Thinking in the abstract

[smellincoffee]

How do the rest of you handle the large-scale thinking necessary for most subjects that fall under the field of astronomy? By this, I mean mentally "zooming out" and attempting to see the big picture -- particularly when it comes to objects that are constantly moving in cycles in space -- like the orbits of our fartherest planets (and after today, dwarf planets )? I've been interested in astronomy ever since I was a boy, but my mind is NOT one that handles mathematics well. When scientists reveal that they've found something simply by studying inconsistencies in orbits, I'm as amazed by this as the Aztecs were by Cortez' horses. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"Those who dwell among the beauties and mysteries of the earth are never alone or weary of life." - <strong>Rachel Carson</strong></em> </div>

 

[qso1]

Welcome to SDC. Your first post here raises interesting questions. I'm no math whiz by any means but as far as large scales. I can usually deal with them graphically. That is, if I want to see something by zooming out for the big picture, I illustrate it in simple form. I remember one particular occasion in 1984 where I was under the impression (Thanks to a book written by Astronomer Patrick Moore) that planets couldn't orbit binary or multiple star systems. I looked up the distance between Alpha Centauri "A" and "B" and it seemed to me planets would be possible. Though to this day, they havn't announced any.<br /><br />If one could zoom out and see the area encompassed by the observable Universe. You would detect no motion at all unless you could somehow record the Universe over billions of years then play it back in real time. Even then, only galactic motions could be percieved.<br /><br />These days, one can get software like Starry Night and see the constant motions and interactions, especially of planets in our solar system and by seeing this, gain a better understanding of how the solar system works without all the math. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[dannyd]

Mr. Coffee: Perhaps you suffer the same deficiency as I do - a long standing interest in astronomy and physics and a lack of the necessary gumption to learn serious mathematics. I always feel, on this website, like a someone in Mexico that can't speak Spanish. I love the place - but I often feel lost and out of it. But - like the dude - I abide. Dannyd.

 

[smellincoffee]

Thanks for the welcome. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I once saw a graphical representation of Pluto and Charon's orbits. This representation was posted in a thread that was posted when we were going to have twelve planets -- with Ceres, Charon, and 2003 UB... added to the count -- and they were showing how Pluto and Charon had a seperate center of gravity, hence Charon being qualified to be a planet. It certainly made Charon's consideration easier to understand -- although given the results of the vote, that's of little consequence. <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Mr. Coffee: Perhaps you suffer the same deficiency as I do - a long standing interest in astronomy and physics and a lack of the necessary gumption to learn serious mathematics.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I think so. Ever since I was a kid, my grades in math and the sciences that used a lot of math and formulas have always been lower than I'd like. I guess I'm using the wrong side of my brain or something. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"Those who dwell among the beauties and mysteries of the earth are never alone or weary of life." - <strong>Rachel Carson</strong></em> </div>

 

[qso1]

Pluto ending up being a non planet...for now, made the center of gravity thing a moot point.<br /><br />That center of gravity is known as a barycenter and is well known in binary stars. Pluto and Charon could be considered a binary planet. Earth and moon share a common barycenter as well. But their barycenter is just inside or maybe just outside the diameter of Earth because Earth is so much more larger than the moon.<br /><br />Planets with multiple satellites and stars with multiple planets get more complicated as far as barycenters. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[smellincoffee]

Have you ever read speculatory articles about our own Sol having a binary twin -- nicknamed "Nemesis"? <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_%28star%29<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"Those who dwell among the beauties and mysteries of the earth are never alone or weary of life." - <strong>Rachel Carson</strong></em> </div>

 

[qso1]

Yes, the star thought to be responsible at one time for periodic mass extinctions on Earth. Interesting hypothesis and one that may well be proven one day. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[harmonicaman]

<b>Smellincoffee -</b><br /><br />FSU has produced a really nice interactive Java tutorial which illustrates the scale of the universe. <br /><br />No candidates for the Nemisis Star or even a supposed "Planet X" have yet been observed; though Gliese 710 will approach to within about 1 LY from our Solar System in 1.4 million years...

 

[spacester]

Still the linkmeister! harpdude rules!<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>