Subject: Re: When will the U.S. finally go metric?
From: kai@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen)
Date: 16 Nov 1996 18:20:00 +0200
kuhn@cs.purdue.edu (Markus Kuhn) wrote on 15.11.96 in <328CDC3B.6ADA@cs.purdue.edu>:
> [About the U.S. way of writing a 1 as a single vertical stroke: I
> personally think it is a bit of a pain in science classes when you copy
> notes from a blackboard, because a subscript 1 and a comma after a
> variable are absolutely not distinguishable, and often the context also
> gives you not many hints. But as Americans confuse the European
> handwritten 1 with a American handwritten 7 (no vertical bar) very
> easily, I gave up the European upstroke at the 1. However I still write
> my 7 the European way, as this causes no confusion and adds some safety
> redundancy. I guess this is the optimal digit compatibility solution.]
Two points:
1. Isn't that "no horizontal bar"?
2. I've had (snail) mail address problems because of this. My house number
is 31. Now, when I have to order something from abroad, and when those
people *don't* allow email/web/whatever orders, it often comes back
addressed to house number 37. Grrr. Whoever invented this one should be
roast on a small flame (very, very slowly).
Kai
--
Internet: kai@khms.westfalen.de
Bang: major_backbone!khms.westfalen.de!kai
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
Subject: "We are on the way to Mars !". Bravo !!!!
From: bp887@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Angel Garcia)
Date: 16 Nov 1996 23:25:09 GMT
Just some 2 hours ago the rusian team has succesfully made the,
via proton rocket, succesful launch of Mars-96 spacecraft.
Congratulations from us an from all our planet Earth !.
Everything went perfect and antennas are already deployed.
We have two independent vehicles going to make SURVEY of the
martian surface: the NASA's one has unfortunately one of its
wings (solar pannel) a little bit unpaired but probably it will
be corrected before reaching (in ten months) the red planet
(after four well planned corrections of its 'elliptic arcs orbit').
It seems that NASA was planning to use such TWO WINGS as sort
of 'airplane' system to reduce the elliptic orbit around Mars at
'entrance time' to a quasi-circular orbit via friction of the
wings with the tenuous upper athmosphere of Mars: with one wing
not fully expanded it would appear that this procedure might be
dangerous (lack os symmetry around mass-center of the spacecraft)
and liable to set in unwanted spin the whole vehicle...
The rusian system carries TWO independent (Germany-made)
cameras: one for wide-angle survey similar to the original in
Viking-project (same resolution and therefore excellent to
get with almost certainty good pictures of the whole Cydonia
region including the, so far shadowed, right-side of the "Face").
The second camera is high-resolution (as in MGS) to get 'details',
if there is good luck of spotting it, of any of the Cydonian
Monuments. V. Moroz (scientific chief of the rusian team) has
assertively said: "Cydonia must be covered, but without special
priority". Of course everybody (in NASA, Rusia and all the World)
WANTS priority for the "Face", but this is NOT possible due to
very demanding limitations of the 'precious cargo of fuel' in the
ongoing spacecrafts: they have to reseve this little fuel for
absolutely necessary maneuvers as setting the original quasi-
circular orbit with the correct parameters... after which
almost nothing will be left and the orbit will automatically,
inertially, will scan the WHOLE martian surface without any
priority for ANY region. So, good luck... and let us hope
than one or the other or BOTH will get the "Face" crisp and
convincing as it is.
--
Angel, secretary (male) of Universitas Americae (UNIAM).
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bp887
Subject: Re: They're coming!
From: bdzeiler@primenet.com (Brian Zeiler)
Date: 16 Nov 1996 17:37:02 -0700
On Sat, 16 Nov 1996 15:58:50 -0500, New Millennium
wrote:
>Richard A. Schumacher wrote:
>>
>> Uhh, no. The "mysterious object" is an ordinary star, overexposed
>> in a picture taken by an amateur:
>>
>Wrong. Your explanation doesn't wash. I have looked into several
>computer generated star charts from that night, time and location and
>there was not supposed to be a star in that location, much less of
>sufficient magnitude to account for the brightness. I assume you are one
>of the skepticult crowd trying to say that it was Star H5086.310? Yeah,
>right.
>
>Try logging onto *his* site and you'll find the technical information on
>the telescope, exposure, charting program used, etc. and then respond to
>him *directly* instead of trying to "debunk" him in a forum where he is
>not here to respond.
That's all well and good, but Art Bell has an 0-for-whatever record
with all his wild, uncorroborated, ridiculous, sensationalistic
claims. Simple extrapolation from past results of his rabble-rousing
gullibility is sufficient for the passive layman to draw a temporary
conclusion. If Brown & Co.'s claims are corroborated by REAL academic
astronomers, then I'll start listening. But until then, Brown's
fantasies about "subspace" and other babble will be rightfully
ignored.
Brown's method consists of little more than sitting at a table,
letting his imagination run wild, and recording his thoughts as fact.
I can't believe anybody intelligent enough to hold a Ph.D. (albeit in
political science) could actually believe his own imagination like
that without any means of verification. I also cannot fathom how Art
Bell can continuously churn out one wild rumor after another,
potraying it as breaking, urgent, verified news. And finally, I'm
regularly stunned by the blind gullibility of his faithful listeners,
simply believing whatever he tells them, always failing to learn a
lesson when one bogus story after another collapses and is
conveniently forgotten by Bell.
What happened to "Art's Parts", those supposed pieces of Roswell
debris? What happened to the "tethered satellite conspiracy"? What
happened to the "HAARP conspiracy"? What happened to Hoagland's
"shocking press conference" in March? Maybe when people come to their
senses, Art Bell and his wild stories will be relegated to the same
class as the fables from Cooper and Lear.
And for sci.astro readers who haven't filtered out this thread
already, it's important to note that REAL UFO research is about using
REAL science to determine whether anomalous vehicles are in our
atmosphere which humans could not have built. Bell, Brown, and others
prefer to engage in the propagation of bogus rumors, avoiding science
and logic at all costs.
_______________________________________________________________
G ########### P
R #### #### A
E ### ######## ### C
E ## ################# K
N ## #### ## E
B ### ######### ### R
A #### #### S
Y ########### !
_______________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: WWW: Constructing artificial laser stars
From: devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
Date: 17 Nov 1996 00:25:06 GMT
Dean White (deanw@ionet.net) wrote:
: In article <328ddf8a.186324441@news.cris.com>, DarrenG@cris.com says...
: >
: >af597@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Talbot) wrote:
: >
: >>
: >>Constructing Artificial Laser Stars
: >>
: >> http://www.achilles.net/~jtalbot/amateur/scifi.html
: >>
: >>What if you could control the direction of photons emitted by a star ?
: >>Instead of spreading out in all directions they could be projected in
: >>the form of a highly coherent and collimated laser beam.
: >>An artificial laser star could be constructed in such a way as to
: >>send an extremely well focussed and concentrated beam of light towards
: >>a space station or planet to sustain a biosphere or propel an
: >>interstellar light sail. From such a planet, the sun would appear
: >>like a bright twinkling point rather than a small disk.
