--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 180 ASTRONOMY Ref: F4G00007 Date: 04/01/98 From: TONY DUNLAP Time: 07:58pm \/To: IAN SMITH (Read 1 times) Subj: our moon ...and thus spake Ian Smith unto Barton Paul Levenson: BK> If the earth was in gaseous or liquid state at that BK> time then it makes sense. If however it was solid then BK> it doesn't. A large chunk broken away from the earth BK> would not reform into a spherical body. BPL> Yes it would. That's why planets are spheres. IS> Well, spheroids, eh? But then, the Moon doesn't spin on its IS> axis. It certainly does. One rotation for every revolution. Later --- * Origin: (1:2220/30.1) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 180 ASTRONOMY Ref: F4G00008 Date: 04/05/98 From: TONY DUNLAP Time: 07:59pm \/To: KEITH KNAPP (Read 1 times) Subj: Tasco Buys Celestron ...and thus spake Keith Knapp unto Mark Kaye: MK> Tasco is going to buy Celstron International. This is good news for ll MK>amateur astronomers as now all C8s through C14s will come shipped with MK>three MK>quality Huygens oculars and a 3X barlow! KK> And don't forget, the eyepieces will be sized to the much KK> more modern .965" form factor! Hmmm... My Tasco takes 1.25 eyepieces. Later --- * Origin: (1:2220/30.1) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 180 ASTRONOMY Ref: F4G00009 Date: 04/10/98 From: TONY DUNLAP Time: 11:36pm \/To: ARNOLD G. GILL (Read 1 times) Subj: Steady State ...and thus spake Arnold G. Gill unto Martyn Harrison: AGG> That is a very poor analogy. The microwave background AGG> exists. The expanding universe exists. Evolution of AGG> galaxies exists. No globular clusters are older than about ^known? AGG> 17 billion years. Just a minor nit, not a disagreement, but in these types of discussions I think it's important to remember that all is not known... that there is =something= on the other side of everything we can see (at least for the time being). Later Tony Dunlap, (tdunlap@odot.dot.ohio.gov) ...Well, it USUALLY works... --- * Origin: Discover! (1:2220/30.1) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 180 ASTRONOMY Ref: F4G00010 Date: 04/11/98 From: PAUL M. DAVIS Time: 03:12pm \/To: MARTYN HARRISON (Read 1 times) Subj: A 5th force? [2/2] On 2 Apr 98, Martyn Harrison was discussing "A 5th force? [2/2]" with me. PMD>> Gravity, however, is the weakest known force. AIUI, if the fifth force PMD>> is a reality it will be weaker than gravity. MH> Indeed, and thus can only be observed on very large scales. Why? MH>>> So, this new force is so miniscule that galaxy to galaxy MH>>> interractions and time periods of billions of years are MH>>> to show it's effects. It's a plausible theory, I suppose. PMD>> It is indeed. MH> Sounds a little fudged, again. Logically, if we knew that the expansion MH> rate was increasing, we could reverse the expansion process back to the MH> point where the expansion rate was zero. Indeed. Presumably that would be spacetime=0. MH> This *is* *not* what would be MH> the case in a big bang origin, although this seems to have avoided MH> scrutiny. I think it depends on how much the expansion increase is, if it is constant, and how old the Universe is. I wouldn't mind betting that calculations are being done as we speak. I wouldn't mind guessing ahead of time that if the expansion increase is a reality that it will fall in line with current estimates of the age of the Universe and will be shown to be zero only at spacetime=0. MH> The big bang was, of course, the explanation for why the MH> universe is expanding. Or more correctly, where the expansion started. No one can explain why yet AIUI. MH> Now if we know it can expand on it's own, we MH> don't need it (but it's become entrenched). As you yourself said though Martin, it is expanding. This is observed fact. Where did the expansion start? MH> Ho hum, it'll probably be retracted soon. Which, the fifth force, or the BB? Paul ... Assembler Command: SDD: Spin Disk Dry --- Spot 1.3a #1413 * Origin: 1+1=2 2+2=11 11+11=22 (2:254/524.18) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 180 ASTRONOMY Ref: F4G00011 Date: 04/11/98 From: PAUL M. DAVIS Time: 03:36pm \/To: MARTYN HARRISON (Read 1 times) Subj: A 5th force? On 2 Apr 98, Martyn Harrison was discussing "A 5th force?" with me. MB>>> Einstein's basis for the cosmological constant was his initial MB>>> adherance to the Steady State theory, which is definately not PMD>> There was no evidence of an expanding Universe when Einstein PMD>> wrote SR. MH> It wasn't in vogue at the time, but there was evidence (and always has MH> been). Pedants unite, you have nothing to lose but, er... Fair point. There was little conclusive evidence until Hubble. PMD>> The problem Einstein had was that his theory showed that the Universe PMD>> canno be static. It must be expanding or contracting, probably PMD>> expanding. Einstei couldn't accept that *god* would create an xpanding PMD>> universe and so added the cosmological constant. MH> Which corrected his model so that it remained in a steady state, rather MH> than expanding or contracting. Incorrect. IIRC, it was shown that for Einstein's model to work (with the cosmological constant set to offset expansion and was negative) that every particle in the Universe would have to be equidistant. One movement from any particle would destroy the symmetry and space would collapse. (Maybe someone could confirm this for me?) PMD>> The reason, I assume, that Einstein saw this fudge factor as the PMD>> biggest mistake of his life is because if he hadn't have added it his PMD>> calculations would be, to all intents and purposes, an accurate PMD>> representation of the observed phenomena, AND, the realisation of PMD>> his mistake of assuming things without any basis. MH> No no, Einstein was simply wrong about the steady state. It's MH> expanding, as was later shown, and Al said "blast, blast, blast, I was MH> wrong to assume it wasn't". Precisely. He had no basis for his assumption that space was static. In this case he should've trusted his calculations to seek confirmation of the expansion rather than fudge his calculations to fit with what he expected. PMD>> It is kind of ironic that 90 odd years after the theory was written PMD>> that we find that there might actually be a basis for adding in this PMD>> "fudge factor" after all, but in the guise of a fifth force. MH> Einstein was wrong, and his presumption that the universe was steady MH> state is still wrong. His fudge factor is wrong. MH> Whoever invented this notion that the fudge factor is equivalent to the MH> fifth force is also wrong, they're two entirely different fudge MH> factors, one is designed to "correct" maths which point towards an MH> expanding universe, the other is in response to the finding that the MH> expansion rate is being added to, not merely draining away due to MH> gravity. Incorrect. The cosmological constant was wrong in Einsteins model because he set it to offset the expansion his model predicted. At lower negative values it does not offset it and the Universe expands. At positive values it expands faster at a distance. (Again, this is from memory and maybe someone could confirm this for me?) MH> Let's pretend that Newton thought the sun went round the earth and MH> designed into his theory that while there was gravity, etc, it was all MH> arranged in a funny way that made the earth stand still and the sun and MH> stuff go round. He then says "Blast, blast, blast, if only I'd been MH> bolder!" when someone else realises the truth. That theory was already around. I can't remember who it was but he explained the movements of the planets as "epicycles". Literally circles within rcles. MH> If we then found that the earth, rather than gradually falling towards MH> the sun, was in fact orbiting slightly faster each time and would MH> eventually escape orbit altogether. MH> We'd not say that Newton's fudge factor had anything to do with the MH> surprising result that the earth was gaining energy, and nor would MH> Newton. MH> Well that's roughly what the fifth force is. No it's not, because you're talking about two entirely different things. Newtons model did not predict an expanding Universe. It is also wrong at speeds approaching C. Einstein didn't take Newtons model and "tweak it" to create relativity. Einstein *completely* *rewrote* Newton to explain the tiny errors in Newton's model. As a result of rewriting Newton he found that his theory predicted that the Universe was not static - probably expanding. He could not accept this and the cosmological constant was added to offset the expansion on a one to one basis. Paul ... 640K should be enough for anyone. -Bill Gates --- Spot 1.3a #1413 * Origin: ((1+z)^2-1)/((1+z)^2+1) = 0.8 z = ? (2:254/524.18) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 180 ASTRONOMY Ref: F4G00012 Date: 04/11/98 From: PAUL M. DAVIS Time: 03:33pm \/To: EARL TRUSS (Read 1 times) Subj: our moon On 1 Apr 98, Earl Truss was discussing "our moon" with Ian Smith. IS>> Hmm, about how big is that supposedly chunky odd-shaped moon of IS>> Pluto's? ET> Below is what Encarta has to say about Pluto. From this, it does not ET> sound like Pluto's "moon" is oddly-shaped since they refer to its ET> "diameter". Were you thinking of the moons of Mars? They are ET> definitely odd-shaped and less than 100 km at their widest points. I think he may be referring to the massive crater that has been imaged (barely) on Charon. Paul ... Bodily Functions: Take one. --- Spot 1.3a #1413 * Origin: 1+1=2 2+2=4 4+4=11 11+11=22 22+22=44 (2:254/524.18) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 180 ASTRONOMY Ref: F4G00013 Date: 04/11/98 From: PAUL M. DAVIS Time: 03:38pm \/To: BARTON PAUL LEVENSON (Read 1 times) Subj: A 5th force? [2/2] On 2 Apr 98, Barton Paul Levenson was discussing "A 5th force? [2/2]" with Martyn Harrison. MH>> However, an invented adjustment to fit the figures to a steady state MH>> universe cannot possibly be interchangeable with another invented MH>> adjustment to fit the figures to an accerating expansion. BPL> Sure it can. Depends on what value you give it. Positive lambda BPL> increases the acceleration of the Universe, negative lambda retards BPL> it, zero lambda has no effect. I'd recommend looking up some books on BPL> cosmology to go into the details. Aha! Just what I said. Care to recommend a cosmology book? Paul ... "Bother," said Pooh as his rockets missed the Death Star's weak spot. --- Spot 1.3a #1413 * Origin: 1+1=2 2+2=4 4+4=10 10+10=20 20+20=40 (2:254/524.18) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 180 ASTRONOMY Ref: F4G00014 Date: 04/11/98 From: PAUL M. DAVIS Time: 03:57pm \/To: EARL TRUSS (Read 1 times) Subj: Physics News Updates On 3 Apr 98, Earl Truss was discussing "Physics News Updates" with Martyn Harrison. MH>> Yes, well there are plenty of contrived possibilities for why the MH>> aliens haven't come-a-calling. These may turn out to be true, but the MH>> balance of evidence favours the "nothing special" case and the aliens MH>> haven't come because they're aren't any. When we colonise, we will be MH>> unlikely to miss whole planets filled with natural resources. ET> It's more likely that there are plenty of aliens but there is no way for ET> them to come here in a reasonable length of time that would make the ET> effort worthwhile. Isn't this the simplest possible reason? If relativity is a universal law then it is a reasonable assumption to me. It does depend on how far they have to travel though, but to put some numbers in, to travel 1 light year in 35 years (on your spaceship) you'd have to be traveling at something like 8500 km/sec whereas to travel 100 light years in 35 years (on your spaceship) you'd have to travel at 280000 km/sec, but 105 years would pass on earth. Paul ... Assembler Command: POI: Power Off Intermittently --- Spot 1.3a #1413 * Origin: 10^2=100 11^2=121 12^2=144 13^2=213 (2:254/524.18) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 180 ASTRONOMY Ref: F4G00015 Date: 04/11/98 From: PAUL M. DAVIS Time: 04:02pm \/To: ALL (Read 1 times) Subj: Dayton Miller On 6 Apr 98, MIKE ROSS was discussing "Are atoms expanding?" with A.G.G.. MR> The fine structure constant is a dimensionless ratio relating the MR> electron's orbital velocity to the speed of light. If this value was MR> significantly different, a lot of our biochemistry would be different. MR> This value is roughly about 1/137. This ratio however varies with MR> changes in momentum and of course with changes in the speed of light. MR> Of interest with the latter is that the speed of light can change in MR> the presence of strong electromagnetic or gravitational fields as stated MR> by QED. This effect was in fact observed in the 1930's. The effect is MR> negligible on the Earth or even near the Sun but it is appreciable near MR> neutron stars and BH's which have enormously intense fields. Was this effect demonstrated by Dayton Miller? I'm currently seeking information on Mr Miller and his variation of the Michelson-Morley experiment as someone has told me that his results contradicted relativity. Any information from anyone, or a pointer to where I can get the information myself, would be appreciated. Paul ... Call on God, but row away from the rocks. --- Spot 1.3a #1413 * Origin: 1+1=2 2+2=11 11+11=22 (2:254/524.18) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 180 ASTRONOMY Ref: F4G00016 Date: 04/10/98 From: KEITH KNAPP Time: 06:16pm \/To: JOHN PAZMINO (Read 1 times) Subj: Star Constellations JP>This is the exception. Virtually all shareware ends up ultimately as, JP>well, shareware. Oh!, what about sellware that turns into freeware? JP>Look at STK. Price went from, um, $8,000 -- NO!, I don't make up this JP>stuff! -- to zero. SO I called the publisher and, yes, it shot off the JP>CD to me. Just like that. If I called but two weeks earlier, I'd be JP>living today in a refirgerator crate. And!, this past Christmas I get Hi John, what's an STK and why do I want one? Thx * SLMR 2.1a * . Tagline Gene Sequenced! ....AGTAGTAGTAGTAGTAGTA --- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta * Origin: * Binary illusions BBS * Albuquerque, NM * 505.897.8282 * (1:301/45)