Where is Saturn in sky over Huygens landing site?

"Ray Vingnutte" wrote in message
...
You may find over time that you will need to increasingly access foreign
news services to find out what really is going in the world.

Sorry, but no. The best you can hope for would be alternative biases. Don't
assume that just because you've seen every possible point of view that
you've actually seen any facts or can determine what's really going on.

Mike Flugennock wrote:
In article , muldar wrote:
Ive had troublewith it all night. Same trouble I had with ABC. NBC, and CBS
........ news blackout and literally nothing on tonight's news.
Lets here it for the major networks...
D'ahh, quit bitching. Thanks to them, you know everything there is to know
about Chandra Levy, Elizabeth Smart, Laci Peterson, Michael Jackson, and
stem cells.

The media still can't get over loosing "Their" election in November,
gaggling profit$ from cnadidate$ adverti$ing notwithstanding. These
NASA successes are just too much contra-knowledge to them since the Bush
administration likely supports it, or at least appears to support it.
The scientific significance of what we see going on before our very eyes
(brand-new insight into planetary formation) is way over their heads;
they can't see the forest of knowledge for their trees of bias...........

Interesting that the surface of Titan has apparently familiar
geological features.

The methane-ethane composition strongly suggests that the earth had the
same in the beginning, but with the absence of oxygen. Water present on
Titan will be solid "rocks", everywhere.

Perhaps Earth has much oxygen because our water has been processed by
carbon cycle life into plants, with insect and animal life as
by-product. The higher intellect of these insects and animals provides
opportunity for evolution as we know it. Their aggressive growth has
resulted in significant O2.

A curious coincidence of nature ("intelligent design"???;;-)) is that
the only electromagnetic wave window in water is at the peak radiant
intensity of sunlight, and that liquid water has its greatest density at
+4C, enabling photosynthesized life to survive at the bottom of shallow
waters through wide temperature swings (year 'round).

To answer the subject-line question he In the optical range where
photos were just taken on the Titan surface, the "sky" is permanently
overcast. The composition of the overcast is not apparent, but it could
be, for instance, ethane clouds or crystals, or ice crystals. As a
result, just as on a cloudy overcast day on Earth, the sky is just one
while blob overhead, with the local horizon as the only visibly defined
feature. The fact that visibility is so good to see a distant horizon in
the first place implies that some warmth is emitted by the Titan round
surface. This can be either from absorbed solar radiation at the surface
as we know it, or nuclear fission warmth from a solid higher density
core, and we may well have as our Earth's core. This warmth evaporates
the atmospheric clouds very nearest the surface by
conduction+convection, giving us a surface "visibility" of miles here,
kilometers for Titan.

Angelo Campanella

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:54:32 -0500
"Scott Hedrick" wrote:


"Ray Vingnutte" wrote in message
...
You may find over time that you will need to increasingly access
foreign news services to find out what really is going in the world.

Sorry, but no. The best you can hope for would be alternative biases.
Don't assume that just because you've seen every possible point of
view that you've actually seen any facts or can determine what's
really going on.

Well it can only aide to have more sources of information from different
sources and locations, it is up to the reader or listener to decide if
they want to believe what they see and or hear. For me personally I find
out far more than I could ever hope to get from just one source and
thats mostly looking around the net at other sources for news.

In the UK we only have the one news service on the TV really and
thats the BBC, ITV news is pretty bland, CH4 news is ok for more in
depth news stories but really there's only the BBC and thats only
slightly less bland than ITV news. I haven't bothered subscribing to all
the satellite channels as paying over 110 pounds a year to watch 4
channels of mostly crap why would I want to pay more money to watch even
more crap, and it ain't worth the cost just to watch a one or
two science channels. So you see I don't have much choice but to have
several sources.

"muldar"
- Saturn's glow would definately (sp)

definitely.... I would ignore it except that you use the word in almost
every post sort of like definition and not defination if that helps.
definitely.

"Ray Vingnutte" wrote in message
...
For me personally I find
out far more than I could ever hope to get from just one source and
thats mostly looking around the net at other sources for news.

