What will be the astro amateur trends in 2004?

"David Nakamoto" wrote in message
...

At least as of this date, no bright comets are in our future, but stay
tuned
for
immediate developments, drat those nasty unpredictable comets ! :-)

2001 Q4 and/or 2002 T7 could well put on a decent show in mid-2004.
http://www.space.com/spacewatch/come...04_030516.html
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~lovejoyt/2001q4.htm

Clear (and hopefully not too light-polluted) skies,

Tony

********************************************
http://home.earthlink.net/~tonyhoffman/astronomy.htm

Amateur Astronomers Association
of New York: (www.aaa.org)

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 02:06:20 GMT, "Alan French"
wrote:

Less time on-line and more time observing or ATMing? G

Sounds like a plan! -- I'm hoping for an early start as I type and
wait for my sky to clear ;-)

Bill Greer

"John Steinberg" wrote in message
...
David ``Little Buddy'' Nakamoto wrote:

On the other hand, I do agree with the immortal worked of Thurston
Howell III when, after the Professor said, "But don't worry men.
We're not dead yet," he replied, "Well maybe not, but we're certainly
headed in THAT direction !"

That's the first Gilligan's Island quote I've ever seen on Usenet.

I found it trenchant, compelling and not a little bit frightening that
I may actually recall that episode. Even more frightening that you
were able to quote it verbatim, David. g

Hey ! ! ! :-)



Yup, film, like the VHS tape, is dying, and I think rightfully so in
both cases.

The future is and always has been digital.
Just ask your local neighborhood proctologist.

Ooh !!! You asked for it !


(Also ducking and running)

Vive Le CCD! Vive Le DVD! Vive Le CD! Vive Le Ginger!

(sigh) Too fast for me. :-)

"tony hoffman" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"David Nakamoto" wrote in message
...

At least as of this date, no bright comets are in our future, but stay
tuned
for
immediate developments, drat those nasty unpredictable comets ! :-)

2001 Q4 and/or 2002 T7 could well put on a decent show in mid-2004.
http://www.space.com/spacewatch/come...04_030516.html
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~lovejoyt/2001q4.htm

Clear (and hopefully not too light-polluted) skies,

Decent perhaps, but I and others were hoping for spectacular. -)

Tom Whiting wrote:
there may not be a scientific law as such, but more often than not,
it does average out (flips of a coin, for instance). I remember reading
that back in 1910 they had 2 bright naked-eye comets that year(one of
which was Halley) and there was not another bright naked-eye comet for
almost 30 years in our sky. Nature does tend to even things out.

But Mike is absolutely right. Comet arrivals are independent. If
comets arrive more frequently during one decade, they are not more
likely to space themselves out more during the next in order to
"average things out." They may do so, but they are not *more* likely
to do so than at any other time.

Flips of a coin work the same way. Presuming the coin is fair, after
a run of 10 tails, the probability of a heads on the next flip is
the same as always: 1 in 2. The coin is, as we say, memoryless: the
atoms making it do not "remember" their own history. They therefore
can have no ability to compensate.

In fact, if anything, after a preponderance of tails, it might be
concluded that the coin is unfair and that the next flip is more likely
to be tails.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

"David Nakamoto" wrote in message
...
"tony hoffman" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"David Nakamoto" wrote in message
...

At least as of this date, no bright comets are in our future, but stay
tuned
for
immediate developments, drat those nasty unpredictable comets ! :-)

2001 Q4 and/or 2002 T7 could well put on a decent show in mid-2004.
http://www.space.com/spacewatch/come...04_030516.html
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~lovejoyt/2001q4.htm

Clear (and hopefully not too light-polluted) skies,

Decent perhaps, but I and others were hoping for spectacular. -)

Me, too. But we will see how they, and whatever else might come along,
actually performs.

Tom,

Things may average out over the long run but that doesn't mean that
recent history predicts the future. We're talking about two different
things here that are often mixed up.

Suppose you flip a coin and it comes up heads 10 times in a row. What
are the odds it will come up heads the next time? The coin isn't
affected by what happened before; the odds are 50-50 on each flip.
Unless, of course, the coin is improperly weighted or has some other
characteristic that's causing it to come up heads so often (like having
"heads" on both sidesg).

Same thing with comets. A comet hanging out there getting ready to come
in towards the Sun isn't affected by the comets that went before it.
The odds of a great comet in any given year is always the same. Look
over a longer time period and you'll find they tend to average out but
that depends on the time period you choose. You wouldn't ask what the
chances are of a great comet being discovered this month based on how
many great comets were discovered last month. But look at the last 100
months and you feel a bit more confident in your guess. Look at the
last 1000 months and you feel more confident yet. But that's still just
a best educated guess, not the truth about what *will* happen.

I was operating a telescope at a local planetarium/observatory in the
late 1970's and fielded all the astronomy questions each night. As the
time grew closer for Halley's return (the comet, not the astronomerg)
people would ask about it. At that point we had been quite a bit more
comet-poor than the first half of the century. And since Halley's was
going to put on a particularly poor showing that apparition rather than
the big show it gave during it's last go-round in 1910 I tried to clue
people in not to expect too much. I told them that the chances were
we'd have a much better comet before Halley's returned. It turned out I
was wrong about that. I'm apparently unable to tell fortunes by the
stars. ;-)

Mike Simmons

bwhiting wrote:

Mike,
there may not be a scientific law as such, but more often than not,
it does average out (flips of a coin, for instance). I remember reading
that back in 1910 they had 2 bright naked-eye comets that year(one of
which was Halley) and there was not another bright naked-eye comet for
almost 30 years in our sky. Nature does tend to even things out.
FWIW,
Tom W.

Mike Simmons wrote:
bwhiting wrote:

With 2 back-to-back consecutive brilliant naked-eye comets (HB and Hyak)
I've a sickening feeling that another bright naked-eye comet could be
decades away, just based on law of averages. :-(
Sadly,
TW


There is no such "law" so don't give up hope. The odds of a great comet
appearing now are just as good as before those two graced our skies. At
least, unless they shed a substance that destroys other incoming
comets. :-)

Mike Simmons

Yes, we would like to see these images. And we appreciate your postings to SAA,
since you know what you are talking about and are not simply repeating erroneous
notions the pervade usenet.
Your point, made in another posting, and seconded by Chris Peterson, that imaging
of planets is not a reliable guide to the quality of a telescope for visual
observation, is important. It is obviously not understood by most, since fine
planetary images are often touted as evidence of excellence of a telescope for
visual use.
Bill Meyers


Chris1011 wrote:

Film had a (relatively) narrow bandwidth. Do you also think that refractive
telescopes will have to be improved to work with the bandwidth?

They already are. What improvement are you looking for? Apos work from the UV
into the IR and are a good match for CCD chips. Reflective systems too, for
sure. Wanna see some incredible images taken with the latest large chips?

Roland Christen

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 12:38:18 -0700, Mike Simmons wrote:

Same thing with comets. A comet hanging out there getting ready to come
in towards the Sun isn't affected by the comets that went before it.
The odds of a great comet in any given year is always the same. Look
over a longer time period and you'll find they tend to average out but
that depends on the time period you choose.

Actually, there is some suggestion that the long term rate of comets doesn't
average out, but that comets come in waves. According to the theory, the Oort
cloud gets perturbed occasionally. Of course, if this theory is correct you will
need to observe the cometary rate for a few hundred million years to detect it.
Over the period of human history (and extending probably to the end of it) I
think it's safe to say that the rate is constant, with the variation in times
seen between great comets explainable by nothing more than elementary
statistics.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Joachim Engel wrote:
: Hi,

: what will be the astro amateur trends in 2004?
: Any suggestions will be appreciated!

I'm still waiting for the super thin graphite mirrors to be realized into
mass production. Would sure help with cooldown issues in certain parts of
the country - especially for dobs. Also would make large dobs a bit more
portable.