PDA

View Full Version : Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century



BuzKlown
Friday, December 29th, 2006, 04:25 PM
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Plagiarist of the Century
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 11, Number 1 (December-January 2004)
PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. editor@nexusmagazine.com
Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com
by Richard Moody, Jr © 2003
777 Treadlemire Road
Berne, NY 12023
USA
Email: Slmrea@aol.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Complete Article: http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html

Mazorquero
Friday, December 29th, 2006, 07:16 PM
Einstein also based much of his work in those of the British scientist Maxwell and maybe in Enrico Fermi's investigations.
Maxwell is well known in the scientific world because he was one of the firsts who dared to confront Newton's laws, and not Einstein, as many biographies say. Maxwell started the work that showed the intimate relationship between electricity and magnetism, being summed up in "Maxwell's laws": Faraday-Lenz law, Ampère-Maxwell law and the two Gauss laws for electromagnetic fields. These four laws were adapted by him from earlier studies by the scientists mentioned in the laws, and this are the laws that show us the behavior of all electromagnetic waves, from visible light to radio waves.
Einstein admitted basing his work in Maxwell, this is quoted in one of the most famous and popular modern physics books, "Halliday-Resnick" for those familiarized with the authors. It can be mathematically demonstrated using the four laws that all electromagnetic waves travell at the speed of light in vacuum, I had to do it in an exam at the university, so there's no mistery behind this statement.
About Fermi, this Italian scientist was the first in building in USA a nuclear reactor. Nuclear reactions are not chemical but physical, because in chemical reactions atoms remain unaltered, but in nuclear reactions atoms can be transformed into other ones, or a more drastical thing: matter is transformed into energy, that's what happens in an A-bomb.
I heard quite a long time ago that there might be a link between Fermi and Einstein, but I do not have yet a reliable source to cite. However, this is highly possible, because the investigations by Fermi and others involved in nuclear forces and radiation (like Planck and Rutherford) should have based in Maxwell's conclusions and allow us to think that they knew in some way that matter can be transformed into energy and viceversa.
It's remarcable as well the mistery around Einstein's participation in the Manhattan Project, the Philadelphia Project and many investigations held by Germans during WWII. The following thread has some interesting facts:
http://forums.skadi.net/question_dr_wolff_and_anyone_can_bring_l ight_clean_energies-t61977.html?&highlight=clean+energies

hermeticist
Friday, December 29th, 2006, 08:19 PM
Einstein also based much of his work in those of the British scientist Maxwell


Maxwell is well known in the scientific world because he was one of the firsts who dared to confront Newton's laws, and not Einstein, as many biographies say.

I'm not sure whether "confront" is the right word: Newtonian mechanics didn't deal with electrodynamics. Newton postulated an absolute space and an absolute time for his mechanistic conception of the cosmos (which was spectacularly successful in explaining and predicting phenomena in our solar system), and a primitive form of relativity known as "Galilean relativity."

The problem was to reconcile Maxwell's electrodynamics with Newton's mechanics: this is where special relativity comes in. People like Poincare had already derived some of the equations of SR, but not on the elegant and spare foundation of Einstein: 1) the speed of light is constant in any inertial frame, and 2) the laws of physics should be the same in any inertial frame. The consequences of these axioms are far-reaching; in particular, it appears that space and time are fused together in a "Minkowski spactime" of four dimensions, and can only be disentangled by each observer in his own unique fashion.

Resnick and Halliday, incidentally, is still used on some American campuses as a first-year text -- it's been around for over forty years I think.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Saturday, December 30th, 2006, 04:59 AM
Somewhere I have a copy of a letter from Prof. Friedrich Lachner which was reprinted in a book. In that letter it was stated that Einstein did not originate his famous equation. It was credited to another man, I forget his name, but it was balanced differently. For instance:

E=MC2 was written C2=E/M or something like this.

According to this interpetation, Einstein only rebalanced the equation, and so made the point of most interest to himself. Einstein never gave credit where credit was due.

Corvin
Saturday, December 30th, 2006, 08:29 AM
On Einstein
I strongly suggest the : http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/MainPage.htm which is the site of Christopher Bjerknes and his book: Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist which I have read it. It can be bought on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Albert-Einstein-Incorrigible-Christopher-Bjerknes/dp/0971962987

The book puts forward all the previous work on Electromagnetics and theories of time and space which was a collective work of all the humanity. I have verified personally the claim that the original submission of work was made from his wife Mileve Maric (Pronounced Maritz) because of access in the University Library of Zürich that I have.

Sincerelly
CvA

Mazorquero
Saturday, December 30th, 2006, 08:01 PM
I'm not sure whether "confront" is the right word: Newtonian mechanics didn't deal with electrodynamics. Newton postulated an absolute space and an absolute time for his mechanistic conception of the cosmos (which was spectacularly successful in explaining and predicting phenomena in our solar system), and a primitive form of relativity known as "Galilean relativity."
The problem was to reconcile Maxwell's electrodynamics with Newton's mechanics: this is where special relativity comes in. People like Poincare had already derived some of the equations of SR, but not on the elegant and spare foundation of Einstein: 1) the speed of light is constant in any inertial frame, and 2) the laws of physics should be the same in any inertial frame. The consequences of these axioms are far-reaching; in particular, it appears that space and time are fused together in a "Minkowski spactime" of four dimensions, and can only be disentangled by each observer in his own unique fashion.
Resnick and Halliday, incidentally, is still used on some American campuses as a first-year text -- it's been around for over forty years I think.

You're right, the word "confront" is not accurate. I wanted to mean the
fact that Newtonian mechanics can't explain the electromagnetic phenomena and the highspeed mechanics. The first is due to the lack of the concept of electromagnetism in classical Newtonian mechanics, Newton stated that light was a stream of particles, and particles are matter. Fresnell and Maxwell turned down partially this statement; actually, Fresnell had to demonstrate with a experiment before regarded scientists that light behaves as a wave. However, none of those theories are absolutely right, nowadays it´s accepted that light is both a stream of particles (photons) and a wave. Something similar happens with electrons, a problem that Niels Bohr found when elaborating his atomic model. Bohr also found problems of energy conservation, because according to Newtonian mechanics, electrons should fall towards the atom nuclei, and they don't. This doesn't mean that Newton was a fool, all the contrary, he was a genius indeed, his theories are particular cases of quantum and relativity physics (those theories are a consequence of studies on Newtonian mechanics also).
And if Halliday-Resnick is used today as a first year book in many campuses around the world, it's because it's an excellent book, it leaves a perfect base of knowledge and is clear and accurate in every lesson, at least according to my personal experience.
Another interesting fact about Einstein: when he was trying to demonstrate a statement or a formula (I don't remember which now), he realised that it wouldn't be possible if you consider that the Universe grows, so he just "declared" that the Universe doesn't grow, that it's invariable, thus "confirming" his supositions. Edwin Hubble demonstrated the contrary, the Universe does grow, and lead to the Big Bang theory.

hermeticist
Saturday, December 30th, 2006, 10:20 PM
<snip> However, none of those theories are absolutely right, nowadays it´s accepted that light is both a stream of particles (photons) and a wave. Something similar happens with electrons, a problem that Niels Bohr found when elaborating his atomic model. Bohr also found problems of energy conservation, because according to Newtonian mechanics, electrons should fall towards the atom nuclei, and they don't.

Yes, quite. As you know, we call this "wave-particle duality" and it lies at the foundation of modern physics.


Another interesting fact about Einstein: when he was trying to demonstrate a statement or a formula (I don't remember which now), he realised that it wouldn't be possible if you consider that the Universe grows, so he just "declared" that the Universe doesn't grow, that it's invariable, thus "confirming" his supositions. Edwin Hubble demonstrated the contrary, the Universe does grow, and lead to the Big Bang theory.

Yes, Einstein added a constant to one of his GR equations so that it would explain a steady-state universe: something which he ever afterwards deeply regretted doing. General relativity (untampered) predicts an expanding universe (expansion is empirically corroborated by red shift among receding galaxies).