HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu (Joe Cain)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: New planet
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:55:53 GMT
Organization: Florida State University Geology Dept.

In article <C1HC2w.468@wrs.com> gak@wrs.com writes:
>In article 24349@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu, jscotti@lpl.arizona.edu (Jim Scotti x2717) writes:
>>
>>  This has been covered before in this newsgroup.  This object is
>>definitely NOT a _planet_, but rather a minor planet or possibly even
>>a comet. 
>
>Months and months ago, there was quite a debate here over what exactly
>qualifies a celestial body to be called a "planet" as opposed to an
>"asteroid" or a "failed star" or a number of other names.  I really
>don't want to open that can of worms again, but did we ever decide?

No one came up with any "official" definition. 
Joseph Cain		cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu   
cain@fsu.bitnet		scri::cain
(904) 644-4014		FAX (904) 644-4214 or -0098
From: chris@sloth.bc.ca (Chris Brougham)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Distribution: world
Subject: Portable Refractors
Organization: sloth prince george, bc
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 20:24:22 GMT


Hi everyone,

I'm thinking of purchasing a small refractor so I can quickly
set up and observe (sometimes it gets to quite cold here!).
Browsing through the literature I see the following instruments
that might be suitable:


TeleVue Pronto 70mm f/6.4 Orion
Orion UltraScan 80mm f/6.5
Orion OmniVista 60mm f/7
University Optics 80mm f/6.25 (Kit)
Celestron SS-80 80mm f/5

Also, any of you Starry Messenger subscribers see ads for the
old TeleVue Oracle? What's its price generally?

Any comments on the above scopes or additional suggestions?

Thanks a bunch.

PS:

I don't receive this newsgroup so can you reply via e-mail and I
will post a complete summary.

---
Chris Brougham
chris@sloth.bc.ca
From: brandt@cco.caltech.edu (William N. Brandt)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: FTP sites with machine readable astronomical catalogs ???
Date: 21 Jan 1993 23:10:20 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu
Summary: FTP sites with machine readable astronomical catalogs ???

I have been looking around for ftp sites which have astronomical
catalogs in ASCII form but haven't had too much luck finding
the information I want. I have been looking for catalogs of
active galaxies - in particular the Veron catalog. Catalogs with
information about IRAS galaxies, interesting stars, neutron star
binary systems etc. would also be interesting. Does anyone know
of good ftp sites which have such information?

I searched with Archie but without too much luck. I apologize if
this is a FAQ - I looked for the FAQ files without success.

If you could reply via email I would be grateful.

Thanks, Niel

Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Toutatis Captured by Radar Images
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 03:47:30 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1993Jan23.183636.7525@sfu.ca> Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca> writes:

>>[Pointed out that artist Carl Barks first suggested that some asteroids
>> might consist of "rubble piles", so perhaps they should be named
>>for him]

>I also wanted to comment on this suggestion. Who needs an artist? Nature
>herself has given us an exemplar - Miranda, the enigmatic inner satellite
>of Uranus. These violent collisions may be said to "Mirandize" a minor
>planet. (Since that neologism seems to have entered the lexicon already
>from a different direction, such collisions could be confused with police
>brutality.) 

Not to mention primacy: Barks depicted an asteroid as a
"rubble pile" in March, 1960, long before anyone knew that Miranda had 
such a nature. Of course, his was just a lucky guess and not a
consequence of any theory of asteroid formation (he also showed 
a fluid/plastic asteroid, and others modified by intelligence...)




>>(By the way: is the exploded planet idea a consequence of [TVF's]
>>Meta Theory?)

>Mr. Schumacher, you are guilty of reification in the first degree.
>Historical events cannot be consequences of subsequently propounded
>theories. If logical convention did not prohibit it then violation of
>causality would!

(! You're kidding, right?)
I think you misunderstand: TVF predicts a high proportion of contact
binary asteroids and suggests an exploded planet as the source of 
them. I wanted to know whether these ideas were consequences
of his "Meta Theory", and whether that theory explains how a planet
might explode. No reification involved.




Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: careyb@pisces.jsc.nasa.gov (Brian Carey 283-4181)
Subject: Celestron telescope for sale
Keywords: telescope for sale
Organization: MDSSC
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:31:01 GMT

For sale Celestron Super Polaris C6 Telescope
Information of this Newtonian reflector telescope is:

        Diameter:                       150 mm
        Focal Length:                   750mm
        Near Focus
           with eyepiece:               8'
           with camera:                 6'
        Highest Useful Power:           360x
        Resolution (arc seconds):       0.76
        Light Gathering Power:          459
        Limiting Visual Power:          13.4
        f/ratio:                        f/5.0
        Weight
           Optical Tube:                10.5 lb.
           With Tripod:                 38 lb.

The telescope comes with tripod, Equatorial Mount with polar axis 
finderscope, eye piece, top mounted spotting scope, and tripod center 
tray with container.

All of the above for $550.00 OBO

If interested email or call Brian C. Carey
phone 488 - 6432 (home).

Newsgroups: sci.astro.fits
From: egreisen@primate.CV.NRAO.EDU (Eric Greisen)
Subject: Spherical coordinates in FITS
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:49:30 GMT


At the request of Don Wells and others, I have been working with
Mark Calabretta (Australia Telescope) on a relatively definitive
discussion of celestial coordinates in FITS.  I began by converting
my old AIPS Memos No. 27 and 46 into modern postscript files.  I
did not release these to the FITS community since I expected that
any new agreement might have some differences with them - and the
draft document does have some semi-serious differences as well as
a rather better understanding of the whole subject.  That draft
is nearly ready for comment and will be announced in this forum,
along with the old AIPS Memos dressed up in modern postscript.

During the course of this work I was also made aware of the text
in Chapter 4 of the NOST FITS Reference Guide which directly
reflects a draft of the Hanisch/Wells paper on "World Coordinate
Systems" of which I had not been aware.  That draft contains a
set of formulae for determining the new CDi_j matrix from the old
CDELTn and CROTAn.  Unfortunately, those formulae - specifically
the cross terms - are wrong.  The correct formulae are

  CDi_i = Di cos(rho)
  CDj_j = Dj cos(rho)
  CDi_j = -Dj sin(rho)
  CDj_i = Di sin(rho)

where i < j refers to the first of either longitude or latitude,
j refers to the other, Dn = CDELTn, and rho = CROTAm where m is
the latitude-like axis.


Eric W. Greisen, Scientist
National Radio Astronomy Observatory
Charlottesville, VA
Newsgroups: sci.astro.fits
From: gallim@stsci.edu (Jack Gallimore,P254)
Subject: Re: Dark matter
Originator: gallim@icarus.stsci.edu
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:31:34 GMT

From article <phfrom.441@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>, by phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert):
> ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford) writes:
> 
>>The only recent news w.r.t. dark matter that I know of was the
>>conclusion that there was a lot more dark matter than previously
>>thought in a small (3 galaxy) cluster.  If the cluster is typical, the
>>universe is definitely closed.  The evidence for the dark matter is
>>still indirect; in this case it is necessary to confine the hot gas in
>>the cluster.
> 
> Could someone post a reference ?
> -
>  Hartmut Frommert                 <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
>  Dept of Physics, Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany
>                                            -- Eat whale killers, not whales --

It has just been accepted for publication:

Diffuse X-Ray Emission from the NGC 2300 Group of Galaxies:
Implications for Dark Matter and Galaxy Evolution in Small Groups

Mulchaey, John S., Davis, D.S., Mushotzky, R.F., and Burstein, D.

To be published in ApJ Letters.

Jack

-- 
         Jack Gallimore
        Academic Affairs
Space Telescope Science Institute
        gallim@stsci.edu
From: carlip@landau.ucdavis.edu (Steve Carlip)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: gravitational radiation one more time
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:02:06 GMT
Organization: Physics, UC Davis

For all you gravitational radiation fans out there:

I finally got hold of the article by Yu that Tom van Flandern 
cited last month as proof that there was still debate about 
gravitational radiation in general relativity (Astrophysics and
Space Science 194 (1992) 159).  What a disappointment!  I was 
hoping for an interesting argument, even though I expected it 
to be wrong; instead, I found --- excuse a little rudeness --- 
a paper that was basically silly.

Now that I've gotten that out of my system, here's the critique.
Yu's argument is as follows.  The standard quadrupole formula 
for gravitational radiation in GR is calculated in the linear 
approximation.  But in that approximation, the stress-energy 
tensor is exactly conserved (its ordinary divergence is zero, 
as opposed to its covariant divergence).  Therefore the energy 
of a binary star system cannot change; therefore no energy can 
be radiated away.

Yu adds a few bells and whistles (he introduces the gravitational
pseudotensor), but that's the essence of the paper.  Of course,
he could have gone further --- in this approximation, not only
don't binary stars lose energy, they don't orbit, moving instead
in straight lines.  Yu even derives this fact in equation (3.1),
but instead of saying, ``Hey, something's wrong here,'' he moves
on without comment.

The problem, of course, is simply that the particular approximation 
Yu uses is inconsistent --- terms are thrown away that are as large
as those that are kept.  This is old, old news.  Misner, Thorne,
and Wheeler have a nice discussion of exactly this point on page
443.  They also have a great index entry: ``Linearized theory of
gravity, self-inconsistency of,'' with subentries ``partial repair
for slow-moving systems leads to Newtonian and post-Newtonian
formalisms'' and ``complete repair of, leads to general relativity.''

Sorry, but this is really kindergarten stuff --- of course you have
to be careful about consistency of approximations, but anyone who
works in the field knows this.  Indeed, most relativists view this
as a feature, not a bug; an old result of Deser's shows that by 
adding the nonlinear terms needed to correct the inconsistency of 
the linear approximation, you automatically bootstrap up to the
full Einstein equations.

Incidentally, I think Yu knows he's on shaky ground, since he says,
``Refinements of the Einstein linearized theory...are not discussed in
detail...as they have not yet entered standard GR textbooks to date,''
though he then mentions MTW, which does discuss these issues.

Steve Carlip
carlip@dirac.ucdavis.edu
From: cdkelly@inland.com
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Planetary Ephemeris Routines?
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:10:01 CST
Organization: Inland Steel Company; East Chicago, IN

In article <1993Jan21.013743.620@pony.Ingres.COM>, gmcquary@Ingres.COM (George F. McQuary) writes:
>>>[Request for planetary equations. Accuracy over speed is prefered]
>>[Please, don't just post BASIC code. How about putting them in a FAQ
>> since they're so small]
> 
> Once and for all, buy "Astronomical Algorhithms" by Jean Meeus 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> (ISBN 0-943396-35-2, Willmann-Bell, $24). You will find everything laid out
> in an algebraic method, not in computer code. You will also find out you are
> asking a daunting question. The TERMS for Saturn's movement, for instance,


Hi,

I am not the orginal poster BUT:
I had to respond to Once and for all.  I had a good laugh.  I been reading 
this group for 6 months, I was glad to see this question answered a long time
ago.  And have seen the question asked over and over again.  So why laugh,
I still have not gotten the book despite best intentions and even lost
the answer a couple of times.  So it aint over even when it is over.
This is NOT "once and for all".   Sorry about that chief.  Hope
I did not depress you to badly.  The never ending question.

Thanks to FAQ, I know the answer is there if I every get off my duff to
get the book.

Hi, I had to be a pain here, that is write something says nothing.
SHA is better than RA!!!!!!  Add a sentence here to note I am friendly.

CDKelly

Newsgroups: sci.astro,rec.radio.shortwave
From: oler@rho.uleth.ca (Cary Oler)
Subject: Daily Solar Geophysical Data Broadcast for 22 January
Organization: University of Lethbridge
Date: 23 Jan 93 20:53:10 GMT

!!BEGIN!! (1.0) S.T.D. Solar Geophysical Data Broadcast for DAY 022, 01/22/93
10.7 FLUX=104.2  90-AVG=140        SSN=049      BKI=0211 1222  BAI=004
BGND-XRAY=B1.1     FLU1=1.2E+05  FLU10=1.0E+04  PKI=0211 1223  PAI=005
  BOU-DEV=004,012,008,006,006,011,015,016   DEV-AVG=009 NT     SWF=00:000
 XRAY-MAX= B1.5   @ 2040UT    XRAY-MIN= B1.0   @ 1910UT   XRAY-AVG= B1.1
NEUTN-MAX= +003%  @ 2210UT   NEUTN-MIN= -002%  @ 0110UT  NEUTN-AVG= +0.3%
  PCA-MAX= +1.7DB @ 0015UT     PCA-MIN= -0.4DB @ 0840UT    PCA-AVG= +0.0DB
BOUTF-MAX=55415NT @ 1558UT   BOUTF-MIN=55390NT @ 1932UT  BOUTF-AVG=55406NT
GOES7-MAX=P:+112NT@ 1952UT   GOES7-MIN=N:+005NT@ 1003UT  G7-AVG=+081,+028,+010
GOES6-MAX=P:+131NT@ 1919UT   GOES6-MIN=E:-010NT@ 1920UT  G6-AVG=+098,-000,+037
 FLUXFCST=STD:105,105,110;SESC:105,105,110 BAI/PAI-FCST=005,005,015/007,010,015
    KFCST=1112 3111 1112 3111  27DAY-AP=002,003   27DAY-KP=0011 1210 0012 1210
 WARNINGS=
   ALERTS=
!!END-DATA!!
From: mt92mmj@brunel.ac.uk (Marcus Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: PC Software
Summary: Any software ?
Keywords: For the PC/ Apple Mac, Cheap(ish).
Date: 23 Jan 93 00:40:46 GMT
Organization: Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]


	Can anyone suggest any software either PC or Apple Mac which 
	could be of use in amateur astronomy of any type which isn't
	too expensive.	Thanks,
--
################### Marcus Jones (mt92mmj@brunel.ac.uk ) ################
#  Dept. Materials Technology E-mail: mt92mmj or xxsuipee @brunel.ac.uk #
#     Brunel University, Kingston Lane, Uxbridge, Middlesex. UB8 3PH.	#
#########################################################################
From: Mailer-Daemon@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:14:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: photon.9301261614.AA03310
Organization: The Ohio State University
Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 11: 20:10 EST
Resent-To: sci.astro
Resent-From: William R Thompson <wthomps@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>


   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
>>> RCPT To:<tjt@Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
<<< 550 <tjt@Jpl.Nasa.Gov>... User unknown
550 tjt@Jpl.Nasa.Gov... User unknown

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: by photon.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (5.65/3.910213)
	id AA03308; Tue, 26 Jan 93 11:14:56 -0500
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 11:14:56 -0500
From: William R Thompson <wthomps@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Message-Id: <9301261614.AA03308@photon.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
To: tjt@Jpl.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: Tycho Apocrypha
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Organization: The Ohio State University
Cc: 

In article <1jknvsINNc2b@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> you write:
>   As I recall the tale, Tycho lost his nose in a duel, and had a gold false nose.
>I've even heard that it tended to fall off occasionally.
>                                      Tim Thompson
>                                      JPL Div 32 SCN
>

Well, actually he had three:  One gold, for formal occasions, one pewter, for   semi-formal occasions, and one wooden, for everyday wear.  

--The Rook
  <wthomps@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>

" 'My God, it's full of stars!' "
    --_2010_
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Re: Refurbishing Observatory...SURPRISE !!
Keywords: telescope
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: 22 Jan 93 20:53:16 GMT

jf4527@adx.adelphi.edu (Jamie Fitzpatrick) writes:

>Hello. I have a few questions and I hope someone can help. I've just
>recently discovered that our school had/has an observatory in the 
>attic of the Physics building.  [...] In the center of the room was an
>eight foot long refractor. At first it just looked old. It wasn't
>until I was ready to tackle the cleaning job on it that I realized
>it was something special. It had all brass fittings. On the front
>was inscribed..." Alvin Clark & Sons    1877     Cambridgeport Mass."
>Does anyone know who this was ? 

Considering that Adelphi wasn't founded until 1896, I'd say that it is
an Alvan Clark refractor that was at least 20 years old when the 
University obtained it 2nd hand.  Not that there's anything wrong with
a Nth-hand Clark refractor -- just trying to put things in an historical
perspective.  Did the university have a different name before Adelphi?

>I've removed all the brass an found [...]

You did WHAT?

>                                  Take care,
>                                           Jamie Fitzpatrick

>                                      jf4527@adx.adelphi.edu

Curt Roelle
roelle@sigi.jhuapl.edu
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
Subject: Re: "Modeling" the Expanding Universe?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 17:43:53 GMT


     Pursuant to our discussion of what expands in the big bang, space
itself or galaxies in space, I would like to augment the references
previously cited with one from the current issue of the Astrophysical
Journal to support my contention that current cosmologists insist that
space itself expands.  In vol. 403, pp. 28-31, 1993 Jan. 20, E. Harrison
(U.Mass.) argues in his paper "The redshift-distance and velocity-distance
laws," that one gets inconsistencies by assuming a redshift-distance law
for large redshift.  He concludes that only a linear velocity-distance law
is compatible with big bang assumptions.  At the end he says: "From a
purist point of view one cannot help but deplore the expression *big bang*,
'loaded with inappropriate connotations' (McVittie 1974), which conjures up
a false picture of a bounded universe expanding from a center in space.  In
modern cosmology, the universe does not expand in space, but consists of
expanding space.  And this correct picture leads naturally to a distinction
between the redshift-distance and velocity-distance laws."  He then quotes
deSitter (1931): "The theory of general relativity brought the insight that
space and time are not merely the stage on which the piece is produced, but
are themselves actors playing an essential part in the plot."

     It is also illuminating to appreciate that such a fundamental point as
the appropriate distance law is still being clarified at this late date.
     -|Tom|-

-- 
Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / metares@well.sf.ca.us
Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: jpaulso1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Justin Gram Paulson)
Subject: Re: A "picture" of a black hole
Reply-To: jpaulso1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Justin Gram Paulson)
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:08:12 GMT

About a month ago I saw the picture I think you're referring to on the front
page of the New York Times; it wasn't a joke.  I can't remember the exact
issue, though.

-----
Justin Paulson
jpaulso1@cc.swarthmore.edu
From: root@admin.mport.COM (admin)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Refurbishing Observatory...SURPRISE !!
Keywords: telescope
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:52:12 GMT
Organization: Microport Inc., Scotts Valley, CA 95066 US of A


I was cleaning out my garage the other day and I found this old car in
the back underneath some boxes.  It is an odd looking car.  The nameplate
says BUGATTI .  Maybe it belonged to an entomologist.  I'm going to
give it to the neighborhood kids to fix up.  Is it worth anything??


-rbd

PS. The engine has a lot of swirlly marks on it, but they seem
    to sand out OK.
From: carlip@landau.ucdavis.edu (Steve Carlip)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: "Modeling" the Expanding Universe? (was Re: That Great Pulsar Timing Flame War)
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:12:14 GMT
Organization: Physics, UC Davis

In article <C15vrI.6yp@well.sf.ca.us> metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) writes:
>
>     The hypothesis that the initial explosion was an explosion of
>spacetime and not of matter is a big bang hypothesis, not part of GR.

This is the basic problem with your argument, Tom --- this statement
is not really right.  (At least, my interpretation of your interpre-
tation of this statement is that you're wrong.)  Your criticism of
ad hoc assumptions seems to me to come from a confusion between
what is assumed and what is derived.

General relativity gives a set of field equations that determine the
geometry of spacetime (curvature *and* expansion or contraction) from
the matter distribution.  If you assume a homogeneous, isotropic
distribution of matter with standard relationships between density
and pressure, you *derive* Friedman-Robertson-Walker cosmology,
with a *predicted* relationship between the expansion rate of the
universe and the density of matter and radiation.

If, on the other hand, you assume an *approximately* homogeneous and
isotropic distribution, with local areas of higher or lower density,
you can again solve the field equations (at least in a systematic
approximation) and look at the predictions.  In this case, you find
an average expansion rate, but you can also look at the detailed
behavior of regions with higher or lower densities.  I have not
done these calculations myself, but I have no reason to doubt Ethan
Vishniac's statement that when this is done, you find that dense
enough subsystems do not participate in the expansion.  In any case,
this is something that can be checked by looking at the predictions
of general relativity with the appropriate matter distributions.  
It is *not* anything new that needs to be brought in from the outside.

I gues I don't really understand why this is confusing.  In general
relativity, space doesn't just expand because it wants to; the
expansion is the (predicted) response of spacetime geometry to the
presence of matter.  If you change the matter distribution, why
shouldn't you expect the expansion to change?  

Steve Carlip
carlip@dirac.ucdavis.edu