Question! I am writing a new popular science book with the working title: „Between Genesis and Apocalypse - the big story of our little world”, from the Big Bang until today. It is an amazing journey to see how the cosmos made our world and ourselves.
Is there anything specific that you would like to see in there? Any surprise insights (or anecdotes), that I could have missed?
Book appears next fall in Germany first, but there is still a chance to tweak things a little.
[#]astrodon #astronomy
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from hfalcke@mastodon.social
@hfalcke
Does it contain details about how it will end (the book, outselves and the universe)?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from expertenkommision_cyberunfall@mastodon.social
@expertenkommision_cyberunfall That part still needs some work, but yes ..😀
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from hfalcke@mastodon.social
@hfalcke
das klingt sehr spannend. Gibts n happy end?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from tt@mastodon.art
@tt Das hängt sehr davon ab, wie man zur Apocalypse steht und ob man sich eine Hoffnung auf einen neuen Himmel und eine neue Erde macht. Grundsätzlich ist Leben ungesund, denn es endet immer tödlich - genauso auch die Welt, aber man muss deren Ende ja nicht unbedingt mutwillig frühzeitig herbeiführen finde ich ….
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from hfalcke@mastodon.social
@hfalcke
Do you mention the "Adams Event"?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from expertenkommision_cyberunfall@mastodon.social
@expertenkommision_cyberunfall A little bit. I am struggling with these field reversals, because their impact is still pretty much debated….
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from hfalcke@mastodon.social
@hfalcke an update on the genesis of life would be nice. The books describing the Miller-Urey experiment usually end in a big shrug and are not really up to date.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from rupdecat@fediscience.org
@rupdecat We are not closer to an answer, but that is extensively discussed indeed … big teams are working on it these days.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from hfalcke@mastodon.social
@hfalcke @ionica That title would give me the impression that it’s probably a work of Christian theology or apologetics rather than a scientific text, so I would be unlikely to think about buying it. That might or might not be what you want.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from benjamingeer@piaille.fr
@benjamingeer @ionica It is a working title indeed and it may change. This is a science book, but doesn’t shy away from asking also some philosophical questions (I think in a responsible way) and I do play with the motives in Genesis. If that leads you out of your comfort zone, then it might be just the book you absolutely should buy … 😉
But, you are right, this is something to be discussed, but I hope the nature of the book will be clear enough in the end.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from hfalcke@mastodon.social
@hfalcke @ionica For the sake of effective science communication, for an audience including atheists and believers in other religions, I would suggest leaving religion out of the book completely. Otherwise you risk appearing to be trying to use science to promote your own religious beliefs, or to be presenting a biased view of science that’s favourable to those beliefs.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from benjamingeer@piaille.fr
@benjamingeer @ionica This is not my experience. My goal is to build bridges between communities and I am quite transparent about my personal believes and background. This has been widely appreciated and was the approach I used in my previous book, which was a #4 bestseller in Germany, was published in an atheist country like China, a Muslim country like Egypt, or other Asian countries like Japan, Corea etc.and read by people from all kinds of backgrounds.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from hfalcke@mastodon.social
@hfalcke @benjamingeer I agree with you on this, Heino. There are so many books about the universe, I really like how you use your own narrative to connect topics you care deeply about (and I’m an atheist).
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ionica@mathstodon.xyz
@ionica @hfalcke Ionica, would you feel the same way if the author cared deeply about astrology or alchemy?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from benjamingeer@piaille.fr
@benjamingeer @ionica You asked Ionica, but I feel this is a misleading question. Both fields make pseudo-scientific claims, which I try not to make. I personally would also strongly resist fundamentalist 7day creationist pseudo-science claims. Should I present poor science, feel free to criticize me - that is not always fun, but part of the science process that I am used to on a daily basis
(But perhaps read „the paper“ first?).
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from hfalcke@mastodon.social
@hfalcke @ionica Thank you for responding, Heino. I'm sure you know that there's currently a Christian social movement that is attacking science on many fronts, especially in the US, with claims that the Earth is 6000 years old and the like, and this has made me very suspicious of any attempt to mix science and religion. I'm sure your book is scientifically rigorous. But even so, if I'm buying a book on science for myself, any religious ideas in it would simply be an annoying distraction. And I wouldn't buy it for my kids, because I wouldn't want them to get the impression that religious ideas are part of science.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from benjamingeer@piaille.fr
@benjamingeer Again, what @hfalcke says. I think it is good to show persons behind science, with their values, views and beliefs. And it's okay that this book will not be for you then.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ionica@mathstodon.xyz
@hfalcke I would like to read something about how this extremely new cosmology connects with other ones, much older and established ones.
After all, galaxies exist just over a century, a non static universe, dark matter, dark energy or nucleosynthesis all are even more recent inventions. How do we know all this, what's the relation with other cosmologies, historically and culturally?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ewout@mastodon.social
@ewout Big question and a good one too. I suspect, cosmologies shape or worldviews and worldviews shape our cosmology to some degree. However, some basic concepts are not that new, what others have radically changed. We definitely want to address this, but it cannot be exhaustive.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from hfalcke@mastodon.social
@hfalcke I know this doesn't answer your question, and it's kind of off topic as such.
But.
Is that LibreOffice you're using there:)?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from maartenpelgrim@mastodon.nl
@maartenpelgrim No. I have to shamefully admit it is Word 🫣
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from hfalcke@mastodon.social
@hfalcke Ok, no worries, my bad:)
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from maartenpelgrim@mastodon.nl
@hfalcke No shame in that at all:)
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from maartenpelgrim@mastodon.nl
@maartenpelgrim 😅
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from hfalcke@mastodon.social
@hfalcke Will cover the latest on Inflation? Could there be a Deflation someday?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from hendric@astronomy.city
@hendric Inflation is covered, but I don’t think we have too much credible data yet that constrain details of inflation. Deflation is wild speculation. Higgs field phase transition would be more “fun” tot talk about.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from hfalcke@mastodon.social
@hfalcke Side Q: Is Inflation reversible?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from hendric@astronomy.city
@hendric That is Deflation I would say and I haven’t seen a solid theory on that front 🤔
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from hfalcke@mastodon.social
@hfalcke Around 1860 Lord Kelvin computed the age of our planet based on a start at the moment that all rocks were still molten. With the incoming radiation of the sun and the heat loss of the earth he came to around 100 My. When Darwin heard about this he thought that his evolution theory couldn’t be correct: he needed more time. Then came the discovery of radioactive decay. Based on this we think the age is a 4.5 Gy. Gives enough time for the evolution of life.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Franks@mastodon.nl
@Franks Thx. Hadn’t heard that, but likewise the energy production of the sun was an even bigger problem until we understood nuclear fusion in the 20th century …
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from hfalcke@mastodon.social
@hfalcke If I may so, I think your subtitle is a better title than the working title, for a popular book anyway. It might be a bit too close to "A short history of nearly everything" though...
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from KeithWM@mastodon.social This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini