[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) Astronomy vs. TV
Hi Jonathan,
> Has anyone checked my new radiant? It may be too late!
can't you imagine why nobody has 'checked' your possiple 'radiant'?
<FLAME ON> Well, simply because this was one more of your mostly stupid
postings, which most of us probably ignore anyway. <FLAME OFF>
Sorry for beeing so direct here, but if you do not arrive at the answer
yourself, maybe somebody should give you that hint.
You observed 2 (in words: *two*) meteors and claim this might have been a
new radiant (after you claimed to have found a new comet and to have
witnessed a -15 mag fireball). Just imagine two *arbitrary* meteors. If
they are not exactly parallel, their backward prolongations will intersect
at some point, anyway. That is, every pair of meteors you see will have a
point of intersection somewhere in the sky. But that is not what we call a
radiant! If we forget the length and velocity of meteors for a moment, we
could have n/2*(n-1) 'radiants' from n meteors after your classification.
What a shame that I did not plot during the Perseid maximum. On August
12/13, 1997, I saw about 260 meteors. Among those were 30 sporadics,
which would have given me exactly 435 (in words: *fourhundredthirtyfive*)
new radiants and a place in the 'Guiness Book of Records'. Funny enough, I
would have detected more 'radiants' than meteors.
Do you get the point? So *please* think first and mail afterwards, not
vice versa. This is a mailing list with about 200 subscribers all over the
world. You don't make them happy with this kind of postings.
Sirko (quite angry this morning)
**************************************************************************
* Sirko Molau * __ *
* Verbindungsweg 7 * " 2B v 2B " *
* D-15366 Hoenow * *
* molau@informatik.rwth-aachendot de * Shakespeare *
* http://www.snafudot de/~smo * *
**************************************************************************
References: