Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Tue, 20 Nov 1990 02:00:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8bGBFxi00VcJ8Fuk4P@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Tue, 20 Nov 1990 02:00:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #578 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 578 Today's Topics: Big bang discovered 1400 years ago ? Hubble Space Telescope Update - 11/11/90 3-D MAGELLAN PICTURES The Gang Bang Theory STS 38 Observation Reports Re: Another philosophical question Re: Pity The Much Abused Shuttle Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Nov 90 20:28:18 GMT From: eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!mucs!liv-cs!liv!sx43@bloom-beacon.mit.edu Subject: Big bang discovered 1400 years ago ? " VERILY WE ARE EXPANDING IT !" (The Qur'an on Cosmological Expansion, Big Bang and Space Travel) By F.R.Ellahi. The expansion of the Universe must be one of the most striking discoveries of modern science. It is now firmly established, not a theory but as a 'fact' of life, which later improvements in understanding are not likely to refute (a bit like there is not much chance of any later theory disputing the 'fact' that things fall when you drop them, on Earth.) There is an ironical twist to the story of the discovery of the cosmological expansion. Einstein's equations of General Relativity actually predicted that the universe was either expanding or contracting, but apparently the famous scientist could not accept this fact.. well, put yourselves in his shoes, and look up at the sky on any clear night : can you see any stars moving away from each other ? Presumably he had done the very same thing many a time, and this may be why Einstein apparently fiddled his equations by introducing his Cosmological Constant, which allowed the equations to predict a static Universe. Of course he probably wanted to kick himself later when Edwin Hubble (the boxer cum astronomer) discovered from red-shift measurements that all the galaxies are flying apart from each other at frightful speeds! (This doesn't show up on a cursory inspection of the night sky simply because they are so stupendously far away from each other already). Dr Maurice Bucaille, in his book 'The Bible, the Qur'an and Science' talks about these things in his chapter on Astronomy in the Qur'an. (Dr Bucaille is an accepted expert on the relation between Scripture and Science, and his books are well worth reading if you're looking for hard facts backed up with in-depth analysis of scriptural references.) On page 173, he explains how fourteen centuries ago this expansion of the Cosmos was made clear to all humanity for all time to come. He quotes the verse : 'The heaven, We have built it with power, Verily We are expanding it.' (Verse 47 of Surah 51). (Well if that doesn't knock you for six you probably aren't a physicist!) This is a prime example of the way the Qur'an doesn't go only for the heart and soul, but it also reaches the MIND, and declares a challenge (like Bucaille says) to human explanation! But before you all reach for your Yusuf 'Ali and other common English translations of the Holy Book: don't bother. For some reason, most common English translations have mistranslated this profoundly important verse. Bucaille says on page 174 : " 'We are expanding it' is the translation of the plural present participle musi'una of the verb ausa'a meaning 'to make wider, more spacious, to extend, to expand'. ^^^^^^ Some translators who were unable to grasp the meaning of the latter provide translations that appear to me to be mistaken, e.g. 'We give generously' (R. Blachere). Others sense the meaning, but are afraid to commit themselves: Hamidullah in his translation of the Qur'an talks of the widening of the heavens and space, but he includes a question mark. Finally, there are others who arm themselves with an authorised scientific opinion in their commentaries and give the meaning stated here. This is true in the case of the Muntakab, a book of commentaries edited by the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, Cairo. It refers to the expansion of the universe in totally unambiguous terms. " I suppose if Einstein felt pressured enough to modify his equations of General Relativity and make them fit with how he saw the Universe, then Yusuf 'Ali and others can't be blamed too much for using the secondary meanings of the verb, instead of the face meaning of 'to expand'. Their translations were made long before Edwin Hubble even came onto the scene. (But it would have been helpful if this was made clear in the footnotes!) Incidentally, the conclusion that the Universe came out of a Big Bang comes from discoveries like the Cosmological Expansion and others..all made principally by citizens of the modern western Kafir states. This is intriguing, for the Qur'an specifically singles out the Unbelievers in its mention of the Big Bang : "Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then We clove them asunder and We got every living thing out of the water. Will they not then believe ?" (Surah 21, verse 30 Quoted from page 145 of Bucaille.) It seems that Allah is specifically targeting the Unbelievers, and ticking them off, for despite having been given the great favour of seeing some of the greatest of His Signs, they still reject Him. After mentioning the expansion of the Universe, Bucaille goes on to talk about what he considers is an UNAMBIGUOUS prediction of Man's capability and ultimate achievement of space travel. I found his reasons very enlightening. The main verse in question is : "O assembly of Jinns and Men, if you can penetrate regions of the heavens and the earth, then penetrate them! You shall not penetrate them, except with a Power." (Surah 55, The Beneficent, verse 33.) Bucaille goes on to give an interesting explanation of some Arabic terms. To cut a long story short, he says that there are three words used in Arabic for various explicit meanings of our English 'if'. There is an 'if' to express a possibility in general : 'ida'. There is another to refer to an achievable condition : 'in' (e.g. 