Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Einstein hoax????????

Many people have claimed that Einstein was a total fraud;

Here is a list of quotes from a few notables (including many Nobel prize winners);

In 1912 the Nobel prize winner (physics) Johannes Stark accused Einstein of plagiarism.

Einstein did not deny the charge, but replied;

"J. Stark has written a comment on a recently published paper of mine for the purpose of defending his intellectual property. I will not go into the question of priority that he has raised, because this would hardly interest anyone, all the more so because the law of photochemical equivalence is a self-evident consequence of the quantum hypothesis."

Professor Reuterdahl accused Einstein of plagiarizing his work, as well as the work of others.

"No unprejudiced person can deny that, in the absence of direct and incontrovertible proofs establishing his innocence, Einstein must, in view of the circumstantial evidence previously presented, stand convicted before the world as a plagiarist."

Einstein Charged with Plagiarism, New York American, (11 April 1921)
A. Reuterdahl, "The Origin of Einsteinism", The New York Times, (12 August 1923)

Professor Westin charges Einstein with plagiarism:

Westin protested to the Directorate of the Nobel Foundation against the reward of Einstein, thus:

"From these facts the conclusion seems inevitable that Einstein cannot be regarded as a scientist of real note. He is not an honest investigator."

Reported in the New York Times, (12 April 1923).

Professor See charges Einstein with plagiarism:

"Professor See Attacks German Scientist...", The New York Times, (13 April 1923).
"Einstein a trickster?", The San Francisco Journal, (27 May 1923).

Nobel prize winner (physics) P. Lenard, E. Gehrcke, Paul Weyland, and other scientists accused Einstein of plagiarism.

"In fact, one begins to doubt the justice of these claims and to wonder if the charges (of plagiarism made against Einstein) made by a fast growing group of German scientists who, like E. Gehrcke, P. Lenard, and Paul Weyland, hold that Einstein is both a plagiarist and a sophist, are not, after all, true."

J. T. Blankart, "Relativity or Interdependence", Catholic World, Volume 112, (February, 1921)

The Nobel prize winner (physics) and friend of Einstein, Max Born, had this to say;

"Many of you may have looked up his paper 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper' in Annalen der Physik, vol. 17, p. 811, 1905, and you will have noticed some peculiarities. The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous literature. It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true."

Max Born, "Physics and Relativity", Physics in my Generation.

Professor Nordmann implicitly charges Einstein with plagiarism:

"All this was maintained by Poincaré and others long before the time of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to him."

Charles Nordmann, Einstein et l'universe (1921).

If Einstein was not a fraud, these scientists would not have called Einstein a fraud.

If you need more proof that Einstein was a fraud (in this case that special relativity existed before Einstein) download the 1900 book by Larmor;

http://preearth.net/pdfs/aetherandmatter00larmgoog.pdf

What can you find in Larmor's 1900 book; Aether and Matter?

You can find the "Lorentz" equations on page 167 (PDF page 192) in section 106.

Remember that the "Lorentz" equations are ALL of Special Relativity,... everything about Special Relativity follows directly from them. And remember that Larmor published the "Lorentz" equations, before Lorentz.

Here is a short article on Larmor's priority for the "Lorentz" equations.

http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:9560/larmor.pdf

Larmor calculates the length contraction of special relativity on page 175 (PDF page 204) at the end of section 111;

And, on page 182 (PDF page 213), section 117, he calculates the length contraction for all moving masses, not just electrons. So, he has already made the conceptual jump from electrodynamics, to all physics, being invariant under the "Lorentz" equations.

Larmor deals with the Doppler effect & relativity on page 177 (PDF page 205) at the end of section 102 and later.

Concerning Einstein's infamous 1905 paper on special relativity, Max Born said; "The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous literature." Einstein did not reference those who worked on relativity before he did (for obvious reasons).

If Einstein was not a fraud, Einstein would have referenced this work of Larmor.

If Einstein was not a fraud, Einstein would have referenced Poincare's work.

If Einstein was not a fraud, Einstein would have referenced Hasenöhrl's work.

If Einstein was not a fraud, Einstein's infamous 1905 paper would have been refereed, just like any other paper.

If you good folk have any problems with these facts,... please say so.

if you are not using lies you are wasting time here.

Over the last few years people have started to wonder if Einstein was a fake and a thief.What are your opinions on this.At school in the Netherlands my teacher always told us Einstein was a fake.

you cannot understand any thing that resembles truth.

1 post 3 replies.

being a liar is the same as agreeing that evolution happened.

being a liar is the same as agreeing that Creation did not happen.

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.

1 post 3 replies.

Bill s
Bill
orac

being a liar is the same as agreeing that evolution happened.

being a liar is the same as agreeing that Creation did not happen.

I just checked again. My pants still aren't on fire. And childish claims are that liars pants are on fire so I guess I am vindicated.

Bill Gill

Science has proof without any certainty.

agreed , Creation can not be validated so any opposing views
or claims such as the theory of evolution must first be validated in order to invalidate Creation.

it was evolution that proposed to invalidate Creation.

agreed , Creation can not be validated through testing
so any opposing views or claims such as the theory of evolution must first be validated though testing in order to invalidate Creation.

Evolution does not "propose to invalidate Creation". There are supporters of evolution who seek to make it do that. There are creationists who do the same. I believe they are both wrong. Neither need necessarily invalidate the other.

only I count the millions / billions of years as being the day's that God spent Creating everything.