Tuesday, September 21, 2010
An Interview with Author and Astronomer Hilton Ratcliffe
And Mr. Ratcliffe is hardly alone in this 'groundbreaking' information.
While Mr. Ratcliffe expected theoretical and philosophical stoning, what he found was an ally in none other than legendary British astronomer Sir Patrick Moore. Together they coauthored "The Static Universe" which deals a devastating blow to the notion of universal expansion.
What drew my layman's attention to Mr. Ratcliffe was this simple and beautiful summation: "We don’t need vast banks of supercomputers linked to radio telescopes in an array reading 100 billion deep sky signals a second in order to find intelligence greater than our own.
Just look carefully at the blossom of an orchid; the antennae of a moth; the structure of a crystal; the surface of the Sun; the movement of a cat; and the rings of Saturn."
Q) To ask what filled you with the passion to study beyond man's theoretical teachings would, no doubt, be a book in and of itself. So, allow me to ask, why go out on a philosophical limb and publish your findings? It took a lot of courage.
A) No, it was unavoidable. I was a pressure cooker and publication was a relief valve. Courage? Not much. I am financially independent, so my personal comfort is not threatened by the pedagogues who rule the practice of physics, and especially of cosmology. I have colleagues who have been barred from observatories, had publication refused, had research funding withdrawn, lost jobs, even been chased from their country of birth, all because they insisted on publicly announcing what they had seen in the heavens, and which did not fit the preferred model. They have so much courage it makes my eyes water. They almost literally put their lives on the line. They are the Galileos of our time.
Q) You wrote this: "I want to put the physical back into physics. We will certainly explain far less of the perceived Universe if we do as I suggest, but we will explain it in a fundamentally better way." That statement can be perceived as reaching right into every science classroom in our educational systems. What do you believe is necessary to return education to teaching fact over theory? Theory, after all, is far more entertaining.
Q) An opponent of the "Big Bang", can you briefly explain why you believe this theory is held onto so strongly?
A) Professor Don Scott told me once, "The problems with cosmology and astrophysics in the modern era are not scientific so much as sociological." Big Bang Theory is a faith-based system. People believe it because they want to believe it, not because they have been convinced by the supporting data. When Einstein was ready to write down what was to become his General Theory of Relativity (GRT), he found that the mathematics required by such a concept were quite beyond him. He consequently engaged the services of his friend, mathematics professor Marcel Grossman, to construct the mathematical formalism. Grossman felt for reasons we can only speculate about that the best way to achieve this was to use a new and little understood arcane mathematical language called Differential Geometry. It is estimated that when GRT was published in 1915, only about a dozen specialist meta-mathematicians in the whole world could decipher the maths. Yet before long, Einstein was the focus of intense international adulation by millions of people. Since only a minute fraction of those fans could understand the theory, there had to be another reason for the adulation. It was not the workings or the plausibility of the theory that impressed people so much that they created from it an enduring dogma. It was a psycho-social imperative that has characterised all widely defended dogma, including Big Bang Theory of course, which is the offspring of GRT. Once the new dogma has become entrenched within the educational system, it is done and dusted. Universities (mostly inadvertantly) become in effect propaganda machines, and produce scientist who quite frankly cannot practice or teach physics any other way. If, as in the case of GRT and later with Big Bang Theory and Black Hole theory, the protagonists have seductive charisma (which Einstein, Gamow, and Hawking, respectively, had in abundance) then the theory, though not the least bit understood, becomes the darling of the media. GRT and Big Bang Theory are sacrosanct, and it's most certainly not because they make any sense. In fact, they have become the measure by which we sanctify nonsense.
Q) You adhere to the classical approach to space science. Everything you do is based upon observation, not esoteric theory. I suspect someone in your life helped to provide such a 'feet on the ground' attitude. Who was it?
A) Initially, my father. He was a nuts-and-bolts physicist. His motto in life was "No hocus-pocus." There is a beauty intrinsic to Newtonian Mechanics that emulates the beauty of nature in the world around us, and even more compelling is the fact that it works so well. The whole of Newton's monumental "Principia" can be understood and put into practice with just high school mathematics. My father explained nature to me in Newtonian terms, and it stuck.
Q) May we look forward to another book from you in the near future?
A) Yes, I have started a third book, entitled "Stephen Hawking Smoked My Socks!" Watch this space.