|  |
| Customer Reviews: | | Average Customer Review:
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
1 of 3 found the following review helpful:
 Not the ravings of a madman - but one verging on crank status Jun 19, 2009
Definitely not a crank - yet. However, books like this could be immensely shorter if they left out the "The whole scientific community is wrong about everything, their whole approach!" stuff. Ratcliffe wants to push plasma cosmology, among other things - a theoretical framework that's been unwilling to compete on a level playing field with the rest of physics so far. Once he and the plasma cosmology people come up with meaningful results of some use he can go on to say "and that's a demonstration that the whole approach was wrong." A Wegener gets to say that, a Margulis. Marshall and Warren. Not Hilton Ratcliffe.
Also: what looks liike the ravings of a mad man are a bunch of thought experiments, and only seem like raving because he's a terrible, and somewhat condescending writer.
Also, who the c_ck is Oliver K Manley in relation to Ratcliffe? He pushes the guy hard all over the internet - repeatedly, not just on Amason. A sock puppet? His brother-in-law? Has plasma cosmology formed a Scientology-like cult with Ratcliffe as its charismatic leader? A more interesting mystery than any raised in this book.
3 of 7 found the following review helpful:
 A great and entertaining review of cosmology Oct 20, 2008
A wonderful book about science that's relevant on many levels. The interspersed history of philosophers and scientists, and the importance of their contributions makes science personal. The sequence of discoveries leads us to understand the flaws built into current cosmology ideas. The author hits on those flaws with humor, which he shares as he is being guided past the big bang. To overcome the current cosmology flaws, many alternative cosmologies are revealed and examined. The book concludes with different perspective about the appropriateness of relativity to space science. The Virtues of Heresy' gains a spot of honor in my library along with Einstein's Relativity by Max Born and some Isaac Asimov books. All are foundation builders of science and our universe.
I saw a couple of critical reviews and cant believe someone without some ax to grind would be so negative about this enlightening book.
1 of 5 found the following review helpful:
Academic suppression of ideas? Sep 23, 2008
I have just ordered this book BECAUSE of the negative feedback. It is incredible to me the absolute venom generated when someone has the audacity to think outside of the box in our so-called advanced, free society. The book's title specifically says that it is going against mainstream academic thinking, yet, with no apparent counter arguments, it's as if the author is not allowed to think those thoughts much less publish them. As one of the negative commentators indicates, this is not just a scientific debate, it is a socio/psychological phenomena. Whether the author is right or not is beside the point. Considering the amount of pure trash that is published and pushed by the likes of Oprah these days, how is it that an obviously thoughtful author should receive this kind of reaction? I would encourage anyone at least a little curious over this phenomena to read 'The Age of Velikovsky' - liberal academics DO burn books and suppress data, which should make anyone curious what this author has to say.
The Time of the Christ
*****************************************
I have now finished reading the book and will conclude my review:
First, a word about the publisher. Authorhouse is a company that helps people self-publish books. While these books usually don't pass the 'smell test' of most readers, they are a good source of facts and opinions that otherwise would not get a voice. I, too, have used Authorhouse and while they are a good company, the promises of fame and fortune are largely a come-on. In other words, Dr. Ratcliffe did not publish this book without considerable expense in time, effort, and money which he will likely not recoup, yet, people like him seldom go through this process unless they have a strong conviction to a truth that is not been told. If one wants to read about 'heresy' this is precisely where one should look for it, only in a self-published book will it get printed without sterilization.
Secondly, I have now read many books on the 'trouble with physics' and Dr. Ratcliffe's is right up there with the best of them. Not only for it's common sense, but in the way it documents the 'the path less taken'. One might think that a controversy such as this would be filled with crack-pots advocating the ridiculous - Ratcliffe shows that something else is going on, that we've actually consistently opted for the bizarre in 20th century science rather than the rational, and he documents this well in a text that doesn't require too deep of a scientific background. Indeed, this is part of his case: that physics, 'true' physics, should remain accessible - a reality based on mathematical harmonies, oddities, and paradoxes is no reality at all. Nor is it a help in advancing civilization.
Lastly, and here is my reservation, I have now read many of this style book, and there is always an underlying theme: that the real trouble with science is that it has succumbed too much to religion (I also sense that specifically this means Christianity). This is very surprising to me as a religious educator in that I believe it has been science that has perverted religion. Further, that it is this irreconcilability between philosophy and science that has created the current state of Existentialism the world is now in - that everyone's truth is merely a fanciful reality dreamed up to suit one's self esteem and one's desires. It is modern science that has provided the relativistic tools to rationalize such an affair. While these 'new' physicists often proclaim 'foul' on the Church, the fact is the Church they slander is one that didn't exist before the 1960s (when most of the trouble began). Many of us believe it is false doctrines like modern physics (new math, new history, new reading, etc) that have not only corrupted younger generations, but forced the Church into socialistic/psychiatric roles - roles where there is inherently no empirical truth, just self-relevancy. It doesn't matter where you go, everyone is looking for therapy not truth. It is perhaps here that 'The Virtue of Heresy' might have had its biggest audience, but the 'new' physicists don't seem to be able to preach their cause without trending into fields they know little about.
Buy the book, read the facts, dismiss the ignorance, you'll be a better person.
5 of 9 found the following review helpful:
EXCELLENT! Aug 26, 2008
My name is Oliver K. Manuel, Emeritus Professor of Nuclear Chemistry and Space Physics.
Here is my research profile: http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
I recommend the book by the astronomer, Hilton Ratcliffe, "The Virtue of Heresy: Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer", to anyone who really wants to understand our beautiful universe, including our Sun - the star that heats planet Earth and sustains life.
Publication of this book has angered those who were pretending to be particle physicists, feeding happily at the trough of public funds, doing nothing more scientific than grunting an occasional, "Me too, I agree!", and adding their names to large federally-funded research collaborations like this one:
http://www.star.bnl.gov/central/collaboration/authors/authorList.php
I encourage M. Wang of Connecticut, USA, the author of the following review, to post his research profile so Amazon readers can understand the basis of his negative comments.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
16 of 25 found the following review helpful:
 The ranting of a mad man Jun 03, 2008
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.
|
| | |
|
|
