Mars Dust

Alan W. Craft wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 03:17:02 -0700, "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." ...reflected:

Alan W. Craft wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 01:17:52 -0700, "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." ...reflected:

David Knisely wrote:

Hi there. You posted:

You won't need a telescope. Martian weather is discernable by naked eye. Large
dust storms will change the planet's hue from the characteristic, metallic blood
red to pale beige.

You will if you want to actually see this particular cloud, although at
its height, it was reported visible in a 4 inch refractor, so it didn't
take much aperture. As for the color, Mars, at least to me, has never
been even close to "blood red" unless it is quite low towards the
horizon.

Red, like an xmas tree ball. At a distance of about 35,000,000
miles. Mars has always looked ever-so-slightly metallic to my eyes.

It looks more of a pale pinkish-orange ("pink salmon"). I
consider the Carbon stars like V Aquilae or TX Piscium to appear more
red to the eye than Mars currently is, although again, these stars are
more of a deep reddish-orange than "blood red".

Or Antares.

Recall the name's translation?

The color change of
Mars as a whole during a major planet-wide dust storm is slight, and
does not really get going until a planet-wide dust storm is near its
height. Clear skies to you.

2001's opposition was unusual. I had never seen Mars so washed-out
looking. Figured it was a dust storm. My guess was verified by news
headlines shortly thereafter.

Your own mind is your sharpest viewing instrument.

Fancy you in here casting your dead eye heavenward.

Alan

Living tissue, various connective and nerve types. Skyward.

The flesh cannot contemplate nor revel in the heavens.

Alan

The mind can.

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:03:06 -0700, "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." ...reflected:

Alan W. Craft wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 03:17:02 -0700, "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." ...reflected:

Alan W. Craft wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 01:17:52 -0700, "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." ...reflected:

David Knisely wrote:

Hi there. You posted:

You won't need a telescope. Martian weather is discernable by naked eye. Large
dust storms will change the planet's hue from the characteristic, metallic blood
red to pale beige.

You will if you want to actually see this particular cloud, although at
its height, it was reported visible in a 4 inch refractor, so it didn't
take much aperture. As for the color, Mars, at least to me, has never
been even close to "blood red" unless it is quite low towards the
horizon.

Red, like an xmas tree ball. At a distance of about 35,000,000
miles. Mars has always looked ever-so-slightly metallic to my eyes.

It looks more of a pale pinkish-orange ("pink salmon"). I
consider the Carbon stars like V Aquilae or TX Piscium to appear more
red to the eye than Mars currently is, although again, these stars are
more of a deep reddish-orange than "blood red".

Or Antares.

Recall the name's translation?

The color change of
Mars as a whole during a major planet-wide dust storm is slight, and
does not really get going until a planet-wide dust storm is near its
height. Clear skies to you.

2001's opposition was unusual. I had never seen Mars so washed-out
looking. Figured it was a dust storm. My guess was verified by news
headlines shortly thereafter.

Your own mind is your sharpest viewing instrument.

Fancy you in here casting your dead eye heavenward.

Alan

Living tissue, various connective and nerve types. Skyward.

The flesh cannot contemplate nor revel in the heavens.

Alan

The mind can.

I agree, as the mind is not physical.

Alan

Alan W. Craft wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:03:06 -0700, "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." ...reflected:

Alan W. Craft wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 03:17:02 -0700, "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." ...reflected:

Alan W. Craft wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 01:17:52 -0700, "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." ...reflected:

David Knisely wrote:

Hi there. You posted:

You won't need a telescope. Martian weather is discernable by naked eye. Large
dust storms will change the planet's hue from the characteristic, metallic blood
red to pale beige.

You will if you want to actually see this particular cloud, although at
its height, it was reported visible in a 4 inch refractor, so it didn't
take much aperture. As for the color, Mars, at least to me, has never
been even close to "blood red" unless it is quite low towards the
horizon.

Red, like an xmas tree ball. At a distance of about 35,000,000
miles. Mars has always looked ever-so-slightly metallic to my eyes.

It looks more of a pale pinkish-orange ("pink salmon"). I
consider the Carbon stars like V Aquilae or TX Piscium to appear more
red to the eye than Mars currently is, although again, these stars are
more of a deep reddish-orange than "blood red".

Or Antares.

Recall the name's translation?

The color change of
Mars as a whole during a major planet-wide dust storm is slight, and
does not really get going until a planet-wide dust storm is near its
height. Clear skies to you.

2001's opposition was unusual. I had never seen Mars so washed-out
looking. Figured it was a dust storm. My guess was verified by news
headlines shortly thereafter.

Your own mind is your sharpest viewing instrument.

Fancy you in here casting your dead eye heavenward.

Alan

Living tissue, various connective and nerve types. Skyward.

The flesh cannot contemplate nor revel in the heavens.

Alan

The mind can.

I agree, as the mind is not physical.

The mind is chemistry.

"Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." wrote in message
The flesh cannot contemplate nor revel in the heavens.

Alan

The mind can.

I agree, as the mind is not physical.

The mind is chemistry.

No, the brain is chemistry. You can't pinpoint or locate the mind. It can be
anywhere
or everywhere.

rj

randyj wrote:
"Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." wrote in
message
The flesh cannot contemplate nor revel in the heavens.

Alan

The mind can.

I agree, as the mind is not physical.

The mind is chemistry.

No, the brain is chemistry. You can't pinpoint or locate the mind. It
can be anywhere
or everywhere.
Depends on your definition of "mind". If you think of it as "brain software"
the mind is all the weights in the dendrites and the threshold values firing
the axons.

Greetings!
Volker
--
While it is a known fact that programmers
never make mistakes, it is still a good idea
to humor the users by checking for errors at
critical points in your program.
-Robert D. Schneider, "Optimizing INFORMIX
Applications"

"Volker Hetzer" wrote in message
...
randyj wrote:
"Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." wrote in
message
The flesh cannot contemplate nor revel in the heavens.

Alan

The mind can.

I agree, as the mind is not physical.

The mind is chemistry.

No, the brain is chemistry. You can't pinpoint or locate the mind. It
can be anywhere
or everywhere.
Depends on your definition of "mind". If you think of it as "brain
software"
the mind is all the weights in the dendrites and the threshold values
firing
the axons.

Greetings!
Volker

Greetings,

i think of the mind as consciousness, thinking, perception and sensation.
where exactly these dwell can't precisely be determined, so there must be
more than chemistry involved.

rj

i think of the mind as consciousness, thinking, perception and
sensation. where exactly these dwell can't precisely be determined,
so there must be more than chemistry involved.
Why do you think they can't? Btw, it is very easy to show
where they are. They are in the brain.
Do you think there's more that physics involved in a hologram just
because some feature of the image is not contained in a single spot
of the holo?

Lots of Greetings!
Volker
--
While it is a known fact that programmers
never make mistakes, it is still a good idea
to humor the users by checking for errors at
critical points in your program.
-Robert D. Schneider, "Optimizing INFORMIX
Applications"

"Volker Hetzer" wrote in message
...
i think of the mind as consciousness, thinking, perception and
sensation. where exactly these dwell can't precisely be determined,
so there must be more than chemistry involved.
Why do you think they can't? Btw, it is very easy to show
where they are. They are in the brain.
Do you think there's more that physics involved in a hologram just
because some feature of the image is not contained in a single spot
of the holo?

no, i didn't mention holograms. You state that these 4 are in the brain,
but you don't provide evidence. Has a brain been dissected to show
exactly where consciousness resides?

rj

randyj wrote:
"Volker Hetzer" wrote in message
...
i think of the mind as consciousness, thinking, perception and
sensation. where exactly these dwell can't precisely be determined,
so there must be more than chemistry involved.
Why do you think they can't? Btw, it is very easy to show
where they are. They are in the brain.
Do you think there's more that physics involved in a hologram just
because some feature of the image is not contained in a single spot
of the holo?

no, i didn't mention holograms.
But somehow you think that nonlocal information in a hologram is different from
nonlocal information in a brain.

You state that these 4 are in the
brain, but you don't provide evidence. Has a brain been dissected to
show exactly where consciousness resides?
No, but it has been killed to show that it goes away then.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker
--
While it is a known fact that programmers
never make mistakes, it is still a good idea
to humor the users by checking for errors at
critical points in your program.
-Robert D. Schneider, "Optimizing INFORMIX
Applications"

"Odysseus" wrote in message
...
randyj wrote:

no, i didn't mention holograms. You state that these 4 are in the brain,
but you don't provide evidence. Has a brain been dissected to show
exactly where consciousness resides?

Of course not. You seem to be missing the point of Volker's hologram
analogy: consciousness may be a product -- some would say a mere
by-product! -- of the *whole* brain, not any one site or 'organ' in it.

--Odysseus

ok, i agree, it accompanies a brain in a body, and maybe even a brain apart
from a
body, if such a thing could be. But your use of "may" shows that we don't
know what
it is--rj