A Fond Farewell aka What's in a Name?

It has been a while since I have posted. That does not mean that I have not been thinking. I have a very long list of ideas and a few partly written posts; I just have not had much time to write. Hopefully I will get a few more out on a regular basis, but I expect it to be more fits and starts as I work several at one time and occasionally finish multiples together. We will see....

On with this post...

What's in a name? that which we call a rose


By any other name would smell as sweet;

-Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

18 Feb 1930 – 18 Aug 2006

RIP, Pluto

On August 18, we marked the third anniversary of the passing of an old friend. On that date, five percent of scientists voted to pull the rug out under Pluto’s claim to planethood. This is not the first time this has happened. Ceres, discovered in 1801, was named a planet at one point. Later, the planets Pallas, Juno and Vesta (1802, 1804 and 1807, respectively) were added to the list. Over subsequent decades, several more bodies were found orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter, were named and given symbols in the manner of other planets. By the mid-1800’s, their number grew to the point that scientists had to acknowledge their definition of a planet was too liberal and had to be modified. At that point, the terms ‘asteroid’ and ‘minor planet’ came to be used for bodies in the asteroid belt, excluding the first four, which were still planets. Eventually (there is no definite time of death for them), the first four planetary homicides were committed by mankind. This took place through the delisting of them as planets in astronomical almanacs or alterations in nomenclature in such journals and in scientific observation.

Ceres, which went through several designations of planet, minor planet and asteroid (and was even given dual designation for a time), settled into what appeared to be permanent status as an asteroid until 2006. Ironically, it was in that year, simultaneous with the reduction in Pluto’s status, Ceres was once again elevated to minor planet. No one is quite sure if Ceres still carries the second designation as asteroid along with being a minor planet.

So why all the executions and exhumations? Scientists would have us believe it is all in the name of precision; we must be most careful and accurate in the way we classify. In fact, the careful precision is a necessary by product of practicality, born partly of shame from the lack of foresight that allowed us into this predicament.

If the total number of bodies sizeable enough to achieve a semi-spherical shape was in the single or low double digits, we could name them all planets and no one would say ‘boo’ (at least until we explored another solar system in which this was not the case). But, as going about things in this freewheeling manner results in a fairly large number of planets, with multiples sharing the same orbits, things get ugly in a hurry. So, we have to create constraints to bring the numbers back down. But is it necessary to rescind planetary status in order to do this?

It would be a simple enough thing to say, ‘this much and no more’, limiting planets to those bodies already bearing the definition. We could also say, ‘future discoveries must meet certain criteria to be designated planets’, allowing for minimal expansion, while grandfathering existing planets. All of these offend scientific sensibility because they rely on sentiment or tradition rather than a well-defined system of classification.

So there it is, in the name of consistency and scientific discipline, we must sacrifice our beloved nine (or ten or fourteen) planet solar-system and forever declare our planet to be one of eight, right? Well, no….

Many scientists claim that the agreed upon definition of planet excludes Earth, Jupiter and Neptune because they have not ‘cleared their neighborhood’ of other orbiting objects. This does not mean that they are not planets, as all eight planets are named in footnotes, but this could be done without even including a definition.

But all of this is beside the point. The criteria described for qualification as a planet is clearly worded to include the eight named planets and exclude Pluto, Eris, Ceres and the rest of the ‘dwarf planets’. This is quite an unscientific way to go about things; they just as easily could have created a definition to include some of the smaller planets (as some proposals did); it is also quite easy to imagine a scenario involving a body that all agree is a planet, but does not meet the criteria.

Of course, it is easy to criticize and much harder to offer solutions to the problem. This is where I go out on a limb as a non-scientist and offer my proposal:

First, I think the easiest way to go about this is to subdivide the category of planets (as is done with animals, flora, etc) into groups such as dwarf planets, minor planets, intermediate planets and major planets (and possibly superplanets, for use with some of the larger bodies discovered orbiting other stars). It might even be useful to have a multi-faceted definition including such descriptions as terrestrial, gas and ice, as well as double and triple. Using this, Pluto may be a triple or quadruple ice dwarf planet, while Earth would be a single intermediate terrestrial planet. Complicated? Yes, but it would be a consistent definition that would likely prove useful in extra-solar discoveries. It would also still be possible to define a group we call ‘historical planets’, which would include the nine I grew up with, along with Ceres and possibly Eris, which is the ninth largest known body orbiting the sun and largest in Pluto’s neighborhood (Kuiper belt); I would argue that this list is significant for more than sentimental reasons, as it outlines the expansion of our knowledge of the solar system.

JMHO, one of many I have (and believe make at least as much sense as those of the ‘experts’).

How hot is it?

How hot is it?

Some years ago, I was perusing a book my then-preschooler had picked up at a thrift store. This ‘science for kids’ book was likely written by someone with a stronger background in kids’ books than science. The text was easy enough to read and understand, but the facts and concepts were lacking.

Though years have passed and I have forgotten much of what was in the book, one thing still stands out in my memory. The author, trying to convey the intense heat of the planet Venus, made the statement that Venus was over 800 degrees Fahrenheit (which is true)-twice as hot as an oven and over six times as hot as the highest temperature on Earth (which is not true). Here’s why:

People think of temperature in terms of hot and cold, but in reality heat is a quantifiable metric, while cold is not. You can have any amount of heat and still be able to add heat; the coldest condition is the complete lack of heat known as absolute zero-if cold was ‘something’, you could still add more ‘cold’ at that point. This is where the problem comes in.

Fahrenheit is not an absolute scale. There are temperatures below 0F, so the zero is a point within the range of possible temperatures (not at the beginning). So, if it is 40 degrees in Maine and 80 in Florida, it is not twice as hot (or cold) in one place than the other. The problem is easier to see if you consider the case where it is -10 in Duluth and 30 in Sioux Falls; how do they compare? Is it -3 times as warm in Sioux Falls? The only way to express a ratio of temperature is to use an absolute scale like Kelvin or Rankine.

In any absolute scale, the 0 point is absolute zero. From there, it does not matter how large your increments are, they still maintain the same relative ratios. For instance, if you compared the two main absolute scales, Kelvin (using the increments from Celsius and subtracting 273.15) and Rankine (using the increments from Fahrenheit and subtracting 459.67), you would see that 100K=180R and 200K=360R. So, double the heat in one absolute scale and you double the heat in any other (note that 100K or 100C is the difference between water freezing and boiling, as is 180R and 180F). If we do the same with Fahrenheit and Celsius, we see that 100C=212F and 200C=392F; Celsius doubled, but Fahrenheit did not. Using smaller numbers would exaggerate this effect, while using larger ones would make the difference between 0C/F and absolute zero less significant; 10C=50F, 20C=68F, doubling C increases F by 36 percent; 1000C=1832F, 2000C=3632F, doubling C increases F by 98.3 percent-nearly the same.

So why does this matter? For the most part, I am just being difficult. But also, it really doesn’t make sense, especially when dealing with negative temperatures. And though I understand that science needs to be watered down to reach its audience, I hate the thought of starting kids of with a wrong concept of how things work.

In the end, though, it really matters when doing calculations. Where corrections are done in an experiment based on differences in heat, the ratios have to be based on an absolute scale. If heat accelerates a reaction in a linear manner, doubling of heat needs to mean double the quantity of heat and not just a number on a thermometer if the data is to be reliable.

Ideology and Pragmatism

As I get older (note the intentional non-use of ‘mature’), my body slows while my mind accelerates. I find I spend ever more time contemplating the time when I rule the world. If you didn’t know, it is a very demanding task and I am no longer sure I am up to it.

Take for instance the following scenario:

Imagine that you are an extreme believer in progressive taxation (this may be difficult for some, but remember this is just hypothetical). No matter how much the rich pay in taxes, they still have more than they need, while even with no taxation, there are those at the bottom who work hard and still have trouble keeping the lights on. You think that those who benefit the most from our society and economy have the greatest responsibility to give back to it.

Now suppose that studies have been done, economists have analyzed the data and the results are incontrovertible: eliminating taxes on large carat diamonds, luxury cars and private jets actually stimulates the economy to the extent that total tax revenue is higher than it was with the taxes and at the same time, more of the lower and middle classes will be hired into good paying jobs with benefits. Is it worth allowing the tax burden to become less progressive if it results in a net benefit for all?

There is evidence for economic growth through a reduction in taxes on investment and business, but there is also strong evidence for economic stimulus through tax cuts for, or payments to, those in the lower income brackets. The difference is in the specific structure of tax cuts or payments and the specific conditions of the economy. How ridiculous is a discussion of capital gains tax cuts at a time when there are no capital gains? But before we discuss which path is the ideal for the current circumstances, we need to decide how important the ideal is (perhaps for moral or cultural reasons) and how important bottom line results are. If we can all agree on this (or even agree to disagree to some degree), perhaps at that point we can discuss the merits of each side rather than each side just arguing a position they settled on years ago and have not considered since.

How about if you are dead set against the redistribution of wealth? This would include direct payments, as well as government benefits for the poor paid for by taxes on the rich or middle class. As far as you are concerned, each citizen should be responsible for himself and the strongest will survive and thrive.

Now, what if the numbers showed that a college education resulted in higher lifetime income and productivity? Let’s say that the increase in income is so great that it results in additional tax revenue exceeding the total cost of the education. In addition, the resultant increase in income also means an increase in economic activity that creates more jobs. What would you choose as the ideal role of government in the funding of education? Would you stick to your guns on the ideal of personal responsibility and leave educational funding up to the individual? Maybe you think we should take a middle road (much like we do today) by providing loans that allow each individual to get an education, but having them pay back the costs out of their greater earnings. Or on the other end of the spectrum, does logic and pragmatism prevail over ideals? Knowing that the greatest number of people would get a college degree and the greatest increase in long term economic growth would come from full government funding of higher education, do we sacrifice the belief in personal responsibility for the greater good?

The facts in this case are that a college education not only makes a marked difference in income, but that during slow economic times, the unemployment rate has an inverse relationship with education. It is also a fact that outside of loans, grants and scholarships, higher education is still heavily subsidized and a pure market solution would drop us so far below the rest of the industrialized world that we would be competing with developing nations over low skilled, dollar a day type jobs. There is also the likelihood that a free college education for everyone would result in a diminished return on investment. However, the debate always seems to center on fairness or opportunity and usually fails to address the net effect of any policy on the society and economy as a whole.

We can continue this line of questioning with the health care debate. Is our real concern the redistribution of wealth through subsidies? Is it government control over health care? Is it the threat to availability or quality? What are our major motivations or objections with regard to our position on health care reform? Like taxation, this is not a simple issue and there are data and anecdotal evidence to back up either side. There are also practical trade offs between the positions. But whatever our take, if we are to move forward in a positive manner, we need to honestly express our concerns and decide how much of our position is based on ideals and how much we will compromise these ideals to reach our end goal. Once there, we need to be open to the facts and how they frame the issue as a whole.

The same kinds of idealism vs pragmatism dichotomies can be played out with funding for the arts, first time homebuyer subsidies, alternative energy, etc, but the concept is the same. Anyone can find data to back up any position on any issue. There are statistics and misrepresented facts that can harden positions on both sides until there is no compromise, only winners and losers. In some instances, we end up with losers and losers in order to avoid all possible doomsday scenarios that have propagated into the argument. Why? Because we have created a zero sum game of politics and no one wants to be vulnerable by stepping out and doing the right thing.

None of this argues against ideals, I just argue for a better consideration of ideals. Do we want less disparity between classes or a better life for those at the bottom? Energy independence or cheap energy? More security or more convenience? Often these questions get lost in the rhetoric. Too often we fear the honest questions because they get to the heart of what we really want instead of what we claim to want. Sometimes they reveal the complexity of something that we really want to be simple.

Chasing the Pot of Gold

For those interested in a mathematical take on a natural occurrence.

This was originally a paper written for a math modeling class.

Everyone knows the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is a myth, don’t they? Though this may be accepted as fact, it is quite impossible to prove. First, a rainbow does not occupy a point or region in space; instead it ‘floats’ along a path that is based on the position of the observer relative to the Sun. This means that, though two people may both see a rainbow at the same time in approximately the same place, there will be a slight difference in the observed position of the rainbow. Second, the ‘end’ of the rainbow is merely the point(s) at which it disappears behind the horizon. In reality, the refraction of light that is observed as a rainbow is a circle, the visible arc of which varies with the elevation of the Sun.

A rainbow is the manifestation of the refraction of sunlight by water droplets in the atmosphere. The angle of the projected prism is approximately 42 degrees to the angle of sunlight, with the angle decreasing toward the red end of the spectrum. This variation in the angle of refraction for the different parts of the spectrum is what splits the white light into its component colors and causes the ‘ROYGBIV’ arrangement of the rainbow.

Despite the tenuous nature of the rainbow, it still may be tempting to quantify or measure it in some way. One way would be to measure its height or width based on incline or azimuth from the observer’s point of view. On deeper reflection, this proves impossible. Not only is there no way to measure the distance to the plane of the rainbow in order to calculate from the other two measurements, it turns out that these angular measurements are purely a factor of the elevation of the Sun, as long as the elevation of the observer relative to the landscape does not change. In essence, the rainbow can be thought of as a cone projection in reverse; the sun strikes water vapor and is refracted at 42 degrees. If the observer is thought of as the point of this cone, the base is the circular rainbow projecting back the sunlight from behind the observer. The ‘bow’ shape is merely the part of the base of the cone that is above the horizon; the higher the sun in the sky, the less the arc length visible. As the distance from the observer to the plane of the rainbow increases, the diameter of the rainbow grows, but the angles remain the same, it is similar to taking slices perpendicular to the cone at different heights. If one were to look deeper and try to use the thickness of the rainbow to determine distance, the same property arises. Think now of this cone as two concentric cones, one of 40 degrees from the main axis to the sides, the other at 42. As planar slices are taken, the region between the surfaces of the cones is the span from red to violet; again this width or thickness increases with distance, but the angular measurement from the observer’s point of view is unchanged. Effectively, there is no means by which to use the observation of a rainbow to measure either its size or its distance. On the other hand, since the angles involved are known if either size or distance is given, the other can be calculated. If one, for the sake of superstition, argued that the pot of gold existed at the ‘apparent’ base of the rainbow, this point could be found from angular measurements, or from the known location of the Sun, and the distance to the horizon.

Say that the horizon is 2.5 miles away and the sun is at 20 degrees above the horizon behind the observer. Since the radius of the rainbow is the opposite side of a right triangle with angle 42 degrees and adjacent side 2.5 miles, determining the total size of the rainbow is simple trigonometry: Tan (42 degrees)*2.5miles=2.25 miles. Since only 42-20=22 degrees of elevation exist between horizon and top arc of the rainbow, we have a visible height that is 2.25 miles-tan (20)*2.5=1.34 miles, which relates to a ‘y-intercept’ of .91 miles. Now, with a circle of radius 2.25 and a y-intercept, the x coordinates are needed. Since a circle is y^2+x^2=r^2, we have .91^2+x^2=5.0625, x=2.058 miles. So our distance along the z-axis is 2.5 miles, in the x-axis 2.058 miles and our straight line distance to the pot of gold is 3.24 miles at a heading of +/-42 degrees. As long as the observer leaves his eyes behind, he can see himself reach the end of the rainbow.

CTM lit

I have published a partial list of my writings online-click on the title or copy and paste address. I will update as I progress on this endeavor. Eventually, I hope to post these all as pages of a single website and may possibly produce a serial (in my wildest dreams, right?). Please forgive the variety in formats...and please, enjoy:

Money Matters (published in The First Line)-http://docs.google.com/View?id=dvgtv7j_1hscnkmgv

The Human Condition-http://docs.google.com/View?id=dvgtv7j_2sb59jbfb

Seven-http://docs.google.com/View?id=dvgtv7j_3d7n54hhb
Snow is Best-http://docs.google.com/View?id=dvgtv7j_4hqb3r5c4
Junior's Creek-http://docs.google.com/View?id=dvgtv7j_5dt623rfc
Interaction-http://docs.google.com/View?id=dvgtv7j_6d3vtp82q

Insomnia-http://docs.google.com/View?id=dvgtv7j_7cqhz32gc

Mist-http://docs.google.com/View?id=dvgtv7j_8c2skr2hs

Anatomy of a Yard Sale-http://docs.google.com/View?id=dvgtv7j_9csjc3bgs

I should have a couple of regular essay posts shortly...

Intellectual debate part 1

Intellectual debate-part 1.

At a time when technology, a large population across a vast swath of land, specialization, consolidation of economic sectors and increasing international trade have made issues more complex and resolving them more critical, we seem less capable of doing so in a thoughtful manner. Our political leaders and partisans in the media have honed their sound bite skills to a razor’s edge and most of us seem content to quote them unthinkingly without questioning the logic or reason (or lack therein).

This brief essay addresses one of the weaknesses in statements regarding the current health care reform debate.

I recently heard someone say that they were against universal health care because it was too much like socialism. There are a couple of problems with this statement and both point to the lack of intellectual activity on the part of the average American.

The first problem is with the definition of socialism. Socialism is government control over the means of production. This label may or may not apply to universal health care, depending on how it is done. Subsidizing of health premiums does not meet the definition. A single payer plan where the government collects taxes, fees or premiums and pays providers directly also fails to meet the criteria (though completely controlling the market for health insurance might be socializing insurance, it is not socialized medicine). In contrast, if the government ran the hospitals, hired the doctors, bought all the equipement, etc, that would be socialized medicine. The recent government bailouts of banks and automakers (and previous takeover of railroads) IS socialism.

The second part of the statement implies that the listener automatically assumes socialism is an undesirable condition. Though many may believe that a pure socialist state is a bad thing, even those do not really object to the socialism of certain elements of our economy. How many Americans would like our military to be a capitalist enterprise? Would we want to lose a war because the lowest bidders did not spend enough money on recruiting or training soldiers? How about legislation? We already have enough problems with PAC money influencing our elected officials; how bad would it be if we opened seats in congress to bidding?

The examples given may seem extreme, but they illustrate at least that there are some tasks best served by non-capitalist means and perhaps we should admit to this and argue for or against partial or full government control of services and economic sectors based on logical premises rather than hot button words and catch phrases that stir emotions, but don’t contribute to the debate. It might even be helpful if some of us would agree to discuss these issues without the use of inflammatory terms or exaggerations. If socialism is bad and the things that make socialism bad also apply to universal health care, then we should say, ‘Universal health care is bad because I object to paying for someone else’s care’ or ‘Government control of health care costs will stifle innovation’ and then be prepared to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments.

More to come on this…

To dance or not...

Why are Baptists so anti-sex? Because they are afraid it could lead to dancing.

J Vernon McGee, a man whose commentaries I have gained much insight from, once used the passage where David danced before the Lord as a basis for teaching that Christians should not dance. Similarly, I once sat in on a Sunday school lesson where the passage regarding not drinking to excess was used as a basis for teaching that Christians should not drink at all.

Without debating the merits of dancing and drinking, in both cases the Bible is used to enforce a rigid set of rules and behaviors that do not fit with the message of what Christianity is and is not.

All of this is a prelude to my point.

We often here the refrain of ‘love the sinner, but hate the sin.’ I have always believed that this is a PC way of labeling someone as less righteous than ourselves, while technically ‘not judging.’ I don’t believe that this fits with the teachings and life of Christ; if anything, it is the opposite.

It is a human need to feel good or worthy, even if it requires looking down on someone else, but Christians are instructed to be humble. Our role model in Jesus humbled himself to the most humiliating treatment and death offered in first century Israel. This punishment, the penalty of the sins of the world, was taken on by the one man who did not deserve it…willingly. If this is not an example of ‘love the sinner and forgive the sin’, then take a look at His interactions with others during His ministry. The only words of condemnation were for the religious leaders who considered themselves righteous and looked down on those who did not meet their (not God’s) standards. When dealing with sinners, Jesus was sympathetic and loving.

This need to define sins and consequently sinners is as prevalent as ever today. How many Christians would judge (even a little bit) someone who had an abortion harsher than someone who had a doctor create multiple embryos that will never see the light of day for fertility treatment? How many would judge someone who engaged in a homosexual act harsher than a heterosexual person who was promiscuous? Would we judge a drug addict as worse than someone who was proud?

So what is the right tack in dealing with sin? I am reminded of Romans 6, ‘do we go on sinning that grace may increase?’ Of course, the answer is no: a life of sin is not what God intended and God’s intent is the highest and best use for our lives. But this is personal, and the point here is interpersonal. When dealing with others in the world, we are to show God’s love, reach out and help, both spiritually and physically, in any way we can, without judgment. We are all sinners and if there are some sins that are worse than others, they are the pet sins of many Sunday Christians:

Matthew 25 tells us that Jesus will reward us for reaching out to those in need and will deny us if we don’t. Are we doing this to the best of our abilities? I know I am not. I even wonder if His instruction to the rich young ruler related to this in some way; are we really reaching the world around us if we have lots of ‘things’?

How about Revelation 3? We go to church on Sunday, throw something into the offering plate, perhaps read the Bible and pray and maybe even stick a fish on the back of our car. Does that qualify us as being on fire for God? In Revelation 3, God says that he would prefer us to be either cold or hot and that those who are lukewarm he would puke up (paraphrased).

These harsh judgments are, like those Jesus spoke during his time on earth, harsh and aimed at the believer. The sinner is a dead man walking, blinded and bound in his sin. Our job is to let Jesus work through us to reach him, restore his sight, release his bonds and breathe life into him. At some later point we may help him move away from his sin, but only once the relationship is there that we speak redeemed sinner to redeemed sinner. Even then, it is best if we merely seek God together and let Him highlight our sins. In other words, ‘love the sinner and let God worry about the sin.’

There are exceptions to this, such as those in a position to lead others astray, but once someone is cleaned up to that point, we don’t tend to look down on them too much, anyway.

I guess my point is that if we want to call ourselves Christians, we should live by the book as it is written, not as we have made carefully selected verses fit our philosophy. We need to ask ourselves if we have spent more time reaching out to the fringes of our society than worrying about gay marriage. We should ask if we have removed the log out of our own eye before worrying over the splinter in someone else’s. Most of all, we should recognize that living the life Christ redeemed us for means being freed from the burdens of sin; though we don’t ignore it altogether, if we spend everyday focused on what we should not do, we will never ponder what we SHOULD do. The Christian life is more about doing than refraining; Jesus said ‘go into all the world and make disciples’ and ‘follow me’ and ‘wash each others’ feet’ and ‘pray’ and ‘forgive’.