Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370

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

This was 2 years before Einstein "discovered" it.

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

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

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

Olinto De Pretto stated:

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

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

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

This was 5 years before Einstein "discovered" it.

It is certain that Einstein knew of this work.

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

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

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


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I don't know the Olinto De Pretto reference I will look it up I know the Poincare reference have you ever actually read it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It goes on and on.

Last edited by Orac; 08/26/11 03:26 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Orac: If L = E, then M = L/c2 is totally equivalent to E = Mc2.

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


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
E
elmgreen11
Unregistered
elmgreen11
Unregistered
E
Back to the original topic: Einstein worked as an examiner in the Swiss Patent Office. Consequently, he was an expert on the design of mechanical chronometers. The daily elevator ride to his office inspired his thought experiment about two observers, one stationary and one undergoing acceleration, both looking at their timepieces.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Pre
Orac: If L = E, then M = L/c2 is totally equivalent to E = Mc2.

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


Interesting response to Orac's post.

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


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
I have nothing really monumental to add to this topic except to say that perhaps all the various points of view (some of which seem odd at the very least), are themselves an explanation of Einstein's alleged wish. A clockmaker's life, as Elmgreen11 has suggested, would have a reassuring sense of predicability and order.

Actually samwik made this extremely valid point many months ago!

Last edited by Ellis; 02/15/12 05:26 AM. Reason: Added a bit.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
If any of this has any relevance to enything; there are probably two question that should be asked:

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

Does it matter?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
In the thread "Cosmic Entropy" Orac posted a link to an interesting article. The following quote from that article might be appropriate to the OP in this thread.

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


There never was nothing.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
If any of this has any relevance to enything; there are probably two question that should be asked:

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

Does it matter?

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


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
I'm tempted to say, "Who cares what other people think?", but I guess a lot of people do.


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


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370

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

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

In 1912 the Nobel prize winner (physics) Johannes Stark accused Einstein of plagiarism.

Einstein did not deny the charge, but replied;

"J. Stark has written a comment on a recently published paper of mine for the purpose of defending his intellectual property. I will not go into the question of priority that he has raised, because this would hardly interest anyone, all the more so because the law of photochemical equivalence is a self-evident consequence of the quantum hypothesis."

Professor Reuterdahl accused Einstein of plagiarizing his work, as well as the work of others.

"No unprejudiced person can deny that, in the absence of direct and incontrovertible proofs establishing his innocence, Einstein must, in view of the circumstantial evidence previously presented, stand convicted before the world as a plagiarist."

Einstein Charged with Plagiarism, New York American, (11 April 1921)
A. Reuterdahl, "The Origin of Einsteinism", The New York Times, (12 August 1923)

Professor Westin charges Einstein with plagiarism:

Westin protested to the Directorate of the Nobel Foundation against the reward of Einstein, thus:

"From these facts the conclusion seems inevitable that Einstein cannot be regarded as a scientist of real note. He is not an honest investigator."

Reported in the New York Times, (12 April 1923).

Professor See charges Einstein with plagiarism:

"Professor See Attacks German Scientist...", The New York Times, (13 April 1923).
"Einstein a trickster?", The San Francisco Journal, (27 May 1923).

Nobel prize winner (physics) P. Lenard, E. Gehrcke, Paul Weyland, and other scientists accused Einstein of plagiarism.

"In fact, one begins to doubt the justice of these claims and to wonder if the charges (of plagiarism made against Einstein) made by a fast growing group of German scientists who, like E. Gehrcke, P. Lenard, and Paul Weyland, hold that Einstein is both a plagiarist and a sophist, are not, after all, true."

J. T. Blankart, "Relativity or Interdependence", Catholic World, Volume 112, (February, 1921)

The Nobel prize winner (physics) and friend of Einstein, Max Born, had this to say;

"Many of you may have looked up his paper 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper' in Annalen der Physik, vol. 17, p. 811, 1905, and you will have noticed some peculiarities. The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous literature. It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true."

Max Born, "Physics and Relativity", Physics in my Generation.

Professor Nordmann implicitly charges Einstein with plagiarism:

"All this was maintained by Poincaré and others long before the time of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to him."

Charles Nordmann, Einstein et l'universe (1921).

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


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
If Einstein was not a fraud, these scientists would not have called Einstein a fraud.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
I have little interest either in Einstein bashing or defending, but what’s the point in having two penn’orth if you don’t add it? A few points more or less sum up my thoughts on the subject.

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

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

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


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
preearth suggests

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

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

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


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





*unknown to the general population like me that is

Last edited by Ellis; 04/28/12 09:09 PM. Reason: effect
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: preearth

Yeah, Jew propaganda (lies) is powerful stuff.


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

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

Last edited by Orac; 07/02/12 01:25 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Oh and so you know who did it.

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

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


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Oh, my. Does this mean SAGG will be banned in the UK?


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
My complaint is not to do with SAGG it is to do with PreEarth's website (http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.php?search_id=newposts)

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


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
prearth's comment was anti-semitic-- as well as racist. Usually SAGG has been free of this type of nasty name calling.

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

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
They are wearing the Jewish headgear, probably out of social politeness. I once had to wear a matador outfit (!). I am not a matador.

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5