HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: 3K radiation
Date: 12 Aug 92 10:28:01 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Aug11.223413.26968@samba.oit.unc.edu>, cecil@physics.unc.edu (Gerald Cecil) writes:
> In article 081041@axion.bt.co.uk,apengell@axion.bt.co.uk (Alan Pengelly) writes:
>>>I have a question about the 3K background radiation, and that is
>>>given that we can see `back' a considerable distance (last I heard
>>>was that astronomers can look back about 10 billion years), does
>>>any signal from what was the background radiation at the time
>>>reach us, and if so should it be, and is it, hotter?   Etc...

> Note that considerable CO emission HAS been detected from the 
> circumnuclear regions of some Seyfert I galaxies (low-z quasars) but it's 
> quite a jump in distance from z = 0.1 to z = 5!

Just as an aside, the redshift 2.286 IRAS galaxy 10214+4724 has been detected
in several CO lines. The ratios of these can, in pronciple, be used to
determine the local CBR temperature (would be about 9 K) but are so dependent
on other proerties of the object (density, radiation field etc etc) that it
can't be done until we understand this remarkable galaxy much better. See a
paper by Solomon et al 'Warm Molecular Gas in the Primeval Galaxy 10214+4724'
soon to be published in Ap. J letters. Take the comment about it being a
primeval galaxy with a pinch of salt BTW.
-- 
================================================================================
Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department
================================================================================
clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax			|  Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de
dlc      @ uk.ac.ox.astro		|           Saint Germain...
================================================================================
From: ch.steyaert@abbs.hanse.de (Chris Steyaert)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Perseids '92: some radio obs from Europe
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:24:31 GMT
Reply-To: ch.steyaert@abbs.hanse.de
Distribution: sci
Organization: ABBS AstroMail, D-W 2121 Dahlenburg / Germany
X-Version: ZerUU V6.45c

Maurice De Meyere, Deurle, Belgium, forwards following reports on the
world wide packet radio network, which confirm the high Perseid activity
centered on Aug 11.81 1992.

From France:

"THE BEST TIME WAS 11 Aug 92 AT 1930 UTC FOR ME WITH MANY REFLECTIONS.
12 Aug 92  05h57 .... MANY STATIONS ...
DIDIER LAVERGNE LA POUGE 16220 MONTBRON"

and Germany:

"In my opinion it was quite poor shower,except 2 hours on 11.08.92
between 18.30 to 20.30 gmt .
   D L 8 E B W   *  Guido ( Guy ),  QTH Wuppertal"



   Chris Steyaert - Belgium                                                                                            
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Evaluation of Filters for Urban Areas?
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:03:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: uars_mag.roelle.714243790
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

gmcquary@Ingres.COM (George F. McQuary) writes:

> ... 

>Are the results from filters really that dramatic in urban areas? What if I'm
>not doing photography but only my own direct visual observations?

>How close to dark sky performance can I get in a moderately urban area?

The sky at my formally "rural" homesite in N. Central Maryland has
deteriorated over the past ten years such that on good nights the
limiting magnitude is 5 - 5.5.  While my sky has been going steadily
down the tube, I believe filters are handy -- whether or not you are in
light polluted skies.  With objects such as galaxies, which are not
improved by most generic "nebula filters", I get good results using high
magnification to increase contrast and darken the sky background without
the use of a filter.  Also, nebula filters can be used to reveal details
otherwise not seen no matter how dark the sky is.  For instance I can see
filaments in the Crab Nebula and the eagle in the Eagle Nebula with a filter,
but not without.  Filters accentuate features such as the lanes in the 
Trifid Nebula, the lagoon in the Lagoon Nebula, and the Gulf of Mexico
in the N. America Nebula.

>Is it really necessary to have a whole palette of filters for emission,
>reflection and whatever else nebula or is there a single compromise filter
>that does a general overall good job?

Depends on what you look at.  I use a UHC and and O-III (though not at the
same time!).  Since my skies are still relatively dark, the primary use of
the UHC filter is to identify stellar planetary nebula by "blinking" with
the filter.  This method generally gives unambiguous results.  On the other
hand I use the O-III filter for very faint objects, such as the Rosette, 
Helix, NGC 6888 in Cyg, etc.  While some objects can be seen in both filters
(or without a filter for that matter), some exhibit a marked improvement
with one filter over the other.

>What are the best filters for the budget concious that would allow me to see
>the most for the buck?

If you have access to DEEP SKY magazine there was an evuation done on
filters one or two years ago.  They compared filters from Orion, Lumicon,
and several others, including nebula filters, comet filters, and deep sky
filters.  It discusses the best filter for each job and addresses compromises
that must be made.  My advice?  Don't compromise!  Get the best filter for
your favorite type of object.  In a couple years when you've scrounged up
another $100, get another filter suited for its intended target group, and
so on.
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: jmcvey@boi.hp.com ( John McVey         x3638 )
Subject: Re: Naked Eye Sunspot
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:53:14 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1scd1 PL4

I went home at lunch (8/19) and used my Thousand Oaks type 2
with the naked eye.  Yep, its there.  Will use my 2080LX3
after work.

I think a post like this is okay since I would have guessed
the disk was devoid of any really good spots and wouldn't
have looked.

John McVey
jmcvey@hpbslq.boi.hp.com
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
Subject: Re: Standard model of QSOsex
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 05:29:10 GMT


wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) writes:

> Hmmm, it's not clear to me that two stars of different (but "high") masses
> are going to even orbit elliptically.  I have no idea how Tom claims the
> gravitational masses change with "amount of matter" (== inertial mass, I
> hope!), but I just tried a simple formula: gravitational mass = inertial
> mass ^ 0.9, and modified my old  NBody simulator, and the orbits of two
> masses was NOT elliptical, not by a long shot.  It's not even clear if the
> orbits would be closed.  (I didn't run it long enough, but it was a weird
> enough orbit that I'm pretty sure they'd either spiral in or get tossed
> away... unless of course there's an equilibrium reached somewhere.)  A lot
> more detail formulae and analysis would be necessary.  So I don't think
> ANYTHING can be said about binary star orbits and masses until we know alot
> more about Tom's mass claims.

     Hmmm, something isn't communicating here.  The dynamics of a star's
motion are independent of its own mass, gravitational or inertial.  So the
orbits shouldn't have changed at all.  But even if you forced the inertial
mass to affect the dynamics, the result should be just like scaling or
changing the gravitational constant.  Only circular, elliptical, parabolic,
and hyperbolic orbits can still occur in a two-body problem.

     But you are right that the details of the effect are very important.  It
depends upon the mean free path of C-gravitons through an active
gravitational mass.  For example, the Earth might block a small portion of
the Sun's gravity effect every night.  The easiest place to detect such an
effect might be in the Lageos satellites, which do show anomalous motions for
which no fully satisfactory explanation yet exists.  -|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: gliba@scivax.stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Perseids
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:21:12 GMT


Perseids - August 11/12 1992


  Although I was plagued by an 80% cloudy sky, I watched for Perseids
anyway and was rewarded with some very bright meteors. Between 4:03 am
and 5:03 am EDT I saw six meteors, five of which were Perseids. One was
-3 magnitude, another -2, one -1, and two 1st magnitude! Four of the five
left persistent trains; and the train for the -3 Perseid shone through
the clouds!




