Macavity

Since Brian Cox Tweeted about it, it's probably "safe" to mention this... 😁 https://cerncourier.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/CERNCourier2023MarApr-digitaledition.pdf One reply had "no idea such a thing existed"? 😱 Contains a response to the: "Let's STOP all this"? lol. The E-version CERN Courier is free too! 😎

The inclinometer (altitude) should be accurate... Few tenths of a deg, if "bench" calibrated? (See ABOVE!) But then it could be useful to have the *adjuster* you made. There are SMALL things like "cone errors" - The scope optical axis may not be aligned with the rings/mount? 😏 The Azimuth circle (Usually on the Base of Dobsonians) depends on "aligning with North"?!? But you can significantly improve this accuracy by calibrating, using a... "One Star alignment". Just centre a star of *known* coordinates and adjust the scope settings to match up with this. - Personally, rather than attempting to HEAVE the *whole* scope around, I make the azimuth graticule/reticle "line" adjustable (erasable pencil/marker?) for use against a *fixed* Scale. 🙂

I know just who to ask, if the Jar is Eight (or 24) Dimensional? 😛 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryna_Viazovska Ukrainian mathematician known for her work in sphere packing. Viazovska's proof for 8 and 24 dimensions is "stunningly simple"!

And another thing! lol. Nah... I did a bit of searching re. "Anthropic Principle". Although familiar with the general idea, I doubt I could quote it accurately! 😏 https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/01/26/how-the-anthropic-principle-became-the-most-abused-idea-in-science/ I rather liked the above?!? Firstly he quotes the definitions... "weak & strong". But then, he bravely goes on to suggest that the Anthropic Principle is often misinterpreted... to support "illogical, non-scientific statements" (+examples) 😛 Finally, he has a "good go" at "Barlow & Tippler"(?) over: The Universe, as it exists, was designed with the goal of generating and sustaining observers Observers are necessary to bring the universe into being Quote: "If the last one sounds a lot like bad interpretation of the multiverse, it's because all of Barlow and Tipler's scenarios are based on bad interpretations of a self-evident principle". 🙃 Hey, "I'm saying nothing"! I don't have the money to pay up, if I'm sued re. loss of Book Sale revenues! 😅 But, I am intrigued. If the above is HUGELY wrong, a gentle (Twitter-like) "nudge" in the right direction?

When in a HOLE, stop digging? This is something of a "hot potato" topic tho? 😅 It's inevitable posts get missed in the heat of discussion... Lost on previous page? Avoiding the controversy / cross-fire... I again "read up" *elsewhere* on a topic... Part of the controversy is the <ahem> inference of (very) Fine Tuned Universe? 😏 I can forgive folks for not having read up to the END of the paper, I cited before. http://phyweb.lbl.gov/~rncahn/www/rmp-18.pdf - But I sense it is quite relevant? Clearly, by tuning *some* of the parameters of the Standard Model, the universe (as we know it!) would not exist... or be totally hostile towards life! But then, there are other parameters that seem to matter rather LESS... or even hardly at ALL? 😎 W-mass, "Top" Mass? Higgs? Fermi Const? The idea of a "Smaller/Hotter Sun", is not terrible? We may not have "Le meilleur monde possible" - Voltair (Page 9) But it's better than it MIGHT have been. But: What determines the parameters... 🙂 P.S. For "Headbangers", I tried to remember exactly what Fermi's Constant was: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/681166/what-exactly-is-the-fermi-constant-what-is-its-value-and-what-is-the-differe But anyone who can write: "I would personally avoid the meretricious laconism (Wikepedia is edited by a sedulously pedantic mob) - Perhaps gets my vote?!? 🤣

Well Done! I printed it out, and will read it (with genuine enthusiasm!) later. 😎 Following my recent (perhaps slightly negative? lol) thoughts re. internet opinion, I was moved to find/read about a pivotal facet of Quantum Mechanics internet "discussion": That the topic is still *evolving* - At least re. how the basic idea is interpreted? A whole raft of new terminology has entered the realm of "popular" Youtube Videos? 😏 When taught my "1973 version" of Quantum Mechanics, a Perfectly usable Text Book was published in 1961. Even my "Advanced Quantum Mechanics" dated from 1972. lol In the former e.g. the "Copenhagen Interpretation" is referenced (by name) but briefly! 😉 Not a complete excuse (lol), but it is interesting to check out the Definitions of Terms... (epistemology? ontology?) and also note some of the DATES in the following?!? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics If you don't understand everything, you are not alone? 😅

