Author Topic: Is a fascination with optics integral to astronomy?  (Read 1315 times)

John Abreu

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 127
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Is a fascination with optics integral to astronomy?
« Reply #45 on: February 03, 2018, 12:30:07 PM »
Quote
<p class="citation">QuoteWe are not talking in this case about amateur astronomer building telescopes, golfers making golf balls and clubs, or musicians making musical instruments, so your analogy is infinitely far off the mark. So yes, your analogy was off-topic.


That is what we are talking about, that is exactly what you wrote:

"I think every astronomer, amateur or professional, should at some time construct a telescope and mount out of loose or surplus parts. They should also attempt to repair or improve an existing instrument of some type or other."

Enough said..

Jon[/quote]
No, Jon.

What I wrote was

 "This thread is actually yet another version of the "what is the definition of an astronomer" puzzle."

 "Is someone who knows the rules of golf, watches golf on TV, knows the names of the famous golfers, but who has never actually used a golf club, a golfer?"

You then quoted something that I wrote earlier, on a different subject and train of thought.

Go back and follow the thread and you'll see.

Enough said.

Dennis Collins

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Is a fascination with optics integral to astronomy?
« Reply #46 on: February 08, 2018, 11:41:11 PM »
Quote
Quote

One should be "fascinated enough with optics" to know that the blue halos you see around some objects that you view with your refractor are due to an optical aberration and not a characteristic of the objects themselves.


Being the devil's advocate here...

I'm not so sure that they should. The reason I say that is because in real life with other technologies, this is not so; so then why force it on astronomy? Case in point would be automobiles. It is common that an auto will behave in such a way that all the operator will know is that it is unusual. Their course of action is then not to learn auto mechanics but to take it to an expert for diagnosis and correction if needed - many time walking out the door only learning one thing, that the unusual behavior is bad or no bad. Same thing for the human organism and going to doctors, most do not nor ever will understand the underlying biological processes causing the issue. And of course, more relevant to your case, people can go on forever thinking a certain way they feel or how their auto is operating is normal, when in fact it is not. No harm done as long as the issue is not critical. So I see no reason why an observer needs to know the whys, especially if they do not care to want to know. I have read from plenty of folks that they like the blue halos around stars and think it is pretty. If that is so, then they are happy campers and what may be a problem for you is a feature for them.
I am absolutely sure that they should know that those blue halos are due to chromatic aberration. That isn't too much to expect. If they have a reflector they won't see the blue halos (assuming good eyepieces.) But if they then try to build a telescope out of some simple lenses they WILL see those blue halos (other colors too) and will be on the path to learning more about optics and astronomy, and maybe something they didn't know about the history of astronomy.

One could imagine someone who doesn't recognize the constellations, who uses a GoTo telescope of some type and who doesn't know much of anything about the history, theory and science surrounding astronomy, but seems content to punch the GoTo buttons and go "Ooh and Ahh" once in a while. That is not an amateur astronomer. Agree?

afelfillia

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Is a fascination with optics integral to astronomy?
« Reply #47 on: February 09, 2018, 12:21:40 AM »
Quote
Quote

Quote
<p class="citation">QuoteWe are not talking in this case about amateur astronomer building telescopes, golfers making golf balls and clubs, or musicians making musical instruments, so your analogy is infinitely far off the mark. So yes, your analogy was off-topic.


That is what we are talking about, that is exactly what you wrote:

"I think every astronomer, amateur or professional, should at some time construct a telescope and mount out of loose or surplus parts. They should also attempt to repair or improve an existing instrument of some type or other."

Enough said..

Jon
No, Jon.

What I wrote was

 "This thread is actually yet another version of the "what is the definition of an astronomer" puzzle."

 "Is someone who knows the rules of golf, watches golf on TV, knows the names of the famous golfers, but who has never actually used a golf club, a golfer?"

You then quoted something that I wrote earlier, on a different subject and train of thought.

Go back and follow the thread and you'll see.

Enough said.

It's all one thread. You can't have it both ways.

Jon

getneyprotges

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Is a fascination with optics integral to astronomy?
« Reply #48 on: February 09, 2018, 06:52:27 AM »
Oh my, I have "Glass-G.A.S."...

Is there no hope? Oh, the humanity. I need more glass, must get more glass...

Thank you for pointing out my malady... jason

paurustmorba

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Is a fascination with optics integral to astronomy?
« Reply #49 on: February 09, 2018, 08:07:58 AM »
Quote
Quote
<p class="citation">QuoteWe are not talking in this case about amateur astronomer building telescopes, golfers making golf balls and clubs, or musicians making musical instruments, so your analogy is infinitely far off the mark. So yes, your analogy was off-topic.


That is what we are talking about, that is exactly what you wrote:

"I think every astronomer, amateur or professional, should at some time construct a telescope and mount out of loose or surplus parts. They should also attempt to repair or improve an existing instrument of some type or other."

Enough said..

Jon
No, Jon.

What I wrote was

 "This thread is actually yet another version of the "what is the definition of an astronomer" puzzle."

 "Is someone who knows the rules of golf, watches golf on TV, knows the names of the famous golfers, but who has never actually used a golf club, a golfer?"

You then quoted something that I wrote earlier, on a different subject and train of thought.

Go back and follow the thread and you'll see.

Enough said.[/quote]

It's all one thread. You can't have it both ways.

Jon[/quote]
No, Jon.

Different subject from my earlier comment, different point being presented in response to the OP.

I notice that you used and quoted the word "should" several times even though it didn't appear in this:

 "This thread is actually yet another version of the "what is the definition of an astronomer" puzzle."

 "Is someone who knows the rules of golf, watches golf on TV, knows the names of the famous golfers, but who has never actually used a golf club, a golfer?"

Out of curiosity, what is your answer to the question just above?