OT heartbreak

"Steve Paul" wrote in message
...

"lou feeders"

"Steve Paul"
I'm done..

Agreed. BTW, do you still have your C9.25?

Not for a couple of years. I divested.

I've got a lowly 6" F5 reflector on an altazimuth tripod mount, a small
66mm
ED refractor, a couple of Ultima eyepieces that I've had since the
beginning
of my journey into the night, and my memories of glory with a 12" aperture
Dob. I'm content for the time being.

I thought you had a Dob, but couldn't find reference to it on your site.
Too much light pollution? That's why I got rid of mine. I tried various
nebular filters but they didn't help much. Of course, that's when they
first came out. I always wanted to see the Horsehead visually, but never
did. And I had the Coulter 17" Dob at the time. It actually had a pretty
good mirror. Now I don't have much either- a pair of 20x60 binocs and an
older ETX-90, but I miss the star hopping days with SA2000, which I
laminated myself before the deluxe version came out, and the Dob. Saw lots
of DSOs for sure. lou

Later,
Steve

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message

Okay, you got me! Now I know that you've been pulling my leg all through
the discussion, and I fell for it.

Don't feel bad. I was being somewhat serious, but I am really tired of this
subject. How has observing been going in CO and what's the faintest
magnitude of star that the all sky camera can detect? I've been fascinated
by those for a while and have been pondering installing one myself, but I
fear that either kids or animals would wreck it. lou

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:47:46 -0400, "lou feeders"
wrote:

I think of it as circumstances, experiences and science related, yes.
There
are simple things that cannot be explained about the atom- as well as
space-
that cannot have any other explanation.

Utter nonsense. What cannot be explained naturally- either about the
atom or space? Just because there are things we have not yet figured out
does not mean that we must rely on supernatural explanations. That was
the mindset of the Dark Ages!
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

I'm curious Have you read or even heard of "Just Six Numbers"

while I agree with what you seem to be saying in one respect ie the God of
human religions is obsurd enough to be seen as a purely human construct and
therefore just that ...a human construct ...mostly used to garner treasure
and power (through the ages) However I don't share your confidence that
everything can or will be explained by science (at least in my lifetime).
For example the conditions of the big bang and the balance of constants that
ultimately led to everything we see today are absurdly unlikely and are
either the product of intelligent design or this universe is but one of an
infinate variety of universes (the multiverse) I find it difficult to
imagine the latter. and without a falsifiable theory for either which ever
one you believe in it is just that ...a belief ....and frankly I have had
several experiences in my life that could only be explained as ubsurdly
unlikely coincidences or intervention by a "guardian angel"
so where does that leave me?
I "choose" to believe in what I call the God of the master stroke and accept
modern religions as being loosly based on the "truth" as modified by humans
for power and profit.....

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:18:54 -0500, "David Staup"
wrote:

I'm curious Have you read or even heard of "Just Six Numbers"

Sure, but I don't see how that has anything to do with theology. An
elegance to the Universe does not require any sort of intelligent
design.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:12:00 -0400, "lou feeders"
wrote:

Don't feel bad. I was being somewhat serious, but I am really tired of this
subject. How has observing been going in CO and what's the faintest
magnitude of star that the all sky camera can detect? I've been fascinated
by those for a while and have been pondering installing one myself, but I
fear that either kids or animals would wreck it. lou

About mag 1.5. That's useful for getting stars to use for astrometric
calibration, but the real purpose of the cameras is recording meteors.
And determining their magnitude is tricky, because they may or may not
stay on a single pixel for the entire frame time, and if not they are
artificially dimmed by the sky noise during the rest of the time. It's
an interesting problem.

Observing has been pretty good, although we've had three snow storms
already in the last month, which is earlier than I've seen in 10 years.
So I don't know what things are going to be like when winter arrives for
real.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:12:00 -0400, "lou feeders"
wrote:

Don't feel bad. I was being somewhat serious, but I am really tired of
this
subject. How has observing been going in CO and what's the faintest
magnitude of star that the all sky camera can detect? I've been
fascinated
by those for a while and have been pondering installing one myself, but I
fear that either kids or animals would wreck it. lou

About mag 1.5. That's useful for getting stars to use for astrometric
calibration, but the real purpose of the cameras is recording meteors.
And determining their magnitude is tricky, because they may or may not
stay on a single pixel for the entire frame time, and if not they are
artificially dimmed by the sky noise during the rest of the time. It's
an interesting problem.

I recently picked up a three stage first generation image intensifier. I
never knew that generational image intensifiers could also be stacked in
several stages, so I was surprised when I found out about this. It couples
through a fiber optic plate and there is a ring for lens attachment. Based
on some u-tube videos where a guy has been able to catch satellites and high
altitude jets on a moderately starry green background, I am excited to try
it out. Not sure it will be better or worse than a sensitive CCD, but I
suspect it will seem noisier.

Observing has been pretty good, although we've had three snow storms
already in the last month, which is earlier than I've seen in 10 years.
So I don't know what things are going to be like when winter arrives for
real.

I don't imagine your planetary seeing conditions are too good there, except
rarely. I think that's how it is for a good part of the US. Planetary
observing is my favorite part of astronomy, but I rarely have the conditions
to take advantage of it.

lou

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

David Staup wrote
"Rodney Blackall" wrote in message
.. .
In article , David Staup
wrote:
The following was forwarded to me by my son-in-law and as a dad and
grandfather I cannot help myself I am forwarding this every way I
can...please take a little time to help make this brave young girls wish
come true beyond even her dream....David

Note this is a least a second-hand request.

Riley Philpot is a 9 year old little girl who has been battling a rare
form of cancer since she was 6. Her cancer has returned and she is
currently in the hospital. Make A Wish Foundation was contacted and
Riley's wish was not a trip to Disney World. It is to have the mailman
dump a bag of "a million" Get Well cards at her door when she returns!!
Please take the time to send a Get Well card to Riley. Thank you so
much!

[Snip]
Such schemes were amongst the first internet spams. Send a card only if
you
know her.

And please keep her in your prayers as well.
Now THAT is much more likely to do her good!


I spent a month in England,, worked in Horsham and stayed in London..took
the train back and forth five days a week...when I tell people about my trip
I always comment on how nice, caring, and civilized everyone was to me...so
I couldn't figure out your responce to this....but now I think I see.... a
meteorologist in England must have to be a bitter person ...how sad

I prefer to put the price of card and stamp into a Cancer Research
charity collection tin.
Just imagine how much good a million times that sum could do, rather
than a mountain of cards which are of no practical use whatsoever.
--
Roger Hunt

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:18:54 -0500, "David Staup"
wrote:

I'm curious Have you read or even heard of "Just Six Numbers"

Sure, but I don't see how that has anything to do with theology. An
elegance to the Universe does not require any sort of intelligent
design.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Sure, but I don't see how that has anything to do with theology"

Rees acknowledges, albeit reluctantly, the principles of scientific
reasoning: he observes that "any good scientific theory must be vulnerable
to being refuted." However, his own "multiverse" explanation describes the
untestable and immeasurable. Is it therefore a bad theory? One could reason
that any theory that allows all possibilities to be true can justify the
existence of anything, however improbable. Surely the conjecture that divine
providence, in tuning the universe so that human life can exist, is just as
valid a scientific proposition-though likewise it cannot be subject to
scientific validation.

In the article in scientific american about this Rees himself commented on
this as just as valid an hypothasis.

On Oct 16, 7:21*am, Roger Hunt wrote:

I prefer to put the price of card and stamp into a Cancer Research
charity collection tin.
Just imagine how much good a million times that sum could do, rather
than a mountain of cards which are of no practical use whatsoever.
--
Roger Hunt

Amen! Let the real doctors have a real chance to cure the suffering
of millions before one priest gets a chance to kill one sick child.
You'd think with each new iteration of religion that they would
improve their usefulness for the majority. All they ever offer is pain
and suffering if you don't believe. And grinding poverty of the
intellect if you do. Religion is a human reaction to having too small
a mind to cope with the size and complexity of our universe. Or even
our own despoiled world. The bible is the village mentality written
down for pedants. Not one second in everlasting torment would have
been be wasted, in your vision of hell, if it left my mind unscathed
by your dangerous, superstitious nonsense. Religion offers no filter
or instrument which aids vision or understanding of anything but the
crippled inadequacy of the average human mind to cope with the very
ordinary.

Better dead than a bible read.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
a belief in gods is inherently irrational, so a person who
believes in a god has, at the very least, a big hole in their overall
degree of rationality.

And rationality is required for good science, but isn't necessary for
compassion.

(Please forgive my self indulgence. I do so love these discussions, even
though I hate to overstep the bounds of etiquette in this group, which I
respect.)

But these are apples and oranges in different contexts. In science,
rationality is king, but in humanities, it is compassion.

In fact, in ethics the term rationalization is used interchangeably with
justification in defining the mental exercise of ridding oneself of
compassion (for a time) in order to do bad things.

So one might just as easily say it takes rationality for a good person to do
evil. (Somehow, that seems like a different "rational" than the one you're
talking about.)

And it can also be said that it takes religion (conversion to god-belief)
for an evil man to become good (compassionate). But it seems only the
religious person considers that normal. :-)

I don't disagree with your point of view at all, whether I believe in a
divine source of our existence or not (which no one can really know for sure
if I do or don't, even if there are hints). It's hard to argue against
rationality in the context of science, whether it is a divine gift, or a
result of ions of gray matter evolution.

All that said, given the choice between entrusting compassion to rational
science (nobody's giving away science education), or entrustusting it to
irrational god-belief (available freely), I'd have to go with the latter.

Or to put that another way, if I were stuck on an island with no food or
fresh water, and death was imminent, I'd rather have a god person as a
companion, than a scientist. There is little comfort in rational thought
when the environment is conspiring to kill you, and no one wants to die
miserably. God (our thoughts of) is closest too us, when death is near.

If we are honest, we admit that compassion in the end, from birth to death,
is what matters most to us as human beings. In fact, one might argue that
the capacity for compassion is what _makes_ us (into) human beings.

Some of us can no longer imagine or muster compassion without god-belief,
because we lost that capacity (it was beaten out of us) outside of our
religious experience and conversion to god-belief.

So, what I am suggesting is that it may very well be my god-belief that
keeps me compassionate and sane. And paradoxically that sanity allows me to
be rational, and that rationality keeps my "religion" in check.

God-belief and religion afterall, are two completely separate things, even
if the former gives rise to the latter, which it does not have to.

---
Steve Paul