Exposing the Real Albert Einstein

Written by coconutrevival.com

Like so many other people on this Earth, I was led to believe that Albert Einstein was the “Greatest” scientist that the world has ever known.

But just as so much of so-called ‘history’ has been fabricated in order to brainwash the public into believing myths that serve the parasitic controllers, so was Albert Einstein created into a mythic figure in order to support those ends.

During his life, Einstein had earned an international reputation for hiding from his critics. His favorite tactic to avoid debate was to accuse his critics of being “anti-Semites”, while refusing to address their legitimate accusations of his, Einstein’s, irrationality and plagiarism.

Like countless others before him, Einstein had proposed a non-Newtonian law of gravity. In Einstein’s gravitational theory the deflection of light rays was twice as great as in Newton’s gravitational theory.

In 1918-1920, the British astronomers Frank Watson Dyson, Charles Davidson and Arthur Stanley Eddington collaborated with Albert Einstein, and his friends Alexander Moszkowski, Max Born, Erwin Freundlich and Hendrik Antoon Lorentz to promote and sensationalize contrived reports that eclipse observations had confirmed Einstein’s prediction.

Dyson, Davidson, Eddington and Einstein misrepresented the photographic evidence, which was of poor quality and, therefore, inconclusive. They falsely claimed that the photographs taken during eclipse of the Sun proved not only that the deflection of light had occurred, but that it was twice the Newtonian value, in accord with Einsteinian (Soldnerian) theory.

However, this is not what the photographs had shown, and it is doubtful that the photographs could in any case have been conclusive. The effect was exceedingly small and the equipment the astronomers employed was primitive and did not have the precision needed to accurately record the predicted effect.

The press promoted these falsified reports and told the general public that Newtonian theory had been overthrown and that Einstein was a great genius, who was at least the equal of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton.

The press reported that Einstein’s unique insight was so sophisticated and enlightened that only twelve men in the world could understand it.

The sensational reports created a mass hysteria for Einstein in America, one which culminated in Einstein’s visit to the United States in the spring of 1921. Einstein’s trip came shortly after Einstein had endured a series of public humiliations in the scientific community in Germany in 1920. He was hiding from the German scientists who had informed the public that he was a fraud.

Though Einstein had arrived to a triumphant welcome in New York City, he left the United States an utter disgrace. Though Einstein had accepted many honors from American universities, he publicly ridiculed American scholars and Americans in general in a widely published interview he gave after he had returned to Europe.

In spite of all the humiliating defeats Einstein met in the scientific world, a pro-Einstein press stuck by him and unfairly smeared those who legitimately criticized him. Some of his critics were highly respected Nobel Prize winning physicists.

KEY EVENTS

1700Newton predicts the deflection of light around the sun, something Einstein plagiarized as his 1911 prediction without even mentioning, much less citing, Newton.
1801Johann Georg von Soldner publishes his predictions which Einstein plagiarizes as his own predictions 114 years later, never citing Soldner in “his” 1915 paper.
182778 years before Einstein gets credit for it, Robert Brown in Scotland explains Brownian Movement, yet Einstein never even cited him.
1878James Maxwell in Scotland publishes Special Theory of Relativity in Encyclopedia Britannica, which Einstein then publishes as his own in 1905, without ever even citing Maxwell [it seems incomprehensible that Einstein could have copied an article from an encyclopedia, submitted it as his own work, and never get questioned by the hundreds of professors and publishers who must have reviewed it].
1879, March 14Einstein born in Württemberg, Germany
1887Michelson-Morley experiment suggests there is no ether, an observation made by Einstein in his 1905 papers in which he never even cited Michelson or Morley.
1888Heinrich Hertz publishes his paper on the photoelectric effect, a paper which Einstein failed to cite.
1889George Fitzgerald in Ireland publishes his paper about the theory of relativity, a paper which Einstein never even cited, even though Fitzgerald’s numerous collaborators did cite him.
1890Ludwig Boltzmann of Austria and Josiah Gibbs of the US develop the Boltzmann Constant.
1892Hendrik Lorentz in the Netherlands publishes the Lorentz Transformations.
1895At age 16, Einstein fails a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich, Switzerland.
1896At age 17, Einstein becomes a high school drop out, his German citizenship is revoked, and he enrolls in the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich.
1898Paul Gerber in Germany publishes the exact equations in Annalen der Physik (also in “Science of Mechanics”, a book that Einstein is known to have studied) which Einstein publishes 17 years later in 1915 as his “perihelion motion of Mercury”, in exactly the same journal, with no cites to Gerber, claiming that he was “in the dark”, only to confess in 1920 to his crime, under pressure.
1898Poincare in France wrote the paper on the theory of relativity, which never mentions Einstein, which Einstein plagiarizes as one of his 1905 papers without ever citing Poincare.
1900Max Planck and Wilhelm Wien of Germany develop the quantum theory which Einstein plagiarizes as his “Light Quantum” paper in 1905, never even citing either Planck or Wien.
1901At age 22, after five years at Swiss Federal Polytechnic School, Einstein graduates with the lowest grade point average in the class, becomes a Swiss citizen, and gets the lowest ranking position an engineer could get in the patent office, technical assistant.
1902Einstein sires his first child, an illegitimate daughter Lieserl, who’s believed to have had Downs Syndrome and was put up for adoption.
1903Olinto de Pretto publishes E=mc^2 in Atte, a scientific magazine known to be read by Einstein, which he later claimed as his own work, never citing de Pretto.
1904Einstein’s second child, Hans Albert, whose only claim to fame is to have been to keep up his subscription to Applied Mechanics Review for 20 years.
1904Friedrich Hasenohrl of Germany, citing J.J. Thomson of England and W. Kaufmann of Sweden, publishes E=mc^2 in the very same journal as Einstein plagiariazes it as his own in 1905, never citing any of the three.
1905Philipp Eduard Anton von Lenard, under whom Einstein’s wife studied, received a Nobel Prize for discovering the photo-electric effect, which Einstein then completely plagiarizes the SAME year, presenting it as “his” paper, with no references to Lenard.
1905June 5th, Poincarre publishes Sur la dynamique de l’electron, naming the Lorentz Transformations after Lorentz, and 25 days later, on June 30th, Einstein, failing to even cite Poincarre or Lorentz, presents it as his theory of relativity.
1905At age 26, while still a low level technical assistant at the patent office, he publishes 4 groundbreaking essays in the field of theoretical physics and quantum mechanics in Annalen der Physik, gaining him a Ph.D. from the University of Zurich and worldwide support from Zionists. He includes his WIFE Marity’s name on the papers who is rumored to have done all his math for him, who he gave all the prize money.
1907J. Precht says of Einstein’s ridiculous twist of logic “Perhaps it will prove possible to test this theory using bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts of radium)” that such an experiment “lies beyond the realm of possible experience”.
1909At age 30, four years after getting his Ph.D, this “genius” is still a technical assistant at the patent office, but friends arrange to promote him to associate professor at Zurich University.
1910Einstein sires Eduardo, who dies in a sanatorium in 1965.
1919, November 7London Times begins the disinformation campaign, heralding Einstein as a “genius”
1915, November 20David Hilbert presents his paper in Berlin, citing Marcel Grossmann, including precisely the same field equations that Einstein presents as his own equations 5 days later (2 weeks after it was known that Einstein had received a copy of Hilbert’s paper and that Hilbert hadn’t received a copy of Einstein’s paper).  Dingle repudiates the special theory of relativity in 1972
1915, November 25Einstein presents “his” paper and publishes the General Theory of Relativity based on the mathematics of Marcel Grossmann and Berhard Riemann, first to develop a sound non-Euclidean geometry, which is the basis of all mathematics used to describe relativity.
1921Einstein’s first visit to the US
1922Einstein receives a Nobel Prize concerning the photoelectric effect, something he plagiarized from Heinrich Hertz, but who Einstein never even cites.
1932, December 9Einstein was denied a visa to visit the US because of his “communist connections”.
1955, April 18Einstein dies.
1972Herbert Dingle refutes the special theory of relativity which Einstein plagiarized from him in 1915.
1993Peter Beckman writes that Special Relativity will eventually be dismissed.
1995The Global Positioning Satellite “works fine”, in spite of Einsteinians’ concerns that they ignored Einstein’s “theories”.
1998, December 21Tom Van Flandern publishes in Physics Letters A that the speed of gravity must be at least 20 billion times faster than the speed of light, disproving “Einstein’s” theories.
1999Time Magazine puts Einstein on the front cover as “person of the century”, even though he wasn’t an American and not even viewed by the public as among the most popular 100 people of the year, much less the century.
2000Anedio Ranfagni proves that “Einstein’s theory” about the constant speed of light is wrong

“The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.” — Albert Einstein

The Einstein Hoax consists of maintaining the quasi-religious belief that the phenomena associated with velocity and gravitation cannot be understood by ordinary men using their common sense. It can only be understood in terms of mathematics performed by initiates who possessed the prerequisite degrees. Whether it is recognized or not, all of the essentials of a religion are present.

A primary motive for the maintaining of the Einstein Hoax is rather obvious, it’s money. Society expends a large sums supporting this priesthood through tuition paid by parents and grants by governments and industry. The donors believe they are paying for the teaching of the young, however, that teaching is mostly done by graduate students who are seeking their own degrees. The established possessors of the necessary degrees spend most of their time in research because, not only is that activity more interesting, it serves to advance their tenure protected careers. Should Special and/or General Relativity be shown to be fundamentally flawed, the careers of Relativists, most Cosmologists, and those working on Quantum Gravity and/or Unified Field Theory will have been wasted.

At the same time, those with the necessary talent needed to understand reality instinctively recognized that contradictions were implicit in Special Relativity and could not accept the subject as it was presented.

The inability to accept Special Relativity, as presented, effectively eliminates individuals with a strong sense of reality (which by another name is called common sense) from the ranks of those who acted as advisors to PhD candidates and from the roles of those who perform the peer reviews which determine what is published in scientific journals.
As a result, a selection process was gradually put in place which insured that only material which did not threaten the validity of Special and General Relativity was published. Material which appeared to be a threat, no matter how powerfully presented and how intellectually and observationally valid, was effectively squelched.
On the other hand, material which supported Special and General Relativity, no matter how trivial or absurd, was readily published. Once this point was reached, it was possible to make the claim that the subject matter could not be understood in terms of common sense. It could only be understood in terms of mathematics and there were a limited number of minds in the world who could truly comprehend Dr. Einstein’s work.
Read the entire publication at coconutrevival.com

Comments (14)

  • Avatar

    Kenneth Hughes

    |

    I can testify here and now, that relativity theory can indeed be understood “intuitively” or by simple logical deduction, or deductive reasoning. BUT,(and here’s the rub), if you do this, then you have to conclude that one “belief” in SR is incorrect, and that is the “reality” of both inertial length contraction and time dilation. I have established that time dilation is a real phenomenon and so it can be a cause for other effects. The length contraction, although a real observation, is not what I term “real”. It is a consequence of the time dilation. This leads to the understanding that time is a real physical phenomenon, whereas space is “emergent” from time. You cannot have one without the other certainly, but time is more fundamental.

    This demands that GR ought to be explicable by means of the phenomenon of time only and I have also established that GR can indeed be explained in this way. In summary, time does “curve” (change with position), but the “effective” space curvature in GR is the result of the time curvature in strong fields being much greater. It is the time curvature that produces this effective space curvature.

    Where does this leave us? This reasoning demands that gravity be expressed purely in terms of time and I have demonstrated this can be so. The end result is that there is no such thing a the “Gravitational field”, there is only the “Time Rate Field”. Gravity is purely a “field” of behaviour, but time is a real physical phenomenon.

    • Avatar

      T.L. Winslow (@historyscoper)

      |

      Space is emergent from time? Duh, how does that work? You trap some time in a bottle and wait to see if space emerges from it, but what about your stopwatch, which doesn’t have any space to exist in, or you either, and what is spaceless time anyway, gas out of God’s arse? 🙂 Oh yes, you can’t have one without the other, so how do you know what is emergent from what? A better stopwatch? 🙂 Sorry, Special Relativity is pure moose hockey, and Gen. Relativity is mathematical science fiction, because time isn’t real, there’s only causality. And how does time go from zero dimensions to something that can be “curved” and be a “real physical phenomenon”? “It is the time curvature that produces the effective space curvature… Gravity is purely a ‘field’ of behaviour, but time is a real physical phenomenon”? I guess that makes you the world’s greatest genius, because only you can understand it, not 12 like with Einstein 🙂

      • Avatar

        Kenneth Hughes

        |

        Your envy precedes your understanding.

        • Avatar

          Mark Miller

          |

          Which means what> How about an explanation of your “dig”?

  • Avatar

    Kenneth Hughes

    |

    I was surprised about the antics of Albert Einstein though, but the article does seem to quote good evidence. I am not however, surprised that this sort of thing goes on at this level. Even top physicists are vying amongst themselves for greatness. You might like to note, I am sending a pre-publication of my book, “The Binary Universe”, to certain well known physicists for their comment, but of course, I expect none. I did send a copy to Kip Thorne and he is the only one to have responded, even if it was only to say “Sorry, I haven’t got the time to review other’s work”. I know he is progressing long the same lines as me and if I were him, perhaps afraid others might make discoveries before him, then I would wish to have it on record that I never read the competition’s work. Clearly this is what he has done. I predict he will come up with a theory of time akin to mine without citing me. Would he have read and plagiarised my work? Who knows? (I don’t think he would be able to resist taking a look)

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    coconutrevival.com:
    “But just as so much of so-called ‘history’ has been fabricated in order to brainwash the public into believing myths that serve the parasitic controllers, so was Albert Einstein created into a mythic figure in order to support those ends.”

    James McGinn (Solving Tornadoes):
    This is wrong. This suggests that the tail wags the dog. The dog (the public) wags the tail (scientific truth) based on what allegories appeal to the lowest common denominator of the public.

    For example, the hysterical misrepresentation of the atmosphere did not begin with climatology, it began many years previous with meteorology. The brain-dead belief in notions like “convection” established the precedent for the eventual acceptance of the strange belief that a sliver of CO2 is controlling the temperature of our planet.

    You PSI wannabees (misbegotten engineers) are just scratching the surface. You think you are making progress but your ideological shortsightedness makes you seem whiny–so nobody that doesn’t share your ideology pays any attention.

    Again, you PSI wannabees don’t get it. The public isn’t being misled by charlatans. Instead the public is choosing to follow whomever tells the most remarkable story.

    In the link below I provide you an opportunity to see how a real scientist (myself) approaches the questions surrounding atmospheric flow and storms:

    https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329

    James McGinn (Solving Tornadoes)

    • Avatar

      Kenneth Hughes

      |

      Don’t knock Einstein until you’ve understood the theory. You claim to be a physicist but clearly, you do not understand it. I have been through the mathematics of general relativity and I can tell you it is sound. The theory is correct and is continuously being verified regularly from observation. The only issue I have with it, is that the space curvature is abstract. The time curvature is real and we can observe it directly today by the varying time rates at different elevations in the field. Space curvature is only indirectly observed from the behaviour of particle trajectories. If you look up the Schwarzschild curve of time dilation against distance, you can immediately see that the rate at which time changes over distance is vastly different between weak and strong fields. In the weak field (Newtonian field) it is negligible, but in the strong field it becomes more and more significant the deeper into the field you go. Since this time rate change is the only observable phenomenon within the gravitational field, then I deduce this must be the cause of the different behaviours in the weak and strong fields. You can also easily prove this time rate change is the cause of the effective space curvature. General relativity is correct., at least it correctly predicts behaviour.

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    Don’t knock Einstein until you’ve understood the theory. You claim to be a physicist but clearly, you do not understand it.

    JMcG:
    Well, that is a good point. I don’t know if I really understand the theory or do I just think I do. How would one know for sure that they understand it or just believe it.

    Many people think they understand the convection model of storm theory but the truth is that it is a bogus theory. It’s untested and untestable BS that many people pretend to understand.

    KH:
    I have been through the mathematics of general relativity and I can tell you it is sound. The theory is correct and is continuously being verified regularly from observation. But how do you actually know?

  • Avatar

    Mark Miller

    |

    I do not care about Einstein’s children and their problems. Nor if he thought Jews were superior. What I care about is if his theories were provable. Talking about his kids and his “Jewishness” starts to sound anti-Semitic. Stick to the Science, not the personal stuff.

    • Avatar

      Wally

      |

      said:
      “Talking about his kids and his “Jewishness” starts to sound anti-Semitic”
      Yet Einstein’s racist Jew supremacism wasn’t anti-Gentile. I see how that works.
      The classic double standard.
      Forget about it, the shyster was plagiarist & a fraud, call it like it is.

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi Mark and others.

    “What I care about is if his theories were provable”

    Einstein knew (and wrote) what it seems you and others seem to not know about science. “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

    The results of experiment can support a theory but never prove it. So, if the light of the star failed to bend when passing near the sun during the solar eclipse as Einstein’s theory predicted it should, his theory would have been proven to be absolutely wrong. But since the light did bend as predicted, his theory survived the test.

    If one considers (argues) that the result of an experiment can prove a theory, this person absolutely proves he or she is not a scientist.

    Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    John Nicol

    |

    As a physicist with more than thirty years experience in teaching nearly all branches of physics or elements which relate to them including the Theory of Relativlty, I find most of the above claims quite mystifying, not to say bizarre. The tables presented in the article purporting to list people whose thinking preceded that of Einstein on many of his topics, there are no references to the papers which are claimed to have earlier predicted significant physical truths prior to Einstein.

    Other suggestions are in the realm of phantasy:
    Herbert Dingle refutes the special theory of relativity which Einstein plagiarized from him in 1915. The debate between Dingle and McCrea over the paradox of the travelling twin is a legendary episode of good scientific discussion which was not concerned with the truth of Relativity, but rather how such a paradox could be reconciled with it. Experiments on many fronts such as the second order Doppler effect had ,ong since established the correctness of the theory as well as Diracs famous four dimensional wave equation in quantum theory which inter alia explained electron spin.

    “Einstein receives a Nobel Prize concerning the photoelectric effect, something he plagiarized from Heinrich Hertz, but who Einstein never even cites….” This is just rubbish along with many other statements in this table.

    “June 5th, Poincarre publishes Sur la dynamique de l’electron, naming the Lorentz Transformations after Lorentz, and 25 days later, on June 30th, Einstein, failing to even cite Poincarre or Lorentz, presents it as his theory of relativity” Again this is just TOSH, Lorentz published empirically obtained space and time transformations which provided for Maxwell’s equations to be covariant, when other wise they were not under the classical Galilean transformations. Einstein proposed the concepts of constant velocity of light and simultaneity in time in order to write down a set of solvable linear equations which lead logically to the Lorenz transformations and from which other physical predictions could be made which were significantly important to physics.

    It is true that the equations of Lorenz were very important and that Einstein worked towards them in his special theory. His recognition of the significant support he received in the mathematics of the General Theory is quite clear and well known – Levi Civiter, Kronecker and Euler and others who contributed to his manipulations of tensors (Actually Euler’s work was so far part of mathematics by 1916/17 that no one recognised him per se just as La Place equations were part of the tools of applied mathematics.).

    Other significant contributions from Einstein include the stimulated emission which forms the basis of all lasers, so widely used in technology, The Einstein-Podolsky_Rosen paradox which poses a very real question to the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In this interpretation, the state of a particle or photon is assumed to be a mixture until someone performs a measurement which fixes the state. An “entangled” particle is then found to have a complementary state to be obtained consistently also by another measurement. This is a philosophic argument rather than a physical one, but many people do seem to have been carried away with it. The problem appears to be that the Copenhagen interpretation has no physical reason to exist – why cannot a particle whose state has not YET been measured be ACTUALLY IN the state which is subsequently measured while the other particle linked to it is in another state which reflects the value of their combined state?? NO entanglement needed and Bell’s inequality simply tells it as it is, inspite of a lot of similar hype.

    • Avatar

      jerry krause

      |

      Hi John,

      Finally a physicist who confirms a little what I thought I had learned about physics as a physical chemist. Like: “Einstein proposed the concepts of constant velocity of light and simultaneity in time in order to write down a set of solvable linear equations which lead logically to the Lorenz transformations and from which other physical predictions could be made which were significantly important to physics”

      And: “Other significant contributions from Einstein include the stimulated emission which forms the basis of all lasers, so widely used in technology,” Which I consider explains what the greenhouse effect ignores and how the absorption of radiation does not need to be transformed into sensible or latent heat (energy).

      Have a good day, Jerry.

  • Avatar

    Ken Hughes

    |

    To my mind, the only way to reconcile the twin paradox is by the admission of a preferred reference frame. When time stops at “c”, then you might say you get anywhere you like in no time at all. You do not need distances (in the direction of travel), to have contracted to zero to give you the same result. Clearly, one is “real” and the other, purely relative. In GR, as you approach the event horizon, time again reduces to a zero rate and distances again lose their meaning. Space becomes a spherical hologram around the surface of the horizon. From these two phenomena, we can deduce that the phenomenon of time “creates” space, or that space “emerges” from time. This means time (the process of evolution) is a real, physical phenomenon. If we take this process as a wavelike field of energy, then this explains many present day conundrums as well as aligning seamlessly with accepted science. It is the only way that everything has a wave function and that the net energy of everything is zero The field of time is a binary wave of potential energy made up of quanta (Planck times), which can be used to either move you through time by one Planck time or through space by one Planck length (at the speed of light). That is WHY time slows down with increasing motion. You still experience all the quanta from the wave, but some are being used to move you through space instead of through time. Lorentz comes out of this because the wave is a sine wave, a circular function. In GR, the reason WHY there is gravitational time dilation, is because all the particles in the mass are using some of the time quanta for their internal momentum and so time slows down a little near a large mass. We are driven into the future (into the next quantum stage) by the wave, but below this scale (faster than one wave cycle), this does not quite happen. Above the scale of the wave (slower than one wave cycle) the classical laws of nature apply. For things smaller and faster than this, events become less clear for observers like us who are always slower than the wave. This “field” of energy, of time explains much, including the results from the double slit experiment in a logical, physical way with a clear causality. It is the ENVIRONMENT between the slits and the screen that loses its wavelike behaviour (time) under certain circumstances and NOT any wave attribute of the particles passing through it. I could demonstrate it here but I would have to rewrite a whole chapter from my book “The Binary Universe” (due out 25th Aug)

Comments are closed