I read to page twenty of the first chapter which is availabe online and mined the nuggets below.
*************************
...Returning to the vehicle analogy, when a car increases its speed it is said to accelerate, which is only possible by drawing on a power source, converting its energy into the car's increased speed or kinetic energy. Turning the vehicle in a circle is another form of speed change or acceleration, involving a constant, forced change from its natural straight-line direction of travel. This continuously forced circular direction change is known as centripetal acceleration, and also requires energy to maintain this constant diversion from the natural straight-line path of objects....
*************************
This is wrong. A car traveling in a circle after an initial push, would continue forever at the same speed, not requiring additional energy input except for overcoming friction.
**********************************
...This equation is written as W = F d, which is read as work (W) equals force (F) times distance (d). That is, the more force required to move an object, and the further the object is moved by that force, the more work is done in performing this task....
**********************************
After he cites this he goes on to use examples that incorrectly invoke this equation and thereby support his argument. He makes no distinction between lifting 100 pounds vertically (against gravity) one foot = 100 foot-pounds [correct usage of the equation] and moving the same 100 pounds one foot sideways (perpendicular to gravity). The problems arising from this incorrect usage he then uses as an argument against the current theory.
I stopped reading after this. My time is too precious. The guy is a nut case.
---Al
