Born in 1955,Jim Spinosa remembers,as a youngster,
being entranced by the science fiction novels he
perused in a small,corner bookstore in Denville,
NJ. The cramped confines of that store had claimed
to contain the largest selection of books in Northern New Jersey. His penchant for science fiction engendered an interest in physics. Often daunted by the difficulty of physics textbooks,he
questioned whether physics could be presented as clearly and concisely as science fiction,without sustaining any loss in depth Nuts and Bolts:Taking
Apart Special Relativity is an attempt to answer that question.
Where to find Jim Spinosa online
Reflections on the Michelson-Morley Experiment and the Ineluctable Self-Interview
by Jim Spinosa
(5.00 from 1 review)
This free e-book consists of two books: the first is the very short “Reflections on the Michelson-Morley Experiment” and the second is “The Ineluctable Self-Interview,” which is longer but brightened by patches of humor. The high points of the interview are serious attempts to falsify Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity. The interview ends scrutinizing covariant differentiation.
by Jim Spinosa
(3.00 from 2 reviews)
The conclusion reached in "Fathoming Gödel" is that Gödel's 1931 paper is a shell game. It is based on several errors that are well camouflaged. Some shortcomings in the paper are openly admitted although they are downplayed, and errors are also produced in an effort to force a particular conclusion. This critique is limited to Gödel's first incompleteness theorem as translated by Martin Hirzel.
Bell's Inequality Untwisted
by Jim Spinosa
(5.00 from 1 review)
“Bell’s Inequality Untwisted” is a unique book. The author’s aim is to explain in detail all the equations and statements in John S. Bell’s ground-breaking paper “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox.” He attempts an in depth explanation of Bell’s paper that is understandable to a wide audience. As the explanation proceeds, it becomes clear that Bell’s paper is a series of incoherent equations.
Nuts And Bolts: Taking Apart Special Relativity
by Jim Spinosa
(2.00 from 4 reviews)
Nuts and Bolts: Taking Apart Special Relativity is an attempt to disprove Einstein's theory of special relativity. It is written to appeal to a wide audience. Nuts and Bolts explains the formidable equations of special relativity in unprecedented detail. Soon everyone will conclude that special relativity is invalid, and I mean soon in the geological sense time, may science make us immortal.
Jim Spinosa's tag cloud
Smashwords book reviews by Jim Spinosa
Death to Einstein! 2: Exposing the Fatal Flaws of Both Special and General Relativity
on Dec. 23, 2017
We’re all seekers. Some of us have unwoven ourselves from the ferocious loom of the Interstates and turned away from the eternally crowded surface streets. Unwound, we walk lonely back roads illuminated by the lowering sun where every passing car reminds us of what we left behind. We come to a bridge over a stream and stop to reconnect with and wonder about the natural world. The musing that ensues seldom pierces the veil, but sometimes it does, and that is the case with Scott Reeves’s "Death to Einstein! 2: Exposing the Fatal Flaws of Both Special and General Relativity." The arrow has hit the mark. The rawboned title alone of this volume speaks of an intelligence unfettered by the niceties of academia that our noses tell us have seeped like raw sewage into the surrounding lower ground. The ground is now so permeated that it gives its own champions awards for nothing and then finally for less than nothing.
How many flaws does Scott Reeves find with Einstein’s theory of general relativity? How many do you need? When do we see the importance of the trivial? When we discover that everything in everyday life moves or seems to move with the earth. That is everything, but light rays. But, we try in vain to click off a flashlight beam shining out the window of a moving car and watch as the beam sneaks through the woods behind us like a big fish in a small stream. The description doesn’t make sense because we don’t experience light rays moving independently of the earth. No, we don’t see beams of light left behind as the earth whisks along at 18 miles per second. The photons are beyond the moon in less than two seconds. Not even the most unfettered or unhinged Heinlein aficionado or aficionada could conceive of a stream racing so fast that it spilled off the earth, traveled through space and watered an empty lunar sea. There his hearty, lunar pioneers would set up their sparse, modern homestead on the shores of a waveless sea. Yes, everything moves or seems to move with the earth, except light rays.
Studying Einstein’s theories can bring a series of insights: 1. light beams don’t move with the earth, 2. with regard to a single reference frame, Einstein’s category named simultaneous events contains no simultaneous events; 3. with regard to a single reference frame, Einstein’s category named non-simultaneous events includes simultaneous events and non-simultaneous events and 4. Einstein tacitly admits this when he says that the test for simultaneous events only needs to give an unambiguous categorization for every event; it need not be a correct categorization. The strategy of unambiguous categorization has succeeded in many areas: beauty pageants and "Dick Clark’s American Bandstand" come to mind.
As people study Einstein’s theories, I suspect they have a shifting array of his statements that hold their interest. I also suspect that it is difficult to get over the notion that since Einstein said it; it must be true after all he is one of humanities foremost thinkers. At this time, I am struck by this sentence from Einstein’s book "Relativity: The Special and General Theory", “There is only 'one' demand to be made of the definition of simultaneity, namely, that in every real case it must supply us with an empirical decision as to whether or not the conception that has to be defined is fulfilled.” It seems almost churlish to suggest that an observer positioned, not at the midpoint between two distant events, but ¾ of the distance from A to B would supply in every real case an empirical decision as to whether the events at point A and point B (lightning strikes) were simultaneous. It would be an incorrect decision, but it would be an empirical decision. Scott Reeves critique of Einstein’s argument for the relativity of simultaneity is both lucid and coruscating.
Although I am simpatico with his writing, what are we to make of Scott Reeves more curious penchants? Notions that at first seem like ideas that should be deposited in the proximity of the island of lost toys. We can take solace that, at least, he is not a follower of Parmenides who believed that all motion was illusionary. Some of us can’t resist staring into the abyss. Perhaps, he should direct his skeptical gaze toward Bell’s inequality, Riemann-Christoffel curvature tensor and Gödel’s proofs.
It would take more than the few paragraphs I have written to provide a synopsis of Scott Reeves’s critique of Einstein’s theories, I hope I have provided at least a sign post.
A similarity between Einstein and Scott Reeves has just struck me; they both seem to have minor inconsistencies with their book titles. Shouldn’t Einstein’s title "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" be Relativity: The Special Theory and the General Theory or Relativity: Both the Special and the General Theories? Scott Reeves’s "Death to Einstein! 2" is also listed as "Death to Einstein! 2: Exposing the Fatal Flaws of Both Special and General Relativity."
Death to Einstein!: Exposing Special Relativity's Fatal Flaws
on Feb. 03, 2018
Scott Reeves’s “Death to Einstein!” is a fair and accurate critique of Einstein’s theory of special relativity. That makes the review presented in Smashwords of Reeves’s book by LloydO all the more interesting because that reviewer contends that all of the arguments against special relativity presented in “Death to Einstein!” and by extension many other arguments against special relativity, as well, can be summed up by the phrase, “they all went nowhere.” What is to be made of such a statement? It is unlikely that LloydO shares my opinion that over the decades valid critiques of Einstein’s theories have been presented, but these critiques have been suppressed by a loosely affiliated group of intellectuals and gatekeepers. A gatekeeper would be a prestigious individual such as Al Gore who champions a scientific theory without being a scientist himself. Alongside the suppression of critical views of relativity, there has sprung up a cottage industry employing the talents of a variety authors who produce an endless stream of hagiographic books on Einstein and his theories. In a less constricted society, this alone would cause readers to cast a critical gaze on relativity especially since some of the authors’ common sense seems to be suspect. For instance, Thomas Levenson the author of “Einstein in Berlin” apparently believes that the stars in the night sky on any given night are the same as the stars we would see in the sky the next day if the sun were not so bright that it obscured them from our sight. In this example the author, Thomas Levenson, neglects to take into consideration the rotation of the earth.
Perhaps, LloydO believes the critics of relativity have been given a fair hearing by the scientific community and their ideas have been found to be wanting. This notion would be bolstered by the fact that a book called “Einstein’s Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius” by Hans C. Ohanian was published about a decade ago, and it was readily available in many if not all the major book stores. “Einstein’s Mistakes” did indeed go nowhere. But, was the book an actual critique of relativity? Or was the book clever propaganda that masqueraded as a critique of relativity? One of its critiques of special relativity involved using readings from distant clocks that had not been properly synchronized. It is confusing because everyday clock synchronization does not take into consideration the speed of light, for instance, when a radio station 20 miles distant says that it’s 3:30 pm, we don’t take into consideration the time it took the radio waves to travel the 20 miles to our location when we set our clock.
