Re: Planets and Stars - an idea
- From: Brian Davis <brdavis@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 18, 7:06 pm, "Terence Nesbit" <TerryK...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Brian Davis chided me because the North Celestial Pole does not shift. Does
he mean that the North Celestial Pole, Polaris in particular is static, or
that we do not have to adjust our telescopes to see Polaris over the course
of a year? But, there are apparently times that even this star cannot be
seen from other points, so if the star does not move, what is moving?
You know, if you can't manage to go out and, you know, read a book,
why don't you do what I have my students do - actually go out and look
at the night sky? Like I said, all this can be verified with direct,
naked-eye observation, and some thought. It really requires remarkably
little in the way of "advanced science".
There's a reason this is taught in the fist week of a 100-level
astronomy class. Because it's that basic, and obvious.
--
Brian Davis
.
- References:
- Planets and Stars - an idea
- From: Terence Nesbit
- Re: Planets and Stars - an idea
- From: Paul Colquhoun
- Re: Planets and Stars - an idea
- From: Terence Nesbit
- Re: Planets and Stars - an idea
- From: Brian Davis
- Re: Planets and Stars - an idea
- From: Terence Nesbit
- Re: Planets and Stars - an idea
- From: Erik Max Francis
- Re: Planets and Stars - an idea
- From: Terence Nesbit
- Planets and Stars - an idea
- Prev by Date: Re: Practical use of Wormholes
- Next by Date: Re: Planets and Stars - an idea
- Previous by thread: Re: Planets and Stars - an idea
- Next by thread: Re: Planets and Stars - an idea
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|