Einstein, the Plagiarist It is now time to speak directly to the issue of what Einstein was: he was first and foremost a plagiarist. He had few qualms about stealing the work of others and submitting it as his own. That this was deliberate seems obvious. Take this passage from Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times (there are no references to Poincaré here; just a few meaningless quotes). This is how page 101 reads: On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies...is in many ways one of the most remarkable scientific papers that had ever been written. Even in form and style it was unusual, lacking the notes and references which give weight to most serious expositions!!!. Why would Einstein, with his training as a patent clerk, not recognize the need to cite references in his article on special relativity? One would think that Einstein, as a neophyte, would over-reference rather than under-reference. Wouldnt one also expect somewhat higher standards from an editor when faced with a long manuscript that had obviously not been credited? Apparently there was no attempt at quality control when it was published in Annalen der Physik. Most competent editors would have rejected the paper without even reading it. At the barest minimum, one would expect the editor to research the literature to determine whether Einsteins claim of primacy was correct. Max Born stated, The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous literature (Born, 1956) He is clearly indicating that the absence of references is abnormal and that, even by early 20th century standards, this is most peculiar, even unprofessional. Einstein twisted and turned to avoid plagiarism charges, but these were transparent. From Bjerknes (2002), we learn the following passage from James MacKaye: Einsteins explanation is a dimensional disguise for Lorentzs. Thus Einsteins theory is not a denial of, nor an alternative for, that of Lorentz. It is only a duplicate and disguise for it. Einstein continually maintains that the theory of Lorentz is right, only he disagrees with his interpretation. Is it not clear, therefore, that in this [case], as in other cases, Einsteins theory is merely a disguise for Lorentzs, the apparent disagreement about interpretation being a matter of words only? Poincaré wrote 30 books and over 500 papers on philosophy, mathematics and physics. Einstein wrote on mathematics, physics and philosophy, but claimed hed never read Poincarés contributions to physics. Yet many of Poincarés ideas - for example, that the speed of light is a limit and that mass increases with speed - wound up in Einsteins paper, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies without being credited. Einsteins act of stealing almost the entire body of literature by Lorentz and Poincaré to write his document raised the bar for plagiarism. In the information age, this kind of plagiarism could never be perpetrated indefinitely, yet the physics community has still not set the record straight. In his 1907 paper, Einstein spelled out his views on plagiarism: It appears to me that it is the nature of the business that what follows has already been partly solved by other authors. Despite that fact, since the issues of concern are here addressed from a new point of view, I am entitled to leave out a thoroughly pedantic survey of the literature... With this statement, Einstein declared that plagiarism, suitably packaged, is an acceptable research tool. Here is the definition of to plagiarize from an unimpeachable source, Websters New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, 1947, p. 1,878: To steal or purloin and pass off as ones 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. Isnt this exactly what Einstein did? Giving due credit involves two aspects: timeliness and appropriateness. Telling the world that Lorentz provided the basis for special relativity 30 years after the fact is not timely (see below), is not appropriate and is not giving due credit. Nothing Einstein wrote ex post facto with respect to Lorentzs contributions alters the fundamental act of plagiarism. The true nature of Einsteins plagiarism is set forth in his 1935 paper, Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy, where, in a discussion on Maxwell, he wrote, The question as to the independence of those relations is a natural one because the Lorentz transformation, the real basis of special relativity theory... So, Einstein even acknowledged that the Lorentz transformation was the real basis of his 1905 paper. Anyone who doubts that he was a plagiarist should ask one simple question: What did Einstein know and when did he know it? Einstein got away with premeditated plagiarism, not the incidental plagiarism that is ubiquitous. (Moody, 2001) The History of E = mc2 Who originated the concept of matter being transformed into energy and vice versa? It dates back at least to Sir Isaac Newton (1704). Brown (1967) made the following statement: Thus gradually arose the formula E = mc2, suggested without general proof by Poincaré in 1900. One thing we can say with certainty is that Einstein did not originate the equation E = mc2. Then the question becomes: Who did? Bjerknes (2002) suggested as a possible candidate S. Tolver Preston, who, formulated atomic energy, the atom bomb and superconductivity back in the 1870s, based on the formula E = mc2. In addition to Preston, a major player in the history of E = mc2 who deserves a lot of credit is Olinto De Pretto (1904). What makes this timing so suspicious is that Einstein was fluent in Italian, he was reviewing papers written by Italian physicists and his best friend was Michele Besso, a Swiss Italian. Clearly, Einstein (1905b) would have had access to the literature and the competence to read it. In Einsteins E = mc2 was Italians idea (Carroll, 1999), we see clear evidence that De Pretto was ahead of Einstein in terms of the formula E = mc2. In terms of his understanding the vast amount of energy that could be released with a small amount of mass, Preston (1875) can be credited with knowing this before Einstein was born. Clearly, Preston was using the E = mc2 formula in his work, because the value he determined - e.g., that one grain could lift a 100,000 ton object up to a height of 1.9 miles - yields the equation E = mc2. According to Ives (1952), the derivation Einstein attempted of the formula E = mc2 was fatally flawed because Einstein set out to prove what he assumed. This is similar to the careless handling of the equations for radioactive decay which Einstein derived. It turns out that Einstein mixed kinematics and mechanics, and out popped the neutrino. The neutrino may be a mythical particle accidentally created by Einstein (Carezani, 1999). We have two choices with respect to neutrinos: there are at least 40 different types or there are zero types. Occams razor rules here. The Eclipse of 1919 There can be no clearer definition of scientific fraud than what went on in the Tropics on May 29, 1919. What is particularly clear is that Eddington fudged the solar eclipse data to make the results conform to Einsteins work on general relativity. Poor (1930), Brown (1967), Clark (1984) and McCausland (2001) all address the issues surrounding this eclipse. What makes the expeditions to Sobral and Principe so suspect is Eddingtons zealous support of Einstein, as can be seen in his statement, By standing foremost in testing, and ultimately verifying the enemy theory, our national observatory kept alive the finest traditions of science... (Clark, 1984) In this instance, apparently Eddington was not familiar with the basic tenets of science. His job was to collect data - not verify Einsteins theories. Further evidence for the fraud can be deduced from Eddingtons own statements and the introduction to them provided by Clark (ibid., p. 285): May 29 began with heavy rain, which stopped only about noon. Not until 1.30 pm when the eclipse had already begun did the party get its first glimpse of the sun: We had to carry out our programme of photographs on faith... Eddington reveals his true prejudice: he was willing to do anything to see that Einstein was proved right. But Eddington was not to be deterred: It looked as though the effort, so far as the Principe expedition was concerned, might have been abortive; We developed the photographs, two each night for six nights after the eclipse. The cloudy weather upset my plans and I had to treat the measures in a different way from what I intended; consequently I have not been able to make any preliminary announcement of the result. (Clark, ibid.) Actually, Eddingtons words speak volumes about the result. As soon as he found one shred of evidence that was consistent with Einsteins general relativity theory, he immediately proclaimed it as proof of the theory. Is this science? Where were the astronomers when Eddington presented his findings? Did anyone besides Eddington actually look at the photographic plates? Poor did, and he completely repudiated the findings of Eddington. This should have given pause to any ethical scientist. Here are some quotes from Poors summary: The mathematical formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75 seconds for light rays passing the edge of the sun, is a well known and simple formula of physical optics Not a single one 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 Einsteins prediction of, or formulas for, the deflection of light The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore, been given a fictitious importance. Their results can neither prove nor disprove the relativity theory (Poor, 1930). From Brown (1967), we learn that Eddington couldnt wait to get it out to the world community that Einsteins theory was confirmed. What Eddington based this on was a premature assessment of the photographic plates. Initially, stars did appear to bend as they should, as required by Einstein, but then, according to Brown, the unexpected happened: several stars were then observed to bend in a direction transverse to the expected direction and still others to bend in a direction opposite to that predicted by relativity. The absurdity of the data collected during the Eclipse of 1919 was demonstrated by Poor (1930), who pointed out that 85% of the data were discarded from the South American eclipse due to accidental error, i.e., it contradicted Einsteins scale constant. By a strange coincidence, the 15% of the good data were consistent with Einsteins scale constant. Somehow, the stars that did not conform to Einsteins theories conveniently got temporarily shelved - and the myth began. So, based on a handful of ambiguous data points, 200 years of theory, experimentation and observation were cast aside to make room for Einstein. Yet the discredited experiment by Eddington is still quoted as gospel by Stephen Hawking (1999). It is difficult to comprehend how Hawking could comment that, The new theory of curved space-time was called general relativity. It was confirmed in spectacular fashion in 1919, when a British expedition to West Africa observed a slight shift in the position of stars near the sun during an eclipse. Their light, as Einstein had predicted, was bent as it passed the sun. Here was direct evidence that space and time were warped. Does Hawking honestly believe that a handful of data points, massaged more thoroughly than a side of Kobe beef, constitutes the basis for overthrowing a paradigm that had survived over two centuries of acid scrutiny? The real question, though, is: Where was Einstein in all this? Surely, by the time he wrote his 1935 paper, he must have known of the work of Poor: The actual stellar displacements, if real, do not show the slightest resemblance to the predicted Einstein deflections: they do not agree in direction, in size, or the rate of decrease with distance from the sun. Why didnt he go on the record and address a paper that directly contradicted his work? Why havent the followers of Einstein tried to set the record straight with respect to the bogus data of 1919? What makes this so suspicious is that both the instruments and the physical conditions were not conducive to making measurements of great precision. As pointed out in a 2002 Internet article by the British Institute of Precise Physics, the cap cameras used in the expeditions were accurate to only 1/25th of a degree. This meant that just for the cap camera uncertainty alone, Eddington was reading values over 200 times too precise. McCausland (2001) quotes the former Editor of Nature, Sir John Maddox: They [Crommelin and Eddington] were bent on measuring the deflection of light What is not so well documented is that the measurements in 1919 were not particularly accurate In spite of the fact that experimental evidence for relativity seems to have been very flimsy in 1919, Einsteins enormous fame has remained intact and his theory has ever since been held to be one of the highest achievements of human thought It is clear that from the outset Eddington was in no way interested in testing Einsteins theory; he was only interested in confirming it. One of the motivating factors in Eddingtons decision to promote Einstein was that both men shared a similar political persuasion: pacifism. To suggest that politics played no role in Eddingtons glowing support of Einstein, one need ask only one question: Would Eddington have been so quick to support Einstein if Einstein had been a hawk? This is no idle observation. Eddington took his role as the great peacemaker very seriously. He wanted to unite British and German scientists after World War I. What better way than to elevate the enemy theorist Einstein to exalted status? In his zeal to become peacemaker, Eddington lost the fundamental objectivity that is the essential demeanor of any true scientist. Eddington ceased to be a scientist and, instead, became an advocate for Einstein. The obvious fudging of the data by Eddington and others is a blatant subversion of scientific process and may have misdirected scientific research for the better part of a century. It probably surpasses the Piltdown Man as the greatest hoax of 20th century science. The BIPP asked, Was this the hoax of the century? and exclaimed, Royal Society 1919 Eclipse Relativity Report Duped World for 80 Years! McCausland stated that, In the authors opinion, the confident announcement of the decisive confirmation of Einsteins general theory in November 1919 was not a triumph of science, as it is often portrayed, but one of the most unfortunate incidents in the history of 20th-century science. It cannot be emphasized enough that the Eclipse of 1919 made Einstein, Einstein. It propelled him to international fame overnight, despite the fact that the data were fabricated and there was no support for general relativity whatsoever. This perversion of history has been known about for over 80 years and is still supported by people like Stephen Hawking and David Levy.
Posted on: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 17:43:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015