Page 1 of 7 123456 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 62

Thread: Albert Einstein, Plagiarist of the Century

  1. #1
    Account Inactive bocian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Saturday, January 13th, 2007 @ 09:38 AM
    Subrace
    Intermarine (Arya)
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Gender
    Politics
    N/A
    Posts
    987
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Lightbulb 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.


    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, 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.
    Webster, N. (1947), Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, p. 1878.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 1st, 2007 @ 02:47 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Location
    Prussian diaspora
    Gender
    Politics
    Prussian restoration
    Posts
    101
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Einstein - Plagiarist?

    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.

  3. #3
    Account Inactive bocian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Saturday, January 13th, 2007 @ 09:38 AM
    Subrace
    Intermarine (Arya)
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Gender
    Politics
    N/A
    Posts
    987
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Einstein - Plagiarist?

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPrussian
    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.

  4. #4
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, February 9th, 2006 @ 08:40 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    805
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Einstein - Plagiarist?

    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...
    Last edited by The Blond Beast; Saturday, October 30th, 2004 at 02:18 AM.

  5. #5
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, September 5th, 2008 @ 07:36 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Posts
    4,095
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    16 Posts

    Post Re: Einstein - Plagiarist?

    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.

  6. #6
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, February 9th, 2006 @ 08:40 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    805
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Einstein - Plagiarist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff
    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?
    Last edited by The Blond Beast; Saturday, October 30th, 2004 at 11:46 PM.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Stríbog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Last Online
    Thursday, January 13th, 2005 @ 12:45 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid-Baltid (Aistin)
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    Where Rust Belt meets Farm Belt
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Occupation
    college student
    Politics
    Environmentalism and eugenics
    Religion
    occultism & Nature worship
    Posts
    2,160
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post Re: Einstein - Plagiarist?

    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 1st, 2007 @ 02:47 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Location
    Prussian diaspora
    Gender
    Politics
    Prussian restoration
    Posts
    101
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Lightbulb Re: Einstein - Plagiarist?

    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

    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. on physics.web, http://physicsweb.org/articles/review/16/4/2/1


    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."

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 1st, 2007 @ 02:47 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Location
    Prussian diaspora
    Gender
    Politics
    Prussian restoration
    Posts
    101
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Einstein - Plagiarist?

    Quote Originally Posted by THE BLOND BEAST
    Quote Originally Posted by THE BLOND BEAST
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by THE BLOND BEAST
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by THE BLOND BEAST
    Simplicity also suggest that supposition and pedantic misinterpretation do not form a solid basis for historiography...


    Are you taking a history of science class?
    Quote Originally Posted by Stribog
    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/ Just scroll down. Project Gutenberg also has it http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=5001 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 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by THE BLOND BEAST
    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

    Go here http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.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
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by THE BLOND BEAST
    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/

    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 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/

    Virginia Department of Education

    http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Div/Winchester/jhhs/math/quotes.html


  10. #10
    Senior Member Stríbog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Last Online
    Thursday, January 13th, 2005 @ 12:45 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid-Baltid (Aistin)
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    Where Rust Belt meets Farm Belt
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Occupation
    college student
    Politics
    Environmentalism and eugenics
    Religion
    occultism & Nature worship
    Posts
    2,160
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post Re: Einstein - Plagiarist?

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPrussian
    [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.

Page 1 of 7 123456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Albert Einstein's FBI File (Affiliation with the Communist Party)
    By Ulf in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, November 10th, 2008, 11:35 PM
  2. Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century
    By BuzKlown in forum Research & Technology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Saturday, December 30th, 2006, 11:20 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •