Re: Dec 27/28 Image Analysis JWD
To: David Paterson;
First, I thank you for your attempt to answer the submitted questions.
Comments below.
David Patternson wrote in message <n4ep1vsd428clgtf7rlh0utcvrh9mohj1c@4ax.com>
> J.William Dell wrote:
>
> >Greetings Greg Hennessy;
> >
> > As a general statement;
> > I do not support the theory that this phenomena is "camera noise" or
> > gamma rays.
>
> But when the weight of evidence supports the theory, which it does if
> you examine it objectively, you should be willing (as a real scientist
> would) to accept that you're wrong....
JWD
I appreciate your opinion on the subject. I disagree.
Perhaps the next set of images will help us both to come to a clearer
understanding of this phenomena ;o)
>
> > I recognize that a phenomena is occurring and I have more questions
> > than answers. The point of this discussion is to explore
> > possibilities. Scientists learn in this method, as theories are
> > developed, tested and accepted/rejected. Leading to more discussions,
> > theories and testing.
>
> Well, it's the first time you've admitted to actually being interested
> in taking a scientific approach rather than pushing your own agenda.
JWD
One of the reasons I started with a "general statement" was to show
where I'm coming from.
>
> > First;
> > I recognize the effect seen at dawn/dusk with the Sun is an optical
> > illusion.
> > I note the Camera also "sees" this illusion.
>
> No, the camera doesn't "see", it only produces images. It's your
> brain again being fooled in exactly the same way as looking at the
> phenomenon directly. If you measure the sun or moon in images taken
> at the horizon vs at the zenith you'll find they're the same size.
JWD
I am not arguing semantics. The camera picks up what the human eye
"sees"
Quote
A mirage is an optical phenomenon created by the refractive bending
of light in the atmosphere. It is not an optical illusion caused by
reflection of light off another surface. The atmosphere acts as a
lens, not a mirror, and although it may appear that the sun is being
reflected in the water below, the mechanisms responsible for
refraction are quite different than those for reflection. Even though
mirages may educe optical illusion to the observer, this is due to the
processing miscalculations of the human brain.
>
> > Second;
> > You have mentioned that the camera WILL capture star mirages at the
> > horizon on occasion.Amount of atmosphere looked through creating this
> > effect.
>
> Dancing and increased "twinkling" yes, but not a splitting into two
> distinct images, which you're claiming for your imaginary planet.
JWD
The comment about picking up 2 images at the horizon was from Greg
Hennessy in response to your assertion that we don't.
Message 29 in this thread
In article <a51n1vgvh8rmn16r6s60n5or944bqlpv1u@4ax.com>, David Patterson wrote:
> Why???? Why don't we see 2 images of stars or planets when they're
> close to the horizon?
We do, we just get lousy images when looking through so much air
mass.
The Havas images that have been taken have *NOT* been taken that close
to the horizon.
End Quote..
I am aware of Gravitational lensing causing more than one image, and
also Einstien rings.
I do not agree with your statement, and neither did G Hennessy.
>
> > Third;
> > The images under discussion are viewed at a higher angle than the
> > horizon.
>
> Yes, so why do you (and Nancy) persist in putting forward horizon
> effects as a cause of the supposed splitting of the image?
JWD
I am looking for possible causes of this phenomena. I will entertain
all possibilities until I have eliminated them. reread my "general
statement"
The refractive properties of the atmosphere between horizon and zenith
are known, and a possible contributing cause.
>
> > Would you or any others assist on these questions?
>
> You'd learn a lot more if you were to do your own work. Go to the
> library, look at some decent astronomy sites on the net, or go out and
> do some observing for yourself.
JWD
Your condescending attitude is irksome, as is your attempt at
professional arrogance.Whether you realize it or not, the original
purpose of these newsgroups was to create opportunity for discourse
and discussion on observations and theories.
When I ask assistance I am looking for feedback from others on the
questions I raise. This does not indicate lack of knowledge. It is
exploration.
The number of specialized disciplines that this subject covers, is
beyond the capacity for any one person to work in isolation.
Unless they are the resident know-it-all.
>
> > Based on object being imaged;
> > Known information;
> > 1) PX is moving towards us at speed. Is there a "blueshift" effect
> > from its light?
>
> If it existed and was moving towards us, then yes, we could expect
> some blue shift of the light.
JWD
Agreed
>
> >2) PX as a brown dwarf surrounded by a red dust cloud.
> >a) light emitted from PX becomes coloured reddish from dust Cloud.
> >b) gravitational "redshifting" causes light to redden. Applicable to
> > Brown Dwarfs.
> > http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/EinsteinTest.html#GravRedShift
>
> No, redshift doesn't necessarily cause light to become more red. Like
> Nancy you're confusing redshift with refraction (or something) and you
> really should learn at least the basics of the science before you try
> to hijack it to your cause.
> Also, the amount of redshift caused by a mass the size of this
> supposed planet would be very, very small.
JWD
Redshift causes light wavelength to lengthen dropping it into the
"red" end of the visible spectrum or into infrared. I'm not confusing
anything.
I agree that the amount of gravitational redshifting occurring would
probably be small.
The Red colour of the surrounding medium (depending on composition)
may have an impact on colouration of the emitted light.
>
> > 3) Observable phenomena in the sun Dawn/dusk shows ability to capture
> > mirages on camera. Observations at horizon, of stars, indicate camera
> > capture of mirage.
>
> I've already covered this, but, no, the camera is neither capturing
> the effect your mind creates in seeing the sun as larger, nor does it
> see stars split into 2 "personas".
JWD
Look, I'm quoting and referencing a link from someone who has done
work on this subject.
The Camera IS capturing the effect. It is called an inferior mirage
(two objects)omega sun (larger image)
Go to this page and measure the sun in the images. And then come back
and show me how you arrived at your conclusion that the camera didn't
capture the effect.
The issues of two images have been covered by me above.
>
> >4) Telescope is a Mewlon 300
> > http://www.takahashiamerica.com/includes/link.htm?target=http://www.takahashiamerica.com/main_MList.htm&title=Land%20Sea%20%26%20Sky%2C%20Home%20of%20Takahashi
>
> Very nice - but it's not just the quality of the equipment that
> matters, it's what you do with it (excuse any double entendre :)
>
> Poor imaging and image processing don't do justice to an instrument
> like this.
JWD
And where are your images and analysis?
>
> > Questions on images;
> > I have a number of questions I would request assistance and comment
> > on. I suggest this phenomena we are capturing is the result of a
> > number of factors. And it will require some research and discussion to
> > work the contributing factors out.
> >
> >1) Presuming a "blueshift" effect is occuring. How would we find
> > indications for a "blueshift" effect?
>
> You'd need to take spectra, and also have an idea of what spectral
> lines you'd expect to be present in light from this weird miniature
> brown dwarf with its iron oxide dust cloud. However, you should see
> at least hydrogen lines shifted towards the blue.
JWD
Agreed
>
> > 2) Presuming a "redshift" effect is occuring through colouration of
> > light travelling through the medium of a dust cloud and/or through
> > gravitational redshifting. How would we find indications for a
> > "redshift" effect?
>
> A redshift wouldn't be caused by light passing through a dust cloud.
> The amount of gravitational redshift would be very small.
JWD
As I have stated before. A key question here is what effect a red dust
cloud would have on colourisation of light. And further, what effect
that may have on the gravitational redshift.
>
> > 3) If both are occurring at the same time, what possible outcomes
> > would we expect on Camera images? ( location of camera - earth)
>
> Given the supposed high approach speed and small mass, I'd reckon on
> the light being more blue shifted than red.
JWD
Agreed, but with both Red and Blue shifting occurring. What would
happen to the mid range of the visible spectrum?
>
> Note - this doesn't necessarily mean the light is any bluer, so don't
> start looking for a "blue persona"!
>
> > 4) If refraction, dispersion, or possibly diffraction of light is
> > occuring at the source (PX) and refraction at earths atmosphere, what
> > outcomes could we expect to see on the camera image?
> > And when combined with Question 3?
>
> That question, as put, is unanswerable.
JWD
That question requires a number of answers to a number of scenarios.
Rather than unanswerable, based on present information base, I suggest
it is undetermined at this time.
> >
> > 5) Do we have any other Brown Dwarfs 15 to 20 billion miles away that
> > have been imaged recently?
>
> ROFL - that is one of the stupidest things you've said in a while!!!!
> (And you've said quite a few in recent weeks.)
JWD
I'm glad you saw the humour in this comment. would a little smiley at
the end have helped ;o)
> Have you any idea how far 20 billion miles is in cosmic terms? OK,
> "it's a lot farther than the chemist's shop at the corner of your
> street", but you need to look up how far away the outer planets are,
> how far the nearest stars are, how big a light year is etc. etc.
> Once again you demonstrate your abject ignorance of a subject you try
> to claim knowledge of. Now would be a good time to go and learn some
> basic science and maths, and a bit of critical thinking, and then you
> can come back and discuss the likelihood of this planet existing, or
> of it being on any of your images.
JWD
My points are;
How many Brown Dwarfs have we imaged this close in?
How many travelling at speed and not just wandering?
How much data do we have on this type of activity?
How can you be so sure of yourselve with the limited experience we
have?
And your off the wall response indicates, we don't have the
experience, knowledge, or understanding of this phenomena.
And yet you are determined to argue against its possibility because of
that lack of knowledge, experience, and understanding.
Your scientific method can be summed up by;
If we don't know about it, it doesn't exist.
> But will you read them, or pay any attention to the information given
> in them?
>
> DP
JWD
I have found there is knowledge to be gained on every encounter.
Even from one who is more interested in snide remarks and assinine
asides than scientific discovery.
So,
for the information provided,
Thank You
J.William Dell
