Go Back   Old Project Avalon Forum (ARCHIVE) > Project Camelot Forum > Project Camelot > Alternative Science

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 09-14-2008, 05:43 AM   #1
Bigfatfurrytexan
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 151
Default Did Einstein Plagarize His Greatest Achievement?

This link was provided to me recently. I think, perhaps, yesterday. It turns out that there are provable aspect of Einsteins work that are either not his to claim, or openly disputed (and swept under the rug) by reputable scientists.

http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thomp.../forgotten.htm

Some of the info in this link I have heard before, most of it I haven't. I cannot verify it. I will say that I do not intend to question how brilliant Einstein was. That is unquestionable. But even brilliant people, alas, are fallible. For example:

Quote:
Have Einstein's relativity theories ever been "generally accepted"?
Many prominent scientist have expressed their doubts, but one in particular should have been listened to. Louis Essen, professional metrologist, inventor of the atomic clock and co-author of a book on the experimental estimation of the speed of light thought Einstein's ideas ridiculous. He may well have forfeited a Nobel Prize for saying this rather too publicly. As he said, Einstein’s theories arbitrarily made “space and time intermixed by definition and not as the result of some peculiar property of nature … If the theory of relativity is regarded simply as a new system of units it can be made consistent but it serves no useful purpose”.

See his essay, http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/Relativity.html

Whilst on the subject, see also:

New Scientist book review, May 13, 2002, page 48: Margaret Wertheim reviews Robert Marc Friedman's “The Politics of Excellence” (Time Books):

"Seen as a purveyor of metaphysical nonsense that would corrupt the vigorous strain of experimental physics admired by conservative Nobel committee members, Einstein’s nomination provoked an extraordinary depth of hostility."

[Though his nomination for the Nobel prize was not for his relativity ideas, these would have contributed to the impression of "metaphysical nonsense".]

Dingle, H, “The Case Against Special Relativity”, Nature 216, 119-22 (1967)

McCrea, W H, “Why the Special Theory of Relativity is Correct”, Nature 216, 122-4 (1967)

and later correspondence: Nature, vol 217, Jan 6 1968, p19
Or, the possible misattribution to Einstein of what appears to have already been documented (5 years prior):

Quote:

Did Einstein discover E=mc2?
Well, no! I received the following from Theo Theocharis, August 23, 2000, and relayed it to APS News on his request:

In the APS News, Vol. 9, No. 8, August/September 2000, p. 2, the "This Month in Physics History" column was entitled "September 1905: Einstein's Most Famous Formula", and it stated:

"But it was later that year [1905], in a paper received by the Annalen der Physik on September 27, applying his equations to study the motion of a body, that Einstein showed that mass and energy were equivalent, a startling new insight he expressed in a simple formula that became synonymous with his name: E=mc2. However, full confirmation of his theory was slow in coming. It was not until 1933, in Paris, when Irène and Frédéric Joliot-Curie took a photograph showing the conversion of energy into mass."

The "100 YEARS AGO" item in the 6 April 2000 issue of Nature (Vol. 404, p. 553) is taken from the 5 April 1900 issue of Nature (note the dates), and it states:

"The calculations of M. Henri Becquerel show that this energy is of the order of one ten-millionth of a watt per second. Hence a loss of weight of about a milligram in a thousand million years would suffice to account for the observed effects, assuming the energy of the radiation to be derived from the actual loss of material."

The assumption that accounts for the stated (in the 5 April 1900 issue of Nature) figures is E=mc2. But according to APS News, this is "Einstein's most famous formula" which in September 1905 was "a startling new insight".

I think that there is a problem that ought to be resolved.

I am unsure if this issue has been resolved or not. I likely will not research it much more, as this information really only serves to reinforce my probablistic thought process.
Bigfatfurrytexan is offline   Reply With Quote
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Project Avalon