HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: benson@gemed (Mark Benson 5-4228)
Subject: Re: I can't see stars anymore at night with naked eye
Reply-To: benson@gemed.ge.com (Mark Benson 5-4228)
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee,  WI
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 21:35:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.014009.24559@macc.wisc.edu>, bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner) writes:

>That's because there are no more stars.  I haven't seen one since October 26th.
>The Supreme Being apparently vaporized all of them and now the sky is 
>continually filled with a thick, swirling nebula mist.  Even the Sun and
>Moon were taken, although by some miracle it does continue to brighten a bit
>each morning and then darken a little in the late afternoon.
>
>My other theory is that Wisconsin was swallowed by "The Nothing" from 
>_The Dark Crystal_.

This is a slight exageration.  I can verify a solar observation from
North Praire to New Berlin, WI for almost an hour on the morning of 19 November.
My wife confirms that a brief apparition was also observed in Eagle, WI.
This situation quickly corrected itself, rendering solar, stellar, lunar,
and unfortunately, cometary observation once again impossible. :^(

I believe this is almost certainly explainable by the fact that deer season
opens on Saturday, requiring there to be a certain amount of mud, ice ,and
just general misery to be present in the field.  Any affects on astronomy are
purely coincidental.
--
Mark Benson		benson@med.ge.com
GE Medical Systems	Milwaukee, WI	USA
From: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: UU-NNA Astronomy Consultants
Date: 16 Nov 92 11:43:06 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin


USENET UNIVERSITY - NEW NETWORK ACADEMY
CONSULTANTS LIST

Issue: 4
Posted: 1992 November 16
Expires: 1992 December 1

(For full list of all consultants see alt.uu.announce)

Generated: 1992 Nov 16

Send e-mail to joe@astro.as.utexas.edu to add or remove yourself from
this list.

The Usenet University Consultants List is an experimental program 
to develop a community of consultants who are willing to answer 
questions over e-mail.

The people below have graciously volunteered their time to answer
questions on the subjects listed over e-mail.  Please be courteous in
asking questions.  In particular, please try not to overload the 
consultants.

I retain full discretion concering the contents of this list.  All
views and opinions of the consultants are those of the consultants
themselves and may or may not reflect my views.  I disclaim any and
all liability resulting from the answers which consultants may give.

This list is copyrighted, but the author gives permission to copy the
list provided it is reproduced with no modifications.  


School of Natural Sciences
   Department of Astronomy
      joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joseph Wang)
         Topic: astrophysics (especially supernova and shock waves)
      bbbehr@sunspot.sunspot.noao.edu
         Topic: astrophysics (especially solar questions)
      gawne@stsci.edu (Bill Gawne)
         Topic: astrophysics      
      jsmill01@ulkyvx.louisvill.edu (Scott Miller)
         Topic: general astronomy
      metzler@pablo.physics.lsa.umich.edu (Chris Metzler)
         Topic: cosmology, early universe; extragalactic astronomy
      thomas@astro.phys.uwec.edu (Paul J. Thomas)
         Topic: numerical modeling of planetary interiors and impact processes
      spiczak%pulsar%ind.hepnet@Lbl.Gov (Glenn Spiczak)
         Topic: Cosmic ray experiments
      burtt@lynch.nscl.msu.edu (Brian Burtt)
         Topic: galaxies, astrochemistry, spectroscopy, mathematical 
                astrophysics
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)
Subject: Re: supernova
Organization: Simon Fraser University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:41:04 GMT

In article <1eie5uINN87n@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> fxt@helios.ucsc.edu (oxide owner)
writes:
>
>> From: palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer)
>> The supernova went off Feb 23 1987, (by the time of the neutrino burst),
>
>lovely hubris. 1987a exploded some 170,000 years ago.

It appears that we have a believer in absolute space with us. :-)

Leigh
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: ian@gomez.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (H. Ian Novack)
Subject: Re: NASA Duplicity?
Organization: Earth Observation Data Systems Grp, JPL
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:04:51 GMT

In article <722110960.F00001@contrast.wlink.nl> qsi@contrast.wlink.nl (Peter Kocourek) writes:
>Hi,
>
> in a recent discussion on a bulletin board here, someone alleged that NASA
> cannot be trusted, because, as he said, it had deliberately deceived the
> public on a number of occasions. Personally, I am rather skeptical of his
> claims (no sources given), so I'd like more knowledgeable folks out here
> to comment on (and preferably, shoot down) these allegations.
>
> Firstly, it was alleged that NASA increased the size of a mountain on
> Venus (no name given) by a factor of 25, to make it more spectacular,
> and make the evening news.

People have already responded to this, but missing an important point.  This
statement implies that NASA actually reported the size of the mountain to be
larger than it was.  This, to the best of my knowledge, is false.  It is quite
true that the vertical scale was expanded in the Magellan movie, but, as
others have said, this is standard practice for topography.

I had no hand in the movie, and am just reporting what I know.  None of these
are official JPL opinions/facts.

|-Ian Novack (Particle Man)----------------------------ian@gomez.jpl.nasa.gov-|
| "Good people are boring.  Only the evil have style." Jet Propulsion Lab     |
|    -- David Lynch, cinema [europe], 8/92             Pasadena, CA           |
Disclaimer:"Everybody is entitled to an opinion, and yours is wrong." D. Barry|
From: davep@paladin.corp.sgi.com (David Packer)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Lunar astronaut covers earth with thumb
Date: 17 Nov 92 01:17:26 GMT
Followup-To: sci.astro
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: paladin.corp.sgi.com

Gee,

A) Maybe lovell has extra small eyes...therefore reducing his
   field of vision..making closer objects seem much larger than
   objects farther away (look through a refractor from the wrong end).

B) Don't atmospheric effects play a part in this?? Maybe it was an
   exceptionally cold day on the moon...(so many errors in such a 
   short sentence).

C) Reletively speaking...it is possible that the gravitational forces
   of the earth bend light in slightly as they leave the earth. causing
   the opposite of Eiensteins gravitational magnifyer...

  %^) 

Dave...
Xref: sparky sci.astro:12046 sci.space:15947
From: max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Lunar astronaut covers earth with thum
Date: 21 Nov 92 03:55:20 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

taylors@hubcap.clemson.edu (C. Taylor Sutherland III) writes:

> dadams@cray.com (David Adams) writes:
> 
> >Let's see if I can get it right.  When the moon appears near the horizon
> >it's light must traverse a greater amount of earths atmosphere.  The
> >light rays are bent more and thus the atmosphere actually acts like
> >a magnifying lense when the moon (or sun) is in this position.  (Did
> >I get it right?)
> 
> Nope.  Sorry.  It's just an illusion.  When the moon is on the horizon,
> your brain puts it in relation to the things that are in the line of sight,
> like trees and buildings and it looks big against them.  When the moon is
> overhead, there are no such things and it "looks" smaller.  The actual size
> of the moon that you see does not change.  That's why it is called an illusio

Yeah, I had thought what C. Taylr conjectured, too.  That's what happens 
when you're an inquisitive boy and your father would rather give you an 
answer -- made up or not -- rather than honestly answer, "I don't know."
:-)

----------
Erik Max Francis   Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.  Coming soon:  UNIVERSE _ | _
USmail:  1070 Oakmont Dr. #1 San Jose CA 95117  ICBM:  37 20 N  121 53 W _>|<_
UUCP:  ..!apple!uuwest!max   Usenet:  max@west.darkside.com   464E4F5244   |
Newsgroups: sci.astro,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.shortwave
From: oler@rho.uleth.ca (Cary Oler)
Subject: Daily Solar Geophysical Data Broadcast for 17 November
Organization: University of Lethbridge
Date: 18 Nov 92 03:52:55 GMT

!!BEGIN!! (1.0) S.T.D. Solar Geophysical Data Broadcast for DAY 322, 11/17/92
10.7 FLUX=152.3  90-AVG=124        SSN=149      BKI=2322 2112  BAI=007
BGND-XRAY=B6.7     FLU1=6.0E+05  FLU10=1.0E+04  PKI=2321 2221  PAI=006
  BOU-DEV=012,025,018,010,010,006,008,015   DEV-AVG=013 NT     SWF=00:000
 XRAY-MAX= C1.6   @ 0834UT    XRAY-MIN= B5.5   @ 0336UT   XRAY-AVG= B8.5
NEUTN-MAX= +003%  @ 2045UT   NEUTN-MIN= -001%  @ 1630UT  NEUTN-AVG= +0.6%
  PCA-MAX= +0.1DB @ 2325UT     PCA-MIN= -0.4DB @ 1730UT    PCA-AVG= -0.0DB
BOUTF-MAX=55427NT @ 1423UT   BOUTF-MIN=55396NT @ 1940UT  BOUTF-AVG=55417NT
GOES7-MAX=P:+114NT@ 1806UT   GOES7-MIN=N:+007NT@ 2359UT  G7-AVG=+084,+030,+010
GOES6-MAX=P:+129NT@ 1754UT   GOES6-MIN=E:-016NT@ 0130UT  G6-AVG=+101,-009,+031
 FLUXFCST=STD:150,150,155;SESC:150,150,155 BAI/PAI-FCST=005,010,010/010,010,010
    KFCST=1103 4212 2114 4111  27DAY-AP=006,007   27DAY-KP=1221 1223 2101 3323
 WARNINGS=*SWF
   ALERTS=**245STRM:0600-0627UTC
!!END-DATA!!
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: cfifer@rvgs.vak12ed.edu (Craig Fifer)
Subject: Re: Mac-Users: I thank you !
Organization: Virginia's Public Education Network (Roanoke)
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 05:27:03 GMT

Might you post a summary of the information you received?  I
would be very interested in reading this!

-Craig Fifer
cfifer@rvgs.vak12ed.edu
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
|   Never play leapfrog with              |   Craig Fifer                   |
|   a unicorn!   -Murphy                  |   3736 Heritage Road, S.W.      |
|                                         |   Roanoke, Virginia  24015-4518 |
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: rbunge@access.digex.com (Robert Bunge)
Subject: Re: Light pollution
Keywords: light pollution, naked eye astronomy
Organization: Express Access Online Communications Service, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:11:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.141431.28315@infodev.cam.ac.uk> acb20@cus.cam.ac.uk (A.C. Baker) writes:
>
>Astronomy is, along with the space programme, *the* biggest thing that gets 
>people interested in science. Yet more and more westerners, and others, now 
>live with light pollution that makes stars next to invisible ... possible
>links to the decline of industry and eductation etc in the UK, the US etc 
>immediately come to mind ...
>
>So, can anyone give us an update on the fight against light pollution, and
>the waste of resources (tax payers money going to light up the skies) which
>must be occuring? Any organisations out there looking for support in this
>fight?

REMEMBER THESE LETTERS: IDA - Internation Dark Sky Assoc.  They advertise
in both ASTRONOMY and Sky & Telescope Magazines.  For 20 to $50 dollars a
year, YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE.  YES, I'M YELLING... AT ALL OF YOU.

Really, sometimes I feel like grabbing other amateur astronomer around
the neck when they start complaining about light pollution.  "Do you
belong to IDA?"  The answer is almost always no.  Even though IDA's
membership is increasing at a huge rate (on the order of 100 or 200
percent per, the data is at home), LESS THEN 2 PERCENT OF AMATEUR
AND PROFESSIONAL ASTRONOMERS BELONG TO IDA!

So next time you think about how bad things are and how bad things 
are going to get (example, the power company in Virginia recently
announced that they intend to put up or sell more than 18,000 new
lights in the next five years) dig deep for a minute and join IDA.

Even if you don't help out with your own self, by joining IDA you can
help others work on the problem.  I find it amazing that so few
astronomers -- professional or amateur -- don't belong to something 
that is so important.

Bob Bunge
rbunge@digex.access.com


Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: chaloux@mandolin.mitre.org (Dave Chaloux)
Subject: Re: Prism Diagonals vs. Mirror Diagonals
Reply-To: chaloux@mandolin.mitre.org (Dave Chaloux)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:25:15 GMT

David A. Harvey writes:

>All you opticians out there -

>I'm confused.  Reading some of the ads in Orion Mail Order Catalog, I get
>the impression that Coated prism diagonals for telescopes are "better" than
>First Surface diagonals.

>Is this true?  If so - why.  What should I buy?  How much should I expect to
>spend?

Someone has fed you a line. Coated Prism Diagonals will transmit a higher percent
of the light involved. However when you go to shorter F ratio instruments or
wider field eyepieces (2" diagonals) the refraction effects of the Prism diagonal
become important and can really foul up your resolution. Go to a telescope shop,
have them put a 2" mirror diagonal on a televue genesis (F5) and use it at various powers. Then put a 2" prism diagonal on it and do the same. YUCH!

In otherwords, whether the better light transmission is worth it depends on the
instrument and eyepieces you are using.

Point 2: Mirror diagonals if properly coated can reflect 96% of the light compared to 98% for each surface of a coated prism diagonal. Then you have the fact there are two surfaces and some absorbtion in the diagonal itself. You can
easily end up with less light with the Prism diagonal. In fairness, properly
coated mirror diagonals are hard to find. I do have a properly coated secondary in my newtonian. 
Xref: sparky sci.astro:12125 sci.space:16022
From: mario@cs.man.ac.uk (Mario Wolczko)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
Subject: Re: Hubble's mirror
Date: 17 Nov 92 12:18:39 GMT
Followup-To: sci.astro
Organization: Dept Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K.

In article <BxqDzI.B1q@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> The *only* test that would have detected the error [an end-to-end test]
> [would have been difficult due to problems]
> like gravitational distortion of the primary
I've seen this mentioned a few times, and it has me confused.
Any idea why an end-to-end test would have been more susceptible to
gravitational problems than the null corrector test?  Couldn't both be
performed with the primary flat on its back?  And why are there
more risks of surface contamination?
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: GILMART@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Paul Gilmartin)
Subject: Re: Gravitational lenses
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:08:45 GMT

In article <Vm4FuB3w165w@west.darkside.com>
max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) writes:
 
>millnerrl@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu (CALLABLE_TPU) writes:
>> an odd stellar object called I believe "The Einstein Cross" that was explaine
>
>I've never heard of the Einstein Cross, but I _do_ know of the Einstein
>Ring.
 
The name I vaguely recall is "Huachra's (sp.? Huchra's?) Cross."  Maybe
you can find it in an index by that name.
>
>It's interesting to point out that they're now attempting to use
>gravitational lenses to determine the Hubble constant.  The idea is that,
>particularly with a doubled image, they look for a flicker in the
>intensity of one image, and then wait to see when the other image
>flickers.  Then they check the times to see how far away that quasar must
>be.  Since they know the redshift, they have a measure of the Hubble
>constant.
 
This would seem to give only a rough lower bound for the distance:  If the
two paths are mirror images of each other, the time difference may be zero
even though both signals are substantially delayed.
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Galilean Electrodynamics?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:41:20 GMT

Mark Schlegel writes:
#The past few months in Sky and Telescope magazine I have been seeing this
#ad for a bimonthly publication called "Galilean Electrodynamics" written
#by a group of professors. What is the story on this group?

Well, Petr Beckmann sometimes still posts to usenet, but often flame
wars result, so I don't know if he still does. Beckmann and I have
tangled, and the results weren't pretty.

Beckmann has written a very nice non-technical book on the history of
pi, a very nice technical book on the polarization of electromagnetic
waves, and in my personal opinion, a not very nice book on Galilean
Electrodynamics "Einstein plus 2". Beckmann claims (and I am trying to
be as fair as I can be here) that Occam's razor of using the simplest
theory necessary to explain the data is not being used with general
relativity. He uses what he considers a simpler theory (others
disagree on which model is "simpler") that includes abberation and
time delay in the propagation of light. Beckmann claims that this
theory gives the same results as relativity, but only gives a
derivation for the example of precession of mercury's orbit. My
disgreement with Beckmann was when I calculated that his theory gave a
different value for the deflection of starlight, but my calculation
was incorrect. Beckmann's book is incomplete since he never provides
any evidence  that his theory gives the same answer as the other tests
of relativity (i.e., the shapiro delay). 

Beckmann has stated that his theory does not allow for gravational
radiation from orbiting neutron stars, but the pulsar PSR 1913+16 is
losing energy at the exact rate predicted by GR through gravational
radiation, so for me, is a fatal flaw for Beckmann's theory.
Beckmann has not answered my e-mail on this point.

#Does anyone know about whether the papers published by this group have any
#validity in the general physics world?

I would venture to say that the majority of professional physicists
have never even heard of the book. 


--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: What can we have for an educational sys
From: adm@phys.canterbury.ac.nz (Andrew McGregor,        rm   ,ext    )
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 22:14:32 GMT
Reply-To: adm@phys.canterbury.ac.nz
Organization: University of Canterbury

In article 4HJ@eis.calstate.edu, kmushal@eis.calstate.edu (KAYE MUSHALIK) writes:
>I had a teacher in high school who had a PhD but couldn't teach worth
>"beans". It was obvious that he knew his subject well but he couldn't 
>convey any excitement to us. I don't claim to be brilliant, but there
>were kids in my class who were and they even had trouble with the subject.
>Yes, it's important to know the subject matter, but it is more important to
>know how to make that subject EXCITING and RELEVANT to the students' lives.
>
>**Kaye**


I had THREE (at least) teachers in high school who had PhD's. Two were
brilliant. But, some of the other staff at that school were just as
good, PhD or not. We had the usual quota of terrible teachers too, of
course. I agree that the best teachers can make pretty much any student
interested in their subject, provided the student is at a point where
the subject is comprehensible, but that ability is just half the
necessary. Teachers still need to know their subject very well.

Andrew McGregor, Physics, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
From: millnerrl@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Moon Illusion (was Re: Lunar Astronaut ...)
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:05:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1eeh2lINNdrb@smaug.West.Sun.COM>, 
Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews) writes...
>By symmetry, atmospheric refraction is purely vertical.  The refraction
>makes the image of the moon appear higher than it is. ..............
................
>of the top of the moon.  The height of the image is clearly reduced by
>the refraction.  QED.  The atmospheric lensing effect only *shrinks* the
>moon.  There is no possibility whatsoever that atmospheric lensing can
>make the moon appear bigger.
> 
>     Richard M. Mathews			F oster 
>					 E stonian-Latvian-Lithuanian
>Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM		  I ndependence and
>					   F reedom!
	I went ahead and repeated the experiment with the camera and calipers
and, according to my data, the size of the moon stays roughly the same.  In
other words, any deviations due to atmospheric effects in the size would not be
observable with the precision of the naked eye.  This and the above statement
by Richard Mathews seems to point to the idea that, "it really is in our
heads."  Hmmmmm.
	Cheers!
		Robert

Youre crazy!
No, I'm death, plain and simple.
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Swift-Tuttle Observation
From: thacker@RHEA.ARC.AB.CA
Date: 17 Nov 92 13:45:07 MDT
Reply-To: thacker@RHEA.ARC.AB.CA
Organization: Alberta Research Council

Last night was clear again so I had another go at the comet.  I
drove 25 km beyond the edge of the city (Edmonton) to a spot
where all the Little Dipper stars could be seen with direct vision,
though not easily (At 53.5 degrees N, these stars are always high
in the sky).

With the naked eye I could *just* see the comet with averted vision, 
but it took about 20 minutes to be certain of this.  In 10 X 50 
binocs was similar to the previous night's view (see earlier
posting) but I could make out a faint narrow tail extending to
one degree or a little better.  In a 6" scope at 19X and 30X,
I could follow this tail for about 3 degrees, but it was very
faint.  At 95X I could see several stars shining through the 
outer half of the coma.

There have been several better comets over the past few years,
but this one isn't too bad either.  However, I'm still waiting
for THE BIG ONE.
Newsgroups: sci.astro