EINSTEIN's DOSSIER: http://goo.gl/lrtlO

see below also the true record of Einstein as a lowbrow confidence artist, mental deviant, near dowell malcontent shyster, flimflam man, “agent provocateur”, in the employ of the Crime Family Rothschild to usurp the scientific hierarchy via substitution of fact with lies to horde the truth for themselves and enslave the rest of the world in ignorance, yet the Truth of Jesus shall prevail in spite of their vain attempts, even because of, as they too were meant to be here to give us a choice of whom to follow, Einstein or Jesus !

The “EINSTEIN” http://youtu.be/UxzbPY4HCFw?list=PL21DC68AB7241DA23

Einstein Arrested Twice in 1906 for Domestic Violence

Einstein Arrested Twice in 1906 for Domestic Violence

-Bern, Switzerland (AIP)

In startling new evidence uncovered by biographer Hans Grossman, it appears that Albert Einstein, the revered scientist often acknowledged as the father of modern of physics, was arrested twice in 1906 for domestic violence towards his wife at the time, Mileva.

“This is very interesting news that I have uncovered,” said Grossman. “While I was researching local public records in the hope of discovering more about Einstein’s Annus Mirabilis, I uncovered police records revealing that on two instances in 1906, Albert Einstein struck and left bloodied his wife of three years, Mileva, and was arrested for it.”

The Annus Mirabilis, or Wonderful Year, refers to the year 1905, in which Einstein, as a 26 year-old patent clerk in Bern, single-handedly wrote three papers that would later be judged as worthy of Nobel Prizes. In light of Grossman’s discoveries, however, the period that was once seen as the most productive in the physicist’s life must be reevaluated.

“Many people think that Einstein was a very kind and congenial fellow,” explains Grossman. “But the fact of the matter is that Albert Einstein was a habitual and compulsive adulterer—who fathered some fifteen children out of wedlock—and a liar who often beat his wife for what appears to be the most insignificant matters.”

Notes Grossman, “The first police report filed by Mileva on 26 February states that she merely came up to his study as he worked to ask him if he wanted some coffee, when suddenly he flew into a rage, and began choking and striking her. He also threatened to stab her with his pen.”

Einstein’s February 1906 mugshot, following a brutal beating of his wife Mileva

“The second report,” continues Grossman, “indicates that, one morning, as Einstein exited the bathroom, his wife wished him a ‘good morning’, at which, again, he flew into a fiery rage, pushing her in the face repeatedly and gouging her eyes.”

While the police reports stopped there, according to Grossman, the abuse almost certainly continued unchecked until Einstein and Mileva’s divorce in 1919, and the physicist, who won the Nobel Prize in 1921, was never again arrested.

“Oh, I have no doubt that Einstein continued persistent abuse of his wife until their divorce,” says Grossman. “To be frank, I am not surprised at these allegations. These reports clearly have been suppressed by those who wish to perpetuate Einstein’s legacy, but the fact is that the most revered scientist of all times was a brutal abuser who never hesitated to ‘teach his wife a lesson’ should she cross him in any way. He was, in many ways, pure evil personified.”

Representatives of Einstein’s trust have yet to respond to these allegations.

======================< END of OFFICIAL AIP DOCUMENT>======================

VIDEOs:  

I. EINSTEIN’s RELATIVITY FRAUD> https://youtube.com/watch?v=O9d7bNQsJDQ&list=PLYcAzRlMyIBYDhZ_7sRy0ORg3IldtqGv9

II. EINSTEIN=SOCIOPATH> https://youtube.com/watch?v=kaqcKqYCEkM&list=PLYcAzRlMyIBYDhZ_7sRy0ORg3IldtqGv9

A> G-D & Militant Atheist Einstein: https://youtube.com/watch?v=kEK6WtHxNfw&list=PLYcAzRlMyIBYDhZ_7sRy0ORg3IldtqGv9

B> Socio/Psychopathy : https://youtube.com/watch?v=kaqcKqYCEkM&list=PLYcAzRlMyIBYDhZ_7sRy0ORg3IldtqGv9

C> Einstein Cad, Fraud Lunatic: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Juvvynz_N2c&list=PLYcAzRlMyIBYDhZ_7sRy0ORg3IldtqGv9

D> Tesla Debunks JESUIT EINSTEIN: http://youtube.com/watch?v=RwxhD4CjdB4&list=PL21DC68AB7241DA23

THE REAL EINSTEIN:

Sociopath, Wife Beater, Liar, Mean Spirited Grandstander, Incorrigible Plagiarist, Mental Deviant

YEA on the we can do anything we set our minds to accomplish, this for certain is true. BOO, to EINSTEIN however, who was a confirmed wife beater a terrible man who has set us back perhaps "light" years with his senseless babble: http://goo.gl/AZl48

Einstein was a sociopath, wife abuser and mental deviant that has done more to set humanity back than any other in recent time.

Only real scientists can prove he was a fraud, and plenty already have, and everyone is smart enough to prove he was a fraud given the time & means.

Remember Einstein is a proven fraud, he was an immaculate deception, a con-artist, plagiarist, a consummate grand-standing bluffer, and a wife beater to boot. Research it yourself, he was a horrible & arrogant man if there ever was one, a criminally insane sociopath too.

He plagiarized E=mc^2 from an Italian scientist Olinto De Pretto, had nothing to do with Nuclear Energy or Bombs either, that was Enrico Fermi, the only thing Einstein was good at was taking credit for other people's work & promoting his own name!!

He has set humanity back "light years" for the deception he has tangled people up in. But not all of us fell for his confused babble. I can explain to you in 20 minutes how his "traveling @ speed of light reduces aging hoax" is a cheap parlor trick, anyone can understand this when presented clearly, i.e. all its hidden scaffolding shown.

Actually it does not even take 20 minutes, just read this my friend…

By fraudster Einstein using a clock that is triggered by light traveling AWAY from the light source on the same train car, of course “time” will slow down, that is the trick he hid from everyone but the truly astute.  

But of course time itself does not exist as this clearly proves: http://goo.gl/ww5N both by pure irrefutable logic expressed in a story,  as well as the personal childhood experience of the author thereof.

Everything of "significance" he "proved" always conveniently fell in the margin of error anyway, also by premeditated design to deceive !

The only thing he was good @ was appearing smarter than everyone else by constructing thought experiments with the end he desired to promote in mind first, yet hiding from the public all the scaffolding removed once presented, if that makes sense to you.

Clever sure, useful, absolutely not. He was a very disturbed man mentally. Anyone who resorts to such levels of deception purely for self-promotion purposes is evil to the core. He hid all the scaffolding, he should have explained to everyone he was Bluffing, yet he did not, for this he is a most evil man.

Allowing people to take him seriously was his biggest failing, he had to have known he was hiding important details, yet he did not self-disclose, for it would have shown he was the fraud that we now know he is.

This is not unlike the prosecution withholding exonerating information obtained in the discovery phase in the trial of an innocent person.

As for so called "non-local reality", that has always been known, it is called action @ a distance, i.e. Gravity.

Just know that you are alive now & that G-d wants you to live forever just like G-d does, for the universe is certainly big enough no matter what all the Malthusians say, just look @ the earth from the moon, or from an airplane, it is obviously nowhere near filled to capacity.

It is frauds like Einstein that are holding us back.

Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein’s biography is one of the most lurid in the annals of science, but most of it has been hid from the public for many years. Although Time magazine named him “Person of the Century” (Dec. 31, 1999), up until recently few in modern history have had the privilege of being shrouded in as much impenetrable media insulation as Einstein, that is, until the executors of his estate had deceased (Helen Dukas d. 1982; Otto Nathan d. 1987). Helen Dukas had motivation to protect Einstein, since she met him in 1928 when his marriage to his cousin Elsa Löwenthal was badly deteriorating, of which Elsa “sought as far as possible to block the subject of infidelity from her mind” (The Private Lives of Albert Einstein, p. 210). Michele Zackheim adds:

“Hans Albert suspected they were lovers. His allegation was fortified by the proximity of her room in Princeton – just off Albert’s study and down the hall from Elsa’s. In addition, Einstein left Dukas more money in his will than any other member of his blood family, as well as the net income from his royalties and copyright fees and all his books and personal effects” (Einstein’s Daughter: The Search for Lieserl, p. 253).

Highfield and Carter remark: “Dukas became fiercely loyal to her employer: she was liable to attack as ‘dung’ any biography that dared shed light on Einstein’s personal life, and she saw newsmen as her ‘natural enemies’” (The Private Lives of Albert Einstein, p. 211).

In the information contained in his personal papers we find that a Mr. Hyde hid close behind the Dr. Jekyll commonly portrayed by the wire-haired, absent-minded professor. He fathered a daughter out of wedlock with Mileva Mari?, although the couple eventually married. They named the child Lieserl, but that is all the affection she would ever receive from Einstein. He persuaded Mileva to give up the child to an orphanage so that he could avoid the social repercussions of having an illegitimate daughter. He handled it as a mere business transaction, for he never saw Lieserl face-to-face. As biographer Michele Zackheim puts it:

Einstein scholars have concluded from his September 19 [1903] letter that the couple had decided to put Lieserl up for adoption, based on Albert’s concern that the child’s registration (or lack thereof) not be a source of trouble for her – or her parents – in the years to come…Apparently, in the end, Albert and Mileva agreed it would be best to pretend that Lieserl had never existed. And so, with a deliberate hand, the short life of Lieserl Einstein-Mari? was erased (Einstein’s Daughter, pp. 52-53.).

Zackheim also concludes from her detailed research in Mileva’s hometown that Lieserl had a severe mental handicap which helped seal the Einsteins’ decision, and that she died at twenty-one months old, on September 21, 1903. Mileva’s father was given the task of making sure that no official records concerning her short life remained in any governmental or church repositories (ibid., pp. 276-277). Highfield and Carter describe the situation:

“There is no evidence that Einstein and his daughter ever set eyes on one another. For all his apparent enthusiasm after the birth, it seems that his main concern was to free himself of this burden at the earliest opportunity. Lieserl’s existence was kept hidden even from his closest friends, and within months she had disappeared from his life without trace. Einstein was never to talk of her publicly, and Lieserl might have been erased from history had it not been for the discovery of his letters to Mileva by the Einstein papers project….The dangers that seemed to preoccupy him were unconnected to the child’s illness: his question about registration strongly suggests that she was being surrendered for adoption, and that Einstein was eager to cover his tracks. The lack of any official record of the birth would appear to be a tribute to the thoroughness of the precautions that he referred to. Lieserl’s birth posed a threat to Einstein’s new start as a patent examiner in Berne. He had gained Swiss citizenship only a year earlier, and the stigma of an illegitimate child would have harmed his prospects…The couple’s meager income may have provided another motive for giving the child away…” (The Private Lives of Albert Einstein, pp. 88-90).

That such callousness wasn’t just an incidental quirk is demonstrated as Einstein later forsook his son Eduard and consigned him to a sanatorium so that he could be relieved of the financial responsibility for his care and take full advantage of the public funding available. Eduard eventually died in the sanatorium. Mileva wrote to Albert: “‘You have here a dear, seriously ill child. Often he asks if his father will come, and with each postponement, he becomes even more morose. He is terribly wounded.’ Albert refused to come back to Zurich to see Eduard. And he refused to acknowledge the financial and psychological battles that Mileva had to wage over his care” (Einstein’s Daughter, p. 190).

Einstein’s indifference to his children, however, was outshone by the animosity he showed to his wife. According to the divorce papers, Mileva was the victim of physical violence in the marriage, and Einstein’s adultery was the final straw that led to the legal separation in 1914 and final divorce in 1919. Zackheim writes: “He tended to have a few romances going at once, but after Mileva, he was known to prefer simpler women” (Einstein’s Daughter, p. 227). Highfield and Carter add: “Einstein was obliged to admit in his legal submissions that he had committed adultery. There were also references to fierce fights between him and his wife, which had made their continued marriage intolerable” (The Private Lives of Albert Einstein, p. 188). Zackheim gives the precise wording of the deposition: “…It is true that I have committed adultery. I have been living for approximately four and one-half years with my cousin, the widow Elsa Löwenthal, and since then I have had intimate relations with her. My wife, the plaintiff, has been informed that I have had intimate relations with my cousin since the summer of 1914” (Einstein’s Daughter, p. 87). In a related incident, the biographers add:

“The following day Lisbeth and her mother visited Mileva and found her face badly swollen. It seems that Lisbeth may have been suggesting that Mileva had been beaten. Einstein was a powerful man and, for what it is worth, Hans Albert recalled that when he misbehaved his father ‘beat me up’. … It is known that Einstein’s divorce papers – which remain under seal in Jerusalem – refer to violence within the marriage” (The Private Lives of Albert Einstein, pp. 153-154; See also Einstein’s Daughter, p. 73).

After Mileva suspected an affair between Albert and Anna Meyer-Schmid, Albert complained that this “was typical in a woman of such ‘uncommon ugliness,’” adding, “Professor John Stachel says this remark was the first to shock him as he worked through Einstein’s papers after his appointment as their editor” (Private Lives, pp. 125-126). Mileva describes herself as “starved for love” as early as 1900 (ibid., p. 128). See also In Albert’s Shadow: The Life and Letters of Mileva Mari?, p. 16-17.

As the marriage to Mileva began to deteriorate, “Einstein established himself in a bachelor apartment around the corner from Elsa,” his cousin and next love interest, whom he eventually married in 1919, only four months after his divorce (The Private Lives of Albert Einstein, p. 172). Yet, Highfield and Carter add: “But there is no evidence that Mileva believed her husband was about to be stolen from her, battered though their marriage was. Einstein…had no plans to leave her. Instead he intended to pursue his affair while remaining her husband. … He remarked to Elsa ‘But the order is always to pretend. Only when we are born and when we die are we permitted to act in an honest way’” (The Private Lives of Albert Einstein, pp. 163-164); “Mileva would remain a virtual invalid for three years after Albert’s decision to end the marriage…” (In Albert’s Shadow, p. 19). Prior to his involvement with Elsa, Einstein had a short fling with Paula Einstein, Elsa’s sister, but soon ended the relationship. He then wondered why he had become involved with her, settling for the rationale that “she was young, a girl, and complaisant. That was enough” (Einstein’s Daughter, p. 72).

