| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sam Sloan" |
| Date: |
16 Aug 2003 04:23:29 PM |
| Object: |
Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
You wrote:
I was in my school's library yesterday and I thought about that story on your website about the possibilty of Einstein being a hoax. I found an aritcle written in German from an Austrian magazine on microfilm from the 1960's talking about the same thing.
My concern is that people talking about an Einstein Hoax are often
anti-Semetic. I am not anti-Semetic at all. However, when I went to
the University of California at Berkeley, I started out as a physics
major. My professor, who was one of the world's leading physicists,
felt that Einstein had not made an important or a significant
contribution to physics. I am influenced by that opinion.
Sam Sloan wrote:
Was Albert Einstein a hoax?
Articles have been appearing all over the Internet asserting that Albert Einstein was a hoax. I have always been troubled by the thought that any one man, regardless of how brilliant or exceptional, could be head and shoulders above all of the other men of his time. Since I have long doubted that Albert Einstein could possibly be the greatest genius that he is made out to be, I find the theory interesting. I have also been wondering why Einstein became so famous, whereas other great scientists remained virtually unknown.
The basic idea is this: Einstein was a poor student, of average
ability. He even failed seventh grade math. There was nothing
exceptional about his ability or accomplishments, until he got a job
as a low level clerk in the patent office in Bern, Switzerland.
It was during the period that Albert Einstein worked in the patent
office that he produced the greatest works of genius in the history of
humanity. Does this not strike anybody as strange?
The claim is made that by working in the patent office, Albert
Einstein had access to secret documents submitted by the leading
scientists of his day. Albert Einstein essentially cut and pasted
together these secret documents and published them as his own work.
The scientists could hardly complain, as they had patent applications
pending in his patent office.
Here are a few basic facts:
The Encyclopedia Britannica says of Einstein's early education that he
"showed little scholastic ability." It also says that at the age of
15, "with poor grades in history, geography, and languages, he left
school with no diploma." Einstein himself wrote in a school paper of
his "lack of imagination and practical ability." In 1895, Einstein
failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich. This
exam consisted mainly of mathematical problems, and Einstein showed
himself to be mathematically inept in this exam. He then entered a
lesser school hoping to use it as a stepping stone to the engineering
school he could not get into, but after graduating in 1900, he still
could not get a position at the engineering school! Unable to go to
the school as he had wanted, he got a job at the patent office in
Bern.
In 1905, Einstein published his four ground-breaking papers. Still, he
could not get a job in the university, although he applied several
times, and he stayed in the patent office and continued to work there
until 1909.
None of the ideas of Albert Einstein were completely new. He drew on
the works of James Maxwell and Max Planck. No less an authority than
Stephen Hawking has said that none of the works of Einstein were
original. Hawking provides a list of names of scientists, all of whom
are unknown to the general public today, but who had the ideas now
associated with Einstein before Einstein had them.
This, however, is hardly conclusive. The mark of every great thinker
is that he takes the ideas of others before him, combines them
together, improves and comes out with a unified theory. If that is
what Einstein did, then he fully deserves his reputation of being the
greatest genius in human history.
On the other hand, if he simply copied in his own hand works written
by others, then he probably does not deserve the reputation he enjoys.
Here are some curious facts:
After he died, the brain of Albert Einstein was taken out, preserved
and studied. It is still in a glass jar somewhere. Scientists who have
studied the brain say that it appears to be an average brain, no
different from many others.
A nanny named Alice, who took care of me when I was a little boy, said
that she knew Albert Einstein. She used to live in Princeton, New
Jersey and he would walk by her house on the way to work every
morning. She said that he appeared to be a very unexceptional and
average man. She had heard but could hardly believe that he could be a
great genius.
Albert Einstein had several children, one of whom he gave away for
adoption. For a number of years, his descendants have been fighting a
court case in the San Francisco Bay Area over the ownership of the
original papers of Albert Einstein. I know one of the lawyers in that
case. The case is still going on. None of the children of Albert
Einstein are in any way exceptional. One is an invalid. The one that
is an invalid wants the original papers of Albert Einstein sold at
public auction, where they will fetch millions of dollars. Other
descendants are opposed to the sale or even the photocopying of the
original documents. Examination of the original hand written papers of
Albert Einstein might provide clues as to whether he wrote them or
merely copied them. Typically, original works contain a lot of
cross-outs, re-writes and changes in the text, whereas copies do not.
I personally do not have an opinion on any of this. I merely think
that it raises new questions which have not been asked before.
Sam Sloan
http://www.samsloan.com/einstein.htm
.
|
|
| User: "Mathew Orman" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
16 Aug 2003 06:00:44 PM |
|
|
"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:3f3e9fc6.77719359@ca.news.verio.net...
You wrote:
I was in my school's library yesterday and I thought about that story on
your website about the possibilty of Einstein being a hoax. I found an
aritcle written in German from an Austrian magazine on microfilm from the
1960's talking about the same thing.
My concern is that people talking about an Einstein Hoax are often
anti-Semetic. I am not anti-Semetic at all. However, when I went to
the University of California at Berkeley, I started out as a physics
major. My professor, who was one of the world's leading physicists,
felt that Einstein had not made an important or a significant
contribution to physics. I am influenced by that opinion.
Sam Sloan wrote:
Was Albert Einstein a hoax?
Articles have been appearing all over the Internet asserting that Albert
Einstein was a hoax. I have always been troubled by the thought that any one
man, regardless of how brilliant or exceptional, could be head and shoulders
above all of the other men of his time. Since I have long doubted that
Albert Einstein could possibly be the greatest genius that he is made out to
be, I find the theory interesting. I have also been wondering why Einstein
became so famous, whereas other great scientists remained virtually unknown.
The basic idea is this: Einstein was a poor student, of average
ability. He even failed seventh grade math. There was nothing
exceptional about his ability or accomplishments, until he got a job
as a low level clerk in the patent office in Bern, Switzerland.
It was during the period that Albert Einstein worked in the patent
office that he produced the greatest works of genius in the history of
humanity. Does this not strike anybody as strange?
The claim is made that by working in the patent office, Albert
Einstein had access to secret documents submitted by the leading
scientists of his day. Albert Einstein essentially cut and pasted
together these secret documents and published them as his own work.
The scientists could hardly complain, as they had patent applications
pending in his patent office.
Here are a few basic facts:
The Encyclopedia Britannica says of Einstein's early education that he
"showed little scholastic ability." It also says that at the age of
15, "with poor grades in history, geography, and languages, he left
school with no diploma." Einstein himself wrote in a school paper of
his "lack of imagination and practical ability." In 1895, Einstein
failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich. This
exam consisted mainly of mathematical problems, and Einstein showed
himself to be mathematically inept in this exam. He then entered a
lesser school hoping to use it as a stepping stone to the engineering
school he could not get into, but after graduating in 1900, he still
could not get a position at the engineering school! Unable to go to
the school as he had wanted, he got a job at the patent office in
Bern.
In 1905, Einstein published his four ground-breaking papers. Still, he
could not get a job in the university, although he applied several
times, and he stayed in the patent office and continued to work there
until 1909.
None of the ideas of Albert Einstein were completely new. He drew on
the works of James Maxwell and Max Planck. No less an authority than
Stephen Hawking has said that none of the works of Einstein were
original. Hawking provides a list of names of scientists, all of whom
are unknown to the general public today, but who had the ideas now
associated with Einstein before Einstein had them.
This, however, is hardly conclusive. The mark of every great thinker
is that he takes the ideas of others before him, combines them
together, improves and comes out with a unified theory. If that is
what Einstein did, then he fully deserves his reputation of being the
greatest genius in human history.
On the other hand, if he simply copied in his own hand works written
by others, then he probably does not deserve the reputation he enjoys.
Here are some curious facts:
After he died, the brain of Albert Einstein was taken out, preserved
and studied. It is still in a glass jar somewhere. Scientists who have
studied the brain say that it appears to be an average brain, no
different from many others.
A nanny named Alice, who took care of me when I was a little boy, said
that she knew Albert Einstein. She used to live in Princeton, New
Jersey and he would walk by her house on the way to work every
morning. She said that he appeared to be a very unexceptional and
average man. She had heard but could hardly believe that he could be a
great genius.
Albert Einstein had several children, one of whom he gave away for
adoption. For a number of years, his descendants have been fighting a
court case in the San Francisco Bay Area over the ownership of the
original papers of Albert Einstein. I know one of the lawyers in that
case. The case is still going on. None of the children of Albert
Einstein are in any way exceptional. One is an invalid. The one that
is an invalid wants the original papers of Albert Einstein sold at
public auction, where they will fetch millions of dollars. Other
descendants are opposed to the sale or even the photocopying of the
original documents. Examination of the original hand written papers of
Albert Einstein might provide clues as to whether he wrote them or
merely copied them. Typically, original works contain a lot of
cross-outs, re-writes and changes in the text, whereas copies do not.
I personally do not have an opinion on any of this. I merely think
that it raises new questions which have not been asked before.
Sam Sloan
http://www.samsloan.com/einstein.htm
Speculation: Tell the truth about Einstein and the cash cow dies (Einstein
loses credibility). Engage in half truths about Einstein for decades, get
Time Magazine to elevate Einstein to the status of Person of the Century and
the supreme con works. All you have to do to make the con work is suppress
unfavorable information about Einstein He was a plagiarist yet somehow this
information never made it to the American public. How many of you ever heard
that Einstein was a blatant, brazen plagiarist? Why havent you heard it? The
physics community buried it. Then the physics community makes billions of
dollars from grants, awards, power, prestige, stipends, money, travel, book
deals, honoraria, etc over the next several decades. Advertising people
would readily agree, that Person of the Century is worth billions of dollars
to the physics community over the next 25 to 50 years. This is similar to
artificially inflating a stock price with false stories and then cashing in
at the lofty price. Substitute getting research grants approved instead of
cashing in at a lofty price, and you have the physics community.
It should be obvious that there is absolutely no incentive for the physics
community to tell the truth about Einstein except that they might get
caught. They have a tremendous conflict of interest between telling the
truth about Einstein or promoting physics. It appears that telling the truth
about Einstein is not high on the list of priorities of the physics
community. One of the ways that the physics community has legal problems is
with respect to the phrase passive fraud. I define passive fraud as the
willingness to leave on the record false information and then benefit from
that false information. In other words, the physics community may not have
to do anything proactive. All they have to do is permit false and misleading
information to go unchallenged and then benefit from it.
The physics community may face the following charges: 1)Conspiracy, for
failing to get out the truth about Einstein, 2)Fraud, for the placement (or
covert support) of false information on the record and then benefitting from
it, 3)Perjury, for false statements in research grants, 4)Racketeering, For
acting like organized criminals. 5)Obstruction of justice as the scientists
try to destroy documents. The justice department should squeeze
undergraduates first, then graduates, then adjunct professors, then full
professors, then Department Heads, then the chancellors of the universities,
and then Nobel Laureates. The level of criminality that the physics
community has engaged in is perhaps fourth or fifth behind organized crime
as the leading class of criminals in our society in terms of total felonies
committed and magnitude of the money involved.
One of the biggest problems facing the physics community is that they are
incredibly arrogant and view themselves as being intellectually superior.
Consider these passages from Gleicks book, CHAOS, Making a New Science:
These scientists had experience with brilliance and with eccentricity. p. 2,
I understand youre real smart, Agnew said to Feigenbaum, If youre so smart,
why dont you just solve laser fusion? p.2, To a physicist, creating laser
fusion was a legitimate problem; puzzling out the spin and color and flavor
of small particles was a legitimate problem; dating the origin of the
universe was a legitimate problem. Understanding clouds was a job for a
meteorologist. Like other physicists, Feigenbaum used an understated,
tough-guy vocabulary to rate such problems. p.3, The most passionate
advocates of the new science go so far as to say that Twentieth century
science will be remembered for just three things: relativity, quantum
mechanics, and chaos. p.6
What the physics community is going to realize is that, painfully, their
very intelligence is their greatest enemy; a Mafia underling with an IQ of
80, might not realize he was in the middle of a conspiracy. Is a brilliant
physicist unaware of what it meant if Einstein was a plagiarist or that the
physics community had falsified the data surrounding the eclipse of 1919 and
1922? Were they completely unaware that falsehoods with respect to Einstein
would result in an increase in funding to the physics community? The physics
community has two choices: They may argue that they are incredible
ignoramuses and have no idea of illegal activities. The basic problem with
this approach is that the phyics community has gone to great pains to tell
us how brilliant they are. Now that they are caught conducting illegal
activity, they have to play dumb. Somehow, a defense along the lines of:
When Im a physicist, Im brilliant, but when Im a crook, Im stupid, has poor
prospects of success. This is not a recommended defense for the physics
community. So why are we funding stupid people? Or, they knew what was going
on and deliberately covered it up. In which case, they are crooks.
Why are we funding crooks?
Richard Moody Jr.
Check the experimental evidence at : www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
and at : http://dist.tech.oru.se/public/superluminal/index.html
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZZBunker" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
16 Aug 2003 08:30:53 PM |
|
|
(Sam Sloan) wrote in message news:<3f3e9fc6.77719359@ca.news.verio.net>...
You wrote:
I was in my school's library yesterday and I thought about that story on your website about the possibilty of Einstein being a hoax. I found an aritcle written in German from an Austrian magazine on microfilm from the 1960's talking about the same thing.
My concern is that people talking about an Einstein Hoax are often
anti-Semetic. I am not anti-Semetic at all. However, when I went to
the University of California at Berkeley, I started out as a physics
major. My professor, who was one of the world's leading physicists,
felt that Einstein had not made an important or a significant
contribution to physics. I am influenced by that opinion.
But California Professors feel that way about a lot of Physics.
The rest of us are here to remind them that neither UCB
not any California schools should worry about it that much.
Since California doesn't hire Physicists or Scientists, it
only hires Astrologers and Astronomers, to begin with.
Sam Sloan wrote:
Was Albert Einstein a hoax?
Yes Einstein was a hoax. He hoaxed California, Germany, France,
and all other Euro ***** Scientists and their Wannabees Proteges,
including Newton the Neutron Man, and the Useless Ivy League,
and all other Quantum Probalibility Theory Dork Shitheads into
submission.
He had a little bit of help from Von Neumann, but mathematicians
know that. And they also know that some Chemists have non-zero
IQ's, and some are Government Employees.
Articles have been appearing all over the Internet asserting that Albert Einstein was a hoax. I have always been troubled by the thought that any one man, regardless of how brilliant or exceptional, could be head and shoulders above all of the other men of his time.
Knowbody ever said that he was head and shoulders above all other
men.
He quite obviously had a little bit of help from Lorentz, Michelson &
Morley
(although Physicists will claim that he didn't), Riemann, Gauss,
Euclid, Goedel, and Darwin.
Since I have long doubted that Albert Einstein could possibly be the
greatest >genius that he is made out to be, I find the theory
interesting.
Well, you should doubt that. Since if you ever read any of
*Einstein's*
writings, you would know what his opinion was of mathematicians
and their genius theories.
I have also been wondering why Einstein became so famous, whereas other great > scientists remained virtually unknown.
He became so famous because Nobel and Edison made him famous.
All other scientists are just loser dorks.
The basic idea is this: Einstein was a poor student, of average
ability. He even failed seventh grade math. There was nothing
exceptional about his ability or accomplishments, until he got a job
as a low level clerk in the patent office in Bern, Switzerland.
It was during the period that Albert Einstein worked in the patent
office that he produced the greatest works of genius in the history of
humanity. Does this not strike anybody as strange?
No. Since if you read any history, you would have noticed
that Einstein was a *Swiss* Patent clerk, not a
German Patent clerk.
The claim is made that by working in the patent office, Albert
Einstein had access to secret documents submitted by the leading
scientists of his day. Albert Einstein essentially cut and pasted
together these secret documents and published them as his own work.
The scientists could hardly complain, as they had patent applications
pending in his patent office.
Here are a few basic facts:
The Encyclopedia Britannica says
But the Encyclopedia Britannica says a lot of things --
like the British understand English.
of Einstein's early education that he
"showed little scholastic ability." It also says that at the age of
15, "with poor grades in history, geography, and languages, he left
school with no diploma." Einstein himself wrote in a school paper of
his "lack of imagination and practical ability." In 1895, Einstein
failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich. This
exam consisted mainly of mathematical problems, and Einstein showed
himself to be mathematically inept in this exam. He then entered a
lesser school hoping to use it as a stepping stone to the engineering
school he could not get into, but after graduating in 1900, he still
could not get a position at the engineering school! Unable to go to
the school as he had wanted, he got a job at the patent office in
Bern.
In 1905, Einstein published his four ground-breaking papers. Still, he
could not get a job in the university, although he applied several
times, and he stayed in the patent office and continued to work there
until 1909.
None of the ideas of Albert Einstein were completely new. He drew on
the works of James Maxwell
Everybody draws on the work of Maxwell, so that's redundent.
and Max Planck. No less an authority than
Stephen Hawking has said that none of the works of Einstein were
original.
But Hawking only says that, since he's a Time Theorist,
and believes that Time exists, unlike Einstein.
Hawking provides a list of names of scientists, all of whom
are unknown to the general public today, but who had the ideas now
associated with Einstein before Einstein had them.
This, however, is hardly conclusive. The mark of every great thinker
is that he takes the ideas of others before him, combines them
together, improves and comes out with a unified theory. If that is
what Einstein did, then he fully deserves his reputation of being the
greatest genius in human history.
Hardly the Greatest Genius in Human History. Since he followed
dutifully in the footsteps of other Giants of Science, and knew
just about zero about history.
On the other hand, if he simply copied in his own hand works written
by others, then he probably does not deserve the reputation he enjoys.
Here are some curious facts:
After he died, the brain of Albert Einstein was taken out, preserved
and studied. It is still in a glass jar somewhere. Scientists who have
studied the brain say that it appears to be an average brain, no
different from many others.
It was known when he was ten years old, that Einstein's
brain was very different from the average brain,
since he had dyslexia.
A nanny named Alice, who took care of me when I was a little boy, said
that she knew Albert Einstein. She used to live in Princeton, New
Jersey and he would walk by her house on the way to work every
morning. She said that he appeared to be a very unexceptional and
average man. She had heard but could hardly believe that he could be a
great genius.
Albert Einstein had several children, one of whom he gave away for
adoption. For a number of years, his descendants have been fighting a
court case in the San Francisco Bay Area over the ownership of the
original papers of Albert Einstein. I know one of the lawyers in that
case. The case is still going on. None of the children of Albert
Einstein are in any way exceptional. One is an invalid. The one that
is an invalid wants the original papers of Albert Einstein sold at
public auction, where they will fetch millions of dollars. Other
descendants are opposed to the sale or even the photocopying of the
original documents. Examination of the original hand written papers of
Albert Einstein might provide clues as to whether he wrote them or
merely copied them. Typically, original works contain a lot of
cross-outs, re-writes and changes in the text, whereas copies do not.
I personally do not have an opinion on any of this. I merely think
that it raises new questions which have not been asked before.
All historic documents raise the same questions though,
so it's nothing knew.
Sam Sloan
http://www.samsloan.com/einstein.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
16 Aug 2003 11:56:24 PM |
|
|
ZZBunker:
sloan@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote in message
news:<3f3e9fc6.77719359@ca.news.verio.net>...
My concern is that people talking about an Einstein Hoax are often
anti-Semetic. I am not anti-Semetic at all. However, when I went to
the University of California at Berkeley, I started out as a physics
major. My professor, who was one of the world's leading physicists,
felt that Einstein had not made an important or a significant
contribution to physics. I am influenced by that opinion.
But California Professors feel that way about a lot of Physics.
First, you are responding to a troll. Notice that he doesn't name
the professor who allegedly told him this.
The rest of us are here to remind them that neither UCB
not any California schools should worry about it that much.
Since California doesn't hire Physicists or Scientists, it
only hires Astrologers and Astronomers, to begin with.
Second, you are out to lunch on this one. Berkeley has had
numerous nobel prize winners in physics: Lawrence, segre,
townes, alvarez and several others. The school as a whole
claims a total of 17 nobel laureates.
.
|
|
|
| User: "StanB" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
17 Aug 2003 08:41:56 AM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbju3kn.ud7.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
My concern is that people talking about an Einstein Hoax are often
anti-Semetic. I am not anti-Semetic at all. However, when I went to
the University of California at Berkeley, I started out as a physics
major. My professor, who was one of the world's leading physicists,
felt that Einstein had not made an important or a significant
contribution to physics. I am influenced by that opinion.
But California Professors feel that way about a lot of Physics.
First, you are responding to a troll. Notice that he doesn't name
the professor who allegedly told him this.
If you guys could drop the chess newsgroup from your flux density reports,
we'd be grateful.
StanB
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
18 Aug 2003 05:16:12 AM |
|
|
In message <slrnbju3kn.ud7.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>, Bilge
<dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> writes
ZZBunker:
sloan@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote in message
news:<3f3e9fc6.77719359@ca.news.verio.net>...
My concern is that people talking about an Einstein Hoax are often
anti-Semetic. I am not anti-Semetic at all. However, when I went to
the University of California at Berkeley, I started out as a physics
major. My professor, who was one of the world's leading physicists,
felt that Einstein had not made an important or a significant
contribution to physics. I am influenced by that opinion.
But California Professors feel that way about a lot of Physics.
First, you are responding to a troll. Notice that he doesn't name
the professor who allegedly told him this.
_You_ are responding to a troll. "Bunker" shares a place in my killfile
with his alter ego "James Hunter".
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZZBunker" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
18 Aug 2003 03:51:37 PM |
|
|
Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message news:<2w$xr+asdKQ$EwAF@baesystems.com>...
In message <slrnbju3kn.ud7.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>, Bilge
<dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> writes
ZZBunker:
sloan@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote in message
news:<3f3e9fc6.77719359@ca.news.verio.net>...
My concern is that people talking about an Einstein Hoax are often
anti-Semetic. I am not anti-Semetic at all. However, when I went to
the University of California at Berkeley, I started out as a physics
major. My professor, who was one of the world's leading physicists,
felt that Einstein had not made an important or a significant
contribution to physics. I am influenced by that opinion.
But California Professors feel that way about a lot of Physics.
First, you are responding to a troll. Notice that he doesn't name
the professor who allegedly told him this.
_You_ are responding to a troll. "Bunker" shares a place in my killfile
with his alter ego "James Hunter".
That is Physically impossible. Since Bunker has repeatedly
told Herring and his related Relativity idiots that is it _OBVIOUS_
that only Einstone and his ragtag dork tribe of computer illiterate,
Relativiter wannabees in the low IQ NAZI reeducation camp known
as Princeton fagtown, that even believe in egos, nevermind alter egos.
Since the only thing any of them seem to know less about than
physics, is math.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "davidoff404" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
16 Aug 2003 10:26:23 PM |
|
|
ZZBunker <zzbunker@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e4a0829b.0308161730.3786d82c@posting.google.com...
<snip>
It's a comforting thought that in this age of wonderous computer technology
which affords mankind the ability to access oceans of knowledge and
communicate with one another at unheard of speed and convenience, that there
are still ill-informed shitheads out there who will spout nonsense at every
available opportunity.
Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he can
eat for a lifetime. Give a man a computer with access to usenet, however,
and watch him devolve into an ape before your very eyes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Flobby Bischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
22 Aug 2003 09:09:32 AM |
|
|
Sorry but this guy has a point.
Einstein was no Newton.
Einstein basically developed further a theory his own professor had created
and Einstein did to use Kuhn's phrase, scientific mop up work on it.
Einsten was a great thinker and his initial question and solution were
radical. However in the scheme of things, other scientists of history, and
again Newton is a good example, were much more of genius in developing
theories that changed the course of science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
22 Aug 2003 09:50:37 AM |
|
|
Flobby Bischer wrote:
Sorry but this guy has a point.
Einstein was no Newton.
Einstein basically developed further a theory his own professor had created
and Einstein did to use Kuhn's phrase, scientific mop up work on it.
Einsten was a great thinker and his initial question and solution were
radical. However in the scheme of things, other scientists of history, and
again Newton is a good example, were much more of genius in developing
theories that changed the course of science.
Einstein brought back Newton's corpuscular theory of light from
obscurity. He derived quanta much more cleanly than Planck, and it was
Einstein (ironically) that put quantum theory on the map.
Einstein received his Nobel prize for his work on the photoelectric
effect, although he is best known for his work on the Relativity theories.
In addtion to his prize winning work on quanta of light (electromagnetic
radiation) he made important contributions to statistical mechanics and
his 1905 paper on the Brownian motion removed any lingering doubts about
the existence of atoms. The atomic concept has been around since 600
B.C.E. (at least) but only in the late 19-th early 20-th century C.E.
has it been made scientifically sustainable.
"The explanation of Brownian motion, given by Einstein in 1905 and based
on the kinetic-molecular conception of matter, is considered one of the
fundamental pillars supporting atomism in its victorious struggle
against phenomenological physics in the early years of this century.
Discovered by Robert Brown in 1827, of the continuous movement of small
particles suspended in a fluid, it did not arouse interest for a long
time, until at the close of the century when Guoy's conviction and
research (that Brownian motion constituted a clear demonstration of the
existence of molecules in continuous motion) brounght it to the
attention of the Physics world. However, all nineteenth-century research
remained at the qualitative level and yet it was able to clarify some
general characteristics of the phenomenon: the completely irregular,
unceasing, motion of the particles is not produced by external causes,
and it does not depend on the nature of the particles but only on their
size. It was only in 1905 when a quantitative analysis was brought
about, where Einstein succeeded in stating the mathematical laws
governing the movements of particles on the basis of the principles of
the kinetic-molecular theory. He derived a formula whereby the path
described by a molecule on the average is not proportional to time, but
proportional to the square root of time. This follows from the fact that
the path described during two consecutive unit time-intervals are not
always to be added, but just as frequently have to be subtracted."
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
22 Aug 2003 11:28:27 AM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:bi5ak0$5dnss$1@ID-76471.news.uni-berlin.de...
Flobby Bischer wrote:
Sorry but this guy has a point.
Einstein was no Newton.
Einstein basically developed further a theory his own professor had
created
and Einstein did to use Kuhn's phrase, scientific mop up work on it.
Einsten was a great thinker and his initial question and solution were
radical. However in the scheme of things, other scientists of history,
and
again Newton is a good example, were much more of genius in developing
theories that changed the course of science.
Einstein brought back Newton's corpuscular theory of light from
obscurity. He derived quanta much more cleanly than Planck, and it was
Einstein (ironically) that put quantum theory on the map.
Einstein received his Nobel prize for his work on the photoelectric
effect, although he is best known for his work on the Relativity theories.
In addtion to his prize winning work on quanta of light (electromagnetic
radiation) he made important contributions to statistical mechanics and
his 1905 paper on the Brownian motion removed any lingering doubts about
the existence of atoms.
"any lingering doubts about the existence of atoms"
was "removed" in 1900 by Lorenz,
when he identified "cathode rays" as "electrons"
which he has postulated many years before.
He had put forth a theory in 1893
that atoms and molecules were small rigid bodies
that had a negative or positive charge,
and "cathode rays" were verified to be his "electrons" in 1900.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Gillogly" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
16 Aug 2003 06:52:52 PM |
|
|
All your base are belong to us!
Someone set us up the bomb!
Or am I, too, talking about the wrong game here?
--
Jim Gillogly
Mersday, 24 Wedmath S.R. 2003, 23:49
12.19.10.9.3, 6 Akbal 11 Yaxkin, Third Lord of Night
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "\formerly" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
16 Aug 2003 07:50:52 PM |
|
|
Dear Sam Sloan:
"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:3f3e9fc6.77719359@ca.news.verio.net...
....
My concern is that people talking about an Einstein Hoax are often
anti-Semetic. I am not anti-Semetic at all.
You can't spell either.
....
The basic idea is this: Einstein was a poor student, of average
ability. He even failed seventh grade math.
He was an exceptional student. He was dating the first Mrs. Einstein at
the time.
Here are a few basic facts:
You don't know any.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "james" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
17 Aug 2003 12:42:59 PM |
|
|
I always say: monkeys do not understand the existance of human.
Many people simply deny the possibility of the existance of science genius:
we eat the same food, have more or less the same sex and death, how can we
be so different? The only kind of genius that people can accept is Tiger
Wood, Michael Jordan, spelling-bee champion.
Eistein was not a "hoex", but Eistein was lucky. Damn so lucky to get his
work published. If you try to publish papers like these today they will
surely be rejected. Most people of his time considered his idea as
nonsense. Anybody who could immediately recognize the greatness of these
ideas were almost as great as A. Eistein himself. The publisher of
Eistein's original work deserves some credit. It is not likely that Eistein
copied work from others - why copy nonsense?
If you want to degrade Eistein a bit: Eistein's second wife was his first
cousin. That first cousin/second-wife was actually a few years older than
Eistein himself. Eistein had two sons from first marriage but none from the
second marriage for genetic reasons. The second marriage happened after he
became famous. Some people who study Eistien suggests that his second
marriage was not a real marriage.
james
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
17 Aug 2003 03:05:29 PM |
|
|
In article <D8P%a.209303$hOa.192043@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "james" <james1st@excite.com> writes:
I always say: monkeys do not understand the existance of human.
Many people simply deny the possibility of the existance of science genius:
we eat the same food, have more or less the same sex and death, how can we
be so different? The only kind of genius that people can accept is Tiger
Wood, Michael Jordan, spelling-bee champion.
Eistein was not a "hoex", but Eistein was lucky. Damn so lucky to get his
work published. If you try to publish papers like these today they will
surely be rejected.
Not at all.
Most people of his time considered his idea as nonsense.
Quite false. One really wonders how this urban legend keeps going
with nothing to support it.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "james" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
17 Aug 2003 05:04:25 PM |
|
|
Not at all.
Most people of his time considered his idea as nonsense.
Quite false. One really wonders how this urban legend keeps going
with nothing to support it.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
I do not quite understand your words. Urban legend Eistein keeps going with
nothing to support him because most people of his time considered his idea
nonsense.
Eistein received Nobel prize for his contribution to quatum theory, not
special relativity or general relativity that make his name known to every
body. Even the Nobel prize committee could not fully agree to his
relativity - his most important contribution to physics - 20 years after its
incarnation.
james
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
18 Aug 2003 01:43:02 AM |
|
|
Bilg ecorrectly wrote:
Contrary to your misstatement of the facts, einstein's 1905 paper on
special relativity was the lynchpin that tied together a lot of similar
ideas which didn't quite put everyting into a single framework.
As was similar to Newton. Einstein was a giant who stood on the shoulders
of other giants. That is why he could see further. He would not have done
so if he was also not the giant he was. As the fact is while Poincare and
other came close they did not invent SR - that is Einstein's claim.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
17 Aug 2003 09:24:03 PM |
|
|
In article <JZS%a.183839$4UE.141614@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "james" <james1st@excite.com> writes:
Not at all.
Most people of his time considered his idea as nonsense.
Quite false. One really wonders how this urban legend keeps going
with nothing to support it.
I do not quite understand your words. Urban legend Eistein keeps going with
nothing to support him because most people of his time considered his idea
nonsense.
Nope. Relativity got accepted extremely rapidly, basically within the
time span it took physicists to read and digest it. Can't think about
any other case when so radical an idea got accepted so fast.
Eistein received Nobel prize for his contribution to quatum theory, not
special relativity or general relativity that make his name known to every
body. Even the Nobel prize committee could not fully agree to his
relativity - his most important contribution to physics - 20 years after its
incarnation.
Now this is total, absolute nonsense.
You may not be aware of the fact but science is not philosophy and
there are no prizes for "beautiful ideas". The bottom line issue is
"does it work". Thus, Nobel prizes are awarded only when solid
experimental confirmation is available. At the time we're talking
about, it was the general feeling of the physics community that
Einstein deserves a NobeL prize, but the experimental evidence for
relativity wasn't rock solid yet. So, they gave him the prize for the
photoelecric effect, where plenty of experimental evidence was
available.
You may notice that no Nobel prizes were given for string theory yet.
Same story. Not a value judgement on the theory but a matter of
evidence.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "james" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
18 Aug 2003 06:38:46 AM |
|
|
Now this is total, absolute nonsense.
You may not be aware of the fact but science is not philosophy and
there are no prizes for "beautiful ideas". The bottom line issue is
"does it work". Thus, Nobel prizes are awarded only when solid
experimental confirmation is available. At the time we're talking
about, it was the general feeling of the physics community that
Einstein deserves a NobeL prize, but the experimental evidence for
relativity wasn't rock solid yet. So, they gave him the prize for the
photoelecric effect, where plenty of experimental evidence was
available.
Now this is total, absolute nonsense. Both special relativity and general
relativity can be verified by experiment. They were verified when Eistein
was alive. You can't explain those experiments without relativity. Sure
you can construct another much bigger theory to explain those experiments -
guess that's what you are doing - but Eistein's theory is the simplest and
most beautiful one.
You may notice that no Nobel prizes were given for string theory yet.
Same story. Not a value judgement on the theory but a matter of
evidence.
String Theory is total, absolute garbage. Everything explained by String
Theory can be better explained by other simpler theories. There is no
experiment to support the need for String Theory and there will not be any
logically possible experiment in the future to prove the need for such a
monster theory.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
james
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
18 Aug 2003 02:32:14 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 19:10:46 GMT in
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,
() said, directing the reply to
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
In article <aV20b.213163$hOa.70830@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "james" <james1st@excite.com> writes:
Now this is total, absolute nonsense.
You may not be aware of the fact but science is not philosophy and
there are no prizes for "beautiful ideas". The bottom line issue is
"does it work". Thus, Nobel prizes are awarded only when solid
experimental confirmation is available. At the time we're talking
about, it was the general feeling of the physics community that
Einstein deserves a NobeL prize, but the experimental evidence for
relativity wasn't rock solid yet. So, they gave him the prize for the
photoelecric effect, where plenty of experimental evidence was
available.
Now this is total, absolute nonsense. Both special relativity and general
relativity can be verified by experiment.
Sure they can. Which doesn't mean that they could easily have been
verified given the experimental technology of the time.
They were verified when Eistein was alive.
When he was alive, yes. At the time he got his Nobel Prize, hardly.
Erm, presumably not, seeing as he got it for his work on the
photoelectric effect and not relativity.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 **
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
18 Aug 2003 12:11:45 PM |
|
|
james:
String Theory is total, absolute garbage. Everything explained by String
Theory can be better explained by other simpler theories.
No. Every experiment which string theory explains can be described
more simply by other theories. But, string theory is not seeking to
explain those experiments as its justification for a theory. It's seeking
to explain what the others theories do not explain.
There is no experiment to support the need for String Theory and
The fact that we need two theories, the standard model and general
relativity rather than a single theory which encompasses both justifies
the need for a more complete theory. Since no one knows what that theory
is, string theory is justified by the fact that it offers a possible
way to combine the two theories. String theory might not pan out, but
neither did countless numbers of other theories throughout history.
there will not be any logically possible experiment in the future
to prove the need for such a monster theory.
Why not? I seriously doubt you could appreciate the degree of
subtlety required to find experimental evidence for qed, which
is a very low energy theory, so unless you can prove that string
theory offers no possibility for an experiment which can be performed
your opinion is worthless. Since you would have to understand string
theory better than anyone on the planet to prove this, I'm not going
to put off any plans in anticipation of your proof.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
18 Aug 2003 02:48:32 PM |
|
|
(quote the whole paper in thread-link)
What is the difference between physics and mathematics? In physics, simple
plus useful means beautiful. Useless complication is ugly. If you have to
start your introduction with "Believe me..." then you are talking about
religion.
When the only thing we can solve accurately is hydrogen atom, why we need a
theory that can fill three bookshelves?
Eistein never liked post-war theoretical physics. I happen to share his
opinion. Some others (such as T.D.Lee) complained that Eistein was "too
old".
I think governments should stop funding these nuclear projects completely.
Eistein never got any funding when he did his earlier great works. Most
religions are also doing fine without government fundings.
james
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
18 Aug 2003 04:22:47 AM |
|
|
I find the original posting tendentious and exaggerated. Nevertheless:
<meron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:7NW%a.11$05.3968@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <JZS%a.183839$4UE.141614@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
"james" <james1st@excite.com> writes:
Not at all.
Most people of his time considered his idea as nonsense.
Quite false. One really wonders how this urban legend keeps going
with nothing to support it.
I do not quite understand your words. Urban legend Eistein keeps going
with
nothing to support him because most people of his time considered his
idea
nonsense.
Nope. Relativity got accepted extremely rapidly, basically within the
time span it took physicists to read and digest it. Can't think about
any other case when so radical an idea got accepted so fast.
Not the philosophy of Einstein, but the Laws of Lorentz-Poincare (the
Lorentz transformations) were rapidly accepted because they produce correct
answers. Many did not distinguish (see for example Kennedy-Thorndyke)
between the relativity theories of Einstein and Lorentz.
Eistein received Nobel prize for his contribution to quatum theory, not
special relativity or general relativity that make his name known to
every
body. Even the Nobel prize committee could not fully agree to his
relativity - his most important contribution to physics - 20 years after
its
incarnation.
Now this is total, absolute nonsense.
You may not be aware of the fact but science is not philosophy and
there are no prizes for "beautiful ideas". The bottom line issue is
"does it work". Thus, Nobel prizes are awarded only when solid
experimental confirmation is available. At the time we're talking
about, it was the general feeling of the physics community that
Einstein deserves a NobeL prize, but the experimental evidence for
relativity wasn't rock solid yet. So, they gave him the prize for the
photoelecric effect, where plenty of experimental evidence was
available.
Science is a branch of philosophy. Only this one produces mathematical
equations that can be tested.
The Lorentz transformations were based on experimental results, before
Einstein came with his "beautiful idea".
You may notice that no Nobel prizes were given for string theory yet.
Same story. Not a value judgement on the theory but a matter of
evidence.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
18 Aug 2003 11:58:09 AM |
|
|
Harry:
I find the original posting tendentious and exaggerated. Nevertheless:
<meron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:7NW%a.11$05.3968@news.uchicago.edu...
Nope. Relativity got accepted extremely rapidly, basically within the
time span it took physicists to read and digest it. Can't think about
any other case when so radical an idea got accepted so fast.
Not the philosophy of Einstein, but the Laws of Lorentz-Poincare (the
Lorentz transformations) were rapidly accepted because they produce correct
answers.
That is not true at all. It was precisely einsteins philosophical
position that led to the rapid development of quantum field theories,
which have been the most successful theories in history. Those theories
_derive_ things like the electromagnetic field from invariance principles.
On can _derive_ maxwell's equations from scracth using nothing but the
quantum replacements for p and E, the relativistic momentum-energy
relation and the principle of invariance. The principle of invariance
is crucial and it forms the basis for almost all of the physics done
in the last century through noether's theorem. If poincare's work had
been so transparently applicable to the physics it describes, einstein
would have never had a reason to publish a paper on special relativity.
[...]
Science is a branch of philosophy. Only this one produces mathematical
equations that can be tested.
The Lorentz transformations were based on experimental results, before
Einstein came with his "beautiful idea".
There are lots of examples of that happening. All four of maxwell's
equations existed except for a single term in ampere's law prior to
maxwell having anything to do with them. Maxwell added one term to
ampere's law for which there was no experimental evidence, based soley
upon what he believed was an inconsistency. Ohm's law was obtained
empirically from experimental results long before drude had the idea
for a theory of conductors. No one takes ohm's law to be the basis for
a theory of conductivity. Similarly, lorentz' theory provides no
guidance whatsoever for making predictions of new phemonena or explaining
them, because it is intrinsically connected to electromagnetic phenomena.
It provides no principle which justifies extending its domain to
nuclear forces, for example. Lorentz' theory at most can say that
electromagnetic forces propagate at the speed of light. However, one
finds lorentz' "philosophy" in conflict with the physics even in
that case. An ether has to be without viscosity. However, the only
media which support transverse waves are solids and 3He(B), the latter
of which has other properties which conflict with the requirements
of an ether.
When nuclear forces were discovered, what principle in lorentz' theory
would suggest that the speed of light should appear in that theory as a
fundamental quantity? One can write a set of "maxwell like" equations for
each of these forces. There exists a "weak magnetism" associated with the
weak charge, just as electric charge results in magnetic forces. I'm not
sure how one would use lorentz' theory to obtain these relations. Weak
magnetism, for example, is unlikely to have ever been discovered without
knowing where to look, since it's very hard to measure its effects even if
you do know where to look. [I've previously posted an outline which
describes how one obtains the "weak magnetic moment" of a weak nuclear
charge, as well as the set of "maxwell equations" that correespond to the
strong force in terms of what would be the analogous "E" and "B" fields.
If you think there is anything that obvious about those, tell me where I
should insert the \mu and \epsilon to get `c', why that `c' should be
related to the `c' in maxwell's equations and how I would measure \mu
and \epsilon.
Special relativity is a theory of spacetime, not electromagnetism. The
philosophical distinction between special relativity and lorentz' theory
is crucial. Special relativity asserts that `c' is a universal constant.
As such, it applies to everything (and does not even have to be the speed
of light - the relation of `c' to the speed of light is historical, not
intrinsic to special relativity). The constant `c' must therefore apply to
every equation which is relativistically correct. By contrast, `c' in
lorentz' theory is a property of a medium assuming that electromagnetic
radiation propagates at that velocity. It predicts nothing about the
properties of that medium with respect to nuclear forces. If you ascribe
the difference in special relativity and lorentz' theory to one of
philosophy, then it's not hard to see that lorentz' philosophy gets
in the way of the physics, while einstein's led to the most successful
theories in existence (qed, the theory of beta decay, qcd, the standard
model, etc.) That alone is sufficient to give scientific merit to the
"philosophy" in special relativity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
19 Aug 2003 03:23:09 AM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbk22a2.g0k.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Harry:
I find the original posting tendentious and exaggerated. Nevertheless:
<meron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:7NW%a.11$05.3968@news.uchicago.edu...
Nope. Relativity got accepted extremely rapidly, basically within the
time span it took physicists to read and digest it. Can't think about
any other case when so radical an idea got accepted so fast.
Not the philosophy of Einstein, but the Laws of Lorentz-Poincare (the
Lorentz transformations) were rapidly accepted because they produce
correct
answers.
That is not true at all. It was precisely einsteins philosophical
position that led to the rapid development of quantum field theories,
which have been the most successful theories in history. Those theories
_derive_ things like the electromagnetic field from invariance principles.
On can _derive_ maxwell's equations from scracth using nothing but the
quantum replacements for p and E, the relativistic momentum-energy
relation and the principle of invariance. The principle of invariance
is crucial and it forms the basis for almost all of the physics done
in the last century through noether's theorem. If poincare's work had
been so transparently applicable to the physics it describes, einstein
would have never had a reason to publish a paper on special relativity.
That is an interesting thought!
What you say may be true as well. Please support your claim, thanks!
I backed up the truth of my claim with an example (the one you snipped
away). Here it is more in detail.
In their paper Kennedy-Thorndyke viewed the relativity theory to be that of
Lorentz-Einstein, and propagated the common misconception that a theory only
consists of the laws of the theory:
"....the Lorentz-Einstein transformations which are well-known to embrace
the whole theory."
They confirmed the relativity of "time" -but likely for them "time" just
meant klock reading -if I am not mistaken, that viewpoint was held by "all":
Einstein, Poincare and (later?) Lorentz.
They adhered -in 1932- to the Lorentzian concept of length contraction
instead of that of Einstein, inferring from their measurements that the
length contraction does not perfectly compensate for the velocity:
"From the experiment it is not inferred that the velocity of the earth is
but a few kilometers per second, but rather that the dimensions of the
apparatus vary very nearly as required by relativity."
Note that Einstein had a very strong personal reason to write his papers, he
wanted to get out of the patent office!
- About the importance of philosophy of a theory we seem to agree, from our
different perspectives.
- I see that you confuse the theory of Lorentz with that of Stokes...
- I did not study weak magnetism, so at the moment I have no clue if
Lorentz' theory could have helped with that.
Harald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
21 Aug 2003 02:56:23 AM |
|
|
Harry:
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbk22a2.g0k.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Harry:
I find the original posting tendentious and exaggerated. Nevertheless:
<meron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:7NW%a.11$05.3968@news.uchicago.edu...
Nope. Relativity got accepted extremely rapidly, basically within the
time span it took physicists to read and digest it. Can't think about
any other case when so radical an idea got accepted so fast.
Not the philosophy of Einstein, but the Laws of Lorentz-Poincare (the
Lorentz transformations) were rapidly accepted because they produce
correct
answers.
That is not true at all. It was precisely einsteins philosophical
position that led to the rapid development of quantum field theories,
which have been the most successful theories in history. Those theories
_derive_ things like the electromagnetic field from invariance principles.
On can _derive_ maxwell's equations from scracth using nothing but the
quantum replacements for p and E, the relativistic momentum-energy
relation and the principle of invariance. The principle of invariance
is crucial and it forms the basis for almost all of the physics done
in the last century through noether's theorem. If poincare's work had
been so transparently applicable to the physics it describes, einstein
would have never had a reason to publish a paper on special relativity.
That is an interesting thought!
What you say may be true as well. Please support your claim, thanks!
What's to support? The fact that invariance is crucial? Look up
"noether's theorem". Every conservation law in physics, which depends
on a continuous symmetry , is provable mathematically as a consequence
of invariance under that symmetry. In particular, the invariance of the
lagrangian under a spacetime translation requires momentum, energy, angular
momentum to be conserved. Without a principle of invariance, those
conservation laws are merely additional postulates. Up until about 1920,
(nother published her work in this are around 1918) the reason for those
conservation laws was not understood.
I backed up the truth of my claim with an example (the one you snipped
away). Here it is more in detail.
In their paper Kennedy-Thorndyke viewed the relativity theory to be that of
Lorentz-Einstein, and propagated the common misconception that a theory only
consists of the laws of the theory:
"....the Lorentz-Einstein transformations which are well-known to embrace
the whole theory."
How does that back up anything? The reason those experiments are
"consistent" with ether theories, is becaue the ether theories really
don't predict what the results of those experiments should be. Once the
results are known, it's always possible to recast the ether to cover
the experiment. Ether theories would have been compatible with any outcome
of that experiment. The hard part for a theory is to make a definite
prediction that pins down the theory _beforehand_.
They confirmed the relativity of "time" -but likely for them "time" just
meant klock reading -if I am not mistaken, that viewpoint was held by "all":
Einstein, Poincare and (later?) Lorentz.
They adhered -in 1932- to the Lorentzian concept of length contraction
instead of that of Einstein, inferring from their measurements that the
length contraction does not perfectly compensate for the velocity:
"From the experiment it is not inferred that the velocity of the earth is
but a few kilometers per second, but rather that the dimensions of the
apparatus vary very nearly as required by relativity."
Does that really sound reasonable (that the dimensions are not what you
measure them to be)?
Note that Einstein had a very strong personal reason to write his papers, he
wanted to get out of the patent office!
So what? Had his theory already been published by someone else, it would
not have helped him get out of the patent office.
- About the importance of philosophy of a theory we seem to agree, from our
different perspectives.
- I see that you confuse the theory of Lorentz with that of Stokes...
I'm not confusing lorentz' theory with anything. I have not seen anyone
start with the parameters which are basic to an ether theory (i.e.,
the properties of a medium) and produce a transverse wave from those
properties.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
21 Aug 2003 06:55:43 AM |
|
|
We are drifting far away from the subject...
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbk8vmb.h99.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Harry:
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbk22a2.g0k.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Harry:
I find the original posting tendentious and exaggerated.
Nevertheless:
<meron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:7NW%a.11$05.3968@news.uchicago.edu...
Nope. Relativity got accepted extremely rapidly, basically within
the
time span it took physicists to read and digest it. Can't think
about
any other case when so radical an idea got accepted so fast.
Not the philosophy of Einstein, but the Laws of Lorentz-Poincare
(the
Lorentz transformations) were rapidly accepted because they produce
correct
answers.
That is not true at all. It was precisely einsteins philosophical
position that led to the rapid development of quantum field theories,
which have been the most successful theories in history. Those
theories
_derive_ things like the electromagnetic field from invariance
principles.
On can _derive_ maxwell's equations from scracth using nothing but the
quantum replacements for p and E, the relativistic momentum-energy
relation and the principle of invariance. The principle of invariance
is crucial and it forms the basis for almost all of the physics done
in the last century through noether's theorem. If poincare's work had
been so transparently applicable to the physics it describes, einstein
would have never had a reason to publish a paper on special
relativity.
That is an interesting thought!
What you say may be true as well. Please support your claim, thanks!
What's to support? The fact that invariance is crucial? Look up
"noether's theorem". Every conservation law in physics, which depends
on a continuous symmetry , is provable mathematically as a consequence
of invariance under that symmetry. In particular, the invariance of the
lagrangian under a spacetime translation requires momentum, energy,
angular
momentum to be conserved. Without a principle of invariance, those
conservation laws are merely additional postulates. Up until about 1920,
(nother published her work in this are around 1918) the reason for those
conservation laws was not understood.
Then you suggest that such ideas do not equally follow from Poincare's
Principle of Relativity?! It does not make any difference if an ether is
hypothised to be the mechanism behind it, or space-time.
I backed up the truth of my claim with an example (the one you snipped
away). Here it is more in detail.
In their paper Kennedy-Thorndyke viewed the relativity theory to be that
of
Lorentz-Einstein, and propagated the common misconception that a theory
only
consists of the laws of the theory:
"....the Lorentz-Einstein transformations which are well-known to
embrace
the whole theory."
How does that back up anything?
It backs up my claim that "the" relativity theory gained wide acknowlegement
because the laws turned out to be solid. Many physicists (engineers) don't
care about philosophy or explanations, they just want something that
"works". The Lorentz transformations do the job.
The reason those experiments are
"consistent" with ether theories, is becaue the ether theories really
don't predict what the results of those experiments should be. Once the
results are known, it's always possible to recast the ether to cover
the experiment. Ether theories would have been compatible with any outcome
of that experiment. The hard part for a theory is to make a definite
prediction that pins down the theory _beforehand_.
Not exactly true for LET, and it's a problem for any theory!
Einstein explained wrongly stellar aberration (claiming in 1905 that it was
related to Doppler), and that fell down the drain with the observation of
double stars.
But it was easy to fix, now SRT predicts the same as immediately follows
from LET.
They confirmed the relativity of "time" -but likely for them "time" just
meant klock reading -if I am not mistaken, that viewpoint was held by
"all":
Einstein, Poincare and (later?) Lorentz.
They adhered -in 1932- to the Lorentzian concept of length contraction
instead of that of Einstein, inferring from their measurements that the
length contraction does not perfectly compensate for the velocity:
"From the experiment it is not inferred that the velocity of the earth
is
but a few kilometers per second, but rather that the dimensions of the
apparatus vary very nearly as required by relativity."
Does that really sound reasonable (that the dimensions are not what you
measure them to be)?
That is pretty common in real life... but it's again another subject.
I tried to point out that for them the philosophy was not an
issue -otherwise they would have announced, after a little reflection, that
their experiment seemed to favour Lorentz's over Einstein's explanation.
Note that Einstein had a very strong personal reason to write his
papers, he
wanted to get out of the patent office!
So what? Had his theory already been published by someone else, it would
not have helped him get out of the patent office.
- About the importance of philosophy of a theory we seem to agree, from
our
different perspectives.
- I see that you confuse the theory of Lorentz with that of Stokes...
I'm not confusing lorentz' theory with anything.
You claimed that "An ether has to be without viscosity". That is Stokes'
ether, where matter plunges through a liquid.
I have not seen anyone
start with the parameters which are basic to an ether theory (i.e.,
the properties of a medium) and produce a transverse wave from those
properties.
I have neither seen anyone produce a transverse wave without properties,
that is, without a medium.
Harald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
21 Aug 2003 05:27:40 PM |
|
|
Harry:
momentum to be conserved. Without a principle of invariance, those
conservation laws are merely additional postulates. Up until about 1920,
(nother published her work in this are around 1918) the reason for those
conservation laws was not understood.
Then you suggest that such ideas do not equally follow from Poincare's
Principle of Relativity?! It does not make any difference if an ether is
hypothised to be the mechanism behind it, or space-time.
I'm saying that where you have an absolute frame, you do not have
invariance. Where you do not have invariance, you do not get a
conservation law from noether's theorem.
[...]
How does that back up anything?
It backs up my claim that "the" relativity theory gained wide acknowlegement
because the laws turned out to be solid. Many physicists (engineers) don't
care about philosophy or explanations, they just want something that
"works". The Lorentz transformations do the job.
This isn't an engineering newsgroup. Presumably, the underlying
physics is what physicists care about.
[...]
the experiment. Ether theories would have been compatible with any outcome
of that experiment. The hard part for a theory is to make a definite
prediction that pins down the theory _beforehand_.
Not exactly true for LET, and it's a problem for any theory!
Einstein explained wrongly stellar aberration (claiming in 1905 that it was
related to Doppler), and that fell down the drain with the observation of
double stars.
But it was easy to fix, now SRT predicts the same as immediately follows
from LET.
Regardless if what einstein did or did not do correctly, the
postulates have remained unchanged for 100 years. I can't even
get someone to state the postulates of LET, let alone find
two people who agree on what they are. It seems to be a dynamic
theory which adopts different postulates to suit the situation.
Write the postulates as you think they exist. I'd like to have
a set to reference.
[...]
Does that really sound reasonable (that the dimensions are not what you
measure them to be)?
That is pretty common in real life... but it's again another subject.
It is? I would certainly hope not.
[...]
I'm not confusing lorentz' theory with anything.
You claimed that "An ether has to be without viscosity". That is Stokes'
ether, where matter plunges through a liquid.
Pick any form of material you like. Each has its own achilles heel.
(hint: your best bet is a solid crystal).
I have not seen anyone start with the parameters which are basic to
an ether theory (i.e., the properties of a medium) and produce a
transverse wave from those properties.
I have neither seen anyone produce a transverse wave without properties,
that is, without a medium.
You can't possibly be serious. What do you think the coulomb gauge
shows?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
27 Aug 2003 08:18:22 PM |
|
|
Bilge correctly wrote:
I'm saying that where you have an absolute frame, you do not have
invariance. Where you do not have invariance, you do not get a
conservation law from noether's theorem.
Absolutely. If you have an aether then you have an aether wind. To make
the existence of an aether work in mechanics you must postulate that
principle of invariance for mechanical phenomena ie the aether has no effect
on mechanical phenomena ie the aether wind does not affect mechanical
phenomena. But since we know material objects consist of charged particles
that an aether wind would not affect it in some way seems rather dubious.
Bilge mentioned the very important Noether's theorem. In fact it is not
necessary to invoke it for mechanical phenomena. If you read Landau -
Mechanics you will see just how important invariance (symmetry) is in
determining classical mechanics without actually invoking that theorem. I
strongly urge you to read that book. Also you run into an interesting
problem. Exactly where do you draw the line. Where does mechanics end and
electromagnetism begin (presumably since electromagnetic fields are supposed
to be some kind of stress or strain in the aether the lack of invariance
should show up here). But guess what? Even here we must postulate or
deduce the aether is undetectable because Maxwell's equations are invariant
under the Lorentz transformations exactly as would be required if an aether
did not exist. So we are forced to conclude that if an aether did exist for
mechanical and electromagnetic phenomena it would not be detectable. And
this is the whole basis of LET - within the theory the aether is
undetectable. Not a good state of affairs. Occams razor absolutely screams
if you cant detect it why have it?
Bigle wrote:
Regardless if what einstein did or did not do correctly, the
postulates have remained unchanged for 100 years. I can't even
get someone to state the postulates of LET, let alone find
two people who agree on what they are. It seems to be a dynamic
theory which adopts different postulates to suit the situation.
Write the postulates as you think they exist. I'd like to have
a set to reference.
I have only seen vague reference's myself to a 1904 paper written by
Lorentz. My understanding is this details LET. At least this is the paper
Tom Roberts referees to in his discussions on LET. By the proponents of LET
I would like to see a working out of its consequences similar to the
elegance and simplicity of SR.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Albert Einstein a hoax? |
28 Aug 2003 11:42:53 PM |
|
|
Bill Hobba:
Bigle wrote:
Regardless if what einstein did or did | | | | | | | | | | | | |
