Was Einstein a plagiarist?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
I read some of Poincare's work and yes, Einstein definitely benefited from what Poincare did, but interpretation and thought experiment is a large part of research in physics, and Einstein did exactly that. So let's lay this to rest.

OK, lets try to see this from another point of view.

Maybe it wasn't plagiarism (in fact, if it was, why nobody said nothing at the time?).

Could it be that this was considered "normal" by the other scientists but ignored by the ones who decided to "promote" Einstein as the best scientist, as if he had made all of his theories without knowing the work of anyone else?

And if this was the case, why?

Who were the other scientists that could have become better known if Einstein hadn't become a "star"?




posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Aelita
I read some of Poincare's work and yes, Einstein definitely benefited from what Poincare did, but interpretation and thought experiment is a large part of research in physics, and Einstein did exactly that. So let's lay this to rest.

OK, lets try to see this from another point of view.

Maybe it wasn't plagiarism (in fact, if it was, why nobody said nothing at the time?).

Could it be that this was considered "normal" by the other scientists but ignored by the ones who decided to "promote" Einstein as the best scientist, as if he had made all of his theories without knowing the work of anyone else?

And if this was the case, why?

Who were the other scientists that could have become better known if Einstein hadn't become a "star"?


See, even if Einstein is a plagiarist, I blame the academic world for allowing him to get away with it. I think you and I kind of agree in that regard.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
See, even if Einstein is a plagiarist, I blame the academic world for allowing him to get away with it. I think you and I kind of agree in that regard.

Yes, maybe it was even the normal way of doing things at the time and that is why nobody complained.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
See, even if Einstein is a plagiarist, I blame the academic world for allowing him to get away with it. I think you and I kind of agree in that regard.

Yes, maybe it was even the normal way of doing things at the time and that is why nobody complained.


Well, as several people have already mentioned, science kind of builds off of other ideas to begin with. Therefore, this thread may be a "moot point" but I just found the information interesting because most of us are led to believe that the Theory of Relatitive and E= mc2 were ideas of Einstein and his alone.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well, as several people have already mentioned, science kind of builds off of other ideas to begin with. Therefore, this thread may be a "moot point" but I just found the information interesting because most of us are led to believe that the Theory of Relatitive and E= mc2 were ideas of Einstein and his alone.

That is what I find most interesting, why did Einstein had so much publicity, apparently after the confirmation of the effect of gravity over light during an eclipse, when scientists are usually a "forgotten species".



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I've often wondered if Einstein made it so big because of his background as much as anything. He was smart but so many were just as smart and we don't use their names as trademarks for intelligence. It seems the media and the system have a love-in with this guy. I always felt that Tesla was on a par with Einstein. Some places I have been they called Tesla a 'great inventor' but he was more than that because he knew the theory behind his machines unlike many some inventors.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Actually the "bending of light by gravity" was not able to be confirmed by instruments of the time, they got readings of light bent towards the gravity, away from the gravity, and not affected by the gravity. What they did was say that these other readings were "inconsistent or incorrect data" and so ignored but the only thing left out was readings that they didn't want.

If that is the case then I will set up a little experiment - flipping a coin to see how many heads or tails I get out of 10. I beleve there will only be heads, so when I flip the coin ten times and get 6 heads and 4 tails, I will just say the tails are "inconsistent and incorrect data" and ignore them. Which means I have just proven with their so called "scien-crap" methadology that if you flip a coin you will only get heads.


Yes this was the sort of level they stooped to prove Einsten right.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
See, even if Einstein is a plagiarist, I blame the academic world for allowing him to get away with it. I think you and I kind of agree in that regard.


Well it turns our his theory but a great many artificial limits on our understanding and if one investigates so called science long enough you discover that this is what science 'establishment' more often than not attempts.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dragon12
Actually the "bending of light by gravity" was not able to be confirmed by instruments of the time, they got readings of light bent towards the gravity, away from the gravity, and not affected by the gravity. What they did was say that these other readings were "inconsistent or incorrect data" and so ignored but the only thing left out was readings that they didn't want.

If that is the case then I will set up a little experiment - flipping a coin to see how many heads or tails I get out of 10. I beleve there will only be heads, so when I flip the coin ten times and get 6 heads and 4 tails, I will just say the tails are "inconsistent and incorrect data" and ignore them. Which means I have just proven with their so called "scien-crap" methadology that if you flip a coin you will only get heads.


Yes this was the sort of level they stooped to prove Einsten right.


Yeah,science has a tendency of doing that. If things don't mesh with its expected findings they call it a "blip" or "coincidence". Science has done that for centuries now.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
It was the hot thing at the time, it was PHYSICS.

He did a great job with equations and methods presented by others,
which was ok, and did a lot of it and many is considered original.

So much so that in the history of Physics the name of Einstein is injected
quite often.

As things get weeded out the name dropping might wither, I mean do we
need matrix mechanics anymore.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
It was the hot thing at the time, it was PHYSICS.

He did a great job with equations and methods presented by others,
which was ok, and did a lot of it and many is considered original.

So much so that in the history of Physics the name of Einstein is injected
quite often.

As things get weeded out the name dropping might wither, I mean do we
need matrix mechanics anymore.


Not quite sure what you are saying, but I am assuming you are saying that as time goes by Einstein's name may begin to fade into the annuals of history. Am I even close to what you are trying to say?



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
It was the hot thing at the time, it was PHYSICS.

He did a great job with equations and methods presented by others,
which was ok, and did a lot of it and many is considered original.

So much so that in the history of Physics the name of Einstein is injected
quite often.

As things get weeded out the name dropping might wither, I mean do we
need matrix mechanics anymore.


Not quite sure what you are saying, but I am assuming you are saying that as time goes by Einstein's name may begin to fade into the annuals of history. Am I even close to what you are trying to say?



Guess its wishfull thinking.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
It was the hot thing at the time, it was PHYSICS.

He did a great job with equations and methods presented by others,
which was ok, and did a lot of it and many is considered original.

So much so that in the history of Physics the name of Einstein is injected
quite often.

As things get weeded out the name dropping might wither, I mean do we
need matrix mechanics anymore.


Not quite sure what you are saying, but I am assuming you are saying that as time goes by Einstein's name may begin to fade into the annuals of history. Am I even close to what you are trying to say?


I never see a full development of Einstein's work.
The text books mention Einstein and go on to develop something else.
Is his work copywrited so we can't see it.
Do we have to pay extra?
It must be a publishing game like all the other hype of string theory.

I guess an equation is too selfexplanatory and never shown to give
an understanding or development.

Keep Einstein in history and text books but lets see what he did.

Tesla the same way, he did patents that put you to sleep reading them.
I don't see any explanatons in normal electrical terms.
There is a web page on some non linear oscillator of his that is an unconnected
loop.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   
For one, it's not an attack if it's true. I'm a skeptic. I really would simply like to get to the truth of the matter. I also believe in physiognimy, and Einstein certainly looked incapable of even the basics, as his biographers have recollected. Tell me more about what you're finding about Einstein, rather than defending him.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Already been discussed here:

Einstein a Fake?

Most of the "speculation" is pretty debunkable. The man was a damn genius.

*Edited to add:

Einstein and another fellow happened to be working on the same theory at the same time. It is provable that Einstein did not plagiarize or steal this theory because he did it right.

The other guy was missing key theories that Einstein understood. I can't remember the name, but it's in one of my posts on the other thread that I linked to.

[edit on 24-5-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Here's my source and what not (from my response on the other thread)

 


No, I didn't mention it, someone else before me mentioned reasons why "people would be protecting him".

Anyway, so you have a site that suggests someone helped him with one of the things Einstein did in his life. You do realize that he did a lot more than just general relativity?

Guess who did the math that proved wormholes are theoretically possible?

You say maybe that's why he didn't get the Nobel Prize? Not sure about that, but he does have his own prizes named after him... so:

Einstein Award

Einstein Peace Prize

I guess you don't really need to win them when you've got some named after you.

Don't you suppose they may have found out Einstein's Ex was the true genius when they had him working on the Manhatten Project?

What about in 1950 - which would be well after he split with his first wife - when he brought the unified field theory to the table?

Unified Field theory

In Einstein's day, the strong and weak forces had not yet been discovered, but he found the existence of even two distinct forces—gravity and electromagnetism—deeply troubling. Einstein did not accept that nature is founded on such an extravagant design. This launched his 30-year voyage in search of the so-called unified field theory that he hoped would show that these two forces are really manifestations of one grand underlying principle. This quixotic quest isolated Einstein from the mainstream of physics, which, understandably, was far more excited about delving into the newly emerging framework of quantum mechanics. He wrote to a friend in the early 1940s, "I have become a lonely old chap who is mainly known because he doesn't wear socks and who is exhibited as a curiosity on special occasions."

Einstein was simply ahead of his time. More than half a century later, his dream of a unified theory has become the Holy Grail of modern physics. And a sizeable part of the physics and mathematics community is becoming increasingly convinced that string theory may provide the answer. From one principle—that everything at its most microscopic level consists of combinations of vibrating strands—string theory provides a single explanatory framework capable of encompassing all forces and all matter.


Who did he copy that one off of? You know, the theory that he discovered 30 years before anyone could catch up to him?


[edit on 24-5-2008 by Sublime620]






top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join