Looking for a magazine

I am returning to astronomy after a few years away from following this
group. To this point I have only naked eye observed and only once
tried using a pair of hand me down binoculars. I'm currently looking
for a magazine to subscribe to that will help a new amateur like
myself. So far I have considered Astronomy, Sky and Telescope, and
StarDate. Could someone recommend what would be the best magazine for
a newcomer and reasons why they recommend it?

Peter

It's kind of like asking for a recommendation on Coke vs. Pepsi.
Astronomy has usually been considered more beginner oriented. Not sure
if that's still the case. It would be best to see if you can find
these at the library and see what you think or call and ask if you can
get a sample copy. Not sure if they do that.

Alvan Clark


On Jul 21, 7:52*pm, Peter wrote:
I am returning to astronomy after a few years away from following this
group. To this point I have only naked eye observed and only once
tried using a pair of hand me down binoculars. I'm currently looking
for a magazine to subscribe to that will help a new amateur like
myself. So far I have considered Astronomy, Sky and Telescope, and
StarDate. Could someone recommend what would be the best magazine for
a newcomer and reasons why they recommend it?

Peter

On Jul 22, 12:52*am, Peter wrote:
I am returning to astronomy after a few years away from following this
group. To this point I have only naked eye observed and only once
tried using a pair of hand me down binoculars. I'm currently looking
for a magazine to subscribe to that will help a new amateur like
myself. So far I have considered Astronomy, Sky and Telescope, and
StarDate. Could someone recommend what would be the best magazine for
a newcomer and reasons why they recommend it?

Peter

The magazines you reference are for homocentric observers and really
only appeal to people engaged in magnification and identifying
specific objects in a circumpolar framework,this is fine and indeed
within astronomy as long as the observers are aware that their goto
telescopes are built around the 365/366 day calendar system.

If I were beginning again with the vast resources of the internet I
would opt for something that is challenging and enjoyable at the same
time,something interpretative such as Kepler's representation of Mars
against the background constellations from an orbitally moving Earth
and matching it with the latest contemporary images -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...retrograde.jpg

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap031216.html

On Jul 31, 8:25*am, Alvan Clark wrote:
It's kind of like asking for a recommendation on Coke vs. Pepsi.
Astronomy has usually been considered more beginner oriented. Not sure
if that's still the case. It would be best to see if you can find
these at the library and see what you think or call and ask if you can
get a sample copy. Not sure if they do that.

Alvan Clark

On Jul 21, 7:52*pm, Peter wrote:



I am returning to astronomy after a few years away from following this
group. To this point I have only naked eye observed and only once
tried using a pair of hand me down binoculars. I'm currently looking
for a magazine to subscribe to that will help a new amateur like
myself. So far I have considered Astronomy, Sky and Telescope, and
StarDate. Could someone recommend what would be the best magazine for
a newcomer and reasons why they recommend it?

Peter

Astronomy mag is no longer the totally beginner mag it used to be. I
believe it now outsells S&T, but both of them are OK sources for
amateur observers. They each have strong points, and I subscribe to
both.

\Paul A

On Jul 31, 10:56*am, oriel36 wrote:

The magazines you reference are for homocentric observers and really
only appeal to people engaged in magnification and identifying
specific objects in a circumpolar framework,this is fine and indeed
within astronomy as long as the observers are aware that their goto
telescopes are built around the 365/366 day calendar system.

You mean, if anyone disagrees with any of your totally wacky theories
it isn't fine to call themselves amateur astronomers? You're an idiot,
as usual, and have no business posting anything here. Goto telescopes
are built around the Sidereal Day, unless you are observing the sun,
in which case many drives can be set for the solar rate, or even the
lunar rate. WE all know why these are different, but you have no
stinking clue, do you.

If I were beginning again with the vast resources of the internet I
would opt for something that is challenging and enjoyable at the same
time,something interpretative such as *Kepler's representation of Mars
against the background constellations from an orbitally moving Earth
and matching it with the latest *contemporary images -

Well, beginning again is EXACTLY what you should do, and you can start
by completely eliminating ANYTHING that was conceived in your own
small brain, because as far as I can see, nothing fruitful has ever
been known to emanate from that tiny organ.

"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."
- Albert Einstein

\Paul A

I just watched the forum blink and know it,what you do from now on
will be dishonorable to yourselves and even though many can live with
it comfortably I know many cannot.

On Jul 31, 10:50*pm, palsing wrote:
On Jul 31, 10:56*am, oriel36 wrote:

The magazines you reference are for homocentric observers and really
only appeal to people engaged in magnification and identifying
specific objects in a circumpolar framework,this is fine and indeed
within astronomy as long as the observers are aware that their goto
telescopes are built around the 365/366 day calendar system.

You mean, if anyone disagrees with any of your totally wacky theories
it isn't fine to call themselves amateur astronomers?

The great tragedy that our generation does not accept a basic fact
that the equatorial Earth turns at a rate of 1037.5 miles per hour for
15 degrees of rotation,a motion which has a definite effect of the
daylight/darkness cycle represents a type of intellectual poverty the
people of our planet have not known.There is a desperate call to wake
up out of that awful intellectual stupor that normally reasonable
people have found themselves in for while even I concede that linking
stellar circumpolar motion directly to daily rotation as an
explanation looks correct,it isn't and there were very good reasons
why our astronomical ancestors chose the references they did and did
not give into the temptation of fixing the daily cycle to the motion
of the background constellations around Polaris.They were geocentric
astronomers by virtue of leaving the stars and constellations fixed
and not moving,only when Flamsteed set the constellations in motion
around Polaris and then provided a dynamical explanation using the
Earth's motions did astronomy descend into homocentricity, the loss of
even the facts which link daily rotation to the planet's dimensions.

On Jul 22, 12:52*am, Peter wrote:
I am returning to astronomy after a few years away from following this
group. To this point I have only naked eye observed and only once
tried using a pair of hand me down binoculars. I'm currently looking
for a magazine to subscribe to that will help a new amateur like
myself. So far I have considered Astronomy, Sky and Telescope, and
StarDate. Could someone recommend what would be the best magazine for
a newcomer and reasons why they recommend it?

Peter

The homocentric observers of sidereal time reasoning do not accept
the original resolution for retrogrades in following Isaac Newton's
false conception based on a hypothetical observer on the Sun -

"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

As you know now,retrogrades are simply an illusion caused by the
Earth's own motion and can only be resolved that way as known to
Kepler and Galileo for retrograde resolution also involves increase in
luminosity/size as the Earth and Mars close and widen the distance to
each other as they move in their respective orbits at different
speeds.You can check this in the APOD image along with Galileo's
comments -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap031216.html

"..that in running through the zodiac all planets are now slow and now
fast, indeed that most of them can be not only slow but also
stationary and retrograde, and that we see them now very large and
very near the earth and now very small and very far;" Galileo

http://www.marxists.org/reference/su...it/galileo.htm

The size and attendant luminosity increase is what you see as the
Earth approaches and overtakes Mars,it should be something every
astronomer receives with confidence but owing this cringing need to
defend Newton's view,the only thing you will see is silence or
personal attacks against me even if I pay them no heed.

On 8/1/10 2:22 AM, oriel36 wrote:
The great tragedy that our generation does not accept a basic fact
that the equatorial Earth turns at a rate of 1037.5 miles per hour for
15 degrees of rotation,a motion which has a definite effect of the
daylight/darkness cycle represents a type of intellectual poverty the
people of our planet have not known.

Great tragedy for your untutored world view, perhaps Gerald.
Observation shows that the earth turns 360° in one sidereal day.

Off topic: And now some entertainment news:

It is reported that Professor Kellleher, the little known conjurer and
sleight-of-hand artists, has signed up for another season of pantomime
at the Vaudeville Theatre. He will be accompanied, as usual, by his
glamorous assistant, the lovely Brenda Guff.

Curvy Brenda is a firm favourite with fans of Star Babes in the
popular British newspaper. She had a short flirtation as an airhead
WAG with The Sun newspaper but they will only deal with sodium-free
models and she was asked (politely) to move on.

It is rumoured that Professor Kelleher was rather upset that his tired
tricks were completely upstaged by Brenda's display of daring during
last season's, ill-attended shows. Instead of subjecting herself to
the Professor's degrading and amateurish "sawing a ball in half" trick
she whipped out a tiny telescope from her cleavage and began to prance
around suggestively. She then proceeded to lecture the sleepy handful
of onlookers with strange tales of mythical distant worlds in her
rather high pitched and grating voice.

The pompous Professor Kelleher is supposed to have stormed off the
stage in a tantrum at one point when Brenda suddenly started her own
slide show! With rather crude drawings of herself wrapped around
images of the Moon, Venus and Sirius in decidedly scanty attire.

Platinum blonde, Brenda "Nice eyepiece Rack" Guff is believed to be
aiming for greater things with an upcoming appearance in some raunchy
forums wearing her little telescope and not much else. Let us hope she
is not completely out of her depth! Always the attention seeker, she
seems to have outclassed Professor Kelleher, of late, despite having
been "discovered" in a strip club by the elderly Professor himself.

Kelleher is still reputed to be a member of the Magic Circle though
many members have attempted to oust him for his cheap repetitive
tricks. He seems not to have shown Brenda or his audience nearly
enough attention over the years and they seem to be drifting ever
further apart. With little obvious interest in each other's
performance or appearance on-stage or off.

They were frequently booed off last season as their tiny audience
grows increasingly tired of seeing the same tricks and gags repeated
over and over again. It seems the star-crossed lovers may not be long
for the boards unless they can spark new excitement into their
dwindling, but adoring, fan club of only two, lonely souls.

Look out for more entertainment news next week!

And now a message from our sponsors:

On 1 Aug, 08:37, oriel36 wrote:
On Jul 22, 12:52*am, Peter wrote:

I am returning to astronomy after a few years away from following this
group. To this point I have only naked eye observed and only once
tried using a pair of hand me down binoculars. I'm currently looking
for a magazine to subscribe to that will help a new amateur like
myself. So far I have considered Astronomy, Sky and Telescope, and
StarDate. Could someone recommend what would be the best magazine for
a newcomer and reasons why they recommend it?

Peter

The homocentric observers of sidereal time reasoning do not accept
the *original resolution for retrogrades in following Isaac Newton's
false conception based on a hypothetical observer on the Sun -

"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

As you know now,retrogrades are simply an illusion caused by the
Earth's own motion and can only be resolved that way as known to
Kepler and Galileo for retrograde resolution also involves increase in
luminosity/size as the Earth and Mars close and widen the distance to
each other as they move in their respective orbits at different
speeds.You can check this in the APOD image along with Galileo's
comments -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap031216.html

"..that in running through the zodiac all planets are now slow and now
fast, indeed that most of them can be not only slow but also
stationary and retrograde, and that we see them now very large and
very near the earth and now very small and very far;" Galileo

http://www.marxists.org/reference/su...rks/it/galileo...

The size and attendant luminosity *increase is what you see as the
Earth approaches and overtakes Mars,it should be something every
astronomer receives with confidence but owing this cringing need to
defend Newton's view,the only thing you will see is silence or
personal attacks against me even if I pay them no heed.

You have ruined what could have been a useful thread with your usual
misguided rubbish.
I know we will never persuade you from your silly theories because you
are unable to visualise properly.
However I didn't think of you as bad mannered until now.
Peter asked a reasonable question and should have just got reasonable
answers. Please don't be so bad mannered in future. You can start your
own threads and will get answers from those of us who wish to persuade
you but don't spoil the threads of others with irrelevancies.
If you had been able to recommend a magazine supporting your views it
would have been OK but you just butted in and spoiled things.
An apology would be in order.