Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 11

message: No mention of the Einstein Summation convention, not his most important work, but maybe could be included? (this thing is at: Einstein notation) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.8.103 (talk • contribs) .
:Feel free to add a link in the "appendices" to the article; it isn't significant enough to mention in the main body. — DAGwyn 23:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summation Convention 

message: I think that the links below speak for them self . At least 3  of them been taken from the racist and  an anti-Semitic web site "jew watch" which its credibility is quite low and from other shady ,crazy, stupid web sites  such as "white civil rights" …any way ,the claims that Mileva was the real inventor of the relativity ,for my opinion , is a poor claim that rise up from an  anti-semitic and\or feministic agendas , and it being promote ,at different level and in different ways , by people which are anti-semitic and/or feministic supporters and/or suffering from bad ability to see the reality as it is.
there is not even one strong argument that supports the idea that Einstein relativity theory had been helped by his first wife, and all of the evidence for this suggestion is weak .two examples are: 1. the argument that Einstein and mileva used to work on the same desk  2.that Einstein shared the Nobel grant money with mileva. more  reasonable explanations for these evidences are 1. that they had  only one desk in their  house ,because they couldn’t afford themselves to buy one another, which is a known fact. 2. many other Nobel winners ,beside Einstein, used to share the prize money with their  ex-wife as a part  of the divorce agreement and its known that mileva refuse to sign the divorce papers until Einstein agreed to share with her the nobel prize   ,along with other stuff of their common property. Mileva use this money to buy an apartment building and used the monthly rent money for the living of her and of the children she had from the marriage with Albert .More, when he  was asked about his own mother scientific contribution to the relativity theory , Einstein  only living son couldn’t  recall any. Additionally,  Albert remained  an extremely fruitful scientist for the rest of his life, long after divorcing mileva, while she, on the other hand, never published any  significant paper work and was never mentioned, by any of her or albert’s  acquaintances  for having her own original ideas, And finally, Mileva herself never claimed that she took any important part in the scientific work attributed to Albert . 
There are two other major claims suggesting that Mileva had a scientific contribution to Einstein, like that she enjoyed a lot from listening Albert and his friends talking about physics, but its only natural considering that she was a physics   student  for many years ,and that’s also was the way in which she met Einstein for the first time and this is quite usual that educated people getting married with educationally equal partners.    
In his romantic letters to Mileva, Einstein refer to the theory of relativity as "ours" ,and this  was taken as a prove for the influence of Mileva on Einstein prodigies. But when it scrutinized   , it is well notable that in his letters and writing Einstein refer to any aspect of his life ,in the time that he was still in love with Mileva, as "ours".
While there is heavy doubts regarding claims that Mileva had an active part in Einstein scientific works ,there is no doubt that he appreciate her earring for his own ideas.    
Again, sorry for the bad syntax and spelling...
Gilisa,Israel,13/02/07.
 
Maybe their should be a section detailin this:- *Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist *Plagiarist of the Century 
*Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century by Richard Moody
*lbert Einstein: Was he a thief, a liar and a plagiarist? **Was Einstein a plagiarist? by Cecil Adams
*The Eclipse of 1919 - Albert Einstein: Prophet or Plagiarist
**Was Einstein a plagiarist by The Christian Party
**Albert Einstein: Plagiarist and Fraud by Ian Mosley
**The other side of Albert Einstein by Physics World, January 2005
**Physics Notes: E = mc² is not Einstein's Equation by Viktor T. Toth
**
**Was Albert Einstein a hoax? by Sam Sloan
**Albert Einstein: A Jewish Myth] by Dr. Paul Bowers, B.S., M.E., Ch.D.
**A Theory of Einstein the Irrational Plagiarist] by Christopher Jon Bjerknes  – The Canberra Times September 19, 2006
*The Einstein Hoax: The Disastrous Intellectual War on Common Sense  by H. E. Retic (Author) 
From many peoples understanding Albert Einstein was a plagiarist. However his work on Brownian motion (for which he got the Nobel prize) was apparently original and quite good.
Remember, he didn't get the Nobel prize for "his" relativity theory. :DEinstein received the Nobel Prize for his work on the photo-electric effect. 
This should be in the article from a non biased POV (regardless of whether links are Communist or Nationalist the references and facts should be taken note of) FK0071a 14:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: your "references" are a collection of anti-semitic and confused Christian cranks. Wikipedia doesn't need every piece of  nonsense found on  the internet.  The full article is at Relativity priority dispute and discusses anything you ever wanted to know about the topic. dab (𒁳) 15:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Have you even read or looked at the references you are mentioning above ? In particular, the paper Physics Notes: E = mc² is not Einstein's Equation says exactly the opposite of what you are implying. Schutz 22:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And who is Viktor Toth, that we must accept his googling bit? Vsmith 23:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at the post script to Toth's article. Well worth a read --LiamE 23:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: None of the above are Reliable Sources. This is a crackpot theory trafficked by white supremists and anti-Semites. It gets no voice on Wikipedia. --Fastfission 02:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps they are not “sources,” but the Physics World and Toth essays contain anything but “crackpot theor[ies] trafficked by white supremists and anti-Semites.” The Physics World article considers various criticisms, but the only one it accepts is womanizing. Toth says only that the Einstein field equation should be called “Einstein’s equation” rather than his other equation, E=mc². --teb728 05:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was ignoring the Toth page because it clearly had nothing to do with the others and was probably put in there by mistake. The Physics World article basically says the same things about the other sources as I did, and obviously I wasn't referring to it as among them. --Fastfission 17:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Einstein Plagiarism Speculation

message: Something hopefully less controversial... The article currently says: Einstein also completed English studies, for which he received no grade.. This, I believe, is incorrect. The document is a pre-printed form with the possible courses; if Einstein did no receive a grade, it is proably because he did not take the course. In more recent times (until a few years ago), Swiss students could choose between Italian and English as a third language. I cannot be confident that it was already the case in Einstein's times, but it looks like a good explanation for the absence of a grade. In any case, I'll just remove the sentence. Schutz 23:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there is no reliable source for the statement that he received no grade, it should simply be deleted. Harald88 19:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: English and Einstein's matura

message: would it be true to say that he was wrong and that e=mcsquared and that at higher velocities the energy increased and not the mass? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.118.130 (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No (I don't know what to say more as the three suppostions don't match). Harald88 19:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, there is some sort of misunderstanding, but it's not clear what.  One way of looking at E=mc² (click on that link for more detail) is that the m refers to a velocity-dependent mass which increases according to m(v) = m(0) / \sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}. — DAGwyn 01:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I should add that whether or not the preceding interpretation is a really good one depends on whether the gravitation-generating effective mass should be m(v) or the "rest mass" m(0).  It is more usual when working with fundamental particles to reserve m for rest mass, and use the energy-momentum-(rest)mass relationship: E^2 - (p c)^2 = (m c^2)^2, where E and p c together transform properly as a relativistic 4-vector.  The source of gravitation in the general theory of relativity is the more sophisticated stress-energy tensor. — DAGwyn 00:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  relativity 

message: Removed the following as neither source gives the original occurrence of the quote. 
: When I read the :Bhagavad Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous.Bhagavad Gita and ManagementIn Praise of the Gita
About.com is not a valid source and the Bhagavad Gita and Management source seems rather a poor source for the quote. Provide a better - or the original source and context or leave it out. Vsmith 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if a reference to Einstein's own writings can be cited, then it would be an interesting quotation to have in the article, but if (as I suspect) Einstein never said that then it certainly does not belong in the article.  A problem with Einstein is that every group and creed wants to claim him as one of their own, regardless of whether he really was.. — DAGwyn 05:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and beside the requirement of verifiability for all information in articles (see WP:Verifiability and WP:Citing sources), citing a source for this quote in Einstein’s own writings would provide a context for it, rather than just something he supposedly said sometime in his life. --teb728 06:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have come across Einstein's quote on the Bhagavad Gita a number of times. However, what you guys said above makes sense. --Incman|वार्ता 00:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can track down the reference to Einstein's own writings, you'd be doing us all a favor, and then the quotation would be interesting to add (assuming that it wasn't taken too far out of context, which we could then check). — DAGwyn 22:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bhagavad Gita quote 

message: I've put in the relevant quotes from Pais (the definitive biography) which cite the Nature Paper, and a ref to the Nature Paper.  As user:Sparkhead pointed out the mention of the Nature paper should not be in the quotes section, but the previous one.  Since the other "blind/lame" quote is slightly different and cited to a secondary source I have not deleted it, because he may have said it twice, but the primary source Nature and definitive bio should take priority IMHO. NBeale 23:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That said bio is "definitive" is POV (not just your POV), there's no need to include the quote twice. It's already in there. --*Spark* 03:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Spark. I've now got the original Nature Article from the Wellcome Library - unfortunately for copyright reasons I can't post the whole of it but I have quoted it extensively in the article.  The blind/lame quote is different so either the other ref is wrong or (as I suspect) E. said much the same thing in 2 different ways. If you want to delete the latter (secondary source etc..) I have no objections. I think Nature trumps a book about E.  (PS I wouldn't say definitive in an article, but that's pretty much how Pais is described in this. NBeale 19:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious views 

message: You write:
"Einstein's refusal might have stemmed from his disapproval of some of the Israeli policies during the war of independence."
Your "might have stemmed from" claim appears as your private position on this. 
Please, provide a quotation from a reputable source or remove your claim if you can not substantiate it.
64.160.42.130 03:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence you cite was a toned down remnant of a POV edit, which originally referenced his open letter criticizing Begin and Herut. That letter, of course, does not justify the speculation. I have removed the remnant. --teb728 08:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Einstein's refusal "might have stemmed from" 

message: Tansu Çiller served as prime minister of Turkey from 1993-1995 after acquiring American citizenship while in graduate school in Connecticut: http://mediaguidetoislam.sfsu.edu/women/03b_feminism.htm
Belgrade-born California businessman Milan Panić was a U.S. citizen when he served as the prime minister of Yugoslavia from 1992-1993.
Valdus Adamkus is currently the president of Lithuania (he had U.S. citizenship but renounced it.)
Golda Meir was prime minister of Israel after having had American citizenship (it is unclear whether she renounced it). Critic9328 18:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly there is a difference between being offered it, and deciding to stand for election.  David Underdown 17:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, although I would highly doubt that someone would quit their job and move halfway around the world (especially those who had to renounce their U.S. citizenship) if they weren't either offered a leadership position or virtually guaranteed in some way that they would win the election; Tansu Çiller, for example, was teaching economics at a liberal arts college in the U.S. when she announced that she would be leaving the faculty to serve as Turkey's prime minister, in other words I don't believe she was intimately involved in Turkish electoral politics up to that point. (Point being, being asked by representatives of one's native land to stand in an election which one was promised to win is to me essentially the same as being offered the job). Critic9328 04:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not only U.S. citizen offered foreign leadership position

message: Einstein has so many memorable quotes. Why isn't there a section in the article dedicated only to his quotes even if the have to be repeated??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marwan123 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quotes belong in Wikiquote, not in Wikipedia articles (at least not extensively)Acornwithwings 02:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: The following was posted to the article by  207.210.130.113. Assuming it is not plagiarized, it deserves a home somewhere, but this biography is not a suitable home:
"The classical laws of physics were formulated by Newton in the Principia in 1687. According to this theory the motion of a particle has to be described relative to an inertial frame .... (many paragraphs removed from this copy—see note below *  —Æ) .... The committee was at first cautious and waited for experimental confirmation. By the time such confirmation was available Einstein had moved on to further momentous work."
--moved to talk page by teb728 22:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * With thanks to TEB728 for removing the plagiarism from the article and to 24.147.86.187 for locating its source, I have abbreviated the talk page copy in the interest of economy of space here.   Athænara   ✉   03:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Note that the reason given for the Nobel decision is bogus.  He wasn't awarded the Nobel prize for "further momentous" work, but for clearly less momentous work.  More likely the Nobel committee was leery of awarding prizes for theories, period. — DAGwyn 07:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Einstein Nobel decision is rather complicated — the easiest answer is that they gave it to the part of his work which was undeniable by all, was very concrete in its implications and truth, and was in itself still terribly important (his photoelectric work is one of the most important things in early quantum theory, pushing the quanta from an theoretical construct into something more real). There are more details than that, of course, but I'm fairly sure that's the gist of it. --24.147.86.187 01:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It is plagiarized at that. . --24.147.86.187 01:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved text on special relativity 

message: I agree with the reversion: Not only would Einstein have been more likely to use "k" for "konstant" if that were the etymology (he didn't speak English at the time), but also he would not have believed anything so ludicrous as that the speed of light was the only constant in the universe. (Immediate counterexamples would be 1 and c^2.) Indeed, check out cosmological constant. — DAGwyn 07:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remark on reverted edit concerning c & constant

message: Einstein endorsed Stalin's 1936 and 1937 show trials. See "Einstein-Born Brief
Wechseln" and an English translation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.113.156 (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where can we find some citation by Einstein to that effect?  It seems very unlikely..  — DAGwyn 01:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show trials 

message: Could an admin remove/ fix the "noinclude" tag visible near the bottom of the page?Thanks. 24.20.69.240 11:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. The tag came from vandalism to an included template, so fixing it didn't require an admin. Hemmingsen 11:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noinclude tag