Talk:2274: Stargazing 3
I think the "you can't turn them off by throwing rocks at them like the old ones" is a reference to a reddit comment in a thread about older generations refusing to learn new technology, or something to that extent. One comment detailed a humorous story wherein they had been helping a village install electricity/light bulbs, and this grandmother of the household kept shattering all the bulbs by throwing rocks at them to turn them off, refusing to learn how to use them correctly. I'm trying to search for this, but no luck so far. If this was not a reference to that thread but merely a coincidence, my apologies for making you read all of this. Wigglebeans (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)wigglebeans
- I remember that comment as well. I feel like it was in ask reddit, but I can't seem to find it either. 220.127.116.11 23:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- you're so right, and thanks for introducing me to the word "apophenia". Of course it has nothing to do with reddit, the reason you need crossbows for the LEDs, unlike the "old ones", is that the "old ones" are made of glass, easy to smash, and the new LEDs are plastic, and the rocks just bounce off. The term "old ones" refers to the old sources of light pollution, not to a bunch of babushkas wielding rocks.23:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually, "no new stars being created" is not just not obvious, it would need grant, research and citation. I mean, sure, actually new star (and not just star which started to be more luminous like nova) don't appear that often, and one visible by naked eye even less so, but it still CAN happen - and can easily be overlooked. The estimate is that seven new stars are formed in our galaxy every year. -- Hkmaly (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Astronomy crossbows are real things. They are used to measure the angular distance between stars. Here's a fancy one (used) for sale for $700,  and here is a simple one that is simply a yardstick pulled back into a curve and stuck on the end of a stick . Rtanenbaum (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I've got one of those expensive crossbows from Gregg Blandin. It's an equatorial platform that allows a simple dobsonian telescope to track the stars. It has nothing to do with measuring angular distances. So I changed the link to the astronomy course that uses the simple type to measure angular distances. Johnrb (talk) 04:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
At the moment (or at least over the last several nights, right now the biggest illumination in the sky for me is the overcast but daylight sky itself) the most obviously brightest 'star' in the sky is Venus, fairly close to the (even more bright, far less apparently star-like) crescent Moon. As our guide to the stars does not mention Venus, this does not in any way invalidate the brightness statement; even without taking true-stellarity of a "Fool's Star" into account. And, for all we know the presentation is being given at a local time when Moon+Venus are not visible above the horizon anyway. But worth noting, perhaps. As is that neither rocks nor crossbow are likely going to be trivially useful in extinguishing daylight, moonlight or Venus (nb: these three not necessaily listed in order of difficulty, in the event you wish to try to!) 18.104.22.168 17:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's a probable inference, though. Reverse-Astrology: What happens on Earth changes the progresson of the heavens. Well, apart from yelling - and so far there's no indication that it either discourages them nor attracts them, though every time you see a new one you have to wonder if they've come to see what the fuss is all about...
- Reverse Astrology would be made easy with a Nicoll-Dyson beam and a few mirrors. Just move the stars / planets into the correct position... 22.214.171.124 19:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
126.96.36.199 17:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- (Additional: It is of course well known that yelling at the winter-solstice Sun is a reliable way of making sure it gets over its disinclination and starts rising higher again for the next part of the year. Hasn't failed yet! (And wouldn't be necessary to repeat if it weren't for Aussie yellers, I'm sure.) I didn't actually yell at the eclipsing Sun the handful of times I've seen that happening, but I've seen on TV that others did it for me (fortunately), just as I'll gladly help you out at midwinter.) 188.8.131.52 17:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The joke appears to be someone confusing seeing more comets (which already exist) with believing more comets exist now because they can see them. 184.108.40.206 17:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)wigglebeans
"They're too blue" line needs to be properly explained. From looking at Wikipedia, many LEDs are blue, and blue light affects light pollution higher than the warmer colors, for essentially the same reasons that the sky itself is blue (blue light scatters easily by the atmosphere). 220.127.116.11 14:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- It's not just the disserpation of the blue light, that makes for worse lights than some traditional street-lighting. "White" LEDs are either Red+Green(/YellowGreen)+Blue (made possible since the development of a bright-enough Blue LED to make this easy enough) that when all displayed come through our visual system as high-temperature whiteness, or they are monochromatic (maybe blue, maybe UV) but housed upon a phosphor (the often-yellow sliver(s), larger than than the obvious electronic elements, that can be seen when examining an inactived unit).
- The trichromatic method (useful in 'tunable' lights, that can be cycled through hues) has sharp spikes of colour, so some optical astronomy that is interested in spectral areas outside of those bands might still be conducted by filtering the annoyance. The smeared-spectrum of the phosphorised light (when you don't care about anything other than the white light being on or off) is more of a problem.
- And also LED streetlights tend to be perceptually (if not actually) brighter than their pre-LED versions. They're often made to shine downwards into a smaller footprint(though this concentration and contrast creates noticably darker areas between the bright focii of the row of lamps, in my experience) but of course the lit ground/etc then 'shines' upwards again.
- About the best you can say is that they aren't actually primarily aimed upwards and outwards like your average Batsignal/Luxor searchlight, but it seems to me that any hint of cloud over/near a modern city is now even more awkward when it comes to searching for stars than it was when it only precipitated an amber glow through which a given degree of stellar pinprickery could still sometimes be observed. 18.104.22.168 20:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The description states that Megan is a TV host, which is clearly incorrect. She is hosting a physical meeting of stargazers. TV hosts do not have their audience standing around them, cannot hand out crossbows to their audience and cannot physically accompany their audience to attack light pollution sources. Nowhere in the comic does it suggest that we are seeing a TV production. Megan is not welding a microphone. Another thing: there is no suggestion that Megan thinks there will be more comets if there is less light pollution, and suggestions that the creation of comets is implied, make no sense. What is said, and so what most likely is intended, is only that more will be seen, and that is bad because comets are annoying distractions that are not stars. 15:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)