HP Wilkins at his telescope.

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 10:46:22 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 11:22:16 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:

Or maybe they're being
inspired by this Neil deGrasse Tyson fellow.

Other than his being a well known astronomer, is there anything
unusual about him that we should note?

In a perfect world, no. But in the world as we have it, the fact
that he is "diverse" in one particular way will help to
demonstrate to black youngsters that science is a field open to
them.

John Savard

Diverse means "differing from one another". A more diverse crowd (group of people) is a group of individuals (for example: amateur astronomers of the early 21st century) who *differ from one another* to a greater extent than the individuals composing a less diverse group of people (for example: amateur astronomers of the early 20th century).

I do *not* "have to explain" anyone's flawed understanding of my words, nor thier flawed logic derived from any such misunderstandings.

That being said, all are free to disagree with any of my opinions. Similarly, all are welcomed to correct any of my errors.

Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.

On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 11:14:46 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 6:49:41 PM UTC-5, Sketcher wrote:
On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 7:00:49 AM UTC-7, wrote:
The key point, even if the OP didn't explicitly state it, is that many amateur astronomers today like shiny objects rather than equipment that stresses function over appearance.

I like functional shiny objects that look cool;-) Amateur astronomy today
attracts a different and more diverse 'crowd' than it did in the not so
distant past.

You'll have to explain how being a "diverse" person precluded one's participation in amateur astronomy in "the not so distant past."

Library books, magazine articles, TV shows, movies all piqued my interest in astronomy. At some point it became inevitable that I would obtain a department store telescope which boosted my interest to the next level.

AFAICT, "diverse people" were not prohibited from any of the above nor from buying basic equipment for astronomy.

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 2:30:15 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 10:46:22 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 11:22:16 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:

Or maybe they're being
inspired by this Neil deGrasse Tyson fellow.

Other than his being a well known astronomer, is there anything
unusual about him that we should note?

In a perfect world, no. But in the world as we have it, the fact
that he is "diverse" in one particular way

What particular way?

will help to
demonstrate to black youngsters that science is a field open to
them.

Who gave them the idea that it wasn't open to them? And since amateur astronomy doesn't require one to pass any sort of test to join, why would they think that wasn't open to them either?

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 3:36:47 PM UTC-5, Sketcher wrote:
Diverse means "differing from one another". A more diverse crowd (group of people) is a group of individuals (for example: amateur astronomers of the early 21st century) who *differ from one another* to a greater extent than the individuals composing a less diverse group of people (for example: amateur astronomers of the early 20th century).


A quick perusal of photos of various recent star parties and other amateur astronomy activities does not show a particularly "diverse" crowd. The pictures might easily be mistaken for those taken decades ago were it not for changes in fashion and kinds of equipment.

I do *not* "have to explain" anyone's flawed understanding of my words, nor
thier flawed logic derived from any such misunderstandings.

There certainly isn't any "flawed understanding" or "flawed logic" on MY part!

What you are being called upon to explain is why a hobby that has no actual barriers to entry has a seeming lack of "diverse" people.


That being said, all are free to disagree with any of my opinions. similarly, all are welcomed to correct any of my errors.

Such correction of your error(s), of course, is exactly what I am doing, with or without your cooperation.

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 10:22:16 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 11:14:46 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 6:49:41 PM UTC-5, Sketcher wrote:

I like functional shiny objects that look cool;-) Amateur astronomy today
attracts a different and more diverse 'crowd' than it did in the not so
distant past.

You'll have to explain how being a "diverse" person precluded one's
participation in amateur astronomy in "the not so distant past."

Parsing failure.

Amateur astronomy can be *attractive* to a more diverse crowd than formerly
without, say, amateur astronomy clubs being racist or some such thing.

For example, maybe telescopes aren't as expensive as they used to be. Or maybe
there has been progress in the educational services received by minority
members, so more of them are interested in science. Or maybe they're being
inspired by this Neil deGrasse Tyson fellow.

John Savard

My first Celestron8 SCT cost me $850 in 1971. It had a spur gear drive with about 150 arc seconds of random periodic error. Short of buying a machine shop and making my own worm gears I purchased a Shaefer mount for $1100 in order to do any kind of decent astrophotography. In today's dollars that would amount to over $11,000 for scope and mount. But today you can buy an 8" SCT with a decent worm drive for less than $850. So times are sweet for astronomy.

On Friday, 1 January 2016 13:15:24 UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 3:36:47 PM UTC-5, Sketcher wrote:
Diverse means "differing from one another". A more diverse crowd (group of people) is a group of individuals (for example: amateur astronomers of the early 21st century) who *differ from one another* to a greater extent than the individuals composing a less diverse group of people (for example: amateur astronomers of the early 20th century).


A quick perusal of photos of various recent star parties and other amateur astronomy activities does not show a particularly "diverse" crowd. The pictures might easily be mistaken for those taken decades ago were it not for changes in fashion and kinds of equipment.

Could it be that star party attendees are filtered from average amateur astronomers by enjoying the social side of amateur astronomy? So, by definition, star parties attract more sociable creatures. Could they be filtered by having the means and free time to travel long distances to these events and/or compete in telescope envy contests?

Are all star party attendees equally photographed? Or only those who are well known, are recognized telescope manufacturers, or standing near photogenic instruments or prize winners? Most meetings between humans tend to exploit competitiveness in individuals. Equipment based hobbies always have a competitive element which are openly displayed and can then enjoy wider adoption.

I do not suggest that any of these are true, in all cases, but there is a reasonably compelling argument for these assumptions.

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 4:40:05 AM UTC-5, Chris.B wrote:
On Friday, 1 January 2016 13:15:24 UTC+1, wsne... wrote:
On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 3:36:47 PM UTC-5, Sketcher wrote:
Diverse means "differing from one another". A more diverse crowd (group of people) is a group of individuals (for example: amateur astronomers of the early 21st century) who *differ from one another* to a greater extent than the individuals composing a less diverse group of people (for example: amateur astronomers of the early 20th century).


A quick perusal of photos of various recent star parties and other amateur astronomy activities does not show a particularly "diverse" crowd. The pictures might easily be mistaken for those taken decades ago were it not for changes in fashion and kinds of equipment.

Could it be that star party attendees are filtered from average amateur
astronomers by enjoying the social side of amateur astronomy? So, by
definition, star parties attract more sociable creatures. Could they be
filtered by having the means and free time to travel long distances to these
events and/or compete in telescope envy contests?

I see diverse people driving perfectly good and expensive vehicles. One would expect to see a few of them at star parties.


Are all star party attendees equally photographed? Or only those who are well
known, are recognized telescope manufacturers, or standing near photogenic
instruments or prize winners? Most meetings between humans tend to exploit
competitiveness in individuals. Equipment based hobbies always have a
competitive element which are openly displayed and can then enjoy wider adoption.

I looked at about a hundred or so photos. Only one person in any of them was obviously diverse. The equipment shown was not particularly remarkable.


I do not suggest that any of these are true, in all cases, but there is a
reasonably compelling argument for these assumptions.

No, there isn't.

On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 3:59:52 PM UTC-5, Uncarollo2 wrote:

My first Celestron8 SCT cost me $850 in 1971. It had a spur gear drive with
about 150 arc seconds of random periodic error. Short of buying a machine shop
and making my own worm gears I purchased a Shaefer mount for $1100 in order to
do any kind of decent astrophotography. In today's dollars that would amount
to over $11,000 for scope and mount. But today you can buy an 8" SCT with a
decent worm drive for less than $850. So times are sweet for astronomy.

Middle class incomes have been flat/declining under the 0bama administration, so your point is moot. Furthermore, those $850 scopes have to compete with equally "affordable" video games, bikes, phones, basketball shoes, granite countertops, chrome fridges, crew cab pickups, etc. IOW, there isn't much money left over for astronomy, as we can see he

http://www.telescope.com/catalog/top...PriceAscending

On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 15:22:11 UTC+1, wrote:

I see diverse people driving perfectly good and expensive vehicles. One would expect to see a few of them at star parties.

I looked at about a hundred or so photos. Only one person in any of them was obviously diverse. The equipment shown was not particularly remarkable..

No, there isn't.

I am flattered that you would spend any time doing research into my [apparently flimsy] suggestions. But then, I could make a compelling argument that you would argue with any passing stray dog or cat. Have you noticed that strays avoid you? Or do you simply put it down to [your usual] paranoia? ;-)

On Wednesday, 6 January 2016 15:27:13 UTC+1, wrote:

Your screeching rants are certainly reminiscent of stray animals, chrisbcritter.

"Screeching" must surely be a common auditory experience for one who disagrees with literally everything and everybody else on the planet? Your extremism makes you an excellent foot soldier for any Chump and his performing TV Chimps. Meanwhile, outside the billionaire's gilded bubble, the real world struggles to survive amid the detritus of corrupt, economic and political colonialism and deliberate mismanagement for corrupt party dogmatism.

All the indicators point to imminent global distress in response to all the building stresses. If we avoid global war or revolution in the next year, or perhaps two, it will take infinitely more than a coiffured Chump, or puppet Chimp, to fix the world's desperate woes. When the precipice beckons the willing lemmings will always follow obediently. Chump or Chimp? Such a difficult choice... for the rest of the world.