Ah, your authority again. You must be an accomplished physicist.
It's a pop physics book.
So you say. We need more than your opinion, Professor. Show us your badge.
But I did find one review by a real physicist.
I see. We need a "real" physicist. You are giving us words, Professor, and opinions, but nothing else. Are you a physicist or are you just passing along the opinions of others? I will give you a bit of Walker's bio in due course. Perhaps you will then share your physics background with us so that we can take comfort that your strong opinions are backed by something more than, well, your strong opinions.
Quintessential fringe science, in other words.
The words speak for themselves and your editorialization is not required. Some other physicist disagrees. That's life. Walker includes lots of math in his book just so, I presume, the naysayer physicists and others such as yourself can challenge it. You are certainly most welcome to attempt to do so but your may first wish to read the book.
Some very fine minds have gone off on similar tangents.
Your bias is showing. Fine minds, you will admit, have a better track record than those who simply opine on the work of others.
We have your rhetoric. I'm unimpressed. Would you care to comment on substance?
Well, at least you are consistent, Phaedrus.
Ph.D., Biophysics, Harvard 1984. Will that do? Or would a number of papers in J. Chem. Phys., J. Magn. Reson., etc. help? We can argue from authority if you wish. But then that would be me versus Walker; if you insist on credentials, I don't see any evidence you're competent to sustain the discussion.