Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old November 23rd, 2010 #1
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default Christopher Jon Bjerknes: Sliced and Diced

Prefatory Note


Apparently Bjerknes believes that myself and Lionaxe are (or rather could be) the same person: that is untrue and should have been evident from the previous responses to him as our writing styles, native languages and specialist areas of study are completely different. Bjerknes claims that I; Karl Radl, seek to ’convert’; a strange word to use given that it ironically suggests that Bjerknes elevates his beliefs to the status of unquestionable religious dogma, people at VNN and Stormfront to ’pro-jewish positions’. I find this somewhat ironic for an individual who in an interview with jewish anti-feminist and general conspiratorial loon Henry Makow claimed to have some of that jewish holy ichor flowing through his veins.

I might point out that firstly Bjerknes assumes that anything he believes is an anti-jewish position which is obviously utterly subjective as much as whether one views Karl Marx as a genius or a moron. The problem with his position; as Bjerknes would know if he could manage to muster a proverbial ounce of critical thought, is that it assumes that a subjective position is an objective one and therefore places the person with a supposedly wholly objective position in the realm of deities along with Jupiter, Yahweh and Baal. Bjerknes would do well to remember that unfortunately he is not omniscient and in fact has a habit of lying outright; as the reader can for example ascertain for themselves from the fact that Bjerknes simply refuses to reply en pointe while claiming to do so on the central issues that form the basis for his claims, as well as being apparently unable to perform basic research functions like critical source and document analysis.

Secondly I might point out that Bjerknes; in line with his small coterie of whirling dervishes, imputes a conspiratorial motive by implying that I am some kind of jew or friend of the jews because I disagree with him. Or perhaps Bjerknes wishes to impute that I am an agent of the Illuminati, the shape-changing reptilians and/or the Elders of Zion because I disagree with him? Of course he wishes to do so, because Bjerknes; in his periods of borderline lucidity, well knows that he has been caught with his trousers down and he; like many a member of the tribe, cannot stand the egoistic loss of admitting he can; or even could, be wrong.

Oh dear have I jabbed a pin into a particularly sensitive boil Christopher? I think I might have.

After all Bjerknes’ sole claim to any kind of fame is his ’work’; if one can call it that, on Einstein which has been laughed out of the room by just about everyone with a triple digit IQ. Oh and as for the pseudonyms Christopher my dear child: I am afraid some of us have fairly significant careers and jobs to which we attend and unlike you we aren’t so ineffective and insignificant that we would be unnoticed or un-persecuted by those who; like you, have Yahweh’s divine ichor in their veins and form the ’power behind the throne’ in the countries in which we live and work.

Karl Radl,


Christopher Jon Bjerknes: Sliced and Diced

This is the third reply; by me, to Christopher Jon Bjerknes on the matters pertaining to Einstein, relativity and the charges of plagiarism related to the formentioned. In the first rebuttal (1) of Bjerknes critique I painstakingly clarified many of his inaccurate descriptions as I went through his central assumptions and claims regarding relativity and Einstein. In the second reply (2) I noted on the absence of an on-point rebuttal by Bjerknes. Now he has issued a post on his blog aimed at my previous retort, called; ”Refuting the Jewish Propagandist "Lionaxe" "Point-by-Point”. (3)

Naturally, given the title of his latest reply I expected to actually recieve a point-by-point critique, however that is not what Bjerknes offered. Let's examine his latest effort nevertheless and see what he felt compelled to answer; or to claim, this time around.

”The Jewish apologist[s] calling itself "Lionaxe" and/or "Karl Radl", which entity haunts the message boards at VNN and Stormfront attempting to convert those opposed to Jewish propaganda to pro-Jewish positions, issued a response to my blog of 6 February 2009. I did not answer it until now, as it is so obviously composed of sophistry and falsehoods that I thought it unnecessary to refute it, given that those who could understand what it said would know that it was based upon sophistry and falsehoods.”

As expected Bjerknes starts off with irrelevant and childish polemics excusing himself from having taken his sweet time to reply with the reason being that my previous rebuttals were dense with sophistry and falsehoods. As a curiosa, he appears to have an affinity for the word 'sophistry', as (in my experience) do many of conspiracy theorists and garden variety cranks.

”The opening comments of the blog "Semitic Controversies" attempt to change the subject from Einstein's plagiarism to whether or not Prof. Winterberg has corresponded with "Lionaxe" and whether or not "Lionaxe" could have or should have quoted Winterberg directly, rather than put its, "Lionaxe's", self-contradictory words into the good professor's mouth. Such a diversionary tactic, as well as the "teamwork" it embodies, are typical of disinformation specialists.”

This fashion of word salad is typical of Bjerknes' style. He's not really making any sense, considering that I had simply stated that when asked Winterberg said he didn't not rely on Bjerknes for the accuracy of his work wether or not he had cited him in one instance was noted by me to be a separate issue. I mentioned that Bjerknes only really brought his name into the fold as an appeal for authority, as if it proved him correct where the facts demonstrably did not.

And for the record, Winterberg does not agree with Bjerknes that his work proves Einstein plagiarized or nostrified Hilbert:

”My analysis of Hilbert's mutilated proofs therefore cannot prove that Einstein copied from Hilbert.” (4)

Winterberg recognizes the contribution to GR of Grossman, Hilbert and Einstein. Why would he do that if he agreed with Bjerknes that Einstein plagiarised Hilbert?

Bjerknes goes on to state the following:

”The value of my work and my expertise on the subject of Albert Einstein and the history of the development of the theory of relativity has been gratefully acknowledged by the prominent and innovative physicists Prof. Dr. Friedwardt Winterberg of the University of Nevada, Reno, and Prof. Dr. Anatoly Alexeevich Logunov, former Vice President of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. If I had made the mistakes wrongfully attributed to me on the "Stormfront" message boards, these renowned scientists would not have relied upon me and my work. Prof. Logunov has published several books and articles which discredit the views of this "LionAxe" regarding Einstein and Minkowski's plagiarism of Poincare's theory of relativity and space-time, some of which appear for free on the internet”

Here he's hinting to Logunov in that the latter is in agreement with Bjerknes that Einstein had plagiarised relativity and space-time in general. Wether or not Bjerknes ment SR specifically, I think he should know that his ”supporter” obviously doesn't agree with his take on GR:

”The analysis, undertaken in Sections 1 and 2, shows that Einstein and Hilbert inependently discovered the gravitational field equations. Their pathways were different but they led exactly to the same result. Nobody "nostrified" the other. So no “belated decision in the Einstein–Hilbert priority dispute”, about which [Corry, Renn, and Stachel] wrote, can be taken. Moreover, the very Einstein–Hilbert dispute never took place.

All is absolutely clear: both authors made everything to immortalize their names in the title of the gravitational field equations. But general relativity is Einstein’s theory.” (5)

In the paper that regards Poincaré more specifically, (6) Logunov offers his arguments on behalf of priority for Poincaré regarding SR. Yet Bjerknes didn't simply tell us that Logunov merely argued the priority of SR belonging to Poincaré, but also that he was in agreement that Einstein and Minkowski plagiarised Poincaré which is a completely different claim and one I haven't seen Logunov make. It's another thing that is typical for Bjerknes: he makes the case of priority interchangeable with plagiarism. Furthermore Logunov's understanding of relativity shows a splinter when he tries to explain the Sagnac Effect and the Twin Paradox with the relativistic mechanics of Poincaré which did not have room or usage of relativistic corrections (without them, the GPS for example, would not function as it does today, i.e correctly!)

In any case, Bjerknes argued that Winterberg and Logunov agreed with his work which showed Einstein to be a plagiarist. Having checked the work and statements of Bjerknes’ given authorities: this is an outright lie. Not only do they not agree with Bjerknes on this but Logunov even stated that GR is Einstein's theory.

Bjerknes: when you're in a hole please stop digging.

”Now on to the self aggrandizing and ridiculous commentary of the Jewish propagandist calling itself "Lionaxe". "Lionaxe" again misrepresents my words by asserting that I stated that Poincare was the first person, among all others, to state the Principle of Relativity (PoR); when in fact I stated that Poincare was the first only between Einstein and Poincare, and that countless others had stated it before Poincare. In fact, I demonstrated through direct quotation that many others had stated the PoR before Poincare in my book Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist and again in my book The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein (see pp. 1950-1958).

"Lionaxe" then proceeds to misrepresent the PoR as if it were in contradiction to, and incompatible with, Poincare's ether theories. "Lionaxe" falsely claims without proof that "Poincare maintained a preferred inertial frame". In the context of the PoR, this would mean that the inertial frame of the ether of Poincare, presumably the quiescent ether of Lorentz, violated the PoR and could therefore be detected by experiments; in that the laws of this one inertial reference frame differed from those of others, or all others.”

Again, it is clear that Bjerknes is not really replying to what I clairified for him in my first rebuttal, regarding the differences between Poincaré's and Einstein's work, which followed after Bjerknes had stated the following:

”Logunov and I have already refuted this "LionAxe's" nonsense. Poincare's PoR is the same as Einstein's plagiarized version.”

I explained at some length the very well known and obvious differences between Einstein's and Poincaré's work on relativity. To mentioned a couple of aspects, Poincaré's paper "Sur la Dynamique de l'Électron" (1906), on the Lorentz contraction, deals through dynamic explanations.

However due to Einstein it was established that it is inherently kinematical. Poincaré also implies that the speed of light is isotropic exclusively in a unique frame, as is easily deduced from Lorentz’s theory (for that, see his explanation of Michelson's experiment where the speed of light is c+v or c-v in the two opposite directions). (7) But yes, Poincaré does indeed disclose the modern form of the Lie algebra of Lorentz group, Lorentz transformation, velocity addition theorem. But most importantly, Poincaré neglects analysis of the relativity of simultaneity, it also neglects analysis of the inertia of energy. Poincaré also persisted with holding a difference between the effect of contraction of moving bodies, along the direction of relative motion, and the notion of relativity of simultaneity, which follows from the idea of a local time. He had pegged down physical importance, meaning to the first effect while clearly negating the second one as a mathematical artifice.

However, while I do not wish to simply repeat all that I wrote in my first retort (which Bjerknes still ignored at equal length in his following replies), I will comment (and probably repeat myself) further on this matter.

Bjerknes denies that Poincaré worked by the premise of a privileged/preferred frame of reference:

”"Lionaxe" quotes Poincare's 1902 critique of Lorentz as if in support of its contentions regarding the PoR. In fact, Poincare was there dismissing aspects of Lorentz' theory, in particular the notion that the ether represents a preferred frame of reference at rest in absolute space. Poincare's theory instead refers to the fixed stars, and/or the ether at rest relative to itself, as inertial reference frames, and Poincare refers to bodies "fixed" to these frames of reference, resting with respect to them, but Poincare expressly excludes the concepts of absolute space and a preferred reference frame with respect to the laws of mechanics and electrodynamics. The reference frame at rest with respect to the fixed stars is no more or less "superfluous" to such a Metaphysical PoR than is the ether, and yet it is observed and does not violate it.”

Poincaré did indeed continue to believe in the existence of a privileged frame; i.e the immobile aether, and that it was a crucial part as he based his predictions on it. I quoted Poincaré himself as proof of this, which Bjerknes simply ignores. It is clearly documented by what he said in the talk at the 1904 St. Louis Congress of Arts and Science:

”The principle of relativity, according to which the laws of physical phenomena should be the same, whether for an observer fixed, or for an observer carried along in a uniform movement of translation; so that we have not and could not have any means of discerning whether or not we are carried along in such a motion . . .

The most remarkable example of this new mathematical physics is, beyond contradiction, Maxwell’s electro-magnetic theory of light. We know nothing of the ether, how its molecules are disposed, whether they attract or repel each other; but we know that this medium transmits at the same time the optical perturbations; we know that this transmission should be made conformably to the general principles of mechanics, and that suffices us for the establishment of the equations of the electromagnetic field . . .

Perhaps, likewise, we should construct a whole new mechanics, of which we only succeed in catching a glimpse, where inertia increasing with the velocity, the velocity of light would become an impassable limit. The ordinary mechanics, more simple, would remain a first approximation, since it would be true for velocities not too great, so that we should still find the old dynamics under the new.” (8)

Still stuck on the ether of classical mechanics Poincaré said:

”Does an aether exist, the reason why we believe in an aether is simple. If light comes from a distant star and takes many years to reach us, it is during its travel no longer near the star, but not yet near the Earth, nevertheless, it must be somewhere and supported by a material medium.” (9)

This paper of Poincaré’s; which got published in June 1905, (10) predominantely deals with Lorentz’s paper of 1904 both welcoming it and providing corrections. It mused onward about constant external forces applied to deformable electrons in a manner consistent with the obselete heading of the given aether. And one of Poncairé's hypotheses at the ”La Mécanique Nouvelle” Göttingen lecture was that a body which is in translatory motion experiences a change of deformation in the direction of motion. So still; after about four years post Einstein's initial paper on this matter, he clearly didn't understand or accept that length contraction was a consequence of Einstein's two postulates. If there was anyone partly lost in his own methaphysical philosophy of science: it was Poincaré.

On the one hand he very often critiqued the stationary ether of classical mechanics, but at the same time was unable to do away with it himself. He continously brought such a premise into his work and left what ever doubts he had about his own work and others in his philosophical lectures on the metaphysical possibilities, which is where he at times hinted that an ether might one day not be necessary at all. Yet he was never able to remove it himself. His confusion is perhaps best observed in his lecture from 1900: (11) where he stated the need for a stationary ether to; among other things, properly explain aberration. Shortly thereafter he stated that only ”some” kind of ether was needed. In his paper in 1902: (12) he included the necessity of an ether to do away with absolute rotations.

Einstein completely discarded the aether as he predicted and theorized that the expressions of the laws of physics should be same/similar for any inertial frame. Also; as mentioned before, his meaning of "new kinematics" meant that time and space measured (in differing inertial systems) were on the exact same footing. This while Poincaré still purported somehow (it wasn't an absolutist belief in ether/aether, but nevertheless his assumptions tells us there was a base premise of it) in an aether. Poincaré didn't manage to physically exclude the aether from his actual work, as he viewed it as the privileged reference-frame wherein "true" space and time were defined. Hence the consequence of his work was that the speed of light wasn't the same in all inertial frames regardless of his methaphysical rhethoric elsewhere.

In the first page of his paper "Sur la dynamique de l'électron", he expresses the relativity principle as follows, noted by Levy in 1996 :

"It appears that the impossibility of observing the absolute motion of the Earth is a general law of nature. We are naturally led to assume this law which we will refer to as the Relativity postulate." (13)

At the end of the 7th chapter; speaking of the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction (real and not reciprocal), he affirms:

”Therefore, the hypothesis of Lorentz (contraction) is the only one which is compatible with the impossibility of bringing the absolute inertial frame to the fore.”

So it is clear that for Poincaré absolute motion existed. Besides the Lorentz contraction implies this absolute motion. Indeed; if a rod really contracts when it passes from one inertial frame to another, it is because there is a hierarchy between the different inertial frames (and not an equivalence). And therefore, the theory of Poincaré tries to reconcile two incompatible notions: the relativity principle on the one hand and the existence of a preferred inertial frame on the other hand.

Poincaré did not manage to derive aberration constant from PoR and certainly not prior to 1906. Einstein did in his first relativity-paper however. So Bjerknes is thoroughly confused about the origins and contemporary signification of relativity and spacetime physics as well as between local and real time. As Lorentz (who incidentally was one of those most familiar with Poncairé's work and close friend of his) stated:

”I introduced the conception of local time . . . but I never thought that this had anything to do with real time. This real time for me was still represented by the older classical notion of absolute time . . . There existed for me only one true time. I considered my time transformation only as a heuristic working hypothesis. So, the theory of relativity is really solely Einstein’s work.” (14)

The difference between the relativity theories of Poincaré and Einstein is an objective one in a historical sense, although it also springs from epistemological considerations.

As a relevant note of curiosa: it was Poincaré (and Marie Curíe) who sent a letter of recommendation on behalf of Einstein in late 1911 when Einstein applied for a position at his old university (ETH) in Zurich. In the letter written by Poincaré he had the following to say about Einstein:

”Einstein is one of the most original minds that I have known; despite his youth he has already achieved a very honorable rank among the foremost scholars of our time. What we can, above all, admire in him in particular is the facility with which he adapts himself to new concepts and draws all all the consequences from them. He does not remain attached to classical principles, and, when presented with a problem in physics, is prompt to envision all the possibilities. This translates itself immediately in his mind by the prediction of new phenomena, which can be verified by experiments.

...

The role of mathematical physics is to ask questions; it is only experience that can answer them. The future will show, more and more, the worth of Einstein, and the university which is able to capture this young master is certain to gain much honor from this operation.” (15)

One of the more fundamental differences between Poincaré's theory and Einstein's concerns the form of a light-pulse for observers at rest and observers in motion. For Poincaré a light-pulse that is spherical for an observer at rest with respect to the ether is actually an elongated ellipsoid for all other observers in inertial motion. For Einstein; on the other hand, a spherical light-pulse actually has a spherical form for all inertial observers. And from that you get quite notable differences of defintions with the predictions.

Another difference; concerning the years that went on as Poincaré and Einstein continued their work on relativity, was the choice of space-time. Now one of the consequences of using the convention of either Minkowski or Galilei space-time comes from the fact that the geometry of phenomenal space is set by this choice and the spatial geometry in both of the given space-times is that of Euclid. Poincaré knew of this problem, but he didn't understand that his roots in pre-relativist physics guided him erronously. He began with the choice of the wrong space-time for his work.

Poincaré did not feel his own approach, which involves the adoption of Galilei space-time, to be less promising in 1912 than the Einstein-Minkowski alternative, which involves the adoption of Minkowski spacetime. Since Einstein's general relativity (1915) is incompatible with Galilei space-time and compatible with Minkowski spacetime (as the tangent space, valid for any infinitesimal patch of curved spacetime): Poincaré (in retrospect) chose his spacetime unwisely.

He tried to preserve too much of the old and therefore he did not manage to formulate a complete theory; or even successfully show the physical revelation, behind doing away with the ether, not even when his own work showed that it was unobservable. This is why he; in his Palermo paper, talked about spherical electrons without explicitly mentioning time dilation.

As Darrigol wrote on Poincaré's actual work (not metaphysical pondering of all possibilities):

”Exclusive focus on the formal and empirical content of relativity theory (the Lorentz group and covariance properties) has led some of them to ignore the difference between Poincare’s and Einstein’s concepts of space and time, while nationalism, anti-Semitism, or esprit d’Ecole induced others to read much more into Poincare´’s text than is really there. For instance, it has been claimed that Poincare´ had the second principle of relativity theory on the basis of his having written in 1898 that the astronomer [who dates stellar events in light-years] has begun by supposing that light has a constant velocity and, in particular, that its velocity is the same in all directions. That is a postulate without which no measurement of this velocity could be attempted. . . . The postulate conforms to the principle of sufficient reason and has been accepted by everybody; what I wish to emphasize is that it furnishes us with a new rule for the investigation of simultaneity. It is clear from the context that Poincare meant here to apply the postulate only in an etherbound Frame.” (16)

Let's continue with Bjerknes comments:

”Since we wish to discuss the science, the Physics, as opposed to the Metaphysics of Poincare and Einstein, then we must state that inertial reference frames do not exist in nature. In order to arrive at a physical theory, rather than a Metaphysical definition, Poincare was obliged to define that which constitutes a frame of reference. As was customary, and as Einstein has repeatedly done, Poincare referred to the fixed stars and to the ether. Both Einstein and his friends, including Pauli, referred to Lorentz' ether as the basis of Special Relativity, as I have long ago proven (see The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein, pp.1958-1967 ).”

Inertial reference frames do not exist in nature?!

The only sense I can make of this confused word salad is that reference frames (inertial or not) are obviously concepts not physical things. Why Bjerknes felt compelled to point it out in a debate on theoretical physics is beyond me though. Furthemore, even if we confine ourselves to just inertial reference frames, then you still don't need to refer to the stars (or the ether: even if it existed) to handle Newtonian mechanics: since a frame is inertial if Newton's 2nd law applies. The only insufficiency comes from trying to reconcile Newtonian mechanics and Galilean relativity with Maxwell's equations. The problem is that Maxwell's equations appear to require a unique reference frame, but that still wouldn't make otherwise inertial frames non-inertial. It is the search for a unique reference frame, not an inertial one, which notably occupied the minds of those searching for a classical ether.

"Einstein's 1905 paper, plagiarized from Poincare, is based not upon absolute Minkowski Space-Time (a physically contradicted delusion), nor upon Einstein's 1920 statement that a state of rest, a given specific set of coordinates of space representing the vacuum, cannot be assigned to the ether, but is instead premised upon Lorentz' quiescent ether; and Einstein's 1905 paper specifically refers to "rest" and "resting coordinates" as opposed to "motion" and "moving systems" of coordinates, just as did Poincare's and Lorentz' and Larmor's prior works."

Most of the above babbling has been addressed thoroughly in my previous replies to Bjerknes, which he has yet again failed to counter on-point. Not surprisingly Bjerknes is wrong yet again to imply that Einstein was essentially referring to an ether when he mentions "resting coordinates", because Einstein made it clear he was not talking about an ether. Resting coordinates are simply an arbitrary choice of resting frame for a given observer with no implication of an ether whatsoever. Einstein was perhaps the first to at least demonstrate (i.e show through the use of the scientific method) that the ether; if it exists, is essentially physically undetectable at least in the context of the flat space of SR (rather than simply suspecting possibilities of it being undetectable thorugh philosophical musings).

"Here again it is shown that Einstein's theory is a subset of Poincare's in that Poincare renders the PoR a scientific as well as a Metaphysical principle, and Einstein merely parrots the Metaphysical content of the principle. Though there were different methods of defining an inertial frame of reference, for example Ludwig Lange's, the method most likely to be understood at the time was to make reference to either a quiescent ether or the fixed stars."

And yet more nonsense. Once again: this defines a unique reference frame not simply an inertial reference frame. The whole point about inertial reference frames is that they are not unique, but that the laws of physics are nonetheless still the same.

"Space-Time" is a Metaphysical concept, one Einstein initially opposed. As Prof. Winterberg has correctly stated, "Space-Time" has never been measured in a laboratory, is physically contradicted, and all laboratories are three dimensional."

And yet... "Pair of Aluminum Atomic Clocks Reveal Einstein's Relativity at a Personal Scale". (17)

Bjerknes is now shifting to an attempt to debunk space-time in general. One can object all one wants to about the words used to describe general relativity. But what ultimately matters is the mathematics, because the mathematics is what makes the predictions and the mathematics works. It makes predictions which experiments verify and no competing theory has been able to duplicate all those verified predictions. Furthermore: no experiments have produced results which contradict the predictions of general relativity either.

"Einstein's ether of 1920 is a Metaphysical and numerological delusion, not a scientific theory, on that point I will agree with the necessary conclusions to be drawn from the sophistry of the Jewish propagandist "Lionaxe.""

The expected; but sad, thing is that Bjerknes, while putting much effort into writing sensationalistic material on relativity doesn’t have a basic understanding of it. On this one I'm going to quote myself from the second rebuttal I made to Bjerknes:

"Besides the aether problem persisting within Poincaré’s explorative works: he also persisted with holding a difference between the effect of contraction of moving bodies, along the direction of relative motion, and the notion of relativity of simultaneity, which follows from the idea of a local time.

And concerning the ”necessity of the Ether” argument above, Bjerknes sidesteps the entire problematic features of preferred inertial frames during the Poincaré/Lorentz era (and all of the given arguments demonstrating Bjerknes claims to be incorrect) with something completely different and having an equally different domain of application when Einstein later used the word ”ether”. It was indeed around 1920, presumably in response to his personal friendship and admiration for Lorentz, where Einstein began to use the word "ether" in his writings. But it referred to the metric field of general relativity."

