This course is designed to provide, for non-science majors, a description of the fantastic Universe in which we live.
The structure and evolution of planets, stars, galaxies, and the cosmos as a whole are covered, providing insights into amazing objects like quasars, exploding stars, neutron stars, and black holes.
Recent newsworthy events such as the detection of planets around other stars, the possible evidence of primitive life on Mars, and the discovery of gravitationally repulsive “dark energy” are also featured.
Major themes include our origins (such as the origin of the chemical elements, stars, planets, and life), the methods by which astronomers investigate and eventually understand various aspects of the Universe, the scientific unification of many seemingly desperate phenomena, and the excitement felt by astronomers doing ground-breaking research on some of the most far-out topics imaginable.
The course will inspire students to become more inquisitive about the world around them, and will develop their skills in arriving at conclusions based on logical, physical reasoning.
| Introduction to General Astronomy | |||||
[phpbay]astronomy binoculars, 100, “”,[/phpbay]
Introduction to Astronomy Videos:
[tubepress mode=”tag” tagValue=”astronomy introduction”]
Products on Overstock:[phpostock]astronomy binoculars,1[/phpostock] |
Filed under: Introduction to Astronomy
Even the largest star exploding won't generate enough heat to affect us at the distances involved.
Other emanations from exploding stars can affect the Earth, with different forms of radiation, but the heat involved wouldn't be a factor at such interstellar distances.
I'm currently taking an Astronomy class with this instructor, he's mentioned his creation theory class and has initiated a couple discussions asking students to discuss their opinions on evoution versus creation. However, the information he provides us with is in definate opposition to evolution with very watered down explanations to back up his anti-evolution sentiments. It's not the fact that he's bringing this subject up which is conscerning me, it's that fact that he doesn't seem to provide much information to back up his statements and the discussions do not seem to encourage critical thinking or in depth, open minded discussion. They simply instil doubt about the very subject we are learning about. If he wants to teach creation theory, I do not have a problem with that, but I signed up for an Introduction to Astronomy class, with the understanding that it was from a scientific perspective, and although he tests us on the information from the book he's focused two discussions on creation vs. evolution. And in his latest discussion he has contradicted the text by stating simply that stars do not evolve. He's made his personal opinions clear, but that is not what I'm there to learn.
He's not containing his veiws or his teaching to his creation theory class, the funny thing is I would have been curious and willing to take his Creation class. Because I'm open to, and fascinated by all perspectives. However, after reading his posts in my Astronomy class, I'm very positive that he is contradicting his statements about attacking evolution and simply shining light on a different veiw.
So I made much the same point on my blog in reaction to these points but I think you can go one step further.
There is no reason to postulate that aliens get wrapped up in VR at all, only that they transition from physical brains to computational ones. This will dictate that such beings seek out the most computationally efficent enviornments which, one would expect, would also be the most energetic. As far as such aliens are concerned neutron stars and black holes will be where all the action is and a trip out to the slow cold regions we inhabit would take an unimaginably long subjective time for those who remained behind in the high energy regions.
Moreover if valid such aliens would have no incentive to explore the boring cold darkness. Any interesting civilization would also be found in the high energy regions.
I'm currently taking an Astronomy class with this instructor, he's mentioned his creation theory class and has initiated a couple discussions asking students to discuss their opinions on evoution versus creation. However, the information he provides us with is in definate opposition to evolution with very watered down explanations to back up his anti-evolution sentiments. It's not the fact that he's bringing this subject up which is conscerning me, it's that fact that he doesn't seem to provide much information to back up his statements and the discussions do not seem to encourage critical thinking or in depth, open minded discussion. They simply instil doubt about the very subject we are learning about. If he wants to teach creation theory, I do not have a problem with that, but I signed up for an Introduction to Astronomy class, with the understanding that it was from a scientific perspective, and although he tests us on the information from the book he's focused two discussions on creation vs. evolution. And in his latest discussion he has contradicted the text by stating simply that stars do not evolve. He's made his personal opinions clear, but that is not what I'm there to learn.
He's not containing his veiws or his teaching to his creation theory class, the funny thing is I would have been curious and willing to take his Creation class. Because I'm open to, and fascinated by all perspectives. However, after reading his posts in my Astronomy class, I'm very positive that he is contradicting his statements about attacking evolution and simply shining light on a different veiw.