(Besides an incredibly ugly vehicle from Honda?) There is only one element, hydrogen. All the others are just collections of hydrogen nuclei. If we allow the others, then there will be just too many. It offends my sensibility. We simply can't have 100+ elements, how could you possibly name them all? Only Tom Lehrer could recite them all quickly. We live in enlightened times. We now know with certainty that there is only one element, not 4 as previously thought, for the past few thousand years (earth, air, fire, water). I'm rejecting any claims to the contrary, after all extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Prove to me that other "elements" are not just hydrogen nuclei all bunched together, with an appropriately-sized electron cloud to give it the proper charge. Allowing many elements will only open the door for those wild chemists and biologists, and let me tell you they are loose cannons for sure...before you know it, they'll have us thinking all kinds of unconventional thoughts! Like flies are not the product of spontaneous generation, or witches don't weigh the same as a duck, or leeches are not the cutting-edge of medical science! Scary stuff, people... Don't allow the renegade "elements"! ;) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
On 11-May-04 12:30, Chuck Hards wrote:
Prove to me that other "elements" are not just hydrogen nuclei all bunched together, with an Neutrons. 'Nuf said.
-- [Inverse problems are] a field in which one is called upon to reconstruct the cow from the hamburger meat, so to speak. --Andreas Mandelis, _Diffusion Waves and Their Uses_, Physics Today, August 2000
Deuterium. Tritium. Hydrogen with neutrons. Come on, Paul, you know better! 'Nuf said. --- Paul Gettings <gettings@mines.utah.edu> wrote:
On 11-May-04 12:30, Chuck Hards wrote:
Prove to me that other "elements" are not just hydrogen nuclei all bunched together, with an Neutrons. 'Nuf said.
-- [Inverse problems are] a field in which one is called upon to reconstruct the cow from the hamburger meat, so to speak. --Andreas Mandelis, _Diffusion Waves and Their Uses_, Physics Today, August 2000
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
Folks, I hope you all realize that this was an attempt to put the planet thing in perspective. Obviously I was not serious, and anyone can see the holes in the reasoning...see where I was going? But I think that what really drives this is that, to some people, the title "PLANET" conveys a special status, a higher ranking in the cosmic-rock 'food-chain'. We live on a planet, so it must be a more 'important' piece of real-estate than a mere KBO or asteroid. This seems to be the underlying reason behind some of the classification criteria, and what I am rejecting outright as truly arbitrary. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
I've been watching the planet/KBO argument with fascination, largely because of the passion people bring to it. And I'm reminded very much of the early (here I go on one of my riffs) automobile. For the first 20 years or so, the automobile was called the 'horseless carriage', and it looked just like a carriage. Since we'd had hundreds of years of carriages and only a few years of automobiles, it was natural to see it as just another breed of carriage. But over time, engineers found that there was no reason to build a car like a carriage. And cars developed capabilities that far outstripped their horse-drawn antecedents. The name 'carriage' reverted back to something with wheels that a horse pulls around. The term 'planet' is like that. It had a pretty universal meaning until fairly recently. The term got stretched a bit when Uranus was found; then more with Neptune, but there wasn't much of a change in concept except the loss of naked-eye visibility. Now over only a generation, we're overwhelmed by thousands of big rocks going around the sun. We argue over a categorization -- planets, Kuiper Belt objects, trans-Neptunian objects. It may be simply that the term 'planet' can't get stretched any farther without losing its meaning and its historical associations. These things have a way of working themselves out, and I'd imagine some less-unwieldy term will find its way into common usage eventually. Michael
This seems to be the underlying reason behind some of the classification criteria, and what I am rejecting outright as truly arbitrary.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Yo Michael. I'm a car guy too. I say, if a Yugo is a car then Sedna is a planet. Barney ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Carnes" <moogiebird@earthlink.net> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 8:46 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Planets? Rocks? Missing socks?
I've been watching the planet/KBO argument with fascination, largely because of the passion people bring to it. And I'm reminded very much of the early (here I go on one of my riffs) automobile. For the first 20 years or so, the automobile was called the 'horseless carriage', and it looked just like a carriage. Since we'd had hundreds of years of carriages and only a few years of automobiles, it was natural to see it as just another breed of carriage. But over time, engineers found that there was no reason to build a car like a carriage. And cars developed capabilities that far outstripped their horse-drawn antecedents. The name 'carriage' reverted back to something with wheels that a horse pulls around.
The term 'planet' is like that. It had a pretty universal meaning until fairly recently. The term got stretched a bit when Uranus was found; then more with Neptune, but there wasn't much of a change in concept except the loss of naked-eye visibility. Now over only a generation, we're overwhelmed by thousands of big rocks going around the sun. We argue over a categorization -- planets, Kuiper Belt objects, trans-Neptunian objects. It may be simply that the term 'planet' can't get stretched any farther without losing its meaning and its historical associations.
These things have a way of working themselves out, and I'd imagine some less-unwieldy term will find its way into common usage eventually.
Michael
This seems to be the underlying reason behind some of the classification criteria, and what I am rejecting outright as truly arbitrary.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
On 11-May-04 13:56, Chuck Hards wrote:
Deuterium. Tritium. Hydrogen with neutrons. Neither of which are H; H is defined by one proton, one electron, no neutrons. You have already added 2 elements to your scheme, and you haven't even moved in charge! Have you done the math to make sure the heavy trans-uranic elements can be built using integer linear combinations of 1H, 2H, and 3H? And what would that do to the measured rations of 1H:2H:3H? :)
-- Casseroled cliche #6: Two heads are soon parted
But see, Paul, you are playing semantic games, just like the planet definers. The definition of H you quote is within the framework of a larger Periodic Table which was rejected in the original premise, thus is heresey. Repent while there is still time. Hopefully the tinder is wet. --- Paul Gettings <gettings@mines.utah.edu> wrote:
On 11-May-04 13:56, Chuck Hards wrote:
Deuterium. Tritium. Hydrogen with neutrons. Neither of which are H; H is defined by one proton, one electron, no neutrons. You have already added 2 elements to your scheme, and you haven't even moved in charge! Have you done the math to make sure the heavy trans-uranic elements can be built using integer linear combinations of 1H, 2H, and 3H? And what would that do to the measured rations of 1H:2H:3H? :)
-- Casseroled cliche #6: Two heads are soon parted
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
I agree with Chuck, it's great fun question what's really fundamental. That's the spirit of science, to ask, but why? Or, what's the next simpler level? Now if you want to check out great arguments about the fundamental nature of the universe, dig into string theory! Wow! Everything boils down to minute vibrating "strings" -- even the various subatomic particles are just strings that vibrate with different frequencies. The strangest thing is, it does make sense. -- Joe
On 11-May-04 14:38, Joe Bauman wrote:
string theory! Wow! Everything boils down to minute vibrating "strings" -- even the various subatomic particles are just strings that vibrate with different frequencies. The strangest thing is, it does make sense. -- Joe D-branes work better than strings. They just look like strings because the D-brane only intersects our 4 dimensions as a 1-d string. Still not quite testable, but getting there. The 4+ "packed" dimensions are kind of neat too.... :)
As for making sense, well, that depends on how much you like to believe math because math says it ought to work. :) Once D-brane theories make testable predictions (and we have the colliders/apparatus to test them), the physical understanding should follow. Quantum mechanics does odd things to your perception of the ordinary world. Fun, but strange. And then we try to add gravity to the quantum world, and it all falls apart, again. And some people try to claim "physics is done" - HA, I say to them! :) -- 101 USES FOR A DEAD MICROPROCESSOR (41) Cleats
Paul, get a grip. Do you actually talk about this over lunch? Or with your wife? Or ANYWHERE outside of a lecture hall? Fascinating stuff, but kind of dry, no? Read it and move on, I mean, life is short! There are real neat things to experience out there! It's OK, we are all here to help you... ;) --- Paul Gettings <gettings@mines.utah.edu> wrote:
D-branes work better than strings. They just look like strings because the D-brane only intersects our 4 dimensions as a 1-d string. Still not quite testable, but getting there. The 4+ "packed" dimensions are kind of neat too.... :)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
On 11-May-04 15:11, Chuck Hards wrote:
Paul, get a grip. Do you actually talk about this over lunch? Or with your wife? Or ANYWHERE outside My research group has discussed D-branes over lunch. But that was after the Frontiers of Science Lecture on quantum mechanics this fall. This is what happens when you get a bunch of physics-trained students together. :)
Disclaimer: I am a grad student. I make my living playing in the science, where "real life" need not necessarily be relevant. My field does, at least, involve a lot of measurements in the outdoors, and hence I get to play outside with neat toys. -- "It is easy to be blinded to the essential uselessness of computers by the sense of accomplishment you get from getting them to work at all." --Douglas Adams
I'm partial to string theory first, because my son is researching it as a Ph.D. student at the U. of Arizona, and second, because it really does seem the best way we know right now to explain a great deal about our universe. If it's true, the universe is far stranger than we had imagined -- but hasn't that always turned out to be the case? Go back 100 years, 200 years, 500 years, and people always thought they had it all figured out. And they always turned out to be drastically wrong about nature. The latest Scientific American has an article by the (I think Italian) physicist who first proposed string theory in 1968. He was using it to explain actions of subatomic particles, not the whole shebang, and he dropped it after a while. Then, once other scientists had begun to develop string theory, he returned to the field. Anyway, he makes specific predictions that may be possible to prove or disprove soon. -- Joe
Once D-brane theories make testable predictions (and we have the colliders/apparatus to test them), the physical understanding should follow. Quantum mechanics does odd things to your perception of the ordinary world. Fun, but strange.
--- Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote:
I agree with Chuck, it's great fun question what's really fundamental.
Actually, Joe, all I was trying to do (emphasis on trying) was to point out the folly of arguing over a definition. But the fun was there nonetheless. I just hope I haven't offended any accademics on the list with my rejection of any seriousness attached to it. But then my career, and pride, doesn't depend on what we call celestial objects. "It just doesn't matter!" -Bill Murray __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
--- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:
Deuterium. Tritium. Hydrogen with neutrons.
Come on, Paul, you know better!
'Nuf said.
I prefer to think of a neutron as a hydrogen nucleus with an electron embedded in it.....or is it a hydrogen nucleus with a positron ripped from it? The universe doesn't really care what we call the pieces of it. Only we do and we only need to when we start selling real estate on them. Does this come under the planet convention of 2287 or is it grandfathered into the asteroid coda of 2157? "Pease Mercucio... you speak of nothing." DT __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
I prefer to think of a neutron as a hydrogen nucleus with an electron embedded in it.....or is it a hydrogen nucleus with a positron ripped from it?
And here I thought that there was only one electron, and it was everywhere at once thanks to multi-dimensionality. Man, I have to get with the program. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
Slow news day today? __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
Well, yes, I frequently do have to wait around for folks to return my calls, and I like to "talk" via email when I get those few minutes. Some days are really stressful and I work many extra hours, while others are kinda slow. But I always enjoy discussions with people who are interested in things that matter to me, particularly astronomy. -- Joe
Slow news day today?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
participants (7)
-
Barney B. -
Brent Watson -
Chuck Hards -
daniel turner -
Joe Bauman -
Michael Carnes -
Paul Gettings