April 2013 - Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

Beautiful moonset
by Chuck Hards 25 Apr '13

25 Apr '13

I watched a really nice moonset over the Oquirrh mountains this morning. I'm also amazed at how light the eastern sky is by 5 AM. The solstice is rapidly approaching!

2 1

ISON tonight, 2013 APR 25 / Happy B-day HST
by Patrick Wiggins 24 Apr '13

24 Apr '13

Nearly full Moon pretty well washed out ISON this evening. http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/C_2012_S1.2013APR25.JPG In other news, happy birthday to the HST launched 1990 APR 24. patrick

1 0

Hubble Looks at ISON
by jcarman6＠q.com 24 Apr '13

24 Apr '13

The first link I clicked and read didn't have a picture, here is a link to the picture, the article reads pretty much the same. http://news.yahoo.com/hubble-telescope-spies-incoming-comet-ison-221940848.… ISON is losing a tremendous amount of material (per the article). There appears a good chance ISON won't make it to sun. It may break up long before. That would be interesting to see as well, except it is 4 miles in diameter. That's pretty big. Halley's was much smaller than expected, about 1/2 mile.

1 0

Today's APOD: Infrared Horsehead
by Kelly Ricks 24 Apr '13

24 Apr '13

I think today's APOD will go down as one of my all time favorites! I am blown away by the detail and dimension. It makes me really excited to see what the James Webb sends back in a few years. Maybe I won't miss visual-light images as much as I thought I might. ~Kelly

8 8

reminder of the next ATM session
by Hutchings, Mat 24 Apr '13

24 Apr '13

Howdy all; Just a quick reminder that the next ATM session is this Saturday (4/27/13) from 09:00 until 14:00 in my garage. Immediately following the ATM session, a planning meeting for the 2013 Utah Star Party will take place. If you need directions to my house or have any questions regarding this, please let me know in an off-list e-mail. Thanks! Mat This message and any attachments are solely for the use of intended recipients. The information contained herein may include trade secrets, protected health or personal information, privileged or otherwise confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this email in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email and any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please contact the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your system. Thank you for your cooperation

3 3

The African coelacanth genome provides insights into tetrapod evolution : Nature : Nature Publishing Group
by Dave Gary 24 Apr '13

24 Apr '13

Chuck, Speaking of color perception, evolution and such I thought you might be interested in the open article on Nature magazine’s web site about the African coelacanth and tetrapod evolution. The African coelacanth’s genome has been sequenced. Very interesting. Dave http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7445/full/nature12027.html

2 1

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Color perception (WAS: Re: Today's APOD: Infrared Horsehead)
by Joe Bauman 23 Apr '13

23 Apr '13

No, I agree with you on that, Chuck. Acutally, I've wondered if our brains even perceive vision in the same way. It really involves the way our brains interpret certain types of nerve signals. We could teach a computer to recognize certain wavelengths of light as colors -- but how does the computer process those wavelenghts? Probably not the way our brains do. -- Joe ------------------------------ On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 5:38 PM MDT Chuck Hards wrote: >Oh, my mistake Joe. We've discussed it before and my recollection was that >you disagreed with my position that the assignment of specific colors to >specific wavelengths wasn't an intrinsic property of the wavelength. > On Apr 23, 2013 5:27 PM, "Joe Bauman" <josephmbauman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> Chuck, I don't know that we're on different sides at all. I was just >> stating my ideas after you said something like Despite what Joe thinks ... >> ACtually you don't need to change my mind about anything. I think we agree >> on this. -- Joe >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 6:52 AM MDT Chuck Hards wrote: >> >> >You wrote: >> >"But the wavelengths themselves that make up color definitely are an >> >intrinsic quality. How we perceive them is up to our brains" >> > >> >That's exactly what I've been saying. >> > >> > A specific wavelength does describe a color as we perceive it, but human >> >perception and individual experience does not indicate an intrinsic >> >quality. "We've agreed to call that color red" isn't a proof of such a >> >quality, it's a convention particular to human perception. Where we seem >> >to disconnect (and please correct me if I've misunderstood you) is that >> you >> >won't divorce the wavelength (which is an indisputable physical property) >> >from a color association, which I maintain is a strictly human >> >interpretation of that wavelength. >> > >> >The brain's perception is not an intrinsic quality, yet that is where >> color >> >exists. That is how we evolved to differentiate between energy levels >> >(wavelengths). >> > >> >This subject actually has some good debate on both sides, and hasn't been >> >settled scientifically. >> > >> >Here is an excellent paper on the two sides of the argument. By these >> >definitions, Joe, if you want to take the strictly science-supportable >> >stance, I believe it shows that your argument actually falls into >> agreement >> >with me (i.e., that "red, blue, and the like do not appear in the >> inventory >> >of properties recognized by the sciences"). >> > >> >Give it a read. It's pretty interesting and summarizes the argument both >> >ways very lucidly, although I think when you take the anthropocentric view >> >and philosophy out of the equation, the "Relational" argument (what I have >> >mistakenly referred to as "relative" in the past, but it's the same >> >concept) is the more robust. >> > >> >My goal isn't necessarily to convince you to change your mind on the >> >subject, but to take another look at it, and possibly admit that it is not >> >actually as cut-and-dried as you think it is. >> > >> >http://aardvark.ucsd.edu/color/guided_tour.html >> > >> >Finally, here's an interesting, somewhat humorous little piece on >> >possible alien color perception, by a noted author on vision: >> > >> > >> http://www.science20.com/mark_changizi/alien_vision_revolution_halloween_ed… >> > >> >On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman(a)yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > But the wavelengths themselves that make up color definitely are an >> > intrinsic quality. How we perceive them is up to our brains. But you can >> > use all types of objective instruments to read the angstrom ratings of >> > color. If you check what we perceive as red, it will show up as 700 >> > millimicrons. There is no way around it. We have agreed to call that >> > frequency red. It is that frequency independent of your or my color >> > sensitivity. It exists as an independent entity. I would never argue >> that >> > everyone perceives colors the same -- what my brain thinks of as colors >> > might be something else to yours -- but I do maintain that the colors >> are >> > independent of our senses. They exist. >> > Any eye or instrument able to focus light, and which is sensitive >> enough >> > to distinguish among wavelengths, can agree that light streaming out of >> the >> > Orion Nebula at 700 millimicrons is "red" or whatever other label >> creatures >> > from another planet put on it. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards(a)gmail.com> >> > To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> >> > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 2:43 PM >> > Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Color perception (WAS: Re: Today's APOD: >> > Infrared Horsehead) >> > >> > >> > Joe, you've never heard of people who associate colors with sounds, or >> even >> > certain numbers or printed text? It's a fascinating phenomenon, if you >> > care to research it. >> > >> > I'm afraid that colors, as we perceive them, are not an intrinsic >> quality >> > of a particular wavelength. I wouldn't discount the possibility that an >> > alien race that evolved under a sun with the same color as ours, or very >> > close to it, and with vision that is active over approximately the same >> > wavelength range as ours, would probably perceive colors similarly to >> us. >> > But another alien race, with vision sensitive above or below what we can >> > see, might look at our sky and see something very, very different than >> what >> > we call "blue". The rainbow would look very different to a race with >> > microwave-sensitive vision, or vision sensitive to infra-red >> wavelengths. >> > >> > On this planet, we're all on the same page as to what "green" looks >> like, >> > but to a race with spectral sensitivity different than ours, their >> > "rainbow" would be composed of a pallet that we may not even be able to >> > conceive of. It's a pretty cool idea, actually. Color perception is >> > relative, not absolute or intrinsic to wavelength, except among beings >> with >> > the same eye and brain mechanisms. >> > There are even documented cases of human beings who's eyes are >> sensitive to >> > a broader spectrum than the general population, due to a physiological >> > difference in the retina. They see colors very differently than even >> their >> > fellow human beings. There's a good argument right there that color >> > association, or perception, isn't intrinsic to wavelength, and doesn't >> > require "what ifs" or aliens spawned under a different colored sun. >> > >> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman(a)yahoo.com >> > >wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > Associating colors with sound, this one sounds like WOW! (Chuck, I >> don't >> > > disagree that colors are perceived by our brains, but I argue that >> > whatever >> > > they are like, they exist independently of our brains in definable >> ways, >> > as >> > > shown by our measurements. And we can represent these actual >> wavelengths >> > by >> > > printed colors that we can identify visually.) -- Joe >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >Utah-Astronomy mailing list >> >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >> > >> >Send messages to the list to >> >Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com >> > >> >The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. >> > >> >To unsubscribe go to: >> >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >> >Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on >> "Unsubscribe or edit options". >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Utah-Astronomy mailing list >> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >> >> Send messages to the list to >> Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com >> >> The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. >> >> To unsubscribe go to: >> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >> Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on >> "Unsubscribe or edit options". >> >_______________________________________________ >Utah-Astronomy mailing list >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > >Send messages to the list to >Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > >The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. > >To unsubscribe go to: >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Color perception (WAS: Re: Today's APOD: Infrared Horsehead)
by Joe Bauman 23 Apr '13

23 Apr '13

Chuck, I don't know that we're on different sides at all. I was just stating my ideas after you said something like Despite what Joe thinks ... ACtually you don't need to change my mind about anything. I think we agree on this. -- Joe ------------------------------ On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 6:52 AM MDT Chuck Hards wrote: >You wrote: >"But the wavelengths themselves that make up color definitely are an >intrinsic quality. How we perceive them is up to our brains" > >That's exactly what I've been saying. > > A specific wavelength does describe a color as we perceive it, but human >perception and individual experience does not indicate an intrinsic >quality. "We've agreed to call that color red" isn't a proof of such a >quality, it's a convention particular to human perception. Where we seem >to disconnect (and please correct me if I've misunderstood you) is that you >won't divorce the wavelength (which is an indisputable physical property) >from a color association, which I maintain is a strictly human >interpretation of that wavelength. > >The brain's perception is not an intrinsic quality, yet that is where color >exists. That is how we evolved to differentiate between energy levels >(wavelengths). > >This subject actually has some good debate on both sides, and hasn't been >settled scientifically. > >Here is an excellent paper on the two sides of the argument. By these >definitions, Joe, if you want to take the strictly science-supportable >stance, I believe it shows that your argument actually falls into agreement >with me (i.e., that "red, blue, and the like do not appear in the inventory >of properties recognized by the sciences"). > >Give it a read. It's pretty interesting and summarizes the argument both >ways very lucidly, although I think when you take the anthropocentric view >and philosophy out of the equation, the "Relational" argument (what I have >mistakenly referred to as "relative" in the past, but it's the same >concept) is the more robust. > >My goal isn't necessarily to convince you to change your mind on the >subject, but to take another look at it, and possibly admit that it is not >actually as cut-and-dried as you think it is. > >http://aardvark.ucsd.edu/color/guided_tour.html > >Finally, here's an interesting, somewhat humorous little piece on >possible alien color perception, by a noted author on vision: > >http://www.science20.com/mark_changizi/alien_vision_revolution_halloween_ed… > >On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> But the wavelengths themselves that make up color definitely are an >> intrinsic quality. How we perceive them is up to our brains. But you can >> use all types of objective instruments to read the angstrom ratings of >> color. If you check what we perceive as red, it will show up as 700 >> millimicrons. There is no way around it. We have agreed to call that >> frequency red. It is that frequency independent of your or my color >> sensitivity. It exists as an independent entity. I would never argue that >> everyone perceives colors the same -- what my brain thinks of as colors >> might be something else to yours -- but I do maintain that the colors are >> independent of our senses. They exist. >> Any eye or instrument able to focus light, and which is sensitive enough >> to distinguish among wavelengths, can agree that light streaming out of the >> Orion Nebula at 700 millimicrons is "red" or whatever other label creatures >> from another planet put on it. >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards(a)gmail.com> >> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> >> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 2:43 PM >> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Color perception (WAS: Re: Today's APOD: >> Infrared Horsehead) >> >> >> Joe, you've never heard of people who associate colors with sounds, or even >> certain numbers or printed text? It's a fascinating phenomenon, if you >> care to research it. >> >> I'm afraid that colors, as we perceive them, are not an intrinsic quality >> of a particular wavelength. I wouldn't discount the possibility that an >> alien race that evolved under a sun with the same color as ours, or very >> close to it, and with vision that is active over approximately the same >> wavelength range as ours, would probably perceive colors similarly to us. >> But another alien race, with vision sensitive above or below what we can >> see, might look at our sky and see something very, very different than what >> we call "blue". The rainbow would look very different to a race with >> microwave-sensitive vision, or vision sensitive to infra-red wavelengths. >> >> On this planet, we're all on the same page as to what "green" looks like, >> but to a race with spectral sensitivity different than ours, their >> "rainbow" would be composed of a pallet that we may not even be able to >> conceive of. It's a pretty cool idea, actually. Color perception is >> relative, not absolute or intrinsic to wavelength, except among beings with >> the same eye and brain mechanisms. >> There are even documented cases of human beings who's eyes are sensitive to >> a broader spectrum than the general population, due to a physiological >> difference in the retina. They see colors very differently than even their >> fellow human beings. There's a good argument right there that color >> association, or perception, isn't intrinsic to wavelength, and doesn't >> require "what ifs" or aliens spawned under a different colored sun. >> >> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman(a)yahoo.com >> >wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > Associating colors with sound, this one sounds like WOW! (Chuck, I don't >> > disagree that colors are perceived by our brains, but I argue that >> whatever >> > they are like, they exist independently of our brains in definable ways, >> as >> > shown by our measurements. And we can represent these actual wavelengths >> by >> > printed colors that we can identify visually.) -- Joe >> >_______________________________________________ >Utah-Astronomy mailing list >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > >Send messages to the list to >Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > >The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. > >To unsubscribe go to: >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".

2 1

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Color perception (WAS: Re: Today's APOD: Infrared Horsehead)
by Joe Bauman 23 Apr '13

23 Apr '13

Chuck, I don't know that we're on different sides at all. I was just stating my ideas after you said something like Despite what Joe thinks ... ACtually you don't need to change my mind about anything. I think we agree on this. -- Joe ------------------------------ On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 6:52 AM MDT Chuck Hards wrote: >You wrote: >"But the wavelengths themselves that make up color definitely are an >intrinsic quality. How we perceive them is up to our brains" > >That's exactly what I've been saying. > > A specific wavelength does describe a color as we perceive it, but human >perception and individual experience does not indicate an intrinsic >quality. "We've agreed to call that color red" isn't a proof of such a >quality, it's a convention particular to human perception. Where we seem >to disconnect (and please correct me if I've misunderstood you) is that you >won't divorce the wavelength (which is an indisputable physical property) >from a color association, which I maintain is a strictly human >interpretation of that wavelength. > >The brain's perception is not an intrinsic quality, yet that is where color >exists. That is how we evolved to differentiate between energy levels >(wavelengths). > >This subject actually has some good debate on both sides, and hasn't been >settled scientifically. > >Here is an excellent paper on the two sides of the argument. By these >definitions, Joe, if you want to take the strictly science-supportable >stance, I believe it shows that your argument actually falls into agreement >with me (i.e., that "red, blue, and the like do not appear in the inventory >of properties recognized by the sciences"). > >Give it a read. It's pretty interesting and summarizes the argument both >ways very lucidly, although I think when you take the anthropocentric view >and philosophy out of the equation, the "Relational" argument (what I have >mistakenly referred to as "relative" in the past, but it's the same >concept) is the more robust. > >My goal isn't necessarily to convince you to change your mind on the >subject, but to take another look at it, and possibly admit that it is not >actually as cut-and-dried as you think it is. > >http://aardvark.ucsd.edu/color/guided_tour.html > >Finally, here's an interesting, somewhat humorous little piece on >possible alien color perception, by a noted author on vision: > >http://www.science20.com/mark_changizi/alien_vision_revolution_halloween_ed… > >On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> But the wavelengths themselves that make up color definitely are an >> intrinsic quality. How we perceive them is up to our brains. But you can >> use all types of objective instruments to read the angstrom ratings of >> color. If you check what we perceive as red, it will show up as 700 >> millimicrons. There is no way around it. We have agreed to call that >> frequency red. It is that frequency independent of your or my color >> sensitivity. It exists as an independent entity. I would never argue that >> everyone perceives colors the same -- what my brain thinks of as colors >> might be something else to yours -- but I do maintain that the colors are >> independent of our senses. They exist. >> Any eye or instrument able to focus light, and which is sensitive enough >> to distinguish among wavelengths, can agree that light streaming out of the >> Orion Nebula at 700 millimicrons is "red" or whatever other label creatures >> from another planet put on it. >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards(a)gmail.com> >> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> >> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 2:43 PM >> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Color perception (WAS: Re: Today's APOD: >> Infrared Horsehead) >> >> >> Joe, you've never heard of people who associate colors with sounds, or even >> certain numbers or printed text? It's a fascinating phenomenon, if you >> care to research it. >> >> I'm afraid that colors, as we perceive them, are not an intrinsic quality >> of a particular wavelength. I wouldn't discount the possibility that an >> alien race that evolved under a sun with the same color as ours, or very >> close to it, and with vision that is active over approximately the same >> wavelength range as ours, would probably perceive colors similarly to us. >> But another alien race, with vision sensitive above or below what we can >> see, might look at our sky and see something very, very different than what >> we call "blue". The rainbow would look very different to a race with >> microwave-sensitive vision, or vision sensitive to infra-red wavelengths. >> >> On this planet, we're all on the same page as to what "green" looks like, >> but to a race with spectral sensitivity different than ours, their >> "rainbow" would be composed of a pallet that we may not even be able to >> conceive of. It's a pretty cool idea, actually. Color perception is >> relative, not absolute or intrinsic to wavelength, except among beings with >> the same eye and brain mechanisms. >> There are even documented cases of human beings who's eyes are sensitive to >> a broader spectrum than the general population, due to a physiological >> difference in the retina. They see colors very differently than even their >> fellow human beings. There's a good argument right there that color >> association, or perception, isn't intrinsic to wavelength, and doesn't >> require "what ifs" or aliens spawned under a different colored sun. >> >> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman(a)yahoo.com >> >wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > Associating colors with sound, this one sounds like WOW! (Chuck, I don't >> > disagree that colors are perceived by our brains, but I argue that >> whatever >> > they are like, they exist independently of our brains in definable ways, >> as >> > shown by our measurements. And we can represent these actual wavelengths >> by >> > printed colors that we can identify visually.) -- Joe >> >_______________________________________________ >Utah-Astronomy mailing list >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > >Send messages to the list to >Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > >The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. > >To unsubscribe go to: >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".

1 0

ISS this eveing
by Patrick Wiggins 23 Apr '13

23 Apr '13

CalSly is calling for another nice ISS pass this eveing. patrick Appears 21h13m24s 3.5mag az:308.1° NW horizon Culmination 21h18m47s -3.9mag az: 34.0° NE h:62.0° distance: 458.7km height above Earth: 409.8km elevation of Sun: -12° Disappears 21h20m53s -2.7mag az:111.5° ESE h:19.7°

1 0