The paper 2008ApJS..175..116L comments about the QORG catalog
(2004A&A...427..387F) that it missed the new-found bright QSO SNUQSO
J003236.59-091026.2 because it "could have been in the QORG catalog,
but it appears that the quasar was mismatched to a star with i = 13.8
mag, 6'' away from SNUQSO J003236.59-091026.2.".

In fact the star in question is 13 arcsec away from the QSO. The QORG
catalog used the APM and USNO-A2.0 catalogs as sources of its optical
data. Neither source catalog displayed this QSO; in fact, they both
identified a composite encompassing both the star and the QSO. Given
this source material, QORG correctly associated the NVSS radio
detection to this composite object. So there was no mis-match.

Eric Flesch

The 52"-across gravitational lens candidate which I reported in this
newsgroup has been definitively observed and data reduced. It is not
a lens. CXOMP J041649.0-554702 is a QSO, z~2.5, as previously
reported. CXOMP J041655.0-554721 is a Seyfert 1. They are both
broad-line emitters which accounts for some of the spectral
similarity.

My thanks to all,

Eric

Hi all,
In Bekenstein's review, astro-ph/0701848 he had mentioned that
Zwicky had expressed a doubt on validity of gravity (because of the
need
to account for dark matter) in his 1957 book 'Morphological
Astronomy".
Can someone who has read this bok point me to the exact page/section
where Zwicky expresses his doubt? I don't think this fact is widely
known.
Thanks

Three days ago (4/10) I posted the below article under the same thread
title to sci.astro, but nobody there could give me a decent answer. So
now I am posting it here with hopes for better luck. Perhaps what I
should have said on sci.astro is: Please keep in mind that what I talk
about here appears to be a systematic effect.

I have a problem with understanding the reason of why six of our eight
planets rotate in the same direction as does our solar system (and
Venus and Uranus initially seem to have done the same), but I haven=B4t
found this issue discussed on this forum (*). Laz Marhenke mentioned
it in 1996 in his thread "Solar System questions" but the question
basically got sidestepped in the answer by Chris Carrier. Please
inform me, if I have overlooked any thread on this issue.

Neither have I been able to locate a webpage on which this issue is
explained. On http://www.bu.edu/core/cc105/lectures/L20-SolarSystemFormation=
/L20-solsysformation.html
I found a mere mention of that this is due to the conservation of
angular momentum, and that supposedly the angular momentum (of
the ....?planet seed?) points in the same direction as it does in the
"initial rotating disk".

Hello. I am trying to find a verbose description of what the "nSigma"
parameter in the SDSS actually represents.

According to the Schema Browser page, it is the "Significance of line
number of sigma". Could someone give me a description of what that
actually means?

I'm assuming that an nSigma of 3 means that the error or standard
deviation the SDSS pipeline attaches to each wavelength bin on a
emission line Gaussian is a factor of three less then the detection
itself. Have I got it right or wrong?

Kind Regards,

Matt