HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hathaway@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: NEWS: Galileo Cleared of Heresy Charges by Vatican
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:18:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.193929.18335@cpu.com>, gwlester@cpu.com (Gerald W. Lester) writes:
> In article <1992Nov6.113650.1@stsci.edu>, hathaway@stsci.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Nov5.230416.8291@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
>>> lattis@sal.wisc.edu (Jim Lattis) writes:
>>> 
>>> This is entirely correct. I would add to it that the political milieu
>>> in which these people operated was of decisive influence. Galileo was
>>> known by the Vatican to have exchanged letters with Kepler, whose
>>> mother had in the meantime been burned for alleged witchcraft (remember
>>  ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ 
>>??? Was his mother really toast?  The book I recall mentioned that Kepler 
>>had to make an emergency trip home to prevent such from happening.  I'd 
>>thought he saved her.  If the book referenced below has it otherwise 
>>I'll try to find it.  I'm troubled by this human sacrifice aspect of 
>>religion. 
> 
> 	Witches were *NOT* burned at the stake as a human sacrifice!  They were
> burned becuase this was thought to be the only sure way to kill a witch (i.e.
> it was punishment).
> 


'squeze me - I was being cute :-) ...  But why would witches be killed if not 
over religion differences???   Yes, usually human sacrifice was done to 
'honor' and deify the host and gratify the participants.  But witch burning 
had almost the same practical effect - someone was grisly dead and the 
killers were happy, thinking they had done their god's will.  They didn't 
think they'd given up anything worthwhile, but the centerpiece might have 
thought otherwise.  But then where would some religions be without capital 
punishment?   (Don't get me started on the cannibalism thing - the only 
connections I can see this thread having with sci.astro is in the history 
of astronomical thought and the ancient desire to reach heaven by one means 
or another.)  


Please, no Flames ... (snicker :^)) ... we almost had one Ms.Steak already ... 
and had bones to pick from it, so I think we've all suffered enough 
PUNishment (Capitalized) for one day. 

Wm. Hathaway  

(BTW, the book I remember reading about Kepler's mom being saved was by 
Patrick Moore - it's at home, so I don't have the title here.)
From: asnd@erich.triumf.ca (Donald Arseneau)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Know an adjective for black holes?
Date: 13 Nov 1992 19:03 PST
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: erich.triumf.ca
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <SRCTRAN.92Nov11233822@world.std.com>, srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes...
% >   To refer to the Earth, I can use  "terrestrial".
% >   To refer to the stars, I can use  "stellar".
% >   To refer to galaxies,  I can use  "galactic".
% >   To refer to black holes,  what can I use?

Singular!
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: "michael daly" <michael.daly@canrem.com>
Subject: ASTROLOGY VERSUS ASTRONOMY
Reply-To: "michael daly" <michael.daly@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: sci
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:58:22 EST


RB>An astrologer would argue that there are two distinct possibilities:
RB>either there is a fifth force that we have not yet discovered; or the
RB>planets and our fates are both side effects of a common cause, and so
RB>are related but do not act on one another.  Science can in no way
RB>disprove either of these claims.  In fact, the scientific method will
RB>never be able to disprove these as they are not falsifiable.

I disagree.  Even if we are unable to determine the cause, if the
effects are as astrologers claim, then we can measure those effects.
This has been done on a number of occasions and the astrologers always
lose.

 * DeLuxe2 1.21 #289 * 
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald)
Subject: Re: The "FK01 glass isn't transparent" ad in Sky & Tele
Organization: UIUC SCS
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:13:55 GMT

In article <16893EB15.LINSCOT@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> LINSCOT@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Stephen M. Linscott) writes:

>  There seem to be several
>sets of numbers for FK01 floating about.  One poster said that Schott no
>longer uses this designation.  Another poster quoted FK01 numbers from
>a Schott catalog, which differed from the ones in the Rutten et al book.
>Reminds me of the old adage: Believe nothing you hear or read the last
>four months of an election year! :-)

I will repeat my previous statements, which are carefully checked and
I stand by them:

Schott makes an "FK1" glass which is **NOT** really an ED glass, 
and won't make a lens substantially better than plain old BK7.

