| Teaching Methods & Materials |
|
HomeShop at BookSurgeEducationTeaching Methods & MaterialsThe Virtue of Heresy: Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer, Second Edition, Revised and Updated |
|  |
| Customer Reviews: | | Average Customer Review: ( 14 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
16 of 20 found the following review helpful:
 The Virtue of Heresy - What a breath of fresh air Dec 15, 2007
By Mark Sandison
There are times when new scientific and clearly reasoned information is presented to you that is so mind blowing that time seems to stand still. Even as a layman, I found Hilton Ratcliffe's logical reasoning like a huge breath of fresh air. No more nonsense like we were fed in high school, with a little help from Hollywood and movies such as 'The Time Machine' that you can travel forward in time, as time is a tool humans use in measurement based in reality and not on reversible equations. He also clearly explains why redshift is light decaying and its wavelength elongating over vast stretches of time over billions of light years, so that redshift could be more an indication of time rather than recessional velocity. Redshift was used by Big Bang theorists to construct their theory that the universe was expanding in all directions from some supposed big bang. I truly enjoyed this very readable book as it opened up my mind as to why the Big Bang Theory really doesn't make much sense when you think the whole theory through. I now rank it as one of the most important books in my home library and trust you will enjoy it as much as I did.
21 of 27 found the following review helpful:
Fair, balanced, understandable, and thought provoking. Jul 24, 2007
By M.R.
"Mike"
For those with inquiring natures that abhor science dictated as dogma, this book is fresh air. Hilton Radcliffe can spin out an easily read and understandable book while still hitting the heavy questions left unanswered by the 20th century's great theories. He doesn't claim to know the answers, but he does remind us that we still have much to explain, and gives us a light to the paths we need to pursue in answering these questions. Any bookshelf that has "A Brief History of Time" would be incomplete without this companion.
13 of 19 found the following review helpful:
I am no rocket scientist and I found it to be very readable and intellectually stimulating. Aug 02, 2007
By M. J. Jameson
"Margie"
Throughout history (particularly in the religious arena) heresies have been punished by immolation, excommunication or at least banishment. Rather extreme when one considers that heresy simply means holding an `opinion contrary to accepted doctrine' (OED) and comes from the Greek meaning `choice'.Theoretical physics and religion may have something in common in that both seem to expect one to believe that which cannot be seen. Expounding their Big Bang, String and Membrane theories using complex mathematics, physicists would appear to stop just short of volunteering: "Well - maybe God did it with a magic wand."
Astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe takes us on a journey through the annals of physics examining these theories and how they were formulated. He proceeds to dissect them and offer alternatives in his quest for `Reality Physics'. He says:"Start with what you can see and go forward from there."The Virtue of Heresy is a fascinating read. The intricate discourse of the physicist is elegantly interspersed with some wonderfully descriptive passages, a few personal anecdotes and a conversation or two with the intriguing Mr Haquar.
I am no rocket scientist and I found it to be very readable and intellectually stimulating.
3 of 5 found the following review helpful:
"The Iron SUN" Apr 20, 2010
By Clifford S. Saunders
What a great book!
What an adventure!
If you like philosophy, quantum physics, cosmology, string theories, Theories of Everything, Neutron Stars, Epistemolgy, Hard thinking, honest reflection of what 'Science' really means then "The Virtue of Heresy" is the book for you.
Ah! Stop! A warning. This book is not for those of egoicly fixed mindsets. If you suspect you might be rigid in your belief systems about the world and what 'Reality' really is and if you have made a habit of not changing your Mind or being open to new potentials then I wouldn't recommend it. You'll either be grumpy or get apoplexy from reading it, I'm sure.
Seriously. This is a tough book dealing with some tough issues. Little things like:
What if the Large Hadron Collider is built on unsound physics?
What if the Sun is not a simple Hydrogen Helium gas ball but something far different?
What are the implications if our Sun is a variable star, a complex beast with a neutron star core?
What if Newton is chuckling at our excursion amongst unfalsifiable mathematical fancies?
What if some of our cherished assumptions about Einstein's work turn out to be misguided?
What if society at large has learnt to misguide ourselves and we have become blind to the potential?
Yes this is not light reading and it is an excellent read.
Enjoy,
Cliff Saunders
35 of 56 found the following review helpful:
 The ranting of a mad man Jun 03, 2008
By M. Wang
I was a particle physicist by training but had only cursory exposure to cosmology. Over the years, I have observed at least three cases of mass-hallucination among the majority of the practitioners of an academic displine, including String in particle physics, portfolio theory in finance and cognitive dissonance in psychology, so I was quite intrigued by the prospect of seeing the same phenomenon again in cosmology. In fact, I was eager to believe what the author promised in his self-promotion.
What a disappointment this book turns out to be! The first reading was painful beyond words already because of the author's shockingly dilettant understanding of even very basic concepts in physics. For example, he could not even give a half-decent definition of "matter", which should have been easy for any good undergrad physics majors. His rambling diatribe against evolution was so incoherent, I had to give up on making any sense of it after several valiant tries.
Still, among the nonsensical garbage that permeates this book, I was at first drawn to two specific alternatives to mainstream cosmology theory: That the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is really faint glows of Inter-Stellar Gas, and that quasars' red-shifts come from gravitationial well instead of Doppler effect. But after half an hour of wiki-ing as well as digging into my memory of those graduate school courses, it became plain to me that neither claims hold much water in the way they were presented. The details of the reasoning are a little beyond the scope of a short blurb here, but it suffices to say that the mainstream theories in cosmology are backed not by one, not even by dozens, but by literally hundreds of different and independent real-life observations. The alternatives this author so fervently believes in are viable for only one or two of those experiments. The author simply does not even attempt to provide a coherent or complete explanation for all the features of CMBR or quasars. Some researchers following similar lines of thoughts, known as plasma cosmology, have made better efforts toward this end (see The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe), but largely failed to confer with new data of the last decade. By ignoring these negative results, this book certainly does nothing to advance the plasma-cosmology cause among the informed.
In retrospect, I probably should have known better and seen that mass-hallucination was highly unlikely to occur in a field like Cosmology in the first place. The disaster that was string happened because particle physics was without experimental inputs for 30 years. Portfolio theory is such a mess because anyone who knows better would simply keep his mouth shut and go make some real money by trading on his superior knowledge. Cognitive dissonance may still turn out to be a valid idea, albeit to a lesser degree than previously thought, even though the statistical methodology underlying the bulk of existing literature has been shown to be unsound, but that is what can be expected when social scientists attempt to do real math without outside help. Cosmology, on the other hand, is an experimental science through and through. Its practitioners are well trained in physics and math. They also have every incentive to publish as quickly and frankly as possible. This is simply not a field where a maverick with good new insights will be suppressed for long.
==== Added 10/26/2008 ====
I just notice that, of the nine 5-star reviews, one is from the author himself and another from a Christian fundamentalist. The other seven all come from reviewers whose only Amazon review is on this book. It is pretty obvious that they are the friends and family of the author. I hereby challenge them to declare that they do not know the author personally, or they have actually paid real money for the book like I did.
It is really pathetic for people to write things that are patently untrue for money or favor. I call that academic prostitution. We probably have seven such prostitutes here, assuming that they have some common sense to see through the junk argument in the book. The alternative, that some tenured professors actually believe in this fantastic tale, will be a truly sad indictment on the state of higher education at the respective institution.
As for the substance of the book, I am still waiting for someone to actually defend the author's rambling definition of "matter", which should be something that the educated half of the general public will be able to judge. While he is on that subject, maybe he can also enlighten the rest of us on why evolution theory "fails completely" in the author's view. (Let me list a few quotes from the book: "We are designed to evolve." "Species have a divine destiny." "The more complex structure can be created..., but for this to happen consistently a template is essential." "the act of encoding the template...needs additional 'intelligence'." "The crucial point here is that...some of the organs that keep us alive are intrinsically so complex that the possibility of their forming by trial and error is vanishingly improbably, and in some cases just plain impossible." Is there any wonder why the intelligent design crowd loves this book?)
My point is, if the author cannot even handle something this basic, how can anyone blame the mainstream academia for turning its back on him? After all, it is 2008 and you cannot just yell "maverick" and expect everyone to automatically give you his vote. I have never been part of the cosmology mainsteam, so I have no vested interest either way. It is just sad to see fools deceiving the public and/or themselves in the forum of Amazon, which contains more sophisticated thoughts than many third rate academic journals on which most of the junk professorship makes its living. I have written over 100 reviews on Amazon over several years, and this book is the only one that is such an obvious sham. Shame on you people.
See all 14 customer reviews on Amazon.com
|
| | |
|
|
