British Astronomical Association
Supporting amateur astronomers since 1890

Secondary menu

Main menu

Home Forums Website News and Help
Terms of use

9,000th member image uploaded

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
Dominic Ford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 10/01/2013 - 12:42
9,000th member image uploaded

Earlier today, the tally of member observations uploaded to community area of the BAA website passed the 9,000 mark - an impressive tally.

In 2020 alone, we've received over 3,000 images from 194 observers. You can see a full histogram of uploads over time here: https://britastro.org/observations/histogram.php

Keep up the good work, everyone. At this rate, it won't be long before we receive our 10,000th image!

alanbthomas's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 17 hours ago
Joined: 17/01/2019 - 11:49
member images

Thanks for this, Dominic.

Interesting to play around with the histograms and to see the overall growth of imaging in the last few years - a reflection of a more general trend?

Alan

mikemarotta's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 04/12/2020 - 23:14
Patting Ourselves on the Back, Perhaps, but Still...

Very good news. Thanks to all.

Anding's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/03/2014 - 04:09
An unusual anniversary!

An unusual anniversary!

Xilman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 12 min ago
Joined: 24/03/2018 - 15:17
(No subject)

Grant Privett's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 21 min ago
Joined: 28/12/2014 - 18:30
Que?

Nope. Don't understand yer banter, old boy!

:)

Xilman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 12 min ago
Joined: 24/03/2018 - 15:17
Banter.

(incidentally, I tried to type it in directly using UTF-8 characters but the web server threw a wobbly.)

The original to which I responded contained three characters, each of which were a sexadecimal digit. It read 2-30-2. For some reason I do not presently understand, two different representations of '2' were used. Converting to decimal, 2*60*60 + 30 * 60 +2 = 9002, the number of images uploaded at the time of posting.

My response was in Sumerian because I barely know Akkadian and so didn't try to push my luck.

The first character is niĝ which means "thing". The second is "maḥ" which translates as "magnificent" or "great". In Sumerian the adjective follows the noun. So, a colloquial translation would be "great work!" or perhaps just "great!".

The final characters form my signature in syllabic characters. PA UL LE LA AN. The terminal 'D' is omitted because Sumerian doesn't have consonantal clusters and a scribe (DUB SAR) would not have transliterated it. It is moderately conventional to add DUB SAR (i.e. "written by") to a text one has written but I decided not to on this occasion.

Here endeth the first lesson.

Definitely time I started learning Akkadian properly because almost all Babylonian astronomical texts are in that language.

Lars Lindhard's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 25 min ago
Joined: 26/07/2014 - 14:22
Banter

Don't worry. Both languages will be in google translate in a few months time:-)

Anding's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/03/2014 - 04:09
Xilman shows me up in my

Xilman shows me up in my ignorance.  Seeing 9,000 and with two minutes of lunchtime remaining, I was curious if 9000 was a round number in - for example - base 60.  Unable to do that in my head I lazily googled for a converter and found this one 

https://www.dcode.fr/babylonian-numbers

Enter, 9000 in the middle box and hit 'convirtir'

Had I my wits about me I would have gone straight to Wolfram Alpha

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=9000+to+base+60

Anyway you learn something new every day.

Xilman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 12 min ago
Joined: 24/03/2018 - 15:17
Superfluous 2

Ah, that may explain the final "2" character. It is presumably there to avoid confusion for modern readers.

An ancient writer would have written 9000 as 2-30 (i.e. 2*60+30 = 150) with the final multiplication by 60 being implied. Their mathematicians did have a character for zero but it was only ever used in intermediate positions and never to set the scale. So 9000, 150, 5/2 and 1/24 would all be written 2-30.

(Added in edit)

Incidentally, those of us old enough to know how to use a guessing stick ("slipstick" on the other side of the pond) rarely had any problem with a lack of leading or trailing zeros. The Mesopotamian scribes very occasionally got it wrong, but I doubt that they did so more often than we did.