It was not in any sense a privileged frame of reference, it was simply a referral to the metric field of GR.

”So there you have it, the Jewish propagandist "Lionaxe" is proven wrong on each and every point related to Einstein's plagiarism.”

Ironically: this is stated by Bjerknes after he has ignored nearly all the corrections to his assumptions and assertions that I offered in my previous rebuttals and after he had only revisited a precious few (albeit misrepresented what I had effectively clarified in the process). His own sources do not agree with him, his grasp of science is all but non-existant and he has once again failed not only to refute my previous replies point-by-point (he ignored pretty much all of them) but to even refute even a single given point.

References


(1) http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...s-debacle.html
(2) http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...le-part-2.html
(3) http://www.jewishracism.blogspot.com/ (date on the article is Friday, October 29, 2010)
(4) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11...in_relativity/
(5) ”How were the Hilbert-Einstein equations discovered?” - Phys.Usp. 47 (2004) 607-621; Usp.Fiz.Nauk 174 (2004) 663-678 (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0405075)
(6) ”Henri Poincare and Relativity Theory” - A.A Logunov. M.: Nauka, 2005. (Translated by G. Pontecorvo and V.O. Soloviev. Edited by V.A. Petrov) (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408077)
(7) Russell McCormmach, 1970, “H. A. Lorentz and the Electromagnetic View of Nature”, Isis, Vol. 61, No. 4
(8) H. Poincaré, "The Principles of Mathematical Physics", St. Louis Congress, 1904, Ref. [”Physics for a New Century”. Papers presented at the 1904 St. Louis Congress, a compilation selected by Katherine R. Sopka, Tomash Publishers, American Institute of Physics, 1986.] p. 281.
(9) H. Poincaré, 1968, “La science et l’hypothèse”, chapter 10 of the french edition, “Les théories de la physique moderne”, Champs, Flammarion.
(10) H. Poincaré, ”Sur la dynamique de l’electron”, Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. 140, 1904 (1915).
(11) Poincaré, H. (1900a) “Sur les relations entre la physique expérimentale et la physique mathématique,” Revue génerale des sciences pures et appliquées, 21, pp 1163.
(12) Poincaré, H. (1902) "La science et l’hypothése" (Paris: Flammarion); revised edition 1968. Based on the one edited by Gustave Le Bon, 1917.
(13) J. Levy, “Basic concepts for a fundamental aether theory”, in “Ether space-time and cosmology”, Vol. 1, Michael Duffy and Joseph Levy, Editors and ArXiv Physics/0604207.
(14) Quoted in: J. Mehra, ”The Historical Origin of the Special Theory of Relativity” in "The Golden Age of Theoretical Physics", Vol. 1, World Scientific, Singapore 2001, p. 226.
(15) Carl Seelig, 1956, ”Albert Einstein : A Documentary Biography”, Staples Press: London
(16) Oliver Darrigol, 2004, “The Mystery of the Einstein-Poincaré Connection”, http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/430652
(17) http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...ock_092310.cfm

--------------------------


This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...liced-and.html
__________________
 
Old December 8th, 2010 #2
Pete Stef
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 107
Pete Stef
Default Does Bjerknes know how to do tensor analysis?

I rather liked Bjerknes' work on the Armenian genocide. I haven't studied the history there enough to know how much faith to put in it, but I've made references to it in OV a time or two at Sf.

So, when I came across a reference to that huge pdf of his about Einstein at Sf, I was interested enough to download it. After quite a bit of skimming (several hours worth), I was unable to determine (more about that in a second) whether or not he was able to do the math.

What I was really after was something beyond quotations. I wanted to see him work some problems, but no matter how much I searched, I never found anything. My searches included famous names (Poincaré, Minkowski, Riemann and others, various topics [the precession of Mercury, etc.], and other miscellaneous ideas) but never once did I find him working any sort of math problem.

As a counter, imagine picking up a textbook like Foster & Nightingale's A Short Course in General Relativity or Synge & Schild's Tensor Calculus and not being able to determine whether or not the authors could work problems concerning the subject matter. It just wouldn't happen; the converse is obvious upon the briefest perusal.

Now, I suppose it could be argued that Bjerknes' work, not being a textbook dedicated to mathematical pedagogy, is under no obligation to provide me with the even slightest demonstration of Bjerknes' mathematical prowess, but I find it hard to believe that somebody who never evinces that ability is actually able to judge it in others, which is a task Bjerknes has set himself whether he wants to admit it or not.

Why not a problem? He could have made a jocular reference, discussed something of particular interest to him, or attempted to enlighten the general reader about points which he thought might prove troubling or confusing, but I never found anything remotely like that. If he knows how to do it, why not show it?

Maybe I'm just lazy, but I don't want to read 2826 pages of Saint Einstein if I can't be sure beforehand that the author really knows what he's talking about.

Just my $0.02.
 
Old December 8th, 2010 #3
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Hans Norling
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Stef View Post
Now, I suppose it could be argued that Bjerknes' work, not being a textbook dedicated to mathematical pedagogy, is under no obligation to provide me with the even slightest demonstration of Bjerknes' mathematical prowess, but I find it hard to believe that somebody who never evinces that ability is actually able to judge it in others, which is a task Bjerknes has set himself whether he wants to admit it or not.

Why not a problem? He could have made a jocular reference, discussed something of particular interest to him, or attempted to enlighten the general reader about points which he thought might prove troubling or confusing, but I never found anything remotely like that. If he knows how to do it, why not show it?

Maybe I'm just lazy, but I don't want to read 2826 pages of Saint Einstein if I can't be sure beforehand that the author really knows what he's talking about.

Just my $0.02.
Bjerknes has next to no understanding of the science involved, that is evident from his texts, which reads like an enormous effort in manic quote-mining. When he uses the quotes to forward the argument of plagiarism et al, he's 'freewheelin' for most parts, and demonstrates is confused and clueless mind in the context of not only science but basic coherence. And a lot, if not most, in the "Saint Einstein" work has little to do with Einstein.
 
Old December 10th, 2010 #4
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonoleth Stiltskin View Post
And a lot, if not most, in the "Saint Einstein" work has little to do with Einstein.
If memory serves doesn't it contain the entire of the Protocols of Zion as a 'chapter' or is that some other nutjob's 'work' I am thinking of?
__________________
 
Old December 10th, 2010 #5
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Stef View Post
Maybe I'm just lazy, but I don't want to read 2826 pages of Saint Einstein if I can't be sure beforehand that the author really knows what he's talking about.

Just my $0.02.
Heh: well you aren't missing much. I've actually read the whole thing and most of it is a sorry attempt to pretend to be a 'scholar' as Bjerknes; as in his other writings, obsessively tries to 'prove' points by quoting newspaper articles (and the like) while not doing any serious critical analysis or introducing counter-points. Rather like say quoting Otto Strasser as the be-all and end-all authority on Hitler, because you might happen to like Strasser's anti-Hitler claims.

It is like his; Bjerknes', ideas about Hitler and National Socialism: he takes only what he can find that overtly, covertly or can be made to look to support his position that it was a 'Zionist conspiracy' (heh) and then struts around the proverbial room preening himself like he is some uber-genius (incidentally he seems to be a long-term member of the unemployed and/or does the odd cash-in-hand job as he writes too much to be otherwise). In exactly the same way he does with Einstein when he doesn't seem to know the first thing about science or scholarship (i.e. science is a continuous process and scholarship is about assembling all the evidence and then drawing a representative conclusion or set of conclusions from that evidence without making any unevidenced or unjustifiable evidential jumps [so-to-speak]).
__________________

Last edited by Karl Radl; December 10th, 2010 at 06:02 PM.
 
Old December 11th, 2010 #6
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Hans Norling
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
If memory serves doesn't it contain the entire of the Protocols of Zion as a 'chapter' or is that some other nutjob's 'work' I am thinking of?
There's definently a chapted on the Protocols in his "book", it wouldn't suprise me if he had inserted the thing in its entirety, ha. His St. Einstein work is pretty much his former book on Einstein flaked up together with anti-NS musings, some talmudic tirades and the pop-general 'antisemitica'.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:52 AM.
Page generated in 0.18742 seconds.