New Look to Universe
Posted on October 16, 2007 Posted by John Scalzi 17 Comments
Hey, look, I’ve found the artwork for the upcoming revise of my astronomy book, The Rough Guide to the Universe:
Nifty. Also I’ve discovered the intended release date: March, 2008. So, uh, I guess I better finish updating it.
Shouldn’t it say, like “second edition” or something on it?
Aside from Pluto’s reclassification and dates of future eclipses and such, how much do you have to revise?
I like the concept of a book coming out and the author getting a head-smack moment — D’oh! I gotta write/revise the damned thing! (grin)
Dr. Phil
Just curious, have you got the time zone for WordPress set to Eastern Standard, rather than Daylight? I’ve noticed all my comments showing a time stamp of an hour earlier than when I actually post.
Cue photoshopped cat/dog/child/self/bacon picture in 5… 4… 3… 2…
Hugh 57:
I actually have it set for Eastern time, but I suspect it’s not kicking in Daylights Saving Time. Or something.
As for revises, we have a lot of new info on Mars and Saturn, and of course Pluto and the dwarf planets, and also there’s a lot of bigger cosmology stuff to be updated.
That’s a good looking book. I’ll have to keep an eye out for it come March.
K
Glad it’s doing well enough for an update (unless one has nothing to do with the other). IIRC the first edition was my introduction to you.
Alex.
I want!
That’s the intent!
That Cassini-Huygens probe is one hell of a photographer.
At long last!! Someone else who spells “indispensible” the way I learned was the correct way to spell it!!!
I can die happy now.
MWT:
Shorter OED cites “indispensible” spelled thusly as rare, not demised. Try to die happy, but don’t plan it anytime soon.
I’ve had a silly astronomy question bothering me for awhile, and if you address it in this new edition I’d be delighted. If not, I’ll still probably get one to give as a gift–don’t worry, I’m not trying low grade (and low class) extortion. If you could cover this one question, however, it would be nice…
Are the astronomical figures and distances in “The Universe Song” from “Monty Python’s The Meaning Of Life” at least vaguely accurate?
Thank you.
Off the top of my head, yes, “The Universe Song” was largely accurate (it rounded off speeds, one imagines, to conform with the song’s meter). Of course, it’s been a couple of decades since the song came out; some of the information may need to be updated.
The Universe Song from Monty Python’s THE MEANING OF LIFE
[Which I’ve deleted because posting the whole thing is a copyright violation. Excerpt, please; that’s fair use. — JS]
Yikes! Very sorry about that.