Crucial Mistakes To Avoid When You Have To Buy A Telescope

By Gray Ryann
If you are wondering whether you should buy a telescope or not, you are most likely going to be inclined to doing the former because there is no reason why you must even think about getting one in the first place if you don't intend to have one.

The only reason you are having second thoughts could be you are short on cash or you don't know where to get the right one.

When you find yourself in a rut because you don't know how to get the best telescope, it would be better if you look for telescope reviews. The information you will find from these things will be really helpful in making the right decision.

You'll be able to easily acquire reviews online. Google it. That's the easiest way to do it.

Once you've finally decided to push through with your plan, make sure that you do not make the most widespread errors people commit when they buy a telescope.

No one wishes to make a wrong decision when buying something as expensive as a telescope. This is why you have to be sure you have everything covered.

Here are some of the mistakes you need to avoid when purchasing a telescope:

1. Buying from a supermarket or department store. You have to remember that these are not ideal places to purchase telescopes. The stuff you will find here are usually useless-ones that have plastic lenses and horrible optics.

2. Not doing a research first. As always, you have to be prepared in making any purchase. And since a telescope is not a cheap purchase, you have to know as much as you can about the product you are buying. Do a search online. See how much a certain telescope generally costs; what its features are. Do people recommend this? If not, why? These are some of the things you have to take into consideration.

3. Ignoring trusted names in manufacturing telescopes. If you want to be sure you get the best bang for your buck, you have to get products made by the trusted names in the industry. Buy telescopes produced by manufacturers like Orion, Meade, Discovery, Antares, and Celestron among others. You can never go wrong with brands that have built a name over the years.

4. Not listening to expert advice. There is a very big chance that you have no idea who to use a telescope, which type is suitable for a certain purpose, etc. This is why you have to listen to others who know. If you know people who know astronomy, it would pay to seek their advice.Crucial Mistakes To Avoid When You Have To Buy A Telescope

5. Buying on impulse. This is one of the worst things you can do. There are people who buy things that catch their attention. If you are one of them, then you are in danger of spending hundreds of dollars on a telescope that is of no use to you.Crucial Mistakes To Avoid When You Have To Buy A Telescope

You have to make the right decisions when you decide to buy a telescope. Learn the things you have to avoid and you can be guaranteed to make the right purchase.

READ MORE - Crucial Mistakes To Avoid When You Have To Buy A Telescope

NASA Not Buying Into the Predictions of Destruction on 12/21/12

By Martin Godden
While the Mayans, the Aztecs, Nostradamus and many others have made 2012 predictions for the end of the world, NASA has studied the theories and is not willing to buy into the hype of total destruction. As scientists and astronomers with all of our modern technology, NASA assures the U.S. Government and the world that December 21, 2012 and December 22, 2012 will be just another day. They have an explanation for everything.

NASA argues that planet Nibiru or "Planet X" and other planets have passed closely to our solar system many times and not upset anything. The 2012 prediction that this time when Nibiru passes closely to us, it will somehow cause a total collapse of our magnetic fields and the Earth will mass destruct, to NASA is folly.

According to this government agency, the sun and other planets align closely once a year and there has been no drastic change in our climate because of it. December 21, 2012 will simply be another winter solstice.

Polar reversals already occur irregularly. However, they do not cause the Earth's rotation to shift. NASA states unequivocally that this phenomenon is impossible. Is there a 2012 prediction by NASA that the North and South Pole will reverse? They do not say so. They do say that there is a projected increase in solar storms in the 2010-2014 timeframe. Earth should not be dramatically affected by these storms.

NASA agrees that the Mayan calendar does end on December 21, 2012. They also assert that a new calendar starts over. A New Age will come to fruition. As scientists, there are no predictions for whether or not this new Age will bring new attitudes of understanding and a feeling of working together. Attitudes and feeling are abstract and subjective, not scientific.

According to NASA, the Earth has always been in danger of being hit by meteors and other space garbage. The chance of something large enough to cause any real damage, however, is extremely rare and not likely to occur.

In general, NASA debunks the hype of the many internet sites that set forth 2012 predictions of a doomsday, Armageddon, Apocalypse based on predictions of cultures, some of which are now extinct. Are they trying to calm the fears of the world? It remains to be seen.

