saac

20 hours ago, LDW1 said:

Thats all well and good until you get ' out of stock ' or ' discontinued ' or ........ , its not as easy as you think ! Have you even tried it, really ?  But thanx anyway, lol !

I think it is actually is as easy as that - if it can be engineered in the first place then it can be reengineered. If there is a market then a commercial solution will provide the service, if not then those who know how will do as they always have.  

Jim 

10 hours ago, WolfieGlos said:

Did anyone else look at all those cables, and think that we amateurs really have nothing to complain about 🤣

Brilliant episode, and as I work in structural steel, I can really appreciate how hard it must be to build the structure for the dome of the E-ELT. What a feat of engineering.

I thought exactly the same -if the model shown in the animation is anything to go by it will look stunning just from an aesthetic point of view. 

Jim 

Really enjoyable episode. I'd love to work at the Paranal Observatory , that would be a dream job, what an amazing place.

Jim 

6 hours ago, andrew s said:

Is dueling still legal in France? @saac will you be my second? Regards Andrew 

Count me in, but can't be on a school day

Jim 

4 hours ago, andrew s said:

I love them. They are made by real telescopes not toys. 😊 Regards Andrew 

I'm with Andrew on this, they are also part of the physics of light, there is a story and reason for them being there.  I know it is personal preference but I must admit I do like diffraction spikes being present. 

Jim 

Hi John, I wasn't aware of your dad's passing sorry to hear the news;  I do remember him from his profile picture.  ENS Optical who are a commercial operator dealing with second hand equipment have a GM8 with tripod listed at the moment for £950, that may give you an idea and a starting point. 

https://ensoptical.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=14413

Jim 

Not bad at all.

Jim 

x 2 on ventilation, get that sorted first before you spend money on insulation, vapour barriers or dehumidifiers.  The more air you have passing through the better. I have a hexagonal roof observatory (converted summer house) which by design has a inch or so open gap between the roof and walls so air flows freely in and out.  I don't use a dehumidifier and the walls are uninsulated, it has been running now close to 10 years and condensation/mildew has never been an issue.  If you plan to use the shed vents I'd position them at both low level and high level to encourage circulation.  Definitely try improving ventilation first and if you still have a problem then turn to the insulation, dehumidifier route.  

Jim 

On 07/09/2023 at 19:58, tomato said:

As the OP, I certainly didn’t intend this to be a visual vs imaging thread. I personally have some concerns for the future of the hobby in all it’s forms when I look at the proportion of senior citizens who make up the attendance at the Astro shows, maybe that says more about the level of disposable income of the current generation of pensioners rather than anything else.
I still think future generations will be less inclined  to enjoy the pure visual astronomy experience, my evidence for this is that a lot of folks now seem to prefer taking video clips of a live event on their smartphones rather than experiencing it with their own eyes. The urge to “capture and post” seems strong these days.

I don't think AP is born from an "urge to capture and post". It's also not a modern thing!  Astronomy is a scientific activity at its heart, it is only natural then that an astronomer would attach a camera to end of a telescope to enhance its capability. For the same reason we don't turn our ears to the night sky and listen!   Development of radio astronomy followed the same logic - we needed a bigger boat to capture what our own eyes could not. When I'm looking to emission spectra I'm certainly not going to use 1940 techniques and sketch (Hubble like) the spectra, that would be totally absurd.  Today's professional astronomers will spend their entire careers without ever looking through an eyepiece just as many cell biologists now will rarely if ever use an optical microscope.  With my first telescope back in 1970 something, I remember trying to attach, using bodge tape, my camera to the telescope to capture the moon.  Thank heavens for the technical developments and availability of modern electronics since then. I do agree regarding the demographic representation though, does appear to be heavily male dominated, 40 ish onward, most likely due to disposable income and time. I wonder if there is a certain profile beyond that. 

Jim 

12 minutes ago, AstroMuni said:

And I suspect its also a bit down to the way its taught too... the connections between subjects and the linkage is not always made clear in simple terms. Some teachers tend to do that and make the subject 'enjoyable'.

Another challenge is probably due to the way exam papers are written. eg. If you were asked to apply a certain physics principle in maths would it be considered out of syllabus? The other way around is probably more acceptable 🙂 So if the student was aware that they could be called upon to exercise the 'physics' part of their knowledge in a different paper then they would use associate memory rather than think about it as - its a certain paper hence I know the kind of questions in scope. Food for thought!

Too be honest I'm not so sure. I think it owes more to consolidation time than anything else. Again as adults, far removed from the stress of a timetable and a bell calling out subject change, we have had time (many years) to reflect upon what has been taught. Those topics have had time to sit there, be challenged, deconstructed, rebuilt and affirmed.  During our school days we are sadly not afforded that luxury. 

