Friday, April 13, 2007

Allen Esterson and the Mileva Einstein-Marity Dispute

Christopher Jon Bjerknes


http://www.jewishracism.com



In addition to following article, I invite my readers to investigate my other related writings:


C. J. Bjerknes, The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein and especially chapter 18, "Mileva Einstein-Marity:


C. J. Bjerknes, "A Response to Physics World's 'Review' of Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist", Infinite Energy Magazine, Volume 8, Number 49, (May/June, 2003), pp. 65-68.


C. J. Bjerknes, ARGUING ABOUT EINSTEIN-MARITY'S HUSBAND.



Allen Esterson and the Mileva Einstein-Marity Dispute

(Christopher Jon Bjerknes)

In an obituary for Albert Einstein, physicist Abram Joffe wrote in reference to three famous papers published under the name "A. Einstein" in the Annalen der Physik, in 1905,

"The author of these articles--an unknown person at that time, was a bureaucrat at the Patent Office in Bern, Einstein-Marity (Marity--the maiden name of his wife, which by Swiss custom is added to the husband's family name)."--A. F. Joffe (also: Ioffe), "In Remembrance of Albert Einstein", Uspekhi fizicheskikh nauk, Volume 57, Number 2, (1955), p. 187.

Joffe's statement, together with a large number of other facts, has led many to conclude that Mileva Einstein-Marity was co-author, or the sole author, of three important works attributed to Albert Einstein. Consider the clues Joffe is giving us. Note that Joffe does not state that the author was "Albert Einstein", but rather Joffe states that the author was "Einstein-Marity". The only person who went by the name "Einstein-Marity" was Mileva Maric, Albert Einstein's first wife and scientific collaborator. Furthermore, Joffe tells us that the author was an unknown person until that time, "Einstein-Marity", i. e. Mileva. It is well documented that Mileva Maric went by the name "Einstein-Marity" during and after her marriage to Albert Einstein, and her death notice states "Einstein-Marity". Albert Einstein is not known to have ever used the name "Einstein-Marity".

Allen Esterson ignores the contradiction in Joffe's statement. On the one hand, Joffe states,

"The author of these articles--an unknown person at that time, was a bureaucrat at the Patent Office in Bern,"

which indicates that the author was Albert Einstein. On the other hand, Joffe states that,

"The author of these articles--an unknown person at that time, was [***] Einstein-Marity",

which indicates that the author was Mileva Einstein-Marity. Not only does Joffe never use the name "Einstein-Marity" in any other context than this, he avoids the first name when identifying the author as "Einstein-Marity", while adding a fallacious parenthetical explanation. I suspect that the explanation came from Mileva, who met Joffe and told him that Albert was, by his own admission, a man who had, "no serious thoughts about science, much less about experiments." After meeting with Mileva, Joffe, who had gone out of his way to meet the author of the papers, left without speaking to Albert, who was not at home at the time. Joffe did not return, content with having met Mileva Einstein-Marity.

We know that Joffe meant that the papers were signed "Einstein-Marity" both from the identity Joffe makes of "author"="Einstein-Marity" and from Daniil Semenovich Danin's explicit statement that the papers were signed "Einstein-Marity",

"The unsuccessful teacher, who, in search of a reasonable income, had become a third class engineering expert in the Swiss Patent Office, this yet completely unknown theoretician in 1905 published three articles in the same volume of the famous 'Annalen der Physik' signed 'Einstein-Marity' (or Maric--which was his first wife's family name)."--D. S. Danin, Neizbezhnost strannogo mira, Molodaia Gvardiia, Moscow, (1962), p. 57.

Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric informs us that Joffe had seen the original manuscripts, and though she does not name the source of her information, her assertion is in perfect conformity with the known facts,

"The distinguished Russian physicist [***] Abraham F. Joffe (1880-1960), pointed out in his 'In Remembrance of Albert Einstein', that Einstein's three epochal articles in Volume 17 of 'Annalen der Physik' of 1905 were originally signed 'Einstein-Maric'. Joffe had seen the originals as assistant to Roentgen, who belonged to the Board of the 'Annalen', which had examined submitted contributions for editorial purposes. Roentgen showed his summa cum laude student this work, and Joffe thereby came face to face with the manuscripts, which are no longer available today."--D. Trbuhovic-Gjuric, Im Schatten Albert Einsteins, Das tragische Leben der Mileva Einstein-Maric, Paul Haupt, Bern & Stuttgart, (1983), p. 79.

Roentgen reviewed the manuscripts. At the time, Joffe worked with Roentgen. We know from Joffe's accounts that both Roentgen and Joffe were intensely interested in Lorentz' theory on the electrodynamics of moving bodies, the mathematical formalisms of which are reiterated in the Einsteins' 1905 paper without an attribution, and with which the Einsteins were very familiar. Joffe identified Lorentz work, which he was studiously pursuing in 1905, as the "prehistory" of the theory of relativity, and would very much have wanted to have seen the Einsteins' submission and Roentgen would have been eager to have presented it to Joffe and would have wanted to discuss it with him.

Esterson apparently has nothing original to add to the debate over the meaning of Joffe's statements, and instead relies upon John Stachel and Alberto Martinez as authorities to claim that Danin has misquoted Joffe, but such a claim is entirely unjustified by any known evidence, and is based upon the false premise that Danin was supposedly attempting to quote Joffe. Esterson wrote in his article "My responses to Geraldine Hilton's replies to my rebuttals of claims in her 'Einstein's Wife' documentary":

"Martinez and Stachel (2005) have both documented that Danin misquoted Joffe's 1995 [sic] statement[.]"

In point of fact, neither Martinez, nor Stachel have demonstrated that Danin was attempting to quote Joffe. Danin clearly was not quoting Joffe. Danin was very careful in what he wrote, and barring any evidence to the contrary, and none has yet emerged, we must conclude that Danin knew whereof he spoke. To the best of my knowledge, neither Stachel, nor anyone else, has brought any new facts to fore to discredit Danin's statement that the papers were signed Einstein-Marity. It is simply Stachel and a few others baseless opinion that Danin was mistaken. Esterson disregards the facts in favor of baseless opinion.

Juxtaposing a Fitting Hypothetical

In order to clarify the issues, let us first consider a hypothetical situation which will parallel the known facts. Assume for the sake of argument that Abram Joffe had written in the context of the three most famous papers published in 1905 in the Annalen der Physik under the name "A. Einstein", that,

"The author of these articles--an unknown person at that time, was a bureaucrat at the Patent Office in Leiden, Einstein-Lorentz (Lorentz--the name of his former professor, which by Dutch custom is added to the student's family name)."

Assume Daniil Semenovich Danin explicitly stated that the papers were signed "Einstein-Lorentz",

"The unsuccessful teacher, who, in search of a reasonable income, had become a third class engineering expert in the Dutch Patent Office, this yet completely unknown theoretician in 1905 published three articles in the same volume of the famous 'Annalen der Physik' signed 'Einstein-Lorentz' (or Hendrik Antoon Lorentz--which was his former professor's name)."

Let us further assume that Joffe recounted a story of his attempts to visit Albert Einstein, who we will suppose was at the time living with Hendrik Antoon Lorentz. And that Joffe then said,

"I did not come to know Albert Einstein, until I met him in Berlin. [***] I wanted very much to talk to Einstein [***] and visited him in Leiden together with my friend Wagner. But we did not find him home, so we did not have a chance to talk, and his former professor, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, told us that, according to his own words, Albert Einstein is only a civil servant in the patent office, and he has no serious thoughts about science, much less about experiments."

Now, in our hypothetical example, assume that many years later letters surfaced, the contents of which were unknown to Joffe, letters from Albert Einstein to Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, one of which stated,

"I am going to set about earnestly studying everything you and Drude have written on the electrodynamics of moving bodies. [***] When I become your research partner, we will want to engage in a quite diligent scientific collaboration, so that we don't become old Philistines, isn't it so?"

And assume in our hypothetical that Albert Einstein wrote the following words to Lorentz, which he in fact sent to Mileva Maric,

"How happy and proud I will be, when we two together have victoriously led our work on relative motion to an end!"--Letter from Albert Einstein to Mileva Maric of 27 March 1901, J. Stachel, Ed., The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 1, Document 94, Princeton University Press, (1987), p. 282.

And assume that the early Einstein biographer, Alexander Moszkowski, who obtained his information from extensive conversations with Albert Einstein, wrote in 1921,

"Albert Einstein found consolation in the fact that he preserved a certain independence, which meant the more to him as his instinct for freedom led him to discover the essential things in himself. Thus, earlier, too, during his studies at Leiden he had carried on his work in theoretical physics at home, almost entirely apart from the lectures at the University of Leiden plunging himself into the writings of Kirchhoff, Helmholtz, Hertz, Boltzmann, and Drude. Disregarding chronological order, we must here mention that he found a partner in these studies who was working in a similar direction, a professor at the University of Leiden, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, with whom he became a research partner in the year 1903."

Given such a hypothetical situation, we would conclude that Hendrik Antoon Lorentz was the co-author, or sole author, of the three papers in question. In an interesting aside, the special theory of relativity was in fact known as the Lorentz-Einstein theory for decades, up until Lorentz' death. In the same period, Albert Einstein was ridiculed in the international scientific community for being a career plagiarist.

The Facts

Now let us consider the established facts, which cannot be disputed, and which lead us to conclude that Mileva Einstein-Marity was the co-author, or sole author, of the three 1905 papers in question. Bear in mind that many who have criticized Albert Einstein in the past (including Nobel Prize laureates) were immediately smeared in the international press, their careers were impeded, or destroyed, and a horde of sycophants, who wanted to promote themselves by promoting Albert Einstein, howled in cowardly chorus to drown out the truth and assassinate the messenger in order to avoid the honest message. The press would publicize their lies, while suppressing the truth. This was once known as the "Einstein Terror". It continues to this day, and it has led, and continues to lead many to use guarded language when criticizing Albert Einstein, or when revealing embarrassing facts about him.

The facts establish even more firmly than our hypothetical could, that Mileva Einstein-Marity was the author, or co-author of the works in question, because, though Lorentz was not known as "Einstein-Lorentz", Mileva Maric was known as "Einstein-Marity", and she alone was known as "Einstein-Marity". I will not recount all of the evidence which supports the contention that Mileva and Albert collaborated, merely enough to make the case.

In an obituary physicist Abram Joffe published on the occasion of Albert Einstein's death, Joffe wrote in reference to three famous papers published in the Annalen der Physik, in 1905, under the name "A. Einstein",

"The author of these articles--an unknown person at that time, was a bureaucrat at the Patent Office in Bern, Einstein-Marity (Marity--the maiden name of his wife, which by Swiss custom is added to the husband's family name)."--A. F. Joffe (also: Ioffe), "In Remembrance of Albert Einstein", Uspekhi fizicheskikh nauk, Volume 57, Number 2, (1955), p. 187.

In addition, Joffe wrote,

"I did not come to know Albert Einstein, until I met him in Berlin. [***] I wanted very much to talk to Einstein [***] and visited him in Zurich together with my friend Wagner. But we did not find him home, so we did not have a chance to talk, and his wife told us that, according to his own words, he is only a civil servant in the patent office, and he has no serious thoughts about science, much less about experiments."-- A. F. Joffe, Vstrechi s fizikami, moi vospominaniia o zarubezhnykh fizikah, Gosudarstvenoye Izdatelstvo Fiziko-Matematitsheskoi Literatury, Moscow, (1962), pp. 86-87.

Joffe also wrote,

"Therefore Roentgen suggested to me that when I defended my doctoral dissertation in May of 1905, that I ought to discuss what one could now look upon as the prehistory of the theory of relativity: the Lorentz-equations and the hypothesis of FitzGerald. And then he asked me a question, 'Do you believe that there are spheres which are flattened when they move? Can you confirm the fact that such electrons will forever remain a part of Physics?'--I answered, 'Yes, I am convinced that they exist, only we don't yet know everything about them. Consequently, we must study them further.'

When I defended my dissertation, something remarkable happened. The dean gave the welcoming address in Latin, which I did not understand. The only thing I could fathom was that my defense had gone well, because the speech ended with a handshake. But when I met Roentgen in the laboratory, he was indignant at the cold response I had given to the dean's speech. It turned out that the faculty had awarded me the degree of 'summa cum laude'--'with the highest praise possible'--for the first time in 20 years. This degree awarded me the right to give lectures. It was to be expected that I would have been overwhelmed with joy--and I did not know at that time that there were four levels of evaluation and I had received the highest. For a long time Roentgen refused to believe that I had not known of the rankings of the evaluation levels when I was presenting my defense. Afterwards, he reminded me of this incident, 'You are really a ridiculous person.'

In August of 1906, I traveled to Russia and witnessed the intelligentsia leaving the revolution with my own eyes. Given my Marxist convictions, I felt that at such a time I did not have the right to only concern myself with Physics far away from my homeland in Munich. I wrote Roentgen that I would not return and that my conscience would not allow me to leave the homeland while the reactionaries triumphed."--A. F. Joffe, Vstrechi s fizikami, moi vospominaniia o zarubezhnykh fizikah, Gosudarstvenoye Izdatelstvo Fiziko-Matematitsheskoi Literatury, Moscow, (1960), pp. 19-20.

Daniil Semenovich Danin explicitly stated that the papers were signed "Einstein-Marity",

"The unsuccessful teacher, who, in search of a reasonable income, had become a third class engineering expert in the Swiss Patent Office, this yet completely unknown theoretician in 1905 published three articles in the same volume of the famous 'Annalen der Physik' signed 'Einstein-Marity' (or Maric--which was his first wife's family name)."--D. S. Danin, Neizbezhnost strannogo mira, Molodaia Gvardiia, Moscow, (1962), p. 57.

Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric informs us that Joffe had seen the original manuscripts, and though she does not name the source of her information, her assertion is in perfect conformity with the known facts,

"The distinguished Russian physicist [***] Abraham F. Joffe (1880-1960), pointed out in his 'In Remembrance of Albert Einstein', that Einstein's three epochal articles in Volume 17 of 'Annalen der Physik' of 1905 were originally signed 'Einstein-Maric'. Joffe had seen the originals as assistant to Roentgen, who belonged to the Board of the 'Annalen', which had examined submitted contributions for editorial purposes. Roentgen showed his summa cum laude student this work, and Joffe thereby came face to face with the manuscripts, which are no longer available today."--D. Trbuhovic-Gjuric, Im Schatten Albert Einsteins, Das tragische Leben der Mileva Einstein-Maric, Paul Haupt, Bern & Stuttgart, (1983), p. 79.

Many years later letters surfaced, the contents of which were unknown to Joffe, letters from Albert Einstein to Mileva Maric, one of which stated,

"I am going to set about earnestly studying everything Lorentz and Drude have written on the electrodynamics of moving bodies. [***] As my dear wife, we will want to engage in a quite diligent scientific collaboration, so that we don't become old Philistines, isn't it so"--Letter from Albert Einstein to Mileva Maric of 28 December 1901, J. Stachel, Ed., The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 1, Document 131, Princeton University Press, (1987), p. 330.

