"Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer"

[wd40]

Does 'informed opinion' consider there to be anything noteworthy to read in Hilton Ratcliffe's "The Virtue of Heresy: Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer" (2007) http://www.hiltonratcliffe.com/Heresy.htm

[HenrikOlsen]

"meta-mathematics", "informally associated league of mathematical theorists", "scientific elite" the language rings many warning bells in my head.


The stark divergence of results rings alarm bells for the objective reader, who is then led to an exposition of a structural template underpinning all of physical existence which in purely secular terms argues against Darwinian evolution as a complete answer to the advent of structure in the Universe.
Duh, what?

I'm thinking hidden agenda here. Either that or some really weird misconceptions about "Darwinian evolution". What's it supposed to have to do with "the advent of structure in the Universe"? And why pick on "Darwinian evolution", the ToE has evolved quite a bit since Darwin laid its foundations.

[tusenfem]

Apparently in chapter 8 he seems to introduce the electric sun.
Indeed, the peeps commenting on his books are e.g. Gerrit Verschuur and Oliver Manuel.

[Gillianren]

Oh, goody. There's a familiar name.

[grapes]

From the website (http://www.hiltonratcliffe.com/about.htm):
A measure of the esteem in which he is held is the invitation he received from living legend, iconic British astronomer Sir Patrick Moore, to collaborate on a second book. The Static Universe is now complete and in the hands of a prominent publisher of science literature.
The same website links to second book: The Static Universe (http://www.hiltonratcliffe.com/Static.htm)
He is best known in formal science as co-discoverer, together with eminent nuclear chemist Oliver Manuel and solar physicist Michael Mozina, of the CNO nuclear fusion cycle on the surface of the Sun, some 65 years after it was first predicted.

This website (http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/StaticUniv.htm) says that Ratcliffe is the author of The Static Universe, and Moore wrote the forward to the book. That page includes a link to an excerpt from the forward, including:
Is Hilton Ratcliffe right, or is he completely wrong? Probably 97% to 98% of modern cosmologists will say that he is wrong. I will reply differently, and use a well-worn catch-phrase: "You may well think so-I cannot possibly comment."

ETA: Patrick Moore (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8362312/Sir-Patrick-Moore-My-700-appearances-on-The-Sky-at-Night.html), at home, a couple months ago, with Hilton Ratcliffe present.

ETA: Ratcliffe's account (http://www.hiltonratcliffe.com/article003.htm)of his meeting Patrick Moore, and Brian May.

[Gillianren]

If Michael Mozina is a solar physicist, it doesn't take much to be one.

[Van Rijn]

If Michael Mozina is a solar physicist, it doesn't take much to be one.

That's hilarious. A common suggestion to Mozina was a recommendation to take classes, or at least study some books, on basic astronomy and physics. This is a fellow that would make "look at the picture" arguments about solar images that ignored the context of the images. If the sun looked vaguely metallic in an image, that meant the sun was solid metal. Never mind that this was an image processing artifact only seen in some images and physically didn't make sense anyway.

[Gillianren]

It's my prime example of "look at the dumb ideas we get in ATM."

[tusenfem]

As far as I know MM works at a call centre or something like that for social security (from JREF ), one (unpublished) paper does not a solar physicist make.

[tnjrp]

[Mozina] would make "look at the picture" arguments about solar images that ignored the context of the images. If the sun looked vaguely metallic in an image, that meant the sun was solid metal. Never mind that this was an image processing artifact only seen in some images and physically didn't make sense anyway.Maybe he's a Urantian? OTOH I'm not entirely sure if the Sun was supposed to metallic in The Urantia Book and can't be bothered to check right now.

As to the Ratcliffe book, I suppose it might be more entertaining (and probably a lot shorter) than The Urantia Book. That aside, I'm going to go with what Sir Patrick Moore said about modern cosmologists and leave it at that.

[Jerry]

It is very difficult to frame an argument 180 degrees removed from conventional conclusions. Using an imaginary alter-ego is a nice approach.

I have thought about taking a science-fiction argument in the same direction. (Can you believe how deeply they wallowed in the 20th and early 21 centuries after getting so close?)

We'll get there eventually.

[Eta C]

Oh yeah, good old "Holy Michael Mozina Batman, what now!" Aside from his "look at the picutre" arguments the guy could not be convinced that the discovery of neutrino oscillations and the observation of the entire solar neutrino flux by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory and others removed pretty much any reason to look at alternative solar models. Not that the electric sun had much going for it in that way. Solid surfaces of iron below the photosphere and a total misconception of plasma astronomy. I remember him trying to argue that the solar neutrino flux was generated by the sun focusing a cosmic neutrino background or by fusion occuring in the corona. I remember trying to get him to derive even an OOM estimate of what the flux would be and how that compared to observation. No joy there I'm afraid. Given this sort of testmonial, this is probably a book best left for the remainder shelf.