Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Super Principia Mathematica

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the read-all-about-it dept.

Books 325

An anonymous reader writes "This is not an ordinary book and extraordinary would still be an understatement. Robert Louis Kemp has built a plateau of quod erat demonstrandum (Q.E.D.) in math, physics and logic; defined as his Super Principia Mathematica. Beyond brilliant, Kemp has worked on his book for over two decades, sacrificing personal comfort and financial security to laboriously bring to fruition his textbook style, hardback, expertly illustrated principles to the understanding level prevailed by most people. By 'most people' he means those who have a basic understanding of mathematics, geometry, algebra, calculus, physics and most importantly possessing the curiosity to learn." Read on for the rest of Gary's review.Kemp unpretentiously begins with a quick introduction of the laws of physics, math, relativity, quantum mechanics, and other issues regarding creation of matter, the beginning of the universe, plus dark energy, particle physics, atomic energy, geometry, time and space. In doing so he credits the groundbreaking work done by others over the centuries, such as; Nicolas Copernicus, Jonannes Kepler, Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, and more recently Michael Faraday, Albert Einstein, Hendrik Lorentz, Alexander Friedman and the contemporary and controversial work of Steven Rado. However most notably Robert Louis Kemp celebrates the work and wisdom on one which he quotes throughout his prose and cites credit beyond all the others, and that is God. I would not classify this book within the genre of theology; however it is refreshing to see a man with such scientific acumen articulate his respect for a fundamentally diametrically opposing thought process.

It would be impossible to describe the scientific descriptions of Kemp without quoting an excerpt from his work to illustrate the nature of his writing. Halfway into this book he talks about the principles of The Vacuum Force. To quote, 'The Vacuum Force is popularly thought of as an attractive effect, which is incorrect since vacuums do not innately attract matter like Gravity does using mass. The Vacuum Force behaves similar to a home vacuum where the dust being "sucked" into a vacuum cleaner is actually being pushed in by the higher pressure air on the outside of the cleaner.' Kemp then goes into a discussion of the suction of fluids, which quite interestingly, 'if the pressure is inward (centripetal) motion, its motion does not follow a straight (radial) path to the center; it follows a spiraling path; this is called a vortex.' This is brought deeper into the discussion of the forces of the vacuum, the effect of 'zero-point energy,' called the Casimir Effect, proposed by Dutch physicist Hendrik B. G. Casimir. 'In quantum field theory, the Casimir effect and vacuum force are physical forces arising from a quantized field.' Kemp further goes on to show the relationships using algebraic equations.

An analytical critique of the examples of Robert Louis Kemp's work in a book review is like taking all of Mozart's music and summarizing it into a 30 second sound bite. Kemp writes concisely and cohesively on Einstein's Theory of Relativity, further explaining the relationships of gravitational force, energy, matter and time with countless drawings, equations, and formulas. This book is not to be read in one sitting, but to be savored, chapter by chapter preferably by a discussion group or class, and used as a foundation for further discovery. I have found nothing to contradict or state any opposing comments.

I will reiterate the tools described by Kemp, as stated in his Prologue, 'For me, the mathematics of physics, are the tools that God gave man that he may understand, describe, and predict the great works of God's created universe.' This textbook style book has hundreds of 'white board' equations, numerous expertly diagramed illustrations, and an index precisely affording the reader access to the points of reference within the text by subject. The reader will understand the relationships between such abstract forces and be able to compute the solution of an unknown variable based upon known formulas. His work is recommended for college level classroom studies, independent learning, and as a satisfying source of information for the curiosity within all of us. Robert Louis Kemp takes these tools and in this, one of his series of publications, Super Principia Mathematica: The Rage to Master Conceptual & Mathematical Physics -The General Theory of Relativity becomes a man and with a clear, cognitive vision describing God's universe to all fellow men.

You can purchase Super Principia Mathematica: The Rage to Master Conceptual & Mathematica Physics from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

cancel ×

325 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Glory hound (0)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590710)

Darn those Newton wanna-bes!

Re:Glory hound (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33590890)

Dear Locke2005:

Please refrain from posting on Slashdot. Anyone who hyphenates the word "wannabe" is an idiot; you do not deserve to be here.

Yours Truly,
Raptor Jesus

Re:Glory hound (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33591528)

Dear Anonymous Coward:

Please refrain from posting on Slashdot. Anyone who signs their posts as "Raptor Jesus" is an idiot; you do not deserve to be here.

Yours Truly,
Raptor Jesus

Re:Glory hound (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33591674)

Dear Raptor Jesus,

Please refrain from posting on Slashdot. Anyone who responds to a post with a post that is essentially the same is an idiot; you do not deserve to be here.

Yours Truly,
Raptor Jesus

Re:Glory hound (5, Informative)

Albanach (527650) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591308)

As pointed out by drewhk (1744562), this review appears to be a work for hire by a firm [pacificbookreview.com] that is paid to write book reviews by authors and publishers. LinkedIn lists Gary Sorkin as Founder/Consultant for Pacific Communication Group, and the whois entry lists Nicole Sorkin as Registrant. There is an identical review on Amazon that is attributed to the firm.

The /. Book Review Guidelines state:

"Important: If you have a relationship (other than as an ordinary reader) to the author or publisher of a book you're reviewing, disclose that relationship. "

I wonder if such a relationship exists, and if so why it is hidden?

Re:Glory hound (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591538)

Wait... explain to me again why any author would pay someone else to write glowing reviews of their book when, as an author, they are obviously qualified to write reviews of their own book, with which they are (presumably) intimately familiar?

Re:Glory hound (3, Interesting)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591602)

It's a way for them to get free publicity for their book because this Pacific Book Review company will spam their shill reviews all over the internet.

Re:Glory hound (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591540)

But does it run Linux?

Re:Glory hound (5, Informative)

TheMMaster (527904) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591588)

"Wanna be" indeed. From his own bio:

"I know that there are some readers that would ask, why does Kemp not have a PhD? The truth is reader, I did not want to waste years trying to convince others of my ideas, or doing research for someone else, when my own personal research required that same enormous time."

Not that one has to have a PhD to have insights, but his first book has a subtitle "A Universal Kinetic Aether Theory" which should really tell you enough about this guy's 'credentials'. If you look through the other concepts he mentions are in his book I would imagine that it is all a very elaborate 'first cause' argument for the existence of a creator deity.

This 'review' is a disgrace to the slashdot frontpage...

Re:Glory hound (3, Insightful)

TheMMaster (527904) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591608)

Also "I did not want to waste years trying to convince others of my ideas" seems to suggest "I know I am right, this pesky peer-review is for sissies"

truly horrendous

Silly and presumptuous name... (2, Insightful)

Godskitchen (1017786) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590724)

...and the cover art is god awful but the content should be interesting.

Re:Silly and presumptuous name... (2, Funny)

naz404 (1282810) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590896)

Am I the only one disappointed when I found out it was a Math book after getting past the title, and not a new geeky video game in the vein of Super Mario Brothers"?

Re:Silly and presumptuous name... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33590942)

The name sounds familiar...
 
--
  6 zip [6zip.com]

Re:Silly and presumptuous name... (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591050)

Ya, for being so smart you wouldn't expect him to have the worst website ever [superprincipia.com] either.

Re:Silly and presumptuous name... (2, Insightful)

Monchanger (637670) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591428)

...especially when he claims to have done web development professionally for a media company like Disney.

I am definitely going to check out the book, this is just a silly reason to lose sales after putting in so such a tremendous effort. It bugs the hell out of me to see such a blatant example of geek stereotypes. Same with comments about the cover. He should at least realize he's no good at it and get a friend to help.

Re:Silly and presumptuous name... (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591530)

ugly ... built on <table> tags ... did I mention ugly? ... Those monkeys working on Shakespeare could build a better site.

pfffft (5, Funny)

Mike Kristopeit (1900306) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590734)

super principia matlab is better

Re:pfffft (4, Funny)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591070)

Are you kidding? Super Principia Octave has all the important functionality and none of the ridiculous cost!

Re:pfffft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33591600)

Super Principia Fortran. Tried and true. Super speedy.

Re:pfffft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33591640)

and Super Principia numpy has the advantage of being reusable in a language in which application development is sane.

Easy now (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590736)

Take a breather and calm down. Seriously.

Take a deep breath (0, Troll)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590766)

If you get that big a hard-on reading a book about physics... well then, you must be an average slashdot reader.

Re:Take a deep breath (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33590912)

"Particle Physics gives me a Hadron."

Dude is a crank, and anon reviewer is likely him. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33590804)

Like I said, Dude is a crank, and anon reviewer is likely him.

Re:Dude is a crank, and anon reviewer is likely hi (2, Insightful)

zufar (603583) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590940)

He also seems to have some Mod point, since you are downmodded for stating simple truth

Re:Dude is a crank, and anon reviewer is likely hi (5, Insightful)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591088)

Actually, it seems the review is just copy-pasted from the only Amazon review of it. The reviewer [amazon.com] appears to be a shill, as they have done 90 reviews, all of which are 4 or 5 stars, and all of them are as absurdly effusive as this one.

C'mon samzenpus, you can do better than this...

Re:Dude is a crank, and anon reviewer is likely hi (3, Insightful)

cmiller173 (641510) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591240)

Which means they are probably an employee of the publisher.

Re:Dude is a crank, and anon reviewer is likely hi (3, Insightful)

Megaweapon (25185) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591244)

C'mon samzenpus, you can do better than this...

Are you serious?

Re:Dude is a crank, and anon reviewer is likely hi (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33591366)

A quick search on google also turned up the same review, word for word, on ezinearticles by a Gary R. Sorkin. Following back the links, I found that the review was written by this web site: http://www.pacificbookreview.com/ [pacificbookreview.com]
 
According to their FAQ, you pay them to review your book and they post their review all over the place. I'm sure that they're unbiased.
 
Admins, please get rid of this slashvertisement.

That's crazy! (1)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591460)

Everyone is always so ready to cry 'shill'. Lets take a look at this objective article, just by picking out any old quote:

"Robert Louis Kemp takes these tools and in this, one of his series of publications, Super Principia Mathematica: The Rage to Master Conceptual & Mathematical Physics -The General Theory of Relativity becomes a man and with a clear, cognitive vision describing God's universe to all fellow men."

Sounds like an unbiased view to me. I'm pretty sure though the author should have gone with a snappier name. From the review, it sounds like this could reasonably just been called "Bible 2: Holier Than Thou".

Re:Dude is a crank, and anon reviewer is likely hi (1)

Mike Kristopeit (1900306) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591566)

pretty obvious this is a bought review.... but don't knock an amazon reviewer because they always give 4 or 5 stars... i have over 100 reviews, and they are all 4 or 5 stars... my word should be trusted less because i'm an informed consumer that only buys and reviews quality products?

Good catch, but doesnt preclude sub from being him (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33591652)

he may well be both the amazon reviewer and the slashdot submitter

unless they possess a substantial force of character, its hard for these kinds of nutjobs to pull others into their delusion. At least in my own experience, the science cranks tend to generally be pretty bad at it, and live secluded, lonely, wasted lives.

its pretty sad, really. if you're going to be crazy, at least it'd be nice to have company.

Re:Dude is a crank, and anon reviewer is likely hi (1)

divisionbyzero (300681) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591666)

C'mon samzenpus, you can do better than this...

Agreed. A simple google search would show the reviewer is a shill.

Who is it for? (2, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590816)

I read the summary, and I'm still not sure, who is the book for? Is it for people who never took physics in college? Is it for people who have complete understanding of physics but like to read about basic physics for the fun of it? Or is the entire point of the review to show that actually there are some competent physicists who believe in God (since that was mentioned in the review more than anything else, and I would imagine with a higher frequency than in the actual book)?

Re:Who is it for? (2, Interesting)

drewhk (1744562) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590906)

The summary is exactly the same as the first "review" in amazon. What a coincidence. I call BS.

Re:Who is it for? (1)

Albanach (527650) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591108)

The summary is exactly the same as the first "review" in amazon. What a coincidence. I call BS.

I'm not sure what you mean. Why should someone not be allowed to write a review for Amazon and for /.

It's not like the reviewer tried to hide who they are. From the summary, "reviewer Gary R. Sorkin" and the first review on Amazon is by the very same "Gary Sorkin".

Without the review having been posted here, many would never have heard of the book nor found it on amazon

Re:Who is it for? (1)

Albanach (527650) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591196)

Ah, I see your issue - it's a commercial review from a company employed by the publisher.

I don't mind someone reviewing a book in two places, but you're spot on - a company hired by the author/publisher shouldn't be the one to judge a book as 10/10.

It would be nice if they;s mentioned that their review was a work for hire.

Re:Who is it for? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591518)

It's not like the reviewer tried to hide who they are. From the summary, "reviewer Gary R. Sorkin" and the first review on Amazon is by the very same "Gary Sorkin".

Without the review having been posted here, many would never have heard of the book nor found it on amazon

Or been motivated to do some research and find out that the Gary Sorkin who did the review both here and on Amazon is from a book review service [pacificbookreview.com] that advertises to authors that "The only wish we have is for your success as an author."

Re:Who is it for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33591562)

a book review service [pacificbookreview.com] that advertises to authors that "The only wish we have is for your CA$$$H MONEEEYZ."

FTFY.

Re:Who is it for? (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591642)

The summary is exactly the same as the first "review" in amazon. What a coincidence. I call BS.

I'm not sure what you mean. Why should someone not be allowed to write a review for Amazon and for /.

It's not like the reviewer tried to hide who they are. From the summary, "reviewer Gary R. Sorkin" and the first review on Amazon is by the very same "Gary Sorkin, pimp".

Without the review having been posted here, many would never have heard of the book nor found it on amazon

There. Fixed that for ya'.
And to answer your question... It's because we generally expect book reviews to drafted by a relatively impartial critic, not some lackey who has been hired to make it look that way.

Re:Who is it for? (1)

drewhk (1744562) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591234)

Ok, that was probably a stupid comment from me. Consider it cancelled.

Re:Who is it for? (1)

butterflysrage (1066514) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590910)

that was exactly what I was wondering... what, precisly is so shocking about a scientist who has faith? That only describes the VAST majority of professional and armchair scientists I know (yes, anacdotal... bite me :P )

Re:Who is it for? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590998)

And who is Robert Louis Kemp anyway? I was excited when Penrose's wrote The Road to Reality, as he's already established as one of the world's top minds. Where does Kemp teach? What peer reviewed papers has he authored? Where is his PhD from? How do I know he's not just some crank?

Re:Who is it for? (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591442)

What peer reviewed papers has he authored? Where is his PhD from? How do I know he's not just some crank?

Since when does having a PhD mean you can write an easily understood book? In my experience, it's exactly the opposite.

Also, why does it matter? A degree is a piece of paper, judge the guy by how good the book actually is.

Re:Who is it for? (1)

butterflysrage (1066514) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591502)

and if this was sci-fi you would have a point... but when it comes to physics I would like at least some kind of qualifications to ensure that the author isn't just blowing smoke up peoples backside (while taking their money).

Re:Who is it for? (1)

nbauman (624611) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591596)

And who is Robert Louis Kemp anyway?

He can't be anybody important. He doesn't even have an entry in Wikipedia.

Re:Who is it for? (1)

cheesewire (876598) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591484)

God (since that was mentioned in the review more than anything else, and I would imagine with a higher frequency than in the actual book)?

A quick search found what looks like the book's official website...complete with the author's autobiography [superprincipia.com] which seems to indicate that God could well be a prominent theme throughout the book.

Amongst other things he apparently spent 2 years locked in a room doing nothing but studying the bible + physics and worked on flying cars, but didn't bother with a PhD because he didn't want to waste time trying to convince other people of his ideas...

Re:Who is it for? (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591620)

And that poorly scaled image of Isaac Newton by the author's name. Classy.

Thanks for the quick laffs. "In that paper I tied James Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations to Albert Einstein and Max Planck’s quantum of electromagnetic energy concept. Those papers can be found circulating the internet." BWA HA HA!

Re:Who is it for? (1)

pugugly (152978) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591496)

That my take. This could be interesting, or this could be 'Time Cube' BS.

Of course, given that I've never really gotten my ass through Asimov's History of Physics, and I *know* I like his writing, it may be livable for me to do without.

Pug

QL'EB? (3, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590832)

understanding level prevailed by most people

My hovercraft is full of eels.

the rage (2, Funny)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590858)

The Rage to Master Conceptual & Mathematica Physics gets me every so often. Just last week I murdered a coworker over the notion that equilateral triangles have 3 equal angles as well. This stuff ... it just gets you mad!

I don't know about you... (2, Funny)

Godskitchen (1017786) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590864)

...but it sounds Bohring. Sorry.

Zero Point Energy (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33590882)

I stopped reading the summary when I got to the part about Zero Point Energy. Do a google search on "Zero Point Energy" and you will understand why.

Re:Zero Point Energy (2, Informative)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590978)

I stopped reading the summary when I got to the part about Zero Point Energy. Do a google search on "Zero Point Energy" and you will understand why.

Zero point energy is the ground state of a quantum mechanical system.

It's been used and abused by the sci-fi world, but it's a real scientific concept.

