Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Chapt17 Telescope experiments as distance tool #1574 ATOM TOTALITY
5th ed

Replies: 19   Last Post: May 24, 2013 7:25 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
gk@gmail.com

Posts: 134
Registered: 11/12/12
Re: Chapt17 Enrico! . Call someone. PRONTO! My Behind is too Big and
I Can't get out of the Tub. Get a Crew to Pull me Out , Enrico.

Posted: May 14, 2013 4:43 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:42:56 AM UTC-7, hbe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 1.2, 2013 1:42:19 AM UTC-7, hbe...@gmail.com wrote:
>

> > On Monday, May 13, 2013 10:48:38.662 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > In May of 2010
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Enrico wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Finding anything at all that addresses your question about
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > limitations on what a telescope can see (resolve) turned out
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > to be harder than I expected.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Yes, thanks for you help Enrico. I am not surprized at all that
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > astronomers never realized that the telescope and all the Physics
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > laws on Optics were never seen as their best and finest measure
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > of distance in the Cosmos.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I am guessing, roughly, that no telescope on Earth is able to see a
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > galaxy beyond 200 million light years away. And that the furthest
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > possible sighting of a supernova from Earth with our finest
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > telescope
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > is 400 million light years away.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > So my guess is that 400 million light years is the furthest distance
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > in
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > astronomy that we can "know about."
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > This would mean that the surveys by Jarrett and Juric et al, are
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > mappings
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > that are all confined to 400 million light years. And not our
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > current
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > silly idea that our telescopes are peering back to 13 billion light
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > years.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > So all the surveys and mappings of the Cosmos have to take place
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > within 400 million light years distance because our telescopes can
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > see these objects and if we can see them in the telescope, means
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > they are no further than 400 million light years.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > http://atomic-molecular-optical-physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/can_...
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Read the section on Data Processing
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Note assumptions made about Universal Expansion
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_telescope
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Technical stuff, formulas.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Scroll down about 1/3 way to:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > "Angular resolution
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Ignoring blurring of the image by turbulence in the atmosphere
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > (atmospheric seeing) and optical imperfections of the telescope,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > angular resolution of an optical telescope is determined by the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > diameter of the objective, termed its "aperture" (the primary
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > mirror,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > or lens.) The Rayleigh criterion for the resolution limit áR (in
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > radians) is given by"
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > <Snipped math - not sure if it would display here>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > "Essentially; the larger the aperture, the better the angular
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > resolution"
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > "It should be noted that the resolution is NOT given by the maximum
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > magnification (or "power") of a telescope. Telescopes marketed by
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > giving high values of the maximum power often deliver poor
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > images."
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >                          Enrico
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Yes, resolution comes back to memory. There is another idea or
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > concept
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > in Physics when I took Optics in school. I sort of forgotten the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > concept
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > or it is vague to me now. It went along the lines of something
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > called
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > "coherence of light". Meaning that the flashlight on Pluto directed
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > to
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Hubble Space Telescope may not be resolved by the telescope, but if
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > had
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > a laser light flashlight, that Hubble telescope would then be able
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > to
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > resolve
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > my flashlight on Pluto.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Of course the stars, galaxies and Supernova are not laser lights. And
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > this
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > concept of "coherence" is important in the distance that a telescope
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > can
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > resolve a shining light.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > So, Enrico, I am not surprized at all, that the Physics community in
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > conjunction
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > with the Astronomy community never sat down and worked out, first,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > what the limit
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > of their best telescopes are. Whether any of them can see beyond 200
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > million light
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > years of a star or galaxy, or 400 million light years of a Supernova.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > For
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > there is a definite
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > upper limit of distance.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > It does not surprize me that the Physics and Astronomy community have
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > assumed
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > their telescopes can see and peer to a infinite distance in Space.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > And
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > the Big Bang
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > theory accepts such a ridiculous assumption.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Now it maybe that radio telescopes can see further, but here again,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > there is an upper
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > limit. And I am guessing that it is the RING seen in Jarrett's
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > mapping
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > that tells me this
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > ring is the "edge of the observable horizon of the Cosmos". And that
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > RING is about
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 400 million light years away. And thus, everything beyond that RING,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > is actually inside
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > the ring or closer to earth.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > (snipped)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Yes, resolution comes back to memory. There is another idea or concept
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > in Physics when I took Optics in school. I sort of forgotten the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > concept
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > or it is vague to me now. It went along the lines of something
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > called
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > "coherence of light". Meaning that the flashlight on Pluto directed
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > to
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Hubble Space Telescope may not be resolved by the telescope, but if
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > had
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > a laser light flashlight, that Hubble telescope would then be able
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > to
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > resolve
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > my flashlight on Pluto.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Of course the stars, galaxies and Supernova are not laser lights. And
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > this
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > concept of "coherence" is important in the distance that a
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > telescope
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > can
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > resolve a shining light.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > It has been a very long time since I sat in a UC Optics classroom in
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 1970. And
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > never knowing that such an experience was going to come out so
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > fruitfull eventually.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > So the question I raise is what is the maximum distance that the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Hubble Space
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Telescope can see a ordinary galaxy. Maximum distance given the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > physics of
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > how light travels and optics of the telescope. And it is a darn
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > shame
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > that
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > noone in the astronomy community ever thought to ask such a
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > question.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The biologists certainly asked the questions a long time ago about
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > smallest length their light-microscopes could attain. And that if a
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > biologist
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > proclaimed to see a virus in a light-microscope would have been
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > laughed
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > out of his profession.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > But nowadays, it is commonplace for astronomers and physicists to
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > claim that
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > quasars and the Sloan Great Wall are far beyond 400 million light
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > years, yet the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Hubble Space Telescope sees them as red spots, yet none of these
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > scientists ever
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > worked out whether Hubble Space Telescope can see a quasar or Great
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Wall
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > in the billions of light years.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The limit of a light microscope is that of bacteria, so where is the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > limit of the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Hubble Space Telescope. Most astronomers probably have the notion
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > that
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > telescopes have no limit to observing distances. That they think the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Hubble
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > can see and peer into infinity distance.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > To me, such notions and assumptions are repulsive.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > So now, how to find out the limit of distance of the Hubble Space
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Telescope?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > How do we find out its limit?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Well a good way is to ask a question such as whether a flashlight
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > placed on
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Pluto or Mars or Moon can be seen by the Hubble Space Telescope?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Have
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > a gradation of flashlights on the Moon and see where the Hubble
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > ceases
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > to
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > "see" the flashlight. Then we can extrapolate that luminosity of the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > flashlight
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > and Moon distance to that of Supernova or regular galaxies as to
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > what
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Hubble Telescope upper limit of distance is.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Now I believe the prime reason there is a upper limit is the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > behaviour
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > of light itself,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > in that it has a luminosity governed by inverse square of distance.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > If
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > my memory
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > serves me from 40 years ago in school studying Optics, this is
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > called
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > candela.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > And the reason that laser light can be seen so much further of a
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > distance is because
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > of the "coherent beam" that does not fall off at inverse square of
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > distance.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > No galaxy , nor any supernova nor the quasars are laser lights, and
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > so
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > they fall off
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > in luminosity by inverse square of distance.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > So the question of using a telescope to tell us of the distance to a
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > galaxy or a star or
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > a quasar or a Sloan Great Wall, is that we can use standard Physics
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > ideas, laws and
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > principles of Optics to tell us how far a telescope can resolve a
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > regular normal astro
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > body. My guess is that the Hubble Space Telescope has a maximum
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > distance range
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > of 200 million light years for a normal regular single galaxy and
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > any
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > such galaxies beyond
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 200 million light years is not detectable by Hubble. For a
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Supernova,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I am guessing
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 400 million light years distance the Hubble can still faintly see
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Supernova, but
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > beyond that distance is undetected.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Now why is this so very important? Well, obviously, since the quasars
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > and Great Walls
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > are alleged to be 13 billion and 4 billion light years away, yet
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > easily seen in the Hubble
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Space Telescope as red spots, signifies that the redshift is all in
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > error. If Hubble
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Telescope distance is only good to 200 to 400 million light years,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > then the quasars
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > and Great Walls must be a smaller distance than 200 to 400 million
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > light years.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Funny, how it seems that a logical thinker in astronomer is as rare
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > to
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > find as a
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Supernova explosion is rare to find. Because, it really does not
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > need
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > a rocketscientist
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > to figure out that the telescope itself is a distance measuring tool
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > and the most
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > accurate measuring tool of distance in all of astronomy. So shame on
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > the astronomy
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > community for never realizing this valuable tool. Part of the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > problem
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > is that so
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > many scientists spend most of their time on thinking about equations
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > of math
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > and physics, and little time on clear logic. And so you have a 100
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > years of time
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > wasted on Doppler redshift and no time spent on the telescope itself
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > as a distance
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > tool.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > --
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Approximately 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > newsgroups author search starting May 2012. They call it indexing; I
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > call it censor discrimination. Whatever the case, what is needed now
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > is for science newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.bio,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > sci.geo.geology, sci.med, sci.paleontology, sci.astro,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > sci.physics.electromag to?be hosted by a University the same as what
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Drexel?University hosts sci.math as the Math Forum. Science needs to
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > be in education?not in the hands of corporations chasing after the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > next dollar bill.?Besides, Drexel's Math Forum can demand no fake
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > names, and only 5 posts per day of all posters which reduces or
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > eliminates most spam and hate-spew, search-engine-bombing, and front-
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > page-hogging. Drexel has?done a excellent, simple and fair author-
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > archiving of AP sci.math posts since May 2012?as seen?here:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Archimedes Plutonium
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > whole entire Universe is just one big atom
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies




Date Subject Author
5/14/13
Read Chapt17 Telescope experiments as distance tool #1574 ATOM TOTALITY
5th ed
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
5/14/13
Read Re: Chapt17 Telescope experiments, and I am a tool TOTALLY 5th ed
gk@gmail.com
5/14/13
Read Re: Chapt17 Telescope experiments, and I am a tool TOTALLY 5th ed
gk@gmail.com
5/14/13
Read Re: Chapt17 Telescope experiments, and I am a tool TOTALLY 5th ed
gk@gmail.com
5/14/13
Read Re: Chapt17 Telescope experiments, and I am a tool TOTALLY 5th ed
gk@gmail.com
5/14/13
Read Re: Chapt17 Enrico! . Call someone. PRONTO! My Behind is too Big and
I Can't get out of the Tub. Get a Crew to Pull me Out , Enrico.
gk@gmail.com
5/14/13
Read Re: Chapt17 Enrico! . Call someone. PRONTO! My Behind is too Big and
I Can't get out of the Tub. Get a Crew to Pull me Out , Enrico.
gk@gmail.com
5/14/13
Read Re: Chapt17 Enrico! . Call someone. PRONTO! My Behind is too Big and
I Can't get out of the Tub. Get a Crew to Pull me Out , Enrico.
gk@gmail.com
5/14/13
Read Re: Chapt17 Enrico! . Call someone. PRONTO! My Behind is too Big and
I Can't get out of the Tub. Get a Crew to Pull me Out , Enrico.
gk@gmail.com
5/14/13
Read Re: Chapt17 Enrico! . Call someone. PRONTO! My Behind is too Big and
I Can't get out of the Tub. Get a Crew to Pull me Out , Enrico.
gk@gmail.com
5/14/13
Read Re: Chapt17 Telescope experiments as distance tool #1574 ATOM
TOTALITY 5th ed
bradguth@gmail.com
5/14/13
Read Re: Chapt17 Telescope experiments as distance tool #1574 ATOM
TOTALITY 5th ed
gk@gmail.com
5/14/13
Read no High Schoolers in sci newsgroups and Niuz.biz malware wrecking computers
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
5/14/13
Read Re: no High Schoolers in sci newsgroups and Niuz.biz malware wrecking computers
gk@gmail.com
5/17/13
Read Re: no High Schoolers in sci newsgroups and Niuz.biz malware wrecking computers
bradguth@gmail.com
5/17/13
Read Re: no High Schoolers in sci newsgroups and Niuz.biz malware wrecking computers
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
5/17/13
Read Re: no High Schoolers in sci newsgroups and Niuz.biz malware wrecking computers
gk@gmail.com
5/18/13
Read Re: no High Schoolers in sci newsgroups and Niuz.biz malware wrecking computers
bradguth@gmail.com
5/24/13
Read 1604 Kepler's supernova Chapt17 Telescope experiments as distance
tool #1588 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
5/17/13
Read Re: Chapt17 Telescope experiments as distance tool #1574 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Phony MacNymster

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.