Refuting the Jewish Propagandist "Lionaxe" "Point-by-Point"

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

http://www.jewishracism.com

http://www.jewishracism.blogspot.com

The Jewish apologist[s] calling itself "Lionaxe" and/or "Karl Radl", which entity haunts the message boards at VNN and Stormfront attempting to convert those opposed to Jewish propaganda to pro-Jewish positions, issued a response to my blog of 6 February 2009. I did not answer it until now, as it is so obviously composed of sophistry and falsehoods that I thought it unnecessary to refute it, given that those who could understand what it said would know that it was based upon sophistry and falsehoods. Now, the Jews are attempting to use the nonsense published by "Lionaxe" as if it were somehow a legitimate critique of my work. Therefore, I will refute it "point-by-point".

The opening comments of the blog "Semitic Controversies" attempt to change the subject from Einstein's plagiarism to whether or not Prof. Winterberg has corresponded with "Lionaxe" and whether or not "Lionaxe" could have or should have quoted Winterberg directly, rather than put its, "Lionaxe's", self-contradictory words into the good professor's mouth. Such a diversionary tactic, as well as the "teamwork" it embodies, are typical of disinformation specialists.

Now on to the self aggrandizing and ridiculous commentary of the Jewish propagandist calling itself "Lionaxe". "Lionaxe" again misrepresents my words by asserting that I stated that Poincare was the first person, among all others, to state the Principle of Relativity (PoR); when in fact I stated that Poincare was the first only between Einstein and Poincare, and that countless others had stated it before Poincare. In fact, I demonstrated through direct quotation that many others had stated the PoR before Poincare in my book Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist and again in my book The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein (see pp. 1950-1958).

"Lionaxe" then proceeds to misrepresent the PoR as if it were in contradiction to, and incompatible with, Poincare's ether theories. "Lionaxe" falsely claims without proof that "Poincare maintained a preferred inertial frame". In the context of the PoR, this would mean that the inertial frame of the ether of Poincare, presumably the quiescent ether of Lorentz, violated the PoR and could therefore be detected by experiments; in that the laws of this one inertial reference frame differed from those of others, or all others.

"Lionaxe's" contention is unproven and false. "Lionaxe" contradicts his false claims when it admits that Poincare's ether does not represent a preferred inertial reference frame which violates the PoR. So, in what sense is it preferred? "Lionaxe" seems to mistake Poincare for Lorentz.

"Lionaxe" quotes Poincare's 1902 critique of Lorentz as if in support of its contentions regarding the PoR. In fact, Poincare was there dismissing aspects of Lorentz' theory, in particular the notion that the ether represents a preferred frame of reference at rest in absolute space. Poincare's theory instead refers to the fixed stars, and/or the ether at rest relative to itself, as inertial reference frames, and Poincare refers to bodies "fixed" to these frames of reference, resting with respect to them, but Poincare expressly excludes the concepts of absolute space and a preferred reference frame with respect to the laws of mechanics and electrodynamics. The reference frame at rest with respect to the fixed stars is no more or less "superfluous" to such a Metaphysical PoR than is the ether, and yet it is observed and does not violate it.

Since we wish to discuss the science, the Physics, as opposed to the Metaphysics of Poincare and Einstein, then we must state that inertial reference frames do not exist in nature. In order to arrive at a physical theory, rather than a Metaphysical definition, Poincare was obliged to define that which constitutes a frame of reference. As was customary, and as Einstein has repeatedly done, Poincare referred to the fixed stars and to the ether. Both Einstein and his friends, including Pauli, referred to Lorentz' ether as the basis of Special Relativity, as I have long ago proven (see The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein, pp.1958-1967 ).

Here again it is shown that Einstein's theory is a subset of Poincare's in that Poincare renders the PoR a scientific as well as a Metaphysical principle, and Einstein merely parrots the Metaphysical content of the principle. Though there were different methods of defining an inertial frame of reference, for example Ludwig Lange's, the method most likely to be understood at the time was to make reference to either a quiescent ether or the fixed stars. Poincare did not infer from this absolute rest and his theory makes identical scientific predictions to Einstein's and in no way violates the PoR, which Poincare stated was rigorously true long before Einstein. "Lionaxe" is merely unable to distinguish between Physics and Metaphysics, and does not understand the difference between operational method in science and Metaphysical fantasy.

"Lionaxe" ascends his self laudatory soap box and presumes to lecture me with the threadbare cliched arguments of his Jewish predecessors. "Space-Time" is a Metaphysical concept, one Einstein initially opposed. As Prof. Winterberg has correctly stated, "Space-Time" has never been measured in a laboratory, is physically contradicted, and all laboratories are three dimensional. Einstein's ether of 1920 is a Metaphysical and numerological delusion, not a scientific theory, on that point I will agree with the necessary conclusions to be drawn from the sophistry of the Jewish propagandist "Lionaxe". But it was Poincare who first described the ether as a Metaphysical concept in the 1800's and Einstein's 1920 lecture opens with essentially the same statement that Poincare made in 1902, and which statement "Lionaxe" quoted in support of its sophistry! However, Einstein's 1905 paper, plagiarized from Poincare, is based not upon absolute Minkowski Space-Time (a physically contradicted delusion), nor upon Einstein's 1920 statement that a state of rest, a given specific set of coordinates of space representing the vacuum, cannot be assigned to the ether, but is instead premised upon Lorentz' quiescent ether; and Einstein's 1905 paper specifically refers to "rest" and "resting coordinates" as opposed to "motion" and "moving systems" of coordinates, just as did Poincare's and Lorentz' and Larmor's prior works.

As I have already stated to "Lionaxe", and as has eluded it in its ignorance, Einstein made other references to the ether than his 1920 statement and Einstein based his 1905 theory upon it, the "resting system". Einstein later referred to the "frame of reference of the moving body as well as in the frame of reference of the vacuum as originally discussed by Lorentz." "Lionaxe", in its ignorance, must not have understood the content of my statement to it, that "In addition [to Einstein's 1920 statement], as I have proven, Einstein based his theory on Lorentz' Ether, as Einstein, Pauli, and others have acknowledged." I then directed the Jewish propagandist "Lionaxe" to my book The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein, which, at pages 1958-1967, among other places, demonstrates these facts. As I have already told "Lionaxe", I do not intend to reproduce my book in my blog.

"Lionaxe" is confused as to Einstein's various stances on the ether, as well as Poincare's. All that said, even if "Lionaxe's" false assertions were instead correct, it would not obviate the fact that Einstein plagiarized Poincare's concept of relative simultaneity almost verbatim, as well as countless other aspects of Poincare's theories. "Lionaxe" merely attacks what it believes to be the weakest argument with "Lionaxe's" tired Jewish sophistry and falsehoods.

As for "Lionaxe's" false assertion that Poincare's theory of measurement does not account for length contraction sans a physical explanation for it, "Lionaxe" is mistaken. Poincare's theory of measurement is indistinguishable from Einstein's and Minkowski's plagiarized copy of it.

"Lionaxe" disingenuously tries to equate Einstein's lesser paper to Poincare's vastly superior paper on the basis of Einstein's examination of the problem of radiation reflected from a revolving mirror. If only Minkowski were alive today, perhaps he would set "Lionaxe" straight. I do not feel the need, as no one will take "Lionaxe" seriously.

The Jewish propagandist[s] calling itself "Lionaxe" and "Karl Radl" concludes with a typically Jewish polemic in the form of an ad hominem attack on me, this after failing to acknowledge that I have concisely refuted its many false assertions, and without addressing each and every point where I have proven it wrong with irrefutable facts and incontrovertible reasoning. In "Lionaxe's" Jewish world of propaganda, it is not necessary to prove what I have said about Newton wrong, but rather to simply namecall and hurl insults devoid of factual content or sound logic. In addition to the commonly known facts about Newton, yet again, my book The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein, at pages 1725-1727, affords ample proof of my accurate description of Newton the Zionist and Cabalistic Jew. Add to it Leibniz' accusations and characterizations of Newton, as well as those of Keynes; and Ecce Homo, behold the [Cabalistic, Zionistic, lunatic genocidal Jew] man, Newton.

