Comments on: The Cash Value of Astronomical Ideas http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/ Random samplings from a universe of ideas. Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:13:52 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Charles http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/comment-page-1/#comment-19594 Charles Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:21:38 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-19594 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://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/comment-page-1/#comment-19597 Joseph Sat, 26 Aug 2006 08:40:06 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-19597 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://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/comment-page-1/#comment-19591 Timelike, Spacelike or Lightlike » Blog Archive » Poor Pluto Fri, 25 Aug 2006 03:49:28 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-19591 [...] 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://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/comment-page-1/#comment-19598 Capping a Big Week for Astronomy | Cosmic Variance Thu, 24 Aug 2006 22:24:00 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-19598 [...] 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://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/comment-page-1/#comment-19589 Stephen Uitti Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:24:00 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-19589 <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://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/comment-page-1/#comment-19590 assman Sun, 20 Aug 2006 21:34:34 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-19590 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://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/comment-page-1/#comment-19599 Cash Sat, 19 Aug 2006 02:49:00 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-19599 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://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/comment-page-1/#comment-19600 island Fri, 18 Aug 2006 20:48:59 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-19600 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://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/comment-page-1/#comment-19593 Babboon Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:36:18 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-19593 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://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/comment-page-1/#comment-19569 Troublemaker Fri, 18 Aug 2006 04:21:08 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/16/the-cash-value-of-astronomical-ideas/#comment-19569 <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.

]]>