The author forgets a few fundamentals of basic science ...
591927
I am impressed by the presentation content contained in a free eBook by the scientifically un-credentialed author.  For anyone to portray the "virtues" of electrolysis upon water for the benefit of improved human health (indeed: the word "miraculous" comes to mind) they must show a bit more than just a clever presentation.  Then again, I see a nice advertisement contained in the back page of the free eBook which is hyperlinked to a website encouraging the purchase of some backyard fabricated contraption that can (GULP!) improve health if I have 699 bucks to throw away; it is very impressive "charlatanism" masked as scientific discovery and wonder.

Folks, you can ionize water all day long and it is impossible to see a health benefit in any way shape or form; remember, water is electrically neutral and as a result applying an electric current to some specialized electrodes (silver?) can not just waste your money for a 699 buck machine but also your continuous electric bill.  There is good news however, if you believe in junk and really, really try to click your ruby red slippers together, you just might get all the way back to Kansas.

I give the author a single star just for trying to play the "ye ol' pied piper" or the classic "snake oiler salesman."  It is actually phunney in our day and age.  It must be difficult for Telesforas to make a buck these days but as a recommendation, he could try panhandling as a better method.
1599703
I have now read this book entirely. One of the things he writes is: "I'm completely confident that I can prove there's no such thing as the laws of physics". I recognise this for the arrogantly-expressed rubbish that it is. I still observe such significant inconsistencies and plain errors / assumptions that I believe the potential reader should be warned of. However, my original comments based upon exerpts from the book still stand.

Firstly, he makes assumptions and misinterpretations concerning the effects of the Sun and the Solar System. He suggests that there is some unmeasurable 'wave of energy' generated by the planets having some kind of impact upon our own reality on Earth, and goes on to enter the field of the unbelievable error when he writes that the orbital paths of the planets have a far greater effect upon radio signals than does the Suns' 22 or 11-year cycle, [of which records have been kept since 1849 in Zurich]. It is also not the direct effect of magnetic solar activity that affects radio signals, as he suggests, it is known to be the UV and x-ray emissions that affect the Earths' atmospheric layers that cause these effects. In other words, radiation.

Secondly, he bases many of his points throughout the book on astrology rather than scientific facts, far too many to go into in a review so short as this but noteworthy nevertheless as it is coupled with his belief in some dire 'Secret' that Governments know about but do not tell the public. If you're looking for a good collection of facts, you are wrong in reading this book. If your interests are in ESP, the unmeasurable and undefinable aspects of astrology, the indefensable, conspiracies and U.F.O.'s then here is your entertainment.

Thirdly there are a number of demonstrations of his own lack of knowledge - he doesn't know the effectivity of a Faraday Cage - his is made of lead which is a far inferior conductor as well as being heavy whereas silver-plated copper would be the practical choice of metal.

Bara assumes that the Suns' temperature must be far higher if it is effectively a nuclear power source (20 million degrees C) as opposed to it's measured apparent temperature of around 6 million degrees; he also suggests that in [his] reality the Sun is simply an 'Energy Portal'...
The fact is even here on Earth our nuclear power stations may typically produce if uncontrolled a far greater deal of energy than is required or even desired: that is why there are 'control rods' in the reactor to regulate its activity, and nothing states that similar materials in the Sun also don't affect the amount of nuclear activity and hence its temperature.

This list goes on (and on...)

Whilst I could carry on with more examples of misinterpretation, inconsistencies and lack of reality. it would be far too long for a review of this kind.

He professes to know a great deal, I am of the opnion that he posesses the inverse of that amount.
-- F.C.T. Gale.
2462
Writers should write about things they understand. This author writes about, but understands nothing about, science, mathematics, how universities and research institutes function, the roles of university faculty, deans, provost, and presidents, Nobel prize awards, or even basic facts about brain development in infants and the limits, imposed by physics, on the speeds of neural processing, which are central to aspects of the novel. Leibowitz's lack of knowledge about biology is mind-blowing. He describes protozoa as "among the most primitive of all living things" although these are highly complex organisms in the Eukaryote domain (as are we). The prokaryotes, which are far simpler, comprise two domains, Bacteria and Archaea. The book also had very poor editing with respect to spelling (e.g., "latern for "lantern") and grammar (e.g., "whose" for "who's"; repeated use of "protozoa" as a singular instead of plural).

The presentation of Bobby, the central character ,leaves readers looking from the outside at a specimen or cartoon drawing. This is in diametrical contrast to Nabokov's presentation in "The Defense" of Luzhin, a chess genius threatened with madness, which the reader experiences as if inside Luzhin's mind.
1970242
The book starts off well with some interesting background on the chemistry of water. Then references to "water memory", Gaia, and chi start appearing. In someway in contradictory ways where the author cites scientific research to explain somethings, and then a paragraph later says that scientists don't yet understand some spiritual aspect of water as if it is a given truth waiting to be revealed. A pity since there are many interesting tidbits throughout the book and it raises important issues. But the continual sprinkling of pseudo science and spirituality among more rigorous arguments is bound to leave many readers confused about the real issues and state of understanding. It creates a real dissonance while reading, though the careful and knowledgeable reader may come away with something. The book doesn't quite live up to it's subtitle "The Causes, Costs, and Future of a Global Crisis" and lacks a coherent narrative. It is more like a collection of thoughts and vignettes from the author. The texts contains no footnotes or references. There is a short reading list where the author cites Wikipedia as the source of much of the book's material.
2018331
One of the primary problems with this book, as any one familiar with the philosophy of mind will know to wonder about, is what this book could say worthwhile about consciousness.  The answer is nothing.  The one good thing I will say about this book is some of the information it contains is mildly interesting to the neophyte of psychology, but, as I said, only mildly.

Going further, this book has some serious issues, which many philosophers of science and scientists have with psychology, namely, that psychology can be wildly unscientific.  Such is the case in this exposition.  Overall, I would have to say that this book should be avoided on the basis that it is not rigorous, lacks content, and simply incorrectly titled; this is not an introduction to consciousness.  The book is well written, and I do not doubt the author's competency, but this work is a failure.
2076084
There is some good science tif info here for about the first third of book. After that it breaks down into a well written, but lengthy sermon. The book is well written of course.

In the beginning he careens into informal logic errors over and over again.  He asks us to rely on his or other's impressive education. He blames us,, created creatures,  for misunderstanding God and His Plan. He assures us that Gods command for Israel to wreck genocide on the Canaanites was overall justified because the Canaanites deserved it).

Atheistic arguments against God are his straw man. They are of course all naive, foolish, stupid, and contributing nothing to the argument.
 God is showing us his love by pulling his fist back from a blow.

The biblical message is that God is there to help, but steps back, in biblical language hides his face, and insists that we do our part in the job. God has chosen us to be his partners..

For the world to become fully perfect.

We, our perception of God is the problem.  : We have a stunted perception from our childhood.

So Schroeder  delves right in with science.  He is noe complexity of the universe, its design, the process of how the original energy should be organized to become thinking life.  Now we, God and people together, need to get  the world to become fully perfect.

We, our perception of God is the problem.  : We have a stunted perception from our childhood

Schroeder  is no help to young earth creationists. He believes in the big bang and evolution. He reinterprets the Bible to support this. He marvels of the complexity of the universe, its design, the process of how the original energy should be organized to become thinking life. He does not help atheists, either. He believes in a God-guided evolution.

Finally, drawing on the Bible verse (Proverbs 8:12 then stretched to 22-24), I am Wisdom. God acquired me as the beginning of His ways, the first of His works from Old. I was established from everlasting, from the beginning, from before there was an earth. When there were no depths, I was brought forth.  Wisdom, a metaphysical emanation of God, was the big bang, it is the information of life written on to the fabric of the cosmos.
Schroder goes on to describe that scientists that infer that our earth is ordinary, an ordinary planet orbiting an ordinary star, they are completely missing the point. Life is extremely rare.  One often hears that surely there must be more planets capable of supporting (and evolving life. There are a 100 billion stars in each of 100 billion galaxies.  Even if 10 percent, etc.  This is pure sophistry. Even if there are many planets capable of supporting life (Schroeders calculations show 10,000 in the entire universe on admittidly sketchy assumptions--but the assumptions by scientists are similarly flawed, the following probability that life and a series of mutations on the planet, also needs to be considered.  The book is good, but it is much more a sermon than science.
4107699
I have to admit I just read the first chapter online... To be succinct, the arguments are childish in nature and the characterizations of both Atheists and Scientists utterly miss their mark...  It is obvious that Ray knows nothing of Science and can only imagine why someone would question that the universe needs a creator - why it couldn't have been recycled through the big bang process an infinite number of times... is that so crazy?  If you postulate an all powerful being, why not a closed universe that recycles itself - or one of the other current theories.  Which is more likely?  And just to show how deceitful this book can be,  the quote from Stephen Hawking on the Chapter 1 title page is totally out of context.  Stephen Hawking was stating a premise before that statement - if the premise were true, then a God would seem likely.  Mr. Hawking doesn't buy the premise.  Later down that same page in "A Brief History of Time" page 146:

So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?

