Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Einstein was NOT first to publish E=mc^2.

We even name the Lorentz transformation after him! Hardly a secret :P


Except everyone with a radical new idea thinks they're so radical nobody else even came close. They just forget that if somebody else had tried it and failed, we'd never know because they won't be in the history books or text books or even journals. The internet is a different story tho. I wonder how long it'll take for all the crank ideas to be exhausted and searchable for future cranks to check their work against.

I might add that Einstein never referenced any of those who published Special Relativity before he did.

His infamous 1905 paper did not contain a single reference to any previous work.

His infamous 1905 paper was not even refereed, and this was for the simple reason, that there was no one in the field that would allow Einstein to publish a paper that was just a gathering of ideas that had been published by other people, sometimes years before, without referencing them.

There is a reason that the Lorentz group of Special Relativity is not called the Einstein group of Special Relativity.

There is a reason that the Poincare extension to the Lorentz group is not called the Einstein extension.

There is a reason that the Fitzgerald contraction is not called the Einstein contraction.

All of Special Relativity was known years before Einstein's infamous 1905 paper.

Einstein was a total fraud.

All you have to do is read the papers on Special Relativity that were published before Einstein's infamous 1905 paper,... some of them, like L'armor's, are even in English.

This quote from Einstein, says it all;

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."

Albert Einstein.

Because no one had published SR before. SR introduced a critical concept which had been missed by its predecessors - that being SRs concept of time, distance, mass and energy being properties dependent on the observer. The works you quote leading upto SR never made that critical discovery; which is why Einstein, and not the others, gets the credit for SR. They made the puzzle pieces; Einstein put the puzzle together (and made a few pieces of his own).



LOL, he had 4 "infamous" papers in 1905; there is a reason why we scientists call 1905 "Annus Mirabilis" ("extraordinary year") - Einstein published seminal works on the photoelectric effect (i.e. laid the foundation of QED), on brownian motion (my fav, as the diffusion of proteins in biological membranes is seminal to my own research), on SR, and on mass-energy equivalence. I assume you're referring to the paper on SR, although you are equally wrong in regards to all four.

But thank you for providing us with proof-positive evidence you have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about, and that you are simply parroting what you found on an anti-semitic site without any independent thought of your own.

Here's a hit - you may want to actually read Einstein papers before making claims about them. Here is the first sentence of Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper:

It is known that Maxwell’s electrodynamics—as usually understood at the present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena.

Fifth word of the first sentence - Einstein quotes Maxwell. Yep, no references to others work in that paper . . . if you limit yourself to its first four words.

In that same paper he also references the work of Newton, Hertz, Doppler, Lorentz, and Planck.

Apparently, in pre's world, 6* = 0 . . . LOL.

* it may be in pre's world 5 = 0, since Maxwell and Hertz are usually treated as one reference in Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper.



This is wrong in two fashions. Firstly, Einstein's paper was reviewed by the journals editors Planck and Wein. Secondly, formulated peer-review was not the scientific norm (outside of medicine) until the 1930's. In the case of Annalen der Physik (the journal that published Einstein's 1905 paper) formalised peer review was introduced in 1922. Its ironic that most of the works you cite as being SR discovered before Einstein's papers were also not peer-reviewed (in the modern sense), and yet you complain bitterly only about Einstein...

Bryan

ImagingGeek has a history of making stuff up. Here, is another example of him making up "facts"....


This is so obviously false that the one can only laugh at the Geek.

For example, the 2nd oldest journal in existence, the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, was authorized by its council, on 1 March 1664, with these words;

"Ordered, that the Philosophical Transactions, to be composed by Mr. [Henry] Oldenburg [one of the two Secretaries of the Society], be printed the first Monday of every month, if he have sufficient matter for it; and that the tract be licensed under the charter by the Council of the Society, being first reviewed by some of the members of the same", Charles R. Weld, A History of the Royal Society (p. 68-9).

Peer-review has been the norm in mathematics and physics for centuries before the 1930's.

I might add that Einstein never referenced any of those who published on Special Relativity before he did.

Einstein's infamous 1905 paper did not contain a single reference to any previous work (on Special Relativity).

His infamous 1905 paper was not even refereed, and this was for the simple reason, that there was no referee in the field that would allow Einstein to publish a paper that was just a gathering of ideas that had been published by other people, sometimes years before, without referencing them.

There is a reason that the Lorentz group of Special Relativity is not called the Einstein group of Special Relativity.

There is a reason that the Poincare extension to the Lorentz group is not called the Einstein extension.

There is a reason that the Fitzgerald contraction is not called the Einstein contraction.

All of Special Relativity was known years before Einstein's infamous 1905 paper.

Einstein was/is a total fraud.

All you have to do is read the papers on Special Relativity that were published before Einstein's infamous 1905 paper,... some of them, like Larmor's, are even in English.

Here is a paper that is about Larmor's, earlier work on Special Relativity.

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

Larmor also published a book in 1900 that (among other things) deals with the (Fitzgerald) contraction of Special Relativity.

Firstly, pre, the word "norm" means what most journals do. Medical journals and a small handful of other journals were the exceptions to the norm. The journal Enstein published his works in was not peer-reviewed; it was editor-reviewed. Planck and Wein reviewed the work, as was journal policy in those days.

Its ironic that you state my claims are false, when you apparently are ignorant of the term "norm". A short history on peer review:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#History


LOL, still standing by your lie I see. I pointed out the fallacy of this statement in my last post, and you've once again proved that you'd rather stick to a proven lie than actually educate yourself.

An English translation of Einsteins 1905 paper on SR: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

If you direct your attention to the fifth word in the first sentance of the text you will see . . . a reference to maxwells work. Throughout you'll find references to several others, including Lorenz, Planck, Hertz and Newton.

Anyways, the rest of your post is simply a cut-and-paste of your last one. Repeating a lie doesn't make it true; all it does is impinge on what little credibility you have left.

Bryan

You can download Larmor's 1900 book from here;

http://www.archive.org/details/aetherandmatter00larmgoog

A direct link to the PDF is here;

http://ia600304.us.archive.org/33/items/aetherandmatter00larmgoog/aetherandmatter00larmgoog.pdf

Sections X and XI describe special relativity.

The "Lorentz" equations are found from page 167 (PDF page 192) in section 106.

Note that Lorentz probably stole these equations from Larmor;
Larmor published the "Lorentz" equations in 1897;
Lorentz published the same equations, with the same derivation as Larmor, in 1899;
Lorentz republished the equations in 1904 with a different derivation.
With this 1904 paper Lorentz managed to attach his name to Larmor's work.

The "Lorentz" equations are the guts of Special Relativity,... everything follows from them.

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

"Thus the conclusions as to the corresponding positions of the electrons of the two systems, which had been previously established up to the first order of v/c, are true up to the second order when the dimensions of the moving system are contracted in comparison with the fixed system in the ratio (1-v²/c²)^0.5, along the direction of its motion."

and page 176 (PDF page 207) in section 112;

"We derive the result, correct to the second order, that if the internal forces of a material system arise wholly from electrodynamic actions between the systems of electrons which constitute the atoms, then an effect of imparting to a steady material system a uniform velocity of translation is to produce a uniform contraction of the system in the direction of the motion, of amount (1-v²/c²)^0.5."

Larmor also studies the Doppler effect in these sections.

Here is a PDF which touches on what is mentioned in the previous post:

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

Can't believe this historic piece of nazi propaganda thanks to Phillip Lenard's "Aryan Physics" is alive and well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Lenard).

One of the most acurate explaination I have seen comes from mathspage (http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-08/8-08.htm) it's worth reading.

Noone was ever given the Nobel prize for relativity so it can not be said there was a science bias towards him.

At the end of the day it was always regarded as Einstein's theory and he was the one left defending it towards very hostile attacks at times. You might want to read up on the "Hundred authors against Einstein" published in 1931.

We acknowledge the contribution of Lorentz, Poincare, Hilbert, Ricci, Minkowski, Maxwell, Zeeman, Reinmann, Gauss and many more however at the end of the day Einstein was the one who bore the criticism and spent years answer them in the public so it is not surprising that the public views Einstein as the father of relativity.

Hope that all translates.

Orac; You imply that Philipp Lenard called Einstein a fraud because Einstein was a Jew, and not because he was a fraud (as Einstein certainly was). However, you are probably wrong about this, since,...

Austrian records show that Philipp Lenard was actually born a Jew.[4]

[4] Franck, James & Hertha Sponer. Interview by Thomas S. Kuhn and Maria Mayer. 9 to 14 July, 1962. Typewritten Transcript. Archive for the History of Quantum Physics, University of California-Berkeley. Folder 2, Page 13.

http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Philipp_Lenard

So, Philipp Lenard, was actually a Jew Nazi (or Nazi Jew,.. whatever the correct term is), and probably attacked Einstein, simply because Einstein was a fraud.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the scientific situation, it does seem likely that if Philipp Lenard was a Jew, who became a Nazi, he would have been very likely to attack other Jews, openly and loudly, to demonstrate where his loyalties really lay. His Jewish origin certainly does nothing to support the "purity" of his intentions in attacking Einstein.

And the fact is science did not recognize Einstein as the father of relativity the public did because he was the one to defend it continually and loudly.

The fact is Lorentz nor anyone else claimed that Einstein was not the inverter of relativity.

That's because if you look Lorentz's theory has a stationary ather it is not merely a preferred frame of reference, it is the only frame of reference, it's like newtons the frame of reference is fixed and universal.

Here is a reference
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/9808/9808052.pdf

Einstein used and blended many ideas as did all the leading scientists of the time. We see the same processes today.

You may also want to read
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0210005
At the end is a translation from Poincaré which reading might cast some light on Lorentz because it would seem to say we way over-estimate the credit we are giving to Lorentz as Poincaré is correcting alot of Lorentz mistakes.

Those are called facts of which you have zero to back your ridiculous claim.

Or alternatively perhaps you should argue Poincaré is the father of relativity because Lorentz couldn't get the maths right.

Troll on ...

Be that as it may. In his infamous 1905 paper he never referenced any of those who had done work on relativity before him.

Actually, how could he,... since essentially every idea was to be found in the works of those before him.

Why don't you 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, in some sense, he has already made the conceptual jump from electrodynamics to all physics (being invariant under "Lorentz" equations).

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

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 would have referenced those who did similar stuff before him.

You assume he knew the other work he referenced Lorentz and Poincare because he definitely knew the theories he may not have been even aware of the others.

Again show me any claim by any of these people that Einstein copied there work, why didn't they complain ... you can't find any can you ... it is a modern trend by people with a very specific agenda.

Where were all these people when relativity had to be explained and defended if they were so integral to it?

I love your certainty about things you have no proof of, but that is typical of you PreEarth.

But then with your theory do you reference Giant Impact Theory or are guilty of fraud to?

Helpful comments, Orac. But may I correct your last comment? Unless I am missing something, I think you meant to ask: "... are you guilty of fraud, too (also)?

Yes Rev sorry ... English is my second language as you know and I sometimes get it wrong :-)

I do however strange that someone like him of all people should have such a conviction when he himself should be fully aware how hard it is to have an absolutely unique thought that noone else ever thought of it. His own theory shows just how hard that is.

Perhaps the final word should be from the Nobel committee which is largely reproduced in wikipedia



Controversy in awards for physics is nothing new you only have to go back to 2009 nobel prize (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Controversy_raised_about_2009_Nobel_Prize_in_Physics)

Here is the full list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies

I'll say one thing for this discussion; it throws some light on who did what in physics around the turn of the last century.

A few decades ago I read a very convincing account of how Louis Pasteur stole the idea of what became known as "pasteurization" from one of his students.

It might be interesting to conduct an investigation of the history of the great ideas of "great people".

Interesting, perhaps, but of little real value, I suspect.

BS, thanks for your comment.

But what do you mean when you say: "...Interesting...but of little real value"

Of little value? I might have mentioned this before, but allow me to do so, again: In 1954-1955, I did a master's in theology on the theme, The History of Ideas. It led me to resurrect the philosophy of pneumatology, which obviously had been suppressed when materialism came to the fore. This process proved to have great value to me.

Without denying the value of somatology and psychology, pneumatology asks us to not overlook the role that the pneuma (the mind, or spirit) can, and does play, in helping us keep us healthy in all ways--in body, mind and spirit.

THE BERNARD AND PASTEUR STORY
BTW, you mentioned: "A few decades ago I read a very convincing account of how Louis Pasteur stole the idea of what became known as "pasteurization" from one of his students." Which prompts me to ask:

WHICH COMES FIRST, THE GERM OR MILIEU?
=========================================
I assume that you are also aware of the controversy that went on for years between the physiologist, Dr. Claude Bernard and the biochemist, Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) over the value of the "germ theory" of disease. It is recorded that on his deathbed, Pasteur agreed that Claude Bernard (1813-1878) was right: "Le germe n'est rien, c'est le terrain qui est tout. (The microbe is nothing, the soil is everything.")

Was he saying that germs by themselves do not cause disease; that they simply thrive in "dirty" cells? It prompts me to ask: Does our having "sick" souls (pneumas) tend to attract the conditions that give us sick minds and bodies?

While I feel that they often carry the role of spirituality too far, this is the basic belief of those who belong to religions like Christian Science.

Those who thrive on the pain and suffering of others may not like it, but I also feel that one does not need to be a member of organized religions like Christian Science to benefit from health-promoting principles that such religions have discovered and want to share with us.

Of course there are hypocrites, but when properly understood and practiced, most religions, especially Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam and the like, are all about total health.

Surely, there must be researchers interested in studying the social and health values of health-promoting spiritual principles of the great religions to see if they really do work and can help us be healthier. If pneumatological principles actually do work, think of the billions of dollars, not to mention the suffering and pain, that could be saved by all of us.

Check out:

http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/history/biographies/louis_pasteur.htm

Also check out:
http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/terrain/lost_history_of_medicine.htm

I understand what you are saying Rev but they are medical, political issues and nothing to do with science.

Placebo effects are well known as well the postive thinking results be we don't study them as a science for the same reason.

Generally science is defined as "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws obtained and tested through scientific method and concerned with the physical world."

Spiritualty, God, Religion, Placebo affects etc are well outside the bounds of science.

I understand what you are saying Rev and probably agree with it to some extent, but I am simply pointing out this is probably outside this area of the forum it probably is a discussion for the Not_quite_science forum.

I did find the articles and thoughts interesting but won't go into discussion here for the above reason.

It's interesting because it proves a massive conspiracy. It is completely obvious, to anyone with half a brain, that Einstein was a fraud, a liar and a thief. Therefore, the fact that he is not known as such, proves the existence of a massive conspiracy to hide this fact. Like I said in:

Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis.

"You may not have noticed, but there are millions of people, who lie to you, about many things. This is the way that whole societies come to believe things that are patently not true."

Why do I believe this. Because of the Einstein myth.

The proof is right before you,... the Einstein myth.