Turing Never Said That

“I think that sometimes it is the people who no one imagines anything of who do the things that no one can imagine.” The line is spoken twice, first by Knightley qua Clarke and then by Cumberbatch qua Turing. But they never said it. It should be attributed to a different genius, the screenwriter, Graham Moore.

I never accepted the quote as genuine, but it came up again when a colleague used it in their signature block. I wanted to warn them about that; so I did another Google search for an authoritative reference to debunk the false citation. I found the work of Sir John Dermot Turing.  

Dermot Turing – like his celebrated uncle Alan Turing – was educated at Sherborne School and King’s College, Cambridge. After doing a D.Phil in Genetics at Oxford, he concluded that scientific research was not for him, and moved into the legal profession. … His specialism was financial sector regulation, particularly the problems associated with failed banks, and financial market infrastructure.  -- More at https://dermotturing.com/about/dermot-turing/

In a blog on his website, Sir John explains: “Fake quotes - July 30, 2019 - We all know about fake news, but only recently I discovered fake quotes. I was asked where Alan Turing’s famous quotation ‘Those who can imagine anything can create the impossible’ had come from. After a lot of digging, the answer was ‘It didn’t.’ Not in his broadcasts. Not in his published papers. Not in his unpublished speeches.” 

The statement is insightful, powerful, and empowering. It deserves repetition and popularization. The author was Graham Moore. Moore received an Academy Award and a Golden Globe for his screenplay of Imitation Game. He understood Turing. 

“I had been this huge computer nerd my entire life. I went to space camp and computer programming camp. I was that kid. From a very young age, I knew about the legend of Alan Turing - among awkward, nerdy teenagers, he is a patron saint. He never fit in, but accomplished these wonderful things, as part of a secret queer history of computer science. And so I always dreamt of writing something about him, and I thought that there had never been a proper narrative treatment of his life, that he deserved. I by chance met the producers of the film at a party, and one of them told me they had optioned a biography. When I asked who it was, they said, 'it's a mathematician that you've never heard of.' When they told me it was Alan Turing, I almost tackled them, and I told them I'd do anything to write this film, I'd write it for free. It was all about luck and passion. That is how it started, and I felt that everyone else involved was just as committed to the story.” -- Graham Moore via IMDB at https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2441699/

 

Dermot Turing has developed an interest in his uncle’s work, publishing several books about the wartime projects at Bletchley Park. I bought two of them through Amazon UK. For myself, that was evocative on several levels. 

First, I am a globalist and I love global commerce. Unlike my conservative comrades who have fallen into the abyss of nationalism, I find an overarching  vista in Ayn Rand’s warnings against the Balkanization of western society. (See the Ayn Rand Institute here.) To be able to buy a product from across the Atlantic ocean with a few clicks is a tribute to human ingenuity in a open market.  

Second, my money was exchanged from dollars to pounds automatically and at a trivial cost. On the one hand a global society needs a global currency. On the other hand, an open market allows a plethora of monetary media. Friedrich A. Hayek called gold “the wobbly anchor.” (On NecessaryFacts here.) At the American Numismatic Association convention in Chicago in 2019, I spoke on the future of money and predicted a world coming soon with personal currencies. (See a version on Necessary Facts here.) During the Middle Ages, bankers rationalized the variegated fabric of local coinages with an abstract system of “pounds-shillings-pence”; and when they met at great fairs, using the new Arabic numbers and algebraic methods, they cleared their books without ever touching a coin.

 

Third, the transaction was secured with public key cryptosystems. Software agents shook hands and established trust in order to safely carry my money and order the transport of the seller’s product. 

 

A final note on Turing from Turing: “One scene in the movie which had puzzled me is the one where a young Alan Turing is pinned beneath the floorboards at his boarding-school and jumped on by his schoolmates. That’s bizarre, in many ways, not least because there is no evidence that Turing was bullied at school, and certainly none in Hodges’s book. Oho, it turns out that this scene is lifted from another book altogether – A Madman dreams of Turing machines, a novel by Janna Levin. So what started as fiction has been recycled as biography.” – Sir John Dermot Turing.

 

PREVIOUSLY ON NECESSARY FACTS

A Successful Imitation of Alan Turing 

Turing’s Cathedral 

Variations on Enigma 

BASIC: Turing’s Truth 

The Code Book 

Coins and Codes 

Focus on Simon Georg Ploessl

The Ploessl ocular (“eyepiece”) is easily the most popular design in the hobby of astronomy. Regardless of focal length, from 40 mm to 4 mm, they are common because they are inexpensive and they reasonably support the limits of the largest amateur instruments. Better designs are available, but at a greater cost. A modest instrument under city skies usually will not benefit from the improved optics of an orthoscopic ocular. Thus, the Ploessl is the first choice, whether for a refractor, reflector, or catadioptric telescope. For all of its ubiquity, its inventor, Viennese optician Simon Georg Ploessl is not widely known among astronomers. 

Say it Right

 

Lithograph by Kriehuber
Wikicommona

First of all, he spelled his name Plößl and that almost rhymes with the English word “vessel.” 

The character that looks like a capital-B ß is a double-s. It is called an “Eszet” or “sharp-ess” (scharfes-Ess) from a time when German orthography spelled words like der Fuss (the foot) as der Fusz to show that it had a hissing-s sound, not the unvoiced fricative that we know in English as “sh” in “shoe” or “push.” 

The umlaut-o ö is sounded by rounding your lips to say English long-o, but instead, saying English long-a. If you did not grow up speaking German, then “Plessl” is close enough. That is because three consonants follow the vowel. Each one clips some time off the sounding. The word for “height” die Höhe sounds like an American calling their friend from across a room “hey-ya” not the short laugh “heh.”

 

The double-dots are a medieval shorthand for a little letter e that was placed over the o to show the shifted sound. Thus, the questionably undead cat is not as if in English long-o “Shro-din-jer’s” but umlaut-ö as if in English like “Shray-ding-er’s.” Ploessl also used the ligature œ (oe), a less common flourish.

If your typewriter has no umlaut vowels (ä ö ü) or a sharp-s (ß), you can use an e and a double-s. Thus, Plößl (which is how he spelled it) is accepted as Plössl or Ploessl, but spelling the name Plossl or saying it that way is wrong.

 

From the Microscopic to the Macroscopic

 

Georg Simon Plößl (1794-1868) was born in Wieden which had been an independent villa in the Middle Ages but by the 18^th century already lay within Vienna’s shadow. He was the son of a cabinetmaker. And therefore an apprentice in his father’s shop, beginning as a lathe operator (turner). When he was 18, he left for the optical firm Voigtländer, starting on May 9, 1812 [5].

 

In 1823, he moved back to his father’s home and began his own laboratory and workshop for investigations into the production of optical instruments.[1] In 1828 he was open for sales [2]. At first, Ploessl made microscopes, and he soon became famous for them.

 

His company took off (and took a new direction) when he sold a microscope to Joseph Franz von Jacquin, professor of botany and chemistry at the University of Vienna. Von Jaquin introduced Ploessl to the astronomer Joseph Johann von Littrow for whom he built a telescope in 1830. 

 

Three-inch "dialytic" Refractor by Simon Georg Plößl

At Viennese industrial fairs in 1835, 1839, and 1845, Ploessl was granted gold medals in recognition of the exemplary products of his workshop. In 1847 another gold medal was bestowed by the Emperor Ferdinand. The emperor also commissioned him to build a telescope which was gifted to the Vizier of the Ottoman Empire.[6] (Some sources say that it was for the Sultan.) [5]

 

By 1850,  in addition to the microscopes which were the primary production of his firm Ploessl had delivered refractors to observatories in Romania (Iasi; 6.4 inches), Hungary (Biczke; 8.5 inches), Greece (Athens; 8 inches), and Russia (Pulkovo; 6.4 inches). In 1851 the firm delivered an 11-inch f/11.8 refractor to the Vizier. Delivering up to 610x magnification, it was said to divide gamma Coronae Borealis: 0.6 seconds of arc at 4^th and 7^thmagnitudes. (The above is from 19^th century reports. A modern paper identifies the Athens instrument as 162-mm (6.37 inches) [1].) Other Ploessl instruments have been identified. He also built dipleidoscopes for determining the moment of high noon, 12 o’clock post meridian. 

 

All of his telescopes had objectives of crown glass. They followed the Fraunhofer design of a concave and convex lens pair, but did not use flint glass which was rarer in large, high-quality blanks. Consequently, the essential element in the design was the secondary lens system, a flint glass ocular that minimized chromatic aberration. That was Ploessl’s stellar achievement. 

 

The Ploessl Ocular Lens System

Two pairs of lenses, match convex and concave curves, and the pairs are separated by a gap. The concave lenses are at the extremes, the convex face each other in the center. This design was not a happenstance. The Voigtländer firm was founded in 1763 when Johann Christoph Voigtländer received a monopoly charter (“protection decree”) from the Austrian monarchy to produce mathematical instruments. Fifty years later, Ploessl studied mathematics and optical theory while rising from apprentice to journeyman. 

Star Ware: The Amateur Astronomer's Guide
to Choosing, Buying, and Using Telescopes
and Accessories, 4th ed.,
by Philip S. Harrington, John Wiley and Sons, 2007.

Three factors kept this system from becoming widely accepted. First, telescopes are durable goods. Better ones have been built since 1610, but the old ones still work. The Ploessl refractor in Athens served the university until 1940. Second, astronomy was a private pursuit for intellectuals of independent means. While Britain had its Royal Astronomer, few such public posts existed elsewhere. Ploessl built telescopes for state enterprises in Greece and Russia, but he built more for wealthy patrons in Hungary, Romania, and Italy. Only with the explosion of science in the 20^th century was there any broad consumer demand for the instruments of empirical discovery. Third, as prosperous as the Ploessl firm was, it was a sole proprietorship. When Simon Ploessl was killed by a falling sheet of glass in 1868, there was no one to step into leadership. The firm continued until 1905, but there was no visionary to drive the effort.[*]

 

Enter Al Nagler

 

Al Nagler founded TeleVue. He gave an extensive interview to Astronomy magazine, which posted it as a blog and it is archived at http://cs.astronomy.com/asy/b/astronomy/archive/2015/10/13/the-evolution-of-eyepiece-developments-at-tele-vue.aspx The story is enjoyable and edifying. Briefly, he said:

While the Nagler was the first eyepiece I designed for Tele Vue, I feared entering the astronomy market as an unknown “kitchen-table” company with such an expensive eyepiece. This caution led me to produce a Plössl eyepiece first, to gain reputation, experience, and capital.[7]

References and Further Reading

[1] The Hellenic Archives of Scientific Instruments at http://www.hasi.gr/makers/ploessl-georg-simon

[2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Plößl

[3] Looking at the Skies for 175 Years: The 162-mm Ploessl Refractor and the 400-mm Gautier Refractor of National Observatory of Athens, Panagiotis, Lazos and Tsimpidas, Dimitrios; XXXVII Scientific Instrument Symposium, 3-7 September 2018, Leiden and Haarlem.

[4] https://en.wikipedia-on-ipfs.org/wiki/Bicske.html 

[5] “Plössl-Mikroskope - ein Vergleich mit modernen Geräten,” by E. Steiner and P. Schulz, ©Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, download from www.biologiezentrum.at

 [6] “The Achromatic Telescope, Dialytes, and Fluid Lenses--Nebula--Double Stars—Occultations” by the Rev. T. W. Webb, A.M., F.R. A. S., The Intellectual Observer, Groombrdige and Sons, London, No. XLIX, February 1866, 

[7] “The evolution of eyepiece developments at Tele Vue,” Posted by Michael Bakich on Tuesday, October 13, 2015, A guest blog by Al Nagler. Astronomy.

[*] Addendum 14 December 2020. I found evidence of this. To make a short story long, I borrowed a Meade 10-inch Ritchey-Chretien catadioptric telescope from the local club. Researching it, I discovered a legal kerfluffle among Meade and some others. A discussion on Cloudy Nights took me to the website of retired telescope maker R. F. Royce (http://www.rfroyce.com/). At the top of one of his pages is this quote: "If the pure and elevated pleasure to be derived from the possession and use of a good telescope of three, four, five, or six inches aperture were generally known, I am certain that no instrument of science would be more commonly found in the homes of intelligent people." - Garrett P. Serviss, Pleasures of the Telescope, 1901. So, I followed that track. In his time, Serviss was famous as a popularizer of science, especially astronomy. When he was a night editor at The Sun of New York, one of his lecture tours was subsidized by Andrew Carnegie. His passing was noted in a long obituary in Popular Astronomy (August-September 1929). The Pleasures of the Telescope was first published by Putnam in 1901, and then went through several re-publications. Google Books and Hathi Trust provide the 1915 printing by D. Appleton and Company. Serviss described two kinds of eyepieces: positive (Ramsden) and negative (Huygens). He does not mention the Ploessl. 

PREVIOUSLY ON NECESSARY FACTS

The Genius of Design

Raymond Loewy

The Perfect Machine

The Christmas Star

Eclipses?

Asterisms

Assign a Number to it, said Lord Kelvin

“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and  unsatisfactory kind:  it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.” – Sir William Thomson, FRS, FRAS, etc., “Electrical Units of Measurement,” May 3, 1883 in Popular Lectures and Addresses, MacMillan, London, 1893.

Oddly enough, for all of the numbers in the hobby of astronomy, we observers report very few of our own. We have the Bortle scale of relative darkness. And of course, stellar magnitudes are commonly referred to, mostly in the context of what is the dimmest you can see tonight? We know that for eta Cassiopeiae, the main star is +3.44 (apparent) and +3.45 absolute and that the companion is +7.51 because that is what is in the references, the same as their classes: G0 for eta Cass A and K7 for eta Cass B. But we do not measure them and report those facts ourselves. Someone might take a picture of them. No one subjects them to a spectroscopic investigation. I, too, am remiss: I only have noted visual impressions and subjective evaluations.

PREVIOUSLY ON NECESSARY FACTS 

Measuring Your Universe: Alan Hirshfeld's Astronomy Activity Manual 

Circumference  

The Remarkable Story of Risk 

Imaginary Numbers are Real 

Viewing epsilon Lyrae

I do not remember where I read of epsilon Lyrae as a viewing target, but I have it in my notebook between 12 and 14 November as a possible goal along with eta Cassiopiae and gamma Delphinus. (I identified Delphinus on 01 November, above Jupiter.) I found eta Cass, but have not pursued gamma Delph. Capturing all four stars associated with epsilon Lyr took some work and encouragement from peers.

My first problem was finding a graphical guide. I read that the separation between e1 and e2 is 208 arc seconds (3 mins 28 secs). I also knew that the separation at eta Cass was 5 secs in 1890 and is predicted to be 16 secs in 2150. I figured that it is about 10” or 11” now. And I saw that double star on 15 November (easily) and again on 18 Nov 2034 hrs at 77.5x and 165x. So, I expected the separation of e¹ e² Lyr to be 2o times that. 

 

I posted my sketches to The Sky Searchers under Observing Reports. (I also figured out a way to make drawings more-or-less to scale by keeping both eyes open and holding a ruler at arm’s length in the image.) 

 

Username Bigzmey replied that with my ES-102 and a 6 mm ocular with 2x Barlow, I ought to be able to split the two stars e1 and e2 into four. I went back and did more reading and found my mistake.  

 

I posted my sketches of 20 November 1851 hours along with my thanks.

[A note on the scientific illiteracy of our era: On this blog you can find excoriations of Neil deGrasse Tyson's Spacetime Travesty and errors in the Sky & Telescope desk calendar. In this article, you will have caught the fact that the Greek letters are written out. I write my drafts in Word. Characters created with the MS-Word Symbol font do not always import. It depends on the versions of this and that. Google Blog has Lots of New Cool Fonts, (including Cherry Cream Soda) none of them supporting a technical set. Even the s0-called Cambria Math is sadly deficient. 

Georgia - a b c d e f g h i  j k l m n  o p q r s t u v w x y z 

Cambria Math - a b c d e f g h i  j k l m n  o p q r s t u v w x y z 

Cambria Math - å ı Ç Î ´ Ï © Ó ˆ Ô ˚ Ò Â ˜ Ø ∏ Œ ® Í † ¨ √ ∑ ≈ Á Ω 

A-hat and O-hat are OK for unit vectors, or would be if they were lowercase. Such do not exist. 

The right-hand alt opt key give the line shown above.

The left-hand alt opt yields these: å ∫ ç ∂ ´ ƒ © ˙ ˆ ∆ ˚ ¬ µ ˜ ø π œ ® ß † ¨ √ ∑ ≈ ¥ Ω 

... because mathematicians and other technical workers so often call on the archaic copyright © and registering ® their trademarks to protect their incomes in Japanese ¥ yen when citing the words of James Madison on the advantages of a fœderal constitution.]

 

PREVIOUSLY ON NECESSARY FACTS

The Andromeda Galaxy 

Beehive Cluster First Sighting 

Space is the Place: Come to the High Frontier 

Of Watches and Beaches and Atheists 

Viewing Mars

On October 13, 2020, at 23:00 UTC (6 PM CDT), Earth passed directly between the Sun and Mars. And given the eccentricity in the two orbits, this was a close opposition. Even into November, the viewing has been good. My new telescope arrived on October 24, but I did go out earlier with my National Geographic 70 mm and view. “You can observe a lot just by watching,” said Yogi Berra.

I had seen and described Mars earlier, on 17 June 2017, at 21:21 CDT, and made my first sketch on 17 August 2018 at 23:15 hours, but forgot about those until I reviewed my notebook. 

 

00:15 HRS CDT 12 October 2020
National Geograph 70 mm f/10

Technically, Venus is the planet closest to Earth most of the time, but at opposition, especially when Venus is at inferior conjunction (on the other side of the Sun), Mars is closer still.  That fact has been with me since I first saw Invaders from Mars (1953) on TV about 1960 or 61. 

Posted to Cloudy Nights “Mars – November/December 2020” 

in “Observing/Solar System Observing” 

on 17 November 2020 at 0954AM

Received reply:

“Good sketch, Mike.  You saw Syrtis Major and Mare Tyrrhenum”

SpecialEd 17 November 2020 at 02:38 PM

Unlike Venus which is covered in clouds, Mars has long enticed us with its changing surface features. I even have a Warner Brothers Marvin the Martian t-shirt and another with the Martian fleet from Mars Attacks (1996). My first narrative view of a Martian was in Assignment in Space by Blake Savage (a re-issue of Rip Foster Rides the Grey Planet, 1953). 

 

PREVIOUSLY ON NECESSARY FACTS

Rescuing Aristotle and the Church

Science versus Common Sense

Teaching Science with Science Fiction

Still Riding the Gray Planet 

New Cat: Sunny

We knew that Désirée had feline leukemia when we adopted her four years ago. After she passed away, we waited a few months to take in a family member. Sunny is also a rescue. PTSD is the easiest diagnosis. 

Laurel got her from a rescue lady with a clouder of her own. Sunny's kittens had been taken away from her and she spent her time with her nose in the corner of a closet. We got her here and put her in a closet. It took about two weeks for her to settle in under the bed. She was good about the litter box and always cleaned her food dish so like you just put it back in the cupboard. But she was tragically aloof. She still does not like to be petted. But now she does come out to play with us, chasing balls. 

