by Ann » Mon Jul 11, 2022 1:42 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 12:03 pm
Ann wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 5:47 am
Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 4:40 am
No. But color loses most of its meaning when you are talking about things that the eye cannot perceive. Color is physiology, not physics.
But wavelengths are physics. Relative wavelengths are physics, too.
Relative wavelengths are particularly irrelevant when we're considering narrow band images.
But why does the Saturn Nebula look like that in a Hubble image? It makes no sense to me.
I don't know why it makes no sense to you. Is it confusing that you say hej då and I say goodbye? Different sounds with the same meaning. Why is translating wavelengths to colors any different?
Perhaps we should say hej då and goodbye to this discussion, Chris?
You and I view color in the Universe in a fundamentally different way. To me color in astronomical objects is certainly a very subjective thing and a source of great joy, but it is also precise physical parameter. In the latter case, we are talking wavelengths, of course, not the conversion by the human eye and brain into the subjective sensation that we call color.
To me, color is hugely important, both when it comes to my own sense of aesthetics and when it comes to understanding the fundamental properties of an object through the wavelengths emitted or reflected by the object in question. To me, the color (or wavelength) of an astronomical object is no more trivial than the size, mass or shape of the object.
I'm sure you know that. And you don't agree with me. So let's agree to disagree. I'll keep claiming that an APOD portrait of an object gives us a good, or a misleading, idea of what the object's "natural", or optical, or visual, color is. And you are going to tell everyone here that I'm talking nonsense.
That's okay. You and I disagree on color. Let's leave it at that and say hej då and goodbye, until there is another APOD whose "color portrait" of an object prompts me to explain the properties of the object from its ("true") color.
Ann
[quote="Chris Peterson" post_id=324098 time=1657541000 user_id=117706]
[quote=Ann post_id=324091 time=1657518422 user_id=129702]
[quote="Chris Peterson" post_id=324088 time=1657514419 user_id=117706]
No. But color loses most of its meaning when you are talking about things that the eye cannot perceive. Color is physiology, not physics.
[/quote]
But wavelengths are physics. Relative wavelengths are physics, too. [/quote]
Relative wavelengths are particularly irrelevant when we're considering narrow band images.
[quote]
But why does the Saturn Nebula look like that in a Hubble image? It makes no sense to me.
[/quote]
I don't know why it makes no sense to you. Is it confusing that you say hej då and I say goodbye? Different sounds with the same meaning. Why is translating wavelengths to colors any different?
[/quote]
Perhaps we should say hej då and goodbye to this discussion, Chris?
You and I view color in the Universe in a fundamentally different way. To me color in astronomical objects is certainly a very subjective thing and a source of great joy, but it is also precise physical parameter. In the latter case, we are talking wavelengths, of course, not the conversion by the human eye and brain into the subjective sensation that we call color.
To me, color is hugely important, both when it comes to my own sense of aesthetics and when it comes to understanding the fundamental properties of an object through the wavelengths emitted or reflected by the object in question. To me, the color (or wavelength) of an astronomical object is no more trivial than the size, mass or shape of the object.
I'm sure you know that. And you don't agree with me. So let's agree to disagree. I'll keep claiming that an APOD portrait of an object gives us a good, or a misleading, idea of what the object's "natural", or optical, or visual, color is. And you are going to tell everyone here that I'm talking nonsense.
That's okay. You and I disagree on color. Let's leave it at that and say hej då and goodbye, until there is another APOD whose "color portrait" of an object prompts me to explain the properties of the object from its ("true") color.
Ann