You go to /pol/ and they tell you Einstein is a thieving Jew.

>>9049463
yes, you're correct

For pretty much any noteworthy scientific or mathematic discovery you're going to find several people that find the same answer at nearly the same exact time. Figuring out which one was "first" is impossible and mostly comes down to judgement calls like what exactly constitutes the full discovery and what are just steps towards it.

In the case of Einstein, he was the first one to bring the ideas together, publish, and popularize the theories, so he gets the credit from the public.

If you're going to complain about him taking scientific ideas from others, then you might as well call every mathematician a thief for stealing the idea of using numbers and for stealing the idea of using addition and subtraction etc. Science is pretty much just bringing together other peoples ideas and combining them in new ways, all of it.

>>9049463
>What is your response?
"Why the fuck did I go to /pol/?"
and then I leave

>>9049463
Science isn't created in a vacuum.

>>9049473

Correct.

It's true that in terms of the mathematics, their were others that competed with Einstein

but the physical interpretation, i.e the PHYSICS of the goddamm theories were all Einstein's work

he spent years in isolation working on General Relativity, Hilbert didn't even know about GR UNTIL einstien told him in a lecture

>>9049463
Relativity is Judenphysik and the fact that they want to claim credit for it means they are probably a Jew.

Then I would direct them to this excellent resource and inform them they have just been BTFO.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity

Well, they're kind of right.

I don't want to stir the hornet's nest here, but Jews have a well-documented history of hogging the spotlight of scientific achievement. Einstein, while smart, is one of those cases.

I dont begrudge the Jews this, however. We have a shared interest in seeing whites eradicated, and I can hardly fault Jews for getting back at them after centuries of violence and theft.

File: 4bf.png (181KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 625x626px

>>9049489
You really must make your b8 less obvious.

>>9049502
Why would I response to obvious bait with anything other than obvious bait?

>/sci/ really are as dumb as they look

>>9049509
>Why would I response to obvious bait with anything other than obvious bait?
Why would you respond to obvious bait with obvious bait? Is that supposed to follow?

>>9049524
>obvious bait?
touche

I think you're getting the hang of this.

>>9049470
>In the case of Einstein, he was the first one to bring the ideas together, publish, and popularize the theories, so he gets the credit from the public.
This is a ridiculous statement because being the "first" to such things is completely subjective. "First" could have just as easily been moved ahead a few years to Poincare or a few years later to Minkowski by simple twists of fate.

He gets the credit because he got lucky with publicity. And there's nothing wrong with that per se, because it's inevitable. The public is too lazy to recognize all major contributors so they end up crowding around whichever the one ends up the luckiest in that regard.

Nothing against the guy. He was an important contributor to science. But it's still off-putting to see someone deified.

>>9049473
/thread

>>9049470
This, read Kuhn.
Who discovered oxygen, Lavoisier or Priestley?

>>9049655
I said it was subjective (or rather that it was a judgement call) in that very post you quoted you cockgarbler

>>9049463
>Lorentz discovered Special Relativity
Lorentz calculated his transformations to save the dying ether theory. That's, like, the absolute and complete opposite of relativity

>>9049962
Einstein's articles *do* acknowledge other scientists' contributions. From the top of my head, I'm sure I've read him mention Lorentz, Hilbert, Poincaré, but surely there were more. Stop spreading misinformation.

>>9049463
fuck off to >>>/pol/

>>9049463
It's nice to see some open-minded people once in a while.

t. someone living in 2017

>>9049463
>visit /pol/

There's your first mistake

>>9049473
Base

>>9049967
It's what /pol/ does

There are intelligent people on /pol/ but it's a rarity.

/Pol/ is full of dumbos and racists.

Why would you visit that toxic place?

>>9049490

This. /sci/ doesn't want to admit the truth because they're a bunch of turbocucks.

>>9049473
>>9049971
>>9049999
>>9050040
What's with all the hostility towards /pol/?
Out of all 4chan boards beside /sci/, /pol/ is the one that desires the most to acquire factual knowledge of the world. It may have some biases, but usually it doesn't let feelings get in the way of analyzing the truth.

>>9049967
good goy :^)

Daily reminder that 'go back to /pol/' spammers are far worse for /sci/ than /pol/ crossposters

>>9050049
second this

>>9049490

GO BACK TO THE DESERT, SEMITES!

But relativity is wrong

>>9050049
I'm not exactly hostile to /pol/, but I daresay this is partly untrue, especially in the case of anti-semitism. Whenever I object to anti-semitism the general response is either "kill yourself you fucking jewish shill" or "you can't comment unless you read this 300 page mein kampf-level book first"

>>9049489
wtf I hate the universe now

File: paris from space thomas pesquet DAY.jpg (402KB, 1199x799px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 1199x799px

>>9049463

If you have to pick one human in the entire history who truly defines what a genius is, it would be Einstein. This man truly changed our vision about the Universe, the gravity and the light.

He is the real giant and the other scientists, whatever their talents, are only tiny grains of sand.

>>9049470
I respond by saying that it does not matter, for relativity is fucking shite and quantum mechanics has become thousands of times more useful in half the time.

>>9050049

That's just how they envision themselves.

>>9050049
>Desires the most to acquire factual knowledge
>Comes to /sci/ in order to shitpost and tell lies

Fuck off

>>9050119
>the gravity
>the light
Just how retarded are you?

>>9050119
So what is gravity and light

>>9050049
Poltards actually believe this

>>9050049
interesting insight

>>9050110
This. Everything is a jewish conspiracy, be it climate change, NASA, AI you name it. Just somehow the "Jews" got into everything and everywhere and only seek to destroy le white man

>>9050053
>>>/pol/

>>9050049
>usually it doesn't let feelings get in the way of analyzing the truth
>global warming
>Jewish conspiracies
>western-style healthcare
>not feeling-based for the majority of /pol/ users
Is this bait? Or does this fall under a very broad definition of "usually"?

>>9050049
I'm far-right and mostly agree with pol, if you can agree with a board, but people are constantly posting pol related threads outside pol. It's very annoying. Sometimes it's people from pol, other times it's people complaining about pol/far-right intrusion in general. Both are very annoying. I'm not on pol, I don't want to hear about politics.

Any thread mention of /pol/ outside of /pol/ should be deleted desu.

>>9050049
>/pol/ is the one that desires the most to acquire factual knowledge of the world.
Memes and infographics =/= knowledge

>>9050049
>facts
and
>biases

Didn't you think for a second that somethings wrong in what you wrote

File: einstein1.jpg (41KB, 570x785px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 570x785px

>>9050171
>>9050212

Is it a joke ? It's middle school / high school tier......................

>Gravity Einstein's general theory
Matter causes distorsion of spacetime

>Quantum theory of light
The idea that light exists as tiny packets, or particles, which he called photons

File: 1472431945775.gif (2MB, 450x259px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 450x259px

>>9050049
>someone believes this

File: 3064696_1352168416729.47res_375_300.jpg (47KB, 375x300px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 375x300px

>>9050371
I miss info threads in /sci/

File: Screenshot_20170720-110709.png (645KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

645KB, 1440x2560px

>>9050049
I stop by every once in a while just to make sure.

File: 0000000000.jpg (946KB, 752x4161px) Image search: [Google]

946KB, 752x4161px

>>9049463

>>9050049
>/pol/ desires the most to acquire factual knowledge of the world.
>doesn't let feelings get in the way of analyzing the truth.

ahahahahaha!
now I've heard everything

>>9049463
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as General Theory of Relativity, is in fact, Riemannian Geometry/Lorentz invariance, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Riemannian Geometry plus Lorentz invariance.
General Theory of Relativity is not a physics theory unto itself, but rather another layer of reasoning of a fully functioning geometrical system made useful by the Gauss-Bonnet theorem, Nash embedding theorems and Lorentz transformations comprising a full physics theory as defined by Newton.

Many physicists run a modified version of the differential geometry every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of Riemann geometry which is widely used today is often called "General Theory of Relativity", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically Riemann geometry, developed by Bernhard Riemann.

There really is a Theory of Relativity, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the geometrical system they use. General Theory of Relativity is the philosopy: the reasoning in the theory that links real world phenomena to the mathematical description.
Philosopy is an essential part of any physics theory, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete physics theory. General Theory of Relativity is normally used in combination with the Lorentz invariance and differential geometry: the whole system is basically Lorentz invariance with the theorems of differential geometry that make up Riemann geometry added, or Riemannian Geometry/Lorentz invariance.

>>9050049
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This is how /pol/tards actually see themselves.

>>9050049
Are you a professional almond activator?

>>9049485
This is bullshit. Einstein wasn't smart enough to figure out the maths, which are the physics of the thing. He asked Hilbert to do it and Hilbert sent it back to him. Then Einstein published it and pretended it was his own work. That's plagarism.

>>9050563
>things that never happened

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olinto_De_Pretto

Einstein literallly stole E=mc2 from him and got away with it.

