In a few weeks time there is going to be a special event held for members at the Birmingham University observatory were we get to use the main 17inch cassigrain! I have never used such a big telescope before.
The major differences between the elections:
- In the American election only the results of Florida were contested, in the Iranian election the entire countries votes are being contested
- When Bush won the American election Gore's aides were not rounded up and arrested or beaten
- There were no mass riots in American streets with hundreds of thousands protesting everyday at and getting beaten by the poilce
- Bush didn't ship in tens of thousands of his own protestors to fight against the oppositions protestors
- There was no shutting down of cell networks or internet access in America
- Bush never imposed a media blackout
- There were no reports of voters being denied access to ballot boxes
The tripod is a little bit flimsy but when the accessory tray is added it's a little more stable. However there still seemed to be a healthy wobble visible at high magnitudes. The motorised mount was really nice to use and very user friendly. The eye pieces were not so good (i think) because I could hardly see any detail on Jupiter (probably because I thought it was Saturn and spent my time trying to see the rings), but I could make out a browny orange disk. When I used the 10mm with the 2xBarlow there was just too much shake in the scope for me to bother with them for long. All the Messier objects I found were just grey blobs, and I could only make out their shapes by looking away from them and using my peripheral vision, and even then they were faint. I tried to look at them through the 10mm and 2xBarlow but the scope shook too much when I turned the focusing knob. I do wish that the clap holding the scope onto the mound had 2 tightening screws instead of one as this may have eliminated some shaking. I will be attending the Birmingham Astronomical Society meeting this Wednesday to get some advice on using my scope and general observational astronomy tips.
Explorer 5.1inch reflector
10 + 25mm lenses
2x Barlow
Turn Left At Orion book
Red bicycle rear light
Comfy chair
Warm Coat
Finally I got a chance to use my telescope last night and it turned out to be a really amazing 2 hours, but it did start of being very dissapointing. Saturn has to be the planet I was most excited about seeing, so I had a look at where it should be in the sky and found out it was just to the right of a bloody street light at the front of my house. I set up my telescope and focused on what I thought was Saturn and I was very dissapointed to see that I couldn't make out the rings at all. Even more annoying was that everytime a car drove past the front of the house my telescope started wobbling and the planet would wobble in and out of view. I eventually got the scope focused and upped the magnification to 10mm and then added the 2xBarlow (130x) but I still couldn't see any rings. I was gutted. After about 20 minutes I decided to quit on Saturn because I realised that I was basically standing on my drive with a telescope pointed in the direction of my neighbours. So I took my scope into the back garden.
After sitting for a while and readjusting my eyes to the sky I tried to find the Ring Nebula (M57) in Lyra, but no success. I then tried to find the globular cluster in Hercules (M13), but again no success. I was starting to feel really gutted that I couldn't actually find anything I was looking for. I decided to just enjoy looking at the Milky Way through the scope for a while and that was really cool. Eventually I had another look at Turn Left At Orioin to see what else I should be able to view and realised that Alberio was supposed to be a double star, and when I focused on it with my 25mm I could actually see it clearly, one white star and one blue one. It was pretty amazing! I then looked for M13 again and this time whilst scanning the sky throught the eye piece I noticed a faint grey smudge where M13 should have been. When I looked at it directly it almost vanished, but when I looke at the stars around it I could see it clearly as a faint glowing ball of light. I was so amazed that I spent the next 10 minutes looking at it. Most people would probably think im an idiot for being excited about a little grey smudge, but its amazing to know that im looking at a cluster of stars 25,000 light years away from me! All of a sudden I got on a roll and I found M57 and even found the Dumbbell Nebula (M27). They were exactly where the book said they would be, it just took me a while to realise what I was looking for. I suppose I made the classic mistake of expecting tiny versions of what you see in magazines, but even though in reality they look nothing like that, it's awesome to know that what I was looking at were real deep space objects with my own eyes.
To make matters even better, this morning I found out that the reason I couldn't see Saturns rings was because I was looking at Jupiter!
I can't wait for more clear skys, but as usual Englands got plenty more rain forcast for the rest of the week.
I bought 'Turn Left At Orion' today and i've got a list of things im going to try to see tonight seeing as it's forcast to be a clear sky, but I can guarantee the clouds will turn up just as the sun sets.
A summary of Labours mistakes (in no particular order)
- 10p Tax mess
- Bringing in ID cards
- NHS supercomputer fiasco costing £12b
- Millenium Dome £200 million + wasted
- Cash for peers
- Selling of half of the national gold reserves for the lowest price in 20 years after officially being advised that this was a 'serious misgiving' from the bank of England, and then trying to block the Sunday Times publishing what they did.
- Establishing hospital league tables
- Taking the police of the streets to fill in paperwork, and then employing Joe Public to do walk the beats instead(CSO)
- Inflating enormous debt bubble
- Raiding the public pensions purse
- Creating the biggest trade deficit in 10 years
- Totally fucking up the housing market by not regulating mortgages.
- No EU referendum (as promised)
The last few weeks have been very exciting for me. Last Monday I thought I spotted Cygnus and Lyra and maybe even Hercules, but I wasn't too sure so I took some slow shutter pics of what I thought were these constellations. When I opened them in Photoshop and adjusted the light levels the constellations became really clear and I realised that I had actually spotted all three constellations correctly! I went back out on Tuesday and Wednesday to try and spot them again and by Friday I had even found Draco, Bootes, Corona Borealis, Cassiopiea and Cephues!
