magazine

Hi

what is a good periodical (weekly/monthly) publication covering "popular
astronomy"?

I am not a scientist or specialist in any of the natural science
disciplines, but enjoying reading magazines like New Scientist, for example.
I am looking for a publication which discusses topics in astronomy (and has
pictures to show my kids): current events, objects in the sky, theories of
the cosmos, etc.


Thanks,
Peter

I would suggest the Sky at Night magazine and accompanying CD. Available
from most newsagents e.g. WHS.
"Peter Kirk" wrote in message
. ..
Hi

what is a good periodical (weekly/monthly) publication covering "popular
astronomy"?

I am not a scientist or specialist in any of the natural science
disciplines, but enjoying reading magazines like New Scientist, for
example. I am looking for a publication which discusses topics in
astronomy (and has pictures to show my kids): current events, objects in
the sky, theories of the cosmos, etc.


Thanks,
Peter

The "Sky at Night" Great mag for all ages plus software. Good graphics
good articles.
clear skys
Dean C.

Peter Kirk wrote:
Hi

what is a good periodical (weekly/monthly) publication covering "popular
astronomy"?

I am not a scientist or specialist in any of the natural science
disciplines, but enjoying reading magazines like New Scientist, for example.
I am looking for a publication which discusses topics in astronomy (and has
pictures to show my kids): current events, objects in the sky, theories of
the cosmos, etc.


Thanks,
Peter

Peter Kirk wrote:
Hi

what is a good periodical (weekly/monthly) publication covering "popular
astronomy"?

I am not a scientist or specialist in any of the natural science
disciplines, but enjoying reading magazines like New Scientist, for example.
I am looking for a publication which discusses topics in astronomy (and has
pictures to show my kids): current events, objects in the sky, theories of
the cosmos, etc.


Thanks,
Peter

Do your kids a favor if they are old enough to understand the
comparisons.They will enjoy the lesson and as you are the best judge of
what may work with the explanation in terms of pictures and
graphics,the following outlines of the great insight of Copernicus is
easy to understand.

http://www.interstate-guide.com/imag...7_ny_wt_11.jpg

Cars moving on a traffic roundabout have something in common with
planetary motions -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

The motions you see are that of the planets Jupiter and Saturn taken
over the course of a year.As the Earth is closer to the Sun and
travelling in a faster inner orbital circuit,it will overtake the
slower moving Jupiter and the even slower moving Saturn.This is the
main argument Copernicus used for figuring out that the Earth had an
axial and orbital motion and that it orbited the Sun like the other
planets.

The comparison with the traffic roundabout is that the observed motions
of the planets against the faster Earth moving in an inner orbital
circuit can be compared with what happens when a car ,travelling faster
in an inner orbital lane overtakes slower moving cars in outer lanes -
roughly the same thing.

Sadly,you will not find this in any astronomical magasine as the people
here deny that planetary motions are seen from the Earth.Your kids will
be taught differently at school just as you were and even in an era
when time lapse footage makes the Copernican insight so easy to
understand,the guys here who are only concerned with magnification,deny
that planetary motions around the Sun are seen directly from Earth.

"oriel36" skrev i en meddelelse
oups.com...

The comparison with the traffic roundabout is that the observed motions
of the planets against the faster Earth moving in an inner orbital
circuit can be compared with what happens when a car ,travelling faster
in an inner orbital lane overtakes slower moving cars in outer lanes -
roughly the same thing.

Sadly,you will not find this in any astronomical magasine as the people
here deny that planetary motions are seen from the Earth.Your kids will
be taught differently at school just as you were and even in an era
when time lapse footage makes the Copernican insight so easy to
understand,the guys here who are only concerned with magnification,deny
that planetary motions around the Sun are seen directly from Earth.

I'm not sure I completely follow your argument. Most of us living on Earth
will only ever be able to view planetary motions from Earth, so I can't
really believe that magazine writers "deny that planetary motions are seen
from the Earth". What does your statement actually mean anyway?

I am aware of the observations of planetary motion you describe, and I do in
fact remember physics lessons from school (a long time ago) where such
phenomena were discussed (in relation to astronomy in general, and the
dawning of the realisation and proof that the Earth is but one of several
planets in motion around a "central" star).

I don't think your fear that such observations are denied is justified. An
observation is an observation - one cannot really deny it. The tricky part
appears to be making sense of the observation.

Anyway, I have now subscribed to the "Sky at Night" magazine. I remember
this tv series from when I was a kid, and I am completely gob-smacked to see
that Patrick Moore is still at it! Absolutely incredible.

Sorry, you obviously don't know about this poster. Logical argument doesn't
work. The only useful response seems to be: don't feed the trolls. And
expand your killfile.
Good luck.
"Peter Kirk" wrote in message
...
"oriel36" skrev i en meddelelse
oups.com...

The comparison with the traffic roundabout is that the observed motions
of the planets against the faster Earth moving in an inner orbital
circuit can be compared with what happens when a car ,travelling faster
in an inner orbital lane overtakes slower moving cars in outer lanes -
roughly the same thing.

Sadly,you will not find this in any astronomical magasine as the people
here deny that planetary motions are seen from the Earth.Your kids will
be taught differently at school just as you were and even in an era
when time lapse footage makes the Copernican insight so easy to
understand,the guys here who are only concerned with magnification,deny
that planetary motions around the Sun are seen directly from Earth.

I'm not sure I completely follow your argument. Most of us living on Earth
will only ever be able to view planetary motions from Earth, so I can't
really believe that magazine writers "deny that planetary motions are seen
from the Earth". What does your statement actually mean anyway?

I am aware of the observations of planetary motion you describe, and I do
in
fact remember physics lessons from school (a long time ago) where such
phenomena were discussed (in relation to astronomy in general, and the
dawning of the realisation and proof that the Earth is but one of several
planets in motion around a "central" star).

I don't think your fear that such observations are denied is justified. An
observation is an observation - one cannot really deny it. The tricky part
appears to be making sense of the observation.

Anyway, I have now subscribed to the "Sky at Night" magazine. I remember
this tv series from when I was a kid, and I am completely gob-smacked to
see
that Patrick Moore is still at it! Absolutely incredible.

"Mark Dunn" wrote in
:

Sorry, you obviously don't know about this poster. Logical argument
doesn't work. The only useful response seems to be: don't feed the
trolls. And expand your killfile.

Yup, I'd forgotten about oriel.

I'd also add - don't quote the rubbish at length; though once he's safely
plonked you won't be able to ;-)

mike

Mark Dunn wrote:
Sorry, you obviously don't know about this poster. Logical argument doesn't
work. The only useful response seems to be: don't feed the trolls. And
expand your killfile.
Good luck.

Planetary orbital motion is seen directly from Earth,that is one half
of Copernican reasoning.Once the orbital motion of the Earth explains
the observed behavior of the other planets it then follows that axial
rotation explains the daily cycle.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

The faster Earth,in an inner orbital circuit,overtaking Jupiter and
Saturn is what affirms Copernican heliocentricity for all the planets
but it must be affirmed from an orbitally moving Earth.

The false Newtonian view of retrogrades and their resolution looks like
this -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct.." Newton

The problem with jumping to the Sun to explain the behavior of the
planets is that the neat reasoning which distinguishes the Copernican
reasoning (orbitally moving and axially rotating Earth) from the
antecedent Ptolemaic reasoning (stationary Earth) is lost.

Once you take the Newtonian shortcut of jumping to the Sun to explain
heliocentric orbital motion of the Earth ,how are you going to explain
axial rotation as seen from the Sun ?.

The vandalism wrought on astronomy by celestial sphere geometers is
shocking ,not because of complexity of the material but because the
main arguments for heliocentricity remain both exquisite and simple,at
least for adults.The clamoring for killfiling or personal insults is
fine but I never stop reminding people that it is a shared astronomical
heritage and that heritage is temporarily in ruins.I regret that I
cannot have a decent conversation on this extremely important material
and where it went badly astray in the late 17th century.










"Peter Kirk" wrote in message
...
"oriel36" skrev i en meddelelse
oups.com...

The comparison with the traffic roundabout is that the observed motions
of the planets against the faster Earth moving in an inner orbital
circuit can be compared with what happens when a car ,travelling faster
in an inner orbital lane overtakes slower moving cars in outer lanes -
roughly the same thing.

Sadly,you will not find this in any astronomical magasine as the people
here deny that planetary motions are seen from the Earth.Your kids will
be taught differently at school just as you were and even in an era
when time lapse footage makes the Copernican insight so easy to
understand,the guys here who are only concerned with magnification,deny
that planetary motions around the Sun are seen directly from Earth.

I'm not sure I completely follow your argument. Most of us living on Earth
will only ever be able to view planetary motions from Earth, so I can't
really believe that magazine writers "deny that planetary motions are seen
from the Earth". What does your statement actually mean anyway?

I am aware of the observations of planetary motion you describe, and I do
in
fact remember physics lessons from school (a long time ago) where such
phenomena were discussed (in relation to astronomy in general, and the
dawning of the realisation and proof that the Earth is but one of several
planets in motion around a "central" star).

I don't think your fear that such observations are denied is justified. An
observation is an observation - one cannot really deny it. The tricky part
appears to be making sense of the observation.

Anyway, I have now subscribed to the "Sky at Night" magazine. I remember
this tv series from when I was a kid, and I am completely gob-smacked to
see
that Patrick Moore is still at it! Absolutely incredible.

Peter Kirk wrote:
"oriel36" skrev i en meddelelse
oups.com...

The comparison with the traffic roundabout is that the observed motions
of the planets against the faster Earth moving in an inner orbital
circuit can be compared with what happens when a car ,travelling faster
in an inner orbital lane overtakes slower moving cars in outer lanes -
roughly the same thing.

Sadly,you will not find this in any astronomical magasine as the people
here deny that planetary motions are seen from the Earth.Your kids will
be taught differently at school just as you were and even in an era
when time lapse footage makes the Copernican insight so easy to
understand,the guys here who are only concerned with magnification,deny
that planetary motions around the Sun are seen directly from Earth.

I'm not sure I completely follow your argument. Most of us living on Earth
will only ever be able to view planetary motions from Earth, so I can't
really believe that magazine writers "deny that planetary motions are seen
from the Earth". What does your statement actually mean anyway?


There is no argument to follow,the observed motions of the other
planets are explained by an orbitally moving Earth.This is the main
argument Copernus used for heliocentricity or splitting the Earth into
axial and orbital motions.

The Copernican astronomers shared the same raw data as the antecent
Ptolemaic astronomers insofar as the plotted positions of the planets
against the same stellar background showed that the planets appeared to
stop,go backwards (retrograde) and go forward again.-

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...loop_tezel.jpg

The above sequence of images taken over the course of a year represents
the positions of Jupiter and Saturn against the same stellar
background.This is easy enough to grasp and should be within the
comprehension of teenagers.

The Copernican insight is based on what that raw data represents and
using time lapse footage it is easy to see the faster Earth in an inner
orbital circuit overtaking the slower Jupiter and the ven slower Saturn
in our and their common orbit around the Sun -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

If you are an adult who cares about their children you simply draw the
conclusion that planetary motions around the Sun are seen from an
orbitally moving Earth.If you care about supporting a horrible and
false version of Copernican reasoning based on what retorgrades are and
how they are resolved you can go with Newton -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct.." Newton

The correct way to approach retorgrades and their resolution is by
viewing the contemporary images of Jupiter and Saturn with the time
lapse footage and simply correcting the false view -

'Against the stellar background the plotted positions of planets appear
to go forward,stop,go backwards and then go forward again but from an
orbitally moving Earth planetary motions around the Sun are seen direct
'

In short,the catastrophic switch Newton made not only in falsely
rendering retorgrades "as seen from Earth" but jumping to the Sun to
reolve them.




I am aware of the observations of planetary motion you describe, and I do in
fact remember physics lessons from school (a long time ago) where such
phenomena were discussed (in relation to astronomy in general, and the
dawning of the realisation and proof that the Earth is but one of several
planets in motion around a "central" star).


Perhaps you would be better off teaching you kids something else
besides astronomy,at least until you discover the actual reasoning
yourself.The guys here are big into magnification based on celestial
sphere geometry and that was never astronomy although you would not
know it.

You will kill the intuitive intelligence of your kids if you take them
down the road of empircism and especially where astronomy is concerned
and nothing is worth that.




I don't think your fear that such observations are denied is justified. An
observation is an observation - one cannot really deny it. The tricky part
appears to be making sense of the observation.

Anyway, I have now subscribed to the "Sky at Night" magazine. I remember
this tv series from when I was a kid, and I am completely gob-smacked to see
that Patrick Moore is still at it! Absolutely incredible.

Peter Kirk wrote:
Hi

what is a good periodical (weekly/monthly) publication covering "popular
astronomy"?

I am not a scientist or specialist in any of the natural science
disciplines, but enjoying reading magazines like New Scientist, for example.
I am looking for a publication which discusses topics in astronomy (and has
pictures to show my kids): current events, objects in the sky, theories of
the cosmos, etc.


Thanks,
Peter

The ones I regular check out are Astronomy Now (UK), Sky & telescope
(US) and Sky at Night (BBC UK).

I find Astronomy Now the best for UK based items , equipment, Adverts
etc, Sky & telscope for their in-depth reviews / articles and buy them
both regularly. I don't think Sky at Night is as good, seems to be
aimed at new / inexperienced user (and I'm certainly no expert !) and
the reviews very light on technical details, but I know others of here
like it.

Cheers