lunar origin, 05 Dec 2008

This book claims that there is no scientific explanation for the moon's origin. This simply not true. There is a very well developed theory that fits the facts extremely well and is being still refined. There is a principle in science known as Occam's Razor. This says that when faced with a set of data, choose the simplest explanation first, and when only when that fails move onto something less obvious. What the authors have done here is reverse the principle. they start with a set of data and the choose the least probable explanation first! There are too many examples of this type of book around.

astonishing facts but unfounded and illogical conclusions., 28 Nov 2007

Firstly I'm not sure if I'm a critic or a supporter of this book. I've given it 4 stars because the actual data and numbers that are given are extremely interesting and need to be known by the world. The ratios of days, orbits and diameters, are correct, even if not worded properly: "The moon is exactly 400 times smaller than the sun" should be "the diameter of" the moon, sun etc.

There is clearly something in this that needs further research, but there are a couple of things that bother me about the book.

I personally will not come to a conclusion about what all this means until I have analyzed it far more thoroughly. I might never come to a conclusion about it ever, unless there is an actual fact that proves or disproves something.

That is my main problem with this book, the conclusions the authors come to, have no evidence to support them, its pure speculation. Don't get me wrong, the planetary mechanics and ratios are amazing, and are far too perfect to be coincidence, but that doesn't mean that people from the future did it all, which is what the authors state is their best theory. Theres just as much evidence to support that idea as there is to say the whole solar system is the poo of a giant space fish.

I recommend everyone reads this book before they come to any conclusion and once they've read it don't just settle with the authors ideas. there are more possibilities than just god, aliens or people from the future. Perhaps the solar system is a living organism or maybe theres a completely natural phenomenon where for some reason not yet known to physics, planets harmonize themselves with each other on many different levels ie size, rotation, who knows?

Once these facts become more well known, everyone from Jehovahs witnesses to star trek fans are going to jump on the band wagon and try to use this to support their views.

What I'm trying to say is, the implications of what this could mean are endless, so please don't dismiss these remarkable figures just because someone says it means we are all slaves of the reptilians, or that these facts prove the plot to the terminator films actually happened.

And no matter what anyones opinion is,

The Earth still rotates about 366 times per orbit of the sun, and has a polar diameter 366.0431 percent larger than the moons.

The moon has an orbital period of 27.32 days and has a diameter 27.32 percent that of the Earths polar diameter.

The suns diameter is 109.2 times the size of Earths diameter, and the distance from the earth to the sun when we are at our furthest from it is 109.2 sun diameters.

if you divide 109.2 by 4 you get 27.3

366 moon orbits equal 10000 days

I could go on and on but the fact is you keep on getting the same recurring numbers and multiples of them again and again:

4
27.32
100
109.2
366

Mathematical idiocy, 19 Nov 2006
The synopsis tells you all you need to know about this book, in the sentence: "the Moon is exactly 400 times smaller than the Sun."

This is false, of course. The diameter of the moon is 400 times smaller than the diameter of the sun; but that does not mean the moon, as a whole, is 400 times smaller. The moon exists in 3 dimensions, not one. For example, the mass of the moon is about 27 million times smaller than the sun.

This is typical of the logic in this book. They go looking for correspondences, and they find them: even if they have to treat celestial objects as one-dimensional to make their numbers look interesting. They simply stir the facts together in a great big soup, until two disassocated numbers look similar. Then they pluck out the pair and declare "Mystery!"

The fact that a book like this could get published is pathetic. If you want science fiction, there's vastly better and more interesting out there; if you want science, there's simply nothing here. If you want baseless, juvenile speculation, then go hang out with your mates on Friday night and have a few beers. It'll be a lot more fun.


Luna paradox, 12 Nov 2006
Dear all, this book provided several interesting facts about the moon's dimensions and location, that appear to be beyond coincidence. I went to the NASA web-site to check the information. I was surprised that the Author didn't express in detail the fact that the Moon's rotation is exactly the same as the time it takes to orbit the Earth, which is why we always see the same face of the moon, it's perfectly syncronised, maybe this is to make us seek what is in the Farside perhaps (by following the Author's logic); though I suspect this was deliberate as the majority of the moons in our solar system share this feature and the Author wanted to demonstrate the uniqueness of our moon, which was achieved by other facts.

The Author's arguments were unbalanced and inconsistent in several areas. After debunking the Conspiracy theory that Man has never been to the Moon, he stated later that Darwin's Natural Selection was correct, however it is clear that Natural Selection remains only a theory of Evolution and has it's fair share of obvious weaknesses, which Darwin confessed.

Strangely enough the Author stated Darwin was correct having just written a chapter explaining how the Evolution of DNA by a Random accident was statistically impossible and therefore it had to have been created. Therefore, I assume, Selection need not have been Natural afterall but part of a created process or program, by following this logic. (I sense the Author was playing it safe by trying to please both Neo-Darwinists and Creationalists.)

If you are a supporter of the Faked Moon Missions then this book is a must read because far from debunking, I found that certain parts of this book actually support the conspiracy (unintentionally). The Author states that several explanations of the Moon's creation were invalid because Moon Rock was identical to certain Rocks from the Earth... meaning the Moon had to have been created from the Earth in the past.. this could also be interpreted by a Conspiracy theorist differently e.g. we never went to the moon and the rocks were actually from the Earth all along, which is why Moon Rock is the same as Earth Rock.

The Final theory of the book is really the weakest argument throughout, creating an obvious Paradox and the Author must have forgotten his earlier claims that Life could not have existed on the Earth without the Moon being there from the start of Life.

Despite the weaknesses this is a worthwhile read and I certainly discovered new facts about the Moon that are intrigueing.

Read it.


NB..
I would still question why it is taking so long to reach the Moon this time with advanced technology available when it was supposedly achieved in the 1960's within a very short-period of time, why couldn't NASA land men back on the Moon within a few years???

Strange but a very thought provoking argument, 15 Jun 2006
Quite remarkable. I came to this unusual book after it was studied by the National Science Teachers Association and found to have a case that required an answer. The maths used in this book are simple, clear and inescapably accurate. I see one reviewer has suggested (without substantiation) that the authors are in some way numerically illiterate. Not so.

People prefer to see proof of what they already believe to be true and it is obviously disconcerting when a book like this brings up so many inconvenient facts. A growing number of scientists are now realising the dishonesty that exists to protect old ideas. Terance Kealey a clinical biochemist and the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Buckingham has observed "Scientists actually treat facts the way barristers treat hostile witnesses... it is a myth that working scientists always respect falsifiability. Scientists often ignore inconvenient findings".

Anyone who likes to think for themselves should read this fascinating book and deal with the facts as they stand.

Richard Feynman, the rock star of theoretical physics, has left an image that belies the nerdy side revealed in Feynman's Lost Lecture: The Motion of Planets Around the Sun. Not many bongo-playing surfer beatniks would have spent hours of their spare time proving Newton's law of elliptical planetary motion using only plane geometry, but Feynman's Lost Lecture shows that the great man did just that. Originally delivered to an introductory physics class at Caltech in 1963, this book contains everything the maths-savvy listener needs to savour the pleasures of applied maths. Caltech physicist David L Goodstein and archivist Judith R Goodstein found the notes and tape amid another professor's papers and set to work making sense of them; unfortunately photographs of the blackboard drawings didn't survive. The book briefly covers their find and recovery work, then presents the proof as reconstructed--crucial reading if one is to follow the lecture. There's nothing easy about it, as Feynman acknowledges in the lecture:

I am going to give what I will call and elementary demonstration. "Elementary" means that very little is required to know ahead of time in order to understand it, except to have an infinite amount of intelligence.

