Below are assorted papers about Albert Einstein's Fraud, Theft, Word Trickery (Swindles), Erroneous Mathematical Tricks, Deceptions and Hoaxes. Einstein is a very despicable person.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 1 - Einstein's E=mc2 'was Italian's idea'
PART 2 - Albert Einstein a Plagiarist - Christopher Bjerknes
PART 3 - REVOLUTION IN PHYSICS -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Einstein's E=mc2 'was Italian's idea' Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 21:08:46 +1000 From: Peter Myers To: clem clarke
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 1 (1) Einstein's E=mc2 'was Italian's idea' (2) Albert Einstein and Olinto De Pretto (3) Anonymous Response to my Einstein Biography, by Tim McCaskey (4) Umberto Bartocci to Julio Gonzalez Cabillo on Einstein & De Pretto
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Einstein's E=mc2 'was Italian's idea'
The Guardian Rory Carroll in Rome Thursday, November 11, 1999
[ http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,3928978-103681,00.html ]
The mathematical equation that ushered in the atomic age was discovered by an unknown Italian dilettante two years before Albert Einstein used it in developing the theory of relativity, it was claimed yesterday.
Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the equation E=mc2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903, said Umberto Bartocci, a mathematical historian.
Einstein allegedly used De Pretto's insight in a major paper published in 1905, but De Pretto
was never acclaimed, said Professor Bartocci of the University of Perugia.
De Pretto had stumbled on the equation, but not the theory of relativity, while speculating about ether in the life of the universe, said Prof Bartocci. It was republished in 1904 by Veneto's Royal Science Institute, but the equation's significance was not understood.
A Swiss Italian named Michele Besso alerted Einstein to the research and in 1905 Einstein published his own work, said Prof Bartocci. It took years for his breakthrough to be grasped. When the penny finally dropped, De Pretto's contribution was overlooked while Einstein went on to become the century's most famous scientist. De Pretto died in 1921.
"De Pretto did not discover relativity but there is no doubt that he was the first to use the equation. That is hugely significant. I also believe, though it's impossible to prove, that Einstein used De Pretto's research," said Prof Bartocci, who has written a book on the subject.
Einstein's theory held that time and motion are relative to the observer if the speed of light is constant and if all natural laws are the same. A footnote established the equivalence of mass and energy, according to which the energy (E) of a quantity of matter (m) is equal to the product of the mass and the square of the velocity of light (c). Now known as: E=mc2 .
The influence of work by other physicists on Einstein's theory is also controversial. A German, David Hilbert, is thought by some to have been decisive.
Edmund Robertson, professor of mathematics at St Andrew's University, said: "An awful lot of mathematics was done by people who have never been credited - Arabs in the middle ages, for example. Einstein may have got the idea from someone else, but ideas come from all sorts of places.
"De Pretto deserves credit if his contribution can be proven. Even so, it should not detract from Einstein."
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003 ==
CNN REPORT: Animation: Violations of Relativity Theory in Space
(2) Albert Einstein and Olinto De Pretto
A review by Michael Falotico of the book written by Professor Umberto Bartocci
[ http://www.italian-american.com/depretreview.htm ]
Umberto Bartocci, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Perugia, Italy, in his book, "Albert Einstein e Olinto De Pretto: la vera storia della formula piu' famosa del mondo" (Albert Einstein and Olinto De Pretto, the true history of the most famous formula in the world) has shown to us what can happen if one digs long enough through old Italian archives. His book literally re-writes the history of science in the 20th Century. Professor Bartocci proves that an Italian first formulated the famous equation E=mc^2.
An industrialist named Olinto De Pretto, a native of the Veneto region of Italy, published an article in which he gave, in its final form, the equation E=mc^2. This article was published on June 16, 1903, and published again in February 27, 1904, the second time in the Atti of the Reale Instituto Veneto di Scienze. De Pretto thereby preceded Einstein's famous 1905 "E=mc^2" paper by at least a year-and-a-half.
To Professor Bartocci's credit, he attaches the complete text of the De Pretto article as an appendix to his book so that the reader can decide for himself/herself if De Pretto was a true precursor to Einstein.
In the article, Olinto De Pretto actually comments on how amazing his discovery is. De Pretto could hardly believe his mathematical discovery. This formula, of course, would later be the theoretical basis for the atomic bomb. Indeed, decades later, when another Italian, Enrico Fermi, was working on nuclear reactions, Fermi credited the famous equation E=mc^2 (attributed to Einstein) for formulating the theoretical underpinnings that made nuclear reactions possible.
De Pretto himself understood the significance of his discovery. Speaking of E=mc^2 he wrote (my translation), "To what astonishing result has our reasoning brought us? Nobody would easily admit that stored in a latent state, in a kilogram of whatever material, completely hidden from our investigations, there comes into play such a sum of energy. The idea would be adjudged crazy!" De Pretto was 46 years old when he made this discovery.
Unfortunately, he would never be in a position to take credit for it. In 1921, a year before Einstein received the Nobel Prize, De Pretto was shot dead, murdered by a woman over a business dispute. De Pretto was in the process of having a complete book of his scientific ideas published when he was killed.
Could Einstein have copied from De Pretto? Nobody can absolutely prove that Einstein saw De Pretto's article but Professor Bartocci offers some intriguing speculation.
Professor Bartocci has traced a link between De Pretto and Einstein, through Einstein's best friend, Michele Besso. Besso is the only person credited in the famous E=mc^2 paper of 1905. Throughout all of his famous papers on 1905, Einstein gives no sources or citations. The only credit given to anyone is a brief mention of his friend Michele Besso. Why the lack of citation of any source material?
