Albert Einstein

[Mac Seafraidh]

Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century?

Einstein plagiarised the work of several notable scientists in his 1905 papers on special relativity and E=mc2, yet the physics community has never bothered to set the record straight.

by Richard Moody Jr

Abstract
Proponents of Einstein have acted in a way that appears to corrupt the historical record. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Time magazine's "Person of the Century", wrote a long treatise on special relativity theory (it was actually called "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", 1905a), without listing any references. Many of the key ideas it presented were known to Lorentz (for example, the Lorentz transformation) and Poincaré before Einstein wrote the famous 1905 paper.

As was typical of Einstein, he did not discover theories; he merely commandeered them. He took an existing body of knowledge, picked and chose the ideas he liked, then wove them into a tale about his contribution to special relativity. This was done with the full knowledge and consent of many of his peers, such as the editors at Annalen der Physik.

The most recognisable equation of all time is E=mc2. It is attributed by convention to be the sole province of Albert Einstein (1905). However, the conversion of matter into energy and energy into matter was known to Sir Isaac Newton ("Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another...", 1704). The equation can be attributed to S. Tolver Preston (1875), to Jules Henri Poincaré (1900; according to Brown, 1967) and to Olinto De Pretto (1904) before Einstein. Since Einstein never correctly derived E=mc2 (Ives, 1952), there appears nothing to connect the equation with anything original by Einstein.

Arthur Eddington's selective presentation of data from the 1919 eclipse so that it supposedly supported "Einstein's" general relativity theory is surely one of the biggest scientific hoaxes of the 20th century. His lavish support of Einstein corrupted the course of history. Eddington was less interested in testing a theory than he was in crowning Einstein the king of science.

The physics community, unwittingly perhaps, has engaged in a kind of fraud and silent conspiracy; this is the byproduct of simply being bystanders as the hyperinflation of Einstein's record and reputation took place. This silence benefited anyone supporting Einstein.

Introduction
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's standing is the product of the physics community, his followers and the media. Each group benefits enormously by elevating Einstein to icon status. The physics community receives billions in research grants, Einstein's supporters are handsomely rewarded, and media corporations like Time magazine get to sell millions of magazines by placing Einstein on the cover as "Person of the Century".

When the scandal breaks, the physics community, Einstein's supporters and the media will attempt to downplay the negative news and put a positive spin on it. However, their efforts will be shown up when Einstein's paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", is seen for what it is: the consummate act of plagiarism in the 20th century.

Special Relativity
Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) was a great scientist who made a significant contribution to special relativity theory. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy website states that Poincaré: (1) "sketched a preliminary version of the special theory of relativity"; (2) "stated that the velocity of light is a limit velocity" (in his 1904 paper from the Bull. of Sci. Math. 28, Poincaré indicated "a whole new mechanics, where the inertia increasing with the velocity of light would become a limit and not be exceeded"); (3) suggested that "mass depends on speed"; (4) "formulated the principle of relativity, according to which no mechanical or electromagnetic experiment can discriminate between a state of uniform motion and a state of rest"; and (5) "derived the Lorentz transformation".

It is evident how deeply involved with special relativity Poincaré was. Even Keswani (1965) was prompted to say that "As far back as 1895, Poincaré, the innovator, had conjectured that it is impossible to detect absolute motion", and that "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 acknowledged none of this preceding theoretical work when he wrote his unreferenced 1905 paper.

In addition to having sketched the preliminary version of relativity, Poincaré provided a critical part of the whole concept-namely, his treatment of local time. He also originated the idea of clock synchronisation, which is critical to special relativity.

Charles Nordman was prompted to write "They will show that the credit for most of the things which are currently attributed to Einstein is, in reality, due to Poincaré", and "...in the opinion of the Relativists it is the measuring rods which create space, the clocks which create time. All this was known by Poincaré and others long before the time of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to him".

Other scientists have not been quite as impressed with "Einstein's" special relativity theory as has the public. "Another curious feature of the now famous paper, Einstein, 1905, is the absence of any reference to Poincaré or anyone else," Max Born wrote in Physics in My Generation. "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). G. Burniston Brown (1967) noted, "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 relativity theory, and Whittaker called it the relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz... "

Due to the fact that Einstein's special relativity theory was known in some circles as the relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz, one would think that Poincaré and Lorentz might have had something to do with its creation. What is disturbing about the Einstein paper is that even though Poincaré was the world's leading expert on relativity, apparently Einstein had never heard of him nor thought he had done anything worth referencing!

Poincaré, in a public address delivered in September 1904, made some notable comments on special relativity theory. "From all these results, if they are confirmed, would arise an entirely new mechanics...would be, above all, characterised by this fact that no velocity could surpass that of light...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 any apparent velocity could 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'." (Poincaré, 1905)

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..." (emphasis added).

Why would Einstein, with his training as a patent clerk, not recognise the need to cite references in his article on special relativity? One would think that Einstein, as a neophyte, would overreference rather than underreference.

Wouldn't 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 Einstein's claim of primacy was correct.

Max Born stated, "The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous literature" (emphasis added) (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: "Einstein's explanation is a dimensional disguise for Lorentz's... Thus Einstein's theory is not a denial of, nor an alternative for, that of Lorentz. It is only a duplicate and disguise for it... Einstein continually maintains that the theory of Lorentz is right, only he disagrees with his 'interpretation'. Is it not clear, therefore, that in this [case], as in other cases Einstein's theory is merely a disguise for Lorentz's, the apparent disagreement about 'interpretation' being a matter of words only?"

Poincaré wrote 30 books and over 500 papers on philosophy, mathematics and physics. Einstein wrote on mathematics, physics and philosophy, but claimed he had never read Poincaré's contributions to physics.

Yet many of Poincaré's ideas – for example, that 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" without being credited.

Einstein's 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 plagiarise" from an unimpeachable source, Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, 1947, p. 1,878: "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?

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 Lorentz's contributions alters the fundamental act of plagiarism.

The true nature of Einstein's 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..." (emphasis added).

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 much 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 "Einstein's E=mc2 'was Italian's 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. Occam's 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 "Einstein's" 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 Eddington's 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..." (emphasis added) (Clark, 1984). In this instance, apparently Eddington was not familiar with the basic tenets of science. His job was to collect data-not verify Einstein's theories.

Further evidence for the fraud 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 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..."' (emphasis added). 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" (emphasis added) (Clark, ibid.).

Actually, Eddington's words speak volumes about the result. As soon as he found a shred of evidence that was consistent with "Einstein's" 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 Poor's summary: "The mathematical formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75 seconds for light rays passing the edge o the sun, is a well known and simple formula of physical optics"; "Not a single one 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"; "The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore, been given a fictitious importance. Their results can neither prove nor disprove the relativity theory... (emphasis added) (Poor, 1930).

From Brown (1967), we learn that Eddington could not 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 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 Einstein's scale constant. By a strange coincidence, the 15% of the "good" data were consistent with Einstein's scale constant. Somehow, the stars that did not conform to Einstein's 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 didn't he go on the record and address a paper that directly contradicted his work? Why haven't 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, Einstein's enormous fame has remained intact and his theory has ever since been held to be one of the highest achievements of human thought" (emphasis added).

It is clear that from the outset that Eddington was in no way interested in testing "Einstein's" theory; he was only interested in confirming it. One of the motivating factors in Eddington's decision to promote Einstein was that both men shared a similar political persuasion: pacifism. To suggest that politics played no role in Eddington's glowing support of Einstein, one need ask only the 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 demeanour 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 author's opinion, the confident announcement of the decisive confirmation of Einstein's 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 emphasised 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.

Summary and Conclusions
The general public tends to believe that scientists are the ultimate defenders of ethics, that scientific rigour is the measure of truth. Little do people realise how science is conducted in the presence of personality.

It seems that Einstein believed he was above scientific protocol. He thought he could bend the rules to his own liking and get away with it; hang in there long enough and his enemies would die off and his followers would win the day. In science, the last follower standing wins-and gets to write history. In the case of Einstein, his blatant and repeated dalliance with plagiarism is all but forgotten and his followers have borrowed repeatedly from the discoveries of other scientists and used them to adorn Einstein's halo.

Einstein's reputation is supported by a three-legged stool. One leg is Einstein's alleged plagiarism. Was he a plagiarist? The second leg is the physics community. What did they know about Einstein and when did they know it? The third leg is the media. Are they instruments of truth or deception when it comes to Einstein? Only time will tell.

The physics community is also supported by a three-legged stool. The first leg is Einstein's physics. The second leg is cold fusion. The third leg is autodynamics. The overriding problem with a three-legged stool is that if only one leg is sawn off, the stool collapses. There are at least three very serious disciplines where it is predictable that physics may collapse.

Science is a multi-legged stool. One leg is physics; a second leg is the earth sciences; a third, biology; and a fourth, chemistry (e.g., cold fusion). What will happen if, for the sake of argument, physics collapses? Will science fall?

References

    * Bjerknes, C.J. (2002), Albert Einslein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, XTX Inc., Dowers Grove.
    * Born, M. (1956), Physics in My Generation, Pergamon Press, London, p. 193.
    * Brown, G. Burniston (1967), "What is wrong with relativity?", Bull. of the Inst. of Physics and Physical Soc., pp. 71-77.
    * Carezani, R. (1999), Autodynamics: Fundamental Basis for a New Relativistic Mechanics, SAA, Society for the Advancement of Autodynamics.
    * Carroll, R., "Einstein's E = mc2 'was Italian's idea"', The Guardian, November 11, 1999.
    * Clark, R.W. (1984), Einstein: The Life and Times, Avon Books, New York.
    * De Pretto, O. (1904), "Ipotesi dell'etere nella vita dell'universo", Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, Feb. 1904, tomo LXIII, parte II, pp. 439-500.
    * Einstein, A. (1905a), "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper" ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"), Annalen der Physik 17:37-65.
    * Einstein, A. (1905b), "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Energy Content?", Annalen der Physik 18:639-641. Einstein, A. (1907), "Uber die vom Relativitatspringzip geforderte Tragheit der Energie", Annalen der Physik 23(4):371-384 (quote on p. 373).
    * Einstein, A. (1935), "Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy", Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 61:223-230 (first delivered as The Eleventh Josiah Willard Gibbs Lecture at a joint meeting of the American Physical Society and Section A of the AAAS, Pittsburgh, December 28, 1934).
    * Hawking, S., "Person of the Century", Time magazine, December 31, 1999.
    * Ives, H.E. (1952), "Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation", J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 42:540-543.
    * Keswani, G.H. (1965), "Origin and Concept of Relativity", Brit. J. Phil. Soc. 15:286-306.
    * Mackaye, J. (1931), The Dynamic Universe, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, pp. 42-43.
    * Maddox, J. (1995), "More Precise Solarlimb Light-bending", Nature 377:11.
    * Moody, R., Jr (2001), "Plagiarism Personified", Mensa Bull. 442(Feb):5.
    * Newton, Sir Isaac (1704), Opticks, Dover Publications Inc., New York, p.cxv.
    * Nordman, C. (1921), Einstein et l'univers, translated by Joseph McCabe as "Einstein and the Universe", Henry Holt and Co., New York, pp. 10-11, 16 (from Bjerknes, 2002).
    * Poincaré, J.H. (1905), "The Principles of Mathematical Physics", The Monist, vol. XV, no. 1, January 1905; from an address delivered before the International Congress of Arts and Sciences, St Louis, September 1904.
    * Poor, Cl. (1930), "The Deflection of Light as Observed at Total Solar Eclipses", J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 20:173-211.
    * The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912), at http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/poincare.htm.
    * Webster, N. (1947), Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, p. 1878.

http://www.aulis.com/albert_einstein.htm

[Mac Seafraidh]

by Ian Mosley

Albert Einstein is today revered as "the Father of Modern Science". His wrinkled face and wild hair has become a symbol for scientific genius and "his" famous E = mc^2 equation is repeatedly used as the symbol for something scientific and intellectual. And yet there has for years been mounting evidence that this "Father of Modern Science" was nothing but a con man, lying about his ideas and achievements, and stealing the work and the research of others.

The most glaring evidence against Einstein concerns "his" most famous equation. One website notes "The equation E=mc^2, which has been forever linked to Einstein & his Theory of Relativity was not originally published by Einstein. According to Umberto Bartocci, a professor at the University of Perugia and a historian of mathematics, this famous equation was first published by Olinto De Pretto ...two years prior to Einstein's publishing of the equation. In 1903 De Pretto published his equation in the scientific magazine Atte and in 1904 it was republished by the Royal Science Institute of Veneto. Einstein's research was not published until 1905... Einstein was well versed in Italian and even lived in Northern Italy for a brief time."

It is unheard of to pass over the original inventor of an equation and to give credit to someone, who claims to have derived it AFTER the equation and its derivation have been published. The equation "E=mc^2″ should be called the "De Pretto Equation" not the "Einstein Equation."

This raises the question: "What sort of man was Einstein?" Is there evidence that he may have been prone to unethical behavior? One website reports "Einstein... was still far from the ideal husband. A year before they married, Maric gave birth to a daughter, Lieserl, while Einstein was away. The child's fate is unknown - she is presumed to have been given up for adoption, perhaps under pressure from Einstein, who is thought to have never seen his first born. After the marriage, Mileva bore two sons but the family was not to stay together. Einstein began an affair with his cousin Elsa Lowenthal while on a trip to Berlin in 1912, leaving Mileva and his family two years later. Einstein and Mileva finally divorced in 1919, but not until after Einstein sent his wife a list of 'conditions' under which he was willing to remain married. The list included such autocratic demands as 'You are neither to expect intimacy nor to reproach me in any way'. After the divorce, he saw little of his sons. The elder, Hans Albert, later reflected 'Probably the only project he ever gave up on was me.' The younger, Eduard, was diagnosed with schizophrenia and died in an asylum. Einstein married Elsa soon after the divorce, but a few years later began an affair with Betty Neumann, the niece of a friend... Accusations of plagiarism aren't limited to Mileva – it's also been claimed that Einstein stole the work of a host of other physicists. One question which may remain moot is quite how much Einstein drew from the work of Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincare in formulating the theory of special relativity. Elements of Einstein's 1905 paper paralleled parts of a 1904 paper by Lorentz and a contemporary paper by Poincare. Although Einstein read earlier papers by the two, he claimed not to have seen these later works before writing the 1905 paper. One apparently damning fact is that the 1905 paper on special relativity had no references, suggesting that Einstein was consciously hiding his tracks."

One source notes "David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein." Another source notes "Einstein presented his paper on November 25, 1915 in Berlin and Hilbert had presented his paper on November 20 in Göttingen. On November 18, Hilbert received a letter from Einstein thanking him for sending him a draft of the treatise Hilbert was to deliver on the 20th. So, in fact, Hilbert had sent a copy of his work at least two weeks in advance to Einstein before either of the two men delivered their lectures, but Einstein did not send Hilbert an advance copy of his." Apparently Hilbert's work was soon to become "Einstein's work."

The historic record is readily available and the truth is known to many scientists and historians, even if they are afraid to say anything. The idea that light had a finite speed was proven by Michelson and Morley decades before Einstein. Hendrik Lorentz determined the equations showing relativistic time and length contractions which become significant as the speed of light is approached. These gentlemen along with David Hilbert and Olinto De Pretto have been airbrushed out of the picture so that Einstein could be given the credit for what they had done.

Einstein appeared to latch onto his first wife, a much more talented student three years his senior, to compensate for his own limited abilities. Another website notes: "...in 1927, H. Thirring wrote, 'H. Poincare had already completely solved the problem of time several years before the appearance of Einstein's first work (1905). . . .' Sir Edmund Whittaker in his detailed survey, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, Volume II, (1953), included a chapter entitled 'The Relativity Theory of Poincare and Lorentz'. Whittaker thoroughly documented the development of the theory, documenting the authentic history, and demonstrated through reference to primary sources that Einstein held no priority for the vast majority of the theory. Einstein offered no counter-argument to Whittaker's famous book. . ."

Einstein was a minor contributor at best and in any case an intellectual thief and pretentious braggart. Einstein was still alive when Whitaker's book was published and he said NOTHING about it. No libel suit, no refutation, no public comment at all.

Einstein was the first great fraudster and idea-thief in modern science. His theft of Olinto De Pretto's equation E = mc^2 gave him considerable scientific credibility which he built a career on. De Pretto was not a career physicist and spent his life as an industrialist, passing away in 1921. De Pretto had published his equation twice before Einstein and was no doubt amazed that someone could claim credit for his work. Einstein used and eventually discarded his first wife, Mileva, who was a much more brilliant student than Einstein and is suspected of writing much of Einstein's early work. (She may have been reluctant to expose Einstein since he was still the father of her children.) David Hilbert's work on the equations for Special Relativity was submitted for publication before Einstein and was sent to Einstein as correspondence. Einstein claimed credit for the equations which Hilbert derived. (David Hilbert passed away in 1943.)

Some university professors have stolen work from their graduate students and it would be interesting to see if any of Einstein's students complained of such thievery. A plagiarist seldom stops plagiarizing especially when he keeps getting away with it. Complaints against Einstein however seem to disappear down the Orwellian memory hole. Einstein is clearly a sacred cow to many. A few have even used the word "heresy" to describe serious well-documented criticism and charges of plagiarism against Einstein. The truth eventually wins out and Einstein will someday be best known as a great fraud instead of a great physicist.

Tatiana Molchanova  // Jan 27, 2006 at 4:02 pm

Dear AlterMedia:
I am a Russian Scientist, living and working 15 years in the USA. I am always enjoying the freedom of the USA Media.
I am sorry if I did not know before about Einstein's plagiarism. Your statement drived me into a shock.
Do you have any legal rights to publish such a statement? Is it an official statement? Do you realize how many people would be ruined in their beliefs?
I am not a believer but I am a scientist. I would like to know if we can trust the Noble Prize Committe that make people the Great Scientist?
I do understand that people are human so they can make mistakes by accident so purposely.
Sincerely
Tatiana Molchanova, PhD.
http://molchanova.com

http://us.altermedia.info/news-of-inter ... _1295.html

[Anonymous]

Another monumental addition to the exactitudes and extent of the fraud.

http://jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.htm

[querzl]

In his book The Human Failings of Genius, author Hans C. Ohanian retells Einstein's story by homing in on his blunders.

We have all heard that math wasn't Einstein's strong point, and Ohanian ruthlessly lays out the details. A 12-page marathon calculation in Einstein's doctoral dissertation, "A New Determination of the Molecular Size," was "a comedy of errors" based on "zany" physical assumptions, such as treating sugar molecules dissolved in water as though they were tiny spheres sitting at rest instead of spinning like tops.

Fumbling ever forward, Einstein went on to commit more errors in the suite of famous papers he wrote in 1905, what came to be called his miracle year. The miracle, as Ohanian tells it, is that Einstein could have been wrong on so many details while coming through, in the end, with some of the greatest insights of the century.

In his paper on the photoelectric effect, for example, he claimed to prove that a phenomenon called blackbody radiation behaves like a gas made of light particles, or photons. Not so fast, Ohanian objects: Though the theory worked for high-frequency photons, Einstein glossed over the fact that it didn't work for low-frequency ones, "like a tailor who tells the customer how beautifully the jacket fits at the shoulders, and pretends not to notice that the sleeves are much too long, ending somewhere near the knees."

http://www.latimes.com/features/books/la-ca-hans-ohanian12-2008oct12,0,2289223.story

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Nice Post. Einstein was a very minor player in the game but he had a whole world wide chorus of Jews in press cheering him on  If you have an interest in physics you might find this book very interesting:

PHYSICS WITHOUT EINSTEIN A Centenary Review by Harold Aspden
http://www.aspden.org/books/pwecent/pwecent2005.pdf

Website:
http://www.aspden.org/


This book is actually quite important. Maxwell was the superior of Einstein by several degrees and this book conclusively proves it.  In fact E=mc2 can be derived from Maxwell's equations.

Believe it or not, Cosmologies in Physics are in massive conflicting turmoil right now over Special Relativity. Recent, new discoveries are making it difficult to employ Einstein's cosmology to explain them.  

If you are mediocre but part of the tribe, anything is possible....

[sullivan]

It is unheard of to pass over the original inventor of an equation and to give credit to someone, who claims to have derived it AFTER the equation and its derivation have been published. The equation "E=mc^2″ should be called the "De Pretto Equation" not the "Einstein Equation."

It is not unheard of. Many Nobel Science prizes are reputed to have been awarded to (and unsuccessful nominations made for) those who have made second-hand discoveries - merely confirming the research of others. I am more than familiar with the ins and outs of one case but I am not at liberty to disclose details. Apparently who you are counts for far more with the Nobel committee than what you may or may not have discovered.

[Ognir]

[§N9sh2bj]

This might seem off-topic. Be patient.

I was watching some videos where a guy explained an aspect of the weird lights around the NASA tether video*.  NASA blows these off as 'particles'.   However, on basic magnification the objects quite clearly appear to be none other than UFOs with a semblance of the millennium falcon, with it's characteristic 'notch' cut out.  They are glowing in a very particular way.  They certainly do not look like random space dust.  What is more, NASA is using UV-sensitive cameras with a black and white filter to film open space.  It's a bit weird.  The guy goes onto explain how Planks' theory is correct, and Einstein's is wrong, without mentioning the additional fact of Einstein being a plagiarist or philanderer.

Where Plank comes in and Einstein is wrong: As an object acquires more energy, energy increases until it becomes invisible and essentially mass-less. This isn't some kind of new-age crap, apparently this is exactly what Planks formula says, which is real science as opposed to the heavily promoted garbage of Einstein.  Plank's work allows for faster-than-light travel, invisibility, and so-called 'anti-gravity'.

This led me to think that 'Black' holes aren't sucking matter in, with all the science problems this causes, but in fact, radiate at such a high energy level they have become invisible.  Some of the lower frequency energy, still above the visible spectrum, makes it out and can be detected.  Normal gravitational effect would account for how stars' matter is 'consumed' by these black holes nearby.

I'm asking, 'Why would the powers-that-be choose this specific E=mc2 over all other possible theories to plagiarize and promote?' As it has a severely restrictive and distorting and wasteful effect on real science.  Of course, if one reads the Protocols this is exactly what they say they will do! We progress much farther when we drop Einstein.

Rendering Einstein's theory mute, unlocks the collars from wasted money on funded projects, and stops us from believing in fairy stories like black holes (scare-movie 'The Black Hole', Disney), or worse, 'Dark Matter' (Ooo, spooky)**.  Among other effects, I think these are designed to make the Goy and 'lesser breatheren' fearful of space, and full of more fear in general.  Fear means more business for the pharma companies, alcohol and porno/video game escape industry.

* a tether was released on a shuttle orbit as a test to generate electricity. I don't understand the science quite - however - of note was there was so much electricity generated that the tether separated from the satellite or shuttle, and floated out in space, glowing brightly.

** there is an excellent paper refuting the existence of Dark Matter. It mentions how the proponents of DM, the 'Einsteins' we must keep on a short leash, have to keep recalculating just how much of it exists in the universe, because it doesn't actually exist at all! He goes into explaining this.  Essentially, his paper says and demonstrates how we would be a lot farther along if scientists quite trying to invent pseudo-science which can not be observed.  I seem to remember there is a Vatican tie-in here, with their space observatory.  And we all know who runs the Vatican's finances.