'if it rains tomorrow..'). And there is an 'if' for the impossible hypothesis : 'lau' (as in 'if life was a bed of roses..'!). The verse quoted above uses the Arabic word 'in' for our English 'if'..specifying the possibility of a concrete realisation of this event, the penetration of the heavens and the earth. He further says : " 'To penetrate' is the translation of the verb 'nafada' followed by the preposition 'min'. According to Kazimirski's dictionary, the phrase means 'to pass right through and come out on the other side of a body'..It therefore suggests a deep penetration and emergence at the other end into the regions in question. " (P.175) Indubitably this indicates that Man will one day be able to do what we in our time have managed to see : penetration into outer space. Technology seems ripe for exploration of deep space in our lifetimes. Bucaille notes that the verse implies not only penetration of outer space but also of the depths of the Earth. ------------------------------------- Disclaimer : Any good to be found in this is from Allah, Glorified and High. Any mistakes are from me. References : ---------- The Bible, the Qur'an and Science. (The Holy Scriptures Examined in the Light of Modern Knowledge). By Dr Maurice Bucaille. Translated from the French by : Alaistair D. Pannell and The Author. Fifth Edition, revised and expanded (1987). Published by : Seghers, 6 Place Saint-Sulpice, 75006 PARIS, France. By the same author : 'What is the Origin of Man?' ------------------------------ Date: 19 Nov 90 02:46:45 GMT From: swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Hubble Space Telescope Update - 11/11/90 HST STATUS REPORT November 11, 1990 WIDE FIELD/PLANETARY CAMERA (WF/PC): Observed the Saturn white spot on coarse track on Friday, November 9, and Sunday, November 11. On Friday, 16 exposures were taken, and all data looked good in near real time. On Sunday, the first set of eight exposures showed the Saturn white spot quite distinctly and, when compared with previous exposures, the dynamics of the disturbance were evident. HIGH SPEED PHOTOMETER (HSP): Two focus and aperture map observations were completed. These observations accurately determine the locations of all science and acquisition apertures on each Image Dissector (IDT), as well as the proper focus for each IDT beam. Also completed a Bright Earth Avoidance Test. The test is designed to exercise a new operating method to avoid Bright Earth occultations while the detectors are in the "operate" mode. FAINT OBJECT SPECTROGRAPH (FOS): Successfully completed internal instrument test of the Blue Side Filter and Grating Wheel. GODDARD HIGH RESOLUTION SPECTROGRAPH (GHRS): An internal calibration test was conducted successfully and recorded on the onboard tape recorder. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| | | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 90 01:23:32 GMT From: csus.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!lehigh.bitnet!CK02@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu Subject: 3-D MAGELLAN PICTURES Did anyone see the 3-D Magellan pictures they had on (I believe) CBS News? I was wondering why the entire picture was in orange (or some color like that) and there were bands of gray every so offen. Chip Kerchner, ck02@lehigh.bitnet.edu ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 90 15:08:27 GMT From: unmvax!uokmax!munnari.oz.au!metro!cluster!ray@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Raymond Lister) Subject: The Gang Bang Theory The following few words couldn't have been more poorly timed ... > Article xxx of sci.space: > From: SX43@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK > Subject: Big bang discovered 1400 years ago ? > Date: 16 Nov 90 20:28:18 GMT > Organization: University of Liverpool > > > " VERILY WE ARE EXPANDING IT !" > (The Qur'an on Cosmological Expansion, Big Bang and Space Travel) > By > F.R.Ellahi. > > The expansion of the Universe must be one of the most striking > discoveries of modern science. It is now firmly established, not a > theory but as a 'fact' of life, which later improvements in understanding > are not likely to refute (a bit like there is not much chance of any > later theory disputing the 'fact' that things fall when you drop them, on > Earth.) ... because ye olde Big Bang Theory is taking a bit of a beating at the moment. For a discussion of the recent experimental data that (the authors claim) doesn't fit the Big Bang Theory, and an attempt at a new theory (that a colleague of mine dubbed "The Gang Bang Theory"), I refer you to: Arp, Burbidge, Hoyle, Narlikar, Wickramasinghe "The extragalactic Universe: an alternative view", Nature Vol. 346 (30 Aug 1990) pp 807-812. _--_|\ Raymond Lister Internet: ray@cs.su.oz.AU / \ Department of Computer Science ACSnet: ray@cs.su.oz \_.--._/ University of Sydney JANET: munnari!cs.su.oz.AU!ray@ukc v NSW 2006 AUSTRALIA ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 90 13:40:20 GMT From: csus.