<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Hubble spots 67 gravitational lenses</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/19/hubble-spots-67-gravitational-lenses/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/19/hubble-spots-67-gravitational-lenses/</link>
	<description>I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:52:03 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Astronomy Pictures - Images of moon</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/19/hubble-spots-67-gravitational-lenses/comment-page-1/#comment-71444</link>
		<dc:creator>Astronomy Pictures - Images of moon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:18:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/19/hubble-spots-67-gravitational-lenses/#comment-71444</guid>
		<description>[...]  Hubble spots 67 gravitational lenses  By The Bad Astronomer  So this is pretty interesting news, and worth poking over the images. Certainly they are scientifically useful, but images of lensing events are also pretty weird. Looking at them is a reminder that the Universe is a pretty strange &#8230;   - http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]  Hubble spots 67 gravitational lenses  By The Bad Astronomer  So this is pretty interesting news, and worth poking over the images. Certainly they are scientifically useful, but images of lensing events are also pretty weird. Looking at them is a reminder that the Universe is a pretty strange &#8230;   &#8211; <a href="http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog" rel="nofollow">http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Marking</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/19/hubble-spots-67-gravitational-lenses/comment-page-1/#comment-71456</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Marking</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:45:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/19/hubble-spots-67-gravitational-lenses/#comment-71456</guid>
		<description>&quot;Why was the TAU project called off?

Thousand Astronomical Unit - send a powerful hubble - NGST probe to 1000 AU and use the sun as the primary lens in a giant refractor telescope. Yes it would call for blocking the sun’s light carefully. Anyone know more about this?&quot;

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_v131/ai_4722670?lstpn=article_results&amp;lstpc=search&amp;lstpr=external&amp;lstprs=other&amp;lstwid=1&amp;lstwn=search_results&amp;lstwp=body_middle

All I can find on TAU is a very old article from 1987 talking about it.  I don&#039;t know why it never went anywhere.  Maybe it had to do with the very long time to get the spacecraft out to 1,000 AU.  On the other hand it could be doing observations all the way out.  You never hear about anymore so I&#039;m assuming it&#039;s dead as far as NASA is concerned.  I think it was a good idea.  Imagine, increasing our distance precisions to nearby stars by a factor of 500 and getting the first reliable distances to remote objects such as the Orion Nebula.  It would have been good stuff.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Why was the TAU project called off?</p>
<p>Thousand Astronomical Unit &#8211; send a powerful hubble &#8211; NGST probe to 1000 AU and use the sun as the primary lens in a giant refractor telescope. Yes it would call for blocking the sun’s light carefully. Anyone know more about this?&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_v131/ai_4722670?lstpn=article_results&amp;lstpc=search&amp;lstpr=external&amp;lstprs=other&amp;lstwid=1&amp;lstwn=search_results&amp;lstwp=body_middle" rel="nofollow">http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_v131/ai_4722670?lstpn=article_results&amp;lstpc=search&amp;lstpr=external&amp;lstprs=other&amp;lstwid=1&amp;lstwn=search_results&amp;lstwp=body_middle</a></p>
<p>All I can find on TAU is a very old article from 1987 talking about it.  I don&#8217;t know why it never went anywhere.  Maybe it had to do with the very long time to get the spacecraft out to 1,000 AU.  On the other hand it could be doing observations all the way out.  You never hear about anymore so I&#8217;m assuming it&#8217;s dead as far as NASA is concerned.  I think it was a good idea.  Imagine, increasing our distance precisions to nearby stars by a factor of 500 and getting the first reliable distances to remote objects such as the Orion Nebula.  It would have been good stuff.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve P.</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/19/hubble-spots-67-gravitational-lenses/comment-page-1/#comment-71455</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve P.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:11:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/19/hubble-spots-67-gravitational-lenses/#comment-71455</guid>
		<description>Unfortunately it seems the mosaic image (Fig. 2) from your paper isn&#039;t appearing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unfortunately it seems the mosaic image (Fig. 2) from your paper isn&#8217;t appearing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gary Ansorge</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/19/hubble-spots-67-gravitational-lenses/comment-page-1/#comment-71454</link>
		<dc:creator>Gary Ansorge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2008 04:43:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/19/hubble-spots-67-gravitational-lenses/#comment-71454</guid>
		<description>If space near a rotating black whole is stretched, wouldn&#039;t that appear(from the point of view of matter trapped in that distorting space/time) as though the space was expanding, as it appears to us when we look back nine billion years?

Just a (slightly) off topic thought,,,

Gary</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If space near a rotating black whole is stretched, wouldn&#8217;t that appear(from the point of view of matter trapped in that distorting space/time) as though the space was expanding, as it appears to us when we look back nine billion years?</p>
<p>Just a (slightly) off topic thought,,,</p>
<p>Gary</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hale_bopp</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/19/hubble-spots-67-gravitational-lenses/comment-page-1/#comment-71453</link>
		<dc:creator>hale_bopp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:53:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/19/hubble-spots-67-gravitational-lenses/#comment-71453</guid>
		<description>If you have a large telescope, there are at least two gravitational lenses I have seen visually.  Both of them were on the same crystal clear night with a 22&quot; telescope in a freakishly dark location.

There is a twin quasar in Ursa Major at ra 10 01.3 dec+55 54.  You need good seeing for this one.

Even tougher, is Einsteins&#039;s Cross at ra 22 40.5 dec +03 21.  This one is REALLY TOUGH!  We did get it, but only try it with a big scope on an excellent night from a really dark site!

I use it as an example of the wonder of science.  If you don&#039;t know what you are looking at, the reaction is likely to be &quot;Is that it?&quot; if they see it at all.  If you KNOW what you  are looking at, these barely visible smudges at the edge of our vision inspires goose bumps.  I literally was choked up, knowing that the quasar was 8 BILLION LIGHT YEARS AWAY and the light I was seeing was created before the Earth.  When some yahoo tells me that studying science somehow detracts from your appreciation of natural beauty, I just want to smack &#039;em upside the head!

If anyone wants a great list of deep sky objects, I recommend The List put together by a friend of mine in Bradenton.  It contains what he considers the best 400 deep sky objects (including the two gravitational lenses listed here) arranged by ra.  It can be downloaded from the Local Group of Deek Sky Observer&#039;s web site at

http://www.angelfire.com/fl/sapringer/images/List.pdf</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you have a large telescope, there are at least two gravitational lenses I have seen visually.  Both of them were on the same crystal clear night with a 22&#8243; telescope in a freakishly dark location.</p>
<p>There is a twin quasar in Ursa Major at ra 10 01.3 dec+55 54.  You need good seeing for this one.</p>
<p>Even tougher, is Einsteins&#8217;s Cross at ra 22 40.5 dec +03 21.  This one is REALLY TOUGH!  We did get it, but only try it with a big scope on an excellent night from a really dark site!</p>
<p>I use it as an example of the wonder of science.  If you don&#8217;t know what you are looking at, the reaction is likely to be &#8220;Is that it?&#8221; if they see it at all.  If you KNOW what you  are looking at, these barely visible smudges at the edge of our vision inspires goose bumps.  I literally was choked up, knowing that the quasar was 8 BILLION LIGHT YEARS AWAY and the light I was seeing was created before the Earth.  When some yahoo tells me that studying science somehow detracts from your appreciation of natural beauty, I just want to smack &#8216;em upside the head!</p>
<p>If anyone wants a great list of deep sky objects, I recommend The List put together by a friend of mine in Bradenton.  It contains what he considers the best 400 deep sky objects (including the two gravitational lenses listed here) arranged by ra.  It can be downloaded from the Local Group of Deek Sky Observer&#8217;s web site at</p>
<p><a href="http://www.angelfire.com/fl/sapringer/images/List.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.angelfire.com/fl/sapringer/images/List.pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Elwood Herring</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/19/hubble-spots-67-gravitational-lenses/comment-page-1/#comment-71452</link>
		<dc:creator>Elwood Herring</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:21:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/19/hubble-spots-67-gravitational-lenses/#comment-71452</guid>
		<description>By the way, I haven&#039;t watched that video. The comments above are enough to put me off. I don&#039;t want to destroy any brain cells unneccesarily!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By the way, I haven&#8217;t watched that video. The comments above are enough to put me off. I don&#8217;t want to destroy any brain cells unneccesarily!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Elwood Herring</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/19/hubble-spots-67-gravitational-lenses/comment-page-1/#comment-71451</link>
		<dc:creator>Elwood Herring</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:19:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/19/hubble-spots-67-gravitational-lenses/#comment-71451</guid>
		<description>On the subject of Robert Heinlein quotes, try this one:

&quot;The hardest part about gaining any new idea is sweeping out the false idea occupying that niche. As long as that niche is occupied, evidence and proof and logical demonstration get nowhere. But once the niche is emptied of the wrong idea that has been filling it - once you can honestly say, &#039;I don&#039;t know,&#039; then it becomes possible to get at the truth.&quot;

That&#039;s the one thing most fundamentalists can&#039;t seem to say. They always KNOW, don&#039;t they?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On the subject of Robert Heinlein quotes, try this one:</p>
<p>&#8220;The hardest part about gaining any new idea is sweeping out the false idea occupying that niche. As long as that niche is occupied, evidence and proof and logical demonstration get nowhere. But once the niche is emptied of the wrong idea that has been filling it &#8211; once you can honestly say, &#8216;I don&#8217;t know,&#8217; then it becomes possible to get at the truth.&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s the one thing most fundamentalists can&#8217;t seem to say. They always KNOW, don&#8217;t they?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
