science for the masses like Asimov. Sagan and Gould have come close and
people like Martin Gardner have succeeded in certain areas. but nobody
matches Isaac. ;^)
All I can say is that I'm a voracious science reader and I just gave up on
"A Brief History". it's not so much that wasn't "good" - it simply didn't
grab me at all.
Jim Davis
_____
From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 4:32 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Georgia may shun "evolution" in schools
> If you take the complexity and breadth of the subject matter coupled with
> the fact that he set out to write a book explaining quantum physics and
> relativity theory in a way that any layman can read , I think Brief
History
> of Time was extremely well written. Also keep in mind that thousands of
> pages have been written on each of the topics he discusses... he was not
> trying to explain anything in too much depth.
>
> ~Simon
I agree that it's a tough nut to crack. I know only a little bit about it
because my best friend in college was a physicist. However, when my partner
and other friends were reading it they kept asking me to explain what he was
talking about, and IMO he didn't do a good job of explaining it. Not that
I'm Mr. Quantum or anything, but I figure that if relatively smart people
reading it couldn't get the point, then the point wasn't well made.
-Kevin
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
