August 2005 - Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Science and Religion
by Michael Carnes 24 Aug '05

24 Aug '05

Of course we of a more liberal frame of mind will always buy as much Heinz as we can Kerry. Quoting Richard Tenney <retenney(a)yahoo.com>: > And I don't suppose you ever pause before buying the > Heinz Ketchup, eh Daniel? ;o) There's no need to pause. There's Hunt's Tomato Ketchup, and it doesn't have that spoiled aftertaste... ;) _______________________________________________ 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

Science and Religion
by Lambert, Aaron 23 Aug '05

23 Aug '05

Sorry to interrupt the Harry Potter discussion. It is a welcome change. However it has taken me a while to type this email. Disclaimer: This may sound like a bit of a rant, but it really is not. I am not screaming in my head as I type it and I hope if you take the time to read it, you read my words in your head as calmly as I am thinking them in my head. For what it is worth, I put this here because my wife has gotten on my case a few times recently for coming across as angry in email. Maybe I need to add more smileys. :) I also do not intend any of this to come across as an attack on any particular individual. I am simply making an observation on what some of the recent posts have sounded like to me. Without further ado, on to my diatribe: There have been a few on this list that have been spouting off now for a few days unopposed, ranting about the evils of religion and how there is a vast conspiracy by the "nasty", "evil", and "brainwashed" to steal your money, grab power, and de-science your kids. Don't you realize that you sound just like the "religious zealots" that you are trying to discredit? On their groups I am sure they say the exact same things about the Godless scientists who are just looking for opportunities to grab power and take their hard-earned tax money and use it to brainwash their kids. You talk about "logic" and "peer-review" and your high standards for critical thought and then spout off the latest conspiracy theory filled with baseless accusations and attacks on people and ideas which you for the most part admit you have not investigated in the slightest. Nobody here that I know of has read the proposed curriculum. Out of curiosity, I actually read through some summaries. It is not nearly as bad as you try to make it out to be. I personally do not care which side of the fence anyone is on. All I have asked for since the beginning is a reasoned discussion, but most of what I have been reading is high on accusation and low on reason. In particular, there have been several comments lately that have basically implied that if you believe anything religious you must be soft in the head and not have the capacity for rational thought. Many of these comments come from people on the group who claim to have a belief in God. Perhaps many of these comments were not intended as attacks, but it is hard for them to be interpreted otherwise when they use words such as "pawns", "zealots", "evil", "bad people", etc. Why don't you all hop off the conspiracy wagon, stop reading all your anti-ID propaganda (there, see, I can throw in catchy phrases to demean ideas I don't agree with and make my point seem more valid, too), and read the curriculum with an open, scientific mind. I triple-dog dare you. There is very little talk about Creation or religion in there. From what I have read all they want to do is point out the weaknesses in the theory of evolution. If you do not think there are any you are just as close-minded as the "religious right" you are so afraid of. Examining the weaknesses in current theories is good science. That is what generates new advances and discoveries. As I have stated before, I do not believe necessarily that ID is the answer to the holes in the theory of evolution. But we need to be open to new ideas. Perhaps there is a "happy medium" that will address the concerns of both sides. But if both sides just cover their ears and shout insults at the other side we will not get anywhere. By the way, I find it humorous that religious people can't be liberals. I'm certain there are many "religious left" people who are equally surprised. But I digress. My main point in all this is summed up by Lisa Z's recent post about Harry Potter (I apologize in advance for ripping it entirely out of context): "I understand not liking a certain genre, but belittling people because you perceive them as uneducated, and liking something that you believe is below you is rather harsh when you don't know the subject matter." Please lay off the random attacks and insults. I cannot see things from your perspective and you cannot see things from mine. I am OK with that, are you?

4 7

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Science and Religion
by Michael Carnes 23 Aug '05

23 Aug '05

> By the way, did you get your truss repaired? That's kind of personal, isn't it Guy?

3 2

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Science and Religion
by daniel turner 23 Aug '05

23 Aug '05

Quoting diveboss: > Considering most religious zealots are 'up in > the .night', that should be > enough of an astronomy tie to keep this topic > safe. ;) There's a free plug > for you Steve... And all this time I thought that "up in the night" was a reference to the prostate problems that affict men of a certain age. DT ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

2 1

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Telescope Theory
by Michael Carnes 23 Aug '05

23 Aug '05

How pleasant to talk about astronomy, however briefly. That was a good explanation that Chuck gave. I'll add a few additional things. Light exists both as a wave or as a particle, depending on how you observe it and evaluate it. I believe that insofar as our perception of intensity, we're talking more the particle/photon aspect. The retina integrates the number of photons hitting it over a period of time and the visual cortex of the brain interprets this as intensity. The system you propose wouldn't change the total number of photons, so I'm guessing that your perception of intensity wouldn't change. For what it's worth, there are light-amplification eyepieces on the market. They work on the same principal as night-vision goggles. I suppose it's each to his own, but I've found them pretty yucky to look through. -----Original Message----- From: "Lambert, Aaron" <Aaron.Lambert(a)Williams.com> Sent: Aug 23, 2005 2:41 PM To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Telescope Theory I will start this off with another disclaimer. It has been several years since I took physics and I have not done much with the art of telescope making except for one small project that Chuck helped me with. On my way into work this morning (I ride the bus, so I get plenty of time to think), I came up with an idea. Again, this is based on ignorance, but hear me out and then shoot me down. :) I was pondering a way to increase the light-to-eye value for telescopes, ideally allowing a small scope to show the same detail only visible in a larger scope. I had thought previously about using some kind of device that captures light (like a CCD) and then duplicates it to enhance the image, but I do not think that would work, or it would be just like staring at a screen instead of letting the photons hit your eye. But let's say you could take a small tube (perhaps the size of a Barlow) and put a one-way light valve (mirror of some kind?) at the end coming from your scope and then have a reflective shutter at the eyepiece end which opened and closed several times per second. The light would enter the tube and have a 50% chance of reflecting twice before entering the eyepiece. The result (in my mind) would be that you would have alternating periods of no light reaching your eye and then double light. This would give an effect similar to watching a movie (one frame at a time) or looking through the slats of a fence while driving - your mind can still stitch the image together so it is cohesive. The question is, would it provide the desired effect of increasing the detail of what you can see? Is there anyone out there that can shed some light (pun intended) on this? Thanks, Aaron _______________________________________________ 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

RE: [Utah-astronomy]Potter Spoilers! >:o(
by Dale Hooper 23 Aug '05

23 Aug '05

> DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER if you don't want to have anything Harry Potter > related spoiled. > > > Sorry, I know this is totally off topic for this board! But I love these > books, and like to discuss theories. > > Snape has to be a vampire. In every single book JKR has written something > about Snape that compares him to a bat. <snip> Very compelling evidence. I'll bet it will somehow come into play in book 7. > > not. There are many things like this she has hidden throughout the book > though. I have a lot of theories that I hope she will follow through on. > > I do believe that Snape and Dumbledore had an agreement that Snape was to > kill Dumbledore though. Yes, I believe Snape was supposed to kill > Dumbledore, with Dumbledore's permission. If you want proof, I can give it > to you. I have to disagree with this one. Rowling stated that only conspiracy theorists will still believe that Snape is good. <g> > > I also think I know who the author of the letter in the locket Horcrux is, > the R.A.B. on page 609. > This one has to be Regulus Black, Sirius' younger brother. A question I have - is Harry's scar a horcrux? Lastly, will Orion magically be moved into the summer sky? <g>

2 1

Re: [Utah-astronomy] astronomy - sort of
by Michael Carnes 23 Aug '05

23 Aug '05

>Late last night we were treated to a spectacular electrical storm that passed from east to west over Fairview, Impressive shots Kim! Have you thought about sending that camera up on a kite? ;-)

1 0

astronomy - sort of
by Kim Hyatt 23 Aug '05

23 Aug '05

Late last night we were treated to a spectacular electrical storm that passed from east to west over Fairview, about five miles north of our home. I managed to capture a few of the lightning bolts from the front porch with my digital camera, and I've posted the images to my album: http://www.utahastronomy.com/Kim. Was anyone else able to see the storm? Kim

2 1

Telescope Theory
by Lambert, Aaron 23 Aug '05

23 Aug '05

I will start this off with another disclaimer. It has been several years since I took physics and I have not done much with the art of telescope making except for one small project that Chuck helped me with. On my way into work this morning (I ride the bus, so I get plenty of time to think), I came up with an idea. Again, this is based on ignorance, but hear me out and then shoot me down. :) I was pondering a way to increase the light-to-eye value for telescopes, ideally allowing a small scope to show the same detail only visible in a larger scope. I had thought previously about using some kind of device that captures light (like a CCD) and then duplicates it to enhance the image, but I do not think that would work, or it would be just like staring at a screen instead of letting the photons hit your eye. But let's say you could take a small tube (perhaps the size of a Barlow) and put a one-way light valve (mirror of some kind?) at the end coming from your scope and then have a reflective shutter at the eyepiece end which opened and closed several times per second. The light would enter the tube and have a 50% chance of reflecting twice before entering the eyepiece. The result (in my mind) would be that you would have alternating periods of no light reaching your eye and then double light. This would give an effect similar to watching a movie (one frame at a time) or looking through the slats of a fence while driving - your mind can still stitch the image together so it is cohesive. The question is, would it provide the desired effect of increasing the detail of what you can see? Is there anyone out there that can shed some light (pun intended) on this? Thanks, Aaron

4 3

RE: [Utah-astronomy] Telescope Theory
by Lambert, Aaron 23 Aug '05

23 Aug '05

Thanks for the explanation, Chuck! Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Hards Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 1:16 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Telescope Theory Resolution is determined by aperture. The larger the aperture, the greater the resolution. Engineers have made a device similar to what you describe, called an interferometer. Imagine two small telescopes, say 3" aperture, seperated by ten feet. If you combine the light paths of the two scopes, you have a telescope with the resolution of a ten-foot aperutre, although the image is not as bright as that of a true ten-foot aperture. The trick is that in order for it to work properly, the wavefronts of the two light paths must be perfectly synchronized to arrive at the eye (or detector) at precisely the same instant. This is incredibly difficult to do mechanically. Exactly as you describe, if the eye (or detector) gets 2X the light half as often, the net result is no gain. The MMT, in it's original configuration, was a true interferometer. A segmented mirror such as the Keck telescopes are funtioning interferometers. --- "Lambert, Aaron" <Aaron.Lambert(a)Williams.com> wrote: > I will start this off with another disclaimer. It > has been several years > since I took physics and I have not done much with > the art of telescope > making except for one small project that Chuck > helped me with. > > On my way into work this morning (I ride the bus, so > I get plenty of > time to think), I came up with an idea. Again, this > is based on > ignorance, but hear me out and then shoot me down. > :) > > I was pondering a way to increase the light-to-eye > value for telescopes, > ideally allowing a small scope to show the same > detail only visible in a > larger scope. I had thought previously about using > some kind of device > that captures light (like a CCD) and then duplicates > it to enhance the > image, but I do not think that would work, or it > would be just like > staring at a screen instead of letting the photons > hit your eye. > > But let's say you could take a small tube (perhaps > the size of a Barlow) > and put a one-way light valve (mirror of some kind?) > at the end coming > from your scope and then have a reflective shutter > at the eyepiece end > which opened and closed several times per second. > The light would enter > the tube and have a 50% chance of reflecting twice > before entering the > eyepiece. The result (in my mind) would be that you > would have > alternating periods of no light reaching your eye > and then double light. > This would give an effect similar to watching a > movie (one frame at a > time) or looking through the slats of a fence while > driving - your mind > can still stitch the image together so it is > cohesive. The question is, > would it provide the desired effect of increasing > the detail of what you > can see? > > Is there anyone out there that can shed some light > (pun intended) on > this? > > Thanks, > Aaron > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs _______________________________________________ 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