December 2010 - Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

X-37B may return to Earth soon (maybe tomorrow)
by Patrick Wiggins 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

http://www.lompocrecord.com/news/local/military/vandenberg/article_125fe1a2… patrick

1 0

FW: [SARA] Very good physics videos
by Dale Hooper 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

I thought this might be of interest to a number of people on the UA list. I'm forwarding this from the Society of Amateur Radio Astronomers list. This is legit. Hey Ron - maybe these would be usable for some OAS meetings? Clear skies, Dale. -----Original Message----- From: sara-list(a)googlegroups.com [mailto:sara-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave Typinski Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 9:50 AM To: RadioJove(Yahoo); sara-list(a)googlegroups.com Subject: [SARA] Very good physics videos There exists a gap in the publications available with which one may learn about the universe. One can get books written for the common market; but, they never go deep enough and avoid math like the plague. Or, you can buy a textbook for a small fortune and try to figure things out yourself; however, you better be mutant-smart to make a go of it on your own. There is nothing in the middle, material aimed at intelligent folks who want more than the popular offerings and less than a full-fledged graduate course. Fortunately, someone has remedied this situation. Leonard Susskind, professor of physics at Stanford and the original discoverer of string theory, has crafted a series of video courses aimed directly at those who know a bit of math and possess the requisite curiosity, but have neither the time nor resources to attend formal classes. Stanford has uploaded the entire six-semester lecture series to YouTube. The subjects covered are: - Classical Mechanics - Quantum Mechanics - Special Relativity - General Relativity - Cosmology - Statistical Mechanics - Quantum Entanglement - Basic Particle Physics - The Standard Model Each subject has ten or so videos, each video is one to two hours long. http://newpackettech.com/Resources/Susskind/Susskind.htm -- Dave Typinski AJ4CO Observatory -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Society of Amateur Radio Astronomers" group. To post to this group, send email to sara-list(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sara-list-unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sara-list?hl=en

1 0

NASA Sets News Conference on Astrobiology Discovery
by Patrick Wiggins 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

Not sure what this is about but it could be interesting. NASA Sets News Conference on Astrobiology Discovery http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/nov/HQ_M10-167_Astrobiology.html patrick

7 9

some misconceptions,was "own"
by RON VANDERHULE 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

Sorry Patrick but I need to push the o.t. envelope a little just to clear up some confusion introduced by some members who don't know any better. Any follow-up can be done w/me personally. (but there might be enough astronomical references here to keep it viable) 1) < Genesis states the sun is not a star> Actually Gen. 1:14-18 uses the term "lights" for all the objects God put in the heavens. Even the sun and the moon are referred to as only "lights" in that chapter. Giving a title or name such as "sun" or "moon" to these objects is strictly a pagan notion. The term "sun" is not used until Gen.15:12. 2) <God is neither male nor female > True enough. The male gender designation used for God in the bible catered to the patristic nature of the culture to whom it was written. 3) <Can God reproduce > No, that would mean "other gods" and Judaism and biblical Christianity are monotheistic. Duet. 6:4 Isaiah ch 44 & 45 etc. 4) <Mary was without sin> This notion was introduced by the Catholic Church in the 13th century and there has always been deep division concerning this doctrine within the Catholic church. In Luke 1:46 Mary calls God "her Savior" and in biblical parlance only a sinner needs a Savior. 5) To Dave Gary who "generally shuns supernatural explanation for things" begs the question; what is supernatural and what is natural? Our total knowledge of the natural world probably constitutes a fraction of one percent of all there is to know about it. What is the true nature or light? How do stars and galaxies "really" form? What is "life"? What massive, fortuitous, and precise chain of events transformed early life forms from asexual to bisexual? And need I mention quantum mechanics? Depending on a persons worldview much of what I just mentioned has no naturalistic explanation. So considering our dearth of knowledge of the natural world lets not be swift to judge what is termed supernatural ( a word not found in the Bible btw). It could be just another thing lacking an explanation. These events do have historical context after all. Finally lets consider the "Law" of Cause and Effect. The cause of time is eternal, the cause of power is all powerful the cause of knowledge is all knowing and the cause of the natural is supra-natural. Merry Christmas Ron

7 15

Mak or SCT?
by Chuck Hards 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

Trying to choose between a 7" f/15 Mak and 8" f/10 SCT for the CGEM. Bear two things in mind...I've always wanted a Mak and think it a better choice for my usual suburban viewing of "round stuff", double stars and clusters, while still being fairly good for deep-sky from dark sites. Secondly, I will probably spring for a C-11 OTA sometime in the next six months, so an 8" SCT OTA would get sold when that happens, while I would keep the Mak. Opinions sought. Help Chuck spend his money before the soon-to-be-ex wife gets it. Thanks!

5 7

ALCON Observing Awards
by erikhansen＠thebluezone.net 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

Hi All, I have completed the 1st ALCON 2011 task Lowell requested of me and I understand he has already heard form potential speakers. I am now in the process of proposing new observing clubs for ALCON 2011 to the Astronomical League. The current idea is that we will propose a beginner, intermediate, and advanced award. The pin I will propose will be similar to the Bryce Astronomy arrowhead logo, that Kevin Poe designed. Ideas on how to amend the logo will also be appreciated, I understand Kevin has given permission to use the logo he designed in any manner we like. The art work will remain the same I will amend the text only. I would greatly appreciate input form this list as what observations should be included in the different levels. Please respond to my other e-mail zaurak(a)digis.net I plan to submit the paperwork to the Astronomical League in early January. We may do this independently of the AstroLeague, but I do hope it is sanctioned by them. Thanks, Erik

1 0

new star count
by Nate Jackson 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

So... anyone else intrigued about this new star "count"?

5 7

Doh! was misconceptions, was own
by RON VANDERHULE 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

Kim, you are right there is one correction needed in my post. On no. 5 I was referring to the sequence of evolutionary events leading from asexual to SEXUAL not bi-sexual. You would think as an astronomer I would be more lucid at 2:00a.m. I mentioned this one because of the improbability of this occurring by random mutational acts and still factoring in any survival aspects. Now to address your questions, keeping in mind that volumes have been written on each over the centuries and none of them by me 1) Astronomical bodies are referred to as "lights" to keep them impersonal. As I mentioned before, pagan cultures gave them names and titles and constructed myths around them. Gen. 1:14 says their purpose is to mark days and seasons. The stars years, the moon months, the sun days. As a side note when God said "Let there be light" this was not one of His creative acts. The Hebrew language used there indicates a declaration of the fact that light already existed and was to shine in the darkness. As for the rainbow we know how water droplets in the atmosphere cause this when it rains. Some have proposed that it had not rained on the Earth until the Flood. Genesis 2:5 indicates this. Genesis 1: 6&7 says there was water above the sky and below. This leads to the canopy theory, a canopy of water that surrounded the planet that equalized the temperature from pole to pole ( you have heard of the tropical plant fossils found at the poles) and blocked the harmful radiation from space which had the effect of extending life. 2) God as "father" is gender related only if considered in a biological setting. Once again we have to consider the culture to whom the Bible is addressed. Father can mean the source or originator of a thing. God is father to Israel because He delivered them from Egypt and established them Duet. 32:6, and Abraham is called the father of many nations. 3) Jesus the offspring of God? No, He was the Son of God. Again cultural context is a factor. "Son" can mean a persons position under authority to a "Father" a greater authority. Historical Christian doctrine supports Jesus' claim that he was God. 4) Mary sinless? Yeah, there is nothing in the Bible to support this. 5) What do you mean I lost you here : 0 Basically I was trying to point out is that we are stumped by so much of what occurs in the natural world that we put unrealistic stipulations on what we term supernatural . Good questions Kim and asked in an honest non-mocking or insulting fashion.

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Own?
by erikhansen＠thebluezone.net 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

> Of course genesis states the Sun is not a Star, God should really know that is a false statement. Isn't ownership a human concept and not divine? I doubt "God" is neither male or female. Can God reproduce? and why would "God" need to? Besides those who contract skin cancer do pay a price for the sun. For all practicality the Sun is God, kneel before Sol! FYI: The He I meant was described in Matthew 5:45: "That ye may be the > children of your Father which is in Heaven: for HE maketh HIS Sun to rise > on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the > unjust." > > Spencer Ball > Attorney at Law > 3690 E. Ft Union Blvd # 101 > Salt Lake City, UT 84121 > (801) 453-2000 > spencer(a)spencerball.com > > This law firm collects debts. This communication may be an attempt to > collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose. > > Confidentiality Notice: > This e-mail transmission and any documents, files or previous e-mail > messages attached to it, are confidential and are protected by the > attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. If you are not the > intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, > copying, dissemination, distribution or use of any of the information > contained in, or attached to this e-mail transmission is STRICTLY > PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please delete > this message and its attachments from your computer. Thank you. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: utah-astronomy-bounces(a)mailman.xmission.com > [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of M Wilson > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 1:18 PM > To: Utah Astronomy > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Own? > > Ra is a male type of dude also. > > How about Amaterasu, from the Land of the Rising Sun? > > Sayonara > > --- On Wed, 12/1/10, Troy Davidson <clandaith(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > From: Troy Davidson <clandaith(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Own? > To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010, 11:37 AM > > > I thought it was Ra that owned the sun! > > ++++++++++++++++++ > Troy Davidson, KF7MTE > www.istroyworking.com > > > > On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Dave Gary <davegary(a)me.com> wrote: >> Huitzilopochtli says no deal. Spencer is correct, Ann. Huitzilopochtli >> is a âheâ. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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.slas.us/gallery2/main.php >> Visit the Wiki: 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.slas.us/gallery2/main.php > Visit the Wiki: 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.slas.us/gallery2/main.php > Visit the Wiki: 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.slas.us/gallery2/main.php > Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com >

7 9

Woman in Spain Claims to own the Sun
by Jay Eads 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

I think I saw this mentioned in a post earlier but here's the link: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iabt-SAXY390wSpknpaI-EkW… "Duran, who lives in the town of Salvaterra do Mino, said she now wants to slap a fee on everyone who uses the sun and give half of the proceeds to the Spanish government and 20 percent to the nation's pension fund. She would dedicate another 10 percent to research, another 10 percent to ending world hunger -- and would keep the remaining 10 percent herself." Hmm, so if you take a solar image or view, you have to pay for it . . . . doesn't sound too legal given that Outer Space Treaty in 1967, signed by over 100 countries forbids any sovereign nation from owning a celestial body. She claims that he is an individual though. Man, what will some people think of? Then again there was Denis Hope who made a similar claim on the moon and who was ignored by the government but went ahead and sold deeds making millions.

6 6