Difference between revisions of "User talk:BMcP"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Repetition claim of time and location)
(Repetition claim of time and location: Your explanation above doesn't state the assumptions. What are the assumptions?)
Line 100: Line 100:
  
 
::::It is in the Astrometry section under distance of the Night Sky Template in the article.  Distances of the nebula was done by using spectroscopy, which determines expansion velocity and comparing this with the nebula's angular expansion over time (using images over years[http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011227.html]), using these we can calculate (within a margin) it's distance.  The most precise measurement is around 6,300 light years, if you want, read the long technical explanation here.[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PASP...85..579T].  --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 14:03, 20 January 2010 (EST)
 
::::It is in the Astrometry section under distance of the Night Sky Template in the article.  Distances of the nebula was done by using spectroscopy, which determines expansion velocity and comparing this with the nebula's angular expansion over time (using images over years[http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011227.html]), using these we can calculate (within a margin) it's distance.  The most precise measurement is around 6,300 light years, if you want, read the long technical explanation here.[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PASP...85..579T].  --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 14:03, 20 January 2010 (EST)
 +
 +
:::::BMcP, I'm asking a simple question and am hoping for a straightforward answer in your own words.  If you don't know the answer, hopefully you're willing to look at it now with an open mind.  Your explanation above doesn't state the assumptions.  What are the assumptions?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:15, 20 January 2010 (EST)
  
 
== images uploaded ==
 
== images uploaded ==
  
 
[[Conservapedia:Image upload requests#Astronomy Images|your images, sir]] [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:56, 9 January 2010 (EST)
 
[[Conservapedia:Image upload requests#Astronomy Images|your images, sir]] [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:56, 9 January 2010 (EST)

Revision as of 13:15, 20 January 2010

Useful links

Welcome!

Hello, BMcP, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, BMcP!


AddisonDM 18:28, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Images

Some are ready. --Joaquín Martínez 10:20, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

It seems that thumb does not work fine with .png images. See. Proxima Centauri. --Joaquín Martínez 11:00, 24 June 2009 (EDT)
It seems to work as a thumbnail if you add a specific pixel width to the parameters, figured this out when I was playing with the Alpha Centauri ones. It may be an issue with the wiki software and PNG thumbnails where it requires this, not sure, but adding the pixel width seems to solve it. --BMcP 12;15, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

VW / VY Canis Majoris

In your recent article, VW Canis Majoris, why do you have "VY Canis Majoris is a..." and other mentions of a "VY Canis Majoris". This is very confusing. Is "VY" an alternate name to "VW"? --ChrisZ 18:18, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

No, it should be VY Canis Majoris, and it has been renamed so, I just made a mistake with the article title, is fixed now. --BMcP 21:51, 27 July 2009 (EDT)


Zeta Puppis & VY Canis Majoris - Images; DONE. --Joaquín Martínez 22:53, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

Image requests

Your images have been uploaded [1]. Karajou 16:30, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

And more: Hs-2005-26-c-large web.jpgHs-1993-18-a-large web.jpg Karajou 16:17, 1 December 2009 (EST)
Thanks Karajou! --BMcP 16:18, 1 December 2009 (EST)
And this one: B01Magellanic Clouds.jpg  :) Karajou 16:25, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Template

Try this infobox template (Template:Night Sky) for your astronomy pages. Karajou 17:18, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Nice template, I will have to start incorporating that into my past (and future) articles. Of course it may mean I'll request several more pics. ;) --BMcP 18:59, 1 December 2009 (EST)
With the template, you have something like this: Andromeda galaxy. Karajou 14:14, 2 December 2009 (EST)

Nice usage of template --Ed Poor Talk 13:13, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Thanks! --BMcP 08:47, 17 December 2009 (EST)

More Images

Your image requests from today have been uploaded. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:09, 2 December 2009 (EST)

Found a smaller version of the Draco map, and inserted it into the article. I'll let you do the rest :) Karajou 15:33, 2 December 2009 (EST)

Additional templates

The Night Sky template probably will not work for Draco, nor will it work for other constellations or stars. I'll work on adding both later on today. Karajou 15:41, 2 December 2009 (EST)

Yeah, although I am able to fill in some information, a more specialized template would be needed for constellations, given their special nature. Perhaps categories such as "abbreviation", "brightest star", "nearest star" and "main stars", that last one would be for the numerable amount of main stars. Main stars are those that actually are used in the outline of the constellation itself. --BMcP 15:45, 2 December 2009 (EST)
One is done, and placed within the Draco article; double-check for accuracy, and any suggestions that could be made within the templates. Karajou 16:01, 2 December 2009 (EST)
The only thing I can think of off hand to add to the template is brightest star, otherwise it looks good. Also when done, if you can link me to the empty template, that would be cool. --BMcP 16:09, 2 December 2009 (EST)
Template:Constellation Done. Karajou 16:20, 2 December 2009 (EST)
Very nice, it will certainly help when it comes to writing the individual constellation articles(88 total, that is a lot!). --BMcP 16:23, 2 December 2009 (EST)

Microsoft WorldWide Telescope

This image RigelLocation.JPG was done using Microsoft's program, and cropping it via Windows Paint. The idea is to have star maps which are not posted on Wikipedia. Any thoughts? Karajou 12:11, 3 December 2009 (EST)

Well I have no personal issue using the same images as Wikipedia, since usually it is a great resource of public domain and licensed to freely distribute images, that being said I totally am fine with creating our own. My only problem in that area is I have no upload rights so I turn to where I can.
As for that specific image, I would also want the name of the constellation to appear as well as the other nearby stars (if possible), but have some sort of focus on the particular star (or deep sky object) that is the topic of the article, either through a circle or an arrow, etc. I don't know if that actual program can do that, but I know it is easy enough for me in Photoshop (which is what I use to manipulate images in). --BMcP 12:49, 3 December 2009 (EST)

How's this version? RigelLocation.jpg Higlighted star for the article; remainder in subdued fonts, with name of constellation in caps. Karajou 13:07, 3 December 2009 (EST)

That definitely looks better and in line with what I was suggesting. I may make the font for the others a little brightest (you can also use their bayer designation letter or number instead of full name for the other stars, while retaining the full name for the star in focus). What program are you using and how do you like it? I have thought on Winstar 2, curious how that looks. I have Stellarium, which is an excellent program for use in observations but not sure how well it is in making maps. --BMcP 13:23, 3 December 2009 (EST)
I have the Microsoft WorldWide Telescope [2], which has a combination of photos and vector graphics. For making the star maps that are needed here, all that matters is to hit the "print screen" key on the keyboard, paste it within Microsoft Paint or PhotoShop, and adjust accordingly Karajou 15:47, 3 December 2009 (EST)
Cool, well I am sure one of the programs will be good for me. However I will need a way to upload, as I am not allowed to. Also, on a related subject, could you approve the Milky Way pictures in the upload request page? Thanks. --BMcP 18:58, 3 December 2009 (EST)

Sorry for forgetting these: MilkyWay1.jpgMilkyWaySpitzer.jpg Karajou 14:09, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Thanks for uploading them :) --BMcP 08:48, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Image Uploads

I notice that you've almost always got a ton of image requests up - I've just gotten upload rights, so please, in the future, whenever you have a request, add it to my talk page as well as to our image upload request page, and I'll try and get on it immediately.

On an unrelated note, BMcP, I know we have had our differences on some issues, but I want to say that you've been a godsend to Conservapedia's astronomy articles. I look forward to more of your work! JacobB 02:42, 27 December 2009 (EST)

Nova

I'd turn Nova into a disambiguation page, then move the tv series to NOVA (tv series) and the astronomical phenomenon to Nova (star). Geoff PlourdeComplain! 13:29, 28 December 2009 (EST)

I am not sure if I have the rights to do that, I am reasonably certain I do not have the rights to move the Nova TV page from "Nova" to "NOVA (tv series)". If I am wrong on that, please let me know. --BMcP 13:44, 28 December 2009 (EST)
Oh wait, it dawned on me. Rewrite the Nova page to be the disambiguation and create a new NOVA (tv series) and Nova (star) page. Okay, yes I understand now, thanks. --BMcP 14:02, 28 December 2009 (EST)

images

[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] JacobB 16:07, 31 December 2009 (EST)

[10] JacobB 16:10, 31 December 2009 (EST)
Thanks! --BMcP 18:54, 2 January 2010 (EST)

Repetition claim of time and location

The repetition claim that, for example, "the nebula is located around 6,500 light years away in the constellation of Taurus" would benefit from an explanation of the assumptions underlying the statement.--Andy Schlafly 16:06, 5 January 2010 (EST)

You never answered this question about your claims. I'm honestly curious what your assumptions are underlying your edits.--Andy Schlafly 23:28, 16 January 2010 (EST)
What is the issue? That it is 6,500 ± 1,600 light years or that it is in Taurus? --BMcP 11:53, 17 January 2010 (EST)
Well, first of all I don't recall seeing the "± 1,600" part in your edit. Second of all, what are your assumptions underlying that claim? How is that claim made, what observation and assumptions is it based on?--Andy Schlafly 13:50, 20 January 2010 (EST)
It is in the Astrometry section under distance of the Night Sky Template in the article. Distances of the nebula was done by using spectroscopy, which determines expansion velocity and comparing this with the nebula's angular expansion over time (using images over years[11]), using these we can calculate (within a margin) it's distance. The most precise measurement is around 6,300 light years, if you want, read the long technical explanation here.[12]. --BMcP 14:03, 20 January 2010 (EST)
BMcP, I'm asking a simple question and am hoping for a straightforward answer in your own words. If you don't know the answer, hopefully you're willing to look at it now with an open mind. Your explanation above doesn't state the assumptions. What are the assumptions?--Andy Schlafly 14:15, 20 January 2010 (EST)

images uploaded

your images, sir JacobB 17:56, 9 January 2010 (EST)