on April 3, 2018 :
Finally, there is something I can read while I’m listening to Lou Reed’s “Metal Machine Music.” Coincidentally, it has similarities in both structure and content to some of the writings of another denizen of the ‘60s, underground, New York scene—the pop artist Andy Warhol. Warhol’s “A” is the transcript of audio recordings he made of amphetamine users; “Geocentricity: The Debates” is the transcript of YouTube debates Reeves had with the critics of his videos. Both works have an alarming amount of profanity. The characters in “A” had a reason to curse; they often believed their speed was cut with rat poison (or was rat poison?); for Reeves’s critics, there is no obvious excuse. Except that Reeves is on to something. He has forbidden knowledge like Adam had before he was expelled from paradise. Without realizing it, his critics assume the role of the cherubim and their words are the flaming sword which turns every way to guard the way to the tree of life. Reeves’s critics may have deluded themselves into believing that they are defending science. Actually, they are defending a societal pecking order. His critics seem to represent the zeitgeist. Like many others, I find older movies and television shows less interesting. Movies and television from the ‘50s and before, I find soporific. But, I do notice a common thread in movies and television shows such as “The Music Man,” “The Caine Mutiny,” “Fanny and Alexander” and “Doctor Quinn: Medicine Woman” to cite but a few of the many examples. There always seems to be a character that is always right just because he or she is always right. This subtle message becomes the zeitgeist. Reeves’s critics see themselves as the character that is always right. They see themselves as the hero. As heroes, they are drawn to the ultimate, scientific hero Einstein, and they are drawn to his defense.
This becomes clear as the debates unfold. It seems ridiculous to savagely mock somebody for allegedly not understanding the nuances of Einstein’s theories. It would be interesting to know what his critics think of Einstein’s odd if not bizarre book “Relativity: The Special and the General Theory.” Or, what do his critics think of Arthur Eddington’s tome, “The Mathematical Theory of Relativity,” which despite its proclivity for the densest of mathematics is mathematically suspect? Or, what do his critics think of the branch of mathematics know as tensor calculus? I have difficulty believing that the tensor calculus operations known as contraction and differentiation of a tensor are valid operations. I recall wading through a textbook on tensor calculus only to read that the Riemann-Christoffel curvature tensor (from which Einstein’s law of gravity is directly derived) doesn’t distinguish between flat and curved space as is claimed. But, of course, there is always a “but” a “modified” version of it does distinguish between flat and curved space. “Geocentricity: The Debates” provides evidence that we have returned to a time where the life of the intellect is little more than an endless, reflexive repetition of certain intellectual tropes such as “citation needed” and “peer reviewed paper.” Does it ever occur to Reeves’s critics that in order for science to have gone as greatly awry as Reeves claims it has there would be a high probability (to use another one of their favorite intellectual tropes) that the process known as peer review of scientific papers would have to have gone awry, as well? Do they realize that according to science historian Arthur Miller there is a high probability that Einstein’s special relativity paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” was never subject to a peer review before being published? Or, do they realize that the paper is infamous for its almost complete absence of citations? It would be amusing if his critics only imitated machines with their mannerisms, but they imitate machines with their thinking—that is alarming. They seem to be like goslings that imprint on the first large, moving object that they see either their mother or some other animal. Reeves’s critics seem to have imprinted on scientists of dubious merit
Reeves has discovered that Einstein’s relativity theories are more speculation than science. He uses their weaknesses to make a case for geocentricity. This enrages his critics as much as blasphemy enrages the devoutly religious. His critics sputter with rage like the most parochial stereotypes imaginable. A better strategy might have been to welcome Reeves to their most exclusive club. These relativists should have praised his understanding and gently corrected any of his miscues. Reeves argument runs along these lines: all observers have the scientific right to say they are at rest including those observers in accelerated motion. Therefore, the motions of the other objects they observe are the product of these other objects themselves.
It is strange, if one follows his reasoning, that Reeves believes the geocentric solar system model of Ptolemy must be dismissed while another version of a geocentric solar system must be embraced.
(review of free book)