Re: [APML] Science in Astrophotos

[Chuck Vaughn <aa6g@aa6g.org>]

Torsten,
 
> It takes more than technical perfection to do science. The important (and
> hard) part is to come up with a question (that has not been answered
> already!) that the image can shed light on :)

You bring up some interesting points here so let me ask some more questions.

First, I think it's quite easy to come up with a question that has not been
answered. Let's try one. What would NGC XXXX look like if it could be seen
in color? (For XXXX insert any number for which no color images of any kind
exist.) If an astrophotographer carefully calibrates his system, takes the
images required through a known filter set, creates a color image, and
defines how the data was handled, why would this not be science?

OTOH, if one carefully calibrated his equipment, took photometric data of
SAO XXXXX, and determined the star's magnitude within certain error limits,
why is this science?

Why is the first example not considered science and the second example
considered to be science? I don't see any difference between the two. If
anything the first example makes an effort to answer a question that has
no existing answer. The magnitudes of all SAO stars are known to some
accuracy. Why continue to take photometric data? In the hope of discovering
a previously unknown variable?

Why is photometry elevated to a level above serious astrophotography?

General data taking is a common form of science that doesn't answer any
particular question. Scientific discoveries are made when no question at
all was asked by noticing something in existing data. No question in
particular has to be asked to do science.

I think that dismissing all amateur astrophotography as art is a far too
narrow definition of science.

Chuck <aa6g@aa6g.org>


--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>