Arthur Eddington\u2019s<\/a><\/em>\u00a0selective presentation of data from the 1919 eclipse so that it supposedly supported \u201cEinstein\u2019s\u201d 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.<\/p>\nThe 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\u2019s record and reputation took place. This silence benefited anyone supporting Einstein.<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/b>
\nScience, 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.<\/p>\n
Einstein\u2019s 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\u2019s supporters are handsomely rewarded, and media corporations like\u00a0Time<\/i>magazine get to sell millions of magazines by placing Einstein on the cover as \u201cPerson of the Century\u201d.<\/p>\n
When the scandal breaks, the physics community, Einstein\u2019s 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\u2019s paper, \u201cOn the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies\u201d, is seen for what it is: the consummate act of plagiarism in the 20th century.<\/p>\n
Special Relativity<\/strong>
\nJules Henri Poincar\u00e9 (1854-1912) was a great scientist who made a significant contribution to special relativity theory. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy website states that Poincar\u00e9: (1) \u201csketched a preliminary version of the special theory of relativity\u201d; (2) \u201cstated that the velocity of light is a limit velocity\u201d (in his 1904 paper from the\u00a0Bull. of Sci. Math.<\/i>\u00a028, Poincar\u00e9 indicated \u201ca whole new mechanics, where the inertia increasing with the velocity of light would become a limit and not be exceeded\u201d); (3) suggested that \u201cmass depends on speed\u201d; (4) \u201cformulated 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\u201d; and (5) \u201cderived the Lorentz transformation\u201d.<\/p>\nIt is evident how deeply involved with special relativity Poincar\u00e9 was. Even Keswani (1965) was prompted to say that \u201cAs far back as 1895, Poincar\u00e9, the innovator, had conjectured that it is impossible to detect absolute motion\u201d, and that \u201cIn 1900, he introduced \u2018the principle of relative motion\u2019 which he later called by the equivalent terms \u2018the law of relativity\u2019 and \u2018the principle of relativity\u2019 in his book,\u00a0Science and Hypothesis<\/i>, published in 1902\u2033. Einstein acknowledged none of this preceding theoretical work when he wrote his unreferenced 1905 paper.<\/p>\n
In addition to having sketched the preliminary version of relativity, Poincar\u00e9 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.<\/p>\n
Charles Nordman\u00a0<\/strong>was prompted to write\u00a0\u201cThey will show that the credit for most of the things which are currently attributed to Einstein is, in reality, due to Poincar\u00e9\u201d,<\/em>\u00a0and \u201c\u2026in the opinion of the Relativists it is the measuring rods which create space, the clocks which create time. All this was known by Poincar\u00e9 and others long before the time of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to him\u201d.<\/p>\nOther scientists have not been quite as impressed with \u201cEinstein\u2019s\u201d special relativity theory as has the public. \u201cAnother curious feature of the now famous paper, Einstein, 1905, is the absence of any reference to Poincar\u00e9 or anyone else,\u201d Max Born wrote in\u00a0Physics in My Generation<\/i>.<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cIt gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true\u201d (Born, 1956). G. Burniston Brown (1967) noted, \u201cIt 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 Poincar\u00e9 and Lorentz\u2026 \u201d<\/p>\nDue to the fact that Einstein\u2019s special relativity theory was known in some circles as the relativity theory of Poincar\u00e9 and Lorentz, one would think that Poincar\u00e9 and Lorentz might have had something to do with its creation. What is disturbing about the Einstein paper is that even though Poincar\u00e9 was the world\u2019s leading expert on relativity, apparently Einstein had never heard of him nor thought he had done anything worth referencing!<\/p>\n
Poincar\u00e9, in a public address delivered in September 1904, made some notable comments on special relativity theory. \u201cFrom all these results, if they are confirmed, would arise an entirely new mechanics\u2026would be, above all, characterised by this fact that no velocity could surpass that of light\u2026because 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\u2026 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 \u2018local time\u2019.\u201d (Poincar\u00e9, 1905)<\/p>\n
Einstein, the Plagiarist<\/b>
\nIt 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.<\/p>\n
Take this passage from Ronald W Clark,\u00a0Einstein: The Life and Times<\/i>\u00a0(there are no references to Poincar\u00e9 here; just a few meaningless quotes). This is how page 101 reads: \u201c\u2018On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies\u2019\u2026is in many ways one of the most remarkable scientific papers that had ever been written. Even in form and style it was unusual,\u00a0lacking the notes and references which give weight to most serious expositions\u2026<\/i>\u201d (emphasis added).<\/p>\nWhy 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\u00a0overreference<\/i>\u00a0rather than underreference.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Wouldn\u2019t 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\u00a0Annalen der Physik<\/i>. 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\u2019s claim of primacy was correct.<\/p>\n
Max Born stated, \u201cThe\u00a0striking<\/i>\u00a0point is that it contains not a single reference to previous literature\u201d (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.<\/p>\nEinstein twisted and turned to avoid plagiarism charges, but these were transparent.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
From Bjerknes (2002), we learn the following passage from James MacKaye: \u201cEinstein\u2019s explanation is a dimensional disguise for Lorentz\u2019s\u2026 Thus Einstein\u2019s theory is not a denial of, nor an alternative for, that of Lorentz. It is only a duplicate and disguise for it\u2026 Einstein continually maintains that the theory of Lorentz is right, only he disagrees with his \u2018interpretation\u2019. Is it not clear, therefore, that in this [case], as in other cases Einstein\u2019s theory is merely a disguise for Lorentz\u2019s, the apparent disagreement about \u2018interpretation\u2019 being a matter of words only?\u201d<\/p>\n
Poincar\u00e9 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 Poincar\u00e9\u2019s contributions to physics.<\/p>\n
Yet many of Poincar\u00e9\u2019s ideas \u2013 for example, that the speed of light is a limit and that mass increases with speed \u2013 wound up in Einstein\u2019s paper \u201cOn the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies\u201d without being credited.<\/p>\n
Einstein\u2019s act of stealing almost the entire body of literature by Lorentz and Poincar\u00e9 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.<\/p>\n
In his 1907 paper, Einstein spelled out his views on plagiarism: \u201cIt 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\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
With this statement, Einstein declared that plagiarism, suitably packaged, is an acceptable research tool.<\/p>\n
Here is the definition of\u00a0\u201cto plagiarise\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0from an unimpeachable source, Webster\u2019s\u00a0New International Dictionary of the English Language<\/i>, Second Edition, Unabridged, 1947, p. 1,878: \u201cTo steal or purloin and pass off as one\u2019s own (the ideas, words, artistic productions, etc. of one another);\u00a0to use without due credit the ideas, expressions or productions of another. To commit plagiarism<\/i>\u201d (emphasis added). Isn\u2019t this exactly what Einstein did?<\/p>\nGiving 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\u2019s contributions alters the fundamental act of plagiarism.<\/p>\n
The true nature of Einstein\u2019s plagiarism is set forth in his 1935 paper, \u201cElementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy\u201d, where, in a discussion on Maxwell, he wrote, \u201cThe question as to the independence of those relations is a natural one because the\u00a0Lorentz transformation, the real basis of special relativity theory\u2026<\/i>\u201d (emphasis added).<\/p>\n
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: \u201cWhat did Einstein know, and when did he know it?\u201d Einstein got away with premeditated plagiarism, not the incidental plagiarism that is ubiquitous (Moody, 2001).<\/p>\n
The History of E=mc2<\/sup><\/b>
\nWho 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: \u201cThus gradually arose the formula E =mc2<\/sup>, suggested without general proof by Poincar\u00e9 in 1900\u2033.<\/p>\nOne thing we can say with certainty is that Einstein did not originate the equation E=mc2<\/sup>. Then the question becomes: \u201cWho did?\u201d Bjerknes (2002) suggested as a possible candidate S Tolver Preston, who \u201cformulated atomic energy, the atom bomb and superconductivity back in the 1870s, based on the formula E=mc2<\/sup>\u201c.<\/p>\nIn addition to Preston, a major player in the history of E = mc2<\/sup>\u00a0who 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 \u201cEinstein\u2019s E=mc2<\/sup>\u00a0\u2018was Italian\u2019s idea’\u201d (Carroll, 1999). We see clear evidence that De Pretto was ahead of Einstein in terms of the formula E = mc2<\/sup>.<\/p>\nIn 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<\/sup>\u00a0formula in his work, because the value he determined \u2013 e.g., that one grain could lift a 100,000-ton object up to a height of 1.9 miles \u2013 yields the equation E=mc2<\/sup>.<\/p>\nAccording to Ives (1952),<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0the derivation Einstein attempted of the formula E=mc2<\/sup>\u00a0was 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\u2019s razor rules here.<\/p>\nThe Eclipse of 1919<\/b>
\nThere 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 \u201cEinstein\u2019s\u201d work on general relativity. Poor (1930), Brown (1967), Clark (1984) and McCausland (2001) all address the issues surrounding this eclipse.<\/p>\n
What makes the expeditions to Sobral and Principe so suspect is Eddington\u2019s zealous support of Einstein, as can be seen in his statement, \u201cBy standing foremost in testing, and ultimately\u00a0verifying<\/i>the \u2018enemy\u2019 theory, our national observatory kept alive the finest traditions of science\u2026\u201d (emphasis added) (Clark, 1984). In this instance, apparently Eddington was\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0familiar with the basic tenets of science. His job was to collect data-not verify Einstein\u2019s theories.<\/p>\n
Further evidence for the fraud can be deduced from Eddington\u2019s own statements and the introduction to them provided by Clark (ibid<\/i>., p. 285): \u201cMay 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: \u2018We had to carry out our programme of photographs on\u00a0faith<\/i>\u2026\u201d\u2018 (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: \u201cIt looked as though the effort, so far as the Principe expedition was concerned, might have been abortive\u201d; \u201cWe developed the photographs, two each night for six nights after the eclipse\u2026\u00a0T<\/em>he\u00a0cloudy 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\u201d (emphasis added) (Clark, ibid.).<\/em><\/p>\nActually, Eddington\u2019s words speak volumes about the result. As soon as he found a shred of evidence that was consistent with \u201cEinstein\u2019s\u201d general relativity theory, he immediately proclaimed it as proof of the theory. Is this science?<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Here are some quotes from Poor\u2019s summary: \u201cThe 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\u201d; \u201cNot a single one the fundamental concepts<\/i>\u00a0of varying time, or warped or twisted space, of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion\u00a0is in any way involved in Einstein\u2019s prediction of, or formulas for, the deflection of light<\/i>\u201c; \u201cThe many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore, been given a fictitious importance. Their results can neither prove nor disprove the relativity theory\u2026 (emphasis added) (Poor, 1930).<\/p>\n
From Brown (1967), we learn that Eddington could not wait to get out to the world community that Einstein\u2019s theory was confirmed. What Eddington based this on was a premature assessment of the photographic plates. Initially, stars did \u201cappear\u201d 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.<\/p>\n
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 \u201caccidental error\u201d, i.e., it contradicted Einstein\u2019s scale constant. By a strange coincidence, the 15% of the \u201cgood\u201d data were consistent with Einstein\u2019s scale constant. Somehow, the stars that did not conform to Einstein\u2019s theories conveniently got temporarily shelved-and the myth began.<\/p>\n
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 \u201cThe new theory of curved space-time was called general relativity\u2026 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\u201d. 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?<\/p>\n
The real question, though, is: \u201cWhere was Einstein in all this?\u201d Surely, by the time he wrote his 1935 paper, he must have known of the work of Poor: \u201cThe 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\u201d. Why didn\u2019t he go on the record and address a paper that directly contradicted his work? Why haven\u2019t the followers of Einstein tried to set the record straight with respect to the bogus data of 1919?<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
McCausland (2001)<\/strong>\u00a0<\/em>quotes the former Editor of Nature, Sir John Maddox: \u201cThey [Crommelin and Eddington] were bent on measuring the deflection of light\u2026\u201d; \u201cWhat is not so well documented is that the measurements in 1919 were not particularly accurate\u201d; \u201cIn spite of the fact that experimental evidence for relativity seems to have been very flimsy in 1919, Einstein\u2019s enormous fame has remained intact and his theory has ever since been held to be one of the highest achievements of human thought\u201d (emphasis added).<\/p>\nIt is clear that from the outset that Eddington was in no way interested in testing \u201cEinstein\u2019s\u201d theory; he was only interested in confirming it.<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0One of the motivating factors in Eddington\u2019s decision to promote Einstein was that both men shared a similar political persuasion: pacifism. To suggest that politics played no role in Eddington\u2019s glowing support of Einstein, one need ask only the question: \u201cWould Eddington have been so quick to support Einstein if Einstein had been a hawk?\u201d 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 \u201cenemy\u201d 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.<\/p>\nThe 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, \u201cWas this the hoax of the century?\u201d and exclaimed, \u201cRoyal Society 1919 Eclipse Relativity Report Duped World for 80 Years!\u201d McCausland stated that \u201cIn the author\u2019s opinion, the confident announcement of the decisive confirmation of Einstein\u2019s 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\u201d.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
![\"albert-einstein\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.techcounsellor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Albert-Einstein-1.jpg?resize=790%2C447\")
<\/p>\n
Summary and Conclusions<\/strong>
\nThe 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.<\/p>\nIt 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\u2019s halo.<\/p>\n
Einstein\u2019s reputation is supported by a three-legged stool. One leg is Einstein\u2019s 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.<\/em><\/p>\nThe physics community is also supported by a three-legged stool. The first leg is Einstein\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
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).\u00a0What will happen if, for the sake of argument, physics collapses? Will science fall?<\/strong><\/p>\n\nThou shalt not idol worship!<\/strong><\/p>\nAll science should be up for constant review. I really like Einstein, he described things in such as artful way. I could visualize it. It made me think.\u00a0When I worked with the new physics I did not use Special Relativity, I used the Lorentz Transformations. I think Special Relativity is just a way of viewing things, it is not a series of workable formulas.From that standpoint, I think the plagiarism criticism of Einstein is unfair. The thing that put Einstein in the history books is E=mc2<\/sup>.\u00a0If no one published (not just suggested) that exact equation before Einstein then Einstein should get credit. That equation is an absolute necessity to all of the new physics, remove it and nothing gets done.\u00a0I would love it if Carezani is correct about the neutrinos being \u201cmythical\u201d. They are such a nuisance that just muddy the waters. I like that Einstein was a pacifist, that should count for something.<\/p>\nKeep the discussion going. Science is not a religion and must be able to stand up to scrutiny. \u2013Lois Olson\u00a0<\/span>USA<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\nReferences<\/b><\/p>\n\n- \n
Bjerknes, C.J. (2002),\u00a0
Albert Einslein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist<\/i>, XTX Inc., Dowers Grove.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Born, M. (1956),\u00a0
Physics in My Generation<\/i>, Pergamon Press, London, p. 193.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Brown, G. Burniston (1967), \u201cWhat is wrong with relativity?\u201d, Bull. of the Inst. of Physics and Physical Soc., pp. 71-77.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Carezani, R. (1999),\u00a0
Autodynamics: Fundamental Basis for a New Relativistic Mechanics<\/i>, SAA, Society for the Advancement of Autodynamics.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Carroll, R., \u201cEinstein\u2019s E = mc
2<\/sup>\u00a0\u2018was Italian\u2019s idea\u201d\u2018,\u00a0The Guardian<\/i>, November 11, 1999.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Clark, R.W. (1984),\u00a0
Einstein: The Life and Times<\/i>, Avon Books, New York.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n- \n
De Pretto, O. (1904), \u201cIpotesi dell\u2019etere nella vita dell\u2019universo\u201d, Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, Feb. 1904, tomo LXIII, parte II, pp. 439-500.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Einstein, A. (1905a), \u201cZur Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper\u201d (\u201cOn the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies\u201d), Annalen der Physik 17:37-65.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Einstein, A. (1905b), \u201cDoes the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Energy Content?\u201d, Annalen der Physik 18:639-641. Einstein, A. (1907), \u201cUber die vom Relativitatspringzip geforderte Tragheit der Energie\u201d, Annalen der Physik 23(4):371-384 (quote on p. 373).<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Einstein, A. (1935), \u201cElementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy\u201d, 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).<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Hawking, S., \u201cPerson of the Century\u201d, Time magazine, December 31, 1999.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Ives, H.E. (1952), \u201cDerivation of the Mass-Energy Relation\u201d, J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 42:540-543.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Keswani, G.H. (1965), \u201cOrigin and Concept of Relativity\u201d, Brit. J. Phil. Soc. 15:286-306.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Mackaye, J. (1931),\u00a0
The Dynamic Universe<\/i>, Charles Scribner\u2019s Sons, New York, pp. 42-43.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Maddox, J. (1995), \u201cMore Precise Solarlimb Light-bending\u201d, Nature 377:11.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Moody, R., Jr (2001), \u201cPlagiarism Personified\u201d, Mensa Bull. 442(Feb):5.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Newton, Sir Isaac (1704),\u00a0
Opticks<\/i>, Dover Publications Inc., New York, p.cxv.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Nordman, C. (1921),\u00a0
Einstein et l\u2019univers<\/i>, translated by Joseph McCabe as \u201cEinstein and the Universe\u201d, Henry Holt and Co., New York, pp. 10-11, 16 (from Bjerknes, 2002).<\/div>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Poincar\u00e9, J.H. (1905), \u201cThe Principles of Mathematical Physics\u201d, The Monist, vol. XV, no. 1, January 1905; from an address delivered before the International Congress of Arts and Sciences, St Louis, September 1904.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Poor, Cl. (1930), \u201cThe Deflection of Light as Observed at Total Solar Eclipses\u201d, J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 20:173-211.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy<\/i>, Jules Henri Poincar\u00e9 (1854-1912), at\u00a0http:\/\/www.utm.edu\/research\/iep\/p\/poincare.htm<\/a>.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Webster, N. (1947),\u00a0
Webster\u2019s New International Dictionary of the English Language<\/i>, Second Edition, Unabridged, p. 1878.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\u00a92003 Richard Moody Jr
\n777 Treadlemire Road
\nBerne NY 12023 USA
\nEmail: Slmrea@aol.com<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Albert Einstein \u2013 was he a thief, a liar and a plagiarist?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-221602","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221602","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=221602"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221602\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=221602"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=221602"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=221602"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"albert-einstein\"](\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/www.techcounsellor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Albert-Einstein-1024x576.jpg?resize=790%2C444\")
![\"albert-einstein1\"](\"http:\/\/ppcorn.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/14\/2015\/12\/Albert-Einstein-pop-art-PPcorn-2016.jpg\")