Showing posts with label Space. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Space. Show all posts
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Pluto is not a planet; get over it!
Eighty years ago today "Pluto" was discovered and classed as the ninth planet of the Solar System.
In 2006 the "International Astronomical Union", the only official body which can classify and name celestial bodies, demoted Pluto and reduced us to eight planets - but not before making idiots of themselves by initially including other objects as planets and boosting the number temporarily to twelve! Pluto has the consolation prize of being classed as a "dwarf planet", a completely spurious concept in my opinion! The only thing "dwarf planets" have in common is that they are roughly spherical, any body over 300 miles in diameter will have enough gravity to render itself spherical.
When it was first discovered Pluto was thought to be several times the size of Earth and easily fell within the then accepted definition of a planet. But over the subsequent years its size has been revised down to about Earth's size, then the size of our Moon and ever down...... one wag said that if Pluto continued to lose mass at this rate it would cease to exist by the centenary of its discovery!
One reason for the apparent loss of mass was the discovery in 1978 that "Pluto" was actually two objects orbitting each other - Pluto and Charon. Since then many more objects have been identified in the outer reaches of the Solar System which have caused astronomers to revise how we look at our celestial neighbours. In fact there are thought to be countless numbers of such icey bodies at the outer margins of the Solar System and that these are the source of comets, which are periodically sent our way by the influence of the gas planets.
When one plots such things as size, orbital properties, composition etc the Solar System easily breaks down into four quite distinct groups (five if you include the Sun); the 'Rocky Planets' (Mercury, Venus, Earth & Mars), then the asteroids, followed by the 'Gas Planets' (Jupiter. Saturn, Uranus & Neptune) and in the outer reaches 'Kuiper Belt Objects' - of which Pluto and Charon are an example.... and not even the largest!
Pluto is not the outermost planet, it is among the innermost KBOs. Sorry but there you have it!
Eighty years ago today "Pluto" was discovered and classed as the ninth planet of the Solar System.
In 2006 the "International Astronomical Union", the only official body which can classify and name celestial bodies, demoted Pluto and reduced us to eight planets - but not before making idiots of themselves by initially including other objects as planets and boosting the number temporarily to twelve! Pluto has the consolation prize of being classed as a "dwarf planet", a completely spurious concept in my opinion! The only thing "dwarf planets" have in common is that they are roughly spherical, any body over 300 miles in diameter will have enough gravity to render itself spherical.
When it was first discovered Pluto was thought to be several times the size of Earth and easily fell within the then accepted definition of a planet. But over the subsequent years its size has been revised down to about Earth's size, then the size of our Moon and ever down...... one wag said that if Pluto continued to lose mass at this rate it would cease to exist by the centenary of its discovery!
One reason for the apparent loss of mass was the discovery in 1978 that "Pluto" was actually two objects orbitting each other - Pluto and Charon. Since then many more objects have been identified in the outer reaches of the Solar System which have caused astronomers to revise how we look at our celestial neighbours. In fact there are thought to be countless numbers of such icey bodies at the outer margins of the Solar System and that these are the source of comets, which are periodically sent our way by the influence of the gas planets.
When one plots such things as size, orbital properties, composition etc the Solar System easily breaks down into four quite distinct groups (five if you include the Sun); the 'Rocky Planets' (Mercury, Venus, Earth & Mars), then the asteroids, followed by the 'Gas Planets' (Jupiter. Saturn, Uranus & Neptune) and in the outer reaches 'Kuiper Belt Objects' - of which Pluto and Charon are an example.... and not even the largest!
Pluto is not the outermost planet, it is among the innermost KBOs. Sorry but there you have it!
Monday, December 21, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Monday, August 20, 2007
CONFESSIONS OF AN ARMCHAIR ASTRONAUT!
Thirty years ago today in 1977 the Voyager space programme blasted off to explore the outer solar system. As an avid fan of all things spatial I followed all such exploration. Paradoxically it was Voyager 2 which lifted off first to travel to the outer solar system. Voyager 1 was launched on 5th September 1977 on a fast track to Jupiter and Saturn only. Thinking back to my books on astronomy written in the 1970's my recollection is just how sketchy they were about all these planets and the moons of these worlds were a complete mystery. The Voyagers revolutionised our understanding of our planetary neighbours. Jupiter's moons were no longer mere dots of light but worlds in their own right. And even worlds as far flung as Neptune had active cryo-volcanic features! These probes are even now moving out into interstellar space and looking back they can give us an astonishing view of our solar family from the outside.
I was first enthralled by the early manned space flights, and as an "armchair astronaut" I absolutely loved the Apollo Moon Shots. I vividly remember watching Neil Armstrong's first step on the Moon; to those of us on this side of the Atlantic Ocean that occured on 21st July 1969 - 38 years ago. As an excited eleven year old I got up in the early hours of the morning to watch that 'one small step'... I was entranced by the whole adventure of space flight and followed each moon shot closely. I laid out charts and maps and models as each mission unfolded.
Apollo 15, July/August 1971, though stands out in my mind to this day as the most visually exciting mission of them all. This mission launched in July of 1971 was the first to take a 'lunar rover' with its own freely operated TV camera. It was like sharing in this whole fantastic adventure, nothing will ever recapture the sheer delight of following those particular Moon walks. encompassing Hadley Rille. All the later Apollo missions were similarly equipped and I charted the progress of Apollos 16 and 17 just as avidly.
The Hubble Space Telescope was launched in 1990 and opened up the wider universe to us with some of the most breathtaking photographs imaginable. It is an amazing time to be alive to witness such things - I hope that future generations will have the opportunity to marvel as I did at the Universe we inhabit and that they will never grow blase about such
wonders.
Thirty years ago today in 1977 the Voyager space programme blasted off to explore the outer solar system. As an avid fan of all things spatial I followed all such exploration. Paradoxically it was Voyager 2 which lifted off first to travel to the outer solar system. Voyager 1 was launched on 5th September 1977 on a fast track to Jupiter and Saturn only. Thinking back to my books on astronomy written in the 1970's my recollection is just how sketchy they were about all these planets and the moons of these worlds were a complete mystery. The Voyagers revolutionised our understanding of our planetary neighbours. Jupiter's moons were no longer mere dots of light but worlds in their own right. And even worlds as far flung as Neptune had active cryo-volcanic features! These probes are even now moving out into interstellar space and looking back they can give us an astonishing view of our solar family from the outside.
I was first enthralled by the early manned space flights, and as an "armchair astronaut" I absolutely loved the Apollo Moon Shots. I vividly remember watching Neil Armstrong's first step on the Moon; to those of us on this side of the Atlantic Ocean that occured on 21st July 1969 - 38 years ago. As an excited eleven year old I got up in the early hours of the morning to watch that 'one small step'... I was entranced by the whole adventure of space flight and followed each moon shot closely. I laid out charts and maps and models as each mission unfolded.
Apollo 15, July/August 1971, though stands out in my mind to this day as the most visually exciting mission of them all. This mission launched in July of 1971 was the first to take a 'lunar rover' with its own freely operated TV camera. It was like sharing in this whole fantastic adventure, nothing will ever recapture the sheer delight of following those particular Moon walks. encompassing Hadley Rille. All the later Apollo missions were similarly equipped and I charted the progress of Apollos 16 and 17 just as avidly.
The Hubble Space Telescope was launched in 1990 and opened up the wider universe to us with some of the most breathtaking photographs imaginable. It is an amazing time to be alive to witness such things - I hope that future generations will have the opportunity to marvel as I did at the Universe we inhabit and that they will never grow blase about such
wonders.
Friday, June 01, 2007
ARTHUR C CLARKE,
PROFILES OF THE FUTURE
and A SPIRITUAL ODYSSEY.
As a teenager I read all of Arthur C Clarke's
books. He is widely known as a writer of
science fiction, but he also wrote articles
about the future of science and technology.
As an ardent teenage atheist I shared in the
rosey technocratic vision of the future when
humanity would shake off the petty
superstititions of the past and launch itself
into the Cosmos to forge a brave new
world. Of course it was rather naive but
it was the 1970's and I was a teenager,
come on!
One book by Arthur C. Clarke was called
"Profiles of the Future" and it made a
real impact on me at the time.
If I recall correctly it was in this book that
he made a startling assertion; that there
was a 'timebomb ticking underneath
Christianity' and went on to say that
contact with Extra Terrestrial Intelligence
would deliver a fatal blow to the Biblical
worldview that mankind was made in
God's image and, as such, is the pinnacle
of God's creation. As a juvenile argument
this might pass muster, but the question is
what "image" does AC imagine God
shares with humanity? And, in any event,
I fail to understand why extra-terrestrials
wouldn't share God's 'communicable
attributes' - after all what have those to
do with mere physical form? Since then,
the reader will realise, that I have come
to a much richer understanding of who
God is.
Any student of the history of the sciences
will realise that ever since humankind
realised that the points of light in the night
sky we called planets are worlds in their
own right it was commonly supposed that
they were all inhabited. This caused no
great problems theologically for the
millions of believers at the time. Allan
Chapman wrote an excellent article on
this topic in "Astronomy Now" magazine
a few years ago.
In fact the Christian author CS Lewis wrote
a series of science fiction novels which
predate AC Clarke's work. CS Lewis had
no problem with non humanoid extra
terrestrial intelligent beings. If you read
his novels you will realise that the people
he had most problem with were the
de-humanised humans bent on cosmic
colonisation not these other much more
sympathetic beings to whom the Earth
is known, not without reason, as "The
Silent Planet"!
As a teen I was also deeply impressed by
AC's "2001: a space odyssey", this novel
(and movie) had the fundamental merit
of ending in mystery as mankind makes
its first contact with a higher extra
terrestrial civilisation (there was a
numinescent encounter with beings
utterly "other"). "2001" was based
on AC's previous novel "Childhood's End"
and a short story "The Sentinel". The
subsequent sequels "2010" and "3001"
clarify AC's vision of this mysterious alien
civilisation - a rather creaky computer
programme, with some dodgey ethics
(actually they are only us writ large aren't
they?) to which plucky humanity upload a
computer virus in the name of "deicide"!
AC's vision of God is very limited and, not
unlike Philip Pullman's interpretation
of God, is ultimately a reassuring comfort
blanket to the atheist. Incidentally isn't
the Pullman series 'His Dark Materials'
just Terry Pratchett's 'Discworld' with
the humour stripped out?!
AC's understanding of religion in "3001"
seems shockingly one dimensional and
ignorant (sorry, that's the only word
which will do!) and it isn't surprising
therefore that he regards "religion"
(whatever that means!) as a "socio-
pathology".
Most atheists - and I used to be one -
are surprisingly ignorant for intelligent
people... I guess that's why they hold
such rosey views about humankind...
most atheist visionaries do... but the
reality when such visions become
concrete is always hideous. Atheist
visionary utopias always are.
PROFILES OF THE FUTURE
and A SPIRITUAL ODYSSEY.
As a teenager I read all of Arthur C Clarke's
books. He is widely known as a writer of
science fiction, but he also wrote articles
about the future of science and technology.
As an ardent teenage atheist I shared in the
rosey technocratic vision of the future when
humanity would shake off the petty
superstititions of the past and launch itself
into the Cosmos to forge a brave new
world. Of course it was rather naive but
it was the 1970's and I was a teenager,
come on!
One book by Arthur C. Clarke was called
"Profiles of the Future" and it made a
real impact on me at the time.
If I recall correctly it was in this book that
he made a startling assertion; that there
was a 'timebomb ticking underneath
Christianity' and went on to say that
contact with Extra Terrestrial Intelligence
would deliver a fatal blow to the Biblical
worldview that mankind was made in
God's image and, as such, is the pinnacle
of God's creation. As a juvenile argument
this might pass muster, but the question is
what "image" does AC imagine God
shares with humanity? And, in any event,
I fail to understand why extra-terrestrials
wouldn't share God's 'communicable
attributes' - after all what have those to
do with mere physical form? Since then,
the reader will realise, that I have come
to a much richer understanding of who
God is.
Any student of the history of the sciences
will realise that ever since humankind
realised that the points of light in the night
sky we called planets are worlds in their
own right it was commonly supposed that
they were all inhabited. This caused no
great problems theologically for the
millions of believers at the time. Allan
Chapman wrote an excellent article on
this topic in "Astronomy Now" magazine
a few years ago.
