| |
Main
Date: 15 Jun 2007 02:53:17
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Pluto's Bad Year Continues
|
Pluto's Bad Year Continues
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/614/2
By John Simpson
ScienceNOW Daily News
14 June 2007
The 2005 discovery of a solar system object larger than Pluto was a
crushing uppercut to the cold world's planetary status. But it's the
official weigh-in, reported tomorrow in Science, that scores the
technical knockout. Researchers have calculated that the newfound
world, Eris, is significantly more massive than its fellow ice giant,
closing the chapter on Pluto's fall from king of the Kuiper belt to
lowly dwarf planet.
The heavyweight matchup is the latest in a series of battles that
have roiled the astronomy community for the past year. Two years ago,
Eris's discovery forced the International Astronomical Union (IAU) to
take a hard look at its own dictionary: If Eris is larger than Pluto,
should it be a planet? If not, how could Pluto possibly retain its
planetary status? (ScienceNOW, 1 August 2005) After intense debate
and a concomitant media circus, IAU created a new type of object in
August 2006, reclassifying Pluto as a dwarf planet, along with Eris
and Ceres, a large, rocky body orbiting between Mars and Jupiter
(ScienceNOW, 24 August 2006). Forevermore, our solar system would
have only eight planets, unless IAU decided to change its mind again.
The decision was a dark day for Pluto lovers. Still, they held out
hope that the icy world would remain the heavyweight of the Kuiper
belt. Although Eris's diameter is 2400 kilometers, which bests Pluto
by about 100 kilometers, there was a chance it would turn out to be
less dense than its neighbor.
Alas, it was not to be. Eris's discoverer, Michael Brown, a planetary
scientist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena,
California, along with Caltech colleague Emily Schaller, weighed the
dwarf planet by using the Keck Observatory and the Hubble Space
Telescope to determine the orbit of its satellite, Dysnomia.
Considering the radius of Dysnomia's orbit and the time it takes to
complete one lap, the team calculated the mass of Eris to be 16.6
billion trillion kilograms. That bests Pluto by 27% and makes Eris
the most massive of the three known dwarf planets.
But Eris's reign may not last long. Portions of the Kuiper belt have
yet to be explored, says astronomer Frank Bertoldi of the University
of Bonn in Germany, who expects a few more dwarf planets to be found.
As to whether demoting Pluto was a good idea in the first place,
Bertoldi thinks the decision hasn't fazed at least one segment of the
population. "The schoolkids still like Pluto whether it's a minor
planet, a dwarf planet, or a planet," he says. "Pluto is Pluto, and
it will stay out there no matter what we call it."
See: http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/614/2
|
|
| |
Date: 02 Jul 2007 18:15:14
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Pluto's Bad Year Continues
|
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> Perhaps you were confusing (3) Juno and (4) Vesta here? Vesta is the
> larger of the two. Asteroids like (704) Interamnia and (624) Hektor
> are indeed larger than Juno, but not larger than Vesta!
You're probably right, then, and I had the two asteroids confused.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 21:24:46
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Pluto's Bad Year Continues
|
oriel36 wrote:
> The empirical cult began when a mathematician decided that people
> needed time,space ect defined for them -
.
> SCHOLIUM.
> "Hitherto I have laid down the definitions of such words as are less
> known, and explained the sense in which I would have them to be
> understood in the following discourse. I do not define time, space,
> place and motion, as being well known to all. Only I must observe,
> that the vulgar conceive those quantities under no other notions but
> from the relation they bear to sensible objects. And thence arise
> certain prejudices, for the removing of which, it will be convenient
> to distinguish them into absolute and relative, true and apparent,
> mathematical and common."
> Newton
.
It isn't really a question of people "needing" to have time and space
defined for them. Indeed, people have intuitive notions of them, and
those notions are exactly what Newton must have used for his starting
point.
But by abstracting out a precise definition of the time and the space
he was talking about, he became able to reason from them, and prove
his conclusions sound.
Of course, Newton's _Principia_ is unnecessarily complex, but that was
because he needed to prove things such as his derivation of Kepler's
laws from the inverse square law of gravity and conservation of
angular momentum using classical geometry - instead of calculus and
analytic geometry. Since those branches of mathematics were novel in
his time - he was, of course, one of the inventors of calculus - he
did this to ensure the acceptance of his results.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 29 Jun 2007 19:33:31
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Pluto's Bad Year Continues
|
On Jun 20, 1:36 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 quoted:> "And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of
> > intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat
> > matters of intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous,
> > wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not
> > the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does
> > not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical
> > rules; for the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can
> > feel it."
>
> .
> It is not true that having definitions, axioms, and postulates is
> ridiculous. It may seem so to an outsider to mathematics. But while
> mathematical rigor may be one of the less exciting parts of that
> discipline, it is still a necessary means for mathematics to
> consolidate its gains in understanding.
>
> It is by standing on a solid foundation that mathematics can reach out
> as far as it has. Euclid solidified basic geometry with axioms and
> postulates, allowing us later to explore the uncharted realms of
> analytic geometry and calculus. And calculus was useful in a practical
> sense for many years before the concept of limits was used to make it
> theoretically sound.
>
> Thus, while Blaise Pascal's own contributions to mathematics are still
> recognized, this particular thought of his has been left in the dust
> by the many achievements of mathematicians since his time, who have
> understood that mathematical rigor was not ridiculous, but instead had
> a place - as a foundation to stand on, not a straitjacket to limit
> progress.
>
> John Savard
The empirical cult began when a mathematician decided that people
needed time,space ect defined for them -
SCHOLIUM.
"Hitherto I have laid down the definitions of such words as are less
known, and explained the sense in which I would have them to be
understood in the following discourse. I do not define time, space,
place and motion, as being well known to all. Only I must observe,
that the vulgar conceive those quantities under no other notions but
from the relation they bear to sensible objects. And thence arise
certain prejudices, for the removing of which, it will be convenient
to distinguish them into absolute and relative, true and apparent,
mathematical and common."
Newton
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm
Had anyone bothered to read what Pascal said when mathematicians try
to 'define' things which people already know through intutive
intelligence -
"The reason, therefore, that some intuitive minds are not mathematical
is that they cannot at all turn their attention to the principles of
mathematics. But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is
that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the
exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they
have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in
matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such
arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen;
there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do
not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so
numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to
perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are
perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in
order as in mathematics, because the principles are not known to us in
the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake
it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a
process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is
rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are
mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of
intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to
begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to
proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so,
but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for
the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it."
PASCAL
I enjoyed the few weeks when the google newsreader was misbehaving and
no posts went through.I may even take the whole summer off with
nothing interesting showing up in this forum,just a few mathematicians
pretending to know what they are talking about.
When Isaac tried to 'define' things for the 'vulgar' he should have
paid more attention to what Flamsteed was doing and especially his
attaching axial rotation to celestial sphere geometry via clocks.In
any case,the damage has been spotted but it looks like there are no
people with intutive intelligence around to discuss the matter,only
the dull minds of which Pascal knew would result when people are
neither intutive or mathematical -
"Intuitive minds, on the contrary, being thus accustomed to judge at a
single glance, are so astonished when they are presented with
propositions of which they understand nothing, and the way to which is
through definitions and axioms so sterile, and which they are not
accustomed to see thus in detail, that they are repelled and
disheartened.
But dull minds are never either intuitive or mathematical." PASCAL
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 22:01:15
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Pluto's Bad Year Continues
|
Quadibloc wrote:
> oriel36 quoted:
> > "And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of
> > intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat
> > matters of intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous,
> > wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not
> > the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does
> > not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical
> > rules; for the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can
> > feel it."
> .
> It is not true that having definitions, axioms, and postulates is
> ridiculous. It may seem so to an outsider to mathematics. But while
> mathematical rigor may be one of the less exciting parts of that
> discipline, it is still a necessary means for mathematics to
> consolidate its gains in understanding.
>
> It is by standing on a solid foundation that mathematics can reach out
> as far as it has. Euclid solidified basic geometry with axioms and
> postulates, allowing us later to explore the uncharted realms of
> analytic geometry and calculus. And calculus was useful in a practical
> sense for many years before the concept of limits was used to make it
> theoretically sound.
>
> Thus, while Blaise Pascal's own contributions to mathematics are still
> recognized, this particular thought of his has been left in the dust
> by the many achievements of mathematicians since his time, who have
> understood that mathematical rigor was not ridiculous, but instead had
> a place - as a foundation to stand on, not a straitjacket to limit
> progress.
.
It might be further noted, of course, that in Pascal's time, the
mathematicians who were pursuing rigor might not yet have had a proper
concept of the appropriate place of that within mathematics, so his
criticism, as far as it was of them directly, could have been valid.
He could not be faulted for not knowing things that were yet to be
discovered.
After all, it wasn't until the twentieth century, with the work of
Kurt G=F6del, that those who sought to axiomatize all of mathematics
ended up being hoist with their own petard. Because arithmetic had
been placed on a rigorous footing, it was possible for G=F6del to
proceed from there and show that there would forever be unexplored
vistas in mathematics beyond those that could be deduced from any
limited starting set of postulates.
The extension of this discussion from heliocentricity to mathematics
prompts me to ask you a question. Not a simple one like "how much is
two plus two".
Instead, my question is this. If, as you appear to feel, astronomy and
mathematics (and, thus, I presume, the scientific endeavor in general)
took a terrible wrong turn sometime in the 17th Century, and has not
recovered from that since, how do you account for the rather
impressive technical progress of the 20th Century?
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 04:36:39
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Pluto's Bad Year Continues
|
oriel36 quoted:
> "And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of
> intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat
> matters of intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous,
> wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not
> the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does
> not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical
> rules; for the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can
> feel it."
.
It is not true that having definitions, axioms, and postulates is
ridiculous. It may seem so to an outsider to mathematics. But while
mathematical rigor may be one of the less exciting parts of that
discipline, it is still a necessary means for mathematics to
consolidate its gains in understanding.
It is by standing on a solid foundation that mathematics can reach out
as far as it has. Euclid solidified basic geometry with axioms and
postulates, allowing us later to explore the uncharted realms of
analytic geometry and calculus. And calculus was useful in a practical
sense for many years before the concept of limits was used to make it
theoretically sound.
Thus, while Blaise Pascal's own contributions to mathematics are still
recognized, this particular thought of his has been left in the dust
by the many achievements of mathematicians since his time, who have
understood that mathematical rigor was not ridiculous, but instead had
a place - as a foundation to stand on, not a straitjacket to limit
progress.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 04:27:59
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Pluto's Bad Year Continues
|
Ed wrote:
> The revenge of Pluto and Eris:
>
> Crazy professional astronomers who demoted Pluto now look sillier and
> sillier even worse than GWB:)
.
Why? Given that there are a large number of Kuiper Belt objects, just
as there are a large number of asteroids, doesn't the fact that we've
already found another Kuiper Belt object larger than Pluto confirm the
correctness (from an objective, scientific point of view, if not a
human, emotional point of view) of Pluto's demotion?
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 16 Jun 2007 00:12:30
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Pluto's Bad Year Continues
|
On Jun 16, 6:50 am, Ed <ed1wa...@verizon.net > wrote:
> The revenge of Pluto and Eris:
>
> Crazy professional astronomers who demoted Pluto now look sillier and
> sillier even worse than GWB:)
They are not astronomers,they are astrologers and their thinking
processes match their discipline.One person last year summed it all
up correctly -
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/msg/46be522376af3010
Pluto is an inanimate celestial object therefore it does not have a
bad year however I can say that humanity has a bad 3 centuries,at
least as far as astronomy goes.As far as this matter goes,the thinking
process which created this mess of attempting to 'define' a planet was
always recognised by those with intutive intelligence -
"And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of
intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat
matters of intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous,
wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not
the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does
not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical
rules; for the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can
feel it."
http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/pensees/pensees-SECTION.html
The irritation expressed by many in regards to Pluto is a good thing
despite the fact that Wormley's astrological crowd think they have
everybody on board.
The solution would have been and still is to leave Pluto as a planet
as an observational achievement while recognising the fallibility of
human judgements.
|
| |
Date: 15 Jun 2007 21:50:08
From: Ed
Subject: Re: Pluto's Bad Year Continues
|
The revenge of Pluto and Eris:
Crazy professional astronomers who demoted Pluto now look sillier and
sillier even worse than GWB:)
|
| |
Date: 14 Jun 2007 23:03:28
From: Rich
Subject: Re: Pluto's Bad Year Continues
|
On Jun 14, 10:53 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com > wrote:
> Pluto's Bad Year Continues
> http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/614/2
The annoying part is you've got people agitating for multiple
categories of planets now, like assigning sub-species categorizations
in the animal or plant kindoms.
|
| |
Date: 15 Jun 2007 01:42:19
From: George
Subject: Re: Pluto's Bad Year Continues
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com > wrote in message
news:4671FF1C.5010908@mchsi.com...
> Pluto's Bad Year Continues
> http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/614/2
>
> By John Simpson
> ScienceNOW Daily News
> 14 June 2007
>
> The 2005 discovery of a solar system object larger than Pluto was a
> crushing uppercut to the cold world's planetary status.
Umm (headscratching) aren't there at least 8 other planet's out there
larger than Pluto?
George
|
|
