Brian Koberlein: "This led Henri Poincaré to propose nonelectromagnetic stresses to hold the electron together. When he calculated the energy of these stresses, he found it amounted to a fourth of an electron's total mass. Thus, the "actual" mass of the electron due to its electric charge alone must be m = E/c^2. Poincaré's paper deriving this result was published in June of 1905, just a few months before Einstein's paper. Although the equation is often attributed to Einstein's 1905 paper, Einstein didn't actually derive the equation from his theory of relativity." https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankober ... equation/
Hans C. Ohanian: "Although Einstein's name is closely linked with the celebrated relation E = mc^2 between mass and energy, a critical examination of the more than half dozen "proofs" of this relation that Einstein produced over a span of forty years reveals that all these proofs suffer from mistakes. Einstein introduced unjustified assumptions, committed fatal errors in logic, or adopted lowspeed, restrictive approximations. He never succeeded in producing a valid general proof applicable to a realistic system with arbitrarily large internal speeds." https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0805/0805.1400.pdf
Philip Ball: "Did Einstein discover E = mc^2? Who discovered that E = mc^2? It's not as easy a question as you might think. Scientists ranging from James Clerk Maxwell and Max von Laue to a string of nowobscure early 20thcentury physicists have been proposed as the true discovers of the massenergy equivalence now popularly credited to Einstein's theory of special relativity. These claims have spawned headlines accusing Einstein of plagiarism, but many are spurious or barely supported. Yet two physicists have now shown that Einstein's famous formula does have a complicated and somewhat ambiguous genesis  which has little to do with relativity." http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46941
Philip Ball: "The biggest revelation for me was not so much seeing that there were several wellfounded precursors for the equivalence of mass and energy, but finding that this equivalence seems to have virtually nothing to do with special relativity. Tony Rothman said to me that "I've long maintained that the conventional history of science, as presented in the media, textbooks and by the stories scientists tell themselves is basically a collection of fairy tales." I'd concur with that." http://philipball.blogspot.com/2011/08/ ... emc2.html
Lisa Randall, Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene: "Why do the stars shine? Why does the galaxy light up? E equals MC squared. That is the engine that lights up the stars. Energy turns into mass. E equals MC squared  that is the secret of the stars. Now, listen carefully. The faster you move, the heavier you get. Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow. It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI
We all live in Einstein's schizophrenic world, don't we?
Pentcho Valev
Authorship in Einstein's Schizophrenic World
5 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Authorship in Einstein's Schizophrenic World

Pentcho Valev

Anonymous
We don't, but you do. Please take your medication!

Pentcho Valev
Einsteinians are pathological liars:Brian Koberlein: "This led Henri Poincaré to propose nonelectromagnetic stresses to hold the electron together. When he calculated the energy of these stresses, he found it amounted to a fourth of an electron's total mass. Thus, the "actual" mass of the electron due to its electric charge alone must be m = E/c^2. Poincaré's paper deriving this result was published in June of 1905, just a few months before Einstein's paper. Although the equation is often attributed to Einstein's 1905 paper, Einstein didn't actually derive the equation from his theory of relativity." https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankober ... equation/
Hans C. Ohanian: "Although Einstein's name is closely linked with the celebrated relation E = mc^2 between mass and energy, a critical examination of the more than half dozen "proofs" of this relation that Einstein produced over a span of forty years reveals that all these proofs suffer from mistakes. Einstein introduced unjustified assumptions, committed fatal errors in logic, or adopted lowspeed, restrictive approximations. He never succeeded in producing a valid general proof applicable to a realistic system with arbitrarily large internal speeds." https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0805/0805.1400.pdf
Philip Ball: "Did Einstein discover E = mc^2? Who discovered that E = mc^2? It's not as easy a question as you might think. Scientists ranging from James Clerk Maxwell and Max von Laue to a string of nowobscure early 20thcentury physicists have been proposed as the true discovers of the massenergy equivalence now popularly credited to Einstein's theory of special relativity. These claims have spawned headlines accusing Einstein of plagiarism, but many are spurious or barely supported. Yet two physicists have now shown that Einstein's famous formula does have a complicated and somewhat ambiguous genesis  which has little to do with relativity." http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46941
Philip Ball: "The biggest revelation for me was not so much seeing that there were several wellfounded precursors for the equivalence of mass and energy, but finding that this equivalence seems to have virtually nothing to do with special relativity. Tony Rothman said to me that "I've long maintained that the conventional history of science, as presented in the media, textbooks and by the stories scientists tell themselves is basically a collection of fairy tales." I'd concur with that." http://philipball.blogspot.com/2011/08/ ... emc2.html
Lisa Randall, Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene: "Why do the stars shine? Why does the galaxy light up? E equals MC squared. That is the engine that lights up the stars. Energy turns into mass. E equals MC squared  that is the secret of the stars. Now, listen carefully. The faster you move, the heavier you get. Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow. It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI
We all live in Einstein's schizophrenic world, don't we?
Pentcho Valev
"Gravitational lensing, predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity, is the bending of light as it travels from a source to the observer. [...] When we incorporated the lensing, and the Doppler shift measurements, into our models for the transit and occultation light curves, we were able to empirically determine the mass and radius of the white dwarf (such empirical calculations are very rare for white dwarfs)." http://spie.org/newsroom/5213usinggra ... ties?SSO=1
Science: "Light from a background star is deflected by the gravitational field of the Sun. This effect was used in 1919 to provide some of the first evidence for general relativity. Sahu et al. applied the concept to another star: a nearby white dwarf called Stein 2051 B, which passed close in front of a more distant normal star (see the Perspective by Oswalt). The authors measured the tiny shifts in the apparent position of the background star, an effect called astrometric microlensing. The apparent motion matched the predictions of general relativity, which allowed the authors to determine the mass of the white dwarf."
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/3 ... /1046.full
Gravitational lensing was originally predicted by Newton's theory  in 1911 Einstein adopted the Newtonian prediction but then found it suitable to increase it by a factor of two. In order to be able to find out which prediction  Newton's or Einstein's  is correct, one must know, IN ADVANCE, the mass of the white dwarf, its precise geometry, and the precise distribution of the mass within this geometry. Such knowledge is only available when the massive object that deflects the light is the Sun, and even in this case things are not certain:
"After He Said Einstein Was Wrong, Physicist Henry Hill Learned That Fame's Benefits Are Relative [...] A major proof of Einstein's theory involved a peculiarity in the planet Mercury's orbit, which he attributed to the distortion of space created by the great mass of the sun. Central to the proof was an assumption that the sun is perfectly spherical. But Hill's observations showed that the sun is not perfectly round, a discrepancy that Hill has said may be "Achilles tendon of the general theory."
http://people.com/archive/afterhesaid ... l18no10
Pentcho Valev

Anonymous
No. It is just you who is pathologically stupid.Brian Koberlein: "This led Henri Poincaré to propose nonelectromagnetic stresses to hold the electron together. When he calculated the energy of these stresses, he found it amounted to a fourth of an electron's total mass. Thus, the "actual" mass of the electron due to its electric charge alone must be m = E/c^2. Poincaré's paper deriving this result was published in June of 1905, just a few months before Einstein's paper. Although the equation is often attributed to Einstein's 1905 paper, Einstein didn't actually derive the equation from his theory of relativity." https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankober ... equation/
Hans C. Ohanian: "Although Einstein's name is closely linked with the celebrated relation E = mc^2 between mass and energy, a critical examination of the more than half dozen "proofs" of this relation that Einstein produced over a span of forty years reveals that all these proofs suffer from mistakes. Einstein introduced unjustified assumptions, committed fatal errors in logic, or adopted lowspeed, restrictive approximations. He never succeeded in producing a valid general proof applicable to a realistic system with arbitrarily large internal speeds." https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0805/0805.1400.pdf
Philip Ball: "Did Einstein discover E = mc^2? Who discovered that E = mc^2? It's not as easy a question as you might think. Scientists ranging from James Clerk Maxwell and Max von Laue to a string of nowobscure early 20thcentury physicists have been proposed as the true discovers of the massenergy equivalence now popularly credited to Einstein's theory of special relativity. These claims have spawned headlines accusing Einstein of plagiarism, but many are spurious or barely supported. Yet two physicists have now shown that Einstein's famous formula does have a complicated and somewhat ambiguous genesis  which has little to do with relativity." http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46941
Philip Ball: "The biggest revelation for me was not so much seeing that there were several wellfounded precursors for the equivalence of mass and energy, but finding that this equivalence seems to have virtually nothing to do with special relativity. Tony Rothman said to me that "I've long maintained that the conventional history of science, as presented in the media, textbooks and by the stories scientists tell themselves is basically a collection of fairy tales." I'd concur with that." http://philipball.blogspot.com/2011/08/ ... emc2.html
Lisa Randall, Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene: "Why do the stars shine? Why does the galaxy light up? E equals MC squared. That is the engine that lights up the stars. Energy turns into mass. E equals MC squared  that is the secret of the stars. Now, listen carefully. The faster you move, the heavier you get. Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow. It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI
We all live in Einstein's schizophrenic world, don't we?
Pentcho Valev

Anonymous
said the potBrian Koberlein: "This led Henri Poincaré to propose nonelectromagnetic stresses to hold the electron together. When he calculated the energy of these stresses, he found it amounted to a fourth of an electron's total mass. Thus, the "actual" mass of the electron due to its electric charge alone must be m = E/c^2. Poincaré's paper deriving this result was published in June of 1905, just a few months before Einstein's paper. Although the equation is often attributed to Einstein's 1905 paper, Einstein didn't actually derive the equation from his theory of relativity." https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankober ... equation/
Hans C. Ohanian: "Although Einstein's name is closely linked with the celebrated relation E = mc^2 between mass and energy, a critical examination of the more than half dozen "proofs" of this relation that Einstein produced over a span of forty years reveals that all these proofs suffer from mistakes. Einstein introduced unjustified assumptions, committed fatal errors in logic, or adopted lowspeed, restrictive approximations. He never succeeded in producing a valid general proof applicable to a realistic system with arbitrarily large internal speeds." https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0805/0805.1400.pdf
Philip Ball: "Did Einstein discover E = mc^2? Who discovered that E = mc^2? It's not as easy a question as you might think. Scientists ranging from James Clerk Maxwell and Max von Laue to a string of nowobscure early 20thcentury physicists have been proposed as the true discovers of the massenergy equivalence now popularly credited to Einstein's theory of special relativity. These claims have spawned headlines accusing Einstein of plagiarism, but many are spurious or barely supported. Yet two physicists have now shown that Einstein's famous formula does have a complicated and somewhat ambiguous genesis  which has little to do with relativity." http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46941
Philip Ball: "The biggest revelation for me was not so much seeing that there were several wellfounded precursors for the equivalence of mass and energy, but finding that this equivalence seems to have virtually nothing to do with special relativity. Tony Rothman said to me that "I've long maintained that the conventional history of science, as presented in the media, textbooks and by the stories scientists tell themselves is basically a collection of fairy tales." I'd concur with that." http://philipball.blogspot.com/2011/08/ ... emc2.html
Lisa Randall, Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene: "Why do the stars shine? Why does the galaxy light up? E equals MC squared. That is the engine that lights up the stars. Energy turns into mass. E equals MC squared  that is the secret of the stars. Now, listen carefully. The faster you move, the heavier you get. Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow. It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI
We all live in Einstein's schizophrenic world, don't we?
Pentcho Valev