<p>I have a more mathematical background but have always been interested in astrophysics, cosmology, astronomy, etc. There are a lot of popular books on the subject, but I am getting more interested in looking at a more rigorous approach to it.</p>

<p>What are the <strong>best introductory textbooks</strong> on the subject? (Calculus+ and assuming introductory courses in Mechanics and Heat and Electricity and Magnetism, etc.)</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-12-26T08:27:35.487Z
Requests for resources and list questions are generally best avoided on main [se] sites because answers become obsolete too fast. Using superlative adjectives like "best" in your question is also making it too subjective, so it might solicit prolonged discussion, which doesn't fit in the Q&A model of our website well. I can see how it could still be useful to wider audience tho, so I suggest moving this question to our [meta] to avoid members taking issue with it.
TildalWave
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-12-26T13:42:36.953Z
@TildalWave, it is true what you say, but pages like this: http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/18/where-can-i-find-examples-of-good-mathematica-programming-practice, or like this: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations?rq=1 have been of a great use for me and perhaps for many others too. So why don't we set up something similar for astronomy? Many areas here are indeed very dynamical, but there are a few which are rather established.
Alexey Bobrick
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-12-26T13:54:18.783Z
@AlexeyBobrick Moving it to [meta] would still mean it's a part of our [astronomy.se], I don't follow what point you're making? I'm not saying we should nuke it, I'm saying we should keep it where it will be less of a problem maintaining it current and at the same time less exposed to vandalism. E.g. if we would have one single answer as a community wiki, then everyone could edit it and keep updated, but that comes with more risk of edits defacing it on the main site. And much less so on [meta], that is much less exposed and mostly genuinely interested members participate.
TildalWave
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-12-26T14:01:37.723Z
@TildalWave: It seems to me, that it would be less accessible and less used when moved to Meta, but maybe it is just my impression. Yet, general book recommendations on other .SE sites are within the main platform, not on Meta. So I am not sure, which one would be better.
Alexey Bobrick
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-12-26T14:08:39.527Z
@AlexeyBobrick I don't see casual visitors that are merely curious about astronomy and with perhaps a sporadic question on current events picking up a book on the subject. And even if I'm wrong and they're curious enough to do so, they then won't have problems finding our meta either. Moving it there avoids another problem, that our recommendations could be seen as endorsements. Most books are still products that sell. So, should we avoid those? And FWIW, meta threads like this can live and be updated quite merrily, e.g. [this one on Space.SE](http://meta.space.stackexchange.com/q/249/49).
TildalWave
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-12-26T14:27:15.810Z
@TildalWave: Sounds good! Will one be able to reach such a page by "astronomy textbooks" querry from astro.se search window?
Alexey Bobrick
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-12-26T14:41:14.820Z
@AlexeyBobrick No, only from the [meta] search, but mods could always add the "featured" tag to it and it would display as link in the Community Bulletin (the yellow box to the right of every page on [astronomy.se]). There are ways to control visibility, but if we allow one exception it'll create a dangerous precedent that'll prove tough to weed out. We still didn't solve this for some older such posts on [space.se], because it'd part members with some of their rep if we moved them all to our meta there. But we do disallow it from now on on the main site.
TildalWave
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-12-26T17:45:55.177Z
I'm okay with making this a community wiki and/or moving it to meta.
Robert Cardona
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-12-26T21:32:49.330Z
@Robert The question itself could stay as is (moved to meta, but no conversion to CW is needed for that), but we should target one or perhaps only a few CW answers in which we all can add suggestions, perhaps organize them in categories and such (see e.g. [this similar thread](http://meta.space.stackexchange.com/q/249/49)). The one "answer" you got now is exactly what we should avoid, otherwise there's going to be several pages of them, and voting wouldn't come even close to the quality of their suggestions, likely more follow popularity of their posters and whoever answers first.
TildalWave
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-12-26T23:24:03.793Z
This question appears to be off-topic because it is primarily opinion based, and should be moved to either discussion or Astronomy Meta.
astromax
<astrophysics>
Good Introductory Textbooks
Robert Cardona
# Good Introductory Textbooks

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-12-26)

I have a more mathematical background but have always been interested in astrophysics, cosmology, astronomy, etc. There are a lot of popular books on the subject, but I am getting more interested in looking at a more rigorous approach to it.

What are the **best introductory textbooks** on the subject? (Calculus+ and assuming introductory courses in Mechanics and Heat and Electricity and Magnetism, etc.)

**Tags:** astrophysics
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Requests for resources and list questions are generally best avoided on main [se] sites because answers become obsolete too fast. Using superlative adjectives like "best" in your question is also making it too subjective, so it might solicit prolonged discussion, which doesn't fit in the Q&A model of our website well. I can see how it could still be useful to wider audience tho, so I suggest moving this question to our [meta] to avoid members taking issue with it.  
> **username_2**: @TildalWave, it is true what you say, but pages like this: http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/18/where-can-i-find-examples-of-good-mathematica-programming-practice, or like this: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/book-recommendations?rq=1 have been of a great use for me and perhaps for many others too. So why don't we set up something similar for astronomy? Many areas here are indeed very dynamical, but there are a few which are rather established.  
> **username_1**: @AlexeyBobrick Moving it to [meta] would still mean it's a part of our [astronomy.se], I don't follow what point you're making? I'm not saying we should nuke it, I'm saying we should keep it where it will be less of a problem maintaining it current and at the same time less exposed to vandalism. E.g. if we would have one single answer as a community wiki, then everyone could edit it and keep updated, but that comes with more risk of edits defacing it on the main site. And much less so on [meta], that is much less exposed and mostly genuinely interested members participate.  
> **username_2**: @TildalWave: It seems to me, that it would be less accessible and less used when moved to Meta, but maybe it is just my impression. Yet, general book recommendations on other .SE sites are within the main platform, not on Meta. So I am not sure, which one would be better.  
> **username_1**: @AlexeyBobrick I don't see casual visitors that are merely curious about astronomy and with perhaps a sporadic question on current events picking up a book on the subject. And even if I'm wrong and they're curious enough to do so, they then won't have problems finding our meta either. Moving it there avoids another problem, that our recommendations could be seen as endorsements. Most books are still products that sell. So, should we avoid those? And FWIW, meta threads like this can live and be updated quite merrily, e.g. [this one on Space.SE](http://meta.space.stackexchange.com/q/249/49).  
> **username_2**: @TildalWave: Sounds good! Will one be able to reach such a page by "astronomy textbooks" querry from astro.se search window?  
> **username_1**: @AlexeyBobrick No, only from the [meta] search, but mods could always add the "featured" tag to it and it would display as link in the Community Bulletin (the yellow box to the right of every page on [astronomy.se]). There are ways to control visibility, but if we allow one exception it'll create a dangerous precedent that'll prove tough to weed out. We still didn't solve this for some older such posts on [space.se], because it'd part members with some of their rep if we moved them all to our meta there. But we do disallow it from now on on the main site.  
> **username_0**: I'm okay with making this a community wiki and/or moving it to meta.  
> **username_1**: @Robert The question itself could stay as is (moved to meta, but no conversion to CW is needed for that), but we should target one or perhaps only a few CW answers in which we all can add suggestions, perhaps organize them in categories and such (see e.g. [this similar thread](http://meta.space.stackexchange.com/q/249/49)). The one "answer" you got now is exactly what we should avoid, otherwise there's going to be several pages of them, and voting wouldn't come even close to the quality of their suggestions, likely more follow popularity of their posters and whoever answers first.  
> **username_3**: This question appears to be off-topic because it is primarily opinion based, and should be moved to either discussion or Astronomy Meta.  

---

## 0 answers

