Refractor telescope

On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 2:23:32 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 11:11:03 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 2:03:41 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 10:48:26 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Again, most newbies have no experience with which to evaluate your misleading statement.

That's why I gave an accurate answer. To provide them with useful
information.

If you will not admit that your statement is misleading, then one can only assume that you are lying.

It was not remotely misleading. It was clarifying. Of course, your
dogmatism and limited intellectual capacity make that impossible for
you to recognize or acknowledge.

Your statement was clearly in error, a half truth at best, a lie at worst.



No, your opinion is not a fact, peterson. Lunar and planetary observing are not affected much by light pollution and many deep sky objects are easily findable by and visible to a newbie with some amazingly cheap equipment. THAT's a fact!

You clearly don't understand what the word "limited" even means.

Your use of the word is open to interpretation and misleading to the uninitiated.

Nothing I've said contradicts what you say here.

Incorrect.

Stupid.

You even contradicted yourself, peterson, WRT ordinary/cheap webcams.

Perhaps you should organize your thoughts a little better before posting here.

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 05:05:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

It was not remotely misleading. It was clarifying. Of course, your
dogmatism and limited intellectual capacity make that impossible for
you to recognize or acknowledge.

Your statement was clearly in error, a half truth at best, a lie at worst.

Stupid.

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 04:59:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

If you say that an ordinary webcam provides a better view of DSOs than what the eye can see through any given telescope, then you are truly a liar.

Ignorant.

Ordinary webcams do rather poorly on most DSOs, if they record anything at all.

You don't know what you're talking about. Clearly you've never
experimented with webcam imaging. Any webcam capable of providing an
integrated exposure (which is most these days, and they've always been
easily modified) will show much more detail in an image than anything
you can see through the EP when viewing DSOs.

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 2:04:58 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:35:41 -0500, LdB wrote:

There is nothing selfish, misleading or self-serving with my opinion
of traditional visual astronomy. It is simply the truth.

Opinions are not truths. It is a fact that even the simplest imaging
tools will show more than an eyepiece. It is an opinion that imaging
therefore represents a better kind of amateur astronomy than visual
observation.

Indeed. Now, it may be a fact that imaging is "better" for certain definitions of "better". After all, _professional_ astronomers using Earth-based large telescopes in the visible light wavelengths usually image instead of sitting at the eyepiece. So, if one is talking about the really dedicated amateur astronomer who intends to assist the science of astronomy by making valuable observations, imaging may well be used more often.

But it is also a fact that human beings are emotionally attached to the idea of "being there" at an event - why do people pay large amounts of money, say, to attend a concert by Carly Simon or Diana Krall or Barbara Streisand when it's so much cheaper to listen to them sing on the radio or on a CD?

So people who have seen pictures of Saturn in Sky and Telescope may still want
to see it with their very own eyes through a telescope.

It's a fact that some people think this way - and it's also a fact that some of
the people who think this way aren't active amateur astronomers yet.

It's because his posts seem to be denying those facts - not because he doesn't
agree with the opinions of people who prefer visual observing - that his posts
are provoking derisive and dismissive replies.

John Savard

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 8:44:43 AM UTC-6, wrote:

A star chart, bino and small scope is enough to get started.

Ah, so you admit that cost is a limiting factor for young amateur astronomers.

Well, it seemed like you weren't admitting that, given the previous quote,
except that even binoculars cost money.

Aside from the fact that amateur astronomy may not provide instant
gratification like many other hobbies, people with an interest in that hobby
may have different goals. So while one person might be content to learn the
constellations and look at the Moon with binoculars, another might not bother
unless he could get a telescope that would give reasonable views of Mars and
Saturn (say 6 or 8 inches of aperture, maybe 4 in a pinch).

I know that my local astronomy club is mostly made up of people who take their
Dobs out to a local dark-sky site. If their circumstances were different, and
they didn't have cars, I have no idea how many of them would still engage in
any recognizable amateur astronomy activities.

John Savard

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 8:26:21 AM UTC-6, wrote:

This simplest "imaging tool" would be an ordinary Webcam that can image a few
bright objects, but which is useless for almost all else.

Well, with repeated brief exposures, even a webcam - if attached to, say, an
11" SCT - can produce better images of Jupiter than plain, unenhanced ones from
the Hubble originally were.

That's already beating what you can see with the eyepiece. But if one dismisses
the eyepiece for that reason, one could also dismiss such imaging, because
Pioneer and Voyager took still better pictures. So if one doesn't advocate a
retreat to armchair astronomy, the value of personal involvement must be
admitted - and imaging has a certain level of personal involvement, and the
eyepiece, in some ways, has a higher level of personal involvement, which is
what makes it valid.

And of course you need the fancy stuff for the deep sky, which no doubt was your point.

John Savard

On 04/10/2015 05:04, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 8:26:21 AM UTC-6, wrote:

This simplest "imaging tool" would be an ordinary Webcam that can image a few
bright objects, but which is useless for almost all else.

Well, with repeated brief exposures, even a webcam - if attached to, say, an
11" SCT - can produce better images of Jupiter than plain, unenhanced ones from
the Hubble originally were.

Only in the brief period where it had huge spherical aberration. The
main thing about lucky imaging of planets, the moon and regular imaging
of galaxies by amateurs is that transient phenomena get picked up
quickly and large professional scopes can catch impacts and SNRs on the
rise. The more of the light curve they see the better.

That's already beating what you can see with the eyepiece. But if one dismisses
the eyepiece for that reason, one could also dismiss such imaging, because
Pioneer and Voyager took still better pictures. So if one doesn't advocate a
retreat to armchair astronomy, the value of personal involvement must be
admitted - and imaging has a certain level of personal involvement, and the

The main difference is if you record an image of it then it can be
checked against other contemporaneous ones. That is what confirmed
various amateur observed Jovian impacts and may well confirm some TLPs.

eyepiece, in some ways, has a higher level of personal involvement, which is
what makes it valid.

And of course you need the fancy stuff for the deep sky, which no doubt was your point.

But even then you can do amazing stuff with any decent DSLR body and
they are now pretty affordable. So are some of the low end deep sky
imaging systems. The precision mount with dual axis slow motion needed
to track objects well is likely to be the most expensive component for
really good deep sky images. Longer time exposures are usually a long
way short of diffraction limited. Again a series of short exposures
stacked in a computer comes to the rescue for using cheaper kit.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:24:53 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:
Only in the brief period where it had huge spherical aberration.
The
main thing about lucky imaging of planets, the moon and regular
imaging
of galaxies by amateurs is that transient phenomena get picked up
quickly and large professional scopes can catch impacts and SNRs on
the
rise. The more of the light curve they see the better.

What is a "Super Nova Remnant on the rise"?

On 10/3/2015 10:52 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 2:04:58 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:35:41 -0500, LdB wrote:

There is nothing selfish, misleading or self-serving with my opinion
of traditional visual astronomy. It is simply the truth.

Opinions are not truths. It is a fact that even the simplest imaging
tools will show more than an eyepiece. It is an opinion that imaging
therefore represents a better kind of amateur astronomy than visual
observation.

Indeed. Now, it may be a fact that imaging is "better" for certain definitions of "better". After all, _professional_ astronomers using Earth-based large telescopes in the visible light wavelengths usually image instead of sitting at the eyepiece. So, if one is talking about the really dedicated amateur astronomer who intends to assist the science of astronomy by making valuable observations, imaging may well be used more often.

But it is also a fact that human beings are emotionally attached to the idea of "being there" at an event - why do people pay large amounts of money, say, to attend a concert by Carly Simon or Diana Krall or Barbara Streisand when it's so much cheaper to listen to them sing on the radio or on a CD?

So people who have seen pictures of Saturn in Sky and Telescope may still want
to see it with their very own eyes through a telescope.

It's a fact that some people think this way - and it's also a fact that some of
the people who think this way aren't active amateur astronomers yet.

It's because his posts seem to be denying those facts - not because he doesn't
agree with the opinions of people who prefer visual observing - that his posts
are provoking derisive and dismissive replies.

John Savard


I have been observing for over fifty years. I observe to see as much of
what is up there that I can. I observe to see, not to feel good about
seeing.

To that end I have accomplished more using modern equipment than one can
ever hope to accomplished with traditional equipment.

That is the basis of my opinions and why they are the truth. I speak
from the reality of stretching ones ability to the limit in a futile
effort to see any more than a faint smudge with traditional equipment.

What facts are there to deny? My equipment does what most traditional
observers wish theirs could do. Will you deny that?

I'm one of the few to tell it like it is.

My posts are provoking. They say that the old way is not the only way.
They say if you really want to see as much of what is up there, you can
but you have to follow a new path.

It's the new path part that the traditionalists view as derisive and
dismissive.

Don't bother us with those newfangled ideas and equipment. We have never
been able to see what is really up there and we really don't want to see
what is up there. We just want to feel good about ourselves, besides our
minds eyes are better than any of LdB's cameras.

LdB

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 1:17:50 PM UTC-7, LdB wrote:

I have been observing for over fifty years. I observe to see as much of
what is up there that I can. I observe to see, not to feel good about
seeing.

It is a stretch to say that looking at a screen is observing.

To that end I have accomplished more using modern equipment than one can
ever hope to accomplished with traditional equipment.

I can also use modern equipment, like, for example, the Hubble Telescope, and see more than you will ever see using your Malincam...

That is the basis of my opinions and why they are the truth.

As noted above, opinions are not truths...

I speak from the reality of stretching ones ability to the limit in a futile
effort to see any more than a faint smudge with traditional equipment.

What facts are there to deny? My equipment does what most traditional
observers wish theirs could do. Will you deny that?

No one denies that, but that is not the point, now is it?

I'm one of the few to tell it like it is.

Another opinion, that's all...

My posts are provoking. They say that the old way is not the only way.
They say if you really want to see as much of what is up there, you can
but you have to follow a new path.

Your posts are mostly annoying. Everyone agrees that the old way is not the only way. So What? If you really, really want to see what's up there, your new path would be, for example, Hubble photos.

It's the new path part that the traditionalists view as derisive and
dismissive.

Traditional amateur astronomers do not feel that your favorite facet of the hobby is derisive or dismissive, why do you make such false claims?

Don't bother us with those newfangled ideas and equipment. We have never
been able to see what is really up there and we really don't want to see
what is up there. We just want to feel good about ourselves, besides our
minds eyes are better than any of LdB's cameras.

You better get back on your meds, perhaps these feelings of persecution will fade away.