The Apotheosis of Albert Einstein - Peter Myers, August 27, 2003; update March 18, 2016. My comments are shown {thus}.

Write to me at contact.html.

You are at .

In the late 1979s, when, after my first wife left me, I was looking for a new philosophy around which to rebuild my life, I joined the Theosophical Society and read Hugh Murdoch's article about Albert Einstein (below).

I was so impressed that I adopted Einstein as my "guru", and later named one of my children "Albert" after him.

Since then, I have discovered that Einstein's theories in Physics have been given "sacrosanct" status, placed beyond criticism, as if he was no mere mortal. Deifying him - making him a "secular saint" - is hardly consistent with good science.

It has been alleged that Marx, Freud and Einstein constitute a new "holy trinity", destroying all cultural tradition.

This "trinity" idea is articulated by David Ben Gurion, in his book Recollections (edited by Thomas R. Bransten, Macdonald Unit Seventy-Five, London, 1970):

{p. 17} So many remarkable thinkers have been Jews. Their work and ideas form vast frames of reference that influence the lives of men everywhere ... One can loathe or passionately adhere to Marxist doctrine but one cannot deny the impact of Karl Marx's thought on the world. Equally so with Freudianism and Freud. When I use the star metaphor I am thinking of ... Albert Einstein. So far as I know he remains the greatest scientific theoretician of our age.

{p. 21} ... the Jewish ethic has certainly been responsible for forming individuals who through the ages have made creative contributions ... Those we have already mentioned (Freud, Marx, Einstein and so forth) are cases in point.

All the more reason to subject this "trinity" to the normal processes of criticism.

The concept "Relativity" is akin to "Relational", "Dialectical", "Reflexive" (George Soros' preference: soros2.html), and "Lateral" (as in "lateral thinking").

The basic idea of "dialectical" thinking is that we live in a "bounded" world, in which actions ricochet ... that the human world is more like a squash court than a tennis court ... that you may achieve your goal by proceeding in the opposite direction.

The items here mix "Einstein the Scientist" and "Einstein the Man"; how can the two be separated, given that Einstein used his status for political purposes? The items below are in the order of my own discoveries about him.

(1) Albert Einstein - Universal Man, by Hugh Murdoch
(2) Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein
(3) Einstein the Communist
(4) Ilya Ehrenburg on his meeting with Einstein
(5) Einstein and Olinto de Pretto (discoverer of E=mc2)
(6) Dissidents against Einstein's scientific theories: Bringing Einstein down to earth
(7) Albert Einstein a Plagiarist
- Christopher Bjerknes
(8) Einstein the Zionist - About Zionism: Speeches and Lectures by Professor Albert Einstein
(9) The Einstein-Freud correspondence on ending war (i.e., World Government)
(10) (for comparison) Isaac Newton a plagiarist
(11) Einstein on Spinoza as formulator of pantheistic Judaism
(12) Relativity Fraud: The Complicity of Historians and Philosophers



Theosophy in Australia, December, 1979

This article depicts Einstein as a saintly Theosophist. But there are hints of Einstein the Communist: why did he oppose McCarthy?

{p. 74} In this year of the centenary of the birth of a great scientist who was aIso a great human being, it seems fitting that we should add our tribute.

There is no religion higher than truth. Albert Einstein was one of the greatest truth-seekers of the twentieth cenury, and in the scientific field, one or the greatest of all time. It is fitting that we should pay tribute to him in this year when the centenary of his birth is being widely celebrated at a time when his theories are gaining ever-widening acceptance through more refined experiments. But Einstein was not only a great scientist, he was also a great human being and I hope to portray something of his all round greatness. The philosophical import of his theories has been widely misunderstood by a great many people, scientists included.


Einstein was born in Ulm in Germany of Jewish parents on March 14, 1879. His higher education was obtained in Zurich and in 1902 he acquired Swiss citizenship which he retained throughout his life. He showed early signs of brilliance but did not do well at school because he rebelled against learning by rote and the strict discipline of the day, particularly in Germany. He recalls being facinated by a compass given him at the age of four or five and he became totally absorbed in Euclid's geometry when he first discovered it at the age of twelve. At sixteen he asked himself how a ray of light would appear if one could travel along beside it at the same speed. This was the commencement of the train of thought which led to the theory of relativity.

Upon graduation he found trouble obtaining a position partly because he had antagonised his professors through not being sufficiently deferential. (Einstein was transparently honest, and could not stand sham). From 1902 to 1909 he worked in the Swiss patent office at Bern and it was there that his genius flowered. In 1905 alone he published three papers on different subjects, each worthy of a Nobel Prize. He eventually obtained a Nobel Prize in 1921 for the first of these papers, in which he recognised that light consists of small packets of energy known as photons. The third was his famous paper on Special Relativity.

In 1914 he was appointed director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin where he did some of his most important work during World War 1. As a Swiss citizen and an avowed paciBst, Einstein played no part in the war. When a large number of German intellectuals signed a manifeso justifying Germany's actions, he helped his colleague Nicolai draft a counter manifesto but they could only

{p. 75} induce two others to sign it. Shortly after the war, when Einstein was winning great world-wide acclaim, both he and his theories were strongly attacked in Germany in a wave of anti-Semitism, but Einstein continued to speak his mind. In 1928 he said: I would unconditionally refuse all war service, direct or indirect ... regardless of how I might feel about the causes. Yet when Hitler came to power, Einstein recognised the menace. He was visiting the United States at the time (1933) and never returned, renouncing for the second time German citizenship. Asked to defend two Belgian conscientious objectors, he invited them to contemplatec (and this in 1933) a Belgium occupied by Germany under Hitler and said that whilst he had not abandoned his principles, if he were a Belgian he would feel it his duty to serve in the defence of European civilization.

{Note the implicit opposition, below, between Einstein (on the one hand) and both Hitler and Stalin (on the other)}

He allowed his name to be used in a letter to President Rooseveldt at the beginning of World War II suggesting that the Nazis might be attempting to build an atomic bomb. This was partly responsihle for the eventual deveclopment of the United States bomb but Einstein deplored its use and after the war campaigned vigorously against nuclear armaments. Having been publicly attacked in both Germany and Russia (his theories were not accepted until after the Stalin era), he was now publicly attacked in the United States House of Representatives. He advised non-co-operation (Gandhi style) with the McCarthy committee. On his death-bed in 1955 he signed a long statement with Bertrand Russell which asked: Shall we put an end to the human race or shall mankind renounce war?

Einstein was a strong advocate of world government which he believed was the only way of achieving lasting peace, But he was well aware of the difficulty of achieving it. Asked to write for the New York Times in 1946 on the atomic bomb, his article was entitled "The Problem Lies in the Hearts of Men".

{This is an oblique reference to Einstein's endorsement - along with other physicists, many Jewish - of the 1946 Baruch Plan for World Government, drafted by David Lilienthal and Bernard Baruch, both Jews: baruch-plan.html. The impression given is that any unselfish person would support World Government. Yet, if such a government went wrong, there would be no escape. Why was Einstein so opposed to McCarthy? Surely McCarthy's error was in seeing Cammunism as controlled from Moscow. On the contrary, the New Left, with its cultural revolution featuring the Green, Feminist, Gay and indigenous movements, was always anti-Stalin and independent of Moscow.}

Einstein was fond of music and was quite an accomplished violinist. His favourite composers were Bach and Mozart. He had a keen sense of humour and loved composing doggerel. His character is well expressed in the following passage which one of his former colleagues, Cornelius Lanczos, quotes from Einstein's Ideas and Opinions:

How strange is the lot of us mortals. Each of us is here for a brief sojourn, for what purpose he knows not, though he sometimes thinks he senses it. But without deeper reflection one knows from daily life that one exists for other people - first of all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness is wholly dependent, and then for the many, unknown to us, to whose destinies we are bound by the ties of sympathy. A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are based on the labours of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving. I am strongly drawn to a frugal life and am often oppressively aware that I am engrossing an undue amount of labour of my fellow men. I regard class distinctions as unjustified and, in the last resort, based on force. I also believe that a simple and unassuming life is good for everyone, physically and mentally!

My passianate sense of social justice and social responsibility has always contrasted oddly with my pronounced lack of need for direct contact with human bneings and human communities. I am truly a "lone sojourner" and have never belonged to my country, my home, my friends, or even my immediate family, with my whole heart; in the face of all these ties, I have never lost a sense of distance and need for solitude - feelings which increase with the years. One become sharply aware, but without regret, of the limits of mutual understanding and consonance with other people. No doubt, such a person loses some of his innocence and unconcern; on the other hand, he is largely independent of the opinions, habits and judgements of his fellowmen and avoids the temptation to build his inner equilibrium upon such an insecure foundation.

Lanczos comments: These are the words of an extraordinary genius who has contributed more to our world picture than anybody before or after him.

Einstein was a completely humble, even self-effracing man. Lanczos wrote to his daughter Margot, on his death: His greatness was so towering, it made him modest and humble - not as a pose but as an inner necesity. His only interest in his fame was that it made people more willing to listen to his ideas on other subjects. ...


When Einstein as a youth began to read books on popular scicnce, he realised that many of the

{p. 76} stories in the Bible could not he true. This realisation was followed by what he describes as a posiively fanalic orgy of freethinking and a suspicion against every kind of authority. However, Eintein's ideas mellowed and he was ever an atheist. He once listed among those pposed to him "the faithful of the Church of the Atheists". Obviously he felt atheism was an equally dogmatic position to that of orthodox religion. Though he did not believe in a personal God, the following quotations reveal what can only be described as a deep religious conviction.

Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort.

My religiosity consists of a humble admiration for the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God. Again he refers to moral obligations as a purely human problem - the most important of all human problems. Yet he could also say: Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth. What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses and Jesus ranks far higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive mind.

Einstein used the term "God" where most sientists prefer the more non-committal term "nature", for example his famous saying: God does not play dice in which he expressed his objection to quantum theory. He used the word 'God" in this and similar contexts so often that it is quite clear that he chose he word deliberaely but he explained in a letter to a freethinker that he meant not Jahwe nor Jupiter but Spinoza's immanent God. Spinoza obviously made a deep impression on Einsein for he often refers to him in similar context.

Einstein did not believe in personal survival after death. This is quite consistent with the whole of his philosophy. The personal is of little consequence: the universal is all-important. ...

{p. 77} A very important facet of Einstein's theory of the universe is that it abolished absolute space and time in the Newtonian sense of a time and space which would exist independently of the universe. To Einstein the properties of space are determined by the matter which occupies it. Space and the universe are identical. The universe does not expand into a pre-existing space. It is space itself which expands. Furthermore there is now a universal time scale as well as universal space. The implications of this fact are not as widely recognised as they should be. In Special Relativity neither twin could say his time was right. One person's time was as good as another's. But now the twin who is at rest with respect to the universe measures universal time. It is the space-travelling twin whose time measurement is out of kilter with the universe. It has even been suggested by a few bold scientists that the local space metric or cosmological substratum as it is called (and which is determined bv the matter of the whole universe) should be regarded as a new and refined form of the old idea of the ether of space. This suggesion is very logical and is tenable but is still generally regarded as heretical. ...

{p. 78} One also wonders why Einstein, the great universalist, did not give more emphasis to the universal aspects of his cosmology rather than emphasising the relative. Einstein abolished absolute Newtonian space but he did not abolish the universe which, as we have seen, provides a universal reference system. Indeed, recent experiments have succeeded in measuring the velocity of the earth wlth respect to the background radiation. It is purely a matter of semantics whether we now wish to regard motion with respect to the universe as relative or absolute. There is no conflict, as many people imagine, between Einstein's ideas and the concept of an absolute Universe and even of a Great Architect of the Universe who is responsible for its laws and is immanent throughout the Universe. Perhaps the reason Einstein was so restrained ahout cosmology is that it was not a happy experience for him. His preferred version did not appear to fit the facts during his lifetime, but, as mentioned above, that situation has now changed dramatically. ...

View the article
pages 74-75: einstein1.jpg
pages 76-77: einstein2.jpg

(2) Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein

May 1998

Why Socialism?

by Albert Einstein

This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949).

Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.

Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has - as is well known - been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and - if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous - are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.

Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?"

I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society - in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence - that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word "society."

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished - just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time - which, looking back, seems so idyllic - is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor - not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production - that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods - may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call "workers" all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production - although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is "free," what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the "free labor contract" for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from "pure" capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service. {end}

(3) Einstein the Communist

3.1 from

Einstein, Albert (1879-1955)

This article is from

If it's been changed, the original can be found at

Einstein, Albert (1879-1955)

... Further Reading on this matter: Bohr's Report of his Discussions with Einstein and Einstein's Reply.

As the world situation deteriorated, Einstein spent more and more effort in promoting pacifism including the establishment of a War Resisters' International Fund. In a famous exchange of letters with the Austrian psychiatrist Sigmund Freud, Einstein speculated on the psychological basis for the war and fascism he saw around him. In a discussion of epistemology with the Indian poet, Rabindranath Tagore, Einstein defended basic philosophical materialist positions and in particular indicated support for the Pantheism of Spinoza.

When Hitler came to power in 1933, Einstein renounced his German citizenship and emigrated to England, moving to the U.S. in 1935 for a position at Princeton where he lived for the remainder of his life. From this time, Einstein urged Europe to arm and prepare for the inevitable war with Hitler. Most Western nations at this time regarded Hitler as a good anti-communist and Einstein's advocacy of war was given as little heed as had his pacificism.

In 1939, Niels Bohr, told Einstein of Lise Meitner's success in splitting the uranium atom, and speculated on the prospect for the creation of an atom bomb. Though Einstein was sceptical, he was persuaded to write to President Roosevelt to begin atomic-bomb research. He was not included in the team that worked at Los Alamos and did not learn that a nuclear bomb had been made until Hiroshima was razed in 1945. He then joined those scientists seeking ways to prevent any future use of the bomb, his particular and urgent plea being the establishment of a world government under a constitution drafted by the US, Britain, and Russia.

By 1937, after years of failure advocating peaceful attempts to change the world, Einstein became involved with Communism. For the remainder of his life he would be a member, sponsor, or affiliate of at least 34 Communist organisations; and chaired three Communist organisations. Einstein spoke out against capitalism, and it's concentration of power into the hands of the few, and stressed the need for a revolutionary overthrow of capitalist governments. Such ideas did not go unnoticed: the FBI began documenting his activities and speeches, and filed claims against his "communist-anarchist" politics, ammassing into a 1,427 page report by the time of his death. In 1949, Einstein's agitation gained wider attention when he wrote Why Socialism?, explaining that the only way for humanity to rid itself of the evils of capitalism is through the adoptation of Socialism. Einstein did not fully approve of Stalinist Socialism; arguing on several points in letters to Soviet scientists that freedom is necessary for Socialism to work.

{Einstein is closer to the "Trotskyist" camp of Communists}

The rejection of his ideals by bureaucrats on both sides did not break him, however, because his prime obsession still remained with physics. He published his new version of the unified field in 1950, a most meticulous mathematical essay that was immediately criticised by most physicists as untenable.

Compared with his renown of a generation earlier, Einstein was virtually neglected and ostracised in his later years; he said that he felt almost like a stranger in the world. His health deteriorated to the extent that he could no longer play the violin or sail his boat. On April 18, 1955, Einstein died in his sleep at Princeton Hospital. {end}

3.2 FBI Dossier on Einstein

Albert Einstein 1,427 pages

An investigation was conducted by the FBI regarding the famous physicist because of his affiliation with the Communist Party. Einstein was a member, sponsor, or affiliated with thirty-four communist fronts between 1937-1954. He also served as honorary chairman for three communist organizations.

3.3 The FBI and Albert Einstein - from the Trotskyist wsws website

The FBI and Albert Einstein

The Einstein File: J. Edgar Hoover's Secret War Against the World's Most Famous Scientist, by Fred Jerome. St. Martin's Press, 2002. 348 pages. ISBN 0-312-28856-5

By Alan Whyte and Peter Daniels 3 September 2002

A 22-year campaign of spying and slander by the FBI against Albert Einstein is traced in this recently published book.

That the FBI spied on prominent personalities, including artists, musicians, scientists and scholars, has been well known for decades. The FBI file on Einstein, perhaps the greatest scientist of the 20th century, first came to light in 1983, when Robert Alan Schwartz, a professor at Florida International University, wrote an article on the subject for The Nation magazine.

Up to 25 percent of the Einstein file was originally blacked out or withheld by the authorities. Author Fred Jerome sued under the Freedom of Information Act and successfully obtained most of the remaining material. The result is a much more detailed examination of the 1,800-page dossier compiled in the decades-long campaign against Einstein.

This book is well worth a full reading. In its own examination of Einstein's activities, The Einstein File reveals to a wider audience what has remained little known in the decades since Einstein's death: the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, whose Theories of Special and General Relativity changed the world and whose name became synonymous with scientific genius, was deeply committed to the fight against war and for democratic rights and civil liberties. He was also an outspoken opponent of social inequality and an advocate of a socialist planned economy.

The Einstein dossier serves as a useful reminder of the scope of FBI spying. Pious and complacent liberals often remark on the "excesses" of the McCarthy era. As the campaign against Einstein shows, these methods long predated the Cold War and McCarthy, although they reached a frenzied pitch in the early 1950s. ...

The popular image of Einstein, cultivated by the media and by and large accepted by his many biographers, is that of the brilliant but somewhat absent-minded scientist, a man at home in the realm of theoretical physics but not in the everyday world. He has been turned into an icon and placed on a pedestal that allows his political views to be safely hidden away. When Time magazine chose him as "Person of the Century" several years ago, it omitted all mention of his socialist views. ...

(4) Ilya Ehrenburg on his meeting with Einstein

Ilya Ehrenburg, Postwar Years 1945-1954: Volume VI of MEN, YEARS - LIFE, translated by TATIANA SIIEBUNINA in collaboration with YVONNE KAPP. LONDON, MACGIBBON & KEE, 1966:

{p. 50} As it grew light I saw a large city: Boston. Skyscrapers were straining towards the plane; I realized that we had indeed crossed the ocean.

Before landing we were given forms to fill in. As well as the usual questions there was one about race. I filled in the forms for all three of us (Galaktionov could speak a little French and Simonov could only exclaim in English 'Wonderful!' and 'I love America'). Instead of replying to the question about race I put a dash. My anti-racism cost us an extra hour in the small passport control building. A member of our embassy told us that the police officer rang up his chiefs: 'The Reds won't state whether they're white or coloured'.

We travelled to Washington by train. I was quite stupid with fatigue but was obliged to go straight to the conference. There were about three hundred people in the hall, proprietors and editors of various newspapers; each wore a badge with his name and that of his paper. Galaktionov represented Pravda, Simonov Red Star and I Ivestia. During the interval the proprietor of a provincial newspaper asked me: 'Is your paper leased to you on a concession from the government or do you work on a yearly salary?' We made our speeches and then answered questions. One editor said that he had lived in Moscow in the thirties and that things had been much easier then for foreign correspondents who could travel anywhere they liked except to Central Asia, and that censorship had been moderate; but now movement was restricted and there was harsh censorship. It fell to me to answer this and I blamed everything on the war, adding that I was a journalist, not a censor. Another editor expressed his indignation at the long delays in granting visas. The general remained silent, and I again had to find a way out. 'I don't grant visas,' I said. 'I'd give them to everybody; I believe that the more journalists travel the better. Perhaps that's why I'm not put in charge of issuing visas.' The Americans laughed and the ice was broken. Galaktionov replied to a question on disarmament. Suddenly a fat journalist with a large cigar (exactly like a poster caricature of a capitalist) stood up and addressed the general: 'I'd like to know, could your paper publish a demand for the resignation of Premier Stalin and his replacement by, say, Molotov or Litvinov?' Galaktionov turned towards me and I read horror on his face: 'Go on, reply, you're used to this sort of thing'. I said as calmly as I could: 'No, that's out of the question. I ought perhaps to remind our colleagues that different countries have different regimes and a

{p. 51} different order of things'. The Americans liked the candour of my reply and the next morning I read in the papers that I was 'a mixture of cynicism and frankness'. Before the banquet we went to the hotel. Galaktionov said several times: 'Ghastly experience'. ...

I soon realized that an old European cannot feel at ease in the New World. ...

I succeeded in making friends with several Americans, yet I must confess that I found it restful to be with Europeans, whether old friends like Julian Tuwim, Chagall, SLcfa, Chcrassi, Roman Jakobson, or people I had come across before, like Le Corbusier, de la Poype, or those whom I was now meeting for the first time, such as Einstein, Koussevitzky, Sholem Asch and Oscar Lange. And when in New Orleans I saw old European houses with balconies, I smiled happily.

{p. 60} ... stayed for a week, there was a police raid during the night; a newly married couple from out of town was arrested because they could not produce a marriage certificate. There were States where people could get married instantly, while the State of Nevada grew wealthy on granting easy divorces. In the dining-car on a train the waiter removed somebody's glass of whisky: 'We're crossing a dry State'.

I went to see the distinguished scientist Vladimir Zworykin, the inventor of the iconoscope. He lived in a beautiful house near Philadelphia. He talked at great length about the rapid strides advanced science was making in America. I knew that Einstein and Fermi owed much to the USA. Roman Jakobson spent a whole night describing to me the future of thinking machines. In Princeton I saw splendid lecture theatres, laboratories and libraries. Yet in Jackson and in Knoxville I had the utmost difficulty in finding a bookshop.

I described my contradictory impressions in my articles. These impressions were naturally often fortuitous and in some cases certainly mistaken, because it is impossible to understand an alien country and way of lifc in so short a time. However, I did not fall for the easy temptation to lampoon America. In 1946 the cold war was gaining ground fast and those Americans who were fostering it eagerly welcomed some of the reports and articles that appeared in our press. Harper's Magaine, which was in the forefront of the anti-Soviet campaign, published a translation of my articles but in its editorial comment admitted that the details did not matter so much as the general impression which the articles would make on the Soviet reader. He would not, the editorial went on, see America as a coarse, greedy, mechanized and soulless monster, as it had been depicted in the past by such European sociologists as, for instance, Andre Siegfried. These articles, it pointed out, had appeared in Izvestia between June and September, at the time of the now famous 'cultural purge' which had victimized many writers and film directors. A leader in Ivestia had said: 'What can the best Soviet citizens, the creators of Soviet culture, learn from the "fashionable" toilers in the field of art in the West and in America today, who express the moral decay and rottenness of the capitalist regime?' Reading this, said Harper's editorial, had given rise to fears and it drew attention to a passage in my fourth article which said: 'We have much to learn from American writers and American architects, and even (in spite of the appalling vulgarity of the average production) from their film directors'. The magazine expressed con-

{p. 61} cern lest these articles had endangered my position. It hoped that I had taken the precaution of removing my tie. (Anti-Soviet journalists hoped that I would be destroyed and to this day they cannot forgive me for having stayed alive.)

However, my articles were not dictated solely by a desire to quell the cold war. I realized that Europeans were beginning to resemble Americans in their attachment to creature comforts, in a certain over-simplification of their inward life and in the cult of technology and sport. I wanted to reassure myself and, bearing in mind the representatives of the new intelligentsia whom I had met in New York, Boston and New Orleans, I tried to show that many Americans were beginning to resemble Europeans: 'America is not a world that stands still, it is constantly shifting. Yesterday's puritans become hard-drinking neurotics, Hemingway characters. The sons of Baptists and Methodists read the New Yorker which satirizes Americanism. In fact, no European will ever be able to debunk America as well as the Americans do it themselves; and in this lies the promise of growth. I am certain that those Americans who criticize America are fervently patriotic. They are thc new pioneers; they too are consumed with a fever, but not with "gold fever": they are searching for spiritual values; skyscrapers do not satisfy them, and if they deride these soaring buildings it is not because they prefer shacks but because they prefer soaring thoughts and soaring emotions.'

{The above, I can agree with}

All this is probably true, but 'a story is soon told' while history meanders. The progress of science has become universal. The Americans were dismayed to see the supremacy of Soviet technology in certain fields; but this stemmed more from the calculations of politicians and generals than from any searching or 'soaring thoughts and soaring emotions'.

{Now he takes a swipe at Stalin}

During the years of what is today called the 'personality cult' cybernetics was treated as charlatanism in our country. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia included the subject for the first time in its supplementary volume. Our cybernetics experts recall the past with anger; one of them transferred his resentment to art, as if 'the anachronistic enthusiasm for Bach and Blok' were responsible for instigating the campaign against the new science. Meanwhile those who banned cybernetics threw uneasy glances at art. I continued and still continue my dispute not so much with America as with 'Americanism'. Norbert Wiener's book fascinated me (although I did not understand all of it). ...

{p. 72} I THOUGHT I had lost the faculty for feeling surprise: I had flown across the ocean, I had visited a variety of countries, met many famous and a few great men, lived through three wars, the Revolution, the year nineteen-thirty-seven, fascism, victory, and yet, quite unexpectedy, on 14th May 1946 I was struck dumb, like a child who for the first time witnesses some exraordinary natural phenomenon: I was driven to Princeton and found myself face to face with Einstein. I spent only a few hours with him but my memory retains those hours better than many an important event in my life. One can forget joy and trouble, but one never forgets amazement; it etches itself too deeply into one's memory.

I had of course seen photographs of Einstein - who has not? - but he looked different in the flesh, possibly because the photographs had been taken a long time ago, or possibly because the camera is not a human eye. Einstein, when I met him, was sixty-seven years old; his grey hair, worn very long, gave him something of the look of a nineteenth-century musician or a hermit. He was wearing a sweater and no coat, and a fountain-pen stuck into the turtle neck protruded just under his chin. He pulled a notebook out of his trousers pocket. His features were sharp, clear-cut, and his eyes astonishingly young, by turns sad, alert or concentrated, then suddenly full of mischievous laughter like a boy's. During the first few minutes he seemed a very old man, but he had only to start talking, to run out into the garden, to throw me a glance of mocking gaiety, for this first impression to vanish. He was young with the youth that years cannot subdue; he himself expressed it in this casual phrase: 'I live and I feel puzzled, and all the time I try to understand'.

In Julio Jurenito, written in 1921, I spoke of having read a popular exposition of the Theory of Relativity. I am extremely ignorant in many fields of science (a fact of which I am fortunately aware), the results of an incomplete education. I absorbed the popular exposition, though even that I did not entirely understand, and was rather vague about some things. On the way from New York to Princeton I felt

{p. 73} nervous: what should I, an ignoramus, be able to talk about to a great scientist? I confided my apprehensions to the Jewish writer Brainin who was taking me to Princeton. He replied that Einstein was a simple man and that he had asked to meet me because he was interested in Russia and in the threat of a new war. This did not entirely reassure me. But as soon as Einstein began to talk my fears evaporated. Of course I answered his questions and enlarged on some points, but today it seems to me that it was only he who spoke, while I listened and if I did open my mouth it was to ape.

Everything amazed me: his appearance, his life story, his wisdom, his spirit of challenge, but above all the fact that here was I actually drinking cofee with Einstein while he talked to me.

(On one occasion I was sitting next to Joliot-Curie at a meeting of ihe World Peace Council. One speaker followed another reiterating well-known truths. Meanwhile Joliot-Curie, leaning close to my ear, began talking about the pattern of the physicist's life. Something must have been said to start this train of thought. 'Physicists,' he said, 'are like poets, they make their discoveries in their youth. It's a matter of inspiration. Fermi created his theory of the beta-decomposition of radio-active atoms when he was thirty-three. Rutherford showed his genius at thirty-two. Broglie and Pauli made their important discoveries at thirty-one, Dirac at twenty-six. And do you know how old Einstein was when he formulated his special Theory of Relativity? Twenty-six.' Joliot-Curie eyes sparkled merrily, then he grew grave: 'We must listen to what this chap's saying'. I wrote down Joliot-Curie's words on the agenda paper.)

It was, of course, the sheer stature of the man I was about to meet which made me feel nervous on my way to Princeton. I remembered Langevin saying in 1934: 'Einstein has upset the whole of natural science. Before him physicists thought that everthing was known, but he has proved that there is another way of looking at things. Modern physics begins with him, and not only physics, but all modern science.'

He destroyed the old conception of the academic physicist bounded by the limits of his special discipline. I knew that he was a friend of Romain Rolland, that in 1915 he had spoken out against the war; I knew of his fight against fascism, and the man I now saw helped me to understand a great deal about our epoch, so full of contradictions.

Much later I read his autobiographical notes and studies in Einstein,

{p. 74} Philosopher-Scientist, and the reminiscences of his friends, and realized that my amazement had been a natural thing. His life was like a turbulent mountain river. To begin with there is his nationality: he started life as a German subject, then became a Swiss citizen and finally an American one. At the time he made his great discovery he was officially a third grade examiner at the Berne Patent Office. Three years later, when all the leading scientists of the world were talking about his discovery, he was lecturing at Berne University to an audience of two students. Soon people began to speak of him not only at learned meetings but in trams. He gave courses of lectures in Zurich, Prague, Berlin, Leiden, Pasadena and Princeton; he travelled to many European countries and to India, Palestine and Japan. He met, he had intimate talks with the most diverse personalities. I am not speaking about scientists - it was natural that he should have ties of friendship with many of them - but I should like to mention some of the surprising encounters which he has referred to in his writings or in conversation: Romain Rolland and Earl (Bertrand) Russell, Kafka and Charlie Chaplin, Rabindranath Tagore and Chicherin (the Soviet People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs), Martin Buber the historian of Hasidism and Bernard Shaw, Albert the King of the Belgians and the Negro singer Marian Anderson, President Roosevelt and Nehru. He hated receptions, applause and adulation and rarely spoke in public; he loved to play the fiddle, was a passionate gardener, enjoyed sailing (he even wrote an article on the problems of sailing a yacht), while at the same time there as not a world event to which he did not react selflessly and passionately. During the years of the First World War, hearing that Romain Rolland had come out aginst nationalistic blindness, he joined him in Switzerland and publicly opposed the universal carnage. He courageously welcomed the October Revolution {the Bolshevik Revolution} and branded German militarism. In him fascism found an implacab!e enemy. He was no nationalist, German or Jewish or American. When he was appealing for funds to found a Hebrew University in Palestine, he said: 'I have seen Jews humiliated in Germany, and it made my heart bleed. I have seen the schools, the satirical journals and all possible means of propaganda mobilized for the purpose of crushing in my Jewish brothers their faith in themselves'. He did everything he could for Spain defending her dignity. He lent his support to many organizations campaigning against the threat of a new war. He resigned from the International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation of the League

{p. 75} of Nations which, he declared, was abetting the strong and encouraging aggressors. In America he publicly declared that he sympathized with Socialism and was a friend of the Soviet Union. He called discrimination against Negroes 'a dark blot on the conscience of every American'. During the Second World War he helped to raise funds for aid to the Soviet Union. He condemned the use of atomic weapons, anathematized the cold war, advocated general disarmament and, a month before his death, was working on the draft of an appeal that was to be signed by himself, Bertrand Russell and Joliot-Curie.

He had many enemies. There were scientists who tried to confute his theories which they suspected of undermining their tiny reputations, acquired by fair means or foul. The German fascists hated him: for them he was first and foremost a Jew. An 'Anti-Einstein' organization was set up and joined by several famous physicists, including some Nobel prize-winners. They embarked upon the systematic persecution of Einstein: lectures were sabotaged, pseudo-scientific satires and pamphlets were published. In 1922 the Camelots du Roi, on learning that Einstein was coming to Paris, organized a hostile demonstration. When Hitler came to power Einstein was condemned to death in absentia and a high price was set on his head. In 1933 certain obscurantists clamoured for him to be debarred from entering the United States. In 1945 John Elliott Rankin, speaking in Congress, called on the government to deal with this agitator called Einsein who had dared to speak against Franco's regime. Five years later this Rankin referred to Einstein as an old charlatan, who called himself a scientist but was in fact a member of the Communist camp. The notorious Committee on Un-American Activities put him under observation.

In my notebooks I find some of Einstein's sayings which I recorded immediately on my return to New York. Of the Americans he said: 'They're like children, sometimes charming, sometimes unruly. It's bad when children start plaving with matches. It's better if they play witn bricks ... I don't think the average American reads less than the average European but he reads different things, and, more important, he reads in a different way. I once asked a student whether he had read a certain book and he said: "I think so, but I can't remember. Anyhow, that book came out quite a few years ago, it must be out of date by now". A fellow like that is interested only in the latest thing ... They're very good at forgetting here. During the war the average

{p. 74} American's reaction to the word "Stalingrad" was to tale off his wristwatch and send it to a Red Army man. Mikhoels and Feffer saw it happen. Today you get a very different reaction to that word from many people: show the Russians we've got the atom bomb. Of course it's the result of the press campaign ...

He went back to the bomb: 'You see, the greatest danger lies in trusting logic. You feel certain that 2 and 2 make 4. I don't ... It's a terrible thing that Roosevelt died when he did; he wouldn't have let it happen'.

(It was only later that I learnt about what is regarded as Einstein's tragedy. A month before the outbreak of the Second World War some friends of Einstein who were physicists informed him that they were working in Germany to produce an atom bomb. Since their seizure of Czechoslovakia the Nazis had access to uranium. Einstein was persuaded to write to Roosevelt. This he did. In April 1945, when it became clear that the Nazis had not yet succeeded in producing an atom bomb, but that the Americans had, Einstein wrote to the President a second time beseeching him not to have recourse to this cataclysmic weapon. Roosevelt died without reading this letter and a few months later the new President, Truman, gave the order for the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.)

I knew that Einstein was interested in the Black Book, the general title of a collection of human documents: diaries, letters and statements by eye-witnesses concerning Nazi crimes against the Jewish people in the occupied territories. I had brought with me certain published material and photographs. Einstein examined them with close atten-

{p. 77} tion and when he raised his eyes I read grief in them, and his lips twitched slightly. He said: 'I have often said that the potentialities of knowledge are unlimited, as is the knowable. Now I think that vileness and cruelty also have no limits.'

He asked me where I intended to go. I told him that in two days I should be leaving for the south as I wanted to see how the Negroes lived. He said: 'They live in terrible conditions. It's shameful. The actions of the legislatures in the Southern States are covered by some of the counts of the Nuremberg indictment'. A few minutes later, when we had, one out into the garden and a photographer was pestering us, he told me bout beautiful young American girl who, defending racial discrimination, had asked him the usual question: 'What would you say if your son announced that he was going to marry a Negress?' He said he had replied: 'I don't know. I should probably ask to meet his fiancee. But if my son anncounced that he wanted to marry you I should certairly lose both sleep and appetite', and his eyes lit up ith a challenging gleam.

He asked me about the Soviet Union and then said: 'I feel sure that you'll be able to restore the economy very quickly. In fact, I believe in Russia. Tell me, do you see Stalin often?' I said I had never talked to him face to face. 'A pity; I should have liked to know what he's like as a man. A Communist told me that I was behind the times, exaggerating the role of the individual. Of course I'm not a Marxist but I know well enough that the objective world exists outside the individual's subjective appraisals. And yet the individual plays a most important part. I can picture Lenin to myself far better: I've read about him, met people who'd known him. He commands respect not only as a politician but also as a man of high moral integrity'.

There is a note of another thing he said, although I cannot remember at what stage of our conversation: 'I was greatly impressed by The Brothers Karamaov. It's one of those books that shatter the mechanical conception of man's inner world, of the limits of good and evil'.

As we parted he said: 'The main thing now is to prevent an atomic catastrophe. It's a good thing that you've come to America. I hope more Russians will come and talk to us. Mankind must prove itself more intelligent than Epimetheus who opened Pandora's box and could not shut it again. Au revoir, come again'.

Ten days later I lleard a familiar voice on the radio: Einstein was speaking about the deadly danger hanging over humanity ...


(5) Einstein and Olinto de Pretto (discoverer of E=mc2)

5.1 From: "Marek Glogoczowski" <>

Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 00:23:30 +0200

In essays about Einstein ... somebody mentions that the equation E =mc2 (which is at the base of atomic bomb functioning) Einstein "borrowed" from an Italian. The information about this plagiary was published by Italian revue "Gente" no 49, Dec. 2, 1999, and reprinted in Poland in weekly (of very small diffusion) "Mysl Polska", March 2, 2000. As a physicist I know several researchers in Poland working on Einstein's discoveries (among them Prof. Ludwik Kostro quoted in my paper on origin of American Superpower), but no one of them knew, prior to my information, that Einstein indeed used the work of Italian agronomer (but also geologist, astronomer and physicist) Olinto de Pretto, who published his work in 1903 and then, thanks to help of astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli, again in 1904. (His work is preserved at Torino's bibliotheca.)

Olinto de Pretto was afraid that his theory, put into practice, might give horrible results. Einstein knew Italian, for his family lived in Italy (Milano), where in 1902 died his father. Moreover, one of closest friends of Einstein was Italian engineer Michele Besso, who lived for a certain time at Rome at house of his uncle Beniamino Besso, who in turn was a close friend of Augusto de Pretto, brother of Olino. {end}

5.2 Einstein's E=mc2 'was Italian's idea'

Rory Carroll in Rome Thursday

November 11, 1999 The Guardian,3858,3928978-103681,00.html

The mathematical equation that ushered in the atomic age was discovered by an unknown Italian dilettante two years before Albert Einstein used it in developing the theory of relativity, it was claimed yesterday.

Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the equation E=mc2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903, said Umberto Bartocci, a mathematical historian.

Einstein allegedly used De Pretto's insight in a major paper published in 1905, but De Pretto was never acclaimed, said Professor Bartocci of the University of Perugia.

De Pretto had stumbled on the equation, but not the theory of relativity, while speculating about ether in the life of the universe, said Prof Bartocci. It was republished in 1904 by Veneto's Royal Science Institute, but the equation's significance was not understood.

A Swiss Italian named Michele Besso alerted Einstein to the research and in 1905 Einstein published his own work, said Prof Bartocci. It took years for his breakthrough to be grasped. When the penny finally dropped, De Pretto's contribution was overlooked while Einstein went on to become the century's most famous scientist. De Pretto died in 1921.

"De Pretto did not discover relativity but there is no doubt that he was the first to use the equation. That is hugely significant. I also believe, though it's impossible to prove, that Einstein used De Pretto's research," said Prof Bartocci, who has written a book on the subject.

Einstein's theory held that time and motion are relative to the observer if the speed of light is constant and if all natural laws are the same. A footnote established the equivalence of mass and energy, according to which the energy (E) of a quantity of matter (m) is equal to the product of the mass and the square of the velocity of light (c). Now known as: E=mc2 .

The influence of work by other physicists on Einstein's theory is also controversial. A German, David Hilbert, is thought by some to have been decisive.

Edmund Robertson, professor of mathematics at St Andrew's University, said: "An awful lot of mathematics was done by people who have never been credited - Arabs in the middle ages, for example. Einstein may have got the idea from someone else, but ideas come from all sorts of places.

"De Pretto deserves credit if his contribution can be proven. Even so, it should not detract from Einstein."

5.3 Michael Falotico's review of Umberto Bartocci's book

A review by Michael Falotico of the book written by Professor Umberto Bartocci

Umberto Bartocci, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Perugia, Italy, in his book, "Albert Einstein e Olinto De Pretto: la vera storia della formula piu' famosa del mondo" (Albert Einstein and Olinto De Pretto, the true history of the most famous formula in the world) has shown to us what can happen if one digs long enough through old Italian archives. His book literally re-writes the history of science in the 20th Century. Professor Bartocci proves that an Italian first formulated the famous equation E=mc^2.

An industrialist named Olinto De Pretto, a native of the Veneto region of Italy, published an article in which he gave, in its final form, the equation E=mc^2. This article was published on June 16, 1903, and published again in February 27, 1904, the second time in the Atti of the Reale Instituto Veneto di Scienze. De Pretto thereby preceded Einstein's famous 1905 "E=mc^2" paper by at least a year-and-a-half.

To Professor Bartocci's credit, he attaches the complete text of the De Pretto article as an appendix to his book so that the reader can decide for himself/herself if De Pretto was a true precursor to Einstein.

In the article, Olinto De Pretto actually comments on how amazing his discovery is. De Pretto could hardly believe his mathematical discovery. This formula, of course, would later be the theoretical basis for the atomic bomb. Indeed, decades later, when another Italian, Enrico Fermi, was working on nuclear reactions, Fermi credited the famous equation E=mc^2 (attributed to Einstein) for formulating the theoretical underpinnings that made nuclear reactions possible.

De Pretto himself understood the significance of his discovery. Speaking of E=mc^2 he wrote (my translation), "To what astonishing result has our reasoning brought us? Nobody would easily admit that stored in a latent state, in a kilogram of whatever material, completely hidden from our investigations, there comes into play such a sum of energy. The idea would be adjudged crazy!" De Pretto was 46 years old when he made this discovery.

Unfortunately, he would never be in a position to take credit for it. In 1921, a year before Einstein received the Nobel Prize, De Pretto was shot dead, murdered by a woman over a business dispute. De Pretto was in the process of having a complete book of his scientific ideas published when he was killed.

Could Einstein have copied from De Pretto? Nobody can absolutely prove that Einstein saw De Pretto's article but Professor Bartocci offers some intriguing speculation.

Professor Bartocci has traced a link between De Pretto and Einstein, through Einstein's best friend, Michele Besso. Besso is the only person credited in the famous E=mc^2 paper of 1905. Throughout all of his famous papers on 1905, Einstein gives no sources or citations. The only credit given to anyone is a brief mention of his friend Michele Besso. Why the lack of citation of any source material?

Interestingly, Besso was originally from the Veneto region of Italy; his native tongue was Italian. The city of Vicenza, Italy, again in the Veneto region, was where Olinto De Pretto was from.

Michele Besso was close to his uncle, Beniamo Besso, who lived in Rome. Beniamo Besso worked as an engineer in Rome with Olinto De Pretto's brother, Augusto De Pretto. Perhaps Augusto passed on Olinto's discovery to Beniamo Besso who in turned told Michele Besso who in turn told Einstein - or so goes the thread.

While the De Pretto-to-Besso-to-Einstein link is seemingly tenuous, it must be noted that Einstein was well aware of other groundbreaking work by Italian physicists (having read deeply the Italian physics literature). During the very same "anno mirabilis" of 1905, when Einstein published his famous four physics papers in the Annalen der Physik (including the paper that derived the E=mc^2 formula), he also published in the very same Annalen der Physik reviews of articles written by Italian physicists. For example, the Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, published by Princeton University Press, contains a review written by Albert Einstein in March 1905 of the an article written by Arturo Giammarco, "A Case of Corresponding States in Thermodynamics" Einstein also wrote a review of Giuseppe Belluzzo, "Principles of Graphic Thermodynamics." This shows that Einstein was reading rather deeply in the Italian physics literature at the time.

Perhaps the Besso connection is probably unnecessary although it could very well have happened. Einstein, too, could have stumbled across De Pretto's formula on his own.

The Veneto region is not that far from where Einstein was then living in Switzerland. Indeed, Albert Einstein was quite fluent in Italian. According to Abram Pais in his biography of Einstein, "Subtle is the Lord", when Einstein graduated from high school in Aarau, Germany, he was required to take exams in both the German language and the Italian language. Out of a maximum score of 6,Einstein received a score of 5 in German (his native tongue) and also a score of 5 in Italian! This in and of itself is proof of Einstein's conversance in Italian; Einstein could write as well in Italian as he could in his native German tongue.

Also, the Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, published by Princeton University Press, notes that Einstein spoke Italian. Of course, Einstein had lived in Italy during his youth, and Einstein's father is buried in Milan. Further, in order for Einstein to gain Swiss citizenship (a requirement for him to work in the Berne patent office since that was a government job) it could only help him if he could show proficiency in Italian, which, along with German and French, is one of the three official languages of Switzerland. Finally, there are still extant postcards written by Einstein in Italian as well as living Italians who spoke to Einstein in his later years who can attest to his fluency. There is no doubt that Einstein spoke Italian well. Indeed, the above cited reviews of the Italian physics literature prove the point. It is impossible to say if Einstein ever saw the De Pretto article. All one can say with any assurance is that if Einstein indeed saw the article, Einstein's Italian language skills were strong enough that he could read it.

When Einstein did publish his famous article in 1905 wherein he gave a variation of the famed "E=mc^2" formula, he titled this "discovery" in the form of a question. Published in November, 1905, in Volume 18, pages 639-641, the title of Einstein's paper was phrased as a question, "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy Content?"

Professor Bartocci finds it curious that Einstein would title his article in the form of a question. Perhaps he was not quite sure of its significance or perhaps he wanted the title in question form in order to later attribute the idea to someone else should the formula prove incorrect. Or perhaps Einstein is making a veiled reference to something he saw in the Italian physics literature.

Professor Bartocci spends much of his book discussing how difficult it was to get anyone to believe him. The Einstein "establishment" is so strong, and the mythology surrounding Einstein so ingrained, that no one in Italy would publish his book. Once he did find a publisher, he could not get the book reviewed. It was only in Great Britain, far from Italy, that word leaked out regarding the book.

On the face of it, the Einstein story is irresistible. How one obscure patent clerk single-handedly published in the same year (1905) four articles that, respectively, explained Brownian motion; explained the photo-electric effect; formulated the equation E=mc^2, and invented the theory of relativity! For one man to have done all that, and all in the same year, is nothing short of miraculous. Any one of these discoveries would have assured Einstein a place in history. To have single-handedly made all four and published them all in the space of a year, well, that is astonishing genius.

Perhaps the British reviewers are a bit more cynical. They publicized Professor Bartocci's findings when no one else would. Perhaps Einstein, undoubtedly a brilliant man, did not do quite all that he is said to have done.

What is absolutely indisputable is that the formula was published, not once but twice, in the Italian physics literature. Its authorship should rightly be credited to the industrialist, Olinto De Pretto. ...

5.4 Anonymous response to my Einstein biography, by Tim McCaskey

Just to clarify, this is a response I received to my Einstein biography. The author chose to remain anonymous. I haven't checked the sources, so you may take it or leave it as you will.

Tim McCaskey


You requested comments on your Einstein web site, so here are some (please keep an open mind as you read this; apologies for the length):

Your biography on your Web site of A. Einstein is the same old stuff everyone has been reading about him for years and is quite obsolete by now.

For example, you mention Albert Einstein fathered two sons. True, as far as it goes. But why do you not mention that Albert also fathered a daughter, named Lieserl? Do not daughters rate a mention?

Lieserl is mentioned quite prominently in the Love Letters between Mileva Maric (Einstein's first wife and the mother to all his biological children) and Albert Einstein.

The curious fact about Mr. Einstein is that his early teachers were probably correct: they did not view him as particularly bright. When Einstein (on his second attempt) managed to finally enter the Swiss Polytechnic school in Zurich, the young 17 year old quickly realized he was in way over his head. He was extremely quick to glom on to Mileva Maric, a brilliant Serbian student, who was the only woman studying physics at the Swiss Polytechnic ("ETH") the entire time Einstein was there. Maric was four years Einstein's senior. She was a Serb, an Eastern Orthodox Christian, short of stature, had a limp and was extremely bookish. In addition to taking the exact same course-work in college that Einstein took, and living together with him, sharing textbooks, etc., Maric studied on her own for one semester in Germany under Phillipe Lenard, the Nobel Prize winning physicist who discovered the photo-electric effect (which was explained in one of the 1905 papers attributed to Einstein).

She was also absolutely hated by Einstein's mother, Pauline. Still, despite his mother's fierce objections, Einstein stubbornly went ahead and married her. It was during this marriage that Einstein is credited with producing the 1905 papers which made him famous. All this is detailed in the Love Letters. Further, I suggest you read TIME magazine, April 30, 1990, and the essay by Dennis Overbye "Einstein in Love." This essay refers, without giving attribution, to the work of Dr. Evan Harris Walker and the linguist, Senta Troemmel-Ploetz. If you can find their work anywhere, it is truly an eye-opener.

Prior to their marriage, Mileva Maric gave birth out of wedlock to Lieserl, the only biological daughter of Albert Einstein. Nobody really knows what happened to this child; there is a mention in one of the letters to her having scarlet fever and it is believed that the child was put up for adoption in Serbia. Albert never breathed a word about her publicly during his life-time (which, personally, I find rather strange).

Mileva faced the obvious invidious prejudice of being a woman. Remember, in 1900 women couldn't even vote! Although her grades were comparable to Einstein, Mileva ultimately did not pass her final examinations. It must be noted, however, that at the time she was taking these exams she was late in her pregnancy with Albert's second child (his son, Hans Albert) and also faced the prejudice of her teachers for being both a Slav and a woman. She was, indeed, the only student in Albert's class not to graduate, although she did receive a research position with Professor Weber, which later fell through. Of the students who did actually graduate, Einstein had the lowest grade point average.

But did Albert Einstein---the same man his teachers thought lazy, the same man who after graduating from the ETH could not find a job in physics and was ultimately forced to work for ten years as a lowly patent clerk --- really formulate all by himself the great works in 1905 for which he is credited? Or did his wife, who struggled against the obvious prejudice of being a woman studying science during a highly "male chauvanistic" era, and the added prejudice of being a Slav in Switzerland, collaborate with Einstein?

The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein prove to any open-minded person, that Maric did indeed collaborate on the authorship of Einstein's famous papers in 1905. Einstein even uses the word "collaboration". Just a random sample quote from Albert to Mileva (published also in the Love Letters):

"How happy and proud I will be when the two of us together will have brought our work on the relative motion to a victorious conclusion!" Our work??? This is just one isolated quotation. Should you read the entire Love Letters you will find that Albert shares all his physics ideas with her and is extremely interested in her opinion. There are literally dozens of examples. See the copyrighted manuscript by Evan Harris Walker "Ms. Einstein". There is also a book by Ann Gabor called, "Mrs. Einstein" which essentially parrots Dr. Walker's work but fails to give him any attribution.

Senta Troemmel Ploetz, in her excellent paper, "Mileva Maric-Einstein: The Woman who did Einstein's Mathematics" quotes from a Serbian biography of Maric, that Einstein himself once told his friends that his wife did his math for him. When one realizes the highly mathematical aspect of the 1905 Special Relativity paper, which relies heavily on derivations of the Lorentz transformations, then one can see the importance of having a first-rate mathematician's help. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein even have a photo-static copy of one of Albert's college notebooks, in which Mileva has gone through and corrected Albert's math! Yet the myth of the isolated Einstein working alone, who all by himself, without help from anyone, wrote four brilliant papers on physics in 1905, endures. No two physicists ever had a closer relationship: Mileva and Albert ate together, went to school together, shared ideas together, shared textbooks together, slept together, raised children together, and yet the "Einstein Establishment" refuses to acknowledge her as a collaborator in any way whatsoever.

There's more: Naturally, the original manuscript for the Special Relativity paper is missing. It was lost during Einstein's lifetime. Yet, Abram Joffe, a summa cum laude Russian physicist is quoted as having seen the original 1905 manuscript and said it was signed, "Einstein-Marity" (Marity being the Hungarianized version of Maric'; at that time Serbia was under the dominion of Austro-Hungarian empire). Joffe died in 1961. See op cited TIME (April 30, 1990).

Moreover, when Albert admitted adultery and divorced Mileva in 1919, he promised that in the event he should win the Nobel Prize all the money - not part of the money but all the money - would go to Mileva. According to the Einstein biography, "Subtle is the Lord" by Abram Pais, Einstein kept his promise. When he received the Nobel Prize money in 1922 (he was awarded the prize for the year 1921; the award was announced and he received the money in 1922) Albert did indeed give Mileva all the money from the Nobel Prize. Why all the money?

Then I must also mention Olinto De Pretto. Albert Einstein was quite fluent in Italian. According to the already cited Pais biography, when Einstein graduated from high school in Aarau he was required to take exams in both the German language and the Italian language. Out of a maximum score of 6, Einstein received a score of 5 in German (his native tongue) and also a score of 5 in Italian! Of course, Einstein had lived in Italy during his youth, and Einstein's father is buried in Milan. Further, during the very same "anno mirabilis" of 1905, when Einstein published his famous four physics papers in the Annalen der Physik, he also published in the very same Annalen der Physik two reviews of articles written in Italian by Italian physicists. Again, these were reviews of articles written in Italian and were published in the Annalen der Physik in 1905, which shows that Einstein was reading rather deeply the Italian literature in physics at the time. Moreover, Michele Besso, the only person credited in the famous E=mc^2 paper of 1905, was originally from the Veneto region of Italy; his native tongue was Italian. Also, in order for Einstein to gain Swiss citizenship (a requirement for him to work in the Berne patent office since that was a government job) it could only help him if he could show proficiency in Italian, which, along with German and French, is one of the three official languages of Switzerland. Finally, there are still extant postcards written by Einstein in Italian as well as living Italians who spoke to Einstein in his later years who attest to his fluency. There is no doubt that Einstein spoke Italian well.

Why do I emphasize Einstein's fluency in Italian? Because another native of the Veneto region, an industrialist named Olinto De Pretto, had published an article in which De Pretto gave, in its final form, the equation E=mc^2. This article was published in 1903 and published again in 1904; preceding Einstein's 1905 "E=mc^2" paper by at least a year-and-a-half. Dr. Umberto Bartocci, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Perugia, in his book, "Albert Einstein e Olinto De Pretto: la vera storia della formula piu' famosa del mondo" (Albert Einstein and Olinto De Pretto, the true history of the most famous formula in the world) has published De Pretto's article in full. In the article, De Pretto actually comments on how amazing his discovery is. That is a kilogram of any material there is within an extraordinary explosion of energy. De Pretto articulated the formula quite well and realized its significance. This formula, of course, would later be the theoretical basis for the atomic bomb. Throughout all of the famous papers on 1905, Einstein gives no sources or citations. The only credit given to anyone is a brief mention of his friend Michele Besso. Why the lack of citation of any source material?

Dr. Bartocci has made a link between Michele Besso and Olinto De Pretto; however, nobody can absolutely prove that Einstein saw De Pretto's article. Yet based on the Besso link with the De Pretto article, and also that Einstein was well aware of other groundbreaking work by Italian physicists (having read deeply the Italian physics literature), it would seem difficult to deny that Einstein was aware of the De Pretto article. Indeed, when Einstein did publish his famous article in 1905 wherein he gave a variation of the famed "E=mc^2" formula, he titled this "discovery" in the form of a question. Perhaps he was not quite sure of its significance or perhaps he wanted the title in the form of a question in order to later attribute it to someone else should the formula prove incorrect.

What is absolutely indisputable is that the formula was published, not once but twice, in the Italian physics literature. Its authorship should rightly be credited to the industrialist, Olinto De Pretto.

Recently published letters written by Einstein (see The Collected Papers of A. Einstein) reveal him to be far less than a saintly figure in his personal life. His first wife, Mileva Maric, for whom he had originally professed such great love, he treated cruelly toward the end of the marriage, even calling her "uncommonly ugly". He admitted in a deposition during divorce proceedings (28 December 1918) that he had carried on an adulterous relationship with one of his cousins, whom he later married. During this second marriage, Einstein had numerous affairs, even - apparently -- including an affair with a Russian spy! And again, Einstein never breathed a word about having fathered a daughter with Maric.

The "Einstein myth" has become so ingrained in popular thought that many of the current generations will be loath to part with it. It does make a terrific story: a student whom his teachers thought would not amount to anything, a sloppy dresser who abhored wearing socks or even neatly combing his hair, should later be revealed to be the greatest scientist of all time. A solitary genius who without any significant help from anybody, re-arranged the universe. Like most fine stories that sound too good to be true, the "Einstein myth" is really too good to be true. The Nobel Prize winning chemist Linus Pauling once said (on a completely unrelated topic) that it takes a generation before people will accept a truly new idea. Current generations, weaned on the "Einstein myth" will not bear to part with it. Women and men of newer generations, not weaned on the myth, willing to investigate the evidence for themselves, and not wedded to any ideology or point of view, will approach the issue of Einstein's authorship of the Special Theory of Relativity and the formula "E=mc^2" with fresh eyes. I ask only that the reader keep an open mind.

Thank you for patience.

5.5 Umberto Bartocci to Julio Gonzalez Cabillo, on Einstein & De Pretto

Re: [HM] Einstein's E=mc^2 was Italian's idea ...

Julio Gonzalez Cabillon ( Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:02:17 -0200

~~ forwarded message ~~~

Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 19:17:38 +0100 From: Umberto Bartocci To: Julio Gonzalez Cabillon Subject: Re: [HM] Einstein's E=mc^2 was Italian's idea ...

