[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
(meteorobs) soul & science (was Re: plot describe count)
>One thing I've learned in any endeavor is that the first method you learn, it
>usually ends up being the dominant method you use irregardless what
>modification comes down the path later.
Sort of like "never play chopsticks if you want to learn the piano"? :>
You have a point there!
But I'd say that what Mark's describing is NOT the process of learning to
collect meteor data. I interpret it this way: go out under the stars and get a
sense of whether you think meteor watching might even be FUN, and then, if
you're really interested in it, start finding out how to do it in a useful way.
I have to agree with this advice: otherwise, any number of people who might well
end up becoming GOOD observers, will never even get exposed to meteor observing
in the first place. This is important to keep in mind.
One other thing we haven't addressed in this thread yet (IMHO :>), is that there
are TWO reasons for observing meteors: one is for collecting data (which the IMO
method clearly describes the best way of doing), and the other is for the JOY of
it! I'd say you probably don't want to do the first without the second (unless
somebody pays you a grant for it), but you can certainly feel free to do the
second without the first. Just don't waste anyone's time trying to get your
results analyzed!
Sort of like with deep-sky observing: if you just love looking at faint fuzzies
for the pure esthetics (and what's wrong with that?), then don't let anybody
tell you how you have to do it! On the other hand, if you want to send variable
star data into AAVSO, or search for supernovae in distant galaxies, or
participate in photometric watches, you better know the proper procedure!
Anyway, I had my say! ;>
Clear skies all,
Lew
References: