Einstein's 1912 Paper: Debunking Myths and Misconceptions

[turbo]

I've got my asbestos suit on, boys and girls. : I was searching for links to Einstein's 1912 paper where (according to Renada) he said that the speed of light in a vacuum is only constant in a space-time domain with a flat gravitational field strength. Then I bumped into this:

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html

Is this article accurate or even defensible?

 

[Hurkyl]

No, I don't think so.

 

[Janitor]

Cold fusion believers never die, they just rag on Einstein.

 

[Chronos]

Considering the publication

'NEXUS is an international bi-monthly alternative news magazine, covering the fields of: Health Alternatives; Suppressed Science; Earth's Ancient Past; UFOs & the Unexplained; and Government Cover-Ups.'

and author, Richard Moody Jr, credentials: MS Geology and effusive supporter of Autodynamics [replacement for the flawed theory of relativity]

I'd vote no.

 

[mijoon]

What a load of B.S.
Half of it can easily be shown to be false, and the other half is just silly.
Oh well, anything for a buck.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The relation of Poincare to Einstein, and also factoring in Lorentz, is complex. Poincare was certainly on the track of relativity, and he had some ideas about it that Einstein didn't and which have turned out to be valuable. But in all fairness he did not scoop Einstein. The essence of relativity, explaining the Lorentz transformations and therefore the famous dilations, is in Einstein's 1905 paper; he gives the physics of relativity. Poincare's 1905 paper (just a few weeks after Einstein's) gives the group theory of the Lorentz transformations, but completely sidesteps the physics.

All the other citations in that essay are just random voices from the past. Many people asserted the dilations, but none of them (except Voigt!) had a coherent explanation for them. In my opinion this knock on Einstein is completely wrong and unfair, but because of the complex issues around the birth of special relativity it will never die. To a certain type of mind, willing to ignore subtleties and just stubbornly repeat first impressions, Einstein will never be cleared.

 

[turbo]

The relation of Poincare to Einstein, and also factoring in Lorentz, is complex. Poincare was certainly on the track of relativity, and he had some ideas about it that Einstein didn't and which have turned out to be valuable. But in all fairness he did not scoop Einstein. The essence of relativity, explaining the Lorentz transformations and therefore the famous dilations, is in Einstein's 1905 paper; he gives the physics of relativity. Poincare's 1905 paper (just a few weeks after Einstein's) gives the group theory of the Lorentz transformations, but completely sidesteps the physics.

Thanks. The source looked suspect, but I don't have sufficient math skills to go back to the source papers and determine who was on the right paths and when. I have read enough non-technical articles about Poincare, though, to know that he was ahead of his time and could have provided some insights that Einstein needed to gel his theories.

The slamming of the good doctor is over the top, but many egregious overstatements have some basis in fact, thus the question.

 

[Hurkyl]

Well, what clinched it for me was that the author seemed to be lacking in any sort of knowledge of experimental physics or cosmology from the past 70+ years... for instance, his comment about neutrinos.

 

[chronon]

Oh dear. Here is someone who has done 'Four years intensive research into Albert Einstein' (looking for priority disputes), and he doesn't even mention David Hilbert. (Do a Google search for Hilbert Einstein to see what I mean). Even on his own terms he scores zero.

 

[Integral]

Once again someone saying that Einstein did not give Lorentz credit for Lorentz transforms...What's up with this? You would think that they are called The Einstein transforms.

 

[yogi]

There are many Einstein bashers, both on the net and in print. There are a few points that are probably worth considering - he did not make reference to Lorentz and others, but that could be because his approach was critically different from the standpoint of recogonizing that "time" was not universal - so even though the transforms were visually identical, Einstein's development required an entirely different interpretation of the temporal symbol. Hilbert, did to some degree, scoop Einstein on the GT, but he later acknowledged that the work was primarily do to an exchange of ideas between the two men during the time Einstien was struggling with the General theory. Einstein's biographer's have, however, had difficulty with Einstien's claim that he was only vaguely aware of MMx - apparently not wishing his theory to be branded as an ad hoc explanation of an experimental result. Most researchers have concluded that Einstein was well aware of these experiments, and would not admit it.

 

[DrChinese]

Gee, it certainly is nice that the entire scientific establishment got together to pronounce an unknown patent clerk as the new king of science.

(I wonder if they will do that for me?)

 

[selfAdjoint]

Gee, it certainly is nice that the entire scientific establishment got together to pronounce an unknown patent clerk as the new king of science.

(I wonder if they will do that for me?)

You produce papers as revolutionary and successful as Einstein's and they will. Also your personal life will be put under a microscope, your every statement will be combed for contradictions or for support of crank theories, and you will be the poster boy for attack by every nut with a grudge against rationality.

 

[DrChinese]

You produce papers as revolutionary and successful as Einstein's and they will. Also your personal life will be put under a microscope, your every statement will be combed for contradictions or for support of crank theories, and you will be the poster boy for attack by every nut with a grudge against rationality.

I have always been amazed that Einstein did so much with his 1905 papers. For the life of me, I can't see why people would want to belittle his accomplishments of that year. By any standard that I can think of, those papers were amazing. I guess the answer is that some people have a hidden agenda - i.e. belittle Einstein to make themself look better in comparison.

Personally, I find the idea that Einstein was a plagarizer to be laughable. That his contribution was original and substantial is obvious: simply put, there was "before Einstein" and "after Einstein".

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, but my great grandfather was in his early 20s in 1905. Coincidence? [/irony]

 

[Chronos]

My skeptic alarm always sounds when I see attacks on Einstein - especially personal attacks because all too often they are racially motivated. If anyone is interested in an opposing view to the Moody article, try
http://www.ajnpx.com/html/Einstein-Ripped-Off.html
For more regarding crankdom and relativity, see
http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/print.html

 

[quantumdude]

I didn't read the article, but I did a Control-F search for the name "Bjerknes" (as in Cristopher John Bjerknes). Some of his stark-raving lunatic disciples infested PF a couple of years ago. They were proof positive that you can't spell "Bjerknes" without the "j-e-r-k".

Oh, and sure enough, Bjerknes is the first reference in the article.

 

[selfAdjoint]

How did this Einstein thread get hijacked by cold fusion partisans? What has this got to do with relativity anyway?