Starship Asterisk*

by **apodman** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:51 pm

pete moss wrote:this is not good enough

pete moss wrote:immagination

pete moss wrote:astrononomy

---

pete moss wrote:we still say 'sunrise' and 'sunset'

Arguing with "sunrise" and "sunset" is as crazy as attributing these terms to astronomers.

pete moss wrote:invent and popularise

Coining a term is one thing, whereas society decides whether or not it will become popular. That's where "popular" comes from, and that's where anthropology comes into linguistic judgment. Since you're the expert, why don't you invent some terms and see how popular they become? And don't say you lack the audience astronomers have; the number of people who listen to astronomers is minuscule, and you have the whole internet to work with. Go try the rest of the internet and come back in a couple of years to let us know how everything worked out. This will not be easy, so you must work from sunpete until sunmoss (or, if you prefer, from earthpete until earthmoss).

---

http://www.myspace.com/peatmossandthefertilizers

---

Astronomers already have scientific names for "sunrise" and "sunset". Sunrise is the interval between third and fourth contact of an eclipse of the sun by the earth (or by the planet or moon where the observer is). Sunset is the interval between first and second contact of an eclipse of the sun by the earth (or by the planet or moon where the observer is). First contact is also called SPE (start of partial eclipse), second contact is also called SCE (start of complete eclipse), third contact is also called ECE (end of complete eclipse), and fourth contact is also called EPE (end of partial eclipse). So sunrise is the ECE-EPE interval and sunset is the SPE-SCE interval. Popularize that.

---

Back on the anthropology front, look at some sunset photos and sunrise photos - you will find a lot of images of sunlit clouds. Who are you going to pick on for that?

---

It just dawned on me - what's wrong with "daybreak" and "nightfall", other than the facts that the day does not actually break (in one popular sense) and the night does not actually fall (in one popular sense)?

Bullwinkle (narrating): Night fell.
Sound effect: Thump!

---

Pete Moss wrote:DUE TO THE TILTING OF THE EARTH

That should simply be "TILT", not "TILTING". "Tilting" implies that an ongoing or seasonal change in the "tilt" is responsible for the phenomenon. While the tilt of the Earth is indeed changing on a long time scale, that change has nothing to do with the phenomenon described. Learn the language before lecturing on the subject.

by **Chris Peterson** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:35 pm

pete moss wrote:No really guys this is not good enough. So many centuries after Galileo and we still say 'sunrise' and 'sunset'. It's all down to the poor literary immagination of the astrononomy community which has failed to invent and popularise a name for these phenomena that reflects their true nature.

A rather bizarre opinion, which I don't think you'll find many agree with. It is the job of "the astronomy community" to explain phenomena, not to create new words where old ones already exist. It is when scientists try to change popular language that you get messes like the current argument over "planet".

Reinventing common terms that involve astronomy is a solution looking for a problem.

by **pete moss** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:20 pm

No really guys this is not good enough. So many centuries after Galileo and we still say 'sunrise' and 'sunset'. It's all down to the poor literary immagination of the astrononomy community which has failed to invent and popularise a name for these phenomena that reflects their true nature.

apodman wrote:
pete moss wrote:Not ABSOLUTELY correct, Chris
Chris is absolutely correct and you are absolutely incorrect. The sky is not a physical entity, and therefore no objects move within it as such. It is absolutely correct to speak of the path of an object in the sky regardless of that object's actual physical path or lack thereof. If you are going to pick an argument, pick a better one because your vehement stance on this one is dead wrong.

---

Here's an example of pickiness that I kept to myself:

The June 14, 2009 APOD description says "the Spitzer Space Telescope's infrared cameras, penetrate much of the dust revealing the stars of the crowded galactic center region". Aside from a comma that doesn't belong and a missing comma that does belong, the usage of "penetrate" bothers me. It is a sort of pet peeve. I look at definition 1 of "penetrate" (to pierce or pass into or through) and say that, unlike an electron microscope or x-ray machine, the Spitzer is a passive instrument that receives photons and doesn't penetrate anything. The penetration comes from the source. But then I look way down at definition 10 of "penetrate" (to see or reach by intense searching or study) and see that the usage is actually correct. I don't like it and I can argue that most readers only know definition 1 and therefore the author should not use the word to mean definition 10, but (despite my vast scientific, linguistic, and anthropological experience) my opinion and judgment carry no more weight than that of the author, and I just have to let people write the way they want to. So until now I restrained myself, and nobody is worse off for my having done so.

by **Case** » Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:40 am

apodman wrote:Here's an example of pickiness that I kept to myself: "infrared cameras penetrate the dust"

Language is a living thing, in that it evolves. If enough people use a word wrongly. then eventually a dictionary will pick it up as a new use of the word. Love it or hate it, but this can't be helped and it will continue to happen.

by **apodman** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:47 pm

pete moss wrote:Not ABSOLUTELY correct, Chris

Chris is absolutely correct and you are absolutely incorrect. The sky is not a physical entity, and therefore no objects move within it as such. It is absolutely correct to speak of the path of an object in the sky regardless of that object's actual physical path or lack thereof. If you are going to pick an argument, pick a better one because your vehement stance on this one is dead wrong.

---

Here's an example of pickiness that I kept to myself:

The June 14, 2009 APOD description says "the Spitzer Space Telescope's infrared cameras, penetrate much of the dust revealing the stars of the crowded galactic center region". Aside from a comma that doesn't belong and a missing comma that does belong, the usage of "penetrate" bothers me. It is a sort of pet peeve. I look at definition 1 of "penetrate" (to pierce or pass into or through) and say that, unlike an electron microscope or x-ray machine, the Spitzer is a passive instrument that receives photons and doesn't penetrate anything. The penetration comes from the source. But then I look way down at definition 10 of "penetrate" (to see or reach by intense searching or study) and see that the usage is actually correct. I don't like it and I can argue that most readers only know definition 1 and therefore the author should not use the word to mean definition 10, but (despite my vast scientific, linguistic, and anthropological experience) my opinion and judgment carry no more weight than that of the author, and I just have to let people write the way they want to. So until now I restrained myself, and nobody is worse off for my having done so.

by **Chris Peterson** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:41 pm

pete moss wrote:Not ABSOLUTELY correct, Chris, just correct in the sense of being widely used.

Sorry, I disagree. I think it is absolutely correct to say that the Sun traces a path across the sky. It isn't simply common usage, but correct usage to use "path" in this way. There is no requirement at all that something which traces a path must somehow be moving itself. This is simply a matter of frames of reference.

My point is that our common usages such as this ought to be updated in line with scientific advances.

It isn't the job of APOD to explicitly educate people that the Sun isn't orbiting around the Earth. If this kind of low level detail needed to be included in every short caption, there would be no room for anything of substance.

by **pete moss** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 8:31 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
pete moss wrote:Sorry Orin but you've missed the point I was making. The original Explanation under the picture said the camera records 'the Sun's daily path'. I was pointing out in the revised (capitalised) part of the text that it's the earth not the sun which is moving.
Certainly. Nevertheless, it is absolutely correct to speak of the Sun's path in the sky.

Not ABSOLUTELY correct, Chris, just correct in the sense of being widely used. My point is that our common usages such as this ought to be updated in line with scientific advances. Tardiness in doing so makes learning more difficult for children. It also perpetuates mistaken ideas in the adult population. Many centuries have gone by since Galileo and we continue with usages that existed prior to his discoveries. Astronomy seems much worse than for example medicine or psychology in this regard.

by **orin stepanek** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:21 am

Your right Pete it did fly right over my head! I have to agree with Chris though; as from our view point as we observe it from the Earth.

Certainly. Nevertheless, it is absolutely correct to speak of the Sun's path in the sky.

Orin

by **Chris Peterson** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:21 am

pete moss wrote:Sorry Orin but you've missed the point I was making. The original Explanation under the picture said the camera records 'the Sun's daily path'. I was pointing out in the revised (capitalised) part of the text that it's the earth not the sun which is moving.

Certainly. Nevertheless, it is absolutely correct to speak of the Sun's path in the sky.

by **pete moss** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:37 pm

Sorry Orin but you've missed the point I was making. The original Explanation under the picture said the camera records 'the Sun's daily path'. I was pointing out in the revised (capitalised) part of the text that it's the earth not the sun which is moving.

orin stepanek wrote:
pete moss wrote:Galileo friendly version of Explanation of
NASA’s Astronomy Picture of the Day 26 June 2009
Solstice to Solstice Solargraph
Credit & Copyright: Maciej Zapiór

This six month long exposure compresses the time from solstice to solstice (~ December 21, 2008 to June 20, 2009) into a single point of view. Dubbed a solargraph, the unconventional picture was recorded with a pinhole camera made from an aluminum can lined with a piece of photographic paper. Fixed to a single spot for the entire exposure, the simple camera continuously records THE APPARENT SOLAR PATHS CAUSED BY THE EARTH'S DAILY ROTATION as a glowing trail burned into the photosensitive paper. Breaks and gaps in the trails are caused by cloud cover. In this case, the spot was chosen to look out from inside a radio telescope at the Ondrejov Observatory in the Czech Republic. At the end of the exposure, the paper was removed from the can and immediately scanned digitally. Contrasts and colors were then enhanced and added to the digital image. Of course, in December, DUE TO THE TILTING OF THE EARTH the apparent Sun trails begin lower down at the northern hemisphere's winter solstice. The trails climb higher in the sky as the June 21st summer solstice approaches.
Thanks Pete! That was in the explanation under the picture but some may have missed checking the url.

Orin

by **nbidgood** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:35 am

BMAONE23 wrote:Dividing the area of sky coverage by 6 months and it appears that there is no visible sun from mid Jan. till March.

I was wondering about that too. Perhaps they didn't open up the observatory for a while?

by **orin stepanek** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:09 am

pete moss wrote:Galileo friendly version of Explanation of
NASA’s Astronomy Picture of the Day 26 June 2009
Solstice to Solstice Solargraph
Credit & Copyright: Maciej Zapiór

This six month long exposure compresses the time from solstice to solstice (~ December 21, 2008 to June 20, 2009) into a single point of view. Dubbed a solargraph, the unconventional picture was recorded with a pinhole camera made from an aluminum can lined with a piece of photographic paper. Fixed to a single spot for the entire exposure, the simple camera continuously records THE APPARENT SOLAR PATHS CAUSED BY THE EARTH'S DAILY ROTATION as a glowing trail burned into the photosensitive paper. Breaks and gaps in the trails are caused by cloud cover. In this case, the spot was chosen to look out from inside a radio telescope at the Ondrejov Observatory in the Czech Republic. At the end of the exposure, the paper was removed from the can and immediately scanned digitally. Contrasts and colors were then enhanced and added to the digital image. Of course, in December, DUE TO THE TILTING OF THE EARTH the apparent Sun trails begin lower down at the northern hemisphere's winter solstice. The trails climb higher in the sky as the June 21st summer solstice approaches.

Thanks Pete! That was in the explanation under the picture but some may have missed checking the url.

Orin

by **pete moss** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:15 pm

Galileo friendly version of Explanation of
NASA’s Astronomy Picture of the Day 26 June 2009
Solstice to Solstice Solargraph
Credit & Copyright: Maciej Zapiór

This six month long exposure compresses the time from solstice to solstice (~ December 21, 2008 to June 20, 2009) into a single point of view. Dubbed a solargraph, the unconventional picture was recorded with a pinhole camera made from an aluminum can lined with a piece of photographic paper. Fixed to a single spot for the entire exposure, the simple camera continuously records THE APPARENT SOLAR PATHS CAUSED BY THE EARTH'S DAILY ROTATION as a glowing trail burned into the photosensitive paper. Breaks and gaps in the trails are caused by cloud cover. In this case, the spot was chosen to look out from inside a radio telescope at the Ondrejov Observatory in the Czech Republic. At the end of the exposure, the paper was removed from the can and immediately scanned digitally. Contrasts and colors were then enhanced and added to the digital image. Of course, in December, DUE TO THE TILTING OF THE EARTH the apparent Sun trails begin lower down at the northern hemisphere's winter solstice. The trails climb higher in the sky as the June 21st summer solstice approaches.

by **apodman** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:42 pm

New age what?

by **neufer** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:20 pm

orin stepanek wrote:http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090626.html

There's that tin can camera again! It's amazing what you can do with a tin can and a little film. 8)

In _The Simpsons_ , "Bart's Comet," Principal Skinner says he missed the chance to name a comet after himself once,
but that he "got back" at Principal Kohoutek ... "him and that little boy of his!"
-----------------------------------------------

http://www.asu.cas.cz/history wrote:
<<The Astronomical Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic is one of the oldest scientific institutions in our country. It is the direct successor of the Observatory of the Jesuit College, located in the tower of the Clementinum in Prague, where observations (principally of a meteorological character) were begun in 1722. Since then the Observatory has undergone several changes, which reflected sometimes professional, sometimes even political and social reorganizations. After the emancipation of our Republic from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the institute was renamed the 'State Astronomical Observatory', and in 1940, it was moved as such to a regular apartment house in Vinohrady (Budecska St.).

Meanwhile (in 1898), a private observatory owned by J. J. Fric was built in a small village called Ondrejov, located 35 km (20 miles) south east of Prague. This small observatory was donated to the state Czechoslovakia represented by Charles University in Prague in 1928.

The site of the Ondrejov Observatory, at an elevation of 500 m in the relatively unpolluted environs of Prague, proved to be very well chosen.>>

--------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubo%C5%A1_Kohoutek

Comet Kohoutek was first sighted on March 7, 1973 by Czech astronomer Luboš Kohoutek. Comet Kohoutek is a long period comet; its previous apparition was about 150,000 years ago, and its next apparition will be in about 75,000 years. At its apparition on 1973 it has a hyperbolic trajectory due to gravitational perturbations from giant planets. Due to its path, scientists theorized that Kohoutek was an Oort Cloud Object. As such, it was believed likely that this was the comet's first visit to the inner solar system, which would result in a spectacular display of outgassing. Infrared and visual telescopic study have led many scientists to conclude, in retrospect, that Kohoutek is actually a Kuiper belt object, which would account for its apparent rocky makeup and lack of outgassing. Before its close approach, Kohoutek was hyped by the media as the "comet of the century". Although it failed to brighten to levels expected, it was still a naked eye object. Its greatest visual magnitude was -3, when it was at perihelion, 0.14 au from the Sun. Its orbital inclination is 14.3°. Its best viewing was in the night sky after perihelion, when it had dimmed to fourth magnitude. The comet also sported a tail up to 25° long, along with an anti-tail.

--------------------------------

by **neufer** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:19 pm

BMAONE23 wrote:Dividing the area of sky coverage by 6 months and it appears that there is no visible sun from mid Jan. till March.

Ondrejov Observatory may be in "a relatively unpolluted environ"
but it sure does get cloudy there in the winter!
(Best to stick to SOLAR RADIO ASTRONOMY.)

Kick the can: http://www.asu.cas.cz/~sos/staff/maciek/puszki.htm

by **BMAONE23** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 1:46 pm

Dividing the area of sky coverage by 6 months and it appears that there is no visible sun from mid Jan. till March.

by **orin stepanek** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 12:50 pm

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090626.html

There's that tin can camera again! It's amazing what you can do with a tin can and a little film. 8)

Orin

Starship Asterisk*

Solstice to Solstice Solargraph (2009 June 26)

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Solstice to Solstice Solargraph (2009 June 26)

Re: Explanation Solstice to Solstice Solargraph apod

Re: Explanation Solstice to Solstice Solargraph apod

Re: Explanation Solstice to Solstice Solargraph apod

Re: Explanation Solstice to Solstice Solargraph apod

Re: Explanation Solstice to Solstice Solargraph apod

Re: Explanation Solstice to Solstice Solargraph apod

Re: Explanation Solstice to Solstice Solargraph apod

Re: Solstice to Solstice Solargraph (2009 June 26)

Re: Explanation Solstice to Solstice Solargraph apod

Re: Explanation Solstice to Solstice Solargraph apod

Re: Solstice to Solstice Solargraph (2009 June 26)

Re: Explanation Solstice to Solstice Solargraph apod

Explanation Solstice to Solstice Solargraph apod

Re: Solstice to Solstice Solargraph (2009 June 26)

Re: Solstice to Solstice Solargraph (2009 June 26)

Re: Solstice to Solstice Solargraph (2009 June 26)

Re: Solstice to Solstice Solargraph (2009 June 26)

Solstice to Solstice Solargraph (2009 June 26)