Sunday, July 25, 2010

Parallel Worlds












Title:
Parallel WorldsAuthor: Michio KakuPublisher: Penguin Books 2006 (First published 2005)ISBN: 978-0-141-01463-0Pages: 381
Michio Kaku’s colossal work on what’s going on in cosmology and leading-edge physical research. Every topic imaginable in the confines of these disciplines is collated and elucidated in fine detail in the inimitable Kaku style. Though the subject and the title is a little esoteric, the world renowned author makes them understandable even to the layman. The book is divided into three main parts, subtitled The Universe, The Mutiverse and Escape into Hyperspace. In part 1, the origin and expansion of the universe is described in a lucid manner. The Big Bang and the subsequent inflation (the incredible, superliminal expansion of the Universe right after the instant of the Big Bang) are explained. Several paradoxes associated with the development of cosmology like Olber’s paradox are brought into clear light. In the second part, advanced concepts such as dimensional portals, time travel, parallel quantum universes, string and M-theories are described. Part 3 concerns itself with the eschatological models of the universe. Several variations of the end, like the Big Crunch, Big Freeze etc are given and analysed in detail. As per the latest scientific findings, the universe will continue to expand and the most likely scenario is the Big Freeze, when all the heat is dissipated due to the unabated expansion, combined with the increased separation of particles. Such a ‘heat death’ seems inevitable in several tens of billions of years which might end all intelligent life, unless such life finds a wormhole to another habitable parallel universe which exist side by side with ours all the time, but which is inaccessible to us by the limiting nature of our current technology.
Experimental results and the current state of knowledge on matters relating to the age and composition of the cosmos is illustrated. According to physicists, the universe consists of 4% matter, 23% dark matter and the remaining 73% dark energy (in the form of antigravity). Also, the data obtained from the WMAP satellite (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) proves that the universe continues to expand and the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years. As one group of scientists believe, parallel universes are spawning from the current one in infinite numbers, in several big bangs occurring at every instant. The Newton’s Principia Mathematica was the most famous single science publication of all time. The motivation behind the enterprise is described. Edmund Halley, an amateur astronomer studied the comet which appeared in 1682 and found the periodicity of it. The comet was later made eponymous to Halley. He was a friend of Newton and asked him what force might possibly exert on the comet for this regularity of appearances, to which Newton replied that the comet was moving in an ellipse as a consequence of an inverse square law. He said he was observing the comet with a telescope he has built and found that it was obeying the law. Halley was shocked and Newton simply said that he had calculated it. Impressed by the significance of this monumental breakthrough, Halley encouraged and financed the publication of the seminal work of which 250 copies were printed in that first run.
A nice elucidation of Olber’s paradox is given. This starts by asking why the night sky is black. Astronomers as early as Johannes Kepler realized that if the universe were uniform and infinite, then wherever you looked, you’d see the light from an infinite number of stars. Gazing at any point in the night sky, our line of sight will eventually cross an uncountable number of stars and thus receive an infinite amount of starlight. Thus the night sky should be white, instead of black. The paradox is deceptively simple, but has bedeviled many generations of philosophers and astronomers. The answer comes from the Big Bang, which states that though there may be infinite number of stars, many of them are so far away by the initial explosion that there has not been sufficient time for their light to reach earth. Also, the fixed life of stars may cause those in the visible universe to die out too.
George Gamow, a Russian scientist was the man behind the theory of the Big Bang. A curious anecdote is given of how he veered his career to science. The turning point in his early life came when he went to church and secretly took home some communion bread after the service. Looking through a microscope, he could see no difference between the communion bread, representing the flesh of Jesus Christ, and ordinary bread. He concluded, “I think this was the experiment which made me a scientist” (p.53). The origins of elements are described as, “The very light elements up to mass 5 and 8 were created by the Big Bang, as Gamow believed. Today, as the result of discoveries in physics we know that the Big Bang did produce most of the deuterium, helium-3, helium-4 and lithium-7 we see in nature. But the heavier elements up to iron were mostly cooked in the cores of the stars. If we add the elements beyond iron (such as copper, zinc and gold) that were blasted out by the blistering heat of a supernova, then we have a complete picture explaining the relative abundances of all the elements in the universe” (p.65).
There are immense gamma ray bursters in deep space as a result of immense nuclear interactions. “The discovery of them makes interesting reading. In the 70s, at the height of cold war, U.S. launched the Vela satellite to specifically spot nuke flashes or unauthorized detonation of nuclear bombs. Because a nuclear detonation unfolds in distinct stages, microsecond by microsecond, each nuke flash gives off a characteristic double flash of light that can be seen by satellite. (It picked up two such flashes in the 1970s off the coast of Prince Edward Island near South Africa, in the presence of Israeli warships, sightings that are still being debated by the intelligence community). But what startled the Pentagon was that the Vela satellite was picking up signs of huge nuclear explosions in space. Was the Soviet Union secretly detonating hydrogen bombs in deep space, using an unknown, advanced technology? Concerned that the Soviets might have leapfrogged over the U.S. in weapons technology, top scientists were brought in to analyze these deeply disturbing signals. After the breakup of USSR, there was no need to classify this information and these data was dumped on the astronomical community” (p.126).
A theory on the origin and development of the universe appealing to most of the believers is the anthropic theory. It states that the physical parameters so crucial to intelligent life are finetuned to a fine margin which implies that a superior being, sometimes called God had tweaked these settings. This is the strong anthropic principle. The weaker version of this principle states that the settings are exactly as required, otherwise we won’t be able to observe it. There may be universes in which these constants have different values in which life may not exist. Alan Guth, the scientist who discovered inflation immediately after the big bang commented on anthropic principle as, “I find it hard to believe that anybody would ever use the anthropic principle if he had a better explanation for something. I’ve yet, for example, to hear an anthropic principle of world history…The anthropic principle is something that people do if they can’t think of anything better to do” (p.249). Religionists and other god-believers often gloat over the supposed religiosities of prominent scientists like Newton and Einstein. Though the personal beliefs of scientists are no matter which need to involve the great principles they formulated, the bravado and false sense of glory of the religious propagandists are often grating on the nerves. However, Einstein’s comments on God may be useful to put them in their proper place. He said, “I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings….I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation….Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body” (p.357).
The book however, unnecessarily attempts to reconcile scientific concepts to religious dogmas like the creative and eschatological myths prevalent in many civilizations. Kaku virtually supports the ideas of the Big Bang and parallel universes supports divine creation and nirvana. Such thoughts are disturbing in a scientific anthology. Instead of laying threadbare the illogic behind such religious concepts, he goes out of the way to suit advanced physical theories to fit the loose coat of religious fantasies which are adaptive to any theory. Also, the long list of acknowledged personalities, including nine Nobel laureates and several aspirants, is a little boastful! The author is an expert of String theory and contributed greatly to its invention. This has resulted in a long and dense description of the finer details of the theory like symmetries, n-dimesional membranes etc, which goes on top of average readers. Attempts describing the end of the universe lacks convincing detail and on many occasions, falls to the level of mere speculation and metaphysics. An unduly long portion of the book is dedicated to such theories, like escaping to parallel universes the existence of which is not verified and is not probable that they be verified for a considerable time to come.
In the final consideration, the book is of tremendous value to a reader on science and is a must if you collect such books. Michio Kaku’s books are a delight to read and the satisfaction we extract out of these magnificent works of sheer research and intuition is most gratifying. Highly recommended.
Rating: 4 Star

Friday, July 23, 2010

Newton and the Counterfeiter













Title:
Newton and the CounterfeiterEditor: Thomas LevensonPublisher: Faber and Faber 2009 (First)ISBN: 978-0-571-22992-5Pages: 247

Thomas Levenson is a prominent writer of popular science titles and has ten science documentary films to his credit. He is a Professor of Science Writing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The present book concerns with the encounter between Sir Isaac Newton, probably the greatest scientist ever lived and William Chaloner, a master counterfeiter in 17th century London. After completing 35 years of work in Cambridge which saw the publication of his magnum opus, Principia Mathematica, Newton was somewhat fed up with life in a provincial town. The feeling was accentuated by his service in Parliament for 4 years in the beginning of the last decade of 17th century which put Emperor William on the throne. Through highly placed connections, he managed to be appointed as the Warden of the Mint. England’s coinage was going through a difficult stage at that time. Coins were struck with the full value of silver in weight. This was naturally subject to pilferage in the form of grinding and scratching. Besides, an error in the exchange rate of silver to gold in England caused more gold to be bought in France for the same amount of silver. So smugglers melted silver coins to ingots, transported them to France, convert them to gold, bring the gold back to England and again convert it to silver coins, beginning the process again. Simple processes were in vogue to produce these coins and this led to widespread counterfeiting. The issue was so grave as to put hurdles in the way of England’s armies fighting in Belgium against France. The emperor was finding it difficult to finance the armies. Newton assumed charge of the Mint at this juncture and by virtue of his ingenuity and acute observational talent, organised the Mint’s operation that he recoined all silver coins in vogue in record time! Though not an economist, he quickly grasped the innards of macro-economics and shone brightly in the political life of that time.
William Chaloner was a criminal specializing in counterfeiting. His encyclopedic knowledge of the underworld helped him set up quick facilities for coining of fine worksmanship that it was very difficult to tell his coins apart from the good ones. He was a cunning man and schemed to acquire Newton’s position as the Warden of the Mint. He influenced several leading statesmen and parliamentary committees with his advice on how to tide over the monetary crises and what steps were to be taken to be one step ahead of the counterfeiters. Though he was arrested and jailed on many occasions, he somehow managed to avoid standing trial, sometimes by giving testimonies against his accomplices. But, getting into the Mint turned out to be a tough proposition and he was ruled against the job. He then turned to polemical remarks and accusations against Newton and called him incompetent to do the job. Newton didn’t respond to such outrages in public, but patiently collected evidence from witnesses and former accomplices against Chaloner. As the regular police force was still not established, anti-counterfeiting activities were the prerogative of the Warden, and as such, he had quasi-judicial and police powers. Newton’s systematic efforts bore fruit at last and his evidence helped him earn a sentence of hanging to death for Chaloner. He was hanged on the scaffold in 1699.
The book gives a general description of both the protagonists’ early career, and of course, Newton’s career is what interests us most. He was practically an orphan as his mother remarried after his father’s death and was earnest in sending him for farm work. But a clergy man prompted her to send her son to Cambridge which recognised the talent in the young man of 19 and held him till he was 54. He was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics until he resigned to take over as the Warden of the Mint. Though Chaloner is portrayed as a mafia don of somewhat equal standing as that of Newton, the story and several incidents make us doubt the veracity of this statement. Chaloner was frequently in jail for minor felonies and this speaks about his connections! He used to get out of prison by turning informer against his former colleagues in the scheme. Such a man can confront the world’s leading scientist is a bit difficult to accept. Also, the evidence collected against this man was meagre and he was convicted on false evidence, for a previous crime committed by him. The judge and jury was prejudiced to convict the victim and his pleas that the court was overstepping its jurisdiction were also turned down, even though it was a valid argument in current legal practice. Chaloner’s fervent appeals to Newton for his life fell on deaf ears as it seemed that Newton was hell bent on avenging Chaloner for terming him ‘incompetent’.
The book is written in a witty style which appeals to us. Interspersed with Middle English quotations from journals and papers of the time, it keeps up a lively thread unbroken through the entire span of the book. The three laws of motion is given in Newton’s own words as,
  1. Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by forces impressed.
  1. A change in motion is proportional to the motive force impressed and takes place along the straight line in which that force is impressed.
  1. To any action there is always an opposite and equal reaction; in other words, the actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal and always opposite in direction.
Also, Newton’s thought provoking, self written epitaph runs as follows,
“I don’t know what I may seem to the world, but as to myself, I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered around me”.
The book is very interesting and is highly recommended.
Rating: 4 Star

