https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 13:27:29 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
They are not visible, they do not interfere with our view of the sky
in dark sites, they have minimal impact on astronomy, they do not have environmental impact.
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 5:43:54?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 13:27:29 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
They are not visible, they do not interfere with our view of the sky
in dark sites, they have minimal impact on astronomy, they do not have
environmental impact.
Everything in the article is absolutely correct.
You see, oh feeble-minded one, objects in Earth orbit reflect light from all sources, not just the Sun.
On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 04:51:01 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 5:43:54?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 13:27:29 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
They are not visible, they do not interfere with our view of the sky
in dark sites, they have minimal impact on astronomy, they do not have
environmental impact.
Everything in the article is absolutely correct.
You see, oh feeble-minded one, objects in Earth orbit reflect light from all sources, not just the Sun.The fact remains that everything I pointed out is factually correct.
On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 9:01:23?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 04:51:01 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 5:43:54?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:The fact remains that everything I pointed out is factually correct.
On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 13:27:29 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
They are not visible, they do not interfere with our view of the sky
in dark sites, they have minimal impact on astronomy, they do not have
environmental impact.
Everything in the article is absolutely correct.
You see, oh feeble-minded one, objects in Earth orbit reflect light from all sources, not just the Sun.
Astronomers disagree with you.
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:22:01 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 9:01:23?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 04:51:01 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 5:43:54?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:The fact remains that everything I pointed out is factually correct.
On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 13:27:29 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
They are not visible, they do not interfere with our view of the sky >> >> in dark sites, they have minimal impact on astronomy, they do not have >> >> environmental impact.
Everything in the article is absolutely correct.
You see, oh feeble-minded one, objects in Earth orbit reflect light from all sources, not just the Sun.
Astronomers disagree with you.No. A few astronomers are impacted. But most are not. Our skies are
visually the same as they have always been, excepting the growth of ground-based light pollution. Satellites don't cause problems with the
vast majority of astronomy.
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 8:52:04?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:22:01 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 9:01:23?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:No. A few astronomers are impacted. But most are not. Our skies are
On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 04:51:01 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 5:43:54?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:The fact remains that everything I pointed out is factually correct.
On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 13:27:29 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
They are not visible, they do not interfere with our view of the sky >> >> >> in dark sites, they have minimal impact on astronomy, they do not have >> >> >> environmental impact.
Everything in the article is absolutely correct.
You see, oh feeble-minded one, objects in Earth orbit reflect light from all sources, not just the Sun.
Astronomers disagree with you.
visually the same as they have always been, excepting the growth of
ground-based light pollution. Satellites don't cause problems with the
vast majority of astronomy.
Everything that you have written contradicts the article. The article contains only facts.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 06:36:33 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 8:52:04?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:22:01 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 9:01:23?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:No. A few astronomers are impacted. But most are not. Our skies are
On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 04:51:01 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>Astronomers disagree with you.
wrote:
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 5:43:54?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 13:27:29 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote:The fact remains that everything I pointed out is factually correct. >> >
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
They are not visible, they do not interfere with our view of the sky
in dark sites, they have minimal impact on astronomy, they do not have
environmental impact.
Everything in the article is absolutely correct.
You see, oh feeble-minded one, objects in Earth orbit reflect light from all sources, not just the Sun.
visually the same as they have always been, excepting the growth of
ground-based light pollution. Satellites don't cause problems with the
vast majority of astronomy.
Everything that you have written contradicts the article. The article contains only facts.Nope.
Objectively, we don't see a sky full of satellites with our eyes. And objectively, satellites almost never impact astroimaging.
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 10:26:07?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 06:36:33 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 8:52:04?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:Nope.
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:22:01 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 9:01:23?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:No. A few astronomers are impacted. But most are not. Our skies are
On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 04:51:01 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>Astronomers disagree with you.
wrote:
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 5:43:54?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 13:27:29 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> wrote:The fact remains that everything I pointed out is factually correct. >> >> >
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
They are not visible, they do not interfere with our view of the sky
in dark sites, they have minimal impact on astronomy, they do not have
environmental impact.
Everything in the article is absolutely correct.
You see, oh feeble-minded one, objects in Earth orbit reflect light from all sources, not just the Sun.
visually the same as they have always been, excepting the growth of
ground-based light pollution. Satellites don't cause problems with the
vast majority of astronomy.
Everything that you have written contradicts the article. The article contains only facts.
Objectively, we don't see a sky full of satellites with our eyes. And
objectively, satellites almost never impact astroimaging.
Your opinions have nothing to do with the content of the article, nor the topic of the thread.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 08:49:50 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 10:26:07?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 06:36:33 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 8:52:04?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:22:01 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>Nope.
wrote:
On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 9:01:23?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 04:51:01 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>No. A few astronomers are impacted. But most are not. Our skies are
wrote:
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 5:43:54?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:The fact remains that everything I pointed out is factually correct.
On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 13:27:29 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
They are not visible, they do not interfere with our view of the sky
in dark sites, they have minimal impact on astronomy, they do not have
environmental impact.
Everything in the article is absolutely correct.
You see, oh feeble-minded one, objects in Earth orbit reflect light from all sources, not just the Sun.
Astronomers disagree with you.
visually the same as they have always been, excepting the growth of
ground-based light pollution. Satellites don't cause problems with the >> >> vast majority of astronomy.
Everything that you have written contradicts the article. The article contains only facts.
Objectively, we don't see a sky full of satellites with our eyes. And
objectively, satellites almost never impact astroimaging.
Your opinions have nothing to do with the content of the article, nor the topic of the thread.The points I stated are not opinions. They are facts.
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:02:08?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 08:49:50 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 10:26:07?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 06:36:33 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>The points I stated are not opinions. They are facts.
wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 8:52:04?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:22:01 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>Nope.
wrote:
On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 9:01:23?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 04:51:01 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>No. A few astronomers are impacted. But most are not. Our skies are
wrote:
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 5:43:54?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:The fact remains that everything I pointed out is factually correct.
On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 13:27:29 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
They are not visible, they do not interfere with our view of the sky
in dark sites, they have minimal impact on astronomy, they do not have
environmental impact.
Everything in the article is absolutely correct.
You see, oh feeble-minded one, objects in Earth orbit reflect light from all sources, not just the Sun.
Astronomers disagree with you.
visually the same as they have always been, excepting the growth of
ground-based light pollution. Satellites don't cause problems with the >> >> >> vast majority of astronomy.
Everything that you have written contradicts the article. The article contains only facts.
Objectively, we don't see a sky full of satellites with our eyes. And
objectively, satellites almost never impact astroimaging.
Your opinions have nothing to do with the content of the article, nor the topic of the thread.
No, they are opinions. Facts can be found in the article.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 20:32:51 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:02:08?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 08:49:50 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 10:26:07?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:The points I stated are not opinions. They are facts.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 06:36:33 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 8:52:04?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:Nope.
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:22:01 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 9:01:23?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:No. A few astronomers are impacted. But most are not. Our skies are >> >> >> visually the same as they have always been, excepting the growth of >> >> >> ground-based light pollution. Satellites don't cause problems with the
On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 04:51:01 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com> >> >> >> >> wrote:
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 5:43:54?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:The fact remains that everything I pointed out is factually correct.
On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 13:27:29 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
They are not visible, they do not interfere with our view of the sky
in dark sites, they have minimal impact on astronomy, they do not have
environmental impact.
Everything in the article is absolutely correct.
You see, oh feeble-minded one, objects in Earth orbit reflect light from all sources, not just the Sun.
Astronomers disagree with you.
vast majority of astronomy.
Everything that you have written contradicts the article. The article contains only facts.
Objectively, we don't see a sky full of satellites with our eyes. And >> >> objectively, satellites almost never impact astroimaging.
Your opinions have nothing to do with the content of the article, nor the topic of the thread.
No, they are opinions. Facts can be found in the article.If you had ever been out under the night sky, or taken an astroimage,
you'd know something. But that appears not to be the case.
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:14:55?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 20:32:51 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:02:08?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:If you had ever been out under the night sky, or taken an astroimage,
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 08:49:50 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 10:26:07?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:The points I stated are not opinions. They are facts.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 06:36:33 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 8:52:04?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:Nope.
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:22:01 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 9:01:23?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:No. A few astronomers are impacted. But most are not. Our skies are >> >> >> >> visually the same as they have always been, excepting the growth of >> >> >> >> ground-based light pollution. Satellites don't cause problems with the
On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 04:51:01 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 5:43:54?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:The fact remains that everything I pointed out is factually correct.
On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 13:27:29 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
They are not visible, they do not interfere with our view of the sky
in dark sites, they have minimal impact on astronomy, they do not have
environmental impact.
Everything in the article is absolutely correct.
You see, oh feeble-minded one, objects in Earth orbit reflect light from all sources, not just the Sun.
Astronomers disagree with you.
vast majority of astronomy.
Everything that you have written contradicts the article. The article contains only facts.
Objectively, we don't see a sky full of satellites with our eyes. And >> >> >> objectively, satellites almost never impact astroimaging.
Your opinions have nothing to do with the content of the article, nor the topic of the thread.
No, they are opinions. Facts can be found in the article.
you'd know something. But that appears not to be the case.
Numerous astronomers are sounding the alarm. You are the only contrarian. >You should learn how to read.
On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 16:47:12 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:14:55?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 20:32:51 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:02:08?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 08:49:50 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>If you had ever been out under the night sky, or taken an astroimage,
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 10:26:07?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:The points I stated are not opinions. They are facts.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 06:36:33 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 8:52:04?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:Nope.
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 03:22:01 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com> >> >> >> >> wrote:
On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 9:01:23?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:No. A few astronomers are impacted. But most are not. Our skies are
On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 04:51:01 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 5:43:54?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:The fact remains that everything I pointed out is factually correct.
On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 13:27:29 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
They are not visible, they do not interfere with our view of the sky
in dark sites, they have minimal impact on astronomy, they do not have
environmental impact.
Everything in the article is absolutely correct.
You see, oh feeble-minded one, objects in Earth orbit reflect light from all sources, not just the Sun.
Astronomers disagree with you.
visually the same as they have always been, excepting the growth of
ground-based light pollution. Satellites don't cause problems with the
vast majority of astronomy.
Everything that you have written contradicts the article. The article contains only facts.
Objectively, we don't see a sky full of satellites with our eyes. And
objectively, satellites almost never impact astroimaging.
Your opinions have nothing to do with the content of the article, nor the topic of the thread.
No, they are opinions. Facts can be found in the article.
you'd know something. But that appears not to be the case.
Numerous astronomers are sounding the alarm. You are the only contrarian. >You should learn how to read.You should learn how to think. These constellations of satellites
aren't really naked eye objects, and they aren't bright enough to
create blooming in the majority of cameras, meaning they don't impact
either aesthetics or science.
You should learn how to think. These constellations of satellites
aren't really naked eye objects, and they aren't bright enough to
create blooming in the majority of cameras, meaning they don't impact
either aesthetics or science.
The astronomers say otherwise.
Their evidence and arguments are sound.
Yours are not.
On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 18:49:45 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
You should learn how to think. These constellations of satellites
aren't really naked eye objects, and they aren't bright enough to
create blooming in the majority of cameras, meaning they don't impact
either aesthetics or science.
The astronomers say otherwise.A few astronomers say this. Many do not. Again, there is no evidence
Their evidence and arguments are sound.
Yours are not.
that the satellites are seriously impacting astronomy. A couple of
survey projects with very fast, large aperture systems have issues.
Which leaves 99% of the work largely unimpacted. Satellite tracks on
images are not a problem.
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 1:03:19?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 18:49:45 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
A few astronomers say this. Many do not. Again, there is no evidenceYou should learn how to think. These constellations of satellites
aren't really naked eye objects, and they aren't bright enough to
create blooming in the majority of cameras, meaning they don't impact
either aesthetics or science.
The astronomers say otherwise.
Their evidence and arguments are sound.
Yours are not.
that the satellites are seriously impacting astronomy. A couple of
survey projects with very fast, large aperture systems have issues.
Which leaves 99% of the work largely unimpacted. Satellite tracks on
images are not a problem.
A few astronomers = MORE than peterson.
AND they know about the subject and their own projects.
We are going to listen to the astronomers, NOT to you.
On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 04:27:32 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 1:03:19?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 18:49:45 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
A few astronomers say this. Many do not. Again, there is no evidenceYou should learn how to think. These constellations of satellites
aren't really naked eye objects, and they aren't bright enough to
create blooming in the majority of cameras, meaning they don't impact >> >> either aesthetics or science.
The astronomers say otherwise.
Their evidence and arguments are sound.
Yours are not.
that the satellites are seriously impacting astronomy. A couple of
survey projects with very fast, large aperture systems have issues.
Which leaves 99% of the work largely unimpacted. Satellite tracks on
images are not a problem.
A few astronomers = MORE than peterson.
AND they know about the subject and their own projects.
We are going to listen to the astronomers, NOT to you.We. That would be you and the turd in your pocket, I presume.
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 9:36:13?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 04:27:32 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 1:03:19?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:We. That would be you and the turd in your pocket, I presume.
On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 18:49:45 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
A few astronomers say this. Many do not. Again, there is no evidenceYou should learn how to think. These constellations of satellites
aren't really naked eye objects, and they aren't bright enough to
create blooming in the majority of cameras, meaning they don't impact >> >> >> either aesthetics or science.
The astronomers say otherwise.
Their evidence and arguments are sound.
Yours are not.
that the satellites are seriously impacting astronomy. A couple of
survey projects with very fast, large aperture systems have issues.
Which leaves 99% of the work largely unimpacted. Satellite tracks on
images are not a problem.
A few astronomers = MORE than peterson.
AND they know about the subject and their own projects.
We are going to listen to the astronomers, NOT to you.
"We" is everyone else on the planet, not you. You are the turd.
Chris, you seem like the kind of guy who just wants to burn fossil fuels, eat steaks, and shit in the creek where other people drink.
and that is fine, except nobody likes you.
I catch satellite in my images all the time. is it a problem for me. not really. ruins a few subs. I'm not doing anything important. It's just a hobby.
Weather or not astronomy in general is being impacted. Probably to some degree.
If i was buying time on an expensive telescope array and a few things get messed up, maybe i miss the big dinosaur extinction meteor cause of Elon Musk's space crap.
Is all the junk in the sky a problem for future satellite, most definitively yes.
On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 09:55:13 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 9:36:13?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 04:27:32 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 1:03:19?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:We. That would be you and the turd in your pocket, I presume.
On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 18:49:45 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
A few astronomers say this. Many do not. Again, there is no evidence >> >> that the satellites are seriously impacting astronomy. A couple ofYou should learn how to think. These constellations of satellites >> >> >> aren't really naked eye objects, and they aren't bright enough to >> >> >> create blooming in the majority of cameras, meaning they don't impact
either aesthetics or science.
The astronomers say otherwise.
Their evidence and arguments are sound.
Yours are not.
survey projects with very fast, large aperture systems have issues.
Which leaves 99% of the work largely unimpacted. Satellite tracks on >> >> images are not a problem.
A few astronomers = MORE than peterson.
AND they know about the subject and their own projects.
We are going to listen to the astronomers, NOT to you.
"We" is everyone else on the planet, not you. You are the turd.Well, I haven't noticed very many astronomers who are very concerned.
You have ignored the two most salient points, which is that these
satellites are not visible to the eye, and that satellite tracks are
rarely problematic on images.
Chris, you seem like the kind of guy who just wants to burn fossil fuels, eat steaks, and shit in the creek where other people drink.
and that is fine, except nobody likes you.
I catch satellite in my images all the time. is it a problem for me. not really. ruins a few subs. I'm not doing anything important. It's just a hobby.
Weather or not astronomy in general is being impacted. Probably to some degree.
If i was buying time on an expensive telescope array and a few things get messed up, maybe i miss the big dinosaur extinction meteor cause of Elon Musk's space crap.
Is all the junk in the sky a problem for future satellite, most definitively yes.
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 9:02:42?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 03:26:01 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 3:29:22?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:I'll stick with the 99% of astronomers who haven't suggested it's a
On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 09:55:13 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 9:36:13?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:Well, I haven't noticed very many astronomers who are very concerned.
On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 04:27:32 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 1:03:19?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 18:49:45 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>We. That would be you and the turd in your pocket, I presume.
wrote:
A few astronomers say this. Many do not. Again, there is no evidenceYou should learn how to think. These constellations of satellites
aren't really naked eye objects, and they aren't bright enough to
create blooming in the majority of cameras, meaning they don't impact
either aesthetics or science.
The astronomers say otherwise.
Their evidence and arguments are sound.
Yours are not.
that the satellites are seriously impacting astronomy. A couple of >> >> >> >> survey projects with very fast, large aperture systems have issues. >> >> >> >> Which leaves 99% of the work largely unimpacted. Satellite tracks on
images are not a problem.
A few astronomers = MORE than peterson.
AND they know about the subject and their own projects.
We are going to listen to the astronomers, NOT to you.
"We" is everyone else on the planet, not you. You are the turd.
You have ignored the two most salient points, which is that these
satellites are not visible to the eye, and that satellite tracks are
rarely problematic on images.
The fact that you are unobservant is not important.
The fact that the astronomers have valid concerns about space junk is important.
problem.
Those "99%" have NOT suggested that it isn't a problem.
So stick with the "1%" who have sounded the alarm.
(99% of passengers hadn't suggested that the Titanic would sink... for the first few minutes.)
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 03:26:01 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 3:29:22?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 09:55:13 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 9:36:13?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:Well, I haven't noticed very many astronomers who are very concerned.
On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 04:27:32 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 1:03:19?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 18:49:45 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>We. That would be you and the turd in your pocket, I presume.
wrote:
A few astronomers say this. Many do not. Again, there is no evidenceYou should learn how to think. These constellations of satellites
aren't really naked eye objects, and they aren't bright enough to
create blooming in the majority of cameras, meaning they don't impact
either aesthetics or science.
The astronomers say otherwise.
Their evidence and arguments are sound.
Yours are not.
that the satellites are seriously impacting astronomy. A couple of >> >> >> survey projects with very fast, large aperture systems have issues. >> >> >> Which leaves 99% of the work largely unimpacted. Satellite tracks on
images are not a problem.
A few astronomers = MORE than peterson.
AND they know about the subject and their own projects.
We are going to listen to the astronomers, NOT to you.
"We" is everyone else on the planet, not you. You are the turd.
You have ignored the two most salient points, which is that these
satellites are not visible to the eye, and that satellite tracks are
rarely problematic on images.
The fact that you are unobservant is not important.I'll stick with the 99% of astronomers who haven't suggested it's a
The fact that the astronomers have valid concerns about space junk is important.
problem.
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 07:54:00 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 9:02:42?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 03:26:01 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 3:29:22?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:I'll stick with the 99% of astronomers who haven't suggested it's a
On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 09:55:13 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 9:36:13?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 04:27:32 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>Well, I haven't noticed very many astronomers who are very concerned. >> >> You have ignored the two most salient points, which is that these
wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 1:03:19?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:We. That would be you and the turd in your pocket, I presume.
On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 18:49:45 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com> >> >> >> >> wrote:
A few astronomers say this. Many do not. Again, there is no evidenceYou should learn how to think. These constellations of satellites
aren't really naked eye objects, and they aren't bright enough to
create blooming in the majority of cameras, meaning they don't impact
either aesthetics or science.
The astronomers say otherwise.
Their evidence and arguments are sound.
Yours are not.
that the satellites are seriously impacting astronomy. A couple of
survey projects with very fast, large aperture systems have issues.
Which leaves 99% of the work largely unimpacted. Satellite tracks on
images are not a problem.
A few astronomers = MORE than peterson.
AND they know about the subject and their own projects.
We are going to listen to the astronomers, NOT to you.
"We" is everyone else on the planet, not you. You are the turd.
satellites are not visible to the eye, and that satellite tracks are >> >> rarely problematic on images.
The fact that you are unobservant is not important.
The fact that the astronomers have valid concerns about space junk is important.
problem.
Those "99%" have NOT suggested that it isn't a problem.
So stick with the "1%" who have sounded the alarm.
(99% of passengers hadn't suggested that the Titanic would sink... for the first few minutes.)You do that. Consensus is central to science, however.
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 11:13:03?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 07:54:00 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 9:02:42?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:You do that. Consensus is central to science, however.
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 03:26:01 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 3:29:22?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:I'll stick with the 99% of astronomers who haven't suggested it's a
On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 09:55:13 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 9:36:13?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 04:27:32 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>Well, I haven't noticed very many astronomers who are very concerned. >> >> >> You have ignored the two most salient points, which is that these
wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 1:03:19?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:We. That would be you and the turd in your pocket, I presume.
On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 18:49:45 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
A few astronomers say this. Many do not. Again, there is no evidenceYou should learn how to think. These constellations of satellites
aren't really naked eye objects, and they aren't bright enough to
create blooming in the majority of cameras, meaning they don't impact
either aesthetics or science.
The astronomers say otherwise.
Their evidence and arguments are sound.
Yours are not.
that the satellites are seriously impacting astronomy. A couple of
survey projects with very fast, large aperture systems have issues.
Which leaves 99% of the work largely unimpacted. Satellite tracks on
images are not a problem.
A few astronomers = MORE than peterson.
AND they know about the subject and their own projects.
We are going to listen to the astronomers, NOT to you.
"We" is everyone else on the planet, not you. You are the turd.
satellites are not visible to the eye, and that satellite tracks are >> >> >> rarely problematic on images.
The fact that you are unobservant is not important.
The fact that the astronomers have valid concerns about space junk is important.
problem.
Those "99%" have NOT suggested that it isn't a problem.
So stick with the "1%" who have sounded the alarm.
(99% of passengers hadn't suggested that the Titanic would sink... for the first few minutes.)
Silence of the "99%" does not mean consensus.
There is a consensus among the "1%" who see the problem.
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
On Saturday, 1 April 2023 at 16:27:31 UTC-4, RichA wrote:
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
I'd just like to add that this idiotic rush to "allow the entire world to communicate" is mostly responsible for the hordes of migrants we see
trying to flood Europe and the U.S. today.
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 16:06:41 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, 1 April 2023 at 16:27:31 UTC-4, RichA wrote:
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
I'd just like to add that this idiotic rush to "allow the entire world to communicate" is mostly responsible for the hordes of migrants we seeRacist pig.
trying to flood Europe and the U.S. today.
The astronomers who are not complaining have not reached a "consensus" because they have not even discussed the situation.
On Saturday, 1 April 2023 at 16:27:31 UTC-4, RichA wrote:
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
I'd just like to add that this idiotic rush to "allow the entire world to communicate" is mostly responsible for the hordes of migrants we see
trying to flood Europe and the U.S. today.
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 10:23:19 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 11:13:03?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 07:54:00 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 9:02:42?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 03:26:01 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>You do that. Consensus is central to science, however.
wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 3:29:22?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 09:55:13 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>I'll stick with the 99% of astronomers who haven't suggested it's a
wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 9:36:13?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:Well, I haven't noticed very many astronomers who are very concerned.
On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 04:27:32 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com> >> >> >> >> wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 1:03:19?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:We. That would be you and the turd in your pocket, I presume.
On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 18:49:45 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
A few astronomers say this. Many do not. Again, there is no evidenceYou should learn how to think. These constellations of satellites
aren't really naked eye objects, and they aren't bright enough to
create blooming in the majority of cameras, meaning they don't impact
either aesthetics or science.
The astronomers say otherwise.
Their evidence and arguments are sound.
Yours are not.
that the satellites are seriously impacting astronomy. A couple of
survey projects with very fast, large aperture systems have issues.
Which leaves 99% of the work largely unimpacted. Satellite tracks on
images are not a problem.
A few astronomers = MORE than peterson.
AND they know about the subject and their own projects.
We are going to listen to the astronomers, NOT to you.
"We" is everyone else on the planet, not you. You are the turd.
You have ignored the two most salient points, which is that these >> >> >> satellites are not visible to the eye, and that satellite tracks are
rarely problematic on images.
The fact that you are unobservant is not important.
The fact that the astronomers have valid concerns about space junk is important.
problem.
Those "99%" have NOT suggested that it isn't a problem.
So stick with the "1%" who have sounded the alarm.
(99% of passengers hadn't suggested that the Titanic would sink... for the first few minutes.)
Silence of the "99%" does not mean consensus.
There is a consensus among the "1%" who see the problem.You clearly don't know what the word means.
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 6:17:15 PM UTC-7, W wrote:
The astronomers who are not complaining have not reached a "consensus" because they have not even discussed the situation.Exactly what evidence do you have to offer in support of this claim?
Silence of the "99%" does not mean consensus.You clearly don't know what the word means.
There is a consensus among the "1%" who see the problem.
The astronomers who are not complaining have not reached a "consensus" because they have not even discussed the situation.
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 7:55:21?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 16:06:41 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, 1 April 2023 at 16:27:31 UTC-4, RichA wrote:Racist pig.
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
I'd just like to add that this idiotic rush to "allow the entire world to communicate" is mostly responsible for the hordes of migrants we see
trying to flood Europe and the U.S. today.
Pot, meet Kettle.
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 9:45:58 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 6:17:15 PM UTC-7, W wrote:
The astronomers who are not complaining have not reached a "consensus" because they have not even discussed the situation.Exactly what evidence do you have to offer in support of this claim?
Present YOUR evidence to the contrary.
And remember, only a few hundred out of thousands of IAU members voted to demote Pluto to a "dwarf planet" (whatever the heck that is.)
Not exactly kosher to answer a question with a question... people might think that you don't actually have an answer... after all, it is *you* who made the claim, so it is *you* who is called upon to support it. I have made no claim whatsoever!
And remember, only a few hundred out of thousands of IAU members voted to demote Pluto to a "dwarf planet" (whatever the heck that is.)Yes, I agree that was not the right thing to do. If I were king I would have gone ahead and changed the definitions as they did, but I would have grandfathered in Pluto as a planet so everybody wins. Just my opinion, of course.
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 18:18:27 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 7:55:21?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 16:06:41 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, 1 April 2023 at 16:27:31 UTC-4, RichA wrote:Racist pig.
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
I'd just like to add that this idiotic rush to "allow the entire world to communicate" is mostly responsible for the hordes of migrants we see
trying to flood Europe and the U.S. today.
Pot, meet Kettle.I didn't know the two of you had met. But it's hardly suprising. Klan
rally?
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 9:30:20?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 18:18:27 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 7:55:21?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:I didn't know the two of you had met. But it's hardly suprising. Klan
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 16:06:41 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, 1 April 2023 at 16:27:31 UTC-4, RichA wrote:Racist pig.
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
I'd just like to add that this idiotic rush to "allow the entire world to communicate" is mostly responsible for the hordes of migrants we see
trying to flood Europe and the U.S. today.
Pot, meet Kettle.
rally?
Describe the demographics of your current county of residence.
And watch those libelous comments...
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 1:15:16 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
Not exactly kosher to answer a question with a question... people might think that you don't actually have an answer... after all, it is *you* who made the claim, so it is *you* who is called upon to support it. I have made no claim whatsoever!
My claim is obviously correct, at this time.
Now by what evidence do you dispute it?
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 11:28:28 AM UTC-7, W wrote:===
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 1:15:16 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
Not exactly kosher to answer a question with a question... people might think that you don't actually have an answer... after all, it is *you* who made the claim, so it is *you* who is called upon to support it. I have made no claim whatsoever!
My claim is obviously correct, at this time.
Now by what evidence do you dispute it?i did not claim to dispute it, I only asked for you to support *your* claim. It seems as though this task is impossible for you to complete.
So, you cannot support a claim you have made with actual evidence, instead saying that the evidence is obvious. The only thing obvious here is that you are a liar and a coward. Why am I not surprised?
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Silence of the "99%" does not mean consensus.You clearly don't know what the word means.
There is a consensus among the "1%" who see the problem.
The astronomers who are not complaining have not reached a "consensus" because they have not even discussed the situation.I've encountered lots of discussion, at one conference in person, a
couple of online ones, and in discussion forums. The reason that most astronomers aren't complaining is because they have no reason to,
since satellites don't impact their work.
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 11:29:41 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 9:30:20?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 18:18:27 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 7:55:21?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 16:06:41 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>I didn't know the two of you had met. But it's hardly suprising. Klan
wrote:
On Saturday, 1 April 2023 at 16:27:31 UTC-4, RichA wrote:Racist pig.
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
I'd just like to add that this idiotic rush to "allow the entire world to communicate" is mostly responsible for the hordes of migrants we see
trying to flood Europe and the U.S. today.
Pot, meet Kettle.
rally?
Describe the demographics of your current county of residence.
And watch those libelous comments...That's the best you have? I wonder how many logical fallacies we could
point to there?
We could look to where you live, the heart of white Christian
supremacy in this country. But I would not claim that where you live
makes you such... although your actual words rather point in that
direction.
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 5:39:24 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 11:28:28 AM UTC-7, W wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 1:15:16 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
Not exactly kosher to answer a question with a question... people might think that you don't actually have an answer... after all, it is *you* who made the claim, so it is *you* who is called upon to support it. I have made no claim whatsoever!
My claim is obviously correct, at this time.
Now by what evidence do you dispute it?i did not claim to dispute it, I only asked for you to support *your* claim. It seems as though this task is impossible for you to complete.
So, you cannot support a claim you have made with actual evidence, instead saying that the evidence is obvious. The only thing obvious here is that you are a liar and a coward. Why am I not surprised?===
Re-read petersen's post about the "99%" of astronomers, then re-read MY response to it. Stop making an ass of yourself.
I am not referencing Peterson's statements at all (and you cannot even spell the man's name correctly), I am simply asking you for evidence to support your claim, which was "The astronomers who are not complaining have not reached a "consensus" becausethey have not even discussed the situation."
This seems to be pulled directly from your cranial calculator's rectal storage facility, and you have already convinced me that you do not have any evidence whatsoever that would support such a claim, otherwise you would have proudly presented it. Whycan't you just admit that you misspoke? Anyone with 2 functioning neurons can read for themselves that this is the case. You are beating a very dead horse.
I myself know dozens of amateur astronomers who are mostly imagers and none of them appear have any problems with satellites ruining their images. I will assume that either they discard any images that show trails and stack up the good ones incompiling their images or they have some other way of digitally manipulating their data to remove them, but I am completely ignorant about astrophotography and am only speculating about this. In any case, these guys create some truely spectacular images
Without evidence you should just STFU.
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 9:29:48?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I've encountered lots of discussion, at one conference in person, aSilence of the "99%" does not mean consensus.You clearly don't know what the word means.
There is a consensus among the "1%" who see the problem.
The astronomers who are not complaining have not reached a "consensus" because they have not even discussed the situation.
couple of online ones, and in discussion forums. The reason that most
astronomers aren't complaining is because they have no reason to,
since satellites don't impact their work.
Then we'll listen to the complaints of those who DO have complaints. You implied that it was "1%."
Have you some stats to support your numbers?
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 15:50:19 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 9:29:48?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I've encountered lots of discussion, at one conference in person, aSilence of the "99%" does not mean consensus.You clearly don't know what the word means.
There is a consensus among the "1%" who see the problem.
The astronomers who are not complaining have not reached a "consensus" because they have not even discussed the situation.
couple of online ones, and in discussion forums. The reason that most
astronomers aren't complaining is because they have no reason to,
since satellites don't impact their work.
Then we'll listen to the complaints of those who DO have complaints. You implied that it was "1%."
Have you some stats to support your numbers?Indeed, it is far less than 1%. Only the tiniest fraction of
astronomers are involved in survey work.
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
I am not referencing Peterson's statements at all (and you cannot even spell the man's name correctly),
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 13:27:29 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/satellites-and-space-debris-are-polluting-our-night-skies/
They are not visible,
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 8:37:18?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 15:50:19 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 9:29:48?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:Indeed, it is far less than 1%. Only the tiniest fraction of
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I've encountered lots of discussion, at one conference in person, aSilence of the "99%" does not mean consensus.You clearly don't know what the word means.
There is a consensus among the "1%" who see the problem.
The astronomers who are not complaining have not reached a "consensus" because they have not even discussed the situation.
couple of online ones, and in discussion forums. The reason that most
astronomers aren't complaining is because they have no reason to,
since satellites don't impact their work.
Then we'll listen to the complaints of those who DO have complaints. You implied that it was "1%."
Have you some stats to support your numbers?
astronomers are involved in survey work.
"Tiniest fraction" is not a stat. Provide exact numbers.
You obviously believe "survey work" to be unimportant.
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 11:06:56 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
I am not referencing Peterson's statements at all (and you cannot even spell the man's name correctly),
YOU cannot even spell YOUR OWN name correctly.
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 06:59:59 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 8:37:18?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 15:50:19 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 9:29:48?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:Indeed, it is far less than 1%. Only the tiniest fraction of
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I've encountered lots of discussion, at one conference in person, aSilence of the "99%" does not mean consensus.You clearly don't know what the word means.
There is a consensus among the "1%" who see the problem.
The astronomers who are not complaining have not reached a "consensus" because they have not even discussed the situation.
couple of online ones, and in discussion forums. The reason that most >> >> astronomers aren't complaining is because they have no reason to,
since satellites don't impact their work.
Then we'll listen to the complaints of those who DO have complaints. You implied that it was "1%."
Have you some stats to support your numbers?
astronomers are involved in survey work.
"Tiniest fraction" is not a stat. Provide exact numbers.
You obviously believe "survey work" to be unimportant.Where did I say it was unimportant? But it is arguably far less
important that serving billions of people with network access.
Especially given that there are technical workarounds that allow
survey work to continue.
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 8:01:42 AM UTC-7, W wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 11:06:56 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
I am not referencing Peterson's statements at all (and you cannot even spell the man's name correctly),
YOU cannot even spell YOUR OWN name correctly.An extremely weak attempt to deflect the fact that you cannot support your position with evidence.
Got it.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 02:32:10 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 2:22:30?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 06:59:59 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 8:37:18?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 15:50:19 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>Where did I say it was unimportant? But it is arguably far less
wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 9:29:48?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>Indeed, it is far less than 1%. Only the tiniest fraction of
wrote:
I've encountered lots of discussion, at one conference in person, a >> >> >> couple of online ones, and in discussion forums. The reason that mostSilence of the "99%" does not mean consensus.You clearly don't know what the word means.
There is a consensus among the "1%" who see the problem.
The astronomers who are not complaining have not reached a "consensus" because they have not even discussed the situation.
astronomers aren't complaining is because they have no reason to, >> >> >> since satellites don't impact their work.
Then we'll listen to the complaints of those who DO have complaints. You implied that it was "1%."
Have you some stats to support your numbers?
astronomers are involved in survey work.
"Tiniest fraction" is not a stat. Provide exact numbers.
You obviously believe "survey work" to be unimportant.
important that serving billions of people with network access.
Especially given that there are technical workarounds that allow
survey work to continue.
The detection of objects in space that can pose a serious threat to Earth is definitely far more important than providing access to TikTok (for example.)Most of the objects that pose a threat can only be detected by
space-based systems. And as noted, survey projects can and will
continue with simple methods to minimize problems with satellite interference.
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 2:22:30?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 06:59:59 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 8:37:18?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:Where did I say it was unimportant? But it is arguably far less
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 15:50:19 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 9:29:48?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:Indeed, it is far less than 1%. Only the tiniest fraction of
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I've encountered lots of discussion, at one conference in person, aSilence of the "99%" does not mean consensus.You clearly don't know what the word means.
There is a consensus among the "1%" who see the problem.
The astronomers who are not complaining have not reached a "consensus" because they have not even discussed the situation.
couple of online ones, and in discussion forums. The reason that most >> >> >> astronomers aren't complaining is because they have no reason to,
since satellites don't impact their work.
Then we'll listen to the complaints of those who DO have complaints. You implied that it was "1%."
Have you some stats to support your numbers?
astronomers are involved in survey work.
"Tiniest fraction" is not a stat. Provide exact numbers.
You obviously believe "survey work" to be unimportant.
important that serving billions of people with network access.
Especially given that there are technical workarounds that allow
survey work to continue.
The detection of objects in space that can pose a serious threat to Earth is definitely far more important than providing access to TikTok (for example.)
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 9:48:12?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 02:32:10 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 2:22:30?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:Most of the objects that pose a threat can only be detected by
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 06:59:59 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 8:37:18?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 15:50:19 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>Where did I say it was unimportant? But it is arguably far less
wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 9:29:48?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>Indeed, it is far less than 1%. Only the tiniest fraction of
wrote:
I've encountered lots of discussion, at one conference in person, a >> >> >> >> couple of online ones, and in discussion forums. The reason that mostSilence of the "99%" does not mean consensus.You clearly don't know what the word means.
There is a consensus among the "1%" who see the problem.
The astronomers who are not complaining have not reached a "consensus" because they have not even discussed the situation.
astronomers aren't complaining is because they have no reason to, >> >> >> >> since satellites don't impact their work.
Then we'll listen to the complaints of those who DO have complaints. You implied that it was "1%."
Have you some stats to support your numbers?
astronomers are involved in survey work.
"Tiniest fraction" is not a stat. Provide exact numbers.
You obviously believe "survey work" to be unimportant.
important that serving billions of people with network access.
Especially given that there are technical workarounds that allow
survey work to continue.
The detection of objects in space that can pose a serious threat to Earth is definitely far more important than providing access to TikTok (for example.)
space-based systems. And as noted, survey projects can and will
continue with simple methods to minimize problems with satellite
interference.
"Most" isn't good enough. It only takes one such object to create a catastrophe. These satellites will interfere with the search.
So we are back to my earlier comment; 'The astronomers who are not complaining have not reached a "consensus" because they have not even discussed the situation.'
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 06:56:55 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 9:48:12?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 02:32:10 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 2:22:30?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 06:59:59 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>Most of the objects that pose a threat can only be detected by
wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 8:37:18?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:Where did I say it was unimportant? But it is arguably far less
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 15:50:19 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 9:29:48?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:Indeed, it is far less than 1%. Only the tiniest fraction of
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com> >> >> >> >> wrote:
I've encountered lots of discussion, at one conference in person, aSilence of the "99%" does not mean consensus.You clearly don't know what the word means.
There is a consensus among the "1%" who see the problem.
The astronomers who are not complaining have not reached a "consensus" because they have not even discussed the situation.
couple of online ones, and in discussion forums. The reason that most
astronomers aren't complaining is because they have no reason to,
since satellites don't impact their work.
Then we'll listen to the complaints of those who DO have complaints. You implied that it was "1%."
Have you some stats to support your numbers?
astronomers are involved in survey work.
"Tiniest fraction" is not a stat. Provide exact numbers.
You obviously believe "survey work" to be unimportant.
important that serving billions of people with network access.
Especially given that there are technical workarounds that allow
survey work to continue.
The detection of objects in space that can pose a serious threat to Earth is definitely far more important than providing access to TikTok (for example.)
space-based systems. And as noted, survey projects can and will
continue with simple methods to minimize problems with satellite
interference.
"Most" isn't good enough. It only takes one such object to create a catastrophe. These satellites will interfere with the search.
So we are back to my earlier comment; 'The astronomers who are not complaining have not reached a "consensus" because they have not even discussed the situation.'No, these satellites will have almost no impact on such searches. And
it will always be "most". You don't throw away something of huge
benefit for a billion-to-one risk.
Astronomers have discussed this. Extensively (you wouldn't know, since
you have no contact with astronomers). And most don't see it as a
problem. Because for most, it isn't.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 06:56:55 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 9:48:12?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 02:32:10 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 2:22:30?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 06:59:59 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>Most of the objects that pose a threat can only be detected by
wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 8:37:18?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:Where did I say it was unimportant? But it is arguably far less
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 15:50:19 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 9:29:48?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:Indeed, it is far less than 1%. Only the tiniest fraction of
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com> >> >> >> >> wrote:
I've encountered lots of discussion, at one conference in person, aSilence of the "99%" does not mean consensus.You clearly don't know what the word means.
There is a consensus among the "1%" who see the problem.
The astronomers who are not complaining have not reached a "consensus" because they have not even discussed the situation.
couple of online ones, and in discussion forums. The reason that most
astronomers aren't complaining is because they have no reason to,
since satellites don't impact their work.
Then we'll listen to the complaints of those who DO have complaints. You implied that it was "1%."
Have you some stats to support your numbers?
astronomers are involved in survey work.
"Tiniest fraction" is not a stat. Provide exact numbers.
You obviously believe "survey work" to be unimportant.
important that serving billions of people with network access.
Especially given that there are technical workarounds that allow
survey work to continue.
The detection of objects in space that can pose a serious threat to Earth is definitely far more important than providing access to TikTok (for example.)
space-based systems. And as noted, survey projects can and will
continue with simple methods to minimize problems with satellite
interference.
"Most" isn't good enough. It only takes one such object to create a catastrophe. These satellites will interfere with the search.
So we are back to my earlier comment; 'The astronomers who are not complaining have not reached a "consensus" because they have not even discussed the situation.'No, these satellites will have almost no impact on such searches. And
it will always be "most". You don't throw away something of huge
benefit for a billion-to-one risk.
Astronomers have discussed this. Extensively (you wouldn't know, since
you have no contact with astronomers). And most don't see it as a
problem. Because for most, it isn't.
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 10:59:06?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 06:56:55 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 9:48:12?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 02:32:10 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>No, these satellites will have almost no impact on such searches. And
wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 2:22:30?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 06:59:59 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>Most of the objects that pose a threat can only be detected by
wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 8:37:18?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:Where did I say it was unimportant? But it is arguably far less
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 15:50:19 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 9:29:48?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:Indeed, it is far less than 1%. Only the tiniest fraction of
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
I've encountered lots of discussion, at one conference in person, aSilence of the "99%" does not mean consensus.You clearly don't know what the word means.
There is a consensus among the "1%" who see the problem.
The astronomers who are not complaining have not reached a "consensus" because they have not even discussed the situation.
couple of online ones, and in discussion forums. The reason that most
astronomers aren't complaining is because they have no reason to,
since satellites don't impact their work.
Then we'll listen to the complaints of those who DO have complaints. You implied that it was "1%."
Have you some stats to support your numbers?
astronomers are involved in survey work.
"Tiniest fraction" is not a stat. Provide exact numbers.
You obviously believe "survey work" to be unimportant.
important that serving billions of people with network access.
Especially given that there are technical workarounds that allow
survey work to continue.
The detection of objects in space that can pose a serious threat to Earth is definitely far more important than providing access to TikTok (for example.)
space-based systems. And as noted, survey projects can and will
continue with simple methods to minimize problems with satellite
interference.
"Most" isn't good enough. It only takes one such object to create a catastrophe. These satellites will interfere with the search.
So we are back to my earlier comment; 'The astronomers who are not complaining have not reached a "consensus" because they have not even discussed the situation.'
it will always be "most". You don't throw away something of huge
benefit for a billion-to-one risk.
Astronomers have discussed this. Extensively (you wouldn't know, since
you have no contact with astronomers). And most don't see it as a
problem. Because for most, it isn't.
You are just rehashing your same incorrect opinions with the wording slightly changed.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:26:34 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 10:59:06?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 06:56:55 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 9:48:12?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:No, these satellites will have almost no impact on such searches. And
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 02:32:10 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 2:22:30?PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:Most of the objects that pose a threat can only be detected by
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 06:59:59 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com> >> >> >> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 8:37:18?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:Where did I say it was unimportant? But it is arguably far less
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 15:50:19 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com> >> >> >> >> wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 9:29:48?AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:Indeed, it is far less than 1%. Only the tiniest fraction of
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I've encountered lots of discussion, at one conference in person, aSilence of the "99%" does not mean consensus.
There is a consensus among the "1%" who see the problem. >> >> >> >> >> >> You clearly don't know what the word means.
The astronomers who are not complaining have not reached a "consensus" because they have not even discussed the situation.
couple of online ones, and in discussion forums. The reason that most
astronomers aren't complaining is because they have no reason to,
since satellites don't impact their work.
Then we'll listen to the complaints of those who DO have complaints. You implied that it was "1%."
Have you some stats to support your numbers?
astronomers are involved in survey work.
"Tiniest fraction" is not a stat. Provide exact numbers.
You obviously believe "survey work" to be unimportant.
important that serving billions of people with network access.
Especially given that there are technical workarounds that allow
survey work to continue.
The detection of objects in space that can pose a serious threat to Earth is definitely far more important than providing access to TikTok (for example.)
space-based systems. And as noted, survey projects can and will
continue with simple methods to minimize problems with satellite
interference.
"Most" isn't good enough. It only takes one such object to create a catastrophe. These satellites will interfere with the search.
So we are back to my earlier comment; 'The astronomers who are not complaining have not reached a "consensus" because they have not even discussed the situation.'
it will always be "most". You don't throw away something of huge
benefit for a billion-to-one risk.
Astronomers have discussed this. Extensively (you wouldn't know, since
you have no contact with astronomers). And most don't see it as a
problem. Because for most, it isn't.
You are just rehashing your same incorrect opinions with the wording slightly changed.You have no clue.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 298 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 07:07:59 |
| Calls: | 6,671 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,219 |
| Messages: | 5,339,094 |
