Murali_Mohan_das

While I'll admit that theist can sound a bit strident on this topic, to say he's doing nothing is to be disingenuous. Param-Gurudev, in his later years, almost never left his veranda. Rather, sincere seekers from around the world came to sit at his feet and hear him speak. What (practically-speaking) was he doing, but speaking from his arm-chair? Yet, just see how his words have affected so many other sincere seekers throughout the world!! See what wonders have come from his gentle voice?!?! In his own way--to the extent of his capacity--theist *is* doing what he can. Many of us have a deep respect for theist and try to take anything he says/writes to heart.

Those who are as advanced as you are can make such distinctions. For the neophyte like me, such distinctions are in no way USEFUL. For whatever reason (even vanity), I must cling to the feet of Gurudev like a baby monkey clinging to the back of her mother. Perhaps, in time, I will gain some appreciation of just who Gurudev is.

I'm harping on you because you're too much of a coward to admit when you're wrong! You change the subject, back-pedal, anything to avoid owning up to your all-too-apparent limitations. When someone points out that, yes, there *is* "scientific proof", you start attacking the character of the scientists involved as if you are yourself above reproach. You're not being blamed for anything other than for making a mountain out of a mole-hill. To call the money spent on astronomy a waste is to demonstrate that you have no sense of perspective whatsoever.

Wasn't talking about the rocks in your head, ji! Talking about the rocks in your pants--cajones! Those guys that flew to the moon (or not, take your pick) were fighter pilots and test pilots--they weren't afraid of ANYTHING (at least not after a few shots of Irish courage)!

That's fascinating!! Surely, it's an example of how, seemingly useless science can yield unexpected benefits (and, of course, unexptected liabilities as well).

Are you saying *you* wouldn't have the rocks to go over Niagara Falls in a barrel?

If you want to talk about scientific waste, let's talk about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Take a look at what Al Gore's fear-mongering has done for the budget for climate science: According to "The Great Global Warming Swindle" documentary aired on BBC (http://www.impactlab.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=11141), the climate science budget has gone from $200 million to $2 billion dollars over the past ten years. I looked around a bit for some more independent confirmation of those numbers, but can't readily find anything. Suffice it to say, there's lots of money to be had these days if the grant proposal includes the terms "global warming". What do you think the chances are that any of that money spent will have any effect on the future climate whatsoever? Despite all that, climate research is a *bargain* compared to the millitary boys and their shiny toys.

Now, what we were looking at below is the budget for "space exploration", which is a lot more than just astronomy. How much is spent by the US on astronomy? http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/06pch15.htm So, round it off to $200 million. Now, let's look at how much the US is spending on the War of Terror in Iraq daily: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-26-iraq-war-clock_x.htm So, in case you missed that, in two days, the US spends more on war than it does on astronomy in a year. Yeah, astronomy is a *big* waste, isn't it?

No, friend, scientists are looking at light from 9 billion years ago to ascertain the nature of the universe 9 billion years ago!!! To ascertain the nature of the universe today, the scientists can look at any of those 26 stars on the list I posted and see light from 12 years ago or less. Really, how thick can you be???

Prabhu/Dude!!! I went to New York City last week and you want to harp on astronomy as an example of waste?!?!?! How about a city that flies and trucks in fruit from Chile and California, so it's denizens don't have to get their $400 loafers muddy!! How about a city that has tens of thousands of yellow cars driving around empty so lazy executives don't have to bother looking for parking spaces (when walking would often be faster than taking a cab)?!?! http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=684 and Now, let's look at defense budgets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States and </sup>

You do realize, don't you, that the PC on which you're reading this is more powerful than all the computers in the Space Shuttle put together, don't you? http://www.enme.umd.edu/news/news_story.php?id=1458 It's the military that gets all the new, shiny toys! (see photo below).

