>>11925139its popsci dogshit. susskind himself is very good and his online lectures are decent, but I would stay away from books like that. For a fundamental understanding of "physics," I suggest you first start with Classical Mechanics (which is to say, a model of life in large-time-scales and slow-speeds governed by Netwon's laws and Electrodynamics). A good book is by Morin, but if you aren't all that mathematical then anything by Resnik or whatever they use these days in first year undergrad.
>>11925147he's right. All you really need to know to 'know physics' is Newton's three postulates. They are axioms which were found by Newton through observation. There is no proof for them, but they are as trivial and understandable as the "fact" that the sun rises and falls everyday (we don't know for sure that it will continue, in an ignorant sense of course- knowing nothing about celestial motion, but we can postulate that this phenomenon will repeat and is a reliable indicator for days). Everything else is just applications of these laws, and properties of motion under these laws. To really claim you know this model, you have to derive these formulas, properties, etc. yourself. Do plenty of examples. Iridov (a soviet writer) has a great problem book that I think you should check out.
