For those willing to analyze things differently from the indoctrinated herd of worshippers, I wrote down here two excerpts from two different sites which contain enough information about the EinsteinHoax. This case only addresses part of the history of one of the 1905 papers. I can go further researching the works of many scientists between 1900 and 1905, which predates ANY of the 'marvelous' papers that both of them elaborated and disguised from their original source by reverse mathematics (magic).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt from: The collaboration of Mileva Marić and Albert Einstein
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1503/1503.08020.pdf
----------------------------------
The sixth scientific paper and the first one in 1905, submitted in March,was “Über einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt”(“On a heuristic point of view concerning the production and transformation of light”)[36].This paper was about photoelectricity and described how light consists of photons or particles of a given quantum of energy. This landmark paper would later win Einstein the Nobel Prizein 1922 [37].The work that Mileva had done at HeidelbergUniversity with Professor Lenard was instrumental in the forming Einstein’s paper on photoelectricity because it allowed Einstein to calculate the fundamental value of a photon [3].Many critics have insisted that Mileva took no part in any of Einstein’s work.However,there is evidence that Mileva had prepared letters to Max Planck about this work on photoelectricity, so apparently she was involved [3].
-----------------------------------

Excerpt from Nobel Prize site:
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1905/lenard/biographical/

-------------------------------

Later Lenard extended the work of Hertz on the photoelectric effect. Working in a high vacuum, he analysed the nature of this effect, showing that when ultraviolet light falls on a metal it takes from the metal electrons which are then propagated in the vacuum, in which they can be accelerated or retarded by an electric field, or their paths can be curved by a magnetic field. By exact measurements he showed that the number of electrons projected is proportional to the energy carried by the incident light, whilst their speed, that is to say, their kinetic energy, is quite independent of this number and varies only with the wavelength and increases when this diminishes.

These facts conflicted with current theory and were not explained until 1905, when Einstein produced his quantitative law and developed the theory of quanta of light or photons, which was verified much later by Millikan.
**********************************************************
But Lenard never forgave Einstein for discovering and attaching his own name to this law.
**********************************************************
In the course of his work Lenard had, for the purpose of accelerating the speed of the electrons and measuring their energy, invented a photoelectric cell which was the first model of the “3-electrode lamp” which is so important today in radioelectric technique. The only difference between these two cells was that in Lenard’s cell the electrons were taken from the cathode by light, whereas on the “3-electrode lamp” the cathode is a white-hot filament capable of sending into the vacuum currents of much higher intensity.

In 1902 Lenard showed that an electron must have a certain minimum energy before it could produce ionisation when it passed through a gas.

In 1903 he published his conception of the atom as an assemblage of what he called “dynamides”, which were very small and were separated by wide spaces; they had mass and were imagined as electric dipoles connected by two equal charges of contrary sign and their number was equal to the atomic mass. The solid matter in the atom was, he thought, about one thousand millionth of the whole atom. This work contributed much to Lorentz‘ theory of electrons.
--------------------------

More: Mileva studied with Lenard for a semester, and she wrote to Einstein about Lenard's work on photoelectric effect and UV radiation.
Lenard was a disciple of Hertz, who discovered the basis of the UV radiation on metals. Also, she wrote to him about the work of PLanck, with whom exchanged letters prior to 1905.

Lenard won the 1905 Nobel Prize "for his work on cathode rays."

Eat shit, kapo.

Quote again from Nobel Prize site:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Although Lenard at first followed Hertz in believing that the cathode rays were propagated in the ether, he later abandoned this view as a result of the work of Jean Perrin in 1895, Sir J.J. Thomson in 1897 and W. Wien in 1897, which proved the corpuscular nature of the cathode rays.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Later Lenard extended the work of Hertz on the photoelectric effect. Working in a high vacuum, he analysed the nature of this effect, showing that when ultraviolet light falls on a metal it takes from the metal electrons which are then propagated in the vacuum, in which they can be accelerated or retarded by an electric field, or their paths can be curved by a magnetic field. By exact measurements he showed that the number of electrons projected is proportional to the energy carried by the incident light, whilst their speed, that is to say, their kinetic energy, is quite independent of this number and varies only with the wavelength and increases when this diminishes..
--------------------------------------------------------------