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!molczan@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (Ted Molczan) Subject: STS 38 Observation Reports I have received observation reports from Bill Bard, Jim Banke and Sean Sullivan, who observe from different locations in central Florida. The shuttle and its payload, first seen last night, were expected over Florida at about 18:42 EDT (17 Nov 23:42 UTC). Only one object was seen. Its brightness was consistent with that of the shuttle, however it exhibited very unusual colouring. Sean noted that as the object approached, it was the usual pure white of the shuttle, then at 50 deg elevation (approaching), it became salmon red, then golden. At the zenith it became deep ruby red. Sean oserved with binoculars from about 40 deg elevation (approaching). Bill noted that as the object neared the shadow it became red, and made a bright orange flash. Bill began observing about 20 min before the pass, and continued observing for one hour after. Jim confirmed the unusual colours reported by Sean and Bill. The fact that only one object was seen, would normally best be explained by the payload having manoeuvred to its planned operational orbit, leaving only the shuttle in the low orbit. If the object seen tonight was the shuttle, then its unusual colour requires explanation. The shuttle is predominantly white and black, except for the silver thermal radiators on the inside of the payload bay doors. One possible explanation for the reddish colour is that the shuttle may have rendezvoused with the payload, which was observed to be reddish when it was seen on the previous night, about 120 miles ahead of the shuttle. I recall that on the revolution just prior to the deployment of Lacrosse (a very red satellite) on STS 27, an observer noted that the shuttle had a "reddish cast". Clearly, we need more observations before we can make sense of what has been seen on the past two nights. -- Ted Molczan@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 90 22:25:00 GMT From: uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!buhub!moonman@ames.arc.nasa.gov Subject: Re: Another philosophical question Rusty Wiginton (rusty@rbw.b17a.ingr.uunet) posts: > I've been thinking lately about the public's perception of > space exploration and, more specifically, NASA. I read a > quote from J.R. Thompson that said something like "People > expect a voodoo space program -- you know 'Beam me up, > Scotty.'" Do you think that's true? Is the average guy's > opinion on the space program distorted by fantasy? If the > public understood what was really involved in a Shuttle > mission or in buildling a space station, would they be > less critical, more supportive? That's a pretty good question. Most "mundanes" (read: non-sf fans/technically oriented types) usually don't know or care much about space until it becomes something that affects them directly; my parents (yah, I'm a college student) couldn't remember what they did on the date of the landing of Apollo 11, but I can remember pretty accurately what I was doing & even what I was wearing on the date that Challenger went boom. Most mundanes probably have a real distorted idea of what goes on up there. If the US had a REAL science education system set up, it's my bet that support for NASA & scientific enterprise in general would skyrocket; people are naturally attracted to the big projects-as Burnham said, "Make no small plans-they only attract those without vision for the better..." Craig\The Moonman\Levin ===()=== ////// moonman@buhub.bradley.edu ``-----// You are Here ``````` | \~ V |~ . o o . :;: () -O- 0 . O |~ /~ Wouldn't you rather be out there --> ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 90 18:16:06 GMT From: news.cs.indiana.edu!maytag!watdragon!watyew!jdnicoll@rutgers.edu (Brian or James) Subject: Re: Pity The Much Abused Shuttle The STS as a jeep? Jeeps are cheap and flexible, not mention mechanically reliable. The automotive industry was a lot more mature when the jeep was designed than the space transportation industry is now (in terms of number of vehicles built and number of designs tried). The STS may be like the weird motorcycle designs people tried out way back when (My favourite being the cycle that hinged in the middle, under the rider). I suspect that if the USSr and USA had an orbital war of attrition, the Soviets system would have a higher number of functioning satellites in orbit at any given time, since their current system is already set up to launch more satellites per unit time than the USA's is. No idea what the equilibrium number in orbit would be, since I'm unsure of several important factors, like how fast both sides can build launch vehicles, how fast they can build ASAT weapons and how quickly the ASAT weapons can kill satellites (I have faint memories that the Soviet ASAT device they tested in the late 60s took 100 hrs or so to match orbits and toast the targets). For that matter, the US ASAT weapon might not be reliable, since new weapons tend to work far better in testing than in the field. If there were such a war of attrition, I expect the US workhorse would be something like a Delta, since the entire shuttle fleet requires four successful attacks to be eliminated (less if there are vital systems that aren't available to be installed in all four shuttles at once that would be destroyed along with the shuttle carrying it). Historically, large numbers of fairly reliable, and cheap systems will defeat small numbers of somewhat more reliable, but expensive systems (Check out Kursk sometime). James Nicoll ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #578 *******************