Let me make it clear- I happen to agree with you. I often bought alternative
used textbooks in college precisely because, when one wasn't clear, another
would be.

I mostly get my news from the net these days as well- Yahoo, space.com and
spaceflightnow.

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:06:22 +0000, Ray Vingnutte
wrote:

In the UK we only have the one news service on the TV really and
thats the BBC, ITV news is pretty bland, CH4 news is ok for more in
depth news stories but really there's only the BBC and thats only
slightly less bland than ITV news.

....And to be honest, there's time I've been jealous of you Limeys,
because the Beeb's news service has been far more credible and
professional at times than most of the US services have been since
Watergate. In fact, I managed to glommer a 1966 NBC Chicago broadcast
tape a few months back, and found myself longing for the days when
news was presented with a serious tone no matter the story, and not
one single bubble headed bleach blonde was to be seen.

Floyd Kalber, we miss you...

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

Angelo Campanella wrote:

snip

Perhaps Earth has much oxygen because our water has been processed by
carbon cycle life into plants, with insect and animal life as
by-product. The higher intellect of these insects and animals provides
opportunity for evolution as we know it. Their aggressive growth has
resulted in significant O2.

A lot of the oxygen would have come from carbon dioxide as well.
There's little doubt that there was no free oxygen in the early
atmosphere, evidenced, for example, in that there are certain
minerals that only form in water that has oxygen dissolved in it, and
they 'suddenly' appear for the first time in the Precambrian
sediments laid down about three billion years ago.

--
Odysseus

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 19:47:11 -0500
"Scott Hedrick" wrote:


"Ray Vingnutte" wrote in message
...
For me personally I find
out far more than I could ever hope to get from just one source and
thats mostly looking around the net at other sources for news.

Let me make it clear- I happen to agree with you. I often bought
alternative used textbooks in college precisely because, when one
wasn't clear, another would be.

I mostly get my news from the net these days as well- Yahoo, space.com
and spaceflightnow.


Yeah, I was also meaning all news not just science, a lot of the news
for example on the BBC website will never get a mention on the TV BBC
news, I assume thats mostly the same for all TV news channels. I know
they can't cover everything but even so they seem to go for the shock
horror stories such as 'Prat wears nazi uniform to fancy dress party'
etc etc, then spend hours of air time repeating it over and over.

In ,
Ray Vingnutte typed:

Yeah, I was also meaning all news not just science, a lot of the news
for example on the BBC website will never get a mention on the TV BBC
news, I assume thats mostly the same for all TV news channels. I know
they can't cover everything but even so they seem to go for the shock
horror stories such as 'Prat wears nazi uniform to fancy dress party'
etc etc, then spend hours of air time repeating it over and over.


And while we are having a media rant....
....when the Beeb do decide that a science item is worth airing the
presenters are very uncomfortable with those long words and you can
virtually guarantee that they will get something wrong. I know they are
reading from teleprompters but you would expect somebody in the news team to
know a bit of basic science.

Latest example on the morning of the Huygens landing was while the presenter
was talking about the "spaceship swooping into Titan" there was a nice
graphic on the screen....the graphic was of Pheobe.

Main thing I watch on BBC TV news now is the weather. They seem to be the
only channel that are not afraid to show a real weather map, complete with
isobars. The other channels all use worthless weather maps plastered with
little brollies and flashing lightning strokes.

Just my 2p worth.

Jo

"Ray Vingnutte" wrote in message
...
I know
they can't cover everything but even so they seem to go for the shock
horror stories such as 'Prat wears nazi uniform to fancy dress party'
etc etc, then spend hours of air time repeating it over and over.

I think it's great - talk about *regression*- when the news coverage of an
event *itself* is considered worthy news.

"Here's how the news media covered the tsunami...long chartered flights, the
wrong kind of bottled water, the towels weren't heated enough, there was no
brie in the limosine, and how dare they not clear the road for *us*, the
*news media*!"