|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
What is an amateur astronomer now?
"Chris.B" wrote
On 12 Feb., 16:04, "John Clockman" wrote: Well, let's form a relationship between astronomy and sex. No thanks. I tried it once and didn't like it. :-) Astronomers do it at night. An amateur astronomer without a telescope is like having sex without a partner. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
What is an amateur astronomer now?
"Howard Lester" wrote in message ... "Chris.B" wrote On 12 Feb., 16:04, "John Clockman" wrote: Well, let's form a relationship between astronomy and sex. No thanks. I tried it once and didn't like it. :-) Astronomers do it at night. An amateur astronomer without a telescope is like having sex without a partner. We'll take your word for it. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
What is an amateur astronomer now?
Hmmm... I don't think reading Wikipedia articles about stuff in space
makes one an astronomer, amateur or otherwise. I'd certainly say it exhibits an interest in astronomical matters, just like reading articles about the Iditarod exhibits an interest in that, but doesn't make one a racer or a husky. -- djb@ | Dan Birchall - Observation System Associate - Subaru Telescope. naoj | Views I express are my own, certainly not those of my employer. ..org | Oh wicked, bad, naughty, _evil_ Dan! He is a _naughty_ person. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
What is an amateur astronomer now?
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote: On Feb 12, 1:37 am, oriel36 wrote: On Feb 12, 4:12 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote: If I read articles like this for a few hours a night, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Centauri I'm an amateur astonomer, otherwise I'd need to spend alot of effort to travel south to an observatory, to see it, but what about his part, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_C...#Binary_system Studying that, knowing Newton, is beyond amateurs. The 'net' has changed the meaning of amateur astronomy, it's hard to justify a scope, if knowledge is persued. Ken As a newbie to s.a.a you can now get an education on what Isaac was doing with those absolute/relative time,space and motions things and nothing like what the theoreticians believe them to be,at least if that is what interests active astronomers,if they want to comprehend timekeeping then the sprawling history of the calendar system and longitude problem is before them,likewise the motion of planets and the structure of the Universe on an ascending scale is before readers.Just as the old astronomers gauged the motions of the planets against the stellar background,there will come a time when astronomers will consider the rotation of the foreground stars against the background galaxies for multiple purposes. The internet is the greatest single astronomical tool since the telescope but it is,after all,a tool and it takes talent to put that tool to work.There is a lot to be optimistic about when readers are less wooden about 'defining' things and even somebody who has major issues with those who get paid for diminishing astronomy with speculative modeling and the junk dumped into the celestial arena under the name of astronomy,I can say that the convergence of tools represents a new phase of astronomy,something more ranging and deeper rather than complaining about empirical bandwagons that roll on regardless. You are a refugee from the relativity forum so remember your place here,you come to this forum as a bare novice so act accordingly. LOL, boi, I've had a scope 2 minutes away from me most all my life. You'd get an audience in the 'relativity forum' now, it's full of idiots. Ken great reply ! |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
What is an amateur astronomer now?
Dan Birchall wrote:
Hmmm... I don't think reading Wikipedia articles about stuff in space makes one an astronomer, amateur or otherwise. I'd certainly say it exhibits an interest in astronomical matters, just like reading articles about the Iditarod exhibits an interest in that, but doesn't make one a racer or a husky. Ehh, I'm not sure this is a good analogy. We know a husky is a kind of dog, and a racer is--by definition--one who races. But there isn't a corresponding verb form of astronomer; we can't say that astronomers are those who astronomize, or anything like that--not usefully, at any rate. I agree with Chris Peterson here; an astronomer is simply someone who has an interest in astronomy. The usual term for what Ken described is "armchair astronomer," since it used to invoke reading astronomy books in an armchair, but I think it works equally well for reading Wikipedia entries in a desk chair. (Incidentally, I don't happen to use that term disparagingly, but I imagine some do.) An amateur astronomer, then, is someone with an interest in astronomy who does not make a living thereby; a professional astronomer is one who *does* make a living that way. -- Brian Tung The Astronomy Corner at http://www.astronomycorner.net/ Unofficial C5+ Page at http://www.astronomycorner.net/c5plus/ My PleiadAtlas Page at http://www.astronomycorner.net/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ at http://www.astronomycorner.net/reference/faq.html |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
What is an amateur astronomer now?
"Dan Birchall" wrote in message ... | Hmmm... I don't think reading Wikipedia articles about stuff in space | makes one an astronomer, amateur or otherwise. I'd certainly say it | exhibits an interest in astronomical matters, just like reading | articles about the Iditarod exhibits an interest in that, but doesn't | make one a racer or a husky. | | Taking pretty photographs of the sky doesn't make one an astronomer either. It may make one a photographer, the majority of whom like to gloat over their bought equipment and would do better photographing firework displays. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
What is an amateur astronomer now?
"Brian Tung" wrote in message ... | Dan Birchall wrote: | Hmmm... I don't think reading Wikipedia articles about stuff in space | makes one an astronomer, amateur or otherwise. I'd certainly say it | exhibits an interest in astronomical matters, just like reading | articles about the Iditarod exhibits an interest in that, but doesn't | make one a racer or a husky. | | Ehh, I'm not sure this is a good analogy. We know a husky is a kind of | dog, and a racer is--by definition--one who races. But there isn't a | corresponding verb form of astronomer; we can't say that astronomers are | those who astronomize, or anything like that--not usefully, at any rate. A cartographer makes maps, he doesn't cartographize. Astronomers measure distances to planets and moons, the size of their orbits, and maps the sky' stars to enable mariners to navigate on Earth. Amateur astronomers simply gaze at stars, stupified. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
What is an amateur astronomer now?
On 13/02/2011 04:39, Dan Birchall wrote:
Hmmm... I don't think reading Wikipedia articles about stuff in space makes one an astronomer, amateur or otherwise. Probably not - though it does show an interest in astronomy. There are several different tribes of amateur astronomy that can be discerned in any club in roughly order of descending proportions: Majority who just turn up to weekly/monthly meetings or lectures. Minority of keen visual observers mostly now with CCD capability. Handful of telescope makers who only ever observe to star test. Handful of organisers who make it all happen. A few old school purist visual only observers. A few former members who are now professional scientists/engineers. A couple of folk interested in spaceflight and satellites. A computer wizard who does serious stuff using public data. One nutter who believes in UFO's, LGM etc. The organisers tend to be good at making things happen and need not be particularly inclined to observe. My home society once had a chairman who believed Immanuel Velikovsky which made for interesting fireworks. These days most clubs I know have a selection of donated loan scopes without enough younger keen observers to use them. I'd certainly say it exhibits an interest in astronomical matters, just like reading articles about the Iditarod exhibits an interest in that, but doesn't make one a racer or a husky. I guess to some extent it depends on the level to which you study it online. I'd be inclined to say that when you get to simulating the sky or planetary orbits from first principles then you cross the border. Regards, Martin Brown |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
What is an amateur astronomer now?
On Feb 13, 10:33*am, Martin Brown
wrote: I'd certainly say it exhibits an interest in astronomical matters, just like reading articles about the Iditarod exhibits an interest in that, but doesn't make one a racer or a husky. I guess to some extent it depends on the level to which you study it online. I'd be inclined to say that when you get to simulating the sky or planetary orbits from first principles then you cross the border. Pay attention Brown,my judgement of you is the only one that counts. Guys interested in magnification and photography look up at the sky,they may even believe that astronomy is something that happens at night,genuine astronomers look out at the Sun,moon and planets and into the celestial arena and make sense of those observations through a backward/forward flow between terrestrial effects and planetary dynamics. Speculative empiricists such as yourself are into models based on simulating planetary motions through right ascension and otherwise makes nuisances of yourselves.As modeling with 3D is already on the horizon,things such as isolating orbital motion from daily rotation or even how to use the foreground rotation of Milky Way stars for multiple purposes,these concepts strung together using words become musty and an indulgence for those with no talent whatsoever in any facet of astronomy. The difference is that I am getting to see the transition happen where the convergence of tools waits only for those who have interpretative skills leaving you and your odd beliefs,one of which is that it is possible to see an evolutionary history of the Universe directly via 'big bangers'. 21st century astronomy is a visually driven entity like it once was so get used to it. Regards, Martin Brown |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
What is an amateur astronomer now?
On Feb 11, 11:12*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
If I read articles like this for a few hours a night, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Centauri I'm an amateur astonomer, otherwise I'd need to spend alot of effort to travel south to an observatory, to see it, but what about his part, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_C...#Binary_system Studying that, knowing Newton, is beyond amateurs. The 'net' has changed the meaning of amateur astronomy, it's hard to justify a scope, A scope doesn't require any justification. if knowledge is persued. It took our species 100,000+ years to accumulate enough technology to build telescopes and to discover the laws of physics. However, most of us have the capability to understand these things if we are inclined to do so, even without the "net." People can still participate in amateur astronomy the "old-fashioned" way. They might even have more fun. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Astrophysics for the amateur astronomer | Dennis Woos | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | August 20th 07 07:15 PM |
An amateur astronomer perhaps? | Rich | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | December 25th 06 11:55 PM |
The Aging Amateur Astronomer | LarryG | Amateur Astronomy | 47 | March 12th 06 05:15 AM |
You really know you are an amateur astronomer when... | Erik | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | February 12th 06 11:12 AM |
The Seeming Demise of the Amateur Astronomer | Greg Dortmond | UK Astronomy | 9 | December 30th 03 12:21 AM |