Is This a Planet?

[sydneystargazer]

This picture was taken today of 39 Leonis and there appears to be an object passing in front of it.
If it were a star, surely it would pass behind 39 Leonis.

I ruled out anything in our system being the object.
I am wondering if this is a planet?

http://sydneystargazers.files.wordpress.co m/2011/05/39-leonis1.jpg


..............................
sydneystargazers.com

[koputai]

I think it would be more likely to be an asteroid or similar wouldn't it?

Cheers,
Jason.

[TrevorW]

Optically it's impossible for a land based amatuer telescope to pick up a planet orbiting a star


I believe Leonis 39 is a double star and this could be it's companion

[mswhin63]

Hi Trevor, actually this has recently changed, the reports now are some APer's have recently received funds to upgrade their equipment because they have found Large gas giants. But still could be a binary view. Maybe report your find to see if it can be confirmed.

I would keep a track on the star for a while to see if it is a one off. Close quarter Gas giants usually rotate once every few days so it may be possible to catch it again.

Looking at the location it could appear at the back of the star too, photometry usually notices small changes when a star goes to the back. Also blow up the pic 400% and increase the pixel resolution at the same time to see if you can see anything. Use Cubic interpolation.

[sydneystargazer]

Thanks..... by the way, who would I report this to. I was trying to work that out yesterday.

[TrevorW]

[QUOTE=mswhin63;719001]Hi Trevor, actually this has recently changed, the reports now are some APer's have recently received funds to upgrade their equipment because they have found Large gas giants. But still could be a binary view.

As far as I'm aware to date no planetary based amatuer telescope can or has sighted visually an extra solar planet, can you provide a link to this finding :thanx:

[mswhin63]

http://www.brighthub.com/science/space/articles/102693.aspx?p=3

this may have be a transit method

[mswhin63]

Here is information on how amateurs can look or confirm planetary transits.

http://astronomyonline.org/Exoplanets/AmateurDetection.asp

It is highly unlike it is a planet but I think if the planet is large enough it would be possible. Worth letting someone know, contact local observatory and see if they know who to contact.

[iceman]

Need more details about how the image was captured.

What telescope and camera?
Date and time?
Location?

[TrevorW]

Mal

from the link

"Amateur astronomers can detect exoplanets (http://astronomyonline.org/Exoplanets/Introduction.asp?Cate=Exoplanets&SubCate=EP01) from their back yards! While finding new planets is probably not possible from a backyard telescope, the professionals have a list of known planets for us to examine."

the planets are not sighted visually but are detected there is a difference

Cheers

[mswhin63]

As not many are found there will always be contradictory statements, bit like saying in 1950 will be impossible to go to the moon.

The first link was the discovery. The second link was more about the detection method (maybe better suited for another thread) and how it is possible to look for exoplanets at that time possibly. One may have been written before the other.
First link- "You may think as an amateur exo-planet hunter you have very little chance of finding one, but that is far from the truth."

[bmitchell82]

In any case trevor, you said it is optically impossible for a land based amateur telescope to pick up a star which is incorrect further Mr. Whin didn't state that amateurs can visually sight a planet. hell we cant even resolve the disk of the closest star, and I'm almost sure that nothing can yet! though I could be wrong. The method is quite simple as you would agree after reading the article and doesn't require MASSIVE optics or specialised equipment. As stated, a 8" SCT which is nowadays a modest aperture. Further to that, they state Is probably not possible... probably wouldn't have cut it with Bird capturing a object slamming into Jupiter well before they did now would it? Probably wouldn't have cut it for the visual super nova hunters either? But they did it!. Never say Never until its solid and will never move till then :) HAPPY PLANET HUNTING MY FRIENDS!

Brendan:thumbsup::thanx:




[QUOTE=TrevorW;719088]

[mswhin63]

I agree that may be needed, but still worth telling someone just in case. Maybe found a new asteroid, closer brown dwarf and so on, still a great achievement. :thumbsup:

Also has the picture been blown up excessively? If not maybe blow it up 400% and increase the resolution but 400% This is about the maximum limit for Interpolation.

[TrevorW]

Don't misinterpret, misquote me, I made it clear that optically, ie: visually or imaging, I did not say it was impossible to detect through other means.

