Poll Question

Hello, Pierre,
I'll respond both to your comments and the quoted comments from Tony, in
this posting.

Pierre Dessemontet wrote:

I know exactly what you mean; I kind of like stars names too.
But they get very problematic once you leave the stars which
are *always* known by their common names -- which happens to
be almost precisely all stars brighter than mag 1.5 plus a few
stars with special properties like Polaris.

Okay.

Too many alternate
spellings, often too many alternate names. I think of Beta
Tauri as El Nath, but the S&T style sheet says Alnath.

Okay, but the alternative spellings don't bother me much. What does bother
me though are very recent names, lacking cultural tradition, and bogus
names, like Bogardus, or made up names, like Venator, or the stars named
after the three astronauts.

And
what is the name of the star at the end of the Big Dipper's
handle?

I beg to differ: the very common names are every bit as mingled and
various as the less known ones, even more so. Can find at least 6
different spellings for Betelgeuse (Betelgeuze, Betelguex, Beth... you
get me). And you got like four different proper names for Alpha
Centauri (Rijl Kentaurus, Rigil Kent, Toliman...). I think I have 40
different names for Sirius. If exactitude is the point, proper names
should be dropped altogether, every one of them. They are very
problematic right to the top. Personally I would hate to see that,
though.

Underlying all of this is the question of what one is using
those names for. Are they mnemonics for oneself or are they
intended to communicate with other people? If the former, it
is of course entirely up to you; you can even make up your
own names. For the latter, Bayer and Flamsteed are safest for
stars fainter than mag 1.5.

They are for poetry, and sentiment, and a rich cultural tradition,
patrimony, as you put it.



Well, I can only recommend Morton Wagman's "Lost Stars" (published in
2003) about the subject of Bayer and Flamsteed's exactitude and
fiability... it makes for an instructive reading about the number of
stars we still mislabel and misplace with one or another of those
"foolproof" systems. The most precise systems, the ones that are
really foolproof are the HD, or SAO, or Hipparcos numbers. And those
are pretty dry to read and/or remember.

Yep



Which brings me to the purpose point. To me, as I've stated before, I
am not in favor of a replacement of the Bayer/Flamsteed systems by
proper names (or by SAO numbers for that matter). But I think that all
astronomy books would be richer if, along with the common ways to
designate the stars (Bayer, coordinates), an effort would be made as
to signal their proper names when they get one (as they very often
do), as well as their origin. Why? Because I find those names
beautiful (but that's me) and appealing, and I think they have
patrimonial value.

I very much agree with you. Well expressed.



Which brings me to something else. I use those names very often when I
star-party for "laypeople". I've found out that it is easier to get
somebody interested in a star or pattern if you can explain that it
was such and such to beduin arabs, and such and such in China. To
non-astronomers it relates human experience with the stars, culture
with the sky. Once they're interested, of course, it makes it very
easy to expose them to the "scientific" majesty of all this.

I agree strongly. Lesath and Shaula stir the spirit and sense of wonder
more than nu Scorpii and lambda Scorpii, in me and in people I am
introducing to astronomy.



If we are to save our night skies we need a sizeable number of people
to back us. I think we need to get them interested by any means
possible, and one of those means, and not the smallest one, is
culture, history and patrimony.

I agree. That is my experience too.

Come to think of it, it is indeed
easier to build on (and destroy) an ecologically unique wetland than
to merely touch a stone in Gettysburg.

Cheers and clear skies to all,

Pierre

Ciao,

Bill Meyers

Hello, Pierre,
I'll respond both to your comments and the quoted comments from Tony, in
this posting.

Pierre Dessemontet wrote:

I know exactly what you mean; I kind of like stars names too.
But they get very problematic once you leave the stars which
are *always* known by their common names -- which happens to
be almost precisely all stars brighter than mag 1.5 plus a few
stars with special properties like Polaris.

Okay.

Too many alternate
spellings, often too many alternate names. I think of Beta
Tauri as El Nath, but the S&T style sheet says Alnath.

Okay, but the alternative spellings don't bother me much. What does bother
me though are very recent names, lacking cultural tradition, and bogus
names, like Bogardus, or made up names, like Venator, or the stars named
after the three astronauts.

And
what is the name of the star at the end of the Big Dipper's
handle?

I beg to differ: the very common names are every bit as mingled and
various as the less known ones, even more so. Can find at least 6
different spellings for Betelgeuse (Betelgeuze, Betelguex, Beth... you
get me). And you got like four different proper names for Alpha
Centauri (Rijl Kentaurus, Rigil Kent, Toliman...). I think I have 40
different names for Sirius. If exactitude is the point, proper names
should be dropped altogether, every one of them. They are very
problematic right to the top. Personally I would hate to see that,
though.