He means, instead, that he is strictly using geometrical methods to reach his destination, which explains why it was so difficult to reconstruct without his diagrams. His charming Brooklyn accent and good humour show through in this lecture, even if the material is quite a bit drier than his fans might expect. Still, those interested in adding a new dimension to their understanding of this unquestionably brilliant scientist--and those with a deep interest in Newtonian physics--will find The Motion of Planets Around the Sun a rare and unexpected treat. --Rob Lightner

lunar origin, 05 Dec 2008

This book claims that there is no scientific explanation for the moon's origin. This simply not true. There is a very well developed theory that fits the facts extremely well and is being still refined. There is a principle in science known as Occam's Razor. This says that when faced with a set of data, choose the simplest explanation first, and when only when that fails move onto something less obvious. What the authors have done here is reverse the principle. they start with a set of data and the choose the least probable explanation first! There are too many examples of this type of book around.

astonishing facts but unfounded and illogical conclusions., 28 Nov 2007

Firstly I'm not sure if I'm a critic or a supporter of this book. I've given it 4 stars because the actual data and numbers that are given are extremely interesting and need to be known by the world. The ratios of days, orbits and diameters, are correct, even if not worded properly: "The moon is exactly 400 times smaller than the sun" should be "the diameter of" the moon, sun etc.

There is clearly something in this that needs further research, but there are a couple of things that bother me about the book.

I personally will not come to a conclusion about what all this means until I have analyzed it far more thoroughly. I might never come to a conclusion about it ever, unless there is an actual fact that proves or disproves something.

That is my main problem with this book, the conclusions the authors come to, have no evidence to support them, its pure speculation. Don't get me wrong, the planetary mechanics and ratios are amazing, and are far too perfect to be coincidence, but that doesn't mean that people from the future did it all, which is what the authors state is their best theory. Theres just as much evidence to support that idea as there is to say the whole solar system is the poo of a giant space fish.

I recommend everyone reads this book before they come to any conclusion and once they've read it don't just settle with the authors ideas. there are more possibilities than just god, aliens or people from the future. Perhaps the solar system is a living organism or maybe theres a completely natural phenomenon where for some reason not yet known to physics, planets harmonize themselves with each other on many different levels ie size, rotation, who knows?

Once these facts become more well known, everyone from Jehovahs witnesses to star trek fans are going to jump on the band wagon and try to use this to support their views.

What I'm trying to say is, the implications of what this could mean are endless, so please don't dismiss these remarkable figures just because someone says it means we are all slaves of the reptilians, or that these facts prove the plot to the terminator films actually happened.

And no matter what anyones opinion is,

The Earth still rotates about 366 times per orbit of the sun, and has a polar diameter 366.0431 percent larger than the moons.

The moon has an orbital period of 27.32 days and has a diameter 27.32 percent that of the Earths polar diameter.

The suns diameter is 109.2 times the size of Earths diameter, and the distance from the earth to the sun when we are at our furthest from it is 109.2 sun diameters.

if you divide 109.2 by 4 you get 27.3

366 moon orbits equal 10000 days

I could go on and on but the fact is you keep on getting the same recurring numbers and multiples of them again and again:

4
27.32
100
109.2
366

Mathematical idiocy, 19 Nov 2006
The synopsis tells you all you need to know about this book, in the sentence: "the Moon is exactly 400 times smaller than the Sun."

This is false, of course. The diameter of the moon is 400 times smaller than the diameter of the sun; but that does not mean the moon, as a whole, is 400 times smaller. The moon exists in 3 dimensions, not one. For example, the mass of the moon is about 27 million times smaller than the sun.

This is typical of the logic in this book. They go looking for correspondences, and they find them: even if they have to treat celestial objects as one-dimensional to make their numbers look interesting. They simply stir the facts together in a great big soup, until two disassocated numbers look similar. Then they pluck out the pair and declare "Mystery!"

The fact that a book like this could get published is pathetic. If you want science fiction, there's vastly better and more interesting out there; if you want science, there's simply nothing here. If you want baseless, juvenile speculation, then go hang out with your mates on Friday night and have a few beers. It'll be a lot more fun.


Luna paradox, 12 Nov 2006
Dear all, this book provided several interesting facts about the moon's dimensions and location, that appear to be beyond coincidence. I went to the NASA web-site to check the information. I was surprised that the Author didn't express in detail the fact that the Moon's rotation is exactly the same as the time it takes to orbit the Earth, which is why we always see the same face of the moon, it's perfectly syncronised, maybe this is to make us seek what is in the Farside perhaps (by following the Author's logic); though I suspect this was deliberate as the majority of the moons in our solar system share this feature and the Author wanted to demonstrate the uniqueness of our moon, which was achieved by other facts.

The Author's arguments were unbalanced and inconsistent in several areas. After debunking the Conspiracy theory that Man has never been to the Moon, he stated later that Darwin's Natural Selection was correct, however it is clear that Natural Selection remains only a theory of Evolution and has it's fair share of obvious weaknesses, which Darwin confessed.

Strangely enough the Author stated Darwin was correct having just written a chapter explaining how the Evolution of DNA by a Random accident was statistically impossible and therefore it had to have been created. Therefore, I assume, Selection need not have been Natural afterall but part of a created process or program, by following this logic. (I sense the Author was playing it safe by trying to please both Neo-Darwinists and Creationalists.)

If you are a supporter of the Faked Moon Missions then this book is a must read because far from debunking, I found that certain parts of this book actually support the conspiracy (unintentionally). The Author states that several explanations of the Moon's creation were invalid because Moon Rock was identical to certain Rocks from the Earth... meaning the Moon had to have been created from the Earth in the past.. this could also be interpreted by a Conspiracy theorist differently e.g. we never went to the moon and the rocks were actually from the Earth all along, which is why Moon Rock is the same as Earth Rock.

The Final theory of the book is really the weakest argument throughout, creating an obvious Paradox and the Author must have forgotten his earlier claims that Life could not have existed on the Earth without the Moon being there from the start of Life.

Despite the weaknesses this is a worthwhile read and I certainly discovered new facts about the Moon that are intrigueing.

Read it.


NB..
I would still question why it is taking so long to reach the Moon this time with advanced technology available when it was supposedly achieved in the 1960's within a very short-period of time, why couldn't NASA land men back on the Moon within a few years???

Strange but a very thought provoking argument, 15 Jun 2006
Quite remarkable. I came to this unusual book after it was studied by the National Science Teachers Association and found to have a case that required an answer. The maths used in this book are simple, clear and inescapably accurate. I see one reviewer has suggested (without substantiation) that the authors are in some way numerically illiterate. Not so.

People prefer to see proof of what they already believe to be true and it is obviously disconcerting when a book like this brings up so many inconvenient facts. A growing number of scientists are now realising the dishonesty that exists to protect old ideas. Terance Kealey a clinical biochemist and the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Buckingham has observed "Scientists actually treat facts the way barristers treat hostile witnesses... it is a myth that working scientists always respect falsifiability. Scientists often ignore inconvenient findings".

Anyone who likes to think for themselves should read this fascinating book and deal with the facts as they stand.

A typical little gem from Feynman, 15 Jun 2002
In his usual style, Feynman teaches us not only Newtonian and Keplerian orbital mechanics, but he does it in a new and amusing manner. Most importantly, in the broader view, he reinforces one of his greates tlessons of his teaching career - there's no single "right way" to prove, demonstrate or teach something. We all (nearly all ?) learn orbital mechanics through calculus. It's not a visual nor intuitive way of doing it, and it's a hard slog. Feynman's (actually it's probably Newton's) method does it through simple plane geometry that the ancient Greeks would understand.

The authors are to be congratulated on dusting off these lecture notes and presenting them so well packaged. They're well presented, accessible, and given just the right amount of background context.

Feynman fans will like this book anyway, but it's also a good taster for Feynman's style that any child studying GCSE applied maths or mechanics could understand.

lunar origin, 05 Dec 2008

This book claims that there is no scientific explanation for the moon's origin. This simply not true. There is a very well developed theory that fits the facts extremely well and is being still refined. There is a principle in science known as Occam's Razor. This says that when faced with a set of data, choose the simplest explanation first, and when only when that fails move onto something less obvious. What the authors have done here is reverse the principle. they start with a set of data and the choose the least probable explanation first! There are too many examples of this type of book around.

astonishing facts but unfounded and illogical conclusions., 28 Nov 2007

Firstly I'm not sure if I'm a critic or a supporter of this book. I've given it 4 stars because the actual data and numbers that are given are extremely interesting and need to be known by the world. The ratios of days, orbits and diameters, are correct, even if not worded properly: "The moon is exactly 400 times smaller than the sun" should be "the diameter of" the moon, sun etc.

There is clearly something in this that needs further research, but there are a couple of things that bother me about the book.

I personally will not come to a conclusion about what all this means until I have analyzed it far more thoroughly. I might never come to a conclusion about it ever, unless there is an actual fact that proves or disproves something.

That is my main problem with this book, the conclusions the authors come to, have no evidence to support them, its pure speculation. Don't get me wrong, the planetary mechanics and ratios are amazing, and are far too perfect to be coincidence, but that doesn't mean that people from the future did it all, which is what the authors state is their best theory. Theres just as much evidence to support that idea as there is to say the whole solar system is the poo of a giant space fish.

I recommend everyone reads this book before they come to any conclusion and once they've read it don't just settle with the authors ideas. there are more possibilities than just god, aliens or people from the future. Perhaps the solar system is a living organism or maybe theres a completely natural phenomenon where for some reason not yet known to physics, planets harmonize themselves with each other on many different levels ie size, rotation, who knows?

Once these facts become more well known, everyone from Jehovahs witnesses to star trek fans are going to jump on the band wagon and try to use this to support their views.

What I'm trying to say is, the implications of what this could mean are endless, so please don't dismiss these remarkable figures just because someone says it means we are all slaves of the reptilians, or that these facts prove the plot to the terminator films actually happened.

And no matter what anyones opinion is,

The Earth still rotates about 366 times per orbit of the sun, and has a polar diameter 366.0431 percent larger than the moons.

The moon has an orbital period of 27.32 days and has a diameter 27.32 percent that of the Earths polar diameter.

The suns diameter is 109.2 times the size of Earths diameter, and the distance from the earth to the sun when we are at our furthest from it is 109.2 sun diameters.

if you divide 109.2 by 4 you get 27.3

366 moon orbits equal 10000 days

I could go on and on but the fact is you keep on getting the same recurring numbers and multiples of them again and again:

4
27.32
100
109.2
366

Mathematical idiocy, 19 Nov 2006
The synopsis tells you all you need to know about this book, in the sentence: "the Moon is exactly 400 times smaller than the Sun."

This is false, of course. The diameter of the moon is 400 times smaller than the diameter of the sun; but that does not mean the moon, as a whole, is 400 times smaller. The moon exists in 3 dimensions, not one. For example, the mass of the moon is about 27 million times smaller than the sun.

This is typical of the logic in this book. They go looking for correspondences, and they find them: even if they have to treat celestial objects as one-dimensional to make their numbers look interesting. They simply stir the facts together in a great big soup, until two disassocated numbers look similar. Then they pluck out the pair and declare "Mystery!"

The fact that a book like this could get published is pathetic. If you want science fiction, there's vastly better and more interesting out there; if you want science, there's simply nothing here. If you want baseless, juvenile speculation, then go hang out with your mates on Friday night and have a few beers. It'll be a lot more fun.


Luna paradox, 12 Nov 2006
Dear all, this book provided several interesting facts about the moon's dimensions and location, that appear to be beyond coincidence. I went to the NASA web-site to check the information. I was surprised that the Author didn't express in detail the fact that the Moon's rotation is exactly the same as the time it takes to orbit the Earth, which is why we always see the same face of the moon, it's perfectly syncronised, maybe this is to make us seek what is in the Farside perhaps (by following the Author's logic); though I suspect this was deliberate as the majority of the moons in our solar system share this feature and the Author wanted to demonstrate the uniqueness of our moon, which was achieved by other facts.

The Author's arguments were unbalanced and inconsistent in several areas. After debunking the Conspiracy theory that Man has never been to the Moon, he stated later that Darwin's Natural Selection was correct, however it is clear that Natural Selection remains only a theory of Evolution and has it's fair share of obvious weaknesses, which Darwin confessed.

Strangely enough the Author stated Darwin was correct having just written a chapter explaining how the Evolution of DNA by a Random accident was statistically impossible and therefore it had to have been created. Therefore, I assume, Selection need not have been Natural afterall but part of a created process or program, by following this logic. (I sense the Author was playing it safe by trying to please both Neo-Darwinists and Creationalists.)

If you are a supporter of the Faked Moon Missions then this book is a must read because far from debunking, I found that certain parts of this book actually support the conspiracy (unintentionally). The Author states that several explanations of the Moon's creation were invalid because Moon Rock was identical to certain Rocks from the Earth... meaning the Moon had to have been created from the Earth in the past.. this could also be interpreted by a Conspiracy theorist differently e.g. we never went to the moon and the rocks were actually from the Earth all along, which is why Moon Rock is the same as Earth Rock.

The Final theory of the book is really the weakest argument throughout, creating an obvious Paradox and the Author must have forgotten his earlier claims that Life could not have existed on the Earth without the Moon being there from the start of Life.

Despite the weaknesses this is a worthwhile read and I certainly discovered new facts about the Moon that are intrigueing.

Read it.


NB..
I would still question why it is taking so long to reach the Moon this time with advanced technology available when it was supposedly achieved in the 1960's within a very short-period of time, why couldn't NASA land men back on the Moon within a few years???

Strange but a very thought provoking argument, 15 Jun 2006
Quite remarkable. I came to this unusual book after it was studied by the National Science Teachers Association and found to have a case that required an answer. The maths used in this book are simple, clear and inescapably accurate. I see one reviewer has suggested (without substantiation) that the authors are in some way numerically illiterate. Not so.

People prefer to see proof of what they already believe to be true and it is obviously disconcerting when a book like this brings up so many inconvenient facts. A growing number of scientists are now realising the dishonesty that exists to protect old ideas. Terance Kealey a clinical biochemist and the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Buckingham has observed "Scientists actually treat facts the way barristers treat hostile witnesses... it is a myth that working scientists always respect falsifiability. Scientists often ignore inconvenient findings".

