Comments on: The Cash Value of Astronomical Ideas http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/ Random samplings from a universe of ideas Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:42:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Charles http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-115421 Charles Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:21:38 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=948#comment-115421 hi...?/can i ask something??why human beings cannot survive in other planets???can you help me research about it???its our project...we need to research about it... hi…?/can i ask something??why human beings cannot survive in other planets???can you help me research about it???its our project…we need to research about it…

]]> By: Joseph http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-114792 Joseph Sat, 26 Aug 2006 08:40:06 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=948#comment-114792 There is really only one sensible way to distinguish a planet from a non-planet: if an astronaut standing on the object's surface cannot achieve escape velocity by jumping, the object is a planet. There is really only one sensible way to distinguish a planet from a non-planet: if an astronaut standing on the object’s surface cannot achieve escape velocity by jumping, the object is a planet.

]]> By: Timelike, Spacelike or Lightlike » Blog Archive » Poor Pluto http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-114611 Timelike, Spacelike or Lightlike » Blog Archive » Poor Pluto Fri, 25 Aug 2006 03:49:28 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=948#comment-114611 [...] I agree with Sean Carroll on his post at Cosmic Variance. There is no science in arguing whether Pluto is a planet or not. The Solar System is made up of many celestial objects. Not much is accomplished by saying Pluto is not a planet, but a dwarf planet. In fact, nothing is really accomplished. The name of what it is does not say much about what it actually is. Definitions are conventions that people state to make things more straightforward. In the mathematical sense, it is important to refine definitions. For example, the definition of a group. It is agree that groups are defined to be not necessarily abelian. This definition cover the case when the set of elements satisfies the existence of an identity, inverse elements, closure and associative and whether of not the operation is commutative. [...] [...] I agree with Sean Carroll on his post at Cosmic Variance. There is no science in arguing whether Pluto is a planet or not. The Solar System is made up of many celestial objects. Not much is accomplished by saying Pluto is not a planet, but a dwarf planet. In fact, nothing is really accomplished. The name of what it is does not say much about what it actually is. Definitions are conventions that people state to make things more straightforward. In the mathematical sense, it is important to refine definitions. For example, the definition of a group. It is agree that groups are defined to be not necessarily abelian. This definition cover the case when the set of elements satisfies the existence of an identity, inverse elements, closure and associative and whether of not the operation is commutative. [...]

]]> By: Capping a Big Week for Astronomy | Cosmic Variance http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-114581 Capping a Big Week for Astronomy | Cosmic Variance Thu, 24 Aug 2006 22:24:00 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=948#comment-114581 [...] We’ll share the show with an update on Pluto’s status. A quick query of Google News reveals that there have been about ten times more stories about Pluto than about dark matter. This despite the fact that the Bullet Cluster data have taught us something profound about the constituents and forces of our universe, while the “planet” business has taught us about the vote of a committee on what to call stuff. Why is that? [...] [...] We’ll share the show with an update on Pluto’s status. A quick query of Google News reveals that there have been about ten times more stories about Pluto than about dark matter. This despite the fact that the Bullet Cluster data have taught us something profound about the constituents and forces of our universe, while the “planet” business has taught us about the vote of a committee on what to call stuff. Why is that? [...]

]]> By: Stephen Uitti http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-114368 Stephen Uitti Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:24:00 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=948#comment-114368 <i>An astronomical object which is worth spending money to investigate.</i> So, Eros is a planet. The moon is a big planet - we spent alot of money on it. I think not. I like the proposed definition. Not just for our solar system, but for the 200+ objects found around other stars. The definition does require knowing something about the objects. One must know how big they are. While I agree that Ceres and UB313 should be planets (ub313 needs a name, first), Charon was the big surprise. That Charon is a planet should clarify double planets in the future. So, if, say, in 100,000,000 years, the barycenter for the Earth/Moon is outside of the Earth, the Moon becomes a planet. That's kind of odd, but i can live with it. I do not like handwaving. "I'd know a planet if i saw one." Feh. I take a bit of sadistic pleasure inflicting two dozen planet names on school children. Perhaps they could learn the ten primary planets, and get extra credit for the dozen-plus plutons. Just as I learned the important presidents, but some got extra credit for knowing them all. An astronomical object which is worth spending money to investigate.

So, Eros is a planet. The moon is a big planet - we spent alot of money on it. I think not.

I like the proposed definition. Not just for our solar system, but for the 200+ objects found around other stars. The definition does require knowing something about the objects. One must know how big they are.

While I agree that Ceres and UB313 should be planets (ub313 needs a name, first), Charon was the big surprise. That Charon is a planet should clarify double planets in the future. So, if, say, in 100,000,000 years, the barycenter for the Earth/Moon is outside of the Earth, the Moon becomes a planet. That’s kind of odd, but i can live with it.

I do not like handwaving. “I’d know a planet if i saw one.” Feh.

I take a bit of sadistic pleasure inflicting two dozen planet names on school children. Perhaps they could learn the ten primary planets, and get extra credit for the dozen-plus plutons. Just as I learned the important presidents, but some got extra credit for knowing them all.

]]> By: assman http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-113988 assman Sun, 20 Aug 2006 21:34:34 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=948#comment-113988 I love pragmatism but I don't think physicists are that pragmatic. Pragmatism implies that if you have an correct but difficult to calculate theory and a somewhat imprecise but easy to calculate theory you might actually prefer the second theory if the cost/benefit ratio (calculation complexity/predictive power) is better. However I see that consistently physcist prefer correct and yet extremely complicated theories. It also appears to me that a nonunified theory like the Standard model is to be preferred over a far more complicated unified theory. Using extremely complicated mathematical formalisms is also not pragmatic since it just makes physics harder to learn and therefore less useful. I love pragmatism but I don’t think physicists are that pragmatic. Pragmatism implies that if you have an correct but difficult to calculate theory and a somewhat imprecise but easy to calculate theory you might actually prefer the second theory if the cost/benefit ratio (calculation complexity/predictive power) is better. However I see that consistently physcist prefer correct and yet extremely complicated theories. It also appears to me that a nonunified theory like the Standard model is to be preferred over a far more complicated unified theory. Using extremely complicated mathematical formalisms is also not pragmatic since it just makes physics harder to learn and therefore less useful.

]]> By: Cash http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-113899 Cash Sat, 19 Aug 2006 02:49:00 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=948#comment-113899 I think if they were going to name one Xena they could have named the others Sheena and maybe Red Sonja. That would have been fun. I think if they were going to name one Xena they could have named the others Sheena and maybe Red Sonja. That would have been fun.

]]> By: island http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-113880 island Fri, 18 Aug 2006 20:48:59 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=948#comment-113880 Like saying that Einstein's theory isn't a more-absolute reflection of nature, than not, it never ceases to amaze me how so many people can fail to recognize that "convenience" isn't the least bit "arbitrary". In fact, it is **most-natural** for the quite obvious good reason that defines the "most absolute" (not perfect) reflection of the basic impetus of our near-flat, (imperfect) universe. How can so many people work so hard to get the most bang for the buck, in terms of the meaning that the definition is capable of delivering, in the fewest possible number of steps, yet see no correlation between this and the basic structuring of our barely expanding universe. The effort is toward something absolute, but the sad fact of the matter is that inherent "imbalance" means that this idealization doesn't and can't exist, but that does NOT mean that it isn't more-absolute, than not. How "round is a planet"... Pretty damned round!... get it?... i didn' think so. Convenience isn't about how easy something is, it is about how practical it is, in terms of how much work can be done for the energy that this requires, yet nobody sees a correlation to the kind of entropic-efficiency that our near-flat univerese demands. I take it back, they do "see" the correlation in things like the "unreasonable effectiveness of math" and the fact that the environment is highly-conducive, (not perfect) for life, but instead of giving this kind of evidence equal time, they *automatically* resort to "explaining it away" in violation of occam and the scientific method, since this is not what is first most-naturally called for by their recognition. I'm also reminded of how this just blows right past people that can't dispute the evidence, opting instead to sit-back and bide their time at all costs for a better way to "explain-away" the evidence, rather than to give it equal time in science. Einstein would have a few words to say about that too... http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/spr/2003-10/msg0054859.html Like saying that Einstein’s theory isn’t a more-absolute reflection of nature, than not, it never ceases to amaze me how so many people can fail to recognize that “convenience” isn’t the least bit “arbitrary”. In fact, it is **most-natural** for the quite obvious good reason that defines the “most absolute” (not perfect) reflection of the basic impetus of our near-flat, (imperfect) universe.

