Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Posted by Callum Potter at 20:52 on 2011 Feb 08
No problem Tony – just had a very busy 2011 so far… one day things might settle down a little !Cheers, Callum
Posted by TonyAngel at 16:34 on 2011 Feb 08
Sorry Callum. I had not realised that you were looking after the galleries. If I had, I would have sent you a private message. You do a hell of a job on here. Next time I will put my foot in my mouth instead of typing!
Posted by Gary Poyner at 14:47 on 2011 Feb 08
Thanks Callum. Narrows it down a bit.Just out of interest, this will be my 33rd Winchester. I know John Wall, Roger Pickard and Dick Chambers all have a long Winchester history. Anyone else out there with a few weekends under their belt?Gary
Posted by Callum Potter at 14:38 on 2011 Feb 08
Sounds like it will be really well organised – will have to see how much hols I have left after the summer (and Kelling…)I shall pop it into the BAA ‘other events’ calendar.Thanks, Callum
Posted by Callum Potter at 14:36 on 2011 Feb 08
Hi Tony,i do have a further bundle of eclipse photos to upload, yours amongst them – I hope to get them done this week, but running the BAA website is almost a full-time job, and then I have my day job to do to…Clear skies, Callum
Posted by Callum Potter at 14:33 on 2011 Feb 08
Hi Gary,the 2006 Winchester Weekend was billed as the 40th – so that would make 1966 this first – assuming there was one held every year.Been thinking about how to provide searchable journals, but no easy technical solution so far :-(Cheers, Callum
Posted by Andrea Tasselli at 12:48 on 2011 Feb 08
As far as I’m aware they are quite flat although that isn’t exactly correct speaking of weather systems.Andrea T.
Posted by Marlyn Smith at 09:54 on 2011 Feb 08
That’s been an amusing read guys. I’m sorry I missed the programme!
Posted by Gary Poyner at 14:33 on 2011 Feb 06
That reply will be most interesting to read. I’m looking forward to it. Well done!Perhaps you should have asked the BBC to let Shaun the Sheep present the next one. Much more entertaining and probably more factually accurate.Gary
Posted by Steve Holmes2 at 13:15 on 2011 Feb 06
Readers of this thread might like to know that I finally decided to send an official complaint about this programme to the BBC. The full text is a bit long to include here but made the points that the programme was more likely to mislead than inform; that some of the errors were distinctly "schoolboy" so should have been noticed if the presenter knew her stuff; that programmes of this low quality reflect badly on all science teaching, and that much more cross-checking should have been going on to catch the errors before transmission.I don’t expect a speedy reply, but I will update this thread when one arrives.
Posted by Paul A Brierley at 09:10 on 2011 Feb 05
This website might be off some help to you.http://www.swashastro.co.uk/frontpage.htmlThe gentleman owns and uses an EQ6Pro with an 8" Newtonian, with excellent results.
Posted by Paul A Brierley at 09:02 on 2011 Feb 05
Tom,I can testify to the accuracy of the EQ6Pro mount. I am a member of the UKAI imaging forum. On this forum. There are a large number of members who are using this mount, with excellent results. And most, if not all are using medium or large telescope’s.I know off. One member who lives (emigrated)in Brisbane. He’s using one of these mount’s, with an Orion Optics SPX 14". But there are other’s in Grt Britain who us smaller (8") telescope’s all for CCD imaging.My advice to you. Join UP! and ask these questions on there. I am sure you will get the answer’s that you need. Below is a link to said website.http://ukastroimaging.co.uk/forums/index.phpGood luck.
Posted by Steve Holmes2 at 15:41 on 2011 Feb 04
Yes – worrying, isn’t it? One contributor to the BBC messageboard said, quite rightly, that people would have thought they were being informed whereas they were actually being (seriously) misinformed. There were also several comments that her style was more appropriate to CBBC than BBC2! I did see the comment about replacing Sir Patrick – it did have a couple of "smileys" after it though, so perhaps the contributor was just engaging in irony!Incidentally, her MBE was for services to science and education – the "popularisation of" [some sort of] science, we must assume, rather than the dissemination of scientifically accurate facts!
Posted by TonyAngel at 14:51 on 2011 Feb 04
I had a quick look through a number of forums and found it worrying where quite a few made comments like:I have learnt a lot about the moonandDr Maggie Aderin-Pocock is a fantastic presenter and will make a good replacement for Patrick when he retires!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I see that her Phd is in mechanical engineering (not that there is anything wrong in that) and she has an MBE (I can think of lots of scientists who deserve one and still waiting)
Posted by Tom Moran at 13:51 on 2011 Feb 04
Andrea.I feel a second hand EQ 6 would present more issues; constant fast slewing will cause problems with the fairly lightweight motors. I wish I could afford something more substantial, and I know the arguments of false economy, but money being tight it is the best compromise I can manage. I certainly should expect improvement over the LXD75 which has been horrendous.Thanks for the solid advice though.Tom
Posted by Steve Holmes2 at 12:23 on 2011 Feb 04
Even if it had no immediate effect, at least an "official" protest of the sort suggested would show that the adverse comments this programme is attracting were not just down to the lunatic fringe (pun not intended!). Mind you, if the BBC programme makers monitor their own message-boards they can hardly fail to be aware that "DWRNTM" was not one of their most successful offerings! The reverse-orbiting moon was picked up pretty quickly by Joe Public, as was the fact that it’s actually the rotation of the earth under the "water bulge" that causes the tides, not the bulge being dragged over the earth’s surface by the moon’s orbital movement. (as already noted by J M Aucken)Given the desirability of an official approach, what should be the next step? Is the Council of the BAA willing to take a lead?
Posted by TonyAngel at 10:00 on 2011 Feb 04
I watched it as well. It gripped me so strongly that I had to see it to the end because I realised that I must have been reading all the wrong books and gone to the wrong lectures. I feel the need to write to the BBC to tell them to ask for a Parliamentary Bill for the BBC to take over all Science institutes in the UK so that these so learned bodies can be brought into line. I cannot wait for the next in the series.On a more serious note ,perhaps the BAA along with the RAS an the SPA could write a joint open letter to the BBC via either the Guardian or the Independent, (the only papers the BBC recognise), on this subject.
Posted by at 15:43 on 2011 Feb 03
I missed the broadcast and recorded it for later. Reading the posts in this thread made me go and watch my recording. I was as horrified as all the other contributors. Even the ‘graphic’ showed the moon orbiting the wrong way. And was/is RNA really made in tidal pools?? I never knew it was so simple! Even without the prompting from the posts, I wondered why earth should ‘fall over’ when it has slowed enough. And she didn’t even consider the complete absence of the moon. I was half hoping she’d say the tides would disappear!! But she never got that far. She did say that it was the moon’s rotation around the earth that dragged the tides around. No mention of the earth rotating under the tidal bulge. I had intended to keep the recording for my grandchildren to watch – but not now. I’ve deleted it. If she wrote the script…………Even if she didn’t write it, didn’t she read it before presenting it? Doesn’t the BBC have any knowledgable advisors? She was listed in the programme blurb as having a doctorate. I wonder what in.
