Axial rotation measurement anomaly *Update on pg 21 - Problem Solved*

Coming from Astromut, it's very serious shit...


I really hope he is RIGHT, and something is REALLY wrong, so I can get some good PANIC SEX!

Know your audience - really applies here.

To be fair, a guy in a trailer said he saw a wolf. I said I was going to go take a picture and show it to not be a wolf. Unfortunately I end up with a picture that looks like a wolf, but in hindsight I think I know why. I explain it. Now I could have hid the wolf-like picture, doing exactly what so many accuse me of doing, but instead I decide to do the honest thing. I didn't know going into it that the tripod would prove to be unreliable. That was my fault. I shouldn't have added a new complication to my old measurement technique. But I don't regret honestly reporting the problem and openly stating what I thought the problem was.

Coming from you, Dr. Astro, this is REALLY BIG!!!!


Awaiting to to see what additional info you develop.



:Hiding Kitty:

Of course a conspiracy theorist would argue that the OP has been instructed to make such a deliberate error and create initial alarm in order to calm the situation at a later time by admitting said error and prove his 'human side'.


Just saying.

To be fair, That was my fault.

It appears that all is right with the world. I found Polaris to be 835.7 pixels from the north celestial pole:
[link to i319.photobucket.com]
Previous astrometric calibration with this telescope and camera show that it has a resolution of 2.93 arcseconds per pixel:
[link to www.flickr.com]
Given that Polaris' declination after accounting for precession is 89d 19' 09.8", it should have been 2,450.2 arcseconds from the north celestial pole. 835.7*2.93 = 2448.601 for a difference of 1.599, less than the resolution of this telescope/camera combo and meaning that the NCP was exactly where it should have been in the image (I used my widefield refractor; had I used the main telescope Polaris would have been outside of the field of view and I would have had to measure off something else, leaving a question as to whether or not Polaris itself had mysteriously warped somewhere else). Here's the raw photograph from which the measurements were made. I used PixInsight dynamic background subtraction in the above version to subtract out some of the light pollution:
[link to i319.photobucket.com]

This thread has proved one thing to me. These people need
to go back to school and learn how to do math.

Thank you for your work tonight Astro ! it is appreciated !

It appears that all is right with the world. I found Polaris to be 835.7 pixels from the north celestial pole:
[link to i319.photobucket.com]
Previous astrometric calibration with this telescope and camera show that it has a resolution of 2.93 arcseconds per pixel:
[link to www.flickr.com]
Given that Polaris' declination after accounting for precession is 89d 19' 09.8", it should have been 2,450.2 arcseconds from the north celestial pole. 835.7*2.93 = 2448.601 for a difference of 1.599, less than the resolution of this telescope/camera combo and meaning that the NCP was exactly where it should have been in the image (I used my widefield refractor; had I used the main telescope Polaris would have been outside of the field of view and I would have had to measure off something else, leaving a question as to whether or not Polaris itself had mysteriously warped somewhere else). Here's the raw photograph from which the measurements were made. I used PixInsight dynamic background subtraction in the above version to subtract out some of the light pollution:
[link to i319.photobucket.com]

Astro. Thank you for conducting your experiment like a true scientist.

What you reported last night is good news. That type of doom is something I would not have wanted, so glad it turned out the way it did.

It's sad that some people don't understand the methodology of science. My job is in quality assurance in a science field and I see these type of things happen all the time. Most people don't understand that a test is done and then it is validated at least once, sometimes more, to verify it's accuracy. How many times a test is validated depends on the differences between the test and the validation.

In this example, the test and the validation yielded results that were much different. Maybe you would consider repeating your test again, with the same equipment, as a validation of the second test to prove the validity of last nights test and measurement?

I said from the beginning to expect that. I did this as openly and transparently as humanly possible. I really don't see how you can find fault with me.

That's another good lesson as well, but in my estimation a greater lesson could be learned from teaching how to question your own results and do the proper legwork to arrive at the correct answer. I explained time and time again that I believed the problem to be the camera tripod. That's not crying wolf.

Of course. If I check it, show what I'm doing, and explain the results then not only will it give good reason to believe me, but it will make whatever I did repeatable. That's how science works. You don't always, or even usually, get an exciting result. There are entire scientific journals dedicated to negative results. This, however, is an internet forum, not a scientific journal. I think it's more interesting and educational for everyone if they get to come along for the journey and see how it's done step by step as I do it.

To be fair, a guy in a trailer said he saw a wolf. I said I was going to go take a picture and show it to not be a wolf. Unfortunately I end up with a picture that looks like a wolf, but in hindsight I think I know why. I explain it. Now I could have hid the wolf-like picture, doing exactly what so many accuse me of doing, but instead I decide to do the honest thing. I didn't know going into it that the tripod would prove to be unreliable. That was my fault. I shouldn't have added a new complication to my old measurement technique. But I don't regret honestly reporting the problem and openly stating what I thought the problem was.

I HAVE FRIENDS THAT ARE IN ASTRONOMY CLUBS. I HAVE PRINTED THIS WHOLE THREAD AND I AM TAKING IT TOO THEM FOR SCRUTANY AND A LAUGH.

You printed 24 pages? Well, I guess if you're angry enough to type in all caps maybe you would do something like that, but if I saw a guy come into my club with 24 pages he printed off the internet for me to scrutinize, I might think him a little... 'off.' Funny how you think I should have hidden my results and done the very thing I've been accused of doing with so much vitriol. Well, if I say I'm going to do something, and I do it, I'm not going to lie in order to hide the results even I think they're flawed. I'll simply tell you I think they're flawed, like I did here. It's not about "attention whoring," it's about honesty.