Underlying all of this is the question of what one is using
those names for. Are they mnemonics for oneself or are they
intended to communicate with other people? If the former, it
is of course entirely up to you; you can even make up your
own names. For the latter, Bayer and Flamsteed are safest for
stars fainter than mag 1.5.

They are for poetry, and sentiment, and a rich cultural tradition,
patrimony, as you put it.



Well, I can only recommend Morton Wagman's "Lost Stars" (published in
2003) about the subject of Bayer and Flamsteed's exactitude and
fiability... it makes for an instructive reading about the number of
stars we still mislabel and misplace with one or another of those
"foolproof" systems. The most precise systems, the ones that are
really foolproof are the HD, or SAO, or Hipparcos numbers. And those
are pretty dry to read and/or remember.

Yep



Which brings me to the purpose point. To me, as I've stated before, I
am not in favor of a replacement of the Bayer/Flamsteed systems by
proper names (or by SAO numbers for that matter). But I think that all
astronomy books would be richer if, along with the common ways to
designate the stars (Bayer, coordinates), an effort would be made as
to signal their proper names when they get one (as they very often
do), as well as their origin. Why? Because I find those names
beautiful (but that's me) and appealing, and I think they have
patrimonial value.

I very much agree with you. Well expressed.



Which brings me to something else. I use those names very often when I
star-party for "laypeople". I've found out that it is easier to get
somebody interested in a star or pattern if you can explain that it
was such and such to beduin arabs, and such and such in China. To
non-astronomers it relates human experience with the stars, culture
with the sky. Once they're interested, of course, it makes it very
easy to expose them to the "scientific" majesty of all this.

I agree strongly. Lesath and Shaula stir the spirit and sense of wonder
more than nu Scorpii and lambda Scorpii, in me and in people I am
introducing to astronomy.



If we are to save our night skies we need a sizeable number of people
to back us. I think we need to get them interested by any means
possible, and one of those means, and not the smallest one, is
culture, history and patrimony.

I agree. That is my experience too.

Come to think of it, it is indeed
easier to build on (and destroy) an ecologically unique wetland than
to merely touch a stone in Gettysburg.

Cheers and clear skies to all,

Pierre

Ciao,

Bill Meyers

Hello, Pierre,
I'll respond both to your comments and the quoted comments from Tony, in
this posting.

Pierre Dessemontet wrote:

I know exactly what you mean; I kind of like stars names too.
But they get very problematic once you leave the stars which
are *always* known by their common names -- which happens to
be almost precisely all stars brighter than mag 1.5 plus a few
stars with special properties like Polaris.

Okay.

Too many alternate
spellings, often too many alternate names. I think of Beta
Tauri as El Nath, but the S&T style sheet says Alnath.

Okay, but the alternative spellings don't bother me much. What does bother
me though are very recent names, lacking cultural tradition, and bogus
names, like Bogardus, or made up names, like Venator, or the stars named
after the three astronauts.

And
what is the name of the star at the end of the Big Dipper's
handle?

I beg to differ: the very common names are every bit as mingled and
various as the less known ones, even more so. Can find at least 6
different spellings for Betelgeuse (Betelgeuze, Betelguex, Beth... you
get me). And you got like four different proper names for Alpha
Centauri (Rijl Kentaurus, Rigil Kent, Toliman...). I think I have 40
different names for Sirius. If exactitude is the point, proper names
should be dropped altogether, every one of them. They are very
problematic right to the top. Personally I would hate to see that,
though.

Underlying all of this is the question of what one is using
those names for. Are they mnemonics for oneself or are they
intended to communicate with other people? If the former, it
is of course entirely up to you; you can even make up your
own names. For the latter, Bayer and Flamsteed are safest for
stars fainter than mag 1.5.

They are for poetry, and sentiment, and a rich cultural tradition,
patrimony, as you put it.



Well, I can only recommend Morton Wagman's "Lost Stars" (published in
2003) about the subject of Bayer and Flamsteed's exactitude and
fiability... it makes for an instructive reading about the number of
stars we still mislabel and misplace with one or another of those
"foolproof" systems. The most precise systems, the ones that are
really foolproof are the HD, or SAO, or Hipparcos numbers. And those
are pretty dry to read and/or remember.

Yep



Which brings me to the purpose point. To me, as I've stated before, I
am not in favor of a replacement of the Bayer/Flamsteed systems by
proper names (or by SAO numbers for that matter). But I think that all
astronomy books would be richer if, along with the common ways to
designate the stars (Bayer, coordinates), an effort would be made as
to signal their proper names when they get one (as they very often
do), as well as their origin. Why? Because I find those names
beautiful (but that's me) and appealing, and I think they have
patrimonial value.

I very much agree with you. Well expressed.



Which brings me to something else. I use those names very often when I
star-party for "laypeople". I've found out that it is easier to get
somebody interested in a star or pattern if you can explain that it
was such and such to beduin arabs, and such and such in China. To
non-astronomers it relates human experience with the stars, culture
with the sky. Once they're interested, of course, it makes it very
easy to expose them to the "scientific" majesty of all this.

I agree strongly. Lesath and Shaula stir the spirit and sense of wonder
more than nu Scorpii and lambda Scorpii, in me and in people I am
introducing to astronomy.



If we are to save our night skies we need a sizeable number of people
to back us. I think we need to get them interested by any means
possible, and one of those means, and not the smallest one, is
culture, history and patrimony.

I agree. That is my experience too.

Come to think of it, it is indeed
easier to build on (and destroy) an ecologically unique wetland than
to merely touch a stone in Gettysburg.

Cheers and clear skies to all,

Pierre

Ciao,

Bill Meyers

Hello, Tony,
I agree in general with your post. Well reasoned.
The bogus names bother me. I prefer names that represent long cultural tradition and
patrimony, as I say in a related posting to Pierre, which also responds to some of your earlier
comments..
I am planning on learning the most common 30 or 50 as I do my current 15 x 70 binocular
Messier survey.
FWIW my favorite source of names is Tirion SkyAtlas 2000.0 Second Edition. What do you
think of this source? Too many names to suit you, perhaps, or is it in the right range? I've
never counted how many names SA 2000 includes but I guess I'll find out during the survey.
Ciao,
Bill

Tony Flanders wrote:

Bill Meyers wrote in message ...

I enjoy using the thirty or fifty most common names. It gives each
star a kind of personality, for example, Betelgeuse, Bellatrix,
Saiph and Rigel, and Alnilam, Alnitak, and Mintaka.

I know exactly what you mean; I kind of like stars names too.
But they get very problematic once you leave the stars which
are *always* known by their common names -- which happens to
be almost precisely all stars brighter than mag 1.5 plus a few
stars with special properties like Polaris. Too many alternate
spellings, often too many alternate names. I think of Beta
Tauri as El Nath, but the S&T style sheet says Alnath. And
what is the name of the star at the end of the Big Dipper's
handle?

On the other hand, for stars that *are* always known by common
name, the Bayer designation seems pretentious and confusing.
As often as not, they are the only bright star in the
constellation, in which case they are almost certainly Alpha.
But I only remember that Rigel and Betelgeuse are Beta and
Alpha respectively because they are exceptions to the brightest-
is-Alpha rule. (Castor and Pollux likewise.)

Underlying all of this is the question of what one is using
those names for. Are they mnemonics for oneself or are they
intended to communicate with other people? If the former, it
is of course entirely up to you; you can even make up your
own names. For the latter, Bayer and Flamsteed are safest for
stars fainter than mag 1.5.

- Tony Flanders

Hello, Tony,
I agree in general with your post. Well reasoned.
The bogus names bother me. I prefer names that represent long cultural tradition and
patrimony, as I say in a related posting to Pierre, which also responds to some of your earlier
comments..
I am planning on learning the most common 30 or 50 as I do my current 15 x 70 binocular
Messier survey.
FWIW my favorite source of names is Tirion SkyAtlas 2000.0 Second Edition. What do you
think of this source? Too many names to suit you, perhaps, or is it in the right range? I've
never counted how many names SA 2000 includes but I guess I'll find out during the survey.
Ciao,
Bill

Tony Flanders wrote:

Bill Meyers wrote in message ...

I enjoy using the thirty or fifty most common names. It gives each
star a kind of personality, for example, Betelgeuse, Bellatrix,
Saiph and Rigel, and Alnilam, Alnitak, and Mintaka.

I know exactly what you mean; I kind of like stars names too.
But they get very problematic once you leave the stars which
are *always* known by their common names -- which happens to
be almost precisely all stars brighter than mag 1.5 plus a few
stars with special properties like Polaris. Too many alternate
spellings, often too many alternate names. I think of Beta
Tauri as El Nath, but the S&T style sheet says Alnath. And
what is the name of the star at the end of the Big Dipper's
handle?

On the other hand, for stars that *are* always known by common
name, the Bayer designation seems pretentious and confusing.
As often as not, they are the only bright star in the
constellation, in which case they are almost certainly Alpha.
But I only remember that Rigel and Betelgeuse are Beta and
Alpha respectively because they are exceptions to the brightest-
is-Alpha rule. (Castor and Pollux likewise.)

Underlying all of this is the question of what one is using
those names for. Are they mnemonics for oneself or are they
intended to communicate with other people? If the former, it
is of course entirely up to you; you can even make up your
own names. For the latter, Bayer and Flamsteed are safest for
stars fainter than mag 1.5.

- Tony Flanders

Hello, Tony,
I agree in general with your post. Well reasoned.
The bogus names bother me. I prefer names that represent long cultural tradition and
patrimony, as I say in a related posting to Pierre, which also responds to some of your earlier
comments..
I am planning on learning the most common 30 or 50 as I do my current 15 x 70 binocular
Messier survey.
FWIW my favorite source of names is Tirion SkyAtlas 2000.0 Second Edition. What do you
think of this source? Too many names to suit you, perhaps, or is it in the right range? I've
never counted how many names SA 2000 includes but I guess I'll find out during the survey.
Ciao,
Bill

Tony Flanders wrote:

Bill Meyers wrote in message ...

I enjoy using the thirty or fifty most common names. It gives each
star a kind of personality, for example, Betelgeuse, Bellatrix,
Saiph and Rigel, and Alnilam, Alnitak, and Mintaka.

I know exactly what you mean; I kind of like stars names too.
But they get very problematic once you leave the stars which
are *always* known by their common names -- which happens to
be almost precisely all stars brighter than mag 1.5 plus a few
stars with special properties like Polaris. Too many alternate
spellings, often too many alternate names. I think of Beta
Tauri as El Nath, but the S&T style sheet says Alnath. And
what is the name of the star at the end of the Big Dipper's
handle?

On the other hand, for stars that *are* always known by common
name, the Bayer designation seems pretentious and confusing.
As often as not, they are the only bright star in the
constellation, in which case they are almost certainly Alpha.
But I only remember that Rigel and Betelgeuse are Beta and
Alpha respectively because they are exceptions to the brightest-
is-Alpha rule. (Castor and Pollux likewise.)

Underlying all of this is the question of what one is using
those names for. Are they mnemonics for oneself or are they
intended to communicate with other people? If the former, it
is of course entirely up to you; you can even make up your
own names. For the latter, Bayer and Flamsteed are safest for
stars fainter than mag 1.5.

- Tony Flanders

Hello, Tony,
I agree in general with your post. Well reasoned.
The bogus names bother me. I prefer names that represent long cultural tradition and
patrimony, as I say in a related posting to Pierre, which also responds to some of your earlier
comments..
I am planning on learning the most common 30 or 50 as I do my current 15 x 70 binocular
Messier survey.
FWIW my favorite source of names is Tirion SkyAtlas 2000.0 Second Edition. What do you
think of this source? Too many names to suit you, perhaps, or is it in the right range? I've
never counted how many names SA 2000 includes but I guess I'll find out during the survey.
Ciao,
Bill

Tony Flanders wrote:

Bill Meyers wrote in message ...

I enjoy using the thirty or fifty most common names. It gives each
star a kind of personality, for example, Betelgeuse, Bellatrix,
Saiph and Rigel, and Alnilam, Alnitak, and Mintaka.

I know exactly what you mean; I kind of like stars names too.
But they get very problematic once you leave the stars which
are *always* known by their common names -- which happens to
be almost precisely all stars brighter than mag 1.5 plus a few
stars with special properties like Polaris. Too many alternate
spellings, often too many alternate names. I think of Beta
Tauri as El Nath, but the S&T style sheet says Alnath. And
what is the name of the star at the end of the Big Dipper's
handle?

On the other hand, for stars that *are* always known by common
name, the Bayer designation seems pretentious and confusing.
As often as not, they are the only bright star in the
constellation, in which case they are almost certainly Alpha.
But I only remember that Rigel and Betelgeuse are Beta and
Alpha respectively because they are exceptions to the brightest-
is-Alpha rule. (Castor and Pollux likewise.)

Underlying all of this is the question of what one is using
those names for. Are they mnemonics for oneself or are they
intended to communicate with other people? If the former, it
is of course entirely up to you; you can even make up your
own names. For the latter, Bayer and Flamsteed are safest for
stars fainter than mag 1.5.

- Tony Flanders