In one of his more audacious moves, Einstein had actually pleaded with Mileva to allow him to marry Elsa, using as his excuse that Elsa’s daughter “…had to suffer from rumors that have been circulating regarding my relationship with her mother. That weighs upon me and needs to be remedied through a formal marriage” (Einstein’s Daughter, p. 85.). If this had been the real motive for Einstein’s pleading, we might be tempted to conclude that he was a deranged individual who had lost touch with reality. The real truth is more sinister and shocking. The thirty-nine-year-old Einstein was actually in a debate with himself whether he should marry Elsa or Elsa’s twenty-year-old daughter, Ilse, while all along he had been shacking up with Elsa (for the four years prior), while still married to Mileva. As Zackheim puts it:

Albert was not being honest [with Milvea]. By May [1918], he had made it clear that he wanted to marry Elsa’s daughter Ilse. Ilse reported to a friend, Georg Nicolai: ‘Yesterday, suddenly the question was raised about whether A[lbert] wished to marry Mama or me…Albert himself is refusing to take any decision, he is prepared to marry either Mama or me. I know that A[lbert] loves me very much, perhaps more than any other man ever will, he also told me so himself yesterday…’ (Einstein’s Daughter, pp. 85-86).

Zackheim adds: “At the top of the letter, Ilse had written, ‘Please destroy this letter immediately after reading it!’” Shortly after Ilse wrote this letter, Albert wrote to Mileva and told her that he had changed his mind about coming to see the boys in the summer. Instead, he had decided to go to Ahrenshoop, a remote village on the Baltic Sea, with Elsa, Ilse, and Ilse’s younger sister, Margot” (ibid., p. 86).

In the waning months of his time with Mileva, records made public in 1996 show that Einstein gave her a list of conditions in order for her to remain under his financial care:

(A) You will see to it: (1) that my clothes and linen are kept in order; (2) that I am served three regular meals a day in my room; (3) that my bedroom and study are always kept in good order and that my desk is not touched by anyone other than me.

(B) You will renounce all personal relationships with me, except when these are required to keep up social appearances. In particular, you will not request: (1) that I sit with you at home; (2) that I go out with you or travel with you.

(C) You will promise explicitly to observe the following point in any contact with me: (1) You will expect no affection from me and you will not reproach me for this; (2) You must answer me at once when I speak to you; (3) You must leave my bedroom or study at once without protesting when I ask you to go; (4) You will promise not to denigrate me in the eyes of the children, either by word or deed (London Daily Telegraph, October 30, 1996; Einstein’s Daughter, p. 77.)

In one of his love letters to Elsa, Einstein wrote: “I treat my wife as an employee whom I cannot fire. I have my own bedroom and avoid being alone with her” (Einstein’s Daughter, p. 73). Mileva was apparently no fool. A few months after receiving the above conditions she moved to Zurich with her children and never returned to Einstein.

Things fared no better for Elsa, the eventual winner of the Elsa versus Ilse contest. Einstein persuaded her to divorce her husband, Max Löwenthal, so that the two lovers could marry. But this marriage also began to deteriorate due to Einstein’s sexual affairs. According to a biographer, “she told him he could have a woman on the side, but only one at a time” (Discover, September 2004, pp. 29-30), and consequently, to her dismay, Einstein’s adultery was serial. Highfield and Carter write: “It has to be said that Elsa was not the only one of Einstein’s female relatives to catch his eye. It appears that, either during this trip or some time earlier, he had also flirted with her younger sister, Paula” (The Private Lives of Albert Einstein, p. 148). They add: “Einstein joked that he preferred ‘silent vice to ostentatious virtue,’ but there was little that was furtive about his affairs. Either they were conducted in open view, or easy clues were left for Elsa to discover. Another incident…gives the impression that Einstein was eager for his wife to know what he was up to…” (ibid., p. 209).

As he had with Mileva, Einstein recast their relationship as one of mere convenience. She died in 1936, nineteen years before Einstein.

In addition to his sexual escapades, Einstein was suspected of plagiarism and failing to give scientific credit to Mileva who helped him develop his theories. On the accusations of plagiarism, see C. J. Bjerknes, Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, Downers Grove, IL, XTX Inc., 2002; R. Carroll, “Einstein’s E = mc2 ‘was Italian’s idea,’” The Guardian, Nov. 11, 1999; G. H. Keswani, “Origin and Concept of Relativity,” British Journal of the Philosophical Society, 15:286-306, 1965; Richard Moody, Jr., “Plagiarism Personified,”Mensa Bulletin, 442 (Feb): 5, 2001; The Private Lives of Albert Einstein, pp. 108-109.

One of the biggest myths surrounding the aura of Einstein is that he was the inventor of the famous E=mc2 formula, but there were at least a dozen scientists who had either helped develop or employed the formula prior to Einstein. It wasn’t until five years before his death (d. 1955) that Einstein publicly attributed E = mc2 to the 1862 charge-momentum field equations of James Clerk Maxwell. Previous to this was the work of J. Soldner who assigned mass to light and thus could calculate its deflection in a gravitational field. There were also Michael Faraday’s 1831 experiments with electricity and induction coils which had already introduced the energy/mass relationship, and Maxwell put this in the reciprocal equation m = E/c2. In fact, one can go back as far as Isaac Newton in 1704 for the theoretical relationship between mass and energy. Samuel Tolver Preston used the formula in 1875. Julius Robert Mayer put the formula in terms of aether pressure.

A curious twist in this saga occurs in 1881 with J. J. Thomson in his work with charged spherical conductors in motion, since he derived a slightly higher coefficient, that is, E = 4/3mc2. The same E = 4/3mc2 was found by F. Hasenöhrl in 1904 when he published the first explicit statement that the heat energy of a body increases its “mechanical” mass. The history of the 4/3 coefficient is intriguing. Arthur Miller shows both its origin and how Einstein sought to remove it. Although Einstein purports to have legitimately removed it, Miller shows he did not. Einstein had attributed the excess 1/3 to mechanical constraints, but Poincaré had demonstrated earlier that it was due to forces that avoid the explosion of the electron. Engrossed in his General Relativity theory, Einstein did not visit the problem again. Max Von Laue demonstrated that to obtain the final formula E = mc2 “one type of energy…the new physics must eliminate from its list…is kinetic energy.” The reason is that if mass is based on energy, as E = mc2 shows, then there cannot be a kinetic energy, K = ½mv2, which, in turn, depends on the mass. In other words, to obtain E = mc2 one must abandon the most obvious and primary form of energy, kinetic energy.

Henri Poincaré had used the basis for the E = mc2 formula long before Einstein commandeered it for his Special and General Relativity theories. In 1889, Oliver Heaviside used the E = mc2 principle in his work with capacitors. In 1903 the Italian scientist Olinto De Pretto had already published E = mc2 two years before Einstein, but which Einstein did not mention in his 1905 paper on Special Relativity, which is odd considering that he spoke fluent Italian and, by his own admission, read all the Italian physics journals. In 1907, Max Planck, expanding the work of Hasenöhrl and using Poincaré’s momentum of radiation formula, gave the final derivation of the E = mc2 formula. All in all, E = mc2 is readily derivable apart from the theory of Relativity, as both Joseph Larmor in 1912 and Wolfgang Pauli in 1920 demonstrated independently.

Other instances of Einstein’s plagiarism abound. Although his biographer, Abraham Pais, does his best either to minimize or to make these incidents coincidental, the facts speak for themselves (Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1982). Pais claims Einstein was “unaware” of the work of Lorentz (ibid., p. 21); of Boltzmann and Gibbs (ibid., p. 55); “Equation 5.12” (ibid., p. 92); of Poincaré (ibid., p. 94); of Hilbert (ibid., p. 257) yet his work contains their formulas and principles.

One of the more notable instances occurs in September 1924. Einstein proposed at a meeting of famous physicists that the community investigate interference and diffraction phenomena with molecular beams. Louis de Broglie, however, had already been working on the idea and published a paper on it in November 1924. As it turns out, de Broglie had sent a copy of the unpublished manuscript to Paul Langevin some months earlier, and Langevin had passed it to Einstein, whereupon Pais records Einstein’s evaluation that de Broglie’s ideas “seemed quite interesting to him.” Obviously, Einstein obtained the notion of searching for “interference and diffraction phenomena with molecular beams” from de Broglie’s unpublished paper, but he failed to mention de Broglie’s work to the September 1924 audience of physicists, thus leaving the impression that this was all his idea. In the face of all this weighty circumstantial evidence, Pais, as he is prone to do in his biography, glosses over them and concludes: “Thus, Einstein was not only one of the three fathers of the quantum theory, but also the sole godfather of wave mechanics” (Subtle is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, p. 438).

Physically speaking, the youthful Einstein was the epitome of strength and vigor, since he was by common standards very muscular and attractive. But as the years wore on Einstein became grossly unhygienic, refusing to brush his teeth or even change his clothes. The image of the unkempt, wire-haired professor is not the prop of a Hollywood producer but the symptoms of a man who seemed to be loosing his grip on life. (The Private Lives of Albert Einstein, Robert Highfield and Paul Carter, NY, St. Martins Press, 1993, pp. 59-217; In Albert’s Shadow: The Life and Letters of Mileva Mari?, ed. Milan Popoci?, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 2003, pp. 16-27; “Whose Relativity Was It, Anyway?” Patricia Nemo,College of St. Thomas Magazine, Spring 1990, pp. 22-25; “Sex-mad Father of Relativity left family out of equation,” London Daily Telegraph, Anthea Hall, July 25, 1993; “Relatively imperfect genius,” Jewish Chronicle, Monica Porter, August 8, 1993).

Eventually, the promiscuous lifestyle of his earlier years may have finally caught up with him. Einstein’s personal doctor, János Plesch, who knew him quite well, concluded that he died of syphilis, demonstrating from the results of the autopsy that the abdominal aneurysm that took his life is always associated with the tertiary stage of the disease, which can be 25 years or longer from time of onset. Highfield and Carter write that, in an April 18, 1955 letter to his son Peter, remarking on Einstein’s sexual escapades, Plesch stated:

“Why shouldn’t a healthy and beautiful man have had bad luck in his youthful daredevel days and contracted a lues [syphilis]?” Plesch insisted that Einstein’s symptoms were entirely consistent with the disease, and boasted that in all his years of medical practice he had never once been wrong in tracing an abdominal aneurysm to this cause. (The Private Lives of Albert Einstein, pp. 265-266).

The biographers add:

“It appears that the same thoughts may have been occupying Seelig, for the cause of the aneurysm was a point on which he had been pressing Nathan…One is tempted to wonder whether the possibility of syphilis had occurred to Nathan too. Dr. Harvey has stated that, medically speaking, Plesch ‘had justification for thinking along those lines,’ but added, ‘It is known that tertiary syphilis does cause aneurysms, but not in this location very often’” (ibid., p. 266).

Mileva’s letters reveal that in Albert’s reading of the book Die Sexuelle Frage, he had underlined the parts dealing with venereal disease. Zackheim notes: “this highlighted passage about venereal disease suggests that Mileva apparently worried about Albert’s sexual life outside their bedroom. Furthermore, Einstein historians believe that Albert frequented prostitutes before he married, and that Mileva may have been aware of it” (Einstein’s Daughter, p. 268). “…Janos Plesch, who described his friend [Einstein] as a man with a strong sex drive… ‘in the choice of sex partners he was not too discriminating,’ wrote Plesch… ‘Einstein loved women, and the commoner and sweatier and smellier they were, the better he liked them’” (The Private Lives of Albert Einstein, p. 206). “Einstein was also voicing deep misgivings about the institution of holy matrimony. He told Plesch that it must have been invented ‘by an unimaginative pig,’ and…it was ‘slavery in a cultural garment’” (ibid., p. 210). Deborah Hayden’s article, titled “Syphilis in the Einstein Factory,” shows that the interest level from other biographers regarding the possibility that Einstein contracted syphilis is practically nil. In order to protect Einstein, most have ignored or ridiculed the suggestion, yet Einstein’s numerous sexual affairs remain an open book. Some doctors claim that abdominal aneurysms are not all caused by syphilis (from 6-17-05 letter from Hayden on file, used with permission).

Michele Zackheim’s research reveals the following:

He [Plesch] also insisted that Albert had syphilis, the ‘gentlemen’s disease.’ “In my long medical practice I have found, almost without exception, that abdominal aneurysms which Einstein suffered from are syphilitic in origin. It might, of course, be that Einstein was exceptional in that respect too and that his aneurysm was nonspecific. However, an earlier syphilitic infection is also indicated by the fact that he suffered from extensive secondary anemia attacks…I think the infection was acquired during the interval [between his marriages]…. Even though many may shake their heads about this, I am adhering to my thesis. (Einstein’s Daughter, p. 255.)

Zackheim adds:

“Dr. János Plesch had maintained that Albert contracted syphilis sometime between leaving Mileva and marrying Elsa. But Albert could have contracted the disease prior to 1910, when he began to exhibit active interest in other women. If Albert had contracted syphilis before Mileva became pregnant with Eduard, in November 1909, or even before Lieserl was born, in 1902, he might have passed the syphilis to Mileva, who could have been a latent carrier. She, in turn, could have passed it to a baby in utero. The closer to conception that the mother is infected, the greater the risk of congenital syphilis in the fetus, which can result in a variety of birth defects from skin lesions to a failure to thrive to an enlarged liver and spleen to mental retardation. But with a mother who is a latent carrier, a healthy child can be born between two syphilitic children. Hans Albert, Mileva and Albert’s only healthy offspring, was a middle child” (ibid., p. 268).

Despite his candidness about Einstein’s syphilis, Plesch had written a much softer biography of Einstein, after having discussed its contents with Einstein. In remarking on the book, Plesch tells Einstein: “You can believe me that while I was writing these seven hundred pages, I was laughing a lot about how marvelously we are all trained to lie and how little human beings are allowed to state the truth. Our good Ibsen hit the nail on the head when he said, ‘Take somebody’s life lie away and you will take away his whole life.’ The book is written with this compromise” (ibid., p. 249). Unfortunately, the publisher destroyed the book.

For the record, syphilis is purported to be the impetus for the genius, and eventual madness, of many notables in history (e.g., Beethoven, Capone, Dostoyevsky, Goya, H. Hughes, Hitler, Joyce, Lenin, Lincoln, Mozart, Napoleon, Nietzsche, Poe, Roosevelt, Toulouse-Lautrec, van Gogh, Wilde, et al.). (Pox: Genius, Madness and the Mysteries of Syphilis, Deborah Hayden, Basic Books, 2003, p. 306f.). Whether or not this phenomenon had anything to do with Einstein’s theories, we simply do not have enough evidence to make a firm conclusion.

On the religious side of things, Mileva and her children converted to Catholicism in 1905, a fact little advertised by the secular press, then or now (Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 139). The year 1905, of course, saw the introduction of his Relativity theory to the scientific community. Unmoved by his wife’s religious life, Einstein wrote to his confidante Professor Hurwitz: “They’ve turned Catholic. Well, it’s all the same to me” (Einstein: Life and Times, p. 139.)

Einstein was, for all intents and purposes, an atheist. In The Private Lives of Albert Einstein, the authors write: “Einstein’s views were atheistic in almost every important respect. He found it impossible to conceive of a personal deity, had no belief in an afterlife and considered morality an entirely man-made affair. His worship of cosmic harmony was genuine; his claims that this was the face of God were at best benign affectation” (p. 18). Highfield and Carter add that Einstein’s pupil in Zurich, David Reichinstein, writes of a “Messiah-feeling” unfolding in Einstein’s psyche, so much so that “his account contains dark hints that Einstein’s arrogance bordered on hubris” (ibid., p. 127). “Einstein was well aware that his harsh attitude disturbed people” (ibid., p. 180).

Any notions he had of God were of an entity completely impersonal and uninvolved with human affairs. His path toward allowing science to unseat Scripture and the Church as the ultimate authority for any intellectual endeavor that crossed its domain had begun very early in his life. After receiving instruction up until the age of twelve at Bavarian schools, which included teaching on the Catholic faith (and in particular the traditional six-day creation), Einstein later reflected that in “reading of popular scientific books” he “soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true.” (Einstein: The Life and Times, p. ix.)

At times Einstein wrestled with the concept of God. In one of his later works he writes:

If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him. (Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years, New York: Philosophical Library, 1950, p. 27.)

This rationale for being an agnostic is ironic, in a way, since the complaint of not being able to combine God’s omnipotence with man’s free will comes from a man who had no problem combining the hitherto incompatible entities of space and time, energy and mass, inertia and gravity, and matter and antimatter. In fact, Einstein was known for trying always to simplify things by combining them, as he sought, although in vain, for his Unified Field Theory. So why someone who spent his whole life combining incompatible things would suddenly stop at the Almighty and free will, especially since God would have a ready answer for his objection, is quite puzzling. Perhaps, with Einstein’s apparent fear of being held responsible for his “deeds and thoughts” and having to face the Almighty’s “reward and punishment,” he is echoing the deepest motives of all men who suppress the evidence of His existence in order to make themselves autonomous.

At another time, Einstein assured his followers that he, indeed, did not believe in a personal God, and, in fact, had no religious leanings other than, perhaps, the “structure of the world.”

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein: The Human Side, eds., Banesh Hoffman and Helen Dukas (Princeton University Press, 1981).

========================================

http://goo.gl/AZl48

1. The Priority Myth
2. "Space-Time", or is it "Time-Space"?
3. "Theory of Relativity" or "Pseudorelativism"?
4. Hero Worship
5. E = mc2
6. Einstein's Modus Operandi
7. History
8. Mileva Einstein-Marity
9. Politics and Anecdotes

ALBERT EINSTEIN

THE INCORRIGIBLE PLAGIARIST

A scholarly documentation of Albert Einstein's plagiarism of the theory of relativity, Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist discloses Einstein's method for manipulating credit for the work of his contemporaries, reprints the prior works he parroted, and demonstrates through formal logical argument that Albert Einstein could not have drawn the conclusions he drew without prior knowledge of the works he copied, but failed to reference. Numerous republished quotations from Einstein's contemporaries prove that they were aware of his plagiarism. The book includes 567 endnotes, countless references and an index.

"As a matter of fact, reading this text should be a must for all people professionally interested in the history of Physics or of Science (for these readers the book, its "polemical" thesis notwithstanding, could become an indispensable tool, packed as it is with information, quotations, meticulous references, etc.), but it is highly recommended even to teachers, scientists of all kinds, philosophers, epistemologists, in general to every person interested in the evolution of human civilization and knowledge." -- Professor Umberto Bartocci in his review ofAlbert Einstein: the Incorrigible Plagiarist.

". . . Albert Einstein the Incorrigible Plagiarist suggests that Einstein had a tendency to incorporate the work of contemporary scientists without properly crediting them, and even offers a body of evidence that his wife, Mileva Einstein-Marity, was the true author of his attributed works. Albert Einstein The Incorrigible Plagiarist is a fascinating, albeit controversial treatise, packed cover to cover with meticulous references to document and support its seemingly outrageous claim." -- Midwest Book Review.

A FEW OF THE QUOTATIONS FOUND IN THE BOOK:

"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

Internet Resources for Mileva Einstein-Marity:

Documentary: Einstein's Wife

Einstein's Wife on amazon.com

M. Maurer, "Weil nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf... 'DIE ELTERN' ODER 'DER VATER' DER RELATIVITÄTSTHEORIE?",PCnews, Nummer 48, Jahrgang 11, Heft 3, Wien, (Juni, 1996), S. 20-27

"In Albert's Shadow: The Life and Letters of Mileva Maric, Einstein's First Wife" by Milan Popovic

"Im Schatten Albert Einsteins" by Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric

"Einstein's Wife: Work and Marriage in the Lives of Five Great Twentieth-Century Women" by Andrea Gabor

Was Einstein's Wife Mileva His Silent Collaborator?

Mileva Maric

Mileva Maric on Wikipedia

Einstein's Plagiarism in the News:

Alex Johnson, "The culture of Einstein", MSNBC, April 18, 2005

"Einstein: un genio del plagio" La Voz de Galicia (Spain), March 15, 2005

"Plagiat d'Einstein: le dossier" Polémia (France), February 26, 2005

"Was Einstein a Plagiarist?" The Register (UK), November 15, 2004

"Albert Einstein accused of stealing his theory of relativity!" Hindustan Times (India), December 1, 2004

"E=M thief squared" The Sun (UK), December 1, 2004

"Einstein da an cap y tuong?" Nguoi lao dong (Vietnam), November 17, 2004

"Lorentz, Poincaré et Einstein" L'Express (France), November 8, 2004

"News: Einstein -- Genius or Plagiarist?" EnergyGrid Magazine (USA), December 5, 2004

"Einstein plagiaire?" Le Nouvel Observateur (France), August 5, 2004

"Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century" Nexus Magazine (Australia), December-January 2004

"Beyond the History of Time" The Hindu (India), September 18, 2003

"A theory of Einstein the irrational plagiarist" The Canberra Times (Australia), September 19, 2002

"Einstein's E=mc2 'was Italian's idea'" The Guardian (UK), November 11, 1999

Special Theory of Relativity, Jules Henri Poincare, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, and Albert Einstein:

Henri Poincare and Relativity Theory by A. A. Logunov, Former Vice-President of the Russian [Soviet] Academy of Sciences, and currently Director of the Institute for High Energy Physics

A. A. Logunov, "Sur la dynamique de l'électron"

LA RELATIVITÉ Poincaré et Einstein, Planck, Hilbert: Histoire véridique de la Théorie de la Relativité by Jules Leveugle

Jules Leveugle's book on Amazon France

Albert Einstein: UN EXTRAORDINAIRE PARADOXE by 1988 Economics Nobel Prize laureate Maurice Allais

Relativistic Theory of Gravity (Horizons in World Physics) by A.A. Logunov

Einstein et Poincaré by Jean-Paul Auffray on Amazon France.

Comment le jeune et ambitieux Einstein s'est approprié la Relativité restreinte de Poincaré by Jean Hladik on Amazon France.

"Henri Poincaré : A decisive contribution to Special Relativity. The short story" by Jacques Fric

Einstein's Clocks, Poincare's Maps: Empires of Time by Peter Louis Galison

"Henri Poincaré: a decisive contribution to Relativity" by Christian Marchal: Word.doc

"Henri Poincaré: a decisive contribution to Relativity" by Christian Marchal: HTML

General Theory of Relativity, Paul Gerber, David Hilbert, Albert Einstein:

F. Winterberg, The Einstein Myth and the Crisis in Modern Physics.

I. McCausland, "Anomalies in the History of Relativity", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 13, Number 2, (1999), pp. 271-290.

The following journal articles discredit Leo Corry, Juergen Renn and John Stachel's baseless and radical historical revisionism:

Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg's paper discrediting Corry, Renn and Stachel's revisionism: "On 'Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute', published by L. Corry, J. Renn, and J. Stachel", Zeitschrift fuer Naturforschung A, Volume 59a, Number 10, (October, 2004), pp. 715-719.

Abstract for Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg's paper discrediting Corry, Renn and Stachel's revisionism.

Table of Contents for Zeitschrift fuer Naturforschung A, Volume 59a.

A. A. Logunov, M. A. Mestvirishvili and V. A. Petrov, "How Were the Hilbert-Einstein Equations Discovered?" Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk, Volume 174, Number 6, (June, 2004), pp. 663-678.

An English translation of A. A. Logunov, M. A. Mestvirishvili and V. A. Petrov, "How Were the Hilbert-Einstein Equations Discovered?" Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk, Volume 174, Number 6, (June, 2004), pp. 663-678.

An alternative English translation was published in the Physics-Uspekhi: A. A. Logunov, M. A. Mestvirishvili and V. A. Petrov, "How Were the Hilbert-Einstein Equations Discovered?" Physics-Uspekhi, Volume 47, Number 6, (June, 2004), pp. 607-621.

T. Sauer, "The Relativity of Discovery: Hilbert's First Note on the Foundations of Physics", Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Volume 53, Number 6, (1999), pp. 529-575.

Leo Corry, Jürgen Renn and John Stachel's 1997 article in Science, which does not mention the mutilation of Hilbert's proofs:

"Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute", Science, Volume 278, (14 November 1997), pp. 1270-1273.

Other Important Links:

The homepage of Prof. Umberto Bartocci

Richard Moody "Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century"

Richard Moody "Albert Einstein--Plagiator" (Polish)

"Was Einstein a Plagiarist?"

"E=mc2 before Einstein" by Paul Marmet

Plagiarism

http://www.members.shaw.ca/andreasohrt/179.02.13.03.html

Kazakhstani scientist Karim Khaidarov

Kazakhstani scientist Nikolai Noskov

Dr. Caroline Thompson

The Priority Myth

Excerpts from Chapter One

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. His wife, 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. . . .

. . . 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). . . ." 48

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 Physik [***] 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

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 formulation 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 Length, 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.'"

. . .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.

. . .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". Here is the work of 1885, which appeared some 23 years before Minkowski's derivative lecture on the same subject:

"Four-Dimensional Space

Possibly the question, What is the fourth dimension? may admit of an indefinite number of answers. I prefer, therefore, in proposing to consider Time as a fourth dimension of our existence, to speak of it as a fourth dimension rather than the fourth dimension. Since this fourth dimension cannot be introduced into space, as commonly understood, we require a new kind of space for its existence, which we may call time-space. There is then no difficulty in conceiving the analogues in this new kind of space, of the things in ordinary space which are known as lines, areas, and solids. A straight line, by moving in any direction not in its own length, generates an area; if this area moves in any direction not in its own plane it generates a solid; but if this solid moves in any direction, it still generates a solid, and nothing more. The reason of this is that we have not supposed it to move in the fourth dimension. If the straight line moves in its own direction, it describes only a straight line; if the area moves in its own plane, it describes only an area; in each case, motion in the dimensions in which the thing exists, gives us only a thing of the same dimensions; and, in order to get a thing of higher dimensions, we must have motion in a new dimension. But, as the idea of motion is only applicable in space of three dimensions, we must replace it by another which is applicable in our fourth dimension of time. Such an idea is that of successive existence. We must, therefore, conceive that there is a new three-dimensional space for each successive instant of time; and, by picturing to ourselves the aggregate formed by the successive positions in time-space of a given solid during a given time, we shall get the idea of a four-dimensional solid, which may be called a sur-solid. It will assist us to get a clearer idea, if we consider a solid which is in a constant state of change, both of magnitude and position; and an example of a solid which satisfies this condition sufficiently well, is afforded by the body of each of us. Let any man picture to himself the aggregate of his own bodily forms from birth to the present time, and he will have a clear idea of a sur-solid in time-space.

Let us now consider the sur-solid formed by the movement, or rather, the successive existence, of a cube in time-space. We are to conceive of the cube, and the whole of the three-dimensional space in which it is situated, as floating away in time-space for a given time; the cube will then have an initial and a final position, and these will be the end boundaries of the sur-solid. It will therefore have sixteen points, namely, the eight points belonging to the initial cube, and the eight belonging to the final cube. The successive positions (in time-space) of each of the eight points of the cube, will form what may be called a time-line; and adding to these the twenty-four edges of the initial and final cubes, we see that the sur-solid has thirty-two lines. The successive positions (in time-space) of each of the twelve edges of the cube, will form what may be called a time area; and, adding these to the twelve faces of the initial and final cubes, we see that the sur-solid has twenty-four areas. Lastly, the successive positions (in time-space) of each of the six faces of the cube, will form what may be called a time-solid; and, adding these to the initial and final cubes, we see that the sur-solid is bounded by eight solids. These results agree with the statements in your article. But it is not permissible to speak of the sur-solid as resting in 'space,' we must rather say that the section of it by any time is a cube resting (or moving) in 'space.' S. March 16"135

"Theory of Relativity" or "Pseudorelativism"?

Excerpts from Chapter Three

"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

. . .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: Des Cartes, 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

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 grounds213) 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, he 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 his 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 of humanity might rest?

E = mc2

Excerpts from Chapter Five

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 across 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--a limiting 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

"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 in 1952, 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

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

"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 coauthored 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 work285 . . . .

Abram Fedorovich Joffe (Ioffe) recounts that the paper was signed "Einstein-Marity". "Marity" is a variant of the Serbian "Maric", Mileva's maiden name. Joffe, who had seen the original 1905 manuscript, is on record as stating,

"For Physics, and especially for the Physics of my generation--that of Einstein's contemporaries, Einstein's entrance into the arena of science is unforgettable. In 1905, three articles appeared in the 'Annalen der Physik', which began three very important branches of 20th Century Physics. Those were the theory of Brownian movement, the theory of the photoelectric effect and the theory of relativity. The author of these articles--an unknown person at that time, was a bureaucrat at the Patent Office in Bern, Einstein-Marity (Marity--the maiden name of his wife, which by Swiss custom is added to the husband's family name)."286. . .

. . . Joffe's statements appeared fifty years after he had read the 1905 papers. It stuck with him all those many years that the papers were indelibly signed "Einstein-Marity". How could Joffe have known that Mileva Maric went by the name of Einstein-Marity, if the name had not appeared on the 1905 papers? Joffe could not have known that Albert went by the name of "Einstein-Marity", because Albert Einstein never did. . .

. . . There is no Swiss custom by which the husband automatically adds his wife's maiden name to his, and even if there were, neither Albert nor Mileva were Swiss. Albert Einstein never signed his name "Einstein-Marity". Swiss law permits the male, the female, or both, to use a double last name, but this must be declared before the marriage, and it was Mileva, not Albert, who opted for the last name "Einstein-Marity". A married person may use the hyphenated "Allianzname" in everyday use, but it was Mileva who went by "Einstein-Marity", not Albert. Albert signed his marriage records simply "Einstein". Mileva's death notice reads "Einstein-Marity".

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 relativity theory?

. . .Mileva and Albert had coauthored papers before299 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?

. . . Serbian women had little chance at fame in those days, other than as ornaments attached to their husbands' arms. Tesla, a Serb born in Croatia, was unfairly treated in the West. What chance did Mileva stand? Albert was cruel to Mileva. Her self-confidence may have been destroyed. Albert once demanded in writing that Mileva obey his cruel and degrading orders, in a letter which can only be described as shocking and revolting.327 If Mileva had hoped that Albert would someday acknowledge her, she was mistaken.

ARGUING ABOUT EINSTEIN-MARITY'S HUSBAND

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

John Stachel's colleague at the Center for Einstein Studies, Boston University, Alberto A. Martinez, has published an article in the April, 2004, issue of Physics World, on page 14, in which he argues that Mileva Maric did not contribute to the Einsteins' 1905 paper on the special theory of relativity. In his article, Martinez published a translation from Abram Joffe's "In Remembrance of Albert Einstein". It was almost word for word the same as my wife's and my English translation found in my book Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, which also reprints the original Russian text. I read Martinez' article and wrote to him about the translation and noted that he had evidently gleaned many facts from my book. I asked him why he did not cite my work.

Martinez wrote back and stated that the long quotation published in his article and that which was earlier published in my book are "virtually identical". From my book of 2002:

"Joffe, who had seen the original 1905 manuscript, is on record as stating,

'For Physics, and especially for the Physics of my generation--that of Einstein's contemporaries, Einstein's entrance into the arena of science is unforgettable. In 1905, three articles appeared in the 'Annalen der Physik', which began three very important branches of 20th Century Physics. Those were the theory of Brownian movement, the theory of the photoelectric effect and the theory of relativity. The author of these articles--an unknown person at that time, was a bureaucrat at the Patent Office in Bern, Einstein-Marity (Marity--the maiden name of his wife, which by Swiss custom is added to the husband's family name).'[1]

'Для физиков же, и в особенности для физиков моего поколения--современников Эйнштейна, незабываемо появление Эйнштейна на арене науки. В 1905 г. в «Анналах физики» появилось три статьи, положившие начало трём наиболее актуальным направлениям физики ХХ века. Это были: теория броуновского движения, фотонная теория света и теория относительности. Автор их--неизвестный до тех пор чиновник патентного бюро в Берне Эйнштейн-Марити (Марити--фамилия его жены, которая по швейцарскому обычаю прибавляется к фамилии мужа).'"[1]

Martinez stated that he read this translation in my book before writing his article. Martinez states that after reading the translation in my book, which also contains the original Russian, he then retranslated the original Russian from the Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk with a pocket English-Russian/Russian-English dictionary to create a literal translation, which he then published in Physics World without an attribution to anyone, believing it to be unique.

In my book, I also transcribed in Russian and translated to English a passage from D. S. Danin's book Neizbezhnost strannogo mira, in which Danin stated that the Einsteins' papers published in the Annalen der Physik in 1905 were signed "Einstein-Marity" or "Einstein-Maric", which quote I initially found in the German writings of the scholar Margarete Maurer, Director of the Rosa Luxemburg Institute in Austria.

Danin wrote,

"The unsuccessful teacher, who, in search of a reasonable income, had become a third class engineering expert in the Swiss Patent Office, this yet completely unknown theoretician in 1905 published three articles in the same volume of the famous 'Annalen der Physik' signed 'Einstein-Marity' (or Maric--which was his first wife's family name)."[2]

"Невезучий школьный учитель, в поисках сносного заработка ставший инженером-экспертом третьего класса в Швейцарском бюро патентов, еще никому не ведомый теоретик опубликовал в 1905 году в одном и том же томе знаменитых «Анналов физики» три статьи за подписью Эйнштейн-Марити (или Марич--это была фамилия его первой жены)."[2]

Martinez learned of this quote and the name of its author in my book. Martinez also learned of Joffe's attempt to visit Albert Einstein in Zurich, which resulted in Joffe's meeting Mileva Einstein-Marity, from my book. In my book, I not only quote Joffe's story from his book Vstrechi s fizikami; moi vospominaniia o zarubezhnykh fizikakh, I posit the notion that this was the event where Joffe learned that Mileva Maric went by the hyphenated last name of "Einstein-Marity", a thought echoed in Dr. Martinez' article.

I am sincerely delighted that my book was so helpful to Dr. Martinez in forming the majority of his arguments and I am trying to maintain my sense of humor in all of this. It is really quite funny that John Stachel's critique of my book is directly contradicted by the fact that a research fellow under his directorship at the Center for Einstein Studies at Boston University learned so much from my book Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist.

While gleaning facts from my book, Martinez evidently elected to not mention Joffe's statement that Mileva had said that Albert, "according to his own words", was just a patent clerk and had no serious thoughts about science or experiments. Abram Joffe did not title his obituary "In Remembrance of Albert Einstein-Marity", but rather "In Remembrance of Albert Einstein" and Martinez cannot so easily dismiss Joffe's extraordinary pronouncement that the author of the 1905 papers was "Einstein-Marity", which Allianzname Joffe does not use in other contexts, and which Albert Einstein is not known to have used, though it is well established that Mileva Maric went by this name.

Martinez claims that Albert's 27 March 1901 letter to Mileva Maric, which makes reference to their collaborative work on relative motion, could not have related to work leading to the publication of the theory of relativity. I disagree. This letter from Albert to Mileva came between two relevant others; one circa 10 August 1899, in which Albert discusses the electrodynamics of moving bodies in "empty space"; and another dated 28 December 1901, in which Albert pleads with Mileva to agree to a collaboration in marriage on their scientific work. Albert's plea of 1901 is made in the express context of Lorentz' and Drude's writings on the "electrodynamics of moving bodies"--which is the very title of the Einsteins' 1905 paper on the theory of relativity.

After the publication of the 1905 article, Albert Einstein repeatedly stated that he had taken the light postulate of special relativity from Lorentz' theory, and professed that the Lorentz transformation is the "real basis" of the special theory of relativity. Lorentz had published the Lorentz transformation in near modern form in 1899. Drude featured Lorentz' theories in Drude's famous book of 1900, Lehrbuch der Optik (The Theory of Optics). The path to the special theory of relativity was paved by Voigt, FitzGerald, Larmor and Lorentz, among others, and Poincare published the modern form of the theory before the Einsteins and Minkowski. Prof. Anatoly Alexeivich Logunov, former Vice President of the Russian [Soviet] Academy of Sciences and currently Director of the Institute for High Energy Physics, has proven the priority and the superiority of Poincare's formulation of the special theory of relativity over the Einsteins' later and less sophisticated work.[3] Poincare pioneered the concept of synchronizing clocks with light signals in his articles and lectures La Mesure du Temps (1898), La Theorie de Lorentz at le Principe de Reaction (1900) and The Principles of Mathematical Physics (1904). The Einsteins copied this method without giving Poincare credit for the innovation. Poincare stated the principle of relativity in 1895, and in 1905 stated the group properties of the Lorentz Transformation. It was Poincare, not the Einsteins, who introduced four-dimensional space-time into the theory of relativity. At first, Albert Einstein did not approve of the idea. The Einsteins learned the formula E = mc^2 from Poincare's 1900 paper. Martinez' fiction of an abrupt formulation of the special theory of relativity by Albert Einstein in 1905 does not agree with the historic record.

Martinez mentions "early biographies of Einstein." One such biographical sketch is that by Alexander Moszkowski, who stated in his book of 1921, Einstein, the Searcher: His Work Explained from Dialogues with Einstein,

"[Einstein] found consolation in the fact that he preserved a certain independence, which meant the more to him as his instinct for freedom led him to discover the essential things in himself. Thus, earlier, too, during his studies at Zuerich he had carried on his work in theoretical physics at home, almost entirely apart from the lectures at the Polytechnic plunging himself into the writings of Kirchhoff, Helmholtz, Hertz, Boltzmann, and Drude. Disregarding chronological order, we must here mention that he found a partner in these studies who was working in a similar direction, a Southern Slavonic student, whom he married in the year 1903. This union was dissolved after a number of years. Later he found the ideal of domestic happiness at the side of a woman whose grace is matched by her intelligence, Else Einstein, his cousin, whom he married in Berlin."

In fact, Albert Einstein relied upon collaborators and often failed to give them adequate credit for their work. On 3 April 1921,The New York Times quoted Chaim Weizmann,

"When [Einstein] was called 'a poet in science' the definition was a good one. He seems more an intuitive physicist, however. He is not an experimental physicist, and although he is able to detect fallacies in the conceptions of physical science, he must turn his general outlines of theory over to some one else to work out."

Little is left of Martinez' argument to refute, other than his false proclamation that there is no evidence that Mileva contributed substantively to the papers published under Albert's name. Since the Einsteins are known to have engaged in a working partnership--since they, themselves, discussed their partnership, and since we have an eyewitness account that the 1905 papers were authored by "Einstein-Marity", the burden of proving that Mileva played no substantive role in the production of the works lies with Dr. Martinez. He has failed to meet that burden. Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric, Dord Krstic, Senta Troemel-Ploetz, Evan Harris Walker, Margarete Maurer and I, among others, have accumulated abundant evidence; and Dr. Martinez is free to pretend otherwise, but he will not convince anyone knowledgeable of the facts.

____________

NOTES:

1. A. F. Joffe (also: Ioffe), "In Remembrance of Albert Einstein", Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk, Volume 57, Number 2, (1955), p. 187. А. Ф. Иоффе, Памяти Алъберта Эйнштейна, Успехи физических наук, срт. 57, 2, (1955), стр. 187. Special thanks to my wife, Kristina, for her assistance in the translation. I initially found this reference in Pais' work of 1994, and he credited Robert Schulmann with it, but did not give a date. I later discovered that Evan Harris Walker had cited it in "Mileva Maric's Relativistic Role", Physics Today, Volume 44, Number 2, (1991), pp. 122-124, at 123.

2. D. S. Danin, Neizbezhnost Strannogo Mira, Molodaia Gvardiia, Moscow, (1962), p. 57. Д. Данин, Неизбежность странного мира, Молодая Гвардия, Москва, (1962), стр. 57. I became aware of this quotation through the work ofMargarete Maurer. Her papers include: "Weil nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf. . . 'DIE ELTERN' ODER 'DER VATER' DER RELATIVITÄTSTHEORIE? Zum Streit über den Anteil von Mileva Maric an der Entstehung der Relativitätstheorie", PCnews, Number 48 (Nummer 48), Volume 11 (Jahrgang 11), Part 3 (Heft 3), Vienna, (June, 1996), pp. 20-27; reprinted from Dokumentation des 18. Bundesweiten Kongresses von Frauen in Naturwissenschaft und Technik vom 28.-31, Birgit Kanngießer, Bremen, (May, 1992), pp. 276-295; an earlier version appeared, co-authored by P. Seibert, Wechselwirkung, Volume 14, Number 54, Aachen, (April, 1992), pp. 50-52 (Part 1); Volume 14, Number 55, (June, 1992), pp. 51-53 (Part 2).

3. A. A. Logunov, Henri Poincare i TEORIA OTNOSITELNOSTI, Nauka, Moscow, (2004); А. А. Логунов, Анри Пуанкаре и ТЕОРИЯ ОТНОСИТЕЛЬНОСТИ, Наука, Москва, (2004). An English translation of this book will soon appear as: Henri Poincare and the Theory of Relativity. A preprint of the English translation is available online.

Christopher Jon Bjerknes. Copyright 2002, 2003, 2004. All Rights Reserved.

Politics and Anecdotes

Excerpts from Chapter Nine

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 is used 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 a 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 for every scientific advancement and theory from the time of Newton up until Einstein's death. Does Einstein deserve that credit?

Of course he does NOT, he was a fraud and has done more to hold back humanity as his Jesuit crypto-Jew cohorts Hitler, Goebbels, Darwin, all in the employ of the Crime Family Rothschild, literally the Jewish Supremacist Pharisaical Rabbinate of the Synagogue of Satan Itself: http://goo.gl/vfbvhu

CHRONOLOGICAL ACCOUNT: https://youtube.com/watch?v=XuzkLbHb1Q8&list=PL21DC68AB7241DA23

VIDEOs:  

*A. EINSTEIN’s RELATIVITY FRAUD>* https://youtube.com/watch?v=O9d7bNQsJDQ&list=PLYcAzRlMyIBYDhZ_7sRy0ORg3IldtqGv9

*B. EINSTEIN=SOCIOPATH>* https://youtube.com/watch?v=kaqcKqYCEkM&list=PLYcAzRlMyIBYDhZ_7sRy0ORg3IldtqGv9

A> G-D & Einstein: http://youtube.com/watch?v=-A4q8KLhMwQ&list=PL81DD1DA3463A7858

B> Socio/Psychopathy: http://youtube.com/watch?v=xAMOpTo6OYQ&list=PL21DC68AB7241DA23

C> Einstein Cad, Fraud Lunatic: http://youtube.com/watch?v=UxzbPY4HCFw&list=PL21DC68AB7241DA23

D> Tesla Debunks JESUIT EINSTEIN: http://youtube.com/watch?v=RwxhD4CjdB4&list=PL21DC68AB7241DA23

Of course there are many more…

Be well dear Friends in Jesus Always !