: >>This approach to collecting solar energy is more efficient in terms
: >>of materials and requires a lower level of technology than the
: >>Dyson sphere or RingWorld approach.
: >>This web site covers several schemes to construct artificial lasers
: >>on stars with rapidly cooling stellar atmospheres.
: >>
: >>John Talbot ( jtalbot@achilles.net )
: >>
: >>Create 'Life-Stars' not 'Death-Stars' !
: >>Twinkle, twinkle, laser star !
: >
: >1.) Read a definition of what a laser is. (Hint-- a laser produces a
: >SINGLE wavelength of light, not an entire spectrum.
: >2.) IF you could do that to a star, it wouldn't be a way to propell a
: >light ship, it WOULD be a light ship. Whatever "ship" it would be
: >pointing out would be vaporized in a nanosecond. There is no material
: >that could stand up to the concentrated total output of a star. The
: >star, on the other hand, would move off in the opposite direction of
: >the light. A similar method of moving stars was mentioned in Gregory
: >Benford's last novel in the Galactic Center novels, Sailing Bright
: >Eternity.
: Check out the book 'Second Stage Lensman' by E.E.'Doc' Smith, it has in
: it the 'Sunbeam' a war weapon used for close in defense against the
: largest battleships 'maulers' and armed/fortified mobile planets. Doc
: Smith did not think small.
Also, have a look at Niven's _Ringworld Engineers_ and his essay _Bigger
Than Worlds_ for descriptions of how to put a large laser in a star.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: They're coming!
From: "Jim Shaffer, Jr."
Date: 17 Nov 1996 00:39:06 GMT
Gary Beckwith wrote in article <328D0A8F.1792@efn.org>...
> We are on the brink of one of the most important events of our lifetime!
Yes, the overrunning of our planet with malevolent alien lifeforms. Namely,
idiots.
> Have you heard of the new comet that is coming our way, Hale-Bopp? It
> was discovered several months
Longer than that.
> ago, and it comes closest to us next
> April. It is visible now with telescopes, and will be more visible to
> the naked eye than any other comet in the last 20 years in just a few
> months.
Maybe, maybe not. The last time I looked at the predictions, a week or two
ago, it was feared it might not exceed Hyakutake.
> We are just in the first day of this discovery, so the information is
> preliminary. But they now estimate that the body is 4 TIMES THE SIZE OF
> THE EARTH! AND IT IS HEADING OUR WAY!!
If it's four times the size of the earth, it's not going to be able to hide
behind the comet. Besides, it would screw up the orbits of everything in its
path.
--
"listen, there's a hell of a good universe next door; let's go" e.e. cummings
"The Libertarian Immortalist ticket -- 'An End To Death And Taxes'" R.A.Wilson
My home page: coming soon (I hope). IRC: JustnCase (I'm one of several.)
Williamsport Area Computer Club: http://www.sunlink.net/wacc DALnet:#wacc
Subject: Re: Anomalous object near Hale-Bopp?
From: "Ed Hood"
Date: 17 Nov 1996 00:57:27 GMT
The star listed in the earlier thread was SAO 141894. Skymap shows it 2' from HB on the date and time of the image. On the
MegaStar screen dump on Shramek's web page, this star is not indicated as being there... Would assume it is an error or missed
star data in the program.
SAO 141894 Information
----------------------
Constellation: Ophiuchus
Magnitude: 8.50
Position (epoch J2000.0):
RA: 17h 49m 33.32s
Dec: -02� 13' 44.7"
Altitude: 27� 42' 52"
Azimuth: 242� 10' 11"
Rise: 08h 49m 28s
Transit: 14h 44m 22s
Set: 20h 39m 18s
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember... Even though the Moon is smaller
than the Earth, it is also further away
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Robinson wrote in article <56jalo$ld1@alpha.sky.net>...
> Dale Gombert (dwg5400@u.washington.edu) wrote:
> : Actually, since the comet is a diffuse object, it wouldn't show the spikes.
> : A star seen through a linear obstruction is a *very* likely answer.
>
> This is real strange. Several hours ago, I read a posting IN THIS THREAD,
> where someone gave the explanation of this, even designating the star with
> an SAO number, and one reason the star appeared brighter, was due to the
> sensitivity of the M spectral class star in the near infrared.
> Now that post is MISSING out of this thread....
> Now lets talk about what happened to this posting!
> Here was given some VERY INFORMATIVE information as to the star, the
> camera, etc., and the FACTS are gone. Where did this post go??
>
> --
> ==============================================================================
> Rob Robinson Bonner Spgs KS USA http://www.sky.net/~robinson/iotandx.htm
> WebSpinner for the International Occultation Timing Association
> Vice-President of the Astronomical Society of Kansas City
> (have a program you would like to present to the ASKC? - email me!)
> 94.8932 West 39.0579 North 249.7 Meters
> ==============================================================================
>
Subject: Re: Anomalous object near Hale-Bopp?
From: hal@rain.org (Hal Finney)
Date: 17 Nov 96 01:11:08 GMT
scopedr@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () writes:
>To be honest with you I haven't gone out to observe this myself (It's been
>cloudy) but I did do some research. Using my favourite astronomy program
>(ECU) I was able to determine where the comet was at the time of the
>observation. I then looked at the Palomar Sky Survey and compared that
>with the photo of the anomalous object. You will note 2 other stars are
>also in that same feild. These 3 objects can be used to compare the field
>with the palomar sky survey. the Palomar Sky Survey can be gotten at
>http://archive.stsci.edu/dss/dss_form.html.
>There is no doubt in my mind that the anomalous object is the star SAO
>141894. The positions are just to accurate for there to be any doubt. If
>the UFO or other weird theories are to be expressed then even stranger
>would be why the star SAO 141894 has dissappeared. :-)
I did what you suggested, looking at the Polomar web page and entering
17 49 36 for RA and -2 16 00 for Dec, which were the coordinates on
that night (according to http://www.skypub.com/news/nov0896.html), and
sure enough the big bright star just jumps out at you, with two dimmer
stars nearby, such that the 3 match the photo in question very closely.
Yet if you look at http://paradise.pplnet.com/shram/hbmap.gif, you see
what is supposedly the output from a star charting program which shows
the two dim stars, but no big bright one! Mysteriously it is missing
although the Palomar chart you pointed out clearly shows it.
I am forced to conclude that it has been edited out of the star chart
by the unscrupulous Mr. Shramek in order to deepen the mystery
surrounding his picture. In short, this is a hoax and Mr. Shramek a
plain liar.
It just goes to show that you can't believe everything you see on the
web, even when it looks legitimate. Shramek knows the lingo and comes
off as a convincing amateur astronomer, but that didn't stop him from
doctoring a picture and lying about it.
Hal Finney
Subject: Re: NEO's & Asteroids
From: Michael Martin-Smith
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 00:14:47 +0000
In article <328bbb32.0@cfanews.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner
writes
Doing something now, like building up our space capabilites over 50
years so that we can mine asteroids and build a disperesd civilization
in O'Neill colonies, would cost, over that time , perhaps, $ 100-200
billions; much of the work will be done anyway - planetary exploration,
building CATS, a lunar base, space tourism industries, and
manufacturing, should be on stream within 40 -50 years for a host of
other reasons.
Doing nothing will cost uncountable trillions of dollars , not to
mention billions of lives when the inevitable impact comes. That there
is a debate at all only shows what a short-sighted lot we are!
--
Michael Martin-Smith
Subject: Re: Comet Hale Bopp is a Spaceship - 100% evidence now !
From: Michael Martin-Smith
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 00:24:56 +0000
In article <19961116.E045158.E29@gwen.in-berlin.de>, Plejadan IV - King
of Uhaz 4 writes
>
>
>Hello !
>
>.....too bad that now it is more or less clear its just a
>normal star......(look in the related newsgroups)
>
>I just ask what kind of "astronomer" (hahaha...excuse me please)
>this is who FIRST posts a wierd story about comet-hale bopp's
>strange "object" and a site full of wierd stuff and conspiracy-things...
>
>What kinda (so called) astronomer is not even able to recognize a
>normal STAR ? Missing also were details WHO the hale-bopp image
>has taken (was HE the one ?) ...and all the important informations
>about fields of view and the like...which leads to the conclusion
>that this is not very scientific but very poor and lousy done.
>
>Indeed...instead of doin' research and maybe first asking some
>to confirm his fantasies about a "object" or maybe instead of just
>asking a few more competent astronomers he feels the urge to post
>such bullshit....sorry again...
>
>To this "astronomer"....but this was BS...really...
>
>
>PS.:
>
>i normally am interested in all that ufo-stuff and related things
>and i call me open-minded etc...but what i cannot stand at all
>is pseudo-scientific and poor/lousy research....this is the main-
>reason why all the related newsgroup are full with 80% BS because
>its more important to post some pictures of blurred spots and
>claim loud "mothership from the plejades" instead of just making
>a small attempt to maybe find out in one hour its nothing else
>than a piece of dirt on the lens...
>
>It's these who do harm to the "serious" interested ppl on the related topics
>and maybe the reason why more ppl use mailinglists instead of spending
>time reading the nonsense posted here...
>
>bye
>
>
It wasn't really likely that an alien spaceship would be 4 times the
size of Earth, now, was it? That's as big as Neptune, and would by now
be causing some gravitational mayhem, if true! A little common sense can
go a long way, but is sometimes in short supply!
--
Michael Martin-Smith
Subject: Re: Read Sagan's account of Dogon tribe and Sirius B ...
From: bb089@scn.org (James Conway)
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 01:15:22 GMT
In a previous article, holland@geop.ubc.ca (Stephen Holland) says:
>In article <56dpeb$chh@starman.rsn.hp.com>, schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>
>[someone wrote...]
>-> > That would be a waste of time. The Dogon indicated that the
>-> >Sirius system has a Sirius C which no missionary could have known
>-> >about.
>-> Lucky guess. Before you laugh, recall that Jonathan Swift wrote
>-> that Mars has two moons some 200 years before their discovery,
>-> and even got their sizes and distances from Mars about right.
>-> Maybe the same aliens who clewed in the Dogon took old J.S. on
>-> a tour of the red planet, eh?
>
>I wouldn't even call it a lucky guess. The orbit for Sirius C that
>Benest & Duvent derived was completely different from what the Dogon
>"mythology" claimed. It's not very impressive to make a prediction
>that is incorrect. It's also no great trick to point at a star and say:
>"that star has a companion" because most of the stars in the sky are
>multiple-star systems. Pointing randomly will give you multiple stars
>something like 70% of the time.
The Dogon described Sirius B, even tho they said no one could see
it with their eyes, as what we would recognize as a white dwarf star.
Another lucky guess? How many do you guys get?
Another poster said:
In a previous article, schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) says:
>
>>>> I just got to read about some obscure African tribe called the Dogon who
>>>> startled the scientific world in the 1940-50s when they shared their
>>>> knowledge of Sirius A and B with some European anthropologists
>>>
>>> Read Carl Sagan's account of this "startling knowledge"; it appears in
>>>either "The Dragons of Eden" or "Broca's Brain." He chalks it up
>>>to talkative missionaries.
>
>> That would be a waste of time. The Dogon indicated that the Sirius
>>system has a Sirius C which no missionary could have known about. Since
>>the system has been now observed to be disturbed in their orbits as the
>>other poster gave out, there is a Sirius C or "something" else in the
>>system. All the talk in the world of chalking it up to they 'Dogon'
>>couldn't know is just talk. How they knew is an interesting point, but
>>the real point is that they did. Deal with the fact.
>
>Lucky guess. Before you laugh, recall that Jonathan Swift wrote
>that Mars has two moons some 200 years before their discovery,
>and even got their sizes and distances from Mars about right.
>Maybe the same aliens who clewed in the Dogon took old J.S. on
>a tour of the red planet, eh?
Swift's was not a guess. The steeds of Mars that ran _before_
the war chariot (Mars) in oral history and as the dogs, all themes
of _two_ beasts, like the hounds of Hell. So the number of two was
well established. Exactly where the periods and distances given by
Swift is not known, but the ratios match the real ones which
indicates the source had some observational knowledge. But the
source has not come down to us which is a common occurrence since
the libraries of the old world were systematically destroyed.
>(But not such a lucky guess, after all: the Dogon say that Sirius'
>companions take the same amount of time to go around Sirius,
>which is impossible.)
Your claim of our knowledge about a white dwarf star never observed
to do or not do as you suggest is pure assertion.
This unwillingness to accept anything but a view that only modern
society could possibly have knowledge is one that is itself literalism.
And as any literalism can not see past its own view or conceive the
possibility that anyone else could add to the bank of human knowledge
except in the rigor of reason and logic so prescribed. Such is so
insecure that it must by definition challenge anything else as
explainable by that rigor and nothing else. Even the common
spiritual experience upheld by testimony and sacrifice of great human
cost is to be dismissed as of no account which if any subscribe to
is a disease of reason. That all knowledge is inspirational knowledge
is to be ignored because it is outside the limits of literalism.
I pity a mind so limited.
--
James Conway bb089@scn.org
Seattle Washington USA
Chronology: http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/kjh/
Subject: Re: Hale Bopp photos
From: inr@deimos.caltech.edu (I. Neill Reid)
Date: 16 Nov 1996 17:49 PST
In article , minnie@mail.pe.net (Gary/Robyn Goodwin) writes...
>In article ,
>pcp2g@karma.astro.Virginia.EDU (Twisted STISter) wrote:
>
>> In article <01bbd0cf$ef55b5c0$98462399@default>,
>> Ray Laliberty wrote:
>> >Gary/Robyn Goodwin wrote in article
>> >...
>> >> In article <01bbd061$06d8d7a0$89462399@default>, "Ray Laliberty"
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > From what I found by browsing through the Hubble datasets at
>> >> > http://marvel.stsci.edu,
>> >> > it appears that ALL Hubble Space Telescope datasets are subject to a
>> >> > wait period of 1 year. So exactly 1 year from the time the data
>> >> > was collected, NASA will release the data to the public,
>> >> > not necessarily including the finished photograph.
>> >>
>> >> there is a discrepancy in what you are saying. Last year the august,
>> >> september series of HB taken by the HST was posted within weeks. I agree
>> >> with Mark, the postings this year stop in May and those this year are
>> >> from ground based scopes.
>> >
>> >That may be true, but if you check the website, there is a release date of
>> >1 year after the date of observation. I think it's a dumb idea myself,
>> >but that's what I found.
>>
>> Data taken by HST is indeed held private for 1 year. This 'embargo' gives
>> the astronomer that made the proposal a chance to reduce and analyze the data.
>> Time (and money!) on HST is very competitive, so it is in the community's
>> best interest to put the data on hold for a year. Getting a proposal passed
>> to observe on HST is an arduous and time-consuming task. If they simply
>> released the data immediately no one would ever propose anything!
>>
>Maybe I'm confused here... you're saying that knowledge is postponed in
>favor of competition?
No, he's actually saying that competition is postponed in favour of knowledge.
Writing a proposal to gain HST time to investigate a particular phenomenon
is time-consuming - to do it properly can take anywhere from 2-4+ weeks of
effort. The over-subscription is about a factor of 5 (closer to 6 this year)
i.e. there's five times as many orbits asked for as are available. That means
that to gain time you need to write a strong proposal that convinces the
Time Assignment Committee 1) that the scientific question is interesting
2) that you have sufficient expertise to be able to
deal with the technical and scientific problems
and produce results that will have some significant
impact on our understanding of that question.
Suppose you get the time, and then get the data. Now, tackling any scientific
question requires a lot of work - it's very, very rare that you get a picture
back and say ah-hah (or Eureka, drip, drip) - that's the answer. Usually
you need to process the data, match the answers against models, run more
models, check the answers against other complementary datasets, and then
maybe arrive at some conclusions. Then you write a paper (which always
takes longer than you anticipate). This all takes time. Shortcuts and
skipping steps usually result in flawed conclusions.
Suppose the HST data were widely available to everyone as soon as they were
taken. That puts much more pressure on the proposer to get an answer from
the data before someone else, working on the same subject, arrives at their
answer. That means you're more likely to push through a quick analysis,
which will produce a superficial (and perhaps wrong) conclusion. That means
there will be even more second-rate papers, with misleading and incorrect
conclusions, published. Look at the crappy papers that were generated in the
first couple of months of the availability of the Hubble Deep Field data.
Publishing your results is of paramount importance in science - and,
unfortunately, quick and dirty results can often attract more attention
than more considered analyses. So the less noise introduced into
the system, the better.
Accurate, thoughtful scientific research requires time - so a 1-year
waiting period is a very, very minor price to pay. Besides, why the
rush? The data aren't going to go away.
Neill Reid - inr@dowland.caltech.edu
Subject: Re: Hale Bopp
From: "Ed Hood"
Date: 17 Nov 1996 01:58:23 GMT
I have read the following response regarding "looking on the web" several times. I have tried. They aren't there. Pictures of HB
taken by gov't owned scopes are easy to find, no doubt. Astronomy Picture of the Day is proof of that. Pictures taken by Hubble
are not. I might add, no one that has said they are on the web has ever listed a url...
I don't think there is some great cover up, but I do believe they are keeping them to themselves. Don't think that is quite right,
either.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember... Even though the Moon is smaller
than the Earth, it is also further away
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
trandall@mhv.net wrote in article <56hs8a$3j1@news.mhv.net>...
> In article <328BF9E3.6487@whidbey.net>, Mark wrote:
> >WHAT THE HALE IS GOING ON???
> >
> >Why has NASA not posted any HST Hale Bopp pics since last year???
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >P.S. I had heard that NASA had "bought" HST time to view HB in
> >July, August, September, and October 1996.....yet no pics.
>
>
> HST HAS taken pictures of the comet. Search the web they are there.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> Tom Randall Amateur Radio - KB2SMS
> trandall@mhv.net Mt. Beacon Amateur Radio Club / ARRL
> Member: AAVSO Solar Division
> "Hoof hearted, Ice melted!"
>
> Opinions herein are mine and may not be that of MHV.NET!
>
Subject: Re: geometry question
From: olson@ici.net (Jeremy J. Olson)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 21:06:21 -0500
In article <56iej6$t29@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>, devens@uoguelph.ca (David
L Evens) wrote:
.... it was already ancient habbit and it simply
~ wasn't worth the effort to change over to having other than 24 (now equal
~ length) hours in a day. (There have been any number of discussions about
~ the idea of changing the length of the units we measure time with, and
~ all of them have come down to it creating far more trouble than it's worth.)
It may be more trouble changing it, but once it's changed (for instance,
over to some kind of metric-type measuring, like 10hrs/day, 100 min/hr,
100sec/min) iut'll be easier to use.
Jeremy Olson, olson@ici.net
http://www.ici.net/cust_pages/olson/olson.html
Subject: Re: When will the U.S. finally go metric?
From: jchrist@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jock Robert Ian Christie)
Date: 16 Nov 1996 18:08:54 -0800
In article <56itgb$3s@nntp.seflin.lib.fl.us>,
James Wentworth wrote:
>
> A SMALL SNIP
>
>If we wished, we could once again be a self-contained economy and
>society. The backlash against NAFTA and GATT are the first signs of our
>possible return to our former economic state of affairs. In such a
>situation, we can and will use whatever system of weights and measures we
>choose with impunity. If other nations don't like it, so be it.
The previous message forgot to footnote Pat Buchanan. We will
NEVER again be a self contained economy for 2 simple reasons.
1) Most people will buy the cheaper product (if = quality), regardless
of origin.
OF COURSE INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTS ARE TYPICALLY METRIC
2) American companies want to sell their goods overseas and generate
more revenue. These companies can not afford to manufacture goods
in both metric and imperial units. As mentioned earlier in this
thread - Look under the hood of any recent GM/Ford/Chrysler.
Other than the diameter of the wheels and the speedometer output -
*everything* is metric.
THESE COMPANIES WILL MANUFACTURE METRIC GOODS TO SELL EVERYWHERE.
This does not mean that Farmer Jones will not be able to
sell his wheat by the bushel to his neighbor. But when that wheat
gets shipped abroad, it will be sold by the metric tonne.
I realize that some people are scared by the metric system.
But it will a slightly simpler and less confusing world when we
all agree to use the metric system and stop whining. Just because
'miles were good enough for my grandpa so they are good enough for me.'
If you really like the good old days - why are you using the
new-fangled Internet?
Jock R. I. Christie
p.s. Remember 1 m ~ waist height, 0 deg C = ice, 100 deg C = steam.
Subject: Re: Anomalous object near Hale-Bopp?
From: scopedr@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
Date: 17 Nov 1996 03:09:13 GMT
Hal Finney (hal@rain.org) wrote:
: I did what you suggested, looking at the Polomar web page and entering
: 17 49 36 for RA and -2 16 00 for Dec, which were the coordinates on
: that night (according to http://www.skypub.com/news/nov0896.html), and
: sure enough the big bright star just jumps out at you, with two dimmer
: stars nearby, such that the 3 match the photo in question very closely.
: Yet if you look at http://paradise.pplnet.com/shram/hbmap.gif, you see
: what is supposedly the output from a star charting program which shows
: the two dim stars, but no big bright one! Mysteriously it is missing
: although the Palomar chart you pointed out clearly shows it.
: I am forced to conclude that it has been edited out of the star chart
: by the unscrupulous Mr. Shramek in order to deepen the mystery
: surrounding his picture. In short, this is a hoax and Mr. Shramek a
: plain liar.
: It just goes to show that you can't believe everything you see on the
: web, even when it looks legitimate. Shramek knows the lingo and comes
: off as a convincing amateur astronomer, but that didn't stop him from
: doctoring a picture and lying about it.
: Hal Finney
After reading this post I took your advice and had a look at the Web Page.
I see that it is a screen dump of Megastar. I too own megastar (albeit a
much older version) and had a look at the coordinates. Guess what the star
was not there!
I then invocked the ECU version of the Hubble Guide star catalogue and the
star was not there as well. I was only able to retreive it in the SAO
Catalogue and of course in the Palomar Sky Survey. BTW, I beleive I found
the star plotted in Uranometria as well.
I suspect that this means that for whatever reason the star in question is
not part of the Hubble Guide Star Catalogue but is in the SAO Catalogue.
My understanding is that Uranometria is based on the SAO Catalogue and I
know for sure that most of my computing with ECU is done in the SAO mode.
Megastar operates using the Hubble Guide Star Catalogue.
One has to remember that the Hubble guide star catalogue was designed to
operate the Hubble telescope and as a result some stars are missing from
it due to various reasons. An example would be variable stars. You just
can't get a good magnitude reference from those. Beleive me there have
been times when I've been totally confused by this lack of stars in the
Hubble Guide Star catalogue!!! Thats why I almost always double check
things by going to the Palomar Sky Survey web page. Photographs just don't
care about variable stars. :-)
--
PAUL CAMPBELL email: scopedr@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
EDMONTON, AB, T6E 2B9
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: "walter m. cummings"
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 21:28:53 -0600
Steve Geller wrote:
>
> Wayne Shanks wrote:
>
> > I have seen several creationist calculation for the probability of
> > simple amino-acid formation, and they come up with a VERY high
> > improbibility. These calculations were done assuming no or little
> > particle interation. The situation they are calculation is akin to the
> > thermodynamics problem of computing the probability of all the gass
> > atoms in the room collecting in a pile on the floor.
> > [...]
> > It is true that we do not know how to properly calculate the
> > propability of abiogenisis, but that is just a matter of studying
> > physical chemistry (no small job). I am shure abiogenisis was not a
> > "ramdom" event but a energetically favored event in a special
> > environment.
>
> Right. But you are actually thinking about it as a real problem.
>
> The Creationists just use the "improbability" argument as a propaganda
> tool.
>
> It's intellectually dishonest, because a creation has zero probability,
> doesn't it?
>
> --
> Steve Geller
> (to be sure I respond to your reply, E-Mail it to me)
The question of the genesis of life is not exactly a pure scientific
question. Science cannot return to the point that nothing existed.
When science tries to trace facts backwards ( this I think anyone can
agree with ) they have been faced with great failures in evidence and
have not been able to replicate any hypothesis. Scientific replication
and sound systematic documentation are the basis of all good science.
The trouble with some of the evolutionary theory is in both areas. Even
in this area of expertise there is much disarray as to where and how.
Mix in a good dose of chaos theaory (which in my mind is evolutions best
hope) sudden appearance, a personal favorite, with classic Darwinism and
you got quite a mess. A lack of a fossil record completes the confusion
by science today. ( I won't even go into the terrible
misinterpretations and outright lies "science" has suffered through, but
it would make you appreciate a televangilist. that's a joke) Christians
aren't just snobbish about their faith, they are unconvinced by
science's answers. "It could happen," is not a better scenario than
that of faith. Now, theorectically, think---back before matter, would
there be time, if not (and Einstien believed time only existed in a
reality with matter) think back before time, before it all. Open your
eyes there and see God.
Subject: Re: Read Sagan's account of Dogon tribe and Sirius B ...
From: tyler@ug1.plk.af.mil (David Tyler)
Date: 16 Nov 1996 19:49:04 -0700
bb089@scn.org (James Conway) writes:
>In a previous article, holland@geop.ubc.ca (Stephen Holland) says:
>>In article <56dpeb$chh@starman.rsn.hp.com>, schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>The Dogon described Sirius B, even tho they said no one could see
>it with their eyes, as what we would recognize as a white dwarf star.
>Another lucky guess? How many do you guys get?
what, did they mention something about degenerate matter? or did they
just say something like, ``small, but dense?"
dave
______________________________________________________________________
-David W. Tyler "It seems you feel our work is not
-USAF Phillips Laboratory of benefit to the public."
-Albuquerque, New Mexico
-tyler@plk.af.mil --Rachel
Subject: Re: Anomalous object near Hale-Bopp?
From: Steve Jolly
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 00:13:40 -0400
In his message, Hal Finney relates how he compared the Palomar Sky
Survey charts and the postings on Shramek's "mysterious object" home
page, and continues:
>...(On the Palomar charts) sure enough the big
>bright star just jumps out at you, with two dimmer
>stars nearby, such that the 3 match the photo
>in question very closely.
>Yet if you look at http://paradise.pplnet.com/
shram/hbmap.gif, you see what is supposedly
>the output from a star charting program, which
>shows the two dim stars, but no big bright one!
Mysteriously, it is missing, although the Palomar
>chart you pointed out clearly shows it.
>I am forced to conclude that it has been edited
out of the star chart by the unscrupulous Mr.
>Shramek in order to deepen the mystery
>surrounding his picture...
---------
Outstanding response! One of the best, terse, scalpel-sharp postings
I've seen in memory. Neat--but mortal--incision in Mr. Shramek and his
photos; autopsy shows fatal deflation.
Subject: Re: They're coming!
From: Z4047877@chollian.dacom.co.kr (천리안 NEWS GROUP 이용자)
Date: 17 Nov 1996 04:28:52 GMT
Richard T. Berg (bergrd@valunet.com) wrote:
: On Sat, 16 Nov 96 23:30:58, reflex@gwen.in-berlin.de (flexy) wrote:
: >>
: >> RE: THEY'RE COMING!
: >>
: >>Richard A. Schumacher wrote:
: >>>
: >>> Uhh, no. The "mysterious object" is an ordinary star, overexposed
: >>> in a picture taken by an amateur:
: >>>
: >>Wrong. Your explanation doesn't wash. I have looked into several
: >>computer generated star charts from that night, time and location and
: >>there was not supposed to be a star in that location, much less of
: >>sufficient magnitude to account for the brightness. I assume you are one
: >>of the skepticult crowd trying to say that it was Star H5086.310? Yeah,
: >>right.
