HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andromed@cs.dal.ca (Mike Boschat)
Subject: Aurora aug.19/20
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:59:12 GMT


  I said I would not post this but what the hell...our weather computers showed
an aurora display from North Canada to North Dakota last night, so of interest
to those that may not know there could be a trace of it tonight so take a look up.
The stations reported it from 0200 to 1000 UT. There was a solar flare also 
from that BIG spot on the sun, take the photos of that spot now since its getting
close to the west limb.



                                                 Clear skies

                                                  Mike Boschat 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
| "Our problems are man-made,      |    JOHN F. KENNEDY      |
|   therefore they can be solved   |                         |
|    by man."                      |  ASTRONOMY OBSERVATORY  |
|                                  |                         |
|     JOHN F. KENNEDY              |                         |
 ------------------------------------------------------------
From: reynolds@panix.com (Brian Reynolds)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: ATM: tube materials?
Summary: what to use for a tube?
Keywords: finderscope tube photocopy lens
Date: 16 Aug 92 03:23:34 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

While I try and decide between building and buying a telescope, I am
building a finder scope similar to the Copyscope from the May 1986
Astronomy and the Tunable Finderscope from the October 1990 Sky &
Telescope.  I am about 90% complete, but the last 10% is taking the
proverbial 90% of the time.

My main problem is that my photocopier lens is a shade over 3-1/8" in
diameter as opposed to the 3" lenses used in the articles.  This means
it won't fit in the standard 3" PVC pipe used as a body tube in these
designs.  Trying to bore out the PVC pipe by hand sanding, and by
using a grinding wheel on a power drill, hasn't been successful.

Has anyone out there got any ideas on what I can use for a body tube?
I need something with an inner diameter of just over 3-1/8" and an
outer diameter of 3-1/2" (so that it will fit the PVC fittings that I
am using for the rest of the telescope).  Currently I've wrapped a
sheet of corrugated cardboard around the lens cell for testing, but
I've already dropped the telescope a couple of times when the
cardboard slipped from the rear PVC coupling.  Luckily the front
3"-to-4" reducer saved the lens both times.  Although I could glue the
cardboard to the PVC (which I plan to do to the front end of the final
tube) I don't believe that the cardboard is durable enough to make a
semi-permanent joint at the rear (to allow for disassembly so that the
lens can be cleaned).

Thanks in advance for any help I get.

-- 
Brian Reynolds
reynolds@panix.com
NAR# 54438
IPMS# 30162
From: jfbn@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (james.f.burnell)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Comment: First Gazing; Query: Eyepieces
Summary: Eyepiece recomendations
Keywords: eyepieces, eyerelief, kids
Date: 19 Aug 92 00:05:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <bic.714070738@piglet.mmwb.ucsf.edu>, bic@piglet.mmwb.ucsf.edu (Bruce Cohen) writes:
> Question:
> 
> 	The C4.5 came with a 25mm eyepiece.  I have budgeted $200 for more
> eyepieces.  I have noticed that Televue has a 3 for the price of 2 sale
> going on.  What do people think about a 40mm, 7.4mm, and a 2.5x barlow?
> Would I be better off getting 4 orthoscopic eyepieces?  Has anyone
> used the new Vixen eyepieces that are supposed to offer 20mm of eye relief?
> My wife's eyes suffer from astigmatism.  I have some (but not much) hope of
> getting her to join me in this stargazing venture.  It is more likely that
> my kids will join me.  I am not sure that eye relief is so important for
> kids.
> 

    I would suggest that you not bother with the TeleVue 40mm Plossl unless
you REALLY need the eye relief. The field of view is exactly the the same as
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
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
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: rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush  Bored Grad Student)
Subject: Re: Meta-model, pubished ?
Organization: UCLA Dept of Astronomy
Date: 21 Aug 92 08:14:08 PDT

In article <BtBLps.IHo@well.sf.ca.us> metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) writes:
>
>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

The fact that this will appear in a book is all but proof that it is
stupid.  Everyone knows that most *real* scientific theories make it
into journals first (if not all of them).  I'm definitely not one to
believe whole-heartedly in the standard model - I'm more of a critic
of it than most of my colleagues - I just think that the Meta Model is
pretty stupid, based only on what I have heard of it in this newsgroup.

>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: fischer@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Phil Fischer)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: A super-blue branch of super-massive stars?
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:57:04 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, McMaster University

In article <Bt5t07.IrL@well.sf.ca.us> metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) writes:
>
>fischer@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Phil Fischer) writes:
>
>> 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.
>
>     Small dwarf galaxies generally don't produce supermassive stars.  The
>best candidates would be relatively blue galaxies with lots of young O-stars.
>Apparently M87 is the most prolific producer among "nearby" galaxies.
>     -|Tom|-
>

A couple of points, the LMC has very many O stars and is indeed relatively
blue. Secondly, M87 is not at all blue and has no O stars. Are you sure you
have a good understanding of the observations? Another point, since
everything in your theory comes from first principles, what first principles
does a lack of supermassive stars in the LMC stem from? This sounds like an
ad-hoc post-facto addition, i.e. we see quasars in M87 therefore it produces
them, we don't see them in the LMC therefore it does not produce them. 

Phil
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: wdb3926@zeus.tamu.edu (BRUTON, WILLIAM DANIEL)
Subject: Hubble Spotted
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 05:13:00 GMT

The Hubble Space Telescope was seen passing thru Ophiuchus and
toward Altair around 20:30 CDT on 8-22-92 at College Station,
Texas.  It appeared as a 2-3 magnitude object traveling east and
was visible for about 7 minutes.

Hubble should be visible around 20:30 and 22:30 CDT each night for
the next few weeks for about 8 and 4 minutes respectively.
We did not see Hubble on its second pass (22:30 CDT).

Thanks to Will and Mike who supplied the predictions for times
and locations of Hubble via email by request thru vnews.  

 Dan 
 Texas A&M Observatory
From: dieter@informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Dieter Kreuer)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Saturn and three Titans
Date: 19 Aug 92 08:07:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: Urmel.1992Aug19.080730.20288
Organization: Informatik IV - RWTH Aachen

Beautiful seeing conditions last night here in Germany. I took a look at
Saturn to check for the dark band which has been mentioned by another
poster. It's quite obvious, even more than the white spot two years ago.
The band is dark brown at perhaps 30 deg. north and thus a real feature,
not the shadow of the rings. As for shadows, the planet DOES cast a shadow
on the rings, it's not limb darkening, as somebody else suggested. The shadow
is visible at the eastern edge of the planet, at the western edge, it is not
clear whether one can see the other side of the shadow or it's limb darkening
here.

Curious were the 'three Titans'. When I looked through the finder, I saw a
single star west of Saturn, and thought, this could be Titan, although it
was a little too bright. Then, looking through the scope at low power, it
became
obvious, that it was just a star, because Titan was less bright and closer
to Saturn, but on the same line as Saturn and this star. Finally, at high
power, there was still another star visible, still on this line, still fainter
and still closer to Saturn. I don't know, whether this was another moon of
Saturn, or just a star, but it was certainly not Titan.

-----------------------                     -----------------------------------
     Dieter Kreuer        ##     ========  / dieter@informatik.rwth-aachen.de
Lehrstuhl Informatik IV   __   /// /#     /  dieter%informatik.rwth-
     RWTH Aachen          ##  /// # #    /             aachen.de@uunet.uu.net
     Ahornstr. 55         ## /// #####  /uunet!informatik.rwth-aachen.de!dieter
W-5100 Aachen, Germany    ====      #  / PHONE:  +49 241 80 21413
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: Standard model of QSOsex
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 14:10:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.133126.8313@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas  
Clarke) writes:
> In article <Bt5syD.Ipt@well.sf.ca.us> metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van  
Flandern)  
> writes:
> > 
> > Earlier, I wrote:
> > 
> > >> Quasars are not, of course, *predicted* by the standard model.  They are
> > >> just part of what it attempts to explain, ad hoc.
> > 
> > and yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu (Yaron Sheffer) replied:
> > 
> > > How about this prediction:  ...  In short: QUASARS!
> > 
> >  I don't think that can be reconciled with
> > observations.  Nice try, though.  -|Tom|-
  
Sorry about repitition, but I had on my applied mathematician's 
order-of-magnitude-hat when I wrote:

> I think it can be reconciled.  The nearest quasar is about z=.1.
> This is pretty close.  Say N(Z) = Integral of O to Z of Z^3*Z^2 
> (Z^2 for area of shell at distance Z), so N(Z) ~ Z^6. (I neglect
> here csomological-model dependent corrections to the integral). 
> With Zmax=3 as per observation, and N(.1)=1, as per observation,
> the N(Zmax)~ 10^5.  Which is order of magnitude agreement with
> observation - not bad for cosmology.

Taking my formula literally N(3)/N(.1) times one close quasar =
730 million quasars.  Probably a bit high.

Using N(Z) ~ Z^5 (to cover my cosmological sins - I'm too lazy to
look up the exact formula for volume differential at Z - which was 
my motive for doing order of magnitude to Zmax first), then
N(3)/N(.1) times one close quasar = 24 million quasars which is 
about right.

Maybe blue dwarfs aren't needed after all :-)
--
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
Xref: sparky sci.astro:8876 sci.space:11710 comp.graphics:8759 alt.3d:859
From: jra@wti.com (Jim Atkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,comp.graphics,alt.3d
Subject: Location of the Sun
Summary: Algorithm wanted for the location of the Sun
Keywords: sun location algorithm wanted
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:14:03 GMT
Followup-To: sci.astro
Organization: Wavefront Technologies Inc, Santa Barbara, CA
X-Disclaimer: Not a spokesperson for Wavefront Technologies, Inc.

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! =====================
From: geoffrey@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Geoff Thomas)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Location of the Sun
Keywords: sun location algorithm wanted
Date: 14 Aug 92 01:09:56 GMT
Organization: Computer Science,University of Canterbury,New Zealand

I've kludged up a wee program for doing this (plus a few other neat things)
from formulas in a book called:

	"Practical Astronomy with your Calculator" (3rd ed.),
	P. Duffett-Smith, 1988, Cambridge University Press.

It has all sorts of neat things like star/planet/etc. positions, orbits, and
of course, the position of the Sun :-).

Hope it is of some use,

Geoff Thomas
From: edwards@andy.bgsu.edu (Bruce Edwards)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Handheld Astronomy
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:49:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: andy.BszLME.MB3
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.

In article <1992Aug13.142924.1@cc.helsinki.fi>, sinenmaa@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
> GREETINGS all Aliens and Earth's Beings !!
> 
> Have you run into the Phobos or other Heavenly Objects lately ?
> You haven't !
> Ok, It's good because I was downloaded my program in to the News Group
                        ****************
> COMP.SOURCES.HP48.
> 
> regards,
> kati

And I think we all know how much that can hurt!!!!! :-)

edwards@andy.bgsu.edu

-- 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
edwards@andy.bgsu.edu  (ken jenkins as guest of Bruce Edwards)
century marketing corporation
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: gliba@scivax.stsci.edu
Subject: Re: M33 naked-eye object.
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:12:13 GMT

>From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
>Subject: Re: M33 naked-eye object.
>Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 18:54:02 GMT

>I have been out under extremely clear skies in Arizona, in which the
>zodiacal light could be traced entirely across the ecliptic, and the
>brightening of the anti-solar point (I forget the German word) was
>clearly visible. Nonetheless, M33 was *not* visible, in spite of being
>very high in the sky.

>Of course, M31 was quite easily seen, nearby. Perhaps some naked eye
>observers have confused the two.

>-- 
  
>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
> Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

>       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
>        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
>        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
>        where it will end."
>                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"

    This is interesting. Perhaps you didn't look exactly in the right place.
I have seen M33 with the naked-eye on several occasions when the limiting
magnitude was about 6.2 or 6.3.

G.W. Gliba - 'I would rather see starlight than streetlights'
From: FuzzyM@cup.portal.com (Paul J Mortfield)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Perseids at Stellafane
Date: 15 Aug 92 03:26:35 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Meteors July 30, 31, Aug 1

3 of us were up in Yosemite National Park at the 6000ft level pulling all
night astro-photog runs. The night of July 30/31 showed a heavy amount of
meteors. We didnt take any counts since we were guiding photos, but we did
have time to watch occassionally. Lots of Delta-Aqu as to be expected, however
a high number of Pers. At one point around 3am, I figured (roughly) that the
Perseid rate was roughly 25-30/hour.  Alot were between 
+1 to -3. Visual limiting mag was passed 6th mag. Yes it gets very
dark up there. Even one Bolide at -8+ that lit up the ground like an electroni
flash.
July/31-Aug1: This night had alot fewer meteors. Lower number of Delta-Aqu
and very very few Pers. It was like somkeone pulled the plug on Perseids..

Aug1/2: The sky was considerably brighter due to a big fire in the park, so
no photography, but did some visual till about midnite. Again a decreased count
.

Sorry we didnt do any serious counting and timing, but atleast the overall
impression of what transpired will help.  Did anyone else watch on those
earlier nights
From: j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de (Jost Jahn)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Sunspots at 11.08.1992.
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:25:50 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 11.08.1992., 0 h UT.

No.    Pos.  Cl.  Ar.  Mag. SF  F  M  X
---------------------------------------
7245 06S 73W Dao  150   b    2
7248 13S 38W Eko  370   bg   6
7251 19S 37W Bxo   10   b    1
7255 12S 24W Bxo   10   b
7256 15S 40E Dao   90   b
7257 20S 71W Dao  140   b    1
7259 12S 15E Axx   10   a


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
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: paul@pands.demon.co.uk (Paul Wilson)
Distribution: world
Subject: Re: Fossil Paradox (was: Structure of Time)
X-Mailer: cppnews $Revision: 1.13 $
Organization: P-and-S Ltd
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 15:20:40 +0000


In article <ARI.HUTTUNEN.92Aug13031214@silver-surfer.hut.fi> Ari.Huttunen@hut.fi (Ari Juhani Huttunen) writes:

> In article <1992Aug11.235257.21903@nosc.mil> clarkk@nosc.mil (Kevin D. Clark) writes:
> 
> ! It sounds like those questions where one is asked if you could go back and
> ! kill Adolph Hitler even if it would mean your own death, would you do it?
> ! This has always sounded logically impossible to me.  If in 1992 I was sent
> ! back to 1930 (or some such year) to hunt down a man named Hitler and I
> ! was successful, but I was killed, then none of the atrocities of WWII would
> ! have happened (in theory).  However, when 1992 rolled around I would never
> ! be asked to go back and kill Hitler because he would never have committed
> ! those crimes.  So if I WASN'T sent back, then no one would have killed him
> ! and he WOULD have committed the crimes.  Aaaugh.....no wonder I majored in
> ! engineering ...the answers were in the back of the book.
> 
> The answer to that problem is simple. A basic law that has not yet been
> stated is the law of _causality_. You could travel backwards in time but
> you would end up so far away from 'here' that when you traveled back
> with the speed of light, it would at best be the present time. That would
> also be the reason why time can't go backwards.
> 
> That's what I think. I don't have any proof, except that everything we
> see works that way. I think that's plenty of proof.

Circumstantial evidence yes,  but not proof.
 
> If you can construct an FTL communication device, I will admit I am
> wrong. For then you could travel 10 years backwards in time to a place
> 10 light years away and communicate with someone on Earth with FTL, 
> and thus breaking the law of causality. (Hmm... You would only need
> one of those devices if you were willing to wait ten years...;)

I must admit that this kind of comment has always concerned me.  Not because
of any belief,  but because (my understanding here - please correct if I'm
wrong!) current quantum theory allows (requires?) the transfer of information
instantaneously.  The act of observing one particle of a pair,  affects the
other.  The comment from a physicist recently when I mentioned this was
something along the lines of ".. well it's OK,  because the amount of
information which gets transferred is insignificant".  And *that's* the bit
that concerns me.  You can break the lightspeed barrier as long as the effect
isn't significant.

--
Paul Wilson, P-and-S Ltd, P O Box 54, Macclesfield, SK10 1RD, UK
[phone] +44 (0) 625 - 502224      [email] paul@pands.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: sci.astro