Talk:General Astronomy



I'm not sure the "IRAF" entry under "Tools of Astronomy" was what the person originally outlining the page had in mind. In the normal course of instruction, the principles of light and gravity, as they relate to astronomy, would be discussed in such a section - not the tools for image reduction per se. A section for astronomical techniques could be added, of course. April Follies 04:50, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup of this Wikibook
I added the RfD to this page, and the subsequent discussion on WB:RFD, because I feel that many of the modules in this Wikibook are much better written and better monitored on Wikipedia. As this current is organized, this Wikibook is a fork of the Wikipedia Astronomy Wikiproject and not coherantly organized into a textbook at all but is instead a Macropedia.

Keep in mind, what I'm proposing is entirely my own idea on how a Wikibook should be organized, and you can certainly argue against what I'm saying here and suggest this is patent nonsense. I am however trying to improve Wikibooks in general one little part at a time.

What we need to start with here is to restart this Wikibook with a formal outline that introduces astrophysics concepts in a chronological order (for teaching... not necessarily the order they were discovered) instead of a bunch of independent modules. Some key sections would include the following:


 * Cosmology - How the universe began and where it may ultimately go
 * History of Astronomy - Kepler, Brahe, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, ect.
 * Philosophical movement from Earth-centered universe to Sun-centered universe to no-center of the Universe.
 * Why we know what we know about stars and planets:
 * H-R Diagrams
 * Stellar Parallax
 * Spectral classifications
 * Distance measurement
 * Planetary probes (Voyager, Cassini, Pioneer, etc.)
 * Basic Newtonian laws of Motion
 * And many more astronomy topics

A much earlier RfD was started about Mercury because it was a blatant copy & paste from a NASA website. In that case, because it was public domain and Wikibooks was a much younger project simply in need of content, the article was allowed to remain. I am now challenging that presumption, and suggesting that this whole Wikibook needs a major cleanup including deletion of many of the current set of modules and essentially "starting over again" but this time to become a real textbook about Astronomy.

Any of the sections on planets that go into deeper detail than the Wikpedia articles shoud be independent Wikibooks in their own right, being added to an Astronomy bookshelf instead. Anything less should stay on Wikipedia, unless it is a clear stub that shows regular progress to becoming its own book.

I'm also going to try and get some support from the Astronomy Wikiproject crew, as they may have some suggestions of their own on this topic. --Rob Horning 14:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that this material should be reorganized to more closely resemble a traditional astronomy textbook, but I don't think it makes sense to put cosmology (meaning the complete treatment of cosmology) at the very front. A "you are here" type of chapter seems much more sensible, and that's probably what you have in mind anyway. A lot of cleanup seems to be needed around here. The biggest problems I see are:


 * Is having external links for content good policy? Maybe we can find out whether the author of that material is willing to publish under GFDL. If not, is it better to keep the link, move it to a list, or remove it entirely?


 * Over the past month or so the planets section has been "supplemented" with ephemerides and other tables. These don't seem at all appropriate -- they're way too long and too cryptic for an introductory text. I've gone ahead and removed these. Apologies to whoever put these up... Is there some more appropriate place for them?


 * The organization of the book past the first few chapters should probably be fleshed out.


 * I'll be thinking about this as I have time, which doesn't happen too often. Thanks very much to the earlier contributors, and for your comments, Rob. --Brian Brondel 20:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki:Astronomy for beginners is now available for merger into this wikibook. Uncle G 04:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

renaming chapters of the Astronomy book
Here's my plan:
 * Make up new names for each module, that match the latest Naming_policy, and put them on this Astronomy page. (They will, of course, all be red, since they don't exist yet).
 * Temporarily, every link will be doubled -- one blue, one red.
 * Slowly move each module to a better name.
 * Once all the doubled links turn blue, delete all the old names (that now only point to redirects).

Just letting you know what I'm doing. I hope this makes sense. --70.189.75.148 07:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds great. Remember that articles should be moved from the "move" tab at the top of each page, rather than copied and pasted. --Brian Brondel 04:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

RfD for Astronomical events
This is just an FYI to anybody involved with this Astronomy Wikibook. I've added a RfD notice to try and decide as a community where to put this sort of content. There is also discussion on Wikisource about this same content that is currently duplicated there. Feedback in both places is encouraged. --Rob Horning 18:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikisource decided to keep Moon, Ceres, Pallas and Juno, so the proposed deletion is now in the archives.


 * I changed Astronomy to link to Astronomical events instead of our copy. I plan to make links from that Wikisource page to Moon, Ceres, Pallas, and Juno. --Kernigh 02:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Consistency in chapter names
Currently quite a few of the chapter or subchapter names in the table of contents do not coincide with the names on the actual pages. I propose that they be made the same, either by changing the one to coincide with the other, or by combining them into an expanded name in each case. Douglas W. Mitchell (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Amateur astronomer
It seems that the book would benefit from a section about amateur astronomy. Definition and simple guide including how to access available resources, for instance the new "GLObal Robotic-telescopes Intelligent Array" (GLORIA) that will be the first free and open- access network of robotic telescopes of the world. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 18:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Kepler’s third law have a mistake
In astronomy, Kepler’s laws give a description of the motion of planets around the Sun. Kepler's laws are only valid when not affected by the gravity of other planets, however，Kepler’s third law does not follow this restriction. For this reason, It simply has no use at all in our Solar System. Kepler's third law assumes that all planets are not affected by the gravity of other planets and the orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci.This is not true. If the planet did not affected by the gravity of other planets, then the orbit of every planet is a circle. The orbit of the planet have an ellipse only because affected by the gravity of other planets. , Kepler’s third law, T2/a3/2=K, only good for comets and not for our Solar System, for this mistake we have a new third law as T2/(ab)3/2=K.

What happens to astronauts when they get in those galaxies ? do they go to another real dimension? Bracket Lynch (discuss • contribs) 17:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Fourth law:
In solar system, All planets, no matter their size, their mass, their shape, their radius should follow (ab)3/2/T2 =1,

Where T is Orbit Period, a is the semi-major respect to earth b is the semi-minor respect to earth

Fifth law:
In solar system, every precession of the orbits of planets has different precession with different ellipses. Every different ellipse has its orbital eccentricity between maximum e and 0. And all different ellipses have the same area, include circle of e=0.

For example:
The precession of the orbit of Mercury is 11.83 degree/ century. Every year have different ellipse between e= 0.20563069 and e=0, but every different ellipse or circle has the same area.

Sixth law:
To determine whether it is a planet or not, it is not according their size, their mass, their radius, or their shape, but one must fulfill the fourth law.

Conclusion:
1. Obviously, Pluto does not follow the forth law, therefore, Pluto is not a planet, not even a dwarf planet. It is not because it is small, or other reasons, but because it is not fulfill with the fourth law. Therefore, it is not one of the family.

2. There are two reasons that why Pluto does not belong to the solar system. Pluto may be a comet or half a comet, because

A. Pluto is an alien, may come from other galaxies.

B. Pluto may joint with a planet and a member of the other galaxies.

3. A planet cannot be discriminated because of their size, their mass, their radius, their color, or that they are ugly not round. As long as they fulfill with the fourth law, They are planets. Otherwise they are not planet.

Should General Astronomy allow this editorializing?
The most recent two edits are: https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=General_Astronomy&type=revision&diff=3389597&oldid=3348591

I am mostly on Wikiversity, where this would be allowed. Wikipedia would (or should) revert. On Wikibooks, I yield to the community. Also, if Wikibooks wants to consider developing policy on this, let me know. Both Wikibooks, as well as Wikiversity, might benefit from introspection regarding our policies.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Since I made the edit I'm interjecting in it's defense. There is no policy in place beyond the requirement for keeping a neutral point of view (that can be tamed in a per project/book basis) in any case I did not consider the edit an editorialization (as shaping the work to reflect a personal opinion) at best it could be considered the inclusion of an overgeneralization (even a Western centric one). I would guess that in most of Africa, large parts of South America and Asia it would not apply but probably those left out would also not be using Wikibooks. On the other hand the minority of people that deal every day with astronomic concerns may have a different perception of (even aspiration for) the relevance astronomy has in today's society.
 * In any case feel free to balance the edit as you wish, my intention was only to add the interesting video link and contextualize it into the content including a reflection of the reality most of us that write and read wikibooks share (my only objection would be to a removal of the video link without proper argumentation/defense). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with both assertions, namely that there is a decrease in interest in the nature of the universie, as well that it is "sad". I will not change or challenge the edit.  As far as I am concerned, it was a good edit that can stay.  I just thought the community should be notified. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)