|
|
|
|
 |
November 10th, 2004, 08:06 PM
|
 |
Major
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Taganrog, Russia
Posts: 1,087
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
My good friend once named such kind of books as SciBi - Scientifical Bible, because both Bible and "Yet another theory of everything" books pretend that they have all answers. Cheap reading.
edit: author's attacks on Newton theory of gravity are amusing, it seems he have never heard of general relativity, Minkowsky-Riemann space and world lines  |
November 10th, 2004, 09:35 PM
|
 |
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: CHEESE!
Posts: 10,009
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 1 Post
|
|
Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
__________________
If I only could remember half the things I'd forgot, that would be a lot of stuff, I think - I don't know; I forgot!
A* E* Se! Gd! $-- C-^- Ai** M-- S? Ss---- RA Pw? Fq Bb++@ Tcp? L++++
Some of my webcomics. I've got 400+ webcomics at Last count, some dead.
Sig updated to remove non-working links.
|
November 10th, 2004, 09:41 PM
|
|
Major
|
|
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Solomon Islands
Posts: 1,180
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
He also repeatedly claims that the "twin paradox" and the atomic clock experiment relating to the effect of time dilation is logically faulty because movement is relative. However, in standard science, it is not movement that is responsible for the time dilation effect but acceleration.
|
November 10th, 2004, 10:11 PM
|
|
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: CHEESE!
Posts: 10,009
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 1 Post
|
|
Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
Quote:
deccan said:
He also repeatedly claims that the "twin paradox" and the atomic clock experiment relating to the effect of time dilation is logically faulty because movement is relative. However, in standard science, it is not movement that is responsible for the time dilation effect but acceleration.
|
Interesting. The common assumption I've always encountered is that the closer one gets to light speed, the slower time goes.
What's a good 'physics for dummies' book?
__________________
If I only could remember half the things I'd forgot, that would be a lot of stuff, I think - I don't know; I forgot!
A* E* Se! Gd! $-- C-^- Ai** M-- S? Ss---- RA Pw? Fq Bb++@ Tcp? L++++
Some of my webcomics. I've got 400+ webcomics at Last count, some dead.
Sig updated to remove non-working links.
|
November 11th, 2004, 10:01 PM
|
 |
Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 1,518
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
Quote:
narf poit chez BOOM said:
What's a good 'physics for dummies' book?
|
If you'd like an Online resource The Motion Mountain is pretty famous and well respected. |
November 12th, 2004, 04:11 AM
|
|
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: CHEESE!
Posts: 10,009
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 1 Post
|
|
Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
Since it brings up that 'if it only moves halfway' arguement, I'm as skeptical about it as I am about the other book.
That supposed quandry has been solved numerous times. It only moves halfway if you only look at half the time. It imposes an artificial restriction on a natural phonomenon and then claims that the natural phonomenon must follow this artificial restriction and therefore this natural canot phonomenon occur. How are we to get rid of this quandary? Same way a rational person solves all arguements involving arrows and turtles.
__________________
If I only could remember half the things I'd forgot, that would be a lot of stuff, I think - I don't know; I forgot!
A* E* Se! Gd! $-- C-^- Ai** M-- S? Ss---- RA Pw? Fq Bb++@ Tcp? L++++
Some of my webcomics. I've got 400+ webcomics at Last count, some dead.
Sig updated to remove non-working links.
|
November 12th, 2004, 11:21 PM
|
|
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: CHEESE!
Posts: 10,009
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 1 Post
|
|
Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
Quote:
narf poit chez BOOM said:
Since it brings up that 'if it only moves halfway' arguement, I'm as skeptical about it as I am about the other book.
That supposed quandry has been solved numerous times. It only moves halfway if you only look at half the time. It imposes an artificial restriction on a natural phonomenon and then claims that the natural phonomenon must follow this artificial restriction and therefore this natural canot phonomenon occur. How are we to get rid of this quandary? Same way a rational person solves all arguements involving arrows and turtles.
|
Sorry, I think I was too sarcastic here.
__________________
If I only could remember half the things I'd forgot, that would be a lot of stuff, I think - I don't know; I forgot!
A* E* Se! Gd! $-- C-^- Ai** M-- S? Ss---- RA Pw? Fq Bb++@ Tcp? L++++
Some of my webcomics. I've got 400+ webcomics at Last count, some dead.
Sig updated to remove non-working links.
|
November 10th, 2004, 09:47 PM
|
|
Major
|
|
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Solomon Islands
Posts: 1,180
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: OT:Tempted to get this book
That's a valid point, but one can't help but notice and comment on the observation that the author's behavior is very similar to that of a snake-oil salesman. "Buy this book and all will be revealed!" His free preview chapter supposedly pokes holes in standard science, but stops just short of revealing how his final theory resolves the problems.
If he were really serious about scientific inquiry, he should have made the essential theory itself freely available. |
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode