July 2005 - Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

RE: [Utah-astronomy] relativity
by Michael Carnes 07 Jul '05

07 Jul '05

Aaron-- If you're looking for a great read that entwines relativity and the current (near-current) state of cosmology, let me recommend "The Five Ages of the Universe" by Fred Adams and Greg Laughlin. In essence, the book extrapolates our current understanding of expansion, stellar lifespans, quantum mechanics and relativity into deep time. In other words, given what we know now, what happens a 100 billion years from now, or a hundred trillion years from now? You end up with atoms the size of the solar system and stars with only a few watts of output. You've got black holes fizzling away from Hawking radiation. It's written in a very approachable style that will give you grist for years' worth of headscratching conversations. Michael

1 0

For weekend observing - new supernova in M51
by Canopus56 07 Jul '05

07 Jul '05

Reprinted from a Bill Ferris posting on Cloudynights - ============= The International Astronomical Union announces in IAU Circular 8553 the discovery of supernova 2005cs in M51, the Whirlpool Galaxy. The supernova was discovered by Wolfgang Kloehr the night of June 27-28. The estimated magnitude at the time of discovery was 13.5 and the supernova is expected to brighten over the next several nights. The supernova is located about an arcminute southwest of the galaxy's nucleus. Here are the coordinates of supernova 2005cs: RA: 13h 29m 53s Dec.: +47d 10m 36s Regards, Bill in Flagstaff ========================== Enjoy - Canopus56 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

5 10

RE: [Utah-astronomy] relativity
by Lambert, Aaron 07 Jul '05

07 Jul '05

Thanks to all who sent replies on my relativity question. I have read and reread several of the responses. I particularly liked the phrase "They can pry open your skull and give your brain a cold shower." That is about how I feel when I am trying to wrap my mind around this stuff. Either that, or it is the feeling of my brain whimpering in the corner. It seems like I am still making some mistakes in my basic understanding of relativity, so I need to do some more reading, I guess. Paul Gettings, in particular, gave a very thorough response to my questions. I do not know if it was sent to the whole list or not. I have read his email perhaps 10 times and am still trying to get my mind to digest most of what it said. >From what I have gathered from the various responses, though, is that it sounds like things happen in a specific time-frame (called "proper time" in many sites I have visited), but that different observers see those events as happening at different times from their perspectives. This seems to be based upon when light from the events reaches the viewers, is this correct? This, however, seems to contradict the Wiki article I reference below. So is it true then, that our estimated age of the universe is the "proper age"? Is it possible that viewers at other spots in the universe would view the age as +/- a billion years or so because, for example, their solar system is careening through space at a speed close to the speed of light relative to the universe or relative to us or something? Or am I still missing some fundamental stuff here? Here is another way of looking at the reasoning behind my question. From the Wiki article on the twin paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox) it says that in special relativity there is no "absolute present". Because different frames of reference have different "simultaneity planes", is it possible (or likely) that an observer from a different solar system would say that the age of the universe is currently different from what we measure? Most of my understanding of relativity has come from many readings of the pages located here: http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_intro.html Since the guy is using relativity in the context of Star Trek, perhaps it is not the best source. :) The things I have the most difficulty with are statements like these (from Paul's email): "Assume two small, bright (emitting) objects are both traveling at .9c away from a common source. To an observer on either object (who is an inertial frame), the other source is receding at .9c, due to space-time dilation. To an observer in an inertial frame outside the objects, both are moving at .9c away from the source. But, the clock running on the objects "appears" to move more slowly to the outside observer. To an observer on the objects, the clock outside "appears" to move faster than theirs on the object." Physics was so much easier before Einstein got involved. :) Thanks, Aaron

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Relativity Question
by Michael Carnes 07 Jul '05

07 Jul '05

>If two beams of light are leaving the Big Bang at the same time traveling in opposite directions, what is their time relative to each other? If they travel for one year in their time are they two light years apart? Or is it less because if they are two light years apart, they would be traveling at two times the speed of light relative to each other? Aaron, this probably only adds to your confusion, but it's my understanding that no time passes from the point of view of the photon. So there are no relatavistic violations between the two light beams in your example. Of course, this all violates the heck out of my brain. I'm still working on gravity. And gravity's still working on me. Michael

4 7

Re: Re: [Utah-astronomy] My M51 photos -- SN?
by astrodeb＠charter.net 06 Jul '05

06 Jul '05

I think the supernova has been around for a while. This picture was taken on 4-1-05. I see it in this picture too. http://home.comcast.net/~dave.dockery/M51.htm Debbie > > From: Chuck Hards <chuckhards(a)yahoo.com> > Date: 2005/07/06 Wed PM 05:36:28 MDT > To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Subject: Re: Re: [Utah-astronomy] My M51 photos -- SN? > > Early discoveries are important so spectra can be > taken as soon as possible. But Joe should submit it > anyway, there are several prediscovery shots already > posted on more than one site. It may help establish a > timeline, and it will get Joe's name out there. > > C. > > --- Kim Hyatt <kimharch(a)cut.net> wrote: > > > Joe: I haven't looked at your photo, but if you > > think it shows the SN, then > > by all means, you should send it to the appropriate > > clearing house for such > > discoveries. Sorry, I can't say who that would be, > > but maybe Patrick could > > help. Your photo may be more important than the > > "discovery" photo. > > > __________________________________________________ > 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 >

1 0

relativity
by daniel turner 06 Jul '05

06 Jul '05

Most of us live in a world of words. We email our feeling and convey out thoughts but the science of physics requires numbers and (shutter) mathematics to be understood. There are popular science works written for the average amateur astronomer, and these works have the math removed. The soul of understanding; the thunderclap of recognition, the (dare I say) religious experience of physics is in the mathematics. Not only that but the word versions of physics leave holes big enough for skeptics to drive a truck through. At age 50 I was unhappy with my knowledge of physics. So I picked up a copy of Richard FeynmanÂs ÂSix Easy PiecesÂ. This was entertaining and informative but not quite there. Next I read ÂSix Not So Easy PiecesÂ and this opened the door a crack and let in the blinding light of understanding. So I read it again. There is enough mathematics here to convey the concepts of Relativity but not enough to scare off college freshmen that are supposed to know some math. There is also discussion of the views of skeptics and why they are wrong. The science of physics is based on experimental evidence that reduces to numbers that plug into the equations that let the math tell you what is going on. The skeptics are cocktail party philosophers who play word games. Richard has been gone now almost twenty years, but his books are still wonderful. They can pry open your skull and give your brain a cold shower. Other popular science works are: Kip S. ThorneÂs ÂBlack Holes and Time WarpsÂ: a good attempt by a physicist but the math is minimal and is banished to the footnotes so as not to scare the horses. Timothy FerrisÂs ÂThe Whole ShebangÂ and ÂSeeing in the DarkÂ: Tim is a journalist and a life long amateur astronomer. He approaches the science with the soul of a poet. ItÂs just words but itÂs words from a competent wordsmith who is on speaking terms with real scientists. Jean MeeusÂs: ÂMathematical Astronomy MorselsÂ, Lots of math about planetary positions. A great book with two sequels ÂMore Mathematical Astronomy MorselsÂ and ÂMathematical Astronomy Morsels IIIÂ. And for the computer programmers, ÂAstronomical AlgorithmsÂ. DT --------------------------------- Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items.

2 1

news
by Kim Hyatt 06 Jul '05

06 Jul '05

Fox News item (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161575,00.html#top) "Marina Bai has sued the U.S. space agency, claiming the Deep Impact probe that punched a crater into the comet Tempel 1 late Sunday "ruins the natural balance of forces in the universe," the newspaper Izvestia reported Tuesday. A Moscow court has postponed hearings on the case until late July, the paper said... "Bai is seeking damages totaling $300 million - the approximate equivalent of the mission's cost - for her "moral sufferings," Izvestia said, citing her lawyer Alexander Molokhov. She earlier told the paper that the experiment would "deform her horoscope." Seems to me that both Ms. Bai and her horoscope have been significantly deformed already. Kim

2 1

My M51 photos -- SN?
by Joe Bauman 06 Jul '05

06 Jul '05

I'm resending this because, as pointed out, the previous heading sounded like one of those Internet scams. Patrick, I know you're extremely experienced in astrophotography -- will you take a look? Also anyone else who would like to comment? Thanks, Joe Here's the earlier message, without that heading -- Dear Friends, Please keep me from making a fool of myself. I would ask that anyone skilled in interpreting astrophotos take a look at my views of M51 that I took the morning of June 18 and posted on June 20 to my gallery on the UtahAstronomy site -- the URL is always at the bottom of these messages. Then please copy my views and compare them with the discovery photos of the supernova, dating from June 26 (I think) and posted at this site: http://www.rochesterastronomy.org/sn2005/sn2005cs.html -- also look at later photos. I think I got a view of the SN before it was announced. But I may be wrong. Possibly what I think is it is merely a bright cloud of star-material and what they're talking about is something else that does not show in my photos. But it certainly looks like it to me, biased as I am. Also, I have kept all my raw files made that night -- I took a fair number of exposures. Thanks, Joe PS: It won't hurt my feelings a bit if it does not show the SN. I really want you more experieced folks to take a look before I open my mouth. Thanks again, 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

2 1

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Urgent request for help
by Michael Carnes 06 Jul '05

06 Jul '05

Joe, with that subject header (Urgent request for help), I figured you were just another former African dictator trying to get his money out of the country ;-)

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] For weekend observing - new supernova in M51
by Michael Carnes 06 Jul '05

06 Jul '05

Joe, The first announcement I saw was about a week ago. At that time, they said the SN would likely brighten over the next several days. So it may or may not have peaked by now. As I understand it, a supernova tails off pretty slowly. So I'd be willing to bet that it's possible to see it--if you can discern it from all the field stars. Thanks, I know there are a lot of bright stars in and around M51, I guess most or all in the foreground. Does anyone know whether it's faded much by now? Take care, 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

2 1