| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad" |
| Date: |
23 Jul 2006 01:49:50 PM |
| Object: |
Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
Greetings.
In an unmoderated newsgroup unrelated to the topic of physics, I was
taking part in the following thread...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/browse_frm/thread/c7c38cffbffd17bb
...which served as one of many "flame wars" in that newsgroup. The
part I was interested in, and which I felt is relevant to this
newsgroup, was discussion on the following article:
http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/8/Sharma4.htm
The article asserts that the formula E=m(c^2) did not originate with
Einstein, and towards the end there are no so subtle recriminations of
"plagiarism" (the author even cites fringe elements, such as Bjerknes
and Moody, who have explicitly claimed such). The person who first
introduced the article to the relevant thread did so within the context
of an attempt to demonstrate that (a) Einstein was "an icorrigible
plagiarist," and (b) Einstein did not deserve the Nobel Prize he
received for physics.
I myself am a complete novice with regard to physics, but I want to
look deeper into the issue. My questions are as follows:
(1) Does the article above actually demonstrate "plagiarism" on the
part of Einstein?
(2) Is the subject covered therein at all relevant to the work which
earned Einstein his Nobel Prize?
(3) What is position of the mainstream scientific community with regard
to origins and history of the formula E=m(c^2) attributed to Einstein?
(4) I plan on spending some time in the library reading up on all this,
so can anyone recommend books or articles in serious peer reviewed
journals which cover this subject?
Any other comments or insights on that piece would be greatly
appreciated.
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
23 Jul 2006 05:19:42 PM |
|
|
Study the real physics!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
24 Jul 2006 03:25:00 AM |
|
|
"Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad" <abukhamr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153680589.997457.297440@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Greetings.
In an unmoderated newsgroup unrelated to the topic of physics, I was
taking part in the following thread...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/browse_frm/thread/c7c38cffbffd17bb
...which served as one of many "flame wars" in that newsgroup. The
part I was interested in, and which I felt is relevant to this
newsgroup, was discussion on the following article:
http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/8/Sharma4.htm
The article asserts that the formula E=m(c^2) did not originate with
Einstein, and towards the end there are no so subtle recriminations of
"plagiarism" (the author even cites fringe elements, such as Bjerknes
and Moody, who have explicitly claimed such). The person who first
introduced the article to the relevant thread did so within the context
of an attempt to demonstrate that (a) Einstein was "an icorrigible
plagiarist," and (b) Einstein did not deserve the Nobel Prize he
received for physics.
I myself am a complete novice with regard to physics, but I want to
look deeper into the issue. My questions are as follows:
(1) Does the article above actually demonstrate "plagiarism" on the
part of Einstein?
It depends on what you call "plagiarism". It's very plausible that he read
such ideas as well as similar equations before, but he could have forgotten
what and where. In any case, both his approach and also his exact conclusion
were original. (Note: L=delta_E)
(2) Is the subject covered therein at all relevant to the work which
earned Einstein his Nobel Prize?
No, not directly.
(3) What is position of the mainstream scientific community with regard
to origins and history of the formula E=m(c^2) attributed to Einstein?
It's simply attributed to him.
(4) I plan on spending some time in the library reading up on all this,
so can anyone recommend books or articles in serious peer reviewed
journals which cover this subject?
I know of no unbiased accounts. Best is to read the original papers
themselves (which you can if you have a good library) instead of other
people's opinions and inaccurate statements about those papers.
Harald
Any other comments or insights on that piece would be greatly
appreciated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
24 Jul 2006 03:33:42 AM |
|
|
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1153729499_1032@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
"Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad" <abukhamr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153680589.997457.297440@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Greetings.
In an unmoderated newsgroup unrelated to the topic of physics, I was
taking part in the following thread...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/browse_frm/thread/c7c38cffbffd17bb
...which served as one of many "flame wars" in that newsgroup. The
part I was interested in, and which I felt is relevant to this
newsgroup, was discussion on the following article:
http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/8/Sharma4.htm
The article asserts that the formula E=m(c^2) did not originate with
Einstein, and towards the end there are no so subtle recriminations of
"plagiarism" (the author even cites fringe elements, such as Bjerknes
and Moody, who have explicitly claimed such). The person who first
introduced the article to the relevant thread did so within the context
of an attempt to demonstrate that (a) Einstein was "an icorrigible
plagiarist," and (b) Einstein did not deserve the Nobel Prize he
received for physics.
I myself am a complete novice with regard to physics, but I want to
look deeper into the issue. My questions are as follows:
(1) Does the article above actually demonstrate "plagiarism" on the
part of Einstein?
It depends on what you call "plagiarism". It's very plausible that he read
such ideas as well as similar equations before, but he could have
forgotten
what and where. In any case, both his approach and also his exact
conclusion
were original. (Note: L=delta_E)
(2) Is the subject covered therein at all relevant to the work which
earned Einstein his Nobel Prize?
No, not directly.
(3) What is position of the mainstream scientific community with regard
to origins and history of the formula E=m(c^2) attributed to Einstein?
It's simply attributed to him.
(4) I plan on spending some time in the library reading up on all this,
so can anyone recommend books or articles in serious peer reviewed
journals which cover this subject?
I know of no unbiased accounts. Best is to read the original papers
themselves (which you can if you have a good library) instead of other
people's opinions and inaccurate statements about those papers.
Harald
PS I had overlooked that you are "a complete novice with regard to physics".
But you can still verify that none of the cited earlier papers combined the
exact equation delta_E=delta_mc^2 with the concept that radiation conveys
inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
23 Jul 2006 08:41:10 PM |
|
|
"Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad" <abukhamr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153680589.997457.297440@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Tom's reply is excellent - but I just wanted to add a few comments.
Greetings.
In an unmoderated newsgroup unrelated to the topic of physics, I was
taking part in the following thread...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/browse_frm/thread/c7c38cffbffd17bb
...which served as one of many "flame wars" in that newsgroup. The
part I was interested in, and which I felt is relevant to this
newsgroup, was discussion on the following article:
http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/8/Sharma4.htm
The article asserts that the formula E=m(c^2) did not originate with
Einstein, and towards the end there are no so subtle recriminations of
"plagiarism" (the author even cites fringe elements, such as Bjerknes
and Moody, who have explicitly claimed such).
Much of the formalism of SR can be found in the writings of Poincaire and
Lorentz. However Einstein was the first to realize the true bass of SR lies
in his two axioms (today is generally considered to really lie in one axiom
but that is another issue). Lorentz recognized immediately it was a major
step forward; Poincare never did. That is the reason Einstein is given
credit.
he person who first
introduced the article to the relevant thread did so within the context
of an attempt to demonstrate that (a) Einstein was "an icorrigible
plagiarist," and (b) Einstein did not deserve the Nobel Prize he
received for physics.
He got it for the photoelectric effect - something no one else had been able
to explain.
I myself am a complete novice with regard to physics, but I want to
look deeper into the issue. My questions are as follows:
(1) Does the article above actually demonstrate "plagiarism" on the
part of Einstein?
Einstein was not a plagiarist. Plagiarism is a very serious academic
transgression. If proven Einstein would have been stripped of his many
honors. Intensive research has never even shown a hint of any actual
plagiarism. Only kooks and anti semantic idiots with an ax to grind ever
make such unfounded accusations.
(2) Is the subject covered therein at all relevant to the work which
earned Einstein his Nobel Prize?
Since that is not what he got the Nobel prize for it is obviously
irrelevant.
(3) What is position of the mainstream scientific community with regard
to origins and history of the formula E=m(c^2) attributed to Einstein?
Einstein was the first to realize the modern viewpoint of its origin -
namely that is a result of fundamental notions regarding space-time.
(4) I plan on spending some time in the library reading up on all this,
so can anyone recommend books or articles in serious peer reviewed
journals which cover this subject?
See
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-08/8-08.htm
Thanks
Bill
Any other comments or insights on that piece would be greatly
appreciated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Koobee Wublee" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
24 Jul 2006 12:52:04 AM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:WyVwg.10117$tE5.4158@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Much of the formalism of SR can be found in the writings of Poincaire and
Lorentz. However Einstein was the first to realize the true bass of SR lies
in his two axioms (today is generally considered to really lie in one axiom
but that is another issue). Lorentz recognized immediately it was a major
step forward; Poincare never did. That is the reason Einstein is given
credit.
Bill, please. In order for the mathematics of Lorentz Transfrom to be
true the follwoing postulates must be true.
** Speed of light must be constant.
** Galileo's Principle of Relativity must be valid.
Any word-salad style interpretations to the mathematics of Lorentz
Transform are actually talking about the same thing. Poincare's own
interpretation and Lorentz's interpretation should be talking about the
same thing as Einstein's SR (again, merely one of the many
interpretations to the mathematics of Lorentz Transform). Why should
Einstein's interpretation stands out? Lorentz Transform violates the
Principle of Simultaneity and thus manifests the Twin's Paradox. It is
hinting at any scholars who are not under the yoke of SR and GR
teachings that there is some invalidity in the Lorentz Transform. This
means the postulates of the Lorentz Transform must be re-examined.
Einstein was not a plagiarist. Plagiarism is a very serious academic
transgression. If proven Einstein would have been stripped of his many
honors. Intensive research has never even shown a hint of any actual
plagiarism. Only kooks and anti semantic idiots with an ax to grind ever
make such unfounded accusations.
Making your mind up as Einstein being a demigod falls into the
religious affairs. All contradictions of your belief are delegated to
kookeries and anti-Semetics. Why do you even bother to go back to
school to study this subject in the first place? Why bother?
Einstein was the first to realize the modern viewpoint of its origin -
namely that is a result of fundamental notions regarding space-time.
The concept of spacetime was Minkowski's. The concept of a curvature
in space was Gauss's. The concept of a possible curvature in space and
time was Grossmann's. I still don't see what Einstein saw in the
subject of spacetime. Puppets can see anything you want them to see.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
24 Jul 2006 01:07:12 AM |
|
|
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153720324.530814.29810@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:WyVwg.10117$tE5.4158@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Much of the formalism of SR can be found in the writings of Poincaire and
Lorentz. However Einstein was the first to realize the true bass of SR
lies
in his two axioms (today is generally considered to really lie in one
axiom
but that is another issue). Lorentz recognized immediately it was a
major
step forward; Poincare never did. That is the reason Einstein is given
credit.
Bill, please. In order for the mathematics of Lorentz Transfrom to be
true the follwoing postulates must be true.
** Speed of light must be constant.
** Galileo's Principle of Relativity must be valid.
Wrong. Learn the basics that have been posted many many many times:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076,
and ancient, but I still think excellent post by Tom Roberts
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=54jfst%24glp%40ssbunews.ih.lucent.com
and chapter 10 of
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/
under the heading of Relativity without c.
Bill
Any word-salad style interpretations to the mathematics of Lorentz
Transform are actually talking about the same thing. Poincare's own
interpretation and Lorentz's interpretation should be talking about the
same thing as Einstein's SR (again, merely one of the many
interpretations to the mathematics of Lorentz Transform). Why should
Einstein's interpretation stands out? Lorentz Transform violates the
Principle of Simultaneity and thus manifests the Twin's Paradox. It is
hinting at any scholars who are not under the yoke of SR and GR
teachings that there is some invalidity in the Lorentz Transform. This
means the postulates of the Lorentz Transform must be re-examined.
Einstein was not a plagiarist. Plagiarism is a very serious academic
transgression. If proven Einstein would have been stripped of his many
honors. Intensive research has never even shown a hint of any actual
plagiarism. Only kooks and anti semantic idiots with an ax to grind ever
make such unfounded accusations.
Making your mind up as Einstein being a demigod falls into the
religious affairs. All contradictions of your belief are delegated to
kookeries and anti-Semetics. Why do you even bother to go back to
school to study this subject in the first place? Why bother?
Einstein was the first to realize the modern viewpoint of its origin -
namely that is a result of fundamental notions regarding space-time.
The concept of spacetime was Minkowski's. The concept of a curvature
in space was Gauss's. The concept of a possible curvature in space and
time was Grossmann's. I still don't see what Einstein saw in the
subject of spacetime. Puppets can see anything you want them to see.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Koobee Wublee" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
24 Jul 2006 01:20:49 AM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:ksZwg.10270$tE5.145@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Bill, please. In order for the mathematics of Lorentz Transfrom to be
true the follwoing postulates must be true.
** Speed of light must be constant.
** Galileo's Principle of Relativity must be valid.
Wrong. Learn the basics that have been posted many many many times:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076,
and ancient, but I still think excellent post by Tom Roberts
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=54jfst%24glp%40ssbunews.ih.lucent.com
and chapter 10 of
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/
under the heading of Relativity without c.
Please don't try to change the subject. There are plenty of seemingly
credible derivations to the Lorentz Transform on the net. Let's
concentrate on Einstein's works for now. Do you even bother to study
how Einstein himself derive the Lorentz Transform? Pulling out two
meaningful equations out of two equations equating zero with zero is
enough to make me puke. However, that trickery fooled everyone else.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ABarlow" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
25 Jul 2006 05:15:07 AM |
|
|
Koobee Wublee wrote:
[snip]
Any word-salad style interpretations to the mathematics of Lorentz
Transform are actually talking about the same thing. Poincare's own
interpretation and Lorentz's interpretation should be talking about the
same thing as Einstein's SR (again, merely one of the many
interpretations to the mathematics of Lorentz Transform). Why should
Einstein's interpretation stands out? Lorentz Transform violates the
Principle of Simultaneity and thus manifests the Twin's Paradox. It is
hinting at any scholars who are not under the yoke of SR and GR
teachings that there is some invalidity in the Lorentz Transform. This
means the postulates of the Lorentz Transform must be re-examined.
The twin paradox is a GR problem and cannot be explained using SR. That
doesn't make SR wrong, it just means that it can only be used to
compute certain problems, and the Twin Paradox happens to be one of the
ones it can't compute. Just because the angles of a triangle add up to
greater than 180 degrees on the surface of a sphere doesn't mean that
Pythagoras' theorem or Euclidian Geometry are wrong. It just means that
you're trying to use them in the wrong context. Same with the Twim
Paradox.
A.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jem" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
25 Jul 2006 08:02:14 AM |
|
|
ABarlow wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
[snip]
Any word-salad style interpretations to the mathematics of Lorentz
Transform are actually talking about the same thing. Poincare's own
interpretation and Lorentz's interpretation should be talking about the
same thing as Einstein's SR (again, merely one of the many
interpretations to the mathematics of Lorentz Transform). Why should
Einstein's interpretation stands out? Lorentz Transform violates the
Principle of Simultaneity and thus manifests the Twin's Paradox. It is
hinting at any scholars who are not under the yoke of SR and GR
teachings that there is some invalidity in the Lorentz Transform. This
means the postulates of the Lorentz Transform must be re-examined.
The twin paradox is a GR problem and cannot be explained using SR.
The extent to which problems that involve acceleration can be dealt with
using SR depends on what SR's domain is taken to be (i.e. it's a matter
of definition), however the resolution of such problems definitely
doesn't require GR.
That
doesn't make SR wrong, it just means that it can only be used to
compute certain problems, and the Twin Paradox happens to be one of the
ones it can't compute. Just because the angles of a triangle add up to
greater than 180 degrees on the surface of a sphere doesn't mean that
Pythagoras' theorem or Euclidian Geometry are wrong. It just means that
you're trying to use them in the wrong context. Same with the Twim
Paradox.
A.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
25 Jul 2006 07:18:45 PM |
|
|
ABarlow wrote:
The twin paradox is a GR problem and cannot be explained using SR.
This is simply not true. SR is a specific instance of a solution to the
field equations of GR, and includes all the physics of GR for this
particular manifold (called Minkowski spacetime).
In the twin paradox one twin remains inertial and the other does not,
and that fully explains the difference in their elapsed proper times
between meetings.
The aspect of SR that is not "explained" in the casual, everyday sense,
is why it is that one class of coordinate systems is inertial, and all
others are not. Differential geometry in a semi-Riemannian space does
explain that, however.
That
doesn't make SR wrong, it just means that it can only be used to
compute certain problems, and the Twin Paradox happens to be one of the
ones it can't compute.
That is equally false.
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
27 Jul 2006 08:44:18 AM |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
ABarlow wrote:
The twin paradox is a GR problem and cannot be explained using SR.
This is simply not true. SR is a specific instance of a solution to the
field equations of GR, and includes all the physics of GR for this
particular manifold (called Minkowski spacetime).
You speak of gravitation and yet you continue to implicitly support the
notion that buildings can spontaneously freefall into themselves?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5101488991907845273
Some physicist you turned out to be..
[...]
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Koobee Wublee" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
25 Jul 2006 11:01:41 AM |
|
|
ABarlow wrote:
The twin paradox is a GR problem and cannot be explained using SR. That
doesn't make SR wrong, it just means that it can only be used to
compute certain problems, and the Twin Paradox happens to be one of the
ones it can't compute. Just because the angles of a triangle add up to
greater than 180 degrees on the surface of a sphere doesn't mean that
Pythagoras' theorem or Euclidian Geometry are wrong. It just means that
you're trying to use them in the wrong context. Same with the Twim
Paradox.
Just because Einstein said the Twin's Paradox can be resolved through
GR does not make it so.
You need to prove to me that the Twin's Paradox is a GR problem.
Please show me the math. You don't have to solve all differential
equations. It has been 90 years since GR. Since there is no
mathematics of GR to resolve the Twin's Paradox, this should give you a
power clue on the validity of GR and the seriousness of the Twin's
Paradox. So, make it so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ABarlow" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
26 Jul 2006 10:56:51 PM |
|
|
Koobee Wublee wrote:
ABarlow wrote:
The twin paradox is a GR problem and cannot be explained using SR. That
doesn't make SR wrong, it just means that it can only be used to
compute certain problems, and the Twin Paradox happens to be one of the
ones it can't compute. Just because the angles of a triangle add up to
greater than 180 degrees on the surface of a sphere doesn't mean that
Pythagoras' theorem or Euclidian Geometry are wrong. It just means that
you're trying to use them in the wrong context. Same with the Twim
Paradox.
Just because Einstein said the Twin's Paradox can be resolved through
GR does not make it so.
You need to prove to me that the Twin's Paradox is a GR problem.
Please show me the math. You don't have to solve all differential
equations. It has been 90 years since GR. Since there is no
mathematics of GR to resolve the Twin's Paradox, this should give you a
power clue on the validity of GR and the seriousness of the Twin's
Paradox. So, make it so.
If you have access to journals, you can find two full solutions at the
link below.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2006EJPh...27..885G&db_key=PHY&data_type=HTML&format=&high=44bf0b9aaa16731
A.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
25 Jul 2006 12:16:15 PM |
|
|
Koobee Wublee wrote:
ABarlow wrote:
The twin paradox is a GR problem and cannot be explained using SR. That
doesn't make SR wrong, it just means that it can only be used to
compute certain problems, and the Twin Paradox happens to be one of the
ones it can't compute. Just because the angles of a triangle add up to
greater than 180 degrees on the surface of a sphere doesn't mean that
Pythagoras' theorem or Euclidian Geometry are wrong. It just means that
you're trying to use them in the wrong context. Same with the Twim
Paradox.
Just because Einstein said the Twin's Paradox can be resolved through
GR does not make it so.
You need to prove to me that the Twin's Paradox is a GR problem.
Please show me the math. You don't have to solve all differential
equations. It has been 90 years since GR. Since there is no
mathematics of GR to resolve the Twin's Paradox, this should give you a
power clue on the validity of GR and the seriousness of the Twin's
Paradox. So, make it so.
Technically, the resolution of the twin paradox comes through GR, but
no real calculation needs to be involved. SR is sufficient once it is
realized that one twin changes frames at least three times. And that
is what breaks the symmetry between them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Koobee Wublee" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
25 Jul 2006 01:33:30 PM |
|
|
Igor wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
ABarlow wrote:
The twin paradox is a GR problem and cannot be explained using SR. That
doesn't make SR wrong, it just means that it can only be used to
compute certain problems, and the Twin Paradox happens to be one of the
ones it can't compute. Just because the angles of a triangle add up to
greater than 180 degrees on the surface of a sphere doesn't mean that
Pythagoras' theorem or Euclidian Geometry are wrong. It just means that
you're trying to use them in the wrong context. Same with the Twim
Paradox.
Just because Einstein said the Twin's Paradox can be resolved through
GR does not make it so.
You need to prove to me that the Twin's Paradox is a GR problem.
Please show me the math. You don't have to solve all differential
equations. It has been 90 years since GR. Since there is no
mathematics of GR to resolve the Twin's Paradox, this should give you a
power clue on the validity of GR and the seriousness of the Twin's
Paradox. So, make it so.
Technically, the resolution of the twin paradox comes through GR, but
no real calculation needs to be involved. SR is sufficient once it is
realized that one twin changes frames at least three times. And that
is what breaks the symmetry between them.
Realistically, there are seconds ticking by in the quantity which shows
the paradox exists. Showing a few breaks in symmetries does not
resolve it. Sprinkling salt and pepper won't do it either. However
waving a magic wand just might do it. Here is a quest for you to find
that magic wand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
25 Jul 2006 02:15:44 PM |
|
|
Koobee Wublee wrote:
Igor wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
ABarlow wrote:
The twin paradox is a GR problem and cannot be explained using SR. That
doesn't make SR wrong, it just means that it can only be used to
compute certain problems, and the Twin Paradox happens to be one of the
ones it can't compute. Just because the angles of a triangle add up to
greater than 180 degrees on the surface of a sphere doesn't mean that
Pythagoras' theorem or Euclidian Geometry are wrong. It just means that
you're trying to use them in the wrong context. Same with the Twim
Paradox.
Just because Einstein said the Twin's Paradox can be resolved through
GR does not make it so.
You need to prove to me that the Twin's Paradox is a GR problem.
Please show me the math. You don't have to solve all differential
equations. It has been 90 years since GR. Since there is no
mathematics of GR to resolve the Twin's Paradox, this should give you a
power clue on the validity of GR and the seriousness of the Twin's
Paradox. So, make it so.
Technically, the resolution of the twin paradox comes through GR, but
no real calculation needs to be involved. SR is sufficient once it is
realized that one twin changes frames at least three times. And that
is what breaks the symmetry between them.
Realistically, there are seconds ticking by in the quantity which shows
the paradox exists. Showing a few breaks in symmetries does not
resolve it. Sprinkling salt and pepper won't do it either. However
waving a magic wand just might do it. Here is a quest for you to find
that magic wand.
Shows how much you actually understand about it. Without the frame
changes, there would really be a paradox. With them, we have two
distinct twins that have their own distinct proper time intervals.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
24 Jul 2006 01:39:33 AM |
|
|
Einstein received his Nobel prize for his explanation of the
photoelectric effect, not for E=mc^2.
The charge that Einstein was not the originator of E=mc^2 or any of his
other work is utterly ridiculous.
David
Author of Relativity Demystifie and Calculus In Focus
http://www.quantumphysicshelp.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
23 Jul 2006 01:57:35 PM |
|
|
I wanted to add a bit more...
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad wrote:
The part I was interested in, and which I felt is relevant to this
newsgroup, was discussion on the following article:
http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/8/Sharma4.htm
The article above includes the following claim:
"In 1905 Einstein derived light energy=E2=80=93mass equivalence =CE=94L=3D=
=CE=94mc=C2=B2,
then speculated from it =CE=94E =3D=CE=94mc=C2=B2 without proof."
Now, I had been taught in my undergraduate intro to physics class that
the formula popularly written...
E=3Dm(c^2)
=2E..was originally written by Einstein as:
m=3DL(c^2)
=2E..where L represented the exact same thing E did. It turns out
neither formula was explicitly written in Einstein's article. You can
see the German original here:
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/papers/1905_18_639-...
=2E..as well as an English translation here:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
The first sentence of the fourth paragraph from the bottom reads as
follows:
"Gibt ein K=C3=B6rper die Energie L in Form von Strahlung ab, so
verkleinert sich seine Masse um L/(V^2)."
[The English translation has: "If a body gives off the energy L in the
form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c=C2=B2."]
This is apparently the origin of the formula. What Einstein is
postulating is m=3DL(V^2). What 'L' represents is the same as what 'E'
represents in popular writings of the formula. What 'V' represents is
what 'c' represents in the same popular writings of the formula.
In short, what I'm saying is that it seems the author is exhibiting a
rather gross misunderstanding of the subject. I was wondering if
perhaps others could comment on this?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
23 Jul 2006 02:18:18 PM |
|
|
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad wrote:
Now, I had been taught in my undergraduate intro to physics class that
the formula popularly written...
E=m(c^2)
...was originally written by Einstein as:
m=L(c^2)
Sorry, bad typo (instantiated several times in my post). I meant to
write:
m=L/(c^2)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dda1" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
28 Jul 2006 03:22:24 PM |
|
|
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad wrote:
I wanted to add a bit more...
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad wrote:
The part I was interested in, and which I felt is relevant to this
newsgroup, was discussion on the following article:
http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/8/Sharma4.htm
The article above includes the following claim:
"In 1905 Einstein derived light energy=E2=80=93mass equivalence =CE=94L=
=3D=CE=94mc=C2=B2,
then speculated from it =CE=94E =3D=CE=94mc=C2=B2 without proof."
Now, I had been taught in my undergraduate intro to physics class that
the formula popularly written...
E=3Dm(c^2)
...was originally written by Einstein as:
m=3DL(c^2)
...where L represented the exact same thing E did. It turns out
neither formula was explicitly written in Einstein's article. You can
see the German original here:
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/papers/1905_18_639-...
...as well as an English translation here:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
The first sentence of the fourth paragraph from the bottom reads as
follows:
"Gibt ein K=C3=B6rper die Energie L in Form von Strahlung ab, so
verkleinert sich seine Masse um L/(V^2)."
[The English translation has: "If a body gives off the energy L in the
form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c=C2=B2."]
This is apparently the origin of the formula. What Einstein is
postulating is m=3DL(V^2). What 'L' represents is the same as what 'E'
represents in popular writings of the formula. What 'V' represents is
what 'c' represents in the same popular writings of the formula.
In short, what I'm saying is that it seems the author is exhibiting a
rather gross misunderstanding of the subject. I was wondering if
perhaps others could comment on this?
Look, Ajay Sharma is a well known crackpot.
He has his "own" version of E=3Dmc^2 which is easily demonstrable to be
an idiocy.
Google "physicsajay" and you will find out.....
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
24 Jul 2006 12:07:59 AM |
|
|
In article <1153680589.997457.297440@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, "Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad" <abukhamr@yahoo.com> writes:
Greetings.
In an unmoderated newsgroup unrelated to the topic of physics, I was
taking part in the following thread...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/browse_frm/thread/c7c38cffbffd17bb
...which served as one of many "flame wars" in that newsgroup. The
part I was interested in, and which I felt is relevant to this
newsgroup, was discussion on the following article:
http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/8/Sharma4.htm
The article asserts that the formula E=m(c^2) did not originate with
Einstein, and towards the end there are no so subtle recriminations of
"plagiarism" (the author even cites fringe elements, such as Bjerknes
and Moody, who have explicitly claimed such). The person who first
introduced the article to the relevant thread did so within the context
of an attempt to demonstrate that (a) Einstein was "an icorrigible
plagiarist," and (b) Einstein did not deserve the Nobel Prize he
received for physics.
I myself am a complete novice with regard to physics, but I want to
look deeper into the issue. My questions are as follows:
(1) Does the article above actually demonstrate "plagiarism" on the
part of Einstein?
No, nonsense.
(2) Is the subject covered therein at all relevant to the work which
earned Einstein his Nobel Prize?
Nope. Einstein got his prize for his work on the photoelectric
effect, not for relativity.
(3) What is position of the mainstream scientific community with regard
to origins and history of the formula E=m(c^2) attributed to Einstein?
Well, two points here. First, contrary to what the public thinks,
E = mc^2 is neither a cornerstone, nor a foundational point of
relativity. It is just a *derived* result, following naturally from
the besic postulates of relativity and of no special importance
compared to all other results. Probably it owns its popularity
(again, among the general public) due to the fact that it takes no
more than knowledge of high school algebra to read it.
Second, starting at the time when the Electromagnetic theory cam into
being as a coherent whole (Maxwell, about 40 years before Einstein)
there were numerous speculations regarding electromagnetic origins of
mass and these speculations led naturally to the attribution of
electromagnetic energy to mass. Now, since energy has the dimensions
of mass*velocity^2 and since the only constant with dimensions of
velocity in the EM theory is the speed of light, c, then any such
energy estimate must be proportional to m*c^2, with the coefficient of
proportionality being 1, 1/2 or anything in the neighborhood,
depending on the type of guess used. All of this was perfectly natural
and none of this was of great significance without some unifying
reasoning behind it. In Einstein's relativity, on the contrary,
nothing whatsoever is assumed about mass and its origins (in fact it
plays no role in the foundations of the theory), the above mentioned
result just followed naturally from the foundations.
(4) I plan on spending some time in the library reading up on all this,
so can anyone recommend books or articles in serious peer reviewed
journals which cover this subject?
There are all sorts of sources but I've none of my fingertips right
now. But I trust somebody will be glad to oblige.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
24 Jul 2006 04:59:03 AM |
|
|
In article <PAYwg.72$25.1632@news.uchicago.edu>,
wrote:
In article <1153680589.997457.297440@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, "Sayid
Abu Khamr al-Murtad" <abukhamr@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip>
(4) I plan on spending some time in the library reading up on all this,
so can anyone recommend books or articles in serious peer reviewed
journals which cover this subject?
There are all sorts of sources but I've none of my fingertips right
now. But I trust somebody will be glad to oblige.
_The Evolutions of Physics, The Growth of ideas from Early
Concepts to Relativity and Quanta_, Albert Einstein and Leopold
Infeld, 1942, Simon and Schuster
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
24 Jul 2006 11:52:41 AM |
|
|
In article <ea25l7$8ss_001@s895.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, writes:
In article <PAYwg.72$25.1632@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1153680589.997457.297440@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, "Sayid
Abu Khamr al-Murtad" <abukhamr@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip>
(4) I plan on spending some time in the library reading up on all this,
so can anyone recommend books or articles in serious peer reviewed
journals which cover this subject?
There are all sorts of sources but I've none of my fingertips right
now. But I trust somebody will be glad to oblige.
_The Evolutions of Physics, The Growth of ideas from Early
Concepts to Relativity and Quanta_, Albert Einstein and Leopold
Infeld, 1942, Simon and Schuster
Thanks.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
23 Jul 2006 05:51:16 PM |
|
|
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad wrote:
(1) Does the article above actually demonstrate "plagiarism" on the
part of Einstein?
No. Einstein derived the formula using the formalism he introduced in an
earlier paper in 1905, which we now call Special Relativity. His
approach is completely new. The fact that other approaches can yield a
similar formula in a completely different context is irrelevant.
(2) Is the subject covered therein at all relevant to the work which
earned Einstein his Nobel Prize?
No. He earned the prize for his paper on the photoelectric effect, which
became a seminal paper in quantum mechanics. That's a completely
different field of physics from SR.
(3) What is position of the mainstream scientific community with regard
to origins and history of the formula E=m(c^2) attributed to Einstein?
There is no doubt whatsoever that this formula is attributed to Einstein.
(4) I plan on spending some time in the library reading up on all this,
so can anyone recommend books or articles in serious peer reviewed
journals which cover this subject?
Waste of time. This has been well researched, and an amateur who is
un-educated in physics has no realistic hope of making any contribution.
Look up the references given elsewhere in this thread.
Any other comments or insights on that piece would be greatly
appreciated.
On the web today, the amount of nonsense far exceeds the amount of
accurate information, especially in technical subjects. This is merely a
case in point.
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
23 Jul 2006 07:53:05 PM |
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:E3Twg.134121$dW3.44715@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad wrote:
(1) Does the article above actually demonstrate "plagiarism" on the
part of Einstein?
No. Einstein derived the formula using the formalism he introduced in
an
earlier paper in 1905, which we now call Special Relativity. His
approach is completely new. The fact that other approaches can yield a
similar formula in a completely different context is irrelevant.
(2) Is the subject covered therein at all relevant to the work which
earned Einstein his Nobel Prize?
No. He earned the prize for his paper on the photoelectric effect,
which
became a seminal paper in quantum mechanics. That's a completely
different field of physics from SR.
Actually, not different fields any longer. They both help to explain
each other. A marriage made in heaven. Quantum Field Theory. The big
result; quantum vacuum charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c). Now on to Super-GR.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Koobee Wublee" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
24 Jul 2006 12:16:46 AM |
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:E3Twg.134121$dW3.44715@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
[...]
(3) What is position of the mainstream scientific community with regard
to origins and history of the formula E=m(c^2) attributed to Einstein?
There is no doubt whatsoever that this formula is attributed to Einstein.
No doubt? Only through the minds completely filled with BS.
To derive that equation (E = m c^2) without any postulates, you need to
find a Lagrangian and apply the calculus of variations in a justifiable
matter to attain that. That mathematics was developed over 200 hundred
years ago. This Lagrangian has to satisfy as the density to a
meaningful action. Einstein handwaved it through the postulates of SR.
Why is that you (plural) refuse to question these postulates?
Do you want me to show you again how to derive that famous equation
without any postulates of Einstein?
(4) I plan on spending some time in the library reading up on all this,
so can anyone recommend books or articles in serious peer reviewed
journals which cover this subject?
Waste of time. This has been well researched, and an amateur who is
un-educated in physics has no realistic hope of making any contribution.
Look up the references given elsewhere in this thread.
Please don't dis-encourage anyone who have not been programmed to
accept the nonsense of the established SR and GR.
Any other comments or insights on that piece would be greatly
appreciated.
On the web today, the amount of nonsense far exceeds the amount of
accurate information, especially in technical subjects. This is merely a
case in point.
Although what you have pointed out is true, the established history and
accepted know-how are corrupted right from the very beginning. What
the original author of this thread takes is actually very beneficial to
discover how a complete ignorant person Einstein was and the works he
stole from others which are completely wrong anyway are able to gain
such wide acceptance in the public. Does the first application of
religious methodology ring any bell?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
24 Jul 2006 12:09:10 PM |
|
|
Koobee Wublee wrote:
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:E3Twg.134121$dW3.44715@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
[...]
(3) What is position of the mainstream scientific community with regard
to origins and history of the formula E=m(c^2) attributed to Einstein?
There is no doubt whatsoever that this formula is attributed to Einstein.
No doubt? Only through the minds completely filled with BS.
To derive that equation (E = m c^2) without any postulates, you need to
find a Lagrangian and apply the calculus of variations in a justifiable
matter to attain that. That mathematics was developed over 200 hundred
years ago. This Lagrangian has to satisfy as the density to a
meaningful action. Einstein handwaved it through the postulates of SR.
Why is that you (plural) refuse to question these postulates?
Do you want me to show you again how to derive that famous equation
without any postulates of Einstein?
(4) I plan on spending some time in the library reading up on all this,
so can anyone recommend books or articles in serious peer reviewed
journals which cover this subject?
Waste of time. This has been well researched, and an amateur who is
un-educated in physics has no realistic hope of making any contribution.
Look up the references given elsewhere in this thread.
Please don't dis-encourage anyone who have not been programmed to
accept the nonsense of the established SR and GR.
Any other comments or insights on that piece would be greatly
appreciated.
On the web today, the amount of nonsense far exceeds the amount of
accurate information, especially in technical subjects. This is merely a
case in point.
Although what you have pointed out is true, the established history and
accepted know-how are corrupted right from the very beginning. What
the original author of this thread takes is actually very beneficial to
discover how a complete ignorant person Einstein was and the works he
stole from others which are completely wrong anyway are able to gain
such wide acceptance in the public. Does the first application of
religious methodology ring any bell?
Kook #2 heard from.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
24 Jul 2006 07:54:38 PM |
|
|
Koobee Wublee wrote:
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:E3Twg.134121$dW3.44715@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
There is no doubt whatsoever that this formula is attributed to Einstein.
No doubt?
Right. Absolutely no doubt. This is a statement of _fact_ about the
attribution of that statement, and of course has nothing whatsoever to
do with the statement itself. Perhaps you should read more carefully, as
you then digressed about the content of the statement.
Do you want me to show you again how to derive that famous equation
without any postulates of Einstein?
That is completely irrelevant to the attribution of the statement. Sure,
other derivations are possible, in other contexts. Einstein was the
first to derive it in relativity, with a generality lacking in other
contexts. And a consequence unanticipated by others: the rest mass of an
object can be converted into kinetic energy of its decay products --
something now observed millions of times each day at particle
accelerators and other physics experiments.
[... further polemic, utterly devoid of facts]
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
26 Jul 2006 09:04:40 AM |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
[...]
(4) I plan on spending some time in the library reading up on all this,
so can anyone recommend books or articles in serious peer reviewed
journals which cover this subject?
Waste of time. This has been well researched, and an amateur who is
un-educated in physics has no realistic hope of making any contribution.
Look up the references given elsewhere in this thread.
The only one 'uneducated in physics' here is you and your sorry clique
of frauds who still advocate the official NIST fairy tale story that
buildings can spontaneously freefall into themselves due to a few hours
of minor fire damage. People are waking up in record numbers and you
will soon be realized as the historical laughing stock you have always
been.
NOTE TO OP: The only relevant contributions to physics and math have
been done by "amateurs". Ironically, one cannot even begin to fathom
how far all have fallen due to the sneering elitist attitude just
demonstrated by Roberts.
[...]
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein, E=m(c^2), and charges of "plagiarism". |
26 Jul 2006 09:09:37 AM |
|
|
"Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153922677.854794.282380@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<snip nonsense>
Do you get out often? Is it hard to find your way through all the padding?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
