Starship Asterisk*

by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:27 pm

Could Care wrote:The first seven posts in this thread are pertinent and interesting.

Many times it is comments that deviate somewhat from 100% "pertinent" to the topic that move a thread in an interesting direction. The finer points of the English language are of interest to many long time participants here.

by **Nitpicker** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 10:48 pm

This discussion has at all times stayed on the topic of the APOD, which includes the caption. Indeed, it is very much like a typical scientific debate where there is a clear consensus on a topic, yet a lively and healthy argument about a particular detail within. Use of language is an art form and art complements science.

by **geckzilla** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 9:09 pm

I try to avoid splitting discussions unless it's really, really off because it confuses people. In this case it was directly pertaining to the APOD and its description of the distance between two objects. There is absolutely no reason for the discussion to be split except for personal whims.

by **MargaritaMc** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 5:51 pm

Could Care wrote:The first seven posts in this thread are pertinent and interesting. As for the rest - OH BROTHER !

I agree, although there were some posts interspersed which were not about the use of language, any discussion about the actual content of the Apod got lost.

I agreed with an earlier post that this thread could usefully have been split into a science thread and a language or grammar thread.

M

by **Could Care** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 4:23 pm

The first seven posts in this thread are pertinent and interesting. As for the rest - OH BROTHER

!

by **kash earley** » Sat Oct 18, 2014 2:33 am

We are learning to paint skyscapes. Have telescopic equipment but do not know how to use. So enjoyed the eclipse several nights ago. It was amazing...especially the aftermath when the Moon stood out in suspended animation all alone. What a thrill to experience.
This photo of yours is breathtaking. It is a wonder and so very beautiful. Thank you for sharing.

by **Ron-Astro Pharmacist** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 10:49 pm

Language is malleable and it is closer to the weekend. I am having a fabulous (F)riday.These discussions always add pleasure to my day.

Today's APOD was a beautifully composed photograph foreshadowing the weekend event to this fascinating time for space science. No rest for those at NASA and all the other space agencies around the world that will be monitoring the close encounter this weekend. It should stack up to be a unique experience and unraveling the aftermath should fuel some fun and informative future APOD's.

Nice photo Rolando; the CARA Project is paying visual dividends.

Here's to more fun with photometry. Good fortune to all this weekend. Let's hope the Mars vs. Siding Spring results bring on the discussions !

by **phoobar** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 10:26 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
visual_astronomer wrote:I don't intend to launch a grammer thread, but I agree with Bob.
Just becuase some people say "I could care less" when they really mean "I couldn't care less" doesn't make it correct.
Agreed. But there's nothing wrong with the expression Bob was objecting to. (I like "one tenth the distance" better, but in fact, both are correct usage.)

I have to say that "10 times closer" is utterly unambiguous.

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 10:04 pm

Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:I'll butt in. A moving object is little hard to define at a point in time.

How so? At any point in time, we can define its position or its distance from any other object, including moving objects.

Of course, in today's caption, the distance is being compared at a specific moment, when the comet passes nearest to Mars. That distance is given as 139,500 km, from which we can unambiguously infer that the closest known comet flyby of Earth was about 1.4 million km (which would be C/1491 B1 in 1491; the closest in modern times was C/1983 H1 in 1983 at 4.7 million km, or 34 times farther than C/2013 A1 will pass Mars).

by **Nitpicker** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 9:14 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
Bob wrote:"10 times closer"? When I multiply anything by 10 I get a larger number. How about "one tenth of the distance"?
"Ten times closer" is a perfectly common and acceptable language form, and there's nothing confusing about it.

I agree with Chris, and it is not just about language. Closeness is inversely proportional to distance. As closeness increases, distance decreases and vice versa. It is just that we don't commonly use units for closeness expressed in dimensions of [Length]^-1.

by **Ron-Astro Pharmacist** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 9:13 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
rstevenson wrote:I'm usually the first to agree that language is maleable, but...
"Times closer" means divide in the same way the "times farther" means multiply ?
No. "Times" means multiply. Modifying it with "closer" adds confusion, not sense. But I'm willing to agree that this might be a regional interpretation. English is written, spelled, spoken, pronounced, and interpreted somewhat differently in different parts of the world, even in different parts of the same country.
But you didn't answer my question. Is there any way that "ten times closer" can be reasonably misunderstood? If not, I'd argue there's no issue.

I'll butt in. A moving object is little hard to define at a point in time. If Siding Spring is 100,000 Km from Mars is it 10 x closer at 10,000 Km? Then 10 x closer at 1,000 Km? You'd have a hard time accurately describing it at a moment using the "closer" language leading to misunderstanding. I'd hate to hear a NASA official saying, "It's 10 x closer now than it was at noon. Well, at least it was 5 seconds ago." I would hope to hear a different description of its location.

Comparing two separate objects to another at a defined time and place is a different story .

by **MargaritaMc** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 8:21 pm

FloridaMike wrote:Maybe each APOD should have a grammar discussion thread and a science discussion thread.

by **FloridaMike** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 8:15 pm

Maybe each APOD should have a grammar discussion thread and a science discussion thread.

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 7:41 pm

rstevenson wrote:I'm usually the first to agree that language is maleable, but...
"Times closer" means divide in the same way the "times farther" means multiply ?
No. "Times" means multiply. Modifying it with "closer" adds confusion, not sense. But I'm willing to agree that this might be a regional interpretation. English is written, spelled, spoken, pronounced, and interpreted somewhat differently in different parts of the world, even in different parts of the same country.

But you didn't answer my question. Is there any way that "ten times closer" can be reasonably misunderstood? If not, I'd argue there's no issue.

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 7:39 pm

geckzilla wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:
geckzilla wrote:Well, you're multiplying units of closeness. If x is a unit of closeness then another object is 10x less close. This reminds me of writing a script in inverted logic.
"Times closer" means divide in the same way the "times farther" means multiply. The mistake is in thinking that "times" in this context has to mean multiplication. "Ten times closer" is just the complement of "ten times farther", and both are unambiguous.
Maybe I do all my division by multiplication!

I generally do.

by **geckzilla** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 7:30 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
geckzilla wrote:Well, you're multiplying units of closeness. If x is a unit of closeness then another object is 10x less close. This reminds me of writing a script in inverted logic.
"Times closer" means divide in the same way the "times farther" means multiply. The mistake is in thinking that "times" in this context has to mean multiplication. "Ten times closer" is just the complement of "ten times farther", and both are unambiguous.

Maybe I do all my division by multiplication!

by **BMAONE23** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 7:23 pm

1 object is being viewed by 2 vantage points
Vantage pt A and Vantage pt B
Vantage pt A is 9 miles away and Vantage pt B is 90 miles away
Vantage pt B is 10 times farther away than Vantage pt A
or the reciprocal
Vantage pt A is 10 times closer than Vantage pt B

by **rstevenson** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 7:15 pm

I'm usually the first to agree that language is maleable, but...

"Times closer" means divide in the same way the "times farther" means multiply ?

No. "Times" means multiply. Modifying it with "closer" adds confusion, not sense. But I'm willing to agree that this might be a regional interpretation. English is written, spelled, spoken, pronounced, and interpreted somewhat differently in different parts of the world, even in different parts of the same country.

Rob

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 7:08 pm

geckzilla wrote:Well, you're multiplying units of closeness. If x is a unit of closeness then another object is 10x less close. This reminds me of writing a script in inverted logic.

"Times closer" means divide in the same way the "times farther" means multiply. The mistake is in thinking that "times" in this context has to mean multiplication. "Ten times closer" is just the complement of "ten times farther", and both are unambiguous.

by **geckzilla** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 7:00 pm

Well, you're multiplying units of closeness. If x is a unit of closeness then another object is 10x less close. This reminds me of writing a script in inverted logic.

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 6:56 pm

rstevenson wrote:When you say "one tenth the distance" you're defining what it is you're taking one tenth of, the overall distance. But when you say "10 times closer" what are you multiplying by 10?

Saying "10 times closer" is like saying "twice as cold", a meaningless phrase I hear once in a while in weather reports.

I would say that "ten times closer" is completely synonymous with "one tenth the distance". And here's a good test. Are you confused by "ten times closer" in the way you are with "twice as cold"? Does "ten times closer" result in an ambiguous interpretation? I'd say "no" to both, which is why it's reasonable usage, even if you make the argument that, strictly parsed, it's a bit idiomatic.

by **rstevenson** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 6:46 pm

When you say "one tenth the distance" you're defining what it is you're taking one tenth of, the overall distance. But when you say "10 times closer" what are you multiplying by 10?

Saying "10 times closer" is like saying "twice as cold", a meaningless phrase I hear once in a while in weather reports.

Rob

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 5:13 pm

visual_astronomer wrote:I don't intend to launch a grammer thread, but I agree with Bob.
Just becuase some people say "I could care less" when they really mean "I couldn't care less" doesn't make it correct.

Agreed. But there's nothing wrong with the expression Bob was objecting to. (I like "one tenth the distance" better, but in fact, both are correct usage.)

by **visual_astronomer** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 5:11 pm

I don't intend to launch a grammer thread, but I agree with Bob.

Just becuase some people say "I could care less" when they really mean "I couldn't care less" doesn't make it correct.

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 4:56 pm

Bob wrote:"10 times closer"? When I multiply anything by 10 I get a larger number. How about "one tenth of the distance"?

"Ten times closer" is a perfectly common and acceptable language form, and there's nothing confusing about it.

Starship Asterisk*

APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)

Re: APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)

Re: APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)

Re: APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)

Re: APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)

Re: APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)

Re: APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)

Re: APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)

Re: APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)

Re: APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)

Re: APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)

Re: APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)

Re: APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)

Re: APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)

Re: APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)

Re: APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)

Re: APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)

Re: APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)

Re: APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)

Re: APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)

Re: APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)

Re: APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)

Re: APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)

Re: APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)

Re: APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)

Re: APOD: Messier 6 and Comet Siding Spring (2014 Oct 17)