PDA

View Full Version : Albert Einstein, Plagiarist of the Century



bocian
Friday, October 29th, 2004, 03:38 PM
Einstein plagiarised the work of several notable scientists in his 1905 papers on special relativity and E = mc2, yet the physics community has never bothered to set the record straight in the past century.


Abstract

Proponents of Einstein have acted in a way that appears to corrupt the historical record. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Time Magazine's "Person of the Century", wrote a long treatise on special relativity theory (it was actually called "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", 1905a), without listing any references. Many of the key ideas it presented were known to Lorentz (for example, the Lorentz transformation) and Poincaré before Einstein wrote the famous 1905 paper.

As was typical of Einstein, he did not discover theories; he merely commandeered them. He took an existing body of knowledge, picked and chose the ideas he liked, then wove them into a tale about his contribution to special relativity. This was done with the full knowledge and consent of many of his peers, such as the editors at Annalen der Physik.

The most recognisable equation of all time is E = mc2. It is attributed by convention to be the sole province of Albert Einstein (1905). However, the conversion of matter into energy and energy into matter was known to Sir Isaac Newton ("Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another...", 1704). The equation can be attributed to S. Tolver Preston (1875), to Jules Henri Poincaré (1900; according to Brown, 1967) and to Olinto De Pretto (1904) before Einstein. Since Einstein never correctly derived E = mc2 (Ives, 1952), there appears nothing to connect the equation with anything original by Einstein.

Arthur Eddington's selective presentation of data from the 1919 Eclipse so that it supposedly supported "Einstein's" general relativity theory is surely one of the biggest scientific hoaxes of the 20th century. His lavish support of Einstein corrupted the course of history. Eddington was less interested in testing a theory than he was in crowning Einstein the king of science.

The physics community, unwittingly perhaps, has engaged in a kind of fraud and silent conspiracy; this is the byproduct of simply being bystanders as the hyperinflation of Einstein's record and reputation took place. This silence benefited anyone supporting Einstein.


Introduction

Science, by its very nature, is insular. In general, chemists read and write about chemistry, biologists read and write about biology, and physicists read and write about physics. But they may all be competing for the same research dollar (in its broadest sense). Thus, if scientists wanted more money for themselves, they might decide to compete unfairly. The way they can do this is convince the funding agencies that they are more important than any other branch of science. If the funding agencies agree, it could spell difficulty for the remaining sciences. One way to get more money is to create a superhero - a superhero like Einstein.

Einstein's standing is the product of the physics community, his followers and the media. Each group benefits enormously by elevating Einstein to icon status. The physics community receives billions in research grants, Einstein's supporters are handsomely rewarded, and media corporations like Time Magazine get to sell millions of magazines by placing Einstein on the cover as "Person of the Century".

When the scandal breaks, the physics community, Einstein's supporters and the media will attempt to downplay the negative news and put a positive spin on it. However, their efforts will be shown up when Einstein's paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", is seen for what it is: the consummate act of plagiarism in the 20th century.


Special Relativity

Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) was a great scientist who made a significant contribution to special relativity theory. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy website says that Poincaré:

(1) "sketched a preliminary version of the special theory of relativity";
(2) "stated that the velocity of light is a limit velocity" (in his 1904 paper from the Bull. of Sci. Math. 28, Poincaré indicated "a whole new mechanics, where the inertia increasing with the velocity of light would become a limit and not be exceeded");
(3) suggested that "mass depends on speed";
(4) "formulated the principle of relativity, according to which no mechanical or electromagnetic experiment can discriminate between a state of uniform motion and a state of rest"; and
(5) "derived the Lorentz transformation".


It is evident how deeply involved with special relativity Poincaré was. Even Keswani (1965) was prompted to say that "As far back as 1895, Poincaré, the innovator, had conjectured that it is impossible to detect absolute motion", and that "In 1900, he introduced 'the principle of relative motion' which he later called by the equivalent terms 'the law of relativity' and 'the principle of relativity' in his book, Science and Hypothesis, published in 1902". Einstein acknowledged none of this preceding theoretical work when he wrote his unreferenced 1905 paper.

In addition to having sketched the preliminary version of relativity, Poincaré provided a critical part of the whole concept - namely, his treatment of local time. He also originated the idea of clock synchronisation, which is critical to special relativity.

Charles Nordman was prompted to write, "They will show that the credit for most of the things which are currently attributed to Einstein is, in reality, due to Poincaré", and "...in the opinion of the Relativists it is the measuring rods which create space, the clocks which create time. All this was known by Poincaré and others long before the time of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to him".

Other scientists have not been quite as impressed with "Einstein's" special relativity theory as has the public. "Another curious feature of the now famous paper, Einstein, 1905, is the absence of any reference to Poincaré or anyone else," Max Born wrote in Physics in My Generation. "It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true" (Born, 1956). G. Burniston Brown (1967) noted, "It will be seen that, contrary to popular belief, Einstein played only a minor part in the derivation of the useful formulae in the restricted or special relativity theory, and Whittaker called it the relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz."

Due to the fact that Einstein's special relativity theory was known in some circles as the relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz, one would think that Poincaré and Lorentz might have had something to do with its creation. What is disturbing about the Einstein paper is that even though Poincaré was the world's leading expert on relativity, apparently Einstein had never heard of him or thought he had done anything worth referencing!

Poincaré, in a public address delivered in September 1904, made some notable comments on special relativity theory. "From all these results, if they are confirmed, would arise an entirely new mechanicsÉwould be, above all, characterised by this fact that no velocity could surpass that of lightÉbecause bodies would oppose an increasing inertia to the causes, which would tend to accelerate their motion; and this inertia would become infinite when one approached the velocity of lightNo more for an observer carried along himself in a translation, he did not suspect any apparent velocity could surpass that of light: and this would be then a contradiction, if we recall that this observer would not use the same clocks as a fixed observer, but, indeed, clocks marking 'local time'." (Poincaré, 1905)


Einstein, the Plagiarist

It is now time to speak directly to the issue of what Einstein was: he was first and foremost a plagiarist. He had few qualms about stealing the work of others and submitting it as his own. That this was deliberate seems obvious.

Take this passage from Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times (there are no references to Poincaré here; just a few meaningless quotes). This is how page 101 reads: "'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies'...is in many ways one of the most remarkable scientific papers that had ever been written. Even in form and style it was unusual, lacking the notes and references which give weight to most serious expositionsÉ" (emphasis added).

Why would Einstein, with his training as a patent clerk, not recognise the need to cite references in his article on special relativity? One would think that Einstein, as a neophyte, would overreference rather than underreference.

Wouldn't one also expect somewhat higher standards from an editor when faced with a long manuscript that had obviously not been credited? Apparently there was no attempt at quality control when it was published in Annalen der Physik. Most competent editors would have rejected the paper without even reading it. At the barest minimum, one would expect the editor to research the literature to determine whether Einstein's claim of primacy was correct.

Max Born stated, "The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous literature" (emphasis added) (Born, 1956). He is clearly indicating that the absence of references is abnormal and that, even by early 20th century standards, this is most peculiar, even unprofessional.

Einstein twisted and turned to avoid plagiarism charges, but these were transparent.

From Bjerknes (2002), we learn the following passage from James MacKaye: "Einstein's explanation is a dimensional disguise for Lorentz's. Thus Einstein's theory is not a denial of, nor an alternative for, that of Lorentz. It is only a duplicate and disguise for itEinstein continually maintains that the theory of Lorentz is right, only he disagrees with his 'interpretation'. Is it not clear, therefore, that in this [case], as in other cases, Einstein's theory is merely a disguise for Lorentz's, the apparent disagreement about 'interpretation' being a matter of words only?"

Poincaré wrote 30 books and over 500 papers on philosophy, mathematics and physics. Einstein wrote on mathematics, physics and philosophy, but claimed he'd never read Poincaré's contributions to physics.

Yet many of Poincaré's ideas - for example, that the speed of light is a limit and that mass increases with speed - wound up in Einstein's paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" without being credited.

Einstein's act of stealing almost the entire body of literature by Lorentz and Poincaré to write his document raised the bar for plagiarism. In the information age, this kind of plagiarism could never be perpetrated indefinitely, yet the physics community has still not set the record straight.

In his 1907 paper, Einstein spelled out his views on plagiarism: "It appears to me that it is the nature of the business that what follows has already been partly solved by other authors. Despite that fact, since the issues of concern are here addressed from a new point of view, I am entitled to leave out a thoroughly pedantic survey of the literature..."

With this statement, Einstein declared that plagiarism, suitably packaged, is an acceptable research tool.

Here is the definition of "to plagiarise" from an unimpeachable source, Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, 1947, p. 1,878: "To steal or purloin and pass off as one's own (the ideas, words, artistic productions, etc. of one another); to use without due credit the ideas, expressions or productions of another. To commit plagiarism" (emphasis added). Isn't this exactly what Einstein did?

Giving due credit involves two aspects: timeliness and appropriateness. Telling the world that Lorentz provided the basis for special relativity 30 years after the fact is not timely (see below), is not appropriate and is not giving due credit. Nothing Einstein wrote ex post facto with respect to Lorentz's contributions alters the fundamental act of plagiarism.

The true nature of Einstein's plagiarism is set forth in his 1935 paper, "Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy", where, in a discussion on Maxwell, he wrote, "The question as to the independence of those relations is a natural one because the Lorentz transformation, the real basis of special relativity theory..." (emphasis added).

So, Einstein even acknowledged that the Lorentz transformation was the real basis of his 1905 paper. Anyone who doubts that he was a plagiarist should ask one simple question: "What did Einstein know and when did he know it?" Einstein got away with premeditated plagiarism, not the incidental plagiarism that is ubiquitous (Moody, 2001).


The History of E = mc2

Who originated the concept of matter being transformed into energy and vice versa? It dates back at least to Sir Isaac Newton (1704). Brown (1967) made the following statement: "Thus gradually arose the formula E = mc2, suggested without general proof by Poincaré in 1900".

One thing we can say with certainty is that Einstein did not originate the equation E = mc2. Then the question becomes: "Who did?"

Bjerknes (2002) suggested as a possible candidate S. Tolver Preston, who "formulated atomic energy, the atom bomb and superconductivity back in the 1870s, based on the formula E = mc2".

In addition to Preston, a major player in the history of E = mc2 who deserves a lot of credit is Olinto De Pretto (1904). What makes this timing so suspicious is that Einstein was fluent in Italian, he was reviewing papers written by Italian physicists and his best friend was Michele Besso, a Swiss Italian. Clearly, Einstein (1905) would have had access to the literature and the competence to read it. In "Einstein's E = mc2 'was Italian's idea'" (Carroll, 1999), we see clear evidence that De Pretto was ahead of Einstein in terms of the formula E = mc2.

In terms of his understanding the vast amount of energy that could be released with a small amount of mass, Preston (1875) can be credited with knowing this before Einstein was born. Clearly, Preston was using the E = mc2 formula in his work, because the value he determined - e.g., that one grain could lift a 100,000-ton object up to a height of 1.9 miles - yields the equation E = mc2.

According to Ives (1952), the derivation Einstein attempted of the formula E = mc2 was fatally flawed because Einstein set out to prove what he assumed. This is similar to the careless handling of the equations for radioactive decay which Einstein derived. It turns out that Einstein mixed kinematics and mechanics, and out popped the neutrino. The neutrino may be a mythical particle accidentally created by Einstein (Carezani, 1999). We have two choices with respect to neutrinos: there are at least 40 different types or there are zero types. Occam's razor rules here.


The Eclipse of 1919

There can be no clearer definition of scientific fraud than what went on in the Tropics on May 29, 1919. What is particularly clear is that Eddington fudged the solar eclipse data to make the results conform to "Einstein's" work on general relativity. Poor (1930), Brown (1967), Clark (1984) and McCausland (2001) all address the issues surrounding this eclipse.

What makes the expeditions to Sobral and Principe so suspect is Eddington's zealous support of Einstein, as can be seen in his statement, "By standing foremost in testing, and ultimately verifying the 'enemy' theory, our national observatory kept alive the finest traditions of science..." (emphasis added) (Clark, 1984). In this instance, apparently Eddington was not familiar with the basic tenets of science. His job was to collect data - not verify Einstein's theories.

Further evidence for the fraud can be deduced from Eddington's own statements and the introduction to them provided by Clark (ibid., p. 285): "May 29 began with heavy rain, which stopped only about noon. Not until 1.30 pm when the eclipse had already begun did the party get its first glimpse of the sun: 'We had to carry out our program of photographs on faith...'" (emphasis added).

Eddington reveals his true prejudice: he was willing to do anything to see that Einstein was proved right. But Eddington was not to be deterred: "It looked as though the effort, so far as the Principe expedition was concerned, might have been abortive"; "We developed the photographs, two each night for six nights after the eclipse. The cloudy weather upset my plans and I had to treat the measures in a different way from what I intended; consequently I have not been able to make any preliminary announcement of the result" (emphasis added) (Clark, ibid.).

Actually, Eddington's words speak volumes about the result. As soon as he found one shred of evidence that was consistent with "Einstein's" general relativity theory, he immediately proclaimed it as proof of the theory. Is this science?

Where were the astronomers when Eddington presented his findings? Did anyone besides Eddington actually look at the photographic plates? Poor did, and he completely repudiated the findings of Eddington. This should have given pause to any ethical scientist.

Here are some quotes from Poor's summary: "The mathematical formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75 seconds for light rays passing the edge of the sun, is a well known and simple formula of physical optics"; "Not a single one of the fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space, of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way involved in Einstein's prediction of, or formulas for, the deflection of light"; "The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore, been given a fictitious importance. Their results can neither prove nor disprove the relativity theory" (emphasis added) (Poor, 1930).

From Brown (1967), we learn that Eddington couldn't wait to get it out to the world community that Einstein's theory was confirmed. What Eddington based this on was a premature assessment of the photographic plates. Initially, stars did "appear" to bend as they should, as required by Einstein, but then, according to Brown, the unexpected happened: several stars were then observed to bend in a direction transverse to the expected direction and still others to bend in a direction opposite to that predicted by relativity.

The absurdity of the data collected during the Eclipse of 1919 was demonstrated by Poor (1930), who pointed out that 85% of the data were discarded from the South American eclipse due to "accidental error", i.e., it contradicted Einstein's scale constant. By a strange coincidence, the 15% of the "good" data were consistent with Einstein's scale constant. Somehow, the stars that did not conform to Einstein's theories conveniently got temporarily shelved - and the myth began.

So, based on a handful of ambiguous data points, 200 years of theory, experimentation and observation were cast aside to make room for Einstein. Yet the discredited experiment by Eddington is still quoted as gospel by Stephen Hawking (1999). It is difficult to comprehend how Hawking could comment that "The new theory of curved space-time was called general relativity. It was confirmed in spectacular fashion in 1919, when a British expedition to West Africa observed a slight shift in the position of stars near the sun during an eclipse. Their light, as Einstein had predicted, was bent as it passed the sun. Here was direct evidence that space and time were warped". Does Hawking honestly believe that a handful of data points, massaged more thoroughly than a side of Kobe beef, constitutes the basis for overthrowing a paradigm that had survived over two centuries of acid scrutiny?

The real question, though, is: "Where was Einstein in all this?" Surely, by the time he wrote his 1935 paper, he must have known of the work of Poor: "The actual stellar displacements, if real, do not show the slightest resemblance to the predicted Einstein deflections: they do not agree in direction, in size, or the rate of decrease with distance from the sun". Why didn't he go on the record and address a paper that directly contradicted his work? Why haven't the followers of Einstein tried to set the record straight with respect to the bogus data of 1919?

What makes this so suspicious is that both the instruments and the physical conditions were not conducive to making measurements of great precision. As pointed out in a 2002 Internet article by the British Institute of Precise Physics, the cap cameras used in the expeditions were accurate to only 1/25th of a degree. This meant that just for the cap camera uncertainty alone, Eddington was reading values over 200 times too precise.

McCausland (2001) quotes the former Editor of Nature, Sir John Maddox: "They [Crommelin and Eddington] were bent on measuring the deflection of light"; "What is not so well documented is that the measurements in 1919 were not particularly accurate"; "In spite of the fact that experimental evidence for relativity seems to have been very flimsy in 1919, Einstein's enormous fame has remained intact and his theory has ever since been held to be one of the highest achievements of human thought" (emphasis added).

It is clear that from the outset Eddington was in no way interested in testing "Einstein's" theory; he was only interested in confirming it. One of the motivating factors in Eddington's decision to promote Einstein was that both men shared a similar political persuasion: pacifism. To suggest that politics played no role in Eddington's glowing support of Einstein, one need ask only one question: "Would Eddington have been so quick to support Einstein if Einstein had been a hawk?" This is no idle observation. Eddington took his role as the great peacemaker very seriously. He wanted to unite British and German scientists after World War I. What better way than to elevate the "enemy" theorist Einstein to exalted status? In his zeal to become peacemaker, Eddington lost the fundamental objectivity that is the essential demeanour of any true scientist. Eddington ceased to be a scientist and, instead, became an advocate for Einstein.

The obvious fudging of the data by Eddington and others is a blatant subversion of scientific process and may have misdirected scientific research for the better part of a century. It probably surpasses the Piltdown Man as the greatest hoax of 20th-century science. The BIPP asked, "Was this the hoax of the century?" and exclaimed, "Royal Society 1919 Eclipse Relativity Report Duped World for 80 Years!" McCausland stated that "In the author's opinion, the confident announcement of the decisive confirmation of Einstein's general theory in November 1919 was not a triumph of science, as it is often portrayed, but one of the most unfortunate incidents in the history of 20th-century science".

It cannot be emphazised enough that the Eclipse of 1919 made Einstein, Einstein. It propelled him to international fame overnight, despite the fact that the data were fabricated and there was no support for general relativity whatsoever. This perversion of history has been known about for over 80 years and is still supported by people like Stephen Hawking and David Levy.


Summary and Conclusions

The general public tends to believe that scientists are the ultimate defenders of ethics, that scientific rigor is the measure of truth. Little do people realize how science is conducted in the presence of personality.

It seems that Einstein believed he was above scientific protocol. He thought he could bend the rules to his own liking and get away with it; hang in there long enough and his enemies would die off and his followers would win the day. In science, the last follower standing wins - and gets to write history. In the case of Einstein, his blatant and repeated dalliance with plagiarism is all but forgotten and his followers have borrowed repeatedly from the discoveries of other scientists and used them to adorn Einstein's halo.

Einstein's reputation is supported by a three-legged stool. One leg is Einstein's alleged plagiarism. Was he a plagiarist? The second leg is the physics community. What did they know about Einstein and when did they know it? The third leg is the media. Are they instruments of truth or deception when it comes to Einstein? Only time will tell.

The physics community is also supported by a three-legged stool. The first leg is Einstein's physics. The second leg is cold fusion. The third leg is autodynamics. The overriding problem with a three-legged stool is that if only one leg is sawed off, the stool collapses. There are at least three very serious disciplines where it is predictable that physics may collapse.

Science is a multi-legged stool. One leg is physics; a second leg is the earth sciences; a third, biology; and a fourth, chemistry (e.g., cold fusion). What will happen if, for the sake of argument, physics collapses? Will science fall?


About the Author: Richard Moody, Jr, has a Master's Degree in Geology, is the author of three books on chess theory and has written for the Mensa Bulletin. For the past four years, he has done intensive research into Albert Einstein.

Read also: The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein (http://www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.pdf), by Christopher Jon Bjerknes

References:

Bjerknes, C.J. (2002), Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, XTX Inc., Dowers Grove.
Born, M. (1956), Physics in My Generation, Pergamon Press, London, p. 193.
Brown, G. Burniston (1967), "What is wrong with relativity?", Bull. of the Inst. of Physics and Physical Soc., pp. 71-77.
Carezani, R. (1999), Autodynamics: Fundamental Basis for a New Relativistic Mechanics, SAA, Society for the Advancement of Autodynamics.
Carroll, R., "Einstein's E = mc2 'was Italian's idea'", The Guardian, November 11, 1999.
Clark, R.W. (1984), Einstein: The Life and Times, Avon Books, New York.
De Pretto, O. (1904), "Ipotesi dell'etere nella vita dell'universo", Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, Feb. 1904, tomo LXIII, parte II, pp. 439-500.
Einstein, A. (1905a), "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"), Annalen der Physik 17:37-65.
Einstein, A. (1905b), Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Energy Content?", Annalen der Physik 18:639-641.
Einstein, A. (1907), "Über die vom Relativitätspringzip geforderte Trägheit der Energie", Annalen der Physik 23(4):371-384 (quote on p. 373).
Einstein, A. (1935), "Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy", Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 61:223-230 (first delivered as The Eleventh Josiah Willard Gibbs Lecture at a joint meeting of the American Physical Society and Section A of the AAAS, Pittsburgh, December 28, 1934).
Hawking, S., "Person of the Century", Time Magazine, December 31, 1999.
Ives, H.E. (1952), "Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation", J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 42:540-543.
Keswani, G.H. (1965), "Origin and Concept of Relativity", Brit. J. Phil. Soc. 15:286-306.
Mackaye, J. (1931), The Dynamic Universe, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, pp. 42-43.
Maddox, J. (1995), "More Precise Solar-limb Light-bending", Nature 377:11.
Moody, R., Jr (2001), "Plagiarism Personified", Mensa Bull. 442(Feb):5.
Newton, Sir Isaac (1704), Opticks, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, p. cxv.
Nordman, C. (1921), Einstein et l'univers, translated by Joseph McCabe as "Einstein and the Universe", Henry Holt and Co., New York, pp. 10-11, 162002).
Poincaré, J.H. (1905), "The Principles of Mathematical Physics", The Monist, vol. XV, no. 1, January 1905; from an address delivered before the International Congress of Arts and Sciences, St Louis, September 1904.
Poor, C.L. (1930), "The Deflection of Light as Observed at Total Solar Eclipses", J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 20:173-211.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912), at http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/poincare.htm (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.utm. edu%2Fresearch%2Fiep%2Fp%2Fpoincare.htm) .
Webster, N. (1947), Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, p. 1878.

WestPrussian
Friday, October 29th, 2004, 08:09 PM
Are you familiar with Eleaticus/Orin C. Webster’s FAQs on special relativity? I’ll post them for anyone with an interest in the subject.

bocian
Friday, October 29th, 2004, 08:10 PM
Are you familiar with Eleaticus/Orin C. Webster?s FAQs on special relativity? I?ll post them for anyone with an interest in the subject.

Not in the slightest, but I'm sure there are people here who would be interested.

The Blond Beast
Friday, October 29th, 2004, 11:22 PM
He took an existing body of knowledge, picked and chose the ideas he liked...

This is what science is and has always been: scavenging existing ideas and/or modifying them or formulating new ones to shed some light on reality. I think it is most important that Einstein was able to "weave" everything together.

De Broglie, for example, took "Planck's energy" equation and combined it with E=mc² to postulate "matter waves" -- a startling conclusion that was proven subsequently.


Einstein wrote on mathematics, physics and philosophy, but claimed he'd never read Poincaré's contributions to physics.

This doesn't necessarily mean Einstein plagiarized Poincaré. For instance, Gell-Mann and Zweig both independently and simultaneously postulated the existence of (esoteric) quarks.


The neutrino may be a mythical particle accidentally created by Einstein (Carezani, 1999). We have two choices with respect to neutrinos: there are at least 40 different types or there are zero types.

The above confirms this geologist is a purblind dilettante, as the neutrino was postulated by Pauli in 1930, and Fermi (1932) worked the neutrino into the mechanism of beta decay. There are three and only three varieties of neutrino (electorn, muon, tau), all of which have been detected experimentally (Reines - 1956; Steinberger et al. - 1962; Perlman - 1978).


Occam's razor rules here.

Simplicity also suggest that supposition and pedantic misinterpretation do not form a solid basis for historiography...


Actually, Eddington's words speak volumes about the result. As soon as he found one shred of evidence that was consistent with "Einstein's" general relativity theory, he immediately proclaimed it as proof of the theory. Is this science?

What's important is that relativity (special and general) has been proven hundreds of times subsequently, using the most advanced technologies available.


Does Hawking honestly believe that a handful of data points, massaged more thoroughly than a side of Kobe beef, constitutes the basis for overthrowing a paradigm that had survived over two centuries of acid scrutiny?

I wonder what this gadfly thinks of quantum theory (QED is the most accurate theory ever put forth by man) -- which reduces existence to probability -- which not only overturned classical physics but also kicked it in the ass.


The physics community is also supported by a three-legged stool. The first leg is Einstein's physics.

This bloke seems to be trying to disprove relativity simply because it may have had plagiarized origins...

Dr. Solar Wolff
Saturday, October 30th, 2004, 08:56 AM
There have been posts stating that Einstein manipulated "his" equation from earlier version(s) in which components around the equal sign were shifted. My point is that far too much time and money have been spent "proving Einstein right" when planet earth has so many pressing problems which can only be addressed by research in the physical sciences. Another point is that Einstein may have had a mathematical mind but his only medium was a blackboard and can hardly be compared to other men of science who actually went out there and did something. Finally, who cares? What did Einstein ever bring us? He wanted credit for the atomic bomb until the war with Germany was over and the US dropped it on Japan---then he became a peacenick and wanted to distance himself from it---all at the same time his other Jewish friends were giving the secrets to the Soviets. He didn't really do a thing for the development of the atomic bomb except write a letter to Roosevelt. Prof. Friedrich Lachner had already figured out a way to detonate an atomic bomb without even finding critical mass---which is evidently how most Manhattan Project scientists spent most of their time. The Germans didn't care about critical mass because they had all the U-235 and plutionium they could every want. In fact, they sent 56 kg to the Japanese in the form of uranium oxide on the German U-boat U-235 which fell into US hands when Germany surrendered. The German uranium oxide was taken to Oak Ridge Tenn. and funneled into American atomic projects. This, ironically, meant that Germany was refining uranium for both sides during the war.

So when you hear about radioactive pollution, think of Einstein, it is his legacy.

The Blond Beast
Saturday, October 30th, 2004, 11:31 AM
Prof. Friedrich Lachner had already figured out a way to detonate an atomic bomb without even finding critical mass---which is evidently how most Manhattan Project scientists spent most of their time.

How was that?


The Germans didn't care about critical mass because they had all the U-235 and plutionium they could every want.

Although spontaneously fissionable, plutonium still demands a "critical mass" to inhibit "fizzling", no?

Stríbog
Saturday, October 30th, 2004, 05:39 PM
All of this "Einstein was a liar and plagiarist" stuff is written by laymen who disagree with his politics. They can't even comprehend his science, so they attack it in an extremely puerile way. You can argue with the degree to which he is credited, certainly, but not the basic fact that he made major contributions. His politics were revolting, yes, but he was still a brilliant mind. Man of the century, though? I doubt it.

WestPrussian
Saturday, October 30th, 2004, 10:18 PM
The article posted by Bocian seems to be inspired mainly by Bjerknes’ book, Bjerknes, C.J. (2002), Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, XTX Inc., Dowers Grove. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0971962987/gemotrack1-20/ref%3Dnosim/103-7521744-3153460 (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amaz on.com%2Fexec%2Fobidos%2FASIN%2F09719629 87%2Fgemotrack1-20%2Fref%253Dnosim%2F103-7521744-3153460)

Here is part of a review of this book by Thomas E. Phipps, Jr. (credentials not stated):


From the start we note a deep schism: the author would like to side with feminists who see Einstein's work as actually done by his much smarter first wife Mileva; but, since Bjerknes also wants to paint that same work as stolen from earlier investigators, he faces an abiding problem of whose character to assassinate. Here the Socratic method proves a life-saver: Rather than offering a definitive choice, he provides weaponry for assassinating both Albert and Mileva, and leaves it to the reader's political preference, an open question, which candidate to take as the priority target.
Given all this smoke, how much fire is present? Einstein (or Einstein-Marity, the first wife) stands accused primarily of "plagiarism" in respect to the basic ideas of the special relativity theory. Narrowly construed, plagiarism refers to the copying of an earlier author's published words. No such charge can be laid against Einstein. The author exhibits not a single instance of word-copying or what the litigious would term copyright infringement.

But that is not what Bjerknes means. He is referring to the theft of ideas without acknowledgment. Here the case is much stronger and also much fuzzier. Einstein's 1905 paper (which - amazingly - was originally submitted to Annalen der Physik under the name Einstein-Marity, according to the first-hand account, cited here, of Abram Joffe) contained not a single reference to earlier work. This is frowned on in modern science, and should have been challenged by the editor even then.

For Einstein would have been a poor scholar, indeed, if he had failed to read Poincare's prior work on relativity, which explicitly enunciated the Principle of Relativity. One can understand omission of any reference to the much earlier work of Wilhelm Weber, who developed the first and last relativistic formulation of electrodynamics in terms of relative coordinates, velocities, and accelerations - since such would have directed attention to the persistence of absolutist elements within "special relativity" theory. (The "observer" or "frame" is such an element - a tertium quid extraneous to the intrinsic elements to be described in nature, and wholly absent from Weber's theory. Minkowski's covariant symmetrizing of the quid among all its quiddities alleviates, but does not eradicate, this echo of absolutism.)

Another dilemma of the author in respect to special relativity is whether to concentrate his attack on the theory itself or on its creator. If the theory is no good and was in fact stolen by Einstein (or by Mileva) from predecessors, then it would seem the blame for this no-goodness should fall most heavily on the latter. Error plagiarized is not error sanitized. Its provenance aside, Bjerknes clearly distrusts the special theory (as does the present reviewer); but the book makes little serious contribution to the comparatively vast (though little known and little regarded) literature of its logical criticism. Einstein's (or Einstein-Marity's) originality consisted in adjoining the Poincare relativity principle to the Maxwell equations (which contain only one field propagation velocity parameter c and thus necessitate what we now call "Einstein's second postulate") and in showing that these stark logical ingredients suffice to imply a kinematics based on the mathematical coordinate transformations that Lorentz had already spelled out. Clearly the ideas pre-existed.

But, as all inventors know, it is not permissible to patent ideas. If the combining of pre-existing ideas in new patterns is to be called "plagiarism," then it would not be an over-statement to say that all scientific progress and all invention depend on just this kind of plagiarism … for what did Newton do but plagiarize from the giants on whose shoulders he acknowledged standing? He neglected only to attach names to the giants. So did Einstein. In both cases the behavior was perhaps a trifle magisterial … and also perhaps more than a trifle forgivable. Still, unpleasant doubts persist in the Einstein case: Bjerknes shows that Einstein's scientific publications reveal a lifetime pattern of similar magisterial behavior. The absence of attributions in the 1905 paper was not a one-off occurrence. For example, I quote from page 231 of the book: "David Hilbert, on whom Einstein went calling for help, published the general theory of relativity before Einstein. Why after many years of failure, did Einstein suddenly realize, within a few days after David Hilbert's work was public, the equations which Hilbert published before him, and then submit his, Einstein's, identical formulations?"

As you can see, this last (stripped of its Socratic question mark) constitutes a genuine charge of plagiarism … but it is not backed by chapter and verse citation, equation number by corresponding equation number, word by word. Lacking such substantiation, the charge cannot stand in court. In law, equations, like ideas, cannot be copyrighted or patented. Still, here is more smoke. It is doubtful if all such can be permanently cleared away. But one would like to see scholarship comparable to that of Bjerknes applied to the task. Otherwise, a polluted atmosphere and a bad odor linger. In conclusion, I recommend the book to Einstein scholars and to sociologists of science as a genuinely valuable bibliographical resource for further research on the man and his times - and as a target for the Einstein hagiographers to shoot down if they can. Other readers, in search of more than entertainment, must proceed with caution. … and here is a book review by John Stachel, director of the Center for Einstein Studies at Boston University, US, e-mail stachel@buphy.bu.edu (stachel@buphy.bu.edu). on physics.web, http://physicsweb.org/articles/review/16/4/2/1 (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fphysicsw eb.org%2Farticles%2Freview%2F16%2F4%2F2% 2F1)



One's first reaction to books like this is to follow Virgil's advice about the trimmers in hell: "Speak not of them, but look, and pass them by" (Dante Inferno III 51). Yet there are reasons for reviewing this book in spite of its lack of originality or intellectual merit. Its author has gained a certain notoriety as the result of his indefatigable - not to say monomaniacal - efforts to indict Einstein as an "incorrigible plagiarist".
By his own claim, this is the author's sixth book on the subject of Einstein's work on the special and general theories of relativity. (A search of the Internet, however, turned up no record of the other five.) Its publication by a "vanity publisher" has brought Bjerknes appearances at bookstores, articles in newspapers and magazines, recommendations on several websites, to mention just a few of the 355 items that a search on Google did reveal.

The book is of interest as the latest manifestation of an undercurrent of hostility towards Einstein that has run for almost 90 years, surfacing from time to time. Since the inception of the theories of relativity - both special and general - Einstein and his work have been attacked on the basis of numerous physical and philosophical misunderstandings and/or prejudices, quite often tinged with various versions of anti-Semitism. Relativity has been attacked in the name of US pragmatism, German idealism, English Hegelianism, French Bergsonianism (by fellow Jew Henri Bergson!), Soviet "diamat" (dialectical materialism) and Nazi "Deutsche Physik" (German physics), to name but a few of the high-minded (and not so high-minded) points of the compass from which such attacks have originated over the years.

So it seems worthwhile to review such a book - if only to be reminded that the current still runs strong - and to highlight the need for caution in uncritically accepting the claims of such "objective" attacks on Einstein. (I hasten to add that serious critical scrutiny of any person or theory is always welcome.) This book is primarily an industrious compilation of citations taken from various points of the intellectual compass. Well over half of the book consists of quotations in English and in various original languages, with source notes - all duly accurate as far as I checked.

The one glaring exception is of a supposed quotation from Einstein that appears on the front cover of the book - "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources" - for which no source is given. This liberal helping of quotations is seasoned with the author's own comments, examples of which are given below. The citations fall into three broad classes. First, there are those from the traditional anti-Einstein literature. They range from Nobel-prize winners, like Johannes Stark and Philip Lenard, through run-of-the-mill physicists such as Ernst Gehrke, to out-and-out confidence tricksters, like Paul Weyland, to name but some of those cited from the Weimar Republic days.

Bjerknes does not cite their anti-Semitic outbursts or mention their Nazi connections, nor does he cite any of the extensive literature from the Nazi era that attempted to salvage the special theory (while savaging Einstein) by attributing it to the "Aryans" Hendrik Antoon Lorentz and Henri Poincaré. He does cite Sir Edmund Whittaker, Herbert Ives, and many other non-Germans who made similar attacks without any public anti-Semitic comments. Apparently, it does not bother Bjerknes that the various opponents of the special and general theories that he cites attack relativity from mutually contradictory viewpoints. Nor does he seem to realize the incongruity of endorsing claims that Einstein's theories are wrong as well as claims that they were plagiarized from valid sources!

The culmination of Bjerknes's uncritical piling of name upon name is found on pages 231-233, which constitute two full pages of names, ranging from the famous - like Gauss and John Locke - to unknowns like Pavannini and Caldonazzi, all of whom are cited as having made unnamed (but referenced) "contributions toward the general theory of relativity". In the second main category of citations, Bjerknes cites carefully chosen excerpts from numerous valuable accounts of the development of relativity theory that discuss the role of Lorentz, Poincaré and many others. These researchers carried out work on the optics and electrodynamics of moving bodies that helped to create the intellectual atmosphere that led to the formulation of the special theory.

The author, however, takes any hint that Einstein did not work in an intellectual vacuum as proof positive that he was a plagiarist - as if any scientific creation is a purely individual activity. Einstein himself acknowledged that the special theory of relativity would soon have been formulated without him, while claiming (correctly I believe) that, in his absence, the general theory would not have been so easy to arrive at. Indeed, Bjerknes has a much harder time producing evidence of Einstein's "plagiarism" of the general theory, a topic I shall not discuss.

I will mention just one example of the author's method of citation: his treatment of Wolfgang Pauli, in which case we are fortunate in having additional information. Writing of Einstein's role in the development of special relativity, Bjerknes argues: "In 1921 Wolfgang Pauli set the record straight in the Encyklopädie der mathematischen Wissenschaften." He then cites extensively - but not completely - Pauli's comments on the roles of Woldemar Voigt, Lorentz, Poincaré and Einstein in developing some of the key concepts in the now-standard version of the special theory. The author concludes: "After giving Poincaré his due credit, and acknowledging that Einstein holds no priority for the special theory of relativity, Pauli, half-heartedly, pays the seemingly obligatory homage to Einstein the then recently emerged celebrity [by writing] 'It was Einstein, finally, who in a way completed the basic formulation of this new discipline.'".

Bjerknes then adds: "It appears that Pauli was forced, or felt compelled, to praise Einstein with additional inappropriate and, evidently, insincere comments." But what if we consult letters that were sent to Pauli by Felix Klein - the renowned German mathematician who orchestrated the Encyklopädie? It emerges from these letters that indeed "Pauli was forced, or felt compelled" by Klein - although not to praise Einstein more, but to say more about the role of Poincaré and Lorentz! Similarly, Klein asked Pauli to give more credit to Hilbert in his discussion of the origins of the general theory (see Wolfgang Pauli 1979 Scientific Correspondence with Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg, a.o. Volume 1 1919-1929 (Springer, Berlin)). Lest Bjerknes now seize upon these letters as evidence against Einstein, let me hasten to add that in them Klein evaluates Einstein's work most highly. He refers to Einstein as "a genius" and points out that "[t]here still remains enough [credit] in this connection for Einstein". Klein also exonerates him from any role in the public hullabaloo: "In his personal comments Einstein is always so lovable, quite in contrast to the insane publicity that is set in motion in his honour."

Finally, let us see what Pauli says in full about Einstein in his Encyklopädie article. After the sentence cited by Bjerknes above, Pauli continues: "[Einstein's] paper of 1905 was submitted at almost the same time as Poincaré's article and had been written without previous knowledge of Lorentz's paper of 1904. It includes not only all the essential results contained in the other two papers, but shows an entirely novel, and much more profound understanding of the whole problem. This will now be demonstrated in detail." No wonder Bjerknes does not cite the whole passage!

In the final category of citations in this book, Bjerknes refers many times to the more recent anti-Einstein literature, claiming that Einstein plagiarized the ideas of his first wife, Mileva Einstein-Maric. I have published extensive discussions of this claim - see, for example, "Albert Einstein and Mileva Maric: a scientific collaboration that failed to develop", which appears in my book Einstein from B to Z (2002 Birkhäuser). I will, therefore, cite just a couple of examples of the intellectual level of Bjerknes's arguments. Since the author claims that the work - no matter who did it - is plagiarized, he ends up with statements that would be truly ludicrous were they not an insult to a woman who deserves better. On pages 214-215, for example, Bjerknes writes: "Mileva once hinted to Albert that she was contemplating publishing her memoirs. Albert told her to keep her mouth shut, and may have intimated that he, an innocent idiot, would suffer less than she, the incorrigible plagiarist... What would Mileva have stood to gain by revealing that Albert had taken credit for her work, when she herself had merely repeated what others had already published?"

His discussion of the agreement that the pair came to as part of their divorce settlement - namely that Albert would give Mileva the Nobel-prize money, should he receive that prize - is in a similar vein. "If one thief steals a stolen purse from another thief, then offers to split the purse," he writes, " what option does either thief have, but to keep silent and spend the money?" But our author does endeavour to be fair minded. On page 217 he writes: "Did Albert have no choice but to copy what others had published before him, if indeed he ever actually did? Was he of sub-average intelligence? Given that this issue is still controversial, I'll give Albert the benefit of the doubt and regard the 1905 paper [on special relativity] as a co-authored work."

I opened with a quotation from Dante's Divine Comedy. I will close with one from Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer: "Let us draw the curtain of charity over the rest of the scene."

WestPrussian
Saturday, October 30th, 2004, 11:16 PM
He took an existing body of knowledge, picked and chose the ideas he liked... This is what science is and has always been: scavenging existing ideas and/or modifying them or formulating new ones to shed some light on reality. I think it is most important that Einstein was able to "weave" everything together.

De Broglie, for example, took "Planck's energy" equation and combined it with E=mc² to postulate "matter waves" -- a startling conclusion that was proven subsequently.

I think the argument is that the special theory of relativity is not the ultimate in intellectual achievement the way it is frequently represented. This is actually also implied in the book review by Stachel (director of the Center for Einstein Studies at Boston University), according to whom the special theory of relativity was a plum ripe for the picking. ;)


Einstein himself acknowledged that the special theory of relativity would soon have been formulated without him, while claiming (correctly as I believe) that, in his absence, the general theory would not have been so easy to arrive at.


Einstein wrote on mathematics, physics and philosophy, but claimed he'd never read Poincaré's contributions to physics.


This doesn't necessarily mean Einstein plagiarized Poincaré. For instance, Gell-Mann and Zweig both independently and simultaneously postulated the existence of (esoteric) quarks.

Correct if we can trust Pauli. Again quoting Stachel
After the sentence cited by Bjerknes above, Pauli continues: "[Einstein's] paper of 1905 was submitted at almost the same time as Poincaré's article and had been written without previous knowledge of Lorentz's paper of 1904. It includes not only all the essential results contained in the other two papers, but shows an entirely novel, and much more profound understanding of the whole problem. This will now be demonstrated in detail.


Simplicity also suggest that supposition and pedantic misinterpretation do not form a solid basis for historiography...

Are you taking a history of science class? :)
All of this "Einstein was a liar and plagiarist" stuff is written by laymen who disagree with his politics. They can't even comprehend his science, so they attack it in an extremely puerile way.
Maybe you’re confusing the special and the general theory of relativity? There is nothing particularly difficult about the special theory of relativity. If you take an intermediate level physics course in college you’ll learn all there is to know about it (in a couple of lectures, actually, as more time is not needed). The only people who bother with the general theory of relativity are generally postgraduates with a special interest in that field. Even if you don’t have a background in math or science you can still get a good grasp of the special theory of relativity in a couple of hours by reading Einstein’s popular physics book,

Relativity: The Special and General Theory NEW YORK: HENRY HOLT, 1920. It’s available online here: http://www.bartleby.com/173/ (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bart leby.com%2F173%2F) Just scroll down. Project Gutenberg also has it http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=5001 (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fonlinebo oks.library.upenn.edu%2Fwebbin%2Fgutbook %2Flookup%3Fnum%3D5001) This site provides a succinct overview of Einstein’s main achievements, which were all accomplished within the brief period of 1905-1916 http://www.humboldt1.com/~gralsto/einstein/scien.html (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.humb oldt1.com%2F%7Egralsto%2Feinstein%2Fscie n.html) Einstein never did receive the Nobel prize for relativity but only for his 1905 work on the photoelectric effect. In later life, Einstein’s main focus was to establish a unified field theory; however, in this he failed.


What's important is that relativity (special and general) has been proven hundreds of times subsequently, using the most advanced technologies available.

NASA provides a very brief summary of the evidence for the validity of relativity here
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980327b.html (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimagine. gsfc.nasa.gov%2Fdocs%2Fask_astro%2Fanswe rs%2F980327b.html)

Go here http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmath.ucr .edu%2Fhome%2Fbaez%2Fphysics%2FRelativit y%2FSR%2Fexperiments.html) for a more comprehensive overview of the experimental basis of special relativity. However, nothing in science is sacrosanct and the more intelligent you are, the more holes you are likely to spot in someone else’s constructs. ;) This holds true even for theories which have been confirmed experimentally if the theory seems lacking somewhere or if there seem to be alternative explanations for the observed phenomena. For instance, as stated in the book review by Stachel cited previously, the Nobel prize winning physicists Lenard and Stark were highly critical of Einstein.

This may have been politically motivated; however, even standard modern textbooks such as David J. Griffiths’ Introduction to Electrodynamics http://academic.reed.edu/physics/faculty/griffiths.html (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Facademic .reed.edu%2Fphysics%2Ffaculty%2Fgriffith s.html) consider the derivation of relativity to be a bit contrived. As I recall Griffiths is actually quite harsh. People who are active in some field and believe they note inconsistencies somewhere will naturally start coming up with their own ideas if they have a fertile mind…that has nothing to do with political bias. I'm not trying to imply that Einstein isn't right...I just dislike dogmatism :)


I wonder what this gadfly thinks of quantum theory (QED is the most accurate theory ever put forth by man) -- which reduces existence to probability -- which not only overturned classical physics but also kicked it in the ass.

You can’t really lump relativity and quantum mechanics together like that…as I’m sure you’re aware they’re not totally compatible. By the way, quantum mechanics is a good field to show how little esteem physicists frequently have for each other…All the following quotes are from the American Institute of Physics http://www.aip.org/ (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aip. org%2F)

Bohr wasn’t happy with Heisenberg’s quantum mechanics
Bohr complained to Einstein that Heisenberg's approach was too narrow and his gamma-ray microscope was flawed, although the result was correct.


The battle with Bohr grew so intense in the early months of 1927 that Heisenberg reportedly burst into tears at one point, and even managed to wound Bohr with his sharp remarks. Schrödinger also disliked Heisenberg
I knew of [Heisenberg's] theory, of course, but I felt discouraged, not to say repelled, by the methods of transcendental algebra, which appeared difficult to me, and by the lack of visualizability. -- Schrödinger in 1926 although he later went on to prove that his and Heisenberg’s theories were equivalent
In May 1926 Schrödinger published a proof that matrix and wave mechanics gave equivalent results: mathematically they were the same theory. He also argued for the superiority of wave mechanics over matrix mechanics. Heisenberg was extremely unhappy about that as he considered Schrödinger to be crap
I had no faith in a theory that ran completely counter to our Copenhagen conception. --Heisenberg, recollection
[Schrödinger’s 1926 publication] provoked an angry reaction … from Heisenberg, who insisted on the existence of discontinuous quantum jumps rather than a theory based on continuous waves.

The more I think about the physical portion of Schrödinger's theory, the more repulsive I find it...What Schrödinger writes about the visualizability of his theory 'is probably not quite right,' in other words it's crap. --Heisenberg, writing to Pauli, 1926
Einstein never reconciled himself to quantum mechanics:
Not everyone agreed with the new interpretation, or with Born and Heisenberg's statement about future work. Einstein and Schrödinger were among the most notable dissenters. Until the ends of their lives they never fully accepted the Copenhagen doctrine. Einstein was dissatisfied with the reliance upon probabilities. But even more fundamentally, he believed that nature exists independently of the experimenter, and the motions of particles are precisely determined. It is the job of the physicist to uncover the laws of nature that govern these motions, which, in the end, will not require statistical theories. The fact that quantum mechanics did seem consistent only with statistical results and could not fully describe every motion was for Einstein an indication that quantum mechanics was still incomplete. Alternative interpretations (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aip. org%2Fhistory%2Fheisenberg%2Fp08r.htm) have since been proposed and are now under serious consideration.

"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us closer to the secret of the 'Old One.' I, at any rate, am convinced that He is not playing at dice." ---Einstein

The objections of Einstein and others notwithstanding, Bohr, Heisenberg and their colleagues managed to ensure the acceptance of their interpretation by the majority of physicists at that time. They did this both by presenting the new interpretation on lecture trips around the world and by demonstrating that it worked.

So as you can see, the American Institute of Physics is actually quite critical of the Copenhagen doctrine inspite of all the evidence as to the validity of quantum mechanics. (personally I'm completely happy with it, actually; however, the point again is that it is quite unscientific to be dogmatic)

Quotes like these are why experimental physicists dislike Einstein:
“In the beginning (if there was such a thing), God created Newton’s laws of motion together with the necessary masses and forces. This is all; everything beyond this follows from the development of appropriate mathematics methods by means of deduction.”-- Einstein Einstein did have problems with math and had others like Gödel help him. Famous quotes:
“Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater.” -- Albert Einstein
“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." -- Albert Einstein

"Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself any more." -- Albert Einstein Sources for the last four quotes: Niels Bohr Institut København
http://www.fys.ku.dk/~raben/einstein/ (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fys. ku.dk%2F%7Eraben%2Feinstein%2F)

Virginia Department of Education
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Div/Winchester/jhhs/math/quotes.html (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pen. k12.va.us%2FDiv%2FWinchester%2Fjhhs%2Fma th%2Fquotes.html)

Stríbog
Saturday, October 30th, 2004, 11:42 PM
[Maybe you’re confusing the special and the general theory of relativity? There is nothing particularly difficult about the special theory of relativity. If you take an intermediate level physics course in college you’ll learn all there is to know about it (in a couple of lectures, actually, as more time is not needed). The only people who bother with the general theory of relativity are generally postgraduates with a special interest in that field.

I was referring to both, but I probably should have been more clear. I realize that the special theory is comparatively elementary, but most of the idiots who write the "Einstein was a lying plagiarist 'cuz he was a JEW" articles still do not understand it, nor do they make an effort to do so.

The Blond Beast
Sunday, October 31st, 2004, 01:40 AM
This is actually also implied in the book review by Stachel (director of the Center for Einstein Studies at Boston University), according to whom the special theory of relativity was a plum ripe for the picking. ;)

I realize this, and some have said that Eistein would have come upon relativity relatively easily in the event his math skills were not so poor. ;)


In later life, Einstein’s main focus was to establish a unified field theory; however, in this he failed.

To this day, gravity still refuses to cooperate. ;)


However, nothing in science is sacrosanct and the more intelligent you are, the more holes you are likely to spot in someone else’s constructs. ;) This holds true even for theories which have been confirmed experimentally if the theory seems lacking somewhere or if there seem to be alternative explanations for the observed phenomena.

I'm not trying to imply that Einstein isn't right...I just dislike dogmatism :)

I agree entirely and I certainly don't consider Einstein's work as immutable, but those who think they know otherwise should provide something of substance to counter relativity, not just invective and facile quotes taken out of context.

As it stands -- and any reasonable person would agree -- relativity has stood the test of time and the vagaries of physics.


You can’t really lump relativity and quantum mechanics together like that…as I’m sure you’re aware they’re not totally compatible.

I'm aware that the current principles governing the macroscopic and microscopic are not compatible; I was simply referring to how the author ridiculed the physics community for so readily overturning classical physics, when quantum mechanics is even more at odds with intuition and common sense than is relativity...


So as you can see, the American Institute of Physics is actually quite critical of the Copenhagen doctrine inspite of all the evidence as to the validity of quantum mechanics. (personally I'm completely happy with it, actually; however, the point again is that it is quite unscientific to be dogmatic)

The Copenhagen interpretation is simply a means of dealing with the ephemeral nature of the subatomic (we know only where a particle begins its journey and ends it, but we can only speculate as to what really occurs in between). Everett's many worlds interpretation and Bohm's hidden-variables interpretation could be considered just as realistic.

I'm under the assumption that the Copenhagen interpretation is simply assumed as the standard because it "works", and is not nearly as profligate as the many worlds interpretation or as inscrutable as Bohm's hidden-variables interpretation (i.e. "quantum potential").

It's interesting that Einstein et al. formulated the EPR paradox to expose the absurdity of the non-locality of quantum mechanics, when in fact, non-locality ("entanglement") has been shown to be the reality...

Stríbog
Sunday, October 31st, 2004, 02:16 AM
I was under the impression that the Copenhagen interpretation was the most accepted simply because the most big names had signed on for it?

Stríbog
Sunday, October 31st, 2004, 02:18 AM
It's interesting that Einstein et al. formulated the EPR paradox to expose the absurdity of the non-locality of quantum mechanics, when in fact, non-locality ("entanglement") has been shown to be the reality...

Are you referring to spooky action at a distance?

Also, when Einstein denounced uncertainty, did he have physical reasons or was it entirely for metaphysical reasons? "I shall never believe that God plays dice with the universe" is not a particularly compelling argument.

The Blond Beast
Sunday, October 31st, 2004, 02:23 AM
Are you referring to spooky action at a distance?

Yes


Also, when Einstein denounced uncertainty, did he have physical reasons or was it entirely for metaphysical reasons? "I shall never believe that God plays dice with the universe" is not a particularly compelling argument.

It wouldn't surprise me if his motives were metaphysical, considering he invented the cosmological constant so his relativity equations (which demanded dynamism) would yield a nice static, Jewish Universe. ;)

Dr. Solar Wolff
Sunday, October 31st, 2004, 04:33 AM
If you pay attention to what the Nazis say, gravity is explained and is, in fact, the Unified Field Theory. I have posted about this to the point that I am about to be banned for alleged senility, so I stop here.

The Blond Beast
Sunday, October 31st, 2004, 04:45 AM
If you pay attention to what the Nazis say, gravity is explained and is, in fact, the Unified Field Theory. I have posted about this to the point that I am about to be banned for alleged senility, so I stop here.

Do you mean that gravity is the vestige of the primordial force, and the others (strong, weak, electromagnetic) are broken symmetries thereof?

Dr. Solar Wolff
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 07:56 AM
Einstein dismissed aether but then made allowances for it to exist. If aether is energy, not matter, and it is everywhere equally, then it is pushing on matter, everywhere, equally. It is like being underwater and just floating a foot or so below the surface, weightless. Matter, according to this line of thought, absorbs aether energy and re-radiates it as changed radiation (Bremsestrahlen-breaking radiation). We see this on another level when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere and are re-radiated as x-rays and gamma rays (and some heat). Absorption and re-radiation of aether energy accounts for heat, sound, the whole electromagnetic spectrum. But there is a little more involved with aether. Aether can also be re-radiated as matter. So, as matter itself breaks aether, matter is also generated as a by-product of this interaction. Continental drift, for instance, is fueled by an ever expanding earth. Matter can thus absorbs aether. In fact, matter shields against aether radiation and is the only thing that can do so. So, if there are two planets or any two objects in space, the pressure of aether radiation will push them together since the area between the two bodies is partially shielded, "inversely according to their distance and proportional to their mass". This last quote is how Newton described gravity because, in fact, aether is gravity and gravity is not a pull, it is a push. Gravity as described by Newton, is a field energy. Light and sound are field energies and behave exactly like Newton's description of gravity-- they all decrease in porportion to the square of their distance a -this is because they are all field energies.

If gravity is a push and is aether energy, you don't need a Unified Field Theory because you have one already.

The Blond Beast
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 02:03 AM
Einstein dismissed aether but then made allowances for it to exist.

General relativity rendered the aether superfluous.


Matter, according to this line of thought, absorbs aether energy and re-radiates it as changed radiation (Bremsestrahlen-breaking radiation). We see this on another level when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere and are re-radiated as x-rays and gamma rays (and some heat).

Primary cosmic radiation is known to consist mostly of energetic protons (and detectable secondary radiation primarily muons) -- markedly mundane.


So, as matter itself breaks aether, matter is also generated as a by-product of this interaction.

How does matter break aether, thereby creating more matter?


Continental drift, for instance, is fueled by an ever expanding earth.

How is the earth expanding? How, if ever, has this been demonstrated?

And continental drift has been shown to be a consequence of convection in the earth's mantle, no?


So, if there are two planets or any two objects in space, the pressure of aether radiation will push them together since the area between the two bodies is partially shielded, "inversely according to their distance and proportional to their mass".

How could such "aether radiation pressure" be detected/measured (as "gravitational waves" are currently being sought)?


Gravity as described by Newton, is a field energy. Light and sound are field energies and behave exactly like Newton's description of gravity-- they all decrease in porportion to the square of their distance a -this is because they are all field energies.

If gravity is a push and is aether energy, you don't need a Unified Field Theory because you have one already.

This premise fails to account for the behaviour of the strong force -- conceived and developed well after the Third Reich -- as gluons pull with increased strength at increasing distances.

The fact that the effects of "frame dragging" have recently been demonstrated suggests general relativity is pointing in the right direction...

Rollon
Friday, January 7th, 2005, 05:58 PM
All of this "Einstein was a liar and plagiarist" stuff is written by laymen who disagree with his politics. They can't even comprehend his science, so they attack it in an extremely puerile way. You can argue with the degree to which he is credited, certainly, but not the basic fact that he made major contributions. His politics were revolting, yes, but he was still a brilliant mind. Man of the century, though? I doubt it.
Among the first to disagree with Einstein's theory were Philip Lenard and Johannes Stark, both Nobel Prizes in Physics.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Friday, January 7th, 2005, 09:17 PM
I am sorry, Blond Beast, I do not remember what I was thinking when I said "Aether breaks matter". Matter shields aether. That is, aether, being a radiation, is absorbed by matter. This energy has to go somewhere. This is the breaking radiation, it is either re-radiated as, for instance heat, or converted into new matter. If this is true, then it is unescapeable that the earth is expanding as are all heavenly bodies. There is other evidence. The first continent was joined everywhere. It is as if it were a much smaller world. Presumable, I this is correct, as the world expanded, so the continents were pushed apart. Today the earth is expanding at the mid-Atlantic fault a few centimeters a year. We are always told that plated are subducting and making up for this--but is this really true?

It doesn't matter if cosmic radiation are "cosmic rays" or protons. It is all matter and subject to breaking radiation (Bremsestrahlen). A guy named Dr. Hans Neiper wrote a large book on these ideas which is available in both Engish and German. It is from Dr. Neiper that I get these ideas, I didn't make them up myself. His point or one of his points is that the many free-energy machines he lists and describes cannot be explained by thermodynamics AS WE KNOW IT. But, there are sources of energy which remain unrecognized.

Einstein is mental masterbation. It is wonderful theory but so what. We have real problems on earth today and Einstein and his chalkboark are doing us no good. We need a new physics. We need to throw this very, very expensive chalkboard away and do emperical work directed at solving energy and environmental problems, now.

Rollon
Saturday, January 15th, 2005, 06:00 PM
De Broglie, for example, took "Planck's energy" equation and combined it with E=mc² to postulate "matter waves" -- a startling conclusion that was proven subsequently.yes, but he acknowledged his debt to Planck. He didn't claim to get his ideas out of the blue.




What's important is that relativity (special and general) has been proven hundreds of times subsequently, using the most advanced technologies available..Physicists are still trying to prove it correct or at least consistent with the three other forces. They're building right now (I don't remember where) a huge compound to detect "gravitational waves" (You mentioned them yourself). So far we have had no report of their existence, which is implied by Einstein's relativity.




I wonder what this gadfly thinks of quantum theory (QED is the most accurate theory ever put forth by man) -- which reduces existence to probability -- which not only overturned classical physics but also kicked it in the ass....Your language here is not really appropriate.




This bloke seems to be trying to disprove relativity simply because it may have had plagiarized origins...It's not my interpretation of the text. The author doesn't say relativity is true or false. He's just examining how research was carried out, and he found some flaws in the process according to scientific standard. No more no less.

Rollon
Tuesday, January 25th, 2005, 10:42 PM
ALBERT EINSTEIN
The most recognisable equation of all time is E = mc2. It is attributed by convention to be the sole province of Albert Einstein (1905). However, the conversion of matter into energy and energy into matter was known to Sir Isaac Newton ("Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another...", 1704). The equation can be attributed to S. Tolver Preston (1875), to Jules Henri Poincaré (1900; according to Brown, 1967) and to Olinto De Pretto (1904) before Einstein. Since Einstein never correctly derived E = mc2 (Ives, 1952), there appears nothing to connect the equation with anything original by Einstein.


As to that, I know that Philip Lenard said the equation was owed to the Austrian physicist Fritz Hasenhörl. In another context, I read the expression 'Hasenörl-Einstein equation E=Mcc'.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Wednesday, January 26th, 2005, 09:11 AM
So lets see, Einstein gave us what, the atom bomb? If so the Manhattan Project (Einstein as a consultant) spent a very long time figuring out how much U-235 was needed for critical mass (see Heisenberg's War), meanwhile Dr. Friedrich Lachner had already figured out a way to make a fission bomb without even knowing critical mass. So what did Einstein get us? He got us three generations of physicists who only get funded if they are involved in "basic research" in an attempt to "prove Einstein correct". There are as many prostitutes in hard science as in any red-light district.

Rollon
Wednesday, January 26th, 2005, 10:57 PM
And Einstein is just one example of what it's all about.

You guys have heard about the Jew Norbert Wiener, the so-called 'Father of Cybernetics'.

What Wiener did actually was only writing two books of mashed philosophy explaining how 'his' Cybernetics was a universal revolution unheard of before (Cybernetics, or control and communication in the animal and machine 1948, and Cybernetics and Society, the Human Use of Human Beings 1950 : what a title !)

All his ideas (feedback, systems' properties, antireductionism...) were mere reformulations of Ludwig von Bertalanffy's theoretical approach (1941)and Otto Koehler's works in biology (1939). There was nothing new in Wiener's 'revolution', not even the name, 'Cybernetics', in fact coined by the French Ampère in the 19th century (Cybernétique) !

Do you believe that ?!

Dr. Solar Wolff
Thursday, January 27th, 2005, 05:27 AM
And Einstein is just one example of what it's all about.

You guys have heard about the Jew Norbert Wiener, the so-called 'Father of Cybernetics'.

What Wiener did actually was only writing two books of mashed philosophy explaining how 'his' Cybernetics was a universal revolution unheard of before (Cybernetics, or control and communication in the animal and machine 1948, and Cybernetics and Society, the Human Use of Human Beings 1950 : what a title !)

All his ideas (feedback, systems' properties, antireductionism...) were mere reformulations of Ludwig von Bertalanffy's theoretical approach (1941)and Otto Koehler's works in biology (1939). There was nothing new in Wiener's 'revolution', not even the name, 'Cybernetics', in fact coined by the French Ampère in the 19th century (Cybernétique) !

Do you believe that ?!

Jews are good at writting books whereby they take credit for things. It has been this way since the bible. Sometimes, I think that every Jew in the USA has written a book. Most are just plain bull-shit.

infoterror
Monday, June 6th, 2005, 05:49 AM
Proponents of Einstein have acted in a way that appears to corrupt the historical record. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Time Magazine's "Person of the Century", wrote a long treatise on special relativity theory (it was actually called "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", 1905a), without listing any references. Many of the key ideas it presented were known to Lorentz (for example, the Lorentz transformation) and Poincaré before Einstein wrote the famous 1905 paper.

As was typical of Einstein, he did not discover theories; he merely commandeered them. He took an existing body of knowledge, picked and chose the ideas he liked, then wove them into a tale about his contribution to special relativity. This was done with the full knowledge and consent of many of his peers, such as the editors at Annalen der Physik.

The most recognisable equation of all time is E = mc2. It is attributed by convention to be the sole province of Albert Einstein (1905). However, the conversion of matter into energy and energy into matter was known to Sir Isaac Newton ("Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another...", 1704). The equation can be attributed to S. Tolver Preston (1875), to Jules Henri Poincaré (1900; according to Brown, 1967) and to Olinto De Pretto (1904) before Einstein. Since Einstein never correctly derived E = mc2 (Ives, 1952), there appears nothing to connect the equation with anything original by Einstein.

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html

Vanir
Monday, June 6th, 2005, 06:48 AM
Why aren't I surprised....

I never understood how he couldn't accept his own theory and tried to alter it after the fact with his "cosmological constant"

HIM
Monday, June 6th, 2005, 06:51 AM
As was typical of Einstein, he did not discover theories; he merely commandeered them. He took an existing body of knowledge, picked and chose the ideas he liked, then wove them into a tale about his contribution to special relativity.

Many physicist do this today. They often take older theories and change them around so they make more sense. For example, superstrings is a theory that was first developed over 20 years ago. But it just now is being looked at again by many physicists. Edward Witten didn't make up the theory, but he has added much to it to improve the theory and give us a better understanding of what the theory means and what it can show us.

I'm sure Einstein used theories of other scientists, but he is the one that made the theories work. As far as if Einstein was a plagiarist or not, I would say no. However, he should have cited his sources.

Rollon
Wednesday, September 14th, 2005, 05:23 PM
Jews are good at writting books whereby they take credit for things. It has been this way since the bible.

Do you want more examples?

Who built the first computer in the world? I was told, again and again, that it was the American Jew John von Neumann. Then I read something about a certain Konrad Zuse, German.

Then I went to the Deutsches Technikmuseum Berlin, recently, and all became clear. The engineer Konrad Zuse was the first man to build an automatic calculator, the Z1, in 1935. In 1941, he built the first functional prototype of a modern computer, the Z3. From 1942 on, he developped the first programming system (Plancalcül), which was done by 1946.

Among the clients of his company, Zuse-Apparatebau GmbH, was the Reich Aviation Ministry. The firma was later called Zuse KG; for years, it was the biggest company to sell computers in Europe. They sold to the USSR their first computers. In 1971, due to competition with IBM, which was heavily subsidized by the American government whereas Zuse KG was not by the BRD government, it disappeared, absorbed by Siemens.

frippardthree
Thursday, November 12th, 2009, 09:50 AM
It's becoming clearer now, that Lorentz developed the theory of relativity & not Einstein.


What is now called Lorentz Ether theory ("LET") has its roots in Hendrik Lorentz's "Theory of electrons", which was the final point in the development of the classical aether theories at the end of the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century.

Lorentz's initial theory created in 1892 and 1895 was based on a completely motionless aether. It explained the failure of the negative aether drift experiments to first order in v/c by introducing a auxiliary variable called "local time" for connecting systems at rest and in motion in the aether. In addition, the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment led to the introduction of the hypothesis of length contraction in 1892. However, other experiments also produced negative results and so Lorentz was forced in 1899 and 1904 to expand his theory to (nearly) all orders in v/c by introducing the Lorentz transformation, and to assume the electromagnetic nature of all forces. Guided by the principle of relativity the theory ("The New Mechanics") was further developed in 1905 by Henri Poincaré, and also by Lorentz in 1909. Poincaré corrected some mistakes of Lorentz's theory, and maintained that also non-electromagnetic forces had to be taken into account. Many aspects of Lorentz's theory were incorporated into special relativity (SR) with the works of Albert Einstein and Hermann Minkowski.

Today LET is often treated as some sort of "Lorentzian" or "neo-Lorentzian" interpretation of special relativity. The introduction of length contraction and time dilation for all phenomena in a "preferred" frame of reference (which plays the role of Lorentz's immobile aether), leads to the complete Lorentz transformation. Because of the same mathematical formalism it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment. However, in LET the existence of an undetectable ether is assumed and the validity of the relativity principle seems to be only coincidental, which is one reason why SR is commonly preferred over LET. Another important reason for preferring SR is that the new understanding of space and time was also fundamental for the development of general relativity.

Full Article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory


This is a good example of the real problems posed by Einstein's relativity. The essence of the problem is that we really don't know what time and space are. We don't even have a very good idea of how to analyse the problem because we have preconceived ideas concerning what we mean by time and space. Einstein used the old preconceived ideas of time and space derived from Newtonian mechanics and turned them around and showed that they lead to to a new vision of what they mean. But this Einsteinian interpretation leads to absurdities that create confusion. The result is that if we hold on to the Newtonian ideas we get the bizzare conclusions of Einstein. But this is mostly due to a sleight of hand in Einsteins mathematics which is not really rigorous. He kind of patched this up and covered up the confusion in general relativity. The real problem is that when you don't have a clear idea of what is meant by time and space or space-time you get the current confusion in concepts which result from these theories.

Another point is that I dont think Lorentz derived a time dilation in an 1895 book. What book are you citing here? I would like to look this up. My understanding is that Larmor was the first to derive a time dilation using a theory of the ether. This point is not clearly resolved for me. Most books make the incorrect claim that Einstein was the first to derive time dilation. But this is not correct.

The basic issue is the following. Does the derived time dilation reflect a fundamental property of time,ie, that time actualy slows down? This being opposed to the view that time remains the same but that the clock used to measure time is effected by the motion so that its calibration is changed to indicate a different time. In this case the clock reads slow because the physical process by which time is measured has changed such that the clock calibration relativer to a standard clock has been changed.The answer to this question depends upon whether time is conceived as an actual physical entity or as an artifical concept invented to explain the Newtonian laws of physics.

The anwser depends upon what you think time is. This is not at all a question which can be glibly answered as many textbooks like to do. Now of course, the same problem applies for space. We don't know what it is either.

There are two recent books that discuss these issues. One titled "The End Of Time", and the other "Nothingness". These summarise the current research on space and time at a popular level.

Retrieved From:http://www.metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=403&whichpage=5

rainman
Thursday, November 12th, 2009, 06:55 PM
Time would be object interaction- the rate of change in a given system and given this definition would have to be relative.

At any rate yes Scientists all build upon each others work. Einstein didn't sit on his couch and one day come up with something radically new. He was working on theories that other scientists were also working on. It is like that with most breakthroughs another guy somewhere else comes up with the same break through only a couple days late and doesn't get credit for it. Or goes to the media too late, because they are all starting at the same premices and working on the same problems etc.

VergesEngst
Thursday, November 12th, 2009, 11:06 PM
Germany was one of the last countries to give in to the common usage of English as the linga franca of scientific publications. German science papers were usually published in German, while the majority of other science papers -- even those published in European journals and by people whose primary language was not English -- were published in English.

As a result, there are actually a very large number of things that were discovered by Germans, that were then also discovered later by other scientists... who ended up getting the credit for it.

Because of my background, the first example that comes readily to mind for me is the psychological phenomenon known as the "Stroop Effect", which was published by Jaensch in 1929, but only in German. Then it was published by Stroop in 1935. And now it's named after him.

Mouse Shadow
Thursday, March 11th, 2010, 11:39 AM
For all you people discussing Albert-Einwank, you are forgetting the most important thing. He was jewish, therefore, most of us recognise that they cannot form orginal thought. They steal stuff.

Newton explained he was top the shoulders of giants, meaning those before paved the way for intellectual discovery. Most of science requires it. Even he acknowleges prior derivations.

But you guys and girls are forgetting the most important fact of research, who else was 'he', Einwank working with? Turn off the jew-tube (you know it's false) and really look.

I'll give you a hint, Mileva Marrick, find out about her story and you'll see who really brings home the bacon, or in this case inductive thought.

Don't know who she is? She's like Madam Curie, but in physics. And guess which sociopath Milie was married too???

Can you see the real cover up yet? Is it yet another Holo-hoax? Dollars to donuts it is. If you find the full story of this heroine's life, you'll see her whole situation and the genius qualities her and her family espouses.

She was the silent one, and 'her' theories, the proper ones, not the freakish made up God ones, came at a very significant time too... Yet another key. But I'm going to let you all find out for yourself. I think you people deserve to look up the facts on a Great Woman like her. :thumbup

Anyone care to say, 'Yep, a chick figured that out that formula'... ;)

Albert Einwank, greatest conman in science of all time!

Go Mileva! She's the Iron Princess!

Go Millie, Go Millie, Go Millie!

Mouse Shadow
Friday, March 12th, 2010, 06:18 AM
God, I can't spell!

Here's the link if anyone 'really' wants to know about the one who discovered those formulae.

Mileva Maric

http://www.pbs.org/opb/einsteinswife/about/index.htm (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbs. org%2Fopb%2Feinsteinswife%2Fabout%2Finde x.htm)

This explains alot, poor lady, such a worm Albert-Einwank is. She may not be the prettiest apple in the tree, but her dedication and hard work to allow benifit to all is amazing. Considering she had medical difficulties and basically a reject, she gave her all to science.

I just hope there were moments in her life which made it all worth it.

Typical of Ein-Wank to treat her like an employee. No heart, only explotation... Remind you of a particular demographic?

More Holo-hoax stuff eh?

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, August 24th, 2010, 05:58 AM
I always knew he was a genius - a genius plagiarist that is.

VitkiValkyrie
Tuesday, August 24th, 2010, 09:15 AM
Scientists contemporary with Einstein who dared critisize him, were fired from university posts. The universities saw the funding and grant possibilities of building up a jewish 'hero' in adjunct to anti-Germany propaganda. Einstein didn't fully understand the theories he stole, for instance he said he said space-time was curved around a mass, but he couldn't explain how it could be, since only a solid surface can be curved. He calculated energy of a photon particle with the help of the photo-electric effect, a basic manipulation of an existing formula. Strange how the works of jewish scientists (those with 'useful' theories, original or stolen) always end up on the side of mass destruction, e.g the atom bomb.

wittwer
Monday, September 13th, 2010, 05:08 PM
All science, modern and not so medern, is built upon the standing on the shoulders of those who came before and is a Dialectic Process. The dialectic is the process of merging the Thesis and the Antithesis, which results in their annhilation and the creation of a new Synthesis, which becomes a new Thesis. Oh my God! I've plagarized Hegel... ;) Now with this Theoretical development, it is subjected to the process of verification and corroboration in the laboratory, at which point it becomes scientific fact or is rejected and once again the Dialectic takes over. As for the practical application of these principles, that moves into the process of "Praxis", Oh my God! I've just plagarized Aristotle... ;)

In Physics we call it Theoretical Physics as opposed to Applied Physics...

Know why the Nazi's could never develop the Bomb? Ideological Boneheadism. Neonazi's suffer from the same ideological blindness...

Bittereinder
Monday, September 13th, 2010, 06:41 PM
For all you people discussing Albert-Einwank, you are forgetting the most important thing. He was jewish, therefore, most of us recognise that they cannot form orginal thought. They steal stuff.

Newton explained he was top the shoulders of giants, meaning those before paved the way for intellectual discovery. Most of science requires it. Even he acknowleges prior derivations.

But you guys and girls are forgetting the most important fact of research, who else was 'he', Einwank working with? Turn off the jew-tube (you know it's false) and really look.

I'll give you a hint, Mileva Marrick, find out about her story and you'll see who really brings home the bacon, or in this case inductive thought.

Don't know who she is? She's like Madam Curie, but in physics. And guess which sociopath Milie was married too???

Can you see the real cover up yet? Is it yet another Holo-hoax? Dollars to donuts it is. If you find the full story of this heroine's life, you'll see her whole situation and the genius qualities her and her family espouses.

She was the silent one, and 'her' theories, the proper ones, not the freakish made up God ones, came at a very significant time too... Yet another key. But I'm going to let you all find out for yourself. I think you people deserve to look up the facts on a Great Woman like her. :thumbup

Anyone care to say, 'Yep, a chick figured that out that formula'... ;)

Albert Einwank, greatest conman in science of all time!

Go Mileva! She's the Iron Princess!

Go Millie, Go Millie, Go Millie!

Well, she did marry a jew so she probably deserved it :P.

Mouse Shadow
Monday, September 13th, 2010, 09:50 PM
Well, she did marry a jew so she probably deserved it :P.
Jews con people, even smart scientist girls. That snake knew he was onto a good thing. And think about it, she wouldn't have the social knowledge of why jews are evil.

I don't think any 'smart' and decent female intentionally marries a jew. It's like saying, hey just for fun, I think I'll go marry a human sized parasite, let it suck my blood and life to death.

Spews con people, spews lie, spews deceive. Poor lady, no female deserves that.

Florian Geyer
Monday, September 13th, 2010, 11:06 PM
Know why the Nazi's could never develop the Bomb? Ideological Boneheadism. Neonazi's suffer from the same ideological blindness...

There are many, many different reasons for the failure of German scientists to produce an Atom Bomb. Or I should say, the failure to produce an Atom Bomb before the Anglo-American team.

The German scientists involved in Atomic research were too fragmented, in fact the polar opposite of the team on the Manhattan Project. The Germans wasted many thousands of hours on unprofitable methods of separation of the Uranium-235 isotope. They continued to use the cumbersome, inefficient method of using Heavy Water as a moderator, in comparison with Manhattan's Graphite. Those factors were insignificant when compared to Professor Bothe's original erroneous calculations on the neutron absorption of carbon which (to cut a long story short) ruled out the use of a graphite moderator (before the Manhattan team had even thought of it) without substantial enrichment of Uranium-235. If this error had not occurred and consequently had the Hamburg physical chemist Professor Harteck not been dissuaded from continuing his large-scale carbon dioxide/uranium oxide experiments, Germany would have had a two year lead on the progress of the Manhattan Project team.

The failure of the German Scientists had nothing to do with "ideological boneheadism" - whatever that is - the majority of the team were not even Nazis. How you link your "theories" on the failures of Atomic research to NeoNazi "ideological blindness" is beyond me. Perhaps a less blinkered look at the history books will work wonders for you.

SaxonPagan
Wednesday, September 15th, 2010, 01:42 AM
I have a lot of books about Albert Einstein, mainly from my youth when I was very interested in astrophysics. He was obviously a clever bloke because the Jews wanted to at least promote someone who knew what he was talking about, but he was over-hyped for sure and eventually got out of his depth when quantum physics came along.

I do think he made a contribution in the earlier years though. Short of calling him a plagiarist, I suspect that he read a lot of stuff by other scientists (many of whom were working in isolation and unaware of each others’ efforts) and synthesized their works into something for which he ultimately took the credit.

Come to think of it, that's mighty close to plagiarism but to some degree it ties in with the point that Rainman and Wittwer (before his Nazi fixation took hold again :D) were making earlier about scientists building on the knowledge of their predecessors. It’s often the case that others do 90% of the spadework before an “opportunist” (for want of a better word) comes along and slides the final brick into place. Luck is also a factor.

So I believe you could call Einstein an opportunist/synthesizer/plagiarist, all with equal validity whilst still acknowledging him as a major player in modern physics. He was only one of many though because the early 20th century was a very fertile period and to have made his name synonymous with “genious” is ridiculous when most of his contemporaries are totally unknown to the public. It’s just another case of the media-controllers (over)promoting one of their own!

Sigurd
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010, 11:31 AM
Essentially, Einstein did collect ideas who were sometimes first published 30 years earlier. Whether or not he actually plagiarised them is irrelevant --- even if he arrived at his thoughts independently, that'd make the credit he's getting for it a little overblown as it's obvious that other scientists should get some credit for it as well. If Poincaré arrived at many of the same conclusions a year earlier and went largely unnoticed, that takes away a lot of the unique character oft ascribed to "Uncle Albert". ;)

The idea that often things are discovered twice, and almost never named after, or remembered for the actual first scientist describing it, is called "Stigler's Law" (itself conforming to it as well, considering it was actually a phenomenon first described by sociologist Merton. Let's have a look at things that are credited to their second, rather than first discovery:

Euler's number was first described by Jacob Bernoulli, the bacteria Salmonella wasn't discovered by the veterinary pathologist Daniel Elmer Salmon but actually by his fellow American Theobald Smith. And Gaussian distribution would strictly have to be de Moivre distribution (as that was the mathematician that first described it). Finally, the Coriolis Effect was inadvertently described by Giovani Battista Riccoli in 1651 (some 200 years before de Coriolis) in his attempt to disprove Copernicus. List not exhaustive.

In science it is oft so that it's not the first that describes something that gets the credit, but the one with the greatest propaganda machine at the time the fellow scientific community are most receptive for a certain idea. It's almost as unpredictable in that respect as the stock exchange. The problem with Einstein's own borrowings from other men is that his intelligence and supposed uniqueness are oft used to point out that "those evil Nazis" would have liked nothing more than to deal away with "the world's most brilliant scientist" ... which he was not. He was simply very clever in spinning some thoughts long ripe for picking together at the right time. :shrug

Wulfram
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010, 11:53 AM
ALBERT EINSTEIN is held up as "a rare genius," who drastically changed the field of theoretical physics. However, using the technique known as 'The Often-Repeated Lie=Truth,' he has been made an idol to young people, and his very name has become synonymous with genius.

THE TRUTH, HOWEVER, IS VERY DIFFERENT. Einstein was an inept and moronic person, who could not even tie his own shoelaces; he contributed NOTHING ORIGINAL to the field of quantum mechanics, nor any other science. On the contrary -- he stole the ideas of others, and the Jew-controlled media made him a 'hero.'

When we actually examine the life of Albert Einstein, we find that his only 'brilliance' was in his ability to PLAGIARIZE and STEAL OTHER PEOPLE'S IDEAS, PASSING THEM OFF AS HIS OWN. Einstein's education, or lack thereof, is an important part of this story.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says of Einstein's early education that he "showed little scholastic ability." It also says that at the age of 15, "with poor grades in history, geography, and languages, he left school with no diploma." Einstein himself wrote in a school paper of his "lack of imagination and practical ability." In 1895, Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich.

This exam consisted mainly of mathematical problems, and Einstein showed himself to be mathematically inept in this exam. He then entered a lesser school hoping to use it as a stepping stone to the engineering school he could not get into, but after graduating in 1900, he still could not get a position at the engineering school!

Unable to go to the school as he had wanted, he got a job (with the help of a friend) at the patent office in Bern. He was to be a technical expert third class, which meant that he was not competent to hold a higher qualified position. Even after publishing his so-called ground-breaking papers of 1905 and after working in the patent office for six years, he was only elevated to a second class standing. Remember, the work he was doing at the patent office, for which he was only rated third class, was not quantum mechanics or theoretical physics, but was reviewing technical documents for patents of every day things; yet he was barely qualified.

He would work at the patent office until 1909, all the while continuously trying to get a position at a university, but without success. All of these facts are true, but now begins the myth.

Supposedly, while working a full time job, without the aid of university colleagues, a staff of graduate students, a laboratory, or any of the things normally associated with an academic setting, Einstein in his spare time wrote four ground-breaking essays in the field of theoretical physics and quantum mechanics that were published in 1905.

Many people have recognized the impossibility of such a feat, including Einstein himself, and therefore Einstein has led people to believe that many of these ideas came to him in his sleep, out of the blue, because indeed that is the only logical explanation of how an admittedly inept moron could have written such documents at the age of 26 without any real education. THE TRUTH IS: HE STOLE THE IDEAS AND PLAGIARIZED THE PAPERS.

Therefore, we will look at each of these ideas and discover the source of each. It should be remembered that these ideas are presented by Einstein's worshipers as totally new and completely different, each of which would change the landscape of science. These four papers dealt with the following four ideas, respectively:

1. The foundation of the photon theory of light;
2. The equivalence of energy and mass;
3. The explanation of Brownian motion in liquids;
4. The special theory of relativity.

Let us first look at the last of these theories, the theory of relativity. This is perhaps the most famous idea falsely attributed to Einstein. Specifically, this 1905 paper dealt with what Einstein called the Special Theory of Relativity (the General Theory would come in 1915).

This theory contradicted the traditional Newtonian mechanics and was based upon two premises:

1. In the absence of acceleration, the laws of nature are the same for all observers; and
2. Since the speed of light is independent of the motion of its source, then the time interval between two events is longer for an observer in whose frame of reference the events occur at different places than for an observer in whose frame of reference the events occur in the same place.

This is basically the idea that time passes more slowly as one's velocity approaches the speed of light, relative to slower velocities where time would pass faster.

This theory has been validated by modern experiments and is the basis for modern physics. But these two premises are far from being originally Einstein's. FIRST OF ALL, THE IDEA THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT WAS A CONSTANT AND WAS INDEPENDENT OF THE MOTION OF ITS SOURCE WAS NOT EINSTEIN'S AT ALL, BUT WAS PROPOSED BY THE SCOTTISH SCIENTIST JAMES MAXWELL in 1878.

Maxwell studied the phenomenon of light extensively and first proposed that it was electromagnetic in nature.

James Maxwell wrote an article to this effect for the 1878 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. His ideas prompted much debate, and by 1887, as a result of his work and the ensuing debate, the scientific community, particularly Lorentz, Michelson, and Morley reached the conclusion that the velocity of light was independent of the velocity of the observer. Thus, this piece of the Special Theory of Relativity was known 27 years before Einstein wrote his paper.

This debate over the nature of light also led Michelson and Morley to conduct an important experiment, the results of which could not be explained by Newtonian mechanics. They observed a phenomenon caused by relativity but they did not understand relativity.

They had attempted to detect the motion of the earth through ether, which was a medium thought to be necessary for the propagation of light. In response to this problem, in 1880, the Irish physicist George Fitzgerald, who had also first proposed a mechanism for producing radio waves, wrote a paper which stated that the results of the Michelson Morley experiment could be explained if, ". . . the length of material bodies change, according as they are moving through the either or across it by an amount depending on the square of the ratio of their velocities to that of light."

THIS IS THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY, 14 YEARS BEFORE EINSTEIN'S PAPER!

FURTHER . . . IN 1892, HENDRIK LORENTZ, of the Netherlands, proposed the same solution and began to greatly expand the idea. All throughout the 1890's, both Lorentz and Fitzgerald worked on these ideas and wrote articles strangely similar to Einstein's Special Theory detailing what is now known as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction.

In 1898, the Irishman Joseph Larmor wrote down equations explaining the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and its relativistic consequences, 7 years before Einstein's paper. By 1904, "Lorentz transformations," the series of equations explaining relativity, were published by Lorentz. They describe the increase of mass, the shortening of length, and the time dilation of a body moving at speeds close to the velocity of light. In short, by 1904, everything in "Einstein's paper" regarding the Special Theory of Relativity had already been published.

The Frenchman Poincaré‚ had, in 1898, written a paper unifying many of these ideas. He stated seven years before Einstein's paper: ". . . we have no direct intuition about the equality of two time intervals. The simultaneity of two events or the order of their succession, as well as the equality of two time intervals, must be defined in such a way that the statements of the natural laws be as simple as possible."

Professor Umberto Bartocci, a mathematical historian, of the University of Perugia claims that Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the equation E=mc^2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903. Einstein allegedly used De Pretto's insight in a major paper published in 1905, but De Pretto was never acclaimed.

De Pretto had stumbled on the equation, but not the theory of relativity, while speculating about ether in the life of the universe, said Prof Bartocci. It was republished in 1904 by Veneto's Royal Science Institute, but the equation's significance was not understood.

According to Professor Bartocci, a Swiss Italian named Michele Besso alerted Einstein to the research and in 1905 Einstein published his own work. It took years for his breakthrough to be grasped. When the penny finally dropped, De Pretto's contribution was overlooked while Einstein went on to become the century's most famous scientist. De Pretto died in 1921.

"De Pretto did not discover relativity but there is no doubt that he was the first to use the equation. That is hugely significant. I also believe, though it's impossible to prove, that Einstein used De Pretto's research," said Professor Bartocci, who has written a book on the subject. ( The Guardian Unlimited).

Anyone who has read Einstein's 1905 paper will immediately recognize the similarity and the lack of originality on the part of Einstein.

Thus, we see that the only thing original about the paper was the term 'Special Theory of Relativity.' EVERYTHING ELSE WAS PLAGIARIZED. Over the next few years, Poincaré‚ became one of the most important lecturers and writers regarding relativity, but he never, in any of his papers or speeches, mentioned Albert Einstein.

Thus while Poincaré‚ was busy bringing the rest of the academic world up to speed regarding relativity, Einstein was still working in the patent office in Bern and no one in the academic community thought it necessary to give much credence or mention to Einstein's work. Most of these early physicists knew that he was a fraud.

This brings us to the explanation of Brownian motion, the subject of another of Einstein's 1905 papers. Brownian motion describes the irregular motion of a body arising from the thermal energy of the molecules of the material in which the body is immersed. The movement had first been observed by the Scottish botanist Robert Brown in 1827.

The explanation of this phenomenon has to do with the Kinetic Theory of Matter, and it was the American Josiah Gibbs and the Austrian Ludwig Boltzmann who first explained this occurrence, not Albert Einstein. In fact, the mathematical equation describing the motion contains the famous Boltzmann constant, k. Between these two men, they had explained by the 1890s everything in Einstein's 1905 paper regarding Brownian motion.

The subject of the equivalence of mass and energy was contained in a third paper published by Einstein in 1905. This concept is expressed by the famous equation E=mc2. Einstein's biographers categorize this as "his most famous and most spectacular conclusion." Even though this idea is an obvious conclusion of Einstein's earlier relativity paper, it was not included in that paper but was published as an afterthought later in the year. Still, the idea of energy-mass equivalence was not original with Einstein.

That there was an equivalence between mass and energy had been shown in the laboratory in the 1890s by both J. J. Thomsom of Cambridge and by W. Kaufmann in Göttingen. In 1900, Poincaré‚ had shown that there was a mass relationship for all forms of energy, not just electromagnetic energy. Yet, the most probable source of Einstein's plagiarism was Friedrich Hasenöhrl, one of the most brilliant, yet unappreciated physicists of the era.

Hasenöhrl was the teacher of many of the German scientists who would later become famous for a variety of topics. He had worked on the idea of the equivalence of mass and energy for many years and had published a paper on the topic in 1904 in the very same journal which Einstein would publish his plagiarized version in 1905. For his brilliant work in this area, Hasenöhrl had received in 1904 a prize from the prestigious Vienna Academy of Sciences.

Furthermore, the mathematical relationship of mass and energy was a simple deduction from the already well-known equations of Scottish physicist James Maxwell. Scientists long understood that the mathematical relationship expressed by the equation E=mc2 was the logical result of Maxwell's work, they just did not believe it.

THUS, THE EXPERIMENTS OF THOMSON, KAUFMANN, AND FINALLY, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, HASENÖRHL, CONFIRMED MAXWELL'S WORK. IT IS LUDICROUS TO BELIEVE THAT EINSTEIN DEVELOPED THIS POSTULATE , particularly in light of the fact that Einstein did not have the laboratory necessary to conduct the appropriate experiments.

In this same plagiarized article of Einstein's, he suggested to the scientific community, "Perhaps it will prove possible to test this theory using bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts of radium)."

This remark demonstrates how little Einstein understood about science, for this was truly an outlandish remark. By saying this, Einstein showed that he really did not understand basic scientific principles, and that he was writing about a topic that he did not understand. In fact, in response to this article, J. Precht remarked that such an experiment "lies beyond the realm of possible experience."

The last subject dealt with in Einstein's 1905 papers was the foundation of the photon theory of light. Einstein wrote about the photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect is the release of electrons from certain metals or semiconductors by the action of light. This area of research is particularly important to the Einstein myth because it was for this topic that he UNJUSTLY received his 1922 Nobel Prize.

But AGAIN IT IS NOT EINSTEIN, BUT WILHELM WIEN AND MAX PLANCK WHO DESERVE THE CREDIT. The main point of Einstein's paper, and the point for which he is given credit, is that light is emitted and absorbed in finite packets called quanta. This was the explanation for the photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect had been explained by Heinrich Hertz in 1888. Hertz and others, including Philipp Lenard, worked on understanding this phenomenon.

Lenard was the first to show that the energy of the electrons released in the photoelectric effect was not governed by the intensity of the light but by the frequency of the light. This was an important breakthrough.

Wien and Planck were colleagues and they were the fathers of modern day quantum theory. By 1900, Max Planck, based upon his and Wien's work, had shown that radiated energy was absorbed and emitted in finite units called quanta. The only difference in his work of 1900 and Einstein's work of 1905 was that Einstein limited himself to talking about one particular type of energy -- light energy. But the principles and equations governing the process in general had been deduced by Planck in 1900. Einstein himself admitted that the obvious conclusion of Planck's work was that light also existed in discrete packets of energy. Thus, nothing in this paper of Einstein's was original.

After the 1905 papers of Einstein were published, the scientific community took little notice and Einstein continued his job at the patent office until 1909 when it was arranged by World Jewry for him to take a position at a school.

Still, it was not until a 1919 A Jewish newspaper headline that he gained any notoriety. With Einstein's academic appointment in 1909, he was placed in a position where he could begin to use other people's work as his own more openly.

He engaged many of his students to look for ways to prove the theories he had supposedly developed, or ways to apply those theories, and then he could present the research as his own or at least take partial credit.

In this vein, in 1912, he began to try and express his gravitational research in terms of a new, recently developed calculus, which was conducive to understanding relativity. This was the beginning of his General Theory of Relativity, which he would publish in 1915.

BUT THE MATHEMATICAL WORK WAS NOT DONE BY EINSTEIN -- HE WAS INCAPABLE OF IT. Instead, it was performed by the mathematician Marcel Grossmann, who in turn used the mathematical principles developed by Berhard Riemann, who was the first to develop a sound non-Euclidean geometry, which is the basis of all mathematics used to describe relativity.

The General Theory of Relativity applied the principles of relativity to the universe; that is, to the gravitational pull of planets and their orbits, and the general principle that light rays bend as they pass by a massive object. Einstein published an initial paper in 1913 based upon the work which Grossmann did, adapting the math of Riemann to Relativity. But this paper was filled with errors and the conclusions were incorrect.

It appears that Grossmann was not smart enough to figure it out for Einstein. So Einstein was forced to look elsewhere to plagiarize his General Theory. Einstein published his correct General Theory of Relativity in 1915, and said prior to its publication that he, "completely succeeded in convincing Hilbert and Klein." He is referring to David Hilbert, perhaps the most brilliant mathematician of the 20th century, and Felix Klein, another mathematician who had been instrumental in the development of the area of calculus that Grossmann had used to develop the General Theory of Relativity for Einstein.

Einstein's statement regarding the two men would lead the reader to believe that Einstein had changed Hilbert's and Klein's opinions regarding General Relativity, and that he had influenced them in their thinking.

However, the exact opposite is true. EINSTEIN STOLE THE MAJORITY OF HIS GENERAL RELATIVITY WORK FROM THESE TWO MEN, THE REST BEING TAKEN FROM GROSSMANN. HILBERT SUBMITTED FOR PUBLICATION, A WEEK BEFORE EINSTEIN COMPLETED HIS WORK, A PAPER WHICH CONTAINED THE CORRECT FIELD EQUATIONS, OF GENERAL RELATIVITY.

What this means is that Hilbert wrote basically the exact same paper, with the same conclusions, before Einstein did. Einstein would have had an opportunity to know of Hilbert's work all along, because there were friends of his working for Hilbert. Yet, even this was not necessary, for Einstein had seen Hilbert's paper in advance of publishing his own. Both of these papers were, before being printed, delivered in the form of a lecture.

Einstein presented his paper on November 25, 1915 in Berlin and Hilbert had presented his paper on November 20 in Göttingen. On November 18, Hilbert received a letter from Einstein thanking him for sending him a draft of the treatise Hilbert was to deliver on the 20th. So, in fact, Hilbert had sent a copy of his work at least two weeks in advance to Einstein before either of the two men delivered their lectures, but Einstein did not send Hilbert an advance copy of his.

Therefore, THIS SERVES AS INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF THAT EINSTEIN QUICKLY PLAGIARIZED THE WORK AND THEN PRESENTED IT, HOPING TO BEAT HILBERT TO THE PUNCH. Also, at the same time, Einstein publicly began to belittle Hilbert, even though in the previous summer he had praised him in an effort to get Hilbert to share his work with him. Hilbert made the mistake of sending Einstein this draft copy, but still he delivered his work first.

Not only did Hilbert publish his work first, but it was of much higher quality than Einstein's. It is known today that there are many problems with assumptions made in Einstein's General Theory paper. We know today that Hilbert was much closer to the truth. Hilbert's paper is the forerunner of the unified field theory of gravitation and electromagnetism and of the work of Erwin Schrödinger, whose work is the basis of all modern day quantum mechanics.

That the group of men discussed so far were the actual originators of the ideas claimed by Einstein was known by the scientific community all along. In 1940, a group of German physicists meeting in Austria declared that "before Einstein, Aryan scientists like Lorentz, Hasenöhrl, Poincaré, etc., had created the foundations of the theory of relativity." However the Jewish media did not promote the work of these men. The Jewish media did not promote the work of David Hilbert, but instead they promoted the work of the Jew Albert Einstein.

As we mentioned earlier, this General Theory, as postulated by Hilbert first and in plagiarized form by Einstein second, stated that light rays should bend when they pass by a massive object. In 1919, during the eclipse of the Sun, light from distant stars passing close to the Sun was observed to bend according to the theory. This evidence supported the General Theory of Relativity, and the Jew-controlled media immediately seized upon the opportunity to prop up Einstein as a hero, at the expense of the true genius, David Hilbert.

On November 7th, 1919, the London Times ran an article, the headline of which proclaimed, "Revolution in science -- New theory of the Universe -- Newtonian ideas overthrown." This was the beginning of the force- feeding of the Einstein myth to the masses. In the following years, Einstein's earlier 1905 papers were propagandized and Einstein was heralded as the originator of all the ideas he had stolen. Because of this push by the Jewish media, in 1922, EINSTEIN RECEIVED THE NOBEL PRIZE FOR THE WORK HE HAD STOLEN IN 1905 REGARDING THE PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT.

The establishment of the Einstein farce between 1919 and 1922 was an important coup for world Jewry. As soon as Einstein had been established as an idol to the popular masses of England and America, his image was promoted as the rare genius that he is erroneously believed to be today.

The masses bought into the idea that if someone was so brilliant as to change our fundamental understanding of the universe, then certainly we ought to listen to his opinions regarding political and social issues.

This is exactly what World Jewry wanted to establish in its ongoing effort of social engineering. They certainly did not want someone like David Hilbert to be recognized as rare genius. After all, this physicist had come from a strong German, Christian background. His grandfather's two middle names were 'Fürchtegott Leberecht' or 'Fear God, Live Right.' In August of 1934, the day before a vote was to be taken regarding installing Adolf Hitler as President of the Reich, Hilbert signed a proclamation in support of Adolf Hitler, along with other leading German scientists, that was published in the German newspapers. So the Jews certainly did not want David Hilbert receiving the credit he deserved.

The Jews did not want Max Planck receiving the credit he deserved either. This German would stay in Germany throughout the war, supporting his fatherland the best he could.

The Jews certainly did not want the up-and-coming Erwin Schrödinger to be heralded as a genius to the masses. This Austrian physicist would go on to teach at Adolf Hitler University in Austria, and he wrote a public letter expressing his support for the Third Reich. This Austrian's work on the unified field theory was a forerunner of modern physics, even though it had been criticized by Einstein, who apparently could not understand it.

The Jews did not want to have Werner Heisenberg promoted as a rare genius, even though he would go on to solidify quantum theory and contribute to it greatly, as well as develop his famous uncertainty principle, in addition to describing the modern atom and nucleus and the binding energies that are essential to modern chemistry.

NO, THE JEWS DID NOT WANT HEISENBERG PROMOTED AS A GENIUS BECAUSE HE WOULD GO ON TO HEAD THE GERMAN ATOMIC BOMB PROJECT AND SERVE PRISON TIME AFTER THE WAR FOR HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE THIRD REICH.

No, the Jews did not want to give credit to any of a number of Germans, Austrians, Irishmen, Frenchmen, Scotsmen, Englishmen, and even Americans who had contributed to the body of knowledge and evidence from which Einstein plagiarized and stole his work.

Instead, they needed to erect Einstein as their golden calf, even though he repeatedly and often embarrassed himself with his nonfactual or nearsighted comments regarding the work he had supposedly done. For example, in 1934, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ran a front page article in which Einstein gave an "emphatic denial" regarding the idea of practical applications for the "energy of the atom." The article says, "But the 'energy of the atom' is something else again. If you believe that man will someday be able to harness this boundless energy-to drive a great steamship across the ocean on a pint of water, for instance - then, according to Einstein, you are wrong"

Again, Einstein clearly did not understand the branch of physics he had supposedly founded, though elsewhere in the world at the time theoretical research was underway that would lead to the atomic bomb and nuclear energy.

But after Einstein was promoted as a god in 1919, he made no real attempts to plagiarize any other work. Rather, he began his real purpose - evangelizing for the cause of World Jewry. Though he did publish other articles after this time, all of them were co- authored by at least one other person, and in each instance, Einstein had little if anything to do with the research that led to the articles; he was merely recruited by the co-authors in order to lend credence to their work. Thus freed of the pretense of academia, Einstein began his assault for World jewry.

In 1921, Einstein made his first visit to the United States on a fund- raising tour for the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and to promote Zionism. In April of 1922, Einstein used his status to gain membership in a Commission of the League of Nations. In February of 1923, Einstein visited Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. In June of 1923, he became a founding member of the Association of Friends of the New Russia. In 1926, Einstein took a break from his Communist activities to again embarrass himself scientifically by criticizing the work of Schr”dinger and Heisenberg. Following a brief illness, he resumed his agenda, wanting an independent Israel and at the same time a World Government.

In the 1930s he actively campaigns against all forms of war, although he would reverse this position during World War II when he advocated war against Germany and the creation of the atomic bomb, which he thought was impossible to build. In 1939 and 1940, Einstein, at the request of other Jews, wrote two letters to Roosevelt urging an American program to develop an atomic bomb to be used on Germany - not Japan. Einstein would have no part in the actual construction of the bomb, theoretical or practical, because he lacked the skills for either.

In December of 1946, Einstein rekindled his efforts for a World Government, with Israel apparently being the only autonomous nation. This push continued through the rest of the 1940s. In 1952, Einstein, who had been instrumental in the creation of the State of Israel, both politically and economically, was offered the presidency of Israel. He declined. In 1953, he spent his time attacking the McCarthy Committee, and he supported Communists such as J. Robert Oppenheimer. He encouraged civil disobedience in response to the McCarthy trials. Finally, on April 18, 1955, this Jewish demagogue died.

Dead, the Jews no longer had to worry about Einstein making stupid statements. His death was just the beginning of his usage and exploitation by World Jewry. The Jewish-controlled media continued to promote the myth of this Super-Jew long after his death, and as more and more of the men who knew better died off, the Jews were more and more able to aggrandize his myth and lie more boldly. This brazen lying has culminated in the Jew-controlled Time Magazine naming Einstein "The Person of the Century".

Einstein was given this title in spite of the clear-cut choice for the "Person of the Century," Adolf Hitler. Hitler was indeed named "Man of the Year" while he was still living by Time Magazine, and according to a December 27, 1999, article in the USA Today, Einstein was chosen over Adolf Hitler because of the perceived "nasty public relations fallout" that would accompany that choice; yet in internet polling by Time, Hitler finished third and was the top serious candidate. Still the issue of Time Magazine dedicated to Einstein, which has articles by men with names like Isaacson, Golden, Stein, Rudenstine, and Rosenblatt, is interesting to read. For one, they found it necessary to include an article rationalizing why they did not pick the obvious choice, Adolf Hitler. But more interesting is the article by Stephen Hawking which purports to be a history of the theory of relativity. In it, Hawking admits many things in this article, such as the fact that Hilbert published the General Theory of Relativity before Einstein and that FitzGerald and Lorentz deduced the concept of relativity long before Einstein. Hawking also writes:

"Einstein was deeply disturbed by the work of Werner Heisenberg in Copenhagen, Paul Dirac in Cambridge and Erwin Schr”dinger in Zurich, who developed a new picture of reality called quantum mechanics. Einstein was horrified by this. Most scientists, however, accepted the validity of the new quantum laws because they showed excellent agreement with observations. They are the basis of modern developments in chemistry, molecular biology and electronics and the foundation of the technology that has transformed the world in the past half- century".

This is all very true, yet the same magazine credits Einstein with all of the modern developments that Hawking names, even through Einstein was so stupid as to be vehemently against the most important idea of modern science, just as he opposed Schr”dinger's work in unified field theory which was far ahead of its time. The same magazine admits that "success eluded" Einstein in the field of explaining the contradictions between relativity and quantum mechanics. Today, these contradictions are explained by the unified field theory, but Einstein, who proved himself to be one of the least intelligent of 20th century scientists, refused to believe in either quantum theory or the unified field theory.

To name Einstein as "The Person of the Century" is one of the most ludicrous and absurd lies of all time, yet it has been successfully pulled off by Isaacson, Golden, Stein, Rudenstine, and Rosenblatt and the Jewish owners of Time Magazine. If the Jews at Time wanted to give the title to an inventor or scientist, then the most obvious choice would have been men like Hilbert, Planck, or Heisenberg. If they wanted to give it to the scientist who most fundamentally changed the lands 20th century science, then the obvious choice would be William Shockley. This Nobel prize winning scientist invented the transistor, which is the basis of all modern electronic devices and computers, everything from modern cars and telephones, VCRs and watches, to the amazing computers which have allowed incomprehensible advances in all fields of science. Without the transistor, all forms of science today would be basically in the same place that they were in the late 1940s.

However, the Jews cannot allow the due credit to go to William Shockley because he spent the majority of his scientific career demonstrating the genetic and mental inferiority of non-whites and arguing for their sterilization. His scientific, genetic views led the Jews to financially destroy Shockley who founded Shockley Semiconductor the first company in Silicon Valley, his hometown, to develop computer chips. The Jews hired away his entire staff and used them to start Fairchild semiconductor in 1957 (co-founded by the "Traitorous Eight": Julius Blank, Victor Grinich, Jean Hoerni, Gene Kleiner, Jay Last, Gordon Moore, Robert Noyce and Sheldon Roberts. Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore left Fairchild in 1968 to found Intelco . Many other Fairchild employees later the company - later called Intel.

No the Jews could not let any of the truly great geniuses of our time be recognized, not Henry Ford, not the great German scientists who helped the National Socialists in Germany, not Charles Lindbergh, who was sympathetic to National Socialist causes, and certainly not William Shockley, one of the most brilliant physicists and geneticists of our time. Instead, the Jews propped up the Zionist, Communist Albert Einstein who hated everything white.

After World War II, Einstein demonstrated his hatred of the White Race and of the Germans in particular in the following statements. He was asked what he thought about Germany and about re-educating the Germans after the war and said:

"The nation has been on the decline mentally and morally since 1870. Behind the Nazi party stands the German people, who elected Hitler after he had in his book and in his speeches made his shameful intentions clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding. The Germans can be killed or constrained after the war, but they cannot be re-educated to a democratic way of thinking and acting".

Einstein here is advocating the murder of Germans.

Lewis L. Strauss, the Zionist Chairman of the US Atomic Commission, must have had in mind storing the world stock of A and H bombs in the neutral country of Israel (also chosen for the United Nations' permanent headquarters) for safekeeping to 'satisfy Russian demands,' when, as reported in the London Jewish Chronicle of 11th December, 1953, he 'assisted' President Eisenhower in writing the speech in which Eisenhower told the UN General Assembly that the USA would be prepared to ease international tension by handing over her Atom and Hydrogen weapons to UNO. Eisenhower does not hesitate to accept the advice of Strauss, although this Zionist financier is senior partner in the New York International Banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Co. which in 1917, under the direction of Jacob Schiff, then the acknowledged leader of world Jewry, financed the Bolshevist revolutionary Trotsky to the extent of 20 million dollars.

Albert Einstein, the Zionist scientist, (described by Pravda as one of the ten best friends of the Soviet Union in the USA) was also thinking along the same lines when he persuaded Roosevelt (Redfield) to authorize research into nuclear fission, and recommended the employment of other Zionist scientists, who were later to pass the result of the researches to the Soviet Union.

Oppenheimer, the chief Einstein appointee, now in disgrace for Communist sympathies, and holding up production of the hydrogen bombs until Russia came into possession of its secrets: Pontecorvo, the entire host of Zionist scientists and agents working for Communism in the notorious spy rings of America, Canada, Australia and Great Britain: all have obviously been striving to bring about the present situation.

It is this overriding ambition which drives world jewry, even the most wealthy, to support Communism, either openly or secretly, only to bring the world to a point where it would seem it must accept their long envisaged 'peace plan.' "One of the major reasons for my visit to the United States," said the mayor of Jerusalem, according to the South African Jewish Times of 14th March, 1952, "is to interest Americans in the beautification of Jerusalem, the Capital of the World, no less than the Capital of Israel."

It all has been decided as described above. Why has so little been heard about it? For the simple reason that IT HAS BEEN DECIDED. The matter will not be thrown open for Gentile discussion in the popular (?) press UNTIL the Nations are browbeaten to the point where they are ready to acknowledge the Zionists' "International Super-Government, and WITH SUBMISSIVENESS".

(Note: On November 21, 1954, Czecho-Slovakia called upon the Western Powers to delay signing the Paris Agreement regarding the re-armament of West Germany, until they had discussed with the Russian bloc an agreement which might eventually result in a United States of Europe. A 'United States of Europe' was the aim of Trotsky stated in Bolshevism and World Peace, published in 1918. "The task of the proletariat is to create a still more powerful fatherland with a far greater power of resistance - the Republican United States of Europe, as the foundation of the United States of the World").

If anything, Jews have been heavily overrepresented among the ranks of theoretical physicists.

Albert Einstein is a good example of another deception and hoax involved with the atomic bomb program. When many people think of the atomic bomb they think of Einstein. He was presented as the world's greatest scientist, and a hero of the atomic bomb program. Upon closer inspection, you will find that his major contributions were his use of his influence to obtain President Roosevelt's support for the bomb and he was the one personally responsible for bringing the major Communist atomic spy Klaus Fuchs into the Program. The Russians know nothing about the atomic bomb until Fuchs brought it to their attention in 1942. (*Heisenberg's War,* p. 524).

Thanks to Fuchs, (and to a massive amount of Secret material illegally shipped through Lend-Lease) they were able to explode their own bomb in 1949. Einstein was a communist cell member with Fuchs. Fuchs was the top scientist on the Manhattan Project and he gave the atomic secrets to the Soviets. (Jordan, George Recey, *From Major Jordan's Diaries,* Harcourt, Brace and Co., New York, 1952.)

We are taught that Einstein is the author of the Theory of Relativity, yet evidence has come for the proving that the real author was Mileva Maric, Einstein's first wife.

Einstein had a reputation at the Swiss Polytechnic Institute in Zurich of being a man with poor work habits and was often reprimanded for laziness during all his school years, including the University. He developed a romance with classmate Mileva who helped him with his math. His autobiography says "In my work participated a Serbian student Mileva Maric who I married later." She had an illegitimate daughter in 1902, which they gave up for adoption. They got married in 1903, separated in 1912 and divorced in 1919. This is when Einstein married his cousin Elsa. The original manuscript of the *The Theory of Relativity* submitted for publication had Maric's name on it as co-author.

For more proof, see the article "Theory of Relativity - Who is its Real Author?" by Dr. Rastko Maglic and J. W. McGinnis, President, International Tesla Society, in the Jul/Aug 1994 issue of *Extraordinary Science* magazine, which contains references for further documentation.

Einstein was a hoax and fraud saddled on the scientific community to prevent them from learning too much and to promote Jews as being superior.

Einstein's famous equation "E=MC squared" is WRONG, or at best only partially correct. His definition of energy is WRONG, his definition of mass is WRONG, C is defined as the top speed possible for anything, then it is squared, which would be even faster and thus contradicts the definition. Light is described as a constant, which is WRONG as defined. In a higher understanding, light does not move, our perception of the speed of light is WRONG.

The correct science being discovered and revealed by such as Nikola Tesla, Walter Russell, Tom Bearden, Andrija Puharich, etc., was suppressed to prevent humanity from achieving energy independence (and thus political and military independence) from the Rockefeller/Rothschild oil/nuclear energy barons. This same technology leads to understanding of good health, and thus independence from the drug/medical crowd, who happen to be the same oil crowd crooks.

http://just-another-inside-job.blogspot.com/2007/04/albert-einstein-thief-liar-and.html

Norling
Saturday, June 4th, 2011, 10:30 AM
The majority of points and arguments raised in this thread are incorrect. I think Sigurd made the most balanced and accurate take on the matter as it is.

I'm saying this as someone who's been infatuated by the realm of theoretical physics since childhood, and in part by its history. I could elaborate further for each given claim if need be, allthough as this thread hasn't seen any action for over six months it might not be alltogether necessary.

Feyn
Monday, August 29th, 2011, 06:32 AM
Hi there,

phew, where to begin. The opening post raises many interesting points, but has also many mistakes in it. Since i am myself quite educated in phaycics and its history i would like to comment on it and a few other posts here.

QUOTE:"Proponents of Einstein have acted in a way that appears to corrupt the historical record. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Time Magazine's "Person of the Century", wrote a long treatise on special relativity theory (it was actually called "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", 1905a), without listing any references. Many of the key ideas it presented were known to Lorentz (for example, the Lorentz transformation) and Poincaré before Einstein wrote the famous 1905 paper. "

This is essentially correct, but you must take into account who einstein was when he wrote it. He wasnt used to write scientific esseys or work scientifically. Of course he should have remembered from his time as a student how important correct citattions where, but that was some time ago. Einstein allways mentioned in later years how important the work of the people before him was. But you also need to realize that this wasnt his most important work by far, its just the most famous ^^

QUOTE:" The most recognisable equation of all time is E = mc2. It is attributed by convention to be the sole province of Albert Einstein (1905). However, the conversion of matter into energy and energy into matter was known to Sir Isaac Newton ("Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another...", 1704). The equation can be attributed to S. Tolver Preston (1875), to Jules Henri Poincaré (1900; according to Brown, 1967) and to Olinto De Pretto (1904) before Einstein. Since Einstein never correctly derived E = mc2 (Ives, 1952), there appears nothing to connect the equation with anything original by Einstein.


OF COURSE the conversion from matter into energy was known to others, but thats not the really important bit about e=mc^2, the really important and new bit was c^2 . It showed how much energy a little bit of mass could have. Just to give you an idea what that means, a nuclear bomb like the one on hiroshima converses 0.1% of its nuclear material into energy, thats a few gramm .

I will go on with this later today

Feyn
Monday, August 29th, 2011, 01:46 PM
I have read now a bit more into the thread and saw that some points where allready refuted by others, so i will try to refute points that arent refuted by others allready (sorry if I repeat things nonetheless)


QUOTE:" Science, by its very nature, is insular. In general, chemists read and write about chemistry, biologists read and write about biology, and physicists read and write about physics"

Sorry to be so blunt but thats nonsense, exactly the opposite is true. Science is interconnected on many levels. Let me give you an example, archaeology : they use dating methods from physics, for example radiometric dating, from biology, for example dendrochronology, or from geology. To conservate their findings they use all kinds of chemical processes etc.etc.etc. I could find examples from allmost all brances of science.
Now you might say that archaeology is an exception, but its not. One of the bases of modern chemics is quantumelectrodynamics, a part of quantumechanics and thereby physics. In geology you need a lot of knowledge of chemics and physics to analyze/date your samples. etc.etc.etc.
Fields that rarely need help from other fields of science are pretty rare and usually limited to the theoretical parts. But as soon as you go into practical applications you very quickly need specialists from other fields, or at least someone who is well versed in other fields then his main field ^^




QUOTE:" But they may all be competing for the same research dollar (in its broadest sense). Thus, if scientists wanted more money for themselves, they might decide to compete unfairly. The way they can do this is convince the funding agencies that they are more important than any other branch of science. If the funding agencies agree, it could spell difficulty for the remaining sciences."

The competition within science is indeed quite fierce, sometimes even brutal. Now we have in science a system called peer review. In a nutshell this means that if you publish an article other scientists will repeat your experiments and calculations, will check your arguments etc to find mistakes in it. If they find anything they will publish that usually, especially if its an important article or written by a fasmous scientist, since this is a very good way to get noticed and make a name for yourself. Thats why i find the idea that einsteins papers are plagiarized an nobody wrote about that quite absurd. If anybody could have argued that way against einstein he wouild have done so to get noticed and help his carrer. The nazi´s tried that even, but nobody took their book "500 authors against einstein" really serious. Einstein himself said "if there are major mistakes in my work a single author would have been enough, but it seems there are none"


QUOTE:"Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) was a great scientist who made a significant contribution to special relativity theory. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy website says that Poincaré:

(1) "sketched a preliminary version of the special theory of relativity";
(2) "stated that the velocity of light is a limit velocity" (in his 1904 paper from the Bull. of Sci. Math. 28, Poincaré indicated "a whole new mechanics, where the inertia increasing with the velocity of light would become a limit and not be exceeded");
(3) suggested that "mass depends on speed";
(4) "formulated the principle of relativity, according to which no mechanical or electromagnetic experiment can discriminate between a state of uniform motion and a state of rest"; and
(5) "derived the Lorentz transformation".


This is all correct, but as others in this thread have allrteady written thats how science works. You take ideas from severall others, put in a few ideas of yourself, and combine all that to a new theory. ALL theories in science came about like that, none of them fell from the sky. Bocian seems not to understand how science actually works (see his idea that the fields are insular). Look into any scientific paper how often it cites the work of others. The citation list is often longer then the paper. Combining it new ways nobody has thought of before is 90% of the work, really new only 10% or less. But we must really accusae him of not making it clear enough where hze got his ideas from. Thats is indeed a big mistake and shouldnt have happened. But what speaks for him is that he never really worked as a scientists. After studying physics (a fact that is often overlooked) he didnt find a job as assistant since he had a problem with authority. THATS why he worked for the patent office, not because he wasnt good in physics.
But he had a small group of friends with which he constantly discussed the latest physics. He also was a bad worker at the patent office since most of the time he worked on his physics during working hours.
But 1905 he was finally recognized by publishing four groundbreaking papers. What most people doint realize, it wasnt relativity that made him famous at first, it was the photoelectric effect that people found so spectacular, and that later became the base of quantum mechanics ( a fact that angered einstein for the rest of his life, since nhe was a big opponent of QM). That paper was also the reason for his noble prize, not relativity.
Most people would agree that in the first half of the 20th century we had 3 breaktthroughs of greatest proportions in physcis ; generall relativity, special relativity and quantum mehcnaics. 2 of them where written by him , for the third he layed the groundwork, so we cant deny he was a genius. That doesnt mean he was a nice person, but thats another story and has nothing to do with his importance to science.
But one should also see the dark sides of einstein to be fair. To nonphysicists he must have been an awfull person, and how he behaved towards his wife is best discribed with abusive, though "only" mental abuse of the worst way. He actually set up a contract how she had to behave towards him, almost like a houseslave. So to give hiom any honours outside science is an absolute no-go. Calling him man of the century is outragious. I find it important to not forget that. His wife realkly had to suffer, and nobody wanted to see it sinbce her husband was such a famousd scientist and womans rights where practically non existent. Today he might risk going into jail for his behaviour !
Never forget that when you think about einstein.




I think i have shown with enough examples that the first post is full of mistakes, i wont go on picking on it, allthough there are many more mistakes to show. So i think the next thing will be evidence that einstein really was a genius all by himself. Many people argued that it was really his wife that did the thinking, others said he simp,ly was good at combining but had no original thougts. I would like to show you evidence that einstein was really the genius man ypeople think he is, that even among the best of the best he stood out. Thats why I will discribe to you one of the most famous debates óf the earkly 20th century in physics : the einstein -bohr debate ! But sindethis post is allready so long, and i need a break, i will do that in my next post !

Gruszi
Sunday, November 20th, 2011, 07:49 PM
The theory of relativity is mathematical and physical incorrect. At a logical association the realtivity is unrealistic.

Zauberlehrling
Sunday, November 20th, 2011, 10:50 PM
The theory of relativity is mathematical and physical incorrect. At a logical association the realtivity is unrealistic.
may I ask for falsification of the relativity of time and space?

Gruszi
Sunday, November 20th, 2011, 11:55 PM
may I ask for falsification of the relativity of time and space?

There is no relativity. It was a free invention of the jewish pseudo-scientist "Einstein" to craze the people! It is physical impossible that the time is omnipresent! And it is also impossible that the space is autonomous from the time!

Zauberlehrling
Monday, November 21st, 2011, 05:25 PM
There is no relativity. It was a free invention of the jewish pseudo-scientist "Einstein" to craze the people! It is physical impossible that the time is omnipresent! And it is also impossible that the space is autonomous from the time!
You didn't answer my question, you just recured what you said

space and time aren't autonomous, they form one continuum called spacetime

Gruszi
Monday, November 21st, 2011, 05:56 PM
You didn't answer my question, you just recured what you said

space and time aren't autonomous, they form one continuum called spacetime

That is physical right. But the theory of relativity rules that the time is omnipresent with reference to the space.

Feyn
Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011, 01:09 AM
May i ask what your background in physics is, since you feel qualified to judge the validity of the 2 relativity theories ? Are you even aware how many inventions are based on this discovery ? They all work pretty well, so if the ToR is really wrong its so damn good wrong that it makes a lot of technology possible ^^
In physics we had in the 20th century 2 major breakthroughs, one of them was relativity ! For example all our satellites would not work correctly without the ToR (theory of relativity), especially GPS wouldn´t work.

Now i would like to know where exactly ToR is mathematically incorrect, and where it is physically incorrect according to you. Bring your evidence, that he was jewish won´t do, this isn´t stormfront ^^


From what you said so far I get the suspicion that you have no idea what you are talking about, and simply attack it because einstein was a jew. Science does not care about such things ! Einstein was a genius, period !
Let me quote you :"And it is also impossible that the space is autonomous from the time!" here you confirm in your own words what einstein said, but think you would be attacking the ToR.
How about you actually inform yourself what you are talking about, before you attack one of the most important discoveries of the 20th century ? The pseudo scientist here is you, not einstein ;) There is good reason he got the noble prize in physics (not for the ToR btw, but for another very important discovery that was a big step towards quantum mechanics).

GroeneWolf
Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011, 10:01 AM
Alto a discussion about whether or not the general and special theory of relativity is correct can be interesting on its own, this is not the subject of this tread. This tread is about whether this quote from Albert Einstein also describes his scientific work :


The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.

Gruszi
Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011, 11:40 PM
May i ask what your background in physics is, since you feel qualified to judge the validity of the 2 relativity theories ? Are you even aware how many inventions are based on this discovery ? They all work pretty well, so if the ToR is really wrong its so damn good wrong that it makes a lot of technology possible ^^
In physics we had in the 20th century 2 major breakthroughs, one of them was relativity ! For example all our satellites would not work correctly without the ToR (theory of relativity), especially GPS wouldn´t work.

Now i would like to know where exactly ToR is mathematically incorrect, and where it is physically incorrect according to you. Bring your evidence, that he was jewish won´t do, this isn´t stormfront ^^


From what you said so far I get the suspicion that you have no idea what you are talking about, and simply attack it because einstein was a jew. Science does not care about such things ! Einstein was a genius, period !
Let me quote you :"And it is also impossible that the space is autonomous from the time!" here you confirm in your own words what einstein said, but think you would be attacking the ToR.
How about you actually inform yourself what you are talking about, before you attack one of the most important discoveries of the 20th century ? The pseudo scientist here is you, not einstein ;) There is good reason he got the noble prize in physics (not for the ToR btw, but for another very important discovery that was a big step towards quantum mechanics).

And you allege the relativity of Einstein is 100% phisical correct?

He maked lots of misstakes in his theories. An simple example is the consolidation of the dynamic and kinematics. "Dynamic" is the device of sinews in a movement and "kinetic" is the device of the virtual movement.

Einstein alleged the interaction of inertia and electro-magnetic waves in electro-magnetic-fields is possible to alienate it into powerless movements of relativity in macroscopical body.

But the electro-magnetic resistance is not the resistance of inertia! Or you think electro-magnetic fields are identic to fields of gravitation?

It is irrelevant if he was a jew or not. It is relevant that his theories of relativity are illogical!

Feyn
Friday, November 25th, 2011, 04:19 AM
First of all let me hope that your knowledge of physics is better then your knowledge of the english language ^^ So let me ask you again before we go into details what your background in physics is, just so i know at what level we can discuss this.
Of course it is not 100% correct, no theory in all of science is, but it is pretty damn close to all we can observe so far. Many things he predicted science has confirmed later with astonishing accuracy like gravitational lensing, the increase of mass when particles are accelerated etc.etc. and i ask you again what is your evidence ? Where is it incorrect ? Name any experiment where ToE makes wrong predictions. I guess you don´t really understand relativity, or are shocked by some of its implications. But i can assure you that what einstein predicted is what we observe in the laboratories.

Gruszi
Friday, November 25th, 2011, 10:07 PM
First of all let me hope that your knowledge of physics is better then your knowledge of the english language ^^ So let me ask you again before we go into details what your background in physics is, just so i know at what level we can discuss this.
Of course it is not 100% correct, no theory in all of science is, but it is pretty damn close to all we can observe so far. Many things he predicted science has confirmed later with astonishing accuracy like gravitational lensing, the increase of mass when particles are accelerated etc.etc. and i ask you again what is your evidence ? Where is it incorrect ? Name any experiment where ToE makes wrong predictions. I guess you don´t really understand relativity, or are shocked by some of its implications. But i can assure you that what einstein predicted is what we observe in the laboratories.

As a scientist my knowledge of physics must be well. My knowledge about the english language must be well, too. But it isn´t easy to translate the physical terms in the english language.

What do you mean with "my background"? I don´t argue with any background, I argue only scientistical.


Examples for the wrongness of the ToE:
An example is the localisation of perihelion of the mercury. Einstein alleged that his theories of relativity would can explain this localisation.
But Einstein hadn´t explained this process in any words and in any released arithmetic. He consigned only this formula:

ε = 3 π · α / a ( 1 - e² )

ε = localisation of perihelionlocalisation of mercury in arc seconds
a = semi-axis
e = eccentricity

But Einstein not explained, what "α" means. G. Falk and W. Ruppel explainted, it means "Schwarzschildradius" (I don´t know the english word) with the formula: (r = 2 G · M / c² ).

If you put the "Schwarzschildradius" into the formula, you´ll support ε= 3 π · 2 G · M / c² ( a ( 1 - e²))

The formula contains the constant of gravitation, the measure of our sun and the parameter of the elliptic raceway of mercury and the speed of light. This doesn´t matter of any relativity.

Feyn
Saturday, November 26th, 2011, 05:33 AM
I was not talking about technical vocabulary. i was talking about maked (should be made), phisical (physical , physik wird auch im deutschen mit y geschrieben), would can (could), explainted (explained) etc. etc.^^ These are really basic mistakes ! So your claims that "My knowledge about the english language must be well, too" are pretty exaggerated !


So you say you are a scientist with a "well" knowledge in physics (it should be : I know physics well, or i have a good knowledge of physics btw.) ? Well brilliant, then these papers shouldn´t pose a problem to you :

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0106087 here 2 effects the ToE predicted are shown, gravitational lensing and gravitational waves

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0105411 Here the effect of the lensing is so strong you see a quadruply picture

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104440 lensing of high redshifted Ia SN´s (i believe z=1.7 and higher with extremely good detail measured, so you can really wonderfully compare the predictions of ToE with reality here)

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104399 (this here is from the VLA radio telescope, just wonderful)

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0105355 (and to conclude the gravitational lensing the famous SN 1997ff, here also z=1.7 )


http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.0263 (einstein hair, here you can se practically a few things)

Now let´s get to your claim einstein would have given us ONLY a formula, without explaining it in any words. I believe you are very much mistaken there :

http://books.google.de/books?hl=de&lr=&id=mCOtbqBPNhQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA129&dq=Explanation+of+the+Motion+of+Mercury% 27s+Perihelion+by+the+Theory+of+General+ Relativity&ots=UzJYlVr0J0&sig=1HuHoAKHRyWw6Z5eiwIvQxsEd1Y#v=onepag e&q=Explanation%20of%20the%20Motion%20of%2 0Mercury%27s%20Perihelion%20by%20the%20T heory%20of%20General%20Relativity&f=false

That should clear this point i guess. Einstein explained that in a very extensive paper (which is quite an interesting read btw). Now why would you want to incorporate the schwarzschild radius in the formula ? I don´t think i quite follow you here. I mean what does a black hole have to do with this ? You are aware the schwartzschild radius is the point of no return around a black hold so to speak ? Once you pass that there is no going back, since inside the schwartzschild radius you would need v>c to escape, on the radius its exactly c.



QUOTE FROM YOU :"What do you mean with "my background"? I don´t argue with any background, I argue only scientistical."

I think i made it perfectly clear why i asked you this : to a layman i have to explain these things differently and use other, simpler arguments then discussing with a student of physics for example. So to ask you about your background in physics is a legitimate question, that makes a lot of sense. I have no idea why you make this annotations concerning this question, making it sound like I didn´t want to argue scientifically (NOT scientistical).

zureagieren
Monday, November 28th, 2011, 03:49 AM
All of this "Einstein was a liar and plagiarist" stuff is written by laymen who disagree with his politics. They can't even comprehend his science, so they attack it in an extremely puerile way. You can argue with the degree to which he is credited, certainly, but not the basic fact that he made major contributions. His politics were revolting, yes, but he was still a brilliant mind. Man of the century, though? I doubt it.

As a non-scientist, I certainly sympathize. I would not be able to understand the arguments pro or con. However, Einstein has a large advantage over other scientists: he has the support of the Jewish media. Two people making the same contribution, one being Jewish will get the sympathetic coverage.

The Barnes Review published a downloadable article in 2001 (http://www.barnesreview.org/index.php?main_page=document_product_inf o&cPath=22_61&products_id=328) that reviewed the scientific background issues, as well as Einstein's apparent abilities.

Feyn
Tuesday, November 29th, 2011, 12:17 AM
There was no other one making the same contributions. We had 3 major breakthroughs in the early 20th century : quantum mechanics, general relativity and special relativity. While the later 2 where written by him, he lay the groundwork for the third by discovering the photoelectric effect (for which he later got the noble prize, he should have gotten it again for relativity, but it was too ahead of its time to be proven)

Dropkick
Tuesday, November 29th, 2011, 01:17 AM
There is a mountain of evidence out there against Einstein. The most interesting thing is his character. If he cheated on his wives he'd have no problem cheating in his work.

BkpWc0RB-KE

jVUpdcYIhcc

Gruszi
Tuesday, November 29th, 2011, 02:29 AM
@ Dropkick

This is the typical psychology of a jew.

@ Feyn

I will read your texts later, because it´s to arduous for me to translate that all in german.

But it succeeds very easily, the theory of relativity to be able to refute with their own means. The theorie of relativity and especially the "general theorie of relativity" will eventually expand the Newton physics and therefore also includes as a limiting case, the Newton physics, particularly Newton's law of gravity.
In our solar system is a very high accuracy, the Newton's law of gravitation, as Einstein eligible for the typical velocities and the gravitational potentials are so small that the "Newtonian limit" of the "general theorie of relativity" is practically reached.
This is also evident that in the equations of the typical additional terms to Einstein's virtually zero. One can write the equations of "general theory of relativity" from the "MTW" practically in a simplified representation of this:

Newton gravitational acceleration = + Einstein equation
In the Newtonian limit of the value of the Additional Terms Einstein practically 0, and therefore applies then:
gravitational acceleration = Newtons equation + 0 = Newton equation
The distinctive feature of the Newton equation is the gravitational effect of velocity cg, which is explicitly included in the Newton equation with the value infinitely fast. Hence comes the term, which would take into account a deficit, if cg would be infinitely less quickly, usually not in the formula, because then the responsibility for Retardierungsterm is also 0. Were this not the case, should the original Newton equation can be expanded. Denotes the gravitational effect of speed with CG would look like:
grav. Newton equation + = acceleration retardation / cg
Only if cg is infinitely fast, this term can Retardation / cg omitted since retardation / oo = 0. The "general theory of relativity" of the "MTW" equation must therefore be like this in the general case, when the speed of gravitation is not infinitely fast, but only c is large:
grav. Newton, Einstein equation acceleration = + + retardation / c
And in the Newtonian limit must always remain at least that, if Einstein is to 0, but the gravitational effect of velocity cg is replaced by c:
grav. Newton equation acceleration = + 0 + retardation / c + = Newton equation retardation / c

However, since the term retardation / c is not in the "MTW" equation, ie ART-Newton as well as "MTW" must reckon with an infinitely high speed action of gravity. According to Albert Einstein, but it should be no effect, which is faster than light. But he expects in his ART equation shown to be effective even with an infinitely high speed, since the retardation / c is omitted, which then corresponds to an infinitely fast speed of action. This means that his equations are already contradictory in itself, since they have two effective velocities and the higher one than the alleged "speed limit" is the speed of light.

Feyn
Tuesday, November 29th, 2011, 03:15 AM
How about you send me your arguments in german ? Half of the time i can´t really make out what you mean in the english text.