Future of Astronomy

[Peter Ward]

Guys, chill out.

We (as in amateurs) do astronomy because literally we "love" this stuff...and that is fantastic and should be encouraged.

But sorry: a minor planet discovery, light curve, supernova, comet discovery etc. is from my perspective: "fluff and stuff' ....and that I did not intend as derogatory.

My point, for example, is simply this: very gifted amateurs don't have the gear (aka. big enough hammers) to observe the spectrum with sufficient detail or precision to observe, for example, that fact that the Universe's expansion is accelerating.

The latter changes our perspectives on Astronomy.

Another minor planet? well...cool. but I'll let the readers decide as to it's overall importance.

[clive milne]

Sorry to inform you Peter, but this statement is demonstrably incorrect.

[Miaplacidus (Brian)]

Yes, although I suspect I disagree with Peter on pretty much everything (speed limits?), I also wish people would tone down the passion. I think it's pretty dumb arguing about the future. We'll all be proved wrong soon enough.

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

My point, for example, is simply this: very gifted amateurs don't have the gear (aka. big enough hammers) to observe the spectrum with sufficient detail or precision to observe, for example, that fact that the Universe's expansion is accelerating.

And Peter, this time next year there'll be an app for that!

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by clive milne

Sorry to inform you Peter, but this statement is demonstrably incorrect.

Clive, I'm happy to take a heads-up: but are you saying Brian Schmidt should not have got the Nobel???

[alocky (Andrew lockwood)]

And now someone's having a go at people who chose to become geologists? Seriously - the level of numeracy required to be mining geologist won't get you far in astrophysics. Why don't you take a shot at us geophysicists instead!

When I was a postgrad I shared a floor in the physics dept with the theoretical physics guys - easily the smartest people on campus. Yet thanks to the absolute lack of commercial application of their research, these guys will never be earning even average salaries. Society pays its sportstars good money, so we need to work out how to make astrophysics a spectator sport. By encouraging more lay people to get involved the pros are doing their best to make it more palatable to divert the required money into a Great Purpose- like finally putting all those silly dark 'whatever' theories to bed....
Cheers
Andrew

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Miaplacidus

Yes, although I suspect I disagree with Peter on pretty much everything (speed limits?)

Oh for chissake...So you can't too drive eh?

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by clive milne

Sorry to inform you Peter, but this statement is demonstrably incorrect.

Just so we are clear...I'd be disappointed to see this bog down to a "whatever have the Romans (amateurs) done for us??" debate

Clearly, basic infrastructure, health, sanitation, defence are important.

Feel free to substitute astronomical nouns in the above sentence.

[clive milne]

Well... to do scientifically relevant research out to cosmologically significant distances (Z>0.1), you need to be able to get 24 magnitude.... this is well within the reach of amateurs today.

[Zhou (Mick)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Guys, chill out.

We (as in amateurs) do astronomy because literally we "love" this stuff...and that is fantastic and should be encouraged.

I concur!

[Zhou (Mick)]

Originally Posted by clive milne

Well... to do scientifically relevant research out to cosmologically significant distances (Z>1), you need to be able to get 24 magnitude.... this is well within the reach of amateurs today.

Just playing devil's advocate here. Though modern amateur scopes and equipment can obtain a visual magnitude of 24 can the light be analysed to a degree that yields usable data?

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by Zhou

Just playing devil's advocate here. Though modern amateur scopes and equipment can obtain a visual magnitude of 24 can the light be analysed to a degree that yields usable data?

fwiw) Amateur telescopes of modest aperture with deep depletion CCDs can can go far deeper than 24th magnitude, they have already reached 27th magnitude.

And.. let us not dismiss the value of actually discovering transient phenomena (such as super nova) at this distance. Even if we lack the signal to noise ratio to be able to provide a spectra, let's not understate the value of registering the occurrence of it in the first place, which otherwise would have gone undetected.

It may not be glamourous, but it is still valuable.

[Zhou (Mick)]

Originally Posted by clive milne

And.. let us not dismiss the value of actually discovering transient phenomena (such as super nova) at this distance. Even if we lack the signal to noise ratio to be able to provide a spectra, let's not understate the value of registering the occurrence of it in the first place, which otherwise would have gone undetected.

Good point

[PeterM]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Guys, chill out.

We (as in amateurs) do astronomy because literally we "love" this stuff...and that is fantastic and should be encouraged.

But sorry: a minor planet discovery, light curve, supernova, comet discovery etc. is from my perspective: "fluff and stuff' ....and that I did not intend as derogatory.

My point, for example, is simply this: very gifted amateurs don't have the gear (aka. big enough hammers) to observe the spectrum with sufficient detail or precision to observe, for example, that fact that the Universe's expansion is accelerating.

The latter changes our perspectives on Astronomy.

Another minor planet? well...cool. but I'll let the readers decide as to it's overall importance.

At the risk of being banned from IIS, again I say what you loved to stick into many - Bollocks to your comments. So now you try to make your point to sweeten your toxic comments after offending amateur astronomers. Again I ask you withdraw Fluff n Stuff and delusional comments as you have offended me with these comments. You think you are God's gift to Astro?, some high priest of astro imaging, well that you are not. As I said every now and then you do a pretty pic Pete, one was good enough to use as my desktop background for a few weeks.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by PeterM

At the risk of being banned from IIS, again I say what you loved to stick into many - Bollocks to your comments. So now you try to make a point to sweeten your toxic comments after offending amateur astronomers. Again I ask you withdraw Fluff n Stuff and delusional comments as you have offended me with these comments. You think you are God's gift to Astro?, some high priest of astro imaging, well that you are not. As I said every now and then you do a pretty pic Pete.

Mate, I'll be the first to admit I'm not PC. Also, the last time I measured a light curve was a decade ago, never found a comet, and every minor planet that has difted across my images had previously been cataloged.... all I do at present is take pretty pictures....not very important stuff really.

That's hardly delusional. Sure, there are other amateurs that do good science....but I maintain it is not cutting edge.....but when you can send me an (amateur) spectra of a 27th magnitude galaxy, or say, a home-built martian rover.. I'll happily recant what was only ever intended as a glib remark.

[Paul Haese]

Anyone considered that the reason for the cut backs might actually be because of the budget being put into the SKA? Or some other project massive project like Cern? Not to mention that budget cuts are occurring in all portfolios in every government across the planet. In case anybody missed it there is a gigantic recession taking place across the planet and that means the endless money pit is nearly empty. Politicians cannot keep on spending money like drunken sailors and that means cuts to science, health, sport, everywhere.

There are quite a few misnomers in this thread about many different things. Certainly some of the largest facilities are producing results better than the hubble despite an atmosphere. The technology has improved that much that many space programs are being canned. Larger facilities are being built all the time and that means budgeting for these. Some facilities that are becoming obsolete are being closed down. Besides launching is an inherently dangerous event. When Webb goes up it will not be servicable and if it is damaged during launch or fails to start up there goes billions of dollars; and that does happen. Not all observation will occur in space, most of it will be cheaper to conduct here.

Amateurs are producing good results and contributing as they have always done but amateurs will never be the mainstay of research astronomy. Everyone must see this is the case. It is incorrect to think that amateurs could compete with larger and better equipped facilities. We will always be asked to be the eyes to look out for things but the pros will decide what to do with the data if anything at all. Being involved in a program is great; I agree and enjoy being a part of one, but I don't think my data is going to change the world. Someone might use it but it is a very small part of the overall picture. The bigger questions are answered by bigger facilities with bigger budgets and professionals at the helm.

No offense to anyone intended.

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

But there is no need to devalue the most excellent work being done by amateurs by calling it "fluff".
That is just down right rude. More than insulting.

[PeterM]

[QUOTE=Peter Ward;.. I'll happily recant what was only ever intended as a glib remark.[/QUOTE]

Thank you Peter,
Now can we move on with what I think the intent of the original post was, as Paul makes some good points above.

Later (we are at work now) Greg will post some spectra and comments from a professional astronomer re a recent BOSS discovery. This is will leave no doubt amateur astronomers are respected and encouraged by professionals to use their little hammers so that bigger cost/time critical hammers can be used more effectively.
With total respect to variable star observers, comet hunters, minor planet officianados and the many other fields amateur astronomers contribute to, I am sorry it will be Supernova/ BOSS orientated but the point will be that amateurs do have a very important role to fill in order provide data to those with bigger hammers. It is not about competing but collaborating and sometimes this collaboration may have significant scientific value as in sn2011iv.

[alocky (Andrew lockwood)]

It's a little odd that we have all focussed on the contribution amateurs are making to observational science only. There is also a significant amount of public domain data acquired with all the really big hammers, too much data to have been milked completely.
There are plenty of amateurs putting the hard yards in on the 'boring' bits, and this is how science proceeds; in small steps.
The only difference between a pro and an amateur is the affiliation. If you come up with the grand unified theory, I guarantee you'll be accepted by both.
Cheers,
Andrew.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by alocky

........The only difference between a pro and an amateur is the affiliation. If you come up with the grand unified theory, I guarantee you'll be accepted by both.
Cheers,
Andrew.

I wouldn't put it down to affiliation.

Observing the night sky for enjoyment with a small telescope by definition makes you an amateur astronomer, but as to whether you choose to add any rigor to your observations is up to you, & hardly obligatory.

Professional Astronomers almost without exception have a degree in the Physical sciences plus Post-don experience too boot. Not too many amateurs are similarly qualified, nor is it a requirement....and I hasten to say... many have similar nouse & education, but have simply chosen a different career.

Sure amateurs can contribute, but to come up with a GUT without formal training? .. a tough ask...

[alocky (Andrew lockwood)]

Perhaps I was being a little flippant. The real difference is one lot get paid (a little), the other cheerfully pay to do it. You aren't likely to get affiliated unless you've got the necessary formal training either, and no, I don't think the next breakthrough in theoretical astrophysics will come from someone who wouldn't know a differential equation if it bit them on the ass - but it may be triggered by an observation made from a desktop review of 100s of years of data by someone with no formal training, just energy, time and dedication.
You can get involved with the local uni - have a look at the latest sky and telescope, for Paul Luckas's inspirational story. There are wealthy people who choose to donate to astronomy research - I can even name names!
What unites us all is a sense of wonder at the universe. Funny how some people still think anything involving our petty affairs actually matters after contemplating that.
cheers!
Andrew.

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

I wouldn't put it down to affiliation.



Sure amateurs can contribute, but to come up with a GUT without formal training? .. a tough ask...