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
0 registered (), 224 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
12/07/19 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 1
True 1
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#36687 - 11/24/10 12:53 AM Einstein was NOT first to publish E=mc^2.
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
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

Top
.
#36693 - 11/24/10 06:48 PM Re: Einstein was NOT first to publish E=mc^2. [Re: preearth]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
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
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#36695 - 11/24/10 10:33 PM Re: Einstein was NOT first to publish E=mc^2. [Re: ImagingGeek]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370

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
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#36697 - 11/25/10 01:03 AM Re: Einstein was NOT first to publish E=mc^2. [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370

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
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#36702 - 11/25/10 04:10 PM Re: Einstein was NOT first to publish E=mc^2. [Re: preearth]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: preearth
said Prof Bartocci, who has written a book on the subject.


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.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#36707 - 11/29/10 06:40 PM Re: Einstein was NOT first to publish E=mc^2. [Re: Bill S.]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Of course, it is good if those who put in the groundwork get the recognition they deserve;

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
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#36710 - 11/29/10 10:52 PM Re: Einstein was NOT first to publish E=mc^2. [Re: ImagingGeek]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
As I pointed out, the usurpers claim to e=mc2 was due to a mis-reading of the equation for kinetic energy.

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.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#36723 - 11/30/10 08:18 PM Re: Einstein was NOT first to publish E=mc^2. [Re: preearth]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
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
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#36726 - 12/01/10 06:22 AM Re: Einstein was NOT first to publish E=mc^2. [Re: ImagingGeek]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: preearth
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
As I pointed out, the usurpers claim to e=mc2 was due to a mis-reading of the equation for kinetic energy.

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


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.

_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#36727 - 12/01/10 03:48 PM Re: Einstein was NOT first to publish E=mc^2. [Re: preearth]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: preearth
You haven't proved anything.

You have just reworded your original claim.

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?

Originally Posted By: preearth

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

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.

Originally Posted By: preearth

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.

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.

Originally Posted By: preearth
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.

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
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#36728 - 12/02/10 01:49 AM Re: Einstein was NOT first to publish E=mc^2. [Re: ImagingGeek]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Leibniz's derivation was based on the incorrect assumtion that kinetic energy is not conserved.


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).


Edited by preearth (12/02/10 04:09 AM)
Edit Reason: Corrected spelling as suggested by Amaranth Rose II
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#36729 - 12/02/10 03:33 AM Re: Einstein was NOT first to publish E=mc^2. [Re: preearth]
Amaranth Rose II Offline

Superstar

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 962
Loc: Southeast Nebraska, USA
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.
_________________________
If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose


Top
#36730 - 12/02/10 03:52 AM Re: Einstein was NOT first to publish E=mc^2. [Re: Amaranth Rose II]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
.
Here, is another example of the Geek making up stuff out of thin air,....

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
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.

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).
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#36732 - 12/02/10 08:42 AM Re: Einstein was NOT first to publish E=mc^2. [Re: preearth]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
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.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#36733 - 12/02/10 02:22 PM Re: Einstein was NOT first to publish E=mc^2. [Re: preearth]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: preearth
.
Here, is another example of the Geek making up stuff out of thin air,....

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
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.

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).


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.


Edited by ImagingGeek (12/02/10 02:31 PM)
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#36738 - 12/02/10 08:12 PM Re: Einstein was NOT first to publish E=mc^2. [Re: ImagingGeek]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Bryan
I called it in my first post - pre cannot, or willnot, try to understand basic science.


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.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#36739 - 12/02/10 08:19 PM Re: Einstein was NOT first to publish E=mc^2. [Re: Bill S.]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: Bryan
I called it in my first post - pre cannot, or willnot, try to understand basic science.


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
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#36740 - 12/02/10 11:18 PM Re: Einstein was NOT first to publish E=mc^2. [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: preearth
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Leibniz's derivation was based on the incorrect assumtion that kinetic energy is not conserved.

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).

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.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#36751 - 12/04/10 02:22 PM Re: Einstein was NOT first to publish E=mc^2. [Re: preearth]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
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
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#36756 - 12/05/10 02:43 PM Re: Einstein was NOT first to publish E=mc^2. [Re: preearth]
#jpr411 Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 12/05/10
Posts: 2

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.

Top
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

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

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