**(Christopher Jon Bjerknes)**

**Abstract.** Albert Einstein's arguments were
almost always fallacies of *Petitio Principii*. He argued well-known
experimental results as if *a priori* first principles. Einstein would
then induce, as if deducing, the well-known hypotheses of others, and deduce
from these plagiarized hypotheses the same experimental results as conclusions,
which he had first stated as premises. This was Einstein's *modus operandi*
for plagiarism. In the special theory of relativity, Einstein argued light
speed invariance, a well-known (supposed) experimental result at the time,
as if an *a priori* first principle, which an empirical measurement
cannot be, to then induce through analysis, as if deducing in synthesis,
the "Lorentz Transformation" hypotheses. Einstein then used the "Lorentz
Transformation", the true set of hypotheses of the special theory of relativity,
to deduce light speed invariance as a conclusion, a conclusion which Einstein
had already presumed as a premise. Einstein employed the same fallacious
method in the general theory of relativity. Einstein irrationally asserted
the well-known experimental gravitational-inertial mass equivalence of
Bessel and Eötvös as if an "*a priori*" postulate, which
an experimental result cannot be, only to arrive at it as an ultimate conclusion,
a conclusion redundant to the premise. The quasi-postivistic analyses Einstein
presented by turning the synthetic scientific theories of his predecessors
on their heads have been applauded, ridiculed and often misrepresented
as synthetic, which they are not.

**Method**

In 1905, Mileva Einstein-Marity and Albert Einstein [1] coauthored a
paper on the "electrodynamics of moving bodies". Fallacies of begging the
question emerge even in the very introduction to the work. The Einsteins
acknowledge in their introduction, that light speed invariance and the
symmetry of electrodynamic phenomena were well-established phenomena. Well-known
specific phenomena are not, by definition, "*a priori*" general concepts.
However, the Einsteins asked us to abandon reason and assert specific experimental
results and empirical observations, as if *a priori *general principles.
In other words, the Einsteins engaged in an analysis of the problems of
invariant light speed, and of the symmetry of electrodynamic phenomena
in alleged violation of Maxwell's theory, which problems faced physicists
at the end of the nineteenth century; and the Einsteins irrationally pretended
that these two problems were solutions of themselves.

Henry August Rowland stated the two main problems facing the physicists
of his day, on October 28^{th}, 1899, and I have italicized that
which the Einsteins would later call "two assumptions", or "postulates":

"And yet, however wonderful [the ether] may be, its laws
are far more simple than those of matter. *Every wave in it, whatever
its length or intensity, proceeds onwards in it according to well known
laws, all with the same speed, unaltered in direction, from its source
in electrified matter to the confines of the Universe, unimpaired in energy
unless it is disturbed by the presence of matter. *However the waves
may cross each other, each proceeds by itself without interference with
the others. [***] *To detect something dependent on the relative motion
of the ether and matter has been and is the great desire of physicists.
But we always find that, with one possible exception, there is always some
compensating feature which renders our efforts useless. *This one experiment
is the aberration of light, but even here Stokes has shown that it may
be explained in either of two ways: first, that the earth moves through
the ether of space without disturbing it, and second, if it carries the
ether with it by a kind of motion called irrotational. Even here, however,
the amount of action probably depends upon relative motion of the luminous
source to the recipient telescope. So the principle of Doppler depends
also on this relative motion and is independent of the ether. The result
of the experiments of Foucault on the passage of light through moving water
can no longer be interpreted as due to the partial movement of the ether
with the moving water, an inference due to imperfect theory alone. The
experiment of Lodge, who attempted to set the ether in motion by a rapidly
rotating disc, showed no such result. The experiment of Michelson to detect
the ethereal wind, although carried to the extreme of accuracy, also failed
to detect any relative motion of the matter and the ether [*Emphasis
Added*]." [2]

The Einsteins turned reason on its head and called these two *a posteriori*
problems, *a priori *"postulates". The Einsteins phrased their two
"postulates", as follows:

"1 (a). Examples of a similar kind, as well as the failed attempts to find a motion of the earth relative to the 'light medium', lead to the supposition, that the concept of absolute rest corresponds to no characteristic properties of the phenomena not just in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, on the contrary, for all systems of coordinates, for which the equations of mechanics are valid, the same electrodynamic and optical laws are also valid, as has already been proven for the magnitudes of the first order.

1 (b). The laws according to which the states of physical systems change do not depend upon to which of two systems of coordinates, in uniform translatory motion relative to each other, this change of state is referred.

