Nfinity wrote on 08/23/10 at 18:41:10:
Every time I log into these forums and see this thread has a new post, I facepalm. This thread does not deserve further posts. Unless, of course, you post something funny, like Williempie just did.
When I was in a more generous mood, I wrote the following script about Albert Einstein:
CONVERSATIONS WITH ALBERT EINSTEIN IN THE NEXT LIFE
RM: Dr. Einstein, can you hear me?
AE: No need to shout.
RM: How do you like the next life?
AE: Not bad.
RM: What was your greatest achievement?
AE: Helping to get the State of Israel set up.
RM: What was your worst failure?
AE: The cosmologic constant. I was the first to suggest antigravity. The was perhaps my most radical idea and no one liked it very much; eventually my peers made me recant. It was the worst mistake I ever made. Within the past decade, evidence of a very powerful antigravitation signature has been detected by the Hubble Telescope.
RM: What do you think of the work of Poincare?
AE: He was one of the greatest thinkers and authors of all times even surpassing me. Do you know why I am famous in this century and he isn't? His followers were disorganized after his death in 1912 and couldn't lay a glove on me. Do you know that Lorentz and Poincare did the lion's share of the work in special relativity? Poincare came up with the formula E=mc^2 five years before I presented it in my 1905 paper and Poincare came up with the structure of the electron which is often credited to me. Why did I get credit for these? Because my followers were more vocal than the followers of Poincare. Few people realize how much my legacy is intertwined with Poincare.
RM: This new physics confuses me; I thought you were supposed to credit those who came before you.
AE: Not necessarily. If you do the work independent of them and don't do research, it is amazing how many new ideas you can find.
RM: How can you justify not doing research when you were a patent clerk? Don't patent clerks do research?
AE: You mean special relativity, right?
RM: Right. How did you ever find that publication to publish special relativity?
AE: It was a physics journal;l they'll publish anything.
RM: That doesn't give you the right to be a plagiarist.
AE: I was young and impetuous. I prefer to think of myself as a creative borrower. It should be pointed out that I credited Lorentz for his contribution in my mathematics paper in 1935.
RM: In other words, ex post facto to the tune of 30 years even after Lorentz was dead, you acknowledged you were a plagiarist. It also should be pointed out that you apparently profess to being ignorant of the work of Poincare when you wrote your special relativity paper.
AE: Why do you have to put a negative spin on everything?
RM: Among other reasons, you were a patent clerk and the need to check your facts carefully, lest you be fired, yet in the subject paper you profess to know little or nothing about Poincare and you use the work of Lorentz without due credit; you act as though Poincare was a minor influence on relativity. Why when you do research for a living do you pretend not to know how to do it in your own papers.
AE: No one required me to do research for the papers so I didn't.
RM: How much of the four 1905 papers was 'borrowed'?
AE: By today's standards, none of them was adequately referenced.
RM: Why weren't you caught?
AE: I just put them out there; it was up to the review process to catch them.
RM: Did Sir Arthur Eddington completely fabricate the data for your general theory of relativity based on the Eclipse of 1919?
AE: Art was very inventive on my behalf. Youi have to consider his mission to Africa. I was not to test my theories, but to prove them right.
RM: Is this the way to do science? Isn't science supposed to be objective? How can he collect data objectively when he is determined to prove you right?
AE: Are you implying that an advocate can't collect data objectively?
RM: When he was attempting to determine how much stars were bent during an eclipse in Principe, did he include all the stars that were bent at that time?
AE: Why should he? The only stars that mattered were the ones that were bent according to my theories.
RM: So it didn't matter to you that scientists, for no apparent reason, tossed 85% of the data from the South American Eclipse of 1919 and that only about 50% of the data was used during the Australian Eclipse of 1922.
AE: It was necessary to 'cleanse' the data set.
RM: Let's look at another of Eddy's ingenious tricks. Didn't he determine the location of stars to .02 arc seconds?
AE: What's wrong with that?
RM: Because astronomers would argue that precisions greater than 2-3 arc SECONDS were dubious. The equipment was operated out of its ideal temperature range, heat waves were shimmering off the ground because of temperatures in the mid 90's. Distortion of the starlight as it traveled through the sun's atmospere was significant. Mapping the motion of individual stars would be like mapping the motion of a dozen belly buttons across a flaming barbecue pit.
AE: Since David Levy in PARADE MAGAZINE decreed that the discovery was one of the seminal events in the 20th Century, it must be right.
RM: What do you think of supraluminal light, that light travels faster than the speed of light? What do you say to scientists who claim that information cannot travel faster than light, thereby salvaging your paper?
AE: Lijun Wang, a researcher with the private NEC A Institute a reported in the Washington Times said it beautifilly opaquely, " However, our experiment does show that the generally held misconception that, 'nothing can travel faster than the speed of light' is wrong."
RM: Can't your apologists see the obvious?
AE: Ah, my blessed followers. Their minds are made up; don't confuse them with facts.
RM: Do what do you credit your success?
AE: Borrow creatively and have the most devoted followers of anyone. For example, take the best ideas in the world and promote them improperly and they will fail. Take mediocre ideas and promote them enthusiastically for decades, and they will succeed. This is the way it should be.
RM: Thank you Dr. Einstein; your candor is appreciated.
Pages: 
Einstein's Methodology (Read 102464 times)