Schott makes a glass "FK52" which **is** an ED glass and will make a
very good essentially apochromatic lens with the appropriate "flint"
glass (I forget the Schott number).

Ohara makes a glass they once called "FK01" and now call "FPL51" 
which **IS** an ED glass and is similar but not identical to Schott FK52.
Together with Ohara NSL33 this glass will make an truly excellent
apochromatic lens. If I were making an apochromat, I most emphatically
would use these glasses, especially since they are cheaper than the
Schott glasses, give better apochromaticity, and are "normally stocked 
items" of Ohara, whereas the Schott glasses useable for two-glass
apochromats are "special order only". 

**NONE** of these glasses are significantly worse than plain old BK7
in the wavelength range 350-800 nanometers. They are **all** far better
in the UV than the Schott SF1 or SF5 usually used as the flint of a plain
achromat.

Fluorite is better yet, but it doesn't matter. It much more expensive,
though readily available. 

Doug McDonald
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: vspicer@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Subject: celestron "vixen" scopes?
Originator: vspicer@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg Manitoba Canada
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:08:46 GMT

i've gone through the telescope buying FAQ but need some more advice. i
used to own an astroscan 2001 until someone i lent it to a year or so
ago totally destroyed it. i've been using some cheapie binoculars
from the former USSR called "Tento" for general gazing. i'm torn between
getting a  good pair of binoculars (like Orion Explorer 7x50) and possibly
a 4.5" newtonian. does anyone have experience with the japanese "vixen"
telescopes imported by celestron?

thanks in advance
	vic spicer
 

------
vic spicer, recent PERL convert/ data systems,instrument electronics and
software person with the Time of Flight Mass Spec. Lab
at the University of Manitoba Dept. of Physics
From: inr@eccles.caltech.edu (I. Neill Reid)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: re: Hubble's mirror
Date: 10 Nov 1992 20:45 PST
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: eccles.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

From: dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)

>Brian Stuart Thorn (BrianT@cup.portal.com) wrote:
>> If there is a perfect mirror presumably sitting at Kodak, why doesn't NASA
>> simply return Hubble to Earth and replace the faulty mirror?
>>  
>You want a list?  Just off the top of my head:

>It would take two missions to return, fix and re-launch Hubble.  You
>could probably rebuild Hubble on the ground and launch it for less.

>The extended portions of Hubble are almost certainly not designed to
>retract, and would have to be cut off in orbit.  This has never been
>done before.

>If one aspect of securing Hubble for the return mission fails, you're
>screwed.  The mission would fail and Hubble would likely be disabled
>permanently.

>Hubble is doing valuable work right now.  Removing it from orbit, probably
>for months, would damage astronomy far more than a mirror whose defects are
>known and correctable by image-processing techniques.
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
--
>||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY  |

 Agreed to all except the last sentence. Let's be under no illusions - 
the Hubble telescope is SERIOUSLY harmed for imaging programmes. It is 
possible to apply sophisticated image-reconstruction algorithms, but only at
high signal-to-noise (at least a 2 magnitude reduction in the limiting
magnitude) and only if the field is populated relatively sparsely, and 
predominantly by point sources. (And UV spectroscopy also demands
longer integrations since less light gets down the slit.)

  Neill Reid - inr@eccles.caltech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
From: sl25@cus.cam.ac.uk (Steve Linton)
Subject: Re: ANSWER: Recognizing a Dyson sphere if you saw one
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 08:31:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.051407.19862@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
|> In article <Fq6mTB8w165w@west.darkside.com>
|> max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) writes:

|> 
|> No - the main point to the article is that the filling factor does not
|> necessarily have to be high, so plenty of light from the central star
|> would get through. What we'd see is a Sun-like star, with a small IR
|> excess indicating a 300 K shell with size on the order of 1 AU: in
|> other words, something not necessarily easily distinguishable from a
|> natural object. Unless there's something obvious, such as narrow-band
|> radio signals...

I thought the whole point of a Dyson sphere was to utilise the whle energy of the
star, reradiating it as waste heat at some low temperature. I suppose the DS
might not be finished yet, but it strikes me as the sort of thing you build
completely or not at all.

A civilization that is using a substantial proportion of its star's energy would
look like what you describe, but might simply have a large constellation of
orbitting power stations.

I guess it all comes down to definitions.
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: esc@ulysses.att.com (E. Steve Crandall)
Subject: Voyager II
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:28:15 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill


Has anyone played with Voyager II - an update of the Mac astronomy 
program?  Is it worth the cost?  Do they have an upgrade policy?

many thanks
Steve Crandall
evan.crandall@att.com

Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: hathaway@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Real Men Astronomers [Was Re: e-mail activated telescope?]
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:13:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.183901.28034@athena.mit.edu>, hbh@athena.mit.edu (Heidi Hammel) writes:
> higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>> kent@patience.Stanford.EDU (Mark Kent) writes:
>> > [query about a remotely controlled telescope]
>>Seriously, it doesn't seem right to sit in a warm little room pecking
>>at a keyboard to do observations.  Do we need to raise up a generation
>>of couch-potato observers? Real Men brave the cold and darkness to get
>>their images!
>>I know this idea is crude and implies some unfortunate corollaries, such as:
>>1. Radio astronomers are not Real Men.
>>2. Anita Cochran, Heidi Hammel, and other lady astronomers *are* Real Men.
> 
> :-}  Well, okay - but just don't tell my SO ;-).  Seriously, though, it is
> tough to find a professional astronomer who does *not* work in a warm room.
> Most large telescopes are run that way.  Even Real Men like me do it :-). 
> 
> Rest assured - many professional astronomers "pay their dues" at smaller
> telescopes before moving up to the big ones.  You only need one winter
> season of nights at -5 degrees enduring winds of 30 mph to build character
> and create a sense of humility.  You *really* *appreciate* warm rooms
> afterwards...  

 [ ...stuff deleted ... ]
> 
> So do I get to keep my title of "Real Man" astronomer
> even though I mostly work in a warm room at a computer? ;-)
> 
> heidi
> --
> 
>     Heidi B. Hammel   (hbh@astron.mit.edu)   MIT 54-416   EAPS Dept.

The rooms I've been paid to work in are not in this frigid league 
(college classes and 'for fun' observing gave me enough of a taste 
to invest in a snowmobile suit ...), but rooms with computers haven't 
been warm to me.  They usually keep them pretty chilly for the machines 
and I've often worn sweaters in the summer, as this is the time they 
seem to crank up the A/C to accomodate the computers.  Picky, picky, picky. 
(At least I haven't had to go on-site to the 'scopes (low-orbit for HST, 
geo-sync for IUE - now _those_ would be cold.)) 

Wm. Hathaway 

Xref: sparky sci.astro:11791 sci.space:15540
From: sss@castle.ed.ac.uk (S S Sturrock)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
Subject: Re: Swift-Tuttle Comet a threat to earth?
Date: 9 Nov 92 13:08:01 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Nov6.133643.6420@serval.net.wsu.edu> kfarmer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (keith farmer;S10000) writes:
>In article <pad.720924805@probitas> pad@probitas.cs.utas.edu.au (Paul A Daniels) writes:
>>	Geologists belive that the earth originally had a super continent
>>don't ask me to spell it's name. I'm just curious, could it have broken
>>up due to a meteor stike?

Not likely, the break up of continents is the result of plate tectonics and
is going on all the time, shunting the continents around, creating new bits
and destroying other parts.  Most of the super continent exists today, it's
just spread around a little more :-)

If I remember correctly the super continent was not the start as such, it
was formed from smaller parts and then broke up again.


-- 
Shane Sturrock, Biocomputing Research Unit, Darwin Building, Mayfield Road,
University of Edinburgh, Scotland, Commonwealth of Independant Kingdoms.  :-)

Civilisation is a Haggis Supper with salt and sauce and a bottle of Irn Bru.
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)
Subject: Re: Questions about P/Swift-Tuttle
Organization: Simon Fraser University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:42:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.081635.1201@horizon.com> schriber@horizon.com (Mike
Schriber) writes:

>Where is Swift-Tuttle visible?  What section of the sky (Coords. or
>what constelation it's in) and about what time of night is it above the
>horizon?

The comet may be seen at the top of the keystone in Hercules right now, that is
if it's dark and you don't live in a cloud preserve like BC. :-(

>My other question is a bit more limited.  I have a program called Dance of
>The Planets by ARC.  I've tracked Swift-Tuttle with this program and found
>the comet to be outbound, near the orbit of Mars on 8/14/2126.  Dance of
>the Planets is suposed to be a first rate orbital simulator (Gavitic forces
>only) and I'm curious as to why it's so far off.  Is anyone else using this
>program that can shed a little light on my mystery?

According to Marsden's calculation the comet will be intersecting Earth's orbit
fifteen days earlier than the apocalyptic date you've used. Could that be part
of the problem?

Leigh
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: mleech@bnr.ca (Marcus Leech)
Subject: Re: Amateur Radio Astronomy
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, ON CANADA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:49:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.111159.12084@waikato.ac.nz> Andrew T. Chambers <atc@waikato.ac.nz> writes:
>I am interested in setting up a small radio telescope...
>Most of the books I've seen, are rather old and outdated.
>Written in the days when cheap scanners and recievers for 800-1300 Mhz
>didn't exist.
>So a lot deal with modifying or building what is now rather outdated
>insensitive equipment.
>I would like to use one of the new scanners that can operate upto 1300
>Mhz with a simple antenna setup, the whole thing connected to a computer
>to analyze the data.
>Is there anyone out there who has set up a small radio telescope, based
>around a scanner?
>
>Is there any information available on the net about radio astronomy?
I'd point you at radio-astro@hydra.carleton.ca, but I think you've already
  subscribed.  I notice you're also in NZ, which is kind of far away from
  some of the equipment sources I'd otherwise recommend.

Some things to be aware of with scanners:

  1) Front-end noise.  You'll have to build/buy a low-noise front-end
     to combat the relatively poor noise figure of the average scanner.

  2) You'll need some gain antennas (at least a pair of 25-element
     loop YAGIs).

  3) The bandwidth of the average scanner IF is designed for NBFM
     usage of 15KHZ.  You'll definitely have to widen this out in
     order to accumulate enough energy to detect--about 1MHZ
     is what you'll need at 1GHZ or above. [Minimum sensitivity
     is proportional to RF bandwidth and integration time].
     If you stick with a narrow bandwidth, you'll end up having to
     integrate over a very long time--it's hard to get stable
     long-term integration.

  4) Scanner IF amplifiers aren't fixed-gain, but rather AGC-controlled,
     which can substantially complicate modification.

  5) The LO of the average scanner has rather lot of phase-noise. You can't
     use it for (for example 21cm) spectral line work.


--
Marcus Leech, 4Y11             Bell-Northern Research  |opinions expressed
mleech@bnr.ca                  P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C   |are my own, and not
ml@ve3mdl.ampr.org             Ottawa, ON, CAN K1Y 4H7 |necessarily BNRs
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: enea1@applelink.apple.com (Horace Enea)
Subject: Re: NEWS: Galileo Cleared of Heresy Charges by Vatican
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:22:03 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer

The phases of Venus do not prove that the earth revolves around the Sun. The church
adopted Tycho Brahe's model of the solar system in which the planets all revolve around
the sun while the sun (along with the planets) revolve around the earth. The phases of
Venus are accounted for and 'still the earth is stationary'.

Galileo had no convincing evidence of either the earth's revolution or of it's rotation.

The church's problem was not really with whether the earth moved or not. Many
Jesuit astronomers believed that the earth revolved around the sun. The problems had
to do with the rise of the Protestants whose main difference with the church concerned
the literal versus the metaphorical interpretation of the bible. In trying to win back the
deserters the church had adopted a more conservative position than they had previously,
and, therefore, where more inclined to a literal rather than metaphorical intrepretation
of the bible. As a result the Jesuits had been told refrain from promoting the Copernican
system since it required that the bible have a metaphorical interpretation.

There were a number of other issues having to do with who could make interpretations
of the bible-- the church or individuals. Galileo made the serious mistake of using 
theological arguments to prove his case. The council of Trent about thirty years earlier
had decided that only the cardinals acting as the governing body of the church could
make these theological decisions. 

Fundamentally, he said that God created the universe and also inspired the bible. Since
God created both neither could be wrong. So, when the bible seems to disagree with
what science proves to be true about nature we must be interpreting the bible incorrectly.

This presents obvious problems to those who believe in a literal interpretation of the 
bible. Furthermore, Galileo needed to be able to prove that the earth went around the
sun and he couldn't do that.

The irony is that while his physical arguments were weak, but his theological arguments 
were strong and were eventually adopted by the church.

Horace Enea

Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: hathaway@stsci.edu
Subject: re: Hubble's mirror
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: world,na
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:49:40 GMT

In article <10NOV199220455982@eccles.caltech.edu>, inr@eccles.caltech.edu (I. Neill Reid) writes:
> From: dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
> 
>>Brian Stuart Thorn (BrianT@cup.portal.com) wrote:
..
> 
>>Hubble is doing valuable work right now.  Removing it from orbit, probably
>>for months, would damage astronomy far more than a mirror whose defects are
>>known and correctable by image-processing techniques.
>            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> --
>>||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY  |
> 
>  Agreed to all except the last sentence. Let's be under no illusions - 
> the Hubble telescope is SERIOUSLY harmed for imaging programmes. It is 
.. 
                          ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
   Compared to what?   You got anything on earth that can touch it??? 

> 
>   Neill Reid - inr@eccles.caltech.edu

Wm. Hathaway 

Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: rbunge@access.digex.com (Robert Bunge)
Subject: Re: Telescope making books. recomendations??
Organization: Express Access Online Communications Service, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 04:03:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.033619.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au writes:
>Hi all, A question for all the Amateur Telescope Makers et al out there.
>
>Waht is your opinion of "Standard Handbook for Telescope Making" 1984 by
>Neale E Howard? Other recomendations on this and testing/design?
>

Howard's book is pretty good -- in fact it was the book that really pushed
me to complete my first telescope -- but the method of mirror testing 
 in this  book leaves something to be desired if you really want a good mirror.Texereau's _How to Make a Telescope_ (Willmann-Bell) is most likly tops
in this field, but a hard read for most of us.  Berry's _Build Your Own
Telescope_ is my favorite if you want to build one of the standard 
designs that he talks about.  And, of course the original _Amateur
Telescope Making_ series can provide plenty of ideas and base information.
These have been out of print for several years, but I understand that 
Willmann-Bell has attained the rights to them and plans to offer them.
But, my favorite is a number of articles that appeared in _Telescope 
Making_ magazine, formerly published by Kalmbach (ASTRONOMY magazine).
In the end, I constently refer to almost all of the above plus a 
couple of others on a regular basis.

Bob
From: st.korth@abbs.hanse.de (Stefan Korth)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Mac-Users: I thank you !
Reply-To: st.korth@abbs.hanse.de
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:42:00 MET
Distribution: sci
Organization: ABBS AstroMail, D-W 2121 Dahlenburg / Germany
X-Version: ZerUU V6.45c

A few weeks ago I asked sci.astro for any good astronomy software for the
Apple Macintosh. The resonance was very positive, thanks a lot to (in 
alphabetical order):

Bruce
Dave
David
Frank
Garrelt
Juergen (congratulations for your marriage!)
Olivier
Paul
Skip
Veikko


Stefan Korth

## net_sh v1.5 (sb)
Stefan Korth, Fuerstenwall 214, W-4000 Duesseldorf 1, st.korth@abbs.hanse.de (UUCP)

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABBS AstroMail, the first and most popular German astronomical bulletin board
------------------------- for amateur astronomers ----------------------------
    + 49 5851 7896 / V.21, V.22, V.22bis, V.32, V.42, V.42bis and MNP5
    ------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space