Sagittarius Nova

Possible nova in Sagittarius.
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/obser...160551575.html

On Jun 27, 7:46*pm, Ben wrote:
Possible nova in Sagittarius.http://www.skyandtelescope.com/obser...Nova-in-Sagitt...

Not an Iridium satellite?

On Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:18:30 AM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Jun 27, 7:46*pm, Ben wrote:
Possible nova in Sagittarius.http://www.skyandtelescope.com/obser...Nova-in-Sagitt...

Not an Iridium satellite?

Well it seems to be staying in the same place.

On 2012-06-28, Ben wrote:
On Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:18:30 AM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Jun 27, 7:46Â*pm, Ben wrote:
Possible nova in Sagittarius.http://www.skyandtelescope.com/obser...Nova-in-Sagitt...

Not an Iridium satellite?

Well it seems to be staying in the same place.

9th magnitude, too.

Bud

RichA wrote:

On Jun 27, 7:46 pm, Ben wrote:
Possible nova in
Sagittarius.http://www.skyandtelescope.com/obser...Possible-Nova-
in-Sagitt...

Not an Iridium satellite?

That woud be closer to mag. -9 than mag. 9


--
I recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines
to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour

On Friday, June 29, 2012 7:04:07 AM UTC-7, Anders Eklöf wrote:

That woud be closer to mag. -9 than mag. 9

No, definitely not mag -9, read this...

http://www.icq.eps.harvard.edu/MagScale.html

Anders Eklöf:
That woud be closer to mag. -9 than mag. 9

palsing:
No, definitely not mag -9, read this...

Mr. Eklöf didn't say -9 he said closer to -9. But it wouldn't matter if
he had said -300 because he was writing hyperbolically, not literally.

You're not one of those people who, if someone says "It's raining cats
and dogs," looks out the window and says "No it's not! That's just
ordinary water," are you?

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Friday, June 29, 2012 9:56:30 AM UTC-7, Davoud wrote:
Anders Eklöf:
That woud be closer to mag. -9 than mag. 9

palsing:
No, definitely not mag -9, read this...

Mr. Eklöf didn't say -9 he said closer to -9. But it wouldn't matter if
he had said -300 because he was writing hyperbolically, not literally.

You're not one of those people who, if someone says "It's raining cats
and dogs," looks out the window and says "No it's not! That's just
ordinary water," are you?

*********

No, I'm not.

Upon my initial reading, I mis-understood his comment... he was actually talking about the Iridium satellite, which certainly WOULD be closer to mag -9 than to mag 9...

\Paul A

Davoud wrote:

Anders Eklöf:
That woud be closer to mag. -9 than mag. 9

palsing:
No, definitely not mag -9, read this...

Mr. Eklöf didn't say -9 he said closer to -9.

well, is -9 the same as - 9, or - 9 ...
is -9 = -9 ?
or, is -9 = .0000000585657595855658 on you scale of numbnuts? How about accorns?

palsing wrote:

On Friday, June 29, 2012 9:56:30 AM UTC-7, Davoud wrote:
Anders Eklöf:
That woud be closer to mag. -9 than mag. 9

palsing:
No, definitely not mag -9, read this...

Mr. Eklöf didn't say -9 he said closer to -9. But it wouldn't matter if
he had said -300 because he was writing hyperbolically, not literally.

You're not one of those people who, if someone says "It's raining cats
and dogs," looks out the window and says "No it's not! That's just
ordinary water," are you?

*********

No, I'm not.

Upon my initial reading, I mis-understood his comment... he was actually talking about the Iridium satellite, which certainly WOULD be closer to mag -9 than to mag 9...

\Paul A

so have we resolved this impediment in human affairs, not to mention bipolar amateur astronomer-drywallers ?