What do you think?
Rate this book
The Essential Cosmic Perspective
Key Benefit: Based on the most up-to-date astronomical research, The Essential Cosmic Perspective, Fifth Edition retains all of the features that have made this text so popular with new features to help students learn about the process of science and how to interpret visual data. Key Topics: Our Place in the Universe, Discovering the Universe for Yourself, The Science of Astronomy, Making Sense of the Universe: Understanding Motion, Energy, and Gravity, Light: The Cosmic Messenger, Formation of Planetary Systems: Our Solar System and Beyond, Earth and the Terrestrial Worlds, Jovian Planet System, Asteroids, Comets, and Dwarf Planets: Their Nature, Orbits, and Impacts, Our Star, Surveying the Stars, Star Stuff, The Bizarre Stellar Graveyard, Our Galaxy, Galaxies and the Foundation of Modern Cosmology, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Fate of the Universe, The Beginning of Time, Life in the Uni
624 pages, Paperback
First published February 28, 2003
11 people are currently reading
163 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
November 25, 2024
2024 Review (from a second reading):
This is an excellent A-Z text on cosmology. It covers the “standard model" - the prevailing views on all key points, in contrast, say, to John Boslough’s Masters of Time (1992) that questions “within-the-paradigm” thinking on cosmology.
In this, my second, reading, I focused on galaxies, which are prominent in the Hubble and Webb photos, but I kept getting snagged by the authors’ repeated references to these structures as being orbital. They are circular, but that’s not to say they are orbital. Orbital for the authors seems to mean a planetary model around a star where a large central mass holds, by gravitational attraction, surrounding stars, gas and dust, in an orbital pattern.*
The snag for me is that, at least for the spiral galaxies, which I believe are the most common, the arms seem to flow toward and then into the bulge at the galactic center. In other words, they are not orbital at all. Rather, they are being drawn toward the bulge, where the concentration of stars are the most and then, presumably, they are consumed by the black hole at the center. Might this not be Einstein’s geometric theory of gravity, in real time: lesser matter-energy follows spacetime curvature toward the gravitational center?**
Then there is the missing mass issue where, in an orbital model, it is said that there’s not enough visible matter in the galactic center to keep the periphery of a galaxy from spiraling off into space. Hence, there must be a large presence of dark matter holding the galaxy together. But missing in this account is the role of Newton’s first law of motion and the principle of inertia. The normative state of objects in motion is to move in a straight line, or to remain at rest (a balanced state) if at rest relative to other bodies in motion. Acceleration by external gravitational bodies is a deviation from this normative, inertial state. Newton and those who followed him look only at the external acceleration (gravity) piece as the explanation for motion, since it’s the dynamic, deviating, piece in all of this, but neglect to focus on an object’s default, inertial state.
Does inertial motion have a bearing on the missing mass problem? The balance (rest state) point between inward motion toward a gravitational center and straight-line motion is roughly a 45 degree angle, give or take, hence an orbit. But in the presence of a supermassive gravitational body, an orbital balance system gives way to movement into the gravitational center where it pulls the galactic periphery with it to merge with the bulge, and then the black hole. The motion inward is not solely from gravitational attraction, the second part of Newton’s first law, but rather from inertial straight-line motion. The movement inward, in other words, is aided significantly by inertial motion continuing its losing battle to move straight. There’s not enough gravitational mass to pull the spiral arms inward, but half of the inward momentum comes from inertial "pushing" motion, itself, and not from the “pulling” effect of a large gravitational center. Seen this way, is the presence of dark matter needed at all?***
Does this discussion of inertial motion have a bearing on dark energy? If motion under gravity is inward toward a more massive center, its opposite (Einstein’s inertial-gravity principle) is inertial motion outward, as created by the big bang (cosmologically) or by supernova explosions (locally). Does this set off the outward repulsive (from the gravitational center) movement that continues, per the inverse square law, to remove (free) itself from gravitational effects, resulting in the expanding cosmos at ever-increasing speeds?
*It doesn’t help that neither the text (index) nor the glossary references “orbital,” “inertial” or for that matter, “fabric” of spacetime (how do massive bodies "float" in space? What do they rest on?), which is such a central concept for Einstein.
**This can also be seen in photos where large galactic structures rob the matter-energy from lesser galaxies by drawing it toward themselves. Also, rather than being pinned down by Hubble’s descriptive classification scheme, might Einstein’s theory of geometric spacetime be pertinent to galactic formation that follows a “logical” sequence: (a) clouds of amorphous gas or dust; (b) irregular galaxies; (c) spiral galaxies as matter consolidate toward the gravitational center; (d) barred galaxies, where the spiral arms are drawn in; and then (e) elliptical galaxies, where the arms are absorbed into the center (gravitational) bulge?
***The authors refer to angular momentum’s role in galactic formation where inward movement is countered by outward movement (the conservation of angular momentum), but this seems to not take into account matter-energy’s inertial motion. The problem is not with angular momentum per se, but the absence of inertial motion, which is the inherent property of matter-energy itself that wants to go in a straight line or remain at rest (a balanced, orbital state), and it’s this inertial motion that resists being “pulled” toward the gravitational center, which is bound to fail because of the massive presence at the center of the galaxy that overwhelms it. Might this resistance be what’s involved with angular momentum’s outward movement? While one-half of an inertial body’s momentum moves outward, the other half (roughly) moves inward, as if it’s being pulled toward the center via (and performing the function of) gravitational “attraction.”
2009 Review here: We see often enough T-shirts, posters or post cards of the Milky Way with the exclamatory dot, "You are here!", indicating the relative insignificance of humans in the cosmos. Our life, on Earth, in our solar system, exists within a vast sea of other solar systems. The Bennett text puts this picture, itself, in perspective. Our Milky Way galaxy is part of a local group of galaxies that, in turn, is part of a super cluster of galaxies, in a "known universe" among many, many such super clusters. For perspective, the Milky Way is over 100 billion stars, and the universe contains something like 80 billion galaxies. Bennett et al. surveys this cosmic reality, taking it from its foundations in Newtonian physics through the world of quantum physics. The subject matter, both the totally foreign reality of astronomy and the known or suspected physical laws by which it operates, is intimidating. But these authors understand how to present this material to first-time readers, and in ways to capture and retain their attention. At the end of the text, after reviewing the main theories about the increasingly dark future for the universe, the authors write that "a few creative thinkers speculate about ways in which the universe might undergo rebirth, even after the end of time." That's great stuff for the imagination. This is a great text book.
This is an excellent A-Z text on cosmology. It covers the “standard model" - the prevailing views on all key points, in contrast, say, to John Boslough’s Masters of Time (1992) that questions “within-the-paradigm” thinking on cosmology.
In this, my second, reading, I focused on galaxies, which are prominent in the Hubble and Webb photos, but I kept getting snagged by the authors’ repeated references to these structures as being orbital. They are circular, but that’s not to say they are orbital. Orbital for the authors seems to mean a planetary model around a star where a large central mass holds, by gravitational attraction, surrounding stars, gas and dust, in an orbital pattern.*
The snag for me is that, at least for the spiral galaxies, which I believe are the most common, the arms seem to flow toward and then into the bulge at the galactic center. In other words, they are not orbital at all. Rather, they are being drawn toward the bulge, where the concentration of stars are the most and then, presumably, they are consumed by the black hole at the center. Might this not be Einstein’s geometric theory of gravity, in real time: lesser matter-energy follows spacetime curvature toward the gravitational center?**
Then there is the missing mass issue where, in an orbital model, it is said that there’s not enough visible matter in the galactic center to keep the periphery of a galaxy from spiraling off into space. Hence, there must be a large presence of dark matter holding the galaxy together. But missing in this account is the role of Newton’s first law of motion and the principle of inertia. The normative state of objects in motion is to move in a straight line, or to remain at rest (a balanced state) if at rest relative to other bodies in motion. Acceleration by external gravitational bodies is a deviation from this normative, inertial state. Newton and those who followed him look only at the external acceleration (gravity) piece as the explanation for motion, since it’s the dynamic, deviating, piece in all of this, but neglect to focus on an object’s default, inertial state.
Does inertial motion have a bearing on the missing mass problem? The balance (rest state) point between inward motion toward a gravitational center and straight-line motion is roughly a 45 degree angle, give or take, hence an orbit. But in the presence of a supermassive gravitational body, an orbital balance system gives way to movement into the gravitational center where it pulls the galactic periphery with it to merge with the bulge, and then the black hole. The motion inward is not solely from gravitational attraction, the second part of Newton’s first law, but rather from inertial straight-line motion. The movement inward, in other words, is aided significantly by inertial motion continuing its losing battle to move straight. There’s not enough gravitational mass to pull the spiral arms inward, but half of the inward momentum comes from inertial "pushing" motion, itself, and not from the “pulling” effect of a large gravitational center. Seen this way, is the presence of dark matter needed at all?***
Does this discussion of inertial motion have a bearing on dark energy? If motion under gravity is inward toward a more massive center, its opposite (Einstein’s inertial-gravity principle) is inertial motion outward, as created by the big bang (cosmologically) or by supernova explosions (locally). Does this set off the outward repulsive (from the gravitational center) movement that continues, per the inverse square law, to remove (free) itself from gravitational effects, resulting in the expanding cosmos at ever-increasing speeds?
*It doesn’t help that neither the text (index) nor the glossary references “orbital,” “inertial” or for that matter, “fabric” of spacetime (how do massive bodies "float" in space? What do they rest on?), which is such a central concept for Einstein.
**This can also be seen in photos where large galactic structures rob the matter-energy from lesser galaxies by drawing it toward themselves. Also, rather than being pinned down by Hubble’s descriptive classification scheme, might Einstein’s theory of geometric spacetime be pertinent to galactic formation that follows a “logical” sequence: (a) clouds of amorphous gas or dust; (b) irregular galaxies; (c) spiral galaxies as matter consolidate toward the gravitational center; (d) barred galaxies, where the spiral arms are drawn in; and then (e) elliptical galaxies, where the arms are absorbed into the center (gravitational) bulge?
***The authors refer to angular momentum’s role in galactic formation where inward movement is countered by outward movement (the conservation of angular momentum), but this seems to not take into account matter-energy’s inertial motion. The problem is not with angular momentum per se, but the absence of inertial motion, which is the inherent property of matter-energy itself that wants to go in a straight line or remain at rest (a balanced, orbital state), and it’s this inertial motion that resists being “pulled” toward the gravitational center, which is bound to fail because of the massive presence at the center of the galaxy that overwhelms it. Might this resistance be what’s involved with angular momentum’s outward movement? While one-half of an inertial body’s momentum moves outward, the other half (roughly) moves inward, as if it’s being pulled toward the center via (and performing the function of) gravitational “attraction.”
2009 Review here: We see often enough T-shirts, posters or post cards of the Milky Way with the exclamatory dot, "You are here!", indicating the relative insignificance of humans in the cosmos. Our life, on Earth, in our solar system, exists within a vast sea of other solar systems. The Bennett text puts this picture, itself, in perspective. Our Milky Way galaxy is part of a local group of galaxies that, in turn, is part of a super cluster of galaxies, in a "known universe" among many, many such super clusters. For perspective, the Milky Way is over 100 billion stars, and the universe contains something like 80 billion galaxies. Bennett et al. surveys this cosmic reality, taking it from its foundations in Newtonian physics through the world of quantum physics. The subject matter, both the totally foreign reality of astronomy and the known or suspected physical laws by which it operates, is intimidating. But these authors understand how to present this material to first-time readers, and in ways to capture and retain their attention. At the end of the text, after reviewing the main theories about the increasingly dark future for the universe, the authors write that "a few creative thinkers speculate about ways in which the universe might undergo rebirth, even after the end of time." That's great stuff for the imagination. This is a great text book.
March 16, 2025
jeff when i catch you jeff
December 9, 2017
This was the first book assigned as reading for my Astronomy course at the University of Arizona. The semester just finished and I gotta say, this book was amazing. The knowledge contained within is the Universe in it's most understandable terms.
Would highly recommend to anyone looking for a basic, fundamental understanding of how everything works.
K.
Would highly recommend to anyone looking for a basic, fundamental understanding of how everything works.
K.
December 12, 2011
Reader Interest before this course 0. After 8. This book was a pretty good textbook. Good pictures and help for the non science major studying Astronomy.
June 19, 2020
This was a really well written and easy to follow text book. I learned a ton of new information, some of which I will be able to share with my students. I never found the material or writing to be dull or hard to follow.
January 5, 2021
The Essential Cosmic Perspective was a great beginner's textbook for astronomy and cosmology. It was written concisely and was very easy to follow. I read every chapter for a college course, but enjoyed the text so much that I purchased a copy for myself once the semester was done.
August 24, 2022
Fundamental astronomy information that is formatted well.
January 6, 2026
College.
December 30, 2018
Beautiful book - excellent textbook for college. I learned everything for my class from reading it - very interesting. (thru page 423)
dnf
July 31, 2021I didn’t have time to read the entire thing before I lost access
September 5, 2012
The Essential Cosmic Perspective gives an excellent conceptual overview of astronomy at an introductory level. I'd recommend it for astronomy 101 or similar or for enthusiasts looking for a well written survey of modern astronomy. I use it for my classes.
July 17, 2016
I used this textbook for my Astronomy class, I enjoyed the beautiful images and relatively easy to understand language. A great beginner's guide to the field of astronomy for someone who might be interested.
Read
January 16, 2009my text book for this semester
May 7, 2014
Good beginners book for people seriously interested in astronomy
May 31, 2014
Absolutely phenomenal book. Super interesting and is a textbook I would actually read in my own time, instead of only for class.
Read
April 21, 2014Intro to Astronomy textbook. Extremely interesting, however long, read.
March 20, 2016
Not bad for a textbook. I do not agree with many parts of the book but it was not as hard to read as many textbooks are. Very good pictures and illustrations throughout.
May 5, 2012
The text and the diagrams were clear, and the online section helpful.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews