|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 187 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 83 of 187:
| 
Jul 31 23:09 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
dcat
|
|
response 84 of 187:
|
Aug 1 01:19 UTC 2003 |
(re #82 - the words in question are 'Lord' and 'His (or the) name',
respectively.)
|
other
|
|
response 85 of 187:
|
Aug 1 01:22 UTC 2003 |
The Torah is written typically without vowels. The word "Yahweh" for God
is an anglicization of the hebrew acronym for "he whose must not be said"
(or something to the same effect). In Hebrew prayer texts, IIRC, I've
often seen a double yud (a yud looks like large single quote) in place of
the word Adonai, which means God.
|
cross
|
|
response 86 of 187:
|
Aug 1 01:38 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 87 of 187:
|
Aug 1 03:21 UTC 2003 |
Really, other? I'd gotten a different impression from my study of Hebrew.
The Tetragrammaton is The Name. However, in pointed texts it has the
vowels of "Adonai", which gives "YeHoWaH", which is transliterated as
"Jehovah". Written one way, Read a completely different way.
|
other
|
|
response 88 of 187:
|
Aug 1 03:52 UTC 2003 |
I have never heard of "The Tetragrammaton," so I don't know what you mean
by it.
Yahweh and Jehovah both originate from the same acronym I mentioned.
Different people use different words/pronunciations. In my (extensive,
Reform) experience, it is uncommon for Jews to refer to Jehovah, but more
common to use Yahweh. Mostly, the Jews I grew up with just said "God."
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 89 of 187:
|
Aug 1 03:54 UTC 2003 |
Re #74: They don't just avoid taking it in vain, though. They won't even
use the full thing when writing about religious ideas.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 90 of 187:
|
Aug 1 03:55 UTC 2003 |
"Tetragrammaton" means 'four letters', and refers to YHWH.
|
tod
|
|
response 91 of 187:
|
Aug 1 17:54 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
beeswing
|
|
response 92 of 187:
|
Aug 2 04:05 UTC 2003 |
Was my understanding that Jewish Law forbade writing the name of God on
anything that could be destroyed. Reckon computer bulletin boards fall
in that category.
|
oval
|
|
response 93 of 187:
|
Aug 2 12:24 UTC 2003 |
doesn't everything?
|
goose
|
|
response 94 of 187:
|
Aug 3 14:36 UTC 2003 |
Entropy
|
tod
|
|
response 95 of 187:
|
Aug 4 16:36 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 96 of 187:
|
Aug 7 21:57 UTC 2003 |
While we were recently looking at the clear night sky on a lake in Michigan
(Ludington vicinity), we saw a number of clearly manmade things passing
overhead. This leads me to ask the following:
1) There were solitary things passing overhead, "way up there", which in the
old days we used to say "that was a satellite". But I really wonder: Can
one actually see a satellite with the naked eye? If so, since I can't imagine
them having their own illumination, what would illuminate them? Are they so
high that the sun can light them from "behind" the earth? If it's not a
satellite, then it must be some kind of very (?) high flying aircraft.
Commercial? Military?
2) At one point my sons first spotted 3 such things flying *in formation*.
Imagine the 3 points of an equilateral triangle in a "wedge" shape. Certainly
couldn't / wouldn't be commercial aircraft doing that. Why would the military
have 3 such aircraft flying in formation "so far up there"?
|
tod
|
|
response 97 of 187:
|
Aug 7 22:27 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 98 of 187:
|
Aug 7 22:29 UTC 2003 |
Satellites are illuminated by the sun, depending on the time and point in
their orbit. You can see satellites almost anytime somewhere in the sky
at night. The synchronous-orbit satellites are several times the earth's
diameter high, so they are illuminated most of the time.
Would have to know more about the orientation and colors of the 3-point
lights to interpret them. However some things do break up in orbit so
pieces can orbit near each other for a while.
|
sno
|
|
response 99 of 187:
|
Aug 8 01:20 UTC 2003 |
I had been checking a satellite watchers list and noticed that the
ISS was going to pass overhead that evening. I went out and saw two
bright lights moving in formation from the northwest to the north-north
east. This was the path that was expected that evening, but I couldn't
explain why there were two lights.
Checking later, I discovered that a shuttle was on a mission and had
just separated hours earlier, thus the two bright lights. An interesting
bonus.
|
jor
|
|
response 100 of 187:
|
Aug 8 01:28 UTC 2003 |
ah, heavenly bodies
|
tod
|
|
response 101 of 187:
|
Aug 8 02:39 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 102 of 187:
|
Aug 8 02:54 UTC 2003 |
Not only can you see satellites from the sunlight reflected off of
them, certain "birds" (Iridiums in particular) can appear brighter
than any star or planet.
If someone just launched a satellite, it might be in orbit in close
formation with its spent booster and perhaps parts of a payload
adapter. That could account for several items moving together
across the sky. To be certain, you'd have to check one of the
web sites devoted to such things; I suggest heavensabove.com.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 103 of 187:
|
Aug 8 17:22 UTC 2003 |
These were definitely *3* objects in a well defined formation heading
approximately northwest to southeast.
> web sites devoted to such things; I suggest heavensabove.com
Hmmm, when I go there, I don't see a web site devoted to star gazing, I see
a page pull of links to a variety of things, none of which is an obvious
selection for star gazing or related diversions.
|
micklpkl
|
|
response 104 of 187:
|
Aug 8 17:51 UTC 2003 |
try http://www.heavens-above.com/
|
tpryan
|
|
response 105 of 187:
|
Aug 9 20:39 UTC 2003 |
I also take it that when you do see a reflection of sunlight off
of a satellite, it is a bigger circle of light that you see than the
size of the satellite. The true size would be seen in the last moments
of it pasting from *its* daytime to nighttime.
|
russ
|
|
response 106 of 187:
|
Aug 11 00:02 UTC 2003 |
Re #105: The eye does not focus perfectly, especially in the dark
when the pupil is wide open. This causes light from bright point
sources to hit a circle of receptors intensely enough to cause the
impression of a much larger object.
The same is true of telescopes. Even the biggest star is too small
to resolve to a disc in an image, but the brightest stars leave rather
large spots in astrophotographs because of diffraction in the optics.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 107 of 187:
|
Aug 14 01:36 UTC 2003 |
I'd like to make CDs of exercise routines, primarily my own voice and blank
spaces of the appropriate time duration.
I was wondering if there was a something inexpensive that would work. I'm
using a ThinkPad running Windows XP (ducks as the rotten tomatoes come my
way).
Any suggestions?
|