@metal-brainsaid Why is e=mc2 called Einstein's famous equation?
Because he was the first one to not only deduce but FULLY explain WHY it must be true from relativity. Einstein once said he never looked at or read Poincare's work and I would always believe his word over yours because I have seen no evidence that he was generally dishonest and you have been just plain wrong countless times. There is no evidence that I know of that he knowingly took credit for somebody else's work and you still haven't shown any evidence let alone proven he knowingly took credit for somebody else's work.
So now what's your point? And why are you trying to attack Einstein's character? -don't bother answer that last one; I already know the real answer; You want to discredit some part of his proven theory you don't like because you have your own delusional ignorant layperson opinion against it so you resort to attacking NOT his theory, because you know you can't, but rather his character. One big problem with that (apart from being unfair immoral slanderous and dishonest) is that even if what you said against his character, which is almost certainly false, were true, that would do absolutely anything to disprove or discredit any part of relativity and that INCLUDES the part you dislike. That's because there is absolutely no logical contradiction in a person of questionable or bad or even extremely evil character in asserting a perfectly correct theory. In fact, I can think of one example of such a scientist but not Einstein.
@humysaid Because he was the first one to not only deduce but FULLY explain WHY it must be true from relativity. Einstein once said he never looked at or read Poincare's work and I would always believe his word over yours because I have seen no evidence that he was generally dishonest and you have been just plain wrong countless times. There is no evidence that I know of that he knowingly ...[text shortened]... perfectly correct theory. In fact, I can think of one example of such a scientist but not Einstein.
You did not answer my question.
It is customary to at least give credit to the work you are building upon. Did Einstein do that with Lorentz?
From the link below:
"Yet many of Poincaré's ideas - for example, that the speed of light is a limit and that mass increases with speed - wound up in Einstein's paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" without being credited."
It is customary to at least give credit to the work you are building upon. Did Einstein do that with Lorentz?
No.
Einstein never claimed Lorentz's work was has own and he never denied he built is works on Lorentz and other people's work and you have shown no evidence to the contrary. That is the answer to your question.
I don't think Einstein was honest when he claimed he was not aware of Poincare's work.
I don't think you are honest when claiming you think you don't think Einstein was honest when he claimed he was not aware of Poincare's work. This is because you have no rational reason and so far failed to give a said reason, even just a BS said reason, to think he was probably lying and it couldn't be more obvious that you are merely attacking his character because you hate some part of his proven theory and thus him for his proven theory. Why else do you suddenly start attacking his character here instead of trying to attack his proven theory? Its because you have given up attacking his proven theory so hatefully attacking his character is pathetically all you have left. And why should I believe you instead of Einstein? My default assumption should be Einstein was telling the truth and it is you who is lying. Still waiting for you to show evidence that Einstein lied...
@humysaid No.
Einstein never claimed Lorentz's work was has own and he never denied he built is works on Lorentz and other people's work and you have shown no evidence to the contrary. That is the answer to your question.
I don't think Einstein was honest when he claimed he was not aware of Poincare's work.
I don't think you are honest when claiming you think you don' ...[text shortened]... g the truth and it is you who is lying. Still waiting for you to show evidence that Einstein lied...
You did not answer my question.
It is customary to at least give credit to the work you are building upon. Did Einstein do that with Lorentz?
My answer was "No". That was and still is my answer to your question. Here it is yet again;
"No."
And then I elaborate on that answer of "No" with;
" Einstein never claimed Lorentz's work was has own and he never denied he built is works on Lorentz and other people's work and you have shown no evidence to the contrary. "
Have you any idea how stupid you make yourself look?
@humysaid My answer was "No". That was and still is my answer to your question. Here it is yet again;
"No."
And then I elaborate on that answer of "No" with;
" Einstein never claimed Lorentz's work was has own and he never denied he built is works on Lorentz and other people's work and you have shown no evidence to the contrary. "
Have you any idea how stupid you make yourself look?
Wasn't that narcissistic of Einstein? He could have given credit where it was due, but he didn't show any consideration to him.
Very selfish.
@metal-brainsaid He could have given credit where it was due, but he didn't
How would you know he never gave credit? Where you there following him around listening to every word he said in the whole of his adult life so you could check?
It is a very reasonable assumption given the complete absence of evidence for him being dishonest that he gave credit and I am still waiting to see you show your said evidence to the contrary...
So why do you now hate him so much that you want to slander his good name? Answer; You Hate his proven theory and are Jealous that he was WAY smarter than you would ever be. Suck it up. Like me, don't be an *** h*** and learn to be humble and not have a problem with somebody being way smarter and better than you. You accuse him of not giving credit while hypocritically not giving him credit for his great works the likes of which you have never come close to achieving and never will.
@humysaid How would you know he never gave credit? Where you there following him around listening to every word he said in the whole of his adult life so you could check?
It is a very reasonable assumption given the complete absence of evidence for him being dishonest that he gave credit and I am still waiting to see you show your said evidence to the contrary...
So why do you now hat ...[text shortened]... credit for his great works the likes of which you have never come close to achieving and never will.
It is customary to at least give credit to the work you are building upon IN YOUR PAPER. Verbal does not count.
You even admitted Einstein built on Lorentz's work. The math is the same. If it was you, would you have given written credit in your paper or not? If not, what justification would you have for not doing that?
@metal-brainsaid It is customary to at least give credit to the work you are building upon IN YOUR PAPER.
It just depends but often isn't. Certainly Not, as is true in this case, if it is ALREADY common scientific knowledge who created the work that work your work was built upon else that would be just completely moronic to state those already well known facts in the book. For example, his work was partly built upon calculus at least in the narrow sense he used it in his work. But it would have been completely moronic for him to explicitly say so in his book and explicitly list all the people that created calculus as all us NON-morons OBVIOUSLY ALREADY KNOW other people created calculus, not him, and, OBVIOUSLY, HE KNEW we already knew that thus him not explicitly giving credit to those other people to either calculus or anything else we OBVIOUSLY ALREADY KNOW other people created such as Newtonian physics and other physics etc that he built his work on is NOT, to all us NON-morons, an indicator that he took credit for those things and you have to be a complete MORON to honestly think otherwise.
So far you STILL have shown absolutely NO evidence that he took credit for other peoples work. Until if or when you do (which you won't), we will all take your hateful claims against his character as BS and you convince nobody here.
@humysaid It just depends but often isn't. Certainly Not, as is true in this case, if it is ALREADY common scientific knowledge who created the work that work your work was built upon else that would be just completely moronic to state those already well known facts in the book. For example, his work was partly built upon calculus at least in the narrow sense he used it in his work. But i ...[text shortened]... n't), we will all take your hateful claims against his character as BS and you convince nobody here.
"Certainly Not, as is true in this case, if it is ALREADY common scientific knowledge who created the work that work your work was built upon"
Most people are unaware. It is not common knowledge at all. Einstein was merely being a narcissist. He didn't give Lorentz the credit he deserved and I don't believe he was unaware of Poincare's work. Many of Poincaré's ideas for example, that the speed of light is a limit and that mass increases with speed - wound up in Einstein's paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" without being credited.
I think it is likely Einstein is a liar trying to hog all the attention he could. It is like trying to defend the ethics of Edison. Sure he accomplished great things, but he was still a cad and a liar. No different than Einstein.
What? 'Most' people aren't aware that Einstein was NOT the one that invented calculus and Newtonian physics etc and would be so STUPID to also assume he was if he didn't explicitly say he wasn't? That's totally absurd. I guess what you call 'Most' people excludes all people that have had an education and also excludes all people that have an I.Q. greater than 70 and only includes people that are both ignorant and moronic to the extreme. As far as I am aware, I have never met or known such an ignorant and moronic person that would assume this and not sure if any such person exists anywhere on Earth.
Space can't be empty
21 Aug '20 09:28
Back to Top