Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

esa.int

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 310 posts

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#281

Post by travisjungroth »

the_af wrote: post #256
travisjungroth wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No evidence helping it? Not a single thing that’s ever happened supports the idea that our current reality was constructed? > For me, it's easier to take what we see in our own "lawn" and expand it outwards to the cosmos as a whole. The uncomfortable thing about reality is that it’s often different from what is easier for us. What you choose to expand out into the galaxy or even the entire universe is a critical choi…

> No evidence helping it? Not a single thing that’s ever happened supports the idea that our current reality was constructed? I'm curious. What evidence do you see?

Mostly things that exist without other concrete explanations. Consciousness in humans and animals. A lack of contact with other intelligent life. The constants of the universe being such that the universe can exist at all and not do something like collapse on itself.

The common report of having met non-human entities, especially when on psychedelics.

Our own tendency to creat artificial worlds (farms, zoos) and simulations.

None of it proves anything or necessarily moves towards a constructed reality versus a specific alternative.

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#282

Post by seabass »

cconstantine wrote: post #195
seabass wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You already noticed the technical card [1], but I can describe some of the details that go into this for those unfamiliar with the items on it. 1. The scope they used is roughly equivalent to shooting with an 800mm telephoto lens. But the fact that it's 8" wide means it can let in a lot of light. 2. The camera [2] is a cooled monochrome camera. Sensor heat is a major source of noise, so the idea is to cool the sensor…

Thanks! I hadn't gotten to writing this out, but you've pretty much nailed it. > They most likely used a secondary camera whose sole purpose is to guide the mount and keep it pointed at the target object. I did use a guide camera with an off-axis guider, I'm not sure why it wasn't in the equipment list. I've added it. > The RGB filters were presumably for the star colors and to incorporate the blue from Alnitak into…

Ah, of course it's HaRGB. Really cool. I'm curious, you de-star the color layers or leave them as is when combining channels? When I've tried HaRGB, the Ha layer has the best/smallest stars which means that the RGB color layers end up leaving rings of color on the background around each star.

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#283

Post by the_af »

travisjungroth wrote: post #281
the_af wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No evidence helping it? Not a single thing that’s ever happened supports the idea that our current reality was constructed? I'm curious. What evidence do you see?

Mostly things that exist without other concrete explanations. Consciousness in humans and animals. A lack of contact with other intelligent life. The constants of the universe being such that the universe can exist at all and not do something like collapse on itself. The common report of having met non-human entities, especially when on psychedelics. Our own tendency to creat artificial worlds (farms, zoos) and simul…

I understand you're not saying this is a proof of anything.

However, I have a hard time understanding the connection between those things you list and "... and therefore this may be evidence of a constructed universe."

I just don't see it. For example, things "without concrete explanations" are more easily chalked to our lack of understanding. Or even better, to the idea that there's no "why" to the universe, it just is; we can sometimes understand the "how" to some degree, if at all.

I think some emergent properties like consciousness and others are elegantly hypothesized about in Stephen Jay Gould's "The Panda's Thumb". Some things arise as secondary structures to other things which more readily relate to the environment. Like some hypothesize -- mind you, not interested in whether this specific hypothesis is right or wrong, just an example -- that walking upright/hip posture may have precipitated the evolution of mammalian brain cortex as a side effect!

I don't want to pick on or challenge your every sentence, because I understand this is just opinion and we're all entitled to it. But I really don't see where's the evidence for a constructed universe.

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#284

Post by cconstantine »

seabass wrote: post #282
cconstantine wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks! I hadn't gotten to writing this out, but you've pretty much nailed it. > They most likely used a secondary camera whose sole purpose is to guide the mount and keep it pointed at the target object. I did use a guide camera with an off-axis guider, I'm not sure why it wasn't in the equipment list. I've added it. > The RGB filters were presumably for the star colors and to incorporate the blue from Alnitak into…

Ah, of course it's HaRGB. Really cool. I'm curious, you de-star the color layers or leave them as is when combining channels? When I've tried HaRGB, the Ha layer has the best/smallest stars which means that the RGB color layers end up leaving rings of color on the background around each star.

I don't remember exactly what I did, but I do remember running into that kind of problem. I probably used starnet2 to remove stars before doing much processing, and recombining stars towards the end.

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#285

Post by cconstantine »

mrexroad wrote: post #272
cconstantine wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha, yeah. I could go on for hours. I've had to learn that most people really don't want a lecture series on the finer points of astrophotography. Seabass's comment was pretty much perfect; a bit of detail, but not so much to get lost in the detail. I tried to write a quick comment on my process a couple of times before they posted, and each time I had way too many words on a small detail.

Nonsense! Just one more story, please? (Thanks for sharing!)

How about a talk by an expert on the topic of noise in an image: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RH93UvP358

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#286

Post by the_af »

WorldMaker wrote: post #266
antod wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really like Brian Cox, but I do really wish he'd aim his content a bit higher and pack a bit more information into it. I hesitate to use "dumbed down" though (maybe I would if I didn't like him so much), more like it's just a bit too laid back and slow like it's aimed at people not really paying attention.

I feel like Brian Cox over-corrected as his career has progressed further and further into the "science edutainer" career. His early books were fascinating glimpses into String Theory and M-Theory and often got criticized for being too dense. To be fair, a similar criticism is often levied at Niel deGrasse Tyson as well that his modern persona is too laid back and slow and aimed at people not really paying attention,…

I think the divulgator role is necessary though. I like Neil's laid back & slow persona. He communicates for effect, glossing over details which would overwhelm casual audiences. He is emotional, grave or funny as needed. He simplifies where it's needed for a 40 minute episode of a show aimed at general audiences (like myself!).

I feel the role of science communicators/eduitaners such as these is to spark an interest in the topic. You can later go for details elsewhere, or even pursue a career in science.

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#287

Post by jodrellblank »

brcmthrowaway wrote: post #159
danielovichdk wrote: post #119

When I look at these images I instantly and fully understand why we are interested in the universe. It is such an incredibly thing. Absolutely astonishing.

For this to exist and me shunting JavaScript around from place to place.. whats the point?

The point is that you get to buy dinner tomorrow.

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#289

Post by WorldMaker »

the_af wrote: post #286
WorldMaker wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like Brian Cox over-corrected as his career has progressed further and further into the "science edutainer" career. His early books were fascinating glimpses into String Theory and M-Theory and often got criticized for being too dense. To be fair, a similar criticism is often levied at Niel deGrasse Tyson as well that his modern persona is too laid back and slow and aimed at people not really paying attention,…

I think the divulgator role is necessary though. I like Neil's laid back & slow persona. He communicates for effect, glossing over details which would overwhelm casual audiences. He is emotional, grave or funny as needed. He simplifies where it's needed for a 40 minute episode of a show aimed at general audiences (like myself!). I feel the role of science communicators/eduitaners such as these is to spark an interest…

Yeah, I agree there is a great utility to it, and it can be of great benefit. I also still think that it feels a useful criticism to keep mentioning as well because there's that always balance to strike in the huge wide spectrum between "mainstream and fluffy and almost void of content" and "deep and interesting but hard to follow and more clearly for a niche audience.

It's a bit of a hysteresis, right, of constantly trying to fight for that "perfect" (nonexistent?) fit of strong content to largest audience. Like with most science itself, you experiment with some content, use the reviews and criticism you get back to compensate for the next content. When I accuse Brian Cox or NdGT "over-compensating" a little to the broad it's not that I don't think they are doing the right thing, it's that I hope their next hysteresis swing might go a bit denser again and maybe criticism like mine will be useful if either of them read HN.

Similarly, I respect Bill Nye's attempts so much because it seems (from the outside, from mixed reviews I've read, from other people talking about the shows) to be, if not "failing" then certainly not as successful as they could be. As science reminds us, failed experiments are useful too, and I don't necessarily want people to believe in the boring null hypothesis that "People don't want harder science discussions" and I don't want for people like Bill Nye to give up on trying to broach the hard topics (like Climate Change and more science that should be mainstream but is fighting disinformation and/or disinterest). (Not that I think Bill himself would give up, but that it might discourage people trying to follow in Bill's footsteps.) I would love to see more of these "edutainers" trying to do the hard stuff more of the time, get a wilder balance/mix. I want to see more stuff in general in the spectrum as a whole. I don't think "celebrity" is necessarily zero sum and that these "edutainers" are competing among each other for the same audiences, but there does seem to be some scarcity factors for "celebrity scientist" at play to account for.

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#290

Post by broscillator »

jll29 wrote: post #72
patates wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A lot" is the number of fish in a swarm maybe. This is so far away from our concept of counting things that the mind just gives up. There's no comparison, no dumbing down to X amount of football fields, just nothing. I find it depressing, confusing but also inspiring and fascinating at the same time.

That feeling of awe, if that could be shared with most people on earth - perhaps they wouldn't waste their pity lives fighting each other.

Some substances can get you there.
Post reply on HN