Subject: Re: When will the U.S. finally go metric?
From: kai@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 16:58:00 +0200
gnygaard@crosby.ndak.net (Gene Nygaard) wrote on 05.11.96 in <55o7vt$ql5@arl-news-svc-4.compuserve.com>:
> wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) wrote:
>
> >We American ham radio operators routinely use metric measurements, for
> >things like radio wavelengths (80 meters, 40 meters, 2 meters) and
> >then there are electrical measurements where the metric system is the
> >only ball game in town. Amps, Volts, Watts, and such.
>
> >One minor annoyance is that the word "meter" also refers to those
> >devices that measure volts and amps and such. "2 meters" by itself
> >could mean the 146MHz ham band, or a pair of voltmeters.
> >....
>
> If you read some of the other articles, you will know that this
> annoyance is almost exclusively a U.S. problem. Even the Canadians
> usually spell the unit of measure "metre" and the measuring instrument
> "meter".
Actually, we spell both "Meter" in German, and I don't remember ever
having any trouble with it. It seems to be obvious from the context,
always.
Kai
--
Internet: kai@khms.westfalen.de
Bang: major_backbone!khms.westfalen.de!kai
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
Subject: US Soil Experiment Ready For Launch Aboard Russia's Mars '96
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 21:57 UT
Douglas Isbell
Headquarters, Washington, DC November 13, 1996
(Phone: 202/358-1547)
Diane Ainsworth
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
(Phone: 818/354-5011)
Diane Farrar
Ames Research Center, Mountain View, CA
(Phone: 415/604-3934)
RELEASE: 96-236
U.S. SOIL EXPERIMENT READY FOR LAUNCH ABOARD RUSSIA'S MARS `96
An instrument developed by the United States to measure
the rate at which metals and organics corrode when exposed to
the Martian environment is set for launch on Nov. 16, aboard
two small landing stations on the Russian Mars '96 spacecraft.
The instrument, called the Mars Oxidant Experiment
(MOx), was built at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena,
CA, and is part of expanding U.S.-Russian cooperative
efforts in space exploration.
Integration and final testing of the experiment on the
Russian landers, also referred to as "small autonomous
stations," was completed in late October at the Lavochkin
Research and Production Association in Moscow, where the
landers were designed and assembled, said Mark Herring,
manager of the experiment at JPL. Two of the MOx instruments
will fly on the mission, one on each of its two landers.
"This was a major engineering milestone for the U.S.
experiment, culminating a development effort which started
in 1992," Herring said. "In the course of integration on the
landers, the U.S. team was required to take numerous trips to
Helsinki and Moscow during the past year. We've gained
valuable experience in what is involved with participation on
an international mission."
The goal of the Mars '96 mission, set for launch aboard
a Russian Proton launch vehicle from Baikonur Cosmodrome in
Kazakstan, is to investigate the evolution of the Martian
atmosphere, surface and interior by acquiring comprehensive
measurements of the physical and chemical processes that
occur on Mars today and those that may have taken place in
the past.
The Mars Oxidant Experiment was developed to further
investigate the presence of a strong oxidizing agent in the
Martian soil that was inferred from the results of the
biology experiments onboard the NASA Viking landers in the
mid-1970s.
"We hope MOx will be able to tell us more about the
surprisingly reactive properties of the Martian soil first
detected by the Viking biology experiments and tell us if
this reactivity is the cause of the complete absence of
organics in the surface soil on Mars," said
Dr. Christopher McKay, project scientist at NASA's Ames
Research Center, Mountain View, CA.
"If we plan to search for the organic remnants of early
life on Mars with future missions, then we have to understand
the processes that are destroying these organics on the
surface so that we know how deep we have to dig to reach
unoxidized material," he added. "Viking, for instance, dug
under a rock as deep as 4 inches (11 centimeters) but found
only oxidized sand."
MOx uses chemical sensor technology originally developed
at the Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM. The
instrument measures the oxidizing power of the Martian soil
and atmosphere using a detector that monitors the change in
reflectivity of a thin chemical film that is exposed to the
Martian environment. The instrument, which weighs only three
pounds, relies on its own power source -- a set of batteries
-- to carry out the measurements.
Upon landing and deployment, MOx will operate
autonomously, Herring said, according to a sequence that is
programmed into its internal "read-only memory." While the
mission is designed for a one-year lifetime, the operating
life of MOx will be limited by its battery power source.
Depending on the actual conditions on the surface of Mars,
the operating time will be between 80 and 160 days.
"The instrument's sensor head is located on a petal of
each of the two Russian small stations and is comprised of
eight sensor cell assemblies, four of which are designed to
contact the soil and four that will be exposed to the
atmosphere," Herring said. "Within each cell assembly there
are six active sensing sites and six reference sites, for a
total of 96 sites.
"The active sites are protected by thin membranes of
silicon nitride, which protect the sensor films from
premature oxidation," he explained. "These membranes will be
broken upon deployment, exposing the active films. The
reference sites will remain permanently sealed. The sensor
films have been selected to provide a broad range of chemical
reactions. Each film type is duplicated in the air and soil cells."
Each of the 96 sensor sites is illuminated by two
light-emitting diodes (LEDs), one operating at a wavelength
of 590 nanometers and the other at 870 nanometers. The
reflected signal will be measured by a silicon photodiode
detector array. The sensor sites are coupled to the LEDs and
the detector array through fiber optics.
A key feature of the experiment's data transmission
sequencing is its ability to transmit data three times in
order to reduce the data loss associated with various
communications links. During the mission, the experiment team
will distribute calibration data and mission data sets in
which data from the instruments are merged with pertinent
mission information.
Another U.S. instrument aboard Mars '96 is the Tissue-
Equivalent Proportional Counter (TEPC). The TEPC instrument
was developed at NASA's Johnson Space Flight Center, Houston,
TX, to measure and store accumulated radiation spectra during
the interplanetary cruise phase of the mission, as well as
upon arrival in Mars orbit. This information should yield
important insight into the space radiation environment and
potential health risks involved in future human spaceflight.
Also aboard the spacecraft, attached to the MOx
electronics case, is a CD-ROM, entitled "Visions of Mars,"
produced by The Planetary Society, Pasadena, CA, which is
analogous to the records carried into space in 1977 by the
twin Voyager spacecraft. The Mars `96 CD-ROM contains a
collection of science fiction stories, sounds and artwork
which chronicle humanity's fascination with Mars over four
centuries of human history, 10 alphabets,
17 languages and 26 nations. The collection covers the
earliest references to Mars in science fiction to present day
stories about the red planet. A label pointing to the
location of the CD-ROM is mounted on the outside of the
spacecraft and includes a microdot of 100,000 names of
Planetary Society members and instructions on how to use the
CD-ROM.
If launched on time, Mars `96 will reach the orbit of
Mars in mid-September 1997, at about the same time as NASA's
Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) orbiter, which was launched
successfully on Nov. 7. Mars '96 will deploy the two small
stations and two penetrators on the surface of the planet
shortly after arriving in Mars orbit. On-time launches of
both spacecraft will enable MGS to assist in relaying data
from the Russian small stations once
the MGS primary mapping mission begins in March 1998.
-end-
Subject: Re: When will the U.S. finally go metric?
From: kai@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 17:12:00 +0200
p.kerr@auckland.ac.nz (Peter Kerr) wrote on 07.11.96 in :
> kai@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) wrote:
> > For example (real life example), I've got a wall of approx. 4.25 m, which
> > I want to put book cases at. I can get boards 1.20 m or 0.80 m long. Guess
> > what? 2*1.20+2*0.80 = 4.00, and there's a rest of 0.25 m which will
> > remain, as getting custom boards would cost about twice as much, and
> > that's not worth it.
> >
> .de is Germany, so how come you found a 14 feet long wall? ;-)
I didn't. There's some more distance on that wall, only it's unusable for
book cases for various reasons (door, other stuff). (14 feet? That's a
little under 4.27 m, not 4.25 - and anyway that was approximately off my
head. Once I decided it's going to be 4 m boards, I promptly forgot about
the exact number.)
By the way, how high are US doors? I'm accustomed to think of doors as 2 m
high. That would be a little under 6 1/2 ft? I think I prefer 2 m.
Kai
--
Internet: kai@khms.westfalen.de
Bang: major_backbone!khms.westfalen.de!kai
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: Judson McClendon
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 15:41:37 -0600
CharlieS wrote:
>
> Judson McClendon wrote:
> >
> > CharlieS wrote:
> > > Only if you think people should have a "fear of 'God'".
> > > I've seen this too often to take it seriously; every time I've
> > > told a believer that I don't need "salvation", they've turned
> > > on me with the old threat "Just wait till you're standing
> > > before 'God' and you'll soon change your sinful ways".
> > > The fact is, I'm not scared of your "God" so I'm not scared
> > > of "His" opinion of me.
> > > The fact that some believers feel too scared of their "God"
> > > to even be able to face "Him" just shows how pathetically
> > > weak their so-called "faith" is in the first place.
> >
> > "And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the
> > body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will show
> > you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power
> > to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!" (Luke 12:4,5, words of
> > Jesus)
> >
> > No, you don't have to fear God.
>
> ?
> Then who is the one with "the power to case into hell" that Jesus
> was talking about in your quote above?
The One with the power to cast into Hell is God. I said "No, you don't
have to fear God" because God will not force you to believe in Him or
receive Him. He wanted us to have free choice. You can receive God or
reject Him now. What God is about with Mankind is creating for Himself
beings who, having free choice, decide to believe and receive Him
without being forced. This decision is a touchstone for the heart of
man:
16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
17 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world,
but
that the world through Him might be saved.
18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe
is
condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only
begotten Son of God.
19 "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the
world,
and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 "For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to
the
light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
21 "But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be
clearly seen, that they have been done in God." (John 3:16-21)
> > You just have to face Him at Judgement.
>
> But I want to face him NOW!
But you and I don't make the rules. God created this whole universe for
His own pleasure. He has provided a way for us to be in perfect
relationship with Him. But we will only see that if we are willing to
receive God's plan for our lives. We must allow Jesus, God's Son, to be
our Savior and Lord.
> I keep getting this promise from Christians.
> They always say "You'll meet 'God' on judgement day and _then_ you'll
> know the truth!"
> Why the hell do I have to wait?
> I'm *ready* to face "Him".
> In fact I'm looking forward to asking "Him" just how life evolved
> and what happened during the Big Bang, but you damn christians keep
> me waiting till "Judgement day", its just not fair damn it.
> Why am I always held up by the dumb kids in class?
What any person, Christian or otherwise, says to us isn't what we have
to be concerned with. It's what God says that we will answer to. God
is Soverign.
> > No choice. And your opinion won't impress God. You can argue with a
> > human, but you won't argue with God.
>
> I'd like to think it would be more like a friendly debate rather
> than an actual argument; but then a debate isn't half as fun
> unless it gets a little heated :)
Where do you get the idea that you (or I) will decide how God will deal
with us? Just wishful thinking? Your (or my) opinion about any of the
natural laws doesn't affect them at all, and they are a reflection of
God'd will.
> > However, there is a way out. Not by ignoring God,
>
> As far as I'm concerned, the *only* "way out" is precisely by
> ignoring "God" -- but you theists won't let me. You're ruining
> my chance of "salvation": that's _soul_ abuse.
I don't know about what others have said to you, but I would persuade
you, if possible. For the same reason I would try to persuade someone
who was walking off a cliff.
> > but by receiving His
> > salvation in Jesus Christ. If God enjoyed destroying us, He wouldn't
> > have to work up a sweat doing us in. But He went to a lot of trouble to
> > provide a way of salvation. But if we trample under feet the salvation
> > provided by God, there will be no mercy. God loves you, but he will not
> > tolerate rebellion forever.
>
> If "He" really is such a kill-joy, I just might rebel and stop
> tolerating
> "Him"...
So the God who created this vast universe, and us, has put up with a
rebellious bunch of humans for thousands of years, watching us kill,
steal, lie, cheat and so on. So He sends His own Son Jesus to take our
sins upon Himself and die a horrible death on a Roman cross to pay the
penalty for those sins. Then He tells us that all we have to do is
believe on Jesus and receive Him as Savior and Lord and God will
completely forgive us all our sins and give us eternal life as a
reward. And you call that God a 'kill-joy'.
--
Judson McClendon
Sun Valley Systems judsonmc@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Mars Global Surveyor Update - 11/12/96
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 20:11 UT
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov
MARS GLOBAL SURVEYOR MISSION STATUS
November 12, 1996
All operations onboard Mars Global Surveyor continue to go smoothly on
the spacecraft's 10-month journey to the red planet. On Nov. 10, the
spacecraft used its star sensor to identify known stars and establish its
orientation in space. Later that day, the spacecraft was placed in "array
normal spin" orientation, the way in which Surveyor will fly all the way to
Mars. In this configuration, Surveyor is pointed 60 degrees off the Sun, its
solar panels are swept forward 30 degrees and the spacecraft rolls at a rate
of one revolution every 100 minutes. This roll maintains a thermal balance
on the spacecraft and allows it to constantly slew the star sensor across
the sky.
Surveyor's ultra-stable oscillator, one of six science instruments, has
been powered on to assist in telecommunications. Communications with Earth
will always occur through the low-gain antenna during Surveyor's flight to
Mars, due primarily to its configuration and solar array geometry. The
spacecraft's high-gain antenna will not be used until Surveyor reaches Mars
because it must be pointed directly at Earth to operate, and that position
currently would turn the spacecraft too directly into the sunlight.
Engineers continue to evaluate telemetry from the spacecraft to
understand why one of the spacecraft's two solar arrays, the - Y wing, is
tilted about 20 degrees away from its expected angle relative to the main
spacecraft bus structure. A variety of computer-simulated scenarios based on
observed data and engineering tests involving the solar array deployment
mechanisms are being examined to explore possible solutions.
The array's position does not affect spaceflight operations in the near
term. However, controllers at JPL and at Lockheed Martin Astronautics in
Denver, CO, will decide by the end of the week how to position the array to
compensate for the tilt during the spacecraft's first trajectory correction
maneuver on Nov. 21. Another option presently being explored might involve
positioning the array so that additional force is exerted on it during the
maneuver to push the panel into its latched, fully deployed position. At
this time both solar panels are receiving sunlight and converting it to
electricity to operate the spacecraft, with power levels normal and
batteries fully charged.
Controllers also report that a minor wobble in the spacecraft's rotation
was quickly corrected within 48 hours after launch.
Today Mars Global Surveyor is approximately 1.5 million kilometers
(946,000 miles) from Earth, traveling at a velocity of about 119,000
kilometers per hour (about 74,000 miles per hour) with respect to the Sun.
#####
Subject: New Galileo Color Images of Europa
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 05:42 UT
NEW GALILEO COLOR IMAGES OF EUROPA
November 12, 1996
New stunning color images of Europa taken by the Galileo spacecraft are
now available on the Galileo home page:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/
The caption file is appended below.
Ron Baalke
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov
PHOTO CAPTION P-48040
November 12, 1996
This image shows two views of the trailing hemisphere of Jupiter's
ice-covered satellite, Europa. The left image shows the approximate natural
color appearance of Europa. The image on the right is a false-color
composite version combining violet, green and infrared images to enhance
color differences in the predominantly water-ice crust of Europa. Dark brown
areas represent rocky material derived from the interior, implanted by
impact, or from a combination of interior and exterior sources. Bright
plains in the polar areas (top and bottom) are shown in tones of blue to
distinguish possibly coarse-grained ice (dark blue) from fine-grained ice
(light blue). Long, dark lines are fractures in the crust, some of which are
more than 3,000 kilometers (1,850 miles) long. The bright feature containing
a central dark spot in the lower third of the image is a young impact crater
some 50 kilometers (31 miles) in diameter. This crater has been
provisionally named 'Pwyll' for the Celtic god of the underworld.
Europa is about 3,160 kilometers (1,950 miles) in diameter, or about the
size of Earth's moon. This image was taken on September 7, 1996, at a range
of 677,000 kilometers (417,900 miles) by the solid state imaging television
camera onboard the Galileo spacecraft during its second orbit around
Jupiter. The image was processed by Deutsche Forschungsanstalt fuer Luft-
und Raumfahrt e.V., Berlin, Germany.
Launched in October 1989, Galileo entered orbit around Jupiter on December
7, 1995. The spacecraft's mission is to conduct detailed studies of the
giant planet, its largest moons and the Jovian magnetic environment. The Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA manages the mission for NASA's Office of
Space Science, Washington, DC.
Subject: This Week on Galileo - November 11-17, 1996
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 17:35 UT
THIS WEEK ON GALILEO
November 11 - 17, 1996
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/
Galileo completed its fouth pass through the Jupiter system this weekend. Late
Saturday into Sunday, the spacecraft performed an orbital trim maneuver to
correct errors in its orbital path. These errors are incurred when the
actual spacecraft path through the Jupiter system is a little different than
planned.
The end of the Callisto encounter marks the end of the first (of two)
mini-tours to be performed by the Fields and Particles (or magnetospheric)
intruments. Recall that a mini-tour is a continuous survey (or collection
of data) through at least one complete orbit. This particular mini-tour
started at the beginning of the Ganymede-2 encounter. The Fields and Particles
survey is scheduled to restart just prior to Galileo's next satellite encounter
with Europa (12/14). The next mini-tour, however, is not scheduled to start
until the summer of 1997.
Playback of Callisto encounter data started this weekend and will continue
through the start of the Europa encounter. This week focuses on observations
of closest approach to Callisto itself. Included in these observations are
global maps, known regions: Asgard, Valhalla and Catena and various areas of
interest: multiple rings, bright spots, scarps and plains. This variety will
allow scientists to compare the different terrain on Callisto's surface. Data
return of this closest approach period also includes high resolution data from
the Fields and Particles intruments which will allow study of the
interaction of Callisto with Jupiter's magnetosphere as well as
determination of whether Callisto has a magnetic field of its own.
In addition to playback, early in the week, the spacecraft performs a small
turn to keep its antenna pointed toward Earth. Recall that the spacecraft
points itself in one planned direction by using an unmoving reference as
a guide, like the stars. With respect to this direction, the Earth drifts
out of its antenna's view and a small turn is required to keep communications
possible.
___ _____ ___
/_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
| | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab |
___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ Pasadena, CA | I am doing basic research, when
/___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| | I don't know what I'm doing.
|_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | Wernher Von Braun
Subject: MIT Physicists Envision Violent Beginnings for Newly Discovered Planets
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 05:47 UT
MIT News Office
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Room 5-111
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
Phone: 617-253-2700
=======================================
MIT physicists envision violent
beginnings for newly discovered planets
=======================================
For Release Friday, November 8,1996
Contact: Frederic A. Rasio or Elizabeth A. Thomson
Phone: (617) 253-5084 (617) 258-5402
Email:
CAMBRIDGE, Mass--The dozen or so new planets discovered within the past
year probably had violent beginnings, mainly because they were born in
solar systems with two or more massive planets the size of Jupiter,
according to astrophysicists at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT).
"The properties of these new planets are completely different from
those of the planets in our own solar system," said Frederic A. Rasio,
an assistant professor in the Department of Physics.
Professor Rasio and Eric B. Ford, an MIT sophomore and physics
major, propose that the properties of the new planets, all of which are
themselves Jupiter-sized, may be the result of instabilities that
developed when they formed. These instabilities, in turn, were caused by
the planets' close proximity to one or more other Jupiter-sized planets
in their respective planetary systems.
One implication of the work "is that a system like our solar
system, which has one dominant massive planet (Jupiter) and is very
stable over long time scales (several billions of years), may be very
rare," Professor Rasio said. "The only reason why we happen to be in
such a rare system is that long-term stability may be necessary for the
development of intelligent life."
The work, which involves supercomputer simulations to try to
determine how the new planets formed, will be reported in the November 8
issue of the journal Science.
Professor Rasio said a new era in astronomy began about a year ago
when Swiss astronomers detected a planet in orbit around a star named 51
Pegasi. The announcement marked the first confirmed discovery of a
planet in orbit around another Sun-like star. Since then, more than 10
additional detections have been reported by several groups around the
world. The new planets are all Jupiter-sized objects in orbit around
Sun-like stars but have very unusual orbits that have surprised
astronomers and left theorists to puzzle over how they might have
formed.
In current physical models for planetary system formation, the
minimum distance at which a giant gaseous planet like Jupiter can form
around a star like the Sun is thought to be several astronomical units
(an astronomical unit, or AU, is the mean radius of the Earth's orbit
around the Sun). The minimum distance for the formation of a rocky
planet like Earth or Mars is a few tenths of an AU, comparable to
Mercury's distance to the Sun.
The models also say that all planets should be on nearly circular
orbits, which is the case in our solar system. But it is not the case
with the new planets, Professor Rasio said. Most of the new planets have
masses comparable to that of Jupiter, but they are orbiting at distances
much smaller than 1 AU from the central star and some have very
eccentric (i.e., noncircular) orbits.
The computer simulations by Professor Rasio and Mr. Ford suggest
that this is because in many cases an orbital instability develops when
two or more Jupiter-sized planets are formed in the same system. This
leads to a strong gravitational interaction between two of the planets,
resulting in the ejection of one while the other is left in a smaller,
eccentric orbit.
Physical collisions between the planets also can occur as a result
of the instability, leading to mergers and to a build-up of the mass of
the planet that eventually remains in the system.
The physicists also report in Science that "other, less-massive
planets [like Earth or Mars] that may have formed in the same system are
likely to be lost as a result of the...instability." When they included
inner terrestrial planets in their simulations, Professor Rasio and Mr.
Ford found that "in all cases, large eccentricities are induced in the
orbits of these...planets, eventually causing them to escape from the
system or to collide with the central star."
Professor Rasio said the implications of this work are that many,
perhaps most, planetary systems that form around other stars may go
through a type of dynamical evolution that is far more violent than was
ever imagined for our own solar system.
In addition, he said, the long-term stability of our solar system
may be a result of the presence of one single dominant planet, Jupiter,
and the stability may be a necessary condition for the development of
intelligent life.
"If it really turns out that Earth is in fact in a very unusual
kind of planetary system, then it is likely that the new planetary
systems, which we are now discovering in rapidly increasing numbers, do
not contain intelligent life," Rasio said.
Professor Rasio said he and Mr. Ford are continuing their
examination of the consequences of dynamical interactions in newly
formed planetary systems. They plan to perform about 10,000 more
numerical calculations over the next year.
The supercomputer simulations were done at the Cornell Theory
Center, which receives major funding from the National Science
Foundation (NSF) and New York State, with additional support from the
Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), the National Center for
Research Resources at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), IBM
Corporation, and other members of the Center's Corporate Partnership
Program.
Subject: SAC-B/HETE Spacecraft No Longer Operational
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 05:50 UT
David E. Steitz
Headquarters, Washington, DC November 7, 1996
(Phone: 202/358-1730)
Jim Sahli
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD
(Phone: 301/286-0697)
RELEASE: 96-231
SAC-B/HETE SPACECRAFT NO LONGER OPERATIONAL
Spacecraft managers at the Goddard Space Flight Center,
Greenbelt, MD, believe that the SAC-B (Scientific
Applications Satellite-B) spacecraft is no longer operating
due to the loss of onboard battery power. Project officials
said the spacecraft battery lost power early on Tuesday, Nov. 5.
None of the five SAC-B instruments have been operating
since the battery failure. HETE (High Energy Transient
Experiment) project officials at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology confirmed that because the HETE spacecraft was
not separated from the Pegasus XL third stage, HETE was not
able to deploy its solar arrays. HETE is designed to remain
dormant until the solar arrays detect sunlight, an event
unlikely to occur since HETE remains sealed in the interior
of a dual payload support structure.
Officials said the SAC-B solar arrays did not deploy
automatically after launch since the Pegasus XL third stage
remained attached to the spacecraft. The solar arrays were
deployed by commands issued during the spacecraft's first
pass over the Wallops Operational Tracking Station, Wallops
Island, VA, on Monday, Nov. 4. Ground tracking after launch
showed the spacecraft tumbling. Due to the tumbling,
combined with the shadowing of the Pegasus XL third stage,
the SAC- B solar arrays were not able to generate enough
power to keep the satellite's batteries charged.
By early Nov. 5 morning during a spacecraft pass over
the Wallops station, there were no signals detected from SAC-B.
The SAC-B attitude control system had been turned on in
an attempt to stabilize the spacecraft, but with the
additional mass of the Pegasus XL third stage, the batteries
were discharged before control could be established.
Although there is the possibility that SAC-B could be
reactivated if the current tumbling of the spacecraft were to
stop, that possibility is considered remote by NASA managers.
HETE officials said that the spacecraft was powered on
after launch because of a previously programmed timer.
Signals were able to penetrate the Pegasus canister and were
detected during a pass at 7 a.m. on Nov. 5 by a NOAA
satellite receiving station at Wallops. In a subsequent
pass, signals were present but weak. Project officials said
on the next pass, no signals were detected. Managers said
that spacecraft batteries were probably depleted at that time.
The Pegasus launch occurred Nov. 4 at approximately
12:09 p.m. EST offshore from NASA's Wallops Flight Facility,
Wallops Island, VA. The Pegasus vehicle achieved the desired
orbit of 265 nautical miles by 297 nautical miles at an
inclination of 38 degrees. Analysis of the launch shows that
the Orbital Sciences Corporation's Pegasus XL third stage
failed to separate from the satellites.
-end-
Subject: Re: Hubble Const
From: sbennett@gate.net (Stephen Bennett)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 96 21:21:21 GMT
In article <56a2dv$4fi@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
mjh22@mrao.cam.ac.uk (Martin Hardcastle) wrote:
>What I find interesting is that the `cosmological' measurements --
>those based on high-z objects, as discussed in another posting -- are
>converging, if anything, on \sim 50, while a lot of the Cepheid stuff
>(e.g. recent HST measurements) is still around 100.
>
>Martin
I've read some on this, but have not encountered discussion that proposed any
soultion (*if* the near-far difference effect is real). The most obvious
resolution I see would be if the local Hubble flow was not typical of that at
larger scales, but there may be other considerations. Has anyone seen studies
that attempt to explain these apparent differences, between relatively nearby
measures of a high Ho versus lower values determined at high z's?
It would seem reasonable that at greater distances the overall Hubble flow would
be more accurately represented, but due to the greater distances the estimates
would also be more uncertain.
I have a passing interest in the "real" value of this parameter, because of a
fringe (over the edge?) cosmological model that favors a rather precise number
of 54 for Ho. I have no idea how, as another respondent posted, an observational
group could pin down the Hubble constant to even one decimal place, let alone
five. I wonder what they were planning that could hope to improve so much over
present methods?
Stephen Bennett
Subject: SIRTF Takes A Step Forward
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 23:07 UT
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov
Contact: Jane Platt
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 12, 1996
SPACE INFRARED TELESCOPE FACILITY TAKES A STEP FORWARD
NASA's Space Infrared Telescope Facility (SIRTF) has moved one step
closer toward its journey into space to explore the birth and evolution of
the universe.
The high-priority astrophysics mission has successfully completed its
preliminary analysis phase--known in the aerospace industry as Phase A--and
now begins its definition phase, known as Phase B. NASA granted the approval
after an independent review board appointed by the agency found the SIRTF
mission's scientific objectives are achievable with the available resources.
In this next phase, the mission's preliminary design will be developed.
"This is a prime example of NASA's 'faster, better, cheaper' approach to
space exploration," said SIRTF Project Manager Larry Simmons. "Through
innovation and new technology, we've reduced the cost while still providing
the performance of earlier telescopes. The National Academy of Sciences has
identified SIRTF as the highest-priority major U.S. astronomy mission for
the 1990s."
The $434-million telescope facility will complete NASA's Great
Observatories Program. As envisioned in the early 1980s, the NASA plan
called for a suite of space telescopes capable of covering a wide range of
the electromagnetic spectrum. The other observatories in this family include
the Hubble Space Telescope, the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF)
and the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory. SIRTF, with a planned launch in 2002,
will overlap the operation of Hubble and AXAF and enable synergistic
observations.
"By putting SIRTF into space, we'll be able to detect the infrared part
of the spectrum with unprecedented sensitivity," SIRTF Project Scientist
Mike Werner said. "This will allow us to answer questions about the early
universe and dark matter which have so far not been achievable. We'll be
able to determine whether stars which appear dim in visible light appear
bright in the infrared due to the presence of a proto-planetary disk."
In addition to its role in the Great Observatories Program, SIRTF also
marks the first major step in NASA's Origins Program, a series of missions
designed to study the formation and evolution of galaxies, stars, planets
and the entire universe.
The SIRTF mission is managed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
Pasadena, CA, for the agency's Office of Space Science, Washington, D.C. The
project team includes Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space of Sunnyvale, CA,
which will provide the spacecraft and perform SIRTF's system-level
integration and test, and Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp. of Boulder,
CO, which will design and develop the cryogenic telescope assembly. SIRTF's
three instruments are being provided by a trio of principal investigators,
one each from Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, Smithsonian Astrophysical
Observatory, Cambridge, MA and the University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
Some of SIRTF's innovations include a unique solar orbit (trailing the
Earth as it moves around the Sun), state-of-the-art infrared technology, a
new, lightweight cryogenic telescope made entirely of beryllium, and a
cost-saving telescope cooling system that reduces the amount of cryogen used
to maintain the low temperatures needed for sensitive infrared observations.
NASA will request approval to begin SIRTF's design and development (Phases
C/D) in fiscal year 1998.
Additional information can be obtained on the SIRTF World Wide Web home
page at http://sirtf.jpl.nasa.gov/sirtf/home.html and on the Origins home
page at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oss/origins/Origins.html.
#####
[Note to Editors: An artist's rendering of SIRTF is available by calling the
JPL Public Information Office.]
Subject: Re: Autodynamics
From: Mountain Man
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 09:14:50 -0800
Phil Fischer wrote:
> What a bunch of moronic blather. The most stringent test of the perihelion
> advance predicted by GR is the Taylor-Hulse pulsar. You might recall that
> the discoverers of this pulsar (Taylor and Hulse) were recently awarded Nobel
> prizes. This system has a much larger perihelion advance than
> mercury. Observation and analysis of pulsar timing has yielded fantastic
> agreement with GR. End of discussion.
Hahahahahahaha ..... end of discussion.
Hahahahahahaha ..... what an intellectual singularity.
Of course - I forgot ... everyone who is awarded a Nobel prize is
correct by default. Certainly, if they were handing out such
awards in the days of Ptolemy, then he would have received a few.
Water joke ..... surf on .....
Verily verily I say unto you ....
Those who are stuffed up proponents of the status quo have
already received the reward of their labor.
I find sci.physics the most amusing newsgroup to read for this
very reason ... "Know_it_Alls" - Please stand up and be recognised.
The prizes have been awarded.
The books have already been written.
Nature is known to the scientific mind.
All that is left to do now
is to teach the children well ....
Pete Brown
--------------------------------------------------------------------
BoomerangOutPost: Mountain Man Graphics, Newport Beach, {OZ}
Webulous Coordinates: http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/ancients.html
QuoteForTheDay: HERACLITUS
born about 540 bc in Ephesus of royal family,
Heraclitus was a solitary, his words were obscure,
and he never disguised his contempt for mankind and
other "philosophers and poets" such as Pythagoras and Homer:
"The rest of mankind are unaware of what they do while awake,
just as they forget what they do while sleeping."
Rebuking some for their unbelief, Heraclitus says:
"Knowing neither how to hear nor how to speak"
The opinions of mankind - "to be children's playthings".
"What sense or mind have they?
They put their trust in popular bards
and take the mobs for their teacher,
unaware that most men are bad, and the good are few.
"Human nature has no insight, but divine nature has it."
"Man is infantile in the eyes of a god,
as a child in the eyes of a man."
"To God all things are fair, and good and just,
but men have supposed some unjust and some just."
"One man is to me ten thousand, if he be the best."
"The way up and the way down are the same"
"Divine things for the most part escape recognition because of
unbelief."
"The limits of the soul woudst thou not discover
though thou shoudst travel every road: so deep a logos has it."
"What we see awake is death - what we see asleep is sleep."
"The body is a tomb" ...... (Note: this is a standard Pythagorean
belief)
"A man's character is the immortal
and potentially divine part of him" [Fr 115]
"In the CIRCLE the beginning and the ending are common.
"What he calls death is not utter annhilation,
but changes to another element" - [Plato on Heraclitus]
Heraclitus called fire "Want and satiety"
"For fire will come and judge and convict all things."
"From all things one, and from one all things."
"Immortal mortals, mortal immortals,
livingdeath of the others and dying their lives"
(Guthrie: the transformation of opposites occur concurrently)
"Everything is an exchange for fire" ....
fire is the arche of nature [Simplicius:Phys23:33-24]
"Let us not make random conjectures about the greatest of matters."
According to the writings of Macrobius,
Heraclitus describes the soul as ....
"A spark of the substance of the stars."
- Heraclitus ..... (about 500 BC)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Thermodynamic definition of life (was Could intelligent extraterrestrial life exist in our galaxy?)
From: devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 23:39:23 GMT
Erik Max Francis (max@alcyone.com) wrote:
: David L Evens wrote:
: > A virus needs a host that everyone agrees is alive in order to do its
: > life cycle. A spore merely needs a suitable non-living environment.
: I notice you didn't quote the rest of my article, where I went on to talk
: about parasites/symbionts. These need another living organism to _live at
: all_, much less to reproduce. If anything, there should be a stronger
: calling to classify these as nonalive than viruses.
I dismissed it becasue it is pointlessly stupid. Non-virus parasites
clearly ARE alive, since they carry out biological activity within
themselves. A virus cannot do this. For a virus to actually do
anything, it has to insert its genome into a living cell, in the process
destroying itself.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
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: [sci.astro] Welcome! - read this first
From: lazio@spacenet.tn.cornell.edu
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 96 1:14:21 GMT
Archive-name: astronomy/sci-astro-intro
Posting-Frequency: weekly
Last-modified: $Date: 1996/04/20 22:06:13 $
Version: $Revision: 1.5 $
URL: http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/students/lazio/sci.astro.html
------------------------------
Subject: Introduction
sci.astro is a newsgroup for the discussion of astronomical topics.
This post documents the topics generally accepted as appropriate for
sci.astro as well as guidelines for posting in this group. New
readers (as well as more experienced ones!) are encouraged to review
this material with the hope that it will maximize their use and
enjoyment of sci.astro.
This post is an extract of the material found in the sci.astro FAQ.
The FAQ is posted on a regular basis to the newsgroup sci.astro. It
is also available via anonymous ftp in the directory
and it is on the World Wide
Web at
.
The material in this document was contributed by
Philippe Brieu ,
Walter I. Nissen, Jr. CDP , and
Steven Willner .
------------------------------
Subject: What are the astro newsgroups about?
There are six groups in the sci.astro hierarchy:
sci.astro Astronomy discussions and information.
sci.astro.amateur Amateur astronomy equipment, techniques, info, etc.
sci.astro.fits Issues related to the Flexible Image Transport System.
sci.astro.hubble Processing Hubble Space Telescope data. (Moderated)
sci.astro.planetarium Discussion of planetariums.
sci.astro.research Forum in astronomy/astrophysics research. (Moderated)
By default, everything that is related to astronomy/astrophysics and
is NOT covered by one of the other sci.astro.* groups is acceptable
for posting in sci.astro. If something belongs in one of those
groups, then it does NOT belong in sci.astro and should NOT be
(cross)posted there. In particular, this includes all amateur
observations, hardware, software, and trade (see sci.astro.amateur).
The sci.astro hierarchy is NOT the appropriate forum for
* metaphysical discussions (try alt.paranet.metaphysics);
* astrology (alt.astrology); or
* creationism (talk.origins for that).
This is a science group, not one for religion, sociology, or
philosophy (even of science).
In addition, a number of topics related to astrophysics are better
suited for other groups. For instance, elementary particle physics
should be discussed in sci.physics.particle (but discussions of
astronomical consequences are welcome in sci.astro). Likewise for
photons and the speed of light (sci.physics). Finally, all space
related issues (e.g. spacecraft and faster than light/time travel)
have a home in the sci.space.* hierarchy (but astronomical results
from space missions are welcome).
------------------------------
Subject: What are the guidelines for posting on astro newsgroups?
Ask yourself: Is this post about the science of astronomy? Will many
of the thousands and thousands of readers here, people interested in
the science of astronomy, find it of personal benefit? If so, post;
if not, there is probably a better newsgroup for your post.
If you will follow this group for a month or so before posting here,
you will greatly reduce the likelihood that you will participate in
making the newsgroup less productive and friendly and then end up
regretting it. If you are new here, it is likely that any question
you have has already been asked. If so, its answer is probably in one
of the FAQ files. Check out the newsgroups news.answers, sci.answers,
and news.announce.newusers, or ask your local help file or
administrator to point you toward the FAQs. If you become really
frustrated, pick on one of the more helpful posters here and send
e-mail (not a post) politely asking for some help. Conversely, if
your question is novel and not in a FAQ, readers will likely be
intensely interested in considering it.
Certain topics repeatedly come up and lead to lengthy, loud-mouthed
discussions that never lead anywhere interesting. Often these topics
have extremely little to do with the science of astronomy. Experience
also shows that when messages are cross-posted to other groups,
followups very seldom are appropriate in sci.astro.
If you do ask a question, please consider writing up the answer for a
FAQ file.
Moreover, there are a number of common rules for all newsgroups. If
you are a new Usenaut, please visit the newsgroup
news.announce.newusers for an introduction to the Usenet.
Subject: Re: Moon Phases Inverted in S. Hemisphere???
From: mwoods@maths.otago.ac.nz (Matt B. Woods)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 15:53:06 +0100
In article <567lfc$2g7@lori.albany.net>, rsmith@clysmic.com wrote:
> This has been diving me crazy! I need astronomical advise ...
>
> My question: are moon phases really "inverted" in the southern hemisphere?
> In other words, at the First Quarter moon, which side is lit, the right or
> left?? In the northern hemisphere, it's the right side. Is it really the
> left in Australia and points south? Do the local almanacs/calendars all
reflect this, or use a
> "standard" moon picture (i.e. always the right side)?
>
> Thanks...Any help appreciated!
Let's be clear about this, the phases aren't "inverted" in the southern
hemisphere - they are the right way around!
If you want to know how this looks just stand on your head and look at the
first quarter moon, now is the right side lit or the left side?
It's easy, we do it all the time in these parts : )
Cheers,
Matt
Subject: Re: Thermodynamic definition of life (was Could intelligent extraterrestrial life exist in our galaxy?)
From: devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 23:40:42 GMT
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).
: Parasites can't _survive_, much less reproduce, without the host animal. But
: they're certainly alive.
: Not to mention that sterile humans can't reproduce, in isolation or not.
: Mules can't reproduce at _all_, period. Both are certainly alive.
And this prroves that viri are not similar to living things, since they
do not perform life functions.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
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: Thermodynamic definition of life II (was Could intelligent extraterrestrial life exist in our galaxy?)
From: Phillip Bigelow
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 19:46:09 -0800
Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Jeff Suzuki wrote:
> > Another way to define living is thermodynamically: living organisms
> > are self-organizing objects that can effect local decreases in
> > entropy. Of course, this eliminates fire, though still permits those
> > pesky crystals....
: Right. This is the thermodynamic definition of life. While it
:includes
: some things that are not generally considered "alive," it does tend to
: include interesting things, which is good enough for me.
Well, if it's good enough for you, I guess that ends the discussion!
:-)
Out of curiosity, though, I would like to know what are the things
that you believe aren't considered (by conventionality) to be
"alive", yet would fit within your physics-level
defintion. For instance, you mentioned "interesting" phenomena.
Could you provide us some examples?
Subject: Re: analemna ?
From: Rodney Small
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 21:41:29 -0800
Steve Willner wrote:
>
> In article , Norbert Ebel writes:
> > PS as far as I know the phenomenon has as a consequence that the earliest
> > sun rising day (and the latest sun falling day) are not the 21th december (but
>
> There is a short answer, with reference to a longer answer, in the
> FAQ:
> http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/students/lazio/sci.astro.3.FAQ
>
> Note that both obliquity of the ecliptic and eccentricity of Earth's
> orbit contribute to the shape of the analemma, with the former being
> slightly the larger effect.
I disagree with the word "slightly" -- the obliquity (tilt of the
earth on its axis relative to the plane of the earth's orbit) component
is actually much greater than the eccentricity (orbital speed of the
earth) component, but for some reason the former seems to be unknown even
to many astronomers.
Because of the earth's tilt, only at the solstices is the earth moving
almost entirely in an easterly direction relative to the sun. At other
times of the year and most markedly at the equinoxes, a portion of the
earth's motion relative to the sun is in either a northerly or southerly
direction. Thus, at the solstices, the earth is making greater progress
to the east than it is at the equinoxes. At the December solstice, this
greater progress to the east is amplified by the fact that the earth is
nearly at perihelion. Thus, a true (apparent) solar day at the December
solstice is about 30 seconds longer than 24 hours.
At the June solstice, on the other hand, the earth's progress to the east
is lessened by the fact that the earth is nearly at aphelion.
Nonetheless, because of the dominance of the tilt component, a true solar
day is still about 13 seconds longer than 24 hours. In fact, even on
July 4, when the earth is generally furthest from the earth, a true solar
day is about 10 seconds longer than 24 hours. If the orbital speed of
the earth were nearly an equal component of the equation of time, a true
solar day would be almost exactly 24 hours at that time.
Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: jburrell@crl.com (Jason Burrell)
Date: 14 Nov 1996 04:43:40 GMT
In article <328430E9.1031@warwick.net>,
Eric Kniffin wrote:
>Christopher Michael Jones wrote:
>> Besides,
>> there is also the possiblity that none of this matters anyway.
>
>That's for sure.
>
>> If the
>> universe is really a "multiple minds / multiple reality" universe, then
>> all these things can happen (including the hard encounter / "paradox")
>> without a paradox acutally occuring.
>
>Well, I was thinking of possibility: that time travel only exists in comic
>books and movies.
I won't give any kind of scientific hypothesis, but my personal belief,
based on little more than faith, is that time travel isn't possible.
Further, if time travel is possible, the universe finds a way to neatly
avoid paradoxes, or we get thrust into seperate timelines. Why? Because if
time travel did exist, we'd be seeing people come back all the time.
>I can't remember if I posted this or emailed it to someone. But I'd like to
>know why anyone thinks that time travel is possible. I know that Einstein
>theorized that if we travel REALLY fast, it will seem like we were traveling
>for a short time, but when we stop we will find that the rest of the world
>has experienced a much greater time. I suppose that the faster we travel,
>the greater the time difference will be. But how has this theory been
>tested? (I've only heard of this theory. I dont know why Einstein thought
>this would happen. I just don't know anything about this stuff.)
I was told by a high school physics instructor (a very bright man,
incidentally) that, quote, "They tested this. They took two clocks, one on
the ground, and put the other in a 747 and flew it around the world a couple
of times. After 6 or 8 times around, there was a microsecond difference or
so in the clocks." He might have been making up that anecdote to get the
point across, though.
I also read years ago that they "proved" time dilation by computing the
expected life of the mu meson. Mu mesons are created in the upper
atmosphere, and have a short life -- so short, in fact, that they shouldn't
hit sea level. But they detected them here, and it happens that the actual
life, as perceived by us, coincides with what the time dilation theory
predicts.
>
>But what I don't understand is how people decided that, because of that
>theory, we must be able to go forward and backward in time. That's quite a
>bit different. I mean WAY different. Is there another theory, based on
>Einstein's, that explains this? (In which case, it's a theory based on a
>theory, not a theory based on fact.) Is the other theory completely
>unrelated to Einstein's? Who is the author of this other theory?
I think what you're refering to is the exploitation of time dilation for
purposes of manipulating time. If I go at a sufficiently large velocity,
then there's a huge disparity between my perceived time and the time in the
inertial frame that, say, Earth would be in. Therefore, I could, if I were
to go fast enough I could move in such a way that when I slowed, hundreds or
thousands of years would have passed on Earth.
As for the backwards time travel thing, I believe people are assuming that
since the time dilation follows a particular curve, and since Einstein
theorized that time "stops" when you're at c, the natural progression is for
time to regress when one is travelling in excess of c. In the standard time
dilation equation we're taught in school, travelling in excess of c gets you
an imaginary result.
Folks correct me if I'm wrong here. I'm a bit rusty.