If I do a search on the Internet with the expression “Genius of the 20th Century”, almost certainly the first entry on the list will be Albert Einstein (1879-1955).
Excellent work John, I enjoyed this a lot and look forward to where your future investigations lead.
One of the few contemporary voices that called out Einstein's theories concerning the celestial mechanics of the Solar System was none other than Immanuel Velikovsky. They had many passionate discussions and Einstein read "Worlds In Collision" many times, the book was even found beside his deathbed.
Hidden away in the Epilogue of this great work are a few paragraphs that must have given Einstein nightmares; as early as 1950 when the book was published causing a controversy rarely equalled and making it an instant best-seller, Velikovsky directly challenged not only Newton's ideas of Gravity but also Einstein's. The text does not state this overtly but with some knowledge of the topic it becomes quite obvious what he was saying. I suspect this is the reason, in the decades after it was published, that Velikovsky was subjected to the most poisonous vendetta to discredit a scholar that I have ever heard of.
The paragraphs are as follows:
(continuing from a discussion on the cause of the orbits of the planets and what may have influenced or changed them in the past...)
All that I would venture to say at this time and in this place is the following: The accepted celestial mechanics, notwithstanding the many calculations that have been carried out to many decimal places, or verified by celestial motions, stands only if the sun, the source of light, warmth, and other radiation produced by fusion and fission of atoms, is as a whole an electrically neutral body, and also if the planets, in their usual orbits, are neutral bodies.
Fundamental principles in celestial mechanics including the law of gravitation, must come into
question if the sun possesses a charge sufficient to influence the planets in their orbits or the
comets in theirs. In the Newtonian celestial mechanics, based on the theory of gravitation,
electricity and magnetism play no role.
When physicists came upon the idea that the atom is built like a solar system, the atoms of
various chemical elements differing in the mass of their suns (nuclei) and the number of their
planets (electrons), the notion was looked upon with much favor. But it was stressed that "an
atom differs from the solar system by the fact that it is not gravitation that makes the electrons go round the nucleus, but electricity".
Besides this, another difference was found: an electron in an atom, on absorbing the energy of a
photon (light), jumps to another orbit, and again to another when it emits light and releases the
energy of a photon. Because of this phenomenon, comparison with the solar system no longer
seemed valid. "We do not read in the morning newspapers that Mars leaped to the orbit of
Saturn, or Saturn to the orbit of Mars," wrote a critic. True, we do not read it in the morning
papers; but in ancient records we have found similar events described in detail, and we have tried to reconstruct the facts by comparing many ancient records. The solar system is actually built like an atom; only, in keeping with the smallness of the atom, the jumping of electrons from one orbit to another, when hit by the energy of a photon, takes place many times a second, whereas in accord with the vastness of the solar system, a similar phenomenon occurs there once in hundreds or thousands of years. In the middle of the second millennium before the present era, the terrestrial globe experienced two displacements; and in the eighth or seventh century before the present era, it experienced three or four more. In the period between, Mars and Venus, and the moon also, shifted.'
Immanuel Velikosky, "Worlds In Collision", Macmillan Publishers, April 3, 1950, P. 388.
I'm not certain where he first learned about it, but he certainly believed both the Sun and comets had to be electrically charged to explain their behaviour and the presence of their ion tails, Venus also when it was in it's cometary stage.
I had originally believed that Velikovsky was the first to suggest that what we know as gravity was really an electro-magnetic effect, but from some of your own work on Wilhelm Weber, it now seems the idea was much older.
We will likely have to revisit Leibniz, Galileo, Copernicus and da Vinci who also had ideas on gravity.
But is it possible the theories of gravity are truly ancient? I would not be surprised to find examples of it in medieval Islamic writing (they were masters of mathematics and astronomy) or even ancient Greece and Babylon. Who knows what was really lost when Alexandria burned?
My own reading was more inclined towards the origins of our knowledge of electricity than gravity. There is some very credible evidence that suggests electricity was already understood during the Old Kingdom of Egypt. I think many of these great discoveries may be relics of the previous Age. Perhaps gravity was as well, they would have had a different impetus when vast planets loomed large in our sky.
"Who knows what was really lost when Alexandria burned?"
Who knows what was really lost when Velikovsky's premise is applied to the vicinity between India and Europe; something smacked the hell out of those regions - we're told it was warring factions, time and the occasional earthquake, but the Richat structure is an electrical signature, just one of many geologically-speaking which could perfectly explain Egypt's sands. Ancient texts cover most - if not all - of our questions (when we get round to asking them), including electrical phenomena and its application even to the nebulous idea of spirit.
I'd like to note here that the Electric Universe Theory peeps suggest that one college-level course (or equivalent) in Plasma Physics is required to enter into the debate.
Sagan, later in life, lamented that his "Velikovsky is a poopy-head" response was, perhaps, insufficiently robust to counter his arguments.
Even funnier is that anyone can replicate this experiment over and over again if they have a high-powered telescope. Einstein's theory has been verified over and over again in the past hundred years. The 1919 expedition was only the first time the general theory of relativity was "proven", which this "article" fails to mention.
Clearly you did not read my post. I wrote explicitly:
Now, the fact that the original plates from the 1919 eclipse observations have gone missing does not mean that general relativity has been falsified. Far from it.
Nevertheless, when the raw data from one of the most famous set of observations in human history has gone missing, one naturally speculates, What is going on?
"Anyone with a high-powered telescope" is almost the opposite of "anyone". How many people do you know who have a high-powered telescope that they used to verify general relativity?
My initial thought was the plates were intentionally destroyed because they disproved the theory. There was too much at stake to let these plates bring it all down. Science can only withstand so many revelations that cause loss of confidence. Even now a tsunami warning is in effect. LOL.
From what I've read, Einstein was not as sold on Einstein's ideas as the rest of academia was. I think that's part of the way the Narrative system works, as neither Bohr nor von Neumann nor Feynman were thrown up in the same way as Einstein.
I can't think of anything left of Einstein that is good. Brownian motion maybe? Relativity isn't even a theory, just summarizing of observational data with a math blanket for intimidation.
He asked one simple question w.r.t SR and they never gave him an answer. Why? Because they knew they had no answer. It's really simple.
If you have two observers A and B in different frames of reference. Assume B is moving away from A at a speed close to c. The clock in B's frame of reference is slowing down almost to a stand still. But hold on. The principle of relativity states that from B's perspective A is moving close to the speed of light so the clock in A is standing still.
What a joke. Even a five year old can see through this nonsense, all of which is produced using mathematics (the key to it all) and a complete lack of basic logic.
Aristotle lost and Plato won which is almost everything you believe is true about the universe isn't.
We clearly don’t have the solid answers we think we do. We go messing around with things that we don’t begin to understand. Like MRNA for example. There could be several layers of activity that we haven’t even observed or theorized. It’s insanely complicated and just knowing that should cause us to back off. The hubris is alarming.
Precisely. They "map out" DNA and immediately think they understand it. They assign a specific trait to a gene and think they need only adjust it a little without realizing each gene has more than one purpose and that the relational positions of each gene is dynamic. Millions of positional dynamics are involved and we are not yet smart enough to dicker with anything.
Never underestimate the ability of a bureaucracy to do incredibly stupid things, combined with the persistent lack of storage space in any institution.
* The BBC routinely reused tapes, destroying the original Doctor Who episode recordings.
* NASA routinely destroyed all records older than ten years, to make room for newer records.
* Random college students are routinely told to empty out a closet and "get rid of all that old, obsolete junk" to make space for new projects.
Einstein's wonky physics is a hot topic at the moment it seems :)
The Thunderbolts Project just released a new video taking apart the "science" of "Gravitational Waves" - You'll definitely find it interesting! I'll add the video link on electrogenesis tomorrow but I thought you might want a heads-up now in case you are writing on the topic.
Interesting question. A simple answer would be that Tesla's work led to significant advances in technology, while Einstein's work was irrelevant in this respect.
However, I think that there are deeper reasons, which I need to think through.
Einstein looks too much like Neil DeGrasse Tyson to me, on paper. He's associated with big ideas and bigger organizations, but his words don't convey the depth of understanding you'd expect from a genius of that caliber.
Contrasting him with von Neumann or even Feynman, the fact that his best ideas came from the patent office becomes more and more suspect.
There was a paper on the internet back around 2005 with some of the 1919 eclipse photos scanned in from somewhere, showing how the source data had been cherry picked. It had a technical analysis of the camera, proving it did not have anywhere near the requisite resolution. It was also an Eddison debunk, went into his WW1 draft dodging and other personal reasons for the expedition. I tried to find again a few years ago, no luck.
Excellent work John, I enjoyed this a lot and look forward to where your future investigations lead.
One of the few contemporary voices that called out Einstein's theories concerning the celestial mechanics of the Solar System was none other than Immanuel Velikovsky. They had many passionate discussions and Einstein read "Worlds In Collision" many times, the book was even found beside his deathbed.
Hidden away in the Epilogue of this great work are a few paragraphs that must have given Einstein nightmares; as early as 1950 when the book was published causing a controversy rarely equalled and making it an instant best-seller, Velikovsky directly challenged not only Newton's ideas of Gravity but also Einstein's. The text does not state this overtly but with some knowledge of the topic it becomes quite obvious what he was saying. I suspect this is the reason, in the decades after it was published, that Velikovsky was subjected to the most poisonous vendetta to discredit a scholar that I have ever heard of.
The paragraphs are as follows:
(continuing from a discussion on the cause of the orbits of the planets and what may have influenced or changed them in the past...)
All that I would venture to say at this time and in this place is the following: The accepted celestial mechanics, notwithstanding the many calculations that have been carried out to many decimal places, or verified by celestial motions, stands only if the sun, the source of light, warmth, and other radiation produced by fusion and fission of atoms, is as a whole an electrically neutral body, and also if the planets, in their usual orbits, are neutral bodies.
Fundamental principles in celestial mechanics including the law of gravitation, must come into
question if the sun possesses a charge sufficient to influence the planets in their orbits or the
comets in theirs. In the Newtonian celestial mechanics, based on the theory of gravitation,
electricity and magnetism play no role.
When physicists came upon the idea that the atom is built like a solar system, the atoms of
various chemical elements differing in the mass of their suns (nuclei) and the number of their
planets (electrons), the notion was looked upon with much favor. But it was stressed that "an
atom differs from the solar system by the fact that it is not gravitation that makes the electrons go round the nucleus, but electricity".
Besides this, another difference was found: an electron in an atom, on absorbing the energy of a
photon (light), jumps to another orbit, and again to another when it emits light and releases the
energy of a photon. Because of this phenomenon, comparison with the solar system no longer
seemed valid. "We do not read in the morning newspapers that Mars leaped to the orbit of
Saturn, or Saturn to the orbit of Mars," wrote a critic. True, we do not read it in the morning
papers; but in ancient records we have found similar events described in detail, and we have tried to reconstruct the facts by comparing many ancient records. The solar system is actually built like an atom; only, in keeping with the smallness of the atom, the jumping of electrons from one orbit to another, when hit by the energy of a photon, takes place many times a second, whereas in accord with the vastness of the solar system, a similar phenomenon occurs there once in hundreds or thousands of years. In the middle of the second millennium before the present era, the terrestrial globe experienced two displacements; and in the eighth or seventh century before the present era, it experienced three or four more. In the period between, Mars and Venus, and the moon also, shifted.'
Immanuel Velikosky, "Worlds In Collision", Macmillan Publishers, April 3, 1950, P. 388.
Do you have any idea where Velikovsky got the idea that the celestial bodies carried charges?
I'm not certain where he first learned about it, but he certainly believed both the Sun and comets had to be electrically charged to explain their behaviour and the presence of their ion tails, Venus also when it was in it's cometary stage.
I had originally believed that Velikovsky was the first to suggest that what we know as gravity was really an electro-magnetic effect, but from some of your own work on Wilhelm Weber, it now seems the idea was much older.
We will likely have to revisit Leibniz, Galileo, Copernicus and da Vinci who also had ideas on gravity.
But is it possible the theories of gravity are truly ancient? I would not be surprised to find examples of it in medieval Islamic writing (they were masters of mathematics and astronomy) or even ancient Greece and Babylon. Who knows what was really lost when Alexandria burned?
My own reading was more inclined towards the origins of our knowledge of electricity than gravity. There is some very credible evidence that suggests electricity was already understood during the Old Kingdom of Egypt. I think many of these great discoveries may be relics of the previous Age. Perhaps gravity was as well, they would have had a different impetus when vast planets loomed large in our sky.
"Who knows what was really lost when Alexandria burned?"
Who knows what was really lost when Velikovsky's premise is applied to the vicinity between India and Europe; something smacked the hell out of those regions - we're told it was warring factions, time and the occasional earthquake, but the Richat structure is an electrical signature, just one of many geologically-speaking which could perfectly explain Egypt's sands. Ancient texts cover most - if not all - of our questions (when we get round to asking them), including electrical phenomena and its application even to the nebulous idea of spirit.
Precisely, and the same question mark hangs over the Ring of Fire, bathemetric maps of the Earth hint at some stupendous violence in our past!
I'd like to note here that the Electric Universe Theory peeps suggest that one college-level course (or equivalent) in Plasma Physics is required to enter into the debate.
Sagan, later in life, lamented that his "Velikovsky is a poopy-head" response was, perhaps, insufficiently robust to counter his arguments.
Thanks for this. Funny how this important evidence/data gets 'lost' -- maybe 'lost' is a euphemism for 'stolen', or perhaps 'never done'
The same thing that happened to the moon landing data/mathematics. Funny that.
Much of our past is as unknown and unknowable as our future. This is probably an intentional state of affairs.
Even funnier is that anyone can replicate this experiment over and over again if they have a high-powered telescope. Einstein's theory has been verified over and over again in the past hundred years. The 1919 expedition was only the first time the general theory of relativity was "proven", which this "article" fails to mention.
Five second Google search: https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/testing-general-relativity
Clearly you did not read my post. I wrote explicitly:
Now, the fact that the original plates from the 1919 eclipse observations have gone missing does not mean that general relativity has been falsified. Far from it.
Nevertheless, when the raw data from one of the most famous set of observations in human history has gone missing, one naturally speculates, What is going on?
"Anyone with a high-powered telescope" is almost the opposite of "anyone". How many people do you know who have a high-powered telescope that they used to verify general relativity?
My initial thought was the plates were intentionally destroyed because they disproved the theory. There was too much at stake to let these plates bring it all down. Science can only withstand so many revelations that cause loss of confidence. Even now a tsunami warning is in effect. LOL.
I always have to say that I believe in the moon landings because I met Gene and a few others who I cannot believe lied to me.
That is the only thing I have to go on, though, and it's not terribly persuasive.
Great little history, thank you.
Science by press release seems to be at least 100 years old
The greatness of Einstein is rapidly turning into myth.
From what I've read, Einstein was not as sold on Einstein's ideas as the rest of academia was. I think that's part of the way the Narrative system works, as neither Bohr nor von Neumann nor Feynman were thrown up in the same way as Einstein.
I can't think of anything left of Einstein that is good. Brownian motion maybe? Relativity isn't even a theory, just summarizing of observational data with a math blanket for intimidation.
Dingle blew the whistle on Einstein decades ago.
Science at the Crossroads - available on Amazon.
He asked one simple question w.r.t SR and they never gave him an answer. Why? Because they knew they had no answer. It's really simple.
If you have two observers A and B in different frames of reference. Assume B is moving away from A at a speed close to c. The clock in B's frame of reference is slowing down almost to a stand still. But hold on. The principle of relativity states that from B's perspective A is moving close to the speed of light so the clock in A is standing still.
What a joke. Even a five year old can see through this nonsense, all of which is produced using mathematics (the key to it all) and a complete lack of basic logic.
Aristotle lost and Plato won which is almost everything you believe is true about the universe isn't.
Platonism, the curse that keeps on cursing.
The noticing enjoyer in me smiled as I read this article.
Another day another imaginary hero slain.
Oh well.
Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the nature of "history" would not be surprised that much of it, even in SCIENCE!, is mere invention.
We clearly don’t have the solid answers we think we do. We go messing around with things that we don’t begin to understand. Like MRNA for example. There could be several layers of activity that we haven’t even observed or theorized. It’s insanely complicated and just knowing that should cause us to back off. The hubris is alarming.
Precisely. They "map out" DNA and immediately think they understand it. They assign a specific trait to a gene and think they need only adjust it a little without realizing each gene has more than one purpose and that the relational positions of each gene is dynamic. Millions of positional dynamics are involved and we are not yet smart enough to dicker with anything.
Perfect example!
Never underestimate the ability of a bureaucracy to do incredibly stupid things, combined with the persistent lack of storage space in any institution.
* The BBC routinely reused tapes, destroying the original Doctor Who episode recordings.
* NASA routinely destroyed all records older than ten years, to make room for newer records.
* Random college students are routinely told to empty out a closet and "get rid of all that old, obsolete junk" to make space for new projects.
Interesting. My first encounter with this subject.
Einstein's wonky physics is a hot topic at the moment it seems :)
The Thunderbolts Project just released a new video taking apart the "science" of "Gravitational Waves" - You'll definitely find it interesting! I'll add the video link on electrogenesis tomorrow but I thought you might want a heads-up now in case you are writing on the topic.
Thornhill's POV: Gravitational Waves | Thunderbolts
https://youtu.be/cgGTzXu3EA8
Why was Einstein put on a pedestal and not Nicolas Tesla?
Interesting question. A simple answer would be that Tesla's work led to significant advances in technology, while Einstein's work was irrelevant in this respect.
However, I think that there are deeper reasons, which I need to think through.
Einstein looks too much like Neil DeGrasse Tyson to me, on paper. He's associated with big ideas and bigger organizations, but his words don't convey the depth of understanding you'd expect from a genius of that caliber.
Contrasting him with von Neumann or even Feynman, the fact that his best ideas came from the patent office becomes more and more suspect.
Classic. Bravo Sir.
Einstein was more into highly specific relative-ity
There was a paper on the internet back around 2005 with some of the 1919 eclipse photos scanned in from somewhere, showing how the source data had been cherry picked. It had a technical analysis of the camera, proving it did not have anywhere near the requisite resolution. It was also an Eddison debunk, went into his WW1 draft dodging and other personal reasons for the expedition. I tried to find again a few years ago, no luck.