A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Solar System vs. deep-sky



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 23rd 03, 06:06 PM
Russell Wallace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Solar System vs. deep-sky

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:52:09 +0900, Trane Francks
wrote:

Do you actually read what somebody has written or do you choose
to just make up your own story as you go along? If you think
mankind hasn't messed up THIS planet, I suggest you open your
eyes WIDE.


I think you personally are messing up this planet right now - see
previous reply for suggested solution.

--
"Sore wa himitsu desu."
To reply by email, remove
the small snack from address.
http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace
  #22  
Old November 23rd 03, 06:25 PM
Ioannis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Solar System vs. deep-sky


Ο "Russell Wallace" έγραψε στο μήνυμα
...
[snip]

I think


I doubt it

you personally are messing up this planet right now - see
previous reply for suggested solution.

--
Ioannis Galidakis
http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/jgal/
------------------------------------------
Eventually, _everything_ is understandable

  #23  
Old November 23rd 03, 07:21 PM
Bill Greer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Solar System vs. deep-sky

If there were no deep sky objects I would concentrate on solar system
objects. If there were no solar system objects I would concentrate on
deep sky objects.

As it is, sometimes I prefer observing solar system objects; and
sometimes I prefer observing deep sky objects. Having the option of
either helps prevent over-indulgence and eventual boredom with
astronomical observing in general.

For myself, the object is of less importantance than the experience.
I look for details when I observe. I try to see all my eyes and
telescopes can show me under the conditions in which I observe. For
this it doesn't matter whether or not the object is a member of our
solar system.

Observation is a challenge. It's a challenge to find some objects;
and it's a challenge to see fine detail in some objects. Some people
prefer one type of challenge over another. To others it doesn't make
a difference. A challenge is a challenge -- something to overcome.

I enjoy sharp, crisp daytime images when I use binoculars or small
terrestrial telescopes. Again, sometimes it doesn't matter at all
what I'm looking at. All that matters is that I'm seeing the world
around me in a fresh, new light. Optics allow a person to personalize
the viewing experience, to see things as few others have seen them.
This is expecially true when one considers how different terrestrial
and astronomical objects can appear to people in different locations
using different optical instruments.

At the moment it's daytime for me. My sky is mostly clear. The sun
is illuminating the white, snow covered landscape around me. It seems
to be a good time for me to observe the brightest object in our solar
system ;-)

Bill Greer
  #24  
Old November 23rd 03, 08:32 PM
James Goldman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Solar System vs. deep-sky

Marty wrote:

I tend to favor deep sky viewing. Somehow, the very remoteness and
enormity of it all is more mind stretching for me. Just looking at the
dim fuzzies and wondering what it's all about is liberating somehow.


That's me, too. Deep-sky viewing from the city is pretty challenging, and
when you do find something I'm sure most people would think the view isn't
very interesting. But when you know that that faint smear of light is a
mighty city containing more *suns* than there are people on Earth, well...

Sometimes, though, it's so vast that I feel dead to wonder. Then I like to
look at the Moon, because it's beautiful and the idea of it makes better
sense to my tiny brain!


  #25  
Old November 23rd 03, 08:33 PM
David Nakamoto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Solar System vs. deep-sky

"Russell Wallace" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 21:30:16 +0200, "Ioannis"
wrote:

Indeed. Because if man manages to "go there", he will probably **** up

the
places, in exactly the same way he has screwed up this planet. We still

have
a long way to go.


Ah, one of those people who thinks the presence of sentient life
counts as "****ing up". I suggest you get rid of yourself immediately.
It can be done with a bare bodkin, to quote Shakespeare.


Now, now, now ! Don't be too harsh with the man, try assimilating . . .
I mean converting him instead. I recommend sending him a bumber sticker
that says, "Earth First. We'll Jeep the other planets later!"



"Sore wa himitsu desu."


And just WHAT is a secret?
^_^



  #26  
Old November 23rd 03, 08:35 PM
David Nakamoto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Solar System vs. deep-sky

"Tony Flanders" wrote in message
...
Sam Wormley wrote in message

...

Everything in the sky is fascinating! Why try to divide it up.


That's a funny way of putting it. From my perspective, things *are*
divided up, and it is we who confuse them. We lump together things
that are just 50 miles away (aurorae and meteors), 250,000 miles
away (the Moon), and billions of light-years away (quasars and some
galaxies). In fact, the Moon is right next door -- you could walk
there if there was a good road. And objectively, studying the Moon
has much more in common with studying the rocks in your back yard
than with studying galaxies.


Hey! You forgot about the stuff a couple of million to a couple of
billion miles out, the planets ! And the stuff a few to millions of parsecs
out, the stars and nebulae. You not only lumped things together, but you
left some out ! Shame on you ! ^_^



  #28  
Old November 28th 03, 03:25 PM
Judson McClendon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Solar System vs. deep-sky

"Trane Francks" wrote:

Do you actually read what somebody has written or do you choose
to just make up your own story as you go along? If you think
mankind hasn't messed up THIS planet, I suggest you open your
eyes WIDE.


I really, really hate to get involved in this, but...

Considering some 6 billion people are currently living here, and most
of the difficulties people have in living as they wish are political, not
environmental, it is far from certain that you have any real evidence
to support your claim. 'Using' something does not necessarily mean
'ruining' it. Change does not necessarily mean 'ruining', either. When
the raw materials for the computer you used to post your message were
taken from the earth and formed into your computer, was that 'ruining'
them? To come to the views you and others have espoused here, one
has to have made the a priori assumption: that the planet 'raw' as we
found it is somehow 'better' than it is when conformed for man's use.
Why is man's use less 'good' than a warthog's use? Can a warthog or
spotted owl gaze at the stars through a telescope made from materials
taken from the earth and wonder at the vastness and complexity of this
amazing and wonderful universe? You should realize that you are
taking what amount to personal feelings and attributing them with
some kind of 'truth' that simply does not exist. This is more than quaint
and provincial, it is ill founded and shows a serious lack of perception
and balance. Unfortunately, the very fact that those espousing such
views of necessity had to have been confused in their thinking to have
adopted them, is ample evidence they will not be able to see the error,
even after it has been pointed out to them. Sigh.

Consider:

A) If mankind was not created by God, and got here through entirely
physical processes, then mankind has just as much 'right' to use the
earth as any other living organism. In fact, the terms 'right' and 'wrong'
are meaningless, for we are simply another manifestation of physical
phenomena. You might as well declare that gravity, lightning, pi or the
speed of light are 'right' or 'wrong'. The best that you can say is that
something is 'preferable' or 'not preferable' from some entirely
subjective viewpoint, and even there we cannot be completely
accurate, for we do not have the ability to see the full consequences
of all our actions.

B) If mankind was created by God, then it is God's values, not ours,
that count.

Take your pick. In neither case can you make the argument that man's
appropriation and use of natural resources for his use and pleasure is
'wrong'. Not always wise, perhaps, but not 'wrong'.
--
Judson McClendon (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems
http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."


  #29  
Old November 28th 03, 05:33 PM
Stephen Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Solar System vs. deep-sky


"Dave & Janelle" wrote in message
...


But, deep down, all amateur astronomers
are romantics; if we weren't, we'd stay indoors and download Hubble

pictures
rather than drag the scope out and look ourselves.


Actually, I like to curl up with a natural science book on just about any
subject, but lately, about stars.

While I really enjoy being outside day and night, and while I like to look
at everything from earthworms to distant galaxies, my "love interest"
includes not just looking, but on understanding what we know about life and
the universe itself.

I am also totally facinated by my own existence and the fact that one day it
will end, as it has for all those who came before me, and for all those who
will come after. It is a great thing to participe in the universe of human
intelligence. That we understand what we are, how long we will live, where
we are in the visible universe, and that we have the ability to analyze the
untouchable through the energy it creates is simply fricking amazing.
Spectral analysis is, to me, the single most ingenious science ever set
forth from the lobes of human gray matter.

Kudos to all you guys and gals who take the time to consume the knowledge of
your predecessors, and advance our understanding of all things great and
small. Not all of us had the means, opportunity or psychological well being
to participate in this when we were young, and now that we are managing our
lives as best we are able, our brains aren't particulary well wired for the
task.

That is why I am an amateur. I'd _be_ a professional, if I were able, 'cuz I
not only love it, I am fascinated by the very thought of it.

Stephen Paul
Shirley, MA


  #30  
Old November 28th 03, 06:13 PM
Trane Francks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Solar System vs. deep-sky

On 11/28/03 23:25 +0900, Judson McClendon wrote:

Considering some 6 billion people are currently living here, and most
of the difficulties people have in living as they wish are political, not
environmental, it is far from certain that you have any real evidence
to support your claim. 'Using' something does not necessarily mean


Living as one wishes generally does not involve even a hint of
living in harmony with nature. We destroy and "conquer,"
seemingly oblivious of the consequences of our actions. Such
destruction is happily shared among the names of the likes of
politics, industry, religion and convenience. It knows no bounds;
mankind's wanton destruction of our planet is the definitive truism.

'ruining' it. Change does not necessarily mean 'ruining', either. When
the raw materials for the computer you used to post your message were
taken from the earth and formed into your computer, was that 'ruining'
them? To come to the views you and others have espoused here, one


You stop somewhat short of the mark, I'm afraid. The working of
said materials generally goes hand in hand with ecological damage
and destruction.

has to have made the a priori assumption: that the planet 'raw' as we
found it is somehow 'better' than it is when conformed for man's use.


I stated that "If you think mankind hasn't messed up THIS planet,
I suggest you open your eyes WIDE." Just where was a discussion
of "raw is better" entered?

Why is man's use less 'good' than a warthog's use? Can a warthog or


I did not discuss good, bad, right or wrong. I stated that we'd
messed up the planet.

spotted owl gaze at the stars through a telescope made from materials
taken from the earth and wonder at the vastness and complexity of this
amazing and wonderful universe? You should realize that you are


Cute, but germane to nothing whatsoever other than to prove that
you consider yourself superior to our animal brethren. Or should
I say my animal brethren. Perhaps they're not your brethren, mmmm?

taking what amount to personal feelings and attributing them with
some kind of 'truth' that simply does not exist. This is more than quaint


Have you never stood at the spill site of an industrial outlet
and seen the dead fish floating in crud-filled water? Have you
never bothered to check the temperature of a river above and
below a hydro-electric dam and ponder the ecological consequences
of the difference? Have you never seen the top of an entire hill
strip-mined away and wondered what life was disrupted? Have you
never wondered about Chernobyl? Three-Mile Island? Have you not
considered the ramifications of living fast and loose with the
resources from which we were spawned? Do you think that an FDA
warning for pregnant women to avoid fish really just applies to
/pregnant women/? Do you believe that increasing PCB levels in
the beef that folks cook will not have ill effects? Do you think
that having some 85% of Japan's natural forests replanted with
cedar won't have serious effects here? How about the water table
problems we're seeing as a result of 90% of the rivers here being
cemented into spillways?

I avoid rose-coloured 'truths'. Ecological atrocities abound.
Pooh-pooh them at our peril.

and provincial, it is ill founded and shows a serious lack of perception
and balance. Unfortunately, the very fact that those espousing such
views of necessity had to have been confused in their thinking to have
adopted them, is ample evidence they will not be able to see the error,
even after it has been pointed out to them. Sigh.


A lack of perception and balance is, indeed, the problem. I do,
not-so-humbly, submit that the lack of perception and balance not
lay with me, sir. In fact, that entire quoted passage applies
very nicely to people who refuse to acknowledge that there are
ecological problems of our making. The planet's a mess and we are
to blame.

So, go ahead and sigh. In the meantime, I'll try to teach my kids
to know their place in the universe and to live as responsibly as
possible. Oh, and speaking of awe and vastness, nothing could
possibly evoke those feelings more than truly grokking the
ripples cast out by the rock of an action. Admiring the
resilience of life and its ability to adapt is one thing, but
recognizing the sheer delicacy of the entire weave that is life
is significant. The greatest lesson learned, however, is to know
well the interdependence of all things on this planet. An event
does not happen without all things being affected. The greatest
folly of mankind is the belief that it somehow stands apart from
that interconnectedness. It is a tragedy of ignorance lief to
tryst with man's ego.

Consider:

A) If mankind was not created by God, and got here through entirely
physical processes, then mankind has just as much 'right' to use the
earth as any other living organism. In fact, the terms 'right' and 'wrong'
are meaningless, for we are simply another manifestation of physical


I'll interrupt you there. You're the one making it a moral issue.
You're the one making it potentially a religious issue. Get with
the plan, Judson. This isn't about a moral or religious
good/bad/right/wrong, it's about understanding our place in the
food chain and not destroying that which sustains us.

trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
//
http://mp3.com/trane_francks/

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PDF (Planetary Distance Formula) explains DW 2004 / Quaoar and Kuiper Belt hermesnines Astronomy Misc 10 February 27th 04 03:14 AM
NASA Wants You to be a Solar System Ambassador Ron Baalke Amateur Astronomy 0 September 12th 03 01:32 AM
ESA sees stardust storms heading for Solar System (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 1 August 27th 03 12:29 AM
ESA Sees Stardust Storms Heading For Solar System Ron Baalke Science 0 August 20th 03 08:10 PM
Chiral gravity of the Solar system Aleksandr Timofeev Astronomy Misc 0 August 13th 03 04:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.