Einstein and the Devil’s Advocate Roger J Anderton [email protected]

Contrary to popular belief – Einstein’s Relativity was never accepted by the scientific community; the experts could not agree on it. Sadly this has become a taboo subject letting many people develop the delusion that it was accepted.

This article will be in three parts:

1. The Non-acceptance of Einstein’s Relativity 2. Devil’s Advocate 3. Einstein’s math

1. The Non-acceptance of Einstein’s Relativity

If we go by the Mainstream – Einstein being a genius should have got about 4 to 5 Nobel prizes in Physics. This is because in his miraculous year of 1905 – he wrote four papers- Brownian motion paper proving the existence of atoms Photoelectric effect – basis of photons and Quantum mechanics Special Relativity and E= mc 2 paper That makes 4 and for General Relativity that would have made 5 Nobels. But in reality he only got one Nobel Prize.

Mainstream looks upon this as Einstein getting cheated out of 4 or more Nobel prizes.

But that’s all just propaganda by people who are fans of Einstein.

Behind the propaganda is what really happened-

There was a struggle for Einstein to even get one Nobel Prize.

People were opposing Einstein from getting any Nobel Prize whatsoever.

There was a great deal of opposition against Einstein; and all that get swept under the carpet nowadays.

The opposition to Einstein in its day got swamped by the media campaign to publicise Einstein as a genius, and eventually just caved into that pressure. Hence we are just left with the media campaign of Einstein promoted as genius without much in the way of sceptical counter view to that.

Let’s go over the sudden celebrity status of Einstein as he was thrust into superstardom by the media.

Virginia Hughes reports it as follows: By the next year, "Einstein-mania" was in full bloom. During his first trip to the United States he gave many public lectures on relativity, and received the prestigious Barnard Medal from the National Academy of Sciences. After one particularly crowded lecture at Princeton, legend has it that Einstein said wryly to the chairman, "I never realized that so many Americans were interested in tensor analysis." [1]

Hughes continues: As his quirky personality and untamed tresses gained more popularity with the general public, his momentous theory gained more credibility in the scientific community. In 1921, swarms of both theoreticians and experimentalists again nominated Einstein for his work on relativity. Reporters kept asking him, to his great annoyance, if this would be the year that he received a Nobel Prize. [1]

So, the points to consider:

1. The media had Einstein portrayed as genius, so the next question was when was Einstein going to get his Nobel Prize and be recognised as a genius.

2. There was opposition to Einstein getting a Nobel Prize

3. Hence his “annoyance.”

4. There were people who did not want to give him a Nobel prize!

Hughes continues: But 1921 was not the year, thanks to one stubborn senior member of the prize committee, ophthalmologist Allvar Gullstrand. "Einstein must never receive a Nobel Prize, even if the whole world demands it," said Gullstrand, according to a Swedish mathematician's diary dug up by Friedman. Gullstrand's arguments, however biased, convinced the rest of the committee. In 1921, the Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded no physics prize.

Hughes blames one man as setting the Noble prize committee against Einstein.

But it was really the whole 4 man committee that was opposed to Einstein.

One of the committee died and the new man who came in opened the door for Einstein.

So, we take up this from Elzinga.

Elzinga says: “Chance had intervened with the unexpected death of the committee chairman.” [2]

Elzinga calls the new man a “hero” because the new man was a supporter of Einstein obviously like Elzinga

Elzinga continues: The hero was a new committee member (C W Oseen) who saw the others were set against relativity, so argued for the 'law' being fundamental and underpinning Bohr's atom model. He successfully argued for a package using the deferred 1921 prize - one to Einstein and the second to Niels Bohr. But such was the animus against relativity theory that at the Swedish Academy's plenary meeting, the astonishing reservation was added to Einstein's certificate: "independent of the value that (after eventual confirmation) may be credited to the relativity and gravitation theory". This reflects the refusal throughout the decade to award a prize for relativity…… [2]

Back to Hughes: Oseen lobbied the committee to recognize the photoelectric effect not as a "theory," but as a fundamental "law" of nature–not because he cared about recognizing Einstein, but because he had another theoretical physicist in mind for that second available prize: Niels Bohr. Bohr had proposed a new quantum theory of the atom that Oseen felt was "the most beautiful of all the beautiful" ideas in recent theoretical physics. In his report to the committee, Oseen exaggerated the close bond between Einstein's proven law of nature and Bohr's new atom. [1]

According to Friedman: “Thus in one brilliant stroke overcoming the objections against both Einstein and Bohr." [1]

So, there were objections to Bohr and quantum theory not just against Einstein.

Hughes: On November 10, 1922, they gave the 1922 prize to Bohr and the delayed 1921 prize to Einstein, "especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect." Einstein, en route to Japan (and perhaps huffy after the committee's long delay) did not attend the official ceremony. [1]

Information still from Hughes - According to Friedman, Einstein didn't care much about the medal, anyway, though he did care about the money. As the German mark decreased in value after the war, Einstein needed a hard foreign currency for alimony payments to his ex-wife. [1]

There was an obligatory speech for the Nobel Prize, and I will pick up this from Bert Schreiber.

Bert Schreiber: “Einstein was in Berlin in the spring of 1923 and a time and place for the delivery of the obligatory Nobel speech was agreed upon. This was given as a Nobel lecture at Goeteborg, Sweden, during the meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Natural Science on July 10, 1923.” [3]

“During this particular speech titled: Fundamental Ideas and Problems on the Theory of Relativity, he never mentioned that his prize was on the photoelectric effect and the other physical theories or anything even remotely connected to his diploma. All he expounded on was on Relativity (parts of that third paper). The scientists and newspapers complained.” [3]

Apparently Einstein had been asked to give a lecture on relativity by the Nobel committee.

So, Einstein acted like the prize was for his relativity. That’s how it was bypassed the protests at Einstein’s relativity, and Nobel Prize was now effectively endorsing Einstein’s relativity despite the Nobel committee (as we noted earlier) not wanting to give Einstein a Nobel Prize for relativity.

It was bypassing Alfred Nobel’s wishes, who had wanted the lectures for his prizes based on what the Nobel Prize was being awarded for!

Further-- With Einstein’s prize as paving the way for Bohr getting a Nobel Prize, it was meaning that the Special Relativity Philosophy being adopted

Einstein rejected the direction that Quantum mechanics went with Bohr, but his 1921 Nobel Prize paved the way for it.

Einstein’s point of view on Quantum theory based on his comments has been collected to form the article by him “A skeptic of quantum theory explains his misgivings “[4]

To the question “Why were you so upset about quantum theory when much of it was based on your own work?”

The type of reply he would give is: Yes, I may have started it but I always regarded these ideas as temporary. I never thought that others would take them so much more seriously than I did.

Make a big note of this—modern physics from this revolution circa 1920s came from Einstein and he did not take it seriously; effectively it’s all built on a joke.

The Philosophy underpinning Quantum mechanics was inspired by Einstein’s philosophy that formed Special relativity according to Heisenberg. (See: the book “Uncertainty: the life story of Werner Heisenberg”) [5] Heisenberg told Einstein this and Einstein still dismissed it as nonsense.

One of the troubles with Einstein is that Einstein just kept changing his mind. He would think one thing one moment and something else later. So although the philosophy on which he formed SR was used to form QM. Einstein had by then changed to another philosophy.

The philosophy that’s bad was-- Albert Einstein "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." [6] This means keep the theory no matter what experiments give

It was deemed a Jewish way of thinking about things

And was not natural to non-Jewish minds

This has been noted by many- e.g. Sommerfield – who was friend of Einstein:

“Arnold Sommerfeld, who strangely enough would become a friend, discerned an insalubrious Jewish cast to Einstein’s theorizing. To his esteemed colleague Hendrik Lorentz he wrote in 1907, “As remarkable as Einstein’s papers are, it still seems to me that something almost unhealthy lies in this unconstruable and impossible to visualize dogma. An Englishman would hardly have given us this theory. It might be here too, as in the case of Cohn, the abstract conceptual character of the Semite expresses itself.” [7]

The trouble with this leads onto being accused of anti-Semitism if opposed to it, also its unfair stereotyping of Jews. And makes the whole subject then taboo--- because talk about it and risk getting accused of anti-Semitism.

It’s the perfect way of blocking discussion—make it touch on a highly sensitive and emotive issue.

What we have is then two ways of dealing with “theory”:

(1) test a theory and discard it if wrong

and

(2) keep theory no matter what

It’s a conflict between how people think.

And mainstream physics now seems based on latter making it seem more like a religion than a science, and a taboo to talk about it as well.

Physics should not be like that; it should be free of politics and religion. But its not!

Not everyone in mainstream physics is aware that at the heart of it is this type of philosophy and they are happily going along believing its about testing things; but really at the heart its about adjusting observations to fit a certain theoretical structure – a structure that can’t be overturned if you follow the philosophy correctly. Mavericks might think well just do things differently; but mavericks just go off in all different directions without forming any common ground for which to build from

Despite this physics from Einstein being bad – it at least provides some sort of common ground to build from.

Not everyone is aware of this common ground. But if they are aware of it and stick rigidly to it, then ideally stay part of mainstream. If they go against it then ideally they are exiled/expelled from mainstream.

Of course human factors come into it – if mainstream suddenly in very large numbers switch beliefs making those holding this belief a small minority they would get expelled instead of the other way. But at moment – those with this mindset (explicitly and implicitly aware of it) are able to expel any small minority that goes against it

The mainstream has lots of defences to its beliefs that mirror religious defences – accusing the rebel of being anti-Semitic is just an extreme of what they can do; at milder form they can just mock- that physics is too complicated for the rebel etc

Elzinga tells us about a change made in Nobel prizes: the Nobel committee would not reward creative science, but only 'discovery or invention'. It definitely did not reward 'metaphysics and speculation', a stance relaxed in recent decades. [1]

This change was of course due to having given Einstein the Nobel Prize. Einstein’s philosophy (that he had abandoned) had become part of physics; with the philosophy being part of Bohr’s getting Nobel Prize for quantum physics; Quantum revolution was part of a philosophy change in physics.

And having set the precedent for that – physics Nobel prizes could be awarded effectively for just philosophy.

Max Born‘s Nobel prize speech “The statistical interpretation of quantum nechanics” Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1954. He says:

The work, for which I have had the honour to be awarded the Nobel Prize for 1954, contains no discovery of a fresh natural phenomenon, but rather the basis for a new mode of thought in regard to natural phenomena. This way of thinking has permeated both experimental and theoretical physics to such a degree that it hardly seems possible to say anything more about it that has not been already so often said. [8]

The things to note are:

(1) - “new mode” of thought is effectively philosophy—he is saying he is getting a Nobel physics prize for philosophy

(2)“no new discovery” that’s contrary to Alfred Nobel idea that should not get prize for just theory i.e. The Nobel Prize system was just corrupted Dirac received a Nobel Prize for supposedly joining Special relativity with Quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics (as noted earlier) was endorsed by Nobel system giving Bohr (and Einstein) a Nobel Prize for Quantum mechanics.

Then despite all the resistance against Einstein’s relativity, the Nobel system was now endorsing Special relativity via Dirac.

But Dirac had not really combined Special relativity with Quantum mechanics, as he realised from his biography “The Strangest man: the hidden life of Paul Dirac Quantum genius”. [9]

Also Eddington – the second expert after Einstein on Einstein’s relativity was claiming that Dirac was misrepresenting Einstein’s relativity. [10] According to Eddington -- experts in relativistic quantum mechanics, including Dirac, were persistently misusing the special theory of relativity. This disagreement had been rumbling for years: in the summer of 1939, Sir Joseph Larmor had heard that ‘Eddington has lately come to blows with Dirac.’

But Special relativity managed to get in by backdoor with the Nobel system—first its philosophy was endorsed by the Nobel system and then its supposed joining to Quantum mechanics followed.

If saying Special relativity is wrong, then that means a lot of Nobel prizes need returning; and realistically mainstream is never going to do that; so its enforced dogma.

If Einstein had got Nobel Prize for Special relativity – it would have directly highlighted a dispute with Special relativity. Getting in through the backdoor effectively hid the dispute. ---

Ohanian tells us: Einstein had been nominated for the [Nobel] prize as far back as 1910, by Wilhelm Ostwald, the eminent German chemist, who was a leading opponent of atomic theory. He was nominated several more times in the succeeding years, and, after 1917, he was nominated every year, again and again by Wein, von Laue, Lorentz, Zeeman, Planck, Bohr, Eddington, and other leaders in physics, mostly for his work on special or general relativity. Often these nominations recommended a joint award to Einstein and to Lorentz, and this probably bewildered the committee, because Lorentz was known to be opposed to Einstein’s views on relativity. Maybe the committee feared that if Einstein and Lorentz showed up in Stockholm together for the award ceremony, they would reciprocally accuse each other of not understanding relativity. [11]

So, a Nobel Prize for Special relativity might have resulted in a fight, highlighting the theory could not be agreed on by the experts.

For Lorentz theory, it might be better to call it Lorentz-Poincare theory. (From World Encyclopedia: “Albert Einstein's first paper on relativity in 1905 derived the Lorentz transformation and presented them in the same form as had Poincaré. It was published three months after Poincaré's short paper”[12] – So there were at least three people involved not just two.)

Einstein’s theory special relativity was basically a reinterpretation of Lorentz transformations that sat within Lorentz’s theory; so there is disagreement between the two theories that the Establishment has not properly addressed; merely instead publicised Einstein’s theory and ignored Lorentz’s theory. If we call it the Lorentz- Einstein relativity theory, then both Lorentz and Einstein disagree on the nature of that theory.

2. Devil’s Advocate

Now lets look at the Opposition to Einstein there were basically three groups-

1. those pro Einstein relativity 2. those anti all relativity 3. those pro relativity but thinking Einstein got relativity wrong

The third group tends to be forgotten in the conflict between the first two groups

Here comes Boscovich---

In the A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, John Losee tells us:

"...In Query 31 of Opticks, he [Newton] set forth a research programme to uncover the forces that govern the interactions of the minute parts of bodies. Newton expressed the hope that the study of short-range forces would achieve an integration of physico - chemical phenomena such as changes of state, solution, and the formation of compounds, in much the same way as the principle of universal gravitation had achieved the integration of terrestrial and celestial dynamics. Subsequently, Newton’s research programme received theoretical development from Boscovich and Mossotti, and practical implementation in the electromagnetic researches of Faraday and the various attempts to measure the elective affinities of the chemical elements." [13] i.e. Boscovich part of Newtonian research program

Various people have noted that Boscovich dealt with relativity, for instance:

The scientist Nikola Tesla, a critic of Einstein, claimed in an unpublished interview that Einstein's theory of Relativity was the creation of Boškovi ć:

“....the relativity theory, by the way, is much older than its present proponents. It was advanced over 200 years ago by my illustrious countryman Ru đer Boškovi ć, the great philosopher, who, not withstanding other and multifold obligations, wrote a thousand volumes of excellent literature on a vast variety of subjects. Boškovi ć dealt with relativity, including the so-called time-space continuum ...'. “ [14]

I mention this to highlight that relativity was around long before Einstein. There were experts in relativity other than Einstein; there being a relativity tradition long before Einstein.

The propaganda around Einstein tries to make out that Einstein discovered relativity; when really it was around long before him.

What has hidden this to large extent is the fact that Einstein does not give references for his works, giving those who casually look at Einstein and not looking at what happened before Einstein that it is a new venture by Einstein.

As Max Born, Nobel prize winner and friend of Einstein said:” 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." [15]

So there was no new venture by Einstein; we have a big tradition of relativity before Einstein, such as Lorentz and Poincare and there were many more.

One of the experts was – Silberstein. He wrote a relativity book in 1914. [16]

Silberstein was the Devil’s Advocate; the main man against Einstein.

Desmet says of him: “Silberstein, trained as a physicist in Poland, student of (among others) Hermann von Helmholtz and Max Plank in Germany, lecturer in mathematical physics in Italy, and author of a 1911 quaternion-formulation of STR [Special relativity theory], moved to England in 1912, where he obtained a lectureship at University College, London. [17]

On the relativity issue, Desmet says: Silberstein, who had a kind of love-hate relationship with Einstein’s GTR [General relativity theory]– willing to accept it wholeheartedly, and yet, relentlessly criticizing it – has been called Einstein’s “advocatus diaboli,” as well as “Einstein’s antagonist.” [17]

Advocatus diaboli meaning Devil’s Advocate.

And by McCausland we have the meeting to decide whether Einstein was right or wrong in 1919 as being like a Congregation of rites with Silberstein acting as Devil’s advocate not being allowed to properly present his criticism, so that Einstein was canonized unfairly. [18]

McCausland says: “The meeting has also been described in a very interesting way by Abraham Pais (1982), who identified the day of the joint meeting as “the day on which Einstein was canonized.” Pais was obviously very pleased with his comparison of the meeting to a Congregation of Rites at which a candidate is considered for canonization in the Catholic Church, and compared various participants at the meeting to counterparts in the Congregation of Rites, using as his reference The New Catholic Encyclopedia .”

“However, one of his comparisons was highly inappropriate, namely his comparison of Ludwik Silberstein to the advocatus diaboli , or Devil’s advocate. Although Silberstein was critical of accepting that the results superseded Newton’s theory, the circumstances in which his criticisms were expressed were totally different, in at least two important respects, from the circumstances in which the arguments of the Devil’s advocate are expressed in a Congregation of Rites.”

“In the first place, it is imperative that the arguments of the Devil’s advocate be heard before canonization is pronounced, and Pais’s account gives the impression that Silberstein’s criticisms had been heard before the results were endorsed by the President of the Royal Society. However, the generally accepted account of the meeting (Thomson, 1919) shows that Thomson had, to use Pais’s words, “pronounced the canonization” before Silberstein had had a chance to speak.”

“In the second place, it is the responsibility of the Devil’s advocate to ensure that canonization does not occur undeservedly. In order to fulfill that responsibility, he must be given full access to all the relevant information required to make the case for the opposition to canonization. This condition was not fulfilled at the meeting at which the eclipse results were announced, because it was not possible for members of the audience to be sufficiently well-informed about the results that were being announced to make informed criticism of them.”

So, the canonization of Einstein was a farce; there was not fair debate.

As to what Silberstein points out, it is – Newtonian physics gives the same result for lightbending as that claimed for General Relativity; and that being the case there was no need for spacetime curvature. [19]

It’s all just another layer of obfuscation because the canonization of Einstein was a farce. The canonization happened too quickly. The Devil’s advocate case was not allowed to be given proper hearing. Now we have Einstein as falsely canonized, when Whitehead met with Einstein to discuss relativity and point out Einstein was wrong [17]; of course Einstein would not want to relinquish his canonization. Dingle naively thought all he had to do was to point out the absurdities of Special relativity [20] and the canonization would be reversed. But the Establishment had been too entrenched in upholding Einstein’s mistakes and too afraid to admit its canonization was a mistake. The Science Establishment finds its easier to enforce the “sheep” to conform to the mess, and why it made the mess in the first place we find it was all for political reasons nothing to do with science; i.e corruption of science for political agendas. It’s what I observe in human behaviour in organizations, namely- create a mess and carry on regardless because that is the way being enforced to do things. [21]

It gets suppressed that there was opposition to Einstein by Relativity experts.

Einstein Relativity issues were not agreed.

But that gets suppressed and pretended that there was no disagreement. Students can hardly be told that what they are being taught was not agreed by the experts at the time; hence the teachers have to omit that; and then comes the pretence of this being accepted physics. It was all a mess as to how this became mainstream physics.--- and it’s just a taboo subject.

Instead of the facts of what historically happened, we get the propaganda of Einstein being a genius.

There is a fairly well known saying by Historians.

“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Sir Winston Churchill.

That’s the Physics community – they pay no attention to the history of their subject.

Those who rebel against the mainstream are just as bad, they don’t pay attention to history either. Instead of checking the history they immediately jump into creating their own personal theories and swamping the internet with diverse different theories.

Rather than pay attention to history, “they” just buy into the propaganda.

The propaganda they are sold is that Einstein is a genius and changed everything. So when they think Einstein is wrong, they think all they have to do is act like Einstein and create something different.

They don’t think to themselves about checking out what really happened.

If they did check it out they would find there was a great deal of opposition to Einstein.

There was strong resistance against Einstein’s physics in the 1919 and no proper agreement was reached in the physics community. But despite the Nobel committee refusing to give Einstein a Nobel Prize for Relativity; the Nobel Prize system became a stamp of approval for the type of theorising that Einstein was advocating in his early years. A type of theorising that Einstein later rebelled against.

In 1919 there were only a few experts who specialised in Relativity. A proper debate over whether Einstein’s physics should be accepted was blocked. On the side supporting Einstein was of course – Eddington. But on the other side opposing Einstein was another expert in Relativity who was nicknamed the Devil’s Advocate. There was a very strong case for not changing from Newtonian physics, and no need for the supposed Einstein Revolution. That side of the 1919 controversy needs to be heard.

There was opposition to Einstein by a group thinking he got relativity wrong; this group is often falsely represented in history rewrites as supporters of Einstein’s relativity; when really the group was – relativity ok but Einstein got it wrong.

This group roughly is from Boscovich tradition.

Some of the names for opposition were: Varick, Silberstein, Whitehead and there were many others.

Mach thought Einstein got relativity wrong etc

The clash between anti-relativists and pro-Einstein relativity supporters diverted attention from those who thought relativity ok but Einstein got it wrong.

This opposition and failure to agree should be pointed out rather than all this diversion onto numerous other pet theories.

Going along with the taboo that the mainstream has about not mentioning there was no agreement made circa 1919-onwards with Einstein’s relativity just plays right into their hands, and they can pretend that there was i.e. pretend that Einstein’s theories were clearly explained when they weren’t and pretend that they were proven when they weren’t.

The Opposition’s case (the Devil’s side) still stands- Einstein’s relativity was never agreed by the experts and it was never proven!

Part of the Opposition’s case is as follows; and a fact to point out again is —those opposing Einstein are usually falsely represented by the propaganda as supporting Einstein.

Gullstrand who opposed Einstein getting the Nobel prize for relativity, had written on relativity--- that does not mean he supported Einstein’s relativity.

Wallis and Marshall [2] say: Allvar Gullstrand did have published work on general relativity (1922) and his name is still attached to Painlevé-Gullstrand coordinates. His 1921 report opposing the award of the prize did criticise the absence of dynamic solutions (gravitational waves) which is a longstanding issue (Lo, 2006) and relates to the "ambiguity" (non-unique) objection to GR published by Whitehead (1922) which is central in the Relativistic Theory of Gravitation (Logunov 2001, 2006). Thus Gullstrand's scepticism over the three tests was underpinned by basic theoretical questioning. Perhaps this (healthy) scepticism was also shared by wider sections in the full Swedish Academy.

o Whitehead, A.N.: The principle of relativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1922) o Gullstrand, A.: "Allgemeine Lösung des statischen Einkörperproblems in der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie" Ark. Mat. Astr. Fys. 16(8) 1- 15 (1922) o Lo, C. Y.: The Gravitational "Plane Waves" of Liu & Zhou and the Nonexistence of Dynamic Solutions for Einstein's Equation, Astrophys Space Sci (2006) 306:205-215 o Logunov, A. A. : The Theory of Gravity, Nauka, Moscow (2001) o Logunov, A. A. : Relativistskaya Teoria Gravitatsii, Nauka, Moscow (2006)

3. Einstein’s math

The History is-

Aristotelian physics
Copernican revolution
Newtonian physics(Boscovich)

Then came Einstein—who was no good at math.

In 1919—a prediction made by Einstein was supposed to be confirmed by telescopic observation

Physics community held a debate to decide if Einstein was correct.

The Devil’s Advocate put forward the case for Einstein not to be declared a genius; and ideally would have won the debate if it was fair. Einstein had not done anything to make change from existing Newtonian physics. i.e. no revolution in physics.

However the news media ignored that and presented the story that it was revolution in physics- that Einstein had overturned Newton. Usual for news media – to totally get the story wrong!

Along with everything else it was just math mistakes- the bending of light could be explained from the math of Newtonian physics. In fact Einstein’s math for light bending was the same as what math of Newtonian physics could give; and the Devil’s Advocate had pointed this out. The difference was that the “math” was being interpreted differently by Einstein.

So, the presentation was that Einstein physics had overturned Newtonian physics on what was really the mistake of believing that Einstein math was different to Newtonian physics math.

Since Einstein was no good at math, it then meant adopting his physics, tied you into adopting all the other math mistakes he had made. And this became the dogma for physics students—to teach them to be as bad at math as Einstein.

Einstein knew something was wrong, and he carried on trying to sort out the math in what became his unified field theory program of research. The physics community decided that was a waste of time and instead adopted Einstein’s mistakes up to circa 1919.

When we look at Einstein’s math it is a mess, and many have tried to make sense of it, but since it’s a vast collection of mistakes it’s just a mess.

Einstein just did not understand math, and most physicists now follow that lead.

The propaganda is that Einstein was a mathematical genius. So when Einstein writes mathematical nonsense, the propaganda says that’s clever.

When someone talks nonsense in English – it’s usually fairly clear to most sensible people that nonsense is being said. But as regards math- most people have difficulty. Talk nonsense in English and translate that into math and its still nonsense! But because people are not so happy dealing with math- if nonsense is talked in math then they are not so sure that it is nonsense; they can get deceived that it’s clever. This is a psychological issue with people – they tend not to understand math, so are fooled into thinking anything in math form is clever. Thus write nonsense in math form and they fail to recognise it as nonsense and instead believe it. Einstein was an expert at writing nonsense in mathematical form. And it shows how deep the Propaganda goes—those who believe the propaganda and who think they are good at math are prepared to believe nonsense math; it’s like they are hypnotized. A person hypnotized can believe nonsense, and these people who believe in Einstein the genius are prepared to believe nonsense math.

Conclusion

Einstein’s Relativity was not accepted by the science community; that is contrary to the propaganda which says otherwise.

Einstein’s Relativity has been given the illusion of acceptance; but it has not been accepted.

Agreement as to how to understand Einstein’s Relativity had never been made in the mainstream. All the experts were in disagreement.

Einstein’s Relativity should have been given a proper debate in the physics community as to what it was supposed to mean.

But instead of proper debate to dispel differences in opinion and hence clarify Einstein’s Relativity, the subject has become taboo.

Based on Video Lecture for 11-Dec- 2010

References:

[1] Einstein vs. the Nobel Prize:Why the Nobel Committee repeatedly dissed this "world-bluffing Jewish physicist!” by Virginia Hughes at:http://discovermagazine.com/2006/sep/einstein-nobel- prize/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=

[2] Review of Aant Elzinga, Einstein's Nobel Prize: A Glimpse Behind closed Doors, Max K Wallis and Trevor W Marshall http://www.ysfine.com/einstein/wallis.html

[3] Einstein’s Nobel Prize and Consequences, Bert Schreiber http://www.wbabin.net/science/schreiber3.pdf

[4] A skeptic of quantum theory explains his misgivings By Albert Einstein November 20th 2010 http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/65082/title/A_skeptic_of_quantum_theo ry_

[5] Uncertainty: the life story of Werner Heisenberg, David C Cassidy, W H Freeman and co, New York, USA 1992, ISBN 0-7167-2243-7 p 238

[6] Albert Einstein said: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." http://thinkexist.com/quotation/if_the_facts_don-t_fit_the_theory- change_the/10117.html

[7] Sommerfeld at: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/ein steins-quest-for-truth

[8] The statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics, by Max Born http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1954/born-lecture.pdf

[9] The Strangest man: the hidden life of Paul Dirac Quantum genius, Faber and Faber, London, 2009, ISBN 978-0-571-22278-0

[10] ibid p 316

{11] Einstein’s Mistakes, Hans Ohanian ISBN 978-0-393-33768-6 Published by W.W. Norton & Company, 2008). p 269-270

[12] Poincare, Henri, New World Encyclopedia http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Henri_Poincar%C3%A9 2010-11-17

[13] A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, John Losee, Oxford University Press, UK 1993, p 98. The role of Newton’s research programme in 18th century science has been discussed by A Thackray in Atoms and Powers (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970).

[14] Tesla ref from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ru%C4%91er_Bo%C5%A1kovi%C4%87 2010-11-07

[15] Physics in my generation: A selection of papers Max Born, N.L.Pergamon Press, London &. New York, 1956 p 193 -194

[16] Silberstein, Ludwik (1914). The Theory of Relativity . London: Macmillan & Co..

[17] Whitehead and the British Reception of Einstein’s Relativity: An Addendum to Victor Lowe’s Whitehead Biography, Ronny Desmet, October 2, 2007 http://www.ctr4process.org/publications/SeminarPapers/30_2- DesmetR.pdf

[18] Anomalies in the History of Relativity, Ian McCausland, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 271–290, 1999 http://www.imamu.edu.sa/Scientific_selections/abstracts/Physics/Anomalies% 20in%20the%20History%20of%20Relativity.pdf

[19] The True Relation of Einstein's to Newton's Equations of Motion. LUDWIK SILBERSTEIN. NATURE DECEMBER I, 1923 p 788 -789 http://www.wbabin.net/historical/silberstein3.pdf

[20] Herbert Dingle attacked Einstein’s relativity after first being a supporter, see such places as: Science at the Crossroads, H. Dingle, Martin Brian & O'Keeffe, London . 1972

[21] saying much the same thing as I said in: Relativity does not require Spacetime curvature http://www.wbabin.net/weuro/anderton63.pdf

[22] For Einstein’s math see for example: Einstein’s Relativistic Error, Roger J Anderton c.RJAnderton2010-11-22