Dear Professor Cabillon,

I exposed my researches on the affair Einstein-De Pretto in a book ("Albert Einstein e Olinto De Pretto - La vera storia della formula piu' famosa del mondo"), which was published some months ago by the following editor: (this editor is in Bologna, Italy). In this book I included all the original paper by De Pretto, which was published in in the Proceedings of the Reale Istituto... Since I presume that you can understand Italian, I send to you an excerpt from this book:

Il 23 novembre del 1903 veniva presentata al Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, da parte del Conte Almerico Da Schio, una memoria del Dott. Olinto De Pretto dal titolo "Ipotesi dell'etere nella vita dell'universo" (apparsa poi nel febbraio del 1904 negli Atti dello stesso Istituto, Tomo LXIII, Parte II, pp. 439-500).

About De Pretto's own comments of his "intuition", I wrote:

Nel terzo paragrafo di questo scritto, intitolato "Energia dell'etere ed energia latente nella materia" (vedi il successivo Capitolo IX), troviamo formulata non soltanto la stessa relazione ipotizzata da Einstein tra massa ed energia, ma anche la sua 'corretta' interpretazione fisica, che viene espressa attraverso le seguenti parole:

"La materia di un corpo qualunque, contiene in se stessa una somma di energia rappresentata dall'intera massa del corpo, che si muovesse tutta unita ed in blocco nello spazio, colla medesima velocit\a delle singole particelle. [...] La formula mv2 ci d\a la forza viva e la formula mv2/8338 ci d\a, espressa in calorie, tale energia. Dato adunque m=1 e v uguale a 300 milioni di metri [al secondo], che sarebbe la velocit\a della luce, ammessa anche per l'etere, ciascuno potr\a vedere che si ottiene una quantit\a di calorie rappresentata da 10794 seguito da 9 zeri e cio\e oltre dieci milioni di milioni" (pp. 458-459).


Che questa conclusione dovesse sembrare all'epoca incredibile, e completamente al di fuori delle conoscenze fisiche del tempo, appare all'autore subito chiaro, visto che questi aggiunge subito al calcolo precedente il seguente commento:

"A quale risultato spaventoso ci ha mai condotto il nostro ragionamento? Nessuno vorr\a facilmente ammettere che immagazzinata ed allo stato latente, in un chilogrammo di materia qualunque, completamente nascosta a tutte le nostre investigazioni, si celi una tale somma di energia, equivalente alla quantit\a che si pu\o svolgere da milioni e milioni di chilogrammi di carbone; l'idea sar\a senz'altro giudicata da pazzi" (p. 459).

Unfortunately, I did never translate in English my work, thus I hope that this will be enough for you, and I am sorry I cannot send to you much more information. In any case, if you wish to submit to me any single question, I shall be happy to help you...

Best wishes, and thanks for your attention

Umberto Bartocci

~~~ end of message ~~~

(6) Dissidents against Einstein's scientific theories: Bringing Einstein down to earth

6.1 Caroline Thompson's Physics

Started August 27, 2000

Forgotten History

{start} Whether or not there is conscious effort by "the establishment" to support the reigning paradigms by presenting distorted versions of history, the fact is that the text books and popular literature abound with misleading statements and occasional outright falsehoods. If established scientists believe in something, why should they tell historians and science writers the whole truth? After all, it will only confuse them!

In my opinion, the false reporting of the Michelson-Morley result was the worst error in scientific history! ...

Did the Michelson-Morley experiments prove there was no "aether wind"?

Probably not! They have been accepted by almost everyone as giving a "null" result, but in point of fact they showed a very interesting periodic variation indicating something. If it was the presence of an aether wind, then it was not behaving in the way they expected, but it was definitely something that needed further investigation, and Dayton Miller, working at first with Morley, undertook the task. The variations proved to be reproducible and to show systematic changes with time of year and some other factors. He also showed, incidentally, that the effect disappeared if you put the apparatus in a thick-walled enclosure, which nullifies several of the more recent tests. He summarised his work in great detail in a review paper in 1933 (Miller, Dayton C, "The Ether-Drift Experiments and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth", Reviews of Modern Physics 5, 203-242 (1933)). For a much shorter version written in 1940 (the year before he died) see his article for the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

He interpreted his results as showing relative motion of the aether. It could either be that the solar system was moving pretty fast (about 200 km/sec, faster than the earth moves around the sun) in a direction roughly perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic, or the aether was moving in the opposite direction at that speed. The aether seemed to be moving like a fluid, going with much slower relative velocity near solid bodies, thus accounting for the apparently modest speed (about 10 km/sec) indicated by Miller's experiments.

These facts about Miller were drawn to my attention by James DeMeo, who continues to research the subject. It appears that there was a major difference of opinion between Miller and Einstein. Einstein's Special Relativity theory demanded that the Michelson-Morley experiments must have been null! The aether was not acceptable. DeMeo reports (January 2001) that he has now found evidence that Einstein was more directly involved than he had thought. Much new material has been added to his original paper, which concentrated on Shankland's 1955 report, written in consultation with Einstein. (Shankland had been an assistant to Miller in 1932-3. )

As Miller said, in an article in a local paper:

The trouble with Professor Einstein is that he knows nothing about my results. ... He ought to give me credit for knowing that temperature differences would affect the results. He wrote to me in November suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no allowance for temperature. (Cleveland Plain Dealer January 27, 1926. )

It was evidently a power struggle between the two, the odds tipped in favour of Einstein by the media-enhanced "victory" of his General Relativity theory after the 1919 eclipse. By 1955 the aether had become a dirty word. Even in 1940 or so, I can find no reference to Miller's existence in Herbert Ives' papers (see The Einstein Myth in my book list). The 1979 Brillet and Hall experiment*, currently accepted as an accurate confirmation of Michelson and Morley's "null" result, appears to have been conducted in ignorance of Miller's work. They seem to have been unaware of Miller's conclusion that the aether wind can only be detected in the open. Their temperature-controlled Fabry-Perot interferometer would have had little chance!

DeMeo is not the only person to have spotted Shankland and Einstein's error! See notes by Prof Allais to the French Academy of Sciences, 1997, 1999 and 2000 at

However, let us not jump to conclusions! Could Miller in fact have been seeing the same thing as Gershteyn et al. , who reported in February 2002** that there was an apparent periodic variation in the value of G? The data was not quite conclusive but appeared to show that its main variations followed a sidereal cycle, not a solar one. Could it be that a gravitational effect caused the arms of Miller's apparatus to bend and vary slightly in effective length?Or could it be that what he saw was merely an ordinary wind effect?Whatever it was, it should not have been ignored. Even if there was no sign of drift, this should not have been used to dismiss the idea of an aether, since all it means is that some wrong assumptions have been made about its properties.

*A. Brillet and J. L. Hall, Physical Review Letters 42, 549 (1979)

**Mikhail Gershteyn et al, "Experimental Evidence That the Gravitational Constant Varies with Orientation",

Have Einstein's relativity theories ever been "generally accepted"?

Many prominent scientist have expressed their doubts, but one in particular should have been listened to. Louis Essen, professional metrologist, inventor of the atomic clock and co-author of a book on the experimental estimation of the speed of light thought Einstein's ideas ridiculous. He may well have forfeited a Nobel Prize for saying this rather too publicly. As he said, Einstein's theories arbitrarily made "space and time intermixed by definition and not as the result of some peculiar property of nature ... If the theory of relativity is regarded simply as a new system of units it can be made consistent but it serves no useful purpose".

See his essay,

Whilst on the subject, see also:

New Scientist book review, May 13, 2002, page 48: Margaret Wertheim reviews Robert Marc Friedman's "The Politics of Excellence" (Time Books):

"Seen as a purveyor of metaphysical nonsense that would corrupt the vigorous strain of experimental physics admired by conservative Nobel committee members, Einstein's nomination provoked an extraordinary depth of hostility. "

[Though his nomination for the Nobel prize was not for his relativity ideas, these would have contributed to the impression of "metaphysical nonsense". ]

Dingle, H, "The Case Against Special Relativity", Nature 216, 119-22 (1967)

McCrea, W H, "Why the Special Theory of Relativity is Correct", Nature 216, 122-4 (1967)

and later correspondence: Nature, vol 217, Jan 6 1968, p19

Did Einstein discover E=mc2?

Well, no! I received the following from Theo Theocharis, August 23, 2000, and relayed it to APS News on his request:

In the APS News, Vol. 9, No. 8, August/September 2000, p. 2, the "This Month in Physics History" column was entitled "September 1905: Einstein's Most Famous Formula", and it stated:

"But it was later that year [1905], in a paper received by the Annalen der Physik on September 27, applying his equations to study the motion of a body, that Einstein showed that mass and energy were equivalent, a startling new insight he expressed in a simple formula that became synonymous with his name: E=mc2. However, full confirmation of his theory was slow in coming. It was not until 1933, in Paris, when Irène and Frédéric Joliot-Curie took a photograph showing the conversion of energy into mass. "

The "100 YEARS AGO" item in the 6 April 2000 issue of Nature (Vol. 404, p. 553) is taken from the 5 April 1900 issue of Nature (note the dates), and it states:

"The calculations of M. Henri Becquerel show that this energy is of the order of one ten-millionth of a watt per second. Hence a loss of weight of about a milligram in a thousand million years would suffice to account for the observed effects, assuming the energy of the radiation to be derived from the actual loss of material. "

The assumption that accounts for the stated (in the 5 April 1900 issue of Nature) figures is E=mc2. But according to APS News, this is "Einstein's most famous formula" which in September 1905 was "a startling new insight".

I think that there is a problem that ought to be resolved.

Did quantum theory "predict" that "back body radiation curve"?

Well, not exactly! This is what Planck -- the reluctant co-inventor of the "photon" -- had to say:

From his 1919 Nobel Prize address, "The Origin and Development of the Quantum Theory":

But even if the radiation formula should prove to be absolutely accurate it would after all be only an interpolation formula found by happy guesswork, and would thus leave one rather unsatisfied. I was, therefore, from the day of its origination, occupied with the task of giving it a real physical meaning ...

It is down to you to judge whether or not he succeeded.

Does the photoelectric effect prove the existence of photons?

No! Listen to Millikan on the subject -- and he should know! He is probably best known for his "oil drop" experiment, but he also made a vital contribution to photoelectric theory. His experiments confirming that Nature really does seem to obey the law that Einstein had predicted in 1905 are still taken as definitive. In his main paper on the subject, (Millikan, R A, "A Direct Photoelectric Determination of Planck's 'h'", Physical Review 7, 355-388, 1916) he says in the introduction:

It was in 1905 that Einstein made the first coupling of photo effects and with any form of quantum theory by bringing forward the bold, not to say reckless, hypothesis of an electro-magnetic light corpuscle of energy h?, which energy was transferred upon absorption to an electron. This hypothesis may well be called reckless, first because an electromagnetic disturbance which remains localised in space seems a violation of the very conception of an electromagnetic disturbance, and second because it flies in the face of the thoroughly established facts of interference. [My emphasis]

Millikan's concluding discussion includes fascinating ideas about what really happens, some sounding remarkably similar to my own [see my faq file]! He repeats several times his vehement objection to the idea of localised packets of light. For example:

... if the equation be of general validity, then it must certainly be regarded as one of the most fundamental and far reaching of the equations of physics; for it must govern the transformation of all short-wave-length electromagnetic energy into heat energy. Yet the semi-corpuscular theory by which Einstein arrived at his equation seems at present to be wholly untenable . . .

Finally, he says that a modification of Planck's latest idea [in which light is not in packets of h? but of nh?, where n is any integer]

"... seems to me able to account for all the relations thus far known between corpuscular and ethereal radiations É If any particular frequency is incident upon [a substance containing oscillators of every conceivable frequency] the oscillators in it which are in tune with the impressed waves may be assumed to absorb the incident waves until the energy content as reached a critical value when an explosion occurs and a corpuscle is shot out with an energy h? ...

It is to be hoped that such a theory will soon be shown to be also reconcilable with the facts of black body radiation. "...

Has it ever been proved that gravity is proportional to mass?

No! This was an assumption that Newton made and others followed, but since nobody pretends to have actually weighed the Sun or the planets it has never been checked. ...

Did Hubble think the cosmological red shift was a Doppler shift?

No! In fact he thought some of his data proved it could not be. He had little use for Einstein's cosmological ideas. Hubble right from the start kept an open mind about the cause of the red shift. ...

Did Quantum Theory help in the discovery of the laser?

Well, certainly the discovery owed nothing to Niels Bohr!

See, where Carver Mead makes some outspoken criticisms of the status quo. ...

{end Caroline Thompson's Physics}

APS News published Caroline Thompson's "Did Einstein discover E=mc2?" as a letter, and replied as follows:

{quote} The author is quite correct that specific instances of the relation between mass and energy predated Einstein's work in 1905. To put this in proper perspective, we offer a quote from the book "Inward Bound" by the late physicist and historian of physics Abraham Pais: "...the strength of (Einstein's equations relating mass, energy and velocity) lies in their generality, their independence of dynamical details, in particular their independence of the origin and nature of the mass m. For specific forms of energy the relation E-->mc2 as v-->0 had been known well before 1905. Already in 1881, J.J. Thomson (see this month's This Month in Physics History-ed.) had noted the energy-mass equivalence for the case of an electrically charged body. Shortly thereafter, the first theoretical E-m-v relations appeared, based on a specific model of a charged particle: its shape shall be a rigid little sphere, whatever its velocity. This was the model studied in great detail by Max Abraham, theorist in Goettingen."


However, no mention was made of Einstein and Olinto de Pretto, the true discoverer of E=mc2.

Caroline H Thompson wrote to me:

Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:16:05 +0100 From: "Caroline H Thompson" <>

Einstein the scientist was a very different person from Einstein the man. As far as I can tell, he was ruthless, for example, in suppressing Dayton Miller's work on aether drift, and in asserting his own precedence over Paul Gerber re his prediction for the precession of Mercury's orbit. (Gerber had published the same formula in 1898. The subject has been a matter for debate ever since.) He may well have acted in good faith, believing completely in his own model, but the net result was that false theories have dominated physics for nearly 100 years.

6.2 Louis Essen: In 1919 eclipse experiment on bending of light, observations which did not fit were ignored


by Louis Essen D.Sc., F.R.S.

{inventor of the atomic clock:}


Einstein's theory of relativity was dealt with very briefly in my university course but we were told that we must not expect to understand it. I accepted this situation and I have since discovered that most physicists are content to remain in the same position assuming that it must be right because it is generally accepted. My doubts about it arose when I found that the experts did not understand either. An exchange of letters in Nature between Dingle and McCrea showed that they had opposite views about some of the predictions of the theory and the arguments advanced on both sides were in my view illogical and unconvincing. Much of the discussion about the theory was concerned with the readings of clocks when they are moving relatively to each other, and since I had a wide experience of comparing clocks and measuring time it seemed to be almost a duty to take a closer interest in the controversy especially as some of the so-called relativity effects although very small were not becoming significant in the definition of the atomic second and the use of atomic clocks. It is always better to refer to the original papers rather than to second hand accounts and I, therefore, studied Einstein's famous paper, often regarded as one of he most important contributions in the history of science. Imagine my surprise when I found that it was in some respects one of the worse papers I had ever read. The terminology and style were unscientific and ambiguous; one of his assumptions is given on different pages in two contradictory forms, some of his statements were open to different interpretations and the worst fault in my view, was the use of thought-experiments. This practice is contrary to the scientific method which is based on conclusions drawn from the results of actual experiments. My first thoughts were, that in spite of its obvious faults of presentation, the theory must be basically sound, and before committing my criticisms to print I read widely round the subject. The additional reading only confirmed my belief that the theory was marred by its own internal contradictions. Relativitists often state that the theory is accepted by all scientists of repute but this is quite untrue. It has been strongly criticised by many scientists, including at least one Nobel prize winner. Most of the criticisms are of a general nature drawing attention to its many contradictions, so I decided to pin-point the errors which give rise to the contradictions, giving the page and line in Einstein's paper, thus making it difficult for relativitists to dodge them and obscure them in a morass of irrational discussion.

Special Theory flawed

There were definite errors about which there can be no argument. One was the assumption that the velocity of light is constant. This is contrary to the foundations of science and the fact that it is repeated in all the textbooks I have seen, shows how little these foundations are understood by theoretical physicists. Science is based on the results of experiment and these results must be expressed in a single coherent set of units. The unit of length was the metre and the unit of time was the second. Velocity was a measured quantity as so many metres per second. Even though it was found to be constant under certain conditions, it was quite wrong to make it a constant by definition under all conditions. Only the unit of measurement can be made constant by definition and Einstein's assumption constituted a duplication of units. It was this duplication that led to puzzling and contradictory results and not the profundity of the theory as relativitists like us to believe. The question of units is a rather complicated one; and in this instance some writers are confused by the fact that the velocity of light is now often used as a standard, distances being calculated from the time of travel of a pulse of light or radio waves; but the value used is the measured value and the conditions of measurement are carefully defined. Quite recently a further complication has arisen. At the end of our work at the NPL we made the suggestion that as the techniques improved it might be advantageous to redefine the units of measurement, keeping the atomic second, giving a defined value to the velocity of light and discarding the unit of length. This has now been done, but these developments do not affect the criticisms of the theory. Even with these units it would still be absurd to assume that the velocity would be the same for two observers in relative motion. Units must be used with common sense. top

Thought experiments

The other glaring mistake occurred in the course of one of his thought experiments. Einstein had never made any actual experiments, as far as I can find, and he certainly had no idea of how to compare clocks. He imagined two identical clocks side by side and supposed one of them to move away at a uniform velocity and then return. According to one of the results deduced from the theory a moving clock appears to go slower than the stationary one when viewed from the stationary position. Calling the clocks A and B the predictions are: B is slower than A as seen from A and since velocity is only relative and either of the clocks can be regarded as the moving one: A is slower than B as seen from B This is certainly strange although not logically impossible. It implies that something happens to the signals during their transmission. He then outlines his experiment without giving any details of how the measurements are made and concludes that: B is slower than A and although he does not specifically say so: A is slower than B in accordance with the relativity principle. This result is of course impossible, and is usually called the clock paradox. Many thousands of words have been written about it, but the explanation is simply that he did not go through the correct procedures in making his experiment. It is a very simple experiment, being carried out every day in clock comparisons, and the correct result agrees with his predictions as indeed it must do since a thought experiment cannot give a new result. The predictions themselves are also inexplicable but this is one of the consequences of the duplication of units. I had rather naively thought that scientists would be glad to have an explanation of the confusion which had existed for so long and would at least pay some attention to my explanation, since I had more practical experience in these matters than all the relativitists put together. But I was wrong. No one attempted to refute my arguments although they justified Einstein by repeating his thought experiment and his mistakes in different forms. I was, however, dropped some pretty broad hints that if I continued to criticise the theory my reputation and career prospects were likely to suffer. It was only a sideline to my experimental work but I found it so interesting that I did not feel like dropping it, and felt that it was very important that the theory should be exposed. My Director was good about it and said he had no objection himself as long as I did not involve the NPL. I was beginning to realise that scientists could be just as irrational as anyone else and having accepted the theory as a faith without understanding it they closed their minds to argument. They also tried to suppress opposition and two of my papers after being accepted by the referees were mysteriously never published. I was not entirely without support and was invited to write an article by the Oxford University Press. It was not so comprehensive as they hoped, since I was not able to devote as much time to it as I would have liked, and lacked the secretarial assistance of my department, but it was accepted and published as one of their Research Papers (No. 5). The Director of the Royal Institution also invited me to give one of their Friday Evening Discourses. This was quite enthusiastically received and I had many letters of congratulation, although, as I noticed with some amusement, most of them were written on private notepaper and not on the paper of their organisations as one would normally expect. The history of relativity would make a fascinating study and I regret that I do not feel competent to do it myself. I have kept to those aspects dealing with units of measurement and the comparison of clocks which I know something about. It was inspired by the puzzling results of an experiment made by Michelson and Morley. They argued that if light travelled at a steady velocity through the medium, or aether, and the surface of the earth was moving through this medium there should be a detectable effect on the movement, but they failed to detect any. Fitzgerald and Lorentz gave an empirical explanation that moving rods were shortened and moving clocks were slowed down. Scientists badly wanted a more detailed satisfactory explanation and this is what Einstein thought he had done. All he did was to introduce irrational ideas into physics and incorporate the Lorentz explanation into electromagnetic theory as an assumption. The original puzzling results, therefore, remain and it is important to science that a true explanation should be found. top

Joke or swindle !

The famous paper published in 1905 does not appear to have attracted any attention until Eddington returned from an expedition to study the eclipse in 1919, and with great publicity announced to a meeting of the Astronomical Society in London that the results had proved Einstein's theory. What he thought he had confirmed was Einstein's value for the bending of light round the sun. Scientists were prepared to go to a lot of trouble to obtain experimental evidence for the theory as they realised that this was necessary and yet Eddington is supposed to have said that the theory was so satisfactory that if the experimental results did not confirm it then they must be wrong. A criticism of the results made later pointed out that in order to obtain the result he wanted, some of the observations which did not fit were ignored. Also someone has pointed out, with some evidence, that Einstein himself had predicted two results differing by 2 to 1 for the deflection. Finally the deflection of the sun's rays has nothing to do with the special theory and the clock paradox and yet in some mysterious way it was claimed to confirm it. Still searching for experimental support an experiment was made in the US some years ago. Four atomic clocks were carried by plane in opposite directions round the world. The discrepancies between the results for different clocks were many times greater than the effect being sought, and yet by ignoring the results they did not like and performing some undescribed statistical analysis the authors claimed to have confirmed Einstein's theory and specifically the clock paradox. There was a spectacular television programme about it in which a well-known actor was installed in a simulated space shuttle and told that he would come back younger than if he had stayed on earth. Being an intelligent man he appeared to regard it as a lot of nonsense as I hope the viewers did.

Unified field theory

My intrusion into theoretical physics must be regarded as a failure in that I did not convince the relativitists of their mistakes. It may have had some benefit in encouraging scientists to look for a rational extension of electromagnetic theory to explain the many mysteries not yet explained. There have been several attempts, that of Rene L Vallée being in my view particularly encouraging. It is a unified field theory giving an electromagnetic explanation of gravitation, and including a most important suggestion that it might be possible to harness the gravitational energy of space safely and economically. He argued that the nuclear energy programme in France was wasteful and misdirected and was in consequence obliged to leave the authority for which he worked. It is sad if his ideas were not fully studied because the nuclear fusion programmes throughout the world seem to make little progress in spite of the billions spent on them. {end}

6.3 Flaws in the logic of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, by Ilya Stavinsky

Flaws in the logic of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.

By Ilya Stavinsky

Published in magazine PHILOSOPHICAL RESEARCHES, #4, Moscow 12/2000

Special theory according to A. Einstein, came into existence as the result of the fact that the propagation of light, which is independent from the speed of its source, could not be explained from the principle of relativity in classical mechanics. From here follows that if one can logically disprove this fact then special theory of relativity will lose its credibility and scientific meaning. In the following article the reader will find not only such an explanation but specific flaws in Einstein's examples as well.

The apparent incompatibility of the law of propagation of light with the principle of relativity.

The essence of this theory lies in the fact that it resolved contradiction in physics between the propagation of light which is independent from the speed of its source, and principle of relativity in classical mechanics. The latter states: if, relative to K, K" is a uniformly moving co-ordinate system devoid of rotation, then natural phenomena run their course with respect to K" according to exactly the same general laws as with respect to K.

The above mentioned contradiction Einstein describes in the following way. 'Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again traveling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can apply here the consideration of the previous section , since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relative to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is replaced here by the velocity of light relative to the embankment; w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v

The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativityÉ For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of light in vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference. But, from our above consideration, this would appear to be impossible. If every ray of light is propagated relative to the embankment with the velocity c, then for this reason it would appear that another law of propagation of light must necessarily hold with respect to the carriage - a result contradictory to the principle of relativity. In view of this dilemma there appears to be nothing else for it than to abandon either the principle of relativity or the simple law of the propagation of light in vacuoÉ' . ' (Relativity -the special and general theory - by A. Einstein, p 22-23, Three Rivers Press)

Since both laws are real facts of real life, then the only solution to this dilemma will be the one which, while maintaining the law of propagation of light constant in vacuo, could be embedded it in the frame of theory of relativity.

The Relativity of simultaneity according to Einstein

And such solution he has found. Simple logic told him that if the velocity of light must be constant in relation to any above mentioned body of reference, then in the latter time and distance cannot be absolute. Really, if the distance S covered by light with velocity C during time T in relation to body-reference M, equals S = C T, then in relation to system M' the light with the same velocity will cover the distance S' during the time T'. i.e. S' = C T'. In reality it must mean that the time during which the body moves in the system M must be different from the time during which the body moves in relation to the system M'. The same logic applies to the distance. The distance which moving body covers in relation to the system M, will be different from the distance which moving body covers in relation to the system M'. In both cases we consider the same event ( the movement of body) in relation to a different system of reference. In other words, time and distance are not absolute values for all coordinate of references.

But one thing is to suppose and express this supposition mathematically, completely another thing is to show logically that this supposition is true and reflects reality. Einstein understood this very well and for this reason he gave an example of two lightnings which strike at points A and B, simultaneously with the respect to the embankment along which a train moves. "When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at points A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-point M of the length A à B of the embankment. But the events A and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M' be the mid-point of the distance A --> B on the traveling train. Just when the flashes of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the velocity v of the train. If an observer placed in the position M' on the train did not move at this velocity, then he would remain permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and B would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet just where he is situated.

In reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is rushing towards the beam of light coming from B, while he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A. Observers who took the railway train as their reference-body must therefore come to the conclusion that the lightning flash B took place earlier than the lightning flash A. We thus arrive at an important result. Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. Before the advent of the theory of relativity it had been tacitly assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity disappears." (page 25)

The logic of the above example using relativity of simultaneity holds only at first glance. The first question to arise, will the relativity of simultaneity exist if instead of flash of light we use sound ? thunder - which the lightning generates simultaneously with the flash. In this case the observer standing in the mid-point of the embankment, M, will hear the sounds of thunder from lightning strokes A and B simultaneously, because the distance A à M is equal to the distance Mà B and so the sounds from both lightnings will take equal time to reach the observer in mid-point M. (we assume that air is not in motion at that place and that the velocity of sound is constant).

The experiment stipulates that when the lightnings strike, point M' not only coincides with point M but also moves towards the right with the velocity v of the train. As a result, the train-bound observer placed at M' will hear the thunder from lightning stroke in B earlier than the thunder from lightning stroke in A. Naturally, both observers will see light flashes before they hear the thunders: at 300000km/sec light travels much faster than sound at 330m/sec. Thus the relativity of simultaneity is demonstrated equally successfully both with light and sound from lightnings.

However, when our stationary observer at M, using the lightnings' sound, concluded that the lightning strokes A and B were simultaneous, he understood that the time of simultaneity which his watch showed was different from the time of simultaneity indicated by watches placed directly at A and B, where the lightnings stroke. Say the lightning strokes in A and B took place exactly at 3 pm. If distances AM and MB are 3300 metres, the observer's watch at M will show 10 seconds past 3 pm because at 330 m/sec thunder will take 10 seconds to reach him. In conclusion, the time of simultaneity as indicated on the observer's watch differs from the time of simultaneity measured where the events take place.

This logic holds well when applied to the consequences of an event, like flash of light and thunder, but not when applied to the event itself. From the philosophical point of view, flash and thunder represent forms of existence of lightning which itself can be regarded as their content.

This conclusion becomes more obvious if we consider the simultaneity of lightning strokes in relation to one system of reference, the embankment. In this case the simultaneity of lightning strokes must be observed by any observer no matter where he is standing on the embankment. Suppose that our observers are standing at points M and F, furthermore suppose that we have watches at points A, M, F, and B, which show the same time. Since time in one body-reference is absolute then we can state that if the lightning strokes are simultaneous at points A and B, say at 3 o'clock, then the same time will indicated by watches at points M and F. But if the observers at M and F used flash of lightning or thunder in order to determine the exact time of lightning strokes, they would come to different conclusions. The observer at point M would say that the lightning strokes were simultaneous at A and B, but this event took place not exactly at 3 o'clock but a little later, say at 3 + T'.

This difference in time is due to light's travel along the distance AM and MB in order to reach our observer at point M. The observer at point F would state that lightning stroke at point B took place earlier than the one at point A . This is so because the distance FB which the light and thunder travel from point B in order to reach the observer at point F is shorter than the distance AF which the light and thunder travel from point A in order to reach the observer at point F. For this reason the watches will show that the event took place at point B not at 3 o'clock but at 3 + T, where T < T' and at point A at 3 + T", where T" > T'.

The result of this example show that the time of event itself (lightning strokes) is completely different from the time of form of appearance (flash and thunder) of this event, even though it occurs in one body-reference. By way of his example with a train moving along an embankment, Einstein uses this difference in time as a proof of 'relativity of simultaneity' in different body-references. Indeed, at the very moment the lightning strikes the observer in the moving train is at point M. By the time the light or sound coming from point B reaches him, he is at point F thanks to the velocity 'v' of the train. For this reason he will say that the event at point B took place earlier than the event at point A. In reality both events occur when our train-bound observer is at point M.

Consequently, the above mentioned example does not demonstrate the 'relativity of simultaneity' in different systems of references as Einstein proposed it. The Special Theory of Relativity contains other errors of logic First, it makes the velocity of light absolute and equal to 300000 km/sec regardless of the coordinate system where it is measured. According to Einstein everything in the world is relative except for the velocity of light. Second, Einstein imposed the limits of the velocity of light, which is electromagnetic by nature, on all bodies which have nothing to do with it.

V--> M'Train_______________________________________________________________________________________________|___________ _________|________|____________|_______ embankment A MFB

The Michelson & Morley and Fizeau experiments and aberration of star

To date, the Michelson & Morley experiment to measure the velocity of light in relation to Earth is considered contradictory to the Fizeau experiment which measures the velocity of light traversing in a tube of liquid in motion, and to the aberration of stars. The Michelson & Morley experiment shows that the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of its source of origination. It was implied that the velocity of light is constant for all systems of reference regardless whether they are in motion or at rest in relation to each other. But in this case the theorem (principle) of adding two vectors of velocity does not work. On the other hand, the aberration of stars and the Fizeau experiment are based exactly on the above mentioned principle: that the relative velocity of two bodies moving along the same straight line is equal to the difference between their velocities (taken with proper algebraic signs). Failure to explain this contradiction from the position of theory of relativity of classical mechanics has led to the origination of the special theory of relativity of Einstein.

The logic errors in the previous arguments

We know that the velocity of sound in air is independent of the source of its origin and is constant at 330m/sec. On the other hand the velocity of sound in relation to the source of its origin when it is moving, will be different. Its speed will be less than 330 m/sec in the direction of motion and it will be more in the opposite direction. Because both sound and light are a wave by nature ? mechanical and electromagnetic, respectively - we can assume that the propagation of light takes place not in a vacuum but in a medium (ether), which is the gravitational field of planets, stars, galaxies etc,. This gravitational field represents a single entity, whether in the vicinity of a planet, a star or a galaxy. If we assume that light behaves like sound then it will explain why in the Michelson & Morley's experiment the velocity of light is independent of that of its origin. We assume here that Earth carries along its gravitational field and that in its movement the two constitute a single entity.

From this point of view it is easy to explain the abberation of stars assuming that each star with its gravitational field constitutes a single entity moving in relation to the earth and its gravitational field. Another words if the velocity of light from the star in its gravitational field is equal 300000 km/sec then in relation to the moving earth and its gravitational field the speed of light will be more or less depending on wheather the earth at the given moment moves in the direction of propagation of the light from the star or against.

But this assumption contradicts to the propagation of light in water flowing through a tube. Fizeau's experiment showed that the moving water partially carried away ether and the degree of carried away ether by moving body is defined by the refractive index of the latter. For this reason the substance with refractive index = 1, like air, practically must not to carry away ether, which is in conflict with the above assumption.

So we have a dilemma. If our interpretation of Michelson & Morley's experiment is right than the Fizeau's experiment is wrong. The latter is right but its interpretations are not, because they are based on a wrong assumption, namely that the velocity of light in moving water is the same as in motionless water. The optical density of moving water could be more or less than when it is at rest. For example, in the moving water its optical density in relation to the fixed point of tube will be more than when it is at rest. According to physics, greater optical density reduces the velocity of light, and vise versa. For this reason the velocity of light measured against the current of moving water (optical density is higher in relation to the light) is lower than that in water at rest, and the velocity of light measured in direction of the current of moving water (optical density is lower in relation to the light) is higher than that in water at rest.

So Fizeau in his calculations should change V - au to V' - au and V + au to V" + au, where V - the velocity of light in motionless water, V' - the velocity of light measured against the current of moving water, and V" - the velocity of light measured in direction of the current of moving water, 'u' - the velocity of moving water, 'a' - factor of carried away of ether by moving water. Under such conditions he would get different result that 'a' is equal to 1 which means that moving water do not carry away ether.

2L2L 4Lau------------ --------- =------------------- = T V - auV + auV * V - au *au


1. Light propagates not in a vacuum but in a gravitational field of a planet, star, galaxy, etc., which in conjunction with the planet, star or galaxy constitutes a single system of reference. These gravitational fields move relatively to each other together with their carrier (planet, star, galaxy).

2. Light propagates in this gravitational field at 300000 km/sec, and is independent from the velocity of its source.

3. But the velocity of light in relation to the source of its origin or any moving system of reference is subject to the rule of adding velocity, as described in classical mechanics.

4. In the above described moving systems time and space are absolute, regardless of the system relative to which they are considered. {end}

(7) Albert Einstein a Plagiarist - Christopher Bjerknes

7.1 Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, by Christopher Bjerknes

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data for Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist

Bjerknes, Christopher Jon, 1965-

Albert Einstein : the incorrigible plagiarist / by Christopher Jon Bjerknes.

ISBN 0-9719629-8-7 (alk. paper)

Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist

Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity

Table of Contents {chs 1 to 9: extracts from each; I have not corrected the spelling errors}

The Priority Myth Excerpts from Chapter One

{p. 7} It is easily proven that Albert Einstein did not originate the special theory of relativity in its entirety, or even in its majority.1 The historic record is readily available. Ludwig Gustav Lange,2 Woldemar Voigt,3 George Francis FitzGerald,4 Joseph Larmor,5 Hendrik Antoon Lorentz,6 Jules Henri Poincaré,7 Paul Drude,8 Paul Langevin,9 and many others, slowly developed the theory, step by step, and based it on thousands of years of recorded thought and research. Einstein may have made a few contributions to the theory, such as the relativistic equations for aberration and the Doppler-Fizeau Effect,10 though he may also have rendered an incorrect equation for the transverse mass of an electron, which, when corrected, becomes Lorentz' equation.11

Albert Einstein's first work on the theory of relativity did not appear until 1905. There is substantial evidence that Albert Einstein did not write this 1905 paper12 on the "principle of relativity" alone. His wife, Mileva Einstein-Marity, may have been co-author, or the sole author, of the work.13

If Albert Einstein did not originate the major concepts of the special theory of relativity, how could such a historically significant fact have escaped the

{p. 8} attention of the world for nearly a century? The simple answer is that it did not. ...

{p. 19} In 1927, H. Thirring wrote,

"H. Poincare had already completely solved the problem of time several years before the appearance of Einstein's first work (1905). ..."

{p. 27} Sir Edmund Whittaker in his detailed survey, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, Volume II,( 1953), included a chapter entitled "The Relativity Theory of Poincare and Lorentz". Whittaker thoroughly documented the development of the theory, documenting the authentic history, and demonstrated through reference to primary sources that Einstein

{p. 28} held no priority for the vast majority of the theory. Einstein offered no counter-argument to Whittaker's famous book. ...

Even among Einstein's admirers, voices are heard,

{p. 29} which deny Einstein's priority. Max Born averred that,

{P. 30} "I have now to say some words about the work of these predecessors of Einstein, mainly of Lorentz and Poincare. [***] ... Many of you have looked upon [Einstein's] paper 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper' in Annalen der Physic [***] and you will have noticed some pecularities. The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous literature. It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true."66

{p. 35} Lorentz, himself, acknowledged Voight's priority ... Lorentz wrote to Voight,

" ...

{p. 36} In fact, for certain of the physical magnitudes which enter in the formulas I have not indicated the transformation which suits best. This has been done by Poincare, and later by Einstein and Minkowski." ...

Space-Time, or is it "Time-Space"? Excerpts from Chapter Two

{p. 85} Poincare provided the "four-dimensional analogue"124 to Lorentz' aether in 1905 and relativized the "Lorentzian ether" in 1895, long before Minkowski or Einstein manipulated credit for his work. The Einsteins' 1905 paper contains no four-dimensional analogue, and is, therefore, a theory of the "unrelativized Lorentzian aether", per se. ...

{p. 86} In this same lecture, followed by a discussion which is on record,131 Einstein shamelessly parroted Poincare's enquiries into the nature of simultaneity132 and his clocks synchronization procedures, without citing Poincare; and Einstein failed to correct those who credited Einstein with the ideas he repeated, which were not his own. ...

{p. 87} One must wonder how Minkowski "introduced", in 1908, that which was already extant in Poincare's work of 1905, and in Marcolongo's work of 1906. It was Poincare who first attacked Lorentz' and Larmor's distinction between local time and time, beginning in 1898, and eliminated said artificial distinction long before 1905 -- which distinction was not even present in Voigt's formulations of1887. ...

{p. 88} Neither Minkowski, nor the Einsteins, nor Poincare, hold priority on the concept of four-dimensional space-time. H. G. Wells, in 1894, expressly stated it in a popular novel, The Time Machine, long before Minkowski claimed priority,

"'Can a cube that does not last for any time at all, have a real existence?' Filby became pensive. 'Clearly,' the Time Traveller proceeded, 'any real body must have extension in four directions: it must have Lenght, Breadth, Thickness, and -- Duration. But through a natural infirmity of the flesh, which I will explain to you in a moment, we incline to overlook this fact. There are really four dimensions, three which we call the three planes of Space, and a fourth, Time. There is, however, a tendency to draw an unreal distinction between the former three dimensions and the latter, because it happens that our consciousness moves intermittently in one direction along the latter from the beginning to the end of our lives.'"

An article by "S." had appeared in Nature, Volume 31, Number 804, (March 26, 1885), p. 481, titled,"Four-Dimensional Space", which presented the concepts of "time-space","four-dimensional solid" ("sur-solid", afterDes Cartes), "time-area", and "time-line"; which later became "space-time" ("Zeit-Raum" is a confusing pun in German with the word "Zeitraum"),"absolute world", and "world-line". ...

"Theory of Relativity" or "Pseudorelativism"? Excerpts from Chapter Three

"Einstein's theory of relativity is a misnomer, it should be called a theory of absolutivity."--Wallace Kantor ... Samuel Alexander held that,

"[I]t is clear that Space-Time takes for us the place of what is called the Absolute in idealistic systems. it is an experiential absolute."188 ... Melchior Palagyi, from whom Minkowski took much, stated,

"The term introduced by Einstein: 'theory of relativity' is, of course, a most unfortunate choice; we retain it, however, like any arbitrary standard designation, which you can't get rid of, because people have grown accustomed to using it. ... "194 ... Einstein professed, after the general theory was established, that,

"There is no absolute (independent of the space of reference) relation in space, and no absolute relation in time between two events, but there is an absolute (independent of the space of reference) relation in space and time"195 and,

"The four-dimensional space of the special theory of relativity is just as rigid and absolute as Newton's space."196 and,

"The space-time phenomenon of the special theory of relativity was something absolute in itself, inasmuch as it was independent of the particular state of motions considered in that theory." . . . Robert Resnick conluded that,

"the theory of relativity could have been called the theory of absolutism with some justification. [***] there are absolute lengths and times in relativity. [***] Where relativity theory is clearly 'more absolute' than classical physics is in the relativity principle itself: the laws of physics are absolute."201 It is some strange "relativity theory", which is more absolutist than classical absolutism! . . . In one sense the pseudorelativists' caution with respect tothe aether is commendable. In another, it is unscientific to refuse to speculate based on the pseudorelativists' pretentious grounds that measurementand mathematical abstraction are the only tools of the scientist, and that their pseudorelativistic subjective comparisons and arguments by analogy are somehow"objective". . . .The list of true relativists is long. To name but a few: DesCartes, Huyghens,Locke, Leibnitz, Berkeley, Hume, Comte,Spencer, Stallo, Hamilton, Mach, Anderssohn, Avenarius, Petzoldt, etc.. A real relativist, like Stallo, would never have embraced the absolutist "special theory of relativity", with its codified absolute space and time, and absolutist "space-time" and the ontological "universal constant" speed of light and absolute laws of Nature. ... It is wrong to attribute to Einstein the assertions that time, space and motion are relative, for two reasons: One, Einstein was an absolutist, who could not comprehend relativism; Two, others argued that time, space and motion are purely relative long before Einstein was born.

Hero Worship Excerpts from Chapter Four

Why is Albert Einstein's name associated with the "principle of relativity", and not Poincaré's? Poincaré stated it first, ten years before the Einsteins, and the Einsteins copied it from him. Who is to blame for this injustice? What could possibly motivate them, other than self-doubt and/or hero worship? The facts are clear to all willing to look. Albert Einstein did not originate the special theory of relativity. That is clear. ... Since Poincare and Lorentz developed the theory, why aren't their names not only linked to the theory, but universally linked together? What makes the image of "Einstein" so sacrosanct, that it is today virtually a crime to tell the truth about the history of the special theory of relativity? Why, in the majority of the histories of the special theory of relativity, isn't Einstein,with his minor contribution of the relativistic equations for aberration and the Doppler-Fizeau effect (together withhis many blunders), the curious footnote of a persistent copycat, and not the central theme? Certainly, it is more convenient to briefly credit Einstein with everything, but, since the ideas are considered so significant, one would think the originators deserve their due credit. ... Many people knew that Einstein did not hold priority for much of what he wrote. He, himself, was keenly aware of it. It is not uncommon for grandiose myths to accrue to overly idealized popular figures, such as Albert Einstein. Theoretical Physics, as a field, was small, and not well known in the period from 1905-1919. Theoretical physicists were not well known, and, since those in the field knew that Einstein was a plagiarist, they largely ignored him. In 1919, (on dubious grounds213) Dyson, Davidson and Eddington, made Einstein famous by affirming that experiment had confirmed, without an attribution to Soldner, Soldner's 1801 hypothesis, that the gravitational field of the sun should curve the path of light from the stars.214 Shortly after that, Einstein won the Nobel Prize, though it is unclear why he won it, other than as a reward for his new-found fame for reiterating Soldner's ideas, and for his pacifist stance during World War I. . . .Einstein did not invent the atomic bomb. In fact, he was ignorant of the concept of the bomb. However, with the help of Alexander Sachs, Einstein was chosen to write a letter to President Roosevelt urging him to instigate what would eventually become the "Manhattan Project", the effort to develop an atomic bomb before the Nazis. Due to hisignorance, Leo Szilard and Eugene Wigner had to explain the concept of the atomic bomb to Einstein, before he couldwrite the letter215. . . .When said program to develop an atomic bomb began, Einstein was not asked to participate, but rather was excluded from the research team. Why was Einstein, supposedly the most brilliant human being of all time, not a member of the team, which developed the bomb, and upon whose work the fate of all humanity might rest?

E=mc2 Excerpts from Chapter Five

Contrary to popular myth, Einstein did not usher in the atomic age, in fact, he found the idea of atomic energy to be silly,217 nor was Einstein the first to state the mass-energy equivalence, or E = mc2.218 Myths such as Einstein's supposed discoveries are not uncommon. Newton did not discover gravity, nor did he offer a viable explanation for it, nor did he believe that matter attracted other matter. ...I t appears that the physics community and the media invented a comic book figure,"Einstein", with "E = mc2" stenciled accross his chest. . . In anticipation of Thomson, De Pretto and the Einsteins, S. Tolver Preston formulated atomic energy, the atomic bomb and superconductivity back in the 1870's, based on the formula E = mc2, where celeritas, "c", signifies the speed of light. Pursuing Le Sage's theory, Preston believed that mass could be attenuated into aether, thereby releasing a tremendous store of energy; since aether particles move at light speed--alimiting velocity, the energy store is equal to mass times the square of the speed of light. Albert Einstein never even came close to such insights. ... Maxwell's equations implicitly contain the formula E = mc2. Simon Newcomb pioneered the concept of relativistic energy in 1889.224 Preston, J.J. Thompson,225 Poincare,226 Olinto De Pretto,227 Fritz Hasenohrl,228 [etc.etc. etc.] each effectively (Albert Einstein, himself, did not expressly state it in 1905), or directly, presented the formula E = mc2, before 1905, and MaxPlanck229 refined the concept in 1906 -1908, including Newton's230, Bessel's231 and Eotvos'232 implications that inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent - before Albert Einstein. Alexander Bain expressly stated in 1870 that, "matter, force, and inertia, are three names for substantially the same fact"


"force and matter are not two things, but one thing"


"force, inertia, momentum, matter, are allbut one fact".239

Einstein's Modus Operandi Excerpts from Chapter Six

"I don't find Einstein's Relativity agrees with me. It is the most unnatural and difficult to understand way of representing facts that could be thought of. . . . And I really think that Einstein is a practicalj oker, pulling the legs of hisenthusiastic followers, more Einsteinisch than he."-- Oliver Heaviside. "Einstein simply postulates what we have deduced, with some difficulty and not altogether satisfactorily, from the fundamental equations of the electromagnetic field. [***] I have not availed myself of his substitutions, only because the formulae are rather complicated and look somewhat artificial."-- Hendrik Antoon Lorentz.247 . . .Though Einstein cited Mach as a source of ideas,253 Mach rejected Einstein's relativity theory and asked nott o be associated with the "dogmatic" and "paradoxical" "nonsense", in spite of the fact that Joseph Petzoldt sought to give Mach his due credit for major elements of the theory of relativity.254 Einstein initially adored Mach, and asked for his guidance and help.255 When it became known,after Mach's death, that Mach rejected Einstein and his views, Einstein ridiculed Mach.256 . . .Einstein lacked the insight and reasoning skills needed to induce hypotheses, so he condemned the practice. He was forced, due to his inability to cope with the "higher degree of difficulty and complexity" needed to induce hypotheses, to copy hypotheses from others, but sought to disguise the fact. Einstein insisted that empirical results be argued as first principles, in order to deduce the same phenomena as results, which are argued as first principles, in a fallacy of Petitio Principii. This is the method he used in his "theories" in order to assume credit for the induced hypotheses of others, which e then slipped into the theories somewhere in the middle, without rational justification, calling them "derivations". It was necessary for Einstein to discourage scientist from using proper method, lest they discover the irrationality of his unoriginal works. In so doing, he converted the scientific method into amethod of redundancy, whereby an empirical fact is deduced from itself. ... Herbert Ives published a paper in 1952, which argued that Einstein employed the same irrational method of Petitio Principii in "deriving" the mass-energy equivalence. ... [Ives wrote,]

"What Einstein did by setting down these equations (as 'clear') was to introduce the relation

L / (m - m') c2 = 1.

Now this is the very relation the derivation was supposed to yield. It emerges from Einstein's manipulation of observations by two observers because it has been slipped in by the assumption which Planck questioned. The relation E = mM c2 was not derived by Einstein."273

History Excerpts from Chapter Seven

Historians all too often look to the conclusions of previous historians, rather than to the complete historic record,itself.280 Historians record their impressions and not history itself. They are politically motivated. Later historians all too often record the works of earlier historians, and the truth is lost in the process. Bias is a double-edged sword, which cuts both ways. Many who are aware that Einstein was not an original thinker wrongfully attribute the special theory of relativity to Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, often believing that Minkowski first set incement the notion of the uniform translation of space and the concept of four-dimensional being. Many worship Hendrik Antoon as a hero, just as manyworship Einstein as a hero. However, Lorentz and Minkowski deserve little more credit than does Albert Einstein.

Mileva Einstein-Marity Excerpts from Chapter Eight

"How happy and proud I will be, when we two together have victoriously led our work on relative motion to an end!"-- Albert Einstein . . .In 1905, several articles bearing the name of Albert Einstein appeared in a German physics journal, Annalen der Physik. The most fateful among these, was a paper entitled ZurElektrodynamik bewegter Körper; von A. Einstein, Einstein's supposedly breakthrough paper on the "principle of relativity". Though it was perhaps submitted as coauthored by Mileva Einstein-Marity and Albert Einstein, or solely by Mileva Einstein-Marity, Albert's name appeared in the journal as the exclusive author of their work285 . . . . Evan Harris Walker, who argued that Mileva was co-author, or sole author, of the 1905 papers, quoted some of Albert's words, as found in The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, and bear in mind that the vast majority of Mileva's letters to Albert were destroyed, with there being no more likely reasons for their destruction, than to hide her contribution and the fact that the works were unoriginal,

"I find statements in 13 of [Albert's] 43 letters to [Mileva] that refer to her research or to an ongoing collaborative effort -- for example, in document 74, 'another method which has similarities with yours.'

In document 75, Albert writes: 'I am also looking forward very much to our new work. You must now continue with your investigation.' In document 79, he says, 'we will send it to Wiedermann's Annalen.' In document 96, he refers to 'our investigations'; in document 101, to 'our theory of molecular forces.' In document 107, he tells her: 'Prof. Weber is very nice to me. . . I gave him our paper.'"298 . . .Why did the Nobel commitee not award Einstein the Nobel Prize for his work on relativity theory? Could it have been that all who were familiar with the facts, knew that Einstein did not originate the major concepts behind relativitytheory? . . . Mileva and Albert had coauthored papers before 299 and Albert had assumed credit for that which Mileva had accomplished.300 Senta Troemel-Ploetz presented a thorough account of Albert's shameless appropriation of Mileva's work and of Mileva's acquiescence.301 . . .Why didn't Mileva come forward with the fact that she was the one who had written the work, if in fact she had? Did Albert buy Mileva's silence? Even if he had, was there more to hold Mileva back from exposing Albert, than the desperat eneed for monies?

Politics and Anecdotes Excerpts from Chapter Nine

Einstein repeated much of what H.G.Wells had accomplished, both in physics and politics. Wells holds priority on the concept of four-dimensional space-time, the atomic bomb, and many other innovations of thought. . . .Even some of Einstein's quaint scientific anecdotes have their prior cousins. He told a story of his supposed fantasy of traveling at light speed,334 the so-called "Aarau Question". This story isused as an example of Einstein's supposed independence from Lorentz. . .. However, this fantasy was the subject ofa novel popular among physicists o fEinstein's day written by famous aastronomer, Lumen, by Camille Flammarion. . . .In Einstein's famous lecture of 1922 in Japan,338 he recounts that he derived inspiration from "Michelson's experiment". Then, years later, Einstein denied having known of the experiment before the 1905 paper appeared.339 . . .Einstein claimed that he arose from bed once and wondered if events were absolutely simultaneous.342 Was Einstein reading Poincare, who had already expressly written that events are not absolutely simultaneous, in bed, before Einstein fell asleep? . . .Einstein is known to have read Poincare,349, and was aware of Lorentz'work, but denied knowledge of the so-called "Lorentz Transformation". Is it plausible to believe that Einstein, a supposed genius and master scientist,was completely unaware of Poincare's, Lorentz' and Larmor's works containing the so-called "Lorentz Transformation", and the principle of relativity, which were the talk of the physics community,350 and the then current literature on the subject of Poincare's "principle of relativity", and that it is coincidental that Einstein repeated much of what they wrote? . . . Einstein is seemingly awarded credit forevery scientific advancement and theory from the time of Newton up until Einstein's death. Does Einstein deserve that credit?

"The appearance of Dr. Silberstein's recent article on 'General Relativitywithout the Equivalence Hypothesis'encourages me to restate my own viewson the subject. I am perhaps entitled to dothis as my work on the subject of GeneralRelativity was published before that ofEinstein and Kottler, and appears to havebeen overlooked by recent writers." --Harry Bateman

* * * "All this was maintained by Poincare andothers long before the time of Einstein,and one does injustice to truth inascribing the discovery to him." -- Charles Nordmann

* * * "[Einstein's] paper 'Zur Elektrodynamikbewegter Koerper' in Annalen der Physik.. . contains not a single reference to previous literature. It gives you theimpression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true." -- Max Born

* * * "In point of fact, therefore, Poincare was not only the first to enunciate the principle, but he also discovered in Lorentz's work the necessary mathematical formulation of the principle. All this happened before Einstein's paperappeared." -- G. H. Keswani

* * * "Einstein's explanation is a dimensionaldisguise for Lorentz's. . . . Thus Einstein's theory is not a denial of, nor an alternative for, that of Lorentz. It is only a duplicate and disguise for it. . . . Einstein continually maintains that the theory of Lorentz is right, only he disagrees with his 'interpretation.' Is it not clear, therefore, that in this, as in other cases, Einstein's theory is merely a disguise for Lorentz's, the apparent disagreement about 'interpretation' being a matter of word sonly?" -- James Mackaye

* * * "The secret to creativity is knowing how tohide your sources." -- Albert Einstein

7.2 E=mc2 is Not Einstein 's Discovery, by Robert A. Herrmann

(9 SEPT 2000. Revised 15 AUG 2002)

7.3 (Defending Einstein) Einstein Ripped Off!

Arguably, the greatest scientist of the twentieth century, both by popular and scientific standards, is Albert Einstein (1879--1955). I intend to argue that the greatest philosopher of science of the twentieth century is also Einstein. ... Einstein the Plagiarist?

Did Einstein plagiarize, or rip-off, other scientist's work? I think that this question is ludicrous on the face of it, but I'll answer it because the accusations are out there that he did. ...

7.4 (Defending Einstein) Who Invented Relativity?

(8) Einstein the Zionist

About Zionism: Speeches and Lectures by Professor Albert Einstein. Translated and Edited With an Introduction by Leon Simon. London, The Soncino Press, 1930.

{p. 9} INTRODUCTION {by Leon Simon}

{p. 19} The Hebrew University of Jerusalem represents a side of Zionist activity which naturally makes a peculiarly strong appeal to Professor Einstein, and he has been an active member of the Governing Body of the University since its inception. He is however, no less alive to the necessity and value of a solid material basis for the development of a Jewish civilisation in Palestine; and some years ago he undertook a tour of the United States on behalf of the Keren Hayesod (Palestine Foundation Fund). This combination of academic with practical interests, coupled with his transparent single mindedness and simplicity of character, has won him the respect and affection of Zionists the world over. The Einstein Forest in Palestine may prove no less enduring a monument to his fame than the Theory of Relativity.

{p. 20} This volume is composed of translations of extras from speeches and letters delivered and written by Professor Einsein during the last nine or ten years. The speech or letter form has not been preserved, and short passages of purely ephemeral interest have been omitted here and there. The arrangement is roughly, but not strictly, chronological. ...

London, September 1930. L.S.

{p. 23} ASSIMILATION AND NATIONALISM {by Einstein, from this point on}


Before we can effecively combat anti-Semitism, we must first of all educate ourselves out of it and out of the slave mentality which it betokens. We must have more dignity, more independence, in our own ranks. Only when we have the courage to regard ourselves as a nation, only when we respect ourselves, can we win the respect of others; or rather, the respect of others will then come of itself. Anti-Semitism as a psychological phenomenon will always be with us so long as Jews and non-Jews are thrown together. But where is the harm? It may be thanks to anti-Semitism that we are able to preserve our existence as a race; that at any rate is my belief.

When I come across the phrase "German Citizens of the Jewish Persuasion," I cannot avoid a melancholy smile. What does this high falutin' description really mean? What is this "Jewish persuasion"? Is there, then, a kind of non-persuasion by virtue of which one ceases to be a Jew? There is not. What the description really

{p. 24} means is that our beaux esprits are proclaiming two things:

First I wish to have nothing to do with my poor (East European) Jewish brethren; Secondly, I wish to be regarded not as a son of my people, but only as a member of a religious community.

Is this honest? Can an "Aryan" respect such dissemblers? I am not a German citien, nor is there anything about me that can be described as "Jewish persuasion." But I am a Jew, and I am glad to belong to the Jewish people, thougn I do not regard it as "chosen." Let us just leave anti-Semitism to the non-Jews, and keep our own hearts warm for our kith and kin. (1920)


Until about a generation ago the Jews in Germany did not regard themselves as belonging to the Jewish people.

They felt themselves only members of a religious community, and many of them still hold this point of view. They are, in fact, much more assimilated than the Russian Jews. They have been to mixed schools, and have thus adapted themselves to Germnan national and cultural life. Nevertheless, and in spite of the equal political rights

{p. 25} which they have secured, there exists in Germany a strong movement of social anti-Semitism. And it is just the educated circles who have set themselves up as carriers of this anti-Semitic disease. They have built up for themselves a "culture" of anti-Semitism while the educated Russians, at least before the war, were on the whole philo-Semitic, and made frequent and honest endeavours to fight the anti-Semitic movement.

{Einstein does not acknowledge the grievances listed by Benjamin Freedman, e.g. on how the Balfour Declaration cost Germany the war: freedman.html; but he does concede Jewish dominance of Weimar Germany. On this, more is disclosed by Benjamin Ginsberg: ginsberg.html.}

This phenomenon in Germany is due to several causes. Partly it originates in the fact that Jews there exercise an influence over the intellectual life of the German people altogether out of proportion to their numbers. While, in my opinion the economic position of the German Jews is very much over-rated, the influence of Jews on the press, in literature and in science in Germany is very marked, as must be apparent to even the most superficial observer. This accounts for the fact that there are many anti-Semites there whose anti-Semitism is not just hatred of the Jew, but is based on arguments in which they honestly believe. They regard Jews as of a nationality different from the German, and therefore are alarmed at the increasing Jewish influence on their national life. Although perhaps the percentage of Jews in England is not much less than in Germany, English Jews certainly

{p. 26} do not exercise the influence on English society that German Jews do in Germany. This notwithanding that the highest professional positions are accessible to them, and a Jew can become Lord Chief Jutice or Viceroy of India, whereas in Germany the attainment of such positions by a Jew is unthinkable.

In many instances anti-Semitism may be determined by political considerations. It often depends, in other words, on the political party to which a man belongs whether he becomes a professed anti-Semite. A Socialist, for instance, even if he is an anti-Semite by conviction, will not proclaim his creed or own up to it, because it is not in the programme of his party. Among Conservatives, however, it is different. Anti-Semitism in their case arises from a desire to exacerbate for their party purposes the ill-feeling inherent in the populace. In a country like England, this influence is smaller than in many others, while the exixtence of old and deep rooted liberal traditions hinders the rapid growth of anti-Semitism. I say this without any personal knowledge of the country. I have never until now been in England. That, I would add, perhaps accounts for the enthusiasm with which my theories were received here. But in Germany the judgement of my theories depended on

{p. 27} the party politics of the press, while English science did not allnow its sense of objeivity to be disturbed by political views. The English people have had a great influence on the development of science, and so have tackled the examination of the theory of relativity with particular energy and particular success. Whilst in America, again, anti-Semitism knows only social forms, in Germany communal anti-Semitism is much stronger even than social. As I view the matter, the fact of the racial peculiarities of Jews is bound to have an influence on their social intercourse. I believe that German Judaism is thus being influenced to a great extent by anti-Semitism. With increasing wealth and increasing education the religious customs which formerly prevented the mixing of Jews with Gentiles have tended to disappear. There was thus nothing but the antithesis which Jews represent, and which is called anti-Semitism, to preserve Jewish separateness. Without this antithesis assimilation in Germany would have been complete long ago.

I have noticed this sort of thing in myself. Until two years ago I lived in Switzerland, and during my stay there I did not realise my Judaism. There was nothing that called forth my Jewish sentiments in me. When I moved to Berlin all that changed. There I realised the

{p. 28} difficulties with which many young Jews were confronted. I saw how, amid anti-Semitic surroundings, systematic study, and with it the road to a safe existence, was made impossible for them. This refers specially to the Eastern-born Jews in Germany, who were continually exposed to provocation. I do not believe that their number is large in Germany as a whole. Only in Berlin are they at all numerous. Nevertheless, their presence has become a public question. At meetings and conferences and in the press there is a movement for disposing of them quickly or interning them. Housing difficulties and the economic dcpression are used as arguments for these harsh measures. Facts are deliberately exaggerated in order to influence public opinion. These Eastern born Jews are made the scapegoat of all the ills of present day German political life and all the after-effects of the war.

Incitement against these unfortunate fugitives, who have only just saved themselves from the helln which Eastern Europe means for them to day, has become an effective political weapon, employed with success by every demagogue. When the Government contemplated the expulsion of these Jews, I sood up for them, and pointed out in the Berliner Tageblat the inhumanity and the folly of such a measure. Together with some colleagues, Jews

{p. 29} and non-Jews, I started University courses for these Eastern-born Jews, and I must add that in this matter we enjoyed official recognition and considerable assistance from the Ministry of Education.

These and similar happenings have awakened in me the Jewish national sentiment. I am a national Jew in the sense that I demand the preservation of the Jewish nation ality as of every other. I look upon Jewish nationality as a fact, and I think that every Jew ought to come to definite conclusions on Jewish questions on the basis of this fact. I regard the growth of Jewish self-assertion as being in the interests of non-Jews as well as of Jews. That was the main motive of my joining the Zionist movement. For me Zionism is not merely a question of colonisation. The Jewish nation is a living thing, and the sentiment of Jewish nationalism must be developed both in Palesine and everywhere else. To deny the Jew's nationality in the Diaspora is, indeed, deplorable. If one adopts the point of view of confining Jewish ethnic nationalism to Palestine, then to all intents and purposes one denies the existence of a Jewish people. In that case one should have the courage to carry througn assimilation as quickly and as completely as possible.

We live in a time of intense and perhaps exaggerated

{p. 30} nationalism. But my Zionism does not exclude cosmopolitan views. I believe in the atuality of Jewish nationality, and I believe that every Jew has duties towards his co-religionists. The meaning of Zionism is thus many sided. To Jews who despair in the Ukrainian hell or in Poland it opens out hopes of a more human existence. Through the return of Jews to Palestine, and so to a normal and healthy economic life, Zionism involves a creative fusion, which should enrich mankind at large. But the main point is that Zionism must tend to enhance the dignity and self respect of the Jews in the Diaspora. I have always been annoyed by the undignified assimilationist cravings and strivings which I have observed in so many of my friends.

Through the establishment of a Jewish Commonwealth in Paletine, the Jewish people will again be in a position to bring its creative abilities into full play without hindrance. Through the Jewish University and similar institutions the Jewish people will not only help forward its own national renaissance, but will enrich its moral culture and knowledge, and will once again, as it was centuries ago, be guided into better ways of life than those which are inevitably imposed on it in present conditions.

{p. 31} The rebuilding of Palesine is for us Jews not a mere matter of charity or emigration: it is a problem of paramount importance for the Jewish people. Palestine is first and foremost not a refuge for East European Jews, but the incarnation of a reawakening sense of national solidarity. But is it opportune to revive and to strengthen this sense of solidarity? To that question I must reply with an unqualified affirmative, not only because that answer expresses my instintive feelingt but also, I believe, on rational grounds. Let us glance at the history of the Jews in Germany during the last century or so. A hundred years ago our ancesors, with very few exceptions, still lived in the Ghetto. They were poor, and were separated from the Gentiles by a barrier of religious traditions, sec,ular forms of life and legal restrictions. In their spiritual development they were confined to their own literature, and were influenced but faintly by the immense impetus which the Renaissance had given to the intenetual life of Europe. But in one recspect these men, humbly placed and scantly regarded as they were, had a distinct advantage over us. Each one of them was bound by every

{p. 32} fibre of his being to a community which embraced his whole existence, of which he felt himself a full member, and which made on him no demand that ran counter to his natural mode of thought. Our ancestors of those days were rather cramped both materially and spirituany, but as a social organism they were in an enviable state of psychological equilibrium. Then came emancipation. It opened undreamt-of vistas of progress. Individual Jews rapidly became at home in the higher strata of economic and social life. They eagerly absorbed the brilliant achievements of Western art and science. They threw themselves with ardour into these developments, and themselves made contributions of permanent value. In the process they adopted the ways of life of the non-Jewish world, became increasingly estranged from their own religious and social tradition, acquired non-Jewish habits, customs and modes of thought. It seemed as though they were going to be completely dissolved in the surrounding peoples, so much more numerous than themselves, so superior in their political and cultural organisation, and that in a few generations no visible trace of them would remain. The complete disappearance of the Jews in Central and Wesern Europe seemed inevitable. But things turned out differently. Nations with racial differences appear

{p. 33} to have intincts which work against their fusion. The assimilation of the Jews to the European nations among whom they lived, in language, in customs, and to some extent even in the forms of religious organisation, could not eradicate the feeling of a lack of kinship between them and those among whom they lived. In the last resort, this instinctive feeling of lack of kinship is referable to the law of the conservation of energy. For this reason it cannot be eradicated by any amount of well-meant pressure. Nationalities do not want to be fused: they want to go each its own way. A state of peace can be brought about only if they mutually tolerate and respect one another. {But is not the Jewish religion at war with all other cultures?} This demands above an things that we Jews become once more conscious of our nationality, and regain the self respect which is neeessary to our national existence. We must learn once more to avow our ancestry and our history; we must once more take upon ourselves, as a nation, cultural tasks of a kind calculated to strengthen our feeling of solidarity. It is not sufficient for us to take part as individuals in the cultural work of mankind: we must also set our hands to some work which can serve the ends of our corporate national existence. In this way and in this way only can the Jewish people regain its health.

{p. 34} It is from this point of view that I look upon the Zionist movement. History has to-day allotted us the task of contributing actively to the economic and cultural re-construction of Palestine. Inspired men of genius and vision have laid the foundations of our work, to which many of the best among us are prepared to devote their whole lives. It were well if all of us felt the full significance of the work and contributed each his utmost to its success.

It was in America that I first discovered the Jewish people. I have seen any number of Jews, but the Jewish people I had never met either in Berlin or elsewhere in Germany. This Jewish people, which I found in America, came from Russia, Poland and Easern Europe generally. These men and women still retain a healthy national feeling; it has not yet been destroyed by the process of atomisation and dispersion. I found these people extraordinarily ready for self-sacrifice and pratically creative. They have, for instance, managed in a short time to secure the future of the projected University in Jerusalem, at any rate so far as the Medical Faculty is concerned. I also found that it was mostly the middle classes and the ordinary folk, and not those enjoying a high social postion or any natural advantages, who had most conspicuously

{p. 35} preserved the healthy feeling of belonging together and the winingness to make sacrifices. The impression that I gained there is that if we really succeed in establishing a nucleus of the Jewish people in Palesine, we shall once more have a spiritual centre, notwithstanding that the great majority of us are scattered over the world, and the feeling of isolation will disappear. That is the great redeeming effect which I anticipate from the rebuilding of Palestine. (1921)


I am convinced that our colonising work in Palesine will be successful in the sense that we shan create there a completely coherent community, well-fitted to form a moral and spiritual centre for the Jewish people. Therein, and not on the economic side, I see the real significance for us all of the work of reconstruction. In my opinion it is not so important for Palestine to become economically independent at the earliest possible moment as for it to possess a high spiritual and moral value for the whole Jewish people. From this point of view much has already been achieved by the revival of Hebrew. Institutions for the pursuit of the arts and sciences must follow. In

{p. 36} this connection I attach the greatest importance to the Hebrew University. Palestine will not solve the Jewish problem, but its development will mean a revival of the soul of the Jewish people. (1923)


Generally speaking, it does not accord with my ideal that communities bound together by the bond of race or tradition should make special efforts to cultivate and emphasise their separateness. In so far, however, as a given community is attacked as such, it is bound to defend it self as such, in order that its individual members may be able to maintain their material and spiritual interes. Corporate action is needed to save the individual from those spiritual dangers which isolation necessarily entails. Wnoever undergtands this clearly must approve of united action by all Jews for a corporate purpose, be he never so unsympathetic in principle to nationalism.

It is for me beyond any shadow of doubt that in present circumstances the rebuilding of Palestine is the only object which has a sufficiently strong appeal to stimulate the Jews to effective corporate action. It is the

{p. 37} immortal service of Herzl that he was the first to see this clearly and to draw the right practical conclusions. For this reason I am convinced that every Jew who cares at all for the health and the dignity of Jewry must co-operate with all his power in the realisation of Herlz's ideal.

The German Jew who works for the Jewish people and for the Jewish home in Palestine no more ceases to be a German than the Jew who becomes baptised and changes his name ceases to be a Jew. The two attachments are grounded in realities of different kinds. The antithesis is not between Jew and German, but between honesty and lack of charater. He who remains true to his origin, race and tradition will also remain loyal to the State of which he is a subject. He who is faithless to the one will also be faithless to the other. (1926)


The greatest enemies of Jewish national consciousness and Jewish dignity are fatty degeneration - by which I mcan the loss of moral fibre which results from wealth and comfort - and a kind of spiritual dependence on the surrounding non-Jewish world, which is a consequence

{p. 38} of the disruption of Jewish corporate life. The best in a man can be brought out only when he belongs entirely to a human group. Hence there is grave moral danger in the position of the Jew who has lost contact with his own national group, and is regarded as an alien by the group among which he lives. Often enough a situation of this kind has produced a despicable and joyless egotism.

The external pressure on the Jewish people is particularly heavy at the present time. Yet our very sufFerings have been wholesome. There has set in a revival of Jewish corporate life, of which the last generation but one could not have dreamt. Under the influence of the newly awakened sense of Jewish solidarity, the colonisation of Paletine, carried out by able and devoted leaders in the teeth of apparently insuperable difficulties, has already produced such favourable results that I can not doubt its permanent efFect. This work is of high value for the Jews of the whole world. Palestine will become a cultural home for all Jews, a refuge for the worst sufferers from oppression, a field of activity for the best among us, a unifying ideal and a source of spiritual health for the Jews of every country. (1929)



The Palestine problem, as I see it, is twofold. There is first the business of settling the Jews in the country. This demands external assistance on a large scale; it cannot be successfully accomplished unless the national resources of Jewry are laid under contribution. The second task is that of stimulating private initiative, especially in the commercial and indutrial spheres.

The deepest impression left on me by Zionist work in Palestine is that of the self-sacrifice of the young men and women workers. Gathered here from an sorts of diferent environments, they have succeeded, under the influence of a common ideal, in forming themselves into closely-knit communities and in working together on lines of sysematic co-operation. I was also most favourably impressed by the spirit of initiative shown in the urban development. There is something here that almost suggegts an avalanche. One feels that the work is being borne along on the wings of a strong national sentiment. Nothing else could explain the extraordinarily rapid advance, especially on the sea coast near Tel Aviv.

{p. 42} At no time did I get the impression that the Arab problem might threaten the development of the Palestine project. I believe rather that, among the working classes especially, Jew and Arab on the whole get on excellently together. The difficulties which are as it were inherent in the situation do not rise above the threshold of consciousness when one is on the spot. The problem of the rehabilitation and sanitation of the country seems in comparably more difficult.

It is a common thing for Jews to miss the significance of the Palestine quesion: they do not see what it has to do with them. It is indeed easy to ask what it matters to a scattered nation of so many minions whether a minion or a minion and a half of them are settled in Palestine. But for me the importance of all this Zionist work lies precisely in the effect that it will have on those Jews who will not themselves live in Palestine. We must distinguish in this connection between internal and external effects. The internal effect, in my opinion, will be a healthier Jewry: that is to say, the Jews will acquire that happiness in feeling themselves at one, that sense of being self-sufficient, which a common ideal cannot fail to evoke. This is already evident in the younger generation of our day - not among the young Zionists only - and distinguishes

{p. 43} it, greatly to its advantage, from earlier generations, whose endeavours to be absorbed in non-Jewish society produced an almost tragic emptiness. That is the internal effect. The external effect I see in the status which a human group can attain only by collective and productive work. I believe that the existence of a Jewish cultural centre will strengthen the moral and political position of the Jews all over the world1 by virtue of the very fact that there will be in existence a kind of embodiment of the interests of the whole Jewish people. (1927)


The Hebrew University in Jerusalem is to be organised in such a way as to meet the exisgting requirements of the country for scientific research institutes. It cannot be compared in its initial sages with a fully equipped University in the West. It must begin with a number of research institutes devoted to the scientific investigation of the natural conditions of Palestine. The first to be considered will be an Institute of Agriculture, and then probably a Chemical Institute. These Institutes must be in the closest touch with existing and future experimental stations and agricultural schools. The next most

{p. 44} urgent need is for an Institute of Microbiologyy, which on the praical side of its activities will help to fight epidemics in Palestine. Then for one of the early foundations we have to consider an Institute of Oriental Studies, which will have for its province the scientific exploration of the country and its historical monuments, and the philological study of its languages, Hebrew and Arabic, and possibly of other Oriental languages as well. These Institutes will lay the foundation of scientific research work in Palestine. For the present there is less need for actual teaching by professors and lecturers. Indeed, it is positively undesirable to encourage the Jewish population of Palestine, which as yet is very small and can grow but slowly, to repeat the old misake of one-sided devotion to the professions and intellectual pursuits. On the contrary, the thing to aim at is a normal distribution of the Jewish population among the various occupations. The notorious one-sidedness of the occupational distribution of the Jews in the Diaspora must not be reproduced in Palesine. Only with an increase of the population will there be a gradual extension of the University, and a gradual addition of teaching activities to pure research work.

Due consideration must, however, also be given to

{p. 45} the possibility that from the outset Jewish gtudents will be attracted to the Hebrew University from an over the world. To what extent this tendency should be encouraged in the early stages is a problem requiring special consideration. But it is at any rate permissible to hope that in the course of time the Jerusalem University will grow into a centre of Jewish intellectual life, which will be of value not for Jews alone. (1921)


A University is a place in which the universality of the human spirit finds self expression. Science and invesigation recognise as their aim the truth and nothing but the truth. It is natural, therefore, that institutions which serve the interests of science should be a factor making for the union of nations and men. Unfortunately, the Universities of Europe to day are for the most part nurseries of chauvinism and of a blind intolerance of all things foreign to the particular nation or race, of all things bearing the stamp of a different individuality. Under this regime the Jews are the principal sufferers, not only because they are thwarted in their desire for free participation and in their striving for education, but also because most Jews find themselves particuarly cramped

{p. 46} in this spirit of narrow nationalism. On this occasion of the birth of our University, I should like to express the hope that our University will always be free from this evil, that teachers and students will always preserve the consciousness that they serve their people best when they maintain its union with humanity and with the highest human values.

Jewish nationalism is a necessity to day, because only through a consolidation of our national life can we eliminate those conflicts from which the Jews suffer at the present time. Let us hope that the time will soon come when this nationalism will have become so thoroughly a matter of course that it willn no longer be necessary for us to give it special emphasis. Our affiliation with our past and with the present day achievements of our people inspires us with assurance and pride in the face of the whole world. But our educational insitutions in particular must regard it as one of their noblest tasks to keep our people free from nationalistic obscurantism and aggressive intolerance.

Our University is still a modest undertaking. It is quite the correct policy to begin with a number of research institutes, out of which the University will develop naturally and organically. I am convinced that this

{p. 47} development will make rapid progress, and that in the course of time this institution will demonstrate with the greatest clearness the achievements of which the Jewish spirit is capable.

A special task devolves upon the University in the spiritual direction and education of the labouring sections of our people in the land. In Palesine it is not our aim to create another people of city dwellners, leading the same life as in the European cities, and governed by the standards and conceptions of the European bourgeoisie. We aim at creating a people of workers, at creating the Jewish village in the first place, and we desire that the treasures of culture should be accessible to our labouring class, especially since, as we know, Jews in all circumtances place education above all else. In this connection it devolves upon the University to create something unique in order to serve the specific needs of the forms of life developed by our people in Palestine.

All of us desire to co-operate in order that the University may accomplish its mission. When the significance of this cause is realised by the Jewish masses, our University will develop speedily into a great spiritual centre, which will evoke the respect of cultured mankind the world over. (1925)

{p. 51} JEW AND ARAB

(1) Shaken to its depths by the tragic catastrophe in Palestine, Jewry must now show that it is truly equal to the great task it has undertaken. It goes without saying that our devotion to the cause and our determination to continue the work of peaceful consrtrution willn not be weakened in the slightest by any such setback. But what has to be done to obviate any possibility of a recurrence of such horrors ?

The first and most important necessity is the creation of a modus vivendi with the Arab people. Friction is perhaps inevitable, but its evil consequences must be overcome by organised co-operation, so that the inflammable material may not be piled up to the point of danger. The absence of normal contact in every-day life is bound to produce an atmosphere of mutual fear and disrust, which is favourable to such lamentable outbursts of passion as we have witnessed. We Jews must show above all that our own history of suffering has given us sufficient understanding and psychological insight to know how to cope with this problem of psycehology and organisation:

{p. 52} the more so as no irreconcilable differences stand in the way of peace between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. Let us therefore above all be on our guard against blind chauvinism of any kind, and let us not imagine that reason and common sense can be replaced by British bayonets.

But one demand we must certainly make of the Mandatory Power, which is responsible for the well-being of the country. Adequate protection must be afforded to those who are engaged in peaceful work. The measures devised for their protection must have regard on the one hand to the scattered position of the Jewish settlements, and on the other hand to the need for helping to smooth over national differences. It goes without saying that there must be adequate participation of Jews in the police force. The Mandatory Power cannot escape the reproach that this duty has not been fully carried out, quite apart from the fact that the responsible authorities misjudged the true state of affairs in the country.

The greatest danger in the present situation is that blind chauvinism may gain ground in our ranks. However firm the stand we make for the defence of our lives and property, we mus not forget for a single moment that our national task is in its essence a supra-national

{p. 53} matter, and that the strength of our whole movement rests in its moral unification, with which it mustand or fall. (Aug. 1929)


It was with a wonderful enthusiasm and a deep sense of gratitude that the Jews, afflicted more than any other people by the chaos and horror of the war, obtained from Great Britain a pledge to support the re-etablishment of the Jewish national home in Palestine. The Jewish people, beset with a thousand physical wrongs and moral degradations, saw in the British promise the sure rock on which it could re-create a Jewish national life in Palestine, which, by its very existence as well as by its material and intellectual achievements, would give the Jewish masses, dispersed all over the world, a new sense of hope, dignity, and pride. Jews of all lands gave of their best in man-power and in material wealth in order to fund the inspiration that had kept the race alive through a martyrdom of centuries. Within a brief decade some £10,000,000 were raised by voluntary contributions, and 100,000 hand-picked Jews entered Palestine to redeem by their physical labour the almost derelict land. Deserts were irrigated, forests planted, swamps drained, and

{p. 54} their crippling diseases subdued. A work of peace was created which, although still perhaps small in size, compelled the admiration of every observer.

Has the rock on which we have built begun to shake? A considerable setion of the British press now meets our aspirations with lack of undersanding, with coldness, and with disfavour. What has happened?

Arab mobs, organised and fanaticised by political intriguers working on the religious fury of the ignorant, attacked scattered Jewish settlements and murdered and plundered wherever no resistance was ofFered. In Hebron, the inmates of a rabbinical college, innocent youths who had never handled weapons in their lives, were butchered in cold blood; in Safed the same fate befell aged rabbis and their wives and children. Recently some Arabs raided a Jewish orphan settlement where the pathetic remnants of the great Russian pogroms had found a haven of refuge. Is it not then amazing that an orgy of such primitive brutality upon a peaceful population has been utilised by a certain scion of the British press for a campaign of propaganda directed, not against the authors and intigators of these brutalities, but against their victims ? No less disappointing is the amazing degree of ignor-

{p. 55} ance of the character and the achievement of Jewish re-consruction in Palestine displayed in many organs of the press. A decade has elapsed since the policy of the esablishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine was officially endorsed by the British Government with the almost unanimous support of the entire British press and of the leaders of all political parties. On the basis of that official recognition, which was approved by almost every civilised Government, and which found its legal embodiment in the Palestine Mandate, Jews have sent their sons and daughters and have given their voluntary ofFerings for this great work of peaceful reconstruction. I think it may be stated without fear of exaggeration that, except for the war efforts of the European nations, our generation has seen no national efFort of such spiritual intensity and such heroic devotion as that which the Jews have shown during the last ten years in favour of a work of peace in Palestine. When one travels through the country, as I had the good fortune to do a few years ago, and sees young pioneers, men and women of magnificent intellectual and moral calibre, breaking stones and building roads under the blazing rays of the Palestinian sun; when one sees flourishing agricultural settlements shooting up from the long deserted soil under the intensive efforts of the

{p. 56} Jewish settlers; when one sees the development of water power and the beginnings of an industry adapted to the needs and possibilities of the country, and, above all, the growth of an educational sysem, ranging from the kindergarten to the university, in the language of the Bible - what observer, whatever his origin or faith, can fail to be sezied by the magic of such amazing achievement and of such almost superhuman devotion? Is it not bewildering that, after all this, brutal massacres by a fanaticised mob can destroy all appreciation of the Jewish effort in Palestine and lead to a demand for the repeal of the solemn pledges of official support and protection?

Zionism has a two-fold basis. It arose on the one hand from the fact of Jewish suffering. It is not my intention to paint here a piture of the Jewish martyrdom through-out the ages, which has arisen from the homelessness of the Jew. Even to day there is an intensity of Jewish suffering throughout the world of which the public opinion of the civilised West never obtains a comprehensive view. In the whole of Eastern Europe the danger of physical attack against the individual Jew is constantly present. The degrading disabilities of old have been transformed into restrictions of an economic character, while resrictive measures in the educational sphere, such as the

{p. 57} "numerus clausus" at the universities, seek to suppress the Jew in the world of intellectual life. {Was this not aimed at equality?} There is, I am sure, no need to stress at this time of day that there is a Jewish problem in the Wetern world also. How many non-Jews have any insight into the spiritual suffering and distortion, the degradation and moral dis-integration engendered by the mere fact of the homelessness of a gifted and sensitive people? What under-lies all these phenomena is the basic fact, which the first Zionists recognised with profound intuition, that the Jewish problem cannot be solved by the assimilation of the individual Jew to his environment. Jewish individuality is too strong to be effaced by such assimilation, and too conscious to be ready for such self effacement. It is, of course, clear that it will never be possible to transplant to Palestine anything more than a minority of the Jewish people, but it has for a long time been the deep conviction of enlightened students of the problem, Jews and non-Jews alike, that the establishment of a National Home for the Jewish people in Palestine would raise the status and the dignity of those who would remain in their native countries, and would thereby materiallny assist in improving the relations between non-Jews and Jews in general.

{p. 58} But Zionism springs from an even deeper motive than Jewish suffering. It is rooted in a Jewish spiritual tradition, whose maintenance and development are for Jews the raison d'etre of their continued existence as a community. In the re-etablishment of the Jewish nation in the ancient home of the race, where Jewish spiritual values could again be developed in a Jewish atmosphere, the most enlightened representatives of Jewish individuality see the essential preliminary to the regeneration of the race and the setting free of its spiritual creativeness.

It is by these tendencies and aspirations that the Jewish reconstruction in Palestine is informed. Zionism is not a movement inspired by chauvinism or by a sacro egoismo. I am convinced that the great maority of the Jews would refuse to support a movement of that kind. Nor does Zionism aspire to divest anyone in Palesine of any rights or possessions he may enjoy. On the contrary, we are convinced that we shall be able to establish a friendly and consrutive co-operation with the kindred Arab race which will be a blessing to both sections of the population materially and spiritually. During the whole of the work of Jewish colonisation not a single Arab has been dispossessed; every acre of land acquired by the

{p. 59} Jews has been bought at a price fixed by buyer and seller. Indeed, every visitor has tesified to the enormous improvement in the economic and sanitary standard of the Arab population resulting from the Jewish colonisation. Friendly personal relations between the Jewish settlements and the neighbouring Arab villages have been formed throughout the country. Jewish and Arab workers have associated in the trade unions of the Palestine railways, and the standard of living of the Arabs has been raised. Arab scholars can be found working in the great library of the Hebrew University, while the study of the Arabic language and civilisation forms one of the chief subjects of study at this University. Arab workmen have participated in the evening courses conducted at the Jewish Technical Insitute at Haifa. The native population has come to realise in an ever growing measure the benefits, economic, sanitary and intellectal, which the Jewish work of reconstrution has bestowed on the whole country and an its inhabitants. Indeed, one of the most comforting features in the present crisis has been the reports of personal protection afforded by Arabs to their Jewish fellow-citizens against the attacks of the fanaticised mob.

I submit, therefore, that the Zionist movement is

{p. 60} entitled, in the name of its higher objectives and on the strength of the support which has been promised to it most solemnly by the civilised world, to demand that its unprecedented reconstrutive effort - carried out in a country which still largely lies fallow, and in which, by methods of intensive cultivation such as the Jews have applied, room can be found for hundreds of thousands of new settlers without detriment to the native population - shall not be defeated by a small clique of agitators, even if they wear the garb of ministers of the Islamic religion. Does public opinion in Great Britain realise that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who is the centre of an the trouble, and speaks so loudly in the name of all the Moslems, is a young political adventurer of not much more, I understand, than thirty years of age, who in 1920 was sentenced to several years' imprisonment for his complicity in the riots of that year, but was pardoned under the terms of an amnesty? The mentality of this man may be gauged from a recent statement he gave to an interviewer accusing me, of all men, of having demanded the rebuilding of the Temple on the site of the Mosque of Omar. Is it tolerable that, in a country where ignorant fanaticism can so easily be incited to rapine and murder by interesed agitators, so utterly irresponsible

{p. 61} and unscrupulous a politician should be enabled to continue to exercise his evil influence, garbed in an the spiritual sanity of religion, and invested with all the temporal powers that this involves in an Eastern country?

The realisation of the great aims embodied in the Mandate for Palestine depends to a very large degree on the public opinion of Great Britain, on its press, and on its statesmen. The Jewish people is entitled to expect that its work of peace shall receive the active and benevolent support of the Mandatory Power. It is entitled to demand that those found guilty in the recent riots shall be adequately punished, and that the men in whose hands is laid the responsible task of the adminisration of a country of such a unique past and such unique potentialities for the future shall be so instgrued as to ensure that this great trust bestowed by the civilised world on the Mandatory Power, is carried out with vision and courage in the daily tasks of routine administration. Jews do not wish to live in the land of their fathers under the protection of British bayonets: they come as friends of the kindred Arab nation. What they expect of Great Britain is that it shall promote the growth of friendly relations between Jews and Arabs, that it shall not tolerate poisonous propaganda, and that it shall create such

{p. 62} organs of security in the country as will aford adequate protection to life and peaceful labour.

The Jews will never abandon the work of reconstruction which they have undertaken. The reation of all Jews, Zionist and non-Zionist alike, to the events of the last few weeks has shown this clearly enough. But it lies in the hands of the Mandatory Power materially to further or materially to hamper the progress of the work. It is of fundamental importance that British public opinion and the Governments of Great Britain and of Palestine shall feel themselves responsible for this great trust, not because Great Britain once undertook this responsibility in legal form, but because they are deeply convinced of the significance and importance of the task, and believe that its realisation will tend to promote the progress and the peace of mankind, and to right a great hitoric wrong. I cannot believe that the greatest colonial Power in the world will fail when it is faced with the task of placing its unique colonising experience at the service of the reconstruction of the ancient home of the People of the Bible. The task may not be an easy one for the Mandatory Power, but for the success it will attain it is assured of the undying gratitude not only of the Jews but of all that is noblest in mankind. (Letter to the Manchester Guardian, 12 Oct. 1929)


One who, like myself, has cherished for many years the conviction that the humanity of the future must be built up on an intimate community of the nations, and that

aggressive nationalism must be conquered, can see a future for Palestine only on the basis of peaceful co-operation between the two peoples who are at home in the country. For this reason I should have expected that the great Arab people will show a truer appreciation of the need which the Jews feel to re-build their national home in the ancient seat of Judaism; I should have expected that by common effort ways and means would be found to render possible an extensive Jewish settlement in the country. I am convinced that the devotion of the Jewish people to Palestine will benefit all the inhabitants of the country, not only materiallny, but also culturally and nationally. I believe that the Arab renaissance in the vast expanse of territory now occupied by the Arabs stands only to gain from Jewish sympathy. I should welcome the creation of an opportunity for absolutely free and frank discussion of these possibilitiecs, for I believe that the two great Semitic peoples, each of which has in its way contributed something of lasing value to the civil-

{p. 64} isation of the West, may have a great future in common, and that instead of facing each other with barren enmity and mutual distrust, they should support each other's national and cultural endeavours, and should seek the possibility of sympathetic co-operation. I think that those who are not actively engaged in politics should above all contribute to the creation of this atmosphere of confidence.

I deplore the tragic events of last Augus not only because they revealed human nature in its lowest aspects, but also because they have deranged the two peoples and have made it temporarily more difficult for them to approach one another. But come together they must, in spite of all.

(Letter to the Palestinian Arab Paper Falastin, 28 January 1930) ==

Added April 21, 2011: Einstein's letter of 1948 condemning Deir Yassin, and branding Menachem Begin a fascist:

New Palestine Party. Visit of Menachen Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed. A letter to The New York Times, published in the "Books" section (Page 12) of Saturday December 4, 1948

by Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, Sidney Hook,

Wikisource is censoring this, on copyright grounds, even though the signatories were trying to publicize their cause as widely as possible:

However, it's at and at


Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin's political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.

Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin's behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.

The public avowals of Begin's party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.

Attack on Arab Village

A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants (240 men, women, and children) and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.

The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.

Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model.

During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.

The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.

Discrepancies Seen

The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a "Leader State" is the goal.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin's efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.

The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.


New York, Dec. 2, 1948


(9) The Einstein-Freud correspondence on ending war (i.e., World Government)

Why War? The Correspondence between Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud [translation prepared by Fritz and Anna Moellenhaff], Paris 1933; 56 pages; Amicus# 9569721. Published by International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation, League of Nations.

A later edition is currently available: Why war?: The correspondence between Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud CONTRIBUTORS: Author: Einstein, Albert (b. 1879, d. 1955) Author: Freud, Sigmund (b. 1856, d. 1939) Author: Moellenhoff, Fritz. Author: Moellenhoff, Anna PUBLISHER: Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis (Chicago) SERIES TITLE: YEAR: 1978 LC NUMBER: JX1953 .E552 1978 ABSTRACT: Originally published in 1933 (as v. 2 of An international series of open letters) by the International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation of the League of Nations in Paris. It was also simultaneously published in French and German under titles, respectively: Pourquoi la guerre? and Warum Krieg?. Cover title. The original letters are now owned by the institute.

The text was on the internet as a .pdf file at

as follows, edited by Otto Nathan and Heinz Norden. I have left the spelling errors un-noted, but have noted the start and end of the editors' comments - Peter Myers.

The page-numbers denoted {p. 1} are from the .pdf file (page#s 1 to 12); I do not know what the numbers denoted [1] represent, but the original publication comprised 56 pages in all.

The .pdf file lists a .html file which presumably has the same content.

{p. 1} The Einstein-Freud Correspondence

1 of 12 2/25/2003 9:17 PM

from Einstein on Peace ed. Otto Nathan and Heinz Norden (New York: Schocken Books, 1960), pp186-203

Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud

from The Einstein-Freud Correspondence (1931-1932)

[1] {editor's comment} The letter which Einstein addressed to Freud, concerning the projectcd organization of intellectual leaders, was sent in 1931, or possibly 1932, and read as follows:{end of editor's comment}

I greatly admire your passion to ascertain the truth -- a passion that has come to dominate all else in your thinking. You have shown with irresistible lucidity how inseparably the aggressive and destructive instincts are bound up in the human psyche with those of love and the lust for life. At the same time, your convincing arguments make manifest your deep devotion to the great goal of the internal and external liberation of man from the evils of war. This was the profound hope of all those who have been revered as moral and spiritual leaders beyond the limits of their own time and country, from Jesus to Goethe and Kant. Is it not significant that such men have been universally recognized as leaders, even though their desire to affect the course of human affairs was quite ineffective?

[2] I am convinced that almost all great men who, because of their accomplishments, are recognized as leaders even of small groups share the same ideals. But they have little influence on the course of political events. It would almost appear that the very domain of human activity most crucial to the fate of nations is inescapably in the hands of wholly irresponsible political rulers.

[3] Political leaders or governments owe their power either to the use of force or to their election by the masses. They cannot be regarded as representative of the superior moral or intellectual elements in a nation. In our time, the intellectual elite does not exercise any direct influence on the history of the world; the very fact of its division into many factions makes it impossible for its members to co-operate in the solution of today's problems. Do you not share the feeling that a change could be brought about by a free association of men whose previous work and achievements offer a guarantee of their ability and integrity? Such a group of international scope, whose members would have to keep contact with each other through constant interchange of opinions, might gain a significant and wholesome moral influence on the solution of political problems if its own attitudes, backed by the signatures of its concurring members, were made public through the press. Such an association would, of course, suffer from all the defects that have so often led to degeneration in learned societies; the danger that such a degeneration may develop is, unfortunately, ever present in view of the imperfections of human nature. However, and despite those dangers, should we not make at least an attempt to form such an association in spite of all dangers? It seems to me nothing less than an imperative

{p. 2} duty!

[4] Once such an association of intellectuals -- men of real stature -- has come into being, it might then make an energetic effort to en-list religious groups in the fight against war. The association would give moral power for action to many personalities whose good intentions are today paralyzed by an attitude of painful resignation. I also believe that such an association of men, who are highly respected for their personal accomplishments, would provide important moral support to those elements in the League of Nations who actively support the great objective for which that institution was created.

[5] I offer these suggestions to you, rather than to anyone else in the world, because your sense of reality is less clouded by wishful thinking than is the case with other people and since you combine the qualities of critical judgment, earnestness and responsibility.

{editor's comment} The high point in the relationship between Einstein and Freud came in the summer of 1932 when, under the auspices of the International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation, Einstein initiated a public debate with Freud about the causes and cure of wars. Einstein's official letter is dated July 30, 1932; it was accompanied by the following private note of the same date:{end of editor's comment}

[6] I should like to use this opportunity to send you warm personal regards and to thank you for many a pleasant hour which I had in reading your works. It is always amusing for me to observe that even those who do not believe in your theories find it so difficult to resist your ideas that they use your terminology in their thoughts and speech when they are off guard.

{editor's comment} This is Einstein's open letter to Freud, which, strangely enough, has never become widely known:{end of editor's comment}

[7] Dear Mr. Freud: The proposal of the League of Nations and its International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation at Paris that I should invite a person, to be chosen by myself, to a frank exchange of views on any problem that I might select affords me a very welcome opportunity of conferring with you upon a question which, as things now are, seems the most insistent of all the problems civilization has to face. This is the problem: Is there any way of delivering mankind from the menace of war? It is common knowledge that, with the advance of modern science, this issue has come to mean a matter of life and death for Civilization as we know it; nevertheless, for all the zeal displayed, every attempt at its solution has ended in a lamentable breakdown.

[8] I believe, moreover, that those whose duty it is to tackle the problem professionally and practically are growing only too aware of their impotence to deal with it, and have now a very lively desire to learn the views of men who, absorbed in the pursuit of science, can see world problems in the perspective distance lends. As for me, the normal objective of my thought affords no insight into the dark places of human will and feeling. Thus, in the inquiry now proposed, I can do little more than to seek to clarify the question at issue and, clearing the ground of the more obvious solutions, enable you to bring the light of your far-reaching knowledge of man's instinctive life to bear upon the problem. There are certain psychological

{p. 3} obstacles whose existence a layman in the mental sciences may dimly surmise, but whose interrelations and vagaries he is incompetent to fathom; you, I am convinced, will be able to suggest educative methods, lying more or less outside the scope of politics, which will eliminate these obstacles.

[9] As one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple way of dealing with the superficial (i.e., administrative) aspect of the problem: the setting up, by international consent, of a legislative and judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations. Each nation would undertake to abide by the orders issued by this legislative body, to invoke its decision in every dispute, to accept its judgments unreservedly and to carry out every measure the tribunal deems necessary for the execution of its decrees. But here, at the outset, I come up against a difficulty; a tribunal is a human institution which, in proportion as the power at its disposal is inadequate to enforce its verdicts, is all the more prone to suffer these to be deflected by extrajudicial pressure. This is a fact with which we have to reckon; law and might inevitably go hand in hand, and juridical decisions approach more nearly the ideal justice demanded by the community (in whose name and interests these verdicts are pronounced) insofar as the community has effective power to compel respect of its juridical ideal. But at present we are far from possessing any supranational organization competent to render verdicts of incontestable authority and enforce absolute submission to the execution of its verdicts. Thus I am led to my first axiom: The quest of international security involves the unconditional surrender by every nation, in a certain measure, of its liberty of action -- its sovereignty that is to say -- and it is clear beyond all doubt that no other road can lead to such security.

[10] The ill success, despite their obvious sincerity, of all the efforts made during the last decade to reach this goal leaves us no room to doubt that strong psychological factors are at work which paralyze these efforts. Some of these factors are not far to seek. The craving for power which characterizes the governing class in every nation is hostile to any limitation of the national sovereignty. This political power hunger is often supported by the activities of another group, whose aspirations are on purely mercenary, economic lines. I have especially in mind that small but determined group, active in every nation, composed of individuals who, indifferent to social considerations and restraints, regard warfare, the manufacture and sale of arms, simply as an occasion to advance their personal interests and enlarge their personal authority.

[11] But recognition of this obvious fact is merely the first step toward an appreciation of the actual state of affairs. Another question follows hard upon it: How is it possible for this small clique to bend the will of the majority, who stand to lose and suffer by a state of war, to the service of their ambitions. (*) An obvious answer to this question would seem to be that the minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and makes its tool of them.

[12] Yet even this answer does not provide a complete solution. Another question arises from it: How is it that these devices succeed so well in rousing men to such wild enthusiasm, even to sacrifice their lives? Only one answer is possible. Because man has within him a lust for hatred and destruction. In normal times this passion exists in a latent state, it emerges only in unusual circumstances; but it is a comparatively easy task to call it into play and raise it to the

{p. 4} power of a collective psychosis. Here lies, perhaps, the crux of all the complex factors we are considering, an enigma that only the expert in the lore of human instincts can resolve.

[13] And so we come to our last question. Is it possible to control man's mental evolution so as to make him proof against the psychosis of hate and destructiveness? Here I am thinking by no means only of the so-called uncultured masses. Experience proves that it is rather the so-called "intelligentsia" that is most apt to yield to these disastrous collective suggestions, since the intellectual has no direct contact with life in the raw but encounters it in its easiest, synthetic form--upon the printed page.

[14] To conclude: I have so far been speaking only of wars between nations; what are known as international conflicts. But I am well aware that the aggressive instinct operates under other forms and in other circumstances. (I am thinking of civil wars, for instance, due in earlier days to religious zeal, but nowadays to social factors; or, again, the persecution of racial minorities.) But my insistence on what is the most typical, most cruel and extravagant form of conflict between man and man was deliberate, for here we have the best occasion of discovering ways and means to render all armed conflicts impossible.

[15] I know that in your writings we may find answers, explicit or implied, to all the issues of this urgent and absorbing problem. But it would be of the greatest service to us all were you to present the problem of world peace in the light of your most recent discoveries, for such a presentation well might blaze the trail for new and fruitful modes of action. Yours very sincerely, A. Einstein

{editor's comment} Leon Steinig, a League of Nations official who did much to inspire this correspondence, wrote Einstein on September 12, 1932:{end of editor's comment}

[16] ... When I visited Professor Freud in Vienna, he asked me to thank you for your kind words and to tell you that he would do his best to explore the thorny problem of preventing war. He will have his answer ready by early October and he rather thinks that what he has to say will not be very encouraging. "All my life I have had to tell people truths that were difficult to swallow. Now that I am old, I certainly do not want to fool them." He was even doubtful whether [Henri] Bonnet [Director of the Institute of Intellectual Co-operation in Paris] would want to publish his pessimistic reply. ...

{editor's comment} Einstein replied to Steinig four days later saying that even if Freud's reply would be neither cheerful nor optimistic, it would certainly be interesting and psychologically effective. Freud's reply, dated Vienna, September 1932, has also never been given the attention it deserved:{end of editor's comment}

[17] Dear Mr. Einstein: When I learned of your intention to invite me to a mutual exchange of views upon a subject which not only interested you personally but seemed deserving, too, of public interest, I cordially assented. I expected you to choose a problem lying on the borderland of the knowable, as it stands today, a theme which each of us, physicist and psychologist, might approach from his own angle, to meet at last on common ground, though setting out from

{p. 5} different premises. Thus the question which you put me -- what is to be done to rid mankind of the war menace? -- took me by surprise. And, next, I was dumbfounded by the thought of my (of our, I almost wrote) incompetence; for this struck me as being a matter of practical politics, the statesman's proper study. But then I realized that you did not raise the question in your capacity of scientist or physicist, but as a lover of his fellow men, who responded to the call of the League of Nations much as Fridtjof Nansen, the polar explorer, took on himself the task of succoring homeless and starving victims of the World War. And, next, I reminded myself that I was not being called on to formulate practical proposals but, rather, to explain how this question of preventing wars strikes a psychologist.

[18] But here, too, you have stated the gist of the matter in your letter -- and taken the wind out of my sails! Still, I will gladly follow in your wake and content myself with endorsing your conclusions, which, however, I propose to amplify to the best of my knowledge or surmise.

[19] You begin with the relations between might and right, and this is assuredly the proper starting point for our inquiry. But, for the term might, I would substitute a tougher and more telling word: violence. In right and violence we have today an obvious antinomy. It is easy to prove that one has evolved from the other and, when we go back to origins and examine primitive conditions, the solution of the problem follows easily enough. I must crave your indulgence if in what follows I speak of well-known, admitted facts as though they were new data; the context necessitates this method.

[20] Conflicts of interest between man and man are resolved, in principle, by the recourse to violence. It is the same in the animal kingdom, from which man cannot claim exclusion; nevertheless, men are also prone to conflicts of opinion, touching, on occasion, the loftiest peaks of abstract thought, which seem to call for settlement by quite another method. This refinement is, however, a late development. To start with, group force was the factor which, in small communities, decided points of ownership and the question which man's will was to prevail. Very soon physical force was implemented, then replaced, by the use of various adjuncts; he proved the victor whose weapon was the better, or handled the more skillfully. Now, for the first time, with the coming of weapons, superior brains began to oust brute force, but the object of the conflict remained the same: one party was to be constrained, by the injury done him or impairment of his strength, to retract a claim or a refusal. This end is most effectively gained when the opponent is definitely put out of action -- in other words, is killed. This procedure has two advantages: the enemy cannot renew hostilities, and, secondly, his fate deters others from following his example. Moreover, the slaughter of a foe gratifies an instinctive craving -- a point to which we shall revert hereafter. However, another consideration may be set off against this will to kill: the possibility of using an enemy for servile tasks if his spirit be broken and his life spared. Here violence finds an outlet not in slaughter but in subjugation. Hence springs the practice of giving quarter; but the victor, having from now on to reckon with the craving for revenge that rankles in his victim, forfeits to some extent his personal security.

[21] Thus, under primitive conditions, it is superior force -- brute violence, or violence backed by arms -- that lords it everywhere. We know that in the course of evolution this state of things was modified, a path was traced that led away from violence to law. But what was this path? Surely it issued from a single verity: that the superiority of one strong man can be overborne by

{p. 6} an alliance of many weaklings, that l'union fait la force. Brute force is overcome by union; the allied might of scattered units makes good its right against the isolated giant. Thus we may define "right" (i.e., law) as the might of a community. Yet it, too, is nothing else than violence, quick to attack whatever individual stands in its path, and it employs the selfsame methods, follows like ends, with but one difference: it is the communal, not individual, violence that has its way. But, for the transition from crude violence to the reign of law, a certain psychological condition must first obtain. The union of the majority must be stable and enduring. If its sole raison d'etre be the discomfiture of some overweening individual and, after his downfall, it be dissolved, it leads to nothing. Some other man, trusting to his superior power, will seek to reinstate the rule of violence, and the cycle will repeat itself unendingly. Thus the union of the people must be permanent and well organized; it must enact rules to meet the risk of possible revolts; must set up machinery insuring that its rules -- the laws -- are observed and that such acts of violence as the laws demand are duly carried out. This recognition of a community of interests engenders among the members of the group a sentiment of unity and fraternal solidarity which constitutes its real strength.

[22] So far I have set out what seems to me the kernel of the matter: the suppression of brute force by the transfer of power to a larger combination, founded on the community of sentiments linking up its members. All the rest is mere tautology and glosses. Now the position is simple enough so long as the community consists of a number of equipollent individuals. The laws of such a group can determine to what extent the individual must forfeit his personal freedom, the right of using personal force as an instrument of violence, to insure the safety of the group. But such a combination is only theoretically possible; in practice the situation is always complicated by the fact that, from the outset, the group includes elements of unequal power, men and women, elders and children, and, very soon, as a result of war and conquest, victors and the vanquished -- i.e., masters and slaves -- as well. From this time on the common law takes notice of these inequalities of power, laws are made by and for the rulers, giving the servile classes fewer rights. Thenceforward there exist within the state two factors making for legal instability, but legislative evolution, too: first, the attempts by members of the ruling class to set themselves above the law's restrictions and, secondly, the constant struggle of the ruled to extend their rights and see each gain embodied in the code, replacing legal disabilities by equal laws for all. The second of these tendencies will be particularly marked when there takes place a positive mutation of the balance of power within the community, the frequent outcome of certain historical conditions. In such cases the laws may gradually be adjusted to the changed conditions or (as more usually ensues) the ruling class is loath to rush in with the new developments, the result being insurrections and civil wars, a period when law is in abeyance and force once more the arbiter, followed by a new regime of law. There is another factor of constitutional change, which operates in a wholly pacific manner, viz.: the cultural evolution of the mass of the community; this factor, however, is of a different order and an only be dealt with later.

[23] Thus we see that, even within the group itself, the exercise of violence cannot be avoided when conflicting interests are at stake. But the common needs and habits of men who live in fellowship under the same sky favor a speedy issue of such conflicts and, this being so, the possibilities of peaceful solutions make steady progress. Yet the most casual glance at world history will show an unending series of conflicts between one community and another or a group

{p. 7} of others, between large and smaller units, between cities, countries, races, tribes and kingdoms, almost all of which were settled by the ordeal of war. Such war ends either in pillage or in conquest and its fruits, the downfall of the loser. No single all-embracing judgment can be passed on these wars of aggrandizement. Some, like the war between the Mongols and the Turks, have led to unmitigated misery; others, however, have furthered the transition from violence to law, since they brought larger units into being, within whose limits a recourse to violence was banned and a new regime determined all disputes. Thus the Roman conquest brought that boon, the pax Romana, to the Mediterranean lands. The French kings' lust for aggrandizement created a new France, flourishing in peace and unity. Paradoxical as its sounds, we must admit that warfare well might serve to pave the way to that unbroken peace we so desire, for it is war that brings vast empires into being, within whose frontiers all warfare is proscribed by a strong central power. In practice, however, this end is not attained, for as a rule the fruits of victory are but short-lived, the new-created unit falls asunder once again, generally because there can be no true cohesion between the parts that violence has welded. Hitherto, moreover, such conquests have only led to aggregations which, for all their magnitude, had limits, and disputes between these units could be resolved only by recourse to arms. For humanity at large the sole result of all these military enterprises was that, instead of frequent, not to say incessant, little wars, they had now to face great wars which, for all they came less often, were so much the more destructive.

[24] Regarding the world of today the same conclusion holds good, and you, too, have reached it, though by a shorter path. There is but one sure way of ending war and that is the establishment, by common consent, of a central control which shall have the last word in every conflict of interests. For this, two things are needed: first, the creation of such a supreme court of judicature; secondly, its investment with adequate executive force. Unless this second requirement be fulfilled, the first is unavailing. Obviously the League of Nations, acting as a Supreme Court, fulfills the first condition; it does not fulfill the second. It has no force at its disposal and can only get it if the members of the new body, its constituent nations, furnish it. And, as things are, this is a forlorn hope. Still we should be taking a very shortsighted view of the League of Nations were we to ignore the fact that here is an experiment the like of which has rarely -- never before, perhaps, on such a scale -- been attempted in the course of history. It is an attempt to acquire the authority (in other words, coercive influence), which hitherto reposed exclusively in the possession of power, by calling into play certain idealistic attitudes of mind. We have seen that there are two factors of cohesion in a community: violent compulsion and ties of sentiment ("identifications," in technical parlance) between the members of the group. If one of these factors becomes inoperative, the other may still suffice to hold the group together. Obviously such notions as these can only be significant when they are the expression of a deeply rooted sense of unity, shared by all. It is necessary, therefore, to gauge the efficacy of such sentiments. History tells us that, on occasion, they have been effective. For example, the Panhellenic conception, the Greeks' awareness of superiority over their barbarian neighbors, which found expression in the Amphictyonies, the Oracles and Games, was strong enough to humanize the methods of warfare as between Greeks, though inevitably it failed to prevent conflicts between different elements of the Hellenic race or even to deter a city or group of cities from joining forces with their racial foe, the Persians, for the discomfiture of a rival. The solidarity of Christendom in the Renaissance age was no more effective, despite its vast

{p. 8} authority, in hindering Christian nations, large and small alike, from calling in the Sultan to their aid. And, in our times, we look in vain for some such unifying notion whose authority would be unquestioned. It is all too clear that the nationalistic ideas, paramount today in every country, operate in quite a contrary direction. Some there are who hold that the Bolshevist conceptions may make an end of war, but, as things are, that goal lies very far away and, perhaps, could only be attained after a spell of brutal internecine warfare. Thus it would seem that any effort to replace brute force by the might of an ideal is, under present conditions, doomed to fail. Our logic is at fault if we ignore the fact that right is founded on brute force and even today needs violence to maintain it.

[25] I now can comment on another of your statements. You are amazed that it is so easy to infect men with the war fever, and you surmise that man has in him an active instinct for hatred and destruction, amenable to such stimulations. I entirely agree with you. I believe in the existence of this instinct and have been recently at pains to study its manifestations. In this connection may I set out a fragment of that knowledge of the instincts, which we psychoanalysts, after so many tentative essays and gropings in the dark, have compassed? We assume that human instincts are of two kinds: those that conserve and unify, which we call "erotic" (in the meaning Plato gives to Eros in his Symposium), or else "sexual" (explicitly extending the popular connotation of "sex"); and, secondly, the instincts to destroy and kill, which we assimilate as the aggressive or destructive instincts. These are, as you perceive, the well known opposites, Love and Hate, transformed into theoretical entities; they are, perhaps, another aspect of those eternal polarities, attraction and repulsion, which fall within your province. But we must be chary of passing overhastily to the notions of good and evil. Each of these instincts is every whit as indispensable as its opposite, and all the phenomena of life derive from their activity, whether they work in concert or in opposition. It seems that an instinct of either category can operate but rarely in isolation; it is always blended ("alloyed," as we say) with a certain dosage of its opposite, which modifies its aim or even, in certain circumstances, is a prime condition of its attainment. Thus the instinct of self-preservation is certainly of an erotic nature, but to gain its end this very instinct necessitates aggressive action. In the same way the love instinct, when directed to a specific object, calls for an admixture of the acquisitive instinct if it is to enter into effective possession of that object. It is the difficulty of isolating the two kinds of instinct in their manifestations that has so long prevented us from recognizing them.

[26] If you will travel with me a little further on this road, you will find that human affairs are complicated in yet another way. Only exceptionally does an action follow on the stimulus of a single instinct, which is per se a blend of Eros and destructiveness. As a rule several motives of similar composition concur to bring about the act. This fact was duly noted by a colleague of yours, Professor G. C. Lichtenberg, sometime Professor of Physics at Gottingen; he was perhaps even more eminent as a psychologist than as a physical scientist. He evolved the notion of a "Compass-card of Motives" and wrote: "The efficient motives impelling man to act can be classified like the thirty-two winds and described in the same manner; e.g., Food-Food-Fame or Fame-Fame-Food." Thus, when a nation is summoned to engage in war, a whole gamut of human motives may respond to this appeal -- high and low motives, some openly avowed, others slurred over. The lust for aggression and destruction is certainly included; the innumerable cruelties of history and man's daily life confirm its prevalence and strength. The stimulation of these destructive impulses by appeals to idealism and the erotic instinct naturally facilitate their

{p. 9} release. Musing on the atrocities recorded on history's page, we feel that the ideal motive has often served as a camouflage for the dust of destruction; sometimes, as with the cruelties of the Inquisition, it seems that, while the ideal motives occupied the foreground of consciousness, they drew their strength from the destructive instincts submerged in the unconscious. Both interpretations are feasible.

[26] You are interested, I know, in the prevention of war, not in our theories, and I keep this fact in mind. Yet I would like to dwell a little longer on this destructive instinct which is seldom given the attention that its importance warrants. With the least of speculative efforts we are led to conclude that this instinct functions in every living being, striving to work its ruin and reduce life to its primal state of inert matter. Indeed, it might well be called the "death instinct"; whereas the erotic instincts vouch for the struggle to live on. The death instinct becomes an impulse to destruction when, with the aid of certain organs, it directs its action outward, against external objects. The living being, that is to say, defends its own existence by destroying foreign bodies. But, in one of its activities, the death instinct is operative within the living being and we have sought to trace back a number of normal and pathological phenomena to this introversion of the destructive instinct. We have even committed the heresy of explaining the origin of human conscience by some such "turning inward" of the aggressive impulse. Obviously when this internal tendency operates on too large a scale, it is no trivial matter; rather, a positively morbid state of things; whereas the diversion of the destructive impulse toward the external world must have beneficial effects. Here is then the biological justification for all those vile, pernicious propensities which we are nowcombating. We can but own that they are really more akin to nature than this our stand against them, which, in fact, remains to be accounted for.

[27] All this may give you the impression that our theories amount to species of mythology and a gloomy one at that! But does not every natural science lead ultimately to this -- a sort of mythology? Is it otherwise today with your physical sciences?

[28] The upshot of these observations, as bearing on the subject in hand, is that there is no likelihood of our being able to suppress humanity's aggressive tendencies. In some happy corners of the earth, they say, where nature brings forth abundantly whatever man desires, there flourish races whose lives go gently by; unknowing of aggression or constraint. This I can hardly credit; I would like further details about these happy folk. The Bolshevists, too, aspire to do away with human aggressiveness by insuring the satisfaction of material needs and enforcing equality between man and man. To me this hope seems vain. Meanwhile they busily perfect their armaments, and their hatred of outsiders is not the least of the factors of cohesion among themselves. In any case, as you too have observed, complete suppression of man's aggressive tendencies is not in issue; what we may try is to divert it into a channel other than that of warfare.

[29] From our "mythology" of the instincts we may easily deduce a formula for an indirect method of eliminating war. If the propensity for war be due to the destructive instinct, we have always its counter-agent, Eros, to our hand. All that produces ties of sentiment between man and man must serve us as war's antidote. These ties are of two kinds. First, such relations as those toward a beloved object, void though they be of sexual intent. The psychoanalyst need feel no compunction in mentioning "love" in this connection; religion uses the same language:

{p. 10} Love thy neighbor as thyself. A pious injunction, easy to enounce, but hard to carry out! The other bond of sentiment is by way of identification. All that brings out the significant resemblances between men calls into play this feeling of community, identification, whereon is founded, in large measure, the whole edifice of human society.

[30] In your strictures on the abuse of authority I find another suggestion for an indirect attack on the war impulse. That men are divided into the leaders and the led is but another manifestation of their inborn and irremediable inequality. The second class constitutes the vast majority; they need a high command to make decisions for them, to which decisions they usually bow without demur. In this context we would point out that men should be at greater pains than heretofore to form a superior class of independent thinkers, unamenable to intimidation and fervent in the quest of truth, whose function it would be to guide the masses dependent on their lead. There is no need to point out how little the rule of politicians and the Church's ban on liberty of thought encourage such a new creation. The ideal conditions would obviously be found in a community where every man subordinated his instinctive life to the dictates of reason. Nothing less than this could bring about so thorough and so durable a union between men, even if this involved the severance of mutual ties of sentiment. But surely such a hope is utterly utopian, as things are. The other indirect methods of preventing war are certainly more feasible, but entail no quick results. They conjure up an ugly picture of mills that grind so slowly that, before the flour is ready, men are dead of hunger.

[31] As you see, little good comes of consulting a theoretician, aloof from worldly contact, on practical and urgent problems! Better it were to tackle each successive crisis with means that we have ready to our hands. However, I would like to deal with a question which, though it is not mooted in your letter, interests me greatly. Why do we, you and I and many another, protest so vehemently against war, instead of just accepting it as another of life's odious importunities? For it seems a natural thing enough, biologically sound and practically unavoidable. I trust you will not be shocked by my raising such a question. For the better conduct of an inquiry it may be well to don a mask of feigned aloofness. The answer to my query may run as follows: Because every man has a right over his own life and war destroys lives that were full of promise; it forces the individual into situations that shame his manhood, obliging him to murder fellow men, against his will; it ravages material amenities, the fruits of human toil, and much besides. Moreover, wars, as now conducted, afford no scope for acts of heroism according to the old ideals and, given the high perfection of modern arms, war today would mean the sheer extermination of one of the combatants, if not of both. This is so true, so obvious, that we can but wonder why the conduct of war is not banned by general consent. Doubtless either of the points I have just made is open to debate. It may be asked if the community, in its turn, cannot claim a right over the individual lives of its members. Moreover, all forms of war cannot be indiscriminately condemned; so long as there are nations and empires, each prepared callously to exterminate its rival, all alike must be equipped for war. But we will not dwell on any of these problems; they lie outside the debate to which you have invited me. I pass on to another point, the basis, as it strikes me, of our common hatred of war. It is this: We cannot do otherwise than hate it. Pacifists we are, since our organic nature wills us thus to be. Hence it comes easy to us to find arguments that justify our standpoint.

[32] This point, however, calls for elucidation. Here is the way in which I see it. The cultural

{p. 11} development of mankind (some, I know, prefer to call it civilization) has been in progress since immemorial antiquity. To this processus we owe all that is best in our composition, but also much that makes for human suffering. Its origins and causes are obscure, its issue is uncertain, but some of its characteristics are easy to perceive. It well may lead to the extinction of mankind, for it impairs the sexual function in more than one respect, and even today the uncivilized races and the backward classes of all nations are multiplying more rapidly than the cultured elements. This process may, perhaps, be likened to the effects of domestication on certain animals -- it clearly involves physical changes of structure -- but the view that cultural development is an organic process of this order has not yet become generally familiar. The psychic changes which accompany this process of cultural change are striking, and not to be gainsaid. They consist in the progressive rejection of instinctive ends and a scaling down of instinctive reactions. Sensations which delighted our forefathers have become neutral or unbearable to us; and, if our ethical and aesthetic ideals have undergone a change, the causes of this are ultimately organic. On the psychological side two of the most important phenomena of culture are, firstly, a strengthening of the intellect, which tends to master our instinctive life, and, secondly, an introversion of the aggressive impulse, with all its consequent benefits and perils. Now war runs most emphatically counter to the psychic disposition imposed on us by the growth of culture; we are therefore bound to resent war, to find it utterly intolerable. With pacifists like us it is not merely an intellectual and affective repulsion, but a constitutional intolerance, an idiosyncrasy in its most drastic form. And it would seem that the aesthetic ignominies of warfare play almost as large a part in this repugnance as war's atrocities.

[33] How long have we to wait before the rest of men turn pacifist? Impossible to say, and yet perhaps our hope that these two factors -- man's cultural disposition and a well-founded dread of the form that future wars will take -- may serve to put an end to war in the near future, is not chimerical. But by what ways or byways this will come about, we cannot guess. Meanwhile we may rest on the assurance that whatever makes for cultural development is working also against war.

[34] With kindest regards and, should this expose prove a disappointment to you, my sincere regrets, Yours, SIGMUND FREUD

{editor's comment} Einstein was apparently not disappointed when Freud's reply was received. He addressed the following letter to Freud on December 3, 1932:{end of editor's comment}

[35] You have made a most gratifying gift to the League of Nations and myself with your truly classic reply. When I wrote you I was thoroughly convinced of the insignificance of my role, which was only meant to document my good will, with me as the bait on the hoof; to tempt the marvelous fish into nibbling. You have given in return something altogether magnificent. We cannot know what may grow from such seed, as the effect upon man of any action or event is always incalculable. This is not within our power and we do not need to worry aboutit.


{p. 12} You have earned my gratitude and the gratitude of all men for having devoted all your strength to the search for truth and for having shown the rarestcourage in professing your convictions all your life. ...

{editor's comment} By the time the exchange between Einstein and Freud was published in 1933, under the title Why War?, Hitler, who was to drive both men into exile, was already in power, and the letters never achieved the wide circulation intended for them. Indeed, the first German edition of the pamphlet is reported to have been limited to only 2,000 copies, as was also the original English edition. Besides the four major projects in 1932 that were just recorded, some of the messages, replies to inquiries, and similar statements which Einstein prepared during that same period give evidence of the increasing political tensions of those days. On April 20, 1932, he submitted to the Russian-language journal Nord-Ost, published in Riga, Latvia (then still an independent country), a contribution to a symposium on "Europe and the Coming War":{end of editor's comment}

[37] As long as all international conflicts are not subject to arbitration and the enforcement of decisions arrived at by arbitration is not guaranteed, and as long as war production is not prohibited we may be sure that war will follow upon war. Unless our civilization achieves the moral strength to overcome this evil, it is bound to share the fate of former civilizations: decline and decay.

{editor's comment} To Arnold Kalisch, editor of the magazine Die Friedensfront, who asked him to sponsor a book against war by a Czechoslovakian physician, Einstein wrote on April 26, 1932:{end of editor's comment}

[38] No doubt you know how anxious I am to support anything that could effectively help combat the militaristic orientation of the public. But I have reservations ... about this book. If war psychosis could be regarded as an illness like, say, paranoia, then any panic in a meeting would likewise have to be considered a sickness. It appears to be quite normal for people to raiselittle resistance to the emotional attitude of their fellow human beings. ... In the case of war, to describe the psychosis that may then exist as an illness does not bring us one single step closer to solving the problem of wars. ...

{endnote} * (In speaking of the majority I do not exclude soldiers of every rank who have chosen war as their profession, in the belief that they are serving to defend thehighest interests of their race, and that attack is often the best method of defense.) back to text {end of endnote}

{end of text}

Each man's universalism was ruined by his own chauvinism.

Freud defined Christianity as a mental illness, but not Judaism: freud.html.

Einstein's Zionism undid his claim to universalism.

Freud was right about the interplay of instincts: the need for a particularist identification amounted to an endorsement of violence in Palestine (Freud's destructive instinct), which undid their universalism (love  instinct).

I venture further: that the particularist goals of Judaism (Eretz Israel, i.e. "restoration" of Solomon's Kingdom and Temple: tmf.html) undermine the universalist goals of Judaism (world unity). The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin showed that Jews have to choose between the two emphases; and since then, they appear to have chosen "Greater Israel" over "World Peace".

(10) (for comparison) Isaac Newton a plagiarist

This is G o o g l e's cache of

A Short Biography of Isaac Newton

Isaac Newton (1642-1727) British occultist and plagiarist.

Reversed the scientific revolution started by Galileo. Reintroduced scholastic virtues, sympathies, antipathies, action-at-a distance, hidden properties and occult qualities into physics.

Blemished the science of geometry by introducing the method of proof by authority. He used his self-created mythical image as "the mortal closest to Gods" to enforce his geometrical non-proofs.

Stole four major theories:

From Descartes: He stole and restated verbatim Descartes' law of inertia and renamed it Newton's first law of motion.

Every body
As far as in its power
Always remains in the same state

Each thing
As far as it is compelled
Preserves its state

From Huygens: He stole Huygens' law of momentum conservation and renamed it Newton's Third Law.

From Kepler: He stole Kepler's Third Law and rewrote it as two Newton's laws: Newton's law of gravity and Newton's second law.

From Horrocks: He stole Horrocks' lunar theory. After realizing that his own occult hallucinations of force and mass failed to explain the motions of the moon, he took Horrocks' model based on trigonometric series expansions and renamed it Newton's lunar theory.

Newton did not derive his lunar theory from "dynamical principles (as [he] was to allege in the second edition of the Principia)" I. B. Cohen

Ahmet Gorgun June 2002 {end}

(11) Einstein on Spinoza as formulator of pantheistic Judaism

Einstein regarded Spinoza as the formulator of a new version of the Jewish religion - pantheistic Judaism - which he adopted as his own.

He wrote, "... The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another." More at spinoza-pantheism.html.


(12) Relativity Fraud: The Complicity of Historians and Philosophers

Sepp Hasslberger

Although Einstein's relativity has taken the world by storm, there have been - for a decade or so - an increasing number of voices that pointed out all is not well in the relative world of physics.

Italian professor of mathematics Umberto Bartocci has collected and made available some of those criticisms on his site <> and in his publication "Episteme" <>. Gene Mallove, founder of "Infinite Energy" magazine <> has produced a whole issue on Einstein and the myth of relativity before his tragic death by assassination. Here is Mallove's editorial "The Einstein Myths - Of Space, Time, and Aether" <>. A discussion of Einstein and the implications of his theories can also be found on my other site (Health Supreme <>) under the title "New Physics: Debating Einstein, Matter, Time and Space" <>.

Jim Hodges from Australia has sent me another contribution to the discussion. He examines the responsibilities of historians and philosophers of science in what appears to be a major re-direct of our scientific endeavors into a blind alley that seems to be leading nowhere in terms of a real understanding of the universe.

Let me add here that I realize that there are many Einstein critics, and even though I have heard from many of you before, I could not necessarily include you all in this short introduction to the Jim Hodges article. There is a facility at the end of this page to leave a comment, perhaps linking your own site or some place where your views can be accessed, if any of you desire to do so.

- - -


Jim Hodges

Jim Hodges' serious interest in fundamental physics began in 1994 when he realized that a dissident physicist correspondent was correct in his contention that special relativity is the manifestation of a serious scientific and cultural scandal. Jim is a member of ISAA, the Ether Drift Club, the Natural Philosophy Alliance, and the Australian Institute of Physics.

One hundred and three years ago a radical new theory of physics emerged in Europe. This was a legitimate theory but was disliked by physicists because it implied that the universe is the result of benevolent design. Five years later there arose a fraudulent version of the legitimate theory which eliminated the spookiness yet was observationally identical to the legitimate theory. Physicists championed the fraudulent version, and historians and philosophers of science rallied to the cause with a false history of physics to fool the masses, and a false philosophy of science to fool themselves.

The origin of the relativity fraud

The story began with five startling new insights about the nature of things:   

   In 1818, Fresnel, a French engineer, used experiments with polarized light to infer that light is a shear wave in a solid elastic medium[1].

   In 1873, Maxwell, a Scottish physicist, used electromagnetic theory to infer that this medium encompasses the universe[2], and because of its high rigidity, conveys the shear waves at 300 000 km/sec.

   In 1889, Fitzgerald, an Irish theorist, showed by analysis that the charged particles in solid matter bunch up in their direction of motion through the electromagnetic medium[3].

   In 1897, Larmor, an English physicist, showed by analysis that the rate of physical processes in ether motion slows down by the same proportion as the Fitzgerald contraction of matter[4].

   In 1900, Poincare, a French mathematician, used Fresnel, Maxwell, Fitzgerald and Larmor to conclude that all attempts to detect one's ether motion are frustrated by the slowing of clocks, the contraction of matter, and other self compensating mechanisms[5].

There are now 65 years of experimental tests which confirm this 19th century ether theory is correct. But the reaction of early 20th century physicists to this revolutionary new ether was to keep its implications under wraps and wish it would go away:

  Physicists had been proud of the accuracy of their measurements of length and time, but now it was theorized that their chronometers were running slow by varying amounts, due to the Earth's motion through the ether, and it was held that their metre rules contracted when pointed in the direction of that motion.

   Physicists had believed in nature as a collection of mathematical laws, but now it was conjectured that all natural phenomena were disturbances in a big ether blob which is a finely crafted made object with ingenious mechanical properties to eliminate all sign of one's motion through that blob.

   After Darwin[6], most physicists had embraced a meaningless universe in which consciousness is a quirky byproduct of natural selection, but ether theory implied that consciousness is a manifestation of the psychic properties of the ether, designed in from the word go.

And so in 1905 the scene was set for a scientific fraudster. Albert Einstein had scraped through his physics course by the barest margin and was unemployable as an academic. But Albert wrote On the electrodynamics of moving bodies[7] with a view to 'solving' the crisis that physicists found themselves in:

   On the assumption that ether motion cannot be detected, Einstein reasoned that there was nothing to stop an observer pretending to be at rest in his own imaginary ether, and nothing to stop him pretending that his light signals travel at 300 000 km/sec in that make believe ether.

   Even better, Einstein realized that if one pretended that one's clock and measuring stick were unslowed and uncontracted, one would mismeasure relatively moving clocks and objects as being slow and foreshortened, just as if one's imaginary ether were real.        But since having countless observers pretending to be in relatively moving interpenetrating ethers was silly, this gave Einstein the excuse he wanted to get rid of all ethers, real and imagined, by redefining them as 'frames of reference'.

   Finally, Einstein

   (1) renamed the pretence that all observers' clocks and measuring sticks are unslowed and uncontracted, the 'relativity principle',

   (2) renamed the pretence that light speed is constant for all observers, the 'light principle', and

   (3) derived the relativity equations, using high school algebra, from the pretend principles.

Einstein got his paper published in Germany's leading physics journal, and eminent physicists, but not Poincare, soon warmed to Albert's theory, regardless of its obvious fraudulence:

   Physicists loved the prospect of having their clocks and rulers once again keeping the correct time and measuring the correct length - in future, with Einstein's theory, slow running clocks and contracted matter would only happen to the other relatively moving guy.

   Physicists loved the reinstatement of nature as mathematical law, and they loved saying goodbye to nature as a vibrating blob of supra-natural ether.

   With the return to a universe of empty space and clumps of matter, physicists could reassert their hegemony concerning the evolution and origin of the universe, and could once again dismiss the mystics and God botherers.

By 1907 senior physicists had decided that to make relativity respectable, Einstein had to be got out of the patent office into a university post. Einstein's luck continued when Minkowski, his old maths teacher, turned Albert's equations into rigorous space-time[8], and almost immediately died. Also fortuitous was the premature death of Poincare in 1912.   

Einstein had another lucky break when as physics professor in WW1 Berlin he was able to plagiarize the covariant gravity equations[9] which he promptly renamed 'general relativity'. Then in 1919, following eclipse observations of starlight bending, English physicists went public with the news that Newtonian gravity had been modified by a German genius.

General relativity was beyond all but twelve people, the papers said, but readers were told that Einstein's earlier 'special relativity' stated there was no ether, and that space and time were relative to the speed of the observer. The novelty of this space-time was a welcome distraction from post war austerity, and the public demanded to know what it all meant.

How the History & Philosophy of Science people duped the masses

Now was the moment for a philosopher-mathematician with an in depth knowledge of physics to put the public straight. Bertrand Russell should have made the following statement:

   As a positivist and agnostic I am sympathetic to any legitimate attempt to dispense with ether, but Einstein's version of Poincare is a travesty which must be rejected.   

   Philosophers will await confirmation of 19th century ether theory with trepidation, for such confirmation will point to the existence of an omnipresent cosmic mind.

Russell made no such statement - on the contrary he wrote The A.B.C. of Relativity[10] endorsing the Einstein fraud to the masses. Relativity took the world by storm, carried forward by a flood of popular articles and books written by historians and philosophers purporting to show that Einstein relativity was the climax of centuries of research.

This physics mythtery goes as follows:

   After Copernicus, Galileo hit upon the concept of relativity when he noted that dynamic phenomena in a ship's cabin are the same, irrespective of whether the ship is docked or sailing on a smooth sea.

   Newton, being a theologian, retained 'absolute rest', but accepted that the laws of dynamics are the same, regardless of the speed of the laboratory.

   Regrettably, in the 19th century the idea of a physically meaningful absolute rest arose with the belief in an electromagnetic medium.

   Michelson, the American experimentalist, attempted to measure the Earth's speed through this medium by comparing two light beams reflected from the ends of a right angle[11], and Fitzgerald made the ad hoc suggestion that the experiment was null because the arm pointing in the direction of the ether motion had contracted.

   This bizarre hypothesis put physics into a spin, but a brilliant young patent clerk came to the rescue by showing that Michelson's experiment had failed because there is no ether, and because it is a law of nature that light speed is constant in all directions for everyone.

   Starting with the eclipse observations in 1919, Einstein relativity has passed every test - for example the recently set up global positioning system depends on the speed of radio signals being constant with respect to an observer at the North Pole, and depends on the GPS satellite atomic clocks running slow due to their speed relative to that observer, just as Einstein predicted in 1905.

    In 2003 we live in an Einstein universe in which all motion is relative, and where the laws of nature are the same for all observers regardless of their speed - a vindication of Galileo, and a rebuttal of Newton's absolute space and time.

The distortions and lies in this mythtery are too numerous to list in full, but two require mention:

   The mythtery omits that Einstein relativity is a reinterpretation of Poincare ether theory - the purpose of this omission is to prevent people asking if the reinterpretation was in fact a misinterpretation.

   The mythtery retains science as an evidence based search for ultimate reality, whereas post classical science has been redefined as no such thing - the purpose of this deception is to prevent people asking if the redefinition is justified.

But because the masses lack access to the facts, historians and philosophers find that deceiving them is easy.   

How the Histroy & Philosophy of Science people duped themselves

We now come to the question of how historians and philosophers, not ignorant of the facts, manage to deceive themselves.   

In 2003 historians and philosophers of science form an academic discipline, and the most prestigious specialty in that discipline is The History and Philosophy of Space-time. Space-time historians and philosophers are knowledgeable about biographical minutiae, not excluding Einstein's boast that his special relativity was all made up, was based on arbitrary stipulations, and was opportunistic in motivation! So the wonder is that space-time philosophers have found it possible to legitimize relativity - however where there is a will there is a way.

The first step in this process has been to claim that the truth seeking agenda of pre-20th century physics was hubristic - far better, say the space-time people, to pursue the achievable project of devising math formulae which account for no more than what is actually observed. By such argument the relativity fraud is construed as the rational way to do physics which avoids foolhardy conjectures, like the 19th century light/matter/mind medium.

The second step in this process of ultimate-reality avoidance is to draw an analogy between the Copernican revolution and the Einstein fraud. In his book, The Copernican Revolution[12], Thomas Kuhn, the American historian and philosopher of science, set out to show that the triumph of Copernicus, contrary to conventional wisdom, had nothing to do with the truth value of his theory:

   Copernicus became dissatisfied on aesthetic grounds with the equants that had to be used to improve the predictions of the Ptolemaic model, so for the sake of simplicity Copernicus revived the heliocentric model of Aristarchus[13].

   But Tycho Brahe, a Dutch astronomer, devised a model mathematically equivalent to the Copernican model, in which the planets revolve around the Sun, but in which the Sun revolves around an immobile Earth[14].

   Since it was impossible to determine by experiment or observation whether the Copernican or Brahean model was correct, other ways had to be found to decide between them.

   The issue was resolved when Newton discovered that for the Copernican model the same laws of gravity and dynamics could be used, terrestrially and astronomically, but this 'cosmological principle' could not be used with the Tycho Brahe model.

As with Copernicus, so also with Einstein, claim the space-time philosophers:

  Poincare became dissatisfied with Maxwell's electrodynamics being tied to ether rest, yet Newton''s dynamics applied to any reference frame.

  Therefore Poincare devised transformations using local time and distance to get the electrodynamic equations to apply to any frame[15].

   Then Einstein devised a model, mathematically equivalent to the Poincare model, in which local time and distance were replaced by space-time.

   There was no possible experiment or observation to determine which model was correct, however Einstein in philosopher mode showed the space-time model is preferable because it unifies all the laws of nature under the relativity principle, something not possible in the Poincare model.

The lesson that space-time philosophers draw from the Copernicus/Einstein historical analogy is that all scientific knowledge is tentative, and that ultimately science boils down to the arbitrary choice, by experts, between competing models of the natural world. But was Kuhn correct in denying the possibility of proclaiming the Copernican model as true and the Tycho Brahe model as false? Not really:

   In 1851 Foucault, a French physicist, noticed that a large pendulum kept its swing orientation with respect to the stars, whilst the Earth turned beneath[16].

   Then in 1977 Muller, an American physicist, measured the blue shift of the cosmic background radiation, and noticed that the Earth has an absolute speed of 400 km/sec in the direction of Leo in December, and a speed of only 340 km/sec in June[17].  

Which is to say, the Foucault pendulum shows the Earth is spinning, not still, and the cosmic background blue shift shows the Earth is revolving around the Sun, not the other way around.

The Kuhnians demonstrate ignorance and/or dishonesty of a high order when they refuse to recognize this rebuttal of Tycho Brahe and vindication of Copernicus, a scientific fact that will never be subject to revision. Finally, and contrary to the space-time philosophers, a definitive choice can be made between Poincare ether theory and Einstein relativity, in this case by the use of thought experiment:

   In 1998 the Ether Drift Club (EDC) extended a 1967 technique by Lord Halsbury[18] to transfer distance as well as clock time between relatively moving measuring sticks, and noticed that Einstein relativity of simultaneity is a mathematical impossibility[19].   

   Then in 2003 the EDC scaled up a spinning orbiting clock experiment[20] to astronomical size and noticed that the speed of light is 300 000 km/sec with respect to the cosmic background frame, and is additive to the absolute speed of the observer[21].

Which is to say, the Halsbury-EDC thought experiment shows simultaneity is absolute, not relative, and the EDC-clock thought experiment shows that light is a classical wave in a cosmic medium, not a photon in space-time.

Future students of the history and philosophy of science will marvel at the complicity of their 20th century counterparts in the relativity fraud. And when they come to write their theses they will make special mention of early 21st century institutional resistance to nature's rebuttal of Einstein, and vindication of Poincare, via thought experiments which any fool could understand once free of the secular humanist zeitgeist. ___

1 A. Fresnel, Ann. de Chim. et de Phys. 9 , 57 (1818)

2 J.C.Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Clarendon Press, Oxford(1891)

3 G.F. Fitzgerald, Science 13, 390 (1889)

4 J.Larmor, Phil Trans. Roy. Soc. London 190, 205 (1897)

5 H.Poincare, Arch Neerlandaies 5, 253 (1900)

6 C.R.Darwin, Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859)

7 A.Einstein, Ann. Physik 17, 891 (1905)

8 H.Minkowski, Space and Time (1908), in The Principle of Relativity, Dover, London (1952)

9 C.J.Bjerknes, Albert Einstein, The Incorrigible Plagiarist, XTX Inc., Illinois, USA (2002)

10 B.A.W.Russell, The A.B.C. of Relativity, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London

11 A.A.Michelson and E.W.Morley, Am.J.Sci. 34, 333 (1887)

12 T.Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought, Harvard Uni Press (1956)

13 N.Copernicus, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (1543)

14 T.Brahe, Earth immovable, but planets revolve around Sun (1590)

15 H.Poincare, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 140, 1504 (1905)

16 J.B.L.Foucault, pendulum demo in Paris (1851)

17 R.A.Muller, The Cosmic Background Radiation and the New Ether Drift, Scientific American (May 1978)

18 Lord A. Halsbury, Transfer of clock time, re. twin paradox, communicated to G.B.Brown (1967)

19 J.N.Hodges, Demystification and disproof of special relativity,  Ether Drift Club (1998)

20 M.Ruderfer, First order ether drift experiment using Mossbauer radiation, Physical review letters, Vol 5, No 3, Sep. 1, Pp 191-192 (1960)

21 J.N.Hodges, The determination of the one way speed of light by extrapolation from the spinning Mossbauer experiment, and its implications, The Occasional Papers of the Independent Scholars Association of Australia (Victorian Chapter), Vol 2, No 1 (May 2003)  

See also:

WHERE DR. EINSTEIN WENT WRONG Finding the Virtual Velocity of Light, Solving the Mystery of the Failed Michelson-Morley Experiment

Einstein's E=mc2 'was Italian's idea'

Where is the Special Relativity Train Taking its Scientific and Religious Believers? - Part I by Mary-Sue Haliburton - Pure Energy Systems News The debate over Special Relativity takes us into a morass of religious fears and beliefs, and financial and psychological compulsion. Is there a way out?


A theory of Einstein the irrational plagiarist The fact that Einstein was a plagiarist is common knowledge in the physics community. What isn't so well-known is that the sources Einstein parroted were also largely unoriginal. In 1919, writing in the Philosophical Magazine Harry Bateman, a British mathematician and physicist who had emigrated to the United States, unsuccessfully sought acknowledgment of his work.

"The appearance of Dr Silberstein's recent article on General Relativity without the Equivalence Hypothesis encourages me to restate my own views on the subject," Bateman wrote.

"I am perhaps entitled to do this as my work on the subject of general relativity was published before that of Einstein and Kottler, and appears to have been overlooked by recent writers."

The Eclipse Data From 1919: The Greatest Hoax in 20th Century Science (PDF) Moody -Eclipse_Data_From_1919.pdf By Richard Moody Jr.

Abstract: Prior to 1919, general relativity was an obscure theory by a rising star in physics, Albert Einstein. Based on the perceived need to test this complex and intriguing concept, it was held as gospel that the sunlight passing by the sun should be bent by the gravitational attraction of the sun, something known to Sir Isaac Newton and modified by Einstein. According to prevailing wisdom, this should be observable during a total solar eclipse when the shielding of the sun's light permitted the observation of light from distant stars being "bent" around the sun.

In an effort to play the role of peacemaker and kingmaker, Arthur Eddington traveled to Principe in Africa with the express purpose of proving Einstein right. Prior to that, he was an advocate for Einstein, due, in part, to the fact that both men shared the same political beliefs, Pacifism. In his zeal to be both peacemaker and kingmaker (Eddington wanted to be known as the man who discovered Einstein), Eddington engaged in corruption and derogation of the scientific data, the scientific method, and much of the scientific community. To this day, this completely manufactured data set is quoted by prominent scientists and the organs of publication. It surpasses the Piltdown Fraud as the greatest hoax of 20th and 21st Century science.

Posted by Sepp on March 19, 2006 1:41 PM


Breaking Through Editorial: The Einstein Myths - Of Space, Time, and Aether

Originally Published July-August, 2001 In Infinite Energy Magazine, Issue #38 by Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D.

Einstein, the most celebrated scientist of the twentieth century, remains an icon of the power of human reason to penetrate mysterious nature. For billions of people who have been taught the essence of his relativity theories, he changed (or muddled) their very conceptions of time and space. He destroyed the common sense concept of a universal now - the absolute simultaneity of events in different relatively moving reference frames. Physicists grant Einstein full credit for having abolished, at least while his influence has reigned, the pervading "luminiferous aether," which was the medium for the transmission of light waves - universally accepted in the nineteenth century.

Will Einstein's stature extend far into the twenty-first century? Not likely. Enduring will be his justified fame for:

1) explaining the Brownian movement (the visible jostling of particles in liquid suspension from molecular buffeting), which effectively ended the debate about the existence of atoms;

2) his quantum explanation of the photoelectric effect (for which he won the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics); and

3) his well-known social conscience and beliefs in what has been called "cosmic religion." He is also justly famous for his extreme displeasure with the probabilistic underpinnings of quantum mechanics. ("The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice." - from a 1926 Einstein letter to Max Born).

But believers in Einstein's infallibility will be lucky if the physicist's relativity theories survive beyond 2005, the 100th anniversary of his so-called annus mirabilis (1905), the year in which his Special Theory of Relativity and two other major works were published in Germany's Annalen der Physik.

For all their apparent predictive power, Einstein's relativity theories are deeply flawed, as the critical papers in this first of two Infinite Energy special "Einstein Reconsidered" issues will demonstrate formally. Einstein criticism is, of course, not new. (We are obviously not referring to Nazi-inspired, anti-Semitic tracts against relativity that were published in the 1920s, which disparaged his relativity theory as "Jewish science" or worse.) There are many sources of technical critiques of Einstein's work, such as the dissident journals Galilean Electrodynamics,1 Physics Essays,2 Apeiron,3 Journal of New Energy,4 etc., as well as books by thoughtful critics: Harold Aspden,5 Petr Beckmann,6 Peter and Neal Graneau,7 Ronald Hatch,8 Herbert Ives,9 Thomas Phipps, Jr.,10 and Franco Selleri,11 to name but a few. There is even an organization, the Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA),12 which holds regional and national meetings devoted to critiquing modern physics, especially Einsteinian relativity. This community of dissidents and publications has been completely ignored by a self-satisfied Physics Establishment, which preserves its power and prestige, in part by mystifying veritable "scientific saints," such as Einstein and Stephen Hawking.

What is very new in Einstein criticism, however, is a body of emerging experimental evidence for an energetic aether, which could be tapped to run electrical machines and generate anomalous heat. Actually, it is the re-emergence of this evidence for an energetic aether after it was rejected by officialdom in the 1940s and 1950s. Also, a handful of theorists have come to believe that aether-based models of subatomic structures are necessary to explain the anomalies in the cold fusion/low-energy nuclear reaction field. The last issue of Infinite Energy featured the landmark article by Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa, "The Reproducible Thermal Anomaly of the Reich-Einstein Experiment Under Limit Conditions" (p. 12). This told of Albert Einstein's inappropriate explaining-away of an important thermal anomaly associated with Faraday cages (metal boxes) after the phenomenon was brought to his attention in early 1941 by Wilhelm Reich. If this and related electrical anomalies evidencing mass free charge from an energetic aether are real, as I for one am reasonably sure they are, then it is clear that the standard conceptions of physics, particularly Einstein's relativity theories, cannot be correct. This, despite their elegant foundation in only a few postulates, such as the relativity principle relating specifically to electromagnetism (which Einstein borrowed from Henri Poincaré) and the supposed constancy of the speed of light in vacuum with respect to any observer, which was his own invention.

Einstein's Doubts

Einstein himself at various times had expressed doubts about the edifice of modern physics that he had helped to create - witness the remarks that follow. Perhaps his most serious expression of doubt came in a 1954 letter, the year before he died, to his friend Michel Besso: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e. on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, and of the rest of modern physics."13 Biographer Abraham Pais hastens to excuse this slip from contemporary certainty about relativity theory, claiming that virtually all physicists think that this self-assessment at the end of Einstein's life was "unreasonably harsh." But just a few years earlier (1948), in an introduction to a popularized book about relativity, Einstein was also circumspect about physics, in a more general sense: ". . .the growth of our factual knowledge, together with the striving for a unified theoretical conception comprising all empirical data, has led to the present situation which is characterized - notwithstanding all successes - by an uncertainty concerning the choice of basic theoretical concepts."14

In my estimation, Einstein was a person much more cautious about dogmatic expression than those who have claimed invincibility for his relativity theories. In a letter to J. Lee in 1945, Einstein wrote: "A scientific person will never understand why he should believe opinions only because they are written in a certain book. Furthermore, he will never believe that the results of his own attempts are final."15

On the other hand, Dr. James DeMeo has unearthed ambiguities in Einstein's reaction to the threatening experimental results from Dr. Dayton C. Miller, who in June 1933 published in Reviews of Modern Physics, "The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth."16 In the present issue, DeMeo (p. 72) provides an outstanding critique of the Miller work and its apparently glib rejection by others, such as Einstein's biographers, who dismiss Miller's work outright. Though Miller's extensive experimental work is not crucial to Einstein criticism, Einstein's and others' reaction to it is very telling.

Canonization Ian McCausland, in "Anomalies in the History of Relativity" (p. 19), traces some of the historical reasons for Einstein's rapid rise to dominate the world of physics, following the eclipse observations by Eddington and others in May 1919. These were widely believed to have confirmed Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (1916), which extended the 1905 Special Relativity Theory (SRT) to the realm of gravity and formulated a geometrization of space-time curvature as gravity's "explanation." From Time magazine (December 31, 1999, p. 58), this historical truth is acknowledged: "Einstein, hitherto little known, became a global celebrity and was able to sell pictures of himself to journalists and send the money to a charity for war orphans. More than a hundred books were written about relativity within a year."

But as McCausland reveals, the 1919 eclipse observations were flimsy, indeed, and were in no sense a validation of General Relativity. But from that point on, it was impossible to stop the Einstein juggernaut, even in the face of alternative theories to relativity and experimental observations which contradicted it. Today, some physicists seem to believe that Special Relativity has been elevated to the level of fact, not theory - criticism of it is neither allowed nor respected. By implication, those who do criticize it are foolish incompetents. Witness Caltech Professor David L. Goodstein in his video-taped lecture, "Atoms to Quarks," part of "The Mechanical Universe and Beyond" video physics lecture series (generally an excellent overview of conventionally accepted physics):

. . .there's a point of view that says that the only way that science can make progress is by showing that theories are wrong. The argument goes like this: It's impossible to prove that a theory is right no matter how many experiments agree with it, but if one single experiment disagrees with it, then the theory must be wrong. Well, that itself is a theory of knowledge, which is wrong! Because, there are theories in science, which are so well verified by experience that they become promoted to the status of fact. One example is the Special Theory of Relativity - it's still called a theory for historical reasons, but it is in reality a simple, engineering fact, routinely used in the design of giant machines, like nuclear particle accelerators, which always work perfectly. Another example of that sort of thing is the theory of evolution. These are called theories, but they are in reality among the best established facts in all of human knowledge.

No one who calls himself a scientist should ever declare that any theory is beyond future revision, even drastic revision, no matter how solid the support for the theory may seem to him. Goodstein has fallen into the trap of so many physicists today: They confuse the apparent mathematical fit of several or many of a theory's descriptive formulae with the right to conclude that the theory must be fundamentally correct and without contradiction. Those apparent contradictions that are admitted, are patched over with ad hoc arguments to save the epicyclic masterpiece. For example, Special Relativity can't properly deal with extended or rigid bodies (i.e. real bodies), though it is seemingly fine for point-particles. See comments about that topic in this issue by Thomas Phipps (p. 37) and William Cantrell (p. 12).

The certainty with which the physics establishment reveres Einstein's relativity theories has become a dominant feature of the intellectual milieu of our age. More examples: A brief passage from Marcia Bartusiak's Einstein's Unfinished Symphony:17 "'The worship of Einstein, it's the only reason we're here [working on an expensive federally funded device, LIGO, to test General Relativity by trying to detect gravity waves], if you want to know the truth,' says Rainer Weiss of MIT. 'There was this incredible genius in our midst, in our own lifetime. . .There's a mystique.'"

Ronald W. Clark, one of Einstein's most illustrious biographers, wrote, ". . .the unqualified acceptance and the experimental verification that had long ago put the Special Theory beyond all dispute were still lacking here [for General Relativity].18 Special Relativity "beyond all dispute"? Such incautious words.

It is well known that Time magazine emblazoned Albert Einstein on its December 31, 1999 cover, designating him "Person of the Century." Inside that issue he was called "first among the century's giants," "its greatest scientific genius," "the person who, for better or worse, personified our times and will be recorded in history as having the most lasting significance," "a symbol of all the scientists," "the world's first scientific supercelebrity," "the century's greatest thinker," and even ". . .the patron saint of distracted schoolkids."

Time et al. should have heeded this sentiment by Einstein himself:

"It strikes me as unfair, and even in bad taste, to select a few individuals for boundless admiration, attributing superhuman powers of mind and character to them. This has been my fate, and the contrast between the popular assessment of my powers and achievements and the reality is simply grotesque." (From a 1921 interview with a Dutch newspaper, reprinted in Reference 15, p. 8.)

Next in line for sainthood in physics has been Stephen Hawking, whose involvement with virtually mystical (unproved but highly mathematized "radiating black holes") has catapulted his A Brief History of Time book's sales into the high seven-figure range. In his "Brief History of Relativity" for Time's Einstein glorification issue, he declares that Einstein "cut through the ether and solved the speed-of light problem once and for all." Hawking states, "I still get two or three letters a week telling me Einstein was wrong. Nevertheless, the theory of relativity is now completely accepted by the scientific community, and its predictions have been verified in countless applications." This shows that even scientific "saints" such as Hawking, are fallible. Correction for Dr. Hawking: Just as the physics establishment refuses to fairly judge the cold fusion/low-energy nuclear reaction experiments of recent vintage, the historical record back to the turn of the century overflows with relativity-falsifying experiments that are marginalized as "unimportant" -just as no doubt are those Einstein-critical letters which Hawking likely does not read. Time magazine's editorializing suggested that Einstein's reputation would endure at least one thousand years. Hawking was much more bold: "The equations of general relativity are his best epitaph and memorial. They should last as long as the universe."

The hyperbolic adulation heaped on Einstein's achievements might have been a hint that something was seriously amiss. Personally, I had been brow-beaten into unquestioning belief in Special Relativity, until in the 1990s I began to question much that is taken for granted by the physics establishment and its army of journalist sychophants. Note these commentaries in books that I have examined over the years:

". . .all barriers are surmounted by a superhuman endeavor which up to now has withstood all tests and attacks. This is the story of relativity."(1954)19

"Einstein's special and general theories of relativity have permanently changed our view of space and time and gravitation."(1992)20

"The intellectual culture of our time cannot be fully understood without taking into account the impact of the this theory. Not only electrodynamics of moving bodies, but every physical theory that has been formulated since them has had to confront Einstein's revolutionary changes in notions of space and time." (1992)21

Perhaps the best interpreter of this institutionalized arrogance has been Thomas Phipps.10 This passage from his paper in this issue bears repeating: "Toward the end of his life Einstein remarked that he wouldn't want to be starting over again. He died in 1955, at which time he didn't know the half of it. Had he lived another fifty years, he wouldn't have wanted to start to be starting over. For by that time the character of physics had changed: The Einstein doctrines had been set in concrete and the kind of heretical departure from the status quo that his special relativity theory (SRT) originally represented had become 'dissidence' - despised, ridiculed, and banned from the literature by all properly indoctrinated, right thinking physicists. In that short but fateful interval of time Albert Einstein had become the new Claudius Ptolemy and the little world of professional physics had voluntarily condemned itself to a thousand years of trimming down the great world to fit into a bed of 1905 philosophical truth."

To all this Einstein might have replied with good humor, as he did to a friend in 1930, "To punish me for my contempt of authority, Fate has made me an authority myself."15

Conservation of Paradox There are many reasons to be concerned about the persistence of the Relativity theory's aura of invincibility. It introduced a permanent sense of paradox and confusion about time and its relation to space. (If such paradox were necessary, we could live with it - "philosophical taste" is not the fundamental issue in Relativity criticism.) Relativity allowed such probable fictions as Big Bang cosmology and "black holes" to exist - if there is no space-time, only time and space, then there is no possibility of expanding space and time from a singularity at the "beginning of time." Most important is Einsteinian relativity's totally unwarranted abolition of the aether and all that an aether might imply: just possibly, the aether might be a source of energy; it might be a transmission medium for barely imaginable things; and, horror of horrors, it might have something to do with the functioning of life itself, as Wilhelm Reich had seemed to find in his experiments. These speculations aside, there simply never was a good reason for throwing out the aether. It had been the plenum and medium for light waves to wave, once in the nineteenth century it began to be more accepted that light did indeed have wave-like properties. Earlier, Isaac Newton had insisted that light consisted of tiny corpuscles, and his arguments had dominated for over a century. Then in the early twentieth century there emerged with the birth of Quantum Mechanics a chimeric version of light as both wave and particle. Precisely what light is, how it or some essence travels across space, and how it is emitted and absorbed are still matters subject to experiment and debate.

The spirit in which Einstein put forth Special Relativity is best captured in his statement, "Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the physical world." (1938, in a book with his associate Leopold Infeld, The Evolution of Physics.) A bad beginning, or so it transpired, to have placed a bet on a mental construct without tethering it firmly to the experiments of others. His theory, which (it was later said) attempted to explain the experimental record of the late nineteenth century by a novel combination of postulates, was but one of several possible theoretical alternatives that might have preserved invariance of physical laws within frames of reference moving at constant relative velocity (see William Cantrell's "Commentary on Maxwell's Equations and Special Relativity," (p. 12). Heinrich Hertz, Hendrick A. Lorentz, and Henri Poincaré had already developed mathematical structures that could have been applied more judiciously over a longer period of time to evolve an appropriate and non-paradoxical theory to deal with the admitted non-invariance of Maxwell's equations. Instead, Einstein with his two postulates made what amounted to an untested, brilliant gamble or guess. He proudly termed it a "free creation of the human mind" - so ambiguously connected with past experiment to the extent that historians continue to debate what Einstein knew or did not know of Michelson-Morley et al. and when did he know it.22,23 Einstein's lucky guess applied the sledgehammer of the Lorentz transformation (the multiplying factor   = (1-v2/c2)-1/2), where v is the relative velocity of two inertial frames) to time and space. When the world of physics prematurely latched onto this "ingenious" formalism, the rush-to-judgment bypassed the careful consideration of alternatives.

The several alternatives to SRT, which are by now substantially developed, do no violence to our basic concepts of time and space as distinct entities. As William Cantrell states eloquently: "Einstein's SRT tampers with space and time in order to force the speed of light to be constant with respect to all observers. And it pays the price. The theory is reminiscent of a balloon animal. If squeezed at one end, it expands at the other, yielding an overall conservation of paradox." And as the Correas point out in their paper in this issue, "Consequence of the Null Result of the Michelson-Morley Experiment: The Demise of the Stationary Aether, The Rise of Special Relativity, and the Heuristic Concept of the Photon" (p. 47), the Albert Michelson-Edward Morley experiment of 1887 (at the Case Institute in Cleveland, Ohio) appeared to rule out a static aether. But certainly, this experiment did not eliminate a dynamic aether of some kind that might form something like an "aetherosphere," which was, at least near the surface of our planet, nearly in rotation with it.

It is not the aim of this short editorial space to discourse extensively on the manifold failings of relativity theory, or to detail the alternative theories to SRT which address these. The papers and references we have noted and selected for this issue and the next serve that function well; they are among the best of that technical criticism, but they are just a beginning. (Our apologies to all those other critics of relativity whose excellent work is not showcased.) Our central objective is to show that such criticism does exist, that it is reasoned, and that there have long been open questions about relativity, which have been deliberately ignored by the Physics Establishment. We hope that this coverage will inspire those who remain free-thinking and who are not intimidated by the prevailing intellectual tyranny that passes for physics today. We hope especially to reach the uncorrupted - young students of physics who may help pioneer new ways of experiment and understanding.

Yet here lies a central problem and a paradox in its own right. Some critics of Einsteinian relativity have correctly observed that their criticism is weak, because it has lacked a generally accepted replacement theory that could satisfy most critics. There are, to be sure, too many competing dissident theories. Thus, the single rallying point of the mainstream, SRT, has triumphed by default. Yet, in striving for a new corrective point of view, one should be cautious not to sanction a new dogma.

The Path Beyond Relativity There is no question that in the late nineteenth century physics needed to try to find a theory that would extend the relativity principle of Newtonian mechanics to optical phenomena and electromagnetism. Einstein's bold, but flawed synthesis seemed to be workable. That its formulae led to excellent quantitative fit in some experimental regimes concealed its all too apparent logical inconsistencies and inability to encompass other experiments. The physics establishment fell in love with the idea that a lone genius, Einstein, had stood on the shoulders of others to come up with the radical synthesis that abolished the aether and conventionally understood space and time. This elevated the profession of physics by establishing an elite group, which boasted that it could comprehend the spatialization of time and the many paradoxes inherent to SRT.

Many may be surprised to learn that the most perceptive critics of Einstein's relativity theories employ rational methods of scientific argument and analysis; they have performed the essential mathematical treatments. It is natural that newcomers may have misgivings about these critics, because they have been bludgeoned with what have been claimed to be iron-clad proofs of SRT predictions, such as length contraction and time dilation. In truth, the experimental record contains no proof of length contraction and it has a highly muddied collection of "proofs" of time dilation per se. No, the existence of altered decay of subatomic particles such as muons does not prove time dilation, no matter how often that canard is repeated in textbooks (see, for example the critique by Cantrell). Even the famous E=mc2 formulation, supposedly one of Einstein's most original concepts, has alternative derivations, some of which were in an advanced state by the time SRT burst forth onto the scene. And, SRT's famous mass increase with velocity can be viewed quite differently. The infamous "twin paradox" can be abolished. Not only that, there is no reason why advanced space ships could not far exceed light velocity (see Dr. Cynthia Kolb Whitney's papers and conclusions, referenced and summarized on p. 65-66). She notes, ". . .long-distance space travel is seen to be not impossible in principle. We are now limited not by the speed of light, but rather by the speed of thought, which the present author submits is actually infinite when thought is liberated from dogma."

The late Herbert E. Ives of Bell Laboratories, one of the most illustrious of Einstein critics, published one of his many perceptive articles in the Journal of the Optical Society of America, "Genesis of the Query, "Is There an Ether?,'"24 which we have reprinted in this issue (p. 30). In this short piece he appears to shred the illogic of Einstein's second postulate (the supposed requirement for the constancy of the velocity of light measured by all observers), and he defines the false constraints (no use of moving clocks to synchronize other clocks), and other problematic assumptions of Einstein's SRT. No matter - you will be hard-pressed to find mention of Ives' compendious work in any of the biographies of Einstein and books about relativity. Perhaps the well-documented approach of Ives' should become a starting point for relativity criticism (see introduction to Ives' work, (p. 29).

Something Overlooked? It must be admitted that most alternatives to Einstein's relativity theories seem to focus on mathematical alterations to eliminate the theories' inconsistencies with the experimental record. But it now appears probable to this reviewer that something much more profound has been missed by most of the critics - the possibility of new experimental investigations heretofore overlooked. This new direction is being pioneered by Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa, whose laboratory work builds upon the experimental findings of Wilhelm Reich in the middle of the last century and casts their experimental findings in a formalized theory with full mathematical support. (See their newly released materials, available on a new website - - which was to appear shortly after this issue went to press.) Their new publication stream began with their paper in the last issue of Infinite Energy,25 continues with their second paper in this issue, and with another Einstein-related paper to appear in our next issue ("The Sagnac and Michelson-Gale-Pearson Experiments: The Tribulations of General Relativity with Respect to Rotation").

They summarize the essence of their new direction in their current paper: "The authors propose that Einstein's heuristic hypothesis be taken as factual - the result being that electromagnetic radiation becomes secondary to an energy continuum that is neither electromagnetic nor amenable to four-dimensional reduction. It follows that the second principle of SR only applies to photon production, which is always and only a local discontinuity. It does not apply to non-electromagnetic radiation, nor, a fortiori, to the propagation of energy responsible for local photon production." [Editor's note: Einstein's "second principle" is the postulate of the supposed constancy of light speed in vacuo to all observers.]

In another profound assertion, which goes directly to the heart of unraveling the mystery of E=mc2, they state: "We have proposed our own aetherometric analysis of these type of experiments, where it it shown that the experimental velocities of massbound charges are predicted by a theoretical model that does not take recourse to any of the Lorentz transformations. That means - no time dilation and no relativistic mass increase with acceleration of inertial mass. The inertial mass of a system is only a measure of its rest energy, unlike what SR proposes it is." They have contempt for the relativistic and other orthodoxies that presume to have abolished the aether: "Having become the official logico-mathematical theory of physics, relativistic orthodoxy, as much as quantum and wave mechanics, refuses to conceive of any form of energy that is not electromagnetic or associated with mass-energy. To speak of the aether these days only brings smiles of contempt from institutional physicists - they have already found something better: the intangible 'swarming of virtual particles'." So, will the aether return with a vengeance and an Aether Energy Age soon begin? We shall see.

Finally, what shall we take as the most important thing to be learned from the almost century-long Einstein hiatus in physical theory? As with cold fusion and LENR, which is for all practical purposes the return of alchemy - proved this time in scientific studies - is that even the most sacrosanct of ideas, Einsteinian Relativity, can be dead wrong. In fact, the late Richard Feynman may have said it best when he identified what he considered to be the most important implication of Relativity, though in the context in which he voiced this, he certainly did not mean that he thought Relativity itself was wrong!:

What then, are the philosophic influences of the theory of relativity? If we limit ourselves to influences in the sense of what kind of new ideas and suggestions are made to the physicist by the principle of relativity, we could describe some of them as follows. The first discovery is, essentially that even those ideas which have been held for a very long time and which have been very accurately verified might be wrong. . .we now have a much more humble point of view of our physical laws - everything can be wrong!26

As regards physics of the late twentieth century and early twenty-first, Feynman (a.k.a. "Genius," so-called by author James Gleick) was profoundly wrong about the "humble" part. But indeed, almost everything was wrong, and we must begin anew to correct it, with arduous experiment and new theory.

References Cited: 1. Galilean Electrodynamics, published by Space Time Analyses, Ltd., 141Rhinecliff Street, Arlington, MA 02476-7331. 2. Physics Essays, Physics Essays Publication, c/o ALFT, Inc., 189 Deveault St., Unit 7, Hull, Quebec J8Z 1S7, Canada. 3. Apeiron, C. Roy Keys, 4405 St.-Dominique, Montreal, Quebec, H2W 2B2, Canada. 4. Journal of New Energy, 3084 East 3300 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84158-0639. 5. Aspden, Harold. 6. Beckmann, P. 1987. Einstein Plus Two, The Golem Press, Boulder, Colorado. 7. Graneau, P. and Graneau, N. 1993. Newton Versus Einstein: How Matter Interacts with Matter, Carlton Press, New York (available through Infinite Energy). 8.Hatch R. 1992. Escape from Einstein, Kneat Kompany, Wilmington, California. 9. Ives, H.E. 1979. The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers, Edited with comments by Richard Hazelett and Dean Turner, The Devin-Adair Company, Greenwich, Connecticut. (Contact Infinite Energy for information.) 10. Phipps, T.E., Jr. 1986. Heretical Verities, Classical Non-Fiction Library, Urbana, IL (available through Infinite Energy). 11. Selleri, F. (Ed.) 1998. Open Questions in Relativistic Physics, Apeiron, Montreal. 12. Natural Philosophy Alliance, P.O. Box 14014, San Louis Obispo, CA 93046-4014. 13. Pais, A. 1982. Subtle is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, p. 467. 14. Barnett, L. 1948, 1957. The Universe and Dr. Einstein, Harper and Company, New York, p. 10. 15. Calaprice, A. (Ed.) 2000. The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, p. 14. 16. Miller, D.C. 1933. "The Ether Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth," Reviews of Modern Physics, July, Vol. 5, 203-242. 17. Bartusiak, M. 2000. Einstein's Unfinished Symphony: Listening to the Sounds of Space-Time, Joseph Henry Press, Washington, D.C., p. 4. 18. Clark, R.W. 1971. Einstein: The Life and Times, World Publishing Co., New York, p. 624. 19. Coleman, J.A. 1954, 1958. Relativity for the Layman, New American Library, New York. 20. Weinberg, S. 1992. Dreams of a Final Theory, Pantheon, p. 3. 21. Renn, J. and Schulmann, R. 1992. Albert Einstein, Mileva Maric: The Love Letters, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, p. xiii. 22. Holton, G. 1973 and 1978. Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, Kepler to Einstein, Harvard University Press. 23. Whittaker, E. 1953. History of the Aether and Electricity, 1900-1926, Thomas Nelson & Sons, Ltd., London. 24. Ives, H.E. 1953. "Genesis of the Query 'Is There and Ether,?'" J. Optical Soc. of America, Vol. 43, No. 3, March, 1217-218. 25. Correa, P. and Correa, A. 2001. "The Reproducible Thermal Anomaly of the Reich-Einstein Experiment Under Limit Conditions," Infinite Energy, 7, 37, 12-21. 26. Feynman, L. The Feynman Lectures on Physics, MIT, Science Teaching Center. Vol. 1, 16-1, "Relativity and the Philosophers," p. 2-3.

Other Works Consulted o Aczel, A.D. 1999. God's Equation: Einstein, Relativity and the Expanding Universe, Four Walls Eight Windows, New York. o Born, M. 1962, 1965. Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Dover Publications, New York. o Brian, D. 1996. Einstein: A Life, John Wiley & Sons, New York. o Einstein, A. 1961. Relativity: The Special and General Theory, Crown Publishers, New York. o Einstein, A. 1954. Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, New York. o Fölsing, A. 1997. Albert Einstein, Penguin Books, New York. o French, A.P. 1966. "Relativity: An Introduction to the Special Theory," (Physics, A New Introductory Course), MIT Science Teaching Center. o Jammer, M. 1999. Einstein and Religion, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. o Lanczos, C. 1962. Albert Einstein and the Cosmic World Order, John Wiley and Sons, New York. o Lightman, A. 2000. Great Ideas in Physics, McGraw-Hill, New York. o Lorentz, H.A. 1923. The Principle of Relativity: A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory of Relativity, (Dover edition, 1952). o Pauli, W. 1958, 1981. Theory of Relativity, Dover Publications, New York. o Sciama, D.W. 1969. The Physical Foundations of General Relativity, Doubleday and Company. o Smith, J. 1965. Introduction to Special Relativity, W.A. Benjamin, New York. o Stern, F. 1999. Einstein's German World, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. o Will, C.M. 1986. Was Einstein Right? Putting General Relativity to the Test, Basic Books, New York.

Copyright © 2007-2010. All rights reserved. E-mail:        


Bringing Einstein down to earth: Caroline Thompson's Physics and more Dissident Science at science.html.

Challenge to the special theory of relativity, by Xinhang Shen <>, published in Physics Essays.

Press release:
The paper:

Write to me at contact.html.