Sky & Telescope's News Bulletin - Jul 15

================================================== ======================

* * * SKY & TELESCOPE's WEEKLY NEWS BULLETIN - July 15, 2005 * * *

================================================== ======================

Welcome to S&T's Weekly News Bulletin. Images, the full stories
abridged here, and other enhancements are on our Web site,
SkyandTelescope.com, at the URLs provided. (If the links don't work,
just manually type the URLs into your Web browser.) Clear skies!

================================================== ======================

TRIPLE-STAR PLANET

Can multiple-star systems support life-bearing planets? This is an
important question for astrobiologists because more than half of all
stars in our galaxy belong to binary, triple, or higher-order systems.
Astronomers have found several giant planets orbiting one member of
widely separated binary systems. But a recent discovery, if confirmed,
shows that tighter multiple-star systems can also have planets.

In the July 14th NATURE, Maciej Konacki (Caltech) reports a planet
orbiting the triple-star system HD 188753 in Cygnus. Konacki employed a
novel technique that he developed to find planets around binary stars.
He used the 10-meter Keck I Telescope to tease out the gravitational
wobble caused by a planet with at least 1.14 Jupiter masses in a tight,
3.35-day orbit around the primary star, a G dwarf nearly identical to
the Sun. The primary, in turn, has two stellar companions (a G-dwarf
and a K-dwarf) a little less massive than the Sun that orbit each other
as a binary pair. The primary star and the two secondary stars, in
turn, go around each other in an elongated orbit that ranges from about
6 to 18 times the average Earth-Sun distance, or about from Jupiter's
to Uranus's distance from the Sun....

http://SkyandTelescope.com/news/article_1548_1.asp

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SUPERNOVA IN M51

A 14th-magnitude supernova has appeared in a spiral arm of the
Whirlpool Galaxy, M51 in Canes Venatici, high overhead these evenings.
Although the supernova is probably too faint for most visual observers,
it's well within reach of astro-imagers....

http://SkyandTelescope.com/news/article_1544_1.asp

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ASTRO NEWS BRIEFS

2005 Astronomy Day Award Winners

The Cradle of Aviation Museum was chosen by the Astronomical League as
the top winner for this year's SKY & TELESCOPE Astronomy Day Award. The
annual prize consists of a commemorative plaque and a $250 gift
certificate from Sky Publishing.

Based in Garden City, New York, the Cradle of Aviation Museum involved
many other organizations and hosted special activities on Astronomy Day
last April, attracting 2,412 attendees plus an additional 3,272 during
Astronomy/Space Week. In addition to the top prize, the museum also won
the award for "Best New Idea" by inviting firefighters from Nassau
County to demonstrate spinoff technologies that were derived from the
US space program....

James G. Baker (1914-2005)

Harvard-educated astronomer James G. Baker, one of the true giants
among 20th-century optical designers, died suddenly on June 30th at his
home in Bedford, New Hampshire. He was 91.

Although his foremost interest was astronomy, his genius for optical
innovation emerged while he was a graduate student in the early 1940s,
and it dominated his professional career. His contributions to the
field of photographic reconnaissance are legendary. They began with
lens designs used during World War II and extended through the Cold War
years with the U-2 and SR-71 Blackbird spy planes and eventually
satellite reconnaissance programs. He also contributed to many civilian
projects, including the exotic mirror system of Polaroid's
revolutionary SX-70 consumer camera in the early 1970s....

http://SkyandTelescope.com/news/article_1545_1.asp

================================================== ======================

HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS WEEK'S SKY

* The dark edge of the waxing gibbous Moon occults (covers) the
1st-magnitude star Antares on July 17th for much of the southern and
western United States, as well as Central America and northern South
America.
* Mars is at perihelion on July 17th: its closest to the Sun in orbit.
* Full Moon on July 1st.

http://SkyandTelescope.com/observing/ataglance

================================================== ======================

SKYWATCH 2006 (Advertisement)

Get ready for another great year of stargazing! Our annual magazine
SKYWATCH brings you all-sky constellation charts for 16 months -- from
September 2005 through December 2006 -- along with celestial highlights
of 2006 and descriptions of dozens of telescopes on today's market.
Reserve your copy of SKYWATCH 2006 today, and we'll send it to you as
soon as it's out!

http://SkyandTelescope.com/SkyWatch

================================================== ======================

Copyright 2005 Sky Publishing Corp. S&T's Weekly News Bulletin is
provided as a free service to the astronomical community by the editors
of SKY & TELESCOPE magazine. Widespread electronic distribution is
encouraged as long as our copyright notice is included, along with the
words "used by permission." But this bulletin may not be published in
any other form without written permission from Sky Publishing; send
e-mail to or call +1 617-864-7360. More
astronomy news is available on our Web site at
http://SkyandTelescope.com/news/.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

To subscribe to S&T's Weekly News Bulletin or to S&T's Skywatcher's
Bulletin, which calls attention to noteworthy celestial events, go to
this address:

http://SkyandTelescope.com/shopatsky/emailsubscribe.asp

================================================== ======================

Stuart Goldman
Associate Editor http://SkyandTelescope.com
Night Sky Magazine http://NightSkyMag.com
49 Bay State Rd.
Cambridge, MA 02138

Subject: GRAVITY IS NOT A FORCE

PLANETS ORBIT THE SUN TO CONSERVE TOTAL ENERGY
GRAVITATION IS NOT A FORCE BUT AN ILLUSION
Copyright 1984-2005 Allen C. Goodrich

A planet or any mass such as the earth orbits the sun
simply because it would require the gain or loss of a
tremendous amount of energy to make it travel in any
other orbit or path.
But,why do we seem to be attracted to the earth by
a force of gravity?
That question is what this article will answer.
..

SUMMARY OF PAST HISTORY:
The precise measurements of planetary motion by
Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) and observations by
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) were plotted by
Johann Kepler (1571-1630 ) resulting in Kepler's
Three laws:
1. The planets move about the sun in elliptical orbits
with the sun as one focus of the ellipse.
2. The straight line joining the sun and a given planet
sweeps out equal areas in equal intervals of time.
3. The square of the period of revolution of the planet
about the sun is proportional to the cube of the mean
distance from the sun. t^2 = K L^3
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1721 ) concluded that it was a
force F = mL/t^2 = k m_1 x m_2 /L^2 that caused the
orbital motion.

Allen C. Goodrich defined the cause as a conservation of
total energy.
The concentration of the Kinetic Energy of mass
increases as the Potential Energy of the universe
decreases with the expansion of the universe at
constant total energy.
Planets orbit the sun in a state of equiliurium,where
no change to total energy occurs.
At Equilibrium the sum of kinetic and potential energies
is a constant. A positive change of kinetic energy equals
a negative change of potential energy.
+ delta m (2 pi L)^2/t^2 = - delta G (M-m)m / L .
or Delta e (2 pi L)^2/t^2 = - Delta K e^2 / 4 pi E_o L.
if a charge is present.

The mass of the human body, on the earrth's surface,
is not in an equilibrium orbit. If a force ,such as the
surface of the earth , was not present, the body would
not stay where it is. IT TRIES TO MOVE TO AN
EQUILIBRIUM ORBIT. No change of total energy.
This force is what is felt to rqual
gravitational force. A gravitational force is not needed
in a state of orbital equilibrium.

Galileo demonstrated the effect of gravitational force.
Newton assumed that a gravitational force between all
masses pulled them together. Was this a correct
assumption? Einstein and many other scientists felt
that there must be more to gravitation than an attraction
at a distance.
Action at a distance was considered to be impossible
in the absence of a transfer of energy at the speed
of light.A change of kinetic energy
is not always the result of a force.
In an equilibrium system at constant total
energy, kinetic energy can increase as potential energy
decreases, with the total energy remaining constant..

Hubble then showed that the distant Galaxies were
moving away from the earth and that the universe
was expanding in all directions. If this is true ,
What else must be true?

1. The potential energy of the rest of the universe
must be decreasing relative to the mass of the earth.

It has long been assumed that the first law of
thermodynamics, which says that the total energy of
the universe is a constant, was a fact of nature.
If this is true what then?

2. The kinetic energy of the universe must be
increasing at the same rate that the potential
energy is decreasing as the universe expands.

How is this possible? Masses must be accelerating,
because, kinetic energy is the result of an
acceleration.
3. Orbital motion could then be the result of the
expansion of the universe. The Gravitational
illusion could be the result.

Based on the first law of thermodynamics
The total mass energy of the universe is a constant.
((total kinetic (mass) energy plus total potential
energy is a constant)).
m is any mass say that of the earth.
Planets, moons, and electrons are normally in equilibrium
orbits where the total energy is constant.
m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + G(M-m)m/L+ X e(2 pi L)^2/t^2 +
Z e^2/4 pi E_o L = a constant.
(In the absence of a charge)
From this equation the equation
Delta m (2 pi L)^2 / t^2 = - Delta G (M-m)m/L
follows mathematically.
The earth orbit is a result of an energy equilibrium,
( the absence of a change of total energy )
and not the result of a force of gravity between masses.
Force of gravity is the resulting illusion
assumed by Newton to be a force.

If a planet (say earth) moved away from the sun
its potential energy would decrease as L increased.
Its kinetic energy would decrease because it is
no longer accelerating toward the sun in orbital
motion. Total energy would have to decrease. A very
great change of total energy would have to take place.

POTENTIAL ENERGY = G(M-m)m/L
KINETIC ENERGY = m(2 pi L)^2/t^2
m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + G(M-m)m/L = A constant = M
G= Gravitational constant; M = total energy
of the universe (or effective universe) ;
m = mass in question.
t = time ; L = radial distance.

No mechanism exists for this to occur rapidly.
So it could not happen. The magnitudes of kinetic
and potential energies of planets and moons
travelling in orbital motion are nearly equal and any
increase or decrease of orbital distance L results
in an equal change in magnitude of both.This is
the only value of L where no change of total energy
will occur if the value of L changes. At any other
distance L, an increase of kinetic energy will be at a
different rate than potential energy decreases.
Orbital motion conserves total energy.
Force of gravity isn't needed to explain orbital
motion or any other motion at a distance.



GRAVITY MECHANICS AND
RESEARCH ON ASTRONOMICAL OCEAN TIDES
Copyright 1984 to 2002 Allen C. Goodrich

An examination of United States Coast and Geodetic
Survey Tidal Data, which was gathered by extensive
measurements over long periods of time,was compared
with astronomical data showing the phases of the
moon at corresponding times for many years. This
correlation of the two sets of data revealed a
very interesting fact, in a manner that had never
before been mentioned in the literature.
It is invariably and exactly
the lowest tide that exists directly under the
full and new moons at deep ocean ports.

TABULATED co-op.nos.noaa.gov and
space.jpl.nasa.gov DATA:
OCEAN TIDES AND PHASES OF THE MOON
AT DEEP OCEAN PORT- MYRTLE BEACH
LOWEST TIDE (YEARS 1992 AND 1993)

1992 FULL MOON---1992 NEW MOON
(at moons highest point in the sky)
DATE---TIME(std)-DATE---TIME(std)
Mar.18--12:00Mid-Mar.3---12:00Noon
Apr.17--12:00Mid-Apr.2---12:00Noon
May.17--12:00Mid-May.2---12:00Noon
Jun.15--12:00Mid-Jun.29--12:00Noon
July.13-12:00Mid-July.29-12:00Noon
Aug.12--12:00Mid-Aug.27--12:00Noon
Sept.11-12:00Mid-Sept.26-12:00Noon
Oct.11--12:00Mid-Oct.26--12:00Noon
Nov.10--12:00Mid-Mov.25--12:00noon
Dec.10--12:00Mid-Dec.25--12:00noon

1993 FULL MOON---1993 NEW MOON
(at moons highest point in the sky)
DATE---TIME(sdt)-DATE---TIME(sdt)
Jan.8--12:00Mid--Jan.24-12:00Noon
Feb.6--12:00Mid--Feb.21-12:00Noon
Mar.8--12:00Mid--Mar.23-12:00Noon
Apr.6--12:00Mid--Apr.21-12:00Noon
May.6--12:00Mid--May.20-12:00Noon
Jun.4--12:00Mid--Jun.19-12:00Noon
July.3-12:00Mid--Juy.18-12:00Noon
Aug.2--12:00Mid--Aug.17-12:00Noon
Sep.1--12:00Mid--Sep.16-12:00Noon
Sep.30-12:00MId--Oct.15-12:00Noon
Oct.30-12:00Mid--Nov.14-12:00Noon
Nov.29-12:00Mid--Dec.13-12:00Noon
Dec.28-12:00Mid--Jan.12-12:00Noon

This was a very interesting discovery because
current physics,based on the gravitational theory,
discussed in the following U.S.Gov. documents:
PREDICT THE OCEAN TIDES
http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/restles1.html
SEE PHASES OF THE MOON FROM EARTH
http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/
,would lead one to believe that,except for many
possible reasons, the highest tides tend to be
under the full and new moons. The dictionary and
encyclopedia as well as physics texts predict this
with pictures of the earth and oceans bulging on
the side facing the full moon. Of course it never
happens as the gravitational theory predicts,
and many reasons are given for the discrepancies.

CONCLUSION:
No discrepancies were found in the occurence of
exactly the lowest tide directly under the full
and new moons, at deep ocean ports. A lowest tide
also occurs on the earth's ocean directly opposite
to the new and full moons.

SIGNIFICANCE:
One must admit that this is beyond
question one of the most important discoveries
of modern physics research. It indicates that a
change must be made in the theory of gravitation.
One can no longer assume that a force between
the moon and the water of the earth's oceans,
is causing the ocean tides. The force of
gravity must be an illusion caused by some other,
more basic, reason. What would this be?
If the total energy ( kinetic and potential ) of
the universe is assumed to be a constant,from this
fundamental equation, many interesting things follow.
If the rest of the universe is expanding ( potential
energy decreasing) relative to masses, the masses
must be shrinking ( increasing in kinetic energy )
(gravitation) relative to the rest of the universe.

THE FIRST LAW OF MOTION-(GOODRICH)

Copyright 1984 to 2002 ALLEN C. GOODRICH

A body (m) continues in a state of rest (equilibrium)
or motion in a straight or curved line (equilibrium)
as long as no change occurs in its total (kinetic and
potential) energy, relative to the rest of the
effective universe (M-m),

Delta m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 = - Delta K(M-m)m/L

equilibrium = no change in the total energy
relative to the rest of the effective universe (M-m).

^ = to the power of.
Orbital motion complies with this equation.
This equation is derived from the fundamental
equation of the universe which states that
the total energy of the universe is a constant.
The sum of kinetic and potential energies is a
constant.
m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + K(M-m)m/L = A constant.

INERTIA AND MOMENTUM are the properties of a mass
that evidence its reluctance to change its total
energy, or it is its need to maintain a constant total
energy. If it could more easily obtain or lose energy,
it would have less inertia or momentum.

SEE
THE UNIVERSE- A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY OF MASS ENERGY
SPACE TIME FRAME MECHANICS-APPEARING IN NEWSLETTER
"SPECTRUM" OF THE BUFFALO ASTRONOMICAL ASSOCIATION
INC. NOV.1996 TO FEB.1997

CLICK BLACK AND BLUE PAGES BELOW )
http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechan.../business.html
FUNDAMENTAL EQUATION OF THE UNIVERSE
http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechan...e/profile.html
TIDES AND GRAVITY MECHANICS
http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechan...ge/resume.html

A new theory of gravitation is given, which
predicted, stimulated the above research,and is
consistent with, the new findings.
The universe has been found to be expanding at an
accelerating rate as predicted in 1984 by this new
theory.

ELECTROMAGNETIC ,PHOTON AND CHARGE EFFECTS. ARE DEFINED
IN THE FOLLOWING BOOK.-- THE UNIVERSE:--Allen C. Goodrich
Copyright 1984 to 2005 Allen C. Goodrich
FORCE OF GRAVITATION DOES NOT EXIST.

If One calculates the kinetic and potential energies of the planets
relative to the rest of the effective universe, using the formulas
kinetic energy = m(2 pi L )^2/t^2 and potential energy = -G(M-m) m/L,
M is the gm mass of the sun and all planets; m ,L,and t are the gm
mass, mean radial cm. distance, and orbital time in sec, of one of the
planets. ( THIS IS THE ONLY CORRECT METHOD, it explains the
T.R.Young-two slit interference pattern which involves the rest of the
universe ).
One will find that they are of nearly equal magnitude but opposite in
sign.
One will also find that their sum is a constant, the equilibrium energy
for the particular planet.This is the energy that remains constant as
the universe expands. its potintial energy continually decreasing and
its kinetic energy continually increasing. Only at the orbital distance
will a small change of kinetic energy equal an opposite change of
potential energy.This is the total energy that requires no force , with
its necessary acceleration and change of total energy, to maintain it
as a constant.No force of gravity is necessary to explain the motion of
the planets in the expanding universe. The planets motion around the
center of the rest of the universe at the specific distance L is the
equilibrium condition for constant total energy of the orbiting planet
in the expanding universe.

THE SOLAR SAIL
Copyright 1984 to 2005 Allen C. Goodrich

The Solar Sail, which is being tested by Russia and the United States,
for possible propulsion in interstellar space travel, is additional
evidence
that no change of potential energy to kinetic energy of the photon
takes place unless the potential energy is absorbed .The photon does
not have mass ( kinetic energy).
A change of direction of the photon's potential energy can occur at the
reflective surface but no potential to kinetic energy change takes
place there. A change of potential to kinetic energy takes place at the
black absorption surface.which has the correct frequency response as
well as
direction and density (time ) in the expanding universe.This is
evidence
that the photon is potential not kinetic energy.The light photon does
not have mass or kinetic energy.until the photon is absorbed by a mass
of the correct frequency response as well as direction and density
(time ), no
potential to kinetic energy change can take place.in the expanding
universe, in the absence of a mass..

On 16 Jul 2005 08:15:47 -0700, ACE wrote:

Subject: GRAVITY IS NOT A FORCE

PLANETS ORBIT THE SUN TO CONSERVE TOTAL ENERGY
GRAVITATION IS NOT A FORCE BUT AN ILLUSION
Copyright 1984-2005 Allen C. Goodrich

A planet or any mass such as the earth orbits the sun
simply because it would require the gain or loss of a
tremendous amount of energy to make it travel in any
other orbit or path.
But,why do we seem to be attracted to the earth by
a force of gravity?

-snip-

Putting the rantings of the Foil Hat Brigade under a misleading
subject line is poor nettiquette.

If you wish to be taken seriously (as if . . . ), please post
responsibly, and without deception.

Cheers,
Larry G.

ACE wrote:
Subject: GRAVITY IS NOT A FORCE

PLANETS ORBIT THE SUN TO CONSERVE TOTAL ENERGY
GRAVITATION IS NOT A FORCE BUT AN ILLUSION
Copyright 1984-2005 Allen C. Goodrich


Background;
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gravity.html

The theory of general relativity describes the phenomenon of gravity very differently:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...elativity.html

Planetary Motion
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Kepler.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...Equations.html

Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...VITYMECHA NIC
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...ITYMECHA NIC2
http://www.google.com/search?q=einst...Awww.crank.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...author%3Aretic
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...thor%3Aretiche
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...hor%3Areticher
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...or%3Areticher1
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...uthor%3Awittke

WEARY OF "THEORIES"

There are some posters out there
who feel the need to formulate
their own elaborate theories
about the heavens and their fate.

Now speculation's helpful
in spawning new concepts,
but these poor souls go WAY past that
when they cook up their precepts.

It wouldn't be so bad, you know
if they kept things real low-key,
but they insist on churning out
lengthy works for all to see.

Their knowledge of the sciences
is often minimal at best.
From that weak base, they spin long yarns,
and make themselves a pest.

They often don't have the patience
for learning physics, and the math.
Instead, they concoct "inner" truths
in place of logic, which they lack.

They often use what math they know
to cobble up crank linkings,
or rambling numerology
to back up their false thinking.

They spout out much confusion,
running counter to known laws
of Physics and Astronomy.
They spew forth much with flaws.

They fling their stuff throughout Usenet
to newsgroups well off-topic,
to get attention for themselves
from posts unwanted and myopic.

They get the goat of many
who respond to all their stuff,
and gain desired attention
from those who shout "ENOUGH!"

Some jump on readers who dare to hint
that their ideas lack some truth,
and fire back long derisive flames,
pouring more garbage down the chute.

They mislead the rank beginner
and drive professor-types insane,
and all the while they relish
in their wonderous new-found fame.

They clutter up the newsgroups
with their theories, oh so flawed,
but if you argue with them
you just help them in their cause.

So stick to just the cold hard facts
and do not engage these fools.
As time goes on, they should then fade
and prove that knowledge rules!

D. Knisely

"David Knisely" wrote in message
...
WEARY OF "THEORIES"

There are some posters out there
who feel the need to formulate
their own elaborate theories
about the heavens and their fate.

Now speculation's helpful
in spawning new concepts,
but these poor souls go WAY past that
when they cook up their precepts.



You're drunk..right?

Pretty good David!

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

To reply, remove Delete and change period com to period net
************************************************** ************


"David Knisely" wrote in message
...
WEARY OF "THEORIES"

There are some posters out there
who feel the need to formulate
their own elaborate theories
about the heavens and their fate.

Now speculation's helpful
in spawning new concepts,
but these poor souls go WAY past that
when they cook up their precepts.

It wouldn't be so bad, you know
if they kept things real low-key,
but they insist on churning out
lengthy works for all to see.

Their knowledge of the sciences
is often minimal at best.
From that weak base, they spin long yarns,
and make themselves a pest.

They often don't have the patience
for learning physics, and the math.
Instead, they concoct "inner" truths
in place of logic, which they lack.

They often use what math they know
to cobble up crank linkings,
or rambling numerology
to back up their false thinking.

They spout out much confusion,
running counter to known laws
of Physics and Astronomy.
They spew forth much with flaws.

They fling their stuff throughout Usenet
to newsgroups well off-topic,
to get attention for themselves
from posts unwanted and myopic.

They get the goat of many
who respond to all their stuff,
and gain desired attention
from those who shout "ENOUGH!"

Some jump on readers who dare to hint
that their ideas lack some truth,
and fire back long derisive flames,
pouring more garbage down the chute.

They mislead the rank beginner
and drive professor-types insane,
and all the while they relish
in their wonderous new-found fame.

They clutter up the newsgroups
with their theories, oh so flawed,
but if you argue with them
you just help them in their cause.

So stick to just the cold hard facts
and do not engage these fools.
As time goes on, they should then fade
and prove that knowledge rules!

D. Knisely

In message %UgCe.134149$9A2.74371@edtnps89, Tom
writes

"David Knisely" wrote in message
.. .
WEARY OF "THEORIES"

There are some posters out there
who feel the need to formulate
their own elaborate theories
about the heavens and their fate.

Now speculation's helpful
in spawning new concepts,
but these poor souls go WAY past that
when they cook up their precepts.



You're drunk..right?



Trouble is, he's probably sober. And with far too much time on his hands
:-)
As with Pat Flannery, one can only hope that this creative genius is
usefully employed.
--
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.