Reviews for Compact Stars

The average rating for Compact Stars based on 2 reviews is 5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2009-08-26 00:00:00 Marvin Stehr This was the main text for my Physics course in the Fall 2014 semester, and I hated it. First of all, the author projects a self-important, heavily biased, and defensive front and thus spends much more time making unprovable assertions than giving useful information. For instance, the first sentence of Chapter 3 is, "We know the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the faint echo of the Big Bang." In the beginning of the next paragraph, we read that "The universe was remarkably uniform (homogenous and isotropic) in its initial stages, and as a confirmation of this, observations show the CMB is also remarkably uniform . . . [yet] the search for . . . anisotropies [differences'the opposite of isotropy] was the holy grail of cosmology" (45). In other words, the sameness of the universe and CMB "proves" the Big Bang Theory, but the Big Bang Theory relies on differences, so that is what we found in the exact sameness. We have isotropy and anisotropy at the same time'despite the fact that these two opposites should not be able to exist in the same place at the same time. That is, after all, one of the points of particle physics as far as matter and antimatter or particles and antiparticles are concerned, correct? After all, the differences only came to 1/100,000'or 0.00001. That is miniscule, yet evidently these teeny differences are humongous in import, despite the fact that the Big Bang should predict larger differences. So Martin Ratcliffe represents two problems: first, sticking with a theory and trying to prove it when no definitive proof exists or he can present no such proof; second, teaching the questionable "proof" as infallible fact. Ratcliffe takes an entirely unscientific approach to science. Ratcliffe is also inconsistent; for example, take the first few pages. On page xvii of the Introduction, he quotes Joel Primack as saying that "What is emerging is humanity's first picture of the universe as a whole that might actually be true." Here, Ratcliffe establishes the concept of a literal "universal truth" that is the goal of modern science. However, if you turn to the very next page'page 1'he says that "Science is a process that never reaches an ultimate truth, but instead continually improves or revises theories that become the best working knowledge of how the universe works. In other words, he has revoked the concept of universal truth. For these reasons and more, I found this to be a generally unreadable text. I consider myself to have a high reading level and comprehension'-I am an English Teaching major and my favorite pastimes are reading and writing'-yet I found this book extremely difficult to comprehend. I always read the assigned reading in all of my classes, and often more than required, yet I found myself unable to read this book without the aid of the lectures. When we were assigned Chapter 3 to read, for example, I read it through at the beginning of the week. I had zero comprehension. The next day, I read it while walking to try to better understand it'I have heard that people learn better when moving. 45 minutes later, I was near tears and had read the entire chapter--twice!--without understanding anything. Anything. Part of it was the way that the material was organized. Part of it was that Ratcliffe made assertions that he couldn't or wouldn't back up. Part of it was that he used figurative language in a confusing manner'for instance, when talking about microwaves, he said that "The wavelength of these microwaves is a few percent of the wavelength found in microwave ovens, and would be highly inefficient at heating your food" (45). Highly confusing and not at all helpful for actually understanding this particular type of microwave radiation. And yet another part of it was that he put me on the defensive from the very first sentence by explaining that "We know . . . " without actually giving any information AT ALL about HOW we know whatever. And, to go back to the first chapter, there are a couple of things that stick out. First of all, the declaration that we matter because we are stardust is in the same chapter as the overview of cosmological history (Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Galileo, etc.). Think about that for a second and let it embrace you. We are stardust. Does anything about that seem remotely fantastical? No? Okay. Moving on. The second thing, which may seem a wee bit conspiratorial, is the diagram on page 21. Take a gander here. Does anything about this seem odd to you? (Hint: Think "New World Order.") Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there. How did this book get published?!

Review # 2 was written on 2015-02-27 00:00:00 Jay Nichols It's not an advance book.