<< 1 >>
Rating: ![4 stars](http://www.reviewfocus.com/images/stars-4-0.gif) Summary: Even better now Review: I earlier reviewed this book while I was in the middleo of it. Now that I finished it I give it four stars. I learned a great deal about world lines and Minkowski's spacetime diagrams. This is such an important concept that Einstien has shunned in the begining but later on used it as the foundation fot his general theory of relativity. The book also has a prologue written in 1996 reflecting on some of the facts stated earlier in the book and new advancements in the field of relativity/quantum physics/cosmology.
Rating: ![3 stars](http://www.reviewfocus.com/images/stars-3-0.gif) Summary: need a little more spice! Review: I'm midway through this book and so far it looks ok but not so incredible. I think after reading Igor Novikov's books you'd expect the similar writing style (even though one should not). The illustrations are good and help clarify some of the concepts. Keep in mind this book was written in time when the expanding universe phenomenan was still a theory. Relatively speaking, all in all a good reading but you'd need other books to get a solid foundation (as non-mathematical as it gets) in relativity.
Rating: ![4 stars](http://www.reviewfocus.com/images/stars-4-0.gif) Summary: A great book to start with. Review: If you are looking for a comprehensive book to understand the nuances of Relativity theory, this isn't for you. However, if you are not mathematically inclined, or don't wish to dive into the math or physics just yet, this is a excellent choice. This was the first book that I read on the subject of Einstein's theory. I found it entertaining and actually fun to read. I have not read any of Gardner's other books, but his writing style in this one makes for an easy read. It does not feel like you are reading much of a physics books at all. Furthermore, the illustrations not only are well done, but they make it easier to understand the principles being explained. If you are looking to know the basics of this theory, this is best book to own. Simple to read, good explanations, uncomplicated. If you are looking for more depth, than you will certainly move on to another book after this, but this is an excellent one to start with.
Rating: ![4 stars](http://www.reviewfocus.com/images/stars-4-0.gif) Summary: A great book to start with. Review: If you are looking for a comprehensive book to understand the nuances of Relativity theory, this isn't for you. However, if you are not mathematically inclined, or don't wish to dive into the math or physics just yet, this is a excellent choice. This was the first book that I read on the subject of Einstein's theory. I found it entertaining and actually fun to read. I have not read any of Gardner's other books, but his writing style in this one makes for an easy read. It does not feel like you are reading much of a physics books at all. Furthermore, the illustrations not only are well done, but they make it easier to understand the principles being explained. If you are looking to know the basics of this theory, this is best book to own. Simple to read, good explanations, uncomplicated. If you are looking for more depth, than you will certainly move on to another book after this, but this is an excellent one to start with.
Rating: ![2 stars](http://www.reviewfocus.com/images/stars-2-0.gif) Summary: Doesn't explain things! Review: Reading this book, you will often cry "But WHY? ...Why does that follow from the axioms?" In short, this book explains WHAT relativity says, but it's very buggy in explaining the REASONING behind those statements. Some statements simply aren't explained well. I was disappointed. Maybe I am too stupid though.
Rating: ![2 stars](http://www.reviewfocus.com/images/stars-2-0.gif) Summary: Doesn't explain things! Review: Reading this book, you will often cry "But WHY? ...Why does that follow from the axioms?" In short, this book explains WHAT relativity says, but it's very buggy in explaining the REASONING behind those statements. Some statements simply aren't explained well. I was disappointed. Maybe I am too stupid though.
<< 1 >>
|