: I've created a photo mosaic of the information as-is. I've posted it
: in alt.binaries.pictures.astro under the thread "Mysterious Object
: Unveiled.." Take a look. This image was composed using several
: programs and PhotoShop 3.0. Let me know what you think. I would have
: to agree on the SAO 141894 theory - By Far!
: Richard T. Berg
: [-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------]
: * . . . * .. * . . . * .
: . . . * * . . . * *
: * * * . *ejm 96* * * * .
: * // . * * * .* . . *
: //
: ___o |=// Richard Berg
: /\ \/ //|\ http://www.valunet.com/~bergrd
: / / | \
: ` ` ' '
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: Kris Schumacher
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 22:38:50 -0500
On 15 Nov 1996, Ed Conrad wrote:
> alweiner@presstar.com (Alan Weiner) wrote:
>
> >Name and publisher of book pls. What evidence do they use to support
> >this conjecture?
>
> >In article <32853A38.38E7@gte.net>, ashes@gte.net says...
> >>
> >>I read in a science book that there is a greater posibility of a
> >>printinng press exploding and forming webster's dictionary completly by
> >>accident; as opposed to the world being created from some dead matter.
>
>
> Ashes to ashes,
> Dust to dust.,
> Got to correct you,
> THAT I must!
>
> T'wasn't that book
> you're referring to.
> An ENCYCLOPEDIA,
> If you want to know.
>
clearly, it's a silly unscientific quote from some frustrated
writer who couldn't grasp concepts and had to lash out at everyone else
for being smarter by saying a ridiculous lie. I do the same thing myself,
or at least I did when I was younger. . .but it doesn't really deserve
consideration just because it's a quote or because it is in print.
If a printing press were to explode, and the matter from that was
to form any book previously written (or any original work, for that
matter), It would have created a better part of human culture from
nothing. These seems a lot less probable, don't you think? A book
implies a writer and a culture, so even if the culture doesn't exist, it
would be created by the explosion that creates a book.
ALSO, ... (I can't stop myself from writing...) To say the world
created by some dead matter sounds silly. What is the world that this
refers to? You used dead as if to mean inert, and matter generally isn't
inert. {now let me proceed into metaphysics} matter which isn't inert is
moving, and movement is energy and energy is life. I don't call light
alive, but that is negative energy. all life is slightly positive.
Choices are not free but freedom is choices and they are energy. this
freedom is not life but consciousness. there are levels of life below
awareness. but this life we don't see as life because it doesn't see
itself as life and then it can't exist as such. all things that we see as
life have some level of awareness which proceeds to where we are fully (?)
conscious and even self-conscious beings. the matter at the start of it
all, which was probably nothing but movement, predicted this. It could
have been no other way. there was no probability. it was 1/1.
of course, for anything to be there rather than nothing, well,
maybe that was improbable, but time was not existant before there was no
time, so probability does not play a role.
Subject: Re: They're coming!
From: bergrd@valunet.com (Richard T. Berg)
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 01:56:14 GMT
On Sat, 16 Nov 96 23:30:58, reflex@gwen.in-berlin.de (flexy) wrote:
>>
>> RE: THEY'RE COMING!
>>
>>Richard A. Schumacher wrote:
>>>
>>> Uhh, no. The "mysterious object" is an ordinary star, overexposed
>>> in a picture taken by an amateur:
>>>
>>Wrong. Your explanation doesn't wash. I have looked into several
>>computer generated star charts from that night, time and location and
>>there was not supposed to be a star in that location, much less of
>>sufficient magnitude to account for the brightness. I assume you are one
>>of the skepticult crowd trying to say that it was Star H5086.310? Yeah,
>>right.
I've created a photo mosaic of the information as-is. I've posted it
in alt.binaries.pictures.astro under the thread "Mysterious Object
Unveiled.." Take a look. This image was composed using several
programs and PhotoShop 3.0. Let me know what you think. I would have
to agree on the SAO 141894 theory - By Far!
Richard T. Berg
[-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------]
* . . . * .. * . . . * .
. . . * * . . . * *
* * * . *ejm 96* * * * .
* // . * * * .* . . *
//
___o |=// Richard Berg
/\ \/ //|\ http://www.valunet.com/~bergrd
/ / | \
` ` ' '
Subject: A realistic idea about Hale/Bopp... for a change.... I think...
From: James Maynard
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 22:51:54 -0500
Hale/Bopp seems to have returned from it's slumber and started
kicking out dust and water vapor at it's original pace. Reports during
it's "non-brightning" phase indicated that it was increasing in absolute
magnitude *slower* than a non-cometary object. Various reports I've seen
the last few days report it's right back on schedule. S&T; reported right
after H/B started giving off water vapor that the amount of dust being
released was 10X what was expected. I have a theory.... Ahem...
My theory (and I use the term loosely) goes like this. Comets are,
by and large dirty snowballs. Correct. What would Happen say, if one were
a *really* dirty snowball? I mean, *really* dirty... Let's imagine for
instance, if it had big chunks of dark material, possibly organic (and by
that I mean only "carbon based") mixed in with the ices; what would we
see? I would think, like this. The comet would appear, the ices would
start melting, then when signifigant amounts melt away (like when the
water ice started melting) , the Dust would start flowing like crazy,
because the dark material would be more loosely held together. Later, as
the first layers of ice melted away, the dark material may show more,
creating a darker surface, which could cause a stagnation like we saw.
When that broke away (maybe causing jets), more ice may be showing,kicking
the comet back
into high gear again. Of course, this would assume at least a degree of
layering of the ice/rocks/ice/rocks etc.; Could this be explained by
previous orbits with the ice only forming when a distance away from the
sun? Why would this happen? Why on this comet? Anyway, the "very dirty
snowball" theory seems to me to have a least a *reasonable* chance of
being true. What does everyone else think? BTW, if it is true, I want
credit for coming up with the "VDS theory". {;O)}----
clear skies to all;
Jim
Subject: Re: Hale Bopp photos
From: hainaut@lupus.ifa.hawaii.edu (Oliver Hainaut)
Date: 16 Nov 1996 17:55:29 -1000
Chuck Forsberg (caf@agora.rdrop.com) writes:
> According to discussion on the Art Bell radio show, a new object
> about four times the size of the Earth has appeared next to the
> comet.
trandall@mhv.net replied
> The object is a STAR, an SAO star I believe....
Right:
sao 141894 = PPM 180171 = gsc 5086 361, Spectral type M,
Coordinates: 17h 49min 33.3sec -2deg 13' 45.4" (eqx 2000)).
Just a plain, boring SAO star. There are many out there.
If you are not convinced, have a look at
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~hainaut/Hale_Bopp/hb_ufo.html
There is the original "UFO" picture, and the same field, observed at
Palomar with the same stars (and without the comet). By the way, I
wonder how they got that 4x the Earth...
Chuck continues:
> This has supposedly been confirmed by other observers.
Sure. Everybody can see that star.
> There is something very strange about this comet (UFO-wise) and
> this is why the supply of Hubble pics of the comet have dried up.
OK, that comet IS not common: bright, strange rotation, great
jets... but does one require a UFO to explain it? no. Just a big
comet. By the way, the pictures are still coming: look at
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~hainaut/Hale_Bopp/hb_nov96.html
for a very recent (Nov 12) image. Not HST's sharpness, but still
better than most ground-based observatories (0.7" seeing). (About
Hubble: isn't Hale-Bopp a little bit too close to the Sun to be
observed safely? anyone at ST-Sci out there?)
Oli
-- Olivier R. Hainaut ---------------------------------------------------------
Institute for Astronomy-University of Hawaii, hainaut@ifa.hawaii.edu
2680 Woodlawn Dv, http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~hainaut
-- Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA -----------------Ph: +1 808 956 6666 -Fx: 9580--
--
-- Olivier R. Hainaut ---------------------------------------------------------
Institute for Astronomy-University of Hawaii, hainaut@ifa.hawaii.edu
2680 Woodlawn Dv, http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~hainaut
-- Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA -----------------Ph: +1 808 956 6666 -Fx: 9580--
Subject: Re: Cloud Cover
From: devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
Date: 17 Nov 1996 03:53:47 GMT
Steve Emmett (semmett@adams.patriot.net) wrote:
: Does anyone have any ideas on how to REMOTELY measure cloud cover at
: night? I'm aware of the 2 plate method, but that would appear to work
: only during sunlight hours.
: I'd like to measure cloud cover and use the data as one of the inputs to
: opening/closing a dome. Wind, temperature, humidity (dew point) all are
: relatively straight forward, but the clouds are a problem.
Hmmm...is it feasible to measure the sharpness to which star images can
be resolved? If you took samples over a reasonable sized chunk of sky,
you'd only get (relatively) sharply defined star images where there
wasn't cloud cover, and essentially a uniform smudge where there was.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Anomalous object near Hale-Bopp?
From: gordonc@iea.com (Gordon Clausen)
Date: 17 Nov 96 04:44:21 GMT
garyb@efn.org says...
>Actually, the astronomer who posted the photos thought that it could be
>a star also. He checked, and re-checked his start chart and found that
>there is no star at that location.
But there is. SAO 141894. It's on my registered version of SkyMap.
http://www.skymap.com/
You can visit "the astronomer's" home page at:
http://paradise.pplnet.com/shram/comet.htm
and "learn" all about the JFK conspiracy, Masonic numerology,
Roswell, alien artifacts on the moon and Mars, etc.,etc.
Or visit
http://www.halebopp.com/
and see what Alan Hale (Co-Discoverer of Comet Hale-Bopp) has
to say.
Gordon Clausen gordonc@iea.com
**************************************************************
The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts
as are injurious to others. -- Thomas Jefferson
**************************************************************
Subject: Re: Anomalous object near Hale-Bopp?
From: jdr@crl.com (Jon Roland)
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 96 05:50:58 GMT
Amateur astronomer Chuck Shramek of Houston, Texas, claims he has imaged an object
accompanying Comet Hale-Bopp that appears to be about 3-4 times the size of Earth,
and that the comet appears to be in orbit around it.
His images and interpretation of them are found on his WWW site at
http://paradise.pplnet.com/shram/comet.htm
It will be interesting if other observers confirm this report, and if so, what the
trajectory might be. The projected trajectory of the comet is not expected to get
closer than about 90 million miles to Earth during 1997. However, the presence of
a more massive object passing through the Solar System could have gravitational
effects on the inner planets that should concern us. There could also be other
accompanying objects that could cause trouble for us.
The existence of rogue planets, that is, planets unbound to any star, but
wandering through the galaxy, has been the subject of speculation for some time.
They could account for much of the missing "dark matter" that has an observed
gravitational effect on the dynamics of the galaxy but which neither emit or
absorb light in ways that make it possible to detect them easily.
Some comets are interstellar. That is, their orbits are hyperbolic, so that they
are unbound to our sun, and will, after passing nearby once, leave the
neighborhood of the sun and never return. It is possible that there may be very
large nonluminous bodies out there, essentially comets, but as large or larger
than planets, objects that never got large enough to ignite as stars.
I have also speculated in past articles that a significant number of such rogue
bodies could be rocky planets with hot cores, like that of Earth, cores heated by
internal radioactivity and gravitational compression. Such planets could be
suitable abodes for colonization, with the colonists living beneath the surface
and drawing energy from the core. There is no need to have a star to warm the
surface. The core could support a civilization in comfort for billions of years.
If this object is such a planet suitable for colonization, it is too bad that it
is approaching now, when we are unready to take advantage of it. In a decade or
two we might be ready to plant a colony on it, provide humanity a second home, and
begin spreading throughout the galaxy, using such rogue planets as our starships.
Of course, it is also possible that it has already been colonized by others who
had the same idea before us. Could they be visiting us now as they prepare to pass
nearby? Perhaps looking for new places to colonize?
We need a mission to Hale-Bopp, preferable one that is manned, a mission equipped
to land on Hale-Bopp or this companion object, take samples, and return. It could
be the greatest opportunity of the millennium.
--Jon
==============================================================
Starflight Corporation http://www.crl.com/~jdr/
1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825
6900 San Pedro #147-230, San Antonio, TX 78216
916/450-7941VM
http://www.the-spa.com/jon.roland/ mailto:jdr@crl.com
==============================================================
Subject: Re: Anomalous object near Hale-Bopp?
From: nash@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Dave Nash)
Date: 17 Nov 1996 06:11:11 GMT
hal@rain.org (Hal Finney) writes:
>west@sonic.net (Wes Thomas) writes:
>>See http://www.artbell.com/art/images/halebopp5.jpg and
>>http://www.artbell.com/art/images/halebopp6.jpg
[deletions]
>According to http://www.skypub.com/comets/hb03.html, the comet's position
>is:
> Date R.A. (2000.0) Dec. Elong. Mag.
> Nov. 9 17h 45.0m -02 45' 43 Ev 4.2
> Nov. 19 17h 52.9m -01 54' 37 Ev 4.0
[deletions]
It's a normal star.
A quick check of Hale-Bopp's path using a basic starchart program
(Voyager II, v.1.0) gave me Hale-Bopp's position on November 14, 1996,
when the CCD image was apparently taken. A look near Hale-Bopp's
position in the _Uranometria 2000_ star atlas shows Hale-Bopp passing
within a few arcminutes of a 9th magnitude star, approximate coordinates
RA 17h 49m, Dec -2 deg 15 min on the evening of the 14th of
November (~0 hr UT Nov. 15).
I went and grabbed an image from the Digitized Star Survey
(http://stdatu.stsci.edu/dss/ ),at RA 17h 49m 30s, Dec -2deg 15min,
size 8' by 8'. This Digitized Star Survey "plate" is on my web site
at http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~nash/gifs/halebopp-dss-field.gif. The 9th
magnitude star in _Uranometria 2000_ is the bright star roughly
centered in the DSS image, and if you compare some of the fainter
stars around it, the patterns are a perfect match for the other stars
shown on the JPEG at artbell.com. You do have to rotate the image
about 90 degrees to get them to line up, but the alignment is there.
Start with the bright pair of stars closest to Hale-Bopp in the
halebopp5.jpg (to the left of the mystery object in this image and
just below it in the Digitized Star Survey image) and work from there.
(An aside: The magnitude limit of the DSS plates is much dimmer than
that of the "mystery object" jpeg, so only the brightest stars on the
former show up well on the latter.)
I don't know the identity of this star, but people with more advanced
computer catalogs (mine only goes to magnitude 8, alas) suggest SAO
141899.
--Dave
>Hal
--
Dave Nash, School of Chemical Sciences, University of Illinois
E-mail: nash@aries.scs.uiuc.edu; WWW: http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~nash/
--"It's 106 miles to the centerline, we've got a 10" scope, half a box
of eyepieces, it's getting dark, and we're wearing mylar glasses...HIT IT!"
Subject: Re: Anomalous object near Hale-Bopp?
From: robinson@sky.net (Rob Robinson)
Date: 17 Nov 1996 06:09:48 GMT
Jon Roland (jdr@crl.com) wrote:
:Amateur astronomer Chuck Shramek of
:Houston, Texas, claims he has imaged an object accompanying Comet
:Hale-Bopp that appears to be about 3-4 times the size of Earth, and that
:the comet appears to be in orbit around it. Of course, it is also
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From what source to you get your information?
nearby? Perhaps looking for new places to colonize? We need a mission to
Hale-Bopp, preferable one that is manned, a mission equipped to land on
Hale-Bopp or this companion object, take samples, and return. It could be
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is NO COMPANION OBJECT! Hale-Bopp is a SINGLE OBJECT.
Look through a telescope. Track it from night to night in front of the
field stars. It is plain as day there is no other object moving with it,
circling it, it circling an obkect or approaching it. It is a lone object.
--
==============================================================================
Rob Robinson Bonner Spgs KS USA http://www.sky.net/~robinson/iotandx.htm
WebSpinner for the International Occultation Timing Association
Vice-President of the Astronomical Society of Kansas City
(have a program you would like to present to the ASKC? - email me!)
94.8932 West 39.0579 North 249.7 Meters
==============================================================================
Subject: Re: Anomalous object near Hale-Bopp?
From: "David W. Knisely"
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 06:36:38 -0800
Hi Dave. The bright star in question is indeed SAO 141889 (magnitude
7.76), but I had a little trouble matching the field exactly to the
position for Hale-Bopp. For Dance of the Planets, the star appears a
little too far to the west of the coma. Can someone isolate the field
location, and get Hale-Bopp's exact position for that time?
--
David W. Knisely, KA0CZC email: dk84538@navix.net
Prairie Astronomy Club, Inc. http://www.infoanalytic.com/pac/
Attend the 4th annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY, AUGUST 2-9th, 1997
BABYLON 5: Our last best hope for QUALITY science fiction.
Subject: Re: Comet Hale Bopp: Is there intelligent life on Earth?
From: "David W. Knisely"
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 06:41:45 -0800
Re: Star near Hale-Bopp. Since the character who took the picture didn't
include much in the way of detail (field size, exposure time, equipment,
ect), it is kind of hard to give a definitive answer to what the object
was, thus there were several suggestions as to what is was. I didn't say
that anyone was an idiot, but I did give some possible explanations (two
stars, a geostationary satellite, ect.). Mr "Chuck" needs to learn how
science is done before he goes on national radio and makes amateur
astronomers look bad.
--
David W. Knisely, KA0CZC email: dk84538@navix.net
Prairie Astronomy Club, Inc. http://www.infoanalytic.com/pac/
Attend the 4th annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY, AUGUST 2-9th, 1997
BABYLON 5: Our last best hope for QUALITY science fiction.
Subject: Re: Could intelligent extraterrestrial life exist in our galaxy?
From: aranders@kosepc01.delcoelect.com (Alan Anderson)
Date: 8 Nov 1996 17:07:01 GMT
In <3282B397.BE7@hcn.hcnews.com>,
Brother Blaze writes:
>Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1974)
>The actual definition reads:
>
>1 c: an organismic state characterised by the capacity for metabolism,
>growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. (pg 663)
>> Automobiles, for instance, could be considered alive by this definition.
>> So could candleflames.
["this definition" referring to the physiological definition of life]
>I see no way in which automobiles could fit this definition.
>How do they grow?
Cars "grow" during their assembly until they are "mature" enough.
My grandfather hasn't grown since 1975, but he's still alive. :)
Does he fit this definition? Lichens in extreme northern Alaska
stop growing after a while; does that mean they're no longer alive?
>How do the react to stimuli?
My car detects heavy braking on a slippery surface and modulates the
brake fluid pressure. My car detects an increase in load and adjusts
the spark timing to compensate. My car controls fuel delivery when
cruise control is active in order to maintain a uniform speed. My
car unlocks its doors when I ask it to.
I'd say it acts moderately intelligent. :)
>How do they procreate?
In much the same way as viruses procreate. A successful automobile will
create a demand for more copies of itself, and the existing mechanism
by which automobiles are produced creates more of them.
>As for candle flames--
>How do they react to external stimuli?
By moving, growing, shrinking, changing color, changing temperature,
producing smoke, flickering, dying...
>Reaction to external stimuli does not entail such things as: "I pushed
>it and it moved." It involves reactions which are not simple physical
>or chemical reactions.
Well, that pretty much narrows it down to nothing! How do you define
"simple" here? Does a virtual-reality simulation of a dog count? How
about a venus' flytrap? A homeostatic environmental control system with
a fuzzy-logic neural network? An immune system T-cell?
>And, of course, adding the 4th criteria (hate those memory lapses)
>neither flames nor car metabolize.
me.tab.o.lize \-.li-z\ vt : to subject to metabolism to perform metabolism
That didn't help -- let's try again. :)
me.tab.o.lism \m*-'tab-*-.liz-*m\ n [ISV, fr. Gk metabole- change, fr.
metaballein to change, fr. Xmeta- + ballein to throw - more at DEVIL 1a:
the sum of the processes in the building up and destruction of protoplasm
incidental to life; specif : the chemical changes in living cells by which
energy is provided for vital processes and activities and new material is
assimilated to repair the waste 1b: the sum of the processes by which a
particular substance is handled in the living body 2: METAMORPHOSIS
Ignoring the circular references to "life", it looks like metabolism is
something which involves chemical changes which provide energy and produce
waste.
People consume fuel and produce energy and waste.
Flames consume fuel and produce energy and waste.
Cars consume fuel and produce energy and waste.
= === === === = = = === === === === = = === = = = === = = === =
# Alan Anderson # Ignorance can be fixed, but stupidity is permanent. #
(I do not speak for Delco Electronics, and DE does not speak for me.)
