- Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

RE: [Utah-astronomy] "Scratches" on Titan
by Seth Jarvis 07 Mar '05

07 Mar '05

Joe, I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that the little vertical lines on the image are artifacts of the imaging process. Seth Jarvis -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org(a)mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 9:32 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] "Scratches" on Titan Hi all, I'm curious about what you make of the "cat scratches" that have shown up on radar images by Cassini, taken during close swings by Titan. Here is one of the views: http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA07009_modest.jpg Actually, it's not the long streaks themselves that have me scratching my head, so to speak. I can imagine some sort of Titanian plate tectonics that would stretch and rupture the terrain -- I've seen maps of undersea deformations that have stretch lines like that, where Earth's crust is pulling apart. What is strange to me is the amazing regularity of the small hatch marks that show up at right angles to a few of the scratches. Are these things artifacts of the scanning or radar or transmission? Or are they really on the ground? What could make them so evenly spaced? One of the scratches looks like a ruler with 1/16 inch marks! Just wondering what you think -- Thanks, Joe _______________________________________________ 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

The end of Hubble.
by James Helsby 07 Mar '05

07 Mar '05

Just saw this pop up on Slashdot. http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/02/07/aids-human050207.html to quote: /"The famous but troubled camera is heading for a "robotic de-orbit mission," the space agency said Monday in its budget for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.' 'That means the Hubble, which hovers about 600 kilometres above the Earth and circles it every 95 minutes, will be guided into the ocean once it has worn out. "The timing and content of the de-orbit mission will be a result of activities conducted in 2005," NASA said."/ Is this the end of our quests to the farthest reaches of space? Or just a new chapter. IMHO, this is a sad day for one of my fondest childhood memory makers. Cheers, James H.

3 3

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Observing report from Rush Valley (Saturday 5 March)
by daniel turner 07 Mar '05

07 Mar '05

I went out Saturday night to SPOC and met Roger Heddon there. Roger is a real maniac. He pulls all-nighters every weekend at SPOC, even in wintertime. I was testing some equipment early in the evening but stayed with Roger until midnight when the dewfall shut us down. I left Roger still looking at the gas giants through the haze. The night was OK for star clusters but too hazy for galaxies. We used Rogers 10 dob to warm up on some Messier objects Clear Skies Daniel Turner Richard Tenney <retenney(a)yahoo.com> wrote:There were about a half-dozen of us that braved the cold Saturday night in Rush Valley ("Pit-n-pole") for fairly good skies (good enough, since any late Winter / early Spring opportunities are rare it seems) and good company. It was a productive night for me -- I managed to observe 21 more objects on my Herschel-400 list, getting all of the open clusters in Canis Major and Monoceros, including the cone and rosette nebulas, 4 galaxies in Leo, and one in Cancer. The "problem" with finding open clusters in Monoceros is like trying to find needles in a haystack -- most of it is rich milky-way starfields that make it difficult to tell where a cluster begins and where it ends. Thank goodness for setting circles! A couple of noteworthy clusters to look for are NGC 2506 in Monoceros, 2204 in Canis Major (looks like the constellation Perseus in miniature), and NGC 2360 in Canis Major, a real beauty in a very rich starfield that fills the eyepiece, visible even in my 9x60 finderscope. One highlight of the evening was having Tyler Allred along with his Tak-90 and CCD camera imaging the cone nebula (NGC 2264); the result was impressive (I'm encouraging him to join the list and post that and some of his other very nice images in the gallery). Dew/Frost pretty much shut us all down about 11:30. I suspect we will try again this coming Saturday, if the weather cooperates. Rich __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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 --------------------------------- Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web

1 0

Natural Selection and Such
by Dave Gary 05 Mar '05

05 Mar '05

Concerning the on-going discussion.... Science has to have a naturalistic base. The alternative would be to admit supernaturalistic data. Science can not, by definition, validate supernatural phenomena. I find that many people are under the impression that natural selection, somehow, implies randomness. If this was the take-home lesson from one’s biology courses, then, (1) the teacher did not understand natural selection, (2) one missed the point. Natural selection is the antithesis of randomness. In fact, the non-randomness of natural selection appears to give some people a sense of teleologic consequence associated with common descent. Hence, to some, there appears to be a purpose. Of course, man is the pinnacle of this “creation”. The fossil record appears discontinuous because of the conditions necessary to preservation, not because of a flaw in the theory of common descent. Natural selection would get along fine without any reference to the fossil record. That we have a fossil record is just icing on the cake. Also, any reference to punctuated equilibrium as a means to bolster an argument against natural selection is unfounded. Punctuated equilibrium is a theory of gradualism and in no way invalidates common descent. Irreducible complexity is insufferably anachronistic and amounts to a “biochemical Paleyism”. The major fallacy of irreducible complexity is inferring that the current utility of a given biologic feature explains why the feature evolved. For example, the homeotic gene complex is involved in specifying the pattern of segmentation in insects and assists with the proper development of the vertebrate hindbrain. The homeotic gene complex is highly conserved and did not originally evolve to regulate vertebrate hindbrain development. The complex is a consequence of co-optation by natural selection to regulate one aspect of vertebrate development. Additionally, the flagella of microorganisms, a favorite example with many who advocate “Intelligent Design” and irreducible complexity, has secretory functions in many bacteria and is not, solely, irreducibly, a mechanical, “designed”, means of motility. Also, where does one draw the line with irreducible complexity? At the level of the organ? The protein level? The DNA level? Flagella are highly variable concerning the number of proteins that constitute their makeup. Some microorganisms have 27 proteins that make a complete functioning flagellum, some have as many as 44 proteins for a functioning flagellum. Obviously, flagella protein numbers are not conserved. What would be the minimum “irreducible” number of proteins? This might be a question that could be investigated by “creation science”. However, if one does a Google Scholar search for all the “intelligent design” papers that are published in peer-reviewed journals one will be hard pressed to find one. “Creation science” apologists talk the talk, they do not walk the walk. As a side note. What creator is inferred by “creation science”? What if “creation science” had a logical foundation and its confirmed observations (facts) resulted in a theory of the origin of the universe that supported an origin based on the Great Turtle myth, not Judeo-Christian myth? Would any of the “creation science” proponents accept the result? There’s my feelings on the subject, Dave Gary

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] fodder for the list
by Olhomorto＠aol.com 04 Mar '05

04 Mar '05

If life was transplanted to Earth, was that merely one in a long process of transplants? If so, going how far back in time? It still had to "originate" somewhere, didn't it? And did it only "originate" once? Or does it "originate" over and over?

1 0

Re: Re: [Utah-astronomy] fodder for the list
by astrodeb＠charter.net 04 Mar '05

04 Mar '05

Yes, and maybe a man could get pregnant eventually. LOL. Debbie > > From: Patrick Wiggins <paw(a)trilobyte.net> > Date: 2005/03/04 Fri PM 03:52:46 MST > To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] fodder for the list > > astrodeb(a)charter.net wrote: > > > Fred Hoyle proved that germs/viruses could come from outer space. > > So since we have found martian rocks on Earth, maybe life was > transported here on Mars rocks and we are martians. > > > Nobody has ever created life in a laboratory either. > > Not yet... > > Patrick > > _______________________________________________ > 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: Re: [Utah-astronomy] fodder for the list
by astrodeb＠charter.net 04 Mar '05

04 Mar '05

Fred Hoyle proved that germs/viruses could come from outer space. If this is true then it is possible that life could be transplanted from another world to earth. Looking at M81/M82 last night through a 25", and seeing the structure of the galaxies, how could this be an accident or mistake? Nobody has ever created life in a laboratory either. Debbie > > From: Patrick Wiggins <paw(a)trilobyte.net> > Date: 2005/03/04 Fri PM 01:22:24 MST > To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] fodder for the list > > Don J. Colton wrote: > > > There are several viewpoints about intelligent design including those of > > Phillip Johnson and microbiologist Michael Behe. Johnson and Behe believe > > that intelligent design (God) in some manner placed life on earth over > > geological time frames. > > But did it really have to be a deity? Could we (some/most/all) life > forms on Earth be here because we were seeded, intentionally or > accidentally, by some other civilization? > > I always grin when I contemplate we could be here because some explorers > visited early Earth and left their garbage behind. Those who don't like > the idea that humans might have evolved from apes might really get > irritated at the notion we evolved from alien "droppings". > > Patrick > > _______________________________________________ > 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: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Bryce Canyon Star Party June 1-4, 2005
by astrodeb＠charter.net 04 Mar '05

04 Mar '05

It would be interesting if I could spot Omega Centauri from there. Debbie > > From: "Don J. Colton" <djcolton(a)piol.com> > Date: 2005/03/02 Wed PM 04:40:04 MST > To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Bryce Canyon Star Party June 1-4, 2005 > > Yes > > -----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 astrodeb(a)charter.net > Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 4:03 PM > To: Utah Astronomy > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Bryce Canyon Star Party June 1-4, 2005 > > > Would that be on the east side of the highway? > > Debbie > > > > From: "Don J. Colton" <djcolton(a)piol.com> > > Date: 2005/03/02 Wed PM 03:56:26 MST > > To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > > Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Bryce Canyon Star Party June 1-4, 2005 > > > > Anyone interested in attending the Bryce Canyon Star Party (June 1-4, > 2005) > > for at least two nights please contact me at djcolton(a)piol.com, if you > > haven't already. The Park will provide free camping at Sunset Campground > and > > free admission if you help out with the public star party from 9:00-11:30 > > PM, after 11:30 PM it essentially becomes a private star party till dawn. > > The star party this year will be across the highway from the visitors > center > > in a bigger parking lot than we had last year. It also provides a better > > southeast horizon. On Saturday night - Sunday morning Kevin Poe promises > to > > have his bacon wrapped filets again for all participants. > > > > We hope to have at least 50 scopes for the event. All participants must > > attend one volunteer orientation session. They will be held Wednesday, > > Thursday and Friday at 5:30 PM (?). > > > > Clear Skies > > Don Colton > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >

5 4

RE: [Utah-astronomy] fodder for the list
by Lambert, Aaron 04 Mar '05

04 Mar '05

Does anyone know if Weber tapes these presentations or if a transcript will be provided, etc? I would be curious to hear what he has to say but there is no chance that I can get up there for it. Aaron > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Vanderhule > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 8:10 PM > To: Utah Astronomy > Subject: [Utah-astronomy] fodder for the list > <Snip info on Dr. Jason Lisle presentations at Weber> > Here is the schedule for Monday > > 7 March 2005 Monday Presentations 10:00 a.m. Relevance of > Genesis Weber State University Wildcat Theatre 3750 Harrison > Boulevard Ogden UT 84408 (The Wildcat Theatre is located in > the Student > Union.) > 11:00 a.m. Question/Answer > 2:00 p.m. Creation Astronomy: Viewing the Universe through > Biblical Glasses > 6:00 p.m. Big Problems with the Big Bang > 7:30 p.m. Astronomy: What do we Really Know > 8:30 p.m. Question/Answer >

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Omega Cen. from Bryce Canyon Star Party June 1-4, 2005
by astrodeb＠charter.net 03 Mar '05

03 Mar '05

I saw it in binoculars last spring through the light pollution of Hurricane. I may have to go out to Warner Valley, where we were last month, to get a better view. I viewed it through my 15" Obsession at Black Rock Rd, AZ back in 2002. My scope was all the way down when I viewed it. It was huge and bright. I would like to see it higher in the sky someday. Debbie > > From: Patrick Wiggins <paw(a)trilobyte.net> > Date: 2005/03/02 Wed PM 07:31:34 MST > To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Omega Cen. from Bryce Canyon Star Party June 1-4, > 2005 > > astrodeb(a)charter.net wrote: > > > It would be interesting if I could spot Omega Centauri from there. > > > > Debbie > > Theoretically it can be seen from as far north as SLC but it only gets a > bit over 1 degree above the southern horizon. > > It has been seen from Rush Valley. > > From Bryce (and St. George) it reaches about 5 degrees. > > In early June it transits about 2215 MDT. > > Patrick > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >

4 3