Make your own free website on



                                             Albert Einstein:
                         The Corruption of the Physics Community

                                                                               by Richard Moody Jr.

Table of Contents
Special Relativity
Cosmologic Constant
Superluminal Light
The Eclipse Of 1919
Summary and Conclusions
National Security



    Proponents of Einstein have acted in a way that appears to corrupt the historical record. Albert Einstein, Time Magazine’s Person of the Century, wrote a long treatise on the special theory of relativity (It was actually called, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”), without listing any references. Many of the key ideas were known to Lorentz (like the Lorentz transformation) and Poincare before Einstein wrote the famous 1905 paper. As is typical of Einstein---he did not discover theories, he merely commandeered them. For instance the cloud of plagiarism hovers over Einstein with respect to the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, the structure of the electron, general relativity and E=mc2. Time will tell if this cloud is removed.

    Einstein’s assertion that the speed of light is a limit appears to be incorrect; velocities beyond the speed of light have been measured on several occasions. This speaks directly to the soundness of special relativity because, according to Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, “Thus, when v=c, W becomes infinite. Velocities greater than that of light have---as in our previous results---no possibility of existence.”

    Einstein is the holder of the extremely rare distinction of going on the record to swear he was wrong when he later turned out to be right (Cosmologic Constant and its aftermath). Any scientist who could make an error in judgment this all encompassing must be considered vulnerable in other areas. Einstein’s handling of the cosmologic constant speaks directly to his competence as a scientist.

    The eclipse of 1919 which supposedly supported Einstein’s general theory of relativity is the biggest hoax in science in the 20th century. Eddington’s lavish support of Einstein is a complete fabrication of history. Eddington was in no way interested in testing a theory, he was only interested in the coronation of the king of science, Einstein.

    Autodynamics is a new paradigm that is slated to replace special relativity and general relativity. It is amazingly simple to understand due to its removal of one of the two observers required in special relativity. The equations for nuclear decay are clear and obvious and need no crutch to survive; this stands in sharp contrast to special relativity.

    The despicable track record of the physics community with respect to cold fusion, particularly Parks, is a symbol of how far physics has sunk since Newton. No longer the champion of new ideas and new theories, the physics community seems mired in the past.

    The physics community has engaged in massive fraud, conspiracy, perjury and racketeering. This is the byproduct of hyperinflation of Einstein’s record and reputation. The only way this cover-up could survive is with the complicity of thousands of physicists.


    Science by its very nature is insular. In general, chemists read and write about chemistry, biologists read and write about biology, and physicists read and write about physics. But they may all be competing for the same research dollar (in its broadest sense). Thus, if scientists wanted more money for themselves, they might decide to compete unfairly. The way they can do this is convince the funding agencies that they are more important than any other branch of science. If the funding agencies agree, it could spell difficulty for the remaining sciences. One way to get more money is to create a superhero, a superhero like Einstein. Einstein is the product of the physics community, his followers, and the media. Each institution benefited enormously by elevating Einstein to Icon status. The physics community makes billions in research grants, his supporters are handsomely rewarded and the media, like Time Magazine, get to sell millions of copies of their magazine by placing Einstein on the cover as Person of the Century. When the scandal breaks, these three institutions will reap their just rewards. The physics community obviously believes they can obfuscate i.e. downplay the negative news and put a positive spin on it. Where this falls apart is with On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. This document will stand as the consummate act of plagiarism in the 20th Century.

    The level of contempt that the physics community has shown America is incredible. They would have you believe that they can say and do anything but not be held accountable for their actions. A critical assumption they have made is that no one other than a physicist is capable of reading physics. Thus as long as their leaders can keep the charges happy and ignorant, their conspiracy can go undetected for ages. What they had not counted on was the Internet and its ability to toss ideas out to the four corners to interested parties and the ability of scientists to react to the information so provided. For this, Phil Holland and Raeto West are to be commended.
When the American public realizes just how much the physics community has lied to them, there will be hell to pay when the scandal breaks. When prospective jurors try cases involving the physics community, the arrogance of the physics community will come back to haunt them.

    We need to know the true story of Brownian motion, the photoelectric effect, the structure of the electron and general relativity. How much did Einstein purloin?

Special Relativity 

    Jules Henri Poincare (1854-1912) was a great man. His ideas were recycled by Einstein and he was doing state-of-the-art work in physics, mathematics, and philosophy. In the last field he is featured in. philosophy, A Timeline of Western Philosophers, by Garth Kemerling in an Internet article dated 1997, 1998, 1999. He is only 1 of 500 philosophers featured on that timeline in the past 2600 years. In math, he is one of the top 26 mathematicians in the past 2600 years (see: Famous Mathematicians on the Internet). Even Einstein recognized Poincare’s superiority as “thinker and author” (Einstein’s Reply to Criticisms in relation to Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics: The Library of Living Philosophers Series, 1949).

    For Poincare to fade into obscurity requires the cooperation of thousands of physicists. What did he contribute to the special theory of relativity? While the Internet is, at best, an uncertain source of material, the following site on Poincare is interesting: 1)... “he sketched a preliminary version of the special theory of relativity”, 2)he stated the velocity of light is a limit factor (In his 1904 paper from the Bull. of Sci. Math. 28, Poincare indicated, “...a whole new mechanics, where, the inertia increasing with the velocity of light would become a limit and not be exceeded.”), 3)he suggested that mass depends on speed, 4)He formulated the principle of mechanical or electromagnetic experiment can discriminate between a state of uniform motion or one at rest, 5)...”he derived the Lorentz transformations”. It is evident is how deeply involved with special relativity he was and even Keswani was prompted to say that, “As far back as 1895, Poincare, the innovator, had conjectured that it is impossible to detect absolute motion.” “In 1900, he introduced ‘the principle of relative motion’ which he later called by the equivalent terms ‘The law of relativity’ and ‘The principle of relativity’ in his book Science and Hypothesis published in 1902.” Einstein professed ignorance of any of this when he wrote his paper in 1905. Apparently Einstein did no research for his 1905 paper.

    Other scientists have not been quite as impressed with ‘Einstein’s’ special theory of relativity, as the public. “Another curious feature of the now famous paper, Einstein, 1905, is the absence of any reference to Poincare or anyone else”: As Max Born says, “It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true” (Born, 1956). It could be argued that not even Einstein viewed himself as the Father of Relativity. In the book, “Einstein The Life and Times, by Ronald W. Clark, the following paper appears in the Bibliography, “The Principle of Relativity, A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory of Relativity”, New York, 1952, p.792. What is surprising is the authorship: Lorentz, H.A., Einstein, A.,Weyl, H., and Minkowski. Note that Einstein is second author behind Lorentz who was a Nobel Laureate in 1902. This suggests that even Einstein was willing to defer probable origin of the theory of special relativity to Lorentz. When you add to the origin of these theories, Poincare, a more appropriate authorship of “Einstein‘s” Theory of Relativity, would be the relativity theory of Poincare and Lorentz as noted by G. Burniston Brown, What is Wrong with Relativity, “It will be seen that, contrary to popular belief, Einstein played only a minor part in the derivation of the useful formulae in the restricted or special theory of relativity and Whittaker called it the relativity theory of Poincare and Lorentz..” You would tend to think that due to the fact that Einstein’s special theory of relativity was known in some circles as the relativity theory of Poincare and Lorentz, that Poincare and Lorentz might have had something to do with its creation. What is incredible about the Einstein Paper is that Poincare was the world’s leading expert on relativity and apparently, Einstein had never heard of him or thought that he had done anything worth referencing. It also seems odd that Einstein would be second author on a compilation of papers on the theories of general and special relativity when Einstein is supposedly the progenitor. What Einstein is effectively saying to the world when he agreed to a second authorship, was that he had renounced any claim to being the primary inventor of special relativity. Yet, by strange coincidence, the man who is intimately associated with the theory of special relativity, Lorentz, is first author. Lorentz probably would never have believed that Einstein would wind up owning relativity. Einstein’s followers have outlived the followers of Poincare and Lorenz.

    Here are some concrete first order references as to Poincare’s contributions:

    “From all these results, if they are confirmed, would arise an entirely new mechanics, would be, above all, characterized by this fact, that no velocity could surpass that of light, any more than any temperature would fall below the zero absolute, because bodies would oppose an increasing inertia to the causes, which would tend to accelerate their motion; and this inertia would become infinite when one approached the velocity of light.  No more for an observer carried along himself in a translation he did not suspect could any apparent velocity surpass that of light: and this would be then a contradiction, if we recall that this observer would not use the same clocks as a fixed observer, but, indeed. clocks marking ‘local time’”. Poincare, The Principle of Mathematical Physics (From an address delivered before the International Congress of Arts and Sciences, St. Louis, September, 1904.)

    It is now time to speak directly to the issue of what Einstein was: He was first and foremost a plagiarist who had no qualms about stealing the work of others and submitting it with little revision as his own. That this was deliberate is incredibly obvious: Take this passage from Ronald W. Clark, Einstein The Life and Times, Avon Books, New York, 878 pages (You will not find any references to Poincare here, just a few meaningless quotes). This is how p.101 reads: “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” “ is in many ways one of the most remarkable scientific papers that had ever been written. Even in form and style it was unusual, lacking the notes and references which give weight to most serious expositions...” (emphasis added). Why would Einstein with his training as a patent clerk not recognize the absolute imperative need to thoroughly reference his article on special relativity? What is incredible about Einstein is that as a neophyte, you would think that he would over-reference rather than under-reference. To suggest as some (Jack Good, Mensa Bulletin, April May, 2001, p.4) that this was due to “youthful indiscretion” is belied by the fact that Einstein was 26 at the time of his plagiarism. Would we still speak of youthful indiscretion at 50? Another reader in the same journal said that Einstein “borrowed, shamefully” (Brian Wells, Mensa Bull. April/May 2001, p.5). Oh, is this like borrowing a cup of sugar that Einstein intended to return a day later? Or, was it more like stealing? He completely ignored the leading expert on relativity when he wrote On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.

    Wouldn’t you expect somewhat higher standards from an editor when faced with a long manuscript that had obviously not been researched. Apparently there was no attempt at quality control when it was published in Annalen der Physik. Most competent editors would have rejected the paper without even reading it. Failing that, at a bare minimum, you would have expected them to research the literature to see if the fantastic nature of Einstein’s claim of primacy was correct. Consider the writings of Max Born, Physics in My Generation. He states, “The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous literature.” (emphasis added). Look how important is to Born that there are no references. He is clearly indicating that this is abnormal and that even by early 20th Century standards that this is most peculiar, even unprofessional. “It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course as I have already tried to explain, not true.” We have Einstein’s own testimony. At this point Born quotes a reference to “Dr. Carl Seelig, who has published a most charming book on Einstein und die Schweiz asked Einstein which scientific literature had contributed most to his ideas on relativity...”. Einstein replied, in the journal, Technische Rundschau, “Concerning myself, I knew only Lorentz’s important work of 1895 (the two papers quoted in the German text) but not Lorentz’s later work, nor the consequent investigations of Poincare.” (emphasis added). At this point, why didn’t someone ask Einstein, “It is obvious that you knew about the 1895 paper prior to 1905, why didn’t you reference it in your 1905 paper?” Einstein mentions in his footnotes to On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies the fact that, “The preceding memoir by Lorentz was not at this time known to the author.” (This is interesting. Einstein claims that he hadn’t read the work of Poincare, but his 1905 paper suggests otherwise. Look carefully at what Einstein put in quotes in the paper and then decide for yourself whether Einstein knew of the work of Poincare.) Well he obviously knew about it now, why didn’t he reference it? “The equations of the Lorentz transformation...”. Why didn’t he reference the Lorentz transformations since he obviously knew about them? Einstein just acknowledged an incredible level of duplicity or ignorance about the basics of publication. Did he really have a doctorate and not know how to reference a paper? Was he a patent clerk but didn’t know how to do research or reference a document? This possibility is so implausible it defies belief. We must conclude that Einstein was more intent on making a name for himself instead of doing honest research and publication.

    Poincare published 30 books and over 500 papers in philosophy, mathematics and physics. Einstein wrote in mathematics, physics and philosophy, but Einstein claimed he never read Poincare’s contributions to physics. This is on a par with an English Major never having heard of Shakespeare. This establishes one of two things: Either Einstein was incredibly ignorant or he was duplicitous. What makes you wonder is that many of Poincare’s ideas like the speed of light is a limit and that mass increases with speed wound up in Einstein’s paper, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”. This is about on a par with an English major writing sonnets, who, by strange coincidence wrote sonnets remarkably similar to ones written by Shakespeare.

    At the time of his plagiarism, Einstein knew how important the work of Lorentz was. If he were cross-examined today to determine whether he was a plagiarist, much of the discussion would center around the phrase deliberate or premeditated ignorance. It appears that in view of Einstein’s background as a patent clerk, Einstein had to have known how to do research yet he missed a rich history of special relativity that would have rendered his paper on special relativity, trivial.

    Folks, what Einstein did is about as obvious an example of plagiarism as you can demonstrate. What Einstein did was provide a blueprint for plagiarism. Einstein’s act of stealing almost the entire body of literature by Lorentz and Poincare to write his ill-conceived document raises the bar for plagiarism. Probably no other author will be able to publish in a supposedly reputable journal this kind of swill. In other words, either Einstein provided 100% new material or he was automatically a plagiarist. The reason: As soon as Einstein presented any material that was not his, he was committing plagiarism. Incidental plagiarism is routine i.e. we all, on occasion, forget someone in our research either because we get careless or don’t have ready access to some literature. This is not the case with Einstein. He was a deliberate, premeditated first degree plagiarist. For that, he is and was despicable. Ignorance is no defense against a charge of plagiarism. If it were, countless scientists would stop researching papers and just shoot from the hip. However, a minuscule number of reputable editors would publish such balderdash. Few scientists seem to be aware of this in the physics community. Here is the definition of to plagiarize from an unimpeachable source, Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, 1947, p.1878. It gives the following definition:

    “To steal or purloin and pass off as one’s own (the ideas, words, artistic productions, etc. of one another); to use without due credit the ideas, expressions, or productions of another. To commit plagiarism.” (emphasis added).

    Isn’t this exactly what Einstein did?

    The key element of to plagiarize is to give “due credit”. This contains two components, timely and appropriate. Suppose you owe a credit card company a minimum payment of $50 on September 1. If you send them a check for $15 on September 15, will they regard this as timely and appropriate credit? Telling the world
that Lorentz provided the basis for special relativity 30 years after the fact is not timely (see below) i.e., it is not due credit.

    The true nature of Einstein’s plagiarism is set forth in his 1935 paper, Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy in which he states, “The question as to the independence of those relations is a natural one because the Lorentz transformation, the real basis of the special relativity theory...”. (emphasis added) What more needs to be said? This is the smoking howitzer. Einstein acknowledged that the Lorentz transformation was the real basis of his paper and that this made him a plagiarist. Anyone who doubts this should ask one simple question, “What did Einstein know and when did he know it?”. Again, it must be emphasized that Einstein didn’t have to read anything to be a plagiarist. Deliberate ignorance is no defense against a charge of plagiarism.
What Einstein did in his paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies in interesting. Instead of references Einstein used quotation marks. On page 37 we see, “light medium”. Could this be a reference to the Michelson-Morley experiment? Only Einstein knew. On page 38 we see, “Principle of Relativity”. Is this some vague reference to Poincare? He then states, “luminiferous ether”. Who or what is Einstein talking about here? Then there is “absolutely stationary space”. Is this Poincare again? It’s anybody’s guess. We call it the “stationary system”. Is this part of the paper or a reference to Poincare? So is Einstein engaging in some half-assed referencing system or is it something else? Can we assume that Einstein had indeed read the work of Poincare?
One indication just how much the physics community demonstrates its complete lack of candor with Americans is the following statement in a paper by G. Burniston Brown called What is Wrong with Relativity? (Bulletin of the Institute of Physics and the Physical Society, pp.71-77, March 1967), “There were other disturbing features: the fact that Einstein never wrote a definitive account of his theory; that his first derivation of the Lorentz transformation equations contained velocities of light of (c-v)2 and (c+v)2 and (c2-v2)1/2 to, quite contrary to his second postulate that the velocity of light was independent of the motion of the source; and that his first attempt to prove the formula E=mc2 , suggested by Poincare, was fallacious because he assumed what he wanted to prove, as was shown by Ives (Ives, 1952).” (emphasis added). Very few people in the physics community seem to find it at all important that the single most recognizable equation in human history may be attributed to the wrong man! Brown (ibid) now makes the following statement, “Thus gradually arose the formula E=moc2, suggested without general proof by Poincare in 1900.” One of the most important principles in science is one my father either heard or originated---Concept must precede the mathematics. It was Poincare’s brilliant insight, or, even earlier, the insight of Fitzgerald and Lorentz, the intuitive thunderbolt, E=moc2 which was the primary contribution to this formulae, not Einstein’s proof which is backfilling behind a brilliant insight. Stated another way, without Fitzgerald, Lorentz and Poincare it is highly probable that the discovery and derivation of E=moc2 would have taken decades longer.

Cosmologic Constant

    While a charge of plagiarism would seem overwhelming, what is remarkable is that Einstein’s deficiencies as a “scientist” might be equally appalling. In an article called, “Einstein’s ‘Mistake’ is Revived”, 1999, in Physical Review, Focus, we are told that, “Astronomers now say that the Universe is not only expanding, but the expansion is accelerating with time.” According to Glanz Cosmology: Astronomers see a Cosmic Antigravity Force at Work, Science, 2-27-98: “But as team member Alexei Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley, announced at a meeting near Los Angeles last week, the dimness of the supernovae--pointing to unexpectedly great distances--implies that cosmic expansion has actually sped up in the billions of years since the stars exploded.” Obviously, this is the opposite of what a gravity-driven universe should exhibit which means that the force of expansion continues to be increasing, in effect, nullifying the effect of gravity. What is remarkable is that Einstein came up with the idea of the Cosmologic Constant at a time when the universe was believed static and he couldn’t explain why the universe just didn’t collapse, so he invoked an antigravitational ad hoc force to allow for a static universe. His thought his problem was solved, however, when astronomers discovered that the universe was expanding i.e. there was no longer the need to describe a static universe. What he didn’t realize is that no matter whether the universe is expanding, contracting or static, antigravity is possible in all three scenarios! Einstein couldn’t drop “...the Cosmologic Constant, a term first invoked by Einstein in 1917...” the Cosmologic Constant fast enough: He recanted, (“ greatest blunder....”) Revved-up Universe, Science News. What is amazing is that the Cosmologic Constant is being resurrected as evidence of antigravity running the universe. So Einstein went on the record to swear he was wrong when he might be right. This has to be an example of the about the worst judgment in the history of science.

    What is remarkable about Einstein’s decision to drop the Cosmologic Constant is that it is wildly inconsistent. Consider: If a static universe requires antigravity, wouldn’t you believe that an expanding universe would be more likely to be run by antigravity?

    Wouldn’t you expect that the Person of the Century, Albert Einstein, be flawless in thought, conception and execution? He apparently plagiarized most of the special theory of relativity and he couldn’t quite get a handle on the Cosmologic Constant, his greatest discovery that he recanted on when he was right. This would be a nightmare and a disaster for almost any other scientist, yet when it happens to Einstein, everyone looks the other way. His nickname should be "wrong way" Einstein. Perhaps when Einstein’s father gave him a compass, he gave it to him with the north and south reversed so Einstein could find his way home.

    Who had access to Time Magazine when they ‘researched’ Einstein? Were they aware of all the negative information or just the feel good stuff? It appears that no one in the upper echelons of the physics community felt it necessary or desirable to provide the truth about Einstein’s true nature to Time Magazine. It is clear that Einstein has displaced thousands of reputable scientists. Consider the magnitude of the error with respect to the cosmologic constant: It is on a par with Watson and Crick discovering the structure of DNA, and, then because of someone else disputing their claim, going on the record to proclaim DNA to be, “the worst mistake of their career” which is exactly what Einstein did. Now imagine what would have happened 10 years later if Linus Pauling had picked up the torch and rediscovered and proved the double helix was correct. What would we say about Watson and Crick? That they had “famously abandoned” the double helix? Or that they had made the worst mistake of their career?

    Is antigravity proven? The verdict is not yet in, but the data suggests it. Specifically, if there is no countervailing proof that the data could be due to other causes (bear in mind that every data set has multiple explanations); what makes one theory superior to another is not whether it is consistent with one data set but with all critical data sets. In other words a theory that is 99% consistent with the data may not be superior to another that only fits 75% of the data if the one with 99% consistency doesn’t jibe with the absolutely critical remaining 1%. For now the data looks interesting.

Superluminal Light 

    A concrete prediction of superluminal or faster than light travel was presented by Ricardo Carezani. In this theory of autodynamics, faster that light travel is permitted but was clearly excluded by Poincare and later by Einstein when developing special relativity. Now it is clear that superluminal light is here to stay. See, for example, Walker, Experimental Evidence of Near-field Superluminaly Propagating Electromagnetic Fields, Physics Abstract, Internet, 2000, Nelson, When Light is Faster Than Light, Newsday, 07-20-2000, NEC Succeeds in Superluminal Light Propagation, Company press release, 2000, Devlin, Interview: Keith Devlin discusses recent attempts to go faster than the speed of light, Weekend Edition-Saturday Night (NPR), Derbyshire, News: Scientists shed light on laws of relativity, The Daily Telegraph, “In his theory of special relativity, Einstein said nothing travels faster that the speed of light.” (emphasis added), Science Correspondent, 07-20-2000 (The apologists are saying that information cannot travel beyond the speed of light. That may be true, but it is not stated or implied in Einstein’s paper on special relativity. Simply put, it is always possible to change a false statement into a true statement e.g. suppose Einstein had said that Black is White. Suppose that someone comes along and says, “If we change Black is White to Black is Black and White is White, we have a true statement.” This is what the apologists for Einstein are doing.

    Perhaps the most important observation here is that Dr. Carezani anticipated the results instead of just reacting to them. In a nutshell, if proven correct i.e. that travel beyond the speed of light is possible, then the theory of special relativity is dead.

The Eclipse of 1919

    There can be no more clear definition of hoax than what went on in the Tropics back in May 29, 1919. What is particularly clear is that it is probable that Eddington fudged the data to make it conform to Einstein’s work on general relativity. Let us address the issues set forth by G. Burniston Brown in What is wrong with relativity, also the highly detailed work by Paul Marmet called, “Appendix II The Deflection of Light by the Sun’s Gravitational Field: An Analysis of the 1919 Solar Eclipse Expeditions” Internet article, the equally detailed work of P. Marnet and C. Couture called, “Relativistic Deflection of Light Near the Sun Using Radio Signals and Visible Light”, The Deflection of Light As Observed At Total Solar Eclipses by Charles Lane Poor, the Infinite Energy article The Eternally Valid Concepts in Einstein’s Work, by Domina Eberle Spencer, and the Infinite Energy article Anomalies in the History of Relativity by Ian McCausland.

    What makes the expeditions to Sobral and Principe so suspect is Eddington’s rabid support of Einstein, “By standing foremost in testing, and ultimately verifying ,,,”, (emphasis added) Clark, Einstein The Life and Times, p.284. Apparently Eddington was not familiar with the basic tenets of science. His job was to collect data, not verify Einstein’s theories. Further evidence of the utter fraud that went on here can be deduced from Eddington’s own statements, and the introduction to them provided by Clark, ibid, p. 285, “May 29 began with heavy rain, which stopped only about noon. Not until 1:30 p.m. when the eclipse had already begun. did the party get its first glimpse of the sun, ‘We had to carry out our programmer of photographs on faith...’” (emphasis added). Eddington reveals his true prejudice; he was willing to do anything to see that Einstein was proven right. Eddington was not to be deterred, “It looked as though the effort, so far as the Principe expedition was concerned might have been abortive.” “We developed the photographs, two each night for six nights after the eclipse. (Eddington)...”The cloudy weather upset my plans and I had to treat the measures in a different way from what I intended, consequently I have not been able to make any preliminary announcement of the result.(emphasis added) Actually Eddington’s words speak volumes about the result. As soon as he found one shred of evidence that was consistent with Einstein’s general theory of relativity, he immediately proclaimed it proof of the theory. Is this any way to do science?

    The work of Poor is particularly disturbing for an ethical scientist. First, his summary from J. Opt. Soc. Amer (173-211), “The mathematical formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75 seconds for light rays passing the edge of the sum, is a well known and simple formula of physical optics”. “Not a single of the fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space, of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way involved in Einstein’s prediction of, or formulas for the deflection of light (emphasis added). “The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore, been given a fictitious important. Their results can neither prove nor disprove the relativity theory...”. (emphasis added)

    From Brown we learn that Eddington couldn’t wait to get out to the world community that Einstein’s theory was confirmed. What Eddington based this on was a premature assessment of the photographic plates. Initially, stars did “appear” to bend as they should as required by Einstein, but then, according to Brown, the unexpected happened; several stars were then observed to bend in a direction transverse to the expected direction and still others bent in a direction opposite to that predicted by relativity (Brown). The utter absurdity of the data collected during the eclipse of 1919 was demonstrated by Poor (1930) who pointed out that 85% of the data was discarded from the South American eclipse due to “accidental error” i.e. it contradicted Einstein’s scale constant. By a strange coincidence, the 15% of the “good” data was consistent with the Einstein’s scale constant. Somehow, the stars that did not conform to Einstein’s theories conveniently got temporarily shelved and the myth began. “The first (from Sobral) were disappointing. Then came the main set of seven. They gave a final verdict...”---Eddington---, “definitely confirming Einstein’s value of the deflection, in agreement with the results from Principe.” from Clark, Einstein the Life and Times p. 287. How is it possible to render a final verdict when only 15% of the data is used?

    Even to this date, the discredited experiment by Eddington is still quoted as gospel by some writers (see David Levy in Parade Magazine, Summer of 2000). The real question though is, “Where was Einstein in all this?” Surely, he must have known of the work of Poor. Why didn’t he go on the record and address a paper that directly contradicted his work? How much have the followers of Einstein tried to set the record straight with respect to the bogus data of 1919 and 1922?

    What makes this so suspicious is that neither the instrumentation nor the physical conditions were conducive to make these measurements of such great precision i.e. on a good day with everything perfect as far as instruments and the weather both on earth and on the sun. For example, just the difference in temperature between day and night that day was way beyond the 10 degrees (75-97 degrees) that was the upper limit of range of permissible temperatures for the instruments. Add to this severe limitations imposed by the crude (compared to modern instruments) nature of the 4” object glass and the astrographic and the reliability of this primitive equipment. It appears that Eddington was claiming precisions of .02” of an arc when a more realistic precision due to the turbulence in the earth’s atmosphere was 2-3’’ arc (Marmet). McCausland quoting the Editor of Nature, “They (Crommelin and Eddington) were bent on measuring the deflection of light...” (emphasis added) “What is not so well documented is that the measurements in 1919 were not particularly accurate.” “In spite of the fact that experimental evidence for relativity seems to have been very flimsy in 1919...” (McCausland)

    Here are some additional comments by people who have studied the whole question of the reliability of the 1919 expedition. Marmet and Couture (ibid.) state, “This paper shows how all the experiments claiming the deflection of light and radio waves by the Sun are subjected to very large systematic errors, which render the results highly unreliable and apparently incorrect. Another comment, “Rare is the night (at most sites) when any telescope, no matter how large its aperture or perfect its optics, can resolve details finer than 1 arc second. More typical at ordinary locations is 2- or 3-arc-second seeing or worse.” (MacRobert). “The problem becomes even worse during the afternoon due to the heat of the ground.” (Marmet). “The error caused by the atmospheric turbulence is large enough to refute any measurement of the so-called Einstein effect.” (Marmet)

   Other attempts to demonstrate relativistic delays based on other parameters fail miserably e.g. From Marmet and Couture, “Consequently, due to the above uncertainties in the elements of orbits of the planets, the delay reported is meaningless and does not prove any fundamental agreement with general relativity.” So, it appears, the apologists for Einstein once again have corrupted science, this time with both theory and experiments.
To any lay person watching the shimmering of heat waves off hot asphalt and the distortion of the points on the far side of the heat waves, the turbulence of the air on the ground, seems to represent a simple insurmountable barrier to the acquisition of highly precise data. It is clear from the outset that Eddington was in no way interested in testing Einstein’s theory; he was only interested in confirming it. The obvious fudging of the data by Eddington and others is a blatant corruption of science, may have misdirected scientific research for the better part of a century and probably surpasses the Piltdown Man as the greatest hoax of the 20th Century.

Summary and Conclusions

    Speculation: Tell the truth about Einstein and the cash cow dies (Einstein loses credibility). Engage in half truths about Einstein for decades, get Time Magazine to elevate Einstein to the status of Person of the Century and the supreme con works. All you have to do to make the con work is suppress unfavorable information about Einstein. He was a plagiarist yet somehow this information never made it to the American public. How many of you ever heard that Einstein was a blatant, brazen, plagiarist? Why haven’t you heard it? The physics community buried it. Then the physics community makes billions of dollars from grants, awards, power, prestige, stipends, money, travel, book deals, honoraria, etc over the next several decades. Advertising people would readily agree, that Person of the Century is worth billions of dollars to the physics community over the next 25 to 50 years. This is similar to artificially inflating a stock price with false stories and then cashing in at the lofty price. Substitute getting research grants approved instead of cashing in at a lofty price, and you have the physics community.
It should be obvious that there is absolutely no incentive for the physics community to tell the truth about Einstein except that they might get caught. They have a tremendous conflict of interest between telling the truth about Einstein or promoting physics. It appears that telling the truth about Einstein is not high on the list of priorities of the physics community. One of the ways that the physics community has legal problems is with respect to the phrase passive fraud. I define passive fraud as the willingness to leave on the record false information and then benefit from that false information. In other words, the physics community may not have to do anything proactive. All they have to do is permit false and misleading information to go unchallenged and then benefit from it.
The physics community may face the following charges: 1)Conspiracy, for failing to get out the truth about Einstein, 2)Fraud, for the placement (or covert support) of false information on the record and then benefiting from it, 3)Perjury, for false statements in research grants, 4)Racketeering, For acting like organized criminals. 5)Obstruction of justice as the scientists try to destroy documents. The justice department should squeeze undergraduates first, then graduates, then associate professors, then full professors, then Department Heads, then the chancellors of the universities, and then Nobel Laureates. The level of criminality that the physics community has engaged in is perhaps fourth or fifth behind organized crime as the leading class of criminals in our society in terms of total felonies committed and magnitude of the money involved.  One of the biggest problems facing the physics community is that they are incredibly arrogant and view themselves as being intellectually superior. Consider these passages from Gleick’s book, CHAOS, Making a New Science: “These scientists had experience with brilliance and with eccentricity.” p. 2, “I understand you’re real smart,” Agnew said to Feigenbaum, “If you’re so smart, why don’t you just solve laser fusion?” p.2, “To a physicist, creating laser fusion was a legitimate problem; puzzling out the spin and color and flavor of small particles was a legitimate problem; dating the origin of the universe was a legitimate problem. Understanding clouds was a job for a meteorologist. Like other physicists, Feigenbaum used an understated, tough-guy vocabulary to rate such problems.” p.3, “The most passionate advocates of the new science go so far as to say that Twentieth century science will be remembered for just three things: relativity, quantum mechanics, and chaos.” p.6

    What the physics community is going to realize is that, painfully, their very intelligence is their greatest enemy; a Mafia underling with an IQ of 80, might not realize he was in the middle of a conspiracy. Is a brilliant physicist unaware of what it meant if Einstein was a plagiarist or that the physics community had falsified the data surrounding the eclipse of 1919 and 1922? Were they completely unaware that falsehoods with respect to Einstein would result in an increase in funding to the physics community? The physics community has two choices: They may argue that they are incredible ignoramuses and have no idea of illegal activities. The basic problem with this approach is that the physics community has gone to great pains to tell us how brilliant they are. Now that they are caught conducting illegal activity, they have to play dumb. Somehow, a defense along the lines of: “When I’m a physicist, I’m brilliant, but when I’m a crook, I’m stupid”, has poor prospects of success. This is not a recommended defense for the physics community. So why are we funding stupid people? Or, they knew what was going on and deliberately covered it up. In which case, they are crooks. Why are we funding crooks?


    Autodynamics is the brainchild of Ricardo L. Carezani. It imagines an all inclusive set of equations that supersede special relativity. Dr. Carezani has developed countless equations that elucidate the basic tenets of his theories; probably the greatest success of Dr. Carezani is the simplicity and beauty his equations for radioactive decay demonstrate. This stands in stark contrast to the contrived equations of special relativity which spew out new kinds of particles faster than a Pez dispenser. Two of the biggest advances of autodynamics is that Carezani claims to be able to treat radioactive wastes. The second major find is that Einstein may have mixed apples and oranges. Specifically, Einstein started out with a kinematic effort i.e. pure motion. Then, according to Carezani, he arbitrarily started using mechanics. This produced the stealth error, neutrinos. These neutrinos may have no reality; they may be an artifact of Einstein’s math. They should be called the Harvey the Rabbit particles after Jimmy Stewart’s imaginary rabbit. Any reader interested in a more detailed accounting of autodynamics is invited to look at the bibliography for the address of SAA (Society for the Advancement of Autodynamics).

National Security

    The physics community, in three separate ways, has acted in a way that compromises our national security. First, they have stifled any theories that compete with relativity. This will hamper our long-term scientific interests. Second, they have not encouraged the promise of autodynamics and cold fusion to deal with radioactive wastes. A major hurdle to the development of additional nuclear power in this country is the disposal of radioactive wastes. Dr. Carezani has suggested that autodynamics could solve the problem. By preventing the development of autodynamics, the physics communities has hindered our goal of energy independence.
The “old” guard in physics is wedded to the “hard” nucleus. The nucleus can either be split apart yielding energy and daughter particles (fission), or the atoms can be fused together yielding energy. What the hard nucleus people do not acknowledge is any other kind of nuclear rearrangement. Fleischman and Pons came up with a third alternative which they called cold fusion. Many scientists now call these reactions, chemically assisted nuclear reactions (CANR). The physics community hard liners viciously attacked Pons and Fleischman and effectively drove them out of the country. Is cold fusion reasonable? Just consider this article by Bill Moore-Part 1 called Could Cold Fusion be Real Dr. Mallove’s article: “When the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recently awarded Blacklight Power a number of patents on its technology...”. “You can look up in peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed literature excellent, excellent technical papers that show clearly the existence of an energy source associated with hydrogen...excellent confirmation of the nuclear ash product such as helium in the experiments...”. “They have found energy releases without any input. Once the reaction is triggered, for some reason, a heat evolving reaction occurs.”... “He referred to a test conducted by Motorola, the giant US electronics manufacturer on the Patterson Power Cell.” “Confirmed by Hundreds, Reported by Thousands (headline for one segment of the article). “According to Mallove, Blacklight has garnered some $25 million in investor capital...”.

    Dr. Mallove, in his excellent magazine, Infinite Energy, has reported extensively on the progress made in cold fusion. What really remains to be done is not to expand on the overwhelming factual record in support of CANR’s, but to go to the next step, commercial application. Commercial application will silence all the critics of cold fusion.  Once it becomes clear that thousands of Americans are heating their homes with cold fusion, no one will care what the physics community says about cold fusion. But physicists are going to face extensive criticism from Congress who is going to want to know why with so much data in favor of cold fusion, did the physics community take so long to accept it. Could it be that their acceptance of billions of dollars in research money for hot fusion colored their objectivity? Did the physics community engage in fraud when they opposed cold fusion?
Sonofusion is also being suppressed by the physics community. Fortunately, no matter how hard the physicists tried, the editor of Science, went ahead and published ? article on sonofusion. Are the floodgates finally opened??

    Professor Bockris was the first individual to find tritium in cold fusion experiments. Since then, literally hundreds of experiments have revealed the presence of tritium, a product of nuclear reactions.
The physics community’s handling of cold fusion is typically arrogant. Let’s hope that the next generation of physicists has a little more integrity and is a little more able to view competing views not as something to be destroyed, but as something to be granted sober reflection.

    While heat output from CANR cells is highly variable, it appears output comparable to a fission reactor is possible. The “only” hurdle left for the cold fusion industry is commercial application.


    An Einsteinism can be defined as the perturbation of language in order to put a positive spin on some aspect of Einstein’s life.

    Clark, Einstein The Life and Times---Even in form and style it was unusual, lacking the notes and references which give weight to most serious expositions---This is a no brainer; most “serious expositions” are not the product of plagiarism.

    Good, Mensa Bull., April/May 2001---His omission of all citations in his 1905 paper is regrettable.---It is not regrettable, it is plagiarism.

    Wells, Mensa Bull. April/May 2001---Einstein borrowed, shamefully without references apparently.---“Apparently” Have you looked at the document in question Mr. Wells?--- “Borrowed shamefully” Another euphemism for plagiarized.

    Perlmutter, Turner and White, Einstein’s “Mistake” is Revived---”Einstein famously abandoned”. How about infamously abandoned? Or absurdly abandoned?

    Lemonick, Einstein’s Repulsive Idea He invented antigravity in desperation and abandoned it first chance he got--but it may be the most powerful force in the universe---Einstein’s blunder Yes, he got it right!!!


Autodynamics Fundamental Basis for a New Relativistic Mechanics, Society for the
Advancement of autodynamics, 801 Pine Avenue Pine Ave. #211, Long Beach Ca.

Born, M. (1956), Physics in my Generation, London: Pergamon Press, p.193

Brown, G. Burniston (1967), What is wrong with relativity? Bull. of the Inst. of Physics
and Physical Soc. p.71-77.

Carezani, R., Faster-than-light-photons, Autodynamics

Clark, R.W. (1972), (Einstein The Life and Times), New York, Avon Books, p.101

Cowen, R. (2000), Revved-Up Universe, Science News, Feb. 12, 2000, v.157, #7

Derbyshire, D. (2000), News: Scientists shed light on laws of relativity, Science
Correspondent, 07-20-2000.

Devlin, Keith (2000), Interview: Keith Devlin discusses recent attempts to go faster than
the speed of light.

Einstein, A. (1905), On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, Translation from Zur
Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper, Ann. der Phys., 17.
Einstein, A. (1905), The Principle of Relativity, Ann. Phys. Lpz. 17. 89.

Einstein, A. (1935), Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy, Bull.
Amer. Math. Soc., 223-30.

Einstein, A. (1961), Relativity The Special and General Theory, Three Rivers Press

Good, I.J., (2001) Murder, fraud, or plagiarism? Mensa Bull. April/May, p.4.

Holland, P. and West, R. (1998, 1999, 2000), How much of Modern Physics is a Fraud?
Internet article, 28 pages.

Ives, H.E. (1952) Jour. Opt. Soc. Amer., 42, 540-543.

Kemerling, G. (1997, 1998, 1999) A Timeline of Western Philosophers, 600 BCE to
Present, Internet article.

Keswani, G.H. (1965) Brit. Jour. Phil.Soc., 15, 286-306; 16, 19-32 (1966) Brit Jour.
Phil. Soc., 17, 234-236;

Lemonick, M.D. (2001) Einstein’s Repulsive Idea He invented antigravity in desperation
abandoned it first chance he got--but it may prove to be the most powerful force in the
universe, Time, April 16, 2001, vol. 157, #15, p. 58+

Lorentz, H.A., Einstein, A., Weyl, H. and Minkowski, A. (1952) The Principle of
Relativity, A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory of
Relativity, New York.

Maddox, J. (1995) More precise Solar-limb Light-bending, Nature, v.377, p.11.

Marmet, P. (1997) Einstein’s Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics, Appendix
II The Deflection of Light by the Sun’s Gravitational Field: An Analysis of the 1919
Solar Eclipse Expeditions, Editor Newton Physics Books, 200 p. 2401 Ogilve Rd.
Gloucester, Ontario, Canada, KIJ7N4

Marmet, P. and Couture, C. (2000) Relativistic Deflection of Light Near the Sun Using
Radio Signals and Visible Light, Internet Article, 22p.

Moody, R.H. Jr., (1995) Communal Blindspot Theory, Mensa Bull., March, p.10

Moore, Bill Could Cold Fusion be for Real? An interview with Dr. Eugene Mallove-Part
1 Internet Article

NEC Research Institute, (2000). NEC Succeeds in Superluminal Light Propogation,
Company Press Release, July 19, 2000.

Nelson, B., (2000) When Light is Faster Than Light, Newsday, 07-20-2000.

Poincare, J.H. (1904), Bull. Sci. Math., 28, 302.

Poincare, J.H. 1905, The Principles of Mathematical Physics, The Monist, v.XV, Jan.
1905, No. 1 (From an address delivered before the International Congress or Arts and
Sciences, St. Louis, September 1904.)

Poor, C.L., (1930), J. Opt. Soc. Amer, 20, 173-211.

Schwatrz, A.M., Can the Equivalence Principle be Violated?, 2000, 2001.

Seelig, Carl, Einstein und die Schweiz

Technische Rundschau, #20, 47. Jahrgand, Bern 6, Mai, 1955.

Time Magazine, Person of the Century, Dec. 31, 1999

Walker, W.D., 2000, Experimental Evidence of Near-field Superluminally Propagating
Electromagnetic fields, Presented at Vigier III Symposium: Gravitation and
Cosmology, Berkeley, California, USA, Aug. 21-25, 2000.

Webster, N. (1947), Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language,
Second Edition, Unabridged, p.1878.

Wells, B., (2001) Murder, fraud, or plagiarism, Mensa Bull. April/May, 5.