Are we stargazers?

[StevieDvd]

I'm an amateur Astro photographer and occasional stargazer. Or possibly a light historian.🤔

 

 

[mikeDnight]

1 hour ago, JeremyS said:

This is very helpful Olly. The term gazer, as defined above, does not describe Leslie Peltier. Perhaps he used it in a self deprecating manner. Perhaps many of us do.

I wonder if I could move you on to part two of the question, the use of Starlight rather than Starlit in the title Starlight Nights. I feel more of a literary allusion at play…

I think its referring to the starlight from so many starlit nights that illuminates his mind and heart with so many happy memories.

Now back to this incendiary refractor v reflector  comment!  

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, JeremyS said:

This is very helpful Olly. The term gazer, as defined above, does not describe Leslie Peltier. Perhaps he used it in a self deprecating manner. Perhaps many of us do.

I wonder if I could move you on to part two of the question, the use of Starlight rather than Starlit in the title Starlight Nights. I feel more of a literary allusion at play…

I suppose starlight nights refers to nights in which there is starlight and starlit nights to ones illuminated by starlight.  Since starlight is a noun rather than an adjective it should not, grammatically, be attached directly to another noun but should be phrased as nights of starlight. The adjective starlit can, of course, be attached directly to its noun.

However, starlight nights is rather nice, I think, the compression of the discarded preposition and the rhyme (which is both heard and seen) touching it with a whiff of poetic fancy, perhaps?

And yes, I think any astronomer calling himself or herself a stargazer is probably doing so self-deprecatingly and ironically, especially if they are British and, therefore, predisoposed to such rhetorical devices!  

Olly

[DaveS]

2 hours ago, JeremyS said:

I heard someone say stargazers use refractors and astronomers use reflectors 🤔

I have both, and both have cameras on the end of them.

[saac]

2 hours ago, JeremyS said:

I heard someone say stargazers use refractors and astronomers use reflectors 🤔

You've been listening to those professional astronomers with their loose talk again 😉 

Jim

[Peter Drew]

19 minutes ago, DaveS said:

I have both, and both have cameras on the end of them.

Stargrazer?      🙂

[Stu]

I know one thing is for sure, my reports are full of highly non scientific language such as ‘nice’, or when I need to be a bit more specific ‘really nice’, with the occasional ‘lovely’ thrown in 🤪. Not sure what that makes me!

[saac]

3 minutes ago, Stu said:

I know one thing is for sure, my reports are full of highly non scientific language such as ‘nice’, or when I need to be a bit more specific ‘really nice’, with the occasional ‘lovely’ thrown in 🤪. Not sure what that makes me!

honest

[Xilman]

3 hours ago, JeremyS said:

Three pages of impassioned lexicology, literary criticism and epistemology, yet not a word from @ollypenrice 🤔

Been browsing your thesaurus again Jeremy?

[Xilman]

3 hours ago, paulastro said:

Really?  Still don't care.

You can call me anything you like as long as you call me in time for dinner.

[mikeDnight]

36 minutes ago, Stu said:

I know one thing is for sure, my reports are full of highly non scientific language such as ‘nice’, or when I need to be a bit more specific ‘really nice’, with the occasional ‘lovely’ thrown in 🤪. Not sure what that makes me!

Human!

[SteveNickolls]

Good to read others view on this topic. This sums up my feelings on the matter, so 'yes' to being a stargazer-

"I stood and stared; the sky was lit,
The sky was stars all over it,
I stood, I knew not why,
Without a wish, without a will,
I stood upon that silent hill
And stared into the sky until
My eyes were blind with stars and still
I stared into the sky."

From 'The Song of Honour' by Ralph Hodgson (1913)

 

Cheers,
Steve

 

Edited February 11 by SteveNickolls

[Rusted]

1 hour ago, Peter Drew said:

Stargrazer?      🙂

As most of us use an optical instrument of some sort, usually involving glass, perhaps we should be called starglazers?
I'll get my coat.

[YogSothoth]

I’m quite happy with either amateur astronomer, or stargazer, although I probably don’t give it a lot of thought really. From the OED, an amateur is

A person who takes part in a particular activity purely for pleasure or interest rather than as a professional; a person who engages in a pursuit (now esp. a sport) on an unpaid basis

I take part in astronomy purely for pleasure, so I think the AS description would fit. I would guess we all think about the science of astronomy to a certain extent, even if we’re not necessarily making new discoveries and as soon as you start making notes about the relative magnitude/colours of a double star, note transient features on Jupiter, sunspots etc, you are actively making an observation, rather than just passively looking. I would also suggest that if you pass on your knowledge of astronomy to others, you are doing your bit to promote science in general, which can only be a good thing. 

 

[StevieDvd]

An paleontologist looks at a small bone and says, this is what the Dinosaur looked like 65 million years ago.

An astronomer looks at a the sky and says, this is what this looked like 65 million years ago, but what it looks like now I can't say.

 

 

[Xilman]

7 minutes ago, StevieDvd said:

An paleontologist looks at a small bone and says, this is what the Dinosaur looked like 65 million years ago.

An astronomer looks at a the sky and says, this is what this looked like 65 million years ago, but what it looks like now I can't say.

The paleontologist often wrongly guesses important characteristics.  Compare the Jurassic Park dinosaurs with the many species which we now know had feathers.

The astronomer can make pretty good guesses for many things - a red dwarf will look the same in 65 My as it does now - but doesn't have a clue for some others - what will Betelgeuse look like in only 65 ky?

[iantaylor2uk]

4 hours ago, 900SL said:

As a fellow Chartered Engineer I concur.

Personally speaking, I am an observer, a smatterer, a dabbler, a money and timewaster, but I am not an astronomer. In fact, I'm closer to being a meteorologist, given the weather here.

My hobby does not contribute to science, it only seeks to experience the wonder of the night sky.

 

I should have added in my original post that I too am a Chartered Engineer, although I got mine through the Institute of Physics! 

I think enough posters here have made the point that simple observing (either visually or taking photos) IS science and so we are perfectly entitled to call ourselves astronomers. For those who for whatever reason choose not to, does this mean you don't join astronomy societies?

[saac]

3 minutes ago, iantaylor2uk said:

I should have added in my original post that I too am a Chartered Engineer, although I got mine through the Institute of Physics! 

I think enough posters here have made the point that simple observing (either visually or taking photos) IS science and so we are perfectly entitled to call ourselves astronomers. For those who for whatever reason choose not to, does this mean you don't join astronomy societies?

I think I see now the root of where we disagree Ian. For me science is a little more than taking notes, taking pictures and making observations. That sounds more like journalism. As for joining societies, I'm firmly with Groucho Marx on that one  

Jim 

[Second Time Around]

We of course might be theoretical scientists, but are we entitled to call ourselves observational scientists if we don't record our observations rather than just stargaze?

What do others think?

Edited February 10 by Second Time Around
Grammar

[SCANS]

This is a fun topic to read through on a pleasant Saturday morning. I'm firmly in the stargazer camp. I have yet to achieve a level of proficiency in astronomy to be comfortable calling myself an astronomer. I'm all about the dreamy, experiential aspects. It's a pursuit I enjoy for unwinding from the challenges and stresses of day-to-day life and I find that I do far more gazing than observing. 

 

Edited February 10 by SCANS

[Second Time Around]

Just to follow on from my last post, one of the first books I read as a teenager was Webb's Celestial Objects for Common Telescopes.  That led to my love of DSOs, and because these were published observations (mainly with a 3.7 inch refractor) I do consider them science.

Edited February 19 by Second Time Around

[Xilman]

1 hour ago, Second Time Around said:

We of course might be theoretical scientists, but are we entitled to call ourselves observational scientists if we don't record our observations rather than just stargazing?

What do others think?

I suggest that reporting observations is also important, though perhaps not strictly necessary. Quite a bit of science in the past has been published posthumously.

Turning to boasting now: rather a few of my photometric results now reside in the BAAVSS and AAVSO databases. Along with those of thousands of other astronomers, I hasten to add - I'm nothing special in that respect and other SGL contributors can say the same, I know at least one has partaken in this thread. I am also co-author of a paper in MNRAS but that was for purely desk- and computer-based work. I think of myself as a scientist. YMMV.

[saac]

43 minutes ago, SCANS said:

This is a fun topic to read through on a pleasant Saturday morning. I'm firmly in the stargazer camp. I have yet to achieve a level of proficiency in astronomy to be comfortable calling myself an astronomer. I'm all about the dreamy, experiential aspects. It's a pursuit I enjoy for unwinding from the challenges and stresses of day-to-day life and I find that I do far more gazing than observing. 

 

That's similar to what I feel when I'm out doing my non astronomy activity. There is strictly no scientific objective aim or goal, no rules, no health and safety policy or corporate rubbish to follow or observe, no quality plans and quarterly reports. Just me,  occasionally my dog, just pottering about looking at the night sky.  Usually the only formal observation I make is "it's bloody cold so time to go in" or "crap here come the clouds". I make a a serious effort never to record those moments nor entertain thoughts of publishing them. For those who are doing genuine science, you have my respect, after a day at work I would not have the energy nor ability. It is my relaxation time where I get lost in the moment.  

Jim 

Edited February 10 by saac

[JeremyS]

37 minutes ago, Second Time Around said:

Webb's Celestial Objects for Common Telescopes.  

I guess he’d never have chosen that title if Taks were around at the time 🤔

[andrew s]

For me a stargazer romantically engages with the heavens while an astronomer intellectually engages with it. I see no reason why you can't be both, possibly at the same time.

Regards Andrew