If one more person

[cloudsweeper]

4 hours ago, SilverAstro said:

 

well if they do look up I think they will be confused cos I rekon it be 20Jan'17 and Jupiter is (I believe! ) still plonk in middle of Virgo at the moment next door to Spica, what is going on ?

Is this to do with astrological signs being 30 degree divisions, whereas the actual constellations  vary in size?  Related to this is the fact that the Sun moves through Ophiuchus which doesn't feature at all  in the astrological zodiac.

Doug.

[symesie04]

14 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Astrology... don't forget that up to a few hundred years ago ALL the major cycles of your life were ruled and measured by the movements of the stars and the moon. Was it really so strange that special significance was ascribed to the movements of those stars that didn't follow the rules (such as foreboding a change of the status quo that would last almost a thousand years (from 1066)).

We rational folks might know astrology is bunkum, but there is more than a little truth at its core which I think explains its persistence. Look at the 28-day link between the Moon's phases and the human menstrual cycle. Is it a coincidence or not? regardless, it must give a significant chunk of the population the feeling that their lives are intimately connected to, if not ruled by, the heavens.

Dont think anyone said it was strange given the level of their expertise its actually in many ways understandable. I think the gripe here is more about how it persists in the modern world.

Errr huh? What link??? there is no link are you saying their is a link between menstruation and the moon phases based on the length of cycle? I respect your expertise in your profession but surely there is no link between the aforementioned other than time factor which really is absolutely no link at all.

[Stub Mandrel]

1 hour ago, symesie04 said:

Errr huh? What link??? there is no link are you saying their is a link between menstruation and the moon phases based on the length of cycle? I respect your expertise in your profession but surely there is no link between the aforementioned other than time factor which really is absolutely no link at all.

I did say 'is it a coincidence of not?' in my post. Most researchers think it is a coincidence, but some don't. Plenty of other species do synch their reproductive cycles to the moon and vastly more to the seasons -  even humans are more likely to conceive in december.

[JOC]

Stub Mandrel that might have as much to do with the warm cuddly feeling of the Winter celebrations at the end of the month, parties, alcohol and wanting to mark the New Year in some special way as for any other reason!  However, I can easily imagine earlier women using the phases of the moon to count  the days of menstrual cycles so they might be prepared at the right point in the month.  There is a good match up of approximate regularity of both.

[Sargs]

In my day job, I work in cybersecurity. I've devoted the last few years of my life in to making safe, secure systems based around high-end cryptography and sophisticated anti-hacking techniques. Systems secure enough that I'm willing to trust them not just with your money, but with my overdraft too. What winds me up? That in 2016, the most common password in use is *still* 123456.

 

[Knight of Clear Skies]

8 hours ago, cloudsweeper said:

Is this to do with astrological signs being 30 degree divisions, whereas the actual constellations  vary in size?  Related to this is the fact that the Sun moves through Ophiuchus which doesn't feature at all  in the astrological zodiac.

Doug.

If I'm remembering correctly, it's due to astrology ignoring the precession of the equinox. So when 'Jupiter is in Pisces' (beware of fishmongers bearing thunderbolts) it's in the area of sky Pisces was in 2,000 years ago. This isn't the silliest thing about astrology. It's an interesting subject from a historical perspective, an attempt to find order in the universe, but there is no good reason to make it part of our future.

Hooray for Ophiuchus, man-in-kilt-in-romantic-relationship-with-a-snake, the sadly overlooked 13th zodiacal sign.

[SilverAstro]

53 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

I did say 'is it a coincidence of not?' in my post. Most researchers think it is a coincidence, but some don't. Plenty of other species do synch their reproductive cycles to the moon and vastly more to the seasons -  even humans are more likely to conceive in december.

Yep, not a lot else to do in Dec. ! (unless you are an astronomer )

As you say, others synch to the moon but I was thinking that women dont, then two thoughts :

(1) perhaps they did in the past but now that moonlight is not a significant factor in our lives they have become randomised ? ( like the circadian goes unlocked when out of daylight)

(2) do peoples still living close to nature synch to the moon, presumably not if there is such debate betwix researchers.

swmbo does complain that the full moon disturbs her sleep, but that may be due to me howling

 

[Stub Mandrel]

28 minutes ago, JOC said:

Stub Mandrel that might have as much to do with the warm cuddly feeling of the Winter celebrations at the end of the month, parties, alcohol and wanting to mark the New Year in some special way as for any other reason!  However, I can easily imagine earlier women using the phases of the moon to count  the days of menstrual cycles so they might be prepared at the right point in the month.  There is a good match up of approximate regularity of both.

I'm not claiming correlation =  causality, but such is the logic behind astrology.

[Stub Mandrel]

10 minutes ago, Sargs said:

In my day job, I work in cybersecurity. I've devoted the last few years of my life in to making safe, secure systems based around high-end cryptography and sophisticated anti-hacking techniques. Systems secure enough that I'm willing to trust them not just with your money, but with my overdraft too. What winds me up? That in 2016, the most common password in use is *still* 123456.

 

presumably you only know that because people who work in cybersecurity don't encrypt people's passwords?

[SilverAstro]

12 minutes ago, Knight of Clear Skies said:

 astrology ignoring the precession of the equinox. So when 'Jupiter is in Pisces' (beware of fishmongers bearing thunderbolts) it's in the area of sky Pisces was in 2,000 years ago.

I wondered about that ( I did do the eqinox thing in an earlier post) but was surprised to find the real Jupiter so close to the astrological one. Is that all it has moved in 2000 years, the move from 1950 to 2000 in my history was notable enough,  hmmmm, I feel an urge for more delving  (perhaps 'ology has its uses after all !!)

cos of you I will now nolonger be able to observe Oph with a composed face !!!

[bejay1957]

57 minutes ago, Knight of Clear Skies said:

If I'm remembering correctly, it's due to astrology ignoring the precession of the equinox. So when 'Jupiter is in Pisces' (beware of fishmongers bearing thunderbolts) it's in the area of sky Pisces was in 2,000 years ago. This isn't the silliest thing about astrology. It's an interesting subject from a historical perspective, an attempt to find order in the universe, but there is no good reason to make it part of our future.

Hooray for Ophiuchus, man-in-kilt-in-romantic-relationship-with-a-snake, the sadly overlooked 13th zodiacal sign.

Indeed, and the one that according to the calendar I was born under - though from my perspective that is the most illogical part of astrology, as that is not when life starts...

[Sargs]

24 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

presumably you only know that because people who work in cybersecurity don't encrypt people's passwords?

More or less true- We never encrypt your password as we don't know it and never, ever store it. We only store the interesting stain it leaves behind when you put it in a bag full of jam and hit it really, really hard with a hammer. Then when you log in, we put your input in another bag of the same jam, hit it with the hammer again and compare stains. In both cases, we never see your password, only its mangled, jam-smeared remains. We call this process salting and hashing because we don't think hackers will realise we're really using jam and smashing. 

https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Password_Storage_Cheat_Sheet

Now, that's what super-reputable security sorts with a sideline in jam making do. Other, less reputable people do dumb stuff like store everyone's password along with their sensitive personal info in a big box marked "SECRET" and then lose the box on the bus. Then all those passwords and all that personal info gets leaked on the internet and someone whacks it into a spreadsheet and we laugh at all the n00bs that use "password" as their password.

https://blog.keepersecurity.com/2017/01/13/most-common-passwords-of-2016-research-study/

[LukeSkywatcher]

Getting back on track...........

If one more person (medical professional) tells me that i need to "bulk up" (put on a bit of weight).......

Well !!!!!!!!!......i just dont know how i'll react.

I'm 5'6" and weigh 11st 4 Lbs (77.5Kg/155Lbs).........give or take. Dont ask me what my BMI is as i dont believe in that system.I have not felt or looked better since i was 18yrs old (im 43 now).

Ive lost 3 stone (you do the conversions) over the last 1.5yrs (a good healthy rate of weight loss, and am maintaining the weight loss).

Lost the weight through illness........which is not such a healthy way to lose weight but............

I once again can see muscle tone in my chest/arms and shoulders, which was hidden under my layer of fat for 20+ yrs.

[Scott]

23 hours ago, Peter Drew said:

I believe Australia exists. Not because I've been there and seen it, it's because of the overwhelming "third party" evidence that it does. I don't see a similar level for the other topics dissed in this thread.   

I hope it does Peter, otherwise I'll be needing to change my passport and stop ringing my mum every week-end

 

23 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

And they sometimes beat us at cricket. You could hardly be beaten by a team which didn't exist...

Olly

Not often enough these days Olly

[Stub Mandrel]

On 20/01/2017 at 17:23, Sargs said:

More or less true- We never encrypt your password as we don't know it and never, ever store it. We only store the interesting stain it leaves behind when you put it in a bag full of jam and hit it really, really hard with a hammer. Then when you log in, we put your input in another bag of the same jam, hit it with the hammer again and compare stains. In both cases, we never see your password, only its mangled, jam-smeared remains. We call this process salting and hashing because we don't think hackers will realise we're really using jam and smashing. 

https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Password_Storage_Cheat_Sheet

Now, that's what super-reputable security sorts with a sideline in jam making do. Other, less reputable people do dumb stuff like store everyone's password along with their sensitive personal info in a big box marked "SECRET" and then lose the box on the bus. Then all those passwords and all that personal info gets leaked on the internet and someone whacks it into a spreadsheet and we laugh at all the n00bs that use "password" as their password.

https://blog.keepersecurity.com/2017/01/13/most-common-passwords-of-2016-research-study/

I know that's what you're supposed to do and why I get really, annoyed with sites who send me welcome  emails that confirm my password in plain text.

[Stub Mandrel]

17 hours ago, LukeSkywatcher said:

I'm 5'6" and weigh 11st 4 Lbs (77.5Kg/155Lbs).........give or take. Dont ask me what my BMI is as i dont believe in that system.I have not felt or looked better since i was 18yrs old (im 43 now).

Doesn't sound light for your height to me!

I used to be really skinny and 6' 2", but never realised just how much my weight was creeping up. Then last summer by cholesterol ratio was bad (overall level OK - just) and my weight was 14-6 - a good stone more than I thought it was, so I have to go back to the docs after 6 months under threat of statins.

So... I thought stuff it and tried to eat about 1000 calories a day and lost about a pound every two days for two months. My target was to stay comfortably under 13 stone, and apart from the odd day, I'm doing it and I'm currently averaging about 12-12. My belt has gone down three holes (I had to add a hole!) and I discovered a pair of new 32" jeans that fit - I'd thrown out loads of pairs years ago, but these must have been too good to junk!

Perhaps it's me, but measuring my weight every day and treating it as a 'project' has given me the motivation, and the amazing thing is how my appetite has changed - I can eat an enormous amount and used to, in fact it's amazing I didn't put on vastly more weight. As for the dangers of crash dieting... I made sure I ate a really varied diet with plenty of everything except sugar (or meat!) and took multivitamins and iron just in case. I found that I had about four days where I felt listless a week or two in, but then I perked up and I took that as a sign my body had stopped robbing glycogen from my muscles and started using up the fat instead. I actually feel more energetic and active now.

Overeating and lack of exercise are like smoking, you just need to find the right things to give you the motivation.

[swamp thing]

On 1/18/2017 at 19:25, ollypenrice said:

The phrase that gets my goat is 'pretty pictures.' I'm a tolerably dedicated deep sky imager and am sometimes asked if I do 'real astronomy or just take pretty pictures.' Why does this get my goat? Because the phrase 'pretty pictures' is obviously intended as a put-down.

Did David Malin take pretty pictures? Did E.E. Barnard take pretty pictures? I'm not in their league but I have their aspirations. I want to take pictures that are informative, beautiful and true. I had this once from a spectroscopist and I felt like saying, 'Oh my, what a pretty spectrum you have there.'

Does it make my blood boil? Actually it does.

Olly

I hope it is the way the term 'pretty picture' is being used rather than the term itself that upsets you Olly.

What I mean is I could have easily unwittingly used the term as a genuine compliment in regards to an astro image........?? To think the imager may have been seething with rage and thinking me a patronising git when I am genuinely complimenting them is a bit unsettling. 

 

 

 

[ollypenrice]

2 minutes ago, swamp thing said:

I hope it is the way the term 'pretty picture' is being used rather than the term itself that upsets you Olly.

What I mean is I could have easily unwittingly used the term as a genuine compliment in regards to an astro image........?? To think the imager may have been seething with rage and thinking me a patronising git when I am genuinely complimenting them is a bit unsettling. 

 

 

 

I've never heard you use that phrase and if you did it would be easy to read as sincere. No it's the 'real astronomy or pretty pictures?' that I find annoying. My point was about the juxtaposition of the two in that way.

Olly

[Stub Mandrel]

2 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

I've never heard you use that phrase and if you did it would be easy to read as sincere. No it's the 'real astronomy or pretty pictures?' that I find annoying. My point was about the juxtaposition of the two in that way.

Olly

"Simon King, are you a real zoologist or do you just take pretty pictures of animals?"

I can imagine him being equally miffed... you don't take 'pretty pictures' without a deep understanding of your subject.

[JOC]

I've looked at many of the stunning images on this site recently.  However, the nebulas and even the coloured stars do have a asthetic beauty about them.  They are taken by incredibly gifted 'imagers' and I appreciate the skill that has gone into them, but at the end of the day I'm sorry, but the word 'pretty' is definitely applicable to many of the lovely pictures that result.  I am quite certain that every image is scientifically significant, but at the end of the day I thought people largely took and shared pictures to promote an emotional response in the viewer and I am sure the vast majority of the uninformed people seeing such images see first the beauty - the 'prettiness' before they appreciate the science.  In my opinion that doesn't denigrate an image and if it was said about something scientific that I'd posted then I'd take it as a compliment - exactly as I am sure it is offered. 

[johnfosteruk]

6 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

No it's the 'real astronomy or pretty pictures?' that I find annoying.

 

3 hours ago, JOC said:

then I'd take it as a compliment

 

I think I may have used the pretty word a few times in my mind but as Olly says, it's sincere.

I image (Lunar, Solar, some dodgy widefields mainly) as a record of observations as much as anything else, but also for my own reference, it helps embed things in the mind and keep them fresh, just the same as observing does. There's UMa, theres what's visible 3 days after first quarter etc. Also, I hope that the images I craft cobble together look a little bit nice too, but it's not the main goal.

The reason I'd like, eventually, to do DSO imaging is also as a record, a record that uses processing to give a good false colour interpretation of what is out there in the universe.

Yes the images happen to be pretty (in the sincere sense) but that's not the main goal. Unless it is purely for outreach in which case yes you do want the public to say 'oooh that's nice' in the hope that some of said public will have their palettes whetted, study the field and go on to do something useful in it themselves. Or in the NASA/HST case to ensure there's enough public goodwill to keep your funding, so you can do good science.

I can also recall images I've seen from the likes of Olly, Tom OD, Paddy Gilliland that have what may be new discoveries (ish?) in them, (gas clouds adjoining 2 neighbouring objects being common).

I completely would take pretty as a compliment, but not in the sense that grinds Olly's gears, it's intellectual snobbery and anyone I catch at it will get a poke in the eye with my sharp stick, the same as the 'ologers.

The pretty thing is a serendipitous byproduct of the main goal here, we should embrace that but not make it our goal (I think), I'm sure there are images that are uglier than my ugly stick but as interesting as anything else. Saying that though, some people find bugs n critters pretty, eye of the beholder and all that.

waffling now, done.

[SloMoe]

My reply to the usual jab is that I'm watching Niiru track it's way towards us, then I suggest they google it.

[Macavity]

Returning to the original topic: I feel the same when certain of my neighbours SNEER at my supposed (Astronomer) "Nerdiness"? Because I went to "college", I must be somehow incapable of "Hard Work"! I must be incompetent at DIY or (the favourite) "Fixing Cars" etc. etc.

I try not to care! I am happy the bloke who "landscaped" my garden cared enough to ask: "How's the Astrology  going, Mate?" -- When he passed in the street! He made a mistake over the ONE word? He doesn't have a Ph.D. in Particle Physics like me... He went to "Secondary Mod" (Not a Grammar school!) But we can still MATES? 

Does anyone here really believe that "Society will Collapse" -- If someone reads (believes in!) Newspaper Horoscope? What if I were to admit that I have a Working Knowledge  of Tarot Cards & Astrology? Like many "creatures of the 70's", I've had sometime "spiritual leanings"? I still do. As far as I know, I have been an "Atheist" all my life! Somehow now a "Religious Apologist", if I don't care one way or t'other?

SEVEN plus years at CERN taught me (if I needed to know) to *work* with others, irrespective of nationality, language, culture & belief systems! I think NO BAD thing. Back then, scientists never seemed to TALK (bang on!) about it? Unlike Brian Cox, I don't number Archbishops as mates - If they are FUN, why Not! But I don't feel the need to brawl in the dust with Deepack Chopra... I guess I'll never be "Populist"! 

Ultimately, let's stick (mostly) to ASTRONOMY here? Just an idea... 

[LukeSkywatcher]

On 21/01/2017 at 11:51, Stub Mandrel said:

Doesn't sound light for your height to me!

I used to be really skinny and 6' 2", but never realised just how much my weight was creeping up. Then last summer by cholesterol ratio was bad (overall level OK - just) and my weight was 14-6 - a good stone more than I thought it was, so I have to go back to the docs after 6 months under threat of statins.

So... I thought stuff it and tried to eat about 1000 calories a day and lost about a pound every two days for two months. My target was to stay comfortably under 13 stone, and apart from the odd day, I'm doing it and I'm currently averaging about 12-12. My belt has gone down three holes (I had to add a hole!) and I discovered a pair of new 32" jeans that fit - I'd thrown out loads of pairs years ago, but these must have been too good to junk!

Perhaps it's me, but measuring my weight every day and treating it as a 'project' has given me the motivation, and the amazing thing is how my appetite has changed - I can eat an enormous amount and used to, in fact it's amazing I didn't put on vastly more weight. As for the dangers of crash dieting... I made sure I ate a really varied diet with plenty of everything except sugar (or meat!) and took multivitamins and iron just in case. I found that I had about four days where I felt listless a week or two in, but then I perked up and I took that as a sign my body had stopped robbing glycogen from my muscles and started using up the fat instead. I actually feel more energetic and active now.

Overeating and lack of exercise are like smoking, you just need to find the right things to give you the motivation.

I'm big boned. I agree. I dont consider myself underweight. I'm fine as i am, considering......

Haha!!!! yep, my waist has gone down from a 36" to a 30-32". None of my old jeans fit me and dont even get me started on about my shirts. My chest has gone from 44" down to 40".

 

[rockettsue]

They dont even mention astrology, astronomy or anything else when they see me looking up or using my binos they just give me funny looks and move off...