Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:35 pm
Title: He bugs me too, but I'll respect his works still.
|geekonabike (Addict) |
|Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:35 pm|
|He bugs me too, but I'll respect his works still. |
|Ionized wrote: |
| The book "Albert Einstein: The incorrigible plagiarist" by Christopher Jon Bjerknes gives compelling evidence that indeed both Einstein and his wife worked together to produce Einsteins relativity papers.
It may be all true, though one would hope historians--perhaps not physics types--would be able to look at the evidence. It's quite possible he worked with his wife. I work with mine now and then, because she has some slick math tricks she picked up in her training on the other side of the world, but I help her with her work too. We claim that part for which we're the major driving force, but help each other on some details, usually out of context.
One book doesn't prove much. Authors with a "template" can do a lot to color one's perception, by omission, commission, half-truths, non-truths, taking out of context, quoting adversaries, etc. If you've gone through the evidence carefully, my hat's off to you. I've heard enough negative about Richard Feynman that would make me not want to get tight with the guy, assuming I were a contemporary. Lionizing any of these guys will lead to disillusion.
But the naysayer has a place. After reading some Christopher Hitchens stuff (another fellow I wouldn't invite for dinner), I'm not so hip on Mother Teresa anymore. Then again, he could be totally full of feces. Hard to check on these things conclusively, and personally.
Historical evidence also indicates that it was not the Einsteins that 'discovered' relativity in its 1905 form, but instead Larmor, Poincare, Lorentz, Lange, Voigt and others. Indeed it is a curious fact that the 1905 paper included no references, perhaps to lend the air of originality? It can be argued that there was nothing new introduced by Einstein other than a clever disguise for the work of others.
Our physics prof's take on it was he thought Special Relativity was going to happen as a theory, but Einstein put it together first (in a fairly comprehensive way) with his two axioms. I've read his "Kinematics Part" of that paper, but admit I did not (and still don't) have enough E&M knowledge to read the second part. This prof believed Special Relativity was Einstein's baby. Were his contemporaries skeptical that it was his? (Or his and his wife's?)
But this isn't my only problem with Einstein. His status as an idol has plagued the further development of physical science, especially in the realm of cosmology. But this isn't merely Einsteins fault, it is the way that status quo 'science' is handed down to each generation as a set of 'known' facts. So few students of physics are taught about the history and original interpretations, the paradigms. In fact, they are left to their own device for learning such things and often ridiculed when truths are discovered that go against the mainstream interpretation.
Well, my problem with Einstein was his touchy-feely image he got later in life. I don't care what a rock star thinks about anything other than music, so why should I care what Einstein felt about love, pacifism, etc.?
|OK, you caught me, I am extremely jaded after having studied plasma astrophysics and cosmology and fighting against the status quo and their absurd dogmatic paradigm. All hail gravity! There is no EMAG, just ignore it! |
Oh, projection disorder. You got me, what's EMAG?
If we're not careful, this could get Bohring.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group