Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Learn How to Become an Expert Stargazer
622 views
Skip to first unread message
LdB
Sep 22, 2015, 2:33:44 PM9/22/15
to
There was an interesting full page add in Sky and Tel this month.
Learn How to Become an Expert Stargazer. It's on sale now for $44.95.
However there's no mention of Video or Near Live Viewing with modern
equipment. No wonder they lowered the price. I would be surprised if
they were able to give it away.
It was the word Stargazer that attracted my attention. A brief
definition of the word gaze is to "look steadily and intently." The
word implies the gazer is clearly seeing something to be able to look
at it steadily and intently. It really is misleading to use a
term that implies clearly seeing something when referring to
traditional eyepiece viewing.
My bet is this is just some poor misguided traditional eyepiece
purists trying desperately to lure the unsuspecting public with their
obsolete ideas and methods. Promises, promises, promises but as usual,
nothing ever delivered. Except the same old traditional excuse, "You
have to learn how to look at things the way we do before you can
almost see them." Unfortunately when you translate that into modern
English it reads more like "You have to convince yourself you can see
things the way we have convinced ourselves we can see things."
What is really surprising about this advertisement is that it
something new on the traditionalists part. New is not the sort of
thing they are comfortable with. Desperate times lead to desperate
measures. Sooner or later they would have to resort to a different
tactic even if that required doing something new. Regardless of how
distasteful that would be.
Star parties are too risky. If someone shows up with a video camera
the traditionalists will be for the most part ignored by the visitors.
Remember the visitors came to see something. That's not going to
happen when all they have to look through is an old antiquated eyepiece.
On the bright side those eyepieces do provide a useful function. They
show the visitor how little there was to be seen in the old
pre-technological observing days. It really is amazing to see how much
viewing has improved since the introduction of
modern technology into visual astronomy. Unfortunately it take a fresh
mind to see that.
Thinking how the traditionalist sees by looking somewhere else
suggests using the word graze (to touch or rub something lightly)
would be somewhat more appropriate than the word gaze. Graze your eyes
past that object. You will see it better when it disappears from view.
Stargrazer. Why not? At least it is accurate. Of course the word graze
can also be "to eat grass in a field."
Learn How to Become an Expert Stargrazer. Perfect fit! One word says a
lot. Almost seeing something and seeing it "out to pasture" so to speak.
It's long past time to open the pasture gate and let all the
traditional purists in. When you think about it, what could be more
appropriate for them. They live for the past. Let them live in the
past-ure.
It will be a nice place for them. The traditionalists will all be
together and they will finally have something to see. Of course it
won't be overhead, it will be under foot. It's the same stuff they
have been offering the public all these years. When it comes down to
describing what the traditional eyepiece purist does, big male bovines
do it best. It won't be difficult for a purist to recognize and avoid
stepping in it accidentally. Provided they look right at it, not off
to the side somewhere. :)
LdB
Learn How to Become an Expert Stargazer. It's on sale now for $44.95.
However there's no mention of Video or Near Live Viewing with modern
equipment. No wonder they lowered the price. I would be surprised if
they were able to give it away.
It was the word Stargazer that attracted my attention. A brief
definition of the word gaze is to "look steadily and intently." The
word implies the gazer is clearly seeing something to be able to look
at it steadily and intently. It really is misleading to use a
term that implies clearly seeing something when referring to
traditional eyepiece viewing.
My bet is this is just some poor misguided traditional eyepiece
purists trying desperately to lure the unsuspecting public with their
obsolete ideas and methods. Promises, promises, promises but as usual,
nothing ever delivered. Except the same old traditional excuse, "You
have to learn how to look at things the way we do before you can
almost see them." Unfortunately when you translate that into modern
English it reads more like "You have to convince yourself you can see
things the way we have convinced ourselves we can see things."
What is really surprising about this advertisement is that it
something new on the traditionalists part. New is not the sort of
thing they are comfortable with. Desperate times lead to desperate
measures. Sooner or later they would have to resort to a different
tactic even if that required doing something new. Regardless of how
distasteful that would be.
Star parties are too risky. If someone shows up with a video camera
the traditionalists will be for the most part ignored by the visitors.
Remember the visitors came to see something. That's not going to
happen when all they have to look through is an old antiquated eyepiece.
On the bright side those eyepieces do provide a useful function. They
show the visitor how little there was to be seen in the old
pre-technological observing days. It really is amazing to see how much
viewing has improved since the introduction of
modern technology into visual astronomy. Unfortunately it take a fresh
mind to see that.
Thinking how the traditionalist sees by looking somewhere else
suggests using the word graze (to touch or rub something lightly)
would be somewhat more appropriate than the word gaze. Graze your eyes
past that object. You will see it better when it disappears from view.
Stargrazer. Why not? At least it is accurate. Of course the word graze
can also be "to eat grass in a field."
Learn How to Become an Expert Stargrazer. Perfect fit! One word says a
lot. Almost seeing something and seeing it "out to pasture" so to speak.
It's long past time to open the pasture gate and let all the
traditional purists in. When you think about it, what could be more
appropriate for them. They live for the past. Let them live in the
past-ure.
It will be a nice place for them. The traditionalists will all be
together and they will finally have something to see. Of course it
won't be overhead, it will be under foot. It's the same stuff they
have been offering the public all these years. When it comes down to
describing what the traditional eyepiece purist does, big male bovines
do it best. It won't be difficult for a purist to recognize and avoid
stepping in it accidentally. Provided they look right at it, not off
to the side somewhere. :)
LdB
Chris L Peterson
Sep 22, 2015, 5:45:42 PM9/22/15
to
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 01:33:32 -0500, LdB <L...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>My bet is this is just some poor misguided traditional eyepiece
>purists trying desperately to lure the unsuspecting public with their
>obsolete ideas and methods.
Their ideas are not obsolete. It's as misguided to insist that video
>My bet is this is just some poor misguided traditional eyepiece
>purists trying desperately to lure the unsuspecting public with their
>obsolete ideas and methods.
or other instrumented techniques are superior as it is to insist that
purely visual astronomy is superior. Each has it's place, and its pros
and cons.
I know many amateur astronomers who are interested in visual astronomy
and not much in imaging. What distinguishes them from a certain local
idiot is that they don't consider themselves better astronomers than
the imagers. They have their own areas of interest, just as the
imagers do (and of course, their are many people who are interested in
both).
wsne...@hotmail.com
Sep 22, 2015, 5:54:02 PM9/22/15
to
On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 5:45:42 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> I know many amateur astronomers who are interested in visual astronomy
> and not much in imaging. What distinguishes them from a certain local
> idiot is that they don't consider themselves better astronomers than
> the imagers. They have their own areas of interest, just as the
> imagers do (and of course, their are many people who are interested in
> both).
I know of many amateur astronomers who are interested in imaging and not much in visual. What distinguishes (some of) them from a certain local idiot (ie, you) is that they don't consider themselves better than everyone else.
> I know many amateur astronomers who are interested in visual astronomy
> and not much in imaging. What distinguishes them from a certain local
> idiot is that they don't consider themselves better astronomers than
> the imagers. They have their own areas of interest, just as the
> imagers do (and of course, their are many people who are interested in
> both).
palsing
Sep 22, 2015, 5:59:06 PM9/22/15
to
On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 11:33:44 AM UTC-7, LdB wrote:
> Star parties are too risky. If someone shows up with a video camera
> the traditionalists will be for the most part ignored by the visitors.
As usual, you have this exactly backwards. I've attended the biggest star parties in the western USA for many years now, and only once has someone shown up with a video rig, and it was impressive. However, the big screen he was using was way too bright, and he was asked to move far away from the main observing field because he was destroying everyone else's night vision.
> Star parties are too risky. If someone shows up with a video camera
> the traditionalists will be for the most part ignored by the visitors.
There is nothing wrong with this facet of the hobby (or any facet, for that matter), but the video facet definitely does not mix well with the so-called traditional visual observering. They each have their own advocates, sure, but at the same time and in the same place, not so good.
\Paul A
wsne...@hotmail.com
Sep 22, 2015, 6:02:09 PM9/22/15
to
On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 2:33:44 PM UTC-4, LdB wrote:
> There was an interesting full page add in Sky and Tel this month.
> Learn How to Become an Expert Stargazer. It's on sale now for $44.95.
Have you actually read it?
> There was an interesting full page add in Sky and Tel this month.
> Learn How to Become an Expert Stargazer. It's on sale now for $44.95.
Paul Schlyter
Sep 23, 2015, 12:31:56 AM9/23/15
to
boost?
RichA
Sep 23, 2015, 12:28:38 PM9/23/15
to
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.
Chris.B
Sep 23, 2015, 1:25:24 PM9/23/15
to
On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 18:28:38 UTC+2, 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.
Fish or flower, it's all the same to LdB. ;ø]
> 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.
wsne...@hotmail.com
Sep 23, 2015, 2:06:18 PM9/23/15
to
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.
> 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.
Quadibloc
Sep 24, 2015, 8:48:35 PM9/24/15
to
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.
John Savard
Davoud
Sep 24, 2015, 11:09:11 PM9/24/15
to
Quadibloc:
observer, but it doesn't jibe with the personal prejudices of
astronomers. There's a bit of snobbery there, as well, I think; we have
it in our minds that observer is a loftier, yet weightier word. I've
got it, too; I call myself an amateur astronomer, not a stargazer. If
gazing or observing in any way implies looking through a telescope
eyepiece, then I'm neither a stargazer nor an observer; I rarely look
through a telescope, except a finder 'scope in the event my goto is out
of whack for some reason (and that's pretty rare, as I use a good GEM,
an A-P 1200). I am, from time to time, a moon-gazer, however.
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
> 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.
Gaze, look at, observe--all the same. Stargazer not less accurate than
> 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.
observer, but it doesn't jibe with the personal prejudices of
astronomers. There's a bit of snobbery there, as well, I think; we have
it in our minds that observer is a loftier, yet weightier word. I've
got it, too; I call myself an amateur astronomer, not a stargazer. If
gazing or observing in any way implies looking through a telescope
eyepiece, then I'm neither a stargazer nor an observer; I rarely look
through a telescope, except a finder 'scope in the event my goto is out
of whack for some reason (and that's pretty rare, as I use a good GEM,
an A-P 1200). I am, from time to time, a moon-gazer, however.
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
Chris L Peterson
Sep 25, 2015, 12:15:39 AM9/25/15
to
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:09:06 -0400, Davoud <st...@sky.net> wrote:
>Gaze, look at, observe--all the same. Stargazer not less accurate than
>observer, but it doesn't jibe with the personal prejudices of
>astronomers. There's a bit of snobbery there, as well, I think; we have
>it in our minds that observer is a loftier, yet weightier word. I've
>got it, too; I call myself an amateur astronomer, not a stargazer.
Of course, "stargazer" carries with it a bit of the poetic.
>Gaze, look at, observe--all the same. Stargazer not less accurate than
>observer, but it doesn't jibe with the personal prejudices of
>astronomers. There's a bit of snobbery there, as well, I think; we have
>it in our minds that observer is a loftier, yet weightier word. I've
>got it, too; I call myself an amateur astronomer, not a stargazer.
palsing
Sep 25, 2015, 12:43:41 AM9/25/15
to
\Paul A
oriel36
Sep 25, 2015, 2:38:22 AM9/25/15
to
This 'naked eye' astronomy certainly highlights the limitations in an era where people have moved far beyond identification of objects out in space and they start to put observations in context of their position and motions to the Earth and to the Sun. The phases of the moon and Venus are among the examples of this where the former is fairly obvious without a telescope while the latter was a brilliant addition first described by Galileo -
http://archive.org/stream/siderealmessenge80gali#page/8/mode/2up/search/venus
http://www.popastro.com/images/planetary/observations/Venus-July%202010-January%202012.jpg
So, despite the horrors visited on astronomy which block this more expansive type of astronomy there are just enough people out there keeping this wonderful extension where reasoning takes over from merely just identifying objects.
The 'naked eye' guys tend to have a 'naked brain' as well for although telescopes are a superb tool,owning or using one doesn't make a person an astronomer and when they put the celestial arena into a celestial sphere they do far more harm than good.
http://archive.org/stream/siderealmessenge80gali#page/8/mode/2up/search/venus
http://www.popastro.com/images/planetary/observations/Venus-July%202010-January%202012.jpg
So, despite the horrors visited on astronomy which block this more expansive type of astronomy there are just enough people out there keeping this wonderful extension where reasoning takes over from merely just identifying objects.
The 'naked eye' guys tend to have a 'naked brain' as well for although telescopes are a superb tool,owning or using one doesn't make a person an astronomer and when they put the celestial arena into a celestial sphere they do far more harm than good.
oriel36
Sep 25, 2015, 5:17:35 AM9/25/15
to
On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 7:33:44 PM UTC+1, LdB wrote:
> There was an interesting full page add in Sky and Tel this month.
> Learn How to Become an Expert Stargazer. It's on sale now for $44.95.
> However there's no mention of Video or Near Live Viewing with modern
> equipment. No wonder they lowered the price. I would be surprised if
> they were able to give it away.
>
There is no mention of the book on any online marketplace but I imagine it is the same celestial sphere/ telescope exercise that now constitutes 'astronomy'. One thing you all share with the creationists is bypassing the actual references for rotation and orbital motion in a rush to adopt a celestial sphere and a rotation of the Earth once in 23 hours 56 minutes -
> There was an interesting full page add in Sky and Tel this month.
> Learn How to Become an Expert Stargazer. It's on sale now for $44.95.
> However there's no mention of Video or Near Live Viewing with modern
> equipment. No wonder they lowered the price. I would be surprised if
> they were able to give it away.
>
http://www.amazon.com/Stargazers-Guide-Night-Sky-The/dp/0890516413
If they are such people as 'traditionalists' you are referring to RA/Dec observers as a cult group that grew out of the late 17th century notion that they proved that the Earth rotates at a constant rate using a watch and circumpolar motion. This effectively kills astronomy or shoves it into an identification exercise using the calendar system with theoretical riff-raff exploiting the damage for their own ends.
In other words, you and your imaginary opponents are different sides of the same celestial sphere coin hence the difference doesn't really exist.
RichA
Sep 25, 2015, 5:39:46 AM9/25/15
to
wsne...@hotmail.com
Sep 25, 2015, 7:24:08 AM9/25/15
to
I cringe a bit whenever I hear "stargazer" used to describe us.
Chris.B
Sep 25, 2015, 12:22:50 PM9/25/15
to
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.
oriel36
Sep 25, 2015, 1:23:30 PM9/25/15
to
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/observing/twilight-zone081920151908/
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.
" 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/observing/twilight-zone081920151908/
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.
wsne...@hotmail.com
Sep 25, 2015, 2:26:32 PM9/25/15
to
On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 5:39:46 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
> Could be one of those God-awful "self-published" things on Amazon or some other huckster site.
Even LsD doesn't appear to have read the book (or is it a video?) It would be best to reserve judgement until one reads it.
> Could be one of those God-awful "self-published" things on Amazon or some other huckster site.
wsne...@hotmail.com
Sep 25, 2015, 2:29:40 PM9/25/15
to
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.
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."
Quadibloc
Sep 25, 2015, 10:01:51 PM9/25/15
to
in Popular Mechanics as far back as 2011.
It's a 12-lecture course, taught by Professor Edward M. Murphy at the
University of Virginia.
I think I remember seeing something similar for art appreciation; booklets plus
audio cassettes.
John Savard
Davoud
Sep 26, 2015, 12:38:59 AM9/26/15
to
RichA:
> Could be one of those God-awful "self-published" things on Amazon or some
> other huckster site.
Like the god-awful, dismal failure, self-published book "The Martian?"
> other huckster site.
oriel36
Sep 26, 2015, 4:46:30 AM9/26/15
to
Astronomy can be the most challenging endeavor of them all yet it can reduce down to stargazing if that is all the person can manage, so the celestial is large enough to occupy those who need the challenge which match their curiosity and interest or local enough to sit on a fence and look out at the stars for no other reason than they are gorgeous,old and intimate.
The celestial arena is inspirational and humanity is meant to match that inspirational atmosphere like a mutual kiss between the individual and the Universal.
I so admire people who really try to surmount any personal limitations as opposed to those who offer nothing -
http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/13785256.Veterans_and_service_personnel_embark_on_triathlon_challenge/
The celestial arena is inspirational and humanity is meant to match that inspirational atmosphere like a mutual kiss between the individual and the Universal.
I so admire people who really try to surmount any personal limitations as opposed to those who offer nothing -
http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/13785256.Veterans_and_service_personnel_embark_on_triathlon_challenge/
wsne...@hotmail.com
Sep 26, 2015, 9:03:36 AM9/26/15
to
Is this part of the Great Courses series? I found a title called "Our Night Sky" by Murphy.
Quadibloc
Sep 26, 2015, 11:27:42 AM9/26/15
to
On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 7:03:36 AM UTC-6, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Is this part of the Great Courses series? I found a title called "Our
> Night Sky" by Murphy.
That's basically what I suspect at this point. I haven't verified it yet.
> Is this part of the Great Courses series? I found a title called "Our
> Night Sky" by Murphy.
John Savard
Quadibloc
Sep 26, 2015, 12:58:13 PM9/26/15
to
On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 7:03:36 AM UTC-6, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Is this part of the Great Courses series? I found a title called "Our
> Night Sky" by Murphy.
In fact it is. Now looking at the ad in its original format, I found
> Night Sky" by Murphy.
that an advertisement *for* "Our Night Sky" by Murphy had (as the
heading of the ad, not the title of the course) the words "Learn How
to Become an Expert Stargazer".
The 2011 ad offered the course, number 1846, on a set of DVDs holding
12 lectures, each 30 minutes in length. The price was now $39.95,
indicated as marked down from $199.95 - plus $5 shipping and handling.
John Savard
LdB
Sep 29, 2015, 2:17:16 PM9/29/15
to
time or another you must have a truly vast opinion of yourself.
I can't say I would agree with that but would certainly be willing to
meet you half way.
Smell, the halfvast welfare poster boy of the s.a.a
LdB
LdB
Sep 29, 2015, 2:45:08 PM9/29/15
to
Stargraze. Graze as in put out to pasture.
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.
LdB
palsing
Sep 29, 2015, 4:14:07 PM9/29/15
to
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.
> 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.
It is pretty much that simple.
\Paul A
wsne...@hotmail.com
Sep 30, 2015, 10:03:43 AM9/30/15
to
On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 2:17:16 PM UTC-4, LdB wrote:
> Considering you have refereed to everyone here as an idiot at one
> time or another
Incorrect.
> Considering you have refereed to everyone here as an idiot at one
> time or another
wsne...@hotmail.com
Sep 30, 2015, 12:43:17 PM9/30/15
to
http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/511096-if-you-had-the-otto-struve-82-for-a-night/
palsing
Sep 30, 2015, 1:43:21 PM9/30/15
to
Different strokes for different folks.
wsne...@hotmail.com
Sep 30, 2015, 2:45:02 PM9/30/15
to
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 1:43:21 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 9:43:17 AM UTC-7, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 1:25:24 PM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 18:28:38 UTC+2, 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.
> > >
> > > Fish or flower, it's all the same to LdB. ;ø]
> >
> > Look at the fifth message on the first page of this Cloudy Nights discussion:
> >
> > http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/511096-if-you-had-the-otto-struve-82-for-a-night/
>
> ... and then read the 6th response, which aligns perfectly with my own personal view. Also, read the 7th and the 11th...
All of those echo what many visual observers have to say about the overall sterility and artificiality of imaging.
> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 9:43:17 AM UTC-7, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 1:25:24 PM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 18:28:38 UTC+2, 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.
> > >
> > > Fish or flower, it's all the same to LdB. ;ø]
> >
> > Look at the fifth message on the first page of this Cloudy Nights discussion:
> >
> > http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/511096-if-you-had-the-otto-struve-82-for-a-night/
>
> ... and then read the 6th response, which aligns perfectly with my own personal view. Also, read the 7th and the 11th...
palsing
Sep 30, 2015, 3:34:19 PM9/30/15
to
LdB
Oct 6, 2015, 3:21:18 PM10/6/15
to
traditional viewing is all about. A whole lot of nothing. :)
The echo is a continual mindless repetition of the original sound just
as the traditionalists continue to mindlessly repeat descriptions of
their observations.
The difference being an echo eventually fades away but the
traditionalists have kept the identical descriptions going on for
several hundred years. I will give them some credit. Now they use words
like "Kewl" to describe something they could almost see.
If you go back to that Cloudy Nights thread you will notice I was the
only one to offer a suggestion for using that telescope to the extent of
it's capability. All the rest could offer up was related to using an
eyepiece.
It is a professional instrument. Using an eyepiece with that telescope
is the equivalent of running a Formula One on a horse racing track. What
else could you expect from a bunch that still have their minds stuck in
the nineteenth century. Horse and buggy thinking on the Autobahn.
On the same wavelength there was another thread on CN about a
traditionalist that spent thirty five years or so making up a list of
the NGC objects he almost saw. I could not even begin to feel the
disappointment that person would experience if he were to spend a few
sessions viewing some of those objects with modern equipment. An
incredible waste of time by today's standards and for what? Once the
traditionalist have passed on and visual astronomy is allowed to
progress with technology a report like that will serve little propose
other than to demonstrate how stubborn some people can be in resisting
progress.
LdB
palsing
Oct 6, 2015, 4:11:54 PM10/6/15
to
Ghandi tells us that intolerance is an enemy of understanding, and you exhibit all the traits of someone who just doesn't understand the way things really are, even after it has been explained to you multiple times by reasonable folks.
You have a monstrous ego which allows you to assume superiority about things of which you know nothing at all.
Didn't you learn anything at all from those Cloudy Night posts?
"We've been through this before... Some of us actually like to look with our own eyes, despite seeing less. To me, looking at a screen completely removes the feeling of exploration, immersion and sheer awe I feel when using an eyepiece. I know it, because I've tried it. When I use an eyepiece, I feel like I'm floating among the stars. When I watch the stars on a Mallincam, I am staring at a screen. It's dead. No feelings. No magic."
Anything wrong with this sentiment? Of course not.
"I can look at my laptop all day long without leaving my couch and see pretty pictures."
A fact that even an egotist should be able to comprehend...
"One can download DSS images all day long and do astronomy but nothing beats the feeling of those photons hitting my eye!"
And finally, someone's CN response directly to you, and this fellow's thinking is much the same as a lot of contributors within this very group...
"A little disappointed that someones once in a lifetime (possibly) opportunity to use an amazing telescope has to turn into an internet dispute."
\Paul A
Uncarollo2
Oct 6, 2015, 8:31:13 PM10/6/15
to
The light from a star will enter as perfectly parallel light, a 40" wide beam, then to be focused to a point some 63 feet at the back of the tube, then begin to expand again for approximately 4 inches until it enters the ocular field lens. The eyepiece optics then transform this beam into a parallel light beam of highly intensified light, some 5.3mm diameter, realizing a magnification of 193x as it enters the eye of the observer.
Now why would anyone place a silicon chip in the way and look at that star (or planet) image on a lousy monitor?
Uncarefractor
Chris L Peterson
Oct 7, 2015, 1:09:06 AM10/7/15
to
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 17:31:08 -0700 (PDT), Uncarollo2
<chri...@aol.com> wrote:
>The light from a star will enter as perfectly parallel light, a 40" wide beam, then to be focused to a point some 63 feet at the back of the tube, then begin to expand again for approximately 4 inches until it enters the ocular field lens. The eyepiece optics then transform this beam into a parallel light beam of highly intensified light, some 5.3mm diameter, realizing a magnification of 193x as it enters the eye of the observer.
Well, yes. Sort of. I'd argue that "magnification" doesn't mean much
<chri...@aol.com> wrote:
>The light from a star will enter as perfectly parallel light, a 40" wide beam, then to be focused to a point some 63 feet at the back of the tube, then begin to expand again for approximately 4 inches until it enters the ocular field lens. The eyepiece optics then transform this beam into a parallel light beam of highly intensified light, some 5.3mm diameter, realizing a magnification of 193x as it enters the eye of the observer.
when you're looking at a star, and there is nothing that can
reasonably be described as "intensified" when you're looking at an
extended object.
Still, a nice description of a large telescope (which technically
isn't a telescope at all when there's a sensor at the prime focus).
Chris.B
Oct 7, 2015, 2:14:35 AM10/7/15
to
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 02:31:13 UTC+2, Uncarollo2 wrote:
>
> Funny you should pop up here again. Just yesterday two representatives from Yerkes Observatory came to our factory to purchase one of our 4" focusers to be fitted to the back of the 40" refractor. They plan to make this scope into a visual instrument for the first time in its history. You will not believe how many people will be lining up to have a visual experience with this iconic instrument. Everyone I have talked to has been excited for first light, since nobody has used this scope visually in modern times. The focuser will be fitted with a 4" diagonal and a modern "wide field" 4" eyepiece of 100mm focal length, the design of which harkens back to oculars developed by 19th century masters, but of course will have modern glass and modern coatings.
>
> The light from a star will enter as perfectly parallel light, a 40" wide beam, then to be focused to a point some 63 feet at the back of the tube, then begin to expand again for approximately 4 inches until it enters the ocular field lens. The eyepiece optics then transform this beam into a parallel light beam of highly intensified light, some 5.3mm diameter, realizing a magnification of 193x as it enters the eye of the observer.
>
> Now why would anyone place a silicon chip in the way and look at that star (or planet) image on a lousy monitor?
>
> Uncarefractor
And why will people queue for hours to catch a brief glimpse at the eyepiece of a great telescope? Because it is so real! They are filled with awe at the history, the sheer scale, the strange noises and echoes and smells and the vital sense of being there. Living the moment where they share their more humble place in the long and distinguished history of the vast instrument and the reality of doing real science with the best tools of their day.
>
> Funny you should pop up here again. Just yesterday two representatives from Yerkes Observatory came to our factory to purchase one of our 4" focusers to be fitted to the back of the 40" refractor. They plan to make this scope into a visual instrument for the first time in its history. You will not believe how many people will be lining up to have a visual experience with this iconic instrument. Everyone I have talked to has been excited for first light, since nobody has used this scope visually in modern times. The focuser will be fitted with a 4" diagonal and a modern "wide field" 4" eyepiece of 100mm focal length, the design of which harkens back to oculars developed by 19th century masters, but of course will have modern glass and modern coatings.
>
> The light from a star will enter as perfectly parallel light, a 40" wide beam, then to be focused to a point some 63 feet at the back of the tube, then begin to expand again for approximately 4 inches until it enters the ocular field lens. The eyepiece optics then transform this beam into a parallel light beam of highly intensified light, some 5.3mm diameter, realizing a magnification of 193x as it enters the eye of the observer.
>
> Now why would anyone place a silicon chip in the way and look at that star (or planet) image on a lousy monitor?
>
> Uncarefractor
Therein lies the end of man should he ever be tempted to adopt a mechanical body to achieve immortality. Without the wind on your face, the cold aching beneath your feet and your eyes watering at the eyepiece you don't know what it is to be an amateur astronomer. The moment you lean towards the eyepiece you become one with the universe and your unique place in it. You can feel the curvature of the earth and weigh the vast balls of rock, ice, gas and fire hanging there in space.
No YT kitten or internet slut holds the power to move you like a real, soft and cuddly kitten. Nor the clumsy touch of a warm and snuggly girlfriend. Wanting to experience reality is not merely psychological. It is innately human and has driven people to risk everything to live the experience and to see it for themselves.
Watching a film of somebody else standing on the rim of the Grand Canyon on your TV monitor does not make you terrified of falling. You are a bored spectator and play [absolutely] no part in the great adventure of being human and of actually being there. Video astronomy is a very secondhand experience. Strictly for those unwilling to risk their senses and comfortable secondhand existence of living life at a distance, always though other's eyes.
They are the terrified dullards who think that filling a museum with TV,s instead of real artifacts, makes for an exciting, viewing experience. They are the ones holding up their iPhoney cameras. When they should be feeling the wind and sound of the peloton as it roars past. How will they ever recapture the feeling of actually being there? When their attention and senses were withdrawn to concentrate on filming the event!
I greatly envy you your visit to the observatory but cannot physically relive the experience for myself. Though I can still vividly remember the sheer scale and quality of the great instruments at Herstmonceux Observatory from my [distant] youth.
Martin Brown
Oct 7, 2015, 7:21:03 AM10/7/15
to
On 07/10/2015 01:31, Uncarollo2 wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 2:21:18 PM UTC-5, LdB wrote:
>> On 9/30/2015 1:44 PM, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 1:43:21 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 9:43:17 AM UTC-7, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 1:25:24 PM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 18:28:38 UTC+2, 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fish or flower, it's all the same to LdB. ;ø]
>>>>>
>>>>> Look at the fifth message on the first page of this Cloudy Nights discussion:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/511096-if-you-had-the-otto-struve-82-for-a-night/
>>>>
>>>> ... and then read the 6th response, which aligns perfectly with my own personal view. Also, read the 7th and the 11th...
>>>
>>> All of those echo what many visual observers have to say about the overall sterility and artificiality of imaging.
Obviously it is artificial but with lucky imaging it can capture
> On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 2:21:18 PM UTC-5, LdB wrote:
>> On 9/30/2015 1:44 PM, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 1:43:21 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 9:43:17 AM UTC-7, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 1:25:24 PM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 18:28:38 UTC+2, 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fish or flower, it's all the same to LdB. ;ø]
>>>>>
>>>>> Look at the fifth message on the first page of this Cloudy Nights discussion:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/511096-if-you-had-the-otto-struve-82-for-a-night/
>>>>
>>>> ... and then read the 6th response, which aligns perfectly with my own personal view. Also, read the 7th and the 11th...
>>>
>>> All of those echo what many visual observers have to say about the overall sterility and artificiality of imaging.
fleeting details that even the most skilled planetary observer would
miss. The evidence speaks for itself. In all the years of visual
observing prior to SL9 no one saw anything hit Jupiter or Saturn.
A few people saw TLPs visually and were generally not believed.
Since webcams & Registax became ubiquitous there have been a few such
Jovian impacts recorded with some being reported to professionals fast
enough to get multispectral large scope images of the impact sites. eg
http://www.space.com/17534-jupiter-impact-explosion-amateur-astronomers.html
>> An echo is the result an a large empty space which represents what
>> traditional viewing is all about. A whole lot of nothing. :)
>>
>> The echo is a continual mindless repetition of the original sound just
>> as the traditionalists continue to mindlessly repeat descriptions of
>> their observations.
> Funny you should pop up here again. Just yesterday two representatives from Yerkes Observatory
> came to our factory to purchase one of our 4" focusers to be fitted
to the back of the 40" refractor.
> They plan to make this scope into a visual instrument for the first
time in its history. You will
> not believe how many people will be lining up to have a visual
experience with this iconic instrument.
> Everyone I have talked to has been excited for first light, since
nobody has used this scope visually
> in modern times. The focuser will be fitted with a 4" diagonal and a
modern "wide field" 4" eyepiece
> of 100mm focal length, the design of which harkens back to oculars
developed by 19th century masters,
> but of course will have modern glass and modern coatings.
peer through it with their own eyes. But they would get a much better
view of Jupiter from a stock webcam on a 10" SCT with Registax.
>
> The light from a star will enter as perfectly parallel light, a 40" wide beam, then to be focused to a
> point some 63 feet at the back of the tube, then begin to expand
again for approximately 4 inches until
> it enters the ocular field lens. The eyepiece optics then transform
this beam into a parallel light beam
> of highly intensified light, some 5.3mm diameter, realizing a
magnification of 193x as it enters the eye
> of the observer.
>
> Now why would anyone place a silicon chip in the way and look at that star (or planet) image on a lousy monitor?
To see much deeper and with more detail than the human eye can?
> The light from a star will enter as perfectly parallel light, a 40" wide beam, then to be focused to a
> point some 63 feet at the back of the tube, then begin to expand
again for approximately 4 inches until
> it enters the ocular field lens. The eyepiece optics then transform
this beam into a parallel light beam
> of highly intensified light, some 5.3mm diameter, realizing a
magnification of 193x as it enters the eye
> of the observer.
>
> Now why would anyone place a silicon chip in the way and look at that star (or planet) image on a lousy monitor?
>
> Uncarefractor
>
I don't doubt there is a market for looking through large historic
scopes but their customers are likely to go away disappointed. Seeing
and dome turbulence will hammer a 40" scope in a big old style dome.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
wsne...@hotmail.com
Oct 7, 2015, 8:06:37 AM10/7/15
to
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 3:21:18 PM UTC-4, LdB wrote:
>
> If you go back to that Cloudy Nights thread you will notice I was the
> only one to offer a suggestion for using that telescope to the extent of
> it's capability. All the rest could offer up was related to using an
> eyepiece.
There is no need to use a video cam on -that- telescope, since there are plenty of other telescopes available.
> It is a professional instrument. Using an eyepiece with that telescope
> is the equivalent of running a Formula One on a horse racing track.
You seem to have that backwards, not that it surprises anyone.
>
> On the same wavelength there was another thread on CN about a
> traditionalist that spent thirty five years or so making up a list of
> the NGC objects he almost saw. I could not even begin to feel the
> disappointment that person would experience if he were to spend a few
> sessions viewing some of those objects with modern equipment. An
> incredible waste of time by today's standards and for what?
Your video "observing" seems an incredible waste of time, given the easy availability of so many superior images on the Web.
> On 9/30/2015 1:44 PM, wsnell01 wrote:
> > All of those echo what many visual observers have to say about the overall sterility and artificiality of imaging.
<edit>
> > All of those echo what many visual observers have to say about the overall sterility and artificiality of imaging.
>
> If you go back to that Cloudy Nights thread you will notice I was the
> only one to offer a suggestion for using that telescope to the extent of
> it's capability. All the rest could offer up was related to using an
> eyepiece.
> It is a professional instrument. Using an eyepiece with that telescope
> is the equivalent of running a Formula One on a horse racing track.
>
> On the same wavelength there was another thread on CN about a
> traditionalist that spent thirty five years or so making up a list of
> the NGC objects he almost saw. I could not even begin to feel the
> disappointment that person would experience if he were to spend a few
> sessions viewing some of those objects with modern equipment. An
> incredible waste of time by today's standards and for what?
wsne...@hotmail.com
Oct 7, 2015, 8:19:36 AM10/7/15
to
On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 7:21:03 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 07/10/2015 01:31, Uncarollo2 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 2:21:18 PM UTC-5, LdB wrote:
> On 07/10/2015 01:31, Uncarollo2 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 2:21:18 PM UTC-5, LdB wrote:
> >> On 9/30/2015 1:44 PM, wsnell01 wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 1:43:21 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 1:43:21 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 9:43:17 AM UTC-7, wsne... wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 1:25:24 PM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 18:28:38 UTC+2, 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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Fish or flower, it's all the same to LdB. ;ø]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Look at the fifth message on the first page of this Cloudy Nights discussion:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/511096-if-you-had-the-otto-struve-82-for-a-night/
> >>>>
> >>>> ... and then read the 6th response, which aligns perfectly with my own personal view. Also, read the 7th and the 11th...
> >>>
> >>> All of those echo what many visual observers have to say about the overall sterility and artificiality of imaging.
>
> Obviously it is artificial... <irrelevant comments deleted>
> >>>>> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 1:25:24 PM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 18:28:38 UTC+2, 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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Fish or flower, it's all the same to LdB. ;ø]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Look at the fifth message on the first page of this Cloudy Nights discussion:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/511096-if-you-had-the-otto-struve-82-for-a-night/
> >>>>
> >>>> ... and then read the 6th response, which aligns perfectly with my own personal view. Also, read the 7th and the 11th...
> >>>
> >>> All of those echo what many visual observers have to say about the overall sterility and artificiality of imaging.
>
It is good that you admit that.
> >> An echo is the result an a large empty space which represents what
> >> traditional viewing is all about. A whole lot of nothing. :)
> >>
> >> The echo is a continual mindless repetition of the original sound just
> >> as the traditionalists continue to mindlessly repeat descriptions of
> >> their observations.
> [snip]
>
> > Funny you should pop up here again. Just yesterday two representatives from Yerkes Observatory
> > came to our factory to purchase one of our 4" focusers to be fitted
> to the back of the 40" refractor.
> > They plan to make this scope into a visual instrument for the first
> time in its history. You will
> > not believe how many people will be lining up to have a visual
> experience with this iconic instrument.
> > Everyone I have talked to has been excited for first light, since
> nobody has used this scope visually
> > in modern times. The focuser will be fitted with a 4" diagonal and a
> modern "wide field" 4" eyepiece
> > of 100mm focal length, the design of which harkens back to oculars
> developed by 19th century masters,
> > but of course will have modern glass and modern coatings.
>
> It might put bums on seats and create a large queue of people wanting to
Exactly!
> > The light from a star will enter as perfectly parallel light, a 40" wide beam, then to be focused to a
> > point some 63 feet at the back of the tube, then begin to expand
> again for approximately 4 inches until
> > it enters the ocular field lens. The eyepiece optics then transform
> this beam into a parallel light beam
> > of highly intensified light, some 5.3mm diameter, realizing a
> magnification of 193x as it enters the eye
> > of the observer.
> >
> > Now why would anyone place a silicon chip in the way and look at that star (or planet) image on a lousy monitor?
>
> To see much deeper and with more detail than the human eye can?
> I don't doubt there is a market for looking through large historic
> scopes but their customers are likely to go away disappointed. Seeing
> and dome turbulence will hammer a 40" scope in a big old style dome.
wsne...@hotmail.com
Oct 9, 2015, 9:37:25 AM10/9/15
to
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 4:11:54 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote in response to LsD:
> You are admirably demonstrating here that you are completely intolerant of
>everyone who does not think exactly the same way that you think. You should be
>ashamed of yourself.
There was actually a live broadcast on NSN recently! To me, it was deadly dull and the images really stank.
> You are admirably demonstrating here that you are completely intolerant of
>everyone who does not think exactly the same way that you think. You should be
>ashamed of yourself.
I am sure that the logistics and mechanics of setting up a video cam on a scope and using it on DSOs are fascinating to a very few people. To me, the results do not seem worth the effort, expense and opportunity costs.
LdB
Oct 13, 2015, 4:23:28 PM10/13/15
to
given showing the difference between traditional eyepiece viewing and
modern electronic viewing are the truth. The only intolerance I've seen
around this forum is to a simple truth. Modern equipment lets an
Astronomer see more of the sky than traditional eyepieces.
Admittedly it is a truth the traditionalists do not want to face. They
use every opportunity to make a derogatory remark about electronic
viewing in an effort to promote their way.
Go back to the the CN thread. A question was asked and I responded with
an unpopular but valid suggestion. Where did the dispute come from?
From the traditionalist of course. The simple act of promoting modern
ideas are a dispute in their minds.
"Nothing beats the feeling of those photons hitting my eye." The
traditionalists last handhold on reality.
Astronomy is about seeing what is up there. People have used all the
technology available to them to accomplish that end.
Until this generation of astronomers that is. Somehow they managed to
convince themselves nothing could be better than the only way they have
ever had to see the Universe.
By their rejection of technology the traditionalists have actually
forfeited the right to call themselves Astronomers. By their own
admission it is more important to feel the photons than to see them.
When Science and Technology replaced Mysticism the Astrologers went
their way and the Astronomers went another.
This is a classic example of history repeating itself. Technology has
finally caught up with Astronomers desire to see more of the Universe.
Some followed the technology some rejected it.
Those using every technology to its fullest to see what is up there are
the real Astronomers today. What do you call those that follow the old
ways and do all they can to halt the progresses of technology?
The traditionalists would likely be as welcome by the Astrologers as
modern observers are welcome by the traditionalists.
The traditionalist are not Astronomers and they are not Astrologers but
they have many things in common with both groups.
Astrolomers? Astronogers? Both have a ring to them.
Pick a name, any name but please, not Astronomer. You gave that right
away. Get as good a grip on the past as you can and root yourselves down
deep. Bathe your eyes in the sacred photons and feel all there is to
feel, then create as much of an obstacle to progress as you possibly can.
Gandhi was one of the greatest people to walk on this planet. He gave
his life to overcome the intolerance of the British. They were rooted in
the colonial past and did everything they could to prevent any changes
in India. He beat them with the simple truth.
You try to use the words of a great man like him while you continue to
resist change by any deception. The red coats of British Colonialists
would look very good on you. :)
LdB
LdB
Oct 13, 2015, 4:55:28 PM10/13/15
to
On 10/6/2015 7:31 PM, Somebody wrote:
> Now why would anyone place a silicon chip in the way and look at that star (or planet) image on a lousy monitor?
>
> Uncarefractor
>
I don't know. Unless they wanted to actually see what was there.
> Now why would anyone place a silicon chip in the way and look at that star (or planet) image on a lousy monitor?
>
> Uncarefractor
>
There is a saying, "The camera never lies." Ever hear that said about a
traditional eyepiece user or a fisherman?
There is likely as much chance of the traditionalist actually seeing
with their eyepieces as there is that they can feel the photons hitting
their retinas.
We all know the eye neither feels or sees a photon. The eye is simply an
organic camera that converts the photons into a message and sends it to
the brain. It is the brain that converts the message into a vision.
We also know how good the brain is at making up an image to please
itself. It does what it can to make sense of the messages sent by the
eyes. If there isn't enough information in the message or if the message
conflicts with previous visions the brain simply sees what it wants to
see. They call that an optical illusion.
If you would rather see what the telescope is pointed at you use the
silicone. If you prefer to see what you want to see put an eyepiece in
the way. They call that an optical delusion.
LdB
palsing
Oct 13, 2015, 5:04:59 PM10/13/15
to
You don't have a clue, not one!
Mike Collins
Oct 13, 2015, 5:33:47 PM10/13/15
to
equally to the electronic image.In fact you have placed an extra layer
between the image and the brain. Reality is one step more distant to you.
Quadibloc
Oct 13, 2015, 5:55:40 PM10/13/15
to
On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 3:33:47 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
> Yes the brain interprets the signals sent by the eye. But that applies
> equally to the electronic image.In fact you have placed an extra layer
> between the image and the brain. Reality is one step more distant to you.
Back in the days before CCD imagers, when one needed long exposures to image
> Yes the brain interprets the signals sent by the eye. But that applies
> equally to the electronic image.In fact you have placed an extra layer
> between the image and the brain. Reality is one step more distant to you.
even the planets, film pictures of the planets were blurry and low-resolution,
while the eye could take advantage of moments of perfect seeing.
However, we all know how good, but not perfect, seeing led to canals being
found on Mars.
Today, though, with CCD imaging, the moments of perfect seeing can be captured.
And with deep-sky objects, unlike the planets, there's simply no contest.
So if you want to see surface detail on a planet, or the spiral arms of a
distant galaxy, a photograph you can examine at your leisure will tell you more
than what you strain to see through the eyepiece.
So I don't think that this is a valid argument. The brain will make up stuff
when one is looking at things near the threshhold of perception - far more
likely to be true in the eyepiece than with an image sitting still on a piece
of paper or a monitor screen.
I definitely don't agree with his position that visual observing is of no use,
but if one were to adopt a strictly utilitarian viewpoint, instead of one that
allows for the experience of seeing something directly for yourself as having
value, there wouldn't be much to argue with.
John Savard
Quadibloc
Oct 13, 2015, 5:56:45 PM10/13/15
to
On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 2:55:28 PM UTC-6, LdB wrote:
> If you would rather see what the telescope is pointed at you use the
> silicone. If you prefer to see what you want to see put an eyepiece in
> the way. They call that an optical delusion.
Silicone definitely doesn't provide me with what I want to see. Natural is better, even if it's A instead of D.
> If you would rather see what the telescope is pointed at you use the
> silicone. If you prefer to see what you want to see put an eyepiece in
> the way. They call that an optical delusion.
John Savard
Uncarollo2
Oct 13, 2015, 6:29:12 PM10/13/15
to
Davoud
Oct 13, 2015, 8:48:08 PM10/13/15
to
LdB:
making breast implants. Solid-state image sensors are made of silicon.
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
> > If you would rather see what the telescope is pointed at you use the
> > silicone. If you prefer to see what you want to see put an eyepiece in
> > the way. They call that an optical delusion.
Quadibloc:
> > silicone. If you prefer to see what you want to see put an eyepiece in
> > the way. They call that an optical delusion.
> Silicone definitely doesn't provide me with what I want to see. Natural is
> better, even if it's A instead of D.
Some people might not get that. Silicone is for caulking windows and
> better, even if it's A instead of D.
making breast implants. Solid-state image sensors are made of silicon.
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
Uncarollo2
Oct 13, 2015, 9:30:43 PM10/13/15
to
Davoud
Oct 13, 2015, 10:12:28 PM10/13/15
to
Davoud
> > Some people might not get that. Silicone is for caulking windows and
> > making breast implants. Solid-state image sensors are made of silicon.
Uncarollo2:
> > making breast implants. Solid-state image sensors are made of silicon.
> And then what are sillycones?
Another name for breast implants.
Uncarollo2
Oct 14, 2015, 12:47:45 AM10/14/15
to
Paul Schlyter
Oct 14, 2015, 2:01:05 AM10/14/15
to
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:31:39 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
<acridin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes the brain interprets the signals sent by the eye.
Actually, part of this interpretation is performed already in the
<acridin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes the brain interprets the signals sent by the eye.
retina. The color yellow, for instance, is created in the retina by
direct interaction between the red-sensitive and the green-sensitive
cones. One way to view this is to consider the retina to be a part of
the brain. It is like an electronic photoreceptor having parts of the
image processing algorithms implemented as firmware, or even
hardware, within the photoreceptor itself.
Martin Brown
Oct 14, 2015, 3:30:57 AM10/14/15
to
important where transient phenomena are concerned be they bolides, TLPs
or impacts onto the gas giants. The modern trend towards vehicle
dashcams and CCTV has made it possible to spot many more bolides and
then quickly determine the impact site if it was a meteorite.
ISTR There was a case in the early 1900 involving two famous optical
observers who probably saw at sunset a sun grazing comet at closest
approach brighten and then vanish. They were not believed as they had no
photographic record. No trace of it the next day or ever again.
These days SOHO routinely monitors the sun and *amateur* astronomers
make serendipitous discoveries of sun grazers using their data.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Martin Brown
Oct 14, 2015, 3:56:47 AM10/14/15
to
fact sensitive to "Lemon-Yellow" with a very broad peak at 560nm fwhm
+/-80nm and short wavelength tail. "Green" is more sharply peaked at
510nm fwhm -60nm, +40nm with the "Blue" even more sharply peaked 430nm
fwhm -50nm, +20nm. Graphs of the eyes sensitivity vary depending on
whether they show actual pigment absorbtion or perceived sensitivity.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Cone-response.svg/1280px-Cone-response.svg.png
Modern textbooks refer to them as Long, Medium and Short wavelength
receptors to avoid propagating the old incorrect nomenclature. Seeing
red has great utility in finding ripe fruit at this time of year.
I took my numbers from Astrophysical Techniques 3rd edn (dated now).
"Red" is actually constructed by the brain as "Yellow"-"Green" from the
raw cone signals Yellow, Green and Blue. You can play tricks on the
brain with narrowband notch filters that block yellow light of which the
cheapest is Neodymium doped glass creating out of gamut enhanced colours
that look cartoon like in their vividness. Curiously the same trick also
works on film and Bayer CCD allowing for example Autumn leaf colours to
be enhanced giving a postcard like effect.
A lot of movement sensing is also done locally in the eye as is threat
detection for the blink reflex since there isn't time otherwise.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Mike Collins
Oct 14, 2015, 6:10:47 AM10/14/15
to
specious arguments. One could imagine LdB starting a war over which end of
an egg should be uppermost in an egg cup.
Quadibloc
Oct 14, 2015, 6:50:57 AM10/14/15
to
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 4:10:47 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
> I appreciate the advantages of video astronomy. I just wanted to expose his
> specious arguments. One could imagine LdB starting a war over which end of
> an egg should be uppermost in an egg cup.
Myself, I am an inveterate and unrepentant big-endian.
> I appreciate the advantages of video astronomy. I just wanted to expose his
> specious arguments. One could imagine LdB starting a war over which end of
> an egg should be uppermost in an egg cup.
http://www.quadibloc.com/arch/ar0506.htm
John Savard
LdB
Oct 21, 2015, 3:03:14 PM10/21/15
to
equipment than a traditional eyepiece viewer can even hope to see.
One has to see the clue before he can have it. :)
Next time you are looking at a faint fuzzie with the corner of your eye
think about poor clueless LdB looking at spiral arms, dust lanes and color.
Is anger another secret observing skill that helps you see more of
almost nothing. It would certainly be worthwhile. All a traditionalist
has to do is think how much he invested to see so little. If nothing
else, at least everything in the eyepiece is turning a red color.
Have you thought much about what the traditionalists will call
themselves now that the truth is out?
I am leaning toward Astronogers or perhaps Astronogerks
LdB
LdB
Oct 21, 2015, 3:13:53 PM10/21/15
to
On 10/14/2015 5:08 AM, Mike Collins wrote:
>
> I appreciate the advantages of video astronomy. I just wanted to expose his
> specious arguments. One could imagine LdB starting a war over which end of
> an egg should be uppermost in an egg cup.
>
Top up, bottom down, left to left, right to right. Just as it appears
>
> I appreciate the advantages of video astronomy. I just wanted to expose his
> specious arguments. One could imagine LdB starting a war over which end of
> an egg should be uppermost in an egg cup.
>
with modern viewing equipment. Unlike the upside down, topsy turvy and
somewhat tipsy world of the traditional eyepiece observer.
LdB
LdB
Oct 21, 2015, 3:23:28 PM10/21/15
to
eyes that allow him to see more than any ordinary person. They develop
after years of straining the eye to the point of seeing what might be there.
LdB
palsing
Oct 21, 2015, 4:18:21 PM10/21/15
to
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 12:03:14 PM UTC-7, LdB wrote:
> Astronomy is about seeing what is up there. I see more with modern
> equipment than a traditional eyepiece viewer can even hope to see.
If that is all astronomy is about, then I can see many levels deeper than you can simply by sitting in front of my computer and perusing literally tens of thousands of the stunning images available there, much more than you will ever see sitting in front of your own computer while it is connected to your video setup... however, in neither case is that what astronomy is all about, each is just a different aspect of the hobby, and neither one can brag about being the over-all best.
> Astronomy is about seeing what is up there. I see more with modern
> equipment than a traditional eyepiece viewer can even hope to see.
> One has to see the clue before he can have it. :)
> Next time you are looking at a faint fuzzie with the corner of your eye
> think about poor clueless LdB looking at spiral arms, dust lanes and color.
> Is anger another secret observing skill that helps you see more of
I'm not angry. I hope you continue to enjoy the hobby in any manner you wish, just as I will. I think that perhaps YOU are the angry one here, since you have tried over and over again to convince people that your way is the only way, and you have obviously failed, but you are very wrong, your way is NOT the only way to enjoy the night sky.
oriel36
Oct 22, 2015, 2:16:16 AM10/22/15
to
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 9:18:21 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:
> I'm not angry. I hope you continue to enjoy the hobby in any manner you wish, just as I will. I think that perhaps YOU are the angry one here, since you have tried over and over again to convince people that your way is the only way, and you have obviously failed, but you are very wrong, your way is NOT the only way to enjoy the night sky.
While it seems that you both are fighting your respective corners there is really no difference in what either of you think astronomy is and very little pretense other to enjoy the spectacle of the night sky within a celestial sphere framework. You would be content simply to identify the planets without any sense of their position to the Sun or a moving Earth as the many ' conjunction' images currently out there demonstrate -
> I'm not angry. I hope you continue to enjoy the hobby in any manner you wish, just as I will. I think that perhaps YOU are the angry one here, since you have tried over and over again to convince people that your way is the only way, and you have obviously failed, but you are very wrong, your way is NOT the only way to enjoy the night sky.
http://www.edaugusts.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Moon-Mercury-Venus-Mars-Jupiter-conjunction-10-09-2015.jpg
I am still not sure if any of you get the perspective where Venus moves from the left of the Sun (twilight) to the right of the Sun (dawn) as it overtakes our slower moving planet and especially as you were so vocal on this point.
Astronomy is nothing less than the connection between the individual and the Universal in physical terms so calling it a hobby only really expresses what you do as a lowly magnification exercise that becomes disruptive when lacking any attempt to put the motions of the Earth and the other planets in context of solar system structure or terrestrial sciences.
The empirical theorists have so diluted what astronomy actually is that people who would have natural talent for attaining enjoyable perspectives go through life without exercising their gifts hence they are so difficult to find and may only show up in this forum by chance.
wsne...@hotmail.com
Oct 27, 2015, 7:49:00 AM10/27/15
to
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-4, LsD, the village idiot, wrote:
> Astronomy is about seeing what is up there.
Here you go then:
> Astronomy is about seeing what is up there.
http://heritage.stsci.edu/gallery/gallery.html
oriel36
Oct 27, 2015, 8:34:00 AM10/27/15
to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCuQXGCuiPo
While the graphics were designed to draw attention to the close proximity of the planets to the observer's perspective they do not address the real satisfaction which can be gained by putting the Earth's orbital position and motion in context.
http://www.theplanetstoday.com/#
About 40 seconds into the NASA explanation it is possible to see the faster Venus move against the annual motion of the background field of stars (while they themselves appear to move due to the Earth's orbital input) while the slower moving Mars and Jupiter appear to move with the same stars even though small incremental differences occur with each daily appearance.
There is no real excuse nowadays for omitting the partitioning of perspectives which distinguish how the inner and outer planets appear to move and for what reasons. It is fine to be able to identify the planets for the purpose of 'conjunctions' but I feel people today can do so much better.
While the graphics were designed to draw attention to the close proximity of the planets to the observer's perspective they do not address the real satisfaction which can be gained by putting the Earth's orbital position and motion in context.
http://www.theplanetstoday.com/#
About 40 seconds into the NASA explanation it is possible to see the faster Venus move against the annual motion of the background field of stars (while they themselves appear to move due to the Earth's orbital input) while the slower moving Mars and Jupiter appear to move with the same stars even though small incremental differences occur with each daily appearance.
There is no real excuse nowadays for omitting the partitioning of perspectives which distinguish how the inner and outer planets appear to move and for what reasons. It is fine to be able to identify the planets for the purpose of 'conjunctions' but I feel people today can do so much better.
oriel36
Oct 28, 2015, 6:36:30 AM10/28/15
to
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34638603
There is no real need to criticize the explanation if all that was required of observers is to identify the 3 planets in close proximity however with just a few slight adjustments and some familiarity, the Earth's orbital position and motion makes for a more expansive perspective.
About 45 seconds into the explanation the necessary graphics appear where the incremental changes between the faster moving Venus in an inner orbital circuit is partitioned from the slower moving Mars and Jupiter as their relative speeds create an incremental divergence .
There is a whirlwind of different movements going on simultaneously when restricted to orbital dynamics along with luminosity variations, phases for Venus and all the other information which can be assembled to create a distinct 21st century narrative.
The present 'alignment' as described by current explanations tend to generate a false picture as they lack any reference to the Earth's orbital position between Venus and the outer planets as seen at dawn, it may not matter to the celestial sphere observer but it ups the standard of astronomy for everyone else when the Earth's motion and position is taken into account.
There is no real need to criticize the explanation if all that was required of observers is to identify the 3 planets in close proximity however with just a few slight adjustments and some familiarity, the Earth's orbital position and motion makes for a more expansive perspective.
About 45 seconds into the explanation the necessary graphics appear where the incremental changes between the faster moving Venus in an inner orbital circuit is partitioned from the slower moving Mars and Jupiter as their relative speeds create an incremental divergence .
There is a whirlwind of different movements going on simultaneously when restricted to orbital dynamics along with luminosity variations, phases for Venus and all the other information which can be assembled to create a distinct 21st century narrative.
The present 'alignment' as described by current explanations tend to generate a false picture as they lack any reference to the Earth's orbital position between Venus and the outer planets as seen at dawn, it may not matter to the celestial sphere observer but it ups the standard of astronomy for everyone else when the Earth's motion and position is taken into account.
LdB
Oct 28, 2015, 1:34:13 PM10/28/15
to
if he wanted to see what is up there. He would be lucky if any of those
objects appeared to be more than a fuzzy little blob in the corner of
his eye.
If it were up to the traditionalists NASA would have sent one of their
kind up in the Hubble along with his prized eyepieces. He could draw
sketches of what he could almost see, fold them up into paper airplanes
and send them fluttering back to earth.
LdB
wsne...@hotmail.com
Oct 28, 2015, 3:58:51 PM10/28/15
to
On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 1:34:13 PM UTC-4, LdB wrote:
Why do you guys even bother with video? NSN actually had a broadcast a few weeks ago, believe it or not. It was like watching wallpaper dry. The images through an eyepiece are much more impressive.
> On 10/27/2015 6:48 AM, wsnell01 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-4, LsD, the village idiot, wrote:
> >
> >> Astronomy is about seeing what is up there.
> >
> > Here you go then:
> >
> > http://heritage.stsci.edu/gallery/gallery.html
> >
>
>
> Where else would a traditional eyepiece user go but to a site like this
> if he wanted to see what is up there.
A good observer with a small scope or a binocular can see quite a bit. Video observing is definitely a let down compared to what can readily be found on the Web.
> > On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-4, LsD, the village idiot, wrote:
> >
> >> Astronomy is about seeing what is up there.
> >
> > Here you go then:
> >
> > http://heritage.stsci.edu/gallery/gallery.html
> >
>
>
> Where else would a traditional eyepiece user go but to a site like this
> if he wanted to see what is up there.
Why do you guys even bother with video? NSN actually had a broadcast a few weeks ago, believe it or not. It was like watching wallpaper dry. The images through an eyepiece are much more impressive.
oriel36
Oct 29, 2015, 3:00:36 AM10/29/15
to
The magnification guys never go beyond identification within their local horizon and therefore only strike a single note. A more colorful astronomy is like music in that the interlacing elements which comprise a single observation, the current observation of Jupiter,Mars and Venus in close proximity split into numerous perspectives, each as delightful as the next.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipzR9bhei_o
The analogies to dancing and music are always appropriate for participation in enjoying the spectacle doesn't require any sanction nor are there any laws governing the perspectives. It is true that composing original narratives are incredibly satisfying even if the audience is still preoccupied with the distracting empirical agenda and the language they use to talk among themselves.