She watched me hide the ball under the rug.

She comes into the living room and watches TV fairly intently. We moved her food from the bathroom to the bedroom and now into the living room. She still does not like to spend too much time in the kitchen, but does explore. She found the back door and sniffed at it and her back went up. She likes attention from a distance. And she like to play ball. Not only does she chase them, of course, but she bats them back and has a backhand move. Last night, she slept on the bed and did not spring off and go under when one of us shifted. Recovery is a process.

PREVIOUSLY ON NECESSARY FACTS

Only a Cat 

Désirée (Miss Kitty) 

Fossils and Behaviors 

Plenty of Time When We Get Home   

Redshift: Six Years with Astronomy

My wife and daughter bought me a telescope for my birthday in 2014. Today, I reviewed by notebook. It was disappointing. Overall, I made very little progress in observation, even though encouraging entries do exist. I first saw Mars on 17 June 2016. I sketched it two years later on 17 August. I spotted the Andromeda Galaxy 1 December that year. I attended some good star parties and a lecture by Dr. Steven Weinberg. This past June, I became an assistant editor with the History of Astronomy Division of the American Astronomical Society. In six years (2162 days), I have 195 pages with ten colored flags for wins. Flags aside, the latest entries since April are more informative. 

Community Outreach is important to the mission
 of the Austin Astronomical Society.

Several factors contributed the present plateau of success. 

• Practice helps. I did not view the stars for an hour a day for six years, but an hour (or more) for one night a month (or less). It took a while to build some experience. 
• Sketching and drawing improved with trial-and-error. 
• I found helpful websites and online discussion boards. 

• Instrumentation helps. I borrowed two Meade LX 200 Classic Schmidt-Cassegrain catadioptric instruments from the Austin Astronomical Society, an 8-inch and 10-inch. I did not need to fight the instrument and the work was rewarding. The German fork mounts were easy to use. The finder scopes were 8x with crosshairs. So, just targeting Jupiter, I could see its moons. The images in the telescopes were large and bright. Even the setting circles were large enough to be practicable and practical. I noted the actual positions of stars and planets.

I may unpack the Celestron EQ-130 (5-inch reflector) and use it again, but it is not my favorite. 

The Celestron telescope came with a lot of trade-offs.
The Celestron Lens  & Filter Kit is popular with many amateurs
and has served me well with all of my telescopes.

In many ways the abused National Geographic 70mm (2-3/4 inch) refractor that I bought served me better. It has a longer focal length and a higher f/stop ratio. And it is a simple altitude-azimuth XY mount.

  

Top: What their uncle gave them for Christmas.
Bottom: In July I repaired it well enough for myself.

My time in the Austin Astronomical Society has been a ledger of gains and losses. Laurel gave us a family membership with my telescope in November 2014. When the club had the Canyon of the Eagles dark sky site and observatory, I completed a certificate in telescope operations with their classic 12.5-inch Newtonian and 16-inch Cassegrain instruments on March 15, 2015. 

Five months later to date, at a COE members-only star party, when he was serving as the Outreach director, Jim Spigelmire spent an hour with me getting me oriented to more stars than I had seen in my life at one time and place. 

When she was serving as the newsletter editor, Joyce Lynch assigned me to interview the club’s stalwarts for a series of articles in 2016. I learned a lot. I interviewed Terry Philips (now serving as the president), on May 27; and thanks to him, on June 17 I first viewed Mars with my EQ 130. I interviewed astrophotographer Mike Shaffer and learned that a telescope is composite of different assemblies: an objective lens system in an optic tube, oculars (“eyepieces”), a mount, and a tripod. When you buy them all as a package, you buy someone else’s trade-offs in price and performance. As a mechanical engineer, he preferred to write his own requisitions. 

After one club meeting on the University of Texas campus, we held a star party on a walkway over MLK Boulevard and one of my colleagues lined up Albireo for me in his telescope. 

The downsides reflect the fact that we prefer to be alone in the dark focused on objects very far away. Everyone is on the autism spectrum, often with obsessions, compulsions, and other disorders. One of the affiliated social clubs is “Astronomy on Tap” and I served on a committee with a mean drunk. 

After a star party, I put the telescope back in its shipping cartons for five months, devoted more attention to my military service, and let my membership lapse. I re-enrolled in 2019 and volunteered as a member-at-large on the executive committee. This past June I ran unopposed for vice president. 

My newest is an Explore Scientific 102-mm
 f/6.47 refractor "First Light" series.
Typically a beginner scope, it is easy to use.

For those of us who do not work and play well with others, online discussion boards can substitute for warm body interactions. I subscribe to Cloudy Nights and The Sky Searchers, writing and reading more with the latter. 

I also subscribed to Sky & Telescope and Astronomy. I leaf through them, but they don't speak to me. Purchased from their bankrupt holding company Sky & Tel is now published by the American Astronomical Society. Astronomy maintains a database of past articles that was not as  helpful for research as I had hoped. I bought their CDs of past issues, but unfortunately, the disks are no longer compatible with Mac OSX. So I sent them back and told them to keep the $129 because it was not as important to me as knowing never to buy from them again. Then, Astronomy caught me with an automatic renewal this year, so that was fifty bucks out the door, but I was able to cancel it for the next time around. 

 

I like to go out at night, observe the universe, and satisfy myself that it is pretty much as described. The heavens are orderly and predictable, made of the same stuff as I am, yet made astonishingly different from mundane, secular experience. The stars are pretty at any magnification. Viewing them bigger and brighter only reveals their surfaces. As pleasurable as observing is, my greater passions are for the history, the theory, and the history of the theory. 

Ultimately, for myself, astronomy is about the mathematics and science and the people who discovered them by creating methods and instruments. The invention and improvement of the telescope, the discovery of the spectrum, the application of radio to astronomy, and then launching those telescopes and radios into outer space are all very grand. That it can be expressed as a small set of symbols that I can understand is at once humbling and ennobling. 

 

PREVIOUSLY ON NECESSARY FACTS

Austin Under the Stars 

Measuring Your Universe: Alan Weinberg's Astronomy Activity Manual

The Drunken Astronomers 

Physics for Astronomers: the Works of Steven Weinberg

Burnham’s Celestial Handbook 

Turn Left at Orion

 

Clear Nights, Full Moon

The full Moon on the 31st is a problem, but the nights are clear and cold. So, I took out my Explore Scientific First Light 102-mm refractor. I also brought my old and overused National Geographic 70-mm refractor. I viewed Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, the Moon, and unsuccessfully chased what appeared to be open clusters near the zenith. I do not know what the atmospheric effect is--and it may be my early cataracts--but I see patches of faint, cloudy light in the open sky. The telescopes do reveal stars there, only not tight groups. 

With the ES-102, the Red Planet was green around white with all oculars. 

Encouraged by a how-to on The Sky Searchers, I tried all of the smaller eyepiece combinations, 17-mm, 13-mm, 8-mm, and 6 alone and with the 2x Barlow lens. The 8-mm alone is the limit and the best views are with the teens through the Barlow. One advantage to the 8-mm over the 17-plus-Barlow is that the 8 alone is just a little clearer because it is just a little less glass for the light to work its way through, but that could just be the result of my expectation.

The Moon was great. I used their 25-mm (with my red filter 15% passage) and my Celestron 32-mm (with Moon filter 14% passage). Almost like being there...

We just had a week of rain and by 11:00 PM stuff was getting wet from condensation. So, I brought everything in. I slept through until 4:30. Tonight I will set an alarm and get up at 01:00 to try the Pleiades.

PREVIOUSLY ON NECESSARY FACTS

New Telescope: ES 102 

The Perfect Machine

Seeing in the Dark

New Telescope: Explore First Light 102 mm Refractor

The problem with consumer goods is that at the designers are not you. Everything is always a matter of trade-offs. The decisions that other people make for you might not be the ones you would make for yourself. 

I bought a new telescope to use in the backyard. As vice president of the Austin Astronomical Society, I invited Scott Roberts, the CEO of Explore Scientific, and Stuart Parkerson, publisher of Astronomy Technology Today, to be our guests for a panel discussion. Ahead of that, I shopped at Explore for my next backyard instrument. They answered three emails and then asked me to call them on the phone before I was a customer. And they talked me out of buying extra oculars until I used the telescope often enough to judge better what would suit my needs. I was impressed. 

The Explore Scientific First Light 102-mm refractor ($279) is a good instrument. Placing aside my cognitive dissonance, I made some minor modifications. 

 

Because the objective lens is so large and heavy, the telescope does not balance in the center of the dove-tail receptacle. It balances almost full-forward in the grip so that the ocular has more moment arm, like a child on a see-saw balancing a grown-up. 

The objective still has a tendency to dip into the tripod, so I attached two strips of foam under the front. 

The XYZ control is a single lever that I found too short. So, I added 6 inches of plastic tube to bring the control closer to the focus draw adjustment wheels. 

29 October: I removed the extension. It was too much leverage. It is easier to control the alignment by holding the frame. The action is still very tight: won't go--won't go--won't go--too far! I now know that I personally prefer gear-driven tracking. 

The only other payment for the price is that the very artistic mount has the elastic stability of a thin plate. Fortunately, it damps out quickly. 

 

The optics are good. The 102-mm (4-inch) objective brings in Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars well enough. The 660-mm focal length works best with my 17, 13, and 8 mm oculars. When the weather clears, I will use the Moon to try my 32-mm and the new 25-mm eyepieces. The final test will be the Pleiades, over my neighbor’s treetop after midnight and on the zenith before 03:00. 

 

I was never satisfied that I had properly collimated my Celestron 130 EQ reflector. After a final round of stargazing and finding Albireo on my own, I put it all back in its shipping cartons and stored it in the garage along with the Meade 10-inch Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope (SCT) that I have on loan from the Austin Astronomical Society. (I took that one out just once; and at 65 lbs to my 68 kg, I found it inconvenient.) I bought a used 8-inch Meade LX Classic SCT from the club. The circa-1995 on-board computer did not work, after being repaired twice. They asked $250 and I countered with $325. It was a nice scope, but the right ascension (XY-left right) locked up and I did not want to take it apart. So, I gave it to the Goodwill. They will fix it, pass it along, and make some money. 

 

My go-to scope has often been a 70 mm National Geographic refractor that I bought used from some kids down the street. They got it for Christmas and by July had lost the eyepieces, the cellphone adapter, the center plate, and the control rod for altitude (Z-up down). And the dew shield was jammed on backwards. (For all of that, they had never used it outdoors.) But it was a National Geographic brand; and I tested it on the street, and the objective seemed OK. It takes the standard 1.25-inch oculars. And it is an f/10 with a 700 mm focal length, which works well for higher magnifications: 13-mm ocular with 2x Barlow for 108x. So, for what it is, it has served me well in the backyard. But after three years, it is held together with rubber bands. So, I went shopping for a new go-to 'scope. The best thing about the Explore First Light 102 is the word “light.” All together I can carry it with one hand.

 

PREVIOUSLY ON NECESSARY FACTS

Problems with Pop Sci from Sky & Telescope 

Physics for Astronomers: the Works of Steven Weinberg 

The Asteroid Hunters by Carrie Nugent 

Backyard Astronomy (2) 

Backyard Astronomy (1) 

 

Galileo and Saturn: Epistemology not Optics

It is commonly claimed that Galileo did not perceive the rings of Saturn because the telescope he was using was not capable of magnifying the image. That is not true. After Galileo, astronomers needed another 50 years to think about the problem and re-imagine it. They needed to ask the right questions. Christiaan Huygens was the first to perceive the structure as a ring. However, it was another 200 years before the ring was understood as a system of particles, rather than a rigid body. The problem was epistemology, not optics.

Galileo’s Images of Saturn 1610 and 1616
https://attic.gsfc.nasa.gov/huygensgcms/Shistory.htm

    “Galileo Galilei was the first to observe Saturn with a telescope in 1610. Because of the crudeness of his telescope, he couldn't determine what the rings were. He incorrectly guessed that there were two large moons on either side of Saturn. Two years later when he viewed Saturn again, the "moons" had disappeared. We know now this is because Galileo was viewing the rings edge-on so that they were invisible, but at the time it was very confusing to Galileo. After another two years, Galileo viewed Saturn again and found that the "moons" had returned. He concluded that the rings were “arms” of some sort.

            “Many years later, in 1659, a Dutch astronomer named Christiaan Huygens solved the mystery of Saturn's "arms." Because of improved telescope optics, he correctly deduced that the "arms" were actually a ring system. Huygens also discovered Saturn's moon, Titan, and for this reason, the probe exploring Titan is named after him.” 

From NASA’s Cassini-Huygens Mission website (no longer current) here https://attic.gsfc.nasa.gov/huygensgcms/Shistory.htm

“Galileo’s Sketch of Saturn” 
from Galileo and the Scientific Revolution 
by Laura Fermi and Gilberto Bernardini,
Basic Books, 1961.

“When he turned his telescope on the planet Saturn, he found that this did not always look like a round body but seemed of strangely variable shape. He thought it to be “three-bodied; that is it … was an aggregate of three stars arranged in a straight line parallel to the ecliptic, the central star being much larger than the others.” His telescope was not sufficiently powerful to let him to distinguish the three, possibly four, rings we now know are around Saturn. It was the Dutch astronomer Christian Huygens (1625-1695) who discovered Saturn’s rings.” -- Galileo and the Scientific Revolution by Laura Fermi and Gilberto Bernardini, Basic Books, 1961.

 

“Galileo continued his telescopic observations from his new home in Florence. Here he discovered that Saturn sports a pair of curious appendages, but his telescope was not powerful enough to reveal their true nature. (They were Saturn’s rings.)” Parallax: the Race to Measure the Cosmsos by Alan Hirshfeld, W. H. Freeman and Company, 2001. 

 

“1610 - Galileo Galilei becomes the first to observe Saturn's rings with his 20-power telescope. He thought the rings were “handles” or large moons on either side of the planet. He said “I have observed the highest planet [Saturn] to be tripled-bodied. This is to say that to my very great amazement Saturn was seen to me to be not a single star, but three together, which almost touch each other”. 

“1612 - Galileo was astounded when he found that the rings he first observed a couple of years earlier had now disappeared. He wrote "I do not know what to say in a case so surprising, so unlooked for and so novel". The rings were, in fact, edge-on from Earth's perspective. Galileo inadvertently became the first person to observe a Saturn ring plane crossing. 

“1616 - Galileo now observes the rings as two half ellipses. He wrote “The two companions are no longer two small perfectly round globes ... but are present much larger and no longer round ... that is, two half ellipses with two little dark triangles in the middle of the figure and contiguous to the middle globe of Saturn, which is seen, as always, perfectly round.”

 From Views of the Solar System Copyright © 1995-2015 by Calvin J. Hamilton. https://solarviews.com/eng/saturnbg.htm

 

Museo Galileo, Florence
https://catalogue.museogalileo.it/indepth/SaturnsRings.html

“In some observations conducted in 1610, Galileo (1564-1642) saw Saturn as tricorporeo [three-bodied], i.e.,composed of a central body and two lateral bulges, which he mistakenly thought to be satellites. In 1655, Christiaan Huygens (1629-1695), thanks to a more powerful telescope, observed Saturn's rings for the first time. He described them accurately in Systema Saturni (The Hague, 1659). The Accademia del Cimento was concurrently investigating the nature of the rings. Between 1671 and 1684, Giovanni Domenico Cassini (1625-1712) discovered four satellites of Saturn, in addition to the one previously found by Huygens. Cassini also observed and studied the divisions between the rings. Recently, the Voyager space probes have revealed that the many concentric rings are thin bands consisting of countless rock and ice fragments that orbit the planet and reflect sunlight.”

© 2018 - 2020 Museo Galileo - Istituto e Museo di Storia della Scienza 

https://catalogue.museogalileo.it/indepth/SaturnsRings.html

 

https://www.bibliovault.org/thumbs
/978-0-8165-0829-7-frontcover.jpg

“Telescopic studies of Saturn, its ring system, and its satellites from 1610 to about 1900 are surveyed. Early observations of the Saturn system and changing beliefs about the constitution of the rings are covered, showing that what an observer sees in the heavens depends not only on the quality of his instruments, but also on what he expects to see. The first observations of the Saturn system by Galileo, the development of the ring theory by Huygens, and the replacement of Herschel's and Laplace's solid ring theories by Maxwell's particle ring theory are recounted.” 

Saturn Gehrels, Tom; Matthews, Mildred Shapley (Editors). Tucson, University of Arizona Press, 1984, p. 23-43.

 

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology
by Ayn Rand (2nd. edition)

In Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Ayn Rand asserted that a sensation must be identified to become a percept. A set of percepts, identified and integrated by common attribute becomes a perception. A set of perceptions integrated by their common characteristics are given a name and thereby made into a concept. Concepts are further abstracted by their essential distinguishing characteristics, according to objective context, into wider (and more powerful) ideas. Without identification, a sensation alone is meaningless. Not knowing what to expect, Galileo could not perceive the rings of Saturn correctly.

Just as it took time for the nature of Saturn’s rings to be teased out from the observations, so, too, did someone 400 years after Galileo finally put 2 and 2 together. In 2005, the science of epistemology informed astronomy.

“Saturn was first seen through the telescope by Galileo in the summer of 1610. In the ensuing half century, Saturn's strange appearances became a celebrated puzzle. The problem was often not the poor quality of telescopes: a number of observers drew images that we would interpret as showing a ring around the planet. It was also a problem of concepts because for several decades observers had the wrong model in mind when they observed the planet. Thus we could say that their telescopes could show them the ring, but their preconceptions did not allow them to see it. The manner in which Christiaan Huygens arrived at the solution, in the winter of 1655-56, shows that more than good telescopes were necessary, although for rhetorical reasons Huygens maintained the opposite. And Huygens's ring-theory, [elegant] as it was, had several shortcomings that were slowly fixed--often by others.” --  “Saturn through the Telescope: The First Century” by Albert Van Helden. American Astronomical Society, DPS meeting #37, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 37, p.620. Pub Date: August 2005

 

Explore Scientific First Light 102
660 mm focal length

Last night, I went out with my telescope to see what Galileo could or could not have perceived, had he held the identifying concept. Admittedly, the 102 mm objective of my Explore Scientific refractor has 16 times the area of his. However, I am inside a city, a mile from a major shopping center. He was in Florence, a city with smoke, perhaps, but no arc vapor street lights. 

I tested three magnifications: 20.8x (32 mm), 26.4x (25 mm) and 38x (17 mm). At 21 power, it was a strong “maybe” given Galileo's patience. At 26.4 power the rings were discernable without question, and at 38x, they were undeniable. Although his 20x telescope was his primary instrument, it was not his only telescope. He had made a 30-power at the same time, but gave it to Cosimo Medici. I believe that Galileo’s instruments were good enough, but understanding of the taxonomy of the solar system required a conceptual leap that would have to wait for later astronomers.

PREVIOULSY ON NECESSARY FACTS

 

The Scientific Method 

Feynman's Rainbow 

Harriman's Logical Leap

Cosmos: a Spacetime Travesty