Astronomy and the quran
- Thread starter eanassir
- Start date
I think we have already established that:
1. Pluto is not a planet. It is a Dwarf Planet.
2. Pluto's orbit and rotation is indeed essentric
3. Pluto orbits the sun and not Neptune. (While one theory is that it may have once orbited Neptune, it no longer does.)
4. Anyone who is silly enough to believe it to be orbiting Neptune is just plain nuts.
1. Pluto is not a planet. It is a Dwarf Planet.
2. Pluto's orbit and rotation is indeed essentric
3. Pluto orbits the sun and not Neptune. (While one theory is that it may have once orbited Neptune, it no longer does.)
4. Anyone who is silly enough to believe it to be orbiting Neptune is just plain nuts.
As far as almost any astronomer is concerned, Pluto has been one of the planets for many of years. A lot of us have been taught that Pluto is one of the planets for decades. Whether or not it had at one time orbited Neptune is of no importance. Most of us considered Pluto to be a planet. The decision to call it a Dwarf Planet seemed arbitrary.
http://karinahall.txc.net.au/MoonExtinctionCycle/z2.html
http://karinahall.txc.net.au/MoonExtinctionCycle/z2.html
Last edited:
That's true as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. We can say it's wrong because it's at variance with the observed facts. Pluto does not orbit Neptune, it is not a moon of Neptune, in fact they don't get closer together than about 18 astronomical units. One astronomical unit is the mean distance between the earth and the sun, about 150 million kilometres.
Aw jeez, more "only a theory" nonsense. There's no "only" about a scientific theory, it's not just a belief or speculation as you seem to be implying. A scientific theory is a coherent, consistent body of observations, ideas, information, and analyses, that serve to describe and explain a range of natural phenomena. It is predictive, falsifiable, empirical, and testable.
That's not remotely true, it's total nonsense. Neptune's orbital period is about 165 years, Pluto's is about 248 years, and there are times when they're on opposite sides of the sun. They do have an orbital resonance, though I doubt you know what that means, but they don't travel together.
That too is nonsense. The moon is never closer to the sun than it is to the earth. The moon orbits the earth at a distance of about 400,000 kilometres, the sun's on average about 150 million kilometres away from both of them. Unless what you mean is that sometimes the moon is closer to the sun than the earth is, it's not clear from your syntax. But if that's what you mean, well... so what? Earth and moon rotate about a common centre of gravity, so pick any point in the plane of the ecliptic and it's true that sometimes the moon will be closer to it than the earth is. That's trivially obvious, and in no way lends any support to your claim that Pluto is a moon of Neptune.
Why is that a problem? Pluto's about twice the diameter of Charon, they're tidally locked so they always show the same face to each other, and they rotate around a common centre of gravity. It's all perfectly explicable with routine Newtonian mechanics.
No it doesn't. What it confirms is that you and your sources know nothing of orbital mechanics.
Not very likely, as long as you continue to think that the Quran and its assorted interpreters are scientifically accurate.
I reassert my correcter because I am taller than thou argument. 
Remember everyone, semantics != science. (!= means does not equal, for those who haven't programmed in c). Because they disagree about whether to call it a planet or not does not mean anything about it is in contention. There is absolutely no disagreement about how to describe the solar system, everything from the eccentricity of every planet to the precession of the perihelion of Mercury can be explained and predicted with startling accuracy.
We can predict with greater precision where Mercury will be in ten centuries than we can predict where the 8-ball will be after a break. There is no need to resort to a "I'm a taller and therefore more holy, and therefore more correct" sort of argument- but if it comes to that, I win.
Remember everyone, semantics != science. (!= means does not equal, for those who haven't programmed in c). Because they disagree about whether to call it a planet or not does not mean anything about it is in contention. There is absolutely no disagreement about how to describe the solar system, everything from the eccentricity of every planet to the precession of the perihelion of Mercury can be explained and predicted with startling accuracy.
We can predict with greater precision where Mercury will be in ten centuries than we can predict where the 8-ball will be after a break. There is no need to resort to a "I'm a taller and therefore more holy, and therefore more correct" sort of argument- but if it comes to that, I win.
Pluto's orbit is indeed highly eccentric, and crosses that of neptune. But this doesn't really qualify it as a moon of neptune.
If we first examine the other moons in the solar system, perhaps we can pin down some similarities:
1) they're generally very small. Pluto fits this description very well
2) they're usually in orbit around a planet. Pluto cannot be said to be in this kind of orbit. Scientists have been plotting the orbit of pluto for many years now, and it has been seen to be in orbit around the sun. This is FACT, you can see it for yourself if you plot the trajectory using a powerful telescope. This FACT has been repeatedly observed, independantly, by many different researchers, since 1930. Admittedly it's not a circular orbit, but the centre of mass of the sun-pluto system is inside the sun.
3)they do not have sattelites (moons) of their own. No other moon in the solar system has another moon in orbit around it. Pluto has been shown to have a sattelite of its own. Unusually these two objects actually orbit around a point between them rather than one object orbiting the other.
I said Pluto is not a planet, but a moon of Neptune.
Some readers, however, like IdRatherBeSkiing, have mixed my words with some quotations that I quoted from some erecognized astronomical site. Read carefully, and think deeply about the subject, and do some clicks as required, you may see it more reasonable that it is a moon of Neptune. When it will be declared later, you may remember my words. The theories of Astronomy are not infallible, and the duty of science is not to refuse any idea in case it does not agree with the desires of some; because of many psychological or other knwon reasons.
Some readers, however, like IdRatherBeSkiing, have mixed my words with some quotations that I quoted from some erecognized astronomical site. Read carefully, and think deeply about the subject, and do some clicks as required, you may see it more reasonable that it is a moon of Neptune. When it will be declared later, you may remember my words. The theories of Astronomy are not infallible, and the duty of science is not to refuse any idea in case it does not agree with the desires of some; because of many psychological or other knwon reasons.
but seriously, how do you go as far as to suggest that pluto orbits neptune, when the two objects are billions of miles apart most of the time, and their orbits never bring them into close proximity? it's obsurd
Pluto orbits the sun. The center of mass of those two bodies lies just below the surface of the sun.
seems i'm wrong again. I always thought pluto's orbit was much more elliptical than that, but it isnt.
It's funny Herman but I always thought Pluto's orbit was a great, stretched ellipse and it seems it is a nearly perfect circle.
1AU =[SIZE=+1] 149598000 kilometers. Therefore Pluto and neptune can NEVER come within 2.5 BILLION kilometres of each other!
Answer this:
How can two objects which never come within 2.5 billion km of each other be considered planet and moon?
[/SIZE]
Answer this:
How can two objects which never come within 2.5 billion km of each other be considered planet and moon?
[/SIZE]
While it may not be a planet under current planetary naming rules, it is most certainly NOT a moon of Neptune or any other planet for that mater. There is absolutly no credible evidence to support this. Religious texts are not credible in the world of astronomy. Read EVERY other post in this thread for reasons why Pluto is not a moon. Never has been, never will be.
Here is a little better sketch showing both Neptune and Pluto. I notice Pluto crosses Neptune's orbit twice........I wonder what chance there is for a collision....I would say the chances are greater than zero.
Here is a little better sketch showing both Neptune and Pluto. I notice Pluto crosses Neptune's orbit twice........I wonder what chance there is for a collision....
I've been reading up on that very topic, and the answer is none at all.
For every 3 revelutions of neptune aound the sun, pluto makes two. This in itself makes it unlikely. Also, pluto's orbit is tilted out of the plane of the ecliptic by quite a lot, meaning that the only time that pluto and neptune are in the same plane (that of the ecliptic) is twice in each of pluto's orbits (240 years, or thereabouts). Fortunately for Pluto, at the times when neptune is in the same plane as it, their orbits are well away from each other when viewed from above the ecliptic.
The following diagram shows (as does yours) the view from above the ecliptic (as if the solar system has a north pole and you were looking down into it). Imagine a line at 90° to the line marked with two q's. Neptune is shown as being ON that line. Now note that the point at which the two orbits appear to coincide is nowhere near that line.
Now look at this diagram:
This time we're looking at the two orbits from in the plane of the ecliptic. The points we were talking about (marked by a q) are now exactly where the orbits appear to coincide. So although you can't see it directly from either of these diagrams, the orbits don't in fact EVER cross in the same plane.
When they're in the same "vertical" plane, one orbit is outside the other. When they're in the same "horizontal" plane, one is way above the other.