Albert Einstein also wrote to Mileva Maric,

"How happy and proud I will be, when we two together have victoriously led our work on relative motion to an end!"--Letter from Albert Einstein to Mileva Maric of 27 March 1901, J. Stachel, Ed., The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 1, Document 94, Princeton University Press, (1987), p. 282.

Albert Einstein was an habitual plagiarist and a virulent misogynist. It was very much against his nature to award credit to Mileva Einstein-Marity. Albert would not have called the work "our work" were Mileva not his collaborator, or the sole source of the work. Note that Albert would indeed at times take sole credit for the work, but he was also concurrently taking sole credit for the work of Poincare and others when doing so, such that this is only further proof that Albert was an habitual plagiarist, and Albert's claims are contradicted by his own express statements.

It was Albert's nature to plagiarize. Albert Einstein was a self-promoter, a parrot and a thief, not an exceptional innovator.

Early Einstein biographer Alexander Moszkowski, who obtained his information from extensive conversations with Albert Einstein, wrote in 1921,

"[Albert Einstein] found consolation in the fact that he preserved a certain independence, which meant the more to him as his instinct for freedom led him to discover the essential things in himself. Thus, earlier, too, during his studies at Zuerich he had carried on his work in theoretical physics at home, almost entirely apart from the lectures at the Polytechnic plunging himself into the writings of Kirchhoff, Helmholtz, Hertz, Boltzmann, and Drude. Disregarding chronological order, we must here mention that he found a partner in these studies who was working in a similar direction, a Southern Slavonic student, whom he married in the year 1903. This union was dissolved after a number of years. Later he found the ideal of domestic happiness at the side of a woman whose grace is matched by her intelligence, Else Einstein, his cousin, whom he married in Berlin."--A. Moszkowski, Einstein: The Searcher, E. P. Dutton, New York, (1921), p. 229.

Note that Moszkowski states that Mileva was working in a similar direction to Albert, and that they were "partner[s] in these studies". In addition to considering these facts individually, we must consider them collectively. It cannot be a coincidence that all of these independent sources individually and collectively point us to the same conclusion, that Mileva Einstein-Marity was the co-author, or sole author of the three 1905 papers.

Allen Esterson's Defamations and His Repeated Attempts to Render My Research Taboo

Let us consider the defamatory attack Allen Esterson made against me when some of the text from pages 195-196 and 200 of my book Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist was quoted in defense of the truth. Note that Esterson does not contest my statements, and in no way attempts to refute them, rather he instead launches into a lengthy unprovoked assault on my character and asserts that it is taboo for anyone to quote me in a favorable way. Allen Esterson wrote in his article "My responses to Geraldine Hilton's replies to my rebuttals of the claims on the PBS 'Einstein's Wife' Website", published on Esterson's website http://www.esterson.org/Defending_Einsteins_Wife_Website.htm,

"ABRAM FEDOROVICH JOFFE (IOFFE) RECOUNTS THAT THE ORIGINAL PAPERS HE SAW WERE SIGNED "EINSTEIN-MARITY." "MARITY" IS A VARIANT OF THE SERBIAN "MARIC," MILEVA'S MAIDEN NAME. JOFFE, WHO HAD SEEN THE ORIGINAL 1905 MANUSCRIPT, IS ON RECORD AS STATING: "FOR PHYSICS, AND ESPECIALLY FOR THE PHYSICS OF MY GENERATION -- THAT OF EINSTEIN'S CONTEMPORARIES, EINSTEIN'S ENTRANCE INTO THE ARENA OF SCIENCE IS UNFORGETTABLE. IN 1905, THREE ARTICLES APPEARED IN THE 'ANNALEN DER PHYSIK', WHICH BEGAN THREE VERY IMPORTANT BRANCHES OF 20TH CENTURY PHYSICS. THOSE WERE THE THEORY OF BROWNIAN MOVEMENT, THE THEORY OF THE PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY. THE AUTHOR OF THESE ARTICLES -- AN UNKNOWN PERSON AT THAT TIME, WAS A BUREAUCRAT AT THE PATENT OFFICE IN BERN, EINSTEIN-MARITY (MARITY -- THE MAIDEN NAME OF HIS WIFE, WHICH BY SWISS CUSTOM IS ADDED TO THE HUSBAND'S FAMILY NAME)." 286 . . .

ALBERT EINSTEIN NEVER SIGNED HIS NAME "EINSTEIN-MARITY" IN ANY OF HIS PUBLISHED PAPERS. SWISS LAW PERMITS THE MALE, THE FEMALE, OR BOTH, TO USE A DOUBLE LAST NAME, BUT THIS MUST BE DECLARED BEFORE THE MARRIAGE, AND IT WAS MILEVA, NOT ALBERT, WHO OPTED FOR THE LAST NAME "EINSTEIN-MARITY." A MARRIED PERSON MAY USE THE HYPHENATED "ALLIANZNAME" IN EVERYDAY USE, BUT IT WAS MILEVA WHO WENT BY "EINSTEIN-MARITY," NOT ALBERT. ALBERT SIGNED HIS MARRIAGE RECORDS SIMPLY "EINSTEIN." MILEVA'S DEATH NOTICE READS "EINSTEIN-MARITY." [***] The link on the Tesla Society webpage indicates that the passage in turn comes from a webpage on the website of Christopher John Bjerknes. Bjerknes is an eccentric anti-semite who posts on a Holocaust denier website.

Bjerknes's antipathy to Einstein is indicated by his describing him as the "chief racist" among the political Zionists of his time, and his writing that "Einstein hated non-racist Jews". His book on Einstein received a scathing review from John Stachel.

I'm sure that Hilton would be horrified to know that, in regard to the second paragraph she has copied above (which purports to explain away the fact that Joffe clearly cited Einstein as the sole author of the three most celebrated of his 1905 papers), she is citing the arguments of a rabid anti-semite with an intense antipathy to Einstein. That does not, in itself, mean that Bjerknes's contentions in that paragraph are false. Like any assertions, they must be examined on their merits."

Let me stress the fact that I, Christopher Jon Bjerknes, am Jewish, and I oppose all forms of racism, including Zionist racism and anti-Semitism.

Esterson relies upon the work of Alberto Martinez. Martinez was one of the first to come out against the PBS documentary "Einstein's Wife" which exposed the issue of the Maric-Einstein collaboration to a broad public. In his critique, Martinez asserted several facts which he first learned from my book, and Martinez has conceded to me in correspondence which I have recorded, that he gleaned these facts from my book. Martinez learned from my book Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist that a passage of text mistakenly attributed to Abram Joffe in "Einstein's Wife" was in fact written by Danin. He discovered in my book my insight that Joffe met Mileva and learned that she went by the name "Einstein-Marity" at this meeting. Martinez also read a correct full translation of Joffe's comments about Einstein-Marity in my book, before writing his critique of "Einstein's Wife", then published a, to use his words, "virtually identical" translation to that found in my book. My book, which Esterson is trying to make taboo, was very useful to Martinez in forming his arguments and he relied heavily upon it.

Esterson relies upon the work of John Jay Stachel (not to be confused with his deceased father Jacob Abraham Stachel) and refers his readers to John Stachel's "hit piece" against me. However, Esterson does not mention my rebuttal of John Stachel's nonsense, nor does he mention the facts surrounding John Stachel's "review" of my work, nor does Esterson mention that in addition to my refutations, John Jay Stachel has been criticized by A. A. Logunov, V. A. Petrov, M. A. Mestvirishvili, F. Winterberg, K. Sommer, D. Wuensch, etc. for failing to mention the fact that his evidence was mutilated in an article Stachel published in the journal Science in 1997 in an effort to dispute David Hilbert's well established priority for the generally covariant field equations of the general theory of relativity.

John Jay Stachel published his "review" after I informed him that I intended to write about his failure to inform his readers that the evidence upon which he relied was mutilated in a substantial way, and that he had failed to mention that fact in his article in Science. Obviously, these circumstances were apt to bias John Stachel against me and my work.

John Stachel did not mention these circumstances in his "hit piece" against me and my work. In an apparent effort to change the subject, he falsely claimed that I had cited Johannes Stark in my book Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist. The meagerest act of due diligence of simply checking the index of the book John Stachel pretended to "review" would have shown him that I did not cite Stark, but John Stachel did not appear to be overly interested in the facts when "reviewing" my book. He recused himself from addressing the general theory of relativity (he didn't really address the special theory, either), and this should be examined in light of the avalanche of work which soon followed on the heels of my books and my response to Stachel, which rebuked John Stachel for his 1997 paper in Science on the Hilbert-Einstein priority dispute.

John Stachel did, however, falsely claim that I had difficulty demonstrating Albert Einstein's plagiarism in the general theory of relativity. I did not, and in my book I referred to Einstein's plagiarism of Galileo, Newton, Soldner, Bessel, Mach, Eotvos, Gerber, Planck, Varicek, Bateman, Hilbert, etc., and I expressly stated on page 109 of my book Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist that I would address the general theory of relativity in another book in my series of books on Albert Einstein's plagiarism. This work has since appeared and is entitled "Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity".

The following is a short list of works critical of John Stachel's Science article on the Hilbert-Einstein priority dispute--note that I reasserted Hilbert's priority in 2002 in Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist which prompted Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg to investigate the matter, and he found that the galley proofs of Hilbert's paper were mutilated in a way that removed the relevant equations, but that one could nevertheless determine from the remainder that Hilbert had the equations before Einstein:


C. J. Bjerknes, "A Response to Physics World's 'Review' of Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist", Infinite Energy Magazine, Volume 8, Number 49, (May/June, 2003), pp. 65-68.


C. J. Bjerknes, Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity, XTX Inc., Downers Grove, Illinois, (2003).


F. Winterberg, "On 'Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute', published by L. Corry, J. Renn, and J. Stachel", Zeitschrift fuer Naturforschung A, Volume 59a, Number 10, (Submitted 5 June 2003, published October, 2004), pp. 715-719.


A. A. Logunov, M. A. Mestvirishvili and V. A. Petrov, "How Were the Hilbert-Einstein Equations Discovered?", Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk, Volume 174, Number 6, (June, 2004), pp. 663-678. In English translation: A. A. Logunov, M. A. Mestvirishvili and V. A. Petrov, "How Were the Hilbert-Einstein Equations Discovered?" Physics-Uspekhi, Volume 47, Number 6, (June, 2004), pp. 607-621.


V.A. Petrov, Einstein, Hilbert and Equations of Gravitation, http://dbserv.ihep.su/~pubs/tconf04/ps/c6-1.pdf.


K. P. Sommer, "Wer entdeckte die Allgemeine Relativitaetstheorie? Prioritaetsstreit zwischen Hilbert und Einstein", Physik in unserer Zeit, Volume 36, Number 5, (September, 2005), pp. 230-235.


D. Wuensch, ,,zwei wirkliche Kerle'': Neues zur Entdeckung der Gravitationsgleichungen der Allgemeinen Relativitaetstheorie durch Albert Einstein und David Hilbert, Termessos, Goettingen, (2005).


In addition to Esterson's personal attack quoted above, Esterson has made other attacks on my character in a comment posted on this "Cosmic Log" website:

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/11/27/15908.aspx

Esterson also published comments here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/tips@acsun.frostburg.edu/msg15289.html

There is a "review" of my book Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist posted on amazon.com which may have been the work of Esterson:

http://www.amazon.com/Albert-Einstein-Incorrigible-Christopher-Bjerknes/dp/0971962987

I will address Esterson's personal attacks made against me for exposing Albert Einstein's racism, which is well known to Einstein scholars, in greater detail at another time.