>>9050049
>
Kek

>>9050563
yes

but Einstein did all the physical interpretation/physics of the work

and no math and physics are not the same thing

>>9050585
>Newton stole calculus from Leibniz

>>9049463
The ignorant always seek to tear down the accomplishments of the intelligent. It helps them feel less pathetic.

>>9049463
>What is your response?

A bunch of brainlets squabble over the right to be recognized for something that is fundamentally incorrect. Pretty ironic.

File: angry-photographer-is-the-nikkor-20mm-f1-8g-the-best-ultra-wide-nikon-lens-yes-it-ishtml-youtube-thumbnail1-640x360.jpg (54KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 640x360px

>>9050647
Ken Wheeler is that you?

>>9050049
>It may have some biases

>>9050627
Or maybe trying to point out that other intelligent people deserve credit and recognition too?

There is no reason for Einstein to be deified the way he has been. Many others worked on the theory as well, and he was hardly perfect in his work. The 1905 paper would not have been accepted and published if it were submitted today because of its errors; the very third equation in the paper includes a c + v term in contradiction to its own postulates.

He was a smart guy, but he wasn't the infallible god of science he's being pushed as.

>>9049463
tell them go back to /pol/ coz we all worship jew dick here. anyone who says otherwise is from /pol/

>>9050470
>/pol/tards
is this retard here again? we kicked your ass out long time ago
>b-b-but ebil white people
go away 40 IQ brainlet

>>9050049
they tend to preach off pol in other boards - that is what pol is for, pol stuff, sci, tg, vg,etc arent pol related but pol-sters or people pretending to be from pol sprout out into other boards and mess up other boards/threads outside pol, basically pol should stay in pol

>>9050764
>he wasn't the infallible god of science he's being pushed as
By literally who?

>>9049473
jidf spotted

>>9049463
>What is your response?
They were all a part of General Relativity and they all deserve the credit. Einstein wasn't special in this case.

>>9050049
Have one more (You). You deserved it.

>>9050396
>The idea that light exists as tiny packets, or particles, which he called photons

Plank had already basically figured this out.

>>9050862
for him it was just a mathematical trick to get black body radiation to work

>>9050049
> /pol/ is the one that desires the most to acquire factual knowledge of the world

hahahahahahahhaahahah

>>9050585

Einstein derived E=MC^2 purely from relativity while De_Pretto derived it from nuclear physics. If he stole the formula he would have had to re-calculate it out of special relativity but there is no need for that because E=mc^2 is a natural consequence of calculating the radiation of masses in special relativity.

If he stole it he found the most roundabout and way of doing it that just coincidentally happened to be emergent from his specialty in that area of study.

>>9050053
>>>/pol/

>>9050862
>Plank had already basically figured this out.
No he didn't. Planck's guess on the origin of the quantization was a lot more conservative than Einstein's.

Einstein forced people who were attached to Newtonian mechanics to accept special relativity and quantum mechanics His method left physics no options.

>>9049463
>You go to /pol/
That's where you went wrong

>>9050233
>climate change
>NASA
>AI
Nice strawmanning, but on the issue of " the "Jews" got into everything and everywhere and only seek to destroy le white man"; yes, this is moreorless the thesis and it has its evidence. If you wish to debate /pol/ on this with your counter evidence please do so. They are begging to be proved wrong at every turn. Do you think anyone over there remotely likes this idea? If you can prove it wrong they'll thank you.

>>9050603
yeah you're right there. Still plagarised Hilbert's work though. If anyone else did that they would be disgraced out right, but not our genius golden Jew, lol, unless you count this thread of course.

>>9049463
Honestly why do you care what ethnic group a scientist is from? It is all about the knowledge.

File: laugh.jpg (18KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 600x450px

>>9050049

>>9051518
What evidence? There's no data that suggests that Jews are "getting into everything" just because they are Jewish, and there is certainly no data that suggests that they are getting into everything just to destroy it. The best evidence I've seen is infographics suggesting Jews are overrepresented at the top in certain fields, hardly proof of a conspiracy. /pol/ sees Jews as, literally, cartoon villains and if you question this or provide contrary evidence or logic, they call you a shill.

>>9051542
bc blud n shieeet

>>9049470
>>9049842
There's a specific accusation against Einstein in particular, that he was intentionally deceptive and strategic about claiming credit for something he made essentially no contribution to.

Einstein was a very social kind of a scientist. He didn't hide himself away to think great thoughts, he was always seeking the company and correspondence of the top figures in physics. So there's the opportunity: he may have heard the ideas, quite fully developed, and simply rushed to publish, presenting them as his own before the true source could finish polishing them for proper publication.

His initial relativity paper in particular (the work most responsible for the great success of his career) is suspicious: an obvious rush job, it omits any citations of previous work.

Then there's his background in the patent office: he'd go into work, and see these priority disputes. If there's one thing the world of patents shows you, it's that there's no prize for being the one to actually work things out, if you're not also the first who presents it to the world.

You see also various other scientists who worked with Einstein, saying he was lazy and weak at math. Then there are comments that his work after rising to prominence didn't seem up to the standard of the "annus mirabilis" papers which made him famous.

So that's the argument, in broad strokes. I don't know what to think of it, myself, but it's not something to brush off with handwaving about how nobody thought it all up on their own from nothing.

Eimstein's claim to fame (i.e., what got him the Nobel prize) was his interpretation of the photo-electric effect, not his work on special relativity.

>>9050049
>/pol/ is the one that desires the most to acquire factual knowledge of the world
>usually it doesn't let feelings get in the way of analyzing the truth.
Their entire worldview is based on sociosexual insecurity (why else would there be "HOW CAN WHITE BOYS EVEN COMPETE" threads daily that get 100+ responses there?)

How is that not a worldview based on feelings?

File: sweetie no.jpg (22KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x400px

>>9050049
> /pol/ is the one that desires the most to acquire factual knowledge of the world. It may have some biases, but usually it doesn't let feelings get in the way of analyzing the truth.
oh sweetie....

>>9052006
>Eimstein's claim to fame (i.e., what got him the Nobel prize)
There's no reason to equate the two. Nobel Prizes have always been rather arbitrary, and he was famous (annus mirabilis papers in 1905) long before he won a Nobel Prize (1921).

I think the relativity paper is (and was) his most famous, but it's fair to say that all four annus mirabilis papers were the foundation of his fame together.

The one on the photo-electric effect was singled out for the Nobel in 1921 because his relativity work wasn't regarded as properly experimentally confirmed until decades later, during WW2. Multiple Nobels are rarely awarded to the same person, and to this day no one has received two unshared Nobel Prizes for science.

>>9052029
>(why else would there be "HOW CAN WHITE BOYS EVEN COMPETE" threads daily that get 100+ responses there?)
Because it's right up there with /b/ in popularity, and there's no shortage of trolls trolling trolls?

>>9051538
back to /pol/ kiddo

File: kek4.png (287KB, 512x462px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 512x462px

>>9050049
>/pol/ is the one that desires the most to acquire factual knowledge of the world
I can't bring myself to believe that veteran /pol/ users have anything better than a minimum-wage job. They just have too much free time on their hands.

>>9051518
I'd like to see concrete proofs on how Jews "seek to destroy le white man".

>>9050049
/pol/ is full of pseuds
however, they're often correct, but either by accident or they take things too far(everything is a NWO conspiracy, jews, etc.)
the point about feelings is laughable, most of the users don't even bother in trying to understand the basic concepts of a complex problem, they just see what's wrong and when they do give a plausible solution(once in a blue moon) it's worse than a current situation
i like it there, it's fun, but to pretend it's a intellectual or truthful place is retarded, all popular achievements and research is done by a small minority of dedicated users which gives others a delusion that they're part of changing the world(hint: you aren't)

>>9050435
/////////////thread

>>9051518
>Do you think anyone over there remotely likes this idea?
If it means they can hate people different to themselves they love it.

/pol/ doesn't want to be happy.

>>9050364
this. keep /pol/ to /pol/ and /sci/ to /sci/
of all the boards /pol/ should understand this

>>9049463
>engaging poltards with the intent of proving them wrong

at best you mock them. Trying to change their mind is an exercise in futility.

>>9049463
>You go to /pol/
There's your sign.

>>9051538
No, they had correspondence between each other and the letters are free for everyone to see.

>>9051925
>Then there are comments that his work after rising to prominence didn't seem up to the standard of the "annus mirabilis" papers which made him famous.
And the "annus mirabilis" papers aren't even very good, as you already pointed out here:
>His initial relativity paper in particular (the work most responsible for the great success of his career) is suspicious: an obvious rush job, it omits any citations of previous work.

The very third equation in the paper has a c + v term, in contradiction to the rest of the paper. Did he not proofread the damn thing?

>Einstein was a very social kind of a scientist. He didn't hide himself away to think great thoughts, he was always seeking the company and correspondence of the top figures in physics.
I think a lot of his popularity has to do with how cozy he got with Lorentz, who was the main "relativity guy" of the time. In the early years people talked about Lorentz-Einstein theory, and Einstein was always heaping flattery onto Lorentz in their correspondence. Then general relativity was published, and boosted Einstein's fame in the special relativity sphere retroactively.