[geocentrism] Einstein Plagiarized the Work of Poincare
- From: Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 08:52:17 -0800 (PST)
"LionAxe" Has Responded With More Sophistry and Further Misrepresented My
Arguments and the Demonstrable Facts of History
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
In a previous article, I responded to a Jewish apologist calling itself
"LionAxe" on the Stormfront message boards:
An Odd and Misleading Attack Against Me on "Stormfront's" Message Boards,
December 16, 2008
This sophist, calling itself "LionAxe", has responded to my article on its
blog, and yet again misrepresented what I have said, and the history of the
theory of relativity:
A Christopher Jon Bjerknes Debacle: Responsum concerning Albert Einstein, 11
January 2009
"LionAxe" begins by claiming to have correspondence from Prof. Friedwardt
Winterberg. "LionAxe" does not quote a single word from this correspondence,
but instead makes the self-contradictory claim that, " Now I have emailed
Professor Winterberg and he didn't agree that he relied on Bjerknes for his
views, moreso on his own views and work[2]." Prof. Winterberg has acknowledge
in a published paper that he has relied on my work. I have never claimed that
all of Prof. Winterberg's views derive from me, only that he has, in his own
words, at times relied upon my work. In addition, I have a stack of letters
from Prof. Winterberg about a foot high, which evinces our working relationship
over the course of years. I will not rely upon the unreliable statements of
"LionAxe" to infer or attribute any statement to Prof. Winterberg.
I will, however, state that Prof. Winterberg has told me directly that he
believes that Einstein plagiarized the work of Henri Poincare and that Henri
Poincare is the true father of the special theory of relativity. Prof.
Winterberg has also told me directly that he believed it would be impossible to
see published any such statement in a mainstream Physics journal, and therefore
has himself been forced to exclude his full beliefs when submitting papers for
publication, including his paper on the Hilbert-Einstein priority dispute,
which even in its inhibited form took years to publish, I being the first to
publish Prof. Winterberg's theories on the subject--a demonstrable fact.
"LionAxe" then proceeds to misrepresent my arguments regarding Einstein's
plagiarism of Johann Georg von Soldner's prediction of the doubled Newtonian
value of the deflection of a light ray grazing the limb of the Sun, and
Newton's prediction that gravitation should deflect the path of a light
corpuscle according to the law of universal attraction. Though I have not
confused these separate issues of Newton's theory and Soldner's prediction,
"LionAxe" has confused them, and "LionAxe" has failed to acknowledge that I
accuse Einstein of plagiarizing the work of both Newton and Soldner, among many
others.
"LionAxe" next accuses me of confusing "priority" with "plagiarism", when in
fact, that is what "LionAxe" is doing in order to raise a straw man of his own
manufacture which he deceptively attributes to me. I correctly point out the
obvious fact that one of the elements of plagiarism is the priority of the work
of the man or woman whose work is copied by another. It is necessary to
establish that priority in order to establish plagiarism. "LionAxe"
deliberately misrepresents my statements of isolated facts of priority as if
they exist in a vacuum and then picks upon my representations of factual issues
of priority of a given element of RT to next addresses a separate element of RT
to falsely claim both that there was no priority and that priority is not the
same as plagiarism.
"LionAxe" ignores the fact that I have established the several elements of
Einstein's plagiarism, including, but not limited to: priority, knowledge,
failure to acknowledge prior works, and claims of originality--in some case
even after publicly acknowledging knowledge of the original work in question.
"LionAxe" confuses these sometimes separate issues, while falsely accusing me
of doing the same.
"LionAxe" repeatedly misrepresents my statements regarding Einstein's two
different predictions for the deflection of a light ray grazing the limb of the
Sun and thereby ignores, and in effect confuses, the separate charges I make of
Einstein's having plagiarized the Newtonian prediction in 1911 and the
Soldnerian prediction in 1915. This demonstrates that he (she, it?) is a
sophist in search of a false argument with which to attempt to mislead his
readers into believing that I am mistaken, when in fact he is deliberately
misrepresenting what I have stated and is arguing against a straw man of his
manufacture, not mine.
"LionAxe" then makes a lengthy presentation of the falsehoods Jews have been
pitching for quite some time in a desperate effort to conceal Einstein's
obvious plagiarism of the works of Henri Poincare. "LionAxe" would presume to
lecture me on the fact that others stated the PoR before Poincare, when I have
given the most thorough proof of same in all the literature on the subject.
"LionAxe" ignores the fact that Poincare applies the PoR to electrodynamics,
which Newton and Galileo did not do. He was not the first to do so, but he did
do so.
"LionAxe" is either ignorant of the commonly known facts, or pretends to
ignorance of the commonly known facts, that Poincare dismissed the Ether as a
metaphysical concept in the 1800's, and that Einstein declared the necessity of
the Ether in 1920. These facts are so well known and so widely discussed, that
on the basis of this fact alone, "LionAxe" cannot be taken at all seriously as
if a knowledgeable and comprehensive debater on the subject. His (her, its?)
statements are deliberately tendentious and terribly misleading. In addition,
as I have proven, Einstein based his theory on Lorentz' Ether, as Einstein,
Pauli, and others have acknowledged. It is not my intent to reproduce my book
here, and I refer my readers directly to my book, which is available in its
entirety for free at the following website:
The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein
The fact that Poincare eventually developed a more comprehensive theory than
Einstein, which sought to include the Ether as a physical basis for observed
phenomenon, does not refute the fact that Einstein's theory is a lesser subset
of Poincare's more broad and comprehensive theory. Poincare sought a physical
theory in addition to the metaphysical and numerological theory which Einstein
plagiarized. As Prof. Logunov has stated, Poincare's theory is far more
advanced and encompasses more detail than Einstein's parroted copy, which is a
mere subset of Poincare's theories.
I will add in passing, that, as I have repeatedly stated in the past, Isaac
Newton was a plagiarist and a Cabalistic Jew. He was often accused of
plagiarism and he conjured up lame excuses to account for his plagiarism. He
also set Physics back by introducing the pantheistic mythologies and dogmatic
absolutes of the Jewish Cabalah into the more advanced Physics of Christiaan
Huygens and others. Leibniz accused Newton of these occult beliefs and
practices, and John Maynard Keynes has proven that Leibniz was correct, as I
have repeatedly demonstrated in the past.
Other related posts:
- » [geocentrism] Einstein Plagiarized the Work of Poincare - Bernie Brauer
