|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Pro & amateur astronomers ?
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. OTOH I also read some data from observations is held in secret for 1 year so the pros have first crack at writing up 'a paper'. Seems like a nutty system, especially when it's the tax- payer paying for the instrument. What gives? Ken |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Pro & amateur astronomers ?
In article ,
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. I don't think that's obvious at all - OK, part of the time a serious amateur is a professional working in a different bit of the field from the focus of his career. I'll use Hubble as an example, because it tends to capture large images where a paper might concentrate on a single object; for an awful lot of other observational work there's no cherry-picking involved, you've taken your fifty ultra-high-resolution spectra of HDmumble and done the fit to see if there's a planet there or not. I'd agree that, if you're for example looking for intergalactic globular clusters in the Coma group and start by taking deep ACS imagery of it, you've got a dataset which can be used for looking for lots of other things in the Coma group. OTOH I also read some data from observations is held in secret for 1 year so the pros have first crack at writing up 'a paper'. It's only a year and the data's then sitting there in the HLA; waiting a year for the deposition is an awful lot easier and often an awful lot quicker than getting the timeslot to do the observation again. Seems like a nutty system, especially when it's the tax- payer paying for the instrument. The tax-payer is writing the cheque, but the principal investigator has generally put his entire career into getting the instrument funded, built and launched; if you didn't get at least the kudos of producing the first papers about the results from it, there'd be no incentive to go through the prodigious amount of work of being a PI. Tom |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Pro & amateur astronomers ?
On Feb 5, 8:01*pm, Thomas Womack
wrote: The tax-payer is writing the cheque, but the principal investigator has generally put his entire career into getting the instrument funded, built and launched; if you didn't get at least the kudos of producing the first papers about the results from it, there'd be no incentive to go through the prodigious amount of work of being a PI. Tom You exist in an imaginative world that is adrift of basic astronomical facts hence there are no real doctorates but there are those who genuinely believe they are astronomers by fulfilling the dictates of their teachers or peer reviewers,it is the ultimate vicious circle that is held together in the most lucrative possible way. A normal person who hears that one 24 hours rotation is responsible for the day/night cycle will shrug for what else could it be,they may even dwell long enough on the topic to grasp how Feb 29th picks up the 1/4 rotation each year and tags it on at the end of the 4th year to make up the relationship between 365 1/4 rotations per orbital circuit and still shrug.The thing about this is what doctorates will do when faced with this most basic fact that it feel infuriating even having to consider it but doctorates don't figure the corresponds between 24 hours of rotation and a day/night cycle because the peer review process recognizes a nonsensical 366 1/4 rotations per circuit. There is nothing remotely like the hostility towards basic astronomical facts and that includes being silent on the matter. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Pro & amateur astronomers ?
On Feb 5, 1:46*pm, "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. OTOH I also read some data from observations is held in secret for 1 year so the pros have first crack at writing up 'a paper'. Seems like a nutty system, especially when it's the tax- payer paying for the instrument. What gives? Ken Trying learning about how the process works before making claims about how the tax-payer is getting hurt and calling the system nutty. Let's say you've written a grant to test a hypothesis using data collected during a field experiment. In this case you spent the last three years writing the proposal, submitting to the granting agency for review, then assuming your proposal was funded, you've negotiated with the funding agency for what percentage of the money you requested you will actually get (typically you get under 50% meaning you go without salary, argue with your boss about how to cut operating budgets, cut staff and students). Then get to go into the field to collect the data. In some cases this means six to nine months under some pretty grim conditions. Once the raw data has been collected it has to be processed, meaning quality control and conversion into meaningful values. Typically another year or two. The data is now ready for analysis. At this point you want to tell the poor schmuck that did all the work that they won't get first crack at publishing results? Why in the world would you expect someone who has done all the work not to have a short period (your looking four to five years of effort up to this point) not to be able get credit for their effort. All you get is at most a year more typically six months after the QC has produced meaningful values to get a paper published. Since lead times from acceptance to publication are typically 4 to 6 months you have little or no time to get credit for your effort. Oh I understand now! yet another teabagger/conservative/welfare king wanting everything without having to work for it. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Pro & amateur astronomers ?
On Feb 5, 12:01 pm, Thomas Womack
wrote: In article , 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. I don't think that's obvious at all - OK, part of the time a serious amateur is a professional working in a different bit of the field from the focus of his career. I'll use Hubble as an example, because it tends to capture large images where a paper might concentrate on a single object; for an awful lot of other observational work there's no cherry-picking involved, you've taken your fifty ultra-high-resolution spectra of HDmumble and done the fit to see if there's a planet there or not. I'd agree that, if you're for example looking for intergalactic globular clusters in the Coma group and start by taking deep ACS imagery of it, you've got a dataset which can be used for looking for lots of other things in the Coma group. OTOH I also read some data from observations is held in secret for 1 year so the pros have first crack at writing up 'a paper'. It's only a year and the data's then sitting there in the HLA; waiting a year for the deposition is an awful lot easier and often an awful lot quicker than getting the timeslot to do the observation again. Seems like a nutty system, especially when it's the tax- payer paying for the instrument. The tax-payer is writing the cheque, but the principal investigator has generally put his entire career into getting the instrument funded, built and launched; if you didn't get at least the kudos of producing the first papers about the results from it, there'd be no incentive to go through the prodigious amount of work of being a PI. Tom Ok Tom, I build a $100 000 000 telescope on my $10 000 000 lot then pay you $50 000 to use it take photos, then when I ask to see the photo's, you say NO to me. Guess what Tom you ain't invited back ;-). Serious amatuers are equal to pros, and I find often better. What are the pros afraid of? They have "kudos" hatever that is by getting the target and photoing it, so any amatuer input can only benefit science. It's time the TAXPAYER takes control of Big Business Science bums. If I were a judge, you'd be laffed out of court. Regards Ken |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Pro & amateur astronomers ?
"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. OTOH I also read some data from observations is held in secret for 1 year so the pros have first crack at writing up 'a paper'. Seems like a nutty system, especially when it's the tax- payer paying for the instrument. What gives? Ken The same thing happens in clubs. Lots of bridges to nowhere which just a few key club members wind up prospering from with sole-use contracts? Contracts? Assosications? Contracts and associations with WHO!? .... smiling all the way. Denial denial denial... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Pro & amateur astronomers ?
On Feb 5, 4:11 pm, yourmommycalledandsaidbehave
wrote: On Feb 5, 1:46 pm, "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. OTOH I also read some data from observations is held in secret for 1 year so the pros have first crack at writing up 'a paper'. Seems like a nutty system, especially when it's the tax- payer paying for the instrument. What gives? Ken Trying learning what's your name? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Pro & amateur astronomers ?
On Feb 5, 8:41 pm, jwarner1 wrote:
"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. OTOH I also read some data from observations is held in secret for 1 year so the pros have first crack at writing up 'a paper'. Seems like a nutty system, especially when it's the tax- payer paying for the instrument. What gives? Ken The same thing happens in clubs. Lots of bridges to nowhere which just a few key club members wind up prospering from with sole-use contracts? Contracts? Assosications? Contracts and associations with WHO!? ... smiling all the way. Denial denial denial... If I was 'pro' I'd make photo's available as 'raw data', and if another pro or amateur did something with it then I still get a fair amount of credit for making the data happen. IOW's i'm pro science, and encouraging amateurs is a good thing, for astronomy. Ken |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Pro & amateur astronomers ?
In article ,
Ken S. Tucker wrote: Ok Tom, I build a $100 000 000 telescope on my $10 000 000 lot then pay you $50 000 to use it take photos, then when I ask to see the photo's, you say NO to me. Guess what Tom you ain't invited back ;-). If I assume that you're going immediately to send the photos to my competitor, then I think I have to say no, and I have not to use your equipment under those terms. The problem isn't giving immediate access to amateurs, it's that you can't do that without giving equal access to competing pros - and the pros who haven't spent the time and effort getting the offer to take the picture have then got an advantage in resources over those who have. Short proprietary periods solve that problem. Or you could go for an entirely socialised system in which everyone sticks in their requests, the data is obtained, and goes straight to everybody immediately. Cassini solves this by publishing JPEGs of their pictures as they're taken, without the calibration information required to make them particularly scientifically useful. Tom |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Pro & amateur astronomers ?
On Feb 5, 11:46*am, "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. OTOH I also read some data from observations is held in secret for 1 year so the pros have first crack at writing up 'a paper'. Seems like a nutty system, especially when it's the tax- payer paying for the instrument. What gives? Ken One way or another, we taxpayers and consumers get to pay for everything. Fortunately the cost to the public isn't 0.0001% that of what our NASA and their associate agencies and contractors have been costing us. In other words, amateurs have been costing us perhaps one dollar for every million dollars our NASA and DARPA have been costing us. The all inclusive government cost that's reported isn't 10% of the truth, so we can always count on spending a lot and getting next to nothing in return from those we hire to do their best. With so much that's nondisclosure rated and/or need-to-know, it's wonder than anything constructive gets accomplished, much less on time and in budget. Our F-35s at perhaps 200 million each and costing us another 100 thousand per hour to own and operate is a good example how insiders get to do pretty much whatever they like, and we always get to pay for it. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UK amateur radio astronomers | RN | UK Astronomy | 3 | May 17th 09 06:40 AM |
Astronomers,amateur or otherwise. | oriel36[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 45 | April 4th 08 12:56 PM |
New Resources for Amateur Astronomers | ukastronomy | Astronomy Misc | 4 | November 29th 07 02:34 AM |
The Astronomers - Website for amateur astronomers | Bernhard Rems | Amateur Astronomy | 10 | September 14th 05 11:39 PM |