add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
We all know that in a telescope you can see more stars than you can see with the naked eye. And we know that constellations are particular groupings of bright stars.
So, if you look through a telescope at some region of the sky that doesn't seem to have any bright stars in it, per the naked eye,
then you will now see some stars that look brighter than other stars. (You might be able to include galaxies, too, so long as they look more star-like than nebulous.) All those points of light will almost certainly exist in different patterns than any currently-recognized constellation.
So, if you look in enough directions through a powerful-enough telescope, you might be able to find a grouping of bright points resembling (in traditional "connect the dots" fashion) almost anything you might be hoping to find. A giraffe, for example. Or a skyscraper.
Just Keep Looking!
Anti-constellations
Star_20Gaps
Shameless self promotion. [DrBob, Jul 21 2014]
Notice how the dots fit perfectly
https://www.flickr....00@N03/14537727210/
MosheDayan constellation [pashute, Jul 23 2014]
Camelopardalis
https://en.wikipedi...wiki/Camelopardalis
The Giraffe constellation [pashute, Jul 23 2014]
The Giraffe constelation
https://www.wevideo.com/view/220681461
I checked it out, and it really DOES exist. Here's my video to prove [pashute, Jul 23 2014]
Constellation HB
https://www.flickr....00@N03/14539389389/
[pashute, Jul 23 2014]
Mad Magazine's Modern Constellations ca. 1957
http://www.amazon.c...e-Oct/dp/B00IFQKRHM
Updated Constellations [csea, Jul 27 2014]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
The spooky thing about the galaxy is that if you pick
any three stars, they almost always form a triangle. |
|
| |
The spooky thing about the halfbakery is that if you pick any three ideas, they almost always foment dissension. |
|
| |
This is rather similar to the infinite monkeys writing
Shakespeare. While probabilisticly true, it is
practically useless because it is basically impossible
to find the pattern you are looking for. |
|
| |
Given a desired pattern, it is possible to find the set
of stars which best match that pattern, with
allowance for translation, rotation and scaling. |
|
| |
Finding a tringle between 3 stars is trivial. |
|
| |
Well, yes, if you're trying to find these triangles that
fascinate you so, you will find plenty. If you want
to find a constellation that is unmistakably a giraffe,
it seems to me that the probability of finding that
in our lifetime is close to zero. Of course you could
loosen the parameters and find something that
looks like a giraffe if you ignore a couple bright
nearby starts and squint real hard. |
|
| |
Would be nice to find a half croissant with a 50c sign in the sky |
|
| |
There's about 30 billion stars visible with a good
telescope. I'd warrant that most patterns of 10 or 15
stars can be found, allowing for maybe a 10%
deviation from the "ideal" positions. |
|
| |
Okay, I did some calculation based on some wild
simplifications, and it looks to me like the
feasibility of finding a giraffe depends highly on
how good we want he giraffe to look. With your
stated assumptions you might be right, but with
the constellation quality that I think I would like,
it quickly becomes highly unlikely. |
|
| |
If we were actually doing this, we'd need to
consider the relative brightness of stars. A
constellation would need to be made up only of
stars with similar relative brightness. But to
simplify this, lets say there are 30 billion stars, so
we'll consider (30 x 10^9) possible constellations
representing each star and the nearest 14 stars.
I'm going with 15 stars because I think forming an
outline with only 10 stars won't look that great. |
|
| |
I'm not sure what you mean by 10% deviation from
ideal, but lets consider a 10x10 grid with a giraffe
outline on it. Now highlight the cells that have a
line in them. Lets say that 30% of the cells are
highlighted. When considering a group of stars,
the grid is re-sized to just fit all of them, so for
each star there is a 30% chance that each star will
be in an allowable cell in the grid. The probability
of all 15 stars being in acceptable positions is 0.3 ^
15 = 1 / 70 million. Clearly we can find that
"giraffe" in 30 billion constellations. However I
contend that with just 15 stars with that much
variation from the ideal location, the giraffe will
be unrecognizable. If we made it a 20x20 grid
instead and assumed 15% of the squares are
acceptable, that makes the probability 0.15 ^ 15 =
1 / 3 trillion (highly unlikely). |
|
| |
+ I don't see why it isn't possible. Just look at ones
we have now...if they are so obscure, certainly there
is a giraffe somewhere. This idea is totally half-
baked, therefore deserving of a croissant
constellation. |
|
| |
I made a WeVideo of my scientific findings. See Link |
|
| |
Though (woops), wrote 'Though' instead of thou. |
|
| |
// that makes the probability 0.15 ^ 15 = 1 / 3
trillion (highly unlikely)// |
|
| |
You're forgetting, though, that: |
|
| |
(a) The giraffe can be rotated through any angle* |
|
| |
(b) The giraffe can be scaled over a wide range |
|
| |
(c) Potential sets of stars can be overlapping |
|
| |
*Note that this is true only of astronomical
giraffes. Real giraffes cannot be inverted,
because it causes their heads to explode under
the unnaturally high blood pressure. Don't ask me
how I know this, and don't ask me why Sturton has
been banned for life from Whipsnade. |
|
| |
How do the Australian zoos manage, I wonder? |
|
| |
//... If you want to find a constellation that is unmistakably a giraffe, it seems to me that the probability of finding that in our lifetime is close to zero. Of course you could loosen the parameters and find something that looks like a giraffe if you ignore a couple bright nearby starts and squint real hard.// |
|
| |
It seems to me that the threshold for success is that of the traditional constellations. I think this is quite a low bar.
On those grounds I propose the following procedure: |
|
| |
1) Chose any random patch of sky
2) Pick some random visible stars, trying to avoid moving stuff like planets, comets, satellites, helicopters, street-lights etc.
3) Name your new constellation whatever you like. |
|
| |
The street lights round here don't move. Where do you live? |
|
| |
Loris, did you see the movie? |
|
| |
Don't you see the Giraffe clearly enough? |
|
| |
"MAD's Up To Date Sky" MAD brings the sky up to
date with modern constellations replacing ancient
constellations which were all Greek to us anyhow.
Circa 1957. [link], click on "read more." |
|
| |
Ya see, I was made Mad at an early age... |
|
| |