Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

More evidence revealing Einstein's wife authored Theory of Relativity

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 06:39 PM
Original message
More evidence revealing Einstein's wife authored Theory of Relativity
Edited on Wed Dec-20-06 06:47 PM by shance
"How happy and proud I will be, when we two together have victoriously led our work on relative motion to an end!"-- Albert Einstein

. . .In 1905, several articles bearing the name of Albert Einstein appeared in a German physics journal, Annalen der Physik.

The most fateful among these, was a paper entitled Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Krper; von A. Einstein, Einstein's supposedly breakthrough paper on the "principle of relativity". Though it was perhaps submitted as coauthored by Mileva Einstein-Marity and Albert Einstein, or solely by Mileva Einstein-Marity, Albert's name appeared in the journal as the exclusive author of their work285 . . . .

Abram Fedorovich Joffe (Ioffe) recounts that the paper was signed "Einstein-Marity". "Marity" is a variant of the Serbian "Maric", Mileva's maiden name. Joffe, who had seen the original 1905 manuscript, is on record as stating,

"For Physics, and especially for the Physics of my generation--that of Einstein's contemporaries, Einstein's entrance into the arena of science is unforgettable. In 1905, three articles appeared in the 'Annalen der Physik', which began three very important branches of 20th Century Physics. Those were the theory of Brownian movement, the theory of the photoelectric effect and the theory of relativity. The author of these articles--an unknown person at that time, was a bureaucrat at the Patent Office in Bern, Einstein-Marity (Marity--the maiden name of his wife, which by Swiss custom is added to the husband's family name)."286. . .

. . . Joffe's statements appeared fifty years after he had read the 1905 papers. It stuck with him all those many years that the papers were indelibly signed "Einstein-Marity".

How could Joffe have known that Mileva Maric went by the name of Einstein-Marity, if the name had not appeared on the 1905 papers? Joffe could not have known that Albert went by the name of "Einstein-Marity", because Albert Einstein never did. .

. . . There is no Swiss custom by which the husband automatically adds his wife's maiden name to his, and even if there were, neither Albert nor Mileva were Swiss. Albert Einstein never signed his name "Einstein-Marity".



Swiss law permits the male, the female, or both, to use a double last name, but this must be declared before the marriage, and it was Mileva, not Albert, who opted for the last name "Einstein-Marity". A married person may use the hyphenated "Allianzname" in everyday use, but it was Mileva who went by "Einstein-Marity", not Albert. Albert signed his marriage records simply "Einstein". Mileva's death notice reads "Einstein-Marity".



Evan Harris Walker, who argued that Mileva was co-author, or sole author, of the 1905 papers, quoted some of Albert's words, as found in The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, and bear in mind that the vast majority of Mileva's letters to Albert were destroyed, with there being no more likely reasons for their destruction, than to hide her contribution and the fact that the works were unoriginal,
"I find statements in 13 of 43 letters to that refer to her research or to an ongoing collaborative effort -- for example, in document 74, 'another method which has similarities with yours.'

In document 75, Albert writes: 'I am also looking forward very much to our new work. You must now continue with your investigation.' In document 79, he says, 'we will send it to Wiedermann's Annalen.' In document 96, he refers to 'our investigations'; in document 101, to 'our theory of molecular forces.' In document 107, he tells her: 'Prof. Weber is very nice to me. . . I gave him our paper.'"298



. . .Why did the Nobel commitee not award Einstein the Nobel Prize for his work on relativity theory? Could it have been that all who were familiar with the facts, knew that Einstein did not originate the major concepts behind relativity theory?

. . .Mileva and Albert had coauthored papers before299 and Albert had assumed credit for that which Mileva had accomplished.300 Senta Troemel-Ploetz presented a thorough account of Albert's shameless appropriation of Mileva's work and of Mileva's acquiescence.301

. . .Why didn't Mileva come forward with the fact that she was the one who had written the work, if in fact she had? Did Albert buy Mileva's silence? Even if he had, was there more to hold Mileva back from exposing Albert, than the desperate need for monies?

. . . Serbian women had little chance at fame in those days, other than as ornaments attached to their husbands' arms. Tesla, a Serb born in Croatia, was unfairly treated in the West. What chance did Mileva stand? Albert was cruel to Mileva. Her self-confidence may have been destroyed. Albert once demanded in writing that Mileva obey his cruel and degrading orders, in a letter which can only be described as shocking and revolting.327 If Mileva had hoped that Albert would someday acknowledge her, she was mistaken. Albert, a misogynist, degraded her in a letter to Michele Besso,


"We men are deplorable, dependent creatures. But compared with these women, every one of us is king, for he stands more or less on his own two feet, not constantly waiting for something outside of himself to cling to. They, however, always wait for someone to come along who will use them as he sees fit. If this does not happen, they simply fall to pieces."328

http://www.teslasociety.com/theoryofrel.htm

The Tesla Memorial Society of New York is presenting to you the article Mileva Einstein-Marity:

This can be found at http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/mileva.htm



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Annces Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. And the theory for the structure of DNA
was stolen from a woman too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
15. F. Scott Fitzgerald cribbed much of his work from
his wife's diaries.

It's always infuriated me when some smug male has demanded to know where all the great women authors, poets, physicists, and what have you were prior to the last century.

They are all there, buried in a mountain of work signed by MEN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 07:05 AM
Response to Reply #15
40. Many people say that about Dorothy Wordsworth, too
That her brother William basically stole alot of stuff form her.

She's FINALLY in the Norton, and is being taught in her own right.

Ever read Woolf's "Shakespeare's Sister"? Galvanizing, and a great comeback to those smug males.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #40
62. I remember when the womens' Norty came out. One of my teachers
Edited on Thu Dec-21-06 11:05 AM by sfexpat2000
was arguing how E Dickinson was such an isolated anomaly and then,when you look at the poets she was reading, a coherent context for her works is immediately obvious, imho.

Our whole seminar dropped their jaws at the same time. lol And to give him credit, that Professor took up that tool and used it with us. He was great. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. Rosalind Franklin
Between 1951 and 1953 Rosalind Franklin came very close to solving the DNA structure. She was beaten to publication by Crick and Watson in part because of the friction between Wilkins and herself. At one point, Wilkins showed Watson one of Franklin's crystallographic portraits of DNA. When he saw the picture, the solution became apparent to him, and the results went into an article in Nature almost immediately. Franklin's work did appear as a supporting article in the same issue of the journal.

http://www.sdsc.edu/ScienceWomen/franklin.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Annces Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Yes - she was using crystallography
which gave an impression of the form. And the other 2 scientists could take flight from there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian_rd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #16
67. An excerpt from Wiki on this story
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson :

In 1968 Watson wrote The Double Helix, one of the Modern Library's 100 best non-fiction books. The account is the sometimes painful story of not only the discovery of the structure of DNA, but the personalities, conflicts and controversy surrounding their work. It was originally to be published by Harvard University Press, but after objections from both Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins, among others, Watson's home university dropped the book and it was instead published by a commercial publisher, an incident which caused some scandal. Watson's original title was to have been "Honest Jim", in part to raise the ethical questions of bypassing Franklin to gain access to her X-ray diffraction data before they were published. Watson seems to have never been particularly bothered by the way things turned out. If all that mattered was beating Pauling to the structure of DNA, then Franklin's cautious approach to analysis of the X-ray data was simply an obstacle that Watson needed to run around. Wilkins and others were there at the right time to help Watson and Crick do so. Also in 1968, Watson became the director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, and in 1974 made the CSHL his permanent residence.

***

This is certainly one of those sad moments in scientific history when collaboration and learning from your peers led to someone crossing the finish line first and screaming "Me, me, me! Look what I did!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
72. Not to mention Lise Mietner
Edited on Thu Dec-21-06 12:13 PM by Marie26
Who discovered nuclear fission, but was deprived of the Nobel Prize.

"In 1905, she obtained her PhD in physics, the first woman to do so at that university. After she obtained her doctorate degree, she went to the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin in 1907 to study with Max Planck and work with the chemist Otto Hahn... After Nazi Germany annexed Austria in 1938, Dirk Coster persuaded Meitner that she should flee Germany for Sweden. She continued her work at Manne Siegbahn's institute in Stockholm, but with little support, partially due to Siegbahn's prejudice against women in science.... It was politically impossible for the exiled Meitner to publish jointly with Hahn in 1939. Hahn published the chemical findings in January 1939 and Meitner published the physical explanation the following month with her nephew, physicist Otto Robert Frisch, and named the process "nuclear fission".<2> Meitner recognized the possibility for a chain reaction of enormous explosive potential. This report had an electrifying effect on the scientific community. ... Meitner refused an offer to work on the project at Los Alamos, declaring "I will have nothing to do with a bomb!"

In 1944, Hahn received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for the discovery of nuclear fission. In the opinion of many scientists, Meitner should have shared the prize. The omission may have been due to Hahn's public claims that the discovery was solely the work of chemistry; speculation also persists that as Siegbahn was a Nobel committee member his antipathy toward Meitner played a role as well."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lise_Meitner
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. That bastard
I knew he was a phony.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Einstein was certainly no phony and incredibly gifted.
Edited on Wed Dec-20-06 07:02 PM by shance
However it appears, and it has over time that it was his wife was who arguably the more gifted of the two.

However if she was the legitimate author of the relativity theory, then I would say there should be no doubt who was the more ingenious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MazeRat7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
4. Per the closing paragraph in the third paper on Special Realtivity...
Edited on Wed Dec-20-06 07:03 PM by MazeRat7
he stated (paraphrased) "he was indebted for a number of valuable suggestions from his friend and colleague M. Bresso"....

So at the least, he is not taking sole credit for the work and given his acknowledgment of "any" outside assistance... why then would he not have simply added "and my wife" to that statement?

MZr7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. This is what I also find interesting.
All of the money earned from the Nobel Prize went to Mileva, per their agreement.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Do you have a link for that? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Here is one
Mileva Maric
Mother of the Theory of Relativity


By Meryl Ann Butler


http://www.historyswomen.com/1stWomen/meliva.html


Mileva Maric was born in Hungary on December 19, 1875. The few who know her story, marvel at it.

She was born with a displaced hip that would become a lifelong limp. But she was a gifted child, displaying brilliance in the arts and sciences, and her wealthy parents supported her intellectual growth with an outstanding education. She was admitted to an all-male high school, one of the first girls in her country to be accorded that privilege. Due to her handicap and plain looks, she did not generate interest from the boys, but that allowed her to focus on her studies, and she was awarded top grades in physics as well as mathematics.

Passionate about physics, she planned a career in a field that few women had ever even considered, enrolling in a prestigious polytechnic school, as the only woman enrolled at the time, and the 5th woman in the school's history.

There she shone like a bright star, and a student several years her junior idolized her. Mileva seemed to him to be a kind of goddess of physics, and he worshipped the ground she stood on. She saw in him an extraordinary potential, and nurtured it.

The two became inseparable, studying the works of renowned physicists and philosophers as their relationship deepened. Mileva was soaring with the unbridled adulation of her young admirer. He was intoxicated with his muse. They were constant companions, colleagues, and confidantes. In affectionate letters during their times apart, they endearingly addressed each other as "Johnny" and "Dollie", and wrote of science, philosophy and love.

When Dollie was accepted at the University of Zurich as a Ph.D candidate, Johnny followed heror tried to. His grades were insufficient to get him into the doctoral program, but he was accepted to study there. Then Dollie received a coveted position as an assistant to a well-known and respected professor. Johnny was not much for attending lectures, but he wanted desperately to work in the lab with this scientist. Dollie pleaded, but was unable to convince the professor to accept the rather ordinary student as an assistant.

Then an unexpected pregnancy changed the course of the young couple's lives. Johnny was unable to support them. Pregnant, unmarried and stressed, Dollie uncharacteristically failed her final exams. She left her studies and they struggled to find employment. Dollie's parents thought her boyfriend was a ne'er-do-well, unable to support himself, let alone a wife and child. Johnny's parents were appalled that Dollie was handicapped, was not Jewish, and most importantly, was far too intellectual for a woman. Johnny conveniently disappeared and Dollie went home to her parents.

He never came to see his baby. Distraught, disgraced and depressed, the 27-year old unwed mother reluctantly gave her daughter up for adoption.

With the child out of the picture, Johnny ventured back, and they reconciled. A friend helped him procure a simple job as a clerk, and they married in 1903, despite their families' protests. Their newlywed times were idyllic. In their evenings together, they nestled by the fire, and fueled with the creativity of reignited love they explored the intellectual ecstasies of their innovative ideas, the very activities that had brought them together in the beginning.

In 1905, a paper with the theories they had developed, and with one name - Dollie's - on it, was completed. But by the time the paper was published, her name was replaced by her husband's. Maybe she agreed to it, surmising rightly for that day and age, that something so radical, if authored by a woman, would have been instantly dismissed.

As time passed, Dollie became a busy mother of two boys, making up as best as she could for the neglect they received from their father. The practicalities of daily life chipped away the pedestal that her husband had placed her on. And it was no secret that Johnny was straying from his family, spending time with other women, eventually falling madly in love with his cousin, and later with her eldest daughter.

One evening when Johnny arrived at a party alone, their friends, concerned, asked about Dollie. Not satisfied with Johnny's evasive answer, they checked on her. They found Dollie at home crying, her face bruised and swollen, but refusing to explain what had happened. Shortly after, Johnny relocated his family to another country so that he could be closer to his lover-cousin. A listing of his many abuses of Dollie during this time, written in his own hand, remains in archives today.

As a result of Johnny's insistence and relentless cruelty, Dollie finally agreed to a divorce. But only on the condition that any future prize monies that her ex-husband might make based on her theories, would be paid to her.

And that is why, when Albert Einstein won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1921, he quietly forwarded the check to his ex-wife, Mileva Maric, who used the money in her continuing, lifelong struggle to support herself and their children.

http://www.historyswomen.com/1stWomen/meliva.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian_rd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #5
68. That contradicts with the above statement that ...
Edited on Thu Dec-21-06 11:42 AM by Ian_rd
"Why did the Nobel commitee not award Einstein the Nobel Prize for his work on relativity theory?"

Do you have a link?

Edit: Nevermind - two different nobels, I see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
7. My perception
is that his wife was much more a social guide for him. One of the biggest controvercies concerning Albert resulted from him listening to her advice. His comment about believing in Spinoza's god was the result of responding to a question from a well known Rabbi asking if he believed in God in a public letter. His wife advised him to reply diplomatically. Thus the resulting confusion as to whether Einstein believed in God. He finally had to settle the issue one year before his death by issuing a very specifically worded statement indicating that he did not believe in a personal God or anything of the sort.

I believe that his wife was a very important part of his life. I suspect she was a very close advisor for him in all manner of things pertaining to life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Could be. However it's the records themselves that show the discrepency
and more of the reality of her involvement in the creation of the theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Involvement
That leaves a lot of room for exactly what she contributed. Was it confidence? Or was it actual math?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. My mistake - her proposed authorization of the Relativity Theory

It's not hard to look up - there is actually a lot written about it. It has been in speculation for decades.

Another link:

http://www.historyswomen.com/1stWomen/meliva.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BoneDaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #8
56. What record?
IF you are talking about a single obscure "signature" in the OP you are grasping at straws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #7
24. Take This Junk With A Grain Of Salt. That's All It's Worth, Seriously.
I just hope those in this thread are not so easily convinced of such an absurd notion based on one documentary that has been debunked the world over by anyone with the slightest bit of credibility.

I truly feel for those who would by into this.

If you want some good long reading on this issue, feel free to click on below. (I also provided a separate and different link below in my other post, if you were interested in an additional one)

http://www.esterson.org/milevamaric.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BoneDaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #24
57. Absolutely
Where do people get off trying to pass this kind of crap as legitimate?

The greatest mind of our time was secretly getting all his ideas from his wife... ok.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Target_For_Exterm Donating Member (540 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
12. Since we know a lot of these unethical men stole the work
of women scientists, why aren't we rewriting history to show the truth and giving these women the credit they deserve?

Why should unethical men profit from their theft?

If it were two men involved, a scientist who steals another's work wouldn't stay in science long.

So, since we know now what REALLY happened, why aren't we giving credit to these women, and denegrating the reputations of the men who used them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. What constitutes knowing
There are some hints and suggestions that she contributed. But I have yet to see anything compelling to suggest that Albert stole from her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Target_For_Exterm Donating Member (540 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. It's pretty clear that male scientists stole from the woman
who was working on DNA.

Why haven't THEY been excoriated and credit granted to the woman who ended up DYING because she was exposed to X-Ray radiation from her research that they STOLE!

I saw a show on TV that had the facts on that one down pat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. there was a show on PBS about the Watson/Crick/Franklin competition
One of the guys on the Watson & Crick team (not sure which or who) STOLE X ray crystallography pics that Rosalind Franklin had taken. They had a SPY in her lab, or possibly a burglar, I don't remember which.

They were also jealous of her social life. One man who knew them was quoted as saying she was dating the Concertmaster (Principal First Violin) of the London Symphony Orchestra.

Excellent program. Ms. Franklin died of cancer and unfortunately never got the Nobel Prize she deserved.

It was probably on NOVA, like the show about how much of the work that Mileva did TOGETHER with Einstein, and that she was more brilliant than he was.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #22
60. No, no.
Watson and Crick didn't steal anything. "Scooped" is a better word.

Watson and Crick had one piece of the puzzle, Franklin and her boss (name escapes me) had the other, arguably bigger piece.

Franklin's boss shared Franklin's data with Watson and Crick, they put two and two together and rushed out a paper, thanking Franklin and her boss in the acknowledgements section. Franklin died before she could get a Nobel.

One of the Watson and Crick pair wrote a seedy "tell all" book about everything, and it was unfair to Franklin and he came out looking like a real jerk.

