Talk:Albert Einstein

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is largely incorrect. Gravitons aren't predicted by the General Theory of Relativity. GPS satellites are 1) Useful and 2) Built with control systems that make relativistic corrections to compensate for the curvature of space caused by the earth. Predictions made by relativity which have been verified include: Black Holes, Gravitational Lensing, Spatial Twisting by Rotating Bodies, Extreme Time Distortions Near Black Holes, and Time Dilation by Spatial Curvature.

Gravitational Interferometers are also built to measure the gravity waves that are predicted by the general theory. They also have the inconvenient property of, you know, working.

Along those lines, I don't know whether particle accelerators are considered "useful" but if built according to Newtonian physics I don't think any of them built since about the 1940s would have worked. Dpbsmith 13:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Thank you, JoshuaZ, for correcting the urban legend. Even most Christians concede Einstein's beliefs resembled a form of Deism. MountainDew 02:56, 5 March 2007 (EST)

"In 1905 he obtained his doctor's degree."

Good grief, this sentence sounds like something from a Junior High term paper.

The article isn't locked is it Robrob? Learn together 18:34, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Contents

Einstein's fame

Someone reverted my edits without comment. My version was:

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was a German born Nobel Prize winning physicist famous for being regarded as a great genius. He is perhaps best known for work on the theories of Special Relativity and General Relativity, ...

I say this because Einstein's fame with the general public is not really for his "several great works of theoretical physics". Hardly anyone even knows what those were. But everybody knows Einstein as a great genius.

Also, the phrase "his theories" is inaccurate. Einstein did well-known work on relativity, but it wasn't Einstein's theory. RSchlafly 17:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I didn't do the reversion, and I only agree with half of the reversion. Special Relativity was not "his [Einstein's] theory", so that should not have been reverted.
But I do agree with reverting the claim that Einstein was "regarded as a great genius." The media promotes people as geniuses for a variety of their own reasons, and it often has no basis in fact. Henry Kissinger is also regarded as a genius. Is he? No. Robert McNamara was regarded as a genius. Was he? No. The statement about what people are led to think is meaningless.--Aschlafly 17:17, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Whether you think that Einstein was a genius or not, it is a fact that he is popularly regarded as a great genius. Perhaps as much as anyone in history. Go ask some random person to name a great genius, and you are apt to get the name Einstein. Saying that Einstein is regarded as a great genius is like saying that Babe Ruth is regarded as a great baseball player.
Maybe you'd like to add a later paragraph on the limits to Einstein's genius. Eg, he is often quoted on subjects where he had no expertise. RSchlafly 17:57, 6 March 2007 (EST)
I agree that many people, who know nothing about what Einstein did, regard him as a great genius. I don't dispute the truth of that claim. I do dispute the significance of it. An encyclopedia or other intelligent resource does not report on what most (ignorant) people think. Most people may think there is life on Mars. Should an entry about Mars begin with, "Most people think there is life on Mars"? Of course not.--Aschlafly 18:07, 6 March 2007 (EST)
But Andrew you thought that it was relevant enough what fraction of the US population rejected evolution?
JoshuaZ has a good point. I would also say that biographies of Kissinger and McNamara should say that they were popularly regarded as being extremely smart. Even if you don't think that they were really so smart, you need to know that they were regarded as smart if you want to understand stuff that was written about them. So yes, what people think matters. RSchlafly 23:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)
I agree. It goes beyond Kissinger and McNamara, because Einstein has the status of being the popular exemplar of "a genius." There are a number of questions to which everybody knows "the answer" even though the questions are silly and so are the answers. Do this test. Answer the following questions quickly in your head and see if you don't immediately know what the "right" answers are... even if you disagree with them.
Who's the greatest composer? What is the greatest painting? Who's the greatest playwright? Who's the greatest American inventor?[1]
OK, The first person I thought of on each question was: Mozart, Mona Lisa, Shakespear, Edison. --TimSvendsen 13:23, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Mona Lisa was a painter? ATB 18:02, 8 March 2007 (EST)

In the same way, Einstein is "the brand name," the universal popular answer to the question "who was the greatest 'genius'" or "who was the most intelligent person." Arguably others might have been greater, but they didn't get the PR. Dpbsmith 12:30, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Please forgive me if I make any wiki-type or style mistakes here, I'm a complete newb at this, and I'll learn more as I go. I wanted to make a comment regarding the question his genius, I think his fame is incontrovertible.

Not many who understand even a little about the circumstances and the problem-space would argue as to whether or not Isaac Newton was a genius. I think all agree he was.

However any peer-review commentary in the literature that addresses this question of Einsteins abilities that I've ever seen qualifies the Tensor Calculus that he personally invented to solve the space-time theorems of General Relativity as the most fiercely difficult mathematics in existence--before or since.

