 Einstein's E=MC2 'Was Italian's Idea'

 The mathematical equation that ushered in the atomic
age was discovered by an unknown Italian dilettante two years before Albert
Einstein used it in developing the theory of relativity, it was claimed
yesterday.

 Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published
the equation E=mc2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903, said Umberto
Bartocci, a mathematical historian.

 Einstein allegedly used De Pretto's insight in a major
paper published in 1905, but De Pretto was never acclaimed, said Professor
Bartocci of the University of Perugia.

 De Pretto had stumbled on the equation, but not the theory
of relativity, while speculating about ether in the life of the universe,
said Prof Bartocci. It was republished in 1904 by Veneto's Royal Science
Institute, but the equation's significance was not understood.

 A Swiss Italian named Michele Besso alerted Einstein
to the research and in 1905 Einstein published his own work, said Prof
Bartocci. It took years for his breakthrough to be grasped. When the penny
finally dropped, De Pretto's contribution was overlooked while Einstein
went on to become the century's most famous scientist. De Pretto died in
1921.

 "De Pretto did not discover relativity but there
is no doubt that he was the first to use the equation. That is hugely significant.
I also believe, though it's impossible to prove, that Einstein used De
Pretto's research," said Prof Bartocci, who has written a book on
the subject.

 Einstein's theory held that time and motion are relative
to the observer if the speed of light is constant and if all natural laws
are the same. A footnote established the equivalence of mass and energy,
according to which the energy (E) of a quantity of matter (m) is equal
to the product of the mass and the square of the velocity of light (c).
Now known as: E=mc2 .

 The influence of work by other physicists on Einstein's
theory is also controversial. A German, David Hilbert, is thought by some
to have been decisive.

 Edmund Robertson, professor of mathematics at St Andrew's
University, said: "An awful lot of mathematics was done by people
who have never been credited  Arabs in the middle ages, for example. Einstein
may have got the idea from someone else, but ideas come from all sorts
of places.

 "De Pretto deserves credit if his contribution can
be proven. Even so, it should not detract from Einstein."

 Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited
2003 http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,3928978103681,00.html


 Albert Einstein A Plagiarist

 From Dick Eastman silver@nwinfo.net 8293

 Albert Einstein A Plagiarist  Christopher Bjerknes

 (1) Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, by
Christopher Bjerknes

 (2) E =mc 2 is Not Einstein 's Discovery, by Robert A.
Herrmann

 (3) (Defending Einstein) Einstein Ripped Off!

 (4) (Defending Einstein) 8.8 Who Invented Relativity?
__________


 (1) Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, by
Christopher Bjerknes

 <http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/CIPD.htm>http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/CIPD.htm

 Library of Congress CataloginginPublication Data for
Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist

 Bjerknes, Christopher Jon, 1965

 Albert Einstein : the incorrigible plagiarist / by Christopher
Jon Bjerknes.

 ISBN 0971962987 (alk. paper)

 Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist

 Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity

 Table of Contents {chs 1 to 9: extracts from each}

 The Priority Myth Excerpts from Chapter One

 <http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/prioritymyth.htm>http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/prioritymyth.htm

 It is easily proven that Albert Einstein did not originate
the special theory of relativity in its entirety, or even in it smajority.1
The historic record is readily available. Ludwig Gustav Lange,2 Woldemar
Voigt,3 George Francis FitzGerald,4 Joseph Larmor,5 Hendrik Antoon Lorentz,6
Jules Henri Poincar,7 Paul Drude,8 Paul Langevin,9 and many others, slowly
developed the theory, step by step, and based it on thousands of years
of recorded thought and research. Einstein may have made a few contributions
to the theory, such as the relativistic equations for aberration and the
DopplerFizeau Effect,10 though he may also have rendered an incorrect
equation for the transverse mass of an electron, which, when corrected,
becomes Lorentz' equation.11 Albert Einstein's first work on the theory
of relativity did not appear until 1905. There is substantial evidence
that Albert Einstein did not write this 1905 paper12on the "principle
of relativity" alone. Hiswife, Mileva EinsteinMarity, may have been
coauthor, or the sole author, of the work.13 If Albert Einstein did not
originate the major concepts of the special theory of relativity, how could
such a historically significant fact have escaped the attention of the
world for nearly a century? Th simple answer is that it did not. . . .
. . . Lorentz, himself, attributed the principle of relativity to Poincare,

 "For certain of the physical magnitudes which enter
in the formulas I have not indicated the transformation which suits best.
This has been done by Poincare, and later by Einstein and Minkowski."
. . . in 1927, H. Thirring wrote,

 "H. Poincare had already completely solved the problem
of time several years before the appearance of Einstein's first work (1905).
. . ." Sir Edmund Whittaker in his detailed survey, A History of the
Theories of Aether and Electricity, Volume II,(1953), included a chapter
entitled "The Relativity Theory of Poincare and Lorentz". Whittaker
thoroughly documented the development of the theory, documenting the authentic
history, and demonstrated through reference to primary sources that Einstein
held no priority for the vast majority of the theory. Einstein offered
no counterargument to Whittaker's famous book. . . . . . Even among Einstein's
admirers, voices are heard, which deny Einstein's priority. Max Born averred,

 "I have now to say some words about the work of
these predecessors of Einstein, mainly of Lorentz and Poincare. [***] Many
of you have looked upon [Einstein's] paper 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter
Korper' in Annalen der Physic [***] and you will have noticed some pecularities.
The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous
literature. It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that
is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true."66 ==

 SpaceTime, or is it "TimeSpace"? Excerpts
from Chapter Two

 http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/spacetime.htm

 Poincare provided the "fourdimensional analogue"124
to Lorentz' aether in 1905 and relativized the "Lorentzian ether"
in 1895, long before Minkowski or Einstein manipulated credit for his work.
The Einsteins' 1905 paper contains no fourdimensional analogue, and is,
therefore, a theory of the "unrelativized Lorentzian aether",
per se. . . .One must wonder how Minkowski "introduced", in 1908,
that which was already extant in Poincare's work of 1905, and in Marcolongo's
work of 1906. It was Poincare who first attacked Lorentz' and Larmor's
distinction between local time and time, beginning in 1898, and eliminated
said artificial distinction long before 1905  which distinction was not
even present in Voigt's formulations of1887. . . .Neither Minkowski, nor
the Einsteins,nor Poincare, hold priority on the conceptof fourdimensional
spacetime. H.G.Wells, in 1894, expressly stated it in a popular novel,
The Time Machine,long before Minkowski claimed priority,

 "'Can a cube that does not last for any time at
all, have a real existence?' Filby became pensive. 'Clearly,' the Time
Traveller proceeded, 'any real body must have extension in four directions:
it must have Lenght, Breadth, Thickness, and  Duration. But through a
natural infirmity of the flesh, which I will explain to you in a moment,
we incline to overlook this fact. There are really four dimensions, three
which we call the three planes of Space, and a fourth, Time. There is,
however, a tendency to draw an unreal distinction between the former three
dimensions and the latter, because it happens that our consciousness moves
intermittently in one direction along the latter from the beginning to
the end of our lives.'" . . .An article by "S." had appeared
in Nature, Volume 31, Number 804, (March26, 1885), p. 481, titled,"FourDimensional
Space", which presented the concepts of "timespace","fourdimensional
solid" ("sursolid", afterDes Cartes), "timearea",
and "timeline"; which later became "spacetime" ("ZeitRaum"
is a confusing pun in German with the word "Zeitraum"),"absolute
world", and "worldline". . . .In this same lecture, followed
by adiscussion which is on record,131 Einstein shamelessly parroted Poincare's
enquiries into the nature of simultaneity132 and his clocks ynchronization
procedures, without citing Poincare; and Einstein failed to correct those
who credited Einstein with the ideas he repeated, which were not his own.
==

 "Theory of Relativity" or "Pseudorelativism"?
Excerpts from Chapter Three

 http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/pseudorelat.htm

 "Einstein's theory of relativity is a misnomer,
it should be called atheory of absolutivity."Wallace Kantor . .
.Samuel Alexander held that,

 "[I]t is clear that SpaceTime takes for us the
place of what is called the Absolute in idealistic systems. it is an experiential
absolute."188 . . .Melchior Palagyi, from whom Minkowski took much,
stated,

 "The term introduced by Einstein: 'theory of relativity'
is, of course, a most unfortunate choice; we retain it, however, like any
arbitrary standard designation, which you can't get rid of, because people
have grown accustomed to using it. . . ."194 . . .Einstein professed,
after the general theory was established, that,

 "There is no absolute (independent of the space
of reference) relation in space, and no absolute relation in time between
two events, but there is an absolute (independent of the space of reference)
relation in space and time"195 and,

 "The fourdimensional space of the special theory
of relativity is just as rigid and absolute as Newton's space."196
and,

 "The spacetime phenomenon of the special theory
of relativity was something absolute in itself, inasmuch as it was independent
of the particular state of motions considered in that theory." . .
. Robert Resnick conluded that,

 "the theory of relativity could have been called
the theory of absolutism with some justification. [***] there are absolute
lengths and times in relativity. [***] Where relativity theory is clearly
'more absolute' than classical physics is in the relativity principle itself:
the laws of physics are absolute."201 It is some strange "relativity
theory", which is more absolutist than classical absolutism! . . .
In one sense the pseudorelativists' caution with respect tothe aether is
commendable. In another, it is unscientific to refuse to speculate based
on the pseudorelativists' pretentious grounds that measurementand mathematical
abstraction are the only tools of the scientist, and that their pseudorelativistic
subjective comparisons and arguments by analogy are somehow"objective".
. . .The list of true relativists is long. To name but a few: DesCartes,
Huyghens,Locke, Leibnitz, Berkeley, Hume, Comte,Spencer, Stallo, Hamilton,
Mach,Anderssohn, Avenarius, Petzoldt, etc.. A real relativist, like Stallo,
would never have embraced the absolutist "special theory of relativity",
with its codified absolute space and time, and absolutist "spacetime"
and the ontological "universal constant" speed of light and absolute
laws of Nature. . . .It is wrong to attribute to Einstein the assertions
that time, space and motion are relative, for two reasons: One, Einstein
was an absolutist, who could not comprehend relativism; Two, others argued
that time, space and motion are purely relative long before Einstein was
born. ==

