Customer Reviews

Where Science Went Wrong: Tracking Five Centuries of Misconceptions (Fpb Copernican Series, V. 7.)

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

 

 

This book is very hard reading, make no mistake, You need plenty of time and patience to read and re-read each page. You might find that some of the observations and assertions are hard to follow, and perhaps even justify, but you are asked in the same breath to apply the same rigorous requirement to those assertions and "laws" that have been delivered to us on a "take-it-or-leave-it" basis. In Short, the book tells us that we know so little about our universe, that we are not much further along than Newton or Galileo, Copernicos and others. It is ignorant of us to speculate with such authority and pompousness that we have all the answers, when, for instance, we know absolutely nothing (relatively) about the fundamentals of light and gravity. The book is saying, "hold on, don't take science at face value, question it, ask why they think so, ask how they came to that conclusion" There are good points on gravity, light, matter, energy and parallax (spelling?) amongst other things. So before we take scientists who peer review each other and want to keep their knowledge hard to get and "in-house", take a step back, look a the universe, and accept, that Science went wrong when it assumed it had all of the answers, and our foundations (ie c in e=mc2) might not be so strong. good book, very thought provoking, a great starting point to stimulate deeper thinking and consciousness. If e=mc2 is wrong, then a whole lot of questions would need to be asked. This book goes well into those questions. On this basis, It doesn't matter if the author is right or wrong in his hypothesis, he's telling us to THINK!!!!

If you have any interest in cosmological issues, buy this book and read it. Bros uses logic like a nuclear bomb in cutting through the misconceptions and irrationalities underlying modern physics. A much better read than the drek we've gotten from Carl Sagan, Frank Tipler and their ilk. And certainly a much brighter guy....

It's unfortunate that so many reviewers can write something laudable about a book on a subject that neither the author nor (apparently) the reviewer know anything about. Classical mechanics cannot be understood without learning the language of mathematics. All the rest is drivel from the fringe. Seriously, get a BS meter.

It's entertaining enough, I suppose. But--where are the detailed, verifiable predictions that investigators could use to validate (or negate) it?