There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, in “Einstein’s Mistakes” about an individual who decides to give Einstein’s book “Relativity: The Special and General Theory” a serious and prolonged study. This individual keeps a diary that includes references to the progress of his studies; the diary reveals a growing disenchantment and anger directed toward Einstein’s theories. The culmination of tale involves hints of a nervous breakdown followed by an “accidental” drowning in a sailing mishap. This story may be intended to serve as a cautionary tale directed at those who would scrutinize Einstein’s book as closely as Scott Reeves has surely done. The title of his book would seem to indicate some anger directed at Einstein; perhaps, he should be advised to avoid any regattas.
A note to one of the other reviewers of “Death to Einstein!” who employs the sobriquet Dr. Proteus: if you’re going to criticize someone’s intelligence, it can only help your case to employ one of the correct forms of the abbreviation for PhD.
One of the brilliant aspects of Scott Reeves’s work is that in this book and its follow up “Death to Einstein! 2” he has the courage to take Einstein’s writings in “Relativity: The Special and General Theory” as statements of Einstein’s authentic opinions. Other writers, myself included, out of deference to Einstein’s stature would not offer a criticism of the more fanciful portions of this work. Perhaps, we believed he did not actually mean the things he wrote, but instead he was presenting word pictures that he hoped would serve as an introduction to his complex mathematical equations. Perhaps, because of the deference of other writers, Scott Reeves has been the first to point out the contradiction between the relativity of simultaneity thought experiments and the time dilation thought experiments. He also may be the first one to elucidate the contradiction in the concept of symmetrical time dilation. His introduction of his own photon mapping thought experiment probes the deeper aspects of the twin paradox, and it leaves the reader with the inescapable conclusion that there is something wrong with the entire notion of relative motion.
There are liberal doses of humor in “Death to Einstein,” but the truly hilarious material appears in “Death to Einstein! 2” where Einstein himself lays the groundwork with the most fanciful and ridiculous thought experiments imaginable deployed in an effort to provide a framework for general relativity. Scott Reeves is at his iconoclastic best when he skewers this foolishness.
Geocentricity: The Debates
on April 03, 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.
Cooking on the Edge of Insanity
on May 04, 2018
Not since we met the Kool-Aid Wino in Richard Brautigan's "Trout Fishing in America" has an individual's enlightenment sprouted so decidedly from the pursuit of their culinary desires. While the Kool-Aid Wino's enlightenment had more than a soupcon of whimsy to it, Emily Rosenbaum's "cri de coeur," "Cooking on the Edge of Insanity," comes from a woman who has seen behind the curtain. She has seen that the food we eat seems all right, but it's all wrong. Insights arise as naturally as dough from the yeast of her laconic prose, "I didn't intend to join the Real Food movement. I just wanted food for my family that avoided processed soy, sugar, corn, chemicals, and manufactured flavors. Plus, I wanted to reduce the carbon footprint of our meals, the waste products that come out of our kitchen, and the byproducts from the manufacture of our foods." With this preamble it's not surprising that none of her recipes begin "a la brautigan," "Take a peck of flour and six pounds of butter boiled in a gallon of water." Since details are always important, it's likely that a book dealing with a very important idea would be concerned with how many minutes it takes for a cup of organic raisins to plump. It only takes "a couple of minutes." It's likely that the key to solving many problems of our society is for individuals to live significantly longer. "Cooking on the Edge of Insanity" and the Real Food movement may have found a way for individuals to live much longer. Society's aggregate problem solving ability may be limited to the wisdom an individual can accumulate over seven or eight decades of experiences. For example, when the great books of the past are perused, it is surprising to learn that almost no one considered thinking of a "Plan B" as the appropriate task for problem solvers. Until quite recently, powerful experts often censored the questioning of certain kinds of conventional wisdom. Emily Rosenbaum understands that there is room for a great deal of improvement in the dietary pronouncements of the experts. Unfortunately, this insight doesn't cause her to question whether there is room for a great deal of improvement in the pronouncements of our global warming/climate change experts.
Death to Einstein: The Video Transcripts, Volume 1
on Aug. 14, 2018
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.