Not really a bad question. The diffraction spikes have been corrected for.
Honest question: Do people think stars look like the star shape because of diffraction spikes in refractor telescopes? I thought the star shape pre-dated any refractor telescope. And I don’t know how many people would have seen refractor images back in the days to make it so culturally engrained?
The post-processing used in astronomical observations is a really interesting topic. I’m following the debate around the black hole images with great interest. I don’t know enough about the specifics to have an opinion, but it is very interesting and has overlap with some of the things I do for work.
People have indeed thought this before telescopes. You’ll most likely see diffraction patterns around bright lights because of eyelashes and other imperfections, probably different for each eye but the same for all lights (technically, wavelength also matters but not really on this scale).
Thought that is how they look like or represented them as such in art?
My understanding was that most understood them as light sources, very similar to how we do, but rather then cosmic body they saw angels or whatever fits their religious framework.
Its not like people where unaccustomed to the night sky, but maybe deeper psychological interpretation plays a role.
Stars can seem spikey to the naked eye
there are a series of things that can make points of light look spiky: eye defects, eyelashes when squinting, smudgy glasses, etc…
Why star, if not star shaped?
Well of course, because it’s spinning too fast. So you don’t see the star shape, only the blurry circle!
It’s having a bad hair day, give it a rest!
It’s always day if you’re a star. Or night?
Yes, that’s the problem
I like the corona though.
Are we sure it’s not a blurry picture of a slice of chorizo?
What did I read? Oh boy…