But it didn't really have anything to do with the discovery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 05:56 AM
Response to Reply #14
33. So are you saying
That a woman discovered the double helix nature of DNA or that the scientists that did disover the double helix nature of DNA stole some research from a woman? The two things are very different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BoneDaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #14
38. That is an obvious case and one
I am familiar with, but scientists, authors, entrepeneur's etc have been stealing ideas from each other forever. I am not condoning it, nor am I justifying it, but it is not like this is an isolated incident with gender as the main culprit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. I agree
This is the first I have ever heard of any of this. Obviously, there are people who feel it's true but I'd like to know more before I make up my mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Well then you are intentionally not looking at the original thread.
There is a link there of the original document if you would bother to look.

It is becoming increasingly apparent you have no interest whatsoever in the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #18
35. Actually I have read the original document
And it makes no mention of what his wife contributed. The only thing mentioned is that she may have contributed to some of the original writing. We can'tell whether it was inspirational contributions (ie muse) or if they were mathematical contributions.

I have a great deal of interest in the truth. I also have a great deal of interest in not leaping to conclusions. All I am seeing here is a rush to judgement based on a minimal of information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #18
49. Well, I Looked. I See Speculation and Conjecture
That's not proof, Shance. You draw your conclusions, and i'll draw mine, thank you very much.

The Professor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BoneDaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #12
58. Are you serious?
Yes the grand cabal of male science stealers from women (GCMSSFM) for short, are responsible for such atrocious crimes. Rubbish. Such ideological nonsense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
20. Everyone knows that women are smarter. This isn't surprising to me at all
:rofl:

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
21. You Are Too Funny! ROFLMAO!!!!! Tell Me You Don't Truly Believe That! ROFLMAO!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:



Never ceases to amaze me what some will choose to believe just cause they wanna, despite all rational logic.


http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/4/2/1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #21
52. Very good link OMC - thanks for contributing it.
The Joffe "evidence" seems to be a poor translation of Russian and poor interpretation of Swedish culture:

"What he (Joffe) actually wrote, in an obituary for Einstein in 1955, was "In 1905, three articles appeared in the Annalen der Physik which began three very important branches of 20th-century physics. Those were the theory of Brownian motion, the photon theory of light, and the theory of relativity. The author of these articles, an unknown person at the time, was a bureaucrat at the Patent Office in Bern, Einstein-Marity (Marity - the maiden name of his wife, which by Swiss custom is added to the husband's family name)."

Joffe is clearly describing one author, employed at the Patent Office, whose married name - by Swedish custom - was a hyphenate of his name and his wife's.

This does still leave open whether/how much she contributed, but it does not make the case that it was her work (or even equally his and hers).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
23. This is a setup for George to blame Laura.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelly Rupert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
25. Yes, I'm sure
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ToeBot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 11:45 PM
Response to Original message
26. And did you hear, Sir Francis Bacon actually wrote all of Shakespeare's works
And as evidenced by this thread, she was a first rate cross dresser as well as a spiffy writer. Who would have guessed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 05:51 AM
Response to Reply #26
32. Cristopher Marlowe & Elizbeth I were favorites too. Point well taken
though. This stinks of another "publish or perish" fantasy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 12:53 AM
Response to Original message
27. 'a distasteful manipulation of facts' and 'shoddy research'
Edited on Thu Dec-21-06 12:54 AM by wtmusic
This material is derived from the 2003 PBS doc "Einstein's Wife", the assertions in which have been contested by numerous Einstein scholars:

"This from Robert Schulmann, former Professor of History at Boston University and associate editor on the Collected Papers of Albert Einstein project:

"Soon after 'Einstein's Wife' was aired on PBS and after scrutinizing the PBS website dealing with the film, I wrote an email to the writer/producer, Ms. Geraldine Hilton, and her company, Melsa Productions. In it I expressed my anger at the distasteful manipulation of facts in which she had engaged. I never heard a word in response.

"Whatever her intentions, Ms. Hilton chose to misrepresent my comments in her film, adding insult to injury by crowing later that she had put one over on the Einstein scholars. (Ombudsman's note: See explanation below.) Aside from the pettiness of this remark, I deeply resent how by misrepresentation and stripping of context, Ms. Hilton's film skewed statements made by Holton, Stachel and myself, as well as twisted facts, most egregiously in the case of the so-called Joffe evidence. This goes well beyond personal insult. It is unconscionable that PBS be a party to distributing this dishonest presentation as classroom material to teachers and students, whose task it is to instruct and learn the proper use of evidence and respect for historical sources. At the very least, I think PBS should withdraw its recommendation of the Hilton film and the film itself as the basis for school curricula. Whatever the agenda of Melsa Productions, falsehoods and shoddy research have no place in the public arena. After many years as a grateful consumer of Public Broadcasting Company programs, I am convinced that PBS shares this concern."

http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2006/12/einsteins_wife_the...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frustrated_lefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
28. This seems silly and revisionist.
"Why did the Nobel commitee not award Einstein the Nobel Prize for his work on relativity theory? Could it have been that all who were familiar with the facts, knew that Einstein did not originate the major concepts behind relativity theory?"

That is a major preumption made by somebody who doesn't work in the field. Getting through the Nobel committee is a political process, not one based in science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #28
46. It should be grounds, though, for repealing the silly speed-of-light limit.
I've never liked that, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 01:35 AM
Response to Original message
29. Einstein's political writings have always been upsetting to fascists.
Therefore, he was at best, some kind of idiot-savant. Sort of like how Robert Oppenheimer was a communist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 02:04 AM
Response to Original message
30. Wow. Some DU'ers are really in denial of FACTS here.
You guys hate women or are you just sexist in general?

Look at the links, look at the documents.

Look at the factual evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 02:36 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. To me it looks like a woman who isn't comfortable with the fact
that one of the greatest geniuses of all time happened to be a man. She (Geraldine Hilton) is fighting a lonely crusade against people who have spent their careers studying Einstein's work and against a mountain of evidence, and she's failing miserably.

I'm not buying it and I'm not a misogynist and I'm not sexist.

"1. Maric was not a "brilliant mathematician."

2. There is no evidence that Maric "collaborated with Einstein on his 1905 papers on Brownian Motion, Special Relativity and the photoelectric effect.