Based on page 146,  Stephen Hawking postulates at most, the possibility of an impersonal god(I don't know his theological leanings per se)...

Ray claims "evolutionists" are dogmatic - far from it!  They go where the evidence leads them.  Ask any scientists - if they could overturn evolution based on evidence, they would  make a huge name for themselves.  The Truth is that no one has poked a compelling hole in the basic theory based on evidence. The only so called holes have come from a lack of imagination that things may not be what they seem.  Imagination is important to science, but without evidence to support it, it just stays imagination.

Atheists are far from amoral or immoral people, but Ray would have you believe otherwise... in fact statistics show that the percentage of Atheists in U.S. prisons is around .21% (that's 2.1/1000)of the total prison population, while they make up 8 - 16% of the general population.  Judeo-Christian's make up 83.7% of the U.S. prison population and about 85% of the general population... Dispute that as a predictor of morality if you wish, but it shows that Atheists are far less likely to break civil laws...and this is also attested to in countries like Sweden where non-believers make up the majority of the population and crime rates are much lower than in the U.S.

So - based on the first chapter, I agree with the reviewer who said this has something for Christians to bolster their faith - since they are used to the type of arguments made by Ray.  But for Atheists and all critical thinkers, the arguments are childish at best, rehashed straw men and logical fallacies.

Try not to be taken in...search out the underlying assumptions that make these arguments seem compelling at first.  Humans are here, yes.  But just because the conditions are right for us doesn't lead to a conclusion it was made for us... we are what we are because of what came before us, not because it was created especially for us.
2893915
I appreciate the hard work that McTaggart obviously did in her effort to understand quantum physics, relativity and other scientific issues -- having, by her own admission, little formal training in these fields.

But it wasn't enough.  I found glaring errors on almost every page, showing either a misunderstanding of the science involved or a deliberate effort to twist the science to support her ideas.  (Usually, I couldn't determine which it was...)

She wants us to believe that the Zero Point Field is responsible for a wide variety of currently unexplained phenomena.  And she is not afraid to take immense leaps in logic to "prove" her point.  In her introduction, she says that, part way through writing the book, she began to understand that her science-based collaborators were leavng these conclusions for her to draw -- that they weren't going to do it.  But I guess she didn't understand why they weren't going to make them.

And it's because her "logical" connections aren't logical and don't adhere to the rules of science that have been carefully hammered out over several centuries.

The historical path of science is littered with the debris of clever ideas that didn't work out when placed under the scrutiny of careful scientific analysis.  (Look up "phlogiston" in Wikipedia to read about a prime example of this.)  My strong hunch is that her conclusions about the ZPF will land in this same pile of debris.

Now, all of what she suggests may, in fact turn out to be right.  But her defense of her ideas is heavily flawed.
4589719
The story of the elements and the science behind them should make fascinating reading.  Instead we get with this book an author with a liberal-environmentalist agenda intruding into what should be a simple and straightforward scientific explanation.

Did you know that sulfur was an "evil element"?  And that "it has the blood of millions on its hands"?  The author seems to think so--because of its association with gunpowder!

When we get to radium, we don't actually SEE any radium.  Instead we get a shot of an old radium dial watch, and also various other turn-of-the-century vials of radium-type knicknacks from the author's collection. There is nothing about Marie Curie's heroic efforts to isolate a few decigrams of the element from tons of pitchblende, in an old wooden shed behind her house.  We get nothing about how the discovery and research into radium led to modern particle physics.  What we DO get is an impassioned lecture on the "radium girls" who painted watches and developed cancer; and an attendant lesson on the evils of industrialists and how the "radium girls" case pioneered the increased use of lawsuits in the workplace!

Of course by the time the author gets to uranium, he is almost frothing at the mouth over the horrors of nuclear power and nuclear weapons.  Nothing about the laborous and fascinating process of extracting U-235 isotope from the much more abundant U-238--especially with 1940's technology.

Many of the pictures in the book are murky and poorly lit, so you cannot really get an idea of what leutitium or lanthanum looks like.

Very little on the actual physics of the elements, their production, various compounds, details of extraction, etc.

I'm in the process of looking for a better book without the agenda of the author--who denounces modern technology while obviously enjoying its benefits.

I give the book 2 stars, mainly because it gives at least a glimpse of a few of the rare earth elements.
1380649
Tipler is a physicist of some reputation, and his explanation of the principles of physics is OK, not as good as in his earlier Physics of Immortality.  The book really is weak in its understanding of Chrtistianity.  He does not seem to have even a rudimentary understanding of the teachings of the gospels, much less those who have commented on them from Paul to modern authors.
2879346
An author who was unfamiliar with the source material he was supposed to be writing about.
2184904
Let's me say first that I'm 100% pro-evolution, and that abiogenesis is what attracted me to this book. I was seeking an explanation that is either fundamental by itself and based upon some empirical data, or another based on advances of known origin-of-life theories like the "RNA-world".
Unfortunately, the book delivers neither.
As another reviewer pointed out already, De Duve divulges the reader into the basics of cell biology; a nice introduction of life chemistry, proteins, RNA, DNA, enzymes and such.
De Duve then spends few chapters on paving the way from a pre biotic world to one that is dominated by protocells. He believes that proteins are a by-product of RNA and therefore RNA must have preceded proteins. Judging by the complexity of RNA, he postulates that peptide bonds _somehow_ formed among amino acids with the help of what he calls "multimers" (amino acids among other things), and those short peptides could have played the role of a primitive catalyst.
What De Duve fails to provide through out his book is data + examples. To convince any reader with the possibility of such event, common wisdom dictates a minimum amount of experimental data to support the "building" blocks of his hypothesis.
In 1997, Ghadri group synthesized a peptide ligase. That is, a self-replicating 32 amino-acid long peptide. It is the constant lack of evidence that makes Du Duve arguments weak.
Then he says that ATP and other NTPs _somehow_ arose, and the discussion for their "existence" is beyond the scope of the book. Then our catalyst peptide forms an RNA-like structure from ATP and others. Then he says that many bases were initially bound, not just A, U, G, and C. But once we had a "rare" RNA with A, U, G, C, it is _somehow_ more stable and more reproducible. De Duve does not really discuss why he believes this is the case, other than it must be because this is what we have now.
In one occasion, De Duve says "Admittedly, this is all hypothetical. But the hypothesis rests on undeniable foundations and has the advantage of suggesting experimental approaches". He made it clear on several occasions than many areas of pre biotic chemistry lack experimentation despite their significance in origin-of-life research. After suggesting an experiment, he concludes "This is what I would do if I were 20 years younger".
De Duve then goes on to explain how the RNA led eventually to proteins (RNA attaches itself to some amino acids, and using the RNA itself as a catalyst, we form protein). And that once we had proteins, life needed cells at that stage to compete and protocells were created. The RNA made proteins, and RNA that made better proteins for the cell survived and got duplicated. The cell at this has some rudimentary membrane, and can replicate itself via division.
What he skipped is how such membrane forms, why it forms, and how the division process in this protocell exactly takes place.
I really wished that De Duve paid more attention to such critical details. Different people might read the book for different reasons, I read it for the goal of gaining an understanding on abiogenesis. Being a strong believer in abiogenesis myself, I was quite enthusiastic when I began reading the book. However, skepticism over Duve's take on abiogensis kept growing as I read more chapters.
Unfortunately, I lost faith in his approach to this critical issue.
1531661
Author just asks random questions of established scientists.  They give answers that start an in depth discussion of topic, the author asks another random question.  Very little follow up on any topic.  Author not a scientist, that appears to be a dreamer, who wants answers to potentially scientific questions that fits her perception of the topic.  Very unrealistic and with little merit in addressing the subject of consciousness, which is really a philosophical topic.
3764399
I own both of Singh's previous books and Singh does an excellent job exploring the history of the Big Bang Theory in his latest book.  That being said, this reader found certain aspects of his book disappointing.

In the opening chapter Singh touts the Sun-center for its simplicity (and I agree with his observation).  As the book went on it seemed to me that the idea of simplicity in scientific theory disappeared as our understanding of the world grew increasingly complex.  One would think that Singh is implying that Occam's Razor need not apply in a modern world.

Singh spends a considerable amount of time discussing Hubble's Law, but he never mentions that Hubble's Law assumes that the universe is expanding at a constant rate.  Cosmic inflation (which is relegated to the closing pages of the book) effectively negates this assumption and implies that Hubble's Constant isn't really constant after all, which may explain why modern estimates place Hubble's Constant at values ranging from 50 to 100 km/s/Mpc.

Singh assumes that the Doppler shift remains valid and that no non-Doppler effects (such as the Wolf effect) are present.  Maybe he should have mentioned that the speed of light might be slowing down, which could also contribute to the disparate estimates of Hubble's Constant.

Singh ignores modern discoveries such as the Great Attractor or the Centaurus Wall, which raises some questions in regards to dark matter and the formation of galactic structures.  The interested reviewer is encourged to search the internet for these terms.  He also ignores the work of Halton Arp who has put forward a case for the association of neighboring galaxies with disparate redshifts (with Stephan's Quintet being the best example).