I would not take away a single thing from the spectacle at dawn including just looking at Jupiter and Venus but with just the slightest effort, their change in position over the last few weeks as they move through space also contains our own motion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipzR9bhei_o
The analogies to dancing and music are always appropriate for participation in enjoying the spectacle doesn't require any sanction nor are there any laws governing the perspectives. It is true that composing original narratives are incredibly satisfying even if the audience is still preoccupied with the distracting empirical agenda and the language they use to talk among themselves.
I would not take away a single thing from the spectacle at dawn including just looking at Jupiter and Venus but with just the slightest effort, their change in position over the last few weeks as they move through space also contains our own motion.
LdB
Nov 4, 2015, 12:51:33 PM11/4/15
to
have ingested something hallucinogenic or you picked up your
kaleidoscope again.
LdB
wsne...@hotmail.com
Nov 6, 2015, 7:19:18 AM11/6/15
to
On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 12:51:33 PM UTC-5, LdB wrote:
> As for your telescope view, either you
> have ingested something hallucinogenic or you picked up your
> kaleidoscope again.
Maybe you should get someone to show you how to focus your telescope, LsD.
> On 10/28/2015 2:58 PM, wsnell01 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 1:34:13 PM UTC-4, LdB wrote:
> >> On 10/27/2015 6:48 AM, wsnell01 wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-4, LsD, the village idiot, wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Astronomy is about seeing what is up there.
> >>>
> >>> Here you go then:
> >>>
> >>> http://heritage.stsci.edu/gallery/gallery.html
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Where else would a traditional eyepiece user go but to a site like this
> >> if he wanted to see what is up there.
> >
> > A good observer with a small scope or a binocular can see quite a bit. Video observing is definitely a let down compared to what can readily be found on the Web.
> >
> > Why do you guys even bother with video? NSN actually had a broadcast a few weeks ago, believe it or not. It was like watching wallpaper dry. The images through an eyepiece are much more impressive.
> >
>
>
> At least we can see the paint.
Then you admit that your video images stink.
> > On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 1:34:13 PM UTC-4, LdB wrote:
> >> On 10/27/2015 6:48 AM, wsnell01 wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 3:03:14 PM UTC-4, LsD, the village idiot, wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Astronomy is about seeing what is up there.
> >>>
> >>> Here you go then:
> >>>
> >>> http://heritage.stsci.edu/gallery/gallery.html
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Where else would a traditional eyepiece user go but to a site like this
> >> if he wanted to see what is up there.
> >
> > A good observer with a small scope or a binocular can see quite a bit. Video observing is definitely a let down compared to what can readily be found on the Web.
> >
> > Why do you guys even bother with video? NSN actually had a broadcast a few weeks ago, believe it or not. It was like watching wallpaper dry. The images through an eyepiece are much more impressive.
> >
>
>
> At least we can see the paint.
> As for your telescope view, either you
> have ingested something hallucinogenic or you picked up your
> kaleidoscope again.
LdB
Nov 11, 2015, 3:22:18 PM11/11/15
to
you are still 100 percent against the introduction of the goto mounts.
Any sort of change seems to be too much for you to understand. It's a
common problem with traditionalists in all walks of life not just
astronomy.
Maybe a blend of old and new will help ease you into the modern world.
Here's an idea that will appeal to many of you technophobic traditional
astronomers. A new way of using an old device. Still not breaking any of
the old fossilized rules but making you comfortable using a device that
was invented less than a century ago. One small step towards the new
world. :)
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/like/252118123326?limghlpsr=true&hlpht=true&ul_noapp=true&hlpv=2&chn=ps&lpid=116&ops=true&viphx=1
LdB
wsne...@hotmail.com
Nov 12, 2015, 12:44:17 PM11/12/15
to
On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 3:22:18 PM UTC-5, LdB wrote:
> No doubt you are still 100 percent against the introduction of the goto
> mounts.
How shall I provide a "goto mount" for my binoculars?
Do I need to have a "goto mount" for each of my telescopes?
Shall I always go to the trouble of setting up a "goto mount" even for short observing sessions, or for observing easy-to-find targets?
If I want to observe a lunar eclipse should I do so only with a video-equipped "goto" telescope.
Should I decline an opportunity to use someone else's "non-goto" telescope, especially if they do not have a video rig hooked up to it?
Should I equip a vintage refractor's mount with "goto" capability rather than using it as-is?
Why should I recommend "goto" to some newbie who is already doing quite well with a much cheaper, simpler telescope?
Why should I assume that "goto" and "video" should be "standard equipment" for anyone? Why do YOU?
> On 11/6/2015 6:19 AM, wsnell01 wrote:
> > Maybe you should get someone to show you how to focus your telescope, LsD.
> >
>
> You seem to do all you can to avoid any sort of new technology.
An opinion given without any proof or evidence, and in fact with much evidence to the contrary, and not relevant to your admitted lack of visual observing skills, LsD. You'll have to do better, LsD, both in terms of your logic and your observing skills.
> > Maybe you should get someone to show you how to focus your telescope, LsD.
> >
>
> You seem to do all you can to avoid any sort of new technology.
> No doubt you are still 100 percent against the introduction of the goto
> mounts.
Do I need to have a "goto mount" for each of my telescopes?
Shall I always go to the trouble of setting up a "goto mount" even for short observing sessions, or for observing easy-to-find targets?
If I want to observe a lunar eclipse should I do so only with a video-equipped "goto" telescope.
Should I decline an opportunity to use someone else's "non-goto" telescope, especially if they do not have a video rig hooked up to it?
Should I equip a vintage refractor's mount with "goto" capability rather than using it as-is?
Why should I recommend "goto" to some newbie who is already doing quite well with a much cheaper, simpler telescope?
Why should I assume that "goto" and "video" should be "standard equipment" for anyone? Why do YOU?
palsing
Nov 12, 2015, 4:09:04 PM11/12/15
to
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 9:44:17 AM UTC-8, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
> How shall I provide a "goto mount" for my binoculars?
Here you go...
> How shall I provide a "goto mount" for my binoculars?
https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/1560576_10203013074620147_3993051175292819757_n.jpg?oh=025a68603905f0cab102183d9df2244e&oe=56F1CCDD
wsne...@hotmail.com
Nov 12, 2015, 5:17:09 PM11/12/15
to
palsing
Nov 12, 2015, 5:29:48 PM11/12/15
to
wsne...@hotmail.com
Nov 12, 2015, 5:41:08 PM11/12/15
to
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 5:29:48 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:
> On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 2:17:09 PM UTC-8, wsne... wrote:
> > Those aren't MY binoculars. Think instead of something that can be brought on a hike, in a carry-on or kept in a glove compartment. Think of something that doesn't require much in the way of storage space or set-up time.
>
> Well, you were asking about a go-to mount... I'm sure you could strap your >own binos on there just fine...
It would tend to defeat my purpose of using 10x50 binos for quick-look astronomy.
> > Those aren't MY binoculars. Think instead of something that can be brought on a hike, in a carry-on or kept in a glove compartment. Think of something that doesn't require much in the way of storage space or set-up time.
>
> Well, you were asking about a go-to mount... I'm sure you could strap your >own binos on there just fine...
Chris L Peterson
Nov 12, 2015, 6:04:36 PM11/12/15
to
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:09:01 -0800 (PST), palsing <pnal...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I made a nice "push-to" gizmo for my binoculars, which holds my cell
phone. Using an app like Google Sky then provides a dynamic star chart
for wherever the binoculars are pointing.
wrote:
phone. Using an app like Google Sky then provides a dynamic star chart
for wherever the binoculars are pointing.
palsing
Nov 12, 2015, 8:47:39 PM11/12/15
to
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 3:04:36 PM UTC-8, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> I made a nice "push-to" gizmo for my binoculars, which holds my cell
> phone. Using an app like Google Sky then provides a dynamic star chart
> for wherever the binoculars are pointing.
That's a great idea. Got a picture?
> I made a nice "push-to" gizmo for my binoculars, which holds my cell
> phone. Using an app like Google Sky then provides a dynamic star chart
> for wherever the binoculars are pointing.
I myself bought this...
http://www.petersonengineering.com/sky/binocmount.htm
... from (whaddaya know?) Peterson Engineering, which actually works pretty well. It even accommodates my monster 22 X 100 binos. However, nothing beats my Couch Potato Chair...
http://www.cloudynights.com/page/articles/cat/articles/how-to/the-couch-potato-telescope-bino-viewing-chair-r597
... except the previously linked StarChair... but that guy is $6950 Aus...
http://www.starchair.com/
The Couch Potato Chair is limited to perhaps 10 X 50 binoculars, anything bigger is definitely problematic. My own is amazing. My only complaint is that my heartbeat causes a slight vibration (really!), other than that the only other problem is getting friends to get their butts out of it so I can use it myself.
I would very much like to see what you came up with, always looking to expand my horizons :>)
Quadibloc
Nov 12, 2015, 8:56:52 PM11/12/15
to
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 3:29:48 PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:
> Well, you were asking about a go-to mount... I'm sure you could strap your own
> binos on there just fine...
If we're going to use other meanings of the sequence of letters... there is also
> Well, you were asking about a go-to mount... I'm sure you could strap your own
> binos on there just fine...
a Japanese company that makes planetariums.
John Savard
palsing
Nov 12, 2015, 9:28:08 PM11/12/15
to
wsne...@hotmail.com
Nov 12, 2015, 10:57:43 PM11/12/15
to
http://www.goto.co.jp/english/product/telescope/astro_car.html
(You can't make this stuff up.)
wsne...@hotmail.com
Nov 12, 2015, 11:10:13 PM11/12/15
to
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 8:47:39 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:
>
> I myself bought this...
>
> http://www.petersonengineering.com/sky/binocmount.htm
>
> ... from (whaddaya know?) Peterson Engineering, which actually works pretty well. It even accommodates my monster 22 X 100 binos. However, nothing beats my Couch Potato Chair...
>
> http://www.cloudynights.com/page/articles/cat/articles/how-to/the-couch-potato-telescope-bino-viewing-chair-r597
>
> ... except the previously linked StarChair... but that guy is $6950 Aus...
>
> http://www.starchair.com/
>
> The Couch Potato Chair is limited to perhaps 10 X 50 binoculars, anything
>bigger is definitely problematic. My own is amazing. My only complaint is that
>my heartbeat causes a slight vibration (really!), other than that the only
>other problem is getting friends to get their butts out of it so I can use it >myself.
I have, for now, decided that an RFT in the 100mm-150mm aperture range is probably a better choice than those large binos. The ergonomics are better, the instrument is more versatile, easier to store and setup, probably cheaper, and one can obtain about the same or larger FOV.
>
> I myself bought this...
>
> http://www.petersonengineering.com/sky/binocmount.htm
>
> ... from (whaddaya know?) Peterson Engineering, which actually works pretty well. It even accommodates my monster 22 X 100 binos. However, nothing beats my Couch Potato Chair...
>
> http://www.cloudynights.com/page/articles/cat/articles/how-to/the-couch-potato-telescope-bino-viewing-chair-r597
>
> ... except the previously linked StarChair... but that guy is $6950 Aus...
>
> http://www.starchair.com/
>
> The Couch Potato Chair is limited to perhaps 10 X 50 binoculars, anything
>bigger is definitely problematic. My own is amazing. My only complaint is that
>my heartbeat causes a slight vibration (really!), other than that the only
>other problem is getting friends to get their butts out of it so I can use it >myself.
palsing
Nov 12, 2015, 11:30:52 PM11/12/15
to
http://www.astromart.com/images/classifieds/564000-564999/564143-1.jpg
... It is mounted on the rocker box, aligned with the main optics, so when someone is up the ladder using the main optics, someone else can be standing on the ground using the finder, looking at the same field. It works well and is very popular with everyone who uses it. It can easily see the entire Veil Nebula (about 3 degrees in diameter) in its FOV. It is also nice because I can screw an OIII filter into its eyepiece for those bright nebulae.
On the other hand, binos are great if only because you get to use both eyes, and there is always something positive about that. Binos are always better when used on a decent mount, because it eliminates the unavoidable shakes eventually experienced when hand-held. That's why my bino chair is almost always occupied by someone. Little kids love it!
I find that all optics have their good points and bad points, there is no such thing as a perfect optic that will suffice for every occasion. You pays your money and you takes your chances. If you do your homework you have a better chance of being happy.
I'm happy, I have a little bit of almost everything!
Chris.B
Nov 13, 2015, 2:00:46 AM11/13/15
to
On Friday, 13 November 2015 05:30:52 UTC+1, palsing wrote:
>
> I'm happy, I have a little bit of almost everything!
I'm delighted to hear it! Now could we please stop talking about amateur astronomy? I'm beginning to feel distinctly disorientated.
>
> I'm happy, I have a little bit of almost everything!
Now can we get back to ignoring 1461 and being rude to Snelfish?
Mike Collins
Nov 13, 2015, 3:57:30 AM11/13/15
to
screws on to the front of almost all binoculars and attached to any tripod,
wsne...@hotmail.com
Nov 13, 2015, 8:04:15 AM11/13/15
to
On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 3:57:30 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
> The chair looks very good but I make do with a cheap L-shaped adapter which
> screws on to the front of almost all binoculars and attached to any tripod,
Not only is it much cheaper than most bino chairs but the bino+adapter+tripod is something that one can actually consider taking on almost any vacation or overnight stay. Did I mention that setup is quick?
> The chair looks very good but I make do with a cheap L-shaped adapter which
> screws on to the front of almost all binoculars and attached to any tripod,
wsne...@hotmail.com
Nov 13, 2015, 8:16:09 AM11/13/15
to
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 11:30:52 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:
> On the other hand, binos are great if only because you get to use both eyes, and there is always something positive about that.
No, according to LsD you would be looking through an eyepiece... TWO of them in fact! That can't be good!
> On the other hand, binos are great if only because you get to use both eyes, and there is always something positive about that.
It's hard to imagine that LsD NEVER looks at the sky with binos. If he admits that he ever does, then the camel has gotten its nose under the tent. If binos are OK, then why not a small RFT? And if the small RFT is OK, why NOT a larger scope?
He'll possibly save his venom for another strike at a "dobstrosity," a 25-inch f/5 for example. <grin>
palsing
Nov 13, 2015, 1:45:25 PM11/13/15
to
We now return you to our regularly scheduled program...
Mike Collins
Nov 13, 2015, 1:57:21 PM11/13/15
to
birds and wildlife. There is usually a tripod with binocular adapter in the
car and also a selfie stick which can be used to attach an iPhone to the
tripod and also as a remote control for the iPhone camera.
Quadibloc
Nov 13, 2015, 3:19:20 PM11/13/15
to
On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 6:16:09 AM UTC-7, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
> It's hard to imagine that LsD NEVER looks at the sky with binos.
Looks at the sky with binos...
> It's hard to imagine that LsD NEVER looks at the sky with binos.
Lucy in the sky with diamonds.
Given your take on his initials, it was inevitable this would occur to me.
John Savard
Quadibloc
Nov 13, 2015, 3:23:09 PM11/13/15
to
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 8:57:43 PM UTC-7, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
> They also make "cars:"
>
> http://www.goto.co.jp/english/product/telescope/astro_car.html
>
> (You can't make this stuff up.)
I followed your link. When I did, it didn't at all seem ridiculous to me that
> They also make "cars:"
>
> http://www.goto.co.jp/english/product/telescope/astro_car.html
>
> (You can't make this stuff up.)
they would take existing trucks or vans, and make mobile observatories or
mobile planetariums with them. Remember, Japan is a very crowded country with
limited land area. So this is a sensible way to address educational needs for
school districts with limited funding.
This isn't like Topre making splash guards for trucks.
John Savard
wsne...@hotmail.com
Nov 13, 2015, 4:49:59 PM11/13/15
to
On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 1:57:21 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
> I keep two pairs of binoculars in my car, 10x50 for astronomy and 8x25 for
> birds and wildlife. There is usually a tripod with binocular adapter in the
> car and also a selfie stick which can be used to attach an iPhone to the
> tripod and also as a remote control for the iPhone camera.
That would not be practical under a car-share scenario. You'd have to carry all of that around with you.
> I keep two pairs of binoculars in my car, 10x50 for astronomy and 8x25 for
> birds and wildlife. There is usually a tripod with binocular adapter in the
> car and also a selfie stick which can be used to attach an iPhone to the
> tripod and also as a remote control for the iPhone camera.
wsne...@hotmail.com
Nov 13, 2015, 5:15:39 PM11/13/15
to
On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 3:23:09 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
(See http://www.resonancepub.com/amastro.htm for another take on the idea.)
The vehicle does seem to have a small lecture/AV room for cloudy nights. However, I was a bit taken aback by its carrying only a 25cm scope, something which could simply be rolled out of a minivan.
(Do these trucks drive through the city, playing music before coming to a stop?) :-)
I hope they actually let people look THROUGH the scopes, not just via a video monitor a la LsD.
> On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 8:57:43 PM UTC-7, wsne... wrote:
>
> > They also make "cars:"
> >
> > http://www.goto.co.jp/english/product/telescope/astro_car.html
> >
> > (You can't make this stuff up.)
>
> I followed your link. When I did, it didn't at all seem ridiculous to me that
> they would take existing trucks or vans, and make mobile observatories or
> mobile planetariums with them. Remember, Japan is a very crowded country with
> limited land area. So this is a sensible way to address educational needs for
> school districts with limited funding.
I wasn't really criticizing the concept. In fact, I even pondered the same sort of idea on a very much smaller scale years ago.
>
> > They also make "cars:"
> >
> > http://www.goto.co.jp/english/product/telescope/astro_car.html
> >
> > (You can't make this stuff up.)
>
> I followed your link. When I did, it didn't at all seem ridiculous to me that
> they would take existing trucks or vans, and make mobile observatories or
> mobile planetariums with them. Remember, Japan is a very crowded country with
> limited land area. So this is a sensible way to address educational needs for
> school districts with limited funding.
(See http://www.resonancepub.com/amastro.htm for another take on the idea.)
The vehicle does seem to have a small lecture/AV room for cloudy nights. However, I was a bit taken aback by its carrying only a 25cm scope, something which could simply be rolled out of a minivan.
(Do these trucks drive through the city, playing music before coming to a stop?) :-)
I hope they actually let people look THROUGH the scopes, not just via a video monitor a la LsD.
Mike Collins
Nov 13, 2015, 6:49:35 PM11/13/15
to
at wildlife while I travelled.
I'd probably just use 8x35 binocs though.
wsne...@hotmail.com
Nov 13, 2015, 7:44:06 PM11/13/15
to
On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 6:49:35 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
You can't leave that stuff in the car... it's about to drive away, perhaps never to return.
Chris.B
Nov 17, 2015, 2:43:11 AM11/17/15
to
On Saturday, 14 November 2015 01:44:06 UTC+1, wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> You can't leave that stuff in the car... it's about to drive away, perhaps never to return.
Did you know.. that they sell plastic dog turds to place on the driver's seat of open sports cars as a deterrent to theft?
>
> You can't leave that stuff in the car... it's about to drive away, perhaps never to return.
Many sports cars have a permanently installed turd in the driver's seat but that's another matter entirely.
A grenade with a wire fixed to the handbrake [on all cars] might be quite effective at reducing road deaths.
LdB
Nov 23, 2015, 3:20:31 PM11/23/15
to
an eyepiece. Those that want to see color, structure and detail use the
monitors.
LdB
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages