HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Standard model of QSOsex
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:56:49 GMT
Organization: University of Central Florida

In article <BtBLnn.IFv@well.sf.ca.us> metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)  
writes:
>      By application, if a model is derived from first principles having
> nothing to do with quasars or stellar evolution theory, as is the Meta Model;
> and if that model deductively and without free parameters requires in a
> compelling way that nearby stellar objects of high gravitational redshift
> must exist in place of where the standard model expects black holes; and if
> we then note that the universe actually contains objects of the predicted
> description called "quasars", one can say meaningfully that the Meta Model
> "predicts" quasars whereas the standard model does not.
> 
Can't resist a parting shot before your trip.

Does the Meta Model predict the existence of Tom Van Flandern and the
Meta Research Institute from first principles deductively and without 
free parameters?
:-)
--
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
From: evm@opo.vanc.wa.us
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Old Novae Positions
Date: 19 Aug 92 00:57:38 GMT
Organization: OuterPlane Observatory, Vancouver, Wa

Greetings,

	I've started the prep work on an old novae recovery project. This 
involves deep CCD images in the U and B bandpasses of widefields near the best 
known positions of old novae. That is to say novae of questionable positions.
And most likely from pretelescopic times.

	Any old novae found in the field could (should) show a U-B execess and 
thus lead to more through study

	Now we come to how you can help oh gentle reader. Send me your last 
known position data of any old novae you may have access to. Send them by 
e-mail, by referience or by real mail.

	Having more than one position for each old novae will be of great help 
in limiting the field of search.

	As a service to you I expect to publish the entire list of suspected 
old novae positions. (This means I need more than zero position leads form the 
net) I have a number of suspected positions from my library search to start 
with.

Thanks, Ethan
 
........	........	........	........	........
Ethan VanMatre		206-254-2310 H		206-693-1810 W	
OPO Observatory		17104 ne 35th Cir	Vancouver, Wa 98682
evm@opo.vanc.wa.us	PHOTOELECTRIC PHOTOMETRY
........	........	........	........	........
From: rushford@novax.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Laser Guide Star Planning meeting.
Date: 16 Aug 92 19:01:07 GMT

You are invited to a Laser guide star observation planning meeting.

Friday 8/21/92 @ 1890 So. Livermore, Livermore CA.

We will share our results and try to devise a program which we as a group
can perform. Bring your equipment so we can help you see the star.

Durring the event we have radio contact between LLNL and this sight. The local
radio club also provided ATV. If all goes as well as last time you can see our 
video using a cable ready tv. You need a vertically polorized antena pointed
at MT. Diablo and must tune your set to Cable channel 57.
 The radio communication was able to tell us when the lase quide star is
 blinking. Only then could we be shure we were observing the star.

We need someone with an integrating CCD camera. If you can borrow one please
let us know so we could try to connect it to ATV....

WE can just see the star as a 6th mag .5 degree line. We observe 4.4 KM from
the LLNL launch sight using an intensified CCD @ prime focus on a C8.
 The camera was intended for blue light, so its not optimum. We may try to put
it on a 16 inch scope, but its FL is too long....
We could use a 12 inch F# 3 to better fill the CCD. Please let us know if
you could come by and use it with us.. or if you know where we can borrow one.

The next Laser Guide Star event is currently schedualed for 8/26-28/92 between
12:01 and 4:00 AM

-- 
Michael C. rushford@novax.llnl.gov or

michae1222@aol.com

 510 423 2037
From: bwr@cam.nist.gov (Bert_Rust_x3811)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Quasars: near versus far
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:33:50 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD

Ronald Florence writes:
|> 
|> An ironic story, this ... Einstein was indeed aware that GR requires
|> expansion/contraction.  The notion so troubled him (Newtonian at heart
|> that he was!) that he introduced the cosmological factor, lamda, which
|> even he admitted served no purpose except to make the equations work
|> without expansion/contraction.  It wasn't until the 1930s, when
|> Richard Tolman was already working on a cosmology based on Hubble's
|> and Humason's observations, that Einstein admitted, initially in a
|> letter to Millikan, who had been his host at Caltech, that `perhaps'
|> the cosmological factor wasn't needed after all.
|> 
Years ago, when I took GR from the late G.C. McVittie, he went to great
pains to point out that the cosmological constant is not just an extra term
tacked on by Einstein to preserve a static universe.  It actually arises quite
naturally from the theory as an integration constant -- the kind you always
have to tack on when you do an indefinite integral like
                           _
                          /
                         |  2         1   3
                         | X  dx  =  --- x   +  C  ,
                       _/             3

and whose value is determined by initial conditions or boundary conditions.
Nobody really knows for sure what its value should be.  Einstein adjusted its 
value to give a static universe, but most people working these days on GR
cosmologies assume that its value is zero, though some of the Big Bangers are
again contemplating non-zero values to alleviate some of their difficulties 
with observations.

I'm sorry I can't give you any more details right now.  If you're interested
in pursuing it further, look in McVittie's classic text (Univ. of Illinois
Press, 196?).

Bert W. Rust
Appl. and Comp. Math. Div.
NIST
bwr@cam.nist.gov

Keywords: 
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
Subject: Re: grav lensing
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Distribution: na,sci
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 16:34:51 GMT


annis@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (James Annis) writes:

> The s-l-0 in-plane model uses Palmer's Second Argument:
> "You can also see it by recognizing that gravity is a central force, and so
>  the image, the source, the mass, and the observer must all lie in the same
>  plane (by symmetry and angular momentum considerations)."
> attributed to palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David Palmer)
>
> But that is all we know about Palmer's Second Argument.  If we are to
> compare Palmer's Second Argument with Fermat's Principle, we need a
> description of it, at least. What are these considerations that we must
> consider? And how do they apply to the number of images in a gravitational
> lens?

     If the lens is symmetrical with respect to an observer, then any ray
passing through it must be bent exactly toward (convex) or away from
(concave) the axis of symmetry of the lens.  This places the source, image,
observer, and center of symmetry of the lens in a common plane.

     Single-galaxy lenses ought to be sufficiently symmetrical to qualify in
this respect at any orientation.  -|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: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: Re: Naked Eye Sunspot
Organization: None
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:50:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.074851.22@nsrvan.vanc.wa.us> sysevm@nsrvan.vanc.wa.us writes:
>In article <Bt8Is0.46z@cs.dal.ca>, andromed@cs.dal.ca (Mike Boschat) writes:
>> In article <roelle.714229885@uars_mag>, roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
>> |> Last night (Tue 18 Aug) I was tooling around the yard on the lawn mower
>> |> and recalled reading a post about a naked eye sunspot group (although I
>> |> do not recall the author's name).  The sun was low in the West, visible
>> |> through an increasingly thickening haze.  The sunspot in question was
>> |> quite obvious on the right hand half (Northern hemisphere), about 1/2
>> |> way between the center and right limb.  
>>   an unimportant observation...nothing new about it..as others would say to
>> me..so I say...
>> 
>> 						Mike                    
>	Don't be a sore looser Mike (spoken friend to friend)
>	This observation is of a rare and unusual type.
>	Actually, now when I'm asked can sun spots be seen with the unaided
>eye I can say YES I got a report from someone who did it. Also I've wondered
>if I could see one through the morning fog. Now I'll try it. And lastly,
>this observation confirms the notion that pre-optical aid astronomers could
>have noted sunspots and will give the archeo-astronomers more clues as to the
>suns activity based on the writings of the greeks, chinese and the rest.
>
>Best of wishes, Ethan

I have seen sunspots with the naked-eye from time to time. The most
dramatic was under very good conditions: I was in a bus coming home,
the setting sun was near the local horizon and the bus had tinted
windows. I could see 5-8 sunspots, plain as day.

Other times I just take a quick glance up and can see sunspots if they
are real large - being careful to keep the glance *quick*.

Welders glass #14 is the best for viewing (except for the tint). It costs
perhaps $3 and I use that to see if any sunspots are out before I take out
my 8" telescope (with the Solar Skreen cover for solar viewing).

I'm going to try and take pictures of sunspots this weekend.

Regards,

Joe
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: sbartram@xzaphod.com (Scott Bartram)
Subject: looking for experience with Coulter focuser replacement
Organization: XZaphod in Rockville, MD
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:49:31 GMT

I'm thinking about replacing the focuser on my Coulter/8.
Does anyone have any experiences to share?

thanks,

scottb
-- 
=======================================================================
Scott Bartram                     |        SEE YOUR .SIG HERE
uunet!xzaphod!scottb              |         1-800-GET-RICH
From: randolph@est.enet.dec.com (Tom Randolph)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Polynomials for delta-T, 1620-1992
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:37:00 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


I've calculated some polynomials for delta_T from Astronomical Almanac data,
1620 to 1992, using a software package we have here. Jean Meeus gives no easy
way of getting delta_T, the difference between UT and Dynamical Time, in
either of his books, so I came up with my own...

T is calculated from J2000.0, in Meeus' usual way,
i.e. (JD - 2451545.0) / 36525.

The 5th and 7th order curves aren't too bad, and don't go crazy after 1992. The
rest of them either shoot through the roof or the floor by 2000.

This technique probably shouldn't be used in any extremely high-precision
calculation. Statistics on the 5th order curve:   min error -9.66 seconds
                                                  mean      -0.63
                                                  max       10.94
                                                  std dev    3.98

  0       1       2       3       4       5       6       7
=============================================================
57.88    63.32    17.60
49.21    38.79     2.09   -2.67
89.75   218.37   201.64   76.34   10.18
61.83    45.32   -89.11 -118.01  -45.64  -5.75
52.18   -32.54  -270.10 -296.32 -130.06 -24.76  -1.63
59.18    37.34   -58.32  -12.21   64.76  46.38  11.53   0.97

Typical use, 3rd order:  delta_T = 49.21 + 38.79*T + 2.09*T^2 - 2.67*T^3
                         (results in seconds)

-Tom R.   randolph@est.enet.dec.com
From: j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de (Jost Jahn)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Sunspots at 22.08.1992.
Date: 22 Aug 92 17:40:05 GMT
Reply-To: j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de
Distribution: sci
Organization: ABBS AstroMail, D-W 2121 Dahlenburg / Germany
X-Version: ZerUU V6.45c

Sunspots at 22.08.1992., 0 h UT.

No.    Pos.  Cl.  Ar.  Mag. SF  F  M  X
---------------------------------------
7260 16N 51W Ekc 1360   gd  16     3
7264 17N 07W Bxo   10   b
7265 18S 39E Hsx   50   a


Optical and x-ray flares in 21.08.92.

Date     Beg. Max. End   Posit. Xray Opt
----------------------------------------
21.08.92 0013 0018 0032 18N 34W M1.3 1B
21.08.92 1056 1110 1131 14N 40W M1.0 1F
21.08.92 1153 1200 1225 16N 43W M1.9 1N


 
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de (Jost Jahn)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Sunspots at 16.08.1992.
Date: 17 Aug 92 11:49:40 GMT
Reply-To: j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de
Distribution: sci
Organization: ABBS AstroMail, D-W 2121 Dahlenburg / Germany
X-Version: ZerUU V6.45c

Sunspots at 16.08.1992., 0 h UT.

No.    Pos.  Cl.  Ar.  Mag. SF  F  M  X
---------------------------------------
7256 15S 27W Hsx   30   a
7260 16N 29E Eki  820   b    4
7261 24S 22W Cro   30   b    3
7262 17N 31W Bxo   10   b    2
7263 16N 20W Bxo   10   b
7264 14N 69E Cso   40   b


No optical or x-ray flares yesterday observed.


 
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: pvtmakela@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI (M{kel{ Veikko)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Naked Eye Sunspot
Date: 21 Aug 92 06:48:04 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Aug20.074851.22@nsrvan.vanc.wa.us> 
sysevm@nsrvan.vanc.wa.us writes:

> This observation is of a rare and unusual type.
>
> Actually, now when I'm asked can sun spots be seen with the unaided
> eye I can say YES I got a report from someone who did it. Also I've 
> wondered if I could see one through the morning fog. Now I'll try it. And 
> lastly, this observation confirms the notion that pre-optical aid 
> astronomers could have noted sunspots and will give the archeo-astronomers 
> more clues as to the suns activity based on the writings of the greeks, 
> chinese and the rest.


