Celestia Forums

Oy, why oh why do they codename it Buffy. Contemporary mythology? I'll go on the assumption that someone is adding this object on to one of the ssc files. Is there a kbo.ssc started?

http://www.cfeps.astrosci.ca/4b7/index.html

It's already in the data files on the CVS tree, and it's in the latest 1.4.0 prereleases.

I should've known... Is the CVS tree the best place to look for that kind of thing? Is there just a list somewhere to see what objects are added and when to prevent posts like this. I have no intention of compiling for Windows (tried it once with not so good effects).

buggs_moran wrote:Oy, why oh why do they codename it Buffy. Contemporary mythology? I'll go on the assumption that someone is adding this object on to one of the ssc files. Is there a kbo.ssc started?

http://www.cfeps.astrosci.ca/4b7/index.html

I think it's a public relations stunt, and one that seems to be working, at least as far as gathering interest. Continually talking about something named 2004 XR190 isn't likely to get anyone's attention much, even when headlines make some mention of its unusual nature. And remember when Quaoar was officially announced? A remarkable find, and all the public did was bitch about it's unpronouncable name (something I found odd, never having had a problem pronouncing simple phoenetics).

Talking about Buffy and Xena and Santa seems to go down the press' gullet a lot easier, and the common person identifies with it fairly well. The only drawback I see is that when the object *is* finally officially named, people will still want to call it Buffy.

...John...

Dollan wrote:Talking about Buffy and Xena and Santa seems to go down the press' gullet a lot easier, and the common person identifies with it fairly well. The only drawback I see is that when the object *is* finally officially named, people will still want to call it Buffy.

...John...

This issue amuses me.

First off, the tradition of naming "heavenly bodies" after mythological beings dates back to the time when the experts literally believed that the red dot up there was the actual god Aries, or at least his house (wagon, maybe?). Right up there on the sky.

So Ok, we westerners continued naming "planets" after these (now dead) gods and goddesses long after we realized that these dots of light were actually real places with weather and dirt.

And I can forgive the members of the IAU (International Astronomical Union) for stodgily defending their antiquated system of nomenclature, because it is antiquated and arbitrary, therefore any defense of it should probably be done stodgily.

But the IAU's rules are so very arbitrary, that I just can't bring myself to care if they get usurped by some puckish astronomers playing cutesy with the press. Eventually, if they deem the newly discovered body big enough, or "planet-like" enough, or whatever their chosen criteria, the IAU can dig up some ancient Teutonic god-cousin known to about 0.001 percent of the population and then declare that all the school kiddies had better learn the real sooperdooper official serious name ("No! It's Ullr, not Buffy, you insolent fool!") and forget that joke name given to the place by the man or woman who discovered it years ago.

Secondly, I think its an overwhelmingly good thing to teach kids that planets (and sub-planets) used to be considered rare, but that now they are known to be so plentiful that they outnumber all the gods, goddesses, demons and faeries of all the stories and all the cultures in all of history--that in fact, there are probably a great many more planets than stars up there on the sky, whether you can see them or not.

-

Captain Nephilim wrote:And I can forgive the members of the IAU (International Astronomical Union) for stodgily defending their antiquated system of nomenclature, because it is antiquated and arbitrary, therefore any defense of it should probably be done stodgily

But the IAU's rules are so very arbitrary, that I just can't bring myself to care if they get usurped by some puckish astronomers playing cutesy with the press. Eventually, if they deem the newly discovered body big enough, or "planet-like" enough, or whatever their chosen criteria, the IAU can dig up some ancient Teutonic god-cousin known to about 0.001 percent of the population and then declare that all the school kiddies had better learn the real sooperdooper official serious name ("No! It's Ullr, not Buffy, you insolent fool!") and forget that joke name given to the place by the man or woman who discovered it years ago.

It's not "arbitrary" at all.

Personally, I could care less that people have such short attention spans nowadays that everything has to be named after something trite and chintzy that came up in the past five minutes. The "proper" planets are named after the Roman Gods, so any future "proper" planets (whenever they actually settle on a definition of what that is) should also be, pretty much if only for consistency's sake. Personally I think it sounds damn stupid to go "...Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Buffy, Xena, Rachel, Oprah, Walmart..."

Asteroids can have daft names, but planets shouldn't.

And also, frankly the names of planets are themselves education of a sorts. Maybe you don't give a toss about some 'ancient teutonic god cousin that nobody's ever heard of' but naming things after mythological figures gets those into the public imagination - and I'm pretty sure my own interest in mythology stems from wondering where planet names came from. Mythology makes for good stories and good storytelling.

Also, a godly name implies majesty - and planets are majestic. Naming them after some fictional character from a TV show would implicitly trivialise them somewhat. Jupiter was the king of the gods, it's appropriate that it should be the name of the largest planet - or would you rather it should be called "Albert" because of the Fat Albert character being big?

Malenfant wrote: .... Personally I think it sounds damn stupid to go "...Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Buffy, Xena, Rachel, Oprah, Walmart..."

Ha! That's hilarious.

... frankly the names of planets are themselves education of a sorts. Maybe you don't give a toss about some 'ancient teutonic god cousin that nobody's ever heard of' but naming things after mythological figures gets those into the public imagination ...

Good point.

Also, a godly name implies majesty - and planets are majestic. Naming them after some fictional character from a TV show would implicitly trivialise them somewhat ...

You're right about that. And if we were talking about a new Solar Jovian, I wouldn't be so flippant. But we're talking about Yet Another Kuiper Belt Object, and there are probably dozens of that size, hundreds 1/3 the size.

Times are a changing, and we actually DO have new non-Solar Jovians coming to light around the galaxy at an accelerating rate, and a distinct lack of majestic names to go around. To be honest, I'm not persuaded that people should be taught planets are majestic or share any similarities to gods, ancient or living. I think they should be taught they are planets. They are places. They are common. And their diversity is exceeded only by their number.

-

Captain Nephilim wrote:You're right about that. And if we were talking about a new Solar Jovian, I wouldn't be so flippant. But we're talking about Yet Another Kuiper Belt Object, and there are probably dozens of that size, hundreds 1/3 the size.

I think they should just use the normal numbering system to be honest, and treat them like any other asteroid. There's as many (if not more) KBOs out there as main belt asteroids anyway.

Times are a changing, and we actually DO have new non-Solar Jovians coming to light around the galaxy at an accelerating rate, and a distinct lack of majestic names to go around.

Largely because most of them are being taken up by naming features on planets and moons instead . I don't entirely approve of that myself really, largely because it becomes so much easier to run out of names within a given scheme, which is why for example the galilean satellites have such a hodgepodge of naming schemes for each of their surfaces.

To be honest, I'm not persuaded that people should be taught planets are majestic or share any similarities to gods, ancient or living.

That's daft though. Mars was named Mars because it reminded ancients of blood, hence the god of war link. Venus was named Venus because it was a beautiful object in the sky, and so reminded them of the goddess of love. Jupiter was named Jupiter because... hm. Why the hell WAS Jupiter named after the king of the gods? The ancients couldn't have known it was the biggest planet without a telescope, it was just a dot of light in the sky to them...

Those historical links are real, even if what they link to aren't relevant anymore. So why brush them aside? You wouldn't do that for anything else would you?

I think they should be taught they are planets. They are places.

That's exactly how they're taught, so I'm not sure what your problem is here.

Dollan wrote:Talking about Buffy and Xena and Santa seems to go down the press' gullet a lot easier, and the common person identifies with it fairly well. The only drawback I see is that when the object *is* finally officially named, people will still want to call it Buffy.

...John...

I just see it as another way to "dumb" things down, especially in this country (America). People keep saying they don't want to be treated like idiots, but they sure have a funny way of showing it...

Malenfant wrote:

To be honest, I'm not persuaded that people should be taught planets are majestic or share any similarities to gods, ancient or living.

That's daft though. Mars was named Mars because it reminded ancients of blood, hence the god of war link. Venus was named Venus because it was a beautiful object in the sky, and so reminded them of the goddess of love. Jupiter ...

Those historical links are real, even if what they link to aren't relevant anymore. So why brush them aside? You wouldn't do that for anything else would you?

Of course I'm not suggesting throwing away the current names of any planets. I object to any sense of "rightness" or "properness" regarding naming planets at all. Actually, the very fact that the currently named planets have real historical links to ancient mythology is a good reason to question any name that pretends such a connection for KBO 2004 XR190.

I think they should be taught they are planets. They are places.

That's exactly how they're taught, so I'm not sure what your problem is here.

No problem at all. I was saying that in reaction to a previous post that defended naming planets after dead gods because planets are "majestic," like gods.

I just think there's a bit of misguided puritanism among some people when it comes to this issue. Yes, the "dumbing down" of America (and widespread, exported American culture) is real and often troubling. But I don't think that Xena, Buffy or Oprah are really that bad.

Think about it. Who's insulted here? It's certainly not the planets themselves. Not the discoverers. Not school kids. Maybe its all those gods who are itching for their day in the limelight again. I say, if any deity wants anything named after them, they should start performing some miracles or something. At least get a hit syndicated TV show, for Christ's sake.

-

Captain Nephilim wrote:Of course I'm not suggesting throwing away the current names of any planets. I object to any sense of "rightness" or "properness" regarding naming planets at all. Actually, the very fact that the currently named planets have real "historical links" to ancient mythology is a reason to question any name that pretends such a connection for KBO 2004 XR190.

Like I said, the naming schemes are there for consistency, not so that 'flightier' members of the ever-more-ignorant public can learn names that are meaningful only to their short attention spans.

You might as well argue that monuments shouldn't be named after historical figures, or that laws shouldn't be named after historical scientists who discovered them.

Asteroids can be named after anything their discoverers like, that's where all the crazy names go. If you want to name an irrelevant 1km flying mountain 'Crazyfrog' then go right ahead, so long as you're the discoverer. But planets are and should be different.

No problem at all. I was saying that in reaction to a previous post that defended naming planets after dead gods because planets are "majestic," like gods.

Well fact is, if you don't like it then lump it. Nobody is going to change the names of planets just because you don't like it. Or do you just have some issues against naming things after 'dead gods' in the first place because you have some kind of religious hangup about it?

I just think there's a bit of misguided puritanism among some people when it comes to this issue. Yes, the "dumbing down" of America (and widespread, exported American culture) is real and often troubling. But I don't think that Xena, Buffy or Oprah are really that bad.

I think they are. And none of the astronomers who discover these objects are for a second saying that these more flippant names should be permanent.

Think about it. Who's insulted here? It's certainly not the planets themselves. Not the discoverers. Not school kids. Maybe its all those gods who are itching for their day in the limelight again. I say, if any deity wants anything named after them, they should start performing some miracles or something. At least get a hit syndicated TV show, for Christ's sake.

It's not about anyone being "insulted". It's about consistency. I'm sorry you seem to have an irrational bee in your bonnet about naming planets and other objects after mythological figures, but as I said - if you don't like that then tough luck, because that's how they're being named and that is how they will continue to be named.

But anything being officially named after something as trite as a TV personality will be done so over my dead body, and I'm sure over a lot of astronomers' dead bodies too. We've remembered the old gods for millennia, not just because of the planets are named after them but also because the myths are just darn good stories. Nobody's going to give a damn who Xena or Buffy or Oprah are in 2000 years though.

By Jove, Malenfant, I didn't mean to sound angry or step on anyone's toes, if I did. And I do acknowledge your plea for consistency (I assume you have a preferred, consistent definition of "planet.") I'm not suggesting changing anything, really. I think its funny when armchair (or even real) astronomers get their panties in a wad over Xena or Buffy, as though . . . as though I don't know what.

Fortunately, there's nothing at risk here, and before long we'll have too many unnamed planets to worry about.

-

You know, when I read Mostly Harmless, the idea of a planet having radically different official and popular names (Persephone/Rupert) seemed a bit silly. But I guess this policy of releasing unofficial "nicknames" to the public may very well do just that.

Anyone have any idea when Buffy will get a REAL name yet?

Just curious... Thanks, Brain-Dead