Observing and Drawing Neptune - (What?!) - Mind Stacking for clarity

We are all familiar with visual images of Neptune. It is a relatively featureless planet, save for a few dark storms and the occasional white patch. Telescopic views in even the largest telescopes from Earth show a tiny blue ball. Even the view from the Hubble Space Telescope, (below), where the atmosphere is not interfering, show a pixellated ball. 

Can one really see features on Neptune with a humble telescope on Earth? Surprisingly, the answer seems to be 'yes'. Both Uranus and Neptune show three prominent bands to the eye, but not to every eye. The effect may be an infrared one - the Purkinje effect. Quite simply, some eyes are more sensitive to red light than are other eyes. Variable star observers may thus see red stars as brighter than they actually are. I hypothesise that this effect may be the reason that many observers in the past saw dark red/brown canals on Mars, whereas others did not. The domain of the canals may well be the domain of infra-red light. 

In fact, the various bands do show up in infrared rather well. Uranus in infrared, (below) looks like Neptune in visible (above). It may thus be considered that Uranus is a lower-energy emitter than Neptune and much the same system. We also note that the outer ring is most highly energised... (we would hypothesise with electrical energy), very much as is the case with Saturn's outer ring, which is braided like a woman's hair, and thus highly electromagnetically charged. 

The infrared picture vindicates visual observations of Uranus which indicated that it did in fact have banding, a 'myth' which was supposedly dispelled when the featureless pictures from Voyager II came out thirty years ago. Here are some 1950s drawings of Uranus and Neptune which I scanned out of an old book. (Golden Treasury of Natural History, by Bertha Parker). As can be seen, banding is shown on drawings by visual observers, on the outer planets. In other words, the viewers (those who were capable of doing so), were seeing the elements of Uranian weather at the boundary of the infra-red wavelength. 

Banding on Uranus is described in the 'Uranus' article in Encyclopedia Britannica, by Chicago University Press, 1972 edition. It is a kind of 'suppressed knowledge' these days, among books which will tell you there is nothing to see on these outer planets in a telescope. This is one of those mythical lies which grows legs of its own and spreads from book to book like a virus as no-body is willing to go against the grain. To the content of the Encyclopedia:

"Uranus when viewed through a large telescope appears as a bluish-green disk about 4in. in diameter. A white central streak and some dusky bands have been noted, but no definite spots from which the rotation period could be determined." (vol. 22, p. 784.) The encyclopedia goes on to say that bands were observed in 1870. This is on a planet with allegedly no surface detail. 

I believe that observation can sometimes bring out more detail than these photographs can show. I have to be very careful with this statement as it can quite obviously seem rather problematic unless it is appropriately clarified. The difference between photographs and the human eye is that the eye has a mind behind it when it forms a notion of what an image looks like. Conventionally, the eye must look at a planet for a long time and 'learn' what it looks like. If we want a photograph, by comparison, we take many images of that picture and then use software to stack the images. This provides us with a high-resolution image which may or may not display reality. Stacking is used all the time for planetary imaging and has replaced many long exposure techniques of the past which created much fuzzier images. 

'Learning' is a form of mental stacking. The mind is infinitely complex. It stacks images when it tries to learn what something looks like. Lowell's canals are an example of this. Although the canals themselves may not be present, the use of stacking allowed Lowell to perhaps perceive features such as strings of craters, etc. In 2008 when I finally located Neptune in the telescope, I was fortunate enough to have had some very steady seeing conditions over many nights and proceeded to make many sketches of that planet.  My sketches didn't show much at all... a ball... with a streak down one side.... the shaky star-like image could show little else. Eventually I had a collection of these images in my observation book and began to try to piece them together. I drew two equatorial belts onto a map the planet and then begin to fill the features of my notebooks in the way they could best 'fit'. The result is quite hypothetical, but it remains, one of the few maps of Neptune ever attempted from planet Earth. 

My hypothetical map of Neptune's surface. There are many ways of arranging the dots and patches I recored. This is one way:

How was this map created? Using 100x magnification, and an 8" scope. You heard me right. This is a pretty standard telescope. At only 100x the planet is a mere pinprick of blue and a barely-discernible disk. Why not use a larger magnification? Perhaps this might be a worthwhile proposition in a much larger telescope, but at only 8", it's not worth attempting. 

Then there is the problem that scopes above 10" inches show 'too much' resolution. This leads to a generally poorer view of planets as the advanced scope begins to pick up the individual air currents as interference patterns. A smaller scope will thus show a planet with less detail, but for a longer period of steadiness, and a larger scope will show more detail for infuriatingly short moments between longer moments of atmospheric instability.The conundrum echoes the words of Percival Lowell: 'large telescopes are ill suited for planetary observation'. Thus we see that large scopes are not actually required for high-level observation. The brain is the primary tool for observation and if it can learn then it can see. 

When one observes for drawing, one must mentally stack images in one's mind before committing them to paper. This can perhaps help to overcome the theoretical Dawes Limit for resolution, which is more like a rule of thumb than an actual law of physics for observers, as it does not take into consideration that we see with our minds as well as with our eyes. 

Observing is a skill which is learned by a long period of observation and drawing. Are filters required? I have never used filters and the best planetary observers tend to agree that the same image is present without the filter. The filter just cuts out certain wavelengths which allow our brain to see the image with greater clarity.  So are they useful? For any observer, I would say 'yes', give them a try. Like anything, they are a learning tool to help us learn a lot faster which features are present. On Mars they can be very useful for bringing out the clouds and polar caps. On Jupiter and Saturn they are also very useful for bringing out detail in the belts and making the great red spot, (It's been white the past few years), more visible. Overall however, they add more glass to the focal system, and in doing so, reduce and worsen the quality of the incoming image. Cheerio! 

NASA article supports Mundane Astrology

Once again I unfortunately caused quite a kerfuffle on an astronomical forum when I presented an article vindicating the effects of planetary lineups on the Sun. It was a position heartily opposed by most of the astronomers who replied, (namely men... few or no women took part in opposing astrology, which indicates once again that male-psychology rather than empirical rationale is responsible for materialist thinking.) 

Initially I had been criticized by several of the same commentators, (out of a forum of 10,000 members), for presenting 'old' information, when I dared to demonstrate the existence of John Nelson's pioneering work regarding line-ups in Electrical Engineering. John Nelson was an avid observer as well as radio operator. He did work for broadcasting companies which demonstrated that hard Ptolemaic aspects have a derogatory effect upon the propagation of electrical signal. When I presented this work in vindication of astrology I was informed by one commentator that this work was 'out of date'. Fair enough. 

Nelson's Observatory:

Nelson's work: 

http://www.enterprisemission.com/jnelson1.html

Hard Aspects: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrological_aspect

Since Nelson's work is clearly obsolete and is therefore not good enough to prove the veracity of the basic principles underlying traditional Mundane astrology, I resorted to a recent N.A.S.A. article of 2007 which indicates that alignments do indeed cause solar storms, with a probability of less than one percent that they do not. (0.039 percent to be exact). 

Abstract:

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/Citations.aspx?id=330

Link to pdf:

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2007/TM-2007-214817.pdf

On said forum, I had been informed that there was little or no effect of planets upon the Sun, or that such effect was insignificant. It had to be that way since astrology must be false, right? (I mean there is a clear historical path from astrology to astronomy just as there is a path from capitalism to communism.) Yet several commentators seemed to be quite taken aback by the existence of this article which ipso facto proves otherwise. The article categorically states: 

'Separately, from the daily position data of Venus, Earth, and Jupiter, an 11-year planet alignment cycle (my emphasis) is observed to approximately match the sunspot cycle. This observation supports the hypothesis that the resonance and beat between the solar tide cycle and nontidal solar activity cycle influences the sunspot cycle and its varying magnitudes.' (article summary). 

There is more, much more. Various articles state that solar storms appear to be responsible for earthquakes. Thus, alignments are also responsible for earthquakes since they trigger solar storms, (sunspots).... It's an unfortunate scientific and practical reality for many, even though it is seen as 'superstition'. ( Tamrazyan, Gurgen P. (1968). "Principal Regularities in the Distribution of Major Earthquakes Relative to Solar and Lunar Tides and Other Cosmic Forces". ICARUS (Elsevier) 9: pp. 574–592 )


Since I had dared to challenge orthodoxy, I was informed I was cherry picking. (It appears that 'Cherry picking' is to search for specific information pertaining to one's case.) I realized that one problem interfering with the path to a broader understanding was the definition of astrology itself. Many of the people on said forum were actually assuming that mundane astrology was the same was horoscope astrology. They thought that if one of their horoscopes was wrong, once or twice in their lifetime, then it invalidated a 6000 year old and assiduously compiled tradition, which has been supported by such giants as Claudius Ptolemy, (who compiled the much older Egyptian and Sumerian traditions into Tetrabiblos), Tycho Brahe, Kepler, and now a journal of the North American Space Agency (N.A.S.A). There is of course some relation between horoscope and Mundane astrology, but horoscope astrology is more a Greek fad from just before the age of Christ. The constellations have now shifted a gear since then such that astrological constellation does not match the constellation in the sky, as they once did. Thus synchronicity is perhaps the only way it can still work, if it ever did. 

Mundane astrology, which I will always champion, is far far older and is concerned with a study of weather cycles based upon the effects of planets upon the Sun. Chronologically it goes something like this.... 100,000 BC = The development of 'Mundane' = World Events Astrology. (Mundus = World). 300BC is more the time of the development of Horoscope astrology. The late great Stan Gooch would have gone further in his analysis. The title says it all: Dream culture of the Neanderthals, retitled from an earlier work, in 2003. With their immense minds of 1600cc, the Neadnerthals may have been far more aware than astrologers are today, regarding historical cycles and changes. Neanderthals have been in Europe for 500,000 years. We can only imagine what knowledge they would have passed down before they were wiped out in the race wars of 9000 BC in Northern Europe, before being forced to flee to the Pyrenees, Britain, the Caucasus mountains, and Japan, for safety. 

Mundane astrology is also found in the Holy Book... Seven years of plenty and seven years of harvest were worked out by the royal astrologer for Pharoah by a long term study of cycles. Since the Bible wanted to remove 'black magic', astrology was expunged as it perhaps unfairly came under the category of 'divination' = searching for synchronicity. This is not the case in mundane astrology, only horoscope astrology. In defense of horoscope astrology however, I will say this... it is commonly criticized as being rather psychological and therefore not scientific. This is true. The only problem with the application of this reasoning is that day-to-day human life is entirely psychological and not conducted in a scientific manner either.  

The good thing about Mundane astrology is that it is entirely empirical. In other words it is based entirely upon correlation of planetary position with weather-related and economic-related events occurring on Earth. If things do not correlate, then hypotheses are thrown out. Astrology-related correlations regarding history have been made since Sumerian times. The difficulty in quantifying or isolating variables has resulted in astrology being labelled a pseudoscience, but that's like saying the Earth is pseudoscience since there are many variables going on all the time, and we should not examine how they interact as a meta-narrative.

It was Jacques Vallee who said something along the lines: 'If we tell a man he is imagining something it will only convince the public that science is inept and unwilling to investigate'. 

Views on the Veracity of Astrology

Recently I ruffled a few feathers on an astronomy forum by suggesting that astrology is a legitimate science.

Here is the thread. I am the user 'overlord'.

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=75928

I was accused of being a troll by one individual for refusing to agree with everyone that the name of Australia had been besmirched; for it seemed to a certain American commentator that Australians were firm believers in Astrology. They had used their 'astrologers' to predict an impending alignment of 5 planets at dawn.

Here is the article in which an American journalist claims the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is living in the dark ages:

Media shame of the month: Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Being something of an astrology enthusiast I proceeded to point out to several people that not everyone shared their opinion. I believe I pointed out that planetary alignments are of great use to astrologers and it is the primary reason that they are studied. Thus there would really be nothing wrong with the ABC journalist saying: 'Astrologers predicted the alignment'. In fact, it is not an insult, but a complement and it is quite factual. Astrologers have been predicting alignments for millennia and they are more than qualified to do so. The statement was correct.

In fact, alignments are of little use to astronomers as there is little to be gained unless an occultation occurs. Many astronomers consider it spurious to study the tidal or gravitational effects of alignments upon the Sun even though there is a very strong tidal effect, as proven by the following chart. It is to be noted that a very considerable alignment occurred in 1982. The effect of the alignment was to pull the Sun out of the center of the Solar System. The center of mass, often located inside the Sun, moved to almost one solar-diameter more distant from the Sun's center, than was otherwise the case.

The effect would bring the Sun relatively closer and more distant to Earth within a single year than is usually the case. The result? Extreme weather, crop failure, and with the dimunition of availability of primary commodity... resulting in recession and revolution.... Sounds familiar doesn't it? The world experienced some unusually hard astrological aspects in the past several years. Crop prices almost trippled in 2008 causing widespread protest and unrest in the third world. In America we had 'Change'. 'Free health care'. In the Arab world, total devastation. This is what the world is experiencing right now. To an astrologer, this is intuitively correct... alignments cause economic and thus political catastrophe by ruining an old cycle of growth. This can never be taken as superstition as it is so evidently an ipso factum, or actual case.

What about 1982, when we had a grant alignment? This was the year of a Reagan Recession, but also a Reagan Revolution. The world had changed. Weather had changed and instead of cooling, as it did since the 1940s, it reversed its course and began to get warmer. Politics was thus employed to change the economy to fit the new reality. Quite simply, revolutions occur to fit new economic realities.

The peak in farm prices in 1982 coincides with a massive increase in grain prices, across the world:

It is seen that capitalised farm values remained low due to a recession. No-one had the cash to buy the expensive farms and only desperate people who couldn't afford not to sell, sold. This is the case of a food crisis happening to coincide with an alignment. Thus fortunes are made and lost in recessions.

God only knows what is happening to the internals of the Sun at such times in which it is pulled out of alignment... Different layers of the sun are composed of different densities which would be affected in various ways. The study of this is 'forbidden' to solar researchers as it is considered too astrological. It is considered superstitious. There are thus these mighty forces impacting the sun which are not allowed to be discussed by those seeking to understand the solar mechanism itself. We ask... why... when the Sun is the primary force for life on Earth? It's health seems to be adversely affected by hard aspects, (alignments). This has been noticed throughout history and is not a new idea.

On the astronomy forum, I was confronted with the circular argument that science only evolves upwards. In other words, old ideas can never be brought back, even if there is evidence to support them. Whoever invented this cosmic law really needs to add it to the Bible. I don't recall EVER reading it in the Holy Book. I think that some Scientists or their followers like to consider that they are qualified to invent their own laws of the universe. `Occams Razor' is an example: God likes to make things easy to understand for humans so the easiest thing to understand will be more true than a process which is complicated. Really?  Fred Hoyle quite rightly called this the `law of maximum trivialization'.

As to the alignment itself, well... it was less than spectacular at any rate. Five planets were to align. Alas, Uranus and Neptune are invisible to the naked eye. Furthermore, Mercury is generally too close to the horizon at sunrise, (and sunset) to be seen in a suburban environment. Only Venus, with a smallish Jupiter, (mistaken for Mercury until my telescope told me otherwise), on the far side of the solar system, were visible. Thus I dragged myself back inside before 6 AM and climbed back into bed for some more pleasant shut-eye.

Observing the Canals on Mars!

2003 was a very special year for me. I fulfilled my dream of getting my first telescope. It was a Saxon Skywatcher, 8" dobsonian, of f/5 focal length. I had wanted an Orion 10" f/6, (the longer focal ratio and increased diameter improves resolution). Alas it was not to be. With money in hand, we turned up at the store and they were out of stock. Thus my first scope was ordered online instead. It was the 8" Skywatcher, one of the few telescopes of an easily available alt-azimuth Dobsonian mount available in Australia at the time (now they sell much bigger ones!). These scopes have since grown more popular among amateurs and seem to be replacing the more expensive Schmidt-Cassegrain as reflector of choice.

My telescope finally arrived by freight and after setting it up, I had a good look at Saturn. I was greatly impressed. The view was not as great as would have been seen in finer scopes - the Cassini division between the rings, discovered in the seventeenth century, (in days when men had far worse telescopes), was barely discernible.

So what to look at! One of the reasons for getting such is short focal length telescope is to have a wide field of view for deep-space objects, such as galaxies. I thus eagerly sought out galaxies in star maps and moved the telescope towards them, only to discover there was very little to be seen. M104, the famous Sombrero Hat Galaxy was barely discernible in my city location. There was maybe just a faint hint of it... if I imagined hard enough, with averted vision. Quite simply, the city lights make the sky brighter than the light of the galaxies, which is trying to peak through.

The good thing about 2003 was that Mars would make a fabulous appearance, in August of that year. It would not only be in opposition, (on the same side of the sun as Earth, and thus 'close'), but it would be a Perihelic opposition! (Planets have elliptical orbits. A perihelion is the closest point to the Sun in a planet's elliptical orbit. This would also make it closer to Earth). It was a once in 60,000 year opportunity!
Thus Mars, normally a tiny barely disernable red dot, grew into a somewhat more intimidating red orb high in the sky. At it's closest, in late August, I observed it above the garage from my driveway in the setting sun, and timed the moment at which it was closest, for obversvation. I swear, I could easily make out a disk with the naked eye. That's how frighteningly close it had become. It no longer resembled one of the stars... it was an intimidating spot of red fire, and could have been a distant moon of Earth, were we not better informed.

I had always thought that planetary work would be rather boring..... but was I in for a surprise! For me, looking at this little planet with the scope, and drawing the features, was one of the most exciting adventures of my life!

I began to read and read all about Mars! Every day I would go out in the evening and would notice that red dot getting bigger and bigger. I read in the history books, and online, about a wealthy Boston millionaire and mathematician called Percival Lowell. I desperately wanted to see what he saw... canals! Was my scope big enough? He had used a 24 inch refractor which had cost an enormous amount to build, just to study the red planet during a favorable opposition.

I was reassured by two things... 1) Mars was far closer in this opposition that Lowell had ever seen it, and 2) Lowell and others had seen the canals with as little as an eight inch refractor.

Lowell had been inspired by an Italian astronomer by the name of Giovanni Shiaparelli. Basically, Schiaparelli started seeing canals on the surface of the planet in the 1880s.

Map of Mars by Giovanni Shiaparelli, 1877:

Schiaparelli made a second map for the next opposition, three years later. In this map, the canals look more 'man made'. It is perhaps a bit of a popular myth that Shiaparelli's canali is a 'mistranslation', and that he really meant 'channels', rather than English canals. Perhaps he did, but iT seems he really did mean canals later on, and seemed to suspect they were artificial.
Here are his sketches, from I believe 1881-1882. He noticed a phenomenon called 'twinning' in which canals seemed to have split apart and were double tracked. 

Lowell was hugely captivated by Schiaparelli's findings. Here are some of his strange 'pre-art deco' drawings of the canals on Mars. These were made at the end of the 19th century, and towards the beginning of the 20th century.

Lowell pieced all his drawings together to make this map of Mars, made with his 24" Refractor at Flagstaff, Arizona:

"That Mars is inhabited by beings of some sort of other we may consider as certain as it is uncertain what those beings may be."
~ Percival Lowell

One of the reasons that Lowell made this statement is that there is a phenomenon, forgotten these days, except to observational enthusiasts, there there is an apparent 'wave of darkening' across Mars as the seasons progress. This is either seasonal-weather related, or seasonal-biological, like trees losing their leaves in autumn. Basically the surface features, including canals get considerably darker as summer approaches. Naturally, this was assumed to have been caused by the melting of the waters of the ice caps (which have been found to contain considerable water as well as dry ice). This wave of darkening assisted me tremendously, as I was finally make out some of the features seen in his maps, towards the end of the Martian observing season.

As Mars got bigger and bigger... I began to draw what I saw... Not much at first, very faint outlines... I had to look for about 10 minutes before I could even see anything. Finally my brain would begin to piece it all together, and I would begin to draw! To my great relief, my drawings improved as the weeks went by and I learned to be an observer..

One day, I had the telescope set up on the back veranda during the day time and was busy sketching the moon. Then suddenly, I spotted Mars, fully visible in daylight. I decided to begin sketching it. By this time, Mars was rapidly receding, getting smaller with each day that went by, so I was running out of time to see the fabled canals, which had so eluded me! Even if they were mere tricks of the light, they would surely be visible!

I swung the telescope around to look at Mars. A relatively featureless plain of the planet was presented towards Earth. I observed for about ten minutes and then I noticed something..... I could see Schiaparelli's canals! I called my brother over... 'ummmmm... I think I can see the canals!' .... The so-called canals which 'do not exist' were very visible to me! I drew them. I let my brother have a look and he too could see them! The seeing conditions were truly optimal and the canals were clearly visible.

Here are a few of the sketches I made of this elusive planet. Upper left sketch represents very clear 'canals', almost as dark as the rest of the conventional Martian features.

Here are more sketches, which I placed on the Ice in Space forum, to present them to the wider astronomical community: : )

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=73916

Anyway, this is my map of Mars, assembled from about 60 diagrams of the planet, made mainly as Mars was receding away from the Earth, after the 27 August Opposition. Syrtis Major (bold), is very prominent. It is a huge mountain range. The 'canals' which are really perhaps mountain ranges, are drawn in exaggerated shading as they are normally not visible, except what I would call 'peculiar' seeing conditions. The map is representative of the Shiaparellian curved canals, not the straight Lowellian ones, which were not seen. Those may have been tricks of the light. I flatter myself that it looks quite similar to the Hubble Space Telescope Image of Mars, made in 2003, (below).

I strongly suspect that NASA cameras, (and cameras in general), are not sensitive to the light frequency required to see the canals, or required to piece images together. We see with our minds, our eyes are an instrument. There appear to be shadows of the canals evident on the Hubble photographs, but as always, they simply do not show up very well on photographs at all! Several 'canals' look like strings of craters.

I have a number of theories regarding the Martian Canals:

1) They are strings of bacterial life living on mountain ranges which, as on earth, approximate straight or bent lines. These change in color with the seasons. It used to be thought that the wave of darkening was caused by the plants appearing in the land irrigated by canals. 

2) They are a psychic presentation, a spiritual vision of a vanished civilization... a presentation by God, to humanity, of what may one day occur on Earth... desolation and ruin. 

3) They are actually there but are evident in a wavelength not visible to human cameras which tend to pick up the infra-red to visible wavelength. The fact is, some astronomers can see them, and some can't. This tells me a particular wavelength, (or type of imagination!) is required. Patrick Moore spent 70 years observing Mars and never professed to have never seen a canal, (yet his map appears to contain at least two....Patrick Moore on Mars, 1998, p. 92). Some famous astronomers have seen canals, most have not. 

4) Even if they are mere strings of craters, the 'wave of darkening', if real, suggests something seasonal and mysterious is going on. 

To conclude, I think there is a canal phenomenon which is not being investigated, and it can't all be attributed to tricks of the human eye. I think the basis of the canal phenomenon is essentially, life, which is why this phenomenon is so elusive. There would of course be more than one component to it, more than one explanation. It is part trick of the light, part mental stacking of images and imagination, but perhaps also, part real.

This was one of the greatest projects and adventures of my life! I love this stuff!

References:


Patrick Moore, Patrick Moore on Mars, 1998.

Welome to my Blog!

This is the Blog of meeeeeeeee!