3. The account of the discovery of the Einstein/Maric letters is "totally and unequivocally false" .

4. The publication of the Einstein/Maric letters did not "rock the international scientific community."

5. Maric did not "specialise in theoretical physics."

6. Lenard was not "one of the great pioneers of quantum physics."

7. Maric did not keep Einstein "abreast of" the "brave new world" of the photoelectric effect, etc.

8. There is no evidence that Maric "cut classes" at Zurich Polytechnic.

9. Maric was not, with Einstein, "trying to solve the puzzles of the universe in mathematical form . . ."

10. Einstein did not "fail final exams."

11. The board of examiners did not "round Albert's mark to a pass."

12. Troemel-Ploetz's "explanation" for Maric's failure that "Einstein already has his diploma and she doesn't need one, one is enough in one family" is absurd, as they didn't marry until nearly three years later.

13. Einstein's personal research on physics did not depend on "Mileva's access and good standing with their professor to keep their private research alive."

14. There are very many more instances of Einstein using "I" and "my" in relation to his extracurricular work in letters when they were students than of his use of "we" and "our." The relatively rare use of "our" sometimes referred to their co-operative study on their diploma dissertations, not Einstein's personal work on physics. Also, the Special Relativity theory was only arrived at by Einstein several years later.

15. Maric was not with Einstein when he inaugurated the "Olympia Academy" in 1902.

16. Solovine did not say of Maric that, "She occasionally joined in." He said the opposite, that she listened but never contributed to the discussions. Solovine did not say of Maric that she was "clearly more interested in physics than housework."

17. The evidence that "Mileva's father visits them shortly after the birth and offers Einstein a handsome dowry" is based on dubious third-hand reminiscences obtained decades later.

18. There is no serious evidence that Einstein told Maric's father, "I didn't marry her for money. I married her because I love her, because we are one. She is my guardian angel against the sins of life and especially so in the sciences." It is a fourth-hand report of reminiscences by an interested party obtained decades later.

18. The "Einsteins" did not submit five papers for publication in 1905. Einstein alone did that.

19. Maric did not "review scientific papers."

20. There is no serious evidence that Maric told Einstein in private conversation: "This is a great achievement, a beautiful achievement."

21. Maric did not work with Einstein on the E=mc2 1905 paper.

22. Abraham Joffe did not "cite both Albert's and Mileva's names on the original manuscripts" of 1905.

23. The fragment of a page shown on the screen is not from the work the narrator claims.

24. There is no serious evidence "they debated, calculated and read and write about science problems" at this time.

25. There is no evidence that Mileva Maric's "name was removed" as co-author from the 1905 papers, since it wasn't there in the first place.

26. There is not a scrap of evidence that Maric "actually prepares some of Einstein's lectures."

27. The statement in the voice of "Einstein" at the end of the documentary, "Without her I would never have started my work, and certainly not finished it," is without foundation. It is also absurd, because at that time (1904 according to the narrator earlier in the film) Einstein had scarcely begun his work, and it is inconceivable that he would have said he'd "finished it."
'Einstein's Wife' PBS Web Site: List of Errors

Below is a list of errors, misrepresentations, and contentions lacking substantive evidence, on the PBS "Einstein's Wife" Web site and associated Lesson Plans for school students.

Note: For a full critique of the PBS Web site material, including the detailed documenting of the errors, see http://www.esterson.org/einsteinwife2.htm .

1. Mileva Maric was not "erased from history."

2. Einstein wrote no personal autobiographies, only intellectual autobiographical articles.

3. Einstein did mention Maric in one of the autobiographical sketches.

4. Virtually all biographies of Einstein before 1987 mention Maric.

5. There is no evidence that "Einstein's executrix systematically destroyed potential evidence" about Maric's alleged role in his work.

6. There is no evidence that Einstein "demands all her time" when Maric was a Polytechnic student, nor that she "sacrificed her studies" on his account.

7. They did not "both fail their exams." Einstein passed.

8. The alleged comment of Maric's, "We finished some important work that will make my husband world famous" is unreliable third-hand gossip.

9. Maric did not set the condition in the divorce settlement for the Nobel Prize money to go to her, this was proposed by Einstein. (In fact the capital was to be held in a bank account for their sons.)

10. There is no evidence that Maric liked dealing with statistics.

11. The statement that Einstein "doesn't like dealing with statistics" is scientific nonsense. He made major contributions to statistical physics over a period of two decades.

12. Joffe is not a "supporter" of the claim that Maric collaborated on the 1905 papers.

13. Joffe nowhere "declares that he personally saw the names of two authors on the 1905 papers."

14. The fragment of a page on the website purporting to be from an article by Joffe is actually by someone else.

15. There are no "tantalizing clues" suggesting Maric's collaboration with Einstein in any letters to her friends.

16. The editors of the Einstein Collected Papers have not "claimed neutral territory." They say unequivocally that the evidence does not support the collaboration claims.

17. There is no evidence "to confirm that . . . Einstein did have a partner . . . in his scientific research his first wife Mileva Maric Einstein."

18. Maric was not "a gifted scholar and scientist" before she met Einstein. She had just graduated from high school.

19. The only documented "knowledge" Maric "shared with Albert" was a short rather jocular passage about one lecture on the speed of oxygen molecules.

20. There is no evidence that Maric was doing any extra-curricular "research."

21. Maric's overall average final diploma mark was not "slightly below Albert's," it was considerably below (by approximately 18%) on the grading scale 1-6.

22. Maric was not "denied" a diploma. She failed because of her very low mathematics grade.

23. There are very many more instances of Einstein using "I" and "my" in relation to his extracurricular work in letters when they were students than of his use of "we" and "our." The relatively rare use of "our" sometimes referred to their co-operative study on their diploma dissertations, not Einstein's personal work on physics. Also, Einstein's first important papers were not published until several years later.

24. The statement that Maric "studied physics at the highest levels" is totally without evidential support.

25. There is no evidence that Maric collaborated with Einstein on his work when she was his wife.

26. They did not "publish some early works together," nor "conduct research together" outside of their Polytechnic studies.

27. The statement that Maric brought back from Heidelberg knowledge that "served as part of the foundation of quantum mechanics" is scientific nonsense.

