Posts Made By: Keith Lawson

Can anyone still see the Cassini Division? If so, what instrument and accessories are you using?

All,

I had a chance to play with one of these last night. To say that I was impressed is the reason for this thread. Optically the glass was first class. I knew the Chinese had made some improvements in their optical fabrication but these optics were on the high end of the scale. Even though the seeing wasn't the greatest, the performance stunned me. I could detect the double-double in Lyra at a mere 48X. The star images were that clean and tight. At 240X the airy disks were plainly visible with a split you could drive a truck through. Refractor like? No doubt. Delta Cygnus was easy at 133X. At 240X the split was "wide". Seeing about 5-6/10. If this is typical for the optics of these scopes the 12" is in my near future.

The mount was setup for general ALT-AZ tracking so I have not performed any GOTO tests yet but no matter where I pushed the telescope to, the mount tracked very well. I went from Pi Aquila to Izar to Antares (yes, I saw the companion) and the scope tracked on each just fine. Variable speed push button control for centering is nice. This is so much better that an EQ platform. I didn't have to concern myself with resetting the mount after an hour. I just be-bopped around the sky with no concern as to the tracking of the instrument. Pure fun.

I also found the dual speed focuser to be a very nice unit. The fine focus knob was actually useful since the the images snapped into focus. When you focused this instrument you knew you were in focus.

I have posted this for anyone considering buying one of these. So far I'm impressed. I will have access to this scope for a while. I will try to remember to give an update as to the good and bad. So far I have only good to report 8)

Though low, I will give Saturn a shot tonight.

Keith

III 21:08 PDT (4:08 UT)
II 21:15 PDT (4:15 UT )

I OCC 20:35 PDT (3:35 UT)

It's a dead universe... At least on this side of the veil. The earth is the only island of life in this vast creation. Some have said that "If God created the universe and the earth is the only place that has life, it would seem such a waste of space." Those that hold to this earthly wisdom have no understanding as to the universe's destructive history. There are powerful things that happened eons ago. The Bible has this information. The Prophets knew. Solomon knew. Now you can know.

There is a reason why the earth is the only island in this vast universe with life. Send me a PM and I will send you the information as to why. It's deep bible scripture that you won't get from Sunday School or from the pulpits of America. It's too wordy to put here but it is a short read.

[email protected]

Keith

I know these are probably old issues but bring me back to trusting the teachings modern science if you can. Facts only please. I have had enough of the educated assumptions/presumptions. These questions deal with the “root” of some popular theoretical scientific assumptions that are taught as science fact. It is interesting to note that if no root exists then the tree (teaching) is a lie supported on nothing.

Here are some issues I can’t resolve with the current scientific information. Educate me please:

1. Concerning evolution: If modern science can’t tell me how it happened (the cause of the godless miracle of Spontaneous Generation is still up for grabs) why should I believe them when they tell me it did happen. (the creation of the first living single cell organism)?

2. Even if I believe them, how can it be explained that the first single cell organism, with such mind boggling complexity, was created by a “chance” event? Who or what did the arranging of the molecules to make the complex components of the first single cell organism? Remember, smart guy Darwin thought cells were simply bags of chemicals (he wasn’t stupid, just an idiot to the depth of the complexity of life he thought he knew).

3. What would cause the first single cell organism to replicate itself? This is a big “gotcha”. Since evolution is a developmental process, what was the catalyst to invoke this action? Did the organism live long enough to develop this talent? Let’s get real: Failure to replicate was not an option.

4. What did the first single cell organism eat to sustain itself? Primordial Soup?

5. Again, since evolution is a developmental process, what would be the driving force to make single cell organisms replicate to produce a multi-cell entities superior to a single cell?

6. Concerning the Big Bang: What was the condition of the universe before the Big Bang?

7. Where did the “space” come from for the Big Bang to later fill?

8. What was the device or trigger that started the Big Bang?

9. Just a mere 60 years ago we thought there was life on Venus and Mars. The factual research has shown one to be a perpetual hell and the other to be a sterile frozen dessert. That’s two strikes. Now we are pinning our hopes on Europa? Can anyone convince me that strike three is not in the making?

10. I have put this one out before and no one has yet to touch it: These scientific geniuses are the same ones that are going to tell me the details about planets light years away. The majority of their information are educated assumptions. These same scientists tell me what the inside of Jupiter is like yet they don't have a clue as to the dynamic that causes all the gas giants to have atmospheres with bands that go in opposite directions? What force sustains them? We talk of stellar nurseries and such yet have never seen a star born though we have seen many of them die. Don't defend this with newly discovered stars. Those new discoveries are the results of better equipment. Have we yet seen a protostar turn on and become a stable star? This should be as numerous as dying stars if the current theories are correct.

I’m sorry but I’m disappointed with the “assumers”. These questions are some of the things that led me away from modern scientific teachings. Some scientists will tell us anything to keep the funding coming.

I dare anyone to answer these questions with facts. No presumption or assumptions are allowed. Evolution and the Big Bang are two of the biggest theories that have imaginary foundations. The theories are built up from educated assumptions and are accepted worldwide as facts. If the foundations are assumptions, presumptions, and theories how can the teachings that support them be taught as fact?

I have had my fill of educated assumptions; flawed logic based on presumptions, and so called factual science aligned to theories. The religious can walk by faith. Science is supposed to walk by fact. You can bash me all you want but can you answer any of the questions?

Keith

Is there science in the Bible? Yes, even though the Bible is not a science book.

Please remember that our modern scientific words did not exist when these scriptures were originally written.

The Atom: Even though Solomon didn’t use the terms atom or sub-atomic particles, this scripture reveals that he understood the concept before modern man “discovered” it. While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. (Proverbs 8:26)

A Round Earth: Christopher Columbus could have saved himself a lot of time trying to convince people that the earth was round had he used this scripture: It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants therefore are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in…(Isaiah 40:22)

Gravity: Job in chapter 26:7 speaks about the invisible force of gravity: He stretchest out the north over the empty place, and
hangeth the earth upon nothing.

The first Law of Thermodynamics: I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him. (Ecclesiastes 3:14)

Earth’s Hydrologic Cycle: All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; to the place from which the rivers come, there they return again. (Ecclesiastes 1:7)

Earth’s Wind Cycles: The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about to the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to its circuits. (Ecclesiastes 5:16)

Astronomy: Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring Mazzroth in its season, Or canst thou guide Arcturus with its sons? (Job 38:31,32) Mazzroth is the 12 signs of the zodiac. Arcturus is not the star but the Great Bear that we know today as Ursa Major. It is interesting to note that the star groupings mentioned (except the zodiac) have seven main stars.

Dinosuars: Job 40:15-40. This animal is called a Behomoth. Modern thelogy says that this a hippo. These scriptures describe a Brontosaurus more than a hippo. Since most mondern thelogy believs in evolution, and the dinosaurs lived supposedly millions of years ago, they had to settle with a hippo. Job 41:1-34 describs a terrible dinosaur. Modern thelogy calls this a crocodile. Not even close.

There is a lot more but I hope these examples suffice.

Keith

Hi All,

I thought I would post this for anyone who has an old C8 fork mount lying around that thinks it has seen its last days of usefulness. In the fork configuration the mount is good for only a C8 OTA, but converted to a GEM it can be useful for just about any OTA that has a dovetail. Anyone with a small to medium refractor (120mm F8.3 refractor shown) or Cassegrain OTA can make a nice solid mount for minimum cost utilizing most of the existing mount components (tripod, wedge, base, etc). You can usually get an old C8 mount cheap on Amart or CN.

The parts for the conversion are easy to make. I left the aluminum unpainted so that the mod components are clearly seen. I believe high grade plywood can replace the aluminum components if necessary. I would recommend 3/4" thick as a minimum. I can go into more detail if anyone is interested. Please note: Meade mounts are not recommended for this modification. Meade made the attachment area for their forks tapered. Not worth the trouble to try to match the taper.

I have higher resolution shots for anyone interested in such a project for themselves. Shoot me a PM ([email protected])and I will gladly send them to you. CAD files are available as well if you have a CAD program that will read in DXF format.

***If anyone out there has a couple of C-14 fork mounts that are collecting dust, drop me a line. I would be willing to convert your two mounts to GEM. The cost? I get to keep one. Any takers?

Keith

At it again Installation to come. Stay tuned.

Keith

A couple of nights ago I had some fairly decent seeing. Looking at Saturn at 310x with my C-11 I could just detect the Cassini division where the ring crosses in front of the globe of Saturn. It was clearly seen at 400x as a high contrast thin black line. Seeing 6-8/10. Has anyone else seen the Cassini division of the ring where it crosses in front of the globe of Saturn (current tilt 13.46 deg.)? If so, what instrument were you using and what was the magnification you were running. Honest answers only please.

Keith

Here is a challenge for you Lunatics The crater Triesnecker is known for its beautiful series of rilles. The challenge is not the rilles but the craters F & G. If you are able to see those craters, try for the craterlet in between them. If you are able to see it, can you detect that it is actually a double craterlet? If you succede in nailing down this high resolution target, please state instrument, maginfication and observing conditions.

Keith