Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 101

Thread: List of errors and typos

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,516
    Folks:

    The list below contains the errors and typos that I know about in the book. A lot of those have already been talked about on this board, and some I found on my own.

    If you know of any more, please add them to this thread. If/when we go to a second printing, I want to make sure I can correct as much as possible. BROAD HINT: hurry. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]


    Bad Bad Astronomy:
    Errors to fix in the second printing


    1) Page 5, pp1, typo: “Their home on the web is one of the most populat sites on the planet.”

    Change to: “popular”

    2) Page 16, pp1, error: “… the yolk is really the embryo of the chicken, and shouldn’t get jostled too much…”

    Change to “… the yolk is the embryo’s food, and shouldn’t get jostled too much.”

    3) Page 29, pp4, typo: “…people think is a really long time…”

    Change to “…people think it’s a really long time…”

    4) Page 44, diagram, error: change diagram comment from “at noon” to “Sun high in sky”, and change “sunset” to “Sun on horizon”

    5) Page 49, pp4, error: “…amounts to only a 4-degree Celsius (roughly 6 degrees Fahrenheit)…”

    Change to “…amounts to only a 4-degree Celsius (roughly 7 degrees Fahrenheit)…”

    6) Page 49, pp4, error: “…Maine, where the seasonal change in temperature is more like 30 degrees Celsius (80 degrees Fahrenheit)…”

    Change to “…Maine, where the seasonal change in temperature is more like 44
    degrees Celsius (80 degrees Fahrenheit)…”

    7) Page 99, pp4,error: “…Einstein won his Noble prize for this work and not his much later work on relativity.”

    Change to “…Einstein won his Noble prize for this work and not his work on
    relativity.”

    [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif[/img] Page 127, pp2, typo : “Nascar”

    Change to “NASCAR” (it’s an acronym)

    9) Page 129, pp3, error : “Even though it outweighs the Moon by a factor of 25,000…”

    Change to “Even though it has 25,000 times the Moon’s mass…”

    10) Page 134, pp3, error : “…can be as high as 100 kilometers per second (80 miles per second)…”

    Change to “…can be as high as 100 kilometers per second (60 miles per
    second)…”

    11) Page 137, pp3, error : “In every movie or television program I have ever seen, without exception, small meteorites….”

    Change to “In practically every movie and television program I have ever seen,
    small meteorites…”

    12) Page 144, pp1, typo : “Curtis Shapely”

    Change to “Harlow Shapley”
    Note: last name was spelled incorrectly and first name was wrong.
    Also, remove entry for “Curtis Shapely” in index, and add this reference to
    “Harlow Shapley”

    13) Page 160, pp4, error : “In 1957 the United States…”

    Change to “In 1958, the United States…”

    14) Page 163, pp4, error : “…dealing with the landing of the LEM, the odd-looking contraption…”

    Change to “… dealing with the landing of the Lunar Module (or LM), the odd-looking contraption…”

    15) Page 163, pp4, error: “LEM”

    Change to “LM” in both instances

    16) Page 165, pp2, error: “LEM”

    Change to “LM” in both instances

    17) Page 167, pp1 and pp2, error : “LEM”

    Change to “LM” in both instances

    18) Page 168, pp4 and pp5, error : “LEM”

    Change to “LM” in both instances

    19) Page 176, pp1, error : “…to those by the ancient Greek, Pliny the Elder.”

    Change to “… to those by the ancient Roman, Pliny the Elder.”

    20) Page 192, pp2, error: “That friction takes energy away from the Earth-Moon system, slowing the gears a bit. In the end, that energy comes from the energy of the Moon’s orbit. As that energy is sucked out by the Earth’s oceans, the Moon slows in its orbit, and as it slows it pulls farther away.”

    Change to “That friction takes energy away from the Earth, slowing its rotation,
    and gives it to the Moon in the form of orbital energy. When the orbital energy of
    an object is increased, it moves into a higher orbit, so the Moon’s increased
    orbital energy means the Moon moves away from the Earth. The increased
    distance also means The Moon slows its orbital speed as well.”

    21) Page 212, subheading, typo : “The fault lies not in the stars, but in ourselves.”

    Change to “The Fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.”
    Have someone please check this with a definitive source; I have now seen it written both ways!

    22) Page 248, pp2, error : “…the average distance between them was 1 kilometer (0.8 miles)”

    Change to “… the average distance between them was 1 kilometer (0.6 miles)”

    23) Page 251, top line, error : “…when Australopithecus afarensis was the most highly evolved creature on the planet.”

    Change to “… when Australopithecus afarensis was the most intelligent primate
    on the planet.”

    24) Page 270, index, error : “LEM module”

    Change to “Lunar Module (LM)”
    Also, there are references to the LM on pages 163, 165, 167, and 168. Page 168
    was left off of the index.






