Moon & Venus Wednesday Evening

Lord Vath wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 12:04:17 -0800 (PST), Sketcher
wrote this crap:

Yes, Stellarium is a beautiful piece of software. I've had various
versions of Stellarium on my computers for . . . I don't recall how
many years. The people who have contributed to it and kept it
free have performed a great service for all who have a passion
for astronomy. That being said, it would be impractical for me
to consult software prior to each and every observation I undertake.

Is it that difficult to use? I use Redshift.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

I use Stellarium on my PC but I find Luminos better on an iPhone although
Redshift is very close. It's very convenient to have a smartphone handy for
naked eye observations. I would have given up trying to find Mercury if I
hadn't been able to check the altitude on the phone,compare it to Venus'
altitude and see that the clouds were to low to block Mercury.

Ok, well, when I read a mystery novel I like to read it to the end to find
out whodunnit. If you are uncertain what the object in your sketch was do
you leave it out or do you like to remain mystified? Leaving it out is
artistic license but inaccurate, photography doesn't. Remaining mysterious
is a mystery. If I didn't know beforehand what to expect I'd want to know
afterward what I'd seen. Still, everyone to their own choice.
--LA

"Sketcher" wrote in message
...

Yes, Stellarium is a beautiful piece of software. I've had various
versions of Stellarium on my computers for . . . I don't recall how many
years. The people who have contributed to it and kept it free have
performed a great service for all who have a passion for astronomy. That
being said, it would be impractical for me to consult software prior to
each and every observation I undertake.

Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 6:49:38 PM UTC-7, Lord Androcles wrote:
If you or Sketcher are ever uncertain of the position of a planet or
star
you can always refer to Stellarium. It's free and I would gladly pay for
it
if it wasn't.
http://www.stellarium.org/en_GB/

On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 22:21:30 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap:

Lord Vath wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 12:04:17 -0800 (PST), Sketcher
wrote this crap:

Yes, Stellarium is a beautiful piece of software. I've had various
versions of Stellarium on my computers for . . . I don't recall how
many years. The people who have contributed to it and kept it
free have performed a great service for all who have a passion
for astronomy. That being said, it would be impractical for me
to consult software prior to each and every observation I undertake.

Is it that difficult to use? I use Redshift.



I use Stellarium on my PC but I find Luminos better on an iPhone although
Redshift is very close. It's very convenient to have a smartphone handy for
naked eye observations. I would have given up trying to find Mercury if I
hadn't been able to check the altitude on the phone,compare it to Venus'
altitude and see that the clouds were to low to block Mercury.

I never heard of Stellarium or Luminos. I bought Redshift about 20
years ago and have used it on every computer I had. I even copied the
CD to a flashdrive so I can use it on a pad.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 5:26:08 PM UTC-7, Lord Androcles wrote:
Ok, well, when I read a mystery novel I like to read it to the end to find
out whodunnit.

I usually prefer nonfiction;-)

If you are uncertain what the object in your sketch was do
you leave it out or do you like to remain mystified? Leaving it out is
artistic license but inaccurate, photography doesn't.

Those are not my only choices. As for photography, objects may very easily be modified, deleted, or inserted.

Remaining mysterious
is a mystery. If I didn't know beforehand what to expect I'd want to know
afterward what I'd seen. Still, everyone to their own choice.

Knowing what to expect can effect what one sees. It is better to limit one's expectations. Still, it's reasonable to want to know afterward what was seen, sketched, or photographed. I never denied checking afterwards;-)

Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.

"Sketcher" wrote in message
...

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 5:26:08 PM UTC-7, Lord Androcles wrote:
Ok, well, when I read a mystery novel I like to read it to the end to
find
out whodunnit.

I usually prefer nonfiction;-)


Really? The library shelves are filled with fiction, the film and TV
industries rely on drama, children love fairy tales. It would be a dull
world if we only watched documentaries, the news and weather forecast.
Aren't your sketches two dimensional representations of a three dimensional
universe and therefore fiction?



If you are uncertain what the object in your sketch was do
you leave it out or do you like to remain mystified? Leaving it out is
artistic license but inaccurate, photography doesn't.

Those are not my only choices.

A bicycle is not a dog's breakfast.
A dog's breakfast is not a cairn.
A cairn is not a temple.
I seem to encounter many people that can tell me what things are not and few
that can say what they are.
I would ask if you sketch what you do NOT see but you prefer non-fiction.
Architecture and engineering relies on accurate sketches of things than
don't exist yet.
What ARE your only choices?


As for photography, objects may very easily be modified, deleted, or
inserted.
Yes, we've heard of photoshop, but that would be fiction, sketching what we
don't see.


Remaining mysterious
is a mystery. If I didn't know beforehand what to expect I'd want to know
afterward what I'd seen. Still, everyone to their own choice.

Knowing what to expect can effect what one sees.
YES! I could not agree more!
Lowell saw canals on Mars and sketched them because he expected to see them.
Goodricke saw a giant dark star eclipsing Algol, others have sketched what
Goodricke saw.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/i...WkI8hNX-NFLyNf
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/i...kdb6ZlFE6Ue8rb
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...nLKE1t7zXyYI3Q
Can you sketch Algol without drawing what you expect?
Two fluid stars in close proximity that do NOT break up from tidal forces
.... I have no objection to fiction and non-fiction when I KNOW what the
difference is, and that dip in the centre of Algol's light curve when the
slope on either side rises and falls to accomodate it is the fiction the
sketcher expected. He sketched what he thought he saw.

It is better to limit one's expectations.
Oh yes, I totally agree. Ignore what others see and use only empirical data.
The universe is filled with mysteries to which we don't have the answers and
it is a peculiar human trait to seize upon the first explanation given and
engrave it in stone. Never in the field of human endeavour has so much
fiction been owed by so many to so few. One sketches what the imagination
sees, not the eye.

Still, it's reasonable to want to know afterward what was seen, sketched,
or photographed. I never denied checking afterwards;-)
Very good. I've come to expect 20-20 hindsight, I have it myself. But as you
did NOT relay that information in your previous missive, leaving the reader
with the impression that you were still mystified, I thought appropriate to
offer you and Collins my assistance. Collins resented it, seeing it as a
sleight. You did not, so no harm, no foul.

Sketcher wrote:
For one reason or another Mercury went unnoticed. Mercury may have been
too low in my sky at the time of my observation. I knew it was in the
general area, but I didn't know where. A star was spotted 1.5 degrees to
the left of Venus, but I was reasonably sure (by its appearance) that it
wasn't Mercury. The star was later identified as Deneb Algedi aka Delta
Cap. Mercury would have been near the edge of the 8 degree FOV of the
8x42s when the binoculars were centered midway between Venus and the moon
(but I was unaware of this at the time). I started my observation (late)
as soon as I got home and was curious as to how well lunar features would
become visible as the sky got darker - enhancing the visibility of the
earthshine. Once I started observing the moon with the 20x80s (with
their three degree FOV) there was no longer any chance of seeing Mercury.
(I was lucky to have seen Venus and the moon. I was unaware they would
be near one another until I happened to see them!)

Sketcher
I can only guess (with hindsight) that your later identification of d-Cap
was via some map of some kind, possibly software, so that begs the question.
Did you, or did you not, see Mercury in your 8 degree FOV bins when it went
unnoticed?
--Lord Androcles
To NOT see is to NOT sketch.

Lord Vath wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 22:21:30 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap:

Lord Vath wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 12:04:17 -0800 (PST), Sketcher
wrote this crap:

Yes, Stellarium is a beautiful piece of software. I've had various
versions of Stellarium on my computers for . . . I don't recall how
many years. The people who have contributed to it and kept it
free have performed a great service for all who have a passion
for astronomy. That being said, it would be impractical for me
to consult software prior to each and every observation I undertake.

Is it that difficult to use? I use Redshift.



I use Stellarium on my PC but I find Luminos better on an iPhone although
Redshift is very close. It's very convenient to have a smartphone handy for
naked eye observations. I would have given up trying to find Mercury if I
hadn't been able to check the altitude on the phone,compare it to Venus'
altitude and see that the clouds were to low to block Mercury.

I never heard of Stellarium or Luminos. I bought Redshift about 20
years ago and have used it on every computer I had. I even copied the
CD to a flashdrive so I can use it on a pad.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

It's worth trying Stellarium on the PC since it's free. The downside is
that if you activate the constellation art its rally naff. If you are
running an old version if Redshift Stellarium will be better.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:11:31 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap:


I never heard of Stellarium or Luminos. I bought Redshift about 20
years ago and have used it on every computer I had. I even copied the
CD to a flashdrive so I can use it on a pad.


It's worth trying Stellarium on the PC since it's free. The downside is
that if you activate the constellation art its rally naff. If you are
running an old version if Redshift Stellarium will be better.

Can you say that again in English?


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

Lord Vath wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:11:31 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap:


I never heard of Stellarium or Luminos. I bought Redshift about 20
years ago and have used it on every computer I had. I even copied the
CD to a flashdrive so I can use it on a pad.


It's worth trying Stellarium on the PC since it's free. The downside is
that if you activate the constellation art its rally naff. If you are
running an old version if Redshift Stellarium will be better.

Can you say that again in English?


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

There's not a lot to choose between the latest versions of Stellarium and
Redshift. The latest version of Stellarium will be better than an old
version of Redshift.
The constellation art of Stellarium is very poor but I wouldn't expect an
astronomer to opt for this display.
On a smartphone Redshift has more features but Stellarium has a more
realistic display.
Stellarium is free for PC and cheap for smartphone. Redshift is very
expensive for smartphone.

Lord Vath wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:11:31 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap:


I never heard of Stellarium or Luminos. I bought Redshift about 20
years ago and have used it on every computer I had. I even copied the
CD to a flashdrive so I can use it on a pad.


It's worth trying Stellarium on the PC since it's free. The downside is
that if you activate the constellation art its rally naff. If you are
running an old version if Redshift Stellarium will be better.

Can you say that again in English?


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

Yes

On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:30:40 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap:

There's not a lot to choose between the latest versions of Stellarium and
Redshift. The latest version of Stellarium will be better than an old
version of Redshift.
The constellation art of Stellarium is very poor but I wouldn't expect an
astronomer to opt for this display.
On a smartphone Redshift has more features but Stellarium has a more
realistic display.
Stellarium is free for PC and cheap for smartphone. Redshift is very
expensive for smartphone.

I paid about $15 for my version. I don't see how you can use it on a
smartphone because the printing on the toolbar at the top is very
small on a computer. On a smartphone it would be too small to read
and you'd need fingers the size of a small spider to use the drop
downs.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe