HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Aurora...lurking....
Date: 23 Jan 1993 05:24:40 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


 You're right...I've got no more info about this bird than what is avail-
able in the press if you look for it. But I'm trying to get some other
people involved and maybe, just maybe, we can learn something new.
I do think it is worth the effort....Jesus, this thing will be the 
SR71 of the next two decades!! Imagine....mach 8, and world circling
range!
John
-- 
   
  Don't blame me.....I voted for Bush!
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Messier object GIFs\
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:36:21 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalf.fnal.gov

In article <phfrom.438@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>, phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert) writes:
> Some time ago I read that somebody has scanned and made a/v (posted on
> [].binaries.[] or an ftp-site ?) pictures of (all ?) the Messier objects
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> in GIF format. 

I thought these newsgroups were only for pictures of binaries, 
not Messier objects.

(-:

Of course, what Shakespeare        | Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey
ORIGINALLY wrote was "First thing  | Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  
we do, let's kill all the EDITORS."| Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  
But for some reason it didn't      | Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  
survive past the first draft.      | SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  
-- David D. "Laserdave" Levine (davidl@ssd.intel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: frodet@brosme.dhmolde.no (Frode Tennebo)
Subject: New planet
Reply-To: frodet@brosme.dhmolde.no (Frode Tennebo)
Organization: Computer Science - DhMolde Norway
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 09:29:30 GMT


Astronomers at the 2.2-meter-telescope at Mauna Kea have recently
discovered a new planet in the solarsystem, which ut to this time has been
unknown. The planet, which has temporarily has been named 1992 QB1
(where those astronomers get their names from beats me), is more than six
billion kilometers (app. 5.56 light-hours) away and orbits slowly around
the sun outside the orbit of Pluto.

1992 QB1 is much smaller than Pluto, perhaps only 200 kilometers in
diameter. Pluto has a diameter of 2400 km.

I don't know HOW new this information is and if it is common knowledge
"out there", but if anybody has more information about this planet, I,
and probably more with me, will be most interested.
--
***************************************************************************
* Frode Tennebo                         * It's better to live life in     *
* email: frodet@brosme.dhmolde.no       * wealth and die poor, than live  * 
* snail: Parkv. 44, 6400 Molde, NORWAY  * life in poverty and die rich.   *
***************************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: The Moon's Orbit (Re: Solar Eclipse Question)
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:50:08 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalf.fnal.gov

In article <1k7arjINNhod@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, tjt@Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Tim Thompson) writes:
>    Joseph Cain asks if the fact that the Moon does not orbit in the plane of the
> Earth's equator is a clue to it's origin. Particularly, does this point toward
> the Moon being a captured object?
>
>    I think not. Most of Jupiter's tiny moons are certainly captured, 
> and they are
> nailed to Jupiter's equatorial plane (likewise Saturn, etc.). 

1) True only for the innermost ones, where tidal forces are large, and
the Galileans.  From Leda on out, they have inclinations of more than
15 degrees.  (Many are retrograde, but they aren't within 15 degrees
of 180.)

2) I don't know what perturbations make the Moon behave this way, but
Jupiter is *much* more oblate than the Earth (.0649 vs. .0034), which
would tidally crank inner moons toward the equator, and its
inclination to its orbit is lower (3.12 degrees vs. 23.45), so the
perturbing effect of the Sun to yank the satellites loose would be
low.

For Saturn, on the other hand, your facts seem to hold.

I knew there was a reason for keeping a table of planetary numbers
near my terminal!  Is there a place I can FTP this stuff so I can
stick it in my postings without typing all the values in myself?

> Timothy J. Thompson, Earth and Space Sciences Division, JPL.
> Assistant Administrator, Division Science Computing Network.
> Secretary, Los Angeles Astronomical Society.
> Member, BOD, Mount Wilson Observatory Association.

Oops.  Takes a lot of gall to argue with these credentials.  If Tim
proves me wrong, I will blame everyting in Beatty, Chaikin, and
O'Leary; I'm using the tables from *The New Solar System*.

Bill Higgins          |  If we can put a man on the Moon, why can't
Fermilab              |  we put a man on the Moon? -- Bill Engfer
higgins@fnal.fnal.gov |  If we can put a man on the Moon, why can't
higgins@fnal.Bitnet   |  we put a woman on the Moon? -- Bill Higgins
From: jt_rask@pavo.concordia.ca (RASKU, JASON T.)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Dark matter
Date: 25 Jan 93 00:27:00 GMT
Organization: Concordia University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

I heard that dark matter has been discovered.  I'd like to know if this is 
true and if it is true if anyone could give me a little info on the 
discovery.  Thanks.  E-Mail would be preffered.  Thanks again.

							Jason Rasku
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Toutatis Captured by Radar Images
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 05:24:58 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

>what it tells us about origins.  The rms velocity between any two asteroids
>is about 5 km/s -- somewhat more near the Earth's orbit.  Collisions
>between such objects would be catastrophically destructive.  So the joined
>fragments must have been previously in orbit as satellites of the asteroid,
>brought down gradually by tidal forces until a gentle contact occurred.

Mmmm, not necessarily. A small body striking a larger one might easily 
disrupt the larger without dispersing the pieces. No doubt someone has
already attempted to calculate a distribution of such collisions based
on the known distribution of asteroid sizes and orbits.
Remember that so far these contact binaries have been observed only at 
low resolution. I'll predict that higher resolution images will show 
most of them to consist of "rubble piles", that is, many pieces of 
varied sizes, not just two big ones. (If so,
they ought to named Barksian asteroids, after artist Carl Barks who first
suggested the idea.) What does your theory predict? 


>of a much larger parent body.  The prediction that asteroid satellites are
>numerous and commonplace originates from the exploded planet hypothesis.
>There is presently no other known way to produce abundant asteroids with
>current or former satellites.  

Indeed. Further bold prediction: high resolution images will show nearly
no co-orbiting asteroids or asteroids with satellites.

(By the way: is the exploded planet idea a consequence of your
Meta Theory?)

Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: fretts@willee.enet.dec.com (Carole Fretts)
Subject: Nuclear explosion in space?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:48:54 GMT


I'm not sure that this is the right forum for my question, but I need to
ask this.  Has anyone else heard a news report that the U.S. is planning
on detonating a nuclear device in space?  I heard it this weekend on
a Boston morning radio news broadcast but cannot track it down for any
further information.  What I caught was that a planned nuclear detonation
in space was being postponed for a few months to make sure that no
satellites are damaged in the explosion.

I would really appreciate hearing from anyone who knows anything about
this.  Also, if you have the names of government agencies I could contact
to confirm this, that would also be appreciated.

Thanks,
Carole
Newsgroups: sci.astro,rec.radio.shortwave
From: metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
Subject: Re: "Modeling" the Expanding Universe? (was Re: That Great Pulsar Timing Flame War)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 07:20:27 GMT


Earlier, I wrote:

>> the solar system has about 20 orders of magnitude higher matter density
>> than the universe.  If much weaker matter densities will cause space in
>> the universe to eventually contract, why doesn't it cause space in the
>> solar system to contract now?

and schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) replied:

> Good golly, is it really necessary to state this? The angular momentum of
> the solar system keeps it from collapsing! Without it, the solar system
> would collapse in a few years. Same argument for superclusters, etc. The
> universe, OTOH, appears to have negligible net angular momentum, but also
> has much lower average density.

     Indeed, you state the obvious, which I think no one has overlooked.
The effect of gravity on matter is well-studied and well known.  To a first
approximation, it is Newtonian in its behavior.  Your remark refers to the
effect of gravity on matter.  That is not part of the dilemma we were
discussing.

     My question above refers to the effect of gravity on spacetime, as
hypothesized by the big bang theory and described in GR.  The gravity of
the universe has no net effect (so far as we know) on galaxies or any other
matter in the universe.  (If it did, in what direction could it possibly
act if the big bang had no center?)  In particular, it does not make
galaxies move through space (see other concurrent messages).  But it does
have a retarding effect on the expansion of spacetime.  But spacetime has
no angular momentum that we know of, either in the universe at large or in
the solar system.  So your argument is inapplicable to my question.

     Implicit in my question is the assumption that if local spacetime
expanded or contracted, that would add or subtract space between the Sun
and the planets.  So we could detect such a change by measuring the
distances of planets, just as we detect cosmological redshift by measuring
galaxies.  -|Tom|-

-- 
Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / metares@well.sf.ca.us
Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: mock@sybil.mit.edu (Patrick C. Mock)
Subject: Re: "Modeling" the Expanding Universe?
Originator: mock@sybil
Organization: MIT Center for Space Research
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:43:27 GMT


In article <C1CGp7.Jo7@well.sf.ca.us>, metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) writes:
> 
> Earlier, I wrote:
> 
> >> In short, in a big bang universe matter can change its distance in two
> >> ways: (1) directly, by the curving of spacetime by gravity, which causes
> >> matter to start moving through space; (2) indirectly, by the addition or
> >> subtraction of space between unmoving packets of matter.
> 
... stuff deleted ...
> 
>      I agree that (2) is not what GR predicts; it is what the big bang
> predicts.  I gave four citations in my previous post.  This is common
> knowledge among cosmologists.  Maybe they all have the same very common
> misconception as I do?  :-)

Actually I think it is probably a combinations of misconceptions and sloppy
analogies.  In GR (and quantum theory) on very large (and very small)
scales spacetime (particles) behaves in ways that never occur on a human
scale that we can directly experience.  Our ability to describe physics on
these scales is accurate mathematically but not linguistically.  This leads
to common misconceptions that are often fed by inadequate descriptions and
sloppy sloppy analogies.  The big bang is further complicated by multiple
equally valid metrics, ie. Friedman-Roberston-Walker and Minkowski.

GR is part of the foundation of big bang models.  The behavior of spacetime in
a big bang model is described by GR.  The analogy that an expanding universe
corresponds to a balloon with dots is only one way to view what the theory
tells us.  This analogy breaks down when applied to the solar system.  The
problem is with the analogy and not the theory.

Since we agree that option (2) is not predicted by GR, then it is also not
predicted by the big bang.  Statements that use the analogy of expanding 
spacetime are accurate only in a limited context but are often very useful in 
these contexts.  Unfortunately they can be very confusing when used in the
wrong context.  The limits of this analogy are determined by the theory.

> 
>      The big bang is not my theory -- I have no interest in this point
> beyond pinning down what the theory says so that it can be falsified. Shall
> we pose my statement to some senior big bang cosmologists and ask them if
> it is true, false, or ambiguous?  How else can we resolve this impasse?
>      -|Tom|-
> 

On the scale of the solar system a big bang model says it's all GR and GR says
its almost newtonian.

Pat
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Thursday, 28 Jan 1993 09:40:12 PST
From: Jon J Thaler <DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: "Modeling" the Expanding Universe?

metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) says:

> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:

>> If one adds two test particles to the universe, the general expansion
>> does NOT by itself cause the test particles to move apart.  Subsequent
>> movement of the test particles depends on their mutual gravity and the
>> gravitational or electromagnetic forces imposed on them by other
>> matter/energy in the usual, non-cosmological ways.

> If the matter density is uniform, then the pair of test particles
> increases its mutual separation due to the appearance of new space between
> them, although both stay put in space.  Their motion in response to forces
> is superimposed on that cosmological "expansion."

You are wrong.  I challenge you to show a calculation, or give a reference
to one, which demonstrates that test particles (initially at rest wrt each
other) will move apart as a result of the expansion of the universe.
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: maytag@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (MAYTAG CHRISTOPHER PRAY)
Subject: Re: Refurbishing Observatory...surprise !!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:29:56 GMT

In article <142024.2B5E061C@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Mike.Ditto@p0.f240.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Ditto) writes:
>ruin a great piece of history!!  If you would like a PROFESSIONAL cleaning, 
>please feel free to send the optics to me PROTECTED AND INSURED to the 
>Denver Museum of Natural History, Gates Planetarium.  2001 Colorado Blvd. 
>Denver, CO 80205.  The staff astronomers and opticians would DIE to be able 
>to help you out on this wonderful project!
>
>Jamie!  Please netmail me at mike.ditto@f104.n240.z1.fidonet.org.  Thanks!!

This is the kind of story that makes my head spin...imagine finding such an
instrument! Ack! I wonder what the condition of the optics is currently...could
be fantastic if the instrument had been taken care of before the observatory was
closed. Wow...Mike - I live in Boulder...if you need any help (or just an interested
observer, mail me! <G>

-Chris
 

-- 
/ christopher maytag / cis:76500,1205 genie:c.maytag / VOTE FREEDOM- /
/    boulder, co.    /  ---------------------------  /     VOTE      /
/    303.440.9452    /    maytag@cs.colorado.edu     /  LIBERTARIAN  /
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: Modelling the expanding universe?
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:24:11 GMT

In article <C15vp9.6x5@well.sf.ca.us> metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)  
writes:
> 
> Earlier, I wrote:
> 
> >> If [the Hubble] rate, 50-100 km/s/Mpc, is prorated down to solar system
> >> dimensions, no ... expansion is seen in planetary orbits.  The question
> >> we are discussing is, why not?
> 
> and clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) replied:
> 
> > Are you sure it would be observable?  I make out the radius of the
> > earth's orbit to be ~1.5E-11 MPc; therefore the Hubble expansion at 1 AU
> > comes out ~1.5E-9 km/sec for h=100 km/s/MPc.  The ratio of this to the
> > earth's orbital velocity is ~5.5E-11.
> 
>      Actually, the radius of the Earth's orbit is closer to 0.5E-11 Mpc.
> What we measure with radar and spacecraft ranging is the actual change in
> the mean orbital radius, not the doppler shift.  If the Earth's orbit were
> increasing at the Hubble rate of 1E-10/yr, that would be easily detectible.

I converted 8 light minutes to megaparsecs, but I forgot the 3.26 ly/parsec
factor.  Ooops.

10E-10/year of earth's orbit is about 1.5E-2km=15 meters.  Yeah, that
would be detectable by radar ranging.  I forgot about those measurements.
I guess the laser ranging of the retroreflectors on the moon would
constrain the expansion as well.

One forgets.  To quote Douglas Adams, "Space is big.  Really, really big!"
Even the solar system.
 
> 
> > Besides, maybe there has been expansion :-)  I understand there is some
> > difficulty in explaining why the earth did not freeze when the sun was
> > younger and less luminous.  If the solar system was smaller 3-4 billion
> > years ago by the 15-30% value that expansion would imply, this might
> > account for how we avoided a big freeze.
> 
>      Except that observations say the solar system is not expanding at the
> Hubble rate today.  -|Tom|-
 
Shucks!.  And I was getting all excited about solving a climatological
mystery.:-(
--
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
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Refurbishing Observatory...SURPRISE !!
Keywords: telescope
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:51:26 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

I was cleaning out an old trunk the other day and I found
this funny-lookin croquet ball kinda thing that opens up.
It says "Faberge" on the bottom. Is this an old shampoo
bottle? It seems to take paint pretty well.
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>
Subject: Re: Toutatis Captured by
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A78A9D0805021C1D@rs14-annex3.sfu.ca>
X-Xxdate: Tue, 26 Jan 93 15:47:20 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:47:13 GMT

In article <842.36.uupcb@pcs.sj.ca.us> Paul Burnett,
paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us writes:

>LP>One expects that, given the heterogeneity of the asteroids (seen
>  >by spectroscopy)
>
>I thought we assumed that the _surface_ of the asteroids was covered by
>heterogeneous material - do we assume that the innards are
>heterogeneous?

Sorry, I used the wrong word. I should have said "diversity". I couldn't
find it in my word bag that morning.

There are sparse data, indeed, on the heterogeneity of the surfaces of
single asteroids. As for the innards, I expect they are as diverse as the
meteorites, which are pretty diverse.

Leigh
Newsgroups: sci.astro,world
From: gst@spdcc.com (Gary S. Trujillo)
Subject: Re: Sunspots at 19.01.1993.
Reply-To: gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo)
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 03:18:59 GMT

In article <27473166040@amterm1.abbs.hanse.de> j.jahn@abbs.zer.sub.org writes:
> Sunspots at 19.01.1993., 0 h UT.

I'm sorry to post this notice, but a message sent to the author bounced.


PLEASE!  Remove the "world" string from the "Newsgroups:" line of your
articles

	Newsgroups: sci.astro,world
			      ^^^^^

It's causing all kinds of havoc on my system - due to a bug or a feature,
I know not which.  I believe you want:

	Distribution: world

instead.

Thanks much!

Gary
-- 
    Gary S. Trujillo                             gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
Somerville, Massachusetts               {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: cflatter@nrao.edu (Chris Flatters)
Subject: Re: Planetary Ephemeris Routines?
Reply-To: cflatter@nrao.edu
Organization: NRAO
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 00:56:07 GMT

In article 11460@news.lrz-muenchen.de, HUSFELD@usmv01.usm.uni-muenchen.de (Husfeld, Dirk) writes:
>In <1993Jan22.182648.7390@zia.aoc.nrao.edu> cflatter@nrao.edu writes:
>
>>>   <some cited lines about numerical precision deleted>
>> Unfortunately his discussion of numerical precision is very outdated.  Almost
>> anything you are likely to have on your desk these days will maintain much
>> better precision than Meeus would lead you to believe (most machines will
>> only lose one bit of precision in subtraction no matter how close the numbers
>> being subtracted for example).
>> 
>> 	Chris Flatters
>> 	cflatter@nrao.edu
>>
>Hmmm.  If you subtract two numbers that differ by only the last bit in their
>binary representation, then your result only has one bit of precision.
>So I think your above words were not very carefully chosen.  Could you
>elaborate on what you mean?

Most current floating-point implementations use an extra bit (called a
guard digit) during addition and subtraction.  It can be proved
(meaning I'm not going to do it here --- its awkward to reproduce it
text --- see "What Every Computer Scientist Should Know About
Floating-Point Arithmetic" by David Goldberg, ACM Computing Surveys,
23:5 (1991) if you really want to study it) that the use of a single
guard digit will restrict the maximum relative error in the subtraction
of two numbers to be less than 2e where e is the upper bound on the
relative error caused by rounding by half a unit in the least
significant digit (this is a general theorem and applies to both binary
and non-binary floating-point representations).

Floating-point implementations that conform to IEEE standard 754 (these
include IBM PC's (Intel 80x87), and most workstations (including SPARC,
MIPS, PA-RISC and IBM RS/6000) use a guard digit.  VAX floating-point
also uses a guard digit.  IBM added a guard digit to the
double-precision format of its system/360 architecture in the late
1960s (single-precision already used a guard digit) and retrofitted
every machine in the field.  Cray supercomputers do not use a guard
digit.

	Chris Flatters
	cflatter@nrao.edu