28. There is not a scrap of evidence that "Mileva's name removed" as co-author from the celebrated 1905 papers.

29. To say that Maric "had the education and the ability to conduct the research" that Einstein did displays a gross ignorance of Einstein's prodigious achievements in his early twenties.

30. There is no evidence that "they worked closely together for years" on his papers.

31. Maric was not "a pioneering woman in the world of physics," and she did not "contribute" to Quantum Physics.

32. Philipp Lenard was not "a pioneer in quantum physics."

33. Maric did not learn "cutting edge physics" with Lenard.

34. There is no evidence that Maric "cut classes" at Zurich Polytechnic.

35. There is no evidence that Einstein's diploma "grades were rounded up to a passing mark."

http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2006/12/einsteins_wife_the...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 06:03 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. And there you go.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #31
42. Great stuff, thanks for sharing. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #31
43. No, clearly you hate women
I don't need your "facts." Everything good in the world was created by women, and all men are evil assholes who stole their work and claimed credit for it. :sarcasm:

Horseshit like the OP's "research" do nothing more than detract from real cases of academic fraud and questionable research methods (like the DNA business mentioned earlier).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
J Miles Donating Member (69 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #30
47. No
I just have a bit of an aversion to bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beelzebud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #30
51. Is it sexism, or just a bullshit detector?
So if we don't buy into this conspiracy theory, we're sexist?

Is that the standard for rationality on DU now?

Am I going to lose my liberal decoder ring if I call bullshit on this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian_rd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #51
70. Hehe "decoder ring"
It's a good thing she wasn't black or we'd be racist too? Maybe we're just misogynist anti-Serbians?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #30
54. Spell it out for us
Clearly you are reading something we aren't. All the texts and links provided just say she may have provided some input. No where does it say Albert stole everything from her and then put a gun to her head to keep her quiet.

So please. Spell out exactly what you think Albert stole from his wife. Exactly what you believe she contributed. Why she didn't raise a fuss about it. Cuz seriously... you are seeing things no one else is seeing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian_rd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #54
71. Shance has a great deal of circumstantial evidence which points to ...
... exactly what Shance wants it to point to. It's how conspiracy theories are hatched. It's the same way Alex Jones has proved to all of his listeners that the Bush Cabal orchestrated 9-11 in order to establish a totalitarian state. When you start with a conclusion, it's easy as hell to find the evidence you need to prove it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #30
74. Right.
You post shithattery from a racist conspiracy theorist who thinks that jews control the weather, and the people who call bullshit on it are somehow "anti-women."

Jesus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelly Rupert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #30
80. So do you hate Jews, or are you just anti-Semitic?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #30
81. We Have. That's Why We, Or At Least I, Find The OP's Premise To Be Hilarious!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 06:45 AM
Response to Original message
36. I'm sceptical, I'm afraid
Edited on Thu Dec-21-06 06:47 AM by LeftishBrit
It's always important to remember that 'swiftboating' occurs in academic politics as it does in political politics, and Einstein, due to his prominence, is an obvious target for it. I would always need a LOT more evidence than one documentary before believing such claims.

I should add that I am a woman academic; that my mother was a woman scientist at a time when this was unusual and aroused a certain amount of prejudice; that I am aware and indignant that Rosalind Franklin's contribution was undervalued because she was a woman; and that I am certainly no fan of sexism in general, or in the scientific world in particular. But I'm also aware that people, including academics and scientists, sometimes lie about each other and get lied about; and I would always be cautious about accepting accusations until all the evidence is known.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mikey929 Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. later years
The truth is that Einstein accomplished very little in the 2nd half of his life. "His" greatest achivements were behind him. Wonder why. Is it because he no longer had his wife to think up the great ideas and write them? I would think that if he was so brilliant, the great ideas would keep flowing. But they didn't. For most of his career, he was really just famous for being famous. In the scientific community, his time had passed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #39
41. Wrong
He got nothing accomplished because:

1) He was convinced that quantum theory was incorrect and spent a lot of time trying to "disprove" it
2) He spent much of his effort trying to create a unified theory

Honestly, the number of people here willing to believe this simply to up their liberal street cred is amazing. I thought we were supposed to be the more rational and free-thinking people who demanded evidence of claims. Or, at least, that's what people say on DU, maybe they're wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #39
48. Doesn't prove anything
The cliche in mathematics and closely-related subjects is that 'mathematics is a young person's subject'. On the whole, the really original ideas and proofs in mathematics and mathematical physics are produced by people under the age of 45 or so. There are some very notable exceptions, but, in general, while mathematicians and physicists may continue to have very solid research careers into old age, they rarely produce the true sparks of genius beyond youth. (This is not the case for most other research areas.) Therefore, Einstein's failure to achieve so phenomenally beyond a certain age is to be expected, and not suspicious in any way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beelzebud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #39
50. Yeah you're right. He couldn't come up with the Theory of Everything. What a dumb ass he was!
Edited on Thu Dec-21-06 09:06 AM by Beelzebud
:rolls eyes:

You act like the Theory of General Relativity was just some post graduate work he (his wife did for him I guess)did, before he dropped out to tour with The Grateful Dead...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mikey929 Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #50
61. Rolls Eyes BAck
You can be skeptical if you want. Fine by me. But Bill Bryson has written that the scientific community regarded Einstein as essentially a has-been for much of his career. While they greatly respected his early work, the bulk of his career was very uneventful. No one dared criticize him because of his esteemed position in the scientific world, but the truth is that he was not a major player for most of his career.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #61
69. Thanks Mikey for the information.
Seems a lot of people around here would rather believe the legends than what appears to finally be more of the facts coming out.

Thanks for posting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mikey929 Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #69
79. welcome
You're welcome. I want to be clear I'm not trying to dismiss his accomplishments. But we can't let image take precedence over substance. That is a hallmark of honesty and integrity. Einstein pursued very misguided scientific principles most of his career, and he was actually on the wrong end of things most times. Read Bill Bryson's book - The History of Everything. While Einstein was no doubt brilliant, he was just plain wrong in his later assumptions and pursuits. But hey -- everyone loves that hair!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BoneDaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 06:55 AM
Response to Original message
37. So I am to believe that
Edited on Thu Dec-21-06 07:09 AM by BoneDaddy
the greatest mind of the 20th century stole his ideas from his wife. Ok. The lengths people will go to promote their agenda. It was all Einstein's wife and that Einstein was just stealing her ideas. Ok.

I can certainly concede that his work most likely crossed over into home and his wife may have been able to give a different perspective on some of his ideas but to propose that she was the "brains" behind the operation is just plain silly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newportdadde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 07:46 AM
Response to Original message
44. I don't believe that she is the author but that doesn't mean she didn't have an important role.
I think many of us underestimate the importance of women throughout history. I imagine there were many very powerful men in the past who after a day of running the kingdom or whatever layed down next to their wives to figure out what the hell they would do with XYZ problem.

Infact I would be willing to bet that many decisions both good and bad thought of to be made by men were decisions come up with by their spouse/girlfriend/mom etc etc.

For example I do all of the work in my job but my wife has been very valueable in helping guide me through the more social aspects of work, the personal politics, which has helped my career a great deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
J Miles Donating Member (69 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 08:17 AM
Response to Original message
45. Your tin-foil hat is on a little too tight
Edited on Thu Dec-21-06 08:18 AM by J Miles
Your "evidence" comes from the book Einstein: The Incorrigibe Plagiarist by a crank named Christopher Jon Bjerknes. You didn't say whether you've actually read the book, so I don't know if you consciously left out the part where Bjerknes said that Einstein's wife plagiarized her ideas from others, and he in turn plagiarized those from her. He also claims (never mind the fact that he has no formal education in physics) that the entire theory is nonsense anyway.

Bjerknes is a crank; we needn't pay any attention to him. Serious scholars sure don't. Here are some more of his extraordinary claims:

1. "Racist Zionists" bolstered anti-Semitism in Nazy Germany.
2. Those same "racist Zionists" have used that history of anti-Semitism as "a means to control public opinion in a most corrupt and deplorable fashion."
3. He says that "Jewish racists helped to put Hitler into power in order to herd up the Jews of Europe and force them into segregation." These "Jewish racists" also "collaborated with the Nazis to kill off the weakest Jews and preserve the best genetic stock for deportation to Palestine."
4. This is perhaps the most outrageous claim of all: The Nazis didn't plan genocide at the Wannsee Conference.

Extraordinary claims, as Carl Sagan said, require extraordinary evidence. He provides none for his accusations against Einstein. He provides no evidence for his claims about the Holocuast either (but he provides plenty of evidence of anti-Semitism).

It's clear that his real problem with Einstein was that Einstein was Jewish. But I digress.

Now for some evidence against the plagiarism accusations:

1. "Handling evidence in history: the case of Einstein's wife" by Alberto A. Martinez http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?nu...

2. "Who did Einstein's Mathematics?: A Response to Troemel-Ploetz" by Allen Esterson http://www.esterson.org/Who_Did_Einsteins_Mathematics.h... (this article debunks the claim made by Senta Tromel-Plotz that Einstein's wife developed mathematical proofs for him)

3. "Mileva Maric: Einstein's Wife" by Allen Esterson http://www.esterson.org/milevamaric.htm (Summary: "The claims about Mileva Maric's alleged contributions to Einstein's early scientific achievements are devoid of credible supporting evidence.")
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beelzebud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #45
53. Thanks for the rational thought, and the links.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CabalPowered Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #45
59. Thanks for the links
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #45
63. ROFL!! Such a pathetic grab using the tired "tinfoil". Are you that threatened
by women and true history?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #63
64. Good job not reading his post
Really, quite good. You excoriate people for not accepting YOUR evidence as gospel truth, then cheerfully ignore any argument to the contrary. Nice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
J Miles Donating Member (69 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #63
78. This is about what I expected
Rather than address the arguments made by myself and others, you resort to baseless accusations of misogyny and intellectual dishonesty.

If there's anyone who feels threatened by "true history," it's you. You dismiss all facts and arguments that don't support your crackpot conspiracy theory. (Actually, you're just rehashing someone else's claims. You don't appear to have any thoughts of your own on this matter.) People who care about "true history" don't uncritically accept extraordinary claims that aren't backed up by a shred of verifiable evidence. And they certainly don't accept claims that are plainy motivated by nothing more than pure anti-Semitism.

Oh, and about that anti-Semitism: I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you aren't an anti-Semite yourself and weren't aware of Bjerknes's anti-Semitic agenda--which, if true, just proves my point: You didn't bother to verify any of the claims made by this crank because you had already decided, for whatever reason(I'm not going to speculate as to what insane ideology motivates you to hold such an unfounded belief), that the accusations against Einstein were true.

And yet you have the nerve to accuse others of intellectual dishonesty. Unbelievable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
55. After a long day at the patent office...
Albert crashes in front of the radio with a cool one.

Mrs. E: Albert are you going to work on your math or not?

Albert: Oy, cut me some slack, I'm beat. I'm worn out from looking at one useless patent after another.

Mrs. E: but Albert you were so determined, so close...

Albert: I'm wiped out. some guy came in with this thing-a-ma-jig that "supposedly" broad-casted images across the air into a "teevee" receiver, is that rich or what?

Mrs. E: but Al, you were almost done. E=M...

Albert: can you lay off? I fried, if you are so hot and bothered over that crap, knock yourself out, I'm done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
65. More on Mileva
It is sad to me how many of you are threatened by the fact that women are so bright and so creative.

It is obvious now Mileva Einstein did not get the credit due to her in so many areas, namely the area of science.

How much credit is probably debatable although many now argue from viewing letters and old records that she was much more the creator of the relativity theory than her husband Albert. Who knows? I think we all deserve to know more.

With that said, why some of you are so threatened and frightened by womens's gifts is rather baffling and again, sad.

It is reflective of very narrow, sexist, fear and hate based beliefs. Perhaps it is the same mentality that has kept women oppressed for centuries and has kept women continuously held back from so many positions of leadership by the men who are in power often times simply because they are men.

Would You Welcome Please - Mrs. Einstein




"You must continue with your investigations -- how proud I will be to have a little PhD for a sweetheart, while I remain a completely ordinary person!"

- Albert Einstein in a letter to Mileva, 1900


It was only after Albert Eintsein's death that the world began to learn about his first wife, Mileva Maric Einstein. She was a highly intelligent woman who studied medicine at one of the few universities that would accept women at that time. Marriage to Einstein occurred after the illegitimate birth of their first child, and thus began a relationship that was characterised by an increasing gulf between husband and wife.

The details of Albert and Mileva's relationship were kept private until the early 1990s, when finally the contents of letters between them were made available.

The letters and accounts of family friends show it was a marriage dogged by difficulty.

Einstein was unfaithful, there is evidence to indicate he was physically abusive, and he instituted rules for his wife that subjected her to a type of psychological inferiority.

She was not to speak unless spoken to, when spoken to she must answer immediately... He wrote to his mistress in 1913, "I treat my wife as an employee whom I cannot fire". In a backhanded way he had acknowledged Mileva's faithfulness and commitment.


Einstein's infidelity finally resulted in him leaving his wife and children to take up with another woman. Mileva continued raising the children and remained legally married to her husband, not wishing the divorce that her husband was insisting on.

Finally in 1917 she agreed to a divorce on the condition that if he should win the Nobel prize he would give her the money. It was a shrewd bargain to ensure financial provision for herself and the children in the future. Einstein was awarded the 1921 Nobel prize, although he did not receive the money until 1923. He secretly transferred it to Mileva, not wanting anyone to know it was given to his ex-wife.

Although Albert and Mileva communicated with each other after the divorce, he was remarkably absent from their children's lives. One of their sons suffered from schizophrenia and was prone to violent psychotic episodes. Mileva cared for him alone.


http://allthings2all.blogspot.com/2004_10_01_allthings2...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #65
66. Yeah, I'm REAL threatened by intelligent women
Must be why I'm marrying a woman with a master's in chemistry. Because it threatens me so.

Maybe you should just create a long post continaing all of the things that "enlightened" people are supposed to believe, so we can meet your standard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #66
73. I'm not threatened by intelligent women!
I'm a woman, and an academic, and strongly opposed to sexism in academia and everywhere!

However, I am also opposed to 'swiftboating' (I've seen too much of it in the academic world) and to believing accusations about people without solid evidence.

To be blunt, implying that anyone who questions the allegations about Einstein must be sexist or must hate or feel threatened by women, sounds a little like saying that anyone who challenged the justifications for the war must 'hate America' or support terrorism. It's not always true that 'whoever is not with us is against us'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian_rd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #65
75. Absolutely none of that has to do with whether or not ...
... Albert stole the Theory of Relativity from his wife. And 99% of your original post doesn't either. The evidence you present for your actual claim (and title of the thread) is highly circumstantial and would never lead you to the conclusion that Albert stole the Theory from his wife, unless of course you already had this conclusion and went fishing for anything that you felt supported it.

If you focused on the specific claim and evidence that directly supported it instead of veering off into the possible hardships of their relationship, and stayed away from such stupid statements that if we disagree with your post we must therefore hate smart women or some such bullshit, people might actually listen to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. Ayn, I certainly provided evidence. If you cannot read, I cannot help you.
The links and the evidence are there.

If you don't like the facts then again I cannot help you. It would then be your lack of tolerance of the facts provided that needs to be examined, as much as the evidence itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. actually you provided unsubstantial and debunked garbage
and ignore the posts that contradict your fantasy :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 03:34 AM
Response to Reply #77
82. Please provide your "garbage" to defend.
I am not here to defend or offend, other than to offer what I have observed as the truth, which is the most important aspect in empowering ourselves as citizens.

What is your agenda?

I have no reason to canonize Mileva other than to grant her credit where credit is deserved.

Why is it you are so repulsed by observing women's work where it indeed is deserved?

The evidence is there. You want to destroy a worthy woman, by all means do try.

There are others that came before them, however "their" theory catapulted relativity to stardom, however you want to perceive history, or perhaps more precisely, herstory.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ForrestGump Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 04:08 AM
Response to Reply #65
86. So they had an imperfect marriage?
What the hell does that have to do with anything? It's not like they're the first, or the last, to have marital troubles.

Though I suppose it's as compelling as some of the other 'evidence' you've compiled to bolster your belief that we've been giving credit to the wrong Einstein. Sure, it's possible (at the least, it's likely she contributed in some way, if only in terms of being a sounding board or proofing his drafts of the papers), and there's no denying that women have been relegated to the background in science (and everything else) in the past, but when a rather incredible claim is made it takes more than evidence from one source, and more than circumstantial stretches, to make it stick. Especially when that source has a transparent agenda, as you also seem to have. Too many people have spent too much time delving into the details of Al's life and work for me to just buy this theory of yours, and that makes me neither misogynistic nor intellectually dishonest but rational.

You'd perhaps be more effective in advancing this hypothesis, by the way, if you weren't so strident and so quick to label those with dissenting opinions -- some vastly more informed than mine -- as misogynists or otherwise Vassals Of The Man. Knee-jerk reactions like that tend to put people off, not least because they're both baseless and indicative of a terminally closed mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 03:37 AM
Response to Original message
83. I am a woman, and I say,
Edited on Fri Dec-22-06 03:40 AM by quantessd
who gives a $h1t who invented the theory of relativity?

(edit: Does it really matter? Can't we just look toward the near future where women are accomplishing great things in science?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 03:46 AM
Response to Reply #83
84. Are we supposed to be impressed by your lack of full understanding?
Edited on Fri Dec-22-06 03:48 AM by shance
You seem to be trying to further hobble a legitimate thread and or you could give a damn about womens work in general, because you think it doesnt affect you.

If you are a human being, I can assure you it does affect you, irregardless of gender.

Thats part of the whole myth that perhaps you buy, that you are some how immune to all the laws that affect you every single day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-22-06 04:04 AM
Response to Reply #84
85. No, you aren't.
Edited on Fri Dec-22-06 04:51 AM by quantessd
I've had a few glasses of wine and I wanted to bump your thread.
(edit: although I'm a bit drunk, your argument still seems full of manure. )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 30th 2014, 07:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC