马青平：答沈惠川教授
当前位置：相对论研究 >> 网站动态 >> 学术动态 >> 马青平：答沈惠川教授
马青平：答沈惠川教授
[ 2006年3月7日，阅读人数32人 ]
学术动态№1873 卢所北京部2006/03/07 p.9607-9612
沈惠川教授就不要再骗人了
前天上网想找一下沈惠川教授的电子邮址，没想到沈惠川教授已经写出了对我的回应的评论。看来我今后对沈惠川教授的回应和评论发在这个网站就可以了。沈惠川教授的新作与他以前的诸篇宏论如出一辙，一是继续用不文明的语言污染环境，二是继续编造假话骗人，三是回避自己无法抵赖的事实和任何实质问题。
沈惠川教授污染学术环境的不文明语言有目共睹，我就不多说什么了。孔子说：“三人行，必有我师焉：择其善者而从之，其不善者而改之。” 沈惠川教授的言行让我更清楚了什么样的言行自己必须避免。谢谢了，沈老师！
沈惠川教授纠缠不休的诡辩和假话实际上属于有关相对论讨论的枝节问题，因此我将在本文的最后再分析沈惠川教授的诡辩和假话。在这里我先指出沈惠川教授想回避的事实，并重申上次要求沈惠川教授回答和赐教的问题。沈惠川教授在他对拙著的评论中歪曲事实，颠倒黑白的指责我强调静止系。我在给他的回应中明确指出了他歪曲的事实。沈惠川教授在他的新作中对此只字不提，反而“铿锵有力”地宣称：“我“歪曲”了什么事实”。沈惠川教授，难道您连承认自己不符合事实地指责我强调静止系这一点错误的勇气都没有吗？
无论沈惠川教授如何赞美自己的偶像“心智和数学是相当高明的”，我还是请沈惠川教授拿出一个有良知的学者应有的道德勇气明确回答我上次请他回答的下列问题：
1． 爱因斯坦在他的第一篇相对论论文中推导的运动横质量公式是什么？
2． 爱因斯坦在他的第一篇相对论论文中推导运动质量在逻辑上是否有问题？
3． 爱因斯坦在他的1907年的相对论论文中推导的运动横质量公式是什么？
4． 爱因斯坦在他的1907年的相对论论文中推导运动质量在逻辑上是否有问题？
5． 爱因斯坦在他一生中是否给出过一个无懈可击的运动横质量正确公式的推导？
如果沈惠川教授认为任何相对论者给出过一个无懈可击的运动横质量正确公式的推导，请贴到网上去，让大家学习讨论。
沈惠川教授指责黄志洵教授和我“学艺不精，治学不严”。我在上次的回应中早就承认自己学识极其有限，并请沈惠川教授授业解惑，解答学习相对论中的一个问题。不见沈惠川教授有任何表示，在这里我再次就同一问题请“学艺精，治学严”的沈惠川教授赐教。我曾向国内某著名相对论专家请教这一问题，在我指出他的解答错误后，他不同意我在网上公布他的解答供大家学习。请“学艺精，治学严”的沈惠川教授对下面的问题给一个正确的敢在网上公布的解答。
最常用到的狭义相对论的实验证据是“时间膨胀”，实际上是高速运动的不稳定微观粒子（mu子或介子等）的寿命延长。静止mu子的寿命约为2.2x10[-6]秒。如果运动mu子的寿命也这样短的话，即使以光速运动，在大气电离层形成的mu子也很难到达地面。实验发现地面上仍然能探测到大量的mu子。这一现象及其它的高速不稳定微观粒子的寿命延长被当作证实狭义相对论正确的实验证据之一。
我遇到的问题是，仔细分析这些实验似乎说明狭义相对论是自相矛盾的。假设mu子生成处与地面的距离是66千米，如果mu子以0.99995c的速度向地面飞行，地面的观察者将发现运动时钟变慢100倍,mu子能到达地面，符合狭义相对论的结论。不过，当我们把狭义相对论用于分析相对于mu子静止的观察者时，问题就变得复杂了。
我们需要首先解决的问题是，相对于mu子或与mu子一起运动的观察者，mu子生成处与地面的距离是多少？根据伽利略（和狭义相对论的）相对性原理，mu子生成处与地面的距离一定是66千米。不少相对论者和反相对论者在这一问题上犯了错误，认为相对于mu子或与mu子一起运动的观察者，mu子生成处与地面的距离是大大缩短的（66米）。这种看法违反了相对性原理。既然在mu子以0.99995c的速度向地面飞行时，地面的观察者认为mu子生成处与地面的距离是66千米，那么，相对于mu子或与mu子一起运动的观察者，当地球以0.99995c的速度向mu子飞行时，mu子生成处与地面的距离也一定是66千米。
我们还要解决的另一个问题是，相对于mu子或与mu子一起运动的观察者，mu子是否到达地面？我们再次使用伽利略（和狭义相对论的）相对性原理，如果地面的观察者发现mu子到达地面，那么，相对于mu子或与mu子一起运动的观察者，mu子也一定到达地面。
当以上这两点确定后，我们就可以看一看把狭义相对论用于分析相对于mu子静止的观察者时会出现什么问题。
这里我们遇到的第一个难题是，相对于mu子或与mu子一起运动的观察者，这个mu子（也就是这个相对于地面的观察者以0.99995c的速度向地面飞行的mu子）的寿命是多少？如果光速不变，距离除以光速得到这个（相对静止）mu子的寿命约为2.2x10[-4]秒。这个结果否定了相对论的基本结论，即相对于mu子或与mu子一起运动的观察者，这个mu子的寿命应该是2.2x10[-6]秒。
如果坚持狭义相对论的基本结论，即相对于mu子或与mu子一起运动的观察者，这个mu子的寿命应该是2.2x10[-6]秒，那么，我们遇到的第二个难题是光速不变原理又要被否定。距离66千米除以2.2x10[-6]秒得到，相对于mu子或与mu子一起运动的观察者，地球的运动速度是100c。
实际上，所有所谓的证实狭义相对论的“时间膨胀”实验结果，都存在同样的难题：把狭义相对论用于分析相对于mu子或其它高速运动微观粒子静止的观察者必然要否定狭义相对论的基本原理或基本结论。
这种难题只存在于狭义相对论中。如果把洛伦兹的静止以太换成地球的引力场，“时间膨胀”取决于相对于地球引力场的“绝对”速度，则不会出现狭义相对论的自相矛盾。
希望沈惠川教授能赐教，把狭义相对论用于分析相对于mu子静止的观察者时出现的问题怎样在相对论范围内得到解决，既满足相对性原理，又满足光速不变原理。如果这个问题不能得到解决，那么，所有这些“证实”狭义相对论的“时间膨胀”的实验结果实际上都是否定狭义相对论的实验证据。
现在回到沈惠川教授的诡辩和编造假话骗人这一点上。我在回应信中对爱因斯坦不对beta因子中的速度求导提出批评，沈惠川教授以为自己抓到了什么，发了一大通议论说我不懂坐标系速度和质点速度的不同。我的观点是，推导观察系（爱因斯坦的静止系）中运动电子的质量，所用的被观察系（爱因斯坦的运动系）必须是运动电子在其中静止的参照系。爱因斯坦和沈惠川教授所说的匀速的参照系根本就不符合这一要求，因为他们的参照系只在无穷短的时间内（准确地说只在零时间间隔内）与运动电子的速度相同。这也难怪被沈惠川教授认为“心智和数学是相当高明的”爱因斯坦“解决得如此妥帖”的运动（横）质量公式不但不符合当时已有的实验数据，而且被世界上无数次的高能加速器实验反复证明是错误的。
当相对论者用力等于动量的时间变化率(F=dP/dt, P表示动量)这一定义代替力等于质量乘速度的时间变化率(F=mdv/dt)这一定义后，在推导“纵”质量和“横”质量时不仅对质点的速度求导，而且对beta(=(1-v^2/c^2)^(-1/2))因子求导（参见拙著《相对论逻辑自洽性探疑》对索末菲Sommerfield推导的介绍）。沈惠川教授认为“完全是两码事”的坐标系速度和质点速度被相对论大师索末菲Sommerfield完全当成了一回事。为什么会是这样呢？原因很简单，采用沈惠川教授闪烁其词却从未解释的力的“新”定义后，相对论者必须对beta(=(1-v^2/c^2)^(-1/2))因子求导才能得到正确的“纵”质量公式，不然的话，他们得到的“纵”质量公式将是洛伦兹的横质量公式。以沈惠川教授的精湛学艺，我相信他还会对上述十分清楚的事实进行“铿锵有力”的批驳，因此，我也就不在这多说什么了。我只想请“学艺精，治学严”的沈惠川教授给“连最起码的导数都不会算的”我讲解一下爱因斯坦在“关于相对性原理和由此得出的结论”的求导
dx’/dt’=B(dx/dt-v)/[B(1-v(dx/dt)/c^2)]
d(dx’/dt’)/dt/[B((1-v(dx/dt)/c^2)]=(1/B)*[(1-v(dx/dt)/c^2)(d^2x/dt^2)+(dx/dt-v)v(d^2x/dt^2)/c^2]/ (1-v(dx/dt)/c^2)
中的第二个求导为什么是正确的？(d^2x/dt^2)在这里表示x对t的二次导数, B=(1-v^2/c^2)^(-1/2)。
“学艺精，治学严”的沈惠川教授没有勇气承认自己的偶像爱因斯坦推导的运动质量公式是错误的，却想用J. Stachel书中的一个注来唬我们这些“学艺不精，治学不严”的意见不同者。我在前面已经给出了相对论者喜欢的“使得动量和能量守恒定律取最简单的形式”的力的定义方式。沈惠川教授，如果您反复闪烁其词的定义不是这个，把您知道的定义亮出来，然后代入爱因斯坦的推导中，看看您或爱因斯坦能不能推导出正确的运动质量公式。如果能推导出来，请贴到网上让大家见识见识。如果推导不出正确的运动质量公式，请大声说出来，让“有点耳背，听不清楚”的朋友们也能听得到。
“学艺精，治学严”的沈惠川教授一边看着我给出的英语arbitrary polygonal line, 一边继续撒谎骗人。Polygon是英语的多边形，polygonal是polygon的形容词形式。懂英语或其它欧洲语言的人都知道，有些英语表达方式译成中文会很拗口，需要改成虽然不很贴切但符合中文习惯的表达方式。中译者把arbitrary polygonal line译成任意折线是对的，尽管折线一词比polygonal line包含的信息要少。有点几何常识的人都知道，当arbitrary polygonal line的两个端点重合时，当然就围成了多边形。当连续曲线的两端点重合时，必然是闭合曲线，而圆周是闭合曲线的一种。“学艺精，治学严”的沈惠川教授会不知道这些几何学的基本常识吗？当然不会。为什么沈惠川教授还要借着中译本用了折线一词大作文章呢？假装两个端点重合的arbitrary polygonal line不围成多边形，圆周不是闭合曲线的一种？
沈惠川教授为了掩饰自己在评论拙著《相对论逻辑自洽性探疑》时歪曲事实编造假话的错误，这次又编造出了一个“Einstein的原文只不过是说，“时钟佯谬”和“双生子佯谬”在非直线运动中也成立”的谎言。沈惠川教授，您是不是在说Einstein的原文中先有“时钟佯谬”和“双生子佯谬”在直线运动中成立的证明或说法？请大声说出来在爱因斯坦著作的哪一页哪一行，让“有点耳背，听不清楚”的朋友们也能知道到爱因斯坦著作的哪一页哪一行去找，学习一下爱因斯坦“相当高明的”“心智和数学”？如果Einstein的原文没有“时钟佯谬”和“双生子佯谬”在直线运动中成立的证明或说法，“也成立”从何而来？匀速直线运动的两个时钟或双生子按狭义相对论的说法不再相遇，从哪来的“时钟佯谬”和“双生子佯谬”？“学艺精，治学严”的沈惠川教授请不要又拿那本书中的注解来这样糊弄我们这些“学艺不精，治学不严”的人。
为了掩饰自己歪曲事实的错误，沈惠川教授再次施展深挖别人思想动机和编造假话的绝技，把批评“Einstein是不思悔改的剽窃者”的学者说成是出于南斯拉夫或塞尔维亚民族主义情绪。实际上，撰写《Einstein：不思悔改的剽窃者》一书的Christopher Bjerknes先生是犹太人。当爱因斯坦的崇拜者J. Stachel博士因不知道Christopher Bjerknes先生是犹太人，而影射他是反闪（犹太）主义时，Christopher Bjerknes先生回应说他为自己是犹太人而自豪，会同J. Stachel博士一起谴责反闪（犹太）主义，同时他也要做还历史真实面目的工作（见后附的Christopher Bjerknes的文章）。
沈惠川教授用了大量的相对论者的结论来说明相对论是正确的。其实，如果只用某一学派自己的结论就能证明这一学派的理论是正确的，科学研究早就没有必要了。爱尔兰的A. Kelly博士对爱因斯坦在1918年给出的双生子问题解释的错误有很好的分析（参见拙著《相对论逻辑自洽性探疑》对A. Kelly博士工作的介绍）。用狭义相对论解释“双生子佯谬”不可避免地要违反相对性原理（参见拙著《相对论逻辑自洽性探疑》对B. Schutz博士推导的批评）。Tolman发展了狭义相对论现在用的动量和能量公式，但是他对运动质量公式的推导过程在逻辑上和物理上是错误的。Tolman的推导过程实际上是在已知洛伦兹公式正确的前提下，不合逻辑的拼凑。如果沈惠川教授想让别人相信爱因斯坦的推导或相对论是正确的，就应该老老实实地自己给别人推导一下看看。“学艺精，治学严”的沈惠川教授以为批评相对论的人都不懂张量分析，就想拿张量这个名词来唬人，这未免过于自信了。如果沈惠川教授声明他和其他相对论专家没有能力用矢量分析来讨论推导相对论，经另一位相对论专家确认同意沈惠川教授的声明后，我会马上用张量分析与沈惠川教授讨论相对论的。
最后，我想指出，无论是相对论者还是反相对论者，往往忽视了相对论研究最重要的一个方面，那就是时间膨胀，运动质量和质能关系式与爱因斯坦相对论时空观的关系。不借助于爱因斯坦相对论时空观是否能推导出时间膨胀，运动质量和质能关系式？时间膨胀，运动质量和质能关系式的成立是否必须依赖于爱因斯坦的相对论时空观？洛伦兹和彭加勒不借助于爱因斯坦相对论时空观已经推导出时间膨胀，运动质量和质能关系式，这说明时间膨胀，运动质量和质能关系式的成立不依赖于爱因斯坦的相对论时空观。如果时间膨胀，运动质量和质能关系式的成立不依赖于爱因斯坦的相对论时空观，相对论者的“爱因斯坦相对论已被无数次实验所证实”的说法就完全是不负责任的误导宣传。只有爱因斯坦相对论独有的结论，即时空的相对性，被实验证实，相对论者才有根据说爱因斯坦相对论得到实验证实。至今还没有任何一条这样的实验证据，而我向国内某著名相对论专家和沈惠川教授请教的问题说明所谓相对论的时空观很可能是错误的。
马青平 2006年3月5日
附件：Christopher Bjerknes的文章
The Author of Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist Responds to John Stachel's Personal Attack
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
In the April, 2003, issue of Physics World, John Stachel, one of the early editors of Einstein's Collected Papers, published what he styled as a "review" of my book Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist. The so-called "review" opens with a personal attack against me stated in particularly meanspirited terms in an alleged effort to justify the otherwise sacrilegious "review" of a book that dares to accurately and thoroughly document the history of the theory of relativity. No mention is made of the facts and circumstances which precipitated the production and publication of this ad hominem attack against me, and I can only imagine that an innocent reader who happens upon Dr. Stachel's statements will find them bizarre and inexplicable.
The truth of the matter is that John Stachel coauthored an article "Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute" in the journal Science, Volume 278, (14 November 1997), pp. 1270-1273, which rewrote the history of David Hilbert's well established priority for the generally covariant field equations of gravitation. The claims made in this article relied largely upon a set of printer's proofs dated 6 December 1915 of Hilbert's famous 20 November 1915 Goettingen lecture "The Foundations of Physics". Stachel claimed that David Hilbert's proofs did not contain generally covariant field equations of gravitation, though the final paper eventually published in 1916 on this lecture did contain generally covariant field equations of gravitation--the implication being that David Hilbert learned the equations from Einstein's 25 November 1915 lecture. However, Stachel did not inform his readers of a material fact in his sensationalistic article. Hilbert's proofs were mutilated at some point in their history, and a critical part of the proofs has gone missing. No one knows when the proofs were altered, or why. Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg of the University of Nevada, Reno, informed me of these facts in the late summer of 2002.
Prof. Winterberg has demonstrated that even in their mutilated state these printer's proofs show that Hilbert had the generally covariant field equations of gravitation, before Einstein. This constitutes positive proof of Einstein's plagiarism, because we have a letter from Einstein to Hilbert dated 18 November 1915 in which Einstein acknowledges receipt of a copy of Hilbert's manuscript, which Einstein had requested from Hilbert on 15 November 1915. The chronology is straightforward. Einstein received a copy of Hilbert's work on 18 November 1915. Hilbert delivered his lecture to the Goettingen Academy on 20 November 1915. Einstein betrayed Hilbert's trust and plagiarized Hilbert's work on 25 November 1915.
I wrote to Dr. Stachel in September of 2002, informed him that I intended to publish on this subject and asked him to state for the record why he did not mention the mutilation of Hilbert's proofs in his article in Science. A brief correspondence ensued, with Dr. Stachel behaving very much as he did in his subsequent "review."
Dr. Stachel's avowed reasoning for not mentioning the mutilation of the proofs was, inter alia, that the article was an incomplete and preliminary report. I observed that his explanation seemed to conflict with the title and tone of his article in Science, which was dubbed a "Belated Decision". I failed to find a statement in Stachel's report that it was incomplete and preliminary, and found that since this was the case, it was all the more reason to mention the fact that the evidence was mutilated, so that those reading the article could arrive at an informed opinion of its claims, and test them against the facts in the full light of day.
Stachel had tried to change the subject to a review of my book he said he intended to write sometime in the future. I ignored his queries in this line and he presented me with an ultimatum that if I did not answer his questions he would consider the "discussion at an end." I refused to allow him to change the subject, and so ended our brief correspondence. Apparently, Dr. Stachel did not deem it necessary to inform his readers of these facts and circumstances, which preceded his nasty "review" of my book in Physics World.
Dr. Stachel calls attention to the fact that in my book I quoted portions of Wolfgang Pauli's factual statements of the objective priority of Lorentz and Poincare over Einstein, but quoted only some of Pauli's apparently insincere praise of Einstein--fully informing my readers that such praise follows in Pauli's article for the Encyklopaedie der mathematischen Wissenschaften. Though I find Dr. Stachel's dwelling on this nonissue petty and a distraction from the real issues of Einstein's plagiarism, which Stachel conspicuously avoids throughout his undignified rant, he seeks to attack my credibility, and I am, therefore, compelled to respond to his poorly thought out remarks.
Dr. Stachel refers to a letter from Felix Klein to Wolfgang Pauli, a transcription of which appears in Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel mit Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg, u.a. = Scientific correspondence with Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg, a.o., Springer, New York, (1979), pp. 27-28. It appears to Dr. Stachel that there is a mutual exclusion between Klein's directive to Pauli in this letter, that he should credit Poincare with Poincare's innovations, and my contentions that it appears that Pauli felt forced, or compelled, to praise Einstein with evidently insincere comments after proving that Poincare and Lorentz had created the special theory of relativity before Einstein.
No such mutual exclusion exits. The factual disclosure that Poincare and Lorentz hold priority for the special theory of relativity rather requires that Pauli's statements of praise of Einstein be insincere, and indeed Pauli qualifies his statements, "in a way," which fact Dr. Stachel avoids addressing. All the elements of pressure and submission exist in Klein's letter, and one should bear in mind the stature of Felix Klein--then the world's leading expert on non-Euclidean geometry and one of the greatest of the great minds responsible for the reputation of the Goettingen Academy as a world leader in mathematics. In his letter, Klein directs Pauli as an authority, informs Pauli of his like for Einstein and Einstein's peculiar remarks, and makes clear to Pauli that he wants Einstein praised, albeit with the leftovers from Poincare. Wolfgang Pauli was quite young at the time and Felix Klein's attitude towards Einstein must have served as a source of pressure on Pauli to praise Einstein, even after proving that Einstein did not originate the major concepts of the special theory of relativity. However, Felix Klein's attitude is but one factor. Einstein had recently emerged as an international celebrity, and this, too, must have served as a source of enormous pressure on Pauli to praise Einstein. But these are many words wasted on a nonissue. If Pauli was as sincere in his praise of Einstein as sincere can be, it would not change his arguments that Lorentz and Poincare created the special theory of relativity, before Einstein--which subject Stachel avoids. John Stachel has apparently lost sight of the fact that I am not the issue, rather the history is the issue.
Far more interesting than Klein's directives to Pauli, is Klein's statement that Poincare, who stated before Einstein that the Lorentz transformations form a group, felt an animosity towards Einstein and that this was the sole reason why Poincare did not mention Einstein in his Goettingen lecture "The New Mechanics". Similar comments are found in the writings of Stjepan Mohorovicic, who pointed out that Einstein repeated (without an attribution) Poincare's method of synchronizing clocks with light signals, and, as a result, Poincare did not mention Einstein in the context of relativity (See: Die Einsteinsche Relativitaetstheorie und ihr mathematischer, physikalischer und philosophischer Charakter, Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, Leipzig, (1923), pp. 23-24, 30).
Dr. Stachel has tried to manufacture contradictions in my work which do not exist and has wondered off into odd lists of what he incorrectly believes I did and did not cite, and he is so vague and timid in his remarks, that I would be required to state the implications of his remarks in order to thoroughly contest them, and in so doing run the risk of being accused of misrepresenting him. I will instead leave it to my intelligent readers to understand that Dr. Stachel's comments are so petty, inappropriate and insulting as to not merit further consideration.
However, it is noteworthy that in his long "review" Dr. Stachel nowhere mentions the fact that Einstein had an international reputation as a plagiarist throughout his career, and that his plagiarism was widely discussed in such reputable sources as the New York Times, and in the scientific literature around the world. Nor does Dr. Stachel refer to the fact that the original 1905 paper on the principle of relativity was signed "Einstein-Marity", or the fact that the theory of relativity was known as the "Lorentz-Einstein" theory from 1905 through the 1920's. There was apparently no room in Dr. Stachel's "review" for mention of the fact that the Einsteins' 1905 paper on the principle of relativity did not contain any references, though it was largely unoriginal; nor did Einstein's 1915 paper on the field equations of gravitation contain a single reference to the work of others, and it was clearly plagiarized from David Hilbert and Marcel Grossmann. Einstein clearly plagiarized the Lorentz transformation; as well as Poincare's principle of relativity, and his concept of, and exposition on, relative simultaneity; and Einstein failed to acknowledge that Poincare was the first to introduce the four-dimensional concept of space-time into the theory of relativity. Einstein's 1915 formula for the perihelion motion of Mercury is identical to the formula Paul Gerber published in 1898, as even Einstein's closest friends noted, with Einstein, under enormous pressure, eventually grudgingly acknowledging the fact in 1920. Einstein's 1911 prediction for the deflection of a light ray around the sun is nothing but a repetition of the Newtonian prediction made in the 1700's, as Einstein acknowledged in his private correspondence in 1913; and Einstein's revised 1915 prediction comes remarkably close to duplicating the prediction Johann Georg von Soldner made in 1801. Dr. Stachel completely avoided addressing any of the legitimate reasons for the numerous accusations of plagiarism and anticipation, which have been made against Einstein's work from 1905 onward. His silence on these issues speaks loudly.
I share Dr. Stachel's concern for the abuse Mileva Maric suffered, with the difference between us being that I properly attribute that abuse, perhaps even physical abuse, to its source, Albert Einstein. I could quote some of Einstein's hateful and misogynist diatribes, or offer up the evidence of his perverse behavior, his neglect of marital and familial obligations, his smear campaigns against Mileva Maric, but since I have already addressed these issues and since Dr. Stachel avows that he, like me, is genuinely concerned for her, I will leave it to him to expound upon these important issues. Strange though, Stachel found no room in his article for citation of my praise for Mileva Maric, and my arguments in the alternative. It would be nice, and it would be appropriate, if he would leave me as a personality out of the history, and return to that history.
In conclusion, we should all acknowledge the importance of recognizing and recording the facts of the history of the theory of relativity and the history of the "insane publicity" which has promoted and which continues to promote Einstein, virtually to the exclusion of his predecessors. We face a moral imperative to give Einstein's predecessors justice, if only posthumously, and we must acknowledge their legacy. We have an obligation to the science of history to accurately record the past. It was for this purpose of accurately recording the history that I wrote my book. I am quite proud of my Jewish heritage, and if John Stachel wants to change the subject to anti-Semitism, I will join him in condemning it in all its forms, and go about the work of a historian recording the facts surrounding Einstein's career of plagiarism, even if it means enduring Dr. Stachel's petty insults. I do not think that alarmist slogans and attempts to render the subject taboo have any place in a scholarly exploration of the facts.
|