It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by VIKINGANT
As I was not there, no. I have no solid evidence except for what I have seen and read from several sources, which is exactly why I have not quoted internet sources. The info I have seen however seemed very feasable.
This is passing on info as I have been informed, not a who can out google who excercise. I could easily find a few youtube clips, but we all know what kind of credibility that has.
Further to this I invite as many as possible to convince me either way.
You will note the thread title is "was Einstein a fake?" not "Einstein was a fake!"
Originally posted by VIKINGANT
I agree here, but I also said that he was 'clever' and that he did know what he was talking about but knowing the information does not = creating the information.
You said it yourself. he had a good press agent. There are many people much more intelligent (then and now) but have not been recognized. Being published is not necessarily brilliance.
Originally posted by VIKINGANT
This will get me into alot of trouble but I didnt invent this, I only heard it...
We have all heard that no one knows his last words as he spoke them in German and the nurse with him did not speak German. There is also a story that his last words were in fact a confession of plagiarism but was kept quite. I am not saying it is true, just what I heard
The dispute eventually became caustic. Einstein contended that Dr. Hilbert had stolen the theory after reading one of his papers, and some of Dr. Hilbert's supporters quietly suggested years later that it had actually been Einstein who committed plagiarism.
Now, three historians of science have examined the dispute and have vindicated Einstein. They say Dr. Hilbert appears to have lifted a key concept from Einstein's manuscript. ''A close analysis of archival material reveals that Hilbert did not anticipate Einstein,'' Leo Corry, Jurgen Renn and John Stachel write in the current issue of the journal Science.
The conventional wisdom among contemporary scholars was that Dr. Hilbert completed the general theory of relativity at least five days before Einstein submitted his conclusive paper on Nov. 25, 1915, and that the two men had hit upon the revolutionary idea independently.
Detailed analysis and comparison of these proofs with published versions of both Dr. Hilbert's paper and Einstein's papers on gravitation enabled Dr. Corry and his colleagues to reconstruct an account of the crucial weeks in November 1915. And what they uncovered differed radically from the standard view.
The new evidence shows that Dr. Hilbert's proofs lacked the critical ingredient for the theory's success, something called covariance.
''The theory he originally submitted is not generally covariant,'' the authors wrote.
Although Dr. Hilbert's article bore the submission date of Nov. 20, 1915, it was not actually published until March 31, 1916 -- long after Einstein's paper was public. The final article was covariant.
The new revelation ''excludes the possibility that Einstein plagiarized from Hilbert the last crucial step in completing general relativity,'' the scholars concluded.
Dr. Renn works at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin, and Dr. Stachel at the physics department of Boston University.
. . .Why did the Nobel commitee not award Einstein the Nobel Prize for his work on relativity theory? Could it have been that all who were familiar with the facts, knew that Einstein did not originate the major concepts behind relativity theory?
In accordance with Albert Einstein's last wishes his personal documents were deposited with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. It contains much correspondence between him and his first wife. Some letters suggest that Mileva Einstein-Maric made major contributions to his most important publications but was not acknowledged as co-author.
Even though there is no hard evidence that Mileva and Einstein worked together, there are some indications that she considerably contributed to his most important papers. One of the reasons this mystery can not be easily solved is that the original manuscripts of the papers submitted in 1905 are missing. Also, the person that claims that he saw the originals, Abraham F. Joffe, and that the papers were signed as Einstein-Marity, died in 1960. We are only left to believe or not, to what he wrote in his book "Uspehi fizicheskih nauk" about these originals. Some even claim that the reason Albert gave Mileva the entire amount of the Nobel prize was to keep her silent.
The correspondence between Albert and Mileva cannot be used as a direct evidence of her contribution, but Albert is repeatedly addressing the papers in question as "our papers" and referring to "our work".
To make definite conclusions we would have to wait for some additional evidence to appear. For now we can only have our own opinions and preferences about this matter, sometimes based only on our gender or nationality.
I advocate world government because I am convinced that there is no other possible way of eliminating the most terrible danger in which man has ever found himself. The objective of avoiding total destruction must have priority over any other objective. (Albert Einstein, 1947)
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.
James Clerk Maxwell proposed the first field theory, for electromagnetism, in the middle of the 1800s. Early in the 20th century, Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity - dealing with gravitation - became the second field theory. The term unified field theory was coined by Einstein, who was attempting to prove that electromagnetism and gravity were different manifestations of a single fundamental field.
After the dicovery of GR in 1915/16, H. Weyl was the first trying to extend riemannian geometry in order to describe electromagnetism and gravity in a unified language. He used nonmetric connections and the tensor of nonmetricity, but his attempt failed. In 1922, the famous french mathematician E. Cartan came out with a extension of riemannian geometry using a connections that were not neccessarily symmetric in the lower two indices. He suspected that the tensor obained in this way, called Cartan's torsion now, could be relevant for electrodynamics. Very interesting in this context is the book Einstein-Cartan, Letters on absolute parallelism 1929-1932 by Debever. Hereafter, Einstein published a series of articles in the session reports of the Prussian Academy of Sciences about distant parallelism and a unified field theory. The above article recapitulates these papers proposing field equations that include the torsion tensor and yield in first approximation both Maxwell's equations and Newton-Poisson equations. The name distant parallelism cames from the fact that in this theory the Riemannian curvature tensor (to be distinguished from the Riemann-Christoffel curvature tensor used in GR) vanishes everywhere.
Unfortunately, Einstein did never never try to incorporate quantum mechanics into this picture, nor the other physicits, as he complained, did support his efforts extending the GR formalism. So this approach -lacking a description of particles- had to fail.
The first successful (classical) unified field theory was developed by James Clerk Maxwell. In 1820 Hans Christian Oersted discovered that electric currents exerted forces on magnets, while in 1831, Michael Faraday made the observation that time-varying magnetic fields could induce electric currents. Until then, electricity and magnetism had been thought of as unrelated phenomena. In 1864, Maxwell published his famous paper on a dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field. This was the first example of a theory that was able to encompass previous separate field theories (namely electricity and magnetism) to provide a unifying theory of electromagnetism. Later, in his theory of special relativity Albert Einstein was able to explain the unity of electricity and magnetism as a consequence of the unification of space and time into an entity we now call spacetime.
In 1921 Theodor Kaluza extended General Relativity to five dimensions and in 1926 Oscar Klein proposed that the fourth spatial dimension be curled up (or compactified) into a small, unobserved circle. This was dubbed Kaluza-Klein theory. It was quickly noticed that this extra spatial direction gave rise to an additional force similar to electricity and magnetism. This was pursued as the basis for some of Albert Einstein's later unsuccessful attempts at a unified field theory. Einstein and others pursued various non-quantum approaches to unifying these forces; however as quantum theory became generally accepted as fundamental, most physicists came to view all such theories as doomed to failure.
“Reality is merely an illusion, although a very persistent one”.