Information icon.svg

Campaigning for the RationalMedia Foundation 2021 board of trustees election is underway!

Talk:Albert Einstein

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Could someone PLEASE put up a different picture for the greatest scientist of the last century. Ok he had a sense of humour, but it doesn't do the man justice. I'd do it, but I don't know the protocol. — Unsigned, by: ‎ / talk / contribs

Go on ahead. ТyBother me 22:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is it that there is little mention of his contributions as a theoretical physicist, while the page is nearly nothing but about his religious views? It certainly wasn't his religious views that defined his name as a synonym for genius. (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Rationalwiki is not an encyclopedia statementword 14:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Why, yes. It is nothing but a pathetic attempt to encompass all rationality under opposition to religion. (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
There is an edit button. Use it. statementword 20:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


There actually is quite a lot of crappy chatter about AE ripping off poincare and lorentz. That debunking sounds pretty much right up our alley. i found this, but not sure if there might be better sources. Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 16:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"So illuminatingly did he dilate on the issues that one historian of science professes bafflement that Poincare failed to invent the theory of special relativity himself.
But he didn't. His comments make it clear he was still wedded to classical physics, with its comforting notion of space and time as unchanging verities. Einstein alone was able to make the conceptual leap and realize that space and time were about as immutable as Silly Putty, paving the way for our modern view of the cosmos as a profoundly strange place."
In fact Lorentz first derived length contraction and time dilation. Mikemikev (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
No response here? (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It's widely known that Lorentz came close. But he never made the final leap of insight about space-time, so he gets no credit for SR. That's how science works - there are no prizes for 'almost'. If you think advancing earlier ideas is "plagiarism", you have no idea how science works. VOXHUMANA 02:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
And what was that final leap? (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
If you don't know that, then how, exactly, are you going to help me "learn" about relativity? VOXHUMANA 03:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't. Please reference where Einstein introduced a new concept. (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Einstein proved the aether wasn't necessary, and that space-time is a singular entity. Lorentz failed to reach this conclusion, and admitted as much in 1909. Einstein also cited Lorentz extensively in his 1905 paper. The theory was originally called the "Lorentz-Einstein equation", and it was Lorentz himself who discouraged this, referring to it exclusively as "Einstein's equation". Is that enough, or is your crankery unbounded? VOXHUMANA 03:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
"Whether the ether exists or not matters little - let us leave that to the metaphysicians; what is essential for us is, that everything happens as if it existed, and that this hypothesis is found to be suitable for the explanation of phenomena. After all, have we any other reason for believing in the existence of material objects? That, too, is only a convenient hypothesis; only, it will never cease to be so, while some day, no doubt, the ether will be thrown aside as useless." Poincare, 1889.
Also Minkowski first derived spacetime. (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES 1905. Paper is unreferenced. (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


Where did that come from? --Revolverman (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
A scan of the sites he is referencing, they're all rabid anti-semite sites. (The IP is Mikemikev) - VOXHUMANA 03:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
No, that's just pathetic. I could similarly accuse you of pro-Jewish bias. It's irrelevant to the facts of the matter. Wailing "anti-semitism" is pathetic. Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity smaller than that of light By Prof. H. A. Lorentz 1904 (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Run away little racist boy. VOXHUMANA 03:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The fact is that Einstein's contribution, if indeed there was any, was utterly trivial. (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I do want to ask this. If Einstein's contributions were already made by others before him, and he just copied their work, why have I never heard of this before today in this argument? I'd feel at least a few physics departments would be talking about this. --Revolverman (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Basically it's all a Jewish conspiracy. Jews control all the universities, plus they use their mind-rays to control the thoughts of innocent anglo-saxons like me, which is why I wrongly believe the Einstein myth. VOXHUMANA 03:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Hahah, come on guys DFTT.Tielec01 (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Physics departments do talk about it. The public don't know so much, for example Voxhumana clearly never read Einstein's 1905 paper. (talk) 03:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

"Friedwardt Winterberg,[B 36] a professor of physics at the University of Nevada, Reno, disputed [3] these conclusions, observing that the galley proofs of Hilbert's articles had been tampered with - part of one page had been cut off. He goes on to argue that the removed part of the article contained the equations that Einstein later published, and he wrote that the cut off part of the proofs suggests a crude attempt by someone to falsify the historical record. "Science" declined to publish this; it was printed in revised form in "Zeitschrift für Naturforschung", with a dateline of June 5, 2003. Winterberg wrote that the correct field equations are still present on the existing pages of the proofs in various equivalent forms. In this paper Winterberg asserted that Einstein sought the help of Hilbert and Klein to help him find the correct field equation, without mentioning the research of Fölsing (1997) and Sauer (1999) according to which Hilbert invited Einstein to Göttingen to give a week of lectures on general relativity in June 1915, which however does not necessarily contradict Winterberg. Hilbert at the time was looking for physics problems to solve." (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, granted, I always took Chemistry over Physics, but what does that statement prove? I don't ask this to be a smartass, I want to know where you are coming from. --Revolverman (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It proves that there is a high level controversy over relativity priority which should be mentioned in the article. (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
A "priority controversy" that Lorentz himself didn't support? this point Einstein intervened with a hypothesis which deserves to rank as one of the great monuments of human genius. - The Einstein Theory of Relativity by HA Lorentz, 1920 VOXHUMANA 04:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
And some more from Lorentz himself (same source as above): ... The equations on which the theory of relativity is based are due to Lorentz, but Einstein connected them with his general principle, namely, that there must be nothing, in observable phenomena, which could be attributed to absolute motion of the observer. As has been acknowledged by all concerned (except for anti-semites) Einstein made the breakthrough which dispensed with the aether, declared space to be Non-Euclidean, and eliminated the notion of absolute position and time. Of course he didn't do it alone, and he consistently acknowledged the work of others such as Lorentz and Poincare. As I stated above (and confirmed in the above reference) Einstein actually termed his formula as the "Lorentz-Einstein equation'. VOXHUMANA 04:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
"Like Henri Poincaré (1895, 1900), Bucherer (1903b) believed in the validity of the Principle of relativity, i.e. that all descriptions of electrodynamic effects should only contain the relative motion of bodies, not of the aether. However, he went a step further and even assumed the physical non-existence of the aether." (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Lorentz was famously self-effacing and the judgement should be based on secondary review. Poincare was clear that he thought Einstein added little or nothing. (talk) 10:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"Lorentz was famously self-effacing". How convenient for your racist viewpoint. LOL :) VOXHUMANA 10:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC) There were claims by anti-Semites that Einstein plagiarised the work of an Austrian physicist named Hasenöhrl. Hasenöhrl was not Jewish, joined the Austro-Hungarian Army in WW1 and was killed. This was contrasted with Einstein being a pacifist Jew.Philosophyfootball (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Quick clarification of religious views of Einstein[edit]

Simple thing: it would seems that some people use the quote "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." which Prince Hubertus claims Einstein said, while ignoring all other quotes of Albert on religion in general, as a strawman that Einstein always believed in a creator god, in particular the abrahamic one, though it would seem that Albert Eistein neither associated himself with either the atheist or xian theist label, but would have considered himself a Pantheist. Maye this page could use a quick notification (summarized) of the Physicist's religious views so as to not be inaccurately used in strawmen. Imadmagician (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

We need a part talking about why conspiracy people hate him and love Tesla.[edit]

You can see it all over the net, The conspiracy world has something against this guy. (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

They do? I have always heard them hate on Thomas Edison.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC) 01:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Religious views[edit]

The religious views section seems to be more or less copied from TOW's article, Religious views of Albert EinsteinWikipedia.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 02:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Einstein's JEWISH science[edit]

Here's a brilliant talk (clickbaity scare-capitals are mine) from one of my favorite philosophy lecturers of all time, Steven Gimbel.

Truly an engaging (and funny) lecturer. I have some of his courses in audiobook format, and he's a real expert.

Topics touched upon in the above video include: the first world war, Descartes, Galileo, Newton (who was actually a bit of an intelligent falling proponent), the Nobel disease, cosmopolitanism, ethnic/religious minority, the Catholic Church, Judaism,...

Just go for it. Great talk from an awesome professor. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Seriously expanding this[edit]

Surprised the article is so short, there aren't a lot of people more missional to RW than dr. Einstein. I'll be gradually expanding/sourcing the article in the next few weeks, if anyone is interested in collaborating please chime in! UninspiringNickname (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)