A comPlete Guide to the laws of the universe. Identifier RoadToRealityRobertPenrose. Identifier-ark ark://t02z4sg0c. Ocr ABBYY. I'm now most of the way through grad school and the book is almost as obscure to me as it was when I was at high school. Now I get lots of it. The Road to Reality is a practical book for those who desire to walk more like Christ. K.P. Yohannan format is Mobi. Other devices use ePub where available.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Dutch|
|Genre:||Children & Youth|
|ePub File Size:||19.82 MB|
|PDF File Size:||13.40 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The Road to Reality Preview Download HUMAN REALITY—Who We Are and Why We Exist! THE ROAD By Cormac McCarthy - ukraine-europe.info Posted by Mason Epub on August 11, File Namethe-long-and-winding- ukraine-europe.info; Original TitleThe Long and Winding Download now. Title: (Epub Download) A Curve in the Road EBook, Author: Abbie with nightmares so vivid that she starts to question her grip on reality.
Posts should be pertinent and generate a discussion about physics. Please choose a user flair using the 'edit' option next to your username above. IRC Channel: Debates and discussions on all topics related to physics are welcome. Please make an effort to engage the community rather than simply state your views and expect others to validate them. We invite links to all websites, but article and blog post submissions require proper sourcing from the literature or mainstream scientific journalism.
Image-only posts should be on-topic and should promote discussion. Memes, rage comics, image macros, reaction gifs, or otherwise "zero-content" submissions are not allowed. Feel free to provide links to additional sources in the comment section instead.
First, you will need to install one of the recommended add-ons. Roger Penrose's book "The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe" staff. However, I really don't recommend attempting to read this book. I first bought it when I was in high school because the blurb seemed to be exactly what I was interested in. I put a lot of effort into trying to understand it and it was fun but it just remained so mystical.
I can't really say I benefited from it. I'm now most of the way through grad school and the book is almost as obscure to me as it was when I was at high school.
Now I get lots of it, but only because I have learned it elsewhere, so I can re-read the book and think "so that is what he was getting at". That is just comically ambitious for a general audience who don't even know what a linear map is. Penrose's goal is admirable, but probably too unrealistic. Maybe the feat of summarizing theoretical physics in one book for a general audience is possible, but only to an expert of both theoretical physics and pedagogy, and I think Penrose is only the former.
Welcome to Reddit,
I am not aware of any other books which try to do what Penrose has tried, but I'd be interested to check them out. Susskind did something on a much smaller scale in terms of its scope with, apparently, a bit more success. I assume he's referring to The Theoretical Minimium. I haven't read this book but after reading emperors new mind I have an idea of the difficulty of the book. But I don't give the same suggestion. Same here, I really haven't learned anything from this book at all.
Whatever subject it talks about, I only properly understood after having a real university class on that subject.
Seriously, taking a physics class should not be easier than reading a pop sci book That's just how a horrible popularizer Penrose is. Hey, he's not a horrible popularizer.
When it comes to trying to honestly explain advanced physics and math to a layperson, several chapters of his book "The Emporer's New Mind" are unmatched. But this book isn't really about popularizing in the traditional sense - it's apparently an attempt to impart actual skills in math and physics, not just general knowledge, to layperson readers.
And here I would agree that it does a horrible job. A big part of it is that Penrose's own understanding of these topics is very, very idiosyncratic. His mind works much differently than everyone else's. Maybe he thought that his own quirky approaches made things easier for him , therefore, they'll make things easier for everyone else.
I haven't read any of his other books, so you are most likely right given that you have a broader perspective of his work. The book is quite comical, it attempts to assume almost no knowledge in the beginning trying to explain the modern physics but mid-way just gives up on complete and through explanations.
I read the book up until pg.
Copyright infringement is a tort, and under some circumstances a crime, but it is not theft. That is not a value judgement: It is just a fact.
I suspect this may depend on the jurisdiction, but I'm happy to be wrong. I don't care what the offence is called, really. I've already bought a hardcopy, although a bit cumbersome to carry with me everywhere, whereas this version fits on my Nexus 7 very nicely. I sincerely doubt the availability of this ebook online would replace legitimate sales; most people will have a look through it, realize they don't have the discipline to go through it, and never open it again.
Those who do will likely invest in a hardcopy anyway, as there's something about a print book that an ebook simply can't match. I found a copy of this at a local used book store and I've been slowly reading it for months This is my current bathroom reading material.
Before this book I was reading his book Emperor's New Mind, which is also interesting. I'm currently reading this book. It is not a book for someone without at least an undergrad level of understanding of physics.
It's a wonderful book that decides to introduce rather ambitious topics to someone who might not be able to otherwise even begin to understand said subjects. If you've ever run into a wikipedia page or wolfram page that talks about fiber bundles or manifold spaces and got completely flummoxed by the intensely dense language, this book is the perfect introduction for you.
Penrose has an elegant and fun way of writing that makes you want to dive into the problems and think about them for a long time. I find myself rereading large sections and small sections over and over again because of how much deep insight is contained within the book. If you are a significant other of a person that loves knowing about the "Laws of the Universe," then this is a sure fire gift for them. I've taken a look at this before.
While I like the overall idea and it seems to have many positive qualities, its far from the best choice to educate yourself on these matters, IMO. Maybe if it was just the first few chapters, but for most of the contents I think there are MUCH better resources, including many genuinely free ones. Some of the string theory stuff is literally technically inaccurate too, along with some other things.
Penrose has done some amazing work. In particular, these days there is absolutely no doubt that twistors are playing a significant role in the advancement of our knowledge into deep physical questions. But he's definitely not right about everything, and I would caution people not to put complete stock in it. You can spend 2 years reading through this book and still miss lots of important physical ideas that Penrose chose not to emphasize.
Especially the second part which I read after I already got a BS in physics. It helped ignite my interest in the geometric aspects of physical laws and was a doorway to a lot of subsequent learning.
Its an awesome choice for anyone at a similar stage. The first part is more of a "review" so it might be a good reference companion as opposed to a real teaching document. Another possibility that comes to mind is Susskind's new The Theoretical Minimum. I looked at it briefly in the bookstore and it looked promising as an introduction for the uninitiated with only say HS-level math.
The concepts he chooses to follow are focused on increasing one's understanding of physics to make some sense of his twister theory. He concerns himself with the math used to 'simulate' reality. I would agree he's not perfect but it has been a good read. Check out his lectures on youtube, only costs an 'hour' of your life instead of a few minutes every other day over a year.
It would suck to have to read the entire thing online! I own this book and it is truly amazing. Cant say i read the whole thing though. No, this is copyright infringement. But it's not theft, as samloveshummus explained: Calling it "theft" implies that we have taken something away from someone, when in fact we have made a copy which has left the original intact.
You could argue we are depriving the publisher of a potential sale, but I am interested in owning having this only because it is free; if it wasn't then I wouldn't want it enough to pay for it, therefore no sale has been lost. No-one is worse off and we are marginally better off, it's a win-win situation, which is not true of theft. And, in fact, I've just Googled to find how much an electronic copy would cost to buy, and I can't find it anywhere.
Google books only has it as a scan. So the "lost potential sale" argument falls at the first hurdle, because the publisher does not even give us the opportunity to pay for it if we wanted. You're confusing theft with crimes such as larceny or burglary. Copying is theft, but not larceny. United States which found in particular that. Edit 2 Also, burglary means illegally entering a building, and in my country larceny isn't a thing.
Why do I have downvotes for my correct and substantiated statements about theft while the meaningless and unsubstantiated nonsense I was responding to has upvotes?
There are numerous other laws calling copyright infringement theft. Another simple example is identity theft 18 USC , in which case your identity is not stolen, only duplicated, yet it is called theft under the US criminal code. So, your statement "Calling it 'theft' implies that we have taken something away from someone, when in fact we have made a copy which has left the original intact. Making copies can indeed be theft under US criminal and civil code.
As to larceny, it is a state name in many states which means precisely what you're referring to, which is the taking of something so the owner no longer has it. There is no larceny in federal law. Thus, as I said, you're confusing larceny with theft. The FBI neither makes nor interprets the law.
The USA courts do not call copyright infringement theft. Their opinions trump those of the FBI. No, you are wrong. In my country England, which is the basis of most common law systems , theft is defined under the Theft Act as. In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. Therefore I am right and you are incorrect, although the downvote kangaroo court will find me guilty nonetheless.
Which law has changed since that you think would cause copyright infringement to be redefined as theft?
If you're in the UK, it's odd you'd cite a US case as the basis for theft then. And if you're in the UK, the Larceny Act defines larceny for you. It's odd you'd claim larceny isn't a thing. I am beginning to doubt you know what you're talking about.
As to Wikipedia and the world dictionary, they are not the law, and as such, are not definitive for how words are used under the law.
The laws are definitive, and the words used in them are the words used for prosecution. It's silly to think otherwise. I'll add the US department of Justice does too. Recent bills before Congress do, and I think some passed ones do too.
If your definition is the only one, what is identity theft? Someone took my identity and I no longer have it? Or do you all it identity infringement?
Roger Penrose's book "The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe" : Physics
The Larceny Act was replaced by the Theft Act , which does not include such an offence as larceny. As someone once said, "I am beginning to doubt you know what you're talking about. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the idea of arguing in the alternative. The fact that I cited the law twice is not negated by the fact that that I also quoted the first sentence of the Wikipedia article. That merely adds to my argument.
If you think that holds no weight, then whatever, that doesn't retract from my main argument, which is the actual legal definition. Where Bear Goes to Lamaze Class Where Bear Sees Everything Change The Long and Winding Road So Long, My Old Friends Coda Absolutely not.
No way. More from TJ Klune About the Author By TJ Klune Visit Dreamspinner Press Read Online Swipe version. Read Online Continuous version. Download now. Buy a paper book.
Long Road Home by Marie Meyer. The Road by Hayden Hunt. The Long Road Home by L. Be the first to reply. Sign in to Comment. Don't have an account? Join Epub. Forgot password? First name. Last name. Website optional.
- FIRE MALAYALAM EBOOK FREE DOWNLOAD
- PLAIN TRUTH EBOOK FREE DOWNLOAD
- JOHN GRISHAM EPUB EBOOK DOWNLOAD
- GHOST GIRL EBOOK FREE DOWNLOAD
- HOUSE OF NIGHT REDEEMED EBOOK FREE DOWNLOAD
- CAN LOVE HAPPEN TWICE EBOOK FREE DOWNLOAD FOR MOBILE
- DOWNLOAD EBOOK KEDOKTERAN KASKUS
- STALINGRAD ANTONY BEEVOR EBOOK DOWNLOAD