- This topic has 6 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 2 weeks, 5 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Recently, I went to Spain for the eclipse and stayed in some shared accomodation with a bunch of people who regularly photograph the sky and who have taken some very, very impressive pictures.
But while chatting with them over the couple of days I realised that their astronomical worlds and mine had remarkably little crossover. None appeared to be BAA members and one didn’t even appear to be aware of it – which I found kind of shocking. Yes, we all liked clear dark skies and getting outside under the stars, and were happy to chat telescopes, but there seemed to be a community of observers with no interest in, nor reason to associate with us – which is a shame, though hardly the end of the world.
Even so, I have been trying to fathom out how this comes about. Is it the case that many are solely centred on the aesthetics of the imagery rather than what is represented and so can find all the community and advice they need in Stargazers Lounge/Cloudy Nights/Astrobin/youtube? Is it that the internet is now so dominant as a force that the BAA is marginalised by search algorithms for reducing advert clicks or is it that I am just a stupid old man shouting at clouds?
This had me thinking and I wondered what others think.
However, I do see one possible ray of hope. In this world, with AI on the rise and Cory Doctrow’s graphic description of what is happening to the web becoming so apposite (some image processing suites now use techniques that employ prior knowledge of the target to “enhance” the image), I wonder how long it will be before some of these sites become so burdened and polluted by AI agents that some are rendered nearly unusable by company generated “characters” slyly promoting their equipment and no longer something you can rely on as sources of personal “hands on” experience.
Will the BAA end up seeing a resurgence as other sites become increasingly untrustworthy?
Hi Grant,
I think to engage people interested in the science side of astronomy you have to be where the largest numbers who might be interested can be found which is in the astro forums and the profile of the BAA is very low there.
I spend a lot of time out there in various groups engaging with people interested in spectroscopy, promoting spectroscopy, showing examples and helping them. While most of it is in the science sections of general astro groups or special interest groups (If you look at what is going on in the Cloudy Nights Scientific Amateur Astronomy subforum for example, there is some interesting stuff going on there), I also drop in on the “pretty picture” imagers from time to time to give a science view of what is in their images, show them a spectrum, explain why light leaks in their filters is turning the red stars in their narrow band filtered images into planetary nebulae etc which generates quite a bit of interest. As part of that I also try to raise the profile of the BAA where I can, linking to the gallery, video talks, spectra in the BAA database, section content etc which at least brings them to the BAA website. Jeremy is on Stargazers Lounge and there are a couple of others but generally I don’t often see other BAA members.
Concerning AI, it can only find the good stuff if it is out there. In Cloudy Nights there is someone building an impressive “point an click” application which can take an image full of slitless spectra taken using a Star Analyser and identify objects in it, generate fully calibrated spectra and roughly classify them. He is using AI a lot and commented that most of the queries about using the Star Analyser lead back to stuff I put out there.
Robin: I had enormous trouble getting CN’s Scientific Amateur Astronomy section created. Some moderators (mentioning no names in order to protect the guilty) were very antagonistic but a few were equally enthusiastic. The enthusiasts won out in the end, after what one moderator described as a “💩-storm” in the moderator’s community. The descriptive text:
A forum where amateurs can discuss their contributions to fields such as spectroscopy, photometry, astrometry, interferometry, and radio astronomy. Astronomical objects of interest may include variable and carbon stars, pulsars, supernovae, AGNs, exoplanets, asteroids, and short-lived energetic phenomena such as GRBs. The presentation of quantitative observational measurements, techniques used for acquisition, and relevant ensuing discussion are especially welcome.
is entirely mine, apart from the later addition of “and carbon stars”.
Your work promoting spectroscopy there has paid dividends. Kudos!
Other areas, especially photometry but including astrometry and radio astronomy also have a productive community.
FWIW, I am also a member of SGL. Amongst my other efforts, I annotate the plentiful images of M31 and M33 to show the locations of globular clusters, LBVs and Cepheids; explain workflow in photometry, and post an annual image showing the proper motion of Barnard’s star. Each of these have had a positive response. A few “pretty pictures” afficionados have asked for, and received, catalogues of globular clusters in Local Group galaxies so that they can track down more examples in their images.
I also plug the BAA, especially the ARPS and its asteroidal photometry programme in both CN and SGL.
The lesson, I suggest, that other BAA members should follow Robin’s and my lead in creating mass-audience sub-fora and in encouraging their readers to contribute material of scientific value. Beware: it may prove to be hard work.
Paul
I think Robin and Paul are right. Engaging via online fora is one of the best ways to show people the science side of astronomy. All 3 of us spend quite a bit of time on SGL. Robin is often posting about spectroscopy and Paul if often pointing out to imagers the interesting objects that are in the images of well known objects they post, like globulars in M31.I sometimes post about variable stars. It’s a matter of gently encouraging others to do more.
Hi Paul,
I’m curious, what was it that some of the moderators objected to in scientifc amateur astronomy? Seems fairly innocuous.
I’m struggling to see how it causes offence.
Grant
Grant: I really don’t know, not being privy to the detailed discussions. All I can report is what a couple of the supporting moderators passed on in private messages.
I don’t understand why the proposal was controversial either.
Paul
I think Robin and Paul are right. Engaging via online fora is one of the best ways to show people the science side of astronomy. All 3 of us spend quite a bit of time on SGL. Robin is often posting about spectroscopy and Paul if often pointing out to imagers the interesting objects that are in the images of well known objects they post, like globulars in M31.I sometimes post about variable stars. It’s a matter of gently encouraging others to do more.
Sounds like a call to arms to me.
OK, so what is everyone waiting for? 🙂
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.