A long way from here

par·sec (pär'sĕk') n. A unit of astronomical length based on the distance from Earth at which stellar parallax is one second of arc and equal to 3.258 light-years, 3.086×10^13 kilometers, or 1.918 × 10^13 miles.

par·al·lax (păr'э-lăks') n. An apparent change in the direction of an object, caused by a change in observational position that provides a new line of sight. --par”al·lac“tic (-lăk'tĭk) adj.

Another word I was sort of familiar with.  I had heard it used in science fiction in regards to distances in interstellar flight.  I never paid much attention to it, but I figured it was a long ways.  As it turns out, it is not that much better than "light year" in describing distance.  It came into use as shorthand having to do with a second of an arch in viewing the heavens. It has no relation to the distance "covered" in the arc itself, but rather is figured out using equations based on the distance from the sun to the earth.

You see, we figure out how far "near by" stars are by looking at them six months apart when compared to "stationary" stars or galaxies much farther away.  In doing this, a triangulation is performed by which the distance is figured by how much of an arc a star apparently moves.  The point in space forming a focal point formed by a right triangle with a one second point opposite the vertical line from the earth to the sun.  Here is the illustration taken from the Wikipedia article

The triangle is not to scale!  There are 60 "minutes" in a degree, and of course 60 seconds to a degree.   The figure above represents an approximate distance based on the value of pi (an irrational number), but basically a parsec is over 200,000 times the distance to the sun (93,000,000 miles)!  Long story short, the imaginary point in space is a long way away.  However, the closest star apart from Sol is a bit further away, appearing to move a bit over a "second" in the arc of the sky.

It has been figured that a "light nano-second" is about 1 foot, so a "nano-parsec" would be around 40 inches (3.25 * 12), or around a meter.  Either way, of course, brings it down to a distance we can visualize.

As used in science fiction, though, the parcec is not a good term to use as a universal measurement.  It is based on the earth's relationship to it's star.  Any other planets would be about the same distance, so an average would have to be worked out.  The same thing goes for the "light year," since years would be of differing lengths.  That leads to other discussions about earth's special place in the universe, which probably does not float well in sci-fi circles. 

Within Ethical Boundaries

An example of pure science - dedicated professionals using FACTS to solve problems that seemed "unsurmountable" only a few years ago! President Bush faced a dilemma, being pro-life while being considered anti-science. And so, he compromised, allowing continued work on existing cells created from destroyed human embryos. The Left was not satisfied, seeing a need for MORE of the killing of those tiny humans. The Right was not happy because the government allowed research, though without its funds, to continue. And so, dedicated scientists used funds available to them to do the obvious: figure out HOW an ovum could change nuclear material from a fat cell into an embryo (the source for "stem" cells) in the process of cloning.

The solution was in the genes. Trial and error, and some common sense elimination, narrowed the genes down to FOUR! In a strange switch of priorities, Japanese scientists did this with mouse cells and Americans did it with human cells. It works the same with both species. "Stem cells" can be grown from skin cells (or any cell) in a lab! Now BOTH sides of the political spectrum can get back to advancing research "within ethical boundaries."

Check out the New York Times article (full article available for a limited time only) for further details.

Is Science a "Religion"?

In an interesting op-ed Paul Davies concludes: "until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus." In this copyrighted article, he explains that the only rational way to be a scientist is to BELIEVE that the "laws of physics" are absolute. Whether a scientist is peering into "inner space" at the sub-atomic level, or the vast expanse of outer space, he is EXPECTING to find order, not chaos. Even when he tries to explain HOW everything came to be, he must depend on the basic laws of physics to assemble "order" from chaos.

And so, away with this nonsense that "faith" is devoid of reason! For "reason" is not devoid of faith. And, it never will be. It is impossible for a finite mind -- even the collective minds of all of humanity -- to explain the infinite source of the "laws of physics." Isaac Newton was a genius, but he was also very religious. He saw the connection. Let our self-appointed gurus of science take note.

Jesus vs. "public" schools

For the last 43 years public schools have been actively campaigned AGAINST Jesus. But it seems that the Lord warned these august institutions in the most certain terms that their modern mission is totally against HIM:

Matt. 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

That is pretty heavy stuff! These public "educators" that discipline children for giving religious Christmas cards had better think twice. The numbers of Christian children that are leaving the church is alarming. Imagine the answers the public school teachers that taught the folly of evolutionary science as THE science must give at the throne.

I tremble to think of what is to come for these "educators."