Interestingly, Besso was originally from the Veneto region of Italy; his native tongue was Italian. The city of Vicenza, Italy, again in the Veneto region, was where Olinto De Pretto was from.
Michele Besso was close to his uncle, Beniamo Besso, who lived in Rome. Beniamo Besso worked as an engineer in Rome with Olinto De Pretto's brother, Augusto De Pretto. Perhaps Augusto passed on Olinto's discovery to Beniamo Besso who in turned told Michele Besso who in turn told Einstein — or so goes the thread.
While the De Pretto-to-Besso-to-Einstein link is seemingly tenuous, it must be noted that Einstein was well aware of other groundbreaking work by Italian physicists (having read deeply the Italian physics literature). During the very same "anno mirabilis" of 1905, when Einstein published his famous four physics papers in the Annalen der Physik (including the paper that derived the E=mc^2 formula), he also published in the very same Annalen der Physik reviews of articles written by Italian physicists. For example, the Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, published by Princeton University Press, contains a review written by Albert Einstein in March 1905 of the an article written by Arturo Giammarco, "A Case of Corresponding States in Thermodynamics" Einstein also wrote a review of Giuseppe Belluzzo, "Principles of Graphic Thermodynamics." This shows that Einstein was reading rather deeply in the Italian physics literature at the time.
Perhaps the Besso connection is probably unnecessary although it could very well have happened. Einstein, too, could have stumbled across De Pretto's formula on his own.
The Veneto region is not that far from where Einstein was then living in Switzerland. Indeed, Albert Einstein was quite fluent in Italian. According to Abram Pais in his biography of Einstein, "Subtle is the Lord", when Einstein graduated from high school in Aarau, Germany, he was required to take exams in both the German language and the Italian language. Out of a maximum score of 6, Einstein received a score of 5 in German (his native tongue) and also a score of 5 in Italian! This in and of itself is proof of Einstein's conversance in Italian; Einstein could write as well in Italian as he could in his native German tongue.
Also, the Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, published by Princeton University Press, notes that Einstein spoke Italian. Of course, Einstein had lived in Italy during his youth, and Einstein's father is buried in Milan. Further, in order for Einstein to gain Swiss citizenship (a requirement for him to work in the Berne patent office since that was a government job) it could only help him if he could show proficiency in Italian, which, along with German and French, is one of the three official languages of Switzerland. Finally, there are still extant postcards written by Einstein in Italian as well as living Italians who spoke to Einstein in his later years who can attest to his fluency. There is no doubt that Einstein spoke Italian well. Indeed, the above cited reviews of the Italian physics literature prove the point. It is impossible to say if Einstein ever saw the De Pretto article. All one can say with any assurance is that if Einstein indeed saw the article, Einstein's Italian language skills were strong enough that he could read it.
When Einstein did publish his famous article in 1905 wherein he gave a variation of the famed "E=mc^2" formula, he titled this "discovery" in the form of a question. Published in November, 1905, in Volume 18, pages 639-641, the title of Einstein's paper was phrased as a question, "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy Content?"
Professor Bartocci finds it curious that Einstein would title his article in the form of a question. Perhaps he was not quite sure of its significance or perhaps he wanted the title in question form in order to later attribute the idea to someone else should the formula prove incorrect. Or perhaps Einstein is making a veiled reference to something he saw in the Italian physics literature.
Professor Bartocci spends much of his book discussing how difficult it was to get anyone to believe him. The Einstein "establishment" is so strong, and the mythology surrounding Einstein so ingrained, that no one in Italy would publish his book. Once he did find a publisher, he could not get the book reviewed. It was only in Great Britain, far from Italy, that word leaked out regarding the book.
On the face of it, the Einstein story is irresistible. How one obscure patent clerk single-handedly published in the same year (1905) four articles that, respectively, explained Brownian motion; explained the photo-electric effect; formulated the equation E=mc^2, and invented the theory of relativity! For one man to have done all that, and all in the same year, is nothing short of miraculous. Any one of these discoveries would have assured Einstein a place in history. To have single-handedly made all four and published them all in the space of a year, well, that is astonishing genius.
Perhaps the British reviewers are a bit more cynical. They publicized Professor Bartocci's findings when no one else would. Perhaps Einstein, undoubtedly a brilliant man, did not do quite all that he is said to have done.
What is absolutely indisputable is that the formula was published, not once but twice, in the Italian physics literature. Its authorship should rightly be credited to the industrialist, Olinto De Pretto. ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Anonymous Response to my Einstein Biography by Tim McCaskey Just to clarify, this is a response I received to my Einstein biography. The author chose to remain anonymous. I haven't checked the sources, so you may take it or leave it as you will.
Tim McCaskey
[ http://www.wam.umd.edu/~mccaskey/eresp.htm ]
Sir,
You requested comments on your Einstein web site, so here are some (please keep an open mind as you read this; apologies for the length):
Your biography on your Web site of A. Einstein is the same old stuff everyone has been reading about him for years and is quite obsolete by now.
For example, you mention Albert Einstein fathered two sons. True, as far as it goes. But why do you not mention that Albert also fathered a daughter, named Lieserl? Do not daughters rate a mention?
Lieserl is mentioned quite prominently in the Love Letters between Mileva Maric (Einstein's first wife and the mother to all his biological children) and Albert Einstein.
