Poincare provided the "four-dimensional analogue"¹²⁴ to Lorentz' aether in 1905 and relativized the "Lorentzian ether" in 1895, long before Minkowski or Einstein manipulated credit for his work. The Einsteins' 1905 paper contains no four-dimensional analogue, and is, therefore, a theory of the "unrelativized Lorentzian aether", per se.

. . .One must wonder how Minkowski "introduced", in 1908, that which was already extant in Poincare's work of 1905, and in Marcolongo's work of 1906. It was Poincare who first attacked Lorentz' and Larmor's distinction between local time and time, beginning in 1898, and eliminated said artificial distinction long before 1905 -- which distinction was not even present in Voigt's formulation of 1887.

. . .Neither Minkowski, nor the Einsteins, nor Poincare, hold priority on the concept of four-dimensional space-time. H.G. Wells, in 1894, expressly stated it in a popular novel, The Time Machine, long before Minkowski claimed priority,

"'Can a cube that does not last for any time at all, have a real existence?' Filby became pensive. 'Clearly,' the Time Traveller proceeded, 'any real body must have extension in four directions: it must have Length, Breadth, Thickness, and -- Duration. But through a natural infirmity of the flesh, which I will explain to you in a moment, we incline to overlook this fact. There are really four dimensions, three which we call the three planes of Space, and a fourth, Time. There is, however, a tendency to draw an unreal distinction between the former three dimensions and the latter, because it happens that our consciousness moves intermittently in one direction along the latter from the beginning to the end of our lives.'"

. . .In this same lecture, followed by a discussion which is on record,¹³¹ Einstein shamelessly parroted Poincare's enquiries into the nature of simultaneity¹³² and his clock synchronization procedures, without citing Poincare; and Einstein failed to correct those who credited Einstein with the ideas he repeated, which were not his own.

. . .An article by "S." had appeared in Nature, Volume 31, Number 804, (March 26, 1885), p. 481, titled, "Four-Dimensional Space", which presented the concepts of "time-space", "four-dimensional solid" ("sur-solid", after Des Cartes), "time-area", and "time-line"; which later became "space-time" ("Zeit-Raum" is a confusing pun in German with the word "Zeitraum"), "absolute world", and "world-line". Here is the work of 1885, which appeared some 23 years before Minkowski's derivative lecture on the same subject:

"Four-Dimensional Space

Possibly the question, What is the fourth dimension? may admit of an indefinite number of answers. I prefer, therefore, in proposing to consider Time as a fourth dimension of our existence, to speak of it as a fourth dimension rather than the fourth dimension. Since this fourth dimension cannot be introduced into space, as commonly understood, we require a new kind of space for its existence, which we may call time-space. There is then no difficulty in conceiving the analogues in this new kind of space, of the things in ordinary space which are known as lines, areas, and solids. A straight line, by moving in any direction not in its own length, generates an area; if this area moves in any direction not in its own plane it generates a solid; but if this solid moves in any direction, it still generates a solid, and nothing more. The reason of this is that we have not supposed it to move in the fourth dimension. If the straight line moves in its own direction, it describes only a straight line; if the area moves in its own plane, it describes only an area; in each case, motion in the dimensions in which the thing exists, gives us only a thing of the same dimensions; and, in order to get a thing of higher dimensions, we must have motion in a new dimension. But, as the idea of motion is only applicable in space of three dimensions, we must replace it by another which is applicable in our fourth dimension of time. Such an idea is that of successive existence. We must, therefore, conceive that there is a new three-dimensional space for each successive instant of time; and, by picturing to ourselves the aggregate formed by the successive positions in time-space of a given solid during a given time, we shall get the idea of a four-dimensional solid, which may be called a sur-solid. It will assist us to get a clearer idea, if we consider a solid which is in a constant state of change, both of magnitude and position; and an example of a solid which satisfies this condition sufficiently well, is afforded by the body of each of us. Let any man picture to himself the aggregate of his own bodily forms from birth to the present time, and he will have a clear idea of a sur-solid in time-space.

Let us now consider the sur-solid formed by the movement, or rather, the successive existence, of a cube in time-space. We are to conceive of the cube, and the whole of the three-dimensional space in which it is situated, as floating away in time-space for a given time; the cube will then have an initial and a final position, and these will be the end boundaries of the sur-solid. It will therefore have sixteen points, namely, the eight points belonging to the initial cube, and the eight belonging to the final cube. The successive positions (in time-space) of each of the eight points of the cube, will form what may be called a time-line; and adding to these the twenty-four edges of the initial and final cubes, we see that the sur-solid has thirty-two lines. The successive positions (in time-space) of each of the twelve edges of the cube, will form what may be called a time area; and, adding these to the twelve faces of the initial and final cubes, we see that the sur-solid has twenty-four areas. Lastly, the successive positions (in time-space) of each of the six faces of the cube, will form what may be called a time-solid; and, adding these to the initial and final cubes, we see that the sur-solid is bounded by eight solids. These results agree with the statements in your article. But it is not permissible to speak of the sur-solid as resting in 'space,' we must rather say that the section of it by any time is a cube resting (or moving) in 'space.' S. March 16"¹³⁵

Internet Resources for Mileva Einstein-Marity:

Documentary: Einstein's Wife

Einstein's Wife on amazon.com

M. Maurer, "Weil nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf... 'DIE ELTERN' ODER 'DER VATER' DER RELATIVITÄTSTHEORIE?", PCnews, Nummer 48, Jahrgang 11, Heft 3, Wien, (Juni, 1996), S. 20-27

"In Albert's Shadow: The Life and Letters of Mileva Maric, Einstein's First Wife" by Milan Popovic

"Im Schatten Albert Einsteins" by Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric

"Einstein's Wife: Work and Marriage in the Lives of Five Great Twentieth-Century Women" by Andrea Gabor

Was Einstein's Wife Mileva His Silent Collaborator?

Mileva Maric

Mileva Maric on Wikipedia

Alex Johnson, "The culture of Einstein", MSNBC, April 18, 2005

"Einstein: un genio del plagio" La Voz de Galicia (Spain), March 15, 2005

"Plagiat d'Einstein: le dossier" Polémia (France), February 26, 2005

"Was Einstein a Plagiarist?" The Register (UK), November 15, 2004

"Albert Einstein accused of stealing his theory of relativity!" Hindustan Times (India), December 1, 2004

"E=M thief squared" The Sun (UK), December 1, 2004

"Einstein da an cap y tuong?" Nguoi lao dong (Vietnam), November 17, 2004

"Lorentz, Poincaré et Einstein" L'Express (France), November 8, 2004

"News: Einstein -- Genius or Plagiarist?" EnergyGrid Magazine (USA), December 5, 2004

"Einstein plagiaire?" Le Nouvel Observateur (France), August 5, 2004

"Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century" Nexus Magazine (Australia), December-January 2004

"Beyond the History of Time" The Hindu (India), September 18, 2003

"A theory of Einstein the irrational plagiarist" The Canberra Times (Australia), September 19, 2002

"Einstein's E=mc² 'was Italian's idea'" The Guardian (UK), November 11, 1999

Special Theory of Relativity, Jules Henri Poincare, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, and Albert Einstein:

Henri Poincare and Relativity Theory by A. A. Logunov, Former Vice-President of the Russian [Soviet] Academy of Sciences, and currently Director of the Institute for High Energy Physics

A. A. Logunov, "Sur la dynamique de l'électron"

LA RELATIVITÉ Poincaré et Einstein, Planck, Hilbert: Histoire véridique de la Théorie de la Relativité by Jules Leveugle

Jules Leveugle's book on Amazon France

Albert Einstein: UN EXTRAORDINAIRE PARADOXE by 1988 Economics Nobel Prize laureate Maurice Allais

Relativistic Theory of Gravity (Horizons in World Physics) by A.A. Logunov

Einstein et Poincaré by Jean-Paul Auffray on Amazon France.

Comment le jeune et ambitieux Einstein s'est approprié la Relativité restreinte de Poincaré by Jean Hladik on Amazon France.

"Henri Poincaré : A decisive contribution to Special Relativity. The short story" by Jacques Fric

Einstein's Clocks, Poincare's Maps: Empires of Time by Peter Louis Galison

"Henri Poincaré: a decisive contribution to Relativity" by Christian Marchal: Word.doc

"Henri Poincaré: a decisive contribution to Relativity" by Christian Marchal: HTML

General Theory of Relativity, Paul Gerber, David Hilbert, Albert Einstein:

F. Winterberg, The Einstein Myth and the Crisis in Modern Physics.

I. McCausland, "Anomalies in the History of Relativity", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 13, Number 2, (1999), pp. 271-290.

The following journal articles discredit Leo Corry, Juergen Renn and John Stachel's baseless and radical historical revisionism:

Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg's paper discrediting Corry, Renn and Stachel's revisionism: "On 'Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute', published by L. Corry, J. Renn, and J. Stachel", Zeitschrift fuer Naturforschung A, Volume 59a, Number 10, (October, 2004), pp. 715-719.

Abstract for Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg's paper discrediting Corry, Renn and Stachel's revisionism.

Table of Contents for Zeitschrift fuer Naturforschung A, Volume 59a.

A. A. Logunov, M. A. Mestvirishvili and V. A. Petrov, "How Were the Hilbert-Einstein Equations Discovered?" Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk, Volume 174, Number 6, (June, 2004), pp. 663-678.

An English translation of A. A. Logunov, M. A. Mestvirishvili and V. A. Petrov, "How Were the Hilbert-Einstein Equations Discovered?" Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk, Volume 174, Number 6, (June, 2004), pp. 663-678.

An alternative English translation was published in the Physics-Uspekhi: A. A. Logunov, M. A. Mestvirishvili and V. A. Petrov, "How Were the Hilbert-Einstein Equations Discovered?" Physics-Uspekhi, Volume 47, Number 6, (June, 2004), pp. 607-621.

T. Sauer, "The Relativity of Discovery: Hilbert's First Note on the Foundations of Physics", Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Volume 53, Number 6, (1999), pp. 529-575.

Leo Corry, Jürgen Renn and John Stachel's 1997 article in Science, which does not mention the mutilation of Hilbert's proofs:

"Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute", Science, Volume 278, (14 November 1997), pp. 1270-1273.

Other Important Links:

The homepage of Prof. Umberto Bartocci

Richard Moody "Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century"

Richard Moody "Albert Einstein--Plagiator" (Polish)

"Was Einstein a Plagiarist?"

"E=mc² before Einstein" by Paul Marmet

Plagiarism

http://www.members.shaw.ca/andreasohrt/179.02.13.03.html

Kazakhstani scientist Karim Khaidarov

Kazakhstani scientist Nikolai Noskov

Dr. Caroline Thompson