Re:Zero Point Energy (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33591048)

Yes, it is a concept, but the fact that it was brought up in the summary is a red flag. Out of all the subjects in physics it gets special mention. Crackpot alert.

Re:Zero Point Energy (4, Funny)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591066)

You are obviously educated evil.

Go back to your non-4 corner world and leave those who have the understanding and enlightenment of Timecube to appreciate it.

Thankful (0)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590894)

I love the warriors against ignorance. People that push back the darkness deserve our deepest gratitude and respect.

Kems is on hemp (3, Informative)

zufar (603583) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590904)

Could not get any preview pages of his books on Amazon, but googling revealed some truly crackpot things he had written. See:
http://photontheory.com/Kemp/Kemp.html [photontheory.com]

At first I thought this was something else... (1)

pngwen (72492) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590926)

Anyone else immediately flash to Whitehead and Russel's Principia Mathematica? The title led me to assume that this was the "super" version of that, as in a more certain version. In which case, I thought that Kurt Gödel would like to have a word with the author!

Re:At first I thought this was something else... (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591488)

Anyone else immediately flash to Whitehead and Russell's Principia Mathematica?

Of course. But Principia Mathematic isn't about physics; it's a development of mathematics from minimal axioms, step by step.

The modern version of that is A Computational Logic [amazon.com] , by Boyer and Moore. This is a theorem prover which starts from a minimal set of axioms and, when fed the right theorems to prove in the right order, builds up number theory and set theory from a cold start, using only constructive mathematics.

Sounds interesting. (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590934)

Tell me stupid, but in my whole life, i have never read more clean, pure, self-explaining, extraordinary and even imaginary books, than math books. You cannot argue with 2+2=4. (in fact you could, but that's another story). It is only up to you to grasp the gods ideas, and have his message as clean as possible, unlike all the politicians,gamblers, criminals(politicians) and the rest of the mob who are doing their best to cloud your mind, and make you what...vote for them!!! Anyway, if this book is as good as it is described, it is worth readied by everyone, even by the math-less guys. In fact, especially by them.

What?! (2, Interesting)

eyenot (102141) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590946)

I had to look up Steve Rado, because I'm into controversial physics. The unified theory of Willie Johnson, Jr., for example.

But I couldn't find anybody writing of Rado with anything but mild contempt. There wasn't even a wikipedia entry on him.

So... Is this article's author (anonymous) actually Steve Rado ghost writing a serious book about physics in an insane attempt to bolster the credibility of his other book, Aethro-Kinetimatics (or wtfe), and then showing up on Slashdot to write an anonymous "review" of his own book as part of a grand plot to do some shit or other (who knows)?

Kindle? (2, Informative)

aunchaki (94514) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590962)

No Kindle version? Rats!

So.... (1)

acnicklas (1740146) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590968)

....it's like a coffee table book for nerds?

Copy and Paste Review (4, Informative)

Thyamine (531612) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590972)

This is an exact copy of what is posted on Amazon, and is the only review there.

Russell turns in his grave (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33590974)

From the title I expected something related to the original "Principa Mathematica" by Russell and Whitehead. This is abig disapointment.

Re:Russell turns in his grave (1)

koreaman (835838) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591350)

Actually, "Principia Mathematica" was the title of Newton's magnum opus, long before Russell and Whitehead. That seems to be what the title is referencing.

However, the guy makes it abundantly clear on his website that he is an incorrigible crank:
http://www.superprincipia.com/About_The_Author.htm [superprincipia.com]

Spam alert (5, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#33590980)

This is a spam. The same review text appears on Amazon.com, EzineArticles, Anobii, etc. On the other hand, none of the Google search results (there are only 68) that mention the book come from any source even vaguely qualified in physics. Clearly fringe, may be nutty.

Re:Spam alert (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33591554)

Shouldn't we have editors to catch stuff like... oh, wait, nevermind.

How big a print run? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33590984)

"By 'most people' he means those who have a basic understanding of mathematics, geometry, algebra, calculus, physics and most importantly possessing the curiosity to learn."

So he's going to print, what, 20 copies?

Sounds like one of those crackpot theory books (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33590994)

Not to mention the fact that Amazon has no information on the book other than a copy of the book review that was just posted on Slashdot.

Something smells rotten here. This is a misleading review which makes the book sound like a readable intro to college level math and physics.

Summary: (5, Funny)

A. B3ttik (1344591) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591000)

Here's a quick summary of the article:

Super Principia Mathematica is liquid cocaine fed intravenously to your veins for two hours. It is a mental 12 hour orgasm. Reading this book will be the most important event of your life and by far the most pleasurable. Super Principia Mathematica was better than my wedding, better than watching my first son born, better than the time I had sexual intercourse with an entire college cheerleading squad while high on peyote.

Words cannot express it. It is like viewing the face of God. Forget the reviews, forget any summaries you've read, forget whatever anyone else has told you. Forget religion, forget God, forget science, forget everything you thought you knew. There is only Super Principia Mathematica, and it is beautiful.

Robert Louis Kemp is brilliance incarnate. He is divine. I am not sure how exactly he created this masterpiece of visual neurological cues which induce pure pleasure, but I now owe him absolutely everything. He has perfected visual neural interface with the genius stroke of a Renaissance Master and the prowess of an angel.

Read this book, repeatedly. You will want to take off work for the next week (perhaps longer) just to hold uninterrupted back-to-back readings. I am currently writing this from a netbook next to an open copy of the book. I must now continue to read.

Re:Summary: (2, Funny)

neo-mkrey (948389) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591120)

Thank you for your review.

I have just ordered twelve copies!

just awful (4, Informative)

foog (6321) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591004)

I don't know what's worse, dryly making fun of this kind of thing or even more dryly implicitly making fun the sheer number of folks that won't get the joke.

The review is by these guys: http://www.pacificbookreview.com/About-Us.php [pacificbookreview.com]

It's a self-published crank book with a hilarious title. The guy might be mentally ill. It's just sad. I know times are tough but still, this Gary Sorkin guy should be ashamed of taking Kemp's money to promote the book.

I'm sure the book is great n all, but... (5, Insightful)

singingjim1 (1070652) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591032)

...a delusional nutjob is still a delusional nutjob, and mentioning God as the driving force behind the concept of mathematics and physics is just blatant pandering. Someone writing about sound, and already established - he's providing no new information - scientific information just to spread their message of superstition seems to me to be the worst kind of trolling. It's very subversive and dishonest. Obviously the reviewer has the same agenda as the author and is just as dishonest. Slashdot should be ashamed for allowing this kind of nonsense to get through. Big deal, a book about stuff that other people have discovered, but with a not-so-hidden agenda. If you can't see through this tripe then you need not be reading \. at all.

Re:I'm sure the book is great n all, but... (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591536)

Anyone who reads about physics knows that God has a different meaning in that realm. It's not talking about Jehovah but rather a different concept. But go ahead and show your ignorance and bigotry - after all, you can't have one without the other. A few quotes from Einstein, who you surely have read.

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."

"The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness."

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

"One strength of the Communist system ... is that it has some of the characteristics of a religion and inspires the emotions of a religion."

PS starting a comment in the Subject: line is really annoying. Stop doing it. Subject is for your subject and comment is where you write the comment.

Re:I'm sure the book is great n all, but... (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591668)

What is it with people who think that posting a bunch of disparate quotes from Einstein equates to an argument? Just because Einstein said something doesn't mean it's correct or instantly insightful.

E-book? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33591068)

Is it available in electronic format?

Irrelevant (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591090)

"Kemp has worked on his book for over two decades, sacrificing personal comfort and financial security"

So? Sacrifices don't make a book great, great content does. I've known a nut job that spent every night obsessively working out a tin foil hat theory, and did lose his job because he couldn't stay awake at it - but he was still a nut job and his theory still in tin foil hat territory when it was all done.

Defining your way to truth (1)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591094)

By 'most people' he means those who have a basic understanding of mathematics, geometry, algebra, calculus, physics and most importantly possessing the curiosity to learn.

And this is a perfectly honest thing to say, if by 'perfectly honest' I mean a statement that is technically true only because they use a pathological definition of a common phrase.

Under most normal definitions of 'most people', most people believe [religioustolerance.org] the statement "God created man in his current form in the last 10k years". Of course, I could say nearly everyone believes that, if by 'nearly everyone' I mean those that believe the bible is the inerrant and literal truth.

We all have a perverse tendency to think that everyone is somewhat like us, probably fed in part by the fact that we spend a lot of time with people really are a lot like us. It's a rather straightforward kind of sampling bias that leads to absurd results such as extremists on both sides of the political spectrum (now we have the righties acting up, a few years ago the lefties were writing BusHitler and BuckFush) seriously and earnestly believing that they represent the views of the majority of Americans.

[ Disclaimer: I am a physicist. Not that I think it's relevant to the linguistic gymnastics I'm complaining about here, but disclosure is disclosure. ]

tl;dr (0, Troll)

Xacid (560407) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591100)

tl;dr

What's this God thing he keeps talking about? (4, Interesting)

EWAdams (953502) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591116)

Napoleon asked Laplace why his book on celestial mechanics contained no reference to God. La Place replied, "Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis."

Source check (1)

Dan Morenus (179942) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591124)

For what it's worth, the review appears to be a verbatim copy of the first review on amazon.com, by one "Gary Sorkin, Pacific Book Review".

Pacific Book Review, in its profile on amazon.com, describes itself as follows: "We review books for well known authors and emerging authors, and enabling many first time authors to reach the publishers with a recognizable review. We help you get the exposure you need to market your book effectively. We review both published and unpublished books. The only wish we have is for your success as an author."

It appears that they are a buzz generator.

Spam (4, Informative)

MetricT (128876) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591134)

The "anonymous author" of this review is http://www.pacificbookreview.com./ [www.pacifi...review.com] From their website:

"Welcome to Pacific Book Review - Our goal is to help authors succeed! Strengthen your credibility with a professional book review."

I haven't read the book, but it sets off enough alarms that I wouldn't spend money on it.

If you want a real book on the subject, read Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality". I still flip through my copy regularly 5 years after buying it. I wish I had read it before I entered my Ph.D. program, it would have saved me much pain and suffering.

Re:Spam (4, Insightful)

adamdoyle (1665063) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591294)

You're absolutely right. Their website clearly states that their reviews are PAID FOR by the authors of the book. It's embarrassing that they managed to get a Slashdot story out of it.

Thin Is In (2, Interesting)

PingPongBoy (303994) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591208)

Beyond brilliant, Kemp has worked on his book for over two decades

But it's only a 544 page book. It might not read like Harry Potter but if he's been working on it at a pace of 25 pages a year (bet you the index and contents is 40 pages), can it really tell me something without forcing me to look for explanations in other places? I wonder how it compares to handbooks, which also list massive numbers of formulas in small print and still take up thousands of pages.

btw (1)

eyenot (102141) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591210)

The reviewer was actually not Anonymous, they are known as "Pacific Book Review Company", see, they sell these reviews to people who live in caves and eat batshit. Nobody else can figure that out but the people WHO BUY THIS BOOK!

Does Newton... (1)

EnsilZah (575600) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591236)

Get a Tenuki suit in this one?
Fire flower?

3rd in the series (1)

davonshire (94424) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591256)

Apparently, by visiting the website http://www.superprincipia.com/index.htm this would be the 3rd in his series. But I do find it hard to locate any independent review of his work.

I honestly would love to find a good source for information and illumination like this. But so far the best I've seen are the Feynman Lectures put on line by Microsoft.

http://research.microsoft.com/apps/tools/tuva/index.html

I do think I'll look into it further though.

DS

Crackpot or not? (3, Informative)

IronChef (164482) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591274)

This review tickled my BS detector. I looked up the "controversial" Stephen Rado and found what appears to be his site:

http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/ [aethro-kinematics.com]

It proudly proclaims to have been online since 1995... in blinking text. The first topic? Reintroducing the notion of the aether.

A serious scientific author would probably not associate himself with a site like this. However, if I am wrong and this is a wonderful scholarly work, please let me know.

Nothing in that "review" made me want to buy it (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591320)

In fact it was a turnoff - makes it sound like it was written by a crackpot.

How about you guys? Anybody going to rush out and buy after reading that?

This review is a good start, but... (1)

Chysn (898420) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591334)

...with a bit of effort we could make this Amazon's Three Wolf Moon T-Shirt (http://www.amazon.com/Mountain-Three-Wolf-Short-Sleeve/dp/B002HJ377A) of Books.

I mean, get a LOAD of this: "An analytical critique of the examples... is like taking all of Mozart's music and summarizing it into a 30 second sound bite... This book is not to be read in one sitting, but to be savored, chapter by chapter... I have found nothing to contradict or state any opposing comments." Brilliant parody!

If the book is half as crazy as the review, it's got to be worth fifty bucks.

About the Author... (1)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591362)

I wonder if his bio is any indication of his abilities as a writer (from Amazon):

About the Author
I worked for Jet Propulsion Laboratory for a total of eight summer/years conducting research, doing satellite data analysis, analyzing computer simulations of interstellar bodies using Orbital Mechanics techniques, and Radio Frequency signal analysis of interstellar space objects. When I graduated from Tuskegee University in the fall of 1994, I left Jet Propulsion Laboratory to work for Hughes Aircraft Company as an Aircraft Radar and Satellite Systems Engineer. While studying physics, I always entertained designing and building the Flying Car, and made many designs over the years. Then in the year 1995, I contacted Moller International, and met with the President of the Company, and showed him some of my flying car designs. He rewarded me by offering me a job making half of what I was making at Hughes Aircraft Company. But because I really wanted to work on the flying Car, I left Hughes Aircraft Company to work for Moller International as Chief Engineer in charge of the Flight Control System design of the (M200, M400 and Aerobot) Vertical Take-Off and Landing and Flying Car aircrafts. When the Moller Corporation did not win a major contract that would have pumped more money into the company, I left a year later to return to Hughes Aircraft Company. I returned to Hughes Aircraft in 1996, and in 1997 they were bought out by Raytheon Systems Corporation. For the Raytheon Systems Corporation, I worked as a systems engineer on the F-14, F-15, F-18, and Global Hawk fighter aircraft radar systems. In the year 1997 I got the physics bug again, and from 1997 through 1999 in my spare time all I did was study mainly orbital mechanics, and rotation. I eventually wrote a book on the subject of rotation that I never published. While working as radar systems engineer and studying physics in my spare time, I also picked up a third job and started teaching Mathematics in the year 1999 for the University of Phoenix Southern California Campus. I continue to teach mathematics to this present day, and prior to the writing of this book I have taught at the University of Phoenix for a total of 10 years. In the year 2001 I stopped working on physics, because I was tired of working on physics and working three jobs. (Engineer, Teacher, Physics Writer). When I stopped studying physics instead of resting, I started studying software and web site design. A year later in the year 2002 I left Raytheon to work for the Disney Corporation as a software computer programmer in web site design; however, I got in on the tail end of the Dot Com Bang ; and experienced the Dot Com Bust. I left the Disney Corporation and web site design, to head back into aerospace; and landed a job working for the Northrop Grumman Corporation Aircraft Avionics Division in 2004, working on the X-47B Naval Unmanned Air Combat Vehicle. Two years later, in the year 2006 I was promoted to Algorithm Development and System Design Verification Manager of the F-35 Fighter Aircraft Program at the Northrop Grumman Corporation. In June 2007, I got the physics bug again, and resigned from my management job, sold my house and moved into a one bed room condo, and returned to physics. I started working on completing this book that I started 21 years ago. And for the last three years, on my own free time, after work, and on weekends, night and day, day and night, I spent a total of three years of blood, sweat and tears creating this work. I hope that the reader enjoys this work, I consider it art, as well as science. I earnestly ask that everything be read with an open mind and that the shortcomings in any of the subjects addressed, which are new concepts, may be not so much reprehended as investigated, and kindly supplemented, by new endeavors of my readers.

Obvious crank (4, Insightful)

abigor (540274) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591424)

"However most notably Robert Louis Kemp celebrates the work and wisdom on one which he quotes throughout his prose and cites credit beyond all the others, and that is God."

"I will reiterate the tools described by Kemp, as stated in his Prologue, 'For me, the mathematics of physics, are the tools that God gave man that he may understand, describe, and predict the great works of God's created universe.' "

What on earth is this sort of claptrap doing on Slashdot?

This is SPAM... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33591514)

Oh wow, explain this to me. Slashdot is supposed to be about moderated quality content. And a shill "book review" from Amazon, created by company whose sole purpose is to create sham reviews for weak authors is on the front page of Slashdot????

What the freaking, fucking hell!?!?!?!?!?!

Get real...

A new low? (5, Insightful)

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591550)

Geez. Someone needs to take a good look at how this article got on the front page.

Referral Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33591580)

Is it standard practice to include a referral link on the purchase? Poor form either way.

Intelligent Design and anti-Hawking (4, Informative)

mellestad (1301507) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591584)

The press release brags about Intelligent Design and how the book is a counter to Hawking's, "There is no God theory". Yuck. http://www.superprincipia.com/Press_Release_2.pdf [superprincipia.com]

reminds of Wolfram and Penrose (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 3 years ago | (#33591676)

They recently wrotes "physics of everything" books.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>