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.
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
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 relativity...no 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:
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” “...it 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:
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.
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, (“...my 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
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
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.
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?
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?
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
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.
Autodynamics Fundamental Basis for a New Relativistic Mechanics,
Society for the
Keswani, G.H. (1965) Brit. Jour. Phil.Soc., 15, 286-306; 16,
19-32 (1966) Brit Jour.
Lemonick, M.D. (2001) Einstein’s Repulsive Idea He invented
antigravity in desperation
Poor, C.L., (1930), J. Opt. Soc. Amer, 20, 173-211.