Overall, this reader believes that the jury is still out on the Big Bang Theory and that more work is necessary before this theory can be called fact.
3828863
I'm a software developer and avid reader of math and tech books.
This book seems to cover a wide variety of topics in a very superficial way.
A good author will keep the readers imagining and solving problems before they learn the specific topic from the book itself and the author will also have the answers for imaginative readers' probable questions (might be in the subsequent chapters).

The authors of this book failed to achieve that. I'm buying "Distributed Algorithms" by Nancy A. Lynch
1154773
The title of Flannery's book "Here on Earth: A Natural History of the Planet" led me to believe that this book would be a scientific history of the planet, with a focus on the geological and biological history of the planet.  Instead, this book expounds the "Gaia" hypothesis, i.e. that the Earth as a planet is akin to a living organism, and that we humans and all other living things are mere parts.  The author is also apparently an avid environmentalist and presses environmentalist viewpoints throughout the book.  The book does describe, albeit in a superficial manner, numerous biological and geological phenomena, e.g. evolution and cellular biology.  However, the book is so unfocused that I often needed to keep my computer nearby to look up explanations for poorly explained ideas.

I have no problem with the author presenting his viewpoints on nature or anything.  But Flannery makes little attempt to distiguish between opinions and facts.  It becomes apparent fairly on in the book that the author dislikes us (humans) as a species and seems to find us to be a burden for "Gaia", and one which Earth will have to reckon with appropriately.

I did learn a bit of science while reading this book, and the writing style makes the book easy to read. But due to the book's clear lack of focus, misleading title, and overdose of environmentalist opinion dressed up as scientific fact, I do not recommend this book.
4608087
The author is trying to bridge the gap between the "two cultures" -scientific minded, and the literary minded. He is trying to target the literary camp in particular.
He gently tries to introduce the reader to complex numbers by use of examples.  We can 'imagine' positive integers, and we can imagine negative ones too.  At least, we aren't bothered by not really knowing them; we can find physical analogies for them.
Mazur tries to do the same with imaginary numbers.  I think he did an okay job.  I can imagine adding them now, and multiplying them, and even taking their square roots.  He does, however, stop short of raising a number to an imaginary exponent.  The imagery is simply transformations on the plane.
By reading this book, it is immediately apparent that the author has an encyclopedic knowledge.  But, this is the problem however.
He's all over the place with analogies.  We have drawings of cockroaches, passages about a particular tulip versus an idealized tulip, talks about Allah.  None of it has anything to do with imaginary numbers, nor imagining them.  Instead, these images are used to describe how ideas come into fruition.  He tries to say something like, "hey ideas take time to bubble up into consciousness, we have traces of it in the atmosphere.  Later, we can feel it and know it's there.  Finally we get a handle on it, and it becomes concrete."
Looking briefly through this book right now, I notice these irrelevant imageries don't take much book space, but they are so oddly out of place, they take up a majority of my impression of the book.
I can't say this book is a complete waste of time.  I enjoyed his explanation of the basics of algebra, and why we can't divide by zero, and why a negative times a negative is a positive.  In fact, it's the best explanation I've read so far.
Also, the history of the emergence of complex numbers is abbreviated, but informative.  However, things are just watered down and lost by these crazy tulip analogies about how ideas become concrete.  This book is so-so.  I feel that if someone wants to know the history of imaginary numbers and how to think about them, they could probably find a better book.
If there is a second edition, I think Barry should expand his bookkeeping example as an introduction to algebraic rules.  Then cut to the chase, show us to grasp imaginary numbers, think of them as points on the plane, and operations on them as transformations and vector addition.  He can later discuss how this mental model of imaginary numbers came to be, and these tulip images won't stick out so sorely.
This would be much like how people view a great painting or a magnificent edifice.  Rarely is anyone privileged to see a magnificent work in progress.  And those who do rarely grasp or appreciate the beauty that is forming before their eyes.  Rather,  after appreciating the final work, we then watch a documentary on how such and such a building was built.
Barry would do better to follow this formula, instead of immersing us in a work in progress, and more-or-less, confusing his readers.
Finally, I hope Barry uses his tremendous intellect to show how imaginary numbers relate in the day to day.  And not via electrical engineering!  Imaginary numbers are used in electricity, but since electricity is hare to grasp, real world examples using electricity would be confusing.
What I'm getting at is this: We can find uses for negative numbers in the day to day: walk 3 north, 4 south, and you'll be 1 south.  Perhaps there is something quite simple for complex numbers too.
If in succeeding with that last point, then we may not be so bothered by not grasping imaginary numbers, because we have a physical analogy of them, and then we can pretend to know what they are, just as we do the integers.