HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
Subject: Re: Meta-model, pubished ?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 06:22:40 GMT


jarleb@athena.uio.no (Jarle Brinchmann) writes:

> I just wondered if The MetaModel, or parts of the ideas have been
> published, and if so, can anyone provide me with some pointers to the
> literature...

     The first publication of the Meta Model will be in book form around the
end of this year.  I will announce specifics such as title, publisher, and
date of publication as soon as the manuscript is far enough along to allow an
accurate forecast of its appearance date.

> the discussion introduces, at least me as an beginning graduate, to lots of
> issues concerning the Standard Model.

     I am pleased to hear that.  Whether or not my own model has any
scientific merit, no graduate student should earn his degree and commence
independent work in the field without a realization that the entire standard
model in cosmology, right from the most basic idea in it of an expanding
universe, might fail altogether within the span of his career, to be replaced
by something quite different.  Sadly, too many commence their careers with a
belief that the basic Big Bang is fact, with only the details to be filled
in.

     A scientifically healthier perspective would lead to the following
policies:
     (1) Don't overinvest in any one model.
     (2) Keep all viable models on the scientific table for discussion and
          comparison with observations.
     (3) Always try to falsify whatever models you can, including the
          standard model.
     (4) Stay impartial.

     My best wishes to you for success in school, and a long and productive
career.  -|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.
From: ron@mlfarm.com (Ronald Florence)
Subject: Re: Palomar Visits?
Organization: Maple Lawn Farm, Stonington, CT
	<1992Aug18.013900.24010@cscdec.cs.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:54:31 GMT

Jack Hudler writes:

   >The Oschin (48-inch Schmidt)
	^^^^^^
   It will always be a Schmidt Camera to me. An who the hell is this Oschin guy
   anyway, even some of the people who work at Palomar don't know.

The Oschins live in Southern California and were persuaded (charmed?)
by Jesse Greenstein and others to make a major contribution in support
of astrophysics at Caltech.  Among other things, their contribution
paid for some of the upgrade work on the 48-inch Schmidt, including
the new corrector plate.  In return, the telescope was named for them.
The name hasn't stuck any better than the formal names of the 200-inch
(The Hale Telescope) or the 60-inch (The Oscar Meyer Telescope).
-- 

				Ronald Florence
				ron@mlfarm.com
From: lips@bernina.ethz.ch (Emil Lips)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Calculating Planet Positions
Keywords: Calculation Error
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:14:25 GMT
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH

Help!

I+ve a problem with the book "Astronomie & Ordinateur" written by
Guy Serane (Paris, Dunod, 1987)

I am using the routines described in that book to calculate the
position of the planets. Now I have encountered a difference between
the results the program gives and the ephemerids provided by NASA
(which I belief to be more accurate). The error is below 1 degree
but bigger than 1/2 a degree over the range of the next 100 years.
I get the worst results for Pluto and Neptun, but Jupiter and Saturn
do also give errors in the range of 1/5 degree.

So if you have had the same problems with these routines or know of 
a more accurate one, I would be glad if you could drop me a note.
 
Yours Milo
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
Subject: BB, QSOs, grav. lenses, B-O galaxies, supermassive stars, etc.
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 06:24:13 GMT


     All these threads stemmed from the "Case against the Big Bang" thread in
late May.  It has been a most stimulating and enjoyable discussion, and I
personally thank all participants.  But to the extent that I need to hold up
my end of the discussion, it must be interupted at the end of this month,
because I will be on foreign travel for two weeks.  I would guess that my
last opportunity to respond to messages for a while would be on August 30. So
some of you may wish to consider discussion summaries for next week's
postings.

     Thanks again to everyone who participated.  It has been a tremendous
learning experience, and I hope not just for me.  -|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.
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Anthropic Principle?
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:50:58 GMT
Organization: University of Central Florida

All this talk of cosmology and theories that unambiguously
predict the current state of the universe has made me think
of the anthropic principle.

What do you netters think of the anthropic principle? (AP for short)
That is the idea that the universe is the way it is because
we are here to observe it.  If it were different we wouldn't
be here.

Some find the AP anathema.  Some find it tautology.  I think 
there is possibly something there, or maybe its a tautology :-)

--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Newsgroups: sci.astro


Gee, looks like mailorder prices.  And what guarantees do YOU give?


 _______________________________________
|                                       |
|  Bob Noble                            |
|  Hewlett-Packard                      |
|  Loveland Div.                        |
|  noble@hpsmpa.lvld.hp.com             |
|_______________________________________|

Newsgroups: sci.astro,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.shortwave
From: oler@rho.uleth.ca (Cary Oler)
Subject: Daily Solar Geophysical Data Broadcast for 20 August
Organization: University of Lethbridge
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:36:47 GMT

!!BEGIN!! (1.0) S.T.D. Solar Geophysical Data Broadcast for DAY 233, 08/20/92
10.7 FLUX=155.5  90-AVG=126        SSN=103      BKI=2533 2212  BAI=013
BGND-XRAY=B8.9     FLU1=5.1E+05  FLU10=1.1E+04  PKI=3645 3222  PAI=024
  BOU-DEV=018,112,038,039,017,014,008,010   DEV-AVG=032 NT     SWF=04:151
 XRAY-MAX= M4.0   @ 1437UT    XRAY-MIN= B7.2   @ 0048UT   XRAY-AVG= C4.5
NEUTN-MAX= +004%  @ 1415UT   NEUTN-MIN= -002%  @ 2150UT  NEUTN-AVG= +0.4%
  PCA-MAX= +0.6DB @ 1450UT     PCA-MIN= -2.1DB @ 1800UT    PCA-AVG= -0.1DB
BOUTF-MAX=55266NT @ 0524UT   BOUTF-MIN=55215NT @ 1731UT  BOUTF-AVG=55246NT
GOES7-MAX=E:+141NT@ 0944UT   GOES7-MIN=N:-012NT@ 0516UT  G7-AVG=+080,+058,+011
GOES6-MAX=P:+127NT@ 0019UT   GOES6-MIN=E:-015NT@ 1131UT  G6-AVG=+088,+006,+043
 FLUXFCST=STD:150,150,145;SESC:150,145,130 BAI/PAI-FCST=015,010,010/015,015,015
    KFCST=3334 5322 2224 5222  27DAY-AP=011,012   27DAY-KP=3223 3333 3222 3432
 WARNINGS=*MAJFLR;*SWF;*PROTON;*PCA
   ALERTS=**MINFLR:M2.9/1B@0921;**MINFLR:M4.0/1B@1437;**MINFLR:M1.9/1B@1730;
          **TENFLR:240SFU@1748,DUR=7MIN;**MINFLR:M3.0/1B@2046;
          **SWEEP:IV=1@0445UTC
!!END-DATA!!
From: jeffp@netcom.com (Jeff Papineau)
Subject: Re: Comment: First Gazing; Query: Eyepieces
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 05:58:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Keywords: eyepieces, eyerelief, kids

In article <1992Aug19.000554.16629@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> jfbn@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (james.f.burnell) writes:
>In article <bic.714070738@piglet.mmwb.ucsf.edu>, bic@piglet.mmwb.ucsf.edu (Bruce Cohen) writes:
>> Question:
>> 
>the 32mm Plossl, since it is limited by the 1.25" eyepiece barrel. The 32mm
>Plossl has greater magnification for the same field, and plenty of eye relief.
>A good combination would be the 32mm, the 17mm and the 10.5mm. I really don't
				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	I don't understand why the 17 would be any better than the 
32mm and a barlow. whould the barlow decress the field of view a great
deal compared to this combination?

>find much use for a Barlow, I have the TeleVue 1.8x, and its pretty good as
>Barlows go, but I never use it. Once you use the TeleVue Plossls, you probably
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am not an astronamer, don't even have a scope and hope to change that
this week... but the book I'm reading says that the barlow will effectively
double the focal length of the scope, thus increasing the eye relief
for any given eyepiece. If one buys the barlow, the eye relief is better
on the 17mm combination, you can use the 10.5 as a 6.5, and have better
relief than with true 6mm. so I wonder why you never use your barlow?

You would effectively get 4 eyepiece combinations of power for the
price of 2 eyepieces.

Jeff-
 
>will never use the Celestron Ortho again, as you will find the Plossls much
>sharper, with a wider apparent field. (Gee, its starting to get warm in here
>already, better get out my asbestos long johns, I feel a flame coming :-) )
>    A friend of mine bought the Vixen Lanthanum 2.5mm eyepiece. Its OK, and
>does offer impressive eye relief for such a short focal length. Its pretty rare
>around here, though, that the atmosphere supports the use of a 2.5mm eyepiece.
>The rest of the Vixen eyepiece series has more useable focal lengths, but they
>end up costing much more that the TeleVue eyepieces, especially with this sale
>going on.
>    Excessive eye relief, if not needed to allow a highly astigmatic observer
>to wear eyeglasses while observing, can actually make it difficult for a less
>experienced observer to properly position his eye relative to the eyepiece.
>Why don't you see how your wife does using the 25mm Ortho, before you optimize
>your eyepiece collection around eye relief. My guess is that unless her astig-
>matism is pretty severe, she won't need to wear her glasses to observe.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|	Jim Burnell		|	The opinions expressed here are my    |
>|	AT&T Bell Labs		|	own and due not reflect those of      |
>|	Whippany, NJ		|	my employer.                          |
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: avlsidwb@sn644.uca (David W. Bishop)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: weather maps
Date: 20 Aug 92 12:31:57 GMT
Reply-To: avlsidwb@sn644.uca
Organization: General Electric

In article 11568@mlfarm.com, ron@mlfarm.com (Ronald Florence) writes:
>We used to get weather maps from an Accu-Weather account.  We've now
>lost access to that account, and I'm wondering if there is a site with
>up-to-date maps available via anonymous uucp or ftp.  Any graphics
>format is fine.  Thanks.

ftp vmd.cso.uiuc.com
Account: anonymous
cd wx
binary
get cvMMDDYYHH.gif (you want the one with the most recent date,
                     Weather satellite picture)
get saMMDDYYHH.gif (again, most recent date, national weather map)
bye

This showed up on alt.internet.services a few weeks ago.  Perhaps add this to FAQ?
---
                            David Bishop

INTERNET: avlsidwb@sn370.utica.ge.com   | The opinions voiced are mine and
US MAIL:  RR2 Box 183A, Rome NY  13440  | not my company's.
PHYSICAL: 43.150N 75.414E 650'          |
From: ashric01@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Trivial questions about the Big Bang
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:53:34 +0200
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1992Aug11.182222.649011@locus.com>, hayim@locus.com (Hayim Hendeles) writes:
> I have 2 elementary questions about the Big Bang that I am hoping one
> of you net scholars out there can answer for me.
> 
> 1) According to conventional theory, the Big Bang was a single event
> that happened x years ago. Being that the case, how is it possible
> to have younger and older stars? I would have thought that all
> the stars would have to be around the same age. Certainly all
> stars in the same "neighborhood" would have to be the same age.
> 
> 2) It would seem to me that there would have to have been a 
> significant probability of absolute chaos resulting from the Big Bang
> rather than the orderly Universe in which we live. (As we observe
> with most explosions - absolute chaos results.) So my question is,
> are there any estimates as to the probability of an orderly Universe
> (not necessarily ours) resulting due to the Big Bang vs total chaos?
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to address this trivia.
> 
> Hayim Hendeles

Sorry, this is not an answer, but another question.
It may be trivial, but I have yet to here a satisfactory answer to it.
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?

Richard Ashley  (U.C.T.)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: jfaubert@fraser.sfu.ca (Jean-Paul Faubert)
Subject: the moon
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 09:40:59 GMT

I was listening to Quirks and Quarks today on the CBC while driving
down to Seattle today and they had a spot on dinosaurs.  They were
discussing the differences between the Mesozoic world and the present
world, and they (whoever the scientist was) stated that the moon was
much closer to the earth at that time and so would have appeared much
larger in the sky.  My question, for someone out there who could
take the time to answer it, is, how is this possible?  Isn't gravity a
constant no matter whether now or then?  Is the solar system actually
expanding and, if so, are we all at some point going to end up on some
frozen ice ball?  This question probably seems pretty pedestrian, but
hey, I'm an arts student with a science problem so please don't flame
me.  You can reply to this via email or you can annoy everyone and
post it here.
Thanks for your time in advance,
Jean-Paul
From: ssouth@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Steve South)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Re^2: Cleaning Eyepieces
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:26:42 GMT
Organization: HP Scientific Instruments Division - Palo Alto, CA

Be careful when using solvents like acetone. Make sure the solvent does not
touch *you* before touching the lens. Acetone, for instance, will remove all
the oils from your skin prior to depositing them on your lens - just what you
wanted....

Steve South.
From: sstrazdu@hopi.intel.com (Stephen Strazdus)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Fossil Paradox (was: Structure of Time)
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:25:40 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp, Chandler, AZ

In article <75960056@hpldsla.sid.hp.com> tonya@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Tony Arnerich) writes:
>hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:
>
>   > Suppose we could build a "device" by which we could travel in time.
>
>A time machine will *never* be built by our civilization. My proof of
>this is that the stock market, horse racing, and gambling casinos have
>not been drained dry by time travelers.
>
>This is the World's Most Elegant Proof.   :-)

This doesn't prove anything.  My Peta Theory proves that the units of
currency in the future are single socks, ancient car keys, and checks
sent through the U.S. mail.  Time travel is illegal because people would
use it to return to the 20th century and gain "counterfeit" wealth, thus
destroying the economy of the future.

Unfortunately enforcement of this law is lax because future
intergalactic police officers are more concerned with using nutrino
radar to detect spaceships exceeding the universal speed limit of
300,000 km/s.  They use nutrino radar because it is virtually undectable
by the Tachyon 2000 radar detector.  Then end result is that we have
plenty of poachers from the future stealing all the socks, keys, and
checks which they believe we are keeping for retirement.