I would consider that pretty high praise coming from the likes of Hawking, Penrose, et al. Just my $.02. --Knowthetruth 03:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)

No, Einstein did not invent the Tensor Calculus. It was Marcel Grossman who gave Einstein the idea of applying tensor calculus to relativity. RSchlafly 11:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)

re:Cosmological Constant ne: Dark Energy

The term was readopted in 1998 after the observations of accelerating expansion. It has since been dropped outside of popular press. BTW, can someone point out to me how to correctly create references as footnotes. I'm new to wiki editing, and can't seem to pull it off properly. thx. --Knowthetruth 13:50, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Criticism

I don't like some of the recent additions. Why talk about views that Einstein "seemed" to hold? Did he or didn't he? Einstein wrote a great deal, and there is no reason to speculate about his politics. Either cite something with his political views, or ignore it. Why does it say "though he held dual U.S. and Swiss citizenships"? Isn't that just what you would expect from someone who believed in World Government? The next paragraph contradicts itself. It says, "he in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with the project", and then it describes the crucial role that Einstein played. Yes, he did have something to do with it. RSchlafly 17:10, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I apologize for my writing gaucheries. I was merely attempting to give the subject the benefit of the doubt. I will re-word to be more affirmative on the facts. In fact, Einstein's minimal encouragement to FDR played very little role in the actual outcome of the Administrations decisions regarding the Manhattan Project, and was certainly not crucial. It had almost no affect at first. The choice to devise and move ahead with the Atom Bomb plans were made as a result of intelligence efforts on the part of the Allies during WWII. I will acknowledge your point about citizenship. --Knowthetruth 21:17, 8 March 2007 (EST)

This content page is an embarrassment to Conservapedia. It's filled with opinions, unjustified claims, self-contradictions, misleading statements and liberal bias. Any student reading this content page is going to misled and confused. This is the kind of stuff that permeates Wikipedia. Users who like this stuff can enter it on Wikipedia at any time. Actually, I don't think even Wikipedia's entry about Einstein is this substandard. A rewrite is essential here. Somebody please rewrite this in a way that respects our standards.--Aschlafly 18:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

With all due respect sir, I do not find the flaws in this article that you mentioned. Particularly concerning a liberal bias, there certainly is no trace of that in this writer. Quite the contrary. Accurately reporting the actual facts *without* the liberal spin so typical in today's media is one of my primary goals.
I am not afraid of the truth. Whether it comes from the Bible, or from Creation. They are both the handiwork of God, and there can be *no* variance between them. In the course of human endeavor, if we uncover fuller knowledge of that handiwork, it's in our best interest to understand it. Jesus Christ is Lord of all Creation, and the more we know about science the plainer that truth will become to the whole world. Proverbs 4:7 says, "Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding." I hope you will understand my heart in this. --Knowthetruth 21:17, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Ecclesiastes 1:18 says, "For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow." --Koalitis
Don't forget "Thou shalt not bear false witness." --Scrap 00:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
"Somebody please rewrite this in a way that respects our standards." Like what? Just have it say "Einstein was not a Christian, so we plan to ignore him.", and then mod-lock the article forever? --Scrap 00:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)


Not to mention the conservative bias :P --trekie9001 18:17, 8 March 2007 (EST)

This article includes too much information on what Enstein DIDN'T do. It seems irrelevant to me. The part about E=MC2 should be outright removed, it includes no interesting information on EINSTEIN. Crucialwood 01:12, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

Notes

  1. Beethoven. The Mona Lisa. Shakespeare. Edison. Mozart is gaining on Beethoven, but I think Beethoven is still ahead. But you definitely lose points for "The Night Watch," George Bernard Shaw, or Tesla!

Picture

Are you sure that picture ain't too small? BillyBoy 14:14, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

False attributions

I do not agree with the E=mc2 edits. It suggests that there was something wrong with Poincare's derivation, and that Einstein's is now accepted. But that is not correct. Einstein's derivation was a crude approximation, and had errors. Maybe Planck's view is closer to the modern view, I don't know. But I don't see any justification for the current edit, and I plan to revert it. RSchlafly 23:54, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

The point has less to do with the formula itself than what it means, or how to explain it. Poincare didn't even agree with his own attempts to explain it. In fact, what you complain about makes it clear that Poincare's formula was mathematically the same as Einstein's. Maybe you misread it.Pluto 13:55, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
What do you mean by "Poincare didn't even agree with his own attempts to explain it"? Can you prove that? That could be said of Einstein, as he published corrected derivations several times. RSchlafly 16:52, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Poincare tried out hypothetical explanations involving the aether, but wasn't convinced that such explanations were correct.Pluto 17:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
So you want to give Einstein more credit because he was more confident of his explanation? That does not make his explanation correct or first. Do you have any source to prove that Einstein's explanation was any better than either Poincare's or Planck's? RSchlafly 18:14, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
The current version correctly credits Poincare for the math. Poincare undoubtedly was a great physicist. However, few modern scientists believe in the aether, and even Poincare wasn't certain about this explanation.Pluto 18:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
There are actually a lot of modern scientists who believe in the aether, in one form or another. But what difference does that make? Why would it matter whether Poincare was certain? RSchlafly 12:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I am doubtful about the Einstein quotes. Can we please have a source that says when and where Einstein said those things? Otherwise, I think that the quotes ought to be deleted. RSchlafly 21:17, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

I found out that the internet produces many quotes not attributed to the people who they proclaimed it came from. I was using brainyquote for awhile until RJJens en pointed out all the false quotes I had been including. To find out if a quote can be attributed to the person, RJ advised I go to Google Books. If the quote from a famous person is in multiple books on Google Books, that means it is researched accurate. If you find out differently, of course I would remove. --Jpatt 21:35, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

E=mc2

It seems to me that the section E=mc2 may be shading the truth towards the evolutionary perspective. I made an edit to correct this but do not wish to get into an edit war over the matter.

Personal tools