Customer Reviews

In the Grip of the Distant Universe: The Science of Inertia

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

I think that this book is one of the most provocative books that I've read lately. The main theme is a reinterpretation of classical newtonian mechanics that would take into account Mach's principle, a principle that never ceased to haunt us since Einstein used it in one of the first versions of his general relativity (later on he abandoned it). Of course, you must have a solid newtonian background to better understand the consequences of the changes proposed by the author. Even if you do not agree with all points of view presented by Peter Graneau, the book surely sets your gray matter to work hard on the issues raised here. I am quite certain that together with other books that deal with the subject it will be my companion for a long time.

A C Tort

In the Grip provides an excellent historical and analytical overview of the vital concept of inertia. Some critical reviewers below have apparently failed to read carefully, or else grasp, the thesis advanced here, which is not that Newton was "more advanced" than Einstein, much less that the Principia are a fully accurate representation of reality, but rather that the empirical approach to mechanical questions is far more effective and accurate than the thought-experimental, Aristotelian field theoretical approach. The authors are explicit that inertia is a mechanical concept and must be treated as such; field theories that fictionalize or dismiss inertial force are both flatly innaccurate and evasionary. Their formulation of the Machian concept is lucid; action at a distance is physical fact. Their tour through the pageant of the modern-era development of mechanics is both interesting and enlightening. Highly recommended.

This book is well-written, but the ideas presented may be hard for modern physicists to stomach. However, considering the fact that history of modern physics has churned out plausible theories/ideas such as the aether and String Theory (which sadly, "is not even wrong" in the words of Wolfgang Pauli), the Graneaus' ideas (and not theories) are not that far-fetched afterall.

The truth is nobody knows much about inertia nor gravity. Nevertheless, the reader will come to appreciate the mystery of inertia and modern physics in general. The institution of modern physics is also shown to be political at times, consensus reached in favour of the few who professed to be knowledgeable and influential.

From reading Einstein's personal correspondence in the book, one will realise that Einstein actually had reservations about his own scientific writings. Interesting. The foundation of modern physics is based on his theories, yet here we have the founder doubting his own theories?! The arguments in the book are relatively easy to follow, with almost no mathematics. (The book has advanced sections with dotted lines for the lay reader to skip)

This book will make you ponder and wonder. Highly recommended for the lay reader who wants to know more the history of physics.

The kind of book that is written by an older generation that from the beginning humphs that relativity defies common sense, and so is obviously wrong. From then, each step in the development of physics must be countered by an objection: typical of the level of the authors' understanding of modern physics is the remark that if forces are supposed to be carried by particles, then in order for a photon to account for magnetic attraction (as opposed to repulsion), it must go around the magnet and strike it from behind, "a notion so ludicrous it will not be found discussed in the textbooks." Indeed.

The book is of some limited value for its bringing to the fore some legitimate sceptical criticism of early tests of relativity (as well as giving welcome prominence to Sciama); it is stubborn and wayward in its mention, and lack of mention, of the scrupulous confirmations that postdate the principal author's first acquaintance with, and pompous rejection of non-Newtonian mechanics.

Some rewarding historical reading make it suitable for the lay person, who will also be more inclined to tolerate, and engage with, the positions taken by the authors when they propose one or two suitably simple alternative ideas. Tolerate the practising physicist will not, and this rejection will no doubt be attributed to the politics of the academy by the fringe science movement of which, disappointingly, this book is a distant part.

If you want to learn about the history of physics up to Einstein's theories, you might find this book interesting. However if you want to learn about present day theories and experiments, this book is outdated and in some cases incorrect. The authors want to go back to Newton's physics supplemented by Mach's ideas.

This is another volume in the ongoing series "Einstein was Wrong". In it the authors try to dispute Einstein's theories using old experimental data and theories. For example, on the bending of starlight around the sun the authors only refer to Eddington's observations of this effect. These old experiments had a 30% margin of error and the authors imply that Eddington tried to force the data to verify Einstein's theory. Since Eddington's time this experiment has been done many times, recently with VLBI and have verified Einstein's theory. The authors state that Newton's theory doesn't give a prediction of this effect, however it does and that prediction is incorrect. There are many more examples of using old theories to dispute modern physics, but no mention of new experiments that verify it.

I don't recommend this book if you want to learn about modern physics.

John Reed

In the Grip of the Distant Universe: Peter and Neal Graneau

As a long term fan of physics as a spectator sport, I've been aware of one of the earliest conundrums of physics; the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass even though there is no apriori expectation that this should be true. I was intrigued by the Graneou's book.

Unfortunately the book is not the treatise I expected but rather a polemic, mainly reprising arguments from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There is little or no discussion of recent (late 20th century) developments as the Graneaus believe that all physicists of the 20th century were mislead by Einstein's theories.

The last statement marks the tone of the book, full of partial references and subtle logic errors. The Graneaus apparently believe that the physics community is engaging in a vast conspiracy to suppress their theory of a Newtonian universe.

Not recommended

I began to read this book with the hope there would be some new insights but very soon it became clear that the author did not understand his subject well enough to accurately explain basic physics. When I am told that an accelerating system is in equilibrium I am not impressed. The bad physics even detracted from any value as a historical read. If the author can't explain accurately the basic ideas of the book how badly is the historical information being twisted to serve his conclusions. I put a note inside the cover telling my grandkids to read this one with a critical eye.

Gosh, everyone here is so polite. Except me. Let's call a spade a spade, shall we? This book starts with ridiculous misrepresentations of moderns physics, including a laughable example that is supposed to make it look like quantum electrodynamics can't handle magnetism, and goes on to try to overturn Einstein with an extremely well-understood electrical experiment that does nothing of the kind.

The authors say that Einstein's view of the universe is 'imaginary,' but go on to replace it with something at least as imaginary. The difference? Theirs doesn't work. Avoid this book unless you are researching pseudoscience.