Nobody Cares about History

[Innula Zenovka]

Great thread

Bluesky

bsky.app

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Read for free online

New insights into the complex society of iron-age Europe, some 5000 years ago

Chariots on fire, reins of power @ Sidestone Press

Chariots on Fire, Reins of Power presents the first comprehensive overview of 5th century BC elite graves from the Lower Rhine-Meuse region. Characterised by imported grave goods such as bronze vessels, horse tack, weapons and occasionally two-wheeled vehicles, these strikingly rich cremation...

www.sidestone.com

 

[Innula Zenovka]

The Guardian (@theguardian.com)

16th-century graffiti of Tower of London prisoners decoded for first time https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2024/dec/01/16th-century-graffiti-of-tower-of-london-prisoners-decoded-for-first-time?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=bluesky&CMP=bsky_gu

bsky.app

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Still relitigating whether Richard III murdered the princes in the tower

Stephen Bush (@stephenkb.bsky.social)

Ricardians in the mud reading this scoop. [contains quote post or other embedded content]

bsky.app

As conspiracy theories go, I guess it's a relatively harmless one.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

James Ball (@jamesrball.com)

A jaw-dropping historical story here, about the University of Cambridge jailing thousands of women without trial for the crime of walking at night near their students – only repealed in 1894. Slightly bizarrely, the university didn't comment. Odd PR move...

bsky.app

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

Pluto is not a planet.

BUT it is still out there, and you might find it interesting to know that Pluto has just recently completed one full orbit since the American Revolution:

 

[Govi]

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

Actual planetologists say Pluto is a planet. Call the IAU panel that decided it wasn't "astrology".

The researchers say the IAU’s current definition is rooted in folklore, including astrology, and that the organization should rescind it.

Planet Decision That Booted Out Pluto is Rooted in Folklore, Astrology, Study Suggests

With the discovery of even more planets beyond our solar system, there is a growing need to ensure there’s an accurate definition of what makes a planet.

www.ucf.edu

“Astronomers became afraid of astronomically large numbers.” [...] “There are countless stars and there are countless planets—and who cares?"

Yes, Pluto Is A Planet Says NASA Scientist At The Site Of Its Discovery 91 Years Ago This Week

The International Astronomical Union’s demotion of Pluto from planet status using a vote of its members made science seem arbitrary and political, undermining trust in science itself, according to Dr. Alan Stern.

www.forbes.com

the Solar System is littered with asteroids to the extent that no celestial body has “cleared the neighborhood” around its orbit.

#OCCUPYPLUTO

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

The researchers say the IAU’s current definition is rooted in folklore, including astrology, and that the organization should rescind it.

Come on, that's silly, and the case the paper's author makes for that claim at least as reported in that article is also silly. The IAU's definition wasn't an edict handed down from on high by a select council of robed monks, it was voted on by the body during an open meeting after days of rigorous debate in which the new definition won the support of the majority of the voters. None of the proceedings or submitted arguments ever mentioned folklore or astrology, so this guy is basically making a claim about secret hidden motivations, and specifically accusing astronomers of basing their decision on astrology is just an intentionally-insulting dig at people he doesn't know for making a decision he didn't like.

 

[Free]

The planets (from the ancient Greek for 'wanderer') were originally called that to differentiate them from the "fixed" stars in the sky. But since we now know that all celestial bodies move or change their position, shouldn't everything be called a planet? Asking for a pedantic friend who is not into astrology.

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

Come on, that's silly

No.

The IAU's definition wasn't an edict handed down from on high by a select council of robed monks, it was voted on by the body during an open meeting after days of rigorous debate in which the new definition won the support of the majority of the voters.

None of the people who voted on it were actually planetologists so they might as well have been medieval monks for all their expertise on, you know, planets. And the main reason for even having the vote was "think of the children" as if being able to name "the planets" was an important skill. It really was voodoo. There has been a steady stream of articles like this from actual subject matter experts since the IAU meeting.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

Keeping the number of planets low enough for kids to be able to learn about might not be a great reason for a taxonomical decision, but it's not "voodoo" and certainly not "they're secretly astrologers" who did it because having 8 planets was important for magical reasons. There's a whole lot of those same people who seem to have no problem working on finding a ninth planet.

And it's not like Pluto was just erased from being a planet and banished from all memory. It got to be in a new category of objects that are big enough to be round, but not big enough to have captured or accreted everything in their orbit. There's no scientific reason you can't have a category like that, since it's a real, observable distinction that has a provable cause.

 

[Isabeau]

Dakota really wants Pluto to NOT be a planet. : p

 

[Essence Lumin]

Dakota really wants Pluto to NOT be a planet. : p

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Keeping the number of planets low enough for kids to be able to learn about might not be a great reason for a taxonomical decision, but it's not "voodoo" and certainly not "they're secretly astrologers" who did it because having 8 planets was important for magical reasons. There's a whole lot of those same people who seem to have no problem working on finding a ninth planet.

And it's not like Pluto was just erased from being a planet and banished from all memory. It got to be in a new category of objects that are big enough to be round, but not big enough to have captured or accreted everything in their orbit. There's no scientific reason you can't have a category like that, since it's a real, observable distinction that has a provable cause.

 

[Free]

Dakota really wants Pluto to NOT be a planet. : p

I think Pluto kicked sand in his face when he was younger, and still has some anger over it.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

I think Pluto kicked sand in his face when he was younger, and still has some anger over it.

You know how people have these little...habits that get you down?

Like Pluto.

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

Keeping the number of planets low enough for kids to be able to learn about might not be a great reason for a taxonomical decision, but it's not "voodoo" and certainly not "they're secretly astrologers" who did it because having 8 planets was important for magical reasons.

Oh don't be silly. It's totally voodoo, in the same sense that Reagan's economics was voodoo. You're deliberately exaggerating the rhetoric here. It's clear they're being dismissive of the logic.

And finding a "ninth planet" doesn't involve changing this irrelevant but somehow suddenly important pedadogical nonsense. That's also stretching.

The bottom line is there are NO good reasons for having a hissy cow over the number of planets and holding a meeting involving NO planetologists to change the definition of the word because it makes you uncomfortable.

If you take their definition literally, Earth isn't a planet.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

And finding a "ninth planet" doesn't involve changing this irrelevant but somehow suddenly important pedadogical nonsense. That's also stretching.

At the very least it means they don't have a problem with there being nine planets, so that's not the reason the Pluto thing happened.

The bottom line is there are NO good reasons for having a hissy cow over the number of planets and holding a meeting involving NO planetologists to change the definition of the word because it makes you uncomfortable.

If you take their definition literally, Earth isn't a planet.

I don't get where you're getting that "no planetologists" were involved in the procedural vote. I can't find any reference anywhere saying that planetary specialists were excluded, or had boycotted the assembly en masse, or anything like that. It was that year's general assembly of the IAU, open to every single member who wanted to attend, and any member of the IAU who was present was allowed to vote on the resolution whether they were planetary scientists or astrophysicists or cosmologists or whatever, which is the same case for EVERY general assembly resolution. And anyone was able to speak up during the debate phases. Clearly you think a special exception should have been made in this case, that only certain specialists should've been allowed to vote, or at least some kind of effort should've been made to make sure planetary scientists made up a bulk of the voters or so on, but that's not how general assembly votes work and I don't think anyone has ever had that kind of complaint about any other vote they've made.

 

[Free]

At the very least it means they don't have a problem with there being nine planets, so that's not the reason the Pluto thing happened.

The reason the "Pluto thing happened" was due to the discovery of "dwarf" planets (Eris, Ceres, Makemake, for example), and it was feared the existence of more of them, possibly a hundred or more, might make the "planet" shelf somewhat crowded. They felt it was easier to kick Pluto out of a planet classification by defining it that way, than to allow the newly discovered ones in.