Newsgroup sci.astro 135533

Directory

Wes Thomas (west@sonic.net) wrote:
: Art Bell show reporting right now that an amateur astronomer has
: sighted a giant strange object visually near the Hale-Bopp comet. The
: object mysteriously appeared Wednesday night and resembles Saturn, but
: is "sefl-illuminating" with anomalously-even illumination, according
: to Chuck Shramek, an amateur astronomer in Houston. 
: See http://www.artbell.com/art/images/halebopp5.jpg and
: http://www.artbell.com/art/images/halebopp6.jpg
Shramek is nuts....
He has a homepage set up, with all kinds of wierd stuff...
Dont remember what it is, since once there, you'll never go back.
Notice that this was also posted to alt.conspiracy??
There are those that want to read other things into what is known fact.
They are convinved they are seeing things that arent really there.
I am sure that if there WAS something there, the IAU circulars would have
reported it.
read the post....who made the determination that this object was
self-illuminating?? And what exactly does "anomalouly-even" mean?? If the
illumination was even, why was it an anomaly??
-- 
==============================================================================
 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 
==============================================================================

Robert. Fung wrote:
> 
> > No, as far as I know, you can never be sure that you have only one photon.
> 
>             It's implied that this is the case in this recent work:
>             http://p23.lanl.gov/Quantum/kwiat/ifm-folder/ifmtext.htm
> 
I'll take a look at it. 
> > Take a course (or two) in quantum mechanics to find out how
> > this all works.  It's a nice way to while away the time!
> 
>            Perhaps this is a more pedagogical description of the
>            applicability of photons ? :
> 
>            The Nyquist limit:
> 
>                  delta w * delta t >= 1/2
> 
>            leads to a sampling limit of twice the frequency of the
>            highest frequency component of a signal.
> 
Yes, this applies to any wave-type phenomena.
>            The corresponding HUP eq is:
> 
>                  delta E * delta t >= h
> 
>            since  E=hw.
> 
Given that the state functions satisfy a wave equation (Schroedinger's 
equation), a relationship like the HUP should be expected. One way in
which modern text books derive it is from a Fourier transform from
configuration space to momentum space.
Heisenberg's original method used the commutators; there are many ways
to specify the formalism of QM.
>            But what does this mean ? E=hw is a continuous function
>            of E for w. It only applies when matter e.g. the Bohr
>            model of electron shells etc. is involved ?
> 
E = h*w  (actually, h*f; you've got an extra factor of 2pi there, unless you
mean h_bar) is always true for photons.
> 
>            A magnet surrounded by iron filings exhibits magnetic
>            field quantization nicely I think. When the field passes
>            through uniform spread of filings the filings move into
>            Faraday lines.
This is not quantization, and if you use something with very fine particles in
a liquid suspension, you'll see that those lines disappear (I think). Better
get another opinion here, I think!
> Why ?  The filings bunch
>            together into the Faraday lines. They quantize in this
>            way because the magnetic field prefers to go through
>            the filings rather than free space. This leaves a
>            magnetic depletion zone between the lines where filings
>            were, while additional filings placed in these zones
>            will move into the existing lines.
>
Well, this is true, but it isn't quantization. The magnetic field lines just
follow the path of least resistance.  And though we've both refered to magnetic
field lines, these really don't exist ... all we have are flux densities.  The
field lines are a convenient fiction.
Best Regards, Peter

kim kyongsok wrote:
> what's the difference between cm3 and ml.
Originally (definition of 1901), the liter was the volume of 1 kg
pure water at maximum density and at standard athmospheric pressure. 
In the 1950s, volume measurement techniques became precise enough to
discover that the liter and dm^3 differed by around 28*10^-6. Therefore,
in 1964, the word "liter" was redefined to be a special short name for
cubic decimeter. Since then, a liter has been only approximately the
volume of a kilogram of pure water at 4 degrees Celsius, but you need
*extremely* good volume measurement equipment to tell the difference.
Therefore, today 1 cm^3 and 1 mL are exactly the same volume, and mL is
just easier to write.
About the abbreviation of liter: based on existing practice, the SI
standard allows both L and l, i.e. also both mL and ml. In Europe, I
have so far seen mostly ml as the abbreviation for milliliter. In the
U.S., NIST SP PUB 330 (the official translation of the SI standard for
the U.S.) allows only the L as the abbreviation for liter, therefore you
see here on products usually text like 500 mL. The reason: In the U.S.,
the number one is written by hand just as a vertical single stroke, and
not like in Europe with an upstroke. Therefore, l and 1 can be confused
here much more easily than in Europe.
[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.]
> is it o.k. to say that 1 ml is equal to 1 cm3
Yes, since 1964, they have been exactly the same thing.
> also what's the difference between cc and cm3?
cc is an English abbreviation of the words "cubic centimeter". It is not
defined in the SI standard and you should not use it. "mL" is as easy to
write and pronounce as "cc", so better use "mL" instead. You can use
cm^3 or ml or mL whatever you prefer, but please not cc.
Markus
-- 
Markus Kuhn, Computer Science grad student, Purdue
University, Indiana, US, email: kuhn@cs.purdue.edu

>explains it.  The concept of 3-dimensional space expanding, every atom
>getting further away from one another is difficult to grasp. 
True!
>The
>analogy of 2-D on the surface of a balloon is ok, but when translated
>into 3-D, it implies that everything is expanding in 3 dimensions.  Is
>the earth's radius larger now than when I was born? Is the length of a
>covalent bond between Carbon atoms longer than it was 1000 yrs ago?
>If so, will there come a time when certain chemical bonds no longer
>work?  Will water cease to exist someday?
No. The expansion omly occurs on huge distance scales. Think of
the balloon analogy, but instead of each dot being an atom, each
dot is a cluster of galaxies. The dots themselves don't expand.
They're paper dots glued on, not paint spots.
And it's actually more subtle than that. Space does not expand
carrying all matter passively along with it: it is the distribution
and motion of matter which defines space. The balloon analogy is 
misleading on this point because it implies that the balloon defines 
where the dots are. In terms of the real universe, it's the dots
which define the balloon. That refinement makes it harder to
grasp the picture initially, so it's often left out. The real
purpose of the balloon analogy is to illustrate the concept
of a space which can expand in such a way that each point
in/on it sees itself as the "center" of the expansion.
> The expansion of the universe causes the physical path that the
>photon travels to increase in distance at a constant rate (55-90 km/s
>/ Mpc).  Ok, you say we've always been right here.  That implies that
>WE Are not moving (except for our small peculiar motion of a few
>hundred km/sec).  Then the galaxy that emitted the 4.55 redshifted
>photon is the same place it has always been( except for its peculiar
>motion).  The Universe, which started with a Big Bang from a single
>point ,  cannot be thought of as an expanding Sphere in 3 dimensions
>because it has no borders or boundries.  Yet the photon still took 14
>BILLION years travelling at 186,282 miles/sec to cross the portion of
>the universe (which was expanding constantly) between us.  The age of
>the universe is 18 Billion years.  This photon has been travelling for
>85% of the time which has passed since the Big Bang.  We all started
>from the same spot.  We've always been right here.  The source galaxy
>has always been right here too .  Therefore the photon was emitted by
>our galaxy , and has been traveling some unknown path for 14 Billion
>years, only to return here.  ????
Back to the balloon :->  Earth and a distant galaxy started out
as points one inch apart. But the balloon is expanding _so fast_
that those points were separating at almost the speed of light *.
So fast, in fact, that it took the light from one 14 billion 
years to reach the other. Naturally, since they are moving apart
so fast, the light arrives with a huge redshift. Does that help?
The common stumbling block is in realizing that objects now
billions of light years apart were once inches apart; and that
at that time they were rushing away from each other at a speed
scarcely less than the speed of light.
* The expansion has slowed down a little since then because
  of their mutual gravity, but not a lot.

Judson McClendon   wrote:
>IG (Slim) Simpson wrote:
>> Why quote from a book that , for the most part, I don't accept. If I
>> quote from the Koran (Sp?) will it make any difference to you??
>
>"For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any
>two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and
>of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of
>the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)
	Mr. McClendon,
	I'm not sure you got the point of Slim's post.  His point was,
(and it's quite valid, I believe) that if someone does not accept the
Bible as the truth, isn't quoting *FROM* the Bible quite obviously the
least effective way to convince him of anything?
	I have seen some reasonable arguments for the upholding of 
Christian principles, or for the accuracy of the Bible or other holy
books; none of them rested on the actual book's _content_, because it
was the validity of said content that was in question. 	
	If I wanted to convince you that natural selection created 
humankind (that is, if I *wanted* to), I would perhaps point to the 
current body of evidence that supports it, or at least to the 
scientific principles violated by different versions of creation
theories.  I most certainly wouldn't try to convince you by 
liberally quoting the wit and wisdom Charles Darwin, the person 
whose opinions on origins you are completely opposed to, a person 
whom you wouldn't trust to begin with!  Isn't this obvious?  You're
doing more or less the same thing by quoting the Bible.
	Perhaps a less dogmatic approach would be more effective.
>Judson McClendon
>Sun Valley Systems    judsonmc@ix.netcom.com
						Hugs and Spiff!,
						Caj

In <3288CE86.745F@cdc.com> Dave writes:
 > The problem with creationists is that they assume that those of us
 > that believe in evolution are atheists.
Absolutely.  The well is poisoned.  When people hear the word "evolution",
they first think of atheism.  Then they think of a whole constellation
of 18th-century ideas about some mystical force driving life forms up
some mythological Chain of Being - all of which is poles apart from 
any 20th-century understanding of the history of life on earth.
People attacked Darwin and his successors so violently because they 
mistakenly assumed that he was defending such 18th-century ideas, and 
not introducing an entirely new paradigm.  The self-styled "creationists"
today are still doing it.
So - the word "evolution" is spoiled. I understand that Darwin himself
almost never used it.  We need a new word.  Any suggestions?
Ben

Robert. Fung wrote:
>            A magnet surrounded by iron filings exhibits magnetic
>            field quantization nicely I think. When the field passes
>            through uniform spread of filings the filings move into
>            Faraday lines. Why ?  The filings bunch
>            together into the Faraday lines. They quantize in this
>            way because the magnetic field prefers to go through
>            the filings rather than free space. This leaves a
>            magnetic depletion zone between the lines where filings
>            were, while additional filings placed in these zones
>            will move into the existing lines.
In the theoretical perspective in which I work (Tapered Harmony), I 
view the pattern that the filings trace in terms of What's Described 
By 2nd Thermo (WDB2T). In this view, what are referred to as "atoms" 
are actually quantities of energy that are "trapped" in the form of 
Spherical Standing Waves (SSWs) that are in "compression"-"expansion" 
harmonic interaction with a Universal Energy Supply (UES; SSW<->UES 
harmonics). The energy is "trapped" because the sphere's 
volume/surface geometry under compression & expansion comes up against 
"window" sizes that prevent the "trapped" energy from escaping at c. 
The "windows" just are not big enough for the energy to escape without 
violating c.
But in this view, work is required to maintani the SSW<->UES 
harmonics. It is this real, physical work which is WDB2T.
The iron filings congregate as they do in magnetic fields because 
doing so constitutes a least-action configuration with respect to 
WDB2T - the energy dissipated in the collective sustenance of the iron 
SSW<->UES harmonics is minimized when they divide their group Geometry 
up in the form of the "Faraday lines".
Inherent in this is the view that "magnitism", itself, constitutes an 
ordered flow within the UES. Substances which react macroscopically to 
"magnetism" are "just" doing, in the presence of the "magnetic field", 
the least-action thing with respect to the Universal flow of energy 
from ordered "states" to less-ordered "states" that is WDB2T. In this 
view, the "magnetic field" consists of a physically-Real, 
relatively-ordered =flow= of energy. The iron filings align their 
intrinsic SSW<->UES harmonic flows with respect to the macroscopic 
flow that is "magnetism".
Substances which are not macroscopically "magnetic" (wood, etc.), do 
not respond to the flow of energy which is "magnetism" because the 
flow does not enhance the relationship between their SSW<->UES 
harmonics and the Universal flow of energy that is WDB2T.
>            The question is, whether the magnetic field is quantized
>            in such a way in "free-space" rather than a continuously
>            varying field strength ?
> 
>            Is the magnetic field continuous if we don't look at it ?
My view is that the Universe is continuous, and that all "quantal" 
stuff is only apparent when SSW<->UES harmonics are elevated above 
energy-content thresholds - that is when they receive energy that 
cannot be enduringly "trapped" within their Volume/surface area 
Geometry. Such excess energy is "spit out" by the SSW<->UES harmonics. 
Such has been interpreted as constituting a "quantal" event, but when 
one looks, one sees that, rather than constituting" a "quantal" event, 
such constitutes a thresholded redirection event within a continuous 
flow. 
There are significant benefits of viewing things in this way, many of 
which arise out of the recognition of the existence of sub-threshold 
energy flow dynamics, and the realization that such sub-threshold 
flows can actually be manipulated to perform useful work. And, for 
those with an aesthetic bent, this view dispenses with all of 
the so-called "quantum weirdness". ken collins
_____________________________________________________
People hate because they fear, and they fear because
they do not understand, and they do not understand 
because hating is less work than understanding.

Triple Quadrophenic (Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig) wrote:
: What you've got to realise is that the correct answer to the question "Is a 
: photon a particle or a wave?" is "Neither". A photon (electron/neutrino/etc) 
: sometimes behaves like a particle, sometimes like a wave. Frequency is a 
: property of waves but it is also a property of fundamental particles.
Actually, it would probably be more correct to say "both".  A photon is
actually a wave packet, with a beginning and ending.  A great
source of information on this is an electronic article written by Dr.
Giles Henderson of Eastern Illinois University which is published at
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu
It illustrates how a photon is created or absorbed.
--
_____________________________________________________________________
	Donald A. Probst	cudap@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu

Looks like a diffraction artefact to me.
Could the origignal (fits) image be uploaded somewhere... it is pretty
hard to judge a jpeg image !
		-- Benoit

In <328CAA96.2847@sdrc.com> Jim Batka  writes: 
>
>Tim Hollebeek wrote:
>> 
>> In article , apl@world.std.com writes:
>
>Ah, but there is a side to this coin that most people are not aware
>of! Fluid Dynamics equations describing subsonic fluid properties
>include a "factor" identical to the one used in SR.
>
>	1/sqrt(c^2-v^2)
>
>For fluids the c represents the speed of sound in that medium while in
>SR it represents the speed of light.  In super sonic Fluid Dynamics
>this equation changes form to be
>
>	1/sqrt(v^2-c^2)
>
>Both sub & super sonic forms of this equation predict infinite drag
>when v=c.  As people are aware today, this is not true.  It turns out
>that the "infinite" peak formed by asymptotic approach to the v=c
>condition is rounded off.  Currently an empirical curve fit is used to
>describe fluid dynamics in the vicinity of the v=c condition.
>
>I am *not* trying to imply that SR is related to fluid dynamics.  
Why not?  GR is clearly fluid dynamical, and SR is but a sub-set
(special case) of GR.
Take a close look at Condon & Odishaw's Handbook of Physic section 3,
chapter 8.  This chapter, titled Acoustics will demonstrate the
mathematical similarities ...
>I am trying to convey my opinion that the limitations imposed by SR
>theory may not reflect reality.  
Absolutely ...
>Although we have "explored" this velocity condition with subatomic
>particles (I believe we've had e- up to 99.9999...% of light speed),
>I'm not convinced that we've learned all there is to know about
>velocity limitations imposed by "Real Life" (tm) as opposed to SR.
>
>-- 
>Jim Batka	Email:  jim.batka@sdrc.com
>
>Contrary to popular opinion, the word "gullible" is not in
>(American) Dictionaries.

Warren G Anderson (anderson@phys.ualberta.ca) wrote:
[Truly vast amounts of unneeded quoted text removed by moderator - jb]
: Believe it or not, serious research has been done into "time travel" within
: the context of general relativity. There exist, in relativity, solutions
: that have what are called "closed timelike loops". 
As I understand it, these closed time-like loops can occur arround a Kerr 
black hole with a high enough angular momentum.  If so, then time travel 
might be a naturally occuring phenomenon.
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Author : doppler@mind.de (Andreas Doppler)
Daily conjunction ephemerides for the period of: Monday, 1996 Nov. 25 -
Sunday, 1996 Dec.  1. The conjunctions are sorted by time (UT). All known
asteroids of the file astorb.dat by E. Bowell and objects of the NGC 2000.0
are included in the list which meets the following criteria: The minimum
elongation to the sun has to exceed 30 degrees, the maximum elongation to the
NGC/IC Object is 10 arcmin and the limiting magnitude of the asteroid is
brighter or equal than 14.0 mag. The Ephemerides were calculated with a step
of 1 min. Coordinates are for J2000.0 and FK5. Every fifth issue detailed
explanations are given at the end of the ephemerides.
-----------------------------< Monday, 1996 Nov. 25 >-------------------------
 (UT) Asteroid R.A.(2000)Decl Magn NGCICType R.A.(2000)Decl Magn  Size Dis Pos
 h  m NameNum.  h   m    o  ' Step ID    OBJ  h   m    o  ' Step    '   '    o
 2:04      154 12:07.1 +18:37 13.3 N4110  Gx 12:07.1 +18:32 14.0 ----- 6.2  17
 3:08      505 11:24.0 +12:12 13.8 I2802     11:24.5 +12:13 ---- ----- 0.6 192
 3:23      505 11:24.1 +12:12 13.8 I2800     11:24.5 +12:12 ---- ----- 0.4  12
 3:38      505 11:24.1 +12:12 13.8 I2795     11:24.1 +12:08 ---- ----- 4.4  12
 6:00      372 13:14.9 -24:02 13.5 N5042  Gx 13:15.5 -23:59 13.0   4.2 4.2 218
 8:56        4 18:36.0 -24:02  7.9 N6656  Gb 18:36.4 -23:54  5.1  24.0 8.3 179
10:29      233 18:09.0 -18:22 13.5 N6554   - 18:09.1 -18:26 ---- ----- 3.5   1
11:04      151  2:41.0 +17:47 13.0 I 248  Gx  2:41.4 +17:48 14.0   1.3 0.6 172
11:04      164 22:50.5 -36:56 12.3 N7382  Gx 22:50.3 -36:51 ---- ----- 8.1 126
11:40       45 18:10.0 -19:52 12.9 I4690     18:10.5 -19:49 ---- ----- 3.7 182
11:44      554 12:03.9 - 2:25 14.0 N4079  Gx 12:04.8 - 2:23 14.0   2.4 3.0 206
15:51      124  0:06.1 - 0:09 12.9 I5385      0:06.4 - 0:04 ---- ----- 5.4 167
21:21       18 11:20.1 + 3:40 11.5 N3633  Gx 11:20.4 + 3:35 14.0   1.4 6.0  16
----------------------------< Tuesday, 1996 Nov. 26 >-------------------------
 (UT) Asteroid R.A.(2000)Decl Magn NGCICType R.A.(2000)Decl Magn  Size Dis Pos
 h  m NameNum.  h   m    o  ' Step ID    OBJ  h   m    o  ' Step    '   '    o
 3:06     1660  4:24.2 - 0:47 13.9 N1568  Gx  4:24.4 - 0:45 15.0 ----- 3.8 127
 5:46      346 11:23.9 +11:36 12.8 I2797     11:24.4 +11:42 ---- ----- 5.2 192
 6:20        4 18:38.0 -24:01  7.9 I1290     18:38.5 -24:07 ---- ----- 5.1   1
 9:54        1 18:22.1 -26:46  9.2 N6620  Pl 18:22.9 -26:49 15.0   0.1 2.1   1
17:55      376 18:05.1 -24:36 13.9 I1271     18:05.5 -24:27 ---- ----- 9.5 177
--------------------------< Wednesday, 1996 Nov. 27 >-------------------------
 (UT) Asteroid R.A.(2000)Decl Magn NGCICType R.A.(2000)Decl Magn  Size Dis Pos
 h  m NameNum.  h   m    o  ' Step ID    OBJ  h   m    o  ' Step    '   '    o
 3:07      172 23:56.9 +12:29 12.6 I1518     23:57.1 +12:28 ---- ----- 1.9   5
 3:07      172 23:56.9 +12:29 12.6 I1519     23:57.1 +12:28 ---- ----- 1.9   5
 6:48       29 12:49.0 - 5:12 11.3 N4705  Gx 12:49.4 - 5:12 14.0   3.0 0.5 205
 8:24      346 11:25.1 +11:33 12.8 I2807     11:25.3 +11:32 ---- ----- 1.6  12
 8:59      345 13:06.2 -11:25 13.9 I4176     13:06.3 -11:33 ---- ----- 8.1  20
 9:10      345 13:06.2 -11:25 13.9 I4173     13:06.2 -11:34 ---- ----- 9.1  20
 9:49      346 11:25.1 +11:33 12.8 I2812     11:25.9 +11:32 ---- ----- 1.4  12
 9:51      505 11:26.9 +12:04 13.8 I2835     11:27.5 +12:09 ---- ----- 5.0 191
 9:56      535  1:11.3 - 0:34 13.8 I1639  Gx  1:11.8 - 0:39 14.0   0.8 6.0  38
10:44      154 12:09.9 +18:26 13.3 N4147  Gb 12:10.1 +18:33 10.3   4.0 6.8 197
15:32      535  1:11.3 - 0:33 13.8 I1640  Gx  1:11.9 - 0:37 15.0 ----- 4.4  40
16:25      154 12:10.1 +18:25 13.3 N4153   - 12:10.8 +18:22 ---- ----- 3.5  17
20:19        7 12:47.1 -10:02 11.1 N4682  Gx 12:47.3 -10:04 13.0   2.8 1.1  26
23:40       29 12:49.9 - 5:19 11.3 N4718  Gx 12:50.5 - 5:17 15.0   2.1 2.6 206
---------------------------< Thursday, 1996 Nov. 28 >-------------------------
 (UT) Asteroid R.A.(2000)Decl Magn NGCICType R.A.(2000)Decl Magn  Size Dis Pos
 h  m NameNum.  h   m    o  ' Step ID    OBJ  h   m    o  ' Step    '   '    o
 2:12       29 12:50.1 - 5:20 11.3 I 825     12:50.3 - 5:23 ---- ----- 2.9  26
 2:33      578  1:44.1 +12:33 13.7 I 153      1:44.6 +12:38 ---- ----- 4.4 170
10:57      346 11:26.1 +11:30 12.8 I2822  Gx 11:26.6 +11:26 15.0   1.7 4.5  12
11:48      386  8:56.1 - 2:34 12.5 N2706  Gx  8:56.3 - 2:35 14.0 ----- 0.9  52
12:38      390  3:05.7 +36:06 14.0 I1874  Gx  3:06.4 +36:00 14.0   0.9 7.4  37
15:54       45 18:16.1 -19:54 12.9 N6589     18:16.9 -19:46 ----   5.0 8.8 181
16:11       26 18:30.1 -25:38 12.8 N6638  Gb 18:30.9 -25:30  9.2   5.0 8.7 177
-----------------------------< Friday, 1996 Nov. 29 >-------------------------
 (UT) Asteroid R.A.(2000)Decl Magn NGCICType R.A.(2000)Decl Magn  Size Dis Pos
 h  m NameNum.  h   m    o  ' Step ID    OBJ  h   m    o  ' Step    '   '    o
 1:47      505 11:29.1 +11:58 13.8 I2870  Gx 11:29.1 +11:52 18.0   1.4 6.4  10
 1:48      535  1:10.9 - 0:29 13.8 I  85      1:11.8 - 0:28 ---- ----- 2.1 227
 2:36      782  4:36.0 +20:03 13.8 N1615  Gx  4:36.0 +19:57 15.0   1.6 6.7   2
 3:29       45 18:16.9 -19:55 12.9 N6590 C+N 18:17.0 -19:53 ----   4.0 2.1 181
 3:29       45 18:16.9 -19:55 12.9 N6595  OC 18:17.0 -19:53  7.0  11.0 2.1 181
 3:35       45 18:17.0 -19:55 12.9 I4700     18:17.1 -19:52 ---- ----- 3.1 181
 8:35      346 11:26.9 +11:27 12.8 I2827     11:27.2 +11:31 ---- ----- 3.2 191
 9:49      628  0:28.6 -13:03 13.8 I  20  Gx  0:28.5 -13:00 14.0   0.6 8.6 113
11:18      134 22:39.3 - 4:15 13.3 N7344  Gx 22:39.7 - 4:10 14.0 ----- 5.9 150
11:24      144 18:32.1 -25:09 13.1 N6644  Pl 18:32.6 -25:08 12.0   0.1 1.8 178
13:57       18 11:24.1 + 3:24 11.5 N3664  Gx 11:24.4 + 3:20 13.0   2.0 4.4  15
19:01      505 11:29.9 +11:55 13.8 I2882     11:30.2 +11:59 ---- ----- 3.1 190
20:51      563 22:44.7 -19:53 13.1 N7365  Gx 22:45.0 -19:59 14.0 ----- 6.8  37
23:33      790 21:29.0 + 6:37 13.8 I5112  OC 21:29.5 + 6:47 ---- ----- 9.4 181
23:37      790 21:29.0 + 6:37 13.8 N7074  Gx 21:29.5 + 6:42 ---- ----- 4.4 181
---------------------------< Saturday, 1996 Nov. 30 >-------------------------
 (UT) Asteroid R.A.(2000)Decl Magn NGCICType R.A.(2000)Decl Magn  Size Dis Pos
 h  m NameNum.  h   m    o  ' Step ID    OBJ  h   m    o  ' Step    '   '    o
 4:51      233 18:18.0 -18:18 13.5 N6603  OC 18:18.4 -18:25 11.0   5.0 6.3   2
10:02      346 11:27.9 +11:25 12.8 I2844     11:28.0 +11:27 ---- ----- 2.0 191
10:24      472 11:13.1 + 9:38 13.9 I2639     11:13.9 + 9:39 ---- ----- 0.6 185
10:30      472 11:13.1 + 9:38 13.9 I2637  Gx 11:13.8 + 9:36 14.0   0.9 2.4   4
11:44      346 11:28.0 +11:24 12.8 I2851     11:28.3 +11:24 ---- ----- 0.9  11
13:27       65 21:52.9 -13:17 13.0 I1408  Gx 21:53.2 -13:21 15.0   0.6 3.7  18
21:44        7 12:50.9 -10:30 11.1 N4742  Gx 12:51.8 -10:27 11.1   2.3 3.6 206
-----------------------------< Sunday, 1996 Dec.  1 >-------------------------
 (UT) Asteroid R.A.(2000)Decl Magn NGCICType R.A.(2000)Decl Magn  Size Dis Pos
 h  m NameNum.  h   m    o  ' Step ID    OBJ  h   m    o  ' Step    '   '    o
 1:04      511  3:51.1 + 1:13 10.0 I1998  Gx  3:51.5 + 1:11 16.0 ----- 2.3  15
 2:37     3908  4:39.9 +25:42 13.9 I2087  Nb  4:40.0 +25:44 ----   4.0 1.5 216
12:12      371 18:07.9 -23:47 14.0 I4678     18:08.0 -23:52 ---- ----- 4.8   4
12:22      505 11:32.1 +11:50 13.8 I2912     11:32.1 +11:43 ---- ----- 7.6  10
13:12      505 11:32.1 +11:50 13.8 I2916     11:32.3 +11:41 ---- ----- 9.5  10
23:16      237  5:34.0 +21:59 13.5 N1952  Nb  5:34.5 +22:01  8.4 ----- 1.9 190
Used orbital elements (2000.0) from the file ASTORB.DAT by E. Bowell
MP       JDate  M       Halfa. Eccen Perihel Node    Inclin H     G  CEU
NameNum. YeMoDa Degrees   A.U. e     Degrees Degrees Degree Magn  -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
       1 961113 122.617  2.770 0.076  72.416  80.656 10.595  3.3 0.1 1.4E-02
       4 961113  29.431  2.362 0.090 150.283 103.972  7.136  3.2 0.3 1.3E-02
       7 961113 106.983  2.386 0.230 145.257 259.925  5.523  5.5 0.1 1.1E-02
      18 961113 103.788  2.296 0.218 227.788 150.589 10.129  6.5 0.2 1.4E-02
      26 961113  36.742  2.657 0.088 194.894  46.032  3.561  7.5 0.1 9.3E-02
      29 961113 105.020  2.554 0.073  63.300 356.589  6.107  5.8 0.2 2.5E-02
      45 961113  37.940  2.722 0.082  87.664 147.990  6.606  7.5 0.1 3.6E-02
      65 961113  65.413  3.433 0.104 107.060 155.834  3.547  6.6 0.0 6.2E-02
     124 961113 119.730  2.629 0.079  61.605 188.402  2.949  8.1 0.2 1.7E-01
     134 961113 301.545  2.564 0.116  84.134 346.300 11.585  8.8 0.3 1.5E-01
     144 961113 301.069  2.657 0.233 292.898  76.727  4.812  7.9 0.2 1.2E-01
     151 961113 237.544  2.591 0.036 134.667  39.146  6.452  9.2 0.1 2.6E-01
     154 961113 326.618  3.184 0.091 153.132  37.179 21.099  7.6 0.1 1.8E-01
     164 961113 359.321  2.634 0.343 283.491  77.281 24.487  8.8 0.1 2.7E-01
     172 961113  42.451  2.380 0.114 359.087 332.252 10.034  8.8 0.1 2.4E-01
     233 961113 303.579  2.661 0.102 124.572 222.400  7.665  8.2 0.1 1.2E-01
     237 961113 148.957  2.763 0.072 198.270  84.525  9.761  9.2 0.1 2.2E-01
     345 961113  87.762  2.325 0.062 229.836 212.909  9.740  8.7 0.1 9.2E-02
     346 961113 111.555  2.797 0.102 291.539  92.249  8.754  7.1 0.1 1.1E-01
     371 961113   7.242  2.728 0.063 343.419 283.927  7.395  8.7 0.1 1.1E-01
     372 961113  82.278  3.143 0.263 116.455 327.526 23.867  7.2 0.1 1.2E-01
     376 961113  14.196  2.289 0.172 316.135 302.337  5.429  9.5 0.1 2.0E-01
     386 961113  65.177  2.898 0.171 220.557 167.055 20.236  7.4 0.2 1.2E-01
     390 961113 293.190  2.652 0.131 190.726 305.428 12.140 10.4 0.1 2.6E-01
     472 961113  64.282  2.544 0.094 296.270 127.457 15.804  8.9 0.1 1.7E-01
     505 961113  47.432  2.685 0.246 336.242  91.063  9.821  8.6 0.0 1.3E-01
     511 961113 338.258  3.171 0.182 338.963 107.796 15.940  6.2 0.2 7.5E-02
     535 961113 235.778  2.569 0.025  71.055  84.916  6.784  9.5 0.1 2.5E-01
     554 961113  76.076  2.374 0.154 127.470 295.750  2.942  9.0 0.1 7.7E-02
     563 961113 316.373  2.712 0.235 336.794  85.517 10.249  8.5 0.1 2.1E-01
     578 961113  85.589  2.748 0.196 260.185  29.930  6.154  9.2 0.1 2.0E-01
     628 961113  58.807  2.581 0.044 203.096 112.242 11.523  9.2 0.1 2.3E-01
     782 961113 266.729  2.180 0.039  81.101  80.624  5.261 11.5 0.1 2.9E-01
     790 961113  37.423  3.407 0.152  41.149 252.217 20.552  8.0 0.1 1.8E-01
    1660 961113 320.624  2.393 0.305 276.700 213.138 20.550 11.9 0.1 6.2E-01
    3908 961113   7.979  1.926 0.459 125.807 261.833  2.175 17.4 0.1 4.5E-01
The ephemerides should promote the observing of conjunctions.
The ephemerides were computed with a program by Andreas Doppler with an Apple
Quadra 630/PPC computer (Version of 1996 Jun. 7th).
Please let me know if you observed a conjunction (or not).
Because of the reason that software and/or datas may be incorrect, I cannot
guarantee the correctness of the ephemerides above.
Thanks to Arturo R. Montesinos (aramirez@servcoiae.recol.es) for bug reports.
Thanks to Ted Bowell for his permission to use his compilation of orbital
elements
If you want to subscribe to the list, send an E-mail message with the Subject :
SUB MPNGCIC to 491712734784@pythia.de or doppler@mind.de