It's inspired me to look up details about these constellations and I've since found out that there's an amazing nebula in the bottom half of Libra. It's amazing to actually know what I am looking at, rather then just staring random stars. It really gives me a sense of my place in the universe (as an ant looking out of an ant hill).
I want to try and get up to Clent hills this weekend for a late night stargazing session, but it just depends on whether or not I can convice any of my friends to join me.
Pros..
Watching 4 of the fittest girls in the UK dance around on the stage in outfits that got progressively skimpier as time went by.
Cons..
I've now got their shit songs stuck in my head. Watching ridiculously muscly blokes dance around the stage with them. (Why didn't they pick fat dancers instead, at least the blokes in the audience wouldn't feel so bad.)
I hope it's not too cloudly tonight.
I have just been asked if I want to enter into a debate with me vs 4(or more) christian apologetists. I could'nt say no to the offer even though I know I'm being stitched up.
Looks like I need to get my research hat on!
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
jhubert which I have decided to share.In the media, there are always reports on scientific discoveries and controversies. Unfortunately, all too often such reports are inaccurate or even grossly distorted, and it can be hard for laypeople to judge which reports to trust and which to discard. And since scientific accuracy is vital for making good policy decisions, this is obviously a problem.
With this in mind, I'd like to give you some short guidelines on determining the overall trustworthiness of cited scientific experts:
- First of all, read through the article and note down the names of scientists quoted in the article. These do have to be actual scientists working in the field, not political pundits and the like. If it does not list any scientists, consider the article to be untrustworthy unless you find other scientific sources confirming its claims.
- Now enter the names of those scientists into Google Scholar. Use their family names, and only enter a single name at a time. Verify that the given name of the scientists matches.
- If you don't get any returns on this query, the person in question is either not a scientist, or someone who has just started out - either way, not someone whose "expert opinion" you should trust.
- If there are articles listed under that name, check if they are actually in the field the scientist has been quoted on. If the scientist is working in an entirely different field, his expert opinions should be taken with a grain of salt. After all, would you ask a dentist for advice about your hemorrhoids?
- Finally, check the number of times the scientist's papers have been cited by other articles. If it's a large number, then it means that his research is generally well-regarded. If it's in the triple digits, he is likely a leader in the field. Conversely, someone whose citations are only in his single digits is likely only starting out and inexperienced.
These guidelines aren't perfect. Sometimes the view of scientists are being distorted to make it look as if they claimed something they didn't. And some listed articles are actually published in journals with no rigorous peer review - or in books. But for the most part, these should help you sort out the trustworthy sources from the untrustworthy ones.
If a really good human being (who believes in a christian god) dies and goes to heaven, they will know that there are billions of human beings suffering for eternity in hell and they could never do anything to help them. This would mean that this individual is actually in their own personal hell. The only type of person that could actually really feel happy in heaven would be someone selfish enough to ignore the plight of the billions suffering in hell and someone that selfish should be in hell. So according to christianity no one who deserves to go to heaven would ever actually get there, instead everyone ends up in hell.
I can only conclude that Christianity is a one way road to hell.
I found this little gem from the Rational Responders and thought i'd keep it.
God did not create the universe
Our universe was formed via the expansion of a singularity and subsequent formation of structures by hydrogen atoms through gravitational attraction. A magical deity adds nothing to the known explanation.
God did not create the solar system or the Earth
Our sun was formed by the particle clouds left behind from previous stars, and our planet (as well as every other planet in the solar system) formed from an accretion disk surrounding our sun.
God did not create life on Earth
Life on Earth was formed through a chemical evolutionary process known as 'abiogenesis' (not to be confused with modern evolutionary science, dealing with the propagation of alleles through a population).
God did not create Homo sapiens
Homo sapiens evolved along the primate branch of the genetic tree. We are simply the 'latest model' of great apes.
God did not give us 'souls' or 'free will'
Human beings are conscious and self-aware via their brains. An extra, magical source for our intelligence adds nothing to the known explanation.
God has yet to answer a prayer
Under controlled conditions, when a request is made via prayer for something unambiguous, nothing ever happens.
God did not provide us with accurate insight into the mechanics the universe he supposedly was somehow involved in erecting
None of the mythological texts supposedly divined into existence by God reflect reality.
To make matters worse, my brother turned up last week, seen an empty patch next door and offered to get that one too. I wouldn't normally give a shit, but I know he has no intention of doing any real hard work on it and it's going to be left to me to help my uncle with all the graft on that one too. I've tried to talk him out of it, but my uncles to exicted about having another massvie project to complete.
My weekends are now fucked, and all I wanted was to grow a few tomatoes... bloody family. I can't wait to emmigrate just so I can have some fucking space to do my own thing.
From what I can gather from reading Dawkins, his evangelical(ish) attitude is a direct result of having his lifetimes evolutionary work being constantly rubbished by theists. Scientists are used to receiving criticism from peers, but having your work attacked not on scientific grounds, but on theistic philosophy eventually led him to write The God Delusion. This led to those theists attacking The God Delusion, and when he defended himself again he became accused of being a fundamentalist! It was the constant theist baiting that led him to defend himself so vociferously. I suppose most evolutionary biologists have their work attacked by theists desperate to disprove evolution, so it was only a matter of time until one of them actually stood up for the truth, and Dawkins happened to be one biologist to many pushed too far.
Profile
- ockhamsadvocate
- ockhamsadvocate
Syndicate