  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,516
    Heh. The way I listed them, Number 8 got translated by the board into a smilie. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif[/img]

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    872
    Here is at least one version of Julius Caesar that says it the way I learned it... "...not in our stars..."

    http://tech-two.mit.edu/Shakespeare/...esar/full.html

    I've been trying to find versions that say it the other way... "...not in the stars..."

    Silas

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    29,101
    Change to “…Einstein won his Noble prize for this work and not his work on
    relativity.”


    Change to "...Einstein won his Nobel prize for this work and not his work on
    relativity.”
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    29,101
    I think in the index Wolsey/Woosley is spelled "Wooslsey". Maybe they were trying to make everybody happy.
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,516
    Nobel: d'oh!

    The index spells it "Woolsley". Sigh.

    Keep 'em, coming!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,015
    On 2002-04-16 12:44, The Bad Astronomer 21) Page 212, subheading, typo : “The fault lies not in the stars, but in ourselves.”

    Change to “The Fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.”
    Have someone please check this with a definitive source; I have now seen it written both ways!
    I found this folio facsimile page (use kk2r in the goto box, lines 14-15 on page 111), which has it
    "The fault (deere Brutus) is not in our Starres,
    but in our Selves, that we are underlings."

    Most of the versions I've seen include "dear Brutus," but that's probably not important--as even the folio edition has it in parentheses.


    Are you still mulling over the thing about the precession and the calendar? I'm pretty sure that's wrong.

    Also, I think I gave enough good reasons in this thread that on p.70, ""The time of high and low tides changes every day by about a half hour," should read "The time of each high and low tide is later every day by about an hour."


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,516
    On 2002-04-16 15:06, GrapesOfWrath wrote:

    Are you still mulling over the thing about the precession and the calendar? I'm pretty sure that's wrong.
    Yes, I just need to confirm that.


    Also, I think I gave enough good reasons in this thread that on p.70, ""The time of high and low tides changes every day by about a half hour," should read "The time of each high and low tide is later every day by about an hour."
    I reread that section, and I think I am right, but it needs to be more clear. I've noted that and I'll add it to the list. Thanks.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,015
    On 2002-04-16 15:25, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
    I reread that section, and I think I am right, but it needs to be more clear. I've noted that and I'll add it to the list.
    What will the new phrasing be?

    It's also complicated by the fact that not all places on Earth experience two tides per day. That is not just a consequence of coastal geometry--for instance, if the Earth were perpendicular to the ecliptic, and the moon also orbited in the ecliptic, the tidal effect at the North and South poles would be constant, and there'd be no tides there at all.

  10. #10
    I have one really big aviation nitpik for you. On page 248 you said "Tilting the wings of the plane helps direct thrust to the side, turning the plane." This is wrong. Wings do not tilt, and the force that turns an airplane is its horizontal component of lift, not thrust.

    Subsonic aircraft bank via control surfaces called ailerons. These are located on the back of wing near the tip. When you turn your control wheel or stick to the left for instance, the right aileron will drop down, increasing lift on the right wing, and left aileron will rise up, decreasing lift on the left wing. This imbalance of forces causes the aircraft to roll to the left. When the aircraft is banked, its lift is no longer directed straight up, it is at an angle, with a vertical and horizontal component. The horizontal component turns the aircraft, while the vertical component keeps the aircraft in the air. Because the vertical has decreased, the pilot must pull back on the wheel or stick, to increase pitch, and increase the total amount of lift, or the airplane will sink. Supersonic aircraft work in a similiar way, except they don't have ailerons on their wings. They have what is known as stabilators, which are horizontal stabilators (those little "wings" on the tail) which can tilt. To turn left, the left stabilator is tilted up, and right one down. Thrust has nothing to do with either case.

    There are some aircraft that have thrust vectoring, such as the F-22. While it gives an airplane a huge advantage in maneuverability, thrust vectoring will not turn an airplane.

    I hope this little nitpik of mine isn't taken that badly. I DID enjoy your book, and I can't wait for Bad Astronomy The Sequel.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,254
    Ah, but what causes lift? There must be a thrust somewhere.

  12. #12
    Lift is caused my a pressure difference between the top and bottom of the wings.

  13. #13
    On 2002-04-17 10:58, The Bad Aviator wrote:
    I have one really big aviation nitpik for you.
    Speaking of nitpiks, how can a nit be big? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    And welcome to the BABB, Bad Aviator.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,254
    Lift is caused my a pressure difference between the top and bottom of the wings.

    ...which causes a thrust upwards?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    165
    On 2002-04-18 15:59, johnwitts wrote:
    Lift is caused my a pressure difference between the top and bottom of the wings.

    ...which causes a thrust upwards?
    Yep.

    Example: Picture two air molecules, one on top of another, right in front of a semi-circle with the flat side facing down. The top air molecule will take longer to travel over the curved surface, right? Because it takes longer, there's less pressure above the semi-circle, or, in the case of an airplane, the wing, than there is below it, which produces lift, or thrust upwards. Thrust is just the movement of the plane through the air.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    6,275
    Actually, James, as I understand it, it's not that it takes the top molecule longer, but that it is forced to move faster; and faster-moving air is lower in pressure than slower-moving air (all else being equal). It's the venturi effect.

    However, there's another factor in play, which is often downplayed: the angle of attack. A wing gets lift by displacing air molecules downward... the same effect as when you stick your hand out the window of a moving car and slant the palm upward. Many types of planes get a large fraction of their lift from this mechanism. Some wings are actually symmetrical (no difference in the top and bottom contour).

    But I agree with the original nit: the BA was a bit too concise in his description.

    (Corrected grammar)

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2002-04-19 19:21 ]</font>

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    872
    re aircraft thrust/lift, there was a recent dialogue on this in the letters column of Scientific American. Kind of fun, as everyone is, in essence, saying the same thing...differently...

    Aircraft get their *unique* thrust from the Venturi effect. Here's the thing: have a friend drive a car along the freeway. Sit in the passenger seat and put your hand out, into the windstream. Tilt your hand at various angles. There is one specific "magic" angle at which your hand is yanked upward. At lower angles, there's some lift. At higher angles, there's quite a lot of lift. But at the one specific angle where the Venturi effect is maximized, there's one WHALE of a lot of lift!

    So, yeah, sure, airplanes could fly with wings at 45 degrees up. You'd need a blortload of thrust, but they would fly. But when you set your wings at that "magic" angle, you can fly with much, much less thrust.

    *All* lift is supplied by a downward movement of air. But efficient and effective and economical lift is an artifact of the Venturi effect.

    Anybody here done any sailing? It's been said that the wind doesn't "push" against the sail, but that it "pulls" around the convex curve of the sail. Another Venturi effect. You could have a perfectly flat, perfectly stiff sail, against which the wind would push. You'd make some progress. But someone with a canvas sail that is bellied to just the right degree will race ahead of you and leave you bobbing in his wake.

    Heh... Who says there's no such thing as a free launch?

    Silas

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    5,869
    Last word on page 142:

    "The sun rose at 6:30 this morning" is less accurate that saying "From my fixed location on the surface of the spherical Earth, the horizon moved below the apparent position of the sun at 6:30 this morning."

    "that" should probably be "than".

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    5,869
    Page 213, end of last full paragraph:

    For astrology to sell, buyers must not seek out the fundamental principles behind it, because if they do they see that there is none.

    Probably should be:

    ...there are none.

  20. #20
    I gonna have to agree with Chuck on this. "is" is the verb for "none" which can either be singular or plural, depending on context. However "none" refers to "fundamental principles" which is plural.

    Score one nitpik for Chuck! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,015
    I'm disagreeing. I think either is acceptable. In fact, the traditional "rule" is that none is singular.

    If the phrase had said "because if they do they see that there is one", then "is" would be correct, right? The antecedent is ambiguous, just as is the number of the word "none".

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Posts
    7,781
    I think I'm going to have to go along with GoW on this one (gasp!). The verb for "none" doesn't have to match up with "principles" in this situation - it's independent.

    Having said that, I do think "are none" sounds better. After all doesn't ending "Ten Little Indians" with ". . . and then there was none" seem awkward? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]



  23. #23
    On 2002-04-23 14:48, SeanF wrote:
    I think I'm going to have to go along with GoW on this one (gasp!). The verb for "none" doesn't have to match up with "principles" in this situation - it's independent.
    In my previous post I may have implied I feel more strongly about this than I actually do.

    I think either is correct but the plural is preferred. It really doesn't matter that mush. So regardless of what Strunk & White and others pundits may prefer, I shan't lose sleep over this.




  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    6,275
    In that sentence, "none" is a pronoun standing in for "no principles". "are none" is correct.

    -- DB, the son of an English teacher

  25. #25
    On 2002-04-23 19:39, Donnie B. wrote:
    In that sentence, "none" is a pronoun standing in for "no principles". "are none" is correct.

    -- DB, the son of an English teacher
    [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

    (And no, I'm not mature. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img])

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,020
    I think are sounds better.

    Gosh, if we're reduced to this there can't be that many more nitpicks? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    _________________
    N6MAA10816

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Roy Batty on 2002-04-23 19:59 ]</font>

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    312
    How about this:

    "because if they do they see that there aren't any."

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    5,869
    Let's start a new thread for each sentence in the book in which to discuss how to phrase them better.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    872
    On 2002-04-24 11:38, Chuck wrote:
    Let's start a new thread for each sentence in the book in which to discuss how to phrase them better.
    "...how to phrase them best."
    (or "...how best to phrase them.")

    It's fun, actually; there are BBSs for grammar perfectionists!

    Silas

  30. #30
    Page 216 - line 11
    "consistant" should be "consistent".

Similar Threads

  1. db errors
    By mickal555 in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2005-Dec-16, 10:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: