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

Re: [Utah-astronomy] AINTNO
by UTAHDEB＠aol.com 28 Mar '03

28 Mar '03

I love this website. I really like the section on the Abell Planetaries. These are really challenging and fun to observe. Debbie

2 1

Sidereal Clock
by Barney B. 28 Mar '03

28 Mar '03

I found this nifty little thing last night. It runs on the desktop. I loaded it and have been running it for 24 hours. No problems / virus. And, it's free. Barney B. Download a Sidereal Clock for Your Desktop ... The right ascension of a celestial object is same as the local mean sidereal time that the object will pass an imaginary line drawn from the celestial pole to ... www.radiosky.com/sidclockdownload.html - 4k - Cached - Similar pages

1 0

RE: [Utah-astronomy] SLAS meeting?
by Bruce James 28 Mar '03

28 Mar '03

This discussion made me think of an interesting web site I found a while ago, here is the link: http://www.tondering.dk/claus/cal/calendar24.html - it includes among other things, how calendars are related to astronomy. It has a specific section regarding counting years and the year zero: http://www.tondering.dk/claus/cal/node3.html#SECTION003130000000000000000 Bruce A. James Programmer/Analyst BruceJ(a)eXegeSys.com http://www.eXegeSys.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Brent Watson [mailto:brentjwatson@yahoo.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 5:12 PM > To: Astronomy in Utah > Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] SLAS meeting? > > > Nice try, Joe ;>) If you are counting dollars, is the > first one the zeroth one? Do you have to have 11 > dollars to have ten? Even our society starts counting > with one. > > Your example of three...two...one...liftoff launches > the rocket at the beginning of the first second, not > the zeroth second. Elsewise, you would have to say > three...two...one...zero...liftoff. > > "A man convinced against his will is of the same > opinion still." I remain unconvinced, but almost hate > to start this conversation. Talk about subject creep! > > Brent > --- Joe Bauman <bau(a)desnews.com> wrote: > > Re this comment: > > > > >> Also, the year 0 did not exist. > > > > > > The subject of a 0 date is an interesting one. I > > contend there WAS a year > > 0, it just doesn't show up easily. After all, the > > ancients didn't use a > > designation 3 BC yet we accept that the year 3 BC > > existed. For my argument > > on the subject, here's an article I wrote in 1998 > > (which nobody but me took > > seriously!) My approach gets around that endless > > source of confusion and > > debate, whether 2000 is the first year in the > > millennium, 1920 the first > > year of the '20s decade, etc.The dating system has > > some arbitrary aspects, > > and I say, let's take advantage of that and clear up > > the confusion. We > > invent a year 0 without damaging the calendar or > > previous dating schemes. > > > > Best wishes, Joe > > > > > > Forget experts -- millennium starts when we say it > > does > > > > By Joe Bauman Deseret News science writer > > > > A modest proposal by the Deseret News science > > writer: Let's MAKE the > > millennium line up with people's expectations so > > that it starts on Jan. 1, > > 2000. > > The countdowns going on now would culminate at > > an unambiguous time. No > > one could stick out a chin and say, "Put away that > > noisemaker, it's not > > really the turn of the millennium."Jan. 1, 2000, > > will be the start of the > > third millennium, if we say it is. > > After all, that's the date when everyone will > > celebrate the big > > numbering switch. That's when the most sparkly > > fireworks will rocket across > > the sky, when revelers will sing louder than ever, > > when the Y2K bug will > > byte. > > Still, purists insist that the millennium won't > > actually begin until > > the following year, on Jan. 1, 2001. > > What an unsatisfactory date with which to turn a > > chronological corner! > > 2001 wears the number one at the end, a numerical > > caboose. No, it won't do. > > We crave the smooth symmetry of a string of zeros. > > We want our millennial starting points to look > > as if we're getting a > > new deal, counting years from a time when something > > momentous happened. > > Like the Y2K bug, if nothing better. > > The problem is that when the Christian calendar > > was launched nobody > > thought about designating a year 0. In fact, the > > primitive mathematics of > > the day had no zero. Therefore, the first year in > > the Anno Domini scale, in > > the Year of Our Lord, was 1. > > Using that logic, the first decade ended Dec. > > 31, A.D. 10 and the > > second started on the first of January, A.D. 11. The > > second hundred years, > > then, started in 101, and so on ad nauseam, right up > > to the beginning of > > the third millennium on Jan. 1, 2001. > > As designated by the Venerable Bede, 1 B.C. was > > followed immediately by > > A.D. 1. > > There was no "0" in between. So the zero years > > end, not start, things. > > We can't fix the calendar by adding a separate > > zero year, unless we > > want to wreck the whole structure that was developed > > to date events before > > the birth of Jesus. We can't rewrite all history > > books to say Julius Caesar > > was assassinated in 43 B.C. instead of the 44 B.C. > > date everybody memorized > > in high school. > > Frankly, the present system does make sense. > > Even if our predecessors > > had known about zero, they should not have > > designated a separate year as > > zero. > > That's because B.C. means before Christ. The > > last year before Christ > > was 1 B.C. since it was one year before Christ was > > born. > > The next year the Anno Domini system begins. > > Anno Domini translates as > > "in the year of our lord," meaning the first year of > > Jesus' time on Earth. > > So logically, 1 B.C. is followed immediately by A.D. > > 1 -- that is, one year > > before Jesus is followed by the first year of his > > presence. > > However, this logic causes controversy about > > when decades, centuries > > and millennia begin. > > Is there a way to make the calendar live up to > > expectations so that the > > zero years marks the start of something new? > > Surprisingly, yes. > > All it takes is a mental adjustment, a change in > > the way we regard the > > calendar. After all, calendars are human inventions > > and we have the right > > to reconsider their use. > > Carry out a thought experiment. > > For a moment, think only in terms of the B.C. > > scale. The year 1 B.C. > > was one year before the birth of Jesus. So what year > > B.C. was it when he > > was born? None it all -- it was no longer before > > Jesus. It was 0 years > > before Christ. > > We can say, A.D. 1 is the same as 0 B.C. > > Thus, a zero year shows up, and we do need a > > zero. After all, the end > > of a scale is never "1". Look at a ruler: it doesn't > > have the "1" at the > > very end. You don't reach that point until you've > > moved an inch. > > When astronauts count down, it's not "three, > > two, liftoff!" The smoke > > and flames come at the zero point: "three, two, one, > > liftoff!" > > Assuming Anno Domini 1 coincides with 0 B.C., we > > may apply that > > principle to the present timeline. > > It's not a big jump to imagine that there was an > > "A.D. 0" year although > > nobody calls it that. It's a stealth designation. It > > coincided with the > > year 1 B.C. > > We would have two valid ways of referring to > > that year: the year 1 B.C. > > is also known as 0 A.D. Decades, etc., start with > > zero. > > A mental recalibration would encourage us to > > celebrate the turn of the > > millennium immediately after midnight on Jan. 1, > > 2000 -- which, our > > instincts tell us, will be the moment the grand > > change happens. > > > > > > Joe Bauman > > science & military reporter > > Deseret News > > bau(a)desnews.com > > (801) 237-2169 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > > > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! > http://platinum.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >

2 1

RE: [Utah-astronomy] SLAS meeting?
by Kim Hyatt 27 Mar '03

27 Mar '03

Yeah, I fenced foil and epee, but it was years ago. I've been tempted to take it up again - there's even a fencing club near my home. -----Original Message----- From: Greg Taylor [mailto:astronomus_maximus@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 8:45 PM To: Astronomy in Utah Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] SLAS meeting? Kim, Do you do any fencing yourself? I dabbled in it a bit several years ago and I wouldn't mind taking it up again. (I preferred the Epee) Greg __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy

2 1

Meteor Chunks Damage Homes, Light Up Night Sky
by RStmarie＠aol.com 27 Mar '03

27 Mar '03

<A HREF="http://www.local6.com/orlpn/news/stories/news-206794820030327-080357.html">Click here: local6.com - Meteor Chunks Damage Homes, Light Up Night Sky</A> Anyone see any?

1 0

RE: [Utah-astronomy] SLAS meeting?
by Kim Hyatt 27 Mar '03

27 Mar '03

Joe, Since I first learned of the calendar problem oh so many years ago I've been doing the same thing. I tell my friends that Christ was actually born in 1 B.C. (Or to be politically correct, Jesus of Nazareth was born in the year 1 B.C.E.) -----Original Message----- From: Joe Bauman [mailto:bau@desnews.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 9:44 AM To: Astronomy in Utah Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] SLAS meeting? Re this comment: >> Also, the year 0 did not exist. The subject of a 0 date is an interesting one. I contend there WAS a year 0, it just doesn't show up easily. After all, the ancients didn't use a designation 3 BC yet we accept that the year 3 BC existed. For my argument on the subject, here's an article I wrote in 1998 (which nobody but me took seriously!) My approach gets around that endless source of confusion and debate, whether 2000 is the first year in the millennium, 1920 the first year of the '20s decade, etc.The dating system has some arbitrary aspects, and I say, let's take advantage of that and clear up the confusion. We invent a year 0 without damaging the calendar or previous dating schemes. Best wishes, Joe Forget experts -- millennium starts when we say it does By Joe Bauman Deseret News science writer A modest proposal by the Deseret News science writer: Let's MAKE the millennium line up with people's expectations so that it starts on Jan. 1, 2000. The countdowns going on now would culminate at an unambiguous time. No one could stick out a chin and say, "Put away that noisemaker, it's not really the turn of the millennium."Jan. 1, 2000, will be the start of the third millennium, if we say it is. After all, that's the date when everyone will celebrate the big numbering switch. That's when the most sparkly fireworks will rocket across the sky, when revelers will sing louder than ever, when the Y2K bug will byte. Still, purists insist that the millennium won't actually begin until the following year, on Jan. 1, 2001. What an unsatisfactory date with which to turn a chronological corner! 2001 wears the number one at the end, a numerical caboose. No, it won't do. We crave the smooth symmetry of a string of zeros. We want our millennial starting points to look as if we're getting a new deal, counting years from a time when something momentous happened. Like the Y2K bug, if nothing better. The problem is that when the Christian calendar was launched nobody thought about designating a year 0. In fact, the primitive mathematics of the day had no zero. Therefore, the first year in the Anno Domini scale, in the Year of Our Lord, was 1. Using that logic, the first decade ended Dec. 31, A.D. 10 and the second started on the first of January, A.D. 11. The second hundred years, then, started in 101, and so on ad nauseam, right up to the beginning of the third millennium on Jan. 1, 2001. As designated by the Venerable Bede, 1 B.C. was followed immediately by A.D. 1. There was no "0" in between. So the zero years end, not start, things. We can't fix the calendar by adding a separate zero year, unless we want to wreck the whole structure that was developed to date events before the birth of Jesus. We can't rewrite all history books to say Julius Caesar was assassinated in 43 B.C. instead of the 44 B.C. date everybody memorized in high school. Frankly, the present system does make sense. Even if our predecessors had known about zero, they should not have designated a separate year as zero. That's because B.C. means before Christ. The last year before Christ was 1 B.C. since it was one year before Christ was born. The next year the Anno Domini system begins. Anno Domini translates as "in the year of our lord," meaning the first year of Jesus' time on Earth. So logically, 1 B.C. is followed immediately by A.D. 1 -- that is, one year before Jesus is followed by the first year of his presence. However, this logic causes controversy about when decades, centuries and millennia begin. Is there a way to make the calendar live up to expectations so that the zero years marks the start of something new? Surprisingly, yes. All it takes is a mental adjustment, a change in the way we regard the calendar. After all, calendars are human inventions and we have the right to reconsider their use. Carry out a thought experiment. For a moment, think only in terms of the B.C. scale. The year 1 B.C. was one year before the birth of Jesus. So what year B.C. was it when he was born? None it all -- it was no longer before Jesus. It was 0 years before Christ. We can say, A.D. 1 is the same as 0 B.C. Thus, a zero year shows up, and we do need a zero. After all, the end of a scale is never "1". Look at a ruler: it doesn't have the "1" at the very end. You don't reach that point until you've moved an inch. When astronauts count down, it's not "three, two, liftoff!" The smoke and flames come at the zero point: "three, two, one, liftoff!" Assuming Anno Domini 1 coincides with 0 B.C., we may apply that principle to the present timeline. It's not a big jump to imagine that there was an "A.D. 0" year although nobody calls it that. It's a stealth designation. It coincided with the year 1 B.C. We would have two valid ways of referring to that year: the year 1 B.C. is also known as 0 A.D. Decades, etc., start with zero. A mental recalibration would encourage us to celebrate the turn of the millennium immediately after midnight on Jan. 1, 2000 -- which, our instincts tell us, will be the moment the grand change happens. Joe Bauman science & military reporter Deseret News bau(a)desnews.com (801) 237-2169 _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy

1 0

RE: [Utah-astronomy] SLAS meeting?
by Kim Hyatt 27 Mar '03

27 Mar '03

As far as i'm concerned, this has just been a lively discussion (at least I hope so) and I'm glad it was brought up. However, if I've offended anyone, please accept my feeble (but still sincere) apologies. -----Original Message----- From: Richard Tenney [mailto:retenney@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 7:12 PM To: Astronomy in Utah Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] SLAS meeting? It seems I started this firestorm, and I suppose I need to clarify myself a bit (and risk fanning the flames in the process, sorry!). I have heard VonDel speak on archeoastronomy, and I thought his presentation was very interesting. But I found Dr. Platt's presentation rather different. Perhaps I'm being unfair and extra sensitive, being LDS in a community that too often takes being part of the predominant religious body for granted, frequently assuming that everyone thinks and feels the same way you do (that's another discussion for another day and another group). I've seen more than my share of enthusiastic LDS members manipulate data to "prove" this or that, only to fade away later under proper scrutiny, the passage of time, or by scientific discovery. This "God of the Gaps" phenomena is well understood by scientists, and it makes for very bad PR (not to mention shaky "doctrine") when it is so widely (and unwisely) practiced by LDS and other well-meaning Christians. Look at the "Foundation for Creation Research" group in Southern California for a good example of what I'm talking about here -- so-called reputable scientists offering "proof" that the earth is truly only 6,000 years old, etc. Anytime you attempt to SELECTIVELY interpret data to support some pre-conceived religious belief (while ignoring vast amounts of data to the contrary) is flat out bad science, any way you look at it. My wife enjoys reading me the daily horoscope, especially when it seems to apply (as it surprisingly often does), in part to get me riled, as she knows how I feel about the "black arts" :o) I have another friend that is fascinated by numerology. I've heard way too many wacko's (or clever mathematicians) play with numbers and numbering schemes to be dubious at best about the kind of associations Dr. Platt was making with the numbers 13 and 20 with celestial observations, especially when he frequently finished a sentence with "give or take one or two percent". Science isn't like tossing horseshoes, where being close counts, especially when you are trying to prove a theory, and are stretching the data to fit the hypothesis. I would be willing to bet money that a clever person could pick almost any number out of a hat and find some kind of curious and amazing coincidental relevance to the real or mythological world. Does the number 13 have special relevance to the orbital motions of Venus? Maybe. My guess is that the numbers 10, 11, and 12 do too in some fashion. So what? Did the mesoamericans understand with any degree of precision the precession of the equinox? I find that very difficult to believe. But again, if you play the numbers game just right, you can probably manipulate 13 into a relevant fit somewhere in there, which it felt like what he was doing (or at least inferring). Is there some historical correlation between Jesus Christ and Quetzalcoatl? Perhaps. I could probably also make a compelling correlation between Pres. Bush and Adolf Hitler! In fact, I can show you a website that, using numerology, "proves" that George W. is the anti-Christ! My point being that, what does any of this have to do with the science of astronomy? Maybe I'm judging too much on too little background information, and I'm the ignorant one here. Sorry, I just had too many little red flags keep popping up during his presentation to let me feel otherwise. Do I believe in God? Hey, I'm right there with the Psalmist: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork" (Psalm 19). My love of Astronomy has deep roots in my faith. But like I said earlier, this presentation has more relevance to an LDS study group than a non-denominational astronomy club, in my opinion. While a presentation on deep-sea thermal vents and the unusual life forms discovered there might also be a fascinating topic for many in the club (it would for me!), it is better suited for a marine biology club (unless the speaker were to put it in the context of how possible life might exist under the frozen water crust of Europa; hmmm, guess I should have picked a different example!). Another aspect of his talk that I was uncomfortable with was the hard historical dates that he claims proof for, especially when so many assumptions were built into his conclusions -- we all know what happens when we ASSume, and the good Doctor should know better. For example, competent scholars still disagree as to the exact year Christ was born; 0 a.d. is, as far as I know, still in hot dispute. I could go on... Anyway, 2 more cents, FWIW. -Rich --- Kim Hyatt <khyatt(a)smithlayton.com> wrote: > VonDel last spoke at SLAs about 10 years ago. He was > not well-received by > most, probably for many of the same reasons you have > cited. I, however, > enjoyed the presentation. > > This has been a stimulating discussion, anyway. > Sorry, I should have > clarified that by "sports" I meant spectator events, > not participation for > fun. The only spectator sport I enjoy is fencing, > and the sports I > participate in are all outdoor recreation oriented. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chuck Hards [mailto:chuckhards@yahoo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 4:09 PM > To: Astronomy in Utah > Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] SLAS meeting? > > > > --- Kim Hyatt <khyatt(a)smithlayton.com> wrote: > > > Chuck, it seems to me that to be consistent, one > > would have to take the same > > kind of position on any study of the past. I don't > > know if that is your view > > - if so, forgive me but it seems more than a > little > > narrow-minded. > > I don't see a refusal to consider myth, poor > "artwork" > and superstition being on-par with historical study, > to be inconsistent. It WOULD be inconsistent to > lump > faith and unsubstantiated beliefs with any kind of > science. > > I can appreciate your view Kim, it's just not the > optimal view, from where I'm standing. You have a > thirst for all knowledge, regardless of tangent, and > that is infinitely prefferable to ignorance. > > I'm not writing out of a gut feel. I have studied > this field quite a bit, read a lot of books on many > aspects of it, gone to field-school, visited sites, > and participated in "digs". Any ties between modern > astronomy and archeoastronomy are strictly semantic. > > > Has SLAS asked Von del Chamberlain to speak? He's > one > of the country's foremost authorities on this > subject, > and right in our own backyard, last time I checked. > > > I feel about sports the way you do about > > archaeoastronomy. I find NO merit > > in sports, "professional" or otherwise. > > Well we sort-of agree here. I find no merit in > professional "spectator" sports. Sports for fun and > excercise, that is, participation sport, has quite a > bit of merit. Those who participate in sports, on > average, tend to live longer, healthier lives than > those who don't. > > C. > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, > live on your desktop! > http://platinum.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy

4 3

RE: [Utah-astronomy] SLAS meeting?
by Kim Hyatt 27 Mar '03

27 Mar '03

I've found it harder to score a hit on your opponent with barbed wire. I don't think it's legal to lasso an opponent. -----Original Message----- From: Wayne Reese [mailto:wreese@hubwest.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 9:26 PM To: 'Astronomy in Utah' Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] SLAS meeting? We do a lot of fencing down here, mostly barbwire. WR -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces(a)mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Greg Taylor Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 8:45 PM To: Astronomy in Utah Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] SLAS meeting? Kim, Do you do any fencing yourself? I dabbled in it a bit several years ago and I wouldn't mind taking it up again. (I preferred the Epee) Greg __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy

1 0

Light pollution ordinance update
by Patrick Wiggins 27 Mar '03

27 Mar '03

Those who love light pollution will not like this: http://www.co.tooele.ut.us/PDF/Drafts/Second%20draft%20CHAPTER%208%20NUISAN… (beginning with section 8-13). Patrick -- Patrick Wiggins NASA Solar System Ambassador to Utah http://planet.state.ut.us

2 1

Re: [Utah-astronomy] SLAS meeting?
by RStmarie＠aol.com 27 Mar '03

27 Mar '03

I've really been enjoying the spirited, yet well behaved, verbal duel between Kim and Chuck! It is great, back and forth. Now I have to chime in. Don't you think that for most of human history men, women, and children ended each day by sitting around a fire, eating dinner, talking, and watching the stars come out? Don't you think there is ample evidence that early man noticed the stars change position a bit each night, and noticed that some (the planets) seemed to move quite a bit, and that they all seemed to move in concert with the seasons? In trying to reconcile what they saw with the rest of their lives they (we) probably discovered (invented) time keeping, science, and religion. Don't you think that process is worth investigation? I know the speaker the other night was headed off into "Art Bell" territory, but don't you think it warrants investigation? Maybe? Chuck, I don't think Einstein ever said, "Its all relative." He did say, "> The important thing is not to stop questioning." and > >> "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the >> source of all true art and science." and last but not least, Joe Theisman said, "> Nobody in the game of football > should be called a genius. A genius is somebody like Norman Einstein." Joe > was so right.

2 1