Was Einstein a fake?

reply to post by Sublime620


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
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!"

But yet you claim to know some things:

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.

So there have been many much more intelligent than Einstein. How could you know this?

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

Is that not an urban legend to die for!! To bad it is baseless.

Look, if you're going to discredit the man, a man who is so based around science, can you at least provide evidence?

If he plagarised, there must be some paper trail. Someone must have done the math before him.

If not, what are we discussing?

You have proven that Shakespear plagarised just as much as you have proven Einstein did... by that I mean not at all.

reply to post by Sublime620


OK People. I was wondering when it was going to come to this so here are just afew examples of what I have seen just to wet you appetite
was he a thief, a liar and a plagiarist?
A theory of Einstein the irrational plagiarist

These are just a couple of thing I have read to lead me to ask the question. There are more if you want them.

Now for the benefit of those not paying attention. I NEVER said he lacked intelligence. Even though he never actually took an IQ test I am sure it is way higher than my measly 136. Yes. I was involved in many a great scientific discovery but was it all his?

On the matter of the death bed confession. I know you would love me to say I made it up for sensationalism, but I didnt. It was just something I have heard. Do I agree with it? not necesarily but it intersting still. It got your attention didn't it?

I know it is hard to hear this stuff. I was also shocked when I first heard the possibility. (I am still not 100% convinced but the info is compelling) Its like when I first heard that Mr. Brady was gay or that andrew Johns took drugs (One for the Aussie readers)

Oh. and your Shakespear comparison. Not a good one to make your case. Who was shakespear? Did 'William Shakespeare' even exist? Or was all the work written by Francis Bacon? Edward De Vere? Sir Walter Raleigh perhaps? this is a long list so I wont go on....look it up

What else have you got?

reply to post by VIKINGANT


Those are just websites, and not even well constructed websites. I'd take a Wikipedia or ATS source over those.

In any of your sources, do they claim to have any proof? Is there anything that you could look into further to possibly get a handle on this topic?

"magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king..., its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists..."

Nikola Tesla on Einstein's relativity work.

It's my understanding that many of our history lessons are wrong and that many others should have received proper credit for their work. But if all of this information is being given to us from a higher source or entity, then it doesn't really make as much difference who gets the credit as much as what we gain from it. It does also appear that Einstein was autistic.

I get the impression that this is more about his genealogy and financial backing than his type of genious. And since big money was probably involved; than certain school systems were also taking some credit for these made heroes for their own benefit to endorse them. More politics?

reply to post by aleon1018


Unwarrented comments.

If you people don't have ANY evidence at all, besides some shady websites, why would you believe it?

I'm not saying it shouldn't provoke more research into the topic, but nothing any of you have provided is any proof towards Einstein plagiarizing.

Due to these unwarrented claims, some people DID take it into their hands to look into it further:

NY Times on Einstein Plagiarism Theories

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.

Emphasis mine.

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.

See what a little bit of research can do? Both happened to be working on the same subject. Their viewpoints were not the same, so Einstein could not have lifted the material.

While the ideas were close, Einstein had a better understanding of the subject, and that's why his paper was more widely accepted.

This is why Einstein has the reputation he has. Not because he's part of the NWO, or because he's a freemason, or some other unfounded theory.

A star for sublime! The well researched, cogent post supersedes the apparent fact that you like Will Ferrel!

reply to post by Threadfall


Yes, it takes a special person to find Mr. Farrell funny. I am aware of that.



[edit on 31-3-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Sublime620


These were only a couple of examples of many that I have read that led me to pose the question here and I know that for every site/source I can produce I am sure you can produce one to contradict it but then where would the discussion be?
Besides, Einstein himself said “The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources “

More to the point, short of holding in my hand a document signed by Einstein stating what I have mentioned you would still not accept anything I put forward. Even with said document I am sure you would have doubts. And I don’t blame you.

Am I FOS? Possibly. Maybe I am just open minded enough to look at things a different way.

Here is some more links for you to disregard.

Einsteins first wife Mileva

. . .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?

Mileva Einstein-Maric

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.

And then there is this….

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 know this does not completely support the argument, but it is still something interesting to ponder.

And finally. You mentioned NWO, (not me) so on that matter.

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)

[edit on 31/3/2008 by VIKINGANT]

reply to post by VIKINGANT


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 31-3-2008 by Sublime620]

Are you referring to the concept in this theory by James Maxwell that was worked on nearly 100 years earlier?

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.

Or the work by Hermann Weyl he based some of his on here?

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.

Or pehaps you might like a basic history according to everyones favorite source wikipedia

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.

Yes he did a lot of his own work to develop it but many scientists extract thier work from those before them, as many scientist today are doing with Einsteins works, but you are making it sound like he was sitting on the loo one and it just came to him.

reply to post by VIKINGANT


Before I even read your post, please post a source? Thanks.

But if you actually read and understand your post, what Einstein and Maxwell proposed were not the same. Same subject, not the same.

[edit on 1-4-2008 by Sublime620]

Not that it will make a difference, the quoted sources are.
searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com...

www.lrz-muenchen.de...

There are of course others to the same effect but I will bombard you with those so you can discredit one at a time.

Yes. Maxwell’s works is different, but as you said, same subject and generally accepted as the forerunner to Einstein’s Unified Field Theory as with Weyls.

reply to post by VIKINGANT


Been a good debate with you. I think we learned a lot more than what was originally posted. Much easier to make a decision on whether it was possible or if it's true based on our research.

I would say it's possible, maybe even probable, that he used others work as reference. I still think that it was his genius that tied it all together and made it work.

Maybe his true genius was his eclectic style and understanding of the subject, if you know what I mean.

[edit on 1-4-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Sublime620


Thank you. I have really enjoyed the challenge as well. You have given me the the best run for my money since I have been on ATS.
This debate, for many if far from over. As we have both seen there is plenty of evidence fot both sides. I feel it is something that will go on for a long time. Not here necessarily but in the wider community over all.
I am still keen to hear others POV on the subject though.

Was he fake or real?

What is real?

“Reality is merely an illusion, although a very persistent one”.

There for from the words of Einstein himself, he was but an energy pattern plugged into this matrix we are all exp.
And now that he is gone, he is part of us all

You are confused in your derision of Einstein. He was a good man.

I will simply state this fact. Einstein was a pacifist. He never worked on the development of the bomb. His refusal to do so was effectively the end of his financed career as a physicist.

No one creates in a vacuum. But that does not diminish those who bring understanding a step further. When you diminish others, you diminish yourself.

reply to post by Cyberbian


I really hate to say it, but here we go again....
I am not at all confused, nor did I at any time say he was a bad man. Only that much of the work accredited to him was not necessarily justified.

Also, there are many who say it was his divorce from Mileva not his refusal to work on the bomb that led to the decline in his productivity. IE his source if inspiration and creativity.

Much of what he worked on has led us to many a great scientific discovery, and if it were not for his tenacity and further developement of the projects he is known for a lot of it may not have come to light.

It is so true that no one creates in a vacuum, which is exactly my point, but many people try and give the impression that he was such a genious that all of his works and great discoveries came to him in an epiphany. This simply isn't so.

reply to post by VIKINGANT


I think einstein was a fake, Nikola Tesla was far ahead of his time and invented tons of things
en.wikipedia.org...