caldwell , bad idea ?

[Scott]

great thread guys... wish i could meet sir p.m.

[Black Knight]

From what I've read of SPM, he has had to deal with accusations of "apparent presumptuousness, and apparent self-aggrandisement" over the Caldwell list many times before.

I just don't understand why this guy is so worked up about it. It's a list. Does it change anything? Does it invalidate the Messier list or the NGC catalogues? Does its existence somehow lessen an individuals experience of the objects in this list? No. It's a list. Surely life's too short to start worrying about a list. I mean, seriously? I think my own response could be summed up thus: Get. A. Life.

I think I'm going to make my own list. I'm going to call it the BK list of objects I personally enjoy, and challenge anyone to demonstrate that its mere existence (as a list), categorically diminishes their own observing experience.

/rant

[Ohmless]

I argued for him on cloudynights' forum a few times.

My main point is that there were no errors on his part. He may have submitted the article with incorrect information yes, but it is the job of the editorial staff to find those and correct them for the magazine. If anything the staff at Sky and Telescope should be ashamed of themselves. Also some of the "errors" weren't errors at all like the magnitudes. The article also was inconsistent with using photographic magnitudes that get "refined" with time and visual magnitudes. Another example of poor editing as they didn't see the problem, didn't check accuracy, or didn't tell him to correct the issue.

Now I am about half way through the visible list from my latitude and I think there shouldn't even be a discussion on the merits of observing the targets. A great majority have just as much character if not more than the Messier list.

Strauve, Dreyer, Messier and John Herschel also used objects in other catalogs(or discovered by others) and gave them new designations. Pretty much William Herschel has been the only prominent early astronomer that held the same contention as the person who wrote the flaming article.

Quote:

self-aggrandisement

Hardly words you could use to describe Sir Patrick Moore.

I couldn't agree more. This person clearly has never watched the program or read his books.

Another point I made was asking them how often they feel they need to bash someone who fought in WWII, let alone someone who is elderly. It is just simply tasteless.

[acey]

Struve, Dreyer, Messier and John Herschel also used objects in other catalogs(or discovered by others) and gave them new designations. Pretty much William Herschel has been the only prominent early astronomer that held the same contention as the person who wrote the flaming article.

There's a difference between scientific catalogues and recreational observing lists. Messier catalogued DSOs for a specific scientific purpose (so that they would not be mistaken for comets); William Herschel discovered roughly 2500 new DSOs, giving them "H-numbers", deliberately omitting the M objects since they already had designations. John Herschel discovered many new ones (especially in southern hemisphere): he therefore introduced "h-numbers", including M-objects and H-objects in his catalogue, and ordering them all by Right Ascension, in an attempt to label all known DSOs. Years later, when many more had been discovered by other observers, John Herschel expanded this into the General Catalogue and had to renumber everything (because he maintained the Right Ascension ordering), so gave them "GC-numbers". Yet more discoveries led Dreyer to revise this as the New General Catalogue with NGC numbers. And even this wasn't enough, hence the subsequent Index Catalogues with IC numbers.

All of this was an effort to catalogue every known DSO; the effort continued with subsequent catalogues such as UGC, PGC etc, all of which introduce yet more numbers. Dreyer said in the introduction to the NGC that he sincerely hoped astronomers would NOT adopt "NGC-numbers" in general since there were already M, H, h and GC numbers. But of course it was NGC numbers that caught on.

The Caldwells are a recreational list, not a scientific catalogue. Some people were annoyed by what they saw as a blurring of the distinction. "C-numbers" are as valid and useful as informal nicknames, but the objects already have internationally accepted scientific designations, hence the presence of a Caldwell button on GoTo handsets upset some people.

I don't have GoTo so I don't care.

[661-pete]

great thread guys... wish i could meet sir p.m.

Patrick enjoys and welcomes lots of visitors, but they have to be rationed! He's not in the best of health and can't cope with a huge influx all at once (usually numbers are limited to about 12). Best bet is to contact your local AS. Even if you're not in the same part of the country they may be able to organise something.

Myself - well I had that privilege of meeting him last year, and got a strong impression of his modesty and self-effacement. Nothing like what this blogger represents him as. I would say to the blogger - if you want to have a pop from across the pond at a TV personality/celeb., pick on the likes of Simon Cowell or Jeremy Clarkson! Not Patrick.

The Caldwell Catalogue - well does it matter whether it was meant seriously or not? I, like many others I guess, have a shelf-full of Patrick's books. Most of them do not contain original material, true, but invaluable compilations of information from other sources, presented in a highly readable form. I don't know where I'd be without them...

[Macavity]

Nice one Acey... I was going to refer to your previous post! To be honest, it didn't take me much "scholarly research" (a Google search maybe? LOL) to arrive at the most LIKELY sequence of events re. the "Caldwell Controversy".

But indeed, (not so) beginners, might be forgiven for modest bemusement at the plethora of astronomical "catalogues" (catalogs). The question of "validity" (divorced of emotion, politics etc.) is a good one! Though the distinction is blurred, I will distinguish LISTS from "catalogues", more clearly, from now on.

Astronomy bears the burden of antiquity? The "Zoo" of Elementary Particles is now tamed by the: Particle Data Group. I sense there must be analogous Astronomical bodies? <G> But then, there aren't too many "amateur" particle physicists, to argue with the process? [teasing] At a guess, I sense many an Amateur Astronomers' "Hot 100" (whatever) has a 75% overlap with others. And that is sufficient for yours truly...

Aside: I blame t'INTERNET. But it seems people aren't happy unless "scientists" are brawling in the dust... with philosophers, theologians... or one another! LOL. As the song goes: "It ain't necessarily so"? But then, as I gazed at "Cox 47", last night...

[sologuitarist61]

I wonder what the state of astronomy would be likein Britain if it wasn't for Patrick Moore? Without his monthly input many of us might never have got to know about the world above our heads.

What a cowardly rant against a very pleasant and knowledgeable man - as someone has already said 'sour grapes' maybe?

[Macavity]

Not sure the attacker of a UK "institution" would be described as a coward...

UNWISE, maybe? LOL. That from one who worshiped SPM in kidulthood.

Funny old world, really. Immaculate Celebrity? Well, maybe... But despite an "interesting" world-view, SPM seems never to have deliberately courted media notoriety to SELL *his* books. A lesson for his aspiring successors, maybe?

P.S. In another place, I once teased the FANS of Ben Fogle. I still bear the "scars" of the ensuing

post-pubescent (mostly female) RIOT, years later. And, in truth, I never "Rowed the Atlantic"...

[sologuitarist61]

I used the term cowardly perhaps unwisely, but as there was no direct way for a retort from Sir PM on the subject, that is how it seemed to me, however I stand corrected!