Starship Asterisk*

Watson: How do you know so much, Holmes?

Homes: Elementary, my dear Watson. I google.

Ann



P.S. Right you are about inflation, Beyond. So... why not google it?

Ann, i can't google. My IE10 won't let me. After i upgraded from IE9, i can't get anything else to work but Bing. They are always listed as unavailable, even if i set them as the default browser.
Anyway, i don't have to, as Rob explained it nicely, which as I've said, has already disappeared because of the Sherlock Holmes effect that neufer posted elsewhere, that I've already forgotten where, and it wouldn't do me any good anyway, because the view-topic thingy doesn't work for me, even if i copy someone else's and try to post it. So i don't bother with it.

I hate it when I can't google! My computer at school insists on giving me Bing all the time. I can't stand it!

Ann

It is quite simple to install Firefox as your browser, and simply do away with MicroStuff as much as possible. No need to use IE at all. (Or Windows, for that matter. But that rant is for another forum.)

Rob

rstevenson wrote:It is quite simple to install Firefox as your browser, and simply do away with MicroStuff as much as possible. No need to use IE at all. (Or Windows, for that matter. But that rant is for another forum.)

Rob

Rob, you're in the OPEN SPACE FORUM. Off topic ranting is encouraged Rant away
I tried Firefox once. Didn't care for it. I forget why.
I had no trouble using Google with IE9. When i went to IE10, it only makes Bing available, no matter what you do. But i don't mind, as it gives a few million less results for the searches.
But there are a few times when Bing, for some reason, doesn't pick up something that Google does.

You could just bookmark the google url: http://www.google.com/.

BTW: I don't think IE10 is the problem. I have IE10 (though I don't use it) and google is my default search engine. You probably have the bing desktop search installed. It comes in the automatic updates from MS. I uninstalled it and disabled the update.

bystander wrote:You could just bookmark the google url: http://www.google.com/.

BTW: I don't think IE10 is the problem. I have IE10 (though I don't use it) and google is my default search engine. You probably have the bing desktop search installed. It comes in the automatic updates from MS. I uninstalled it and disabled the update.

Ah... Thanks. Somehow that slipped my mind.(probably the Holmes effect again) But i don't really use search much anyway. Or most of the computer, when you get right down to it.

rstevenson wrote:It is quite simple to install Firefox as your browser, and simply do away with MicroStuff as much as possible. No need to use IE at all. (Or Windows, for that matter. But that rant is for another forum.)

Rob

I'm rather belatedly joining in on this rant. Paul and I, on separate computers, have found that IE is so buggy anda nuisance that we've dumped it. I usually access the internet, like now, with my Paranoid Android, using a mixture of browsers - Dolphin, Chrome and - for Flash - Photon. On my elderly windows PC I use Chrome and on my even older Linux-Ubuntu machine I use Firefox. Every single one works better than IE!

I'm working my way up to buying a new computer (yes, another - I always keep the old ones!), and am gathering info. I'm salivating at the iMac - just because it is soooo beautiful - and am seriously considering it as a birthday present to myself.

Has anyone got an iMac? Is it all looks?

Yes - I know this is a quiz thread, but like Beyond said, going off topic is encouraged in this bit of the forum!
Margarita (who has indeed been whizzing here and there - including seeing Saturn for the first time.)

Friends who got iMac and iphone are happy with it, they use it for college.
I dont want to depend on iMac and buy everything extra from apple.

I never had problems with IE, I use IE and Firefox on my laptop, there was never a problem having both on my laptop.
Prior to my laptop I use now (Packard Bell), I had a very old laptop (HP) I got it second hand and weighed maybe a ton , last time I used it, it run extremely slow
only starting took 20 minutes, and shut off by itself though it didnt get hot. I used it over 6 years intensively.
Since I dont use it, I opened it because I wanted to know how it is build inside, taking it piece by piece apart, then I even succeed building it back , but I wouldnt try
use it again, wouldnt be safe I think


Here is my quiz:

If that's a clue to where you are, then you must be in the past somewhere, hiding in an old powdered wig.

Btw, If you don't have any parts left over from putting your 'Bell' back together, give it a try. Who knows, it may now start up in only ten minutes.

Beyond, I dont want to be electrocuted

Next clue:

Hmm... so far, it adds up to you're being in a thunderstorm, holding an old computer while wearing a powdered wig. You sure must be a sight to behold.

Brandenburg Concerto No. 2 in F major, BWV 1047, huh?

Okay. This beloved concerto was composed by Johann Sebastian Bach. It looks like him in the picture in the video. There are six Brandenburg Concertos, and as to where and when they were composed, wikipedia says:

Bach's dedication to the Margrave was dated 24 March 1721. Most likely, Bach composed the concertos over several years while Kapellmeister at Köthen, and possibly extending back to his employment at Weimar (1708–17).

So the time is the early 18th century, and the location - at least when it comes to the act of composing this music - was either Köthen, which I've never heard of, or Weimar, which I have. A number of extremely famous people have lived in Weimar, such as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Nietzsche and Franz Liszt. Perhaps also Friedrich von Schiller? But what do these people have to do with astronomy?

I looked up Köthen instead. I found that there are very old remnants of human habitation in the Köthen region, dating back to the early Stone Age 250,000 years ago. There is a university in Köthen and a fine castle. It doesn't seem to help.

Moonlady, I need more clues!

Ann

Beyond wrote:Hmm... so far, it adds up to you're being in a thunderstorm, holding an old computer while wearing a powdered wig. You sure must be a sight to behold.

Beyond,

Ann, Bach is correct, and it's about this piece of him, which makes it astronomical interesting.

The next clue: World offers many beautiful songs, like this one:

Oh! Oh! Oh! I think perhaps I know!

There were at least two and maybe three pieces by Bach on that "golden record" that was sent into space on board - was it Voyager 1 or 2 or was it Pioneer?

There was whale song on that record, too!

Ann

Okay. I just looked it up. There was a golden record on each Voyager spacecraft, which were launched in 1977. So... where are they now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_program wrote:
As of April 2013, Voyager 1 is the farthest manmade object that has ever been sent from the Earth. On 15 June 2012, scientists at NASA reported that Voyager 1 might be very close to entering interstellar space and becoming the first manmade object to leave the Solar System.

IF you're right Ann, I'll bet the next clue would have been about the Star Trek movie in which they took two whales from the past, on a voyage into the future, to stop the destruction of the earth, by singing their song.

A bit more info here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Go ... rd#Journey wrote:
Voyager 1 was launched in 1977, passed the orbit of Pluto in 1990, and left the solar system (in the sense of passing the termination shock) in November 2004. It is now in the Kuiper Belt. In about 40,000 years, it and Voyager 2 will each come to within about 1.8 light-years of two separate stars: Voyager 1 will have approached star Gliese 445, located in the constellation Ophiuchus; and Voyager 2 will have approached star Ross 248, located in the constellation of Andromeda.

In March 2012, Voyager 1 was over 17.9 billion km from the Sun and traveling at a speed of 3.6 AU per year (approximately 61,000 km/h (38,000 mph)), while Voyager 2 was over 14.7 billion km away and moving at about 3.3 AU per year (approximately 56,000 km/h (35,000 mph)).[6]

So Voyager 1, along with its golden record, is now in the Kuiper Belt, 17.9 billion kilometers from the Sun. Voyager 2 is 14.7 billion kilometers from the Sun.

Ann

Beyond wrote:IF you're right Ann, I'll bet the next clue would have been about the Star Trek movie in which they took two whales from the past, on a voyage into the future, to stop the destruction of the earth, by singing their song.

V'ger acting up!

But...

Anyway, assuming I got it right, that was a very good one, Moonlady!!

Ann

Nope. Wrong movie.

Ann, that is correct!

Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 :

Voyager 1 was launched in 1977, passed the orbit of Pluto in 1990, and left the solar system (in the sense of passing the termination shock) in November 2004. It is now in the Kuiper Belt. In about 40,000 years, it and Voyager 2 will each come to within about 1.8 light-years of two separate stars: Voyager 1 will have approached star Gliese 445, located in the constellation Ophiuchus; and Voyager 2 will have approached star Ross 248, located in the constellation of Andromeda.

Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 have both a Golden Record which contain :


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contents_o ... den_Record

and the message from Jimmy Carter:

“This is a present from a small, distant world, a token of our sounds, our science, our images, our music, our thoughts and our feelings. We are attempting to survive our time so we may live into yours.”

Last but not least:

Out of the eleven equipment carried on Voyager 1, five of them still work, and continue to send back data today. NASA plans to shut down the voyager spacecraft completely in 2025. After that, it will continue on its course in the direction of the constellation Camelopardalis for an eternity.

So it's my turn, I guess. Let's see if I can get anybody to bite on this!





We are not a horse with wings...










...we are, sort of, parts of a camel that is really a giraffe!

Like the horse with wings, you find the camel that's a giraffe in the sky.

Let's worry about the parts of it later!

Ann

You dont ask about Camelopardalis?

First attested in English in 1785, the word camelopardalis comes from Latin,[2] and it is the romanisation of the Greek "καμηλοπάρδαλις" meaning "giraffe",[3] from "κάμηλος" (kamēlos), "camel"[4] + "πάρδαλις" (pardalis), "leopard",[5] due to its having a long neck like a camel and spots like a leopard.

Is there another giraffe in the sky?

Oh yes, I mean Camelopardalis, Moonlady! Isn't that a lovely name for a giraffe?
Of course, I'm asking for a specific part of Camelopardalis. Or rather, two parts of it. Let me say... these parts are both blue!

I've got to say that the giraffe has to bend down rather low to have his eyes where they are. Goodness me, how can he bend down that low, with only six cervical vertebrae?

Ann

Well, the obvious first port of call is Jim Kaler!

Alpha Cam, a rare blue-white class O (O9.5) bright supergiant (as found from its spectrum alone), is seemingly faint mostly because it is far away, but also because it is dimmed by nearly a full magnitude by intervening interstellar dust. Indeed, the star is SO far away that we have no actual distance measure of it.

Beta Cam is no good, as it is classification G0 - not remotely blue! (Ann, that is the nearest colour match I can find for the yellow-white that Kaler says is the colour for a G0 star!)

But, Dr Kaler to the rescue!

Lying just over a minute of arc away (from Beta Cam ) is a companion that is itself double, about which nothing is known except that the brighter is class A, the dimmer probably F.

Wikipedia lists at least three trillion other stars (slight exaggeration...) in Camelopardalis - but Jim Kaler only writes of the alpha and beta stars in Camelopardalis, so I'll put my money on these!

The actual Alpha Cam plus the A companion star to Beta Cam.
Margarita

Alpha Cam is good, Margarita! Actually, it was the first star I thought of. In fact, Alpha Cam is one of my favorite stars - so hot, so blue, so bright, so far away! Wowsers!

But I decided I would pick two other stars instead. Both are blue, and they are really photogenic together, because... because! I think you'll agree with me when I show you my favorite picture of them. Alpha Cam can never look so good. (Okay, so what makes stars look good? Hint, hint - Pleiades? Hmmmmm?)

Ann