Abstract

1

Proponents of Einstein have acted in a way that appears to corrupt the historical record. Albert Einstein, Time Magazine's Person of the Century, wrote a long treatise on the special theory of relativity (It was actually called, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"), without listing any references or footnotes. Many of the key ideas were known to Lorentz (like the Lorentz transformations) and Poincare before Einstein wrote the famous 1905 paper.

Einstein's assertion that the speed of light is a limit appears to be incorrect; velocities beyond the speed of light have been measured on several occasions. This speaks directly to the soundness of special relativity because, according to Einstein, "Thus, when v=c, W becomes infinite. Velocities greater than that of light have---as in our previous results---no possibility of existence." If the above conditions are not met i.e. v is equal or greater than c, E=mc falls as well.

Einstein is the holder of the extremely rare distinction of going on the record to swear he was wrong when he later turned out to be right (Cosmologic Constant and its aftermath). Any scientist who could make an error in judgment this all encompassing must be considered vulnerable in other areas. The least likely universe is a static universe unless you invoke the idea of paired particles i.e. as the particles come into existence they are paired and gravity and antigravity exactly match. Now the fun part---how can the particles come into existence in a static universe? Don't the paired particles imply an act of creation? The Big Bang?

The eclipse of 1919 which supposedly supported Einstein's general theory of relativity is the biggest hoax in science in the 20th century. Eddington's lavish support of Einstein is a complete fabrication of history.

2

3

Science 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.

The physics community tends to use guesswork in their estimates of physical properties. How many "reliable" estimates of the age of the universe have there been? The flaws with 'Einstein's' special theory of relativity have been called paradoxes'. How many other physicists have had their bad ideas given such lavish treatment? Has this gone on in other branches of science? Physicists call Einstein's inconsistencies paradoxes. Other scientists would just call them inconsistencies, or, quite possibly, mistakes.

Jules Henri Poincare (1854-1912) was a great man. At the time he appeared to be ripped off by Einstein, he was doing state-of-the-art work in physics, mathematics, and philosophy. In the last field he is featured in. philosophy, A Timeline of Western Philosophers, by Garth Kemerling in an Internet article dated 1997, 1998, 1999. He is only 1 of 500 philosophers featured on that timeline in the past 2600 years. In math, he is one of the top 26 mathematicians in the past 2600 years (see: Famous Mathematicians on the Internet). Even Einstein recognized Poincare's superiority as "thinker and author" (Einstein's Reply to Criticisms in relation to Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics: The Library of Living Philosophers Series, 1949).

For Poincare to fade into obscurity requires the cooperation of thousands of physicists. What did he contribute to the special theory of relativity? While the Internet is, at best, an uncertain source of material, the following site on Poincare is interesting: 1)... "he sketched a preliminary version of the special theory of relativity", 2) he stated the velocity of light is a limit factor (In his 1904 paper from the Bull. of Sci. Math. 28, Poincare indicated, "...a whole new mechanics, where, the inertia increasing with the velocity of light would become a limit and not be exceeded."), 3) he suggested that mass depends on speed, 4)He formulated the principle of relativity...no mechanical or electromagnetic can discriminate between a state of uniform motion or one at rest, 5)..."he derived the Lorentz transformations". What is immediately evident is how deeply involved with special relativity he was and even Keswani was prompted to say that, "As far back as 1895, Poincare, the innovator, had conjectured that it is impossible to detect absolute motion." In 1900, he introduced 'the principle of relative motion' which he later called by the equivalent terms 'The law of relativity' and 'The principle of relativity' in his book Science and Hypothesis published in 1902." Einstein professed ignorance of any of this when he wrote his paper in 1905. The question is, "Why didn't he know this?"

5

Other scientists have not been quite as impressed with 'Einstein's' special theory of relativity, as the public. "Another curious feature of the now famous paper, Einstein, 1905, is the absence of any reference to Poincare or anyone else": As Max Born says, "It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true" (Born, 1956). It could be argued that not even Einstein viewed himself as the Father of Relativity. In the book, "Einstein The Life and Times, by Ronald W. Clark, the following paper appears in the Bibliography, "The Principle of Relativity, A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory of Relativity", New York, 1952, p.792. What is surprising is the authorship: Lorentz, H.A., Einstein, A.,Weyl, H., and Minkowski. Note that even though Einstein had been publishing articles for 47 years, he is second author behind Lorentz. This suggests that even Einstein was willing to defer probable origin of the theory of special relativity to Lorentz. When you add to the origin of these theories, Poincare, a more appropriate authorship of "Einstein's" Theory of Relativity, would be the relativity theory of Poincare and Lorentz as noted by by G. Burniston Brown, What is wrong with relativity?, "It 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 theory of relativity and Whittaker called it the relativity theory of Poincare and Lorentz.." You would tend to think that due to the fact that Einstein's special theory of relativity was known in some circles as the relativity theory of Poincare and Lorentz, that Poincare and Lorentz might have had something to do with its creation. According to Einstein when he wrote the 1905 paper, Poincare and Lorentz had done nothing worth referencing. It also seems odd that Einstein would be second author on a compilation of papers on the theories of general and special relativity when Einstein is supposedly the progenitor. What Einstein is effectively saying to the world when he agreed to a second authorship, was that he had renounced any claim to

6

being the primary inventor of special relativity. Yet, by strange coincidence, the man who is intimately associated with the theory of special relativity, Lorentz, is first author. Lorentz probably would never have believed that Einstein would wind up owning relativity. Einstein's followers have outlived the followers of Poincare and Lorentz. Here are some concrete first order references as to Poincare's contributions:

"From all these results, if they are confirmed, would arise an entirely new mechanics, would be, above all, characterized by this fact, that no velocity could surpass that of light, any more than any temperature would 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."

"No more for an observer carried along himself in a translation he did not suspect could any apparent velocity 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 'local time' ". Poincare, The Principle of Mathematical Physics (From an address delivered before the International Congress of Arts and Sciences, St. Louis, September, 1904.)

It is now time to speak directly to the issue of what Einstein was: He was first and foremost a plagiarist who had no qualms about borrowing the work of others and submitting it with little revision as his own. That this was deliberate is incredibly obvious: Take this passage from Ronald W. Clark, Einstein The Life and Times, Avon Books, New York, 878 pages (You will not find any references to Poincare here, just a few meaningless quotes). This is how p.101 reads: "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" "...it is in many ways one of the most remarkable scientific papers that had ever

7

been written. Even in form and style it was unusual, lacking the notes and references which give weight to most serious expositions..." (emphasis added). Why would Einstein with his training as a patent clerk not recognize the absolute imperative need to thoroughly reference his article on special relativity? What is incredible about Einstein is that as a neophyte, you would think that he would overreference rather than underreference. To suggest as some (Jack Good, Mensa Bulletin, April May, 2001, p.4) that this was due to "youthful indiscretion" is belied by the fact that Einstein was 26 at the time of his plagiarism. Would we still speak of youthful indiscretion at 50? Another reader in the same journal said that Einstein "borrowed, shamefully" (Brian Wells, Mensa Bull. April/May 2001, p.5). Oh, is this like borrowing a cup of sugar that Einstein intended to return a day later? Or, was it more like stealing? Why would an editor publish a controversial manuscript which was grossly flawed? Supposedly, you would also expect somewhat higher standards from an editor when faced with a long manuscript that had obviously not been researched. Apparently there was no attempt at quality control when it was published in Annalen der Physik. Most competent editors would have rejected the paper without even reading it. Failing that, at a bare minimum, you would have expected them to research the literature to see if the fantastic nature of Einstein's claim of primacy was correct. Consider the writings of Max Born, Physics in My Generation. He states, "The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous literature." (emphasis added). Look how important is to Born that there are no references. He is clearly indicating that this is abnormal and that even by early 20th Century standards that this is most peculiar, even unprofessional. "It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course as I have already tried to explain, not true." We have Einstein's own testimony. At this point Born quotes a reference to "Dr. Carl Seelig, who has published a most charming book on Einstein und

8

die Schweiz asked Einstein which scientific literature had contributed most to his ideas on relativity...". Einstein replied, in the journal, Technische Rundschau, "Concerning myself, I knew only Lorentz's important work of 1895 (the two papers quoted in the German text) but not Lorentz's later work, nor the consequent investigations of Poincare." (emphasis added). Einstein just acknowledged an incredible level of duplicity or ignorance. Poincare published 30 books and over 500 papers in philosophy, mathematics and physics. Einstein wrote in mathematics, physics and philosophy, but Einstein claimed he never read Poincare's contributions to physics. This is on a par with an English Major never having heard of Shakespeare. This establishes one of two things: Either Einstein was incredibly ignorant or he was duplicitous. What makes you wonder is that many of Poincare's ideas like the speed of light is a limit and that mass increases with speed wound up in Einstein's paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". This is about on a par with an English major writing sonnets, who, by strange coincidence wrote sonnets remarkably similar to ones written by Shakespeare.

At the time of his plagiarism, Einstein knew how important the work of Lorentz was. If he were crossexamined today to determine whether he was a plagiarist, much of the discussion would center around the phrase deliberate ignorance. It appears that in view of Einstein's background as a patent clerk, he had to have known how to do research. He conveniently avoids rudimentary research that would have revealed a rich history of special relativity that would have rendered his paper on special relativity, trivial.

Folks, what Einstein did is about as obvious an example of plagiarism as you can demonstrate. What Einstein did was provide a blueprint for plagiarism. In other words, either Einstein provided 100% new material or he was automatically a plagiarist. Ignorance is no defense against a charge of plagiarism. If it were, countless scientists would stop researching papers and just shoot from the hip. However, a minuscule number

9

of reputable editors would publish such balderdash. Few scientists seem to be aware of this in the physics community. Here is the definition of to plagiarize from an unimpeachable source, Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, 1947, p.1878. It gives the following definition:

"To steal or purloin and pass off as one's own (the ideas, words, artistic productions, etc. of one another); to use without due credit the ideas, expressions, or productions of another. To commit plagiarism." (emphasis added).

Nowhere does this definition stipulate that the offender actually read the material he plagiarized.

Isn't this exactly what Einstein did?

The true nature of Einstein's plagiarism is set forth in his 1935 paper, Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy in which he states, "The question as to the independence of those relations is a natural one because the Lorentz transformation, the real basis of the special relativity theory...". (emphasis added) What more needs to be said? This is the smoking gun. Einstein acknowledged that the Lorentz transformation was the real basis of his paper and that this made him a plagiarist. Anyone who doubts this should ask one simple question, "What did Einstein know and when did he know it?" If Einstein had been an honorable man, as soon as he learned that Lorentz and Poincare were there ahead of him, he should have immediately gone on the record and indicated their contribution to special relativity. It says a lot about Einstein

10

that he did a mea culpa well after Poincare and Lorentz were dead. The honorable thing to do would have been to give these men credit. Although it is true that Einstein did eventually give Lorentz credit, it was not until after Einstein had stolen from Lorentz. Einstein's shabby treatment of Poincare continued after Einstein's 1905 paper. Einstein, with one exception for several years refused to reference anything Poincare wrote and vice versa. Who was at fault? Since Einstein plagiarized Poincare in the 1905 paper, the latter's attitude is easily understandable.

One indication just how much the physics community demonstrates its complete lack of candor with Americans is the following statement in a paper by G. Burniston Brown called What is wrong with relativity? (Bulletin of the Institute of Physics and the Physical Society, pp.71-77, March 1967), "There were other disturbing features: the fact that Einstein never wrote a definitive account of his theory; that his first derivation of the Lorentz transformation equations contained velocities of light of c-v and c+v and (c -v ) to, quite contrary to his second postulate that the velocity of light was independent of the motion of the source; and that his first attempt to prove the formula E=mc , suggested by Poincare, was fallacious because he assumed what he wanted to prove, as was shown by Ives (Ives, 1952)." (emphasis added). Very few people in the physics community seem to find it at all important that the single most recognizable equation in human history may be attributed to the wrong man! Brown (ibid) now makes the following statement, "Thus gradually arose the formula E=moc^2, suggested without general proof by Poincare in 1900." One of the most important principles in science is one my father either heard or originated---Concept must precede the mathematics. It was Poincare's brilliant insight, or, even earlier, the insight of Fitzgerald and Lorentz, the intuitive thunderbolt, E=moc^2 which was the primary contribution to this formulae, not Einstein's eventual derivation

11

12

While a charge of plagiarism would seem overwhelming, what is remarkable is that Einstein's deficiencies as a "scientist" might be equally appalling. In an article called, "Einstein's 'Mistake' is Revived", 1999, in Physical Review, Focus, we are told that, "Astronomers now say that the Universe is not only expanding, but the expansion is accelerating with time." According to Glanz Cosmology: Astronomers see a Cosmic Antigravity Force at Work, Science, 2-27-98: "But as team member Alexei Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley, announced at a meeting near Los Angeles last week, the dimness of the supernovae--pointing to unexpectedly great distances--implies that cosmic expansion has actually sped up in the billions of years since the stars exploded." Obviously, this is the opposite of what a gravity-driven universe should exhibit which means that the force of expansion continues to be increasing, in effect, nullifying the effect of gravity. What is remarkable is that Einstein came up with the idea of the Cosmologic Constant at a time when the universe was believed static and he couldn't explain why the universe just didn't collapse, so he invoked an antigravitational ad hoc force to allow for a static universe. His problem was solved, however, when astronomers discovered that the universe was expanding i.e. there was no longer the need to describe a static universe. Thus appealing to a model where the Big Bang could be viewed as a giant explosion in which the pieces were gradually slowing down solved the attraction or collapse models of the universe. Einstein couldn't drop "...the Cosmologic Constant, a term first invoked by Einstein in 1917..." fast enough: He later recanted, (...my greatest blunder....") Revved-up Universe, Science News. What is amazing is that the Cosmologic Constant is being resurrected as evidence of antigravity running the universe. So Einstein went on the record to swear he was wrong when he might be right. This has to be an example of the about the worst judgment in the history of science.

13

Wouldn't you expect that the Person of the Century, Albert Einstein, be flawless in thought, conception and execution? He apparently plagiarized most of the special theory of relativity and he couldn't quite get a handle on the Cosmologic Constant, his greatest discovery that he recanted on when he was right. This would be a nightmare and a disaster for almost any other scientist, yet when it happens to Einstein, everyone looks the other way. His nickname should be wrongway Einstein. Perhaps when Einstein's father gave him a compass, he gave it to him with the north and south reversed so Einstein could find his way home.

What is the cosmologic constant? Is there a truly repulsive force in the universe, an antigravity? Consider this: Life is an ordering process. Throughout the universe we see evidence of entropy, the chaotic degradation of physical systems. Then we appear to have this ordering process going on all around us i.e. life. On earth, we see a progressive ordering process in life from the single-celled organisms of billions of years ago to the complexity of humanity. And all the while consider the Big Bang---the most ordering process in the history of the universe. It almost makes you believe in some overriding intelligence.

Who had access to Time Magazine when they 'researched' Einstein? Were they aware of all the negative information or just the feel good stuff? It appears that no one in the upper echelons of the physics community felt it necessary or desirable to provide the truth about Einstein's true nature to Time Magazine. It is clear that Einstein has displaced thousands of reputable scientists. Consider the magnitude of the error with respect to the cosmologic constant: It is on a par with Watson and Crick discovering the structure of DNA, and, then because of someone else disputing their claim, going on the record to proclaim DNA to be, "the worst mistake of their career" which is exactly what Einstein did. Now imagine what would have happened 10 years later if Linus Pauling had

14

picked up the torch and rediscovered and proved the double helix was correct. What would we say about Watson and Crick? That they had "famously abandoned" the double helix? Or that they had made the worst mistake of their career?

15

The first concrete prediction of superluminal or faster than light travel was presented by Ricardo Carezani. In this theory of autodynamics, faster that light travel is permitted but was clearly excluded by Poincare and and later by Einstein when developing special relativity. Now it is clear that superluminal light is here to stay. See, for example, Walker, Experimental Evidence of Near-field Superluminally Propagating Electromagnetic Fields, Physics Abstract, Internet, 2000, Nelson, When Light is Faster Than Light, Newsday, 07-20-2000, NEC Succeeds in Superluminal Li BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD e true, but it is not stated or implied in Einstein's paper). Simply put, it is always possible to change a false statement into a true statement e.g. suppose Einstein had said that Black is White. Suppose that someone comes along and says, "If we change Black is White to Black is Black and White is White, we have a true statement." This is what the apologists for Einstein are doing.

16

There can be no more clear definition of hoax than what went on in the Tropics back in May 29, 1919. What is particularly clear is that it is probable that Eddington fudged the data to make it conform to Einstein's work on general relativity. Let us address the issues set forth by G. Burniston Brown in What is wrong with relativity, also the highly detailed work by Paul Marmet called, "Appendix II The Deflection of Light by the Sun's Gravitational Field: An Analysis of the 1919 Solar Eclipse Expeditions" Internet article and finally, the equally detailed work of P. Marnet and C. Couture called, "Relativistic Deflection of Light Near the Sun Using Radio Signals and Visible Light" and The Deflection of Light As Observed At Total Solar Eclipses by Charles Lane Poor.

The work of Poor is particularly disturbing for an ethical scientist. First, his summary from J. Opt. Soc. Amer (173-211), "The mathematical formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75 seconds for light rays passing the edge of the sum, is a well known and simple formula of physical optics". "Not a single of the fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space, of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way involved in Einstein's prediction of, or formulas for the deflection of light (emphasis added). "The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore, been given a fictitious important. Their results can neither prove nor disprove the relativity theory...". (emphasis added)

From Brown we learn that Eddington couldn't wait to get out to the world community that Einstein's theory was confirmed. What Eddington based this on was a premature assessment of the photographic plates. Initially, stars did "appear" 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 bent in a direction opposite to that predicted by relativity (Brown). The utter absurdity of the data collected during the eclipse of 1919 was demonstrated by Poor

17

(1930) who pointed out that 85% of the data was discarded from the South American eclipse due to "accidental error" i.e. it contradicted Einstein's scale constant. By a strange coincidence, the 15% of the "good" data was consistent with the Einstein's scale constant. Somehow, the stars that did not conform to Einstein's theories conveniently got temporarily shelved and the myth began. Even to this date, the discredited experiment by Eddington is still quoted as gospel by some writers (see David Levy in Parade Magazine, Summer of 2000). The real question though is, "Where was Einstein in all this?" Surely, he must have known of the work of Poor. Why didn't he go on the record and address a paper that directly contradicted his work? How much have the followers of Einstein tried to set the record straight with respect to the bogus data of 1919 and 1922?

What makes this so suspicious is that neither the instrumentation nor the physical conditions were conducive to make these measurements of such great precision i.e. on a good day with everything perfect as far as instruments and the weather both on earth and on the sun. For example, just the difference in temperature between day and night that day was way beyond the 10 degrees (75-97 degrees) that was the upper limit of range of permissible temperatures for the instruments. Add to this severe limitations imposed by the crude (compared to modern instruments) nature of the 4" object glass and the astrographic and the reliability of this primitive equipment. It appears that Eddington was claiming precisions of .02" of an arc when a more realistic precision due to the turbulence in the sun's atmosphere was 2-3'' arc (Marmet).

18

Here are some additional comments by people who have studied the whole question of the reliability of the 1919 expedition. Marmet and Couture (ibid.) state, "This paper shows how all the experiments claiming the deflection of light and radio waves by the Sun are subjected to very large systematic errors, which render the results highly unreliable and apparently incorrect. Following those difficulties, and since it has also been demonstrated that the deflection of light by a gravitational potential is not compatible with the principle of mass-energy conservation, we show that no one can seriously claim that light is really deflected by the sun." Another comment, "Rare is the night (at most sites) when any telescope, no matter how large its aperture or perfect its optics, can resolve details finer than 1 arc second. More typical at ordinary locations is 2- or 3-arc-second seeing or worse." (MacRobert). "The problem becomes even worse during the afternoon due to the heat of the ground." (Marmet). "The error caused by the atmospheric turbulence is large enough to refute any measurement of the so-called Einstein effect." (Marmet) Other attempts to demonstrate relativistic delays based on other parameters fail miserably e.g. From Marmet and Couture, "Consequently, due to the above uncertainties in the elements of orbits of the planets, the delay reported is meaningless and does not prove any fundamental agreement with general relativity." So, it appears, the apologists for Einstein once again have corrupted science, this time with both theory and experiments.

To any lay person watching the shimmering of heat waves off hot asphalt and the distortion of the points on the far side of the heat waves, the turbulence of the sun seems to represent a simple insurmountable barrier to the acquisition of highly precise data. It is clear from the outset that Eddington was in no way interested in testing Einstein's theory; he was only interested in confirming it. The obvious fudging of the data by Eddington

19

Atoms behave in particle accelerators like incompressible objects (roughly). When you combine atoms, you get matter which is always compressible yet the physics community treats the results from particle accelerators as though it is diagnostic of the behavior of elastic matter i.e. F=ma but is it really F=ma or is it F=ma + change in internal energy. Change in internal energy may be significant. A case in point would be to take a cylinder 10 miles long and 100 ft across filled with helium and sealed at both ends with massive plugs weighing several hundred million tons. The gravitational attraction of the two ends exactly balances the pressure of the helium gas. Now the body is accelerated at one g. What happens? At first, the helium simply compresses as the first plug is accelerated if the orientation of the plug is suitable. In other words, if the tube is on its side, the gas is not compressed. With the correct orientation i.e. parallel to the long dimension of the the tube, then gas pressure builds up and the temperature increases according to the formula PV=nrT. At some point in the compression, the pressure exceeds the static pressure and the second plug is briefly displaced forward faster than g. Oscillations occur, and then subside to a stasis situation. All matter is elastic so this oscillatory phase should be common to all matter. It should not occur with incompressible objects i.e. discrete particles in a particle accelerator. It should not occur in response to gravity. In other words, if this cylinder of helium drifts into the earth's

20

gravity, will it exhibit the same properties as inertia? The answer is no because the tube in a gravitation setting is insensitive to orientation. In other words gravity will pull the exact same amount just as long as the center of mass is fixed. In fact, the tube can rotate about the center of mass in any manner and the gravitational attraction will be the same. It is clearly evident that this is not the case with inertia.

21

Speculation: Tell the truth about Einstein and the cash cow dies (Einstein loses credibility). Engage in half truths about Einstein for decades, get Time Magazine to elevate Einstein to the status of Person of the Century and the supreme con works. All you have to do to make the con work is suppress unfavorable information about Einstein He was a plagiarist yet somehow this information never made it to the American public. How many of you ever heard that Einstein was a blatant, brazen plagiarist? Why haven't you heard it? The physics community buried it. Then the physics community makes billions of dollars from grants, awards, power, prestige, stipends, money, travel, book deals, honoraria, etc over the next several decades. Advertising people would readily agree, that Person of the Century is worth billions of dollars to the physics community over the next 25 to 50 years. This is similar to artificially inflating a stock price with false stories and then cashing in at the lofty price. Substitute getting research grants approved instead of cashing in at a lofty price, and you have the physics community.

It should be obvious that there is absolutely no incentive for the physics community to tell the truth about Einstein except that they might get caught. They have a tremendous conflict of interest between telling the truth about Einstein or promoting physics. It appears that telling the truth about Einstein is not high on the list of priorities of the physics community. One of the ways that the physics community has legal problems is with respect to the phrase passive fraud. I define passive fraud as the willingness to leave on the record false information and then benefit from that false information. In other words, the physics community may not have to do anything proactive. All they have to do is permit false and misleading information to go unchallenged and then benefit from it.

The physics community may face the following charges:

1) Conspiracy, for failing to get out the truth about Einstein,

2) Fraud, for the placement (or covert support) of false information on the record and then benefiting from it,

3) Perjury, for false statements in research grants,

4) Racketeering, For acting like organized criminals.

5) Obstruction of justice as the scientists try to destroy documents.

The justice department should squeeze undergraduates first, then graduates, then adjunct professors, then full professors, then Department Heads, then the chancellors of the universities, and then Nobel Laureates. The level of criminality that the physics community has engaged in is perhaps fourth or fifth behind organized crime as the leading class of criminals in our society in terms of total felonies committed and magnitude of the money involved.

One of the biggest problems facing the physics community is that they are incredibly arrogant and view themselves as being intellectually superior. Consider these passages from Gleick's book, CHAOS, Making a New Science: "These scientists had experience with brilliance and with eccentricity." p. 2, "I understand you're real smart," Agnew said to Feigenbaum, "If you're so smart, why don't you just solve laser fusion?" p.2, "To a physicist, creating laser fusion was a legitimate problem; puzzling out the spin and color and flavor of small particles was a legitimate problem; dating the origin of the universe was a legitimate problem. Understanding clouds was a job for a meteorologist. Like other physicists, Feigenbaum used an understated, tough-guy vocabulary to rate such problems." p.3, "The most passionate advocates of the new science go so far as to say that Twentieth century science will be remembered for just three things: relativity, quantum mechanics, and chaos." p.6 What the physics community is going to realize is that, painfully, their very intelligence is their greatest enemy; a Mafia underling with an IQ of 80, might not realize he was in the middle of a conspiracy. Is a brilliant physicist unaware of what it meant if Einstein was a plagiarist or that the physics community had falsified the data surrounding the eclipse of 1919 and 1922? Were they completely unaware that falsehoods with respect to Einstein would result in an increase in funding to the physics community? The

23

24

25

An Einsteinism can be defined as the perturbation of language in order to put a positive spin on some aspect of Einstein's life.

Clark, Einstein The Life and Times---Even in form and style it was unusual, lacking the notes and references which give weight to most serious expositions---This is a no brainer; most "serious expositions" are not the product of plagiarism.

Good, Mensa Bull., April/May 2001---His omission of all citations in his 1905 paper is regrettable.---It is not regrettable, it is plagiarism.

Richard Moody Jr.