E=mc^2 Is Not Einsteins Dicovery

Sure. .

The writer is pointing out that many of the parts of the Einsteins theory of relativity (and his explanation of the photoelectric effect) were built on the work of others.

This is obvious. Although, the writer is wrong that Pojncare and others haven't been given credit, at least to those of us in Physics he is well known as a great mathematician ond Physicist. Perhaps it is true that in the popular celebrity of Einstein, the work of these other geniuses is lost in popular celebrity.

I don't know if the writer means to detract from the genius of Einstein or the importance of his work. I hope not.

Einstein was crucial for pulling together all of the work being done by these physicists and others into one coherent theory of relativity. Einsteins work was truly revolutionary, and this doesn't detract from the contributions or genius of the other mathematicians and physicists who were involved.

If I were writing this article I would have started with Lorentz who came up with the idea that different observers will meansure length and mass differently (which an important part of Einsteins theory). This is now called Lorentz contraction (I am pretty sure Einstein credited Lorentz). It was Einstein who put Lorentz contraction in a complete Mathematical framework.

On closer reading (I am a bit bored this morning)... the last paragraph seems quite out of place for the rest of the article.

The middle of the article seems to make attempts to discredit Einstein for not giving credit for the work of thers. I don't know if this is a valid criticism or not, but again it doesn't take away from the revolutionary work of Einstein or the fact that Einsteins work is the foundation of a key part of modern Physics.

The last paragraph is quite odd...

After a scientific argument of mathematicians and physicists, the writer levels a very strange charge.

Einstein rejected the God of the Old Testament.

This is clearly true. But, how this is relevant to the value of his scientific work is beyond me.

dont want to lose track of this.

Didn't Einsteins first wife have something to do with this too?

They did a lot of research together.

Speaking right off the top of my head, and thereby risking being wrong, it's my recollection that although Einstein implied to his first wife, Mileva, before marriage that they would be collaborators, in fact, that didn't happen, or didn't happen much. I don't think anyone can either affirm or rule out a role by her in the research for his 1905 paper on Special Relativity, but I believe she was soon largely shuffled off to the side as not being able to operate at his level.

Emile du Chatelet and Willem Gravesende have to be given credit for developing and testing the base equation of F=mvv or F=ma.

thanks guys

Sure thing Quincy...

I just noticed your signature... quite appropriate for the ariticle you posted I think.

When Einstein published his paper on special relativity he didn't give any citations. He himself wasn't a very good mathematician and had to get his friends to do the difficult math for him.

About Mileva Brandon is probably right. Einstein was always absorbed in his work and mentioned it often in his letters to her, but Mileva didn't share Einstein's obsession and never mentioned work in any of her letters.

E=MC^2 is only part of the equation. The full equation is E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2

I think this needs to be clarified a little bit. Einstein was a very good mathematician on any scale, except, possibly, by comparison with the world's best mathematical physicists. He certainly needed no help with the math of Special Relativity. The case in which he needed some mathematical help was later, for his theory of General Relativity, when he needed some tutoring in the use of the newly invented field of tensor calculus. By the standard of 99.9% of the people in the world, though, he was a superb mathematician.

As you might expect with a paragraph that begins "it is certainly proper ..."

Re: E=mc^2 Is Not Einsteins Dicovery

Robert Herrman is pointing out that several ideas contained in Einstein's work were first published by other scientists. Herrman suggests "It appears that some scientists have not received the proper credit for significant discoveries for which they have priority." To substantiate his claim, he enumerates several such ideas and traces them back to the scientist who originally published it.

Stuff like this is not unusual in science, and Mr. Herrmann's claims may well be true. But to persuade me of them, Mr. Herrmann would have to show two things: One, that the scientists who he thinks have not received proper credit have actually made the discoveries he thinks they made; two, that the scientists who did get the credit for the inventions did not cite the people who made the discovery before them. Herrmann does pretty well on the first point, but he's pretty thin on the second. I am skeptical about this article.