[Amazon Prime] Astrophysics for People in a Hurry (Hardcover) $17.26 Delivered @ Amazon AU

190

Affiliate

Go to Deal

Cashback

grababargain on 15/07/2019 - 23:29 amazon.com.au (156 clicks)
Last edited 16/07/2019 - 11:43 by 1 other user

This post contains affiliate links. OzBargain might earn commissions when you click through and make purchases. Please see this page for more information.

by Neil deGrasse Tyson, 224 pages, published 2 May 2017

Amazon’s Description:

There’s no better guide through mind-expanding questions such as what the nature of space and time is, how we fit within the universe, and how the universe fits within us than Neil deGrasse Tyson.

But today, few of us have time to contemplate the cosmos. So Tyson brings the earth down to us succinctly and clearly, with sparkling wit, in digestible chapters consumable anytime and anywhere in the busy day. Astrophysics for People in a Hurry reveals just what you need to be fluent and ready for the next cosmic headlines: from the Big Bang to black holes, from quarks to quantum mechanics and from the search for planets to the search for life in the universe.

Price History at CamelCamelCamel.

Related Stores

Amazon AU

Marketplace

Book Depository

• 

  jv on 15/07/2019 - 23:53

  -3

  So Tyson brings the earth down to us
  from the Big Bang to black holes

  https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/sexual-mis…

  • 

    aja12 on 16/07/2019 - 06:16

    metoo

  • 

    ozbjunkie on 16/07/2019 - 06:39

    +1

    So much identity politics… The writter being black and a woman? Surely she wins at least a silver in the oppression Olympics.

    • 

      lostn on 16/07/2019 - 09:59

      You have to also be trans or gay to win the gold.

      • 

        ozbjunkie on 16/07/2019 - 14:00

        No, it's genderless and gay, by some feat of mental gymnastics I believe I've seen reference to such a thing.

    • 

      jv on 16/07/2019 - 12:15

      The writter

      https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/writter

      • 

        ozbjunkie on 16/07/2019 - 13:57

        Alas hands were trembling with excitement as I wrottte.

    • 

      jv on 16/07/2019 - 12:16

      being black and a woman?

      The woman was black too.

      What does that have to do with it?

      • 

        ozbjunkie on 16/07/2019 - 13:55

        She writes with the overused tone and perspective "as a women" "as a black person", which I am growing so tired of in, for example, the guardian, but which is present in all media.

        I think it's entirely possible to have an opinion as a rational and informed human being without having to appeal to collectivist simplifications of personal identity, history and culture. I mean, is using phrases like "as a black person" meant to imply that there is some fundamental similarity to the way all black people think? Wouldn't that suggestion fit with the definitions of stereotypes which the many "isms" are trying to overcome?

        Moreover, it seems that invoking ones womenhood or blackness is generally an attempt to legitimise ones perspective as being uniquely resistant to rebuttal, when really, claims and opinions should probably be evaluated in their merits without so much reference to the authors gender and culture of origin.

        I don't feel the need to preface everything I say with "as a straight white male with glasses who enjoys but is pretty ludicrously bad at first person shooter games"… Perhaps I'm doing it wrong.

        Tldr- my eyes generally roll back into my head when I read something which involves status of gender, race, sexual identification etc because it is generally a sign that I'll be soon reading about the gender wage gap and the patriarchy rather than a set of well reasoned arguments and justified opinions.

  • 

    brongz on 16/07/2019 - 08:13

    -1

    But still he can’t answer what’s before the Big Bang. Tyson afraid to speculate on the real origin of life, The God, like most living creatures on earth believes.
    Watch Cosmos and you’ll see his view about time in the origin of the universe is partial only, because he’s not taking a step back further in time before that Big Bang and he speculate life came on earth by accident/chance (bit sound like unplanned pregnancy)

    • 

      lostn on 16/07/2019 - 10:07

      But still he can’t answer what’s before the Big Bang.

      No one can. Scientists don't claim knowledge which they cannot possibly have. Only religion can do that.

      If you don't know, you admit that you don't know. It's better than making up an answer that can't be verified. That's how science does things. Because if you claim you have all the answers as religion does, the search for answers comes to an end, as does your acquisition of new knowledge. The lack of satisfaction with existing knowledge is what drives science forward.

      Watch Cosmos and you’ll see his view about time in the origin of the universe is partial only

      This is true of every scientist. You can speculate but it's simply impossible to test. And anything that is untestable is not verifiable, and not of real value to science.

      By the same token, theists cannot tell you who created god.

      because he’s not taking a step back further in time before that Big Bang

      Because doing so is impossible. And there may not even be a before the big bang. The big bang is when time began. What happened before time existed makes as much sense as asking what is north of the north pole (to borrow a Stephen Hawking quote).

      and he speculate life came on earth by accident/chance (bit sound like unplanned pregnancy)

      Not by accident. This is a fundamental misunderstanding by creationists and a straw man argument. They have a lot of dishonest tactics that would only work if the audience is other creationists. If you go to the biology faculty of a university and ask them, "if humans evolved from monkeys, why do monkeys still exist?" you will only be laughed at. Smart ones will just ignore you because to give you any attention would be to give legitimacy to your argument.

      • 

        jv on 16/07/2019 - 12:17

        No one can

        Read the book of Genesis… It's all there…

        Genesis 1:3 to be exact…

        • 

          lostn on 16/07/2019 - 12:28

          @jv: I should clarify. No one who uses evidence as a basis for theory can.

          • 

            jv on 16/07/2019 - 12:30

            @lostn:

            No one who uses evidence

            Just a different form of faith…

      • 

        brongz on 16/07/2019 - 14:54

        basically, tyson / scientist is no different from those who has religion/believe in God. not all scientist theories can be proven. they speculate about past time.
        and asking who created God is foolish as well, since God for those who believe, create everything, even the source of big bang.

        religion doesn't conflicted with science, imho. the interpretation of religion did, or perhaps who hold the power in religion still doing it now. and don't constraint the religion with one religion only:)

        most of the time religion concerns about the moral values of science but not defying it, because science also happens by the Will of God.

        but, since life is full of choices, so it's the same for this matter, believe in whatever religion or not to believe (and believe other thing).

        • 

          lostn on 16/07/2019 - 15:38

          @brongz:

          basically, tyson / scientist is no different from those who has religion/believe in God.

          No. Tyson believes what he believes if there is evidence for it. When there's no evidence, he rejects it until such evidence is presented. There has been no evidence of creationism, so until it's presented science has to reject it.

          not all scientist theories can be proven.

          Science doesn't deal in proofs. They deal in evidence, and form a theory based around that evidence. Any time new evidence is found that contradicts the previous theory, the theory is discarded in favor of a new one. That's the best way to learn new things. Religion has a belief and it never changes even in the face of facts.

          they speculate about past time.

          Based on evidence, yes. Scientists weren't here when dinosaurs existed. None of us were. They believe they existed because they found fossils. It wasn't a theory they made out of whole-cloth.

          Every theory in science is tentative and open to being changed when better theories are found. It's the reason why science is successful. Once upon a time we didn't know what caused lightning and thought it was god or Zeus' anger. We couldn't explain earthquakes either, so again we assumed it was god. Rain? Same. We'd still be believing these things if it wasn't for science.

          The bible for example mentions the four corners of the earth. Yeah, it thinks the earth is flat. Also mentions insects that have 4 legs. And that the earth is shrouded in a firmament, with the stars being pin pricks of light in that firmament.

          and asking who created God is foolish as well, since God for those who believe, create everything, even the source of big bang.

          If the universe needs a creator, then god needs a creator too. Otherwise, why does the universe need a creator? If it's possible for something to have always existed, maybe the universe always existed.

          religion doesn't conflicted with science, imho. the interpretation of religion did, or perhaps who hold the power in religion still doing it now. and don't constraint the religion with one religion only:)

          So who gets to decide how religion is interpreted? You? The pope? Muslims? Jews? Hindus?

          • 

            brongz on 16/07/2019 - 16:17

            @lostn: Haha, so who create the creator of God? That’s why I said that question is foolish.

            Use the deduction method of Sherlock Holmes and you’ll find there should be one source only.

• 

  7hours 44min ago on 16/07/2019 - 04:42

  Bachelor joke.