Conquer Club

One day I saw a telescope in the window of a camera shop. I went in to look at it. Wife was doing her job of complaining to attempt to prevent me from spending a nickle to improve our lives. Once I found out the thing was under $70 cdn I announced, "It's coming home with us."

It's a celestron first scope. I like it because it's cheap and basic. I have found out the eyepieces are cheap and not so good.

After some research I decided to buy an Orion Sirius 32mm. It is a mid grade plossl and is pretty close to the same price as the unit was.

My current understanding is the eyepiece is the most important part but the mirror in the first scope is still pretty limiting.

So that is how I went from occasionally listening to my brother talk about astronomy to buying a telescope.

I also have befriended nerds.

Ok, but did they let you look at Saturns rings? <---not a euphemism.

Pastrami?

Telescopes are excellent for viewing heavenly bodies!




What's this Saturn Rings you talking about? Is that a strip club near your house?

Think it's time to ask Bern how he's able to locate creepy photos so readily.

I haven't really been into telescopes because long island has always had bad light pollution and I have enough trees around my house to make it damn annoying. I did get a pair of good binoculars but they fit a normal tripod and most normal tripods can't carry the weight. (My heavy tripod has a different connector.)

The problem with small telescopes is that one tends not to realize how fast the sky flies past you. Yes, the big ones in the buildings with the automatic movement motors are fun to view through but otherwise you spend half the time trying to locate the damn thing and the other half trying to keep it in view.

mrswdk wrote:Think it's time to ask Bern how he's able to locate creepy photos so readily.

Initial analysis indicates he is an avid reader of The Onion.

Tracking objects is not that bad but it is a surprise initially to see how fast the planet is spinning.

2dimes wrote:Tracking objects is not that bad but it is a surprise initially to see how fast the planet is spinning.

Pshaw....the heavens move around the planet, to suggest otherwise is heresy, right tzor?

Gotchya, I just mean there is motion relative to each other.

To be honest I believe the sun is moving, but the earth definately revolves around it, I don't want to push my beliefs on anyone though.

I have my grandad's old telescope that shows the craters on the moon really nicely but saturn, for instance, is recognizable but teeny tiny. Like microscopic. Would love to look thru a good scope....

notyou2 wrote:

2dimes wrote:Tracking objects is not that bad but it is a surprise initially to see how fast the planet is spinning.

Pshaw....the heavens move around the planet, to suggest otherwise is heresy, right tzor?

You may appreciate this article:
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/from-conflict-to-dialogue-and-all-the-way-back/

This brings us to the Galileo affair, which makes a predictable appearance as a set piece. The basic details of the story are well known, and again Gingras does a creditable job of reconstructing them. Galileo was warned by the Inquisition in 1616 not to teach or defend the heliocentric hypothesis first propounded by Copernicus over 70 years before. Following the publication, in 1632, of an insufficiently ambiguous defense of Copernicanism, Galileo was placed on trial, and in the following year he was found guilty of vehement suspicion of heresy and ordered to recant. He did so and remained under house arrest until his death almost 10 years later.

This looks like an open and shut case of science versus religion. But there are complications. For a start, Galileo’s theory lacked proof, and his argument for the Earth’s motion based on a theory about the tides was simply wrong. Not only that, but the absence of observable stellar parallax provided apparently unassailable evidence against the motion of the Earth. The planetary model of Tycho Brahe, which had the planets orbiting the sun, and the sun orbiting a stationary Earth, offered a good compromise solution, and accounted for at least some of Galileo’s telescopic observations without the physical difficulties of putting the Earth into motion. In short, at this time there was no consensus in the scientific community about whether Galileo was right, and good reasons for thinking he was wrong. For its part, the Church was well informed on the relative merits of the various systems, and its support for the Tychonic model in the later 17th century was scientifically defensible.

Turning from science to religion, it may seem obvious that in this controversy the Inquisition will stand in for “religion.” But again, recall that the Inquisition was founded in 12th-century France to combat heresy, that its scope expanded following the Protestant Reformation, and that its most notorious activities on the Iberian Peninsula were directed against Jewish and Muslim converts. Considered in this light, the existence of the Inquisition better reflects conflict within religion, and not between “religion” in abstract and something else. Cathars, Waldensians, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims would quite understandably not consider the Inquisition to be representative of “religion” in some general sense, and neither should we.

Matters become even more complicated when we consider other institutions that were part of the Catholic Church. Mention has already been made of the medieval universities, which were the chief sites of scientific activity in the Latin Middle Ages. Subsequently, the Collegio Romano, founded in 1551, provided considerable institutional support for the sciences conducted by members of the Jesuit order, with a particular focus on astronomy and mathematics. The present-day Vatican Observatory, which traces its origins back to the Roman College, bears further witness to the Catholic Church’s sponsorship of astronomical research. In fact, between the 12th and 18th centuries the Catholic Church’s material and moral support for the study of astronomy was unmatched by any other institution. In light of this, the unfortunate prosecution of Galileo is beginning to look like the exception rather than the rule. Affording emblematic status to the Galileo affair is a little like proposing, on the basis of the Athenians’ equally notorious trial and execution of Socrates, that the ancient Greeks were implacably opposed to philosophy.

Why are you using the informal name for the "Inquistion" instead of the more politically correct name "Hired Goon Squad of Religion So They Could Keep The People In The Dark And Continue To Extort Wealth To Maintain Their Existence And Lavish Life Style"?

DoomYoshi wrote:You may appreciate this article:

First and foremost, all of the theories were flat out wrong, not because of what went where and what "moved" and what did not, but because of a more simple fact ... orbits are elliptical not circular.

A long time ago there was a toy called a Spirograph. Simply out you have a gear within a gear within a gear and you have a pen and it makes all kinds of fun things.

Well it turns out this is a basic example of a Fourier Transformation. You can make any orbit as a series of such circles.

Both models had to use these circles and they used a lot of them. In other words, both models were confusing has hell.

Galileo may have been the Al Gore of his day. He had no idea what he was talking about, all of his predictions were flat out wrong but he might have been generally correct in the end.

tzor wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:You may appreciate this article:

First and foremost, all of the theories were flat out wrong, not because of what went where and what "moved" and what did not, but because of a more simple fact ... orbits are elliptical not circular.

A long time ago there was a toy called a Spirograph. Simply out you have a gear within a gear within a gear and you have a pen and it makes all kinds of fun things.

Click image to enlarge.

Well it turns out this is a basic example of a Fourier Transformation. You can make any orbit as a series of such circles.

Both models had to use these circles and they used a lot of them. In other words, both models were confusing has hell.

Galileo may have been the Al Gore of his day. He had no idea what he was talking about, all of his predictions were flat out wrong but he might have been generally correct in the end.

Heretic!!!!!

THAT is a Great Diagram, Tzor. BUT since the orbit of planets is (as you correctly stated) elliptical, and not circular, then I find your spirograph and Fourier Series arguments moot, irrelevant, and incorrect.

The idea of circular orbits of planets come from (is credited to the astronomer Ptolemy, in Greek Alexandria, Egypt. (This is all based on memory and courses I took on the History of Science, so that specific fact may be SLIGHTLY incorrect, as is true of what I am posting here.) In order to keep true the idea of circular orbits of planets (including the sun and moon, BTW), it was necessary to create ideas such as retrograde motion (Planets that "seem" to move "backwards."

All of this was rendered overly complex in a geo-centric system of Ptolemy. If the SUN were the center of the solar system (a heliocentric one, as opposed to Ptolemy's geo-centric model, the motion of planets became more simple to explain. Kepler had a massive amount of astronomical observations and data, including much data from Tycho Brahe. Kepler then developed his 3 laws of planetary motion, which Newton used to help formulate the law of universal gravitation. (Johann Kepler was one of those "giants" he spoke of in his famous quote about sitting on the shoulders of giants.) I think it was Newton who discovered that the path of planets had to be an ellipse if it were to follow the data suggesting an inverse square law of motion. When asked by the proof by Wren and Halley (the one whom the comet is named for), Newton said he had it "somewhere" but was not sure where. That convinced Wren to have Newton publish his findings and theories, which became the famous book referred to as Principia. (You can look up the exact title involving Prinicipia Naturalis Philosophia Mathematica or some such Latin Phrase and title.) Either Wren (or possibly Halley) paid to have the book published in 1676 or so and basically revolutionized Physics, Science, and ASTRONOMY.

As far as Galileo, I do not understand what things he got wrong. He too wrote a famous book in science; one is (translated as the Starry Messenger (again, Latin Siderius.......[forgot the other word, sorry, the course was taken in 1978]) and a later book Dialogues on New World Systems. In Dialogues, Galileo discusses the "new" physics, explaining free fall and inertia and other basic Physics concepts, still VALID TODAY. IN the Starry Messenger, Galileo announced his discoveries having used his telescope. These include the 4 moon (he named them after his financial sponsor, the Medicis, now know as Galilean moons: Io, Ganymede, Callista or Callisto, and Europa). This also includes the rings around Saturn and sunspots. The discovery of the moons of Jupiter was the most damaging to the Ptolemy's universe. There was no prediction of a planet having moons. The earth was NOT a planet back the;, it was "special" and the center of the entire universe. So what Galileo GOT WRONG I do not get; he may have gotten a few details wrong, BUT he did significantly modify the BIG PICTURE and GOT it very correct. Galileo confirmed the heliocentric Copernican universe (in the book On the Revolution of Heavenly Bodies by Copernicus) was much closer to the truth than Ptolemy’s universe and system. This book made the word revolutionary very REVOLUTIONARY, indeed.

Speaking of Telescopes, the subject that got this thread going, I got to see the rings of Saturn and the 4 Galilean moons through two different telescopes when the Richmond (VA) Astronomical Society set up three of them about 10 years ago for a public viewing. TO see with my own eyes using a good size telescope (magnification was maybe 50x or so; I cannot recall the exact #) those things described by Galileo in his book The Starry Messenger WAS AWESOME. BTW: the third telescope allowed the use to "lock into" a celestial object by correcting for the earth's rotation. Ten years ago (or so), when smart phones were getting started, this was FANTASTIC. With it, the owner locked into a distant nebula, which was "fuzzy" and does not have historical significance, at least not to me.

So telescopes (used for astronomy) is like any hobby: if one really gets "into" it, one can spend LOTS of money to get better stuff and possibly enjoy the fun and experience that much more. Also many recent comet discoveries were done by amateur astronomers, such as Levy and Shoemaker(s). (As I recall, the Shoemaker-Levi comet is the one that crashed into Jupiter some 25 years ago.)

tzor wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:You may appreciate this article:

First and foremost, all of the theories were flat out wrong, not because of what went where and what "moved" and what did not, but because of a more simple fact ... orbits are elliptical not circular.

A long time ago there was a toy called a Spirograph. Simply out you have a gear within a gear within a gear and you have a pen and it makes all kinds of fun things.

Click image to enlarge.

Well it turns out this is a basic example of a Fourier Transformation. You can make any orbit as a series of such circles.

Both models had to use these circles and they used a lot of them. In other words, both models were confusing has hell.

Galileo may have been the Al Gore of his day. He had no idea what he was talking about, all of his predictions were flat out wrong but he might have been generally correct in the end.

jusplay4fun wrote:THAT is a Great Diagram, Tzor. BUT since the orbit of planets is (as you correctly stated) elliptical, and not circular, then I find your spirograph and Fourier Series arguments moot, irrelevant, and incorrect.

The orbits that were debates were circular and that was the problem. Here is a good diagram of the differences in the models before elliptical orbits were introduced.



SOURCE: They couldn't even get the planets to all center on the sun in the Copernican Model. And here is the real kick in the ass, you remember that "elliptical" thing? Been there; done that; it worked and rejected by the "great scientist."

The great dishonesty of Galileo’s Dialogue was to present a contest between the Copernican and Ptolemaic models. By that time, both had been smacked down and the real contest was between the Tychonic/Ursine models and Kepler’s model, with the Ursine model being “ahead on points.” Galileo did not mention either one. He regarded the Tychonic/Ursine models as unaesthetic and klunky. He seems to have regarded Kepler's model, which came annexed to a physics in which the Sun put out a mysterious force that chivvied the planets about, as occultism. Besides, he was committed to perfect Platonic circles, and Kepler had ellipticated them. Boo.

I think all my major points still stand; no significant refutation was offered.

Galileo may have clung stubbornly to the "perfectly circular orbits" from Ptolemy, but he did deal it its death blows. And he got the big picture right.

Your diagrams are again helpful and interesting, but leave out key HUGE conceptual ideas, such as how Galileo was eventually proven correct and how his notions of Physics, math, and experimentation were ultimately proven true, at least as true as today's Physics will allow. Realize that it was Newton, born the year that Galileo died (1642), who was able to answer the question of the elliptical orbits and then later prove it. The proof is likely buried in Principia, written as a series of Geometric Proofs, partly to make it difficult for any of his detractors, notably Robert Hooke, to refute.

JP4F

You will both burn at the stake compliments of religion, heretics.

You do not understand science or religion.

JP

After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right: It Moves
By ALAN COWELL,
Published: October 31, 1992

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world ... moves.html

ROME, Oct. 30— More than 350 years after the Roman Catholic Church condemned Galileo, Pope John Paul II is poised to rectify one of the Church's most infamous wrongs -- the persecution of the Italian astronomer and physicist for proving the Earth moves around the Sun.

With a formal statement at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Saturday, Vatican officials said the Pope will formally close a 13-year investigation into the Church's condemnation of Galileo in 1633. The condemnation, which forced the astronomer and physicist to recant his discoveries, led to Galileo's house arrest for eight years before his death in 1642 at the age of 77.

The dispute between the Church and Galileo has long stood as one of history's great emblems of conflict between reason and dogma, science and faith. The Vatican's formal acknowledgement of an error, moreover, is a rarity in an institution built over centuries on the belief that the Church is the final arbiter in matters of faith.

notyou2 wrote:You will both burn at the stake compliments of religion, heretics.

And... That's just swell.

A 350 year late formal statement is going to make Galileo feel much better isn't it?

To quote Saxitoxin the popes and their Bologna Sandwich peddling outfit can suck it!*

Grrr, that made me almost too cranky to bother mentioning my great new book filled with star maps and directions on finding planets and stuff. SEE IT WITH A SMALL TELESCOPE. It looks pretty awesome I'll report back if I can find this thread when I start trying it out.












































* Only consenting adults please.

Please do. I look forward to hear about what you see. Should be FUN...!

The BEST part of astronomy is ACTUALLY seeing the stars, planets, and other interesting celestial bodies.

JP

2dimes wrote:And... That's just swell.

A 350 year late formal statement is going to make Galileo feel much better isn't it?

To quote Saxitoxin the popes and their Bologna Sandwich peddling outfit can suck it!*

Grrr, that made me almost too cranky to bother mentioning my great new book filled with star maps and directions on finding planets and stuff. SEE IT WITH A SMALL TELESCOPE. It looks pretty awesome I'll report back if I can find this thread when I start trying it out.












































* Only consenting adults please.

Part of what got me hooked was when we were camping near Saint Mary's by Glacier national park in your fine country. There were some telescopes set up in front of the interpretive center one set up looking at the sun through a solar filter. I took a look. That was kind of neat. There was a sign and a guy there too. Guy was busy talking to someone but I read the sign. "Telescope public thing 10:00 PM parking lot, free."

Came back and the kids and me looked at a bunch of stuff and even Mrs dimes looked at Saturns rings. Seeing that with your own eyes is kind of amazing.

I might need to upgrade my telescope because when with some assistance, about half an hour and a little luck I saw it with our baby telescope. Not as good, but pretty cool. We will have to see how the new eyepiece works out. Next step might be expensive eyepiece then possibly a real telescope. Ok, a better real one.

Both of those things are on my "Bucket List" and to see the great outdoors and sky in the Western part of our country is #1 (of 2). Glacier National Park has to be near the top of that list. I have a younger brother; both he and his wife are optometrists and they make lots of $$. They travel each summer, mostly to national parks out west (in the USA). I want to do some of that, too. I think he mentioned Bryce in Utah as good, but I have lost track of all those he has been to.

I took Astronomy (as well as History of Science) courses in college. One of my regrets is not taking the semester where we actually LOOKED through the telescope. It required getting there about 2 a.m. as I recall and I would have had to ride my bicycle a 20-30 minutes out to get there in the cold of winter (at the start of the semester, anyway). I did not accept THAT challenge. Instead I took a course in Astrophysics. I did okay in it, as I recall.

SO item #2 would be to do some more with telescopes or even buy my own. I have a brother-in-law (smart as many professors) who, as a child, ground his own lenses to make a telescope. This is what Isaac Newton did, before there were ones a person could buy (fairly inexpensively). Recall that the first human to use a telescope for observations of the sky was Galileo, who died in 1642. Recall further, in what year was Sir Isaac born? You got it, 1642. He dealt with a problem called chromatic aberration, light and color (colour) interfering with images in a telescope. As I recall, he made the first reflecting**, using a mirror (as opposed to refracting, using 2 lenses) telescope. {**I may have that backwards, but I will not bother looking THAT up at 3:48 a.m.}

There is a significant problem with light pollution: too many lights in big cities to allow good observation of stars, planets, comets, and the like. One cannot really see the Milky Way galaxy near cities in the USA, based on what I have read. There are a few rural areas near me and I found one good place to observe Halley’s Comet in 1986. It was not very spectacular, compare to its 1910 visit. But we did get two more about the same decade: Hale-Bopp (1997) and Hyakutake [March 19–April 4, 1996 (THAT spelling I did look up.)]

So keep enjoying the view, 2 dimes. I applaud you for initiative. That is fun, if you do not mind missing sleep in the middle of the night.

2dimes wrote:Part of what got me hooked was when we were camping near Saint Mary's by Glacier national park in your fine country. There were some telescopes set up in front of the interpretive center one set up looking at the sun through a solar filter. I took a look. That was kind of neat. There was a sign and a guy there too. Guy was busy talking to someone but I read the sign. "Telescope public thing 10:00 PM parking lot, free."

Came back and the kids and me looked at a bunch of stuff and even Mrs dimes looked at Saturns rings. Seeing that with your own eyes is kind of amazing.

I might need to upgrade my telescope because when with some assistance, about half an hour and a little luck I saw it with our baby telescope. Not as good, but pretty cool. We will have to see how the new eyepiece works out. Next step might be expensive eyepiece then possibly a real telescope. Ok, a better real one.

2dimes,

check out this website:

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observin ... uary-5-13/

I think the setting and sightings are for USA, but you can get an app (I think) to tailor the info for your location. Are you in Australia or NZ? (I cannot recall.) So obviously you are lookng an entirely different sky than I am in North Am.

Anyway, Sky and Telescope seems to be what you want for viewing the night sky with any telescope. I have scanned a few articles online from that source (magazine, now online).

JP4Fun