and one where it is now.  One spot will be slightly
ligher and the other will be slightly darker.  Doing this repeatedly
over an extended time period will either clearly show something (because
there will be a succesive trail of these spots) or clearly fail.

By placing a red filter over the image, what you will succeed in doing
is making the entire picture darker.  The red(dish) object you are
looking for will suffer less than the surrounding objects, but still the
problem is that you are taking a dark image and making it even darker. 
This does not use your eyes well which REALLY want a bright image.  So
do yourself a favor and work with how your eyes actually behave.  A
contrast inverted image takes a bit of getting used to, but it is so
much easier to see subtleties.

And as far as "goto being for weenies" if Mike was a *real* man, he
would grind the primary mirror himself...  I mean heck, any "idiot with
a credit card" can *buy* a telescope...

(snicker).

The Small Kahuna