Einstein is not a God
pubm...@charter.net
Einstein is not a God but face it, he is,was and remains correct. What
I wonder about is what he knew that he did not tell us. I feel sure he
knew more than he cared to share. I also believe his wife had a big
part into all of this. But no, he is not a God. I think the term is
Human.
ca314159
It was probably just a typo.
"Good" created the universe.
Arfur Dogfrey
Einstein was quite different from the majority of physicists in his day.
The "usual" way that physics works is FIRST: data from experiments is
found that is not accounted for by present theory SECOND: new theories
are created to account for the new data.
This is the way Quantum Mechanics was created, for instance.
Einstein looked at things from a fundamental philosophical viewpoint.
He knew that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean
tranformation. He also had great "faith" in the principle of relativity
(the "galilean" principle that says we cannot detect absolute motion)
He created Special Relativity account for both Maxwell's theory and
the "galilean" principle of relativity.
At the time that SR was published MMX had been performed (Einstein alludes
to it in his 1905 paper.) but Einstein says that he had worked out much
of the basis of SR before learning about the MMX null result.
Had Einstein not created SR then someone else probably would have within
the next decade or so.
GR, however, is a different thing all together. There was basically NO
experimental data that was used to drive the creation of GR. Had Einstein
not created it to satisfy his desire for a simple, consistent philosophical
view of things then it probably might not have been created by anyone else
for 50 years or so. It is only now that we are able to do experiments which
need GR for their explanation.
This is why Einstein, even though he gave it an early impetus, was never
satisfied with QM. Quantum Mechanics was created to explain the data that
was coming out from various experiments. Even though the predictions of
QM were fabulously successful Einstein did not like what he saw as
terrible philosophical problems with its fundamental basis. This is why
his only contribution to quantum mechanics (after he helped get it started)
was to critique it. (ERP paradox paper etc.)
What did he know that he didn't tell?? I think he probably told someone or
other anything important about physics that he knew. Although he was a
solitary person socially, he was not reclusive with his results and thoughts
on physics like, say, Godel was known to be.
Anything Einstein left unsaid was either considered unimportant by him or
not complete even in his mind (unified field theory etc.).
Arf!
Arfur
George Hammond
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah!
baaaahhhhh ha ahahahahh hahahhahah ha ah ha ha ha h
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah!
haaaahhhhh ha ahahahahh hahahhahah ha ah ha ha ha h
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah
baaaahhhhh ha ahahahahh hahahhahah ha ah ha ha ha ha!
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah
baaaahhhhh ha ahahahahh hahahhahah ha ah ha ha ha h
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah!
haaaahhhhh ha ahahahahh hahahhahah ha ah ha ha ha h
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah!
baaaahhhhh ha ahahahahh hahahhahah ha ah ha ha ha h
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah
baaaahhhhh ha ahahahahh hahahhahah ha ah ha ha ha h
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah
haaaahhhhh ha ahahahahh hahahhahah ha ah ha ha ha h
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah!
baaaahhhhh ha ahahahahh hahahhahah ha ah ha ha ha h
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah
baaaahhhhh ha ahahahahh hahahhahah ha ah ha ha ha h
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah
haaaahhhhh ha ahahahahh hahahhahah ha ah ha ha ha h
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah
baaaahhhhh ha ahahahahh hahahhahah ha ah ha ha ha h
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah
baaaahhhhh ha ahahahahh hahahhahah ha ah ha ha ha h
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah
haaaahhhhh ha ahahahahh hahahhahah ha ah ha ha ha h
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah
baaaahhhhh ha ahahahahh hahahhahah ha ah ha ha ha h
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah
baaaahhhhh ha ahahahahh hahahhahah ha ah ha ha ha h
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah
haaaahhhhh ha ahahahahh hahahhahah ha ah ha ha ha h
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah
baaaahhhhh ha ahahahahh hahahhahah ha ah ha ha ha h
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah
baaaahhhhh ha ahahahahh hahahhahah ha ah ha ha ha h
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah
haaaahhhhh ha ahahahahh hahahhahah ha ah ha ha ha h
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah
baaaahhhhh ha ahahahahh hahahhahah ha ah ha ha ha h
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah
baaaahhhhh ha ahahahahh hahahhahah ha ah ha ha ha h
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah
haaaahhhhh ha ahahahahh hahahhahah ha ah ha ha ha h
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah
baaaahhhhh ha ahahahahh hahahhahah ha ah ha ha ha h
hahahahah hhaaaaahhahahah ahhahaaaaaahahah ha ah ha ha
haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa haa hah hha hah hah...!!!!!!
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/index.html
=======================================================
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"George Hammond" <gham...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3D1E51F4...@attbi.com...
Stephen Speicher
>
> At the time that SR was published MMX had been performed (Einstein alludes
> to it in his 1905 paper.) but Einstein says that he had worked out much
> of the basis of SR before learning about the MMX null result.
>
Would you care to provide a reference for the above assertion?
Here is a quote to the contrary.
"While I was thinking of this problem in my student
years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson's
experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea
about the motion of the earth with respect to the ether
is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's null result as a
fact. This was the first path which led me to the
special theory of relativity."
---Albert Einstein, "How I Created The Theory of
Relativity", Speech at Kyoto University, Dec. 1922.
> Had Einstein
> not created it to satisfy his desire for a simple, consistent philosophical
> view of things then it probably might not have been created by anyone else
> for 50 years or so.
Do you realize just how close Hilbert came to the field equations
in his November 20, 1915 paper? There is recent evidence which
shows that Hilbert may have "borrowed" some of Einstein's
concepts and revised his own paper after Einstein's publication a
week after his, but still, Hilbert was close, though not all there.
Hardly "50 years" away.
> It is only now that we are able to do experiments which
> need GR for their explanation.
>
Only now? I would suggest some historical reading about the
experimental verification of general relativity. After the
initial experiments in the 1920s, there was a lull period for
several decades where only a small number of experiments were
squeezed in. However, by the end of the 1950s relativity was
beginning its renaissance, and 1960s saw the rebirth and eventual
continued experimental validation of general relativity. Hardly
"only now."
--
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Reality is the breach between morality and totalitarianism.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
~
BernardZ
says...
> Einstein is not a God but face it, he is,was and remains correct.
>
force and then reckoned that he was wrong about it - we are not sure
about this. he also reckoned that quantum mechanicals was wrong. Again
we are not sure about his arguments either.
I reckon just assume that Einstein was right even when he reckons that
he was not.
Robert J. Kolker
BernardZ wrote:
>>
> I doubt Einstein would agree with this! He invented the cosmological
> force and then reckoned that he was wrong about it - we are not sure
> about this. he also reckoned that quantum mechanicals was wrong. Again
> we are not sure about his arguments either.
Had Einstein lived to see it, Bell's Theorem and the experimental proof
that Bell's inequalities do not hold might have given the Old Man pause.
Bob Kolker
David Evens
reply delete Flag> wrote:
>In article <3d1da7ed...@news.charter.net>, pubm...@charter.net
>says...
>> Einstein is not a God but face it, he is,was and remains correct.
>>
>I doubt Einstein would agree with this! He invented the cosmological
>force and then reckoned that he was wrong about it - we are not sure
>about this. he also reckoned that quantum mechanicals was wrong. Again
>we are not sure about his arguments either.
Actually, we ARE sure about his arguments: Each and every argument
Einstein was able to come up with against QM was definitely
demonstrated to be, and accepted by Einstein to be, wrong.
>I reckon just assume that Einstein was right even when he reckons that
>he was not.
That wouldn't make any sense. You would start assuming his Unified
Field Theory was right, and he never even got that finished.
Stephen Speicher
> On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 21:11:10 +1000, BernardZ <Bern...@FlagMail.com to
> reply delete Flag> wrote:
> >I doubt Einstein would agree with this! He invented the cosmological
> >force and then reckoned that he was wrong about it - we are not sure
> >about this. he also reckoned that quantum mechanicals was wrong. Again
> >we are not sure about his arguments either.
>
> Actually, we ARE sure about his arguments: Each and every argument
> Einstein was able to come up with against QM was definitely
> demonstrated to be, and accepted by Einstein to be, wrong.
>
I have no idea where you get this latter notion from. Till the
day that he died Einstein continued to accept the facts of
quantum mechanics, but he continued to reject, for the very same
reasons as always, the conceptual structure of QM. I could
provide you with dozens of quotes from Einstein on this, but I am
in a hurry so here is just one.
"The wonder [about quantum mechanics] is only that one
can represent so much with it, although the most
important theoretical source of knowledge, group
invariance, finds such incomplete application there.
...It is the case that a logically coherent theory that
is connected appropriately to the real state of affairs
usually has great explanatory power, even if it is
little related to the deeper truth."
--Einstein in a letter to Schroedinger, dated
July 16, 1946.
BernardZ
He might have as Bell himself stated "the cheapest resolution is
something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when
people like Lorentz and Poincare thought that there was an aether - a
preferred frame of reference." If old Einstein accepted this then he
would have to give up much of his early works.
The other possibility was that he would rather have accepted the concept
of a backward fork. Quite possible as he was willing to consider Goedel
arguments about time.
Or he could have just kept plodding on. Which is also quite possible as
Einstein by that stage, had passed his use by date. And he could be
dogmatic.
Who knows?
Meenken
man( alte Herr),
then as he was a jew,he was not a particular church or synagoge goer either
<pubm...@charter.net> schreef in bericht
news:3d1da7ed...@news.charter.net...
Bill Hobba
Stephen Speicher wrote:
> Do you realize just how close Hilbert came to the field equations
> in his November 20, 1915 paper? There is recent evidence which
> shows that Hilbert may have "borrowed" some of Einstein's
> concepts and revised his own paper after Einstein's publication a
> week after his, but still, Hilbert was close, though not all there.
> Hardly "50 years" away.
>
Too true.
In fact I have read he came up with the equations a little before Einstein.
Stephen would probably know the details.
However being the man he was, he viewed the physical part as Einstein's
discovery and, as far as I can see, never tried to lay claim for it. After
all he is as immortal in mathematics as Einstein is in physics and hardly
needed the extra fame.
Thanks
Bill
Stephen Speicher
>
> Stephen Speicher wrote:
> > Do you realize just how close Hilbert came to the field equations
> > in his November 20, 1915 paper? There is recent evidence which
> > shows that Hilbert may have "borrowed" some of Einstein's
> > concepts and revised his own paper after Einstein's publication a
> > week after his, but still, Hilbert was close, though not all there.
> > Hardly "50 years" away.
> >
>
> Too true.
>
> In fact I have read he came up with the equations a little before Einstein.
> Stephen would probably know the details.
>
We recently had a thread which went into this in some detail. As
a quick synopsis:
The issue of priority as to the field equations has been a
long-standing controversy. The record shows that Hilbert
submitted his "The Foundations of Physics" (First Note) on
November 20, 1915, while Einstein submitted his "The Field
Equations of Gravitation" on November 25, 1915. During the
preceding weeks there was a flurry of correspondence between
Einstein and Hilbert, and based upon this and other information
some gave priority to Hilbert, some to Einstein, some to both,
and some even argued that Einstein may have plagiarized his
publication from Hilbert's earlier paper.
In 1984, based on the discovery of a previously unknown letter by
Einstein to his friend Zangger, a paper was written which made
clear that Einstein had thought that Hilbert was trying to
"partake" in his discovery. The discovery of this letter tied in
well with the long-ago claim by Einstein's assistant Ernst Gabor
Straus, that Einstein thought that Hilbert had, perhaps
unwittingly, plagiarized Einstein's ideas, and that Hilbert sent
a note of apology to Einstein.
Then, based on the quite recent discovery of the proofs of
Hilbert's paper discovered in the archive, Leo Corry wrote a
devastating paper in 1997 which outlined how the November 20
version of Hilbert's paper did not contain the generally
covariant field equations, and that other notes strongly
suggested that Hilbert had made changes to the paper after
Einstein's publication, and that Hilbert did not note in the
final paper the changes that were made. This was later further
analyzed in great detail by David E. Rowe in a 2001 paper, in
which Hilbert comes out looking even worse. It appears that the
evidence Rowe presents shows, not only the extensive
unacknowledged changes in Novemeber 1915, but an even worse
offense by Hilbert in a 1924 paper, with Hilbert "purposefully
blurring the historical record later, probably because he wished
to divert attention from his own past mistakes."
I have read many scholarly papers on this, and have spoken with
some of the scholars, and even those who attempt to portray
Hilbert in a more favorable light, admit that the interpretations
lent to the evidence by people such as Corry and Rowe, are
reasonable interpretations of the facts.
> However being the man he was, he viewed the physical part as
> Einstein's discovery and, as far as I can see, never tried to
> lay claim for it. After all he is as immortal in mathematics
> as Einstein is in physics and hardly needed the extra fame.
>
Hilbert acknowledged Einstein's work in his paper, so it is
doubtful that he had chosen to exclude Einstein and "lay claim
for it" himself. However, the evidence does seem to show that
what Einstein suspected was correct, namely that Hilbert was
determined to "partake" in the discovery, even to the extent of
changing the historical record to make things appear other than
how they were. As I indicated up above, Hilbert was close to the
finale, but had not yet arrived. Unfortunately, this otherwise
great man seems to have tarnished his record by some misguided
unethical behavior. A real shame.
Arfur Dogfrey
> On 29 Jun 2002, Arfur Dogfrey wrote:
> >
> > At the time that SR was published MMX had been performed (Einstein alludes
> > to it in his 1905 paper.) but Einstein says that he had worked out much
> > of the basis of SR before learning about the MMX null result.
> >
>
> Would you care to provide a reference for the above assertion?
> Here is a quote to the contrary.
>
> "While I was thinking of this problem in my student
> years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson's
> experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea
> about the motion of the earth with respect to the ether
> is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's null result as a
> fact. This was the first path which led me to the
> special theory of relativity."
>
> ---Albert Einstein, "How I Created The Theory of
> Relativity", Speech at Kyoto University, Dec. 1922.
Interesting. Your quote sent me to Ronald Clark's "Einstein the
Life and Times." There he discusses breifly the question of what
did Einstein know of MMX and when did he know it.
From a letter written by Einstein in 1942:
"...[I] was pretty much convinced of the validity of the principle
before I did know of this experiment [MMX] and its result." (p.
96)
From an interview in 1952:
"...I am not sure when I first heard of the Michelson experiment.
I was not conscious that it influenced me directly during the
seven years that relativity had been my life. I guess I just
took it for granted that it was true."
From an interview in 1950:
"he [Einstein] told me he had become aware of it through the
writings
of H. A. Lorentz, but ONLY AFTER 1905 had it come to his
attention.
'Otherwise,' he said, 'I would have mentioned it in my paper.'"
This is interesting since the 1905 paper (at least in the English
translation published by Dover etc.) mentions
"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the `light medium,'
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of
mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of
absolute rest."
In 1953 Einstein was interviewed for Michael Polanyi by Dr. N. Balazs
who reported that:
"The Michelson-Morely experiment had no role in the foundation
of the theory. He got acquainted with it while reading Lorentz's
paper about the theory of this experiment (he of course does not
remember exactly when, though prior to his paper), but it had no
further influence on Einstein's consideration and the theory of
relativity was not founded to explain its outcome at all."
I was unable to find your quote from Kyoto mentioned in Clark's book.
It is interesting that your quote which acknowledges knowing the MMX
before working out SR was made in 1922, long before the quotes which
I found in Clark.
I also remember the quote mentioning that at age 16 Einstein had
discovered
a "paradox" by considering what would happen if he could travel
alongside
a light beam at the speed of the beam. He would then observe a
"spatially
oscillatory electromagnetic field at rest." Which would contradict
Maxwell's
equations.
It is my understanding that Einstein's main impetus in forming SR was
to
extend the Galilean principle of relativity to Maxwell's equations.
Rather
than to "explain" MMX. That he may have heard of MMX before the 1905
paper
and mis-remembered the order of things later in life is quite
possible--
even probable. However that mis-remembering is made easier if we
assume
that MMX was basically a confirmation to Einstein that he was already
on
the right path rather than a starting point for developing the theory.
Of course, an alternate explanation is that later in life he wanted
more
credit for originality that he wanted earlier in life and so lied.
>
> > Had Einstein
> > not created it to satisfy his desire for a simple, consistent philosophical
> > view of things then it probably might not have been created by anyone else
> > for 50 years or so.
>
> Do you realize just how close Hilbert came to the field equations
> in his November 20, 1915 paper? There is recent evidence which
> shows that Hilbert may have "borrowed" some of Einstein's
> concepts and revised his own paper after Einstein's publication a
> week after his, but still, Hilbert was close, though not all there.
> Hardly "50 years" away.
>
No, I don't realize how close Hilbert came. I defer to your greater
familiarity with the situation.
> > It is only now that we are able to do experiments which
> > need GR for their explanation.
> >
>
> Only now? I would suggest some historical reading about the
> experimental verification of general relativity. After the
> initial experiments in the 1920s, there was a lull period for
> several decades where only a small number of experiments were
> squeezed in. However, by the end of the 1950s relativity was
> beginning its renaissance, and 1960s saw the rebirth and eventual
> continued experimental validation of general relativity. Hardly
> "only now."
>
It is my understanding that early experimental verifications of GR
were
few and limited. There was the precessing of the orbit of mercury
which was known before Einstein. There was also the bending of
starlight near the sun as observed by Eddington in 1919. I am
not aware of any other experiments that could "confirm" GR
specifically
until much later. However, you could fill libraries with what I am
not aware of! Again, I defer.
Thank you for your response. This is the kind of thing I find very
useful in newsgroups. Being put in place is very educational.
Arf!
Arfur
Stephen Speicher
[...]
First, permit me to say that I _really_ appreciate your overall
attitude. I am convinced that you are much more interested in
discovering the facts than in showing that you are right. Such a
healthy respect for reality is, unfortunately, all too rare, and
I want to publicly acknowledge this quality as expressed by you.
Second, I am going against my usual practice of including your
words and responding to them. I do this because what you wrote
was extremely long, and I am afraid that the overall sense of
this issue might be lost in an interchange-type response.
I am also a bit pressed for time right now, so I am choosing to
include in this post large sections which I have written before
on this issue. I believe if you look at the full context of my
arguments you will see the perspective I have, and you will see
how the quotes I provide from Einstein and others directly
address the points that you made.
Just for the record, the two issues involved here are: 1) Was
Einstein aware of the Michelson-Morley experiment prior to his
1905 paper, and 2) To what extent did the MMX affect Einstein's
development of special relativity. MY answer to "1)" is that the
preponderance of evidence is that Einstein was well-aware of the
MMX years prior to 1905, and my answer to "2)" is that, as
Einstein stated, the result of the MMX was his "first path"
towards relativity, not his motivating factor nor his
intellectual guiding light.
Here are excerpts from previous posts on this subject.
(If you need any further clarifications, or if you feel any of
your concerns were not addressed, please just ask again.)
-------------------------------------------------
"While I was thinking of this problem in my student
years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson's
experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea
about the motion of the earth with respect to the ether
is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's null result as a
fact. This was the first path which led me to the
special theory of relativity."
---Albert Einstein, "How I Created The Theory of
Relativity", Speech at Kyoto University, Dec. 1922.
The controversy often comes about because of a comment Einstein
made some three decades after 1922, in the oral history of
Einstein recorded by Robert S. Shankland in 1952. On October 24,
1952, Shankland asks Einstein when he first heard of the MMX.
Einstein replies:
"This is not so easy, I am not sure when I first heard
of the Michelson experiment. I was not conscious that
it had influenced me directly during the seven years
that relativity had been my life. I guess I just took
it for granted that it was true."
However, just two months later, Einstein writes a letter to
Shankland and says, regarding the MMX:
"I learned of it through H. A. Lorentz's decisive
investigation of the electrodynamics of moving bodies
(1895) with which I was acquainted before developing
the special theory of relativity. Lorentz's basic
assumption of an ether at rest seemed to me not
convincing in itself and also for the reason that it
was leading to an integration of the Michelson-Morley
experiment which seemed to me artificial."
Even if these were the only two pieces of information available,
one would rightfully assume that the oral history -- standing on
one foot, so to speak -- represented a lapse of memory which the
written history, a short time later, corrected. In fact,
Einstein wrote a letter on December 28, 1901, four years prior to
his seminal paper on relativity, which confirms the later memory
about reading Lorentz' book on electrodynamics (or, at least, his
intention to do so at an early age).
"Michele gave me a book on the theory of ether, written
in 1885. One would think it came from antiquity, its
views are so obsolete. It makes one see how fast
knowledge develops nowadays. I now want to buckle down
and study what Lorentz and Drude have written on the
electrodynamics of moving bodies."
--"The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein," Volume 1,
The Early Years, 1879-1902, A. Beck, Translator,
_Princeton University Press_.
I have not seen this letter referenced before, but it is clearly
linked to Einstein's words some 51 years later. I take this as
confirmation from Einstein, spanning five decades, recalling the
MMX result as "the first path which led me to the special theory
of relativity," which surely must qualify for the author's use of
"inspiration."
p.s. This is not say, however, that there did not exist several
intellectual factors which were highly motivating towards
relativity which affected Einstein's thoughts beyond this "first
path." Indeed, there were several, but that is another story.
------------------------------------------------------------
From another posting:
I do not feel compelled, every time this issue arises, to provide
all of the evidence in support of the premise. It is true that
even for honest people -- and Einstein most certainly was an
honest man -- that memory may fail, and mis-remembrances can
occur. However, the crucial quote from Einstein, which I provided
above, is corroborated by substantial evidence in earlier
writings.
For instance, here is part of a December 28, 1901 letter which
Einstein wrote to Mileva Maric, and which is rarely mentioned
though it provides additional insight.
"Michele gave me a book on the theory of ether, written
in 1885. One would think it came from antiquity, its
views are so obsolete. It makes one see how fast
knowledge develops nowadays. I now want to buckle down
and study what Lorentz and Drude have written on the
electrodynamics of moving bodies. Ehrat must get the
literature for me."
These remarks certainly demonstrate Einstein's early interest in
the ether, and document his awareness of the current state of
physics in this regard. It is almost unthinkable that for one so
involved in the physics of his time, that Einstein would have
somehow excluded such a crucial experiment as the MMX, an
experiment that even the common public was aware of.
There is also direct evidence that Einstein read Lorentz' first
1892 paper, as well as Lorentz' 1895 book in which the MMX was
discussed in the final chapter. In addition to other books of
the times, there is evidence that Einstein quite probably read
several other journals than just _Annalen der Physik_.
For instance, we know from a letter Einstein wrote in September
1899 that he had read Wein's 1898 paper "On Questions that Relate
to the Translatory Motion of the Light Ether." In that paper Wein
discusses the MMX.
There are many more early letters from Einstein which discuss his
thoughts in regard to the ether, and more evidence of what he had
read of the MMX in the process.
Wolfgang G. G.
|| = Stephen Speicher in news:Pine.GSO.4.42.0206292013500.27393-100000@inky
|| "While I was thinking of this problem in my student
|| years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson's
|| experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea
|| about the motion of the earth with respect to the ether
|| is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's null result as a
|| fact. This was the first path which led me to the
|| special theory of relativity."
||
|| ---Albert Einstein, "How I Created The Theory of
|| Relativity", Speech at Kyoto University, Dec. 1922.
| From a letter written by Einstein in 1942:
|
| "...[I] was pretty much convinced of the validity of the principle
| before I did know of this experiment [MMX] and its result." (p. 96)
|
| From an interview in 1952:
|
| "...I am not sure when I first heard of the Michelson experiment.
| I was not conscious that it influenced me directly during the
| seven years that relativity had been my life. I guess I just
| took it for granted that it was true."
|
| From an interview in 1950:
|
| "he [Einstein] told me he had become aware of it through the writings
| of H. A. Lorentz, but ONLY AFTER 1905 had it come to his attention.
| 'Otherwise,' he said, 'I would have mentioned it in my paper.'"
If MMX had been AS famous as the symbol of all "unsuccessful
attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the
'light medium'" AS it has become later, Einstein surely would
have mentioned it in his 1905 paper (independently of whether he
is correctly cited by the above interviewer).
Nowadays we tend to forget that there were lots of other
unsuccessful attempts to discover effects resulting from the
motion of the earth. The fixation on MMX is the result of
the development after 1905.
| This is interesting since the 1905 paper (at least in the English
| translation published by Dover etc.) mentions
|
| "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
| discover any motion of the earth relatively to the 'light medium,'
| suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
| possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest."
|
| In 1953 Einstein was interviewed for Michael Polanyi by Dr. N. Balazs
| who reported that:
|
| "The Michelson-Morely experiment had no role in the foundation
| of the theory. He got acquainted with it while reading Lorentz's
| paper about the theory of this experiment (he of course does not
| remember exactly when, though prior to his paper), but it had no
| further influence on Einstein's consideration and the theory of
| relativity was not founded to explain its outcome at all."
.
| It is my understanding that Einstein's main impetus in forming SR was
| to extend the Galilean principle of relativity to Maxwell's equations.
| Rather than to "explain" MMX. That he may have heard of MMX before
| the 1905 paper and mis-remembered the order of things later in life
| is quite possible--even probable. However that mis-remembering is
| made easier if we assume that MMX was basically a confirmation to
| Einstein that he was already on the right path rather than a starting
| point for developing the theory.
| Of course, an alternate explanation is that later in life he wanted
| more credit for originality that he wanted earlier in life and so
| lied.
Several persons have tried to suggest that Einstein lied in
this context. Nevertheless the weak apparent contradictions
can easily be explained by the ambiguity of MMX:
1) The experiment of 1887 (and its first version of 1881)
2) A symbol for all "unsuccessful attempts to ...".
_____
... versuchen sie [Georg Galeczki und Peter Marquardt, 'Requiem
für die Spezielle Relativität', 1997] den Eindruck zu erwecken,
Einstein hätte nicht nur im Zusammenhang mit dem Michelson-
Morley-Experiment gelogen sondern sogar Dokumente verschwinden
lassen (S.233-236).
Vor allem weil es sprachphilosophisch interessant ist, möchte
ich kurz bei Einsteins vermeintlichem Widerspruch verweilen.
Anfangs gehörten das Michelson-Experiment von 1881 und das M.-M.-E.
von 1887 nur zu "den misslungenen Versuchen, eine Bewegung der
Erde relativ zum Lichtäther zu konstatieren". Wahrscheinlich
weil es von allen diesen Versuchen der überzeugendste war, wurde
das M.-M.-Experiment zum Symbol für diese Versuche. M.-M.-E.
(oder M.-E.) steht also einerseits für sich selbst und andererseits
als Symbol stellvertretend für alle misslungenen Versuche.
http://members.lol.li/twostone/defense.html
Bill Hobba
Thanks for clarifying that.
My info came from Subtle is the Lord by Pias which I normally have found is
spot on in such matters. However it seems here there was a bit more to the
story than this source described. Interesting comments about Hilbert. I
believe it is a bit strange; he too was a great man and hardly needed to
cover up mistakes.
Thanks
Bill
Arfur Dogfrey
> On 1 Jul 2002, Arfur Dogfrey wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> First, permit me to say that I _really_ appreciate your overall
> attitude. I am convinced that you are much more interested in
> discovering the facts than in showing that you are right. Such a
> healthy respect for reality is, unfortunately, all too rare, and
> I want to publicly acknowledge this quality as expressed by you.
>
Sorry, I forgot for a moment where I was posting...what I MEANT to
say was, of course:
YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON AND A COWARD!!!!
I hope that makes up for my breach of standard newsgroup behavior.
(j/k of course)
[rest of excellent post deleted to bandwidth]
On a more serious note:
Thank you for your reply. Clark in his biography mentions two articles
which give "The most detailed analysis of the situation" One is
"On the Origins of the Special Theory of Relativity" in "Am. Journal of
Physics" Vol. 28 (1960) pp. 627-636 and "Einstein, Michelson, and the
'Crutial' Experiment" in "Isis", VOl 60 part 2, No. 202 (summer).
I haven't been able to get to the library yet to peruse them. However
let me ask you another question out of the blue. My original post was
based on the view that Einstein was more interested in the "reasonable-
ness" of the fundamental underpinnings of physical theories than he was
in creating theories to fit recent experimental results etc.
One could argue that the "reason" Einstein created SR was to explain MMX.
You referred to MMX as a "first path." (1) could you be more explicit
what you mean by "first path?"
Also it is my understanding that he created GR without any real glaring
experimental data to explain. (The precession of Mercury's perihelion
notwithstanding) but to bring simplicity and symmetry to basic physical
theory.
I also notice that Einstein's main contributions to QM were photoelectric
effect (which basically finds another verification of Plank's quanta) which
was done well before QM was hammered out and EPR which was done after QM
was hammered out and was basically a critique of the philosophical soundness
of QM's foundation. Here QM was fabulously successful in explaining the
various experimental results and Einstein's approach to the whole thing is
to criticize its philosophical underpinnings. so (2) could you give your
view FWIW on this aspect of Einstein's approach to physics?
Thank you again
Arf!
Arfur
Arfur Dogfrey
Just to set the record straight I mentiond the "alternate explanation" only
to cover all possible bases. I seriously doubt that Einstein would have
deliberately lied about such a thing and I am in no way suggesting that
he did.
Arf!
Arfur
Stephen Speicher
>
> My info came from Subtle is the Lord by Pias which I normally have found is
> spot on in such matters. However it seems here there was a bit more to the
> story than this source described.
>
We can't fault Pais on that. Most of the information which I
relayed came from recent analyses based on Leo Corry's discovery
of the previously unnoticed set of proofs for Hilbert's paper.
Corry was working on a project at the Max Planck Institute for
the History of Science when he found this important work of
Hilbert, and it wasn't until 1997 that Corry presented his paper
and analysis. This is history unfolding, long after Pais wrote
his Einstein biography.
> Interesting comments about Hilbert. I
> believe it is a bit strange; he too was a great man and hardly needed to
> cover up mistakes.
>
Yes, quite frankly I was quite shocked to learn of these facts.
However, please note that there are some scholars, for instance
Tilman Sauer who has been working here at Caltech on the Einstein
Papers Project, who, while agreeing with the facts, interprets
them such that Hilbert appears in a somewhat more favorable light
than that portrayed by Corry and by Rowe. Sauer has written a
long and thoughtful paper on this, but, as much as I respect his
judgment, I think the facts are more reasonably interpreted to
show Hilbert in a less favorable light.
--
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Reality is the breach between morality and totalitarianism.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
~
Stephen Speicher
>
> Clark in his biography
You have mentioned Clark a couple of times, and I just want to
say that although his Einstein biography is considered a classic,
there are other more technical sources which are considered more
authoritative. Remember too that Clark wrote some time ago, and
a lot of information relevant to these issues is contained in
material which has been found and analyzed since that time.
> mentions two articles which give "The most detailed analysis of
> the situation" One is "On the Origins of the Special Theory of
> Relativity" in "Am. Journal of Physics" Vol. 28 (1960) pp.
> 627-636 and "Einstein, Michelson, and the 'Crutial'
> Experiment" in "Isis", VOl 60 part 2, No. 202 (summer).
>
This dates Clark. Much more has been discovered. If you are
interested in studying about what Einstein knew about the MMX,
and when, here are a few places to start.
The first place to start is...read Einstein's early letters
yourself. Some wonderful early letters, up through 1902, were
published in 1987 in "The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein,
Volume 1, The Early Years, 1879-1902," _Princeton University
Press_. You will find little treasures such as:
August 1899: "I am more and more convinced that the
electrodynamics of moving bodies, as presented today,
is not correct, and that it should be possible to
present it in a simpler way."
Sept 1899: "A good idea occurred to me in Aarau about a
way of investigating how the bodies' relative motion
with repect to the luminiferous ether affects the
velocity of propagation of light in transparent bodies.
Also a theory on this matter occurred to me, which
seems to me to be highly probable."
"The Collected Papers..." is a marvelous series, eight volumes so
far. There also is an excellent Einstein Studies series,
published under the sponsorship of the Center for Einstein
Studies, with Don Howard and John Stachel doing most of the
editing for the currently ten volumes. Volume 8, "Einstein: The
Formative Years, 1879-1909," edited by Howard and Stachel,
_Birkhauser_, 2000, contains two papers which are particularly
relevant. The first is by David Cahan, "The Young Einstein's
Physics Education: H.F. Weber, Hermann von Helmholtz, and the
Zurich Polytechnic Physics Institute." This will give you a good
sense of what Einstein was learning and thinking at the time of
being a student. The second paper by Robert Rynasiewicz, "The
Construction of the Special Theory: Some Queries and
Considerations," will give you a lot of the historical context
leading up to and expressed in the 1905 paper.
Volume 9 of the series, "Einstein from 'B' to 'Z'," was released
this year and it is tour de force for John Stachel. His essays
on special relativity, especially the "Ether Drift" and the "Einstein
and Michelson" ones will open your eyes about this issue. I wish that
I had read some of Stachel's work here when I first became
interested in the history surrounding the MMX and Einstein. It
would have saved me a lot of time. If you only get one reference,
this is the one.
There are dozens of (fairly recent) papers I can mention, but a
lot are referenced in these two volumes, and you can follow your
interest from there. There also are, of course, many other
excellent books, such as Arthur Miller's "Albert Einstein's
Special Theory of Relativity: Emergence...," but these are mostly
classics while the papers contained in the other references are
quite recent, and they reflect information gleaned from the
archive in recent years.
> I haven't been able to get to the library yet to peruse them. However
> let me ask you another question out of the blue. My original post was
> based on the view that Einstein was more interested in the "reasonable-
> ness" of the fundamental underpinnings of physical theories than he was
> in creating theories to fit recent experimental results etc.
>
> One could argue that the "reason" Einstein created SR was to explain MMX.
> You referred to MMX as a "first path." (1) could you be more explicit
> what you mean by "first path?"
>
I meant pretty much what Einstein himself meant by it. In my
previous post I just gave you a snippet and left out the whole
context of that Einstein speech. (If you would like to read it
yourself, the speech is reproduced in several sources, including
Volume 2 of Jefferson Hane Weaver's three volume set, "The World
of Physics," which is a wonderful condensed source of firsthand
writings.)
Einstein's first _idea_ of developing relativity was rooted in
the problem of the optical properties of moving bodies. He states
explicitly that he "tried to find clear experimental evidence for
the flow of the ether," and he devised an experiment, using two
thermocouples, which he thought similar to Michelson's
experiment, but he never performed it. He realized that in
accepting Michelson's result the notions of the motion of the
Earth with respect to the ether, were wrong, and that is why he
considered the MMX as his "first path" leading towards special
relativity.
Einstein was familiar with Lorentz' 1895 electrodynamics, and he
says "I tried to discuss the Fizeau experiment on the assumption
that the Lorentz equation for electrons should hold...as
originally discussed by Lorentz." He accepted both Maxwell's
equations and Lorentz', and tried to resolve the contradcition
between "the addition rule of velocities used in mechanics" and
the "assumption that these equations should hold in the reference
frame of the moving body" leading to the invariance of the
velocity of light. Einstein worked for almost one year trying to
modify Lorentz' ideas in order for all to work.
Einstein says that his discussion with Michele Besso about this
problem is what led him to the solution. The day after the
discussion Einstein realized that "An analysis of the concept of
time was my solution. Time cannot be absolutely defined, and
there is an inseparable relation between time and signal
velocity." Upon realizing this, Einstein resolved the issues of
relativity in just five weeks.
So, contrary to what you will hear from some here, Einstein had a
very healthy respect for experiment, and the physical facts were
like a puzzle to be solved. He struggled for long to resolve the
contradictions, only to eventually realize he had to think
outside the box, as all great innovators do.
I will try to get to your other questions when I have some more
time tomorrow.
Stephen Speicher
> "Wolfgang G. G." <z...@z.lol.li> wrote in message news:<afs9mr$vpo$1...@newsreaderm1.core.theplanet.net>...
[..]
>
> Just to set the record straight...
>
Arfur, just for your information, I do not read anything from the
above poster -- nor did I read what I just deleted -- because in
the past I found his interpretations of Einstein to be utterly
bizarre. Just wanted you to know, in case you expected a response
to him from me.
Alan Faircloth
Einstein is not a God
From: pubm...@charter.net
In case you didn't read the thread titled "Albert Einstein was wrong" ,
here's my response to you:
E=m. E doesn't = MC2.
Starting with the universe which is infinite and void
and which no one knows the beginning and ending of, it is impossible to
develop scientific facts that are taken for granted as universal, which
scienctists in their ego and pride have always allowed to happen, that
are neccesarily universal, since there would be no grounded basees for
such facts. that means the fastest speed (of light) "fact" in the E=MC2
has just gone right out the window. Now, matter is everything that
exists in the universe, and if all matter is composed of atomic and
sub-atomic particles in motion of 'whatever' speed, constantly building
up and decomposing, that is energy; so all matter is energy. E=M.
title: God
http://members.tripod.com/~foldey0/duplindex.html or
http://community-2.webtv.net/faircloth/doc/ <html><clock></clock><html>
and...@attglobal.net
Why do you want to repost the evidence that you don't know
what you're talking about?
John Anderson
Stephen Speicher
>
> Also it is my understanding that he created GR without any real glaring
> experimental data to explain. (The precession of Mercury's perihelion
> notwithstanding) but to bring simplicity and symmetry to basic physical
> theory.
>
There is a great deal that has been written on Einstein's path to
general relativity; many analyses based on available facts, and
also much speculation. My own opinion is that, ultimately, we
must defer in this case to Einstein himself, who was more privy
to the inner workings of his own mind than those who have
attempted to reconstruct the process, as insightful as many such
reconstructions are. I will highlight below some of Einstein's
thoughts, but first I want to draw your attention to yet another
in the wonderful Einstein Studies series, in this case the first
of the series, Volume 1, "Einstein and the History of General
Relativity," Edited by D. Howard and J. Stachel, _Birkhauser_,
1989.
If you read nothing else by any other historians, there are four
particular papers in this book that are so exquisite in their
respective formulations, that they most definitely should not be
missed. John Norton's "What Was Einstein's Equivalence
Principle" underscores how this was Einstein's "first path"
towards general relativity, in a manner similar to our discussion
of the MMX being a "first path" towards SR. John Stachel's "The
Rigidly Rotating Disk as the 'Missing Link' in the History of
General Relativity" makes a compelling case for this problem as
being that which led Einstein towards the identification that a
nonflat metric was required for dealing with the gravitational
field. Stachels's "Einstein's Search for General Covariance,
1912-1915" is, quite simply, the most brilliant analysis to be
found on the covariance issue. And finally, John Norton's "How
Einstein Found His Field Equations, 1912-1915" is Norton's best
work, and in my opinion this paper should be read not only by
every student in the history of science, but by any physicist who
wants to better understand the mind of a genius in creating
science.
But, back to Einstein himself. First, there is an enormous amount
to be gleaned by reading Einstein's correspondence during these
crucial years of development of GR. There are two appropriate
books, Volume 5 and Volume 8 of "The Collected Works of Albert
Einstein" which cover the periods from 1902-1914, and 1914-1918,
respectively. Einstein reveals so many details of his thought
processes and his concerns, and so many subtleties, that I will
not attempt here to even summarize or otherwise characterize.
Instead, there are two particulary succinct and appropriate
writings by Einstein on this matter to consider. The first is the
1922 speech "How I Created the Theory of Relativity" which I
referenced in the previous post, and the second is "Notes on the
Origin of the General Theory of Relativity," which is reprinted
in several sources, including the inexpensive paperback "Ideas
and Opinions," _Three Rivers Press_, 1954/1982, and the excellent
but out-of-print "Albert Einstein's Theory of General
Relativity," Edited by G. Tauber, _Crown Publishers_, 1979.
Einstein confirms that Mach's view ("what inertial resistance
counteracts is not acceleration as much as acceleration with
respect to the masses of the other bodies existing in the world")
had only an indirect implication in special relativity, but it
was, in essence, incorporated into general relativity. (Later, of
course, Einstein was to move away from the overall Machian
perspective.)
During the two years after Einstein's seminal 1905 paper, he
began to become really dissatisfied with the inertial frames of
SR, which seemed to restrict "the general motion of a reference
frame." While writing his first tour de force on relativity in
1907 ("On the Relativity principle and the Conclusions Drawn from
it"), Einstein began to think about the problem of incorporating
the law of gravity into special relativity. Ironically, it was
Einstein's insight into his equivalence principle which made him
realize that the overall problem of "the relationship between
inertia and weight, or the energy of the gravitational field ...
could not be resolved within the framework of the special theory
of relativity." (Note: I say "ironically" because, as we have
seen here on this group, there are those who completely
misunderstand and misinterpret what the equivalence principle
meant to Einstein, and what the actual relationship is between
acceleration and gravitation.)
While contemplating these issues, one day in his patent office in
Bern, Einstein had an insight. "Suddenly a thought struck me: If
a man falls freely, he would not feel his weight. I was taken
aback. This simple thought experiment made a deep impression on
me. This led to the theory of gravity ... A falling man does not
feel his weight because in his reference frame there is a new
gravitational field which cancels the gravitational field due to
the Earth. In the accelerated frame of reference, we need a new
gravitational field."
This meant, to Einstein, that he needed to extend the principle
of relativity to general coordinate systems in non-uniform motion
"if we are were to reach a natural theory of the gravitational
fields." Einstein spent three years on such endeavors, from 1908
to 1911, and he needed to reject Mach's notion that "systems that
have acceleration with respect to each other are equivalent."
Einstein knew he needed a theory which retained the form of the
equations under non-linear transformations of the coordinates.
This was now key, because it is only in this resolution that
Einstein would finally understand what general coordinates "at
all meant in physics." It wasn't until 1912 that "I hit upon the
idea that Gauss's surface coordinates were very meaningful for
understanding this problem."
Einstein did not know of the work of Riemann on the foundation of
geometry, but he remembered a lecture while he was a student in
Zurich, given by Geiser on the Gauss theory. It was here that
Einstein realized "the foundations of geometry had deep physical
meaning in this problem." This is, of course, what led Einstein
to his friend Marcel Grossman, who "taught me the work of
Curbastro Gregorio Ricci and later the work of Riemann."
From this point on, 1912 to 1915, historians have so
well-documented the construction of the theory based on
Einstein's writings and papers. Einstein offers little in
personal insight, beyond his view of this as a struggle which
preoccupied him. He had, in essence, less than a year after
learning from Grossman, discovered most of the main features of
general relativity. The details are fascinating from a technical
point of view, but the process sheds little psychological insight
beyond what Einstein has revealed about his earlier motivation.
So, while it is correct to say that Einstein sought "to bring
simplicity and symmetry to basic physical theory," such words
paint in too broad a brush in what is better understood, in
Einstein's own words, as the quite specific set of challenges
which Einstein set for himself; challenges Einstein discussed,
which I have outlined above.
Ivana Marinkovic
title: God
http://members.tripod.com/~foldey0/duplindex.html or
http://community-2.webtv.net/faircloth/doc/ <html><clock></clock><html>
So you want to tell us that God is made out of bad HTML by WebTV Page
Builder v1.1? (Sorry, I know this is argumentum ad hominem but couldn't
resist)
Ivana
James Hunter
Alan Faircloth wrote:
>
> Einstein is not a God
>
> Group: sci.physics.relativity Date: Sat, Jun 29, 2002, 12:35pm (MDT+6)
> From: pubm...@charter.net
> Warren writes:
> Einstein is not a God but face it, he is,was and remains correct. What I
> wonder about is what he knew that he did not tell us. I feel sure he
> knew more than he cared to share. I also believe his wife had a big part
> into all of this. But no, he is not a God. I think the term is Human.
>
> In case you didn't read the thread titled "Albert Einstein was wrong" ,
> here's my response to you:
>
> E=m. E doesn't = MC2.
E=m is true everywhere in the universe, except for *elevators*,
which is why physicists are usually reminded that like any
common mathematician, they are only allowed to by tickets
on the slow IQ train.