h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Your welcome. I'll try to get back to you in the next few hours with comments on at least a couple more constellations. Hope you enjoyed your weekend.

Your-->You're

There's no rush, honest. My internet access is severely curtailed because in the school holidays I mind my grandson for my daughter who works full-time. Between him and my son I don't get a look-in

Weekend was extremely quiet after the previous weekend away (h2g2 meet in Hull)

Thank you Julzes

internet = Internet

Today I have gotten myself very preoccupied with that Zeta Reticuli matter, and I've fleshed it out with more calculations. This explains my not getting anything done on the constellations. It's incredible. I got a 14-digit prime using only the digits 0 through 3, and then I got a 21-digit prime with only the digits 0 through 2. The 33-digit number with only the digits 0 and 1 factors, but it would be asking too much for it not to. It all starts with reading A41078748 as a base-13 number.
I'm going to just read/examine the constellation articles at a pace of 2hrs/day for a good while, I've decided, so I imagine a whole month may pass before everything that may need to be said about them is. You should have something tomorrow morning. I'm going to do extrasolar planet updating with what is on the web tonight, as that is the subject changing most and it should be easy enough to find.
Good night if you get this message.

That didn't work. There don't appear to be any resources that handle the matter of exrasolar planets in a way that can easily be coordinated with your constellation articles. What I'm going to do for now--today and tonight--is go over all of the constellations for any glaring errors. I'll do the best I can to find improvements you should or might make, but it will be hard to do the kind of updating I had hoped. I'll just use the Britannica for starters, and I'll put a little time in each day till I'm satisfied after today. Nothing to add right now.

<>

Julzes I would be eternally grateful if you'd discuss that with Shagbark separately, on a different thread (to this one). It's *his* entry as it's just another as far as I'm concerned. I wish the old PR thread was still available to you, you'd understand better, but I really don't want to get mired into that controversy again

The extrasolar planets, I have a widget on my computer desktop which changes when a new planet is announced. I take the star catalogue number, look it up, then add the relevant details to the constellation in question. So you may not find many I have missed, but I *am* very grateful for you reporting any errors, which I can fix immediately. That goes for ANY edited article, I have the tools



Good morning when you read this

Good Morning. I'm glad you have that resource you speak of. Sorry about bringing up the shagbark article.

It's not a problem, thanks a lot for what you are doing. I appreciate it

Two things for Bootes: 1) The first sentence on extrasolar planets should not read as though the article is not up-to-date, and 2) nineth-->ninth in the next-to-last sentence.

In the article on Chamaeleon, you state that multiple systems are more numerous than solitary stars. Something I read a couple of months ago indicated that that has been reassessed with a finding of many hard-to-see isolated red dwarfs. Sorry, I don't have a reference on this, though.

Post 30

Chamaeleon, I'm not sure that's the only one I mentioned that in.

I'll adjust it, but if you see that info repeated will you let me know?

Thanks Julzes

Just woke up after a long bit of sleep. I'll find that and when I do I'll let you know. The stuff about red dwarfs fits into my theories well, so I'll need it for my book. I'm nearing the mid-way point in the Entries with nothing else that appears to need work catching my attention. Good night if you happen to read this before bed. Good morning otherwise. I'll save what I need to say--if anything--about the Entries until dawn in my time zone.

Touching base. Hootoo was down for quite a while, and I got caught up in my calculations, but it's back to the constellations now. Should only be a little while--by noon my time, then I'll go to sleep (lol).

Yes that was annoying for me too, I actually had time alone and the computer to myself so was writing offline

Can we do a time-check while we're both online?

It's 1.30pm here, UK-time, 5 August.

That confirms that we are five hours different, as I was pretty sure. Sorry, I was reading diligently. I went through everything but Deke's stuff.

Only one misspelling popped out. You'll find it easily in the next-to-last sentence of Camelopardalis.

I did not take note of the specific cases of the use of the word "solar" where I feel "stellar" would be better, because I assume that your usage has been thought through.

In Cancer, are you sure the planet in the sentence above the star table is Jupiter? It seems that Saturn makes the most sense. I'm almost positive.

Dorado is not your article, but Gnomon's, but I'd point out that neutrinos have been known not to be massless after all for about a decade now.

Your article Triangulum has a sentence about 85% of known stars having gravitationally-bound neighbors. That's the closest I came to finding anything that might be wrong relative to my earlier post, and it's probably still right. They would not have found all the red dwarfs that they predict exist based on nearby results.

Shagbark did one thing poorly, and I don't have the constellation offhand. Without naming it, he deals with what is commonly referred to as the Olbers Paradox in a section called "A Stellar Mystery". My Oxford Companion to Cosmology says that the dust thing is basically totally wrong, but the paradox is almost fully resolved in consideration of the finite ages of stars with a small effect also due to cosmic expansion.

Finally, I'll say I liked breezing through the material. The coincidence that you mentioned concerning M61 was new to me--I can add it to my list of things that happened in 1779. I had a good laugh seeing how Sextans was written, too. Well, that's about it. Not much wrong with the articles that I could see.

Hi and good morning



Here is the desktop widget I was telling you about (slowly ploughing through my notes so I can work offline)

http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/widget.cfm

It is not available via the +sign on the actual desktop widget, you get it from the NASA site. It changes when a new discovery is announced/confirmed, so you're one of the first of the general public to get to know. I then feed the HD number into a search engine and find out the info on the star and add it to the appropriate constellation. I doubt I have got them all though, and I don't have time to check

I was wondering what you thought of the constellation project as a whole. (Some were rescues of other people's work, begun and abandoned when , or just moved on to other things). My big mistake was, I think, submitting them when finished to PR - at one time there were mostly constellations in there and people got fed up. A few times I almost gave up but was persuaded to continue, but now it's been finished a goodly while, I am still getting digs about the entries being formulaic and it hurts. Each article I wrote did follow a pattern of layout, but I made sure they were all different. I haven't had feedback like yours and I will always be grateful to you for what you have done.

I did find the typo, thanks It's one of those sticky words which you use a lot then find it either doesn't exist or have been perpetuating until people thought it was right () when Gnomon (I think) pointed out that there was no such word as "habital" I had to go through all the edited ones and find and correct the error - I thought I had got them all It's not a mistake I make now ()

Stellar vs solar: I have always struggled with those definitions, I have had no formal education in astrology or astrobiology, or even any further education. I am self-taught and consider myself an enthusiastic amateur. I am just delighted to find someone appreciates the constellation series as a whole, I took a lot of flack over this and probably wouldn't do it again looking back. Or certainly, do it differently. I am proud of it, now though

Thanks again

GB

Good morning and you're very welcome. You've done a good job on the articles, by my reading at least. In a later incarnation, perhaps all of the common material could be put in a separate article or articles and referred to.
I'm just getting back home after a minor blackout. A tree went down nearby taking out power lines, so my stepfather and I sat in the car in alighted parking lot reading for an hour. Amazingly, everything's normal already.
I'm going back to my calculations now. Let me know if I can help in any way, today or in the future. I won't have a lot of time, but anything I can reasonably do to improve hootoo I will be happy to attempt with what little time I do have.

Thank you very much
I have attended to your comments, but I couldn't verify the Jupiter or Saturn first sighting, so I removed it. I no longer had my notes so no point of reference

I did consider creating entries for repeated stuff, but I got sidetracked.

I prefer to do articles of unique interest now, like A48150830 and A51015962

Currently putting together some collaborate Star Trek entries with my friend h5ringer


So glad your power cut is over and you came to no harm

Have a good day (Shagbark's "Eris" article was just accepted, btw)

GB

Hi, GB. I just thought I'd touch base with you. I hope everything is going well. Shagbark unsubbed a stream we were communicating in when I disagreed with him about God, astrophysicists, and the Olbers Paradox. He's got a serious case of science envy, I'd say, but it's a little hard to tell since he didn't engage intelligently before cutting me off. I have to just guess that he wanted me to believe in a God that created the Universe, and when he found out I didn't he didn't want to discuss things further.

I'm taking exams in the fall, writing a book, and doing mathematical research; but I'll make some time to put together something less controversial than my original stuff for the Guide. Cheers.