 Hero Worship Excerpts from Chapter Four

 http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/heroworship.htm

 Why is Albert Einstein's name associatedwith the "principle
of relativity", and not Poincar's? Poincar stated it first, ten years
before the Einsteins, and the Einsteins copied it from him. Who is to blame
for this injustice? What could possibly motivate them, other than selfdoubt
and/or hero worship? The facts are clear to all willing to look. Albert
Einstein did not originate the special theory of relativity. That is clear.
. . . Since Poincare and Lorentz developed the theory, why aren't their
names not only linked to the theory, but universally linked together? What
makes the image of "Einstein" so sacrosanct, that it is today
virtually a crime to tell the truth about the history of the special theory
of relativity? Why, in the majority of the histories of the special theory
of relativity, isn't Einstein,with his minor contribution of the relativistic
equations for aberration and the DopplerFizeau effect (together withhis
many blunders), the curious footnote of a persistent copycat, and not the
central theme? Certainly, it is more convenient to briefly credit Einstein
with everything, but, since the ideas are considered so significant, one
would think the originators deserve their due credit. . . .Many people
knew that Einstein did not hold priority for much of what he wrote. He,
himself, was keenly aware of it. It is not uncommon for grandiose myths
to accrue to overly idealized popular figures, such as Albert Einstein.
Theoretical Physics, as a field, was small, and not well known in the period
from 19051919. Theoretical physicists were not well known, and, since
those in the field knew that Einstein was a plagiarist, they largely ignored
him. In 1919, (on dubious grounds213) Dyson, Davidson and Eddington, made
Einstein famous by affirming that experiment had confirmed, without an
attribution to Soldner, Soldner's 1801 hypothesis, that the gravitational
field of the sun should curve the path of light from the stars.214 Shortly
after that, Einstein won the Nobel Prize, though it is unclear why he won
it, other than as a reward for his newfound fame for reiterating Soldner's
ideas, and for his pacifist stance during World War I. . . .Einstein did
not invent the atomic bomb. In fact, he was ignorant of the concept of
the bomb. However, with the help of Alexander Sachs, Einstein was chosen
to write a letter to President Roosevelt urging him to instigate what would
eventually become the "Manhattan Project", the effort to develop
an atomic bomb before the Nazis. Due to hisignorance, Leo Szilard and Eugene
Wigner had to explain the concept of the atomic bomb to Einstein, before
he couldwrite the letter215. . . .When said program to develop an atomic
bomb began, Einstein was not asked to participate, but rather was excluded
from the research team. Why was Einstein, supposedly the most brilliant
human being of all time, not a member of the team, which developed the
bomb, and upon whose work the fate of all humanity might rest? ==

 E=mc2 Excerpts from Chapter Five

 http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/emc2.htm

 Contrary to popular myth, Einstein did not usher in the
atomic age, in fact, he found the idea of atomic energy to be silly, 217
nor was Einstein the first to state the massenergy equivalence, or E =
mc2.218 Myths such as Einstein's supposed discoveries are not uncommon.
Newton did not discover gravity, nor did he offer a viable explanation
for it, nor did he believe that matter attracted other matter. . . .It
appears that the physics community and the media invented a comic book
figure,"Einstein", with "E = mc2" stenciled accross
his chest. . . In anticipation of Thomson, De Pretto and the Einsteins,
S. Tolver Preston formulated atomic energy, the atomic bomb and superconductivity
back in the 1870's, based on the formula E = mc2,where celeritas, "c",
signifies the speed of light. Pursuing Le Sage's theory, Preston believed
that mass could be attenuated into aether, thereby releasing a tremendous
store of energy; since aether particles move at light speedalimiting
velocity, the energy store is equal to mass times the square of the speed
of light. Albert Einstein never even came close to such insights. . . .
Maxwell's equations implicitly contain the formula E = mc2. Simon Newcomb
pioneered the concept of relativistic energy in 1889.224 Preston, J.J.
Thompson,225 Poincare,226 Olinto De Pretto,227 Fritz Hasenohrl,228 [etc.etc.
etc.] each effectively (Albert Einstein, himself, did not expressly state
it in 1905), or directly, presented the formula E = mc2, before 1905, and
MaxPlanck229 refined the concept in 1906 1908, including Newton's230,
Bessel's231 and Eotvos'232 implications that inertial mass and gravitational
mass are equivalent  before Albert Einstein. Alexander Bain expressly
stated in 1870 that, "matter, force, and inertia, are three names
for substantially the same fact"

 and,

 "force and matter are not two things, but one thing"

 and,

 "force, inertia, momentum, matter, are allbut one
fact".239 ==

 Einstein's Modus Operandi Excerpts from Chapter Six

 <http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/modusoperandi.htm>http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/modusoperandi.htm

 "I don't find Einstein's Relativity agrees with
me. It is the most unnatural and difficult to understand way of representing
facts that could be thought of. . . . And I really think that Einstein
is a practicalj oker, pulling the legs of hisenthusiastic followers,
more Einsteinisch than he." Oliver Heaviside. "Einstein simply
postulates what we have deduced, with some difficulty and not altogether
satisfactorily, from the fundamental equations of the electromagnetic field.
[***] I have not availed myself of his substitutions, only because the
formulae are rather complicated and look somewhat artificial." Hendrik
Antoon Lorentz.247 . . .Though Einstein cited Mach as a source of ideas,253
Mach rejected Einstein's relativity theory and asked nott o be associated
with the "dogmatic" and "paradoxical" "nonsense",
in spite of the fact that Joseph Petzoldt sought to give Mach his due credit
for major elements of the theory of relativity.254 Einstein initially adored
Mach, and asked for his guidance and help.255 When it became known,after
Mach's death, that Mach rejected Einstein and his views, Einstein ridiculed
Mach.256 . . .Einstein lacked the insight and reasoning skills needed to
induce hypotheses, so he condemned the practice. He was forced, due to
his inability to cope with the "higher degree of difficulty and complexity"
needed to induce hypotheses, to copy hypotheses from others, but sought
to disguise the fact. Einstein insisted that empirical results be argued
as first principles, in order to deduce the same phenomena as results,
which are argued as first principles, in a fallacy of Petitio Principii.
This is the method he used in his "theories" in order to assume
credit for the induced hypotheses of others, which e then slipped into
the theories somewhere in the middle, without rational justification, calling
them "derivations". It was necessary for Einstein to discourage
scientist from using proper method, lest they discover the irrationality
of his unoriginal works. In so doing, he converted the scientific method
into amethod of redundancy, whereby an empirical fact is deduced from itself.
. . .Herbert Ives published a paper in1952, which argued that Einstein
employed the same irrational method of Petitio Principii in "deriving"
the massenergy equivalence. . . . [Iveswrote,]

 "What Einstein did by setting down these equations
(as 'clear') was to introduce the relation

 L / (m  m') c2 = 1.

 Now this is the very relation the derivation was supposed
to yield. It emerges from Einstein's manipulation of observations by two
observers because it has been slipped in by the assumption which Planck
questioned. The relation E = mM c2 was not derived by Einstein."273
==

 History Excerpts from Chapter Seven

 <http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/history.htm>http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/history.htm

 Historians all too often look to the conclusions of previous
historians, rather than to the complete historic record,itself.280 Historians
record their impressions and not history itself. They are politically motivated.
Later historians all too often record the works of earlier historians,
and the truth is lost in the process. Bias is a doubleedged sword, which
cuts both ways. Many who are aware that Einstein was not an original thinker
wrongfully attribute the special theory of relativity to Hendrik Antoon
Lorentz, often believing that Minkowski first set incement the notion of
the uniform translation of space and the concept of fourdimensional being.
Many worship Hendrik Antoon as a hero, just as manyworship Einstein as
a hero. However, Lorentz and Minkowski deserve little more credit than
does Albert Einstein. ==

 Mileva EinsteinMarity Excerpts from Chapter Eight

 http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/mileva.htm

 "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 ZurElektrodynamik bewegter K°rper;
von A. Einstein, Einstein's supposedly breakthrough paper on the "principle
of relativity". Though it was perhaps submitted as coauthored by Mileva
EinsteinMarity and Albert Einstein, or solely by Mileva EinsteinMarity,
Albert's name appeared in the journal as the exclusive author of their
work285 . . . . Evan Harris Walker, who argued that Mileva was coauthor,
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 [Albert's] 43 letters
to [Mileva] 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 relativitytheory?
. . . Mileva and Albert had coauthored papers before 299 and Albert had
assumed credit for that which Mileva had accomplished.300 Senta TroemelPloetz
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 desperat eneed for monies?
==

 Politics and Anecdotes Excerpts from Chapter Nine

 <http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/politics.htm>http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/politics.htm

 Einstein repeated much of what H.G.Wells had accomplished,
both in physics and politics. Wells holds priority on the concept of fourdimensional
spacetime, the atomic bomb, and many other innovations of thought. . .
.Even some of Einstein's quaint scientific anecdotes have their prior cousins.
He told a story of his supposed fantasy of traveling at light speed,334
the socalled "Aarau Question". This story isused as an example
of Einstein's supposed independence from Lorentz. . .. However, this fantasy
was the subject ofa novel popular among physicists o fEinstein's day written
by famous aastronomer, Lumen, by Camille Flammarion. . . .In Einstein's
famous lecture of 1922 in Japan,338 he recounts that he derived inspiration
from "Michelson's experiment". Then, years later, Einstein denied
having known of the experiment before the 1905 paper appeared.339 . . .Einstein
claimed that he arose from bed once and wondered if events were absolutely
simultaneous.342 Was Einstein reading Poincare, who had already expressly
written that events are not absolutely simultaneous, in bed, before Einstein
fell asleep? . . .Einstein is known to have read Poincare,349, and was
aware of Lorentz'work, but denied knowledge of the socalled "Lorentz
Transformation". Is it plausible to believe that Einstein, a supposed
genius and master scientist,was completely unaware of Poincare's, Lorentz'
and Larmor's works containing the socalled "Lorentz Transformation",
and the principle of relativity, which were the talk of the physics community,350
and the then current literature on the subject of Poincare's "principle
of relativity", and that it is coincidental that Einstein repeated
much of what they wrote? . . . Einstein is seemingly awarded credit forevery
scientific advancement and theory from the time of Newton up until Einstein's
death. Does Einstein deserve that credit? ==

 http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/AEIPBook.htm

 "The appearance of Dr. Silberstein's recent article
on 'General Relativitywithout the Equivalence Hypothesis'encourages me
to restate my own viewson the subject. I am perhaps entitled to dothis
as my work on the subject of GeneralRelativity was published before that
ofEinstein and Kottler, and appears to havebeen overlooked by recent writers."
Harry Bateman

 * * * "All this was maintained by Poincare andothers
long before the time of Einstein,and one does injustice to truth inascribing
the discovery to him."  Charles Nordmann

 * * * "[Einstein's] paper 'Zur Elektrodynamikbewegter
Koerper' in Annalen der Physik.. . contains not a single reference to previous
literature. It gives you theimpression of quite a new venture. But that
is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true."  Max Born

 * * * "In point of fact, therefore, Poincare was
not only the first to enunciate the principle, but he also discovered in
Lorentz's work the necessary mathematical formulation of the principle.
All this happened before Einstein's paperappeared."  G. H. Keswani

 * * * "Einstein's explanation is a dimensionaldisguise
for Lorentz's. . . . Thus Einstein's theory is not a denial of, nor an
alternative for, that of Lorentz. It is only a duplicate and disguise for
it. . . . Einstein continually maintains that the theory of Lorentz is
right, only he disagrees with his 'interpretation.' Is it not clear, therefore,
that in this, as in other cases, Einstein's theory is merely a disguise
for Lorentz's, the apparent disagreement about 'interpretation' being
a matter of word sonly?"  James Mackaye

 * * * "The secret to creativity is knowing how tohide
your sources."  Albert Einstein ==

 (2) E =mc 2 is Not Einstein 's Discovery, by Robert A.
Herrmann

 (9 SEPT 2000. Revised 15 AUG 2002)

 http://www.serve.com/herrmann/einpdf.pdf

 (3) (Defending Einstein) Einstein Ripped Off!

 http://www.ajnpx.com/html/EinsteinRippedOff.html

 Arguably, the greatest scientist of the twentieth century,
both by popular and scientific standards, is Albert Einstein (18791955).
I intend to argue that the greatest philosopher of science of the twentieth
century is also Einstein. ...

 Einstein the Plagiarist?

 Did Einstein plagiarize, or ripoff, other scientist's
work? I think that this question is ludicrous on the face of it, but I'll
answer it because the accusations are out there that he did. ... ==

 (4) (Defending Einstein) 8.8 Who Invented Relativity?

 <http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s808/808.htm

  Peter Myers, 21 Blair St, Watson ACT 2602, Australia
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers ph +61 2 62475187 to unsubscribe, reply
with "unsubscribe" in the subject line