Anyone who likes to think for themselves should read this fascinating book and deal with the facts as they stand.

A typical little gem from Feynman, 15 Jun 2002
In his usual style, Feynman teaches us not only Newtonian and Keplerian orbital mechanics, but he does it in a new and amusing manner. Most importantly, in the broader view, he reinforces one of his greates tlessons of his teaching career - there's no single "right way" to prove, demonstrate or teach something. We all (nearly all ?) learn orbital mechanics through calculus. It's not a visual nor intuitive way of doing it, and it's a hard slog. Feynman's (actually it's probably Newton's) method does it through simple plane geometry that the ancient Greeks would understand.

The authors are to be congratulated on dusting off these lecture notes and presenting them so well packaged. They're well presented, accessible, and given just the right amount of background context.

Feynman fans will like this book anyway, but it's also a good taster for Feynman's style that any child studying GCSE applied maths or mechanics could understand.

Truly Brilliant, 12 Aug 2008
This book isexactly what it claims to be in the preface, the best introduction to astronomy and astrophysics for the mathematically literate around. its big, packed with useful information, the physics prelude reminds you of everything you know, and teaches some stuff you might not know. A reasonable grasp of physics (at least A-Level), and Algebra, Trigonometry, and Calculus is also required.

The book to get for 1st and 2nd year Astrophysics students, 02 Feb 2005
If you are doing a degree in Astrophysics or Astronomy and want a book that is going to last and provide a broad knowledge of astronomy and will last throughout your degree, this is a book to get. If you want pretty pictures and hand-wavy explanations and descriptions, get another book. If you want a bit a detail, and some solid (but not complicated) mathematical background to help understand the astrophysics presented more deeply, this book does a good job. It provides nice simple mathematical models for otherwise complicated processes such as stellar structure, planetary physics and galactic astronomy. It also has some useful appendicies with those easy-to-forget astronomical constants and numbers you need for homeworks. I bought this in the first year of my undergraduate degree, and I am still using it during my PhD. What more can I say?

Great book, maybe not the answer to your seminar prayers tho, 05 Apr 2003
This is a great book. I was recommended it for my course (physics with astrophysics) and as a first year have found it very useful in the more specific areas of study. Having said that, it gives a great overview of the subject matter. It is clearly set out in an easy to follow manner, and the information is understandable! (not a mean feat for astro books!). I would certainly recommend this book to anyone doing any space science/astronomy degree, and even to the informed reader who simply wants to learn more. A good understanding of physics is a must though (gcse-alevel) as it will not teach you ALL the fundementals. Really helpful, but don't expect it to simply dish out the answers to those seminar questions...

Really good undergraduate text, 28 May 2001
This was the recommended text some of the lecture courses in my Physics with Astronomy degree, and I have to say that I've returned to it time and time again.

Everything is explained clearly and all of the background knowledge you need to tackle a problem is given. It can be a bit daunting to a first-year undergraduate, although it will prove invaluable in second and third year - but in saying that, some more advanced concepts are not always developed as fully as you would expect.

All in all though - an excellent book, and a great complement to Carroll & Ostlie or Binney & Merrifield for more advanced stuff.

Brilliant overview of modern astrophyics, 28 Apr 2000
This book covers an astonishling range of theoretical and experimental astrophyisics in a hugely readable style. This is not a book aimed at the general public, but the mathematically literate (at least A level maths/physics) wanting a deep understanding of the universe will struggle to find better. Buy it !

"Experts in many diverse disciplines have come together to form a new science: astrobiology," reports astronomer David Koerner and biologist-writer Simon Levay.

It is a fundamentally new enterprise, a focus of intense excitement and energy, and a recipient of huge government resources. This science has just one ambition: To understand Life in its universal context and, in doing so, to understand ourselves.

Koerner and Levay have no particular thesis to advance about astrobiology and extraterrestrial life, no axe to grind; they have talked to everybody from Stephen Jay Gould and Robert Weinberg to the (human) denizens of Area 51. Their even-handed overview moves from the origin of life on Earth, to the search for life in our solar system, to the search for planets around other stars, to SETI, UFOlogy and the anthropic principle. Since each of these topics can easily take up a whole book (or a shelf-full), theirs is something of a roller-skate tour, but one that misses no major issues. Balanced between the Copernican "Principle of Mediocrity" and the Rare Earth hypothesis of Ward and Brownlee, Here Be Dragons is an accessible, engaging guide to a deeply stirring question: "Is there anybody out there?" --Mary Ellen Curtin

lunar origin, 05 Dec 2008

This book claims that there is no scientific explanation for the moon's origin. This simply not true. There is a very well developed theory that fits the facts extremely well and is being still refined. There is a principle in science known as Occam's Razor. This says that when faced with a set of data, choose the simplest explanation first, and when only when that fails move onto something less obvious. What the authors have done here is reverse the principle. they start with a set of data and the choose the least probable explanation first! There are too many examples of this type of book around.

astonishing facts but unfounded and illogical conclusions., 28 Nov 2007

Firstly I'm not sure if I'm a critic or a supporter of this book. I've given it 4 stars because the actual data and numbers that are given are extremely interesting and need to be known by the world. The ratios of days, orbits and diameters, are correct, even if not worded properly: "The moon is exactly 400 times smaller than the sun" should be "the diameter of" the moon, sun etc.

There is clearly something in this that needs further research, but there are a couple of things that bother me about the book.

I personally will not come to a conclusion about what all this means until I have analyzed it far more thoroughly. I might never come to a conclusion about it ever, unless there is an actual fact that proves or disproves something.

That is my main problem with this book, the conclusions the authors come to, have no evidence to support them, its pure speculation. Don't get me wrong, the planetary mechanics and ratios are amazing, and are far too perfect to be coincidence, but that doesn't mean that people from the future did it all, which is what the authors state is their best theory. Theres just as much evidence to support that idea as there is to say the whole solar system is the poo of a giant space fish.

I recommend everyone reads this book before they come to any conclusion and once they've read it don't just settle with the authors ideas. there are more possibilities than just god, aliens or people from the future. Perhaps the solar system is a living organism or maybe theres a completely natural phenomenon where for some reason not yet known to physics, planets harmonize themselves with each other on many different levels ie size, rotation, who knows?

Once these facts become more well known, everyone from Jehovahs witnesses to star trek fans are going to jump on the band wagon and try to use this to support their views.

What I'm trying to say is, the implications of what this could mean are endless, so please don't dismiss these remarkable figures just because someone says it means we are all slaves of the reptilians, or that these facts prove the plot to the terminator films actually happened.

And no matter what anyones opinion is,

The Earth still rotates about 366 times per orbit of the sun, and has a polar diameter 366.0431 percent larger than the moons.

The moon has an orbital period of 27.32 days and has a diameter 27.32 percent that of the Earths polar diameter.

The suns diameter is 109.2 times the size of Earths diameter, and the distance from the earth to the sun when we are at our furthest from it is 109.2 sun diameters.

if you divide 109.2 by 4 you get 27.3

366 moon orbits equal 10000 days

I could go on and on but the fact is you keep on getting the same recurring numbers and multiples of them again and again:

4
27.32
100
109.2
366

Mathematical idiocy, 19 Nov 2006
The synopsis tells you all you need to know about this book, in the sentence: "the Moon is exactly 400 times smaller than the Sun."

This is false, of course. The diameter of the moon is 400 times smaller than the diameter of the sun; but that does not mean the moon, as a whole, is 400 times smaller. The moon exists in 3 dimensions, not one. For example, the mass of the moon is about 27 million times smaller than the sun.

This is typical of the logic in this book. They go looking for correspondences, and they find them: even if they have to treat celestial objects as one-dimensional to make their numbers look interesting. They simply stir the facts together in a great big soup, until two disassocated numbers look similar. Then they pluck out the pair and declare "Mystery!"

The fact that a book like this could get published is pathetic. If you want science fiction, there's vastly better and more interesting out there; if you want science, there's simply nothing here. If you want baseless, juvenile speculation, then go hang out with your mates on Friday night and have a few beers. It'll be a lot more fun.


Luna paradox, 12 Nov 2006
Dear all, this book provided several interesting facts about the moon's dimensions and location, that appear to be beyond coincidence. I went to the NASA web-site to check the information. I was surprised that the Author didn't express in detail the fact that the Moon's rotation is exactly the same as the time it takes to orbit the Earth, which is why we always see the same face of the moon, it's perfectly syncronised, maybe this is to make us seek what is in the Farside perhaps (by following the Author's logic); though I suspect this was deliberate as the majority of the moons in our solar system share this feature and the Author wanted to demonstrate the uniqueness of our moon, which was achieved by other facts.

The Author's arguments were unbalanced and inconsistent in several areas. After debunking the Conspiracy theory that Man has never been to the Moon, he stated later that Darwin's Natural Selection was correct, however it is clear that Natural Selection remains only a theory of Evolution and has it's fair share of obvious weaknesses, which Darwin confessed.

Strangely enough the Author stated Darwin was correct having just written a chapter explaining how the Evolution of DNA by a Random accident was statistically impossible and therefore it had to have been created. Therefore, I assume, Selection need not have been Natural afterall but part of a created process or program, by following this logic. (I sense the Author was playing it safe by trying to please both Neo-Darwinists and Creationalists.)

If you are a supporter of the Faked Moon Missions then this book is a must read because far from debunking, I found that certain parts of this book actually support the conspiracy (unintentionally). The Author states that several explanations of the Moon's creation were invalid because Moon Rock was identical to certain Rocks from the Earth... meaning the Moon had to have been created from the Earth in the past.. this could also be interpreted by a Conspiracy theorist differently e.g. we never went to the moon and the rocks were actually from the Earth all along, which is why Moon Rock is the same as Earth Rock.

The Final theory of the book is really the weakest argument throughout, creating an obvious Paradox and the Author must have forgotten his earlier claims that Life could not have existed on the Earth without the Moon being there from the start of Life.

Despite the weaknesses this is a worthwhile read and I certainly discovered new facts about the Moon that are intrigueing.

Read it.


NB..
I would still question why it is taking so long to reach the Moon this time with advanced technology available when it was supposedly achieved in the 1960's within a very short-period of time, why couldn't NASA land men back on the Moon within a few years???

Strange but a very thought provoking argument, 15 Jun 2006
Quite remarkable. I came to this unusual book after it was studied by the National Science Teachers Association and found to have a case that required an answer. The maths used in this book are simple, clear and inescapably accurate. I see one reviewer has suggested (without substantiation) that the authors are in some way numerically illiterate. Not so.

People prefer to see proof of what they already believe to be true and it is obviously disconcerting when a book like this brings up so many inconvenient facts. A growing number of scientists are now realising the dishonesty that exists to protect old ideas. Terance Kealey a clinical biochemist and the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Buckingham has observed "Scientists actually treat facts the way barristers treat hostile witnesses... it is a myth that working scientists always respect falsifiability. Scientists often ignore inconvenient findings".

Anyone who likes to think for themselves should read this fascinating book and deal with the facts as they stand.

A typical little gem from Feynman, 15 Jun 2002
In his usual style, Feynman teaches us not only Newtonian and Keplerian orbital mechanics, but he does it in a new and amusing manner. Most importantly, in the broader view, he reinforces one of his greates tlessons of his teaching career - there's no single "right way" to prove, demonstrate or teach something. We all (nearly all ?) learn orbital mechanics through calculus. It's not a visual nor intuitive way of doing it, and it's a hard slog. Feynman's (actually it's probably Newton's) method does it through simple plane geometry that the ancient Greeks would understand.

The authors are to be congratulated on dusting off these lecture notes and presenting them so well packaged. They're well presented, accessible, and given just the right amount of background context.

Feynman fans will like this book anyway, but it's also a good taster for Feynman's style that any child studying GCSE applied maths or mechanics could understand.

Truly Brilliant, 12 Aug 2008
This book isexactly what it claims to be in the preface, the best introduction to astronomy and astrophysics for the mathematically literate around. its big, packed with useful information, the physics prelude reminds you of everything you know, and teaches some stuff you might not know. A reasonable grasp of physics (at least A-Level), and Algebra, Trigonometry, and Calculus is also required.

The book to get for 1st and 2nd year Astrophysics students, 02 Feb 2005
If you are doing a degree in Astrophysics or Astronomy and want a book that is going to last and provide a broad knowledge of astronomy and will last throughout your degree, this is a book to get. If you want pretty pictures and hand-wavy explanations and descriptions, get another book. If you want a bit a detail, and some solid (but not complicated) mathematical background to help understand the astrophysics presented more deeply, this book does a good job. It provides nice simple mathematical models for otherwise complicated processes such as stellar structure, planetary physics and galactic astronomy. It also has some useful appendicies with those easy-to-forget astronomical constants and numbers you need for homeworks. I bought this in the first year of my undergraduate degree, and I am still using it during my PhD. What more can I say?

Great book, maybe not the answer to your seminar prayers tho, 05 Apr 2003
This is a great book. I was recommended it for my course (physics with astrophysics) and as a first year have found it very useful in the more specific areas of study. Having said that, it gives a great overview of the subject matter. It is clearly set out in an easy to follow manner, and the information is understandable! (not a mean feat for astro books!). I would certainly recommend this book to anyone doing any space science/astronomy degree, and even to the informed reader who simply wants to learn more. A good understanding of physics is a must though (gcse-alevel) as it will not teach you ALL the fundementals. Really helpful, but don't expect it to simply dish out the answers to those seminar questions...

Really good undergraduate text, 28 May 2001
This was the recommended text some of the lecture courses in my Physics with Astronomy degree, and I have to say that I've returned to it time and time again.

Everything is explained clearly and all of the background knowledge you need to tackle a problem is given. It can be a bit daunting to a first-year undergraduate, although it will prove invaluable in second and third year - but in saying that, some more advanced concepts are not always developed as fully as you would expect.

All in all though - an excellent book, and a great complement to Carroll & Ostlie or Binney & Merrifield for more advanced stuff.

Brilliant overview of modern astrophyics, 28 Apr 2000
This book covers an astonishling range of theoretical and experimental astrophyisics in a hugely readable style. This is not a book aimed at the general public, but the mathematically literate (at least A level maths/physics) wanting a deep understanding of the universe will struggle to find better. Buy it !

