Starship Asterisk*

Ann wrote: Today's APOD shows us interesting detail in the most famous part of IC 1396, the Elephant's Trunk. In the picture at left (in Ann's original post), however, we can see the whole nebula in RGB. The Elephant's Trunk is not so prominent here. It can be seen at three o'clock, close to the central blue star.

That blue star, HD 206267, is responsible for lighting up the nebula and sculpting the Elephant's Trunk. The whole nebula, IC 1396, is interestingly similar to an older version of the Trifid Nebula. The young central star of the Trifid, HD 164492, has not had time to blow away all that much of the gas and dust in its vicinity. But HD 206267 has blown away all the dust lanes right next to it, and it has blown away so much of the nearby hydrogen that the red emission nebula surrounding it glows quite dimly. The Elephant's Trunk is a feeble reminder of IC 1396's former bright and dusty glory.

Ann wrote: Matt BenDaniel's picture also shows a remarkable star in the Milky Way, Herschel's Garnet Star. It is a monstrously large star which has nothing whatsoever to do with IC 1396, due to the fact that the star is extremely extended and cool and therefore completely unable to ionize an emission nebula. The Garnet star, also known as Mu Cephei, is the orange star seen at eleven o'clock in the image.

We can be sure that Mu Cephei is older than HD 206267, the blue star ionizing the nebula. HD 206267 is young enough that it has a nebula around it in the first place, but Mu Cephei is old enough that it has run through all sorts of fusion processes in its interior. It is easy to think of Mu Cephei as the product of an earlier epoch of star formation which triggered the formation of IC 1396 and the Elephant Trunk. However, that appears not to be the case. According to Hipparcos, Mu Cephei is more distant than IC 1396. If Hipparcos is right, then Mu Cephei is a background object and completely unrelated to IC 1396.

In any case, Mu Cephei is an utterly gigantic star and more deeply orange in color than most "red giants". If you have a good pair of binoculars, why not go outside and look at it yourself?

Ann

FloridaMike wrote:I agree, which is why I say "“magic” need not exist to be beneficial". The perception of the "magic" is the real magic in my opinion. … And now you have worked your “magic” to cause me to be a little more frank than I intended…

Chris Peterson wrote: I take it to mean something that a person attributes to some sort of supernatural phenomenon. Many people do that, and in some cases doing so provides apparent benefits. ...<snip/>... I have absolutely no problem hypothesizing perfectly reasonable reasons why that might work. The fact that I can't say for sure doesn't lead me to any conclusions that I would remotely call "magic". It's just a psychological trick or illusion that produces a certain behavior. Nothing particularly mysterious there.

FloridaMike wrote:Chris & Geck,

While I understand your comments....
Naming an effect does nothing to negate the effect or illustrate any understanding of the effect. We "named" gravity long before having any substantive understanding of it.

The need of which I speak is not a physical need. There are important psychological and behavioral “needs” which benefit from a little “magic”. You may be fortunate enough to not be cognizant of this need but the vast majority of humans on the planet cannot make such claim. There are behavioral studies that suggest that even you would benefit from a little “magic” in your life. I did a quick search for the study I had in mind and found this (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091247.htm ). After perusing the first two paragraphs it seems close enough. The study I was thinking of used a mirror in which it was found that one’s own reflection can increase honesty because being observed has a beneficial effect. If the observer where to “magically” be the “Ultimate Observer” the results should be consistent with the study findings.

Chris Peterson wrote:

FloridaMike wrote:I am a Natural Philosopher through and through. As such I must note that while there are plenty of studies which fail to find the presence of "magic" there are no studies that suggest humans do not need "magic". In fact, our scientific studies involving humans are careful to weed out the effects of “magic”. Other studies show quite positive effects from “magic”. In effect, “magic” need not exist to be beneficial. Isn’t being Human a wonderful thing?

There is perfectly good evidence that humans don't need "magic". The fact that some humans receive something interpreted as "benefits" from such beliefs does not suggest in the slightest that this represents a human need, only that it is something that is of value to some humans.

FloridaMike wrote:I am a Natural Philosopher through and through. As such I must note that while there are plenty of studies which fail to find the presence of "magic" there are no studies that suggest humans do not need "magic". In fact, our scientific studies involving humans are careful to weed out the effects of “magic”. Other studies show quite positive effects from “magic”. In effect, “magic” need not exist to be beneficial. Isn’t being Human a wonderful thing?

FloridaMike wrote:I am a Natural Philosopher through and through. As such I must note that while there are plenty of studies which fail to find the presence of "magic" there are no studies that suggest humans do not need "magic". In fact, our scientific studies involving humans are careful to weed out the effects of “magic”. Other studies show quite positive effects from “magic”. In effect, “magic” need not exist to be beneficial. Isn’t being Human a wonderful thing?

owlice wrote: That strikes me as the intellectually lazy way to go. "I don't understand this, so it must be magic."

emc wrote:Lots of folks that think spiritually are looking for scientific evidence to ground the spirit but I believe most just want the magic to be true because it is beautiful... like today’s APOD.

Beyond wrote:Humans are the most technologically advanced things on the planet. But you'd never know it by the way they act and the things they do, which are very distinguishable from magic.

bystander wrote:

Arthur C. Clarke's Three Laws of Prediction

2. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right.
   When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
3. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
4. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Pokeepsie Bob wrote:No one really has a coherent explanation for how such things come to be, or even estimates as to the total mass involved. Dust in that density spanning lightyears, imagine how many planets that represents in mass.

2. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right.
   When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
3. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
4. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Pokeepsie Bob wrote:One of the most fascinating and least understood features of space.

No one really has a coherent explanation for how such things come to be, or even estimates as to the total mass involved. Dust in that density spanning lightyears, imagine how many planets that represents in mass.

But since no one really has any explanation other than flights of fancy, to me these are evidence of God simply not cleaning up a few raw materials that spilled while creating other ordered planetary systems.

Ann wrote:

Beyond wrote:
I can't type the noise of an elephant trumpeting, so you'll just have to imagine it yourself. ::insert imagination here::

Beyond wrote:I can't type the noise of an elephant trumpeting, so you'll just have to imagine it yourself. ::insert imagination here::