    I should say that seeing a sunspot with naked is not so unusual
    or rare.  The reason why people don't see them, is probably that,
    there are not so often optimal weather condition eg. hazy sky at
    the horizon or so.  If you use some kind of filter, it is possible
    follow the number of naked-eye sunspots regularly.  They are quite
    usual in solar activity maximum.  You can see even several spots
    at the same time.

    The German solar observing group SONNE have an observing program
    especially for naked-eye spots.  By calculating mean of the number
    of naked-eye spots for every month and plotting these values into
    a curve, you can easily see the 11-year sunspot cycle.


						Veikko Makela,
						Computing Centre
						Univ. of Helsinki
						F I N L A N D
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: stone@cwis.unomaha.edu (Travis Stone)
Subject: Formulae for Solar Positions..Here Ya Go
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:49:33 GMT

Here are the formulae (from Meeus):

(i) Calculate the Julian Date "JD" for the desired date and
    hour of UT;

(ii) Calculate the time argument "T" from the expression

          T = (JD-2415020.0)/36525 ;

(iii) Calculate the Geometric Mean Longitude of the Sun "L"
      from the expression

      L = 279.69668 + 36000.76892*T + 0.0003025*T*T (in degrees)

      and reduce the result to the interval 0-360 deg.;

(iv) Calculate the Sun's Mean Anomaly "M" from the expression

     M = 358.47583 + 35999.04975*T - 0.000150*T*T - 0.0000033*T*T*T

     and reduce the result to the interval 0-360 deg.;

(v) Calculate the Eccentricity of the Sun's apparent "orbit" "e" from

            e = 0.01675104 - 0.0000418*T - 0.000000126*T*T ;

(vi) Calculate the Sun's Equation of Center "C" from the expression

     C = (1.919460 - 0.004789*T - 0.000014*T*T)*sin(M)
        +(0.020094 - 0.000100*T)*sin(2M)
        + 0.000293*sin(3M) ;

(vii) Calculate the Sun's True Longitude "STL" from the expression

               STL = L + C;

(viii) Calculate the Sun's True Anomaly "STA" from the expression

               STA = M + C;

(ix) Calculate the Sun's Radius Vector "R" from the expression

               R = 1.0000002*(1 - e*cos(E));

(x) Calculate the Obliquity of the Ecliptic "Obl" from the expression

               Obl = 23.452294 - 0.0130125*T - 0.00000164*T*T
                   + 0.000000503*T*T*T ;

(xi) The Right Ascension (in degrees) is calculated from

          tan(RA) = [cos(Obl)*sin(STL)]/cos(STL)

     making sure you get the angle (RA) in the correct quadrant
     from the signs of the numerator and denominator, and then
     converting to decimal hours by dividing by 15;

(xii) The Declination (in degrees) is calculated from

          sin(DEC) = sin(Obl)*sin(STL).

If the APPARENT position of the Sun is required, then correct "Obl"
by adding
                       + 0.00256*cos(Omega)

where Omega = 259.18 - 1934.142*T (in degrees) ---reducing to the
interval 0-360 deg. again.

I hope this helps.

T.R. Stone
University of Nebraska-Omaha
Xref: sparky sci.astro:9078 sci.space:12024 sci.space.shuttle:2131
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Hubble visible in evening sky
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:16:54 GMT
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.


Just a reminder that the Hubble Space Telecope is appearing in the evening
twilight for the next few weeks for northern hemisphere observers. For
those of us much further north thatn approx. 35 degrees, it will
be low on the horizon towards the south.

-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.
From: dwells@fits.cv.nrao.edu (Don Wells)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: B-O Effect (was Re: Proof of quasar non-locality?)
Date: 22 Aug 92 22:06:44 GMT
	<DWELLS.92Jul31224122@fits.cv.nrao.edu> <BsqH18.7Hy@well.sf.ca.us>
	<DWELLS.92Aug22001037@fits.cv.nrao.edu>
Organization: nrao

In article <DWELLS.92Aug22001037@fits.cv.nrao.edu>
dwells@fits.cv.nrao.edu (Don Wells) writes:
   ... In a prior posting, I
   described a spectrum of a B-O "blue" galaxy. The x-axis of that plot
   was wavelength *in the rest frame*, i.e. it does not suffer from this
   technical problem...

Minor correction: 

The x-axis of the two figures on p.247 of the book "Towards
Understanding Galaxies at Large Redshift" is *observed* nanometers.
However, the restframe wavelengths of the galaxy spectral features are
marked in the figures, which is what I had remembered. The shortest
observed wavelength is ~450nm, which is 320nm in the restframe for
z=0.4, observable from the ground in nearby galaxies.  The assertions
which I made based on this figure stand.
--

Donald C. Wells             Associate Scientist        dwells@nrao.edu
National Radio Astronomy Observatory                   +1-804-296-0277
520 Edgemont Road                                 Fax= +1-804-296-0278
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-2475 USA            78:31.1W, 38:02.2N
From: foltz@as.arizona.edu (Craig B. Foltz)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Naked Eye Sunspot
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:24:38 GMT
Reply-To: foltz@as.arizona.edu
Organization: MMT Observatory, Univ.of Arizona

In article 46z@cs.dal.ca, andromed@cs.dal.ca (Mike Boschat) writes:
>
>  an unimportant observation...nothing new about it..as others would say to
>me..so I say...
>
>						Mike


And I say, c'mon Mike, don't be so harsh.  Naked eye sunspots are really delightful.
Among other things, they make one wonder how Galileo got in so much trouble for 
reporting telescopic observations of spots when they must have been observed by
others previously using their naked eyes.  (Insert generic statement about the 
power of the church here.)

(I am NOT, by the way, advocating naked eye observations of the Sun!)
---
Craig "Blinky" Foltz                      cfoltz@as.arizona.edu
Multiple Mirror Telescope Observatory     Tel   (602) 621-1269
Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721        Fax   (602) 670-5740
From: ralph.buttigieg@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Ralph Buttigieg)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: CD-ROM stuff
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:55:30 GMT
Organization: Fidonet. Gate admin is fido@socs.uts.edu.au

G,day all.
I know you can get lots of astronomy/space CD-ROMs from the National Space
Science Data Center. Can anyone tell me what the copyright situation is. I
would not mind making some of those disks available on my BBS. ta
Ralph

--- Maximus 2.01wb
 * Origin: Vulcan's World-Sydney Australia 02 635-1204 (3:713/635)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: pdiamond@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Phil Diamond)
Subject: Re: Standard model of QSOsex
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 14:44:28 GMT

I can't let that statement go by. Tom Van Flandern states that there
are early indications from VLBI for the proper motions of quasars. I
agree that we see many proper motions of blobs down jets, but there is
no, I repeat no, measurements indicating the proper motion of a quasar
with respect to other extragalactic objects. One example is the
measurement by the Bartel group several years ago of the constant
position between the core of 3C345 and the nearby reference source
NRAO512, they see the superluminal components moce wrt NRAO512, but
the core remains stationary. 


Phil Diamond                                             pdiamond@nrao.edu
National Radio Astronomy Observatory                     +1-505-835-7365
P.O. Box 0                                          Fax: +1-505-835-7027
Socorro, New Mexico, 87801 USA
-- 
Phil Diamond                                             pdiamond@nrao.edu
National Radio Astronomy Observatory                     +1-505-835-7365
P.O. Box 0                                          Fax: +1-505-835-7027
From: Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Quasars: near versus far
Date: 14 Aug 92 11:50:18 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews) writes:

>Not really.  Einstein's wanted a field equation of the form
>        G' = 8*pi*T
>where G' is a measure of curvature of space-time, T is stress-energy,
>and the 8*pi is there by convention.

Actually (to nit pick, maybe this is what you mean by convention),
this form is necessary to have the equation converge to the Newtonian

        (del squared) phi = 4 pi G rho,
	 
in the nonrelativistic limit. Here, the force of gravity is g = - grad
phi (vectors), G is the gravitation constant, and rho is the mass density.
 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: sci.astro