Astronomy and the quran

[Niflmir]

I like comments when talking about space as 'right to left'. Which way are you looking at the solar system? There is not top or bottom, right or left, or even clockwise or counterclockwise. Its all perspective.

Yeah but at least with clockwise and counter clockwise you only need to specify one other direction, up. Then you can use the right/left hand rule to figure it out. Helicity eliminates that problem so long as there is a non-vanishing velocity. The fact that you need two other independent directions to define left and right also explains why your reflection raises his or her left hand when you raise your right hand: you have changed the direction of forward when you consider things from your reflection's perspective.

 

[#juan]

FYI, Pluto was demoted last year by astronomers. It is now considered to be a "Dwarf Planet"

http://tinyurl.com/oqbpl

The IAU members gathered at the 2006 General Assembly agreed that a "planet" is defined as a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

This means that the Solar System consists of eight "planets" Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. A new distinct class of objects called "dwarf planets" was also decided. It was agreed that "planets" and "dwarf planets" are two distinct classes of objects. The first members of the "dwarf planet" category are Ceres, Pluto and 2003 UB313 (temporary name). More "dwarf planets" are expected to be announced by the IAU in the coming months and years. Currently a dozen candidate "dwarf planets" are listed on IAU's "dwarf planet" watchlist, which keeps changing as new objects are found and the physics of the existing candidates becomes better known.

 

[Niflmir]

FYI, Pluto was demoted last year by astronomers. It is now considered to be a "Dwarf Planet"

http://tinyurl.com/oqbpl

The IAU members gathered at the 2006 General Assembly agreed that a "planet" is defined as a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

This means that the Solar System consists of eight "planets" Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. A new distinct class of objects called "dwarf planets" was also decided. It was agreed that "planets" and "dwarf planets" are two distinct classes of objects. The first members of the "dwarf planet" category are Ceres, Pluto and 2003 UB313 (temporary name). More "dwarf planets" are expected to be announced by the IAU in the coming months and years. Currently a dozen candidate "dwarf planets" are listed on IAU's "dwarf planet" watchlist, which keeps changing as new objects are found and the physics of the existing candidates becomes better known.

And the astronomers in our department were discussing this for a long time before it. I didn't really see why it mattered, we don't call our sun a star, so why bother calling extra solar stellar satellites planets? Just make up some net name for them and leave Pluto alone for historical reasons. But they had their reasons.

 

[#juan]

And the astronomers in our department were discussing this for a long time before it. I didn't really see why it mattered, we don't call our sun a star, so why bother calling extra solar stellar satellites planets? Just make up some net name for them and leave Pluto alone for historical reasons. But they had their reasons.

I've been an amateur astronomer for well over thirty years now and I wasn't that happy about the decision. I know Pluto has a wonky orbit and it's shaped a bit like a potato but I've considered it a planet for a long time. I understand the IAU decision and I guess I have to agree that we need some guidelines to help define these lesser astronomical bodies. We'll just have to get used to it....:smile:

 

[Niflmir]

I've been an amateur astronomer for well over thirty years now and I wasn't that happy about the decision. I know Pluto has a wonky orbit and it's shaped a bit like a potato but I've considered it a planet for a long time. I understand the IAU decision and I guess I have to agree that we need some guidelines to help define these lesser astronomical bodies. We'll just have to get used to it....:smile:

I just thought it was a case of some scientists overriding something which was largely a historical distinction. I mean, this is driven by the quest to find extrasolar planets which is ultimately driven by the search for other life. So I understand they want to find planets of life sustainable size, but why not just sneak Pluto in the door and look for "Planets of life sustaining size" or something like that. Maybe they will kick Jupiter out the door next.

 

[hermanntrude]

jupiter could almost be considered a brown dwarf

 

[Niflmir]

jupiter could almost be considered a brown dwarf

Poor Jupiter. Once the king of the gods, now fearing the chopping block of the astronomical societies.

 

[hermanntrude]

I'd rather be a failed star than a planet no-one can stand on

 

[hermanntrude]

did you ever read the sequels to "2001: a space odyssey"? in the later books, the mysterious aliens spark jupiter off somehow, to make it into a second star for the solar system. They call it lucifer, and it has it's own little solar system within the larger one, including the newly-thawed europa

 

[#juan]

Niflmir

I agree, they could have made some grandfather rule to keep Pluto as a planet and applied the new definition to all the newcomers.

hermanntrude

Jupiter narrowly missed being a star. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Jupiter actually gives off more heat than it gets from the Sun. This heat comes from two sources - the slow collapse of the solid core, and the heat of decay from various radioactive trace elements. This energy appears as radiation, and as various radio signals. The radiation from Jupiter at close range is enough to kill an unprotected human within minutes. THe term "brown Dwarf" just might be completely appropriate.[/FONT]

 

[Niflmir]

Niflmir

I agree, they could have made some grandfather rule to keep Pluto as a planet and applied the new definition to all the newcomers.

hermanntrude

Jupiter narrowly missed being a star. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Jupiter actually gives off more heat than it gets from the Sun. This heat comes from two sources - the slow collapse of the solid core, and the heat of decay from various radioactive trace elements. This energy appears as radiation, and as various radio signals. The radiation from Jupiter at close range is enough to kill an unprotected human within minutes. THe term "brown Dwarf" just might be completely appropriate.[/FONT]

I never knew that. That is really neat.

 

[#juan]

did you ever read the sequels to "2001: a space odyssey"? in the later books, the mysterious aliens spark Jupiter off somehow, to make it into a second star for the solar system. They call it lucifer, and it has it's own little solar system within the larger one, including the newly-thawed Europa

Yes, that was a pretty good read. Jupiter stands at least a small chance of becoming a star someday as it gathers more mass........That would be neat..

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Interesting exchange so far, and I note three things:

1. eanassir's OP is just more of the sort of drivel you get when you think religious texts must be scientifically accurate and try to shoehorn reality to fit them. Nice to see that fundamentalist Christians aren't the only people doing it.
2. eanassir's a drive-by thinker promoting a fairly ignorant web site--his own, I presume--that wastes a lot of space trying to do just that. See his other thread about the moon protecting earth from comets, for instance.
3. reality is far more interesting and a good deal more coherent and consistent than anything I read at that web site.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Jupiter stands at least a small chance of becoming a star someday as it gathers more mass........That would be neat..

Yes, it'd be neat alright, but I hope I'm not here if/when it happens. Another star that close, even a tiny one, I'm pretty sure would render the earth uninhabitable. Doesn't seem likely anytime soon thought. Minimum size for a star--the point at which thermonuclear fusion would start--I think is about 4% of the solar mass, if my memory is correct, and Jupiter's well below that, only about 0.1% of the solar mass. It'd have to to be 40 times as big as it is now to ignite. Even if it somehow sucked up all the rest of the planets, all the gas and dust and asteroids and other small objects in the solar system, and all the Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt objects, it'd be only 2 or 3 times its present size. The solar system would have to pass through a fairly dense interstellar cloud of gas and dust or encounter multiple pretty large objects for Jupiter to accrete that much mass.

Could happen though, in the very long term. The solar system not only rotates around the galactic core like everything else in the galaxy, with a period of 225 to 250 million years, it also, according to what I've been reading lately, oscillates vertically about the plane of the galaxy on about a 62 million year cycle. That cycle seems to be related to global mass extinction events. When we're on the north side of the galaxy (that's defined by the "right hand rule:" make a fist with your fingers curled in the galaxy's direction of rotation and your upraised thumb defines north) we're exposed to a greater cosmic ray flux because there's a great clump of galaxies called the Virgo Cluster on that side of our galaxy. When we're on the south side of our galaxy, there's the whole thickness of the galaxy between us and the Virgo Cluster, about 10,000 light years worth of gas and dust and other stuff that absorbs it. That relationship is not definitively established yet, all we have so far is some tantalizingly suggestive data...

But that's the kind of stuff I mean when I say that reality's far more interesting.

 

[#juan]

Yes, it'd be neat alright, but I hope I'm not here if/when it happens. Another star that close, even a tiny one, I'm pretty sure would render the earth uninhabitable. Doesn't seem likely anytime soon thought. Minimum size for a star--the point at which thermonuclear fusion would start--I think is about 4% of the solar mass, if my memory is correct, and Jupiter's well below that, only about 0.1% of the solar mass. It'd have to to be 40 times as big as it is now to ignite. Even if it somehow sucked up all the rest of the planets, all the gas and dust and asteroids and other small objects in the solar system, and all the Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt objects, it'd be only 2 or 3 times its present size. The solar system would have to pass through a fairly dense interstellar cloud of gas and dust or encounter multiple pretty large objects for Jupiter to accrete that much mass.

Could happen though, in the very long term. The solar system not only rotates around the galactic core like everything else in the galaxy, with a period of 225 to 250 million years, it also, according to what I've been reading lately, oscillates vertically about the plane of the galaxy on about a 62 million year cycle. That cycle seems to be related to global mass extinction events. When we're on the north side of the galaxy (that's defined by the "right hand rule:" make a fist with your fingers curled in the galaxy's direction of rotation and your upraised thumb defines north) we're exposed to a greater cosmic ray flux because there's a great clump of galaxies called the Virgo Cluster on that side of our galaxy. When we're on the south side of our galaxy, there's the whole thickness of the galaxy between us and the Virgo Cluster, about 10,000 light years worth of gas and dust and other stuff that absorbs it. That relationship is not definitively established yet, all we have so far is some tantalizingly suggestive data...

But that's the kind of stuff I mean when I say that reality's far more interesting.

Hi Dexter
Unfortunately you are completely right about Jupiter....Lighting a new star made a good story for Arthur C Clarke. I didn't look any further than just making conversation and Jupiter really does need alien intervention to become a star at the moment.

The idea of there being another star and a sub-solar system within our system invites all kinds of ideas....not the least of which, is what that extra bit of 'sunshine' might do to our climate.

Thanks for the contribution Dexter....always good to hear from you.

 

[eanassir]

I know they say Pluto is a dwarf planet, and moves around the Sun, not around Neptune!
But such objects as Pluto and Neptune are very distant, and many Astronomers only postulate about their various aspects, and many of their natural features are ambiguous. When the late interpreter of the Quran and the Bible said 60 years ago in his book "The Universe and the Quran" that Pluto is not a planet, but a moon of Neptune; then we cannot say this is wrong because it is opposite to some present theories; because these are only theories, and they keep up saying it is most likely and most probably so and so. See for example what they expected about the Perseids, that they awaited and anticipated for more than a year, and it turned to be nothing!​

• See what they think: "The individual masses of Pluto and Charon are difficult to determine -- they're so small and far away that even HST has difficulty" http://www.nineplanets.org/pluto.html#charon

I know that they say Pluto is a dwarf planet, and that it rotates around the Sun; but mostly this is wrong. All the findings and observations confirm and can easily be understood if it is a moon of Neptune rather than it is itself a planet:
​

• Wherever Neptune goes, Pluto is with it; keeping some distance from Neptune. (like our Moon and Earth.) ; i.e. Neptune rotates around the Sun carrying its moon Pluto) with it; just like our Moon going around the Sun, but of course carried by the Earth, around which it rotates.
• Pluto rotates in the opposite direction from most of the other planets.

http://www.nineplanets.org/pluto.html#charon​

• The orbits of Neptune and Pluto intercross, but of course they do not collide (like our Moon and Earth.)

​

• Pluto's orbit is highly eccentric. At times it is closer to the Sun than Neptune (as it was from January 1979 thru February 11 1999). Pluto rotates in the opposite direction from most of the other planets.

http://www.nineplanets.org/pluto.html#charon
Our Moon also will sometimes be nearer to Sun than Earth (and during the sun eclipse it hiders the direct light from reaching us on Earth) and other times it is farther. ​

• Moreover, concerning its supposed to be moon: Charon; how can a planet have a moon similar to, or about, it in mass? It is more logical that they are two moons of Neptune rather than Charon being a moon of Pluto.

​

• Synchronous movement of Pluto: " Pluto and Charon are also unique in that not only does Charon rotate synchronously but Pluto does, too: they both keep the same face toward one another." http://www.nineplanets.org/pluto.html#charon

This, most probably, seems as if both Pluto and Charon are two moons of Neptune; both rotate around Neptune: in the same way as our Moon rotates around Earth.​

• " It was therefore possible to observe many transits of Pluto over Charon and vice versa." This transit of each other occurs so frequently as do they rotate around Neptune. http://www.nineplanets.org/pluto.html#charon

This confirms the idea that both of them are some of the moons of Neptune.
​

• Renu Malhotra, in her book "Pluto and Charon" (University of Arizona Press, 1997) showed 3 graphs which we can interpret that Pluto is a moon of Neptune rather than being a planet:

"Pluto's Orbit http://www.nineplanets.org/plutodyn.html

Viewgraph #1
From a bird's eye view of the ecliptic, it is clear that Pluto's orbit is more eccentric than any other planet's. Pluto's orbit appears to intersect Neptune's, and for a period of about 20 years Pluto is slightly closer to the sun than Neptune. The next viewgraph shows that the apparent intersection of orbits is an illusion.

Viewgraph #2
Here we see the z-component of each planet's position plotted against the simultaneous distance from the sun. Most planets only make small excursions in the vertical and radial directions, but Pluto executes a large, tear-shaped figure. This vertical projection shows that Pluto is far from being Neptune-crosser.

Viewgraph #3
Pluto and Neptune are in a well-known 3:2 resonance which prevents their collision or even any close approaches, regardless of their separation in the z-dimension. This figure shows the orbits of the four giant planets and Pluto in a reference frame rotating synchronously with Neptune's mean motion. The minimum Pluto-Neptune separation is 17 AU, compared to the minimum Pluto-Uranus separation of 11 AU. The libration of Pluto's orbit is due to an exchange of angular momentum with Neptune. When Pluto is "catching up" to Neptune, it gains angular momentum at Neptune's expense. Pluto moves into a higher orbit, but falls behind Neptune, since higher orbits have slower tangential velocities. Thousands of years later, as Neptune seems poised to overtake Pluto, the opposite exchange takes place. Pluto loses angular momentum, falling to a lower - but faster - heliocentric orbit."

http://www.nineplanets.org/plutodyn.html
All the above graphs and findings can easily be interpreted if we consider Pluto as a moon of Neptune rather than itself a planet.
Therefore, the study of this subject, with an eye of a teacher, not like students dictating words of lectures, will give all of us more chances of discovering the truth, and add many new things to the science of Astronomy.


eanassir. ​

http://universeandquran.741.com

 

[eanassir]

There may be clockwise and anticlockwise directions.
"Pluto's orbit is highly eccentric. At times it is closer to the Sun than Neptune (as it was from January 1979 thru February 11 1999). Pluto rotates in the opposite direction from most of the other planets."

http://www.nineplanets.org/pluto.html#charon
In addition, I have added many explanations to the original article, read them if they display it.
eanassir.​

 

[eanassir]

There may be clockwise and anticlockwise directions.
" Pluto's orbit is highly eccentric. At times it is closer to the Sun than Neptune (as it was from January 1979 thru February 11 1999). Pluto rotates in the opposite direction from most of the other planets.

http://www.nineplanets.org/pluto.html#charon "
In Arabic we have a parable saying: "he is as tall as a palm-tree, but is foolish like a goat."
Moreover every man has his distinct soul.
Another parable in Arabic "Man who praises himself is mostly a liar." And "Any that praises himself, infact he has dispraised himself."
The Hadith is only an explanation to some of the Quranic revelations.
The mockery is not a scientific way, but it is the way of those ignorant who ridiculed Jesus Christ and Prophet Mohammed during their life.
​

 

[eanassir]

1. There is much difference about their estimation of some planets concerning their volume, mass, specific gravity and other features. These measurement have been liable to many changes.
2. " Pluto's orbit is highly eccentric. At times it is closer to the Sun than Neptune (as it was from January 1979 thru February 11 1999). Pluto rotates in the opposite direction from most of the other planets.

http://www.nineplanets.org/pluto.html#charon "
3. These objects are too far and remote: "The individual masses of Pluto and Charon are difficult to determine -- they're so small and far away that even HST has difficulty" http://www.nineplanets.org/pluto.html#charon

You cannot make rigid rules. Science is not possessed by anyone, so you restrict it as you like.
​

 

[eanassir]

I said nothing of that: that Jupiter will become a star .