The Enchantment of Optical Telescopes

People have long looked to the stars for answers to numerous questions. What exists beyond planet Earth? Are humans the only intelligent life in the universe? What do other planets look like? In order to answer these questions and many more, craftsmen and scientists built and perfected telescopes made to search the heavens for answers. Different types of optical telescopes were invented over time to help mankind search the heavens.

Galileo is credited with perfecting the first optical telescope used in astronomical exploration, improving on the design of spectacle-makers and opticians. The Galilean telescope is classified as a refractor, the earliest and simplest optical telescope type created. Refractors work by bending light when it passes through a lens set at the front of a long tube. All light rays meet at the back of the tube, converging on the eye of the viewer. These telescopes are cheaper than the other types and are simpler to make than later varieties of telescope.

Refractors, however, had several flaws, one of which is the distortion--called chromatic aberration--that occurs when lights of different wavelengths come to focus in different places within the tube. Isaac Newton solved this problem by inserting mirrors in the telescopic tube, inventing the reflector telescope. Some of these mirrors decrease the amount of light that enters the telescope, but the increase in clarity is outweighs the decrease in light. These telescopes are good for beginners and experts alike and are used in numerous small and large-scale astronomical explorations.

Reflectors enable the construction of large telescopes with sizable reflectors built in them. Scientists learned that they could get better results with a large collection of smaller mirrors than they could with a small number of larger mirrors. These large telescopes have taken clear pictures that have astonished scientists and the general public with their content. Size and number of mirrors, however, are not the only factors involved with the clarity of telescopic photographs.

The Space Age presented astronomers with opportunities never before open to them. In 1990, NASA launched the Hubble Space Telescope into orbit, the world's first space-based telescope. Images obtained from outside the Earth's atmosphere are clearer than those captured beneath it because the atmosphere is constantly moving and shifting. This movement causes blurring referred to as "seeing," but this blurring is not present in Hubble photographs due to it being beyond the Earth's atmosphere. The Hubble will be replaced by the newer, more modern James Webb Space Telescope that will have enhanced visual and infrared viewing capabilities.

Other types of telescope are the catadioptric and infrared telescopes. The catadioptric telescope makes use of both reflection and refraction to capture images and is generally contained in a more compact design than is often used for other telescopes. The Schmidt-Cassegrain model is the most popular catadioptric telescope and is quite popular with astronomers due to its image quality. Infrared telescopes see limited use because they are only effective in chilled regions and areas shielded from heat. They are used to detect emitted radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum and come in ground-based, air-borne, and space models.

The Big Bang's Metaphysical Baggage

When anyone ponders the origin and evolution of our Universe, the science of cosmology, one is confronted with the Big Bang theory - the Big Bang event. So, what did the Big Bang do, or didn't do; what was it, or wasn't? And, most importantly, should you put any credibility into the Big Bang scenario seeing as how 1) nobody was around to witness the event, and 2) the scenario, as given by the standard model, is grossly in violation of the very laws, principles and relationships of physics that you'd expect cosmologists to support. Are there any solutions that are out-of-the-box that can reconcile the Big Bang event without violating what scientists should hold most dear? I can think of two!

For those of you unacquainted with the Big Bang scenario, in the beginning (13.7 billion years ago) the Big Bang event created our Universe - all of space and time; all of matter and energy; all from a volume less than a standard pinhead! Now for the objections!

THE BIG BANG VIOLATES BASIC PHYSICS

1) Standard Big Bang violation number one - the Big Bang didn't create time:

The concept of time is nothing more than a measurement of rate-of-change. If nothing ever changed, the concept of time would be meaningless. Now change suggests there must be at least two events. Event One happens; Event Two happens. The change is that difference between the state of play identified with Event One and the state of play identified with Event Two. That change equates into a time differential. Event One happens at a time separate and apart from that of Event Two. Event One if it's the cause of Event Two, must have happened prior to Event Two. Event Two in turn, can act as the cause of Event Three, and so on. Translated, there was no first event; there was no first cause. There was no first event because there had to be a prior cause that caused that event. There was no first cause because there had to have been an earlier event that caused that cause.

Now the Big Bang event was both a cause and an effect. As a cause, the Big Bang caused the subsequent event, the kick-starting of the evolution of our Universe. As an effect, well something prior to the Big Bang must have acted as a cause of the Big Bang effect. Translated, that cause must have been prior in time to the Big Bang; therefore there is such a thing as a before the Big Bang and therefore the Big Bang event could NOT have created time. Taken to its logical conclusion, there could never have been a first cause; there could never be a first effect, therefore time is infinite since the chicken (cause) and egg (effect) paradox is only solvable by postulating infinity.

2) Standard Big Bang violation number two - the Big Bang didn't create space:

This supposition is easily disposed of. Can any handyman reading this think of any possibility of how they could create something, anything, be it building something from scratch, or writing words on paper, or even thinking those words or thinking about building something, without there being pre-existing space, be it space in your garage, space that exists in your exercise book, or the space that exists between your ears that conceives of building X or writing Y? No? Nothing, but nothing, springs into reality, even if only a nebulous mental reality, without there being pre-existing space. The Big Bang is a reality. It had to have been created in a reality. Any reality has a space or volume component. Therefore, the Big Bang (creation of our Universe) event happened in pre-existing space or volume; therefore the Big Bang event did not, could not, have created space. You can not create your own space, the space you yourself exist in. It's sort of like giving birth to your own self. It's a paradox.

3) Standard Big Bang violation number three - the Big Bang didn't create matter/energy:

One of the most cherished conservation principles, drummed into every science student, from junior high through university, is that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but only changed in form. Also, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but only changed in form. Post Einstein, the two have been combined, since matter can be turned into energy and vice versa. However, the central bit is creation. Creation from nothing (or destruction into nothing) is not allowed - except for some unfashionable reason at the Big Bang according the standard model of cosmology. Why this should be the sole exception to the rule is quite beyond me.

Now there is such a thing as creation of virtual particles from the vacuum energy (quantum fluctuations). However that's not a free lunch (something created from nothing). It's the conversion of energy to mass (as per Einstein's famous equation) and the virtual particles can annihilate each other and return back into energy. I just thought I'd better mention that in case some bright spark considered that process a mini version of the Big Bang. It's not as in this case the creation (and annihilation) of virtual particles would be just a very, very tiny bang that violates nothing in terms of the conservation of matter and energy.

4) Standard Big Bang violation number four - the Big Bang wasn't a pinhead event:

The Big Bang wasn't a quantum event: The Universe is expanding, ever expanding. That's not in doubt (see below). Standard model cosmologists now play that expanding Universe 'film' in reverse. Travel back in time and the Universe is contracting, ever contacting. Alas, where do you stop that contraction? Well the standard model says when the Universe achieves a volume tinier than the tiniest subatomic particle! When (according to some texts) the Universe has achieved infinite density in zero volume - okay, maybe as close to infinite density and as close to zero volume as makes no odds. Translated, in the beginning the Universe was something within the realm of quantum physics!

Now just because you can run the clock backwards to such extremes, doesn't mean that that reflects reality. How any scientist can say with a straight face that you can cram the entirety of not only the observable Universe, but the entire Universe (which is quite a bit larger yet again) into the volume smaller than the most fundamental of elementary particles is beyond me. Either I'm nuts for not comprehending the bloody obvious, or the standard modellers are collectively out of their stark raving minds. Actually I suspect the latter because they are caught out in a Catch-22. They are between the proverbial rock and hard place.

Now if cosmologists really believe the entire contents of our Universe was crammed into a small space, even one larger than quantum-sized, then of necessity you have our embryo Universe nicely, and tightly, confined within a Black Hole! Nothing can escape from a Black Hole (except Hawking radiation, but that leakage is so slow it's like having just one drop of water come through your roof over the duration of a category five hurricane). So you can't have a Big Bang that releases our Universe from its Black Hole prison. So there! The Big Bang had to have been of such a size that a Black Hole was not part of the picture.

CORRECTIONS TO THE BIG BANG STANDARD MODEL

1) Correction number one - the Big Bang was a macro event:

I'm not out of my stark raving mind, so it's the standard modellers that are totally nuts. Now that's easy to say, but basic everyday logic backs me up. Let's start with the notion that it is impossible to achieve infinite density. There is a limit, a finite limit, to how much stuff you can cram into how much space there is available (which is what density is - mass per unit volume). Once that limit is reached, any more stuff added on will not increase the density any further, just increase the volume. Keep on keeping on piling on the stuff and it won't take very much stuff that's value added to increase the volume beyond the realm of the quantum. Once beyond that boundary, you're in the realm of the macro, and macro means sizes above that of a pinhead.

In this case, I suggest the ultimate size was multi-billions of pinheads worth. Regardless, macro rules the Big Bang. In our reverse-the-expanding-universe film, try imaging doing that with an expanding hot air balloon. If you reverse that inflation, do you stop when the balloon is devoid of air (the sensible thing to do), or do you continue the contraction until the balloon is smaller than the full stop at the bottom of this sentence's question mark? Of course you don't go beyond the point of commonsense, yet that is what the standard modellers have done. Further, they insist we swallow their lack of commonsense (not of course that that is actually suggested by them), hook, line and cosmological sinker.

2) Correction number two - The Big Bang spewed out matter/energy into existing time and space:

If the Big Bang event was a 'spew' event, an event which must have had both pre-existing space and time coordinates (if you spew, you do so at a particular place at a particular time), and if matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed, then of necessity the Big Bang spew (of matter/energy) happened I repeat in already existing space and time. Nothing could be more obvious.

BIG BANG EVIDENCE

If the Big Bang is so apparently wrong on so many fundamental counts, then what's the positive evidence for it? What prompts cosmologists to advocate the standard model?

1) Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR): If you have a massive hot explosion (like the Big Bang), and all that heat energy expands and expands, then you'd expect the temperature of the area occupied by that energy to drop, the temperature ever decreasing as the volume that finite amount of energy occupies increases. As the energy expands it gets diluted and thus cools, but can never reach an absolute zero temperature. And that's just what we find on the scale of the Universe. There's a fine microwave energy "hiss" representing a temperature a few degrees above absolute zero that's everywhere in the cosmos. That's the diluted heat energy of the very hot Big Bang - well it has been a long time and is now spread throughout a lot of volume. That microwave "hiss", called the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), was predicted way before it was discovered, and one bona fide way of confirming evidence for a theory is to make predictions that are born out by experimental observations.

2) Composition of the Universe: At the theoretical but expected temperatures and pressures of the Big Bang, you might expect a certain amount of some interesting nuclear chemistry to take place and generate various substances. Particle physicists used to calculating such things predicted the relative amounts and types of stuff the Big Bang event would generate, and the theory matches observations to a high degree of accuracy - nearly all hydrogen and helium will be created by a ratio of roughly three to one. All the rest of stuff (very, very minor amounts relative to hydrogen and helium) that we know and love (like oxygen and iron and gold, etc.) was synthesised via the conversion of hydrogen and helium to those heavier elements by nuclear fusion processes - cosmic alchemy - in stars and often resultant supernovae, not in the Big Bang.

3) Expansion: If you have a large explosion, a really big bang, a violent vomit event, you'd expect the bits that received the most oomph, the bits with the most energy would be expelled the fastest; other bits with less energy would lose the race (if this were a track meet). And thus the bits of spewed stuff spreads out - fastest in front, like a marathon run. A bacterium on one of these bits would see every other bit moving away from it. Some faster bits are outpacing the bacterium inhabited bit; the bacterium occupied bit is outpacing and leaving behind the slower bits. If the bacterium assumes it is standing still, then both the faster and slower moving bits appear to be receding away from it. The bacterium observes all other bits moving away from it at speeds proportional to their distance from it. The bacterium might assume from all of this that its bit was a special bit - the centre bit - but we can see that's not so. Any bacterium on any of the bits would conclude the same thing. They too would be wrong. Does that mean there was no centre? Of course there was. Equally incorrect would be the conclusion that there was no centre - there was, the site of the original big spew.

Substitute our local gravitationally bound cluster of galaxies as the bacterium's bit; all other external galaxies and clusters of galaxies that have no connection to our local galactic group are the other bits, and there's your analogy. Do we observe these other galactic bits to be moving away from us at velocities proportional to their distance from us? Yes indeed; you bet we do; spot-on!

As an alternative, let's look at a marathon analogy. We have this long distance marathon that starts off with say 1000 runners at a specific point in time and space. The finishing line is at a 150 mile radius out and the runners can run in any direction they choose. They, for the sake of this analogy, run at 15, 12, 9, 6 or 3 miles per hour. Let's look at the relativities from the point of view of the middle runner, the one running at 9 miles per hour. After one hour he sees the 15 mph runner six miles ahead running at a relative velocity of 6 mph; the 12 mph runner 3 miles ahead with a relative velocity of 3 mph; the 6 mph runner 3 miles behind also at a relative velocity of 3 mph; and the 3 mph runner 6 miles behind with a velocity relative to our 9 mph runner of 6 mph - that's assuming all took off and headed in one direction.

But if the 9 mph runner looks at those running in the exact opposite direction, the anti 3 mph runner is 12 miles behind with a relative velocity between them of 12 mph; the anti 6 mph runner is 15 miles away with, you guessed it a relative velocity difference of 15 mph; the anti 9 mph runner is 18 miles distant, relative velocity 18 mph; the anti 12 mph runner is 21 miles away at 21 mph relative velocity; the anti 15 mph runner is 24 miles away and moving away at 24 mph. Translated, there is a direct correlation between how far away the various runners are, and how fast they are running, which you can graph for verification. After two hours the distances between any two runners moving at different velocities will have doubled; after three hours trebled; after four hours quadrupled, and so on, though each runner is maintaining their respective velocities. Again, the relationship holds for each runner; each runner might think themselves in the centre as all other runners appear to be moving away from that runner's point of view, yet it's not the case that any runner is the centre - yet there was a centre when the starting gun went off.

Now kindly note that there is nothing in that trilogy of evidence for the Big Bang that requires that event to have: 1) created time; 2) created space; and 3) to have been a quantum-sized happening.

WHERE'S THE RECIPE BOOK?

The ultimate recipe book that would support the Big Bang event's causality with the creation of time and space; the origin of matter and energy, has yet to be written by those advocating that very point of view.

There's no recipe to the best of my knowledge for how to cook up a batch of time!

Equally there's no recipe for how to bake a cake of space!

How do you mix up a quark salad or a neutrino soup when there's nothing in the pantry to start off with? Can anyone please give me the recipe?

From an equally empty supermarket you apparently can produce a kinetic energy pie. I want to see the recipe for that!

The Universe, it has been said, is the ultimate free lunch. But a lunch still needs a recipe book. When physicists, astrophysicists and cosmologists can actually write and publish such a cookbook, well then its Nobel Prizes all around. Till then, I think they should veer away from statements about the creation of time, space, matter and energy from nothing. Till then, my mantra remains "there is no such thing as a free lunch".

BEFORE THE BIG BANG

While I'm convinced there was a before the Big Bang, the nature of that 'before' is vague at best since the transition between before the Big Bang through the Big Bang to after the Big Bang is unknown (at present anyway), since the relevant equations break down into pure nonsense under those extremes. What's probably reasonable is to call whatever existed pre Big Bang a 'universe', maybe a 'universe' within a larger Multiverse. If conservation laws have any meaning, that 'universe' (within a Multiverse perhaps) contained the same amount of stuff (matter and energy) as ours does though the mix might have been different. This pre Big Bang 'universe' certainly consisted of volume (space) and change (time). What's less certain is whether that 'universe's' laws, principles and relationships of physics were the same as ours. If not, just about anything goes. It's probably more reasonable and constructive to assume their physics is our physics. Translated, to answer Einstein's famous question, God, or Mother Nature, had no choice in the matter about how to construct or arrange a universe.

WHAT CAUSES EXPLOSIONS?

What caused the Big Bang explosion? Okay, we have a pre Big Bang 'universe'. Something happened there that caused our Big Bang explosion. What causes explosions (ultimately a lot of kinetic energy) and could they be up to the task of causing our Big Bang spew?

Well fine particulate matter like coal dust or equivalents when in the presence of oxygen and ignited can violently explode and expand. Still, that's hardly a sufficient means to create our Universe. However, that's a form of chemical energy, and under the right conditions, chemical energy can be released quickly enough that for all practical purposes you have an explosion - think of gunpowder, a firecracker, sticks of dynamite, hand grenades or their mature equivalents, conventional bombs dropped from aircraft, or even the mini controlled explosions that drive your automobile engine and hence your car. You also have other explosive mixtures, like when sodium hits water, and there are lots more to boot, often the staple of high school chemistry classes. However, chemicals are very inefficient in terms of being converted to energy. Hardly any of the matter gets converted to energy. Chemical energy is not the way to proceed to generate a really big, Big Bang.

Then there is nuclear energy. Atomic energy can be controlled, released steady-as-she-goes, as in electricity-generating nuclear power plants or facilities. Or, nuclear energy can be released in real quick-smart fashion, as in uncontrolled reactions that result in ka-booms that produce mushroom clouds as in thermonuclear weapons; the A-bomb, the H-bomb, etc. Energy is released when atomic nuclei are split apart (fission) or rammed together (fusion). It's the former that produces our electricity; both can power up those mushroom clouds. Its fusion that powers our Sun (and all the other shinning stars), which in simple form is just one gigantic bomb continuously going off. Only the Sun's immense inward gravity contains the explosion (outward radiative pressure) keeping it confined to the circular disc we observe in the daytime sky. Alas, fuel eventually runs out, in petrol tanks and in stars. In stars, when the fuel is finally consumed, gravity wins. Stars collapse slowly, or if originally massive enough, really suddenly. These massive stars implode; rebound and explode - a supernova is born. But even a supernova pales in comparison to what the Big Bang must have been like, for even supernovae in particular, and nuclear energy in general, while more efficient in converting matter to energy relative to chemical energy, still would fail any efficiency audit.

If you want to pass the matter-to-energy efficiency exam, there's only one game in town: matter meets antimatter! Matter-antimatter reactions produce the most efficient means known to humans of generating explosive energy - 100% efficiency to be precise. Translated, 100% of the matter (and the antimatter) gets converted to energy. No leftovers. If a little bit of matter can generate a massive amount of energy in ultimately what amounts to a relatively highly inefficient nuclear fusion process, imagine what a massive amount of matter meets antimatter could generate!

One could image a super-lump of matter merging with an ever-so-slightly-less super-lump of antimatter. That would in theory result in a super-ultra violent explosion (the Big Bang) but giving us, our Universe, its matter dominance (over antimatter) that we observe. However, I strongly suspect that such super-sized lumps would have to be so massive that they would turn into Black Holes first, and the merger of two Black Holes, even one each of matter and antimatter, just gives you a larger Black Hole. All annihilation hell might be going on inside, but since the explosion can't escape the pull of a Black Hole's gravity, it's of no consequence.

Still, as the most efficient means of generating explosive kinetic energy, getting the biggest bang for your buck, matter-antimatter annihilation needs some further thought and consideration. Is there a way of generating a Big Bang via the matter-antimatter component of a prior, pre-Big Bang 'universe' without the massive lumps?

AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL

So what if there is more than one expanding pre-Big Bang 'universe', say a pre-Big Bang Multiverse that contains lots of expanding 'universes'. Some of these 'universes' are, like our own Universe, matter dominated. Some however are antimatter rich. Now say one of each start to intersect at their expanding boundaries. There will be very little direct meeting of the two minds since the matter (and antimatter) is spread thinly. It's like you can have two galaxies collide without there being any actual collisions between the stars contained in each, because the distance between those stars is vast relative to the sizes of the stars. What does rule the roost however is the gravitational force. Slowly, but surely, the intersection starts the slow but sure collapse of all the stuff. Eventually, the bits get close enough where a few matter-antimatter annihilations take place, but that oomph drives more bits into each other's arms and so you quickly get a chain reaction yet one that transpires in a medium still tenuous enough and a region without sufficient density to form a super-sized lump and a harmless Black Hole. Might that matter-antimatter chain reaction manifest itself as a non-quantum, macro Big Bang - our Big Bang?

Whether this scenario is plausible or even possible I know not, but it has a nice feel to it; it just might be. Even if not, it might suggest a seed for the next generation of cosmologists, or those currently more cosmologically savvy, to pursue.

YET ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE

Lastly, here's a wicked curve ball. What if the Big Bang is a theoretical impossibility of physics pure and simple, despite the observational evidence? There's only one way I know of to generate convincing impossibilities - virtual reality; a simulated universe where there need be no connection at all between what you observe and what theoretically caused the various things that you observe. My scenario: the expansion; the CMBR; the ratio of hydrogen to helium, are all simulated.

Our reality, our Universe including the Big Bang (and ultimately you) is nothing but a computer-generated program, software created by some entity, probably extraterrestrial. Having set up the parameters, it's just a matter of hitting the 'start program' key and seeing what happens. We humans have already done this sort of activity so there's nothing implausible about this possibility.

Now I've often wondered if some great extraterrestrial computer programmer specializing in generating virtual reality worlds and universes would leave enough clues to his (its) 'subjects' that they in fact were just software generated virtual beings in a simulated universe. One such type of clue would be no way those virtual creations could reconcile observation with theory, as in the case of the Big Bang.

For another example we have observations of four physical forces yet no theory which unites the three quantum forces (electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force) with the one classical force - gravity. There is no viable theory of quantum gravity despite thousands of physicists searching for one over many generations now. It's like there are two sets of different software running the Universe.

One of the many Big Bang 'in the beginning' predictions of theoretical things is magnetic monopoles - magnets with either a south pole or a north pole, but not both. Alas, we've never ever found and confirmed the reality of even one monopole. So strange is that that a new concept states that the very early Universe underwent an additional oomph of very rapid inflation which so diluted the created monopoles that there are no longer any monopoles in our neck of the woods. That does appear a bit like clutching at straws.

You have a 120 order-of-magnitude (that's one followed by 120 zeros) discrepancy between the observed vacuum energy and the theoretical value of the vacuum energy.

You have particles that behave both as a wave and as little billiard balls - observed but theoretically impossible in classical physics.

Speaking of particles, there are three fundamental properties of particles (like the electron, neutrinos, the numerous quarks, etc.) and their anti-particles (like the positron). They are charge, spin and mass. Despite the relatively large number of particles (including the equal and opposite anti-particles), there are only a few allowed values for charge and spin, values pretty much confined to the infield. But, for some reason, the mass (usually expressed in equivalent energy units - Einstein's equation again) of the various particles are not only scattered throughout the ballpark but are all over the map. They take on values (albeit one value per type of particle) over many orders of magnitude without any apparent pattern or regularity or relationship between them - and nobody has the foggiest idea why, not even a validly theoretical idea. Nobody can predict from first principles what the masses should be. It's like someone just drew a few dozens of numbers out of a hat containing multi hundreds of thousands of values and assigned them to the few dozens of particles willy-nilly. Something is screwy somewhere because something so fundamental shouldn't be so anomalous.

In the real world, the macro world, the classical world, no two things are identical down to the last microscopic detail - you are unique; every bacterium is unique; every house, den, nest, and ant hill is unique; so is every baseball and grain of sand. In the unreal world, the micro world, the quantum world, all fundamental particles of their own kind (i.e. electrons or positrons or up quarks or photons) are identical to the last measurable detail. Why? Who knows! But a possibility from the simulated universe is that there is one software code or sequence of bits and bytes for each type of fundamental particle. So every time that sequence is used, you get that type of entity and only that type.

There are constant reports of physical constants that aren't - constant that is. That's totally nuts!

Then you have observations of quasars with vastly differing red-shifts (measurements of their recessional velocities) yet quasars which appear to be causality connected.

In physics, time travel to the past is theoretically possible - though damned difficult in practice. However, that means that those time travel paradoxes are possible, even likely. Paradoxes like going back in time, say ten years, and killing yourself (which is a novel way of committing suicide), means you couldn't have existed to go back in time in the first place in order to kill yourself, which means you're not dead so you can go back in time and murder yourself, etc. What kind of physics is that? Curiouser and curiouser.

Any and all miracles, Biblical or otherwise, are explainable as easily as saying "run program".

More down to earth, you have multi-observations of things like the Loch Ness Monster, those highly geometrically complex crop circles, and ghosts, yet there's no real adequate theory, pro or con, that can account for their observed existence or creation.

All up, perhaps some cosmic computer programmer/software writer whiz with a wicked sense of humour (a trickster 'god'?) is laughing its tentacles off since we haven't been able to figure it (our virtual reality) out. Of course maybe the minute we do, the fun's over and 'Dr. It' hits the delete key and that's the way the Universe ends - not with a Big Crunch, nor with a Heat Death, but with a "are you sure you want to delete this?" message! "Yes".

Mythologies Of The Solar System

The planets of the solar system are named after gods and goddesses and are known by their Roman, not Greek names. Here I'll put the Greek equivalents in brackets afterwards. The satellites of these planets for the most part tend to be the Greek names associated in one form or another with the parent body or the god/goddess in question. Moons (and major asteroids) are identified with an asterisk.

Now you need to understand that at the time of the ancient Roman or Greek pantheon, only eight of the solar system's celestial bodies were known. There were the three major bodies, the Sun, Moon, and Planet Earth itself of course (thus, way back then, you'd expect a mythological relationship between these three bodies), and the minor five visible planets - Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn which were just points of light to the ancients, though it's not surprising the ancients matched celestial physics with the personalities of their gods and named them accordingly. Apart from our satellite, the Moon, no other moons were known to the ancients.

MYTHOLOGY AND THE INNER SOLAR SYSTEM

SOL (Helios) is obviously the god of the Sun. It surprises me that given the prominence and importance of this celestial object, our Sun, that the god of the Sun didn't take pride of place as head of the gods. Be that as it may, Sol, a first generation Titan, was born of the god Hyperion and the goddess Theia, brother to Luna (Selene) and Aurora or Dawn (Eos). His job is to bring light to men and gods alike. He rides in the sky in a fiery chariot pulled by his team of fast horses. Sol, from his vantage point, sees and hears everything (which proved to be the undoing of an illicit relationship between Mars (Ares) and Venus (Aphrodite). The god Apollo later fused as one with Sol's image though once they were two different deities. Sol's son, Phaethon, by the ocean nymph Clymene, once tried to ride his father's horse-drawn chariot, but lost control and had to be killed by Jupiter (Zeus) before the runaway Sun destroyed everything.

VULCAN (Hephaestus) was once upon a time actually sighted by astronomers and as the closest planet to the Sun, it would of course be HOT, and thusly was named after the deity of fire and blacksmithing. Alas, Vulcan turned out to be as mythical as the deity it was named after.

MERCURY (Hermes) when observed from Earth goes around the Sun quick-smart. So, it was natural to name that body after the fleetest of the gods, the messenger god who flies through the skies on a winged helmet and winged sandals, Mercury. No great mystery there.

VENUS (Aphrodite) was, because of its celestial purity of face and brightness, a female goddess, and of course THE female goddess was the goddess of love. Alas, Venus the planet turned out to be more appropriate for the Christian ruler of the underworld than the goddess of romance. Venus is Hell personified and thus the reality turned out to be vastly different than the expectation, but the ancients couldn't have known that back then. Venus (or Aphrodite) had an unusual birth, the offspring of Gaia, but fertilized by the blood/semen of Gaia's son and lover, Uranus, when Uranus was castrated by Saturn (Cronus).

*Neith was the name given to the lone phantom satellite of Venus. I say phantom because, like Vulcan, it was a case of 'now you see it, now you don't'. It vanished from the sight of astronomers across the world, but prior to that some saw something. That's water under the bridge now. The naming of the satellite Neith broke from tradition for Neith was the mysterious early Egyptian goddess of Sais. She was identified with war and hunting and the personification of the primordial waters of creation, though later on down the track she was associated with weaving, which is what Neith means. Wisdom was one of her strong points. She had no known male companion, so was known as a 'Virgin Mother Goddess'.

GAEA (Gaia) otherwise known as Terra or Earth was one of the original deities 'born' out of the original state of the universe - Chaos. Given the relative lack of bed partners around then, she mated with any and all available males, including her asexually created children, like Uranus.

*Luna (Selene) was born of the god Hyperion and the goddess Theia, sister to Sol (Helios) and Aurora or Dawn (Eos). Luna crosses the night sky on a chariot pulled by two white horses. As with Sol and Apollo, the Roman goddess Diana (Artemis) is often associated with, and has melded with Luna (as the crescent-shaped Moon) as has the goddess of the underworld, Hecate (as the New Moon). Luna remains as the Full Moon in the night sky.

MARS (Ares) son of Jupiter (Zeus) and Juno (Hera or Mrs. Zeus) was the god of war, though if mythology be believed, he was rather a wimp of a god, got his butt kicked on several occasions and was rather disliked up on Olympus.

*Deimos: Ares (the god of war) had an extramarital fling with the goddess of love, Aphrodite (who was married to the god of fire, Hephaestus) and from this union produced two sons, one being Deimos, meaning 'fear'.

*Phobos: That Ares and Aphrodite pairing also produced another son, Phobos, meaning 'terror'. Both Deimos and Phobos often joined daddy on the battlefield. However, apart from that, they play no significant role in mythology.

ASTEROIDS: There are only four really main or large asteroids among the tens of thousands that exist, Ceres, Pallas, Vesta and Juno.

*Ceres (Demeter) was the goddess of agriculture, the harvest, and the one who controlled the seasons. Zeus had a bedroom fling with her that resulted in Persephone, who Zeus then promised to his brother Hades as his wife. Alas, Zeus didn't inform either Persephone or Demeter about that decision, which had major repercussions down the track.

*Juno is Mrs. Jupiter, or in the Greek, the equivalent of Hera (Mrs. Zeus). In either case, Juno/Hera is the queen of all the gods and goddesses. She is perhaps noted most of all for her vindictiveness against some of the offspring produced by her husband's extramarital relationships, most notably, Hercules.

*Pallas is named after Pallas Athena, an alternative name for the Greek goddess Athena. In another version Pallas was the daughter of Triton, who acted as foster parent to Athena. A friendly fight between the two goddesses went sour and Pallas was killed.

*Vesta (Hestia) was the virgin goddess of the hearth and home or home fire, a real stay-at-home sort of deity and thus doesn't feature much in mythological adventures and doings. In the Roman version Vesta was represented by a shrine with an eternal flame guarded by the Vestal Virgins who, as a condition of their employment and of remaining alive, had better remain pure, or else. The god of war, Mars, raped one, and from that involuntary union, sprang the twins Remus and Romulus, the latter the founder of Rome.

MYTHOLOGY AND THE OUTER SOLAR SYSTEM

JUPITER (Zeus) was king of the mountain - Mount Olympus that is. He, after a series of 'wars in heaven' (with the Titans) and on earth (with the Giants) and finally with the daddy of all monsters, Typhon, claimed the right to be worshiped as King of the Gods, by all lesser gods and goddesses, demigods and demigoddesses, as well as all of the great unwashed - the mortals comprising humanity. Apart from being fast on the draw with his trademark thunderbolts, he's most noted for being even faster on the draw with his private parts. No Mounties or bounty hunters ever perused their quarry better or with more determination than our always horny Jupiter/Zeus, as we shall see immediately below (though with over five dozen satellites, only a few can be entered into in this short essay).

*Amalthea: Jupiter (Zeus) as a young infant, was spirited and hidden away in Crete by his mother, Rhea from his daddy, Saturn (Cronus) because daddy didn't want any sons of his eventually growing up and challenging him for supreme power. Saturn thus kept them out of his harms way by swallowing them. Rhea saved the last (Jupiter) by trickery. Anyway, young Jupiter was reared and looked after by local nymphs on Crete, especially by Amalthea. She's also known for having a horn, the 'Horn of Plenty' a cornucopia that provided limitless food and drink for whoever possessed it.

*Ananke, the goddess of inevitability and personification of destiny, necessity and fate was the mother of the Moirai by Zeus. The Moirai, also known as The Fates, were the trio that spun the thread of life of mortals from birth to death and thus controlled everyone's destiny. Even Zeus was powerless against their will.

*Callisto was the daughter of the King of Arcady, and she had the misfortune to have Zeus fall for her. Callisto was associated with the virgin goddess Artemis. When Zeus raped Callisto, she got in a family way (in mythology, every rape results in a pregnancy otherwise there's no point to the rape in the first place). This rape ultimately produces a son, Arcas. Artemis, being the virgin, was livid and banished Callisto from any further association with her. Hera (Mrs. Zeus) in the meantime assumed Callisto was a willing partner to her wayward hubby and in revenge turned Callisto into a bear. Years later, Arcas, out hunting, ran across that bear and not realizing that it was mom, shot her dead. Zeus then placed Callisto into the zodiac as Ursa Major, the Great Bear (or the Big Dipper); Arcas ultimately got his place in the heavens too as the Little Bear (or the Little Dipper).

*Carme was the mother by Zeus (who else?) of the virginal huntress Britomartis, a Minoan or Cretan goddess. Carme assisted in the harvest of the grain.

*Elara was the mother of the giant, Tityos. Tityos was fathered by you know who - randy Zeus. Tityos met a bad end, killed on the behest of Hera by Artemis and Apollo, and forever tortured in Tartarus (a subdivision of Hades) by a couple of vultures who liked liver for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Fortunately for the vultures, Tityos's liver kept regenerating so they never lacked for food.

*Europa was the daughter of a Phoenician king. Zeus got the hots for her and turned himself into a snow-white bull (gods can shape-shift; it's one of their major superpowers and that's no bull) and approached Europa in that form. Europa playfully climbs on the Zeus-as-bull's back. Zeus-the-bull then dives into the sea with Europa on his back and swims out to Crete. Once there he reverts back into his 'human' form and they made mad passionate love together and in the fullness of time Europa gave birth to triplets, one of which she named Minos. Zeus, ever thoughtful, also gave her some other gifts as well for her troubles. Europa ultimately married the king of Crete. Ultimately her son, Minos, assumed or claimed the throne. That's why Crete's ancient civilization is called the Minoan society. Europa is the only person having an entire continent named after them - Europe. As an aside, Europa is one of the few celestial bodies of interest to those on the lookout for potential sites where extraterrestrial life might exist.

*Ganymede: Abductions by the gods are by no means unknown or uncommon. In Greek mythology, a young handsome lad was Ganymede. He was abducted by Zeus, shape-shifted in the form of an eagle. Zeus favored the ladies, goddesses, demigoddesses, even mortal women, but for a catamite change of pace now and again... Ganymede was rewarded for his services by eternal youth and immortality, eventually placed in the sky as the constellation Aquarius. His daddy (Tros) was also compensated with a gift of fine horses.

*Himalia was a nymph who bore a trio of sons to Zeus or of course the Roman equivalent, Jupiter.

*Io was the daughter of the first king of Argos (what's it about kings and their daughters already - that plot device has reached its use by date). She of course caught the lustful eye of Zeus. Hera (Mrs. Zeus) got suspicious, so Zeus turned Io into a cow as a disguise. Hera (knowing full well what was afoot) of course assumed the cow was a gift for her from her hubby since he obviously had no use for a cow, so Zeus had no option but to agree that that of course was what he had intended all along. Hera then had the cow guarded by the multi-eyed giant Argus. Zeus, needing to get Io back, got Hermes (Mercury to the Romans) to kill Argus. Hera in revenge plagued Io-the-cow with a hornet. Finally a truce was called. Zeus promised to behave (pull the other one) and Io was reverted back to human form and reunited with her worried daddy - the king.

*Leda was of course the daughter of a king, and in turn married a king, in this case a king of Sparta. Zeus, of course, took a shine to Leda, and took the form of a swan and flew into Leda's arms seeking 'protection' from another predatory bird - that's his story and he's sticking to it. Anyway, somehow or other (Zeus may have turned her into a goose) this cuddle made Leda pregnant and from this pregnancy she gave birth - she laid an egg, obviously! The egg hatched and out popped beautiful Helen. Helen, later known as Helen of Troy, was the face that launched a thousand ships (and then some). This was Zeus's contribution to the Trojan War. In another version, the egg was the union between Zeus and the goddess of revenge, Nemesis. They gave the egg to Leda to hatch and raise the offspring up as her own. Leda had another child by Zeus - one of a pair of twins actually, Castor (by Zeus) and Pollux (by her husband) but known as the 'Boys of Zeus' or the 'Heavenly Twins' who eventually sailed with Jason as part of the Argonaut crew.

*Lysithea was the daughter of Oceanus (a Titan, product of Gaia and Uranus) and one of Zeus's many, many lovers.

*Pasiphae was the wife of King Minos of Crete, who, via a rather strange mating arrangement gave birth to the Minotaur. The rather remote connection to Jupiter is that Jupiter's brother, Neptune, was behind all of this. Neptune was offended because Minos didn't offer up as a sacrifice to Neptune a favorite bull, so in retaliation, Neptune saw to it that Minos's wife became infatuated with, and lusted after a bull, the offspring being that well known hybrid, the Minotaur.

*Thyone was once known as Semele, a lover of Zeus, who produced as offspring Dionysus, the god of wine and all around fun times. When Semele died as a result of Zeus revealing to her his true appearance - all the result of Hera's trickery - and went to Hades, Dionysus rescued her from the underworld and brought her to Olympus, made her into a goddess along with providing the change of name.

SATURN (Cronus) was one of those first generation Titans, offspring of Gaia and her son Uranus. He mated with Rhea, and produced from that union the original half-dozen gods and goddesses that would eventually become the Olympians. But the transition from Saturn's offspring to become the rulers of Mount Olympus was an epic that could just about out-epic anything Hollywood has ever done. Saturn is known for two things in particular - castrating his daddy and snacking on his kids - Yum, yum.

*Dione is a very obscure goddess who may have been a Titan or a Nereid or an Oceanid. Her name seems to be a feminine form of Zeus, and that brings in the alternative version of the origin of Aphrodite - a traditional birth via the union of randy Zeus and Dione (whoever she was). At least she's now immortalized as a satellite of Saturn.

*Enceladus was one of the Gigantes. The Gigantes were offspring of Gaia, fertilized by the blood/semen of her son and lover Uranus who was ultimately castrated by Cronus (a son of Gaia and Uranus back when he had his private parts intact). In the Gigantomachia (the battle between the Olympian gods and the giants), Athena deposited Enceladus under Mount Etna and the fire and brimstone breath of Enceladus accounts for that volcano's well, fire and brimstone. This is another abode thought as a possible site where alien life forms might one day be discovered.

*Hyperion was a Titan god, born of Gaia (Gaea) and her son, Uranus. He would become an early god of the Sun.

*Iapetus was another Titan god, born of Gaia (Gaea) and her son, Uranus. He would become the father of Prometheus, who ultimately is remembered for stealing fire from the gods and giving it to mankind.

*Janus was the Roman god of beginnings, doorways, entrances, gateways, etc. and is depicted with two faces, one each facing forward (to the future) and the other backward (to the past). January, the beginning, is named after him.

*Mimas, like Enceladus, was one of the Gigantes of Greek mythologies. Like the other giant sons of Gaia and Uranus, Mimas had serpents for legs and was born fully armored. Mimas was slain by Hephaestus during the war against the Olympians by a volley of molten iron.

*Phoebe was a Titan goddess, born of Gaia (Gaea) and her son, Uranus. Phoebe is identified as an early moon goddess. In another context, the goddess Artemis sometimes was associated with an alias of Phoebe. Finally, Helen of Troy had a half-sister Phoebe.

*Rhea was another Titan goddess, born of Gaia (Gaea) and her son, Uranus. She married Cronus (Saturn) and from that union was born what ultimately became the original half-dozen Olympian gods and goddesses. Cronus, out to eliminate potential future rivals, swallowed the first five of these kids, but Rhea tricked him when it came to the sixth and last, Zeus. She spirited Zeus away to Crete to be raised, and tricked Cronus into swallowing a stone disguised as the baby Zeus.

*Tethys was yet another Titan goddess, born of Gaia (Gaea) and her son, Uranus who would become the most ancient goddess of the sea.

*Titan is the largest moon of Saturn, a moon of interest to astrobiologists, and the only natural satellite to have an extensive atmosphere. In fact, Titan is larger than the planet Mercury and way lager than our own satellite, Luna. The mythology connection is that the original dozen Titans (some of which are named satellites of Saturn) were one of a set of offspring between Gaia and Uranus. Among the second generation of Titans are several household names like Atlas and Prometheus. They were overthrown in the Titanomachy (The War of the Titans) by Zeus and his fellow Olympians.

URANUS (alternative spelling Ouranos) was the original sky god, the son, via parthenogenesis, of Gaea (Gaia) who shacked up with mum to produce all manner of deities, including monstrous ones. He's known for having his privates sliced off by one of their Titan offspring, Saturn (Cronus). Saturn in turn got done like a dinner by one of his offspring, Jupiter (Zeus) but that's another story.

*Ariel, Miranda, Oberon, Titania and Umbriel, the five major moons of Uranus, were named or chosen from the names of characters from the works of Shakespeare and Alexander Pope and thus, unfortunately, have near bugger-all to do with traditional Greek and Roman mythology. Bummer, as that spoils some potentially good stories relating back to and involving the parent god, Uranus.

NEPTUNE (Poseidon) was the god of the sea, one of the original half-dozen Olympian gods and goddesses, brother to Zeus, Hades, Hera, Hestia and Demeter. All of Neptune's known 13 satellites are named for Green and Roman water deities or groups of minor water gods. The major two are Nereid and Triton.

*Nereid - the Nereids (plural) were nymphs of the sea, the 50 daughters of the Mediterranean Sea god Nereus. Among the famous of the Nereids - goddess all - were Thetis (mother of Achilles), Galatea and Amphitrite (who married Poseidon).

*Triton was another sea god, a son of Poseidon and the Nereid goddess Amphitrite, a nymph of the sea who became Queen of the Sea when she wed Poseidon. The typical depiction of Triton is that of a merman - human head and torso; one or two fishy (or maybe dolphin) tails. He too has a trident and a conch shell which when blown can calm the stormy waves. Like father, like son, Triton also had a bit of an eye for the ladies, especially beach-babes. Triton favors in a positive light for assisting Jason and the Argonauts in their saga.

PLUTO (Hades) was god of the underworld. In the Greek version, Hades (the god) administered Hades (the underworld), so the name of the ruler and the place ruled were one and the same. Within recent times, Pluto was officially downgraded from planet to dwarf planet status, which made a lot of traditionalists very unhappy.

*Charon was the son of Erebus (the god of underground darkness) and Nyx (goddess of night), who played the role of the ferryman who rowed the newly deceased across the River Styx to Hades, the underworld. As a reward, or a fare, he got a coin in payment - no coin, no crossing. The parentage and place of employment are ideal for a satellite so far out from the Sun.

*Hydra (discovered in 2005) was named after that famed beastie slain by Hercules as one of his dozen labors in Greco-Roman mythology. Hydra was one of numerous monstrous offspring from Typhon and Echidna, themselves monsters.

*Nix (a deliberate alternative spelling of Nyx) was a Greek goddess of night, one of the original deities conceived from the original state of the universe, Chaos. Nyx was the mother of Charon. Like Hydra, Nix the satellite was discovered in 2005.

ERIS is another dwarf planet, a trans-Neptunian object even larger that Pluto discovered in 2005. In fact it's the most massive of all dwarf 'planets' in our solar system, even though it's three times farther removed from the Sun than Pluto. Eris is a Greek goddess, the personification of strife and discord.