User talk:Dr. Submillimeter/Archive Sep 2006

New Caldwell catalogue

Hi George, I've loaded up a new version of the Caldwell catalogue, I would appretiate your comments. Can you think of anyone else, or any other forum who might review my work. -- Jim Cornmell 17:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. A new version is online, let me know your opinion. Also I keep on pestering you, is there a more generic area I should pester about these kind of stuff? Or should I just get on with it and leave it for whomever to speak up? -- Jim Cornmell 15:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know any planetary scientist?

Hi George, I been looking to email some planetary scientist to see if my classification for planet is descent to warrent a paper and presentation? Thanks, CarpD (^_^) 9/02/06

Give me a few days to look up an old friend or two. GeorgeJBendo 07:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, CarpD (^_^) 9/02/06

Anything on the Planetary Scientist? Thanks, CarpD 9/13/06

After thinking about who to contact, I emailed Chad Trujillo. I will see what he says. GeorgeJBendo 20:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Chad said that only the IAU has the ability to classify planets. You should probably communicate with the IAU. GeorgeJBendo 09:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be a lost cause then. The IAU is pretty closed when it comes to the Planets. Too bad for that. I was hoping that this would help them transition to all objects that were below brown dwarfs. Unless you know someone or somehow to contact the IAU, I don't think they are going to listem to me. I asked them before and they only responded once with lack of interest. I guess, the only other route is to submit a paper? What do you think? Thanks, CarpD 9/14/06

I honestly agree with the IAU's decision myself. I think too many people get caught up in semantics issues too much and do not understand the importance of trying to understand how everything works. Whether or not Pluto or Jupiter is technically called a "planet" does not matter that much. What is important is understanding that Jupiter has a substantial amount of hydrogen and that it radiates more radiation than it received from the Sun but that it does not contain enough mass to trigger nuclear fusion. What is important is understanding that Pluto's chemical composition and orbit make it more similar to the Kuiper Belt than to either the Jovian planets or the terrestrial planets. Does this make sense? GeorgeJBendo 17:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don’t necessarily disagree with the demotion of Pluto. I do not believe that composition of the surrounding bodies should be a factor. But, the situation does support Pluto's demotion. My classification is more complex than the IAU's. But we all know that there are more than just Jovian (giant), Terrestrial, and Minor Planets (so called). I made the list. Reasoning is like electron degeneration, run away gas accretion, tenuous atmosphere, etc. are my reasoning for the segregation of the groups. If anything, (at least from my amateur-ish knowledge), mine supports the IAU reasoning and is robust enough to include ExoPlanets and even some Planets in the Science Fiction relm. I also made it similar to the spectral classification, ie. I (hypergiant, overlay of objects that can be either brown dwarfs or planets), II (supergiant, electron degeneration), III (giant, metallic hydrogen - Jupiter), IV (subgiant, Uranus), V (dwarf, earth size), VI (subdwarf, mars size), etc. I also have subscriptors, (ie. r = ring system, t = venting atmosphere (tail), etc.), composition, (ie. A = metal-rich, B = metal-poor icy, C = metal-poor gas). Thanks, CarpD 9/14/06

Halton Arp

Here are some references to creationist organizations who laud Halton Arp's work with redshifts and QSOs:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Though some Arp supporters may balk, these articles clearly show that the creationists have picked up on Arp's innuendo and use it to advocate "cosmology is wrong" positions to make their young Earth creationism seem more reasonable.

Arpians are aware of this:

apologies for this being an internet forum

Here is a blogger who reports on a creationist cosmology conference that apparently mentioned Arp:

[8]

Hope this helps.

--ScienceApologist 16:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 2812 and Theta Pictoris

I see that you have created pages on NGC 2812 and Theta Pictoris. Out of curiosity, why did you create these pages? As a professional astronomer, I have a difficult time finding even basic references on NGC 2812. I also do not understand what is special about Theta Pictoris. Are these objects somehow important in a way that I do not understand? Also, would you like information on formatting the pages? GeorgeJBendo 18:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Both were mentioned, in a roundabout way, in Star Trek -- CaptainMike 17:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do, in fact, understand the difference between stars and galaxies. While I have not created many of the deeply scientific articles on Wikipedia, i have worked on many star and galaxy articles on the Star Trek wiki. I left those two articles as stubs with the hopes of improving them by formatting the data, unfortunately translating scientific info from Esperanto was a little difficult and i stopped work for the moment. If you wanted to help improve the articles, that would also be great, but i'll look into the other articles of that sort for format hints also.

NGC 2812 was shown as a reference point on a star map created as a piece of background artwork, in Star Trek: Insurrection. Theta Pictoris was listed as the home-system of the Catullans in a book called Worlds of the Federation. -- CaptainMike 04:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response on NGC reorganization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marasama#Revision_of_list_of_NGC_objects Thanks, CarpD 9/13/06

Updated on the response. CarpD 9/13/06 2nd

Updated on the response. CarpD 9/15/06 3rd

Thanks for the time we had. User_talk:Marasama#Revision_of_list_of_NGC_objects_2nd, thanks, CarpD, 9/16/06

Hi George (CarpD)

This is CarpD. No I'm not mad at you, I think I just needed some time away, possibly stress of other things and work. Anyhow, I don't think I'll be joining the WikiProject Astronomical objects any time soon. Anyhow, I'm still writing a sci-fi story/game and still will benefit from the NGC listing of nebulae. So, for now, I'll just create the table. The data will be what is listed there, (for now). So, most likely it will only consist of NGC#, Common Name, and Object type. Which brings the question of, what do with the Seyfet or Radio galaxies? Should that group be something else?

As for the RA and Dec & Apparent Magnitude may come later. But that is something that I will not pursue heavily.

Also, if I'm reading wikipedia correctly. Nebulae are dense regions of space. While a Molecular Cloud is a type of Nebula. Is this correct?

Thanks, CarpD (^_^)

Yeah, that helped out. Thanks, CarpD (^_^)

Double vote on Antichthon/Counter-Earth merge vote

It's actually supposed to be one vote (the top Oppose), the two subpoints are the reasons I oppose it. I've made it clearer. 132.205.45.206 01:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page located at: User talk:132.205.44.134. 132.205.45.206 01:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]