Albert Einstein Plagiarist of the Century? Maybe

This reminds me of the first astronomer to propose the theory that
'shooting stars were in fact meteors" and the then astronomical
community denounced him as a 'quack' because 'we know that rocks do not
fall out of the sky." LOL

---


ALBERT EINSTEIN
Plagiarist of the Century
Einstein plagiarised the work of several notable scientists in his 1905
papers on special relativity and E = mc2, yet the physics community has
never bothered to set the record straight in the past century.

by Richard Moody, Jr © 2003
777 Treadlemire Road
Berne, NY 12023
USA
Email:
Abstract

Proponents of Einstein have acted in a way that appears to corrupt the
historical record. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Time Magazine's "Person
of the Century", wrote a long treatise on special relativity theory (it
was actually called "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", 1905a),
without listing any references. Many of the key ideas it presented were
known to Lorentz (for example, the Lorentz transformation) and Poincaré
before Einstein wrote the famous 1905 paper.

As was typical of Einstein, he did not discover theories; he merely
commandeered them. He took an existing body of knowledge, picked and
chose the ideas he liked, then wove them into a tale about his
contribution to special relativity. This was done with the full
knowledge and consent of many of his peers, such as the editors at
Annalen der Physik.

The most recognisable equation of all time is E = mc2. It is attributed
by convention to be the sole province of Albert Einstein (1905).
However, the conversion of matter into energy and energy into matter was
known to Sir Isaac Newton ("Gross bodies and light are convertible into
one another...", 1704). The equation can be attributed to S. Tolver
Preston (1875), to Jules Henri Poincaré (1900; according to Brown, 1967)
and to Olinto De Pretto (1904) before Einstein. Since Einstein never
correctly derived E = mc2 (Ives, 1952), there appears nothing to connect
the equation with anything original by Einstein.

Arthur Eddington's selective presentation of data from the 1919 Eclipse
so that it supposedly supported "Einstein's" general relativity theory
is surely one of the biggest scientific hoaxes of the 20th century. His
lavish support of Einstein corrupted the course of history. Eddington
was less interested in testing a theory than he was in crowning Einstein
the king of science.

The physics community, unwittingly perhaps, has engaged in a kind of
fraud and silent conspiracy; this is the byproduct of simply being
bystanders as the hyperinflation of Einstein's record and reputation
took place. This silence benefited anyone supporting Einstein.
Introduction

Science, by its very nature, is insular. In general, chemists read and
write about chemistry, biologists read and write about biology, and
physicists read and write about physics. But they may all be competing
for the same research dollar (in its broadest sense). Thus, if
scientists wanted more money for themselves, they might decide to
compete unfairly. The way they can do this is convince the funding
agencies that they are more important than any other branch of science.
If the funding agencies agree, it could spell difficulty for the
remaining sciences. One way to get more money is to create a superhero -
a superhero like Einstein.

Einstein's standing is the product of the physics community, his
followers and the media. Each group benefits enormously by elevating
Einstein to icon status. The physics community receives billions in
research grants, Einstein's supporters are handsomely rewarded, and
media corporations like Time Magazine get to sell millions of magazines
by placing Einstein on the cover as "Person of the Century".

When the scandal breaks, the physics community, Einstein's supporters
and the media will attempt to downplay the negative news and put a
positive spin on it. However, their efforts will be shown up when
Einstein's paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", is seen for
what it is: the consummate act of plagiarism in the 20th century.
Special Relativity

Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) was a great scientist who made a
significant contribution to special relativity theory. The Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy website says that Poincaré: (1) "sketched a
preliminary version of the special theory of relativity"; (2) "stated
that the velocity of light is a limit velocity" (in his 1904 paper from
the Bull. of Sci. Math. 28, Poincaré indicated "a whole new mechanics,
where the inertia increasing with the velocity of light would become a
limit and not be exceeded"); (3) suggested that "mass depends on speed";
(4) "formulated the principle of relativity, according to which no
mechanical or electromagnetic experiment can discriminate between a
state of uniform motion and a state of rest"; and (5) "derived the
Lorentz transformation".

