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

Werner Heisenberg, perhaps THE world’s greatest scientist on the subject of atomic physics, was very surprised to hear that a nuclear bomb was exploded over Hiroshima

"Now, as promised, I return to the nuclear bomb hoax, which greatly benefits Israel. Note that everyone involved in spreading this "Samson Option," blackmail and scare tactic is Jewish. You even mentioned another obviously Jewish name, Rosenblum I believe it was, AGAIN reiterating this blackmail that Israel has this enormous power.

Israel wants the world to think that they have a 44 magnum, but really all they have is a 22 caliber, IF AT ALL. They could be SCRUBBBBBBBED off the face of this Earth, as Alan Sabrosky has REPEATEDLY stated should happen. And when Alan Sabrosky said this, he was revealing the TRUTH that he knows. It was like a gaffe. I thought it was an odd thing, because, "what about Israel’s nuclear weapons ? "

Apparently, when he wrote articles, he was careful not to let the cat out of the bag, but in the passion of a radio interview, he let loose what he knows to be true. Alan Sabrosky was CLEARLY not speaking about fantasy or wishful thinking in his statement, and he wanted to get people angry, as he said. NOW. Think about it. If Alan Sabrosky REALLY believed that nuclear weapons were a reality, he would NOT have made that statement, because then it would just have the opposite impact —- it would just make people bemoan that Israel is very powerful, and there is nothing we can do about, and America is on the hook to do whatever Israel wants, or else she will throw nuke bombs all over the place. This would NOT make people angry at Israel; it would just make people FEARFUL of Israel.

The nuclear power plants in Japan are real. Some people think that in order to say that nuke bombs are a hoax, that it is necessary to say that nuclear power plants are a hoax as well, and they serve as "dump loads" for a power grid. They also think it is necessary to say that E = mc^2 is false, or to say that the nucleus has never been split. This is not necessary. There is nothing wrong with the SCIENCE; there IS something wrong with the government propaganda, and nuke explosions have NOT been reproduced in laboratories independently. The reproducibility of an experiment is a NECESSARY requirement for it to be science. They ALSO don’t fit in with the THEORY of the physics of nuclear fission. Some people say, that "if nuke power plants exist, then nuke bombs must exist." This is wrong, and it is a fallacy of applying CHEMICAL thinking to nuclear phenomenon. They just assume that nuclear power is like gasoline, and if gasoline can run an engine, then it can be made into a bomb which explodes. In chemistry, HEAT facilitates the chemical reaction to continue. BUT, in nuclear phenomenon, heat is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT in stimulating more nuclei to fission. The ONLY thing that is relevant is whether the nucleus absorbs a SLOW neutron. There are NO "next atoms," they are NOT lined up like bowling pins. You might have seen these diagrams of nuclear fission. Wikipedia has a number of them. But, they are VERY misleading, because they are NOT drawn to scale. If a uranium 235 atom were the size of Yankee stadium, then the nucleus would be the size of a marble, and the neutrons the size of mustard seeds. Imagine shooting at a marble in the center of the field from up in the stands. Do you think you would hit it ? On average, 2.4 neutrons are released as a result of fissioning of U 235. The fission fragments, often Barium and Krypton, fly away. HOWEVER, they are trapped in the lattice of other uranium atoms, which have NOT split. Those neutrons are going to have a long, long, LONG way to go before they are going to hit another nucleus. Only a small number of nuclei fission, and a lot of heat is generated. BUT, the heat will cause the metal to melt, including melting any container that holds it together. If the uranium pours out, it will no longer be a critical mass, because shape is very important. It has to be balled together in a sphere, so that neutrons as a result of fissioning are not just released into the surrounding air, and get a chance to hit other uranium nuclei.

In the Manhattan Project, it is interesting that Oppenheimer, a Jew, was selected, by the Jew, Barnard Baruch, a mover and shaker in the Roosevelt administration. There were certainly scientists who were MUCH more qualified than Oppenheimer to head up the project. But propaganda was the most important thing. Indeed, MANY top scientists doubted that a nuclear bomb would be possible, including Einstein. In Einstein’s letter to FDR, he said that nuclear power plants might be possible, and MUCH LESS possible were nuclear bombs. This is because he understood the difference between a chemical reaction, and a nuclear reaction, which is the mistake that many people make.

Werner Heisenberg, perhaps THE world’s greatest scientist on the subject of atomic physics, and a Nobel Laureate, was very surprised to hear that a nuclear bomb was exploded over Hiroshima ( I would say he realized the truth, because he knew the physics ). Heisenberg realized that a moderator, or non-fissile matter, was required to slow down the fast neutrons that are released as a result of fissioning of U 235. Only U 235 fissions, and it only fissions if it absorbs a SLOW NEUTRON. This fact is stated in MANY elementary physics and chemistry textbooks. They can’t deny it, because when Enrico Fermi was awarded the Nobel Prize, his citation specifically stated " slow neutrons," ( look it up ), and in his Nobel lecture, he has a section on slow neutrons, and the moderator he used to slow down the fast neutrons was paraffin.

All the physics you need to know, in my opinion, to conclude that the PHYSICS of nuclear fissioning, which will support nuclear power plants, will NOT support a nuclear explosion, is contained in this lecture —- type into the youtube space : UC BERKELEY PHYSICS NUKES

Of course, Prof Mueller, a Jew, is not going to say that nuke bombs are a hoax, and he might have deluded himself into believing that they are real. He gets very flustered by a student’s question on the difference between nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs. I don’t blame him, for trying to explain the impossible. But a CLASSIC, is the hand waving he does at the end when he attempts to describe the nuclear explosion. Very importantly, he ADMITS that initially, the explosion is ONLY as powerful as an explosion of an equivalent amount dynamite. But, he says, in mid air, there is a SECONDARY fissioning which boosts the explosive power. But, this secondary fissioning is IMPOSSIBLE, because a critical mass was required to be assembled in the first place. If it is hard to shoot ducks while they are assembled on a pond, it is going to be MUCH harder to shoot and hit them as they are flying away and scattering.

Further, this professor does not adequately emphasize the slow neutron vs fast neutron problem, for uranium 235 to fission. But this is very important, because it is further indication that URANIUM will surely NOT explode. But note, that Iran IS enriching uranium, but the URANIUM bomb is said to be ABSURDLY simple to produce, with just a gunshot device bringing only two subcritical pieces of U 235 together. ANYTIME you have highly enriched uranium ( U 235 ), you can easily make a bomb. Yet, as our friend Texe Marrs says in this youtube clip — (type into youtube : OBAMA TELLS THE JEWS NO MORE ), the CIA as well as the Mossad are absolutely sure that Iran has NO nuke weapons program. Indeed, they know this very well, because they know that that enriched uranium will not explode.

Prof. Mueller says his Ph.D. thesis adviser was Luis Alvarez, who he says flew over Hiroshima and witnessed the dropping of the bomb. But, there is something that you should know about this guy. Sure, he was a great scientist, but he is also a LIAR, willing to engage in some government propaganda.

For the JFK assassination, he prostituted himself by analyzing the events in Dealey Plaza, and concluded that the Warren Commission was 100 % correct !!!! Yes, look up Luis Alvarez on Wikipedia.

Sad to say, physicists are no different than politicians, journalists, and ( non revisionist ) historians ) in that they cannot say what they really believe, because they are dependent on government grants. Thus, physicists are in a similar situation to those involved in the man made global warming hoax ( google : THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE )and the HIV = AIDS hoax.

Watch on youtube this — type into youtube : NUKE LIES BY JESSE), but search on youtube for one of the several clips of the explosion of "ivy Mike." It is obviously PURE Hollywood, with that suspense building countdown, ominous Wagnerian, scary music, and cutting away. They used some very bad acting, too, because those witnesses do NOT look they are about to witness a real event at all — no sense of trepidation or fear — even the pretty lady. Who was responsible for Ivy Mike ? Two Jews, Teller and Ulam. Teller had the AUDACITY to claim that he was on the American mainland and recorded an enormous blast with a seismograph.

Be careful to ONLY pay attention to NUKE LIES BY JESSE, because there are A LOT of propagandists put there putting out silly stuff to make the notion of nuke bombs being a hoax look ridiculous. There is this guy with a shiny suit talking like an evangelical preacher with this ridicu;ous claim about the position of the Sun having something to do with nuke bombs. There is another guy who says the Earth does not go around the Sun. Look, I am ONLY interested in ESTABLISHED science and science theory, and I am showing that the physics does not support nuke bombs exploding with anywhere near the force that is claimed. I have no belief in nor any interest in UFOs as space aliens, predicting the future, psychic phenomenon, but, I believe that the notion that God exists and there is an afterlife id plausible.

The bombing of Hiroshima, even if you search for more extensive footage, looks NOTHING like you would expect from a single blast, because there is no central area with the greatest damage, and it getting better going out in a radial pattern. Further, the buildings are all knocked down in a RANDOM manner, without any type of radial pattern of blowing down.

In the description of the effects upon the Japanese, there has been a very inordinate amount of "purple prose," especially in passages from John Hersey’s "Hiroshima" and this really makes me question it as an accurate account, and not just propaganda. I think Hiroshima was just carpet bombed, or fire bombed, just like Tokyo was. Tokyo suffered much more damage, and this is acknowledged by everyone, even if they accept that Hiroshima was hit by a nuke bomb.

Since you are interested in the Libya bombing, get a load of some of the photos of explosions from "coalition" forces. Google : GUARDIAN.CO.UK LIBYA AIR STRIKES — IN PICTURES

Now, search for the one that really, REALLY looks exactly like a mushroom cloud of a nuke bomb. But, I thought that ONLY nuke bombs produced mushroom clouds ! You see, we have been LIED TO. The photo is obviously a conventional bomb, but without the cars in the foreground, you would have no way of knowing this !

Another thing you should read is this —- google : NY TIMES RETHINKING THE UNTHINKABLE ATOMIC ATTACK

Now, I thought that nuke bombs could destroy whole cities, destroy whole countries, and destroy the whole world ! The cold war propagandists really whipped up a fear over nuke bombs ! And, in view of Ivy Mike, which was said to be 500 times more powerful than the bomb that supposedly destroyed Hiroshima, being a hoax, we should at least acknowledge that they are HIGHLY exaggerated, if you do not want to admit they are a hoax. Note that nuclear fusion plants do not exist, and no experiment has ever been performed in which more energy has come out of a nuclear fusion reaction than has been put in, in 59 years since this supposed event. Scientists making such claims have been proven to have been mistaken. Remember cold fusion in 1988, in Utah ?

Read the book on the history of the atomic bomb, by the late, great Eustace Mullins, at https://www.iamthewitness.com

This book is short and to the point. Although he doesn’t conclude that nuke bombs are a hoax, he reveals an awful lot of LIES of propaganda that we have been told about things like " dropping a bomb on Hiroshima was necessary to get the Japanese to surrender." Further, it was necessary to keep the American public very scared about the Cold War and the USSR, that way they would agree to fund the Pentagon and the big expenditures. Also, there might have been a fear that the American public would conclude it didn’t NEED the US government anymore.

The Japanese wanted to surrender to the Americans, because they were losing very, very badly, and the USSR threatened invasion. They NEEDED America as an ally against Russia and China, very powerful countries close by, that had historical wars of enmity with Japan. The USSR might have wanted to settle the score with the Russo-Japanese war of 1905, which was humiliating. No group in the history of the world has had a greater incentive to go along with a lie than the Japanese did about the supposed nuke bomb. They desperately needed that alliance with America —- it allowed them to play the victim, and thus be exonerated for being the bad guy with Pearl Harbor, and it gave them an excuse NOT to fight, and save their samurai honor, because, after all, there was no use in fighting " such a cruel bomb."

I am not making light of the suffering the Japanese have endured. Hiroshima was firebombed, as were many other cities in Japan. Just want to be clear.

If Israel really believed that Iran were developing nuke bombs, then they would have nuked Iran by now, with the nuke bombs everyone thinks they have. Note how they keep saying that " by the end of this year, Iran should have enough fissionable material ready for a nuke bomb" But, haven’t they been saying this for MANY years now ? The nuke bomb hoax is important not only because it is the ONLY excuse for war, but because it gives Israel an enormous amount of power with its "Samson Option."

Remember the late Carl Sagan ? I used to think he was an entirely good, peace-loving Jew. But, he REALLY indulged in this nuke bomb propaganda, all throughout COSMOS, and in the fall of 1983, he appeared on TV discussing a show called " The Day After." He really got into this concept of a "nuclear winter" which would completely block out the Sun all over the Earth. But, remember before the Gulf War in 1991, Carl Sagan predicted that Saddam setting oil wells on fire would ALSO produce his fabled nuclear winter ? It didn’t happen, did it ? Search for this on Wikipedia, under Carl Sagan, when he made this statement.

Remember the enormous scare over anthrax in the fall of 2001 ? It really didn’t amount to much, did it ? What about in 1998, when Sec of Defense, William Cohen ( a Jew ) held up a 5 pound bag of sugar like he was going to dump it everyone, saying that Saddam could dump this over a city ? Remember Cokie Roberts asking, " could you put that bag down, please ? " Remember on Nightline, hosted by Ted Koppel ( a Jew ), it was stated that Saddam’s anthrax stock pile was so great, the real question was " how many PLANETS could it destroy ?"

So, I submit to you, that at the very least, nuke bombs are an exaggeration, in which they are just like "dirty bombs," if not a total hoax, that very greatly benefits Israel.

mooninquirer // Mar 22, 2011 at 10:28 am

Correction: I obviously didn’t mean the Federal Reserve Act of 1964; I meant the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

Dear Michael Collins Piper :

I just used the comment about your background at the AFP and Louis Farrakhan, as a segue into two things that are criticisms of your " Final Judgment," : that there were so many other ways in which the Jews benefited from JFK’s assassination, in what LBJ did differently, including on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that they should surpass the notion that it was so Israel could develop nuclear bombs, and (2) nuclear bombs themselves are probably a hoax, and those of us fighting Zionism should be very careful about repeating this Jewish propaganda which is the ONLY excuse for a war with Iran, and greatly benefits Israel, since if we tried to, as you have emphatically stated "isolate and STRAAANGLE" Israel, then she would just hurl nuclear bombs all over the place, making sure the whole rest of the world suffers a holocaust, since the Israelis can " still smell Treblinka.

***

Vanunu - part of a media campaign to pretend Israel has nukes

Mordechai Vanunu aged 41 family of 11 children born Morocco moved 1963 to Israel. 1971-74 Israeli army. 2 Nov 1976-27 Oct 1985 at Dimona reactor in Negev desert. 1 year later told Sunday Times. Pub 5 Oct 1986 'The secrets of Israel's nuclear arsenal.' Lured to Rome, kidnapped, tried Jerusalem district court for treason, aggravated espionage, collection of secret info with intention to harm Israel's security. 18 year sentence. Past 10 years in solitary confinement.

***
On Vanunu, you're assuming he was actually jailed. I suspect he was a carefully briefed agent all along. However, I agree he wouldn't have known everything - in particular, he may have assumed the stuff he saw genuinely worked. Possibly it did - perhaps nuclear power is genuine, but nuclear bombs aren't?

(1) I don't think he was in solitary for years. Everyone remarks on what good spirits he was in, how healthy he looked, and generally how wonderful he was. My belief is that he was simply let out - maybe his food etc was supplied to cells in some intelligence place, so nobody would be any the wiser.

(2) If someone is strung along, you have to be pretty sure he won't make some mistake. So the equipment he had access to, the contrived negligence in allowing his smuggled camera in, and so on would have to be worked out in great detail. Suppose he made a mistake, and revealed some tell-tale detail which scuppered the entire tale? So on balance I'd guess there was detailed briefing by his handlers.

(3) It all had to look convincing - consider when he wrote on his palms, and pressed his hands to a vehicle window. Or the abduction event, when, if genuine, he would have been terrified of being found and arrested. Or the fact that one reason for keeping him jailed was that he still knew secrets; if true, why didn't he spill them earlier?

(4) Part of the point of a leak was that Israel gets a fortune from the USA, but the USA is not supposed to fund illegal nuclear powers - or something like that. Frank Barnaby, at the meeting I attended, stressed that. Vanunu's role, and Rupert Murdoch's, was to leak the idea that Israel had nuclear weapons, in a sensational 'scoop', while Israeli officials could simultaneously deny it. And incidentally Israel never allowed inspection of Dimona. At least not to non-Jews.

From a posting by 'Christopher Brooks' on June 2005, who quoted it - 'taken from a blogger called Cytation' - though the source site, which may have been Russian, seems not to have that file now.

Interesting half-way position which assumes USA has nuclear weapons, but not Israel

Israel Created Vanunu, Not Nukes
Vanunu is a Mossad cutout. Israel created Vanunu in order to add verisimilitude to their claim of having nuclear weapons. Israel has no nuclear weapons. It is a bluff. Israel has never had a viable nuclear weapons program.

The "policy of ambiguity" itself is the first sign, for if they did have nukes they would, like any other country who has them, furnish evidence, thus making their deterrent useful.

Nukes Are Too Close For Comfort
Next, Israel is too small to benefit from nukes. It doesn't have enough landbase to assure that their nukes could not be taken out in one fell swoop along with all their major cities by a first strike against them. Also, Israel's enemies are too close in proximity to Israel for Israel to consider nuking them. Israel would invariably suffer at least radioactive contamination if they attacked their neighbors. It may be even rendered uninhabitable.

Never a Nuke Test
Another reason Israel has no nukes is: Where and when have they tested them? All countries with nuclear programs have left evidence of multiple tests. Israel has not. Are they really trying to convince the world that they have a huge arsenal which they created without so much as a single test, let alone the hundreds that are the mark of a large and developing program? No ambiguity here.

Too Broke to Afford Nukes
Finally, follow the money. Israel has been on the dole from the beginning. Please tell me how it can afford a secret nuclear weapons program when in reality Israel's entire conventional military and its upkeep is part of a known welfare package? Simply estimate the costs of a nuclear weapons program and then look at the year to year flow of military aid to Israel and what it accounts for. You will find that there is no possiblity that Israel could come up with ambiguous trillions to accomplish this feat. Nor is it possible to believe that Israel would make its own nukes when it simply asks for and gets everything else military as a sort of political ransom to the long suffering Jews with their holocaust bludgeon and their insinuation into the affairs of Christianity.

And why would Israel spend money, money which it doesn't have, on something that would not be useful for it for the reasons as demonstrated above? Answer: It wouldn't.

Think About It
Israel merely demands that the United States arm it to the teeth with conventional weapons and then that the United States fight Israel's enemies for Israel. Clearly, if Israel wanted to start a nuclear war, it would simply demand the US fight it on their behalf and provide the neccessary bribes and blackmail. Israel does not need its own nukes when it has America's.

The conclusion is that Israel is not a state in any real sense. It is predominantly a haven for international Jewry. It's weakness as a state, as a treaty signatory, as a partner in international law, further shows that it is not willing to invest what is neccessary to have a nuclear weapons program.

Mordechai Vanunu never spent time in prison. He simply lived under an assumed identity for the 18 years following his over dramatized mossad arrest. His ongoing publicity is a continuation of Israel's deception of the world about its non-existant nukes. The Mossad's motto is "By means of deception, thou shalt do war."

"The Samson Option" Deception--Seymour Hersh Lends a Hand
Because the use of nuclear weapons would be suicidal in the Middle East it has raised doubts that Israel would actually use nuclear weapons – even if they had them. Seymour Hersh's book the Samson Option tries to convince the goy reader that Israel would commit suicide and take the whole world with it if pushed to using nuclear weapons. The book’s main purpose is to reinforce the idea that Israel has nuclear weapons, just as the imprisonment of Vanunu was designed to make us believe.

This bluff has been going on for a very long time – for at least forty years. I believe that the problems of convincing the non-Jewish world that these weapons would really be useful to the Israelis have made their charade suspect and less effectual than they have hoped – even with Hersh’s Samson Option assurances.

The Myth of the Neutron Bomb, and Other Vegetables
I believe that is why the neutron bomb was "invented". I use the word "invented" in the sense of propaganda, not scientific invention. The neutron bomb was supposed to kill people, but leave real estate intact and uncontaminated. No more need to commit suicide and take the whole world along. The neutron bomb could be used successfully in the Middle East without creating the proverbial glass parking lot. It became the better bluff.

But I find the whole story of the neutron bomb suspect. First of all it was "invented" by one Sam Cohen who claims to have received a peace medal by Pope John Paul II for his invention. It is decidedly strange that the Pope would give a peace medal for a bomb that kills people but leaves the infrastructure intact. If the neutron bomb is the more humane weapon why isn’t it used? If you read Mr. Cohen’s biography I think you may come away with the same sense I got – that this is just another Jewish myth with the underlying purpose of bamboozling the non-Jewish public. The number of Jewish frauds that I have discovered has made me inveterately suspicious of even the most  celebrated of Jewish icons – Einstein, Teller, Wiesel, Bettelheim, Freud, Boaz, Daniel Goldhagen, Stephen Spielberg, Jared Diamond, etc. I think Sam Cohen belongs on the list.

Source 

https://big-lies.org/nuke-lies/www.nukelies.com/forum/index.html