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

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

This pretense in itself makes all this of interest.

Good!

The wearing of a yamulka, like the wearing of a scarf to cover the hair for a woman, can be merely a mark of courtesy. Perhaps preearth does not recognise courtesy.

Of interest perhaps in a site that deals with celebrity gossip and tittle-tattle. Not on a science forum. Please clean up your act or I will edit your posts.

BTW, I respect science, at all its levels--including questions that are less than bright ones. Agape !

Rev, clearly a science forum can be an interesting place to exchange ideas and information about science.

It also appears to be a good place to talk about religion ..."

though I don't know why that should be, do you?

In my view religion should be excluded from the forum.

If it were as you say, a "REAL" science forum (in the sense that you propose) you and I wouldn't be here.

To anyone intent on obtaining reliable information and extensive knowledge: there are books - remember those?

As for the net, there are plenty of sites hosted by experts from institutions with excellent credentials.

But seriously, Rede, and here I agree with Richard Dawkins, and others like him: Because there was no physical evidence for the mountain gods and the sky gods, even the theists gave up believing in their existence.

Since GÕD is omniscience--all the knowledge there is, I agree with you.

Since GÕD is about the moral and ethical use of omniscience, all knowledge, again I agree.

Since you and I are both creatures within GÕD and have GÕD within us, we had better find out why, eh?

Since GÕD is ALL that us, how would you go about doing such an impossible feat?

If it were as you say, a "REAL" science forum (in the sense that you propose) you and I wouldn't be here.

Speak for yourself. I am a theologian. My science is theology. I study GÕD--omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, omni-everything, including willPOWER, which I use when needed..

To anyone intent on obtaining reliable information and extensive knowledge: there are books - remember those?

Good, now if only I had omni-intelligence so I could understand everything.

But seriously, Rede, and here I agree with Richard Dawkins, and others like him: Because there was no physical evidence for the mountain gods and the sky gods, even the theists gave up believing in their existence.

Later, when theists created a singular version--a god in their own image, and called "Him" 'God', they were left with the same problem. No evidence. So, in this age of science, let us get beyond creating idol-like gods.

Because, as a unitheist, I accept that GÕD, like the Higgs boson, is both physical and non-physical, I have no problem accepting moral scientists as a friends of all, young and old, who truly love nature, including theologians (lovers of good), philosophers (anyone who wonders), artists (doers) and all interested in serving others, who will and choose to work in harmony in the exploration of what is greater than we are.

Turok's final sentence is:"What a privilege it is to be alive. Truly, we are faced with the opportunity of all time."

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.

So, exactly which facts quoted above do you folk have trouble with?

I ask again; which of the above facts do you dispute?

Life Is Nature Just Enjoy It!!!!!

Obviously the facts are correct and Einstein was one great big fraud.