It makes perfect sense. I just don't see how it is related to anything I have said or asked of you.
You have made a claim; that Newton and Einstein did not do the work they are credited with.
I have asked for evidence to support that claim.
You keep coming back with things I consider to be irrelevant, and certainly not supportive of those claims.
Does that make sense?
I am an evidence based person. That doesn't mean I don't "suppose" or "extrapolate," but I don't make claims based on those suppositions or extrapolations because they are completely speculative. If there is no real evidence to support my suppositions I consider them to be otherwise meaningless except as a thought to keep in mind when looking for evidence.
Any other use of suppositions is a flight of fancy, and useless in the process of decision making. In fact, they are harmful in decision making because they allow a person to make decisions based on fear of those suppositions. And fear based suppositions without evidence are the worst form of human behavior, and are exactly the reason we have the world we have today.
That begins with personal attacks of Einstein, which have NOTHING to do with his work. The last minute goes over the arguments already addressed above, about how physicists use the work of others. The entirety of theoretical physics, the entire profession, is based on using the work of others. All science in fact is based (ENTIRELY founded upon) using the work of others to make a small leap forward.
I don't get how this is confusing. Einstein's paper took all those works and put them all together. That is, and I will say it again, exactly the brilliance for which he is credited. And it was brilliant. Putting together different clues into one whole work is how we define "Genius". We consider the fictional character Sherlock Holmes a genius precisely because he takes pieces of evidence that already exist and puts it into one whole unified theory, that turns out to be correct.
That is what the Special theory of Relativity was. It took a bunch of shit that was already out there, and put it all together in one work.
This really isn't complicated.
You could do the same analysis of all other physicists.
James Clerk Maxwell put together "Maxwell's Equations" from the work of many other people. Should we really call them "Heavyside, Faraday, Oersted, Maxwell, Hertz (and many more) equations"? We call them Maxwell's Equations because he put them all together in a meaningful way. He did not come up with them on his own. In the paper you posted earlier (on Einstein's "Plagiarism") Maxwell was attributed on discovering the constancy of the speed of light. And that's kinda true, but it would be more true to say that Weber discovered that 30 years before Maxwell incorporated it into another equation.
This entire line of reasoning for Einstein's work not being his is the fraud. (At least what I have seen so far.) When you study the history of the development of science, you see that it is a huge web of small contributions, some of which have large impact because the argument brings together ideas that hadn't been brought together before in a way that made sense to everyone. That is what SR is. It is an argument that made it all make sense.
But SR wasn't even close to Einstein's main contribution. If it wasn't for the photoelectric effect contribution (which was a big part of QM) and especially for GR (which was among the largest contributions to science of all time) the name Einstein would have been known by only physics scholars.
It makes perfect sense. I just don't see how it is related to anything I have said or asked of you.
You have made a claim; that Newton and Einstein did not do the work they are credited with.
I have asked for evidence to support that claim.
You keep coming back with things I consider to be irrelevant, and certainly not supportive of those claims.
Does that make sense?
I am an evidence based person. That doesn't mean I don't "suppose" or "extrapolate," but I don't make claims based on those suppositions or extrapolations because they are completely speculative. If there is no real evidence to support my suppositions I consider them to be otherwise meaningless except as a thought to keep in mind when looking for evidence.
Any other use of suppositions is a flight of fancy, and useless in the process of decision making. In fact, they are harmful in decision making because they allow a person to make decisions based on fear of those suppositions. And fear based suppositions without evidence are the worst form of human behavior, and are exactly the reason we have the world we have today.
That begins with personal attacks of Einstein, which have NOTHING to do with his work. The last minute goes over the arguments already addressed above, about how physicists use the work of others. The entirety of theoretical physics, the entire profession, is based on using the work of others. All science in fact is based (ENTIRELY founded upon) using the work of others to make a small leap forward.
I don't get how this is confusing. Einstein's paper took all those works and put them all together. That is, and I will say it again, exactly the brilliance for which he is credited. And it was brilliant. Putting together different clues into one whole work is how we define "Genius". We consider the fictional character Sherlock Holmes a genius precisely because he takes pieces of evidence that already exist and puts it into one whole unified theory, that turns out to be correct.
That is what the Special theory of Relativity was. It took a bunch of shit that was already out there, and put it all together in one work.
This really isn't complicated.
You could do the same analysis of all other physicists.
James Clerk Maxwell put together "Maxwell's Equations" from the work of many other people. Should we really call them "Heavyside, Faraday, Oersted, Maxwell, Hertz (and many more) equations"? We call them Maxwell's Equations because he put them all together in a meaningful way. He did not come up with them on his own. In the paper you posted earlier (on Einstein's "Plagiarism") Maxwell was attributed on discovering the constancy of the speed of light. And that's kinda true, but it would be more true to say that Weber discovered that 30 years before Maxwell incorporated it into another equation.
This entire line of reasoning for Einstein's work not being his is the fraud. (At least what I have seen so far.) When you study the history of the development of science, you see that it is a huge web of small contributions, some of which have large impact because the argument brings together ideas that hadn't been brought together before in a way that made sense to everyone. That is what SR is. It is an argument that made it all make sense.
But SR wasn't even close to Einstein's main contribution. If it wasn't for the photoelectric effect contribution (which was a big part of QM) and especially for GR (which was among the largest contributions to science of all time) the name Einstein would have been known by only physics scholars.