Sexuality in a Sick Society

The changing relationship between men and women is leading to ominous racial consequences for the West.

by Dr. William L. Pierce (1983)

EVERYONE IS AWARE that a sexual revolution has taken place in the West since the Second World War. Most people think of this revolution primarily in terms of the “liberation” of women, as seen in their increased role in economic life outside the home and a few traditional occupations; and of freer — or more promiscuous, depending on one’s viewpoint — sexual relations between men and women, attributed to the breakdown of traditional morality under the impact of the mass media and facilitated by “the pill” and legalized abortion. The sexual revolution also has other facets, however, which, although not as widely recognized or publicized as those mentioned above, are of a more fundamental nature. One of these, the demasculinization of the Western male, together with the reaction of the Western female to this, is a cause for grave concern among thoughtful persons, even those who generally approve of the wider economic role women have today and do not regret the disappearance of the fear of pregnancy as a check on premarital sex.

Really, “demasculinization” is an inadequate word for describing what has happened to the Western male. Certainly, the number of effeminate males has increased greatly — not just the sexual inverts, who actually have taken pseudo-female sexual roles, but even more the legions of sissies and weaklings, of flabby, limp-wristed, non-aggressive, non-physical, indecisive, slack-jawed, fearful males who, while still heterosexual in theory and practice, have not even a vestige of the old macho spirit, so deprecated today, left in them.

Beyond these pitiful casualties of the modern era, however, are the much larger numbers of White males who still think like men — more or less — but are constrained from expressing their maleness in many of the ways which were natural in the past. One of the most important of those ways was supporting and protecting a mate. To be sure, many men are still able to fill this traditional role of provider and protector, but a rapidly growing number of others are not, and the psychological consequences for the latter are profound.

We are all familiar with the extreme caricature of the castrating female: the militant feminist who wants every male within shrieking distance to know that she is quite capable of taking care of herself and neither needs nor wants any man’s support or protection. Such women, fortunately, are still relatively rare, although their ranks are increasing. There are a great many more “liberated” women, who, while not shrill man-haters by any means, through their aggressive assertiveness and their manifest independence tend nevertheless to have a castrating effect on the men in their lives.

The effect exists even when there is no trace of feminine intent. The husband whose wife has a career outside the home, even if only because two incomes are needed to make ends meet, feels less a man because of it, whether he will admit that or not. All the brave, new talk about marriage today being a partnership of equals does not change the basic, biological natures of men and women. Those natures have fitted them for complementary roles, not for the same role. The man who merely puts his paycheck into the family kitty, along with his wife’s, may find some satisfaction in being a member of an economic partnership, but it is not the same as being the master in his house.

Just as support is not what it used to be, neither is protection. When a father had some authority over his daughter, and a husband over his wife, another male approached either at his peril. Not only did female dependence carry with it the need for protection, but it also stimulated in the male the desire to provide that protection. The entire community was behind the man who drew his sword or his gun in defense of his womenfolk.

Today, when a wife may be more of a roommate than a mate and it is a rare father who has any authority at all over his teen-aged daughter, both the compelling urge and the legal right of a man to protect his women seem much less clear-cut. In response to an interloper he is more likely to telephone his lawyer than reach for his shotgun. Again, because of that he is less a man, and he knows it. So do his women.

And the women of the West have reacted to what their men have become, fully as much as Western men have reacted to the “liberation” of their women. The female reaction, like that of the male, has been complex and subtle, but it is no less real and no less deep-seated, for it springs from the same biological roots.

One way in which Western women have responded to the perceived demasculinization of their men has been to turn toward non-White males, who are perceived as more masculine. This has its counterpart in the growing number of Western men — exasperated and intimidated by the assertiveness of the present generation of young, White women — who are seeking Asian mates, because of the reputed docility and submissiveness of the latter. The demand in America, Europe, and Australia for Asian women has become so great, in fact, that a number of marriage-by-mail entrepreneurs have been making handsome profits by importing brides from the Philippines and elsewhere for White bachelors.

Kurt Kirstein of Blanca, Colorado, is typical. He has set up a company named “Philippine American Life Partners,” and for $80 he will provide up to 1,000 photographs of available Philippine women. Last year more than 7,000 mail-order brides left the Philippines to marry lonely White men who, despite the surplus of unmarried White women in their countries, preferred unliberated Brown women.

By far the larger trend, however, has involved White women and non-White — especially Black — males. A decade or two ago the cases were legion in which women from the upper social strata — educated, sophisticated, sheltered by wealthy families — deliberately sought out and formed liaisons with laborers. These women, who had despaired of finding a man who could satisfy them among the weak, soft, over-civilized males of their own social class, often were willing to endure beatings and infidelity at the hands of their blue-collar lovers in order to fill their need for a primal relationship. But their rough-and-ready lovers were, at least, generally White. Nowadays they generally are not.

A just-published book from Dial Press (Privilege: The Enigma of Sasha Bruce, by Joan Mellen) is the biography of a blue-blooded heiress, the beautiful and intelligent daughter of multimillionaire diplomat David K.E. Bruce, one-time US ambassador to France, West Germany, and Britain. Conceived, appropriately, in 1945, Alexandra (Sasha) Bruce was educated in the most expensive and exclusive girls’ boarding schools and then at Radcliffe. At the age of 29 she was murdered by a Greek whom she had married a few weeks earlier. Before that, however, she had run through a long succession of Black lovers in her fruitless, instinctual search for a man who would not only love her but also master her. Along with the Blacks had come just about every imaginable form of degradation, humiliation, and self-abasement.

Sasha Bruce was exceptional and notable because of the prominence of her family and the violence of her end, but there are tens of thousands of other White women following her footsteps unnoted today.

In Europe those footsteps usually lead south, into the arms of Mediterranean men instead of Blacks. Swedish, Danish, German, Dutch, and English women head south in droves every year for vacations in Rome, Naples, Athens, and a hundred beach resorts along the Mediterranean shore, hungry for the masculinity they imagine they will find in the uninhibited, macho males there. Sometimes these tall, fair daughters of the North remain with their dark, southern lovers for years, supporting them on checks mailed from indulgent parents back home.

As northern males have continued to become more wimpish,[1] the result of their efforts to conform to the media-created image of the “new male” — more pacifist, less authoritarian, more “sensitive,” less competitive, more androgynous, less possessive — the controlled media, the homosexual lobby, and the feminist movement have cheered, but something deep in the soul of White womanhood has groaned. The hurt felt by the woman who needs a strong man and cannot find one surpasses all the other hurts to which the flesh is heir, and it often drives her to extremes of action destructive to both self and race.

One of the more bizarre forms taken by such action recently has been the growing migration of White women to the jungles and shantytowns of Jamaica, where they are bedding down with Rastafarians, members of a White-hating, drug-using, messianic Black sect who plait their woolly hair into snake-like “dreadlocks,” abjure all the creations of the White man’s science and the norms of his culture, and await the coming of their Black messiah in a haze of marijuana and reggae.

So many German women have disappeared into Jamaica in the past few years, in fact, that a recent issue of the leading West German news magazine carried a lengthy article on the phenomenon:

When one travels along Jamaica’s north coast, which attracts some 600,000 tourists each year, one is struck by the fascination of the daughters of White civilization by the Black sons of the wilderness,” the magazine notes. “One sees rows of female eyes turn from the Jamaican sunset toward the locks of an approaching ‘dread.’ One experiences the sight of a dozen blooming maidens following the lips of some talking Rasta … One feels the irritation of the hotel guests… [when a White girl with a Rasta shows up, she bright and combed, he dark and ragged…[2]

Not only German women, but also Canadian and American women have been drawn to Jamaica and the Rastas. Some have been murdered, many have been raped and robbed, but still they come. One woman interviewed by Der Spiegel was 26-year-old Maggi. She had been a German university student — and a feminist. After seven semesters of sociology, she left school and headed west, looking for something.

She found it in a Rastafarian commune. The Rastas fought violently over her, and she enjoyed immensely the experience of her “incredible attractiveness as a White woman.”

The Rasta Maggi presently is sleeping with is “full of rage against White oppressors throughout history,” and he berates her with tirades of anti-White hatred. Interestingly, she feels this has given her a better feeling for her own race: “I understand that, although our race is totally deformed [now], it could be just as wonderful [as the Black race] if it would only return to its own original ways.” For the present, however, Black men, with their strong consciousness of their “roots,” are “simply more attractive [to me] than White men.”

What are these “roots” Maggi finds attractive? As a religion, Rastafarianism is an absurd hodge-podge which can hardly be taken seriously by any White person bright enough to graduate from a German kindergarten, much less by a university senior. It grew out of the 1920’s “back to Africa” movement of the American Negro leader Marcus Garvey.[3]

Rastafarians believe that the late Ethiopian emperor, Haile Selassie (who was called Ras — or Prince — Tafari before his accession, hence the name Rastafarian) is the Black messiah who will one day unite them and lead them to victory over the hated Whites. They conveniently overlook the fact that Ethiopians, with their narrow noses and racially mixed background, not only do not consider themselves Black but have traditionally looked upon their Black neighbors in Africa as fit only to be killed or enslaved. The Rastafarians also refuse to accept the fact that Haile Selassie died in 1975 at the age of 83. They believe that the reports of his death are White trickery.

They advocate an African life-style, but they have very confused notions as to the way in which Blacks lived in Africa before the arrival of the White man. In practice it means living in a state of primitive squalor and indolence, keeping themselves perpetually high on ganja (as they call Jamaica’s native variety of marijuana) while their women support them. They express contempt for all White technology, but they make exceptions in the case of White products which suit them, such as canned food or the transistor radios which blare out the mind-numbing rhythms of reggae music day and night.

Clearly it is none of this which has such a fatal fascination for Maggi and thousands of other White women. Rather it is the raw, uncivilized, animal masculinity which the Rastas consciously cultivate. They are proud of the suppleness and muscularity of their Black bodies; proud of the bold, challenging stare with which they greet any stranger, especially a White one; proud of the fear which their dreadlocks and their provocative behavior evoke in male tourists.

It is their unabashed sensuality, their wildness, their readiness to fight over any affront to what they think of as their manly dignity, their arrogant flaunting of their maleness which lure the civilized but male-hungry women of the decadent, effeminate West to them.

Another woman interviewed in Jamaica by Der Spiegel is Billi, 25. She is a product of the West German feminist movement, which she says is still “very important to me.” But, she also says, the “unisex” civilization of the West had come to bore her. She has found her own sexual identity through the strong contrast of her sexuality against that of her Rasta lover, whom she supports with the $500 per month she earns as a secretary in Kingston. (Rastas, unlike Whites, do not seem to feel at all demasculinized by having their women support them.)

The flocking of White women to Jamaica is an exceptional rather than a typical symptom of the sexual malaise of the West, and it is fully as much a symptom of the decay of the West’s sense of racial pride.[4] But it is a grim reminder to us of the inextricable interdependence of the sexual and racial issues: Unless a healthy relationship between the sexes is reestablished in the West, the White race certainly will not survive.

This, is not the first time in the history of the race that a sexual crisis has been tied to a racial crisis. The Bhagavad-Gita warned some 2,000 years ago: “Out of the corruption of women proceeds the confusion of races; out of the confusion of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding; and out of this, all evil.”[5]

The same connection can be recognized in Roman history. The contemporary Swiss writer Amaury de Riencourt has noted:[6]

Roman women unwittingly wrecked with their own hands their feminine strongholds within a patriarchal society; from the proud, dignified and influential mothers they had been in early republican times, they became despisers of their prime biological function in imperial times and began competing with men on men’s terms. In this, they were unsuccessful. They made no significant contribution to whatever Roman culture there was; and by failing to reestablish respect for specifically female values, they made their contribution to the corruption of Roman life under the imperial sway of the Caesars — without ever achieving any direct share in political power.

The problem confronting Western men and women today is an extraordinarily difficult one. The recent ruckus in the United States over the attempt to ratify the so-called “equal rights amendment” has focused attention on the organized feminist movement as a factor in the breakdown of the relationship between the sexes, and it has tended to increase the polarization into two camps: Those in the movement or in sympathy with it who, in the name of eliminating all “discrimination,” want to produce a totally “unisex” society, in which there no longer will be men and women, but only “persons”; and those outside it who believe that the feminists themselves are solely responsible for bringing women out of the bedroom, the nursery, and the kitchen and either converting them into lesbians or planting the notion in their heads that they cannot find fulfillment except as the chairman of General Motors or the commanding officer of an aircraft carrier.

Certainly there are pernicious elements in the feminist movement: Not only the lesbians and the psychopathic man-haters, but also the Jews, who are never less than a third of the leadership of feminist organizations or of the editorial staff of feminist publications.[7] And there can be no doubt that the Jews fully understand the destructive effect on Gentile society that their wielding of the feminist movement is having. To them it is yet another weapon in their arsenal.

There can be equally little doubt, however, that the feminist movement today is as much an effect of the West’s sexual confusion as it is a cause: Thus, the high proportion of feminists among the women who seek in Jamaica the sexuality they no longer can find in Europe or America. The sexual crisis, like many of our other social problems, has its roots in the transformation of White society which came with the Industrial Revolution and the transition to an urban society; urbanization radically changed the traditional roles of both men and women.

One can easily find even deeper roots, in the distortion of the pagan Germanic sexual ethos through the imposition of Christianity, with its Asiatic sexual notions, on northern Europe.[8]

We cannot return to the past, however, even though it is essential that we understand it and that we have the fullest possible knowledge of our roots there. We must find new solutions to fit new conditions.

But we must find them very soon, for the corruption of our women is proceeding more rapidly with each passing day, and at the same time more of our young males are growing into something less than men, while a blind rage is building in others.

* * *

Notes:

1] The American poet Robert Bly, who travels the country lecturing at colleges, observed in a recent interview (New Age, May 1982): “When I look out at my audiences, perhaps half the young males are what I’d call ‘soft.’ They’re lovely, valuable people — I like them — and they’re not interested in harming the earth, or starting wars, or working for corporations. There’s something favorable toward life in their general mood and style of living.

“But something’s wrong. Many of these men are unhappy. There’s not much energy in them. They are life-preserving, but not exactly life-giving …

“The kind of energy I’m talking about is not the same as macho, brute strength, which men already know enough about: it’s forceful action undertaken, not without compassion, but with resolve.”

[2] Der Spiegel, May 31, 1982, pp.138-160.

[3] Marcus Garvey (1887-1940) was probably the most charismatic leader the Black race has yet produced in the New World. He founded his movement in Jamaica and then brought it to Harlem, New York, where it flourished. He collected some 7,000,000 Black signatures on a petition asking the US government to finance the repatriation of American Blacks to Africa.

Garvey advocated Black pride, Black separateness, and a return to ancestral Black ways — as well as a physical return to the Black homeland in Africa. He was not, however, hostile to Whites. In fact, he was bitterly attacked by assimilationist Blacks because of his friendly attitude toward the Ku Klux Klan and other White separatist groups.

Garvey in turn attacked assimilationist organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People because of their “White” (actually, Jewish) leadership and their caste system, in which light-skinned Mulattos looked down on darker Blacks.

The assimilationists eventually prevailed, and Garvey, with the help of the liberal White establishment, was railroaded into prison on a trumped-up mail fraud charge in 1925. That killed his movement in America, but its embers continued to smolder in Jamaica, the land of his birth, where between 10 and 25 per cent. of the population is now Rastafarian. Whether he would recognize what his movement has become today is questionable, however.

[4] The racial factor is especially relevant for the large number of German women attracted to Jamaica. Germany’s World War 2 conquerors, in order to make that country safe for Jews and democracy, imposed a vicious program of brainwashing on the German people, in the name of “denazification.” The natural, healthy racial values promoted by the National Socialists were inverted by Germany’s postwar re-educators, so that German women today are the most shameless race-mixers in the West.

The postwar reeducation of Germany will be treated in depth in a future issue of National Vanguard. For now let it suffice to contrast the destructive feminism rampant in Germany today with the ideal expressed in a speech Adolf Hitler gave to a convention of the National Women’s Organization in Nuremberg in 1937, four years after the National Socialists had come to power and begun implementing their programs. The closing words of Hitler’s speech were:

And so in the new Germany we are no longer turning out limp-wristed academicians who whimper at the slightest twinge of pain. …Our men must be even stronger than our women, who, God knows, bravely endure plenty themselves just in childbirth. I give you back, the National Socialist movement gives you back, the man — the man!

The audience of 20,000 women erupted into a thunderous roar of applause.

[5] Bhagavad-Gita, I, verse 41 et seq. This great Sanskrit epic, whose title means “The Lord’s Song,” expresses much of the traditional moral wisdom of the Aryan conquerors of ancient India.

[6] Sex and Power in History (New York, 1974)

[7] It is a notable fact that the best-known feminist politician is the Jewess Bella Abzug; that the author of the most influential feminist book (The Feminine Mystique) is the Jewess Betty Friedan; and that the founder of the largest-circulation feminist periodical (Ms.) is the Jewess Gloria Steinem.

[8] See the commentary on the Pauline sexual doctrine in “A Search for Values: Toward a White Ethic,” National Vanguard No. 89.

* * *
by Dr. William L. Pierce (1983)
Source: National Vanguard magazine No. 92, January 1983

Theory Of Relativity - Hoax Of the XX Century

The second postulate of the theory of relativity - c = const is refuted by observations and experiments. Therefore, relativistic mechanics has nothing to do with the description of the real world. The theory of relativity, special and general, is the result of uncritical imagination, incompetence and outright deceit, a scientific pile in which there is no pearl grain, there is nothing to dig into and look for any meaning in it.

This is a collection of fantastic inventions and logical manipulations. The theory can be used as a kind of test for the readers' common sense and resistance to suggestibility, but it is better to push it further. And the problems, supposedly described by relativistic mechanics, must be rethought and their solutions must be found. First of all, to study and understand the nature of electromagnetic radiation, which is an essential part of the universe.

***
Review of V.I.Sekerin's  THEORY OF RELATIVITY - HOAX OF THE XX CENTURY

The work of V.I. Sekerin "Essay on the theory of relativity", about 2.75 author's pages, is devoted to criticism of the basic postulates of the theory of relativity of A. Einstein. It consistently sets out well-known and little-known to the general public, experimental facts that fundamentally contradict the principle of constancy of the speed of light. Specifically, these are: 1. Römer's experiments on observing eclipses of Jupiter's satellites. 2. Annual aberrations of stars caused by the addition of the speed of light and the speed of the Earth in its orbit. 3. Ritz's construction for binary stars, which, brought by the author to a direct calculation, unambiguously describes the course of brightness and their spectral properties for a wide class of binaries. 4. Experiments on the radar of Venus, the analysis of which was carried out by the American astronomer B. Wallace in 1961-1966, and in which the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory of the Academy of Sciences also took part.

All these experiments, without any doubt, contradict the theory of relativity. Among them, the most interesting are the annual stellar aberration and the radar of Venus. If, from the point of view of the practice of science, corrections for aberration were introduced and will always be introduced by any astronomer measuring the positions of the stars, while not at all worrying about the discomfort of the Einsteinians (practice requires accuracy, not worship of authorities), then in the case of radar of Venus, once again which confirmed that the speed of the source (relative to the observer on Earth) and the speed of the electromagnetic wave emitted by it are added (subtracted), ignoring this knowledge promises big trouble for scientists, astronauts and, especially, for the military in the near future.

Further, V.I.Sekerin has a set of examples demonstrating new possibilities in explaining various physical phenomena, without resorting to the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light. It is not all successful here in a purely didactic sense. There are rhetorically vulnerable spots, both in the author of the essay and in potential opponents.

The last, philosophical part of the work requires professional discussion, and we omit it. And, nevertheless, it is necessary to note the following, It has long been accepted in every self-respecting science that if in the constructed theory, system of evidence or experimental foundations, at least one fact appears that contradicts the previous laws, then the theory, system of evidence, the experimental foundations are rejected or radically revised.

And so, despite a wide range of experiments, where the constancy of the speed of light does not take place, Einstein's physics continues to live. Only the deeply rooted cult of Einstein's personality can explain this situation in physics.

As always, the cult creates a situation in which zones outside of criticism appear. In modern physics, any confirmation of the violation of the principle of constancy of the speed of light has become such a zone of silence. We are sure that a reasonable physicist perfectly feels the falsity in the presentation of his subject, but a cult with all the attributes of suppression of dissent and a repressive apparatus and methods - a doubting physicist (this is enough) immediately declares not a physicist with all the ensuing consequences for a scientist's career ... An active position in the criticism of the cult threatened quite recently with the announcement of the obstinate physicist mentally ill.

Cults must be broken. Any. Including the cult of Einstein. It is this circumstance that gives rise to the need to publish the polemical materials of V.I.Sekerin, designed to make a breakthrough into one of the closed zones of world science.

Serbulenko Mikhail Georgievich, candidate of physical and mathematical sciences, senior researcher Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

Let us suppose that experiment has refuted the hypothesis of relativity (Einstein). How many labors were used by scientists to master it, how many students puzzled over it - and suddenly it turned out to be nonsense. And humiliating, and as if the treasure was lost.
How much pride there was in front of others, unfamiliar with the teaching - and everything collapsed. You have to bow your head and bitterly regret the time spent. Is it nice ?!
Old hypotheses are constantly rejected, and science is being improved. And scientists always prevent this most of all, because they lose and suffer the most from this alteration.
Average people are not hurt because they have not heard of these hypotheses. Of course, one must pity the scientists, but they themselves must beware and endure false humiliation for the sake of higher goals. To alleviate their suffering, special delicacy is needed.
K.E. Tsiolkovsky. A genius among people. M. "Thought", 2002.

Magi and real artists have the gift of providence. In the seeming chaos and confusion of life, they suddenly stop the attention of mankind on a seemingly insignificant detail, which acquires its true, key significance. Chaos disappears, the incomprehensible becomes clear.

Upon acquaintance with the painting by I. Glazunov "Mystery of the XX century", the fragment, which depicts the formula "2 x 2 = 5", the work of K. Malevich "Black Square" and the portrait of A. Einstein with his tongue sticking out, causes bewilderment. To the claims to the artist why he portrayed the popular physicist in such an unsightly way, Glazunov replied that he simply transferred the image of the scientist from a photograph to the canvas. As for the composition, this is his, the artist's, vision of the world of the 20th century.

Here another question arises: why did A. Einstein, being of old age and sane, not only photographed in this form, but also popularized this photograph in every possible way?
To get an answer, you need to understand the meaning of the picture as a whole. Glazunov's canvas captures the most outstanding hoaxes of the century, forming a common mystery, a deceptive theatrical performance of a world scale on the stage of life. Several hoaxes have found their place on the fragment being analyzed. In our opinion, they should be understood as follows.

The fine arts are valuable for their artistry, informational content, and the assertion of a realistic outlook. All this is present in “abundance” in K. Malevich's painting “Black Square”, called in some circles the “Manifesto of Abstractionism”. There is exactly the same amount of sanity in the formula "2 x 2 = 5". The answer to the portrait lies in the results of Einstein's activity, in his main work - the special and general theory of relativity.

(...)

Invention of the theory of relativity  Under the conditions described above, the invention of the theory of relativity was, to some extent, a natural act, but its appearance only aggravated the existing crisis. Here the word "invention" for the theory of relativity is not a reservation, but a statement that it was really invented, assembled entirely from the elements of the ether theory, only in a different order, like in a children's designer. There is not a single new element in it in comparison with its predecessor, there is not a single new discovery. This is well shown, for example, in the work "Einstein's Theory of Relativity" by Max Born, the author "who personally took an active part in the main scientific events of the first half of the twentieth century." The recommended book is voluminous, but the theories described in it can be schematically outlined rather briefly [15].

The essence of the ether theory. Experimental advances in the study of optical phenomena in the 19th century convinced the scientific world that light is waves of ether. But the experiment on detection of the ether wind, carried out in 1881 by A. Michelson, spoiled the harmonious picture. There was no ethereal wind, the speed of light in all directions relative to the source was the same. Many physicists could not accept the obvious conclusion from the named experiment: the ideas about the existence of the ether are false and one should return to the corpuscular ideas of I. Newton. They began to look for other reasons. To reconcile Michelson's experience and the ether existing in their imagination, some scientists presented fantastic, one might say, delusional thoughts.

In 1892 J. Fitzgerald suggested that bodies in motion, interacting with the ether, contract in the direction of their motion and the distortion of the device compensates for the undetectable motion relative to the ether. J. Larmor adhered to similar views. G. Lorentz acted most radically. Translating Fitzgerald's ideas into mathematical formulas in order to obtain a constant in magnitude the speed of light, he comes to the need to count not only the change in the size of bodies in a moving system, but also a change in the flow of time in proportion to the speed of the system relative to the ether. Let us emphasize especially that the change in the flow of time was found by Lorentz not as a result of experiments and observations, but by a school method in the course of mathematical adjustment of Michelson's experiments to etheric representations. The resulting mathematical equations later became known as Lorentz transformations. When calculating according to these equations, the speed of light always turns out to be the same, therefore, the movement relative to the ether cannot be fixed. This is how the experimental constancy of the speed of light was combined with an imaginary ether.

These ideas were supported and approved by the famous mathematician and philosopher A. Poincaré.

As an employee of the patent office, A. Einstein knew the rules for drafting applications, according to which he composed a new invention from elements of the borrowed. After many years of searching, the main "achievement" of the aetherists was the "explanation" of the constancy of the speed of light in Michelson's experiments. Einstein makes this “achievement” the basis of his theory, puts it as a postulate “... light in emptiness always propagates at a certain speed V, independent of the movement of the emitting body”, in which the connection with ethereal ideas is clearly visible: “… with a certain speed V, independent of the motion of the emitting body.” It is in the medium (ether) that the speed of wave propagation does not depend on the motion of the emitter. Only later, under the onslaught of questions, Einstein gave a different, expanded and somewhat different meaning, definition of the postulate as a self-evident property of nature without any justification: "The same light ray propagates in emptiness with speed "c" not only in the frame of reference K, but also in every other frame of reference K', moving uniformly and rectilinearly relative to K".

Using the announced postulate and ready-made mathematics - the Lorentz transformations, he gets that in systems moving relative to the observer, bodies contract, and time flows in a different way than in the observer's system. In his fundamental work, A. Einstein did not indicate a single previous work, from which he borrowed ideas and mathematics.

Typical "creative" plagiarist approach. In modern literature, this fact is constantly noted, but is considered by apologists no more than a prank of a genius.

The most inconvenient element of the ether theory was the proof of the existence of the ether itself. Ether in the ether theory manifests itself and exists only during the passage of waves through it. No waves, no ether. Therefore, in the new theory, it is declaratively excluded from consideration. However, light in the theory of relativity is considered as waves. A wave, by definition, is the propagation of a disturbance in a medium. Therefore, if there are waves, then there must be a medium, a carrier of waves. Yes, it seems so, but this is no longer ether, but, say, a vacuum. But vacuum is emptiness, nothing, there can be no waves in it.

Then - "physical vacuum", "physical field", or something like that, indefinite, called dualism. The main thing is that now it is not necessary to consider the physical characteristics of the light-carrying medium, it is not in theory, and to coordinate them with the parameters of the waves of the medium. Light, and with it all electromagnetic radiation, have become a kind of abstraction, devoid of any real, consistent properties: waves - without a medium, particles - without mass.

The result is a chimerical theory, similar to the ethereal one, but without ether. It contains all the developments of the ether theory, but its main element, the ether itself, is excluded, there are waves, but the medium, the carrier of waves, is not. What was a consequence of mathematical calculations in the ether theory - the constancy of the speed of light, as a result of changes in the size of bodies and time intervals, in the new theory is set as the cause. And the reason for the ether theory - the change in the size of bodies and time intervals, was a consequence of the constancy of the speed of light. What united both theories is that the predicted changes in the size of bodies, time intervals and mass are fundamentally undetectable, mystical. If in moving inertial systems time and distance change in accordance with the Lorentz transformations, then this applies not only to measured bodies and phenomena, but standard measures of length and control clocks.

Unlike the ethereal theory, in which even mythical causes and mechanisms of interaction of phenomena were considered, in the invented theory its predictions have neither reasons nor mechanism of changes, they cannot be confirmed or refuted by scientific methods.

Everything must be taken on faith. Instead of the obligatory concept - "I know", a new concept - "I believe" is introduced into science, which makes this problem similar to the scholastic task of the Middle Ages: how many devils can fit on the point of a needle?

Instead of returning to the views of Galileo-Newton while studying the nature of light and on this basis to develop physics further, as W. Ritz tried to do, Einstein introduced one of his own fictions - the postulate c = const, and all the other fictions of the Etherists based on the postulate logically tied one by one.

Perhaps the scientific community and the world would have survived such a metamorphosis calmly, and the theory of relativity, along with the ether theory, would have taken their rightful place in the list of curiosities in the history of science, if politics and politicians had not intervened in the development of events.

The world at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries 

“A very special atmosphere has been created around the theory of relativity. She defends herself with extraordinary passion, and her opponents are subjected to all kinds of attacks, from which it is clear that this is not at all about the details of some theory, but that here in this area the class struggle is reflected, the participants of which do not even realize that they participate in it. " A.K. Timiryazev. Introduction to theoretical physics. M., 1933.

According to its purpose, the theory of relativity began to perform some of the functions of religious and mystical doctrines losing their positions and, first of all, very successfully the function of discrediting common sense, perverting the methods of scientific knowledge. (What are the holy miracles, if, for example, science has "proven" that a twin flying under certain conditions on a space flight, after returning, can meet with a much older twin brother, or even with a son who has become older than his father). This theory took over from religion not only the structure of its construction, it is based on dogmatic postulates that contradict common sense and reality, but also methods of asserting its dominance: substitution of concepts, ruthless suppression of opponents. She also incorporated elements of religious mythology into her content: the creation of the world as a result of the Big Bang and, possibly, the end of the world due to scattering and dispersal.

The theory of relativity was formed gradually, therefore, scientists E. Mach, H. Poincaré, H. Lorentz and others [1], [19], who have done a lot of preparatory work, should be included in its team of authors. And although each of them strove to reveal the truth in natural science, in essence they worked for philosophical concepts that were contrary to common sense, in other words, for mysticism and idealism. (...)

In the nineteenth century ghosts roamed Europe, not only the ghost of communism, but also the ghost of Zionism. In the twentieth century, "ideas took possession of the masses", their confrontation began.

Communism has set itself the goal of building a paradise on Earth for all people on the planet - the elimination of the exploitation of man by man, racial and national inequality, the satisfaction of the material and cultural needs of society on the basis of a universal and equal obligation to work. The philosophical basis of communism was dialectical and historical materialism, based on the achievements of classical science, including physics. The key points of the philosophy of communism are the recognition of the materiality of the world, the primacy of matter and the secondary nature of consciousness, the acceptance of cause and effect relationships, the materialistic development of nature and human civilization, the denial of any religion.

Zionism also set the goal of creating a paradise on Earth, but in one country and only for one people - the Jews. The ideological basis of Zionism is Judaism, in which the main shrine is the "chosen by God" Jewish people. His chosenness of God in relations with other nations should ensure privileged well-being, not only moral, but also material.

Judaism, like any religion, is an idealistic teaching that recognizes the primacy of spirit and the secondary nature of matter.

Under the cover of advertising noise, one of the elements of which was Eddington's astronomical observations, the development of the situation around the theory of relativity and its author was given a new direction. “Until 1919, Einstein, who was then already forty years old, was engaged in ordinary scientific activities in close contact with a number of his - quite, by the way, his worthy colleagues and had equal fame with them. But in 1919 there was an unexpected and unheard-of explosion in Einstein's popularity, which can be learned from any of his life stories.

Einstein's change in status was truly incredible and startling. "This is what the memoirist K. Blumenfeld writes.“ Until 1919, Einstein had no connection with either Zionism or the Zionist way of thinking. In February 1919, our meeting took place, which revolutionized Einstein's attitude towards the Jewish people.

At this time, Felix Rosenblum (now Israel's Minister of Justice Pinchas Rosen, 1956) presented a list of Jewish scholars in whom we wanted to awaken an interest in Zionism. Einstein was among them.

Natural scientists have known for many years about the significance of this man, but when we visited him ... there was still no crowd of interviewers, photographers and curious people who besieged him in the future." (Quotes are taken from the article by Vadim Kozhinov: "N. Agursky's Zionism and International Zionism", "Our Contemporary", No. 6, 1990, p. 152. The latter is cited by the author of an article from the well-known collection "Light Time - Dark Time" (He11e Zeit - Dunkle Zeit. In Memoriof Albert Einstein. Europa Verlag, 1956, p. 74), expressing regret that this collection has not been published in our country. It should be added - it is a pity that there is no translation and publication in Russian of Einstein's book "Mine worldview" (Albert Einstein. Mein Weltbild Zveite Auflage Amsterdam, Quarido Verlag, 1934). These works contain interesting facts from the life of the famous physicist).

From that time on, Einstein came under the tutelage and service of world Zionism, which became one of the reasons for the incredible popularity of his creation. Since then, any criticism of the theory of relativity, in the spirit of Zionist practice, has been declared "anti-Semitism." And the senseless theory of relativity is used to fool the national elites of the goyim, to prepare them for the perception of the irrational and illogical. They are taught that common sense - direct sensible judgment and the very ability to think normally - does not exist, and that science has "proven" this.

The philosophical idealistic doctrine of relativity, the conventions of human knowledge - relativism received a "scientific" justification for the approval of mystical teachings and prejudices. Fertilized with mysticism, the mind can more easily perceive religious dogmas, biblical stories and social deception. The existence of orders, when some acquire villas and yachts, and build temples, synagogues, mosques and temples on the remains, while others drag out a miserable existence for years, cannot take place without interference beyond natural forces. The physical destruction of opponents is to some extent a solution to the problem, de-ideologization is much more effective - there are only sheep left for wool and skins.

The attack on the materialistic worldview met with resistance in our country. In the journal "Pod Znamenem Marksizma" (No. 1–2, 1922) the physicist prof. A.K. Timiryazev publishes an article where he points out that drawing public attention to the theory of relativity is necessary for those "friends of the revolution" who would like to destroy the sciences and restore "... the authority of religion and various currents of idealist philosophy at its service" the main merit of this theory is that it delivers a "fatal blow to materialism!" Analyzing the physical and philosophical essence of the theory, Timiryazev writes about its inconsistency. He shows that “Einstein gives real meaning to imaginary constructions,” and he sees the reason for this situation in the fact that “questions connected with the theory of relativity concern areas where we, with our technical means, cannot yet solve cases by laboratory experiments. And where the scientist is deprived of his faithful support, his mind can go crazy very easily." In No. 3 of the same journal, V. I. Lenin published an article "On the Significance of Militant Materialism," in which he defines the main tasks of the journal in strengthening the ideological foundations of our state.

He sets the task of rallying the forces of all consistent materialists under the leadership of the Communist Party as one of the primary ones, considering it very important "an alliance with representatives of modern natural science, who are inclined towards materialism and are not afraid to defend and profess it ...". As an example, Lenin notes that "A. Timiryazev's article on Einstein's theory of relativity allows us to hope that the journal will succeed in implementing this second alliance." This alliance is necessary because "without a solid philosophical foundation, no science, no materialism can withstand the struggle against the onslaught of bourgeois ideas and the restoration of the bourgeois world outlook." Lenin's testament was not fulfilled. Under the patronage of L. Trotsky, an ardent propagandist of relativism, A. M. Deborin (Ioffe), took the post of editor-in-chief of the journal Pod Znamenem Marksizma, without being a member of the ruling party. The popularization of the theory of relativity began to grow steadily. In a still illiterate country, the years of devastation “... the period 1922-1925. was published brochures and books on the theory of relativity with a total circulation of up to 100 thousand copies. Among the authors of brochures and books, let us name Cassier, Eddington, Born, Harry Schmidt, Lehmann, Auerbach, Moshkovsky, S. Norman; from Russian authors - Semkovsky, E. London, Fredericks, S. Lifshitz, B. Duchesse, Tan-Bogaz, and others. " ("Under the Banner of Marxism", No. 7, 1937, p. 46), and the total number of editions of Einstein's works and about Einstein in subsequent years is more than 1 million 300 thousand copies.

("Science and Technology", No. 9, 1984, p. 29). Not only mass propaganda began to be used, but also other methods of disseminating the theory. Here is what Acad. A.P. Alexandrov. “Soon after the war, it seems, in 1946, I was summoned to the Central Committee of the party and a conversation was started that quantum theory, the theory of relativity — all this is nonsense. Some company, not very clear to me, gathered. Two figures from Moscow State University tried especially hard. But I told them very simply: “The atomic bomb itself demonstrates the kind of transformation of matter and energy that follows from these new theories and from nothing else. Therefore, if we refuse them, then we must also refuse the bomb. Please give up quantum mechanics and make the bomb yourself, however you want ” (Izvestia, No. 205, July 23, 1988). 

