A reviewer of Scott Reeves’s relativity books, who is simpatico to the author’s ideas, finds himself in an authentic catch 22. Because of the constraints of the book review format, he is compelled almost at once to write that Einstein’s relativity theories are invalid. This would be similar to a literary reviewer needing to claim William Shakespeare was a worthless hack in order to lay the groundwork for a positive review of a new writer on the literary scene. It would be an impossibility to strike the right tone when making such a claim. But, science should be different from the humanities. When we see that critiquing certain scientific theories has become beset by insurmountable difficulty, it is a measure of how much science has become like the humanities. There should be widely read books by mainstream authors that make the claim that Einstein’s relativity theories are invalid. That is how science should operate. Thinking about this state of affairs, leads one to perceive a limitation within the humanities. No reviewer of literary books or connoisseur of modern art will apparently ever say that although we have novels that express an extraordinarily wide range of views and artwork that makes a wide variety of statements about the human condition, yet strangely when it comes to non-fiction books there are certain scientific theories that it is forbidden to question. Why is this so? If the humanities were truly a bastion of free expression, this disparity would surely catch their attention.
Yes, Scott Reeves claims Einstein’s relativity theories are invalid. The question that springs to a skeptical reader’s mind is: What about the generations of highly trained physicists that have scrutinized Einstein’s theories and pronounced them to be valid. The answer must be that that is the way science operates. For a variety of reasons, generations of scientists will believe a theory that turns out to have little or no validity when subject to careful analysis. We see evidence of people rushing around their entire lives pouring forth a torrent of information and winning the accolades of their peers, but the unspoken suspicion often lingers that all their activity was a charade. We may know people like this, or we may be more like this ourselves than we are willing to admit.
Part of the brilliance of Scott Reeves is that he holds Einstein accountable for the statements he makes in his book, “Relativity: The Special and the General Theory.” Out of deference, Einstein has not been called to task for his thought experiments. As the following excerpt from “Relativity” displays there is a great deal for Scott reeves to work with. “But he is compelled by nobody to refer this jerk to a ‘real’ acceleration (retardation) of the carriage. He might also interpret his experience thus: ‘My body of reference (the carriage) remains permanently at rest. With reference to it, however, there exists (during the period of application of the brakes) a gravitational field which is directed forwards and which is variable with respect to time. Under the influence of this field, the embankment together with the earth moves nonuniformly in such a manner that their original velocity in the backwards direction is continuously reduced.’”
Most readers will appreciate the skewering Scott Reeves delivers to time dilation and other present day speculation that has developed from Einstein’s relativity theories.
(review of free book)