G.W. Gliba - 'I would rather see starlight than streetlights'




Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: the moon
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:43:51 GMT

In article <25636@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes...
>In article <16rfo0INNi4n@smaug.West.Sun.COM>, Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews) writes...
>> 
>>The tidal force of the moon stretches the earth into an oblong shape.  The
>>rotation of the earth carries those bulges to the east faster than the
>>earth can take on a new shape.  The oblong earth thus points a bit to
>>the east of the moon.  The bulge closest to the moon has the strongest
>>pull, so it provides a slight eastward pull on the moon.  As the moon
>>orbits west-to-east, this accelerates the moon and pulls it into a higher
>>orbit.  The opposite force of the moon pulling on that bulge towards the
>>west slows down the earth's rotation by a corresponding amount.
> 
>So what would happen if the Earth happened to rotate in the other direction?  
>Your argument seems to suggest that the moon would deccelerate, move closer
>to the earth and violate conservation of angular momentum.

No, the same argument holds.  If the earth rotated the other way the total
angular momentum would be that of the moon in its orbit MINUS that of the
rotation of the earth.  If tides caused the moon to slow down in its orbit,
it would lose angular momentum to the earth.  But because the angular momentum
of the earth is NEGATIVE in this system the "gain" decreases the absolute
value of the rotation of the earth, so it slows down.  Perhaps if you let
such a system "run" for long enough, the Earth might actually "stop" rotating,
or even reverse its direction as it moves closer to the steady state of
the Earth and moon locked face-to-face.

-Mike
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: eskin@btree.uucp (Michael Eskin)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 15:51:31 GMT
Organization: Brooktree Corporation
Subject: Clave Paris Eyepieces?
Distribution: na

I recently acquired a set of eyepieces labeled "Clave Paris". I've never
heard of this brand. They are at least 5 years old. Does anyone know
anything about this brand? The image quality looks good...

Just curious...

-- 

Michael Eskin                                   Voice: (619) 535-3476
Brooktree Corporation                            UUCP: ...!ucsd!btree!eskin
9950 Barnes Canyon Rd                             CIS: 76376,541
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Trivial questions about the Big Bang
Date: 13 Aug 92 03:02:45 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

cflatter@nrao.edu (Chris Flatters) writes:

>In article 202351@uctvax.uct.ac.za, ashric01@uctvax.uct.ac.za () writes:
>>The COBE data for the 3K radiation has to be corrected for the earth/sun/etc
>>motion through space. (ie Doppler shift has to be 'removed')  This conflicts
>>with may understanding of the special theory of relativity. (ie there is no
>>absolute rest frame)  The 3K radiation seems to form an absolute rest frame 
>>for the universe?  Is this a problem ?  If not, why not?

>The special theory of relativity does not state that there is no
>absolute reference frame; nor for that matter does it state that there
>is.  The special theory of relativity states that the speed of light
>appears the same to any observer in an unaccelerated reference frame.
>This has the consequence that two observers in different unaccelerated
>reference frames can not see any differences between them by carrying out
>physical experiments in their own frames and comparing results.

>The observers can, however, determine the relative velocities of their
>reference frames by observing experiments.  In our case we can measure
>the red shift of the 3K background over different parts of the sky and
>determine out velocity with respect to the reference frame in which the
>centre of mass of the universe is at rest.  This does not conflict with
>special (or general) relativity.  There is nothing special about the
>centre of mass of the universe with regards to relativity.

What is the "center of mass of the universe" and how would one go about
finding it or measuring anything relative to it?

By measuring the variations in the CBR, we can determine our motion relative
to the Hubble flow, but the concept of a center of mass for the universe
is new to me.  Can someone explain?

keith
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
Subject: Re: Standard model of QSOsex
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 05:27:30 GMT


njzy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (T. Joseph Lazio, Cornell University) writes:

> I infer that [Tom] disagrees with the notion that gravitational and
> inertial masses are equal [in his Meta Model].  I would also infer that the
> inertial mass is larger.  Hence, in the Meta model, stellar masses which
> are derived from binary star orbits are underestimates of the inertial
> mass.
>
> However, galactic rotation curves, derived from stellar velocity dispersion
> measurements, are estimates of the inertial mass.  These rotation curves
> measure the velocity of the stars as they respond to an external force,
> namely the gravitational potential produced by the other stars.

     You have a confusion here in the distinction between types of masses. In
dynamics, *all* effective masses are active gravitational masses only.
Inertial masses of stars do not affect their velocities in the gravitational
potential.  To see this, recall that the acceleration of a body in response
to a gravitational force is independent of its own mass.  [Lead and aluminum
balls drop at the same rate.]

     In more technical language, let m(i) be inertial mass [response to
collisions], m(p) be passive gravitational mass [weight], and m(a) be active
gravitational mass [pull on other bodies].  Then consider the acceleration,
A, of a small mass, m, in the field of a larger mass, M, at a distance r:

     m(i) A = G m(p) M(a) / r^2,

where G = gravitational constant.  Experiments place only mild constraints on
the relationship between active gravitational masses and either of the other
two types.  However Eotvos-type experiments have shown the equality of
passive gravitational masses and inertial masses to more than 10 significant
figures.  So m(i) and m(p) in the above equation cancel, leaving the
acceleration A dependent upon the active gravitational mass in the system
only.

> is this the explanation of dark matter in the Meta model?  Dark matter is
> nothing more than the difference between the gravitational and inertial
> masses of stars?

     No, for the aforementioned reasons.  The explanation of "dark matter" in
the Meta Model is that gravitational forces are inverse square for a finite
range (2 kpc), after which mutual collisions between C-gravitons dilute the
force and change its character.  This is what keeps rotational velocities in
galaxies high.  There is no need for dark matter.

> It is still not clear how extra interior matter increases stability.  The
> stability of a star depends upon its surface gravitational field.

     Since the extra matter lowers the gravity, temperature, and pressure at
the surface, it increases stability and lifetime.  -|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: pbrown@uwovax.uwo.ca
Subject: PERSEIDS OVER C.I.S.
Organization: University of Western Ont, London
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:57:37 GMT

PERSEID STORM IN EASTERN EUROPE...

Data from Hungarian meteor observers and several radio amateurs in the USA
and Finland have revealed the strong possiblity that the expected strong 
return of the Perseids in 1992 *did* take place. The observations in question
suggest 19-20 UT on Aug 11/12 as the time the outburst occurred. This is 
several hours earlier than predicted since the predicition was based on
the assumption that the activity which took place over Japan in 1991 would
recur again at the same position in the Earth's orbit, namely at 138.86 
(1950.0). As was pointed out by Marsden if the the shower recurred at 
precisely the node of P/Swift-Tuttle the storm would occur several
hours before the 22-23 UT Aug 11/12 shortly after 19 UT, as seems to have
happened. This is **very** strong evidence to suggest that P/Swift-Tuttle is
very nearby and searches for the comet should certainly go into high gear.
This outburst occurred at 138.74 (1950.0) and if it recurs again within
a few tenths of degrees of this position then we can expect a nice meteor
shower in 1993 on Aug 12 at about 1-2 UT. This means North America might
catch some of the activity early in the evening and the moon will be only
4 days from new!! 
Since many details are still missing it is *imperative* that observers either
radio or visual who have data in the interval 18-20 UT report it as soon as
possible so a complete picture of what happened can be constructed.
Further details can be found on IAUC 5586.

*****************************************************************************
Peter Brown   peter@canlon.physics.uwo.ca
North American Section - International Meteor Organization (IMO)
*****************************************************************************
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: A super-blue branch of super-massive stars?
Date: 22 Aug 92 21:15:38 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <BtEE53.586@well.sf.ca.us> metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van
Flandern) writes: 
#     Greg, the idea that some supermassive stars will be UV bright was
#brought up in connection with the discussion of the B-O galaxies.  It is not
#a requirement for the progenitors of all, or even most, quasars.