READ MORE - NASA Not Buying Into the Predictions of Destruction on 12/21/12

Where Is Heaven?

By Khalil Rahsheed
This is a seemingly simple question, with an incredibly endless number of esoteric answers. Answers generally based on individual religious or theological belief, rather than an explanation or demonstration of whether or not heaven exists as an actually physical locale. Is it a physically tangible realm in this or any universe or cosmos? Or is it rather a state consciousness or perception? When examining the various answers from a multitude of religious and theological teachings, the idea that heaven can only be one or the other, or even both becomes virtually impossible to say definitively, as in each it is described alternately as a definite physical location, and a as a realm that can only be experienced spiritually. If it is a physically tangible locale, that would seem simple enough to understand. Which Leaves us only wondering, which direction to start looking in to answer our original question, where is it? If it is a spiritual locale it is still not only perceptible in a spiritual sense but in a manner which is experienced while we are existing in the physical realm, as claimed by many in myriad theologies, if they are to be believed. But if this view is correct, where do we look to locate heaven.

Well let us start by looking into the definitions. Is it a state or condition of the mind, a certain consciousness? According to Wikipedia, the free internet encyclopedia, the etymology of the word Heaven derives from the word heven from around 1159 AD, which came from the earlier Old English heofon from around 1000 AD referring to the Christianized "place where God dwells" but which earlier meant "sky, firmament". Confucian's believe that Tian (Heaven) is the place where the ancestors reside. According to Hindu cosmology there are six Heavenly levels the Loka's. In Islam Jannat (Heaven) has seven levels. In Judaism Malkuth Hashamaim ( the Kingdom of Heaven) has seven levels.

Depending on the tribe the Polynesians vary in numbering the levels of Heaven from two up to nine. Practically every description, gives us an area away from earth somewhere in the sky! If we are indeed in search of a tangibly physical realm, in which direction do we look? If two people standing at opposite poles of the earth, two people at opposite points of the globe were to head away from earth in search of heaven, would either of them find it? If it isn't a matter of direction, is it a matter of distance? Steveland Morris, better known as 'Stevie Wonder' used to sing "They say that Heaven is Ten Zillion light years away". Is there a particular distance or point at which we find Heaven? I believe the impetus behind the search is the primary belief that Heaven in most theologies is 'The dwelling place of God'.

I'm 'going to' paraphrase Douglas Adams (1952-2001) who is quoted in Richard Dawkins book ' The God Delusion', as saying "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" Likewise isn't it enough that the heavens are so awesome, that we needn't be awed by a belief that they're occupied by angels and a heavenly father? I'd like to list some authors, books and websites, for your perusal. Let's build heaven on earth.

READ MORE - Where Is Heaven?

Variations On A Theme Cosmological

By John Prytz
In the infinite beginning was the vacuum energy (a quantum state of energy and matter, even if the matter is virtual). The vacuum energy resided in space and time (or space-time, post relativity theory). Now why 'in the infinite beginning'? It eliminates the awkward, nagging and very annoying philosophical question of 'what came before that?' Its neigh near impossible to avoid asking that because one just can't come to terms with a finite beginning to everything. It's obvious in a common sense sort of way that no matter how far back you go, something came before that.

From the vacuum energy (which again is a quantum phenomenon often termed vacuum or quantum fluctuations, the quantum jitters or quantum foam), at least one macro universe arose. This is theoretically possible (see references at the end) although I strongly suspect it has an awful lot to do with the quantum mantra that 'if it's not forbidden, it's compulsory' - at least if you're willing to wait long enough. Of course maybe more than one universe arose from the vacuum energy. The more the merrier!

Once formed, a macro universe is inherently unstable and will have to either expand (under at least the influence of 'dark energy') or contract (under the influence of gravity).

Roughly 13.7 billion years ago, one such macro universe experienced a runaway contraction, which terminated in a Big Crunch. All the matter and energy of that universe converged and contracted into a smaller and smaller volume, eventually forming the Mother of all Black Holes via the merging of existing smaller Black Holes and other matter and energy being sucked in to same - eventually there would be no escape; a single massive Black Hole is the end product of a Big Crunch.

That also means that the Mother of all Black Holes contained the Mother of all Singularities - the heart and center of all Black Holes.

The Mother of all Singularities was a macro object, contrary to popular perception. As it's impossible to have any object with zero volume and infinite density, a Singularity must have finite volume and finite density. As more and more stuffs get added to the Black Hole, and thus to its Singularity, the density keeps rising. But, it eventually hits its finite limit and as stuffs continue to be added, the density remains at its limit, and volume increases instead. Eventually that volume exceeds the size of the quantum realm. Because this Big Crunch Mother of all Singularities contained the contents of, the sum total of, an entire universe, it was of necessity of monster size. I don't know how large, but I'll guesstimate somewhere in the range of a stellar to galactic sized object

Because matter/energy influence space-time, and vice versa (matter 'tells' space how to warp; space 'tells' matter how to move - i.e. General Relativity), such a massive macro monster of a Singularity would warp space-time, and in such a brief time, to such an extent that all space-time in the region would be unstable, as would be the Singularity (think radioactive particle decay here as an analogy). The volatile and unstable distortion of space, time, matter and energy resulted in the dead guts of the former universe, contents residing in the Mother of all Singularities, 'decaying' or 'exploding' or just plain spewing the content of its guts back out again, in a reverse of the Big Crunch. That event we of course now call the Big Bang; the 'object' doing the spewing we can call, for lack of a better phrase, a 'White Hole'. Thus we have the previous universe's Big Crunch, which created the ultimate Black Hole, massive distortion or warping of space-time, hence a spewing White Hole, and our Big Bang. General Relative allows for or permits such a scenario.

If anything unfortunately finds itself on a one-way journey down a Black Hole, ultimately ending up as part of that Hole's Singularity, then apart from the property of mass, all other distinguishing features, color, texture, chemical composition, shape, hardness, physical state (solid, liquid, gas or plasma), etc. will be crushed out of it and lost forever. What remains wouldn't look anything like what went in. What remains of a TV set would look the same as the remains of a human being! A Singularity is the ultimate crusher!

Thus, a Singularity (not than anyone has ever seen one) would have to be nearly featureless, a uniform a blob of stuff as you can imagine. A Singularity certainly has mass, volume, and would have a perfectly spherical shape, temperature, perhaps electric charge, maybe rotation as well, but otherwise would just be a homogenous sameness through and through. In fact, there are those who suggest that a Singularity represents a new state of matter - a phase transition from the states we know to something else entirely. For example, if you had a star made of matter, and another identical star in every way except it was composed of antimatter, and the two stars merged, you'd have one big Ka-Boom! You'd end up with the total annihilation of matter into pure energy. Now, say the matter star, once its fuel ran out, collapsed under gravity into a Black Hole. Now say the antimatter star, once its fuel ran out, collapsed under gravity into a Black Hole. Now merge the matter Black Hole with the antimatter Black Hole. What do you get? Not a Ka-Boom, but a much larger Black Hole with twice the mass! Be that as it may, I notice that a homogenous Singularity mirrors our homogenous Universe.

Our observable universe appears to be both isotropic (it pretty much looks the same from any given point) and homogeneous (the universe is uniform no matter where you go). Collectively, these facets are known as the Cosmological Principle. In actual fact however, the observable universe isn't really ultra homogeneous - it's really sort of lumpy, what with all those planets, stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc. However, the lumpiness is on a pretty small scale relative to the size of the observable universe. It's akin to a smooth beach of sand. Only on close examination, on the micro scale is the beach lumpy, in that you're likely to find shells and pebbles that also comprise the beach and which are lumpy.

Currently, the concept of 'inflation' is used to explain why the Universe is so smooth and uniform, akin to blowing up a balloon smoothes out its wrinkles. Quantum fluctuations at the time of inflation, which would have occurred with micro-seconds of the Big Bang, accounts for the tiny variations in the Universe's properties - a slight lumpiness in the distribution of matter, slight (and I do mean slight) differences in background temperature (the cosmic microwave background radiation), and so on.

But, if our overall bland, homogenous, isotropic Universe arose from an overall bland, homogenous, isotropic, one-kind-of-stuff parent Singularity, then who needs inflation to account for the overall smooth appearance of our Universe? Of course, again, it's not 100% smooth because random quantum fluctuations operated even back then (13.7 billion years ago) and in those first few micro-seconds of the Big Bang event. So the Universe is indeed a little bit variable and a little bit lumpy, which is just as well, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

One final bit, probably only part of our parent Singularity accounts for our observable universe. The rest of said Singularity accounts for that part of our entire Universe that we can't observe. What the ratio between observable and total is, I know not, but why do I have this feeling that what we observe is only a tiny fraction of all that's out there!

The question arises that if our Universe originated from another universe's singularity, and that in our Universe singularities form the centre of Black Holes (of all sizes), then could these singularities, if they became large enough and unstable enough (via the extreme warping of space-time), ultimately form new baby universes in their own right?

Where all this differs from the standard cosmological (Big Bang) model is: 1) The Big Bang wasn't a micro (quantum realm) event; 2) the Big Bang event occurred in existing space and time instead of creating space and time; and 3) there was therefore a 'before the Big Bang', but alas, a 'before' probably forever beyond our capabilities of directly knowing the fine print. With respect to 2) immediately above, is there any observation that has been, or can be made, that can distinguish between space expanding (as a result of the Big Bang having created space in the first instance) and expanding space carrying matter/energy along for the ride (the standard spiel), vis-à-vis matter/energy moving through space as the result of a Big Bang explosion (or spewing event) in preexisting space? The answer is "no".

How is this process maintained indefinitely, such that there not only was no beginning, but no end either? I mean if all universes expand forever, things ultimately come to an apparent sticky end. Well, assuming a universe doesn't have a sufficient mass/energy density to cause the expansion to slow down, stop, reverse, and collapse back to a Big Crunch (like ours), then sooner or later, part of an ever expanding universe will intersect with part of another ever expanding universe (if Mother Nature can produce one universe, she can produce more than one universe). The resulting local increase in mass/energy density due to that intersection could be enough to trigger that area to undergo a gravitational collapse with a local Big Crunch the ultimate result, resulting in the production of a new universe - which may, or may itself expand indefinitely or may collapse into another Big Crunch scenario.

An Analogy: All analogies are a bit suspect, but this one I hope will illustrate my general idea immediately above. I'm going to substitute a supernova for the Big Bang.

Interstellar gas and dust slowly come together, contracting under their mutual gravitational attraction, ultimately forming a massive star which ignites (via thermonuclear fusion). One could think of the process as a mini Big Crunch.

The star, being massive, rapidly exhausts its fuel supply, and the resulting imbalance between gravity (inward pressure) and radiation pressure (outward pressure), a balance of pressures that normally keeps a star's size constant, results in a massive implosion hence explosion - a supernova. The supernova spews its stuff, most of it anyway, back into interstellar space. That's a mini Big Bang.

Now supernovae occur in existing space-time; they don't create space-time. They don't create matter/energy; rather recycle it - from interstellar gas and dust, back to interstellar gas and dust. However, the intense energies and pressures can create new forms of matter (heavier elements) from their supply of lighter elements. This is ultimately necessary for the origin and development of carbon-based life.

So we have a micro system of mini Big Crunches (stellar formation) leading to mini Big Bangs (supernovae - stellar death) - a sort of cyclic universe in miniature.

Now we note that supernovae happen at specific coordinates. They happen at a point in space and time, like I suspect the real Big Bang did. A supernova is also not a quantum event, much like I suspect the actual Big Bang wasn't.

It is claimed that our Big Bang had no point of origin, no specific coordinates in space-time. The Big Bang happened everywhere, since it created space-time in the first place. Thus, our telescopes can't find or pinpoint where it happened. In our supernova explosion, all the bits and pieces will, over the eons, become so spread out, and/or incorporated into other stellar/planetary bodies, as to be no longer detectable or associated with the supernova event. The core of the supernova might remain for a while as a neutron star or Black Hole, but they too will eventually radiate away - in the latter case via Hawking radiation. Thus, exactly where the supernova event happened, ultimately, over the eons, will no longer be identifiable on the cosmic map. I suspect the same for the real Big Bang.

Using another analogy, imaging a closed room with a fireplace and light the fireplace for, say an hour. Then put out the fire, and leave the room for a half hour. When reentering the room, it should be obvious, especially using an infrared detector, the exact point of origin for the heat - the fireplace. Now instead of reentering the room after a half an hour, delay reentry for a half year. By that time the fireplace will be equal in temperature to the rest of the room, and thus won't stand out, infrared detector or no. Substitute the Big Bang for the fireplace; the Universe for the room. Too much time has elapsed for the Big Bang's coordinates to be located.

We note that the bits and pieces that are explosively emitted by supernovae are expanding throughout existing space, just like a mini Big Bang event and mirroring the real Big Bang event. Further, every bit 'sees' every other bit moving away from it at a velocity proportional to its distance away. The further away, the faster it's going, just like a real Big Bang.

We note that a supernova has a cause. Supernovae don't happen for no reason at all. That also mirrors what I feel must be the case for our own actual Big Bang.

One other word to make the analogy more complete - our Universe may have originated in a Big Bang, but it's unlikely to end in a Big Crunch. Well, that's okay in our supernova analogy. A star doesn't go supernova, spew out gas and dust, which then contracts in total to reform the star when then eventually explodes as a supernova, etc. Its explosive oomph is greater than the gravity needed to gather the gas and dust back together again.

So in our Universe we have local areas of gas and dust contraction - mini Big Crunches - stellar formation; local areas of expansion - mini Big Bangs - supernovae. Now expand the picture to the level of real large scale Big Crunches and real large scale Big Bangs, all inside a super-sized universe. This super-sized universe really is super-sized. It's infinite in time and in space. It's not a closed system in that there's nothing outside of it. You can't get any bigger than infinite volume.

This infinite cosmos contains lots of embedded universes, maybe even an infinite number of them. Some universes are expanding then contracting; some universes (like ours) are expanding, forever and ever expanding; some areas of ever expanding expansion can intersect with other universe's ever expanding expansions, as in the case of two or more supernovae, causing local pockets of contraction, or Big Crunches.Variations On A Theme Cosmological

As I said, analogies are not the actual same as what they are meant to represent, but, I think the supernova substitute for the Big Bang more exactly illustrates reality than some of the claptrap offered up by the professionals.Variations On A Theme Cosmological

Postscript: Can one however now logically ask whether or not our Universe arose directly from the vacuum energy 13.7 billion years ago and bypass all this Big Crunch, Singularity, space warping nonsense? While that's of course a possibility - see references below - that specific scenario, as opposed to universes in general being so formed, hasn't been considered as serious an option vis-à-vis the death of one universe giving rise, Phoenix-like, to the birth of another, as in ours. My gut feeling says that you wouldn't have the same sort of observational evidence that we have to currently account for (i.e. - cosmic microwave background radiation, etc.) in an origin via the vacuum energy. Regardless, a vacuum energy origin still differs from the standard Big Bang model in that the vacuum energy, (time and space, matter and energy), preexisted the Big Bang - and that's not on according to traditionalists.

READ MORE - Variations On A Theme Cosmological

Full Moon And Lunar Effect

By Chris Cornell
There were countless studies and researches done with the intentions of understanding deeper about the lunar effect. Yes there were experiments carried out to test the inference but none of them have proven anything very significant to warrant a confirmation of causal relationship between moon phases and human behavior. The main discovery was probably the slight influence of moon onto the global temperate thus affecting the plant growth. Although it seems to be a non-existent correlation, there are certain communities who still insist that there is strong connection with the lunar phases with human's fertility and women's menstrual cycles. In fact, they have some scientific explanation to support their stand.Full Moon And Lunar Effect

These groups of people accepted the mentality that the light from the moon is capable of affecting a woman's fertility, like how it happens in corals. The lunar effect, from the judgment of science is too minor a source to be deemed to have significant effect on women's lives. It is very likely similar to say that the moon gravitational hauls has no or only minimal effect on women's ovulation processes. Scientifically studied and proven, the average menstrual cycle of a woman is 28 days but this figure is not fixed for all as every human portray different body system. But what is contradicting is that the lunar month marks a period of 29.53 days instead of 28 so they are clearly not identical, unlike what has been claimed by those believers.Full Moon And Lunar Effect

These mythmakers created the belief that during the olden days, women had their rhythmic cycle in sync with the lunar effect; however the indoor electric lighting and civilization have affected the menstrual cycle. Nevertheless, no one is capable of proving this inference up to this day. But it has been defied several times with the support that this statement appeared to be plausible but people realized civilization and indoor artificial lighting have not affected other mammals so why should they impact only onto human beings. Those who receive no influence are not in sync with the moon phases as well so in other words, it was a mere ancient speculation yet not proven.

READ MORE - Full Moon And Lunar Effect

Facts About Lunar Phases

By Chris Cornell
To understand the lunar phases you should first observe the changes of the shapes of the moon and when it appears so. The moon's figure is formed through reflection of sunlight from the Sun then shining onto the Earth's surface. The moon phases are a great portion of the study considering the series of movement is what makes the moon a unique object in the universe. In fact during the ancient days, it was the moon that plays the role as a time reference and prediction for best fishing times. Due to the moon and its benefits, people noticed the changes of the moon's figure, conducted researches and concluded many things.

One of the findings they found out is that the lunar phases are consistently rotating. They go round and round without ending and every cycle is similar as the previous cycle. As there were no tools or technological devices to remind them of time, prehistoric populace only had the moon to be their guidance in life, besides the mighty Sun. The phase of the moon would indicate the time or month of the year, although it was not implied exactly in the form of months like how we are symbolizing the periodic months. But of course, the use of the moon did differ from one culture to another, one religion to the other.Facts About Lunar Phases

Although the moon appears to be changing according to the lunar phases, it is not literally changing. It was the amount of light it reflects that is constantly altering. The moon always remains the same and the light does not affect the shape of the moon, in any ways. In fact, it has has no power of light and it receives all the light from the Sun. Most people are unaware of this that they thought it is capable of glowing and beautifully bright. As a matter of fact, the moon is one mysterious yet very enchanting object.Facts About Lunar Phases

Lifeware Solutions offers Moon Phase Applications to explore moon influence on our life. The applications feature comprehensive moon phase information, moon calendar, moon compass, gardening by the moon, horoscope and zodiacs. Visit Lifeware Solutions to get a version for your iPhone, Android, Windows Mobile and Windows Phone 7 phones.

READ MORE - Facts About Lunar Phases

Misconceptions Of Moon's Influence

By Chris Cornell
During the ancient days, humans were not very informative, having little or zero knowledge about their surrounding occurrences, including the moon influence into human's lives. They thought that the lunar force originating from the moon is strong but in fact it is just a minor tidal pull. Scientific studies have proven that a child in the mother's embrace will exert twelve million times as much of tidal force compared to the moon. However the old conventional mentality has not been completely wiped off as some people still hold onto the belief that the moon's lunatic haul is capable of causing earthquakes, which is rather absurd from the view of the science facts. As a matter of fact, none of the objects - the Sun or moon has the capability of pushing powerful forces onto the Earth.

It may be known fact that there is moon influence onto the tidal waves of the sea but it is never logic to make it applicable on human body. Those who claim this support their saying with the point that human body is mostly occupied by water hence the force should affect human's behavior as well. This is erroneous and has no scientific proofs. A valid explanation is that the moon affects the Earth's unbounded collection of water surface but water in the human body is completely covered, it is totally ridiculous to say the moon can direct the force through the skin into the body then impinge on the human's individual character.

Besides, the misconception is detected as the force from the moon influence comes from the distance, not affected by the phase. The moment of perigee, where the moon is situated closest to the Earth can happen at any time of the phase and higher tides are caused by the position of the Earth, moon and Sun. This is because strong tidal forces are exerted and these forces are a combination of the moon's and the Sun's, not entirely the contribution of the moon. There was a book by Arnold Lieber who commented that the catastrophic earthquake caused by the moon's force yet there was no such happenings. Although he did a prediction of an earthquake in California, everything that happened was not of what he derived to be.

READ MORE - Misconceptions Of Moon's Influence