How can so many people work so hard to get the most bang for the buck, in terms of the meaning that the definition is capable of delivering, in the fewest possible number of steps, yet see no correlation between this and the basic structuring of our barely expanding universe.

The effort is toward something absolute, but the sad fact of the matter is that inherent “imbalance” means that this idealization doesn’t and can’t exist, but that does NOT mean that it isn’t more-absolute, than not.

How “round is a planet”… Pretty damned round!… get it?… i didn’ think so.

Convenience isn’t about how easy something is, it is about how practical it is, in terms of how much work can be done for the energy that this requires, yet nobody sees a correlation to the kind of entropic-efficiency that our near-flat univerese demands.

I take it back, they do “see” the correlation in things like the “unreasonable effectiveness of math” and the fact that the environment is highly-conducive, (not perfect) for life, but instead of giving this kind of evidence equal time, they *automatically* resort to “explaining it away” in violation of occam and the scientific method, since this is not what is first most-naturally called for by their recognition.

I’m also reminded of how this just blows right past people that can’t dispute the evidence, opting instead to sit-back and bide their time at all costs for a better way to “explain-away” the evidence, rather than to give it equal time in science.

Einstein would have a few words to say about that too…

http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/spr/2003-10/msg0054859.html

]]> By: Babboon http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-113823 Babboon Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:36:18 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=948#comment-113823 I suggest a new definition for "planet": An astronomical object which is worth spending money to investigate. So, have all the astronomers in the world vote each year on whether newly-discovered object X is or is not a planet. Then, it will be easy to justify sending a probe to investigate X; "after all, it's a planet!" I suggest a new definition for “planet”:

An astronomical object which is worth spending money to investigate.

So, have all the astronomers in the world vote each year on whether newly-discovered object X is or is not a planet. Then, it will be easy to justify sending a probe to investigate X; “after all, it’s a planet!”

]]> By: Troublemaker http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-113802 Troublemaker Fri, 18 Aug 2006 04:21:08 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=948#comment-113802 <i>He proposes a planet to be an end product of disk accretion around a primary star or substar.</i> That's probably a nice theoretical ideal, but it would be difficult to confirm this observationally, at least for planets around other stars. He proposes a planet to be an end product of disk accretion around a primary star or substar.

That’s probably a nice theoretical ideal, but it would be difficult to confirm this observationally, at least for planets around other stars.

]]> By: Charm &c. » Blog Archive » Planets Galore! http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-113797 Charm &c. » Blog Archive » Planets Galore! Fri, 18 Aug 2006 02:33:17 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=948#comment-113797 [...] There’s a lot of chatter in the astro blogosphere and elsewhere about the new definition, most of it not terribly enthusiastic. There are lots of edge cases which seem a little odd; Pluto and Charon are both now planets, but Earth’s Moon and Triton are not, in spite of the latter two being larger than the newly-blessed double planet, and the likelihood that Triton and Pluto formed in a similar fashion to each other. The asteroid Ceres gets promoted, being just large enough, popping up an extra planet in between Mars and Jupiter. And in the dark wastes beyond Pluto, not only do we gain the thrillingly-named 2003 UB313, but lots of new planets (presumably) wait to be discovered. There are lots of nits to pick (subject to fine-tuning of the proposal, of course): how round does something have to be before it is “round”? (All right, in “hydrostatic equilibrium”?) If a large moon gets separated from its parent planet, can it become a planet in its own right? Why are large objects ejected from a planetary system refused admission? And yet… [...] [...] There’s a lot of chatter in the astro blogosphere and elsewhere about the new definition, most of it not terribly enthusiastic. There are lots of edge cases which seem a little odd; Pluto and Charon are both now planets, but Earth’s Moon and Triton are not, in spite of the latter two being larger than the newly-blessed double planet, and the likelihood that Triton and Pluto formed in a similar fashion to each other. The asteroid Ceres gets promoted, being just large enough, popping up an extra planet in between Mars and Jupiter. And in the dark wastes beyond Pluto, not only do we gain the thrillingly-named 2003 UB313, but lots of new planets (presumably) wait to be discovered. There are lots of nits to pick (subject to fine-tuning of the proposal, of course): how round does something have to be before it is “round”? (All right, in “hydrostatic equilibrium”?) If a large moon gets separated from its parent planet, can it become a planet in its own right? Why are large objects ejected from a planetary system refused admission? And yet… [...]

