Latin, the Enlightenment, and science
in [Math]
|
Prev: Latin, the Enlightenment, and science
Next: question on Artwork and what is legal in altering a signed painting #24 South Dakota cat laws
From: Yusuf B Gursey on 29 Dec 2009 03:25 On Dec 28, 11:54 pm, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > garabik-news-2005...(a)kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk wrote: > > In sci.lang Peter T. Daniels <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > >> Is "continent" a technical term in geography? > > > Dunno. It is, however, widely used. > > >> Was "planet" a technical term in astronomy? > > > Yes. Not formally defined (except by enumeration), though. > > I don't know about modern astronomy, but in the old days > a "planet" was a well established term for all "wanderers". > They were all heavenly bodies (apart from the Sun?) that kept in the Ptolemaic Earth-centered view, the Sun was considered a planet. > constantly changing their position on the celestial globe. Even > today my Cartes du Ciel lists the Moon as one of the planets. > pjk > > > > >> (Apparently it is now.) > yes, a couple of years ago at an astronomical convention, a "planet" was defined, and Pluto was demoted to a "minor planet", while Ceres, formerly an asteroid, was upgraded to a "minor planet". another minor planet, a newly discovered, very distant Kuiper Belt Object (IIRC larger than Pluto, which had been tentativley named Xena, but was given a proper mythological name, forgot what at the moment) was added. the first proposal, eventually rejected, kept Pluto as a planet, but added Charon (Pluto's moon) and Ceres and "Xena". > > ...except of extrasolar planets, which by this definition are not > > planets... > > > To which extent does a terminology make a part of the language of > > science? And what about informal, but widely used terminology? It is an > > open question for which I have no answer. > > > However, let's not leave out mathematics: many interesting fields, rings > > and groups are defined by enumeration of their members, operations and > > rules (see Boolean algebra for a simple one). Heck, even natural numbers > > are defined by their "enumeration" in a sense (Peano axioms). > > >> Radovan Garabíkhttp://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/| > >> __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk | > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus. > > Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!
From: Yusuf B Gursey on 29 Dec 2009 03:40 On Dec 29, 3:25 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...(a)theworld.com> wrote: > On Dec 28, 11:54 pm, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > > garabik-news-2005...(a)kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk wrote: > > > In sci.lang Peter T. Daniels <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > >> Is "continent" a technical term in geography? > > > > Dunno. It is, however, widely used. > > > >> Was "planet" a technical term in astronomy? > > > > Yes. Not formally defined (except by enumeration), though. > > > I don't know about modern astronomy, but in the old days > > a "planet" was a well established term for all "wanderers". > > They were all heavenly bodies (apart from the Sun?) that kept > > in the Ptolemaic Earth-centered view, the Sun was considered a planet. > > > constantly changing their position on the celestial globe. Even > > today my Cartes du Ciel lists the Moon as one of the planets. > > pjk > > > >> (Apparently it is now.) > > yes, a couple of years ago at an astronomical convention, a "planet" > was defined, and Pluto was demoted to a "minor planet", while Ceres, > formerly an asteroid, was upgraded to a "minor planet". another minor > planet, a newly discovered, very distant Kuiper Belt Object (IIRC > larger than Pluto, which had been tentativley named Xena, but was > given a proper mythological name, forgot what at the moment) was Eris, larger than Pluto. > added. the first proposal, eventually rejected, kept Pluto as a > planet, but added Charon (Pluto's moon) and Ceres and "Xena". > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet A planet (from Greek ÏλανήÏηÏ, alternative form of ÏÎ»Î¬Î½Î·Ï "wanderer") is a celestial body that is or was orbiting a star or stellar remnant and is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity, is not massive enough to cause thermonuclear fusion, and has cleared its neighbouring region of planetesimals.[a][1][2] .... Acknowledging the problem, the IAU set about creating the definition of planet, and eventually produced one in 2006. The number of planets dropped to the eight significantly larger bodies that had cleared their orbit (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune), and a new class of dwarf planets was created, initially containing three objects (Ceres, Pluto and Eris).[31] Extrasolar planet definition Dwarf Planets 2006- Ceres Pluto Makemake Haumea Eris In 2003, The International Astronomical Union (IAU) Working Group on Extrasolar Planets made a position statement on the definition of a planet that incorporated the following working definition, mostly focused upon the boundary between planets and brown dwarves:[2] 1.Objects with true masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium (currently calculated to be 13 times the mass of Jupiter for objects with the same isotopic abundance as the Sun[32]) that orbit stars or stellar remnants are "planets" (no matter how they formed). The minimum mass and size required for an extrasolar object to be considered a planet should be the same as that used in the Solar System. 2.Substellar objects with true masses above the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium are "brown dwarfs", no matter how they formed or where they are located. 3.Free-floating objects in young star clusters with masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium are not "planets", but are "sub-brown dwarfs" (or whatever name is most appropriate). This definition has since been widely used by astronomers when publishing discoveries of exoplanets in academic journals.[33] Although temporary, it remains an effective working definition until a more permanent one is formally adopted. However, it does not address the dispute over the lower mass limit,[34] and so it steered clear of the controversy regarding objects within the Solar System. [2006 definition Main article: 2006 definition of planet The matter of the lower limit was addressed during the 2006 meeting of the IAU's General Assembly. After much debate and one failed proposal, the assembly voted to pass a resolution that defined planets within the Solar System as:[1] A celestial body that is (a) in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit. Under this definition, the Solar System is considered to have eight planets. Bodies which fulfill the first two conditions but not the third (such as Pluto, Makemake and Eris) are classified as dwarf planets, provided they are not also natural satellites of other planets. Originally an IAU committee had proposed a definition that would have included a much larger number of planets as it did not include (c) as a criterion.[35] After much discussion, it was decided via a vote that those bodies should instead be classified as dwarf planets.[36] This definition is based in theories of planetary formation, in which planetary embryos initially clear their orbital neighborhood of other smaller objects. As described by astronomer Steven Soter:[37] 1.^ a b c "IAU 2006 General Assembly: Result of the IAU Resolution votes". International Astronomical Union. 2006. Archived from the original on 2007-10-25. http://web.archive.org/web/20071025051134/ http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0603/index.html. Retrieved 2008-08-23. 2.^ a b "Working Group on Extrasolar Planets (WGESP) of the International Astronomical Union". IAU. 2001. http://www.dtm.ciw.edu/boss/definition.html. Retrieved 2008-08-23. 36.^ "Pluto loses status as a planet". BBC. 2006-08-24. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/5282440.stm. Retrieved 2008-08-23. 37.^ Soter, Steven (2006). "What is a Planet". Astronomical Journal 132 (6): 2513â19. doi:10.1086/508861. arΧiv:astro-ph/0608359. > > > > ...except of extrasolar planets, which by this definition are not > > > planets... > > > > To which extent does a terminology make a part of the language of > > > science? And what about informal, but widely used terminology? It is an > > > open question for which I have no answer. > > > > However, let's not leave out mathematics: many interesting fields, rings > > > and groups are defined by enumeration of their members, operations and > > > rules (see Boolean algebra for a simple one). Heck, even natural numbers > > > are defined by their "enumeration" in a sense (Peano axioms). > > > >> Radovan GarabÃkhttp://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/| > > >> __..--^^^--..__   garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk   | > > >  ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus. > > > Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!
From: Joachim Pense on 29 Dec 2009 04:17 PaulJK (in sci.lang): > garabik-news-2005-05(a)kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk wrote: >> In sci.lang Peter T. Daniels <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote: >>> >>> Is "continent" a technical term in geography? >> >> Dunno. It is, however, widely used. >> >>> Was "planet" a technical term in astronomy? >> >> Yes. Not formally defined (except by enumeration), though. > > I don't know about modern astronomy, but in the old days > a "planet" was a well established term for all "wanderers". > They were all heavenly bodies (apart from the Sun?) that kept > constantly changing their position on the celestial globe. Even > today my Cartes du Ciel lists the Moon as one of the planets. > pjk > Was the sun always excluded, or did it count as a planet, too? Joachim
From: OwlHoot on 29 Dec 2009 04:13 On Dec 24, 8:05 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Nonsense; when the English and German courts started emulating the > manners and dress of the French court, they did not start speaking > French. Why would they? Norman French was spoken in English courts until at least the 16th century, for example in exchanges between judges and law sergeants, and in dispensing judgements. In fact, according to http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/6361Heys.htm French was the official language of English courts until 1731! Cheers John Ramsden
From: Yusuf B Gursey on 29 Dec 2009 04:25
On Dec 29, 4:13 am, OwlHoot <ravensd...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > On Dec 24, 8:05 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Nonsense; when the English and German courts started emulating the > > manners and dress of the French court, they did not start speaking > > French. Why would they? > > Norman French was spoken in English courts until at least the > 16th century, for example in exchanges between judges and law > sergeants, and in dispensing judgements. > the case of England is different, as it was originally a Norman dynasty (starting with William the Conqueror) that ruled England for a while. > In fact, according to > http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/6361Heys.htm > French was the official language of English courts until 1731! > yes, I had quoted that website in a different thread in sci.lang > Cheers > > John Ramsden |