Skip to main content

How Many Moons Does the Earth Have?

I can't remember when I was last as excited about a new book coming out as I am about How Many Moons Does the Earth Have?, my science quiz book, which is available from today. And to make it even better, it was great fun to write.

One driver for this is that I enjoy pub quizzes, but I've always been disappointed with the quality and quantity of the science and technology questions. I think the thing that pushed me over the edge was taking part in a quiz which featured the question 'Who invented the gramophone?' According to the organisers, the answer was Thomas Edison, and despite my protests, they would not accept the correct answer. (It is, of course in the book.) So one thing this book does is provide two complete quizzes, each containing 6 traditional rounds with 8 questions each, plus two special rounds, one partly pictorial and the other with a sort of puzzle element, which can be used as table rounds. This means it can be run as a science quiz, or to provide science rounds to a general quiz.

However, realistically, 99% of readers are not going to run a quiz, so it's designed to be enjoyable to read through from end to end as well. Each of the 96 normal questions has the question, plus a few 'while you are thinking' factoids on one page and the answer, plus a page of explanation that expands on the answer, over the other side. And a reference to read more, if the topic grabs you. So you can test yourself, turn over and be surprised, then fascinated by what are inevitably the most weird, wonderful and unexpected answers I could find in all of science.

The other reason I'm delighted is that I think the publisher has done a great job with the book - the cover, which is textured, looks great, and it's priced to make it a really attractive stocking filler or just a 'Why not?' buy.

Okay, I'm biassed. But wouldn't you want to try out questions like these?

  • If the Earth were made into a black hole, what would be the diameter of its event horizon?
  • What links the elephant Tusko at Oklahoma City Zoo and Timothy Leary?
  • If you too one step each second in seven-league boots, what would your speed be in miles per hour?
  • What was Einstein’s 1930 patent for?
  • Why did Uuq become Fl?
I think this does what QI does for TV in a book - but in a less 'Nah-nah, you're wrong!' fashion. Which is appropriate given the title question, where I disagree with every answer that QI has ever given on that topic.

It's available from amazon.co.uk and amazon.com. If you prefer other ebook formats, its on those too - take a look at its web page with full details.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Laurasdad5 November 2015 at 10:58

    Brilliant; received yesterday, read overnight.... I hope you're working on Volume 2, if not 3 as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brian Clegg5 November 2015 at 12:23

      Thanks, glad to hear you like it! Discussions are underway for a possible volume 2!

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more