HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eychaner@suncub.bbso.caltech.edu (Another casualty of applied metaphysics)
Newsgroups: sci.astro.fits
Subject: Re: Year 2000
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:21:24 GMT
Reply-To: eychaner@suncub.bbso.caltech.edu
Organization: Big Bear Solar Observatory, Caltech

cflatter@nrao.edu (Chris Flatters) writes:
>Dates in FITS are stored using two digits for the year.  Has anyone thought
>about what happens in 2000?

Sure; dates show up as 01/01/00, for example.  Personally, my software is
designed to interpret a two-digit date between 1970 and 2069; considering
this site was built in 1969, it seemed a reasonable choice.  You could, of
course, choose a different start date.  Eventually, it will break, but I
suspect it will be obsolete before then.

-G.
******************************************************************************
Glenn Eychaner, Big Bear Solar Observatory, California Institute of Technology
NSI/DECnet: SUNCUB::EYCHANER        Internet: eychaner@suncub.bbso.caltech.edu
USmail: 40386 North Shore Lane                eychaner_g@caltech.edu
        Big Bear City, CA  92314    Phone: (714) 866-5791 or (818) 356-4014
                                           (909) after November 14, 1992
From: yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu (Yaron Sheffer)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Two event horizons of black holes.
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:53:16 GMT
Organization: University of Texas, McDonald Observatory

In article <punisher.715116205@vincent2.iastate.edu> punisher@iastate.edu (Frank Castiglione) writes:
>Over the summer, my girlfriend had told me that there are two event
>horizons associated with a black hole.  She also hinted about "traveling"
>to other universes.

She's absolutely right. I had three girlfriends that told me that in the
past, and by golly, I *did* end up traveling to other universes in each
and every case. I can't remember how many event horizons there were
associated with a black hole, but eventful they were! ;-)

Yaron
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: davecole@cie.uoregon.edu (Dave Cole)
Subject: Re: Celestron SP-C6 ... Any comments?
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 22:41:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.212226.10488@sfu.ca> brougham@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Brougham) writes:
>Hi,
>
>
>I think I'm going to purchase a SP-C6 for my first serious
>telescope. I would like any comments on this instrument (good,
>bad or indifferent) and recommendations on good mail order supply
>firms that carry this scope. I intend to use this reflector
>for general observing and maybe some astrophotography in the
>future.
>
>
>Thanks


Chris,
  I have used the SPC-6.  It's a nice scope.  Very good images.  I don't know
about the astrophotography aspect of this scope.  It strikes me as too small
however the field of view this scope has may be very nice for astrophotography.

  From a user standpoint, I would have no problems with that scope, in fact,
I have been thinking of getting one as a second scope.  I currently use a 
C-14.  It's too damned big to just grab and set up.  The C-6 is just right
for that sort of thing.  Good luck and make sure to get decent eyepieces for
it.  The last time I used one I looked at M-42, looked VERY nice for a smaller
scope.

Dave

Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: pad@galaxy.nsc.com (Paul Denny x8349)
Subject: moon tides
Keywords: wobble
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:14:52 GMT

A recent thread recently explained why angular momentum 
was transferred from the earth to the moon causing the 
diameter of the moons orbit to increase. The same mechanism
was invoked I think to explain why the moon is locked with
one face towards the earth.

Yesterday I read that early NASA lunar "landers" (crashers
is perhaps a better word) discovered that the centre of
gravity of the moon is offset fom the geometric centre. 
It seems to me that if the moon was rotating it would
have its geometric centre rotating around its centre of
mass and hence the geometric centre would move into and
out of a stronger gravitational field. At first I thought
that this wouldn't have any effect with only the c of m
being important but given that gravitational fields are
non linear I am not sure what the affect would be.

Can anyone help? Thanks Paul
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
Subject: Re: grav lensing
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 21:32:45 GMT


mock@space.mit.edu (Patrick C. Mock)

> Personally I consider only one multiple imaging candidate as a confirmed
> lens.  Quasar 0957+561, Lehar et al ApJ 384 p453, has a measured time delay
> of 540 +/- 12 days.  This time delay was looked for because it was
> predicted by the theory.  So far no other time delays have been measured.

     A common period fits in equally well with the multiple-refracted-image
alternative model for this and other quasar lens candidates, if the
periodicity is in the source.  And the expected periods of supermassive
stars, when they are variables, would be in the extended Mira-type range of
one year and up.

     But specifically on the idea that 0957+561 is a gravitational lens,
Conner et al., ApJ 387, L61-L64 (1992), point out that this quasar shows
different component brightness ratios at different wavelengths; yet the
gravitational lens effect must be achromatic.  I think there is little reason
to feel confident that this one example is a true lens.

> I think such a table [predicting how many lens candidates will have large
> magnitude differences] would be difficult to construct for the currently
> available data.

     But unless someone constructs some such prediction, the gravitational
lens model will remain unfalsifiable.

> Regarding dark matter, as I've said before, dark matter is not necessarily
> non-baryonic matter, except for the dark matter used to get omega = 1.

     Then you would have both baryonic and non-baryonic dark matter in huge
quantities.  You would be multiplying ad hoc hypotheses to bolster an
existing model.

> Also we disagree on what constitutes a large M/L value.

     I was taking local galaxies as a standard of "normality".

> I don't think M/L is a stable enought measurement to use to prove or
> disprove any model unless the numbers get really extreme.

     Ultimately, I agree with this.  M/L is just another indicator against
the standard model, but by no means a proof.  -|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: j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de (Jost Jahn)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Sunspots at 26.08.1992.
Reply-To: j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:05:00 MESZ
Distribution: sci
Organization: ABBS AstroMail, D-W 2121 Dahlenburg / Germany
X-Version: ZerUU V6.45c

Sunspots at 26.08.1992., 0 h UT.

No.    Pos.  Cl.  Ar.  Mag. SF  F  M  X
---------------------------------------
7265 19S 13W Hsx   30   a
7267 03N 38E Bxo   10   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
    ------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.geo.meteorology,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.shortwave
From: oler@rho.uleth.ca (Cary Oler)
Subject: AURORA WATCH: Middle Latitude Auroral Activity Watch
Organization: University of Lethbridge
Date:  2 Sep 92 17:45:38 GMT

                /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

                    MIDDLE LATITUDE AURORAL ACTIVITY WATCH

                        ISSUED: 17:30 UT, 02 SEPTEMBER

                /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

VALID UNTIL: 19:00 UTC ON 04 SEPTEMBER

MODERATE RISK PERIOD: 03 - 05 SEPTEMBER (UT days)

POTENTIAL MAGNITUDE OF MIDDLE LATITUDE AURORAL ACTIVITY:  MODERATE

POTENTIAL LUNAR INTERFERENCE:  LOW

OVERALL OPPORTUNITY FOR OBSERVATIONS FROM MIDDLE LATITUDES:  FAIR

AURORAL ACTIVITY MAY BE OBSERVED APPROXIMATELY NORTH OF A LINE FROM...

        SOUTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA TO CENTRAL MONTANA TO NORTH DAKOTA TO
        MINNESOTA TO WISCONSIN TO MICHIGAN TO PARTS OF NEW YORK STATE (DARK
        SKY SITES) TO PARTS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TO SOUTHERN MAINE.


SYNOPSIS...

     A well placed solar coronal hole is beginning to enhance levels of
     auroral activity.  On the last solar rotation, this disturbed area
     produced moderate levels of auroral activity visible from the middle
     latitude regions (approx. north of 44N over North America).  High
     latitudes observed moderate to high levels of activity.

     Auroral activity is expected to peak on 03 or 04 September.  The
     disturbance is expected to last approximately 48 hours before beginning
     to wane.  Southern Australian and New Zealand regions may be able to
     spot some of the activity during the local night hours.  Northern
     European and Siberian regions should also be able to observe periods of
     activity under dark skies with clear views of the northern horizon.

     Lunar phase will not be a particularly strong factor, most notably after
     the moon sets near local midnight.

     This WATCH will remain active until 19:00 UT on 04 September when it
     will either be updated or allowed to expire.


**  End of Watch  **
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Subject: Re: Telescope question
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:26:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.020352.9459@newsgate.sps.mot.com> mcollins@wdc.sps.mot.com (Michael Collins) writes:
>
>  In the case of short f.r. Newtonians, the situation is much worse,
>for three reasons.  First, coma increases roughly with the inverse
>square of focal ratio.  At f/6, it's not too bad across a moderately
>wide field, but by f/4 it's really becoming a factor.  Conversely,
>it's negligible for most observing at f/8, and essentially gone past
>there.  With fast primaries you get a rapidly converging light cone.

Begging you pardon, but coma is not unique to the Newtonian is it?  If I have
an 8" f/4 refractor, SCT, Maksutov, etc, I should expect some coma as well, 
shouldn't I?

I do have a 6" f/3.5 refractor with a triplet objective.  It is so full of
abberations that it is rather hard to distinguish which are which!
From: Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Two event horizons of black holes.
Date: 31 Aug 1992 18:08:09 -0700
Organization: Sunsoft Inc., Los Angeles, CA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: smaug.West.Sun.COM

punisher@iastate.edu (Frank Castiglione) writes:

>Over the summer, my girlfriend had told me that there are two event
>horizons associated with a black hole.  She also hinted about "traveling"
>to other universes.

A black hole created by collapse of a star has just one event horizon.
On the other hand, a black hole which existed since the beginning of time
could theoretically have multiple event horizons.  A particle falling into
either event horizon would be trapped in the hole, unable to ever escape.
If you could imagine, though, breaking the rules and going faster than
the speed of light, you could go in one horizon and out the other.  Such
a thing is called a wormhole.  There is nothing in General Relativity
which says where the other horizon might be.  Traveling through the
wormhole might put you far away in space or in time (future or past).
It might even put you into an otherwise disjoint piece of the universe
(which you might like to call "another universe").  Now there are some
hints that it might be possible to construct a wormhole which you could
traverse without exceeding the speed of light (though tidal forces would
likely kill you anyway).  On the other hand, there are hints that such a
thing might be impossible.  This is an active area of research.

     Richard M. Mathews			D efend
					 E stonian-Latvian-Lithuanian
Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM		  I ndependence
From: trey@godzilla.larc.nasa.gov (Trey Arthur)
Subject: Re: Space Poop
Organization: CSC - NASA Langley Research Center
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:17:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.112254.4184@ulrik.uio.no>, jarleb@athena.uio.no (Jarle Brinchmann) writes:
|> In article <183veaINNccf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
|> bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> If I may ask a question..
|> Is there any plans whatsoever to remove or collect some of the debris
|> up there ?
|> 

johnson space center is sending up a GAS(see below) shuttle experiment
in '93.  the purpose of the GAS project is to launch 6 different size 
spheres in order to calibrate ground radar so that 
"space junk" can be monitored.  at this point, i think the
plan is just monitor the stuff so the shuttle can steer clear.

GAS (Get Away Special) is a project by NASA which allows private
citizens to rent a GAS canister to perform experiments in space.

later

trey

-- 
***************************************************************
*  Trey Arthur           CSC     NASA Langley Research Center *
*  Aerospace Engineer            MS 125, Hampton, VA 23665    *
*  trey@godzilla.larc.nasa.gov   (804) 864-8374               *
***************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Advice needed for Purchase (Novice)
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:34:07 GMT

My year of novice experience has taught me two things:
 
1. Buy a good pair of binoculars first, and learn the sky. See what you
can do with these before you buy a telescope. I spend 10 times as much
time with my 8x56s as with my 80mm refractor. And when you do buy a telescope,
you'll still have plenty of uses for the binocs.
 
2. There are no exceptions to rule #1.
 
        ;-)
 
       --mike
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: mock@space.mit.edu (Patrick C. Mock)
Subject: Re: Cleaning a mirror
Originator: mock@benz
Reply-To: mock@space.mit.edu (Patrick C. Mock)
Organization: MIT Center for Space Research
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 05:30:59 GMT


Here is a technique I use for cleaning delicate optical surfaces, ie a 
holographic grating.

The basic procedure is:

1)  Mount the optical element so that the surface is less than 30 degrees
    from vertical.

2)  Choose a cleaning solvent that won't harm the surface.  Use only
    reagent grade solvents.  Xylene works on fingerprints.  Usually
    pure alcohol will do the job.

3)  Direct a gentle stream of your solvent onto the surface to
    remove the dirt, fingerprint, etc.

4)  Before the solvent dries, rinse with a fine stream of pure alcohol.

5)  Before the alcohol dries, rinse with a fine stream of pure freon. 
   (TF or PCA grades).

The two rinses should be done from top to bottom in a sweeping pattern.
If done correctly this will leave no residue.  You may want to practice on
some old filters or lenses.

For somewhat more durable surfaces you can soak a ball of absorbent cotton
in the solvent and very gently wipe the surface with it.  Always rinse the
surface first.

Good luck
Pat
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: brougham@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Brougham)
Subject: Celestron SP-C6 ... Thanks
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:25:29 GMT

Thanks to everyone who responded to my inquiry. It seems like
this is the telescope for me! I'm so excited! I found a good
price for the scope in Canada and I ordered some TeleVue
Pl"/ossls from Orion Scope centre. 

Chris
From: koolish@BBN.COM (Richard M. Koolish)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: watching the earths magnetic field
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:44:22 GMT
Reply-To: koolish@BBN.COM (Richard M. Koolish)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com


Is anybody out in net land monitoring the earths magnetic field for
signs of solar activity.  I have an electronic compass with a computer
interface and would like to know if I can detect solar activity with it
and what the nature of the signal would be.
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: brougham@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Brougham)
Subject: ED Refractors
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 10:28:18 GMT

Hi

I've seen advertisements recently for small "ED" refractors
(TeleVue Pronto and Orion's Ultrascan) and I have no idea
what this "ED" term means. Can someone please enlighten me?

Could either of these telescopes mount on an SP-C6 optical
tube and become a good secondary scope or guide scope? 

Thanks
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
Subject: Re: another meta question
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:40:14 GMT


schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel) writes:

> if the meta theory has no "origin" event (and if the meta theory is true)
> then why don't we ever observe extremely old objects (age >> 15 to 20
> billion years).  These could include very low mass stars that have evolved
> off the main sequence without mass loss through a binary companion or very
> low mass white dwarf stars.

     A good question, Mark.  Stellar ages are not observed but computed from
stellar evolution theory.  That theory changes rather significantly in the
Meta Model because the predicted supermassive stars can have more "matter
content" than shows up in their external gravitational fields.  This is
because, in stars which are large or dense enough, the C-gravitons which
carry the gravitational force can no longer move about with complete freedom.

     This extra matter content lowers the external field, pressure, and
temperature of the star, thereby stabilizing it and increasing its lifetime.

     Even at 15 to 20 Gyr, some stars appear older than the universe.  And
those lifetime numbers are increased further in the Meta Model.  The reason
that lifetimes of trillions of years probably won't be computed is that our
galaxy is certainly not that old.  Stars and galaxies still come and go in
the Meta Model; but they've been doing it for a much longer time.  -|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: wag@georwell.EBay.Sun.COM (Rick Wagoner)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Meade LX-200 information request
Date: 3 Sep 1992 00:02:04 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: wag@georwell.EBay.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: georwell.ebay.sun.com

As a brand new owner of an LX-200 I am soliciting information
and suggestions on alignment, astrophotography and other tid-bits
of hidden knowledge that new users (such as myself) might find useful.

