Starship Asterisk*

by **geckzilla** » Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:07 am

CuriousChimp wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 5:25 am
geckzilla wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:41 pm There's always the option to simply not talk about things you know very little or nothing about, then. Especially if the only purpose is to spread further negativity in an already negative world. Just saying.
You have no idea what I know little about, nor do you know what I know much about. To assume you do either is presumption and unjustifiable hubris. For all you know I could be an Art Historian specialising in "pretty pictures". "Just saying".

If mentioning that I dislike something that looks, to me, like the scribblings of an intensely myopic child with severe astigmatism and no sense of colour is "spreading negativity", then yes, I will in future keep silent. Even should it not be, I will.

It is nice to know that diversity of taste is so utterly accepted and embraced in this Millennial Milieu. That criticising even "The Greats" can be received with a warm, friendly discussion of differing viewpoints. That speech is indeed freely allowed.

Fare well.

You said you don't learn about things you don't like, so it follows that since you don't like van Gogh, you don't learn about him. Hence, just seems to me you're talking trash (this is indeed different from criticism) for no reason, really. Now you're being insulting, and ageist on top of that. Anyway, don't dish it out if you can't take it back.

by **CuriousChimp** » Sun Apr 05, 2020 5:25 am

geckzilla wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:41 pm There's always the option to simply not talk about things you know very little or nothing about, then. Especially if the only purpose is to spread further negativity in an already negative world. Just saying.

You have no idea what I know little about, nor do you know what I know much about. To assume you do either is presumption and unjustifiable hubris. For all you know I could be an Art Historian specialising in "pretty pictures". "Just saying".

If mentioning that I dislike something that looks, to me, like the scribblings of an intensely myopic child with severe astigmatism and no sense of colour is "spreading negativity", then yes, I will in future keep silent. Even should it not be, I will.

It is nice to know that diversity of taste is so utterly accepted and embraced in this Millennial Milieu. That criticising even "The Greats" can be received with a warm, friendly discussion of differing viewpoints. That speech is indeed freely allowed.

Fare well.

by **geckzilla** » Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:41 pm

CuriousChimp wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 2:33 pm
geckzilla wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 5:38 am
CuriousChimp wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 2:40 amAm I missing things?
To each their own, but some art is properly enjoyed with history lessons. Nocturnes are a rare kind of painting, and van Gogh... is van Gogh.
Thank you for being so understanding. I do do the Art History thing if the art is, in my opinion, worth my efforts and time. Vincent's isn't. Others most definitely are.

Too many books, not enough reading time.

There's always the option to simply not talk about things you know very little or nothing about, then. Especially if the only purpose is to spread further negativity in an already negative world. Just saying.

by **CuriousChimp** » Thu Mar 26, 2020 2:33 pm

geckzilla wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 5:38 am
CuriousChimp wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 2:40 amAm I missing things?
To each their own, but some art is properly enjoyed with history lessons. Nocturnes are a rare kind of painting, and van Gogh... is van Gogh.

Thank you for being so understanding. I do do the Art History thing if the art is, in my opinion, worth my efforts and time. Vincent's isn't. Others most definitely are.

Too many books, not enough reading time.

by **epitalon** » Wed Mar 25, 2020 4:39 pm

JShepp64 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 2:41 pm Millet has produced a partially accurate painting of the winter night sky. Starting with the belt of Orion, one sees it points down (roughly) to Sirius and can see the other major stars of Canis Major. In the other direction (going up from the belt) the accuracy seems to fail, as it looks like Aldebaran and the Pleaides have been dragged to far eastward, just to make it in the painting (or maybe I am misinterpreting some of Orion's "shield" stars here). One can also see the "sword" of Orion (containing the Orion Nebula - M42) and Rigel to its lower-right. What intrigues me is how bright he has represented Algiebba ("eta" Orionis). It appears as bright as Sirius, although this variable star isn't supposed to exceed +3.34 Mag. This sar is really a quadruple system with an eclipsing binary. Why did he show it so bright? At any rate, the meteors are definitely artistic license, with their arc-like appearance. Although loooonnnnggg meteors show a curve on photographs, I believe these are too short to do so. Were they added for interest?

I see a quite realistic picture of orion. About Algiebba, maybe it is a planet occuring to be just here, in front of Algiebba.

by **epitalon** » Wed Mar 25, 2020 4:27 pm

Ann wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 1:44 pm
TheZuke! wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 1:39 pm
Peter Smith wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 12:11 pm

I agree, then the blurry stars below them and at top right wouldn't be far out of place for Orion's sword and the Pleiades. Maybe Procyon for the bright star on the left?
To me, Sirius, rather than Procyon, is more "in-line" with Orion's Belt.
Looks like Procyon and Orion's Belt to me. Other than that, I think we're talking about artistic license.

Ann

At first, I thought it was Sirius. But the set of stars around it look as Taurus horizontaly mirrored, with the bright star beeing Aldebaran. As a proof, I would like to point to this view of Taurus: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap190107.html
Maybe the painter wanted to fill his picture with many stars and still wanted to stay close to the real.

by **geckzilla** » Fri Mar 20, 2020 5:38 am

CuriousChimp wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 2:40 amAm I missing things?

To each their own, but some art is properly enjoyed with history lessons. Nocturnes are a rare kind of painting, and van Gogh... is van Gogh.

by **CuriousChimp** » Fri Mar 20, 2020 2:40 am

APOD Robot wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:05 am Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet

Explanation: ... "If only you knew how beautiful the night is ... the calm and grandeur of it are so awesome that I find that I actually feel overwhelmed." Dutch artist Vincent van Gogh was an admirer of Millet's work, and later also painted two dramatic starry nights.

The night sky is beautiful but "Starry Night", from both artists, is not. They look like what I see when I remove my corrective lenses from before my eyes to let my myopia and astigmatisms loose. They are quite ugly.

I don't grasp how those are "great art". I've seen covers of SF paperbacks with much prettier, much lovelier images.

Am I missing things?

by **rstevenson** » Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:23 pm

Thanks all. As usual I learned much more from the discussion than I had asked for.

Keep on asterisking...

Rob

by **JohnD** » Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:30 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:58 pm
neufer wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:18 pm When moving rapid enough to be visibly bright, however, meteors/meteorites will be in quasi-straight line kinetic motion.
Quasi? If you like. As I noted, meteors do curve significantly towards the center of the Earth during their flight. It's not enough to be visible to the eye, but it always shows up in instrumental data and has to be included in calculations to work out the trajectory of the meteor and the orbit of the meteoroid. (The factor is called "zenith attraction".)

And not as Millet painted them.

by **neufer** » Fri Mar 13, 2020 5:25 pm

: Jean-François Millet's scary stare

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:58 pm
neufer wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:18 pm
When moving rapid enough to be visibly bright, however, meteors/meteorites will be in quasi-straight line kinetic motion.
Quasi? If you like. As I noted, meteors do curve significantly towards the center of the Earth during their flight. It's not enough to be visible to the eye, but it always shows up in instrumental data and has to be included in calculations to work out the trajectory of the meteor and the orbit of the meteoroid. (The factor is called "zenith attraction".)

Presumably the meteors weren't "instrumental" to Jean-François Millet (Oct. 4, 1814 – Jan. 20, 1875)

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:58 pm

neufer wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:18 pm When moving rapid enough to be visibly bright, however, meteors/meteorites will be in quasi-straight line kinetic motion.

Quasi? If you like. As I noted, meteors do curve significantly towards the center of the Earth during their flight. It's not enough to be visible to the eye, but it always shows up in instrumental data and has to be included in calculations to work out the trajectory of the meteor and the orbit of the meteoroid. (The factor is called "zenith attraction".)

by **neufer** » Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:18 pm

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 2:50 pm
neufer wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 2:31 pm
The meteors are moving fast enough to be white hot from friction yet slow enough to clearly show the effects of gravity Meteors slow enough to show the effects of gravity are dark stealth meteors.
Well, the effects of gravity don't depend upon the speed of the meteor. Instrumentally, we see even short trail meteors having their paths deviated from linear by gravity. The deviation isn't large enough to appear visually, however. In an image, curved trails are the result of projection.

In dark flight, meteors (now called "meteorites") fall nearly vertically, subject only to gravity and the forces from wind.

Like shuttlecocks, meteors/meteorites will rapidly transition from quasi-straight line kinetic motion to quasi-vertical free-fall.

When moving rapid enough to be visibly bright, however, meteors/meteorites will be in quasi-straight line kinetic motion.

by **davtrujillo@hotmail.com** » Fri Mar 13, 2020 3:44 pm

beautiful picture, but i'm sorry you didn't mention the awesome depiction of the orion nebula so prominently drawn. it was right on.

by **JohnD** » Fri Mar 13, 2020 3:07 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 2:15 pm
JohnD wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 9:07 am He shows the meteors as having a curved course, like a firework, when they always appear straight. "Artistic licence"?
John
In a photographic image, long meteors normally appear with curved trails, because of projection distortion. Presenting a long trail as straight would actually be the artistic license!

Thnak you, Chris, I acknowledge your vastly greater experience! But every meteor I've ever seen, for real on in a photo, was too brief to have a curved trail - except this one: https://phys.org/news/2014-04-meteor-sh ... trail.html and as that is billed as being from an "All-sky camera", I think some distortion is present. Nothing wrong with artistic licence, Millet was quite an artist and this is an artistic work, not an astronomical record!

Glad to see it, I only knew van Gogh's "Starry Night" before, and that has a LOT more 'artistic licence'!
John

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Mar 13, 2020 2:50 pm

neufer wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 2:31 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 2:15 pm
JohnD wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 9:07 am
He shows the meteors as having a curved course, like a firework, when they always appear straight.

"Artistic licence"?
In a photographic image, long meteors normally appear with curved trails, because of projection distortion.
Presenting a long trail as straight would actually be the artistic license!
The meteors are moving fast enough to be white hot from friction
yet slow enough to clearly show the effects of gravity :?:

Meteors slow enough to show the effects of gravity are dark stealth meteors.

Well, the effects of gravity don't depend upon the speed of the meteor. Instrumentally, we see even short trail meteors having their paths deviated from linear by gravity. The deviation isn't large enough to appear visually, however. In an image, curved trails are the result of projection.

In dark flight, meteors (now called "meteorites") fall nearly vertically, subject only to gravity and the forces from wind.
_

: 20150101_062642_005x.jpg (17.36 KiB) Viewed 16663 times

by **JShepp64** » Fri Mar 13, 2020 2:41 pm

Millet has produced a partially accurate painting of the winter night sky. Starting with the belt of Orion, one sees it points down (roughly) to Sirius and can see the other major stars of Canis Major. In the other direction (going up from the belt) the accuracy seems to fail, as it looks like Aldebaran and the Pleaides have been dragged to far eastward, just to make it in the painting (or maybe I am misinterpreting some of Orion's "shield" stars here). One can also see the "sword" of Orion (containing the Orion Nebula - M42) and Rigel to its lower-right. What intrigues me is how bright he has represented Algiebba ("eta" Orionis). It appears as bright as Sirius, although this variable star isn't supposed to exceed +3.34 Mag. This sar is really a quadruple system with an eclipsing binary. Why did he show it so bright? At any rate, the meteors are definitely artistic license, with their arc-like appearance. Although loooonnnnggg meteors show a curve on photographs, I believe these are too short to do so. Were they added for interest?

by **neufer** » Fri Mar 13, 2020 2:31 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 2:15 pm
JohnD wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 9:07 am
He shows the meteors as having a curved course, like a firework, when they always appear straight.

"Artistic licence"?
In a photographic image, long meteors normally appear with curved trails, because of projection distortion.
Presenting a long trail as straight would actually be the artistic license!

The meteors are moving fast enough to be white hot from friction
yet slow enough to clearly show the effects of gravity

Meteors slow enough to show the effects of gravity are dark stealth meteors.

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=licence wrote:
Poetic license "intentional deviation from recognized form or rule" is from 1733, earlier as lycence poetycall (1530).

licence (n.) late 14c., "formal authorization, official permission, permit, privilege," from Old French licence "freedom, liberty, power, possibility; permission," (12c.), from Latin licentia "freedom, liberty; unrestrained liberty, wantonness, presumption," from licentem (nominative licens), present participle of licere "to be allowed, be lawful." Meaning "formal (usually written) permission from authority to do something" (marry, hunt, drive, etc.) is first attested early 15c. Meaning "excessive liberty, disregard of propriety" in English is from mid-15c. In Middle English spelled licence, licens, lisence, lissens, licance.

There have been attempts to confine license to verbal use and licence to noun use (compare advise/advice, devise/device, etc.).

license (v.) c. 1400, "grant formal authorization to do what would be illegal to do without it," from licence (n.), which see for modern differentiation of spelling.

Artistic "disregard of propriety" N(onsens)euendorffer

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Mar 13, 2020 2:15 pm

JohnD wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 9:07 am He shows the meteors as having a curved course, like a firework, when they always appear straight. "Artistic licence"?
John

In a photographic image, long meteors normally appear with curved trails, because of projection distortion. Presenting a long trail as straight would actually be the artistic license!

by **Ed S** » Fri Mar 13, 2020 2:10 pm

Despite their curved paths I was wondering if the meteors were part of some known meteor shower since they seem to emanate from the same region in the sky.

by **Ann** » Fri Mar 13, 2020 1:44 pm

TheZuke! wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 1:39 pm
Peter Smith wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 12:11 pm
GeoXXX wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 11:31 am

The three stars in a row in the upper right look suspiciously like the belt of Orion but I can’t recognize anything else...
Eric
I agree, then the blurry stars below them and at top right wouldn't be far out of place for Orion's sword and the Pleiades. Maybe Procyon for the bright star on the left?
To me, Sirius, rather than Procyon, is more "in-line" with Orion's Belt.

Looks like Procyon and Orion's Belt to me. Other than that, I think we're talking about artistic license.

Ann

by **TheZuke!** » Fri Mar 13, 2020 1:39 pm

Peter Smith wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 12:11 pm
GeoXXX wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 11:31 am
rstevenson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 10:34 am Has Millet accurately rendered a particular group of stars? Or is it just a star-like spatter of paint?

Rob
The three stars in a row in the upper right look suspiciously like the belt of Orion but I can’t recognize anything else...
Eric
I agree, then the blurry stars below them and at top right wouldn't be far out of place for Orion's sword and the Pleiades. Maybe Procyon for the bright star on the left?

To me, Sirius, rather than Procyon, is more "in-line" with Orion's Belt.

by **Peter Smith** » Fri Mar 13, 2020 12:11 pm

GeoXXX wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 11:31 am
rstevenson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 10:34 am Has Millet accurately rendered a particular group of stars? Or is it just a star-like spatter of paint?

Rob
The three stars in a row in the upper right look suspiciously like the belt of Orion but I can’t recognize anything else...
Eric

I agree, then the blurry stars below them and at top right wouldn't be far out of place for Orion's sword and the Pleiades. Maybe Procyon for the bright star on the left?

by **GeoXXX** » Fri Mar 13, 2020 11:31 am

rstevenson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 10:34 am Has Millet accurately rendered a particular group of stars? Or is it just a star-like spatter of paint?

Rob

The three stars in a row in the upper right look suspiciously like the belt of Orion but I can’t recognize anything else...
Eric

by **GeoXXX** » Fri Mar 13, 2020 11:27 am

I like the touch of the two stars reflected in the water in the wagon ruts.
Eric

Starship Asterisk*

APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

Re: APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

Re: APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

Re: APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

Re: APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

Re: APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

Re: APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

Re: APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

Re: APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

Re: APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

Re: APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

Re: APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

Re: APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

Re: APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

Re: APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

Re: APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

Re: APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

Re: APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

Re: APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

Re: APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

Re: APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

Re: APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

Re: APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

Re: APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

Re: APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)

Re: APOD: Starry Night by Jean-Francois Millet (2020 Mar 13)