Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Einstein: Why Did He Wish to Become a Watchmaker?

Quzote:

"The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking... the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."
Albert Einstein

The way I understand his feelings, I would expect that he could have wished to become a Priest, a Philosopher, able to try and convince people to change their mentality. Why a watchmaker?

This is my first post here. Usually I am contributing at the alt.horology NG.

Appreciating your answers

I think Einstein would like to have been a watchmaker because he would be involved with something very definite, ordered, and precise. As it was, he opened up a can of worms which he was never able to reconcile; either on a social level and on the physical level.

As a watchmaker, all would have been simple and straightforward, predictable and understandable. Time would have been fixed, not relative.

Whatcha think?

~samwik

Excellent Samwick. Makes a lot of sense.

Blacknad.

Excellent samwik.

I remember that quote. From what I have read, Al actually said, "...I should have become a SHOEMAKER." Then he thought for a second and said, "No, no, make that a Watchmaker."

swisswatchguy"

"The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking... the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker." Albert Einstein

Assuming your quote is accurate Einstein was giving himself a lot of credit that had to be shared by a platoon of scientists. There is no solid evidence that Einstein would have made a capable watchmaker. How do you comb your hair?

jjw

Good thing you aren't a literalist jjw.

re: "...I would expect that he could have wished to ...try and convince people to change their mentality."

The "heart of mankind" didn't need changing until after his discovery of the "power of the atom," so he wouldn't opt for philosophy.... As a craftsman the secret might still be safe.

I often wonder what theories we might have come up with to explain the space-time distortion effects noticable in satellites if nobody had ever thought of relativity.

Einstein's comment about mankind not changing its way of thinking reminds me of Al Gore's point in "Inconvenient Truth;" where he states that old technology + old habits = predictable consequences, but new technology + old habits = "dramatically altered consequences."

I'm sure there must be some famous quote about how difficult it is to "change the heart of mankind."
Something along the lines of "old habits die hard."

Shock the frog,
~samwik

Samwik:
Your quote:

"The "heart of mankind" didn't need changing until after his discovery of the "power of the atom," so he wouldn't opt for philosophy.... As a craftsman the secret might still be safe."

Possibly your esteem for certain historical figures causes you to over credit your choices. Whose discovery are speaking of? Some one person that could envision the awsome power of the Atom but could not perceive the result of the breaking effort? How many dumb geniusus do you want to envision that wish to escape what not so smarts like me could see like a bill bopard. We should all rejoice that Atoms to not just continually, in sequence, do the things that those geniuses conceived.

In my later years I think we have a little too much worship of people that played a part in things that were due to the work of many. Einstein has an important place in science. Some would like to enhance that spot. Keep it in control.

While some may laud your view SAMWIK I see it as unwarranted favor for an over blown concept. Who works alone and who gets to claim the credits if they are not seeking credits?

Hiya jjw,
Sorry I took so long to respond. Holiday happiness...and dug out from El Blizzardo Diablo (Colorado).

Here's what I came up with:
Wow, I'm no expert in this area, and am just speculating based on the original question from swisswatchguy. I don't hold Einstein in such high esteem (as when I said ?...if nobody had ever thought of relativity.?). I still think he's pretty amazing, along with his wife and many others from that time; and maybe someone else would have come up with relativity, but he did.

You are very correct in pointing out that I'm equating relativity with the success of the Manhattan Project. I hadn't noticed that when writing what I did. Interestingly, (I think it was) Oppenheimer who voiced similar feelings after their success. I wonder if he might have opted to become a watchmaker also.

I do think you might be giving more credit to those ?geniuses? by asking, ?Some one person that could envision the awsome power of the Atom but could not perceive the result of the breaking effort?? -jjw
I guess I'm referring to hindsight. I mean if in the future, higher dimensional physics is used to create some awesome weapon, could we blame Ed Witten for not seeing the results of his ideas. I think it's probably also hard for people who explore the bounds of knowledge to remember what the heart of mankind can encompass.

Interesting question though: Would atomic bomb have been conceived of without relativity?
Any thoughts on this??? Maybe it's already been laid out; but as I say, I'm no expert in this area.
Heck, I sometimes wonder what different (and better?) schemes we (& Einstein too) might have come up with if Newton hadn't come up with that stupid ?gravity? law.

I'm not sure what to make of some of your last comments, but I think I'm ?in control,? as you say. I don't think Einstein was any more ?right? than Newton, but I'm still pretty amazed at what they've all added to our history. Check out some of the Darwin/OOS threads....

I don't hold these guys in reverence, but I do hold them in reference. ~Hey, cute, huh?

~Samwik

Hi samwik:

I have no doubt you are in control.
My comments are intended to be generized even when I fail to do it properly. It is really hard work to attempt to track the threads of scientific efforts that eventually emerge as some one persons apparent success, which it is, but which could not likely happen without the previous long term efforts.

jjw

samwik wrote:
"Interesting question though: Would atomic bomb have been conceived of without relativity?"

I think the answer is no. The ability to conceive of converting mass into energy seems to be wholly his to claim.

During the late 1940's early 1950's the 'Time Life' magazine had on its front cover the picture of a clock showing one minute to twelve to denote the impending neuclear holocast and how close we were to it due to the cold war and arsenal of neuclear weapons the two superpowers (USA and USSR)had. Einstein on seeing this clock at such a precarious time made his famous statement "If only I had known I should have become a watchmaker" wishing he could turn back time knowing that he had helped develop the neuclear bomb and all the potential horrors that it could bring to mankind

I have to disagree with this. If the wish for the destruction of fellow men had not already been in "heart of mankind" the discovery of the power of the atom would have been a harmless step in the progress of science.

The quote although attributed to Einstein would need to be looked at in context. It will most likely be in german and translated.

It is listed as a dubious sourced quote .. unless you have a copy of the source commenting on it is speculation.


"The solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker." At least the last sentence appears to have been published in "New Statesmen" April 16, 1955 (or 1965, sources vary). New Statesmen, for those years, doesn't appear to be online yet.

Watchmen quotes it but doesn't source it.

Einstein for obvious reason has massive number of quotes attributed to him that almost certainly he did not say.



http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Einstein lists a massive number under the unsourced list.

Swisswatchguy.
Being an inquisitive type, and having an interest in the concept of time, I took a look at alt.horology. The first thing I saw was: "I will KILL AMERICAN CHRISTIAN TERRORISTS George Bush Jr, Dick Cheney et al."

I wondered what this had to do with horology; then the obvious strick me: the poster is looking to "do time"

In an American prison?.....must be mad!

Bet that was a consolation to the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki!!!

Yeah. He'd probably be pleased to learn that.

Actually the thing is and why Preearth's comment is funny.

No one historically actually wrote E=MC2 that is a modern abstraction :-)

What Einstein actually wrote in Annus_Mirabilis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_Papers)

was M = L/c2

L einstein defined as the total energy both mass and radiation in a rather wordy descriptive he says radiation "means electromagnetic radiation, or light, and mass means the ordinary Newtonian mass of a slow-moving object."

The modern extraction we call that total energy E.

So M = E/C2 is what he really meant and would have written and we do the inversion to get rid of the divid sign

so E = MC2.

So if we want to be perfectly correct Einstein never wrote E = MC2 nor did any of historic figures it probably would have been corrected to modern expressions in the 1930's or 1940's by someone publishing a paper citing the original and thats how we come to know it.

But nor did Newton write F = MA in Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica)

What he wrote was F = Dp/Dt
Dp = change in momentum, Dt = change in time

The reason is the difference between weight and mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_versus_weight) :-)

Remember there was no consideration of other planets how could something have a different weight in newtons time and thus his concept of weight and mass were they were identical.

So if we are going to follow Preearth's standards then I guess Newton didn't invent Newtons second law.

There is a fairly decent article a few days ago on the issue in physicsworld but amusing they didn't realize that none of the old historical figures would have ever written E=MC2 so I have doubts even on it's accuracy (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46941).

Trying to read some of these old papers is a nightmare because of what they assume as believed or true.

I can related to the quote



It's not what is written thats complicated it's what science knew and believed at the time when it was written and what the author therefore means.

Olinto De Pretto published E=mc^2 in 1903.

This was 2 years before Einstein "discovered" it.

In 1903, the Italian Olinto De Pretto, who was an engineer/industrialist with experience in materials and their properties, gave the precise formula E = mc2. It was first published in June 1903. De Pretto delivered a second paper on November 29th 1903 in Venice, and this paper was published in the proceedings of the Venetian Royal Institute of Science, Literature and Art in February 1904.

O. De Pretto, "Ipostesi dell'etere nella vita dell'universo", Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, Volume 63, Part 2, (February, 1904), pp. 439-500.

It is fairly certain that Einstein knew of De Pretto's work.

Olinto De Pretto stated:

Given then E = mc^2, m = 1 kg and c = 3 x 10^5 km/s. anyone can see that the quantity of calories obtained is represented by 16794 followed by 9 zeros, that is more than ten thousand billions. To what terrible result has our reasoning brought us? Nobody will easily admit that an amount of energy equal to the quantity that can be derived from millions and millions of kilograms of coal is concealed and stored at a latent state in one kilogram of matter of any kind this idea will be undoubtedly considered foolish. However, even if the result of our calculations be reduced somewhat, it should be nevertheless admitted that inside matter there must be stored so much energy as to strike anyone's imagination. What is in comparison to it, the energy that can be derived from the richest combustible or from the most powerful chemical reaction?

Also E=mc^2 was implicit in Poincaré's 1900 paper:

H. Poincaré, "La Théorie de Lorentz at le Principe de Réaction", Archives Néerlandaises des Sciences Exactes et Naturelles, Series 2, Volume 5, Recueil de travaux offerts par les auteurs à H. A. Lorentz, professeur de physique à l'université de Leiden, à l'occasion du 25 me anniversaire de son doctorate le 11 décembre 1900, Nijhoff, The Hague, (1900), pp. 252-278; reprinted Œuvres, Volume IX, p. 464-488.

This was 5 years before Einstein "discovered" it.

It is certain that Einstein knew of this work.

Indeed, in a paper in 1906, Einstein acknowledged that Poincaré had already derived the equivalence (i.e., e=mc^2). When commenting on his own 1905 paper, where he originally gave the equivalence. Einstein wrote, "Even though the simple formal observations which must lead to the proof of this assumption is already contained in the main in a work by H Poincaré, I, for reasons of clarity, will not refer to that particular work" One wonders what extra 'clarity' resulted from Einstein not quoting from the earlier work of Poincaré.

Apparently, Fritz Hasenöhrl also published E = mc^2 before Einstein "discovered" it.

Throughout his career Einstein was (justly) accused of plagiarizing the result E = mc^2.

I don't know the Olinto De Pretto reference I will look it up I know the Poincare reference have you ever actually read it?

The mathematics is right you would expect that of Poincare he was a gennius but there is no absolute uniform motion, there is no absolute time, events have the same duration (so no time dialation), they are conventional as they occur in different places.

The most daming to me was he talks about a way to synchronise all the clocks of an inertial frame. That is he has a zero reference frame which means he implicitly didn't really have true General Relativity it is much more like a modified Newtonian physics.

Einstein as you noted did acknowledge the mathematics of Poincare so I think that step alone tells you that the two men realized there concepts are subtley different.

Poincare was definitely close as I think was Hilbert and probably a few others.

The one I feel offended you left out was Maxwell ... Richard Feynman famously derived E=MC2 out of Maxwell's equations and they were published in 1861. So if we follow your logic Maxwell should be credited with relativity.

But thats the point relativity is ALOT MORE than E=MC2

At the end of the day noone was awarded a nobel prize for relativity.

Einstein is linked to relativity so heavily because he was the one defending it in the public. Read the history of 100 author's against Einstein it wasn't 100 author's against Poincare.

You say he was accused of plagiarizing by whom histoprically?
I am not talking about the recent neo-nazi facist crap on the internet which you seem to have bought.

This rubbish seem to be quite common now with the stupidity and pseudo science on the internet.

Newtonian physics - Newton, Kepler or Hookes invented?
Radio - Tesla, Marconi or Popov?

It goes on and on.

Orac: If L = E, then M = L/c2 is totally equivalent to E = Mc2.

I don't think anyone with an ounce of mathematical nous would argue otherwise.

Back to the original topic: Einstein worked as an examiner in the Swiss Patent Office. Consequently, he was an expert on the design of mechanical chronometers. The daily elevator ride to his office inspired his thought experiment about two observers, one stationary and one undergoing acceleration, both looking at their timepieces.

Interesting response to Orac's post.

Hi, Elmgreen11. Welcome, I wish you luck keeping this thread on track.

I have nothing really monumental to add to this topic except to say that perhaps all the various points of view (some of which seem odd at the very least), are themselves an explanation of Einstein's alleged wish. A clockmaker's life, as Elmgreen11 has suggested, would have a reassuring sense of predicability and order.

Actually samwik made this extremely valid point many months ago!

If any of this has any relevance to enything; there are probably two question that should be asked:

Did Einstein really wish to become a watchmaker, or was this just an expression of temporary frustration?

Does it matter?

In the thread "Cosmic Entropy" Orac posted a link to an interesting article. The following quote from that article might be appropriate to the OP in this thread.

"Years before relativity, Lorentz actually managed to prove that Maxwell's equations were Lorentz-invariant but he couldn't possibly understand that the transformations ("changes of variables") formed a group (which we call the Lorentz group today - because there's no way to avoid this irony) or that it had anything to do with the Galilean choices of the inertial frames. Einstein was necessary for these advances that may look trivial today."

In my view it's just another piece of tittle-tattle surrounding a celebrity whose every utterance is inflated like the Big Bang. The question might be properly rephrased as "Why would you have wanted to be a watchmaker, if you had been Einstein?". I'm tempted to say, "Who cares what other people think?", but I guess a lot of people do

Or is it just that one or two vociferous people care?

Claiming Einstein was a fraud is just a statement of fact.

Here is a list of quotes on the subject from a few notables;

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.

I have little interest either in Einstein bashing or defending, but what’s the point in having two penn’orth if you don’t add it? A few points more or less sum up my thoughts on the subject.

1. If Einstein was a fake, he was a brilliant one. 10/10 for a great con.

2. If he was a fake, he would certainly not be the only one who has climbed to fame on the backs of others. Louis Pasteur was one, and even Sir Humphrey Davey was not “without sin” in that regard. There are plenty of people who believe Shakespeare (the better known Bill S) is in that category as well. Personally, I think that the fact the world can benefit from outstanding science and great literature is far more important that the personalities behind those things.

3. Your list of accusations is impressive, but sometimes quotes taken out of context can be a little dubious. Just one example might be your quote from J T Blankart. He was, if I recall correctly, drawing a comparison between Einstein’s relativity and Reuterdahl’s interdependence. Might one not suspect that an article in “Catholic World” could be just a little biased in favour of Reuterdahl’s more theistic approach?

preearth suggests

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

Which leads to the obvious question..."Why not?"

However his name still blazes brightly as the list of mostly unknowns* charging him with fraud grows dimmer.


(Although I thought he poached the ideas off his first wife.)





*unknown to the general population like me that is

As opposed to pathetic anti-semitic garbage from pre-earth which really should be moderated out because he is a racist pratt.

I notice you don't like Obama so basically you are a card carry KKK member ..... anything black or jewish is bad.

Oh and so you know who did it.

I have contacted your host server company ByteHost and the UK regulator.

You may want to read the UK government policy law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006).

Oh, my. Does this mean SAGG will be banned in the UK?

My complaint is not to do with SAGG it is to do with PreEarth's website (http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.php?search_id=newposts)

His anti-semitic activities are not restricted to comments on SAGG he carries the stuff on his own website.

prearth's comment was anti-semitic-- as well as racist. Usually SAGG has been free of this type of nasty name calling.

I think his reply to my post was at the very least most offensive and totally without justification.

They are wearing the Jewish headgear, probably out of social politeness. I once had to wear a matador outfit (!). I am not a matador.

Photo! Photo!

Luckily none survive.

The horror of it burned deep in my psyche! I was tallish and so along with the other taller girls had to be a matador for a dance number that was performed IN PUBLIC. The worst part was the small girls had a lovely costume with a swishy skirt! Of course all we tall girls then went on to be supermodels!

Someone will get cross in a minute because we are 'off piste'!

Again I cry, photo!

What with that claim!!!! You've got to be kidding!!!! Put it down to yet another disappointment of the Internet!

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 the facts quoted in the last post,... please say so.

So you folks have no problems with the facts quoted. That's good.

Silence doesn't always mean "yes". Sometimes it means, "I'm tired of explaining to people who don't even care to understand".

Hi Amaranth. The truth is that you have never even stated whether you think the facts quoted are correct or not.

I do not have an opinion. My field of expertise is microbes and chemical plant waste water treatment. My college Physics classes dealt with classical and mechanical physics, things like momentum and rotation of bodies and collisions of elastic and non-elastic bodies. We never got into Special or General Relativity, so I have no basis on which to make a judgement. Quantum mechanics was not discussed then in intro level Physics classes. So I have no background with which to form an opinion. I'm learning as I go along. Virtually all I know about Quantum Mechanics and General and Special Relativity I have learned on this forum. Einstein may have been a scurrilous scoundrel, I don't know. Nor do I care. It matters nothing to me what the man did to develop his theories, he put them out as a synthesis of many sources all gathered into one overarching, mathematically supported theory, which no one else at the time did. I reserve the right not to judge the man, I never knew him and I cannot say what he did or didn't do. I have not walked 10 miles in his moccasins, so I refrain from judging him.

Albert Einstein was plagued with guilt for his role in the creation of the Atom Bomb, and it's subsequent use of destruction and loss of life.

Seemingly trivial, his statement of pursuing a career as a "watchmaker" is actually significant, as his legacy would have been that of giving people "time", not robbing them of it.

~Suki

You ask if Einstein was not a fraud... why would these scientists make such accusations?

Well, first... I guarantee there are more scientists with opposing views as those you posted.

But primarily... not unlike other fields of expertise... there will be rivals.

The answer to your question, (or statement really), is simple. They were RIVALS.

~Suki