Posts Made By: Paul Kammueller

Darrell Fichtl said:
Where do you think heaven is?

On Mars.

Why do you think that?

No telemarketers.

Bill,

I am very sorry for your loss. Take your time, take care of business, take care of your family and take care of yourself, and good luck in surgery. We'll keep your seat warm.

Paul

Lee Spain said:
NPR should simply not be in the business of producing news or social commentary because they are an extension of the government.

The news is the only reason I listen to NPR. They have in depth coverage and analysis and stuff that just isn't available on the sound-bite oriented short-attention-span-theatre network news.

NPR may get funding from the government but they get to make their own decisions about the content. Apparently that's the problem.

Maurice Clark said:
Did he resign because of the uproar that that caused in scientific circles? No! apparently he was caught out having lied on his resume. Claimed he had a degree when he didn't. Somebody within the administration did not do their homework!

They pride themselves on not doing their homework. Take WMD's as an example, along with the whole global warming denial thing.

This administration places a higher value on ideology than qualifications. We already knew that, and I doubt this instance will in any way change that practice.

Oh that's just perfect. Stick the fox smack in the middle of the henhouse.

Hi Andrew -

If you're want blow-your-socks-off cosmic imagery you can spend hours paging through Hubblesite's album of galaxies and nebulae and such.

http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/

Maybe also check out some satellite photos of Earth? If you have a broadband connection, download and run NASA's Worldwind program, it's very cool for this sort of thing.

For earthbound photography maybe a few images of unique or 'weird' lifeforms (glow-in-the-dark fluttery deep sea creatures, that sort of thing) or more familiar lifeforms in a grandiose setting for the desired psychological effect - i.e. sunrise over the serengeti or something.

Also vertical, arching things often give a subconscious impression of reaching for the 'heavens' (that's what they taught us in architecture class anyway ) so you know, things like redwood trees or a shot of Mount Everest or the Andes or something.

Harry Drutok said:
I'm curious, from a logical standpoint did any of these make more sense to you then the others? If so, why?

Like CF buddhism and taoism seemed to make the most 'sense'. Partly because they generally embody a kind of mental discipline, that is more self-evident and somehow more philosophically gratifying than the old "save you if you believe this, smite you if don't" carrot-and-stick approach that passes for spirituality in our society.

The Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity & Islam are all related and share many of the same stories and traits. Much like old greco-roman religions, You get some kind of storyline, and a whole cast of characters with varying levels of supernatural powers ascribed to them (Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, etc.) - and a god that is frequently preoccupied with local middle eastern politics.

Taoism to me has a slightly more cosmic spiritual 'feel' to it and a kind of soothing vagueness -- almost like, rather than a belief system as such, much of it's more just a certain way of looking at things -- a certain point of view.

Buddhism seems a more practicalized, real-world 'practice'. Probably wins awards for being the 'nicest' religion in terms of behavioral discipline. IMHO scores some gutsy points for boldly embracing concepts like death as a natural part of the life cycle, to be embraced and not feared when one's time inevitably comes (in contrast to western religions that seem at times to live in utter denial of it, "you shall not die" etc.)

What brand was the air conditioner? Was it a Daewoo or something?

If time doesn't actually "pass", as has been discussed here before, the whole question of the 'afterlife' is itself somewhat diminished in relevance.

In a 'timeless' universe, the cradle and the grave are not a beginning/end of existence per se, but are simply boundary conditions of an essentially 'static' world-line existence.

Then spacetime events such as 'life' and 'death' are reduced to mere vantage points in a static space-time continuum. If that's the case, then every being who ever lived, will always perceive itself to be living, in its own cradle-to-grave time frame. Not a very comforting thought, since many have experienced exceedingly unfortunate lives. In fact the whole idea is downright creepy and I'm sorry for bringing it up. 8O

Evan Hawbaker said:

I have an f/5 10" dobsonian.

Is there a noticeable difference in quality in longer focal length refractors as opposed to fast dobs? What do you think is the lowest amount of aperture I could get for a refractor to show improvement over a light bucket on moon/planets?
Thanks for any advice.

You would need a rather huge refractor just to equal the performance of your 10" assuming the mirror's good and it's well collimated. To get some idea of relative appearances to a smaller refractor, you can make an off-axis aperture mask that stops your scope down to 4" or so (f/12.5), that will give you a bit of a feel for some of the trade-offs between aperture, obstruction and collimation.

If you use inexpensive eyepieces, the f/5 light cone will be quite taxing on their field of view -- f/6 to f/8 scopes are much more forgiving, and this in itself does not necessitate getting a refractor either.