/sci/ - Science & Math

well?

>Einstein
>Jew
>Anti-Semite card can be used

Pick 3.

yeah it's the jewish shadow government

It's possible that the Frenchman who wrote that paper has a nationalist bone to pick.

I don't know enough about the issue to say so for sure, nor do I care to read that article.

>>3929941

> I don't know enough about the issue to say
> nor do I care

so why bother replying?

Because he didn't.

It's very posh to attack Einstein's work these days. Just look at CERN, they willingly ruined the credibility of an entire scientific field just because they couldn't stand to admit that a theoretician from the first half of the 20th century was more brilliant than any group of monkeys smashing atoms together.

Hermann Minkowski was one of Einstein's teachers I believe. Einstein used the math his teachers taught him, but the ideas of 1905 were his.

Einstein proved relativity. Everyone before him was merely speculating.

it's like saying Darwin stole credit for evolution from Lamarck

>>3929972

> because he didn't

Erm if you read the paper you'd see it's pretty irrefutable that he did. The theory of relativity was published by Poincaré a full three months before Einstein published his copy of it.

>>3929972
>because he didn't.

damn, beat me to it.

>>3929984

READ THIS ONE PAPER ABOUT HISTORY, IT'S IRREFUTABLE

>>3929868

Just because Einstein didn't put any sources on the bottom of his first paper rgarding relativity (which is an assy thingto do though) doesn't mean he plagiarised.

It's a retarded try to disrespect his work in the field.

>Science is a collaborative enterprise
>Spanning the generations
>We remember those who prepared the way
>Seeing for them also


With science there is no proprietary rights.

>>3929998

It's not about his lack of references.

> don't read paper
> speak with authority about how wrong the paper is

you'd think the 'scientists' that occupy this board would know better

>>3929972

> Just look at CERN, they willingly ruined the credibility of an entire scientific field just because they couldn't stand to admit that a theoretician from the first half of the 20th century was more brilliant than any group of monkeys smashing atoms together.

That's totally not what is happening, douchefag.

>>3929972
>>3930026
is this about the neutrino thing? if so, you're retarded.

>>3930052

Who is retarded?

>>3929984
>you'd see it's pretty irrefutable that he did
According to what evidence? The author claims that Poincare "published" some kind of paper before Einstein did, and that therefore Einstein is automatically a plagiarist because another scientist in another country did some work that was vaguely similar to what Einstein was doing at the time. That's what we call a "slippery slope" in the historical field. The French have a very long history of trying to take credit for scientific discoveries that were either not theirs or created as part of a group effort, so seeing this paper doesn't really surprise me that much.
>>3930026
Oh, but it is. Europeans gloated for years that they had the world's largest accelerator and the US didn't. It's too bad that they got a bunch of fucktards to manage it. It's also too bad that CERN does nothing that can't be accomplished by real mathematicians.

>>3930059
> It's also too bad that CERN does nothing that can't be accomplished by real mathematicians.

lolwut

>>3930059

What makes you so butthurt about CERN?

They waited long enough before publishing that paper. Never do they claim there's evidence against Einstein or anything like that. You're totally fucked if you believe this shit.

> CERN does nothing that can't be accomplished by real mathematicians.

Mathematicians accelerate and collide protons? That's news to me.

>>3930026
WTF are you talking about? are you high?

>>3930089

I'm talking about that dude's assumptions which are obviously wrong and no, I'm not high, are you?

>Just look at CERN, they willingly ruined the credibility of an entire scientific field
nope
also Einstein's theories were HEAVILY revised and improved over the years

Woah. I feel like that this topic will start hating on Poincare soon, and I can't have that.

Man was The Last Universalist.

>>3930098

>Just look at CERN, they willingly ruined the credibility of an entire scientific field

No seriously, wtf are you talking about? This never happened bro. Trollin?

>>3930074
Particle accelerators are for people who cannot into theoretical mathematics.
>>3930077
Except I'm not. I simply pointed out that the fools who rushed in screaming "FTL!" as soon as that paper came out are just that, fools. I know that you were probably one of them, and that's why you feel the need to passive-aggressively attack Einstein's work.

>>3930116

Get your references straight, I'm not the guy who said that.

>>3930117
Your mathematics are worth precisely fuck all without experiments, as string theory proved nicely.

>>3930059
>>3930059

> The author claims that Poincare "published" some kind of paper before Einstein did

The author doesn't 'claim', he instead acknowledges the fact that Poincaré published a paper on relatively months before Einstein paper on relativity which if you've read both papers (which you probably haven't) you'd see clearly rips off Poincarés' work.

The fact is you and most people in general refuse to look at things objectively and with an open mind. You have preconceptions about how great 'Einstein' was because of the constant characterisation of him as such by media as the epitome of genius and those preconceptions are hard to beat. You're the same type of person who burned the 'witches' at the stake and hounded those who thought the world to be round. Now go worship your false idol.

>>3930117

> theoretical mathematics.

Pretty sure you mean theoretical physics. Mathematicians can't do that. And that's a good thing.

> I simply pointed out that the fools who rushed in screaming "FTL!" as soon as that paper came out are just that, fools

Yeah, but those weren't the guys at CERN but some press idiots.

> that's why you feel the need to passive-aggressively attack Einstein's work.

Wow, you're fucking retarded. That's not what I did at all. That's rather what you did and I called out as eing retarded. What the fuck man. I'm well aware of what Einstein did, especially besides relativity.

>>3930117
>Particle accelerators are for people who cannot into theoretical mathematics.

Incoherent trollin is incoherent

>>3930137

Bullshit, boy. I won't explain why you and that author (probably the same person) are wrong about this, that would take too much effort from my side.

>>3930131
The technology does not exist to accurately prove or disprove string theory via experiment, but nice try. I'm not even particularly a fan of the idea, but at least I wasn't stupid enough to publish a paper that made grade-school errors in arithmetic calculations and then claim that relativity had been assigned to the ash heap of history.

>>3930153

> and then claim that relativity had been assigned to the ash heap of history

CERN didn't do this either.

By the way, the LHC would be able to see if there's supersymmetry, and if there's not, string theory gets some major problems.

>>3930153

> publish a paper that made grade-school errors in arithmetic calculations

wtfamireading.png

>>3930151

You won't explain how
1. The FACT that Poincaré published his work on relativity months before Einstein and that
2. Einsteins paper had clearly ripped of Poincaré if you'd had the decency to have read both

is wrong? Well there's a suprise. Btw the sky is really green, I know I'm right about this, I won't bother to prove it though, you can just take my word for it. What an ego.

>>3930153
What the fuck are you talking about? No one did any of the shit you keep talking about. Are you sure you're not high?

>>3930153
WTF? Retarded? Troll?

>>3930137
Oh my, where to start.
>The author doesn't 'claim'
Yes, he does. Every statement he makes is inherently a claim, because you don't have access to primary resources and therefore aren't capable of double-checking his work. So all you're doing is launching an appeal to authority.
>which if you've read both papers (which you probably haven't) you'd see clearly rips off Poincarés' work.
Indeed, I haven't. However, the author doesn't present a single shred of evidence that indicates that Einstein did in fact plagiarize some element of the work. He simply makes the ipso facto statement that because Poincare published a paper relating to relativity before Einstein, he MUST have engaged in plagiarism, which is an obviously flawed statement.
>You have preconceptions about how great 'Einstein' was because of the constant characterisation of him as such by media as the epitome of genius
I don't have any "preconceptions." I simply acknowledge that Einstein was a great scientist based on the evidence available. The difference between you and me is that I'm not interested in tearing down someone else's work for the sake of being deep and edgy, and provoking replies on internet message boards.
>You're the same type of person who burned the 'witches' at the stake blah blah blah blah
Yes, I'm afraid you've caught me. I'm actually posting from the Vatican right now, from the Historical Orthodoxy division. There is no possible way that I simply disagree with your interpretation of the available evidence.

The problem here is that you're really the one that can't have an independent thought. You simply rush to whatever camp is considered the most outrageous and most likely to provoke replies, but still maintains a thin veneer of historical credibility.

>>3930183

Look, many people worked on relativity that time. Einstein took the combined work of all of them and saw the big pircture and explained and especially derived everything rigorously (ion a physical sense).
Of course others had posted works on relativity before. That doesn't make Einstein's work a plagiat.

>implying anyone who knows physics thinks Einstein is a genius for SR
>implying everybody doesn't know that someone else would have done SP if Einstein didn't
>implying Einstein isnt known for GR
>implying all of this doesnt matter because he got the Nobel prize for the photoelectric effect
>implying anybody gives a shit who found what out
>implying anything is named/attributed to the person who discovered it

>>3930204

> >implying everybody doesn't know that someone else would have done SP if Einstein didn't

Not sure if that would have happened to be honest.

>>3930168
They published the paper knowing full well the reactions it would provoke. They didn't need to say or do anything, because they knew that an army of drones would immediately appear and do all the dirty work for them. It's unfortunate that they weren't intelligent enough to think up some more excuses and keep the charade going a little while longer, it sure made the pseudo-intellectuals very easy to spot.

>>3930213

> They published the paper knowing full well the reactions it would provoke.

Why then did they wait so long before doing it? Why did they spend all their time trying (and unfortunately failing) to figure out the flaw? If it's obvious, why isn't an answer published yet?

> They didn't need to say or do anything, because they knew that an army of drones would immediately appear and do all the dirty work for them

Can you prove that the CERN-guys had these intentions?

>>3930213
>>3930213
Seriously dude, lay off the drugs.

>>3930153
>>3930201
>>3930213

Holy shit who are you? I was trying to say all of this a week ago when the news came out about the GPS satellites with the whole muon thing and no one would listen.

Two trips in a thread with credibility, what is 4chan coming to...

>>3930201
GREAT TROLLING BRO!

the main problem with einstein was he let himself get popular with the media. if he'd stayed simply a great scientist and didn't let his image get out of control (ie. einstein = genius in modern terminology) this OMG EINSTEIN PLAGIARIZED shit would never happen.

in many cases, popular images are frauds who don't live up to their name, like edison or MLK or JFK, etc. Einstein doesn't live up to his name of super genius, but his work and the importance of his discoveries do live up to the hype of a TRUE AND ORIGINAL groundbreaking scientific work.

But OP does have one point. Poincare is truly the greatest theoretical physicist/mathematician ever, much much much better than einstein.

>>3930244
>>3930201
sametroll

>>3930263

Full ack.

>>3930258

> Poincare is truly the greatest theoretical physicist/mathematician ever, much much much better than einstein.

Mathematically, maybe, physically, no fucking way.

>>3930258
This is true. While I'm not going to sit here and say that Einstein WAS THA GR8EST SUPAH-GENIUS EVAR!!11!, I'm still tired of these self-proclaimed cool kids attacking his work day in and day out for the sake of being edgy.

I never said Poincare wasn't talented either.

>>3930275
Well.. Poincare was a genius. It would not be a disrespect towards Einstein saying that they were on the same level.

Suddenly, tripfag circlejerk.

I wouldn't be surprised if you were all the same neckbeard.

Pathetic.

>>3930275

Poincare was physically fiiine, if you know what I mean.