Christopher Jon Bjerknes
In a previous article, I responded to a Jewish apologist calling itself "LionAxe" on the Stormfront message boards:
This sophist, calling itself "LionAxe", has responded to my article on its blog, and yet again misrepresented what I have said, and the history of the theory of relativity:
"LionAxe" begins by claiming to have correspondence from Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg. "LionAxe" does not quote a single word from this correspondence, but instead makes the self-contradictory claim that, " Now I have emailed Professor Winterberg and he didn't agree that he relied on Bjerknes for his views, moreso on his own views and work." Prof. Winterberg has acknowledge in a published paper that he has relied on my work. I have never claimed that all of Prof. Winterberg's views derive from me, only that he has, in his own words, at times relied upon my work. In addition, I have a stack of letters from Prof. Winterberg about a foot high, which evinces our working relationship over the course of years. I will not rely upon the unreliable statements of "LionAxe" to infer or attribute any statement to Prof. Winterberg.
I will, however, state that Prof. Winterberg has told me directly that he believes that Einstein plagiarized the work of Henri Poincare and that Henri Poincare is the true father of the special theory of relativity. Prof. Winterberg has also told me directly that he believed it would be impossible to see published any such statement in a mainstream Physics journal, and therefore has himself been forced to exclude his full beliefs when submitting papers for publication, including his paper on the Hilbert-Einstein priority dispute, which even in its inhibited form took years to publish, I being the first to publish Prof. Winterberg's theories on the subject--a demonstrable fact.
"LionAxe" then proceeds to misrepresent my arguments regarding Einstein's plagiarism of Johann Georg von Soldner's prediction of the doubled Newtonian value of the deflection of a light ray grazing the limb of the Sun, and Newton's prediction that gravitation should deflect the path of a light corpuscle according to the law of universal attraction. Though I have not confused these separate issues of Newton's theory and Soldner's prediction, "LionAxe" has confused them, and "LionAxe" has failed to acknowledge that I accuse Einstein of plagiarizing the work of both Newton and Soldner, among many others.
"LionAxe" next accuses me of confusing "priority" with "plagiarism", when in fact, that is what "LionAxe" is doing in order to raise a straw man of his own manufacture which he deceptively attributes to me. I correctly point out the obvious fact that one of the elements of plagiarism is the priority of the work of the man or woman whose work is copied by another. It is necessary to establish that priority in order to establish plagiarism. "LionAxe" deliberately misrepresents my statements of isolated facts of priority as if they exist in a vacuum and then picks upon my representations of factual issues of priority of a given element of RT to next address a separate element of RT to falsely claim both that there was no priority and that priority is not the same as plagiarism.
"LionAxe" ignores the fact that I have established the several elements of Einstein's plagiarism, including, but not limited to: priority, knowledge, failure to acknowledge prior works, and claims of originality--in some cases even after publicly acknowledging knowledge of the original work in question. "LionAxe" confuses these sometimes separate issues, while falsely accusing me of doing the same.
"LionAxe" repeatedly misrepresents my statements regarding Einstein's two different predictions for the deflection of a light ray grazing the limb of the Sun and thereby ignores, and in effect confuses, the separate charges I make of Einstein's having plagiarized the Newtonian prediction in 1911 and the Soldnerian prediction in 1915. This demonstrates that he (she, it, they?) is a sophist in search of a false argument with which to attempt to mislead his readers into believing that I am mistaken, when in fact he is deliberately misrepresenting what I have stated and is arguing against a straw man of his manufacture, not mine.
"LionAxe" then makes a lengthy presentation of the falsehoods Jews have been pitching for quite some time in a desperate effort to conceal Einstein's obvious plagiarism of the works of Henri Poincare. "LionAxe" would presume to lecture me on the fact that others stated the PoR before Poincare, when I have given the most thorough proof of same in all the literature on the subject. "LionAxe" ignores the fact that Poincare applies the PoR to electrodynamics, which Newton and Galileo did not do. He was not the first to do so, but he did do so.
"LionAxe" is either ignorant of the commonly known facts, or pretends to ignorance of the commonly known facts, that Poincare dismissed the Ether as a metaphysical concept in the 1800's, and that Einstein declared the necessity of the Ether in 1920. These facts are so well known and so widely discussed, that on the basis of this fact alone, "LionAxe" cannot be taken at all seriously as if a knowledgeable and comprehensive debater on the subject. His (her, its, their?) statements are deliberately tendentious and terribly misleading. In addition, as I have proven, Einstein based his theory on Lorentz' Ether, as Einstein, Pauli, and others have acknowledged. It is not my intent to reproduce my book here, and I refer my readers directly to my book, which is available in its entirety for free at the following website:
The fact that Poincare eventually developed a more comprehensive theory than Einstein, which sought to include the Ether as a physical basis for observed phenomenon, does not refute the fact that Einstein's theory is a lesser subset of Poincare's more broad and comprehensive theory. Poincare sought a physical theory in addition to the metaphysical and numerological theory which Einstein plagiarized. As Prof. Logunov has stated, Poincare's theory is far more advanced and encompasses more detail than Einstein's parroted copy, which is a mere subset of Poincare's theories.
I will add in passing, that, as I have repeatedly stated in the past, Isaac Newton was a plagiarist and a Cabalistic Jew. He was often accused of plagiarism and he conjured up lame excuses to account for his plagiarism. He also set Physics back by introducing the pantheistic mythologies and dogmatic absolutes of the Jewish Cabalah into the more advanced Physics of Christiaan Huygens and others. Leibniz accused Newton of these occult beliefs and practices, and John Maynard Keynes has proven that Leibniz was correct, as I have repeatedly demonstrated in the past.