| |
Main
Date: 27 Nov 2006 21:43:30
From: Curtis Croulet
Subject: Little Dipper
|
Does anyone know of a specific reason why Ursa Minor is often called (in the
U.S.) the "Little Dipper?" I'm asking if there's a documented historical
reason. Yes, I know it looks vaguely like a "dipper," and it's close to the
"Big Dipper," and maybe someone once thought that if you have a big one you
also need a little one. All of these are conjectural reasons. But I'm
wondering if there's an interesting first usage or documentable reason. If
someone can offer a reference or link, that would be much appreciated.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W
|
|
| |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 06:04:04
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Little Dipper
|
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:43:30 -0800, "Curtis Croulet"
<calypte@_NO_SPAM_adelphia.net > wrote:
>Does anyone know of a specific reason why Ursa Minor is often called (in the
>U.S.) the "Little Dipper?" I'm asking if there's a documented historical
>reason. Yes, I know it looks vaguely like a "dipper," and it's close to the
>"Big Dipper," and maybe someone once thought that if you have a big one you
>also need a little one. All of these are conjectural reasons. But I'm
>wondering if there's an interesting first usage or documentable reason. If
>someone can offer a reference or link, that would be much appreciated.
I think your "conjectural reasons" are very strong. Add to them that
the two constellations are historically related: Ursa Major and Ursa
Minor. Combine that with the fact that the two are structurally similar
and it isn't too surprising that the asterisms would be related, too.
I don't know how long the term has been used, but I have an astronomy
text from 1879 (Recreations in Astronomy, Henry White Warren) that uses
"Little Dipper" for Ursa Minor (and "Great Dipper" for Ursa Major).
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 14:30:07
From: Richard Tobin
Subject: Re: Little Dipper
|
In article <fsjnm2lnb33llb8kj1r6ptvi9mbdq749nu@4ax.com >,
Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote:
>I don't know how long the term has been used, but I have an astronomy
>text from 1879 (Recreations in Astronomy, Henry White Warren) that uses
>"Little Dipper" for Ursa Minor (and "Great Dipper" for Ursa Major).
The first reference in the OED is 1842:
1842 Lowell (Mass.) Offering II. 234, 236 (Th.), You all know the
Dipper? Yes, it is in the Great Bear. The Little Dipper is in Ursa
Minor.
-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 08:42:35
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Little Dipper
|
In article <fsjnm2lnb33llb8kj1r6ptvi9mbdq749nu@4ax.com >,
Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:43:30 -0800, "Curtis Croulet"
> <calypte@_NO_SPAM_adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know of a specific reason why Ursa Minor is often called (in the
>> U.S.) the "Little Dipper?" I'm asking if there's a documented historical
>> reason. Yes, I know it looks vaguely like a "dipper," and it's close to the
>> "Big Dipper," and maybe someone once thought that if you have a big one you
>> also need a little one. All of these are conjectural reasons. But I'm
>> wondering if there's an interesting first usage or documentable reason. If
>> someone can offer a reference or link, that would be much appreciated.
>
> I think your "conjectural reasons" are very strong. Add to them that
> the two constellations are historically related: Ursa Major and Ursa
> Minor. Combine that with the fact that the two are structurally similar
> and it isn't too surprising that the asterisms would be related, too.
>
> I don't know how long the term has been used, but I have an astronomy
> text from 1879 (Recreations in Astronomy, Henry White Warren) that uses
> "Little Dipper" for Ursa Minor (and "Great Dipper" for Ursa Major).
That varies between cultures though. In the UK, the Big Dipper is
usually called the Plough, but the British seems to rarely use the
term "Little Plough" for Ursa Minor.
In my own country, Sweden, we call the Big Dipper "Karlavagnen"
("Charle's Wagon"), and we also call the Little Dipper "Lilla
Karlavagnen" - although the public frequently makes the mistake of
beliving "Lilla Karlavagnen" is the Pleiades. That mistake is
understandable though, since from light polluted cities, the
Pleiadies, which is a dipper-like in appearance, is more easily
visible than the Little Dipper.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 08:44:27
From: Curtis Croulet
Subject: Re: Little Dipper
|
> although the public frequently makes the mistake of
> beliving "Lilla Karlavagnen" is the Pleiades. That mistake is
> understandable though, since from light polluted cities, the
> Pleiadies, which is a dipper-like in appearance, is more easily
> visible than the Little Dipper.
This is exactly the matter that interests me, and, hence, the question. At
public star parties at this time of year I always get "the question," and
I'm explaining, several times per evening, that, no, that is not the "Little
Dipper." Rather the "Little Dipper" is over there, but you can't see most
of it, and it doesn't look much like a "dipper" anyway. So, if it doesn't
look like much of a "dipper," how did it get to be considered one?
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 16:51:48
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Little Dipper
|
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:44:27 -0800, "Curtis Croulet"
<calypte@_NO_SPAM_adelphia.net > wrote:
>This is exactly the matter that interests me, and, hence, the question. At
>public star parties at this time of year I always get "the question," and
>I'm explaining, several times per evening, that, no, that is not the "Little
>Dipper." Rather the "Little Dipper" is over there, but you can't see most
>of it, and it doesn't look much like a "dipper" anyway. So, if it doesn't
>look like much of a "dipper," how did it get to be considered one?
By itself it doesn't look much like a dipper (although it looks more
like a dipper than a bear <g >), but the actual shape has a strong
spatial correlation with the Big Dipper for most people. That is, the
way our brains work, we have the impression that the two asterisms are
very similar, even though they aren't when the situation is examined
critically. It makes sense that some cultures would relate them as the
"Big ..." and "Little ...".
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 21:14:31
From: Curtis Croulet
Subject: Re: Little Dipper
|
I apparently have a lower opinion of Ursa Minor's "dipper" attributes than
some other people :-) Actually, the main problem with UMi isn't its
resemblance (or lack thereof) to a dipper. It's that all but three of its
stars are mostly invisible in light-polluted suburban skies -- at this time
of year at our latitude, anyway. The Ursa Minor "Little Dipper" is a mostly
imaginary figure compared to the easily visible Pleiades.
Thanks to all of you for your replies.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 07:42:43
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Little Dipper
|
In article <Bo-dnbmIyq-mivDYnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@adelphia.com >,
Curtis Croulet <calypte@_NO_SPAM_adelphia.net > wrote:
> I apparently have a lower opinion of Ursa Minor's "dipper" attributes than
> some other people :-) Actually, the main problem with UMi isn't its
> resemblance (or lack thereof) to a dipper. It's that all but three of its
> stars are mostly invisible in light-polluted suburban skies -- at this time
> of year at our latitude, anyway.
That's a recent problem. Only 50 years ago, and even more 100 years ago,
the light pollution was way much lower, and thus the Little Dipper was
much more easily visible, than it is today. And there still are places
where the Little Dipper can be easily seen.
> The Ursa Minor "Little Dipper" is a mostly imaginary figure compared to
> the easily visible Pleiades.
....well, it's no more imaginary than that the stars forming the Little
Dipper actually are there, even if the light pollution often is too severe
to offer a naked-eye view of them. But OK, a lot of people cannot view
the Little Dipper directly. But that's the way life is nowadays in many
other respects: we rarely see events and other stuff directly; most often
we see it on TV or read about it in the paper or on the Net. And you
wouldn't call some event you saw on the news "imaginary" just because
you weren't there to see it directly yourself, would you?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 13:09:49
From: Curtis Croulet
Subject: Re: Little Dipper
|
I think you misread me. Ursa Minor aka "Little Dipper" is "imaginary" to
most of the public, whose attention is drawn to it (usually for the first
time in their lives) at a public or school star party. They can't see it.