Jim

35 minutes ago, Mandy D said:

I'm not sure (at least, not in every case) that students are not told how some of the practicals link to theory. I certainly recall from my O level chemistry classes that the flame test was linked to orbital electron theory. I am convinced that many students fail to remember pertinent information and, in most cases are incapable of knowledge transfer. I remember at the start of one physics lesson where the teacher stated that we had been taught about quadratic equations in maths class recently because he had asked the teacher before starting this particular lesson. Virtually everyone present was adamant that we had not yet met quadratic equations. It seems to me that what is learnt in the maths classroom stays there and our brains pick it back up once we go through the door into the room, again and the same for every other subject.

Strangely, I always found knowledge to be transferable in school, yet today if I walk out of a room with the intention of doing something I will forget what it is and have no chance of recalling until I walk back into the room where I originally had the thought, then it instantly returns. I wonder if this is due to the compartmentalism methods used in our education system or is it just my age?   What were we talking about?

Totally agree. When asked a question in class a teenager's normal and immediate reaction is often to say nothing. Even the most confident and outgoing fall victim to this, at that age peer pressure is the immovable object of fable .  As for transfer of knowledge I'm convinced it is an age thing or rather to do with brain development. A teenager's brain remember is undergoing an impressive rate of change, it is being rewired and reprogrammed. I think many of the things we take for granted as adults are actually physically (neurologically) beyond their grasp.  There is a reason why "they don't get it". One of the most obvious differences is the way we as adult can sustain effort (focus) in the study of something for which we truly have no interest. Teenagers find this next to impossible, they lack the mental resilience and cannot get past the "why do I need to do this".  On this occasion it is not their fault, it's the physiology of their brains. 

Jim 

7 minutes ago, JOC said:

Flame tests are a case in point.  I have often recently asked students if they are ever told why they do them (one of the first lab practicals students ever do at school).  They are not told that it demonstrates the fundamental theory of why commerical instruments in say ecological laboratories work (which is all that might need to say to capture a students attention), nor do they link it back to electron orbital theory when that is studied.  All those links I had to make for myself, and from what I hear when I ask students still aren't told.  I take great delight in filling in the blanks.

We do flame tests with S2 (science) kids (age 12-13).  We explain beforehand that each element in the periodic table has a unique finger print encoded in the light that they emit when heated. At S2 we tell them that the light is emitted when the electrons are energised and then return from where they came, returning the energy as light of a particular frequency (colour).  We talk of the applications of spectroscopy citing cosmology  where we can use it to learn of the nature of a star, its age, composition, and movement through space leading to our knowledge of the expanding universe. We also talk about its use in forensic science which sets them up for a practical exercise they will do at the end of S2 to identify an unknown compound in a crime scene setting, time permitting we will use absorption spectrums to identify pollutants in local pond water.  In Higher physics we will go deeper into the mathematics of emission spectra (Plank's law, Bohr model and de Broglie wavelength) and how spectral emissions points to the quantum characteristics of light.  Pretty much all of the science we teach both in the integrated and  single science courses are similarly taught with a deliberate focus of uses and applications.  If this is not being done elsewhere it is most likely that the subject is being taught by non specialist who lack the knowledge.  I can't understand any advantage in not relating the relevance in this way; very strange indeed.

Jim 

1 hour ago, JOC said:

I believe science on the curriculum would be far more interesting for students to study if only the teachers would include the 'why' when they teach something.  The numbers of practical science experiments I carried out at secondary school without ever understanding 'why' we had done it, until 10+ years later it dawned on me out in 'industry' why that particular experiment had been important, were many and would surely have added to my enjoyment and perhaps even have captured the imagination of more students.   It is a hole that really try to fill when I go into schools as a STEM ambassador.

I really don't understand that JOC, I cannot conceive why it would ever be done in such a way. 

Jim 

20 hours ago, George Jones said:

Several years ago a colleague asked me to write a short homage to physics that emphasized fundamental curiosity-driven physics. Writing to order, I produced the following hyperbolic passage, which my colleague has used several times in presentations.

"Why study and research fundamental physics? Why study curved spacetime and general relativity? Cosmology? Elementary particle physics? One possibly selfish reason for me and many other physicists is "Because it's fun!", but other reasons exist. Science, including non-applied fundamental science, is part of who we are as a species. Fundamental science is as much part of our culture as music, art, and literature. If we lose the desire and ability (possibly through politics) to ask fundamental “Why?” questions of our world, we have failed as humans."

 

George you are pushing against an open door in this forum. For many however science is dropped like a hot stone as soon as the rigour starts, usually with the introduction of mathematics. 

Jim 

Very well executed, well done. I think a permanent obsy is the upgrade with the biggest return. Enjoy. 

Jim 

13 minutes ago, AstroKeith said:

I've always loved science (and engineering), and find it easy. I'm still learning new stuff all the time (at 67). I cannot cope with foreign languages. At all.

My wife is exactly opposite.

Im happy dealing with particle physics and cosmology concepts that are way out there, but my wife can find a map a problem. I am sure her emotional intelligence is way above mine.

Was this nature or nurture?

We spend quite. a lot of time with our grandchildren (ages 3 to 12) and think I can almost 'see' their brain wiring developing. I'm pretty sure its nurture that defines us.

I'm, exactly the same   Regarding nature/nurture I think they are both at play.  Is it possible to teach everybody to be artistic, or musical, poetic or even athletic (move aesthetically)? I think there is a predisposition somewhere, that may be from nature or external factors I guess. What appears certain is that we cannot be interested/excel at everything; in that respect I think motivation is probably the most significant influence.

Jim  

5 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

We have touched up on theories of evolution in this thread, so maybe people knowledgeable in those could contribute more - but I think it is down to evolution for that one.

Being interested in science is wasteful activity in terms of energy expense. There are rare individuals that possess enough of curiosity and again I suspect that is evolutionary thing - in order to move forward and evolve, curiosity is necessary. Who would try a new fruit if not curious - but it is double edged sword. If all possess some dose of curiosity and fruit is poisonous - not good, but if none are curious - we might miss out on a very good fruit and further development.

There is also another highly beneficial trait we have evolved - that really gets on my nerves - it can be summed up as "monkey sees, monkey does". We have extremely high tendency to just repeat knowledge / behavior without deep scrutiny. This is highly beneficial in early age when we learn - it allows us to just adopt established knowledge and behavior - but at certain age it starts being impairment if we don't utilize reason to do deeper analysis of things.

You may as well ask why we like or favour any particular activity. As a "science teacher " I can  say with some experience that science holds little to no interest to many people. 

Jim 

1 hour ago, Mr Spock said:

“The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.” 

If not obliged then perhaps it may consider doing it just for fun. 

Jim

2 hours ago, Samop said:

Doesn't it?

Somebody certainly needs to have a word with it !

Jim 

Amazon are out of the stuff  

I'll get my hat and coat 😋

31 minutes ago, SwiMatt said:

What do you mean by "inconsistencies"? 

 

Inconsistencies are places where a theory is unable to make a satisfactory description.  It was in reply to the copied post from Paul M

Jim

14 hours ago, Paul M said:

It seems to be the case that whenever a reseach group takes on General and/or Special Realtivity hoping/expecting to "break" them, they end up by proving those theories to ever closer tolerances! 

Is it time to accept that the Relativities are, for all intents and porposes, no longer a theory? How much more proof is needed? At what point does a theory become fact?

And, while we are here, how/why is Darwin's Evolution of the species still a "theory"? I mean c'mon!!!!  

It's a bit of a misnomer it is one of many theories of evolution,Darwin's contribution focused on the influence of natural selection on evolution.  It is seen very much as a founding theory upon which there are many offshoots (Population Genetics, Molecular Evolution, Natural Theory). Current inconsistencies or direction of interest include: Genomic Evolution, Human Evolution and one of my favourites due to the icky factor Coevolution (parasitic , host development).   So, Darwin Theory of Evolution for want of a better term will remain a theory - there really is no need to get terribly excited about the terminology. I'm not even sure there is in any true sense a complete theory anywhere in science - all works are best interpretations.  I think we would be justly accused of being a tad arrogant if we declared we had developed a full description of anything and I'm not going to lose any sleep over uncomplete theories - that is where the fun lies.  

2 minutes ago, YogSothoth said:

I know what you mean but gut feeling is that it wasn’t a jet. I’m pretty used to seeing aircraft going in and out of Gatwick and if it was a commercial jet, then it looked like one that was about to crash. The flashes I saw certainly looked like random explosions within the smoke trail and my gut feeling would be that it was something breaking up as it hi the atmosphere. It was most definitely odd and I’m glad I was looking in the right place at the right time.

Sounds like you saw a satellite or small meteor then breaking up. I still wouldn't rule out aircraft as the most obvious, senses are readily tricked especially at night and with relative motion. Like you say, pretty inconclusive as these things tend to be,  but good job spotting it. 

Jim

My gut feeling smoky military or commercial jet aircraft; aircraft exhaust smoke for whole host of conditions the least of which is fire or throttle position.  You did say it was moving with such a velocity, most likely scenario then.  Don't be dissuade by sound, strange things happen to aircraft sound all pending on what the air mass is doing. In the vicinity of a major commercial aircraft hub, most realistically and aircraft then. Anything else is really finger in the wind speculation. 

Jim

I observe, therefore I am.

Jim