Ryan Air
Ken
their terms and conditions. They take valid ID for international flights as
being a passport or ID card as issued by various countries in Europe. Gib is
not among them. I contacted them by letter as to why, and they did nothing
more than reiterate what I had read on their website.
Time to hassle them?
Ken
Lynx
"Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ddi8tk$m12$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Air Lingus was once chartered by one of our carriers, as they the demand was
high and there weren't enough a/crafts to service the sectors. Anyway, the
point is that airline groundstaff, being what they are, soon started
referring to Air Lingus as "Fungus Airline". The livery was green and so was
the whole interior!
Oops, could be jumping the gun. Is RyanAir Irish?
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
news:7rdLe.82269$oJ.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Yes. They take off when the little hand is pointing at the 3 and the big
hand is pointing at the 12.
K
Lynx
>
> "Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
> news:7rdLe.82269$oJ.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> hand is pointing at the 12.
Well then! They have the option of taking off at 3AM. 3PM, and....12:15AM
and even 12:15PM, no?
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
No, just 03:00 and 15:00, depending on whether the big bright yellow ball is
up in the sky.
K
Lynx
It seems they have discovered other heavenly bodies in our very own orbit.
True? Or did I dream it? I'm sure I heard something on the BBC to that
effect.
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
I too have heard that there has been the discovery of a Pluto-sized object
orbiting beyond Pluto's orbit, and at a plane far out of keeping with the
plane of the rest of the solar system. Is it a planet, or a comet on a
not-particularly elliptical orbit? Why is it not considered an asteroid? Is
there another asteroid belt beyond Pluto as there is one between Mars and
Jupiter? I also gather there has recently been the discovery of a triplet in
the asteroid belt. Doublets are well known, where a pair of asteroids travel
as a pair, a the eartn and moon do for example. This is the first triplet
found, where three asteroids are involved. How big does an asteroid have to
be before it's considered a planet? How small does a planet have to be
before it's called an asteroid? Where do coets fall into this definition, or
is it a case of having orbits that cross the orbits of other bodies orbiting
the sun?
K
Lynx
Yes! That was it! You've jolted my (hybernating) memory. It is not
considered an asteriod because it has enough gravity pull to maintain its
spherical shape. Unlike an asteroid which can be shaped like anything
"churretada".
Remembering the programme, this is the one aspect which gives the basic
property of a planet. Not being an astronomer, I can only deduct from what I
heard that a planet must have a given mass, and therby a given gravitational
pull. But hey, I'm out of my depth here and starting to submerge...
RockScorpion
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ddq0kf$fdk$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>> news:fP_Le.85983$oJ.7...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:ddpqvf$vsn$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> "Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>>>> news:yQxLe.83193$oJ.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ddl3pe$n9e$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:7rdLe.82269$oJ.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. They take off when the little hand is pointing at the 3 and the
>>>>>> big hand is pointing at the 12.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well then! They have the option of taking off at 3AM. 3PM,
>>>>> and....12:15AM and even 12:15PM, no?
>>>>
>>>> No, just 03:00 and 15:00, depending on whether the big bright yellow
>>>> ball is up in the sky.
>>>
>>> It seems they have discovered other heavenly bodies in our very own
>>> orbit. True? Or did I dream it? I'm sure I heard something on the BBC to
>>> that effect.
Was it something like this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3511678.stm
>>
>> I too have heard that there has been the discovery of a Pluto-sized
>> object orbiting beyond Pluto's orbit, and at a plane far out of keeping
>> with the plane of the rest of the solar system. Is it a planet, or a
>> comet on a not-particularly elliptical orbit? Why is it not considered an
>> asteroid?
Astronomer's are still arguing over the criteria for calling something a
planet.
See this article: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0507/29planet/
Pluto has been argued about since it's discovery, and although it is
generally accepted by the general public as a planet, there are those that
argue that it is no more than a large asteroid or "captured Comet" and
actually part of the "Kuiper Belt".
>> Is there another asteroid belt beyond Pluto as there is one between Mars
>> and Jupiter?
Yes there is:
http://www.solarviews.com/browse/comet/kuiper3.jpg
>>I also gather there has recently been the discovery of a triplet in the
>>asteroid belt. Doublets are well known, where a pair of asteroids travel
>>as a pair, a the eartn and moon do for example. This is the first triplet
>>found, where three asteroids are involved. How big does an asteroid have
>>to be before it's considered a planet? How small does a planet have to be
>>before it's called an asteroid?
See above
>>Where do comets fall into this definition, or is it a case of having
>>orbits that cross the orbits of other bodies orbiting the sun?
Comets are usually defined as a "dirty" lump of frozen gaseous object in an
etreme elliptical orbit of the Sun. There are some objects in the asteroid
belt which are similar in composition to comets, but are refered to as
asteroids due to their being in the orbital belt. If one of these astroids
were to be somehow "knocked"out of the belt, then there would no doubt be a
heated argument about wether it would then be a Comet or Asteroid!
>
> Yes! That was it! You've jolted my (hybernating) memory. It is not
> considered an asteriod because it has enough gravity pull to maintain its
> spherical shape. Unlike an asteroid which can be shaped like anything
> "churretada".
Not quite, any object which is composed of enough "pliabale" material
(Liquids/Gases), will naturally form itself into a ball due to both gravity
and centrifugal force indueced by it's spin, the latter being the greater
influence, this is why it is thought that most Asteroid Belt objects are the
remnants of a small planet which was either unable to maintain it's
integrity due to the gravitational pull and push of larger bodies, or the
result of a major collision.
> Remembering the programme, this is the one aspect which gives the basic
> property of a planet. Not being an astronomer, I can only deduct from what
> I heard that a planet must have a given mass, and therby a given
> gravitational pull. But hey, I'm out of my depth here and starting to
> submerge...
Don't worry, as I said above,the definition of a planet is debateable, for
example, Mecury is smaller than Pluto.
http://btc.montana.edu/ceres/html/PlanetSizes/planet01.html
Joe
(**************************************************)
(** Last night as I lay in bed looking at the stars I thought **)
(** 'Where the hell is the ceiling?'
*******)
(**************************************************)
Ken
"RockScorpion" <area...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AuOdnUmxd7Q...@giganews.com...
Many thanks for the most enlightening links! I was fascinated to read that
the proposed name for the new plasteroid (how about THAT term for something
we cannot decide on being planet or asteroid? Either "plasteroid" or "plant
steroid") is "being kept secret". Why ever? Would the world come to an
untimely end if the name became known a week eaqrlier than otherwise would
have been the case?
Anyway I hope the name starts with the letter K, and noit becasue my name
does. It's because as I child I recall learning a mnemonic to help recall
the names of the planets from the sun outward. Some Men Very Easily Make
Jugs Serve Useful Needs - (Sun) Mercury Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn
Uranus Neptune. Apparently when Pluto was discovered the word "Promptly" was
added. If the new plasteroid's name were to begin with the letter K we
Janitos could add "Kompa!" to the sentence.
K
Lynx
Interesting. In this context, do all objects spin?
RockScorpion
<esnippy>
>
> Many thanks for the most enlightening links! I was fascinated to read that
> the proposed name for the new plasteroid (how about THAT term for
> something we cannot decide on being planet or asteroid? Either
> "plasteroid" or "plant steroid") is "being kept secret". Why ever? Would
> the world come to an untimely end if the name became known a week eaqrlier
> than otherwise would have been the case?
How about "complasteroid"? "Comooplasteroid"? :)
And yes, the world as we know it would end, there would be earthquakes,
volcano's, hurricanes and tornados... errr, aren't we having those already?
Ye Gods, someone must have blabbed!!!
>
> Anyway I hope the name starts with the letter K, and noit becasue my name
> does. It's because as I child I recall learning a mnemonic to help recall
> the names of the planets from the sun outward. Some Men Very Easily Make
> Jugs Serve Useful Needs - (Sun) Mercury Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn
> Uranus Neptune. Apparently when Pluto was discovered the word "Promptly"
> was added. If the new plasteroid's name were to begin with the letter K we
> Janitos could add "Kompa!" to the sentence.
"Karamba!"
Science bit:
Did you know that Pluto is not always the next planet after Neptune, it's
orbit is so elliptical it is often closer than Neptune to the Sun.
RockScorpion
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
Good question,
One possible answer to your question is this: Consider objects condensing
out of a gas cloud, as they collapse the tidal force of one lump can induce
rotation in a nearby lump. As angular momentum is conserved, there is no
overall rotation in the system ( Universe ) but matter at all scales will
have some rotation. Total angular momentum must add to zero. Tidal force
is a short range force that essentially arises from variation of some force
(here gravitation) over the size of the object we are interested in. To see
how this can lead to transfer of angular momentum, consider the example of
Earth-Moon system. Here, tidal force of Earth has slowed down rotation of
the Moon and now the Moon is doing the same thing to the Earth. Such a
transfer requires nonspherical distribution of mass - even a small departure
from sphericity can lead to a large transfer of angular momentum over a long
enough time.
As far as spinning stars in spiral galaxies are concerned, there is a
simpler answer: Differential rotation of the galaxy makes gas clouds rotate
at a slow rate. This can also explain the definite sense of rotation in the
solar system.
Therefore, spin is the result of tidal (gravitational) forces from the space
around an object, and if the object is sufficiently malleable, it will take
the shape of a sphere, to which material will fall towards it's core, adding
to the rotational force only slightly.
Phew! I think I need a lie down after that.
Lynx
When dealing in a topic I am no expert in, adhering to an old Arab proverb,
I much rather use my tongue and ears in their respective proportions. 2 to
1. Having read the above, it is still somewhat questionable that bodies
should automatically adopt a spherical shape on account of their
rotation/spinning. The BBC commentary, I found a little more convincing, on
the nature of bodies acquiring spherical shapes as a result of their
mass/density/ own gravitational pull. But I do keep an open mind on these
matters, as I have notstudied them in any great depth. I am already spinning
.
Ken
Indeed - and this comoplasteroid (Karamba Kompa) also comes inside Pluto's
orbit from time to time, or so I read.
Now, if there is some doubt as to whether Pluto should ever have been
classed as a planet and more of an asteroid, what of Mercury which is
smaller than Pluto and over which such discussion appears not to occur?
K
Ken
This if anything merely demonstartes that there is no hard and fast rule
about this, and that orbits can vary from absolutely circular to wildly
elliptical, bodies orbiting the sun can have any range of consistencies from
gas giants to rocky lumps. By their nature gaseous ones are more likely to
be ovoid, rocky lumps will have more or less obvious irregularities to their
smoothness. The Earth is not that smooth if you consider the Rocky mountanis
and the Alps after all! As to comets being dirty snowballs, fine - but how
much snow? At one extreme you might consider the Earth with snow and ice at
its poles and atop mountains to be a rocky snowball in a fairly circular
orbit - a comet!
But their uniform angular rotational speed at all distances from the centre
is a puzzle, only explicable if you accept the dark matter concept. Just
wish someone had some of it a jar.
>
> Therefore, spin is the result of tidal (gravitational) forces from the
> space around an object, and if the object is sufficiently malleable, it
> will take the shape of a sphere, to which material will fall towards it's
> core, adding to the rotational force only slightly.
>
> Phew! I think I need a lie down after that.
I HATED angular momentum in Physics. I need a lie down too, though I must
say your explanations make far more intuitive sense than much else I've come
across on the matter. Thanks!
K
RockScorpion
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
My apologies for not being a little clearer, I think I may have implied that
shape was a result of spin, this is not so, The BBC commentary was correct,
what I meant to say was that +spin+ would be increased by material falling
towards the centre of a body as it is pulled in by gravity.
>But I do keep an open mind on these matters, as I have notstudied them in
>any great depth. I am already spinning .
Who needs a fairground ride when you can get the same effect from discussing
theoretical physics? ;)
and it's cheaper too...
>
>
RockScorpion
It's all relative. The Earth is relatively smooth when you look at the
horizon from orbit, it is difficlt to see any "bumps" on the surface. and
two thirds of the Earth is water, which is also pretty smooth (on average!)
>As to comets being dirty snowballs, fine - but how much snow? At one
>extreme you might consider the Earth with snow and ice at its poles and
>atop mountains to be a rocky snowball in a fairly circular orbit - a comet!
There can be no absolutes when it comes to the composition of +any+ body in
space, as ever there will be exceptions, but if an object is say, over 50
percent ice (not neccessarily water ice), then it would be a fairly dirty
snowball! The earth, on the other hand is mainly composed of molten magma,
with only a thin "cool" crust on which we depend for living space.
If what you mean is that rotation is uniform at all distances from the
centre then I am afraid you're mistaken, unless a body is solid through to
it's core, the various densities of it's materials will spin at different
speeds. This is known to be happening deep within the Earth.
Furthermore, If you observe the Gas Giants in our neighbourhood, and even
the Sun, you would soon see that the Equatorial regions spin at a faster
rate than further up to it's poles!
>
>
>>
>> Therefore, spin is the result of tidal (gravitational) forces from the
>> space around an object, and if the object is sufficiently malleable, it
>> will take the shape of a sphere, to which material will fall towards it's
>> core, adding to the rotational force only slightly.
>>
>> Phew! I think I need a lie down after that.
>
> I HATED angular momentum in Physics. I need a lie down too, though I must
> say your explanations make far more intuitive sense than much else I've
> come across on the matter. Thanks!
> K
Truth is I prefer observational Astronomy to the theoretical side, but you
need some knowledge of theory in order to understand what you are peering
through a telescope at!
One thing that has always stayed with me was the first time I saw Saturn's
rings through a 10" 'scope, then again there was the time I saw the dark
spots on Jupiter when the comet hit it, and my first glimpse of the Orion
Nebula, and... Well, you get the picture! :)
RockScorpion
The simple answer is established tradition. Scientists differ on the subject
(and on any subject for that matter!), but several thousand years of popular
tradition is hard to overcome.
Ken
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ddtm7l$adl$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "RockScorpion" <area...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:RsednU9_ZKY...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>>> news:jP6Me.86172$oJ....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>> "RockScorpion" <area...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:AuOdnUmxd7Q...@giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>>>>> news:160Me.86078$oJ.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:ddq0kf$fdk$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:fP_Le.85983$oJ.7...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:ddpqvf$vsn$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:yQxLe.83193$oJ.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:ddl3pe$n9e$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:7rdLe.82269$oJ.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> about this, and that orbits can vary from absolutely circular to wildly
>> elliptical, bodies orbiting the sun can have any range of consistencies
>> from gas giants to rocky lumps. By their nature gaseous ones are more
>> likely to be ovoid, rocky lumps will have more or less obvious
>> irregularities to their smoothness. The Earth is not that smooth if you
>> consider the Rocky mountanis and the Alps after all!
>
> It's all relative. The Earth is relatively smooth when you look at the
> horizon from orbit, it is difficlt to see any "bumps" on the surface. and
> two thirds of the Earth is water, which is also pretty smooth (on
> average!)
Your rider "on average" saves you! And yes indeed, it is all a matter of
persepective and relative proportions. last time I was on the North Sea
fishing for cod the water was very VERY lumpy I assure you!
>
>>As to comets being dirty snowballs, fine - but how much snow? At one
>>extreme you might consider the Earth with snow and ice at its poles and
>>atop mountains to be a rocky snowball in a fairly circular orbit - a
>>comet!
>
> There can be no absolutes when it comes to the composition of +any+ body
> in space, as ever there will be exceptions, but if an object is say, over
> 50 percent ice (not neccessarily water ice), then it would be a fairly
> dirty snowball! The earth, on the other hand is mainly composed of molten
> magma, with only a thin "cool" crust on which we depend for living space.
>
>
> If what you mean is that rotation is uniform at all distances from the
> centre then I am afraid you're mistaken, unless a body is solid through to
> it's core, the various densities of it's materials will spin at different
> speeds. This is known to be happening deep within the Earth.
>
> Furthermore, If you observe the Gas Giants in our neighbourhood, and even
> the Sun, you would soon see that the Equatorial regions spin at a faster
> rate than further up to it's poles!
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Therefore, spin is the result of tidal (gravitational) forces from the
>>> space around an object, and if the object is sufficiently malleable, it
>>> will take the shape of a sphere, to which material will fall towards
>>> it's core, adding to the rotational force only slightly.
>>>
>>> Phew! I think I need a lie down after that.
>>
>> I HATED angular momentum in Physics. I need a lie down too, though I must
>> say your explanations make far more intuitive sense than much else I've
>> come across on the matter. Thanks!
>> K
>
> Truth is I prefer observational Astronomy to the theoretical side, but you
> need some knowledge of theory in order to understand what you are peering
> through a telescope at!
>
> One thing that has always stayed with me was the first time I saw Saturn's
> rings through a 10" 'scope, then again there was the time I saw the dark
> spots on Jupiter when the comet hit it, and my first glimpse of the Orion
> Nebula, and... Well, you get the picture! :)
Yes indeed - but aren't generally affordable telscopes disappointing? I
mean, young lad armed with a 60mm refractor, expects to see loads and loads
of stuff - points his telescope at the sky and all those starts STILL look
like dots. Only the planets offer some hope of detail - and they don't. Only
the moon shows FAR more detail down (up?) his telescope than his naked eye
can discern. Mars is a red blob which won't focus to a point (maybe it has a
lighter end to it - an ice cap perhaps? Who can tell!) and Jupiter will
reveal a blurred giant spot and a few moons. Saturn - if favourable and not
edge-on - will reveal rings.
These days I'd advise anyone NOT to buy a telescope unless they are going to
spend REAL money and have somewhere to put it, and do your "viewing" down
the www instead.
For the Schumaker-Levy implace on Jupiter I did my "observing" in the radio
spectrum. Any short wave receiver capable of injecting a beat frequency
would reveal lots of noises. Or you could use a proper communications
receiver as I did. Marvelous!
Ken
Lynx
True, who needs such a ride. Mind you, we're all riding on this huge
spinning top at incredible speed. Not only that, but we're all space
travelers too!
No problems, and yes you did state that shape was a result of spin. I
thought I understood the BBC chap, but when you threw all that stuff at me I
thought, oh oh, better watch myself here! Jokes aside, and do correct me if
I'm wrong. Is a body's gravity not dependant on its mass? I'm not sure, but
I may have read this somewhere.
Lynx
>
> "Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ddtm7l$adl$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> rings through a 10" 'scope, then again there was the time I saw the dark
> spots on Jupiter when the comet hit it, and my first glimpse of the Orion
> Nebula, and... Well, you get the picture! :)
Years ago my brother, a school kid then, took an interest in astronomy.
Well, at Christmas he was presented with a telescope. One early evening when
he was peering through his telescope, I asked, "what are you looking at?"
His casual reply was, "Saturn". I asked if I could have a look, and there it
was! Saturn with its magical rings! Probing my "little bro" a little
further, I found he had meticulously gathered enough information to know
what time of day and where to look for different planets! I was speechless!
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
Yes and no. The gravitational attraction between TWO bodies depends on BOTH
their masses. However massive a body (e.g.Jupiter) the gravitational force
it experiences towards anything is dependent not only on its mass, but also
the mass of the other thing too. And the distance between them. And the
gravitational constant. And it's one of (if not THE) least understood of the
fundamental forces.
Some have postulated that the "influences of the planets in one's horoscope"
has to do with gravity. In fact you experience a greater gravitiational
attraction towards the paperback on your bedside table than you do towards
any of the planets in the solar system from your position on Earth.
Ken
Lynx
I was thinking more along the lines of mass being a dependant factor on the
body's gravity, inasmuch as contributing to its spherical shape. Not so much
as it may or may not attract other bodies.
RockScorpion
<short back and sides snip>
>> It's all relative. The Earth is relatively smooth when you look at the
>> horizon from orbit, it is difficlt to see any "bumps" on the surface. and
>> two thirds of the Earth is water, which is also pretty smooth (on
>> average!)
>
> Your rider "on average" saves you! And yes indeed, it is all a matter of
> persepective and relative proportions. last time I was on the North Sea
> fishing for cod the water was very VERY lumpy I assure you!
There's nothing worse than going for a swim at the beach and coming across
some "lumpy" water, eeeuuuuch! :)
<trimmed again!>
>> Truth is I prefer observational Astronomy to the theoretical side, but
>> you need some knowledge of theory in order to understand what you are
>> peering through a telescope at!
>>
>> One thing that has always stayed with me was the first time I saw
>> Saturn's rings through a 10" 'scope, then again there was the time I saw
>> the dark spots on Jupiter when the comet hit it, and my first glimpse of
>> the Orion Nebula, and... Well, you get the picture! :)
>
> Yes indeed - but aren't generally affordable telscopes disappointing? I
> mean, young lad armed with a 60mm refractor, expects to see loads and
> loads of stuff - points his telescope at the sky and all those starts
> STILL look like dots. Only the planets offer some hope of detail - and
> they don't. Only the moon shows FAR more detail down (up?) his telescope
> than his naked eye can discern. Mars is a red blob which won't focus to a
> point (maybe it has a lighter end to it - an ice cap perhaps? Who can
> tell!) and Jupiter will reveal a blurred giant spot and a few moons.
> Saturn - if favourable and not edge-on - will reveal rings.
Rule of thumb is that anything 60mm down should only be used for moon and
planets, it's light gathering capacity and max magnification is not
suffucient for "Deep Space" observing. My own telescope is a 4.5" (114mm)
reflector by Soligor (which, in case you're unfamiliar with the term means
it uses a mirror to increase focal length, 910mm in my case). It cost me
around £200 complete with motor drive, from a shop in Main Street.
https://secure.soligor.com/index.php?id=5&backPID=175&L=1&tt_products=669&L=1
I've always recommended that beginners in astronomy should start off
observing using binoculars and a star chart or planisphere to learn their
way around the heaven's before going on to using telescopes.
http://www.greenwich-observatory.co.uk/beginners.html
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=ss&id=8
http://www.lightandmatter.com/binosky/binosky.html
A further advisory is that most people are acustomed to seeing those
brilliant pictures taken by Proffessional Observatories like those in the
Canary Islands and the Hubble Space Telescope , then get very quickly
dissapointed by what they see (or rather cannot see), through their own
equipment.
>
> These days I'd advise anyone NOT to buy a telescope unless they are going
> to spend REAL money and have somewhere to put it, and do your "viewing"
> down the www instead.
How much would you call "REAL" money? there's loads to choose from.
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=ss&id=9
http://www.meade.com/
http://www.celestron.com/main.php
>
> For the Schumaker-Levy implace on Jupiter I did my "observing" in the
> radio spectrum. Any short wave receiver capable of injecting a beat
> frequency would reveal lots of noises. Or you could use a proper
> communications receiver as I did. Marvelous!
>
> Ken
>
This might interest you...
http://www.rocketroberts.com/astro/radio.htm
Joe
RockScorpion
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
Just goes to show what a little encouragement can do for kids.
I use Redshift V4 to find objects before I go out looking for them,
brilliant prog, saves loads of time "hunting" around for stuff to look at.
Thinking about upgrading to V5 now.
http://www.focusmm.co.uk/store/productpages/productinfo/ffb032.html
Joe
RockScorpion
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
Got my wires crossed, happens when you're trying to answer several things at
once, can be a bit of a strain on my little brain cell :(
>Jokes aside, and do correct me if I'm wrong. Is a body's gravity not
>dependant on its mass? I'm not sure, but I may have read this somewhere.
Gravity. The force of attraction between two or more masses. This force is
dependant on both the masses themselves as well as the distance between
them. Being a force, gravity is strictly speaking measured in Newton's but
is commonly measured in Kilogrammes.
One exception is the gravitational force exerted by a cold beer on a hot
summer's day, there's one in my fridge tugging at me right now :)
Joe
RockScorpion
>
<snipetty-do-da>
>
> Some have postulated that the "influences of the planets in one's
> horoscope" has to do with gravity. In fact you experience a greater
> gravitiational attraction towards the paperback on your bedside table than
> you do towards any of the planets in the solar system from your position
> on Earth.
>
> Ken
>
Don't get me started on astroLogy, the number of times I've mention my
interest in astroNomy and been asked "Oh! I'm a (insert sign here), what's
your sign?". To which my answer usually involves the use of the middle
finger. :)
Joe
--------------------------------------
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
Lynx
>
> Just goes to show what a little encouragement can do for kids.
>
> I use Redshift V4 to find objects before I go out looking for them,
> brilliant prog, saves loads of time "hunting" around for stuff to look at.
> Thinking about upgrading to V5 now.
Astronomy is indeed a fascinating science/hobby. Some nights whenever I gaze
up at the sky, I always remember Gib's night-sky. There are so many more
stars visible in the northern hemisphere, even the moon appears upside down
from these parts!
Lynx
>
>>Jokes aside, and do correct me if I'm wrong. Is a body's gravity not
>>dependant on its mass? I'm not sure, but I may have read this somewhere.
>
> Gravity. The force of attraction between two or more masses. This force is
> dependant on both the masses themselves as well as the distance between
> them. Being a force, gravity is strictly speaking measured in Newton's but
> is commonly measured in Kilogrammes.
>
> One exception is the gravitational force exerted by a cold beer on a hot
> summer's day, there's one in my fridge tugging at me right now :)
Right, got all that. Ah yes, there's nothing like a chilled beer in summer.
Over here is winter, and a cold winter we're having too! No beer thanks, the
season's ripe for a good red, with food of course, nothing beats a good
full-bodied red in winter at dinner time!
Lynx
Why is it called astronomy, when the subject matter is the study of the
cosmos? Why not call it cosmology?
It's the same with astronauts and cosmonauts, the latter is surely the most
appropriate name for space travelers.
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
The Russkies did it first, and the Yanks followed. The Yanks could not be
seen to be "following" but "leading" so they made up their own terms rather
than use those already coined. It's not the only thing that differentiated
them. You will be familiar with the "space pen" marketed as used by US
astronauts in space? A normal ballpoint won't work (as indeed it does not
when writing upside down - try it) in that it needs gravity to pull the ink
down towards the paper. The Yanks developed this rather neat system whereby
there was a bubble of compressed gas at the back end of the refill, furthest
away from the nib so that the ink would be pushed towards the nib in
whatever position the pen was held and regardless of any gravity.
The Russians used pencils.
Ken
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
Or indeed a full-bodied redhead at any time :o
Ken
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
The study of the heavens is indeed a vast subject, like the subject of study
itself ( I feel a Dan Quale coming on!). The number of stars seen is
dependent on a clear sky of course. It's also dependent on the amount of
light pollution, and both these considerations drive earth-bound astronomers
to go to remote and high hill and mountain tops. Less atmosphere between you
and space that causes shimmer, above all clouds all the time, away from
nasty street lights and sources of RF which would interfere with sensitive
instruments. The light pollution has also to do with your position on the
earth, in as much as the sun hits the horizon at different angles. An hour
after sunset the sun is further below the horizon in Gib than it is in the
UK, where around the time of the summer solstice it never really gets
completely dark. The darkest and fastest I've ever seen the sky get (and
conversely the lightest and quickest) was on the Seychelles, just a few
degrees off the equator and with barely no light pollution. Fantastic!
Ken
Lynx
If you use a ballpoint pen upside down, you'll end up with an airpocket just
behind the the tip (the ball) which will render the pen useless thereafter.
I knew something about the "space-race" affecting the differentiating terms
for space travellers, but really! The Russinas do seem to still be at the
cutting edge of space technology, though not mush is heard of their
contributions. Is that right?
Lynx
Now, now! If you have some red before the red, you'll feel all the better
for it!
Lynx
Correction my friend, the atmosphere remains the same, what you try to do
away with is "polluting light reflection". Quale, Quaile or Quail, now
there's a character who really made a mark in the English language. He'd
make dizzy the most upsent minded!
The position one finds oneself on the globe can influence so many daily
things. For example, driving in these parts prior to sunset can be
dangerous. The sun takes forever to go down beyond the horizon and it beams
with full strength till it does. This creates untold visual problems for
drivers on the road at that time of day. Must be our pisition on the globe.
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
I don;t know enough to be able to comment to any useful degree. The Yanks do
seem always to go for the exceedingly high-tech option which, being more
complex, has more places to fall apart at. The Ruskies OTOH do seem at times
to take some phenomenal risks!
Anyone who saw the film Apollo 13 will be aware of the use of "scrubbers" on
space flights to recycle the air. Basically, the breathing gas (it's not
air) in the capsule / vehicle / space suit is blown through canisters
containing lime (calcium hydroxide) which combines with the carbon dioxide
exhaled in the breath to make calcium carbonate (chalk). What comes out is
devoid of carbon dioxide and is fit for breathing again after enriching with
a bit of oxygen, which was consumed on being breathed in the first place.
The Russians used a more efficient scrubber substance the exact composition
of which I am unaware of. The Russians call it O3. It's a superoxide, and
from this perspective has the advantage of not only absorbing carbon
dioxide, but it also releasing oxygen on doing so! Great - you package
oxygen chemically, the same process that does one job actually does two jobs
all without any intervention of mechanics, electronics or whatever.
Great until you realise that the reaction is wildly exothermic and can (and
does) cause fires. Remember the fire on Mir that almost cost the lives of
the astro/cosmonauts? It was caused by an O3 burn. Such a fire is virtually
impossible to contain. It is self-sustaining as it produces its own oxygen.
You can't put water over it, as the addition of water accelerates the
reaction AND the additional substances produced are not only poisonous but
are so caustic as to eat their way through glass.
Russians used O3 also in breathing systems used for emergency escape from
submarines, and the deepest successful escape ever from a sub was a Russian
affair. In July 1989 six Russian officers escaped from a sub at a depth of
600m wearing IDA59 escape suits when their sub went down. It was powered by
a couple of experimental nuclear reactors. On reaching the surface rough
seas caused the pod they had escaped in to flip over and sink, and five of
the officers went down with it. The only survivor was Warrant Officer
Slyusarenko.
Ken
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
The composition of the atmosphere remains the same, but the greater the
altitude above sea level the less of it there is between the observer and
space itself. Less atmospheric thickness, esp. away from centres of
population which are sources of heat result in less shimmer - the stars will
twinkle less.
K
Lynx
Most interesting, really, so much so, I'm saving it and re-reading later!
I once saw a high altitude flying jet fighter parked at an airport apron.
Well, when they refuelled this impressive piece of technology, and it was
impressive. It leaked all over the place, just leaked. I was told by an
engineer that that formed part of the design, as on flying it compensated
for pressures the craft would be subjected to. Amazing stuff!
Lynx
Well, I do agree, but mostly with your observation of being away from
centres of population which, as you say, are sources of heat, and light,
polution. Resulting in shimmer and light reflection. But, as you have just
suggested, the "amount" of atmosphere would remain the same. We're basically
saying the same, there's no argument. Did you ever read the book Cosmos by,
the late, Karl Sagan?
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
No I have not read that book but hang on - yes the mass and volume of the
atmosphere remain the same wherever you are. When Neil Armstrong was on the
moon the Earth's atmosphere was not affected by his absence. BUT when you
are on a mountain top at 15000 ft, there is 15000 ft LESS thickness of
atmosphere between you and the moon, compared to when you are at sea level
and the moon. That's 15,000 feet LESS of atmosphere to cause atmospheric
effects, and as it happens, the densenst 15,000 ft because the atmosphere is
densest closest to the ground. Do you get what I mean? The higher up a
mountain, the clearer a pic of the stars and planets you get because there
is less atmospheric thickness the light you observe has to travel through.
The ultimate mountain top is to put your telescope in orbit, as was done
with Hubble. Pity about the mirror and the processor though. Still, that
much was fixed eventually. Ideally you'd place your telescope outside the
plane of the solar system, even intergalactically.
K
Jim Watt
>>> Right, got all that. Ah yes, there's nothing like a chilled beer in
>>> summer. Over here is winter, and a cold winter we're having too! No beer
>>> thanks, the season's ripe for a good red, with food of course, nothing
>>> beats a good full-bodied red in winter at dinner time!
>>
>> Or indeed a full-bodied redhead at any time :o
>
>Now, now! If you have some red before the red, you'll feel all the better
>for it!
so you suggest reds in the bed not under it ...
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com
Lynx
The "picture" becomes clearer when you define, by measurement, the lengths
to which you are prepared. Climbing 15,000 feet is what I call
determination! No argument on that one. You have more salidas than a
bullfighter! I bought Cosmos, the book, when the TV program was on full
swing. It is a very interesting and informative book.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:d05ag1hmcm7a8lprd...@4ax.com...
Absolutely! Although, I must say, I keep my reds in the dark, cool, even
temperature compartment. I'm planning on building a cellar, that way I can
keep them totally isolated and waiting for when they take my
fancy..........we're talking about wines, of course.....
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
Beware of drinking reds at "room temperature" as the definition of this has
shifted! When the norm was to do precisely that, rooms temperature may have
been a few degrees cooler than it is now thanks to central heating. Though
of course it depends where in the world you are.
K
Ken
"Lynx" <M...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
If you want to get above the clouds that's the sort of altitude you need to
be considering. Which reminds me. Tenerife has Spain's highest mountain
(Teide) which is also as it happens (I'm told) the world's third highest
active volcano. This angry mound has erupted almost every 100 years for the
last few hundred years, in the very early years of each century. In
geological time-frame terms, that almost counts as continuous. I wonder if
it's about to blow its top any tiime soon now. And if it does, will it be
the trigger for another of the Canaries to collapse into the Atlantic
causing the much-anticipated tsunami that is set to engulf much of the
eastern shores of the USA?
K
Lynx
How right you are. Experts say a red wine should be served at 16-18
Centigrade. For this reason, especially in winter, a red wine is "chambre",
preferably placed a distance from a fireplace/heater. Then once the bottle
can be felt to be at "room temperature" (not warm or hot), the cork is
removed, allowed to breath and served.
Like everything else, it comes down to the consumers' taste. Come
summertime, if one is not disposed to white wines, a "vino de verano" can be
an excellent choice. Though you wouldn't waste a good red, a good Claret
will do.
Lynx
>
> If you want to get above the clouds that's the sort of altitude you need
> to be considering. Which reminds me. Tenerife has Spain's highest mountain
> (Teide) which is also as it happens (I'm told) the world's third highest
> active volcano. This angry mound has erupted almost every 100 years for
> the last few hundred years, in the very early years of each century. In
> geological time-frame terms, that almost counts as continuous. I wonder if
> it's about to blow its top any tiime soon now. And if it does, will it be
> the trigger for another of the Canaries to collapse into the Atlantic
> causing the much-anticipated tsunami that is set to engulf much of the
> eastern shores of the USA?
Interesting observation. As if they didn't enough tornados, etc. All they'd
need is a tsunami. Lets hope not. I read only recently that a tsunami was in
all probabilities the cause of the famed Atlantis. Not only that, but this
French investigator in this topic came to the conclusion that Atlantis
probably existed in the vicinity of Cadiz.