FreeLists / az-observing / [AZ-Observing] Re: Supernova in M74

[Jeff Hopkins <phxjeff@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Joe Larkin <joeclarkin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Yes it counts.
>
>Here's my reasoning:
>
>We see M74 do to the light of the stars that make it up. Since this
>is light from (one of the) stars in M74, you are seeing M74.
>
>And let's be extra nitpicky:
>
>But we also see light from Nebula in M74!
>my response: This is starlight reflected or light that is produced
>from gas that is excited to glow by starlight, even though that
>starlight may be outside of the visual range.
>
>--- Tom Polakis <polakis@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>  At 03:21 PM 6/13/03 -0700, Brian Skiff wrote:
>>  >     For you pre-dawn observers, Bob Evans has discovered a new
>>  supernova
>  > >in M74...
>>
>  > So let's say it was discovered in late March, just before the
>  > Messier
>>  marathon, and it was easier to see than the galaxy itself.  If you
>>  observed
>>  only the supernova but not the galaxy, would that count as having
>>  observed
>>  M74?  AJ?
>  > Tom

While you can make the rules whatever you want, in my opinion 
observing a bright supernova star in a Messier object, but not the 
rest of the object should not be counted as having observed the 
Messier object.

If the Phoenix sky is two magnitudes brighter than the object, but 
not as bright as the star, I can see the star, but there is no 
possibility of seeing the rest of the object the star is in. Claiming 
to have seen the object that is two magnitudes fainter than the sky 
strains one's creditability.

Personally I feel to be a "real" observation it must be verified by 
at least one other person (have an official Messier object verifier 
check each observation - big job and might require several people 
with good eyesight) and the object MUST be seen, not just a bright 
star in it or just having the telescope pointed at it. Or 
alternatively an image taken of it. With digital cameras and CCDs or 
even 35 mm film, I think that would be a good criteria for counting 
as an observed object. Certainlyy if an image was taken the object 
was observed. To be creditable there should be some objective 
criteria. As I understand it the contest is more for finding the 
object than how well it's seen, but the object or major part of it 
must be seen to count.

Not that anyone would purposely do it, reporting eyepiece smudges as 
faint objects really is not very scientific.

IMHO!

Jeff
-- 
                                           Jeff Hopkins
                                            HPO SOFT
**************************************************************
     Phoenix, Arizona                             Atlanta, Georgia
   7812 West Clayton Drive               12170 Boxwood Circle
Phoenix, AZ 85033-2439 U.S.A.   Alpharetta, GA 30005 U.S.A.
    (623) 849-5889 (Fax)               (770) 619-3322 (Phone/Fax)         
         www.hposoft.com               dataman.home.mindspring.com
                                4th Dimension Developer                     
                                   FileMaker Pro Expert
                BASIC/C/C++ Programmer/Web Site Developer
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please 
send personal replies to the author, not the list.