Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dgruss
Why should it be any different for the stars? The formal scientific names or identifications of stars are useful for scientific cataloging and cross comparisons from different data sources. But what difference does that make to the average person not involved in amateur astronomy or astronomical research?
|
By the same token, what makes the name of AGN's daughter any better than Venus? The rest of the world will use Venus but AGN and his family are free to use their name. The argument isn't that we should only use the formal scientific names. It is perfectly alright to have someone assign an informal name to a star for sentimental purposes. The problem is that these companies do not to dissuade, or at worst actively promote, the idea that these names are more than just informal gimics, but are legitimate scientific names.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dgruss
Ambitious people could certainly name a few stars themselves - or even make up their own constellations. But what these star naming companies are doing is offering a service.
|
Let's review the service. For the £100 you may invest, you get a pretty certificate and a star map showing "your" star. The punters think that these stars are being formally named in a way that will be recognised. It will not be recognised by anyone but the company and the punter. Astronomers won't use it. Amateur astronomers won't use it. Once the company expires (as if that's going to happen soon), the star name will no longer exist. The company is not formally naming the star.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dgruss
They're saying they'll create a "registry" and select specific stars for which people can buy the rights to name those stars in that registry.
|
But they don't have the right to formally name those stars. So the company is lying. The punter has the right to informally name those stars, of course, but they didn't need to shell out £100 to these con men for the privilege.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dgruss
If we object strongly to the star registry companies aren't we really saying that we think only astronomers have the "right" to name stars? Who authorized astronomers as the sole proprietors of star naming?
|
The IAU is the non-profit organisation, that is recognised by those who study the skies, either as a profession or just as a hobby, that can assign designations to astronomical objects. Anyone has the right to informally name stars, but it is in a way that no-one else will care.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dgruss
What harm is being done by companies setting up their own registry for naming stars so that the "little person" on the street can participate in naming the stars up there? The purpose in this case is not scientific.
|
Agreed. But anyone can name their own star. These companies are telling people you have to part with a large sum of money to do it, when in fact you do not.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dgruss
I think someone could make this argument. As long as the product is not improperly advertised so that the purchaser gets the impression they are buying a government or IAU sanctioned name, is there really a crime here.
|
Bingo! It is improperly advertised. The star naming done by these companies is nothing more than an informal gimic, but they convey to the punter that the name is officially recognised. This is improper advertising and hence why the ISR was punished for advertising in New York.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dgruss
They aren't suggesting that the people have bought the star itself.
|
They aren't suggesting the punter owns the star, no. But they are suggesting that name is official and legitimate, which it is not.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dgruss
Its a business. If there is a market for the product, then it will sell. The product that they're offering is a chance for a person to purchase a personalized name for a specific star in a specific registry that is published even though not affiliated with any government or the IAU.
|
But, they could just as easily do it themselves. I could name the entire sky. I think I'll do it now.
This is the Glom Catalog:
Sirius = Conrad named for the astronaut Pete Conrad
Canopus = Yaeger named for the test pilot Chuck Yaeger
Alpha Centauri = Hubble named for the astronomer Edwin Hubble
Arcturus = Newton named for the mathematician Sir Isaac Newton
Vega = Plait named for BA of course
Spica = Hawking named for the theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking
Altair = Wilson named for the actor Richard Wilson
I could go on. There it is. Published on the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board. These names now have as much legitimacy as the names of the ISR and I didn't con people out of hundreds of pounds to do it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dgruss
A productive idea might be to actually evaluate the quality of the product offered by these star naming companies.
|
Which is a certificate and a star map? I could get that for a tenner.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dgruss
Ok, I've just played devil's advocate and in this case I think I swayed myself to the position that the star registry's should be left alone as long as they're not guilty of false/misleading product advertising.
|
They are guilty of false advertising. They are conveying that the star names have some kind of official standing, which they don't beyond the company itself. The name is not recognised throughout the world, despite their assurances that the registry is stored in the Library of Congress and other related institutions.
If people go to the company, aware that they are paying out for nothing more than a gimic, then that's fine. But the punters go there, thinking that the star actually is legitimately named, when in fact it is no more legitimate than if the punter had picked a bright star and named it themselves.