]]> By: Rien http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-113793 Rien Fri, 18 Aug 2006 01:34:33 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=948#comment-113793 Oh, and this excludes Pluto... Oh, and this excludes Pluto…

]]> By: Rien http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-113792 Rien Fri, 18 Aug 2006 01:34:04 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=948#comment-113792 Here's a different definition of a planet from Steven Soter, who disagrees both with Sean and with IAU: <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608359" rel="nofollow">astro-ph/0608359</a>. He proposes a planet to be an end product of disk accretion around a primary star or substar. Here’s a different definition of a planet from Steven Soter, who disagrees both with Sean and with IAU: astro-ph/0608359. He proposes a planet to be an end product of disk accretion around a primary star or substar.

]]> By: Allyson http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-113762 Allyson Thu, 17 Aug 2006 18:23:18 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=948#comment-113762 My horoscope sez: <i>Aries (March 21-April 19). It's times like this that you realize how important it is to hang out with people you admire. The vocabulary, aspirations and general tone of those in your environment have an impact on your decisions.</i> Due to the general tone of those in this environment, I have decided that I shouldn't believe this horoscope. My horoscope sez: Aries (March 21-April 19). It’s times like this that you realize how important it is to hang out with people you admire. The vocabulary, aspirations and general tone of those in your environment have an impact on your decisions.

Due to the general tone of those in this environment, I have decided that I shouldn’t believe this horoscope.

]]> By: pete http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-113759 pete Thu, 17 Aug 2006 18:14:16 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=948#comment-113759 It's not to hard to come up with a body that defies definition - imagine a planet-type thingy in which rigid body forces are in perfect balance with gravitational 'rounding' forces, such that a minute gravitational disturbance (a passing planet or comet) disrupts the balance and causes the thing to oscillate between a planet and a non-planet. Does this matter? Maybe the astologers could make use of this notion - Ceres is in jiggle, Mercury is in retrograde. The funniest thing about astrology is that it is based on the pre-Gallilean notion of epicycles which was so strongly supported by the Catholic Church of the day - and yet astrologers all view themselves as new-age whatevers. Who was it that relied on her astrologers to guide her husband's decisions? Why is science education in this country in a crisis? It’s not to hard to come up with a body that defies definition - imagine a planet-type thingy in which rigid body forces are in perfect balance with gravitational ’rounding’ forces, such that a minute gravitational disturbance (a passing planet or comet) disrupts the balance and causes the thing to oscillate between a planet and a non-planet. Does this matter? Maybe the astologers could make use of this notion - Ceres is in jiggle, Mercury is in retrograde.

The funniest thing about astrology is that it is based on the pre-Gallilean notion of epicycles which was so strongly supported by the Catholic Church of the day - and yet astrologers all view themselves as new-age whatevers. Who was it that relied on her astrologers to guide her husband’s decisions? Why is science education in this country in a crisis?

