Once again, we are informed by none other than Alex Linder that Einstein was not the first to come out with the famous equation E=MC^2.

Perhaps Mr. Linder has actually studied Einstein's derivation of the equation which is both simple and elegant and is based on the classical definition of work (force acting through a distance or F dot dx where F is d/dt [mv]) coupled with Einsteins concept of relativistic mass? Click here for the derivation. (http://nrich.maths.org/askedNRICH/edited/1716.html) Perhaps he compared Einstein's derivation with that of Italian industrialist Olinto DePretto (which I can't find anywhere on the internet) and found that Einstein was guilty of plagiarism?

No way. Give the Jew his due, Alex. Yes even 100 years ago, the German physics journal Annalen der Physik was peer reviewed. If Einstein were guilty of plagiarism, you can be sure that someone would have noticed.

If there is someone who deserves recognition for the equation, it is Einstein's brilliant Aryan wife Mileva Maric who more than made up for Einstein's intellectual shortcomings and was his actual collaborator (though never acknowledged as such).

Klatu, I'm not physicist, but what don't you understand about that the Italian published the equation first? Check the sources if you doubt it.

Point is, regardless of whether Einstein was a competent physicist, the only reason he's portrayed as a demigod and gets all the credit is because he's a jew, and that's the same reason he's never subjected to any criticism.

The Priority Myth
Excerpts from Chapter One

It is easily proven that Albert Einstein did not originate the special theory of relativity in its entirety, or even in its majority.1 The historic record is readily available. Ludwig Gustav Lange,2 Woldemar Voigt,3 George Francis FitzGerald,4 Joseph Larmor,5 Hendrik Antoon Lorentz,6 Jules Henri Poincaré,7 Paul Drude,8 Paul Langevin,9 and many others, slowly developed the theory, step by step, and based it on thousands of years of recorded thought and research. Einstein may have made a few contributions to the theory, such as the relativistic equations for aberration and the Doppler-Fizeau Effect,10 though he may also have rendered an incorrect equation for the transverse mass of an electron, which, when corrected, becomes Lorentz' equation.11

Albert Einstein's first work on the theory of relativity did not appear until 1905. There is substantial evidence that Albert Einstein did not write this 1905 paper12 on the "principle of relativity" alone. His wife, Mileva Einstein-Marity, may have been co-author, or the sole author, of the work.13

If Albert Einstein did not originate the major concepts of the special theory of relativity, how could such a historically significant fact have escaped the attention of the world for nearly a century? The simple answer is that it did not. . . .

. . . in 1927, H. Thirring wrote,

"H. Poincare had already completely solved the problem of time several years before the appearance of Einstein's first work (1905). . . ." 48

Sir Edmund Whittaker in his detailed survey, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, Volume II, (1953), included a chapter entitled "The Relativity Theory of Poincare and Lorentz". Whittaker thoroughly documented the development of the theory, documenting the authentic history, and demonstrated through reference to primary sources that Einstein held no priority for the vast majority of the theory. Einstein offered no counter-argument to Whittaker's famous book. . .

. . . Even among Einstein's admirers, voices are heard, which deny Einstein's priority. Max Born averred,

"I have now to say some words about the work of these predecessors of Einstein, mainly of Lorentz and Poincare. [***] Many of you have looked upon [Einstein's] paper 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper' in Annalen der Physik [***] and you will have noticed some pecularities. The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous literature. It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true."66

http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/prioritymyth.htm

Did you read what I wrote? Google up the name and read up on what you find. De Pretto published the formula twice before Einstein did. jew Einstein was fluent in Italian and knew a friend of De Pretto. Einstein did not cite De Pretto.

How in the world does Einstein get credit for someone else's work? Your characterization of the jew's work evades the point: he is credited with discovering an equation he in fact did not discover. And from my brief research, he wasn't even second in line but probably about sixth.

Any Aryan who claimed credit for what a jew had published years earlier would be debunked and denounced as thief and anti-semite.

Frankly, the greatest genius of the early part of last century was the Serb, Nikola Tesla. He got f****d over by Edison though.

And yes, I agree that Einstein is touted mostly (by the jewmedia/establishment) for his jewishness. Were things righted, he would be just another scientific genius among a host of geniuses from the 20th Century.

Seriously, you want to be amazed? Google Tesla and start your research. The guy was the original mad scientist. He focused all his effort into harnessing electrical power but his accomplishments should make all white folks proud. We truly are the creator race.

Yugoslavia certainly has an appreciation for it's real leaders.

http://www.fisica.ufpb.br/graduacao/money/tesla.jpg

[EDITED- THIS IS THE CIVIL FORUM]

NIKOLA TESLA WAS AWESOME!
(Really, he freaked people out.)

Did you people know that Tesla invented the very first radio controlled device? A boat!

http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/history/tesla_boat.jpg

Read about it here (short): http://www.tfcbooks.com/teslafaq/q&a_025.htm
Tons upon tons of stuff on Nikola Tesla on the internet, just look him up.
Some Tesla tidbits here: http://members.tripod.com/~earthdude1/tesla/tesla.html
and here: http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/history/tesla.htm


[I plan to honor Tesla in a BIG way. Mark my words.]

My late grandfather actually worked for Westinghouse during the time that Tesla was affiliated with that company. He was one of dozens who worked with him on several projects including the Niagara Power Plant.

My “Grandpa” was an electrical engineer and a certified genius. He graduated from Newark College of Engineering (NCE) in Newark, N.J. at the age of 16, the youngest ever to have graduated from that school. My grandfather was a prodigious writer of technical articles and electro/mechanical manuals and he has published many books and worked as editor on many distinguished post-grad level electrical engineering text books.

Obviously, I have not inherited Grandpa’s IQ.

But, some things I’ll never forget that Grandpa told me about Tesla, he said, “Nicola Tesla could not have been a human being.” He said, “It was impossible for anyone to logically deduce the ideas or concepts that Tesla could without being divinely inspired.” He said, “The math was so eloquent, beautiful and God-like,” that it made him cry.” He also said that he, “felt like a fool because he was so stupid when he compared his own understands to Tesla‘s.” I said to him, “But Grandpa, you were just a very young man when you worked with him”. He said, “I am still stupid to this day when compared to Mr. Tesla.” He was about 85 when he told me that.

This reminds me of that Family Guy where Einstein is working at the Patent Office, and a man wants to have "Thompson's Theory of Relativity" patented.

Einstein kills him and runs off with the thesis!



...

Did you read what I wrote? Google up the name and read up on what you find. De Pretto published the formula twice before Einstein did. jew Einstein was fluent in Italian and knew a friend of De Pretto. Einstein did not cite De Pretto.

How in the world does Einstein get credit for someone else's work? Your characterization of the jew's work evades the point: he is credited with discovering an equation he in fact did not discover. And from my brief research, he wasn't even second in line but probably about sixth.

Any Aryan who claimed credit for what a jew had published years earlier would be debunked and denounced as thief and anti-semite.


I have googled the Italian and what comes up are second hand references to his work but I can't find his published papers. I am not saying that dePretto did not come up with the equation, but I require proof. Do you believe everything that you read?

As to the others who are credited with pieces of the theory of relativity, certainly Lorentz and Fitzgerald came up with a couple of the formulas before Einstein but they were purely empirical- that is based on observation of spectral line deviations. They were not derived from first principals as were Einstein/Maric's.

If all Einstein/Maric did was publish their 1905 papers, then it is doubtful if Einstein would be remembered as he is today. No, his fame is based on the General Theory of Relativity which was published in 1915. I won't go into details about this but it is undoubtably the most important scientific discovery of the 20th century and there were a lot of other very important discoveries.

I have googled the Italian and what comes up are second hand references to his work but I can't find his published papers. I am not saying that dePretto did not come up with the equation, but I require proof. Do you believe everything that you read?

As to the others who are credited with pieces of the theory of relativity, certainly Lorentz and Fitzgerald came up with a couple of the formulas before Einstein but they were purely empirical- that is based on observation of spectral line deviations. They were not derived from first principals as were Einstein/Maric's.

If all Einstein/Maric did was publish their 1905 papers, then it is doubtful if Einstein would be remembered as he is today. No, his fame is based on the General Theory of Relativity which was published in 1915. I won't go into details about this but it is undoubtably the most important scientific discovery of the 20th century and there were a lot of other very important discoveries.

I think we ought to get a clue here fella.

1)Einsteins theory of Relativity is just that...a theory...not scientific fact!

2)"The mathematical relationship of mass and energy was a simple deduction from the already well-known equations of Scottish physicist James Maxwell. Scientists long understood that the mathematical relationship expressed by the equation E=mc2 was the logical result of Maxwell's work, they just did not believe it.

3) Einstein described Maxwell's work as the "most profound and the most fruitful that physics has experienced since the time of Newton." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell

4) That there was an equivalence between mass and energy had already been shown in the laboratory in the 1890s by both J.J. Thomsom of Cambridge and by W. Kaufmann in Gottingen. In 1900, Poincare had shown that there was a mass relationship for all forms of energy, not just electromagnetic energy. Yet, the most probable source of Einstein's plagiarism was Friedrich Hasenohrl, one of the most brilliant, yet unappreciated physicists of the era. Hasenhrl was the teacher of many of the German scientists who would later become famous for a variety of topics. He had worked on the idea of the equivalence of mass and energy for many years and had published a paper on the topic in 1904 in the very same journal which Einstein would publish his plagiarized version in 1905. For his brilliant work in this area, Hasenorhl had received in 1904 a prize from the prestigious Vienna Academy of Sciences. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.zbp.univie.ac.at/FritzHasenoehrl.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3DFriedrich%2BHasen%25C3%25B6hrl%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG

THUS, THE EXPERIMENTS OF THOMSON, KAUFMANN, AND FINALLY, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, HASENORHL, CONFIRMED MAXWELL'S WORK. IT IS LUDICROUS TO BELIEVE THAT EINSTEIN DEVELOPED THIS POSTULATE"!

Anyone who thinks that Einstein was a genius should read this book ...

Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist by Christopher Jon Bjerknes.

Was Einstein wrong?


2)The mathematical relationship of mass and energy was a simple deduction from the already well-known equations of Scottish physicist James Maxwell. Scientists long understood that the mathematical relationship expressed by the equation E=mc2 was the logical result of Maxwell's work, they just did not believe it.


Was Einstein wrong?

SYDNEY -- A team of Australian scientists has proposed that the speed of light may not be a constant, a revolutionary idea that could unseat one of the most cherished laws of modern physics -- Einstein's theory of relativity.

The team, led by theoretical physicist Paul Davies of Sydney's Macquarie University, say it is possible that the speed of light has slowed over billions of years.

"That means giving up the theory of relativity and E-mc squared and all that sort of stuff," Davies told Reuters.


http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0%2C1282%2C54394%2C00.html

The equation isn't even all that relevant to anything any of us will ever experience. I agree that it was stolen by the jew, but it's sort of "out there" in the quantum realm, unobservable and mostly useless to practical science and modern application.

Not trying to sound fancy schmancy or anything. I could be wrong but the whole E=mc^2 is kind of cliched after having it hammered into us by kosher science books and the like. Most Americans know one or two basic equations, and this one, the one they'll never need, they probably know. Go figure.

For those of you who don't know, E=energy, M=mass, and c=speed of light.

So energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.

You really don't need to know these kinds of things.

"That means giving up the theory of relativity and E-mc squared and all that sort of stuff," Davies told Reuters.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0%2C1282%2C54394%2C00.html

Science is all theories until someone observes how things actually work, not how they look through experiments and theory. REALITY > *

I respect Einstein's work, but then I read his "philosophy" and realize he doesn't know anything outside of that experimental world, thus it's good to keep an open mind and realize he may be a very high-tech babbling monkey.

It seems to me the scientific community should know who is or isn't a plagiarist amongst them from the start. Dr. Pierce, who had training in physics, acknowledged that Einstein was a great mathematician. Hawking shows great deference to Einstein in his writing, and he is considered supreme among modern physicists.

It's possible an Italian beat Einstein to the punch, but it appears to be a stretch to call Einstein a plagiarist.

It seems to me the scientific community should know who is or isn't a plagiarist amongst them from the start. Dr. Pierce, who had training in physics, acknowledged that Einstein was a great mathematician. Hawking shows great deference to Einstein in his writing, and he is considered supreme among modern physicists.

It's possible an Italian beat Einstein to the punch, but it appears to be a stretch to call Einstein a plagiarist.

It isn't "possible," it's an established fact, denied by no one.

Whether Einstein is a plagiarist depends on whether plagiarism covers using math equations without crediting them to their originators. I would say that's a fair extension of the term.

My point was not whether Einstein did valid work, my point was that his fellow jews have promoted him as the smartest human of all times, and identified him as the discoverer of E=mc2, which he is not.

....... Dr. Pierce, who had training in physics, acknowledged that Einstein was a great mathematician. Hawking shows great deference to Einstein in his writing, and he is considered supreme among modern physicists.

It's possible an Italian beat Einstein to the punch, but it appears to be a stretch to call Einstein a plagiarist.

Just because he was a great mathemetician or whatever doesnt mean he didnt plagiarize a particular item. Smart folks do wrong too. And Einstein, being a Jew, was typical of his tribe in that he worked AND cheated.

Dont ever think a smart, hardworking, seemingly straight Jew wont cheat if he thinks it's worth the risk. Remember Einstein.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b198/grahamwellington/Biggest_Frauds.jpg



_

Study graduate electromagnetism (try Classical Electrodynamics by Schwinger, Milton) and you'll see that derivations in the late 1800s point to energy density being equal to momentum density times c squared for light, and this hints at the equation E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2.

Credit for discoveries in physics aren't so cut and dry. Earlier work tends to show the way to future discoveries.

http://botit.botany.wisc.edu/toms_fungi/images/einstein4.jpg


http://www.dbtechno.com/images/Don_King_Prizefighter_Wii.jpg

Heh - Einshine

http://www.jewishracism.com/dwarf4.gif
THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF SAINT EINSTEIN
http://www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.htm

2,825 page treatise on Einstein's plagiarism, Einstein's Zionism, history of Zionism, racism, Judaism, and more. The complete book The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein in one 17 Mb. PDF file can be downloaded by clicking on this link: http://www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.pdf

http://i.current.com/images/studio/asset/2007/01/07/11964221_277073214_400x300.jpg


Physicist getting his shoe shine, scribbling on the notepads,then chucked the paper in the bin.Einstein then saved it for school exam-
the rest is history.

That's Funny...

Now go get your fuckin' shine box!

YouTube - shinebox

Great scene. That's why Pesci got shot in the end. He killed one of the made” guy, whom Pesci a wise guy or foot soldiers, working his way up, violated the Mafia code of honor.

As I've written elsewhere, De Pretto's usage and work beyond those letters (E=MC2) was not really comparable nor all that similar at all to Einstein's, and neither were De Pretto the first to formulate a mass-equivalence principle (I think Preston was much earlier with a mass-equivalence formula). This is another popular misconception, to large extent brought on by the overhyping of Einstein.

As it is, a lot of people have a distorted view of what science is all about. However, because the general public are not as educated or aware of how science works; as most scientists, including educated ignorance by those who are, they might simplistically think that Einstein is famous because he invented the e=mc^2 formula. Hence, they feel Einstein must have done something wrong when things didn't occur the way the think it did, a true misunderstanding how science works.
The general idea of associating mass with energy had in one way or the other been around for about 25 years prior to Einstein's 1905 papers, as Einstein himself viewed it; this association was already implicit in Maxwell's theory in a sense. In the 1905 paper containing his deduction of mass-energy equivalence, Einstein acknowledges that it was explicitly based on "Maxwell's expression for the electromagnetic energy of space".

To imply plagiarism here is as nonsensical as to invoke the ”Thomson Experiment” of 1897 as proof of plagiarism. Thomson's work here was not comparable to mass-energy equivalence work done, also, in the experiment, he forced a stream of electrons through opposing fields (magnetic- electrical) and measured the ratio of the electron’s,which he is credited to have discovered, charge to its mass. This is not the same as rest energy, which in turn is not to be confused with inertial mass.

When already known formulations/theories/tools are used to derive new approaches and frames of work then those derivations form a more unique entity, if not then Newton, Maxwell, Copernicus and so forth would be equally plagiarists along with numerous of others.

Poincarés approach and work on relativistic physics were not the same as Einstein's, if they were then Poincaré would have agreed with Einstein's work, which he did not. And Poincaré is, in the well established history of science, associated with PoR, just not as much as Einstein, but that is not Einstein's fault. It is not Newton's fault that his name is generally associated with gravitational physics, planetary motions etc, whereas the average laymen would respond with ”say again?” when asked about Robert Hooke or even Kepler. Likewise would you get a clueless response when asking people on what (or even if) Copernicus derived from Ptolemy's astronomy and so forth.