What do you think?
Rate this book
UNIVERSE AT LARGE
The science study series is part of a dramatic new program for the teaching and study of physics, originated recently by distinguished American scientists and educators meeting at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This series of up-to-date, authoritative, and readable science books is prepared under the direction of the Physical Science Study Committee of Educational Services, Incorporated, and is published in co-operation with Doubleday-Anchor Books.
Paperback
Published January 1, 1960
5 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 5, 2015
Bondi, one of the three proponents of the steady-state theory, is an excellent writer for the lay reader. This is a good book. A few of his observations stand out:
Bondi states that the so-called empty space is filled with matter and energy, ranging from transparent to opaque gasses, with the latter eventually condensing into progressively dense bodies of matter (galaxies, stars, planets), thereby continuously creating new bodies of matter “out of nothing.” Here, “nothing” is confusing as he also writes of “vast amounts of hydrogen gas in the enormous space between the stars.”
Bondi writes that while at the large scale the universe is unchanging it is not so in its local regions where there’s a continuous creation of matter. This suggests that a steady state cosmos is consistent with continuous re-creation. Yet, if the cosmos expands and dissipates its mass and energy that way, doesn’t it become eventually impossible for energy and matter to recombine?
In his discussion of Newton’s inverse square law, Bondi notes that when two bodies are in balance with each other “there is no force whatsoever.” Does this mean that states of equilibrium and disequilibrium are fundamental cosmic states of being, with the latter (the power differential – of mass, energy and distance) constituting energy’s dynamic state that “seeks” to find its quiet (no force) state? In other words, is this interplay between equilibrium and disequilibrium states a cosmic universal? Interestingly, this combines the notion of steady state with dynamic change, which is Bondi’s thesis, with neither equilibrium nor disequilibrium being the primary state.
Bondi (and others) talk about the “free fall” of bodies, yet elsewhere he writes about bodies moving freely through space unless they are acted upon (acceleration). This free fall terminology is confusing (vis-à-vis free motion; and “falling” toward what?) unless one understands that the “fall” as in “free fall” is the pulling-attracting effect of and toward a larger gravitational mass.
Bondi states that the so-called empty space is filled with matter and energy, ranging from transparent to opaque gasses, with the latter eventually condensing into progressively dense bodies of matter (galaxies, stars, planets), thereby continuously creating new bodies of matter “out of nothing.” Here, “nothing” is confusing as he also writes of “vast amounts of hydrogen gas in the enormous space between the stars.”
Bondi writes that while at the large scale the universe is unchanging it is not so in its local regions where there’s a continuous creation of matter. This suggests that a steady state cosmos is consistent with continuous re-creation. Yet, if the cosmos expands and dissipates its mass and energy that way, doesn’t it become eventually impossible for energy and matter to recombine?
In his discussion of Newton’s inverse square law, Bondi notes that when two bodies are in balance with each other “there is no force whatsoever.” Does this mean that states of equilibrium and disequilibrium are fundamental cosmic states of being, with the latter (the power differential – of mass, energy and distance) constituting energy’s dynamic state that “seeks” to find its quiet (no force) state? In other words, is this interplay between equilibrium and disequilibrium states a cosmic universal? Interestingly, this combines the notion of steady state with dynamic change, which is Bondi’s thesis, with neither equilibrium nor disequilibrium being the primary state.
Bondi (and others) talk about the “free fall” of bodies, yet elsewhere he writes about bodies moving freely through space unless they are acted upon (acceleration). This free fall terminology is confusing (vis-à-vis free motion; and “falling” toward what?) unless one understands that the “fall” as in “free fall” is the pulling-attracting effect of and toward a larger gravitational mass.
Displaying 1 of 1 review