]]> By: thm http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-113747 thm Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:15:57 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=948#comment-113747 The pragmatist viewpoint--that we can make the definition whatever we want--gradually dawned on me in college. I saw the power of a precise mathematical definition, where the content of the definition, rather than the word to be defined, is the most important part. Two things I've observed. First, it seems that biologists get far more worked up about definitions, in a non-pragmatic way, than do physicists (or chemists), perhaps because biology is infested with unnecessary pseudo-Latin and pseudo-Greek words, and these words become more valuable than what they represent. Second, public debate about hot-button issues is less than constructive in many cases because there is no common, precise definition of the key terms at issue. (I'll stick my neck out and offer "gentrification" and "affirmative action" as two poorly-defined hot-button terms.) Without a good definition, everyone talks past one another because they're talking about different things, and the debate never moves forward. I suppose for those who make a living talking about hot-button issues, this might be considered a good thing. The pragmatist viewpoint–that we can make the definition whatever we want–gradually dawned on me in college. I saw the power of a precise mathematical definition, where the content of the definition, rather than the word to be defined, is the most important part.

Two things I’ve observed. First, it seems that biologists get far more worked up about definitions, in a non-pragmatic way, than do physicists (or chemists), perhaps because biology is infested with unnecessary pseudo-Latin and pseudo-Greek words, and these words become more valuable than what they represent.

Second, public debate about hot-button issues is less than constructive in many cases because there is no common, precise definition of the key terms at issue. (I’ll stick my neck out and offer “gentrification” and “affirmative action” as two poorly-defined hot-button terms.) Without a good definition, everyone talks past one another because they’re talking about different things, and the debate never moves forward. I suppose for those who make a living talking about hot-button issues, this might be considered a good thing.

]]> By: Zooglea http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-113746 Zooglea Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:14:35 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=948#comment-113746 <strong>planetas y definiciones</strong> Este señor de aquí se llama Sean Carroll y es cosmólogo. Pertenece al Departamento de Física, al Instituto Enrico Fermi y al Instituto Kavli de Física Cosmológica de la Universidad de Chicago. Evidentemente, no es ningún lego en ciencia co... planetas y definiciones

Este señor de aquí se llama Sean Carroll y es cosmólogo. Pertenece al Departamento de Física, al Instituto Enrico Fermi y al Instituto Kavli de Física Cosmológica de la Universidad de Chicago. Evidentemente, no es ningún lego en ciencia co…

]]> By: Joseph Smidt http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-113744 Joseph Smidt Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:21:35 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=948#comment-113744 It's true this may not be the greatest benifit to science, but if you had to define a planet, I think this definiton does a good job. It’s true this may not be the greatest benifit to science, but if you had to define a planet, I think this definiton does a good job.

]]> By: George Musser http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-113663 George Musser Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:06:52 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=948#comment-113663 I disagree. The planetary definition may not matter from the universe's point of view, but it matters from the scientific one. Categorization is one of the ways we make sense of the world; it is the first stage of algorithmic compression, a first fit to the data. Humans can't take in the whole world with one gulp; we need to break it down first. Would you say, for example, that stellar spectral types or galaxy morphological classes were irrelevant to the development of astrophysics? The very fact that so many people are so interested in the Pluto question suggests there's something to it. George BTW let me give a plug for the Sci Am <a href="http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=planet_mnemonic_contest" rel="nofollow">mnemonic contest</a>! I disagree. The planetary definition may not matter from the universe’s point of view, but it matters from the scientific one. Categorization is one of the ways we make sense of the world; it is the first stage of algorithmic compression, a first fit to the data. Humans can’t take in the whole world with one gulp; we need to break it down first. Would you say, for example, that stellar spectral types or galaxy morphological classes were irrelevant to the development of astrophysics? The very fact that so many people are so interested in the Pluto question suggests there’s something to it.
George

BTW let me give a plug for the Sci Am mnemonic contest!

]]> By: Murky.org » Pluto’s a Planet http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-113648 Murky.org » Pluto’s a Planet Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:54:15 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=948#comment-113648 [...] Further reading on Cosmic Variance Posted in Physics, Space by Murk | Permalink | AllComments [...] [...] Further reading on Cosmic Variance Posted in Physics, Space by Murk | Permalink | AllComments [...]

]]>