Talk:Astronomy

Contents

1 Definition of "Astronomy" using etymology
2 telescopes
3 Impact Craters
4 Astronmy v. Astrology
5 Don't think this is true
6 Recent Vandalisms
7 Astrophysics and other overlapping entries
8 Astrology
9 Function of space telescopes
10 Frenchised

General

Most (if not all) astronomers now have a strong background in physics, and observations are always put in an astrophysical context, so the distinction between astronomy and astrophysics almost doesn't exist anymore.

Is this true for planetary scientists and exobiologists, though? For an astrophysicist I imagine there's no significant difference, but what about the other specializations within astronomy? --LMS

I've been thinking about that. The truth is, I didn't think of exobiologist as astronomers...but according to my own definition, they are. Maybe I should think of moving this back to astronomy, and giving exobiology a place there. In the case of planetary scientists, i'm pretty sure that their physics background must be good, though they could be strongers in other areas of earth sciences. I think we need more astronomers around here. -- AN

In some countries other than the US, astronomers and astrophysicists are distinctly separate categories. I'm a grad student in astronomy and my Yugoslavian classmates assure me these are very separate there, that astronomers only measure things and only get a Master's degree while astronomers do only theory and get a PhD. Should this be elaborated on the page for NPOV reasons? -- zandperl 04:40, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Has anyone considered pilfering NASA site for materials to add? I've just gone there and not found a general copyright notice, stating that it covers materials on the entire site, but it seems to be under the typical U.S. gov't terms; the notices I have found all say not to use pictures including recognizable people for any commercial purpose w/o written permission, and say the materials must not be used to imply endorsement by NASA, etc. No explicit word on whether the materials are in the public domain (I expect that they are). --KQ

Actually, just on mon I emailed the webmaster of image.gspc.nasa.gov about their copyrights, because of the article x-ray astronomy that I found out was copied from there. The head e-mailed me back telling aprox "we are a federal gov. site so our material is in the public domain, we appreciate, though, that credit is given"...so, i put the article back, with a link to the website saying it was from them. That opens lots of new oportunities. AN

I recently researched this for a presentation I was giving, and got the following info/pages. NASA images are not quite public domain, but are free for use with only a credit to NASA. Check out [1] (http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/) for their image server, and [2] (http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/copyright.html) for the copyright info. -- zandperl 04:40, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I really hate what they did to this page. From a page that actually contained some information, it became a list of links. Don't anybody thinks the same!

I agree. The recent changes suck. AstroNomer, you know this page better than me. Would you like to revert? -- CYD

I tend to agree also - I think it had a lot of useful info before which has now disappeared. Judging from Lir's comments at the bottom of Talk:Main Page, she thinks this is a great improvement. I can see what she's getting at: there is, I think, some value in a plain list of links on a particular complex subject - an index page, if you like - but I'd rather it was on a separate page, like List of astronomy topics or something. --Camembert

Has this information actually disappeared? My understanding is that it is all enclosed behind the appropriate links. Now if you want...we could have an explanation of positional astronomy and an explanation of radio telescopes etc. etc. but that isn't going to be very useful to the reader. If the reader wants to read that explanation, they want to go to the full page, not get a brief synposis of it.

Not that no information should be presented here, Id like to see more information here, but a discussion of what is already on another page is pointless. Lir 16:17 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would be entirely pointless to have some duplication here. I agree that the page shouldn't go into too much depth, but I think a brief overview of all the main areas (and some of the minor areas also) is useful, with a more in depth treatment on the individual pages. I also think that in some cases, it is useful to have a brief note next to links; it probably isn't obvious to an average reader what precession is, for instance, and a note would give them the briefest possible explanation of it, so they know whether they want to read more. People who know what it means are probably going to use the search function anyway. That said, this isn't a subject I know much about, so I'll let those who know more get on with it.--Camembert

I don't know if a brief cliff's note describing precession would be of any use to the reader either. The physics page doesn't have that sort of format. Ie

Astronomy

Bla blah blah

Position astronomy-astronomy observing positions of the stars blah blah Radio astronomy- astronomy using big radio waves blah blah blah X-Ray astronomy- astronomy using X-Rays blah blah blah Planetology-a study of planets blah blah blah

Lir 16:55 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)

I agree. The page is now merely a laundry list of links to other pages, whereas before it was actually a readable article! Imagine you know nothing about astronomy. Reading through the article, you see a bunch of links with incomprehensible names. Why should you click on any of them? Which should you click on? It's unusable.

It IS still a readable article. There are several paragraphs at the top. Imagine you know nothing about astronomy...where to start? I advise you make Astronomy for Beginners. This page did not serve the function you suggest before it was edited to this format. Such a page would probably refer the reader to Amateur Astronomy and positional astronomy.

There's nothing wrong with duplicating information. Ideally, we want a short discussion of each important topic in the astronomy article, with the topic examined in greater depth in the full page. See, for example, the Physics article, which contains a short history of physics with a more detailed history in the works in a separate page. It isn't perfect, but I think it's more motivating than a laundry list.

Lir, could you please put the removed information back on this page? -- CYD

The only difference I can see between this and the physics page is that we have moved the history of astronomy to it's own page. You say you want a brief discussion of each "important topic" but what is important? What good will it do to cut and paste the first paragraph from each subject page onto this page? Lir 16:50 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)

well, maybe not the first paragraph, but bare lists are not terribly good content. -- Tarquin

i restored some but it looks way messy to me. The list without comment is much more useful. Lir 17:19 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)

I have changed the article to a form that is closer to its former self. In particular

I put back the explanation of the different subfields of study
I eliminated the list of isolated topics, after verifying they are listed in "list of astronomy topics".
I put back the short history. It is my belief that a short story of the subject is adequate in this page, and a long history deserves its own article. I consider this to be subject to discussion.--AN 01:58 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

Your revert erased subfields. Lir 15:40 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

Your brief history was pointless. It's all in history of astronomy and it is meaningless to those who know nothing and redundant to those who do know the history. I believe the only question here is whether there should be a paragraph explaining the difference between radio astronomy and X-Ray astronomy and optical astronomy. I see no reason for such madness. If somebody wants to read about optical astronomy they can click on the link. That's what it is there for.

I mean

Infrared astronomy deals with using infrared radiation

is about as pointless as

Radio astronomy deals with using radio telescopes

Lir 15:53 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

Imho both are useful albeit too concise explanations for outsiders. Erik Zachte

Once again the revert is losing a lot of data by going back so far and since it doesnt add anything that isnt on another page... rerevert Lir 22:00 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

It was you modifications that lost a lot of information. And the previous edit back was not a simple revert, but I tried to incorporate several of the changes you had made. You, instead, simply put back your last copy, that doesn't read like an article, and misses information.--AN

Now look. As the page says, Astronomy is a big topic. Thus, Astronomy needs some disambiguation. Go look at a disambiguation page-see how they have a big list that is clearly visible? You have all this history of astronomy stuff clogging the top of the page-there is a page for history of astronomy its all there. Lir 22:49 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

No one is disputing that all of astronomy cannot fit onto one page, but it does not follow that the astronomy article should be little more than a list of topics. People click on a link to "astronomy" expecting to see a cohesive and articulate article on astronomy, so there is nothing wrong with having a brief history of astronomy on this page - just as there is nothing wrong with having a list of links of further topics co-existing with it. -- CYD

I am not disputing that information should not be on this page, I am only disputing the type and location of it. To be honest, I really don't care what you put below the links-but those links need to be high up on the page so they are easily used by someone. Lir 23:51 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

In drafting the original section differentiating astronomy and astrology, I deliberately avoided calling astrology a pseudoscience in an attempt to maintain the NPOV. Calling it a pseudoscience (although of course I believe it is, at best) is kind of a slap in the face, and that's not neutral. What's the consensus? Should this be reworded? If we call it a pseudoscience here, what's to keep someone from using loaded language on the astrology page to denigrate astronomy?

That said, I'll be content to abide with whatever the consensus on this is. Tally ho! Stormwriter

Do astrologists claim that its a science? Yes, I guess they do...

The study of the positions and aspects of celestial bodies in the belief that they have an influence on the course of natural earthly occurrences and human affairs.

I would word it that astrologers argue that they are conducting science BUT the key tenent of the scientific process is that a scientific hypothesis leads to predictions which can be proven as correct. This argument is ignored on most "astrology IS a science" websites. So the question then is, "Do any astrologers have any predictions that we can test for validity?" and wait to see if anyone offers up a prediction.

Lir 04:41 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)

You could word it "mainstream/academic scientists call astrology a science." I would also take care to mention in the history section that astronomy and astrology were once the same field of study. -- zandperl 02:28, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Not directly related to this page, but related topics. I've started stubs on a couple astronomy-related terms and if anyone wants to take on a new project, they could use fleshing out: Dobson (with links to currently empty John Dobson and Dobsonian telescope), and SIRTF. -- zandperl 04:40, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The link to "Astronomy Formulas" is broken. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:34, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Definition of "Astronomy" using etymology

It would be best not to give the etymological derivation of "astronomy" because etymology is often unhelpful. "Meteorology" for instance means literally "the study of meteors". This is because the ancient Greeks thought meteors were portents of storms etc, and so could be used to predict weather. "Meteorology" today just means the study of all aspects of weather. Similarly "astronomy" does not refer to the study of stars, but of all objects and phenomena to be seen (or even NOT seen!) in the heavens. So I'd omit the etymology and go straight to a modern definition of "astronomy".

telescopes

Would anyone be interested helping with a Wikipedia:WikiProject Telescopes and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Telescopes? Should a telescopes template include space telescopes? It/they could be modeled after the following articles:

--zandperl 15:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Impact Craters

I removed the extensive discussion, since there no longer seems to be any point to it on this page. If someone wants to talk about it more, please do so on the "crater" talk page. NealMcB 05:27, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC)

Astronmy v. Astrology

~~Rmhermen~~ChrisO, let me start by saying I think you did some good work on the astronomy page trying to observe NPOV while inserting relevant detail. But can we please remove the word "scientists"? I feel astrology is considered by everyone as a pseudoscience (reference to their lack of scientific method pretty much seals the case). One thing to keep in mind is this is about astronomy, not a rebuttal of astrology, honestly I think pointing out that contemporary astrologers (do we really know about the ancient past?) do not follow the scientific method is enough, saying this makes it a pseudoscience is redundant and hinting that this belief is shared by elitist "scientists" while the rest of us fall for that bunk is kind of insulting to me (and might be to other casual readers). - Plautus satire 16:37, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm trying to promote the fa site, can someone fix my mistake??/?

Don't think this is true

During part of the 20th century astronomy was considered to be separated into astrometry, celestial mechanics and astrophysics. The current high status of astrophysics can be seen reflected in the naming of University departments and institutions involved in astronomical research: the oldest ones are invariably Astronomy departments and institutes, the newest ones tend to include astrophysics in their names, sometimes excluding the word astronomy, to emphasize the nature of its research. Furthermore, astrophysical research, especially in theoretical astrophysics can be carried out by people whose background is in physics or mathematics rather than astronomy.

I believe it is true. At least the part about the traditional three branches being enumerated as astrometry, celestial mechanics and astrophysics, and how astrophysics has more or less come to be synonymous with astronomy in the last few decades. Is it the wording you want to change? Curps 22:50, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

From my experience, the content of that paragraph is true. In the Western world today, astronomy and astrophysics are mostly synonymous, and students are encouraged to learn theory (astrophysics) as well as observation techniques (astrometry). Within the modern astronomy/astrophysics community, I have definitely observed a rivalry between those specializing in theory and observation. However, in less industrialized countries they are sometimes different departments, or different concentrations within one department, with the highest astronomy degree being a Master's (or equivalent), and the highest in astrophyiscs being PhD. Wording-wise, I think I might say that it was two branches, astrometry==celestial mechanics, and astrophysics. --zandperl 23:02, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, astrometry and celestial mechanics are different. Astrometry was about accurately mapping the positions of the "fixed" stars and recording the motions of the planets. It was most of what early astronomers did, including the ancient Greeks, long before Kepler and Newton. It still lives on with the Hipparcos satellite. Celestial mechanics is about calculating orbital elements for planets and such and predicting their future positions, calculating perturbations, etc.

I have seen this traditional division of astronomy into astrometry, celestial mechanics and astrophysics mentioned before in other sources. Today, of course, it has much less significance since photography and CCDs have automated the mapping of positions and computers have automated calculating orbits, and much of the science of astronomy is astrophysics. Curps 01:13, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I do think having a discussion of this breakdown is useful, but I disagree with its placement as paragraphs 2 and 3 in the introduction section. I think it should be placed further down, in the "divisions of astronomy" section. --zandperl 02:47, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Astronomers observe more than the electromagnetic spectrum. They study meteors, cosmic dust, cosmic rays, neutrinos, gravitational waves, pre-solar keplerkeplerkeplerkeplerkeplergrains, etc. That section

Recent Vandalisms

I reported the recent vandalisms, along with IP addresses on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. If there was a more appropriate place for me to do so, please let me know or feel free to correct it yourself. --zandperl 01:07, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dang this page gets a lot of vandalisms! Don't seem consistent enough to want protection though. --zandperl 14:31, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Astrophysics and other overlapping entries

There has been some discussion on Talk:Astrophysics about the fact that there is presently considerable redundancy between the astronomy and astrophysics entries, and several more. Perhaps watchers of this page would be interested in joining the discussion. Rkundalini 07:52, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Astrology

A preëmptive note here, which I hope will head off a lot of pointless squabbling. Astrology properly wouldn't belong on this page at all, were it not for the facts that (a) astronomy and astrology share some common history; (b) a lot of people do confuse astrology with astronomy. It would be sufficient, I think, merely to mark, as has been done, the shared history and that they should not be confused, sending people who land here by accident off to the article they're looking for: no need to give astrology undue prominence. Therefore I've toned down the POV attack on astrology, which doesn't belong here at all: it's enough to state, as has been done quite properly, that the two disciplines differ in method, and to link astronomy to scientific method; links to pseudoscience are just inflammatory. People interested in astronomy by and large couldn't care less about astrology, and the great majority of people interested in astrology are blind partisans of it, and "pseudoscience", an intrinsically POV article, is just waving a red rag in front of a bull.... — Bill 13:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Someone reverted "pseudoscience". First, it's an inherently POV statement: very few of us would call Islam a pseudo-religion, or rock music a pseudo-art. But more to the point in the article Astronomy, there's no need to drag more astrology in here than necessary. It is amply stated, quite correctly, that astronomy is a science, and that astrology is something different. This article is about astronomy, not astrology. It should not be up to the article Astronomy to define or judge the merits of astrology: that should be done in the article Astrology. Much of what goes on in that article — listing of curious claims, famous people purported to have practiced it (who did not) — merely reflects the insecurity of certain proponents of astrology; similarly, vengeful pursuing of astrology in an article on astronomy has a flavor of insecurity about it too. Why should astronomers care whether astrology is a science, an art, a pseudoscience, or a religion? If you care about this, do it on the article Astrology. — Bill 00:09, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with you here, and will not support your description on this page, as it seems to lend credence to astrology. However, I hope you find my edits an acceptable compromise. Most people know what the term astrology means, and those who do not should be smart enough to follow the link posted. It also maintains the integrity of the page by refering to each field's relationship to the scientific method. [N.B. I did not make the earlier reversion, although I was tempted]. --NeilTarrant 08:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neil, that looks perfect to me. It is indeed quite pointless on this page even to offer a thumbnail description of what astrology is — it just doesn't matter — I'd got carried away by the start in that direction which was there before. Who says the Wikipedia process doesn't work? — Bill 11:11, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Describing astrology/astromancy as a pseudoscience is factual, not inflammatory. Stating that « astrologers do not [embrace the scientific method] » is nearly synonymous with labeling it as a pseudoscience, so why should it be considered "more neutral"? Use of the term pseudoscience is not subjective (i.e. a POV matter): the pseudoscience article's "Classifying pseudoscience" section gives the criteria that must be met for a discipline to be recognised as pseudoscience —these are all objective. Still, relegating the debate to the Astrology page is indeed the way to go. :-)

Urhixidur 16:45, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

Function of space telescopes

The article currently contains this sentence:

Space telescopes are also used to eliminate noise (electromagnetic interference) from the atmosphere.

To the best of my knowledge this is usually not true, but before I go change it I'd like to give others a chance to explain what I'm missing. To my understanding, space telescopes are used to:

avoid atmospheric opacity at certain wavelengths
avoid atmospheric emission at certain wavelengths
avoid the effects of astronomical seeing in the optical band

The quoted sentence occurs in a discussion of infrared telescopes. If thermal infrared is meant, then I reckon the statement is true; see Spitzer Space Telescope and IRAS for examples of instruments that do not suffer from atmospheric thermal emission (which I suppose is a form of EMI in this context) as a result of being space-borne. However there is also the near infrared, a band in which the Hubble Space Telescope is active, and being spaced-based in this band has nothing to do with avoiding EMI since there are plenty of ground-based near-IR astronomical instruments.

So my question is: Is this just a matter of not distinguishing between near-infrared and thermal-infrared applications? Or is the statement meant to apply to all space telescopes working in either infrared band? In either case, I think the statement needs to be clarified. Look forward to hearing your thoughts about this. Jeff Medkeff | Talk 08:44, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Frenchised

Hello astronomists - question: Is there a page on here thats named something like skygazing? Because there's a French article, found at fr:Observation du ciel (observation of the sky) that in WP:TIE, and before I start translating it, I'd like to know if there's already an article here? Reply here, but could u drop me a note on my talk page, Thanks --Wonderfool t (c)e) 15:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Astronomy"