🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:00:05 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f01d260a-49b7-43a0-b1ad-85d5b1b590f7@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Curved-Spacetime-without-relativity/dp/0955706807
>> Relativity in Curved Spacetime: Life without special relativity
>> by Eric Baird (Author)
>> "Relativity theory has become one of the icons of Twentieth Century
>> science. It's reckoned to be a difficult subject, taught as a layered
>> series of increasingly difficult mathematics and increasingly abstract
>> concepts. We're told that relativity theory is supposed to be this
>> complicated and counter-intuitive. But how much of this historical
>> complexity is really necessary? Can we bypass the interpretations and
>> paradoxes and pseudoparadoxes of Einstein's special theory and jump
>> directly to a deeper and more intuitive description of reality? What
>> if curvature is a fundamental part of physics, and a final theory of
>> relativity shouldn't reduce to Einstein's "flat" 1905 theory //on
>> principle//? "Relativity..." takes us on a whistlestop tour of
>> Twentieth Century physics - from black holes, quantum mechanics,
>> wormholes and the Big Bang to the workings of the human mind, and
>> asks: what would physics look like without special relativity?"
>
>Evolution in Selecting Nature: Life without Evolution
>by Beric Aird (Author)
>"Evolution theory has become one of the icons of Nineteenth Century
>science. It's reckoned to be a difficult subject, taught as a layered
>series of increasingly difficult common sense and increasingly abstract
>concepts. We're told that Evolution theory is supposed to be this
>complicated and counter-intuitive. But how much of this historical
>complexity is really necessary? Can we bypass the interpretations and
>paradoxes and pseudoparadoxes of Darwin's evolution theory and jump
>directly to a deeper and more intuitive description of reality? What
>if selection is a fundamental part of biology, and a final theory of
>Evolution shouldn't reduce to Darwin's "flat" 1859 theory //on
>principle//? "Evolution..." takes us on a whistlestop tour of
>Nineteenth Century biology - from black birds, quacking geese,
>hole worms and the Big Elephant to the workings of the human mind, and
>asks: what would biology look like without Evolution?"
>
>Dirk Vdm 


Okay, I have to admit it, that was funny ... 

:D

=Erk= (Eric Baird)
www.relativitybook.com