Was Einstein indeed "Very Great"?
James Dow Allen
My website has a wide variety of pages, including one where I say
flattering
things about Einstein, implying he and Newton are the two greatest
physicists
ever. I'm not a physicist, and not qualified to judge, but the claim
agrees
with almost all the facts and opinions I've ever read.
Lately two readers have sent me e-mail implying that I've been deluded
into thinking Einstein was really so great!
Here's just an example of several claims I've received:
> There is no question that Hilbert presented the General Theory of
> Relativity before Einstein did.
> Einstein rushed his General Relativity paper into publication in a
> panic when he saw that Hilbert had already presented his own Theory.
My question for the ng is: Is there any valid basis whatsoever to
such
arguments of plagiarism or against Einstein's "greatness"?
I e-mailed one correspondent that such talk may have originated with
anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda, which naturally infuriated him!
Sorry if this post fans flames in this ng, but I do hope the ng gives
me a clear sense of the answer.
James Dow Allen
Urion
of
differential geometry, partial differential equations, manifolds and
all that was in advance for his time.
But he wasn't a good physicist since manipulating complicated
mathematical equations doesn't equal of doing good physics.
That is just my opinion. You may see it differently though.
bert
Einstein a very great out of the box thinker,but so am I Lived
longer than him I add to his thinking and yes go far beyond. I met
him,and now out live him. We are two relative pea brains that see
nature(universe) as a mystery that we hope to have answers for
TreBert Read my posts O ya
Raymond Yohros
> Yes I have to admit Einstein was a mathematical genius. He mastery of
> differential geometry, tensors, manifolds and all that was in advance
> for his time.
>
> But he wasn't a good physicist since manipulating complicated
>
> That is just my opinion. You may see it differently.
>
einstein was not great in school
he was only interested in music and physics
most of the time he was tripping high instead
of paying attention. more like an artist
than a dedicated scientist.
he seek for fun all the time and
sometimes people though he was crazy.
nobody believe anything he said
for a long time and that is
always the case when what you
think its not conventional.
fortunately, talent recognizes talent
and someone came to the rescue:
max planck
r.y
Uncle Al
>
> My website has a wide variety of pages, including one where I say
> flattering
> things about Einstein, implying he and Newton are the two greatest
> physicists
> ever. I'm not a physicist, and not qualified to judge, but the claim
> agrees
> with almost all the facts and opinions I've ever read.
Broke another bullshit meter.
> Lately two readers have sent me e-mail implying that I've been deluded
> into thinking Einstein was really so great!
[snip rest of crap]
Propose a testable alternative to General Relativity.
Science 323(5919) 1327 (2009)
Double pulsar J0737-3039A/B is within 0.05% of GR model
http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2861
DI Herculis anomalous orbital precession reconciled with General
Relativity
<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7283//abs/nature08776.html>
Nature 463 926 (2010)
0.1 mm height difference is predicted GR time difference within 7 ppb
relative.
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/>
<http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/9148/title/Einstein_Unruffled_Relativity_passes_stringent_new_tests>
<http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html>
<http://unusedcycles.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/physics-of-gps-relativistic-time-delay/>
Relativistic effects on orbital clocks
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
Nature 425 374-376 (2003).
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/>
Section 3.4.1, Figure 5
falling light
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
[...]
> Lately two readers have sent me e-mail implying that I've been deluded
> into thinking Einstein was really so great!
> Here's just an example of several claims I've received:
> > There is no question that Hilbert presented the General Theory of
> > Relativity before Einstein did.
> > Einstein rushed his General Relativity paper into publication in a
> > panic when he saw that Hilbert had already presented his own Theory.
> My question for the ng is: Is there any valid basis whatsoever to
> such arguments of plagiarism or against Einstein's "greatness"?
No. At one time, there was an issue -- while Einstein clearly initiated
the geometric approach to gravity, Einstein and Hilbert published
the final version of the field equations at almost the same time. But
the discovery of the page proofs of Hilbert's paper a few years ago
put to rest the idea that Einstein might have taken the final form
from Hilbert. This is discussed in the paper "Belated Decision in
the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute," Corry et al., Science Magazine
278 (14 November 1997) pp. 1270 - 1273. You may also be able to get
a pdf version of a longer discussion in an article by Stachel through
Google Scholar (look up "Einstein Hilbert priority") -- I'm not sure
if it's open accesss.
> I e-mailed one correspondent that such talk may have originated with
> anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda, which naturally infuriated him!
Many of the claims on this matter originate from open anti-Semites,
though mostly postdating Nazi Germany. You will also undoubtedly
riun into conspiracy theorists claiming that the historical record
has been altered to protect Einstein.
Steve Carlip
Marvin the Martian
> My website has a wide variety of pages, including one where I say
> flattering
> things about Einstein, implying he and Newton are the two greatest
> physicists
> ever. I'm not a physicist, and not qualified to judge, but the claim
> agrees
> with almost all the facts and opinions I've ever read.
>
> Lately two readers have sent me e-mail implying that I've been deluded
> into thinking Einstein was really so great! Here's just an example of
> several claims I've received:
>
>> There is no question that Hilbert presented the General Theory of
>> Relativity before Einstein did.
>> Einstein rushed his General Relativity paper into publication in a
>> panic when he saw that Hilbert had already presented his own Theory.
>
> My question for the ng is: Is there any valid basis whatsoever to such
> arguments of plagiarism or against Einstein's "greatness"? I e-mailed
> one correspondent that such talk may have originated with anti-Semitic
> Nazi propaganda, which naturally infuriated him!
So, you copped an argument ad hitlerium, and you wonder why someone got
upset with you? I already don't like you. :-D LOL! Godwin's law, you lose!
> Sorry if this post fans flames in this ng, but I do hope the ng gives me
> a clear sense of the answer.
>
> James Dow Allen
Einstein was famous for pointing out that Thiele's method of least
squares for explaining Brownian motion ... explained Brownian motion!
Einstein was famous for explaining that Hertz's photoelectric effect was
explained by Dirac's quantum theory.
Einstein was also famous for saying "yes, it is for real" to Lorentz's
transformation which was based on Maxwell's equations and Mach's theory
of Relativity. He's also famous for stealing shamelessly from his ex-wife/
cousin and not giving her any credit for General Relativity.
Einstein is also famous for denying Quantum mechanics and dictating what
God does and does not do "God does not play dice..." Which was totally
wrong; the universe is one big crap shoot! He's famous For hidden
variable theory and making crank science fashionable; for calling
Lemaitre, who corrected Einstein's cosmological constant error and
explained the expanding universe and big bang as being "Catholic science"
and demanding Father Lemaitre keep his religion out of physics.
And Einstein was a communist who fled to capitalist country for
protection. Like Hitler, Einstein believed communism and Karl Marx to be
the flower of Jewish intellect. (Read his "Why Socialism" article in
"Ideas and Opinions". Einstein was a great admirer of communism and Karl
Marx. )
Why would you feel he wasn't the greatest scientist who ever lived? He is
a shining example for today's modern scientist and why science is in such
a great state today.
Marvin the Martian
> Yes I have to admit Einstein was a mathematical genius.
She sure was!
> He mastery of
> differential geometry, tensors, manifolds and all that was in advance
> for his time.
Learned it from his wife.
Marvin the Martian
> James Dow Allen wrote:
>>
>> My website has a wide variety of pages, including one where I say
>> flattering
>> things about Einstein, implying he and Newton are the two greatest
>> physicists
>> ever. I'm not a physicist, and not qualified to judge, but the claim
>> agrees
>> with almost all the facts and opinions I've ever read.
>
> Broke another bullshit meter.
>
>> Lately two readers have sent me e-mail implying that I've been deluded
>> into thinking Einstein was really so great!
> [snip rest of crap]
>
> Propose a testable alternative to General Relativity.
Sciama.
James Dow Allen
> No. At one time, there was an issue -- while Einstein clearly initiated
> the geometric approach to gravity, Einstein and Hilbert published
> the final version of the field equations at almost the same time. But
> the discovery of the page proofs of Hilbert's paper a few years ago
> put to rest the idea that Einstein might have taken the final form
> from Hilbert.
Thank you for your prompt and helpful reply.
The claim seemed doubtful, but I wanted to be sure.
My prediction of a large number of ferocious useless responses
was borne out! I want to address one.
Martin the Martian wrote:
> So, you copped an argument ad hitlerium, and you wonder
> why someone got upset with you? I already don't like you.
> :-D LOL! Godwin's law, you lose!
Sorry you don't like me, Martin! I'm not one for Nazi
exaggerations, but my correspondent's claim startled me
greatly! He provided two references, both by Bjerknes;
I Google'd Bjerknes, found the anti-Semitic suggestion,
yet remained open-minded enough to pose the question here.
Sorry again for stirring up flames in the ng.
James
Marvin the Martian
I see. I point out all the famous things that Einstein is famous for and
who really thought them up, and you're only reply is to focus on the fact
you gibbered some mindless Hitler fallacy and then you wonder why that
person flamed you because you called him a Nazi.
You're not only ignorant of physics, but logic as well.
There is good reason to say that Einstein borrowed heavily from others.
Very good reason. Only fools dismiss that as Nazism.
Uncle Ben
James, you managed to catch a rare response by Steve Carlip, who is
probably the most respected voice in this ng. Most important figures
in the field ignore this kook-infested ng. It's a pity.
Consider yourself lucky. And thank you for posting this interesting
question.
Marvin the Martian
> James, you managed to catch a rare response by Steve Carlip, who is
> probably the most respected voice in this ng. Most important figures in
> the field ignore this kook-infested ng. It's a pity.
>
> Consider yourself lucky. And thank you for posting this interesting
> question.
HE clearly was trolling, and didn't want an answer other than an
opportunity to scream NAZI to anyone who didn't kiss Einstein's
plagiarist ass.
Thus, He fits right into the newsgroup.
BURT
Einstein brought back the aether. This is a sign of a great scientist.
Aether is the flow of time.
Mitch Raemsch
Darwin123
Shakespeare borrowed greatly from Marlowe. Even Shakespeare
thought he was inferior to Marlowe. Only fools would dismiss
Shakespeare as a great writer based on this "borrowing".
Defending ones culture against Nazis is depressing. I would rather
praise the German people as a whole.
The German education system, among other great things, produced
Einstein. I would have to say Einstein got a lot out of the German
educational system that he later scorned. The German education system,
previous to the Nazis, was the greatest in the world. The Nazis ruined
the German reputation for scholarship (a little bit). However, I
admire Einsteins classmates and teachers almost as much as I admire
Einstein.
Raymond Yohros
> But he wasn't a good physicist since manipulating complicated
> mathematical equations doesn't equal of doing good physics.
>
and that is the reason of his simple and
elegant math!!!
r.y
Androcles
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:1ec48143-03d4-49d8...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
===============================================
You're an arse-licking bigot, Bonehead.
PD
Various posters have different ideas about the criteria for
establishing greatness, very few of which are actually in synch with
what scientists generally give praise for. Those alternate criteria
include:
* making a key invention that changes everyday life for the common
person -- like cheap, unlimited power
* working in total isolation and yet being wholly responsible for a
theory ex nihilo, from soup to nuts, without any reference to or
utilization of previous work
* changing the way that 3rd graders would understand nature, as
opposed to the topic being reserved for special study by dedicated
students
There are those who also just despise the idea of *any* person being
lauded, and generally seek reasons to minimize the contributions. It's
a general campaign against perceived elitism and meritocracy, whereby
the average man is elevated by shaving off the accomplishments of the
more talented. It happens in music, law, politics, biology,
architecture, acting, and any number of pursuits. There are ALWAYS
"ain't so great" hecklers.
In answer to your question, essentially ALL great accomplishments in
science have been built upon significant contributions from
predecessors. None of them can claim sole ownership of the ideas, or
the theoretical development, or for that matter completeness of the
resulting theory. Greatness is a often the earmark of someone who
*synthesizes* others' ideas into a more compelling whole, or who
pursues an idea further than someone else with the same idea at the
same time. Sometimes, greatness is not afforded to the one who had the
original idea, but the one who made the seminal step to turn the idea
into something truly workable. The greatness is estimated by how much
the work of others has been influenced by the work of this person.
Even then, many physicists can claim this for one particular area of
work. But people like Newton and Einstein and Feynman did it over and
over again, making these key contributions that influenced future work
in several different topics.
That being said, Newton and Einstein and Feynman also made big
mistakes as well. So being "lily white" perfect isn't a criterion
either.
PD
HardySpicer
You missed James Clark Maxwell. He was as great as the other two.
Hardy
Androcles
"HardySpicer" <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a501d64d-069f-41ff...@p3g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Hardy
==================================================
You missed Percival Lowell. He was greater than the other two, he
actually saw canals on Mars whereas Maxwell and Einstein only
hallucinated their crackpottery. That's much better greatness than
hearing voices.
Uncle Al
In a Machian cosmology Lambda must be identically zero. Yo don't see
some problems with that?
BURT
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 09:17:19 -0800, Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > > James Dow Allen wrote:
>
> > >> My website has a wide variety of pages, including one where I say
> > >> flattering
> > >> things about Einstein, implying he and Newton are the two greatest
> > >> physicists
> > >> ever. I'm not a physicist, and not qualified to judge, but the claim
> > >> agrees
> > >> with almost all the facts and opinions I've ever read.
>
> > > Broke another bullshit meter.
>
> > >> Lately two readers have sent me e-mail implying that I've been deluded
> > >> into thinking Einstein was really so great!
> > > [snip rest of crap]
>
> > > Propose a testable alternative to General Relativity.
>
> > Sciama.
>
> In a Machian cosmology Lambda must be identically zero. Yo don't see
> some problems with that?
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do you regret not being as great as Albert Einstein Uncle AL?
Mitch Raemsch
ka...@nventure.com
snip
>
> Lately two readers have sent me e-mail implying that I've been deluded
> into thinking Einstein was really so great!
>
snip
> James Dow Allen
The concept of greatness is a subjective human notion. So just
like ‘beauty’, ‘greatness’ is in the eye of the beholder.
OTOH, science is supposed to be objective.
If you have included those exceptional thinkers such as Drs.
Richard Feynman, Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, etc., in
your list, there is one person and/or persons I suggest you
seriously consider adding if you have not already done so.
This is the late Dr. Robert H. Dicke of Princeton University,
his associates (especially Dr. P. J. E. Peebles) and their
students. This is because Dr. Dicke and his associates are the
only great thinkers since Galileo and Newton to reject the
Philosophy of Idealism, and adhere to the ‘Laws of Nature’
(not the human invented laws and principles of physics)
demonstrated by Natural Phenomenon. In other words; Dicke,
et. al. employed what is demonstrated by Nature in the natural
universe (i.e., what is ‘out there’, e.g., the CMBR), and what
is demonstrated as Natural Phenomenon during and by
empirical experiments (e.g., the ‘modern Eotvos experiment’
that demonstrated that the mass of a body is isotropic, that is:
‘mass is an invariant’ in the words of post Einsteinian
Relativity) to formulate their notions, concepts, and theories.
D.Y. Kadoshima
BURT
Science had to judge Albert Einstein when he was right about Quantum
Mechanics all along.
Mitch Raemsch
Raymond Yohros
> The German education system, among other great things, produced
> Einstein. I would have to say Einstein got a lot out of the German
> educational system that he later scorned.
>
he grow up sorrounded by energy from his friends,
SCIENCE teachers and family that worked with
light. he hated teology and anything that could
distract him from his passions.
like a surfer loves a great wave, he use to
seat down and lite up his pipe to watch trains
ride on. everything from big clocks,magnets,
his violin and light itself froze him in time.
>
> previous to the Nazis, was the greatest in the world. The Nazis ruined
> the German reputation for scholarship (a little bit). However, I
> admire Einsteins classmates and teachers almost as much as I admire
>Einstein
>
absolutely
the nazis ruined everything
anybody that knew einstein in real life
knows that all his charms and great
laughter was german&jewish in nature
r.y
BURT
Einstein was not a cultural phenomenon.
Mitch Raemsch
Marvin the Martian
No comment on how he didn't give any credit to his first wife for helping
him with math, or how he's famous for the work of others? Or how he was
an obstacle to progress in quantum mechanics and to cosmology due to his
bigoted and irrational objections?
Humm...
BURT
He was right about Quantum Mechanics. Science had to reserve judgement
on a man as great as Him.
Mitch Raemsch
Urion
comparable
in talent to Einstein: John Baez and Edward Witten. John Baez is the
founder of loop quantum gravity. Edward Witten was a major
contributor
to string theory and he also published two books on the subject.
Anyway, two incredibly mathematically gifted people. It took me 2
years to master calculus and that is with computer help. Someone like
John Baez did probably master calculus (including vector calculus)in
less 2 months with no or very little compute help.
Marvin the Martian
> There are two mathematical physicists today who I think are comparable
> in talent to Einstein: John Baez and Edward Witten. John Baez is the
> founder of loop quantum gravity. Edward Witten was a major contributor
> to string theory and he also published two books on the subject.
String theory. yeah, right. Like Einstein's hidden variable theory except
instead of just two hidden variables, there's about a dozen. String
theory is non-science hypothesis that doesn't predict anything.
Sells a lot of pop-Fizicks books and videos, however.
Baez used to post here.
> Anyway, two incredibly mathematically gifted people. It took me 2 years
> to master calculus. Someone like John Baez did probably master calculus
> (including vector calculus) in less 2 months.
Your idle idol speculation is humorous. No disrespect to Baez, but even
if, who cares no matter what you define "calculus" to be.
Androcles
<ur...@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
news:27f9e1bb-0fa5-4eee...@y11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> There are two mathematical physicists today who I think are comparable
> in talent to Einstein: John Baez and Edward Witten. John Baez is the
> founder of loop quantum gravity. Edward Witten was a major contributor
> to string theory and he also published two books on the subject.
>
> years to master calculus. Someone like John Baez did probably master
> calculus (including vector calculus) in less 2 months.
Bwahahahahahaha!
There are two drivers today who I think are comparable in talent
to Benz's daughter Mercedes, who has a car named for her:
Jensen Button and Lewis Hamilton. Lewis Hamilton won in 2008.
Jensen Button won in 2009.
Anyway, two incredibly gifted people. It took you 2 years to master
your bicycle. Someone like Jensen Button did probably master
bicycle riding (including balancing while upright) in less 2 days.
Take the training wheels off your little red wagon, sonny, it's
only taken you two years to learn to drive it. You show your abject
stupidity with "vector calculus", you haven't got a clue!
Tom Potter
"James Dow Allen" <jdall...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c9cf3c2d-f455-477f...@k18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> My website has a wide variety of pages, including one where I say
> flattering
> things about Einstein, implying he and Newton are the two greatest
> physicists
> ever. I'm not a physicist, and not qualified to judge, but the claim
> agrees
> with almost all the facts and opinions I've ever read.
>
> into thinking Einstein was really so great!
>
>> There is no question that Hilbert presented the General Theory of
>> Relativity before Einstein did.
>> Einstein rushed his General Relativity paper into publication in a
>> panic when he saw that Hilbert had already presented his own Theory.
>
> My question for the ng is: Is there any valid basis whatsoever to
> such
> arguments of plagiarism or against Einstein's "greatness"?
> I e-mailed one correspondent that such talk may have originated with
> anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda, which naturally infuriated him!
>
> Sorry if this post fans flames in this ng, but I do hope the ng gives
> me a clear sense of the answer.
>
> James Dow Allen
It appears to me,
that you, like most folks,
have been brainwashed by the Mass Media.
After Jews acquired dominance in Mass Media,
they made Einstein their Poster Boy for Jewish Intelligence.
It is pretty clear that the Jews in the Mass Media,
like Josephus, had a cultural inferiority complex,
because the Jewish culture was vastly inferior to the
cultures of the Persians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans,
Asians, and later Northern Europeans,
and they needed an icon.
I suggest that you compare the "greatness" of General Relativity,
which was a rip-off of the model (Stresses and strains),
and the tools (Tensors)
of the stress analysis gurus of the late 19th Century,
and a model that uses rubber clocks and rulers to
waste time, money and minds,
speculating about time travel, worm holes, gravitons,
and things beyond man's capacity to ever experience
in time and space like the beginning and end of time,
and the mind of God,
with the "greatness" of the Watson-Crick DNA model
that is used every day to fight crime,
protect the innocent, reconstruct history,
grow better crops, create better medicines, etc.
A mind is a terrble thing to waste.
--
Tom Potter
-----------------
http://www.tompotter.us
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com/
http://tdp1001.wordpress.com/
http://tdp1001.spaces.live.com
http://webspace.webring.com/people/st/tdp1001
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Wormley
>
> I suggest that you compare the "greatness" of General Relativity,
> which was a rip-off of the model (Stresses and strains),
> and the tools (Tensors)
> of the stress analysis gurus of the late 19th Century,
> and a model that uses rubber clocks and rulers to
> waste time, money and minds,
> speculating about time travel, worm holes, gravitons,
> and things beyond man's capacity to ever experience
> in time and space like the beginning and end of time,
It's pretty obvious, Potter, you have no valid concept of what
relativity theory is.
Bluster on, Potter, bluster some more! Froth at the mouth! Whatever!
Raymond Yohros
> > he was an incredible physicist
> > and that is the reason of his simple and elegant math!!!
>
> him with math, or how he's famous for the work of others? Or how he was
> an obstacle to progress in quantum mechanics and to cosmology due to his
> bigoted and irrational objections?
>
everybody gets knoledge from great teachers
his original thoaths came from creative inspiration.
math was only the tool to prove he
was in contrast with reality.
his wife help him answering all the letters
of objections from everybody who didnt believe
in this new revolutionary ideas.
he gave his first nobel prize money to her!.
he was NEVER an obstacle to quantum mechanics.
he just had some interesting points that where
deeply filosofic. most of the times he was not so
interested in details but in the deep mysteries
of the universe.
the power of music was with him always
giving him patience and hope.
Marvin the Martian
> On Mar 1, 6:06 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:20:59 -0800, Raymond Yohros wrote:
>> > he was an incredible physicist
>> > and that is the reason of his simple and elegant math!!!
>>
>> No comment on how he didn't give any credit to his first wife for
>> helping him with math, or how he's famous for the work of others? Or
>> how he was an obstacle to progress in quantum mechanics and to
>> cosmology due to his bigoted and irrational objections?
>>
>>
> everybody gets knoledge from great teachers his original thoaths came
> from creative inspiration. math was only the tool to prove he
> was in contrast with reality.
> his wife help him answering all the letters of objections from everybody
> who didnt believe in this new revolutionary ideas.
> he gave his first nobel prize money to her!.
What Einstein did with his Nobel prize money seems to have been subjected
to Politically correct revisionism. Up until this century, it was thought
Einstein blew it on real estate investments in the United States.
> he was NEVER an obstacle to quantum mechanics. he just had some
> interesting points that where deeply filosofic. most of the times he was
> not so interested in details but in the deep mysteries of the universe.
He injected personal bias about how HE thought the universe ought to be
into his "science". He just didn't LIKE the idea of QM and he had no
scientific basis for doing so.
Similarly, Einstein added a cosmological constant to satisfy his own
personal bias and irrational belief that the universe ought to be static
and not contracting or expanding. Then when Lemaitre discovered the big
bang, Einstein ridiculed him for injecting his religion into science!
What a hoot that was! Einstein's hypocrisy was great!
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Einstein doubted what he won the Nobel Prize for. He said that in the
end he could not reconcile a particle nature with the wave.
Photons don't exist. Captured light oscillates into mass.
Mitch Raemsch
Tom Potter
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ee6dnXysZIfzrBDW...@mchsi.com...
As Sam Wormley is a persistent critic of mine,
I honored him by posting his picture on my web site.
You can see the picture by clicking on the url below.
http://www.tompotter.us/my%20critics.html
BURT
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
The world had to judge Einstein. And he was right about Quantum
Mechanics.
Mitch Raemsch
Tom Potter
"BURT" <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:e16db329-2596-4c77...@e19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Hopefully "BURT" will explain where
"Einstein was right about Quantum Mechanics.
I have a book of the letters between
Einstein and Bohr,
and the letters clearly show that
as Einstein was the Mass Media Poster Boy
to hype the superior intelligence of Jews,
and he was hindering the acceptance of Quantum Mechanics,
Bohr was trying to get him on board,
so the Mass Media would hype real physics,
rather than a Poster Boy.
Einstein's "greatest" contribution to society
is his patent,
which can be viewed at the URL below.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=zRpsAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=albert+einstein#PPA1,M1
Raymond Yohros
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 07:51:37 -0800, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> > he was NEVER an obstacle to quantum mechanics. he just had some
> > interesting points that where deeply filosofic. most of the times he was
> > not so interested in details but in the deep mysteries of the universe.
>
> He injected personal bias about how HE thought the universe ought to be
> into his "science". He just didn't LIKE the idea of QM and he had no
> scientific basis for doing so.
>
and what more powerful way to prove that his thoughts where
correct than with an new theory of gravity.
he was one of the founders of QM so what could he
posibly care about it, right!
>
> Similarly, Einstein added a cosmological constant to satisfy his own
> personal bias and irrational belief that the universe ought to be static
> and not contracting or expanding. Then when Lemaitre discovered the big
> bang, Einstein ridiculed him for injecting his religion into science!
> What a hoot that was! Einstein's hypocrisy was great!
>
Einstein never ridicule Lemaitre. you are saying that to support
youre very personal views.
when Lemaitre convinced Einstein that the expansion
was a prediction of his theory and with hubble there
with the evidence einstein realise that the cosmos constant
was the biggest blunder of his life.
nobody is perfect.
Marvin the Martian
> On Mar 2, 6:26 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 07:51:37 -0800, Raymond Yohros wrote:
>> > he was NEVER an obstacle to quantum mechanics. he just had some
>> > interesting points that where deeply filosofic. most of the times he
>> > was not so interested in details but in the deep mysteries of the
>> > universe.
>>
>> He injected personal bias about how HE thought the universe ought to be
>> into his "science". He just didn't LIKE the idea of QM and he had no
>> scientific basis for doing so.
>>
>>
> and what more powerful way to prove that his thoughts where correct than
> with an new theory of gravity.
GR has nothing to do with QM. And his theory of gravity is more of a
description of gravity, and not a theory.
> he was one of the founders of QM so what could he posibly care about it,
> right!
His contributions were using Dirac's quantum theory to explain the photo-
electric effect, and making really bad arguments based on his personal
beliefs and biases against QM. If that makes him a founder, well...
>> Similarly, Einstein added a cosmological constant to satisfy his own
>> personal bias and irrational belief that the universe ought to be
>> static and not contracting or expanding. Then when Lemaitre discovered
>> the big bang, Einstein ridiculed him for injecting his religion into
>> science! What a hoot that was! Einstein's hypocrisy was great!
>>
>>
> Einstein never ridicule Lemaitre. you are saying that to support youre
> very personal views.
I know what you say is false. Einstein told Lemaitre to keep his religion
out of physics, and ridiculed Lemaitre's view as "Catholic Science".
Ironic, since Einstein himself was ridiculed for his "Jewish science".
You'd think he'd know better than to act like a Nazi.
> when Lemaitre convinced Einstein that the expansion was a prediction of
> his theory and with hubble there with the evidence einstein realise that
> the cosmos constant was the biggest blunder of his life.
>
> nobody is perfect.
Yes. Einstein frequently and shamelessly injected his own bias into his
"science". You bet he was wrong, and others had to drag him kicking and
screaming back to real science. If being a drag on science and acting
like an ass is good, then Einstein is right up there with "climate
Scientist".
Robert Higgins
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:52:23 -0800, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> > On Mar 2, 6:26 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 07:51:37 -0800, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> >> > he was NEVER an obstacle to quantum mechanics. he just had some
> >> > interesting points that where deeply filosofic. most of the times he
> >> > was not so interested in details but in the deep mysteries of the
> >> > universe.
>
> >> He injected personal bias about how HE thought the universe ought to be
> >> into his "science". He just didn't LIKE the idea of QM and he had no
> >> scientific basis for doing so.
>
> > and what more powerful way to prove that his thoughts where correct than
> > with an new theory of gravity.
>
> GR has nothing to do with QM. And his theory of gravity is more of a
> description of gravity, and not a theory.
>
> > he was one of the founders of QM so what could he posibly care about it,
> > right!
>
> His contributions were using Dirac's quantum theory to explain the photo-
> electric effect,
Einstein explained the photoelectric effect in 1905, when Dirac was
three (!) years old. What version of QM had Dirac developed by age
three? Dirac was born in 1902 - maybe you can do the math, but maybe
not.
> and making really bad arguments based on his personal
> beliefs and biases against QM.
"really bad arguments" that continually tied Bohr in knots.
Eventually, Bohr found the holes in Einstein's arguments, but it
always took him a while to do so. I found the hole in your "Dirac"
argument in about three seconds, so I guess YOU are the one guilty of
REALLY BAD ARGUMENTS. I wonder if Dirac or Einstein at age three could
have found the hole in your argument, too - probably.
[snipped the rest of ignorant rant]
Androcles
"Robert Higgins" <robert_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0235a979-203f-44e6...@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
============================================
So you agree Einstein's arguments were full of holes.
Robert Higgins
> "Robert Higgins" <robert_higgins...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
About QM, certainly, in many cases.
The martian's comments about Dirac, though, undermine his argument
(even more than his inability to do arithmetic). One of Dirac's
important contributions to QM was to incorporate the special theory of
relativity to wave mechanics. One (of many) important results was the
prediction of anti-matter, which turned out to be quite correct.
Dirac's version of QM is essential for the accurate calculation of
properties for heavy atoms, where relativistic effects become
important.
Androcles
=============================================
Dirac was autistic and the stupid theory of relativity has more holes than
a colander.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113435529
You've just produced a really bad argument. Hmm... I correct myself.
You haven't produced an argument at all, just a statement that if it were
an argument would be really bad.
Raymond Yohros
wrote:
> > His contributions were using Dirac's quantum theory to explain the photo-
> > electric effect,
>
> Einstein explained the photoelectric effect in 1905, when Dirac was
> three (!) years old. What version of QM had Dirac developed by age
> three? Dirac was born in 1902 - maybe you can do the math, but maybe
> not.
>
talk as if einstein was a fake when the true scientific comunity
have always recognise his great achivements
QM was build by many great scientist over experimental
observation for almost a century and eintein was right
there at the begining.
and i know for sure that eintein had nothing but the deepest
respect for lemaitre who took alot of his time to check
up all his work and who was totally inspired by it.
its like they try to change a moment of victory and
turn it into chame?
r.y
Robert Higgins
very speculative - it is pretty clear that the author has never seen
anyone with autism, and pulled the word out of the air based on
reading a paragraph in the encyclopedia.
> and the stupid theory of relativity has more holes than
> a colander.
It is amazing how the "stupid" theory of relativity applied to
Schroedinger's wave mechanics yielded the accurate prediction of the
positron... hmmm.
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113435529
> You've just produced a really bad argument. Hmm... I correct myself.
> You haven't produced an argument at all, just a statement that if it were
> an argument would be really bad.
I thought that you would like Dirac - him being an (electrrical)
engineer and all.
Marvin the Martian
> On Mar 11, 10:54 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:52:23 -0800, Raymond Yohros wrote:
>> > On Mar 2, 6:26 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 07:51:37 -0800, Raymond Yohros wrote:
>> >> > he was NEVER an obstacle to quantum mechanics. he just had some
>> >> > interesting points that where deeply filosofic. most of the times
>> >> > he was not so interested in details but in the deep mysteries of
>> >> > the universe.
>>
>> >> He injected personal bias about how HE thought the universe ought to
>> >> be into his "science". He just didn't LIKE the idea of QM and he had
>> >> no scientific basis for doing so.
>>
>> > and what more powerful way to prove that his thoughts where correct
>> > than with an new theory of gravity.
>>
>> GR has nothing to do with QM. And his theory of gravity is more of a
>> description of gravity, and not a theory.
>>
>> > he was one of the founders of QM so what could he posibly care about
>> > it, right!
>>
>> His contributions were using Dirac's quantum theory to explain the
>> photo- electric effect,
>
> Einstein explained the photoelectric effect in 1905, when Dirac was
> three (!) years old. What version of QM had Dirac developed by age
> three? Dirac was born in 1902 - maybe you can do the math, but maybe
> not.
My bad. Planck's hypothesis about the quantum, not Dirac.
>> and making really bad arguments based on his personal beliefs and
>> biases against QM.
>
> "really bad arguments" that continually tied Bohr in knots. Eventually,
> Bohr found the holes in Einstein's arguments, but it always took him a
> while to do so. I found the hole in your "Dirac" argument in about three
> seconds, so I guess YOU are the one guilty of REALLY BAD ARGUMENTS. I
> wonder if Dirac or Einstein at age three could have found the hole in
> your argument, too - probably.
>
> [snipped the rest of ignorant rant]
I made an mistake. In your case, your momma made a mistake and didn't
drown you immediately after birth.
The simple fact is, Einstein used someone else's theory to explain the
photoelectric effect, which was also discovered by someone else. That was
the point, which you totally missed.
Marvin the Martian
> About QM, certainly, in many cases.
> The martian's comments about Dirac, though, undermine his argument (even
> more than his inability to do arithmetic).
No, it shows you have a pea brain and are easily distracted by irrelevant
errors. Planck, not Dirac. The point remains the same. Einstein took
someone else's discovery about the photo electric effect and used someone
else's theory to explain it. It was a plug and chug.
> One of Dirac's important
> contributions to QM was to incorporate the special theory of relativity
> to wave mechanics.
You do love the red herring sandwich, don't you? :-)
> One (of many) important results was the prediction of
> anti-matter, which turned out to be quite correct. Dirac's version of QM
> is essential for the accurate calculation of properties for heavy atoms,
> where relativistic effects become important.
Well, thank god for Lorentz's discovery of the Lorentz transformation
which was based on Maxwell's equations, and Planck, Dirac, Schrödinger,
Heisenberg and the other great scientist who founded Quantum mechanics.
Too bad your hero had nothing to do with it besides objecting to it.
J. Clarke
Bored now.
<plonk>
Androcles
===============================================
Bwhahahahahaha!
So Schroedinger's wave mechanics + time dilation = electron * -1.
Very speculative - it is pretty clear that it is amazing how the gullible
like to spread bullshit as though it were jam on bread. hmmm...
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113435529
> You've just produced a really bad argument. Hmm... I correct myself.
> You haven't produced an argument at all, just a statement that if it were
> an argument would be really bad.
I thought that you would like Dirac - him being an (electrrical)
engineer and all.
===============================================
I thought his greatest achievement was he managed to write a plus sign
on an electron, and Asimov developed a brain for his robots with it.
Given the present state of development of Japanese robots I'd say
positronic brains were a really bad argument.
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/03/16/robot.html
Compared to some Japanese engineers, your hero Dirac was an idiot.
What that makes you I'll not speculate.
Robert Higgins
Obviously.
> In your case, your momma made a mistake and didn't
> drown you immediately after birth.
If my parents were to drown everyone who could easily expose you as a
fool, there would be no one left on earth.
>
> The simple fact is, Einstein used someone else's theory to explain the
> photoelectric effect, which was also discovered by someone else. That was
> the point, which you totally missed.
Hate to tell you, MOST scientists use "someone else's" theory to
explain anything. Too bad Planck didn't use his own theory to solve
the probelme, but he didn't, and Einstein did. Bet you didn't know
(just like you didn't know that "Planck" was spelled P-L-A-N-C-K and
not D-I-R-A-C) that Planck was responsible for the then-unknown
Einstein getting his papers published in Annalen der Physik. But
thanks for playing.
Robert Higgins
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:32:48 -0800, Robert Higgins wrote:
> > About QM, certainly, in many cases.
> > The martian's comments about Dirac, though, undermine his argument (even
> > more than his inability to do arithmetic).
>
> No, it shows you have a pea brain and are easily distracted by irrelevant
> errors. Planck, not Dirac. The point remains the same. Einstein took
> someone else's discovery about the photo electric effect and used someone
> else's theory to explain it. It was a plug and chug.
If it were merely "plugand chug", why didn't anybody else
(particularly one of the established academics) PLUG and CHUG first?
>
> > One of Dirac's important
> > contributions to QM was to incorporate the special theory of relativity
> > to wave mechanics.
>
> You do love the red herring sandwich, don't you? :-)
Not really. But I know a lot more about physics than you do, so it is
easy to bash your brains in with your own juvenile mistakes.
>
> > One (of many) important results was the prediction of
> > anti-matter, which turned out to be quite correct. Dirac's version of QM
> > is essential for the accurate calculation of properties for heavy atoms,
> > where relativistic effects become important.
Here you don't say anything, because it proves you wrong (again)
>
> Well, thank god for Lorentz's discovery of the Lorentz transformation
> which was based on Maxwell's equations,
To what extent was the Lorentz transformation based on Maxwell's
equations? (Other than that "the constancy of the speed of light is
implicit in Maxwell's equations" as noted by EInstein)
> and Planck, Dirac, Schrödinger,
Your understanding of Planck's contributions is very weak.
> Heisenberg and the other great scientist who founded Quantum mechanics.
"Founded" quantum mechanics? LIke they founded a college?
>
> Too bad your hero had nothing to do with it besides objecting to it.
Einstein couldn't have been as great as Dirac, since Dirac developed
quantum theory when he was three! Or so says Marvin.
Robert Higgins
"thought" is an overstatement.
> on an electron, and Asimov developed a brain for his robots with it.
> Given the present state of development of Japanese robots I'd say
> positronic brains were a really bad argument.
> http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/03/16/robot.html
Maybe you should go in for a PET scan...
> Compared to some Japanese engineers, your hero Dirac was an idiot.
> What that makes you I'll not speculate.
I have many heroes - and most can do calculus. Maybe some day when
you're 80 you'll be able to achieve what most scientists can do at 19.
Androcles
"thought" is an overstatement.
====================================================
Go on then, "do" calculus.
Show us all how Schroedinger's wave mechanics plus time dilation = electron
* -1.
Oh wait, it's your heroes that can "do" calculus, not you, right?
Maybe someday when you reach the mental age of nine you'll learn what
big words like "bigot" and "shithead" mean, ya fuckin' stoopid troll.
Marvin the Martian
> On Mar 12, 12:20 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:32:48 -0800, Robert Higgins wrote:
>> > About QM, certainly, in many cases.
>> > The martian's comments about Dirac, though, undermine his argument
>> > (even more than his inability to do arithmetic).
>>
>> No, it shows you have a pea brain and are easily distracted by
>> irrelevant errors. Planck, not Dirac. The point remains the same.
>> Einstein took someone else's discovery about the photo electric effect
>> and used someone else's theory to explain it. It was a plug and chug.
>
> If it were merely "plugand chug", why didn't anybody else (particularly
> one of the established academics) PLUG and CHUG first?
Most of physics is people making great discoveries by plugging and
chugging on other people's theories, with very real little added content.
That's all the photo electric effect was, a plug and chug. As for the bad
argument about being first makes you special... if you can't see what's
wrong with that, then you're not schooled in logic.
>> > One of Dirac's important
>> > contributions to QM was to incorporate the special theory of
>> > relativity to wave mechanics.
>>
>> You do love the red herring sandwich, don't you? :-)
>
> Not really. But I know a lot more about physics than you do, so it is
> easy to bash your brains in with your own juvenile mistakes.
Oh goodie! Yet another poser. Sci.physics needed another ego damaged
asswipes like you! We have a shortage of asswipes.
>> > One (of many) important results was the prediction of anti-matter,
>> > which turned out to be quite correct. Dirac's version of QM is
>> > essential for the accurate calculation of properties for heavy atoms,
>> > where relativistic effects become important.
>
> Here you don't say anything, because it proves you wrong (again)
>
>
>> Well, thank god for Lorentz's discovery of the Lorentz transformation
>> which was based on Maxwell's equations,
>
> To what extent was the Lorentz transformation based on Maxwell's
> equations? (Other than that "the constancy of the speed of light is
> implicit in Maxwell's equations" as noted by EInstein)
So much for the claim you know physics, you pig ignorant stuck up putz.
Lorentz developed the transformation equations under which Maxwell's
equations are invariant and found them interesting in that they varied
from the accepted Galilean transformation.
If you had a REAL class in modern physics instead of reading some crap
pop-Fizick's book, you'd not only know this, but probably would have had
to derive Lorentz's transformation from Maxwell's equations.
That's why all these "Einstein Hoax" goobers are wrong. The basis of
special relativity is as strong as the electrodynamics and Mach's theory
of relativity that are behind it. They're not going to disprove SR any
more than they are going to disprove E&M. SR FOLLOWS from E&M, you
physics ignorant putz.
>> and Planck, Dirac, Schrödinger,
>
> Your understanding of Planck's contributions is very weak.
That from a putz who doesn't understand the basis of the Lorentz
transformation.
>> Heisenberg and the other great scientist who founded Quantum mechanics.
>
> "Founded" quantum mechanics? LIke they founded a college?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/find
Definition 2b. Glad to tutor you, putz.
>> Too bad your hero had nothing to do with it besides objecting to it.
>
> Einstein couldn't have been as great as Dirac, since Dirac developed
> quantum theory when he was three! Or so says Marvin.
I said I was wrong. I gladly admit I'm not good with names. And you
proved you're an asshole because even when I admit I'm wrong, you STILL
run with your irrelevant little bone.
And who provided the quantum theory to explain the photo electric effect
is irrelevant to my main point that IT WASN'T EINSTEIN WHO FOUND IT.
The photo electric effect was a plug and chug. It is the main reason why
Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics.
SR wasn't even a plug and chug, it was affirming Lorentz's work. That's
why Einstein didn't win the Nobel for that which he is is most famous,
relativity.
Deal with the fact that Einstein, as physicist go, was small potatoes.
He's the most oversold scientist in history.
Marvin the Martian
Hate to tell you, most scientist are not "great". I didn't say it was
wrong, I said Einstein was not great. See the subject line? That's what
the grown up were discussing before you entered the conversation.
> Too bad Planck didn't use his own theory to solve the
> probelme, but he didn't, and Einstein did.
And Schrödinger didn't solve every problem in QM, either. He just
provided the means to do so. Schrödinger is great, Einstein isn't.
> Bet you didn't know (just
> like you didn't know that "Planck" was spelled P-L-A-N-C-K and not
> D-I-R-A-C) that Planck was responsible for the then-unknown Einstein
> getting his papers published in Annalen der Physik. But thanks for
> playing.
Totally irrelevant, you gibbering monkey. The subject is "was Einstein
Great".
BTW, Problem is spelled PROBLEM, not P-R-O-B-E-L-M-E.
Raymond Yohros
wrote:
>
he seems to forget that max planck became einsteins
greatest supporter and sponsor and that the word quanta
came from einstein himself.
the miracle years where the foundation of QM
along with plancks work that was in contrast
with einsteins.
r.y
r.y
Marvin the Martian
I have no problem at all with SR. It is follows from electromagnetism and
Maxwell's equations. Every prediction of SR save for length contraction
has been proven experimentally. The vast bulk of the SR posts in
sci.physics is a bunch of drivel that claims SR can't be right. The folks
who make these claims are so ignorant of physics they don't realize they
are not only claiming a well tested theory is false, but one that
logically follows straight from E&M, which is a very, very well tested
theory.
The validity of SR is not the issue here.
The issue here is "Was Einstein Great". He is regarded as the founder of
a theory that is nothing more than Lorentz's transformation warmed over.
Sure, he made contributions, but I contend that they were little more
than filling in the blanks, like applying the quantum theory to the
photoelectric effect. The theory of quanta was already applied to explain
the ultraviolet problem. The idea that light came in quantized energy
units wasn't even novel.
As for the Brownian motion paper; he didn't discover Brownian motion, and
he didn't even develop the math that explained it. Nor did he discover
atomic theory.
I never said he was a fake; He was a bit of a plagiarizer. To say that
the argument is that he was a fake is a straw dog. The argument is, was
Einstein great. To say that either Einstein was great or a fake is a
false dilemma. There is obviously a middle ground.
I find the claim that Einstein, who told Lemaitre to keep to his religion
and not do physics and that his big bang theory was "Catholic science"
had "deepest respect" for Lemaitre is laughable. Einstein was insulting,
condescending and completely wrong.
And if I hear that false canard about "science community" one more time...
Einstein had little to do with QM besides his constant irrational braying
that it wasn't so.
I'm afraid that there is some merit to Potter's argument that Einstein
was put forward as the poster boy for Jewish intelligence. In the early
20th century, there were those that argued that the average intelligence
of the Jewish population group was less than the average intelligence of
the general white population. Quite frankly, they could have chosen a
better poster boy than Einstein. ;-0
It is sort of like how every "Black History Month" we're told over and
over about the great black inventor, Garrett Morgan, who "invented the
gas mask and saved thousands of lives in World War I". Sadly, that isn't
the case. His gas mask was not the activated charcoal chemical gas mask,
it was a mask with a tube that dragged on the floor. The idea was that in
fires, the air near the floor is usually breathable. That would have been
a total disaster in WW I, where poison gas sank to the ground. There were
many different variations of gas masks being invented.
Einstein was not great. He was a contributing physicist who made many
mistakes and often let his personal bias color his physics.
Marvin the Martian
Einstein invented the word Quanta. Even if, so what? Rah-Rah Einstein!!
Lil' Wayne invented the word "bling-bling". Are you going to worship him
too?
Having a "supporter" and making accomplishments are two different things.
I don't know why you would even bring that up. It is irrelevant. People
support other people for a variety of reasons, but people who have merit
don't need support.
Sam Wormley
> The issue here is "Was Einstein Great". He is regarded as the founder of
> a theory that is nothing more than Lorentz's transformation warmed over.
> Sure, he made contributions, but I contend that they were little more
> than filling in the blanks, like applying the quantum theory to the
> photoelectric effect. The theory of quanta was already applied to explain
> the ultraviolet problem. The idea that light came in quantized energy
> units wasn't even novel.
>
> As for the Brownian motion paper; he didn't discover Brownian motion, and
> he didn't even develop the math that explained it. Nor did he discover
> atomic theory.
>
Miraculous Year (1905)
Ref: http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/1/2/1
Adapted from "Five papers that shook the world"
by Matthew Chalmers
January 2005
In 1905 an anonymous patent clerk in Bern rewrote
the laws of physics in his spare time.
Most physicists would be happy to make one
discovery that is important enough to be taught to
future generations of physics students. Only a
very small number manage this in their lifetime,
and even fewer make two appearances in the
textbooks.
But Einstein was different. In little more than
eight months in 1905 he completed five papers that
would change the world for ever. Spanning three
quite distinct topics - relativity, the
photoelectric effect and Brownian motion -
Einstein overturned our view of space and time,
showed that it is insufficient to describe light
purely as a wave, and laid the foundations for the
discovery of atoms.
Genius at work
Perhaps even more remarkably, Einstein's 1905
papers were based neither on hard experimental
evidence nor sophisticated mathematics. Instead,
he presented elegant arguments and conclusions
based on physical intuition.
"Einstein's work stands out not because it was
difficult but because nobody at that time had been
thinking the way he did," says Gerard 't Hooft of
the University of Utrecht, who shared the 1999
Nobel Prize for Physics for his work in quantum
theory.
"Dirac, Fermi, Feynman and others also made
multiple contributions to physics, but Einstein
made the world realize, for the first time, that
pure thought can change our understanding of
nature."
And just in case the enormity of Einstein's
achievement is in any doubt, we have to remember
that he did all of this in his "spare time".
Statistical revelations
In 1905 Einstein was married with a one-year-old
son and working as a patent examiner in Bern in
Switzerland. His passion was physics, but he had
been unable to find an academic position after
graduating from the ETH in Zurich in 1900.
Nevertheless, he had managed to publish five
papers in the leading German journal Annalen der
Physik between 1900 and 1904, and had also
submitted an unsolicited thesis on molecular
forces to the University of Zurich, which was
rejected.
Most of these early papers were concerned with the
reality of atoms and molecules, something that was
far from certain at the time. But on 17 March in
1905 - three days after his 26th birthday -
Einstein submitted a paper titled "A heuristic
point of view concerning the production and
transformation of light" to Annalen der Physik.
Einstein suggested that, from a thermodynamic
perspective, light can be described as if it
consists of independent quanta of energy (Ann.
Phys., Lpz 17 132-148).
This hypothesis, which had been tentatively
proposed by Max Planck a few years earlier,
directly challenged the deeply ingrained wave
picture of light. However, Einstein was able to
use the idea to explain certain puzzles about the
way that light or other electromagnetic radiation
ejected electrons from a metal via the
photoelectric effect.
Maxwell's electrodynamics could not, for example,
explain why the energy of the ejected
photoelectrons depended only on the frequency of
the incident light and not on the intensity.
However, this phenomenon was easy to understand if
light of a certain frequency actually consisted of
discrete packets or photons all with the same
energy.
Einstein would go on to receive the 1921 Nobel
Prize for Physics for this work, although the
official citation stated that the prize was also
awarded "for his services to theoretical physics".
"The arguments Einstein used in the photoelectric
and subsequent radiation theory are staggering in
their boldness and beauty," says Frank Wilczek, a
theorist at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology who shared the 2004 Nobel Prize for
Physics.
"He put forward revolutionary ideas that both
inspired decisive experimental work and helped
launch quantum theory." Although not fully
appreciated at the time, Einstein's work on the
quantum nature of light was the first step
towards establishing the wave-particle duality of
quantum particles.
On 30 April, one month before his paper on the
photoelectric effect appeared in print, Einstein
completed his second 1905 paper, in which he
showed how to calculate Avogadro's number and the
size of molecules by studying their motion in a
solution.
This article was accepted as a doctoral thesis by
the University of Zurich in July, and published
in a slightly altered form in Annalen der Physik
in January 1906.
Despite often being obscured by the fame of his
papers on special relativity and the
photoelectric effect, Einstein's thesis on
molecular dimensions became one of his most
quoted works.
Indeed, it was his preoccupation with statistical
mechanics that formed the basis of several of his
breakthroughs, including the idea that light was
quantized.
After finishing a doctoral thesis, most
physicists would be either celebrating or
sleeping. But just 11 days later Einstein sent
another paper to Annalen der Physik, this time on
the subject of Brownian motion.
In this paper, "On the movement of small
particles suspended in stationary liquids
required by the molecular-kinetic theory of
heat", Einstein combined kinetic theory and
classical hydrodynamics to derive an equation
that showed that the displacement of Brownian
particles varies as the square root of time (Ann.
Phys., Lpz 17 549-560).
This was confirmed experimentally by Jean Perrin
three years later, proving once and for all that
atoms do exist. In fact, Einstein extended his
theory of Brownian motion in an additional paper
that he sent to the journal on 19 December,
although this was not published until February
1906.
A special discovery
Shortly after finishing his paper on Brownian
motion Einstein had an idea about synchronizing
clocks that were spatially separated.
This led him to write a paper that landed on the
desks of Annalen der Physik on 30 June, and would
go on to completely overhaul our understanding of
space and time. Some 30 pages long and containing
no references, his fourth 1905 paper was titled
"On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" (Ann.
Phys., Lpz 17 891-921).
In the 200 or so years before 1905, physics had
been built on Newton's laws of motion, which were
known to hold equally well in stationary
reference frames and in frames moving at a
constant velocity in a straight line. Provided
the correct "Galilean" rules were applied, one
could therefore transform the laws of physics so
that they did not depend on the frame of
reference.
However, the theory of electrodynamics developed
by Maxwell in the late 19th century posed a
fundamental problem to this "principle of
relativity" because it suggested that
electromagnetic waves always travel at the same
speed.
Either electrodynamics was wrong or there had to
be some kind of stationary "ether" through which
the waves could propagate.
Alternatively, Newton was wrong. True to style,
Einstein swept away the concept of the ether
(which, in any case, had not been detected
experimentally) in one audacious step. He
postulated that no matter how fast you are
moving, light will always appear to travel at the
same velocity: the speed of light is a
fundamental constant of nature that cannot be
exceeded.
Combined with the requirement that the laws of
physics are the identical in all "inertial" (i.e.
non-accelerating) frames, Einstein built a
completely new theory of motion that revealed
Newtonian mechanics to be an approximation that
only holds at low, everyday speeds.
The theory later became known as the special
theory of relativity - special because it applies
only to non-accelerating frames - and led to the
realization that space and time are intimately
linked to one another.
In order that the two postulates of special
relativity are respected, strange things have to
happen to space and time, which, unbeknown to
Einstein, had been predicted by Lorentz and others
the previous year.
For instance, the length of an object becomes
shorter when it travels at a constant velocity,
and a moving clock runs slower than a stationary
clock.
Effects like these have been verified in
countless experiments over the last 100 years,
but in 1905 the most famous prediction of
Einstein's theory was still to come.
After a short family holiday in Serbia, Einstein
submitted his fifth and final paper of 1905 on 27
September. Just three pages long and titled "Does
the inertia of a body depend on its energy
content?", this paper presented an "afterthought"
on the consequences of special relativity, which
culminated in a simple equation that is now known
as E = mc^2 (Ann. Phys., Lpz 18 639-641).
This equation, which was to become the most
famous in all of science, was the icing on the
cake.
"The special theory of relativity, culminating in
the prediction that mass and energy can be
converted into one another, is one of the
greatest achievements in physics - or anything
else for that matter," says Wilczek.
"Einstein's work on Brownian motion would have
merited a sound Nobel prize, the photoelectric
effect a strong Nobel prize, but special
relativity and E = mc^2 were worth a super-strong
Nobel prize."
However, while not doubting the scale of
Einstein's achievements, many physicists also
think that his 1905 discoveries would have
eventually been made by others.
"If Einstein had not lived, people would have
stumbled on for a number of years, maybe a decade
or so, before getting a clear conception of
special relativity," says Ed Witten of the
Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.
't Hooft agrees. "The more natural course of
events would have been that Einstein's 1905
discoveries were made by different people, not by
one and the same person," he says. However, most
think that it would have taken much longer -
perhaps a few decades - for Einstein's general
theory of relativity to emerge.
Indeed, Wilczek points out that one consequence
of general relativity being so far ahead of its
time was that the subject languished for many
years afterwards.
The aftermath
By the end of 1905 Einstein was starting to make a
name for himself in the physics community, with
Planck and Philipp Lenard - who won the Nobel
prize that year - among his most famous
supporters. Indeed, Planck was a member of the
editorial board of Annalen der Physik at the time.
Einstein was finally given the title of Herr
Doktor from the University of Zurich in January
1906, but he remained at the patent office for a
further two and a half years before taking up his
first academic position at Zurich.
By this time his statistical interpretation of
Brownian motion and his bold postulates of
special relativity were becoming part of the
fabric of physics, although it would take several
more years for his paper on light quanta to gain
wide acceptance.
1905 was undoubtedly a great year for physics,
and for Einstein. "You have to go back to
quasi-mythical figures like Galileo or especially
Newton to find good analogues," says Wilczek.
"The closest in modern times might be Dirac, who,
if magnetic monopoles had been discovered, would
have given Einstein some real competition!" But
we should not forget that 1905 was just the
beginning of Einstein's legacy. His crowning
achievement - the general theory of relativity -
was still to come.
Raymond Yohros
>
> Einstein invented the word Quanta. Even if, so what? Rah-Rah Einstein!!
>
it was not only the word but the initial kik ass idea of
what is now a fully evolved scientific foundation.
>
> Having a "supporter" and making accomplishments are two different things.
> I don't know why you would even bring that up. It is irrelevant. People
> support other people for a variety of reasons, but people who have merit
> don't need support.- Hide quoted text -
>
nobody gets anywhere without support.
it doesnt matter how great you are
if nobody believes you
you will be never be recognised.
unless you have the same
faith as mozart
there is no worst curse
to this earth than to see
talent and/or ideas get waisted
or lost.
r.y
BURT
In the 1930's Einstein said he could not reconcile particle nature
with the wave nature in a successful manner. He questioned what he won
the nobel prize for.
I don't think a particle can be in light's waves because there are two
waves; one magnetic the other electric. Where then is the particle
going to be? In the electric or magnetic wave?
Mitch Raemsch
Marvin the Martian
> On Mar 12, 6:18 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>>
>> Einstein invented the word Quanta. Even if, so what? Rah-Rah Einstein!!
>>
>>
> it was not only the word but the initial kik ass idea of what is now a
> fully evolved scientific foundation.
I rather like the conventional lies about Einstein compared to yours,
where he's some sort of mute savant who can't do math at youth then
becomes a super genius in adult hood, single handedly creating Sr out of
thin air.
This story of yours where he invented QM, that's just lame.
< snip drivel >
Quite frankly, if it comes down to having to say "Einstein invented QM
because he coined the word "quanta" then no, obviously Einstein was not
at all great.
Marvin the Martian
is a gullibility test.
You look at Newton, and ask what did he do? Among other things, he
created the entire science of mechanics and invented the calculus (and
Taunted Leibinitz with hints on the calculus until Leibinitz figured it
out and took credit for co-discovery of the calculus. LOL!),
Then there is Einstein, who basically parroted the work of others in the
Brownian motion paper, did a plug and chug on the quantum theory that was
applied to the ultraviolet catastrophe and did the same trick on the
photo-electric effect, and did a "yeah, that's right" paper on the
Lorentz transformation and Mach Theory of Relativity.
Newton was a "very great". Einstein should get nothing more than a
mention. People who fall for the "Einstein was very great" story JUST
AREN'T TOO SMART. They're not thinking objectively, and will believe most
anything they're told without question.
Tom Potter
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:YNadnSo1SplZZAfW...@mchsi.com...
Note that whereas Maxwell was a pioneer in physics,
Einstein copied the works of others,
and gave little or no credit to the originators,
and note that whereas most of Einstein's works
generate more heat than light,
and diverts time, money and minds
that could be better applied to things like
DNA, elctronics, mechanics, medicine, etc.
Maxwell's works, like DNA,
are used every day to improve the life of folks.
Note that Maxwell created Dimensional Analyiss,
the model that ALL physics models MUST conform to,
created the equations that united and precisely defined
electricity and magnetism,
Introduced probability and statistics into physics,
which lead to Quantum Mechanics,
and Bose and Fermi statistics which are nominal variations
of Maxwell's statics, that came about because Einstein
defined objects and events as things,
and Fermi had to introduce his statictics in order
to redefine things as things (Fermions),
and events (Bosons) as events.
Introduced probability and statistics into physics.
Developed the Kinetic Theory of Gases.
Maxwell Distribution of molecular velocities (see Edinburgh Review of July
1850
being a Review by Sir John Herschel of Quetelet on Probabilities also in the
Collected
Volume of Sir John Herschel's Essays published by Longmans in 1857).
Prediction of properties of gases ( independence of viscosity on pressure
etc , etc.)
Maxwell's 4 partial differential equations of thermodynamics.
Maxwell's Demon( introduced in M's Theory of Heat ) leading onto Information
Theory and deep connections with Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Stresses in rarified gases and explanation of Crookes' radiometer (or was it
Tait who
first explained this properly?).
Relaxation time and relaxation processes of substances leading to rheology.
Viscoelasticity and Maxwell Strain Rate Model (not sure what that is)
M's work used as model for rarefied gases and plasmas.
Created a field theory of light unifying electricity and magnetism (first
unified field
theory).
Got rid of mechanical models and changed our perception of physical reality.
Light an electromagnetic wave.
Light carries momentum and exerts pressure.
Predicted other types of radiation other than light and radiant heat i.e.
postulated the
existence of an electromagnetic spectrum !
Suggested ways of detecting ether leading to Michaelson Morley experiment.
Work lead to radio, radar, television, micro-waves, thermal imaging,
infra-red telescopes.
Showed how to calculate stresses in framed arch and suspension bridges (was
first to do
so?) and how to use M's Reciprocal Theorem for statically indeterminate
frame structures
(he was the first to do so).
Lead to Luigi Cremola interpreting reciprocal diagrams as a duality in
projective 3-space.
Invention of colour top.
Invention of colour box.
Confirmation of the tri-chromatic theory of light of Young (showed green to
be the third
colour, apart from red and blue and not yellow).
Investigation of colour vision.
Calculated relative position of colours in an isoluminant representational
colour space.
Showed the positions of the colours on an equiluminant colour surface.
Understanding of colour blindness and functioning physiologically of the eye
(three
colour receptors ).
Application of tri-chromatic theory to show how to project a photograph of
an object
(tartan ribbon) in colour (modern telescopes photograph in three colours and
reassemble for greater clarity)
Fore-runner of modern colour photography.
Invention of the fish-eye lens for cameras.
Developed the photoelastic method whereby polarised light is passed through
bi-
refringent material (isinglass) to show the pattern of strain. The pattern
of strain appears
as coloured 'fringes'
(see Jessop H L and Harris F C (1949) Photoelastic Fringes and Methods,
Aberdeen
University Press).
Essay on Free Will and Determinism presaged Chaos Theory.
THE PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC PAPERS AND BOOKS OF
JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-79)
On the theory of colours in relation to colour blindness. Edinb. Trans.
Scot. Soc. Arts.
IV. 1856, pp. 394-400. Scientific Papers Vol.I pp.119-125 7 pages.
On the theory of compound colours with reference to mixtures of blue and
yellow light.
Brit. Assoc. Rep. 1856 (pt. 2) pp.12-13. Scientific Papers Vol. II pp.
243-245 3
pages.
On the unequal sensibility of the Foramen Centrale to light of different
colours. Brit.
Assoc.Rep. 1856 (pt. 2) p.12. Scientific Papers Vol. I pp. 242 1 page.
On the perception of colour. Phil. Mag. XIV. 1857, pp. 40-47 8 pages.
Account of experiments on the perception of colour. Scientific Papers
Vol. 1
pp.263-270 8 pages.
Experiments on colour as perceived by the eye with remarks on colour
blindness.
Edinb. Roy. Soc. Trans. XXI. 1857, pp. 275-298.[1855]. Scientific
Papers Vol. 1
pp. 126-154 29 pages.
On the theory of compound colours and the relations of the colours of the
spectrum. Roy. Soc. Proc. X. 1859-1860, pp. 404-409; Phil. Trans. 1860, pp.
57-
84. Scientific Papers Vol. 1 pp. 410-444 35 pages
Postscript to a paper, 'On compound colour and the relations of the colours
of the
spectrum'. Roy. Soc. Proc. X. 1859-60, pp. 484-486.
On the theory of three primary colours. Scientific Papers, Vol. I. pp.
445-450 6
pages..
On the best arrangement for producing a pure spectrum on a screen. Edinb.
Roy. Soc.
Proc. VI. 1869. pp. 238-242. [1868] Scientific Papers Vol. II pp
96-100 5 pages.
On colour vision at different points of the retina. Brit. Assoc. Rep. 1870
(Sect), pp.
40-41. Scientific Papers Vol. I pp. 230- 232 2 pages.
On colour vision. Roy. Instit. Proc. VI. 1872, pp. 260-271. Scientific
Papers Vol. 1
267-279 13 pages.
Optics
On the focal lines of a refracted pencil. London. Math. Soc. Proc. IV.
1871-1873, pp.
337- 341.[1873]. Scientific Papers Vol. II pp. 332-337 6 pages.
On double refraction in a viscous fluid in motion. Roy. Soc. Proc. XXII.
1873-74, pp.
46-47 ;Annal. Phys. Chem. CLI. 1874,pp. 151- 154.[1873].
Scientific Papers
Vol. II 379-380 2 pages.
On Hamilton's characteristic function for a narrow beam of light. London.
Math. Soc.
Proc. 6. 1874-1875, pp. 182-190.[1874] Scientific Papers Vol. II pp.
381-390 10
pages.
On the relation of geometrical optics to other parts of mathematics and
physics.
Cambridge Phil. Soc. Proc. 2. 1876, pp. 338-340.[1874]. Scientific
Papers Vol. II pp.
391-392 2 pages.
On the centre of motion of the eye. Cambridge. Phil. Soc. Proc. 2. 1876, pp.
365-366.
[1875]. Scientific Papers Vol. II pp. 416-417 2 pages.
Addition to a memoir of Francis Deas: 'On spectra formed by the passage of
polarised
light through double refracting crystals.' Edinb. Roy. Soc. Trans. XXVI.
1872, pp.
185-188.
On double refraction in a viscous fluid in motion. Roy. Soc. Proc. XXII.
1873-74, pp.
46-47 ;Annal. Phys. Chem. CLI. 1874, pp. 151- 154.[1873]. Scientific
Papers
Vol. II 379-380 2 pages.
On Hamilton's characteristic function for a narrow beam of light. London.
Math. Soc.
Proc. 6. 1874-1875, pp. 182-190.[1874]. Scientific Papers Vol. II pp.
381-390 10
pages.
On the application of Hamilton's characteristic function to the theory of an
optical
instrument symmetrical about its axis. London. Math. Soc. Proc. 6, 1874-75.
pp.
117-122.[1875] Scientific Papers Vol. II pp. 439-444 6 pages.
On the relation of geometrical optics to other parts of mathematics and
physics.
Cambridge Phil. Soc. Proc. 2. 1876, pp. 338-340.[1874]. Scientific
Papers Vol. II
391-392 2 pages.
On the centre of motion of the eye. Cambridge. Phil. Soc. Proc. 2. 1876, pp.
365-366.
[1875]. Scientific Papers Vol. II 416-417 2 pages.
Saturn's Rings
On the stability of the motion of Saturn's rings. Astron. Soc. Month. Not.
XIX. 1859, pp.
297-304.
On the stability of the motion of Saturn's rings. Scientific Papers. Vol.
I. pp. 288-
376 89 pages.
On theories of the constitution of Saturn's rings. Edinb. Roy. Soc. Proc.
IV. 1862, pp.
99- 101. Scientific Papers Vol. I 286-287 2 pages.
Stability of planetary systems.
Saturn's rings could only be collection of discrete particles.
Dynamics
On a dynamical top for illustrating the phenomena of the motion of a system
of
invariable form about a fixed point with some suggestions as to the Earth's
motion.
Edinb. Roy. Soc. Trans. XXI. 1857, pp. 559-570. Scientific Papers Vol.
I 248-262
15 pages.
On the proof of the equations of motion of a connected system. Cambridge
Phil. Soc.
Proc. II. 1876, pp. 292-294. [1873]. Scientific Papers Vol. II 308-309 2
pages.
Illustrations of the many possible motions of a rotating rigid body
Gases
On the dynamical theory of gases. Brit. Assoc. Rep. 1859 (pt. 2) p.9.
Illustrations of the dynamical theory of gases. Part 1. On the motions and
collisions
of perfectly elastic spheres. Phil. Mag. XIX. 1860, pp. 19-32.
Scientific Papers
Vol. I 377-409 33 pages.
Illustrations of the dynamical theory of gases. Part 2. On the process of
diffusion of
two or more kinds of moving particles among one another. Phil. Mag. XX.
1860, pp. 21-37. Scientific Papers Vol. I see above.
On the viscosity or internal friction of air and other gases. [Bakerian
Lecture] Phil.
Trans. CLVI. 1866, pp. 249- 268; Roy. Soc. Proc. XV. 1867, pp. 14- 17.
Scientific
Papers Vol. II 1-25 25 pages.
On the dynamical theory of gases. Phil. Mag. XXXII. 1866, pp. 390-393; Phil.
Trans.
CLVII. 1867, pp. 49-88; Roy. Soc. Proc. XV. 1867, pp. 146-149; Phil.
Mag.
XXXV. 1868, pp. 129-145, 185-217. Scientific Papers Vol. II 26-78 53
pages.
On Loschmidt's experiments on diffusion in relation to the kinetic theory of
gases.
Nature, VIII.1873, pp. 298-300; Les Mondes. XXXII. 1873, pp. 164-171.
Scientific Papers Vol. II 343-350 8 pages.
On the final state of a system of molecules in motion subject to forces of
any kind. Brit.
Assoc. Rep. XLIII. 1873 (Sect), pp. 29-32; Nature, VIII. 1873. pp.
537-538.
Scientific Papers Vol. II pp. 351-354 4 pages.
Van der Waals on the continuity of the gaseous and liquid states.
Scientific Papers. Vol
II. pp. 407-416. Scientific Papers Vol. II 407-415 9 pages.
On the equilibrium of heterogenous substances. Cambridge Phil. Soc. Proc. 2.
1876, pp.
427- 430. Scientific Papers Vol. II 498-500 3 pages.
Diffusion of gases through absorbing substances. Scientific Papers. Vol. II.
pp. 501-505
4 pages
On stresses in rarefied gases arising from inequalities of temperature. Roy.
Soc.
Proc. 27. 1878, pp. 304-308; Phil. Trans. 170. 1880, pp. 231-256
.Scientific
Papers Vol. II pp. 681-712 32 pages.
On Boltzmann's theorem on the average distribution of energy in a system of
material points, Cambridge Phil. Soc. Trans. 12. 1879, pp. 547-570; Annal.
Phys.
Chem., Beibl. 5. 1882, pp. 403- 417; Phil. Mag. 14. 1882, pp. 299-312;
Cambridge Phil. Soc. Trans. 12. 1879, pp. 547-570; Phil. Mag. 14.
1882, pp. 299-
312.[1878]. Scientific Papers Vol. II pp. 713-741 29 pages.
Molecules and Atoms
A discourse on molecules. Phil. Mag. XLVI. 1873, pp. 453-469; Nature, VIII.
1873, pp.
437-441; Les Mondes, XXXII. 1873, pp. 311-316, 409-420; Pharmaceut. Jour. 4.
1874. pp. 404-405, 492-494, 511-513.
Molecules; a Lecture. Scientific Papers. Vol II. pp 361-379 18 pages.
On the dynamical evidence of the molecular constitution of bodies. Nature,
11. 1875,
pp. 357-359, 374-377; Gazz. Chim. Ital . 5. 1875, pp. 190-208; Chem. Soc.
Journ.
13. 1875, pp. 493-508. Scientific Papers Vol. II pp. 418-438 11 pages.
Atom. Scientific Papers. Vol II. pp. 445-485 40 pages.
Electricity and Magnetism
On Faraday's lines of force. Camb. Phil. Soc. Trans. 1864, pp. 27-83.
[1855-56].
Scientific Papers Vol. I pp. 155-229 75 pages.
On a method of drawing the theoretical forms of Faraday's Lines of force
without
calculation. Brit. Assoc. Rep. 1856 (pt. 2) p.12 Scientific Papers Vol.
I p. 241 1
page.
On physical lines of force. Part 1. The theory of molecular vortices applied
to magnetic
phenomena. Phil. Mag. XXI. 1861, pp. 161-175. Scientific Papers Vol.
I pp. 451-
513 63 pages.
On physical lines of force. Part 2. The theory of electrical vortices
applied to electric
currents. Phil. Mag. XXI. 1861, pp. 281-291, 338-348. Scientific
Papers Vol. I
as above.
On physical lines of force. Part 3. The theory of electrical vortices
applied to statical
electricity. Phil. Mag. XXIII. 1862, pp. 12-24. Scientific Papers Vol. I
as above.
On physical lines of force. Part 4 The theory of electrical vortices
applied to the the
action of magnetism on polarized light Phil. Mag. XXIII. 1862, pp. 85-95.
Scientific Papers Vol. I as above.
A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field. Roy. Soc. Proc. XIII.
1864, pp. 531-
536; Plil. Trans. CLV. 1865, pp. 459-512; Phil. Mag. XXIX. 1865., pp152-157.
Scientific Papers Vol. I 526-597 72 pages.
Description of a further experimental measurement of electrical resistance
made at King's
College. (with Jenkin F.) Brit. Assoc. Rep. XXXIV. 1864, pp. 350-351.
Description of a further experimental measurement of electrical resistance
made at King's
College. (with Jenkin F.) Phil. Mag. XXIX. 1865, pp. 436-460, 507-525.
On the theory of maintenance of electrical currents by mechanical work
without the use
of permanent magnets. Roy. Soc. Proc. XV. 1867. pp. 397-402; Phil. Mag.
XXXIII.
1867. pp. 474-478. Scientific Papers Vol. II 79-85 7 pages.
On Mr Grove's 'Experiment in electro-magnetic induction.' Phil. Mag. XXXV.
1868, pp.
360- 363. Scientific Papers Vol. II 121-124 4 pages.
On a method of making a direct comparison of electrostatic with
electromagnetic
force; with a note on the electromagnetic theory of light. Phil. Trans.
CLVIII.
1868. pp. 643-658; Roy. Soc. Proc. XVI. 1868, pp. 449-450; Phil. Mag.
XXXVI.
1868. pp. 316-317; Brit. Assoc. Rep. XXXIX. 1869, pp. 436-438.
Scientific
Papers Vol. II pp. 125-143 19 pages.
Experiments on the value of V, the ratio of the electromagnetic to the
electrostatic unit of
electricity. Brit. Assoc. Rep. XXXIX. 1869, pp.436-438 3 pages.
On the theory of a system of electrical conductors, and other physical
theories involving
homogeneous quadratic functions. London. Math. Soc. Proc. IV. 1871-73, pp.
334-336. SP II 329-331 3 pages.
Can the potential of a uniform circular disk at any point be expressed by
means of elliptic
integrals? London. Math. Soc. Proc. III. 1869-71, p. 8 1 page.
On the induction of electric currents in an infinite plane sheet of uniform
conductivity.
Roy. Soc. Proc. XX. 1872, pp. 160-168; Phil. Mag. XLIII. 1872, pp. 529-538.
Scientific Papers Vol. II 286-296 11 pages.
On action at distance. Roy. Instit. Proc. VII. 1873. pp. 44-54.
Scientific Papers Vol. II
pp. 311-323 13 pages.
On the application of Kirchhoff's rules for electric circuits to the
solution of a geometrical
problem. Brit. Assoc. Rep. 1874 (Sect.), pp. 18-19. Scientific Papers
Vol. II p.
406 1 page.
On the solution of electrical problems by the transformation of conjugate
functions.
Cambridge Phil. Soc.Proc. II. 1876, pp. 242-243. Scientific Papers Vol.
II p. 256
1 page.
On Ohm's law. Scientific Papers. Vol II, pp. 533-537 5 pages.
Report of the Committee for testing experimentally Ohm's law (with Everett
J. D. and
Schuster, A.) Brit. Assoc. Rep. 1876, pp. 36-63.
Theory of electrical induction. Nature, 14. 1876, pp. 27-28
Note on Mr George Forbes paper, 'On diamagnetic rotation'. Edinb. Roy. Soc.
Proc. 9.
1878, pp. 91-92.[1876]
On the electrical capacity of a long narrow cylinder, and of a disk of
sensible thickness.
London Math. Soc. Proc. 9. 1877-78, pp. 94-101. [1878].
Scientific Papers
Vol. II 672-680 9 pages.
On a possible mode of detecting a motion of the solar system through the
luminiferous
ether. (Posthumously) Roy. Soc. Proc. 30. 1880, pp. 108-110 3 pages.
Statics, Stresses in structures, Reciprocal Diagrams
On reciprocal figures and diagrams of forces. Phil. Mag. XXVII. 1864, pp.
250-261.
Scientific Papers Vol. I pp. 514-525 12 pages
On the calculation of the equilibrium and stiffness of frames. Phil. Mag.
XXVII.
1864, pp. 294-299. Scientific Papers Vol. I pp. 598-604 7 pages.
On reciprocal diagrams in space and their relation to Airy's function of
stress. London.
Math. Soc. Proc. II. 1869, pp. 58-60.. Scientific Papers Vol. II
102-104 3 pages.
On reciprocal figures, frames and diagrams of forces. Edinb. Roy. Soc. Proc.
VII.
1872, pp. 53-56.; Edinb. Roy. Soc. Trans. XXVI. 1872, pp. 1-40.
Scientific
Papers Vol. II 161-207 47 pages
On Bow's method of drawing digrams in graphical statics, with illustrations
from
Peaucellier's linkage. Cambridge Phil. Soc. Proc. 2. 1876, pp. 407-414.
Scientific Papers Vol. II pp. 492-497 6 pages.
Properties of Solids, Surfaces and Fluids
On the equilibrium of elastic solids. Edinb. Roy. Soc. Trans. XX. 1853, pp.
87-120.
[1850]. Scientific Papers Vol. I pp. 30-79 50 pages.
On the transformation of surfaces by bending. Camb. Phil. Trans. IX. 1856,
pp 445-
470. SP I pp80-114 35 pages
The construction of stereograms on surfaces. London. Math. Soc. Proc. II.
1869, pp.
57-58. [1868]. Scientific Papers Vol. II p. 101 1 page
On the displacement in a case of fluid motion. London. Math. Soc. Proc. III.
1869-
1871, pp. 82-87.[1870]. Scientific Papers Vol. II pp. 208-214 7
pages
Note to Mr Röhr's paper on, 'Spheric and cylindric motion in viscous fluid'.
London.
Math Soc. Proc. 5. 1873-74, pp. 138-139. [1874]
Maxwell Stress Tensor.
Control Theory and Cybernetics
On governors. Roy. Soc. Proc. XVI. 1868, pp. 270-283; Phil. Mag. XXXV. 1868,
pp.
385-398. Scientific Papers Vol. II 105-120 16 pages.
Above paper regarded as the foundations of control theory and theory of
servo-
mechanisms (cybernetics).
For stability, characteristic equation of the linear differential equation
has to have all its
roots with negative real parts.
Instruments
Description of a new form of platometer, an instrument for measuring the
area of plane
figures drawn on paper. Edinb. Trans. Scot. Soc. Arts, IV. 1856. pp.
420-428.
Scientific Papers Vol. I pp. 230-237 8 pages.
On an instrument to illustrate Poinsot's theory of rotation. Brit. Assoc.
Rep. 1856 (pt. 2)
pp. 27- 28. Scientific Papers Vol. I pp. 246-247 2 pages.
On the elementary theory of optical instruments. Camb. Phil. Soc. Proc. I.
1866, pp. 173-
175.[1856]. Scientific Papers Vol. I 238-240 3 pages.
On the general laws of optical instruments. Quart. Jour. Math II. 1858, pp.
233-246.
Scientific Papers Vol. I pp. 271-285 15 pages.
General considerations concerning scientific apparatus. Scientific Papers.
Vol II. pp. 505-
522 18 pages.
Instruments connected with fluids. Scientific Papers. Vol II ,pp. 523- 528 5
pages.
Lightning Conductors
Lightning conductors. Telegr. Engin. Journ. 4. 1875, pp. 429-43.
On the protection of buildings from lightning. Brit. Assoc.Rep. 1876
(Sect.) pp. 43-45.
Scientific Papers Vol. II pp. 538-540 3 pages.
On the protection of buildings from lightning. Symons Meteorol. Mag. 11,
1876, p. 132.
Reviews, Essays and Biographies
'Elements of Natural Philosophy'. By Sir W. Thomson and P.G. Tait. (Review).
Scientific Papers. Vol II. pp. 324-329. Scientific Papers Vol. II pp.
324-328 5
pages.
'An essay on the mathematical principles of physics.' by the Rev. James
Challis, M.A.
&c. (Review) Scientific Papers. Vol II. pp. 338-342 5 pages.
Reprints of papers on electrostatics and magnetism. By Sir William
Thomson.
(Review). Scientific Papers. Vol II. pp. 301-307 7 pages.
Faraday. Scientific Papers. Vol II. pp. 355-36 and pp. 786-794.
Herman Ludwig Ferdinand Helmholtz. James Clerk Maxwell: Scientific Papers.
Vol II,
pp. 592-598 7 pages..
Plateau on soap bubbles (Review). Scientific Papers. Vol II. pp. 393-399 7
pages.
Grove's, 'Correlation of physical forces' (Review). Scientific Papers. Vol
II. pp. 400-
4065 6 pages.
Whewell's writings and correspondence. Scientific Papers. Vol II, pp.
528-52 5
pages3.
On the unpublished electrical papers of the Hon. Henry Cavendish. Cambridge
Phil.
Soc Proc. 3, 1880, pp. 86-89.[1877]. Scientific Papers Vol. pp.
612-614 4
pages.
Tait's Thermodynamics ( Review). Scientific Papers. Vol II. pp. 660- 67 12
pages.
Thomson and Tait's Natural Philosophy (Review). Scientific Papers.Vol II.
pp. 776-
786. 10 pages
Paradoxical Philosophy (Review). Scientific Papers. Vol II. pp. 756- 762 7
pages.
Does the progress of Physical Science tend to give any advantage to the
opinion of
Necessity (or Determinism) over that of the Contingency of Events and the
Freedom of
the Will? (11.2.1873) Campbell and Garnett- Life of James Clerk Maxwell
1884.
pp362-366.
Articles and Addresses of an Expository Nature
Inaugural Address at Marischal College, Aberdeen, (reference not known).
Inaugural Address at King's College London, American Journal of Physics,
Vol. 47,
No. 11, pp. 928-933 6 pages.
Introductory lecture on Experimental Physics (as Cavendish Professor).
Scientific
Papers. Vol II. pp. 241-256 15 pages.
Attraction. Scientific Papers. Vol II. pp. 485-492 7 pages..
Address to the Mathematical and Physical Section of the British Association.
Brit.
Assoc. Rep. XL. 1870 (Sect.), pp. 1-9. Scientific Papers Vol. Iipp.
215-229 15
pages.
Ether. Scientific Papers. Vol II. pp. 763-776 13 pages.
Diffusion. Scientific Papers. Vol II. pp. 625-647 22 pages.
Reports on special branches of science. Scientific Papers. Vol II. pp.
794-796 3 pages..
Diagrams. Scientific Papers. Vol II. pp. 647-660 13 pages..
The telephone; Rede Lecture, Cambridge, May 24, 1878. Nature, 18. 1878, pp.
159-
163. Scientific Papers Vol. II pp. 742-755 14 pages.
Capillary action. Scientific Papers. Vol II, pp. 541-592. 7 pages.
Constitution of bodies. Scientific Papers. Vol II, pp. 616-624 9 pages
Electrical Standards
Reports of the Committee on Electrical Standards appointd by the British
Association
for the Advancemant of Science (with Thomson W, Joule J P, and Jenkin F),
London
1873.
Determination of fundamental units in electricity.
Unclassified
On a bow seen on the surface of ice. Edinb. Roy. Soc. Proc. VII. 1872, p.69.
Scientific Papers Vol. II p 160 1 page.
Remarks on Mr Hanlon's paper on the Vena Contracta. London. Math. Soc.
Proc. III.
1869- 71, pp. 6-8.
On the mathematical classification of physical quantities. Scientific
Papers. Vol. II. pp.
257-267. Scientific Papers Vol. II 257-266 10 pages.
Primarily Mathematical
On the descriptions of oval curves and those having a plurality of foci.
Edinb. Roy. Soc.
Trans. Proc. II. 1851, pp. 89-91.[1846]. Scientific Papers Vol. I pp
1-3 3 pages.
On the theory of rolling curves. Edinb. Roy. Soc. Trans. XVI. 1849, pp.
519-540
Scientific Papers Vol. pp.14-29 26 pages..
On a particular case of a descent of a heavy body in a resisting medium.
Camb. and
Dubl. Math. Journ. IX 1854, pp. 145-148.
On the equilibrium of a spherical envelope. Quart. Journ. Math. VIII. 1867.
pp. 325-333
Scientific Papers Vol. II pp. 86-95 10 pages.
On the cyclide. Quart. Jour. Math. IX. 1868, pp. 111-126. Scientific
Papers Vol. II
pp. 144-159 16 pages.
On hills and dales. Phil. Mag. XL 1870, pp. 421-427. SP II 233-240 8 pages.
On the geometrical mean distance of two figures on a plane. Edinb. Roy.
Soc. Trans.
XXVI. 1872, pp. 729-733. Scientific Papers Vol. II 280-285 6 pages.
On the condition that, in the transformation of any figure by curvilinear
coordinates in
three dimensions, every angle in the new figure shall be equal to the
corresponding
figure in the
original figure. London. Math. Soc. Proc. IV. 1871-73, pp. 117-119.[1872].
Scientific Papers Vol. II 297-300 4 pages.
On the problem of the calculus of variations in which the solution is
discontinuous.
Cambridge Phil. Soc.II. 1876, pp. 292-295. Scientific Papers Vol. II
p 310 1
page.
On approximate multiple integration between limits of summation. Cambridge
Phil. Soc.
Proc. 3. 1880, pp. 39-47. [1877]. Scientific Papers Vol. II pp.
604-611 8
pages.
On a paradox in the theory of attraction. Cambridge Phil. Soc. Proc. 3.
1880, pp. 34-39.
[1877]. Scientific Papers Vol. II 599-603 5 pages.
Harmonic analysis. Scientific Papers. Vol II. pp. 797-799 3 pages.
Above paper On Hills and Dales regarded as starting the branch of
mathematics now
called global analysis (presumably means topology?).
Pioneered (with Tait) vector analysis, inventing the term 'curl'.
Books written by James Clerk Maxwell
1. On the Stability of the Motion of Saturn's Rings, (1859), Macmillan.
2. Theory of Heat, (1870), London.
3. A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, (1873), Oxford.
4. Matter and Motion, (1873) , London.
5. The Electrical Researches of the Honourable Henry Cavendish, F.R.S.
written
between 1771 and 1781, edited from the original manuscripts in the
possession of
the Duke of Devonshire, K.G., (1879), Cambridge
6. Elementary Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, (1881, revised ed.
1888), ed.
W. Garnett, Oxford.
7. The scientific papers of James Clerk Maxwell (ed.Niven W D), (1890),
Cambridge University Press.
=============
Einstein is a product of a race/religion biased Mass Media.
If Asians, Muslims, Latinos or just plain rational, intelligent folks
dominated Mass Media in the 1900's,
there would be far less babble in physics,
and Einstein would be a footnote in the history of physics.
It is interesting to see that in his SR paper,
that Einstein created a strawman
and attributed it to Maxwell,
in order to appear superior to Maxwell.
The bottom line is,
what models waste time, money and minds,
and what models are used every day to
improve the lot of man?
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
--
Tom Potter
-----------------
http://www.tompotter.us
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com/
http://tdp1001.wordpress.com/
http://tdp1001.spaces.live.com
http://webspace.webring.com/people/st/tdp1001
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Wormley
> You look at Newton, and ask what did he do? Among other things, he
> created the entire science of mechanics and invented the calculus (and
> out and took credit for co-discovery of the calculus. LOL!),
No bias on the part of Marvin the Martian! <laughing>
"Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was originally accused of plagiarizing
Sir Isaac Newton's unpublished work (only in Britain, not in
continental Europe), but is now regarded as an independent
inventor of and contributor to calculus".
Robert Higgins
> The whole issue of making Einstein the poster boy of Genius and physicist
> is a gullibility test.
>
> You look at Newton, and ask what did he do? Among other things, he
> created the entire science of mechanics and invented the calculus (and
> Taunted Leibinitz with hints on the calculus until Leibinitz figured it
> out and took credit for co-discovery of the calculus. LOL!),
Newton was great - no question. His theory of mechanics was
incomplete, though.
Maxwell was great, too. His theory was not incomplete, but its current
form (4 equations) was greatly simplified by Heaviside.
>
> Then there is Einstein, who basically parroted the work of others in the
> Brownian motion paper, did a plug and chug on the quantum theory
In 1905, there barely WAS a quantum theory. Einstein certainly picked
up work by Planck, and carried it much further.
> that was
> applied to the ultraviolet catastrophe and did the same trick on the
> photo-electric effect, and did a "yeah, that's right" paper on the
> Lorentz transformation and Mach Theory of Relativity.
You leave out Fitzgerald, who developed the same transformations as
Lorentz. Larmor did the same even earlier, starting from
electromagnetism rather than mechanics. You leave out, of course, that
the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformations were more of a hack than a
developed theory. The original form of the equations was incorrect,
since the transformations as originally written did not form a group.
Einstein derived then from simple principles, and then showed they
formed a group.
Einstein derived the form of the transverse Doppler effect, which
neither Lorentz nor Fitzgerald had done - so that is original. He then
took this transverse Doppler effect and used it to derive mass-energy
equivalence - which was completely original. While his work on SR was
only slightly ahead of his competitors, his work on GR was completely
ahead of everyone else.
>
> Newton was a "very great". Einstein should get nothing more than a
> mention.
Because he was Jewish, and Newton wasn't. Yeh, we get the point.
That's why you never list Bohr as important in the development of QM.
The fact that Bohr (successfully) defended QM against Einstein's
attacks is a great hammer to use on Einstein, but boomerangs, since
you hardly want to condemn one Jew, only to praise another.
Sam Wormley
Thanks Robert.
-Sam
Tom Potter
As my pal "Robert Higginskikov" demonstrates,
considering that Jews in the Mass Media
made Einstein their Poster Boy to con the masses
into believing that Jews are smarter than
Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Chinese, Indians, Romans,
Germans, Russians, etc. who created superior cultures,
and considering that people like "Robert Higginskikov"
always plays the "Anti-Semetic Card" when anyone suggests
that Jews are not the "virtuous victims"
nor the smart people they constantly hype they are,
and considering that Newton's, Maxwell's and
Watson/Crick models are used every day
to design and maintain things, fight crime,
improve health, improve crops, reconstruct history, etc.
and considering that General Relativity
is a Tower of Babel, that generates more heat than light,
and uses rubber clocks and rulers
to waste time, money and minds
on such things as time travel, worm holes, gravitons,
space warps, and things beyond man's capacity
to ever experience in time and space,
like the beginning and end of time,
and the mind of God,
one has to wonder why the Mass Media
declared Einstein to be the "Man of the Century".
The following URL describes Einstein's greatest patent.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=zRpsAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=albert+einstein#PPA1,M1
Compare the constant waste of time, money and minds on
General Relativity to the fruits of the Watson/Crick DNA model,
and you will come to understand that:
Marvin the Martian
> On Mar 13, 10:29 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> Then there is Einstein, who basically parroted the work of others in
>> the Brownian motion paper, did a plug and chug on the quantum theory
>
> In 1905, there barely WAS a quantum theory. Einstein certainly picked up
> work by Planck, and carried it much further.
Carried it much further? Again, NO! Planck showed how his idea of how
quantized energy packets could explain the ultra violet catastrophe.
Einstein just copied the same approach on a slightly different problem.
To say he "carried it much further" is absurd.
>> that was
>> applied to the ultraviolet catastrophe and did the same trick on the
>> photo-electric effect, and did a "yeah, that's right" paper on the
>> Lorentz transformation and Mach Theory of Relativity.
>
> You leave out Fitzgerald, who developed the same transformations as
> Lorentz. Larmor did the same even earlier, starting from
> electromagnetism rather than mechanics.
Is this free association day for you?
< snip gibberish and PC crap that is just too stupid to respond to >
Sam Wormley
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:03:42 -0700, Robert Higgins wrote:
>>
>> In 1905, there barely WAS a quantum theory. Einstein certainly picked up
>> work by Planck, and carried it much further.
>
> Carried it much further? Again, NO! Planck showed how his idea of how
> quantized energy packets could explain the ultra violet catastrophe.
>
> Einstein just copied the same approach on a slightly different problem.
> To say he "carried it much further" is absurd.
Einstein's Contributions to Quantum Theory
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r7664540132k6v83/
Einstein's Contribution
http://www.skybooksusa.com/time-travel/physics/einsteis.htm
"The Bohr–Einstein debates is a popular name given to a series of public
disputes between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr about quantum physics.
These two men, along with Max Planck were the founders of the original
quantum theory. Their "debates" are remembered because of their
importance to the philosophy of science. The meaning and significance of
these debates are rarely understood, but an authoritative account of
them has been written by Bohr himself in an article called "Discussions
with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics" published
in a volume dedicated to Einstein".
"Einstein's position with respect to quantum mechanics is significantly
more subtle and open-minded than it has often been portrayed in
technical manuals and popular science articles.[citation needed] His
constant and powerful criticisms of quantum mechanics compelled its
defenders to sharpen and refine their understanding of the philosophical
and scientific implications of their own theory".
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr-Einstein_debates
_____________________
Quoting John Wheeler from "STEPHEN HAWKING'S A BRIEF HISTORY OF
TIME, A READER'S COMPANION", "I had worked with the other great man
in the quantum debate, Niels Bohr, in Copenhagen. And I know no
greater debate in the last hundreds of years than the debate between
Bohr and Einstein, no greater debate between two greater men, or one
that extended over a longer period of time--twenty-eight years--at a
higher level of colleagueship. To put it in brief: Does the world
exist out there independent of us, as Einstein thought; or, as Bohr
thought, is there some sense in which we, through our choice of
observing equipment, have something to do with what comes about..."
Einstein refused to believe in a reality that precluded cause and
effect. "God does not play dice with the universe." he declared. He
especially objected to the theory's insistence that particles,
forces, and events seemed to come into existence only when a
measurement or observation was made.
For more than half a century physicists and philosophers debated
whether the quantum theory really was a complete and accurate
description of reality. Then in 1964, physicist John Bell proposed a
brilliant method to resolve the issue. "Bell's Theorem," says the
eminent physicist Henry Stapps, "is the most profound discovery of
science." By the early 1980's a number of elegant experiments
applying Bell's Theorem have proved that quantum theory, which
speaks in terms of probabilities rather than actualities, is indeed
a complete explanation of reality... God DOES play dice with the
universe!
Empirical results of observation and experiment... that's what makes
something so!
spudnik
Bell's nonlocality and Aspect's experiment can
be comprehended as "reifying the math of photons,"
sipposedly proven to exist by the photoelectrical effect;
that is to say, "rocks o'light," or re-empowering Newton's "theory"
of corpuscles, which was completely shattered by Young,
with his words and his two-hole experiment etc.
if there is any thing that is more obnoxious than Einsteinmania,
it is the Second (secular) Church of England,
Newtonmania!... why, do you think,
he was awarded with the minding of the mint?
> Empirical results of observation and experiment... that's what makes
> something so!
thus:
not if there is no perfect plenum a la Pascal; then,
every thing is "due to quanta."
> Is gravity due to quanta or is space a void?
thus:
since all of the primes are determined by the seive
of Eratosthenes (who also pushed an Egyptian expedition
that made it all the way to Chile, ne'er returned),
why would "correlations" of twin-primes not be related
to "distributions" of all (or just single) primes?
what was Fermat's proof of the so-called last theorem?
thus:
quasars are cool, even if they are not as far,
away as the Hubble assumption'd make them; I mean,
then, they'd be cool-er. phonons & photons:
they are merely the quanta of being-captured-
by-the-device!
thus:
it was only a double-negative, unless
you believe that Fermat's proof of n=4 came,
before his marginal miracle. I mean,
why would he explicitly state n=4, otherwise?
(he did not prove n=3, explicitly.)
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
Marvin the Martian
> if there is any thing that is more obnoxious than Einsteinmania, it is
> the Second (secular) Church of England, Newtonmania!...
You're an idiot.
What's funny, is that you're too stupid to know that you're an idiot,
even if you're told.
Urion
blind chess players (blind chess is the ability to play chess without
seeing the board) have a few things in common: Their incredible memory
and spatial processing ability.
Einstein has never been in space and at his time he had no computer to
assist him in the calculations but despite that he could visualize
complex geometric shapes and structures like a perfectly symmetrical
sphere in his mind. He could also memorize mathematical equations
without having these equations before him.
I don't think that those who don't possess a good memory and spatial
processing ability could ever become theoretical physicists. I for one
don't have a good memory like Einstein and I am very bad at blind
chess.
Marvin the Martian
> I think people like Einstein, Newton and maybe even some very strong
> blind chess players (blind chess is the ability to play chess without
> seeing the board) have a few things in common: Their incredible memory
> and spatial processing ability.
The point of the thread is that Einstein didn't do anything remarkable,
as Newton did.
Lumping them together is circular logic.
> Einstein has never been in space and at his time he had no computer to
> assist him in the calculations but despite that he could visualize
> complex geometric shapes and structures like a perfectly symmetrical
> sphere in his mind. He could also memorize mathematical equations
> without having these equations before him.
Been in space?! What advantage would that confer upon him with respect to
anything he's done? Spheres? What's so hard about imagining a sphere?
What does a sphere have to do with anything, exactly?
The last sentence, about being able to memorize things he's not seen,
makes no sense.
spudnik
I attended the Ninth Nonlinear Science Conference at UCLA,
where the keynoter told the story of how,
Newton stole the inverse second-power law
(the algebraization of Kepler's orbital constraints).
thus:
that is, he corrected an error in the marginal statemnt,
thus also ruling-out all powers of two, as exponential
(from the lemma that you only need to work the prime powers).
> why would Fermat explicitly state n=4, otherwise?
> (he did not prove n=3, explicitly.)
thus:
ha, good question about every God-am frequency (1/period).
Burt also had a really good question, about (say)
How would Sun emit a photon -- what shape does it go?...
he must be using the new "mental operating system!"
thus:
most of the interpretation of the EPR "paradox" results,
a l'Alain Aspect et al, is due to the ideal of a photon,
in assinging all of the God-am energy of the wave-front
as a "mass" (electron-voltage, say) of a particle, whence
the wave-energy was somehow "caught" by the photo-
eletrical device. here are two ways to get over this: a)
just consider the practice of audio quantization, the phonon; b)
show how the photoelectrical device is actually tuned
to absorb a particular frequency of light.
so, is the "phonon" just one cycle of the period
of the sound, and like-wise, is the photon just
one cycle of the frequency?
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/
--Stop Cheeny, Rice, Waxman, Pendergast and
ICC's 3rd Brutish invasion of Sudan!
http://larouchepub.com
Raymond Yohros
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 03:19:33 -0700, Urion wrote:
> > I think people like Einstein, Newton and maybe even some very strong
> > blind chess players (blind chess is the ability to play chess without
> > seeing the board) have a few things in common: Their incredible memory
> > and spatial processing ability.
>
> The point of the thread is that Einstein didn't do anything remarkable,
> as Newton did.
>
both where remarkable in their own way
they live in deferent times and they had different
personalities. newton did nothing but think
and study. he didnt even mess around with chics
or drink any alcohol!
he was so incredibly devoted to science
that he could stay working non stop for
days without sleep or eat.
einstein on the other hand did a lot of stuff.
any pretty chic made his head spin and he use
to have pleasures and a great sense of humor,
creativity came natural to him. more like trips
in his mind instead of rigorous hard thinking.
newtons knowledge has been the cornerstone of
science and engineering for centuries and today.
the science of einstein its only starting
to show its potential.
r.y
Marvin the Martian
> the science of einstein its only starting to
> show its potential.
>
> r.y
Potential? Not really. Like I said, SR existed before Einstein in the
form of the Lorentz transformation; it was all there from time dilation
to length contraction. Einstein's part was trivial; he gave an example of
how it applies.
The applications of SR/GR are rare. However, engineering is almost pure
Newtonian. Newtonian mechanics have a MAJOR impact.
Raymond Yohros
> Potential? Not really. Like I said, SR existed before Einstein in the
> form of the Lorentz transformation; it was all there from time dilation
> to length contraction. Einstein's part was trivial; he gave an example of
> how it applies.
>
gps and atom clocks are just the begining.
einsteins work its build for the future
>
> However, engineering is almost pure
> Newtonian. Newtonian mechanics have a MAJOR impact.
>
dont forget leonardo davinci
he was the greatest engineer of all times
r.y
Marvin the Martian
> On Mar 19, 11:43 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> Potential? Not really. Like I said, SR existed before Einstein in the
>> form of the Lorentz transformation; it was all there from time dilation
>> to length contraction. Einstein's part was trivial; he gave an example
>> of how it applies.
>>
>>
> gps and atom clocks are just the begining. einsteins work its build for
> the future
Atomic clocks have nothing to do with relativity. GPS accounts for the
time difference in a gravity well; something theories other than GR, like
Sciama's, does just as well.
>> However, engineering is almost pure
>> Newtonian. Newtonian mechanics have a MAJOR impact.
>>
>>
> dont forget leonardo davinci
> he was the greatest engineer of all times
Without calculus, da Vinci could only guess. But that is not really
relevant.
BURT
How many gravity wells are there in a multibody gravity problem?
Mitch Raemsch
Don Stockbauer
Er....as many wells as there are bodies?
Now's the time to trot out your "two times" crap.
Henry Wilson DSc
Henry Wilson...
.......provider of free physics lessons
spudnik
I attended the Ninth Nonlinear Science Conference at UCLA,
where the keynoter told the story of how,
Newton stole the inverse second-power law
(the algebraization of Kepler's orbital constraints).
thus:
most of the interpretation of the EPR "paradox" results,
a l'Alain Aspect et al, is due to the ideal of a photon,
in assinging all of the God-am energy of the wave-front
as a "mass" (electron-voltage, say) of a particle, whence
the wave-energy was somehow "caught" by the photo-
eletrical device. here are two ways to get over this: a)
just consider the practice of audio quantization, the phonon; b)
show how the photoelectrical device is actually tuned
to absorb a particular frequency of light.
so, is the "phonon" just one cycle of the period
of the sound, and like-wise, is the photon just
one cycle of the frequency?
thus:
a new gedanken experiment is born -- if only
he could configure what in Hell he meant!
time to hit the Shakespeare, dood -- and
I don't mean, your monkeys' Sonnet.
> When light comes out of a radiating electric particle what size of
> wave is it?
> Does it take time to form its full wavelength across space? It is thus
> a local phenomenon in its formation?
thus:
and of course, Fermat is not known to have made any
other mistake.
> that is, he corrected an error in the marginal statemnt,
> thus also ruling-out all powers of two, as exponential
> (from the lemma that you only need to work the prime powers).
thus:
the standard model is wrong about, What?... so, now,
you agree that There Are No Photons?
if there is no vacuum, then what is the need
for an aether -- can you justify any
of this e-palimpsest?
> A photon is not a quantum of aether, it is a
> quantity of energy IN the ether.
thus:
what in Hell is "relativistic temporal effect?..." NB:
"need 4 semesters college physics to 'get it'."
Death to the lightcone -- long-live the great geometer,
Minkowski!
> I recommend http://jaypritzker.org/pages/GetBook.html "Geometry of Time"
thus:
Sir Stephen is in the Star Trek Sci-Trinity,
the secular church of England --
get ye to the holodeck & "relive theirstory!"
thus:
it is used in electronics:
all media & all circuits (taken as a whole) have permitivity and
permeability. it's fun to study those in "dimensional analysis," but
I only say that, because of the predominating gobbledy-gook
of "timespace," which is literally nothing but a phase space --
another thing, that we use in electronics.
it should be theoretically possible to measure the p&p
of different degrees of vacuum, but it must be difficult, and
it may not have been done.
look on Al's website; he has one cool experiment,
that was done in his pool, I think!
thus:
you mean, just like ordinary matter (ionized hydrogen and
dihydrogen e.g., predominantly between stars and
between galaxies; much more of the latter,
which is a recent finding).
> Aether Displacement does not requiring a flowing aether.
thus:
use L'Hopital's calculus (by Bernoulli) to prove that
some divergent sequence has a rational limit.
thus:
I didn't quite grok the whole generating process, but
it needs a twee more meta-analysis of Collatz!
> > Example. Be N =5000. Using de integers from 5 to 5000 as seeds,
> > we obtain 7183 different numbers < 10000. Then R = 7173 / 10000 =
> > 0.7183.
thus:
"120 New Glaciers Dyscovered on Continental Divide" (October 2001,
Sunday LATimes, near the back of the A section, just the top 1/5
of the page). well, yes, to some extent, you do have
to question the authority bumperstickers; that is to say,
the official interpretation of what ever dataset. then,
you have to question the data, two, to some degree.
that's what i like about the Truthers;
they find so many anomalies that have not
been explained by the Commission e.g. But, on the other hand,
neither have they (what melted the cars in the street, and
how in Hell was there molten metal underneath the rubble,
three *weeks* later?... e.g.).
and for _o_'s sake, please,
get rid of the chemtrail jokers (in the '70s and '80s,
they may have been looking *down* at funny white trails,
on the table-top !-)
thus quoth:
Should 9-11 truth Use Official Information Without Question?
thus:
look at Cahill's graph of these "zero" results, or
continue to insist on Einsteinmania *Xor* aether.
(I do not say any thing of such, or assume that
it is implied by the results!)
thus:
"sound particles" are known as "phonons," but
this is clearly a "quantization"
of sound that is not striclty analagous to the usual one
that is applied to the photoelectrical dffect -- the only aspect
of light that might seem corpuscular -- and it does not have to,
thus:
what a crock; there is *nothing* about light (or,
one simple thing) that is pertinent to a corpuscular theory;
Young et al completely rid us of that theory,
which also had that denser media had faster light).
maybe it is an unconsidered acceptance
that "quantum" means "particle,"
your other Einstein's rock from the train; gah!... come on:
there are no photons, there are no Rocks of Light.
--les OEuvres!
http://wlym.com
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
The multibody system has more than one mass generating a multi gravity
system. There is then in one place more than one geometry.
Mitch Raemsch
Robert Higgins
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:03:47 -0700, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> > On Mar 19, 11:43 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> >> Potential? Not really. Like I said, SR existed before Einstein in the
> >> form of the Lorentz transformation; it was all there
except that some of what wasn't correct - the transformations didn't
form a group - why don't you respond to this, hotshot?
What about the transverse Doppler effect - oh, I guess by "all" you
don't really mean ALL.
DIdn't Fitzgerald derive an equivalent transformation? Yet you never
mention him. You don't like the Irish, either?
> >>from time dilation
> >> to length contraction. Einstein's part was trivial; he gave an example
> >> of how it applies.
"An example" - now mass-energy equivalence, derived from the
transverse Doppler effect Einstein discovered on his own, using the
correct (group property) of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformations
that to Lorentz and Fitzgerald were something of a hack fix for the
null result of the Michelson-Morley Experiment, is just "an example."
>
> > gps and atom clocks are just the begining. einsteins work its build for
> > the future
>
> Atomic clocks have nothing to do with relativity.
So again, the anti-Semitic kooks just out and out lie.
> GPS accounts for the
> time difference in a gravity well; something theories other than GR, like
> Sciama's, does just as well.
Yet the developers of GPS used Einstein's theory.
>
> >> However, engineering is almost pure
> >> Newtonian. Newtonian mechanics have a MAJOR impact.
No shit - no one ever said they didn't. Newton himself noted how he
built on the work of previous scientists.
>
> > dont forget leonardo davinci
> > he was the greatest engineer of all times
>
> Without calculus, da Vinci could only guess. But that is not really
> relevant.
You'll snip it, like you did before, since you are ignorant of
physics ...
If Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect was so obviously
a result from Planck's work, why didn't PLANCK figure it out?
Obviously, it took a while for Planck to write his results, and
EInstein to read them. Then Einstein had to figure out the answer, and
write it up. Yet Planck STILL had come up with answer. That must mean
Planck was pretty stupid, if he couldn't come up with a simple plug
and chug consequence of HIS OWN work!
Or did Einstein just steal it from Dirac's quantum theory work, you
know, that quantum theory work that Dirac did at THREE years of age?
Yet, you dismiss Dirac's actual work (you know, when he was OLDER than
three), incorporating SR into quantum mechanics. It is interesting,
that all the top ranked physicists (you know, the people that actually
knew what the fuck they were talking about) considered Einstein very
highly, yet you and the rest of the kook-brigade, who can't even keep
track of which scientist was which, don't think highly of him.
GO-HERE .NL
> "HardySpicer" <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a501d64d-069f-41ff...@p3g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 2, 5:46 am, James Dow Allen <jdallen2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > My website has a wide variety of pages, including one where I say
> > flattering
> > things about Einstein, implying he and Newton are the two greatest
> > physicists
> > ever. I'm not a physicist, and not qualified to judge, but the claim
> > agrees
> > with almost all the facts and opinions I've ever read.
>
> > Lately two readers have sent me e-mail implying that I've been deluded
> > into thinking Einstein was really so great!
> > Here's just an example of several claims I've received:
>
> > > There is no question that Hilbert presented the General Theory of
> > > Relativity before Einstein did.
> > > Einstein rushed his General Relativity paper into publication in a
> > > panic when he saw that Hilbert had already presented his own Theory.
>
> > My question for the ng is: Is there any valid basis whatsoever to
> > such
> > arguments of plagiarism or against Einstein's "greatness"?
> > I e-mailed one correspondent that such talk may have originated with
> > anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda, which naturally infuriated him!
>
> > Sorry if this post fans flames in this ng, but I do hope the ng gives
> > me a clear sense of the answer.
>
> > James Dow Allen
>
> You missed James Clark Maxwell. He was as great as the other two.
>
> Hardy
>
> ==================================================
> You missed Percival Lowell. He was greater than the other two, he
> actually saw canals on Mars whereas Maxwell and Einstein only
> hallucinated their crackpottery. That's much better greatness than
> hearing voices.
how dare you say things like that, you are not even Jewish.
You Nazi!
:-)
Tom Potter
"Robert Higgins" <robert_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3da0f91b-f461-4f36...@r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
It is interesting to see that "Robert Higgins"
seems to be ignorant of the fact
that change is conveyed from
causes to effects in QUANTA of ACTION.
and that Planck got it right.
Unfortunately, the Mass Media promoted Einstein
as the Poster Boy to epitomize Jewish intelligence,
and his false quanta of energy,
and his Relativity that uses rubber clocks and rulers
generate more heat than light
and wastes time, money and minds,
and inhibits the advancement of physics.
Robert Higgins
> "Robert Higgins" <robert_higgins...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
"Tom the Human-Size Potted Shitplant" couldn't even respond to the
scientific content of the arguments raised.
> "Robert Higgins"
> seems to be ignorant of the fact
that Tom Potter is ignorant.
> that change is conveyed from
> causes to effects in QUANTA of ACTION.
> and that Planck got it right.
>
> Unfortunately, the Mass Media
the Vatican newspaper?
> promoted Einstein
He was already full professor; he didn't need a promotion.
> as the Poster Boy to epitomize Jewish intelligence,
>
> and his false quanta of energy,
"false" - so you disagree with Marvin, who thinks the photoelectric
was a simple (but evidently) correct "plug and chug."
> and his Relativity that uses rubber clocks and rulers
Actually, here again you disagree with Marvin, since it was Lorentz
conception that moving rulers must shrink, as his way of accounting
for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
> generate more heat than light
Actually, Einstein made great contributions to the theory of light
interaction with matter, particularly STIMULATED EMISSION. Oh, I
guess, the "laser" has absolutely no use at all today.
> and wastes time, money and minds,
unlike the DNA model, mostly developed by that JEWISH woman Rosalind
Franklin, who Tom Potter is always so eager to credit, now that
molecular biology is so productive.
> and inhibits the advancement of physics.
Application of SR to QM gave Dirac equation and prediction of anti-
matter - very useful in advance towards quark model. Oh, no, you don't
like that - too Jewish.
I guess that scientists don't actually use "lasers" for "pump/probe"
analyses, or to burn their data onto CD, or to play a video on the DVD
player. NOBODY ever uses lasers :-)
>
> A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
And you are the shining example of that.
Dumbass.
>
> --
> Tom Potter
> -----------------http://www.tompotter.ushttp://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com/http://tdp1001.wordpress.com/http://tdp1001.spaces.live.comhttp://webspace.webring.com/people/st/tdp1001http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marvin the Martian
> On Mar 19, 7:58 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:03:47 -0700, Raymond Yohros wrote:
>> > On Mar 19, 11:43 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> >> Potential? Not really. Like I said, SR existed before Einstein in
>> >> the form of the Lorentz transformation; it was all there
>
> except that some of what wasn't correct - the transformations didn't
> form a group - why don't you respond to this, hotshot?
I'm not sure what you're gibbering about, ape boy.
Here's a paper on the Lorentz transformation. People educated in physics
already know that this is the central equations of SR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
For those that hate Wikipedia, pick up any physics textbook on Modern
physics.
> What about the transverse Doppler effect - oh, I guess by "all" you
> don't really mean ALL.
Again, that follows directly from the Lorentz transformation, chimp.
> DIdn't Fitzgerald derive an equivalent transformation?
You mean the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction? That was HALF of the
transformation. Lorentz and Fitzgerald each proposed the same contraction
to explain the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The length
contraction omits time dilation, however. Properly, SR is the Lorentz
transformation. The LT ties space and time together.
> Yet you never
> mention him. You don't like the Irish, either?
Now you're in full blown nutcase gibber.
Just because Einstein was a poser doesn't make anyone anti-Jewish.
What a hatefilled moronic jackass you are.
< snip shit throwing ape gibber >
Marvin the Martian
I think the message of this thread is not so much that Einstein was a
poser and a putz, which he was... it is that so many physicist are so
mindlessly accepting and repeating what they told that they just ACCEPT
that Einstein was a physics god without even stopping to think about what
Einstein actually did.
You have to wonder about scientist who are so unquestioning and willing
to be blinded by hero worship.
hanson
>
Einstein Dingleberry and Judeophile "Robert Higgins"
<robert_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3da0f91b-f461-4f36...@r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
SR existed before Einstein in the form of the Lorentz
Atomic clocks have nothing to do with relativity.
>
So again, the anti-Semitic kooks just out and out lie.
>
Higgi, ...ahahaha... you must be 23 years old with a
kikeophile obsession that was drilled into you by an
Yiddishe olde kacker that was you highschool teacher,
and/or because of your yiddishe, dominant girlfriend,
a yentl who plays with your shvantzle only if you make
Jew propaganda.. to the point where you impress her
with Atomic clocks that produce Anti-Semitism in your
kikeophile world.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...
>
Marvin wrote:
GPS accounts for the time difference in a gravity well;
something theories other than GR, like Sciama's, does
just as well.
>
Yet the developers of GPS used Einstein's theory.
>
LISTEN UP, you rect-Al JACKASS Schwartz & now you, Higgins:
||||| === GPS NEVER NEEDED neither SR nor GR === |||||
>
=== GPS was produced & in operation LONG before Einstein
=== Dingleberries like yourself came along to echo a tortured
=== description, in 39 Ashby steps, to arrive at the 38 microsec,
=== which are gleaned, for this particular situation, by any high
=== school student or engineer, in 1 fell swoop, in ONE SINGLE
=== STEP, in good, old Newtonian ways, and shows that
>
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c^2 *86400 = 38 microsec/day ---- ||||||||
where m_e = mass of earth and h being the Space vehicle
height above the earth surface.
< http://tinyurl.com/622an2> or < http://tinyurl.com/57asbg>
>
||||||||||| ---- GPS NEVER NEEDED neither SR nor GR ---- ||||||||||||
||||| not for its design, manufacturing, testing nor operations. |||||
||||| Einstein's Rela is the Kosher Tax levied onto academia |||||
ahahaha...
>
LISTEN UP, you rect-Al JACKASS Higgins: here in link
<http://tinyurl.com/o74vbr> are Einstein's own denials about
his SR/GR crap, and wherein Einstein warned & constantly
urged others, ever since 1920, ...
::AE:: .... "NOT to search at the same, now well lit places,
::AE:: .... where he, Einstein, had been working".
>
Today one can very obviously see where Einstein's crap is still
used and where, in the **real world** they laugh about it:
||||| mil/indust. Eng, R&D................"does not need REL shit" |||||
||||| *.edu and grantology ..............."does use REL. No shit" |||||
||||| Promo, Sales & Movies........"loves REL by the shitload" |||||
||||| Jews defend it as cultural heritage.."REL being shit or not"||||
>
So, Higgi, in all likelihood your kikeophile fetish & obsession
will prevent you from learning and evolving but will doom you
to remain a "victim" & the damaged goods that you are....
Pity, but... Thanks for the laughs, Higgi... ahaha... ahahahanson
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Inertial
news:N6ednY0sc9PEsjvW...@giganews.com...
>
> I think the message of this thread is not so much that Einstein was a
> poser and a putz, which he was... it is that so many physicist are so
> mindlessly accepting and repeating what they told that they just ACCEPT
> that Einstein was a physics god without even stopping to think about what
> Einstein actually did.
Nope
> You have to wonder about scientist who are so unquestioning and willing
> to be blinded by hero worship.
They aren't
Marvin the Martian
> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
> news:N6ednY0sc9PEsjvW...@giganews.com...
>>
>> I think the message of this thread is not so much that Einstein was a
>> poser and a putz, which he was... it is that so many physicist are so
>> mindlessly accepting and repeating what they told that they just ACCEPT
>> that Einstein was a physics god without even stopping to think about
>> what Einstein actually did.
>
> Nope
Nope? Spoken like a dope.
There is little other explanation why Einstein's contributions are so
grossly overstated, other than the mindless acceptance of what they are
being told.
Feel free to offer a complete sentence to explain why you think
differently. I take it as a given that there are moron's out there who
will disagree no matter what. Your challenge is to demonstrate you have a
rational belief. I already said there are mindless people out there who
disagree; all you've done is lend supporting evidence that is so.
>> You have to wonder about scientist who are so unquestioning and willing
>> to be blinded by hero worship.
>
> They aren't
Well, except for the missing period, you at least managed to string
together a subject and verb to make a sentence.
BURT
Einsten was a worshiper of a Creator.
"I want to know how God created this world. I want to know His
thoughts. All the rest are just details." Albert Einstein
Robert Higgins
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:10:34 -0700, Robert Higgins wrote:
> > On Mar 19, 7:58 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:03:47 -0700, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> >> > On Mar 19, 11:43 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> >> >> Potential? Not really. Like I said, SR existed before Einstein in
> >> >> the form of the Lorentz transformation; it was all there
>
> > except that some of what wasn't correct - the transformations didn't
> > form a group - why don't you respond to this, hotshot?
>
> I'm not sure what you're gibbering about, ape boy.
You're the one who doesn't understand, yet you start name-calling.
BTW, humans ARE apes, so you would be an ape, too. YOu know as little
of biology as you do of physics. So sad - boo hoo.
>
> Here's a paper on the Lorentz transformation. People educated in physics
> already know that this is the central equations of SR.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
>
> For those that hate Wikipedia, pick up any physics textbook on Modern
> physics.
>
> > What about the transverse Doppler effect - oh, I guess by "all" you
> > don't really mean ALL.
>
> Again, that follows directly from the Lorentz transformation, chimp.
If it follows "directly" from the Lorentz transformation, why didn't
Lorentz come up with it? Larmor? Poincare?
BTW, chimpanzees are very intelligent - clearly more intelligent than
you.
>
> > DIdn't Fitzgerald derive an equivalent transformation?
>
> You mean the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction? That was HALF of the
> transformation. Lorentz and Fitzgerald each proposed the same contraction
> to explain the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The length
> contraction omits time dilation, however. Properly, SR is the Lorentz
> transformation. The LT ties space and time together.
>
> > Yet you never
> > mention him. You don't like the Irish, either?
>
> Now you're in full blown nutcase gibber.
Translated - you don't have a good answer. This seems to be a
recurring problem for you. Maybe you should have it looked at.
>
> Just because Einstein was a poser doesn't make anyone anti-Jewish.
Does it make YOU a "poseur" that you can't spell "poseur"?
BTW, why didn't Planck and Lorentz think Einstein was a poseur?
>
> What a hatefilled moronic jackass you are.
My, my. I must have winged you pretty good, that you are frothing at
the mouth like your mentor, Potter, BTW, Jackasses and chimpanzees are
different species, so your knowledge of biology is even more meager
than it first appeared.
>
> < snip shit throwing ape gibber >
IOW, snip the physics arguments that Marvin is not intelligent enough
to refute.
Robert Higgins
> I think the message of this thread is not so much that Einstein was a
> poser
i.e., "poseur"
>and a putz,
Nice use of the Yiddish!
> which he was...
Or, at least, Marvin thinks so. Too bad Nobel Laureates Lorentz,
Planck, Wien, Bohr disagree. What do they know? Certainly MARVIN THE
MARTIAN is a better judge of the quality of cutting edge physics
research than the very people he has held up as being the true
pioneers! Certainly MARVIN THE MARTIAN knows more than Lorentz,
Planck, and Bohr!
> it is that so many physicist are so
> mindlessly accepting and repeating
So PLANCK was fooled into thinking that Einstein's "plug and chug" was
something great, even though he was the originator of the concept? Who
told Planck this? How could Planck be brilliant enough to develop the
concept of quanta, but be so stupid as to be fooled by Einstein's hack
work? In fact, be so fooled as to publicize Einstein's work when
nobody in the world knew who the hell "EInstein" was?
It is a very puzzling view of Planck.
> what they told that they just ACCEPT
> that Einstein was a physics god without even stopping to think about what
> Einstein actually did.
>
> You have to wonder about scientist
like Lorentz, Wien, Planck?