I'd post the details of my theory, but unfortunately a publisher/poacher
from the future stole the manuscript, mistaking it for a check.  He then
copyrighted it in the future, and later ransomed the manuscript back to
me for 3 socks, my footlocker key and a balony sandwich (people from the
future have to eat too).  But apparently in the future they are able to
apply a chemical to original manuscripts which have the effect of making
all copies seem like incomprehensible jibberish, so I won't bother to
post the details of my theory.

--
Steve Strazdus    sstrazdu@sedona.intel.com
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: Fossil Paradox (was: Structure of Time)
Followup-To: nowhere, until you think about it
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 03:42:38 GMT

> I bet that quite a few historians would be willing to [time travel] for
> a while.  It might even become a requirement for a PhD in history!   
> 
> And think of the tourism possibilities.  People in the developed nations 
> today are willing to get inoculations and journey off to far away places - 
> why not people in the future?

On both of which topics, see Robert Silverberg's novel "Up the Line".
(Any followups go to the appropriate rec.arts.sf.* newsgroup, please.)
-- 
Mark Brader		     "It is always dangerous to send authors to jail.
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto	      This removes their chief excuse for not writing."
utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com				-- Arthur C. Clarke

This article is in the public domain.
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: asnd@msr.triumf.ca (Donald Arseneau)
Subject: Re: the moon
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:31:00 GMT

In article <25636@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa3.lbl.gov writes...
>In article <16rfo0INNi4n@smaug.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?  
>[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!

Internet down, global vaporization.

Donald Arseneau      asnd@reg.triumf.ca
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: benge@sol.acs.unt.edu (Benge Raymond Doyle)
Subject: Re: Cleaning Eyepieces
Organization: University of North Texas
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:48:43 GMT

mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald) writes:


>I use Kleenex and pure ethyl or isopropyl alcohol. Q-tips are best
>wrapped in Kleenex.

Kleenex often has small solid chips in it.  It isn't really made for
optical work.  We use cotton balls or cotton batting.  This seems to 
work really well.  Of course, Kleenex is MUCH better than the cheaper
generic tissues.

		Ray Benge

Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: fischer@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Phil Fischer)
Subject: Re: A super-blue branch of super-massive stars?
Organization: Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, McMaster University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:30:37 GMT

In article <BsunDq.JKM@well.sf.ca.us> metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) writes:
>
>Earlier, I wrote:
>
>>> So what I think is going on is that we have two distinct branches of giant
>>> stars, red and blue.  These each have their natural extensions into the
>>> supermassive star domain.  The natural extension of the blue giant branch
>>> is into the ultraviolet, which would be not so easily observable through
>>> our atmosphere.
>
>and richmond@flipper (Stupendous Man) replied:
>
>> Tom, if your supermassive stars do radiate as blackbodies, or in a similar
>> fashion, then yes, really really hot stars (T > 100,000 K) will radiate
>> most of the energy in the UV, where we poor ground-based astronomers can't
>> see it.  HOWEVER, it is a property of blackbodies that, given two of the
>> same size but different temperature, the hotter will radiate more than the
>> cooler AT ALL WAVELENGTHS.  Therefore, such a supermassive blue star would
>> be brighter than a "normally" massive blue star in the visible, as well as
>> in the UV.  ...   Although you CAN make most of the energy of a star
>> "disappear" into the UV by making it very hot, you CAN'T make the star
>> appear on bit less bright than a less-massive star.

>
>     I agree with all you say above, but don't see how it alters the argument
>I was making.  Perhaps the fault was that my argument was not clear.
>
>     If far away galaxies are redshifted so that we see more of what is
>normally ultraviolet light, they will look relatively blue to us.  As such a
>galaxy gets closer, part of its blue radiation disappears into the UV, while
>all of its red branch stars remain fully visible.  The net result is that the
>galaxy looks yellower when nearby than when it was distant.
>
>     As far as I can see, that argument remains unchallenged by the valid
>points you raise.  -|Tom|-
>

Actually, Tom, your point was that we would not be able to see supermassive
stars even if they were close by because they emit in the UV which would be
difficult to see through the atmosphere (just reread the bit I included from
your original post). For some reason you are now choosing to talk about
galaxies. In any case, now that this point has been refuted, how do you
explain that we don't see supermassive stars nearby (i.e. in the galaxy, in
the LMC). That is, in an unredshifted sense. 

Phil

Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: andy@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Andy Michael USGS Guest)
Subject: Teflon needed
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:54:03 GMT

Does anyone know a good source of teflon for use in Dobsonian mounts?
I need to pick up a small amount in the near future (this week would be
best).  Any sort of teflon coated plastic would be ok, although the the
chair leg pads that were teflon instead of nylon would be best.
Thanks for any help,
Andy
Newsgroups: sci.astro