======================================================================
         SKY & TELESCOPE'S NEWS BULLETIN -- NOVEMBER 15, 1996
======================================================================
LEONID METEORS
The annual Leonid meteors should peak on the morning of November 17th.
That's when the Earth crosses the orbit plane of Comet 55P/Tempel-Tuttle,
the object that's slowly crumbling apart to form the Leonid stream. This
year viewing conditions will be ideal: the first-quarter Moon sets by
about 11 p.m. local time on the night of November 16th, and the shower's
radiant in the Sickle of Leo will be highest in the sky in the hours
before dawn. Peak activity should come around 7:00 Universal Time on the
17th, which favors North America. If your sky is dark and clear you might
see one Leonid every minute or so. Next year a waning gibbous Moon will
compromise the view, so now is the last good time to monitor the shower's
behavior before 1998 and 1999, years in which a Leonid meteor storm may
return.
COMET HALE-BOPP
During the past few weeks the brightness of Comet Hale-Bopp (C/1995 O1)
has taken a decided upswing. According to S&T; contributing editor John
Bortle, the comet's overall performance has returned to its predicted
track after a very prolonged period of stagnation. However, even though it
has brightened to better than 5th magnitude, Hale-Bopp is slipping ever
lower into the glare of evening twilight. Telescopically, Bortle reports,
the comet has an intense, starlike nucleus, accompanied by a broad
fan-shaped tail. Here are Hale-Bopp's positions for the coming week at 0
hours Universal Time:
  Date         R. A.    Decl.
----------------------------
November 17   17h 51.2m  -2d  5'
         19   17  52.9   -1  54 
         21   17  54.6   -1  43 
         23   17  56.4   -1  30 
EUROPA's OCEAN
Planetary scientists, oceanographers, and microbiologists gathered last
week in Southern California to discuss the likelihood that Jupiter's moon
Europa might be hiding an ocean of water beneath its icy crust. Based on
the evidence in hand it's hard to say one way or the other. In some spots
huge blocks of ice appear to have pulled apart, as if floating on a fluid
layer below. But there's very little evidence that watery "lava" has ever
flowed across the moon's surface. If liquid water does exist under the
ice, it's at least wildly possible that Europa might once have harbored
some kind of life, even in the absence of sunlight. Scientists are eager
to see what the Galileo spacecraft will show when it passes only several
hundred kilometers away from Europa on December 19th.
MARINER 9 REMEMBERED
Mars Global Surveyor is on its way to the red planet, and Russia's Mars 96
spacecraft is ready to go. But Daniel Costanzo of the National Capitol
Astronomers reminds us that we've been there before. Twenty-five years
ago, on November 14, 1971, Mariner 9 became the first spacecraft to orbit
another planet when it arrived at Mars. At the time a planet-wide dust
storm was raging, but eventually Mariner 9's cameras revealed Mars to be a
place full of volcanoes, ancient rivers, and huge canyons.
THIS WEEK'S "SKY AT A GLANCE"
  Some daily events in the changing sky, from the editors of SKY &
TELESCOPE
NOV. 17 -- SUNDAY
  * First-quarter Moon.
  * Venus is just 4 degrees from much fainter Spica in the dawn sky this
morning through Tuesday morning.
  * The Leonid meteor shower should be at its peak early this morning.
Normally a rather minor shower, the Leonids have picked up some strength
in recent years and may put on a tremendous display around this date in
1998 or 1999. Go out after 1 or 2 a.m. Sunday morning, find a dark site
with an open view of the sky, lie back in a reclining lawn chair, and
watch the stars. Give your eyes time to dark-adapt.
At a truly dark-sky site, you might see a meteor every couple of minutes
on average. Any light pollution cuts down their numbers greatly. A meteor
is a Leonid if its path, traced back far enough across the sky, would
cross the Sickle of Leo (which is in the eastern sky during early morning
hours). For more information see the November Sky & Telescope, page 72, or
go to http://www.skypub.com/meteors/meteors.html.
NOV. 18 -- MONDAY
  * Winter is on the way! By 9 p.m. bright winter stars dominate the
eastern sky. Brightest is Capella in the northeast. Well off to its right,
due east, is orange Aldebaran, with the little Pleiades star cluster well
above it. Far below Aldebaran, Orion has already cleared the horizon.
NOV. 19 -- TUESDAY
  * Saturn shines to the left or lower left of the waxing gibbous Moon
this evening.
NOV. 20 -- WEDNESDAY
  * Tonight Saturn is to the Moon's lower right.
NOV. 21 -- THURSDAY
  * Saturn's largest satellite, Titan, is about four ring-lengths east of
the planet tonight through Sunday night. A small telescope will show it.
Saturn's rings still appear very narrow, tilted only slightly from
edge-on.
NOV. 22 -- FRIDAY
  * Some doorstep astronomy: The star almost straight overhead as darkness
falls is Deneb. High in the west is brighter Vega. Almost equally high in
the southwest is Altair. These three stars make up the increasingly
misnamed Summer Triangle.
NOV. 23 -- SATURDAY
  * More doorstep astronomy: The lone yellow "star" high in the south in
midevening is Saturn. Above it (by a little more than the width of your
fist held at arm's length) is the big, dim Great Square of Pegasus.
 ============================
  THIS WEEK'S PLANET ROUNDUP
 ============================
MERCURY is hidden in the glare of the Sun.
VENUS is the brilliant white light low in the east-southeast before and
during dawn. Much fainter Spica is below it at the beginning of the week,
to its right around the 19th, and to its upper right at week's end.
MARS, in Leo, rises around midnight and shines high in the southeast
before dawn. Well to its upper right is the bluish-white star Regulus.
JUPITER, in Sagittarius, is the bright white object low in the southwest
during dusk. It sets around 7:30 p.m.
SATURN, in Pisces, is the slightly yellowish 1st-magnitude "star" shining
in the south during evening. It's below the Great Square of Pegasus.
URANUS and NEPTUNE, at the Sagittarius-Capricornus border, are in the
southwest in early evening, east of Jupiter.
PLUTO is lost in the glare of the Sun.
(All descriptions that relate to your horizon or zenith are written for
the world's midnorthern latitudes. Descriptions that also depend on your
longitude are for North America.)
=======================================================================
Copyright 1996 Sky Publishing Corporation. S&T;'s Weekly News Bulletin and
"Sky at a Glance" stargazing calendar are provided as a service to the
astronomical community by the editors of SKY & TELESCOPE magazine.
Widespread electronic distribution is encouraged as long as this paragraph
is included. But the text of the bulletin and calendar may not be
published in any other form without permission from Sky Publishing
(contact permissions@skypub.com). S&T;'s Weekly News Bulletin and "Sky at a
Glance" are available via SKY Online on the World Wide Web
(http://www.skypub.com/). At present they are not available via electronic
mailing list.
SKY & TELESCOPE, P.O. Box 9111, Belmont, MA 02178  *  617-864-7360 (voice)
=======================================================================
For subscription info to SKY & TELESCOPE, email: custserv@skypub.com
=======================================================================
   *---------------------------------------------------------*
   | Stuart Goldman         Internet: sgoldman@skypub.com    |
   * Associate Editor                 mrastro@aol.com        *
   | Sky & Telescope                                         |
   * P. O. Box 9111           Sky & Telescope: The Essential *
   | Belmont, MA  02178           Magazine of Astronomy      |
   *---------------------------------------------------------*

Jean-Joseph JACQ (jjjacq@ozemail.com.au) wrote:
: Well I too have problems in logic with this notion, I've come up with
: another way of looking at the problem. The whole concept is that as the
: universe (and by this most experts mean spacetime) expands, the wave
: length of the photon is stretched by the same proportions which does not
: explain what happens to its lost energy. It also does not explain why we
: can detect it as , if one wants to be logical, the time scale having
: been  also stretched by the same amount, then we should still detect the
: same frequency.
There is a place for the energy o the photons to go as the are redshited 
by the expansion o the universe:  The energy goes into the fabric of 
spacetime itself.  As objects get further appart, they must gain 
gravitational potential energy (which is stored in the gravitational 
field, which in GR is a result of the shape of spacetime).  However, in 
order for energy to be conserved (and so far no processes have been 
theorised and proven to occur which allow energy to not be conserved) any 
object gaining gravitational potential energy must loose energy in some 
other form.  The only other orm of energy available in a photon is its 
kinetic energy, which must drop, and hence it is redshifted by the exact 
ammount required for the expansion of the space through which it passes.
: Worse still is the thought that maybe the photon is like a snapshot of
: the past universe and whilst it is travelling at the speed of light,
: time stands still for it and nothing changes. So in fact, the atom that
: sent the photon  was vibrating slower, or had a larger wave length then
: than it has now. In which case  our length and time scales are smaller
: now than they were then and the universe is not expanding at all but is
: in fact collapsing. We are headed for the big crunch!....
: Oh well, I guess it won't happen tomorrow so why worry about it.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Erik Max Francis (max@alcyone.com) wrote:
: David L Evens wrote:
: > Erik Max Francis (max@alcyone.com) wrote:
: > : David L Evens wrote:
: > 
: > : > The problem with these examples as arguments in favour of viri being
: > : > considered alive is that they all are organisms which are, isiolated from
: > : > other organisms, cable of carrying out life processes.  Viri don't do that.
: > 
: > : Such as parasites?  :-)
: > 
: > Nope.  A parasite doesn't HAVE to operate inside living cells (although
: > some do).
: So the ones that do; what about them?
They don't destroy themseslves in the process of infection as a virus will.
: You say that viruses (not _viri_, by the way) are not alive because they
: cannot carry out life processes isolated from other organisms.  Neither
: can parasites.  You may be able to classify parasites as alive by a
: separate definition you gave, but not by the one you describe here.
A virus and other kinds of parasites certainly differ in that a virus is 
destroyed in the process of establishing itself within the host, while 
other parasites are not.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dale Gombert (dwg5400@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: Perhaps the 24hr day comes from the twelve zodiacal signs? It takes two 
: hours for each to cross a point, and perhaps the time interval was long
: enough that breaking the time up into halves was convenient?
: In edited-for-brevity article ,
: Jeremy J. Olson  wrote:
: >As for 24 hrs ina day, I don't know. Since this was developed long before
: >metric, it makes sense (it fits in with the 12 inches/foot, 36 in/yard, 3
: >ft/yard, 6 ft/fathom setup -- divisible by 3, 6, 12 or the like.)
: >Actually, I know there was at one time someone tried to introduce a metric
: >calendar and time system (but it never worked out). I don't know much
: >about it, though.
Somewhere allong the line I was taught that having 24 hours in a day 
derived rom originally having 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of 
darkness, with hours being defined as being 1/12 of the period.  Once we 
got more accurate clocks, 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.)
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
: In article <56fbjd$akg@news.sas.ab.ca>, czar@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () writes:
: >...And you all thought "Dilbert" was just a comic strip...
: >
: Actually, "Dilbert" is reality, while what we refer to as "reality" is 
: a comic strip.
This explains a number of things I see going on the the world that make 
absolutely no sense.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert. Fung wrote:
> 
> >
> > No, as far as I know, you can never be sure that you have only one photon.
> 
>             It's implied that this is the case in this recent work:
>             http://p23.lanl.gov/Quantum/kwiat/ifm-folder/ifmtext.htm
> 
This is an interesting presentation, and by someone who is well 
prepared to delve into this subject.  You might try asking him
the question "what is a photon?" ... but perhaps that is a life's
work!
The only reference I noticed was in "Step 2: The Quantum Zeno Effect",
where the diagram shows entry of "One Photon"; in the text there is
a reference to the probability that a partial photon is present.
I interpret this to mean that they have arranged things so that 
_on average_, there is less than one photon present. But there might
be one, there might be none, and there might be two.
Best Regards, Peter

