PDA

View Full Version : Bad Astronomy... ?



Xelebes
2009-Dec-27, 02:51 AM
Ok, I found this forum before I found the main site. Is there a main site? Or did my google searches point me in the right direction at amazon.com? So many questions but the forum seems quite self-explanatory.


...

*mumble mumble*

Yeah yeah, first post. Introduction.

I'm a math and geography geek first and foremost who does writing as a hobby which I'm beginning to think I should it take much more serious than I currently am taking it. I dabble in sci-fi. I can imagine much of the questions will be concerning "astrography" - cartography of the stars and the sort. Hope there are others who are as interested as I am in this field. Which isn't much but may be a bit much for others.

So uh.... hi! *waves*

peter eldergill
2009-Dec-27, 03:17 AM
This is Phil and Fraser's discussion forum on astronomy and related stuff. Glad you found it! You're on the right forum for sure. Tons of people here have incredible info on all thing astronomical.

Phil used to have a dedicated Bad Astronomy website but merged with Fraser's Universe Today site a few years back.

You can check out either sites at the banner at the top.

Welcome aboard!

Pete

Veeger
2009-Dec-27, 03:26 AM
Hi xelebes.
Is your interest astronomy in general or stellar cartography in particular?

John Jaksich
2009-Dec-27, 03:33 AM
Hello Xelebes,

Welcome to BAUT---hope you enjoy your stay here

Xelebes
2009-Dec-27, 03:37 AM
Hi xelebes.
Is your interest astronomy in general or stellar cartography in particular?


Well, let's just say that I can kind of follow discussions on astronomy in general but not enough to ask questions.

Qith regards to stellar cartography, I'm interested in star names and how/why they are named so. Basically analogous to my interest in geography where I like to know place names and how/why it got called that. I'm especially interested in the stars that have no names save for the codes given for them.

Kaptain K
2009-Dec-27, 02:01 PM
What you call "codes" are catalogue numbers.
3C 273 (a quasar or quasistellar object) is the 273rd object in the third Cambridge catalogue of bright radio sources.
18th century French comet hunter Charles Messier kept finding objets that looked like comets, but weren't, so he made a list of "don't bother with" objects. Many are easily visible to the unaided eye (M45 in Taurus, M31 in Andromeda). Others require binoculars or a small telescscope.

hhEb09'1
2009-Dec-27, 04:13 PM
This is Phil and Fraser's discussion forum on astronomy and related stuff. Glad you found it! You're on the right forum for sure. Tons of people here have incredible info on all thing astronomical.

Phil used to have a dedicated Bad Astronomy website but merged with Fraser's Universe Today site a few years back.

You can check out either sites at the banner at the top.

Welcome aboard!Good post Pete (and welcome Xelebes!), but I have a small nit.

Phil Plait's original website wasn't merged with Universe Today, it is still preserved in amber at http://www.badastronomy.com/index.html

The leftmost link in the banner, http://www.badastronomy.com/ , takes you to Phil's Discover blog now. The blog, and his public appearances, are why he is too busy to update the old website, I believe.

Jim
2009-Dec-27, 06:36 PM
Well, the old site doesn't need much updating. The Apollo Hoax is still untrue and for the same reasons, the Face on Mars still isn't, you still can balance an egg on end on days other than the spring equinox...

Phil's blog addresses new topics as they come up.

danscope
2009-Dec-27, 08:11 PM
Hi Xelebes, Welcome to this forum. May your writing skillsbe influenced with the excellent people you may find here. They value intellect, and abhor bad manners. This is a good thing. May you find good company within.
Best regards,
Dan

KaiYeves
2009-Dec-27, 08:46 PM
Hi, Xelebes, and welcome to BAUT!

Xelebes
2009-Dec-28, 03:08 AM
What you call "codes" are catalogue numbers.
3C 273 (a quasar or quasistellar object) is the 273rd object in the third Cambridge catalogue of bright radio sources.
18th century French comet hunter Charles Messier kept finding objets that looked like comets, but weren't, so he made a list of "don't bother with" objects. Many are easily visible to the unaided eye (M45 in Taurus, M31 in Andromeda). Others require binoculars or a small telescscope.

I was scratching for that word but I still consider them codes, much like Dewey's code and ISBN Catalog. :)

I also consider many solely cataloged objects as nameable - especially the stars nearby (within 25 or 50 ly, say.) I'm just someone not satisfied naming things with just numbers, I guess.

Veeger
2009-Dec-28, 04:22 AM
I'm just someone not satisfied naming things with just numbers, I guess.

For a small fee you can name a star. I will send you an official looking star map pinpointing the location of "your" star and a certificate authenticating your choice of name.

:liar:

01101001
2009-Dec-28, 04:24 AM
Number of words in English: about 1 million.

Number of stars in the Milky Way: 200-400 billion.

ToSeek
2009-Dec-28, 04:28 AM
Number of words in English: about 1 million.

Number of stars in the Milky Way: 200-400 billion.

Well, then, you just use two English words for each star. That gives you a trillion possibilities, all you need with room to spare.

Xelebes
2009-Dec-28, 04:31 AM
Number of words in English: about 1 million.

Number of stars in the Milky Way: 200-400 billion.

Number of different syllables: over 1000.

String of syllables memorisable: 6, maybe 7. Maybe as much as 10.

conservative estimate of syllables allowable: 1018

out there estimate: 1030

hhEb09'1
2009-Dec-28, 05:18 AM
Number of different syllables: over 1000.

String of syllables memorisable: 6, maybe 7. Maybe as much as 10.

conservative estimate of syllables allowable: 1018Words?


out there estimate: 1030Yahbut, almost all of them aren't visible to us, even with telescopes.

Xelebes
2009-Dec-28, 05:22 AM
Words?

Er yeah... :o


Yahbut, almost all of them aren't visible to us, even with telescopes.
The number is for the number of words available using a max of 10 syllables.

Swift
2009-Dec-28, 01:35 PM
Number of words in English: about 1 million.

Number of stars in the Milky Way: 200-400 billion.
Just sitting back and looking at the night sky: priceless.

Gillianren
2009-Dec-28, 05:44 PM
You know, I don't know about astronomical bodies, much, but I do know about words--and, in fact, a reasonable amount about cataloging. Even when things have names, it's often easier to arrange them by numbers anyway. Things get names as we need them to.

Xelebes
2009-Dec-28, 09:19 PM
Things get names as we need them to.

As is the case with geography. However it doesn't stop me being fascinated by how the stars are named.

mike alexander
2009-Dec-31, 10:35 PM
Try here (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Topics/astronomy/_Texts/secondary/ALLSTA/home.html), an online version of Richard Allen's classic book (The book is over a century old, and is out of copyright).

danscope
2009-Dec-31, 11:24 PM
Ah... there are few things as good or well enjoyed as a good book. And it is some solace when the clouds have stolen the night's viewing.

Xelebes
2010-Jan-01, 05:16 AM
Try here (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Topics/astronomy/_Texts/secondary/ALLSTA/home.html), an online version of Richard Allen's classic book (The book is over a century old, and is out of copyright).

I have come across that book before, it's a good start.