| |
Main
Date: 10 Aug 2006 20:44:00
From: Harald Lang
Subject: Hi Brian!
|
Brian Tung wrote in another thread
>Speaking of permanent, Harald: How are you? Didn't know you were
>lurking about. Should I post something geometrical to induce you to
>start posting again? :)
How nice of you to remember me after this long time! I was
delighted to see that! (The original thread has gone completely
out of whack, so I felt I had to break out.)
I'm fine. I left saa a long time ago---too busy with work---and
then didn't get down to come back until now. I saw that Lumpy had
an observation report and couldn't restst reading (Lumpy is an
"always read" name---there are others too!)
When I saw your reply I got a very weird idea. About a year ago
our local club paper (eh.. what's the proper word??) was short of
articles, so I wrote a short article for it (in Swedish, of
course) which was more cosmology than amateur astronomy (I don't
feel that my relative advantage is in amateur astronomy proper.)
Now I got this weird idea that I should translate it to English,
for you to read, so I did so yesterday. (Bear with the poor
language---I'm really dissatisfied with it. It isn't fluent! I
wish I could write English like you or John Steinberg (he masters
all aspects of the language ;-).)
Anyway, if you care to read ... and if you can do the math
derivations with pure, simple geometry, I have a new task for
you: Why don't you prove the Riemann Hypothesis with just simple
geometry?
Cheers -- Harald
Here is the link to the article:
<http://www.math.kth.se/~lang/distance.htm >
|
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2006 15:12:26
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Hi Brian!
|
Harald Lang wrote:
> When I saw your reply I got a very weird idea. About a year ago
> our local club paper (eh.. what's the proper word??) was short of
> articles, so I wrote a short article for it (in Swedish, of
> course) which was more cosmology than amateur astronomy (I don't
> feel that my relative advantage is in amateur astronomy proper.)
> Now I got this weird idea that I should translate it to English,
> for you to read, so I did so yesterday. (Bear with the poor
> language---I'm really dissatisfied with it. It isn't fluent! I
> wish I could write English like you or John Steinberg (he masters
> all aspects of the language ;-).)
Quite right. Nemo eum impune lacessit.
Incidentally, perhaps the word you're looking for is "newsletter."
> Anyway, if you care to read ... and if you can do the math
> derivations with pure, simple geometry, I have a new task for
> you: Why don't you prove the Riemann Hypothesis with just simple
> geometry?
I have a marvelously elegant demonstration in origami, but unfortunately
a 10 cm square piece of paper is too small to contain it.
> Here is the link to the article:
> <http://www.math.kth.se/~lang/distance.htm>
Thanks, I'll take a look!
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | |
Date: 10 Aug 2006 18:32:06
From: John Steinberg
Subject: Re: Hi Brian!
|
Brian Tung wrote:
> Quite right. Nemo eum impune lacessit.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus mulieribus est vita.
> Incidentally, perhaps the word you're looking for is "newsletter."
Harald is far too modest. His command of English is superb.
Plus, he's super cool and really, really smart.
--
-John Steinberg
email: not@thistime.invalid
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2006 16:16:39
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Hi Brian!
|
John Steinberg wrote:
> Harald is far too modest. His command of English is superb.
>
> Plus, he's super cool and really, really smart.
See, Harald, flattery really will get you somewhere.
But John's right: The English in the article is just fine. It is not
only incomparably better than my Swedish (I have to say "incomparably"
because dividing by zero isn't allowed), it's also much better than my
Latin. :)
It's good to see you back.
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Aug 2006 14:40:22
From: Harald Lang
Subject: Re: Hi Brian!
|
>it's also much better than my Latin. :)
Unfortunately, the only ancient language I understand is FORTRAN.
>It's good to see you back.
Thank you!
Cheers -- Harald
|
| |
Date: 12 Aug 2006 14:20:10
From: BlagooBlanaa
Subject: Re: Hi Brian!
|
Not a bad little article, but do be careful not to make mistakes
in units
<quote >
The dimension of H0 is 1/time. If H0 is 71 km per hour per mega-parsec
</quote >
71 km per *hour* ????
it should be 71 Km/S per Megaparsec
but even this this is useless...
because all scientific measurements should be quoted with
an estimate of the uncertainty.
that is 71 +- (5? 8? 12?) Km/S per Megaparsec
then you should quote a reference for the figure that
explains the method of derivation and reasoning behind
the error estimate
good luck :)
|
| | |
Date: 12 Aug 2006 14:44:09
From: BlagooBlanaa
Subject: Re: Hi Brian!
|
perhaps we could also say 1m/s per 46 ly
but then we have a scale problem - which scale is it appropriate to use
H0= 70 +- 10 km/s or H0=1 m/s per 46 ly (+- ~ 10%)
or H0= 1mm/s every 10 billion km (+- ~10%)
and then we have angular extent - was the survey narrow and deep,
wide and shallow, narrow and shallow...
hmmmm?
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2006 20:16:47
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Hi Brian!
|
BlagooBlanaa wrote:
> hmmmm?
Since the units cancel down to 1 per time unit, you could just give the
Hubble constant in Hz. Of course, the value won't be tremendously
convenient; it'll be (I'm doing this off the top of my head) on the
order of a few attohertz.
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | |
Date: 14 Aug 2006 20:15:00
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Hi Brian!
|
BlagooBlanaa wrote:
> it should be 71 Km/S per Megaparsec
Thanks for the correction. Incidentally, the abbreviations km and s are
not capitalized; neither is megaparsec, although its abbreviation, Mpc,
is.
> because all scientific measurements should be quoted with
> an estimate of the uncertainty.
>
> that is 71 +- (5? 8? 12?) Km/S per Megaparsec
>
> then you should quote a reference for the figure that
> explains the method of derivation and reasoning behind
> the error estimate
Since I'm not writing a scientific paper, I don't feel compelled to do
so. The point of the essay is not so much what the figure is, as much
as there is one--that there is (at least within a few billion light-
years) a linear relationship between distance and recession velocity.
But you should feel free to write a web critique explaining where such
figures come from.
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 01:06:53
From: BlagooBlanaa
Subject: Re: Hi Brian!
|
"Brian Tung" <brian@isi.edu > wrote in message
news:ebre7k$quc$1@praesepe.isi.edu...
> BlagooBlanaa wrote:
>> it should be 71 Km/S per Megaparsec
>
> Thanks for the correction. Incidentally, the abbreviations km and s are
> not capitalized; neither is megaparsec, although its abbreviation, Mpc,
> is.
>
yes I know, I thought you would appreciate something to chomp on
>> because all scientific measurements should be quoted with
>> an estimate of the uncertainty.
>>
>> that is 71 +- (5? 8? 12?) Km/S per Megaparsec
>>
>> then you should quote a reference for the figure that
>> explains the method of derivation and reasoning behind
>> the error estimate
>
> Since I'm not writing a scientific paper, I don't feel compelled to do
> so. The point of the essay is not so much what the figure is, as much
> as there is one--that there is (at least within a few billion light-
> years) a linear relationship between distance and recession velocity.
> But you should feel free to write a web critique explaining where such
> figures come from.
>
I feel it is especially important in popularisations to make sure that
there is some estimate of reliabilty for any measurement - helps to
dispel a lot of myths from the minds of non trained casual readers
> --
> Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu>
> The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
> Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
> The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
> My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2006 10:56:05
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Hi Brian!
|
BlagooBlanaa wrote:
> I feel it is especially important in popularisations to make sure that
> there is some estimate of reliabilty for any measurement - helps to
> dispel a lot of myths from the minds of non trained casual readers
We obviously disagree. I think putting those in would be distracting.
You are, as I said, free to write similar essays in which such error
specifications are included.
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2006 10:59:30
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Hi Brian!
|
BlagooBlanaa wrote:
> Not a bad little article, but do be careful not to make mistakes
> in units
>
> <quote>
> The dimension of H0 is 1/time. If H0 is 71 km per hour per mega-parsec
> </quote>
Ahh, this is actually in Harald's article. I thought you found it in
mine. No wonder I couldn't find it. Never mind.
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| |
Date: 16 Aug 2006 13:29:10
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Hi Brian!
|
Let me dispel probably the greatest myth that is damaging the ability
of investigators to put global climate imbalances into correct
perspective,the myth which Brian here reproduces -
"But the Earth's axis is not aligned with the ecliptic poles--is not
straight up and down from the ecliptic. Instead, it's canted at an
angle, 23.4 degrees. By coincidence, the north end of the axis points
most directly away from the Sun in late December, at the northern
winter
solstice, and most directly toward the Sun in late June, at the
northern
summer solstice. Very approximately, then, the northern end of the
axis
is pointed away from the Sun at a time when the Earth is closest to the
Sun, and toward it when the Earth is furthest"
Now,let's abolish this destructive junk which explains hemispherical
weather patterns through astronomical causes .
Global climate norms can be expressed as temperature signatures
indicated by oscillating bands whic do not,I repeat do not split the
Earth into seperate hemispheres-
http://www.climateprediction.net/images/sci_images/annual.gif
These oscillations are not caused by the axial orientation to the
distant Sun which is 93 million miles away but by the change in
orbital orientation against fixed axial orientation -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/Seasonearth.png
The incredible power output of our parent star in terms of radiation
allows investigators to downplay any reference of the Sun to the
Equator but to allow the change in orbital orientation and the behavior
of axial rotation passing through the orbital shadow and direct
radiation to emerge in generating the temperature bands and oscillating
signatures.
Of course,there is an natural asymmetry between Mar\Sept and Sept\Mar
diue to Keplerian orbital motion but then again ,it is impossible to
appreciate this asymmetry in climatological terms because the empirical
theorists ,relying on an axial tilting Earth have to keep things square
with their dumb version of orbital motion and celestial sphere
geometry.
http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/celestial_sphere_anim.gif
Myth was often a device used to bridge the gap between intuitive and
intellectual intelligence and is still a powerful tool,therefore you
assumptions are not myths,they are just plain outdated notions backed
up by a fictional celestial sphere geometry.
Brian Tung wrote:
> BlagooBlanaa wrote:
> > I feel it is especially important in popularisations to make sure that
> > there is some estimate of reliabilty for any measurement - helps to
> > dispel a lot of myths from the minds of non trained casual readers
>
> We obviously disagree. I think putting those in would be distracting.
> You are, as I said, free to write similar essays in which such error
> specifications are included.
>
> --
> Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu>
> The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
> Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
> The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
> My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 10:39:10
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Hi Brian!
|
I do not mind that you are a Harry Potter fan=A4 but that your kind
applies the same reasoning to astronomy as you do to fiction should
frighten anyone.Every single day I come here to see if one person can
raise themselves and astronomy to the level it once was,even the
smallest effort to detach the most powerful and majestic arena from the
foolishness of theorists and not once has a person made that transition
to real astronomy.
That you are the authority here certainly highlights the standard below
you but then again there is very little difference between the fiction
of a celestial sphere universe and Harry Potter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----------------------------------------------------
=A4 gjw wrote:
> The third alternative isn't very good either. Snape is (as Dumbledore
> always believed) a loyal good guy under it all and proves it in the
> clutch. Ho hum.
Who says there's only three? You're circumscribing Snape a lot more
than you think you are, I believe.
> Face it, either he's good, bad, or independent. I prefer independent.
Sure. But independent, motivated by *what*? That "what" could be a
lot
of different things--not all of which must be romantic, nor all tied in
with Lily.
In my opinion, you've *guessed* a possible surprise that Rowling has--a
long way from having figured it out. As I've said before in other
threads, to be compelling, a particular hypothesis must explain more
than the observations that motivated it. I don't see that with the
back
story you've proposed, but to be fair, I haven't seen that with hardly
*any* hypotheses put forth for Book Seven. They have been almost
wholly
unconvincing guesses.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.harry-potter/browse_frm/thread/2bc9d=
96db7a121e5/058966ff3564bb18?hl=3Den#058966ff3564bb18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----------------------------------------------------
Brian Tung wrote:
> BlagooBlanaa wrote:
> > Not a bad little article, but do be careful not to make mistakes
> > in units
> >
> > <quote>
> > The dimension of H0 is 1/time. If H0 is 71 km per hour per mega-parsec
> > </quote>
>
> Ahh, this is actually in Harald's article. I thought you found it in
> mine. No wonder I couldn't find it. Never mind.
>
> --
> Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu>
> The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
> Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
> The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
> My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 13:16:01
From: G.T.
Subject: Re: Hi Brian!
|
"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1155836350.242583.233560@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I do not mind that you are a Harry Potter fan
I didn't know ELIZA programs could stalk.
Greg
|
|
