Subject: Re: Sirius C??? - dogon.jpg (0/1)
From: mmd@zuaxp0.star.ucl.ac.uk (Michael Dworetsky)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:41:27 GMT
In article <19961109184400.NAA19493@ladder01.news.aol.com> irkiller@aol.com writes:
>As I recall Sky and Telescope had a small article in an issue about 6
>months ago indicating that a 3rd star had been detected in the Sirius star
>system. I have not heard anything further since
It was the December 1995 issue, p 14, reporting a study by two French
astronomers published in the July II 1995 issue of Astronomy &
Astrophysics. However, while the original posting in sci.astro said the
Dogon described Sirius C as having the twice the period of Sirius B (if I
recall this correctly), the published study concluded that the most
likely orbit was a 6.3-year period of a low-mass star or brown dwarf
orbiting Sirius A. The study said, in effect, that such an object was
likely to exist but the level of confidence in this conclusion was
statistically marginal (90%).
--
Mike Dworetsky, Department of Physics | Bismark's law: The less people
& Astronomy, University College London | know about how sausages and laws
Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT UK | are made, the better they'll
email: mmd@star.ucl.ac.uk | sleep at night.
Subject: Re: Hi Asteroid watchers
From: mmd@zuaxp0.star.ucl.ac.uk (Michael Dworetsky)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 11:40:30 GMT
In article <32833eee.0@cfanews.harvard.edu> graff@cfa0.harvard.edu (Gareth Williams) writes:
>Kirk Richard Simmons (gt7818d@prism.gatech.edu) wrote:
>: My question is can anyone tell me the RA and DEC of the asteroid Nyos for
>: this month I'd heard that it was extremely bright for its tiny size and
>: distance from Earth.
>
> There is no minor planet with that name.
>
> Gareth Williams, Minor Planet Center
There is a Nysa, though. Perhaps that is what Kirk Simmons is asking
about. Over to you, Kirk. . .
--
Mike Dworetsky, Department of Physics | Bismark's law: The less people
& Astronomy, University College London | know about how sausages and laws
Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT UK | are made, the better they'll
email: mmd@star.ucl.ac.uk | sleep at night.
Subject: Re: Autodynamics
From: "Todd K. Pedlar"
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 05:47:27 -0600
Dean Povey wrote:
>
> dean@psy.uq.oz.au (Dean Povey) writes:
> Here is an extract:
> =====>
> SR and AD Comparison
>
> The general relativity equation for advance of the Mercury perihelion is:
>
> 6 pi GM
> T = ---------- [Pardon my ascii, DGP]
> c^2 r (1 - e^2)
>
> Where e = eccentricity, c = light speed and G, M, and r have the usual
> meaning in this paper.
>
> This equation yields, in a century:
>
> 42.4" for Mercury
> 8" for Venus
> 4" for Earth
> 1" for Mars
>
> In AD gravitation, the perihelion advance for each planet is
> proportional to the square root of the division of the solar mass by
> the orbital radius power 3.
radius? by this you mean *mean distance*, right?
>
> Tp = sqrt(M / r^3) [ditto: DGP]
>
> If the Mercury value is taken as 43", the values for the other planets are:
Please tell me you're not required to take Mercury's observed advance
as input. If so, the oft-quoted claim that AD predicts Mercury's
perihelion advance is a load. And I don't mean a load of bananas.
Cheers,
Todd
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern University - FNAL E835
Nuclear & Particle Physics Group
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (708) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
WWW: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: 2nd law of thermo -PRETENTIOUS!
From: tim@franck.Princeton.EDU.composers (Tim Hollebeek)
Date: 9 Nov 1996 18:57:49 GMT
In article , apl@world.std.com writes:
> Don Dale (dale@princeton.edu) wrote:
>
> : Two hundred years ago, we thought that there was a fundamental limit to
> : travel speeds because even the fastest horses couldn't go over 30 mph, no
> : matter how well they were bred, trained or jockeyed.
>
> And with the advent of faster transportation, there were learned and
> highly degreed scientists who spouted all sorts of scientific reasons
> why we would never exceed the speed of sound, and so on.
No matter how many times people say this, it still won't be true.
Hint: learned people knew about rifle bullets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hollebeek | Disclaimer :=> Everything above is a true statement,
Electron Psychologist | for sufficiently false values of true.
Princeton University | email: tim@wfn-shop.princeton.edu
----------------------| http://wfn-shop.princeton.edu/~tim (NEW! IMPROVED!)
Subject: Re: A photon - what is it really ?
From: "Robert. Fung"
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 08:23:03 -0500
Peter Diehr wrote:
>
> Robert Fung wrote:
> >
> > But isn't a photon a wave ? Mathematically a wave packet
> > built up from a superposition of a certain spectral distribution
> > of wave frequencies ?
> >
>
> No, a photon does not consist of bits and pieces of an electromagnetic
> wave. The photon is a quantum object; it is the quanta of the electromagnetic
> field. As such, it has both wave and particle attributes. It is also subject
> to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP).
This part is still confusing. Can you elaborate more on the distinction
since the confusing part seems to be, where, what range, mathematically the
quantization occurs. Does 'hbar' enter the picture only
as an empirically derived proposition or is it mathematically derivable from
EM properties for free-wave packets. I've only read something to this
effect by Dirac something like: theta * E - E * theta = ih for a component of
the superposition.
The wave-packet definition I'm working from being:
E'=E * integral { dk * f(k) * e ^-i*(wt-kx) }
f(k)=a gaussian spectral funtion of the wave-number k, w=c|k_o|,
>
> If you are able to fully specifiy the electromagnetic field, then one of
> the quantum properties is that you no longer know how many photons you have!
> That is, the photon number is not an eigenvalue of the electromagnetic field.
I guess this is the case when the source is switched on and off and
the resulting wave packet contains energy larger than one hbar*w_o
yielding many coherent, phase-related photons ?
>
> When you think of a photon as having wave properties, the waves in question
> are probability amplitudes ... and these are going to tell you the likelihood
> of finding the photon here or there.
And this seems to match what I'm reading in terms of locating the photon in
some symmetric region k +- delta k/2 by treating the abs-squared
spectral function f(k) as the probability density P(k) for the wave-number
lying within the region.
> Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: Could intelligent extraterrestrial life exist in our galaxy?
From: JHOLL4@
Date: 12 Nov 1996 13:11:35 GMT
In <32873F4C.7AA0@courier6.aero.org>, "Walter E. Shepherd" writes:
>I suggest that we stop thinking of intelligence in
>binary terms... i.e., intelligent/not intelligent. I think
>intelligence, like most everything else, is a continuum...
Well put! However, once a species becomes tool-using and
starts using tools to make better tools, a binary separation *does*
form. It doesn't take very many generations for the tool-using
species to build a society qualitatively different from even
the most intelligent non-tool-users.
--Cathy Mancus
Subject: Re: REDSHIFT ??
From: "J. Scott Miller"
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 08:53:40 -0800
Dan Crispin Matthew Brown wrote:
>
> Question: Assuming that the universe is constantly expanding, where is the
> center? I've been told by numerous people (my prof included) that since
> the universe is infinite, it has no center irregardless of it's expansion.
> However, if the Big Bang model of the universe is correct, then at t=0 the
> universe was at its center and it expanded from there. Someone mentioned
> to me however that since at t=0 the universe was at its center, because it
> expanded the center expanded as well. Therefore the universe is its own
> center.
You are missing the whole point of the expansion following the Big Bang. The expansion
is an expansion of space, not an expansion through space. In otherwords, the creation
of the universe at time t=o was also the creation of space (x=0,y=0,z=0). There was no
vacuum to fill, no reference frame to even claim the coordinates I have above. Just as
the universe was everywhere at t=0, it is everywhere now. Thus there is no center,
there is no edge. Without an external reference system, center and edge have no
meaning.
>
> In my original post (Quasar controversy), I mentioned the cosmological
> expansion process (and since no one bothered to correct me, I assume it
> was correct). So if points A and B near the start of the universe are
> like so:
>
> A B
>
> and BOOM, suddenly the universe expands. Relative to a third stationary
> observer C these two points would be receding from each other at Z
> recessional velocity.
>
> A - - - - B
>
> C
>
> Wouldn't these two points appear to be at rest when viewed from either
> point? THe Z redshift measured would measure the rate at which the
> universe is expanding, not the rate at which they are moving away from
> each other. Points A and B are still at the same distance from the other,
> they will never become farther apart. According to C however, these two
> points are expanding. WOuld it not be concluded then that the redshift is
> not due to any true velocity, but due to the physics of space
> "stretching"?
> Your model fails precisely because no priviledged "outside-of-the-universe" dimension
exists. If the universe is expanding, then A, B, and C would all be expanding from each
other in time and space. You are wanting to see the expansion from outside the
universe, and that dimension is not available.
J. Scott Miller, Program Coordinator
Rauch Memorial Planetarium
University of Louisville
jsmill01@homer.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Autodynamics
From: philf@astro.lsa.umich.edu (Phil Fischer)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 14:16:33 GMT
In article <569e6h$ka2@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au>,
Dean Povey wrote:
>The general relativity equation for advance of the Mercury perihelion is:
>
> 6 pi GM
> T = ---------- [Pardon my ascii, DGP]
> c^2 r (1 - e^2)
>
>Where e = eccentricity, c = light speed and G, M, and r have the usual
>meaning in this paper.
>
>This equation yields, in a century:
>
> 42.4" for Mercury
> 8" for Venus
> 4" for Earth
> 1" for Mars
>
>In AD gravitation, the perihelion advance for each planet is
>proportional to the square root of the division of the solar mass by
>the orbital radius power 3.
>
> Tp = sqrt(M / r^3) [ditto: DGP]
>
>If the Mercury value is taken as 43", the values for the other planets are:
>
> Venus = 16.8"
> Earth = 10.4"
> Mars = 5.5"
>
>[These] values are equal to Hall's empirical values and close to the
>expected values calculated by Newcomb.
What a bunch of moronic blather. The most stringent test of the perihelion
advance predicted by GR is the Taylor-Hulse pulsar. You might recall that
the discoverers of this pulsar (Taylor and Hulse) were recently awarded Nobel
prizes. This system has a much larger perihelion advance than
mercury. Observation and analysis of pulsar timing has yielded fantastic
agreement with GR. End of discussion.
Phil
Subject: Re: Hubble Const
From: mjh22@mrao.cam.ac.uk (Martin Hardcastle)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 14:38:51 GMT
In article <5686d3$mnq@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>,
David L Evens wrote:
>Which is why the HST is expected to vastly improove the confidence
>interval for the Hubble Constant. Because the HST can obtain much
>clearer images than are readily available from Earth-based telescopes, it
>should be possible to develop much better calibrations for our various
>distance measures.
Things have got better since Hubble was launched, but not vastly --
the errors are quite large even in HST determinations (e.g. Tanvir et
al 1995 Nature 377 27) and the systematics are very very hard to
quantify (you're still relying on the distance ladder and assuming
that stuff local to us is reliably moving with the Hubble flow).
This is why determinations using higher-z stuff (e.g. the S-Z effect,
as in the notorious 42 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} --- this is a less
impressive coincidence when you remember that the errors on this are
something like 20 each way, or gravitational lensing of variable
quasars) are a nicer answer, if they can be made to work.
I seem to remember that the COBRAS/Samba project is meant to get H_0
to five decimal places or something absurd, if you believe the hype,
but we'll have to wait and see...
Martin
--
Martin Hardcastle Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory, Cambridge
Be not solitary, be not idle
Subject: Unit system based on physical constants -- was: When will the U.S. finally go metric?
From: churchyh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Henry Churchyard)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 08:45:58 -0600
In article <327d2f53.25214036@news.cdsnet.net>,
Michael A. Rouse wrote:
> Personally, I don't think the U.S. should convert to SI. Not because
> I like the "English" system of units but because there are better
> ways to construct a measurement system than using a quadrant of the
> planet and liquid water.
> For example, you can base a system on the speed of light,
> Planck's constant, the gravitational constant, and the charge of the
> electron. You can easily define mass, length, time, energy,
> and electrical units with these four constants.
There was an article published in _Analog_ science fiction magazine in
the early-to-mid 1960's that speculated in some detail about
developing such systems of measurements. Maybe we should use base 137
in our numbering system (actually it's a little bigger than 137, isn't
it? -- but I'm not sure how a numbering system with a non-integer base
would work).
--
Henry Churchyard http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh/ || "Is it possible? Can any
one be so blind to the sordid side of human nature and picnics?"-Charles Willis
Subject: Re: 7 November, PLutonium Day is the only future holiday
From: kovarik@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (Zdislav V. Kovarik)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 03:00:56 -0500
In article <55tll9$f39@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
:In the future there is no other holiday, just one, plutonium day. It
:comes 7 November, today.
:
:Unlike the other useless holidays of bygone days, of Xmass of
:commercial crap. Of Easter silliness of an Easter bunny and painted
:eggs. Of New Years get drunk and useless fireworks. Of National
:holidays and a nation is born false allegiances, of presidents day, of
:memorial day glorifying war and dying and politicians of dubious merit.
: Or past holidays of yore of wasteful libations or animal slaughter or
:virgin sacrifice. All of these holidays worship or praise or celebrate
:things of non-importance. Holidays should be pragmatic, should be spent
:with time and energy from the soul of a person. Such as a poem.
[...]
Right on! November 7 is the 79th anniversary of the Great October
Socialist Revolution in Russia. It turned out to be a colossal failure,
too.
Subject: Re: Hubble Const
From: mjh22@mrao.cam.ac.uk (Martin Hardcastle)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 14:43:11 GMT
In article <3287AB28.10EF@nortel.com>,
Jeff Wilson wrote:
> Hubble
>himself measured the value to be 50,
500 or thereabouts, originally!
>Currently, there is a frenzy of activity trying to converge on a
>single accepted value. The problem arises with estimating the
>distance to the galaxies accurately. Values are starting to
>converge to between 55 and 65 (I think, others please correct).
Hmm, I wouldn't say there's any real degree of consensus yet. You've
been watching too much Sandage.
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
--
Martin Hardcastle Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory, Cambridge
Be not solitary, be not idle
Subject: How did we get 'here' first? ( Eric D. Gibson)
From: egibson407@pipeline.com (Eric Gibson)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:53:42 GMT
"B Gill" wrote:
>Had an idea regarding cosmological redshift (not my specialty) and while
>it"s probably wrong, no one has been able to tell me why.
>Ever since Hubble devised his law, there has been a controversy as to
>whether observed redshift Z, is entirely due to recessional velocity, or
>due in part to another effect.
[SNIP]
>Assuming a Big Bang Cosmological model it must be remembered that LIGHT
>FROM DISTANT GALAXIES ORIGINATED IN THE PAST WHEN THE DENSITY OF THE
>UNIVERSE WAS GREATER THAN TODAY. Thus a photon travelling through time will
>be constantly climbing out of a potential well irregardless of its
>direction. (density being a function of time).
[SNIP]
>Every point in the universe essentially sees itself at the centre of an
>expanding universe, and it is this expansion from dense to less dense which
>creates a potential well from which all emitted photons must climb out of
>and this would be an addition to the recessional redshift
>as determined by Hubble's Law.
>Comments gilmour@interlynx.net
I also have been thinking a lot about Redshifts and their apparent
velocities. The Hubble deep-sky images have put many pictures in
Astonomy and Sky & Telescope, also several papers in Journals
repeatedly state that those images captured the universe at ~15% of
its present age. After several months of seeing these images and
reading about high Redshifted Galaxies and QSO's, several questions
have formed in my mind.
1. If the universe started out very dense after the Big Bang, though
physically very small, How much expansion has occurred? What
velocity is our Galaxy traveling outward from the point of the 'Bang"?
How far has our galaxy travelled?
2. If the light from these images comes from objects with a small
fraction of the universe's age ( 12 - 18 Billion years) then has this
light been traveling for 10.2 - 15.3 billion years? and if so, HOW DID
WE GET HERE AHEAD OF IT to 'see' it?Is the velocity of our galaxy +
the expansoin rate of the universe close to c?
3. Is it possible that the high Redshifted "proto - galaxies' in the
Hubble deep field photos ( and all high redshifted objects) could
actually be on the other side of the point of the 'Bang' and therefore
be much further away?
I am an amateur astronomer with a BS in Agronomy and Soils. I have no
formal training in Astronomy or Astrophysics, but I spend much time on
the Web both in Hard science sites and lighter stuff as well.
Perhaps my Questions show my Ignorance of the Expansion of the
universe, but the more I read here and in the AAS Journal online and
elswhere, the more I find these Questions unanswered.
Please answer as a post to this newsgroup or by e-mail to:
EGibson407@pipeline.com I thank you in advance for your time and
the sharing of your Knowledge
Eric Gibson
Subject: Planned imaging of Cydonia by NASA.
From: ge701@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Angel Garcia)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 15:35:59 GMT
Following the lead at "Cydonia Zone" one easily gets NASA's planning
for imaging Cydonia (and the whole planet Mars) by Mars Global
Surveyor (or MGS). It is said in there that the quasi-polar orbit of
MGS will be:
A) circular (or as circular as possible after aerobraking)
B) nearly 2 hours period (thus close to 12 turns per martian day)
C) passing near to martian north&south; poles (not EXACTLY polar).
D) in sun-synchronous orbit (meaning that during the whole martian
year of operation the MGS will automatically cross the martian
equator at almost exactly the same LOCAL MARTIAN TIME: namely
mid-afternoon in one side and mid-morning in the other side.
Therefore, according to D), we have an extremely clever and bona-fide
planning for taking the BEST possible and needed quasi-orthonormal
images of the "Face at Cydonia". So that no skeptic about reluctance
of imaging the fundamental martian feature from NASA's party can
anymore argue on silly conspiracies taking place: NASA remains openly
in the side of pure science: noble, honest and truth-seeker as has
traditionally been until currently.
The needed images of the "Face" are the 'right-side' (which currently
is shadowed because the 2 and only 2 images taken by Viking were both
in mid-afternoon). Now we will have pictures in mid-morning to get
good images of such right-side.
-------------------------------
After kind lesson from scientist at JPL, the sun-synchronicity
is achieved via an opportunistic use of the oblateness of Mars: there
is a marked 'bump' at the equator (twice as much as Earth has and
due, of course, to aboriginal fluidity of these planets which created
the equatorial bump by centrifugal force in their nearly 24 hour
rotation period).
If an orbit of satellite (both on Earth and on Mars) is not exactly
polar but close to it then at the two moments when it passes near the
poles is 'attracted' by the equatorial bump in opposite senses: thus
a "TORQUE" is constantly (in every turn) acting on the satellite
and such torque produces INCREMENT of the 'angular momentum' of the
orbit WITHOUT changing its modulus. So the radius of the orbit
remains constant but the vector 'angular-momentum' changes constantly
in 'direction'. This is a PRECESSION of the orbit. Now, if scientists
can set the original orbit at such a precise angle with the martian
meridian that the amount of received torque (from equatorial bump) is
such that the precession of the orbit is nearly one full turn per
martian year... then it happens that the orbit of the satellite is
slowly turning with respect to fixed stars (precessing) at the same
rate as the north martian pole seems to turn yearly respect to the sun.
Thus every martian day we will have almost identical relative position
of the satellite's orbit with respect to the sun: sun-synchronicity !.
It is automatic sequel of celestial mechanics and does not cost any
expenditure of valuable fuel of the satellite.
Of course the planned orbit (with such syncronicity) can be set at any
desired angle with respect to mars-sun line: NASA has chosen for
MGS some 45 degrees angle: to cross equator around mid-afternoon and
at mid-morning. This is clever because shadows of the "FACE" and
other monuments in Cydonia (and elsewhere) will be relatively large
and can be used to make tridimensional estimates (as Carlotto has
already done in his book). We can get images of Cydonia both at
mid-afternoon AND at mid-morning (twice a martian-day).
Since the 2-hour orbit is NOT exact submultiple of the 24 and half
hour period of martian day, the 12 strips imaged every day are
slowly shifting day after day and will amply cover many times the
whole martian surface in the planned martian-year of operation.
Thus a full SURVEY of martian surface which, of course, will
cover the Cydonia region more than once, for sure. It is
in the hands of the 'drivers' of the project to keep good
free-space in disc-buffer at crucial moments when Cydonia-pictures
are taken... and that is not easy due to time-delay of maneuvering
a fast martian-bound satellite from distant Earth.
That is about it.. Good luck to you, Malin and your team... but
do not insult us anymore as "cottage-industry" because we are far more
clever than you regarding what Cydonia means to ALL of us terrestrials.
-----
Why do I say the last sentence ?. Because there is currently a very
sad dichotomy about Cydonia Monuments in the scientific community (and,
as consequence, in the popular opinion).
On the positive side we have excellent Doctors as Carlotto, Lahoz,
Crater, McDaniel, Brandenburg... and many excellent scientists in various
fields as Vincent DiPietro and G. Molenaar (who, working for NASA,
originated the great current dispute in 1982 with discovery, in NASA's
files, of a 2nd. picture of the Face and of D&M; pyramid in Cydonia.
All these and a vast group of people, including myself, who, lead by
many published books ranking from popular ones (R. Hoagland) up to
top scientific research (Dr. Lahoz), are claiming that "there is an
extremely Intelligent set-up in Cydonia from past martian civilization".
On the negative side there are also many scientists who either
'do not say anything about it... as agnostics' or openly claim that
the alleged monuments in Cydonia are no more than ordinary hills and
rocks which cast shadows coincidentally resembling artificial pyramids
or 'human faces'. Dr. Malin (current chief for the camera which is
supposed to image Cydonia) is openly in this negative side: he insults
all of us in the positive side by accusing us of building a
'cottage industry' out of nothing but random shadows and saying that
"The conventional wisdom (among scientists at NASA) is that all
this... is nonsense". Sure he picks for 'all this' a set of scurrilous
statements published by Hoagland which are, indeed, unsubstantiated
but he ignores the heavy-duty research of Brandenburg, DiPietro,
Carlotto... and mostly Lahoz, which is solid and safe in positive side.
In my opinion what Malin and his fans say are semiidiotic,
very stupid, statements: no credible scientist can insult other
scientist's views without FIRSTLY carefully READING what they have
published and SECONDLY without properly attacking the published
statements and showing that they are wrong or unsubstantiated.
This is so basic and so fundamental that Malin should go to a
kindergarten school to learn about it: with his position at NASA
he is in fact unjustly slandering all of us (as semiidiots or crooks)
trying to build popular opinion against tremendous and honest and
extremely competent efforts of Dr. Lahoz, for instance, who has
already published 4 books on this theme SHOWING that the EVIDENCE
of ETI is conclusive at Cydonia. "The conventional Wisdom since
immemorial times" is that if you have no time to study it or
are not competent to decide about it (any published statement
by a Doctor) then you should "CLOSE YOUR MOUTH" (as many modestly
do)... and quickly erase that insulting Web-page where you put
a foot in your mouth, acting as a fool and making a mockery of
an anonymous NASA where there are scientists far more sensible
than you and say nothing. Of course you can be, if so you whish,
a skeptic or agnostic, but respect my learned position too:
why should my business be a 'cottage industry' and your incompetent
acting a well paid job ?.
--
Angel, secretary (male) of Universitas Americae (UNIAM).
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bp887
Subject: Re: Hale Bopp photos
From: "twitch"
Date: 12 Nov 1996 16:54:22 GMT
Mark wrote in article
<3287FF04.34BF@whidbey.net>...
> 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
>
Mark, I don't know where you have been looking but about
two months ago, I did a quick search and the first site I
checked had photos from June, July and August. They
weren't HST shots, but they were good. Also, did you
check the Astronomy Photo of the day (Nov 12th) at NASA?
A nice photo of HB near M14.
Hope this helps.
Subject: Need Some Specific Images...
From: bmartino@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob Martino)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:29:49 +0000
Hi all,
I'm working on a program about Venus and Mars, and feel that I should say
something about "the face."
I already have a gif image of "the face" that I can make into a slide.
I need to find images of the region of Mars where the face is found.
Also, I would very much like to find an image of the Argyre Planitia.
This is the not-so-famous "smiley face" on Mars.
gif or jpg images somewhere on the net would be the best source. However,
I am able to make slides from pictures in books and magazines if needed.
The images need to be free of text, however.
Any ideas? Preferably something a bit more specific than just saying
"try the JPL site."
Thanks!
--
Bob Martino "We have come to regard it as
bmartino@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu probable that upon the surface
of Mars we see the effects of
my opinions, no one else's. local intelligence."
-Percival Lowell, 1895
Perkins Observatory Web site:
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~perkins/
Subject: Re: Thermodynamic definition of life (was Could intelligent extraterrestrial life exist in our galaxy?)
From: Erik Max Francis
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 09:15:30 -0800
David L Evens wrote:
> Actually, the most common argument I've seen against considering viri to
> be alive is that they MUST have living hosts to reproduce. There exist
> no possible set of natural environmental conditions that would allow
> isolated viri to reproduce.
And there are spores and seeds which can be in the ground dormant for
years, by all means dead -- without the right conditions, they will not
proliferate. The same thing could be said for viruses (not _viri_, you
silly goose).
After all, as someone else pointed in this thread, put a human male and
female in a desert and see if they procreate successfully.
It's all about natural environments. Parasites and symbionts, for
instance, require other organisms to live; without them they die. That's a
far stronger cry than simply needing another organism to assist in
procreation (ever heard of sex? :-), and no one's saying that parasites
aren't alive.
Furthermore, sterile humans can't reproduce; does that make them not alive?
And you have whole species that can't reproduce: mules, for instance. Are
they not alive?
Procreation is a requirement of evolving life on the species level. It
doesn't matter how they do it.
> I like this, as it also fits in with the general method of determining if
> life is abundant on a planet: A planet has abundant life iff it has an
> atmopsheric composition far from chemical equilibrium.
Or, alternatively, even if it's what people would generally not consider to
be "alive," it will see represent some interesting and/or unique chemical
reactions. And that's worth investigating, anyway.
--
Erik Max Francis | max@alcyone.com
Alcyone Systems | http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, California | 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
&tSftDotIotE; | R^4: the 4th R is respect
"But since when can wounded eyes see | If we weren't who we were"
Subject: Re: Thermodynamic definition of life (was Could intelligent extraterrestrial life exist in our galaxy?)
From: Clark Dorman
Date: 12 Nov 1996 09:25:33 -0500
Erik Max Francis writes:
> Alastair Ward wrote:
> > Yuus ... perhaps add time factor , that is ... steady, local,* temporary *
> > decrease in entropy. All known living organisms have finite life. So ... we
> > have life consists of small lumps of space-time within which entropy is
> > decreasing.
>
> Why include the finite lifetime requirement? The point here is to be as
> general as possible (certainly that's the case if you're favoring the
> thermodynamic definition over other, more traditional definitions, such as
> the metabolic or physiological definitions), and just because all known life
> has a finite lifespan doesn't mean that all life everywhere does. (Yes, all
> natural, evolving life probably will, but we're looking for generalized
> definitions, not just natural life.)
>
> Plus, there's a higher-order decrease in entropy all around the Earth due to
> evolution. This has no end in sight; it's hardly worth including a finite
> time term in the criteria.
Are you sure about that? It seems to me that evolution does not
produce an decrease in entropy. You could make an argument that the
lifeforms on earth from the first cells to, say, the first chordates
have increased in complexity, but that does not immediately translate
to thermodynamic entropy. I have heard of information theoretic
arguments for lower "information entropy", but none that seemed
reasonable for thermodynamic entropy.
In addition, wouldn't you have to argue that the biosystem has lower
entropy now than before _taken as a whole_, and that is also a
function of the number of creatures isn't it? We'd have to know the
biomass and distribution of it in different time periods.
Finally, how do you compare the entropy now with the entropy from the
mid-Jurassic?
--
Clark Dorman "Evolution is cleverer than you are."
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/D.html -Francis Crick
Subject: Re: what is "alive"
From: Longrich@princeton.edu (Nick Longrich)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 00:48:59 -0500
In article <3286125A.651B@hcn.hcnews.com>, brblaze@hcn.hcnews.com wrote:
> Achim Recktenwald, PhD wrote:
>
> >
> > There exist many fungi, quite a lot of plants, even some animals which
> > do not procreate sexually. For them reproduction is a purly vegetative
> > process.
> > Are they then as a species not alive, as stated above by 'Brother
> > Blaze'?
> >
>
> But they still procreate. The members of the species create more
> members of the species. They qualify.
> I don't claim that this definition of life (growth, reaction,
> metabolism, procreation) is an absolute definition. I simply state that
> it's a standard definition given, and a good starting point in
> recognizing a new organism as being alive.
It's all completely arbitrary. How do we figure out whether or not
something is alive? Well, we see if it fits our definition of "alive".
Where do we get our definition? We look for the property(ies) of things
that are alive, possessed by the set that is composed of all things alive
and only those things alive: i.e. bacteria, slime molds, ostriches, etc.
See the problem? How do we determine what fits into the reference set -
i.e. is alive in the first place- if we don't have a definition yet? Some
people include viruses, others do not. How about self-replicating RNA
strands? What about the computer program Tierra's self-replicating,
evolving computer programs? We create a definition but we start out with a
definite idea of what is alive or not alive in the first place, and use
those things we "know" to be alive to compare other things to them.
To put it another way, life arose from abiotic conditions- molecules
that were not "alive" eventually developed into things like bacteria. Is
there some magic moment, some magic point in time when a set of carbon,
oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen stops being just C, O, H, and N and takes on
that elusive stuff of "life"? Or is there some definite, quantifiable
point at which a human being becomes no longer alive? All living things
came from nonliving compounds and return to them, and division between
nonliving organic compounds and living organisms is an arbitrary division.
Subject: Re: Hale Bopp photos
From: minnie@mail.pe.net (Gary/Robyn Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 07:38:08 -0800
In article <01bbd061$06d8d7a0$89462399@default>, "Ray Laliberty"
wrote:
> From what I found by browsing through the Hubble datasets at
> http://marvel.stsci.edu,
> it appears that ALL Hubble Space Telescope datasets are subject to a wait
> period of
> 1 year. So exactly 1 year from the time the data was collected, NASA will
> release the
> data to the public, not necessarily including the finished photograph.
>
> Mark wrote in article <3287FF04.34BF@whidbey.net>...
> > 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
> >
Ray,
there is a discrepancy in what you are saying. Last year the august,
september series of HB taken by the HST was posted within weeks. I agree
with Mark, the postings this year stop in May and those this year are from
ground based scopes.
gary d. goodwin
Subject: Re: Could intelligent extraterrestrial life exist in our galaxy?
From: psilver@mistral.co.uk (Paul Silver)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 18:09:20 GMT
suk@pobox.com (Peter Kwangjun Suk) wrote:
>What about eusocial organisms? One could imagine that an intelligent ant
>colony would have an evolutionary advantage. Yet an ant colony as a sort
>of meta-organism is essentially sessile. (Foraging worker ants amount to
>the root system of a plant without the infrastructure.) As far as
>environemntal manipulation goes, sessile ant colonies really don't affect
>the environment more than plants that emit toxins to kill off
>competitors. Perhaps an intelligent species of "army ants" which did not
>have sessile colonies would arise, and wipe out all non-intelligent
>species. Over time, sessile variants of the intelligent species would
>evolve to take over the environmental niches of the extinct
>non-intelligent ants, but retain their intelligence.
Evolutionarily, it's unlikely that the sessile variants would retain their
intelligence over time. So for the first few generations they might be
intelligent, but it would lapse as they no longer need it for survival.
Bascially intelligence needs more brain given over to it. If you don't need
intelligence you don't put all the effort into building the extra bit of
brain it requires. By not building the extra bit of brain you save energy,
because you don't need to feed it glucose (etc) to keep it going.
In a drought/famine situation the sessile things with the extra bit of
brain for intelligence will die off more quickly, because they need more
energy to keep going, the thick ones last longer, and may still be around
when the famine breaks. Admittedly, this is a contrived situation that I've
used to show how energy considerations come in when intelligence isn't
required. The small amount of extra energy required would not make that
much difference, but then the brain does take a lot of food to keep going,
so maybe the example does work.
With humans experience counts for a lot, especially in our developing
years. Even later in life having plenty of stimuli helps you keep your mind
going - 'use it or lose it'. Being in one place really cuts down your
experience, so an ET intelligence that was sessile would have a different
learning system to us, perhaps some way of inheriting experience, so it
could be built up over time?
Paul.
(This is a very interesting thread for designing aliens)
--
psilver@mistral.co.uk
Silence to those who oppose freedom of speech!
Webwork: www.bag-hotels.co.uk - selected & inspected UK accommodation
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: CharlieS
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 17:57:13 -0800
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?
> You just have to face Him at Judgement.
But I want to face him NOW!
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?
> 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 :)
> 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.
> 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"...
> Judson McClendon
CharlieS
Subject: Re: Could intelligent extraterrestrial life exist in our galaxy?
From: "Walter E. Shepherd"
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:46:28 -0700
JHOLL4@ wrote:
>
> In <32873F4C.7AA0@courier6.aero.org>, "Walter E. Shepherd" writes:
> >I suggest that we stop thinking of intelligence in
> >binary terms... i.e., intelligent/not intelligent. I think
> >intelligence, like most everything else, is a continuum...
>
> Well put! However, once a species becomes tool-using and
> starts using tools to make better tools, a binary separation *does*
> form. It doesn't take very many generations for the tool-using
> species to build a society qualitatively different from even
> the most intelligent non-tool-users.
>
> --Cathy Mancus
>
I agree that tool use has a marked impact on survivability of a
species... I will refrain from using the word "mastery", but it
certainly offers a much greater degree of control over a species
environment... a leg up so to speak, which I suggest works in a positive
feedback manner to further the development of intelligence.
But... I still think that even tool use comes in various shades.
Chimpanzees use sticks to dig out termites... sea otters use rocks to
crack shells... Moose use tree bark (OK I know... the tree is just
standing there) to help the sheding of their antlers.
I have a dog who puts his paw on the rim of his dogfood dish to steady
it and keep it from "walking away" as he eats. I have a cat who stands
up on his hind legs in front of a kitchen cabinet door, puts his paw
behind the cabinet door knob, and throws his weight back to open the
door to get inside (for various reasons). Is this, or isn't this tool
using?... I don't know. But I do know that they are manipulating their
environment to enhance their existence. And that is precisely what we
humans do when we use our own tools.
No, I still don't think there is anything binary about it... we share
this planet with brethren species... they all have different degrees of
skill and various shades of competency. I'll say it again... I don't
think we, as humans, have passed through any magical threshold,... we
are good at what we are and what we do... we are definitely an
impressive species, but not magical.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
_ /| DISCLAIMER: Disclaimant is a hireling who speaks for himself.
\'o.O' He is as bothered and bewildered as you, and he
=(___)= Ack! probably didn't mean or say what you might have
U Thppft!! thought he meant or said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Leonides
From: lewisk@clipper.robadome.com (Lew Kurtz)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 17:16:51 GMT
In article <4OCpiXABtnhyEwvF@the-symposium.demon.co.uk>, Mandy Wright writes:
>In article <32836F3B.631@platinum.com>, Phil Grainger
> writes
>>Hi all,
>>
>>Hopefully this is a relevant question for this newsgroup.......
>>
>>Last year my wife and I spent a few evenings, nights (and mornings)
>>watching the Leonides meteor showers (shooting stars) in mid-November
>>and we were wondering what the prospects were for this year.
>>
>>Aparrently they will be getting better and better each year for the next
>>few years, but I'd appreciate some 'professional' opinions.
>>
>>Also, if anyone can remind me of the appropriate dates I'd be very
>>grateful.
>>
>>TIA
>>
>>Phil & Nikki
>Peak occurs November 17/18 1996, at 0200 UTC: look North East.
>Estimated peak 60 per hour. Have it from John Mason that it will be a
>mediocre show this year. Wrap up warm :-)
>Regards
>Mandy
However:
>SKY & TELESCOPE NEWS BULLETIN
>NOVEMBER 8, 1996
>
>
>READYING FOR THE LEONIDS
>
>The annual Leonid meteor shower should peak on the morning of November
>17th. This year conditions will be ideal, weather permitting. The first-
>quarter Moon sets by about 11 p.m. local time on the night of November
>16th, and peak activity should come around 7:00 Universal Time on the
>17th. This is also when the Earth crosses the orbit plane of Comet
>55P/Tempel-Tuttle, the comet that is slowly crumbling apart to form the
>Leonid meteor stream. The timing is excellent for North America,
>especially the East. 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.
>
So is it the night of 16/17, or the night of 17/18?
Lew
Subject: Re: Hale Bopp photos
From: "Ray Laliberty"
Date: 12 Nov 1996 19:30:33 GMT
Gary/Robyn Goodwin wrote in article
...
> In article <01bbd061$06d8d7a0$89462399@default>, "Ray Laliberty"
> wrote:
>
> > From what I found by browsing through the Hubble datasets at
> > http://marvel.stsci.edu,
> > it appears that ALL Hubble Space Telescope datasets are subject to a
wait
> > period of
> > 1 year. So exactly 1 year from the time the data was collected, NASA
will
> > release the
> > data to the public, not necessarily including the finished photograph.
> >
>
> Ray,
> there is a discrepancy in what you are saying. Last year the august,
> september series of HB taken by the HST was posted within weeks. I agree
> with Mark, the postings this year stop in May and those this year are
from
> ground based scopes.
> gary d. goodwin
>
That may be true, but if you check the website, there is a release date of
1 year after the
date of observation. I think it's a dumb idea myself, but that's what I
found. Check it out
yourself in the Archive section. Look for proposal numbers 6663 and 5844.
You'll find that
all recent Hale-Bopp observations are on hold for a period of 1 year before
they will release
the data....
Subject: Re: Hale Bopp photos
From: keel@bildad (William Keel)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 20:05:16 GMT
Gary/Robyn Goodwin (minnie@mail.pe.net) wrote:
: In article <01bbd061$06d8d7a0$89462399@default>, "Ray Laliberty"
: wrote:
: > From what I found by browsing through the Hubble datasets at
: > http://marvel.stsci.edu,
: > it appears that ALL Hubble Space Telescope datasets are subject to a wait
: > period of
: > 1 year. So exactly 1 year from the time the data was collected, NASA will
: > release the
: > data to the public, not necessarily including the finished photograph.
: >
: > Mark wrote in article <3287FF04.34BF@whidbey.net>...
: > > 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
: > >
: Ray,
: there is a discrepancy in what you are saying. Last year the august,
: september series of HB taken by the HST was posted within weeks. I agree
: with Mark, the postings this year stop in May and those this year are from
: ground based scopes.
: gary d. goodwin
Just to clarify the policy - public release of the data means that the
FITS data and related calibration data can be accessed from the archive
set (a cool service, that), _not_ that pretty pictures will be released
in a press setting. There is a whole train of determinants for when that
is done (yell at NASA HQ, please), so that only the tiniest fraction of
even the prettiest HST data makes most media outlets. There have
indeed ben HST observations up through Oct 18 (if I recall correctly),
and it's not much longer until Hale-Bopp moves into the 45-degree
solar avoidance cone and goes out of bounds for HST.
Bill Keel
Astronomy, University of Alabama
Subject: Re: Unit system based on physical constants -- was: When will the U.S. finally go metric?
From: steve@unidata.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 20:33:14 GMT
In article <56a2j6$gpt@piglet.cc.utexas.edu>,
churchyh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Henry Churchyard) writes:
>> For example, you can base a system on the speed of light,
>> Planck's constant, the gravitational constant, and the charge of the
>> electron. You can easily define mass, length, time, energy,
>> and electrical units with these four constants.
Since I didn't see any smiley, why don't we meet in the lobby in
2.241071e+27 exa to discuss it?
That's in 5 minutes for the unit-impared.
;-)
--
Steve Emmerson steve@unidata.ucar.edu ...!ncar!unidata!steve
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: steve eric cisna
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 14:07:43 -0600
On 12 Nov 1996, Alan Weiner wrote:
> Name and publisher of book pls. What evidence do they use to support
> this conjecture?
>
> In article <32853A38.38E7@gte.net>, ashes@gte.net says...
> >
> >I read in a science book that there is a greater posibility of a
> >printinng press exploding and forming webster's dictionary completly by
> >accident; as opposed to the world being created from some dead matter.
>
But you're assuming that we are a planned creation. If a printing press
exploded, chances are excellent that something would be formed, even if
it was just gibberish. But every conceivable bunch of letters has the
same chance as every other bunch of letters. I'm sure that the printing
press story does have about the same possibility as the earth exactly as
it is being formed. But the way it is now is just one of many
possibilities. It's just the one that happened.
Do you see what I'm saying? I'm aware that that last paragraph was a bit
confusing. What I mean to say is, the analogy of the printing press and
Webster's Dictionary really isn't appropriate, because Webster's
Dictionary is a book written by somebody. That means that somebody made
sure that all the words are the way they should be. How do you know that
the universe the way it is is the way it should be? The current universe
is just one of many possible things that could have happened.
Steve
P.S. By the way, you said that the universe couldn't have been created
out of "dead matter." But isn't most of the universe composed of
nonliving material, which I assume is what you mean by "dead matter."
Your body is made mostly of carbon, right? So are diamonds and
graphite. Wouldn't you classify that as "dead matter?"
>
>