Customer Reviews

Heavenly Errors

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Considering the misinformation of the general public on astronomical matters (and matters in general), this book casts a welcome light on some of them. The author, further, has a web site listing even more misconceptions, given by students in his classes as well as contributors from his web site audience. The author also delves into the Why of how these misconceptions have arisen in people's minds.

The book is not perfect, and in fact could lead to the furtherance of some other misconceptions. For example, he lists a flat No to the question of whether black holes are black. A correspondence with the author indicates he was thinking of small black holes--with considerably less mass than the moon. Such small black holes would indeed glow, via Hawking radiation, but larger ones would indeed be black by anyone's standards, including those multi-solar-massive ones hypothesized to be at the centers of galaxies. However Prof. Comins' reply did rid me of my misconception that it is only for a short period of time that small black holes glow.

Alluding to the fact that the moon keeps the same side toward the earth all the time, the book states that in the lunar sky, the earth "won't budge, no matter how many days, weeks, months, years, or decades you watch it". In actuality, due to the eccentricity of the moon's orbit and the tilt of its axis relative to its orbit, the moon's center librates as seen from the earth, and as seen from the moon, the earth moves in the sky with a range of 16 degrees East-West (8 degrees either way from center) and 13 degrees north-south. As a result the earth could get to be 20 degrees from where you first saw it. That's 10 earth diameters, or 40 earth-viewed full moon's width, so it really more than "budges". Prof. Comins explains in correspondence that he "chose to be glib about this point because it would take quite a lot to describe issues related to libration from scratch with only a small gain in insight by the general reader." Yet one of his listed misconceptions was of the center of mass of the moon's core being at the geometric center of the moon; that difference is only about 1/2 mile, out of the 2000-mile lunar diameter.

In the book, Prof. Comins states that it is never safe to look directly at the sun without a proper solar filter. He doesn't exempt looking at the corona during totality of a solar eclipse. In his correspondence, he states "Concerning looking directly at the Sun during a total eclipse, it is definitely not safe to do so. A close friend of mine lost a significant amount of his vision doing so. Looking directly at the corona during a total eclipse is still extremely dangerous. Keep in mind that the Sun is in totality for only a matter of minutes, and as soon as it comes out, its brightness is dangerous." While I can understand the impact of personal tragedies, it's also true that people travel thousands of miles to view totality directly. I have done so four times and viewed the totally eclipsed sun with the unaided eye and even through a telescope. And to do so, one cannot have a filter, and my eyes are unscathed, as are those of many hundreds, or thousands, who go on eclipse cruises and expeditions. They have accurate predictions of the timing and accurate timers, and call out to all to "look away" at the appropriate time. As the NASA web site on eye safety during solar eclipses states: "In spite of these precautions, the total phase of an eclipse can and should be viewed without any filters whatsoever. The naked eye view of totality is completely safe and is overwhelmingly awe-inspiring!"

This book refutes many fond misconceptions of the universe, such as "twinkling" stars, our Sun always rising directly in the East and only the Moon causing tides.

Next, though it is not addressed in this book, we'll be told the Earth isn't flat and it doesn't rest of the back of a giant turtle, which stands on the back of an even larger turtle, which stands on an even larger turtle ... and so forth ALL THE WAY DOWN.

Comins misses the whole point about popular delusions. It's not that some of our most cherished beliefs are wrong; it's "Why do we get such nonsense and how do we survive with so many wrong ideas"?

For example: The light from stars really does "twinkle", just as the nursery rhyme says. The U.S. military believed this, so DARPA sponsored research to eliminate twinkles. It was so successful that the procedure is now used to eliminate the "twinkle" when using optical telescopes at places such as Kitt Peak observatory, near Tucson.

Two conclusions may be drawn: a) the starlight we see really does twinkle, and b) there's a good scientific reason for it.

Comins emphasizes solid scientific facts for the myths he demolishes, which is commendable. He offers intelligent explanations of the universe as it is now known. Some of his examples seem trivial; but, sometimes it is precisely minor errors that grow into major misconceptions.

His deft demolishing of myths many people have about the earth, moon, stars and the universe -- all physical realities -- raises an even more interesting question: "If people are so credible, how can democracy exist?"

Perhaps the answer is something akin to the "missing" 96 percent of the universe -- Democracy, like the universe, is simply beyond belief, but if you believe, it works. Wait a moment: Isn't that what he set out to disprove?

It's worth remembering when hearing politicians, used car salesmen and astronomers; people always seek answers, real or imaginary. We really do see twinkling stars, but it's not what it seems on first glance. It's the most valuable lesson you can take away from this book.

This is precisely the type of book that gives academics a bad name, and opens the door for "popularizations" written by journalists The blurb by Michael Shermer of Skeptic magazine speaks of "pseudoscientific errors through the ages", and so naive potential reader might have the impression that the book treats misconceptions about the nature of the cosmos through the centuries and their rectification, perhaps in the manner of Singh's excellent Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe (P.S.) . Not a bit of it; this author simply sets up a series of straw men, often his own students (who of course, being students, will indeed reinforce teacher's sense of how clever he is), and demonstrates that indeed a few $ million of state salary, training, and tenure affords him greater competence than them in a micro-specialization. P. 54 features a biological colleague's brave attempt at satisfying Comins, which is duly excoriated; it would be interesting to see a similarly detailed map from Comins about, say, gene expression.

Pp. 197-224 features the author's "guide to the perplexed", the 21 commandments of science. (16, "develop intellectual humility", is one he might usefully abide by). What is truly shocking is the philosophy of science illiteracy; Thomas Kuhn is not mentioned. In general, WB Yeats for once has it right:

"Seek, then,
No learning from the starry men,
Who follow with the optic glass
The whirling ways of stars that pass -
Seek, then, for this is also sooth,
No word of theirs - the cold star-bane
Has cloven and rent their hearts in twain,
And dead is all their human truth. "

This book might be great for a first or second-grader. It contains trivial information that possibly appeals to readers whose educational ambitions are far from being realized. Instead of debunking historical misconceptions such as (1)the speed of light is instanteneous (Aristotle, Kepler), (2) a star's brightness is due to its distance alone(Newton), (3) meteors are of terrestrial origin - 'thunderstones' or materials catapulted from volcanoes, or (4)the absense of gail-force winds proves that the earth is stationary... we instead get lectured that (1) the position of a planet excerts negligible influence on a new-born child,(2)the heat radiated from the sun is not generated by something burning, (3) winds do not cause the tides, etc. Give me a break.