Please produce an audio adaptation ..., 01 Jun 1999
To the publisher I would appreciate it if the publisher could produce an audio adaptation of this book. I would love to listen to this while I drive to work and to let my 16 month old son listen to it as a bedtime story. Arnold D Veness

the information contained therein is accurate and readable!, 13 Feb 1999
As far as I have been able to see with cross-referencing and my own checks and double-checks, the information in this publication is accurate. The layman ought be able to understand it with minimal effort. Very readable.

lunar origin, 05 Dec 2008

This book claims that there is no scientific explanation for the moon's origin. This simply not true. There is a very well developed theory that fits the facts extremely well and is being still refined. There is a principle in science known as Occam's Razor. This says that when faced with a set of data, choose the simplest explanation first, and when only when that fails move onto something less obvious. What the authors have done here is reverse the principle. they start with a set of data and the choose the least probable explanation first! There are too many examples of this type of book around.

astonishing facts but unfounded and illogical conclusions., 28 Nov 2007

Firstly I'm not sure if I'm a critic or a supporter of this book. I've given it 4 stars because the actual data and numbers that are given are extremely interesting and need to be known by the world. The ratios of days, orbits and diameters, are correct, even if not worded properly: "The moon is exactly 400 times smaller than the sun" should be "the diameter of" the moon, sun etc.

There is clearly something in this that needs further research, but there are a couple of things that bother me about the book.

I personally will not come to a conclusion about what all this means until I have analyzed it far more thoroughly. I might never come to a conclusion about it ever, unless there is an actual fact that proves or disproves something.

That is my main problem with this book, the conclusions the authors come to, have no evidence to support them, its pure speculation. Don't get me wrong, the planetary mechanics and ratios are amazing, and are far too perfect to be coincidence, but that doesn't mean that people from the future did it all, which is what the authors state is their best theory. Theres just as much evidence to support that idea as there is to say the whole solar system is the poo of a giant space fish.

I recommend everyone reads this book before they come to any conclusion and once they've read it don't just settle with the authors ideas. there are more possibilities than just god, aliens or people from the future. Perhaps the solar system is a living organism or maybe theres a completely natural phenomenon where for some reason not yet known to physics, planets harmonize themselves with each other on many different levels ie size, rotation, who knows?

Once these facts become more well known, everyone from Jehovahs witnesses to star trek fans are going to jump on the band wagon and try to use this to support their views.

What I'm trying to say is, the implications of what this could mean are endless, so please don't dismiss these remarkable figures just because someone says it means we are all slaves of the reptilians, or that these facts prove the plot to the terminator films actually happened.

And no matter what anyones opinion is,

The Earth still rotates about 366 times per orbit of the sun, and has a polar diameter 366.0431 percent larger than the moons.

The moon has an orbital period of 27.32 days and has a diameter 27.32 percent that of the Earths polar diameter.

The suns diameter is 109.2 times the size of Earths diameter, and the distance from the earth to the sun when we are at our furthest from it is 109.2 sun diameters.

if you divide 109.2 by 4 you get 27.3

366 moon orbits equal 10000 days

I could go on and on but the fact is you keep on getting the same recurring numbers and multiples of them again and again:

4
27.32
100
109.2
366

Mathematical idiocy, 19 Nov 2006
The synopsis tells you all you need to know about this book, in the sentence: "the Moon is exactly 400 times smaller than the Sun."

This is false, of course. The diameter of the moon is 400 times smaller than the diameter of the sun; but that does not mean the moon, as a whole, is 400 times smaller. The moon exists in 3 dimensions, not one. For example, the mass of the moon is about 27 million times smaller than the sun.

This is typical of the logic in this book. They go looking for correspondences, and they find them: even if they have to treat celestial objects as one-dimensional to make their numbers look interesting. They simply stir the facts together in a great big soup, until two disassocated numbers look similar. Then they pluck out the pair and declare "Mystery!"

The fact that a book like this could get published is pathetic. If you want science fiction, there's vastly better and more interesting out there; if you want science, there's simply nothing here. If you want baseless, juvenile speculation, then go hang out with your mates on Friday night and have a few beers. It'll be a lot more fun.


Luna paradox, 12 Nov 2006
Dear all, this book provided several interesting facts about the moon's dimensions and location, that appear to be beyond coincidence. I went to the NASA web-site to check the information. I was surprised that the Author didn't express in detail the fact that the Moon's rotation is exactly the same as the time it takes to orbit the Earth, which is why we always see the same face of the moon, it's perfectly syncronised, maybe this is to make us seek what is in the Farside perhaps (by following the Author's logic); though I suspect this was deliberate as the majority of the moons in our solar system share this feature and the Author wanted to demonstrate the uniqueness of our moon, which was achieved by other facts.

The Author's arguments were unbalanced and inconsistent in several areas. After debunking the Conspiracy theory that Man has never been to the Moon, he stated later that Darwin's Natural Selection was correct, however it is clear that Natural Selection remains only a theory of Evolution and has it's fair share of obvious weaknesses, which Darwin confessed.

Strangely enough the Author stated Darwin was correct having just written a chapter explaining how the Evolution of DNA by a Random accident was statistically impossible and therefore it had to have been created. Therefore, I assume, Selection need not have been Natural afterall but part of a created process or program, by following this logic. (I sense the Author was playing it safe by trying to please both Neo-Darwinists and Creationalists.)

If you are a supporter of the Faked Moon Missions then this book is a must read because far from debunking, I found that certain parts of this book actually support the conspiracy (unintentionally). The Author states that several explanations of the Moon's creation were invalid because Moon Rock was identical to certain Rocks from the Earth... meaning the Moon had to have been created from the Earth in the past.. this could also be interpreted by a Conspiracy theorist differently e.g. we never went to the moon and the rocks were actually from the Earth all along, which is why Moon Rock is the same as Earth Rock.

The Final theory of the book is really the weakest argument throughout, creating an obvious Paradox and the Author must have forgotten his earlier claims that Life could not have existed on the Earth without the Moon being there from the start of Life.

Despite the weaknesses this is a worthwhile read and I certainly discovered new facts about the Moon that are intrigueing.

Read it.


NB..
I would still question why it is taking so long to reach the Moon this time with advanced technology available when it was supposedly achieved in the 1960's within a very short-period of time, why couldn't NASA land men back on the Moon within a few years???

Strange but a very thought provoking argument, 15 Jun 2006
Quite remarkable. I came to this unusual book after it was studied by the National Science Teachers Association and found to have a case that required an answer. The maths used in this book are simple, clear and inescapably accurate. I see one reviewer has suggested (without substantiation) that the authors are in some way numerically illiterate. Not so.

People prefer to see proof of what they already believe to be true and it is obviously disconcerting when a book like this brings up so many inconvenient facts. A growing number of scientists are now realising the dishonesty that exists to protect old ideas. Terance Kealey a clinical biochemist and the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Buckingham has observed "Scientists actually treat facts the way barristers treat hostile witnesses... it is a myth that working scientists always respect falsifiability. Scientists often ignore inconvenient findings".

Anyone who likes to think for themselves should read this fascinating book and deal with the facts as they stand.

A typical little gem from Feynman, 15 Jun 2002
In his usual style, Feynman teaches us not only Newtonian and Keplerian orbital mechanics, but he does it in a new and amusing manner. Most importantly, in the broader view, he reinforces one of his greates tlessons of his teaching career - there's no single "right way" to prove, demonstrate or teach something. We all (nearly all ?) learn orbital mechanics through calculus. It's not a visual nor intuitive way of doing it, and it's a hard slog. Feynman's (actually it's probably Newton's) method does it through simple plane geometry that the ancient Greeks would understand.

The authors are to be congratulated on dusting off these lecture notes and presenting them so well packaged. They're well presented, accessible, and given just the right amount of background context.

Feynman fans will like this book anyway, but it's also a good taster for Feynman's style that any child studying GCSE applied maths or mechanics could understand.

Truly Brilliant, 12 Aug 2008
This book isexactly what it claims to be in the preface, the best introduction to astronomy and astrophysics for the mathematically literate around. its big, packed with useful information, the physics prelude reminds you of everything you know, and teaches some stuff you might not know. A reasonable grasp of physics (at least A-Level), and Algebra, Trigonometry, and Calculus is also required.

The book to get for 1st and 2nd year Astrophysics students, 02 Feb 2005
If you are doing a degree in Astrophysics or Astronomy and want a book that is going to last and provide a broad knowledge of astronomy and will last throughout your degree, this is a book to get. If you want pretty pictures and hand-wavy explanations and descriptions, get another book. If you want a bit a detail, and some solid (but not complicated) mathematical background to help understand the astrophysics presented more deeply, this book does a good job. It provides nice simple mathematical models for otherwise complicated processes such as stellar structure, planetary physics and galactic astronomy. It also has some useful appendicies with those easy-to-forget astronomical constants and numbers you need for homeworks. I bought this in the first year of my undergraduate degree, and I am still using it during my PhD. What more can I say?

Great book, maybe not the answer to your seminar prayers tho, 05 Apr 2003
This is a great book. I was recommended it for my course (physics with astrophysics) and as a first year have found it very useful in the more specific areas of study. Having said that, it gives a great overview of the subject matter. It is clearly set out in an easy to follow manner, and the information is understandable! (not a mean feat for astro books!). I would certainly recommend this book to anyone doing any space science/astronomy degree, and even to the informed reader who simply wants to learn more. A good understanding of physics is a must though (gcse-alevel) as it will not teach you ALL the fundementals. Really helpful, but don't expect it to simply dish out the answers to those seminar questions...

Really good undergraduate text, 28 May 2001
This was the recommended text some of the lecture courses in my Physics with Astronomy degree, and I have to say that I've returned to it time and time again.

Everything is explained clearly and all of the background knowledge you need to tackle a problem is given. It can be a bit daunting to a first-year undergraduate, although it will prove invaluable in second and third year - but in saying that, some more advanced concepts are not always developed as fully as you would expect.

All in all though - an excellent book, and a great complement to Carroll & Ostlie or Binney & Merrifield for more advanced stuff.

Brilliant overview of modern astrophyics, 28 Apr 2000
This book covers an astonishling range of theoretical and experimental astrophyisics in a hugely readable style. This is not a book aimed at the general public, but the mathematically literate (at least A level maths/physics) wanting a deep understanding of the universe will struggle to find better. Buy it !

Please produce an audio adaptation ..., 01 Jun 1999
To the publisher I would appreciate it if the publisher could produce an audio adaptation of this book. I would love to listen to this while I drive to work and to let my 16 month old son listen to it as a bedtime story. Arnold D Veness

the information contained therein is accurate and readable!, 13 Feb 1999
As far as I have been able to see with cross-referencing and my own checks and double-checks, the information in this publication is accurate. The layman ought be able to understand it with minimal effort. Very readable.

Excellent book, 08 Dec 2008
It is the most complete book that I know in general astronomy. The book includes the most relevant topics of modern astronomy and it approaches the concepts with interesting problems with solutions. An excellent book for astronomy students. The book have supplemental tests with questions and problems, but you need a solution book in that part.

lunar origin, 05 Dec 2008

This book claims that there is no scientific explanation for the moon's origin. This simply not true. There is a very well developed theory that fits the facts extremely well and is being still refined. There is a principle in science known as Occam's Razor. This says that when faced with a set of data, choose the simplest explanation first, and when only when that fails move onto something less obvious. What the authors have done here is reverse the principle. they start with a set of data and the choose the least probable explanation first! There are too many examples of this type of book around.

astonishing facts but unfounded and illogical conclusions., 28 Nov 2007

Firstly I'm not sure if I'm a critic or a supporter of this book. I've given it 4 stars because the actual data and numbers that are given are extremely interesting and need to be known by the world. The ratios of days, orbits and diameters, are correct, even if not worded properly: "The moon is exactly 400 times smaller than the sun" should be "the diameter of" the moon, sun etc.

There is clearly something in this that needs further research, but there are a couple of things that bother me about the book.

I personally will not come to a conclusion about what all this means until I have analyzed it far more thoroughly. I might never come to a conclusion about it ever, unless there is an actual fact that proves or disproves something.

That is my main problem with this book, the conclusions the authors come to, have no evidence to support them, its pure speculation. Don't get me wrong, the planetary mechanics and ratios are amazing, and are far too perfect to be coincidence, but that doesn't mean that people from the future did it all, which is what the authors state is their best theory. Theres just as much evidence to support that idea as there is to say the whole solar system is the poo of a giant space fish.

I recommend everyone reads this book before they come to any conclusion and once they've read it don't just settle with the authors ideas. there are more possibilities than just god, aliens or people from the future. Perhaps the solar system is a living organism or maybe theres a completely natural phenomenon where for some reason not yet known to physics, planets harmonize themselves with each other on many different levels ie size, rotation, who knows?

Once these facts become more well known, everyone from Jehovahs witnesses to star trek fans are going to jump on the band wagon and try to use this to support their views.

What I'm trying to say is, the implications of what this could mean are endless, so please don't dismiss these remarkable figures just because someone says it means we are all slaves of the reptilians, or that these facts prove the plot to the terminator films actually happened.

And no matter what anyones opinion is,

The Earth still rotates about 366 times per orbit of the sun, and has a polar diameter 366.0431 percent larger than the moons.

The moon has an orbital period of 27.32 days and has a diameter 27.32 percent that of the Earths polar diameter.

The suns diameter is 109.2 times the size of Earths diameter, and the distance from the earth to the sun when we are at our furthest from it is 109.2 sun diameters.

if you divide 109.2 by 4 you get 27.3

366 moon orbits equal 10000 days

I could go on and on but the fact is you keep on getting the same recurring numbers and multiples of them again and again:

4
27.32
100
109.2
366

Mathematical idiocy, 19 Nov 2006
The synopsis tells you all you need to know about this book, in the sentence: "the Moon is exactly 400 times smaller than the Sun."

This is false, of course. The diameter of the moon is 400 times smaller than the diameter of the sun; but that does not mean the moon, as a whole, is 400 times smaller. The moon exists in 3 dimensions, not one. For example, the mass of the moon is about 27 million times smaller than the sun.

This is typical of the logic in this book. They go looking for correspondences, and they find them: even if they have to treat celestial objects as one-dimensional to make their numbers look interesting. They simply stir the facts together in a great big soup, until two disassocated numbers look similar. Then they pluck out the pair and declare "Mystery!"

The fact that a book like this could get published is pathetic. If you want science fiction, there's vastly better and more interesting out there; if you want science, there's simply nothing here. If you want baseless, juvenile speculation, then go hang out with your mates on Friday night and have a few beers. It'll be a lot more fun.


Luna paradox, 12 Nov 2006
Dear all, this book provided several interesting facts about the moon's dimensions and location, that appear to be beyond coincidence. I went to the NASA web-site to check the information. I was surprised that the Author didn't express in detail the fact that the Moon's rotation is exactly the same as the time it takes to orbit the Earth, which is why we always see the same face of the moon, it's perfectly syncronised, maybe this is to make us seek what is in the Farside perhaps (by following the Author's logic); though I suspect this was deliberate as the majority of the moons in our solar system share this feature and the Author wanted to demonstrate the uniqueness of our moon, which was achieved by other facts.

The Author's arguments were unbalanced and inconsistent in several areas. After debunking the Conspiracy theory that Man has never been to the Moon, he stated later that Darwin's Natural Selection was correct, however it is clear that Natural Selection remains only a theory of Evolution and has it's fair share of obvious weaknesses, which Darwin confessed.

Strangely enough the Author stated Darwin was correct having just written a chapter explaining how the Evolution of DNA by a Random accident was statistically impossible and therefore it had to have been created. Therefore, I assume, Selection need not have been Natural afterall but part of a created process or program, by following this logic. (I sense the Author was playing it safe by trying to please both Neo-Darwinists and Creationalists.)

If you are a supporter of the Faked Moon Missions then this book is a must read because far from debunking, I found that certain parts of this book actually support the conspiracy (unintentionally). The Author states that several explanations of the Moon's creation were invalid because Moon Rock was identical to certain Rocks from the Earth... meaning the Moon had to have been created from the Earth in the past.. this could also be interpreted by a Conspiracy theorist differently e.g. we never went to the moon and the rocks were actually from the Earth all along, which is why Moon Rock is the same as Earth Rock.

The Final theory of the book is really the weakest argument throughout, creating an obvious Paradox and the Author must have forgotten his earlier claims that Life could not have existed on the Earth without the Moon being there from the start of Life.

Despite the weaknesses this is a worthwhile read and I certainly discovered new facts about the Moon that are intrigueing.

Read it.


NB..
I would still question why it is taking so long to reach the Moon this time with advanced technology available when it was supposedly achieved in the 1960's within a very short-period of time, why couldn't NASA land men back on the Moon within a few years???

Strange but a very thought provoking argument, 15 Jun 2006
Quite remarkable. I came to this unusual book after it was studied by the National Science Teachers Association and found to have a case that required an answer. The maths used in this book are simple, clear and inescapably accurate. I see one reviewer has suggested (without substantiation) that the authors are in some way numerically illiterate. Not so.

People prefer to see proof of what they already believe to be true and it is obviously disconcerting when a book like this brings up so many inconvenient facts. A growing number of scientists are now realising the dishonesty that exists to protect old ideas. Terance Kealey a clinical biochemist and the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Buckingham has observed "Scientists actually treat facts the way barristers treat hostile witnesses... it is a myth that working scientists always respect falsifiability. Scientists often ignore inconvenient findings".

Anyone who likes to think for themselves should read this fascinating book and deal with the facts as they stand.

A typical little gem from Feynman, 15 Jun 2002
In his usual style, Feynman teaches us not only Newtonian and Keplerian orbital mechanics, but he does it in a new and amusing manner. Most importantly, in the broader view, he reinforces one of his greates tlessons of his teaching career - there's no single "right way" to prove, demonstrate or teach something. We all (nearly all ?) learn orbital mechanics through calculus. It's not a visual nor intuitive way of doing it, and it's a hard slog. Feynman's (actually it's probably Newton's) method does it through simple plane geometry that the ancient Greeks would understand.

The authors are to be congratulated on dusting off these lecture notes and presenting them so well packaged. They're well presented, accessible, and given just the right amount of background context.

Feynman fans will like this book anyway, but it's also a good taster for Feynman's style that any child studying GCSE applied maths or mechanics could understand.

Truly Brilliant, 12 Aug 2008
This book isexactly what it claims to be in the preface, the best introduction to astronomy and astrophysics for the mathematically literate around. its big, packed with useful information, the physics prelude reminds you of everything you know, and teaches some stuff you might not know. A reasonable grasp of physics (at least A-Level), and Algebra, Trigonometry, and Calculus is also required.

The book to get for 1st and 2nd year Astrophysics students, 02 Feb 2005
If you are doing a degree in Astrophysics or Astronomy and want a book that is going to last and provide a broad knowledge of astronomy and will last throughout your degree, this is a book to get. If you want pretty pictures and hand-wavy explanations and descriptions, get another book. If you want a bit a detail, and some solid (but not complicated) mathematical background to help understand the astrophysics presented more deeply, this book does a good job. It provides nice simple mathematical models for otherwise complicated processes such as stellar structure, planetary physics and galactic astronomy. It also has some useful appendicies with those easy-to-forget astronomical constants and numbers you need for homeworks. I bought this in the first year of my undergraduate degree, and I am still using it during my PhD. What more can I say?

Great book, maybe not the answer to your seminar prayers tho, 05 Apr 2003
This is a great book. I was recommended it for my course (physics with astrophysics) and as a first year have found it very useful in the more specific areas of study. Having said that, it gives a great overview of the subject matter. It is clearly set out in an easy to follow manner, and the information is understandable! (not a mean feat for astro books!). I would certainly recommend this book to anyone doing any space science/astronomy degree, and even to the informed reader who simply wants to learn more. A good understanding of physics is a must though (gcse-alevel) as it will not teach you ALL the fundementals. Really helpful, but don't expect it to simply dish out the answers to those seminar questions...

Really good undergraduate text, 28 May 2001
This was the recommended text some of the lecture courses in my Physics with Astronomy degree, and I have to say that I've returned to it time and time again.

Everything is explained clearly and all of the background knowledge you need to tackle a problem is given. It can be a bit daunting to a first-year undergraduate, although it will prove invaluable in second and third year - but in saying that, some more advanced concepts are not always developed as fully as you would expect.

All in all though - an excellent book, and a great complement to Carroll & Ostlie or Binney & Merrifield for more advanced stuff.

Brilliant overview of modern astrophyics, 28 Apr 2000
This book covers an astonishling range of theoretical and experimental astrophyisics in a hugely readable style. This is not a book aimed at the general public, but the mathematically literate (at least A level maths/physics) wanting a deep understanding of the universe will struggle to find better. Buy it !

Please produce an audio adaptation ..., 01 Jun 1999
To the publisher I would appreciate it if the publisher could produce an audio adaptation of this book. I would love to listen to this while I drive to work and to let my 16 month old son listen to it as a bedtime story. Arnold D Veness

the information contained therein is accurate and readable!, 13 Feb 1999
As far as I have been able to see with cross-referencing and my own checks and double-checks, the information in this publication is accurate. The layman ought be able to understand it with minimal effort. Very readable.

Excellent book, 08 Dec 2008
It is the most complete book that I know in general astronomy. The book includes the most relevant topics of modern astronomy and it approaches the concepts with interesting problems with solutions. An excellent book for astronomy students. The book have supplemental tests with questions and problems, but you need a solution book in that part.

The noblest astronomer, 04 Jul 2007
This is a gripping account of the life and times of the greatest observational astronomer before the invention of the telescope. He established a new kind of observatory, with instruments of exquisite accuracy, and he founded the first research institute (under royal patronage) in Europe. His observational records enabled his protege Johannes Kepler to unlock the secrets of planetary motion. This is by far and away the best modern account of Brahe and his impact. It is a superb biography, and a great read. Enjoy!