Name one amatuer who has seen or one thats has a varifiable image of an extra solar planet

I'll eat my words if you can:thumbsup:

[iceman]

It's virtually impossible for amateur equipment (and even professional equipment) to record an image of a star as a disc, as seen in this image.

Let alone see another smaller object, as a disc, passing in front of it.

I'm also interested to find out what processing was done on the image. How much was it resized?

[astroron]

I aggree,I would go so far as to say there is something in the optics.
I have never seen such a big round star so neat in an ametaur image :shrug:
Just imagine if you can see that sort of detail with an amateur scope, we should be seeing thousands of them in the professional scopes.
Cheers

[sydneystargazer]

The image was taken while reserving time on the Slooh telescope in the canary islands.

The only processing I did on this was the negative image on the right hand side.

The image was not zoomed.

The telescope used was a 14-inch diameter Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope (focal length 2160mm) high magnification scope

[bmitchell82]

I have already stated that a land based optical telescope cannot resolve the disk of a star if you read though my post im sure you will see it blatantly stated there, which implies that a planet has no chance it just cannot be done Trevor and optically means just that, using optical mirrors not radio telescopes, not anything else, I cannot miss quote what you have quoted.

I think we can be quite happy that this is not a planet orbiting a star, most likely a NEO (Near Earth Object) passing though, or some other optical aberration, eg dust. That is my thoughts on the situation. I have recently taken a photo of M83, with just a thing passing though the field of view over a few hours it moved a few arc minutes.

If you are to take another image of the star in question, note if the object is still there if not get in contact with the relevant authorities, possibly send something over to NASA? they will be able to give you some idea on what it is, if not they might go and hunt it down to be sure its not a nasty!:thumbsup:

[supernova1965]

Here it is at 400%

[Terry B]

The image shown is not an image of a stars disk.This is not possible with a 14"scope from earth. It is an image of a point source of light with an airy disc resolved to some extent. As such anything transitting in front of it will not show up as a dark area on the airy disc. The dark area has to be some sort of artifact either in the collimation or in the imaging train.
Sorry, no planet.
Transitting planets can be detected using photometry techniques by amateurs but not like imaging the transit of venus etc.

[TrevorW]

In any case trevor, you said it is optically impossible for a land based amateur telescope to pick up a star which is incorrect further Mr. Whin didn't state that amateurs can visually sight a planet.

Brendan this is the first sentence of your response to me and I never said it was impossible for land based telescope to pick up a star

Sorry remember what the examiner say's about reading and re-reading a question

Cheers

[Paul Haese]

Point source is the heart of the matter here. When you record an image of a star and it appears as a round disk, you are not recording the actual disk of the star. The resultant disk is caused by guiding errors and the movement of atmosphere. We cannot image the Apollo landing sites with the largest telescopes on the planet. What hope do we have of imaging a transit event with the same telescopes? Nil. So this is most likely an optical error or dust mote not dealt with by the calibration frames.

[mswhin63]

39 Leonis is a binary star, it companion is a red dwarf 39 Leonis B. Red dwarf are usually smaller, cooler and the distance is 163AU away from A would account for any possible view on this occasion. I assume this a shot of only a few seconds and you may have captured the red dwarf behind the star. While using Planet Hunters I learn't that star that go behind another star can create varying intensities.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/39_Leonis

[astroron]

Malcom! all this in a 14" Scope :question: and so neat:screwy: You dont even get that detail from a binary star only 4.5 light years away:shrug:

[mswhin63]

How much difference would this star compare to imaging Neptune as an example?

Maybe this is not the right place to provide support for this kind of discover. Advice get it checked first before posting.

Seems majority view that it is nothing at all.

[bkm2304]

The Hubble has a resolution of 0.05 arc seconds. The Hale 200 inch can do 1 arc second on earth.

For perspective on the current discussion here are some approximate angular sizes of various objects:
Moon 1800 arc seconds
Neptune 2.2 arc secs
Pluto 0.06 - 0.1 arc secs
Canopus 0.006 arc secs
Proxima Centauri 0.001 arc secs

An 8 inch telescope - refractor or reflector can resolve approximately 0.6 arc seconds in a theoretically perfect sky.

Therefore, even with the Hubble you can't get close to resolving the disc of a massive star so you will not get the disk of a much smaller rotating planet. Exoplanets are deduced, not observed, as a result of changes in star brightness.

Richard