Note: Even when Lenard did believe in the corpuscular nature of light (besides Maxwell's waves, as Hertz taught him) and he was KEENLY AWARE of Planck´s theory of black body radiation (1900), he didn't find OF ANY VALUE the relationship KE=h.f-W (WHICH HE FOUND STATISTICALLY and lectured about it). He worked on a model for a value of the resulting current (total kinetic energy of electrons) as a multiple of the hf Planck's quantum. He didn't believe it possible to calculate the KE of a single electron, as the theory of atoms was not
existant at his time. It was proved only 10 years after, with Bohr-Rutherford.

So, the 1905 Einstein paper is as worthless as a piece of shit. Not even today it is known what a fucking photon is (eat it, retarded).

On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 9:16:18 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Quote again from Nobel Prize site:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Although Lenard

Lenard was a Nazi and you are a stinking kapo.

Einstein was the first of his kind.
He did not need relativity.
He did not need to steal...

Mitchell Raemsch

On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 4:43:23 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Einstein was the first of his kind.
> He did not need relativity.
> He did not need to steal...
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

Newton, Gauss and Maxwell are the greatest intellects that Earth has witnessed.
True polymaths and honest minds who properly credited their sources.

The rest of scientists in physics, chemistry and mathematics are beneath them, in several layers.

Einstein is only the Justin Bieber of physics , driven to stardom only by a web of media, political and economical interests.

These interests owned the ass of Eddington, a coward brit homo who was blackmailed to falsify the results of 1919 eclipse.

It can be proven that the "lone genius" received DIRECT collaboration of more than 27 persons between 1904 and 1916. The
ambitious crook credited only one or two of them. And this without counting those from whom he and EinsteinCorp directly
stole knowledge, ideas and styles.

Just a few comments about the 1905 paper (the first in 1905, fully endorsed by his godfather Planck - by then the responsible for papers
on theoretical physics at the Annalen der Physik). To show how the schizo endorses dual nature of light, and also to highlight his sheer
ignorance, I copy&paste excerpts from the introduction:

--------------------------------------
Excerpt 1:
"The energy of a ponderable body cannot be subdivided into arbitrarily many or arbitrarily small parts, while the energy
of a beam of light from a point source (according to the Maxwellian theory of light or, more generally, according to any
wave theory) is continuously spread an ever increasing volume. The wave theory of light, which operates with continuous spatial functions, has worked well in the representation of purely optical phenomena and will probably never be replaced by another theory.

It should be kept in mind, however, that the optical observations refer to time averages rather than instantaneous values. In spite of the complete experimental confirmation of the theory as applied to diffraction, reflection, refraction, dispersion, etc., it is still conceivable that the theory of light which operates with continuous spatial functions may lead to contradictions with experience when
it is applied to the phenomena of emission and transformation of light."
------------------------------------------

1. Ignore the incresing theories of atoms and subatomic structure, as proposed by J.J. Thomson, Willy Wien, Larmor,
Kajuro Tamaki (Japan, later teacher of Yukawa) and several others. However, he complied with Planck, a negationist.

2. Ignore the increasingly strong industry of radiotelegraphy (Marconi Ltd and several others, like GE in USA).

3. Discredited Maxwell'd theory and the extraordinary proof of radiowaves, UV radiation and the associated photoelectric effects
that Hertz did and profusely and widely documented (which shocked the world) and negates the legacy of Hertz over his
disciple von Lenard, who invested several years expanding Hertz proofs (work which made him to won the 1905 Nobel Prize).
Also discredited the work of many others in Europe and USA that confirmed and expanded the subject.

-------------------------------------------------
Excerpt 2:
"It seems to me that the observations associated with blackbody radiation, fluorescence, the production of cathode rays by ultraviolet
light, and other related phenomena connected with the emission or transformation of light are more readily understood if one assumes that the energy of light is discontinuously distributed in space. In accordance with the assumption to be considered here, the energy of a light ray spreading out from a point source is not continuously distributed over an increasing space but consists of a finite number of energy quanta which are localized at points in space, which move without dividing, and which can only be produced and absorbed
as complete units.

In the following I wish to present the line of thought and the facts which have led me to this point of view, hoping that this approach may be useful to some investigators in their research."

4. With utter cynicism, and without naming them, put down the work done since 1887 by Hertz, Wien, Planck, Lenard and many others.
5. Invite others to make research ON HIS IDEAS, neglecting what was happening at science and industry by then.
6. And these comments are just in the first page of his paper "Concerning an Heuristic Point of View Toward the Emission and Transformation of Light".

The joke on us continues in the rest of the document, which is a patent sample of the character of a PLAGIARIST.

The photoelectric effect had been used for more than two decades before this midget of physics wrote his paper. WIDELY USED!

Quote from the Web:
"In 1883, American inventor Charles Fritts created a working photoelectric cell; that same year German engineer Paul Nipkow used a photoelectric cell in his Nipkow's disk—a device that could take a picture by measuring the lighter and darker areas on an object and translate them into electrical impulses."

MORE TO FOLLOW ON THIS SUBJECT. THERE IS SO MUCH MATERIAL OUT THERE TO DISPUTE RATIONALITY, PRIORITY AND COMMON SENSE ON THIS SUBJECT THAT IT'S INCREDIBLE.

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 6:54:52 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 4:10:57 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 4:43:23 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Einstein was the first of his kind.
> > > He did not need relativity.
> > > He did not need to steal...
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > Newton, Gauss and Maxwell are the greatest intellects that Earth has witnessed.
> > True polymaths and honest minds who properly credited their sources.
> >
> You don't have to believe the man. But you don't have to doubt him either....
> Who are you to judge the genius?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

I don´t believe his intellectual capability as a physicist or as a mathematician.
I give some credit (very little) as a natural philosopher and very much as a king of fallacies (a cynical branch of philosophy).

I don't judge his flaws as a human being, as everyone else has his own (lack of empathy, misogynism, excesive ego and petulance,...).
I have known more flawed people in managerial positions.

But Einstein was not a genius and, even more, a "lone genius" that has been sold to us for a century.

He, and Mileva, were experts in the disguise of other's theories under the brand Einstein. They were experts in surveying literature (as
his buddies at the Olympia Academy) in german, french and english. They had the means to do so as, for example, when his friend
Maurice Solovine brought from France 1902 Poincaré´s book "Science and Hyphotesis" , and study and discussed its contents during
the whole year of 1904. That book is a seminal work on the discussions over relativity, the need of a new approach to physics, etc.

Through Annalen der Physik, he had the chance to read every major paper written since 1850 and had access to Woldemar Voigt (the father of relativity), Boltzmann, Antoon Lorentz, Wien, Lenard, Planck, Hasenhorl, Hertz and so many others.

His personal ambition to be somebody led him (and also through Mileva) to stablish some kind of personal relationship with the Big Guns
of physics, by then. He did it by seeking advice on any given paper, to apply for assistant roles, whatever it took to get him known.

The heavy hand of Planck and Willy Wien (in charge of the journal Annalen der Physik) can't be explained,. because they allowed all of
the 1905 papers, at which he barely credited someone (except his friend Besso).

These papers are as if written by a childish person, willing to take readers as idiots. Circular argument, fallacies, ERRORS, contradictions, etc., make them a joke on us (under the historical perspective, after a century of multimedia bombarding us with the "genius" figure.

I can judge geniality, and I don't need to be a genius for that. The things that you need to do so are knowledge, information and analytical
capabilities, plus an unbiased vision of history (all of the history).

The man did "mathemagics" and every possible trick to hide the origins of his theories. But he made mistakes, like using exactly the same
notation as Voigt on his SR paper.

This is enough for now. Read the March 1905 paper (in english) and tell what was he trying to do. And he got a Nobel for it. Shame!

Richard Hertz wrote:
....
> The heavy hand of Planck and Willy Wien (in charge of the journal Annalen der Physik) can't be explained,. because they allowed all of
> the 1905 papers, at which he barely credited someone (except his friend Besso).
>
> These papers are as if written by a childish person, willing to take readers as idiots. Circular argument, fallacies, ERRORS, contradictions, etc., make them a joke on us (under the historical perspective, after a century of multimedia bombarding us with the "genius" figure.

Point ONE error then.

You seem to have the notion that this is some kind of cult of the
personality.

Yet what matters to most people here is the theory itself. The question
of who created it, or even whether they had a completely valid basis at
the time, is really secondary.

Sylvia.

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 11:14:57 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> You seem to have the notion that this is some kind of cult of the
> personality.
>
> Yet what matters to most people here is the theory itself. The question
> of who created it, or even whether they had a completely valid basis at
> the time, is really secondary.
>
> Sylvia.

Sylvia, as always you are polite to express your opinion, without aggressiveness of any kind. I appreciate that.

Actually, I believe that there has been a cult of personality around Einstein, specially since 1919. The extraordinary
drive to install Einstein as a genius among general public, not only by MSM but by many of their colleagues only
caused resentment on the physics community in the 1920´s. For instance, the first edition of "Einstein's Theory of Relativity"
by Max Born (1922) contained Einstein's bio and a picture of him. Under pressure from many physicists, who found it
outrageous as it never happened before, the biography and the picture were dropped in following editions.

After a period of being in the dark, since 1900´s, Einstein-mania emerged stronger since mid '50s, being today a widely
installed conception that almost any advance on science is rooted on Einstein's 1905 and 1916 works. Anyone who
dares to challenge this is committing professional suicide, with academic, scientific and MS media immediately closed
for them. To challenge Einstein's theories of relativity as wrong or ill elaborated put anybody on the fast track to
irreversible ostracism (crackpot, crank or directly some kind of retarded).

In parallel to a cult to his persona, there is a cult to his theories (specially GR). Very often it can be read or watched in MSM:
"Once again, Einstein proved right", "Even wrong, Einstein proved he was right", etc.

Any book published by dominant publishing houses contain praises to Einstein or Einstein legacies. Otherwise, are rejected
when any of his theories are mentioned (even as a reference).

This is FORCED INDOCTRINATION. And it has been happening for the last 4 or 5 generations of scientists. No criticism is allowed.

You have to search deeply in the Web to find material, many of dubious origin or validity, but some very certain, about criticism on
his work.

On 8/1/2021 10:14 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> You seem to have the notion that this is some kind of cult of the
> personality.
>
> Yet what matters to most people here is the theory itself. The question
> of who created it, or even whether they had a completely valid basis at
> the time, is really secondary.
>
Exactly.

If Einstein never existed, all of what he discovered would still have
been discovered, most likely by several different scientists, and likely
delayed a decade or so. The only thing different would be no single
person to give his name as an alias for "genius", the several scientists
would be obscure to the public (but not to other scientists) and the
Einstein haters would have to find something else to hate.

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 8:56:09 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
> Richard Hertz wrote:
> ...
> > The heavy hand of Planck and Willy Wien (in charge of the journal Annalen der Physik) can't be explained,. because they allowed all of
> > the 1905 papers, at which he barely credited someone (except his friend Besso).
> >
> > These papers are as if written by a childish person, willing to take readers as idiots. Circular argument, fallacies, ERRORS, contradictions, etc., make them a joke on us (under the historical perspective, after a century of multimedia bombarding us with the "genius" figure.
> Point ONE error then.

On the March 1905 paper: Concerning an Heuristic Point of View Toward the Emission and Transformation of Light.

It has 9 points, on which he wrote as if he was some reincarnation of Maxwell with his Treatise. He pretend to develop his "own"
theory of Black Body Radiation, negating Planck's "h" constant even when he cited his Jan. 1901 paper. Instead he keeps praising
Willy Wien prior theory, which Planck proved incomplete for large wavelengths.

Instead, he state that such a theory can be developed by other means using 16 pages (in english version).

in the point "1. Concerning a Difficulty with Regard to the Theory of Blackbody Radiation" he wrote such amount of crap that it's
difficult to chose between cry or laugh. NOT EVEN WRONG, as Pauli would say..

In the rest of the document, he ignores completely the "h" Planck's constant and introduces in the exponent the constant BETA.

Actually BETA is h/k, so he ignores Boltzmann's constant likewise.

Don't forget that Willy Wien, the Chief Editor of Annalen der Physik, was still hurt by Planck's refutation of his theory in 1900 and,
even with his Nobel Prize, the pain was still there.

Einstein, along the entire document, assign to BETA a value of a fundamental constant. Actually it had two of them:

BETA = h/k (Einstein's dirty trick to negate Planck).

In the point "8. Concerning the Emission of Cathode Rays Through Illumination of Solid Bodies", the truth is forced to emerge
when he writes:

"The kinetic energy of such electrons is given by

R.BETA.f/N
"
But BETA is h/k and also k = R/N (R is the Regnault’s constant and N the Avogadro’s number). All of this is in Planck's 1901 paper.

So, it comes to be that

R.BETA.f/N = R.h/k.f/N = R.N/R.h.f/N = h.f (pure Planck)

So, such were the dirty "mathemagical" tricks performed by Einstein, even to hide the truth at plain sight.

Now, sheer ignorance written there:

"An electron to which kinetic energy has been imparted in the interior of
the body will have lost some of this energy by the time it reaches the surface."

and

" PI.E = R.BETA.f - P'

where E is the charge of a gram equivalent of a monovalent ion and P´ is
the potential of this quantity of negative electricity relative to the body"

Note: PI represent a positive potential.

This is enough for me to show to you all. If anyone want more, read the paper.

There is a lot of crap on this paper. A lot!

But he got the 1922 Nobel Prize for it.

On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 01:56:09 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Richard Hertz wrote:
> ...
> > The heavy hand of Planck and Willy Wien (in charge of the journal Annalen der Physik) can't be explained,. because they allowed all of
> > the 1905 papers, at which he barely credited someone (except his friend Besso).
> >
> > These papers are as if written by a childish person, willing to take readers as idiots. Circular argument, fallacies, ERRORS, contradictions, etc., make them a joke on us (under the historical perspective, after a century of multimedia bombarding us with the "genius" figure.
> Point ONE error then.

Considering the unit of time your idiot guru was referring in his mumble -
it is not even logically consistent; sorry, poor fanatic trash.

On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 04:14:57 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> You seem to have the notion that this is some kind of cult of the
> personality.
>
> Yet what matters to most people here is the theory itself.

Sorry, lady, it's a lie.

On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 05:46:02 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/1/2021 10:14 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > You seem to have the notion that this is some kind of cult of the
> > personality.
> >
> > Yet what matters to most people here is the theory itself. The question
> > of who created it, or even whether they had a completely valid basis at
> > the time, is really secondary.
> >
> Exactly.
>
> If Einstein never existed, all of what he discovered would still have
> been discovered,

An assertion from a stupid Mike is completely worthless;
sorry, stupid Mike.

On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 12:46:02 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/1/2021 10:14 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > You seem to have the notion that this is some kind of cult of the
> > personality.
> >
> > Yet what matters to most people here is the theory itself. The question
> > of who created it, or even whether they had a completely valid basis at
> > the time, is really secondary.
> >
> Exactly.
>
> If Einstein never existed, all of what he discovered would still have
> been discovered, most likely by several different scientists, and likely
> delayed a decade or so. The only thing different would be no single
> person to give his name as an alias for "genius", the several scientists
> would be obscure to the public (but not to other scientists) and the
> Einstein haters would have to find something else to hate.

The most widely documented developments in the history of science
are Radioactivity and Quantum Physics, between 1897 and 1928. And
10 or 12 major actors are still remembered and properly recognized:
Becquerel, Curie, Wien, Planck, Rutherford, Soddy, Geiger, Bohr, Heisenberg,
Pauli, Dirac, Schrodinger, etc (more than 100 persons involved just in
theoretical work, not counting experimentalists and assistants).

Not a single work of Einstein contributed to the advance of science and industry.

Try Tesla, if you want to mistify somebody beyond his capabilities, or Hawking
(the iconized and overrated cosmologist).

