Pro & amateur astronomers ?

Ken,

I'm sorry your government (Canadian?) places such low emphasis on
providing its taxpayers timely access to astronomical data.

I can't give you any zero-day data that still has that "fresh FITS
smell," but I can at least point you to the SMOKA Science Archive:
http://smoka.nao.ac.jp/

It contains 3.3 million (and counting) frames of data from a variety
of instruments on five telescopes, including the 8.2-meter one I run.
All freely available online to everyone, taxpayers or not. Even you.

I hope you'll find something cool and add to the growing list of
papers published using data from that archive.

Best,

-Dan

--
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.

On 08/02/2011 17:58, Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Feb 8, 1:27 am, Martin
wrote:
On 05/02/2011 19:46, Ken S. Tucker wrote:

I've read how serious amateurs study data from advanced
instruments and find new things, obviously many serious
amateurs are superior to the average pro astronomer,
expecially if the pro is cherry picking for a science paper.

This is complete and utter ********. And it is a downright lie!

Then why write it?

You write such total ******** it is hard to understand why you do it.

The main difference is that amateur astronomers tend to know the sky
better. Professionals don't because these days everything is computer
controlled. The scope observing sequences are carefully optimised to
minimise time spent tracking between objects (not collecting photons).

Well we should respect amateur astronomers like Newton and Herschel,
and 100,000's college students with large resources too.

Newton was about as professional a theoretical physicist as it was
possible to be in his day and a fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. He
effectively laid the foundations of modern theoretical physics in
Principia and Opticks. Some of his (al)chemistry was a bit wacky, but
then at that time the study of chemistry was all pretty dodgy.

Talented and rich amateurs like Herschel and the Earl of Rosse who made
their own large telescope scopes were principally observational
astronomers looking at the heavens. The latter setting records for sheer
physical size of his telescope and the light grasp that it provided
allowed the first glimpses of spiral structure in some nebulae later
recognised as other galaxies. He was a university educated mathematician
with a huge interest in science and engineering. His work laid the
foundations for the telescope manufacturer Grubb Parsons.

http://www.backyardvoyager.com/Grubb.html

There are plenty of amateur pro collaborations in areas where amateurs
with lots of observing time and limited instrumental capabilities tip
off the professionals when something interesting happens in the fields
of supernovae, novae and cataclysmic variables. The pros provide a list
of likely targets and the amateurs monitor them. Pointing a big scope at
a newly discovered target of opportunity has become considerably more
common. There are a few scopes dedicated to ultra rapid response in the
hope of catching a GRB in the optical waveband. eg

http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/cgi-bi...bcode=2005AIPC....

Professional instruments have way better light grasp and are more often
used for spectrometry than taking pretty coffee book photos. The latter
gives the HST great kudos with the public but it is the spectra that you
don't often see outside of the peer reviewed literature that contains
most of the astrophysics information.

You confuse "the public" with serious amateurs, big diff.
You must realize Newton was an amateur mathematician when
he invented calculus, study a bit more.

Utter rubbish!

He was Lucasian professor of mathematics at Cambridge from 1669 which is
one of the highest professional posts a theoretical physicist can
attain. He was at home when he did some of his early work because the
university had been shut down due to the threat of the plague.

Newton even had to get an excemption from King Charles II to avoid
having to take Holy Orders on being granted fellowship.

Scientists design experiments and after the proposal is accepted they
get a certain period of exclusive use of their data before it becomes
public domain. Many astronomers do release routine data immediately so
that amateurs can scour it for serendipitous discoveries that the pros
do not have time to waste looking for. One amateur has found a huge
number of sun grazing comets using SOHO data for instance. The purpose
of the observations is to better understand solar physics so the pros
are not at all interested in comet finding.

Yes, that's an example, I suppose it's up to the persons doing the
data
collection to decide.

It is their data for at least the first year. Sometimes for a bit longer
if the observing schedule requires a long gap between successive
observations to measure long term secular changes. It isn't very
interesting to publish a single image unless it shows something new.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Feb 12, 8:31 pm, Dan Birchall
wrote:
Ken,

I'm sorry your government (Canadian?) places such low emphasis on
providing its taxpayers timely access to astronomical data.

The National Research Council has been very helpful, also there are
many so-called 'world class' scientists in canutistan.

I can't give you any zero-day data that still has that "fresh FITS
smell," but I can at least point you to the SMOKA Science Archive:http://smoka.nao.ac.jp/
It contains 3.3 million (and counting) frames of data from a variety
of instruments on five telescopes, including the 8.2-meter one I run.
All freely available online to everyone, taxpayers or not. Even you.

I hope you'll find something cool and add to the growing list of
papers published using data from that archive.
Best,
-Dan
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.

Thanks Dan, I'm into Gamma Ray Bursters (GRB's) and stuff edgy on
General Relativity and Quantum Effects, (sniffing about).
Cheers
Ken

On Feb 13, 2:02 am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 08/02/2011 17:58, Ken S. Tucker wrote:

On Feb 8, 1:27 am, Martin
wrote:
On 05/02/2011 19:46, Ken S. Tucker wrote:

I've read how serious amateurs study data from advanced
instruments and find new things, obviously many serious
amateurs are superior to the average pro astronomer,
expecially if the pro is cherry picking for a science paper.

This is complete and utter ********. And it is a downright lie!

Then why write it?

You write such total ******** it is hard to understand why you do it.

Marty, perhaps you might ask your teacher to enroll you in an English
remedial course to learn grammar such as "this" and "that", anyway
I'll try to translate what you attempting to utterate.

The main difference is that amateur astronomers tend to know the sky
better. Professionals don't because these days everything is computer
controlled. The scope observing sequences are carefully optimised to
minimise time spent tracking between objects (not collecting photons).

Well we should respect amateur astronomers like Newton and Herschel,
and 100,000's college students with large resources too.

Newton was about as professional a theoretical physicist as it was
possible to be in his day and a fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. He
effectively laid the foundations of modern theoretical physics in
Principia and Opticks. Some of his (al)chemistry was a bit wacky, but
then at that time the study of chemistry was all pretty dodgy.

At what age did he do 'fluxions"?

Talented and rich amateurs like Herschel and the Earl of Rosse who made
their own large telescope scopes were principally observational
astronomers looking at the heavens. The latter setting records for sheer
physical size of his telescope and the light grasp that it provided
allowed the first glimpses of spiral structure in some nebulae later
recognised as other galaxies. He was a university educated mathematician
with a huge interest in science and engineering. His work laid the
foundations for the telescope manufacturer Grubb Parsons.

http://www.backyardvoyager.com/Grubb.html

So from your 'govmonk' perspective the Herschel's were unqualified to
profess? (I think they were Germans).

There are plenty of amateur pro collaborations in areas where amateurs
with lots of observing time and limited instrumental capabilities tip
off the professionals when something interesting happens in the fields
of supernovae, novae and cataclysmic variables. The pros provide a list
of likely targets and the amateurs monitor them. Pointing a big scope at
a newly discovered target of opportunity has become considerably more
common. There are a few scopes dedicated to ultra rapid response in the
hope of catching a GRB in the optical waveband. eg

http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/cgi-bi...bcode=2005AIPC....

Professional instruments have way better light grasp and are more often
used for spectrometry than taking pretty coffee book photos. The latter
gives the HST great kudos with the public but it is the spectra that you
don't often see outside of the peer reviewed literature that contains
most of the astrophysics information.

You confuse "the public" with serious amateurs, big diff.
You must realize Newton was an amateur mathematician when
he invented calculus, study a bit more.

Utter rubbish!

He was Lucasian professor of mathematics at Cambridge from 1669 which is
one of the highest professional posts a theoretical physicist can
attain. He was at home when he did some of his early work because the
university had been shut down due to the threat of the plague.

Newton even had to get an excemption from King Charles II to avoid
having to take Holy Orders on being granted fellowship.

Is your history as faulty as your english?

Scientists design experiments and after the proposal is accepted they
get a certain period of exclusive use of their data before it becomes
public domain. Many astronomers do release routine data immediately so
that amateurs can scour it for serendipitous discoveries that the pros
do not have time to waste looking for. One amateur has found a huge
number of sun grazing comets using SOHO data for instance. The purpose
of the observations is to better understand solar physics so the pros
are not at all interested in comet finding.

Yes, that's an example, I suppose it's up to the persons doing the
data
collection to decide.

It is their data for at least the first year. Sometimes for a bit longer
if the observing schedule requires a long gap between successive
observations to measure long term secular changes. It isn't very
interesting to publish a single image unless it shows something new.

Do you think 'wikileaks' really cares about that?

Regards,
Martin Brown

Yes, yes, Regards to you too,
Ken