Newsgroup sci.astro 135133

Directory

Fremont Peak Observations, November 9, 1996
As was the case a week prior, the day began favoring a night at home,
reading about, rather than doing, astronomy.  The cloud cover was nearly
solid as I began my drive down highway 85 toward the little town of San
Juan Bautista.  Today, I packed an extra telescope for a friend, so the
Mercedes sedan contained my 14.5" f/5.6 truss tube and 10" f/5.6
Dobsonians.  The telescopes were in their disassembled component parts:
the 14.5" primary box and rocker box in the back seat, its upper tube
assembly and poles in the trunk (boot)... the 10"  dob's sono- tube
reclined in the front passenger seat and extending to the rear window
(this is quite a sight for other drivers on the road, since the sono-tube
is colorfully tie-dyed).  Sharing the passenger compartment with me and
the scopes was a folding chair, large folding cot, sleeping bag, clothing
box, eyepiece box, star charts and pillow. The upper tube assembly and
poles for the 14.5" and the rocker box for the 10" were in the trunk,
along with an observing table coat-bag, ladder, step-stool, and an
ice-chest with cold drinks.  I was not crowded in the driver's seat, but
there was no wasted space in the rest of the vehicle. 
The drive south was uneventful, the clouds remaining thick and still. 
Turning off highway 101 to 156 is where the enjoyable part of the drive
begins.  Two miles through rolling hills dotted with grazing cattle to the
turn onto state route G1.  Past a few homes, then the road begins an at
first gradual ascent to Fremont Peak State Park alongside a stream,
between rising hills covered with granite boulders.  Soon, the road begins
to twist and turn, climbing more quickly.  The trees this time of year are
golden and red leafed, strewn with hanging Spanish Moss.  The undulations
of the road, coupled with good music, speed, and nature's seasonal display
combine to make the trip to Fremont Peak worthwhile regardless of the dim
prospects for a successful evening of observing. 
Eleven miles later, I arrive at the parking lot, passing one member of our
party waiting in a lower area of the park for other participants to
arrive.  My car comes to a stop with the leaves of Autumn swirling behind
me.  No sooner do I get out of the car, than the owner of a 10" dob pulls
in.  We look at the sky and remark how one of our group watched the
satellite loop of the weather, and felt the "blob" of clouds would pass by
6 or 7 p.m., but it sure didn't look good.  Then our "weather forecaster"
pulled in, along with his 7" AstroPhysics.  He is followed intermittently
by other regulars; an 8" Meade SCT, 12" LX-200, the AstroPhysics Traveller
and Zeiss/AstroPhysics 100mm f/10 (?) APO, two 10" LX-200, and 18"
Obsession, 4.5" f/4 Newtonian, Orion 12.5" dob, and a Meade 90mm
refractor. 
Everyone was lamenting the clouds.  So, in an exercise in positive
thinking, a few of us began setting up our equipment.  Blue holes began
appearing overhead.  The clouds began thinning in all directions.  Soon,
the sun was setting, putting on one of the most dazzling displays of
light, clouds and shadow I have ever witnessed.  Thin feather-like clouds
in one direction.  Flat topped ones that looked like funnels could develop
off their sagging undersides.  Sharply lined structure in ones that looked
like cream and chocolate covered stretched taffy.  Behind us, billowy pink
cotton candy clouds.  Below us, to the west, the Pacific Ocean lay glassy
still, reflecting the show in the sky.  This was a great sight, and the
bonus was, they were continuing to dissipate. 
We knew that if the night sky cleared, it would not rival the prior week,
which had the benefit of a thick fog cover over the coastal cities.  Not a
speck of fog could be seen over the ocean all the way to the horizon.  As
was the case the prior week, the observing began with Jupiter and its four
brightest moons visible just west of Fremont Peak, looming to our south
just yards away.  the planet looked very nice, the banding and moons
appearing much steadier than the week prior.  Next to Saturn, then M57. 
The sky continued to improve.  Soon I began working the Herschel catalog
with my friend who owns the 18" Obsession.  We began by picking up up
where we'd left off in Pegasus.  As usual, the first galaxy was nearly
impossible.  Why does it always start this way?  We worked Peg and Cetus
from about 10pm until 2am.  This was not an intensive observing session
though, since puffs of cloud kept interfering.  So, the star party became
more "party" than "star."  It was lots of fun.  A dozen or more people
joking, talking about clubs, equipment, observing sites, restaurants,
music (right Bill?), cars, you name it.  All this interspersed with
"hey.... look at this"  shouts as someone would get a nice view of an
object in a clear part of the sky. 
Someone e-mailed me last week, asking about visual limiting magnitude at
the "Peak."  Well, one member of our group led a "count the stars"
contest, using portions of the Great Square of Pegasus as the target area.
The only rule was that "liners counted."  I did not expect much in the way
of good results.  Last week had been much darker because of the fog cover. 
The sky looked bright to me and I had felt some nights in my backyard were
not so different from this one at the Peak.  Much to my surprise, the
results yielded a limiting mag of 6.6, which makes me wonder just how deep
we could see the week prior.  So, now I am convinced that it makes sense
to take ten minutes of the night and do a count.  Although conditions do
change during the evening, at least a reasonable point of reference can be
established with little effort. 
For me, the two non-Herschel related highlights of the earlier evening
were: 
1.  Viewing the Horsehead Nebula in the 18" Obsession.  People there had
varying degrees of success attempting this feat.  It does help to know
what dark nebulae look like.  Later during the night, Jay Freeman stopped
by and pulled it in using my 10" f/5.6 dob.  I was surprised... he and a
few others could see it, I could not. 
2.  Removing the eyepiece from the 14.5" and using Mark T's Swiss Army
Knife magnifying glass in place of a regular eyepiece, holding it over the
focuser, and clearly resolving M15.  I've got to get one of those! 
By 2am, the cloud cover solidified again.  I guess our Herschel hunt
pulled in a dozen or so galaxies.  Everyone began packing up, and soon it
was just those willing to spend the night.  Well, guess what?  By 4am the
sky opened enough for what were the best views of the night. 
I was completely in my element, since many of the bright galaxies were now
up, and the only two telescopes left standing were my two dobs.  What fun
to operate two telescopes in that sort of sky!  First was ngc 4565.  The
dust lane was easy.  M81 and 82, piece of cake.  M108, M97 (look at those
two black eyes staring back).  M53, nicely resolved.  M3, forget M53!  On
to the Black Eye galaxy....what a strange sight.... what's up with that?
;-) Leo.... ngc 2903.... what a beauty.  Next, to M65/66 and ngc 3268.  I
like the latter the best of those three.... the dust lane and angular size
are nice contrasts to the finer, smaller detail in the two neighboring
Messiers. 
Ursa Major was now up high enough.  M51.... in the 10".... okay, but in
the 14.5"  WOW!  Structure galore.  I have seen it better a few times
(high in the Sierra Nevada mountains and once on the 30" in the
observatory at Fremont Peak), but this was a very nice view.  Now, star
hop down to M101.... yep.... faint as ever.  Funny how you lose your
bearings as the season's change.... I was having trouble remembering which
star was Cor Caroli.... my jump off point for M94 and M63.  It is sure
easier when the constellations ride high in the sky, and you can see them
in their entirety. 
A quick hop over to Canis Major, a peek at the nice little open cluster
2362, then back to Leo for the belly meat.... M105, M95, M96 and several
ngc galaxies in one and a half eyepiece fields.  Geesh!  Where was it, a
knot of galaxies in Leo's mane.... no star chart, no hard disk, no RAM...
just biological memory.... right about there....  yes... between Gamma and
Xi Leonis.  How many in the area.... six, seven, eight?  Well a lot.  Just
imagine what winter late night/early morning observing holds....the realm
of the galaxies (Leo, Coma and Virgo) under crisp, clear skies.  This
stuff is great!  And there's soooooo much of it! 
To the east, Venus had risen, letting me know that I'd better catch some
sleep, or risk uselessness during daylight hours.  I stretched out on my
cot, the universe serving as my ceiling for the night.  I left the two
dobs out for the real die hards.... those unafraid of sleep deprivation. 
Soon, the sun came up and I said good-by to my observing friends for
another week or so. 
If you are interested in joining us at Fremont Peak State Park at our next
star party, send me an e-mail, I'll place you on our mailing list.  The
only requirement is that you have a desire to observe and learn.  It is a
great way to spend an evening among great men and women. 
Clear skies,
Mark Wagner