On 8/2/2021 12:26 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 04:14:57 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> You seem to have the notion that this is some kind of cult of the
>> personality.
>>
>> Yet what matters to most people here is the theory itself.
>
> Sorry, lady, it's a lie.
>

She said to most people, not to retarded drunk janitors.

On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 06:43:05 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/2/2021 12:26 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 04:14:57 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> You seem to have the notion that this is some kind of cult of the
> >> personality.
> >>
> >> Yet what matters to most people here is the theory itself.
> >
> > Sorry, lady, it's a lie.
> >
> She said to most people, not to retarded drunk janitors.

And it's still a lie. At least not as impudent as "retarded
drunk janitor", of course.

On 8/2/2021 12:44 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 06:43:05 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 8/2/2021 12:26 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 04:14:57 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> You seem to have the notion that this is some kind of cult of the
>>>> personality.
>>>>
>>>> Yet what matters to most people here is the theory itself.
>>>
>>> Sorry, lady, it's a lie.
>>>
>> She said to most people, not to retarded drunk janitors.
>
> And it's still a lie. At least not as impudent as "retarded
> drunk janitor", of course.
>
What's impudent about that? Impudence is about not showing deserved
respect, and you deserve none, since all your posts appear as written by
a retarded drunk janitor.

On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 07:01:34 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/2/2021 12:44 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 06:43:05 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 8/2/2021 12:26 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 04:14:57 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> You seem to have the notion that this is some kind of cult of the
> >>>> personality.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yet what matters to most people here is the theory itself.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, lady, it's a lie.
> >>>
> >> She said to most people, not to retarded drunk janitors.
> >
> > And it's still a lie. At least not as impudent as "retarded
> > drunk janitor", of course.
> >
> What's impudent about that?

You're too stupid to ever understand, stupid Mike.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 11:14:57 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> You seem to have the notion that this is some kind of cult of the
>> personality.
>>
>> Yet what matters to most people here is the theory itself. The question
>> of who created it, or even whether they had a completely valid basis at
>> the time, is really secondary.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Sylvia, as always you are polite to express your opinion, without
> aggressiveness of any kind. I appreciate that.
>
> Actually, I believe that there has been a cult of personality around
> Einstein, specially since 1919. The extraordinary
> drive to install Einstein as a genius among general public, not only by
> MSM but by many of their colleagues only
> caused resentment on the physics community in the 1920´s. For instance,
> the first edition of "Einstein's Theory of Relativity"
> by Max Born (1922) contained Einstein's bio and a picture of him. Under
> pressure from many physicists, who found it
> outrageous as it never happened before, the biography and the picture
> were dropped in following editions.
>
> After a period of being in the dark, since 1900´s, Einstein-mania emerged
> stronger since mid '50s, being today a widely
> installed conception that almost any advance on science is rooted on
> Einstein's 1905 and 1916 works. Anyone who
> dares to challenge this is committing professional suicide, with
> academic, scientific and MS media immediately closed
> for them. To challenge Einstein's theories of relativity as wrong or ill
> elaborated put anybody on the fast track to
> irreversible ostracism (crackpot, crank or directly some kind of retarded).
>
> In parallel to a cult to his persona, there is a cult to his theories
> (specially GR). Very often it can be read or watched in MSM:
> "Once again, Einstein proved right", "Even wrong, Einstein proved he was right", etc.
>
> Any book published by dominant publishing houses contain praises to
> Einstein or Einstein legacies. Otherwise, are rejected
> when any of his theories are mentioned (even as a reference).
>
> This is FORCED INDOCTRINATION. And it has been happening for the last 4
> or 5 generations of scientists. No criticism is allowed.
>
> You have to search deeply in the Web to find material, many of dubious
> origin or validity, but some very certain, about criticism on
> his work.
>

The “cult of personality” about Einstein does exist, but it exists mostly
in the minds of the general public, who loves colorful and eccentric
characters that also bring some wildly out-there talents to the world. The
hair and the mustache did as much for Einstein in the eyes of the general
public as any physics he brought to the table.

But physicists generally take Einstein for what he was, a key contributor
who had a number of very productive years, in a long chain of similar
contributors who made comparable contributions.

