What 📔book are you reading right now?

Deimos said:

GRAVITY. . . It's not just a good idea. It's the law. 😬

Click to expand...

Actually, there's both. There are the laws of gravitation - directly proportionate to mass, inverse squared proportion to distance etc - as well as those of thermodynamics (not in cranial memory) and probably others. These are how explanations, which can be expressed mathematically.
The theory of gravitation is a why question: why is there gravity. Isaac N. from England apparently had one, but don't ask me about details. Then Albert E., originally from Ulm in Germany, published his general theory in 1915, that made the mathematics of the how question decidedly more complex, and never mind about the why question - but without this theory of his (and his special theory of about a decade earlier) GPS would not function. That would, I guess, again be mathematically expressed laws, otherwise computers needed to make sense of GPS signals would be as useful as a pebble in a shoe.

I want to go deeper.
The “mathematics” of gravity - i.e. the expressions of ‘how it behaves’ - don’t interest or impress me.
The ‘why’ is there gravity gets closer…
But my interest is in ‘what IS gravity.’ What CAUSES it to be… what ‘makes’ it work.
What is happening at the fundamental level that because of it, gravity exists.
Mathematics can’t explain that. They can only explain and define it’s applications and its results.

Gravity is one of the four elemental forces…. Electromagnetics, the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, and gravity….the weakest of the 4.
But what makes gravity work.
That’s where we get to the four primitive elements and what they are doing that is creating a result we call ‘gravity’, which we then try to explain by its effects and impacts.

What ‘causes’ gravity. It does not cause itself. It has a causative force.. a beginning…a ‘something’ that brings it to be one of the four forces. What is that “it”.

McKinney has an interesting theory…. I’m working on that. I’ve obtained his larger work on the matter now to probe it in more depth.

Einstein tried to demonstrate that gravity isn’t really a force at all, but is the result of (caused by) motion through space-time rather than following Newton’s theory of a corresponding direct relation to mass. Einstein’s own formulas and work then proceed to apparently demonstrate that his theory of it being motion through space-time isn’t really accurate.

Scientists subsequent to Einstein have improved on his FORMULAS to make things match better to the obvious and observed phenomena in the universe… but they haven’t gotten any closer to ‘what is Gravity REALLY’…..’why’ is there Gravity.

That’s where I want to go. if I can grasp that, then I can better evaluate the various and conflicting theories of how, for example, this System of ours ‘became’. how did it really coalesce from space dust at rest, to space dust in motion, to combining space dust, to space dusts coalescing into multiple spherical objects, somehow orbiting’ a central sphere though off-center from its ‘real’ center to an ‘apparent core, increasing in temperature in some cases such as this ‘earth’ until its a molten core that builds a crust while in others doing different things as it coalesces, etc. etc.

In short, ‘gravity’ as we understand and talk of it is an ‘observed result’ of SOMETHING that is making it be.
I’m pursuing that ‘something’ that makes it be.
Neither Gallili, Newton, or Einstein dealt with that issue. Their focus was the result, not the cause.

Anyone who feels like presenting me with some materials that can help me walk the path into the causative component of Gravity, please feel free to provide titles, authors, etc. to help me along the way.

McKinney's theories may hold some water… but I’ve still got more questions than answers…. And Einstein’s theories of space-time being a causative element are yet to be probed more deeply… but I don’t think they will hold water in the end. Even he could not describe things outside of their ‘effect’ rather than their ‘cause’.

All that said, this will get refined as I go…I’m just starting from a basic set of fundamental but unanswered questions.

I've just started the Jurassic Park books by Michael Crichton.

Aethelwulf said:

the Jurassic Park books

Click to expand...

Enjoyed the first one.Can't remember reading any further, though I think I tackled something called 'Timeline'? Can't recall much about it if so, though. In those days Clancy was a focus, but by his 4th book I felt he was getting overly wordy, and ultimately thought he just became ponderous without power, precision or punch. I lost interest. Stopped reading his subsequent works. Also never got back to Chrichton. Will need to consider it.

I came across Timeline just the other day (it fell out of a box). Haven't read it yet.

I read Red October, couldn't take the cardboard characters. Did he ever develop into the third dimension?

Squint-eyed Southerner said:

Did he ever develop into the third dimension?

Click to expand...

Not really. That's part of why, when his books were shorter, I felt he was an OK quick read.
His handling of the language was pretty fair. He was a bit crisp, and moved things along.
That kind of made up for a lack of depth for me, and getting through the 3rd book wasn't too much of a pain.
The 4th was an intolerable grind however. There was no depth, and all crispness was gone as well.
How one could use so many words to say so much of nothing was beyond my capacity.
There hasn't been a Clancy or a Clancy derivative in my library since.

It was said after he wrote Red October he was 'debriefed' to determine how he knew so much about 'the way things worked' and nuclear power, etc.
But having been trained in Nuclear Power in the Navy, and operated a reactor myself in that training, I can say by the time he wrote the book everything he dealt with in it was already available to the public, being just the 'pretty basic stuff' about Nuclear Power.

So I discounted the rumor about his being 'debriefed'... though who knows, it could be true. I never pursued that micro-fact (or micro-fiction) any further.

I do believe a part of his initial 'charm' to the public was his dabbling in areas most knew little about at the time. Why his popularity continued, though, exceeded my capacity to comprehend.

For thriller-type stuff with attention paid to technical matters (especially firearms) I'd recommend Stephen Hunter. He does tend toward a certain formula, but so do most series writers. And he works some good variations on the theme.

One aspect I find amusing is, the protagonist of most of his books is clearly an idealized picture of himself. He's obviously aware of it, because he almost always introduces a secondary, inept character who represents how he actually sees himself. In the most recent one I read, he has "himself" killed off in the first few pages. That was hilarious.

I see book one is 'Shooter', which was made into a movie.
Haven't read any Hunter, though I confess I watched the movie once, and watched 2 or 3 of the 'Sniper' movies. Nice background stuff not taking too much attention.
I'll grab Shooter and give it a go.
May give Timeline another look, too. Either it was just not memorable, or I didn't get through it.
(To be frank, I don 't remember much about Jurassic Park as a book either - certainly nothing that makes me sit up and say 'hey, the movie misses this key element' in any meaningful way. Of course, many suns have traversed the sky between that reading and now. I do still put the Jurassic offerings on TV from time to time as additions to my 'mindless movie' fare. Better than Judge Judy by a little bit.)

Grabbed 'Shooter'. I see he moves from Bob Swagger to Earl Swagger at some point. Possibly when he kills himself off...? Also, a book "The Master Sniper" about some fellow named Repp.
if Shooter gives me a thrill, I'll need to get his repertoire all sorted out and fit them in.
Of course, its possible each serial story may be unconnected and it doesn't really matter.

The publisher must have reissued the first in the series when the movie came out. The original title was Point of Impact.

I haven't seen the movie -- Barliman did, and said it's terrible -- has little to do with its source material, and doesn't even make sense as a standalone film

Earl Swagger was Bob's father; Hunter touched on his story in the second in the series, and eventually wrote several novels about him, making them "prequels" of a kind. You'll find a full bibliography here:


The Master Sniper was his first novel, way back in 1980. It's set at the end of WWII, and IIRC some of the events there come into play in at least one of the series books -- probably the Earl series.

I used to enjoy his film reviews when he worked at the Washington Post.

OK. Grabbed 'master sniper' so I can start where Hunter started. See if/how his writing skills develop (or like some others, decline.)

Barliman's take on the movie isn't surprising. It's a Wahlberg vehicle, cashing in on his period of rising, if rather brief, fame, probably just leveraging Hunter into the bargain to gain a little added (cash) interest as well. Not too dissimilar from other, much more recent, events in the movie industry.

I seem to recall this title, "Point of Impact"... went back to look for it. In fact, the book I grabbed is still called "Point of Impact" at the top, with the "Now a major motion picture, Shooter" addition scrawled across it in the center, and of course a picture of Wahlberg gracing the cover.

Anyway, thanks much...I'll see what these books are all about.

Ent said:

Barliman's take on the movie isn't surprising. It's a Wahlberg vehicle,....

Click to expand...

My opinion didn't really have anything to with Wahlberg, though he is too young for the role. It's the fact that Johnathan Lemkin utterly butchered the story.

Now that you've read Point of Impact I suggest reading the Earl Swagger books, then Dirty White Boys before going on to Black light and the rest of the Bob Lee series.

One caution: Dirty White Boys has some really nasty stuff -- much more than in his other books.

Barliman said:

utterly butchered the story

Click to expand...

Yes, I suspected that would be your basis from the way SES expressed it.
Mine just happens to incorporate my opinions of changes needed due to Marky and accommodating his particular abilities. (I find him, like Tom Cruise, not to have a very broad range.)

Makers of movies always think they have a 'better story to tell' than the authors of them-though it's true, not all demolish the stories to the same extents. That's why we learn to take each of them for what they are, rather than what we may wish them to be...and for the just bad renderings, at least we conclude they're a bad rendering based on their own merits, rather than as a comparative analysis.

Sadly to your 2nd paragraph, I've not read Point of Impact yet. I just purchased it shortly ago today, when SES introduced me to Hunter.

I believe you're recommending I read some of Hunter's later books - (the Earl Swagger ones) - before reading the books Hunter wrote more immediately following his first one, "Master Sniper" ?? i.e. the Bob Swagger works came before the Earl ones, yes? (Not sure yet where Dirty White boys fit, etc.)

I'll consider reading them in 'time sequence,' but I confess, I'm always torn between reading an author's works in the order he/she wrote them so I can follow their development as a writer, and reading the books in their story order so I can follow the story line better.

Writing skills are a strong focus for me. It's those that will kill my interest in a book or series, more than the stories themselves usually. If I can see a writer developing, even if the stories lag a bit, I can keep going longer.

Ent is a bit of a strange duck by most accounts.

I found him a skilled writer-- much more so than Clancy .

Squint-eyed Southerner said:

Dirty White Boys has some really nasty stuff

Click to expand...

Thank you for this bit of forewarning. It will be considered. Seemingly it did not become a common indulgence of his or the warning would be expanded.
There are a few authors I've set aside because they seem to be unable to convey a story without an overindulgence in (more than) unnecessary muck.

Frankly, the world is filled with enough of that. My book reading is done for two purposes: to learn, with such studies as my indulgence in understanding Gravity's source and more, and for escape from the dark truths of the world, not to swill and swim in them further, I fear.

We'll see. One is not adversely impacted by the 'muck and the mire' unless one allows oneself to be. So at times, should there be a compelling story, the muck and mire can be both tolerated, and instantly rejected, without harm to the story. (It's normally inconsequential to the rest anyway, just there for momentary sensationalist value and to include attraction of a certain kind of audience.)

Addition: there are times when such may be felt to be needed for development of character(s) as well... which needs to be considered into the picture. (But that does not spell 'overindulgence' in a theme.)

The "white boys" are escaped convicts, one of them a sociopathic killer, so the nastiness is integral to the story, not gratuitous.

IIRC that's the novel that included a character I regret he never returned to: a Native American policeman on a reservation in Oklahoma.

Squint-eyed Southerner said:

The "white boys" are escaped convicts, one of them a sociopathic killer, so the nastiness is integral to the story, not gratuitous.

Click to expand...

Plus it was set in the 50's of the south and Hunter wrote the dialog it pretty accurately for the period.

This does not necessarily sound like nastiness to be avoided, but probably more 'close to life' than we might like to admit.
I will tackle it. Sounds like the story has some inherent values.

It's been so long since I read a book just to read a book and glean it's author's talents and its story's excellencies - I wonder what will happen when I get into this.

Addition: OOOPSS.... had to edit the errant plural stories I'd typed above back to the correct possessive 'story's.' Sigh. Flying twigs do not always keyboard correctness make.

Ent said:

But having been trained in Nuclear Power in the Navy, and operated a reactor myself in that training, ...

Click to expand...

This post set off memory sirens from my (non-technical, and non-military) company background ...
Were naval vessels, perhaps the smaller ones, equipped with boiling-water reactors, rather than the pressurized-water reactors needing heat exchangers?