The curious fact about Mr. Einstein is that his early teachers were probably correct: they did not view him as particularly bright. When Einstein (on his second attempt) managed to finally enter the Swiss Polytechnic school in Zurich, the young 17 year old quickly realized he was in way over his head. He was extremely quick to glom on to Mileva Maric, a brilliant Serbian student, who was the only woman studying physics at the Swiss Polytechnic ("ETH") the entire time Einstein was there. Maric was four years Einstein's senior. She was a Serb, an Eastern Orthodox Christian, short of stature, had a limp and was extremely bookish. In addition to taking the exact same course-work in college that Einstein took, and living together with him, sharing textbooks, etc., Maric studied on her own for one semester in Germany under Phillipe Lenard, the Nobel Prize winning physicist who discovered the photo-electric effect (which was explained in one of the 1905 papers attributed to Einstein).
She was also absolutely hated by Einstein's mother, Pauline. Still, despite his mother's fierce objections, Einstein stubbornly went ahead and married her. It was during this marriage that Einstein is credited with producing the 1905 papers which made him famous. All this is detailed in the Love Letters. Further, I suggest you read TIME magazine, April 30, 1990, and the essay by Dennis Overbye "Einstein in Love." This essay refers, without giving attribution, to the work of Dr. Evan Harris Walker and the linguist, Senta Troemmel-Ploetz. If you can find their work anywhere, it is truly an eye-opener.
Prior to their marriage, Mileva Maric gave birth out of wedlock to Lieserl, the only biological daughter of Albert Einstein. Nobody really knows what happened to this child; there is a mention in one of the letters to her having scarlet fever and it is believed that the child was put up for adoption in Serbia. Albert never breathed a word about her publicly during his life-time (which, personally, I find rather strange).
Mileva faced the obvious invidious prejudice of being a woman. Remember, in 1900 women couldn't even vote! Although her grades were comparable to Einstein, Mileva ultimately did not pass her final examinations. It must be noted, however, that at the time she was taking these exams she was late in her pregnancy with Albert's second child (his son, Hans Albert) and also faced the prejudice of her teachers for being both a Slav and a woman. She was, indeed, the only student in Albert's class not to graduate, although she did receive a research position with Professor Weber, which later fell through. Of the students who did actually graduate, Einstein had the lowest grade point average.
But did Albert Einstein --- the same man his teachers thought lazy, the same man who after graduating from the ETH could not find a job in physics and was ultimately forced to work for ten years as a lowly patent clerk --- really formulate all by himself the great works in 1905 for which he is credited? Or did his wife, who struggled against the obvious prejudice of being a woman studying science during a highly "male chauvanistic" era, and the added prejudice of being a Slav in Switzerland, collaborate with Einstein?
The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein prove to any open-minded person, that Maric did indeed collaborate on the authorship of Einstein's famous papers in 1905. Einstein even uses the word "collaboration". Just a random sample quote from Albert to Mileva (published also in the Love Letters):
"How happy and proud I will be when the two of us together will have brought our work on the relative motion to a victorious conclusion!" Our work??? This is just one isolated quotation. Should you read the entire Love Letters you will find that Albert shares all his physics ideas with her and is extremely interested in her opinion. There are literally dozens of examples. See the copyrighted manuscript by Evan Harris Walker "Ms. Einstein". There is also a book by Ann Gabor called, "Mrs. Einstein" which essentially parrots Dr. Walker's work but fails to give him any attribution.
Senta Troemmel Ploetz, in her excellent paper, "Mileva Maric-Einstein: The Woman who did Einstein's Mathematics" quotes from a Serbian biography of Maric, that Einstein himself once told his friends that his wife did his math for him. When one realizes the highly mathematical aspect of the 1905 Special Relativity paper, which relies heavily on derivations of the Lorentz transformations, then one can see the importance of having a first-rate mathematician's help. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein even have a photo-static copy of one of Albert's college notebooks, in which Mileva has gone through and corrected Albert's math! Yet the myth of the isolated Einstein working alone, who all by himself, without help from anyone, wrote four brilliant papers on physics in 1905, endures. No two physicists ever had a closer relationship: Mileva and Albert ate together, went to school together, shared ideas together, shared textbooks together, slept together, raised children together, and yet the "Einstein Establishment" refuses to acknowledge her as a collaborator in any way whatsoever.
There's more: Naturally, the original manuscript for the Special Relativity paper is missing. It was lost during Einstein's lifetime. Yet, Abram Joffe, a summa cum laude Russian physicist is quoted as having seen the original 1905 manuscript and said it was signed, "Einstein-Marity" (Marity being the Hungarianized version of Maric'; at that time Serbia was under the dominion of Austro-Hungarian empire). Joffe died in 1961. See op cited TIME (April 30, 1990).
Moreover, when Albert admitted adultery and divorced Mileva in 1919, he promised that in the event he should win the Nobel Prize all the money - not part of the money but all the money - would go to Mileva. According to the Einstein biography, "Subtle is the Lord" by Abram Pais, Einstein kept his promise. When he received the Nobel Prize money in 1922 (he was awarded the prize for the year 1921; the award was announced and he received the money in 1922) Albert did indeed give Mileva all the money from the Nobel Prize. Why all the money?
Then I must also mention Olinto De Pretto. Albert Einstein was quite fluent in Italian. According to the already cited Pais biography, when Einstein graduated from high school in Aarau he was required to take exams in both the German language and the Italian language. Out of a maximum score of 6, Einstein received a score of 5 in German (his native tongue) and also a score of 5 in Italian! Of course, Einstein had lived in Italy during his youth, and Einstein's father is buried in Milan.
Further, during the very same "anno mirabilis" of 1905, when Einstein published his famous four physics papers in the Annalen der Physik, he also published in the very same Annalen der Physik two reviews of articles written in Italian by Italian physicists. Again, these were reviews of articles written in Italian and were published in the Annalen der Physik in 1905, which shows that Einstein was reading rather deeply the Italian literature in physics at the time. Moreover, Michele Besso, the only person credited in the famous E=mc^2 paper of 1905, was originally from the Veneto region of Italy; his native tongue was Italian. Also, in order for Einstein to gain Swiss citizenship (a requirement for him to work in the Berne patent office since that was a government job) it could only help him if he could show proficiency in Italian, which, along with German and French, is one of the three official languages of Switzerland. Finally, there are still extant postcards written by Einstein in Italian as well as living Italians who spoke to Einstein in his later years who attest to his fluency. There is no doubt that Einstein spoke Italian well.
Why do I emphasize Einstein's fluency in Italian? Because another native of the Veneto region, an industrialist named Olinto De Pretto, had published an article in which De Pretto gave, in its final form, the equation E=mc^2. This article was published in 1903 and published again in 1904; preceding Einstein's 1905 "E=mc^2" paper by at least a year-and-a-half. Dr. Umberto Bartocci, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Perugia, in his book, "Albert Einstein e Olinto De Pretto: la vera storia della formula piu' famosa del mondo" (Albert Einstein and Olinto De Pretto, the true history of the most famous formula in the world) has published De Pretto's article in full. In the article, De Pretto actually comments on how amazing his discovery is. That is a kilogram of any material there is within an extraordinary explosion of energy. De Pretto articulated the formula quite well and realized its significance. This formula, of course, would later be the theoretical basis for the atomic bomb. Throughout all of the famous papers on 1905, Einstein gives no sources or citations. The only credit given to anyone is a brief mention of his friend Michele Besso. Why the lack of citation of any source material?
Dr. Bartocci has made a link between Michele Besso and Olinto De Pretto; however, nobody can absolutely prove that Einstein saw De Pretto's article. Yet based on the Besso link with the De Pretto article, and also that Einstein was well aware of other groundbreaking work by Italian physicists (having read deeply the Italian physics literature), it would seem difficult to deny that Einstein was aware of the De Pretto article. Indeed, when Einstein did publish his famous article in 1905 wherein he gave a variation of the famed "E=mc^2" formula, he titled this "discovery" in the form of a question. Perhaps he was not quite sure of its significance or perhaps he wanted the title in the form of a question in order to later attribute it to someone else should the formula prove incorrect.
What is absolutely indisputable is that the formula was published, not once but twice, in the Italian physics literature. Its authorship should rightly be credited to the industrialist, Olinto De Pretto.
Recently published letters written by Einstein (see The Collected Papers of A. Einstein) reveal him to be far less than a saintly figure in his personal life. His first wife, Mileva Maric, for whom he had originally professed such great love, he treated cruelly toward the end of the marriage, even calling her "uncommonly ugly". He admitted in a deposition during divorce proceedings (28 December 1918) that he had carried on an adulterous relationship with one of his cousins, whom he later married. During this second marriage, Einstein had numerous affairs, even - apparently -- including an affair with a Russian spy! And again, Einstein never breathed a word about having fathered a daughter with Maric.
The "Einstein myth" has become so ingrained in popular thought that many of the current generations will be loath to part with it. It does make a terrific story: a student whom his teachers thought would not amount to anything, a sloppy dresser who abhored wearing socks or even neatly combing his hair, should later be revealed to be the greatest scientist of all time. A solitary genius who without any significant help from anybody, re-arranged the universe. Like most fine stories that sound too good to be true, the "Einstein myth" is really too good to be true. The Nobel Prize winning chemist Linus Pauling once said (on a completely unrelated topic) that it takes a generation before people will accept a truly new idea. Current generations, weaned on the "Einstein myth" will not bear to part with it. Women and men of newer generations, not weaned on the myth, willing to investigate the evidence for themselves, and not wedded to any ideology or point of view, will approach the issue of Einstein's authorship of the Special Theory of Relativity and the formula "E=mc^2" with fresh eyes. I ask only that the reader keep an open mind.
Thank you for patience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Umberto Bartocci to Julio Gonzalez Cabillo on Einstein & De Pretto Re: [HM] Einstein's E=mc^2 was Italian's idea ...
Julio Gonzalez Cabillon (jgc@adinet.com.uy) Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:02:17 -0200
[ http://sunsite.utk.edu/math_archives/.http/hypermail/historia/nov99/0134.html ]
~~ forwarded message ~~~
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 19:17:38 +0100 From: Umberto Bartocci To: Julio Gonzalez Cabillon Subject: Re: [HM] Einstein's E=mc^2 was Italian's idea ...
Dear Professor Cabillon,
I exposed my researches on the affair Einstein-De Pretto in a book ("Albert Einstein e Olinto De Pretto - La vera storia della formula piu' famosa del mondo"), which was published some months ago by the following editor: andromeda@posta.alinet.it (this editor is in Bologna, Italy). In this book I included all the original paper by De Pretto, which was published in in the Proceedings of the Reale Istituto... Since I presume that you can understand Italian, I send to you an excerpt from this book:
Il 23 novembre del 1903 veniva presentata al Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, da parte del Conte Almerico Da Schio, una memoria del Dott. Olinto De Pretto dal titolo "Ipotesi dell'etere nella vita dell'universo" (apparsa poi nel febbraio del 1904 negli Atti dello stesso Istituto, Tomo LXIII, Parte II, pp. 439-500).
About De Pretto's own comments of his "intuition", I wrote:
Nel terzo paragrafo di questo scritto, intitolato "Energia dell'etere ed energia latente nella materia" (vedi il successivo Capitolo IX), troviamo formulata non soltanto la stessa relazione ipotizzata da Einstein tra massa ed energia, ma anche la sua 'corretta' interpretazione fisica, che viene espressa attraverso le seguenti parole:
"La materia di un corpo qualunque, contiene in se stessa una somma di energia rappresentata dall'intera massa del corpo, che si muovesse tutta unita ed in blocco nello spazio, colla medesima velocit\a delle singole particelle. [...] La formula mv2 ci d\a la forza viva e la formula mv2/8338 ci d\a, espressa in calorie, tale energia. Dato adunque m=1 e v uguale a 300 milioni di metri [al secondo], che sarebbe la velocit\a della luce, ammessa anche per l'etere, ciascuno potr\a vedere che si ottiene una quantit\a di calorie rappresentata da 10794 seguito da 9 zeri e cio\e oltre dieci milioni di milioni" (pp. 458-459).
[...]
Che questa conclusione dovesse sembrare all'epoca incredibile, e completamente al di fuori delle conoscenze fisiche del tempo, appare all'autore subito chiaro, visto che questi aggiunge subito al calcolo precedente il seguente commento:
"A quale risultato spaventoso ci ha mai condotto il nostro ragionamento? Nessuno vorr\a facilmente ammettere che immagazzinata ed allo stato latente, in un chilogrammo di materia qualunque, completamente nascosta a tutte le nostre investigazioni, si celi una tale somma di energia, equivalente alla quantit\a che si pu\o svolgere da milioni e milioni di chilogrammi di carbone; l'idea sar\a senz'altro giudicata da pazzi" (p. 459).
Unfortunately, I did never translate in English my work, thus I hope that this will be enough for you, and I am sorry I cannot send to you much more information. In any case, if you wish to submit to me any single question, I shall be happy to help you...
Best wishes, and thanks for your attention
Umberto Bartocci
~~~ end of message ~~~
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Peter Myers, 21 Blair St, Watson ACT 2602, Australia http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers ph +61 2 62475187 to unsubscribe, reply with "unsubscribe" in the subject line
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 2 - Albert Einstein a Plagiarist - Christopher Bjerknes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, by Christopher Bjerknes (2) E =mc 2 is Not Einstein ’s Discovery, by Robert A. Herrmann
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, by Christopher Bjerknes
[ http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/CIPD.htm ]
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data for Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist
Bjerknes, Christopher Jon, 1965-
Albert Einstein : the incorrigible plagiarist / by Christopher Jon Bjerknes.
ISBN 0-9719629-8-7 (alk. paper)
Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist
Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity
Table of Contents {chs 1 to 9: extracts from each}
The Priority Myth Excerpts from Chapter One -
[ http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/prioritymyth.htm ]
It is easily proven that Albert Einstein did not originate the special theory of relativity in its entirety, or even in its majority.1 The historic record is readily available. Ludwig Gustav Lange,2 Woldemar Voigt,3 George Francis FitzGerald,4 Joseph Larmor,5 Hendrik Antoon Lorentz,6 Jules Henri Poincaré,7 Paul Drude,8 Paul Langevin,9 and many others, slowly developed the theory, step by step, and based it on thousands of years of recorded thought and research. Einstein may have made a few contributions to the theory, such as the relativistic equations for aberration and the Doppler-Fizeau Effect,10 though he may also have rendered an incorrect equation for the transverse mass of an electron, which, when corrected, becomes Lorentz' equation.11 Albert Einstein's first work on the theory of relativity did not appear until 1905. There is substantial evidence that Albert Einstein did not write this 1905 paper12 on the "principle of relativity" alone. Hiswife, Mileva Einstein-Marity, may have been co-author, or the sole author, of the work.13 If Albert Einstein did not originate the major concepts of the special theory of relativity, how could such a historically significant fact have escaped the attention of the world for nearly a century? The simple answer is that it did not. . . . . . . Lorentz, himself, attributed the principle of relativity to Poincare,
"For certain of the physical magnitudes which enter in the formulas I have not indicated the transformation which suits best. This has been done by Poincare, and later by Einstein and Minkowski." . . . in 1927, H. Thirring wrote,
"H. Poincare had already completely solved the problem of time several years before the appearance of Einstein's first work (1905). . . ." Sir Edmund Whittaker in his detailed survey, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, Volume II,(1953), included a chapter entitled "The Relativity Theory of Poincare and Lorentz". Whittaker thoroughly documented the development of the theory, documenting the authentic history, and demonstrated through reference to primary sources that Einstein held no priority for the vast majority of the theory. Einstein offered no counter-argument to Whittaker's famous book. . . . . . Even among Einstein's admirers, voices are heard, which deny Einstein's priority. Max Born averred,
"I have now to say some words about the work of these predecessors of Einstein, mainly of Lorentz and Poincare. [***] Many of you have looked upon [Einstein's] paper 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper' in Annalen der Physic [***] and you will have noticed some pecularities. The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous literature. It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true." 66 ==
Space-Time, or is it "Time-Space"? Excerpts from Chapter Two -
[ http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/spacetime.htm ]
Poincare provided the "four-dimensional analogue"124 to Lorentz' aether in 1905 and relativized the "Lorentzian ether" in 1895, long before Minkowski or Einstein manipulated credit for his work. The Einsteins' 1905 paper contains no four-dimensional analogue, and is, therefore, a theory of the "unrelativized Lorentzian aether", per se. . . . One must wonder how Minkowski "introduced", in 1908, that which was already extant in Poincare's work of 1905, and in Marcolongo's work of 1906. It was Poincare who first attacked Lorentz' and Larmor's distinction between local time and time, beginning in 1898, and eliminated said artificial distinction long before 1905 -- which distinction was not even present in Voigt's formulations of 1887. . . . Neither Minkowski, nor the Einsteins, nor Poincare, hold priority on the concept of four-dimensional space-time. H.G.Wells, in 1894, expressly stated it in a popular novel, The Time Machine, long before Minkowski claimed priority,
"'Can a cube that does not last for any time at all, have a real existence?' Filby became pensive. 'Clearly,' the Time Traveller proceeded, 'any real body must have extension in four directions: it must have Lenght, Breadth, Thickness, and -- Duration. But through a natural infirmity of the flesh, which I will explain to you in a moment, we incline to overlook this fact. There are really four dimensions, three which we call the three planes of Space, and a fourth, Time. There is, however, a tendency to draw an unreal distinction between the former three dimensions and the latter, because it happens that our consciousness moves intermittently in one direction along the latter from the beginning to the end of our lives.'" . . . An article by "S." had appeared in Nature, Volume 31, Number 804, (March 26, 1885), p. 481, titled,"Four-Dimensional Space", which presented the concepts of "time-space", "four-dimensional solid" ("sur-solid", after Des Cartes), "time-area", and "time-line"; which later became "space-time" ("Zeit-Raum" is a confusing pun in German with the word "Zeitraum"), "absolute world", and "world-line". . . . In this same lecture, followed by a discussion which is on record,131 Einstein shamelessly parroted Poincare's enquiries into the nature of simultaneity132 and his clock synchronization procedures, without citing Poincare; and Einstein failed to correct those who credited Einstein with the ideas he repeated, which were not his own. ==
"Theory of Relativity" or "Pseudorelativism"? Excerpts from Chapter Three -
[ http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/pseudorelat.htm ]
"Einstein's theory of relativity is a misnomer, it should be called a theory of absolutivity."-- Wallace Kantor . . . Samuel Alexander held that,
"[I]t is clear that Space-Time takes for us the place of what is called the Absolute in idealistic systems. it is an experiential absolute."188 . . . Melchior Palagyi, from whom Minkowski took much, stated,
"The term introduced by Einstein: 'theory of relativity' is, of course, a most unfortunate choice; we retain it, however, like any arbitrary standard designation, which you can't get rid of, because people have grown accustomed to using it. . . ."194 . . . Einstein professed, after the general theory was established, that,
"There is no absolute (independent of the space of reference) relation in space, and no absolute relation in time between two events, but there is an absolute (independent of the space of reference) relation in space and time"195 and,
"The four-dimensional space of the special theory of relativity is just as rigid and absolute as Newton's space."196 and,
"The space-time phenomenon of the special theory of relativity was something absolute in itself, inasmuch as it was independent of the particular state of motions considered in that theory." . . . Robert Resnick conluded that,
"the theory of relativity could have been called the theory of absolutism with some justification. [***] there are absolute lengths and times in relativity. [***] Where relativity theory is clearly 'more absolute' than classical physics is in the relativity principle itself: the laws of physics are absolute."201 It is some strange "relativity theory", which is more absolutist than classical absolutism! . . . In one sense the pseudorelativists' caution with respect to the aether is commendable. In another, it is unscientific to refuse to speculate based on the pseudorelativists' pretentious grounds that measurement and mathematical abstraction are the only tools of the scientist, and that their pseudorelativistic subjective comparisons and arguments by analogy are somehow "objective". . . . The list of true relativists is long. To name but a few: DesCartes, Huyghens, Locke, Leibnitz, Berkeley, Hume, Comte, Spencer, Stallo, Hamilton, Mach, Anderssohn, Avenarius, Petzoldt, etc.. A real relativist, like Stallo, would never have embraced the absolutist "special theory of relativity", with its codified absolute space and time, and absolutist "space-time" and the ontological "universal constant" speed of light and absolute laws of Nature. . . . It is wrong to attribute to Einstein the assertions that time, space and motion are relative, for two reasons: One, Einstein was an absolutist, who could not comprehend relativism; Two, others argued that time, space and motion are purely relative long before Einstein was born. ==
Hero Worship Excerpts from Chapter Four -
[ http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/heroworship.htm ]
Why is Albert Einstein's name associated with the "principle of relativity", and not Poincaré's? Poincaré stated it first, ten years before the Einsteins, and the Einsteins copied it from him. Who is to blame for this injustice? What could possibly motivate them, other than self-doubt and/or hero worship? The facts are clear to all willing to look. Albert Einstein did not originate the special theory of relativity. That is clear. . . . Since Poincare and Lorentz developed the theory, why aren't their names not only linked to the theory, but universally linked together? What makes the image of "Einstein" so sacrosanct, that it is today virtually a crime to tell the truth about the history of the special theory of relativity? Why, in the majority of the histories of the special theory of relativity, isn't Einstein, with his minor contribution of the relativistic equations for aberration and the Doppler-Fizeau effect (together with his many blunders !!!), the curious footnote of a persistent copycat, and not the central theme? Certainly, it is more convenient to briefly credit Einstein with everything, but, since the ideas are considered so significant, one would think the originators deserve their due credit. . . . Many people knew that Einstein did not hold priority for much of what he wrote. He, himself, was keenly aware of it. It is not uncommon for grandiose myths to accrue to overly idealized popular figures, such as Albert Einstein.
Theoretical Physics, as a field, was small, and not well known in the period from 1905-1919. Theoretical physicists were not well known, and, since those in the field knew that Einstein was a plagiarist, they largely ignored him. In 1919, (on dubious grounds 213) Dyson, Davidson and Eddington, made Einstein famous by affirming that experiment had confirmed, without an attribution to Soldner, Soldner's 1801 hypothesis, that the gravitational field of the sun should curve the path of light from the stars.214 Shortly after that, Einstein won the Nobel Prize, though it is unclear why he won it, other than as a reward for his new-found fame for reiterating Soldner's ideas, and for his pacifist stance during World War I. . . . Einstein did not invent the atomic bomb.
In fact, Einstein was ignorant of the concept of the bomb. However, with the help of Alexander Sachs, Einstein was chosen to write a letter to President Roosevelt urging him to instigate what would eventually become the “Manhattan Project”, the effort to develop an atomic bomb before the Nazis. Due to Einstein's ignorance, Leo Szilard and Eugene Wigner had to explain the concept of the atomic bomb to Einstein, before he could write the letter215. . . . When said program to develop an atomic bomb began, Einstein was not asked to participate, but rather was excluded from the research team. Why was Einstein, supposedly the most brilliant human being of all time, not a member of the team, which developed the bomb, and upon whose work the fate of all humanity might rest? ==
E=mc2 Excerpts from Chapter Five -
[ http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/emc2.htm ]
Contrary to popular myth, Einstein did NOT usher in the atomic age, in fact, he found the idea of atomic energy to be silly, 217 nor was Einstein the first to state the mass-energy equivalence, or E = mc2. 218 Myths such as Einstein's supposed discoveries are not uncommon. Newton did not discover gravity, nor did he offer a viable explanation for it, nor did he believe that matter attracted other matter. . . . It appears that the physics community and the media invented a comic book figure, "Einstein", with "E = mc2" stenciled accross his chest. . . In anticipation of Thomson, De Pretto and the Einsteins, S. Tolver Preston formulated atomic energy, the atomic bomb and superconductivity back in the 1870's, based on the formula E = mc2, where celeritas, "c", signifies the speed of light. Pursuing Le Sage's theory, Preston believed that mass could be attenuated into aether, thereby releasing a tremendous store of energy; since aether particles move at light speed--alimiting velocity, the energy store is equal to mass times the square of the speed of light. Albert Einstein never even came close to such insights.
. . . Maxwell's equations implicitly contain the formula E = mc2. Simon Newcomb pioneered the concept of relativistic energy in 1889.224 Preston, J.J. Thompson,225 Poincare,226 Olinto De Pretto,227 Fritz Hasenohrl,228 [etc.etc. etc.] each effectively (Albert Einstein, himself, did not expressly state it in 1905), or directly, presented the formula E = mc2, before 1905, and Max Planck229 refined the concept in 1906 -1908, including Newton's230, Bessel's231 and Eotvos'232 implications that inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent - before Albert Einstein. Alexander Bain expressly stated in 1870 that, "matter, force, and inertia, are three names for substantially the same fact"
and,
"force and matter are not two things, but one thing"
and,
"force, inertia, momentum, matter, are all but one fact". 239 ==
Einstein's Modus Operandi Excerpts from Chapter Six -
[ http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/modusoperandi.htm ]
"I don't find Einstein's Relativity agrees with me. It is the most unnatural and difficult to understand way of representing facts that could be thought of. . . . And I really think that Einstein is a practical joker, pulling the legs of his enthusiastic followers, more Einsteinisch than he." -- Oliver Heaviside. "Einstein simply postulates what we have deduced, with some difficulty and not altogether satisfactorily, from the fundamental equations of the electromagnetic field. [***] I have not availed myself of his substitutions, only because the formulae are rather complicated and look somewhat artificial." -- Hendrik Antoon Lorentz.247 . . . Though Einstein cited Mach as a source of ideas,253 Mach rejected Einstein's relativity theory and asked not to be associated with the "dogmatic" and "paradoxical" "nonsense", in spite of the fact that Joseph Petzoldt sought to give Mach his due credit for major elements of the theory of relativity.254 Einstein initially adored Mach, and asked for his guidance and help.255
When it became known, after Mach's death, that Mach rejected Einstein and his views, Einstein ridiculed Mach.256 . . . Einstein lacked the insight and reasoning skills needed to induce hypotheses, so he condemned the practice. He was forced, due to his inability to cope with the "higher degree of difficulty and complexity" needed to induce hypotheses, to copy hypotheses from others, but sought to disguise the fact. Einstein insisted that empirical results be argued as first principles, in order to deduce the same phenomena as results, which are argued as first principles, in a fallacy of Petitio Principii. This is the method he used in his "theories" in order to assume credit for the induced hypotheses of others, which he then slipped into the theories somewhere in the middle, without rational justification, calling them "derivations". It was necessary for Einstein to discourage scientist from using proper method, lest they discover the irrationality of his unoriginal works. In so doing, he converted the scientific method into a method of redundancy, whereby an empirical fact is deduced from itself. . . . Herbert Ives published a paper in1952, which argued that Einstein employed the same irrational method of Petitio Principii in "deriving" the mass-energy equivalence. . . . [Ives wrote,]
"What Einstein did by setting down these equations (as 'clear') was to introduce the relation
L / (m - m') c2 = 1.
Now this is the very relation the derivation was supposed to yield. It emerges from Einstein's manipulation of observations by two observers because it has been slipped in by the assumption which Planck questioned. The relation E = mM c2 was not derived by Einstein." 273 ==
History Excerpts from Chapter Seven -
[ http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/history.htm ]
Historians all too often look to the conclusions of previous historians, rather than to the complete historic record, itself.280 Historians record their impressions and not history itself. They are politically motivated. Later historians all too often record the works of earlier historians, and the truth is lost in the process. Bias is a double-edged sword, which cuts both ways. Many who are aware that Einstein was not an original thinker wrongfully attribute the special theory of relativity to Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, often believing that Minkowski first set in cement the notion of the uniform translation of space and the concept of four-dimensional being. Many worship Hendrik Antoon as a hero, just as many worship Einstein as a hero. However, Lorentz and Minkowski deserve little more credit than does Albert Einstein. ==
Mileva Einstein-Marity Excerpts from Chapter Eight -
[ http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/mileva.htm ]
"How happy and proud I will be, when we two together have victoriously led our work on relative motion to an end!" -- Albert Einstein . . . In 1905, several articles bearing the name of Albert Einstein appeared in a German physics journal, Annalen der Physik. The most fateful among these, was a paper entitled Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper; von A. Einstein, Einstein's supposedly breakthrough paper on the "principle of relativity". Though it was perhaps submitted as co-authored by Mileva Einstein-Marity and Albert Einstein, or solely by Mileva Einstein-Marity, Albert's name appeared in the journal as the exclusive author of their work 285 . . . . Evan Harris Walker, who argued that Mileva was co-author, or sole author, of the 1905 papers, quoted some of Albert's words, as found in The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, and bear in mind that the vast majority of Mileva's letters to Albert were destroyed, with there being no more likely reasons for their destruction, than to hide her contribution and the fact that the works were unoriginal,
"I find statements in 13 of [Albert's] 43 letters to [Mileva] that refer to her research or to an ongoing collaborative effort -- for example, in document 74, 'another method which has similarities with yours.'
In document 75, Albert writes: 'I am also looking forward very much to our new work. You must now continue with your investigation.' In document 79, he says, 'we will send it to Wiedermann's Annalen.' In document 96, he refers to 'our investigations'; in document 101, to 'our theory of molecular forces.' In document 107, he tells her: 'Prof. Weber is very nice to me. . . I gave him our paper.'"298 . . . Why did the Nobel commitee not award Einstein the Nobel Prize for his work on relativity theory? Could it have been that all who were familiar with the facts, knew that Einstein did not originate the major concepts behind relativitytheory? . . . Mileva and Albert had co-authored papers before 299 and Albert had assumed credit for that which Mileva had accomplished.300 Senta Troemel-Ploetz presented a thorough account of Albert's shameless appropriation of Mileva's work and of Mileva's acquiescence.301 . . . Why didn't Mileva come forward with the fact that she was the one who had written the work, if in fact she had? Did Albert buy Mileva's silence? Even if he had, was there more to hold Mileva back from exposing Albert, than the desperate need for monies? ==
Politics and Anecdotes Excerpts from Chapter Nine -
[ http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/politics.htm ]
Einstein repeated much of what H.G.Wells had accomplished, both in physics and politics. Wells holds priority on the concept of four-dimensional space-time, the atomic bomb, and many other innovations of thought. . . . Even some of Einstein's quaint scientific anecdotes have their prior cousins. He told a story of his supposed fantasy of traveling at light speed,334 the so-called "Aarau Question". This story isused as an example of Einstein's supposed independence from Lorentz. . .. However, this fantasy was the subject of a novel popular among physicists of Einstein's day written by famous astronomer, Lumen, by Camille Flammarion. . . . In Einstein's famous lecture of 1922 in Japan,338 he recounts that he derived inspiration from "Michelson's experiment". Then, years later, Einstein denied having known of the experiment before the 1905 paper appeared.339 . . . Einstein claimed that he arose from bed once and wondered if events were absolutely simultaneous.342 Was Einstein reading Poincare, who had already expressly written that events are not absolutely simultaneous, in bed, before Einstein fell asleep? . . . Einstein is known to have read Poincare,349, and was aware of Lorentz' work, but denied knowledge of the so-called "Lorentz Transformation". Is it plausible to believe that Einstein, a supposed genius and master scientist, was completely unaware of Poincare's, Lorentz' and Larmor's works containing the so-called "Lorentz Transformation", and the principle of relativity, which were the talk of the physics community,350 and the then current literature on the subject of Poincare's "principle of relativity", and that it is coincidental that Einstein repeated much of what they wrote? . . . Einstein is seemingly awarded credit forevery scientific advancement and theory from the time of Newton up until Einstein's death. Does Einstein deserve that credit? ==
[ http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/AEIPBook.htm ]
"The appearance of Dr. Silberstein's recent article on 'General Relativity without the Equivalence Hypothesis' encourages me to restate my own views on the subject. I am perhaps entitled to do this as my work on the subject of General Relativity was published before that of Einstein and Kottler, and appears to have been overlooked by recent writers." -- Harry Bateman
* * * "All this was maintained by Poincare and others long before the time of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to him." -- Charles Nordmann
* * * "[Einstein's] paper 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper' in Annalen der Physik.. . contains not a single reference to previous literature. It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true." -- Max Born
* * * "In point of fact, therefore, Poincare was not only the first to enunciate the principle, but he also discovered in Lorentz's work the necessary mathematical formulation of the principle. All this happened before Einstein's paper appeared." -- G. H. Keswani
* * * "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, 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?" -- James Mackaye
* * * "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." -- Albert Einstein ==
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) E =mc2 is Not Einstein ’s Discovery by Robert A. Herrmann
(9 SEPT 2000. Revised 15 AUG 2002)
[ http://www.serve.com/herrmann/einpdf.pdf ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Peter Myers, 21 Blair St, Watson ACT 2602, Australia http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers ph +61 2 62475187 to unsubscribe, reply with "unsubscribe" in the subject line
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 3 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
YOUR DONATION = OUR SURVIVAL!
Please contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all your friends!
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *