Einstein's E=mc2 was Italian's idea

Rory Carroll in Rome
Thursday November 11, 1999
Guardian Newspaper

The mathematical equation that ushered in the atomic age was discovered by an unknown Italian dilettante two years before Albert Einstein used it in developing the theory of relativity, it was claimed yesterday.

Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the equation E=mc2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903, said Umberto Bartocci, a mathematical historian.

Einstein allegedly used De Pretto's insight in a major paper published in 1905, but De Pretto was never acclaimed, said Professor Bartocci of the University of Perugia.

De Pretto had stumbled on the equation, but not the theory of relativity, while speculating about ether in the life of the universe, said Prof Bartocci. It was republished in 1904 by Veneto's Royal Science Institute, but the equation's significance was not understood.

A Swiss Italian named Michele Besso alerted Einstein to the research and in 1905 Einstein published his own work, said Prof Bartocci. It took years for his breakthrough to be grasped. When the penny finally dropped, De Pretto's contribution was overlooked while Einstein went on to become the century's most famous scientist. De Pretto died in 1921.

"De Pretto did not discover relativity but there is no doubt that he was the first to use the equation. That is hugely significant. I also believe, though it's impossible to prove, that Einstein used De Pretto's research," said Prof Bartocci, who has written a book on the subject.

Einstein's theory held that time and motion are relative to the observer if the speed of light is constant and if all natural laws are the same. A footnote established the equivalence of mass and energy, according to which the energy (E) of a quantity of matter (m) is equal to the product of the mass and the square of the velocity of light (c). Now known as: E=mc2.

The influence of work by other physicists on Einstein's theory is also controversial. A German, David Hilbert, is thought by some to have been decisive.

Edmund Robertson, professor of mathematics at St Andrew's University, said: "An awful lot of mathematics was done by people who have never been credited - Arabs in the middle ages, for example. Einstein may have got the idea from someone else, but ideas come from all sorts of places."

"De Pretto deserves credit if his contribution can be proven."

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

Old news, but your news report also got it wrong.

Pretto came to his "formula" via the mistaken belief that mv2 calculated the energy of an object in motion (the correct formula is 1/2 mv2). So while he got the right answer, he got to it via both an incorrect assumption combined with a serious and obvious mathematical error.

But the story is even more wrong - Einstein did not formulate E=mc2. Einstein postulated mass diminution = L/c2 (where L is the amount of energy released, the formula thus telling you how much mass is lost). The first derivation of e=mc2 was by Max Plank, based on Einstein work.

But e=mc2 is actually wrong, in terms of the real world, as it ignores momentum. The correct formula is E2 = m2c4 + p2c2 (where p is momentum). The only time e=mc2 is correct is when the observer is stationary relative to the mass in question.

Bryan

E = mc2 is Not Einstein's Discovery

Robert A. Herrmann

Section 7. Final E= mc2 Remarks.

Poincaré, Hasenöhrl, and Planck are not the only individuals that have a certain priority relative to E = mc2.

According to Professor Umberto Bartocci, Olinto De Pretto published the expression E = mc2 in the science magazine Atti (Atte) in 1903. His expression was a speculation that was not derived from more fundamental principles such as special relativity.

There is considerable evidence that Einstein was aware of the De Pretto speculation and that this was an additional driving force behind his faulty attempt to derive this expression for radiation, at the least.

There is also very strong evidence that Einstein never gave De Pretto any credit for his great insight. It is an absolute requirement that one must do a certain amount of literature "research" prior to publishing a claimed new disclosure. This is done to determine if, indeed, your claimed disclosure is new, or to give credit to others that have certain levels of priority if your derivation is obtained by other means.

There is no doubt in my mind that Einstein would have known of the last Hasenöhrl paper since it appeared in the principle journal that Einstein used six months later to publish his own claimed (1905) derivation.

If I am correct, then Einstein would thus have been aware of Hasenöhrl's first paper as well. Poincaré was a very well-known mathematician who had won the first Bolyai prize, a prize that Einstein did not win when nominated by Hilbert.

I do not speculate any further as to why, today, proper credit is not being given to the contributions of Hasenöhrl, Poincaré, Planck and De Pretto.

(9 Sept 2000. Revised 1 Jan 2004)

The full PDF is at:

http://www.raherrmann.com/einpdf.pdf

Apparently, Einstein himself, credited Poincaré with the discovery of E = mc2 (for electromagnetic radiation).

Einstein applied his assumed correct radiation approximation that E = mc2 in 1906 (Ann. Physik 20 (1906):627) and did reference Poincaré's paper of 1900 ("La Théorie de Lorentz et le principe dela reaction," In Boscha (1900):252) and, at that time, did give Poincaré credit for the mass-energy equivalence (i.e., E = mc2) at the least, for electromagnetic radiation.

http://www.raherrmann.com/einpdf.pdf

I wonder how many people wish they had thought of that little money-spinner.

Your arguments could well be right (I wouldn't know, or I might be writing the book)

Of course, it is good if those who put in the groundwork get the recognition they deserve; like Pasteur's assistant who probably discovered pasteurisation. (swap "z" for "s" if you are on the wrong side of the "pond". Let's see who rises to that one. Could be more lively than some of the threads, at present) I wish you luck with digging out the real truth, but I doubt that it will make any difference to the advancement of science; nor do I think it will be of any help to "hitch-hikers", like me, on the journey of science.

If they came across it legitimately. As I pointed out, the "usurpers" claim to e=mc2 was due to a mis-reading of the equation for kinetic energy. He may have come across the right equation, but via a route whose underlying scientific assumption was wrong, combined with a pretty serious mathematical error. Einstein, on the other hand, derived the science necessary to produce the correct equation, and Planck refined Einstein's work to come up with the e=mc2 we have today.

In other words, its not enough to simply have the right answer. You need a correct explanation to go along with the answer.

Bryan

Prove your claim that De Pretto's e=mc2 was due to a misreading of the equation for kinetic energy.

I just want to be sure this is not just another claim you made up out of thin air, like the one you made up here;

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=35887#Post35887

And, even in the unlikely event of your claim being true, this does not in any way change the claims of Hasenöhrl, Poincaré and Planck to priority.

Pre, you know your claims are pure BS. Ignoring the vast array of math and physics which shows your merging worlds theory to be bupkis does not count as a victory.

I suspect De Pretto's case is going to be more of the same - you'll simply ignore all the evidence that runs contrary to your beliefs; despite the fact the evidence of de pretto's errors can be found within his writings.

None-the-less, here we go. De Pretto's work was published and the full text of his work is still available today, both scans of the origonal paper, as well as OCR'd text:
http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/st/mem-depr-vf.htm

The basis of his idea is outlined in the following paragraph.

Ogni particella d'etere ha un impulso proprio, indipendente dalle altre; l'urto che determina contro le particelle della materia, è rappresentato dalla forza viva, cioè dal prodotto della massa pel quadrato della velocità, secondo la formula mv2. Le particelle d'etere per la loro estrema piccolezza, si possono considerare come infinitamente piccole; ma tali in realtà non possono essere e quindi una massa m pur estremamente piccola, devono ad ogni modo rappresentare. Data l'enorme velocità di movimento di tali particelle, non inferiore certamente a quella della luce che è di trecento milioni di metri per secondo, essendo in tal modo il termine v2 della formula rappresentato da un 9 seguito da 16 zeri, si comprende che m x v2 cioè la forza viva di ogni particella, possa risultare abbastanza sensibile e che la somma di tutte le infinite spinte possa dar ragione dell'attrazione e della coesione e perciò si intuisce quanta energia si celi in questo fluido universale.
The long and short, De Pretto assumed that the kinetic energy of a particle is determined by m*v2 (which is wrong, its 0.5*m*v2). His idea is simply that the vibrational speed of atoms must be the same as the speed of aether particles* (i.e. the speed of light), and therefore their energy would be equal to mc2.

*Normally I'd ridicule the use of aether, but in De Pretto's time this idea still had a medicorum of scientific support, so we'll just let that pass...

So as I said before, the equation he derived is correct, but his rationalisation is wrong, meaning that scientifically speaking his findings are of little value. Wikipedia has a great article on the derivation of mass-energy equivalency, including discussion of the various scientists who laid the groundwork that Einstein used to derive mass-energy equivalency from the correct physical principals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence#History

A more detailed essay on De Pretto's work, and what he based his information on, can be found at mathpages:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-08/8-08.htm

Bryan

You haven't proved anything.

You have just reworded your original claim.

PROVE your claim that De Pretto's e=mc2 was due to a misreading of the equation for kinetic energy.

And this statement, from one of your sources, shows how bogus your claim is.

"The nonrelativistic kinetic energy formula did not always include the traditional factor of 1/2, since Leibniz introduced kinetic energy without it, and the 1/2 is largely conventional in prerelativistic physics."

So, the factor of 1/2 was optional (perhaps even unconventional) when talking about kinetic energy at the time De Pretto wrote his papers. It is nowadays conventional to include it.

When you say that De Pretto made a foolish mistake, concerning e=mc2, in his papers (plural), you are saying that the papers referees (plural) also made that foolish mistake, which is unlikely.

Is it more likely that De Pretto and the referees of his two papers were wrong, or that ImagingGeek is wrong?

Yes, it seems that ImagingGeek is wrong once again.

Just as I suspected, pre ignored the evidence provided.

I gave a link to De Pretto's paper, where he published his derivation of e=mc2. I even provided the paragraph in which he explicitly states underlying assumptions:
a) Kinetic energy = mv2 (which is wrong), and
b) the vibrational energy of atoms would be equal to the speed of the aether (AKA speed of light).

That, pre, is what is called proof in the real world - the authors statements, written by their own hand, as it was published in the very journal you have cited.

I am somewhat curious though, in your deranged mind, what exactly would qualify as proof? Does De Pretto have to rise form the dead and tell you he made those assumptions?


I did - I provided you with a link to the full-text version of his paper in which he derives e=mc2, AND even quoted the specific paragraph in which he outlines his claims.


Sorry, you've failed basic science again. The formula for kinetic energy was first established by Newton back in the mid 1600's. His derivation, which was measured as momentum, was correct - with the momentum of a system being equal to the m*v of each element in the system. Leibniz's derivation was based on the incorrect assumtion that kinetic energy s not conserved. His value, mv2, was also not for kinetic energy, but rather for vis viva; a now defunct idea about energy based on the assumption that energy is not conserved. Thomas Young resolved this conflict in 1807, in which he derived the correct Ek=1/2mv2.

So De Pretto should have known damned well the correct formula; it was first proposed by Newton roughly 200 years prior to his publication, and was proven correct (and thus Leibniz's formulation proven wrong) nearly 100 years prior to his publication.


LOL, you've clearly never worked in the sciences...reviewers get it wrong as often as they get it right.

Besides, in De Pretto's time peer review was pretty much non-extent. Einstein and Planks seminal works were not peer reviewed; outside of medicine, peer review didn't become common until the 1930's.

I'm thinking you should read a book on the history of science before you post again - all you've demonstrated in this post is a profound ignorance of the development of some of the more basic scientific principals around...although your precedent is one of scientific ignorance.

Bryan

Well,... kinetic energy is NOT conserved, you idiot.

Geek; you are totally uninformed when it comes to science (and as has been proved a couple of times, you also make stuff up out of thin air, i.e., you lie).

If you continue to insult people after they post a response to your thread I will either edit you or ban you for a while. You are aggravating the moderator with your insolence and your inability to adapt to new information. Also, you need to check your spelling. I doubt that "uniformed" was what you meant to say.

.
Here, is another example of the Geek making up stuff out of thin air,....


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).

How the discussion of simple physics can lead to infantile abuse! It's breathtaking. When ImageGeek says "Leibniz's derivation was based on the incorrect assumption that kinetic energy is not conserved", the meaning should be obvious; i.e. the energy is conserved by coversion to other forms.

Maybe try reading the whole article in wikipedia, instead of quote-mining for the one sentance which you think supports your position. From the same same section you plagarized:
Peer review has been a touchstone of modern scientific method only since the middle of the 20th century, the only exception being medicine. Before then, its application was lax in other scientific fields. For example, Albert Einstein's revolutionary "Annus Mirabilis" papers in the 1905 issue of Annalen der Physik were not peer-reviewed by anyone other than the journal's editor in chief, Max Planck (the father of quantum theory), and its co-editor, Wilhelm Wien. Although clearly peers (both won Nobel prizes in physics), a formal panel of reviewers was not sought, as is done for many scientific journals today. Established authors and editors were given more latitude in their journalistic discretion, back then. In a recent editorial in Nature, it was stated that "in journals in those days, the burden of proof was generally on the opponents rather than the proponents of new ideas."

Once again, pre puts his dishonesty on display for everyone to see, and 2 threads back showed his absence of understanding of conservation of energy (brining back memories of another thread, eh pre?).

I called it in my first post - pre cannot, or willnot, try to understand basic science. Rather than countering the evidence I provided he did his usual tricks of ignoring evidence, quote-mining, and when that all fails, falling back onto name calling.

I wish I coulda bet on that outcome...

Bryan

EDIT: and since we're on the topic of peer-review, Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti (where De Pretto published his work) was never peer reviewed. The entier series of journals can be viewed here.

Is it not a little pointless, then, letting yourself be drawn into any sort of logical exchange?

"They said, It's absurd
to encourage the bird."
E. Lear.

Not pointless, for 2 reasons:
1) Others here do have an appreciation for both reality and science history, and may have found the information interesting, and

2) I like playing with the trolls.

Bryan

Since, the Geek has a lot of trouble understanding what he reads, let's spoon-feed him;

Your claim;

"a) Kinetic energy = mv2 (which is wrong),...."

is wrong. Any formulation of kinetic energy which has the kinetic energy proportional to the mass times the velocity squared, is correct. In mathematical terms,

kinetic energy = K * m * v^2

is correct for any positive K, it is all a matter of how you choose your units. The reason that K=1/2 (and the units that go with it) was eventually chosen, is that the 1/2 is necessary if you want the total energy to be conserved (which, of course, you want).

Since, you have based your whole De Pretto argument on a fallacy, the whole argument is clearly wrong.

So basically pre's argument is that I am wrong because I am silly enough to expect scientists to use the only valid constant for kinetic energy valid in our universe.

LOL

Bryan

Einstein allegedly used De Pretto's insight in a major paper published in 1905, but De Pretto was never acclaimed, said Professor Bartocci of the University of Perugia.

it is all a matter of how you choose your units. The reason that K=1/2 (and the units that go with it) was eventually chosen, is that the 1/2 is necessary if you want the total energy to be conserved (which, of course, you want).

The quote above is from De Pretto's 1904 paper and can be found in the following PDF;

http://preearth.net/pdfs/al-kelly-about-de-pretto.pdf

which is an interesting snippet from

"Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity Theories," by Al Kelly

Or, in otherwords, its not a matter of how you choose your units. In our universe there is one value for the constant in the equation for kinetic energy which is consistent with the physics by which our universe operates - i.e. energy being conserved. Any other value for 'k' is wrong, as it would give a value which is not conserved, and therefore would not be consistent with the law of conservation of energy.

As I said before, DrPretto used a formula for kinetic energy which was disproven nearly a century before he published his work.

Bryan

ImagingGeek said: "As I said before, DrPretto used a formula for kinetic energy which was disproven nearly a century before he published his work."

Contrary to what the Geek says, De Pretto calls the energy, e=mc2, the potential energy of a mass m.

Read it for yourself in http://preearth.net/pdfs/al-kelly-about-de-pretto.pdf

So, contrary to what De Pretto himself says, the Geek claims that he really meant kinetic energy, even though it is clear, from context, that he means potential energy and that he actually calls e=mc2, potential energy.

I would be interested to hear if there is any basis (at all) for the Geek making this quite weird claim, of his,...

.... or is this just another case of the Geek making up stuff out of thin air,....

Even the bone-headed wikipedia people admit that Poincaré proved E=mc2 for light, and of course, this is the mass-energy equivalence in a nutshell.

Poincaré says that electromagnetic energy, light, is equivalent to a mass, or if you like, mass is equivalent to electromagnetic energy, and the relation between them is given by E=mc2.

And this, in 1900, many years before Einstein's (as it turned out) incorrect proof in 1905. Plank soon pointed out the errors. So Einstein contributed nothing, or almost nothing, toward the equation that he is infamous for.

Here is what wikipedia says:

Poincaré

"In 1900 Henri Poincaré studied this .... He noticed that the action/reaction principle does not hold for matter alone, but that the electromagnetic field has its own momentum."

Comment: This directly implies it has a corresponding mass and here is the mass-energy equivalence, published in 1900, 5 years before Einstein's incorrect (as Plank soon pointed out) proof.

Paraphrasing, Poincaré, wikipedia continues;

"The electromagnetic field energy behaves like a fictitious fluid ("fluide fictif") with a mass density of E/c2 (in other words m = E/c2)."

Comment: Here, Poincaré states that E=mc2 (trying to hide the equation E=mc2 from you, wikipedia writes it, m=E/c2 )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence

Reading a book such as Manjit Kumar's "Quantum" would leave one in no doubt that Einstein was not infallible. That is before you even consider that he did not invent relativity. However, he did do some "clever" things with relativity, and other ideas, that probably make it reasonable to link his name to them. Perhaps his greatest contribution was to present ideas in a way in which it became easier to understand, and work with them.

Why not render unto Einstein what is Einstein's and unto Poincare what is Poincare's, and leave it at that.

You must be joking. Your statement seems fair, but given the circumstances of the case, it is a very dishonest statement (I don't mean dishonest on your part). If Einstein had been given what was due to him, he may have recieved a prison sentence.

Poincare published e=mc2 long before Einstein and has received absolutely no credit for it.

Einstein stole it from Poincare (and others) and has received all available credit.

Einstein received all available credit, even though he had nothing to do with the development of the equation e=mc2, and his first proof (in 1905) was wrong. Plank pointed out that Einstein's "proof" was "true" only to a first order approximation. Many years later, Ives demonstrated that Einstein's "proof" was actually a logical fallacy.

Einstein wasn't even smart enough to correctly put together the material he had stolen from others.

Poincare did it all before Einstein, yet Einstein gets all the credit.

Where is the justice in this?

That is so true.

Einstein was a genius and is correctly remembered as one of the greatest minds of all time.
(Which doesn't mean he didn't make erroneous assumptions, and of course other people had clever ideas as well.)
But it's sad to see people like you and your malevolence, even when nobody gives a crap about your opinions.

Life Is Nature Just Enjoy It!!!!!

This quote from Einstein, says it all;

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

Albert Einstein.

I have come to the conclusion that Einstein was a thief who stole much, who knows, perhaps all, that he is credited for (and I might add, that the evidence for this, is overwhelming).

Whatever Einstein's sources, he should probably be credited with having brought together numerous "lose ends" and made sense of them. I think he would have to number among those who brought physics into the 20th century.
I doubt that Einstein, or any of those who might be credited with "his" ideas, care much about those questions now.
Perhaps a more positive approach would be to ask who the "giants" of 21st century physics bight be.

Nothing to do with me!!!

Here are pages 15-22;

http://www.preearth.net/pages/e=mc2-who-discovered-it-first.html

from "Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity Theories," by Al Kelly

Preearth, you're back!

Does that mean I can look forward to some answers in other threads?

In three weeks only one person has looked at the article

http://www.preearth.net/pages/e=mc2-who-discovered-it-first.html

What does that say?

That nobody is interested in rants that don't have any real foundation. Maybe somebody else did make the formula first. But did they include it in a complete theory that explained a great many questions that had come up concerning the way Newtonian Physics worked, or in some cases didn't work quite right?

Bill Gill

Have you guys ever come across the book Saint Einstein by Christopher Jon Bjerknes.

You can download the entire book (17 MB) from here:

http://www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.pdf

A table of contents can be found at:

http://www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.htm

I know it may be hard to believe, but Christopher Jon Bjerknes, is apparently a Jew.

Here is a quote from the book;

"It is easily proven that Albert Einstein did not originate the special theory of relativity in its entirety, or even in its majority.[1]

The historic record is readily available.

Ludwig Gustav Lange,[2] Woldemar Voigt,[3] George Francis FitzGerald,[4] Joseph Larmor,[5] Hendrik Antoon Lorentz,[6] Jules Henri Poincaré,[7] Paul Drude,[8] Paul Langevin,[9] and many others, slowly developed the theory, step by step, and based it on thousands of years of recorded thought and research.

Einstein may have made a few contributions to the theory, such as the relativistic equations for aberration and the Doppler-Fizeau Effect,[10] he may also have rendered an incorrect equation for the transverse mass of an electron, which, when corrected, becomes Lorentz' equation.[11]"

The Einstein part of the book, at least the few bits I have read, seem well written and basically correct.

Sure. That's how science works, standing on the shoulders of giants and all that. I think Einstein himself said SR was 'ripe for discovery'. He just happened to connect the dots into a consistent picture slightly before anyone else.

The real irony is pre announces this like it is some sort of discovery. If you read Einstein papers on SR and GR he makes it adamantly clear where the basis of SR and GR came from. Lorenz, in particular, was critical.

As Kellog pointed out, this is how real science works. Every new discovery is built on the foundations of old discoveries. Looking for that kind of backking is the ultimate scientific BS detector - legitimate hypotheses and theories do not form ex nihilo, but instead are built on past discoveries.

Bryan

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.

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?

American Presidents wearing yarmulkes are also actually of interest to many.

Basically, G.W. BUSH and B. OBAMA are Jews pretending to be Christians. I'm not sure if the other skullcap wearer, Bill CLINTON, ever pretended to be Christian.

This pretense in itself makes all this of interest.

In a science forum? Is there a science of "Jewology"?

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.

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.

Funny; the Jews I know think it is disrespectful to G_D himself for a non-believer to wear a yarmulke.

"Clean up your act" you say. Indeed! AR II. So I ask: Is this is a REAL science forum? Or what?

If SAGGO is a real science forum, how come posters--in their profiles--are not required to give us information enough to tell us: Are you a scientist? If so, what is your expertise?

Otherwise, what can we trust about the comments you make??

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

Apologies for the off-topic:

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.

I completely agree with Redewenur's views and add that forums add a level of spontaneous and interaction that allows discussion and teaching that is not available in books. Granted it comes with problems and is no substitute for a good lessons at schools and universities it is better than having no chance to discuss things.



That I also completely with Rev K as you are a king and respectful person and thus you have no problems with anyone you interact with. There are some who do not always behave as well as you, I for example may perhaps have been guilty of such

The anonymous user does create problems with behaviour such as above but it also affords some protection to people. If you compelled me to give my details I would not participate on the forum. The reason is quite simple for me I am compelled to give my e-mail and other details on my work website. Thus identifying myself on line identifies all my contact details and opens up problems like hate mail or worse ... you must have noticed the hostility.

Even giving your real name like you have done Rev K opens up problems try sites like yoname.com and peekyou.com.

So having complete details will usually limit some professionals and people participating. I know there are some scientist like Ethan Seigel, Sascha Vongehr, Lubos Motl, Matt Strassler and Tommaso Dorigo who run blogs and are very public about their identity but many simply don't like the attention.

Some like "jester" who runs resonaances (http://resonaances.blogspot.com.au/) shroud their identity. Infact if you check his profile (http://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850) it doesn't really identify him. Probably those close to him would know who "jester" is but who knows or not is his choice.

So there are pro's and con's for both ways of doing forums.

Usually if you opt for anonymous users there is heavy moderation and use guidelines to stop the obvious downside of anonymous users.

I have a view on what is going wrong on the forum some like TT disagree. Only time and probably more incidents will decide what needs to happen if anything.

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? 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..Good, now if only I had omni-intelligence so I could understand everything.
Give us an example, or two. Now all we need are scientists who are omni-teachers--ones with the omni-ability to teach and to make things simple, so that slow-wits, like you and I, can understand.

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.

Let us take a serious look at what Neil Turok writes about in chapter 5 of his book, THE UNIVERSE WITHIN--from Quantum to Cosmos: Here he writes about

THE OPPORTUNITY OF ALL TIME
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."

Sorry rev. I'm just not (intentionally) getting into metaphysics here. This, in my opinion, is not the place for it. No disrespect, I assure you.

I actually disagree with Dawkins and you on this Rev and I am going on religions side. I think Dawkins goes way too far and his is almost an anti-religious fundementalist even evolution does not require there to be no God, it just allows for it.

I agree there is no physical evidence to say god exists but there is similarly no physical evidence that god doesn't exist and thus it becomes a matter of faith which is what you do.

I see huge similarities between Paul and Richard Dawkins even though the are on opposite sides of creation debate in that they want science to see something that it simply does not. It supports neither view or really makes any comment on the subject and to infer it does is fundementally wrong.

Knowledge implies a frame of ideals surrounding a perception of reality. Omniscience implies superiority to definitions and the judgments that are attached to the perceived personal realities.

You agree to your definition of God and morality being in the same box, and any assumptions you presuppose into Rede's statement
Seems rather obvious you still haven't quite figured it out, being that your ideas and acronyms are constantly changing.
The most obvious would be to remove definitions of a competing and personal nature, and to leave the idea of a universal defintion prescribed by you out of the picture, and to stick with the facts which are democratically assumed and prescribed
He was speaking for himself. Which inspired you to repeat your agenda (which is to gather attention to your need for personal recognition)
Or anything

Theist never approach direct experience. They just go with the flow of popular opinions based on the Authoritative point of reference. That's why they are Theists.

You still idealize and never get there. Still trying to redefine yourself even as you stay within the box of Theism.

Acceptance of God as a physical reference to your ideals is what is called religion. The purveyors of truth and justice and morality during the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition simply killed the opposition. You on the other hand try to bring all the attention to yourself and your idea of righteousness. (a slow death on the stake of judgment)
Opportunity as long as it falls within the idealisms of your prescribed reality of a physical/nonphysical GÕD?

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

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

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

Thank you...Great information

It is the phenomenon of emission of electrons from the surface of metals when the radiations of suitable frequency and suitable wavelength if falling on the surface of the metal.

The following parameters are related to Photoelectric effect
1.Photoelectric Current
2.Stopping Potential
3.Threshold Energy
4.Work Function

To know more about Photoelectric Effect

Welcome to the SAGG Forum ....Johnson.
The photoelectric effect which bears your name, is so interesting it could even have its own thread, here in Scienceagogo. Here is a little about the interesting property of Diamond that might interest you, in this respect.

A little known property of diamond, out side of those in the industry, is its negative electron affinity in a vacuum.
i.e. Diamond surfaces spontaneously emit electrons in a vacuum.

Combine this with a positively biased grid and a (phosphor) target, or better, an Anode as in a radio valve.....I believe you could create a single-pixel Cathode-ray tube for a flat or minature display?

I have always wanted to do, or try the following:-

"Replace the filament in a radio-valve with a small Diamond. Would the spontanious electrons emitted by the diamond be enought to power a radio? Or at least amplify?" (I think they would).

Another potentially useful aspect of diamond is its very high thermal conductivity, up to five times that of copper. Combined with its high electrical resistivity, this makes diamond films the perfect choice for heat sinks for electronic components: diamond-coated devices can be packed closer together without overheating.
Expensive, but would improve speed and efficiency.

Shining a UV Light on a diamond, allows it to fluorescent a pale blue....if it dos'nt, its not a diamond.