Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Books Math Book Reviews

Super Principia Mathematica 325

Posted by samzenpus
from the read-all-about-it dept.
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.
Super Principia Mathematica: The Rage to Master Conceptual and Mathematica Physics
author Robert Louis Kemp
pages 544
publisher Flying Car Publishing Company
rating 10/10
reviewer Gary R. Sorkin
ISBN 0984151826
summary Presents physics and mathematics in the form of simple math models, pictures, definitons, and aphorisms
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Super Principia Mathematica

Comments Filter:
  • ...and the cover art is god awful but the content should be interesting.

  • pfffft (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mike Kristopeit (1900306) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @02:30PM (#33590734)
    super principia matlab is better
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @02:34PM (#33590804)

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

  • Who is it for? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by phantomfive (622387) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @02:35PM (#33590816) Journal
    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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by drewhk (1744562)

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

      • by Albanach (527650)

        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

        • by Albanach (527650)

          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.

        • 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."

        • by Jawnn (445279)

          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.

      • by drewhk (1744562)

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

      • It's posted all over the place.

        Google for any component phrase or set of words such as "ordinary would still be an understatement. Robert Louis Kemp has built a plateau of quod erat" [google.com] and you'll get a number of hits.

        Anon is at least efficient with his writing.

    • 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 )

    • by Hatta (162192)

      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?

      • by Korin43 (881732)

        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.

        • 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).

      • by nbauman (624611)

        And who is Robert Louis Kemp anyway?

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

    • by pugugly (152978)

      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? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Hognoxious (631665) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @02:36PM (#33590832) Homepage Journal

    understanding level prevailed by most people

    My hovercraft is full of eels.

  • the rage (Score:3, Funny)

    by Surt (22457) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @02:38PM (#33590858) Homepage Journal

    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!

  • ...but it sounds Bohring. Sorry.

  • Kems is on hemp (Score:3, Informative)

    by zufar (603583) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @02:41PM (#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]

  • 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!

    • by Animats (122034)

      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.

  • What?! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by eyenot (102141)

    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" o

  • Kindle? (Score:3, Informative)

    by aunchaki (94514) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @02:43PM (#33590962) Homepage

    No Kindle version? Rats!

  • by Thyamine (531612) <.thyamine. .at. .ofdragons.com.> on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @02:43PM (#33590972) Homepage Journal
    This is an exact copy of what is posted on Amazon, and is the only review there.
  • Spam alert (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Animats (122034) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @02:44PM (#33590980) Homepage

    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: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

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

    • Yes, the penny dropped when I looked up Steven Rado as mentioned in the summary.

      Here's his website. It's one step away from timecube.
      http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/ [aethro-kinematics.com]

      He seems to be supporting the idea of the luminiferous aether, a concept which physics abandoned over 100 years ago.

  • Summary: (Score:5, Funny)

    by A. B3ttik (1344591) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @02:45PM (#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.
  • just awful (Score:5, Informative)

    by foog (6321) <phygelus@yahoo.com> on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @02:45PM (#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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Sockatume (732728)

      If you like the idea of a thorough derivation of modern physics via all the relevant mathematics, try "The Road to Reality", which is currently mocking me from my bookshelf. I ground to a halt after about 2 weeks because I wouldn't let myself continue without doing at least the lowest-level maths problems.

  • by singingjim1 (1070652) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @02:47PM (#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.
    • 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

      • 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.

      • by abigor (540274)

        Actually, the author of the book mentions a literal God as the creator of the universe etc., and not the metaphorical "God" of Einstein.

  • "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.

  • 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 thi

  • by EWAdams (953502) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @02:53PM (#33591116) Homepage

    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."

  • Spam (Score:5, Informative)

    by MetricT (128876) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @02:54PM (#33591134) Homepage

    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.

  • Thin Is In (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PingPongBoy (303994) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @02:59PM (#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.

  • Get a Tenuki suit in this one?
    Fire flower?

  • Crackpot or not? (Score:3, Informative)

    by IronChef (164482) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @03:02PM (#33591274) Homepage

    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.

  • 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?

  • ...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 craz

  • 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 Compan

  • Obvious crank (Score:5, Insightful)

    by abigor (540274) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @03:13PM (#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?

  • A new low? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bruce Perens (3872) <bruce@perens.com> on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @03:20PM (#33591550) Homepage Journal
    Geez. Someone needs to take a good look at how this article got on the front page.
  • by mellestad (1301507) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @03:23PM (#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]
  • They recently wrotes "physics of everything" books.
  • I am kind of a dumbass - and spend a lot of time reading on theoretical physics to try to educate myself. I've read all the Steven Hawking books and Brian Green book(s). I think the clearly most descriptive book on the subject of relativity was "Visualizing Relativity" by Lewis Carrol Epstein (sp?)

    It's light on the math - though a lot of the mathematics of relativity are in fact quite simple. (e=mc^2 - duh). It is heavy on giving you a good conceptual understanding of the matter.

    I am curious as to this

  • Geocentrism (Score:4, Funny)

    by yumyum (168683) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @04:12PM (#33592224)

    Hey, if this book is not up your alley, then perhaps you'd like to attend the prestigious 1st Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism [catholicintl.com]

All constants are variables.

Working...