If you can tell me how many of these supermassive stars there are, and
what they look like, I can look for them in the UIT data. M87 doesn't
ahve them. M31 doesn't ahve them. M82 doesn't have them. See the Aug
10 issue of Ap J Lett for the papers on the first two, and the one on
M82 should be submitted within the month.

Given exact predictions, these are easily testable.


--
-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: the moon
From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Date: 21 Aug 92 10:09:26 EST
 <1992Aug17.144110.9725@mcc.com> <25636@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <20AUG199216314609@msr.triumf.ca>
Distribution: na
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <20AUG199216314609@msr.triumf.ca>, asnd@msr.triumf.ca (Donald Arseneau) writes:
> In article <25636@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa3.lbl.gov writes...
>>In article <16rfo0INNi4n@smaug.West.Sun.COM>,  (Richard M. Mathews) writes...
>>> 

[angular momentum stuff deleted]

>> 
>>So what would happen if the Earth happened to rotate in the other direction?  
>>[Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM's] argument seems to suggest that the moon 
>>would deccelerate, move closer
>>to the earth and violate conservation of angular momentum.
>> 
>>-Scott
>> 
> 
> Of course not!  Angular momentum is a VECTOR.  So if a moon orbits opposite 
> to the planet's rotation, the MAGNITUDE of each angular momentum decreases,
> but the vector sum stays constant.
> 
> As the moon moves into a closer orbit, the tidal forces increase (inverse cube
> of distance?), rapidly increasing the deceleration until CRASH!
>                                                          ^^^^^

I've read somewhere (haven't done the calculations nor do I remember the
source) that tidal forces would break the moon up first and that the earth
would be left with a rocky ring.  It seems to me that the moon's orbit
would contain more angular momentum the the Earth's rotation.  Unfortunately
I'll have to repost with the numbers (can't find my calculator right now).

> Internet down, global vaporization.
> 
> Donald Arseneau      asnd@reg.triumf.ca
-- 

   Jim Batka  | Always remember ...                        | Buckaroo
   Modemman   |    No matter where you go, there you are!  |   Bonzai
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
              | Work Email:  BATKAJ@CCMAIL.DAYTON.SAIC.COM | Elvis is
              | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU      |   DEAD!
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
              | 64 years is 33,638,400 minutes ...         | Beatles:
              |    and a minute is a long time.            |   Yellow Submarine
From: ma@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Location of the Sun
Date: 13 Aug 92 09:45:57 MDT
Followup-To: sci.astro
Organization: Utah State University

In article <387@wavefront.wti.com>, jra@wti.com (Jim Atkinson) writes:
> I am looking for an algorithm for the location of the Sun.  (I know,
> it's right up there :-)).  I am doing some computer graphics simulation
> type work and want to be able to simulate sunlight given a location on
> the surface of the earth and a time/date.  If someone has such an
> algorithm on-line that they can send me or a pointer to a book that
> contains one I would really appreaciate the help.  Thanks.
> -- 
> ========================================================================
> Jim Atkinson		Wavefront Technologies, Inc.
> jra@wti.com		What, me?  A company spokesperson?  Get real!
> =================== Life is not a spectator sport! =====================

Once I read an article by C. T. Russell of UCLA about coordinate transforma-
tions. There was a short subroutine to calculate the position of the sun. 
I don't remember where it was published. I only remember that article was
written in early 70s. You may contact him to find the article.
Good luck.
Ma
From: ja@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: 13.1 Coulter Odessey experiences
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:47:10 -0500

Wow, it really sounds like you've had fun modifying that telescope.  I have one
question though, why didn't you build it from scratch?  You could have saved
hundreds of dollars since you've replaced almost all the components anyway.

I just completed my own small dob and had a great time with it.  And I put the
right parts in the first time, rather than buy a cheap set only to replace them
with upgrades.

It's a great thrill to look at Saturn and think "I can see this because *I* put
this thing together.

I'll go now.....bye

John

I've just completed my small dobsonian and had alot of fun doing it.  With your