Comments for New Forest Observatory

Comment on The Hyperstar III by Greg Parker

Greg Parker — Fri, 24 May 2013 12:22:55 +0000

Nope – there’s actually only one way to look at it – and that’s f# which normalises the aperture to the focal length. So the Hyperstar is 5 times faster than the Sky 90 and 9 times faster than the TS 80s (this is for extended objects like nebulae). So taking the mini-WASP as a whole the Hyperstar is something like 2 and a half times faster. BUT the FOV of each MW camera is about twice the Hyperstar so in the end it’s almost break even between the Hyperstar and the mini-WASP array. If I had an extra imaging scope on the mini-WASP (as designed) then the mini-WASP would just edge ahead of the Hyperstar overall. Nothing beats f#

Comment on The Hyperstar III by Tom

Tom — Fri, 24 May 2013 12:04:02 +0000

Lots of ways of looking at it but in terms of aperture the C11 has got something like 9 times the collecting area of a Sky 90….. You don’t have nine Sky90s

Comment on I have this really huge problem with DNA by GPhillip

GPhillip — Tue, 14 May 2013 20:28:13 +0000

I doubt the panspermia hypothesis explains the origin of DNA simply because the Fermi paradox indicates that life in our galaxy is so very rare, it is highly improbable. Note the evidence of the argument given with the argument. Nor do I believe we can look to evolution to explain this mystery. This sort of quote is found in many places in the literature, “The chief defect of the Darwinian theory is that it throws no light on the origin of the primitive organism—probably a simple cell—from which all the others have descended. When Darwin assumes a special creative act for this first species, he is not consistent, and, I think, not quite sincere…» wrote Haeckel in 1862 in a footnote in his monograph on the radiolaria (Haeckel 1862)”. The best explanation is that there may be millions of planets with conditions just right for life to form, and out of those millions, a very few, perhaps only one got it just right. This is simply a version of the weak anthropic principle, which is already widely accepted in cosmology. So, if you have millions of planets, with billions of hurricanes blowing through junk yards for hundreds of millions of years, yes, perhaps some form of a primitive clock comes together in one of them somewhere. As far as we have been able to discover, it never happened again, here or anywhere else. A rare event to be sure, but not impossible, obviously, since it had to happen somewhere to allow for our existence.

Comment on I have this really huge problem with DNA by Greg Parker

Greg Parker — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:07:25 +0000

That is of course true – but if life out there is more common than my original reckoning – we can but hope that at least one civilisation makes it into old age

Comment on I have this really huge problem with DNA by Tom

Tom — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:26:20 +0000

Now where is your evidence that life on other planets isn’t as greedy and stupid as us?

Comment on I have this really huge problem with DNA by Greg Parker

Greg Parker — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:16:58 +0000

Ahh – that’s what you meant Now that IS a very good point. YES – and it now gives me hope that even if we carry our greed and stupidity through to extinguishing all forms of life on THIS planet, we won’t actually be extinguishing the only centre of Life in the whole Universe. Yes – that is truly GREAT news!!!!

Comment on I have this really huge problem with DNA by Tom

Tom — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:10:25 +0000

Yes, it does say it could have been DNA from the start – but if that chap can brew it up in his lab, what does that say for the chances of it occurring elsewhere in our galaxy?

Comment on I have this really huge problem with DNA by Greg Parker

Greg Parker — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:04:12 +0000

Don’t think so – doesn’t the article say that it could have been DNA from the start, no precursors?? Interestingly Jack Szostak is one of the experts I spoke to at Stamus. The RNA/DNA chicken and egg question has been around for years, again there’s no scientific proof regarding one or the other. Common-sense says that the RNA came first, but we know how good common-sense is when it comes to things like Quantum Mechanics (and possibly complex Organic Chemistry).

Comment on I have this really huge problem with DNA by Tom

Tom — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:48:41 +0000

Maybe we’re both wrong

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528795.500-dna-could-have-existed-long-before-life-itself.html

Life started with DNA _and_ you can brew it up in the lab yourself…

Comment on I have this really huge problem with DNA by Greg Parker

Greg Parker — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:04:22 +0000

Your last sentence is at least correct. We can speculate about many things, telekinesis, astrology, spoon-bending – speculation without at least SOME/ANY evidence of what you are speculating just ain’t worth much.