Abolishing

“NE AR LY E QUAL”from Astronomy:

A change in science policy

B BaylesLAI 531 Science Curricula: Current Approaches

March 31, 2008

Abolishing

“NE AR LY E QUAL”from Astronomy: A change in science policy

Policy is defined as a decision, politics is the negotiation and compromise necessary to create a desired outcome, and science is the pursuit of knowledge in a systematic way. The role of science in policy issues is broken into four choices (Pielke, Jr., 2007). The Pure Scientist sticks to describing the characteristics of science and stays out of decision-making policy. The Science Arbitrator is the Pure Scientist with the addition of being a resource about science which others may call on for advice. The Issue Advocate goes out on a limb and tells others how a certain case for science is better than its alternatives, and the Honest Broker provides information and then lets others decide between all the choices for themselves.

Abolishing nearly equal in astronomy; a change in science policy seeks to compel a particular decision. It points out a mistake that astronomy makes when it discusses the size of binary stars, therefore in this presentation I do not want to expand choice, I want to reduce it down to my particular viewpoint on binary stars, making me a dyed-in-the-wool Issue Advocate.

As an Issue Advocate I am aligning with my classmates and UB, a group that is advancing the interests of science and knowledge, because I accept that science must be engaged with decision-makers. I seek to engage in the decision-making process using this presentation, with the desired outcome being agreement by my classmates and UB that the field of astronomy is strengthened by my observations.

Abolishing nearly equal in astronomy; a change in science policy Is a mini-slice from my master’s thesis. The thesis is an argument for tightening the language used in science to describe mass. As an Issue Advocate I say that stars and other relativistic-sized bodies must be taught as policy in the manner I prescribe.

Please enjoy my presentation and I look forward to your comments.

This image is from a societal (“popular”) level book about the universe. It shows how both “equal” and “unequal” masses rotate about a common center of gravity.

The image is flawed because “equal” masses do not rotate in the same manner as “unequal” masses; rotation for equal masses follows a different pattern than described in the left picture! The true nature of rotating masses shall be described and then applied to a research problem from a Nature article to show that when it comes to rotating flow patterns, mass size does matter.

Rees, M. (Ed.). (2005). Universe (First American Edition ed.). New York: DK Publishing, Inc. P. 270. Reproduced under the fair use clause.

First let’s look at what does work in the image, and why.

Vanyo, J. P. (1993). Rotating Fluids in Engineering and science. Minneola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc. P. 161. Reproduced under the fair use clause.

1 + 2________

d2

The far-right picture correctly describes how two unequal masses revolve about a common center. According to vortex dynamics’ DIAGONAL DIAGRAM1 two masses rotating the same direction must be unequal in size in order to join; they become caught in each other’s flow fields, forcing them to rotate about their common center of gravity.

THE DIAGONAL DIAGRAM

The DIAGONAL DIAGRAM mandates that when two masses rotating the same direction are equal in size they cannot join, there can be no common center of gravity, and they would float away from each other.

Conclusion:

The DIAGONAL DIAGRAM law governing rotating objects does not

allow the “EQUAL MASS” picture to exist!

1 = 2

1 = 2 1 > 2

The solar system is another example of the DIAGONAL DIAGRAM law that governs rotating bodies.

The solar system is comprised of planets (and other masses of various sizes) that are rotating the same direction about their common center/sun.

Rees, M. (Ed.). (2005). Universe (First American Edition ed.). New York: DK Publishing, Inc. Reproduced under the fair use clause.

Gallant, R. A. (1980). National Geographic Picture Atlas of Our Universe. Washington, D. C.: National Geographic Society. Reproduced under the fair use clause.

the DIAGONAL DIAGRAM

Vanyo, J. P. (1993). Rotating Fluids in Engineering and science. Minneola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc. P. 161. Reproduced under the fair use clause.

The textbook’s “EQUAL MASS” picture incorrectly describes two equal masses as revolving about a common center.

However, two equal masses can be joined this way:

THE RECTILINEAR DIAGRAM2

1 = 2

When two masses are equal in size they must rotate in opposite directions in order to join.

If these two stars were truly, mathematically equal in

size

they would join like this.