There is a reason why Einstein and Feynman are more well-known in the
popular press than Bohr and Heisenberg and Bardeen and Weinberg. It has
nothing to do with the attributes and contributions whereby physicists
regard the latter set as being just as important as the first two.

So if there is someone to blame for the hero-worship and iconography of
Einstein, blame the general public. Blame the journalists and politicians
who love a good photo and a backstory. Blame the biographers who are
specifically interested in personality.

And if it is hero-worship that you abhor in general, and Einstein just
happens to be your favorite whipping boy for that, then maybe as a lay
person surrounded by lay people promoting hero-worship you might just
swallow it for what it is, an artifact of the society you belong to.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 8:56:09 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
>> Richard Hertz wrote:
>> ...
>>> The heavy hand of Planck and Willy Wien (in charge of the journal
>>> Annalen der Physik) can't be explained,. because they allowed all of
>>> the 1905 papers, at which he barely credited someone (except his friend Besso).
>>>
>>> These papers are as if written by a childish person, willing to take
>>> readers as idiots. Circular argument, fallacies, ERRORS,
>>> contradictions, etc., make them a joke on us (under the historical
>>> perspective, after a century of multimedia bombarding us with the "genius" figure.
>> Point ONE error then.
>
> On the March 1905 paper: Concerning an Heuristic Point of View Toward the
> Emission and Transformation of Light.
>
> It has 9 points, on which he wrote as if he was some reincarnation of
> Maxwell with his Treatise. He pretend to develop his "own"
> theory of Black Body Radiation, negating Planck's "h" constant even when
> he cited his Jan. 1901 paper. Instead he keeps praising
> Willy Wien prior theory, which Planck proved incomplete for large wavelengths.
>
> Instead, he state that such a theory can be developed by other means
> using 16 pages (in english version).
>
> in the point "1. Concerning a Difficulty with Regard to the Theory of
> Blackbody Radiation" he wrote such amount of crap that it's
> difficult to chose between cry or laugh. NOT EVEN WRONG, as Pauli would say.
>
> In the rest of the document, he ignores completely the "h" Planck's
> constant and introduces in the exponent the constant BETA.
>
> Actually BETA is h/k, so he ignores Boltzmann's constant likewise.
>
> Don't forget that Willy Wien, the Chief Editor of Annalen der Physik, was
> still hurt by Planck's refutation of his theory in 1900 and,
> even with his Nobel Prize, the pain was still there.
>
> Einstein, along the entire document, assign to BETA a value of a
> fundamental constant. Actually it had two of them:
>
> BETA = h/k (Einstein's dirty trick to negate Planck).
>
> In the point "8. Concerning the Emission of Cathode Rays Through
> Illumination of Solid Bodies", the truth is forced to emerge
> when he writes:
>
> "The kinetic energy of such electrons is given by
>
> R.BETA.f/N
> "
> But BETA is h/k and also k = R/N (R is the Regnault’s constant and N the
> Avogadro’s number). All of this is in Planck's 1901 paper.
>
> So, it comes to be that
>
> R.BETA.f/N = R.h/k.f/N = R.N/R.h.f/N = h.f (pure Planck)
>
> So, such were the dirty "mathemagical" tricks performed by Einstein, even
> to hide the truth at plain sight.
>
> Now, sheer ignorance written there:
>
> "An electron to which kinetic energy has been imparted in the interior of
> the body will have lost some of this energy by the time it reaches the surface."
>
> and
>
> " PI.E = R.BETA.f - P'
>
> where E is the charge of a gram equivalent of a monovalent ion and P´ is
> the potential of this quantity of negative electricity relative to the body"
>
> Note: PI represent a positive potential.
>
> This is enough for me to show to you all. If anyone want more, read the paper.
>
> There is a lot of crap on this paper. A lot!
>
> But he got the 1922 Nobel Prize for it.
>

I’ll note that you did not cite an error. What you cited was a perceived
injustice, where you’d have PREFERRED that greater credit been given to
contemporaries and predecessors, both by explicit naming and notational
nods. You’d have PREFERRED that Planck’s constant, Boltzmann’s constant
have appeared more explicitly, and that most of the credit had been
shuttled their way.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 14:36:31 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 11:14:57 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> You seem to have the notion that this is some kind of cult of the
> >> personality.
> >>
> >> Yet what matters to most people here is the theory itself. The question
> >> of who created it, or even whether they had a completely valid basis at
> >> the time, is really secondary.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > Sylvia, as always you are polite to express your opinion, without
> > aggressiveness of any kind. I appreciate that.
> >
> > Actually, I believe that there has been a cult of personality around
> > Einstein, specially since 1919. The extraordinary
> > drive to install Einstein as a genius among general public, not only by
> > MSM but by many of their colleagues only
> > caused resentment on the physics community in the 1920´s. For instance,
> > the first edition of "Einstein's Theory of Relativity"
> > by Max Born (1922) contained Einstein's bio and a picture of him. Under
> > pressure from many physicists, who found it
> > outrageous as it never happened before, the biography and the picture
> > were dropped in following editions.
> >
> > After a period of being in the dark, since 1900´s, Einstein-mania emerged
> > stronger since mid '50s, being today a widely
> > installed conception that almost any advance on science is rooted on
> > Einstein's 1905 and 1916 works. Anyone who
> > dares to challenge this is committing professional suicide, with
> > academic, scientific and MS media immediately closed
> > for them. To challenge Einstein's theories of relativity as wrong or ill
> > elaborated put anybody on the fast track to
> > irreversible ostracism (crackpot, crank or directly some kind of retarded).
> >
> > In parallel to a cult to his persona, there is a cult to his theories
> > (specially GR). Very often it can be read or watched in MSM:
> > "Once again, Einstein proved right", "Even wrong, Einstein proved he was right", etc.
> >
> > Any book published by dominant publishing houses contain praises to
> > Einstein or Einstein legacies. Otherwise, are rejected
> > when any of his theories are mentioned (even as a reference).
> >
> > This is FORCED INDOCTRINATION. And it has been happening for the last 4
> > or 5 generations of scientists. No criticism is allowed.
> >
> > You have to search deeply in the Web to find material, many of dubious
> > origin or validity, but some very certain, about criticism on
> > his work.
> >
> The “cult of personality” about Einstein does exist, but it exists mostly
> in the minds of the general public, who

Who were brainwashed by your Ministry of Truth.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 12:46:02 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 8/1/2021 10:14 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> You seem to have the notion that this is some kind of cult of the
>>> personality.
>>>
>>> Yet what matters to most people here is the theory itself. The question
>>> of who created it, or even whether they had a completely valid basis at
>>> the time, is really secondary.
>>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> If Einstein never existed, all of what he discovered would still have
>> been discovered, most likely by several different scientists, and likely
>> delayed a decade or so. The only thing different would be no single
>> person to give his name as an alias for "genius", the several scientists
>> would be obscure to the public (but not to other scientists) and the
>> Einstein haters would have to find something else to hate.
>
> The most widely documented developments in the history of science
> are Radioactivity and Quantum Physics, between 1897 and 1928. And
> 10 or 12 major actors are still remembered and properly recognized:
> Becquerel, Curie, Wien, Planck, Rutherford, Soddy, Geiger, Bohr, Heisenberg,
> Pauli, Dirac, Schrodinger, etc (more than 100 persons involved just in
> theoretical work, not counting experimentalists and assistants).
>
> Not a single work of Einstein contributed to the advance of science and industry.

Ah, the engineer’s complaint, where “science” here is conflated with
technology.
Quantum mechanics did indeed have deep ramifications for consumer devices
and applications. Then again, so did lasers, and Einstein’s paper on A and
B coefficients was the ground work for that.

I think it’s worth pointing out that a good chunk of really important
physics has value just in understanding how nature works without an eye to
applications. Planetary atmospheric astronomy, cosmology, general
relativity, radio telescope astronomy — these are just a few examples.

It misses the point entirely to insist that the only valuable science is
science that produces inventions or technology.

>
> Try Tesla, if you want to mistify somebody beyond his capabilities, or Hawking
> (the iconized and overrated cosmologist).
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables