Greetings.

In an unmoderated newsgroup (which has nothing to do with physics), one
of the many flamewars therein has evolved into a discussion about
Einstein allegedly being a plagiarist:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.r...c38cffbffd17bb

What interested me (or what is relevant to this post) from that
discussion was a link to the following article:

http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/8/Sharma4.htm

I don't know anything about the author or the site (though the site
apparently seeks to provide an alternative to Einstein's theories of
special and general relativity), and I am a true novice with regard to
the issue of physics. The gist of the article is that the formula
m=L(c^2), populary rendered as E=m(c^2), did not originate with
Einstein, and towards the end there are not-so-subtle recriminations of
"plagiarism" (complete with references to fringe types like Bjerknes
and Moody, who have made precisely this claim).

Now the article was posted to the relevant newsgroup discussion within
the context of discussion on (a) whether Einstein was a "plagiarist",
and (b) whether Einstein deserved the Nobel Prize he received for
Physics. So my questions are as follows:

(1) Does the article linked to above justify the conclusion that
Einstein was a "plagiarist"?

(2) Does the said article justify the claim that Einstein did not
deserve his Nobel Prize for physics?

(3) I plan on reading further on the subject of m=L(c^2). Can anyone
recommend good books to read on the subject, particularly its history,
the development of the position, its foundations, and what the
scientific community's position is regarding Einstein's relationship
with it (i.e. would it be all that controversial if it turned out that
the foundations for Einstein's thoughts on the issue rested on the
shoulders of previous great minds?)?

Any help or further insight would be greatly appreciated.

"Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz" wrote in
message oups.com...
Greetings.

In an unmoderated newsgroup (which has nothing to do with physics), one
of the many flamewars therein has evolved into a discussion about
Einstein allegedly being a plagiarist:


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.r...c38cffbffd17bb

What interested me (or what is relevant to this post) from that
discussion was a link to the following article:

http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/8/Sharma4.htm

I don't know anything about the author or the site (though the site
apparently seeks to provide an alternative to Einstein's theories of
special and general relativity), and I am a true novice with regard to
the issue of physics. The gist of the article is that the formula
m=L(c^2), populary rendered as E=m(c^2), did not originate with
Einstein, and towards the end there are not-so-subtle recriminations of
"plagiarism" (complete with references to fringe types like Bjerknes
and Moody, who have made precisely this claim).

Now the article was posted to the relevant newsgroup discussion within
the context of discussion on (a) whether Einstein was a "plagiarist",
and (b) whether Einstein deserved the Nobel Prize he received for
Physics. So my questions are as follows:

(1) Does the article linked to above justify the conclusion that
Einstein was a "plagiarist"?

(2) Does the said article justify the claim that Einstein did not
deserve his Nobel Prize for physics?

(3) I plan on reading further on the subject of m=L(c^2). Can anyone
recommend good books to read on the subject, particularly its history,
the development of the position, its foundations, and what the
scientific community's position is regarding Einstein's relationship
with it (i.e. would it be all that controversial if it turned out that
the foundations for Einstein's thoughts on the issue rested on the
shoulders of previous great minds?)?

Any help or further insight would be greatly appreciated.

Also, any insight would be appreciated about why Sayid Abu Khamr al-Murtad
) now calls himself Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad
Shabazz, and despite all the answers posts the exact same message again,
incl. an error that he had corrected before...

In article .com,
"Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz"
writes:

Greetings.

In an unmoderated newsgroup (which has nothing to do with physics), one
of the many flamewars therein has evolved into a discussion about
Einstein allegedly being a plagiarist:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.r...c38cffbffd17bb

What interested me (or what is relevant to this post) from that
discussion was a link to the following article:

http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/8/Sharma4.htm

I don't know anything about the author or the site (though the site
apparently seeks to provide an alternative to Einstein's theories of
special and general relativity), and I am a true novice with regard to
the issue of physics. The gist of the article is that the formula
m=L(c^2), populary rendered as E=m(c^2), did not originate with
Einstein, and towards the end there are not-so-subtle recriminations of
"plagiarism" (complete with references to fringe types like Bjerknes
and Moody, who have made precisely this claim).

Now the article was posted to the relevant newsgroup discussion within
the context of discussion on (a) whether Einstein was a "plagiarist",
and (b) whether Einstein deserved the Nobel Prize he received for
Physics. So my questions are as follows:

(1) Does the article linked to above justify the conclusion that
Einstein was a "plagiarist"?

(2) Does the said article justify the claim that Einstein did not
deserve his Nobel Prize for physics?

(3) I plan on reading further on the subject of m=L(c^2). Can anyone
recommend good books to read on the subject, particularly its history,
the development of the position, its foundations, and what the
scientific community's position is regarding Einstein's relationship
with it (i.e. would it be all that controversial if it turned out that
the foundations for Einstein's thoughts on the issue rested on the
shoulders of previous great minds?)?

Any help or further insight would be greatly appreciated.

This has been discussed here at length. Anyone should read what has
been written here already on this subject before posting anything.
(Google Groups should be able to help.)

In summary, no, Einstein didn't plagiarise, and neither did his first
wife have any essential input into his work, apart from general support
as a wife and as a sounding board, as she was a physicist herself. As
for the Nobel Prize, in comparison with other people, he certainly
deserved several. Contrary to the myth that "relativity was still too
controversial, so they gave it to him for the photoelectric effect", as
Pais points out in his excellent biography (Subtle is the Lord...),
SPECIAL relativity was "in the air" and though it's not they case that
someone else would have published something similar within a few months,
it wasn't the unexpected, unique achievement that, say, GENERAL
relativity was. The explanation of the photoelectric effect was
actually quite controversial, was seen by Einstein himself as being
radical and, as Pais points out, no particle (which has actually been
detected) has needed longer to be accepted than the photon.

Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote:
(2) Does the said article justify the claim that Einstein did not
deserve his Nobel Prize for physics?

Einstein worn the Nobel Prize for his explanation of
the photoelectric effect, so of course, he deserved it.
He was not a plagiarist, but an original creative mind,
do not hesitate to claim it.

Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote:
Greetings.

In an unmoderated newsgroup (which has nothing to do with physics), one
of the many flamewars therein has evolved into a discussion about
Einstein allegedly being a plagiarist:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.r...c38cffbffd17bb

What interested me (or what is relevant to this post) from that
discussion was a link to the following article:

http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/8/Sharma4.htm

I don't know anything about the author or the site (though the site
apparently seeks to provide an alternative to Einstein's theories of
special and general relativity), and I am a true novice with regard to
the issue of physics. The gist of the article is that the formula
m=L(c^2), populary rendered as E=m(c^2), did not originate with
Einstein, and towards the end there are not-so-subtle recriminations of
"plagiarism" (complete with references to fringe types like Bjerknes
and Moody, who have made precisely this claim).

Now the article was posted to the relevant newsgroup discussion within
the context of discussion on (a) whether Einstein was a "plagiarist",
and (b) whether Einstein deserved the Nobel Prize he received for
Physics. So my questions are as follows:

(1) Does the article linked to above justify the conclusion that
Einstein was a "plagiarist"?

(2) Does the said article justify the claim that Einstein did not
deserve his Nobel Prize for physics?

(3) I plan on reading further on the subject of m=L(c^2). Can anyone
recommend good books to read on the subject, particularly its history,
the development of the position, its foundations, and what the
scientific community's position is regarding Einstein's relationship
with it (i.e. would it be all that controversial if it turned out that
the foundations for Einstein's thoughts on the issue rested on the
shoulders of previous great minds?)?

Any help or further insight would be greatly appreciated.

Ajay Sharma is a patented crackpot. Just google "physicsajay" and you
will see.

As to Chritopher Bjerknes , he is well known for his falsifications.

"Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply"
wrote in message ...

This has been discussed here at length. Anyone should read what has
been written here already on this subject before posting anything.
(Google Groups should be able to help.)

(snip)

Here is a link to that previous thread (about a year ago) that I think you
are referring to:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...8e26ae0?rnum=1

bigtimber wrote:
"Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply"
wrote in message ...

This has been discussed here at length. Anyone should read what has
been written here already on this subject before posting anything.
(Google Groups should be able to help.)

(snip)

Here is a link to that previous thread (about a year ago) that I think you
are referring to:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...8e26ae0?rnum=1

Thank you for the link...
In a nutshell, what really matters are the facts. And, when it comes
down to the facts, they seem to include the following:: 1) Einstein
read Poincare's work, was even "stunned" by it and discussed it
with his friends c. 1904 as later claimed by his close friend Maurice
Solovine (1956) 2) He did not mention Poincare's work in his references
in 1905 3) He later claimed not reading Poincare and wouldn't discuss
the subject when addressed by his biographer Pais (see Pais's famous
biography). 4) He didn't win his Nobel Prize for SR 5) Lorentz, the
third major contributor to SR, was on the Nobel committee at the time.
6) Upon closer examination, Einstein's contribution to SR is not as
considerable as it is generally accepted, it's just enough to take a
look Poincare's works to realize that 7) E. jocularly calls himself
"a cheat" (or something to that extent) in one of his famous quotes
(the latter, of course, cannot be seen as evidence in court, but just
might be interesting).
So what do you make of that? I don't know.
[This comes from someone who's been Einstein's fan for years.]

In article . com,
Darkstar writes:

4) He didn't win his Nobel Prize for SR 5) Lorentz, the
third major contributor to SR, was on the Nobel committee at the time.

I don't see much significance in this. Most people tend to think of
relativity when they think of Einstein, but this superstar-style fame
really stems from GENERAL relativity, which came much later. At the
time, Einstein was famous for a number of things. One of them was his
explanation of the photoelectric effect which, as Pais points out, was
seen by both Einstein and his contemporaries as his most revolutionary
bit of thinking (at least up until GR). (Pais also debunks the myth
that Einstein's thesis work was relatively unimportant.)

Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz ha scritto:

Greetings.

In an unmoderated newsgroup (which has nothing to do with physics), one
of the many flamewars therein has evolved into a discussion about
Einstein allegedly being a plagiarist:

...

(3) I plan on reading further on the subject of m=L(c^2). Can anyone
recommend good books to read on the subject, particularly its history,
the development of the position, its foundations, and what the
scientific community's position is regarding Einstein's relationship
with it (i.e. would it be all that controversial if it turned out that
the foundations for Einstein's thoughts on the issue rested on the
shoulders of previous great minds?)?

The foundation of any scientist's work is the work of previous
scientists.
Anyways, there is a good and very recent artcle by Tony Rothman
available online:
"Lost in Einstein's Shadow . Einstein gets the glory, but others were
paving the way"
at
http://www.americanscientist.org/tem...baa53KLv5HQuI_

IV

vecchi///weirdtech/moc
-------------------

"Nihil ex nihilo"
"Nothing comes of nothing"
Boethius, De consolatione philosophiae

In article om,
"I.Vecchi" wrote:


The foundation of any scientist's work is the work of previous
scientists.
Anyways, there is a good and very recent artcle by Tony Rothman
available online:
"Lost in Einstein's Shadow . Einstein gets the glory, but others were
paving the way"
at


Yes, and J.C. Maxwell gets the glory for tying together experiments
performed by Faraday, Gauss, Ampere, Oersted et al. And not to forget the
mathematicians who labored to provide the framework. The point here is
that an individual such as Maxwell or Einstein (who most certainly built
upon the work of Maxwell) tied together the seemingly disparate
observations of others. If one person manages to unify gravity with the
other known forces as evidenced by repeatable experiment, that person will
also join those exulted ranks. But hypotheses must be translated into
theory backed by experiment. Then the engineers jump in and produce those
things that the public always take for granted. Accolades and general
public adoration can be slow in arriving or maybe not at all. And
mixed-blessing ones like "Father of the H-bomb."

Now, what were the names of those talented men that labored in Thomas
Edison's laboratory? (rhetorical) Sincerely,

John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail:
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337