August 2007 - Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

F/40 & F/20 projects
by Chuck Hards 25 Aug '07

25 Aug '07

Today saw "first light" for the f/40 refractor. This is just an experiment and not a serious telescope, but I had to try it before building the f/20. I mounted a 50mm singlet that, after subtracting a tad for mounting purposes, comes out to a clear aperture of 47.6mm, yielding a final f-ratio of about f/42. I can see why Huygens, Cassini, and others of their time used singlets upwards of f/200. F/40 is too short to suppress the chromatic abberation sufficiently for reasonably sharp imagery with a non-achromatic lens. Everything is surrounded by a rainbow of color, at least on daytime objects. I will use it on the moon tonight and perhaps Jupiter but I'm not expecting much. I'm getting 50X with a 40mm eyepiece and don't want to push it much higher than that. I tried a 12mm Kellner and that clearly pushed the magnification well past the diffraction limit (166X). There was no recognizable image at all. Another thing I noticed was the depth of field. You could rack the drawtube half an inch with very little change in image sharpness. Maybe wearing a powdered wig and buckled shoes will improve the view with the f/40, but I'm not going to try! *;o)* I will post images as soon as I can access my Gallery pages. This scope is nearly 7 feet long and quite impressive even though the main tube is only 2" OD. And I still had to use 2 extension tubes to reach focus- the aluminum tube I had on-hand was about 8 inches too short! The next step is the telescope's final configuration, the F/20 project. I will be using an old Jaegers 50mm achromatic objective of known good quality. The clear aperture should be a true 50mm with this one. The F/20 project is a telescope that I have wanted to build for decades. It is essentially the one designed by Sam Brown on page 128 of the 1967 edition of "All About Telescopes". A 2" achromatic refractor of 50" focal length. Mine will be 10" shorter than Browns, due to his being an f/25. The Edmund lens (no longer made) was air-spaced, the Jaegers is cemented. I am also using a 2" OD tube for compactness; Brown used a 3" OD aluminum tube. I haven't decided yet if I will line the tube with flocked paper or build a baffle tree. 2" is a mighty small tube to work with when one is accustomed to something you can stick your head into. I've seen many objects with 70mm and 80mm refractors and am now ready for the 50mm (2-inch!) challenge. I think many of you would be surprised at the remarkable views you can get with a small aperture. Stay tuned, photos uploaded when I can access the Gallery.

1 0

Funniest e-mail I have ever received...
by Kurt Fisher 24 Aug '07

24 Aug '07

Ann, If the inquiry is serious and current, I can give you a couple of science based paragraphs to send back to the student. - Kurt _______________________________________________ Sent via CSolutions - http://www.csolutions.net

3 2

A hole in the universe?
by Barney B. 24 Aug '07

24 Aug '07

Interesting. BB http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UNIVERSE_HOLE?SITE=UTSGS&SECTION=HOM…

3 3

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Are we human because we gazeatthestars?(MostlyOT)
by Debbie 24 Aug '07

24 Aug '07

yes, and time moves faster and we move slower. Debbie On Fri Aug 24 11:04 , Richard Tenney <retenney(a)yahoo.com> sent: >Isn't it also true that the older we get, the faster >time goes, and the less of it we therefore have to get >things done? ;o) > > >--- Ken Harris kharrismar(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >> I seem to remember an article or tv show (Nova?) >> several years back that >> indicated there is evidence that time, while seeming >> to flow in a smooth, >> analog fashion to us, actually flows in more of a >> jerky (stop - start), >> digital pattern at the sub-atomic level. If true, >> it's just another one of >> those scientific wonders that are difficult for me >> to comprehend. >> >> Ken >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Chuck Hards" chuck.hards(a)gmail.com> >> To: "Utah Astronomy" >> utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> >> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 11:56 PM >> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Are we human because >> we >> gazeatthestars?(MostlyOT) >> >> >> > On quantum scales, the universe does not operate >> using Newtonian physics. >> > Brian Greene explained it well in the recent PBS >> special he did a few >> > years >> > ago, based on his book IIRC. The title escapes me >> now but I'm sure >> > someone >> > else on the list knows the show I'm talking about. >> If you get the chance, >> > I >> > highly recommend that you see it. >> > >> > It has to do with probability theory and higher >> dimensions. Not readily >> > intuitive stuff in our everyday world of up and >> down, today and tomorrow. >> > Somebody else will have to explain it. >> > >> > >> > On 8/23/07, Olhomorto(a)aol.com Olhomorto(a)aol.com> >> wrote: >> > >> >> So, this latest variation (time) on the thread is >> very interesting. Is >> >> there anyone out there who feels capable of >> attempting an explanation of >> >> how a >> >> cause need not precede an effect? Layman's terms >> would be preferable >> >> for >> >> someone such as myself who has difficulty >> comprehending "billions >> >> and billions". >> >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ >Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool. >http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/ > >_______________________________________________ >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] Are we human because we gazeatthestars?(MostlyOT)
by Gary Vardon 23 Aug '07

23 Aug '07

Time is fundamental in physics for example in Newton's laws, chemistry for example reaction kinetics, electricity for example current is the rate of charge flow per time and astronomy where the concepts of day and year come from. -----Original Message----- From: Wayne Sumner Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 2:35 PM To: utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Are we human because we gazeatthestars?(MostlyOT) Kurt Godel, famous for his "Incompleteness Theorem" was Einstein's closest associate in his later years. In the book "A World Without Time" by Palle Yourgrau, it is explained that Godel's proof, based on Einstein's own laws of relativity, that time cannot exist was accepted as sound by Einstein! Einstein is also quoted as saying, when asked what time was, "It's what we read on a clock.", meaning, of course, that he didn't really know. It's my understanding that all principles of physics are time invariant forward or backward. Does time really exist? Or is it just a construct of our limited (human) minds? I guess I need some time to think about it. ;-) Wayne Sumner Wayne A. Sumner Math/Physics/Astronomy/Engineering Boy's Tennis Coach Northridge High School Davis School District (801) 402-8610 >>> "Chuck Hards" <chuck.hards(a)gmail.com> 08/23/07 12:42 PM >>> I know, Gary. Some people debate this stuff passionately, to others it's an amusing distraction. It can be hard to gauge one's audience at times. But you do raise some good points! I think it was Einstein who said something like "Time exists so that everything doesn't happen at once". That seems like a joke on the surface, but it really is true in our Newtonian world. Time is another concept that humans use because we think linearly. We need to have a cause before an effect. A beginning, middle, and end. But recent research is showing that time can manifest itself very differently on the quantum scale. Cause need not preceed effect! It also may be structured such that it is not linear at all- in that case time travel would be possible. Time could be "short-circuited" much like a wormhole through physical space. The true nature of time is still not understood. My position is that this is wonderful to read about in the science journals and on-line, but unless one is a researcher in the field, it's pointless to take a stand and debate it. As I said before, it's too far-removed from my daily existence to demand much of my time (pun intended) at the moment. Catch me when I'm retired and we'll see. In the meantime there are lot of other folks on this list who live and breathe this stuff and study the details far more intensely than I. They'll give you a terrific conversation and keep the jokes to a minimum. On 8/22/07, Gary Vardon <gvardon(a)webtv.net> wrote: > > >Sometimes it is hard tell what is a joke. > > >one could also say that time went back infinitely far in the > > past even before the supposed big bang and extends infinitely far into > the > > future impendent of the rest of the universe. > _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Are we human because we gazeatthestars?(MostlyOT)
by Wayne Sumner 23 Aug '07

23 Aug '07

Kurt Godel, famous for his "Incompleteness Theorem" was Einstein's closest associate in his later years. In the book "A World Without Time" by Palle Yourgrau, it is explained that Godel's proof, based on Einstein's own laws of relativity, that time cannot exist was accepted as sound by Einstein! Einstein is also quoted as saying, when asked what time was, "It's what we read on a clock.", meaning, of course, that he didn't really know. It's my understanding that all principles of physics are time invariant forward or backward. Does time really exist? Or is it just a construct of our limited (human) minds? I guess I need some time to think about it. ;-) Wayne Sumner Wayne A. Sumner Math/Physics/Astronomy/Engineering Boy's Tennis Coach Northridge High School Davis School District (801) 402-8610 >>> "Chuck Hards" <chuck.hards(a)gmail.com> 08/23/07 12:42 PM >>> I know, Gary. Some people debate this stuff passionately, to others it's an amusing distraction. It can be hard to gauge one's audience at times. But you do raise some good points! I think it was Einstein who said something like "Time exists so that everything doesn't happen at once". That seems like a joke on the surface, but it really is true in our Newtonian world. Time is another concept that humans use because we think linearly. We need to have a cause before an effect. A beginning, middle, and end. But recent research is showing that time can manifest itself very differently on the quantum scale. Cause need not preceed effect! It also may be structured such that it is not linear at all- in that case time travel would be possible. Time could be "short-circuited" much like a wormhole through physical space. The true nature of time is still not understood. My position is that this is wonderful to read about in the science journals and on-line, but unless one is a researcher in the field, it's pointless to take a stand and debate it. As I said before, it's too far-removed from my daily existence to demand much of my time (pun intended) at the moment. Catch me when I'm retired and we'll see. In the meantime there are lot of other folks on this list who live and breathe this stuff and study the details far more intensely than I. They'll give you a terrific conversation and keep the jokes to a minimum. On 8/22/07, Gary Vardon <gvardon(a)webtv.net> wrote: > > >Sometimes it is hard tell what is a joke. > > >one could also say that time went back infinitely far in the > > past even before the supposed big bang and extends infinitely far into > the > > future impendent of the rest of the universe. > _______________________________________________ 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

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Are we human because we gazeatthestars?(MostlyOT)
by Gary Vardon 23 Aug '07

23 Aug '07

Sometimes it is hard tell what is a joke. -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Hards Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 1:32 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Are we human because we gazeatthestars?(MostlyOT) Relax, Gary, that was tongue-in-cheek. Numbers are an abstraction and only relevant to human beings. They have no other purpose in nature. Einstein was making a joke. You don't debate or over-analyze a joke. Keep in perspective and have fun with it. On 8/22/07, Gary Vardon <gvardon(a)webtv.net> wrote: > > What is stupid about numbers? > One has to be bright to understand > number theory in depth, While it can and is argued that time began with > the big bang one could also say that time went back infinitely far in the > past even before the supposed big bang and extends infinitely far into the > future impendent of the rest of the universe. > > _______________________________________________ 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] Joanne's talk
by Kurt Fisher 22 Aug '07

22 Aug '07

Chuck wrote: > Historically, the majority of SLAS meetings featured > presentations by members. . . . I would encourage any > member with something to offer, to contact the club > president and offer to give a presentation. To an extent, these have been replaced by the 15 minute presentations made at the start of star parties which more informal. The justification for fostering such presentations, regardless of their forum, is to develop the memberships' speaking and presentation skills. One of the missions of SLAS is public education. There is considerable expertise within SLAS, but if it cannot be communicated to the public, the mission fails. Many members are not in a working position where they exercise their public speaking skills. Presentations have a way of forcing one to organize one thoughts in a written manner and practice the anxiety inducing skill of public speaking. This in turn improves SLASs star parties by improving the ability of members to explain types of objects to the public in a coherent manner. The downside is that the presentations at general memberships can fail because the speaker is unprepared or, due to the pressures of daily life, prepares at the last minute. The remedy for that would be to require member presentations to be reduced to a Powerpoint that is sent to a SLAS review panel at least one month before a general meeting. WIth a few drafted presentations in hand, the officers could set schedule one or two of the general meetings out of the year for member presentations. - Kurt _______________________________________________ Sent via CSolutions - http://www.csolutions.net

9 15

New google product/service
by William Biesele 22 Aug '07

22 Aug '07

From the NYTimes http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/22/technology/22sky.html? ex=1345435200&en=0b6f54fadae2b6af&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Joanne's talk
by Gary Vardon 22 Aug '07

22 Aug '07

SLASers. Members presentations will have special value if the talk relates to observations that they have made for example on variable stars or satellites. Other areas of extra interest would be describing astronomy related trips like going to the Southern Hemisphere or Riverside or going to science meetings or museums that provide insight into space. Who knows, some members may even have some unique relevant theories that they may want to share -----Original Message----- From: Kurt Fisher Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 1:37 AM To: utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Joanne's talk Gary Vardon wrote: > <snip> So bottom line is Google away and you too can > deliver a talk to SLAS. I thought Joanne did an exemplary job and I enjoyed the presentation greatly. I'd ask that she would take a few moments to post an abbreviated table, based on the California and Carniege known exo-planet list, of stars with exoplanets that have Bayer or Flamsteed numbers. I have personally wanted such a reference list for use at star parties, but have never had the time to fully decode the HD numbers in the C&C list. One of the purposes of SLAS is to develop the astonomical skills of its members. I hope the club continues to encourage regular presentations by its members on any appropriate astronomy topic as a means of increasing the skill the level of its members, interspersed with the club's high-standard professional astronomer presentations. - Kurt _______________________________________________ Sent via CSolutions - http://www.csolutions.net _______________________________________________ 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

3 2