Recommend good undergraduate book on astronomy?

On Mar 18, 8:15*pm, Bill wrote:
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:14:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc wrote:
With this fixed idea, I can't convince him that he's wrong.

John Savard

Take a step back and look at the whole picture. *It speaks for itself;
or at least I think it does.



Ah,but you see you are caught between two untruths and that is the
only picture you inherit -

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

" The length of time it takes the Earth, at the present time, to
rotate once is 86,400.002 seconds compared to 86,400 seconds back in
1820. The rotation has slowed roughly only by 2 milliseconds since
1820."

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_r..._day_and_night


The original error by John Flamsteed is acceptable insofar as it
strays from the correct principles contained in the 24 hour AM/PM
system tied to the Lat/Long system but Newton built on the error in a
specific way - he mixed fiction in with fact that that is what readers
are seeing in the two skewed conceptions above by changing the story
to suit conventional concerns.

I have seen the whole chilling picture,the rise of astronomy from
geocentricity to the great astronomy of the Earth's planetary dynamics
and then the rapid descent into late 17th century homocentricity and a
cruelness the world has not known.Human decency would normally
intervene and restore integrity and a stable astronomical narrative
but this is not ordinary era as can be seen from the reaction of
people,not just to the original 'solar vs sidereal' nonsense but to
the 'new' version.Not even Orwell commenting on Nazi doctrine could
come close to the ability of a culture that can create fiction at
will and probably his foundation for a fictional dystopian
society,the difference being that such a dominant doctrine actually
exists -

"Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as ‘the
truth’ exists.There is, for instance, no such thing as ‘science’.There
is only ‘German science’, ‘Jewish science’ etc. The implied objective
of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or
some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the
Leader says of such and such an event, ‘It never happened’ — well, it
never happened. If he says that two and two are five — well, two and
two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs" Orwell

Human decency will win out,it has to in the end but that requires
effort regardless from what quarter it comes and if people are not
truly sickened by the new version with an idealized rotation once in
24 hours back in the year 1820 then God help us all.




--
Email address is a Spam trap.

On Mar 18, 8:15*pm, Bill wrote:
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:14:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc wrote:
With this fixed idea, I can't convince him that he's wrong.

John Savard

Take a step back and look at the whole picture. *It speaks for itself;
or at least I think it does.

--
Email address is a Spam trap.

Ah,but you see you are caught between two lies and that is the only
picture you inherit -

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

" The length of time it takes the Earth, at the present time, to
rotate once is 86,400.002 seconds compared to 86,400 seconds back in
1820. The rotation has slowed roughly only by 2 milliseconds since
1820."

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_r..._day_and_night

People with normal checks and balances couldn't live with two
contradictory statements and find them both correct but since the time
of Newton where mixing fiction with facts became acceptable among
mathematical modelers,our civilization has lost sight of the big
picture.

Quadibloc:

...Oriel's basic difficulty in understanding...

I have attempted to explain to him...

...I can't convince him that he's wrong.

That is correct. You know what a troll is. Why not just put Oriel in
your kill file as so many others have done and try to get back to
astronomy? Do you think he would continue to post here if people like
you didn't constantly take the bait? To an unbiased observer Oriel
comes off looking smarter than you, just as the angler is smarter than
the fish. Yet even a dumb fish doesn't go for /every/ piece of bait
that is dangled in front of it.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Mar 18, 9:33*pm, Davoud wrote:
Quadibloc:

...Oriel's basic difficulty in understanding...
I have attempted to explain to him...
...I can't convince him that he's wrong.

That is correct. You know what a troll is. Why not just put Oriel in
your kill file as so many others have done and try to get back to
astronomy? Do you think he would continue to post here if people like
you didn't constantly take the bait? To an unbiased observer Oriel
comes off looking smarter than you, just as the angler is smarter than
the fish. Yet even a dumb fish doesn't go for /every/ piece of bait
that is dangled in front of it.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Astronomy for you is nothing more than a magnification exercise at
night and that is fair enough if it is all you can manage but imagers
can do better by interpreting imaging .It is obvious that axial
precession needs modifying because images from Keck show the annual
orbital component in action -

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/planetary/u...e/science2.jpg

You actually have to like astronomy and your ability to reason things
out rather than just engage in what effectively looks like a tree
house pursuit of magnification yet it is only that your culture
hinders interpretation that I find fault among you.If you are not up
to the challenge of interpreting the dynamics in that sequence of
images then just say so,you are not the first elderly gentleman who
has lost the inquisitive spirit or never knew the God given talents of
astronomy.

Oriel crank, nutter or bot - frankly who cares?