HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: millnerrl@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu (CALLABLE_TPU)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Moon Illusion (was Re: Lunar Astronaut ...)
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:32:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

The experiment was preformed by a group of psychologists.  The aparatus used
was a camera mounted on a tripod mount.  Pictures were taken at regular
intervals and the aparatus was changed only by tilting the camera up to have
the moon in the center of the film.  The images were measured by calipers and
found to be the same size.  Their explanation was that, the brain guages
aparent size and distance by refrence to other objects in the visual field. 
The brain does not work like a computer, the light that goes in your eyes is
not always interpreted linearly, sometimes fudges are introduced by trying to
interpolate more info that just two flat pictures.  The object in the visual
field is the horizon, and possible trees, buildings etc...  When the moon is
"free standing" in the sky, we do not have other objects to compare it to so
its aparent size is different. 
Anyone out there done the calculation for atmospheric lensing?  I am not sure
which explanation I buy but until I see (or do) the experiment myself I guess
one seems as plausable as the other.
	Just my $0.002 (more damn budget cuts)
		Robert
From: Jim.Foley@FtCollins.NCR.COM (Jim Foley)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Galilean Electrodynamics?
Date: 19 Nov 92 12:56:42 GMT
Reply-To: Jim.Foley@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM
Organization: NCR Microelectronics, Ft. Collins, CO
In-reply-to: schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu's message of 17 Nov 92 21:04:19 GMT


>>>>> On 17 Nov 92 21:04:19 GMT, schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel) said:

Mark> The past few months in Sky and Telescope magazine I have been seeing this
Mark> ad for a bimonthly publication called "Galilean Electrodynamics" written
Mark> by a group of professors. What is the story on this group?  The editorial
Mark> board is made of up of scientists and engineers (five are listed in the ad)
Mark> Edit. Board:       
Mark>         Thomas Barnes, U of Texas, Prof. Emeritus
Mark>         Howard Hayden, Univ. of Connecticut, Prof. of Physics
Mark>         P. Parshin, Academy of Civil Aviation, St. Peterburg, Russia
Mark>         Cynthia Whitney, Tufts Univ.
Mark> Editor:
Mark>         Petr Beckmann, Prof. Emeritus of Electrical Eng., Univ. of Colorado/
Mark>                                                                 Boulder
Mark>                                                                 
Mark> Does anyone know about whether the papers published by this group have any
Mark> validity in the general physics world?  They seem to believe there are 
Mark> obvious contradictions between general rel. and observation.
Mark> Mark Schlegel, Schlegel@unomaha.edu


There is a Thomas Barnes who is a professor of physics and is active in the
creationist movement.  Lots of creationist literature mentions his claim
that the earth's magnetic field is exponentially decaying, at a rate that
would fix the upper age limit of the earth at about 10,000 years.

Apparently his opinions are not widely respected in the physics community.
--


Jim Foley
Jim.Foley@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM - uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-mpd!bach!jimf 
NCR MPD Fort Collins  2001 Danfield Court  Fort Collins, CO 80525
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: malcolm@hpwin052.uksr.hp.com (Malcolm Porter)
Subject: PCVISTA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:15:35 GMT
Organization: HP AEO - London, England
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Can anyone tell me how to get hold of a copy of PCVISTA? 
I would prefer to send out a floppy (3.5-inch) disk rather
than download - however, all info. is welcome!
 I want to do crowded-field photometry and I've been informed
that this is a good package.

                   Best wishes,

                  Malcolm Porter.


Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)
Subject: Re: Star buying
Organization: Simon Fraser University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:18:40 GMT

In article <schnitzi.721922589@eola.cs.ucf.edu> schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark
Schnitzius) writes:
>Okay, I'll probably get flamed for this, but here
>goes.  Has anyone heard about a place you can send
>away for an official looking "certificate of owner-
>ship" for a particular star in the sky?  I am
>embarassed to ask this question in a scientific
>forum such as this, but this would be the perfect
>gag present for someone I know.  I fully realize
>that one cannot "own" a star like this, but if anyone
>could mail me the address, I would greatly appreciate
>it.

Since there is no extant copyright on the *idea* of
printing stellar deeds, and since good looking
certificate border paper can be bought at any decent
stationers', why don't you compose your own? Laser
printed certificates should be easy to make with a
small amount of work (I could do it myself, but I 
won't offer to), and you can really customize the
thing. I've done a similar thing for a bridge 
partner of mine to recognize the time she was dealt
thirteen spades. You are right; such an item can
make a big hit. Send me a copy of the text after you
compose it. The nicest thing about this is that you 
can make a present of any star you wish; you are not
limited to the unsold ones!

Leigh
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Re: Lunar astronaut covers earth with thum
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:35:55 CST

In article 6033@pony.Ingres.COM, gmcquary@Ingres.COM (George F. McQuary) writes:
|>[Can so. Can not. Can so. Can not...]
|
|Sheesh. Apparently most people are not even aware that you can cover the full
|moon with a dime held at arms length (this is smaller than your thumb).
|I suggest an experiment of direct observation with some pocket change to prove
|this to yourself tonight if you are unbelieving. No, gloves are optional.

|Once you have observed for yourself the dime covering the moon experiment,
|the original statement becomes much more plausable.
|

I tried this myself the other night.  The dime is much more area than I 
need to cover the moon.  A dime is about the size of my Thumbnail.  I can
cover the moon with the fingernail of my pinky finger when my hand is held
at arms length.  It really is amazing because I didn't think my thumb
could cover it.

---
--David C. Adams  Statistician  Cray Research Inc.  dadams@cray.com
___________________________________________________________________
       Old Sourdoughs never die.  They just ferment away.
From: ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Distance of horizon
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:26:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: ptolemy.ETHANB.92Nov19122624
	<ETHANB.92Nov19004023@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu>
	<1992Nov19.181159.25667@sfu.ca>
Organization: U. of Washington
To: palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)

In article <1992Nov19.181159.25667@sfu.ca> palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer) writes:
>  Despite to your claim that there is no way to expand this, I have done so,
>  and the approximate solution I get, to first order in h/R, is
>	     d = SQRT(2Rh) x ( 1 - h/2R ),    h << R

I apologize for my imprecision; there is no expansion in powers of h
because of the square-root singularity.  If one separates out that
singularity, one can expand the remainder in powers of h.  However,
when I do that I get a different formula than yours:
   d \approx sqrt(2Rh) ( 1 - 5/12 h/R + 43/80 (h/R)^2)
which compares with
   d = sqrt(2Rh + h^2) \approx sqrt(2Rh) (1 + 1/4 h/R - 1/32 h^2/R^2)

>  The solution you propose as exact is correct for the distance from the
>  observer to the horizon measured along the line of sight. The usual meaning
>  of horizon distance is the distance, measured along Earth's surface,
>  between the observer's geographical coordinates and the horizon.

So the difference in our solutions is just the difference between the
along-earth distance and the line-of-sight distance.  Good point.
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics
From: metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
Subject: Gravity waves (Was: Galilean Electrodynamics)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:09:37 GMT


ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford) writes (in the original
thread, "Galilean Electrodynamics"):

> Since the assumptions are so reasonable and the agreement with existing
> tests are so good, most theories of gravity which are considered tenable
> reduce to Post-Newtonian Gravity in the weak-field, slowly varying limit.
> Thus, agreement with the classical tests is not a great triumph for such a
> theory.  The binary pulsar orbital decay rate prediction is a triumph for
> GR alone, however.

     That is the point of the three papers I cited at the beginning of this
thread "Gravity waves (Was: Galilean Electrodynamics)."  The binary pulsar
decay rate prediction is not a triumph for GR either.  Zero decay rate agrees
equally well with the observations.

     The Taylor and Damour papers were only claiming that the predicted decay
rate using GR is consistent with observations from two binary pulsars.  But
it is important to note that no decay rate or orbital acceleration has
definitely been detected.  It is simply the case that the observed value of a
relativistic parameter in the solutions (containing a non-separable
combination of decay rate, periastron motion, and bending/delay) agrees well
with its theoretical value.  If one forced the decay rate to zero and solved
again, there would still be equally-good agreement between theory and
observations because small changes in the masses and orbital elements would
slightly adjust the periastron motion and bending/delay terms to absorb what
previously appeared to be a decay rate.  The new Taylor and Damour papers
make it clear that the decay rate cannot be solved for separately from the
other parameters.

     Moreover, according to the Yu paper I cited, the decay rate predicted by
GR is also in dispute; i.e., Yu claims that the theoretical rate adopted by
Taylor and Damour is not really consistent with GR.  Getting the theoretical
rate (if any) correct has been the subject of much controversy over the past
20 years.  Einstein himself wavered on the question of whether or not GR
predicted gravitational radiation.  It appears that today's theoreticians are
still wavering.  -|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: acb20@cus.cam.ac.uk (A.C. Baker)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Light pollution
Summary: Request info on efforts to reduce light pollution
Keywords: light pollution, naked eye astronomy
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:14:31 GMT
Followup-To: sci.astro
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <1992Nov14.031207.13073@cbfsb.cb.att.com> 
wa2ise@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (robert.f.casey) writes:
>I haven't seen any stars at all for the past several months at night.
>I'm in a badly light polluted area (New Jersey, 20 miles west of NYC),
>but I used to be able to see 1st and 2nd magnitude stars.  Now, nothing.
>I still can see the Moon and the Sun, but that's it.

OK, so this particular degredation is attributed to something other than 
increase in light pollution - but I am still horrified by this post.

Astronomy is, along with the space programme, *the* biggest thing that gets 
people interested in science. Yet more and more westerners, and others, now 
live with light pollution that makes stars next to invisible ... possible
links to the decline of industry and eductation etc in the UK, the US etc 
immediately come to mind ...

So, can anyone give us an update on the fight against light pollution, and
the waste of resources (tax payers money going to light up the skies) which
must be occuring? Any organisations out there looking for support in this
fight?

Yours, returning to normal breathing,
From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Know an adjective for black holes?
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:17:01 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 



This whole discussion reminds me of a quote from the movie
"This is Spinal Tap"

It goes:

	... How much more black could it be?
		... None, None more black.

This would definitely be true for a Black Hole!
-- 

   Jim Batka  | Always remember ...                        | Buckaroo
   Modemman   |    No matter where you go, there you are!  |   Bonzai
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
It is very    | Work Email:  BATKAJ@CCMAIL.DAYTON.SAIC.COM | Elvis is
often easier  | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU      |   DEAD!
to get for-   |--------------------------------------------+--------------
giveness then | 64 years is 33,661,440 minutes ...         | Beatles:
permission    |    and a minute is a LONG time!            |   Yellow Submarine
From: j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de (Jost Jahn)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Sunspots at 19.11.1992.
Reply-To: j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de
Date: 19 Nov 92 23:44:00 MET
Distribution: sci
Organization: ABBS AstroMail, D-W 2121 Dahlenburg / Germany
X-Version: ZerUU V6.45c

Sunspots at 19.11.1992., 0 h UT.

No.    Pos.  Cl.  Ar.  Mag. SF  F  M  X
---------------------------------------
7335 18S 93W Hax  120   a
7337 09N 25W Hax   40   a    1
7340 08S 05E Bxo   10   b
7341 16S 49W Dao  200   b    4
7342 08S 19W Dao   50   b    1
7344 15S 28E Bxo    0   b
7345 24S 48E Eai  430   b    1  1  1
7346 07S 58E Eao  390   b    1


Optical and x-ray flares in 18.11.92.

Date     Beg. Max. End   Posit. Xray Opt
----------------------------------------
18.11.92 1918 1956 2050 24S 46E M1.3 2N


 
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: TO ALL WHO'D HELP THE ONLY ASTRONOMY CLUB
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:28:31 GMT

In article 39@cuslm.ca, 9210946@cuslm.ca (THERIAULT YANICK M.) writes:
>
>	P.S.  Our name cannot be reused for any other club!  It's 
>registered!  Any group not respecting this could see himself in court by 
>trademark infrigement!

Holy cow, mister...lighten up.

gak

---
Richard Stueven       AHA# 22584 |----------| If the trees are bare, if the
Internet:            gak@wrs.com |----GO----| skies are gray, if the Zamboni
ATTMAIL: ...!attmail!gakhaus!gak |---SHARX--| is running, can winter be far
Cow Palace:            107/H/3-4 |----------| behind?  -C.Schulz

Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Hubble's mirror
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 03:35:55 GMT

Henry Spencer writes:
#To the best of my knowledge, the only statement in my posting which is
#not a solidly-established fact . . .

I was referring to your statment implying that Dr. Jefferys was
contributing to the "technological myth of the century." Correcting
Dr. Jefferys on matters of the HST is like correcting Dennis Ritchie
on matters of C. 

While certianly a very expensive end to end test would have caught the
trouble, assuming that such a test is even possible (which I'm not
convinced of given the difficulty), the set of tests that you develop
to test a mirror BEFORE you know it has a certian problem is not
necessarily the same as the set of tests that you develop AFTER you
know it has a problem. PE developed a system of testing that they
THOUGHT would be good enough. Unfortunately it was not. At least we
can be pretty sure that this blunder won't be repeated.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald)
Subject: Re: Prism Diagonals vs. Mirror Diagonals
Organization: UIUC SCS
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 22:17:40 GMT

In article <92327.152741LABBEY@GTRI01.GATECH.EDU> <LABBEY@GTRI01.GATECH.EDU> writes:

>Prisms are not really ideal for this purpose.  They are FAR more expensive.
>A 1" prism of the same quality as a $25 first surface mirror would cost over
>$200.  Remember, there are three surfaces to be figured, and about an inch
>of glass which must be perfect. The cost of the glass alone would exceed the
>cost of the first surface mirror.

>To the best of my knowledge, there is no source of high quality prisms for
>this purpose.
>a

Sure there are ... Newport Corp (Fountain Valley CA) or CVI, Albuquerque NM.

Not cheap .. as you say ... $225 for a 1x1 inch prism or $390 for
a 2x2 inch one, antireflection coated.

I've got more than ten of these babies in my laser system. They are great
where you need exact 180 degreee return in one dimension with no
polarization change.

Doug McDonald
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: NEWS: Galileo Cleared of Heresy Charges by Vatican
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:56:54 GMT


>Does this mean the Pope has declared that popes are not infallible?

  I know this discussion is kind of old, but I just subscribed, and
would like to clarify this.

   Many people seem to think that the Catholic doctrine of Papal
Infallibilty means that every pronouncement made by the Pope is
considered infallible.  However, the Pope is considered infallible
only in matters of faith and morals, and then only when he makes it
clear that he is speaking infallibly.  Only twice in the history of
the Catholic Church has a Pope made such pronouncements, which are
called _ex cathedra_ (i.e. "out of the chair" [of St. Peter])
pronouncements.  These were the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception
and the Assumption into Heaven of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

   The Church as a whole also has this infallibility when the bishops
in union with the Pope make a solemn declaration of dogma, under the
same circumstances listed above.  This has been done many times in
ecumenical councils throughout the centuries.

   Another common misconception is that infallibilty is the same thing
is impeccability; that is, that the Pope is sinless.  This is not at
all true, as no pope has ever claimed to be sinless.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: andromed@cs.dal.ca (Mike Boschat)
Subject: Swift-Tuttle Observation Nov. 19/20, 1992
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:04:55 GMT


                      Swift-Tuttle Nov. 19/20, 1992
                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                Magnitude estimate using 7x35 binoculars
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 The sky was 60% cloud and was going over the part of the sky where
the comet was, using the out-of-focus method I had to conclude
the comet was 5.2 Mv since it was close to BD +17d 03555 at 5.2 Mv and the
blur of the comet was very close to that of the star. But because of
the cloudy conditions, I would most likely put it at 5.1 Mv.


                * 2
          1 * + comet          star 1= BD +17d 03555 at 5.2 Mv
                               star 2= BD +18d 03623 at 5.9 Mv
         3  *                  star 3= BD +16d 03478 at 6.2 Mv

Comet was brighter than BD +18d 03623 at 5.9 Mv and BD +16d 03478
at 6.2 Mv and very close to BD +17d 03555 at 5.2 Mv.

LAT= N 44^ 39'  LONG= W 63^ 36'


						Clear skies

						Mike Boschat

                                          andromed@sleet.atm.dal.ca
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                   |  "Our problems are man-made,          |
|        JOHN F. KENNEDY            | therefore they can be solved by man " |
|                                   |                                       |
|   ASTRONOMICAL  OBSERVATORY       |                 J.F.K.                |
|                                   |                                       |
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                           
      
            
            
            
            





  
                

Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: dnash@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dave Nash)
Subject: Re: I can't see stars anymore at night with naked eye
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 01:00:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.212451.5462@cbfsb.cb.att.com> wa2ise@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (robert.f.casey) writes:
>But seriously, folks, the haze/light pollution in my area has made all the
>stars not visible.  Has anyone who lives in/near large cities verify my
>observation?  Another possibly related observation is that a clear daytime
>sky is not as a deep blue at zenith as it used to be.  Did that volcano
>put -that- much dust into the upper atmosphere?

Well for several years I lived about 20 mi. from Los Angeles and never had
THAT much trouble under clear weather, despite smog and unbelievably bad 
light pollution.  Of course it wasn't pparticularly good -- a limiting
magnitude of about +3.5 was about par for the course.  Best would be around
+4.5 near the zenith.   It usually had to be
pretty foggy (the white variety) before it became impossible to see
ANY stars.  Then there was the time in which the limiting magnitude through
my 10" scope was +8, but that was an unusual event indeed . . .

>
>Have observatories and amateurs with telescopes in dark areas noticed a
>drop in star brightness?  Or is the dust (assuming that that's what it is)
>reflecting back down more city light?  

I haven't, but I'm the wrong person to ask -- I got a nice large scope about
a year ago, and as a result I suddenly spent a lot more time doing deep-sky
observing.  This meant I got better at seeing faint stuff, with the result
that my naked eye limiting magnitude has gotten noticeably better over the
last year or so.  (I'd guess by about 0.5).

>I live about 20 miles from New York City, a big light pollution source.

I recall (possibly wrongly) an article in S&T a few years ago about someone
who, living within NYC limits, managed to dodge enough of the lights to get
a naked-eye limiting magnitude of around +4.5 -- not wonderful, but still
pretty good given the circumstances; enough to find objects like the Owl
Nebula with relatively modest equipment.  

I had similar experiences in the LA area when the smog cleared.  I'd suspect
haze or low clouds or something similar in your case.


---> Dave
-- 
David Nash                  | Gradual Student, Chemistry
                            | University of Illinois (Urbana)
(dnash@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu)    | This .sig is made of 100% recycled electrons.
(nash@aries.scs.uiuc.edu)   | No binary trees were killed to make it.
Newsgroups: sci.astro