Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Jews and their apologists often count on a few things which are generally, though not always, true. They hope that they can baffle and browbeat the general public with their sophistical nonsense. They hope that experts in the field are intimidated from informing the public of the truth for fear of being labelled "anti-Semitic", and thereby the Jews and their apologists control the debate and win arguments by default. Beyond this, message board trolls can rightfully expect that it will be beneath the dignity of those they attack to respond to their attacks.
The value of my work and my expertise on the subject of Albert Einstein and the history of the development of the theory of relativity has been gratefully acknowledged by the prominent and innovative physicists Prof. Dr. Friedwardt Winterberg of the University of Nevada, Reno, and Prof. Dr. Anatoly Alexeevich Logunov, former Vice President of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. If I had made the mistakes wrongfully attributed to me on the "Stormfront" message boards, these renowned scientists would not have relied upon me and my work. Prof. Logunov has published several books and articles which discredit the views of this "LionAxe" regarding Einstein and Minkowski's plagiarism of Poincare's theory of relativity and space-time, some of which appear for free on the internet:
In the interest of saving my blog reader's time, I refer those interested to Prof. Logunov's work and to my book:
rather than detailing those arguments here, which would require a great deal of space and time.
At the webpage, http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=6001013&postcount=11, "LionAxe" states:
"A quote from Bjerknes' 'The Incorrigible Plagiarist';
Quote:'Dyson, Davidson and Eddington, made Einstein famous by affirming that experiment had confirmed, without an attribution to Soldner, Soldner's 1801 hypothesis, that the gravitational field of the sun should curve the path of light from the stars'
Soldner did not present a testable; nor specific, theory or calculation, or even prediction for that matter on the arc of bending at all. Also; Bjerknes states that Einstein turned Special Relativity into an explicit geometrical theory. Which isn't true; it was actually Minkowski who did. And Einstein did attribute the initial invention of the spacetime model of events as used in Special Relativity to Minkowski in his book 'Relativity, the Special and General Theory', which is why it was there forth known as 'Einstein-Minkowski spacetime'."
It is noteworthy that "LionAxe" quote mines my book Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist (2002) for a remark about Johann Georg von Soldner's work, when I stated in that book that I would address the General Theory of Relativity in another book (AEIP p. 107). That subsequent book Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity appeared in 2003, and in it I republished Soldner's relevant paper and provided a detailed analysis of Einstein's plagiarism of Soldner's, and others, work, and there explained the nature of Soldner's theory. In addition, I have since published a freely available chapter on Soldner's theory in my book The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein (2006) which contains important amplifications of my book Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity. It appears that "LionAxe" is obviously not interested in my arguments, for he does not cite these specific works where my arguments are spelled out in intricate detail, but instead wants to quote mine a book I wrote which was not devoted to addressing this issue, and even under this opaque veil of ignoring my relevant writings, "LionAxe" misrepresent my views and the facts. Those interested in my arguments on this issue of Soldner's work should read chapters 11, 12, and 13, of my book The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein (2006); where you will learn that "LionAxe" is wrong. "LionAxe" is also mistaken in attributing to Einstein and Minkowski what Poincare, Marcolongo and Melchior Palagyi, among many others, created before them. On this subject, refer to my online book The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein and Prof. Logunov's above linked works.
"Also in the book 'The Incorrigible Plagiarist', Bjerknes writes;
Quote:'Why is Albert Einstein's name associated with the 'principle of relativity', and not Poincare's
What is missed here is the known fact that Poincare's name IS associated with the PoR (Principle of Relativity). He was never able to turn it into a correct or testable theory, as Einstein was."
Logunov and I have already refuted this "LionAxe's" nonsense. Poincare's PoR is the same as Einstein's plagiarized version. In fact Einstein and his wife copied it almost verbatim from Poincare, the minor and insignificant differences in wording being due more to translation than anything else. Poincare's name is not generally associated with the PoR, rather Einstein's is, and to deny that fact is simply absurd. Ask the average man on the street who Henri Poincare was, and he will likely not know. Ask him who first stated the "principle of relativity" and he will likely state "Einstein". Of course, as my books are dedicated to proving, countless experts in the field know that Poincare first iterated the PoR. "LionAxe's" attack is unfounded and disingenuous.
"LionAxe" states at the following webpage, http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=6001013&postcount=11:
"Another quote from Bjerknes in his aforementioned writings;
Quote:'[Einstein's] paper 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper' in Annalen der Physik. . . contains not a single reference to previous literature. It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true. -- Max Born.'
It's important to note how Bjerknes bends over backwards in his quote-mining; for example with this quote above, striving to imply Born to have thought Einstein to be a plagiarist. First of all, this is complete nonsense. The quote referred to is taken from a speech which Max Born held in 1955 during the International Relativity Conference in Bern. It's not by any stretch an accusation by Born on plagiarism by Einstein. You see; Born was marking on the common misconception that the view prior to Einstein, was that 'all is well with mechanics', that no one was even considering the many inconsistencies between the Newtonian field of mechanics and the field of electrodynamics. Furthermore; the paper mentioned by Born, while not containing a bibliography, does mention Maxwell, Hertz and Lorentz. The paper was essentially completely self-contained and its mathematics are not that lofty so there was less of a need for references.
Hence I find the usage of Born's quotation misleading; which is no doubt the intended effect, because it gives the impression that Born thought Einstein to be a plagiarist."
It is well known--it was known to Born--that Poincare pointed out the inadequacy of the old physics and called for a "new mechanics" and defined that "new mechanics" in prose and mathematical formalisms long before Einstein. Why does "LionAxe" fail to acknowledge the fact that Poincare holds priority for this idea? "LionAxe" leaves unsaid what ought to be acknowledged. This is one of several instances of Einstein's plagiarism. While "LionAxe" is aware that others stated these things before Einstein, "LionAxe" takes a hatchet to my work and leaves out the relevant facts which demonstrate Einstein's plagiarism. For example, Poincare stated before Einstein,
"From all these results, if they are confirmed, would arise an entirely new mechanics, which would be, above all, characterised by this fact, that no velocity could surpass that of light, any more than any temperature could fall below the zero absolute, because bodies would oppose an increasing inertia to the causes, which would tend to accelerate their motion; and this inertia would become infinite when one approached the velocity of light."--H. Poincare's St. Louis lecture from September of 1904, La Revue des Idees, 80, (November 15, 1905); "L'Etat Actuel et l'Avenir de la Physique Mathematique", Bulletin des Sciences Mathematique, Series 2, Volume 28, (1904), p. 302-324; English translation, "The Principles of Mathematical Physics", The Monist, Volume 15, Number 1, (January, 1905), pp. 1-24, at 16.
In its haste to attack me, "LionAxe" misrepresents the context of my quotations of Born's statement. This quotation first appears in my book Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist on page 30 as follows:
"Even among Einstein's admirers voices are heard which deny Einstein's priority. Max Born averred that,"Lorentz enunciated the laws according to which the measured quantities in various systems may be transformed into each other, and he proved that these transformations leave the field equations of the electron theory unchanged. This is the mathematical content of his discovery. Larmor (1900) and Poincare (1905) arrived at similar results about the same time. It is interesting historically that the formula of transformation to a moving system, which we nowadays call Lorentz' transformation (see vi, 2, p. 200 formula (72)), were set up by Voigt as early as 1877 [sic] in a dissertation which was still founded on the elastic theory of light. [***] In the new theory of Lorentz the principle of relativity holds, in conformity with the results of experiment, for all electrodynamic events.'[--M. Born, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Methuen & Co. Ltd., London, (1924), p. 188.]
and,"As mentioned already, Lorentz and Poincare have succeeded in doing this by careful analysis of the properties of Maxwell's equations. They were indeed in possession of a great deal of mathematical theory. Lorentz, however, was so attached to his assumption of an ether absolutely at rest that he did not acknowledge the physical significance of the equivalence of the infinite numbers of systems of reference which he had proved. He continued to believe that one of them represented the ether at rest. Poincaré went a step further. It was quite clear to him that Lorentz's viewpoint was not tenable and that the mathematical equivalence of systems of reference meant the validity of the principle of relativity. He also was quite clear about the consequences of his theory.'[--M. Born, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Dover, New York, (1962), p. 224.]
and,"I have now to say some words about the work of these predecessors of Einstein, mainly of Lorentz and Poincare. [***] H. A. Lorentz' important papers of 1892 and 1895 on the electrodynamics of moving bodies contain much of the formalism of relativity. [***] Poincare's papers [***] show that as early as 1899 he regarded it as very probable that absolute motion is indetectable in principle and that no ether exists. He formulated the same ideas in a more precise form, though without any mathematics, in a lecture given in 1904 to a Congress of Arts and Science at St. Louis, U.S.A., and he predicted the rise of a new mechanics which will be characterized above all by the rule, that no velocity can exceed the velocity of light. [***] The reasoning used by Poincare was just that, which Einstein introduced in his first paper of 1905 [***] Does this mean that Poincare knew all this before Einstein? It is possible [***] Many of you may have looked up his paper 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper' in Annalen der Physik (4), vol. 17, p. 811, 1905, and you will have noticed some peculiarities. The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous literature. It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true.'[--M. Born, "Physics and Relativity", Physics in my Generation, 2nd rev. ed., Springer, New York, (1969), pp. 101-103.]"
My quotations are accurate. They demonstrate that Max Born questioned Einstein's priority for what Einstein presented as if unprecedented. Those are facts. I in no way misrepresented Born's statements. I have proven, however, that Born knew that Einstein was a plagiarist, that Born knew that Einstein plagiarized Hilbert's equations, and that Born was a greedy Jew who lied about the history of relativity theory in order to give Einstein undue credit because Born wanted to make money off of the Einstein brand name. These facts are demonstrated in my book The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein at pages 26-27 and 273-277, among others. The Born quote next appears in my book Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist as the heading to a chapter entitled "Hero Worship" on page 155 after having been quoted previously as shown above, and then on page 157 after the fully correct statement, "Instead of proving that Einstein was a pioneer, the facts indicate that, as Max Born stated,". Though "LionAxe" would have the layman discount everything I have written by quote mining my work to search without success for some possible mistake, ignoring the vast majority of my arguments, misrepresenting what I have said, and by misrepresenting the facts; an expert in the field would immediately recognize that "LionAxe" was full of "it"--here an abbreviation.
Despite "LionAxe's" asinine assertions that "there was less of a need for references" because Einstein's paper was "essentially completely self-contained and its mathematics are not that lofty" Walter Kaufmann pointed out in 1905 that Einstein's paper was a repeat of the formalisms of Lorentz's theory and Max Planck pointed out in 1906 that Einstein had reitereate what Poincare had already written. Einstein was obliged to reference the works he parroted. His failure to do so was an act of plagiarism, and our "LionAxe" bends over backwards to apologize for Einstein's deceit.
The Jews and their apologists often depend upon the fact that most experts are intimidated by the power of World Jewry to silence the truth and destroy their careers should they speak the truth in public. They also know that it is beneath our dignity to engage in discourse with message board trolls. The message board trolls who utter nonsense such as "LionAxe" sometimes get away with misleading people, because too few experts have the integrity and courage to come out publicly with the truth and the general public has not the knowledge to pass judgement on these questions. So, beware what you read from those message board trolls, even those who post on websites which often criticize the Jews. Let the facts speak for themselves.
What would motivate a "LionAxe" to misrepresent my work and the facts in order to apologize for the racist-segregationist Zionist-Jew Albert Einstein, other than loyalty to the tribe, that tribe of the "Lion of Judah"?