Another question for Graeme

[ChrisGreaves]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBSupRoNuKQ
This is a "Deep Sky" video on YouTube. "Watch live Betelgeuse in Orion".

Is this resolution close to what you would get if you pointed your equipment at Betelgeuse?
I confess that I don't know whether this live feed is just an optical telescope/camera, or whether it is fabricated from data sets such as yours.
I'm just curious.
Thanks, Chris

[Graeme]

Is this resolution close to what you would get if you pointed your equipment at Betelgeuse?

No, not even close! Not even the ESO's VLT in the Atacama Desert can see the convection currents on the surface of Betelgeuse you would need the Hubble Space Telescope!

The telescope in the text says the focal length is 2250mm (mine is 2350) and the magnification is x1000. To achieve this visually you would need a 2.25mm eye piece. I'm not sure such a thing exists! From an astrophotography standpoint, there are no consistent units so you can't quote x1000. If that were so and I hit Ctrl+ on my laptop keyboard a few times, the image would not then be x2000.

If the video is really live streaming, does the screen turn black when Betelgeuse sets and white when the Sun rises?

Betelgeuse is likely to go supernova soon but not in the next 23 minutes (just a guess). Soon on a cosmological scale means in the next million years!

So, LIVE Betelgeuse Supernova Explosions Finally HAPPENING NOW! is nothing more than poorly done, uninformed, desperate subscriber and like seeking click bait claptrap!

IMHO

Regards

Graeme

[ChrisGreaves]

No, not even close! Not even the ESO's VLT in the Atacama Desert can see the convection currents on the surface of Betelgeuse you would need the Hubble Space Telescope!

So what we have here is the video equivalent of a PhotoShopper; I could create a "live video" with a sequence of images engaged in a loop, which, given the proliferation of stunning detailed images of storms on the surface of our star, would be believable by a significant proportion of the general population (i.e. Gullible Me!)

The telescope in the text says the focal length is 2250mm (mine is 2350) and the magnification is x1000. To achieve this visually you would need a 2.25mm eye piece. I'm not sure such a thing exists! From an astrophotography standpoint, there are no consistent units so you can't quote x1000. If that were so and I hit Ctrl+ on my laptop keyboard a few times, the image would not then be x2000

I am lost in the detail here. 1 2.25 mm eyepiece? Or did you mean 2.25 metres? A 2250mm focal length is over two yards. That would seem to be a tube such as we see in backyard observatories. Amazon lists a 900mm - so less than a yard - for $2,000 but then clouds the issue by saying that the weight is one gram!
"Astrophotography" takes us out of the human-eye-to-the-eyepiece arena and into the digital arena where we cab magnify images digitally, as in your example of Ctrl+

If the video is really live streaming, does the screen turn black when Betelgeuse sets and white when the Sun rises?

An acid test! And to the best of my observations when visiting the site, NO!

Betelgeuse is likely to go supernova soon but not in the next 23 minutes (just a guess). Soon on a cosmological scale means in the next million years!

This I understand from my life-long superficial reading of astronomy articles.

So, LIVE Betelgeuse Supernova Explosions Finally HAPPENING NOW! is nothing more than poorly done, uninformed, desperate subscriber and like seeking click bait claptrap!

Well, I am ashamed to confess that it worked.
That said, I was drawn to the site only last week by those two pommy scoundrels Gav and Dan.

On the surface, "Deep Sky" seemed reasonable, and a YouTube search "Deep Sky Betelgeuse" turned up the questionable video in question.
Today I note that the video is from THEREALPAX, not from deep Sky, so this confusion arises from me expecting YouTube to read my mind; undoubtedly the search results contain the strings "deep" and "sky" but that's not what I meant!
I saw, too, videos by Dr Becky Smethurst, whose videos I watched about three years ago. So I suppose, given Dr Becky Smethurs's standing, that this is a co-operative hosting.

One more question: When a presenter says that "this star blew up in 1995", that is shorthand for "the light that shows the explosion was observed on Earth in 1995", correct? These stars and globular clusters etc are hundreds or thousands of light-years away from us, so the star in question exploded hundreds or thousands of years ago.
Cheers and thanks
Chris

[Graeme]

Well I don't know where the video came from or how it was made but it wasn't captured using a 10" refractor.

It's the eyepiece that determines a telescope's magnification from focal length divided by eyepiece focal length. A 25mm eyepiece has less magnification than a 10mm eyepiece.

Dr Becky is a safe bet!

Regards

Graeme

[Graeme]

Also

I am lost in the detail here. 1 2.25 mm eyepiece? Or did you mean 2.25 metres? A 2250mm focal length is over two yards. That would seem to be a tube such as we see in backyard observatories. Amazon lists a 900mm - so less than a yard - for $2,000 but then clouds the issue by saying that the weight is one gram!

A 2250mm refracting telescope will be 2250mm long. But a Newtonian refractor bounces the incoming light from the primary mirror to the secondary mirror and then out to the eyepiece so the whole thing is only half the length of its focal length. My telescope is a Schmitt Cassegrain and these reflect the light twice internally. As a result its length is a third of its focal length.

[ChrisGreaves]

... As a result its length is a third of its focal length.

So basically a "space-saver", right? Of course, materials, weight etc
Thanks, Chris

[ChrisGreaves]

No, not even close! Not even the ESO's VLT in the Atacama Desert can see the convection currents on the surface of Betelgeuse you would need the Hubble Space Telescope!

Hi Graeme. I am a slow thinker; a plodder. I have thought a bit more.
Betelgeuse, as shown in the video, is four pixels only, four different shades of red - in the video.
Now, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and I have a teensy-weensy fragment of a scrap of an iota of knowledge.

I see the video as pulsating pixels, and I think that pulsating pixels are coming from the internet to my screen.

But then I have read that today's "telescopes" harvest digital data from several wavelengths, so my mind goes along with this idea, that by harvesting several hours of data across several wavelengths, there will be enough digital data that, properly processed, can produce information about, say, surface currents.

That, I think, is why amateur professionals like me get sucked into believing that it is quite possibly true that I am seeing a local video representation of the surface of a (very) distant star.
Cheers, Chris

[LineLaline]

I just love this entire post and answers, it is heartwarming to see open minded reactions and plain mea culpas without crushed egos here

[ChrisGreaves]

... without crushed egos here

Are you calling me egotistical?

And if not, why not?
Cheers, Chris

[Graeme]

I am a slow thinker; a plodder.

Unlikely!

But then I have read that today's "telescopes" harvest digital data from several wavelengths, so my mind goes along with this idea, that by harvesting several hours of data across several wavelengths, there will be enough digital data that, properly processed, can produce information about, say, surface currents.

The Betelgeuse Wikipedia entry is good.

Turns out, the Hubble Space Telescope captured data in the ultra-violate from Betelgeuse and this was the first image of the surface of another star.

All stars have convection cells that transfer plasma from deep within the star to the surface. The convection cells in red giants are massive and thought to be the cause of the variability of the brightness of red giants. The recent dimming of Betelgeuse was really exciting because it was really noticeable and possibly the precursor of a supernova!

At the moment Betelgeuse rises at about 20:30 and forms the third component of a set of red celestial bodies with Mars above to the left and Aldebaran above to the right.

[LineLaline]

Are you calling me egotistical?

And if not, why not?
Cheers, Chris

No, NO, NO I am not
But wait, would you like me to? In that case I would have to do some proper research on your character, dear sir.

[ChrisGreaves]

I am a slow thinker; a plodder.

Unlikely!

Can I get back to you on that?

The Betelgeuse Wikipedia entry is good.

The image for "Imaging breakthroughs" is what I was thinking of. Really, what we call visible light is a bit of a red herring, a human-centric view of the universe.
I find it strange that only when humans got around to space telescopes, massive computing power etc could we really begin to comprehend what humanity had been staring at for 12 out of every 24 hours since - what? - 200,000 years ago.

All stars have convection cells that transfer plasma from deep within the star to the surface. The convection cells in red giants are massive and thought to be the cause of the variability of the brightness of red giants. The recent dimming of Betelgeuse was really exciting because it was really noticeable and possibly the precursor of a supernova!

I have been thinking of convection cells as bringing neutrons and photons to the surface, from which they can escape.

Cheers, Chris