I've been reading the book:

EINSTEIN’S WIFE: THE REAL STORY OF MILEVA EINSTEIN-MARIĆ

ALLEN ESTERSON AND DAVID C. CASSIDY, WITH A CONTRIBUTION BY RUTH LEWIN SIME

The MIT Press
Cambridge, Massachusetts
London, England
© 2019 Massachusetts Institute of Technology

This book (275 pages) has been written favoring Einstein in most of the
content, even when plant doubts about how much Mileva contributed to
the whole body of work published between 1901 and 1907.

The book, written by Jews, citing mostly Jew sources, CAN'T BE POINTED
as antisemitic OR anti-Einstein. On the contrary.

Yet, in its "mostly honest" content (many things are OMITTED, like the role
of Alexander Pick in 1911-1912), the position of Serbian historians has a
place, as well doubts from MANY scientists and historians of science
(jews or not-jews) between 1940 and 1999.

One of the most elementary questions is: WHERE ARE ANY DRAFT, NOTE,
DIAGRAM, LETTERS, PERSONAL PAPERS since married until 1919.

As the book shows: In 1941, the New York Times offered a substantial
reward (about 11 million USD from today) for the MANUSCRIPTS of the
1905 paper on relativity. Nothing happened, as they were told by Einstein
himself that HE DIDN'T KEEP any of his drafts or letters, until it was "too
late" (1919, 40 years old).

The book contains a lot of references from direct witness, and Einstein
himself, that Mileva WAS THE MATHEMATICIAN MASTERMIND between
Einstein and the Annalen der Physik, and that she had to stay working
until or past midnight on Einstein's drafts, to insert her views and her
corrections. Michelle Besso, his dearest friend who hide the 54 pages
of the 1913 manuscript UNDER HIS DEATH in 1954 (a shameful paper),
had no role or minor role as a sounding board once Einstein got a job
for him as ANOTHER patent clerk at Einstein's office in 1904.

The real job was done at home, and Einstein accepted many times that
Mileva was HIS mathematician (role that Grossman took in 1912).

These papers, excluding paid 21 reviews of other physicist's papers,
4 remarks on other publications, 2 papers co-authores with Laub, and 5 repetitions of previous publications on Physikalische Zeitschrift and other
journals, amount to 18 papers (all of them in Annalen der Physik:

It CAN BE SEEN that the paper on relativity APPEARED MAGICALLY OUT
OF THE BLUE, without ANY precedent on Einstein's line of work.

Who can't see the real picture of this "movie" about who was Einstein
is either an imbecile or a partner in crime.

1901; Conclusions Drawn from the Phenomena of Capillarity

1902; On the Thermodynamic Theory of the Difference in Potentials between Metals and Fully Dissociated Solutions of Their Salts and on an Electrical Method for Investigating Molecular Forces
1902; Kinetic Theory of Thermal Equilibrium and of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

1903; A Theory of the Foundations of Thermodynamics
1904; On the General Molecular Theory of Heat

1905; On a Heuristic Point of View Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light (LIGHT AS PARTICLES)
1905; On the Movement of Small Particles Suspended in Stationary Liquids Required by the Molecular-Kinetic Theory of Heat
1905; On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (LIGHT AS WAVES,
6 MONTHS AFTER)
1905; Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy Content?

1906; A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions (PhD Thesis)
1906; On the Theory of Brownian Motion
1906; On the Theory of Light Production and Light Absorption
1906; The Principle of Conservation of Motion of the Center of Gravity and the Inertia of Energy
1906; On a Method for the Determination of the Ratio of the Transverse and the Longitudinal Mass of the Electron

1907; Planck's Theory of Radiation and the Theory of Specific Heat
1907; On the Limit of Validity of the Law of Thermodynamic Equilibrium and on the Possibility of a New Determination of the Elementary Quanta
1907; On the Possibility of a New Test of the Relativity Principle
1907; On the Inertia of Energy Required by the Relativity Principle

You can find the book at any online free e-book site like pdfdrive.com,
which HAS A FILTER FOR EVERYTHING AGAINST EINSTEIN, in his
almost 85 million books available there.

I sustain that the imbecile was a fabrication.

Maybe the OP caused butthurt on fanatic relativists.

Another thing that is omitted: While a veiled accusation about that antisemitism was the cause that Einstein
didn't get a professorship until he got some fame by mid 1909, his "friend" Marcel Grossman didn't have the
slightest problem to get one, as he got his PhD in 1902 and became a Professor of Mathematics at the Federal
Polytechnic School in (ETH Zurich), specializing in analytic geometry.

Not only that, but in 1910, he became one of the founders of the Swiss Mathematical Society. He was an Invited
Speaker of the ICM in 1912 at Cambridge UK. Not bad for a Jew in that epoch, isn't it?

He also saved Einstein's life TWICE, by making his dad to recommend him at the Patent Office in 1902, and
INVENTING THE GENERAL RELATIVITY MATHEMATICS (100% his work between mid 1912 and Jan 1914),
even when his 1913 and 1914 were slightly off target and required, later, of Levi-Civita, Hilbert and Schwarzschild.

But, conveniently, when Einstein went to Berlin before the start of WWI, he FORGOT about Grossman, who felt back-stabbed
for the rest of his life, even when both Entwurf had them as co-authors.

The cretin kept being a cretin until his last days.

One Stone - Einstein part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htfBTfVD75o

Apr 19, 2012
This is the story of the life of Mileva Maric Einstein. At the same time, the documentary story showed how much a woman can love and sacrifice herself for what she believes in. It follows the life of this Serbian woman from birth through the places where she left her mark. It is a story about love and suffering, but also the reality "that in life, two happinesses can never be united". The documentary film "One Rock" by author Mirjana Cvoric won several awards at festivals, including the oldest European festival "Golden Beggar" in Slovakia.

https://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/95yearsrelativity.pdf

EXCERPT
*******
We are confronted with the great mystery of modern physics:

(1) Why has the rupture of the tradition been tolerated by the whole “scientific community”?
(2) Why has it not been detected by the public?
(3) How can the academic physicists hope to continue forever without one day being called to account for their acting?
(4) What are the motives of the academic physicists?

During several years of research about the criticism of special relativity we found the following answers. We
do not pretend that our answers always reach the center of the problem, or that they are complete or the only
ones. But we are convinced that they give important hints.

(1) The public in Germany has been cheated since 1922 and is cheated by the influential scientific community
until today. Academic physics exert strong pressure on newspapers, journals, publishers and congresses not to
accept any criticism of special relativity for publishing. Critical papers are suppressed, critical persons are
excluded from any participation in the scientific dialogue.

(2) The academic physics believe that nobody can expose the truth about their acting to the public because the
public would never dare to doubt the integrity of their scientists because of the great achievements of natural
science in the last centuries, and that the public will always trust more the physics establishment than any critics.

(3) The motives of the physics establishment are the subject of several speculations. Probably the strongest motive
is that the physicists are thankful for a theory that “does not need the aether”. This was the position expressed in
Albert Einstein’s paper of 1905. But only 15 years later, in 1920 in a conference held in Leiden he discovered the
need of an aether. The relativists were not amused about this conference of their master. This change of idea in
1920 should have led, as a logical consequence, to a revision of special relativity, which, however, has not taken
place until today. This remarkable fact of non-revision seems to be a strong argument that the aether may be at
least one fundamental motive.

About the year 1914 special relativity had already been refuted directly by several experiments and indirectly
by the absence of experimental confirmation. The Michelson-Morley-Experiment and its repetitions have had
positive results, in complete contrast to the relativist’s propaganda until today of an alleged null-result: these
experiments have found velocities of the Earth of about 6 km/sec (1887), 10 km/sec (1902), 7.5 km/sec (1904),
8.7 km/sec (1905), and in 1913 Sagnac with his rotating interferometer also found moving fringes, the rate of
motion of the fringes depending on the rate of rotation of his instrument. On the other hand there were no
experimental confirmations for the pretended length contraction and time dilatation. This desperate experimental
state of affairs before World War I has never been recognized by the relativist textbooks.

The apparent great success of relativity came with the observations of the Sun’s eclipse in 1919 which were
said to have conformed the general theory of relativity. This supposed result was immediately rejected by several
important critics in different countries (for instance: A. Fowler, Sir Joseph Larmor, Sir Oliver J. Lodge, H. F.
Newall, Ludwik Silberstein in England; T. J. J. See in the USA; Ernst Gehrcke, Philipp Lenard in Germany) as
misleading the public - but the relativists informed the printed media of that time about the greatest achievement
of mankind! The public opinion was made enthusiastic about “Relativity” and was told that now both theories,
the special and the general relativity, were undisputable truth and nothing less than a revolution of our thinking
about space and time and gravitation.

The secret of this successful strategy was the combination of two lies: that general relativity had been
overwhelmingly confirmed, and that this pretended conformation of a theory with gravitation was at the same
time - because of the pretended unity of the two relativities - a conformation of special relativity, a theory
without gravitation.
.................

On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 7:32:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> https://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/95yearsrelativity.pdf
>
>
> EXCERPT
> *******
> We are confronted with the great mystery of modern physics:
>
> (1) Why has the rupture of the tradition been tolerated by the whole “scientific community”?
> (2) Why has it not been detected by the public?
> (3) How can the academic physicists hope to continue forever without one day being called to account for their acting?
> (4) What are the motives of the academic physicists?
>
> During several years of research about the criticism of special relativity we found the following answers. We
> do not pretend that our answers always reach the center of the problem, or that they are complete or the only
> ones. But we are convinced that they give important hints.
>
> (1) The public in Germany has been cheated since 1922 and is cheated by the influential scientific community
> until today. Academic physics exert strong pressure on newspapers, journals, publishers and congresses not to
> accept any criticism of special relativity for publishing. Critical papers are suppressed, critical persons are
> excluded from any participation in the scientific dialogue.
>
> (2) The academic physics believe that nobody can expose the truth about their acting to the public because the
> public would never dare to doubt the integrity of their scientists because of the great achievements of natural
> science in the last centuries, and that the public will always trust more the physics establishment than any critics.
>
> (3) The motives of the physics establishment are the subject of several speculations. Probably the strongest motive
> is that the physicists are thankful for a theory that “does not need the aether”. This was the position expressed in
> Albert Einstein’s paper of 1905. But only 15 years later, in 1920 in a conference held in Leiden he discovered the
> need of an aether. The relativists were not amused about this conference of their master. This change of idea in
> 1920 should have led, as a logical consequence, to a revision of special relativity, which, however, has not taken
> place until today. This remarkable fact of non-revision seems to be a strong argument that the aether may be at
> least one fundamental motive.
>
> About the year 1914 special relativity had already been refuted directly by several experiments and indirectly
> by the absence of experimental confirmation. The Michelson-Morley-Experiment and its repetitions have had
> positive results, in complete contrast to the relativist’s propaganda until today of an alleged null-result: these
> experiments have found velocities of the Earth of about 6 km/sec (1887), 10 km/sec (1902), 7.5 km/sec (1904),
> 8.7 km/sec (1905), and in 1913 Sagnac with his rotating interferometer also found moving fringes, the rate of
> motion of the fringes depending on the rate of rotation of his instrument.. On the other hand there were no
> experimental confirmations for the pretended length contraction and time dilatation. This desperate experimental
> state of affairs before World War I has never been recognized by the relativist textbooks.
>
> The apparent great success of relativity came with the observations of the Sun’s eclipse in 1919 which were
> said to have conformed the general theory of relativity. This supposed result was immediately rejected by several
> important critics in different countries (for instance: A. Fowler, Sir Joseph Larmor, Sir Oliver J. Lodge, H. F.
> Newall, Ludwik Silberstein in England; T. J. J. See in the USA; Ernst Gehrcke, Philipp Lenard in Germany) as
> misleading the public - but the relativists informed the printed media of that time about the greatest achievement
> of mankind! The public opinion was made enthusiastic about “Relativity” and was told that now both theories,
> the special and the general relativity, were undisputable truth and nothing less than a revolution of our thinking
> about space and time and gravitation.
>
> The secret of this successful strategy was the combination of two lies: that general relativity had been
> overwhelmingly confirmed, and that this pretended conformation of a theory with gravitation was at the same
> time - because of the pretended unity of the two relativities - a conformation of special relativity, a theory
> without gravitation.
> ................

"The public opinion was made enthusiastic about “Relativity”
and was told that now both theories, the special and the general
relativity, were undisputable truth and nothing less than a revolution
of our thinking about space and time and gravitation."

On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 4:08:54 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> I've been reading the book:
>
> EINSTEIN’S WIFE: THE REAL STORY OF MILEVA EINSTEIN-MARIĆ
>
> ALLEN ESTERSON AND DAVID C. CASSIDY, WITH A CONTRIBUTION BY RUTH LEWIN SIME
>
> The MIT Press
> Cambridge, Massachusetts
> London, England
> © 2019 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>
> This book (275 pages) has been written favoring Einstein in most of the
> content, even when plant doubts about how much Mileva contributed to
> the whole body of work published between 1901 and 1907.

This has been investigated by several independent researchers. The conclusion
is that Mileva did not contribute significantly. Get over it. This sort of thing
does happen in real life sometimes.

Stop fantasising about Einstein, it's infantile.

--
Jan

On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 7:32:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> https://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/95yearsrelativity.pdf
>
>
> EXCERPT
> *******
> We are confronted with the great mystery of modern physics:
>
> (1) Why has the rupture of the tradition been tolerated by the whole “scientific community”?

This is not a mystery. The reason it appears that way to you is that
you don't know physics, and you don't know what went on during the
19th century.

The way that special relativity is currently (last 50 years or so) taught
at school is partially to blame for this confusion (esp. among retired
EEs for some reason). That's why I think the standard way of teaching
the subject today is a pedagogical disaster. John Bell must have felt
it too when he wrote his paper "How to teach special relativity"
(quoting the title from memory).

You simply don't know what was at the back of everyone's mind in,
say, 1904. So to you it appears a mystery or a conspiracy. That's
merely a consequence of your ignorance.

--
Jan