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

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.

LOL conspiracy theory I think Preearth forgot to take his medication :-)

Not even worth answering the rest of the garbage it's all open and discussed in the public arena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute).

It has been looked at by greater physicists than you preEarth .. ohhh wait your not even a physicist.

I think its Preearth who steals ideas and pretends there his ... Giant Impact theory .... thats all that needs to be said :-)

If what you say is true, then this thread ought to be moved to the Not_quite_science forum, OK? May I suggest that the forum be called: Philosophy--Mother of the Sciences.

BTW, you say: To this comment I will add: So is the nocebo (I shall not please) effect. Surely there are curious scientists who must ask themselves: What are the facts behind such all-pervasive phenomena?

If I told you: I know how both effects are created--effects which can be of very practical value and even save lives--would it make you curious, or would you dismiss it as amusing NQS?



Does science say: There are only somatic laws--ones concerned with the physical world; there are no mental and/or and spiritual ones?

You say:"" Any time you care to philosophize in NQS, welcome!

My comment: "Interesting, perhaps, but of little real value, I suspect." seems to have prompted considerable response, the relevance of some of which escapes me.

All I meant was that I thought there might be more value in studying the ideas, rather than agonizing about who might have said what.

Have you tried "13 Things That Don't Make Sense", by Michael Brooks? He looks at Free Will, The Placebo Effect and Homeopathy (and 10 other things, of course ).

If you build it (start it) they will come :-)




Medical and phsycologists may look at it both from trying to harness it to cut costs and give better patient outcomes etc and they may do science on certain aspects such as the chemistry involved etc.

However from a science perspective it is outside our realm to study or discuss it, the effect is imaginary.

I can't pull imaginary apart and use scientific methods on it and construct theories or anything else and so it is outside the realm of science. We might be useful for doing a few tests and help here and there but none of our standards and procedures will help.

We don't deny the effect may be true we simply having nothing to say about the effect ... we have the same stance on god.

For your reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria). This position has been adopted almost universally by all science institutes and organizations.




Not at all what we say is it not in our area.

You don't ask science for a legal opinion, you don't ask science for an economic opinion either?

We may be able to provide input when requested but the area as a study point is outside our domain.




I do venture over there and comment on things that interest me :-)

Since some here didn't like the first half of Bjerknes book, "The Manufacture and sale of Saint Einstein," I have removed the first half and left only the physics (which is all that is relevant to the discussion here).

It can be found here;

http://www.preearth.net/pdfs/saint-einstein-physics-bjerknes.pdf

As far as I can make out, the physics is correct.

I have extracted the text (to make for easy cutting and pasting) of Bjerknes PDF book, "The Manufacture and sale of Saint Einstein". It can be found here:

http://www.preearth.net/pdfs/saint-einstein-bjerknes.txt

So has anyone read Bjerknes book, "The Manufacture and sale of Saint Einstein"? (the physics part)

As uninteresting now as ever.

Someone who believes that "Zionism is Built on Lies and Hatred" and who places so much stress on Einstein's Jewishness, might not be the most reliable mentor in this context.

I think the point is, that Einstein would have been just another irrelevant scam-artist, if the Jews hadn't put their weight behind him and turned the scam-artist into a "great genius".

I suppose that with my liking for things infinite I should find this sort of “ad infinitum” discussion fascinating; but somehow zzzzzzz!

Back to the geology when my head is clear enough to think sensibly again.

Maybe you should read Bjerknes book, "The Manufacture and sale of Saint Einstein,":

http://www.preearth.net/pdfs/saint-einstein-physics-bjerknes.pdf

Time is very limited; it would so far down my reading list that I would probably not live long enough to reach it!

You have something against the truth Bill?

What is truth?

The truth (in history) is what actually happened, not what liars say happened.

The truth (in history) is often incredibly difficult to come by.

The scientific method is often a good way to establish the truth of a matter.

Well, it is said that history is written by the victors, which seems to me to explain many of the differing points of view on historical events.

Also pre-existing prejudices can also lead to incorrect assumptions in my opinion.

Then why not answer some scientific questions rather than wasting time on American Presidents' yarmulkes?