Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old February 18th, 2013 #1
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default Was Einstein a Fraud and a Plagiarizer?

"Einstein was a fraud! He was really not very smart! All kinds of websites and people have documented and proved this fact!" And many variations of these charges and assertions abound on these racialists sites. I don't recall ever having seen a post or comment made by anyone with adequate knowledge of the specific subject in question directly addressing this issue on any racialist sites, so I think it will be worthwhile here to comment on the subject and clear a few things up.

For a start, the detractors are wrong. They simply don't know enough about the special and general theories of relativity or the context within which the two theories came about in the first place. Forceful statements such as "Einstein was a plagiarist!" are gross overstatements and tell us more about the ignorance of the persons making the charge than they demonstrate the validity of such accusations. So let's start with some necessary background history and information. I apologize up front for the length of the following, but I think it imperative that a description of Einstein’s primary work, i.e., the special and general theories of relativity, be included and understood as well as possible. It is also my judgment that what I have below is about as short and concise as possible to convey any kind of real handle on the subject. It’s long for a post, but not too long, really, for what it is. I hope some people find it interesting and informative if they have little understanding of this theory and what it is about and why it came about. And although it should really become apparent while reading, I have provided my responses to the charges described above at the very end.

REFERENCE FRAMES AND TRANSFORMS

The basic principle behind relativity goes back to the work of Galileo and Isaac Newton. It simply expresses the common experience that some phenomena of the world will look different to observers who are in motion relative to each other. The trajectory of a soda can tossed out the back of a speeding pick-up truck traveling along one direction of a highway will look different to a boy who threw it out and is sitting in the bed of the truck than will the seeming trajectory witnessed by a man walking or standing still on the side of the highway. Likewise, a man standing on the ground watching the path of a bomb dropped from an aircraft will watch the bomb describe a steepening curve in response to gravity, while simultaneously the bomb dropper in the airplane will see the bomb drop straight down. The two observers will also see different paths taken by anti-aircraft missiles or shells fired upwards from the ground and measure different values for shell or missile velocity at specified points along the path.

Which person is right?

Answer: They both are, according to respective frames of reference. Two observers stationed at different points will arrive at different but equally valid conclusions relative to their own frame of reference. A frame of reference being simply a set of x,y, and z coordinates and a clock for measuring where and when an event occurs. In the one case above, the first frame rests with the ground, and the other moves along with the plane. The mathematical expression that describes the bomb and the shell's motion in one frame is easily enough transformed into an expression describing it in the other frame, or still more frames. Such transform methods are called coordinate transforms.

However, there are some quantities about the bomb or the missiles upon which two or more observers will agree. They will both perceive the same size and weight for the bomb or missiles or shells, and the times of release or firing. Such quantities that remain unvarying when a transform is applied are said to be invariant with respect to the transform. Two different observers will agree on one other thing, too. In spite of arriving at different interpretations of bomb or missile or shell, two different observers will agree that the motion of the bomb results from a constant force acting on a given mass, in this case either a bomb, shell, or missile. In other words, the laws governing the motions of the bodies will be the same regardless of frame of reference of any two or more observers. The laws will be Newton's well known laws of motion. This is another way of saying that the equations describing the motion will remain in the same form even though the terms contained in them, e.g., specific coordinate readings and times, are not invariant. Equations preserved in such a way are said to be covariant with respect to the transformations in question. Thus Newton's Laws of Motion are covariant with respect to transforms between reference frames moving relative to one another along a straight line.

INERTIAL FRAMES

Out of all the spinning, orbiting, gyrating frames we can imagine as moving with various objects, what we have done is identify a particular set of frames within which all observers will observe the same laws of motion. The reason for this state of affairs follows from the fact that all observers will agree that any body not acted on by a force will remain at rest or uniform motion in a straight line even though what may constitute "rest" and which specific straight line may differ from one observer to another. This is simply a statement of Newton's first law, the law of inertia. Frames in which it holds true are called inertial frames, or sometimes, Galilean frames. What distinguishes them is that there is no relative acceleration or rotation between these reference frames. To an observer situated in one of them, very distant objects such as the stars appear to be at rest, unlike from the rotating and thus accelerating earth. The procedure for converting equations of motion from one inertial frame to another are called Galilean transforms. And Newton's laws of motion are covariant with respect to Galilean transforms.

This same state of affairs holds true for more than just the laws of motion. As the science of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries developed, mechanics of point masses that describe gravitation, electrostatics, behavior of rigid bodies, deformable media on through to fluids and the kinetic theories of heat are examples. So too are laws derived from mechanics, such as conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum and so on are covariant with respect to Galilean transforms. This all provided the mechanistic basis of classical science. And since the laws formulated in any Galilean frame came out the same, it followed that no mechanical experiment carried out in one frame could differentiate one frame from another or single out one particular frame as "preferred" by being at rest in space. This expresses the principle of Galilean-Newtonian Relativity. And with it the classical laws of mechanics, the Galilean transformations, and the principle of Newtonian relativity were mutually consistent, and the whole of science seemed to nineteenth century scientists to finally have been integrated into a common understanding. But this understanding and confidence was destined to not last long.

PROBLEMS WITH ELECTRODYNAMICS

The science of electrostatics seemed to be an analog of gravitation, with the additional feature that electrical charges could repel as well as attract. The equations electrical force were of the same form as Newton's gravitational law, known to be covariant under Galilean transform, and it was expected that the same condition would apply. But as the work of scientists such as Ampere, Faraday, and Hans Christian Oersted progressed from electrostatics to electrodynamics, the study of electrical entities in motion, it became obvious the situation was in trouble and was more complicated. Interactions between magnetic fields and electrical charges produced forces acting in directions other than the straight connecting line between the sources, and unlike the case in gravitation and electrostatics, depended upon the velocity of the charged body as well as its position. Since a velocity in one inertial frame can always be made zero in another frame, this seemed to imply that under the classical transforms a force that existed in one from did not exist in another. And since force causes mass to accelerate, and acceleration could be produced in one frame but not in the other when the frames themselves were not accelerating relative to each other, this made no sense. The first suggestion was to simply exclude electrodynamics from the principle of classical relativity until things were better understood. But this did not work; things instead only got worse.

JAMES CLERK MAXWELL

Maxwell's famous equations that he developed between 1860-64 express concisely but comprehensively the connection between electric and magnetic quantities that experiments up to that time had established, and in the manner they effect each other across space. In Maxwell's treatment, electrical and magnetic effects appear as aspects of a combined electromagnetic field and it was by means of disturbances propagated through this field that electrically interacting objects influenced each other.

An electron is an example of a charged object. A moving charge constitutes an electric current, which in turn gives rise to a magnetic field. An accelerating charge produces a changing magnetic field, which in turn creates an electric field, and the combined electromagnetic disturbance radiating out across an intervening space would produce forces on other charges it encounters, setting them in motion, like a jiggling bobber going up and down in the water produces ripples that in turn spread out and disturb other bobbers floating further out at some distance.

MAXWELL'S CONSTANT VELOCITY

The trouble that began disturbing the unified and simple picture that had been coming together for science up to that time was that the equations gave a velocity of propagation that depended only upon the electrical properties of the medium through which the disturbance traveled, and this velocity was the same in all directions. In a vacuum, this velocity came out at 300,000 kilometers per second and was designated c, now known to be the velocity of light. But the appearance of this value in the laws of electromagnetism meant that the laws were not covariant under Galilean transforms between inertial frames. Under the transformation rules, in the same way that our airplane's velocity in the examples above would reduce to zero if measured in the bomb dropper's reference frame, or double if measured in the frame of another frame traveling the opposite direction, the same constant velocity could not be true in all reference frames. Thus, if Maxwell's equations were to be accepted, it seemed there could only exist one absolute or "preferred" frame of reference in which the laws took their standard and simplest form. Any frame moving with respect to the preferred frame, even and inertial frame, would have to be considered less privileged.

This is all another way of stating that the laws of electromagnetism, the classical Galilean transforms of space and time coordinates, and the principle of Newtonian relativity, were not compatible. Thus all the elegance and aesthetic appeal that had been coming together and found to apply mechanics did not extend across the whole of science. The sense of unity started to disintegrate.

Several attempts at theories were made to try and straighten out the difficulty. All of them proved faulty.

MICHELSON, MORLEY AND ETHER

All experimental results up to the time indicated that the speed of light was independent of the motion of the radiation source and of the transmitting medium. It was beginning to seem that the only way out of the dilemma was to discard the relativity principle and conclude that there was after all a privileged, universal, preferred inertial reference frame in which the speed of light was the same in all directions, as the simplest form of the laws required, and that the laws derived in all other, less privileged frames, would shw a departure from this ideal. The earth itself cannot be the privileged frame since it is in a state of constant gravitational acceleration due to the sun--circular motion, even at constant velocity, involves a continuous change of direction, which constitutes a change in acceleration--and thus is not an inertial frame of reference.

Many scientists began speculating that this universal privileged frame was a hypothetical "ether" that started making the rounds when the wave nature of light was realized. If light consisted of waves, then, it was reasoned, there must be something present to be doing the "waving" and carrying the waves, analogous to water that caries waves, air that conducts sound waves, and so on. The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries witnessed the development of mathematics that dealt with deformation and stresses of in continuous solids and so early notions of ether sought an interpretation in mechanical terms. The ether was visualized as a substance pervading all of space, being highly rigid yet tenuous enough not to impede the motions of planets and other heavenly bodies. And some scientists concluded that the universal privileged inertial frame was the frame in which this ether was at rest. Detection of motion with respect to the ether could be thought of as a measure of the "ether wind" created by the earth's passage through this ether in its orbit about the sun through space.

The famous experiment that put this hypothesis to the test, repeated and refined many times since, was performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley. The principle is essentially the same as that of comparing the round trip times of a swimmer first swimming one way against the current and then turning around and swimming the other way with the current. The times will not be the same, and from the difference the speed of the current can be determined. The outcome of the Michelson-Morley experiment, of course, is well known. No motion through an ether was detected. No ether. No preferred inertial reference frame could be identified that could in turn be singled out as special from all the others.

So the difficulty remained. the elegant experiments to detect an ether and thus a preferred reference frame indicated an acceptance that the relativity principle might well have to be abandoned for electromagnetism. Yet these experiments had failed to identify a preferred reference frame that this willingness allowed. The laws of electromagnetism proved very successful in predicting the existence of propagating waves, their velocity and other quantities, and appeared to be on very solid ground. Yet an incompatibility was present and the laws of electromagnetism were not covariant under the classical transforms of space and time coordinates between inertial frames. This left only the process involving the transforms themselves to be questioned.

LORENTZ'S TRANSFORMS

Around the turn of the twentieth century the Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz followed the path of seeking alternative transformation laws that would do for electromagnetics what the classical transforms had done for mechanics. Two assumptions that few people would question were implicit in the form of the Galilean transforms: (1) that observers in all frames of reference will measure time the same, as if by universal clock that ticks the same everywhere; and, (2) while the space coordinates assigned to a rigid body such as a measuring rod might differ, the distance between them would most surely not. In other words, time intervals and lengths were invariant.

In the Lorentz transforms, as they came to be called, this was no longer so. Time intervals and lengths measured by an observer in one inertial frame, when transformed to another frame, required a modification factor that depended upon the relative motion between them. Lorentz's system retained the notion of an absolute and privileged frame in which the ether is at rest. But the new transforms resulted in distances being reduced in the direction of motion relative to it, and it was this fact which made detection of the motion unobservable. In fact, a physical shrinkage of exactly this form--the Fitzgerald Contraction--had been proposed to account fr the Michelson-Morley result as due to a contraction of the interferometer arms in the affected direction. So here Lorentz had a system which acknowledged a preferred frame as required by Maxwell's equations, yet observed the relativity that the optical experiment apparently demanded. Things were still a bit messy, but everything was more or less working out, and maybe a little messy and dis-unified was just the way things were going to have to be. But not everybody was satisfied with this state of affairs.

ALBERT EINSTEIN

Neither mechanics nor, regardless of the constant velocity, c, in Maxwell's equations, electromagnetics had revealed an absolute and privileged frame of reference. All experiments pointed to a conclusion that one inertial frame was as good as another. What this suggested to Einstein was that some kind of relativity principle was in evidence that applied across the whole of science, according to which physics should be the same for all observers. This is another way of saying that the equations expressing all physical laws should be covariant between inertial frames. Following Lorentz but with an aim that was more general and not restricted to a subset of physics, Albert Einstein set out to discover a system of transforms that would make this true. Two postulates formed his point of departure. (1) The relativity principle applies for all of physics across all inertial frames, which is what the intuitively satisfying solution he and others were seeking demanded. (2) The velocity of light, c, is the same for all observers in all inertial frames regardless of their state of motion relative to each other, for that's what Maxwell's equations stated and , being a physical law, it had to apply in all frames for (1) to be true.

What Einstein did in his 1905 paper on special relativity was essentially re-derive the Lorentz Transforms (He did not "plagiarize" them). This is not surprising, since they provided the correct solutions for electromagnetism and it's results, any other form would have given the wrong solutions and been wrong. But there was a critical departure from Lorentz. Where Lorentz's application had been restricted to electromagnetism, Einstein maintained they applied to all of science, mechanics included.

But if the relativity principle was to be observed and the new transforms applied, how could thye still be compatible with Newton's long established mechanics which was unshakable in its consistence with Galilean transforms but not with the Lorentz transforms? The only answer was Newtonian mechanics wasn't as solidly established as was long believed. Recall two assumptions mentioned above that the Galilean transforms imply: that space and time intervals are invariant. What Einstein proposed was that the velocity dependencies deduced by Lorentz were not part of some fudge factor needed for electromagnetism, but that they expressed fundamental properties of the nature of space and time that were universally true everywhere, and thus called fro a revision of mechanics. But the new mechanics could hardly invalidate the classical mechanics solutions that centuries of experimental results and applications overwhelmingly supported. And this is so. At low end velocities that classical science had been confined to, and which shape the common sense of everyday experience, the equations of the new mechanics merge smoothly into and are indistinguishable for all practical purposes from the Newtonian mechanics.

THE NEW RELATIVITY

Where the two systems begin departing significantly is when very high--relativistic--velocities come into play, on the order of those encountered in electromagnetism and fast moving particles, where it had long been clear that Newtonian classical mechanics could not possibly be correct. Space and time where no longer fixed and unchanging, but behaved very strange at extreme velocities far beyond everyday experience and that Newtonian mechanics never anticipated. These characteristics are fairly well known today. All have been experimentally verified many times over the last one hundred years. They are:

Addition of velocities. In classical mechanics, a bullet fired from an airplane will hit a target on the ground ahead wit ha velocity equal to that of the plane relative to the ground plus that of the bullet relative to the plane. But according to special relativity theory (SRT), what apears to be obvious is not necessarily so. The velocity in the target's frame doesn't equal the sum of the two components, although at the speeds of planes and bullets you do not notice the discrepancy. The greater the velocity, the greater the discrepancy, the relationship being such that the bullet's velocity in the target's frame never exceeds the speed of light, c. Even if the plane is coming in at 90 percent c and fires a bullet that leaves the plane at 90 percent c, the bullet's velocity measured by the target will be 90 percent c plus something, but never greater than c. In fact, it will be 99.45 percent c. In the limit, when the bullet leaves the plane at c, the resultant, however hard to conceive as being so, is still c. It has become a photon of light. Its velocity is the same in both the frame of the airplane (source) and that of the target (receiver). Add two velocities, or as many as you like, each equal to c, and the result still comes out at c. That is what all the Michelson-Morley type experiments confirm.

Relativity of simultaneity. The upper limit on velocity makes it impossible to devise a method for synchronizing clocks in such a way as to allow different frames to agree on whether two events take place simultaneously. Establishing absolute simultaneity without a privileged preferred reference frame would require an infinitely fast synchronizing signal, which SRT says is impossible.

Mass increase. Mass is the measure of the magnitude of resistance of an object to being accelerated, how much it resists changing speed and/or direction. Though unnoticed at everyday levels, this resistance to acceleration increases without bound as velocity approaches c. In particle accelerators, far greater energy is required to accelerate a particle an additional tenth of a percent c when it is already attained a velocity of 90 percent c than it took to accelerate the particle the first tenth percent from rest.

Mass-energy equivalence. As the velocity of an object increases, it stores ever greater quantities of kinetic energy. And as described in the above paragraph, it also exhibits mass increase. This is just what the equation states. According to relativity, mass and energy become equivalent and can be converted one into the other. This is so even with residual mass of an object not moving at all, which still has the energy equivalent given by the equation E = mc^2. all energy transitions therefore involve changes in mass.

Time dilation. Time, and thus processes that are time dependent, runs slower in a moving frame than one at relative rest. An example is the extended lifetimes of muons created by bombardment of the upper atmosphere by protons from the sun. The muons reach the earth's surface in numbers approximately nine times greater than their natural decay time should allow (half-life 2.2 microseconds). This is explained by the time in the muons moving frame being dilated as measured from the surface, giving a longer decay period than would be experienced by a muon at rest. High accuracy clocks on rocket sleds run slower than stationary clocks. Experiments involving atomic clocks traveling by jet produce the same, slowed times. The mathematician Herman Minkowski developed the Einstein theory further by demonstrating it entailed a reality consisting not of three-dimensional space and separate time that are ordinarily perceived, but instead a strange, non-Euclidean, four dimensional merging of the two, known since as space-time. Only from the local standpoint of a particular Galilean frame do they separate out into the familiar space and time of everyday life. But the space and time that they resolve into is different in different frames, which is what the transforms of SRT state.

GRAND UNIFICATION

Although many will be perplexed, this kind of thing is what scientists consider a simplification. When phenomena that were previously thought to be distinct and independent, such as space and time, turn out to be just different aspects of some more fundamental entity, understanding of what is going on is enhanced even if the techniques for grappling with that understanding take some work and practice in getting used to. In the same kind of way, momentum and energy become unified in the new four-dimensional world, as do the classical concepts of force and work, and electric current and charge.

This also throws light on the interdependence of the electric and magnetic field quantities in Maxwell's equations. In Maxwell's classical three-dimensional treatment of space the electromagnetic field is formed from the superposition of an electric field, which is a vector field, and a magnetic field, which is a tensor field. In Minkowski's spacetime these merge into a single, four-dimensional tensor called the electromagnetic tensor, and the four three-dimensional equations that Maxwell needed to describe the relationships reduce to two four-dimensional ones. Hence the interdependence of electric and magnetic fields, which in the classical view had to be simply accepted as a fact of experience, becomes an immediate consequence of their being partial aspects of the same underlying electromagnetic entity.

in SRT, Minkowski's four dimensional spacetime is considered to be "flat," that is, uncurved, like the classical Euclidean space of newton. An object's "world-line," the path showing its history in spacetime, will be a straight line when the object is in a state of rest or uniform motion. What differentiates accelerating frames is that their world-lines become curved. In developing his general theory of relativity (GRT), Einstein sought to remove the restriction of inertial frames and extend the principle to frames in general. In doing so he proposed that a region of space subject to gravitation is really no different from a reference frame undergoing acceleration. Inside an elevator, for example, there's no way of telling if a pen falling to the floor does so because the elevator is accelerating upward or because the floor is attracting it downward.

If a gravitational field is equivalent to acceleration, motions associated with it will also be represented by curved world-lines in spacetime. Hence, in GRT gravitation is interpreted geometrically. Instead of somehow attracting bodies like planets to move in curved paths through flat space, the presence of the sun's mass itself warps the geometry of spacetime such that the paths they naturally follow become curved. An analogy often used to illustrate this is a stretched rubber sheet, representing undeformed space. Placing a heavy object like a bowling ball on the sheet creates a "well," with sides steepening towards the center that the ball sets in, but that would be indiscernible to an observer vertically above who had no knowledge of a dimension extending in that direction. If a marble is rolled across the sheet, its trajectory will be deflected exactly as if the sheet were flat and the ball exerted an attraction. In the absence of friction, the marble could be trapped in a close path where the tendencies to fall down the well and to be lifted out by centrifugal force balance, causing it to orbit the bowling ball endlessly.

If spacetime itself is curved in the vicinity of masses, then not just massive objects, but anything that moves through space will also follow paths determined by the non-flat geometry. So stars, for example, should "attract" light, not just material bodies. And this is so. Such has been verified by observation of deflected starlight passing close to the sun. Once again, all forms of energy exhibit the equivalence to a property of mass.

Finally we are back to a situation where we have the principle of relativity, a universal statement of the laws of physics, the new mechanics, which subsumes electrodynamics, and a system of transforms that are mutually consistent. Science is integrated into a common understanding.

SOME COMMENTS AND MY RESPONSE TO CERTAIN CHARGES

As should be obvious now, the gist of Einstein's work and its contribution is that it is an overall encompassing and comprehensive theory that ties specific segments of physics together. It was not about who first derived a form of certain equations. Moreover, the equations in question can be derived from first principles. People who have made much of the "plagiarism" charges don't know much about mathematics or the equations used by scientists and engineers or how they come about in the first place. It is not at all unusual that mathematicians and scientists will often re-derive an equation and usually it is to make it more workable and easier to handle. In fact, the famous Maxwell equations, mentioned continuously above, in the form they appear today and are used, are actually Oliver Heavyside's equations. He reworked Maxwell's original equations into more workable form. A lot of people, even scientists and engineers, don't know that. It is not generally mentioned in textbooks. And it is not for shady reasons or to "hide the truth," it is simply just not well known. But it is true and can be verified readily. I know about it because the matter is discussed at some length in Nathan Ida's textbook, Engineering Electromagnetics. Also, Wilhelm Weber and Neuman (the other one, not the one who died in the 50s) derived a version of the very same laws earlier than did Maxwell, but at the time, their derivations were erroneously rejected because it was believed they violated the principle of conservation of energy, but this was much later shown to be wrong. But nobody has ever thought to accuse Maxwell of plagiarism or to call the equations Heavyside's.

And my essay already mentioned the Lorentz transforms and Einsteins re-derivation and rediscovery of those. The famous E = mc squared equation that is frequently brought up on these type websites is the same way. The Italian De Pretto's form is not exactly the same as the one later used by Einstein. His was mv^2. And it is a derived equation anyway. There is no plagiarism involved. There is no controversy among scientists or mathematicians about this. Ditto the work of David Hilbert, another skewed tangent some cranks have went off on and is usually included in the "Einstein was a fraud!" essays.

There are no news flashes on the "Einstein was a fraud" pages and essays. They are disregarded and ignored for the reasons I have just outlined.

It should also be pointed out that Einstein was NOT instantly deified and embraced with loving arms by the scientific community at first, including Jewish scientists. His relativity theories were not immediate accepted. They were at first resisted. It was only years later that the big hallyboo over him came about.

The man was not stupid; not by a long shot. No matter what opinions and feelings about Jews. And no matter Einstein's political ideas, he was a first rate scientist. There is no question about it. He had a mind that prowled. It's true they went too far deifying him as a near god, but that is neither here nor there concerning science.

Furthermore, cranks and kooks have been coming forth out of the woodwork for a century now, claiming this and that about the special and general theories of relativity, saying it is "wrong." Not so. You had better be specific here when making a critique. Now there are a few well qualified, non-crankish scientist and engineers who have a few problems with the theory, and I for one they think they might have a point. But understand, what is in question is NOT that the theory is "wrong," because it does give the correct solutions and makes correct predictions. It is not "wrong." As near as I can tell, what a few people are pointing out is that some aspects of the two forms of the theory are most likely more elaborate than is necessary. That and it has been pointed out that Einstein himself made an assumption that may have things the wrong way around, and that the alternative will also account for the results and is consistent with experimental evidence. This is about Einstein's deforming of space and time itself. It has been pointed out that they should consider if it is the measuring tools that contract, and if it is likewise a physical effect on clocks and the objects in the frames rather than time and distance that is being deformed. But this is not the place for this discussion. If you are interested in non kooks and books and discussions that are not simply the work of expert hatchet men doing a smear job, see the book by the late Petr Beckman, Einstein plus two. Dr. Carl Zapffe, A reminder on E = mc (c squared). Ronald R. Hatch, Escape from Einstein. See also G. Harry Stine's article, Faster than light for some comments on Einsteinian relativity.
 
Old February 18th, 2013 #2
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

This site (below) simplifies the reality for you. Your refusal to acknowledge the facts says more about you than about Einstein.

There are thousands of sites holding the same or similar beliefs, because they actually did the work. Google "Einstein Fraud" you get over 4 million hits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred O'Malley View Post
ALBERT EINSTEIN is held up as "a rare genius," who drastically changed the field of theoretical physics. However, using the technique known as 'The Often-Repeated Lie=Truth,' he has been made an idol to young people, and his very name has become synonymous with genius.

THE TRUTH, HOWEVER, IS VERY DIFFERENT. Einstein was an inept and moronic person, who could not even tie his own shoelaces; he contributed NOTHING ORIGINAL to the field of quantum mechanics, nor any other science. On the contrary -- he stole the ideas of others, and the Jew-controlled media made him a 'hero.'

When we actually examine the life of Albert Einstein, we find that his only 'brilliance' was in his ability to PLAGIARIZE and STEAL OTHER PEOPLE'S IDEAS, PASSING THEM OFF AS HIS OWN. Einstein's education, or lack thereof, is an important part of this story.

Read it all HERE
 
Old February 18th, 2013 #3
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
Default

This would have made a great poll question.
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old February 18th, 2013 #4
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

This video trashes Einstein and his work.

 
Old February 18th, 2013 #5
Bardamu
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,571
Default

Sounds about right to me. @Randal Goode

Last edited by Bardamu; February 18th, 2013 at 04:29 PM.
 
Old February 18th, 2013 #6
SaraT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 936
Default

It is often the case in science that the discovery of something is less important than its practical application. A good example of this is the chemical DDT. The German chemist (Zeidler) who first synthesized it in 1874 is a footnote in history. The Swiss chemist (Muller) who demonstrated its amazing insecticidal properties in 1939 was awarded the Nobel Prize.
 
Old February 18th, 2013 #7
Fred
Commie Killer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,615
Default

This is just another issue that getting to the truth is difficult.

It is hard to believe "Common Knowledge" sometimes when the masses have been lied to by Jews so many times.

Was Einstein a fraud? Could be. I don't know.
 
Old February 18th, 2013 #8
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred O'Malley View Post
This site (below) simplifies the reality for you. Your refusal to acknowledge the facts says more about you than about Einstein.

There are thousands of sites holding the same or similar beliefs, because they actually did the work. Google "Einstein Fraud" you get over 4 million hits.
Actually, that article and one or two others, that are obvious offshoots of it, are the primary source of those "thousands of sites." People like you simply copy and paste the same one or two essays over and over and over. A few others have posted on sites like yahoo answers.

More to the point, the article you cite is a prime example of the author not knowing what he is talking about, as is obvious from the first few paragraphs, e.g., Einstein did not claim Maxwell's work or that relativity was something new. He is not known for, or ever claimed to be the originator of the concepts and findings that that article asserts as fact. Moreover, other disputes over priority such as that article claims do not and never did exist. David Hilbert, for example, gave full credit to Einstein, in direct conflict with the claims the article makes.

I gave a concise but fairly comprehensive outline of the history in question. From that it should have been clear to you, but I think you are not in the least interested in knowing anything about what you are so forcefully speaking of.

It should also be obvious that, although it is certainly true the general public is extremely averse to making blanket condemnations of Jews as a group, individual persons are open game. If Einstein was anywhere near the dramatic fraud your article asserts, and if all of his work was moronic and/or ripped off from numerous other people, then there would be abundant criticism from hundreds of scientists and engineers, but instead we see only two or three crank papers and a few people like you trying to make a big noise with your crank stories.

There were some scientists, prominent and respected ones like Mach and Rutherford, later Niels Bohr, etc., who had problems with Einstein's work when it came out, but NONE of them made the kind of charges like you keep furiously citing. None of them. Their criticism was in a totally different context and direction than the rambling collection of charges you think are valid. And some of them proved correct and that Einstein was wrong concerning quantum mechanics. God really does play dice evidently. But I'm guessing you have no idea, no idea whatsoever, what I'm even talking about here. Instead of actually taking time to learn anything about the subjects and finding out where Einstein really was wrong and where he is weak and what many scientists have actually said and find suspicious or lacking with Einstein's work, you persist in kook land. I listed some of these.

Your strident verbiage and ignorance of the subject and science involved is identical with that of the moon landing "hoaxers." In fact, I suspect you subscribe to that, too. It is certainly clear your ignorance is impervious to careful and patient explanation and step by step walk through of the subject matter pointing out where you are misled and misinformed.

It is just such people who compound the difficulties we face and need to solve by their insistence on being illiterate cranks and kooks.
 
Old February 18th, 2013 #9
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred O'Malley View Post
This video trashes Einstein and his work.

The Electric Universe Pt1 of 4 - YouTube
I know this work. Once again, you are dead wrong about what you think electric universe discusses. I have even cited the work of some of the electric universe advocates right here on this very website. I gave a link to Don Scott's book on a thread here and have a link to Talbott and Thornhill's site "Thunderbolts" on still another thread. I mentioned Hannes Alfven, David Perratt and others involved with this theory. Plasma universe is not in direct contradiction of Einstein's theories. Not comprehensively. Moreover, they don't say anything about "plagiarism" or Einstein being a moron who "stole" other work. They do not claim Einstein was a crank or anything remotely approaching that or any of the claims made on "Einstein was a fraud!" sites. Nobody serious and who knows anything about the subject makes those kind of claims. Nobody.

Again, why don't you stop and take some time to learn what you are talking about before going off citing work that either is more confused than you are, or does not make the claims you think?
 
Old February 18th, 2013 #10
littlefieldjohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,105
Default

Get a grip, RandalGoode. Why do you defend Einstein so much?
 
Old February 18th, 2013 #11
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by littlefieldjohn View Post
Get a grip, RandalGoode. Why do you defend Einstein so much?

I'm not so much "defending" Einstein as pointing out it is stupid and makes you look just like so much of the media claims--illiterate kooks--when you blindly make claims that are demonstrably false and way out in left field.

Again, I have mentioned legitimate criticism of Einstein and even agree with some of it. But this material that Fred keeps advocating is simply kook material and is not taken seriously by scientists. Virtually none of them. Never has.
 
Old February 18th, 2013 #12
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by littlefieldjohn View Post
Get a grip, RandalGoode. Why do you defend Einstein so much?
What do you get when you cross a hooker and a computer? A fuckin know-it-all.

You can pour nothing into a full pitcher. I won't sit here and argue with anyone as intentionally obtuse as those two. If they eat up the bullshit, that's okay by me.
 
Old February 18th, 2013 #13
vened
Member
 
vened's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 290
Default Albert Einstein: Plagiarist and Fraud

Albert Einstein: Plagiarist and Fraud

by Ian Mosley



Albert Einstein is today revered as “the Father of Modern Science”. His wrinkled face and wild hair has become a symbol for scientific genius and “his” famous E = mc^2 equation is repeatedly used as the symbol for something scientific and intellectual. And yet there has for years been mounting evidence that this “Father of Modern Science” was nothing but a con man, lying about his ideas and achievements, and stealing the work and the research of others.

The most glaring evidence against Einstein concerns “his” most famous equation. One website notes “The equation E=mc^2, which has been forever linked to Einstein & his Theory of Relativity was not originally published by Einstein. According to Umberto Bartocci, a professor at the University of Perugia and a historian of mathematics, this famous equation was first published by Olinto De Pretto …two years prior to Einstein’s publishing of the equation. In 1903 De Pretto published his equation in the scientific magazine Atte and in 1904 it was republished by the Royal Science Institute of Veneto. Einstein’s research was not published until 1905… Einstein was well versed in Italian and even lived in Northern Italy for a brief time.”

It is unheard of to pass over the original inventor of an equation and to give credit to someone, who claims to have derived it AFTER the equation and its derivation have been published. The equation “E=mc^2″ should be called the “De Pretto Equation” not the “Einstein Equation.”

This raises the question: “What sort of man was Einstein?” Is there evidence that he may have been prone to unethical behavior? One website reports “Einstein… was still far from the ideal husband. A year before they married, Maric gave birth to a daughter, Lieserl, while Einstein was away. The child’s fate is unknown – she is presumed to have been given up for adoption, perhaps under pressure from Einstein, who is thought to have never seen his first born. After the marriage, Mileva bore two sons but the family was not to stay together. Einstein began an affair with his cousin Elsa Lowenthal while on a trip to Berlin in 1912, leaving Mileva and his family two years later. Einstein and Mileva finally divorced in 1919, but not until after Einstein sent his wife a list of ‘conditions’ under which he was willing to remain married. The list included such autocratic demands as ‘You are neither to expect intimacy nor to reproach me in any way’. After the divorce, he saw little of his sons. The elder, Hans Albert, later reflected ‘Probably the only project he ever gave up on was me.’ The younger, Eduard, was diagnosed with schizophrenia and died in an asylum. Einstein married Elsa soon after the divorce, but a few years later began an affair with Betty Neumann, the niece of a friend… Accusations of plagiarism aren’t limited to Mileva – it’s also been claimed that Einstein stole the work of a host of other physicists. One question which may remain moot is quite how much Einstein drew from the work of Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincare in formulating the theory of special relativity. Elements of Einstein’s 1905 paper paralleled parts of a 1904 paper by Lorentz and a contemporary paper by Poincare. Although Einstein read earlier papers by the two, he claimed not to have seen these later works before writing the 1905 paper. One apparently damning fact is that the 1905 paper on special relativity had no references, suggesting that Einstein was consciously hiding his tracks.”

One source notes “David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein.” Another source notes “Einstein presented his paper on November 25, 1915 in Berlin and Hilbert had presented his paper on November 20 in Göttingen. On November 18, Hilbert received a letter from Einstein thanking him for sending him a draft of the treatise Hilbert was to deliver on the 20th. So, in fact, Hilbert had sent a copy of his work at least two weeks in advance to Einstein before either of the two men delivered their lectures, but Einstein did not send Hilbert an advance copy of his.” Apparently Hilbert’s work was soon to become “Einstein’s work.”

The historic record is readily available and the truth is known to many scientists and historians, even if they are afraid to say anything. The idea that light had a finite speed was proven by Michelson and Morley decades before Einstein. Hendrik Lorentz determined the equations showing relativistic time and length contractions which become significant as the speed of light is approached. These gentlemen along with David Hilbert and Olinto De Pretto have been airbrushed out of the picture so that Einstein could be given the credit for what they had done.

Einstein appeared to latch onto his first wife, a much more talented student three years his senior, to compensate for his own limited abilities. Another website notes: “…in 1927, H. Thirring wrote, ‘H. Poincare had already completely solved the problem of time several years before the appearance of Einstein’s first work (1905). . . .’ Sir Edmund Whittaker in his detailed survey, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, Volume II, (1953), included a chapter entitled ‘The Relativity Theory of Poincare and Lorentz’. Whittaker thoroughly documented the development of the theory, documenting the authentic history, and demonstrated through reference to primary sources that Einstein held no priority for the vast majority of the theory. Einstein offered no counter-argument to Whittaker’s famous book. . .”

Einstein was a minor contributor at best and in any case an intellectual thief and pretentious braggart. Einstein was still alive when Whitaker’s book was published and he said NOTHING about it. No libel suit, no refutation, no public comment at all.

Einstein was the first great fraudster and idea-thief in modern science. His theft of Olinto De Pretto’s equation E = mc^2 gave him considerable scientific credibility which he built a career on. De Pretto was not a career physicist and spent his life as an industrialist, passing away in 1921. De Pretto had published his equation twice before Einstein and was no doubt amazed that someone could claim credit for his work. Einstein used and eventually discarded his first wife, Mileva, who was a much more brilliant student than Einstein and is suspected of writing much of Einstein’s early work. (She may have been reluctant to expose Einstein since he was still the father of her children.) David Hilbert’s work on the equations for Special Relativity was submitted for publication before Einstein and was sent to Einstein as correspondence. Einstein claimed credit for the equations which Hilbert derived. (David Hilbert passed away in 1943.)

Some university professors have stolen work from their graduate students and it would be interesting to see if any of Einstein’s students complained of such thievery. A plagiarist seldom stops plagiarizing especially when he keeps getting away with it. Complaints against Einstein however seem to disappear down the Orwellian memory hole. Einstein is clearly a sacred cow to many. A few have even used the word “heresy” to describe serious well-documented criticism and charges of plagiarism against Einstein. The truth eventually wins out and Einstein will someday be best known as a great fraud instead of a great physicist.

http://www.whitecivilrights.com/?p=4089

http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=132703
 
Old February 18th, 2013 #14
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randal Goode View Post
I'm not so much "defending" Einstein as pointing out it is stupid and makes you look just like so much of the media claims--illiterate kooks--when you blindly make claims that are demonstrably false and way out in left field.

Again, I have mentioned legitimate criticism of Einstein and even agree with some of it. But this material that Fred keeps advocating is simply kook material and is not taken seriously by scientists. Virtually none of them. Never has.
Oh, the irony!

 
Old February 19th, 2013 #15
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred O'Malley View Post
What do you get when you cross a hooker and a computer? A fuckin know-it-all.

You can pour nothing into a full pitcher. I won't sit here and argue with anyone as intentionally obtuse as those two. If they eat up the bullshit, that's okay by me.

Ok, here is the problem with the article and charges you bring. It is identical in form to the following:

Fred O'Malley is a fraud and conman! His pro-white activity is stolen! His concern for white interests is nothing but a sham. For years O'Malley has been thought to be a pro-white activist, however, here are the facts.

A German, Adolph Hitler, wrote Mein Kampf back in the 1920s, decades before O'Malley came on the scene! O'Malley is a plagiarist when he claims he doesn't like Jews. Multiple people were anti-semites years before O'Malley!

In the United States, Southerners opposed the Civil Rights Movement in the years during and leading up to the 1960s! Again, decades before anyone heard of O'Malley. Yet he says he is for the white race! He is nothing but a fraud! It is nothing but a lie that O'Malley is what he claims and what his friends say.

Literally hundreds of people used the internet to advocate for white interest before O'Malley! Yet he claims he started it all! People like David Duke and William Pierce wrote and lectured on white interests and warned against Jews years or decades before O'Malley! Yet he poses as a white nationalists anyway.

O'Mallley's entire career is a fraud! Nothing is original to him!

**************

There, that is EXACTLY the same reason your article is out to lunch. In my parody, I asserted that you claimed this or that, when you no doubt make no such claims. And more to the point, even though some of the things I wrote are factually accurate, they are irrelevant because that is not the point and has nothing to do with being a white activist.

In the same kind of way, the things discussed in the article you and the poster above cite, even if accurate, has nothing to do with what Einstein is credited with. Plus, as I have tried to show, the claims are not accurate anyway.

What you are not understanding is that you are attacking a red herring. The equations are NOT what Einstein's theory are known and used for. Every scientist knows and knew about Lorentz and Fitzgerald and Maxwell. Einstein never claimed, nor has anyone else ever for him, that he originated or discovered the constancy of the velocity of electromagnetic radiation. Einstein never claimed to has originated the principle of relativity. Hell, my first post outlines the history of that, did you even bother to read it? The Italian De Pretto was working in an area entirely different from what Einstein and others were trying to do. His equation is not identical to Einstein's, and it was used for something entirely different. This has never been controversial to scientists.

Your entire chain of attack has nothing to do with the price of eggs in China. Even if everything in it were entirely factually correct, which is not the case. The author of the article obviously knew little about the subject. He makes multiple claims that were never attributed to Einstein. He makes multiple errors concerning the sequence of events that led up to and motivated Einstein's work. Some of his dates are even wrong. For example, I saw were he wrote that Maxwell made his announcement about the constancy of c in 1878. Maxwell did this work in the early to mid 1860s.

Why in God's name do people who know nothing about this branch of physics want to start such a pissing contest? You have done nothing but cite that article; you have not known what else to do. You haven't raised a single specific point or area of this branch of physics on your own. You can't can you? I would wager much that you never even bothered to read my first post and that you probably realized you were already way over your head in the first paragraph under the heading Reference frames and transforms. If you had read even that far you would have immediately realized there was a serious problem with the article you cited.
 
Old February 19th, 2013 #16
Thad Charles
Master Race
 
Thad Charles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: neo-Weimar JewSA
Posts: 1,568
Default

Quote:
Was Einstein a Fraud and a Plagiarizer?
Undoubtedly, yes.

I for one cannot wait to crack this: http://archive.org/details/TheManufa...ndaOfSupremacy
__________________
"What are they? A religion, a race, a criminal conspiracy?" - Craig 'Chain' Cobb on the jews
 
Old February 19th, 2013 #17
confederate
Senior Member
 
confederate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: knee deep and surrounded
Posts: 1,764
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaraT View Post
It is often the case in science that the discovery of something is less important than its practical application.
what more needs to be said.
__________________
"OY,VEY ALREADY!!"

Dr. William Pierce
 
Old February 19th, 2013 #18
Bill LeMier
Junior Member
 
Bill LeMier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Alaska
Posts: 77
Default

Jews are fraudsters and shysters so it wouldn't surprise me.
 
Old February 19th, 2013 #19
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randal Goode View Post
You can never convince me that Einstein was a fraud, never, no, no no.
Randy (what a name!) you have me confused with someone who gives a shit what you think.

Thad Charles just blew your balls off, but you prefer to suck on lies. Be my guest, I don't give a fuck if you think Bibi Netanyahu(sp), David Rockefeller and Obama are the holy trinity.
 
Old February 19th, 2013 #20
Jimmy Marr
Moderator
 
Jimmy Marr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Jew S. A.
Posts: 3,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randal Goode View Post
Ok, here is the problem with the article and charges you bring. It is identical in form to the following:

Fred O'Malley is a fraud and conman! His pro-white activity is stolen! His concern for white interests is nothing but a sham. For years O'Malley has been thought to be a pro-white activist, however, here are the facts.

A German, Adolph Hitler, wrote Mein Kampf back in the 1920s, decades before O'Malley came on the scene! O'Malley is a plagiarist when he claims he doesn't like Jews. Multiple people were anti-semites years before O'Malley!

In the United States, Southerners opposed the Civil Rights Movement in the years during and leading up to the 1960s! Again, decades before anyone heard of O'Malley. Yet he says he is for the white race! He is nothing but a fraud! It is nothing but a lie that O'Malley is what he claims and what his friends say.

Literally hundreds of people used the internet to advocate for white interest before O'Malley! Yet he claims he started it all! People like David Duke and William Pierce wrote and lectured on white interests and warned against Jews years or decades before O'Malley! Yet he poses as a white nationalists anyway.

O'Mallley's entire career is a fraud! Nothing is original to him!

**************
It's Goode to finally learn the whole truth about O'Malley. Thank you.

If you're ever inclined to do an exposé on Reynard Louse, I'd be interested in reading that one, too.

Last edited by Jimmy Marr; February 19th, 2013 at 06:26 AM.
 
Reply

Tags
albert einstein, einstein, fraud, jew fraud, jew fraud einstein, jew lies, physics

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:50 AM.
Page generated in 0.40353 seconds.