Was Einstein a fake?, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times


reply posted on 24-3-2008 @ 08:01 AM by Kinesis
reply to post by VIKINGANT



Albert Einstein never saw himself as a genius put on a pedistal to worship.

Are there any moderators in this forum to limit this kind of spam, or does free-speech allow for this misguided dogma to continue?


reply posted on 24-3-2008 @ 08:30 AM by 44soulslayer
Originally posted by Kinesis
reply to
post by VIKINGANT



Albert Einstein never saw himself as a genius put on a pedistal to worship.

Are there any moderators in this forum to limit this kind of spam, or does free-speech allow for this misguided dogma to continue?


This very post is questioning the air of superiority that surrounds Einstein, it is questioning the dogma of following his work without questioning it. Seems to me like if anything, this thread is the very opposite of dogma. It is not spam, it is a valid question. Now either contribute to the thread or please kindly stop trying to derail the conversation.

On topic : Einstein was no doubt a clever man, but the extent to which he is glorified has always been a bone of contention with me. In his great debates with Nielhs Bohr, it was Bohr who won.

It is my opinion that Newton's work has been disproved in one sense, as shall Einstein's be disproved by quantum physics.


reply posted on 24-3-2008 @ 09:15 AM by TheRedneck
Originally posted by VIKINGANT
I have noticed many times that people (ATS and elswhere) tend to quote - or misquote - Albert Einstein in thier arguments. Is the work of Einstein to be taken as gospel? Is much of it correct?


Einstein is misquoted much of the time, true. His equations, however, give a keen insight into the way things work, and have allowed other scientists to continue the eternal quest called science.

We can debate for the next ten years on whether he was solely responsible for the work he published, or whether he plagiarized someone else. In the end, it doesn't matter. The world now attributes E=mc^2 to Albert Einstein. So if I refer to 'Einstein's famous mass-energy equation', it is readily understood. If I refer to 'DePretto's famous mass-energy equation', few will know which equation I am talking about.

No one in human memory has developed a theory without a foundation laid by others. Ben Franklin is said to have discovered electricity. No. Electricity was already known, just not very well understood when he flew his kite. The details of that are also wrong. It appears from history that he simply tied a kite string to an apparatus he had built and let the wind in a storm fly it. He was smart enough to be a safe distance away. He also didn't use a key; he attached the string to a Leyden Jar (early capacitor) and tried to prove lightning was electricity.

It doesn't matter now that he didn't actually discover electricity. He contributed to our understanding of it. Bell didn't come up with the idea of transmitting voice over wires; he perfected it. Newton didn't come up with his laws in a vacuum either; he was an accomplished mathematician before he watched an apple fall (and it didn't hit him on the head, either),

Point being, science is a journey. We understand things slightly beyond the knowledge that we learn form others, then try to understand more. Sometimes we get it wrong until someone points out the error. Credit, in the form of recognition, money, fame, etc., is not always granted to those who did the work. Science is not advanced by these things, but by the need to know and understand. That reward always goes to the right people.

In today's society, we have elevated the scientist to the level of Demigod. We use the technologies they conceptualize and engineers build in our daily lives, and find security in the 'fact' that the scientists know all and can do all. They can't. They never will be able to. They are simply people trying to understand, by devoting their lives to the cause of understanding.

Much of his work although clever and mind boggling to many of us was only theory explained in such a way that the unknowing can only accept it as they cannot query it.


Incorrect. I question Einstein's theories all the time. So can anyone else. All they need to do is read them and study until they understand. And isn't that more fruitful a quest than attacking because one doesn't understand?

TheRedneck



reply posted on 24-3-2008 @ 09:19 AM by TheRedneck
reply to post by Optix


It's in one of my books. I don't have time to search it out right now, but he was referring to the fact that E=mc^2 was used to construct an atomic bomb.

Even though he actually worked with the US in developing the bomb, he always regretted it. Einstein loved peace, and in his waning years, spent much of his time in sorrow over the fact that his attempts to further science led to such a terrible weapon.

TheRedneck


reply posted on 24-3-2008 @ 10:09 AM by NGC2736
reply to post by Kinesis



To Question dogma, be it right or wrong, is the freedom that ATS provides.

We learn by questioning. Even today, in scientific circles, some of "The Great Man's" ideas are being questioned. It is a long tradition, this asking if the geniuses of yesterday are still to be thought of in the same light.


reply posted on 24-3-2008 @ 11:00 AM by Kinesis
Originally posted by NGC2736
reply to
post by Kinesis



To Question dogma, be it right or wrong, is the freedom that ATS provides.

We learn by questioning. Even today, in scientific circles, some of "The Great Man's" ideas are being questioned. It is a long tradition, this asking if the geniuses of yesterday are still to be thought of in the same light.



If you really want to celebrate the life of a genius, how about reading up on Gabriel Kron. There's a lot to be learned from the examples he has set in his life, through hard honest work, selfless charity, and the brilliant works described in the books he has written. To know very little about somebody, and judge them based on what society portrays in a form of mockery. Questionning whether any of these men are fake is just a form of arrogance.


reply posted on 24-3-2008 @ 06:55 PM by Vanitas
reply to post by VIKINGANT




Well, strictly speaking, some (not very many) argue that much of his hypotheses were actually his first wife's idea - or at the very least, that he developed them in close collaboration with her (as you will remember, she was also a physicist).

That still wouldn't make him a "fake", though.


reply posted on 30-3-2008 @ 10:12 PM by VIKINGANT
reply to post by ohhhh well


This to me seems like a strange statement fro man ATser of all people. I know we all have our own beliefs in certain things, but we also should have some degree of open mind.
I really dont want to dump on you beliefs (Far too much of that here already ) but I grew up for a number of years believing Santa snuck into my house on Xmas eve to deliver the pressies. As I learned more I adjusted my beliefs accordingly.


reply posted on 30-3-2008 @ 10:31 PM by Sublime620
reply to post by VIKINGANT



Do you have any real proof? Documents? Sorry, but on a matter as important as this, I hardly doubt citing an internet source is going to get it done.
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^