From Search for Sri Krishna: Reality the Beautiful (Page 84): http://www.scsmath.com/books/Search_Sri_Krishna.pdf Having developed a taste for the works of the Bard, I took a class in Shakespeare while in college (despite being an Engineering major). The professor was a legend on campus--everybody talked about how brilliant he is. I found most of his lectures inscrutable and incomprehensible (and wondered if I was alone). Early in the class, when I raised my hand to question the teacher's interpretations of "Troilus and Cressida", I was told to re-read the play (which I believed I had read quite intently). Seeing as no discussion was possible, I settled into befuddled silence for the rest of the classes, marvelling at the professor's ability to BS a room full of my country's best and brightest. *That* is a cult of personality. Gurudev, on the other hand, is most certainly *not* relying on the weight of his opinion (however weighty that opinion may be) to steamroll over opposition. As Param-Gurudev says, 'Guru means “one who dispels the darkness"'. That is to say, the brilliance of Gurudev banishes the fog that surrounds us so that we may plainly SEE FOR OURSELVES something of the nature of Reality. When I hear Gurudev speak, it is as if I am remembering something from a long-forgotten dream. All of that knowledge is already present in my heart-of-hearts, but it is covered over by many lifetimes worth of useless trivia. All those voices in my head, which are usually tugging me this way or that way, cry out in unison, "YES!!! This is the nectar for which we have been searching for so desperately (and with such futility)!!" Guru-centrism???? HECK YEAH!!!!

Well, these burger-heads (wasn't that how you put it?) have managed to create very small, short-lived suns right here on Earth:

Back on topic... From the ever-useful if not ever-accurate Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star From the article on Astronomical spectroscopy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_spectroscopy

From Search for Sri Krishna: Reality the Beautiful (pg. 75) http://www.scsmath.com/books/Search_Sri_Krishna.pdf

The only way someone can have blind faith in science is if they know nothing about it. A good scientist has no blind faith.

You can think what you like about the scientists (and anybody else). I was merely trying to answer the question--yes, there is "scientific" proof that the Sun and other stars are of similar composition. Can we confirm our instrumental assessments by direct observation? Not likely. It's easy to feel superior and smug, isn't it? Being truly humble is more of a challenge.

Here's a list of the 26 nearest stars: http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~dolan/constellations/extra/nearest.html The furthest star on the list is 11.7 light years away, so the light arriving now would be from when you were potty-training your youngest child, wouldn't it, Gauravani. Not exactly ancient history, is it?

And some folks just can't learn anything about the universe no matter *where* (or when) they look. How about 5000 years in the past? Or 500?

When *I* grow atheism, I start out by sprouting some atheist seeds in some muddy water. Then, when there are a couple of leaves and some roots showing from the atheism sprout, I make a little hole in the top of a row in the garden, and put the little seedling in it and cover the roots with dirt. Then I water the budding atheist with fear, uncertainty and doubt, at which point it begins a growth spurt. Before the little atheist gets a chance to go to seed and become bitter, I harvest it, steam it and serve it with olive oil and lemon. Delicious!!! Hmmmm...a thought just occurred. I wonder if baby atheist can be offered to the Lord?

From John Robbins (usually an excellent source): http://www.foodrevolution.org/grassfedbeef.htm Key quote: So, I was wrong. Of course, if you read the whole article, there are certainly other issues surrounding grain-based diet for cows.

Well, reading this might give you a headache just as it gave me one, but: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10434849&dopt=Abstract Here's the key sentence: Hmmmm...looks like I might have gotten it backwards. Grasses lead to more methane? Further reasearch required. And more, if you want it:

Agreed. However, I wouldn't be watching TV to learn about science. Most of the science programming I've seen lately is targeted at the lowest common denominator (would that be you?). The most recent program on dinosaurs (a favorite of my son's) had a distinguished-sounding Englishman reading a script that sounded like it was written by a fourth-grader. In any case, here's the theory behind the science: Astrophysicists use spectrography to analyze distant bodies. Spectrography is based on the fact that, depending on the chemical make-up of a substance, when it burns, it will give off a unique spectrum of light (put the end of a bare copper wire in the flame on your stove and watch the flame turn green). By comparing the spectra from distant stars with the spectrum of our own sun, we can make comparisons regarding their chemical make-up. By observing the Doppler shift in the observed spectra, scientists can ascertain whether the body is moving towards or away from the point of observation. Look up "spectrography" on Google or Wikipedia for more info.

I don't have a reference handy, but I believe one of the reasons cows these days are so flatulent is because of the unnatural diet they are fed in the process of factory farming. Cows are ruminants and, as such, naturally eat a diet high in grasses.In factory farming, in order to more quickly fatten the cattle, grain (mostly corn) is fed to the cows. It is because of this that the cows need to be fed a steady stream of anti-biotics to keep them from getting sick, which in turn leads to breeding of superbugs, etc.

I wonder if seal-pup clubbers have a higher rate of suicide?