Is it true the Einstein was a plagiarist and a jew?**youtube.com**

# Is it true the Einstein was a plagiarist and a jew?

All urls found in this thread:

**youtube.com**

**en.wikipedia.org**

No, people think that the core of SR are the lorentz tranaformation, which is not true . Also, Einstein did far more than just SR . He was a Jew.

Yes we've been fed a lie by the jewish-globalist-communist cabal, and these people have lifted the veil. They alone have brought light to this worldwide, centuries lasting conspiracy.

Einstein's role in the development of general relativity was more or less to associate curvature with forces. The actual rigorous mathematics was mostly done by Riemann and Hilbert, but they didn't have the physical intuition for gravitation that Einstein did.

Furthermore, Einstein was awarded the Nobel prize not for relativity, but for the particle interpretation of light based on the photoelectric effect.

And thinking ANY of this has to do with him being ethnically jewish is really just a confession of your own biases and paranoia.

(OP)

Jewish, yes. (though not a Believer.) Plagiarist, no.

Lorentz found the correct transform before Einstein, but for all the wrong reasons. He was trying to salvage the aether and explain the null result of Michelson-Morley. He thought objects were being physically compressed by being forced through the aether.

Einstein had the insight which did away with the aether entirely. That was the crucial part. He was guided by Maxwell's equations -- which gave a fixed speed of light but said nothing about the motion of the source. He also claimed never to have heard of Michelson-Morley. He'd dead, so we'll never know.

The Special Relativity we use today comes from Minkowski, who reformulated it as a hyperbolic geometry. Both Lorentz and Minkowski gave full credit to Einstein. (Michelson did not. He spent the rest of his career, still trying to measure the "aether wind")

Einstein was legitimately a great physicist. Maybe slightly overrated due to become a huge meme, but still great. And yes, he was a (((((((((juicy jew))))))))))))))))

Nothing is funnier than neo-nazi astroturfing trying to masquerade as intellectually curious and unbiased.

when you're a pathological liar who isn't smart enough to lie convincingly

Einstein promoted the idea of Relativity in SR and did E=MC^2. The Lorentz Transformation is almost always what people are thinking about when they think of SR (length contraction! time differences!) and is also what has been empirically seen time and time again. Einstein did more with GR, but there too he gets way more credit than he deserves. His explanation of the Photoelectric Effect was a good contribution though. He was probably a Top 20 scientist in the 20th Century who has been memed and lied about to an absurd extent.

I don't see why him being a jew matters other than all the undeserved credit was given by the jewish media machine. Science should ignore such bullshit.

slightly overrated

That is a strange way of putting being lied about constantly and promoted as the "Smartest Man Ever" when he was no such thing.

What? Most people also don't understand relativirty at all. The credit was given by other physicists at the time, and the credit for SR was the complete change from newtonian mechanics. Also GR was inspired by SR, and a lot came from taking SR as a base. Yea that he was jewish has nothing to do with this, but it's not lile Lorentz or Poincare didn't recive merit. Ffs lorentz got a nobel prize and poincare is Gauss level in math.

99% of people give Einstein credit for what Lorentz and Poincare did. Also, all the normie sci-fi stuff is the Lorentz Transformation. Most people don't know what a reference frame is.

Lorentz should have gotten a second Nobel Prize for the Lorentz Transformation. There is no rule against two Nobel Prizes.

Minkowski reformulated SR into a rigorously defined space and came up with idea that time was another dimension. Minkowski Space was important for GR. Einstein deserves a lot of credit for GR, but there too names like Riemann and Hilbert are often times not heard.

The normie meme Albert "The Smartest Man Ever" Einstein is a lie. It is too bad, because certainly it isn't fair to Einstein either as he was not a fraud like many say he was. You have to understand that the "Einstein is a fraud" meme only comes up because people lie about his accomplishments all the time.

A good example of an Einstein lie is this past year's Nobel Prize in Physics. It was Poincare, not Einstein, who came up with gravitational waves.

The idea that Energy and Mass were connected was theorized by many people. Certainly this idea was not novel. Einstein deserves some credit here, but he didn't do what 99% of your teachers say he did. Lots of others thought there was a energy-mass equivalence, especially after Plank proved heat was absorbed in chunks and not continuously.

They are not giving nobel prizes in physics for transformations that were not even derived first by lorents. The term stayed because poincare called it like that, and it's just mathematical fitting that was knew sisnce the wave equatiom was known. Groundbreaking stuff was physical reinterpratation of the experimdntal results. Also, einstein was never given a nobel prize for SR, why should Lorentz get a second for that?

You assume Einstein deserved one. If he did, certainly Poincare and Lorentz did too. My view is that Lorentz deserved it the most because his scientific work proved the most important. No, I do not considered interpretative work as important and experimental + math, despite all the Einstein memes.

Also, I think if you actually read Einstein's Nobel Prize it makes vague reference to theoretical contributions, which obviously meant Relativity but Relativity was still very controversial.

Gravitational waves are important as they are a way of testing GR, poincare based this on other shit and he certainly wasn't aware of the field equations. The idea of a black hole was discussed by laplace in the context of newtonian escape velocity, but that has nothing to do with the paramount achivement of GR as a theoretical tool for this sort of shit

Einstein formulated a way to derive an explicit relationship in terms of his theory. I don't know exactly what your teachers told you he did, but he still did it. If there were other people who thought about it, yea, but einstein managed a lot. And again what you vaguely learn in school and through popsci should not be taken by heart and you should try to understand. Idk why you everyone is mad that ignorant people are ignorant, in the context if physics, einstein was a beast

Larmor was the first to derive those transformations dipshit, that is not the point. Lorentz work was actually all about interpretation as a he tried to find a new aether theory.

Class Einstein cuck. Every single post you responded to gave Einstein credit for what he did. You imply you don't want to steal credit from others, and yet you are angrily typing away against true statements. "Yes but... Einstein was the best and you are just a hater!" Pathetic.

Or maybe I take physics seriously and relativity specially since it's my field of study and I actually try to learn about the history of it insetad of skimming through some stupid blog and reaching unreasonable conclusions. Maybe there is a reason why physicists consider Einstein paramount, and it's because they actually undrrstand his contribution because they understand physics.

Einstein, unlike most learn from science "textbooks", did not come up with:

1. The idea that gravity is the curvature of space.

2. Anything dealing with the Lorentz Transformation. Poincare and Lorentz realized all the sci fi shit you see in movies before Einstein.

3. The idea that energy and mass are equivalent.

4. The idea that Time is another dimension and that Space-Time should be non-euclidean.

I care about giving people credit for what they did. Einstein cucks care about pumping up Einstein into a God that gets credit for the accomplishments of others. How many times did I specifically give Einstein credit and say he was a great scientist? You are like a console/pc/mac/SpaceX fanboy but with Einstein.

1 I don't know what you may be refering here, einstein needed help from other cooworkers to fully develop GR, but he worked with them because Einstein wasn't aware of riemanian geometry. Still, if you see through the correspondance and the credit given by hilbert and grossman, the physics portion of it was fue too einstein and a lot of the math too.

2 No, the sci phi shit is literally because Einstein reformulated the general principles of Mechanics by not takkng universality of time around, and was the first one to propose this as an alternative to Newton

3 Again, it's all due to the context and applicabilty of his theoru, though I agree E=mc^2 is memed for some reason, but he gave a clear understanding of it.

4 That claim is saddly a really shitty way pop sci explains spacetime. Time is paramettic in both SR and GR relativity. Yes, time is not a physical concept and it's just a terrible misconception. Time serves as a way to parametrisize events, i.e., give them a dynamical coordinate, but it's not that a literal, at the end the phsical thought experiments are done considering someone watching a clock, not someone moving through spacetime. The thing is, that galilean invariance just makes a view of spacetime, kinda useless as it's universal so mathematically it's just a 3 dimensional affine subspace moving uniformily 3D, but you still can talk about galilean space and transformations in the context lf spacetime and do all the theoretical shit there, but it's not really useful. In SR that's a different thing, because it actually is a great theoretical aid, and a great model, but the e

"extra dimension" of time is again not a literal view, but rather a mathematical representation of a parameter we use to didtinguish between events. An classical example of these sort of abstractions is the idea of phase space. In an abstract n dimensional phase space you can viee the dynamics of a system, but the system doesn't literally live in n dimensions.

*Moving uniformily in 4D .

Cont, so no, time as a new dimension is not a discovery, the thing is that through that lens, it is not trivial how objects would "move" (in pure mathematical terms) and we have mikownsky to thank for that and any fucking physicists worth it's salt knows about him.

And to reiterate, the fucking formulas for lorentz transformation are simple and algebraic and you can derive them with calc and algbera, so by themselvesthey are not spectacular without the physical interpretation.

I don't get it. You keep talking in circles and adding in random tangents to make it seem you are correcting factual errors when really your entire thesis is "Einstein is the AWESOME".

To clarify why I mean by the E=mc^2 meme is that yea, even in einsteinst interpretation, there are plenty more important achievemnts in nuclear physics related to QM, so yea I don't agree this should be regardes as the defining discovery of einstein, but I suppose it's kinda difficult to make popsci memes about einstein field equations if even physicists strugle with tensor equations, but they arw quite something.

I don't get it

Expected from someone who doesn't know relativity. Theres a limit of how simple I can put mh arguments to someone who doesn't undestand physics or math. You can go to /pol/ shitpost how dumb einstein cucks are or whatever, or if you are actually interested I could give you resources that are difficult, but will clear you issues. Yes that means srudying, solving problems and asking questions, but hey maybe for some reason theh don't hound out PhDs in theoretical physics

but I'm interested in the history of it

Well all the history is out there and you can read it, but you will not understamd the importance except you understand physics first.

This is pilpul for those who don't have much jew experience. Worst culture in the world.

k boys and girls, the problem is that natural philosophy is not being flowed now days. Models don't fit, why ? because they don't follow observable data.. and everyone keeps adding layers upon layers of abstraction to make their models fit ? what does that tell you ? hmmm my, model is not fitting.. just going to add a constant and call it pepeDelta and it will fit my world view... whatever I'm drunk..

lol? did you mix special with general? maybe you should not try to have an opinion on this matter.