Minggu, 29 Maret 2009

WE LIVE IN AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE

47- With power did We construct heaven. Verily, We are expanding it.
51-The Dispersing, 47


Is the universe infinite? Or is it finite in a steady state? From the very beginning this has been a subject of debate between great minds. Hot debates and ratiocination of all kinds failed to clarify this dilemma. This had once been the subject of philosophical speculations before it yielded its place to the science of physics. Some of the great minds argued that the universe was not a confined space, while others contended that its boundaries were drawn. The Quran describes it as a continuously expanding and dynamic universe. According to this description, the universe has a new aspect every instant that deviates from the concept of an infinite space; its perpetual expansion defies the concept of a confined and steady state universe. Thus, the Quran propounds a third alternative, leaving the heated controversy of thinkers in abeyance.

This may contribute to the formulation of a judgment for the inquiring minds, probing whether the Quran is God’s revelation or not. We have, on the one hand, Muhammad in the desert, neither a philosopher nor a physicist, and, on the other hand, the assumptions of great thinkers and philosophers such as Aristotle, Ptolemy,Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, to name but a few. The greatest minds in history, basing their arguments on observations and formulas they had ingeniously devised, claimed either that the universe had its confines or that it was an endless space, but it occurred to none of them to think of a dynamic expanding universe, until the 20th century when Edwin Hubble, by means of a telescope, demonstrated that the universe was expanding. The theory of expansion of the universe was first advanced in the 1920s. Until the descent of the Quran no other source had made such an assertion!
MUHAMMAD’S TELESCOPE
Unbelievers contended that the Quran was Muhammad’s own fabrication and not the revelation of God. How then would these dissenters explain the fact that Muhammad had been the only person who was aware of the expanding universe long before the 1920s.

Could it be that in the 600s he had invented a telescope similar to the one contrived in the 1900s? Could it be that he had been familiar with the handling of such a telescope and acquainted with the motion of stars and that he had concealed it from his fellow men? If those who accused the Prophet of lunacy and alleged that in his delusional states he imagined himself the messenger of God were justified in their claims, how would they account for the fact that he knew facts not known to his contemporaries, facts that were to be discovered 1300 years after his revelation of them? If those people assert that the Prophet had devised a religion to serve his own ends, how can they explain that his so-called delusions materialized after a lapse of 1300 years? His pronouncements at the time did not promote his interests in any way; quite the reverse was the case, since he unwittingly gave his enemies a hint they might take advantage of. Can a person whose own interests prevail over the interests of others declare something not to his own advantage that was sure to be bitterly censured and much derided by those whose naked eyes failed to observe the expansion of the universe? If, despite this, a person came up with the contention that Muhammad was an intelligent man who might have perceived this truth, what sort of an intelligence might this have been?


And, instead of boasting of having been the depository of such knowledge, why would he have preferred to tell an untruth and claim that this was not his own discovery but the revelation by God? While the inventor or discoverer of a pin is inclined to brag about his breakthrough, why on earth would Muhammad choose to be modest and categorically declare that the Quran was not his own production, but the revelation of God? Was this due to humility? Would these people - who had denied his prophethood and accused him of having been an impostor - have dared qualify him with the laudable attribute of “humility?”

DISCOVERY OF THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE
There was a gap in Newton’s physics. Newton believed in an endlessly vast and static universe. His law of gravity encountered a problem. How was it that the physical bodies, in the course of eons, defied their mutual attractions and did not collapse into a unity? The formula that Einstein devised abandoned the absolute notions of space and time as reference points for all objects in the universe. Basing his studies on Einstein’s formulas, Alexander Friedmann, a Russian physicist, discovered that the universe must be expanding. Georges Lemaître, a Belgian cleric, astronomer and cosmologist, formulated that the universe had begun in a cataclysmic explosion of a small, primeval superatom, like the growing of an oak tree from an acorn. This theory explained the recession of galaxies within the framework of Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity. This idea was so incredible that even Einstein had problems accepting it, despite the fact that this all had originated from his own formulas. Einstein, rather, countered that physics was not the forte of Lemaître, and the universe was an infinite expanse and in a steady state.

Lemaître’s theory posited that the universe was expanding. This was a statement that no philosopher and no scientist had ever before set forth. Kant had said in his Critique of Pure Reason that this was an enigma unsolvable by human intelligence. This theory fit everything and explained the reason why the universe did not collapse in spite of gravity. The key had fit into the lock. It was the correct explanation of the enigma. However, this statement met with the usual adverse reaction: “No, it is not the truth...”

Remaining outside the sphere of theoretical controversy, American astronomer Hubble was, about the same time, making observations with his sophisticated telescope in the Mount Wilson observatory. He observed that galaxies were receding from each other, which proved that the universe was expanding. In answer to those who said they could not believe in things their eyes had not witnessed, Hubble’s discovery led to the following declaration: “Now that you see it, you have got to believe it.” Hubble showed this by the Doppler Effect. Thus the wavelengths of receding bodies prolonged in the spectrum of light waves would shift to red, while, if the bodies approached each other, the wavelengths would shorten, shifting to blue. The light that came from galaxies that shifted to red showed that the galaxies were receding. In line with this observation, Hubble discovered a striking law: the speed of galaxies that receded was directly proportional to the distance between galaxies. The farther away a galaxy stood, the more its speed of recession accelerated. The result was tested again and again. In 1950, a high-magnification telescope was installed on Mount Palomar in the USA, the largest instrument of its kind. The new tests and controls justified this observation. The measurements made pointed to the fact that the creation of the universe occurred about 10-15 billion years ago.

Both Einstein and Lemaître took an interest in Hubble’s work; Einstein, who did not agree with Lemaître at first, eventually acknowledged during a conference that Lemaître was right after all. He confessed that his failure to endorse these findings had been the gravest error in his life. Thus it was that the fact that the universe was of a dynamic nature and expanding, confirmed by observations, was also validated by the great physicist Einstein.

In the examples presented by Hubble and Lemaître, we see illustrated how a physicist arrives at a conclusion both in theory and through observation. While Lemaître demonstrated how he had made inferences from Einstein’s formulas to substantiate his theoretical discoveries, Hubble presented the data of his observations and his conclusions.

As we see, the result obtained by physicists is the consequence of cumulative and collective bits of knowledge and research. The Creator of physical laws provides the answer in the Quran to the issues of towering importance throughout human history. The Quran’s presentation of scientific facts is clear, direct, and concise; it is different than the presentation of scientists, which tends to be complicated by scientific methods and procedures. The provider of this answer does not have to go through all the labyrinths a scientist has to. The Quran’s method is perfectly straightforward, unswerving and explicit.

If we had the possibility of looking at the universe from above and somebody asked us to describe what we saw, our answer would be that it was expanding. To achieve the Quran’s revelation of this fact 1400 years ago, man would have needed access to the assistance of accumulated scientific data acquired throughout long years and to sophisticated telescopes. When people claim that science and religion oppose each other, the Quran furnishes answers to the most complicated scientific problems. Observations made by sophisticated telescopes today confirm the statements of the Quran.

The Quran, perfectly aware of the human psyche with its prescience, states that nonbelievers will insist on their convictions regardless how many miracles are presented to them. Some ask: “Why did the people also not believe in Jesus, who had performed miracles and healed the sick and the blind?” This example demonstrates why the majority of people did not believe in Christ and the other prophets, despite their miracles. Miracles change in fact as time goes by, but the negative attitude of most humans remains unchanged.

REASON FOR THE USE OF THE ROYAL PLURAL
I think it advisable to explain the reason for the use of “We” in the verse analyzed in this chapter. God uses both the royal plural “We” and the first person singular “I.” Some languages use the first person plural “we” to express grandeur and exalted rank.

In the hundreds of references addressing God in the second person, the pronoun used is “Thou” and never the plural “You” or “Ye.” The thousands of references made to Him as a third person always use the pronoun “He” and never “They.” References in the Quran to God always use either the second or the third person, and none of them as a second or third person plural. Thousands of times in the Quran, God is referred to as “Allah,” “Gracious (Rahman),” Merciful (Raheem),” and “Lord (Rab)” and all of these words are in the singular, never the plural.
(source : www.quranmiracles.com)



The expanding universe
Together, billions and billions of stars like our sun form gigantic star systems - galaxies like our own Milky Way galaxy, which probably doesn't look all that different from the galaxy NGC 4414 shown here:

The cosmological models of general relativity paint a rather simple picture of a universe filled with a collection of such galaxies freely drifting through space. These galaxies are evenly distributed, and they drift in an orderly way, following the expansion of space. This expansion is shown in the following animation. The animation depicts part of a two-dimensional slice of the universe, including a number of galaxies, and it is certainly not to scale; all distances and sizes are chosen for easy viewing, not for verisimilitude.

The animation shows 100 million years worth of the expansion of the universe, as seen from our own galaxy (shown in red) which, as our personal reference point, remains firmly in the centre. Time is shown in the upper left corner (where "My" stands for "million years"), and the galaxies visibly move away from our own. The distances from our galaxy to the blue and green galaxies (measured in light years, abbreviated ly) are shown at both the beginning and the end of the animation. At the end of the brief clip, we see that the distances to the blue and green galaxies have doubled, and so have all distances between all of the galaxies shown!

For each galaxy, the average speed with which it recedes from our own red galaxy is the distance it covers, divided by the time it needs for its motion. To calculate the distance covered by the green galaxy, we compare its distance from the red galaxy at the beginning (1 million ly) to the distance at the end of the observation period (2 million ly). We thus find that during the 100 million years shown in the animation, its distance has increased by a million light years, corresponding to an average speed ofv = 1 million light years/100 million years = 0.01 light years/year
= 3000 kilometers/second
On the other hand, for the blue galaxy with its initial distance of two and its final distance of four million light years, corresponding to an increase by 4-2=2 light years, we obtainv = 2 million light years/100 million years = 0.02 light years/year
= 6000 kilometers/second.
This illustrates a direct consequence of cosmic expansion: the speed with which a galaxy recedes from us is directly proportional to its initial distance - double distance, double speed, in our example. This is called the Hubble relation: the further a galaxy is away from us, the faster it recedes.

Finally, a caveat. There's one aspect of cosmic expansion that the animation above cannot show: In this expansion, the points of view of all the galaxies are equally valid. Had we chosen a different galaxy to form the immobile center point of our animation, the animation would look just the same, all galaxies moving away from the observer, and their average speeds and distances following the same Hubble relation as above - double distance, double speed. The expansion has no center: all distances increase by the same factor, and every observer on a galaxy sees the same expanding cosmos.
from : http://www.aei.mpg.de/einsteinOnline/en/elementary/cosmology/expansion/

Read More......

Minggu, 01 Maret 2009

विडियो फ्रॉम dhenok61




Read More......

Rabu, 25 Februari 2009




Read More......

Rabu, 07 Januari 2009

Why ?




Read More......

Mount Cereme


Mount Cereme or Mount Ciremai is a symmetrical stratovolcano lies in West Java, Indonesia. A 4.5 × 5 km wide of the Geger Halang caldera is found at the summit. Eruptions are relatively infrequent in historical time, but explosive activity and lahars from the summit have been recorded.[1] Cereme is the highest mountain in West Java.

Some endemic or endangered flora and fauna are being protected in this national park, such as Pinus merkusii, Castanopsis javanica, Fragraera blumii, Villubrunes rubescens, Macaranga denticulatan, Lithocarpus sundaicus, Elacocarpus , Ardisia cymosa, Platea latifolia, Phantera pardus, Javan Muntjac, Zaglossus brujini, Javan Surili, Spizaetus bartelsii and Python sp.
This photo is  takeable along the road from Kuningan to Ciperna 
portal toll road.It's so beautiful..


Read More......

Sabtu, 20 Desember 2008

Future Education... Holistic





Read More......

Rabu, 24 September 2008

SCIENCE EDUCATION

Why Teach Science?
In the modern world, some knowledge of science is essential for every-
one. It is the opinion of this committee that science should be as nonnegotiable
a part of basic education as are language arts and mathematics. It is
important to teach science because of the following:
1. Science is a significant part of human culture and represents one of
the pinnacles of human thinking capacity.
2. It provides a laboratory of common experience for development of
language, logic, and problem-solving skills in the classroom.
3. A democracy demands that its citizens make personal and community
decisions about issues in which scientific information plays a fundamental
role, and they hence need a knowledge of science as well as an understanding
of scientific methodology.
4. For some students, it will become a lifelong vocation or avocation.
5. The nation is dependent on the technical and scientific abilities of its
citizens for its economic competitiveness and national needs.

What Should Be the Goals of Elementary and
Middle School Science?
To quote Albert Einstein, the goal of education is “to produce indepen-
dently thinking and acting individuals.” The eventual goal of science education
is to produce individuals capable of understanding and evaluating information
that is, or purports to be, scientific in nature and of making decisions
that incorporate that information appropriately, and, furthermore, to pro-
duce a sufficient number and diversity of skilled and motivated future scien-
tists, engineers, and other science-based professionals.
The science curriculum in the elementary grades, like that for other
subject areas, should be designed for all students to develop critical basic
knowledge and basic skills, interests, and habits of mind that will lead to
productive efforts to learn and understand the subject more deeply in later
grades. If this is done well, then all five of the reasons to teach science will
be well served. It is not necessary in these grades to distinguish between
those who will eventually become scientists and those who will chiefly use
their knowledge of science in making personal and societal choices. A good
elementary science program will provide the basis for either path in later
life.
The specific content of elementary school science has been outlined in
multiple documents, including the National Science Education Standards,the Benchmarks for Science Literacy, and multiple state standards documents.
Teachers are held accountable to particular state and local requirements. It is
not the role of this report to specify a list of content to be taught. However,
it is important to note that what this report says about science learning
always assumes that there is a strong basis of factual knowledge and con-
ceptual development in the science curriculum, and that the goal of any
methodology for teaching is to facilitate student learning and understanding
of this content, as well as developing their skills in, and understanding of,
the methods of scientific observation, experimentation, modeling, and analysis.
It is often said that children are natural scientists. Experts in child devel-
opment have debated this issue, not on the basis of the basic facts of children’s
behavior, but rather on the relation between that behavior and the essential
aspects of scientific thinking (Giere, 1996; Gopnik, 1996; Gopnik and Wellman,
1992; Harris, 1994; Kuhn, 1989; Metz, 1995, 1997; Vosniadou and Brewer,
1992, 1994). Rather than attempting to resolve this debate, we simply acknowledge
the fact that children bring to science class a natural curiosity
and a set of ideas and conceptual frameworks that incorporate their experiences
of the natural world and other information that they have learned.
Since these experiences vary, children at a given age have a wide range in
their skills, knowledge, and conceptual development. A teacher therefore
needs to be able to evaluate each child’s knowledge and conceptual and
skill development, as well as the child’s level of metacognition about his or
her own knowledge, skills, and concepts, in order to provide a learning
environment that moves each child’s development in all these areas. A key
question for instruction is thus how to adapt the instructional goals to the
existing knowledge and skills of the learners, as well as how to choose
instructional techniques that will be most effective.
Each of the views of science articulated above highlights particular modes
of thought that are essential to that view. These views are not mutually
exclusive descriptions of science, but rather each stresses particular aspects.
Since students need to progress in all aspects, it is useful for teachers to have
a clear understanding of each of these components of scientific development,
just as they need a clear understanding of the subject matter, the
specific science content, that they are teaching. It is also useful at times to
focus instruction on development of specific skills, in balance with a focus
on the learning of specific facts or the understanding of a particular concep-
tual framework.
Thus, if one looks from the perspective of science as a process of rea-
soning about evidence, one sees that logical argumentation and problem-
solving skills are important. Certain aspects of metacognition are also high-
lighted, such as the ability to be aware when one’s previously held convictions
are in conflict with an observation. If one looks at science as a process of
theory change, one sees that teachers must recognize the role of students’prior conceptions about a subject and facilitate the necessary processes of
conceptual change and development. Finally, when one looks at science as
a process of participation in the culture of scientific practice, attention is
drawn to the ways in which children’s individual cultural and social backgrounds
can, on one hand, create barriers to science participation and learn-
ing due to possible conflicts of cultural norms or practices with those of
science, and, on the other hand, provide opportunities for contributions,
particularly from students from nonmainstream cultures, that enrich the dis-
course in the science classroom. One also sees a range of practices, such as
model building and data representation, that each in itself is a specific skill
and thus needs to be incorporated and taught in science classrooms.
It is thus clear that multiple strategies are needed, some focused primarily
on key skills or specific knowledge, others on particular conceptual
understanding, and yet others on metacognition. The issues of what children
bring to school and of how teaching can build on it to foster robust
science learning with this rich multiplicity of aspects are the core topics of
this report.


Read More......

Senin, 07 Juli 2008

Solid bioenergy sources

The largest group of solid bioenergy sources is products made from wood.These are obtained when firewood is taken from forests and when waste is utilized from the industrial processing of wood products. In many places by-products from agriculture, such as straw, are also used for generating energy from biomass.
When forests are thinned, apart from the trunk of the tree, which is used for the furniture and construction industries, wood residues of a lesser quality are also collected. For each hectare of forest, between 0.4 and 0.8 tonnes of air dry firewood can be obtained from these forest wood residues.Together with the other quantities of wood residues that are produced during forest maintenance, this gives an annual fuel yield from a permanently used forest area of around 1.5 t/
ha.
In modern wood harvesting, the trees are felled by harvester machines (Figure above). These cut down the tree using a gripper arm with a chainsaw mounted on it. In addition, harvester machines can automatically remove the branches from the trunk, strip off the dark wood bark, and cut the trunk into transportable lengths.This means that part of the value-increasing wood processing is carried out before the wood leaves the forest.

When the round trunks are machined into planks and beams, large amounts of residues are produced. However, for the most part these are utilized in the wood industry for other materials.Woodchips and shavings that are free of any bark, for example, are the base products for high-value chipboard sheets (Figure above ).


However, another part of these residues still has fragments of dark bark attached and is therefore unsuitable for utilization as a wood product (Figure above).These bark pieces are ideal for energy recycling. Because of the high ash content, these residues are utilized mainly in larger heat supply stations and combined heat and power plants as a co-firing substrate.
Other significant residues from agriculture include straw (Figure below) and other stem products such as hay.These post-harvest residues are often available locally in large utilizable quantities.


Mechanised straw harvest with  bale press   
Photo: Claas AG/www.claas.de


Straw is a natural residual product
Photo: creativ collection/www.sesolutions.de

The straw from 1 ha of cereal has an energy content of 73 GJ.This is roughly equivalent to 2000 litres of heating oil. However, straw and other stem products have combustion characteristics that are different from those of ligneous fuels.The ash melting point and emission behaviour of straw-type biomass mean that different technical approaches to utilization are required. To date, it has been possible to achieve large-scale energy recycling of stemproduct fuels in cogeneration plants, but not in decentralized installations.
Yet it is not only residue materials produced directly with the creation of biomass that can be considered for energy utilization. Products at the end of their lifecycle that are no longer useful as a material asset are ideal for energy recycling.The processing and combustion of old wood is one example of how this kind of bioenergy product can be obtained from secondary raw materials (Figure below).


Industrial wood waste processing
Photo: Dobelmann/www.sesolutions.de

Because of its previous use, this product can be contaminated with foreign matter such as chemicals, paints or similar. For this reason, many countries have restrictions on the energy recycling of old wood. Burning the wood in small combustion systems is often allowed only if the wood processing has been purely mechanical and the wood contains only insignificant contaminants (Figure below).

Mechanically prepared wood
Photo: Dobelmann/www.sesolutions.de

Another important category of residues that is not necessarily part of the old wood sector is wood residues from landscape management (Figure below).These occur during maintenance works by roads and waterways, and through work in parks.Wood residues from landscape management are usually a mix of wood, leaves and stem products. Only very rarely would the utilization of this mixture in a new product be considered.

Residues from landscape management
Photo: Dobelmann/www.sesolutions.de


Energy utilization suggests itself as a means of disposing of these materials.The combustible quality of these wood residue mixes can be classed as low, owing to the large number of impurities. Because of the soil that is generally still attached, these materials have a high ash content.The other visible impurities such as plastic wrappers, bags and other man-made garbage lead to high levels of toxic matter, with the result that the law demands the controlled disposal of the ash.
First published by James & James (Science Publishers) Ltd in the UK and USA in 2005
© The German Solar Energy Society (DGS), Ecofys 2005

Read More......

Sabtu, 31 Mei 2008


Read More......

Minggu, 27 April 2008

Why Holistic Education?

Parents, in increasing numbers, are seeking alternatives to mainstream education. Few could criticize the commitment to academic excellence that most schools and teachers have and work hard to actualize. But more and more parents realize that just learning academics is not enough, and they see young people in their communities suffering from a lack of needed learning, and society suffering as well.

Parents worry about the negative social influence they see affecting their children. Parents see themselves having less impact on their children's behavior, relationships, and attitudes than the media and marketing which directly targets children. As a result children's senses of themselves and self-images are under pressure. This pressure is expressed in:

  • Increased competitiveness in many aspects of a child's social life, such as sports, out-of-school activities, and of course, school.
  • Obsessive concern for their "look," from their body shape to their clothes.
  • Violence in many forms, from the physical to the psychological and emotional.

Parents are also worried about negative learning attitudes they see developing in their children. Parents saw their children as infants eager to learn, and this eagerness dissipated as these same children's schooling increased. Learning becomes a necessary chore, driven by rewards and punishments, and too often devoid of direct meaning in their children's lives.

Many parents also look at our current society in which social problems seem to be getting worse; in which those considered successful are too often greedy, corrupt, and brutal; in which families and communities seem increasingly dysfunctional; and they ask, "Why aren't we as humans learning what we need to know in order to live good and meaningful lives?"

It doesn't appear that we will learn such things from learning more mathematics, literature, or history. Parents see the need for their children to learn these other things as well as academics, and they look for schools that give time, attention, energy, and resources, to such learning. Parents generally do not come to holistic education from philosophical musings, but from a perceived need for their children that they feel is not currently met.

Learn more..

Read More......