Upon a star’s birth, it grows before its death caused by hydrogen and helium depletion within its center. Consequently, as the star grows bigger, the amount of coolness increases and this diminishes its brightness. Eventual death through a flare-up then occurs as the star reaches its maximum size. The type of death a star undergoes is resolved by its mass. Low mass stars weigh less or equal to 0.5 solar masses and during its growth, it consumes stellar dust that leads to an eventual collapse that makes the star hotter and at the same time lesser in size (Asimov, & Hantula, 2005). Upon the lapse of some million years, the star regenerates itself by converting helium into hydrogen and it lives again. This process repeats itself until the Red Giant forms that rupture the star and thereby causing its demise. Medium stars weigh between 1.4 and 3 solar masses. It undergoes the same process as the low mass star to form the Red Giant. Regeneration occurs by the transformation of helium into carbon. Once this is depleted, the star smolders itself into a Red Supergiant, which marks the death. Both types of stars upon death form the Planetary Nebula, which breeds White Dwarfs.
White Dwarfs generate from low and medium stars that overcome the rupture phase by maintaining high pressure in the center though they become very tiny in the process. They have a high mass yet they become very hot within the process such that they produce white light. Massive stars weigh between ten and twenty solar masses and unlike the other types, they consume carbon due to their elevated power. As carbon is used up, iron forms and this prevents further regeneration and the formation of a Red Supergiant that demises in a flare-up termed as the Supernova (Asimov, & Hantula, 2005). The Supernova degenerate the star into either a Black Hole or a Neutron Star. Black Holes are barely discernible as they tend to take up light but neither emit nor mirror anything. They can therefore only be seen by their relation to companion stars; the gas is pulled from the companion star in an inward spiral motion that consequently leads to high combustion levels that can be monitored from earth. The neutron star on the other hand is formed from the formation of neutrons and it is very heavy.
Physically, a comet comprises of a nucleus, tail and coma. The nucleus consists of rock and dust particles, solid water and gases like carbon dioxide and ammonia. The nucleus is asymmetrical in shape due to the mass of the comprising elements although it has been noted that the solid water has to be eighty-five percent of the elements (Kerrod, 2000). As a comet navigates near the sun, the solid components melt and as they disintegrate from the nucleus, they form the coma environment that appears as a long tail once they fuse with dirt particles in the atmosphere. The orbital characteristics of comets are formed around the sun in an uneven manner such that at given moments, the comet is in close proximity to the sun or far away. Various lengths of the orbits are noted. Asteroids on the other hand appear to be rocks that comprise of either nickel or carbon. They navigate around the sun in packs. Asteroids orbit paths are also asymmetrical as that of the comets. Meteors are big rocks that detach from a comet and as these collide with the globe’s atmosphere, the friction causes a flare up that result into a meteor shower commonly referred by many as a shooting star. Meteor showers do also occur when a navigating orbit encounters the earth’s orbit.
A comet’s orbit changes only when it is in near proximity to high gravitational planets like Jupiter. Planets that have medium or small gravity forces may also alter the orbit if it navigates very close to the planet (Kerrod, 2000). Over time, the orbit changes are attributed to the accrued forces emitted by the comet in terms of dust particles because of the sun’s activity. These propel the comet off course but in insignificant distances. Long-period comets are believed to emerge from the Oort Cloud that resolves the direction that a given comet takes around or away from the sun. The Oort Cloud is believed to be a product of the nuclear activity that took place in the creation bit as atmosphere flared. The short-period comets are those whose path is enhanced in velocity as they are released from the Cloud.
The universe is inflatory in nature as posited by Edwin Hubble as evidenced by the neighboring galaxies. Hubble discovered that galaxies positioned far from the earth’s galaxy tended to expand outwards in an increasing manner while the ones in close proximity protrude out in a decreasing manner. The closed big bang theory asserts that the universe undergoes inflation as it spills outwards and this leads to the creation of the fresh matter in a faultless synchrony that matches the expansionary forces (Seeds & Backman, 2009). The theory adds that the new creations making part of the universe are not noted by the naked observation of the universe since it still maintains its original form over time. Due to this, the theory imparts a sense of infinity on the universe since it becomes difficult to ascertain the establishment or the last part of the same. The open big bang theory rejects this view by arguing just as Hubble that the universe underwent nuclear reactions that resulted to its known shape and that this alters over time. The first universe had its elements in a close package than the current one that various aspects are noted to be drifting in a manner that suggests a fall out.
The latter version holds the view that the universe in future holds another explosion that will disperse various elements further into the unknown beyond, which cannot be covered by human systems as the far objects will be ushered into the event horizon (Seeds, & Backman, 2009). This unseen part of the universe is the dark matter, as it cannot be seen by humans. The newly created universe will take time to cool just as the current one experienced after the bang and a new form will emerge. The projection is very uncertain as scientists maintain that the resulting force may even outwit the gravitational forces that hold the universe in place. The inflationary model accords the creation story first to God for the time aspect before the occurrence of the big bang that led to the division of gravity, nuclear, electrons and nuclear forces are divided leading to the big bang, eventual cooling and life initiation on earth. The finale of the universe’s re-creative and expansive forces will be marked by the descent of Christ and time will cease.
Attaining a position as a university lecturer at a young age of twenty-five, Galileo made critical advancements concerning the arrangement of the universe and this was not without proof. Although the society within the given period was majorly rooted to religious thoughts as directed by the Catholic Church, his argument was treated with prejudice and this is against Christian doctrine. Ultimately, the parties involved were all bent on either supporting or refuting astronomical theories about the universe. The Church embraced Aristotle’s theory that assigned the centrality of the universe to the earth with the sun and other heavenly bodies believed to be spinning around it (Purnell, et al., 2007). Galileo upon subsequent studies of Copernican’s theory rejected this position by his position that the sun marked the core body in the universe. As usual, Galileo like any other scientists commenced on his project from a hypothetical position and worked towards providing tangible evidence concerning his position. This was made possible through the telescope as it offered him the ability to monitor and study the stars, planets and the arrangement of the universe at large.
Aristotle had offered quite an intriguing theory of the earth’s centrality but this was only a theoretical postulation. What his followers failed to offer the scientific field was attesting to the given line of thought and this could not be used as a prime position against Galileo. However, it was used as it offered the Church its preferred position in negating the advancement by offering biblical support. The church countered Galileo’s position by maintaining that Joshua’s account of an immobile sun that used to move across the sky as well as Isaiah’s declaration that the heavens enveloped the earth was authoritative documentation for the Aristotelian opinion. Galileo consented to the scriptures as well as their content yet his perception of the same was that the description was more poetic than literal. Galileo’s position in the whole matter accorded universal centrality to the sun and the movable nature of the earth on its axis (Purnell, et al., 2007). All Church members with the exception of Cardinal Bellarmie refused to use the telescope in ascertaining the facts. The Cardinal still maintained his position subsequent to the viewing by asserting that he lacked scientific knowledge that made him an easy target to Galileo’s ideas. Truly, the case was won by the church in a pure case of selfish and baseless arguments whose actions were discriminatory.
Asimov, A., & Hantula, R. (2005). The Life and Death of Stars. Strongsville, OH: Gareth Stevens Pub.
Kerrod, R. (2000). Asteroids, Comets, and Meteors. Minneapolis, MN: Lerner Publications.
Purnell, F., Carnes, M. C., & Pettersen, M. S. (2007). The trial of Galileo: aristotelianism, the “new cosmology,” and the Catholic Church, 1616-1633. Saint-Laurent, QC: Pearson Longman.
Seeds, M. A., & Backman, D. (2009). Horizons: Exploring the Universe. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.