It is evident how deeply involved with special relativity Poincaré was.
Even Keswani (1965) was prompted to say that "As far back as 1895,
Poincaré, the innovator, had conjectured that it is impossible to detect
absolute motion", and that "In 1900, he introduced 'the principle of
relative motion' which he later called by the equivalent terms 'the law
of relativity' and 'the principle of relativity' in his book, Science
and Hypothesis, published in 1902". Einstein acknowledged none of this
preceding theoretical work when he wrote his unreferenced 1905 paper.

In addition to having sketched the preliminary version of relativity,
Poincaré provided a critical part of the whole concept - namely, his
treatment of local time. He also originated the idea of clock
synchronisation, which is critical to special relativity.

Charles Nordman was prompted to write, "They will show that the credit
for most of the things which are currently attributed to Einstein is, in
reality, due to Poincaré", and "...in the opinion of the Relativists it
is the measuring rods which create space, the clocks which create time.
All this was known by Poincaré and others long before the time of
Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to
him".

Other scientists have not been quite as impressed with "Einstein's"
special relativity theory as has the public. "Another curious feature of
the now famous paper, Einstein, 1905, is the absence of any reference to
Poincaré or anyone else," Max Born wrote in Physics in My Generation.
"It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of
course, as I have tried to explain, not true" (Born, 1956). G. Burniston
Brown (1967) noted, "It will be seen that, contrary to popular belief,
Einstein played only a minor part in the derivation of the useful
formulae in the restricted or special relativity theory, and Whittaker
called it the relativity theory of Poincaré and LorentzÉ"

Due to the fact that Einstein's special relativity theory was known in
some circles as the relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz, one would
think that Poincaré and Lorentz might have had something to do with its
creation. What is disturbing about the Einstein paper is that even
though Poincaré was the world's leading expert on relativity, apparently
Einstein had never heard of him or thought he had done anything worth
referencing!

Poincaré, in a public address delivered in September 1904, made some
notable comments on special relativity theory. "From all these results,
if they are confirmed, would arise an entirely new mechanicsÉwould be,
above all, characterised by this fact that no velocity could surpass
that of lightÉbecause bodies would oppose an increasing inertia to the
causes, which would tend to accelerate their motion; and this inertia
would become infinite when one approached the velocity of lightNo more
for an observer carried along himself in a translation, he did not
suspect any apparent velocity could surpass that of light: and this
would be then a contradiction, if we recall that this observer would not
use the same clocks as a fixed observer, but, indeed, clocks marking
'local time'." (Poincaré, 1905)
Einstein, the Plagiarist

It is now time to speak directly to the issue of what Einstein was: he
was first and foremost a plagiarist. He had few qualms about stealing
the work of others and submitting it as his own. That this was
deliberate seems obvious.

Take this passage from Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times
(there are no references to Poincaré here; just a few meaningless
quotes). This is how page 101 reads: "'On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies'...is in many ways one of the most remarkable scientific papers
that had ever been written. Even in form and style it was unusual,
lacking the notes and references which give weight to most serious
expositionsÉ" (emphasis added).

Why would Einstein, with his training as a patent clerk, not recognise
the need to cite references in his article on special relativity? One
would think that Einstein, as a neophyte, would overreference rather
than underreference.

Wouldn't one also expect somewhat higher standards from an editor when
faced with a long manuscript that had obviously not been credited?
Apparently there was no attempt at quality control when it was published
in Annalen der Physik. Most competent editors would have rejected the
paper without even reading it. At the barest minimum, one would expect
the editor to research the literature to determine whether Einstein's
claim of primacy was correct.

Max Born stated, "The striking point is that it contains not a single
reference to previous literature" (emphasis added) (Born, 1956). He is
clearly indicating that the absence of references is abnormal and that,
even by early 20th century standards, this is most peculiar, even
unprofessional.

Einstein twisted and turned to avoid plagiarism charges, but these were
transparent.

From Bjerknes (2002), we learn the following passage from James
MacKaye: "Einstein's explanation is a dimensional disguise for
Lorentz'sThus Einstein's theory is not a denial of, nor an alternative
for, that of Lorentz. It is only a duplicate and disguise for itEinstein
continually maintains that the theory of Lorentz is right, only he
disagrees with his 'interpretation'. Is it not clear, therefore, that in
this [case], as in other cases, Einstein's theory is merely a disguise
for Lorentz's, the apparent disagreement about 'interpretation' being a
matter of words only?"

Poincaré wrote 30 books and over 500 papers on philosophy, mathematics
and physics. Einstein wrote on mathematics, physics and philosophy, but
claimed he'd never read Poincaré's contributions to physics.

Yet many of Poincaré's ideas - for example, that the speed of light is a
limit and that mass increases with speed - wound up in Einstein's paper,
"On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" without being credited.

Einstein's act of stealing almost the entire body of literature by
Lorentz and Poincaré to write his document raised the bar for
plagiarism. In the information age, this kind of plagiarism could never
be perpetrated indefinitely, yet the physics community has still not set
the record straight.

In his 1907 paper, Einstein spelled out his views on plagiarism: "It
appears to me that it is the nature of the business that what follows
has already been partly solved by other authors. Despite that fact,
since the issues of concern are here addressed from a new point of view,
I am entitled to leave out a thoroughly pedantic survey of the
literature..."

With this statement, Einstein declared that plagiarism, suitably
packaged, is an acceptable research tool.

Here is the definition of "to plagiarise" from an unimpeachable source,
Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second
Edition, Unabridged, 1947, p. 1,878: "To steal or purloin and pass off
as one's own (the ideas, words, artistic productions, etc. of one
another); to use without due credit the ideas, expressions or
productions of another. To commit plagiarism" (emphasis added). Isn't
this exactly what Einstein did?

Giving due credit involves two aspects: timeliness and appropriateness.
Telling the world that Lorentz provided the basis for special relativity
30 years after the fact is not timely (see below), is not appropriate
and is not giving due credit. Nothing Einstein wrote ex post facto with
respect to Lorentz's contributions alters the fundamental act of plagiarism.

The true nature of Einstein's plagiarism is set forth in his 1935 paper,
"Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy", where, in
a discussion on Maxwell, he wrote, "The question as to the independence
of those relations is a natural one because the Lorentz transformation,
the real basis of special relativity theory..." (emphasis added).

So, Einstein even acknowledged that the Lorentz transformation was the
real basis of his 1905 paper. Anyone who doubts that he was a plagiarist
should ask one simple question: "What did Einstein know and when did he
know it?" Einstein got away with premeditated plagiarism, not the
incidental plagiarism that is ubiquitous (Moody, 2001).
The History of E = mc2

Who originated the concept of matter being transformed into energy and
vice versa? It dates back at least to Sir Isaac Newton (1704). Brown
(1967) made the following statement: "Thus gradually arose the formula E
= mc2, suggested without general proof by Poincaré in 1900".

One thing we can say with certainty is that Einstein did not originate
the equation E = mc2.

Then the question becomes: "Who did?"

Bjerknes (2002) suggested as a possible candidate S. Tolver Preston, who
"formulated atomic energy, the atom bomb and superconductivity back in
the 1870s, based on the formula E = mc2".

In addition to Preston, a major player in the history of E = mc2 who
deserves a lot of credit is Olinto De Pretto (1904). What makes this
timing so suspicious is that Einstein was fluent in Italian, he was
reviewing papers written by Italian physicists and his best friend was
Michele Besso, a Swiss Italian. Clearly, Einstein (1905b) would have had
access to the literature and the competence to read it. In "Einstein's E
= mc2 'was Italian's idea'" (Carroll, 1999), we see clear evidence that
De Pretto was ahead of Einstein in terms of the formula E = mc2.

In terms of his understanding the vast amount of energy that could be
released with a small amount of mass, Preston (1875) can be credited
with knowing this before Einstein was born. Clearly, Preston was using
the E = mc2 formula in his work, because the value he determined - e.g.,
that one grain could lift a 100,000-ton object up to a height of 1.9
miles - yields the equation E = mc2.

According to Ives (1952), the derivation Einstein attempted of the
formula E = mc2 was fatally flawed because Einstein set out to prove
what he assumed. This is similar to the careless handling of the
equations for radioactive decay which Einstein derived. It turns out
that Einstein mixed kinematics and mechanics, and out popped the
neutrino. The neutrino may be a mythical particle accidentally created
by Einstein (Carezani, 1999). We have two choices with respect to
neutrinos: there are at least 40 different types or there are zero
types. Occam's razor rules here.
The Eclipse of 1919

There can be no clearer definition of scientific fraud than what went on
in the Tropics on May 29, 1919. What is particularly clear is that
Eddington fudged the solar eclipse data to make the results conform to
"Einstein's" work on general relativity. Poor (1930), Brown (1967),
Clark (1984) and McCausland (2001) all address the issues surrounding
this eclipse.

What makes the expeditions to Sobral and Principe so suspect is
Eddington's zealous support of Einstein, as can be seen in his
statement, "By standing foremost in testing, and ultimately verifying
the 'enemy' theory, our national observatory kept alive the finest
traditions of science..." (emphasis added) (Clark, 1984). In this
instance, apparently Eddington was not familiar with the basic tenets of
science. His job was to collect data - not verify Einstein's theories.

Further evidence for the fraud can be deduced from Eddington's own
statements and the introduction to them provided by Clark (ibid., p.
285): "May 29 began with heavy rain, which stopped only about noon. Not
until 1.30 pm when the eclipse had already begun did the party get its
first glimpse of the sun: 'We had to carry out our programme of
photographs on faith...'" (emphasis added). Eddington reveals his true
prejudice: he was willing to do anything to see that Einstein was proved
right. But Eddington was not to be deterred: "It looked as though the
effort, so far as the Principe expedition was concerned, might have been
abortive"; "We developed the photographs, two each night for six nights
after the eclipseThe cloudy weather upset my plans and I had to treat
the measures in a different way from what I intended; consequently I
have not been able to make any preliminary announcement of the result"
(emphasis added) (Clark, ibid.).

Actually, Eddington's words speak volumes about the result. As soon as
he found one shred of evidence that was consistent with "Einstein's"
general relativity theory, he immediately proclaimed it as proof of the
theory. Is this science?

Where were the astronomers when Eddington presented his findings? Did
anyone besides Eddington actually look at the photographic plates? Poor
did, and he completely repudiated the findings of Eddington. This should
have given pause to any ethical scientist.

Here are some quotes from Poor's summary: "The mathematical formula, by
which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75 seconds for light rays
passing the edge of the sun, is a well known and simple formula of
physical optics"; "Not a single one of the fundamental concepts of
varying time, or warped or twisted space, of simultaneity, or of the
relativity of motion is in any way involved in Einstein's prediction of,
or formulas for, the deflection of light"; "The many and elaborate
eclipse expeditions have, therefore, been given a fictitious importance.
Their results can neither prove nor disprove the relativity theoryÉ"
(emphasis added) (Poor, 1930).

From Brown (1967), we learn that Eddington couldn't wait to get it out
to the world community that Einstein's theory was confirmed. What
Eddington based this on was a premature assessment of the photographic
plates. Initially, stars did "appear" to bend as they should, as
required by Einstein, but then, according to Brown, the unexpected
happened: several stars were then observed to bend in a direction
transverse to the expected direction and still others to bend in a
direction opposite to that predicted by relativity.

The absurdity of the data collected during the Eclipse of 1919 was
demonstrated by Poor (1930), who pointed out that 85% of the data were
discarded from the South American eclipse due to "accidental error",
i.e., it contradicted Einstein's scale constant. By a strange
coincidence, the 15% of the "good" data were consistent with Einstein's
scale constant. Somehow, the stars that did not conform to Einstein's
theories conveniently got temporarily shelved - and the myth began.

So, based on a handful of ambiguous data points, 200 years of theory,
experimentation and observation were cast aside to make room for
Einstein. Yet the discredited experiment by Eddington is still quoted as
gospel by Stephen Hawking (1999). It is difficult to comprehend how
Hawking could comment that "The new theory of curved space-time was
called general relativityIt was confirmed in spectacular fashion in
1919, when a British expedition to West Africa observed a slight shift
in the position of stars near the sun during an eclipse. Their light, as
Einstein had predicted, was bent as it passed the sun. Here was direct
evidence that space and time were warped". Does Hawking honestly believe
that a handful of data points, massaged more thoroughly than a side of
Kobe beef, constitutes the basis for overthrowing a paradigm that had
survived over two centuries of acid scrutiny?

The real question, though, is: "Where was Einstein in all this?" Surely,
by the time he wrote his 1935 paper, he must have known of the work of
Poor: "The actual stellar displacements, if real, do not show the
slightest resemblance to the predicted Einstein deflections: they do not
agree in direction, in size, or the rate of decrease with distance from
the sun". Why didn't he go on the record and address a paper that
directly contradicted his work? Why haven't the followers of Einstein
tried to set the record straight with respect to the bogus data of 1919?

What makes this so suspicious is that both the instruments and the
physical conditions were not conducive to making measurements of great
precision. As pointed out in a 2002 Internet article by the British
Institute of Precise Physics, the cap cameras used in the expeditions
were accurate to only 1/25th of a degree. This meant that just for the
cap camera uncertainty alone, Eddington was reading values over 200
times too precise.

McCausland (2001) quotes the former Editor of Nature, Sir John Maddox:
"They [Crommelin and Eddington] were bent on measuring the deflection of
lightÉ"; "What is not so well documented is that the measurements in
1919 were not particularly accurate"; "In spite of the fact that
experimental evidence for relativity seems to have been very flimsy in
1919, Einstein's enormous fame has remained intact and his theory has
ever since been held to be one of the highest achievements of human
thought" (emphasis added).

It is clear that from the outset Eddington was in no way interested in
testing "Einstein's" theory; he was only interested in confirming it.
One of the motivating factors in Eddington's decision to promote
Einstein was that both men shared a similar political persuasion:
pacifism. To suggest that politics played no role in Eddington's glowing
support of Einstein, one need ask only one question: "Would Eddington
have been so quick to support Einstein if Einstein had been a hawk?"
This is no idle observation. Eddington took his role as the great
peacemaker very seriously. He wanted to unite British and German
scientists after World War I. What better way than to elevate the
"enemy" theorist Einstein to exalted status? In his zeal to become
peacemaker, Eddington lost the fundamental objectivity that is the
essential demeanour of any true scientist. Eddington ceased to be a
scientist and, instead, became an advocate for Einstein.

The obvious fudging of the data by Eddington and others is a blatant
subversion of scientific process and may have misdirected scientific
research for the better part of a century. It probably surpasses the
Piltdown Man as the greatest hoax of 20th-century science. The BIPP
asked, "Was this the hoax of the century?" and exclaimed, "Royal Society
1919 Eclipse Relativity Report Duped World for 80 Years!" McCausland
stated that "In the author's opinion, the confident announcement of the
decisive confirmation of Einstein's general theory in November 1919 was
not a triumph of science, as it is often portrayed, but one of the most
unfortunate incidents in the history of 20th-century science".

It cannot be emphasised enough that the Eclipse of 1919 made Einstein,
Einstein. It propelled him to international fame overnight, despite the
fact that the data were fabricated and there was no support for general
relativity whatsoever. This perversion of history has been known about
for over 80 years and is still supported by people like Stephen Hawking
and David Levy.
Summary and Conclusions

The general public tends to believe that scientists are the ultimate
defenders of ethics, that scientific rigour is the measure of truth.
Little do people realise how science is conducted in the presence of
personality.

It seems that Einstein believed he was above scientific protocol. He
thought he could bend the rules to his own liking and get away with it;
hang in there long enough and his enemies would die off and his
followers would win the day. In science, the last follower standing wins
- and gets to write history. In the case of Einstein, his blatant and
repeated dalliance with plagiarism is all but forgotten and his
followers have borrowed repeatedly from the discoveries of other
scientists and used them to adorn Einstein's halo.

Einstein's reputation is supported by a three-legged stool. One leg is
Einstein's alleged plagiarism. Was he a plagiarist? The second leg is
the physics community. What did they know about Einstein and when did
they know it? The third leg is the media. Are they instruments of truth
or deception when it comes to Einstein? Only time will tell.

The physics community is also supported by a three-legged stool. The
first leg is Einstein's physics. The second leg is cold fusion. The
third leg is autodynamics. The overriding problem with a three-legged
stool is that if only one leg is sawed off, the stool collapses. There
are at least three very serious disciplines where it is predictable that
physics may collapse.

Science is a multi-legged stool. One leg is physics; a second leg is the
earth sciences; a third, biology; and a fourth, chemistry (e.g., cold
fusion). What will happen if, for the sake of argument, physics
collapses? Will science fall?
References:

* Bjerknes, C.J. (2002), Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible
Plagiarist, XTX Inc., Dowers Grove.
* Born, M. (1956), Physics in My Generation, Pergamon Press,
London, p. 193.
* Brown, G. Burniston (1967), "What is wrong with relativity?",
Bull. of the Inst. of Physics and Physical Soc., pp. 71-77.
* Carezani, R. (1999), Autodynamics: Fundamental Basis for a New
Relativistic Mechanics, SAA, Society for the Advancement of Autodynamics.
* Carroll, R., "Einstein's E = mc2 'was Italian's idea'", The
Guardian, November 11, 1999.
* Clark, R.W. (1984), Einstein: The Life and Times, Avon Books, New
York.
* De Pretto, O. (1904), "Ipotesi dell'etere nella vita
dell'universo", Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, Feb.
1904, tomo LXIII, parte II, pp. 439-500.
* Einstein, A. (1905a), "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" ("On
the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"), Annalen der Physik 17:37-65.
* Einstein, A. (1905b), Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its
Energy Content?", Annalen der Physik 18:639-641.
* Einstein, A. (1907), "Über die vom Relativitätspringzip
geforderte Trägheit der Energie", Annalen der Physik 23(4):371-384
(quote on p. 373).
* Einstein, A. (1935), "Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of
Mass and Energy", Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 61:223-230 (first delivered as
The Eleventh Josiah Willard Gibbs Lecture at a joint meeting of the
American Physical Society and Section A of the AAAS, Pittsburgh,
December 28, 1934).
* Hawking, S., "Person of the Century", Time Magazine, December 31,
1999.
* Ives, H.E. (1952), "Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation", J.
Opt. Soc. Amer. 42:540-543.
* Keswani, G.H. (1965), "Origin and Concept of Relativity", Brit.
J. Phil. Soc. 15:286-306.
* Mackaye, J. (1931), The Dynamic Universe, Charles Scribner's
Sons, New York, pp. 42-43.
* Maddox, J. (1995), "More Precise Solar-limb Light-bending",
Nature 377:11.
* Moody, R., Jr (2001), "Plagiarism Personified", Mensa Bull.
442(Feb):5.
* Newton, Sir Isaac (1704), Opticks, Dover Publications, Inc., New
York, p. cxv.
* Nordman, C. (1921), Einstein et l'univers, translated by Joseph
McCabe as "Einstein and the Universe", Henry Holt and Co., New York, pp.
10-11, 16 (from Bjerknes, 2002).
* Poincaré, J.H. (1905), "The Principles of Mathematical Physics",
The Monist, vol. XV, no. 1, January 1905; from an address delivered
before the International Congress of Arts and Sciences, St Louis,
September 1904.
* Poor, C.L. (1930), "The Deflection of Light as Observed at Total
Solar Eclipses", J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 20:173-211.
* The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Jules Henri Poincaré
(1854-1912), at http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/poincare.htm.
* Webster, N. (1947), Webster's New International Dictionary of the
English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, p. 1878.

About the Author:

Richard Moody, Jr, has a Master's Degree in Geology, is the author of
three books on chess theory and has written for the Mensa Bulletin. For
the past four years, he has done intensive research into Albert
Einstein. He can be contacted by email at .

Usually I do not answer to such useless stuff.

But I have to mention here :

1) I do own POINCARE´s collected papers

1.1 ) contrary to MAD SCIENTIST I have read them

2) the author of the stuff written above does not seem to know what is
written in P´s papers otherwise he would abstain from attributing the
equation E = mc² to Poincare´.

3) I can only recommend to read P´s paper
La dynamique de´l electron dealing with relativity

But for this undertaking the great critziser would have to read
French which is obviously something very useless for a critizising
genius

4) it is true that precursors of Einstein derived similar equations (
HASENÖHRL did so ) but these contained always a factor ( 2/3 or 3/2
or 1/2 ) besides mc².

5) No scientist can be a founder and complete a theory at the same
time. Not even Newtton was capable of that.

6) it is well known that LORENTZ proposed the famous contraction
before Einstein.

7) So, what is this all about - a question about priorities ? Posed by
an ignoramus ?

8) only equals should critizise one another so try to be greater than
Einstein ( or Poincare´)

9) POINCARE´detested EINSTEIN´s work and would have strongly cried out
if Einstein had taken anything from him. He just waited for such a
thing. P. prevented that in France any papers on relativity were
accepted for doctoral theses. Think about that.

10) Before critizising one should know a bit about the history of
science.
Besides studying the original papers I can strongly recommend
the

ARCHIVES FOR THE HISTORY OF THE EXAXT SCIENCES
( Founder TRUSEDELL )

herbert wrote:

Usually I do not answer to such useless stuff.

Then why bother answering me. I just quoted the article and just
because I posted it doesn't translate into me believing it word for word.



But I have to mention here :

1) I do own POINCARE´s collected papers

Good for you, but do you understand them is another question altogether.



1.1 ) contrary to MAD SCIENTIST I have read them


When did I say you didn't read them? When did I say I read them? And
why don't you write to the author of the paper and argue with him.


2) the author of the stuff written above does not seem to know what is
written in P´s papers otherwise he would abstain from attributing the
equation E = mc² to Poincare´.


Ok, but it wasn't just Poincare that he said Einstein plagiarized from.


3) I can only recommend to read P´s paper
La dynamique de´l electron dealing with relativity

You have all the writings of Poincare?


But for this undertaking the great critziser would have to read
French which is obviously something very useless for a critizising
genius

You mean to say no one has translated his papers? OK



4) it is true that precursors of Einstein derived similar equations (
HASENÖHRL did so ) but these contained always a factor ( 2/3 or 3/2
or 1/2 ) besides mc².

Rather coy admission that Einstein plagiarized.


5) No scientist can be a founder and complete a theory at the same
time. Not even Newtton was capable of that.

Another rather coy admission that Einstein plagiarized.



6) it is well known that LORENTZ proposed the famous contraction
before Einstein.

Whoever said it wasn't well known?



7) So, what is this all about - a question about priorities ? Posed by
an ignoramus ?

Its about the 'icon' status of Einstein. You may own Poincare's papers,
but you seem to have little grasp of basic English.


8) only equals should critizise one another so try to be greater than
Einstein ( or Poincare´)

Hahahahaha..... now scientists are beyond 'reproach' because they are
'above the masses'. What's next a bar code on everyone's forehead
except the scientists. Freedom for the few....as in Communism.



9) POINCARE´detested EINSTEIN´s work and would have strongly cried out
if Einstein had taken anything from him. He just waited for such a
thing. P. prevented that in France any papers on relativity were
accepted for doctoral theses. Think about that.


That doesn't prove anything. How do you know Poincare did say something
but was silenced in the West.


10) Before critizising one should know a bit about the history of
science.

Before critizising a paper, one should understand the point of the paper
and Poincare is not the only one who understood the famous equation that
a lowly 'clerk' managed to come up with.


Besides studying the original papers I can strongly recommend
the

ARCHIVES FOR THE HISTORY OF THE EXAXT SCIENCES
( Founder TRUSEDELL )


Does that include the history of how Tesla's papers were stolen and
archived in a secret vault and how his patents were also stolen? I
doubt it.

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
et.cable.rogers.com...


herbert wrote:

Usually I do not answer to such useless stuff.

Then why bother answering me.

Because you posted crap, and so Herbert's post corrects it, and shows it for
the crap it is.

I just quoted the article and just
because I posted it doesn't translate into me believing it word for word.

Then why did you post it in the first place? Or is it you just like the
sound of your own voice?

I realise you will claim you were expressing an opinion. Do you often
express opinions you don't actually beleive in?

Can we assume that you don't actually beleive anything you post?




But I have to mention here :

1) I do own POINCARE´s collected papers

Good for you, but do you understand them is another question altogether.



1.1 ) contrary to MAD SCIENTIST I have read them


When did I say you didn't read them? When did I say I read them? And
why don't you write to the author of the paper and argue with him.

Just admit you hadn't read them, you had not investigated or checked what
you were posting, and you never check your sources.







2) the author of the stuff written above does not seem to know what is
written in P´s papers otherwise he would abstain from attributing the
equation E = mc² to Poincare´.


Ok, but it wasn't just Poincare that he said Einstein plagiarized from.


3) I can only recommend to read P´s paper
La dynamique de´l electron dealing with relativity

You have all the writings of Poincare?


But for this undertaking the great critziser would have to read
French which is obviously something very useless for a critizising
genius

You mean to say no one has translated his papers? OK



4) it is true that precursors of Einstein derived similar equations (
HASENÖHRL did so ) but these contained always a factor ( 2/3 or 3/2
or 1/2 ) besides mc².

Rather coy admission that Einstein plagiarized.


5) No scientist can be a founder and complete a theory at the same
time. Not even Newtton was capable of that.

Another rather coy admission that Einstein plagiarized.

So are you saying you beleive Einstein plagiarised?

Or is it that you just cannot iunderstand basic science?





6) it is well known that LORENTZ proposed the famous contraction
before Einstein.

Whoever said it wasn't well known?



7) So, what is this all about - a question about priorities ? Posed by
an ignoramus ?

Its about the 'icon' status of Einstein. You may own Poincare's papers,
but you seem to have little grasp of basic English.

Wheras you haven't even a basic grasp of logic.





8) only equals should critizise one another so try to be greater than
Einstein ( or Poincare´)

Hahahahaha..... now scientists are beyond 'reproach' because they are
'above the masses'. What's next a bar code on everyone's forehead
except the scientists. Freedom for the few....as in Communism.



9) POINCARE´detested EINSTEIN´s work and would have strongly cried out
if Einstein had taken anything from him. He just waited for such a
thing. P. prevented that in France any papers on relativity were
accepted for doctoral theses. Think about that.


That doesn't prove anything. How do you know Poincare did say something
but was silenced in the West.


10) Before critizising one should know a bit about the history of
science.

Before critizising a paper, one should understand the point of the paper
and Poincare is not the only one who understood the famous equation that
a lowly 'clerk' managed to come up with.


Besides studying the original papers I can strongly recommend
the

ARCHIVES FOR THE HISTORY OF THE EXAXT SCIENCES
( Founder TRUSEDELL )


Does that include the history of how Tesla's papers were stolen and
archived in a secret vault and how his patents were also stolen? I
doubt it.

Oh, so now you beleive Tesla's stuff is in a sekrit vault? If it's sekrit,
how come you can claim there is one, fool?

Einstien stood on the shoulders of great thinkers. He put their thoughts
together with excellent math,and clarity. GR,and the equivalent
principle I give him alone great credit for. Keep in mind he should
have received three Nobels. Keep in mind he was told not to make a fool
out of himself mentioning SR,or GR by the Nobel committee Bert

Read this month's Scientific American,and it will amaze you how very
cleaver thinker Einstein was. He even invented a refrigerator with no
moving parts. His thinking influenced such devices as solar energy.GPS
units,digital cameras,lasers,DVD players,and lots more.
Einstein's thinking literally opened doors for us. Bert

Read this month's Scientific American,and it will amaze you how very
cleaver thinker Einstein was. He even invented a refrigerator with no
moving parts. His thinking influenced such devices as solar energy.GPS
units,digital cameras,lasers,DVD players,and lots more.
Einstein's thinking literally opened doors for us. Bert

nightbat wrote

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:

Read this month's Scientific American,and it will amaze you how very
cleaver thinker Einstein was. He even invented a refrigerator with no
moving parts. His thinking influenced such devices as solar energy.GPS
units,digital cameras,lasers,DVD players,and lots more.
Einstein's thinking literally opened doors for us. Bert

nightbat

Give a link so they can follow-up on the net Bert. Here's mine
so the readers can get more info about all the interesting articles.

See:http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomfr...archive.org%2F

Ha, ha, and my " Black Comet " on the net opened all the barn
doors wide open.

ponder on,
the nightbat

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Read this month's Scientific American,and it will amaze you how very
cleaver thinker Einstein was. He even invented a refrigerator with no
moving parts. His thinking influenced such devices as solar energy.GPS
units,digital cameras,lasers,DVD players,and lots more.
Einstein's thinking literally opened doors for us. Bert



No moving parts? How do you get the stuff out if theres no door?


---------------------------------------
Please don't feed the Troll
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killf..._troll_faq.htm

Hi nightbat don't know how to create a "link" You being a
county folk you iknow more about barn doors. being a Wal-Mart big city
person I only know of seeing eye doors that work on the principle of
Einstein"s "photo electric effect" Bert