The article “Portrait of a suburban family” (Nature, 15 March 2007) discusses the struggle to understand how collision bodies form. These solar system bodies form when their parent body gets hit by a projectile and breaks up. The figure’s text describes three snapshots from a hydrodynamic simulation showing a collision between “two equally sized objects of 2,000 km diameter”.

However, it is improbable that two large space bodies would be equally sized, and if they were they would have to configure like the RECTILINEAR DIAGRAM to hold together. As must actually be the case, the clusters of bodies in the diagram are unequal in size, and they are clearly circling the center of gravity that has formed between them.

The conclusion of this example is that the hydrodynamic simulation underestimates the importance of distinguishing between “equally sized” and “nearly equal” in size. “Nearly equal” allows a centroid to grow between the bodies as they are caught in each other’s flow fields; “equal” does not.

Summarizing, “nearly equal” and “equal” are not even close to the same thing; they are opposites, and it will always be incorrect to describe collision bodies and other relativistic-sized bodies as equally sized, since doing so robs us from further inspection into the relationship between mass and rotation sense.

Here is why it is important to distinguish

between “equal” and “nearly equal”.

1. This demonstration of the DIAGONAL DIAGRAM requires an ordinary cereal bowl filled ¾ full with water.

Stir the bowl of water and glitter; here it is stirred

counterclockwise.

2. The glitter begins to collect at the centroid/center.

3. Collection is at the centroid.

Understanding the mathematical rules governing rotation and revolution creates better

experiments into how a collision family will arise.

CONCLUSIONBecause “equal” and “nearly equal” are not even close to being

the same, it will always be incorrect to describe rotating, relativistic –sized bodies as equally sized.

This flawed concept will be replaced…It’s not that we really think that relativistic-sized objects are equal in size! The problem is in assuming that equal and nearly equal are close enough to the same to behave the same. They are not. Unequal, rotating bodies join using the DIAGONAL DIAGRAM. Equal, rotating bodies only join using the RECTILINEAR DIAGRAM. With this trio of diagrams.

REFERENCES

• 1- DIAGONAL DIAGRAM is the name I gave to this particular diagram for the purpose of distinguishing between it and the rectilinear diagram. This illustration is found in Vanyo’s Rotating Fluids in Engineering and science, p. 160.

• 2-RECTILINEAL DIAGRAM is the name I gave to this particular diagram for the purpose of distinguishing between it and the diagonal diagram. This illustration is found in Vanyo’s Rotating Fluids in Engineering and science, p. 160.

• Bayles, B. (2007). Electric universe: Einstein's general relativity modified for time travelers. Toronto, KS: B Krkosska Bayles (only available at Amazon.com).

• Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called science? Queensland, Australia: University of Queensland Press.• Dewitt, R. (2004). Worldviews: An introduction to the history and philosophy of science. Malden, MA: Blackwell

Publishing.• Fanning, A. E. (1966 ). Planets, stars, and galaxies: descriptive astronomy for beginners. New York, NY: Dover

Publications, Inc.• Ferguson, K. (1991). Stephen Hawking: Quest for a theory of everything. New York, NY: Bantam books.• Feynman, R. P. (1997). Six easy pieces & six not-so-easy pieces. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.• Gallant, R. A. (1980). National Geographic picture atlas of our universe. Washington, D. C.: National Geographic

Society.• Kaku, M. a. J. T. (1995). Beyond Einstein: the cosmic quest for the Theory of the Universe. New York, NY: Anchor

Books.• Laughlin, R. B. (2005). A different universe: reinventing physics from the bottom down. Cambridge, MA: Basic

Books.• Morbidelli, A. (2007). Portrait of a suburban family. Nature, 446, 273.• Murdin, P. a. P., Margaret (Ed.). (2004). The Firefly encyclopedia of astronomy (1st ed.). Buffalo, NY: Firefly Books

Ltd.• Nicolson, I. (1999). Unfolding our universe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.• Ornes, S. (June 2007). Einstein was right, Oops there goes gravity: Earth does bend space-time. Discover, 12-13.• Pielke Jr., R. A. (2007). The honest broker; making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge, UK:

University Press, Cambridge.• Rees, M. (Ed.). (2005). Universe (First American Edition ed.). New York: DK Publishing, Inc.• Vanyo, J. P. (1993). Rotating fluids in engineering and science. Minneola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc.