• Explaining Einstein's mathematical mistake (and its correction) requires knowledge of
• math (differential equations),
• of special relativity
• its history, and
• of electrodynamics
  • (Einstein's original paper on special relativity was called "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies").

• And the little-known fact is that special relativity arose because
• Maxwell's equations conflicted with Newtonian physics.
• (Relativity was NOT due to just the Michelson-Morley experiment, see chp 3a in Time: Towards a Consistent Theory).

• Key point of my correction to Einstein's mistake is that relativity forces the use of FDEs.
• FDEs ≠ ODEs (ordinary differential equations)
• FDEs are history dependent: initial data not enough as for ODEs.
• Also FDEs, since qualitatively different, cannot be approximated by ODEs as Einstein (and others mistakenly tried to do). This was Einstein's mistake.

• The two body problem of electrodynamics involves FDEs. This is further explained in this article.
• This 2-body problem was a central issue for a century since physicists failed to solve it for even the simplest case of the hydrogen atom.
• They failed for a century (check if you can find a solution of the 2-body problem in any currently-used stock text on electrodynamics, such as Jackson or Griffiths).

• Physicists did not notice this failure.
• Instead (without solving the 2-body problem), physicists (starting from Niels Bohr)concluded that it was classical electrodynamics itself which failed for the hydrogen atom.
• It was in this context, that I suggested that a correct solution of the electrodynamic 2-body problem might explain quantum mechanics.

• I explained this at an abstract level in my book
• and at a more concrete level in a more recent article.

• But, of course, it is part of Western control over science that a scientific idea, howsoever logical, cannot be taken seriously when proposed by an Indian (outside the ambit of Western authority).
• It can be taken seriously only after a top Western authorities endorses it.
• or cheats, and plagiarizes the idea and claims at his own
• to glorify himself and
• to maintain the fiction that all science is the work of the West.

• That is exactly what happened in this case, with Atiyah, described in the speech, and elaborated below.

• Important to understand that science ≠ story.
• Indeed, science is the opposite of story.
  • A story involves suspension of disbelief,
  • science involves suspension of belief.

• Hence, it is most effective to tell stories to children who are gullible (they must learn fast to survive), and believe all they are told.
• As adults, these story-believers find it hard to believe that the story they heard is wrong,
• that Einstein (and so many other physicists) actually made a mathematical mistake (for so long).

• They advance an arational argument (as distinct from an irrational argument).
• They say: "so many people believe in Einstein, they cannot all be wrong can they?"
• They can. So many people believed and still believe in the Christian God for so many centuries. You mean they are right? There really is an old man out there who might cast you into hell.
• Such arational proofs are persuasive (they have survival value) but they have no bearing on truth.
• See patterns of irrationality (proof by numbers) in Eleven Pictures of Time.

• People also believe those recognized as top-level scientists can't be dishonest,
• just as so many people believed for centuries that top religious figures like the pope could not be dishonest.
• But scientists are humans, no different from their humans
• bent on social success, they have all the fallibilities of other human beings, whether priests, or politicians or business people, and do so many dishonest things.(Example below.)
• Social recognition is no proof of honesty. Usually, the contrary.

• Then there are professional story-tellers, like our science reporters, say Vasudeva Mukunth of Wire, or G. Mudur of Telegraph.
• They too know little or no math or science.
• Worse, they don't care about truth, only impact (as Mudur confessed to me, in person).
• These story-teller only want authoritative confirmation for any story they carry, regardless of its truth.

• Amazingly, these professional story-tellers are the same people who will say "science ≠ faith in authority",
• and re-tell the story of Galileo to emphasize that!
• Both religious authorities and scientific authorities are human beings
• as gatekeepers of knowledge they are subject to exactly the same failings of dishonesty and disregard for truth,
• as the case of Einstein's mistake and the Atiyah case below shows.

• Science is a superior form of knowledge NOT because schentific authorities are more honest or reliable,
• but only because it is based on empirical facts and can be verified on one's own knowledge.
• Reliance on authority defeats this fundamental aspect of science
• and makes it as fallible as any other kind of faith.

• Because many people are ignorant of science, and rely on scientific authority as a guide to truth.
• The Atiyah case is intended as an explanation of Einstein's mistake for all such people.
• What happened is as follows.

• Sir Michael Atiyah, President of the Royal Society was regarded as THE top mathematician in the world,
• since the only mathematician to win both the Fields medal and the Abel prize (both regarded as a sort-of Nobel prize in math).
• Hence, he was a symbol of authority.
• On the principle that "imitation is the best form of flattery"
• Atiyah's imitation of my correction to Einstein is authoritative endorsement of that correction
• the kind of authoritative endorsement which is easily possible,
• since done without the galling admission that authoritative scientists made a mistake for so long.

• By 2005 my points about Einstein's dishonesty and resulting mistake were both well known to scholars (if not the lay public).
• The point was made in my book Time: Towards a Consistent Theory (Kluwer, 1994)
• and more directly in my other book Eleven Pictures of Time (Sage, 2003) which tells a more real story about Einstein.
• It was driven home by my solution (the first) of the FDEs of the 2-body problem of electrodynamics (known from before 1998, but published 2004).

• As a mathematician Atiyah immediately understood my first mathematical point about Einstein's mistake and it correction
• the need to use functional differential equations after relativity
• and the fundamental differences between FDEs and ODEs of Newtonian physics
• which results in a "paradigm shift", as first stated in my book.

• Atiyah made my correction to Einstein the highlight of his 2005 Einstein centenary lecture,
• but slyly passed it off as his own, saying "Don't forget I suggested this".
• To support that lie, he added a second lie
• he did not acknowledge any of my earlier published work
• or MY assertion of a paradigm shift in my book.

• Point 1: for the disbelieving layperson who wants authoritative endorsement of my assertion that Einstein (and most other physicists) made a mistake for so long
• imitative of my correction by Atiyah is an authoritative endorsement of it.
• And this is the only way to persuade those who are ignorant of science
• and think science is like church religion which requires proof by authority.

• To reiterate, whether or not Atiyah plagiarised my correction to Einstein (he did),
• the fact is that he repeated it, hence endorsed it.
• So there is authoritative endorsement either way.
• Later he was also forced to acknowledge in print the close similarity of his claim with my earlier published work on Einstein's mistake.

• Point 2: authorities can be dishonest
• this is for those who trust authority in math and science.
• It is NOT just a case of one individual Atiyah alone,
• the top authorities were collectively and systematically dishonest and unethical in this whole matter.

• E.g. Andy Magid then-editor of the Notices of the American Mathematical Society was totally unethical.
• According to the published ethics of the AMS, it is unethical to claim ignorance of past published work.
• (Why? Because anyone can make such a claim of ignorance of earlier published work, exactly as Einstein did. His original special relativity paper had zero references.)
• The published ethics of the AMS says it would pursue and punish any violations of these ethics.
• That is what the AMS SAYS.

• But what did Andy Magid do?
• Did he stick to that published assertion about AMS ethics? No!
• Instead, he covered-up the Atiyah plagiarisn issue the way politicians suppress a corruption scandal.
• How? Magid as editor of the Notice of AMS refused to publish my side of the story.

• My side was simple.
• My letter to the AMS pointed out that Atiyah was personally informed of my work (my book, and papers) immediately after his Einstein Centenary lecture.
• But he repeated his claim "Don't forget that I suggested it"
• again without acknowledging my past work.

• Of course, instead of repeating it himself,
• he asked a couple of proxies to quote him to that effect.
• As an influential person, able to advance the careers of ambitious academics,
• he had no difficulty in finding such proxies.

• But Andy Magid, as editor of the AMS refused to publish my letter
• pointing out that Atiyah tried to steal credit a second time
• without acknowledging my past work
• even AFTER he was personally informed about it.

• Why Magid refuse to publish my side of the story ?
• To maintain the pretence that Atiyah did not brazenly copy my work with the clear intention to steal it
• that by a fantastic coincidence he somehow arrived at the same conclusions as me.
• While the published ethics of the AMS rule out such a pretence
• people are willing to excuse an "unintententional mistake".

• But the claim "it was unintentional" lacked credibility once it is pointed out that Atiyah was personally informed.
• To hide that key fact, Magid refused to publish my letter pointing out that Atiyah was personaly informed
• and repeated his attempt to cheat a second time.
• That is, instead of enforcing ethics, the policeman turned into an accomplice of the criminal.
• Magid, the editor of the AMS helped Atiyah to cheat.

• Basically, the West apart from its long history of racism, slavery and segregation and support for apartheid etc.,
• has also a long history of using plagiarism to falsely glorify itself.
• Therefore it interprets ethics in a racist way.
• Western ethics are only meant to punish a non-Westerners for plagiarising from a Westerner, never the other way around,
• else all their stories of false gods of science from Euclid and Archimedes to Newton and Einstein would crumble and fall like a pack of cards.

• Note that this dishonesty involves not only prominent individuals like Atiyah and Magid, but the entire AMS.
• Thus a petition was send asking the AMS to publish my side of it,
• pointing out that Atiyah brazenly repeated his act of plagiarism even after he was informed.
• Not a single member of the AMS stood up to support me publicly.
• To the contrary, in the spirit of punishing the victim, AMS propagandists are still pursuing the matter, against me, seeking every possible avenue to vilify me.

• That brings us to the clincher, for those who believe in proof by (utterly dishonest) authority.
• If there were anything mathematically wrong about my critique of Einstein,
• some mathematician would have pointed it out long ago.
• They could not, despite their many attempt to vilify me (which shows they desperately want to do so.)
• Therefore, there is no mistake in my point about Einstein's mistake. (This is for the layperson. Those with knowledge of math can check the section above.)

For more details on the Atiyah case, see

• http://ckraju.net/atiyah/atiyahcase.html

• My last point is that the supposedly greatest mathematician in the world and all his accomplices where exposed
• because he made a mistake while trying to plagiarise my work.

• My epistemic test says
• mistakes = lack of understanding,
• and this PROVES copying in a situation where copying was easily possible
• and the ideas are similar.

• The epistemic test applies to Einstein's mistake (not understanding FDEs he wrongly tried to approximate FDEs with ODEs), of course,
• and proves that Einstein was a plagiarist.
• But it also applies to Atiyah and his accomplices who plagiarised and dishonestly tried to grab credit from me.

• So what were Atiyah's mistakes?
• As a mathematician Atiyah immediately understood my point about FDEs being fundamentally different from ODEs.
• He also correctly judged that people were not very receptive to my term "Einstein's mistake", because they thought of Einstein as a god who could not be wrong.
• In any case, Atiyah was not interested in the truth: my point that Einstein's mistake proved he copied.
• Atiyah's aim in stealing from me was to glorify himself not arrive at truth.

• So, he asked his accomplices (Johnson and Walker) to coin the term "Atiyah's hypothesis"
• which term they used in their 2006 article (reporting Atiyah's 2005 speech)
• so as to give credit to Atiyah
• to drive home the Atiyah quote "Don't forget that I suggested it"
• and again did not mention my past work.

• Atiyah's cynical calculation was that people don't care about actual history, they use any popular nomenclature.
• Hence, the term "Atiyah's hypothesis" published in the most widely read math journal would forever link the idea to Atiyah, not me.

• Atiyah's first mistake was that in being very socially savvy he lost track of the physics.
• No hypothesis is needed for FDEs. They are a natural part of physics, after relativity.
• So, calling the use of FDEs as "Atiyah's hypothesis" was a mistake,
• "Atiyah's first mistake", for no hypothesis is needed to use FDEs in physics (after Maxwellian electrodynamics).
• But Atiyah's mistake was not limited to the question of nomenclature, it also involved a very substantial mistake.

• To show the usefulness of my correction (to Einstein's mistake) by using FDEs, I applied the corrected theory to a new context: that of quantum mechanics (qm).
• What Atiyah did not understand is the physics of qm:
• that qm is well known to be non-local (since the time of my 1980 PhD in qm).

• In my theory that FDEs lead to qm, that non-locality is in-built into the (mixed-type) FDEs
• How?
• By permitting also advanced electrodynamic interactions.
• (That is the reason for a structure of time.)

• Advanced interactions travel from future to past, unlike usual retarded interactions which travel from part to future.
• It has long been my theory that such advanced interactions exist in small amounts.
• This is what I later called a "tilt in the arrow of time".

• Note that in my book Time: Towards a Consistent Theory, I pointed out a different reason to accept a tilt
• (NOT the absorber theory of radiation I had initially used).
• This different reason too involves no hypothesis (the most general situation is that of some retarded+some advanced radiation).
• Instead my theory DROPS the hypothesis of causality,
• and therefore gives us the most general form of physics after relativity.

• On this point, Atiyah (and his accomplices) made a second blunder which concerns the substance of my theory.
• Mathematically, a tilt in the arrow of time means that the FDEs of physics must be of mixed type, not merely retarded
• as Atiyah and his accomplices wrongly assumed in their belated acknowledgment of my prior work.
• With retarded FDEs there is no way to get non-locality innate to qm.