Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality

 Nikola Tesla’s statement about the modern methods of scientists like Einstein is revealing. “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”538

Nikola Tesla was the most brilliant scientist and inventor of his time. So advanced were his discoveries that upon his death in 1943 his research papers were seized by the FBI and classified “Top Secret” at the request of the U.S. War Department. One of Tesla’s most notable discoveries was alternating electrical current (a/k/a AC) that is today used to power most homes and businesses.

Tesla understood true science and knew a scientific scam when he saw one. In 1935, Tesla called Einstien’s theory of relativity “[a] magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king..., its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.”539
Professor Herbert Dingle was once an eminent proponent of the theory of relativity. He later realized that it was simply a myth, supported not by scientific experiments, but rather by false math formulae. He discovered that the theory of relativity is held to be true, not because it is true, but because mathematical formulae were devised and held up as evidence of its truth. “Not only are hypotheses held to contain the 'real truth'; it is now claimed that any (mathematical) hypothesis is necessarily true.”

(parenthetical in original)540

The problem with basing proof for a scientific theory solely on mathematics is that a mathematical equation may not correspond to reality. A mathematical formula may only prove something that is imaginary and not real. Professor Dingle explains:

[T]he symbols that compose a mathematical expression may, with equal mathematical correctness, correspond both to that which is observable and that which is purely imaginary or even unimaginable. If, therefore, we start with a mathematical expression, and infer that there must be something in nature corresponding to it, we do in principle just what the pre-scientific philosophers did when they assumed that nature must obey their axioms, but its immensely greater power for both good and evil makes the consequences of its misapplication immensely more serious.541

The experiments supporting the theory of relativity were “thought experiments” performed completely through complicated math formulae designed to bedazzle ignorant laymen. Professor Dingle stated:

[M]athematics has been transformed from the servant of experience into its master, and instead of enabling the full implications and potentialities of the facts of experience to be realised and amplified, it has been held necessarily to symbolise truths which are in fact sheer impossibilities but are presented to the layman as discoveries.542

Dr. Dingle reveals the key point that is the cornerstone of the theory of relativity. Many highfalutin scientists do not seem to know this one simple fact. “[I]n the language of mathematics we can tell lies as well as truths, and within the scope of mathematics itself there is no possible way of telling one from the other.”543 That is the dirty secret behind the theory of relativity. Einstein used mathematics to tell lies. The only way to determine if a mathematical formula has any validity is to test it in the real world. Dr. Dingle explains that “[w]e can distinguish them only by experience or by reasoning outside the mathematics, applied to the possible relation between the mathematical solution and its supposed physical correlate.”544 Physical experiments are not something that have been done with much success in proving the theory of relativity. Consequently, scientists resort to thought experiments, using mathematical formulae, which have no correlation to reality.

How can math be used to tell lies, as alleged by Professor Dingle? A simple example will illustrate how math can be used to support a falsehood. If one were to say that a glass that is half-empty is the same as a glass that is half-full, that would be true.

One can use mathematics, however, to make that simple truth be the foundation for a falsehood. Let’s put the half-full glass equaling a half-empty glass into an equation, where “E” represents an empty glass and “F” represents a full glass: ½E = ½F. That equation (½E = ½F) is accurate as it is presented; a half empty glass is equal to an half full glass. Now, in basic algebra, if one multiplies both sides by the same number, it does not affect the accuracy of the equation. Thus, to multiply both sides of the equation by two, one would get the result of E = F. Under the rules of algebra, that is supposed to be a true statement. We know, however, that in reality an empty glass does not equal a full glass (thus, in reality E ≠ F). However, mathematics can be used to present a falsehood as truth (E = F). That is the type of unreal reasoning that permeates the theory of relativity, where the scientific testing is done in thought experiments, using mathematics. This creates a fantasy world of relativity. The theory of relativity is not science, it is mysticism, supported only by mathematical models.

Physicists gave up trying to understand the absurd results of the formulae used to explain the theory of relativity, and simply capitulated without much of a fight. They accepted the mathematical formulae of Einstein, even though they often gave inaccurate and incongruous solutions. Dingle explains that “with the apparent success in 1919 of Einstein's general theory with its then quite new and terrifying mathematical machinery of tensor calculus, came the fatal climax. ... [Physicists] gave up trying to understand the whole business, surrendered the use of their intelligence, and accepted passively whatever apparent absurdities the mathematicians put before them.”545

Einstein’s biographer, Ronald Clark, reports that Einstein’s friend, Janos Plesch, suggested to Einstein that there seemed to be some connection between mathematics and fiction, Einstein replied: “There may be something in what you say. When I examine myself and my methods of thought I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge.”546

The theory of Relativity is not science; it is fantasy, conjured by mathematical formulae in the minds of Einstein and his followers. The blind faith of the scientific community in the supposed truth of the theory of relativity, and its intolerance for any evidence of its invalidity, is akin to adherents in a religious cult. When one realizes that relativity is more a religion than it is science, it explains why the ascension of relativity is in direct proportion to the descent of Christianity in society. It seems that there is more tolerance in religion than there is in the scientific community toward heterodoxy, especially when it comes to the theory of relativity. Indeed, Professor Dingle said as much:

It is ironical that, in the very field in which Science has claimed superiority to Theology, for example — in the abandoning of dogma and the granting of absolute freedom to criticism — the positions are now reversed. Science will not tolerate criticism of special relativity, while Theology talks freely about the death of God, religionless Christianity, and so on (on which I make no comment whatever). Unless scientists can be awakened to the situation into which they have lapsed, the future of science and civilisation is black indeed.547 (parenthetical comment in original)

Charles Lane Poor, Professor of Celestial Mechanics at Columbia University, and the author of a number of standard textbooks on astronomy, stated that “the Relativity Theory strikes directly at our fundamental concepts as to the structure of the universe; its conclusions are startling and completely upsetting to our common-sense way of looking at physical and astronomical phenomena.”548 Dr. Louis Essen, a distinguished mathematician, and Fellow of the Royal Society, stated that the theory of relativity was not truly a physical theory but rather simply a number of sometimes contradictory assumptions. Lord Ernest Rutherford is considered the father of nuclear physics; so eminent was he that chemical element 104 was named rutherfordium after him. Lord Rutherford has called the theory of relativity, simply “nonsense.”

In 1922, Professor Herbert Dingle wrote Relativity for All, one of the first standard textbooks on the theory of relativity. His second book on the subject, written approximately 20 years later, The Special Theory of Relativity, remained for a long time the standard work in English and American universities on the theory of relativity. Indeed, Professor Dingle was one of the foremost experts on the theory of relativity in the world. During a span of fifty years, he studied the theory intensively and conferred about it with all the physicists who were experts in it (e.g., Einstein, Eddington, Tolman, Whittaker, Schroedinger, Born and Bridgman). So renowned was Dingle’s expertise on the theory of relativity, that when Einstein died in 1955, the BBC chose Professor Dingle to broadcast a tribute to Einstein.

In 1959, after years of believing and promoting the theory of relativity, Dingle realized that something was wrong. He found a paradox in the theory of relativity. He spent 13 years canvassing his large network of scientists to try to find an answer to the paradox. Nobody could answer the paradox. He tried to publish the paradox, but was refused all access to scientific journals.

Finally, in 1972, Dingle decided to publish his conclusion in a book titled: Science at the Crossroads. He explained in his book that he only published it because he was denied access to scientific journals to present his evidence. In that book, Professor Dingle presents unimpeachable proof that the theory of relativity is invalid.

In order to understand the paradox with which Professor Dingle was faced, some explanation should be given. The coup de grace to the Michelson/Morley experiment results showing that the earth does not move is the central maxim of relativity theory that there is no way to tell which of two bodies is in motion. The theory of relativity provides that motion is relative to the observer.

Thus from earth it would appear that the sun is moving. However, from the perspective of the sun, the earth is moving. According to the theory of relativity there is no way to establish which is the case, because the movement of the two bodies is only movement relative to the other body. This maxim of relativity effectively kills the null result of the Michelson/Morley experiment, since according to the theory of relativity, the null result was only a matter of relative perspective. Under the theory of relativity, if you were to fall on your face, it cannot be said that you fell to the ground, as it is equally likely that the earth rose up to meet your face. That is the kind of silly conclusion brought about by the theory of relativity.

In addition to the above relativity of motion, Einstein theorized that time slows down, the faster one travels. For example, if a twin (Paul) takes a trip on a spaceship at near the speed of light and he returns to earth ten years later, his twin brother (Peter), left back on earth, will have aged ten years, but the twin on the spaceship would only have aged very little. The problem with that postulation from Einstein is that under the theory of relativity, the movement of each brother is relative. Each twin sees the other as moving, and therefore each brother should have aged more slowly than the other brother. The conclusion under the theory of relativity is that Peter has aged more slowly than Paul and at the same time Paul has aged more slowly than Peter. Of course, it is impossible for each twin to age more slowly than the other twin.

The twin paradox is chosen by this author, because it very simply illustrates the issue. Professor Dingle, however, never actually used the twin paradox, because there is an alleged quirk in that example that gives the supporters of the theory of relativity an out (or so they allege); they assert that there is no symmetry, since the twin on the spaceship is traveling outbound and inbound, which involves two inertial frames. Of course, that is pure sophistry, and addressing such nonsense is beyond the scope of this book. Professor Dingle was too well versed in the theory of relativity to allow the promoters of relativity such an easy out, so he steered clear of using the aging twins example. He, instead, used an example of two clocks moving in the same trajectory at different speeds.
Professor Dingle asked scientists all over the world to assist him in finding an answer to the paradox using speeding clocks, with one clock traveling faster than the other, in the same direction. Every scientific journal in the world refused to even address the paradox that Dingle raised. No one could resolve the paradox, and the scientific community seemed to think it was impolite to even discuss it. “I can present the matter most briefly by saying that a proof that Einstein's special theory of relativity is false has been advanced; and ignored, evaded, suppressed and, indeed, treated in every possible way except that of answering it, by the whole scientific world.”549 In science, a paradox is a self-
contradictory conclusion that is logically impossible. A theory that causes a logically impossible result is necessarily wrong. A paradox in the theory of relativity simply had to be suppressed by the high priests of science.

Professor Dingle laid out the paradox, which has never been resolved to this day, as follows:

According to the theory, if you have two exactly similar clocks, A and B, and one is moving with respect to the other, they must work at different rates ..., i.e. one works more slowly than the other. But the theory also requires that you cannot distinguish which clock is the 'moving' one; it is equally true to say that A rests while B moves and that B rests while A moves. The question therefore arises: how does one determine, consistently with the theory, which clock works the more slowly? Unless this question is answerable, the theory unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A --which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible. Now, clearly, a theory that requires an impossibility cannot be true, and scientific integrity requires, therefore, either that the question just posed shall be answered, or else that the theory shall be acknowledged to be false.

But, as I have said, more than 13 years of continuous effort have failed to produce either response.550

Professor Dingle concludes that “[t]he magical influence of this word [relativity] has transformed science in this field into a superstition as powerful as any to be found in primitive tribes.”551 We have it on the authority of Professor Dingle, one of the foremost experts on the theory of relativity that the theory of relativity is false.

The theory of relativity is more than just false; it is nonsense. It is based upon the premise that motion is not absolute, but rather it is relative to the frame of reference of the observer.

Einstein’s motive in constructing such a theory was to explain away the Michelson/Morley null result for the motion of the earth.

According to the theory of relativity, there is no way to tell the difference between an object that is at rest and an object that is moving at a constant velocity in an inertial reference frame.

According to Einstein, all motion is relative to the frame of reference of the observer. For instance, according to the theory of relativity, it is equally valid to say that the railroad track is moving under a train as it is to say that same train is traveling at a constant speed over a stationary track. A person standing next to the track would perceive the train moving as it passed by him. But a passenger on the same train moving at a constant speed, who is inculcated in the school of relativity, would perceive the person standing next to the track and the landscape speeding by the train and conclude that it is equally possible that the train is standing still and the earth is moving beneath him as it is that the train is moving on the track. We know, however, that is nonsense. The train is in fact moving. The motion of the train can be detected and measured. The theory of relativity is not based upon true science and measurable observation; it is based upon religious superstition that is propped up by deceptive mathematical models that contradict reality.

The World Heritage Encyclopedia describes the importance of Einstein’s theory of relativity in explaining away the null result of the Michelson/Morley experiment.

This [Einstein’s 1905 theory of special relativity] allows a more elegant and intuitive explanation of the Michelson-Morley null result. In a comoving frame the null result is self-evident, since the apparatus can be considered as at rest in accordance with the relativity principle, thus the beam travel times are the same. ... Special relativity is generally considered the solution to all negative aether drift (or isotropy of the speed of light) measurements, including the Michelson–Morley null result.552

Very simply, the theory of relativity explains that the null result of the Michelson/Morley experiment was because the instrument doing the measuring was, relatively speaking, at rest, as that was its frame of reference, and not because it was actually at rest. Einstein asks us to ignore the reality as actually measured and accept in its place the mathematical postulates of relativity.

The theory of relativity postulates that no motion of the earth was detected in the Michelson/Morley experiment not because the earth is in fact motionless but rather because the measurement was performed from the earth. According to Einstein’s theory, if the Michelson/Morley experiment would have been done from say the moon, then the moon would have been detected to be motionless and the earth would have appeared to be in motion. Under the superstitious religion of relativity, motion is all relative to the frame of reference of the observer.

Lest you think I am overstating the fact, please make your own judgement after reading the explanation of the theory of relativity by Albert Einstein himself during an address he gave at Princeton University:

What we mean by relative motion in a general sense is perfectly plain to everyone. If we think of a wagon moving along a street we know that it is possible to speak of the wagon at rest, and the street in motion, just as well as it is to speak of the wagon in motion and the street at rest. That, however, is a very special part of the ideas involved in the principle of Relativity.553

The sad thing is that scientists believed him! And they still believe him today! They do not perceive that relativity is not true science, it is a religious deception clothed in scientific lingo. It is based on belief in mystical principles, which contradict common observation. Gerrard Hickson accurately describes Einstein’s theory of relativity as the very negation of reason. Referring to the above quote from Einstein, Hickson states:

That would be amusing if we read it in a comic paper, or if Mutt and Jeff had said it; but when Professor Einstein says it in a lecture at the Princeton University, we are expected not to laugh; that is the only difference. It is silly, but I may not dismiss the matter with that remark, and so I will answer quite seriously that it is only possible for me to speak of the street moving while the wagon remains still— and to believe it— when I cast away all the experience of a lifetime and am no longer able to understand the evidence of my senses; which is insanity. Such self-deception as this is not reasoning; it is the negation of reason; which is the faculty of forming correct conclusions from things observed, judged by the light of experience. It is unworthy of our intelligence and a waste of our greatest gift; but that introduction serves very well to illustrate the kind of illusion that lies at the root of Relativity.554

Nevile Martin Gwynne describes the irrationality that is woven through the warp and woof of the theory of relativity.
The concept of relativity attached to his [Eintstein’s] name and propagated by him represents an attack on human reason so insidious and diabolical, and so successful, that no opportunity of demonstrating its falsity, and not only its falsity but, to anyone prepared to believe his own powers of reason, its blatantly obvious falsity, should be allowed to pass.555

Gwynne proves that most of the elements of the theory of relativity were not the discoveries (Gwynne properly describes them as inventions) of Einstein. Indeed, if one examines the historical record, the only reasonable conclusion is that Einstein plagiarized the entire theory of relativity. Gwynne states that “Einstein’s works can be searched from beginning to end without revealing a single original thought of real importance.”556 Gwynne documents the little known historical facts that Einstein stole ideas from other scientists and passed them off as his own. He plagiarized their work. He gave no attribution to the other scientists.

Curved space, for instance, was thought of by Riemann; adding a fourth dimension, that of time, to geometry to create the new concept of space-time, by Minkowski; the doctrine that objects contract in proportion to the speed at which they moved, by Fitzgerald; and the idea that the velocity of light in a vacuum was constant irrespective of the notion of any object connected with the light ray, by Lorentz. ... Did he [Einstein] first assert the impossibility of detecting the velocity of the earth through the ether? No, this was done by J.H. Poincaré and H.A. Lorentz. ... Did Einstein coin the name Relativity? No, Poincaré did. ... It was Poincaré too, who first asserted that no velocity can exceed that of light. Einstein was not the first to assert that a clock in motion runs slow. This was done by Sir Joseph Larmor. Einstein was not the first to assert that matter is crinkles in curved space. Professor W.K. Clifford advanced this quaint notion in 1870, nine years before Einstein’s birth. ... Did Einstein even invent the famous equation, E=mc², which has become almost synonymous with his name the equation from which nuclear energy and nuclear destruction capability are supposedly derived? Not even that. In 1881 J.J.Thompson had produced a formula, E=¾mc², in respect of a charged spherical conductor moving in a straight line. In 1900 Poincaré suggested that electromagnetic energy might possess mass density in relation to energy density, such that E=mc², where E is energy and m is mass.557

Plagiarization is intellectual theft. The unimpeachable record proves that Einstein was not a genius, but was simply a very clever con man, with powerful backers. Gwynne concludes that “[t]he truth about Einstein is that he was no more than a puppet.”558 Gwynne presents compelling evidence that Einstein was selected to play the specific role of refuting the Michelson/Morley experiment and reestablishing the rotating globular earth.

[I]f Einstein had not existed another would have been selected to fill his place, for he possessed no qualities which are not available in profusion in almost any place in any age. ... The obstinate truth about Einstein is that in mathematics he was no more than competent and that among the so-called discoveries presented to the world under his name one can search in vain for one that was original. Had Einstein not been selected, for reasons which had nothing to do with intellectual ability, to act out a role which was deemed necessary for the furtherance of the war against God and civilisation, his claim to immortal fame would have been that of a talented and not-undistinguished physicist, a life-long Zionist, an occasionally enthusiastic admirer of Stalin’s Russia.559

Einstein was a front-man for very powerful interests behind the theory of relativity. That theory was simply an amalgamation of theories propounded by many scientists over many years. As Gwynne points out the global elite needed to have a single front-man for their theory to be popularly accepted.

[I]t is much easier to impose false beliefs on the world if they are personalised. If a theory is put forward without reference to the person who originated it, there will be a tendency for it to be judged on its merits and then, if it clearly has no merits, for it to be rejected. This is far from being the case if a theory, however ludicrously opposed to common sense, is put forward by a man of universally acknowledged genius. When that happens, the tendency will be for the theory to be examined with respect; if it cannot be understood, this will be ascribed to the incapacity of the person examining the theory; if it appears manifestly illogical, it will be assumed that the originator has grasped a logic which is beyond the reach of lesser mortals. In short, it will gradually become accepted on no better grounds than the authority of the person who has advanced it.560

Why was Einstein, of all people, chosen to be the front man? There are very powerful inter-generational interests behind promoting Einstein. These interests have an occult religious agenda to enslave the world. Martin Gwynne identifies the core of the conspiracy as Jewish. That Einstein was a Zionist Jew was probably the qualifying factor that put him at the top of the list to be the mouthpiece for the Satanic conspiracy to send the scientific world into darkness through the theory of relativity.

From the middle of the nineteenth century onwards, those presented to the world as the modern geniuses marking the turning points in civilisation have been Jews. I do not wish to exaggerate this, and it is certainly true that non-Jews too, such as Darwin at the beginning of the period and Lord Keynes in more recent times, have had their nonsense presented as majestic contributions to human knowledge.

Nevertheless, if asked to name the three men whose writings had the greatest influence in shaping the modern world, few would go beyond Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein.

Explanations for the phenomenon, adequate or otherwise, are suggested elsewhere in other papers that I have written. Here I record only the fact and the inference that can be derived from it. The Jews are entering into what they believe to be their inheritance.

If it be accepted that it was desirable to build up the reputation of a single man for the difficult task of imposing Relativity on the world and that that man should be a Jew, why was Einstein, out of all the other Jewish scientists available, chosen to play the role assigned to him? One can only speculate. Clearly his being a Zionist and a Communist would have recommended him highly to those who selected him; it seems to be agreed by all who came into contact with him that he had much charm, probably indispensable in the task allotted to him; and eyewitness accounts of his lectures provide evidence of considerable abilities as an actor and a showman, which, for the successful accomplishment of the purpose for which he was used, are talents even more necessary than charm. There must, however, have been many other people with similar or better credentials even in a population restricted to people interested in physics. Failing some revelation by those who chose him, all that can be said is that we need have little doubt that he earned his duties and his privilege somehow.

I have given some indication of what Isaac Newton did to earn the rewards that he received and is still receiving in this world. Those who recall this and take seriously verses eight and nine of the fourth chapter of St. Matthew have little alternative to the belief that such fame and adulation as Einstein received in his lifetime and has received since, and which on the face of it were wholly undeserved, must have been earned at the expense of an extremely exacting bargain in respect of his immortal soul.561

After the general acceptance of Einstein’s theory of relativity, science entered into a strange new world where experiments were not done using instruments in the physical world, but instead using mathematics in the mind of the scientists. Einstein was famous for announcing new “mind experiments.”

Einstein claimed that he did not know of the Michelson/Morley experiment prior to coming up with his special theory of relativity in 1905. Robert Shankland published an article in 1963, in which he stated that Einstein told him in 1950 that he only became aware of the Michelson/Morley experiment after he published his paper on special relativity in 1905. Shankland pointed out that indeed Einstein did not mention the Michelson/Morley experiment in his 1905 paper, suggesting by that fact that Einstein did not know about the Michelson/Morley experiment.

Einstein’s claimed ignorance of the Michelson/Morley experiment is contradicted by other statements that he made indicating that in fact he did know about the experiment. Einstein is on record admitting that he did in fact know about the Michelson/Morley experiment and it played a role in his theory of relativity.562 Einstein’s biographer, Ronald Clark, stated that one of the principle issues for science with the Michelson/Morley experiment was that the experimental results proved that the earth is stationary. Clark explained the implications of the Micehlson/Morley experiment meant that the whole Copernican theory had to be scuttled, which was “unthinkable” for the scientific community.563

Einstein never mentioned the Michelson/Morley experiment in his 1905 paper announcing his theory of special relativity.564 In 1942 Einstein claimed to Michelson’s biographer that he had already become “pretty much convinced of the validity of the [relativity] principle before I did know this [Michelson/Morley] experiment and its results.”565 It seems that Einstein was trying to avoid having anyone connect his theory of relativity with the Michelson/Morley experiment. However, the historical evidence suggests that Einstein was lying. Think about it; how could anyone believe that Einstein would be ignorant of the Michelson/Morley experiment, when in fact it was the talk of the entire scientific community? His claim of ignorance simply does not pass the smell test. Regardless, we have proof that Einstein lied when he claimed ignorance of the Michelson/Morley experiment.

Forty-two letters were uncovered between Einstein and his fiancee Mileva Mari. Those letters reveal that in fact Einstein knew about the Michelson/Morley experiment as early as 1899.566 In addition, in a recently uncovered 14 December 1922 speech that Einstein delivered at Kyoto University in Japan, Einstein admitted that he was aware of the Michelson/Morley experiment and the “strange result” of that experiment affected directly his theory of special relativity.
While I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson's experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun.567

Notice Einstein reinforces the scientific myth that the earth revolves around the sun, but he claims that fantastic movement “cannot be detected by any optical experiment.” Why can the movement of the earth not be detected by any optical instrument? Because there are no optical instruments that can detect movement that is not there. Indeed, Einstein knows that, which is why he is so certain that no instrument could ever detect the motion of the earth.

537.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 108.
538.Nikola Tesla, http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/nikolates l401270.html (last visited on September 9, 2015).
539.New York Times, 11 July 1935, p23, c.8.
540.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 14, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
541.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 16, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
542.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 5, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
543.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 18, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
544.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 18, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
545.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 64, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
546.Marshal Hall, The Earth is Not Moving, at 117 (1991), (quoting Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, at 87 (1971).
547.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 5, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
548.N. Martin Gwynne, Einstein and Modern Physics, at 11, http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf (last visited on October 6, 2015).
549.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 6, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
550.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 7, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
551.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 33.
552.Michelson-Morley Experiment, World Heritage Encyclopedia, http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/Michelson-Morley_ex periment (last visited on October 28, 2016).
553.Gerrard Hickson, Kings Dethroned, at 65 (1922).
554.Gerrard Hickson, Kings Dethroned, at 65 (1922).
555.N. Martin Gwynne, Einstein and Modern Physics, at 3, http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf (last visited on October 6, 2015).
556.N. Martin Gwynne, Einstein and Modern Physics, at 31, http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf (last visited on October 6, 2015).
557.N. Martin Gwynne, Einstein and Modern Physics, at 31-32, http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf (last visited on October 6, 2015).
558.N. Martin Gwynne, Einstein and Modern Physics, at 32, http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf (last visited on October 6, 2015).
559.N. Martin Gwynne, Einstein and Modern Physics, at 3-4, http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf (last visited on October 6, 2015).
560.N. Martin Gwynne, Einstein and Modern Physics, at 5, http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf (last visited on October 6, 2015).
561.N. Martin Gwynne, Einstein and Modern Physics, at 5-6, http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf (last visited  on October 6, 2015).
562.Malcolm Bowden, Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!, December 28, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxMSL9h2ziY.
See also, Jeroen van Dongen, infra.
563.Malcolm Bowden, Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!, December 28, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxMSL9h2ziY, citing Ronald W. Clark, Einstein, The Life and Times, at 80 (1971).
564.Jeroen van Dongen, On the role of the Michelson-Morley experiment: Einstein in Chicago, Institute for History and Foundations of Science & Descartes Centre, Utrecht University & Einstein Papers Project, Caltech, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4778/1/Einstein_Chicago _Web2.pdf (last visited on October 6, 2015).
565.Jeroen van Dongen, supra (quoting Einstein to Michelson’s biographer, Bernard Jaffe, on 17 March 1942; as in (Holton 1969/1995), p. 340.).
566.Jeroen van Dongen, supra.
567.Albert Einstein, How I Created the Theory of Relativity, Translated by Yoshimasa A. Ono, Physics Today, Vol. 35, No.8, pp. 45-47, August 1982, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.

1.1.451.9501&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

The Greatest Lie on Earth
Proof That Our World Is Not a Moving Globe
Edward Hendrie

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