In fact the Christian author CS Lewis wrote
a series of science fiction novels which
predate AC Clarke's work. CS Lewis had
no problem with non humanoid extra
terrestrial intelligent beings. If you read
his novels you will realise that the people
he had most problem with were the
de-humanised humans bent on cosmic
colonisation not these other much more
sympathetic beings to whom the Earth
is known, not without reason, as "The
Silent Planet"!
As a teen I was also deeply impressed by
AC's "2001: a space odyssey", this novel
(and movie) had the fundamental merit
of ending in mystery as mankind makes
its first contact with a higher extra
terrestrial civilisation (there was a
numinescent encounter with beings
utterly "other"). "2001" was based
on AC's previous novel "Childhood's End"
and a short story "The Sentinel". The
subsequent sequels "2010" and "3001"
clarify AC's vision of this mysterious alien
civilisation - a rather creaky computer
programme, with some dodgey ethics
(actually they are only us writ large aren't
they?) to which plucky humanity upload a
computer virus in the name of "deicide"!
AC's vision of God is very limited and, not
unlike Philip Pullman's interpretation
of God, is ultimately a reassuring comfort
blanket to the atheist. Incidentally isn't
the Pullman series 'His Dark Materials'
just Terry Pratchett's 'Discworld' with
the humour stripped out?!
AC's understanding of religion in "3001"
seems shockingly one dimensional and
ignorant (sorry, that's the only word
which will do!) and it isn't surprising
therefore that he regards "religion"
(whatever that means!) as a "socio-
pathology".
Most atheists - and I used to be one -
are surprisingly ignorant for intelligent
people... I guess that's why they hold
such rosey views about humankind...
most atheist visionaries do... but the
reality when such visions become
concrete is always hideous. Atheist
visionary utopias always are.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
TOTAL LUNAR ECLIPSE;
3rd March 2007.
For the first time in well over two years
a total eclipse of the Moon will be visible
from the UK. It can be sighted across
Europe and Africa, weather permitting
of course.
A Lunar Eclipse occurs when the Moon
passes into the Earth's shadow when
they line up with the Sun. All six hours
and five minutes of the event will be
visible from the UK.
First contact with the faint 'penumbral'
(partial) shadow takes place at 8:18pm
GMT, followed by a slight darkening of
the lower left hand edge of the Moon
(its leading edge). This shade should be
readily visible by the time of first 'umbral'
(full) shadow at 9:30pm.
The Moon will continue its entry into the
darkest part of the Earth's shadow, and
increasing 'bite' will be taken out of the
left side of the Moon until it is completely
immersed in shadow at 10:44pm.
During maximum eclipse (totality) at
11:21pm observers may witness a near
invisible Moon or one that is coppery-red
or orange in colour.
Totality ends at 11:58pm, with the last
umbral contact at 01:11am and last
penumbral contact at 02:24am.
Enjoy.
3rd March 2007.
For the first time in well over two years
a total eclipse of the Moon will be visible
from the UK. It can be sighted across
Europe and Africa, weather permitting
of course.
A Lunar Eclipse occurs when the Moon
passes into the Earth's shadow when
they line up with the Sun. All six hours
and five minutes of the event will be
visible from the UK.
First contact with the faint 'penumbral'
(partial) shadow takes place at 8:18pm
GMT, followed by a slight darkening of
the lower left hand edge of the Moon
(its leading edge). This shade should be
readily visible by the time of first 'umbral'
(full) shadow at 9:30pm.
The Moon will continue its entry into the
darkest part of the Earth's shadow, and
increasing 'bite' will be taken out of the
left side of the Moon until it is completely
immersed in shadow at 10:44pm.
During maximum eclipse (totality) at
11:21pm observers may witness a near
invisible Moon or one that is coppery-red
or orange in colour.
Totality ends at 11:58pm, with the last
umbral contact at 01:11am and last
penumbral contact at 02:24am.
Enjoy.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
COSMIC FINE TUNING....
"what banged and why?!"
There are four fundamental laws of physics
which determine the nature of the universe.
They are gravity, electromagnetism, and the
weak and strong nuclear forces.
All these factors (any of which could have
absolutely any value) are, in reality, so care-
fully balanced that the mathematics is
unbelievable. It has been likened to someone
firing an arrow from one side of the universe to
the other and hitting the bull's eye. Or put
another way the odds are conservatively estimated
to be 10 to the power of 55 [that's a 10 with 55
zeroes after it]. If any of those fundamental
values were not exactly balanced as they are by
each other we would not have an ordered, habitable
universe. A slight variation one way or another in
any of the four laws and the universe is a titanic
'black-hole', and a minor tweak the other way, the
universe is a diffuse cloud of gas - with no stars
or planets. Another twist; you can have stars and
planets but no Carbon [and hence no complex organic
molecules]. The universe we observe is exactly as
it should be to sustain intelligent life.
The standard objection to these observations is
that if it didn't exist, as is, we wouldn't be here
to discuss it. This misses the point entirely - it
is like the man put up before a firing squad to be
executed. Against all the odds the soldiers miss.
After the event someone comments that he has had a
lucky escape! Or could it be that the squad had
been bribed, were they drunk, had the rifles been
sabotaged, or was there some other logical explan-
ation? "None of these", says the prisoner, "because
if they hadn't missed I wouldn't be here to discuss
it". One would rightly conclude that the man was
being rather obtuse to put it mildly. There is a
legitimate existential question here.
The usual response is to bring up the 'lottery
analogy'. Of course the odds in favour of any
given winner winning in the lottery are vanishingly
small, but the odds that there will be a winner are
actually very good. Again, this misses the point
entirely. There aren't trillions and trillions of
players in this cosmic lottery. There is only one
and its our 55 figure number which came up. Again,
let me repeat, there is a legitimate existential
question which - despite our best efforts - cannot
be avoided.
tagline; Calendar of Doom. Anthropic Principle.
Cosmic Fine Tuning. Cosmic Precision Tuning.
Cosmological Argument. Goldilocks Enigma.
"what banged and why?!"
There are four fundamental laws of physics
which determine the nature of the universe.
They are gravity, electromagnetism, and the
weak and strong nuclear forces.
All these factors (any of which could have
absolutely any value) are, in reality, so care-
fully balanced that the mathematics is
unbelievable. It has been likened to someone
firing an arrow from one side of the universe to
the other and hitting the bull's eye. Or put
another way the odds are conservatively estimated
to be 10 to the power of 55 [that's a 10 with 55
zeroes after it]. If any of those fundamental
values were not exactly balanced as they are by
each other we would not have an ordered, habitable
universe. A slight variation one way or another in
any of the four laws and the universe is a titanic
'black-hole', and a minor tweak the other way, the
universe is a diffuse cloud of gas - with no stars
or planets. Another twist; you can have stars and
planets but no Carbon [and hence no complex organic
molecules]. The universe we observe is exactly as
it should be to sustain intelligent life.
The standard objection to these observations is
that if it didn't exist, as is, we wouldn't be here
to discuss it. This misses the point entirely - it
is like the man put up before a firing squad to be
executed. Against all the odds the soldiers miss.
After the event someone comments that he has had a
lucky escape! Or could it be that the squad had
been bribed, were they drunk, had the rifles been
sabotaged, or was there some other logical explan-
ation? "None of these", says the prisoner, "because
if they hadn't missed I wouldn't be here to discuss
it". One would rightly conclude that the man was
being rather obtuse to put it mildly. There is a
legitimate existential question here.
The usual response is to bring up the 'lottery
analogy'. Of course the odds in favour of any
given winner winning in the lottery are vanishingly
small, but the odds that there will be a winner are
actually very good. Again, this misses the point
entirely. There aren't trillions and trillions of
players in this cosmic lottery. There is only one
and its our 55 figure number which came up. Again,
let me repeat, there is a legitimate existential
question which - despite our best efforts - cannot
be avoided.
tagline; Calendar of Doom. Anthropic Principle.
Cosmic Fine Tuning. Cosmic Precision Tuning.
Cosmological Argument. Goldilocks Enigma.
Monday, May 01, 2006
CARL SAGAN:
Out of the Silent Planet!
May 2006's thought from my agnostic calendar is:-
"What I'm saying is, if God wanted to send us a message,
and ancient writings were the only way he could think of
doing it, he could have done a better job." Dr Arroway
in Carl Sagan's ["CONTACT"].
First off, it should come as no surprise that God has spoken
throughout history - so the writings would be ancient wouldn't they?
From a Christian perspective God is not limited to writing - he
speaks through Creation (Romans 1), he speaks to the
consciences of people (Romans 2) and we believe that God
has revealed himself definitively by being born as a human
being and so revealing God to man in Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1).
On the specific issue of ancient texts it is clear on any objective
count that when one compares other ancient writings, such as
the Mesopotamian creation, flood and Gilgamesh stories etc,
with the Bible one realises that it is in a different league. While
the other texts relate amoral tales of the pantheon the Bible
lays a foundation of ethical monotheism and as such touches
us directly in a way that the other texts cannot (as we saw last
March with Gene Roddenberry). This is not to say that the
pagan writings are not gripping yarns. Equally this is not to say
that it is always easy for christians to correctly apply the Biblical
text, which is why we are keen to ensure that it is set in the right
context....in a nutshell we are living in the fourth act of a five part
drama!
Sagan was instrumental in the design of the plaques fitted to the
Voyager spacecraft launched in the 1970's to explore the outer
solar system; these robots are now heading out into interstellar
space. Wouldn't it be ironic if in the future these were recovered
by some extra-terrestrial civilisation only to be met with the same
sniffy disdain as Sagan's? What if they too looked with contempt
at this, what will be by then, ancient writing - (well it would be
wouldn't it?) - "Is this the only way Sagan could think of sending
a message?!" - and missed the true significance of what was before
them; "you are not alone!"
The real issue here is not the antiquity of the communication, or
the mode or even the efficiency of the revelation - the real issue
is the message itself....because of the implications it may have
for the recipient. The problem is not transmission but receptivity,
the recognition that "we are not alone" theologically means we are
not the centre of the universe, and some people will find that hard
to hear.
tagline: Calendar of Doom.
Out of the Silent Planet!
May 2006's thought from my agnostic calendar is:-
"What I'm saying is, if God wanted to send us a message,
and ancient writings were the only way he could think of
doing it, he could have done a better job." Dr Arroway
in Carl Sagan's ["CONTACT"].
First off, it should come as no surprise that God has spoken
throughout history - so the writings would be ancient wouldn't they?
From a Christian perspective God is not limited to writing - he
speaks through Creation (Romans 1), he speaks to the
consciences of people (Romans 2) and we believe that God
has revealed himself definitively by being born as a human
being and so revealing God to man in Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1).
On the specific issue of ancient texts it is clear on any objective
count that when one compares other ancient writings, such as
the Mesopotamian creation, flood and Gilgamesh stories etc,
with the Bible one realises that it is in a different league. While
the other texts relate amoral tales of the pantheon the Bible
lays a foundation of ethical monotheism and as such touches
us directly in a way that the other texts cannot (as we saw last
March with Gene Roddenberry). This is not to say that the
pagan writings are not gripping yarns. Equally this is not to say
that it is always easy for christians to correctly apply the Biblical
text, which is why we are keen to ensure that it is set in the right
context....in a nutshell we are living in the fourth act of a five part
drama!
Sagan was instrumental in the design of the plaques fitted to the
Voyager spacecraft launched in the 1970's to explore the outer
solar system; these robots are now heading out into interstellar
space. Wouldn't it be ironic if in the future these were recovered
by some extra-terrestrial civilisation only to be met with the same
sniffy disdain as Sagan's? What if they too looked with contempt
at this, what will be by then, ancient writing - (well it would be
wouldn't it?) - "Is this the only way Sagan could think of sending
a message?!" - and missed the true significance of what was before
them; "you are not alone!"
The real issue here is not the antiquity of the communication, or
the mode or even the efficiency of the revelation - the real issue
is the message itself....because of the implications it may have
for the recipient. The problem is not transmission but receptivity,
the recognition that "we are not alone" theologically means we are
not the centre of the universe, and some people will find that hard
to hear.
tagline: Calendar of Doom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)