Saturday, July 17, 2010

A History of Civilizations












Title:
A History of CivilizationsEditor: Fernand BraudelPublisher: Penguin Books 1995 (First published 1963)ISBN: 0-14-01-2489-6Pages: 573

Fernand Braudel (1902-1985) was a French historian who had spent much of the second world war in Germany as a prisoner where he wrote many of his works. Braudel belongs to the Annales group of historians and was still working on this book when he died in 1985. The book is not a pure history in its traditionalist sense of the word. There are no lists of wars, kings, emperors, struggles for succession and other nitty-gritty of history which we are long accustomed to. The author lives more in the present and after a brief examination of the distant past of a particular civilization, he quickly turns to the social, economic and political concerns affecting this particular country or people and addresses it from the point of view of a liberal western thinker. The arguments are left-leaning on many occasions and a tinge of colonial apology was also evident. Braudel was convinced that without a brief, though brutal, phase of colonial rule, the less developed third world countries couldn’t find their places in the world economy.
The book is set with the right perspective on how to approach the issue of civilizations, by addressing the issue of how the word originated. “The word ‘civilization – a neologism – emerged in the 18th century France. It was formed from ‘civilized’ and ‘to civilize’. Its modern meaning, ‘the process of becoming civilized’ appeared later in 1752 from the pen of French statesman and economist Anne Robert Jacques Turgot. The official debut of the word in print occurred in 1756, in a work entitled ‘A Treatise on Population’ by Victor Riqueti”. The main categories of the book are, Civilizations outside Europe (in which he condenses Islamic, Indian and Chinese civilizations), Africa and European civilizations. Clearly, this Europe-centred view is characteristic of the fallacy of many European historians who see in their tiny quarrelsome continent the salvation of the entire world. Braudel declares Islamic civilization as essentially urban in nature. “Islam’s golden age lasted, broadly speaking, from the reign of Mamun, the creator of the House of Science in Baghdad, to the death of Averroes, the last of the great Muslim philosophers which took place at Marrakesh in 1198.” (p.73). The Islamic life centred on the town where the grand mosque was situated, with a conglomeration of public markets, baths, brothels and other urban peculiarities. Circling these urban oases, lay vast expanses of countryside destined with the sole task of supplying the needs of the townspeople.
A brilliantly thought out reason for the prevalent non-vegetarianism in the West is given. “The West, consuming wheat and other cereals, was obliged to adopt, very early in its history, first the practice of leaving fields fallow and then the rotation of crops. Otherwise, the soil was rapidly exhausted and wheat produced no yield. Part of the land, therefore, automatically became grassland or pasture – all the more so because wheat growing required considerable help from animals. Rice, by contrast, can be grown in the same area every year, indefinitely. Most of the work is manual, and buffaloes are used only for light work in the mud of the paddy fields. Everywhere, indeed, crops are tended meticulously by hand. In these circumstances, to feed on meat would be a fantastic waste. The animals would have to be fed on grain, which human beings themselves prefer to eat.” (p.159).
Babur’s condescending remarks about India, the country he conquered in 1526 is noted for the scorn it contains. “Although Hindustan is a country full of natural charm, its inhabitants are ungracious, and dealings with them yield no pleasure, no response and no lasting relationship. Without intelligence, ability and cordiality; they know nothing of generosity or manly feeling. In their ideas as in their work they lack method, staying-power, order and principle. They have neither good horses nor tasty meat: they have no grapes, no melons and no succulent fruit. There is no ice here, and no fresh water. In the markets one can obtain neither sophisticated food nor even good bread. Baths, candles, torches, chandeliers, schools – none of these is known” (p.165).
The author’s short-sighted remarks about India may be excused as revelation of his own ignorance about the culture and civilization in this part of the world. But, a person writing a book under the somewhat pompous title of ‘A History of Civilizations’ should have devoted more time to read the history of a country on which he intends to comment in a negative way. Perhaps swayed by the brutal bloodshed pursuant to the partition of India in 1947, he remarks that, “India is an amalgam of areas, and also of disparate experiences, which never quite succeed in forming a single whole. It is also too densely populated, being 438 million in 1963. It is furthermore very diverse. In the South is Deccan, a region of conservative peoples and civilizations, obstinately resisting change. In the North-West, the arid lands of the Indus are linked with Iran, and Central Asia. Finally (except under the British Raj) no single political power has ever succeeded in dominating the whole subcontinent, either in the past or in the present, following its violent and sanguinary partition between India and Pakistan in 1947” (p.217). The origin of the word ‘Dravidian’ is mentioned as, “The word Dravidian, awkwardly coined in 1856 by Bishop Robert Caldwell but now unavoidable, denotes the languages of the Deccan, not its races” (p.228). The nature of Muslim rule in India is correctly described as “The Muslims, who were few in number and based solely in the larger towns, could not rule the country except by systematic terror. Cruelty was the norm – burnings, summary executions, crucifixions or impalements, inventive tortures. Hindu temples were destroyed to make way for mosques. On occasion there were forced conversions. If ever there were an uprising, it was instantly and savagely repressed: houses were burned, the countryside was laid waste, men were slaughtered and women were taken as sex slaves” (p.232).
A sharp and clear description of the fabled Indian rural economy is given as “The ancient subsistence economy of the villages lasted a long time. Since it comprised both farmers and artisans, it had little need of the outside world, except for salt and iron, and so remained almost a closed system. Its social organization was based on the castes, keeping all the villagers in their place, from the brahmin to the elders, or to the wealthier peasants who belonged to the higher castes. At the bottom of the scale, the majority were untouchables, labouring on the land” (p.239). Indian economy depended on the aid by superpowers during its first five-year plans as “India was obliged to invoke foreign aid which was by no means free of charge. This brought into play once more the spectacular rivalry between the United States and the USSR. Each was to supply 5 per cent of the foreign aid envisaged in India’s third five-year plan. The Soviet Union concentrated its funds on large-scale projects such as the Bhilai steel works; the United States, which in the past had given twenty times as much as its rival, spread its aid over a number of areas” (p.250), which gave the former more visibility among the public and was wrongly thought to be India’s partner in its progressive march to Industrialization.
Whatever may be the drawbacks imposed by British colonialism in India, the introduction of English as a means of common language had galvanized Indian efforts to attain self-rule. This is in sharp contrast with Dutch Indonesia, where “Dutch has not survived in the same way in Indonesia, for a number of reasons but essentially because the Dutch (with the exception of a few belated and inadequate efforts) did not develop modern technical education or the teaching of their own language. They wanted, claims on economist, ‘to establish their superiority on the basis of the natives’ ignorance. The use of Dutch would have narrowed the gap between the rulers and the ruled – and that had to be avoided at all costs” (p.266).
The dictatorial tendency of the communist regime in USSR is brought out, as “Power was seized by the Communist party – i.e. by a tiny minority of the vast Russian population, perhaps some 100,000 people all told. This highly organized minority took advantage of the appalling stampede of 10 or 12 million peasants, escaping from the army and flooding back to their villages. Lenin is said to have asked: “If Tsarism could last for centuries thanks to 130,000 aristocratic feudal landowners with police powers in their regions, why should I not be able to hold out for a few decades with a party of 130,000 devoted militants?”. He is also said to have remarked, in Napoleonic fashion: ‘We’ll attack, and then we’ll see’” (p.555).
A very prescient analysis of traditional and modern societies are given as “Instead of the very small intellectual elite and the very large mass of illiterates that traditional civilizations maintained, modern civilizations present a more complex picture: a small elite, a very small number of illiterates and a mass of people for whom education is mainly vocational, not a form of higher intellectual training” (p.564).
To summarise, a good book with a lot of scope for innovation. Scant attention to detail, particularly to matters outside Europe and the tendency to view issues from the French side of the question plagues the work. Jawaharlal Nehru is indicated as the President of India which he never was. Also, written in 1963, in the heyday of communism, many of the international issues and analyses are no longer valid. Since Braudel follows every civilization to the present and dedicates most of the discussion on the present-day issues, the loss of focus and relevance for the 21st century undermines the aim of the book. But, even with all these shortcomings, the effort to put together all of the world’s greatest cultures including Africa (which is not seen in many other works) is highly commendable.
The book is highly recommended.
Rating: 3 Star

Friday, July 9, 2010

The Ayatollah Begs to Differ








Title: The Ayatollah Begs to Differ – The Paradox of Modern Iran
Author: Hooman Majd
Publisher: Penguin Books 2009 (First published 2008)
ISBN: 978-0-141-04741-6
Pages: 252
A contemporary view of what’s happening in Iran like the attitudes of the political and religious elite and the common masses is given in a witty style in this book. Hooman Majd was born in Tehran and being the son of a diplomat, was brought up in U.K and the U.S. He is an American by citizenship and lives in New York. His claim that he is cent per cent Iranian and cent per cent American is borne out by the ideas and the ways in which he presented them in this book. It is essentially regarding the impressions two or three visits to Iran has generated in the author’s mind. Majd is a relative of the former President of Iran, Mohammed Khatami and being the official translator of the current President Mahmud Ahmedinejad when he visited the U.N, had easy access to the top echelons of Iranian bureaucracy.
Hooman Majd stresses the falsity of the ideas embedded on the western psyche about what Iran is and what the Iranian people desires. Contrary to vicious propaganda, the people in Iran are not oppressed by the clerics and a counter-revolution is definitely not on their agenda. Iran is a deeply religious society and being the only theocratic state ruled by the clergy except Vatican, the achievements of that country are not to be seen lightly. Several drawbacks and characteristic blunders of the current incumbent in the Presidency are described such as the intransigence and the ill-advised denial of the Jewish holocaust. Ahmedinejad is a doctor by profession but has poor working class background. He still preserves that image and every middle class citizen can associate with him. The west don’t understand this basic concept and that’s why Iranian dissidents operating from abroad don’t find resonance to their ideas inside Iran.
Interesting customs and practises of the society are given in a very humorous manner. The ta’arouf, is the social etiquette where each one belittle their own self and showers lavish praise on the other. A guest visiting a friend would find himself surrounded by requests like, “we know you didn’t have a good time, but we’d compensate for it when you visit next”. Similarly, you may have to beg a taxi-driver to accept your money, as out of ta’arouf, they won’t specifically name the sum. An example is given, in which the author had to pay more than the actual tariff. This is a quirk of the social life there. A very apt proverb is mentioned. “You say something; I believe it. You insist; I begin to wonder. You swear on it; I know you’re lying”.
Majd describes how the ancient name of Persia was replaced with Iran in 1936. “It is said that Reza Shah’s ambassador to Berlin in the mid-1930s, probably with advice and nudges from German ministers, put forth to the foreign ministry and his king that Persia should be known to the outside world as “Iran”, a word meaning “land of the Aryans” and used by inhabitants of the land since at least Sassanid times (226 C.E.). In an article in the January 26, 1936 issue of the New York Times, Oliver McKee stated, “At the suggestion of the Persian Legation in Berlin, the Teheran government……substituted Iran for Persia as the official name of the country. Its decision was influenced by the Nazi revival of interest in the so-called Aryan races, cradled in ancient Persia. As the Ministry of Foreign Affairs set forth in its memorandum on the subject, ‘Perse’ the French designation of Persia, connoted the weakness and tottering independence of the country in the nineteenth century, when it was a pawn on the chess board of European imperialistic rivalry. ‘Iran’ by contrast, conjured up memories of the vigour and splendour of its historic past”. (p.160-161).
In a prescient analysis of the Iranian middle class, Majd’s comments on them fits admirably well to the corresponding class in India’s society. “As long as they can continue to make a living, maintain their wealth, travel freely, and party as they please in private, the members of this secular elite are generally unwilling to jeopardize their comfortable lifestyles for the sake of any form of political activism. They have political opinions, of course, and they express them openly among friends in the privacy of their homes, but they seem uninterested in any real activism – the kinds of efforts that would include attending or organizing protest rallies or marches – and they are no threat to the Islamic Republic”. (p. 189).
Being a good book in which the author is firmly in touch with the ground realities, as compared to the works of some of the western journalists who churn out books of encyclopediac nature with little regard to what the concerned public’s opinions are, this book is highly recommended. There are some aspect, of course, in which the author’s opinions hardly differ from that of the religious fanatics who rule Iran. Unnecessary praise is heaped on his relative and former President Mohammed Khatami while piling up scorn for his successor, Ahmedinejad. One drawback which can be said against is the absence of a glossary of terms at the end. The term ‘Ayatollah’ is never in fact defined in the entirety of the text! They are the top most religious leaders and the most senior among them are called ‘Grand Ayatollah’. The leader of the Islamic revolution, Ruhollah Khomeini, and the present supreme leader, Ali Khamenei are Grand Ayatollahs.
Rating: 3 Star

Sunday, July 4, 2010

Who Built the Moon?










Title: Who
Built the Moon?
Author: Christopher Knight, Alan Butler

Publisher: Watkins Publishing 2007 (South Asian Edition)

ISBN: 978-1842-93132-5

Pages: 254


This book in fact does not deserve a place here to be reviewed, based on the ideals stated above in the title. The book is pseudo-science of the worst kind, with no real material and based on empty rhetoric and numerology! The authors assert that the moon is not a natural object and it was created artificially. We’d wonder who had made such a thing 4.6 billion years ago. Unable to pronounce any alien life, it says that humans of the future did this to facilitate life on earth early on. We’d ask how could people in the future can go to the past and create their own ancestors? There comes the obstinate reply that time travel is not discarded by laws of Physics! Of course it is not discarded, but what proof have you junkheads, to claim that it do exist? Several so called proofs are laid out in front of us, to ascertain that moon is a designed object. Many of them are comically ridiculous, but some of them are as follows.

1. The location of the moon with respect to the sun is strategic. The size of moon is 1/400th that of the sun and hence it is located at a distance of 1/400th from earth to the sun, so that eclipses can happen.


2. There are numerological significance between the sizes of earth and moon, if you express them in metric units. The metric units are revealed to mankind thousands of years ago by some external agency, which the authors call Unknown Creative Agency (UCA) first, then calls God and finally, people from the future.


3. The metric unit of length (metre) is linked to the size of barley, hence barley is a genetically engineered crop, given to mankind about 5000 years ago.

These nonsensical arguments go on and on. There is no need to replicate all of them here. With some more imagination, the authors could’ve converted this to a science fiction novel. The boisterous list of references given at the end of the book include FoxNews, CNN etc. There are also claims that the Book of Genesis in the Bible is literally true! To be fair to other religions too, they argue that the creation myths of these religions also are passable, with some suggested modifications.


I’d found this book in the Astronomy section of a university library. Of course, the library staff don’t read the books, but this one was rather way off the mark. The only good thing in the book is a reported comment from Magellan, the explorer during the renaissance era, regarding the conflict with the Church account of eclipses. He said, “The church says the earth is flat, but I know it is round for I have seen its shadow on the moon and I have more faith in a shadow than the church”.

Rating: 1 Star