Re: Havas: Some Questions for You
I M Openmind wrote in message <c6cdf9f8.0210130206.3c78d90d@posting.google.com>
> You are quoted at http://www.zetatalk.com/teams/rogue/shavas11.htm as saying
> ---------
> 10/11/2002 Time/Date/Location
> The time of the images was between 12 and 1 am on Oct 11. So it looks
> like it would have started off looking mostly east at about 37 degrees
> above horizon and then moving to a EES position at 50 degrees above
> horizon. So these images would have started and finished at a higher
> position in the sky than the Oct 4 images but looking approximately
> the same direction east. I don't know if this has been mentioned or
> not but with the earth rotating over the time the images are taken the
> light from PX should be moving to a different spot just about every
> image? I'm just wondering how much over say the hour the images are
> taken the light position could change based on our expectations of the
> light passing over the equator or not, elevation in sky etc.
>
> It's kind of hard to say what the coordinates would be for Oct 11
> being in between the Zeta given coordinates of Oct 3 and Oct 25. The
> RA goes from 4.400986 to 4.400546 and the Dec from 12.13942 to
> 12.13215 over those dates.
> Steve
> ----------
> - Please explain (no ... do not quote Lieder ... use your own words)
> why Lieder's planet should be moving but the stars whose light is
> following the same path over the horizon/equator etc. are not moving
> in concert. That is, why should you think the light from PX should be
> moving relative to the stars?
IMO, I do not have any explanation to give as to why the red light from
PX is slightly changing positions as the earth rotates etc. while the
light from the stars is not over and above what ZT has commented on about it.
In short, the Z's said that since the stars are so far away the frequencies
of light that are more easily bent literally gets lost before it reaches
earth so that the light we see from the stars is what was not lost and
still able to reach earth and be seen. Hence we see the stars as one object
and not moving.
> - Please explain why you think the single pixels you have picked out
> on the Oct. 11 images 1 and 5 could possibly be of an object in the
> sky when all the stars on those images form much larger images.
Because they fit the pattern from what showed up on the Sept 21
and Oct 4 images. Location wise, it is following the Z's predicted
movement with the white light spot showing up exactly at the
coordinates and with the red light below and to the left as expected.
The spots in question from all three images have very similar
characteristics from image to image. So they have at least three
things going for them that makes me believe they are an object - they
are showing up at where expected, moving exactly as expected in
concert and showing continuity in appearance.
You ask why the stars appear much larger and I guess all I can say
to that is because they appear much larger being much brighter. How
big would you expect PX to show up on these images if it's only
approximately an arcsecond in diameter at it's current distance and
reflecting very little sunlight? If we keep watching maybe we can see
the spots in question grow larger than those stars over the coming months.
> - Please explain why PX shows on only 1 of the 10 images you took (OK
> once in its "white" persona, once in its "red" persona).
My best guess would be that there are a few factors currently working
against PX showing up consistently on these images. One would be the
small angular size (<1 arcsecond) and faintness in predominately one
light spectrum making it difficult to be "seen" by the CCD. I have
been using binning 3 for the images which is the most sensitive to
light and is also the lowest resolution with binning 1 being the highest
resolution and lowest sensitivity. So perhaps this object is bright
enough to be picked up but is just on the borderline of being resolved
by the CCD. For all I know maybe it is showing up on some of the other
images only requiring more extensive processing and carefull looking.
Another factor could be errors in tracking during the imaging causing
the delicate light from PX to be lost in nearby surrounding pixels
and therefore not readily seen. I understand that there is the
possibilty that the tracking software used could have been trying
to lock onto two reference stars in the images and hence some of the
star double up occuring in many of the images. This is currently
being looked into in an attempt to discover what is causing the
problems on the images.
Another problem could be changing atmospheric conditions over the
time the images are taken possibly causing some inconsistency in the
seeing or transparency of the sky. On one night there was a rapid
temperature drop and the focus needed to be rechecked so that could be
a factor.
And yet another factor could be the red light slowly "creeping" over
the time of the images as the earth rotates. Perhaps this makes it
more difficult for the light to register with enough intensity in one
spot to show up well on the CCD.
Again, these are just my best guesses. Obviously I would have preferred
that these spots were showing up brilliantly in every image. However,
with all the factors listed above I just don't think it is the nature of
this object to show up well yet. Maybe someone with more powerful equipment
could get better results and we would be able to see greater consistency.
As time goes on however I'm sure that the results will improve, showing
up on more images, tracking to the coordinates, growing in size and
brightness etc.
> - Please explain how PX can show up as both "white" and "red" when the
> CCD taking your images had the red filter in place and hence only red
> light was hitting the detector.
Good question and here is my best guess... The red filter being used is
not completely filtering out all other light frequencies beside red and
therefore some degree of other light including white light does pass
through and is being detected by the CCD.
