Can Amateurs ever know more than some Professionals?

[higginsdj]

I'd just like to point out that this is a 'vent'. I deal with Binary asteroids and their observation on a regular basis over the past decade so I know a little about them.

Recently I saw a couple of professionals (out of reputable organisations) publish results of their observations of an NEO stating that they had uncovered possible binary nature. When I look at the data that they present there is not a chance of being a binary and their results point very specifically to data calibration issues instead. (I'd also like to point out that I raised my concerns with 'my' pro experts and they agree with my interpretation)

Of course I can not rebut these findings in the professional forums as I have no professional affiliations.

Wouldn't you love to just slap some of these guys on the sides of their heads and say 'what are you thinking'?

And I just read the Fraud in Science post - I think "Wishful thinking" is quite prevalent here!

Cheers

[CraigS]

Hi David;
That's a worry .. were their results peer reviewed ?

Cheers

[higginsdj]

No evidence of same.

[CraigS]

Can you elaborate on that ?

Cheers

[renormalised]

You may not have any professional affiliations but you can still rebut their finding in a professional forum, or letter to a journal. So long as you have some professional backup to bolster your assertions, then you have no worries. Make sure, though, that you have all the data to back yourself up. I'd go ahead with stating where they're wrong. If they dismiss your letter offhand just because you're an amateur, especially since you have the relevant experience in observing these objects, then they're just being arrogant. This is one area where an amateur with enough experience in the practical side of observations can actually make a meaningful contribution to the literature and the science.

Don't waste the opportunity to put your case.

[higginsdj]

Their data showed a period where the lightcurve was abruptly offset (in the middle of a nights observations) and it is their assertion that this represents an "event" indicates a possible binary nature. They went on further to assert that this short period disconnect (a matter of hours) represented a second period that they modeled to be a second period of greater than a days duration and that the moon was synchronous with the orbit.

I'd say that they had 'wishful thinking' that what is obviously a data issue represented something else. For starters:

1. Binary systems have at least 2 overlaying periods - we'll call them P1 and P2. P2 can represent the Orbit (ONLY where eclipsing events are seen) or the spin rotation of the moon. If the moon is synchronous then P2 represented BOTH orbit and moon spin rotation.

2. If the offset data represents P2, then P2 will be visible in ALL nights data, not just one nights data.

3. If the offset data represents eclipsing events then there will be shoulders on the curve into and out of the event, not an offset. Eclipse events don't just happen.

4. One cannot predict the value of a long period based on data captured over a few hours.

I tried responding to the person in question (in text mode) but was bounced by their spam filter. They even asked for collaboration! No idea how they expect to get any if they bounce emails!

In any case my 'sponsors' have advised that I should observe the target myself this apparition so I have added it to my observing list (any fast rotator is a binary candidate).

Note that I am NOT ruling out that the target could be a binary, just the assertions based on their published results.

Cheers

[CraigS]

Sounds like you're in the early stages of reviewing their results.

Are you going to follow through (once you get some more data) ?

Cheers

[renormalised]

Here's a thought....get all the data you need on the object, reduce and analyse it, then write up a paper yourself:)

[Barrykgerdes]

Amateurs do the tests and legwork because they like it and spend more time at it and don't need to worry about the money. They like to be sure of what they say and do.

Professionals on the other hand usually learnt out of a book got a degree and tackled the area of discovery that they thought will pay the most in money (or fame). They very often make their discoveries agree with what their masters (employers) want.

However I think there are more dedicated professionals in astronomy than most other professions except medicine because the hours are terrible for most and it does not pay a great deal so you do need to have a real interest in the subject.

Barry

[higginsdj]

Trouble is, if it does turn out to be a Binary, guess who will demand credit for the discovery....

Cheers

[renormalised]

That would only be fair enough, but they'd still have to acknowledge your contribution to the study of the object. But if you find that it maybe errors or erroneous interpretations on their data that led them to that conclusion (that it's a binary asteroid), then it will be up to you in your paper to say otherwise.

[KenGee]

What a shocking tude man, What do you do for a living? Do you routinely make stuff up? Should we give your boss a call and let him/her know that check your work!

[bartman]

"Can Amateurs ever know more than some Professionals?"

by the sounds of it

ummm YES

From what I have read/seen in this forum and some magazines, the plain answer to your question is yes.
I dont know much bout binary asteroids, computations et al ( still trying to get a good image of m42 and the usual's as a beginner) but Amateur Astronomers ( we) contribute a bucket load of data and obs that can/ could be considered as "professional" data....I think.

Case in point....August - Sky at Night magazine has a 'news in brief' article about our own Anthony Weslely's Jupiter Impact - and all the other publications he has had in other media. ( dont know if he is professional?.... doesn't matter.....I'm sure it helped the astronomy community in general)

I realise David my answer is not what you were pining at.......
but hey I thought I'd put my two pixels in!

Bartman

[Barrykgerdes]

You're entitled to your opininon but I speak from years of experiece. I may have been a bit blunt in my description but that is how I survived in an industry that was full of pseudo professionals, by being more professional in the way I tackled my tasks. Let's leave it at that. I won't ask what you do and won't tell what I did but I can assure you I was at the top of my profession.

Barry;):D

[kingkong01]

I 100% agree with this as most pepole that work in jobs whre thay have a dead line or a strict budget or a employer that is under stress will always try cut corners and go faster to meet said deadlines ect...ect.. Many amateurs do contribute LOT to the professionals work no matter what field thay are in.

[CraigS]

Guys;

Look around yourselves at IIS ... there are many professionals contributing many ideas, concepts and knowledge. They may not have their training basis in Astronomy but I can assure you, their expertise acquired over their years of dedication in their chosen professions, are directly benefitting amateur astronomy.

There's much more that comes from having worked in a professional environment than having that label or wearing shiny badges, gained through a university education. Much can be learned from developing ideas, theories etc in an environment where those notions do not fit the mainstream consensus. The primary area being how to present those concepts with eloquence, whilst displaying respect for those with consensus views/thinking.

'Conspiracies' define pseudoscientists.

Is that really how you want to portray yourselves ?

Cheer & Rgds

[Blue Skies]

Think this is a good idea and worth a try, particularly the letter to the editor of the journal. Some readers might dismiss it but it might make others think twice about the original results. Or perhaps others think the same as you but can't be bothered saying it, or they might even get two letters on the same subject! That would surely highlight that there was a problem with the data. Anyway, worth a try, I said.

[renormalised]

Just going back to what I said earlier and what Jacquie just made comment on....do you know what journal they published in, David??. Some journals have a supplementary journal that usually contains letters, which other have written in response to articles in the main journal. These are usually done in comment of the data in the main article or aspects of the theory that may need further discussion but are not quite the effort of another paper. If you were to comment on the findings, somewhere like this would be appropriate.

[higginsdj]

No, I only saw the information second hand. Some form of astro telegram but not a CBET.

Cheers

[renormalised]

Oh....it'll probably turn up in a journal somewhere. Give it time:)

[higginsdj]

Oh and there was one other piece of evidence that this person should have picked up on to show his conclusion was invalid.... (I missed it the first time around). His lightcurve indicated that the eclipsing event made the object brighter. Now the only eclipsing events that I am aware of that can do this are microlensing events but to date I have not seen or heard of an asteroid moon with that level of gravity :). Looking at this last item I would find it very difficult to believe that anyone would actually publish it in a journal.