Albert Einstein debate of 2004

[musashi]

Yeah i have to write a 20 page paper on the Albert Einstein debate of 2004 in january sometime. I can't find anything about it I am currently a senior and am not a big math/physics person so if anyone has any information about it could you please help me out thank you.
-Justin

 

[Cyrus]

20 pages godspeed.

 

[musashi]

do u know anything about it? please lol

 

[ZapperZ]

Yeah i have to write a 20 page paper on the Albert Einstein debate of 2004 in january sometime. I can't find anything about it I am currently a senior and am not a big math/physics person so if anyone has any information about it could you please help me out thank you.
-Justin

There was an Albert Einstein debate in 2004? And I missed it??! Drat!

What were they debating? His hairdo?

Zz.

 

[musashi]

well i don't know that's the topic that my teacher had given it on. I have no idea what she ment by it. Thats the exact word for word topic that paper says.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I think you should go back and insist on clarification from her. I wasn't able to google up anything relevant.

 

[ZapperZ]

well i don't know that's the topic that my teacher had given it on. I have no idea what she ment by it. Thats the exact word for word topic that paper says.

Is it completely taboo to even ask her what she meant by the "Albert Einstein Debate of 2004"?

Zz.

 

[musashi]

She said we have to figure everything out on our own. I am trying to write my outline now so i can start writing tommorow. But yeah i can't find jack on it.

 

[ZapperZ]

She said we have to figure everything out on our own. I am trying to write my outline now so i can start writing tommorow. But yeah i can't find jack on it.

BTW, it is NOT nice to post your question to more than one part of PF. That's a no-no if you read PF rules.

Zz.

 

[musashi]

im really sorry sir, i don't know I am just kinda going insane over this whole paper. maybe she didnt mean 2004 i don't know I am sorry though honestly. I just wish i could find some help.

 

[ZapperZ]

im really sorry sir, i don't know I am just kinda going insane over this whole paper. maybe she didnt mean 2004 i don't know I am sorry though honestly. I just wish i could find some help.

Well, I do hope someone can. I think I'm pretty up-to-date on the general going-ons in physics, and it would certainly be unusual if I missed something like this. However, I have never heard of this "Einstein Debate of 2004". Maybe it's something I missed and someone else here may have heard of it. In any case, I strongly suggest going to your teacher again and double-check if the topic is accurate, especially with the year.

In one of the recent entries in my Journal on here, there is a link to the Albert Einstein Archive. You may want to look at that.

Zz.

 

[Cyrus]

I read a good book about him actually. Its called Einstiend and Newton by some Canadian publishing company. It was an interesting story. How he convinced the president to do nuclear research, he had a daughter, but she was sent away. He divorced the fist time, but married one of his cousins, I think. Maybe a 2nd cousin.

 

[musashi]

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/apr/HQ_04109_gravityPB.html
this is what my friend said it was most likely based on he is a physics major at u Of i urbana he said he thought he read ana rticle about it.
"it was about how the spinning of the Earth warps the gravitational field"
in simplified terms i think that means
I think it was whether gravitational effects were according to what Einstein said or not. But I am not sure can anyone verify and think that's maybe what my teacher is talking about?

 

[ZapperZ]

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/apr/HQ_04109_gravityPB.html
this is what my friend said it was most likely based on he is a physics major at u Of i urbana he said he thought he read ana rticle about it.
"it was about how the spinning of the Earth warps the gravitational field"
in simplified terms i think that means
I think it was whether gravitational effects were according to what Einstein said or not. But I am not sure can anyone verify and think that's maybe what my teacher is talking about?

But you said "the Albert Einstein DEBATE of 2004". This is not a "debate", is it? A debate, at least to me, is a bunch of people arguing about issues. Didn't you watch any of the political debates from the last election?

If this is REALLY what your teacher meant, then this is a very strange way of defining what a "debate" is. Besides, what makes you think that THIS is the only thing in 2004 that is connected to Einstein?

Zz.

 

[musashi]

i don't know i know what a debate is I am a huge political science freak. but like, a debate in science could be testing if something worked this all i can think of at least i mean unless someone else has a better idea this is what i have to go with on my outline at least. I will turn my outline into her and maybe she will yell at me for being completely wrong, or she wont. and like i said I am not sure if this is the only thing that is connect with 04 and einstein I am just going to have to go with it. I've searched the internet up and down.

 

[Cyrus]

a debate in science is zapperz and mines discussion of circular motion :rofl: baseball bats anyone? :tongue2:

 

[musashi]

yeah science... einstein of 2004 ugh there's a reason I am going into political science in college :D

 

[Tom McCurdy]

Einstein GR maybe you are supose to talk about conflict between GR and QM or at least you could and draw it back to say string theory... filler is nice for 20 pages.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

here this may help
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/10/21/warped.spaceII/index.html

this is the new developments dealing with Einstein in 04

 

[Tom McCurdy]

Although that is not really a debate... there was a small skirmish that was involving Einstein's Anniversery here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/3552228.stm

 

[Tom McCurdy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/3936799.stm
there is another link about the debate

 

[Tom McCurdy]

General Einstein in the News finds

http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=newsifs&tab=news&q=Einstein

 

[GrimDad]

I would assume the question is really " What arguments are going on for/against Einstein's theory CURRENTLY ? " !?

A very new website that I came across yesterday may help a bit - http://www.new-science-theory.com

 

[ZapperZ]

I would assume the question is really " What arguments are going on for/against Einstein's theory CURRENTLY ? " !?

A very new website that I came across yesterday may help a bit - http://www.new-science-theory.com

No, this site does NOT help! Please do NOT feed quackeries in here. There are legitimate and serious scientific studies of physics. This is NOT one of them.

Zz.

 

[GrimDad]

I will assume that you are joking in saying that Einstein and Newton are not legitimate physics !

 

[ZapperZ]

I will assume that you are joking in saying that Einstein and Newton are not legitimate physics !

Just because a website invokes the names of these two, and purported to describe their work, does not mean it is legitimate. Don't believe me? Check out Crank Dot Net.

Considering the wealth of information available on legitimate sites, AND, the fact that there are tons and tons of peer-review journals out there, why would anyone want to use an unverfied website as a source of information?

Zz.

 

[GrimDad]

You are certainly right ZapperZ that there are good established websites dealing with physics theory, and I did quote what I said is a new website.

New websites are not established and may be good or bad. So anybody wanting to use a new website needs to study it closely first to decide which type it really is.

I have had lots of amusing times looking at many crank science websites - but it does not put me off looking at new sites - and the new site I quoted is good on the basics of physics theory history but not much else maybe for now at least.

You denounced the new website very fast indeed, suggesting that you had maybe not studied it closely first ?

 

[ZapperZ]

You denounced the new website very fast indeed, suggesting that you had maybe not studied it closely first ?

When a website starts off by saying

"The last 50 years has maybe seen no significant new science theory published, though I have been sitting on a new science theory for the last 40 years developed after the first BSc degree I took... But being satisfied that my new science theory is a major advance, I am now preparing this website to hopefully publish it soon."

.. all the warning bells should go off immediately. No self-respecting physicist would EVER claim that his/her idea is "a major advance" in anything. It is up to the rest of the experts in the fields to make such proclaimation. Secondly, this person is preparing the website to "publish it soon"?! Since when is major advancement in physics solely done on websites and not in peer-reviewed journals?

This and many other symptoms of quackeries simply based on a quick glance are sufficient for me to draw my own conclusions. And I don't remember when the last time I've been wrong on my impression of quack websites. Again, I do not see a value in recommending such unverified sites when a lot of other legitimate ones are available, and especially if a student is going to use these things for class work.

Zz.

 

[GrimDad]

Since you conclude that any major idea originating from the web must be quackery, it seems that you did not need even your 'quick glance' at the website ZapperZ !?

Of course that site might publish some rubbish soon (and if so, you will have guessed right), but for now it has only good physics theory history. School students are no doubt best advised to stick with schoolbooks, as school teachers expect, but degree students should chiefly use their own brains and anything they feel helps that (and something better than a 'quick glance' preferably) ?!

 

[ZapperZ]

Since you conclude that any major idea originating from the web must be quackery, it seems that you did not need even your 'quick glance' at the website ZapperZ !?

I haven't been proven wrong so far. In fact, I have continually make the assertion that for an idea or discovery (at least within the past century or so) to make any significant impact on the advancement of physics, it MUST first and foremost appear in a peer-reviwed journal. I have made such an assertion on various online discussion area for the better part of 10 years, and so far, there has been nothing to contradict that. Zilch! This one won't either!

Of course that site might publish some rubbish soon (and if so, you will have guessed right), but for now it has only good physics theory history. School students are no doubt best advised to stick with schoolbooks, as school teachers expect, but degree students should chiefly use their own brains and anything they feel helps that (and something better than a 'quick glance' preferably) ?!

But how are they to know that what's legitimate and what isn't from there? The fact that they ARE looking for information directly means that they do NOT know which is which. Are you telling me that when you read the piece on Einstein from this website, you saw NOTHING wrong? I mean, just look at this piece of "gem"

"Though signals were central to Einstein's reasoning, he basically took light and electromagnetic signals as accidental emissions from bodies that his theory had doing nothing substantial in the universe except happen to inform observers."

I mean, come on! It's bad enough that a student in trying to find some information to learn from, it is worse if the sentence makes incohrent statement about Einstein and his "reasoning". You do not see a problem with a student looking at this rather than looking at the Albert Einstein archive, or his biography?

I can pick on many other inaccuracies off that site. Anyone who thinks this site is a valid source of info deserves whatever misinformation that comes along with the ride. So good luck!

Zz.

 

[GrimDad]

ZapperZ you are of course right that science now is entirely monopolised by the journals and has been for some years.

But Einstein and much other major physics was not in journals, and some would say that the period of journal science has largely been a period of insubstantial science though they may well be unconnected.

I do feel that the web will sometime take over - one piece of major science launched on it successfully would kill off the journals, though I have no idea when. I will continue to watch new science websites and science web news feeds.

 

[ZapperZ]

But Einstein and much other major physics was not in journals, ...

Excuse me? Einstein "was not in journals"?! Where did you think all of his 1905 papers appeared? On bathroom walls?

I do feel that the web will sometime take over - one piece of major science launched on it successfully would kill off the journals, though I have no idea when. I will continue to watch new science websites and science web news feeds.

I have been on the "net for more than 10 years. I've seen proclaimation like this, especially on the Usenet, for at least that long. These misguided individuals (who barely have even seen enough science journals to know the difference between those and supermarket tabloids) were wrong then. And you'll pardon my skepticism of your "feelings", but considering that you do not even see anything wrong out of that webpage that you even recommeneded, you'll understand that I do not put much emphasis on your prophecy.

Zz.

P.S. I noticed you didn't even attempt to defend my attack on the accuracy of that site.

 

[Gonzolo]

But Einstein and much other major physics was not in journals, and some would say that the period of journal science has largely been a period of insubstantial science though they may well be unconnected.

Try not to mix what you know with what you want to believe. Whoever says that "the period of journal science..." is quite out of touch with reality. These guys below have been publishing journals for practically all that period. And this is only the English language. Incidently, some of Einstein's work is sitting on my bookshelf, and yes it is in paper form.

History of science
The Royal Society (of London) has a huge archive of science history material dating back to 1660. The archive includes material from historically significant events such as the early experiments to demonstrate Newton's Law of Gravity and Harvey's theories of circulation, as well as the drawings that Charles Darwin produced while he was developing the theory of evolution

 

[GrimDad]

Yes well I have much of Einstein's work sitting on my PC, much not from journals - available on the web at http://Alberteinstein.info/

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes well I have much of Einstein's work sitting on my PC, much not from journals - available on the web at http://Alberteinstein.info/

So? A lot of it can be found at the Albert Einstein archive online too!

You seem to think that "journals" means "paper magazine". Unless you are waaaaaay behind in the times, almost every scientific journals are available online. This isn't the point! The point being that EVERY ideas and discovery that has made an impact in physics MUST first appear in a peer-reviewed journal. The "Einstein's work" that's "sitting" on your PC is the result of his published work in such journals! If it wasn't peer-reviewed, no one can tell if it is legitimate or even worth looking at. We certainly could not go by your judgement - just look at the type of websites that you are recommending for these kids to read!

Zz.