Einstein

[Lamb Boy]

Awww, the lamb boy is not happy. I'm sorry there is no sheperd here to protect you from the wolves, but if the chaotic free flow of unsanitized and politically incorrect thought disturbs you, perhaps you can go to cnn.com forums.

Well at least you can be partially funny. I wasn't angry btw merely making an observation.

As Google would say Anon ... Did you mean: shepherd?

I was thinking about this thread last night as I wandered off to sleep and thought of a question to pose to Stark who seems to know a lot about this subject. Was Einstein the first scientist to publish the concepts that everybody else is also claiming credit for or were there other published scientists before him? You know what I mean by published I am sure. I don't mean writing some novel (not a reference to H.G. Wells), or writing a few fleeting thoughts into a notepad.

I guess what I am getting at is this ... was Einstein the first scientist to really stand by his/other ppls work or did the other scientists stand by their ideas or were they just wishy washy? It makes a big difference IMO because it's like when a teacher in a classroom asks a question and the REALLY smart kid KNOWS the answer but refuses to say anything or mutters it under their breath. Next comes along another kid who also knows the answer but actually answers loudly and with some type of conviction.

To get ppl to believe in your scientific ideas and principles I believe that you have to have some sort of conviction and determination you can't mealy mouse about it, no pun Anon. How is anyone else going to believe in your ideas if you don't believe them yourself?

Perhaps some scientists are not up to the task of defending what they write to all the critics that surely ensue shortly after any major idea. I'm sure Einstein heard worse things in his time for the things he published and stood for than what we've even heard here on this thread. To me the fact that he continued to stand by his published ideas makes all the difference in the world.

Tell me who came first in terms of actual published ideas because I have no idea but it does make a difference.

[Siggie]

Armenian - I'm letting it go this time, but I will suspend you next time.
The rest of you behave please. Stop insulting each other.

[Anonymouse]

Well at least you can be partially funny. I wasn't angry btw merely making an observation.

As Google would say Anon ... Did you mean: shepherd?

I was thinking about this thread last night as I wandered off to sleep and thought of a question to pose to Stark who seems to know a lot about this subject. Was Einstein the first scientist to publish the concepts that everybody else is also claiming credit for or were there other published scientists before him? You know what I mean by published I am sure. I don't mean writing some novel (not a reference to H.G. Wells), or writing a few fleeting thoughts into a notepad.

I guess what I am getting at is this ... was Einstein the first scientist to really stand by his/other ppls work or did the other scientists stand by their ideas or were they just wishy washy? It makes a big difference IMO because it's like when a teacher in a classroom asks a question and the REALLY smart kid KNOWS the answer but refuses to say anything or mutters it under their breath. Next comes along another kid who also knows the answer but actually answers loudly and with some type of conviction.

To get ppl to believe in your scientific ideas and principles I believe that you have to have some sort of conviction and determination you can't mealy mouse about it, no pun Anon. How is anyone else going to believe in your ideas if you don't believe them yourself?

Perhaps some scientists are not up to the task of defending what they write to all the critics that surely ensue shortly after any major idea. I'm sure Einstein heard worse things in his time for the things he published and stood for than what we've even heard here on this thread. To me the fact that he continued to stand by his published ideas makes all the difference in the world.

Tell me who came first in terms of actual published ideas because I have no idea but it does make a difference.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0971962987/ref=pd_sim_b_1/103-3730530-4126221?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance

[Stark Evade]

Man this thread is getting seriously messed up.

You should seriously be banned for your RACISTS rhetoric.

To Mr. Hilarious Stark Evade AND Anon I have one question to pose to the both of you. While you guys like to defame a genius like Albert Einstein....

...what of any major significance have either of you ever contributed to society as a whole?

I think what Sip said about the Nobel Prize recipient was right on the money. Good point Sip!

You guys are a bunch of haters. You hate on Darwin, evolution, ethnic groups, Albert Einstein, me and probably a whole lot of other ppl. It's getting you guys REALLY far let me tell ya! lol

"Intellectual Lounge" HA! More like Haters lounge...

First of all, I don't hate Darwin. He's my goddamn avatar.

Secondly, it's foolish to make the "You haven't done what he has so you have no right to talk" argument. I'm sure a L.A. Clippers benchwarmer is a much better basketball player than I am but that doesn't make him special.

Thirdly, Einstein was a plagiarist.

Fourthly, it's foolish to make claims that suggest all comments that criticize a race are racist.

Go away.

[Sip]

LMAO at the avatar

And while we're on the topic ... Here's Einstein the bird. Ironically enough a friend forwarded that to me today and I immediately thought of this thread.

[winoman]

Before accepting this book as fact - read the reviews...

Here is one I liked:

This book is a joke!!!!, August 20, 2005
Reviewer: Truth Seeker "polidoro" (Mauritania) - See all my reviews
This book is a joke!!!! And an awfully bad one...

Either the author is terribly ignorant, or he is trying to delude terribly ignorant readers. The methods he uses in his smearing campaign are so obvious and well known to anyone who reads the newspapers.

First, he lies. For example, he quotes Einstein as saying that the secret of originality is to know how to hide your sources. And what is the source for that quote? An anonymous email... (see ref. 69 in the book).

Second, he cites famous authors out of context in such a way as to change what they actually meant. He quotes Nobel prize winners such as Wolfgang Pauli (Pauli, no less!!!!!!) and Max Born, as implying that Einstein's work on relativity is a fraud. The famous article by Pauli on relativity from the Encyclopedia of Physics (originally in German) has now been published by Dover in English translation, so anyone can afford it (and order it from Amazon, for example). I use it as one of the main textbooks in my course on the Theory of Relativity. Frankly, even trying to suggest that Pauli ever expressed any doubts about Einstein work is immoral. Why, wasn't it precisely Pauli who said that Einstein would have been the greatest scientist of his generation even if he had NOT invented relativity?

Which takes me to my next point...

Third, the author hides the facts. The theory (actually, theories) of relativity is (are) perhaps the most mentioned work of Einstein's among lay people, but it is not necessarily his most important one. His amazing work on the photoelectric effect won him the Nobel prize. But it is his works on Brownian motion (including his Ph.D. dissertation) that are the most cited. And these days, with the new interest in quantum computing and decoherence phenomena, his work with Podolsky and Rosen has acquired a new aura, and is most likely not short in citations.

But relativity deservedly outshines everything else, including Einstein's seminal contributions to quantum mechanics (his aversion to the Copenhagen interpretation notwithstanding). In his discussion on the precedents to the general theory of relativity the author cites Aristotle...

Boy! What kind of moron is this Mr. B. Jerkness? Who is he trying to fool?

[winoman]

Another good review of this book

Aparently the book was writte for entertainment purposes...and another reveiwer points out that no where does the aurthor actually document his claims - by showing what these others who were suposedly palgerized published etc - but its basically heresey...

Can't believe everything you read..., October 9, 2002
Reviewer: Joseph R. Kraus (Littleton, CO USA) - See all my reviews
No one else seems to have noticed the disclaimer on page 4 that states: "This book is intended solely for entertainment purposes. Due to the possibility of mechanical or human error, this book may contain substantial errors, both typographical and as to content...." That aside, the book is still a fascinating read -- hence the four stars. Just the notes and references make for interesting reading. For example, I do not believe that Edgar Allan Poe contributed to the general theory of relativity as provided in citation #382, but it makes me want to read his poem "Eureka" to figure out why this cite was included.

I do not find that the author has published any serious scientific work in physics (journal articles), but the name Christopher Jon Bjerknes could be a pseudonym for a reputable scientist. Considering the breadth and depth of the citations, it is obvious that the author knows the physics literature very well. It is clear that the author has a "bone to pick" with Einstein, and that some of the accusations of plagiarism may be true, but I find it difficult to believe everything that the author presents as fact. After all, this is "entertainment". But after reading much of this book, I am second-guessing some of my assumptions about Einstein and his scientific work.

[Anonymouse]

What fact is there to dispute that people before Einstein such as Olinto De Pretto, or Poincaire came up with his ideas? Apparently, using email as a source is enough to convince the hardcore fundamentalists that Einstein is somehow the genius of life history.

The review you quoted has less to do with refuting the work of Bjerknes, and more to do with showing how good words were mentioned for Einstein. Whether he received his Nobel in something other than relativity has no bearing, as plagiarism is still plagiarism. Especially the last review you quoted, is more helpful to get someone to read it, as opposed to driving them away. How open minded are you Winston? Will you read the book before jumping to conclusions? I thought you left wing liberal egalitarians were open-minded?

[Siamanto]

My views on Einstein's merits and reputation is closer to to those expressed by Anonymouse and Stark Evade than others. Just curious, what is your - i.e. everybody - definition of "genius" and is it comparable i.e. quantifiable?

[Stark Evade]

None of that addresses the previous work done of Poincare and Lorentz and others.

I have conceded that his work on the photoelectric effect was genuine and recognize that the author misleads the reader into believing that his Nobel prize was for something else.