czar@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
> 
> Some favorites of mine:
> 
>         What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect
>         held out of locomotives traveling twice as fast as
>         stagecoaches?
>                         The Quarterly Reviev, England, March 1825
> 
>         The ordinary "horseless carriage" is at present a
>         luxury for the wealthy; and although its price will
>         probably fall in the future, it will never, of course,
>         come into as common use as the bicycle.
>                         The literary Digest, October 14 1899
> 
>         The actual building of roads devoted to motor cars is
>         not for the near future, in spite of many rumors to
>         that effect.
>                         Harper's Weekly, August 2 1902
> 
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, take Lord Byron who said of Dickens
"Future generations shall wonder why we held him so high".  Or NY Times
article on Twain which said "In a 100 years time only the 'Jumping Frog'
will be remembered".  100 years ago Jules Verne wrote "From Earth to the
Moon".   Small minds can never envisage change, they cling to the "now"
as perfect.  If you want a modern example, just look at IBMs latest
assertion that the year 2000 won't be a problem for them.
Watching the clock tick.
Steve Jones

In the recent reports of indications of life being found in Martian
meteorites, I have not been able to find any information about how we
know the meteorites are from Mars. How do you tell that a meteorite,
found in Antarctica, originated on Mars ? Is it via chemical analysis,
isotopic composition, or what ?
I'd be very grateful if someone could help me with this.
Thanks in advance
Paul Lloyd

wayne@cs.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) wrote:
>In article <327FA357.2302@warwick.net>,
>Eric Kniffin   wrote:
>>2-In answer to "We already know that the past can't be changed - because then 
>>the present would be different - the question is *why*?", we DON'T know this 
>>at all.  There was a science-fiction book called "Thrice Upon A Time", where 
>>a guy figured ot how to send information back a few minutes in time to 
>>himself.  Those who received that information acted on it, and changed 
>>everything from the moment they received the information onward.  They talked 
>>about what they called the "Superobserver", who existed outside of 
>>time/space/reality.  The superobserver would see things happen.  Then it 
>>would see the information being sent back in time.  Then it would see the new 
>>reality forming from the moment that the informatin was received.  
>But this reduces to the same paradox.  If, say, the guy gets mugged and
>then sends himself a message back in time saying "don't turn left into
>that dark alley down the street 2 minutes from now", and then gets the
>message, and doesn't turn down the alley, then... who sent it?  Certainly
>not the same guy who DIDN'T turn into the alley, because he never turned
>into the alley, and so didn't get mugged, and so didn't send the message.
>Well, then, who DID send the message?  And what happened to the entire
>universe belonging to the guy who DID send the message?  Did it cease
>to exist?  When did it cease to exist?  The moment he sent the message,
>or the moment (5 minutes previous) that the message is recieved.
>Time travel may not be impossible, but if it does occur, it's almost
>certainly not possible to change *anything* in the past --- at least not
>in the same universe that you're doing the travelling in.
As far as branching into another universe, that's an old SF idea.  A
good recent take-off of this was Hogan's The Proteus Operation.  If
you want to allow time travel in without branching and still avoid
paradoxes, and want to carry this to it's bitter end, there was an old
SF story about a guy who went back in time and discovered raindrops
like bullets (not being able to change the past, his body couldn't
change their original path), sandwiches that couldn't be bitten, etc.
You can go even further, because the body of our theoretical
time-traveler wouldn't even displace air, so he'd die horribly right
after arrival.  Maybe he'd even explode.  Maybe there'd even be some
sort of nuclear explosion, if the atoms of his body (and time
machine?) tried to occupy the same space as air / soil / trees, etc?
Hmmm, remember the Tunguska blast in Siberia back early this century?
Could it be?  Nah!
>-- 
>"Unix is simple and coherent, but it takes || Wayne Hayes, wayne@cs.utoronto.ca
>a genius (or at any rate, a programmer) to || Astrophysics & Computer Science
>appreciate its simplicity." -Dennis Ritchie|| http://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~wayne

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.
Thats not a science book, thats a lying book.
If you are interested in what biology *really* says about our origins then I
suggest you have a look through the talk.origins FAQs.  Please don't trust
the versions you read in creationist literature: they are uniformally
straw men.
Paul.
-- 
Paul Johnson            | GEC-Marconi Ltd is not responsible for my opinions. |
+44 1245 242244         +-----------+-----------------------------------------+
Work:        | You are lost in a twisty maze of little
Home:     | standards, all different.

Angel Garcia (bp887@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Ron Baalke (baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov) writes:
>> button on the precise second.  The two liftoff attempts in the first half
>> of the launch period  are both short-coast trajectories and use two
>> launch azimuths about 5 degrees apart.
>> 
>> The two launch opportunites for today were cancelled due to the weather,
>> so we will try again tomorrow.
>  
>        It is said that planned circular (polar) orbit of Surveyor will
> be synchronous with sun: one orbit every second hour.
> 
>      Could you explain what that means ?.
      I have been instructed via e-mail by an extremely kind scientist of
the NASA team on celestial mechanics. The idea of sun-synchronicity is
not too hard and yet very important and fundamental for many planetary
missions. My question above was related to the new images to be taken
from Cydonia and, therefore, I am posting them in sequel to this:
       "NASA's planned new images from Cydonia".
--
Angel, secretary (male) of Universitas Americae (UNIAM).
     http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bp887

"Doug \"thE_bUG\" Tham"  wrote:
>lbsys@aol.com wrote:
>---[GIGANTIC snip! sorry!]---
>> Ah, there was a 60 million year old sneaker
>> footprint being found at the end of the story in a layer of slate()....
>Interesting story...sorry about intruding here, but there are tons of
>REAL fossil anomalies, e.g. imprint of what looks like a sandaled
>footprint crushing a trilobite; toads, frogs, spark plugs, nails and
>even a pterosaur found trapped in unbroken coal...looks like the guy who
>made that time machine was pretty careless, huh?? :)
Say what?  Have you got any sources for this?  I'd be fascinated.

 Following the lead at Cydonia-Zone one easily gets to NASA's planning
for imaging Cydonia (and the whole planet Mars) by the going Mars
Global Surveyor. 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-oethonormal
images of the "Face at Cydonia". So that no skeptic about reluctancy
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 the right-side.
--
Angel, secretary (male) of Universitas Americae (UNIAM).
     http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bp887

Stephen D. Schaper wrote:
> 
> In article <19961109183900.NAA19429@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> irkiller@aol.com wrote:
> 
> >If we have a "Leonid Meteor Storm" either this year or in 1998,1999, what
> >are the chances that the MIR Space Station could be hit and or damaged. I
> >would not want to be on-board that station duing a 1966 type storm!
> 
> When are the Leonids and where is the radiant?
  See   http://medicine.wustl/edu/~kronkg/leonids.html
  or    http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/MAA/Comet/Shower/leonids.html
  Clear skies,
                                                       Chris.
-- 
 C. Kronberg                      |  "I made up my mind, so don't     
 Univ. d. Bundeswehr              |   confuse me with facts." 
 85577 Neubiberg                  |  
 Germany                          |   smil@informatik.unibw-muenchen.de

In article , Bob_Hoesch@fws.gov (Bob 
Hoesch) says...
>
>Q: "Is a photon a particle or a wave?" 
>
>A: "Yes"
Congratulations. You win the prize for the shortest wrong anser on Usenet 
this month.
-- 
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com         or        fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
 These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
 team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.

Angel Garcia (bp887@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> for imaging Cydonia (and the whole planet Mars) by the going Mars
> Global Surveyor. 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.
    After kind lesson from scientist at JPL the sun-synchronicity
is achieved via an oportunistic use of the oblatness 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 centrigugal 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 passes near the
poles is 'atracted' 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 or 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 turns yearly around the sun. Thus
every day we will have almost identical relative position of the
satellite's orbit with respect to the sun: that is 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 sectors 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. Now, it is
in the hands of the 'drivers' of the project to keep good
free-space in disc at the crucial moments when Cydonia-pictures
are taken... and that is not easy due to time-delay of terrestrial
maneuvering on martian-bound satellite.
    That is about it. Good luck to you, Malin and your team... but
do not insult us anymore as cottage-business because we are far more
clever than you regarding what Cydonia means to ALL of us terrestrials.
--
Angel, secretary (male) of Universitas Americae (UNIAM).
     http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bp887

I am looking for more information on Cirrus Minor,
all the information I have sofar states that
`` Cirrus Minor refers to the Small Magellanic Cloud, one of the two large
   "satellite" galaxies orbiting our own, visible from the southern
   hemisphere.  The Large M. C. would be Cirrus Major.  These terms aren't
   used much, usually its just LMC and SMC. ''
IS this information corect ?
Could someone point me to a place where I can find more information on
Cirrus Minor ?
If it's not too much trouble, could information be emailed to me ?
My newsserver is not the most relaible ;(
thanks a lot.

I need to know what the hubble const is and how it is calculated.
                                            Thanks
                                             RJ

On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Joseph Edward Nemec wrote:
> 
> And that would be the limit for an ambitious, uncultured bourgeois moron
> from Newcastle. How sad...
Good job I'm not from Newcastle then.
> 
> Translation: I am not good enough at physics to get to the top.
> 
Are you not Joe? How sad.
to be honest with you though, life at the top isn't all that great. It
just means that you are researching slightly different things to other
people.
Of course, I get to have a nice well known subject such as the Higgs, but
that's about it.
> 
> Well, aside from actually getting a Ph.D. in it...
> 
I will hand in before I head off to the city. Probably. 
> 
> Soon to realize that you were duped...
Shit, man, you're right. I ought to instead have gone to some anonymous
institution. I'd havedone much better there, that's for sure. Then,
instead of ending up a particle physicist, I could have become an expert
in queuing theory. After all, it is THE fashionable subject of the day,
isn't it?
> 
> Soon to realize your country is second rate in that field...
Oops, we were ten years ahead of the field. Never mind.
> 
> Well, except for publishing distinguished work in the field...
Been there, done that. 
> 
> Please send me a copy of that report.
Please pay me 50 pounds, and I will send you a copy. You aren't getting
one for free, that's for sure.
You wouldn't understand it anyway. Peculiarly enough, it will be pretty
technical, requiring knowledge beyond degree level of high energy physics.
> 
> We don't think you are shallow. We just know that you will not make
> several million dollars per year.
No, all the people I know in the city are obvioulsy completely
unrepresentative of what's out there. I am completely deluding myself that
I will do the same as them.
Well, at least I'm happy in my ignorance.
> You are a failure at physics.
Of course I am, of course. How foolish of me to think otherwise. 
> 
> Anthony, I would LOVE to test you on your knowledge of the stochastic
> calculus...
Now why doesn't that surprise me?
> 
> Of course not: you are the sort of idiot who rails over the internet, and
> hides behind his keyboard.
That's right Joe. My boxing matches have all been carried out over the
internet. In fact, now I think back, they weren't boxing matches at all,
they were in fact just video games.
> 
> Failure. 
> 
You oughtn't to sign yourself that way. Hell, just because you aren't
going anywhere, it doesn't mean that your parents don't love you. And not
all of us can get a place on the high energy physics courses, so don't
feel too bad about yourself.
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva

I am convinced that this
> information was indeed passed to them by a more advanced alien
> civilization.  
> SO the big question arrives: Has Sirius C been observed as yet?
About if Sirius C  has been discovered yet,I think it has not discovered
because I have read nothing about it in any astronomy magazine.
Of course,you can believe which you want.But I will try to tell you some
reasons to explain this story.You should think about them,before believe 
in any paranormal phenomena.
                    1)Binary Stars systems are as  usual as simple
		      stars in our universe.
		    2)All the cultures have legends,stories etc that links
		      their gods with the stars,and many times the gods has
		      friends,brother or sisters(of less importance) who are
		      always behind of the most important one.
                     3)Often is very difficult to traslate into european
		     languages from African languages.And European people, who
		     has to do the translation,have to be very careful not to
		     understand which they are expecting,but which the natives
		     really want to mean.
 I'm sure you think the same after reading this letter :-) But often things 
 are easier than We think,or We want to think.  ;-)
                                                     See you on-line!
-- 
               =======================================                         
             \\                                        \\
              \\     -FRANCISCO JOSE MACIAS BENIGNO-    \\ 
               \\                                        \\     
                \\ Escuela Superior de Ingenieros,Sevilla.\\
                 \\              (Espa#a)                  \\
                  \\ _______________________________________\\        
                   \\   E-Mail adress= mcben@esi.us.es.      \\
	            \\                                        \\
	               ========================================     

In article <3286325B.364FA362@alcyone.com>, Erik Max Francis  wrote:
>Brother Blaze wrote:
>
>> I don't claim that this definition of life (growth, reaction,
>> metabolism, procreation) is an absolute definition.
>
>It strange, then, that you referred to it as "The Definition of life" [sic]
>when you first introduced it, as if to give it a little more weight.

anyway, i don't think that "alive" or "living" are useful scientific 
terms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    rupert smith   linc0015@sable.ox.ac.uk   http://users.ox.ac.uk/~linc0015
	  		this statement is false.

In article <3286125A.651B@hcn.hcnews.com>, brblaze@hcn.hcnews.com wrote:
> Cathy Mancus  writes:
> 
> > specific example.  Suppose we build an intelligent machine in
> > a body.  It can use tools, communicate in English, shows creativity,
> > and by all appearances is self-aware.  Assume it thinks and
> > acts much like humans.  The only thing it can't do is reproduce
> > itself.  Is it alive?  I think it is more useful to define it as
> > "yes" than "no" for this case, IMHO.
>
> Use of tools, communication, and appearance of self-awarness are another
> topic.  We're not discussing intelligence, just life.  
Certainly it exceeds "just life", which I believe was Cathy's point. 
However, this being would be intelligent.  Hence it would be capable of
manufacturing another of its own kind.  Hence, it would be alive.  Or
would it?  What if it had an IQ of 90 or so, and did not have the
competence to construct another of its own kind?  What if it had just
enough intelligence to subcontract the construction of its progeny to a
human corporation?  Would it be alive?  
What of the last member of a sexual species?  Was the last male Kiwi bird
"alive" after the last female died?  I would say that it was alive, even
though it could not reproduce.  
--PKS
-- 
There's neither heaven nor hell
  Save that we grant ourselves.
There's neither fairness nor justice
  Save what we grant each other.
Peter Kwangjun Suk 
Musician, Computer Science Graduate Student
[finger suk@pobox.com for PGP public key]

In article , Anthony Potts On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Joseph Edward Nemec wrote:
>> Translation: I am not good enough at physics to get to the top.
>to be honest with you though, life at the top isn't all that great.
I thought you studied the top at CERN?  Have I missed something?
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)

COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY ISSUE OF NOVEMBER 12,1996 PSA#1719  
NASA Headquarters, 
Research Program Management Division, Code SR, 
Office of Space Science, 
Dr. Guenter Riegler, Washington, DC 20546-0001  
A -- NASA RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENT: NRA 96-OSS-13 LONG-TERM SPACE
ASTROPHYSICS (LTSA) 
SOL D-15324 DUE 022697 
POC Contact: Dr. Guenter Riegler, 
Research Program Management Division, Code SR, 
Office of Space Science, 
NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546-0001 (202) 358-1588, 
E-mail: guenter.riegler@hq.nasa.gov 
Special Notice: Basic Research Opportunities. The National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA), Office of Space Science (OSS), solicits basic
and applied research proposals related to the analysis of data from Space
Astrophysics observations for NRA 96-OSS-13 Long-Term Space Astrophysics
(LTSA) Research Program. 
The dominant objectives of the LTSA program, which was initiated in 1990,
are to enhance the scientific return from space astrophysics missions by
supporting long-term (up to five years) funding and to strengthen the U.S.
long-term research base in space astrophysics. Participation in this
program is open to all categories of organizations, domestic or foreign,
including educational institutions, for-profit and not-for-profit
organizations, NASA centers, and other Government agencies. 
This announcement will be available on the OSS Homepage on November 26,
1996, at URL: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/ oss/research.htm. For those
not having access to the Internet, a paper copy may be requested from
Jorge Scientific at (E-Mail debra.tripp@hq.nasa.gov) requesting NRA
96-OSS-13. Scientific inquiries should be addressed to: Dr. Guenter
Riegler, Research Program Management Division, Code SR, Office of Space
Science, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546-001, (202) 358-1588,
E-mail: guenter.riegler@hq.nasa.gov. This announcement will be released on
November 26, 1996, and proposals are due by February 26, 1997. This notice
constitutes a NASA Research Announcement (NRA) as contemplated in FAR
6.102(d)(2).
.

COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY ISSUE OF NOVEMBER 12,1996 PSA#1719  
NASA Headquarters, Acqusition Division, Washington, DC 20546  
A -- NASA RESEARCH ANNOUCEMENT: NRA 96-OSS-14 
ANCIENT MARTIAN METEORITE (AMM) RESEARCH PROGRAM SOL 
SOL NRA96-OSS-14 DUE 012997 POC 
POC: Mr. Joseph M. Boyce, 
Research Management Division, Code SR, 
Office of Space Science, (202) 358-0302, 
E-mail:joseph.boyce@hq.nasa.gov 
Basic Research Opportunity. The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), Office of Space Science (OSS), solicits basic and
applied research proposals related to the study of ancient Martian
meteorites for NRA 96-OSS-14 Ancient Martian Meteorite (AMM) Research
Program. 
The objectives of the AMM program are to further investigate and resolve,
to the extent possible, recent claims of a biological origin of certain
phenomena within meteorite ALH84001. The AMM program is a joint program
with the National Science Foundation (NSF), which will issue a separate
solicitation (Dear Colleague Letter) for participation in their part of
the effort. Participation in the AMM program is open to all categories of
organization, domestic or foreign, including educational institutions, for
profit and not-for-profit organizations, NASA centers, and other
Government agencies. Minority and disadvantaged institutions are
particularly encouraged to apply to this NRA. 
This announcement will be available on the OSS Homepage on November 29,
1996, at URL: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oss/research.htm. For those
not having access to the internet a paper copy may be requested from Jorge
Scientific at (E-mail: debra. tripp@hq.nasa.gov) requesting NRA 96-OSS-14.
Scientific inquiries should be addressed to: Mr. Joseph M. Boyce, Research
Management Division, Code SR, Office of Space Science, NASA Headquarters,
Washington, DC 20546-0001, (202) 358-0302,
E-mail:joseph.boyce@hq.nasa.gov. This announcement will be released on
November 29, 1996, and proposals are due by January 29, 1997. This notice
constitutes a NASA Research Announcement (NRA) as contemplated in FAR
6.102(d)(2).

jw wrote:
> 
> My labrador dog is palpably intelligent. This is not human
> intelligence, but close enough to be recognized.
> Dogs certainly communicate with people and with dogs -
> and they *invent* symbols (symbolic actions)
> to make their point. As for signatures, they
> leave one at every post, especially when there's
> another dog's post to respond to. :-)
> In a dog community, there's ego competition, there
> are personal friendships and enmities, there's status
> recognition, including one's own status; all this
> indicates a kind of self-awareness.
> 
> I do believe, however, that there is a watershed
> between animals - even dolphins or dogs, even great
> apes, who are closer - and humans.
> 
> It is not intelligence per se;
> it is not rudimentary self-awareness, rudimentary
> use of symbols or rudimentary tool-making.
> 
> Hominids made another small step, and yet in a sense it
> was a breakthrough from the *finite* to the *infinite*.
> 
more good thoughts snipped for the sake of brevity...
After following this thread for some time I'd like to offer the thought
that I think we're "wrapping ourselves around the pole" to come up with
a perfect definition of intelligence. I mostly agree with jw, but depart
with the notion of some "magical" threshold where we went from the
finite to infinite.  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... it has quite
a broad dynamic range.  I suggest that it is helpful to take a broader
view of intelligence... look at it from the perspective of a log scale
rather than a linear scale.  If you line up all the known species which
have existed on this planet... and try to put them on some sort of a log
scale of intelligence (e.g., neuronal complexity)... that dog of jw's
(and my cat I might add) are right up there with us.  We're no big
deal... nothing magical... but we are impressive... we are the
cumulative experience of natures experiment... we stand on the shoulders
of all species which have struggled to survive on this planet.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
_   /|   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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

jw wrote:
> 
> My labrador dog is palpably intelligent. This is not human
> intelligence, but close enough to be recognized.
> Dogs certainly communicate with people and with dogs -
> and they *invent* symbols (symbolic actions)
> to make their point. As for signatures, they
> leave one at every post, especially when there's
> another dog's post to respond to. :-)
> In a dog community, there's ego competition, there
> are personal friendships and enmities, there's status
> recognition, including one's own status; all this
> indicates a kind of self-awareness.
> 
> I do believe, however, that there is a watershed
> between animals - even dolphins or dogs, even great
> apes, who are closer - and humans.
> 
> It is not intelligence per se;
> it is not rudimentary self-awareness, rudimentary
> use of symbols or rudimentary tool-making.
> 
> Hominids made another small step, and yet in a sense it
> was a breakthrough from the *finite* to the *infinite*.
> 
more good thoughts snipped for the sake of brevity...
After following this thread for some time I'd like to offer the thought
that I think we're "wrapping ourselves around the pole" to come up with
a perfect definition of intelligence. I mostly agree with jw, but depart
with the notion of some "magical" threshold where we went from the
finite to infinite.  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... it has quite
a broad dynamic range.  I suggest that it is helpful to take a broader
view of intelligence... look at it from the perspective of a log scale
rather than a linear scale.  If you line up all the known species which
have existed on this planet... and try to put them on some sort of a log
scale of intelligence (e.g., neuronal complexity)... that dog of jw's
(and my cat I might add) are right up there with us.  We're no big
deal... nothing magical... but we are impressive... we are the
cumulative experience of natures experiment... we stand on the shoulders
of all species which have struggled to survive on this planet.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
_   /|   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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

>> I, too, can write a poem?  O.Kaaay...
>> 
>>   My holidays will surely stay;
>>   A.P.'s poem was out of line.
>>   November 7, just another day;
>>   Sorry but I'm out of time ;^)
>
>Or this:
>
>There still is a man from Hanover,
>whose ramblings, alas, are not over--
>Although e, i, and pi
>come not from nuclei
>he continues to spout ideas which describe reality about as well as the
>end of this limerick conforms to the traditional meter of a limerick.
>
Let me take a crack at it; how 'bout a haiku?
One Atom Pu kitchen-sink garbage rehash
        plagiarized theory
      self-important lunatic
         ridiculous spam 

