Telescope for deepsky!

On 5/7/2015 10:12 PM, palsing wrote:


When an object looks better to a traditionalist if he looks away from
it, why would he bother to look at it in the first place? Think about
it, visual astronomy is supposed to be about seeing things not about
almost seeing things.

Discuss to disgust. What better way to participate in astronomy. The
traditionalists do it best.

See what those deep sky objects really look like with your own eyes,
not through the imaginations of traditionalists that have have spent a
few hundred years refining the art of describing minimal visual detail
with maximum literary detail.

The telescope is secondary in choosing a system to see the deep sky.
It's what you put into the viewers end of the telescope that counts.

This is the type of equipment one uses to see deep sky.

http://www.mallincam.net/

The alternative is an eyepiece and a very vivid imagination.

LdB

As usual, you fail to recognize that YOUR favorite facet of the hobby is only one of many facets. My strictly visual facet is just as valid as yours. Different strokes for different folks, etc. I have zero interest in yours and you have zero interest in mine, and that's just fine... happens all the time.

The problem with you specifically is that you seem to be unable to tolerate any of the other amateur astronomy facets but your own, and constantly speak disparagingly about virtually all of the others.

Amateur astronomy has plenty of room for all forms of participation, from people who invest tens of thousands of dollars in it, all the way down to people who simply experience the hobby from their armchairs on the internet. Who are you to tell them that they are doing it 'wrong'?

Your perspective is your reality, I understand that, but then, this is true of everyone else, too.

Lighten up, you don't have the hobby cornered, there is plenty of room for everyone.

\Paul A


Recognition and tolerance have nothing to do with my attitude. I am
simply expressing a statement of fact Visual astronomy is about
seeing not almost seeing.

I almost saw the sky through eyepieces for over fifty years. For the
past five years or so I have seen more and enjoyed viewing the sky
more using electronic viewing than I did in the previous fifty.

When a newcomer asks a question about viewing I'll tell him what he
will see through an eyepiece and show him where he can see what people
are doing with modern equipment.

As for speaking disparagingly of others I am only pointing out a
difference between some traditionalists way of participating in visual
astronomy and my way.

I spend over 95% on my astronomy time viewing the sky. The rest is
mainly equipment related time with possibly 1% involved with a few
astro related forums.

In my occasional visits to this group I see what has to amount to
hundreds of hours of bickering and narcissistic behavior by some
people who's participation in visual astronomy appears to be nothing
more than an attempt to outsmart each other.

To someone like myself who spends almost all of his astronomy time
viewing, these people appear to only have succeeded in outsmarting
themselves.

This thread is a perfect example. I'm the one who participates in
astronomy by looking at the deep sky and responded to the Original
Poster with a few factual comments. The O.P. wants to see the deep
sky. I showed him where he can do that. The Internet Astronomers
responded by calling me a troll for telling the truth and a spammer
for including a link to some astronomy equipment designed specifically
for viewing the deep sky.

What a group. The Sorry.Astro.Amateur astronomers. They obviously
enjoy viewing themselves more than viewing the sky.


LdB

On Saturday, May 9, 2015 at 11:32:42 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

Now, now, I can think of one very good reason to have a CCD camera to attach to
your telescope - whether cheap or expensive, depending on what you might wish
to photograph.

That allows you to produce images of celestial bodies of which *you* are the
owner of the rights - so you can put them on your website and so on without
problems.

The video images are definitely at the lower end of the quality range, while the cost of the cameras is high. Usually the scopes involved represent a sizable investment.

Unless the video images show something unusual or unpredictable (prediscovery nova, supernova, comet, for example) there isn't any good reason to put them on a Web site, other than perhaps a misplaced sense of vanity.

Aesthetically, the images are not generally very pleasing, with plenty of image artifacts. A cooled CCD camera, can make much prettier and much more "natural" looking images, examples of which can easily be found and viewed on line, ie on a screen.

For that matter, those who learn to sketch what they see in an eyepiece can often create images comparable to what video typically shows.

On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 3:28:04 PM UTC-4, LdB wrote:

Recognition and tolerance have nothing to do with my attitude.

That is quite obvious.

I almost saw the sky through eyepieces for over fifty years..

Then you were probably having visual problems of some kind.

I spend over 95% on my astronomy time viewing the sky.

You spend 95% of your "astronomy time" looking at images on a screen, which are decidedly poorer than what can be easily found on the Web.

The rest is
mainly equipment related time with possibly 1% involved with a few
astro related forums.

IE, trolling and making a pest of yourself.

On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 3:28:04 PM UTC-4, LdB wrote:

When a newcomer asks a question about viewing I'll tell him what he
will see through an eyepiece and show him where he can see what people
are doing with modern equipment.

In which case we can conclude that you are discouraging most of those newcomers from taking up astronomy.

As for speaking disparagingly of others I am only pointing out a
difference between some traditionalists way of participating in visual
astronomy and my way.

Have you ever seen a total solar eclipse in real life, and not on a screen, LsD?

On 5/11/2015 10:18 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, May 9, 2015 at 11:32:42 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

Now, now, I can think of one very good reason to have a CCD camera to attach to
your telescope - whether cheap or expensive, depending on what you might wish
to photograph.

That allows you to produce images of celestial bodies of which *you* are the
owner of the rights - so you can put them on your website and so on without
problems.

The video images are definitely at the lower end of the quality range, while the cost of the cameras is high. Usually the scopes involved represent a sizable investment.

Unless the video images show something unusual or unpredictable (prediscovery nova, supernova, comet, for example) there isn't any good reason to put them on a Web site, other than perhaps a misplaced sense of vanity.

Aesthetically, the images are not generally very pleasing, with plenty of image artifacts. A cooled CCD camera, can make much prettier and much more "natural" looking images, examples of which can easily be found and viewed on line, ie on a screen.

For that matter, those who learn to sketch what they see in an eyepiece can often create images comparable to what video typically shows.



As usual Snellfie puts his perverted little twist on the truth. The
correct wording is "Those who learn to sketch what they see in their
Minds Eye can often create images comparable to what video typically
shows." Why don't you just admit it, the truth is most of those
sketches compare more with the kindergarten Crayola images usually
found on the side of refrigerators.

We finally agree on something. My Mallincam Universe is a cooled CCD
camera that produces prettier and much more "natural" looking images.
Not video, but what is referred to a near live viewing. Very nice,
especially on a UHD resolution monitor.

The sketchers will have to dip their pencils in steroids to create
anything comparable to those images, if and when they ever get to see
them. I guess you're not likely to see a UHD monitor in the library
for a while yet, probably not even in your welfare consulars office
either. They are a bit pricey but on the bright side it's another
reason for you to get a life and a job. Imagine how proud you would be
of yourself if you could actually earn the money to buy a luxury product.

I'll leave it to you to determine the meaning of Near Live Viewing and
the sort of equipment and software modern astronomers use to see the
sky as it really is, not as some unfortunate with a pencil and a vivid
imagination wants to be able to see it.

Eclipses are a sight to behold. I've had the good fortune to see
several. One came to me, I had to go to the rest. Another one of those
annoying side effects of earing a living. You can afford to do those
sorts of things when you work for a living. I rather doubt that is a
problem Snellfie will ever have to deal with.

LdB

On Thursday, 7 May 2015 22:31:14 UTC-4, LdB wrote:
On 5/7/2015 5:42 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 1:27:04 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 21:10:44 UTC+2, Bill wrote:

You guys can get back to that useless ****ing contest. :-(

Intelligent discussion ran dry so long ago I doubt they can still reach the floor!

Except to wrestle like a pair of homeless old drunks still fighting over some long forgotten tiff.

This thread went into the ditch when some guy suggested plunking telescopes down into a hole instead of using a ladder. Then palsing started having a hissy fit, as usual.



That wasn't a hissy fit, he was just acting a little Snellfish.

Could the s.a.a regulars have done a better job of advising a newcomer?

The answer is "Of course not." They have again demonstrated what
traditional astronomy is all about.

Absolutely nothing.

People like seeing things with their eyes, in real-time. But it takes an effort. Observational astronomy for amateurs is still going strong.

On Sunday, May 17, 2015 at 4:40:55 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, 7 May 2015 22:31:14 UTC-4, LdB wrote:
On 5/7/2015 5:42 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 1:27:04 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 21:10:44 UTC+2, Bill wrote:

You guys can get back to that useless ****ing contest. :-(

Intelligent discussion ran dry so long ago I doubt they can still reach the floor!

Except to wrestle like a pair of homeless old drunks still fighting over some long forgotten tiff.

This thread went into the ditch when some guy suggested plunking telescopes down into a hole instead of using a ladder. Then palsing started having a hissy fit, as usual.



That wasn't a hissy fit, he was just acting a little Snellfish.

Could the s.a.a regulars have done a better job of advising a newcomer?

The answer is "Of course not." They have again demonstrated what
traditional astronomy is all about.

Absolutely nothing.

People like seeing things with their eyes, in real-time. But it takes an effort. Observational astronomy for amateurs is still going strong.

I agree completely. I have taken umpteen CCD images in my lifetime, but a pristine night at a very dark site with a 12" or larger scope and a good set of eyepieces is something else altogether - a magical experience for sure. Just cruising down the Milky Way with no star charts or electronic go-to, a person can lose themselves in the vastness of the universe.

If you're lucky enough to be able to observe at high altitude, then even a 90mm aperture will show dozens upon dozens of beautiful objects just about anywhere in the sky, globulars, colorful open clusters, galaxies, faint nebulae are all within reach of that small aperture. There is no facet of amateur astronomy that is un-interesting or uncool. Even unaided eye observing of meteors can consume an entire evening, whether alone or with friends.

uncaobserver

On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 5:48:07 PM UTC+1, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Sunday, May 17, 2015 at 4:40:55 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, 7 May 2015 22:31:14 UTC-4, LdB wrote:
On 5/7/2015 5:42 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 1:27:04 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 21:10:44 UTC+2, Bill wrote:

You guys can get back to that useless ****ing contest. :-(

Intelligent discussion ran dry so long ago I doubt they can still reach the floor!

Except to wrestle like a pair of homeless old drunks still fighting over some long forgotten tiff.

This thread went into the ditch when some guy suggested plunking telescopes down into a hole instead of using a ladder. Then palsing started having a hissy fit, as usual.



That wasn't a hissy fit, he was just acting a little Snellfish.

Could the s.a.a regulars have done a better job of advising a newcomer?

The answer is "Of course not." They have again demonstrated what
traditional astronomy is all about.

Absolutely nothing.

People like seeing things with their eyes, in real-time. But it takes an effort. Observational astronomy for amateurs is still going strong.

I agree completely. I have taken umpteen CCD images in my lifetime, but a pristine night at a very dark site with a 12" or larger scope and a good set of eyepieces is something else altogether - a magical experience for sure. Just cruising down the Milky Way with no star charts or electronic go-to, a person can lose themselves in the vastness of the universe.

If you're lucky enough to be able to observe at high altitude, then even a 90mm aperture will show dozens upon dozens of beautiful objects just about anywhere in the sky, globulars, colorful open clusters, galaxies, faint nebulae are all within reach of that small aperture. There is no facet of amateur astronomy that is un-interesting or uncool. Even unaided eye observing of meteors can consume an entire evening, whether alone or with friends.

uncaobserver

At least the academics merely affirm what I have done so for years -

"We astronomers are supposed to say "we wonder about the stars and we really want to think about it".'Many scientists, I think, secretly are what I call boys with toys. I really like playing around with telescopes. It's just not fashionable to admit it'."

http://www.npr.org/2015/05/16/406995...f-the-universe


An old unproductive person can live out their lives identifying objects without any pretense to practicing astronomy in that it once existed as the most encompassing of all sciences whereas today it is little more than magnification and a celestial sphere.

It costs nothing to bring a person outside and explain to them how to account for the Earth's orbital motion alone by using the ecliptic passage of the stars behind the Sun in sequence -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A

This sets up the grandstand view of Venus as it swings out from behind the Sun to the widest point from our slower moving planet before moving back in -

http://www.masil-astro-imaging.com/S...age%20flat.jpg

You people are a scourge on astronomy, unresponsive to what contemporary imaging can do and especially how to bring people outside and actually teach people these jewels made possible by contemporary imaging. The outer planets are different and require the explanation first given by Copernicus -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

A person can acquire a sense of their position and motion within the solar system but dead eyes are intent in making sure that the wider population doesn't. The partitioning of retrogrades between the inner and outer planets is such a cinch so redeem yourself by explaining it to people you come in contact with.

On Sunday, May 17, 2015 at 1:43:05 PM UTC-4, LdB wrote:

As usual Snellfie puts his perverted little twist on the truth. The
correct wording is "Those who learn to sketch what they see in their
Minds Eye can often create images comparable to what video typically
shows." Why don't you just admit it, the truth is most of those
sketches compare more with the kindergarten Crayola images usually
found on the side of refrigerators.

Your vision problems, lack of hand-eye coordination, lack of patience, etc., do not give you cause to criticize those whose talents exceed yours.

It's a pity that none of your childhood scribblings were considered good enough to rate a spot on your parent(s)' kitchen appliances. Maybe that's why you have become such a cantankerous old coot?

We finally agree on something. My Mallincam Universe is a cooled CCD
camera that produces prettier and much more "natural" looking images.
Not video, but what is referred to a near live viewing. Very nice,
especially on a UHD resolution monitor.

I checked the night skies network... no broadcasts.

The sketchers will have to dip their pencils in steroids to create
anything comparable to those images, if and when they ever get to see
them.

I checked the night skies network... no broadcasts.

I guess you're not likely to see a UHD monitor in the library
for a while yet, probably not even in your welfare consulars office
either. They are a bit pricey but on the bright side it's another
reason for you to get a life and a job. Imagine how proud you would be
of yourself if you could actually earn the money to buy a luxury product.

I checked the night skies network... no broadcasts to be seen regardless of type of monitor.

I'll leave it to you to determine the meaning of Near Live Viewing and
the sort of equipment and software modern astronomers use to see the
sky as it really is, not as some unfortunate with a pencil and a vivid
imagination wants to be able to see it.

Your vision problems, lack of hand-eye coordination, lack of patience, etc., do not give you cause to criticize those whose talents exceed yours.

Eclipses are a sight to behold. I've had the good fortune to see
several. One came to me, I had to go to the rest.

You didn't answer my question, which was:

"Have you ever seen a total solar eclipse in real life, and not on a screen, LsD?"

I am presuming that with your vision problems you had to resort to watching those eclipses on TV. According to you, there would be no reason to look at totality through an eyepiece, as long as there was a video camera/monitor set up nearby.

On Sunday, May 17, 2015 at 5:40:55 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, 7 May 2015 22:31:14 UTC-4, LdB wrote:

Could the s.a.a regulars have done a better job of advising a newcomer?

The answer is "Of course not." They have again demonstrated what
traditional astronomy is all about.

Absolutely nothing.

People like seeing things with their eyes, in real-time. But it takes an effort. Observational astronomy for amateurs is still going strong.

Let's imagine a "public" observatory that prevents access to the dome, and provides only a "live" video feed to a monitor in the front lobby during visitors' nights.

That's LsD's world.