Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
This is a booktalk about the new book mentioned in the title by Peter Rowlands.
I have not finished reading the book yet, I will add comment later.
Supposedly this book is an easy version of his other 700 page book, zero to infinity.
No way is this book as easy as advertised, unless you already finished a course on physics. The book explains the basics of the entirety of standard physics in the first 30 pages or something, in incredbly dense sentences, containing loads of information. The book could do with a graphic overview, instead of only those information dense sentences, with a few tables. The sentences are very, very efficiently constructed, with an undertone of effortless simplicity, but then it just goes on and on and on in this superdense way, resulting in information overload.
The author is also gratingly anti-religious, in a dumb way. He emphasises to do away with naive reality. That is both correct and unethical. It is correct that in science only facts count, but unethical that opinions should be surpressed when doing science. One should neither forget the love for your spouse when doing science, nor forget about God the creator. One should distinguish fact from opinion, and put the facts in the science category; and leave the opinions out of it.
Apart from acting like this bizarre stereotype of the coldhearted scientist, he made many significant points in the first pages of the book.
.......
I have not finished reading the book yet, I will add comment later.
Supposedly this book is an easy version of his other 700 page book, zero to infinity.
No way is this book as easy as advertised, unless you already finished a course on physics. The book explains the basics of the entirety of standard physics in the first 30 pages or something, in incredbly dense sentences, containing loads of information. The book could do with a graphic overview, instead of only those information dense sentences, with a few tables. The sentences are very, very efficiently constructed, with an undertone of effortless simplicity, but then it just goes on and on and on in this superdense way, resulting in information overload.
The author is also gratingly anti-religious, in a dumb way. He emphasises to do away with naive reality. That is both correct and unethical. It is correct that in science only facts count, but unethical that opinions should be surpressed when doing science. One should neither forget the love for your spouse when doing science, nor forget about God the creator. One should distinguish fact from opinion, and put the facts in the science category; and leave the opinions out of it.
Apart from acting like this bizarre stereotype of the coldhearted scientist, he made many significant points in the first pages of the book.
.......
Last edited: