Flamsteed Book

It seems to me some 20-30 years ago a colorfully illustrated book about
Flamsteed was published. Does anyone recall it?

On Jan 10, 10:01*pm, "W. eWatson" wrote:
It seems to me some 20-30 years ago a colorfully illustrated book about
Flamsteed was published. Does anyone recall it?

Hmm. I'm tempted to make a joke about Oriel performing a ritual to
Aforgomon to cause that book to become rapidly forgotten...

Searching for books about Flamsteed on Amazon, I find:

Newton's Tyranny: The Suppressed Scientific Discoveries of Stephen
Gray and John Flamsteed

but it was too recent, and is likely not illustrated, and so is not
what you're looking for...

Flamsteed's Stars, by Frances Willmoth, from 1997, is a new biography
of Flamsteed, and thus comes closer.

John Flamsteed: The First Astronomer Royal at Greenwich, by John L.
Birks, sounds even closer.

John Savard

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...

On Jan 10, 10:01 pm, "W. eWatson" wrote:
It seems to me some 20-30 years ago a colorfully illustrated book about
Flamsteed was published. Does anyone recall it?

Hmm. I'm tempted to make a joke about Oriel performing a ritual to
Aforgomon to cause that book to become rapidly forgotten...

Searching for books about Flamsteed on Amazon, I find:

Newton's Tyranny: The Suppressed Scientific Discoveries of Stephen
Gray and John Flamsteed


==============================================
Yes, it's on the next shelf above to
"The Radiant Glory of Einstein: How the Gamma of Lorentz become inverted
Beta"
by John Savard, another book also forgotten ... I kept a copy.


-- "Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
(begin quote)
At the end of Section 3 we find the transformation derived:

tau=beta(t-vx/c^2),
xi=beta(x-vt),
eta=y,
zeta=z,
where beta=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

With trivial algebraic manipulation we can derive the inverse
transformation:

t=beta(tau+v(xi)/c^2),
x=beta(xi+v(tau)),
y=eta,
z=zeta.
(end quote)
===============================================
Not only is Savard hopeless at simple algebra, he quotes the drool of some
unnamed moron who is equally hopeless.
Perhaps he can show, step-by-step, his trivial derivation, like this:
xi = beta(x-vt)
Divide both sides of the equation by beta
xi/beta = beta(x-vt)/beta
Since beta/beta = 1,
xi/beta = 1*(x-vt)
Add vt to both sides of the equation
xi/beta +vt = (x-vt)+vt
Since vt - vt = 0,
x = xi/beta +vt

Why is Savard multiplying xi by beta instead of dividing?


-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.