Scioly.org

They're the same. Optical just sounds fancier, and (this is just me thinking here, don't quote me on this) "visible" implies that it is the only section that can be seen, and astronomers can see other bands via telescopes, so optical is better semantics-wise.

There's also the visible band (somewhat greenish)! On a side note, anyone hear about a new supernova? Thanks forever for bringing it up to me .

Or as I like to call it, the "verde" band. (hahaha, visible is greenish, V band, verde is green in Spanish... )

foreverphysics wrote:Most of the time, if you post the problem and explain how you did your work, someone will magically crop up and help you out here. There are lots of astronomy notes online for you to look at; understanding those will help you understand how they arrived at the answers.

What Carroll and Ostlie book do you recommend? An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics or An Introduction to Modern Stellar Astrophysics? Or is there another one totally?

Thanks for the help .

@meltingface: they're the same book, but the text on "Modern Stellar Astrophysics" takes only the chapters from the "Introduction to Modern Astrophysics" related to stellar structure and evolution. If you're planning on studying astronomy in undergrad, I'd get the full text.

I am new to Division C, but have done RFTS for the past two years. I know that Astronomy is much more in-depth than RFTS and that there are more calculations involved. Are there any other major differences that I need to know?

Cheesy Pie wrote:I am new to Division C, but have done RFTS for the past two years. I know that Astronomy is much more in-depth than RFTS and that there are more calculations involved. Are there any other major differences that I need to know?

Generally there are no star charts or constellations in Astro (you probably guessed that), but aside from that, I'd say the events are pretty similar. RFTS experience will help a little

Basically what CPM said. All of the conceptual stuff is much more in depth, and you need to have knowledge about a wider breadth of information. For example, for stellar evolution, you are expected not only to know what the stages are, but also why they happen. This applies to anything else you might know. Also, the focus on the objects is different, since you need to know why the objects are notable, and other important facts about the objects, rather than being able to identify them in a star chart or planetarium.

I'd also like to add that you need to know about variable stars considering the topic, not just stellar evolution. As in knowing EVERY stage, why and how they evolve, why and how they could be variable, and then even with less DSOs a very high level of depth (they may not ask star charts also, but I would recommend knowing their constellation or at least putting it in your binder). But that is to say, they may not ask about EVERY stage of evolution. But certainly from what I heard of Reach it has more depth.