So there you have it, the Jewish propagandist "Lionaxe" is proven wrong on each and every point related to Einstein's plagiarism. "Lionaxe" was correct when it surmised that I do not take it seriously. The reader should not be confused by "Lionaxe's" false assertions that I have not refuted his statements, it simply resents the fact that I am able to do so concisely. Perhaps the Jewish propagandist [team? organization?] calling itself "Lionaxe" can in the future spare us its long winded Jewish-style ad hominem attacks and self aggrandizing commentary and instead simply admit the truth. . . but don't hold your breath.

By the way, is your birth name "Karl Radl" or have you adopted the name of Skorzeny's deputy, SS-Obersturmführer Karl Radl, crypto-Jew style? Are you a member of, or affiliated with, any institutions, such as the Mossad? Why do you parrot threadbare Jewish propaganda in alleged opposition to it? And what is your real name, it?

A Review of Jaume Gine's "Einstein versus Lorentz and Poincaré: Open questions of credit"

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

http://www.jewishracism.com

http://www.jewishracism.blogspot.com

Jaume Gine recently published an article in Physics Essays calling into question Albert Einstein's priority for his published papers on the special and general theory of relativity, Brownian motion, etc.[1] Almost all of the topics discussed in this paper were earlier addressed by me in far more rigorous fashion and to a much higher academic standard.

However, Jaume (he has called me by my first name, so I will accord him the same friendly informality) did not cite any of my extensive works, which preceded his, other than in one instance, where Jaume wrote,

"All these indications should be discussed from a rigorous point of view and academic environment and should not be used as bait for a hungry society extravagances, see Ref. 32. In that case, we may do a disservice to science."

Reference 32 of Jaume's paper states,

"³²C. J. Bjerknes, Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist XTX, Illinois, 2002 ."

Given that parts of what Jaume wrote are nonsensical, I had a difficult time deciphering exactly what it was that Jaume sought to attribute to me, so I wrote to him asking him to please explain his meaning. He wrote back refusing to do so and insisted that his meaning was crystal clear.

I am forced to guess at the meaning of his statement and why he cited my work in support of it. I will do so in the light least favorable to me, and Jaume can then correct me if I have been unkind or unfair to myself.

I suppose Jaume meant that my work is the perfect, perhaps the sole example of the highest academic standards and most rigorous scientific study of priority issues surrounding Albert Einstein and his work. I will now examine parts of Jaume's paper to demonstrate why he has arrived at that conclusion, so flattering to me and to my work.

Though Jaume has failed to rigorously describe the special theory of relativity as the product of the works of Voigt, FitzGerald, Larmor, Lange, Minkowski, and many, many others; I have given the most thorough account of these facts available anywhere today. See my book, freely published on the internet years before Jaume's paper had even appeared in his dreams: The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein.

Jaume mistakenly attributes the special theory of relativity solely to Lorentz, Poincare and perhaps Einstein. My book appeared in 2006, and I had much earlier published on the same subject revealing most of the same facts. Rather than portray Lorentz as the hero of the story, I instead met my obligations as a scholar to expose the fact that Lorentz betrayed Poincare and enabled Einstein's plagiarism, for his own selfish benefit.

A typical example Jaume's substandard work on this subject is his false claim that Poincare's 1905 Rendiconti paper was from 1906, and Jaume's ridiculous and demonstrably false claim that,

"This is a document not widely known by the scientific community, even nowadays, and is unquoted and unreferenced anywhere except for the famous book by Whittaker,9 see also Refs. 10–12, where is discussed the authorship of the special relativity."

Jaume's errors are substantial, in that Poincare could not have read Einstein's paper on relativity before submitting his own since Poincare submitted his paper before Einstein's paper was published, and in that it is vital to know that Poincare's work was well known and widely discussed among Einstein's contemporaries, colleagues and intimate friends, so as to establish the likelihood of Einstein's knowledge of it.

In my work, I have long ago proven that Minkowski, Lorentz, Ehrenfest, and many, many others have referenced this "document" and that Einstein must have encountered these citations in their writings long before Pais confronted Einstein with it at the end of Einstein's life.[2] Unlike Jaume, I have cited various English translations of this paper, and scores of articles and books which cite and analyze it and Poincare's priority based on it.

Perhaps that is one of the reasons why Jaume holds my work in such high regard. But why hasn't Jaume cited me in this specific context? He must know that I have referenced this "document" before him.

Jaume discusses Einstein's failure to cite Poincare's work in Einstein's Jahrbuch article reviewing the special theory of relativity. I had earlier discussed this same issue, but I added to it the relevant facts that Einstein and Lorentz ignored Poincare's works in the book which purported to be a collection of articles on the subject, Das Relativitaetsprinzip of 1913, that Einstein missed several opportunities to correct his plagiarism, and I explained how Einstein lied and refused an invitation to publish a tribute to Poincare's work on relativity in Acta Mathematica.[2] Again, my insights not only preceded Jaume's paper, they are far more rigorous and accomplished to a much higher academic standard. I can understand why Jaume admires my work, but why hasn't he cited it in this specific context?

Likewise, Jaume, briefly and without due rigor, discusses Gibbs, Sutherland and Bachelier, whom I have referenced before him, though I cited several others who preceded Einstein on these priority issues, which others Jaume leaves unmentioned.[3] I also discussed Einstein's inability to read English, long before Jaume, but I noted that Albert Einstein's wife and scientific collaborator Mileva Maric could read English and Slavic languages and therefore could have enabled and participated in Albert's plagiarism of English sources.[4] Again, my research was not only prior to Jaume's, it was far more rigorously done and to a much higher academic standard.

Jaume discusses the fact, which I addressed back in 2003 in my book Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity, that Einstein owed an unacknowledged debt to Michele Besso and Marcel Grossman for aspects of the General Theory of Relativity. However, my work was far more rigorous than Jaume's more recent repetitions of my insights.

Though it was already well known that Einstein's equations for the perihelion motion of Mercury were first published by Paul Gerber, I exposed the fact that Gerber's work was also known to Einstein and Besso and that Einstein lied about this fact and denied knowledge of Gerber's work, which Einstein had plagiarized. Jaume fails to even mention Gerber, who is the father of the equations in question. I not only give Gerber his due credit, I cite several others who deserve mention, and provide novel insights which reveal personal details about Paul Gerber.[5]

Jaume does mention David Hilbert and his priority for the covariant gravitational field equations of the general theory of relativity, but Jaume does not cite my seminal work in this context, though I am the first to take aim Corry, Renn and Stachel's baseless historical revisionism of these facts, and it is because of my efforts that this subject came to be widely discussed; my work, later in collaboration with Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg, being the seminal and defining work on the subject.[6]

I am obliged to mention all of this, so as to maintain those supremely high academic and utterly rigorous scientific standards Jaume has ascribed to me and my work. Though he has honored, even flattered me, I must point out his failings lest those disposed to promote Einstein over the truth beat me to it and wrongly try to generalize Jaume's poorly written paper to be typical of the work of others such as myself. I really must distance myself from this man, whose work on the subject thus far serves only as an embarrassment to those of us who are exposing Einstein's career of plagiarism with rigorous research accomplished to the highest academic standards.

1. J. Gine, "Einstein versus Lorentz and Poincaré: Open questions of credit" Physics Essays, Volume 23, Issue 1, (2010), pp. 92-96.

2. C. J. Bjerknes, The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein, (2006), pp. 260-261, 1830-1831, 1835-1837, 2005, 2029, 2101, 2151, 2328, 2387-2388.

3. Ibid. pp. 2373, 2380; notes 3108, 3619.

4. Ibid. p. 2373.

5. Ibid. pp. 2097-2135. See also: C. J. Bjerknes, Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, Illinois, XTX Inc., (2002), pp. 128, 129, 187-188, 213, 232; and C. J. Bjerknes, Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity, Illinois, XTX Inc., (2003), pp. 33-64.

6. C. J. Bjerknes, Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, Illinois, XTX Inc., (2002), pp. 188, 231; and C. J. Bjerknes, Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity, Illinois, XTX Inc., (2003), pp. 7-31; and C. J. Bjerknes, The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein, (2006), pp. 260, 2068-2095.