|
Star classification
|
|
| steeljaw354 | Date: Monday, 13.06.2016, 19:51 | Message # 16 |
 World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 862
Status: Offline
| As said we would do a slow change to allow people to adapt.
|
| |
| |
| DeathStar | Date: Monday, 13.06.2016, 20:04 | Message # 17 |
|
Pioneer
Group: Users
Croatia
Messages: 515
Status: Offline
| Quote steeljaw354 (  ) As said we would do a slow change to allow people to adapt.
Even if people adapt, old literature won't. You have a century and a half worth of astronomic articles and books using the "old" system. Anybody that needs to extract info from this literature would likely run into the "old" stellar classification system and would need to learn how it works - which in the end makes a new system pointless to begin with.
Also, a lot of people would likely hold onto the old system for a long time. So you'd have a messy mix of literature using both the old and the new system. What's worse, a lot of the letters of the alphabet would be used in both systems - escalating the confusion even more, since you might not be sure what system the author is using. So, this article says that RandomStarX is a class B star - does that mean that it's a blue main sequence star, or a brown dwarf?
|
| |
| |
| steeljaw354 | Date: Monday, 13.06.2016, 20:10 | Message # 18 |
|
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 862
Status: Offline
| You could also just edit all the old books and whatnot to use the new system over time.
|
| |
| |
| DeathStar | Date: Monday, 13.06.2016, 20:26 | Message # 19 |
|
Pioneer
Group: Users
Croatia
Messages: 515
Status: Offline
| Quote steeljaw354 ( ) You could also just edit all the old books and whatnot to use the new system over time.
Just edit all the old books? Do you really think it's that simple? There's no vault where every single astronomical book published since the 19th century is located and where they can just go and change over to the new system. This literature is scattered everywhere, and a lot of it likely isn't even on the internet.
I can say this almost for sure because, as a palaeontology enthusiast, I have the misfortune of constantly seeing this. Just one of many examples - even though the ICS produced a "logical" stratigraphic system for the Ordovician some time ago, which had little in common with most previously used systems(e.g. the North American and Welsh, which to my knowledge had only minor flaws), few use it, sticking to the old systems. And nobody is updating the old literature, that I can guarantee. So now you have an even bigger jumble of systems.
|
| |
| |
| steeljaw354 | Date: Monday, 13.06.2016, 20:42 | Message # 20 |
|
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 862
Status: Offline
| Well the bigger the jumble the more options for the individual to choose. But the more confusing.
|
| |
| |
| midtskogen | Date: Tuesday, 14.06.2016, 07:14 | Message # 21 |
 Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1674
Status: Offline
| Quote steeljaw354 ( ) Because most of us are in a Latin system.
Right. And most of us are in an "OBAFGKM system".
Quote steeljaw354 As said we would do a slow change to allow people to adapt.
So, changing the letter for one class at a time every, say, 5 years, will reduce the confusion?
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
Edited by midtskogen - Tuesday, 14.06.2016, 07:16 |
| |
| |
| Watsisname | Date: Tuesday, 14.06.2016, 09:35 | Message # 22 |
 Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2613
Status: Offline
| Quote midtskogen ( ) The letters themselves are illogical, so why don't we replace Latin alphabet with something more logical?
|
| |
| |
| midtskogen | Date: Tuesday, 14.06.2016, 11:40 | Message # 23 |
|
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1674
Status: Offline
| ᚺᚹᛁ ᚾᛖ ᚢᚾᛁᚲᛟᛞᛖ?
I would rather suggest combining the phonetic structure of tengwar and the syllabic structure of hangul.
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
|
| |
| |
ENG
New site
Pirate 
Croatia 
Norway 
United States