Holiday reading suggestion?

Mike Dworetsky wrote:
"AB" wrote in message
...
As we are possibly like-minded people here, does anybody have any
suggestions for some holiday reading this summer?

Any astro-related recommendations would be welcome although as I am a
relative beginner nothing too heavy please. Bear in mind i will not have
access to my scope and most likely I will be reading it when its light
(and
hopefully sunny) so nothing that requires me to do any observing as I
read.

Thanks

"Rocket Boys" by Homer Hickham (fiction)

"Galileo's Daughter" by Dava Sobel (factual story, beautifully told)

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)

What about Isaac and his mutation of Copernican
heliocentricity*,Galileo's writings support one and only one way to
resolve plotted retrogrades -


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

Here Salviati explains Jupiter's motion, then follows with:]

Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and
Mars also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent
than in Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter's, so that
the Earth overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its
motion being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends more
time in catching up with it. Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose
circles are included within that of the Earth, stoppings and retrograde
motions appear in them also, due not to any motion that really exists
in them, but to the annual motion of the Earth. This is acutely
demonstrated by Copernicus . . .

You see, gentlemen, with what ease and simplicity the annual motion --
if made by the Earth -- lends itself to supplying reasons for the
apparent anomalies which are observed in the movements of the five
planets. . . . It removes them all and reduces these movements to
equable and regular motions; and it was Nicholas Copernicus who first
clarified for us the reasons for this marvelous effect." 1632, Dialogue
Concerning the Two Chief World Systems GALILEO


What did Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo do to have their works
destroyed by the Newtonian mutation which does not refer heliocentric
orbital motion from an orbitally moving Earth.


" Against the stellar background planetary motions appear sometimes
direct,sometimes stationary and sometimes retrograde.But from an
orbitally moving Earth planetary heliocentric motions are seen direct "
COPERNICUS


* " 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


Holocausts are built on silence,not intentional,but that silence of the
dull.

JRS: In article .com
, dated Thu, 25 May 2006 04:32:09 remote, seen in news:uk.sci.astronomy,
oriel36 posted :

Approximate (?) details, from memory - "The Book that Nobody Read", by
Owen Gingerich, recently published, and possibly reviewed in "Physics
World".

It's about the copies of Copernicus' "De Revolutionibus"; it's about the
usual size for a book.

--
©

Signatures should not be quoted.

It is about how the myth grew that Copernican reasoning was
unpenetrable to all but a few while the annotations on the De
Revolutionibus books suggest otherwise.

A rather inadequate description. There is much in the book that is of
interest independently of that hypothesis.

You are, of course, kill-ruled; I fetched that article specifically. I
see no need to alter the kill-rules.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

Another one would be George Smoot and Kelly Davidson's "Wrinkles in Time"
which is a good read of all the back work and preparation leading to COBE,
the Cosmic Microwave Background explorer and the work leading from that. It
then talks about what the results mean for cosmology. It has a great chapter
on the balloon work done from Antarctica - with the statement that the best
day in your life is the day you step foot on Antarctica, the next best is
the day you leave !


--

A

I only see in infrared...

In message , Mike Dworetsky
writes
"AB" wrote in message
...
As we are possibly like-minded people here, does anybody have any
suggestions for some holiday reading this summer?

Any astro-related recommendations would be welcome although as I am a
relative beginner nothing too heavy please. Bear in mind i will not have
access to my scope and most likely I will be reading it when its light
(and
hopefully sunny) so nothing that requires me to do any observing as I
read.

Thanks

"Rocket Boys" by Homer Hickham (fiction)


I must read my copy :-)
The film version ("October Sky") is well worth watching, IMO.

Dr John Stockton wrote:
JRS: In article .com
, dated Thu, 25 May 2006 04:32:09 remote, seen in news:uk.sci.astronomy,
oriel36 posted :

Approximate (?) details, from memory - "The Book that Nobody Read", by
Owen Gingerich, recently published, and possibly reviewed in "Physics
World".

It's about the copies of Copernicus' "De Revolutionibus"; it's about the
usual size for a book.

--
©

Signatures should not be quoted.

It is about how the myth grew that Copernican reasoning was
unpenetrable to all but a few while the annotations on the De
Revolutionibus books suggest otherwise.

A rather inadequate description. There is much in the book that is of
interest independently of that hypothesis.

You are, of course, kill-ruled; I fetched that article specifically. I
see no need to alter the kill-rules.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't MailNews.

Even Gingerich has not got that level of intuitive intelligence to
recognise the Keplerian 'Panis Quadragesimalis' for what it is.

You ignorant Newtonian creeps,following in the footsteps of that
numbskull, mistook the representation as signifying the motion of Mars
as seen from a stationary Earth and straightened out the lines if you
place the Sun in the center.hence the ignorant Newtonian mutation of
Copernican heliocentricity -

"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


Should the original poster of this thread care to go to page 86 and
make a little effort to recognise that the intricate structure is based
on two seperate comparisons,he will be rewarded with the true
experience of heliocentricity as Kepler,Galileo and Copernicus knew
it.Until that reasoning is restored,there is no such thing as
astronomy,there is only the 17th century vandalism.


http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/POSC_13_1_74_0.pdf


"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils [spiris],
leading the individual planets into their respective orbits
[orbitas],quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time
shown in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many
times as the 'garlands' [corollas] you see looped towards the
centre, with one extra, making nine times, while at the same time the
Earth repeats its circle sixteen times "


Astronomia Nova 1609

How gorgeous that is,the plotted motions of Mars against the stellar
background from an orbitally moving Earth.

Again,the dullest and most unoriginal people dominate humanity's
astronomical heritage with inferior mutations concealed under
linguistic tinsel.

In article .com,
"oriel36" wrote:

Would you mind explaining - in just two short paragraphs - what the hell
you are on about? Execessive verbiage is just obscuring it.

--

The greatest enemy of science is psuedoscience.

In message ,
a1pha-0mega writes
In article .com,
"oriel36" wrote:

Would you mind explaining - in just two short paragraphs - what the hell
you are on about? Execessive verbiage is just obscuring it.

Please don't encourage our resident troll :-)
Look at the rest of this thread (or any other post by oriel36) to see
why.

In article , Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

In message ,
a1pha-0mega writes
In article .com,
"oriel36" wrote:

Would you mind explaining - in just two short paragraphs - what the hell
you are on about? Execessive verbiage is just obscuring it.

Please don't encourage our resident troll :-)
Look at the rest of this thread (or any other post by oriel36) to see
why.

Agreed.

(BTW I'm not morphing - I'm swapping between 2 or 3 different
newsreaders and have finally agreed a psuedonym and client - oh for a
good usenet client for the mac! all other pseudonyms die here SPLAT!)

I've google-group'd him on geology,astro and physics newsgroups and
forums - and for the life of me I cannot understand what he has his
panties in a bunch over. His comments on axial tilt sound more like a
fundamental lack of understanding of orbital mechanics then anything
else.

Unfortunately it seems USENET is full of them. Over the last 10 years
I've flitted on and off it as it seems too full of people who have the
answers QM and relativity but all they seem to have is a deep and
profound misunderstanding of it.

--
The true enemy of science is psuedoscience...