It's not "imaginary" to you or I or the other correspondents in this forum,
who have the opportunity to see it under a dark sky, and who are long past
the Ursa Minor vs Pleiades confusion.
Now -- as to how the sky was 50 years ago: I discovered astronomy in early
December 1954 while living in Los Angeles. My first year in astronomy was
spent learning the constellations, since I had no telescope or binoculars.
During those first months of discovering the sky, I dreamed of the day when
I would be able to see the fainter stars of the Little Dipper, which I
thought were essentially invisible. I thought our sky in L.A. was "dark."
It wasn't, but it was typical of what star party guests see today. To be
sure, one didn't have to go nearly as far then as now to get to a genuinely
dark sky.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 14:35:46
From: JOHN PAZMINO
Subject: Re: Little Dipper
|
PS > Subject: Re: Little Dipper
PS > From: pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)
PS > Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:42:35 GMT
PS >
PS > That varies between cultures though. In the UK, the Big Dipper is
PS > usually called the Plough, but the British seems to rarely use the
PS > term "Little Plough" for Ursa Minor.
PS >
PS > In my own country, Sweden, we call the Big Dipper "Karlavagnen"
PS > ("Charle's Wagon"), and we also call the Little Dipper "Lilla
PS > Karlavagnen" - although the public frequently makes the mistake of
PS > beliving "Lilla Karlavagnen" is the Pleiades. That mistake is
PS > understandable though, since from light polluted cities, the
PS > Pleiadies, which is a dipper-like in appearance, is more easily
PS > visible than the Little Dipper.
In the US the Pleiades is sometimes called the Little Dipper by
layfolk. Most nver sw the real LD, only the BD from lack of sky
awareness. They hear sabout the LD and when the see the Pleiades, they
just assume that's it.
The term 'dipper' is little used in the US for the utensil.
"scoop', 'ladle', 'big spoon' and others suplant it.
---
þ RoseReader 2.52á P005004
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
| |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 02:43:45
From: KLM
Subject: Re: Little Dipper
|
Mitnick wrote:
> "Curtis Croulet" <calypte@_NO_SPAM_adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:q9WdnUlxArcYUfbYnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> > Does anyone know of a specific reason why Ursa Minor is often called (in
> the
> > U.S.) the "Little Dipper?" I'm asking if there's a documented historical
> > reason. Yes, I know it looks vaguely like a "dipper," and it's close to
> the
> > "Big Dipper," and maybe someone once thought that if you have a big one
> you
> > also need a little one. All of these are conjectural reasons. But I'm
> > wondering if there's an interesting first usage or documentable reason.
> If
> > someone can offer a reference or link, that would be much appreciated.
> > --
> > Curtis Croulet
> > Temecula, California
> > 33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W
>
> From what I can tell the first mention of the little dipper, on usenet was
> on Mon, Jun 6 1983 11:49 am.
Uhhh, the world existed before usenet ? Some say.
|
| |
Date: 27 Nov 2006 22:14:05
From: Mitnick
Subject: Re: Little Dipper
|
"Curtis Croulet" <calypte@_NO_SPAM_adelphia.net > wrote in message
news:q9WdnUlxArcYUfbYnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> Does anyone know of a specific reason why Ursa Minor is often called (in
the
> U.S.) the "Little Dipper?" I'm asking if there's a documented historical
> reason. Yes, I know it looks vaguely like a "dipper," and it's close to
the
> "Big Dipper," and maybe someone once thought that if you have a big one
you
> also need a little one. All of these are conjectural reasons. But I'm
> wondering if there's an interesting first usage or documentable reason.
If
> someone can offer a reference or link, that would be much appreciated.
> --
> Curtis Croulet
> Temecula, California
> 33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W
From what I can tell the first mention of the little dipper, on usenet was
on Mon, Jun 6 1983 11:49 am.
|
|
