Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Other books like Introduction to Space Dynamics are very hand-wavey... Coordinate systems should not dictate the physics; it should be the other way around. It seems like you've not tried reading actual physics books written by real physicists and have only purveyed books known to a handful of engineering specialists, and have come to the conclusion that this is the best book for learning mechanics. I also fail to…
> It seems like you've not tried reading actual physics books written by real physicists I find it pretty baffling you think this is the inescapable conclusion. Of course I've taken physics courses, that's where the frustration comes from. Many physics and astronomy books are riddled with errors and that's almost entirely down to how frequently they skip steps. Not only are 90% of underclassman physics texts written…
Ah, you're talking about lower-level-answers-at-the-back undergraduate books in physics. Yes, most of them are shit, and it would be a futile task to learn any real physics from them. Who was even talking about such books? Lol.
> I would consider most other physics textbooks to be the haphazard ones, and when you compare the rate of errors in the text I have a strong suspicion those other books have much higher rates on average
From your comments it's pretty apparent that you've not even looked into any graduate-level or even upper-level undergrad physics books and the only physics books you've read are overpriced freshmen/sophomore physics textbooks. In any case, do you really think a book (series) like Landau and Lifshitz or The Feynman Lectures (which is actually freshman physics) has more errors and typos compared to some obscure text in engineering with contrived methods and reinvented wheels? Lol.
Anyway, there's no point in taking this argument further. It's unlikely that either of us would change our viewpoints ;-)