2 (a). [L]ight in empty space always propagates with a
determinate velocity *c *irrespective of the state of motion of the
emitting body.

2 (b). Every ray of light moves in the 'resting' system
of coordinates with the determinate velocity *c*, irrespective of
whether this ray of light is emitted from a resting or moving body. Such
that

velocity = (path of light) / (interval of time) ,

where 'interval of time' is to be construed in the sense of the definition of § 1."

Note that the first "postulate", the principle of relativity, refers
only to "moving systems" and the second "postulate", the light "postulate",
refers only to a proposed "resting system". Note further, that the light
"postulate" refers only to a proposed source independence of light speed,
but not to an observer independence, because this "postulate" assumes a
prior privileged frame and medium in the 1905 paper, the "resting system".
The paper later presumes that *c'* = *c* *+/- v*, relative
to the "resting system".

Many assert that the Einsteins employed only these two "*a priori
*postulates"
in their theorization, as opposed to FitzGerald, Larmor, Lorentz, and Poincaré,
who required the additional hypotheses of length contraction and time dilatation
*to
arrive at the same formulation - long before the Einsteins*. *Ad hoc*
hypotheses were frowned upon at the time, due to Newton's admonitions against
them, such that the removal of hypotheses was seen as an improvement. The
two postulate myth is substantially and demonstrably false. The two postulates
are not postulates, but rather are the deduced conclusions of the theory
- summations of the supposedly observed phenomena of the day.

After asserting the two "postulates", the Einsteins raised a straw man
argument based a *non sequitur*. They asserted that the two "postulates"
appeared irreconcilable with each other. If light speed is constant in
the "resting system", then how can it also be isotropic in a "moving system"?
This is a (manufactured) dilemma, because, in some inexplicable way, the
Einsteins argue that the first postulate, the principle of relativity,
compels that light speed from a given light signal be isotropic for all
systems in uniform motion with each other. However, this is clearly a *non
sequitur*, because the principle of relativity no more compels light
speed isotropy for all "moving systems", then the principle of relativity
requires that a body resting relative to one "moving system" *k *also
rest relative to another "moving system"* K*, which is in motion relative
to the first. Einstein also raised the opposing problem. How can light
speed be isotropic in the "resting system" and also be isotropic in a "moving
system"? Of course, these questions presume the conclusion before it has
been proven, the conclusion being that light speed from any given signal
is isotropic in the "resting system" and all "moving systems", which are
in uniform translatory motion with respect to the "resting system".

To knock down these straw men, the Einsteins turned the "two postulates"
into one "postulate", the conclusion which is sought. The Einsteins asserted
that it is the *combination* of the two postulates, not either postulate
by itself, which "deduces" *c' *=
*c*
between the moving system and the resting system, by simply asserting that
*c'*
= *c*, before it has in any way been proven:

"It is easy, with the help
of this result, to ascertain the magnitudes
because one expresses by means of these equations, that light (as the principle
of the constancy of the velocity of light, in conjunction with the
principle of relativity, requires) also propagates with the velocity *c*
as measured in the moving system."

After irrationally presuming this conclusion, the Einsteins proceeded to pretend that they had not presumed it:

"Now, we have to prove that every ray of light propagates
with the velocity *c* as measured in the moving system, in case this
is, as we have taken for granted, the case in the resting system, because
we still have not offered up the proof that the principle of the constancy
of the velocity of light is reconcilable with the principle of relativity."

However, the combination of the two postulates induces *c'* = *c*
+/-* v*, not *c'* = *c*. One must take the supposed empirical
phenomenon of *c'* = *c *as a point of departure for an inductive
analysis, not a deductive synthesis, to induce a fundamental geometry,
which fundamental geometry then deduces the identity* c'* = *c*
and the covariance of the laws of physics, as a synthetic theory.

The Einsteins averred, before any proof was offered:

"It is easy, with the help
of this result, to ascertain the magnitudes
because one expresses by means of these equations, that light (as the principle
of the constancy of the velocity of light, in conjunction with the
principle of relativity, requires) also propagates with the velocity *c*
as measured in the moving system. For a ray of light emitted in the direction
of increasing *
*at
the time = 0, the following
equations are valid:

= *c *.
. ."

Note the *non sequitur*, which begs the question: That allegedly
if the speed of light is *c* in the "resting system" the principle
of relativity compels that it also be *c* in the "moving system";
which, without the prior hypotheses of the Lorentz Transformation, clearly
is not a rational conclusion, for if I rest in the resting system, the
principle of relativity does not compel that I also rest in the moving
system. Rather, the Einsteins simply confused their conclusion as an additional
premise, which renders the two "postulates" redundant, or renders one postulate
deducible from the other, and in no sense a postulate.

