JEWS have won numerous NOBEL PRIZES (Islamists have won how many?)
Zimbawi IS THE NAME OF MY Pet DON KEY! :)
Albert Einstein -- The most famous and influential scientist of all
time
Rita Levi-Montalcini -- winner of the Nobel Prize for her work on
Nerve Growth factor (with Stanley Cohen)
Aaron Klug -- Nobel prize winner in Chemistry, for work on X-ray
analysis of biomolecules
Richard Feynman -- 'The greatest scientific mind since World War II '
Shimon Peres -- Israel's Labor party leader
Elie Wiesel -- Jewish author: 'Night', winner of the Nobel Prize for
Peace
Milton Friedman -- Recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics
Arno Penzias -- Nobel prize winner in Physics, studied interstellar
isotopes
Yitzhak Rabin -- Prime Minister of Israel - Worker for Peace' Chief of
Staff in Six Day War
Isaac Bashevis Singer -- Author, Nobel Prize-winner for Literature
George WALD -- Nobel Price in Medicine for work contributing to our
understanding of vision.
Selman Waksman -- Microbiologist, 1952 Nobel Prize winner in
physiology and medicine
Niels Bohr -- Nobel prize-winning Physicist: atomic structure
Joseph Brodsky -- Nobel Prize winner in literature, most famous modern
poet
Franco Modigliani -- Italian-born economist, 1985 Nobel Laureate in
Economics: saving and financial markets
David Baltimore -- Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine
Lev Landau -- Soviet physicist, Nobel Prize in Physics 1962
Hans Bethe -- Nobel Prize in Physics in 1967
Paul Ehrlich -- Nobel prize for descovering a treatment for syphilis.
Isaac Bashevis Singer -- 1978 Nobel Laureate in Literature: 'Enemies :
A Love Story', 'The Golem', 'Meshugah'
Elie Metchnikoff -- Nobel prize winner in Medicine, studied immunity
in infectious diseases
John Harsanyi -- Winner of the Nobel prize in Economics: studied
utilitarian ethics
Henri Bergson -- Author/Philosopher, Nobel prize for Literature
Herbert Simon -- Nobel prize winner in Economics: for work on
decision-making
Paul Johann Ludwig Heyse -- Nobel prize winner in Literature,
1830-1914
Stanley Cohen -- Nobel prize winner in Medicine, for work in
experimental embryology
Saul Bellow -- Canadian born novelist and Nobel Prize winner for
lietature
Shmuel Yosef Agnon -- Israeli writer, winner of the 1966 Nobel Prize:
'The Bridal Canopy'; `A Guest for the Night'
Howard Temin -- 1975 Nobel Prize in Medicine
Nelly Sachs -- Poet, winner of the Nobel prize in Literature
Claude Cohen-Tannoudji -- Nobel prize winner in Physics, developed
laser-cooling technology
Nadine Gordimer -- South African novelist, Nobel prize-winner in
Literature
Joshua Lederberg -- Nobel prize winner in Medicine, discovered viral
transduction
Baruch Blumberg -- Nobel prize winner in Medicine: field of
epidemiology
Elias Canetti -- Bulgarian born essayist and novelist who was awarded
the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1981
Daniel Nathans -- Nobel prize in Medicine: for restriction analysis of
Simian Virus 40 DNA
David Lee -- Nobel prize winner in Physics: for work on superfluidity
Roald Hoffmann -- Nobel prize winner in Chemistry: field of electronic
structures
Harold Kroto -- Nobel prize-winner in Chemistry, discoverer of C60
Douglas Osheroff -- Nobel prize winner in Physics, for work in
superfluidity
Stanley Prusiner -- Nobel prize winner in Medicine: for the discovery
of Prions, infectious proteins
Andrew Schally -- Nobel prize winner in Medicine: field of
endocrinology
Bernard Katz -- Nobel prize winner in Medicine, studied neuromuscular
transmission
Simon Kuznets -- Nobel prize winner in Economics
Leon Lederman -- Nobel prize winner in Physics, 1988
Jack Steinberger -- Nobel Prize winner in Physics, 1988
Joseph Goldstein -- Nobel prize in Medicine
Isidor Rabi -- Nobel prize in physics in 1944
Murray Gell-Mann -- Nobel prize in physics 1969. Introduced 'quarks'.
Cesar Milstein -- Nobel prize winner in Medicine: field of immunology
Physics: discoverer of the Tau Lepton
Jack Steinberger -- Particle Physicist, winner of the Nobel Prize
Herbert Brown -- Nobel prize winner in Chemistry: for his work in the
borane-organoborane area
Hermann Muller -- Nobel prize winner in Medicine: for work on
biological effects of radiation
Reinhard Selten -- Nobel prize winner in Economics: for work on 'game
equilibrium models'
Murray Gell-Mann -- Nobel prize in physics 1969. Introduced 'quarks'.
How many palestinians have won th nobel price.
The Pragmatist
"Zimbawi IS THE NAME OF MY Pet DON KEY! :)" <zz...@zz.org> wrote in message news:LQNug.460$Py5...@fe04.lga...
I-LOVE-WATCHING-MOHAMMEDAN-CULTISTS-DIE
because they have to hate it and seek the next one:
according to the satanic koran:
Surah 4:74
Let those who fight in the cause of allah who barter the life of this
world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God's path,
whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward
-------------------
1MAN4ALL
IS THE NAME OF MY Pet DON KEY! :) wrote:
> Look how many JEWS have won the NOBEL PRIZE:
> Albert Einstein -- The most famous and influential scientist of all
> time
Based on a post that Romero had sent some time ago, I think at least
some of what you are suggesting was undeserved:
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Plagiarist of the Century
Einstein plagiarised the work of several notable scientists in his 1905
papers on special relativity and E = mc2, yet the physics community has
never bothered to set the record straight in the past century.
Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 11, Number 1 (December-January
2004)
PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. edi...@nexusmagazine.com
Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
>From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com
Abstract
Proponents of Einstein have acted in a way that appears to corrupt the
historical record. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Time Magazine's "Person
of the Century", wrote a long treatise on special relativity theory (it
was actually called "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", 1905a),
without listing any references. Many of the key ideas it presented were
known to Lorentz (for example, the Lorentz transformation) and
Poincaré before Einstein wrote the famous 1905 paper.
As was typical of Einstein, he did not discover theories; he merely
commandeered them. He took an existing body of knowledge, picked and
chose the ideas he liked, then wove them into a tale about his
contribution to special relativity. This was done with the full
knowledge and consent of many of his peers, such as the editors at
Annalen der Physik.
The most recognisable equation of all time is E = mc2. It is attributed
by convention to be the sole province of Albert Einstein (1905).
However, the conversion of matter into energy and energy into matter
was known to Sir Isaac Newton ("Gross bodies and light are convertible
into one another...", 1704). The equation can be attributed to S.
Tolver Preston (1875), to Jules Henri Poincaré (1900; according to
Brown, 1967) and to Olinto De Pretto (1904) before Einstein. Since
Einstein never correctly derived E = mc2 (Ives, 1952), there appears
nothing to connect the equation with anything original by Einstein.
Arthur Eddington's selective presentation of data from the 1919 Eclipse
so that it supposedly supported "Einstein's" general relativity theory
is surely one of the biggest scientific hoaxes of the 20th century. His
lavish support of Einstein corrupted the course of history. Eddington
was less interested in testing a theory than he was in crowning
Einstein the king of science.
The physics community, unwittingly perhaps, has engaged in a kind of
fraud and silent conspiracy; this is the byproduct of simply being
bystanders as the hyperinflation of Einstein's record and reputation
took place. This silence benefited anyone supporting Einstein.
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 LorentzÉ"
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 light É because 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'sThus Einstein's theory is not a denial of, nor an alternative
for, that of Lorentz. It is only a duplicate and disguise for it
Einstein 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 (1905b) 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 programme 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 eclipseThe 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
theoryÉ" (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 relativityIt 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 lightÉ";
"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 emphasised 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 rigour is the measure of truth.
Little do people realise 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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,
16
(from Bjerknes, 2002).
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.
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. He can
be
contacted by email at Slm...@aol.com.
The Pragmatist
The Death Cult called Islam: The Religion of Piece(s)...Mostly Body Parts
"I-LOVE-WATCHING-MOHAMMEDAN-CULTISTS-DIE" <sirknigh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1153169404.6...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
pmr
"1MAN4ALL" <fora...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153176639.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Zimbawi
Jacques Pelletier
> Zimbawi
>
>
> IS THE NAME OF MY Pet DON KEY! :) wrote:
>
>> Look how many JEWS have won the NOBEL PRIZE:
>
>> Albert Einstein -- The most famous and influential scientist of all time
>
>
> Based on a post that Romero had sent some time ago, I think at least some
> of what you are suggesting was undeserved:
>
>
> ALBERT EINSTEIN
>
> Plagiarist of the Century
> Einstein plagiarised the work of several notable scientists in his 1905
> papers on special relativity and E = mc2, yet the physics community has
> never bothered to set the record straight in the past century.
>
> Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 11, Number 1 (December-January 2004)
> PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. edi...@nexusmagazine.com
> Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
>>From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com
>
The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921
Albert Einstein
"For his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery
of the law of the photoelectric effect"
http://www.nobel-prize.org/EN/Physics/einstein.htm
<snip>
JP
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad
1MAN4ALL wrote:
>
> 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.
First, I wonder how one defines "plagiarized" and, second, perhaps it
is telling that the physics community did not interpret it as precisely
plagiarism. For example:
> Many of the key ideas it presented were
> known to Lorentz (for example, the Lorentz transformation)
Gee whiz, you mean the very transformation that even my undergraduate
intro to physics class referred to as "Einstein-Lorentz
transformation"?
And are we to believe that the Physics community was ignorant of the
building blocks to Einstein's theories?
I LOVE WHEN MOHAMMEDANS GET KILLED AND DIE A HORIBLE DEATH
application of islamo-fascism and its violent record, (and not the
bullshit lies spread by filtyh communist fat cunt mirelle)?
I recommend you read the "History of Tabari". In every instance where
he quotes contemporary sources of the first islamic conquest period,
he states that when messengers and envoys were sent to converse with
delegates of the Persian Sassanians or Byzantines, they made the
declaration "accept islam or fight us. If you choose the latter option,
know that I bring you a people who desire death more than you desire
life".
that pretty much sums up the islamo-fascist cult mentality and shits
all over that fat cunt racist biggot mirelle and her apologetic garbage
that has no foundation or factual value whatsoeover, other than to
continue spread the propaganda, hate and lies of islamo-fascism via the
left's fifth column cloak and dagger tactics.
1MAN4ALL
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad wrote:
> 1MAN4ALL wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> First, I wonder how one defines "plagiarized" and, second, perhaps it
> is telling that the physics community did not interpret it as precisely
> plagiarism. For example:
You obviously didn't read the entire article. It says very clearly,
"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?"
Tony Cox
>
> Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad wrote:
> > 1MAN4ALL wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> > First, I wonder how one defines "plagiarized" and, second, perhaps it
> > is telling that the physics community did not interpret it as precisely
> > plagiarism. For example:
>
> You obviously didn't read the entire article. It says very clearly,
> "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?"
You really seem to be devoting a lot of time to "debunking"
Einstein. One wonders if you would be so pertinacious were
it not for the fact that he was a jew.
drahcir
1MAN4ALL wrote:
> Zimbawi
>
>
> IS THE NAME OF MY Pet DON KEY! :) wrote:
>
> > Look how many JEWS have won the NOBEL PRIZE:
>
> > Albert Einstein -- The most famous and influential scientist of all
> > time
>
>
> Based on a post that Romero had sent some time ago, I think at least
> some of what you are suggesting was undeserved:
>
>
> ALBERT EINSTEIN
Leave it to the know-nothing 1boy, a person who is nothing if not
self-deceived, to uncover the one silly article obviously written by
some nobody who grew up wanting to be the next einstein and didn't
measure up. This article is a HOOT!!
BTW, does anyone have a shred of doubt that the lost soul 1boy reveres
this silly article for one reason alone -- einstein was a jew. 1boy
will never contribute anything of value to this world for one reason--
he is a devout muslim.
drahcir
1MAN4ALL wrote:
> Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad wrote:
> > 1MAN4ALL wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> > First, I wonder how one defines "plagiarized" and, second, perhaps it
> > is telling that the physics community did not interpret it as precisely
> > plagiarism. For example:
>
> You obviously didn't read the entire article. It says very clearly,
> "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?"
BWAHAHAHAHA!!! As if there is a chance that 1boy has a CLUE about what
einstein did!!! THe presumptuousness of this muslim is positively
precious!
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad
1MAN4ALL wrote:
> Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad wrote:
> > 1MAN4ALL wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> > First, I wonder how one defines "plagiarized" and, second, perhaps it
> > is telling that the physics community did not interpret it as precisely
> > plagiarism. For example:
>
> You obviously didn't read the entire article. It says very clearly,
> "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?"
Perhaps I wrote my response too quickly. Nonetheless, my point is that
it is interesting that the Physics community is not convinced that this
is actually the sort of behavior Einstein behaved in (I would recall,
for example, the point about what, even in intro level physics, is
commonly referred to as "Einstein-Lorentz Transformations").
TheRedStatePatriot
He developed a new way to throw a flaming bottle of gasoline
by hand without getting burned.
He won the Allah prize for best terror development
drahcir
scientist Mr. Bjerknes, author of the wonderful book exposing Einstein,
is a major contributor to a "holocaust revisionist" site?
http://www.codoh.com/newsite/articles/bjerkneschristopher/adoc01a.html
Isn't it amazing that this objective, impartial (pseudo) scientist is
affiliated with such a site? But wait -- there's MORE:
Good Gravy!! Wikipedia lists Mr. Bjerknes, the objective
(pseudo)-scientist, under HOLOCAUST DENIAL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Holocaust_denial
Christopher Jon Bjerknes (born 1965) is an amateur historian of
science.
He is known for his claims that Albert Einstein plagiarized some of his
best known contributions to theoretical physics.
In a self-published book Albert Einstein: The incorrigible plagiarist,
Bjerknes accuses Einstein of having plagiarised his work from a variety
of prominent contemporaries, including David Hilbert and Henri
Poincaré. This book was panned by the historian John Stachel in a
review for Physics Today.
In a widely read paper published in Science in 1997, Stachel, Corry and
Renn declared that the Einstein-Hilbert priority dispute had been
settled. Bjerknes later collaborated with Friedwardt Winterberg in a
critique of this paper.
Bjerknes and Winterberg have spoken up to defend some highly
controversial figures, including David Irving and Arthur Rudolph.
Despite being lionized in some articles at the White Nationalist Wiki,
Bjerknes disavows any antisemitic motivation for his attacks on
Einstein. Bjerknes has written himself on the Holocaust for the
Holocaust denial "Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust", claiming
that "Racist Zionists" perpetuated the anti-Semitism of the Holocaust,
as well as having later used the history of anti-Semitism as "a means
to control public opinion in a most corrupt and deplorable fashion". He
also claims that "Jewish racists helped to put Hitler into power in
order to herd up the Jews of Europe and force them into segregation",
that "Jewish racists collaborated with the Nazis to kill off the
weakest Jews and preserve the best genetic stock for deportation to
Palestine", and that, contrary to mainstream historical opinion, that
the Nazis did not plot genocide at the Wannsee Conference.
Bjerknes is allegedly the great grandson of one Carl Anton Bjerknes,
the father of the renowned Norwegian meteorologist Vilhelm Bjerknes,
and apparently claims to have some Jewish heritage.
Allah be praised, here is Mr. Bjernes's very own website devoted to,
you guessed it:
http://www.jewishracism.com/index.htm
Leave it to 1boy to find a "scientific" article written by someone
almost as anti-semitic as he is! 1BOY PROVEN AGAIN BY DRAHCIR TO BE A
FRIGGIN IDIOT!!
Tony Cox
news:1153223504....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> 1MAN4ALL wrote:
> >
> > Many of the key ideas it presented were
> > known to Lorentz (for example, the Lorentz transformation)
>
> Gee whiz, you mean the very transformation that even my undergraduate
> intro to physics class referred to as "Einstein-Lorentz
> transformation"?
It had long been realized (I think even Maxwell knew this) that
something more complicated than simple Galilean transformations
were needed to ensure that the equations describing
electromagnetism and light gave the same results in various
moving reference frames. But Lorentz believed in the "aether"
hypothesis, and interpreted his transformation equations relative
to some supposed "absolute" reference frame. Einstein's unique
contribution -- clearly missed by 1MAN and his conspiracy
devotee friends -- was show that one didn't need an "absolute"
or preferred reference frame at all.
The fact that the transformation equations take a similar
form is really neither here nor there. For Lorentz (and others)
these equations took the form they did simply because that
was what was necessary to make Maxwells' equations
invariant under a change of coordinates; for Einstein, they
were a consequence of the lack of any preferred "absolute"
reference frame and the observation that the speed of light
is always the same regardless of how you happen to be
moving.
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad
drahcir wrote:
>
> In a self-published book Albert Einstein: The incorrigible plagiarist,
> Bjerknes accuses Einstein of having plagiarised his work from a variety
> of prominent contemporaries, including David Hilbert and Henri
> Poincaré. This book was panned by the historian John Stachel in a
> review for Physics Today.
Thank you for this information. So, it seems, that a peer reviewed
journal from the Physics community rejected precisely this book (which
is cited in 1Man's piece). That seems another clear sign that the
Physics community does not interpret the facts the same way 1Man's
source seems to.
> In a widely read paper published in Science in 1997, Stachel, Corry and
> Renn declared that the Einstein-Hilbert priority dispute had been
> settled.
Another interesting and valuable point. I wonder if 1Man (if he
responds to you at all) will respond to specifically these points I
have isolated, or if he'll instead opt to avoid these points and only
note that being a holocaust denier does not automatically mean one's
claims about Einstein are false (or perhaps he will object that this
person was not the sole source of the position?).
> Leave it to 1boy to find a "scientific" article written by someone
> almost as anti-semitic as he is!
Was the article 1Man posted written by Bjerknes? It was not clear to me
that it was. I thought the article was by Richard Moody. Regardless, I
think it is telling that 1Man would prefer the wacky Nexus Magazine
site (which is into all sorts of conspiracy theories, including stuff
on UFOs) as an authority over the Physics community itself on this
issue pertaining to the history of physics. It is a testament to his
tendency to mine the net for whatever he thinks suits his agenda, and
it might be further evidence of his latent antisemitism.
drahcir
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad wrote:
> >
> > In a self-published book Albert Einstein: The incorrigible plagiarist,
> > Bjerknes accuses Einstein of having plagiarised his work from a variety
> > of prominent contemporaries, including David Hilbert and Henri
> > Poincaré. This book was panned by the historian John Stachel in a
> > review for Physics Today.
>
> Thank you for this information. So, it seems, that a peer reviewed
> journal from the Physics community rejected precisely this book (which
> is cited in 1Man's piece). That seems another clear sign that the
> Physics community does not interpret the facts the same way 1Man's
> source seems to.
>
> > In a widely read paper published in Science in 1997, Stachel, Corry and
> > Renn declared that the Einstein-Hilbert priority dispute had been
> > settled.
>
> Another interesting and valuable point. I wonder if 1Man (if he
> responds to you at all)
1boy doesn't talk to me anymore :-( . I think it's obvious to all here
why.
will respond to specifically these points I
> have isolated, or if he'll instead opt to avoid these points and only
> note that being a holocaust denier does not automatically mean one's
> claims about Einstein are false (or perhaps he will object that this
> person was not the sole source of the position?).
>
> > Leave it to 1boy to find a "scientific" article written by someone
> > almost as anti-semitic as he is!
>
> Was the article 1Man posted written by Bjerknes? It was not clear to me
> that it was. I thought the article was by Richard Moody.
I think you may be right. I guess I got carried away a bit. Apologies
to 1boy. Certainly the article uses Bjerknes as its main source,
though.
Regardless, I
> think it is telling that 1Man would prefer the wacky Nexus Magazine
> site (which is into all sorts of conspiracy theories, including stuff
> on UFOs) as an authority over the Physics community itself on this
> issue pertaining to the history of physics. It is a testament to his
> tendency to mine the net for whatever he thinks suits his agenda, and
> it might be further evidence of his latent antisemitism.
Correctamundo, except for the "latent" part.
1MAN4ALL
I still think you are responding too quickly, without reading the
article.
1MAN4ALL
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad wrote:
> >
> > In a self-published book Albert Einstein: The incorrigible plagiarist,
> > Bjerknes accuses Einstein of having plagiarised his work from a variety
> > of prominent contemporaries, including David Hilbert and Henri
> > Poincaré. This book was panned by the historian John Stachel in a
> > review for Physics Today.
> Thank you for this information. So, it seems, that a peer reviewed
> journal from the Physics community rejected precisely this book (which
> is cited in 1Man's piece). That seems another clear sign that the
> Physics community does not interpret the facts the same way 1Man's
> source seems to.
Once again, I think you "replied too quickly" and didn't read the
article. Moody provides other references besides Bjerknes. The problem
is that criticizing Einstein is politically incorrect, as that can be
construed by some people (like you) as "latent anti-Semitism."
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad
1MAN4ALL wrote:
>
> I still think you are responding too quickly, without reading the
> article.
I've gone through it, and discussed it to some small degree with
Drahcir elsewhere in this thread. I could visit the library and conduct
hours of research to refute what you merely copied and pasted from the
net, and then you can just suddenly go silent on the issue, but I'm not
sure I want to go that route.
The simple point that you are avoiding is that the Physics community at
present does not take the view presented in that article. For example
considering the following article reviewing one of the primary sources
for your article:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/review/16/4/2
But more importantly, you need to ask yourself why you're siding with a
wacky source like Nexus Magazine (which has also argued that alien
abductions are happening all the time but the governments are covering
this up, that the archeological community is hiding the true origins of
the pyramids in Egypt and Mexico, that "shaken baby syndrome" is a
cover up for death by child vaccines rather than violent actions by
parents, and a host of other conspiracy theories).
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad
1MAN4ALL wrote:
> Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad wrote:
> > drahcir wrote:
> > >
> > > In a self-published book Albert Einstein: The incorrigible plagiarist,
> > > Bjerknes accuses Einstein of having plagiarised his work from a variety
> > > of prominent contemporaries, including David Hilbert and Henri
> > > Poincaré. This book was panned by the historian John Stachel in a
> > > review for Physics Today.
>
> > Thank you for this information. So, it seems, that a peer reviewed
> > journal from the Physics community rejected precisely this book (which
> > is cited in 1Man's piece). That seems another clear sign that the
> > Physics community does not interpret the facts the same way 1Man's
> > source seems to.
>
> Once again, I think you "replied too quickly" and didn't read the
> article. Moody provides other references besides Bjerknes.
This has already acknowledged. Straw man? Nonetheless, the wackjob
Bjerknes does serve as a source for your article from the wacky Nexus
Magazine.
> The problem is that criticizing Einstein is politically incorrect, as that can be
> construed by some people (like you) as "latent anti-Semitism."
So another conspiracy theory is used to explain why a conspiracy theory
put forth by a few wackjobs including an article in a wild conspiracy
theory magazine is far more reliable when discussing the history of
physics then the accepted stance in the mainstream physics community.
Nice. You're already flailing.
As for allusions to you being latently antisemtic (others have argued
that it is not all that latent), the signs are all over the place, but
this endorsement of the article you posted is only a *VERY* small piece
in that puzzle. Your pretensions that Nexus Magazine is the go-to
source in this debate hints at the possibility that your anger at Jews
is so great that you'll go to the wackiest sources in your desperate
search for support.
drahcir
well said
drahcir
I decided to skim it. The article is a joke, but you are blinded by
anti-semitism and stupidity, so you can't see that. Example:
"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)
Now, anyone knowing anything about physics knows that Einstein and Born
were good friends and there are published letters between them. What
Born is saying is that all science is a progression, nothing happens
independently. Moody wants to twist it to mean that Einstein was a
plagiarist when of course Born meant nothing of the kind.
"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."
Ridiculous. Assuming something and then attempting to prove it is
common in science -- if the assumption leads to a problem, you know it
was a bad assumption, if it doesn't, it may be true, and a formal proof
can be attempted. It's called a hypothesis -- they are used in science
all the time - do muslims know what hypotheses are? Here is the
definition:
2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its
logical or empirical consequences
NB the word ASSUMPTION.
Regarding the incredibly funny discussion of e=mc2, what does moody
think happened, einstein went around to every library in the world and
destroyed the evidence of this predating his discovery? The physics
world attributed it to him, and only THEN did it trickle into popular
culture. The article is downright hilarious, and you, 1boy, are a joke.
1MAN4ALL
It is well known among historians of science, not physicists per se,
that Einstein should not be credited with the equation E=MC2. But in
the United States, it is difficult to say that in public without being
called an "anti-Semite", as if Einstein is a symbolic embodiment of all
Jews or Semites! And that is why as soon as I stated that perhaps
Einstein does not deserve some of the credit that he is given, you
immediately started attacking me for "latent Anti-Semitism." You also
started attacking the web site on which this article appeared, totally
ignorant of the fact that many other scientists have said the same
thing---people who have no axe to grind or who can hardly be described
as "anti-Semitic.
Here is another article by an Indian scientist, Ajay Sharma, with many
more references:
[Please convert "D" in equations to Delta].
http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/8/Sharma4.htm
1.0 Mass Energy inter-conversion
DE =Dmc2 implies that mass can be converted into energy and conversion
factor is c2 like universal constant. The first qualitative hint of
mass-light energy inter-conversion was given by Newton [1] in 1704. In
mathematical form, English scientist S Tolver Preston [2] in 1875
speculated and applied equation DE =Dmc2 and the same equation was
also speculated in 1903 by Italian Olinto De Pretto [3]. None of two
derived it mathematically. In 1905 Einstein derived light energy
-mass equivalence DL =Dmc2 , then speculated from it DE =Dmc2
without proof. Some scientists [4-7 ] believe that Einstein should not
be given credit as he has published an unreferenced paper deliberately
hiding the previous discoveries and status of DE=Dmc2. The mass-energy
inter-conversion holds good universally e.g. in chemical reactions,
nuclear reactions, reactions taking place in heavenly bodies and
phenomena. DE=Dmc2 has been neither specifically confirmed nor applied
in chemical reactions, cosmological, astrophysical reactions etc, in
these reactions also interconversion of mass energy takes place and is
applicable [8,9 ].
It is established fact that concept and mathematical expression of DE
=Dmc2 existed before Einstein. Fadner [10] discussed this aspect in
article "Did Einstein really discover E =mc2 " in American Journal
of Physics but incompletely as significant and real contributors to
DE =Dmc2 have been ignored completely .One of them is English scientist
S. T. Preston [2] , he is the first scientist who has speculated and
applied the equation DE =Dmc2 first of all in 1875 in the book Physics
of the Ether ; Preston determined that one grain could lift a
100,000-ton object up to a height of 1.9 miles on the basis of DE =
Dmc2. Secondly Italian De Pretto [3] in 1903 speculated mass energy
equivalence as DE = Dmc2, two years before Einstein.
Some scientists including Planck [11], Stark [12], Ives [13] etc. has
pointed out inconsistencies in Einstein's mathematical derivation
when the paper was published. The same has been done by H .E. Ives
[13] his two claims have been quoted by Fadner [10] that credit for
DE =Dmc2: should not be given to Einstein. For example, (i) Einstein
was not first to present idea and (2) Einstein's 1905 paper is
'defective', in that he "introduced......the very relation in the
paper he wants to prove. Then Fadner tried to refute the claims of Ives
and including that of Planck . On the basis of existing literature and
analysis it is safely concluded that Ives first conclusion (Einstein
was not first to present idea of DE =Dmc2) is absolutely correct.
Further Ives second claim may be understood in the other way also. For
example Einstein [14] firstly derived light energy mass energy
equivalence (as Planck has derived heat energy -mass equivalence but
later) i.e. DL = Dmc2. Then without mathematical proof Einstein wrote
DE = Dmc2 simply replacing L by E (every type of energy). In fact DL =
Dmc2 is based upon eq.(2) but Einstein did not give any such equation
for E , every type of energy. So Einstein speculated (without actual
derivation) DE = Dmc2 which he wanted to get. Thus in views of H E
Ives claims are justified.
In this regard Fadner's analysis is incomplete and he has ignored
some established facts existing in literature. The contributions of
the scientists quoted by Fadner came afterwards and not exact form
except Einstein' derivation of DE = Dmc2. Further Fadner has credited
J J. Thomson [15 ] as contributor of mass -energy interconversion as
discussed as first contributor in Table of history of mass-energy
equivalence, DE = Dmc2. Thomson put forth that mass of a charged
conductor increases when it is motion and increase in mass is given by
dm = 4µe2 / a (1)
where µ is magnetic permeability, a is radius of charged particle and
dm is increase in mass. In eq.(1) there is no term which accounts for
velocity, thus Fadner deduction is inconsistent [10], eq.(1) cannot
interpreted when mass is annihilated then energy is emitted or
vice-versa.. Thus Fadner's analysis may be regarded as hurried one,
as genuine contributors are ignored. The author [8-9] has pointed out
mathematical, conceptual inconsistencies and applicability constraints
scientifically and quantitatively of DE =Dmc2 , also an alternate
equation,
DE =Ac2 Dm has been suggested. In the equation A is conversion
co-efficient and has status like other coefficients and constants in
existing physics.
2.0 Contributors of equation DE =Dmc2
(i) Issac Newton (1642-1727)
Sir Isaac Newton [1] has quoted in 1704, "Gross bodies and light are
convertible into one another...", in his book "Optiks" and also
put forth Corpuscular Theory of Light. After about 200 years Einstein
derived mathematical equation for Newton's perception i.e. DL =
Dmc2, where DL is light energy emitted when mass Dm is annihilated
and c is speed of light. It is the rarest coincidence in between
Newton's hypothesis and Einstein's derivation. However Sharma [8,9]
has confirmed that Einstein's derivation of DL = Dmc2 true under
certain conditions only, as the derivation three variables and is
derivable for some cases only.
(ii) S. Tolver Preston
An English scientist S. Tolver Preston ( born 1844) , speculated
first of all equation DE =Dmc2 and made predictions based upon it.
Preston [2] in his book Physics of the Ether proposed in 1875 that vast
amount of energy can be produced from matter. Preston determined that
one grain could lift a 100,000-ton object up to a height of 1.9 miles.
This deduction yields the essence of equation DE = Dmc2.
(iii) Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912)
Poincaré in 1900 [16, 17] put forth an expression for what he called
the "momentum of radiation" M_R. M_R = S/c2, where S represents the
flux of radiation and c is the velocity of light. Poincaré applied
the calculation in a recoil process and reached at the conclusion in
the form, mv = (E/c2)c. From the viewpoint of unit analysis, E/c2
takes on the role of a "mass" associated with radiation, it yields DE
=Dmc2.
(vi) Olinto De Pretto
An Italian Industrialist Olinto De Pretto [3] speculated DE =Dmc2
without any derivation. Firstly this article was published on June 16,
1903. Second time the same was published in the Atti of the Reale
Instituto Veneto di Scienze on February 27, 1904. This paper is in
Italian; hence it remained away from accessibility of wider scientific
community.
Bartocci [6] claimed that Einstein was aware of De Pretto's
speculation of DE =Dmc2 which was published about a year before.
Einstein was well versed in Italian language and had an Italian friend
M. Besso. In his June 1905 paper Einstein has only acknowledged M.
Besso's assistance in preparation of manuscript. This is reason for
the conclusion or doubt or speculation that M. Besso may have helped
Einstein in getting De Pretto's work.
(v) F. Hasenöhrl
F. Hasenöhrl [18, 19 ] in 1904 derived expression for mass-energy
inter-conversion, but this derivation is not complete. He investigated
a system composed of a hollow enclosure filled with "heat" radiations
and wanted to determine the effect of pressure due to radiations. His
calculations lead him to conclude that
"to the mechanical mass of our system must be added an apparent mass
which is given by
m = (8/3)E/c2"
where E is the energy of the radiation. Further in later paper he
maintained that improved result for mass exchanged is m = (4/3)E/ c2,
"Ebenezer Cunningham [20] in 1914 in his book The Principles of
Relativity showed that F. Hasenöhrl, has made a slight error in his
calculations. F. Hasenöhrl, did not take characteristics of the shell
properly. If errors are removed then
m (mass exchanged) = E/c2
or E = (mass exchanged) c2
This is the same result as quoted by Einstein in Sep. 1905 paper
earlier.
Hasenöhrl's work deals with mass-energy inter-conversion and was
done at the same time i.e. both timely and topical even published in
the same in which Einstein published his paper. Thus this work should
have been acknowledged by Einstein.
(vi) Frederick Soddi F. Soddy has also stated that material mass is
converted to energy during the radioactive decay, in his book
Radioactivity : An Elementary Treatise [21] in the chapter
"Anticipations" published in 1904 . Soddi intended to say that
energy of the radiations is at the cost of mass of the element.
(vii) Albert Einstein. Einstein [14] in 1905 derived, DL = Dmc2
light energy- mass inter-conversion equation, incidentally Newton has
speculated the same ( a qualitative statement) about two centuries
before. In DL = Dmc2, Dm is the mass of body annihilated when light
energy DL, is emitted. Thus when body emits light energy then mass of
body decreases or vice-versa. Then Einstein speculated that the
inter-conversion of mass and energy is not applicable for light energy
only, but it is true for every existing energy in the universe.
Einstein speculated DE = Dmc2 (initially speculated by S T Preston in
1875) without any mathematical proof, which was already existing at
that time.
Einstein may have not acknowledged the works of his predecessors due to
any reason, but its inferences are clear. By not acknowledging the
other's work Einstein tried to prove that DE = Dmc2 is conceptually
insighted and derived by him only, thus he is sole contributor of this
significant equation. If Einstein has acknowledged existing work
(speculation of DE =Dmc2 ) then he would have got credit only for
mathematically deriving DE =Dmc2. In derivation Einstein used result
of relativistic variation of light energy [22]
l* = l [1- cosf] / (1)
where l is light energy of plane wave of light in co-ordinate system
(x,y,z), which is at rest. The ray direction i.e. wave normal makes
angle f with the x-axis of the system (x,y,z). This light energy as
measured in system (X,Y,Z), which is in uniform translation w.r.t.
(x,y,z) along x-axis with velocity v is l*. Einstein has suggested
eq.(1) in his June 1905 paper [22 ] in which is known as Special
Theory of Relativity But while deriving final result i.e. DL =Dmc2
Einstein interpreted the equation under classical conditions (v<<c) as
below.
(a) Although Einstein started derivation of DL =Dmc2 using relativistic
variation of light energy as in eq.(1), yet final result was obtained
under classical conditions using Binomial Theorem which is applicable
if v<<c.
(b) Einstein did not use the relativistic increase in mass of body as
given by
mmotion = mrest/(1-v2/c2)1/2 (2)
The eq.(2) was mathematically suggested by Dutch physicist H A
Lorentz [1854-1928 ], experimentally justified by W. Kaufman [23]
that transverse mass increases with velocity in 1901. Also Bucherer
[24] in 1908 found that specific charge (e/m ) is smaller for fast
moving electrons, convincingly justified eq.(2).
Further Einstein speculated DE =Dmc2 for all energies from DL=Dmc2 i.e.
holds good for sound, heat, chemical, electrical energy etc. without
justifying eq.(1) separately for all energies. Einstein did not
justify that how equations analogous to eq.(1) hold good quantitatively
for heat energy, sound energy etc, but regarded DE =Dmc2 as is true
for all. If eq.(1) holds good for sound energy and all types of
energies, then DL =Dmc2 will be analogously transformed as
Sound energy emitted = Dmc2 (3)
or Every type of energy = Dmc2 (4)
The results from eq.(3) are exciting as sound energy can be converted
in mass or vice -versa
(vii) Max Planck
Max Planck [11] in 1907 made an in-depth investigation of the energy
"confined" within a body, but he did not use Einstein's approach at
all. Planck derived an expression m-M= E/c2, for heat energy and mass
and interpreted that "The inertia mass of body is altered by
absorption or emission of heat energy. The increments of mass of body
are equal to heat energy divided by square of speed of light"
Then in a footnote at page 566 Planck writes, "Einstein [14] has
already drawn essentially the same conclusion by application of the
relativity principle to a special radiation process, however under the
assumption permissible only as a first approximation, that the total
energy is composed additively of its kinetic energy and its energy
referred to a system with which it is at rest." Planck mainly listed
two mathematical limitations in Einstein's derivation. Firstly,
according to Planck Einstein's derivation is only a first stage
approximation, rather than equation. Einstein applied Binomial Theorem
and retained terms up to v2/2c2, and neglected higher orders.
Secondly, Planck found Einstein's method of assessment of kinetic
energy in derivation is inconsistent. The claims of H. E. Ives [4]
has been already mentioned. In continuation with critical mathematical
analysis Sharma [8, 9] has confirmed that Einstein's derivation holds
good under certain conditions only as it involve three variables. DL =
Dmc2 is only obtained for particular values of variables, and not for
all possible values of variables, this aspect has neither been pointed
out by Planck nor Ives and others [8,9].
(ix) Recent developments.
Sharma [8,9 ] in 2003-04 extended DE = Dmc2 to DE =Ac2Dm , where A is
conversion co-efficient and can be equal, less or more than one,
depending upon inherent characteristics of conversion processes in
nature. The value of A is consistent with concepts of proportionality
and measurement of coefficients and constants of proportionality
existing since centuries i.e. from days of Aristotle and Newton.
Energy emitted in celestial events like Gamma Ray Bursts (most
energetic events after Big Bang) is 1045 Joule/s. It can be explained
with value of A equal to 2.57´1018 i.e for smaller annihilation of
mass higher energy is emitted. Similarly enormous amount of energy is
emitted by Quasar can be explained. Like wise kinetic energy of the
fission fragments of U235 or Pu239 is found 20-60 MeV less than
Q-value ( 200MeV), it has been elaborated by Bakhoum [25] . The
similar deviations in experimental results are also quoted by Hambsch
[26], Thiereus [27] etc. It can be explained with value of A less than
one. In chemical reactions, reactions taking place in heavenly bodies
and heavenly phenomena, the inter-conversion of mass-energy takes
place. DE =Dmc2 is applicable in such and similar other cases, but
has not been applied. Unless DE =Dmc2 is experimentally confirmed
specifically in such cases, it should not be regarded as true. The
confirmation of DE =Dmc2 in nuclear reactions does not mean that it
should not be confirmed in other potential cases where mass energy
inter-conversion takes place.
Also a particle Ds (2317) discovered at Stanford Linear Accelerator
Centre by Palano [28] has been found to have mass lower than current
estimates based upon DE =Dmc2. It can be explained with value of A less
than one in DE =Ac2Dm. Incidentally, there are proposals for both
theoretical and experimental variations (increase or decrease) in value
of c [ 29-30]; as the fine structure constant ( = e2/ c) is reported
to be increasing over cosmological timescales, implying slowing down of
speed of light, c. The proposals for variations of speed of light
definitely affect status of DE =Dmc2 and supports DE =A c2Dm.
3.0 Einstein and priority in science.
Einstein [31] himself acknowledged Poincaré' s work [16,17] and in
other cases refused to acknowledge any other priority. Einstein [32]
purposely wrote an article titled "On the Inertia of Energy Required
by the Relativity Principle" and justified his approach and claim.
Planck and Stark were convinced that Einstein's derivation of DE
=Dmc2 is inconsistent, J Stark [12] stated that Planck gave first
complete and correct derivation, but Planck's derivation pertains
to conversion of heat energy and mass only. Then Einstein [33] wrote
Stark on 17 Feb. 1908, "I was rather disturbed that you do not
acknowledge my priority with regard to the connection between inertial
mass and energy."
Max Born (1882-1970), co-originator of Quantum Mechanics stated [34]
"The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to the
previous literature". So Born's remark confirms
beyond any doubt that Einstein should have given existing references in
the papers. Einstein's unreferenced paper is the main reason that
some scientists want the logical discussion of on the topic, which is
absolutely right.
Similar is the problem with Einstein's unreferenced June 1905 paper
which deals with Special theory of Relativity. Some of the concepts
discussed (e.g. postulate of relativity and postulate of constancy of
light, relativistic variation of mass, length contraction and time
dilation etc.) were already existing. But this aspect requires separate
discussion as every aspect needs to be supplemented with concrete
evidences . As here also Einstein did not give any reference in June
1905 or Sep. 1905 papers implying that all is his original
contribution, which is questionable.
3.1 Einstein and plagiarism
This topic is discussed by many scientists including Bjerknes [5] and
has blamed Einstein for plagiarism quoting various aspects. Einstein
[31] in 1907 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..."
Einstein can be easily contradicted here. Einstein has commented that
"I am entitled to leave out a thoroughly pedantic survey of the
literature..."
The work of De Pretto in 1903-1904 and that of F. Hasenöhrl in
1904-1905 cannot be called pedantic (obscure, sophistic, hair-splitting
etc ).
The definition of "to plagiarise" from an unimpeachable source,
Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language [35].
"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".
4.0 Conclusions and Future of Einstein's work
Scientists who contributed in concrete way in understanding or
origin of DE =Dmc2 deserve due credit of discovery as should be
mentioned in literature. Undoubtedly English scientist S. T. Preston
is the one who speculated and applied DE =Dmc2 for first time is the
most significant contributor, but quite unknown as well. Einstein gave
first derivation (under certain conditions, as there are at least three
variables i.e. angles at which waves are emitted, magnitude of light
waves and velocity v. The light energy-mass equivalence DL =Dmc2 is
obtained for special values of parameters. Anything which may cause
controversy in years to come is that why did Einstein not give
references from existing work in his papers, and also Einstein 's
DE =Dmc2 in all cases which involve inter-conversion of mass-energy ?
Acknowledgements
Author is highly indebted to Prof. E.G. Bakhoum and many others for
critical discussions.
References
1. Newton, Sir Isaac (1704), Opticks, Dover Publications, Inc., New
York, pp. CVX
2. Preston, S. T. Physics of the Ether, E. & F. N. Spon, London,
(1875).
3. 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
4. Ives, H.E. J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 42:540-543 (1952).
5. Bjerknes, C.J. Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, XTX
Inc., Dowers Grove. (2002).
6. Bartocci , U. Albert Einstein e Olinto De Pretto: la vera storia
della formula più famosa del mondo, Ed. Andromeda, Bologna, 1999.
7. Moody, R Nexus Magazine, Volume 11, Number 1 (December-January
2004)
8. Sharma, A to be published in Physics Essays Vol. 17, No.2 June
2004
9. Sharma, A. Proceedings of International Conference on Computational
Methods in Sciences and Engineering 2003 World Scientific Co.
Singapore, 585-586 (2003)
10. Fadner, W L Am. J. Phys. Vol. 56 No. 2, February 1988
11. Planck, F. Sitz. der preuss. Akad.Wiss., Physik. Math. Klasse. 13
(June, 1907)
12. Stark, J Physikalische Zeitschrift 8(1907):881
13. Ives, H.E. J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 42:540-543 (1952)
14. Einstein, A Annalen der Physik 18, 639 (1905)
15. Thomson, J J . Philos.Mag. 11, 229 (1881)
16. Poincaré, J H, Arch. neerland. sci., 2, 5,232 (1900)),
17. Poincaré's J H , In Boscha 1900:252
18. Hasenöhrl, F. Wien, Sitzungen IIA, 113, 1039 (1904)
19. Hasenöhrl,F. Annalen der Physik 16, 589 (1905)
20. Cummingham, E. The Principle of Relativity, Cambridge University
Press, 1914, p. 189
21. Soddy, F. Radioactivity: An Elementary Treatise from Standpoint
of the Disintegration Theory ("The Electrician " Printing and
Publishing, London, 1904)
22. Einstein, A. Annalen der Physik, 17 891-921 (1905).
23. Kaufmann, W. Nachr. K. Ges. Wiss. Goettingen 2, 143 (1901)
24. Bucherer A.H., Verh. Deutsch. Phys. Ges., Vol. 6 (1908)
25. Bakhoum, E. G. Physics Essays, Vol.15, No 1 2002
(Preprint archive : physics/0206061)
26. Hambsch, F.J. Nucl. Phys.A, 491,p.56 (1989)
27. Thiereus, H. Phys. Rev. C, 23 P 2104 (1981)
28. Palano, A. et al., Phys.Rev.Lett. 90 (2003) 242001
29. . Davis, T.M. et al., Nature 418, (2002) 602
30. Wang , L. J. et al., Nature 406, (2000) 277
31. Einstein, A. Annalen der Physik, 20(1906):627
32. Einstein, A. Einstein, A. Annalen der Physik 23(4):371-384, 1907
(quote on p. 373).
33. Einstein, A . J. Stached Ed., Vol. 2, Princeton University Press,
1989.
34. Born, M. (1956), Physics in My Generation, Pergamon Press, London,
p. 193 (1956)
35. Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language,
Tony Cox
>
> It is well known among historians of science, not physicists per se,
> that Einstein should not be credited with the equation E=MC2. But in
> the United States, it is difficult to say that in public without being
> called an "anti-Semite", as if Einstein is a symbolic embodiment of all
> Jews or Semites!
You really can't help yourself, can you? Regurgitating nonsense
in a field in which you have no training or knowledge. It
reminds me of when you were lecturing us on "what women
want" based on nothing but a single "point on the graph".
The fact that "it is difficult to say that in public" has nothing
whatever to do with being deemed an "anti-Semite". The
difficulty is because its all complete rubbish. Do yourself
a favour and find out exactly what Einstein's relativity
theory is all about. Then you'll realize the significant
contributions he made.
drahcir
YOU can't say it in public because you are a KNOW-NOTHING whose sole
purpose in posting this is that your an ANTI-SEMITE. Everyone here
knows the sole reason you want to attack einstein, without a single
shred of knowledge or experience, is because he was a jew and that
IRRITATES YOU. Your religion is a failure and that is why YOU are a
failure. There are THOUSANDS of jewish scientists who make and have
made STUNNING CONTRIBUTIONS to the world, and muslims sit down in the
cellar of humanity and wait for the benefit to trickle down to them,
and YOU CAN'T STAND THAT.
as if Einstein is a symbolic embodiment of all
> Jews or Semites! And that is why as soon as I stated that perhaps
> Einstein does not deserve some of the credit that he is given, you
> immediately started attacking me for "latent Anti-Semitism."
The reason he attacked you is because ANTI-SEMITISM IS THE ONLY LOGICAL
REASON SOMEONE LIKE YOU WHO KNOWS ZERO OF PHYSICS OR THE HISTORY OF
PHYSICS WOULD ATTACK EINSTEIN.
You also
> started attacking the web site on which this article appeared, totally
> ignorant of the fact that many other scientists have said the same
> thing---people who have no axe to grind or who can hardly be described
> as "anti-Semitic.
You and your silly sources have attempted to twist the words of the few
references from bona fide scientists you have to mean something they
don't. The majority of your stuff is from people like ajay below, a web
nobody who has no position in science.
>
> Here is another article by an Indian scientist, Ajay Sharma, with many
> more references:
> [Please convert "D" in equations to Delta].
>
> http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/8/Sharma4.htm
The author has NO credentials, has NEVER been published, and therefore
has had NO peer review. YOU ARE PATHETIC AND I LOVE SEEING YOU CONTINUE
TRYING, BECAUSE YOU JUST MAKE A BIGGER ASS OF YOURSELF.
This silly muslim 1boy just doesn't understand that some paper written
and put on the web by some NOBODY is IRRELEVANT. Someone please try to
teach this moron the basics of how science proceeds, PLEASE, before he
drives us all crazy. BTW, this Indian guy is so proud of his work he
resorts to putting it up on a BLOG:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=28362
For those who wonder why 1boy never replies to me no matter how much I
throw at him, he has made this his new policy, which relieves him from
the painful task of debating me. Rest assured he reads each and every
one of my replies to him, in fact he is reading this and BOILING. I
LOVE IT!!! That's the price you pay, 1boy, for devoting your wasted
life to something you can't see proof of. HAHA!
drahcir
Do you really think this advice will be heeded? Remember, 1boy is a
believing muslim. They don't study or try to comprehend -- they have
"faith".
1MAN4ALL
Tony Cox wrote:
> "1MAN4ALL" <fora...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153588478.0...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > It is well known among historians of science, not physicists per se,
> > that Einstein should not be credited with the equation E=MC2. But in
> > the United States, it is difficult to say that in public without being
> > called an "anti-Semite", as if Einstein is a symbolic embodiment of all
> > Jews or Semites!
> You really can't help yourself, can you? Regurgitating nonsense
> in a field in which you have no training or knowledge. It
> reminds me of when you were lecturing us on "what women
> want" based on nothing but a single "point on the graph".
Well, you have no knowledge either, so why are you replying. I can just
as easily claim that you don't know anything about Islam and has no
right to comments on Islam and Muslims!
I think you first have to read what I had quoted in my previous post.
You hastened to reply, because you were afraid that other people would
read my post, and you have nothing of substance to add. If you are
questioning the references that the article has given, all you have to
do is visit a college library, or even do some browsing on the
Internet, to verify them. Assuming that Ajay Sharma is a liar, a person
who is an Indian scientist and I am sure has nothing against Jews is
just ludicrous.
> The fact that "it is difficult to say that in public" has nothing
> whatever to do with being deemed an "anti-Semite". The
> difficulty is because its all complete rubbish. Do yourself
> a favour and find out exactly what Einstein's relativity
> theory is all about. Then you'll realize the significant
> contributions he made.
That's irrelevant. Please go through the article and provide historical
proof for the three questions below:
1. Did Einstein come with the formula E=MC2 ?
2. Did Einstein mathematically prove E=MC2 ?
3. Why Einstein did not provide proper references when using the work
of other people?
Tony Cox
>
> Tony Cox wrote:
> > "1MAN4ALL" <fora...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1153588478.0...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > It is well known among historians of science, not physicists per se,
> > > that Einstein should not be credited with the equation E=MC2. But in
> > > the United States, it is difficult to say that in public without being
> > > called an "anti-Semite", as if Einstein is a symbolic embodiment of all
> > > Jews or Semites!
>
> > You really can't help yourself, can you? Regurgitating nonsense
> > in a field in which you have no training or knowledge. It
> > reminds me of when you were lecturing us on "what women
> > want" based on nothing but a single "point on the graph".
>
> Well, you have no knowledge either, so why are you replying. I can just
> as easily claim that you don't know anything about Islam and has no
> right to comments on Islam and Muslims!
I have a D.Phil in theoretical physics. You? And as for
Islam, all I ever do is ask questions and draw conclusions
from what you and others reply.
> > The fact that "it is difficult to say that in public" has nothing
> > whatever to do with being deemed an "anti-Semite". The
> > difficulty is because its all complete rubbish. Do yourself
> > a favour and find out exactly what Einstein's relativity
> > theory is all about. Then you'll realize the significant
> > contributions he made.
>
> That's irrelevant. Please go through the article and provide historical
> proof for the three questions below:
Oh don't be so patronizing. I explained to you earlier
why Lorentz and Einstein both came up with the same
transformation equations, but the distinction went
way over your head and you *still* think Einstein
plagiarized earlier work. Now you want me to explain
E=MC2 too? Why should I waste more time on you
if you never listen. If you are really interested, go
do your own research.
drahcir
1MAN4ALL wrote:
> Tony Cox wrote:
> > "1MAN4ALL" <fora...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1153588478.0...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > It is well known among historians of science, not physicists per se,
> > > that Einstein should not be credited with the equation E=MC2. But in
> > > the United States, it is difficult to say that in public without being
> > > called an "anti-Semite", as if Einstein is a symbolic embodiment of all
> > > Jews or Semites!
>
> > You really can't help yourself, can you? Regurgitating nonsense
> > in a field in which you have no training or knowledge. It
> > reminds me of when you were lecturing us on "what women
> > want" based on nothing but a single "point on the graph".
>
> Well, you have no knowledge either,
hey 1boy, seeing as how tony has a doctorate in physics and all, i was
just wondering, how does your foot taste?
so why are you replying. I can just
> as easily claim that you don't know anything about Islam and has no
> right to comments on Islam and Muslims!
>
> I think you first have to read what I had quoted in my previous post.
> You hastened to reply, because you were afraid that other people would
> read my post, and you have nothing of substance to add. If you are
> questioning the references that the article has given, all you have to
> do is visit a college library, or even do some browsing on the
> Internet, to verify them. Assuming that Ajay Sharma is a liar, a person
> who is an Indian scientist
Can you please cite some evidence of him being a "scientist". So far as
I can tell, he is an amateur science historian.
and I am sure has nothing against Jews is
> just ludicrous.
>
> > The fact that "it is difficult to say that in public" has nothing
> > whatever to do with being deemed an "anti-Semite". The
> > difficulty is because its all complete rubbish. Do yourself
> > a favour and find out exactly what Einstein's relativity
> > theory is all about. Then you'll realize the significant
> > contributions he made.
>
> That's irrelevant. Please go through the article and provide historical
> proof for the three questions below:
>
>
> 1. Did Einstein come with the formula E=MC2 ?
>
> 2. Did Einstein mathematically prove E=MC2 ?
>
> 3. Why Einstein did not provide proper references when using the work
> of other people?
You ask questions you have no hope of comprehending the answer to. This
is funnier than any thread you have embarrassed yourself in, 1boy. I am
loving every minute of this, fool.
Mike
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> First, I wonder how one defines "plagiarized" and, second, perhaps it
> is telling that the physics community did not interpret it as precisely
> plagiarism.
Well, right. Scientific work almost always builds on foundations
established by others, and the scientific community in each discipline
is very familiar with those foundations. If Einstien's 1905 work was
indeed plagarized, the screaming from the community would have started
on the day the prize was announced, and would have continued unabated
until recinded and he was properly humiliated.
Ergo, I think we can safely relegate this notion to the bin of
historical revisionism.
The motivation for such revisionism is another matter, but there is
ample material for speculation.
Mike
I LOVE WHEN MOHAMMEDANS GET KILLED AND DIE A HORIBLE DEATH
1manforall just became 1 BITCH for all!!!
:-)
drahcir wrote:
>
> YOU can't say it in public because you are a KNOW-NOTHING whose sole
> purpose in posting this is that your an ANTI-SEMITE. Everyone here
> knows the sole reason you want to attack einstein, without a single
> shred of knowledge or experience, is because he was a jew and that
> IRRITATES YOU. Your religion is a failure and that is why YOU are a
> failure. There are THOUSANDS of jewish scientists who make and have
> made STUNNING CONTRIBUTIONS to the world, and muslims sit down in the
> cellar of humanity and wait for the benefit to trickle down to them,
> and YOU CAN'T STAND THAT.
> >
Mike
I think it's worth pointing out that IMAN has successfully taken the
focus of this thread ON TO a conspiracy theory vis a vis Einstein, and
OFF OF the original topic, which is the fact that the Muslim world has
contributed virtually nothing in the areas of science, economics,
literature, or other discipline worth recognizing.
Nice work.
Mike
drahcir
Don't forget, it's a two-edged sword. On the one hand, muslims languish
in the cellar of humanity, consuming valuable resources, and, in spite
of their numbers, contributing next to nothing, largely due to their
religion. This is just one facet of proof that islam is a lie. The
other side of this thread is, in spite of their numbers, what a
stunning contribution jews have made to the world. It would be
interesting to determine how much judaism is responsible for this. Both
sides drive 1boy crazy. Hey 1boy, if you must believe, maybe you should
consider converting to judaism. I warn you, it's not so easy as saying
there is 1 god and moses is his prophet.
P.S. I might quibble about literature. Mahfouz is wonderful.
Mirelle
Mirelle
Zimbawi
IS THE NAME OF MY Pet DON KEY! :) wrote:
> Look how many JEWS have won the NOBEL PRIZE:
>
>
> Albert Einstein -- The most famous and influential scientist of all
> time
>
>
drahcir
Mirelle wrote:
> How many people who decide who gets the Nobel prize are Jewish?
>
> Mirelle
Uh-oh, Mirelle, the impossibly stupid thing, has sniffed out the nobel
conspiracy!!! Run for your lives!!! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! You silly airyhead.
>From the nobel site:
Who selects the Prize Winners? In his last will and testament, Alfred
Nobel specifically designated the institutions responsible for the
prizes he wished to be established: The Royal Swedish Academy of
Sciences for the Prize in Physics and Chemistry, Karolinska Institute
for the Prize in Physiology or Medicine, the Swedish Academy for the
Prize in Literature, and a Committee of five persons to be elected by
the Norwegian Parliament (Storting) for the Peace Prize. In 1968, the
Sveriges Riksbank established the Prize in Economics in Memory of
Alfred Nobel. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences was given the task
to select the Economics Prize Winners starting in 1969.
Let it seep into your defective brain, you friggin stupid bitch.
Jacques Pelletier
>
> Tony Cox wrote:
>> "1MAN4ALL" <fora...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1153588478.0...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > It is well known among historians of science, not physicists per se,
>> > that Einstein should not be credited with the equation E=MC2. But in
>> > the United States, it is difficult to say that in public without being
>> > called an "anti-Semite", as if Einstein is a symbolic embodiment of
>> > all Jews or Semites!
<snip>
> 1. Did Einstein come with the formula E=MC2 ?
> 2. Did Einstein mathematically prove E=MC2 ?
> 3. Why Einstein did not provide proper references when using the work of
> other people?
It's a fact that the Lorentz transformations and probably the famous
equation E=mc² were known before Einstein's paper; at least since
the Michelson-Morley experiment. I think Einstein innovated by proposing
an interpretation of the equations that excluded the need for a
"luminiferous ether".
Anyway, the Nobel prize attributed to Einstein was due "For his services
to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the
photoelectric effect"
http://www.nobel-prize.org/EN/Physics/einstein.htm
But even without Einstein, the number of jewish winners to the Nobel
prize exceeds the number of muslims winners by far.
JP
Mike
Mirelle wrote:
> How many people who decide who gets the Nobel prize are Jewish?
>
> Mirelle
I believe they are all Norwegian, so the answer is, "none, or close to
none."
(Of course, even if some plurality were in fact Jewish, that factoid
neither implies nor proves causality.)
Mike
1MAN4ALL
Tony Cox wrote:
> "1MAN4ALL" <fora...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153595969.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Tony Cox wrote:
> > > "1MAN4ALL" <fora...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1153588478.0...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > It is well known among historians of science, not physicists per se,
> > > > that Einstein should not be credited with the equation E=MC2. But in
> > > > the United States, it is difficult to say that in public without being
> > > > called an "anti-Semite", as if Einstein is a symbolic embodiment of all
> > > > Jews or Semites!
> >
> > > You really can't help yourself, can you? Regurgitating nonsense
> > > in a field in which you have no training or knowledge. It
> > > reminds me of when you were lecturing us on "what women
> > > want" based on nothing but a single "point on the graph".
> >
> > Well, you have no knowledge either, so why are you replying. I can just
> > as easily claim that you don't know anything about Islam and has no
> > right to comments on Islam and Muslims!
>
> I have a D.Phil in theoretical physics. You? And as for
> Islam, all I ever do is ask questions and draw conclusions
> from what you and others reply.
As I hinted earlier, having a Ph.D. in physics makes no difference
unless you are also an expert on history of science or physics. Tracing
historical facts, as to who came up with the original idea, requires
different sort of credentials.
> > > The fact that "it is difficult to say that in public" has nothing
> > > whatever to do with being deemed an "anti-Semite". The
> > > difficulty is because its all complete rubbish. Do yourself
> > > a favour and find out exactly what Einstein's relativity
> > > theory is all about. Then you'll realize the significant
> > > contributions he made.
> > That's irrelevant. Please go through the article and provide historical
> > proof for the three questions below:
> Oh don't be so patronizing. I explained to you earlier
> why Lorentz and Einstein both came up with the same
> transformation equations, but the distinction went
> way over your head and you *still* think Einstein
> plagiarized earlier work. Now you want me to explain
> E=MC2 too? Why should I waste more time on you
> if you never listen. If you are really interested, go
> do your own research.
I am not sure why you keep snipping most of my post. What are you
afraid of?
[STOP! Don't Snip The Rest...]
Just to annoy you, here is a link to my post which you keep snipping:
You utterly failed to go through Sharma's article and pointed where he
is wrong. Now, even to a non-Physicist like me it is obvious that your
assertion that "Lorentz and Einstein both came up with the same
transformation equations" is highly deceptive. The equation already
existed! Sharma does give some credit to Einstein---includes him in the
seven people that he thinks deserve credit---but also pointed out the
following:
[STOP! STOP! STOP! Don't Snip The Rest...]
--------------
Now, in your earlier post, you had stated, "For Lorentz (and others)
these equations took the form they did simply because that was what was
necessary to make Maxwells' equations invariant under a change of
coordinates; for Einstein, they were a consequence of the lack of any
preferred 'absolute' reference frame and the observation that the speed
of light is always the same regardless of how you happen to be moving."
That's hard to prove, but in any case, HOW Einstein proved his ideas
mathematically was inconsistent. In other words, he never proved it. As
Sharma pointed out, "Einstein has suggested eq.(1) [SEE MY EARLIER
QUOTE FOR EQUATIONS] in his June 1905 paper [22 ] in which is known as
Special Theory of Relativity But while deriving final result i.e. DL
=Dmc2 Einstein interpreted the equation under classical conditions
(v<<c) as below. (a) Although Einstein started derivation of DL =Dmc2
using relativistic variation of light energy as in eq.(1), yet final
result was obtained under classical conditions using Binomial Theorem
which is applicable if v<<c".
Sharma does give some credit to Einstein by concluding: "Undoubtedly
English scientist S. T. Preston is the one who speculated and applied
DE =Dmc2 for first time is the most significant contributor, but quite
unknown as well. Einstein gave first derivation (under certain
conditions, as there are at least three variables i.e. angles at which
waves are emitted, magnitude of light waves and velocity v. The light
energy-mass equivalence DL =Dmc2 is obtained for special values of
parameters".
I never claimed that Einstein was a dummy. I simply stated that some of
the credit that he is given [most people think that he is the one who
came up with E=MC2] is undeserved.
drahcir
Mike wrote:
> Mirelle wrote:
> > How many people who decide who gets the Nobel prize are Jewish?
> >
> > Mirelle
>
> I believe they are all Norwegian, so the answer is, "none, or close to
> none."
>
> (Of course, even if some plurality were in fact Jewish, that factoid
> neither implies nor proves causality.)
You are deliberately being mean to the airhead by using big words.
Shame on you.
drahcir
Yeah, like being an anti-semite.
>
> > > > The fact that "it is difficult to say that in public" has nothing
> > > > whatever to do with being deemed an "anti-Semite". The
> > > > difficulty is because its all complete rubbish. Do yourself
> > > > a favour and find out exactly what Einstein's relativity
> > > > theory is all about. Then you'll realize the significant
> > > > contributions he made.
>
> > > That's irrelevant. Please go through the article and provide historical
> > > proof for the three questions below:
>
> > Oh don't be so patronizing. I explained to you earlier
> > why Lorentz and Einstein both came up with the same
> > transformation equations, but the distinction went
> > way over your head and you *still* think Einstein
> > plagiarized earlier work. Now you want me to explain
> > E=MC2 too? Why should I waste more time on you
> > if you never listen. If you are really interested, go
> > do your own research.
>
> I am not sure why you keep snipping most of my post. What are you
> afraid of?
Oh, 1boy, by this time it is evident to everyone that you are such an
idiot that hinting that a man with a doctorate in physics has something
to fear in this thread from a lowly, know-nothing muslim is simply
precious.
>
> [STOP! Don't Snip The Rest...]
>
> Just to annoy you, here is a link to my post which you keep snipping:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/jt6r4
>
> You utterly failed to go through Sharma's article and pointed where he
> is wrong. Now, even to a non-Physicist like me it is obvious that your
> assertion that "Lorentz and Einstein both came up with the same
> transformation equations" is highly deceptive. The equation already
> existed! Sharma does give some credit to Einstein---includes him in the
> seven people that he thinks deserve credit---but also pointed out the
> following:
Here's the way normal people think, 1boy. If you ever give up your
stupid religion, mayi someday you will achieve a glimmer of normalcy.
EINSTEIN IS WELL RESPECTED BY THE WORLD OF PHYSICS. THE WORLD OF
PHYSICS KNOWS OF LORENTZ ET AL. AND HAS NO PROBLEM WITH EINSTEIN. EVERY
SINGLE ONE OF YOUR CITES IS FROM A KNOW- NOTHING AMATEUR WITH BARELY
MORE KNOWLEDGE THAN A MUSLIM IGNORAMUS LIKE YOU HAS. IF THE PHYSICS
WORLD HAS NO PROBLEM WITH EINSTEIN, IT MEANS YOUR SILLY CITES ARE JUST
NOBODIES TRYING TO MAKE A NAME FOR THEMSELVES.
You are into this for one reason only: you know that jews are the
greatest contributors to civilization and muslims contribute nearly
nothing positve and a huge amount negative. Your ulterior motive is
transparent to EVERYONE HERE, yet you continue, thinking you can hide
this as vainly as you try to hide your antisemitism and anti-hinduism.
>
> [STOP! STOP! STOP! Don't Snip The Rest...]
THE REASON HE SNIPS IT IS BECAUSE HE KNOWS YOU HAVE NO COMPREHENSION OF
IT AND THEREFORE HE CANNOT DISCUSS ITS FAULTS WITH YOU. DO YOU THINK
YOU CAN HIDE YOUR PATHETIC WEAKNESS??
NO, YOU STATED HE WAS A PLAGIARIST. YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW WHETHER HE
WAS A PLAGIARIST BECAUSE YOU ARE AN IGNORAMUS, BUT YOU COULDN'T FIGURE
THAT EVERYONE KNOWS THAT YOU ARE AN IGNORAMUS BECAUSE YOU ARE BLINDED
BY YOU STUPID RELIGION.
Sleep well, sweet prince. You are as pathetic an individual as I have
ever encounetered. Better lift that ass extra high tomorrow, 1boy.
Mirelle
of the last century. Even before he died he regretted his work. His
friend Openheimer said 'we have unleashed Shiva, The destroyer'
Both men suffered tremendous sorrow that their work was involved with
such mass destruction as the nuclear bomb. Both died not at peace with
thier life or themselves.
Mirelle
Count 1
purpose in posting this is that your an ANTI-SEMITE. Everyone here
knows the sole reason you want to attack einstein, without a single
shred of knowledge or experience, is because he was a jew and that
IRRITATES YOU. Your religion is a failure and that is why YOU are a
failure. There are THOUSANDS of jewish scientists who make and have
made STUNNING CONTRIBUTIONS to the world, and muslims sit down in the
cellar of humanity and wait for the benefit to trickle down to them,
and YOU CAN'T STAND THAT.
For those of us familiar with 1Man's posting history, I'd have to to say
this is the most eloquent, germaine, and articulate summation if his mindset
I've seen.
Well done Drahcir. 1Man is clearly irritated by Jews, and this pathetic
revisionism he's engaging in about Einstein shows how desperate he becomes.
1MAN4ALL
That alone should tell you why he was not given a Nobel for the Theory
of Relativity.
> But even without Einstein, the number of jewish winners to the Nobel
> prize exceeds the number of muslims winners by far.
Nobody is disputing that. Most Muslim countries were under Western
colonial rule until recently, and are trying to emerge from their Dark
Ages. Yet, at least one Muslim (or at least he claimed to be one),
Abdus Salam, has received a Nobel in theoretical physics, proving that
it can be done.
One needs to realize that scientific work nowadays is more of a team
effort. The underlings do most of the work but the work is published
under the name of the program director, who is usually spending more
time trying to get grants than doing actual research. Relationship with
Congressmen or Senators is also very helpful in getting federal funds
for research projects. Furthermore, a plethora of theories already
exists; it's how you attract talent (increasingly from Asian nations)
and what machines you utilize that makes all the difference. For
example, robotics is now widely used for high thoughtput screening in
medical research. Each robot (not the walking kind) can cost up to 15
million dollars. It's very difficult for Muslim countries which are
still busy trying to build primary schools to divert that kind of money
into scientific research. The budget for NIH itself is more than the
budget of most Third World countries! The Gulf countries certainly have
that kind of money, but because of corruption and stupidity, the money
is being spent into buying properties in Switzerland,
gambling/womanizing in Vegas, and buying US Treasury bonds, which is
good for the West but not so good for Arabs. That is one of the reasons
that most Muslims would like to overthrow these regimes. I read
somewhere that even Salam proposed to the President of Pakistan to take
a billion dollars out of the budget and spend it on building a center
for theoretical research. The President refused, saying that the
country simply cannot afford it. Italy, which was thinking about it but
didn't have the right talent, immediately grabbed him and Salam built
his International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP), in Trieste,
Italy.
drahcir
Mirelle wrote:
> Einstein and his buddies, are some of the worst
This is getting surreal. The impossibly stupid Mirelle pronoiunces.
Let's see what more this impossibly stupid thing has to say about
people that she not only knows nothing of, but does not have the
capacity to ever know anything of!
'Scientific' disasters
> of the last century. Even before he died he regretted his work.
"Even before he died"? Oh, I see, so one would have expected him to
have regretted his work AFTER he died, but his regret was so profound
it EVEN occurred before he died. BWAHAHAHA!!
You silly airhead, he did not regret any of his work. He continued
searching for a unified field theory virtrually until hie died. Of
course speaking to something like you about a unified field theory is
kinda like speaking about it to my dog.
His
> friend Openheimer said 'we have unleashed Shiva, The destroyer'
> Both men suffered tremendous sorrow that their work was involved with
> such mass destruction as the nuclear bomb. Both died not at peace with
> thier life or themselves.
Complete fabrication. Who wouldn't have some misgivings about
unleashing such power? But oppenheimer had a mission and he
accomplished it. Einstein was more involved in the theoretical aspects
of the bomb. Neither would have changed a thing. You are blowing wind
out of your big rear end, silly airhead.
drahcir
HAHAHAHA!! 1boy resorts to the "colonial" stuff. The reason muslims
don't win the nobel is that islam does not encourage learning of
anything except islam.
Yet, at least one Muslim (or at least he claimed to be one),
> Abdus Salam, has received a Nobel in theoretical physics, proving that
> it can be done.
Hmmm, one out of a billion. Not bad....
Geez, even for 1boy the above is an unbelievable pile of lame excuses.
As far back as muslims go, there is not ONE decent instittution of
learning in the ENTIRE muslim world. Muslims will never excel at
positive things as long as they take their stupid religion seriously.
drahcir
1MAN4ALL wrote:
> Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad wrote:
>
> > > Once again, I think you "replied too quickly" and didn't read the
> > > article. Moody provides other references besides Bjerknes.
>
> > This has already acknowledged. Straw man? Nonetheless, the wackjob
> > Bjerknes does serve as a source for your article from the wacky Nexus
> > Magazine.
>
> > > The problem is that criticizing Einstein is politically incorrect, as that can be
> > > construed by some people (like you) as "latent anti-Semitism."
>
> > So another conspiracy theory is used to explain why a conspiracy theory
> > put forth by a few wackjobs including an article in a wild conspiracy
> > theory magazine is far more reliable when discussing the history of
> > physics then the accepted stance in the mainstream physics community.
> > Nice. You're already flailing.
>
> > As for allusions to you being latently antisemtic (others have argued
> > that it is not all that latent), the signs are all over the place, but
> > this endorsement of the article you posted is only a *VERY* small piece
> > in that puzzle. Your pretensions that Nexus Magazine is the go-to
> > source in this debate hints at the possibility that your anger at Jews
> > is so great that you'll go to the wackiest sources in your desperate
> > search for support.
>
> It is well known among historians of science, not physicists per se,
> that Einstein should not be credited with the equation E=MC2.
"Well known"?? Well known by whom except anti-semites and poseurs who
have an axe to grind for whatever their psychological reasons? 1boy
again speaks about stuff he knows zilch about. Muslims are so
presumptuous that they can make statements about stuff they know
nothing about because they also presume the biggest lie of history is
true -- that the mass murderer muhammad had conversations with some
deity with the baby name "allah". So far you have produced one web doc
based largely on the work of a proven anti-semite, and one web doc
(below) from some indian nobody who resorts to posting his very
important work on BLOGS! Your assertion that it is "well-known" is
unsupported by even ONE published and peer reviewed book or paper.
Therefore, one can again say that this is a lie and, since you have
zero connection to or knowledge of the world of physics, can only be
motivated by anti-semitism.
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad
1MAN4ALL wrote:
>
> It is well known among historians of science, not physicists per se,
> that Einstein should not be credited with the equation E=MC2. But in
> the United States, it is difficult to say that in public without being
> called an "anti-Semite", as if Einstein is a symbolic embodiment of all
> Jews or Semites!
The first ssentence, of the two above, is interesting, as, while I am
not a physicist, I was under the impression that Einstein was the
originator of this formula. The second sentence is merely your own
conspiracy theory (which hints, again, at your antiSemitism, as you
presuppose a Jewish hand is behind everything just because you are
called out for being an antiSemite). How one presents a statement can
help to determine one's motivations.
Mining the net, I found reference to this topic (i.e. the origins of
the formula m = L(c^2) A.K.A. E = m(c^2)) in an article by Eli Zahar.
Unfortunately, the main libraries I frequent are not open until
Tuesday, so I will not be able to browse the article (and whatever
references found therein) until then. Nonetheless, it seems a very
serious journal (i.e. the one that Zahar's article appears in: the
Brittish Journal for the Philosophy of Science) has an article
discussing the subject, and I doubt this is the only source to discuss
the issue.
> And that is why as soon as I stated that perhaps
> Einstein does not deserve some of the credit that he is given, you
> immediately started attacking me for "latent Anti-Semitism."
The accusation of antiSemitism was rooted in the fact that you were so
bothered by this "Jews won more Nobel Prizes" polemic that you had to
run off and mine the net for anything you could find which would cast
doubt on one of those Jews. You didn't care that your source was a
wackjob conspiracy theory site (which also included conspiracy theories
about world governments covering up the many times Aliens have visited
us, the archeologists covering up the "true" origins of the Mexican and
Egyptian pyramids, the medical industry creating "shaken baby syndrome"
to cover up the fact that vaccines really killed all those children
rather than abusive parents, et cetera). You just sided with it because
it suited your agenda. But as I said previously, you citing this
article is *VERY* small part in a much larger puzzle which leads to the
conclusion that you are an antiSemite. In no way could we really say
for certain if you were antiSemitic based solely on this issue.
> You also started attacking the web site on which this article appeared,
> totally ignorant of the fact that many other scientists have said the same
> thing---people who have no axe to grind or who can hardly be described
> as "anti-Semitic.
I never claimed that if someone disputes a claim about Einstein, that
person is an antiSemite. So save your straw man.
Now, if these claims have been made by serious scientists, rather than
holocaust deniers and people associated with ultra-silly conspiracy
theory sites (like Nexus Magazine), then why do you keep mining the net
for sources? Can you produce a peer reviewed piece on the subject? Can
you cite an article in a serious journal, or a source written by a
serious scientist, which does not claim, as you have, that Einstein is
(a) an incorrigible plagiarist, and (b) did not deserve the Nobel Prize
he received for physics?
> Here is another article by an Indian scientist, Ajay Sharma, with many
> more references:
> [Please convert "D" in equations to Delta].
>
> http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/8/Sharma4.htm
An interesting find. Thank you. I've printed it out, and on Tuesday I'm
going to begin checking references found therein (along with Zahar's
article, and maybe a few intro histories to the subject or biographies
on Einstein). In the mean time (being that I am such a novice in the
realm of physics), I'm going to post the article to a physics-related
newsgroup, and ask if it should lead to the conclusion that either (a)
Einstein was an incorrigible plagiarist, or (b) Einstein did not
deserve the Nobel Prize he received for Physics. I'll do with the hopes
that, on the rare chance someone provides further clues/insight, we can
investigate this issue further. I must confess that I was disappointed
that Tony Cox described himself as having a PhD in (theoretical)
physics, but did not bother to respond in depth.
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad
drahcir wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > I think it's worth pointing out that IMAN has successfully taken the
> > focus of this thread ON TO a conspiracy theory vis a vis Einstein, and
> > OFF OF the original topic, which is the fact that the Muslim world has
> > contributed virtually nothing in the areas of science, economics,
> > literature, or other discipline worth recognizing.
>
> Don't forget, it's a two-edged sword. On the one hand, muslims languish
> in the cellar of humanity, consuming valuable resources, and, in spite
> of their numbers, contributing next to nothing, largely due to their
> religion. This is just one facet of proof that islam is a lie.
I would have to strongly disagree with that last sentence. A lack of
intellectual heavyweights coming out of the Muslim world in the 20th
and 21st centuries is no more a disproof of Islam than was the
tremendous contributions the Muslim world during the 9th-to-12th
centuries a proof of Islam.
I think the region plays a role (i.e. there's a reason why today Berlin
provides more scientists than Baghdad, while that was not the case nine
centuries ago). The top Muslim scientists today seem to mostly come
from India (i.e. in light of the amazing institutions for various
fields of science which are developing in India today, *IF* Islam
enjoys another golden age it will probably be led by Indian Muslims),
while most of the great Jewish minds came from America and Western
Europe.
Just my thoughts...
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad
drahcir wrote:
>
> This silly muslim 1boy just doesn't understand that some paper written
> and put on the web by some NOBODY is IRRELEVANT. Someone please try to
> teach this moron the basics of how science proceeds, PLEASE, before he
> drives us all crazy. BTW, this Indian guy is so proud of his work he
> resorts to putting it up on a BLOG:
>
> http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=28362
WOW!!!! Thank you *VERY* much for this link, as it provided a bit of
insight which is very helpful. First, see my post from about half an
hour ago:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/bff78b54e4a46996
It was there that I referred to the relevant formula as:
m = L(c^2) A.K.A. E = m(c^2)
That is m=L(c^2), also known as E=m(c^2). Why did I write that? Well,
because, while I am a complete novice in the realm of physics (i.e. a
bit of a dope on the subject), I recalled that from my intro to physics
course as an undergraduate (admittedly under Sultan Catto, who was a
great professor) that the formula popularly written E=m(c^2) was
actually originally written by Einstein as m=L(c^2). Now, of course,
m=L(c^2) can be rewritten L=m(c^2), and it should be noted that
Einstein used L in place of E (but these two different variables
represent the same thing).
Now, the link you (i.e. Drahcir) posted included commentary on that
article. I had yet to thoroughly read the article (I planned on reading
it before heading to the library to check the sources), so I did not
catch something that a person commenting in the link above did catch,
namely this sentence:
"In 1905 Einstein derived light energy -mass equivalence DL =Dmc2 ,
then speculated from it DE =Dmc2 without proof."
In short, what this means is that the author thinks Einstein took
L=m(c^2), and from there speculated E=m(c^2), without any proof. Even a
complete novice (a veritable fool when it comes to physics) like me
knows that those are the exact same equations! 1Man4All's second chosen
article was written by a guy who did not know this very basic fact!
This is one of these moments where you have to slap your forehead and
exclaim "my goodness!"
> For those who wonder why 1boy never replies to me
Whatever his reasoning is, and whatever your motivation may be, please
continue to post responses, as thus far in what I have read from your
contributions to this thread, I have discovered some absolute gems that
I would not have found had you noted posted your comments and links.
Thanks again.
Tony Cox
> Yet, at least one Muslim (or at least he claimed to be one),
> Abdus Salam, has received a Nobel in theoretical physics, proving that
> it can be done.
No one said Muslims can't receive Nobel prizes. Anyway,
Salam was an Ahmadi, and (correct me if I'm wrong) Ahmadis
do not believe that Muhammad was the final prophet, and so
therefore aren't recognized by other Muslims.
Another "hard science" Muslim Nobel prize winner was Zewail.
He is probably more to your taste. I believe he is a Sunni.
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad
1MAN4ALL wrote:
>
> 2. Did Einstein mathematically prove E=MC2 ?
The above seems to be influenced by the following statement in Sharma's
article:
"In 1905 Einstein derived light energy –mass equivalence DL =Dmc2 ,
then speculated from it DE =Dmc2 without proof."
Assuming I am correct, this was touched on elsewhere in this thread...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/0e8337095d552f4c
...but I wanted to add more. I had been taught in my undergraduate
class that the formula popularly written...
E=m(c^2)
...was originally written by Einstein as:
m=L(c^2)
...where L represented the exact same thing E did. It turns out
neither formula was explicitly written in Einstein's article. You can
see the German original here:
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/papers/1905_18_639-641.pdf
...as well as an English translation here:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
The first sentence of the fourth paragraph from the bottom reads as
follows:
"Gibt ein Körper die Energie L in Form von Strahlung ab, so
verkleinert sich seine Masse um L/(V^2)."
[The English translation has: "If a body gives off the energy L in the
form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c²."]
This is the origin of the formula. What Einstein is postulating is
m=L(V^2). What 'L' represents is the same as what 'E' represents in
popular writings of the formula. What 'V' represents is what 'c'
represents in the same popular writings of the formula. 1Man4All loves
to mine the net, and when I myself mined the net for info on this
subject, I found the following statements within seconds:
[--- BEGIN QUOTES ---]
In this paper Einstein uses L to denote energy; the italicised sentence
in the conclusion may be written as the equation "m = L/c²" which,
using the more modern E instead of L to denote energy, may be trivially
rewritten as "E = mc²".
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
What's not so famous is the fact that Einstein never actually wrote the
formula on the submitted paper. [...] In fact, he described in a
sentence and he used L instead of E.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1492042.htm
Notice that in the original paper, Einstein uses V instead of c for the
speed of light, and L instead of E for energy. Today's world famous
formula is simply explained in words.
http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/content/news/2005/yop/sept05.html
It is a little known piece of trivia that Einstein originally wrote the
equation in the form Δm = L/c² (with an "L", instead of an "E",
representing energy, the E being utilised elsewhere in the
demonstration to represent energy too).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_%3D_mc%C2%B2
[--- END QUOTES ---]
Even someone commenting on Sharma's article (after Sharma posted it to
an online forum, which Drahcir linked to) has noted this:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=223161#post223161
So, Einstein essentially stated that m=L(V^2), and Sharma felt that
Einstein offered no proof that this leads to the conclusion that
E=m(c^2). This seems to not bode well for Sharma, as even in
undergraduate into to physics classes it is taught that the former
refers to the same thing as the latter (i.e. E=L and c=V).
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad
1MAN4ALL wrote:
> Jacques Pelletier wrote:
>
> > to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the
> > photoelectric effect"
> >
> > http://www.nobel-prize.org/EN/Physics/einstein.htm
>
> That alone should tell you why he was not given a Nobel for the Theory
> of Relativity.
Wait a minute. I myself am ignorant of what, if any, relationship
exists between Einstein's general and special theories of relativity,
and Einstein's views on photoelectric effect. But if the two are
unrelated, why did 1Man4All, in a discussion about Jewish nobel prize
winners (including Einstein), go on a tangent about an, apparently(?),
unrelated subject?
Tony Cox
news:1153671754.2...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> An interesting find. Thank you. I've printed it out, and on Tuesday I'm
> going to begin checking references found therein (along with Zahar's
> article, and maybe a few intro histories to the subject or biographies
> on Einstein). In the mean time (being that I am such a novice in the
> realm of physics), I'm going to post the article to a physics-related
> newsgroup, and ask if it should lead to the conclusion that either (a)
> Einstein was an incorrigible plagiarist, or (b) Einstein did not
> deserve the Nobel Prize he received for Physics. I'll do with the hopes
> that, on the rare chance someone provides further clues/insight, we can
> investigate this issue further. I must confess that I was disappointed
> that Tony Cox described himself as having a PhD in (theoretical)
> physics, but did not bother to respond in depth.
Sorry to disappoint you. The short answer is that debunking
this stuff takes time, and is not relevant to discussions on Islam.
It is also rather pointless, as 1MAN has a habit of bailing out
1/2 way through a discussion, usually so he can do battle with
Hindu trolls or other imaginary demons. It'll be interesting to
see what you manage to drag up from other forums.
I entered this discussion because 1MAN claimed that
Einstein plagiarized the work of Lorentz, specifically by
stealing his so-called "transformation equations" which
describe coordinates measured in various reference
frames that are in motion relative to each other.
My point was that although the equations are the same,
and are in fact not at all complicated, they were derived
from completely different interpretations of reality. Lorentz,
and others, derived their results to explain the (failed)
Michelson-Morley experiment, and to correct for an
anomaly that had been bugging people for some time over
Maxwell's four equations of electromagnetism. Einstein,
on the other hand, derived his equations by postulating
that a non-Euclidian 4-dimensional space-time properly
described the world, the transformation equations emerging
naturally as a consequence. "Special" relativity relates to
the Minkowski space he originally proposed. This was
subsequently extended to the "General" case by postulating
even more non-obvious vector spaces that supposedly
described the world. Funnily enough, these descriptions
seem to work. Perhaps you can see now why "responding
in depth" could quickly become a full-time occupation.
Einstein was a womanizer, a pacifist, a socialist, an airhead,
and no doubt a lot more besides. But he was also a genius.
drahcir
Good reply. Thank you.
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad
Tony Cox wrote:
>
> Sorry to disappoint you. The short answer is that debunking
> this stuff takes time, and is not relevant to discussions on Islam.
> It is also rather pointless, as 1MAN has a habit of bailing out
> 1/2 way through a discussion, usually so he can do battle with
> Hindu trolls or other imaginary demons.
I agree that this takes time, and I agree that 1Man4All has a tendency
to bail on subjects like this. In the past there have been instances
where he pulled information from the net, and I spent some time
researching the subject, only to watch 1Man drop the discussion cold
after I gave my rebuttal. Those instances happened in discussions on
topics I am familiar with (e.g. philosophy, Aramaic, the Bible).
Therefore I was tentative about trying to tackle this subject being
that my utter ignorance of physics would make this an even more
difficult subject to research. But we'll see what I can come up with.
> It'll be interesting to see what you manage to drag up from other forums.
Well, just now I started a thread in sci.physics and I will begin
visiting the libraries on Tuesday. I plan to begin with the sources
cited in Sharma's article, as well as with whatever sources posters in
sci.physics or here might recommend (do you have any books or articles
to recommend?). I suppose further thoughts will develop and evolve as
the week moves along.
drahcir
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad wrote:
> >
> > This silly muslim 1boy just doesn't understand that some paper written
> > and put on the web by some NOBODY is IRRELEVANT. Someone please try to
> > teach this moron the basics of how science proceeds, PLEASE, before he
> > drives us all crazy. BTW, this Indian guy is so proud of his work he
> > resorts to putting it up on a BLOG:
> >
> > http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=28362
>
> WOW!!!! Thank you *VERY* much for this link, as it provided a bit of
> insight which is very helpful. First, see my post from about half an
> hour ago:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/bff78b54e4a46996
>
> It was there that I referred to the relevant formula as:
>
> m = L(c^2) A.K.A. E = m(c^2)
>
> That is m=L(c^2), also known as E=m(c^2). Why did I write that? Well,
> because, while I am a complete novice in the realm of physics (i.e. a
> bit of a dope on the subject), I recalled that from my intro to physics
> course as an undergraduate (admittedly under Sultan Catto, who was a
> great professor) that the formula popularly written E=m(c^2) was
> actually originally written by Einstein as m=L(c^2). Now, of course,
> m=L(c^2) can be rewritten L=m(c^2),
Whoa, hold on there. Maybe there is something I don't understand re the
limitations of internet notation, but if (c^2) is meant to be c
squared, then, if I remember my grammar school algebra, m=L(c^2) can
NOT be rewritten L=m(c^2), but rather L=m/(c^2).
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad
Right you are. A complete and utter blunder that I wrote again, and
again, and again in several posts (including a post to sci.physics). I
meant to write:
m=L/(c^2).
In another post I quoted the original German text of the article...
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/papers/1905_18_639-641.pdf
...which has:
"Gibt ein Körper die Energie L in Form von Strahlung ab, so
verkleinert sich seine Masse um L/V²."
As you can see, L/V² appears at the end (that is E/c²).
Thanks for the heads up!
drahcir
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad wrote:
> > Mike wrote:
> > > I think it's worth pointing out that IMAN has successfully taken the
> > > focus of this thread ON TO a conspiracy theory vis a vis Einstein, and
> > > OFF OF the original topic, which is the fact that the Muslim world has
> > > contributed virtually nothing in the areas of science, economics,
> > > literature, or other discipline worth recognizing.
> >
> > Don't forget, it's a two-edged sword. On the one hand, muslims languish
> > in the cellar of humanity, consuming valuable resources, and, in spite
> > of their numbers, contributing next to nothing, largely due to their
> > religion. This is just one facet of proof that islam is a lie.
>
> I would have to strongly disagree with that last sentence. A lack of
> intellectual heavyweights coming out of the Muslim world in the 20th
> and 21st centuries is no more a disproof of Islam than was the
> tremendous contributions the Muslim world during the 9th-to-12th
> centuries a proof of Islam.
FIrst of all, the "tremendous contribution" of islam in the dark ages
has been convincingly refuted by a number of authors. Specifically,
many of the contributions made under islamic rule were made by
non-arabs who were part of a conquered society and may have converted
presumably for convenience. Those arabs who indeed made a contribution
did so largely in spite of islam, not because of it. Specifically, they
mined the intellectual riches of conquered societies and may have added
to them or preserved them while being at odds with religious leaders.
The connection between islam and arab/muslim contributions is
impossible to show.
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4626
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4685
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4744
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5542
http://tinyurl.com/ft3fn
However, the connection between islam and the dearth of muslim
intellectual achievement is only too easy to show. Educational
institutions in the muslim world are non-existent, save for those whose
weight is thrown to "islamic studies". Likewise, learning in the
typical muslim household is not encouraged, again save for religious
studies.
>
> I think the region plays a role (i.e. there's a reason why today Berlin
> provides more scientists than Baghdad, while that was not the case nine
> centuries ago). The top Muslim scientists today seem to mostly come
> from India (i.e. in light of the amazing institutions for various
> fields of science which are developing in India today, *IF* Islam
> enjoys another golden age it will probably be led by Indian Muslims),
> while most of the great Jewish minds came from America and Western
> Europe.
Islam will never have a golden age. Muslims could one day contribute
their share to the world only by throwing off the shackles of islam.
>
> Just my thoughts...
drahcir
Tony Cox wrote:
> "1MAN4ALL" <fora...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153638268.4...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Yet, at least one Muslim (or at least he claimed to be one),
> > Abdus Salam, has received a Nobel in theoretical physics, proving that
> > it can be done.
>
> No one said Muslims can't receive Nobel prizes. Anyway,
> Salam was an Ahmadi, and (correct me if I'm wrong) Ahmadis
> do not believe that Muhammad was the final prophet, and so
> therefore aren't recognized by other Muslims.
Good catch.
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad
interested) consider it worthwhile to start amassing points worth
noting regarding this article by Sharma? I mean, I'm going to attempt
to this on my own, but perhaps the two of you could add more as the
list grows? What do we have so far? Here are some minor points:
(1) Sharma references Moody's piece for Nexus Magazine, as well as
Bjerknes self-published book, which perhaps might tell us about the
quality of his research?
(2) 1Man4All, in the context of saying that his position is "well known
among historians of science," then cites Sharma, when in fact Sharma's
credentials don't seem to be apparent.
(3) Sharma's claim that Einstein made the leap from L=mc² to E=mc²
without any support seemed ridiculous, since it seems apparent that the
variable L represents the exact same thing E represents, as I had
remembered being taught in my intro to physics class (Tony, can you
comment on this in particular?).
What else is there?
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad
drahcir wrote:
>
> FIrst of all, the "tremendous contribution" of islam in the dark ages
> has been convincingly refuted by a number of authors. Specifically,
> many of the contributions made under islamic rule were made by
> non-arabs who were part of a conquered society and may have converted
> presumably for convenience.
Fair enough. I have seen books questioning the sincerity of the faith
held by some of the more brilliant medieval Muslim thinkers.
> Those arabs who indeed made a contribution
> did so largely in spite of islam, not because of it.
With all due respect, what does this mean? I think most very serious
Ultra-Orthodox Jews would have considered Einstein to not be part of
their fold (i.e. he was a Jew who was *nearly* an atheist or deist). It
is a fact that the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community produces far less
scholars than Jewish communities with more liberal tendencies (i.e.
Reform Jews, secularists, et cetera); in fact I have seen works on how
rife poor secular education is, for example, among Chasidic men in New
York state. Could we say that Einstein's achievements were in spite of
Judaism rather than because of Judaism?
I know you never argued that Einstein (or any other great Jewish
thinker) were brilliant because of an adherence to Judaism, but the
point I am making is relevant to the following sentence by you:
> The connection between islam and arab/muslim contributions is
> impossible to show.
I would agree 100%, but I imagine that it is almost always the case
that the brilliance of any person is hard, or impossible, to connect
with the ideology they are allegedly associated with (e.g. a modern
Hindu or Christian scientist is not a great scientist *because* he is
Hindu or Christian, et cetera).
> However, the connection between islam and the dearth of muslim
> intellectual achievement is only too easy to show. Educational
> institutions in the muslim world are non-existent, save for those whose
> weight is thrown to "islamic studies". Likewise, learning in the
> typical muslim household is not encouraged, again save for religious
> studies.
I agree 100%, though to be fair, I think many secular Jews familiar
with the Haredi/Hasidic community would agree that if those types had
complete, unimpeded control over the lives of Jews, there would be a
good chance that intellectual achievement among Jews would depreciate.
drahcir
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad wrote:
Here it is in a nutshell, for me: There are no doubt tens of thousands
of credentialed people intimately familiar with every detail of the
process einstein used to arrive at the equation, as well as with the
predecessors who may have contributed. Over the past hundred yiears
there have no doubt been hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Are we
to believe that if there were any truth to the idea that einstein was a
plagiarist, not one of these people would have the ambition to publish
a peer-reviewed book or article on the subject? Or is it perhaps a
jew-led conspiracy, involving murder and bribery? There is zero doubt
that if it could be reasonably shown that einstein were a plagiarist,
someone of repute would have subjected himself to the criticisms of his
peers and published it. But this "secret" is possessed only by an
internet-holocaust-revisionist-anti-semite-kook, and a no-doubt very
young indian of no reputation who must resort to blogs to get the word
out, probably in a vain attempt to establish the reputation he cannot
gain via his own work. The reason I have no interest in the details of
the matter is because it logically cannot be true.
I LOVE WHEN MOHAMMEDANS GET KILLED AND DIE A HORIBLE DEATH
another "jewish conspiracy. Didn't I tell you the filthy whore was an
arab?
drahcir wrote:
> Uh-oh, Mirelle, the impossibly stupid thing, has sniffed out the nobel
> conspiracy!!! Run for your lives!!! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! You silly airyhead.
>
> Who selects the Prize Winners? In his last will and testament, Alfred
> Nobel specifically designated the institutions responsible for the
> prizes he wished to be established: The Royal Swedish Academy of
> Sciences for the Prize in Physics and Chemistry, Karolinska Institute
> for the Prize in Physiology or Medicine, the Swedish Academy for the
> Prize in Literature, and a Committee of five persons to be elected by
> the Norwegian Parliament (Storting) for the Peace Prize. In 1968, the
> Sveriges Riksbank established the Prize in Economics in Memory of
> Alfred Nobel. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences was given the task
> to select the Economics Prize Winners starting in 1969.
>
> Let it seep into your defective brain, you friggin stupid bitch.
drahcir
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad wrote:
> >
> > FIrst of all, the "tremendous contribution" of islam in the dark ages
> > has been convincingly refuted by a number of authors. Specifically,
> > many of the contributions made under islamic rule were made by
> > non-arabs who were part of a conquered society and may have converted
> > presumably for convenience.
>
> Fair enough. I have seen books questioning the sincerity of the faith
> held by some of the more brilliant medieval Muslim thinkers.
>
> > Those arabs who indeed made a contribution
> > did so largely in spite of islam, not because of it.
>
> With all due respect, what does this mean? I think most very serious
> Ultra-Orthodox Jews would have considered Einstein to not be part of
> their fold (i.e. he was a Jew who was *nearly* an atheist or deist). It
> is a fact that the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community produces far less
> scholars than Jewish communities with more liberal tendencies (i.e.
> Reform Jews, secularists, et cetera); in fact I have seen works on how
> rife poor secular education is, for example, among Chasidic men in New
> York state. Could we say that Einstein's achievements were in spite of
> Judaism rather than because of Judaism?
It doesn't take much to conclude that utter devotion to religion of any
sort makes contrtibution to the world less likely. The issue here is 1)
what percentage of a religions's followers are so devoted that they
cannot see outside, and, perhaps more importantly, 2) what sort of
life-philosophy do various religions instill in their followers who
aren't completely submerged in thiem? It is this life-philosophy that
is responsible for muslim learning of all subjects but islam to be
nearly non-existent, and it is the life-philosophy of jews which
ascribes great value to learning of all things. I am an atheist, but I
think it is more than likely that Einstein would not have been an
einstein without the tradition of learning that was in his blood, even
if thie dna in his blood was the same.
>
> I know you never argued that Einstein (or any other great Jewish
> thinker) were brilliant because of an adherence to Judaism, but the
> point I am making is relevant to the following sentence by you:
>
> > The connection between islam and arab/muslim contributions is
> > impossible to show.
>
> I would agree 100%, but I imagine that it is almost always the case
> that the brilliance of any person is hard, or impossible, to connect
> with the ideology they are allegedly associated with (e.g. a modern
> Hindu or Christian scientist is not a great scientist *because* he is
> Hindu or Christian, et cetera).
Yet we are faced with the inescapable fact that Jews are represented to
a far greater degree in science, art, and all other positivie endeavors
than any other religiously defined population, in fact, greater than
any population defined in any other way. Presented with this, one must
decide, is it nature, nurture, or both? Without strong evidenvce of one
or the other, nurture cannot be excluded.
>
> > However, the connection between islam and the dearth of muslim
> > intellectual achievement is only too easy to show. Educational
> > institutions in the muslim world are non-existent, save for those whose
> > weight is thrown to "islamic studies". Likewise, learning in the
> > typical muslim household is not encouraged, again save for religious
> > studies.
>
> I agree 100%, though to be fair, I think many secular Jews familiar
> with the Haredi/Hasidic community would agree that if those types had
> complete, unimpeded control over the lives of Jews, there would be a
> good chance that intellectual achievement among Jews would depreciate.
It no doubt would. But for now, at least, Hasidim represent a tiny
fraction of the Jewish population.
drahcir
Tony Cox wrote:
> "1MAN4ALL" <fora...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153638268.4...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Yet, at least one Muslim (or at least he claimed to be one),
> > Abdus Salam, has received a Nobel in theoretical physics, proving that
> > it can be done.
>
> No one said Muslims can't receive Nobel prizes. Anyway,
> Salam was an Ahmadi, and (correct me if I'm wrong) Ahmadis
> do not believe that Muhammad was the final prophet, and so
> therefore aren't recognized by other Muslims.
The question is, could 1boy have been ignorant of this, or did he try
to pull a fast one?
I LOVE WHEN MOHAMMEDANS GET KILLED AND DIE A HORIBLE DEATH
newsgroup
drahcir
Mirelle wrote:
> Einstein and his buddies, are some of the worst 'Scientific' disasters
> of the last century. Even before he died he regretted his work. His
> friend Openheimer said 'we have unleashed Shiva, The destroyer'
By the way, you impossibly stupid thing, Oppenheimer was quoting from
the Bhagavad-Gita when he said it, at the first successful a-bomb test.
He said
"...now I am become Death [Shiva], the destroyer of worlds..."
and the entire BG phrase is
If the radiance of a thousand suns
Were to burst at once into the sky
That would be like the splendor of the Mighty one...
I am become Death,
The shatterer of Worlds.
I think it is a very appropriate quote for the occasion and by no means
expresses regret, but rather the profundity of what they were
witnessing. Do you get it now, you impossibly stupid thing?
> Both men suffered tremendous sorrow that their work was involved with
> such mass destruction as the nuclear bomb. Both died not at peace with
> thier life or themselves.
The impossibly stupid thing has an utter confusion between her
impossibly defective neurons and reality.
> Mirelle
>
> 1MAN4ALL wrote:
> > Tony Cox wrote:
> > > "1MAN4ALL" <fora...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1153595969.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Tony Cox wrote:
> > > > > "1MAN4ALL" <fora...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:1153588478.0...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is well known among historians of science, not physicists per se,
> > > > > > that Einstein should not be credited with the equation E=MC2. But in
> > > > > > the United States, it is difficult to say that in public without being
> > > > > > called an "anti-Semite", as if Einstein is a symbolic embodiment of all
> > > > > > Jews or Semites!
> > > >
> > "By not acknowledging the other's work Einstein tried to prove that DE
> > = Dmc2 is conceptually insighted and derived by him only, thus he is
> > sole contributor of this
> > significant equation. If Einstein has acknowledged existing work
> > (speculation of DE =Dmc2 ) then he would have got credit only for
> > mathematically deriving DE =Dmc2. In derivation Einstein used result
> > of relativistic variation of light energy [22]
> >
> > l* = l [1- cosf] / (1)
> >
> > where l is light energy of plane wave of light in co-ordinate
> > system (x,y,z), which is at rest. The ray direction i.e. wave normal
> > makes angle f with the x-axis of the system (x,y,z). This light energy
> > --------------
> > Now, in your earlier post, you had stated, "For Lorentz (and others)
> > these equations took the form they did simply because that was what was
> > necessary to make Maxwells' equations invariant under a change of
> > coordinates; for Einstein, they were a consequence of the lack of any
> > preferred 'absolute' reference frame and the observation that the speed
> > of light is always the same regardless of how you happen to be moving."
> > That's hard to prove, but in any case, HOW Einstein proved his ideas
> > mathematically was inconsistent. In other words, he never proved it. As
> > Sharma pointed out, "Einstein has suggested eq.(1) [SEE MY EARLIER
> > QUOTE FOR EQUATIONS] in his June 1905 paper [22 ] in which is known as
> > Special Theory of Relativity But while deriving final result i.e. DL
> > =Dmc2 Einstein interpreted the equation under classical conditions
> > (v<<c) as below. (a) Although Einstein started derivation of DL =Dmc2
> > using relativistic variation of light energy as in eq.(1), yet final
> > result was obtained under classical conditions using Binomial Theorem
> > which is applicable if v<<c".
> >
> > Sharma does give some credit to Einstein by concluding: "Undoubtedly
> > English scientist S. T. Preston is the one who speculated and applied
> > DE =Dmc2 for first time is the most significant contributor, but quite
> > unknown as well. Einstein gave first derivation (under certain
> > conditions, as there are at least three variables i.e. angles at which
> > waves are emitted, magnitude of light waves and velocity v. The light
> > energy-mass equivalence DL =Dmc2 is obtained for special values of
1MAN4ALL
Tony Cox wrote:
> "1MAN4ALL" <fora...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153638268.4...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Yet, at least one Muslim (or at least he claimed to be one),
> > Abdus Salam, has received a Nobel in theoretical physics, proving that
> > it can be done.
> No one said Muslims can't receive Nobel prizes. Anyway,
> Salam was an Ahmadi, and (correct me if I'm wrong) Ahmadis
> do not believe that Muhammad was the final prophet, and so
> therefore aren't recognized by other Muslims.
And that's why I said, "at least he claimed to be one."
> Another "hard science" Muslim Nobel prize winner was Zewail.
> He is probably more to your taste. I believe he is a Sunni.
My "taste?" LOL. If the number of Nobel prizes is the deciding factor,
Christians, Hindus and Buddhists have received far fewer Nobel Prizes
than Jews on per capita basis. So what you say that adherents of these
other religions are less intelligent than Jews?
1MAN4ALL
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad wrote:
Go back to my original post, in which I suggested that "some" of the
tings that Einstein is given credit for are undeserved.
1MAN4ALL
I think you are being very cleverish. You are not addressing the points
raised by Sharma and going off-tangent, arguing something which is
irrelevant. Pray tell us where Sharma is wrong. Nobody is saying that
Einstein was a dummy. Even Sharma includes him in the seven or so
people who deserve credit for coming up with the equation.
You also are not correcting Khinzeer (Denis Giron) when he is copying
and pasting stuff from the Internet and has no idea what the heck he's
writing about. I am beginning to doubt if you even have a Ph.D. in
physics. If you do, why would you hide behind the excuse that
responding is depth "could quickly become a full-time occupation." With
the time you are spending here, it seems that you can easily do it.
Start with Sharma's article and rebut it point by point.
Jacques Pelletier
>
> 1MAN4ALL wrote:
>> Jacques Pelletier wrote:
>>
>> > Anyway, the Nobel prize attributed to Einstein was due "For his
>> > services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of
>> > the law of the photoelectric effect"
>> >
>> > http://www.nobel-prize.org/EN/Physics/einstein.htm
>>
>> That alone should tell you why he was not given a Nobel for the Theory
>> of Relativity.
>
> Wait a minute. I myself am ignorant of what, if any, relationship exists
> between Einstein's general and special theories of relativity, and
> Einstein's views on photoelectric effect.
The photoelectric effect is not related to Special nor General Relativity.
GR is expressed as a tensor equation. I don't know physics enough to tell
how SR and GR are related exactly, but I suppose GR takes into account the
acceleration of objects.
>But if the two are unrelated,
> why did 1Man4All, in a discussion about Jewish nobel prize winners
> (including Einstein), go on a tangent about an, apparently(?), unrelated
> subject?
JP
drahcir
Uh-oh. When 1boy gets sufficiently flustered, his english starts to get
that pakistani edge. We had better be careful. In the next stage he
takes up a sword and stars looking for infidel heads to lop off.
drahcir
Actually, the article you posted to support your views of einstein was
titled
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Plagiarist of the Century
Mike
Id say "straw man." Its not a matter of intelligence -- for example,
James Crick, part of the team that went Nobel for the discovery of the
DNA Helix, had a very average IQ of 106. The issue here is that the
Jews have developed a cultural sociology that emphasizes education and
business acumen to the point that they compete very successfully on a
per capita basis with other sociocultural groups. I have never seen any
data (and I read this kind of shit) that indicated that Jews had higher
IQs than other demographics in the US. (The Chinese and Koreans, on the
other hand, do, IIRC.)
Anecdotally, I recall a Jewish girlfriend once telling me that if a
parent mentioned that a son was going to be a rabbi, everyone
automatically assumed that he failed to get into medical school, law
school, and/or had no business sense. :-)
Mike
drahcir
You may find these interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#World-wide_scores
http://tinyurl.com/zw36q
> Mike
Tony Cox
news:pan.2006.07.24....@ieee.org...
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:25:12 -0700, Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad wrote:
>
> >
> > 1MAN4ALL wrote:
> >
> > Wait a minute. I myself am ignorant of what, if any, relationship exists
> > between Einstein's general and special theories of relativity, and
> > Einstein's views on photoelectric effect.
>
> The photoelectric effect is not related to Special nor General Relativity.
> GR is expressed as a tensor equation. I don't know physics enough to tell
> how SR and GR are related exactly, but I suppose GR takes into account the
> acceleration of objects.
Einstein modeled the universe with a 4-dimensional metric which
is "bent" by the presence of matter. Objects follow "straight" lines
in this 4-space, which are interpreted by us as the mysterious force
of gravity. The more matter, the more bending, the more "gravity".
This is "General" relativity.
"Special" relativity is the limiting case where there is no matter
whatever. In this case, the metric reduces to Minkowski form,
from which the predictions of special relativity can be deduced
(such as Lorentz transformations).
Tony Cox
>
> Tony Cox wrote:
> >
> > I entered this discussion because 1MAN claimed that
> > Einstein plagiarized the work of Lorentz, specifically by
> > stealing his so-called "transformation equations" which
> > describe coordinates measured in various reference
> > frames that are in motion relative to each other.
>
> I think you are being very cleverish. You are not addressing the points
> raised by Sharma and going off-tangent, arguing something which is
> irrelevant. Pray tell us where Sharma is wrong.
Just because I corrected one misconception in your
cut-and-pasted article doesn't mean I've signed on to
debunking whatever other drivel you trawl off the
internet.
If you claim that Einstein "stole" work by Lorentz, it is
not in the least "off-tangent" to detail where the two
scientists were coming from.
> Nobody is saying that
> Einstein was a dummy. Even Sharma includes him in the seven or so
> people who deserve credit for coming up with the equation.
*Sigh*. It's not "the equation" itself that matters, you twit,
its the thought processes that led to it. Didn't you even read
what I'd posted? And you want me to write more? Why?
So you can ignore that too?
>
> You also are not correcting Khinzeer (Denis Giron) when he is copying
> and pasting stuff from the Internet and has no idea what the heck he's
> writing about. I am beginning to doubt if you even have a Ph.D. in
> physics.
Excellent! I *want* you to doubt. Doubt what I tell you,
doubt the Qur'an, doubt authority. You'll be a better person
for it.
You know, now I come to think about it, I'm letting an
awful lot slide on this ng and elsewhere too. There are
literally thousands of postings that I'm not actively out
there correcting. Must try harder.
> If you do, why would you hide behind the excuse that
> responding is depth "could quickly become a full-time occupation." With
> the time you are spending here, it seems that you can easily do it.
> Start with Sharma's article and rebut it point by point.
I too busy solving the global warming problem & ushering in
a new era of world peace. Please let me rest some time,
won't you?
Tony Cox
>
> Tony Cox wrote:
> >
> > No one said Muslims can't receive Nobel prizes. Anyway,
> > Salam was an Ahmadi, and (correct me if I'm wrong) Ahmadis
> > do not believe that Muhammad was the final prophet, and so
> > therefore aren't recognized by other Muslims.
>
> And that's why I said, "at least he claimed to be one."
Well, so does Elijah Muhammad. What do you think?
Is Salam a Muslim or not?
>
> > Another "hard science" Muslim Nobel prize winner was Zewail.
> > He is probably more to your taste. I believe he is a Sunni.
>
> My "taste?" LOL. If the number of Nobel prizes is the deciding factor,
> Christians, Hindus and Buddhists have received far fewer Nobel Prizes
> than Jews on per capita basis. So what you say that adherents of these
> other religions are less intelligent than Jews?
Your reality continues to baffle me. Where did you
get *that* idea from? Something I said?
Mike
It's *possibly* interesting. If the comparative groups are truly "All
US Jews" vs "All US white non-Jews", that's not interesting, since the
latter group cuts across too many demographic groups to be relevant.
However, the wiki entry is broken up into more detail, and one can
construct a more relevant construct between the two.
I note that one table states an average IQ for "US Whites" at 101, and
another lists Hispanics at 91. I'd like to see Hispanics separated from
that group to get a more meaningful comparison. Obviously, the US White
figure would increase somewhat.
Mike
Tony Cox
> Tony Cox wrote:
> >
> > No one said Muslims can't receive Nobel prizes. Anyway,
> > Salam was an Ahmadi, and (correct me if I'm wrong) Ahmadis
> > do not believe that Muhammad was the final prophet, and so
> > therefore aren't recognized by other Muslims.
>
> The question is, could 1boy have been ignorant of this, or did he try
> to pull a fast one?
I'm not sure. On the one hand, he wants us to believe that
there is a Jewish conspiracy which prevents Muslims receiving
Nobel prizes, but on the other he rejoices in their success.
But we do know that he knew that Abdus Salam was an
Ahmadi. What we don't know is if 1MAN recognizes him
as a Muslim. That'd be an interesting side discussion.
drahcir
I believe that "white" here means "non-hispanic white", as it does is
most demographic studies that I have read.
>
> Mike
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad
1MAN4ALL wrote:
>
> You also are not correcting Khinzeer when he is copying
> and pasting stuff from the Internet and has no idea what the heck he's
> writing about.
Huh? This is pretty funny! Actually, on the few occasions when I was
providing something I mined off the net, I specifically said such
before offering it. Also, from the beginning I have admitted to my
ignorance regarding physics. This is unlike you, who mines the very
fringes of the net, and then claims what you found in a 90 second
search represents what is "well known" by scientists and/or historians
of science.
As for correcting me, what is there to correct? I did make one
egregiously bad typo and repeated it over and over and over again.
Drahcir quickly pointed it out to me, I conceded that it was an error,
and then went about making corrections. However, that point being
fixed, if you see some error, why don't you correct it?
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad
1MAN4ALL wrote:
> > > That alone should tell you why he was not given a Nobel for the Theory
> > > of Relativity.
> >
> > Wait a minute. I myself am ignorant of what, if any, relationship
> > exists between Einstein's general and special theories of relativity,
> > and Einstein's views on photoelectric effect. But if the two are
> > unrelated, why did 1Man4All, in a discussion about Jewish nobel prize
> > winners (including Einstein), go on a tangent about an, apparently(?),
> > unrelated subject?
>
> Go back to my original post, in which I suggested that "some" of the
> tings that Einstein is given credit for are undeserved.
Right, but following your history in this thread, in response to the a
point about Einstein being one of many Jewish Nobel Prize winners, as
well as one of the most famous scientists of all time, you quickly came
forward with a piece taken from the wacky Nexus magazine. After your
source (as well as its sources), you mined the net and then put forth
the article by Sharma, claiming what was found therein was "well known"
(interestingly, Sharma himself references Bjerknes and Nexus Magazine).
Are you now trying to mute your claims? Or do you still believe what
you mined off the net represents the end all of the discussion?
drahcir
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad wrote:
> >
> > You also are not correcting Khinzeer when he is copying
> > and pasting stuff from the Internet and has no idea what the heck he's
> > writing about.
>
> Huh? This is pretty funny! Actually, on the few occasions when I was
> providing something I mined off the net, I specifically said such
> before offering it. Also, from the beginning I have admitted to my
> ignorance regarding physics. This is unlike you, who mines the very
> fringes of the net, and then claims what you found in a 90 second
> search represents what is "well known"
Bingo. You zeroed in on the two words that confirm, as if any
confirmation were needed, that 1boy is a liar to his core, at least
when addressing infidels, that is.
drahcir
Tony Cox wrote:
> "1MAN4ALL" <fora...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153712440....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Tony Cox wrote:
> > >
> > > No one said Muslims can't receive Nobel prizes. Anyway,
> > > Salam was an Ahmadi, and (correct me if I'm wrong) Ahmadis
> > > do not believe that Muhammad was the final prophet, and so
> > > therefore aren't recognized by other Muslims.
> >
> > And that's why I said, "at least he claimed to be one."
>
> Well, so does Elijah Muhammad. What do you think?
> Is Salam a Muslim or not?
Oooh, you are good.
who_cares
>
>1MAN4ALL wrote:
>> Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad wrote:
>> > 1MAN4ALL wrote:
>> > >
>> > > 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.
>>
>> > First, I wonder how one defines "plagiarized" and, second, perhaps it
>> > is telling that the physics community did not interpret it as precisely
>> > plagiarism. For example:
>>
>> You obviously didn't read the entire article. It says very clearly,
>> "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?"
>
>BWAHAHAHAHA!!! As if there is a chance that 1boy has a CLUE about what
>einstein did!!! THe presumptuousness of this muslim is positively
>precious!
Ratner, ratner, ratern.....
I just love to hear you squeal like a fat little pig !!!!
Thanks for making my day!
rob....@gmail.com
world of physics, Poincare, Lorentz, and Einstein are regarded as
*co-discovers* of relativity. The author's contention -- that Einstein
has somehow cheated Poincare and Lorentz out of their scientific glory
is quite wrong.
The problem with this sort of paper is that it takes a position on
something about which the author has failed to research. Were the
author to, for example, study a bit of mathematics (rigorously, rather
than perusing "books for laymen"), he might discover that Poincare is
*widely* regarded as one of the greatest mathematicians of all time,
whereas Einstein is *not*.
What I'm trying to say is that the author is simply arguing against his
own assumption, which is that Einstein is somehow "more famous" than
Poincare. But, Einstein is only "more famous" to the author because
the author hasn't bothered to learn any math. You see? A
non-specialist is gallavanting about in a world he doesn't really
bother to understand, lancing imaginary dragons. Einstein simply
grasped that the work of a *large* number of scientists (not just
Lorentz and Poincare, but also Maxwell, Riemann, Lobachevsky, and
others) could be applied in a *very real sense* to the world. This
was, indeed, a great insight, and worthy of commendation. But any
physicist knows that it is the mathematicians who provided the tools,
and it is the physicist who *applied* them.
Rob
1MAN4ALL wrote:
> Zimbawi
>
>
> IS THE NAME OF MY Pet DON KEY! :) wrote:
>
> > Look how many JEWS have won the NOBEL PRIZE:
>
> > Albert Einstein -- The most famous and influential scientist of all
> > time
>
>
> Based on a post that Romero had sent some time ago, I think at least
> some of what you are suggesting was undeserved:
>
>
> ALBERT EINSTEIN
>
> Plagiarist of the Century
> Einstein plagiarised the work of several notable scientists in his 1905
> papers on special relativity and E = mc2, yet the physics community has
> never bothered to set the record straight in the past century.
>
> Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 11, Number 1 (December-January
> 2004)
> PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. edi...@nexusmagazine.com
> Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
> >From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com
>
>
>
> Abstract
> Proponents of Einstein have acted in a way that appears to corrupt the
> historical record. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Time Magazine's "Person
> of the Century", wrote a long treatise on special relativity theory (it
> was actually called "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", 1905a),
> without listing any references. Many of the key ideas it presented were
> known to Lorentz (for example, the Lorentz transformation) and
> Poincaré before Einstein wrote the famous 1905 paper.
>
>
> As was typical of Einstein, he did not discover theories; he merely
> commandeered them. He took an existing body of knowledge, picked and
> chose the ideas he liked, then wove them into a tale about his
> contribution to special relativity. This was done with the full
> knowledge and consent of many of his peers, such as the editors at
> Annalen der Physik.
>
>
> The most recognisable equation of all time is E = mc2. It is attributed
> by convention to be the sole province of Albert Einstein (1905).
> However, the conversion of matter into energy and energy into matter
> was known to Sir Isaac Newton ("Gross bodies and light are convertible
> into one another...", 1704). The equation can be attributed to S.
> Tolver Preston (1875), to Jules Henri Poincaré (1900; according to
> Brown, 1967) and to Olinto De Pretto (1904) before Einstein. Since
> Einstein never correctly derived E = mc2 (Ives, 1952), there appears
> nothing to connect the equation with anything original by Einstein.
>
>
> Arthur Eddington's selective presentation of data from the 1919 Eclipse
> so that it supposedly supported "Einstein's" general relativity theory
> is surely one of the biggest scientific hoaxes of the 20th century. His
> lavish support of Einstein corrupted the course of history. Eddington
> was less interested in testing a theory than he was in crowning
> Einstein the king of science.
>
>
> The physics community, unwittingly perhaps, has engaged in a kind of
> fraud and silent conspiracy; this is the byproduct of simply being
> bystanders as the hyperinflation of Einstein's record and reputation
> took place. This silence benefited anyone supporting Einstein.
>
>
> 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 LorentzÉ"
>
> 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 light É because 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'sThus Einstein's theory is not a denial of, nor an alternative
> for, that of Lorentz. It is only a duplicate and disguise for it
> Einstein 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 (1905b) 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 programme 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 eclipseThe 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
> theoryÉ" (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 relativityIt 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 lightÉ";
> "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 emphasised 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 rigour is the measure of truth.
> Little do people realise 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?
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> 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,
> 16
> (from Bjerknes, 2002).
> 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.
> 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. He can
> be
> contacted by email at Slm...@aol.com.
drahcir
think 1boy has bailed from this thread, since not only was he made to
look ridiculous and bigoted, but Tony had him cornered as a proven
liar.
who_cares
When you lied about your useage of the word "Cheerleader"???
Carry on..... POS
1MAN4ALL
rob....@gmail.com wrote:
> This is silly and obviously written by a non-scientist. In the *real*
> world of physics, Poincare, Lorentz, and Einstein are regarded as
> *co-discovers* of relativity. The author's contention -- that Einstein
> has somehow cheated Poincare and Lorentz out of their scientific glory
> is quite wrong.
>
> The problem with this sort of paper is that it takes a position on
> something about which the author has failed to research. Were the
> author to, for example, study a bit of mathematics (rigorously, rather
> than perusing "books for laymen"), he might discover that Poincare is
> *widely* regarded as one of the greatest mathematicians of all time,
> whereas Einstein is *not*.
>
> What I'm trying to say is that the author is simply arguing against his
> own assumption, which is that Einstein is somehow "more famous" than
> Poincare. But, Einstein is only "more famous" to the author because
> the author hasn't bothered to learn any math.
That's a nonsensical argument because it is a fact that among ordinary
people that Einstein is known as the discoverer of relativity. Why
isn't Poincare as well known as Einstein? Could it be that Einstein was
chosen as the showman of science by the Time Magazine and Einstein, but
not giving proper credit to other scientists, led people to believe
that it was all his work. Sharma, who wrote the article, clearly gives
some credit to Einstein. He has listed six or seven other people
including Poincare. Obviously he you didn't bother to read that article
and jumped to conclusions.
> You see? A
> non-specialist is gallavanting about in a world he doesn't really
> bother to understand, lancing imaginary dragons. Einstein simply
> grasped that the work of a *large* number of scientists (not just
> Lorentz and Poincare, but also Maxwell, Riemann, Lobachevsky, and
> others) could be applied in a *very real sense* to the world. This
> was, indeed, a great insight, and worthy of commendation. But any
> physicist knows that it is the mathematicians who provided the tools,
> and it is the physicist who *applied* them.
Once again, nobody has said that Einstein was a dummy. The issue is of
how much importance he is given as compared to other scientists on
whose shoulders he stood. How many people in America know what Sharma
has suggested: "An English scientist S. Tolver Preston (born 1844),
speculated first of all equation DE =Dmc2 and made predictions based
upon it. Preston [2] in his book Physics of the Ether proposed in 1875
that vast amount of energy can be produced from matter. " Just about
every high school in America will tell you that Einstein came up with
E=mc2. Why is that? The answer is, as Sharma points out, "By not
acknowledging the other's work Einstein tried to prove that DE = Dmc2
is conceptually insighted and derived by him only, thus he is sole
contributor of this significant equation". He goes on to say that,
"Einstein himself acknowledged Poincaré' s work and in other cases
refused to acknowledge any other priority (sic) [source]".
I suggest that you read Sharma's 'massive' article below and not go
over with the speed of light; otherwise you will be wasting a lot of
Energy :-)