Astronomy

[Bachtoven]

I have a nice 10" Orion Dobsonian telescope, but there's too much light in my neighborhood for deep space viewing.

[Kalevala]

I have a nice 10" Orion Dobsonian telescope, but there's too much light in my neighborhood for deep space viewing.

Don't know anything about that telescope, but I did notice a number of years ago that when I went into the country that I could really see the stars.  I loved it!

K

[Iota]

In the Cold War, we all thought we were going to blow each other to bits, but that didn't happen. No offense intended, but I really don't find irrational cynicism to really be that wise IMO.

As I'm not sure how long a timeframe 'beyond technological adolescence' is implying, I can't comment on that. But though speculative, I can't say the idea that humanity might meet its end within 80,000 years, seems an irrational one to me. The list of possibilities is a pretty long one, and presumably there are some that are yet to hove into view.
Of a much-discussed and in vogue one, the AI 'threat', it seems to me there'd be a sort of irony if as is said, we may have wiped out the Neanderthals with 'superior' brain power, we were then wiped out by our own technology when it got smarter than us. Though of course AI might end up being the good cop and eventually work out how to find and maintain a wormhole, and we can all spin off to a deliriously happy future somewhere on the other side of the galaxy ...

[Bachtoven]

Don't know anything about that telescope, but I did notice a number of years ago that when I went into the country that I could really see the stars.  I loved it!

K

Sadly, I just discovered that Orion went out of business in July of this year.

[relm1]

I have a nice 10" Orion Dobsonian telescope, but there's too much light in my neighborhood for deep space viewing.

I once had a 10 inch dobsonion which I absolutely loved.  I couldn't believe what you can see with it in a very dark sky.  I could visually see the minor galaxies and dust lane in the Andromeda galaxy, lots of individual stars in Hercules (not just a fuzzy blob), etc.  Going to a dark sky for observing will never make you want to observe from a city again.  These days I do astrophotography which has different challenges but again, you get much better results in a dark sky unless capturing bright objects. 

[relm1]

As I'm not sure how long a timeframe 'beyond technological adolescence' is implying, I can't comment on that. But though speculative, I can't say the idea that humanity might meet its end within 80,000 years, seems an irrational one to me. The list of possibilities is a pretty long one, and presumably there are some that are yet to hove into view.
Of a much-discussed and in vogue one, the AI 'threat', it seems to me there'd be a sort of irony if as is said, we may have wiped out the Neanderthals with 'superior' brain power, we were then wiped out by our own technology when it got smarter than us. Though of course AI might end up being the good cop and eventually work out how to find and maintain a wormhole, and we can all spin off to a deliriously happy future somewhere on the other side of the galaxy ...

I don't think we wiped out Neanderthals with superior brain power but they were less suited to the changing environments.  I agree with Richard Dawkins that intelligence doesn't seem to give an evolutionary advantage.  Intelligence seems to be a disadvantage. 

[Iota]

I don't think we wiped out Neanderthals with superior brain power but they were less suited to the changing environments.

Yes, I'm sure lots of different factors came into play as far as their extinction was concerned. It was just a casual reference to one possible one, to contrast with who might have the upper hand if AI got super smart at some point.

I agree with Richard Dawkins that intelligence doesn't seem to give an evolutionary advantage.  Intelligence seems to be a disadvantage. 

Intelligence would allow a species to adapt to changing circumstances with more flexibility I'd have thought, which if it's true, would seem to give them better odds of staying alive for longer and passing on their genes (if we're comparing to other mammals. I know insects etc. are touted as the ones most likely to survive global catastrophe etc).
But obviously this is just simple speculation. I haven't read Richard Dawkins, I'll have a poke around on the web to see what words of his I can find on the subject.

[krummholz]

Totally lost track of this thread, but I did see the comet (from central Vermont) on a rare clear night early last week. It was less bright than expected, I would estimate magnitude +2, though the coma was not visible except through binoculars, and of course the tail has low surface brightness, so "officially" it might have been +1 or so.

[relm1]

Yes, I'm sure lots of different factors came into play as far as their extinction was concerned. It was just a casual reference to one possible one, to contrast with who might have the upper hand if AI got super smart at some point.

Gotcha. 

Intelligence would allow a species to adapt to changing circumstances with more flexibility I'd have thought, which if it's true, would seem to give them better odds of staying alive for longer and passing on their genes (if we're comparing to other mammals. I know insects etc. are touted as the ones most likely to survive global catastrophe etc).
But obviously this is just simple speculation. I haven't read Richard Dawkins, I'll have a poke around on the web to see what words of his I can find on the subject.

His most famous book is probably "The Selfish Gene" which was quite revolutionary when it came out a few decades ago, but is a good one to start with.  It is poorly titled as he frequently says, the publisher named it, not him.  The better title is "The Immortal Gene" as he argues that the genes that are passed on are the ones whose evolutionary consequences serve their own implicit interest in being replicated, not necessarily those of the individual organism where in fact, the two interests might be in conflict.  An example being why would a bee develop a stinger that would rip its guts out leading to a one time defense that kills it?  The reason is for the protection of the colony's genes since they all have the same queen, they are siblings, and the gene survives though the individual died.  Traits that keep coming up independently (hands, claws, eyes, speed, strength, camouflage, social bonding in tribal groups, etc.) seem to give more of an evolutionary advantage.  Intelligence generally breed less or wait longer so offspring don't do as well and just never comes up in the genetic history when compared to traits that keep coming up in completely unrelated species.  To paraphrase: dumb breeds faster, easier, more often and those seem to be better advantages than being selective or outthinking.  You get played by the faster breeders.  But best to see if you can find him explaining it better than my paraphrase. 

[relm1]

Totally lost track of this thread, but I did see the comet (from central Vermont) on a rare clear night early last week. It was less bright than expected, I would estimate magnitude +2, though the coma was not visible except through binoculars, and of course the tail has low surface brightness, so "officially" it might have been +1 or so.

Nice! Did you get a picture of it?  It was (might still be) an easy target even for phones.

[krummholz]

Nice! Did you get a picture of it?  It was (might still be) an easy target even for phones.

I tried with my iPhone 14, but I cannot make the comet out in the picture, unfortunately.

I wish I had taken the department's Canon DSLR camera and sky tracker. We originally purchased them a decade ago in hopes of doing exoplanet detection, then tabled the idea after I was seriously injured. Two summers ago I returned to the project with a student - we proved conclusively that the camera is just too noisy to detect even a transiting gas giant against a red dwarf - dips in the light curve on the order of hundredths of a magnitude are too small to resolve.

[Iota]

Gotcha. 

His most famous book is probably "The Selfish Gene" which was quite revolutionary when it came out a few decades ago, but is a good one to start with.  It is poorly titled as he frequently says, the publisher named it, not him.  The better title is "The Immortal Gene" as he argues that the genes that are passed on are the ones whose evolutionary consequences serve their own implicit interest in being replicated, not necessarily those of the individual organism where in fact, the two interests might be in conflict.  An example being why would a bee develop a stinger that would rip its guts out leading to a one time defense that kills it?  The reason is for the protection of the colony's genes since they all have the same queen, they are siblings, and the gene survives though the individual died.  Traits that keep coming up independently (hands, claws, eyes, speed, strength, camouflage, social bonding in tribal groups, etc.) seem to give more of an evolutionary advantage.  Intelligence generally breed less or wait longer so offspring don't do as well and just never comes up in the genetic history when compared to traits that keep coming up in completely unrelated species.  To paraphrase: dumb breeds faster, easier, more often and those seem to be better advantages than being selective or outthinking.  You get played by the faster breeders.  But best to see if you can find him explaining it better than my paraphrase. 

Thanks, that's very interesting. I won't carry on so as not to derail the thread, but I should probably read the Selfish Gene, I remember around the time it came out Richard Dawkins seemed to be appearing every other 5 minutes on some tv/radio programme or other, and there was so much hype around that I got rather fed up of it all and deferred reading it. A deferment that has lasted to this day ..   

[relm1]

I tried with my iPhone 14, but I cannot make the comet out in the picture, unfortunately.

I wish I had taken the department's Canon DSLR camera and sky tracker. We originally purchased them a decade ago in hopes of doing exoplanet detection, then tabled the idea after I was seriously injured. Two summers ago I returned to the project with a student - we proved conclusively that the camera is just too noisy to detect even a transiting gas giant against a red dwarf - dips in the light curve on the order of hundredths of a magnitude are too small to resolve.

Hmm, interesting.  Don't you also need super high resolution to detect the dips in light curve beyond just a pixel?  I thought exoplanetary transits requires very high end sensors and observatories not just a canon DSLR. 

You should try the iphone again for the comet but it should be in astro mode and on a tripod (or ground or something beyond just holding it).  It should be at least a six second exposure.  I took this either last week or the week before with iphone in a six second exposure.  It was right after sunset so sky was still bright but the comet is clearly visible in the center.  This was maybe 30 minutes after sunset since it was so low in the horizon, I had to try getting it even though the sky was too bright but now it's much higher in the sky so you can try for it an hour or so after sunset but dimmer.  Worth another try.

[krummholz]

Hmm, interesting.  Don't you also need super high resolution to detect the dips in light curve beyond just a pixel?  I thought exoplanetary transits requires very high end sensors and observatories not just a canon DSLR.

I'm not sure how super-high resolution would help you if you needed the image to extend beyond a single pixel - quite the reverse, the actual angular size of any star (except maybe Betelgeuse) is zero to a very good approximation, as you probably know. Any stellar image will occupy many pixels due to diffraction anyway, and for exoplanet detection you defocus slightly to avoid saturating pixels.

No, as I said, the main reason the DSLR was useless for the purpose was internal noise. For the test I targeted short-period shallow-amplitude Delta Scuti variables, on the theory that if I couldn't discern the dip in the light curve of that kind of star, detecting an exoplanet would be hopeless. My very first attempt at photometry was on Epsilon Cephei, and I thought at first that I had a good light curve from it, but it was only over one cycle and on repeat observations, turned out to be just noise that happened to have the expected shape. The amplitude of the variability has to be at least a few tenths of a magnitude for that camera to detect it reliably.

But if you think you can't detect exoplanets with amateur-level sensors and telescopes, google Dennis Conti, the guru of amateur exoplanet detection. He specifically recommends against using DSLR - CCD or CMOS are much superior for this purpose.

You should try the iphone again for the comet but it should be in astro mode and on a tripod (or ground or something beyond just holding it).  It should be at least a six second exposure.  I took this either last week or the week before with iphone in a six second exposure.  It was right after sunset so sky was still bright but the comet is clearly visible in the center.  This was maybe 30 minutes after sunset since it was so low in the horizon, I had to try getting it even though the sky was too bright but now it's much higher in the sky so you can try for it an hour or so after sunset but dimmer.  Worth another try.

Nice! But I have no way to mount my iPhone on my SkyTracker, so no way to do a time exposure. The other problem is that the comet is very likely no longer a naked-eye object. If we ever have another clear evening before the comet disappears entirely I may try again, but with the Canon and SkyTracker. Unfortunately, clear evenings are extremely rare this time of year in Vermont. We don't even have an outside chance of another until the weekend.