On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 11:15:31 GMT, west@sonic.net (Wes Thomas) wrote:
Thanks for sharing, but my question remains: has anyone actually
looked at Hale-Bopp to check this? 

Judson McClendon wrote:
> 
> IG (Slim) Simpson wrote:
> > Why quote from a book that , for the most part, I don't accept. If I
> > quote from the Koran (Sp?) will it make any difference to you??
> >
> > Slim
> 
> "For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any
> two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and
> of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of
> the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)
Surah 3: 
2. “Allah. There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-Subsisting,
Eternal. 
3. It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book,
confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and
the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent
down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).”
******************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis              “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services                                       -Hobbes
716-442-2884                                 
******************************************************************

Judson McClendon wrote:
> 
> Mark & Susan Sampson wrote:
> >
> > Who cares how God created the universe???  All that matters is that he
> > did.  However he accomplished it, is beyond my need to know.  He did
> > that is all that matters.
> 
> If God agreed with that sentiment, why would He have recorded the
> creation account in the Bible?
> --Comments from Jerry:The Biblical writers recorded their understanding of creation in the Bible, not God.
The true understanding from God is found in my book:
"The Natural God of Law, Love, and Truth" Available in paperback by mail for free.
Jerry (Jewish Prophet of an Ethical God) 
> Judson McClendon
> Sun Valley Systems    judsonmc@ix.netcom.com

In article <3287FF04.34BF@whidbey.net>, Mark   wrote:
>I am just curious if anyone has found any recent
>pics of HB posted on the web.  The latest I've seen was
>at NASA's page 1 pic taken in May '96.  I'm curious as to 
>why NASA hasn't posted any more since then taken via the HST.
>I was under the impression that NASA reserved time on the HST
>during July, August, September, and October '96 to view Hale
>Bopp.  
>
>Mark
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.  This has supposedly been confirmed by other observers.
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.
While the signal to noise ratio on the Art Bell show is low to
negligible, is is not pure random noise all of the time.  YMMV.
bash: spell: command not found
--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX     caf@omen.COM     http://www.omen.com
   Omen Technology Inc      "The High Reliability Software"
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, RZ, SZ, Pro-YAM, ZCOMM, GSZ, and DSZ
TeleGodzilla BBS: 503-617-1698  FTP: ftp.cs.pdx.edu pub/zmodem
POB 4681 Portland OR 97208     503-614-0430   FAX:503-629-0665

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

Judson McClendon wrote:
> 
> Mark & Susan Sampson wrote:
> >
> > Who cares how God created the universe???  All that matters is that he
> > did.  However he accomplished it, is beyond my need to know.  He did
> > that is all that matters.
> 
> If God agreed with that sentiment, why would He have recorded the
> creation account in the Bible?
Do you think that god lies to us with the *only* true revelation that
*we know* for sure comes directly from him - his universe?
******************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis              “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services                                       -Hobbes
716-442-2884                                 
******************************************************************

In article <56i4en$4gj@tribune.usask.ca>, ad058@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
(TIMOTHY GUEGUEN) writes:
>Wes Thomas (west@sonic.net) wrote:
>: Art Bell show reporting right now that an amateur astronomer has
>: sighted a giant strange object visually near the Hale-Bopp comet. The
>: object mysteriously appeared Wednesday night and resembles Saturn, but
>: is "sefl-illuminating" with anomalously-even illumination, according
>: to Chuck Shramek, an amateur astronomer in Houston. 
>
>: See http://www.artbell.com/art/images/halebopp5.jpg and
>: http://www.artbell.com/art/images/halebopp6.jpg
>
>: Is anyone else seeing this?
>Hopefully someone else will take the time to look at this.  However, I 
>also hope Mr. Shramek checks his equipment to make sure its not some sort
>of optical problem with his telescope.
>
>tim gueguen ad058@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
>
>
It s probably just the Zeta's spacecraft doing a random check.  :-)

We are on the brink of one of the most important events of our lifetime!
Have you heard of the new comet that is coming our way, Hale-Bopp?  It
was discovered several months 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.
As if that's not incredible enough, there is some incredible news about
it, that just came out last night.  An ameteur astronomer, who has been
viewing the comet every night made an amazing discovery.  There is a
large unknown body in the vicinity of the comet.  He as been watching it
every night and he swears that the unknown body just appeard last night
for the first time.  He has taken over 20 photographs of the comet and
the unknown body, and I saw one of the pictures today on the internet.
Other astronomers, including several at major universities have reported
the same findings!
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!!
We can only speculate as to its origin, but last night on the Art Bell
show, Dr. Courtney Brown, who has been trained by the military in a
technique called Remote Viewing (which enables the viewer to "see" what
is happening at any location) says that it is a SHIP of E.T. origin.  He
says that they come in peace, to help us move on to our next stage of
consciousness!
Mysteriously, the government has not released any Hubble Telescope
pictures of Hale-Bopp in several months.
Dr Brown says that the beings on the ship are sending us messages, but
we are not hearing them.
More information will be coming!

The zenith travles aprox one thousand miles per hour,  yes ?
The greek origin of mile is one thousand ,  yes?
Question ?    How did they know this  ???
24000 miles = 24 hours  ???
Just asking

Where can I get sw to view all the AAT & UKS, etc., pics
so that I can look at them w|out needing Photoshop or Il-
lustrator and like that? I have GIFConverter, GraphicCon-
verter, etc., etc., on my Mac (IIx) - and I *still* can't look
at 'em after download!

On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:27:59 -0800, Gary Beckwith 
wrote:
>
>Other astronomers, including several at major universities have reported
>the same findings!
>
>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!!
>
'other astronomers?'  who? can you provide proof?
thanks.

In article <328d0e01.49492798@news.sonic.net> west@sonic.net (Wes Thomas) writes:
>On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 11:15:31 GMT, west@sonic.net (Wes Thomas) wrote:
>Thanks for sharing, but my question remains: has anyone actually
>looked at Hale-Bopp to check this? 
Shall we Hale that the Big Bopper cometh?
Larry

west@sonic.net (Wes Thomas) wrote:
>Art Bell show reporting right now that an amateur astronomer has
>sighted a giant strange object visually near the Hale-Bopp comet. The
>object mysteriously appeared Wednesday night and resembles Saturn, but
>is "sefl-illuminating" with anomalously-even illumination, according
>to Chuck Shramek, an amateur astronomer in Houston. 
Chuck is a guy who is trying to show that Hale-Bopp is some sort of
alien invader and that NASA is covering up a whole bunch of stuff
about it.  I suspect he and Nancy have a "thing" going.
Eric Greene                     Deep-Sky BBS (1:133/208)
erg@america.net                      (404)321-5904

In <56ieml$2ma@news.ecn.bgu.edu> cudap@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Donald Probst)
writes: 
>
>Triple Quadrophenic (Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig) wrote:
>
>: What you've got to realise is that the correct answer to the
question "Is a 
>: photon a particle or a wave?" is "Neither". A photon
(electron/neutrino/etc) 
>: sometimes behaves like a particle, sometimes like a wave. Frequency
is a 
>: property of waves but it is also a property of fundamental
particles.
>
>
>Actually, it would probably be more correct to say "both".  A photon
is
>actually a wave packet, with a beginning and ending.  A great
>source of information on this is an electronic article written by Dr.
>Giles Henderson of Eastern Illinois University which is published at
>
>http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu
>
>It illustrates how a photon is created or absorbed.
It seems to me that a photon being created or
absorbed is a cause or an effect.
What is a photon when it is not
being created or absorbed?
And where is it?
Tom Potter      http://pobox.com/~tdp

Clive Gibbons wrote:
> 
> In article <328c4df3.319894@news.sonic.net>, Wes Thomas  wrote:
> >Art Bell show reporting right now that an amateur astronomer has
> >sighted a giant strange object visually near the Hale-Bopp comet. The
> >object mysteriously appeared Wednesday night and resembles Saturn, but
> >is "sefl-illuminating" with anomalously-even illumination, according
> >to Chuck Shramek, an amateur astronomer in Houston.
> >
> >See http://www.artbell.com/art/images/halebopp5.jpg and
> >http://www.artbell.com/art/images/halebopp6.jpg
> 
> I looked at the halebopp5.jpg.
> I assume the "anomalous object" is the bright blob on the right with the
> stubby spikes sticking out on either side.
> IMHO, this is a relatively bright star and the "Saturn-like" spikes are
> caused by diffraction from the scope's secondary mirror support.
> 
> Don't bother calling Fox and Dana to investigate...   :)
> 
> Cheers,
> --
>         Clive Gibbons         "I wasn't expecting the
>         Technician,               Spanish Inquisition..."
>         McMaster University.
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.
Reportedly, other astronomers are now seeing the same thing.

In article <19961116.E045158.E29@gwen.in-berlin.de>, evidence@they.will.arrive.soon (Plejadan IV - King of Uhaz 4) wrote:
>
>
>Hello !
>
>......too bad that now it is more or less clear its just a
>normal star......(look in the related newsgroups)
    It IS a COMET, get with the program son. 
>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...
     Oh you HAVE to get together with Nancy of the "ZETA" people! You'd make a 
lovely couple. 
Tom

trandall@mhv.net wrote:
>    HST HAS taken pictures of the comet. Search the web they are there.
> 
> Tom
Tom, please tell me where.  NASA's page??? JPL's???? WHERE???
Mark

On 11 Nov 1996 10:13:25 GMT, Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig (Triple
Quadrophenic) wrote:
>In article , Bob_Hoesch@fws.gov (Bob 
>Hoesch) says...
>>
>>Q: "Is a photon a particle or a wave?" 
A photon is a wave packet. For information on the process of formation
of a photon, please look up my web site for the article entitled "The
Physics of Absolute Motion" 
Ken Seto

SKY & TELESCOPE NEWS BULLETIN
NOVEMBER 15, 1996
LEONID METEORS
The annual Leonid meteors should peak on the morning of November 17th.
That's when the Earth crosses the orbit plane of Comet 55P/Tempel-Tuttle,
the object that's slowly crumbling apart to form the Leonid stream. This
year viewing conditions will be ideal: the first-quarter Moon sets by
about 11 p.m. local time on the night of November 16th, and the shower's
radiant in the Sickle of Leo will be highest in the sky in the hours
before dawn. Peak activity should come around 7:00 Universal Time on the
17th, which favors North America. If your sky is dark and clear you might
see one Leonid every minute or so. Next year a waning gibbous Moon will
compromise the view, so now is the last good time to monitor the shower's
behavior before 1998 and 1999, years in which a Leonid meteor storm may
return.
COMET HALE-BOPP
During the past few weeks the brightness of Comet Hale-Bopp (C/1995 O1)
has taken a decided upswing. According to S&T; contributing editor John
Bortle, the comet's overall performance has returned to its predicted
track after a very prolonged period of stagnation. However, even though it
has brightened to better than 5th magnitude, Hale-Bopp is slipping ever
lower into the glare of evening twilight. Telescopically, Bortle reports,
the comet has an intense, starlike nucleus, accompanied by a broad fan-
shaped tail. Here are Hale-Bopp's positions for the coming week at 0 hours
Universal Time:
  Date         R. A.    Decl.
----------------------------
November 17   17h 51.2m  -2d  5'
         19   17  52.9   -1  54 
         21   17  54.6   -1  43 
         23   17  56.4   -1  30 
EUROPA's OCEAN
Planetary scientists, oceanographers, and microbiologists gathered last
week in Southern California to discuss the likelihood that Jupiter's moon
Europa might be hiding an ocean of water beneath its icy crust. Based on
the evidence in hand it's hard to say one way or the other. In some spots
huge blocks of ice appear to have pulled apart, as if floating on a fluid
layer below. But there's very little evidence that watery "lava" has ever
flowed across the moon's surface. If liquid water does exist under the
ice, it's at least wildly possible that Europa might once have harbored
some kind of life, even in the absence of sunlight. Scientists are eager
to see what the Galileo spacecraft will show when it passes only several
hundred kilometers away from Europa on December 19th.
MARINER 9 REMEMBERED
Mars Global Surveyor is on its way to the red planet, and Russia's Mars 96
spacecraft is ready to go. But Daniel Costanzo of the National Capitol
Astronomers reminds us that we've been there before. Twenty-five years
ago, on November 14, 1971, Mariner 9 became the first spacecraft to orbit
another planet when it arrived at Mars. At the time a planet-wide dust
storm was raging, but eventually Mariner 9's cameras revealed Mars to be a
place full of volcanoes, ancient rivers, and huge canyons.
THIS WEEK'S "SKY AT A GLANCE"
  Some daily events in the changing sky, from the editors of SKY & TELESCOPE
NOV. 17 -- SUNDAY
  * First-quarter Moon.
  * Venus is just 4 degrees from much fainter Spica in the dawn sky this 
morning through Tuesday morning.
  * The Leonid meteor shower should be at its peak early this morning. 
Normally a rather minor shower, the Leonids have picked up some strength 
in recent years and may put on a tremendous display around this date in 
1998 or 1999. Go out after 1 or 2 a.m. Sunday morning, find a dark site 
with an open view of the sky, lie back in a reclining lawn chair, and watch 
the stars. Give your eyes time to dark-adapt.
At a truly dark-sky site, you might see a meteor every couple of minutes 
on average. Any light pollution cuts down their numbers greatly. A meteor is 
a Leonid if its path, traced back far enough across the sky, would cross 
the Sickle of Leo (which is in the eastern sky during early morning hours). 
For more information see the November Sky & Telescope, page 72, or go to 
http://www.skypub.com/meteors/meteors.html.
NOV. 18 -- MONDAY
  * Winter is on the way! By 9 p.m. bright winter stars dominate the 
eastern sky. Brightest is Capella in the northeast. Well off to its right, 
due east, is orange Aldebaran, with the little Pleiades star cluster well 
above it. Far below Aldebaran, Orion has already cleared the horizon.
NOV. 19 -- TUESDAY
  * Saturn shines to the left or lower left of the waxing gibbous Moon this 
evening.
NOV. 20 -- WEDNESDAY
  * Tonight Saturn is to the Moon's lower right.
NOV. 21 -- THURSDAY
  * Saturn's largest satellite, Titan, is about four ring-lengths east of 
the planet tonight through Sunday night. A small telescope will show it. 
Saturn's rings still appear very narrow, tilted only slightly from edge-on.
NOV. 22 -- FRIDAY
  * Some doorstep astronomy: The star almost straight overhead as darkness 
falls is Deneb. High in the west is brighter Vega. Almost equally high in 
the southwest is Altair. These three stars make up the increasingly misnamed 
Summer Triangle.
NOV. 23 -- SATURDAY
  * More doorstep astronomy: The lone yellow "star" high in the south in 
midevening is Saturn. Above it (by a little more than the width of your 
fist held at arm's length) is the big, dim Great Square of Pegasus.
 ============================
  THIS WEEK'S PLANET ROUNDUP
 ============================
MERCURY is hidden in the glare of the Sun.
VENUS is the brilliant white light low in the east-southeast before and 
during dawn. Much fainter Spica is below it at the beginning of the week, 
to its right around the 19th, and to its upper right at week's end.
MARS, in Leo, rises around midnight and shines high in the southeast 
before dawn. Well to its upper right is the bluish-white star Regulus.
JUPITER, in Sagittarius, is the bright white object low in the southwest 
during dusk. It sets around 7:30 p.m.
SATURN, in Pisces, is the slightly yellowish 1st-magnitude "star" shining 
in the south during evening. It's below the Great Square of Pegasus.
URANUS and NEPTUNE, at the Sagittarius-Capricornus border, are in the 
southwest in early evening, east of Jupiter.
PLUTO is lost in the glare of the Sun.
(All descriptions that relate to your horizon or zenith are written for the 
world's midnorthern latitudes. Descriptions that also depend on your 
longitude are for North America.)
Copyright 1996 Sky Publishing Corporation. S&T;'s Weekly News Bulletin and "Sky 
at a Glance" stargazing calendar are provided as a service to the astronomical
community by the editors of SKY & TELESCOPE magazine. Widespread electronic
distribution is encouraged as long as this paragraph is included. But the text
of the bulletin and calendar may not be published in any other form without
permission from Sky Publishing (contact permissions@skypub.com). S&T;'s Weekly
News Bulletin and "Sky at a Glance" are available via SKY Online on the World
Wide Web (http://www.skypub.com/). At present they are not available via
electronic mailing list.
SKY & TELESCOPE, P.O. Box 9111, Belmont, MA 02178  *  617-864-7360 (voice)

In article <7EqzcHASkNjyEw+I@dweinstein.demon.co.uk>, David Weinstein  wrote:
> Good point: Gravity is transferred by gravitons, as light is by photons
> and Weak by W+ something or others... The gravitons themselves
> are affected by gravity, which causes the curving of space. You are
> right though.... How can they get out? Please help!
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/black_gravity.html
-- 
Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia Tech

ab787@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Aadu Pilt) wrote:
>I believe you are referring to the "analemma", the figure-of-8 curve 
>traced out by the sun at the same time of day, each day, over a year.
>This curve is related to the "equation of time".
This may be of some use as a rough guide.
If you use a sundial to measure time it measures so that noon is
effectively midway between sunrise and sunset.  This wanders about
relative to uniform time, which is called "mean solar time".
Here is the variation:
Mean solar time +- equation of time --> sundial time (in minutes)
     Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May  Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.
    +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
+16                                                  *****          
+14                                                 *     *        
+12                                                *       *      
+10                                               *         *      
 +8                                              *           *    
 +6                                             *             *  
 +4                       **                   *              *   
 +2                    ***  ***               *                *   
  0 +----+----+----+--*-+----+-**-+----+----+*---+----+----+----*
 -2                  *           **         *                     
 -4  *              *              *      **                        
 -6  *             *                ******                            
 -8   *           *                                             
-10    *         *                                              
-12     **     **                                              
-14       *****                                                
    +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
     Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May  Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.
-- Ray Tomes -- rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz -- Harmonics Theory --
http://www.vive.com/connect/universe/rt-home.htm

In alt.prophecies.nostradamus Gary Beckwith  wrote:
> We are on the brink of one of the most important events of our lifetime!
Yeah who says? Dr Courtney Brown? I wouldn't be too quick to foam at my
mouth about this guy yet.
> We can only speculate as to its origin, but last night on the Art Bell
> show, Dr. Courtney Brown, who has been trained by the military in a
> technique called Remote Viewing (which enables the viewer to "see" what
> is happening at any location) says that it is a SHIP of E.T. origin.  He
> says that they come in peace, to help us move on to our next stage of
> consciousness!
Woah! Woah! Woah! Hold on there. "He says that they come in peace. . ."
Just because this crackpot Remote Viewer doesn't mean it's gonna happen.
This guy hasn't prooved anything astronomical yet. 
On top of that he was trained by the military but has twisted up the
technique. The "real" remote viewers dislike and disagree with this guy's
method. He is entangling imagination in with this remote info. 
Until aliens come and pull a bunch of biologically engineered aliens off
of an erupting volcano and we see it happen we should not believe this
tweaked method.
> Mysteriously, the government has not released any Hubble Telescope
> pictures of Hale-Bopp in several months.
Does anyone know why? Did anyone ever ask? No. "Dr Courtney Brown said
that. . ." (Arg!) If you really want to know, just ask them. Then you can
disbelieve them.
My intention is not to flame the poster. I just want people to realize
that not all of this info is accurate. Don't swear by it.
Mudplant