Can somebody with knowledge in biology and/or physics take a look at (one of) his book and comment if it's decent as in if the science is solid? I browsed https://www.motionmountain.net/motionmountain-volume5.pdf and I'm intrigued (there are no reviews in Amazon).
I skimmed the first ~150 pages of that and I'd say it's exactly as cranky as you'd think for a 400-page-long self-published book about science.
Real equations are introduced without defining any terms or notation and then quickly abandoned for discussion of other things. For instance, the QED Lagrangian is brought up on page 126 without defining any of the highly-specialized notation involved (the slashed partial derivatives) and then the discussion moves on from it without _doing_ anything with it.
The QED Lagrangian gets only slightly more words than "the three lightbulb scams" (p114). The term "spinor" is used several times but defined exactly zero times.
The truly "wat"-inducing parts are the "Challenges" sections, for instance the first one on p29. An example: "Challenge 12: Do birds have a navel?"
The earlier ones aren't terrible, but yeah they get real bad real fast. There are lot's of good introductory resources from people that know what they're talking about.