A bold statement, I must say, the future president of the Academy of Sciences knew the strength of himself if he could engage in blackmailing I. V. Stalin and L. P. Beria. (...)

The use of the theory of relativity as a philosophical idea from the very beginning did not attract the approval of the majority of scientists, including those who indirectly created it. Indicative in this respect is the position of H. Lorentz, who acted as a natural scientist when, formulating his transformations, he tried to eliminate the inconsistency between the hypothesis of the electromagnetic ether and Michelson's experiment with the help of mathematical equations and physical assumptions. The scientific world of physicists at that time was convinced of the existence of the ether and that Michelson would determine the absolute speed by his experiment. The negative result of this experiment prompted Lorentz to build a physical model, in which such extravagant assumptions as changes in space and time of moving charges and other material bodies were applied, and others - to treat this model with conciliation. Earlier, a similar assumption was made by J.J. Thomson in relation to the mass of a moving electron. 

Einstein's contribution to the creation of the theory of relativity was manifested in the fact that, with his paradoxical postulate c = const, he transferred the difficulties of Lorentz's ethereal model to the field of formal reasoning and thought experiments, where there was no longer any place for any physical assumptions. That was to puzzle over the mystery of the nature of the constancy of the speed of light in the Michelson interferometer, it is better to simply declare: the speed of light is a constant value, without explanation and justification. Then the supposed cause of this phenomenon - the Lorentz transformation - logically becomes its consequence.

Simple and brilliant!

This cheating trick obtained the invulnerability of the theory of relativity for such a long time. Before physicists, it is protected by a philosophical orientation, before philosophers - by technical complexity, and before everyone else - by casuistic confusion and politicking.

Later, Lorenz did not see his offspring in the theory of relativity, so he never claimed co-authorship. In the presentation of Einstein, this theory has ceased even to resemble a physical theory. In it, no longer material bodies in motion, interacting with the ether, changed their forms in space and time, as in Lorentz, but space and time themselves have lost their classical forms. While Lorenz tacitly rejected the theory of relativity, others spoke out openly. The apologists of Machism present these statements as a manifestation of inertia and stupidity. So, N. Gardner wrote: “Many scientists were unable to free themselves from the old, Newtonian way of thinking. They were in many ways reminiscent of the scientists of the distant days of Galileo, who could not bring themselves to admit that Aristotle could be wrong.

Michelson himself, whose knowledge of mathematics was limited, did not recognize the theory of relativity, although his great experiment paved the way for the special theory of relativity." No, this is not sluggishness and stupidity - these words are in fact evidence of Michelson's steadfastness and deep understanding of the essence of the problem. 

“Later in 1935,” Gardner continues, “when I was a student at the University of Chicago, Prof. William Macmillan, a well-known scientist. 

He openly said that the theory of relativity was a sad misunderstanding. We, the modern generation, are too impatient to wait for anything, ”Macmillan wrote in 1927. - In the forty years that have passed since Michelson's attempt to detect the expected motion of the Earth relative to the ether, we have abandoned everything that we had been taught before, created a postulate, the most meaningless of all that we could only think of, and created a non-Newtonian mechanics consistent with this postulate. The achieved success is an excellent tribute to our mental activity and our wit, but there is no certainty that our common sense ”[26, p. 112]. 

Giving preference to judgment over experience, contributing to the erosion of the criteria for the truth of our knowledge, both natural science and socio-historical, the debatable hypothesis is used by certain forces in the political struggle, which is why it has not yet suffered the fate of many other hypotheses that have turned out to be scientifically untenable. Its assertion was also facilitated by the fact that, according to A. K. Timiryazev, “the theory of relativity is such an area of physics that not only has significant, but even supposed practical applications” [24, p.

164, T.2].

A cherished touchstone for my detachment from everything, including me

Pessoa’s sexual abstinence (it is probable, though not provable, that he died a virgin) was by his own account a conscious choice, which he apparently sought to justify in The Book of Disquiet, with passages insisting on the impossibility of possessing another body, on the superiority of love in two dimensions (enjoyed by couples that inhabit paintings, stained-glass windows and Chinese teacups), and on the virtues of renunciation and asceticism. The Book, indeed, is rife with religious vocabulary, although the mysticism preached by Pessoa hallowed no god, except perhaps himself (‘God is me,’ he concludes in ‘The Art of Effective Dreaming for Metaphysical Minds’). Richard Zenith
**
Sovereign King of Detachment and Renunciation, Emperor of Death and Shipwreck, living dream that grandly wanders among the world’s ruins and wastes!
*
I don’t feel my soul, just peace. External things, all of them distinct and now perfectly still, even if they’re moving, are to me as the world must have been to Christ when, looking down at everything, Satan tempted him. They are nothing, and I can understand why Christ wasn’t tempted. They are nothing, and I can’t understand why clever old Satan thought they would be tempting.
*
The nocturnal glory of being great without being anything! … And I suddenly experience the sublime feeling of a monk in the wilderness or of a hermit in his retreat, acquainted with the substance of Christ in the sands and in the caves of withdrawal from the world.

[I understand people who have a vocation for the cloistered life. I would now be capable of shutting myself off in a retreat for months at a time. To sink into the silence, melt into the monotony of a monk’s gray existence. To stroll along the overgrown pathways, touched by autumn gold, of a neglected garden and read Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine . . . To sit on a stone bench, write, and flick away the little spiders, stubborn little ants, and green garden fleas landing on my paper. Then to gaze through the bars of a Gothic window at the huge, red sun crossed by a few streaks of bluish clouds. Someone would bring me a meal and a candle. And at midnight I would rise to say my prayers . . . Bobkowski]

*

Slavery is the law of life, and it is the only law, for it must be observed: there is no revolt possible, no way to escape it. Some are born slaves, others become slaves, and still others are forced to accept slavery. Our faint-hearted love of freedom – which, if we had it, we would all reject, unable to get used to it – is proof of how ingrained our slavery is. I myself, having just said that I’d like a cabin or a cave where I could be free from the monotony of everything, which is the monotony of me – would I dare set out for this cabin or cave, knowing  from experience that the monotony, since it stems from me, will always be with me? I myself, suffocating from where I am and because I am – where would I breathe easier, if the sickness is in my lungs rather than in the things that surround me?
*
Freedom is the possibility of isolation. You are free if you can withdraw from people, not having to seek them out for the sake of money, company, love, glory or curiosity, none of which can thrive in silence and solitude. If you can’t live alone, you were born a slave. You may have all the splendours of the mind and the soul, in which case you’re a noble slave, or an intelligent servant, but you’re not free. And you can’t hold this up as your own tragedy, for your birth is a tragedy of Fate alone. Hapless you are, however, if life itself so oppresses you that you’re forced to become a slave. Hapless you are if, having been born free, with the capacity to be isolated and self-sufficient, poverty should force you to live with others. This tragedy, yes, is your own, and it follows you.

To be born free is the greatest splendour of man, making the humble hermit superior to kings and even to the gods, who are self-sufficient by their power but not by their contempt of it.
Death is a liberation because to die is to need no one. In death the wretched slave is forcibly set free from his pleasures, from his sufferings, from his coveted and ongoing life. The king is freed of the domains  he didn’t want to give up. Women who spread love are freed of the triumphs they cherish. Men who conquered are freed of the victories for which their lives were predestined.
Death ennobles, dressing our poor ridiculous bodies in finery they have never known. In death a man is free, even if he didn’t want freedom. In death he’s no longer a slave, even if he wept on giving up his slavery. Like a king whose greatest glory is his kingly title, and who as a man may be laughable but as a king is superior, so the dead man may be horribly deformed but is still superior, because death has freed him.

*
To understand, I destroyed myself. To understand is to forget about loving. I know nothing more simultaneously false and telling than the statement by Leonardo da Vinci that we cannot love or hate something until we’ve understood it.
Solitude devastates me; company oppresses me. The presence of another person derails my thoughts...
*
My life: a tragedy booed off stage by the gods, never getting beyond the first act.
Friends: not one. Just a few acquaintances who imagine they feel something for me and who might be sorry if a train ran over me and the funeral was on a rainy day.

The logical reward of my detachment from life is the incapacity I’ve created in others to feel anything for me. There’s an aureole of indifference, an icy halo, that surrounds me and repels others. I still haven’t succeeded in not suffering from my solitude. It’s hard to achieve that distinction of spirit whereby isolation becomes a repose without anguish.

I put no faith in the friendship I was shown, and I wouldn’t have put any in love had I been shown love, which wouldn’t even have been possible. Although I never harboured illusions about those who  claimed to be my friends, I inevitably managed to feel disillusioned with them – such is my complex and subtle destiny of suffering.
*
The active life has always struck me as the least comfortable of suicides. To act, in my view, is a cruel and harsh sentence passed on the unjustly condemned dream. To exert influence on the outside world, to change things, to overcome obstacles, to influence people – all of this seems more nebulous to me than the substance of my daydreams. Ever since  I was a child, the intrinsic futility of all forms of action has been a cherished touchstone for my detachment from everything, including me.

From The Book of Disquiet

Albert Einstein – was he a thief, a liar and a plagiarist?

Einstein plagiarised the work of several notable scientists in his 1905 papers on special relativity and E=mc2, yet the physics community has never bothered to set the record straight.

Abstract
Proponents of Einstein have acted in a way that appears to corrupt the historical record. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Time magazine’s “Person of the Century”, wrote a long treatise on special relativity theory (it was actually called “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, 1905a), without listing any references. Many of the key ideas it presented were known to Lorentz (for example, the Lorentz transformation) and Poincaré before Einstein wrote the famous 1905 paper.

As was typical of Einstein, he did not discover theories; he merely commandeered them. He took an existing body of knowledge, picked and chose the ideas he liked, then wove them into a tale about his contribution to special relativity. This was done with the full knowledge and consent of many of his peers, such as the editors at Annalen der Physik.

The most recognisable equation of all time is E=mc2. It is attributed by convention to be the sole province of Albert Einstein (1905). However, the conversion of matter into energy and energy into matter was known to Sir Isaac Newton (“Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another…”, 1704). The equation can be attributed to S. Tolver Preston (1875), to Jules Henri Poincaré (1900; according to Brown, 1967) and to Olinto De Pretto (1904) before Einstein. Since Einstein never correctly derived E=mc2 (Ives, 1952), there appears nothing to connect the equation with anything original by Einstein.

Arthur Eddington’s selective presentation of data from the 1919 eclipse so that it supposedly supported “Einstein’s” general relativity theory is surely one of the biggest scientific hoaxes of the 20th century. His lavish support of Einstein corrupted the course of history. Eddington was less interested in testing a theory than he was in crowning Einstein the king of science.

The physics community, unwittingly perhaps, has engaged in a kind of fraud and silent conspiracy; this is the byproduct of simply being bystanders as the hyperinflation of Einstein’s record and reputation took place. This silence benefited anyone supporting Einstein.

Introduction
Science, by its very nature, is insular. In general, chemists read and write about chemistry, biologists read and write about biology, and physicists read and write about physics. But they may all be competing for the same research dollar (in its broadest sense). Thus, if scientists wanted more money for themselves, they might decide to compete unfairly. The way they can do this is convince the funding agencies that they are more important than any other branch of science. If the funding agencies agree, it could spell difficulty for the remaining sciences. One way to get more money is to create a superhero-a superhero like Einstein.

Einstein’s standing is the product of the physics community, his followers and the media. Each group benefits enormously by elevating Einstein to icon status. The physics community receives billions in research grants, Einstein’s supporters are handsomely rewarded, and media corporations like Timemagazine get to sell millions of magazines by placing Einstein on the cover as “Person of the Century”.

When the scandal breaks, the physics community, Einstein’s supporters and the media will attempt to downplay the negative news and put a positive spin on it. However, their efforts will be shown up when Einstein’s paper, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, is seen for what it is: the consummate act of plagiarism in the 20th century.

Special Relativity
Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) was a great scientist who made a significant contribution to special relativity theory. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy website states that Poincaré: (1) “sketched a preliminary version of the special theory of relativity”; (2) “stated that the velocity of light is a limit velocity” (in his 1904 paper from the Bull. of Sci. Math. 28, Poincaré indicated “a whole new mechanics, where the inertia increasing with the velocity of light would become a limit and not be exceeded”); (3) suggested that “mass depends on speed”; (4) “formulated the principle of relativity, according to which no mechanical or electromagnetic experiment can discriminate between a state of uniform motion and a state of rest”; and (5) “derived the Lorentz transformation”.

It is evident how deeply involved with special relativity Poincaré was. Even Keswani (1965) was prompted to say that “As far back as 1895, Poincaré, the innovator, had conjectured that it is impossible to detect absolute motion”, and that “In 1900, he introduced ‘the principle of relative motion’ which he later called by the equivalent terms ‘the law of relativity’ and ‘the principle of relativity’ in his book, Science and Hypothesis, published in 1902″. Einstein acknowledged none of this preceding theoretical work when he wrote his unreferenced 1905 paper.

In addition to having sketched the preliminary version of relativity, Poincaré provided a critical part of the whole concept-namely, his treatment of local time. He also originated the idea of clock synchronisation, which is critical to special relativity.

Charles Nordman was prompted to write “They will show that the credit for most of the things which are currently attributed to Einstein is, in reality, due to Poincaré”, and “…in the opinion of the Relativists it is the measuring rods which create space, the clocks which create time. All this was known by Poincaré and others long before the time of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to him”.

Other scientists have not been quite as impressed with “Einstein’s” special relativity theory as has the public. “Another curious feature of the now famous paper, Einstein, 1905, is the absence of any reference to Poincaré or anyone else,” Max Born wrote in Physics in My Generation. “It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true” (Born, 1956). G. Burniston Brown (1967) noted, “It will be seen that, contrary to popular belief, Einstein played only a minor part in the derivation of the useful formulae in the restricted or special relativity theory, and Whittaker called it the relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz… ”

Due to the fact that Einstein’s special relativity theory was known in some circles as the relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz, one would think that Poincaré and Lorentz might have had something to do with its creation. What is disturbing about the Einstein paper is that even though Poincaré was the world’s leading expert on relativity, apparently Einstein had never heard of him nor thought he had done anything worth referencing!

Poincaré, in a public address delivered in September 1904, made some notable comments on special relativity theory. “From all these results, if they are confirmed, would arise an entirely new mechanics…would be, above all, characterised by this fact that no velocity could surpass that of light…because bodies would oppose an increasing inertia to the causes, which would tend to accelerate their motion; and this inertia would become infinite when one approached the velocity of light… No more for an observer carried along himself in a translation, he did not suspect any apparent velocity could surpass that of light: and this would be then a contradiction, if we recall that this observer would not use the same clocks as a fixed observer, but, indeed, clocks marking ‘local time’.” (Poincaré, 1905)

Einstein, the Plagiarist
It is now time to speak directly to the issue of what Einstein was: he was first and foremost a plagiarist. He had few qualms about the work of others and submitting it as his own. That this was deliberate seems obvious.

Take this passage from Ronald W Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times (there are no references to Poincaré here; just a few meaningless quotes). This is how page 101 reads: “‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies’…is in many ways one of the most remarkable scientific papers that had ever been written. Even in form and style it was unusual, lacking the notes and references which give weight to most serious expositions…” (emphasis added).

Why would Einstein, with his training as a patent clerk, not recognise the need to cite references in his article on special relativity? One would think that Einstein, as a neophyte, would overreference rather than underreference.

Wouldn’t one also expect somewhat higher standards from an editor when faced with a long manuscript that had obviously not been credited? Apparently there was no attempt at quality control when it was published in Annalen der Physik. Most competent editors would have rejected the paper without even reading it. At the barest minimum, one would expect the editor to research the literature to determine whether Einstein’s claim of primacy was correct.

Max Born stated, “The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous literature” (emphasis added) (Born, 1956). He is clearly indicating that the absence of references is abnormal and that, even by early 20th century standards, this is most peculiar, even unprofessional.

Einstein twisted and turned to avoid plagiarism charges, but these were transparent.

From Bjerknes (2002), we learn the following passage from James MacKaye: “Einstein’s explanation is a dimensional disguise for Lorentz’s… Thus Einstein’s theory is not a denial of, nor an alternative for, that of Lorentz. It is only a duplicate and disguise for it… Einstein continually maintains that the theory of Lorentz is right, only he disagrees with his ‘interpretation’. Is it not clear, therefore, that in this [case], as in other cases Einstein’s theory is merely a disguise for Lorentz’s, the apparent disagreement about ‘interpretation’ being a matter of words only?”

Poincaré wrote 30 books and over 500 papers on philosophy, mathematics and physics. Einstein wrote on mathematics, physics and philosophy, but claimed he had never read Poincaré’s contributions to physics.

Yet many of Poincaré’s ideas – for example, that the speed of light is a limit and that mass increases with speed – wound up in Einstein’s paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” without being credited.

Einstein’s act of stealing almost the entire body of literature by Lorentz and Poincaré to write his document raised the bar for plagiarism. In the information age, this kind of plagiarism could never be perpetrated indefinitely, yet the physics community has still not set the record straight.

In his 1907 paper, Einstein spelled out his views on plagiarism: “It appears to me that it is the nature of the business that what follows has already been partly solved by other authors. Despite that fact, since the issues of concern are here addressed from a new point of view, I am entitled to leave out a thoroughly pedantic survey of the literature…”

With this statement, Einstein declared that plagiarism, suitably packaged, is an acceptable research tool.

Here is the definition of “to plagiarise” from an unimpeachable source, Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, 1947, p. 1,878: “To steal or purloin and pass off as one’s own (the ideas, words, artistic productions, etc. of one another); to use without due credit the ideas, expressions or productions of another. To commit plagiarism” (emphasis added). Isn’t this exactly what Einstein did?

Giving due credit involves two aspects: timeliness and appropriateness. Telling the world that Lorentz provided the basis for special relativity 30 years after the fact is not timely (see below), is not appropriate and is not giving due credit. Nothing Einstein wrote ex post facto with respect to Lorentz’s contributions alters the fundamental act of plagiarism.

The true nature of Einstein’s plagiarism is set forth in his 1935 paper, “Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy”, where, in a discussion on Maxwell, he wrote, “The question as to the independence of those relations is a natural one because the Lorentz transformation, the real basis of special relativity theory…” (emphasis added).

So, Einstein even acknowledged that the Lorentz transformation was the real basis of his 1905 paper. Anyone who doubts that he was a plagiarist should ask one simple question: “What did Einstein know, and when did he know it?” Einstein got away with premeditated plagiarism, not the incidental plagiarism that is ubiquitous (Moody, 2001).

The History of E=mc2
Who originated the concept of matter being transformed into energy and vice versa? It dates back at least to Sir Isaac Newton (1704). Brown (1967) made the following statement: “Thus gradually arose the formula E =mc2, suggested without general proof by Poincaré in 1900″.

One thing we can say with certainty is that Einstein did not originate the equation E=mc2. Then the question becomes: “Who did?” Bjerknes (2002) suggested as a possible candidate S Tolver Preston, who “formulated atomic energy, the atom bomb and superconductivity back in the 1870s, based on the formula E=mc2“.

In addition to Preston, a major player in the history of E = mc2 who deserves much credit is Olinto De Pretto (1904). What makes this timing so suspicious is that Einstein was fluent in Italian, he was reviewing papers written by Italian physicists and his best friend was Michele Besso, a Swiss Italian. Clearly, Einstein (1905b) would have had access to the literature and the competence to read it. In “Einstein’s E=mc2 ‘was Italian’s idea'” (Carroll, 1999). We see clear evidence that De Pretto was ahead of Einstein in terms of the formula E = mc2.

In terms of his understanding the vast amount of energy that could be released with a small amount of mass, Preston (1875) can be credited with knowing this before Einstein was born. Clearly, Preston was using the E = mc2 formula in his work, because the value he determined – e.g., that one grain could lift a 100,000-ton object up to a height of 1.9 miles – yields the equation E=mc2.

According to Ives (1952), the derivation Einstein attempted of the formula E=mc2 was fatally flawed because Einstein set out to prove what he assumed. This is similar to the careless handling of the equations for radioactive decay which Einstein derived. It turns out that Einstein mixed kinematics and mechanics, and out popped the neutrino. The neutrino may be a mythical particle accidentally created by Einstein (Carezani, 1999). We have two choices with respect to neutrinos: there are at least 40 different types or there are zero types. Occam’s razor rules here.

The Eclipse of 1919
There can be no clearer definition of scientific fraud than what went on in the Tropics on May 29, 1919. What is particularly clear is that Eddington fudged the solar eclipse data to make the results conform to “Einstein’s” work on general relativity. Poor (1930), Brown (1967), Clark (1984) and McCausland (2001) all address the issues surrounding this eclipse.

What makes the expeditions to Sobral and Principe so suspect is Eddington’s zealous support of Einstein, as can be seen in his statement, “By standing foremost in testing, and ultimately verifyingthe ‘enemy’ theory, our national observatory kept alive the finest traditions of science…” (emphasis added) (Clark, 1984). In this instance, apparently Eddington was not familiar with the basic tenets of science. His job was to collect data-not verify Einstein’s theories.

Further evidence for the fraud can be deduced from Eddington’s own statements and the introduction to them provided by Clark (ibid., p. 285): “May 29 began with heavy rain, which stopped only about noon. Not until 1.30 pm when the eclipse had already begun did the party get its first glimpse of the sun: ‘We had to carry out our programme of photographs on faith…”‘ (emphasis added). Eddington reveals his true prejudice: he was willing to do anything to see that Einstein was proved right. But Eddington was not to be deterred: “It looked as though the effort, so far as the Principe expedition was concerned, might have been abortive”; “We developed the photographs, two each night for six nights after the eclipse… The cloudy weather upset my plans and I had to treat the measures in a different way from what I intended; consequently I have not been able to make any preliminary announcement of the result” (emphasis added) (Clark, ibid.).

Actually, Eddington’s words speak volumes about the result. As soon as he found a shred of evidence that was consistent with “Einstein’s” general relativity theory, he immediately proclaimed it as proof of the theory. Is this science?

Where were the astronomers when Eddington presented his findings? Did anyone besides Eddington actually look at the photographic plates? Poor did, and he completely repudiated the findings of Eddington. This should have given pause to any ethical scientist.

Here are some quotes from Poor’s summary: “The mathematical formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75 seconds for light rays passing the edge o the sun, is a well known and simple formula of physical optics”; “Not a single one the fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space, of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way involved in Einstein’s prediction of, or formulas for, the deflection of light“; “The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore, been given a fictitious importance. Their results can neither prove nor disprove the relativity theory… (emphasis added) (Poor, 1930).

From Brown (1967), we learn that Eddington could not wait to get out to the world community that Einstein’s theory was confirmed. What Eddington based this on was a premature assessment of the photographic plates. Initially, stars did “appear” to bend as they should, as required by Einstein, but then, according to Brown, the unexpected happened: several stars were then observed to bend in a direction transverse to the expected direction and still others to bend in a direction opposite to that predicted by relativity.

The absurdity of the data collected during the Eclipse of 1919 was demonstrated by Poor (1930), who pointed out that 85% of the data were discarded from the South American eclipse due to “accidental error”, i.e., it contradicted Einstein’s scale constant. By a strange coincidence, the 15% of the “good” data were consistent with Einstein’s scale constant. Somehow, the stars that did not conform to Einstein’s theories conveniently got temporarily shelved-and the myth began.

So, based on a handful of ambiguous data points, 200 years of theory, experimentation and observation were cast aside to make room for Einstein. Yet the discredited experiment by Eddington is still quoted as gospel by Stephen Hawking (1999). It is difficult to comprehend how Hawking could comment that “The new theory of curved space-time was called general relativity… It was confirmed in spectacular fashion in 1919, when a British expedition to West Africa observed a slight shift in the position of stars near the sun during an eclipse. Their light, as Einstein had predicted, was bent as it passed the sun. Here was direct evidence that space and time were warped”. Does Hawking honestly believe that a handful of data points, massaged more thoroughly than a side of Kobe beef, constitutes the basis for overthrowing a paradigm that had survived over two centuries of acid scrutiny?

The real question, though, is: “Where was Einstein in all this?” Surely, by the time he wrote his 1935 paper, he must have known of the work of Poor: “The actual stellar displacements, if real, do not show the slightest resemblance to the predicted Einstein deflections: they do not agree in direction, in size, or the rate of decrease with distance from the sun”. Why didn’t he go on the record and address a paper that directly contradicted his work? Why haven’t the followers of Einstein tried to set the record straight with respect to the bogus data of 1919?

What makes this so suspicious is that both the instruments and the physical conditions were not conducive to making measurements of great precision. As pointed out in a 2002 Internet article by the British Institute of Precise Physics, the cap cameras used in the expeditions were accurate to only 1/25th of a degree. This meant that just for the cap camera uncertainty alone, Eddington was reading values over 200 times too precise.

McCausland (2001) quotes the former Editor of Nature, Sir John Maddox: “They [Crommelin and Eddington] were bent on measuring the deflection of light…”; “What is not so well documented is that the measurements in 1919 were not particularly accurate”; “In spite of the fact that experimental evidence for relativity seems to have been very flimsy in 1919, Einstein’s enormous fame has remained intact and his theory has ever since been held to be one of the highest achievements of human thought” (emphasis added).

It is clear that from the outset that Eddington was in no way interested in testing “Einstein’s” theory; he was only interested in confirming it. One of the motivating factors in Eddington’s decision to promote Einstein was that both men shared a similar political persuasion: pacifism. To suggest that politics played no role in Eddington’s glowing support of Einstein, one need ask only the question: “Would Eddington have been so quick to support Einstein if Einstein had been a hawk?” This is no idle observation. Eddington took his role as the great peacemaker very seriously. He wanted to unite British and German scientists after World War I. What better way than to elevate the “enemy” theorist Einstein to exalted status? In his zeal to become peacemaker, Eddington lost the fundamental objectivity that is the essential demeanour of any true scientist. Eddington ceased to be a scientist and, instead, became an advocate for Einstein.

The obvious fudging of the data by Eddington and others is a blatant subversion of scientific process and may have misdirected scientific research for the better part of a century. It probably surpasses the Piltdown Man as the greatest hoax of 20th-century science. The BIPP asked, “Was this the hoax of the century?” and exclaimed, “Royal Society 1919 Eclipse Relativity Report Duped World for 80 Years!” McCausland stated that “In the author’s opinion, the confident announcement of the decisive confirmation of Einstein’s general theory in November 1919 was not a triumph of science, as it is often portrayed, but one of the most unfortunate incidents in the history of 20th-century science”.

It cannot be emphasised enough that the Eclipse of 1919 made Einstein, Einstein. It propelled him to international fame overnight, despite the fact that the data were fabricated and there was no support for general relativity whatsoever. This perversion of history has been known about for over 80 years and is still supported by people like Stephen Hawking and David Levy.

Summary and Conclusions
The general public tends to believe that scientists are the ultimate defenders of ethics, that scientific rigour is the measure of truth. Little do people realise how science is conducted in the presence of personality.

It seems that Einstein believed he was above scientific protocol. He thought he could bend the rules to his own liking and get away with it; hang in there long enough and his enemies would die off and his followers would win the day. In science, the last follower standing wins-and gets to write history. In the case of Einstein, his blatant and repeated dalliance with plagiarism is all but forgotten and his followers have borrowed repeatedly from the discoveries of other scientists and used them to adorn Einstein’s halo.

Einstein’s reputation is supported by a three-legged stool. One leg is Einstein’s alleged plagiarism. Was he a plagiarist? The second leg is the physics community. What did they know about Einstein and when did they know it? The third leg is the media. Are they instruments of truth or deception when it comes to Einstein? Only time will tell.

The physics community is also supported by a three-legged stool. The first leg is Einstein’s physics. The second leg is cold fusion. The third leg is autodynamics. The overriding problem with a three-legged stool is that if only one leg is sawn off, the stool collapses. There are at least three very serious disciplines where it is predictable that physics may collapse.

Science is a multi-legged stool. One leg is physics; a second leg is the earth sciences; a third, biology; and a fourth, chemistry (e.g., cold fusion). What will happen if, for the sake of argument, physics collapses? Will science fall?"

References

Bjerknes, C.J. (2002), Albert Einslein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, XTX Inc., Dowers Grove.
Born, M. (1956), Physics in My Generation, Pergamon Press, London, p. 193.
Brown, G. Burniston (1967), “What is wrong with relativity?”, Bull. of the Inst. of Physics and Physical Soc., pp. 71-77.
Carezani, R. (1999), Autodynamics: Fundamental Basis for a New Relativistic Mechanics, SAA, Society for the Advancement of Autodynamics.
Carroll, R., “Einstein’s E = mc2 ‘was Italian’s idea”‘, The Guardian, November 11, 1999.
Clark, R.W. (1984), Einstein: The Life and Times, Avon Books, New York.
De Pretto, O. (1904), “Ipotesi dell’etere nella vita dell’universo”, Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, Feb. 1904, tomo LXIII, parte II, pp. 439-500.
Einstein, A. (1905a), “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper” (“On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”), Annalen der Physik 17:37-65.
Einstein, A. (1905b), “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Energy Content?”, Annalen der Physik 18:639-641. Einstein, A. (1907), “Uber die vom Relativitatspringzip geforderte Tragheit der Energie”, Annalen der Physik 23(4):371-384 (quote on p. 373).
Einstein, A. (1935), “Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy”, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 61:223-230 (first delivered as The Eleventh Josiah Willard Gibbs Lecture at a joint meeting of the American Physical Society and Section A of the AAAS, Pittsburgh, December 28, 1934).
Hawking, S., “Person of the Century”, Time magazine, December 31, 1999.
Ives, H.E. (1952), “Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation”, J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 42:540-543.
Keswani, G.H. (1965), “Origin and Concept of Relativity”, Brit. J. Phil. Soc. 15:286-306.
Mackaye, J. (1931), The Dynamic Universe, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, pp. 42-43.
Maddox, J. (1995), “More Precise Solarlimb Light-bending”, Nature 377:11.
Moody, R., Jr (2001), “Plagiarism Personified”, Mensa Bull. 442(Feb):5.
Newton, Sir Isaac (1704), Opticks, Dover Publications Inc., New York, p.cxv.
Nordman, C. (1921), Einstein et l’univers, translated by Joseph McCabe as “Einstein and the Universe”, Henry Holt and Co., New York, pp. 10-11, 16 (from Bjerknes, 2002).
Poincaré, J.H. (1905), “The Principles of Mathematical Physics”, The Monist, vol. XV, no. 1, January 1905; from an address delivered before the International Congress of Arts and Sciences, St Louis, September 1904.
Poor, Cl. (1930), “The Deflection of Light as Observed at Total Solar Eclipses”, J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 20:173-211.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912), at http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/poincare.htm.
Webster, N. (1947), Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, p. 1878.

©2003 Richard Moody Jr
777 Treadlemire Road
Berne NY 12023 USA
Email: Slmrea@aol.com

Article Credit: Article Published by: Richard Moody Jr , Permission to reproduce the article in the same form has been taken from the Publisher on 22 April 2016.

http://www.aulis.com/albert_einstein.htm

Review of "Albert Einstein The Incorrigible Plagiarist"

Hagiophobia is defined as "a morbid dread of holy things." There is no question that the author of this book, Christopher Jon Bjerknes, is an exemplary sufferer from this too-rare complaint. For in our time Albert Einstein has been sanctified … perhaps even above Albert Schweitzer, who certified the holiness of all living things, himself included. Einstein's life having been told and retold by numerous hagiographers, Bjerknes has made it his aim to provide the market with equally numerous anti-hagiographies - this being apparently the sixth he has written. The publishers have burdened the latest with a disclaimer, "This book is intended solely for entertainment purposes." However, we all know that nothing entertains better than a good character assassination.

For this purpose the book employs the Socratic method, the asking of loaded questions - in the style of, "Was this man ever known to stop beating his wife?" Physicists, who lead the pack of Einstein idolaters, will dismiss Bjerknes's questions with contempt. But I think others will be impressed, if nothing else, by the sheer doggedness of the scholarship that has gone into the bibliography. This fills almost half the book and comprises 567 numbered endnotes, some of which stretch for more than a page and include extensive references to the literature. Among these notes will be found almost anything that has been written by or about Einstein or his ideas, to the present date. My own limited scholarly resources noted only one omission: Karl Popper, the philosopher who first (?) linked the names of Einstein and Parmenides, is absent. But Parmenides is here, as he amply deserves to be.

From the start we note a deep schism: the author would like to side with feminists who see Einstein's work as actually done by his much smarter first wife Mileva; but, since Bjerknes also wants to paint that same work as stolen from earlier investigators, he faces an abiding problem of whose character to assassinate. Here the Socratic method proves a life-saver: Rather than offering a definitive choice, he provides weaponry for assassinating both Albert and Mileva, and leaves it to the reader's political preference, an open question, which candidate to take as the priority target.

Given all this smoke, how much fire is present? Einstein (or Einstein-Marity, the first wife) stands accused primarily of "plagiarism" in respect to the basic ideas of the special relativity theory. Narrowly construed, plagiarism refers to the copying of an earlier author's published words. No such charge can be laid against Einstein. The author exhibits not a single instance of word-copying or what the litigious would term copyright infringement. But that is not what Bjerknes means. He is referring to the theft of ideas without acknowledgment. Here the case is much stronger and also much fuzzier. Einstein's 1905 paper (which - amazingly - was originally submitted to Annalen der Physik under the name Einstein-Marity, according to the first-hand account, cited here, of Abram Joffe) contained not a single reference to earlier work. This is frowned on in modern science, and should have been challenged by the editor even then. For Einstein would have been a poor scholar, indeed, if he had failed to read Poincare's prior work on relativity, which explicitly enunciated the Principle of Relativity. One can understand omission of any reference to the much earlier work of Wilhelm Weber, who developed the first and last relativistic formulation of electrodynamics in terms of relative coordinates, velocities, and accelerations - since such would have directed attention to the persistence of absolutist elements within "special relativity" theory. (The "observer" or "frame" is such an element - a tertium quid extraneous to the intrinsic elements to be described in nature, and wholly absent from Weber's theory. Minkowski's covariant symmetrizing of the quid among all its quiddities alleviates, but does not eradicate, this echo of absolutism.)

Another dilemma of the author in respect to special relativity is whether to concentrate his attack on the theory itself or on its creator. If the theory is no good and was in fact stolen by Einstein (or by Mileva) from predecessors, then it would seem the blame for this no-goodness should fall most heavily on the latter. Error plagiarized is not error sanitized. Its provenance aside, Bjerknes clearly distrusts the special theory (as does the present reviewer); but the book makes little serious contribution to the comparatively vast (though little known and little regarded) literature of its logical criticism.

Einstein's (or Einstein-Marity's) originality consisted in adjoining the Poincare relativity principle to the Maxwell equations (which contain only one field propagation velocity parameter c and thus necessitate what we now call "Einstein's second postulate") and in showing that these stark logical ingredients suffice to imply a kinematics based on the mathematical coordinate transformations that Lorentz had already spelled out. Clearly the ideas pre-existed. But, as all inventors know, it is not permissible to patent ideas. If the combining of pre-existing ideas in new patterns is to be called "plagiarism," then it would not be an over-statement to say that all scientific progress and all invention depend on just this kind of plagiarism … for what did Newton do but plagiarize from the giants on whose shoulders he acknowledged standing? He neglected only to attach names to the giants. So did Einstein. In both cases the behavior was perhaps a trifle magisterial … and also perhaps more than a trifle forgivable. Still, unpleasant doubts persist in the Einstein case: Bjerknes shows that Einstein's scientific publications reveal a lifetime pattern of similar magisterial behavior. The absence of attributions in the 1905 paper was not a one-off occurrence. For example, I quote from page 231 of the book: "David Hilbert, on whom Einstein went calling for help, published the general theory of relativity before Einstein. Why after many years of failure, did Einstein suddenly realize, within a few days after David Hilbert's work was public, the equations which Hilbert published before him, and then submit his, Einstein's, identical formulations?"

As you can see, this last (stripped of its Socratic question mark) constitutes a genuine charge of plagiarism … but it is not backed by chapter and verse citation, equation number by corresponding equation number, word by word. Lacking such substantiation, the charge cannot stand in court. In law, equations, like ideas, cannot be copyrighted or patented. Still, here is more smoke. It is doubtful if all such can be permanently cleared away. But one would like to see scholarship comparable to that of Bjerknes applied to the task. Otherwise, a polluted atmosphere and a bad odor linger.

In conclusion, I recommend the book to Einstein scholars and to sociologists of science as a genuinely valuable bibliographical resource for further research on the man and his times - and as a target for the Einstein hagiographers to shoot down if they can. Other readers, in search of more than entertainment, must proceed with caution.

(Thomas E. Phipps, Jr.)

(From Infinite Energy Magazine, N. 47, 6 October, 2002)

http://www.infinite-energy.com