Venus Observation

Minutes after sunset Venus was observed and sketched at 147x using
Mighty Mouse (102mm SCT). The planet's altitude was 22 degrees.
Seeing was fair. The terminator (and shading along the same) marking
the gibbous phase of the planet was obvious and offset a little from
our earthly north-south line. The planet's preceding limb appeared to
be brighter than the rest of the planet. Seeing, altitude, aperture
restrictions, and the nature of the planet all worked to reduce the
chances of seeing anything else on Earth's near (at least in size)
twin.

Jupiter and our moon are good potential targets after I post this.
Early risers or those who stay up late may want to take a peak at Mars
and Saturn -- both are bright and well placed for morning observing (I
saw them a few mornings ago). Mars may be a bit small for some, but
it's bright and reasonably high in northern skies.

When weather, etc. permits: get out, observe, and post your
observations or anything else that's appropriate and good for saa.
The only thing that's changed in this group from its "good ol' days"
is the dropping out of many who used to post actively on topic. The
only way to get back is to actively post on-topic and enourage others
to do the same.

Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.

On Jan 8, 12:51*am, Sketcher wrote:
When weather, etc. permits: get out, observe, and post your
observations or anything else that's appropriate and good for saa.
The only thing that's changed in this group from its "good ol' days"
is the dropping out of many who used to post actively on topic. *The
only way to get back is to actively post on-topic and enourage others
to do the same.

Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.

It is not so much the 'good ol' days' but the brighter and more
vibrant new days that will make the difference.With all due respect
to the 'black-hole-eating-hiccuping' crowd,the new astronomy doesn't
just rely on imaging power and the ability to recognize a planet in
the sky,it is powerful enough to allow for planetary comparisons and
open up topics in ways that are totally new and exciting.

Venus has residual variations in latitudinal speeds (daily rotation)
and subsequently has no spherical deviation and no evolutionary
geological activity beyond volcanism whereas the Earth has a
noticeable 26 mile spherical deviation and a very active surface
crust.Who cares if the 'old crowd' don't get it!,even they probably
want to move on from the confines of Ra/Dec observing and make their
mark.

There was never good old days in SAA,people just ran out of things to
say and there are few takers for the empirical novelties these days
and so what if the new astronomy has to emerge fully,it will in due
course.Even allowing that magnification guys have their own thing
going,the very least they can do is equate 1461 rotations and 4 years
with 1461 rotations in 4 orbital circuits but I guess those who
dropped out took the easy route instead of fixing this problem.Then
and only then can astronomy begin in earnest.

The world faces many great difficulties and one of them should not be
the betrayal of astronomy for what is effectively little more than
recreational mathematics.If any person doubts the situation is not
serious then the utter disregard for a normal correspondence between
1461 days and 4 years with 1461 rotations and 4 orbital circuits is a
clear statement of this..

If a group of people made a mistake and decided on something absurd
like a 'flat Earth' then I suppose many would rush in to correct the
error as astronomy would cease to have any relevance and yet this is
something which exists,not as a minor inconvenience to an isolated
group but accepted as a mainstream in terms of 1465 rotations in
proportion to 4 orbital circuits when the actual value is 1461
rotations to 4 circuits.Why the hostility towards the experience of
daily rotation within context of the calendar system as opposed to the
contrived ideology which begins at the March equinox ? where they
assume 366 1/4 rotations in 365 1/4 days when it is much easier to
begin with Feb 29th as both 24 hours of rotation and the effect of a
day/night cycle as the endpoint of 4 orbital circuits.

If I was proposing something outrageous I could understand the
hostility of silence but this is something which should be beyond
question and not have taken so much effort for what substance can as
astronomers can anyone have by pretending this issue does not exist.As
soon as this is dealt with effectively the sooner people can return to
the magnification exercise and observing with pride.

On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0800 (PST), "Chris.B"
wrote:

I have always found Venus to be a particularly difficult subject both
visually and photographically.

In a way, what makes it so hard is that it seems so deceptively easy!

I've had good results imaging Venus in the day, using a polarized
filter. With an astronomical camera, I also need ND filters; with a
DSLR I don't. What sort of photographic equipment have you tried?

oriel36 wrote:
The world faces many great difficulties and one of them should not be
the betrayal of astronomy for what is effectively little more than
recreational mathematics.If any person doubts the situation is not
serious then the utter disregard for a normal correspondence between
1461 days and 4 years with 1461 rotations and 4 orbital circuits is a
clear statement of this..

If a group of people made a mistake and decided on something absurd
like a 'flat Earth' then I suppose many would rush in to correct the
error as astronomy would cease to have any relevance and yet this is
something which exists,not as a minor inconvenience to an isolated
group but accepted as a mainstream in terms of 1465 rotations in
proportion to 4 orbital circuits when the actual value is 1461
rotations to 4 circuits.Why the hostility towards the experience of
daily rotation within context of the calendar system as opposed to the
contrived ideology which begins at the March equinox ? where they
assume 366 1/4 rotations in 365 1/4 days when it is much easier to
begin with Feb 29th as both 24 hours of rotation and the effect of a
day/night cycle as the endpoint of 4 orbital circuits.

If I was proposing something outrageous I could understand the
hostility of silence but this is something which should be beyond
question and not have taken so much effort for what substance can as
astronomers can anyone have by pretending this issue does not exist.As
soon as this is dealt with effectively the sooner people can return to
the magnification exercise and observing with pride.

You are proposing something outrageous. You are saying that the scientists
and mathematicians of the past four centuries, with theories supported by
all the observations, which can be used to describe astronomical events
from the distant past and the future are wrong. You also say that your
infantile observations and deductions, which have no mathematical basis and
have predicted nothing are correct.
You further claim that images from instruments placed in orbit by engineers
using the equations you deride support your views.
You have a defective visual perception and imagination which prevent your
seeing the truth.
You might be able to educate your perceptions to overcome this handicap but
your own personal doublethink prevents this.
At least you could stop interrupting other threads with your bad mannered
spamming.

On Jan 8, 9:25*am, "Chris.B" wrote:

s.a.a has always had a history of extreme hostility to new members and
active observers. There were always "experts" ready to tear a
tentative observation to shreds because it did not match their own
visually-challenged experience. The "good old days" never existed in
the time I have been a member. Trolls, lunatics and bullies have
always been the norm. Nay, even the majority.

In my (possibly flawed) recollection there existed a past (perhaps
before yours on saa) in which more trolls, lunatics, etc. frequented
saa, but in that past the *majority* of postings were relevant to
amateur astronomy. IOW, the lunatics, etc. were greatly outnumbered
by all the old and new amateur astronomers who posted their
observations, opinions, questions, answers, agreements, and
disagreements.

The only really useful discussions that I can remember were around the
subject of optics and physics.

There were indeed some quality discussions on optics (and many other
subjects). When a group has a large enough population of peoples with
wide ranges of knowledge and expertise (as was once the case here)
there's no limit to what may be intelligently discussed. SAA once
averaged more traffic in ten minutes (or so it seemed to me) than we
now see in 24 hours.

I have always found Venus to be a particularly difficult subject both
visually and photographically. In fact I found it much easier to
photograph it in transit than bathed in the light of the sun. I don't
have a single useful image of Venus while not in transit. Nor any
particularly inspiring memories of enjoyable visual observations.
Crescent or circular, I was never able to extract much detail over the
decades. This, regardless of geography, seeing or instrument. Perhaps
I lack sufficient neutral density filters?

I can't contribute much concerning photography -- having removed
myself from that aspect of the hobby over 30 years ago. Visually I've
done some experimentation in observing Venus with a small assortment
of telescopes and a large assortment of filters. Some of the results
(notes along with sketches) have been posted to an old blog that I
haven't updated in quite a while. I concluded that a #58 green filter
(with or without a Moon&SkyGlow filter) worked best for me when
observing Venus with a 130mm apochromat or a 300mm Newtonian. After
observing Venus over a long enough period of time I was able to see
(or fool myself into believing I could see) subtle shadings in the
Venusian atmosphere. IIRC, at one time I found a website (I don't
recall the URL) where an amateur had posted impressive photos of the
planet that showed the same shadings I had managed to sketch.

Venus is not an easy planet to deal with! The observation I started
this thread with was a 'casual' observation using a 'quick look'
telescope. I used no filters for that observation and felt no great
need for a filter. The small aperture combined with a relatively high
magnification and bright sky (not to mention my desire to make a
simple, quick observation) reduced the need to use a filter. To
seriously observe Venus (or any other planet) it's necessary to get
out and observe the same object over and over again -- if necessary
experimenting with eyepieces and filters. Making a sketch helps train
the eye to see details that might otherwise be missed. It takes a lot
of 'work' (or a good imagination!) to see anything beyond what I
described in my initial posting.

Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.

On Jan 8, 7:09*pm, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
The world faces many great difficulties and one of them should not be
the betrayal of astronomy for what is effectively little more than
recreational mathematics.If any person doubts the situation is not
serious then the utter disregard for a normal correspondence between
1461 days and 4 years with 1461 rotations and 4 orbital circuits is a
clear statement of this..

If a group of people made a mistake and decided on something absurd
like a 'flat Earth' then I suppose many would rush in to correct the
error as astronomy would cease to have any relevance and yet this is
something which exists,not as a minor inconvenience to an isolated
group but accepted as a mainstream *in terms of 1465 rotations in
proportion to 4 orbital circuits when the actual value is 1461
rotations *to 4 circuits.Why the hostility towards the experience of
daily rotation within context of the calendar system as opposed to the
contrived ideology which begins at the March equinox ? where they
assume 366 1/4 rotations in 365 1/4 days *when it is much easier to
begin with Feb 29th as both 24 hours of rotation and the effect of a
day/night cycle as the endpoint of 4 orbital circuits.

If I was proposing something outrageous I could understand the
hostility of silence but this is something which should be beyond
question and not have taken so much effort for what substance can as
astronomers can anyone have by pretending this issue does not exist.As
soon as this is dealt with effectively the sooner people can return to
the magnification exercise and observing with pride.

You are proposing something outrageous. *You are saying that the scientists
and mathematicians of the past *four centuries, with theories supported by
all the observations, which can be used to describe astronomical events
from the distant past and the future are wrong.

These guys in the institutions and organizations are bone lazy,the
frontpiece of all astronomy is that 1461 days and 4 years corresponds
to 1461 rotations and 4 orbital circuits and I can repeat that with
the greatest confidence and for as long as it assumes its rightful
place as the primary fact oin all astronomy along with a spherical
Earth.If your ideologies are based on 1465 rotations in 4 years ,and
this only arose in the late 17th century by way of a false
mismanagement of the calendar based Ra/Dec ,then astronomy ceases as
a pursuit for unless you can find a way to create an imbalance between
24 hours/360 degrees of rotation and the daily experiences of day
turning to night and temperature rises and falls you don;t stand a
chance of explaining why there are 1465 rotations in 1461 days.

"The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but
there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year" Goddard Space Flight Center

I am talking about the survival of science if not Western civilization
and not whether a few guys in the 117th century got it badly wrong,the
very foundations of what we are as a civilized race is when to kn ow
something is wrong or unjust and alter events to correct and restore a
sense of stability and that it is at such an obvious level that there
are no experts.

Are you incensed that there is someone who has a belief that there are
1461 rotation enclosed in 4 years/4 orbital circuits because if you
truly believe the 1465 rotations in 1461 days then you should be.These
people are paid billions upon billions a year and if you arrive at a
conclusion like that then nobody's job has any substance to it.I am no
longer inviting people to correct this mistake,I am telling them to do
this as unlike the Piltdown Man hoax,this cannot wait -

"Anthropologists refer to the hoax as 'another instance of desire for
fame leading a scholar into dishonesty' and boast that the unmasking
of the deception is 'a tribute to the persistence and skill of modern
research'. Persistence and skill indeed! When they have taken over
forty years to discover the difference between an ancient fossil and a
modern chimpanzee! A chimpanzee could have done it quicker." Daily
Sketch

I am well aware that much of this has to do with the paid professions
and reputation yet the issues are before every single person here as
something that is common and easily fixed and it doesn't matter what
people believed previously,this is now and there is no matter in
science more crucial or urgent as this one.








You also say that your
infantile observations and deductions, which have no mathematical basis and
have predicted nothing are correct.
You further claim that images from instruments placed in orbit by engineers
using the equations you deride support your views.
You have a defective visual perception and imagination which prevent your
seeing the truth.
You might be able to educate your perceptions to overcome this handicap but
your own personal doublethink prevents this.
At least you could stop interrupting other threads with your bad mannered
spamming.

On Jan 8, 8:31*pm, Sketcher wrote:|
*Making a sketch helps train
the eye to see details that might otherwise be missed. *It takes a lot
of 'work' (or a good imagination!) to see anything beyond what I
described in my initial posting.

Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I have read that sketching is
an excellent discipline for improving one's ability to see fine
detail. Sadly I lack any great skill at drawing. It would also force
me to wear reading glasses at the telescope. I prefer to stare, for
hours at a time, at the same object with the drives running. Usually
in the forlorn hope that it will become bored with my attention and
reveal its secrets. Only rarely am I favoured with an inversion layer
and really steady seeing. Which is why I prefer digital (afocal)
photography. I can usually capture 'snaps' at least as sharp as my
visual experience.

Pushing powers over 120x visually is usually a complete waste of time.
Regardless of which of my refractors I am using. Similarly, nothing
below 50 degrees altitude is worthy of study visually. I live rurally
with fields in all directions. The sea is never more than a few miles
away to the south and west. I even tried taking a telescope and
mounting to the beach. Just to see if it helped the awful seeing. It
did not. ;-)

On Jan 8, 1:18*pm, "Chris.B" wrote:

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I have read that sketching is
an excellent discipline for improving one's ability to see fine
detail. Sadly I lack any great skill at drawing. It would also force
me to wear reading glasses at the telescope. I prefer to stare, for
hours at a time, at the same object with the drives running. Usually
in the forlorn hope that it will become bored with my attention and
reveal its secrets. Only rarely am I favoured with an inversion layer
and really steady seeing. Which is why I prefer digital (afocal)
photography. I can usually capture 'snaps' at least as sharp as my
visual experience.

Nobody sketches well without having had a fair amount of previous
experience. Regardless, the quality of one's sketches is less
important than the attention to detail that is forced upon oneself
when making a sketch. It may be possible to gain the same things (as
one does when sketching) by making written notes or verbal comments
into a recording device. The point is to be actively involved in the
observing process -- actively looking for and making note (in one way
or another) of details. I happen to prefer sketching, though I
usually include written notes as well. Years ago I tried (probably
for only one night!) using a tape recorder, but temperatures in
Montana were harsh on batteries and the proper functioning of the
recorder. I suppose suitable digital recorders might be available
now, but I'm not sure if any of the alternatives (to sketching) would
be as effective. There's no need to share sketches, etc. with others
and subject oneself to potential praise and criticism unless one wants
to. The greater purpose is training the eye-brain system to pick out
details that would otherwise be missed.

Pushing powers over 120x visually is usually a complete waste of time.
Regardless of which of my refractors I am using. Similarly, nothing
below 50 degrees altitude is worthy of study visually. I live rurally
with fields in all directions. The sea is never more than a few miles
away to the south and west. I even tried taking a telescope and
mounting to the beach. Just to see if it helped the awful seeing. It
did not. ;-)

Sorry to hear about your poor seeing conditions. I once had a night
that was so terrible that I was unable to make out the gap between
Saturn's rings and the planet even though the ring-plane had a
reasonable tilt. That was probably my worst night ever! A couple
nights ago, after returning outside after supper, I had unusually
steady seeing for Jupiter and the moon, but within minutes clouds
forced me to quit and bring the scope inside:-(

OTOH, I once thought I was plaqued by perpetually poor seeing -- until
I upgraded my equipment and discovered that mediocre optics had been
the greater problem. Sometimes I've been surprised by how much detail
was possible to discern under unsteady conditions. Other times it's
been useless to attempt any planetary observing. The nature of the
atmospheric turbulance, the size of the 'seeing cells' and one's
aperture can make otherwise similarly poor seeing conditions
effectively very different.

So called 'favourable' Martian oppositions have often been bad for me
(seeing wise) due to the low altitude of Mars (as seen from my
location), while less favourable oppositions (such as the one now on
its way) can be better due Mars's more northerly declination.
There're so many variables. A good approach is to get out at every
opportunity expecting the worst, then you can be pleasantly surprised
when that one night comes along and everything falls neatly into
place!

Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.

"Sketcher" wrote in message
...
On Jan 8, 1:18 pm, "Chris.B" wrote:

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I have read that sketching is
an excellent discipline for improving one's ability to see fine
detail. Sadly I lack any great skill at drawing. It would also force
me to wear reading glasses at the telescope. I prefer to stare, for
hours at a time, at the same object with the drives running. Usually
in the forlorn hope that it will become bored with my attention and
reveal its secrets. Only rarely am I favoured with an inversion layer
and really steady seeing. Which is why I prefer digital (afocal)
photography. I can usually capture 'snaps' at least as sharp as my
visual experience.

Nobody sketches well without having had a fair amount of previous
experience. Regardless, the quality of one's sketches is less
important than the attention to detail that is forced upon oneself
when making a sketch. It may be possible to gain the same things (as
one does when sketching) by making written notes or verbal comments
into a recording device. The point is to be actively involved in the
observing process -- actively looking for and making note (in one way
or another) of details. I happen to prefer sketching, though I
usually include written notes as well. Years ago I tried (probably
for only one night!) using a tape recorder, but temperatures in
Montana were harsh on batteries and the proper functioning of the
recorder. I suppose suitable digital recorders might be available
now, but I'm not sure if any of the alternatives (to sketching) would
be as effective. There's no need to share sketches, etc. with others
and subject oneself to potential praise and criticism unless one wants
to. The greater purpose is training the eye-brain system to pick out
details that would otherwise be missed.

Pushing powers over 120x visually is usually a complete waste of time.
Regardless of which of my refractors I am using. Similarly, nothing
below 50 degrees altitude is worthy of study visually. I live rurally
with fields in all directions. The sea is never more than a few miles
away to the south and west. I even tried taking a telescope and
mounting to the beach. Just to see if it helped the awful seeing. It
did not. ;-)

Sorry to hear about your poor seeing conditions. I once had a night
that was so terrible that I was unable to make out the gap between
Saturn's rings and the planet even though the ring-plane had a
reasonable tilt. That was probably my worst night ever! A couple
nights ago, after returning outside after supper, I had unusually
steady seeing for Jupiter and the moon, but within minutes clouds
forced me to quit and bring the scope inside:-(

OTOH, I once thought I was plaqued by perpetually poor seeing -- until
I upgraded my equipment and discovered that mediocre optics had been
the greater problem. Sometimes I've been surprised by how much detail
was possible to discern under unsteady conditions. Other times it's
been useless to attempt any planetary observing. The nature of the
atmospheric turbulance, the size of the 'seeing cells' and one's
aperture can make otherwise similarly poor seeing conditions
effectively very different.

So called 'favourable' Martian oppositions have often been bad for me
(seeing wise) due to the low altitude of Mars (as seen from my
location), while less favourable oppositions (such as the one now on
its way) can be better due Mars's more northerly declination.
There're so many variables. A good approach is to get out at every
opportunity expecting the worst, then you can be pleasantly surprised
when that one night comes along and everything falls neatly into
place!

Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.
========================================
Horses for courses, whatever floats your boat, never ask a
mechanic to fix your heart or a surgeon to fix your car, and
all that good advice. I can't sketch but I can program a
computer to draw for me.

Androcles,
To program is to pay attention to detail.