Talk:International Astronomical Union
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Protection?
Considering the constant vandalism, perhaps this page should be protected? --Aelffin 17:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
NO! We need to be able to see how the sum of all human knowledge deals with the Pluto issue.
- Only if that "knowledge" is suitable as encyclopedia content. ;-) -- Northgrove 08:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
How can you reclassify a planet after so many people in the world learned all the planets since grade school. Just because someone wakes up one morning and decides they are bored witht the criteria for stars and planets doesn't mean they can just change it and it will be accepted. If you are that bored with your job, then it is time to find another job.
- Please see 2006 redefinition of planet. Tzepish 22:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- It's got nothing to do with boredom. It has to do with the fact that scientists need to have terms that reflect natural categories. "Planets" is a term for the natural category of big objects that control their local area. Pluto is not such a body. See orbital resonance for details. It's unfortunate that they let the improper term stick around for so long. --Aelffin
- Personally, I side with astronomer Michael Brown. The term planet is like the term continent; it doesn't need a scientific definition. They are both man-made categories for natural phenomena. Calling Pluto a planet was not ''improper'' untill five days ago. I feel that they should have left the definition open, and confirmed Pluto and 2003 UB313 as planets.Amphion 01:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Calling Pluto a planet was always awkward if not improper. When I was in middle school there were already questions about its status as a planet. I remember articles in Discover magazine that speculated maybe Pluto was an escaped satellite of Neptune or a captured Oort object. It was clear from the start that it was very different from everything else we called a "planet". With the discovery of many similar objects from 1992 on, it has become crystal clear to the astronomical community that calling Pluto a planet was an inadvertently arbitrary choice. Though there was never an official definition, there were plenty of ad hoc definitions floating around. The IAU's final decision reflects most of these scientific uses of the term. Maybe it would have been better to leave it undefined. But after the IAU wrote original draft proposal, it was obvious that astronomers had to put their foot down. I'm glad they did. People are learning a valuable lesson about change. --Aelffin 13:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- "Change is inevitable, except from vending machines". Perhaps you're right, but something tells me that this is not going to end the debate. And what's the "valuable lesson"?Amphion 18:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- In reply to Aelffin citing a Discover Magazine article, I seem to recall an article in Discover Magazine about how the universe is a four dimensional hologram of a five dimensional object projected from a distance of infinity. But then, Discover is not exactly a peer reviewed publication. Its pages have the same worth to the scientific community as anything printed on a roll of novelty toilet paper.24.254.163.150 (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I personally think that Amphion is right. This is definately not going to end the debate about Pluto. I personally also think that it's not too good of an idea to have one group deciding the definitions of space and all that's in it. One day, they may just, out of the blue, decide to make Earth a "dwarf planet"! I think anyone who is can vote and properly understands the concept should vote on it, then have the IAU voice their opinions. That way, they can't just get a majority vote in the Union on whether to keep the earth a planet or not. Do you get what I'm saying? Guest,Seacrane. 01:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Calling Pluto a planet was always awkward if not improper. When I was in middle school there were already questions about its status as a planet. I remember articles in Discover magazine that speculated maybe Pluto was an escaped satellite of Neptune or a captured Oort object. It was clear from the start that it was very different from everything else we called a "planet". With the discovery of many similar objects from 1992 on, it has become crystal clear to the astronomical community that calling Pluto a planet was an inadvertently arbitrary choice. Though there was never an official definition, there were plenty of ad hoc definitions floating around. The IAU's final decision reflects most of these scientific uses of the term. Maybe it would have been better to leave it undefined. But after the IAU wrote original draft proposal, it was obvious that astronomers had to put their foot down. I'm glad they did. People are learning a valuable lesson about change. --Aelffin 13:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Personally, I side with astronomer Michael Brown. The term planet is like the term continent; it doesn't need a scientific definition. They are both man-made categories for natural phenomena. Calling Pluto a planet was not ''improper'' untill five days ago. I feel that they should have left the definition open, and confirmed Pluto and 2003 UB313 as planets.Amphion 01:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's got nothing to do with boredom. It has to do with the fact that scientists need to have terms that reflect natural categories. "Planets" is a term for the natural category of big objects that control their local area. Pluto is not such a body. See orbital resonance for details. It's unfortunate that they let the improper term stick around for so long. --Aelffin
It is important to note that, strictly speaking, the IAU has no authority over anything. They are a nongovernmental organization. There is no law in any country that forces you,me, or any scientist to accept anything that the union says. Decisions made by this union have absolutely no legal force whatsoever. No one gave them the authority to decide what a planet is, they simply proclaim that they have such a power, and people seem to believe them. When someone says that "Pluto is no longer a planet," what they are really saying is that the IAU no longer considers it a planet. It is important to make this distinction.--Nacnud298 03:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
I just added {{fact}} to the page. I just now found a page that mentions this on the IAU page. But I don't think that self claiming greatness is a great source. Their list of national members is kinda what I'm looking for, but this doesn't actually show that these countries recognize the IAU in the area of astronomenclature. McKay 05:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestion
The number of members should be given a date, e.g. "as of 2005" - it's going to change over time, isn't it, and giving an (approximate seems reasonable enough: Don't need to bog it with details) date will suffice. Adam Cuerden talk 13:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Given the attention being paid to the IAU in light of the planetary definition issue, would the creation of a "Planet Definition Committee" ([1]) subheading be warranted? 128.125.53.44 09:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I came to this page expecting to see more information about the work that the IAU publishes, especially with respect to the establishment of conventional celestial reference systems and reference frames, such as the Fifth Fundamental Catalogue (FK5) published in 1998, or the International Celestial Reference System (ICRS) which officially replaced the FK5 as of January 1, 1998. A great source for more information on this topic can be found in section 2.1, "Reference Coordinate Systems" of the following book:
Seeber, G. (2003). Satellite Geodesy (2nd ed.). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
Much of the information in the above source can be viewed on-line by search Google Books for "satellite geodesy reference coordinate systems". ChrisTracy (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Observatory catalog
Some of the major observatory articles here on the wiki have an IAU code. Does anyone know how to find this list? I'd like to add them to some of the article's I've wirten, but if there is such a list, I can't find it on the IAU web site, nor Google. Maury 12:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Iau wb.jpg
Image:Iau wb.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 06:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