>>>>> "DLE" == David L Evens  writes:
DLE> T. Joseph W. Lazio (lazio@spacenet.tn.cornell.edu) wrote:
>> Right.  It's not possible to go far away from the Universe and
>> reach a region of flat spacetime.  But that's exactly what's
>> required to have a BH.  Ergo, the Universe isn't a BH.
DLE> Actually, most of spacetime is rather flat.
 Unlike that inside a BH.
DLE> We also observe that all timelike directions converge to a
DLE> singularity, iff the models of the Big Band we have aren't
DLE> fundamentally wrong.  This is very much like the timelike
DLE> directions inside a black hole always poiting towards the
DLE> singularity.
 So we might conclude that the Universe and a BH share one property in
common.  That doesn't mean they are the same thing.
--
Cornell knows I exist?!? | e-mail: lazio@spacenet.tn.cornell.edu
Lt. Lazio, HTML police   | http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/students/lazio/
    STOP RAPE            | ICBM:   42:29:56 N  76:28:53 W  305 m alt.
sci.astro FAQ at http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/students/lazio/sci.astro.html

In article <327DEFA2.71B0@sni.de>, Volker Hetzer   wrote:
>Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> I don't remember the numbers, but both are close (+/- 20%) to 100
>> pounds.  Why do you care what the exact number is?
>Because, I might have to pay for it.
You'd only ever pay for one particular size for one particular
commodity.  E.g. a hundredweight of silk always weighs the same.
Likewise, a hundredweight of wool always weighs the same, though
different from that of silk.  You'll always get what you pay for.
>> Fine.  Note however, that bushels don't measure volume, they measure
>> dry capacity.  Hogsheads don't measure volume, they measure liquid
>> capacity.  Until very recently, you wouldn't use the same container for
>> storing dry and liquid commodities, so there was no need to have the
>> units be the same.
>Yeah, you buy always two different pots. One for dry goods
>and one for wet goods.
People _did_, because wet goods containers were much more expensive.
Even today, we buy different containers for the stovetop and the
refrigerator.
>Just by the way, how wet has dough to be in order to count as wet?
Does it drip out of the holes in the basket?
>And what's capacity other than volume (except electrical capacity of
>course)?
Containers have capacity.  Objects have volume.
>> A US bushel is not equal to 35.2383 litres, because they don't measure
>> the same thing.  You can say that a bushel of wheat occupies 35.2383
>> litres.  Likewise, a hogshead is not equal to 283.4759 litres, because
>> they don't measure the same thing.  You can say that a hogshead of wine
>> occupies 283.4759 litres.  The distinction is _not_ silly because,
>> through most of the history of the units, it required very different,
>> and more expensive, manufacturing techniques to make containers for
>> liquid commodities than dry commodities.
>Of course it is silly. The fact that you manufacture two things
>differently doesn't mean at all that you have to measure their contents
>in different units.
How is our proverbial medieval farmer going to measure the contents?
He's going to use a standard container.  Probably the one designed
to hold the stuff he's measuring.  He has no means other than the
standard container to measure anything.  He probably doesn't understand
the length cubed equals volume concept.
>> I hope you aren't refering to the metric system.
>> 
>>    unit of length (meter) cubed != unit of volume (liter)
>Wrong. There is no "Unit of volume" per se. You can measure
>Volume in cubic meters, cubic centimeters or cubic light years.
>And one of these units (cubic decimeters) happens to have a second name
>(liter).
There is (as far as I know) only one volume measure with its own name,
the liter.  It was clearly intended as the unit of volume in the original
metric system.
>>    unit of mass (gram) is offset by a factor of 1000 from the standard
>>        (and nowhere close to the mass of a unit of volume of water)
>What has the mass of gram has to do with water?
The mass of a liter of water is very close to one kilogram.  A more
rational system would have the mass of a liter being one gram.
-- 
  Lawrence Crowl                415-786-6146   Developer Products, SunSoft
                  Lawrence.Crowl@Eng.Sun.Com   2550 Garcia Avenue, UMPK16-303
              http://www.cs.orst.edu/~crowl/   Mountain View, California, 94043

Frank Crary wrote:
> 
> In article ,
> Michael Martin-Smith   wrote:
> >Creatures that are not smart enough to colonise Space risk extinction by
> >asteroid/comet impact - maybe this recent discovery gives us a serious
> >clue to the origins and ultimate purpose of Human intelligence.
> 
> I can't really see how. The K-T event caused the extinction of
> large animals, and selected for characteristics like small size,
> being warm-blooded, burrowing, ominvorous or carion diet, etc.
> Intelligence doesn't seem to have been a factor (although none
> of the animals alive at the time were all that intelligent) and
> the even occurred long before Homo Sapien, or any hominids for
> that matter, existed. So how could it have affected either
> the origin or purpose of human intelligence? You could argue
> something similar, however: That any species capable of
> surviving for over ~50 million years is more likely to be
> intelligent and have colonized space. Also, although it
> doesn't relate to intelligence, impacts probably have had
> a major role in evolution, by removing the dominant species
> on a regular basis and letting other species with different
> advantages and traits become dominant. And then there are
> side issues, like the existence of a Jupiter-like planet:
> Orbital simulations show that Jupiter has ejected a huge
> number of potential impactors from the solar system, and
> if Jupiter hadn't been there, K-T type events would be
> over ten times more common. It isn't clear _how_ mass
> extinctions every ~5 rather than ~50 million years
> would affect evolution, but it certainly would have
> some effect.
> 
>                                                  Frank Crary
>                                                  CU Boulder
I have to draw exception to the current attitude that attributes mass
extinctions to bolide impacts.  There is too little to no evidence of
this in most mass extinctions.  The K-T extinction took millions of
years  and can be tied to the draining of inlands seas, climatic changes
and the preference for fossil collection in North America and Europe.  I
am not saying a hit did not occur, only that it was not as fatal as some
say.  Ask a turtle or lizard or alligator, all cold blooded, all
survived.  Sorry I got off the subject.

On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Paul Lloyd wrote:
> In the recent reports of indications of life being found in Martian
> meteorites, I have not been able to find any information about how we
> know the meteorites are from Mars. How do you tell that a meteorite,
> found in Antarctica, originated on Mars ? Is it via chemical analysis,
> isotopic composition, or what ?
>=20
> I'd be very grateful if someone could help me with this.
>=20
> Thanks in advance
>=20
> Paul Lloyd
>=20
=09If you study a meteor you will find small cavities that
often will contain gases. If this gas contains the same elements
in the same relative abundance as an atmosphere of a planet, there
is a large probability that the meteorite is from that planet. This=20
is how at least some of the meteor`s have been identified as Martian.
=09=DCystein Olsen
*****************************************************
*=09                                            *
*=09=09Jeg hater tirsdager!                *
*                                                   *
*=09=09=09=09(Gammelt RF-ordtak) *    =20
*                                                   *
*****************************************************

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!
Ralph Smith
Albany, NY, USA, Northern Hemisphere where it's getting colder every day...

In article <32843332.2A7A@mbox2.singnet.com.sg>, "Doug \"thE_bUG\" Tham"
 wrote:
> lbsys@aol.com wrote:
> 
> ---[GIGANTIC snip! sorry!]---
> 
> > Ah, there was a 60 million year old sneaker
> > footprint being found at the end of the story in a layer of slate()....
> 
> Interesting story...sorry about intruding here, but there are tons of
> REAL fossil anomalies, e.g. imprint of what looks like a sandaled
> footprint crushing a trilobite; toads, frogs, spark plugs, nails and
> even a pterosaur found trapped in unbroken coal...looks like the guy who
> made that time machine was pretty careless, huh?? :)
   I've heard stories of frogs, trapped within coal, seemingly hibernating since
they spring back to life.  How they knew there was a frog in a particular rock
of coal, I don't know.  Maybe they went around x-raying chunks. ;)
   Of course, the shows/articles on stories of this ilk, tend to be spouted
mostly from WeeklyWorldNews genre of periodical.  Heh, "Sightings", in print.
   Since you quote that there are 'tons' of REAL fossil anomalies, can you
be so kind as to give me a URL or two, or other sources for further information?
-Jac 'Thanks in advance'

Peter Kwangjun Suk (suk@pobox.com) wrote:
: In article <565qni$7og@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>, devens@uoguelph.ca (David
: L Evens) wrote:
: > Erik Max Francis (max@alcyone.com) wrote:
: > : Well, that's basically what it is right now.  Look at viruses, for instance.
: > : Half the scientists think they're alive, half think they're not.  The most
: > : common argument you'll hear against is that, "But they're nothing but
: > : chemicals that perform interesting reactions!"  Well, no kidding, that's
: > : what all life is.
: > 
: > 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.
: Aren't cells the "natural environment" of virii?  If you "isolated" humans
: in any number of ways, they'd also fail to reproduce.  (In a desert, for
: example.)  
Isolated viri don't carry out any life processes, however.  They just sit 
there, close to chemically inert.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 for free wavepackets. Does 'hbar' enter the picture only
        as an empirically derived proposition or is is mathecally derivable from
        EM constants. I've read nothing to this effect so far.
        The wave-packet definition I'm working from being:
              E'=E * integral { dk * f(k) * e ^-i*(wt-kx) }
        f(k)=a gaussian spectral funtionof 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 matches 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

A photon is used in physics to explain certain properties of light.
The best explanation of a photon I can give is that it's a travelling
packet of energy with no mass but can exert a force on the medium it
interacts with.
Paul Norman.

I am member of NMS (The Nippon Meteor Society).
I am interested in the appearance of Leonids meteor showers, in all over 
the world.
Please send your observation result (Nov.16-Nov.19) of Leonids meteor 
showers to me,
If you send result to me, please use the next form.
[date,began time(UT),end time(UT),number of Leonids meteor,limit magnitude,
cloud(none=0 100%=10),longitude,latitude,your name]     data divide ","
Example...
17,17:00,17:10,23,6.2,0,139.7,35.7,S.Yanagi
17,17:10,17:20,28,6.2,0,139.7,35.7,S.Yanagi
17,17:20,17:30,35,6.3,0,139.7,35.7,S.Yanagi
Your cooperation will be appreciated. Thank you...
_________________________________________________________________________
1996.11.12 01h45m(JST)   S.Yanagi     E-mail bear@po.iijnet.or.jp  
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ronald Jaynes (t3r7h3nb@abaco.coastalnet.com) wrote:
: I need to know what the hubble const is and how it is calculated.
Its somewhere between 35 and 55 (one group says about 42) and it is
calculated using math :-)

irkiller@aol.com wrote:
> 
> 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
I found this from the Digital Universe support page
(http://www.syz.com/DU/support/index.html)
In the July 1995 issue of "Astronomy and Astrophysics", astronomers 
Daniel Benest (Nice Observatory) and J. L. Duvent (Longjumeau, France) 
present evidence that indicates there to be a 90% chance that in fact 
three stars  make up the Sirius complex.  By analyzing all available 
measurements of the positions of Sirius A and B, they found that the 
stars did not follow perfect elliptical orbits around one another.  
Instead, it appeared as though an unseen companion perturbed their 
orbits, by about 0.055 arcseconds with a 6.3 year period.
From the observed irregularities, they compute that "Sirius C" is no 
heavier than 0.05 times the mass of our Sun - a prime candidate for a 
dim red or brown dwarf.  It would never appear more than 3 arcseconds 
from Sirius A and have a magnitude fainter than 12.
The actual reference is:
	Is Sirius a triple star?
      	BENEST D., DUVENT J.L.
     	Astron. Astrophys. 299, 621 (1995)
Keith Edkins
Cambridge, England

In <562bp0$87c@news.uni-X.net> Franz writes:
 > Explaining the observed distribution of angular momentum in the
 > solar system still presents a problem. The sun spins slowly, 
 > contains more than 99 % of solar sytem's mass, but carries less 
 > than 1 % of the sytem's angular momentum.
I have never understood why this is supposed to be a problem.  When
a solar system forms, the high-angular-momentum stuff naturally
goes to the outside, and the low-angular-momentum stuff to the
center.  How could it be otherwise?
 > I am trying, to test following hypothesis (detailed article
 > available on request): - Our sun's rotation (and the position of
 > sun's axis of rotation) is being controlled by the motion of the
 > planets. The sun received at least part (if not all) of its spin
 > angular momentum from orbiting planets. Moons, in the same way,
 > are driving and controlling the rotation of their parent planet.- 
There isn't much coupling between the rotation of the sun and the
orbits of the planets in the solar system today, certainly not
outside the orbit of Mercury.  The earth's rotation is being progressively
slowed by our large moon, but that's hardly "driving and controlling".
For Mars or Jupiter, the effects of their satellites on the planetary
rotation are negligible.
Ben

Dean Povey  wrote in article
<565oud$95r@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au>...
> "Michael D. Painter"  writes:
> 
> >There is no evidence that ANY experiment has ever been conducted by the
AD
> >religion. I suspect that their precession argument would also have some
> >problems when applied to Mercury.
> >My guess, since in AD things get Lighter as they approach light speed.
that
> >Mercury would precess in the opposite direction.
> 
> Well, things get lighter in AD when they are UNDERGOING DECAY.  This
wasn't
> happening to Mercury last time I looked :).
The equations box on the AD web page has 
m = m1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) for relativaty and works for Mercury.
and
m = m1*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)  for AD and does NOT work for Mercury?
Why are these equations shown if they are not intended to be compared?
It's rather hard to have a superset of something if the equations are the
inverse of the set.
In fact a brief review of set theory as learned in junior college would
show this to be impossible. Perhaps the degree in advanced calculus
precluded set theory.
> 
> From the Web page:
> "[Autodynamics] explains the perihelion advance of Mercury, Venus, Earth
> and Mars, and all Binary Star precessions for which we have data."
Where is your data posted?
> "[General Relativity] explains the Mercury perihelion advance but is
>  deficient for Venus, Earth and Mars. Completely fails to explain the 
>  observed Binary Star precession(1). "
> 
> 1. F. Guinan, J. J. Marshall and F. P. Maloney, Dep. of Astrophysics,
>    Villanova University, Villanova, PA 19085, USA, taken from "Commission
>    27 and 42 of the AU Information Bulletin on Variables Stars."
>    Number 4101, Kenkeley Observatory, Budapest, October 12, 1994,
>    from the WWW.
> 
> As for experiments being conducted, there was a paper published in
1988(?) 
> outlining an experiment which would verify Autodynamics (see New RaE
experiment
> on the Autodynamics web page "http://www.autodynamics.org/".  I am aware
that 
> the SAA is currently trying to find some experimental physicists who
would be 
> able to peform it.  You must appreciate that these sort of experiments
are not
> cheap, or the sort of things you can perform in the garden shed with a
test
> tube and a ruler.
> 
> I doubt that Einstein did many experiments to verify Special Relativity
either
> (please correct me if I am wrong), but built his theory based on the 
> existing experimental evidence and theories (as has Carezani), leaving
the 
> verification to other physicists.  
> 
> Dean.
Some were, some weren't. He used normal scientific means to achieve his
goal, including peer review. 
You don't.
As for yours, it implies the use of "standard" equipment. Would not such
apparatus be widely available at a good university. I would suspect this
type of work is done at the graduate level if not lower.
You don't even bother to acknowledge or defend serious analysis in these
news groups.

If time travel was possible and you could go into the past and alter it,
i.e. I went back and shot my grandad, Then I would no longer exist to
kill my grandad, but if I did exist then I did kill my grandad. So both
things have happend ( there would be an infinate interchange between my
existance and nonexistance ) so a paradox wopuld be set up and the time
relative to the universe would stop.  So it would be possible to alter
history but at a great expense to where the alteration occurd.

Pacificus wrote:
>Mario Franco Carbone wrote:
>
>> "A rock so big that an omnipotent being can't lift it" is LOGICALLY
>> IMPOSSIBLE.
>> According to St. Augustine, God can't do impossible things, but that
>> is not a limitation of God's omnipotence.
>
>Well, I respect this response, but there is another one. G
Yeah; what would he lift if off from?
-- 
Berna        /\_/\        B.M. Slikker
           =( @ @ )=      bslikker@bart.nl
             > - <        http://www.bart.nl/~bslikker

Anthony Potts wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Joseph Edward Nemec wrote:
> 
> >
> > And that would be the limit for an ambitious, uncultured bourgeois moron
> > from Newcastle. How sad...
> 
> Good job I'm not from Newcastle then.
> >
> > Translation: I am not good enough at physics to get to the top.
> >
> 
> Are you not Joe? How sad.
> 
> to be honest with you though, life at the top isn't all that great. It
> just means that you are researching slightly different things to other
> people.
> 
> Of course, I get to have a nice well known subject such as the Higgs, but
> that's about it.
> >
> > Well, aside from actually getting a Ph.D. in it...
> >
> 
> I will hand in before I head off to the city. Probably.
> >
> > Soon to realize that you were duped...
> 
> Shit, man, you're right. I ought to instead have gone to some anonymous
> institution. I'd havedone much better there, that's for sure. Then,
> instead of ending up a particle physicist, I could have become an expert
> in queuing theory. After all, it is THE fashionable subject of the day,
> isn't it?
> 
> >
> > Soon to realize your country is second rate in that field...
> 
> Oops, we were ten years ahead of the field. Never mind.
> 
> >
> > Well, except for publishing distinguished work in the field...
> 
> Been there, done that.
> >
> > Please send me a copy of that report.
> 
> Please pay me 50 pounds, and I will send you a copy. You aren't getting
> one for free, that's for sure.
> 
> You wouldn't understand it anyway. Peculiarly enough, it will be pretty
> technical, requiring knowledge beyond degree level of high energy physics.
> 
> >
> > We don't think you are shallow. We just know that you will not make
> > several million dollars per year.
> 
> No, all the people I know in the city are obvioulsy completely
> unrepresentative of what's out there. I am completely deluding myself that
> I will do the same as them.
> 
> Well, at least I'm happy in my ignorance.
> 
> > You are a failure at physics.
> 
> Of course I am, of course. How foolish of me to think otherwise.
> 
> >
> > Anthony, I would LOVE to test you on your knowledge of the stochastic
> > calculus...
> 
> Now why doesn't that surprise me?
> >
> > Of course not: you are the sort of idiot who rails over the internet, and
> > hides behind his keyboard.
> 
> That's right Joe. My boxing matches have all been carried out over the
> internet. In fact, now I think back, they weren't boxing matches at all,
> they were in fact just video games.
> 
> >
> > Failure.
> >
> You oughtn't to sign yourself that way. Hell, just because you aren't
> going anywhere, it doesn't mean that your parents don't love you. And not
> all of us can get a place on the high energy physics courses, so don't
> feel too bad about yourself.
> 
> Anthony Potts
> 
> CERN, Geneva
Anthony if you really leave high energy particle physics to become a
stock market jock, can you at least use what you've learnt to
investigate the probability that the devaluation of the pound is somehow
linked to the increase of entropy in the universe? And keep posting to
this news group Pleasssse . Just so I can continue enjoying thesse
controversies.
And if London's weather is no good, come down under, we'd love to have
you here. 
-- 
John Jacq