Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 6:50 PM
Subject: [theseries] Re: The jews' "Einstein Hoax"
This article (I've deleted the text, but it's message number 25728)
makes many good points. I will not elaborate on these other than to
state my general agreement with the assessment of the scientists
mentioned in the article -- Einstein and the great scientists that
are identified as the actual authors of their own work.
It is quite believable that the academic world could be turned on its
ear, so to speak, by a group agenda. I have seen it happen in other
instances right before my eyes.
I think the article over-reaches a few times, however, and I will
point out the flaws in the hope that I will be shown to be in error or
the article will be corrected.
(1) I don't see how Maxwell's equations can lead directly to the
mass-energy equivalence. The article claims exactly that, but
Maxwell's equations do not describe mass at all! They describe
electrical and mechanical energy and their interactions. They explain
the action of capacitors, inductors, transformers and antennas, but
they do not explain anything to do with mass.
Perhaps scientists had long understood the mass-energy relationship,
but in that case the article should provide some evidence.
It does seem that FitzGerald should get much of the credit for special
relativity, and yet I had never heard of him before. Hm not too
surprising ... I've seen graduate students thrown out of school (and
out of academics altogether) so their ideas could be published by
(2) I would be surprised if the quantized nature of light energy was
the only message in Einstein's paper on the photoelectric effect.
That wouldn't explain the experimental result by itself. Did he
combine that idea with something else to explain the experimental
observations? If he did that and it was his original work, it would
be a valuable work of synthesis. The article doesn't give enough
information for me to know what really happened.
(3) In fact, Einstein spent the later years of his career looking for
a Unified Field Theory -- quite the opposite of the article's claim
that he dismissed the importance of the idea. He did not find it.
However, nobody else has yet found it either. Super-string theory may
provide such a framework but it's so abstract that no physicist I have
talked to can say that it does so yet. This is opposite of the
article's claim that physicists now use the Unified Field Theory!
Einstein's searches for the unified theory have been criticized for
looking in wrong directions. These criticisms may well be justified
-- maybe he had no idea what he was doing! But he did try, and it is
an extremely hard problem.
(4) It's an interesting story about the Person of the Century
selection, especially the part about Hawking's embarrassingly true
article for the magazine. But does anyone really care who Time put on
their cover? I can't imagine it anyway.