April 2013 - Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

Re: [Utah-astronomy] ISS to transit Sun
by Joe Bauman 13 Apr '13

13 Apr '13

AH! I'm glad to hear it! ------------------------------ On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 2:42 AM MDT Patrick Wiggins wrote: >On 13 Apr 2013, at 01:07, Joe Bauman wrote: > >> Patrick, are these UTC or RFT (Real Folks Time)? -- Thanks, Joe > >Local times Joe. > >Cheers, > >patrick > >_______________________________________________ >Utah-Astronomy mailing list >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > >Send messages to the list to >Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > >The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. > >To unsubscribe go to: >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Science editorial in the Chronicle
by Don J. Colton 13 Apr '13

13 Apr '13

Amen Brent. I saw firsthand how difficult it is to buck current scientific theory even if the facts favor you. The dinosaur extinction, continental drift and circumstellar shells around stars were all ridiculed and/or heckled in science meetings I attended at both the U and BYU in the late 60's and early 70's. I do not believe science today is any better with political motivation and funding preventing objectivity. I suspect many of today's cherished theories will be greatly modified or dropped altogether. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com(a)mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Brent Watson Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:05 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Sciece editorial in the Chronicle Perhaps I missed the point of the article, but it seems to me like science has got to make the change fIrst. What do I mean by that? Current attitudes towards science and the funding of scientific endeavor are shaped by the integrity of those performing the work. All too many times the public finds the motivation for reporting of scientific results is financial, or political. The public does not like this . Experimental results are too often tainted by the need to receive more funding, or to support the current political winds blowing through the air. The current method for funding research needs to change in order to eliminate this posturing. I am not sure what the answer is that will eliminate the improper motivation, but surely there is a better way. I am not saying that all scienctific research results are this way, but there are too many shenanigans being pulled. Certainly I would hope that the vast majority of discovery is honestly reported, and that those behind these results are honorable. But there is too much tainted reporting to be able to eliminate the public skepticism. The news media doesn't help this situation either. Reports of scientific discovery are sensationalized to make them "more news worthy." A great example of this is the reporting of Comet Ison - the Comet of the Century. Now, comet Ison may well be just that, but we need to see the results before that name can be applied. The news media in general has the cart before the horse. Bottom line - if science wants the general public to trust them, then science needs to show more integrity, more facts, and less speculation. Just my $.02 Brent From: Patrick Wiggins <paw(a)wirelessbeehive.com> To: utah astronomy listserve utah astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:49 AM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Sciece editorial in the Chronicle Interesting editorial in today's Chronicle: Americans must drop anti-science ideals http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/?p=2587452 patrick _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".

6 13

ISS to transit Sun
by Patrick Wiggins 13 Apr '13

13 Apr '13

I don't remember seeing this happen before but CalSky is predicting ISS will transit the Sun two days in a row as seen from SPOC. Tuesday at 19 04 53, Transit duration 2.74s Wednesday at 18 15 02, Transit duration 1.63s patrick

2 2

The Sun 4-12-2013
by Chuck Hards 12 Apr '13

12 Apr '13

Seeing was poor late this afternoon. I wish I could get the PST out early in the day but too many things going on. I miss those winter afternoons when the ground was cold and the air was still all day. Even so, there was lots of surface detail. Several active regions, some obvious flocculi, lots of plage. Limb prominences were small but numerous. I spent a few hours trying out different eyepieces and eyepiece-Barlow combinations. In every case, the image was better with a shorter focal length eyepiece than a longer focal length eyepiece and Barlow yielding the same magnification. I'm also finding that long eye relief eyepieces are not a good thing in a solar telescope unless you completely drape your head or have very long eyeguards on the eyepieces. Too much glare reduces contrast, so getting your eye up close to a short focal length eyepiece usually give the better view, in the absence of a deep eye-cup. Wearing my "Smokey Bear" hat helps a lot. I'm getting to know the nuances of the double-stack. I still prefer a single for prominence viewing, at least at the small aperture of the PST. It may be different if you have 80mm of aperture or more. I'll bring the PST to L&O tomorrow if it's clear, and we'll do some solar observing in the parking lot of the Left Fork after lunch, if anyone is interested.

1 0

Comic
by D P Pierce 12 Apr '13

12 Apr '13

http://www.gocomics.com/closetohome/2013/04/11 Is that Patrick at the scope? Deloy

3 2

Science Article in the Chronicle
by jcarman6＠q.com 11 Apr '13

11 Apr '13

It wasn't my intention to finger point to any particular religion, but I did mention Mormon because it is the local predominate religion. Mormons are part of the much larger Christian religious sect and for whom, for the most part seem unable to connect science and religion. No doubt there are many Mormons (and non-Mormons) on this board who have, long ago, accepted both. And this is why the Chronicle article did not mention religion, because, by the mere act of mentioning it, it becomes a yes/no, right wrong, thems fighting words situation. Yet, that is for the most part the source of the rejection of science in today's society. It's not the lay public demanding creationism be taught in schools. No religions were harmed in the writing of this post (big grins for those who don't get the disclaimer) .

2 2

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Science Article in the Chronicle
by Joe Bauman 11 Apr '13

11 Apr '13

For decades I covered science in the LDS Church-owned Dessert News, writing about ancient homonids, geological history, evolution, dinosaurs, the Cambrian era, galaxies whose light has been traveling many millions of years, etc. Never once was I told to change any of these stories or even questioned about them. I don't think the LDS Church teaches that the world is only a few thousand years old. Thanks, Joe, who just wants to set the record straight. ------------------------------ On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 1:28 PM MDT Mark Shelton wrote: >This has been a question I have asked myself many times as a Mormon.(Dinosaurs, Craters etc.) I did some research into it and the teachings of the LDS church. I have come to an understanding for myself that The earth is very OLD and did not come into existence 6,000.00 years ago. Sometime if you see me out and about and would like to talk to me about it let me know. I do not think this is the proper place to bring up religion of any denomination. I am a very firm believer of having tolerance and understanding of others that are not of the same religious or moral persuasion as myself. > >I even Like Larry Holmes even though he is a UTAH SUPPORTER. LOL > >Mark > > > >________________________________ > From: "jcarman6(a)q.com" <jcarman6(a)q.com> >To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> >Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 1:00 PM >Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Science Article in the Chronicle > > > > >I'm not disagreeing with recent posts. Sure the term is wrong, but something to do with "publish or die." Or the "need" to be the first to announce the discovery. Often scientific findings are rushed to publish and then prove erroneous. Cold fusion and particles traveling faster than speed of light come to mind. The argument that scientists need to do it better is valid, but the article wasn't addressing all the many nuances of the science and society chasm. > > > >Rushing to publish pales in comparison to the lack of general science knowledge of the general public. The one thing the article didn't touch on (and heaven knows why - pun intended) is science versus religion. Its hard to explain dinosaurs, even with the bones in hand, when a vast group of the public believes the earth is only 6,000 years old, T hat isn't just a Mormon thing is a Christianity in general thing . I post ed my pictures of the Barringer Meteor Crater on Facebook, which goes to a number of deeply religious friends and family. Only one, deeply religious person (not on the page, but it person) commented that it happened 50,000 years ago. Either the rest didn't believe it or dismissed it out of hand as an "inconvenient truth." > > > >For as long as there have been public star parties and science education in schools, how many of the general public still believe the seasons are caused by the distance of the earth to the sun, or simply don't know. It's this whole sale rejection of science which is the problem. You have creationism versus evolution. You must accept one or the other, either you believe in God or you don't, it's black or white, yes or no, your side or my side which is the problem. > > > >And this is all very incongruous when one realizes America, in particular, and the world in general have based their futures on science and technology (electricity, communications, computers, cars, the list is endless). Society is shooting itself in the foot. > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Utah-Astronomy mailing list >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > >Send messages to the list to >Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > >The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. > >To unsubscribe go to: >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". >_______________________________________________ >Utah-Astronomy mailing list >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > >Send messages to the list to >Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > >The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. > >To unsubscribe go to: >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".

7 8

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Science editorial in the Chronicle
by Joe Bauman 11 Apr '13

11 Apr '13

Thanks, Chuck. I have learned to avoid certain potholes. ------------------------------ On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 1:54 PM MDT Chuck Hards wrote: >Joe, I'm just admiring your restraint. I had thought that you had handed >Corey the tranquilizer dart gun, with instructions to shoot you if you made >a move towards the computer. ;-) > >On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> No, as compared with the way scientists sometimes act today. >> >> >_______________________________________________ >Utah-Astronomy mailing list >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > >Send messages to the list to >Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > >The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. > >To unsubscribe go to: >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Science editorial in the Chronicle
by Joe Bauman 11 Apr '13

11 Apr '13

No, as compared with the way scientists sometimes act today. ------------------------------ On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 12:34 PM MDT erikhansen(a)thebluezone.net wrote: >> http://explorable.com/research-grant-funding > > > > >“...science needs to show more integrity, more facts, and less >> speculation.” >> >> As compared to what? Religion? Intuition? >> >> In my opinion, what seems to be the problem is too much public opinion >> about what constitutes science and what doesn’t. Most public have no clue. >> Kind of a thorny statement since I am included in the “public”. I‘ve >> worked in the public sector for decades. Most of us have. Their grasp of >> scientific issues is close to zero. It seems to be getting worse. I’ve >> told numerous students at the university level that, despite their >> leanings, stupidity is not a virtue. Never scored well on evaluations with >> those students. Wonder why? >> >> To me, what seems disingenuous is the constant reporting that there is >> some “controversy” within the scientific community where none exists. The >> posturing is an attempt to sway public opinion about a particular >> scientific issue (climate change, for instance). However, most people have >> no clue as to what the scientific consensus is on any given scientific >> topic. They don’t realize that their opinion doesn’t matter, that their >> belief system doesn’t matter. All that matters (as far as science is >> concerned) is that you have a naturalistic theoretic construct that >> explains the data better than the currently accepted construct. If you >> don’t, you’d better get one if you want to be taken seriously by the >> scientific community. Despite appearances to the contrary, science is not >> public opinion. >> >> It doesn’t matter where your funding comes from if the science is done >> properly. The scientific methodology will out those results that don’t >> pass muster. That’s why you hear about “tainted” studies. Sometimes the >> less-rigorous (and outright embarrassing) results slip through for a >> significant period of time. However, further scrutiny almost always >> reveals some flaw. Recall superluminal neutrinos? >> >> I don’t know what the cure is for scientific hype. Unfortunately, it’s >> here to stay. >> >> Dave >> >> >> On Apr 11, 2013, at 8:56 AM, Don J. Colton <djcolton(a)piol.com> wrote: >> >> science needs to show more integrity, more facts, and less speculation >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Utah-Astronomy mailing list >> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >> >> Send messages to the list to >> Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com >> >> The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. >> >> To unsubscribe go to: >> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >> Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on >> "Unsubscribe or edit options". >> > > > >_______________________________________________ >Utah-Astronomy mailing list >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > >Send messages to the list to >Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > >The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. > >To unsubscribe go to: >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".

2 1

Bug.
by Daniel Holmes 11 Apr '13

11 Apr '13

I think I've sent Bug out before, it's a great webcomic. This goes with the talk about science education. :-) http://www.bugcomic.com/comics/lets-get-physical/ Dan -- Daniel Holmes, danielh(a)holmesonics.com "Laugh while you can, monkey boy!" -- Lord John Whorfin

3 2