I will summarize and post to the group if there is sufficient response.

Thanks!

Rick
---
+-----------------------------------------------+
+ Rick Wagoner					+
+ Sun Microsystems Education Dept.		+
+ 408-276-5658					+
+ 						+
+ email Rick.Wagoner@EBay.Sun.COM		+
+ or	rick.wagoner@Ebay 			+
+ or	rwagoner@sun.com			+
+						+
+ or whateverthehell the DNS server mangles my	+
+    address into!				+
+						+
+-----------------------------------------------+
+ Opinions: MINE!	Systems: Theirs!	+
+-----------------------------------------------+
+  Everybody likes to stir the excrement        +
+  but nobody likes to clean the paddle...	+
+-----------------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: ghasting@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu (George Hastings)
Subject: Re: What was it?
Organization: Virginia's Public Education Network (Richmond)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 16:09:32 GMT

jackz@hpscit.sc.hp.com  writes:
> 	I have a question for the satellite trackers of this news group.
> I was at a star party at Fremont Peak State Park, central California, when
> at 9 PM, I watched a very bright object sweep from south to north near the 
> zenith, in approximately 1-2 minutes. I had no watch and did not count 
> seconds, the time is only an impression. It seemed to be -3 to -4th magnitude 
> or so. I got it in the main optics of my 17" newtonian briefly. I could 
> see no detail, just a bright point of light moving rapidly. 
> 
> 	It reminded me of seeing the shuttle but that does get that high in 
> the sky here.

 	A space shuttle , depending on WHICH orbit and WHICH
angle of inclination, can pass anywhere from along the North,
South, East or West horizons to straight overhead.
> 
> Any idea of what we saw?
> 
> 	Jack Zeiders
> 	jackz@hpscdm.scd.hp.com
> 
	You don't say what DATE you made this observation, so
it is impossible to tell. If it was very close to travelling
true north, it is likely you were looking at one of the
satellites that are in polar orbit, passing over north and
south poles, on its ascending node. NOAA weather satellites,
Hubble Space Telescope, LANDSAT, and military satellites all
fit this.
	If the pass was toward the NE or NW, you'd have to add
shuttle flights, Soyuz flights, MIR Space Station, and lots of
other satellites into the consideration.
	If you can supply the DATE, TIME, LON/LAT, (and
possibly elevation), there are lots of satellite tracking
programs that could tell you right away WHICH orbital object
you observed.
-- 
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: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:57:59 GMT


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

> I assume that in the Meta Model, object B feels the gravitational force of
> object A when it "catches" some of the C-gravitons of object A.  Tom
> claimed that the reason a black hole won't form is because the C-gravitons
> "have trouble" "getting out" of the interior of a massive object and thus
> it's active gravitational mass is less than it's "amount of matter" (==
> inertial mass).  But if gravitons are having trouble "getting out" of
> object A (so that object B sees a lesser force coming from A), this
> means that the force of gravity in the *interior* of object A must be
> STRONGER, since it is "catching" it's own gravitons rather than letting
> them go -- ie the particles inside of A are more strongly attracted to each
> other because they are catching more of each other's C-gravitons than the
> standard model would predict.  I other words, I'm assuming a "conservation
> of C-gravitons", and since the force is less "outside" of object A, then
> this must be counter-balanced by the force "inside" being greater.

     What I said was that C-gravitons have difficulty moving about freely
within a large, dense mass.  It is not the case that the presence of C-
gravitons gives rise to the force of gravity.  They are merely the carriers
of the force.  Their momentum serves as the "message".  If they cannot move
about freely, the "message" is garbled and the force is less.

     This is all a bit allegorical.  But as I have explained before, if I get
too specific about model details now, that will lead to a whole host of new
questions.  If the derivation of the model is followed from first principles,
those questions are answered along the way.

     Please be patient.  I'm doing everything possible to expedite
publication of the full model.  -|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,sci.geo.geology