Heheh - it seems like I agree with ALL the "Above Posters"! Sometimes, I feel that all my "Loves" are being purloined by "Crazies"? lol. Science... Astronomy... Recently my remaining love... MUSIC has become a "divided community"! Innocent Review = Corporate Shill? 😅 I ENVY Teachers... They see KIDS that have my (still "fairly" innocent?) Love of Science? 🙂 But then, I hope there is a basic desire to actually *do* science, rather than "talk about it" N.B. I have nothing against *Theoretical Physics* (discussion) It is a tad HARD though! 🙃

I think one should not read *too* much into my "occasional antipathy" towards the Public face of Science! 😉 Perhaps "quirky" personalities / elitist attitudes of SOME scientists "resonate" more with ME, than many here? For me, this resides in certain areas of "Theoretical Physics", that command Public Attention at the moment! I still think of myself as the "Ultimate Scientific Democratiser"! I love everyone - From CERN Nobel laureate, to the guy who swept the Lab Floor! Idem Amateur Astronomers - On whom I consistently heap praise. lol If someone is (secretly!) a "Doctor" or "Professor", my genuine admiration. Even if I'm not TOO over-awed? 😛 I guess I struggle with the general TENOR of contemporary debate in Theoretical Physics... Just to clarify. Maybe I watch TOO much on this subject these days? Anyway, back to my *Outraged* Television Program! 😉

As one who wickedly TEMPTS Amateur Astronomers (previously my fellow Physicists!) to *occasionally* discuss things *outside* their normal Hobby/Work related subjects, I can hardly object... in Theory (sic)? 😈 Re. the general / popular argument re. these issues, I sometimes crave SOME kind of "conclusion"?!? lol Sometimes in the WIDER world of Internet, I lament the ABSENCE of "quieter", dare I say, erudite voice. Social Media sides ensures those who can "see both sides of the argument" often get a "good kicking"? But I am sometimes encouraged that "LIKES" of the more *reasonable* views are surprisingly common. 😉

Wikipedia is not a bad *starting* point for such things. And, if I were to read ALL references contained therein? I may even understand the *higher purpose* of this particular discussion! I am not a particular cynic... I LOVE it when Amateur Astronomers don't restrict themselves to "Asking questions/Providing answers" on Astronomy! 😎 But, are we notably "pushing back the frontiers"? These days, Theoretical Physicists apparently claim to KNOW What I should believe... even "Why Folks are FAT"! lol. To me, there is a slightly-concerning control freak aspect. Some of them claim to be beset by "Imposter syndrome" (qv)? But that is not the *impression* I am getting! 😛 I sense many folks simply decide not to take part in these controversies. There is plenty of FUN Science left! Hey I read such things with *pantomime* German Accent! I hope German colleagues / friends also chuckle? 😅

I think there is a certain "circularity" to the arguments. The atomic (molecular) force that governs the emission of light from molecules (atoms) is also responsible for the "Chemistry" that created We Observers. (Completely) Random (Darwinian) selection is constrained by the "Physics" of it. 😛 Personally, I favour "complete chance" in such things. I sense otherwise, there are vested interests. Recent observation includes "grant allocations", Patreon funding, or simply number of followers! I fear scientists can fall into a certain narcissism. Are we "Guardians of the Universe"? I sense not. Do I think I can shed MORE light than: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe? No! 😁 *The Internet* allows a whole host of non-scientists to participate in such debate. [teasing] 😛 It genuinely surprises, many, who often cannot understand "standard" Science (me too?) see themselves as an authority on these *most complex* areas of abstract thinking...

Archetypal Paper re. effect of varying the arbitrary Parameters of the Standard Model. http://phyweb.lbl.gov/~rncahn/www/rmp-18.pdf Sometimes just "putting in the numbers" and calculating the *effect* is instructive? 🙃

Not a new article, but I was intrigued to read that... Clear Days on Venus were not completely unknown! https://earthsky.org/space/surface-of-venus-1st-visible-light-images-from-space/ No quips re. our own planet Earth? 😁

Isolated Cemeteries are pretty good? Otherwise, places which involve a MUDDY walk... I suspect (bad) "Joe Public" is pretty scared of Ghosts - or "Getting their shoes dirty"? 😛 Actually, I found I became far too "twitchy" in the company of the (harmless!) Dead? 😅 Ultimately having a CAR close at hand - to retreat to... is the deciding factor? I didn't.

I abstain on this! lol. It's an interesting question though? For some reason, I don't "populate" the skies with mythological stuff... though I might *know* about it? 😉 Wish I had TIME to read the writings of O'Meara, Walter Scott... Anyone?!? lol. 😁

Not sure if they are equivalent to anything. lol. They are rather OLDER than many eyepieces used today. They may NOT actually be available? There are rather few 1.25" eyepieces with 70 deg AfoV. There are comments on "Antares W70" (qv) here on SGL. There was once(?) a Review Article on Cloudy Nights? 🤔 They worked rather well, were nicely constructed... and seem (unusually) to have come down in price!

Early morning P.S. 😴 There is discussion re. what actually constititutes CR69? But it is generally held to be *based* around the three fainter stars, aligned vertically, above? I now find (not uncharacteristically!) Stephen O'meara discusses the above idea, in his "Hidden Treasures" Book --- He designates Cr69 as "HT29". 🙂 He concludes: "The oval shape of the dim stars that form an elipse around the bright stars of Orion's Head is eerily like seeing the profile of a face in an Oval Mirror. Dare you look"? --- Uhm... Muahaha? 😱

For the low power end, you have to also consider the MAK90 internal construction limits the potential field of view to around one degree (a bit more!). So, any 32mm Plossl (with apparent field of 50 deg), giving approx 40x, is "about right" (the limit). Alternatively you could go for a slightly higher magnification with a wider angle angle eyepiece such as the (70deg) Antares 24mm. But, swings & roundabouts. 😁 https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/antares-w70-widefield-eyepieces-125.html If available, still a nice eyepiece series, if you prefer a slightly wider field format.

I think you're right! 🙂 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1667/1667-h/1667-h.htm From above (and later) the allusion is to a "Magic" (Black) Mirror used for Scrying? 😁 Such things were made from Obsidian... pr plain glass, placed on a dark substrate... OR, an ordinary mirror, at low (candle lit) illumination? Skulls, candles... The Occult! 😉 See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Keepsake_Stories Who knows?!? It resembles the (somewhat ghostly?) appearance of Lambda Ori. ? 😵

Manual (non-decoder?) "Push To" systems work well. A "few deg" (non-Dob cardboard scale?!?) in Azimuth? 🙂 But e.g. my (and once favourite) "Wixey" type Electronic Level can do a LOT better (<1deg) re. Altitude? You can than "scan in Azimuth" using the main scope... Or via an intermediate Optical Finder. You still need some kind of "computer" to calculate instantaneous Alt-Az's tho! 😏

Only spotted prediction 15 minutes before "impact"! Sadly, too far South for me? Some fun videos of (supposedly) 1m diameter AR2667 over France / the channel! 😎 Maybe some of you might have seen it? Can't embed, see "pic" twitter link. From Brighton apparently! 😉

I could not *immediately* recall the name! But... 😎 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecilia_Payne-Gaposchkin But it does read like a who's who of Astronomy! 🙃

Quite an entertaining (is that the right word? lol) video on the topic: https://youtu.be/4Wrc4fHSCpw (These are the asteroids to worry about) 😎 If there is sufficient warning about a Chelyabinsk sized event... Keep away from windows (flying glass!) might just help a bit. 😬

I suppose these answers lie somewhere within: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event Wikipedia is not such a bad reference on stuff? In a human species context, "so far so good"? 😁

Thanks, Don! I suspect not everyone may have seen such things? (Just in case!) 😎