Reviews of 'Dark Matter Missing Planets & New Comets'
The book has sold out its first printing. Since sales remain brisk, the publisher, North Atlantic Books, has just made a decision to produce a second printing. Toppan Printing Co., Ltd., a Japanese publisher, bought the rights to produce a new edition translated into Japanese. Apparently, interest in alternatives to mainstream models remains high.
Readers of the Meta Research Bulletin often ask how the book is being received, since they see so little discussion of it in mainstream astronomy. As the author of the book, the editor of this Bulletin has not republished here any of the mostly favorable reviews over the past two years, since it is inappropriate to self-aggrandize. However, I have been persuaded that there is genuine interest in this material. The following samplings of published reviews and correspondence are representative of the totality of such reviews and letters. Neither the book's publisher (North Atlantic Books), the author, nor Meta Research had any influence on these reviews or comments.
The following quotes are from published reviews:
From "Morry on the Market", 50 Broadway, Suite 3700, New York, NY 10004, Market Letter #59, Nov. 30, 1994, by Morris J. Markovitz, quoted in its entirety:
"Recommended reading: If you have any interest in pondering matters scientific, I can't recommend too highly Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets, by Tom Van Flandern ($18.95 from North Atlantic Books, PO Box 12327, Berkeley, CA 94701). This is the most interesting new book on any subject that I've read in years, and the most interesting of its type -- exciting, even -- I've ever read. Yet it's a quite easy read, containing hardly any explicit mathematics. Van Flandern is an astronomer with such impeccably well established credentials that his peers can't completely dismiss his maverick theories. From a simple, sensible starting point he carries the reader, by purely deductive reasoning, to a new view of the basic nature of things: from electrons to galaxies, from the nature of a photon to the cause of gravity to the origin of the solar system. Along the way, several paradoxes of existing, theories (relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.) are explained and then resolved (or their resolutions indicated) in the most simple and easily understandable expositions I've ever seen. Those acquainted in some detail with existing theories will appreciate the creative brilliance of Van Flandern's insights, the kind that seem to turn on a mental switch that blasts away every shadow in your field of vision at once, and the kind with which his book literally teems (the unpretentious simplicity of the author's conversational style may disguise its radical significance from the casual reader). Challenging much of existing scientific orthodoxy, Van Flandern's new theory is able to cover the ground of several current theories at once, but more simply and directly than any, with fewer inconsistencies, and without requiring the abandonment of a common sense view of the world. (Coincidentally, only within the past few days it has been reported that the newly operational Hubble telescope's inability to find so-called dark matter has thrown scientists into turmoil because currently accepted cosmological theory requires that the universe be about 90% filled with it. This is precisely one of Van Flandern's predictions (amongst many more): that no dark matter would be found by the Hubble scope, because there is no dark matter; that there was no need for scientists to infer its existence in the first place; that the phenomena which led them to infer it were already predicted and fully explained by Van Flandern's own simple view of gravitation [and by the way, there are no black holes either, according to Van Flandern]). My guess is that many more of Van Flandern's predictions are destined to be verified, and I believe this book may eventually find a place at the base of future scientific inquiry in many fields, not the least of which may be the philosophy of science (specifically its epistemology). If you are curious about such things as the nature of matter and the origin of the solar system, but feel inadequately equipped to grasp what modern science has to say about such things, read this book. You will not get the all-too-common condescending attempt to water-down the mysteries of modern science into a form intelligible to little-non-scientist you, but rather a straightforward new theory, logically derived in front of your eyes, which challenges the roots of many of today's complex accepted paradigms, yet whose essence is simple enough to be thoroughly communicated to the intelligent layman without losing in the translation ."
From Meteor News, c/o Wanda L. Simmons, Publisher, Route 3, Box 1062, Callahan, FL 32011, #104, Spring 1994, by Karl Simmons, editor:
"This book deals primarily with alternative theories of cosmology and solar system phenomena. Many of these theories have little or no support in the scientific community. New research and discoveries in the future will undoubtedly prove or disprove many of them. Of interest to Meteor News readers is the chapter on the planetary breakup theory for asteroid formation where some interesting ideas concerning meteoroids are listed. 100% of the royalties from this book go to Meta Research to support additional astronomy research of the type described in the book."
From The Mason-Dixon Astronomer, published by the Westminster Astronomical Society of Maryland, Vol. 11 #2 (Feb. 94) & #3 (Mar. 94):
"... Chapter 6, Orbits, was one of my favorite chapters. The overview of orbital dynamics is fascinating, detailing characteristics of orbits -- many of which are non-intuitive. In particular the notion of spheres of influence was very informative, serving as a foundation for discussions contained in later chapters. ... Whether or not one agrees with Van Flandern's theories, this chapter provides an education all its own. ..."
From Astronomy Book Club flyer,Winter, 1994:
"Tom Van Flandern is both an insider and an outsider. A professional astronomer for 25 years, he is well versed in the customs of mainstream science. On the other hand, after a long review of the assumptions underlying a large portion of received truth in astronomy and cosmology, he has come to a radical conclusion: much currently accepted theory is wrong. ... We don't suppose Van Flandern is right in all his particulars. He may not be right in any. But this is a fascinating and useful book all the same, for the doubts it raises and for the way it reminds us of the importance of having skeptical people ask inconvenient questions."
From Australian & New Zealand Physicist,Vol. 30 #9, Sept. 1993, review by Colin Keay, Assoc. Professor of Physics, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW
"This has been a very difficult review to write. There is a lot about the book Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets that I like, yet so much of it presents theories and perspectives which are very different from the mainstream. ... Van Flandern points out solar system phenomena that he feels are best explained by a planetary breakup. ... I found these ideas and arguments intriguing and well thought out. The only problem I have is that there is no known mechanism that would cause a planetary breakup. This Van Flandern readily admits, but he reminds us that our knowledge of planetary cores is just too small to generalize about the processes involved. ... If you are ready to have your understanding of reality challenged, Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets is the book for you. Like myself, you may not agree with all of the conclusions offered, but you will find your perspectives broadened by a different way of viewing the universe. Isn't that the reason we pursue astronomy in the first place?"
From Aeon: A Journal of Myth and Science, Vol. III, No. 5, May 1994, pp. 95-98,by Frederic Jueneman:
"... This [exploded planet] event is postulated as occurring some 3.2 million years ago, a thousand times more than the historical events describe in Velikovsky's scenario, [(footnote): It should be mentioned that Van Flandern is one of an exceptionally small coterie of authors who refer to Velikovsky in passing and don't give him a gratuitous verbal kick in the shins while so doing.] but still far too soon for most paleogeologists digestion who even have some gastritis over the Luis Alvarez asteroidal impact theory of some 65 million years ago at the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary. The prima rests on the observed appearance of first-time comets which have calculated orbital periods of revolution of that magnitude. This moment in time also delineates the onset of the Pleistocene, or glacial, epoch in Earth's history, including the advent of mankind himself, which gives one speculative pause. ..." [Fred is the author of the new science-challenging book "Raptures of the Deep". -- tvf]
From Science Frontiers Book Supplement, The Sourcebook Project, PO Box 107, Glen Arm, MD 21057, #88,Jul.-Aug. 1993, by William R. Corliss:
"It is not easy to find scandalously iconoclastic books in the field of astronomy; but this one will suffice for a few eons! First of all, it is very readable, immensely stimulating, and even personal as the author confronts the enormity of scientific arrogance. ... The three theories are: (1) the Big Bang theory; (2) our concept of gravity; and (3) the Oort cloud theory of comets. Not content with simply compiling evidence undermining these theories, Van Flandern provides and defends three replacement theories: (1) his Meta Model; (2) his C-graviton Model; and (3) his Exploded Planet Model. Any one of these revolutions in thinking would be enough to recommend this book, but there is much more: There are no black holes; Faster-than-light motion is possible; Saturn's moons are young; plus dozens more! Powerful stuff."
The following are a sampling from among hundreds of letters received: From Paul Cook, Tempe, AZ:
"I've just read your book, Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets. Twice, in fact. I think it's the most important book I've ever read in science (and anomalistic studies). I'm recommending it to all of my students at Arizona State University (where I teach American literature). ... I would also like to mention that I am a publishing science fiction writer. If just a fraction of your ideas are true, then all of science fiction will need to be revised."
From Tim Seward, Santiago, Chile:
"Thank you for writing Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets, which I found to be truly inspiring and refreshing. ... Many of the professional astronomers who address themselves to us seem to believe that we're a little slow on the uptake. Or at least they tend to talk down to us in a rather paternalistic fashion. You do not do this at all. Your voice is wonderful, ... I also found your book to be deeply disturbing, and I am not referring to whatever happened to Planet K. The disturbing part is your focus on the systematic way in which mainstream astronomy has fallen headlong into a real black hole, the kind from which a breath of fresh air can hardly ever escape. ... your book has inspired a story, tentatively called The Krypton-Terrestrial Boundary, which I hope I am writing more in the spirit of science-fact than science-fiction."
From Paul C. White, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada:
"Just read Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets .... then read it again -- finally a little sanity in science."
From Don Swaner, Chevy Chase, MD:
"William Corliss's Science Frontiers notes the anomalous nature of deep earthquakes -- according to theory, the rock at that depth is at such pressure and temperature that it is fluid, prohibiting sudden breaks. In the Meta Model of gravitation, there would be increased shielding from C-gravitons in the earth's interior -- possibly yielding a different model of the earth's internal structure which hopefully might explain deep quakes."
From Christopher Maricaille, Lisieux, France:
"Van Flandern's book is really a different book, something rather special, where the unexpected comes up at every page. Imagine someone more original and heretical than Velikovsky, with a strong scientific background, and you get the man. It is sometimes a bit far-fetched, but after reading it you cannot think about the universe the same way as before."
From Robert L. Henderson, Sun City, AZ:
"It is a fact that the scientific community is no more objective now than was the church in Galileo's time: it is a difficult time for true scientists. It is my belief that most of the theoretical scientific papers now appearing in the scientific literature (such as Science) should be more realistically published as further adventures of Alice in Wonderland. I believe that the next true advances in the understanding of the real world will be found in the literature published outside the dominant scientific press, such as the books both you and Halton Arp found it necessary to publish in order to get your views exposed to the public." [RLH is the author of an interesting monograph critical of relativity. . -- tvf]
From C. Leroy Ellenberger, St. Louis, MO:
"After the Meta Model, origin of comets, orbits, capture and sphere of influence -- all of which are enlightening to me -- the further away you get from the core of your expertise, the less impressed by the soundness of your often admittedly amateur opinions and conclusions I am. The first time I tripped was with your attitude towards plate tectonics, which like other non-Earth scientists you call continental spreading rates. You await VLBI results to test plate spreading rates; but VLBI results have been available since at least 1984 confirming plate tectonics. Richard Kerr reported VLBI results in Science, 12 June 1987, p. 1425, for the motion of Hawaii toward Japan and Atlantic spreading that confirmed the geological rates. ... I do not understand how your book could be so off-base on such a fundamental issue. ... You write that the opposition to your planetary breakup model stems from it being an extraordinary hypothesis. I'd say it's more likely the opposition stems from the absence of a convincing breakup process, just as Wegener was opposed because he had no good process for moving the continents in his drift model."
From Ronald R. Hatch, Wilmington, CA:
"While I disagree with some of your fundamental arguments there is much that is very interesting and much that looks good. ... Best wishes for your own fight against the blind acceptance of consensus." [Ron is the author of the book "Escape from Einstein", a challenge to relativity. -- tvf]
From Alexey V. Arkhipov, Kharkov, Ukraine:
"Chapters 20 and 21 seem valuable especially. Your criticism of scientific method's limits closely correlated with my thoughts about the problem of anomalous phenomena.."
From Allen Barwick, Potomac, MD:
"I loved your book Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets. ... I don't know what I enjoyed the most -- your footnotes full of hypotheses and the unscientific method, or Mercury's an ex-satellite of Venus. ... I have gone directly to the places that I can immediately use in teaching physics at Woodrow Wilson H.S. ... I sincerely hope your text receives the attention that it deserves from the scientific community."
From Thomas E. Phipps, Jr., Urbana, IL:
"I have finished reading your Dark Matter book, which you kindly sent me, and found it a rare treat. The centerpiece is the hypothesis of an exploding planet. The evidence you muster for it is most impressive. You have done a remarkable job as a sort of astronomical Sherlock. ... On your generalities about the sociology of modern science I found things to agree with on almost every page. For instance you will find your excellent advice, we should never impute superior judgment to specialists, encapsulated in my definition of an expert as somebody who does not make small mistakes." [Tom is the author of "Heretical Verities: Mathematical Themes in Physical Description". -- tvf]
From John M.J. Gretchko, Cleveland, OH:
"I very much like the way you lay out your thought on pages xxxii and xxxiii. It is very challenging. All books should be this way. I also like when you say that everyone should be his own expert. You are challenging people to think, which also challenged authority, which also challenges jobs and security. Thinking is dangerous, especially if carried to conclusions. ... I see references to the so-called faces on Mars. I think it is admirable that you should bring that up. I'm sure none of your colleagues would have dared touch the subject, whether or not it should prove to have merit. You mention the Velikovsky affair somewhere and how stupidly the scientific community handled it. I'm not sure that Sagan put an end to the Velikovsky business. His adherents still thrive and have their own publication."
From James Ellison, Redondo Beach, CA:
"Your depiction of scientific inertia and its resultant destruction of the scientific process is so true to my personal experience that I could not more passionately endorse it. ... The cumulative greatest losers are, of course, science and humanity. ... Parts of your Preface, Introduction, and Prologue should be required reading for every science, engineering, and math major, as well as every person aspiring to manage researchers, whether scientists, engineers, or mathematicians!"
Where Are the Reviews In the Major Scientific Journals?
Isn't it interesting that most of the major science publications that include the field of astronomy in their coverage have published -- no reviews at all. I've inquired at some of these, and learned that they have sought qualified reviewers from mainstream astronomy, and found no one willing to undertake the task. Reviewers, of course, are under no obligation to publish favorable reviews, and they could be as critical as they felt the book deserved. The book's author is on no review committees, and won't be asked to review or approve any grant or tenure applications by prospective reviewers. So in essence, any of them could take a free shot at the book. Instead, almost none of them were willing to review it for publication. A conjecture: Perhaps it was not the author they feared for making a negative review, but the backlash from their own mainstream colleagues they feared for making any favorable comments, or even for publicizing the book more. -- Tom Van Flandern