I am too old to do math anymore...

What I say here could surely be said better...

Actually, (I think) light intensity over distance would be described
as an exponential relationship. Apparent size should be a mathematical
relationship. Double the distance, halve the apparent size. Light
would be quartered versus halved due to being an inverse square
relationship. Of course, if I think of putting a dime one inch from my
eye, and then two inches, it would seem to perhaps be untrue. But I
believe that is the rule as regards apparent size.

Think of a graph with two parameters: size and distance. A line
plotting their relationship would be a straight line declined at 45
degrees. Same graph for light intensity and distance, and you would
see a line that curves like the right half of a 'U' with the higher
part of the line sloping a tad shy from horizontal, more like a kid's
drawing of a mountain slope. I used to do all these kinds of
mathematics when I was younger, now it is fading... some men take
their satisfaction like Aristotle, others as Plato. I am more like
Plato at heart, I will probably never do variable star observations
with meticulous records keeping. I wish to admire beauty with my eye,
to touch with my vision. Plato would observe the beauty of a rose, and
would comment on how it made him feel, the richness of it's colors,
the scent it gives off, how it bobs in the wind... Aristotle would
approach the rose with a ruler, measure it up, and mathematically
describe the relationship of the petals to the origin in the center of
the flower and of the petals to each other. One is oriented to/enjoys
the sensate, another the cerebral. I try to be balanced, but at heart,
I am like Plato. Plato and Aristotle were aquainted, and I once read a
passage where Plato lamented that Aristotle could take everything
beautiful in the world and reduce it to uncharmed dribble with his
overly mechanized mind. He was slightly intolerant... probably a right
brain/left brain dominance situation. Albeit I am a righty...

Tonight, or really this morning, 3 - 4 A.M. Aug. 30th, I just had my
best Mars observations to date. New telescope plus warm hazy humid air
combined to give me a good show tonight. The air is very humid with a
dew point around 74 degrees F. and there is a generalized light cloud
cover dimming the disc to acceptable light levels (only Mars and two
stars overhead are visible). Berman was correct, this is the best
night for seeing Mars. Best views came at 280x, with no significant
'frilling' of the edges of the disc from atmospheric unrest. At 333x
the frilling effect began to show, but not too bad. 400x was a
questionable level to use, and 525x was useless. Unfortunately, by the
time I got around to trying 333x magnification the clouds had thinned
a tad and the disc was becoming too bright for me once again such that
the large dark feature surrounding the polar cap began to wash out. My
best educated guess was that I observed Solis Lacus and the
surrounding areas (Erythraeum and Sirenium) tonight. In about 1 1/2
weeks I should have Syrtis Major right in my sights at this observing
time.

I am now content, I have succeeded in observing Mars in a satisfying
fashion with the disc beyond 25 arcseconds in size. That's it, the
best view of Mars I'll ever see in my whole life. Somebody tell Min he
was correct, Mars did just kick my ass. Tonight was perfect, but now I
know why Ian W. mentioned problems with condensation and the dew...

The only disapointment for me is that for my family members, I do not
get the ohhs and ahhs I see people on CNN having. Whereas I could
clearly see the polar cap and the dark features this evening, they
would look into the scope and see little besides a pale salmon-colored
disc, and become bored within thirty seconds of putting eye to
eyepiece. One person actually took the image out of focus, and asked
me about the dark spot in the center of the disc. I thought, "Wow,
she's good, seeing dark features her first time out..." Actually, no,
that dark spot appears when you severly defocus a planet's image...
I think I am dealing with a group with just poor vision. All wear
glasses, the elders have floaters, and the one who defocused the image
and found it better than a focused image is 'nightblind'.

I really wish I was equipped properly when Comet Hyakutake (sp.?) and
Hale-Bopp went past back in the late 1990s. All I had were 3x30 opera
glasses back then (go ahead and laugh)... that is my greatest
anticipation at the moment: the two naked eye comets coming next
Spring. Jupiter and Saturn will also be great with the new equipment,
but let's face it, this year they will be at their best when it's a
tad chilly out. Am I the only one who goes outside in bone chilling
cold until my fingertips are numbed? Well, Jupiter should linger a
while high up in the sky into the early spring.

Hmm, still have to go for Uranus, I suppose it is time to work on M81
and M82, and perhaps the Whirlpool Galaxy (M51?). First two I am
confident I'll find with ease. M51, I am not so sure in my lightened
skies...

- Livingston


On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:58:01 -0400 (EDT),
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

Livingston. You bring up a very interesting point. The intensity of
light diminishes by the square of the distance,and I always thought I
knew size does to. However I'm having problems with my thinking on this.
I could put this in my "what if" post. Does an objects size obey the
inverse square law? When is a point of size less than a point? Bert