Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_supernovae_remnants_winners.thumb.jpg.a13d54fa405efa94ed30e7abd590ee55.jpg

Ben the Ignorant

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    1,132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

771 Excellent

About Ben the Ignorant

  • Rank
    Sub Dwarf

Profile Information

  • Location
    Now
  1. I could contribute barely more than the first question.
  2. Having one twin or infinite twins, past twins or future twins sounds too weird and downright creepy to be the case, taking intuition as a clue when little else is reliable.
  3. In that case, did the Universe itself start at a finite time in the past, or only its content?
  4. So the two same events should be two same whole universes, is that possible in the Multiverse case?
  5. This question has been bothering me for years. Assuming the Universe is infinite in size and/or duration (and doesn't become a Big Crunch or a Big Freeze), will every situation repeat itself because there is an infinite amount of time to allow the probability to manifest itself? Is there already a copy of me living the same situation in a twin room, on a twin planet, with every detail being identical down to the position of every dust grain, every droplet of water in the clouds, every subatomic particle? In an infinite place the probability for identical situations becomes 100%? In an infinite time, same? Or does infinity make infinitely diverse situations that never repeat themselves?
  6. Maybe it's a good way to not get overwhelmed by the amount of contradictory online information. Welcome.
  7. Yes, they could do it even with 1960's detectors that were not even built for this, they were looking for clandestine atmospheric nuclear tests and missile launches, and picked up all the major meteors, in the infrared at least.
  8. Soon a new universal collimation tool will be available, it's so new there is no english translation yet. https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p11188_TS-Optics-LED-Kollimator-fuer-RC-Teleskope-und-alle-anderen-Teleskoptypen.html It's pricey because it's made in Europe but it works with newtonians, Ritchey-Chrétien's and refractors. It was invented by an Italian who displayed and explained his prototypes in the Coelum forum but I admit I didn't try to fully understand it based on the written description. Waiting to either have one in my hands or find a good video. Unlike laser collimators, this tool doesn't misalign itself so it requires no adjustment. Having to collimate the collimator always seemed to me it defeats the purpose, but I never use more than a simple center-hole cap, anyway. This should be welcome for the more techie scope users despite the price, which will be irrevelant when it's bought by a whole club, by the way.
  9. Yes, and you can speed the learning by moving your eye up and down a little, left and right, in all directions, decentering it on purpose and returning to center.
  10. Simply observe regularly and you will learn to control your head's movement unconsciously.
  11. Isn't randomness just a fluctuation around an average value?
  12. https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/language/en/info/p5366_TS-Optics-M4-Raendelschrauben-fuer-Fangspiegel-Justierung-Laenge-45mm---3-Stueck.html
  13. I know no one else does it but I find adding a counterweight to the AZ-4 is ESSENTIAL. Most of the mass is at the rear and toward the right so the countermass has to be at the front and toward the left, of course. This was an unused weight from an equatorial mount that was sold with two counterweights when one was enough. I drilled and tapped the side of the head but just clamping the Z-arm (made of L's bolted together) will do if you don't want to drill it. Look between the top and the bottom of the head in your AZ-4, you will see it tilts. So you have to set a tight friction but with the counterweight in place friction is barely needed, you get the double benefit of balance and smoothness. The azimut motion was not fluid enough at high power for my taste so a super narrow 2mm ring was inserted. It's made of that tearproof packaging material, I moved it to the side with a toothpick or you wouldn't see it. Such a narrow bearing surface acts almost as a ball bearing, and it's oiled, too. No problem panning left and right at more than 160x with the 80mm. It's so fluid that just brushing the scope will move it if you don't set a minimal amount of friction, you wouldn't believe how little. Twisting the knob less than 45° after it makes contact is enough. Unless the mount is balanced the "friction" knob acts as a tilt suppressor more than a friction knob, but that requires much too much force. When it's limited to its real job of friction adjustment, the amount that's needed is stunningly small. In fairness I have to say it makes the mount 4 kilos heavier.
  14. Should be somewhere in there: https://teleskop-austria.at/index.php?liste=44_Ersatzteile-Schrauben#m
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.