|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 ! ^_^ |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Solar System vs. deep-sky
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |