An image of Comet Ison or is it really a comet?

Apparently there's a thorough explanation of this picture on the Hubble site: hubblesite.org...

Originally posted by loOranks
Apparently there's a thorough explanation of this picture on the Hubble site: hubblesite.org...

And did you notice this?

(Update: An earlier version of this story referred to this representation of Comet ISON as a color image assembled from subsequent exposures. This was erroneous: although the background is in color, ISON itself is taken from only one exposure and is therefore monochromatic.)

Funny they had to back track on what was stated earlier about it being a composite image LOL

Originally posted by NoRulesAllowed

Originally posted by nataylor
And here's a image where I've zoomed in on the plotted locations in Starry Night, then pasted the Hubble image over it and just rotated it. You can see the paths match up nicely.

This post is worthy citing again since it's the only ONE reasonable and right post in this entire thread.
In fact, the thread could have ended right there.

My only question remains, why does NASA take pictures where the result is a distortion of what's actually seen? To me it's like wanting to show someone a nice new car and taking a 20 second exposure while the car zooms by on a highway with 100mph. The resulting picture will only be a blurred streak, it won't show "the car".

Furthermore I think it's amazing how so many people blindly believe their eyes and "immediately" conclude from the pictures...including things like "it has broken apart etc."

I could therefore easily convince anyone of you that there are 5 doubles of me just by taking a long exposure shot with me in it a few times. Would you then also conclude, undeniably and without a doubt that I exist 5x because this WHAT YOU SEE on the picture?

UNLESS someone can debunk nataylor's findings and the topic for me is done. He did a great job explaining.

Agreed 100% As an Amateur Astronomer I would not continue to make a long exposure and then change the slew speed or orientation (other then minor tracking) on my telescope. It makes for a bad image...

Originally posted by NoRulesAllowed

Originally posted by nataylor
And here's a image where I've zoomed in on the plotted locations in Starry Night, then pasted the Hubble image over it and just rotated it. You can see the paths match up nicely.

This post is worthy citing again since it's the only ONE reasonable and right post in this entire thread.
In fact, the thread could have ended right there.

My only question remains, why does NASA take pictures where the result is a distortion of what's actually seen? To me it's like wanting to show someone a nice new car and taking a 20 second exposure while the car zooms by on a highway with 100mph. The resulting picture will only be a blurred streak, it won't show "the car".

Furthermore I think it's amazing how so many people blindly believe their eyes and "immediately" conclude from the pictures...including things like "it has broken apart etc."

I could therefore easily convince anyone of you that there are 5 doubles of me just by taking a long exposure shot with me in it a few times. Would you then also conclude, undeniably and without a doubt that I exist 5x because this WHAT YOU SEE on the picture?

UNLESS someone can debunk nataylor's findings and the topic for me is done. He did a great job explaining.

The effect of stacking the 3 images could be right but I don't buy into the the green line and the red time base because it generated by a program from a earth base view point they should not match. so something is still not right.

reply to post by abeverage

Agreed 100% As an Amateur Astronomer I would not continue to make a long exposure and then change the slew speed or orientation (other then minor tracking) on my telescope. It makes for a bad image...

The point was to make a pic of ISON with a clear background of stars and that's just what they did.

Only after you zoom in and darken it, it looks like this, but it was never meant to be presented like that, they set out to make a panoramic pic.

The non zoomed in, non darkened pic is what they were going for and it looks exactly like it was meant.

It has only been explained a few dozen times in this thread.

Originally posted by NoRulesAllowed

Originally posted by nataylor
And here's a image where I've zoomed in on the plotted locations in Starry Night, then pasted the Hubble image over it and just rotated it. You can see the paths match up nicely.

This post is worthy citing again since it's the only ONE reasonable and right post in this entire thread.
In fact, the thread could have ended right there.

My only question remains, why does NASA take pictures where the result is a distortion of what's actually seen? To me it's like wanting to show someone a nice new car and taking a 20 second exposure while the car zooms by on a highway with 100mph. The resulting picture will only be a blurred streak, it won't show "the car".

Furthermore I think it's amazing how so many people blindly believe their eyes and "immediately" conclude from the pictures...including things like "it has broken apart etc."

I could therefore easily convince anyone of you that there are 5 doubles of me just by taking a long exposure shot with me in it a few times. Would you then also conclude, undeniably and without a doubt that I exist 5x because this WHAT YOU SEE on the picture?

UNLESS someone can debunk nataylor's findings and the topic for me is done. He did a great job explaining.

ok.. now explain the trajectory. what accounts for the change in direction we are seeing. did it change direction on it's own? reference the viewing angle. and based on the curvature of the timeline it appears that not only did it change angle.. it also changed orbit with the new angle forming a completely different orbital trail curving inward.. then outward.. then inward again.

*what kind of sorcery is this?* LOL

reply to post by filledcup


Hubble changed position making it look like the comet took another path.

This has been posted on almost every page of this thread.

Originally posted by nataylor
The change in apparent path is because the image was taken while the Hubble Space Telescope was orbiting Earth. Because the comet is much closer to Earth than the background stars, the comet appears to move in relation to the background over the 2,300 seconds the 5 exposures took. Using Starry Night Pro, I plotted the path of ISON as viewed from the HST on the date the pictures were taken. Each green dot represents 5 minutes of time. Because of the HST's motion around the Earth, you get this scalloped path, where the comet appears to move less at "points" in the path, and then speeds up as it swoops to the next point. That's exactly what you see in the image. One long streak where the comet was moving quickly relative tot he background, more of a single point where the comet was near the tip of the path, and then another long streak as it swooped on on the next point. As you can see from the time stamps, the 2,300 seconds (38 minutes and 20 seconds) total for the exposures nicely matches up with the shapes we see in the exposures.

Catching up on the thread...
I am sorry I missed this!

I have not had the time to plot ISON's course as viewed from Hubble.

This is exactly what I was looking for when I wrote this...

I am a photographer and an Amateur astronomer and I am ok with a zig-zag pattern...Something like this

/
\
/
\

I was too busy refuting that this was a caused by composite image or parallax that I totally ignored HST's motion.
I apologize if I added to any confusion, but I felt we needed to eliminate any other explanations.

Good work nataylor!
This is a 100% satisfactory explanation

i am so sad..i really hoped it was ufos...as always

New photos of ISON should be out soon. NASA is supposed to be taking pics of it with HiRISE today!

reply to post by abeverage

or parallax

Noone ever claimed that parallax explained what we are seeing in the pic. It only explains why the stars didn't appear to have changed position like the comet appears to do, and it still applies.

This was also pointed out and explained to you directly, several times.

reply to post by Yummy Freelunch


Okay I see a dot where ISON is supposed to be. That dot tells you that it's not a comet? Where is the part that shows me why it isn't a comet?

Originally posted by abeverage

Originally posted by nataylor
The change in apparent path is because the image was taken while the Hubble Space Telescope was orbiting Earth. Because the comet is much closer to Earth than the background stars, the comet appears to move in relation to the background over the 2,300 seconds the 5 exposures took. Using Starry Night Pro, I plotted the path of ISON as viewed from the HST on the date the pictures were taken. Each green dot represents 5 minutes of time. Because of the HST's motion around the Earth, you get this scalloped path, where the comet appears to move less at "points" in the path, and then speeds up as it swoops to the next point. That's exactly what you see in the image. One long streak where the comet was moving quickly relative tot he background, more of a single point where the comet was near the tip of the path, and then another long streak as it swooped on on the next point. As you can see from the time stamps, the 2,300 seconds (38 minutes and 20 seconds) total for the exposures nicely matches up with the shapes we see in the exposures.

Catching up on the thread...
I am sorry I missed this!

I have not had the time to plot ISON's course as viewed from Hubble.

This is exactly what I was looking for when I wrote this...

I am a photographer and an Amateur astronomer and I am ok with a zig-zag pattern...Something like this

/
\
/
\

I was too busy refuting that this was a caused by composite image or parallax that I totally ignored HST's motion.
I apologize if I added to any confusion, but I felt we needed to eliminate any other explanations.

Good work nataylor!
This is a 100% satisfactory explanation

Ok I will say it again
The effect of stacking the 3 images could be right but I don't buy into the the green line and the red time base because it generated by a program from a earth base view point they should not match. so something is still not right.

Originally posted by NeoParadigm
reply to post by abeverage

 

or parallax

Noone ever claimed that parallax explained what we are seeing in the pic. It only explains why the stars didn't appear to have changed position like the comet appears to do, and it still applies.

This was also pointed out and explained to you directly, several times.

edit on 20-8-2013 by NeoParadigm because: (no reason given)

Yes I have recanted in the above post.

reply to post by abeverage

Funny they had to back track on what was stated earlier about it being a composite image LOL

No they didn't, actually the qoute that accompanied your comment proves you wrong.

This was erroneous: although the background is in color, ISON itself is taken from only one exposure and is therefore monochromatic.)

The pic was a composite of the ISON pic and the color background which is multiple exposures in itself.

They are saying that ISON itself wasn't filmed with different filters, at least that's what I get from it.

edit, having said that, I'm a bit confused, because I thought they said they weren't tracking ISON.

reply to post by filledcup


I think it's just the hubble telescope orbiting and focusing on the same spot in the space (correct me if I am wrong).

Imagine the telescope going from one side to the other focusing on the comet against the background.

reply to post by Deaf Alien


I am not an expert (I was an amateur astronomer in my youth) but...

The way I see it is it is due to the hubble telescope orbiting the earth as the earth is orbiting.

Mars retrograde came to my mind...



en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by NeoParadigm
reply to post by abeverage

 

Funny they had to back track on what was stated earlier about it being a composite image LOL

No they didn't, actually the qoute that accompanied your comment proves you wrong.

This was erroneous: although the background is in color, ISON itself is taken from only one exposure and is therefore monochromatic.)

The pic was a composite of the ISON pic and the color background which is multiple exposures in itself.

They are saying that ISON itself wasn't filmed with different filters, at least that's what I get from it.

edit, having said that, I'm a bit confused, because I thought they said they weren't tracking ISON.

edit on 20-8-2013 by NeoParadigm because: (no reason given)

But ISON was filmed with different filters as evident in the images. Anyway I am satisfied at this point that the boomerang artifact was caused by HST's movement.

What is still a bit puzzling is why it does not show as one continuous line instead of three dashes of light? Wouldn't the object keep creating a continuous streak?

reply to post by abeverage

What is still a bit puzzling is why it does not show as one continuous line instead of three dashes of light? Wouldn't the object keep creating a continuous streak?

I was thinking the same thing. One would think they are 3 seperate long exposures with some time in between.

I think they did 3 exposures, but only with one filter maybe.( I don't know if that makes sense, just trying to make sense of their "single exposure" comment)

reply to post by Deaf Alien


You are right.

This was already established.