December 2003 - Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

RE: [Utah-astronomy] Out of the Blue
by Kim Hyatt 19 Dec '03

19 Dec '03

Another $0.02: A simple measure of Burnham's genius is the fact that no on - NO ONE - has even tried to produce a comparable work or even update his. (Although I have heard rumors that there may be someone attempting to update Burnham's.) Even with an update, most of the data and all of the personal observations will remain unchanged. In the end, his is a sad tale its true, but when I pick up my Burnham's I always marvel at his work. How he ended his life never comes to mind. I hope I can be remembered for something even remotely as important as the Celestial Handbook. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Gibson [mailto:xajax99@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 8:36 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Out of the Blue Brent I had not and do not intended to cast any dispersion on Burnham or his work. My remark was perhaps a failed attempt at a little humor, and I intended to refer back to what Jim, Kim and Chuck said about how magnitudes were formerly derived from photographic plates in the blue spectra; hence - "out of the blue". I really like my Burnham books and I suspect that they will by my standard for a long time to come. Jim _____ Do you Yahoo!? New <http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=21260/*http://photos.yahoo. com> Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Out of the Blue
by Brent Watson 19 Dec '03

19 Dec '03

Jim, Robert Burnham was a VERY gifted individual. His handbook was published independantly from the Lowell Observatory (?) where he worked because they were afraid of the data being in error. Yet, history has proven this to not be the casre. His science was exact, and his numbers are still considered today to be some of the most accurate. Burnham's data did not come "out of the blue". Rather than cast dispersion on his monumental and excellent effort, I propose another reason for the disparity you see. You are very aware that no two instruments behave exactly alike in a given situation. Now allow different instruments to be used at vastly different locations, under very dis-similar circumstances and environments, and operated by varying human individuals and you come up with the scatter in the data you are seeing. Look at the data scatter in measurements made by different CCDs for variable star work. Look at data produced for multiple star work for separation and position angle. If you compare all of this you'll see that in astronomy (and all of science) things are not always well quantified. A given individual instrument may be repeatable, but getting agreement in the same lab at the same time with two different instruments is extremely difficult, and many time cannot be done. Please compare numbers aross more than just one catalog. NGC 2000 is not the ultimate bible. Compare with the Yale Catalog of Bright Stars, the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory catalog, the Guide Star Catalog, etc. You'll see that no two are alike. I stand by the lion share of data produced by Robert Burnham. He was a far better man than I, and I have enormous respect for the accuracy and consistency he produced. Brent --- Jim Gibson <xajax99(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Jim, Kim, and Chuck > > > > Thanks for the response. I have always wondered how > magnitudes are derived. Part of my curiosity on the > subject stems from my noticing that the magnitudes > as stated in Burnham's Celestial Handbook as > compared to Sinnett's NGC 2000.0 frequently are at > variance. Burnham tends to be more conservative. His > magnitudes tend to have higher values than > Sinnotts. > > > > Burnhams has a copyright of 1958-1979 and the NGC > 2000.0 has a copyright of 1988. Without deeper > research, in other words, taking a guess and > applying your descriptions of how magnitudes are > derived, I would guess that Burnham took his > magnitudes out of the blue (pun intended) and > Sinnotts may align more closely with the visual. > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing> _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > Visit the Photo Gallery: > http://www.utahastronomy.com > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/

2 1

RE: [Utah-astronomy] Off Topic Christmas Physics
by Dale Hooper 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

Actually, as I think about it, going so fast just makes his time crunch much worse - because time is slowed down in the "accelerated" frame - so he would appear to be doing things very slowly (to us). Gotta make sure I'm in the right reference frame <g>. So, obviously he lied - no wonder he needs a space-time warping system. > -----Original Message----- > From: Dale Hooper > Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 5:16 PM > To: Utah Astronomy > Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Off Topic Christmas Physics > > > However, > > If we instead make a few different assumptions, > 1) Santa has rigged a matter/anti-matter motor onto each reindeer > 2) He has accelerated his sleigh extremely close to the > speed of light before his journey even begins > 3) He has created a "sheild" so that he and the reindeer > don't get destroyed by running into each molecule in the atmosphere > at near light speed. > > Then > Due to special relativistic effects if Santa simply maintains > his velocity > 1) To him it would seem that he has "boat-loads" of time > 2) Since he is going so fast Lorentzian length contraction > effects come into play so those chimneys seem huge (at least in the > direction of motion). So, he simply flies in, drops > things off (which admittedly - have to decelerate VERY quickly) and > then he is off again. > > However, now he is working on just "simply" warping > space-time so he won't even have to break a sweat. > > At least that is how he explained to me. <VBG> > > Happy holidays, > Dale. > > >

2 1

RE: [Utah-astronomy] Off Topic Christmas Physics
by Dale Hooper 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

However, If we instead make a few different assumptions, 1) Santa has rigged a matter/anti-matter motor onto each reindeer 2) He has accelerated his sleigh extremely close to the speed of light before his journey even begins 3) He has created a "sheild" so that he and the reindeer don't get destroyed by running into each molecule in the atmosphere at near light speed. Then Due to special relativistic effects if Santa simply maintains his velocity 1) To him it would seem that he has "boat-loads" of time 2) Since he is going so fast Lorentzian length contraction effects come into play so those chimneys seem huge (at least in the direction of motion). So, he simply flies in, drops things off (which admittedly - have to decelerate VERY quickly) and then he is off again. However, now he is working on just "simply" warping space-time so he won't even have to break a sweat. At least that is how he explained to me. <VBG> Happy holidays, Dale. > -----Original Message----- > From: Cynthia Blue [mailto:cynweb@cynthiablue.net] > Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 4:38 PM > To: Utah Astronomy > Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Off Topic Christmas Physics > > > Off Topic but a bit science related! LOL > > > There are approximately 2 billion children (persons under > 18) in the > > world. > > > > However, since Santa does not visit children of Muslim, > Hindu, Jewish, > > Buddhist religions, this reduces the workload for > Christmas night to 15% > > of the total, or 378 million (according to the Population Reference > > Bureau, whoever they are). At an average (census) rate of > 3.5 children > > per house hold, that comes to 108 million homes, presuming > that there is > > at least one good child in each. > > > > Santa has about 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the > > different time zones and the rotation of the earth, > logically assuming > > he travels east to west. This works out to 967.7 visits > per second. This > > is to say that for each Christian household with a good > child, Santa has > > around 1/1000th of a second to park the sleigh, hop out, > jump down the > > chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining > presents under the > > tree, eat whatever snacks have been left for him, get back up the > > chimney, jump into the sleigh and get on to the next house. > > > > Assuming that each of these 108 million stops is evenly distributed > > around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false, > but, hey; work > > with me here), we are now talking about 0.78 miles per household; a > > total trip of 75.5 million miles, not counting bathroom > stops or breaks. > > This means Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per > second --- 3,149 > > times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest > > man-made vehicle, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky > 27.4 miles > > per second, and a conventional reindeer can run (at best) > 15 miles per > > hour. > > > > The payload of the sleigh adds another interesting > element. Assuming > > that each child gets nothing more than a medium sized Lego set (2 > > pounds), the sleigh is carrying over 500 thousand tons, > not counting > > Santa himself. On land, a conventional reindeer can pull > no more than > > 300 pounds. Even granting that the "flying" reindeer could > pull 10 times > > the normal amount, the job can't be done with 8 or even 9 > of them --- > > Santa would need 360,000 of them. This increases the payload, not > > counting the weight of the sleigh, another 54,000 tons, or > roughly 7 > > times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth (the ship, not the > monarch). > > > > We know that 600,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates > > enormous air resistance --- this would heat up the > reindeer in the same > > fashion as a spacecraft re-entering the earth's > atmosphere. The lead > > pair of reindeer would absorb 14.3 quintillion joules of energy per > > second each. > > > > In short, they would burst into flames almost instantaneously (i.e. > > explode and vaporize in such a way as to make flash paper jealous), > > exposing the reindeer behind them and creating deafening > > (earth-shattering..... literally) sonic booms in their wake. > > > > The entire reindeer team would be vaporized within 4.26 > thousandths of a > > second, or just before Santa reached the 5th house on his trip. Not > > that it matters, however, since Santa, as a result of > accelerating from > > a dead stop to 650 miles per second in .001 seconds, would > be subjected > > to centrifugal forces of 17,500 G's. A 250 pound Santa (which seems > > ludicrously slim based on the Coca-cola ads) would be > pinned to the back > > of the sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force, instantly > crushing his bones > > and organs and reducing him to a quivering blob of red goo. > > > > In short ......... if Santa ever really existed, he's dead now. > > Merry Christmas > > -- > http://www.cynthiablue.net > http://www.utahdogs.com > http://www.animalfoster.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com > >

1 0

2 "previously owned" computers available FREE
by Chuck Hards 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

It looks like SLAS has no need for these, so I am willing to donate them to anyone who will pick them up. One has a Pentium 133, the other processor is unknown, both work fine. I also have 2 monitors but their condition may be iffy. No Keyboards or cabling, no phone jacks or internal modems; these came from a fiber-optic network. You will need to wipe them of all existing programs before use to stay legal. I would prefer to give these to a club or school (UVAA? OAS?) but if there are no incorporated takers I'll give them to a private individual. Not the fastest or newest machines, but better than nothing, and FREE! (Ho Ho Ho!) If interested, contact me off-list. If there are no takers by the 26th, they are going to D.I. Thanks! C. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Out of the Blue
by Chuck Hards 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

Burnham was a talented, self-taught astronomer who was lucky enough to land his job in the days before a formal education was a requirement. As time progressed, though, he was eventually displaced by an attitude that only recognized certifications rather than ability. He finally lost his observing job, and a marketing change by his publisher pretty much dried-up his royalties (it went to the BOM club), leaving him destitute. He died insane, in abject poverty, doing paintings on the boardwalk for pennies. C. --- Jim Gibson <xajax99(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Burnhams has a copyright of 1958-1979 and the NGC > 2000.0 has a copyright of 1988. Without deeper > research, in other words, taking a guess and > applying your descriptions of how magnitudes are > derived, I would guess that Burnham took his > magnitudes out of the blue (pun intended) and > Sinnotts may align more closely with the visual. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/

2 1

RE: [Utah-astronomy] Out of the Blue
by Kim Hyatt 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

Chuck - Thanks for that cheerful note to start my day! ;) -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Hards [mailto:chuckhards@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 7:45 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Out of the Blue Burnham was a talented, self-taught astronomer who was lucky enough to land his job in the days before a formal education was a requirement. As time progressed, though, he was eventually displaced by an attitude that only recognized certifications rather than ability. He finally lost his observing job, and a marketing change by his publisher pretty much dried-up his royalties (it went to the BOM club), leaving him destitute. He died insane, in abject poverty, doing paintings on the boardwalk for pennies. C. --- Jim Gibson <xajax99(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Burnham's has a copyright of 1958-1979 and the NGC > 2000.0 has a copyright of 1988. Without deeper > research, in other words, taking a guess and > applying your descriptions of how magnitudes are > derived, I would guess that Burnham took his > magnitudes out of the blue (pun intended) and > Sinnott's may align more closely with the visual. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com

1 0

Fwd: [Utah-astronomy] In the blue (Modified by James Cobb)
by James Cobb 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My apologies if this comes through twice. My mailer sometimes sends from the wrong account and the message is bounced by the utah-astronomy mailing list. Jim ---- Jim Cobb james(a)cobb.name Begin forwarded message: > Resent-From: James Cobb <james(a)cobb.name> > From: utah-astronomy-owner(a)mailman.xmission.com > Date: December 17, 2003 6:39:11 PM MST > Resent-To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > To: jamescobb(a)mac.com > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] In the blue (Modified by James Cobb) > > The following is from "Realm of the Universe," by George Abell, (c) > 1976, p. 219, my old college text... > >> Magnitudes, whether apparent or absolute, that are based on stellar >> brightness as they are observed with the human eye are called visual >> magnitudes or absolute visual magnitudes. Today photographic plates >> or photomultipliers can be used in conjunction with many kinds of >> color filters to produce a great variety of different magnitude >> systems–for example, red magnitudes, ultraviolet magnitudes, infrared >> magnitudes, and so on. A certain few spectral bands have become more >> or less standard, however, and are now widely used to define >> magnitudes. >> >> Since about 1960 the most commonly used magnitudes have been U >> (ultraviolet), B (blue), and V (visual). The U and B magnitudes are >> obtained from measures of the flux from stars through certain >> standardized ultraviolet and blue filters with a common type of >> photomultiplier. The visual magnitude (V) is measured with the same >> photocell through a filter that approximates the response of he human >> eye. The difference between any two of these magnitudes, say between >> blue and visual magnitudes (B-V), is called a color index. Since the >> inverse square law of light applies equally to all wavelengths, the >> color index of a star would not change if the star's distance were >> changed. > > So, Chuck wins the memory prize on the subject. > > ---- > Jim Cobb > james(a)cobb.name > > >

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] In the blue (Modified by James Cobb)
by utah-astronomy-owner＠mailman.xmission.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The following is from "Realm of the Universe," by George Abell, (c) 1976, p. 219, my old college text... > Magnitudes, whether apparent or absolute, that are based on stellar > brightness as they are observed with the human eye are called visual > magnitudes or absolute visual magnitudes. Today photographic plates > or photomultipliers can be used in conjunction with many kinds of > color filters to produce a great variety of different magnitude > systems–for example, red magnitudes, ultraviolet magnitudes, infrared > magnitudes, and so on. A certain few spectral bands have become more > or less standard, however, and are now widely used to define > magnitudes. > > Since about 1960 the most commonly used magnitudes have been U > (ultraviolet), B (blue), and V (visual). The U and B magnitudes are > obtained from measures of the flux from stars through certain > standardized ultraviolet and blue filters with a common type of > photomultiplier. The visual magnitude (V) is measured with the same > photocell through a filter that approximates the response of he human > eye. The difference between any two of these magnitudes, say between > blue and visual magnitudes (B-V), is called a color index. Since the > inverse square law of light applies equally to all wavelengths, the > color index of a star would not change if the star's distance were > changed. So, Chuck wins the memory prize on the subject. ---- Jim Cobb james(a)cobb.name

1 0

RE: [Utah-astronomy] In the blue
by Kim Hyatt 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks Chuck. -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Hards [mailto:chuckhards@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 6:10 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] In the blue Ok, here it is from memory. Early plates were taken twice, once with a blue-sensitive emulsion, once with a yellow (or red, not sure after all these years) emulsion. Subtracting one value from the other yields a "color index" for the star, helping place it on the H-R diagram. When the visual values were written-down, typically only one exposure was consulted, the blue one. Some objects are MUCH brighter to the eye than they appear on a blue-sensitive plate. I may not have recalled it 100% accurately, but I think that's the gist of it. C. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com

2 1