HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phs404g@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Someone must know!
Date: 12 Jan 93 12:12:30 +1100
Organization: Monash_University,Melbourne,Victoria

Hi!
    A couple of years back, when I was in the middle of my thesis,
    a friend of mine sent me a copy of something called the AAS
    job register. It had loads of astronomy postdoc positions etc,
    and I was wondering where I can get up-to-date copies, since
    I'm now at that stage of deciding my future :)
    
    If anyone knows of an FTP site that has this list, or just an
    email or postal address, I would greatly appreciate hearing
    from you.
               Thanks!
                           Greg

 
   ****************************************************************
*** Greg Anders, Physics Department, Monash University - Australia.***
   ****************************************************************

Disclaimer: The thoughts expressed above do not represent the opinions
               of anyone, least of all me.
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: anderson@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: wormholes
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:49:08 GMT

In article <aqJ4wB1w165w@grizila.pillar.com>, grizbud@grizila.pillar.com  
(Jim Gorges) writes:
> 
> Less than one week ago I finished trying to read "Cosmic Wormholes: the
> search for interstellar shortcuts" by Paul Halpern.
> 
> Now, I'm basically a bonehead when it comes to understanding things
> theoretically and technically advanced and "indistinguishable from
> magic."  So, grad students and postdocs, what's the judgement on
> Halpern's explanations and physics?  Is the book worth the attention of
> someone desiring to be introduced to the concepts and theories, or
> should it be used to keep the computer desk from wobbling?  Inquiring
> minds want to know.....
> 
> --
> Jim Gorges <grizbud@grizila.pillar.com>         | Life is a series of
> GENIE: J.GORGES                                 | adjustments.
> Fidonet: jim.gorges@p15.f34.n147.z1.fidonet.org | (Michael J. Carney - 1985)

Well, I can't speak to the validity of Halpern's claims, but Kip Thorne has 
something to say about wormholes.  Carl Sagan's book "Contact" gives the ref-
erence (I don't have it handy); Thorne's paper is written as an exercise for
students in GR to calculate the stable "wormhole solutions" to the GR equations.

Bottom line: such solutions are possible that would allow travel over large 
distances without suffering huge time discontinuities or nasty tidal effects, 
but the materials and techniques needed are not known in our present understand-
ing of physics.  That is, GR allows it, but QED may or may not.  Also, having
a solution is one thing--Thorne says himself that he can't imagine how one would
obtain a wormhole of macroscopic size.  The solution just allows you to maintain
it once it's there.  He speculates that perhaps one could "expand" a spacetime
defect from the scale at which spacetime is "foamy" (on the scale of a Planck 
length or less), but how one would do that is anyone's (wild!) guess.

As for naturally occuring wormholes, the physics of stellar collapse to a black
hole allow for such solutions, but with distinct disadvantages:

	The collapse would have to be an ideal one (perfectly rotationally
	symmetric, and rotating at the fastest speed possible--with the surface
	rotation velocity approaching c).

	The "window" would last an infinitesimal length of time, and be 
	infinitely narrow.  A "caustic" of sorts (read: an asymptote in the
	solutions).

	The tidal effects would wreck your whole day.

Bottom line here is that a naturally occurring wormhole would be unusable.

#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#
Chris Anderson			Science Operations Specialist
ANDERSON@DEVVAX.STSCI.EDU	Science Planning & Scheduling
				Computer Sciences Corporation
				Space Telescope Science Institute
#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics
From: dag@col.hp.com (David Geiser)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: wormholes
Date: 8 Jan 1993 21:51:40 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hplsdor.col.hp.com

kopfj@bert.Tymnet.COM (John Kopf,D,6305) writes:
> is a worm-hole the end-view of a cosmic string?  :-D
And how do you know it's a worm-hole and not a worm-mouth?
-- 
To know recursion, you must first know recursion.
--

Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)
Subject: Re: reported dark matter observation (PART 2)
Organization: Simon Fraser University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:26:08 GMT

In article <C0FxLM.AHG@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
(Alec Habig) writes:
>In article <1idsmhINN17d@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>
metzler@pablo.physics.lsa.umich.edu (Chris Metzler) writes:
>[great review deleted]
>>So in summary, this is a very interesting observation, but how
>>excited to get is going to take some time to tell.
>>
>>WHEW!  Hope this wasn't too boring, folks.
>
>Not at all!  I almost wish I had a seminar to do, your summary would make a
>great starting point for a talk.  Thanks for taking the time to explain this.
>
>        Alec

I posted a request before reading this. I won't need any more. Thanks,

Leigh
From: briscoe@cco.caltech.edu (Duke P. Briscoe)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Binoculars, exit pupil size, etc...
Date: 4 Jan 1993 06:51:29 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: alumni.caltech.edu

bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner) writes:
>In looking a little further into this eye pupil size question, I found several
>references which stated the maximum aperture for a human eye to be in excess
>of 7mm, a few stated 8mm and one said a few humans have been measured at 9mm.
>Two said the average was not 7mm but rather between 7.25 - 7.50 mm (for
>people under 30 years old).  Did your chart list any entries above 7mm?

The chart in the article which comes with the S&T pupil gauge kit is
taken from a study by I.E. Loewenfeld published in "Night Vision",
National Academy Press, 1987.  It was based on measurements of over
1200 people.  It is hard to estimate actual frequencies from the
chart (guesses based on density of dots representing individuals), but
at age 15, it seems that perhaps 10% have pupils between 8 & 8.7mm,
with the average being perhaps 7.25mm, and the bottom 10% falling
between 5 & 5.5mm.  There is a nearly linear decline in pupil size to
age 45, after which the decline levels out.  At age 45, the top 10%
fall between about 6.8 and 7.1mm, the bottom 10% between 3.2 and 4.2,
and the average being about 5.6.

briscoe@alumni.caltech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: Ben Burch <Burch_Ben@wes.mot.com>
Subject: Re: polishing, when is enough?
Organization: Motorola, Inc.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 12:29:25 GMT
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A76F2FE09A01B081@ben_burch.pb.wes.mot.com>
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
X-Xxdate: Tue, 5 Jan 93 06:30:24 GMT

In article <1708@seqp4.sequoia.com> John Curtis,
jcurtis@seqp4.sequoia.com writes:
> When is enough?  Any hints?   I haven't used my Foucault apparatus on

Take the mirror, and sprinkle little powdered sugar on it, and examine it
under
a good microscope.  When you are done polishing, you will see no pits at
300X.
The best places to look are .25" from the bevel, the center, and the 50%
zone.
Why the powdered sugar?  When a mirror is close to done, it is sometimes
hard
to focus the microscope on the surface, and sometimes one touches down
with the
microscope objective and damages it or the mirror.  The powder washes off
easily,
and helps you find the surface.

Of course, sometime one finds really big pits that were not removed in
fine
grinding.  Then it is up to you conscience...

-Ben Burch
From: J.JAHN@ABBS.zer.sub.org
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Distribution: world
Subject: Sunspots at 11.01.1993.
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:30:00 +0100
X-Gateway: ZCONNECT AB ABBS.hanse.de [UUCPfZ V3.8a U004]

Sunspots at 11.01.1993., 0 h UT.

No.    Pos.  Cl.  Ar.  Mag. SF  F  M  X
---------------------------------------
7386 05S 51W Cao  170   b
7387 22S 49W Hrx   10   a    1
7389 19S 32W Cao   30   b
7391 12S 01E Hsx   30   a
7394 17S 45W Dao   70   b    1
7395 13N 20E Hsx   20   a
7396 13S 13W Bxo   10   b
7398 08N 16E Dso   60   b
7399 06N 01E Bxo   10   b


No optical or x-ray flares yesterday observed.
From: mannerl@kenyon.edu
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Downloading! Help!
Date: 7 Jan 93 04:04:50 GMT
Organization: Kenyon College


 Here is my problem, I have a account at a local college and I access it via
modem. I can download files to my account at the college, but I don't know how
to download it to my home computer. Help!

                                                           J.H.M.
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.physics,sci.environment
From: len@math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Subject: Re: averting doom
Organization: Dept of Math, Northwestern Univ
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:21:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.161445.12236@unocal.com>, stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
> In article <JMC.92Dec29211051@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
> >from a U.P. story
> >
> >	     WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Life on Earth as we know it will
> >     come to an end in 1,500 million years and the planet will
> >     look more like its dusty, volcanic sister Venus in 2,500
> >     million years, scientists said Wednesday.
> 
> If we can't model the weather more than 5 days in advance nor agree on
> climate prediction in 50 years, who would have any confidence in this
> speculation?

-- 
1>  This has nothing to do with modelling weather.   The difficulty
in weather prediction is that the kinds of dynamical systems being
modelled are too sensitive to small changes in initial conditions
for the models to be accurate over long periods of time.

2>  Climate models are in fact much more accurate than weather
models.   This is because they are concerned with average phenomena
and averages have much greater stability and predicitability.
Differences about climate models' prediction of global warming by
those who have studied such things are of the order of magnitude
of whether warming will be a bit over 1 degree C or two
or three times as high and whether it will take 50 years or 100
years.  There is a very substantial amount agreement.
This fact has been obscured by the intense ideological
disputes over the issue.

3>  The predictions of the ultimate history of the earth are based
on models of stars which are really fairly simple.  If the
sun warms up, it is probably not too far out to suggest possible
physical responses here on earth over long periods of time.  This
doesn't even require computer models.  Of course, none of this
can be certain, but remember that we are
talking about periods of hundreds of millions of years.   The
estimate of 1.5 billion is the largest I have seen.   The most
recent news article that I saw suggested that a previous estimate
of 100 million years was too low and that it might be more like
900 million years.  Clearly this analysis is all fairly new
and the arguments will be subject to intense scrutiny.  However,
I don't see why a consensus couldn't develop on the
matter among geophysicists.  This should be just a reliable and
scientific as beliefs now held about the early universe or other
events in deep space or deep time.  
  
4>  Except as interesting speculation, why should anyone care?
Remember that  the real (plentiful) fossil record on earth is only about
500 million years old.   Surely no one should worry seriously about
what sort of actions humanity should take to deal with such a problem.
Unfortunately, this may confuse people about the issue of global
warming which is something which may radically affect human societies
in the next several generations and which we may be able to do
something about.

Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
From: markus@octavia.anu.edu.au (Markus Buchhorn)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: COBE result (was Re: Quantisation of REDSHIFT)
Date: 11 Jan 1993 00:31:49 GMT
Organization: Australian National University, Canberra
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.5.35
Originator: markus@octavia


richmond@spiff.Princeton.EDU (Stupendous Man) writes:

>   Speaking of astronomy, I read the article in today's (Friday's) NY Times
> on a presentation of COBE results from the AAS meeting.  No one here at
> Princeton could figure out what the article was saying.  It SEEMED to
> say something like "COBE measurements of the microwave spectrum show 
> a really, really good fit to a blackbody spectrum.  Therefore, nothing
> exciting happened in the universe after the BB for at least one year."
> Can someone at the AAS meeting make things more clear?
> 

I didn't go to the AAS meeting, but my understanding of the result is
as follows (I'm sure that others will politely correct me if needed :-))

The temperature that COBE sees now is the BB temp, redshifted for
15Gyears (+/- whatever :-) ). If there had been other major releases of
energy (even at the same temp as the Big One) at a later stage they would
have an oh-so slightly different temperature now. Now, I can't draw the
Blackbody curve in ASCII partuclarly well, so pretend it's a triangle :-)

The peak of the triangle depends on the temperature, while the area under
the triangle relates to the energy released in the event. If you see
a temperature profile that looks like a triangle, you can measure its
temp now, and the energy *in that event*. If there are other events, they
will add other triangles, perhaps at other temperatures, and this causes
bumps in your original triangle. If the event was large enough, it will
deform your triangle quite drastically. If it happenened at another temperature
there will be peaks away from the main peak.

The AAS result says that they saw a triangle, and it was a very smooth
triangle - no bumps at other temperatures, down to some very small level. Hence,
if there were other events at a later time they were *very very* small.

Does that help to make it clearer ?  {And to those who know, did I get 
it right ? :-) }

Cheers,
	Markus

-- 
Markus Buchhorn, Parallel Computing Research Facility
email = markus@octavia.anu.edu.au
Australian National University, I-Block, PO Box 4, Canberra, 2601, Australia.
[International = +61 6, Australia = 06] [Phone = 2492930, Fax = 2490747]
From: lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Telescope Recommendation
Date: 6 Jan 93 01:08:49 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation

In article <1756@optigfx.optigfx.com> wang@optigfx.optigfx.com (Alice Wang) writes:
>
>I would like some recommendations on a telescope.
>This will be for view use instead of astronomy.
>Our house is about 2 miles from the ocean.
>
>under $200 ones.  A friend has also suggested
>Celestron ?? 90.  Does anyone has experience with
>these scopes?

  Celestron's are gonna cost you a LOT more than $200...but you
  probably don't need than for casual viewing unless you are also
  gonna take pictures (which can happen....its addicting).

  See if you can find a Mead catalog...also an Edmund Scientific
  catalog.  Edmund in particular has several moderately priced
  models of higher than you'd expect optical quality.

>
>We also need to buy a tripot.  We have a light-weight
>portable one for our camera which is probably not
>sturdy enough.  The ones in the store is around $100.
>
   Edmund has a clever model telescope that doesn't need a tripod.

   Maybe a view camera tripod would keep a scope steady, but these
   are very expensive.  And a poor tripod is gonna vibrate in the
   wind (and everything else) enough to tire your eyes out quickly.
From: scott.ransom@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Scott Ransom)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Annual calendar of celestial events
Organization: Fidonet. Gate admin is fido@socs.uts.edu.au
Date: 04 Jan 93 08:42:10 GMT

Original to: palmer@sfu.ca
 -=> Quoting palmerRe: Annual calendar of celestial eventsfu.ca to All <=-

 p> Did the article mention the fact, due to the same cause as the
 p> retardation of sunrise and sunset at the winter solstice, that spring
 p> and summer in the northern hemisphere last more than a week longer than
 p> fall and winter? Turns out that the sun hurries through our cooler
 p> seasons, and the Earth's rotation can't keep up with it. Kepler's
 p> second law explains it nicely. 
 p> That's my favorite counterintuitive result. It's a nice thought, since
 p> it is snowing right now.

Does this also mean that all the sun Im currently enjoying here in Sydney
will also be a rush job? I always wondered why winter was so long, and
summer such a fleeting event.. Or is that just romantisism?


Scott..      
--- Blue Wave/Max v2.05 [NR]
 * Origin: Vulcans's World (3:713/635.0)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: tg@cs.toronto.edu (Tom Glinos)
Subject: Re: MIRROR QUALITY and other questions
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 7 Jan 93 15:10:35 GMT

In article <29178@oasys.dt.navy.mil> roscoe@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Andrew Roscoe) writes:
>I'm in the process of building a large aperture Dobsonian.  I am
>at the point where a decision must be made as to the optical
>company from which I should purchase the mirror.  I am considering
>four companies, Galaxy Optics, D & G Optical, Pegasus Optics, and
>Handmade Telescopes, all of which sell a 20 inch mirror for about
>$2000.  My question is does anyone have any experience with these
>companies, especially where mirror quality is concerned?

I ordered a 20" f5 and secondary from Galaxy in 1991. I got the mirror on time
and the optics appear to be pretty good. I have not yet objectively
tested them. They came with a lifetime warranty.

>In the same vein, this telescope is an open truss design and I have
>read that one's body heat will seriously degrade image quality. 
>I have been considering the use of bubble wrap as a shroud.  Is
>this feasible?  Is it practical?  Will I still need a black cloth
>shroud to eliminate stray light?

You need to cover the truss in any event to prevent stray light.
I have not found body heat to be a big problem.

>In their advertisements Astro-Physics published testimonial letters
>describing Enke's division as being easily observed through their
>6" apochromatic Starfire telescope.  Is this possible?  Will I be
>able to resolve Enke's division with my 20" f/5 Dobsonian?

Astro-Physics makes beautiful stuff. If I could afford it I'd buy one
and permanently mount my 20". I probably will permanently mount my 20
since it's a pain to put up and tear down. But, the rule of thumb is
given good observing conditions, nothing beats aperature. Enke is
easily seen.
-- 
=================
No regrets, ever!			| Tom Glinos @ U of Toronto Statistics
For down that path, lies madness	| tg@utstat.toronto.edu
From: agnew@gems.vcu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: SCT vs. Newtonian
Date: 6 Jan 93 10:22:18 -0400
Organization: Medical College of Virginia

Dear Netpeople..
 One of our Neurosurgeons asked me about the new Meade economy Newtonians,
and how they'd stack up against an sct...  (schmidt-cassegrain)

Any takers???  Jim Agnew

         /^^^\   \ /   Jim Agnew         | AGNEW@RUBY.VCU.EDU  (Internet)
        /      >  ||   Neurosurgery,     | AGNEW@VCUVAX        (Bitnet)
   /\_/     '   \  /   MCV-VCU           | This disc will self destruct in
 /________________>    Richmond, VA, USA | five seconds.  Good luck, Jim..."

Newsgroups: sci.astro,rec.radio.shortwave
From: oler@rho.uleth.ca (Cary Oler)
Subject: Daily Solar Geophysical Data Broadcast for 03 January
Organization: University of Lethbridge
Date:  4 Jan 93 08:15:39 GMT

!!BEGIN!! (1.0) S.T.D. Solar Geophysical Data Broadcast for DAY 003, 01/03/93
10.7 FLUX=125    90-AVG=139        SSN=078      BKI=5435 3333  BAI=024
BGND-XRAY=B3.3     FLU1=2.1E+06  FLU10=9.8E+03  PKI=5445 3433  PAI=024
  BOU-DEV=082,050,030,071,023,027,031,032   DEV-AVG=043 NT     SWF=00:000
 XRAY-MAX= C6.4   @ 0001UT    XRAY-MIN= B2.9   @ 2359UT   XRAY-AVG= B5.0
NEUTN-MAX= +001%  @ 2000UT   NEUTN-MIN= -003%  @ 2115UT  NEUTN-AVG= -1.0%
  PCA-MAX= +0.1DB @ 0915UT     PCA-MIN= -0.4DB @ 1015UT    PCA-AVG= -0.0DB
BOUTF-MAX=55424NT @ 0419UT   BOUTF-MIN=55385NT @ 1957UT  BOUTF-AVG=55409NT
GOES7-MAX=P:+119NT@ 1929UT   GOES7-MIN=N:+000NT@ 1018UT  G7-AVG=+073,+029,+009
GOES6-MAX=P:+140NT@ 1931UT   GOES6-MIN=E:-039NT@ 1257UT  G6-AVG=+091,-002,+039
 FLUXFCST=STD:128,130,135;SESC:128,130,135 BAI/PAI-FCST=018,018,010/018,018,012
    KFCST=3335 6333 3335 6333  27DAY-AP=005,014   27DAY-KP=2111 2321 2233 4334
 WARNINGS=
   ALERTS=
!!END-DATA!!
From: cmitchell@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: cosmology schools
Date: 12 Jan 93 12:23:08 EST
Organization: USAF AL/CFH, WPAFB, Dayton, OH


Greetings -

Suppose I'm a middle aged guy with a BS in computer engineering, about to get
a master's in Math, and would like to start studying things like the
birth and death of the universe.

Where might I try to go to school?

I'm not brilliant - just an ordinary mortal - and am curious about these
things.

Thanks.

-- 

"The opinions and views expressed here are strictly my own and do not 
necessarily reflect the official position of either the U.S. Air Force 
or its contractors."

Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: fischer@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Phil Fischer)
Subject: Re: obstructed view?
Keywords: telescope refractor reflector
Organization: Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, McMaster University
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:18:22 GMT

In article <1ivb92INN974@falcon.natinst.com> butler@natinst.com (Paul Butler) writes:
>It seems that people prefer refractors for viewing the planets, but are
>willing to use a telescope with an obstruction (e.g. Newtonians) in
>order to gain aperture when viewing far away objects.
>
>1.  Why is this?
>

One reason is that refractors have chromatic abberation. That is,
different wavelengths of light will focus differently. I believe this
was Newton's motivation for inventing the reflecting telescope.

Phil
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: u108502@beta.lanl.gov (Andrew Poutiatine)
Subject: Re: averting doom
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:52:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.161445.12236@unocal.com> stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>In article <JMC.92Dec29211051@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>>from a U.P. story
>>
>>	     WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Life on Earth as we know it will
>>     come to an end in 1,500 million years and the planet will
>>     look more like its dusty, volcanic sister Venus in 2,500
>>     million years, scientists said Wednesday.
>
>If we can't model the weather more than 5 days in advance nor agree on
>climate prediction in 50 years, who would have any confidence in this
>speculation?

I believe the above prediction is based not on earth climate and weather
considerations (for which I must agree predictions of more than a few days
are not very dependable), but rather on the evolution of the sun.

I am not an astronomer, but as I recall, theory predicts that stars of our
sun's size go through a stage in their evolution at the end of their lives
when they become hotter and expand.  It is this, I believe, that would
parch the earth, killing life "as we know it."

-AIP

From: Greg.Prince@f31.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Greg Prince)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Meteor Impact Site In No
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1993 11:31:00 -0600


PD>> It'd be interesting though if it is an impact site, because of the
previous
PD>> glaciation of the area.  Anything that wasn't fairly
PD>> recent wouldn't still be
PD>> there.


PD>Let's all not forget that small, round depressions are often found in
PD>places that glaciers once covered.  Called "kettles", these
PD>depressions are formed in glacial till by the melting of buried masses
PD>of ice left behind as the main glacier retreats.

Exactly.  I take it I'm not the only one who would find such an impact
site rather questionable?  It would be interesting to look at, at any rate.

greg
___
 * SLMR 2.0 * Formatting Universe. .000000000000000000000001 % complete