On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 07:54:00 -0700 (PDT), W <wsnell01@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:
>> >> 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:
>> >> >> >> 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.
>> >> >> >> >Their evidence and arguments are sound.
>> >> >> >> >Yours are not.
>> >> >> >> A few astronomers say this. Many do not. Again, there is no evidence
>> >> >> >> 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.
>> >> >
>> >> >"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.
>> >
>> >The fact that you are unobservant is not important.
>> >The fact that the astronomers have valid concerns about space junk is important.
>> I'll stick with the 99% of astronomers who haven't suggested it's a
>> 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:
> >> 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:
> >> >> >> 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:
> >> >> >> >> >> 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.
> >> >> >> >> A few astronomers say this. Many do not. Again, there is no evidence
> >> >> >> >> 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.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"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.
> >> >
> >> >The fact that you are unobservant is not important.
> >> >The fact that the astronomers have valid concerns about space junk is important.
> >> I'll stick with the 99% of astronomers who haven't suggested it's a
> >> 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.

Silence of the "99%" does not mean consensus.

There is a consensus among the "1%" who see the problem.

On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 10:23:19 -0700 (PDT), W <wsnell01@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>
>> >> 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:
>> >> >> >> 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:
>> >> >> >> >> >> 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.
>> >> >> >> >> A few astronomers say this. Many do not. Again, there is no evidence
>> >> >> >> >> 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.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"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.
>> >> >
>> >> >The fact that you are unobservant is not important.
>> >> >The fact that the astronomers have valid concerns about space junk is important.
>> >> I'll stick with the 99% of astronomers who haven't suggested it's a
>> >> 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.
>
>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 6:29:13 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> 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>
> >> >> 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:
> >> >> >> >> 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:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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.
> >> >> >> >> >> A few astronomers say this. Many do not. Again, there is no evidence
> >> >> >> >> >> 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.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >"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.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The fact that you are unobservant is not important.
> >> >> >The fact that the astronomers have valid concerns about space junk is important.
> >> >> I'll stick with the 99% of astronomers who haven't suggested it's a
> >> >> 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.
> >
> >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.

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 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? I'm guessing that you are just making it up as you go along...

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.)

On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>> >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.
>
>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.

As noted (and ignored by you, since you don't understand how images
are made) only a very small subset of astronomical imaging projects
have the potential for satellites to be problematic.

On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 3:38:23 AM UTC-7, W wrote:
> 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.

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 couree.

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 6:15:16 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:

> >
> > 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.

A planet was never isolated by an observation, by size or any other trait.

A planet and its 'wandering' motion was gauged against the direct motion of the Sun relative to the orbital plane and against the constellations-

https://astro.dur.ac.uk/~ams/users/sun_ecliptic.gif

"Moreover, we see the other five planets also retrograde at times, and
stationary at either end [of the regression]. And whereas the sun
always advances along its own direct path, they wander in various
ways, straying sometimes to the south and sometimes to the north; that
is why they are called "planets" [wanderers]. Copernicus

The unsightly spectacle of RA/Dec enthusiasts trying to re-define a planet by size because their relatively recent framework has the Sun also wandering along with the planets in RA/Dec

https://astro.dur.ac.uk/~ams/users/solar_year.gif

Rather than recoil, the opportunity is there to take note of the original definition of a planet, and alter the Sun in ecliptic longitude to the new framework where the Sun is central and stationary, for the purpose of solar system structure, while the planets move in their natural orbits around the Sun-

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

Why waste another day?. Mistakes were made by people who are unfamiliar with an astronomical heritage.

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 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.

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:
> >> >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.
> >
> >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.

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 Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 3:38:18 PM UTC-7, W wrote:
> 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" because they 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. Why can'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 in compiling 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 and satellites do not seem to be a problem.

Without evidence you should just STFU.

Experimental theorists don't really care about observations so if observers had to suffer permanent grey skies, it wouldn't make the slightest difference to their pursuit.

On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 11:06:56 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:

You should not have eaten that little box of stuff that you found in your medicine cabinet yesterday morning.

It was not Easter candy.

> 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" because they 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. Why can'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 in compiling 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 and satellites do not seem to be a problem.
>
> Without evidence you should just STFU.

On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 15:50:19 -0700 (PDT), W <wsnell01@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:
>> >> >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.
>> >
>> >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.
>
>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.

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:
> >> On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> >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.
> >> >
> >> >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.
> >
> >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.

"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 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,

Have you scientific proof of that?

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 06:59:59 -0700 (PDT), W <wsnell01@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:
>> >> On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >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.
>> >> >
>> >> >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.
>> >
>> >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.
>
>"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 Monday, April 10, 2023 at 3:21:57 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
> 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.

As you were told before, there is no reason to present evidence to support self-evident facts.

Got it?

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>
> >> 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:
> >> >> >> >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.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >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.
> >> >
> >> >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.
> >
> >"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.

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 Wed, 12 Apr 2023 06:56:55 -0700 (PDT), W <wsnell01@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>
>> >> 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:
>> >> >> >> On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >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.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >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.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >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.
>> >> >
>> >> >"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.
>> >
>> >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.
>
>"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.