As Einstein, himself, avowed, "the real basis of the special relativity
theory" is not the conclusion of light speed invariance and the covariance
of the laws of physics in Lange's "inertial systems". As Albert Einstein
later admitted, the real set of *a priori *postulates is the "Lorentz
Transformation", replete with its dreaded *ad hoc* hypotheses. The
Lorentz Transformation deduces all velocity comparisons, not just invariant
light speed, which is a specific speed, and a derived unit, not a general
geometry.

Later formulations of the special theory of relativity change the 1905
light postulate, from the Einsteins constant speed of light exclusively
in the "resting system", into the invariance of light speed in all of Lange's
inertial systems. But this renders the principle of relativity redundant
to, or deducible from, the light "postulate", and, therefore, not a "postulate",
*per
se*, because the light "postulate" then asserts the identity of Lange's
inertial systems as light speed invariance, and the principle of relativity
is already proven in the light "postulate". On the other hand, if we pretend
that the principle of relativity is the covariance of the laws of physics
embracing Maxwell's theory, given the "Lorentz Transformation" as a premise,
then the second "postulate" is already incorporated in the first "postulate".

If we are to assume that the Einsteins, in their 1905 paper, deduced,
not induced, the Lorentz Transformation from invariant light speed; we
would further have to fallaciously assume that empirically observed Lorentz
Transformation metrics provoked the Einsteins to induce an unobserved invariant
light speed and the unobserved symmetry of phenomena, as self-evident general
truths induced *a posteriori* from empirically observed and reciprocally
measured: length contraction, time dilatation and relative simultaneity.
Such is obviously not what happened, and such is not what is argued in
the 1905 paper.

On the contrary, supposedly observed invariant light speed and the supposedly
observed symmetry of electrodynamic phenomena led Voigt [3], FitzGerald
[4] and Larmor [5] to scientifically induce, *a posteriori*, the general
geometry of the (misnamed) "Lorentz Transformation", which general set
of hypotheses supposedly deduced all "known" phenomena in non-existent
hypothetical "inertial systems". The Einsteins pseudo-Metaphysics, their
ontology of redundancy, simply disguised the more scientific, though likewise
irrational, work of their predecessors, in a way which attempted to make
it appear that the Einsteins had deduced that which must be induced, and
had avoided hypotheses, which they had not avoided, but rather induced,
through fallacy of *Petitio Principii*.

Most of the post-1905 statements of the special theory of relativity substitute a completely different proposition for the "two postulates". Einstein, himself, substituted one light theorem, in 1907, for the "two postulates" of 1905:

"the 'principle of the constancy of the velocity of light'
[***] for a system of coordinates in a definite state of motion [as opposed
to solely in the 'resting system' as in 1905.]"^{ }[6]

which presumes the Lorentz Transformation from which this "postulate"
is deduced, and which presumes the tacit hypotheses of an isotropic and
homogenous absolute space [7]* *and "a definite state of motion" relative
to that absolute space. This new light "postulate" represents, therefore,
not a postulate, but a deduction, a theorem, and a phenomenon.

Einstein admitted, in 1907, that this "postulate" could not be *a
priori*, but must, instead, be *a posteriori*:

"That the supposition made here, which we want to call the 'principle of the constancy of the velocity of light', is actually met in Nature, is by no means self-evident, nevertheless, it is - at least for a system of coordinates in a definite state of motion - rendered probable through its verification, which Lorentz' theory based upon an absolutely resting aether has ascertained through experiment." [8]

The so-called "postulates" are simply a restatement of supposed experimental facts, and are not postulates, but empirical facts generalized as "laws" and "theorems".

As Robert Daniel Carmichael stated:

"The experiments which we have described (and others related to them) are fundamental in the theory of relativity. The postulates in the next chapter are based on them. These postulates are in the nature of generalizations of the facts established by experiment. [***] In the next chapter we shall begin the systematic development of the theory of relativity. It will be seen that its fundamental postulates, or laws, are based on the experiments of which we have given a brief account and on others related to them. [***] The postulates, as we shall see, are simply generalizations of experimental facts; and, unless an experiment can be devised to show that these generalizations are not legitimate, it is natural and in accordance with the usual procedure in science to accept them as 'laws of nature.'" [9]

H. A. Lorentz questioned Albert Einstein's "method" of pretending that induction is deduction:

"Einstein simply postulates what we have deduced, with some difficulty and not altogether satisfactorily, from the fundamental equations of the electromagnetic field. [***] I have not availed myself of his substitutions, only because the formulae are rather complicated and look somewhat artificial". [10]

We soon discover in the introduction of the Einsteins' 1905 paper a clear statement of the fallacious objective of their entire paper:

"These two assumptions are sufficient in order to arrive at a simple and consistent electrodynamics of moving bodies, taking as a basis Maxwell's theory for resting bodies."

Is Maxwell's theory for resting bodies a third postulate? One of the "two assumptions", the first "postulate", is that the laws electrodynamics of moving bodies be consistent among systems of reference in uniform translatory motion with respect to the "resting system". Of course, the reasoning presented is circular, first assuming via the first "postulate" that the laws of electrodynamics are consistent, then arguing that this mandated consistency, as a premise, causes consistency as an effect. It is the first of many circular arguments found in the Einsteins' 1905 paper. How do we determine that which constitutes an "inertial system", other than circularly, as in: An inertial system is one in which there is no net force acting on the system; there is no net force acting on a system, when it is inertial?

Maxwell's theory for resting bodies is Maxwell's theory of the medium, a privileged frame, the aether. However, the Einsteins alleged that the aether was "superfluous" to their theory. The Einsteins irrationally wrote with the same pen that the aether was superfluous, while asserting it as a basis for their theory.

In the introduction to the 1905 paper, we are being primed to venture
forth from Maxwell's theorems for bodies resting in the aether, so that
we can return to them, *Petitio Principii*, as the covariant laws
of moving bodies, while being asked to pretend that the aether is superfluous,
so that we aren't too shocked when simultaneity is claimed to be relative,
again, *Petitio Principii*, via an impossible light synchronization
*assumption*
of light speed invariance, or *c'* = *c*, which
*premise *is
also the *conclusion* of the theory.

For example, Albert Einstein stated in 1949:

"[T]he following postulate is [***] sufficient for a solution
[***]* L-principle holds for all inertial systems* (application of
the special principle of relativity to the L-principle) [***] With the
help of the Lorentz transformations the special principle of relativity
can be expressed thus: The laws of nature are invariant with respect to
Lorentz-transformations". [11]

Compare Albert Einstein's later statement to Willem de Sitter's statement of 1911:

"The principle of relativity can be enunciated as the postulate that the transformations, with respect to which the laws of nature shall be invariant, are 'Lorentz-transformations.'*" [12]

Einstein, ever the plagiarist, stated in 1952:

"The whole content of the special theory of relativity
is included in the postulate: The laws of Nature are invariant with respect
to the Lorentz transformations."[13]

*Modus Operandi for Plagiarism*

Einstein disclosed his *modus operandi* for manipulating credit
for the synthetic theories of others, when he stated in 1936:

"There is no inductive method which could lead to the fundamental concepts of physics. Failure to understand this fact constituted the basic philosophical error of so many investigators of the nineteenth century. [***] Logical thinking is necessarily deductive; it is based upon hypothetical concepts and axioms. How can we expect to choose the latter so that we might hope for a confirmation of the consequences derived from them? The most satisfactory situation is evidently to be found in cases where the new fundamental hypotheses are suggested by the world of experience itself."[14]

This is a clear statement by Einstein that he would have science deduce
a thing from itself, taking the world of experience as a hypothesis, only
to deduce the world of experience as an effect, of itself. Of course, Mileva
and Albert were forced to present the real hypotheses, which they stuck
in the middle of their arguments by way of induction, or an attempt at
induction, which analyses they attempted to disguise as deductions from
*a
priori* principles, but which "*a priori* principles" were well-known
summations of phenomena.

Einstein wanted people to believe that it is irrelevant that his predecessors
induced the theories he later copied, because Einstein just invented them,
*sua
sponte*, irrationally, after he had read them, and therefore deserved
credit for them:

"Invention is not the product of logical thought, even
though the final product is tied to a logical structure."[15]

**Conclusion**

Einstein stated, together with Infeld:

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world."[16]

Certainly, the two "postulates" of the theory of relativity were *not*,
"free creations of the human mind," but were, instead, summations of the
empirical observations of the well-known phenomena of the day framed with
the familiar concepts of the day. What Infeld and Einstein meant by "free"
is difficult to fathom, and it is simply repetitive to say that creations
of the mind are creations of the mind. Einstein's vague notions are perhaps
the result of his plagiarizing Newton, Mach, Pearson, and others, on the
principle of logical economy and watering down what they had written with
Einstein's simplistic and naïve talk. If "free" is to mean unrestricted
in any sense, no human mind is "free". We are limited in our concepts,
experience, and scope, and we are socialized, indoctrinated and inculcated
into certain beliefs. Despite Einstein's assertions, there is no mutual
exclusion between being creative and being logical. One can create logical
hypotheses through creative induction.

It is the Lorentz Transformation which is the product of creative inductive logic, with its hypotheses of length contraction, time dilatation and relative simultaneity, and which is the fundamental postulate of the special theory of relativity. Invariant light speed and the covariance of the laws of physics are deducible from the Lorentz Transformation, the laws of physics, and the definition of inertial motion, which are more fundamental in the special theory of relativity, than invariant light speed. Speed must be composed of the more fundamental elements of distance and duration. Speed is a derived unit. Therefore, the synthesis of the special theory of relativity comes in deducing invariant light speed from the hypotheses of an isotropic and homogenous space, Maxwell's theory of the medium, the theory of inertial motion, and the hypotheses of length contraction, time dilation and relative simultaneity. This is precisely the conclusion Einstein was obliged to admit, in 1935:

"The special theory of relativity grew out of the Maxwell electromagnetic equations. So it came about that even in the derivation of the mechanical concepts and their relations the consideration of those of the electromagnetic field has played an essential role. The question as to the independence of those relations is a natural one because the Lorentz transformation, the real basis of the special relativity theory[. . .]"[17]

To argue, as the Einsteins did argue in 1905, that invariant light speed
and the mandated identity of Lange's inertial systems deduces invariant
light speed and the mandated identity of Lange's inertial systems, is to
argue in fallacies of *Petitio Principii*, which the Einsteins did
do, in an attempt to hide their plagiarism of the induced hypotheses of
Boscovich, Voigt, FitzGerald and Larmor.[18]

**Notes**

1 - M. Einstein-Marity and A. Einstein, "Zur Elektrodynamik
bewegter Körper", *Annalen der Physik*, Series 4, Volume 17,
(1905), pp. 891-921.

2 - H. A. Rowland, *The Physical Papers of Henry August
Rowland*, The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland, (1902), pp.
673-674.

3 - W. Voigt, "Ueber das Doppler'sche Princip", *Nachrichten
von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der Georg-Augusts-Universität
zu Göttingen*, (1887), pp. 41-51; republished *Physikalische
Zeitschrift*, Volume 16, Number 20, (October15, 1915), pp. 381-386;
English translation, as well as very useful commentary, are found in A.
Ernst and Jong-Ping Hsu (W. Kern is credited with assisting in the translation),
"First Proposal of the Universal Speed of Light by Voigt in 1887", *Chinese
Journal of Physics* (The Physical Society of the Republic of China),
Volume 39, Number 3, (June, 2001), pp. 211-230; URL <__http://psroc.phys.ntu.edu.tw/cjp/v39/211.pdf__>
Lorentz acknowledged Voigt's priority, and suggested that the "Lorentz
Transformation" be called the "Transformations of Relativity": *See*:
H. A. Lorentz, *Theory of Electrons*, B. G. Teubner, Leipzig, (1909),
p. 198 footnote; and H. A. Lorentz, "Deux memoirs de Henri Poincaré",
*Acta
Mathematica*, Volume 38, (1921), p. 295; reprinted in Œuvres de Henri
Poincaré, Volume XI, Gautier-Villars, (1956), pp. 247-261. Minkowski
also acknowledged Voigt's priority: See: *The Principle of Relativity*,
Dover, New York, (1952), p. 81; and *Physikalische Zeitschrift*, Volume
9, Number 22, (November 1, 1908), p. 762. For further discussion of Voigt's
relativistic transformation, *see*: R. Dugas, *A History of Mechanics*,
Dover, New York, (1988), pp. 468, 484, 494; A. Pais,
*Subtle is the Lord*,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, Toronto, Melbourne, (1982),
pp. 121-122.

4 - G. F. FitzGerald, "The Ether and Earth's Atmosphere
(Letter to the Editor)", *Science*, Volume 13, Number 328, (1889),
p. 390.

5 - J. Larmor, "A Dynamical Theory of the Electric and
Luminiferous Medium", *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
of London A*, Volume 185, (1894), pp. 719-822; Volume 186, (1895), pp.
695-743; Volume 188, (1897), pp. 205-300; and *Aether and Matter*,
CUP, (1900).

6 - A. Einstein, "Über das Relativitätsprinzip
und die aus demselben gezogenen Folgerung"*, Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität
und Elektronik*, Volume 4, (1907), pp. 411-462, at 416.

7 - *See*: A. Pais, *Subtle is the Lord*, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, New York, Toronto, Melbourne, (1982), p. 142;
where Pais refers to Einstein's so-called "Morgan manuscript" of 1921.
Einstein plagiarized this from: N. R. Campbell, "The Common Sense of Relativity",
Philosophical Magazine, Series 6, Volume 21, Number 124, (April, 1911),
pp. 502-517, at 505. *See also:* R. D. Carmichael, "On the Theory
of Relativity: Analysis of the Postulates", *The Physical Review*,
First Series, Volume 35, (September, 1912), pp. 153-176; and "On the Theory
of Relativity: Mass, Force and Energy", *The Physical Review*, Series
2, Volume 1, (February, 1913), pp. 161-197.

8 - A. Einstein, "Über das Relativitätsprinzip
und die aus demselben gezogenen Folgerung"*, Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität
und Elektronik*, Volume 4, (1907), pp. 411-462, at 416.

9 - R. D. Carmichael, *The Theory of Relativity*,
Mathematical Monographs No. 12, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,
Chapman & Hall, Limited, London, (1920), pp. 13-14.

10 - H. A. Lorentz, *The Theory of Electrons*, Dover,
New York, (1952), p. 230.

11 - A. Einstein, *The Theory of Relativity and other
Essays*, Carol Publishing Group, (1996), pp. 6-8.

12 - W. de Sitter, "On the Bearing of the Principle of
Relativity on Gravitational Astronomy", *Monthly Notices of the Royal
Astronomical Society*, Volume 71, (March, 1911), pp. 388-415, at 388-389.

13 - A. Einstein, *Relativity, the Special and the General
Theory*, Crown Publishing, Inc., New York, (1961), p. 148.

14 - A. Einstein, *Ideas and Opinions*, Crown Publishers,
Inc., New York, (1954), p. 307.

15 - A. Einstein, quoted in A. Pais, *Subtle is the
Lord*, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, Toronto, Melbourne,
(1982), p. 131.

16 - A. Einstein and I. Infeld, *The Evolution of Physics*,
Simon & Schuster, New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Tokyo, Singapore,
(1966), p. 31. Compare to the more lucid, prior statements of: W. K. Clifford,
*The
Common Sense of the Exact Sciences*, Dover, New York, (1955), pp. 193-194.
E. Mach, "The Economy of Science", *The Science of Mechanics*, Open
Court, LaSalle, Illinois, (1960), pp. 577-595. K. Pearson, *The Grammar
of Science*, Second Revised and Enlarged Edition, Adam and Charles Black,
London, (1900), pp. 30-37. H. Poincaré, Dernières Pensées,
Flammarion, Paris, (1913); English translation Mathematics and Science:
Last Essays, Dover, New York, (1963), pp. 22-23. Einstein often plagiarized
these works.

17 - A. Einstein, "Elementary Derivation of the equivalence of Mass and Energy", Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, Series 2, Volume 41, (1935), pp. 223-230, at 223.

18 - *Cf*. C. J. Bjerknes, *Albert Einstein: The
Incorrigible Plagiarist*, XTX Inc., Downers Grove, Illinois, USA, (2002),
ISBN 0971962987.

**Selected Bibliography**

R. D. Carmichael, *The Theory of Relativity*, Mathematical
Monographs No. 12, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, Chapman &
Hall, Limited, London, (1920), pp. 13-14.

H. Dingler, *Die Grundlagen der Physik, synthetische
Prinzipien der mathematischen Naturphilosphie*, Verlag der Vereinigung
wissenschaftlicher Verleger, Leipzig, (1919).

S. H. Guggenheimer, *The Einstein Theory Explained and
Analyzed*, The Macmillan Company, New York, (1925).

J. Mackaye, *The Dynamic Universe*, Charles Scribner's
Sons, New York, (1931).

W. Kantor, *Relativistic Propagation of Light*, Coronado
Press, Lawrence, Kansas, (1976).

S. Goldberg, *Understanding Relativity*, Birkhäuser,
Boston, Basel, Stuttgart, (1984).

- - - - -

[A presentation of the author is given at the end of his
previous paper published in this same issue of *Episteme*]

cbjerknes@attbi.com