Every expert and economist agrees: bringing millions of random people from Mexico and Central America to the United States causes trillions of dollars to start raining down from the sky! But the government of El Salvador doesn’t seem to believe. The lengths they are willing to go through just to prevent their own citizens from coming home is hilarious. El Salvadore's foreign minister is now in Qatar begging the oil sheiks to take the 200,000 who lost their TPS status and are marked for deportation off his hands.
- For the scientific Relativity Theory, see relativity theory of Lorentz.
- For a discussion that is easier to understand for people without scientific training, see How Einstein ruined physics.
Einsteinism is the fallacious and unscientific  physical theory that is based off of Einstein's writings in the field of the relativity theory and subsequent theoretical works that endorse it. Einsteinism is also called Einstein's special and general theory of relativity, because the two main branches of Einsteinism are the so called "special theory" and the "general theory". However, the name Einsteinism is a more appropriate name in view of the generally fallacious reasoning and unscientific argumentation used by Einstein in his writings in the field of the relativity theory .
Einsteinism started its life with a paper published by Einstein in 1905 in a then relatively obscure and insignificant field of thought. Einsteinism was soon to be celebrated in many newspaper and magazine articles as a Copernican act, or even as a theory that solves all mysteries of the world. For example, journalist Alexander Moskowski admitted in 1917 in a letter to Einstein that he saw it as his task to promote a "cult" of Einstein. But Einsteinism is fundamentally at variance with the principles of rational thought that underlie science: the "special theory" is logically flawed because it is based on two postulates that contradict each other and the "general theory" is based on the assumption that space itself can curve and that therefore a straight line is not straight anymore. Einstein also says that Euclid's theory of geometry is not valid, ignoring Euclid's mathematical proofs and ignoring more that 2000 years of practical experience that confirms the validity of Euclid's theory, but he does not give any valid counter example. Instead, Einstein's reasons for doubting Euclid's theory have nothing to do with science. For example, in 1924, Einstein published the second edition of his book entitled "Relativity: The special and general theory", which opens with a statement intended to cast doubts on the tenability of Euclid's definitions and axioms. In his statement, Einstein says that those people who have learned Euclid's theory of geometry at school have "respect" for Euclid's theory of geometry, "disdain" for anyone who would say that Euclid's theory of geometry is false, and have a feeling of "proud certainty". As the beauty of Euclid's theory of geometry is that all its propositions are derived in a logical and transparent way from a single small set of simple and self-evident definitions and axioms, Einstein's statement demonstrates his lack of appreciation of this rational basis of Euclid's theory of geometry.
He calls it a "magnificent structure", but fails to see what if really is: not only a magnificent structure, but a glorious monument of rational thinking as well. He not only overlooks that Euclid's theory of geometry is based on rational thought, but also that its validity is confirmed by more than 2000 years of practical use. Einstein (nor anyone else) has ever demonstrated the untenability of any of Euclid's definitions or axioms. Einstein's doubt-casting on the validity of Euclid's theory of geometry is therefore not based on rational arguments, but on irrational arguments (involving "respect", "disdain", "proud certainty", etc.), which should have nothing to do with the subject. Irrationality is not only a characteristic of Einstein himself, but also of his defenders who for example are known to use more emotive language than is usual in scientific texts, as was remarked by Louis Essen (a prominent English physicist who was critical of Einstein's writings) in 1971.
The irrationality of Einsteinism on the one hand combined with the press campaign to promote the "cult" of Einstein on the other hand resulted in a broadly supported scientific opposition against Einsteinism. This opposition culminated in 1931 in a book entitled 100 authors against Einstein, which refuted Einsteinism using scientific, mathematical, philosophical and psychological arguments. Unfortunately, this book was suppressed -it was mostly not mentioned by the press and if it was, this was only done to ridiculize it- and as a consequence it has remained little known, even among experts in relativity theory.
It is ironic that while Einstein and his supporters maintain that Euclid's definitions and axioms are untenable, the untenability of Einstein's own "special theory" has been demonstrated by Herbert Dingle (see below). The "general theory" is even further outside of the domain of rationality; it is best classed with the psychosomatic bumps of Gall and Spurzheim.
The irrationality of Einsteinism can also be seen from the fact that this "theory" makes a number of predictions of new physical phenomena that are clearly wrong, e.g.:
- Einstein predicts that a clock can steadily work both at a faster rate and at the slower rate than another clock. In reality, a clock can work at a faster rate or at a slower rate and both scenarios are mutually exclusive.
- Einstein predicts that an hourglass or a pendulum clock will (under certain conditions that are generally met) work at a slower rate when placed in a stronger gravitation, but in reality the opposite is true.
Even today, Einsteinism has still many adherents. The best-selling books of modern Einsteinists, such as Stephen Hawking and Michio Kaku, must be considered to be works of science-fiction rather than works of science.
- 1 "Special theory"
- 2 "General theory"
- 3 Einsteinism and the observed phenomena
- 4 Impact of Einsteinism
- 5 Einsteinists
- 6 Quotes
- 7 Recommended literature
- 8 See also
- 9 References
- 10 External links
- For a more detailed overview of the fallacious mathematics behind the "special theory", see Fallacious mathematics of Einsteinism.
The "special theory" of relativity is Einstein's interpretation and plagiarism of the Lorentz transformation and of the Relativity theory of Lorentz. It starts with the following statements, which were widely known facts of physics at the time of the inception of Einsteinism (so Einstein got these statements from other people and he was certainly not the first to make these statements):
- 1. The principle of relativity holds true.
- It is noted that this scientific principle, which states that the laws of physical phenomena should be the same, whether for an observer fixed, or for an observed carried along in a uniform movement of translation, was first formulated in it modern form by the scientist Poincaré before the inception of Einsteinism. If the principle of relativity is true, "absolute velocities" cannot be determined by physical measurement. In other words, there is no aether with respect to which absolute velocities can be defined.
- 2. The velocity of transmission of light in vacuum has to be considered equal to a constant c.
- It is noted that the constancy of the speed of light is a scientific consequence of Maxwell's equations that were published in the 1860s long before the inception of Einsteinism. The constancy means that the speed light is independent on the velocity of the source of the light, in the same way as the speed of sound is independent on the velocity of its source.
These two statements summarize existing physical knowledge, developed long before the existence of Einsteinism and completely independent from it. The second statement is a law of physics; the first tells something about the laws of physics, but is not a law itself. The constancy of the speed of light (second statement) and the relativity principle (first statement) have been validated with a wide range of scientific experiments and so far no conclusive experimental evidence against either of them has been produced. However, it has been recognized long before the inception of Einsteinism that they contradict each other and that therefore at least one of them cannot be absolutely true. The contradiction is that if the velocity of light is constant and not relative to its source (as implied by the second statement), the only apparent alternative is that each beam of light has that velocity relative to the aether, but precisely this is denied by the first statement. Resolving this contradiction was the reason for the Michelson-Morley experiment performed in 1881 and 1887. This experiment attempted to use the constancy of the speed of light to detect the speed of the earth through the aether. Surprisingly the result of the experiment did not detect the speed of the earth. So it seemed that the relativity principle had prevailed over the constancy of the speed of light. However, the outcome of the experiment did not prove this and Lorentz later showed how the experiment can also be explained in case of constancy of the speed of light. One other way of looking at the irreconcilability of the first and second statement is as follows: the first statement implies that the laws of physics should not depend on the absolute velocity with which the system in which the laws are defined is moving. So only relative velocities should play a role. But the constant speed of light mentioned in the second statement is an absolute velocity, so the second statement is irreconcilable with the first. Despite the irreconcilability of the first and second statement, Einstein attempted to "arrive at a logically rigid theory by systematically holding fast to both these laws". But that is logically impossible, because of the irreconcilability of the two statements. Einstein's systematic holding fast to both these laws therefore did not result in a logically rigid theory but in a logically flawed theory.
Einstein's 1924 "derivation" of the Lorentz transformation is flawed, see the article about the Fallacious mathematics of Einsteinism. But even if it is assumed that the Lorentz transformation could indeed be derived from the two contradictory statements only, Einstein's special "theory" of relativity is untenable. This has been shown by Herbert Dingle, who formulated a refutation of Einstein's special theory of relativity, which is given here verbatim : "According to the special theory of relativity, two similar clocks, A and B, which are in uniform relative motion and in which no other differences exist of which the theory takes any account, work at different rates. The situation is therefore entirely symmetrical, from which it follows that if A works faster than B, B must work faster than A. Since this is impossible, the theory must be false.". Dingle also formulated his refutation as a question to the Einsteinists . It is noted that in the Relativity theory of Lorentz one can always identify which clock works slower in an unambiguous way: it is the clock that has the largest speed with respect to the aether. Some Einsteinists (of low caliber) have attempted to answer Dingle's refutation by saying that "special relativity" only deals with clock rates as observed by an "observer". However, this is not as it was presented by Einstein in his 1905 paper. Moreover, this answer is an admission that "special relativity" is not dealing with real physical phenomena, but rather optical illusions. Higher caliber Einsteinist therefore prefer to ignore Dingle's question.
The mass-energy equivalence relationship E=mc2 as nostrified by the Einsteinists has become perhaps the most important element of the Einstein cult. It falls under the so-called "special theory". According to Einstein , the kinetic energy of a particle of mass m and velocity v is not anymore given by the well-known expression
E = (1/2) m v2
an expression that has been validated experimentally and theoretically, but by the Einsteinistic expression:
E = mc2/(1-v2/c2)1/2
where c is the velocity of light. However, this expression does not necessarily follow from Einstein's premises, because the expression E = (1/2) m v2 only violates the relativity principle (first statement) if the symbol v in it represents an absolute velocity. But the Einsteinistic equation for the kinetic energy also contains the symbol v, so if the expression E = (1/2) m v2 violates the relativity principle, the Einsteinistic equation also violates it. So as far as the first statement (the relativity principle) is concerned, the Einstein equation for the kinetic energy offers no improvement. The expression E = (1/2) m v2 has nothing to do with the velocity of light (the parameter c is not used in the expression E = (1/2) m v2), so it cannot violate the second statement (the constancy of the speed of light). Of the above two equations, the only equation that possibly can result in a violation of the constancy of light is the Einsteinistic expression for E, because in that equation E can vary, even for constant m and v, if c is variable. Ignoring the fact that the Einsteinistic expression for the kinetic energy does not follow from his own premises, Einstein then "derives" from it the E=mc2 formula.
- For a more detailed overview of the fallacious mathematics behind the "general theory", see Fallacious mathematics of Einsteinism.
This is a "theory" that tries to explain the movements of bodies (e.g. the moon) by asserting that Euclid's definitions and axioms are not relevant to the space in which the bodies travel . This implies that, according to Einsteinism, it can be assumed that geometry is invalid. For example, a famous result of geometry is the theorem of Pythagoras, which entails that in the right-angled triangle with sides A, B and C (see Figure 2):
A2 + B2 = C2
This theorem is not anymore valid in Einstein's "general theory". The Figure 3 shows a possible Einsteinistic counterexample. Because the side C has become longer:
A2 + B2 < C2
Hence, a violation of the equality A2 + B2 = C2. However, according to geometry this case can be immediately dismissed as not being a valid counterexample because the side C is not straight anymore and the theorem of Pythagoras clearly specifies that it should only be applied when the sides of the triangle are straight lines. But now comes Einstein's trickery: according to Einstein it is a valid counterexample, because (still according to Einstein) the line C can still be regarded a straight line if the space in which line C is located in "curved". In other words, according to Einsteinism, the line C is not curved but it only appears to be curved because it is the space itself that is curved! Before giving the refutation of Einstein's trickery, some additional examples.
Figure 4 shows what can happen (according to Einstein) to a triangle when space becomes increasingly "curved" . The triangle may get a circular shape. So what appears to be a circle (according to Einstein) is actually a triangle, but because the sides of the triangle make angles of 180 degrees with each other this triangle is at the same time also a straight line. The result is what can be called a "triangular circular straight line". Einstein's trickery can cause basic shapes like circle, triangle and straight line to morph into each other, in such a way that they become indistinguishable and that a single shape may at the same time be a circle and a triangle and a straight line. This is clearly inadmissible, so what is precisely the thinking error in Einsteinism? Several logical errors are made by Einstein. First of all, it is a thinking error to overlook that space itself is just a placeholder for objects; objects can curve or bend, like the line C in the above figure. As soon as "space" itself becomes endowed with the ability to bend, this bendable "space" cannot anymore be called "space" but is rather an object itself that is itself located in a real space, and that real space is not bendable or curvable. There is also another, more subtle, thinking error made by Einstein. Namely, Einstein overlooks that even if "space" can be curved and the result of this curvature is the line C as in Figure 3, it still cannot be said that line C is straight. Rather, line C is curved as well. In that case line C became curved because the "space" in which it is embedded became curved, in the same way as a straight line drawn on a piece of paper becomes curved when the paper is folded or bended. The counterexample of the validity of geometry that is given by Einsteinism is invalid; No valid counterexample based on the concept of "curved space" is possible, so "curved space" cannot be used to invalidate geometry.
Despite the inadmissibility of curved space, curved space was used by Einstein in his attempt to "explain" the movement of bodies (e.g. the moon). The "explanation" is broadly as follows:
- The energy distribution in space  causes space to curve.
- Objects (e.g. the moon) move in straight lines , which appear to be curved but actually, according to Einsteinism, it is the space itself that is curved.
Hence, movements of bodies are said to be "explained" by the Einsteinist in terms of straight lines; curvature of space is said to be caused by the presence of matter and energy in space. But because the curvature is measured in terms of the curvature of the observable orbits, the offered "explanation" is circular at best.
There is little experimental justification for the general theory.
Einsteinism and the observed phenomena
Einsteinists claim that the "special theory" and the "general theory" can explain a number of physical phenomena and also that these predict a number of new physical phenomena.
In Einstein's "general theory" the effect of gravitational fields on clocks is discussed. The "general theory" proposes an equation for the rate of clocks that predicts that a clock, placed in a gravitational field, will generally work at a slower rate than an identical clock, placed in a weaker gravitational field. Einstein (1924), gives the following formula:
- ν = ν0 (1+φ/c2)
- ν = the clock rate of the first clock, namely the clock rate at a place of stronger gravitational field
- ν0 = the clock rate of the second clock, namely the clock rate at a place of weaker gravitational field
- φ = the gravitational potential at the first clock's location minus the gravitational potential at the second clock's location (this quantity will be negative if the first clock is the one that is placed in the strongest gravitational field).
- c = the speed of light.
The formula predicts slower clock rates for higher gravity fields. In other words, it predicts a higher clock rate on the moon than on earth, because the gravity is weaker on the moon than it is on the earth. However, it is well-known that the most basic type of clock that is already known to humankind for thousands of years, namely the hourglass, actually works at a higher rate when placed in a stronger gravity field. An hourglass placed on the moon will work at a slower rate than an identical hourglass placed on earth .
Einsteins equation for clock rates is therefore demonstrably false. Moreover, because the fact that the hourglass actually speeds up instead of slowing down in a higher gravitational field is and was widely known, also well-before 1924, Einstein's formula is not only false but unscientific as well.
Einstein claimed that his incorrect formula for clock rates can be used to explain gravitational redshift, a hypothetical phenomenon. This "explanation" is that the light source can be regarded to be a "clock" and that the clock formula says that this clock works at a slower frequency. In terms of wavelength this implies a longer wavelength. However, this explanation is clearly non-physical, as it implies that nothing happens to the light as the light moves upwards against the gravity (all changes happen according to Einstein at the source). More rational explanations are based on a gradual increase in wavelength as the light moves against the gravity.
- For a more detailed overview see the main article Michelson-Morley experiment.
This experiment was designed and carried out by Michelson and Morley long before the birth of Einsteinism. Its purpose was to decide whether the speed of light is constant or whether the relativity principle holds true. If the speed of light is constant relative to a luminiferous aether, different speeds of light would be measured if the laboratory in which the speed is measured moves through the aether itself. For example, if the laboratory moves at a speed v in the same direction of the pulse of light of which the speed is measured, and the speed of the pulse of light relative to the aether is c, the apparent speed at which the pulse propagates in the laboratory is c-v; in other words the pulse appears to be moving slower. This is the essence of the Michelson-Morley experiment. However, no effect of the speed of the laboratory on the measured speed of light was detected by Michelson and Morley, even though the experiment was designed to detect this difference if the speed of light is indeed constant relative to the aether. The result, therefore, seemed to favour the validity of the relativity principle over the constancy of the speed of light. However, that conclusion would imply that Maxwell's equations (which imply a constant speed of light) would need to be revised or altered. But Maxwell's equations have been used to explain a wide range of physical phenomena. Therefore, Lorentz and Fitzgerald explained the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment by proposing that the movement of a material body through the aether leads to its contraction (Lorentz) in the direction of movement or its elongation in the direction perpendicular to the movement (Fitzgerald), but leaving the Maxwell equations unchanged. The proposals of Lorentz and Fitzgerald both explained the null-result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, well before Einstein came with his "explanation".
Einstein's gives his "explanation" of the Michelson-Morley experiment on page 58 and 59 of his 1924 book . The "explanation" offered by Einstein is that his "special theory" predicts the contraction of bodies and that this contraction is the same as the contraction that was proposed by Lorentz. Therefore, like the theory of Lorentz, Einstein says that his "special theory" also explains the Michelson-Morley experiment. However, this explanation has two problems: (i) it is incorrect, and (ii) it is needlessly complex. It is incorrect, because the contraction that is "predicted" by Einstein's "special theory" actually follows from the Lorentz-transformation, which was "derived" by Einstein in a fallacious way. His "derivation" only succeeded in arriving at the Lorentz transformation, because Einstein knew in advance the outcome of the "derivation", namely the Lorentz transformation that was already derived before by others. That Einstein's "explanation" is needlessly complex can be seen as follows: If the relativity principle is true, the Michelson-Morley experiment has to produce a null-result. Therefore, Einstein's initial assumption in his "special theory", namely assuming the validity of the relativity principle, automatically implied also the assumption of the null-result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Hence, it cannot even be said that Einstein's special theory "explains" the null-result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Rather, the result of this experiment is assumed right at the start. In view of this, the outcome of the Michelson-Morley experiment should not count as empirical evidence of Einstein's "special theory".
Possibly as an attempt to convince people that the Michelson-Morley experiment does provide empirical evidence for his "special theory", despite the above argument to the contrary, Einstein has left it on record that the Michelson-Morley experiment — and presumably the other experiments directed towards the same end — was not an important influence in the deliberations that led to the "special theory" . Moreover, Einstein has also denied knowing of the Michelson-Morley experiment when he wrote his 1905 paper, the paper that lies at the basis of his "special theory" . However, in some other statements, Einstein actually admitted knowing of the Michelson-Morley experiment before he wrote his 1905 paper . That was possibly done to support the assumption of the relativity principle.
It is concluded that Einstein's arguments do not add any new scientific insights to the body of scientific knowledge -the Michelson-Morley experiment was already explained by Lorentz and Fitzgerald-, and Einstein's "contribution" was purely polemical.
- For a more detailed overview see the main article Fizeau experiment for the speed of light (moving medium).
According to kinematics if an object moves at speed V relative to a reference object that moves at speed W, the speed of the object is V+W. According to Einstein's flawed theories, however, even this basic principle is violated. The Einsteinistic formula is:
- (V + W)/(1+V W/c2)
- V = the velocity of the object (e.g. the person) relative to the reference object (e.g. the train)
- W = the velocity of the reference object (e.g. the train)
- c = the speed of light in vacuum
In his 1924 book, Einstein used his formula to provide a reasonable reproduction of the result of Fizeau experiment for the speed of light (moving medium). Fizeau's result for the speed of a pulse of light in a moving medium is:
- c/n + W(1-1/n2)
- c = the speed of light in vacuum
- n = the refractive index of the medium
- W = the velocity of the medium
Einstein discussed that when in his formula V is replaced by c/n the above two formulas provide approximately the same outcome (and even this was not an idea originally from Einstein). Einstein presents this as evidence for the validity of his theory. It would, however, only really count as such evidence if the speed of the light pulse relative to the moving medium would indeed be experimentally measured to be c/n, that is if one indeed can replace V by c/n. Such an experiment has never been performed. Moreover, it is extremely unlikely (or even impossible) that if it would be performed, it would corroborate Einstein's formula, because since the speed of the water is W and the speed of the light in the moving water is (according to Fizeau's experiment) c/n + W(1-1/n2) the speed of the light relative to the water is c/n + W(1-1/n2) - W (which is not equal to c/n as it should be if Einstein's theory were correct).
Deflection of light rays by the sun's gravity
According to Newton (1642-1727), light consists of a stream of minute particles or corpuscles, which are also affected by the forces of gravitation. Hence, the path of motion of light particles will bend under the influence of gravity. Soldner (1776-1833) was the first to calculate the amount of deflection caused by a heavenly body such as the sun. He used the theory of Newton as a basis of his calculations. In 1801 he completed a paper in which a final value of 1.68 seconds of arc for the deflection of star light by the sun is calculated. In 1911, Einstein published a paper in which he states that based on his "general theory" the deflection should be 0.83 second of arc, which is approximately half the value obtained by Soldner more than a century before. In the year 1916, Einstein published another paper, again based on his "general theory". But in this paper he gives a deflection of 1.7 seconds of arc, approximately twice his previous value and virtually identical with Soldner's value. But Einstein did not repudiate any of the assumptions made in his earlier 1911 paper. In 1919, an attempt was made to measure the deflection of star light by the sun, during an eclipse. The measurements allegedly confirmed the deflection value of 1.7 second of an arc. Now, Einstein boasted that his theory had predicted the correct value and Einstein stated in a 1920 publication: "It may be added that, according to the theory, half of this deflection is produced by the Newtonian [sic] field of attraction of the sun, and the other half by the geometrical modification ('curvature') of space caused by the sun."
But Einstein never gave a satisfactory explanation for his different 1911 value. The deflection measured in 1919 can therefore equally well be interpreted as proving Einstein wrong. Moreover, it is in good agreement (taking into account experimental inaccuracies) with the Soldner prediction of 1.68 seconds of arc, which was based on the theory of Newton. There is no need to assume Einstein's "curved space" to account for an extra bending of the path of light.
Despite this, the 1919 eclipse observations were hailed in the mass media as a confirmation of the "general theory". This caused an unprecedented sensation, not only in the world of physics but in the world generally, for it seemed that what had for more than 200 years been regarded as the unshakable foundation of all physical science — Newton's mechanics — had been disproved .
Now the theory of relativity' stood in the forefront of physics, and, since it had been brought there through work of Einstein's which was regarded by him as, a generalization of his theory of 1905, the name of the theory changed, as though by magic, from 'the relativity theory of Lorentz' (known to a mere handful of specialists) to 'Einstein's special relativity theory' (known by name, though little else, to everyone).
Einstein's "general theory" therefore caused 'the relativity theory of Lorentz' to be erroneously renamed as 'the special relativity theory' .
Mercury's perihelion shift
In a simplistic application of Newton's theory, where it is assumed that the sun is spherically symmetric, Newton's theory can be used to predict a perihelion shift of the planet Mercury of 336 arceconds per century. Einstein's theory predicts 42 arcseconds per century and the observed value is 374 arcseconds per century. This shows that Newton's theory is superior to Einstein's.
- Observed value = 374 arcseconds
- Einstein's theory's prediction = 42 arcseconds
- Newton's theory prediction (main effect)= 336 arcseconds
The small discrepancy that exists between the Newton's simplistic prediction and the observed value can probably be satisfactorily explained by the aspherical distribution of mass in the sun, due to the rotation of the sun and the centrifugal forces caused by this rotation. The simplistic Newton prediction of 336 arcseconds per century can be called the "main effect".
Adherents of Einstein's theory, however, add Einstein's prediction to the main effect, and then claim that because the result is closer to the observed value, Einstein's theory would be more accurate than Newton's. There is NO justification for this procedure in Einstein's theory (a justification would require that Einstein's theory is also applied to predict the main effect, but that has never been done). The inadmissibility of adding Einstein's prediction to the main effect has also been (for example) remarked by the prominent critic of Einstein's theory Jean-Marie Le Roux.
Paul Gerber developed an extension of Newton's theory. His formula is based on assuming that gravity has a finite speed, instead of the infinite speed in Newton's theory. With this formula, the same Perihelion shift is predicted as in Einstein's (later developed) theory. Moreover, Einstein's prediction is based on a formula that is mathematically equivalent to Gerber's equation, but Einstein did not acknowledge the priority of Paul Gerber, but instead viciously attacked him (see quote below). Einstein plagiarized Paul Gerber's equation (Einstein claimed of course he was not aware of this formula, but it is likely he was aware of Gerber's formula and used it to check his results).
Because of Einstein's plagiarism of Gerber's equation, the existence of Gerber's work is highly annoying for Einstein and his past and present defenders. As a result, Gerber is continually attacked by Einsteinists, not the least of them, Einstein himself. For example, Bjerknes quotes the following statement made by Einstein:
- "[...]Gerber, who has given the correct formula for the perihelion motion of Mercury before I did. The experts are not only in agreement that Gerber's derivation is wrong through and through, but the formula cannot be obtained as a consequence of the main assumption made by Gerber. Mr. Gerber's work is therefore completely useless, an unsuccessful and erroneous theoretical attempt. I maintain that the theory of general relativity has provided the first real explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury; even if I had been aware of it, I would not had any reason to mention it."
Black holes and dark matter
- The Einsteinistic black holes should not be confused with the scientific theory of black holes.
Einstein's above-explained incorrect prediction of clocks that go slower the stronger the gravitational potential includes the incorrect prediction that a complete stoppage of clocks is possible if the gravitational potential is strong enough. Einsteinists then say that a black hole has been created. On the surface of a black hole time itself stands still, according to Einsteinist Stephen Hawking. Many of the predicted properties of Einsteinistic black holes are likely to be incorrect.
Dark matter is a term used by Einsteinists to explain away possible discrepancies between astronomical predictions made by the "general theory" and the observed phenomena. This is a consequence of the circular nature of Einstein's "general theory". Circular, because curvature is defined in terms of the energy distribution of matter in space, but it is left unspecified how exactly this energy must be calculated, except in terms of the curvature itself. This unspecified energy can therefore be imagined to come from "dark matter". Scientifically, however, such arbitrariness is inadmissible.
Impact of Einsteinism
Einsteinism as Jewish science
Philipp Lenard noted that Einsteinism could be characterized as Jewish science. Despite condemnations that Lenard would have been "antisemitic", it is nowadays admitted even in the meanstream media that Einstein's "theories" are Jewish science, as Einstein's Jewishness likely played a significant role in the development of his "theories".
In an interview of Christopher Jon Bjerknes✡ by Erich Hufschmid, Bjerknes stated that it was admitted by Einstein, his friends and people around him that Einstein has been promoted by the zionists as a genius, as a "Jewish Newton", in order for Einstein to become a spokesman for zionism and to spread zionist propaganda. In the same interview, Jon Bjerknes explains his view that this promotion of Einstein by the Jews was a reaction to counter the accusation that Jews are uncreative. Bjerknes mentions for example Louis Brandeis who stated about Einstein that "it is a good thing this that this Jew is going to come and show the rest of the world that the Jews are doing all the important thing in the world." But Bjerknes apologizes this Jewish promotion of Einstein by asserting that the Jews have since ancient times been falsely accused of being uncreative. He gives the example of an ancient Egyptian named Apion, who has said that "Jews produce nothing creative, they produce no culture, they produce no science, they produce no music." And according to Bjerknes this nerve was touched again by Richard Wagner who stated that "Jews are completely incapable of producing high quality literature, music or science." And he gives the example of Houston Stewart Chamberlain who stated that "Jews are genetically unable to produce any great people on the level of Newton , Mozart, Bach, or Wagner" and that "they could not compete in those arenas". According to Bjerknes, Jews wanted to break that mythology, and they went overboard and pushed the idea that Karl Marx✡, Sigmund Freud✡ and Albert Einstein✡ were the greatest minds that humanity has ever produced so that they could put an end to the mythology that Jews were incapable to produce great people. Bjerknes also mentions in this connection what he calls the "Gobineau mythology", which according to Bjerknes entails the idea that all great people in history were Aryans and that Jews were unable, but only good copycats. According to Bjerknes the Jews responded to this "Gobineau mythology" by producing the alternative mythology that they have produced the great minds and the Einstein mythology was part of this counter-mythology.
Therefore, Einsteinism, like Marxism and Freudianism, is a Jewish intellectual movement, because in its early stages it was predominantly promulgated by people of Jewish ethnicity and Einstein✡ himself was of Jewish ethnicity.
But is it also a subversive movement? Kevin Macdonald in his book The culture of critique addressed the issue of whether or not "20th century theoretical physics" should be seen as a subversive Jewish intellectual movement, in view of their heavily overrepresentation among the ranks of theoretical physicists. Macdonald, however, concludes that there is no evidence that Einstein✡ , despite his ethnic identification and ethnic activism, viewed the contents of his theories as furthering ethnic interests. Macdonald also writes that 20th century theoretical physics does not qualify as a subversive Jewish intellectual movement "precisely because it was good science". However, 20th century physics may have been good science as a whole, but a part of it was Einsteinism, which was not good science. It should be noted that Macdonald's 2002 verdict that Einsteinism should not be classed as a subversive Jewish intellectual movement may still change in view of criticism of Einstein and his modus operandi that was published after 2002, e.g. the book The Manufacture and sale of Saint Einstein that was published in 2006 by Christopher Jon Bjerknes.
"..., a terrible injustice is being perpetrated against the legacies of many scientists, philosophers and mathematicians of the past. Our children are being lied to and asked to believe in a Santa Claus scientist, who understood the truth that they never can. Science and history are degraded into hero worship and the many wonderful and educational facts and stories of history are distilled into an infantile comic strip featuring only one character. Our children deserve to be told the truth. Science must progress and be treated in a dignified and worthy manner. We cannot expect great things from our children if we teach them from comic books and insist that they believe in a myth. On the other side of Einstein await many wonderful stories in the history of Physics and promising analog models of gravity and electromagnetism which offer tangible explanations of the phenomena." .
- Stephen Hawking In his best-seller 'A brief history of time', Hawking depicts Einstein as a modern Newton. Hawking also hates Donald Trump and says he cannot understand why Trump is popular.
- Igor and Grichka Bogdanov Their work is based on Einsteinism as well.
- Michio Kaku
- Gerard 't Hooft - Although Hooft's work is based on Einstein, and he has defended Einstein in his writings (see e.g. http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/gravitating_misconceptions.html ), he has made an important admission that "Albert Einstein had misconceptions about general relativity". Gerard 't Hooft won the Nobel Prize in Physics (1999).
- Professor Dr. Jean-Marie Le Roux: "My very clear conclusion is that the Relativity Theory of Einstein [Einsteinism] does not belong to the area of positive science."
- Lothar Mitis: "This Relativity Theory [Einsteinism] is the sick product of a sick time."
- Professor Thomas Jefferson See: "Einstein is neither astronomer, mathematician nor physicist. He is a confusionist. The Einstein theory is a fallacy. It is based on a glaring error of which Einstein is aware but which he refuses to recognize…. The Einstein theory that the ether does not exist and that gravity is not a force but a property of space can only be described as a crazy vagary, a disgrace to our age."
Quotes by Nikola Tesla
- The theory, wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.
- I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.
- ...the relativity theory, by the way, is much older than its present proponents. It was advanced over 200 years ago by my illustrious countryman Ruđer Bošković, the great philosopher, who, not withstanding other and multifold obligations, wrote a thousand volumes of excellent literature on a vast variety of subjects. Bošković dealt with relativity, including the so-called time-space continuum ...'.
- Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible ..Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. The scientists from Franklin to Morse were clear thinkers and did not produce erroneous theories. The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
- Einstein is a beggar dressed in purple clothes and made king using dazzling mathematics that obscure truth.
- Relativity is a massive deception wrapped in a beautiful mathematical cloak.
- The theory of relativity is a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense.
- Relativity is a beggar wrapped in purple whom ignorant people take for a King.
- ...My conclusions in certain respects differ from his (Einstein's) and to that extent tend to disprove the Einstein Theory. My explanations of natural phenomena are not so involved as his. They are simpler, and when I am ready to make a full announcement it will be seen that I have proved my conclusions.
- While listening on my cosmic phone
- I caught words from the Olympus blown.
- A newcomer was shown around;
- That much I could guess, aided by sound.
- "There's Archimedes with his lever
- Still busy on problems as ever.
- Says: matter and force are transmutable
- And wrong the laws you thought immutable."
- Too bad, Sir Isaac, they dimmed your renown
- And turned your great science upside down.
- Now a long haired crank, Einstein by name,
- Puts on your high teaching all the blame.
- Says: matter and force are transmutable
- And wrong the laws you thought immutable."
- "I am much too ignorant, my son,
- For grasping schemes so finely spun.
- My followers are of stronger mind
- And I am content to stay behind.
- Albert Einstein (edition 1924), Relativity: The Special and General Theory, Methuen & Co Ltd.
A book readable for a large audience, scientifically trained or not. This book can be regarded as the canonical form of Einsteinism.
- Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein (1931) R. Voiglaenders Verlag - Leipzig. 105 pages.
The scientific, mathematical, philosophical and psychological arguments against Einsteinism. The book contains contributions from many distinguished scientist including chess champion Emanuel Lasker. Einstein's reaction to the book: "If I was really wrong, one author would have been sufficient".
- Dingle, H (1972) Science at the crossroads, 109 pages.
An insider-account of how science became corrupted by Einsteinism. En passant, this book proofs the untenability of the "special theory" and shows the inadmissibility of the "general theory".
- W.H.V. Reade (1922) A criticism of Einstein and his problem, Oxford Basil Blackwell Broad Street, 126 pages.
This book explains the thinking error made by Einstein in his interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment using the analogy of a swimmer in a river.
- Euclid (circa 300 BC) The Elements, Book I.
The theory in this book was without valid reason criticized by Einstein.
- In the book Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein (1931) R. Voiglaenders Verlag - Leipzig. (105 pages) professor Dr. J. Le Roux writes on page 27: "Die RTH Einsteins gehört nicht zum Gebiet der positiven Wissenschaft", which translates into: "The Relativity Theory of Einstein does not belong to the positive field of science". In other words, Einstein Relativity Theory is uncientific!
- The following statement was made by Arvid Reuterdahl (1931): "Die Klassische Relativität ist richtig, aber der Einsteinismus ist falsch. Der Ausdruck 'Relativität' darf deshalb nicht mit dem Einsteinismus assoziert werden." (Dr. Arvid Reuterdahl; 100 Autoren gegen Einstein, Page 40.) in English: Classical relativity is correct, but einsteinism is incorrect. The expression "relativity" must not be associated with einsteinism.
- Albert Einstein (1905) "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper", Annalen der Physik 17: 891.
- Dingle, H (1972) Science at the crossroads, 109 pp., p. 68
- Christopher Jon Bjerknes (2006) The Manufacture and sale of Saint Einstein, 2826 pages, page 14.
- Bjerknes also noted that Moskowski, like Einstein, was Jewish. This may have been a factor of influence that caused Moskowski to make a cult out of Einstein, and not out of for example Lorentz.
- Albert Einstein (edition 1924), Relativity: The Special and General Theory, Methuen & Co Ltd, p. 7
- Einstein's statement is: "In your schooldays most of you who read this book made acquaintance with the noble building of Euclid's geometry, and you remember — perhaps with more respect than love — the magnificent structure, on the lofty staircase of which you were chased about for uncounted hours by conscientious teachers. By reason of our past experience, you would certainly regard everyone with disdain who should pronounce even the most out-of-the-way proposition of this science to be untrue. But perhaps this feeling of proud certainty would leave you immediately if some one were to ask you: "What, then, do you mean by the assertion that these propositions are true?""
- Essen, L. (1971) The Special Theory of Relativity - A Critical Analysis, Oxford University Press (Oxford Science Research Papers 5).
- Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein (1931) R. Voiglaenders Verlag - Leipzig. 105 pages.
- Minority Report: H. L. Mencken's Notebooks: "...even Einstein will not hold up: in the long run his curved space may be classed with the psychosomatic bumps of Gall and Spurzheim."
- Einstein's attempt to build a theory on two statements, that contradict not some independent idea, but each other, was satirised e.g. by Sir Oliver Lodge (see Dingle, H (1972) Science at the crossroads, 109 pp., p. 72). A possible way out of the contradiction, not considered by Einstein, could be the introduction of a third entity (e.g. the receiver of the light) with respect to which the velocity of light is regarded to be "constant".
- Because the constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of Maxwell's equations, which have been used to explain a large number of physical phenomena, scientists were looking for a way of "saving" Maxwell's equations by adding some new theory to these equations, giving up the relativity principle in the process, in order to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment and similar experiments. Exactly this was done by the development of the relativity theory of Lorentz.
- Note: the constant speed of light in the second statement cannot be a relative velocity, because a relative velocity always depends on a second object relative to which it is measured; when the speed of this second object changes, also the relative velocity changes. For example, the moon has a speed of approximately 1 kilometer per second relative to the earth, but it also has a speed of approximately 30 kilometer per second relative to the sun.
- Dingle, H (1972) Science at the crossroads, 109 pp., p. 19
- The question that Dingle asked the Einsteinists was: "According to the special theory of relativity, two similar clocks (called A and B) in which no differences exist of which the theory takes any account, except that they are in uniform relative motion, work at different rates. which clock, according to the theory, works slower?". No Einsteinist ever answered Dingle in an unambiguous way.
- Albert Einstein (edition 1924), Relativity: The Special and General Theory, Methuen & Co Ltd, p. 50-51
- Planck's E=mc2 was "derived" by Einstein starting from the identity 0=0 (See HERBERT E. IVES, "Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation," J. Opt. Soc. Am. 42, 540-543 (1952)). In broad lines, Einsteins "derivation" of E=mc2 is essentially as follows: start with 0=0, then assume that 0=(E-mc2), therefore the zero on the left-hand side of 0=0 can be replaced by (E-mc2), Einstein thus obtains (E-mc2)=0, this is finally rearranged into: E=mc2. Any desired result can be "derived" in such a clearly inadmissable and invalid way.
- Herbert Dingle (1922) Relativity for all. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 72 pp.
- This, broadly, was also one of the arguments of Arvid Reuterdahl against Einstein on p.42 of the book Hundred authors against Einstein.
- Called "stress-energy tensor" in Einsteinism. It is noted that Einsteinism does not specifiy how to measure the stress-energy tensor independent from the curvature. This implies in practice that Einsteinism is used as follows: the orbits of the objects (e.g. the moon) are measured. From this a curvature of space is assumed that best explains these observed orbits. Finally, the stress-energy tensor is set to a value that matches the assumed curvature. The orbits are then "predicted". It is clear that Einstein's "general theory" is a circular theory.
- These straight lines are called "geodesics" in Einsteinism.
- That there little experimental jusitification for Einstein's "general" theory is for example admitted by the pro-Einsteinistic William J. Kaufmann in his 1973 book "Relativity and Cosmology". A quote from page 31 of this book: "For more than half a century, physicists have produced a deluge of books and papers on a theory for which, in the strictests sense, there is little experimental justification."
- Einstein (1907) On the relativity principle and the conclusions drawn from it, Jahrbuch der Radioaktivitat und Elektronik 4 (1907):411-462.). That article contains a section entitled: "The effect of gravitational fields on clocks"), in which the following statement is made by Einstein: "In this sense we may say that the process occurring in the clock, and, more generally, any physical process, proceeds faster the greater the gravitational potential at the position of the process taking place.".
- Albert Einstein (edition 1924), Relativity: The Special and General Theory, Methuen & Co Ltd.
- The hourglass is not the only type of clock that shows a slowing down at weaker gravity. Also a pendulum clock will work at a slower rate when placed in a weaker gravitational field.
- Albert Einstein (edition 1924), Relativity: The Special and General Theory, Methuen & Co Ltd, p. 58-59
- H. Dingle (1972) Science at the Crossroads. Page 69.
- J. Bjerknes (2006) Saint Einstein. Page 1826.
- Reuterdahl, in his paper The Soldner-Einstein controversy (1929), discusses that Einsteinists have misrepresented Soldner's work to make it look bad and erroneous. Namely, that they have ascribed to Soldner the value of 0.84 seconds of arc. The number 0.84 indeed is mentioned in Soldner's work, but only as the amount of deflection of a single arm of the path of the light particles. It is clear from Soldner's work that the total deflection is 2 × 0.84 = 1.68 arcs of second.
- Bjerknes (2006), The Manufacure and Sale of Saint Einstein, page 2142-2143.
- Dingle, H (1972) Science at the crossroads, 109 pp., page 82.
- Dingle, H (1972) Science at the crossroads, 109 pp., page 88.
- Le Roux (1931) Der Bankrott der Relativitaetstheorie. In: 100 authors against Einstein, page 20-27.
- Christopher Jon Bjerknes (2006) The Manufacture and sale of Saint Einstein, 2826 pp, Page 2098.
- Stephen Hawking (1988). A brief history of time.
- Note that in the "general theory" the equation E=mc2 cannot be used to calculate energy, because this equation is part of the "special theory" and not everything of the "special theory" is automatically part of the "general theory". For example, the speed of light is not anymore assumed to be constant in the "general theory", because Einstein stated in his 1924 book that "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity.". E=mc2 was "derived" by Einstein (in a fallacious way) using the assumption of a constant speed of light. Leaving out this assumption, as is done in the "general theory", also implies assuming that E=mc2 is not necessarily valid anymore.
- See for example the following book review in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/books/review/einsteins-jewish-science-by-steven-gimbel.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
- Henry Makow
- See also page 1415-1416 of Bjerknes' book Saint Einstein
- Kevin Macdonald (1998, 2002) The Culture of Critique, 540 pages. ISBN: 0-7596-7221-0
- Kevin Macdonald (1998, 2002) The Culture of Critique, 540 pages. ISBN: 0-7596-7221-0. Preface to the first paperback edition, page vi-vii.
- Christopher Jon Bjerknes (2006) The Manufacture and sale of Saint Einstein, 2826 pages, page 2415.
- This quote is slightly paraphrased from the original one on http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/gravitating_misconceptions.html : "Karl Schwarzschild, Hermann Weyl, and even Albert Einstein, had misconceptions about the theory, ...". It is clear that "the theory" is general relativity and that therefore Hooft is admitting that Einstein had misconceptions about general relativity.
- Professor Dr. J. Le Roux (1931). Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein, page 27. In German, the statement is „Meine höchst klare Schlußfolgerung ist die, daß die RTH Einsteins nicht zum Gebiet der positiven Wissenschaft gehört.“
- Lothar Mitis (1931). Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein, page 35. In German the statement is: *„Diese RTH ist das kranke Product einer kranken Zeit.“
- Hadley, Edwin Marshall (1931), ‘T.N.T.’, 1st ed., Tower Press, Chicago, pages 68-69.
- TESLA vs EINSTEIN
- New York Times, 11 July 1935, p 23, c.8
- New York Herald Tribune, 11 September 1932
- 1936 unpublished interview, quoted in Anderson, L, ed. Nikola Tesla: Lecture Before the New York Academy of Sciences. 6 April 1897 : The Streams of Lenard and Roentgen and Novel Apparatus for Their Production, reconstructed 1994
- Science At the Crossroads by Herbert Dingle. How Einstein ruined physics.