I need to get out more. Out of doors . . . out of my mind, insofar as my mind might be described as 'habitual thoughts.'
Doing the first can facilitate the second.
Consider these stunning peeks of "out there." Do you feel the walls of your mind coming down, just a little?
[all below photos of planet Earth thanks to NASA]
Shouldn't you be looking at and appreciating your own planet? I'm talking to you, you with your peepers to any sort of lens trained on the beauty beyond. What kind of pervert are you?
Me, I'm a pervert of the astronomical variety (for one). Thanks to the Internet and sites such as NASA's Picture of the Day, I get to feast my eyes on heavenly bodies like the handful of pin-up worthy pics below. Have you the moral fortitude to look away in fidelity to your own planet? Or does no such black/white choice exist?
My recommendation: Peep away.
Hyperion. She's gravitationally attached to Saturn. So don't get any ideas.
The Sun. Talk about hot.
The asteroid Vesta. Unattached. Kinda dangerous. Might some day wreck your home.
The south pole of Mars. You like? You dirty, dirty man. Or woman. What, you say you are just curious? Admit it -- you are a voyeur. Welcome to club. Support group begins at 7:00.
PZ Myers of Pharyngula had an interesting post yesterday about the now "dead" NASA shuttle program. His conclusion: the program was a failure. (Well, in his words, "flop.") And an expensive one at that.
While I applaud the sober courage to criticize and "be real" in the midst of sentimental fanfare, I wonder about the dynamics of the presented NAY in counter to the YAE. Must we go black to mar simplistic white? Or is grayer approach, at least initially, more rational?
One gray element I wonder about is the notion of a program being either a success or a failure. Perhaps the shuttle program was primarily a failure, if we can specify a goal and determine it failed to attain that goal. Yet even if the program failed to meet its most essential goals, does that mean the entire enterprise was a failure? For example, the efforts of seafarer Columbus could be called an epic failure because by crossing the Atlantic he never made it to India and the Far East -- his #1 goal. But was the enterprise a failure?
And then there is this question: If an undertaking results in failure, does that mean it was a mistake? I don't think so. As much as we may clearly see problems and errors in hind-sight, human beings are not omniscient. Much of how we progress is via old-school, trial and error.
In the least, the NASA shuttle program helped us learn a lot. Through success, through failure. And Hey, you got to love all the fantastic, souvenir-like photos it provided. That's worth something, isn't it?
Thank you for the following images, NASA!
Here's a thought-provoking bit of information: If the moon were smaller, it would have taken the god of Genesis longer to create the universe. Yes, smaller moon, more days of creation.
We read in the Bible that the Genesis god accomplished his feat in seven days. For six he toiled, perhaps breaking a sweat, on the seventh he rested. Where did this "seven" come from?
Throughout history cultures have had special numbers. To the Mayan civilization these happened to be 13 and 20. The 20 is thought to reflect an early counting technique relying on fingers and toes. (Perhaps when the sun rose on the digit of your fourth toe, it was time to bring your piggies to market.) This method of time-keeping only worked for barefooted or sandaled populations. As for the 13, scholars aren't sure where that came from. Multiply 13 by 20 and you get, roughly, the human gestational period. You also get the length of the early Mayan religious year.
While the Chinese had ten-day weeks, the early Greeks had eight-day weeks. The Bible's seven probably originated in Babylonia via their sky-watchers. Seven is roughly one-quarter of the phase of the moon. Babylonian astronomers recognized 7 heavenly bodies: the sun, the moon, and the five planets visible without the aid of the Hubble space telescope.
While the Earth's orbit around the sun provided the length of a year, the Earth's rotational speed provided the length of a day. The moon's orbit around the Earth provided another period. Days were grouped according to the waxing and waning of the moon. One quarter of the moon's twenty-nine-point-something cycle is seven, roughly, which eventually became the standard week.
If our moon were significantly larger, it would have to travel at a greater rate to keep the more intense gravitational pull from sending it headlong into Texas. Likewise, if the moon were smaller, it would have to travel at a slower rate, otherwise the Earth's gravitational field would not be sufficiently strong to keep it in orbit. A smaller moon means longer moon periods, "moonths" if you will. This would mean longer quarter-periods.
So had the moon been smaller it may have taken the Genesis god 9, or 13, or even 25 days to create the universe. In a sense, a god is not responsible for the characteristics of the universe; the universe is responsible for the characteristics of a god.
Recent Comments