[jai_mann]

It's abundantly clear that Einstein was a fraud. The one experimental physicist who does not get the credit which is due is Nikola Tesla. I have been researching his work for the past 3 years and in my humble opinion I believe he was one of the smartest men to have ever walked the face of the Earth. His name has been intentionally obscured because he had figured out how to access unlimited quantities of energy. I wouldn't be surprised if the promotion of Einstein in the media was part of obscuring the work of Tesla and Whittaker and others who discussed the ether and longitudinal/scalar waves. Tesla made a lot of waves early on and eventually got shitlisted by the JP Morgan for his plans to provide limitless energy to everyone around the world.

If any of you have an interest I highly recommend studying Tesla's patents. In particular check out his single wire transmission of energy. That patent is the one which takes tranverse waves at the primary and induce longitudinal waves on the secondaries which in turn induce tranverse waves at the remote sensor. If you study the lay out of the coils you'll notice that the primaries are wound outside and on top of the secondaries. The secondaries in turn are wound in a two dimensional plane (they can be wound in 3 planes but since ether and EMF behave as gases the 2 planes are more effective for producing the longitudinal waves). This is the key to creating longitudinal waves.

Also, in case none of you are familiar with it, there is a water splitting device which a small percentage of HHO hobbyists are working on which utilize this exact patent and effect. The inventor's name is Bob Boyce. The project isn't cheap because it requires stainless steel 316L so most people are wasting their time on brute force electrolyzers. I'm personally drilling plates now and have most of the electronics dealt with. Hopefully in < a month I will have the plates conditioned and ready for testing with longitudinal waves. I mention all of this because I hope that some of you will check this out and pass on the word so that Tesla vision of energy for everyone can come true.

At a minimum people can build Tesla's single wire energy transmitter and experiment with the excess energy the receiver picks up.
http://amasci.com/tesla/tmistk.html

Look at the diagrams there for some visuals.

[sullivan]

This led me to think that 'Black' holes aren't sucking matter in, with all the science problems this causes, but in fact, radiate at such a high energy level they have become invisible.  Some of the lower frequency energy, still above the visible spectrum, makes it out and can be detected.  Normal gravitational effect would account for how stars' matter is 'consumed' by these black holes nearby.

Gravitational force is one of the weakest known. It is a stretching the imagination to imagine how gravity could create a 'black hole' or even, as you suggest, cause star material to be consumed. To me the theory that makes most sense is the 'Electric Universe' theory and if it is true, it would go some way to explaining the glowing tether you mention later in your post.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

An interesting link on Germany in WWII on the work of Quantum Physicists:

http://www.thewebfairy.com/missilegate/ ... pter13.htm


----------

Much has been written of the deleterious effects of Nazi ideology on banning "Jewish physics," i.e., relativity, from German science, so this will not be covered again here. This left quantum mechanics as the only genuine physics that could equally be claimed to be "Aryan" and pursued by Nazi physicists with a vengeance. Quantum mechanics, in the state in which it then existed, could be summarized as having the following emphases and implications for the German scientists involved:

1 Nick Cook, The Hunt for Zero Point, p. 227.

2

In the light of the previous chapter's information, another plausible explanation of Speer's ignorance of the weapon, as well as an explanation of what the weapon might have been, now present themselves, for a fuel-air bomb would fall well within the parameters of the test described by Jackson, and since, once again, the test occurred under SS auspices, it is not surprising that Speer did not know of it.

196

(1)

    The rejection of relativity meant to a certain extent that the pre-relativistic idea of an aether lumeniferous regained some currency, via its quantum mechanics version of zero point energy or vacuum flux. German scientists were therefore not free to pursue relativistic science, but were free to investigate the enigmatic properties of this new "quantum aether." Indeed, with various esoteric and occult doctrines percolating in the background, such as the notion of "vril" energy, and Reichenbach's early and well-known experiments in the 18th century on "life force" energy, the Germans would have been positively encouraged by the underlying ideology to undertake experimental examination of its properties as far as existing technology would allow;

(2)

    Reichenbach's experiments, plus the implications of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, may have influenced German scientists to posit a connection between consciousness, quantum physics, and this underlying "quantum aether". The strange Ahnenerbe experiments mentioned earlier would seem to indicate that some such experiments in consciousness were being undertaken;

(3)

    Pre-war standard physics papers by Gerlach had indicated connections between spin and resonance effects;

(4)

    The paradoxes of quantum mechanics had also become known, leading Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen to posit "quantum loopholes" in relativity's own "velocity of light speed limit" for faster-than-light transference of information;

(5)

    One German physicist of some repute, O.C. Hilgenberg, a student of gravitation expert Walter Gerlach, had taken Gerlach's work one step further, as we shall see;

(6)

    German physicists thus had strong internal impetus as well as external ideological pressures to investigate the properties of rotating media and fields, especially since the results of Georges Sagnac's rotational version of the Michelson-Morley experiment were known to them;

(7)

    The Germans knew of Tesla's extraordinary claims for beaming electric power, as well as of his high voltage direct current impulse experiments which revealed superluminal electro-acoustic longitudinal wave forms;

(

    The Germans would likely have known of E.T. Whittaker's pre-relativistic papers, which were a mathematical study of such wave forms.

197

Given this series of known physical papers and experiments, and given the Kammlerstab's "alchemy" of combining technologies and concepts to seek underlying unifying principles and methods, might they have put all these together to come up with the beginning theoretical outlines of a physics completely different than the public consumption physics proffered since the end of the war, up to, and including the 26 dimensional monster called "String theory"? If so, are there any indications that they did so, or were beginning to? While the indications in terms of actual papers are slight, those indications, coupled with the revelations that have come from Germany since its reunification, suggest that the answer to both questions is "yes."

A. Gravity, Vortices, and Quantum Numerology

Dr. Ing. Ott Christoph Hilgenberg was a student of the renowned Nobel laureate Walter Gerlach, whose work in magnetic spin polarization in 1921 had earned him the Nobel Prize. Hilgenberg, however, while within the "mainstream" of physics, was not one to allow his mind to be constrained by conventional concepts, as any glance at his two little known, but quite unconventional and thought-provoking papers will attest.

In 1931 Hilgenberg published what may best be called an arcane paper entitled "Gravitation, Tromben, und Wellen in bewegten Medien," or "Gravitation, Beats, and Waves in Moving Media." The title itself is quite suggestive, for it is the first indication that, even before the Nazis, and after relativity, at least one serious and respected German physicist is still thinking of the old idea of an aether, but thinking about it in a way quite different from the static

198

aether concepts of the 19th century that led to the famous Michelson-Morley experiment, and Sagnac's rotational version of it. For Hilgenberg is thinking of a dynamic aether, spurred in part no doubt by the implications of Sagnac's version of the famous experiment. Hilgenberg's paper was arcane and abstruse in the extreme, advocating the idea of gravitation as a vertical ether sink. Thus, as in relativity, gravity was the consequence of a complex geometry, only in Hilgenberg's case, this meant that "mass" was a geometric result manifest, for example, in a rotating body's interior. This led Hilgenberg to propose the very unconventional idea that the earth - or any other such rotating massive body -expanded and contracted, in a huge wave-like pattern over time.

In 1938 Hilgenberg followed this paper up with a mathematical and theoretical physics tour de force entitled "Quantenzahlen, Wirbelring-Atommodelle und Heliumsechserring-Aufbauprinzip des Periodensystems der chemischen Elemente," a mind-twister that is no less impressive in English: "A Quantum Number, Vortex Atom Model and Hexagonal-ring Construction Principle of the Periodic System of the Chemical Elements." Hilgenberg had developed the mathematics for a system of modelling complete atoms according to vorticular rotational principles of the now long-discarded aether! The combined effect of these two papers and their mathematical and theoretical development allowed Hilgenberg to predict a number of effects completely at variance with relativistic physics, and long before similar observations in the late 20th century began to signal significant problems with the relativistic-Big Bang cosmology, e.g., heterodyning effects on light coming from a body moving toward the observer, or, to put it simply, why red-shift effects sometimes accompany bodies moving toward an observer rather than away from one.

Under Hilgenberg's influence, Carl Friedrich Krafft took this "vorticular quantum mechanics" one step further, and posited atoms as essentially a geometric or topological construct of the aether that acted as "ether pumps", taking in or giving off energy based on the rotations of the various rings of dynamic aether around them. He developed this notion even further by positing various combinations of vorticular, rotating geometries as the basis.

--------

Another good link on the "Harmonics Theory" which can work along the scale with the "Electrical Universe" and Quantum Theory:
http://ray.tomes.biz/maths.html

[§N9sh2bj]

Gravitational force is one of the weakest known. It is a [sic] stretching the imagination to imagine how gravity could create a 'black hole' or even, as you suggest, cause star material to be consumed.

My statement about "The star being 'consumed' by the 'black hole'", is a reference to the Dogon tribe which had information about Sirius A & B. This are two companion objects which rotate around each other. There is a lot more information online I'm sure.  I should have been more clear about it.  I vaguely remember an image, and do not remember if it was an artists conception or a hubble photo, where normally ejected gases from the star were bending into this 'black hole'.

I was not suggesting the gravity of the 'black hole' consumes the star entirely. I think there is no scientific, observable evidence for this.  I was suggesting the normally ejected mass from the star is naturally attracted to the nearest super-massive body, and it happens to be the 'black hole'.  I completely refute the idea that 'black holes' operate in the universe consuming solar systems or other bodies.  It feels like a bunch of cooked-up fear propaganda, in this instance to make space seem unnecessarily dangerous.  This is a primary reason I disagree with it, initially it's intuitive.  Black holes, terrorism, germs.  :lol: Super-massive, people sized, or very very tiny.  :roll:  It all sounds like the same garbage after awhile.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Dayton Miller's conflict with Einstein's findings is pretty interesting. He found that the Michelson-Morley experiments of 1887 which Einstein's relativity theories were based on were essentially flawed. He did not however have his own careful measurements accepted by mainstream scientists which had dismissed the "aether" theory. Overall, it shows the the lack of openness that scientists held towards findings that conflicted with Einstein's Relativity.

A 2006 paper states that Miller had an essentially flawed analysis and that Relativity still holds:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608238.pdf

Tests to prove Special Relativity:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... ml#the_MMX
------------

The history of science records the 1887 ether-drift experiment of Albert Michelson and Edward Morley as a pivotal turning point, where the energetic ether of space was discarded by mainstream physics. Thereafter, the postulate of "empty space" was embraced, along with related concepts which demanded constancy in light-speed, such as Albert Einstein's relativity theory. The now famous Michelson-Morley experiment is widely cited, in nearly every physics textbook, for its claimed "null" or "negative" results. Less known, however, is the far more significant and detailed work of Dayton Miller.


"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." — Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, July 1925

"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)

"You imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track."
— Albert Einstein, on his 70th birthday, in a letter to Maurice Solovine, 28 March 1949 (in B. Hoffman Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel 1972, p.328)

Debates with Einstein

There are several newspaper accounts indicating a certain tension between Albert Einstein and Dayton Miller, since the early 1920s at least. In June of 1921, Einstein wrote to the physicist Robert Millikan: "I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards." (Clark 1971, p.328) Privately, in letters and in spoken words, there was a struggle going on for philosophical dominance, and occasionally this struggle surfaced into public view:

GOES TO DISPROVE EINSTEIN THEORY
Case Scientist Will Conduct
Further Studies in Ether Drift.
Einstein Discounts Experiments
Speaking before scientists at the University of
Berlin, Einstein said the ether drift experiments
at Cleveland showed zero results, while on Mount
Wilson they showed positive results. Therefore,
altitude influences results. In addition, temperature
differences have provided a source of error.
"The trouble with Prof. Einstein is that he knows
nothing about my results." Dr. Miller said. "He has
been saying for thirty years that the interferometer
experiments in Cleveland showed negative results. We
never said they gave negative results, and they did
not in fact give negative results. He ought to give
me credit for knowing that temperature differences
would affect the results. He wrote to me in November
suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no
allowance for temperature."
(Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper, 27 Jan. 1926)

The above newspaper account is significant, as it demonstrates that Einstein was pushing the "thermal artifact" argument against Miller's results as early as 1926. There are other accounts of Einstein's discontent with Miller's results in "Conversations with Albert Einstein" written by Robert Shankland in the years after Miller's death. (Shankland 1963, 1973b)

Miller's Control Experiments

Miller was fully aware of the criticisms being made against his findings, that his interferometer was responding to one or another mechanical, magnetic or thermal influence. Given its large size and sensitivity, it required a careful set-up procedure prior to each use. Setting screws with extremely fine threads were used to adjust the mirrors, and the final adjustment could isolate 100 wavelengths of light by just a 16° turn of the screw. Even this was insufficient for the final adjustment, which was made by adding small weights of around 100 gram to the ends of cross-beam, which was sufficient to cause a micro-flexing of the iron supports by only a few wavelengths. Only then would the interference fringes come into view. And once in view, additional care had to be taken to prevent distortions from mechanical vibrations. Consequently, from the very beginning of the ether-drift experiments, Miller undertook extensive control experiments and procedures to guard against laboratory artifacts, and to objectively determine just how sensitive his apparatus was to external influences.

Especially between 1922-1924, Miller's control experiments were most rigorous, aimed at addressing the criticisms he had received following the earlier work, to make the apparatus as sensitive as possible only to ether-drift. A special interferometer of aluminum and brass was constructed, to guard against the possible effects of magnetoconstriction (the measured periodic ether-drifting was the same as with the original iron interferometer). Procedures were made to judge the effects of mechanical vibration — such as using a loose or tight centering pin. Bases made of wood, metal or concrete were floated in the mercury tank, to judge and correct for the effects of strain and deformation. The apparatus was not touched when operating, but rather gently pulled in a circle by a thin string, slowly accelerated to the desired velocity of rotation while floating in the mercury tank. Different light sources were tried, mounted on different locations on the apparatus. Light sources outside the structure were also tried, including Sunlight, but finally an artificial light source located above the central axis of the instrument was used.


In his 1933 paper, Miller published the most comprehensive summary of his work, and the large quantity of data which supported his conclusions. A total of over 200,000 individual readings were made, from over 12,000 individual turns of the interferometer, undertaken at different months of the year, starting in 1902 with Edward Morley at Case School in Cleveland, and ending in 1926 with his Mt. Wilson experiments. These data do not include many rigorous control experiments undertaken at Case School Physics Department from 1922 to 1924. More than half of Miller's readings were made at Mt. Wilson using the most sophisticated and controlled procedures, with the most telling set of experiments in 1925 and 1926. By contrast, we can mention here, the original Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 involved only six hours of data collection over four days (July 8, 9, 11 and 12 of 1887), with a grand total of only 36 turns of their interferometer. Even so, as shown below, Michelson-Morley originally obtained a slight positive result which has been systematically ignored or misrepresented by modern physics. As stated by Michelson-Morley:
"...the relative velocity of the earth and the ether is probably less than one-sixth the earth's orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth. ... The experiment will therefore be repeated at intervals of three months, and thus all uncertainty will be avoided." (Michelson-Morley 1887)

Unfortunately, and in spite of all claims to the contrary, Michelson-Morley never undertook those additional experiments at the different seasonal configurations, to "avoid all uncertainty". However, Miller did. Over many years, he developed increasingly sensitive apparatus, using them at higher altitudes and in open structures, making clear and positive detection of the ether. His experiments yielded systematic periodic effects which pointed to a similar identifiable axis of cosmic ether-drift, though of a variable magnitude, depending upon the season, time of day, density of materials shielding or surrounding the apparatus, and altitude at which the experiment was undertaken. He argued that basement locations, or interferometers shielded with opaque wood or metal housings, yielded the most tiny and insignificant effects, while those undertaken at higher altitudes and in less dense structures yielded more readily observable effects. The Michelson-Morley experiment, by comparison, was undertaken in the basement of a stone building closer to sea-level. Even so, it produced a slight positive result which was in agreement with Miller's results.

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm


In Shankland's analysis, no statistically significant signal for the existence of aether was found. Shankland concluded that Miller's observed signal was partly due to error rather than an observed existence of aether holding radiant energy. Thus, a large number of mainstream scientists today hold the conviction that any signal that Miller observed was the result of the experimenter effect, which was a common source of systematic error before modern experimental techniques were developed (ed, Miller did publish an early textbook on experimental techniques; cf., Ginn & Company, 1903).

William Broad and Nicholas Wade, reporters who wrote Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud in Science (1983), have stated that scientists should have reviewed Miller's research more seriously at the time, and that their refusal to do so is evidence of incompetence and unprofessional conduct. Robert Crease argues that it would have been "irrational and unscientific" to suspend Einstein's theory because of a contrary experiment. In Crease's opinion, this would allow some antiscientific ideologues (eg., some Soviet scientists) to stop progress through falsification.[13] Relativists discount Miller's repeated attempts to bring relativity theory into question by citing several modern precision experiments,[11] [14] [15] [16] [17] but dissidents have argued in fringe venues that Miller's objections still stand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Miller

[high_treason]

Physics is not my strength but I can tell you that the scientists were probably intimidated with a funding cut. If you think about it at the turn of the last century Rockafeller took over higher education and has essentially controlled it and of course he is an agent of the Rothschilds. Scientists get their money from universities and governments. Tesla went against the establishment and decided to create free and renewable energy while Edison went with the establishment to create expensive and wasteful energy...Edison won, so it wouldn't be a surprize if Einstein is taken as the Messaiah of science even if his theories are flawed because they never choose whats best for humanity but whats more profitable to them.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

This kind of a long article but it shows that Lorentz basically laid out the theory for Relativity:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/19076

Of course there is always Christopher Jon Bjerknes and the  Allen Esterson and the Mileva Einstein-Marity Dispute. He should focus more on the science but Einstein likely stole most of his material for his 1905 publications from his wife and Poincaire-Lorentz:

http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2007/0 ... stein.html


More on Lorentz's ether theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory


Hey No Big Bang -
No Big Bang? Endless Universe Made Possible by New Model
January 30th, 2007 in Physics / Physics
A new cosmological model demonstrates the universe can endlessly expand and contract, providing a rival to Big Bang theories and solving a thorny modern physics problem, according to University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill physicists.
http://www.physorg.com/news89399974.html

Finally a theory that holds up:
http://ray.tomes.biz/b2/index.php/a/2007/07/24/p158

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Actually, this great Irishman  should be celebrated by school kids since in the end - his theories help support an Electric Universe
---------

Sir Joseph Larmor (11 July 1857 Magheragall, County Antrim, Northern Ireland – 19 May 1942 Holywood, County Down, Northern Ireland [1]), a physicist and mathematician who made innovations in the understanding of electricity, dynamics, thermodynamics, and the electron theory of matter. His most influential work was Aether and Matter, a theoretical physics book published in 1900.

Larmor proposed that the aether could be represented as a homogeneous fluid medium which was perfectly incompressible and elastic. Larmor believed the aether was separate from matter. He united Lord Kelvin's model of spinning gyrostats (e.g., vortexes) with this theory.

Parallel to the development of Lorentz ether theory, Larmor published the complete Lorentz transformations in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1897 some two years before Hendrik Lorentz (1899, 1904) and eight years before Albert Einstein (1905). Larmor predicted the phenomenon of time dilation, at least for orbiting electrons, and verified that the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction (length contraction) should occur for bodies whose atoms were held together by electromagnetic forces. In his book Aether and Matter (1900), he again presented the Lorentz transformations, time dilation and length contraction (treating these as dynamic rather than kinematic effects). Larmor opposed Albert Einstein's theory of relativity (though he supported it for a short time). Larmor rejected both the curvature of space and the special theory of relativity, to the extent that he claimed that an absolute time was essential to astronomy (Larmor 1924, 1927).

Larmor held that matter consisted of particles moving in the aether. Larmor believed the source of electric charge was a "particle" (which as early as 1894 he was referring to as the electron). Thus, in what was apparently the first specific prediction of time dilation, he wrote "... individual electrons describe corresponding parts of their orbits in times shorter for the [rest] system in the ratio (1 - v2/c2)1/2" (Larmor 1897).

Larmor held that the flow of charged particles constitutes the current of conduction (but was not part of the atom). Larmor calculated the rate of energy radiation from an accelerating electron. Larmor explained the splitting of the spectral lines in a magnetic field by the oscillation of electrons.

In 1919, Larmor proposed sunspots are self-regenerative dynamo action on the Sun's surface.

Motivated by his strong opposition to Home Rule for Ireland, in February 1911 Larmor ran for and was elected as Member of Parliament for Cambridge University (UK Parliament constituency) with the Liberal Unionist party. He remained in parliament until the 1922 general election, at which point the Irish question had been settled. Upon his retirement from Cambridge in 1932 Larmor moved back to County Down in Northern Ireland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Larmor

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

THE REBIRTH OF ISRAEL

Einstein considered the atomic age merely as a stage for the rebirth of Israel. On p.760 of Einstein; His Life And Times we find that Abba Eban, the Israeli Ambassador, came to his home with the Israeli consul, Reuben Dafni. He later wrote, "Professor Einstein told me that he saw the rebirth of Israel as one of the few political acts in his lifetime which had an essential moral quality. He believed that the conscience of the world should, therefore, be involved in Israel's preservation." by Ronald W. Clarke, Avon Books 1971.

On March 1, 1946, Army Air Force Contract No. MX-791 was signed, creating the RAND Corporation as an official think tank, defining Project RAND as "a continuing program of scientific study and research on the broad subject of air warfare with the object of recommending to the Air Force preferred methods of techniques and instrumentalities for this purpose." On May 14, 1948, RAND Corporation funding was taken over by H. Rowan Gaither, head of the Ford Foundation. This was done because the Air Force had sole control of the atomic bomb, RAND Corp. developed the Air Force and atomic bomb program for the Cold War, with the Strategic Air Command, the missile program, and many other elements of the "terror strategy". It became a billion dollar game for these scientists, with John von Neumann, their leading scientist, becoming world famous as the inventor of "game theory", in which the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in a worldwide "game" to see which would be the first to attack the other with nuclear missiles. In the United States, the schools held daily bomb drills, with the children hiding under their desks. No one told them that thousands of schools children in Hiroshima had been incinerated in their classrooms; the desks offered no protection against nuclear weapons. The moral effect on the children was devastating. If they were to be vaporized in the next ten seconds, there seemed little reason to study, marry and have children, or prepare for a steady job. This demoralization through the nuclear weapons program is the undisclosed reason for the decline in public morality.

In 1987, Phyllis LaFarge published The Strangelove Legacy, The Impact Of The Nuclear Threat On Children, chronicling through extended research the moral devastation wreaked on the children by the daily threat of annihilation. She quotes Freeman Dyson, who stated the world has been divided into two worlds, the world of the warriors, and the world of the victims, the children. It was William L. Laurence, sitting in the co-pilot's seat of a B-29 over Nagasaki, and the children waiting to be vaporized below. This situation has not changed.

http://www.whale.to/b/mullins8.html#THE ... HELL-BOMB_

[ShamanSaid]

"By the last quarter of the 19th century, the Science of Physics was considered to be nearly complete. The electromagnetic equations of James Clark Maxwell had explained electromagnetic radiation and light was considered to be a vibrational wave propagating through a medium called the Aether in a manner similar to the propagation of sound through air. Using Maxwell's Electromagnetic Equations, J. J. Thomson derived the relationship between mass and energy,  E=M*C2,  in 1888 when the alleged source of that relationship (Dr. Einstein) was still in knee pants. "

Quote from a very detailed book, about this rabid zionist plagiarist moron, entitled The Einstein Hoax By H.E. Retic - http://users.isp.com/retic/physics/hoax.htm

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Here's another important .pdf on German research. Einstein was merely a theorist with a theory that disproved aether but ultimately failed. Recent observations in space within the last 10 years have too much phenomenon that can't be reconciled with Eintstein's (largely stolen) theories.  

The real physcists like Thompson and Maxwell:
http://www.radarworld.org/history.pdf

[ShamanSaid]

Thanks for that, very well written concise collection of good scientific contributions from Germans.

It sickens me to see Einstein's face still on billboards, in pictures, movies and children's textbooks and hear people crack remarks like "oh, he's no Einstein" when someone does something stupid - of course they probably are just like Einstein since he was nothing but a low grade moron parroting things he stole from knowledgable gentiles. This while all the while promoting that nasty despicable terrorist false flag Zionist agenda to create the state of Israel - like so many Jew scum he rode in on the coattails of gentiles' good work.

I never let someone mention that little bastards name without getting an earful that he stole his work from Thomson and Maxwell and encouraging them to research it - since the whole Jew media machines has brainwashed everyone it's never easy.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Thanks for posting Retic's book Shamansaid, it is quite good. I really like the approach and history on Lorentz-Aether transformations. For some reason, it got me thinking about John Hutchinson's experiments. This video is pretty good on Harmonics which Einstein doesn't really entertain in his theories:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu68B7uz ... re=related

You know the US military did over 200 Gravity experiments from the late 1940s to the 1960s.

This video also makes me think that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 came down so fast because they had the help of thermite/thermate -and- Tesla waves oscillating the resonant frequency of the buildings -- a tuned frequency in the buildings (non-audible) could make them fall with small "bang" cutter charges at just a few points rather than all up and down the building. Good computer modeling and a couple of tests could get these frequencies.   The planes were of course for public television consumption but the Israeli Talpiot engineers running this show had some back up in case the firefighters rained on their parade.   This 9/11 assumption is kind of a developing theory.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

You might have a listen to Ray Tome's Videos on "How to Make a Universe":

Video 1 is quite good on Einstein and the Michelson-Morley Experiment and how Maxwell essentially figured out the equations.  

He has a really interesting quote in his Harmonics Theory:

Namely that the Universe (likely including the earth) is more than a few Billions of Year. Really worth the time to listen to if you have an interest in this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8Hgaa6wlNs

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

The ideas of Dr. Gustave Le Bon (famed Anti-Semite in France) are actually pretty good and worth looking at.  I see Einstein and Freud fighting pretty much a reactionary Jewish rear-guard action against the discoveries of non-Jewish Europeans during the 1800s across the board. Physics and Psychology were powerful movements that the Jews had not yet fully controlled in the 1800s -- co-opting, sabotage and dismissal were their objectives against "Aryan" science (as Freud called it).  Le Bon has a bit of sinister connection to the Fascists though with this analysis of Crowd Behavior. -- the CSR

Funny that these early Theories on "Ether" have quality very similar to Ray Tomes's "Harmonics".    

---------

Gustave Le Bon

He also contributed to on-going debates in physics about the nature of matter and energy. His book The Evolution of Matter was very popular in France (going through twelve editions), and though some of its ideas — notably that all matter was inherently unstable and was constantly and slowly transforming into luminiferous ether — were taken up favorably by physicists of the day (including Henri Poincaré), his specific formulations were not given much consideration. In 1896 he reported observing a new kind of radiation, which he termed "black light" (not the same thing as what modern people call black light today), though it was later discovered not to exist.[1]

The ideas put forward in La psychologie des foules played an important role in the early years of group psychology: Sigmund Freud's Massenpsychologie und Ich-Analyse (1921; English translation Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, 1922) was explicitly based on a critique of Le Bon's work.

Le Bon was one of the great popularizers of theories of the unconscious at a critical moment in the formation of new theories of social action.

Wilfred Trotter, a famous surgeon at University College Hospital, London, wrote along similar lines in his famous book Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War, just before the outbreak of World War II; he has been referred to as 'Le Bon's popularizer in English.' Trotter also read Freud, and it was he who introduced Wilfred Bion, who worked for him at the hospital, to Freud's writings, and ultimately both he and Ernest Jones subscribed to the field of what would later be called group psychology. Both of these men became closely associated with Freud when he fled Austria shortly after the Anschluss. Both men were closely linked to the Tavistock Institute as key figures in the field of group dynamics.

It is arguable that the fascist theories of leadership that emerged in the 1920s owed much to Le Bon's theories of crowd psychology. Indeed, Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf drew largely on the propaganda techniques proposed in Le Bon's 1895 book. In addition, Benito Mussolini made a careful study of Le Bon's crowd psychology book, apparently keeping the book by his bedside. Edward Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud, was influenced by Le Bon and Trotter. In his famous book Propaganda he declared that a major feature of democracy was the manipulation of the mass mind by media and advertising.

--------

'The Evolution of Matter' (462 pages)

Notes from the 1st book, The Evolution of Matter' here are just a few quotes of interest;

    Preface - About ten years ago, Dr. Gustave Le Bon began to turn his attention to physical science, with the result that he entered upon the long course of experimental research which is summarized in the following pages. This led him to the conclusion-to put the affair in its simplest form-that all matter is radio-active in the same manner as uranium, radium, and the other so-called radio-active metals, and that this radio-activity is but a step in the process by which it gradually sinks back into the ether from which it was originally formed. To this he has lately added the corollary that, in the course of this disintegration, energies of an intensity transcending anything of the kind previously observed are very slowly and gradually liberated.

Introduction - According to a doctrine which seemed settled forever, and the building up of which has required a century of persistent labour, while all things in the universe are condemned to perish, two elements alone, Matter and Force, escape this fatal law. They undergo transformations without ceasing, but remain indestructible and consequently immortal.

Page 7 - What becomes of matter when it dissociates? Can it be supposed that when atoms disaggregate they only divide into smaller parts, and thus form a simple dust of atoms? We shall see that nothing of the sort takes place, and that matter which dissociates dematerializes itself by passing through successive phases which gradually deprive it of its material qualities until it finally returns to the imponderable ether whence it seems to have issued.

Page 9 - 5. Force and matter are two different forms of one and the same thing. Matter represents a stable form of intra-atomic energy; heat, light, electricity, etc. represent instable forms of it.

Page 24 - This general law, which I have not ceased to study, is as follows:-Under divers influences, light, chemical reaction, electric action, and often even, spontaneously, the atoms of simple bodies, as well as those of compound bodies, dissociate and emit effluves of the same family as the cathode rays.

Page 70 - M. Armand Gautier, Member of the Institut and Professor of Chemistry at the Faculty de Medicine of paris, has also taken up the question of intra-atomic energy in an article published by him on the subject of my researchers. He recognizes that intra-atomic energy may exist. I have not wished to enter into too many details on this point here, because it is evidently only hypothetical, and have confined myself to comparing the atoms to a solar system, a comparison which several physicists have arrived at by different roads. Without such movements of gyration it would be impossible to concieve a condensation of energy within the atom. With these movements it becomes easy to explain. Find the means, as I have pointed out above, to give to a body of any size whatever, were it even less than that of a pin's head, a sufficient speed of rotation, and you will communicate to it as considerable a provision of energy as you can desire. This is the precise condition which is realized by particles of atoms during their dissociation.

Page 88 - Without the ether there could be neither gravity, nor light, nor electricity, nor heat, nor anything, in a word, of which we have knowledge. The universe would be silent and dead, or would reveal itself in a form which we cannot even foresee. If one could construct a glass chamber from which the ether were to be entirely eliminated, heat and light could not pass through it. It would be absolutely dark, and probably gravitation would no longer act on the bodies within it. They would then have lost their weight.

Page 96 - Larmor and other physicists consider that electrons, the supposed elements of the electric fluid-and, according to some scholars, of material atoms-are vortices or gyrostats formed within the ether. Professor de Heen compaires them to a rigid wire twisted into a helix, the direction of their rotations determining the attractions and repulsions. Sutherland seeks in the direction of the movements of these gyrostats the explanation of the electrical and thermal phenomena of conduction. "Electric conduction," he says, "is due to the vibration of the gyrostats in the direction of the electric force, and thermal conduction to the vibration of vortices in all directions."

Page 96-97 - A material vortex may be formed by any fluid, liquid or gaseous, turning round an axis, and by the fact of its rotation it describes spirals. The study of these vortices has been the object of important researches by different scholars, notably by Bjerkness and Weyher. They have shown that by them can be produced all the attractions and repulsions recognized in electricity, the deviations of the magnetic needle by currents, etc. These vortices are produced by the rapid rotation of a central rod furnished with pallets, or, more simply, of a sphere. Round this sphere gaseous currents are established, dissymetrical with regard to its equatorial plane, and the result is the attraction or repulsion of bodies brought near to it, according to the position given to them. It is even possible, as Weyher has proved, to compel these bodies to turn round the sphere as do the satellites of a planet without touching it. (Orbit)

Page 121 - Electrons in motion behave like an electric current, since they are deviated by a magnetic field, and their structure is much more complex, in reality, than the above summary would seem to indicate. Without going into details, I shall confine myself to saying that they are supposed to be constituted by vortices of ether analogous to gyroscopes. In repose, they are surrounded by rectilinear rays of lines of force. In motion, they surround themselves with other lines of force-circular, not rectilinear-from which result their magnetic properties. If they are slowed down or stopped in their course they radiate Hertzian waves, light, etc. I shall recur to these properties in summing up in another chapter the current ideas on electricity.

Page 139 - Radium, when heated, loses the greater part of its activity by reason of the quantity of emanation it gives off, but it regains it entirely in twenty days or so. The same loss occurs when a solution of this salt is heated to boiling.

Page 161 - This dissociation, which has gone on since the beginning of the ages, must have played a great part in natural phenomena. It is probably the origin of atmospheric electricity, and no doubt that of the clouds, and consequently of the rainfall which exercises so great an influence on climate. One of the characteristic properties of radio-active emissions is that of condensing the vapour of water, a property which also belongs to all kinds of dust, and is demonstrated by an experiment of long standing. A globe full of water in ebullition is placed in communication with two other globes, one filled with ordinary air cleared of dust by simple filtration through cotton-wool. It can then be seen that the steam coming into the globe containing the unfiltered air immediately condenses into a thick fog, while that in the globe containing pure air does not condense.

Vanguard Sciences Page 168 - I have therefore tried to obtain this globular electricity with a single pole, and I have succeeded in doing so by a very simple process. A rod, about half a centimetre in diameter, terminated by a needle of which the point is placed on a plate covered with gelatino-bromide of silver, is connected with the negative pole of a Wimshurst machine, and the other polse is earthed. When the machine is in motion, one sees issue from the point of the needle one or several luminous globes which advance slowly and disappear abruptly after a few centimeters, leaving on the plate the trace of their trajectory. If, instead of employing a thick rod terminated by a needle, a thin rod were used, the formation of luminous spheres would not take place... The luminous spheres formed by one of the processes just indicated, possess very singular properties, notably a considerable stability. They can be touched and displaced with a strip of metal without being discharged.

Page 178 - Two bodies not radio-active sometimes become so when combined. Mercury and tin may be placed among bodies of which the dissociation, under the action of light, is the weakest: I have shown, however, that mercury became extraordinarily radio-active under this same influence, so soon as traces of tin are added to it.

Page 200-201 - In no case, I repeat, are ions and electrons formed in the vacuum tube; they are brought there from outside. They are elements produced by the generator of electricity. It is not in a Crookes' tube that matter is dissociated; it is taken there already dissociated. If this be actually so, we ought to be able to meet, in the electric discharges produced in the air by an electric machine, with the various elements-ions and electrons- of which we have noted the existence in the Crookes' tube, and which we know to be likewise generated by radioactive bodies.

Vanguard Sciences Page 245-246 - In osmotic phenomena there are always produced two currents in a converse direction, called exosmose and endosmose, of which one may overcome the other. These simple molecular attractions and repulsions acting in the bosom of liquids govern a great number of vital phenomena, and are, perhaps, one of the most important causes of the formation of living things. "Osmotic pressure," says Van't Hoff, "is a fundamental factor in the various vital functions of animals and vegetables. According to Vries, it is this which regulates the growth of plants; and, accordint to Massart, it governs the life of pathogenic germs." - By utilizing the attractions and repulsions of the free molecules in a liquid, M. Leduc has succeeded in creating the geometric cells of living beings. According to the mixtures employed, he has been able to bring before us particles which attract and repel each other, like electric atoms.

Page 251 - The study of mere matter yields ever-increasing proofs that it has properties which were formerly deemed the exclusive appanage of living beings. By taking as a basis this fact "that the most general and most delicate sign in life is the electric response," Mr. Bose has proved that this electric response "considered generally as the effect of an unknown vital force" exists in matter. And he shows by ingenious experiments "the fatigue" of metals and its disappearance after rest, and the action on these same metals of excitants, of depressants, and of poisons.

Page 252 - Matter, as we know it, only represents, as I have before said, a state of equilibrium, a relation between the internal forces it contains and the external forces which act upon them.

Vanguard SciencesPage 277 - Thus, the property possessed by aluminum of not decomposing water when cold and of not being oxidized at the ordinary temperature constitutes one of the fundamental characteristics of this metal. If it can be compelled to oxidize when cold and to decompose water by simply adding to it traces of certain bodies, we shall evidently have the right to say that its fundamental properties have been modified.

Page 277 - I have only brought them to bear on three metals-namely, aluminum, magnesium, and mercury... It will there be seen that by putting the first two of these metals in the presence of various substances-for example, distilled water which has served to wash out an empty flask previously containing mercury-it becomes possible so to modify their characteristics that, if classified according to their new properties, their places in the list of elements would have to be altered. Thereafter, these metals, decompose it violently, the aluminum instantly becomes oxidized in air, becoming covered with thick tufts which grow under one's eyes, and which give to a plate of polished aluminum the look of a jungle.

Page 299 - It is to their presence in various mineral waters that Professor Garrigou attributes several properties of these waters-that of abolishing the phenomena of intoxication, for example. M. Robin has employed colloid metals as a remedy for sundry affections, notably typhoid fever and pneumonia, by injecting from 5 to 10 cubic milligrammes of metal per litre. The result was a consiberable increase of the organic exchanges, and of the oxidation of the elimination products as revealed by an over-production of urea and uric acid. These solutions being, unfortunately, very rapidly alterable, their practical use is very difficult.

http://www.vanguardsciences.biz/morelebon.htm

[Jenny Lake]

Interesting thread...
I read that Einstein made his first U.S. visit in 1921 on a trip with Chaim Weizmann and a few others, as a major fundraising drive to establish the Hebrew University. Within the year, Bernard Flexner organized the Palestine Economic Corporation (nation building)--his brother Abraham Flexner secured Einstein a lifetime position at the Institue for Advanced Study in Princeton, and Simon Flexner joined in setting up a second Rockefeller Institute nearby.

Every time someone buys an item with Einstein's image on it, royalties go to Hebrew University in perpetuity.

It is established fact that concept and mathematical expression of  DE =Dmc2 existed before Einstein. Fadner [10] discussed this aspect in article "Did Einstein really discover E =mc2 "  in American Journal of Physics  but  incompletely as significant and real contributors to DE =Dmc2 have been ignored completely .One of them is English scientist S. T. Preston [2] , he is the first scientist who has speculated and applied the equation DE =Dmc2 first of all in 1875 in the book Physics of the Ether ;  Preston determined that one grain could lift a 100,000-ton object up to a height of 1.9 miles on the basis of  DE = Dmc2. Secondly Italian De Pretto [3] in 1903 speculated mass energy equivalence as  DE = Dmc2, two years before Einstein.

Quote above found at http://mrelativity.net/Papers/8/Sharma4.htm and just a sample of the sites mentioning Samuel Tolver Preston who I found as the earliest source of E=mc2.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Thanks for the link Jenny! I never was aware of Samuel Tolver Preston. Very interesting.

That's a good one. This subject fascinates me to no end.  I figure that it seems that a lot of progress in this field has been stopped due to "Relativity" or at least hampered. Those who have come up with radically alternative views such as a fellow like Dr. Randall Mills of BlackLight Power have essentially ditched the majority of Relativity or conformed it around their physical findings. In a weird way, these radical Unified theories pick up the thread of practical innovation that started in the early 1800s up until the end of WWII at which point the Jewish Professors smothered everything with Relativity and String theory and formulas in the major Journals and shutting up a lot of people finding variances.  Dr. Randall Mill's GUT ,  Dr.  László Körtvélyessy's Electric Universe  and Tome's Harmonics theory pull new simplified and testable Cosmologies that can scale -- this is what essentially what the "West" was doing competitively until all of it went into Black Ops - Projects after WWII.





The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics

Above: Orbitsphere Supercurrent. The bound electron exists as a spherical two-dimensional supercurrent, an extended distribution of charge completely surrounding the nucleus. Unlike a spinning sphere, there is a complex pattern of motion on its surface (indicated by arrows) that give rise to two orthogonal angular momentum vectors that give rise to the phenomenon of electron spin.

Blacklight technology is based on the innovative Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUT-CP) which is the theory that physical laws (Maxwell's Equations, Newton's Laws, Special and General Relativity) must hold on all scales. The theory is based on an often overlooked result of Maxwell's Equations, that an extended distribution of charge may, under certain conditions, accelerate without radiating. This "condition of no radiation" is invoked to solve the physical structure of subatomic particles, atoms, and molecules.

In exact closed-form equations with physical constants only, solutions to thousands of known experimental values arise that were beyond the reach of previous theory. These include the electron spin, g-factor, multi-electron atoms, excited states, polyatomic molecules, wave-particle duality and the nature of the photon, the masses and families of fundamental particles, and the relationships between fundamental laws of the universe that reveal why the universe is accelerating as it expands. GUT-CP is successful over 85 orders of magnitude, from the level of quarks to the cosmos.


http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/theory.shtml


------------



The Electric Universe

The four forces of physics,

Two of these four forces act in the atomic core. One of them UNIFIES and holds matter together in the core (e.g. via fusion), the other force SEPARATES parts of the atomic core. It produces the radioactivity of e.g. uranium and thorium (table). The other two forces of these four forces act in the infinite space. One of them - gravity - UNIFIES and holds matter together e.g. it forms stars from huge clouds. It holds together stars, solar systems, binary stars, galaxies, clusters. The other force - the electric force - SEPARATES matter of celestial bodies and repulses winds, loops, flares and light years-long jets. The electrically ejected matter is formed to filaments via pinch effect. (see jets of Crab pulsar)

The four forces of physics

The attractive and repulsive forces in microcosm and macrocosm show the elegant simplicity and beautiful symmetry of the Universe. This was not understood in the 20th century. The main problem was, how could the Universe still have e.g. positive matter which should eject another positive matter as the Sun its proton-flares? Yes, positive and negative matter continually neutralize each other. But the sun-like stars continually produce new charged matter, too, e.g. negatively charged wind and proton-flares. They do it via 43 times quicker thermal motion of the plasma-electrons related to that of the protons (Eddington 1925). Therefore, electron-jumps outwards are in average longer than those inwards. In addition to this thermoelement-effect, the solar photons and the solar neutrinos also push outwards the electrons to longer jumps but the ions to shorter ones. The solar surface is charged negatively. Neutron stars, cosmic rays and black holes have more violent electric functions. This is shown in the book and in the homepage of "The Electric Universe".


The idea

Physics knows four forces. However, the 20th century was convinced that one of the them the electric force plays no macroscopic role in the Universe. For example, positively charged atoms exist, but positively charged stars should not exist.

This strong belief was not the result of 100 symposiums held yearly on the "Non-electric Universe". It was the result of a simple idea: the electric force is too strong to act. In the case of two free protons, a 1036 times higher repulsion than attraction comes into existence (in vacuum). Although matter of the Universe everywhere consists of huge positive and negative charges, the incredible strength of the electric force seems to inhibit the macroscopic separation of these charges. Therefore, the theoretical infinite radius of the electric force seemed to be as superfluous as the fifth leg of an antelope. An improbable exception should be easily observed in this alleged 'neutral Universe'. For example, only 0.003 gram of free protons (in overbalance) should blow up the Sun, because their electrostatic repulsion would be by 50% stronger than the huge gravity of the 2·1033 gram mass of the Sun. 1 µgram of free protons cannot destroy the Sun, but they should deform the Sun to a big egg if they were distributed unevenly! The strengh of the electric is force far beyond our imanigation. Even microscopic charges should produce such macroscopic results. New measurements show that macroscopic electric charges have cosmological results e.g. galaxies which do not move according to the gravity-law or the accelerated expansion of the Universe. Such cosmological results are explained with mysterious dark matter or with mysterious dark energy. Also the fact is known that the Sun emits not only 1 µgram but also billions of tons of charged matter which stopped electric plants in Canada and Sweden in 1989 March. Therefore, something is wrong in this old basic idea.

A loop on the sun

Not only the strength but also the direction of the electric force should easily reveal it, if the charges are not neutralized. Gravity can only attract, but the electric force can also repulse. Therefore, a simple method to detect this separation of the electric charges in the Universe is the search for this repulsion. The 1 microgram free protons should produce at least an electrostatic solar geyser which was not found in the time between Galilee and Hale. However, these geysers were observed by G.E.Hale in 1892 with his spectro-heliograph. These prominences were not hot and therefore not round clouds but filaments, clearly of electric origin due to their pinch effect and ions. Hale´s invention should be the start of the electric astronomy. Yes, the genial inventor Hale was convinced that the electric charge of the Sun produces the magnetic field of the sunspots. In 1941, R.S. Richardson tested again the electric explanation of Hale but the supposition of a constant electric charge of the Sun led to contradictions.

Soon, the solar dynamo was introduced to explain everything. But this dynamo itself remained a mystery. Its site, voltage, current, power, dimensions, electric circuit could not be shown. SOHO was constructed to find it, but neither the dynamo, nor its alleged products: the deep, long magnetic tubes could be found. Also the heating of the corona, the emission of the wind remained intriguing mysteries. Many astronomers e.g. Bachcall (1997), Haxton (1995), Hoeksema (1994), Lang (1995), Longair (1994), Phillips (1992 ) in many hundred pages pointed out these and other hundreds of contradictions but without any hope of a solution. However, my book The Electric Universe shows also the solution. No new measurements (of the e.g. strings), no new physics of WIMPs or neutrinos, only two facts in addition must be taken into account:

    * the electron has a 1836 times smaller mass than the proton and
    * all photons move in a plasma along a very long zigzag course.

Both facts are well known since a century. But, consequently, the electrons have 43 times higher velocity than the protons in the same temperature and, therefore, much more electrons than protons leave the solar core. Therefore, the solar core is continually charged positively. Simply, the fusion-energy separates the electric charges via its produced temperature-gradient.

Why did the Sun not explode electrostatically when the first 0.003 gram of free protons remained alone without their electrons in the solar core ? As long as the solar core is a plasma, all of its photons have a zigzag course of a length of light-years in it. This ineffectivity of the photons is valid not only in the case of the photons which carry out the heat radiation of the solar core (this process is well known) but, obviously, also in the case of those photons, which carry out the electrostatic positive field of the free core-protons. One of these free protons accepts the photons of the repulsion from the other free protons along zigzag courses in the lengths of light-years, therefore very weakly. The plasma obeys all gas-laws, but it is no gas. It is not transparent for the heat radiation and electric force which are carried by the same photons.

However, the Sun will explode electrostatically, in a cold way, when its positive core (as a white dwarf) will be colder than about 7 000 K, when the ion-electron pairs recombine and many ions remain without electron-pair. The photons suddenly fly along short and straight lines in a gas and carry the strong electrostatic repulsion of one ion to other ions ! This will be a gamma ray burst. This is why a red section of the white dwarfs is totally missing in the Herzsprung-Russel diagram! Without this electrostatic explosion, the number of the cold (therefore red) white dwarfs should be even much higher than the hot (therefore blue and white) white dwarfs due to their slower cool down

. Our universe! every spot is an galaxy!

My astronomy book explains a very conspicuous form of matter: the various filaments of the Universe. All filaments must be made by a force of infinite radius, not by nuclear forces. It cannot be gravity, therefore, it must be the electric force which creates sparks, lightnings, spiculae, filaments of the penumbra, chromosphere, corona, flares, coronal mass ejections, filaments of supernova remnants, jets of young stars and radiogalaxies, many filaments of superclusters, e.g. the Aquarius filament of 23 superclusters in the length of about 1 gigalightyear! The motion of the charged matter is caused by electrostatic repulsion and/or attraction. This motion produces also the observed exact circular cross sections of all these filaments via pinch effect. Is it not beautiful that gravity makes spheres and the electric force filaments, both of circular cross sections independently of their very varying sizes? The whole Universe mainly consists of filaments and big voids. Therefore, the infinite radius of the electric force is not superfluous! It shapes not only sparks but also the largest bodies of the Universe.

No professional astronomer could find this new astronomy because they learned (as I) that a thermoelement needs two wires. It was my luck to find a new thermoelement-law which shows that the two thermowires are two generators ! After this new law (in 1978), I needed 16 years to discover that conducting stars function similar to a thermowire, charging the hot parts positively and the cold parts negatively, without any motion, simply by heat-difference. No problem is the Lenz law which would stop the solar rotation via inducted currents. The Electric Universe is fantastical beautiful in its elegant simplicity, already in its first description. However, the 20th century remains for ever the century of astronomical mysteries because of the unleveled effects of the electric force.

Dr. László Körtvélyessy physicist and engineer of high temperature process technics,

candidate of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/The_idea.html

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Also, in case none of you are familiar with it, there is a water splitting device which a small percentage of HHO hobbyists are working on which utilize this exact patent and effect. The inventor's name is Bob Boyce. The project isn't cheap because it requires stainless steel 316L so most people are wasting their time on brute force electrolyzers. I'm personally drilling plates now and have most of the electronics dealt with. Hopefully in < a month I will have the plates conditioned and ready for testing with longitudinal waves. I mention all of this because I hope that some of you will check this out and pass on the word so that Tesla vision of energy for everyone can come true.

At a minimum people can build Tesla's single wire energy transmitter and experiment with the excess energy the receiver picks up.
http://amasci.com/tesla/tmistk.html

jai_mann,

That amasci article made me remember a photo of Tesla and Stubblefield in regards to wireless energy transmission.






Even without Stubblefield, Marconi still wouldn't be the true inventor of radio - Nikola Tesla invented it before Marconi. Marconi, in fact, used Tesla's own patents as research materials. Tesla, in turn, was among the curious onlookers in attendance at Stubblefield's 1902 wireless demonstration in Philadelphia.

picttes1.jpg (74227 bytes)

Stubblefield also developed a battery to power this system and a motor,  that we will get into later. Now around 1878  Amos Dolbear files a patent on what he called induction wireless telephone, demonstrated publicly in the us, Canada, and Europe in 1882 and 1883, patented in U.S.1886. What is amazing  to me is that the patent uses an elevated capacitance. So this is not the same as a Hertizan wave transmitter. It is very clear that the capacitance acts as the antenna and the return is using the earth as ground. The induction coil is used as a high self-inductance only, creating a very high  potential or stress in the aether.

wiss11.jpg (14256 bytes)

"Now," Tesla writes later on about the transmitter that he was developing, "I attacked vigorously the development of my magnifying transmitter, now however, not so much with the original intention of producing one of great power, as with the object of learning how to construct the best one. This is essentially, a circuit of high self-induction and small resistance ( key words coming up) which in its arrangement, mode of excitation and section and action, may be said to be the diametrical opposite of a transmitting circuit typical of telegraphy by Hertzian or electromagnetic radiations."

What Stubblefield had discovered and what he do with his system.

Stubblefield was experimenting with ground radio since 1882, but did not patent his developments until much later. Credible witnesses saw his ground radio experiments in action during this time frame, establishing the historical priority of Stubblefield. While Marconi could barely send telegraphic "dots and dash" signals with great difficulty through a static-filled medium, Nathan Stubblefield had already transmitted the human voice with loud, velvet clarity. Others would adopt and implement the Collins system (Fessenden, DeForest, Bethenod, Braun), but none could duplicate the Stubblefield System.

Nikola Tesla performed double ground experiments with impulses as early as 1892, reporting these in lectures and patenting some embodiments in 1901. Not one of these later systems ever achieved the same results of clarity, tone, and volume of Stubblefield ground telephony. Tesla apparently never discovered the true powerpoints which powered Stubblefield's device. Priority in all these arts belongs to Nathan Stubblefield alone. In addition, his was the only system in which natural energies were obtained, magnified, and entirely employed as the empowering source. All other inventors used "artificial" sources (batteries, alternators, dynamos).

http://www.icehouse.net/john34/stubblefield.html

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Don Albury, co-pilot in atomic bomb mission, dies at 88
The co-pilot in the Nagasaki mission never regretted his role in history -- although he prayed a lot.
Get Adobe Flash player

    * Photos

Related Content

    * Sign guest book for Charles Donald Albury

BY ELINOR J. BRECHER
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breakin ... 81080.html

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Garrett Lisi: An exceptionally simple theory of everything


The most entertaining paper that managed to creep into hep-th today is called

    An exceptionally simple theory of everything (PDF).
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0711.0770
http://aimath.org/E8/mcmullen.html


E8 root system:


Update I: the preprint was re-classified from the professional hep-th archive to gen-ph, general physics, an archive mostly dedicated to laymen's fantasies. Thanks God. Comment for general readers: this preprint is of course not peer-reviewed and probably won't get published anywhere.

Update II: Roger Highfield whom we know from his article attacking the scientific method and claiming that Einstein may have started the rot has returned. In a new, equally breathtakingly silly article, he suggests that A. Garrett Lisi is a new Einstein. Two months ago, I wrote about bad physicists and populism. You may see that virtually all of the myths I described are realized in this story. Mr Highfield has written at least one more stupidity of the same magnitude - namely that the cosmologists are bringing the Universe closer to the doom by observing it. Sensations are much more important for him than rational thinking or the truth.

Update III: Thousands of blogs and news outlets have copied the utter nonsense from Mr. Highfield and at least tens of thousands of people are Google searching for this "new Einstein". It's called mass hysteria. Isn't it cool if a poor surfer dude (see a snowboarding video) finds a theory of everything? It is surely cool but "cool" is not the same thing as "true". ;-) ArsTechnica, a server dedicated to PC professionals, seems to be one of a limited number of remaining sane sources.

Update IV: Lisi's paper has four citations. The most famous authors referring to him are Ferrara and Bianchi who call Lisi's construction a "(hopeless) attempt to unify" on page 16 of their paper.

Update V: Jacques Distler and Skip Garibaldi wrote a paper for mathematicians, explaining that there can't be any "theory of everything" that embeds gravity and other forces into any form of E8.

Its author, A. Garrett Lisi, claims to have found nothing less than a theory of everything. An exceptionally simple one, for that matter. It may sound as a bold statement but from a genius of A. Garrett Lisi's caliber, it shouldn't be surprising. :-)

This extraordinary surfer dude managed to collect five citations in the last thirteen years which is only 4 orders of magnitude below leading physicists. Because the work is based on the E8 group that I love, you bet that I have opened the paper.

Reading the paper

Needless to say, the visually intriguing and colorful paper is a huge joke. The first place where I exploded in laughter was the equation (1.1). It says, using words, the following:

    My connection of everything = connection for gravity + weak force + strong force + electromagnetism + electron + neutrino + up-quark + down-quark + other-generations

That's pretty cute! :-) The author is not constrained by any old "conventions" and simply adds Grassmann fields together with ordinary numbers i.e. bosons with fermions, one-forms with spinors and scalars, neglecting any traces of dimensional analysis, too. He is just so skillful that he can add up not only apples and oranges but also fields of all kinds you could ever think of. Every high school senior excited about physics should be able to see that the paper is just a long sequence of childish misunderstandings. I understood these things when I was 14.

Confirming my essay about crackpots' common errors, Garrett Lisi is unable to falsify a wrong hypothesis even in the simplest cases.

Concerning the title, I present it as a joke but I agree with Freedom of Science that if the title is viewed seriously by some important readers and if the author allows it, it is a case of scientific fraud.

There is not a glimpse of physics in that paper. You won't find anything like a "Lagrangian", "amplitudes", "masses", "cross section", "quantum corrections", "anomalies", "energy", "force", "Hamiltonian", "entropy", "phase transition", "path integral", "renormalization", "temperature", or other words that you expect in a particle physics paper. When he talks about actions, they're always wrong actions from some previous obscure papers that have clearly nothing to do with observable physics either. Of course, the author also seems to have no clue about quantum aspects of gravity - a unification of gravity with quantum mechanics is not even attempted because the author clearly doesn't know what it means. On the other hand, you find a lot of random assignments of particles to vertices of polytopes - something that you know from papers about the octopi.

It is the same kind of "unification" as if you put stickers with elementary particles on a chessboard and argue that chess is the ultimate theory of everything. Some stickers don't fit so you call them your predictions. Kindergarten stuff, indeed. Or let me give you a better analogy.



A. Garrett Lisi and his 222 close personal friends. He needs 18 more to reproduce the roots of E8 and make his theory complete. Click the picture for more details.

The role of the E8 group in his picture is therefore completely unphysical. Because different components of the E8 multiplet are assumed to be particles with completely different properties, the E8 symmetry is broken at stage zero. There is no E8 symmetry - and there can't be any E8 symmetry - that would actually relate these different particles.

Of course, the comments that this theory may be tested by future experiments are nothing else than journalists' confusions or a politically correct lie (because it is always OK to say an untrue thing about an "anti-establishment" outsider who is moreover a broke). The theory can't reproduce even basic aspects of the observations that have been made decades or centuries ago which is why any talk about even more ambitious tests is rationally unjustifiable.

E8 group and decompositions

The main mathematical content in these 30+ pages is the decomposition of the fundamental representation of E8 under its F4 x G2 subgroup. It is an elementary fact that e.g. freshmen in Prague who follow my textbook written with Miloš Zahradník know as equation (12.95). For A. Garrett Lisi, this single line reflecting a simple calculation that has been done a century ago and that a fraction of freshmen learns is a topic for a 30-page paper and an impressive albeit two-dimensional movie.

Unfortunately, Garrett Lisi, painting himself as an E8 expert, already doesn't know that E8 has a SU(5) x SU(5) subgroup. It's kind of amazing to be ignorant about these elementary facts for a person who is pictured as an expert.



Nude Socialist has already created a 2-minute commercial for this nonsense. Don't be intimidated by the animation. It is just a collection of points given by 8 coordinates (being 0, +-1/2, or +-1) projected to a 2-dimensional plane whose direction - i.e. the relevant coefficients - are changing with time. The visual effect has nothing to do with physics. And mathematicians routinely create more sophisticated animations, see e.g. turning sphere inside out.

Some people might be impressed by some of these formulae about the E8 group - some of which are correct - and/or the pictures. But I assure you that the E8 group is a pretty standard material that students learn in courses of group theory. And there are millions of pictures like that. For example, the picture of the E8 Gossett polytope below is from Wikipedia's article about E8; see also string theorist Clifford Johnson's blog from March 2007. E8 is the biggest exceptional animal in the exciting ADE classification and a large portion of string theorists work with it every day.



This stuff has been known for a century or so. For example, the E8 group itself was discovered by Wilhelm Killing (click the picture) in 1887. New insights were added by Élie Joseph Cartan (click the picture below) in 1894.

The basic facts about the E8 group have nothing to do with problems that physics has been solving in the last 50 years: they are just a part of the mathematical background that high-energy physicists are supposed to know. Garrett Lisi remembered something from math classes he was taking 15-20 years ago but he has forgotten virtually all of his physics classes. Be sure that every physicist who knows basics of his field agrees with me that everything that is nice about the paper has been known for a long time. For example, Le Monde quotes Thibault Damour and Jean Iliopoulos saying exactly the same thing.

The way how Antony Garrett Lisi combines his spotty knowledge with ambitious claims mimicks the approach of thousands of other "amateur Einsteins". He was just luckier because a journalist has endorsed him.

If you care how the forces and particles are supposed to be embedded into his group, it's like this. You start with a non-compact real form of E8, namely E8(24). You embed a G2 into it. Its centralizer is a non-compact version of F4. Now, you embed the strong SU(3) into the G2 while the non-compact F4 acts as the source of a "graviweak" SO(7,1) group that contains SO(3,1), a "gauge group" that is now fashionable in the circles of amateur physicists to "describe" gravity, and SO(4), their source of cargo cult electroweak symmetry.

Of course, the SO(3,1) group mentioned a minute ago plays a different role (in the vielbein formulation of general relativity) than the Yang-Mills groups and the fact that these two kinds of a group cannot be merged is the content of the Coleman-Mandula theorem to be discussed at the end of my text. Moreover, the fermions clearly can't arise from the connection because they have a different spin and statistics and they don't transform in the adjoint representation. For people like A. Garrett Lisi, it is not hard to unify everything with everything else because they don't know any difference between different concepts in physics.

Let me repeat the same idea differently. A unification of different forces and matter in physics is difficult because different force and matter particles have different properties, especially spin and statistics (and other features that follow from them, e.g. non-renormalizability of gravity). Garrett Lisi attacks the problem of unification by completely ignoring all these features that actually contain the whole problem. That's why his work is physically vacuous and meaningless.

    If you want a lecture of a well-known physicist about the Coleman-Mandula theorem, look at MOVIE 13 by Edward Witten at the Sidneyfest.

The technical statements that the decomposition etc. can give the right spectrum, e.g. the number of generations, is also wrong. See, for example, Jacques Distler's post. Jacques' group theory looks impressive but his complaints are analogous to telling cargo cult scientists that they should change the shape of their wooden headphones, as Richard Feynman would say.

Additionally, you might think that the E8 starting point is analogous to heterotic GUTs - models such as the heterotic MSSM by Bouchard et al. Except that it is completely crucial for physics that E8 in heterotic string theory is compact. Non-compact gauge groups would lead to ghosts and negative probabilities. Moreover, the whole Standard Model is embedded into the same subgroup of the heterotic E8 once it's broken, e.g. to SO(10). Also, everyone knows that the fermions arise as chiral multiplets and not vector multiplets: they are simply not and cannot be a part of the gauge bundle. Most importantly, no sane person has ever claimed that the E8 portion of the heterotic theory already contains gravity. That would be really silly.

Also, if you have ever heard about "GUT" (Grand Unified Theory), you should realize that unlike E6 and others, E8 cannot be a grand unified group because it only has real representations which is not good enough to create chiral fermions. In string theory, E8 is only relevant because it is broken to a smaller subgroup by intrinsically stringy effects. Needless to say, Garrett Lisi has no idea what a "chiral fermion" or even "fermion" means so he is not worried about any of these "details".

Endorsement system

A few years ago, such a paper would almost surely be filtered out from hep-th. Paul Ginsparg has introduced the endorsement system which was circumvented in this case and is likely to become a complete joke in the future. Why? Well, we have seen that a completely continuous spectrum of people between serious physicists and manifest crackpots has been created and the recent fashionable trend is to accept an ever broader set of passionate amateurs and undereducated, intellectually challenged loons into the physics circles.

This paper by A. Garrett Lisi had to be endorsed by someone. If you read the acknowledgements, it is not hard to see possible answers. Some of those people such as Lee Smolin may endorse any crackpot paper because they are both endorsers and crackpots at the same moment. Moreover, they have a vested interest to increase the proportion of similar papers on the arXiv because this is where they belong. As Lee Smolin recently pointed out, irrationality has been extremely useful for him in the past.

If Ginsparg wants to prevent this possible collapse of his arXiv, he probably has to fine-tune the mechanisms a little bit and make sure that people who are ready to endorse papers like this one are simply not endorsers. Otherwise you can be pretty sure that similar papers will eventually overrun the arXiv.

Tony Smith is among the crackpots thanked to in the acknowledgements. Next time, he may also submit his own paper supported by similar endorsers. And maybe A. Garrett Lisi will become an endorser himself. Really entertaining times will start afterwards: the hep-th era of the UFO abductee Jack Sarfatti, Tony Smith, Peter Woit, and their friends.

Coleman-Mandula theorem

Recently I was stunned that a person who has been a string theorist couldn't understand, despite months or years of working on similar questions and months or years of hearing the right answer, what the Coleman-Mandula theorem actually implies. There seems to be a whole industry of people who are just not getting it.

So let me say a few words about the theorem. They asked what symmetries "G" the scattering matrix of a physical theory can have. They assume that it is a group that contains the Poincaré group as a subgroup. If the Poincaré group is not a symmetry, the theory is dead. If the Poincaré symmetry is broken by small effects, a theory may be partially alive or hoping. But if it is broken by effects of order 100 percent, it is the end of the story.

Garrett Lisi's statement that the Coleman-Mandula theorem no longer holds because the cosmological constant is nonzero while Coleman and Mandula assumed the Poincaré symmetry instead of SO(4,1) is utterly naive. The cosmological constant is a tiny correction to the flat space, comparable to 10^{-120} in natural units, and the laws associated with the flat space must thus hold with the same accuracy. Moreover, full-fledged generalizations of the theorem exist for spaces with a nonzero cosmological constant.

Coleman and Mandula have shown that a theory satisfying the necessary conditions above must contain a spinless excitation and they studied the scattering of several copies of such an excitation. The scattering amplitude is constrained by the Poincaré symmetry and perhaps other symmetries. If you require that there exist Noether conserved charges arising from symmetries that are neither internal (scalar charges) nor the momentum (a vector from the Poincaré symmetry), you can see that it is such a strong constraint that the scattering amplitude is forced to vanish. You can do it with various quantities and prove that a theory with these new kinds of symmetries must be non-interacting, which also means physically unacceptable and uninteresting.

The only exception - found a few years later, in the early 1970s - are spin 1/2 conserved charges associated with supersymmetry. They also constrain the S-matrix dramatically but the interactions can nevertheless remain nonzero. The more general theorem that takes supersymmetry into account and excludes other possible symmetries is called the Haag-Sohnius-Lopuszanski theorem.

How fields of different spins can't be unified

The local Lorentz group in general relativity is sometimes used analogously to other gauge groups - when we write down e.g. anomalies in supergravity-super-Yang-Mills coupled system - but it is essential that physics of gravity is technically different from physics of Yang-Mills forces. Gravitons have spin 2 while gauge bosons have spin 1. It is a technical difference that doesn't spoil certain philosophical analogies between gravity and other forces. Nevertheless, it is a huge technical difference that certainly prevents you from combining the graviton and gauge bosons into the same multiplet (unless you have supersymmetry).

It might be a tempting idea to combine fields of a different spin but in field theory, it simply can't work. That's why all of the hundreds (?) of papers that tried to do such a thing have failed and hundreds (?) of similar papers will fail in the future.

Some people - see e.g. the recent paper by Nesti and Percacci - think that if they present the vielbein as a Higgs boson that breaks the local Lorentz symmetry (which is of course possible), they achieve a unification of gravity with gauge forces. That's of course a complete nonsense. If we use the vielbein approach to general relativity, the local Lorentz symmetry is an additional symmetry that is needed to make the new unphysical degrees of freedom in the vielbein decouple. Besides this symmetry, there is still the old diffeomorphism symmetry of general relativity that hasn't been moved closer to unification, not even by a millimeter. Diffeomorphisms and Yang-Mills symmetries (and, correspondingly, graviton and gauge bosons) can only be unified if the fundamental "coordinates" in the theory carry a nonzero spin.

In string theory, it is true that the string field or the first-quantized wave function combines fields of different spins. But the spin is only generated because the fundamental object, namely the string, is extended: extended objects such as strings simply can spin around their "axes". The expansion in the stringy oscillators - the Fourier modes of the coordinates and fermions over the string - generates internal angular momentum. Alternatively, Kaluza-Klein scenarios also unify these things because the higher-dimensional metric tensor is decomposed into fields of different spins in four dimensions, including a gauge field. See also Why string theory contains gravity. Additionally, gravity may be deduced from spin-two gauge invariance but not spin-one gauge invariance.

If you analyze local, four-dimensional field theories which are equivalent to point-like particles, they can't spin. The only way how to add spin to components of a field is to have spacetime coordinates that carry spin themselves. Again, spacetime and superspaces of various kinds (and the space of internal string excitations may be included in this category) are the only known spaces of this kind. Under various assumptions, we can prove that other solutions can't exist.

Of course that one has to work a little bit to see that one can't create too many new things analogous to the superspace that would be compatible with observations - or at least with basic consistency and qualitative features of physical theories - but different from the well-known superspaces in an essential way. But Jesus Christ, once you have a pretty well-defined candidate, it is a straightforward homework exercise to show that it can't work.

Stephon Alexander and Fabrizio Nesti, just sit down and try to derive the free particles and their leading interactions from whatever bizarre theories with mixed internally external symmeties and with frame-Higgses you consider conceivable. I guarantee that you will fail and mature physicists know why you will fail. Or analyze what global symmetries remain unbroken and try to follow the Coleman-Mandula procedure. What you're doing is just a completely childish and trivial sequence of mistakes and meaningless mathematical masturbation that puts you into the same category as Tony Smith or Garrett Lisi.

And that's the memo. (By Luboš Davros-Motl.)

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/excep ... ry-of.html

[jai_mann]

I would like to recommend examining the conspiracy attacking and then hiding Dayton Miller's work which experimentally proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is an aether. Here's a good read on his work and how his "protege" later attacked it, hid it, and was promoted within governmental agencies after the fact.

Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look* by James DeMeo, Ph.D.

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that Einstein was promoted as representative of what cutting edge "physicists" believed as a means to suppress aether research. I can't count the number of articles from Phd's that I have come across and read that attack flaws in Einstein's representation of the universe.

Einstein = Fraud^2

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Wow! Thanks Jai_mann!