By Joe Fisher
A thoughtful examination of the visible universe that challenges the work of the Hawking and Einstein alike through philosophical reasoning.
Rating:
Review:
A NEW THEORY OF THE VISIBLE UNIVERSE by Joe Fisher aims to dismantle the ideas held on the visible universe through a philosophical critique on empirical research. This book provides a collection of essays and articles written over the years and submitted to various essay contests and journals that come together to argue against the ideas that were put in place by names you’re probably quite familiar with: Einstein, Hawking, NASA, CNSA, and more. With examinations on past experiments and reflections on commonly accepted theories, A NEW THEORY OF THE VISIBLE UNIVERSE aims to dismantle the idea of an expanding universe and attempts to prove that the visible infinite surface cannot expand.
First, although this book does make interesting claims and does point out important discrepancies, the lack of true original research with data makes it hard for the claims to hold scientifically. For example, this book makes it clear that many past experiments were purely thought experiments, or “imaginary.” While this is a very important distinction to someone new to the field or just a casual reader, these theories have still held strong despite the “imaginary” aspect. Thus, it places a larger than reasonable importance on these aspects in order to refute the claims of Hawking and Einstein without any true research done that could reasonably defend the claims made.
In addition, the overall writing and formatting of this book make it a fair amount more difficult to read. This book is a collection of essays and articles, so there frequently is repetition, and the flow between ideas can be hard to follow at times. The writing is also not clear or easily read when it comes to being able to genuinely explain these complex topics, making it difficult if you lack background in the subject of space science. Overall, the topic of the universe is already quite complicated, so a book needs to be very well written and edited in order for it to truly make a difference or to be understandable to the general public, and unfortunately, this book does not achieve this.
Conclusion:
Ultimately, while this book features unique claims and does point out important aspects of research the general public may be less aware of or knowledgeable about, the formatting, writing, and lack of true data to back up claims made this book less impactful. While the ideas and theories this book contains may turn out to be true in the long run, the lack of data and authentic research to support the contentions make it difficult to truly take this book as a serious refutation of all the previously accepted data made by legitimate scientists and national research programs.
Thank you so much to Reedsy for providing a copy of this book in exchange for an editorial review. All opinions are my own.
Be sure to check out the review on Reedsy!
Leave a Reply