Learn How to Become an Expert Stargazer

On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 8:48:35 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 12:06:18 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 12:28:38 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:

The use of the word, "stargazer" instead of observer or amateur astronomer
seems to suggest it is aimed at newbies who really don't know anything.

That word does seem to have an almost astrological connotation.

Yes, I agree, but given the "almost", it could have been intended merely as
something more informal or playful. But it doesn't combine well with "expert".
Still, the term "stargazer" is used more often by the general public than more
accurate terms, such as "observer" or "amateur astronomer" as previously
suggested.

Amateur astronomers might need to do some "brand management."

I cringe a bit whenever I hear "stargazer" used to describe us.

On Friday, 25 September 2015 13:24:08 UTC+2, wrote:
On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 8:48:35 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 12:06:18 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 12:28:38 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:

The use of the word, "stargazer" instead of observer or amateur astronomer
seems to suggest it is aimed at newbies who really don't know anything.

That word does seem to have an almost astrological connotation.

Yes, I agree, but given the "almost", it could have been intended merely as
something more informal or playful. But it doesn't combine well with "expert".
Still, the term "stargazer" is used more often by the general public than more
accurate terms, such as "observer" or "amateur astronomer" as previously
suggested.

Amateur astronomers might need to do some "brand management."

I cringe a bit whenever I hear "stargazer" used to describe us.

Star-gazer suggests the singular.
It's a bit like saying; "men who stare at [a] goat."
Nor are stars necessarily the sole interest for many [most?] amateur astronomers.
Most would declare an interest in Lunar or planetary observation long before stars cropped up.
Stargazer is therefore, doubly misleading at the very least.

I have never seen any other human endeavor suffer so much from a specific error which put everything outside the surface of the Earth in circumpolar motion ,including the Sun.

" Let's look at the Sun's path below the horizon to get a clearer pictures of twilight's changing length. The Sun's position in the sky is defined by its declination (the celestial equivalent of latitude) and right ascension (similar to longitude). After sunset, the Sun continues to move along its line of declination. At the equator, those lines are perpendicular (or nearly so) to the horizon; once the Sun sets, it quickly sinks to -18° and twilight ends. " SkyTel

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/obser...e081920151908/

When celestial sphere stargazers try to impose a cause and effect to experiences on the surface of the planet it becomes a sight to behold for all the wrong reasons. Somebody has to feel disappointment in what has become the dark ages for astronomy even when technological advancements have never been so good.

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 12:22:50 PM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Friday, 25 September 2015 13:24:08 UTC+2, wsne... wrote:
suggested.

Amateur astronomers might need to do some "brand management."

I cringe a bit whenever I hear "stargazer" used to describe us.

Star-gazer suggests the singular.
It's a bit like saying; "men who stare at [a] goat."

No, it isn't.

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 11:45:08 AM UTC-7, LdB wrote:

What else can one expect. The traditionalists are so trained in
averted vision they can no longer look directly at anything. Just as
well, whether it's a message or a view through an eyepiece they can
see what they want to see instead of what is really there.

Makes them feel good when they submit a somewhat glorified report of
what they almost saw. Makes all their friends feel good as well.
Nobody has ever seen the object of the report for real but that
doesn't matter. Their mind's eye view is far superior to anything in
an eyepiece.

A hopelessly lame response. You really need to get over the fact that your own perfectly valid facet of the hobby is just as valid as any of the other dozens of facets, and that each has its own loyal participants.

It is pretty much that simple.

\Paul A