|
Sarkikos
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 12/18/07
Posts: 1064
Loc: Suburban Maryland
|
|
I've experienced this a number of times in the last few years: I buy a new astronomy field guide or download a list of objects to observe, and the author gives the RA and Dec numbers to locate each object, but does not name the constellation it is in! What gives? Are constellations obsolete now? Is it really that cost effective to save a little paper and ink or a few bytes of storage to leave out the constellations?
When I buy a new DSO field guide or search through a DSO list, I want to know the constellation in which each object is located. For me, the constellations are a quick, short-hand method to know not only where an object is located on the celestial sphere, but what would be the best time of year to observe it, what time it would be at the meridian throughout the year, and even if it would be visible at all on a particular night. I can get at least a rough idea of all that information from a quick glance at the name of the constellation. I cannot get the same information from just glancing at the coordinates, and I doubt that many amateurs can. Maybe many newbies don't want to bother with learning the constellations, but are the coordinates any easier to understand when you glance at them beside the object description in a book or on a list, BEFORE you plug them into your goto computer? I don't think so.
I don't have goto or DSCs and I'm not going to get these gizmos for any of my current scopes, so I can't just plug in the numbers and hope I'll be able to see a certain object on a particular night. (Besides, I don't think many binoculars are goto driven.) When I read about an object and I want to see it, the first thing I want to know is the constellation in which it is located. Is that too much to ask? I don't think so.
Clear Skies,
Mike
--------------------
Celestron 10" f5 Newt on 1stBase (DSO)
Zhumell 8" f6 Newt, Bosma 6" f12 MCT (NSO)
6" f5 Newt, 130ST, 4.5" f4.4 Ball w/GLP, ST80 w/Crayford (RFTs)
C4-R (NSO/DS)
90mm f13 MCT (Luna/DS)
SkyMaster 25x100, 15x70
Zhumell 20x80
Barska XWA 10x50, 8x40
OptiView LPR 10x50
Const View 2.3x40
BV-125C
CG5, 2 drv / CG4, 2 drv, wood legs, ScopeStuff saddle / CG3, 1 drv
SV AZ / 501HDV on Bogen 055XB / P+ on Oberwerk
QuikFinder, Telrad
Orion Dynamo Pro 12, Dew-Not
Have GLP and not afraid to use it!
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3469
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
I've experienced this a number of times in the last few years: I buy a new astronomy field guide or download a list of objects to observe, and the author gives the RA and Dec numbers to locate each object, but does not name the constellation it is in! What gives? Are constellations obsolete now? Is it really that cost effective to save a little paper and ink or a few bytes of storage to leave out the constellations?
When I buy a new DSO field guide or search through a DSO list, I want to know the constellation in which each object is located. For me, the constellations are a quick, short-hand method to know not only where an object is located on the celestial sphere, but what would be the best time of year to observe it ...
This is an interesting question -- and very relevant to me, since as an editor of Sky & Telescope, I have the choice to include or exclude the constellation in many cases.
Given the three location-defining data(RA, Dec, and constellation), constellation is clearly the least important, because it's the least specific. And frankly, it is neither needed nor terribly useful for knowing what's the best time of year to observe something. For that purpose, RA is far superior.
When in doubt, I can (and often do) figure out when an object culminates using the RA, the date, and a little mental arithmetic. It's simplicity itself. By definition, the Sun is at RA zero on the vernal equinox. Conversely, an object at RA zero culminates at midnight (standard time) on or near the autumnal equinox.
It's now almost a month past the autumnal equinox, so an object at RA zero culminates about 24/12 = 2 hours before midnight standard time, which is 11 p.m. daylight time. This isn't precise, but it's a lot better than I could do based just on the constellation, which might cover several hours of RA.
More generally, I have a feel for when certain ranges of RA are easily viewable in the evening sky. It's easy to acquire this if you think in terms of RA, and well worth acquiring.
RA and Dec are particularly important if you star-hop, because they're what you need to locate your target in a star atlas. Constellation alone won't usually do that. It wouldn't even come close if not for the convenient fact that the NGC objects are arranged in RA order.
Having said all that, the constellation is still a very useful shorthand for combining RA and Dec in a crude kind of way -- and knowing in a jiffy which way you'll need to look in the naked-eye sky. So constellation certainly has its value.
I always omit the constellation from the data tables in Deep-Sky Wonders, which is invariably squeezed for space in the magazine. But this is rarely a problem, because in 19 cases out of 20, Deep-Sky Wonders concentrates on a small piece of sky -- usually just a part of a constellation -- and the name of the constellation is spelled out very clearly in the text.
However, I am planning to publish soon (in the April issue) an article that covers one type of object, with examples scattered all over the sky. And in that case, I'll think much more seriously about including the constellation.
Alas, the real problem isn't the 3-letter constellation abbreviation but the column header. I suppose I can abbreviate it "Const." or even "Con."
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 5684
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
Another vote here for constellation name.
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
|
bicparker
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/07/05
Posts: 1706
Loc: Plano, TX
|
|
If I am looking at a list of objects and the constellations are listed with them, then I can, very quickly, ascertain their general position in the sky and mentally group them. Obviously, if the constellation is Eridanus, or Hydra, or some other large meandering constellation, then I would still jump to the RA/Dec references. But, most of the time, it gives me a quick visual and makes me think of the best time frame for observing.
And... in general conversation on the field.. if someone asks where something is, I don't rattle off the RA/Dec to them... I say, "It's here, in Hercules."
Of course, I tell folks that everything is in Hercules. 
--------------------
Bic Parker
17.5" f/5 dob
10" f/10 SCT
5" f/8 refractor
80mm f/6 refractor
66mm f/6 refractor
Plus a few others out of the rotation
|
desertstars
Please stand by...
Reged: 11/05/03
Posts: 34586
Loc: Tucson, AZ
|
|
The references I have acquired are a mixture of three organizational schemes: coordinates (RA/DEC), constellation, and season. When I pick up a new one, it's an even bet which of the three it will use, and very often it will cross reference at least two out of the three. (Sue French's Celestial Sampler and Tom Trusock's Small Wonders series here on CN are examples.)
I don't see a trend away from using any one way to catagorize objects, in preference to others. Which one a given author decides to use is an exercise in author's prerogative.
--------------------
Tom W.
Collinder's Catalog
Jewels in Dark Settings
|
stevecoe
"Astronomical Tourist"
Reged: 04/24/04
Posts: 2645
Loc: Arizona, USA
|
|
Tony;
Please listen to your readers and include the constellation information. I know that you can and do quickly and easily make a mental calculation about used the RA and Dec. I use the constellation as that quick method for know what is up right now or later this evening.
The SAC database includes a column of "CON" with the IAU shorthand for each constellation.
www.saguaroastro.org
Thanks for listening;
Steve Coe
--------------------
TeleVue 102 refractor on CGEM mount
10 inch f/4.7 Newtonian
Author "Deep Sky Observing" Springer-Verlag
Author "Nebulae and How to Observe Them" Springer
Canon Xt astrocamera with Hutech modification
|
Jeremy Perez
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 08/12/04
Posts: 1930
Loc: Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
|
|
I can definitely sympathize with the pain of having to mash another table column into a layout. Still, I'd gladly toss in another vote for the user-friendliness of listing constellation info for providing a quick sense for where/when something is visible.
--------------------
Orion SVP 6LT (6" f/8 Newt) || Orion XT8 (8" f/5.9 Dob) || 15x70 Oberwerk Binoculars || Coronado PST
The Belt Of Venus || Sketch Gallery || Sketching Resources || Astro-Photo Gallery
|
astrokido
space wanderer
Reged: 06/09/08
Posts: 663
Loc: Phoenix, AZ
|
|
It's particularly important to know an object's constellation when you're trying to catch it right after astronomical twilight sets in, just before it disappears below the horizon for a month or two.
--------------------
- Gill C. - Celestron Cometron CO-100, 10x25, 20x80, Binochair, Nikon D40
The Night Sky Atlas: www.nightskyatlas.com
|
BobinKy
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/27/07
Posts: 1683
|
|
Tony...
This is an eye-opener thread for me. Thanks for taking the position you did and defending it with good examples.
I have been a constellation guy for the last three years--I probably always will be a constellation guy.
However, I just went to my software program (SkyTools 3) and created an observing list of the Messiers. The program creates an observing list with the objects listed by rows and descriptor categories in columns (spreadsheet style). This makes it easy to sort the observing list by any of the categories. I never have all of these category columns turned on. But today I did turn all of them on and noticed the following.(1) Sorting by RA is the same as sorting by transit time.
(2) In many of the Messiers, the optimum observing time is the same or close to the transit time.
(3) Millennium Star Atlas and Pocket Sky Atlas come the closest to preserving the RA sort than any of the other atlas options in the program.
(4) Constellations are generally in the ball park when following the RA sort. Conclusion
Following the RA position makes sense if you want to observe the Messiers by transit time or calculated optimum time.
For the evening of October 15, according to the program's calculation of optimum observing times, at the end of twilight tonight I should begin observing the Messiers with the M51 or M3 at location RA 13 hrs 30 mins in the Canes Venatici (CVn) constellation. However, I should wait on the Messiers M63 and M94, also in Canes Venatici, until right before the beginning of twilight in the morning.
A copy of the complete Messier Observing List in Excel spreadsheet format is attached.
--------------------
Bob
38°N
|
bicparker
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/07/05
Posts: 1706
Loc: Plano, TX
|
|
As a general rule, when making observing lists, I always put everything in RA order. However, seeing the constellation name or abbreviation listed makes it much easier to quickly identify its general location, especially when I am in the dark looking at it with a dim red light.
--------------------
Bic Parker
17.5" f/5 dob
10" f/10 SCT
5" f/8 refractor
80mm f/6 refractor
66mm f/6 refractor
Plus a few others out of the rotation
|
Tom Polakis
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 12/20/04
Posts: 768
Loc: Tempe, Arizona
|
|
Quote:
I suppose I can abbreviate it "Const." or even "Con."
As others have noted, constellation name gives many of us an intuitive feel for an object's location. When I hear "Leo" I immediately think, "Winter mornings, Spring evenings."
If you went with the three-letter "Con" abbreviation, you could similarly use the three-letter abbreviations that already exist for all of the constellations. I'm sure your layout people would appreciate "CVn" in favor of "Canes Venatici."
Tom
--------------------
Tom Polakis
Tempe, AZ
Visual observing, DSLR photography, lunar & planetary imaging
http://www.pbase.com/polakis/
|
Sarkikos
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 12/18/07
Posts: 1064
Loc: Suburban Maryland
|
|
Tony,
Quote:
Given the three location-defining data(RA, Dec, and constellation), constellation is clearly the least important, because it's the least specific. And frankly, it is neither needed nor terribly useful for knowing what's the best time of year to observe something. For that purpose, RA is far superior.
I wouldn't say that the constellation is the least important location-defining datum. Ideally, I want to have all three: RA, Dec, and constellation. Speaking for myself only, a glance at a list of objects that only has the coordinates and not the constellation will not tell me if such and such an object or objects on the list will be visible tonight or approximately at what time tonight. But the constellation next to the object will give me that information. Not always exact information, especially for the constellations that are longer in RA, such as Hydra. But usually good enough to get me in the ballpark with just a glance. The coordinates will not do that for me - at least not with a glance. If I only have the coordinates, I'll have to look up the object in an atlas or plug it into a planetarium or planning program or ... gasp... figure it out in my head. 
Quote:
When in doubt, I can (and often do) figure out when an object culminates using the RA, the date, and a little mental arithmetic. It's simplicity itself. By definition, the Sun is at RA zero on the vernal equinox. Conversely, an object at RA zero culminates at midnight (standard time) on or near the autumnal equinox. It's now almost a month past the autumnal equinox, so an object at RA zero culminates about 24/12 = 2 hours before midnight standard time, which is 11 p.m. daylight time.
When in doubt, I reach for a planisphere, give it a quick twirl, and have the information literally at my fingertips. I doubt that for most people - myself included - the "little mental arithmetic" is "simplicity itself." That's just the way it is. I know people who like doing sums and products in their heads, too. I'd rather use the calculator. (On the other hand, I do know the constellations and brighter stars rather well, so I don't use goto or DSCs. To each their own.)
Quote:
More generally, I have a feel for when certain ranges of RA are easily viewable in the evening sky. It's easy to acquire this if you think in terms of RA, and well worth acquiring.
I do agree with this. I can see the usefulness in learning some basic positions in RA, such as where 0 degrees is (I do know that), and maybe even a rough idea of the RA for each major constellation, and even the beginning and ending RA for long constellations such as Hydra. But if I already know the constellations and have a basic idea of when they culminate, the RA is pretty much redundant. Something for me to think about.  But for now, since I do know the constellations and their spatial relationships and the general time of year when each culminates at midnight, I get by very well as long as I am given the constellation in which an object is located.
Quote:
RA and Dec are particularly important if you star-hop, because they're what you need to locate your target in a star atlas. Constellation alone won't usually do that. It wouldn't even come close if not for the convenient fact that the NGC objects are arranged in RA order.
I generally don't use RA and Dec at all when I star hop. If I'm looking at the object's constellation in an atlas, I can spot the object pretty quickly, as long as the NGC or other designation is printed beside it. If not, I look up the object in the Sky or Sky Tools and print out a finder chart. I don't use RA or Dec to do any of this. Since I've gone through the Messiers and most of the objects that are fairly easy to locate and observe, I might start using RA and Dec more than I have. We'll see. But so far, as long as I've had good finder charts and I already know where the object is in the atlas, I really haven't felt any need for coordinates.
Quote:
Having said all that, the constellation is still a very useful shorthand for combining RA and Dec in a crude kind of way -- and knowing in a jiffy which way you'll need to look in the naked-eye sky. So constellation certainly has its value.
Yes, and I want to know in a jiffy. 
Quote:
I always omit the constellation from the data tables in Deep-Sky Wonders, which is invariably squeezed for space in the magazine. But this is rarely a problem, because in 19 cases out of 20, Deep-Sky Wonders concentrates on a small piece of sky -- usually just a part of a constellation -- and the name of the constellation is spelled out very clearly in the text.
As long as the constellation is clearly obvious from the context, I have no problem if the constellation name is not given in a table. But what's obvious to one might not be obvious to others.
Quote:
However, I am planning to publish soon (in the April issue) an article that covers one type of object, with examples scattered all over the sky. And in that case, I'll think much more seriously about including the constellation.
Good idea! That sure would help me when I read the article.
Quote:
Alas, the real problem isn't the 3-letter constellation abbreviation but the column header. I suppose I can abbreviate it "Const." or even "Con."
"Con" is good. I've seen other authors use that abbreviation and it's what I use in my spreadsheets.
Clear Skies,
Mike
... and please give the folks what they want. 
--------------------
Celestron 10" f5 Newt on 1stBase (DSO)
Zhumell 8" f6 Newt, Bosma 6" f12 MCT (NSO)
6" f5 Newt, 130ST, 4.5" f4.4 Ball w/GLP, ST80 w/Crayford (RFTs)
C4-R (NSO/DS)
90mm f13 MCT (Luna/DS)
SkyMaster 25x100, 15x70
Zhumell 20x80
Barska XWA 10x50, 8x40
OptiView LPR 10x50
Const View 2.3x40
BV-125C
CG5, 2 drv / CG4, 2 drv, wood legs, ScopeStuff saddle / CG3, 1 drv
SV AZ / 501HDV on Bogen 055XB / P+ on Oberwerk
QuikFinder, Telrad
Orion Dynamo Pro 12, Dew-Not
Have GLP and not afraid to use it!
|
rookie
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 01/14/06
Posts: 878
Loc: St. Petersburg, FL
|
|
Great discussion. I appreciate Tony's explanation. I've been trying to learn the sky for the past 5 years, and I've been organizing my reading, observing, logging, learning star names, and DSO's by constellation. Now there is a file cabinet in my head organized by constellation. I understand the benefits of RA observing for any given night, but it does not sort the information for me. I'm just not there yet.
I get up pretty early and am at work before most people hear their alarm clocks go off. When I observe at night, I'm tired. The extra organization of information makes a difference to me.
--------------------
SV
Scope: Celestron CPC8
Binoculars: Garrett GT80~45, Fujinon 16x70, Regals 10x42, Ultima 9x63, Nikon AE 8x40
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3469
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
I generally don't use RA and Dec at all when I star hop. If I'm looking at the object's constellation in an atlas, I can spot the object pretty quickly, as long as the NGC or other designation is printed beside it.
That's because you're sticking to warhorses. Sure, if you're looking up Messier objects in the Bright Star Atlas, it's easy to find an object knowing just its constellation. There are only 109 Messier objects, and only a dozen charts to look at.
Next step: look for a typical 11th-magnitude NGC galaxy in Ursa Major. That's a pretty mundane job; such galaxies are easily visible in most backyard scopes, and UMa probably contains dozens of them. Now you're going to need Sky Atlas 2000.0, or the Pocket Sky Atlas, because you've exceeded the limit of naked-eye atlases. You will still only have a couple of sheets to search, but you'll have to search the entire sheet, because UMa is huge. Fortunately, as I said, NGC objects are arranged in RA order, so it's fairly easy to find out where to go left-right. But you still have to scan all the way up and down -- and as I said, UMa is huge, and packed with galaxies.
Next step. You're looking for the "Footprint Nebula," Minkowski 1-92, in Cygnus. Again, the PSA or SA2K will suffice. But now you have no clue where in this large constellation your nebula lies, and you could spend some serious time looking for it.
And then on to the big time. You're looking for a typical 13th-magnitude galaxy or 14th-magnitude planetary nebula, and you need Uranometria or Millennium. Each constellation covers dozens of pages in the atlas. Without the coordinates, you're totally lost.
Sure, if you use a computer you can find the object by name, assuming it's in the database -- and not all objects will be, no matter what database you use. But if you're using a computer, you can look up the constellation anyway, so the whole discussion is irrelevant.
You *really* need to learn to use celestial coordinates -- and not just to use them, but to get an intuitive feel for them. Otherwise, you will end up crippled.
Essentially all large databases of celestial objects are arranged by RA, whether electronic or hardcopy. It's the only sensible way to do it.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3469
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
Sorting by RA is the same as sorting by transit time.
Of course it is! RA *is* transit time. Haven't you ever wondered why it's measured in hours instead of degrees?
I take home two important messages from the whole discussion. First, the importance of constellations, which I never really doubted. To some extent, I've just been playing devil's advocate.
But much more important, how many relatively experienced observers don't understand the fundamentals of celestial coordinates. That's truly a problem. Because while constellations are handy, and come with rich and wonderful historical baggage, celestial coordinates are *essential*. You really can't understand the way the sky works if you don't understand them.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3469
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
When I hear "Leo" I immediately think, "Winter mornings, Spring evenings."
Of course you do -- and so do I.
But when you hear RA 11:30, exactly that same thought springs instantly to mind, doesn't it? Of course it does!
If people can memorize the attributes of 88 constellations, they can *certainly* learn when each of the 24 hours of RA is visible.
I may have a bias toward numbers for two reasons. First, I have a strong mathematical intuition. Numbers are alive for me. Taken purely as abstract mathematical entities, each individual number from 1 to 100 has a totally different smell and feel (as it were) from each other number.
Second, having grown up (3/4 time, anyway) in Manhattan, numbers as coordinates are equally alive for me. To take extreme examples, "125th Street" or "Fifth Avenue" are strongly evocative even to non-natives. But to anybody who's actually lived there, the idea that anybody might confuse Sixth and Seventh Avenues, or 59th Street with 57th Street, is ludicrous.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
Hrundi
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/06/08
Posts: 1237
Loc: Estonia
|
|
I too like constellations. I have a sort of mental planetarium, so I know when what constellation is where.
I find that by far the least useful way to indicate where an object is, or when it's viewable, is by season.
For those of us who don't stick to just evening 9pm to 11pm observing, or don't have constant stretches of daylight (at my latitude, gets dark at 12am late august, never in june, and 6pm in december), the season is entirely useless. M31 is as much a late summer object as a late winter object, and the era of cygnus is all months that are not december.
As for needing RA for starhopping, I've pulled off 2 degree starhops to a mag 12.3 galaxy in delphinus, as well as starhops to the extent of 4 degrees without so much as ever looking at RA. All it takes is a sense of how your scope works, how the sky is orientated, and if you're looking for an x mag star, what it'd look like in a jumble of fainter stars.
--------------------
|
ursamajor
super member
Reged: 07/24/07
Posts: 145
|
|
For most of us astronomy is a hobby. The use of RA and Dec are more scientific and are obviously essential to pinpoint the location of an object.I suppose that constellations could become redundant but we would lose something. It could mean another lost connection to our past if amateurs no longer used them.
For beginners, school children and the general public the "Big Dipper" is relevant. They can look up years later and identify it.Many I suspect are unaware that it is part of (UMa). Very few would know or care what its RA & Dec is.
From where I sit, adding three letters in brackets after the coordinates seems to be reasonable.
Clear skies;
--------------------
Using a goto scope is like fishing with hand grenades...
|
BobinKy
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/27/07
Posts: 1683
|
|
Quote:
But much more important, how many relatively experienced observers don't understand the fundamentals of celestial coordinates.
Tony Flanders
Tony, for the second time in this thread, thank you for your comments on the topic of constellations.
I will be the first to admit that I do not understand many--no, make that most--of the fundamentals of celestial observing. But I am (like most of the participants in this forum) trying to learn; which is why we read astronomy books, Sky & Telescope magazine, astronomy links, as well as participate in online astronomy forums. Please keep that in mind as you respond to our posts.
Quote:
Because while constellations are handy, and come with rich and wonderful historical baggage, celestial coordinates are *essential*.
Tony Flanders
As I said in my previous post, I am a constellation guy and probably will always be a constellation guy. I do not consider constellations to be historical baggage. In fact, I do not consider anything historical to be baggage. Those of us who are hobby astronomers learn, live, and breathe astronomy through the lens of constellations. Celestial coordinates are a more precise measure, to be sure, but many amateurs do find constellations sufficient. Particularly, when we also have to struggle with the learning curves of optics and other astronomical issues.
Let me say again, for the record, I do not consider constellations to be baggage. I consider constellations to be essential to my enjoyment of amateur astonomy.
. . .
For those interested in both constellations and celestial coordinates, a good orientation/review is "Chapter 11: Finding you way around the sky" in The Backyard Astronomer's Guide, 3rd ed. (Dickinson & Dyer, 2008, pp. 206-231). This book is published by the fine folks of Firefly Books.
--------------------
Bob
38°N
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3469
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
I do not consider constellations to be historical baggage.
Sorry, I did not mean the word "baggage" to be pejorative in any way.
I love history, I love history of science, and the history of constellations is especially wonderful because it combines science, literature, and mythology. What more could anyone ask?
Writing the Constellation Closeup column for Night Sky magazine was my very favorite among all the great jobs I've had to do at Sky & Telescope.
There's a reason that my new signature lists naked-eye observing as my first and foremost astronomical love. And naked-eye stargazing without constellations would be like sailing a boat without a keel.
However, the fact that astronomy is rich with culture and history in no way detracts from the fact that astronomy is fundamentally mathematical and scientific, nor vice versa. In fact, astronomy is the *root* of mathematics and science. The Greeks invented trigonometry so that they could do astronomy; Newton invented the calculus so that he could do astronomy; Gauss developed modern mathematics so that he could do astronomy.
Constellations are wonderful, celestial coordinates are wonderful, and the two are intimately entwined. Claudius Ptolemy understood that. Do you?
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
|
3 registered and 0 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: desertstars, ~Steph~
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 1304
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 