:/
Not even a big problem for me to boycott them if this is true, I can't buy in Amazon anyway.
But I guess Intelligent Design and similar stuff will feel like at home for a lot longer because of such things...
-
:/
Not even a big problem for me to boycott them if this is true, I can't buy in Amazon anyway.
But I guess Intelligent Design and similar stuff will feel like at home for a lot longer because of such things...
-
They almost lost me as a client, but I see one star reviews there:
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism." -
1) Those are review of this guy (you can read them in original on his page) and his supporters
2) Look at the dates of these reviews. The thing have enough time to gain publicity. Comment
-
As of today they seem to have gotten the message.
I hope...
20 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
This is just another speculative Model of the Universe (Peter from Palestine), March 30, 2006
Reviewer:Peter Tessler (Palestine) - See all my reviewsIt is true that the theories of Newton, Einstein, Bohr, etc are only models that provide a generalized mathematical description of the natural processes like gravitation, electrical/magnetic forces and others and that many of those theories are anti-intuitive and strange, the most notorious in this aspect being the Quantum Theory. They do not explain the why or the cause - and indeed this is not the role of science proper. For a good philosophical overview see Quantum Philosophy, Understanding and Interpreting Contemporary Science by Roland Omnes.
This book's basic theory is that there is only one fundamental elementary particle-the expanding electron and various groupings of electrons form the elementary particles of conventional science (quarks, protons, neutrons and all the others and their antiparticles). On this basis all the other phenomena are explained, like gravity due to expanding atoms. The elementary expanding electron - a subatomic realm of the micro-world, is described in terms from the macro-world like round, bouncing, elastic, full or empty etc.
This might be maybe a basis for a mediocre science-fiction book, but this is certainly no science. No wonder that not one serious scientist degraded himself to comment on this book, and the overall response in the scientific community is of total ignorance. If you even only consider this book seriously you might as well embrace the religious view of a supreme being(s) that made it all.
Save your money and denote it to your nearest Church, Mosque, Synagogue or other Shrine.
...
17 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
complete waste of time, March 30, 2006
Reviewer:book_nc - See all my reviewsWhat a junk book this is. Truth is not told in this book, instead all the hypes and make-believe is written. please do not spend your time reading this kind of book. Instead, go to beach and enjoy the nature.
...
25 of 26 people found the following review helpful:
Non-Science, March 30, 2006
Reviewer:D. Harwood (Tallahassee) - See all my reviews
This book is filled with more scientific inaccuracies than I can count, and expends much effort attacking its own false precepts of the natural world. As a physics graduate students and physics educator, I am aware that there are areas of physics that are very, very strange. I am also aware that by no means is physics complete. Throughout this text, there are implications that scientists claim to have all the answers, and that they are concocting strange theories just for the fun of it. It is apparent that this book does not know what these new, strange theories are all about, or why physicists need them. The sad part, is that this information is not difficult to obtain, as a quick trip to the library will prove. Instead, an entire book is written 'debunking' 'myths' of common science that really aren't myths at all. In fact, many of these 'myths' are points of interesting discussion in any introductory physics course. There are a few points in particular worth commenting on. Einstein's theories of special and general relativity are attacked without any sound logical basis. The fact that general relavity is wrong because it is strange is as ridiculous an assertion as one can make. Accusing Einstein of pulling algebraic trickery to obtain his celebrated E=mc^2 is testament to this book's wayward attempts to 'revolutionize science'. Force is not energy! Energy is not power! While some may view this as semantics, in fact it lies at the heart of this book's misguided assumptions. Just because a wall doesn't move (Work == 0) when I push it doesn't mean there isn't energy transfer (of course I'll get tired!). This assumes that translational motion is the only way energy can be used (Hint: there are others!). Magnets do not expend energy while clinging to a refrigerator. The actual derivation of Einstein's E=mc^2 is a tad more complicated than this book would have you believe. The math here is simply not correct. Simply put, this book is full of false assertions, bad science, and asinine claims. Do not get tricked into thinking that this book is what it claims to be. What a boring universe we would live in if a non-scientist could write down all the rules in 400 pages. Are you really ready to believe that the greatest minds of the past 400 years have been wrong, and that this single book proves this?
...
Chuck
秋音的爸爸
Comment
-
and
24 of 26 people found the following review helpful:
Wrong-headed and misleading, March 30, 2006
Reviewer:L. Collison - See all my reviews
I read a few chapters of this before throwing it down in disgust. It's not surprising that drivel like this is written, but it is very surprising that it's published and sells. The book's claims are fanciful and unsubstantiated. It dismisses centuries of physics with obvious misunderstanding on the part of the author. Do yourself a favour and ignore it.
...
31 of 31 people found the following review helpful:
Non-science, March 30, 2006
Reviewer:M. Gray (Snopesville, AQ) - See all my reviews
This book is filled with more scientific inaccuracies than I can count, and expends much effort attacking its own false precepts of the natural world. As a physics graduate students and physics educator, I am aware that there are areas of physics that are very, very strange. I am also aware that by no means is physics complete.
Throughout this text, there are implications that scientists claim to have all the answers, and that they are concocting strange theories just for the fun of it. It is apparent that this book does not know what these new, strange theories are all about, or why physicists need them. The sad part, is that this information is not difficult to obtain, as a quick trip to the library will prove. Instead, an entire book is written 'debunking' 'myths' of common science that really aren't myths at all. In fact, many of these 'myths' are points of interesting discussion in any introductory physics course. There are a few points in particular worth commenting on. Einstein's theories of special and general relativity are attacked without any sound logical basis. The fact that general relavity is wrong because it is strange is as ridiculous an assertion as one can make.
Accusing Einstein of pulling algebraic trickery to obtain his celebrated E=mc^2 is testament to this book's wayward attempts to 'revolutionize science'. Force is not energy! Energy is not power! While some may view this as semantics, in fact it lies at the heart of this book's misguided assumptions. Just because a wall doesn't move (Work == 0) when I push it doesn't mean there isn't energy transfer (of course I'll get tired!). This assumes that translational motion is the only way energy can be used (Hint: there are others!). Magnets do not expend energy while clinging to a refrigerator. The actual derivation of Einstein's E=mc^2 is a tad more complicated than this book would have you believe. The math here is simply not correct.
Simply put, this book is full of false assertions, bad science, and asinine claims. Do not get tricked into thinking that this book is what it claims to be. What a boring universe we would live in if a non-scientist could write down all the rules in 400 pages. Are you really ready to believe that the greatest minds of the past 400 years have been wrong, and that this single book proves this?
...
25 of 26 people found the following review helpful:
Almost entirely inaccurate, March 30, 2006
Reviewer:mad scientist (Southern California, USA) - See all my reviewsI unfortunately spent some time reading this book recently, and the material is almost entirely inaccurate. Many fundamental physical concepts are confused, and the conclusions drawn have no basis in fact.
If you are looking for an accurate discussion of modern day physics, you will be best served to look elsewhere. If you are looking for the unorganized ramblings of a confused pseudoscientist, this is the book you're looking for.
...
24 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
Very poor pseudoscience, March 30, 2006
Reviewer:Keith Macfarlane (Santa Clara, CA United States) - See all my reviews
Luckily I borrowed this from a friend rather than bought it. I enjoy popularised sciense books, but only if they are writen by someone with a good understanding of the Sciense they are talking about. This reads more like the musings I had as a teenager before I had studied physics at university level. This is the thoughts of someone who has heard of the strangeness of quantum physics and relativity, but has no real knowledge of there meaning and how those theories were derived and scrutinized. Believe me, if any of this authors theories had any relationship to truth they would have been carefully studied and incorporated into standard scientific knowledge long ago. Quite simply the ideas put forward in this book don't stand up to anything but the slightest of scrutiny.
...
17 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
Psuedoscience, March 30, 2006
Reviewer:J. Bates (Pittsburgh, PA) - See all my reviews
BUYER BEWARE: The theories described in the book are those of a crackpot, as anyone with a modest amount of training in physics will tell you. Do not be made a fool of by being duped into believing them!
...
Chuck
秋音的爸爸
Comment
-
and
33 of 34 people found the following review helpful:
Less than one star, March 30, 2006
Reviewer:Gary White "DarkFlite" (Hayward, CA USA) - See all my reviews
This book is filled with misinformation and lies. Its not junk science, its nonsense.
The constant claims of "Science can't explain this" are outright falshoods.
...
36 of 37 people found the following review helpful:
Constant confusion of terms, March 30, 2006
Reviewer:Joseph L. Coffey "Mathematician" (Stanford University) - See all my reviews
The portions of the book which I have read are quite confused. For instance, in the section on gravity claims that Newtonian gravity violates "Conservation of Energy" by confusing Energy with an intuitive notion of effort. It continues in this manner. All in all it reads like a crank physics website. I find it pretty unsettling that the other reviews do not reflect this.
...
1-10 of 62 | nextChuck
秋音的爸爸
Comment
-
-
Where?Originally posted by azChuck
秋音的爸爸
Comment
-
Az, don't you know? Amazon invented and patented people using their real names online. If you're using your real name you could very well be sued!
Comment
-
Oh god, I hope it isn't really another one of those patents.Originally posted by Jon P. InghramAz, don't you know? Amazon invented and patented people using their real names online. If you're using your real name you could very well be sued!
On the otherhand, it does sound like a good idea.
(Not that I would trust them to store my info like that.)
A Real Nameâ„¢ attribution is a signature based on the name entered by the author as the cardholder name on his or her credit card, i.e. the author represents this name as his/her identity in the "real world." An author willing to sign his or her real-world name on a piece of content is essentially saying "With my real-world identity, I stand by what I have written here." A Real Nameâ„¢ attribution therefore establishes credibility much as reputations built over time in the Amazon.com community, and just as high-reputation authors and their works receive badges, authors who use a Real Nameâ„¢ attribution receive badges. In the absence of a reputation or helpful/not helpful votes, the presence of a Real Nameâ„¢ attribution becomes a data point on where to place the review. People with lots of helpful votes will still be the top-ranked reviewers, even if they choose not to use a Real Nameâ„¢ attribution.Chuck
秋音的爸爸
Comment
Comment