random accusations of Einstein stealing theories from his wife

[random]

KAIDUORKHON Actually Einstein was wrong He was wrong in just about everything, His wife however was generally correct and most of the theories you attribute to Einstein were her ideas not his. In an age where women were to be seen and not heard and were considered too inferior to offer anything to the scientific community well........Einstein became her means of communication.

Please don't jump all over me you can gain your own insight into this with any internet connection and an hour.

 

Since this is such a respected forum it is only appropriate credit is given where it is due and it is in fact to the female. Not to the fellow who struggled with basic mathematics.

[Klaynos]

KAIDUORKHON Actually Einstein was wrong He was wrong in just about everything, His wife however was generally correct and most of the theories you attribute to Einstein were her ideas not his. In an age where women were to be seen and not heard and were considered too inferior to offer anything to the scientific community well........Einstein became her means of communication.

Please don't jump all over me you can gain your own insight into this with any internet connection and an hour.

 

Since this is such a respected forum it is only appropriate credit is given where it is due and it is in fact to the female. Not to the fellow who struggled with basic mathematics.

 

Care to cite a source on that. I'm genuinely interested.

[random]

actually trying to avoid that I would rather people find their own source they deem credible. Would also like to point out there is considerable debate she herself was a plagarist. Not only did Einstein use her ideas but he also copied the works of many of his peers.

This is not new information anyone with a knowledge of history and physics should be very familiar with this.

[Mr Skeptic]

!

Moderator Note

Split from "Do you have a new theory" at post 208, moved to speculations.

We know how to find sources, but as it stands this is nothing more than unsupported slander. It is the responsibility of whoever proposes surprising new information to cite a source for it. If you don't know a credible source for such an accusation, then there is no reason for you to believe it, much less repeat it.

[ajb]

We are talking about Mileva Marić, who was one of the first woman to study physics and mathematics in Europe.

 

The general consensus from science historians is that she did not directly help much with Einstein's early work, but was more a "sounding board". This I think will be debated forever and not everyone agrees. It is claimed she may have been more like a co-author. I don't know if there is any real sound evidence to support this.

 

Einstein's second wife was Elsa Einstein, his cousin. She was not involved in physics in the same was Mileva was.

 

 

aside: Charles Darwin also married his cousin, Emma Wedgwood.

[Marat]

It is worth noting that Mileva, the supposed genius who was the real source of all of Einstein's great ideas, was a student with him in physics in Zurich, and while he passed the degree examinations and went on to earn a doctorate in physics with his dissertation, she failed her exams twice and left without even receiving a degree! How on earth someone who couldn't even pass the university exams on her second try could somehow 'know more' than someone who did pass them, went on to write a Ph.D. thesis in the subject, and then won the Nobel Prize in the subject, is beyond me. This is just another example of radical feminism going back through history and trying to sift and twist everything to blacken the reputation of men and to attribute everything good to women. Orwell already described this process of correcting history to conform to modern ideology in his work, '1984,' but while everyone always interprets his work as applying only to communist totalitarianism, people forget its relevance for our world today.

[lemur]

It is worth noting that Mileva, the supposed genius who was the real source of all of Einstein's great ideas, was a student with him in physics in Zurich, and while he passed the degree examinations and went on to earn a doctorate in physics with his dissertation, she failed her exams twice and left without even receiving a degree! How on earth someone who couldn't even pass the university exams on her second try could somehow 'know more' than someone who did pass them, went on to write a Ph.D. thesis in the subject, and then won the Nobel Prize in the subject, is beyond me. This is just another example of radical feminism going back through history and trying to sift and twist everything to blacken the reputation of men and to attribute everything good to women. Orwell already described this process of correcting history to conform to modern ideology in his work, '1984,' but while everyone always interprets his work as applying only to communist totalitarianism, people forget its relevance for our world today.

 

The irony is that the creative intelligent men who actually have a good enough intellectual relationship with their wives to fruitfully collaborate with them would be the men who would be "stealing" their wives' ideas and taking credit for them. Apparently it would be better for men to take wives purely as housekeeper/nanny/prostitute, avoid engaging with them intellectually, and then write an honest monograph instead of a collaborative work disguised as one.

 

On the other hand, it might be that Einstein knew very well that he benefited from his wife's thinking but he avoided noting this explicitly in order to avoid being dismissed by his scholarly peers as being a secretary to "women's physics." He might have done more for the reception of his wife's theories by keeping her contribution a secret than if he had openly credited her. Of course, I'm not corroborating with the sourceless OP because I also don't have any sources on this topic, but it is interesting to think that such evidence would have been suppressed in an effort to shield Einstein's radical work from ad hominem criticism.

[Marat]

At the time that Einstein was making his great contributions to physics it was far from unacceptable for men to be admitting that they were working on scientific projects with women or gaining insights from their cooperation. In the late 18th century the famous chemist, Antoine Lavoisier, and his wife were famous collaborators in his scientific work, though she was more of an assistant than a colleague. Shortly before Einstein's period, the Curies had openly collaborated on scientific projects. So there would have been no cultural reason for Einstein to hide his collaboration with Mileva.

 

However, the fact that she was unable even to complete the undergraduate course in Zurich and flunked out after two tries at the final exams, leaving without taking a degree and going on to become a housewife, is so profoundly inconsistent with the notion that she was the real discoverer of Einstein's relativity theory which he just stole from her that I can't see why it was ever even entertained. The fact that Einstein did great work in a number of different areas of physics and never did anything to embarrass himself while he was a physics professor in Berlin or Princeton half a century after the period in question is strong evidence that he was also the source of his relativity theory, since no one who had simply made himself famous by stealing someone else's idea could carry on the masquerade for that long.

[random]

Sorry guy's I just found this thread if you are so insistent well give me a couple day's and I'll post the link to where I heard this. Accordingly it is one set of beliefs against another but I do remember the author citing the opposite. ......That it was commonly accepted in the science community that Einstein was little more than a plagarist and the author cites historical documentation to prove it. Such as papers dated before Einsteins and almost word for word. Let me dig it up. Just a note.......how is one supposed to know about the threads they are involved in? I am new to the forum and don't know all the tools.

[Mr Skeptic]

Hm... I suppose you could check the option to auto-add to your watch list the threads you respond to, and then check that list.

[ajb]

That it was commonly accepted in the science community that Einstein was little more than a plagarist and the author cites historical documentation to prove it.

 

I think this debate will never go away.

 

What is true for sure is that Einstein was very poor at providing references, both experimental and theoretical ones.

 

The big question is if he gave enough credit to Lorentz, Minkowski and Poincare for special relativity and then Hilbert for general relativity? There seems to be a question about how aware Einstein was of his contemporaries works.

 

I think those of us in the physics community do recognise the contributions from these people and many others. The wider public I suspect will not know of them.

[lemur]

However, the fact that she was unable even to complete the undergraduate course in Zurich and flunked out after two tries at the final exams, leaving without taking a degree and going on to become a housewife, is so profoundly inconsistent with the notion that she was the real discoverer of Einstein's relativity theory which he just stole from her that I can't see why it was ever even entertained.

That would explain both why Einstein's work was refreshingly unorthodox and why there would have been good reason to hide her contribution to them. After all, nothing is more damaging to the reception of an unorthodox theory than it coming from an institutionally delegitimized source. After all, as neutral and value-free as many credentialled scientists would like to believe they are, many still look at everything through the filtering lenses of peer-review. If they estimate that their peers would scoff at a physicist who pedals the work of someone who failed at the undergraduate level, they will refuse to pay serious attention to it. As I understand it, Einstein became rather isolated within the scientific community in his later years and I'm actually surprised he didn't get written off as a crackpot earlier too. I say this not because I doubt the strengths of his work but because I doubt the ability of academic institutions to allow good work to pass through the filter when it appears crackpottish. In other words, I think academia is more prone to convict the innocent when they look guilty than to recognize true merit in work of dubious appearance.

Edited October 11, 2010 by lemur

[random]

Okay some references to the accusations firstly a little history on Einstein and his career choices http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/einstein.htm

 

Secondly, Evidence please just scroll to the bottom if you are impatient to the heading entitled plagiarism charges and then compare the cited documentation to the original works and draw your own conclusions http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

 

These are not the links I wished to show you. The one I drew my conclusions from had the original documentation there to view If I stumble across it I will share it. I believe it is an e-book but regardless you can still find the works somwhere to view it'll just take some leg work. When Einstein repeatedly published his own works that were almost word for word to some presented many years before his birth well.......it's just obvious. His only significant work was to get people thinking outside of the box. as the saying goes.........Bull shit baffles brains.

[swansont]

You're going to have to do better than sources that rely on declarations such as "the Jew-controlled media made him a 'hero.' " and which distorts history. This is a science site. You need to back up your claims with reputable sources, not ones comprised of anti-Semitic rants.

[Mr Skeptic]

Your first source is contradicted multiple times by your second source.

 

As for the claim about Olinto De Pretto publishing E=mc^2 first, he did... But not in any scholarly journals (according to wikipedia, for whatever that's worth). In fact, he got that equation because he didn't understand the basics of kinetic energy!

[Ophiolite]

When you copy from one person it is plagiarism.

When you copy from several people it is research.

If you copy from no one it is madness.

[ajb]

When you copy from one person it is plagiarism.

 

The point here is that is not the case if correct referencing and credit is given.

[random]

Whatever, the second article tells you which authors and documents to compare and I have no desire to dig them up if your interested, go look if your not forget about it. I'd much rather learn from others on this forum than debate credibility of a long since past Einstein. Even if we agree or agree to disagree others will disagree with us. Doesn't seem like it accomplishes much more than finding who's willing to dedicate the most time finding facts on a topic of little interest.

 

At least........it doesn't interest me anyway.

[lemur]

When you copy from one person it is plagiarism.

When you copy from several people it is research.

If you copy from no one it is madness.

 

Insanity is best hidden by conformity. Truly sane people can be confident in independent thought and action.

[ajb]

Whatever, the second article tells you which authors and documents to compare and I have no desire to dig them up if your interested, go look if your not forget about it. I'd much rather learn from others on this forum than debate credibility of a long since past Einstein. Even if we agree or agree to disagree others will disagree with us. Doesn't seem like it accomplishes much more than finding who's willing to dedicate the most time finding facts on a topic of little interest.

 

At least........it doesn't interest me anyway.

 

It begs the question, "what is the point of investigating this?"

 

As you point out Einstein is dead as are the other physicist and mathematicians who could possibility put forward a priority claim. For historical reasons it may be of interest, but it would not serve to prove special or general relativity is flawed. This does seem to be a motivation for finding any way to discredit Einstein.

 

To my mind, even if Einstein did simply rip-off relativity this is of little real consequence to physics. The power and beauty of relativity is not dependant on who discovered it.

Edited October 13, 2010 by ajb

[Ophiolite]

The point here is that is not the case if correct referencing and credit is given.

The point here is that I was using a lighthearted structure to make a serious observation that implicitly contains the point you made. I apologise, slightly, for being obscure. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but perhaps you prefer the wit be clothed in flesh and bone. That's fine.

 

Insanity is best hidden by conformity. Truly sane people can be confident in independent thought and action.

Again' date=' my intent was to convey and confirm the notion that no one - no matter the independence of their thought - is likely to produce a truly valuable idea that does not derive from a thousand earlier notions. Newton's 'If I have seen further it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants', comes to mind. I have used [i']copy [/i]as an analogue for study as a means of ridiculing the OPs message.

 

I suppose if one has to explain ones attempts at succinct commentary with long winded, verbose passages, one has failed to communicate. That's fine too. (Just thoroughly depressing.)

[ajb]

The point here is that I was using a lighthearted structure to make a serious observation that implicitly contains the point you made. I apologise, slightly, for being obscure. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but perhaps you prefer the wit be clothed in flesh and bone. That's fine.

 

Tone, emotion, sarcasm and humour are not always immediately evident when using forums. Sorry I did not interpret your post as you intended.

[Ophiolite]

. Sorry I did not interpret your post as you intended.

No apology necessary. I was trying to be too clever for my own good.

[D H]

Whatever, the second article tells you which authors and documents to compare and I have no desire to dig them up if your interested, go look if your not forget about it.

What a piece of random nonsense. The world is full of crackpots and conspiracy theorists. You have found the home for many of them.

 

The section on plagiarism levies three charges. The first is the ridiculous De Pretto charge. De Pretto happened to get the right answer by starting out with erroneous assumptions and then making a number of math errors on top of those assumptions. His derivation has nothing in common with Einstein's. The charge is ludicrous. Aside: Ask any physicist whether (1) E=mc² is the most important equation in physics and (2) if it is Einstein's most important contribution to physics and the answer will be a resounding "No!" to both questions.

 

The second and third charges are with regard to the relativity priority dispute. Looking at special relativity first, there were indeed several other people working on this problem at the start of the 20th century. For example, the Lorentz transformation is named after Hendrik Lorentz, not Albert Einstein. The other people working on the problem at that time were looking to whitewash away the non-results of the Michelson–Morley experiment. The Lorentz ether theory made time dilation and length contraction axiomatic and assumed a non-detectable, motionless aether as the medium by which light moved. Making time dilation and length contraction axiomatic makes for an incredibly ugly physical theory. The assumption of an undetectable aether makes things even worse. Nobody but Einstein thought along Einstein's line of reasoning. His axioms are simple. While Lorentz ether theory applies only to electromagnetic phenomena, special relativity applies to everything.

 

Regarding general relativity: Einstein had been working on the concept for eight years before Hilbert may have given Einstein the necessary last step to complete the theorem. Regardless of whether Hilbert did indeed fill in that last piece of the puzzle, David Hilbert himself regarded general relativity as Einstein's work.

Edited October 13, 2010 by D H