Re: [APML] Science in Astrophotos

[Torsten Clay <tclay@theriver.com>]

> Torsten,
>
> > It takes more than technical perfection to do science. The important (and
> > hard) part is to come up with a question (that has not been answered
> > already!) that the image can shed light on :)
>
> You bring up some interesting points here so let me ask some more questions.
>
> First, I think it's quite easy to come up with a question that has not been
> answered. Let's try one. What would NGC XXXX look like if it could be seen
> in color? (For XXXX insert any number for which no color images of any kind
> exist.) If an astrophotographer carefully calibrates his system, takes the
> images required through a known filter set, creates a color image, and
> defines how the data was handled, why would this not be science?

How an object looks in "true color" is really just a philosophical
question. But imaging in different wavelength bands could be used for
example to give some idea as to what type of matter makes up the object,
from which one might be able to say something about how it was created,
etc.

Here's an analogy: say you take a true color picture of a tree with
leaves. Ok, so what? Now say you take a detailed spectrum of the tree and
sunlight- from the data you may be able to infer that there is the same
type of molecule (chlorophyll) in all the plants you examine that is
giving them a green color.

>
> OTOH, if one carefully calibrated his equipment, took photometric data of
> SAO XXXXX, and determined the star's magnitude within certain error limits,
> why is this science?
>
> Why is the first example not considered science and the second example
> considered to be science? I don't see any difference between the two. If
> anything the first example makes an effort to answer a question that has
> no existing answer. The magnitudes of all SAO stars are known to some
> accuracy. Why continue to take photometric data? In the hope of discovering
> a previously unknown variable?
>
> Why is photometry elevated to a level above serious astrophotography?
>

You left out the really important variable- time. Because the photometry
data vs time can be used (for example) to prove or disprove general
relativistic models of binary star systems. These magnitudes can change in
a relatively short period of time, and there may not be a professional
telescope available at that moment. But spectral data also used- it's just
harder to collect on an amateur budget.

Torsten



--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>