Why do people suck this dead jew's cock when he was literally wrong about everything

He was literally right about everything but you'd have to rotate a 4D apple in your head to appreciate that.

whoops, wrong picture!

>>16726227
does this entail seeing a real apple or is it just an apple in your head?

>>16726227
He was literally wrong about everything and got BTFO by QM so hard he literally died

>>16726219 (OP)
I dare you to say the same in public using your real name. You know that such blasphemy would not remain unpunished.

Literally a jew that constantly plagiarized other peoples' ideas lol.

>>16726377
built on* other people's ideas.
Just like everyone else.

>>16726387
>built on*
I'm sure that looks nicer on his Nobel Prize, yeah.

>>16726391
On what grounds do you believe he plagiarized anything?

low tier bait but what the hell does "wrong" even mean in physics

>>16726399
>On what grounds
Faggot kike. Yandex and even simple google searches catches onto the myth that Einstein "innovated" anything. Everything Einstein owes is to Lorentz, Poincare, and much more. Christopher Jon Bjerknes wrote an extensive book on the subject.

>>16726407
>Everything Einstein owes is to Lorentz, Poincare, and much more
He took their findings and put them together in a coherent, singular model. That's innovation, retard. Nobody disputes Poincare's contributions. Even Einstein acknowledged them which essentially precludes any accusation of plagiarism.

You're a moron.

>>16726415
B-but if Einstein didn't use his job at the patent office to steal relativity then my entire worldview will crumble!

>>16726416
Are you retarded, dude? Do you think every physicist ever discovered everything in a vacuum?

Einstein literally acknowledged Poincare's contributions. That makes it not plagiarism.

>>16726415
He lied about the PRIORITY of his "novel interpretations", dumb faggot. That's where the accusations of plagiarism stem from, and why Einstein himself went on record to proclaim towards his critics that what he did was perfectly ethical under the pretenses of "inspiration" as a form of damage control.

>>16726419
>He lied about the PRIORITY of his "novel interpretations",
What does that even mean? Poincare was a famous physicist before Einstein was. Educated people reviewing Einstein's work would have known exactly where Einstein's inspiration came from.

>>16726420
>Educated people reviewing Einstein's work would have known exactly where Einstein's inspiration came from.
Einstein maintains that he agrees that Lorentz's theory is largely correct, only that his interpretations are largely incorrect.
I am claiming that this is not actually accredited to Einstein specifically.

>>16726402
It means incorrect. He rejected QM altogether to his grave. Dumb old boomer.

>>16726424
What you're describing is not plagiarism. Poincare has been given his credit. He's known as the guy who laid the foundations for general relativity.
Even more than that, just peruse this list:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_named_after_Henri_Poincar%C3%A9

Einstein is credited with putting the theory of GR together. Because that's exactly what he did.

>>16726429
>Poincare has been given his credit.
He outright stole them and tried to pass it off as his own through semantics. I'm not sure how to make this more explicit to you.

>>16726437
The thing you think happened did not happen and I just explained that fact. I'm not sure how to make this more explicit to you.

>>16726439
If it happened today it would be
>I was just innocently caught hacking you
>I was just innocently caught having my associates break into your house
>I was just innocently putting my name on the entirety of your already complete work without even a shred of credit.

>>16726439
>The thing you think happened did not happen
Einstein did not make a single novel contribution.
Sincerely, kys.

>>16726444
Credit was given.
Einstein did add something new.

>>16726445
Where in Poincare's writings does M=E/C^2 appear?

>>16726450
Thankyou for your service (algebra I after the hard work had already been long done)

>>16726455
E=MC^2 came from the original form that Einstein posted in his paper, with his original analysis: M=E/C^2.
You will not find this Energy to Mass relationship anywhere but Einstein's original work.

>>16726260
Kek, this one got me.

>>16726461
>others argued that between them Poincaré and Lorentz had earlier published several of the core elements of Einstein's 1905 relativity paper, including a generalized relativity principle that was intended by Poincaré to apply to all physics.

Posting a compendium of other scientists work does not make it your own.

>>16726219 (OP)
He wasn't wrong about making that bomb.

>>16726473
>no mouse would ever construct a mousetrap
no, they just use their bare hands

>>16726468
Where in any of those works did mass/energy equivalence arise?
Nowhere?
That's right. It's Einstein's original work.
You are simply wrong.

>>16726377
but unlike those people he actually solved those problems that were presented

>>16726496
As i said the majority of the actual work was done at that point if it was a patent as Einstein himself would have known if you make an extremely small mathematical contribution AFTER something has already been developed you are owed absolutely nothing by the people who invented said technology.

>>16726231
And yet the foundations of QM remain unresolved, so he kinda had a point that something was missing.

>>16726509
What do you think Einstein's role at the patent office was? It's not a position you give to a retard.

Yes. He has been open about the fact that most of his insights came from working there. But E=MC^2 was his own formula. How hard is that for you to understand?

>>16726391
But he got the Nobel prize for explaining the photoelectric effect, not for relativity. If you don't get his explanation of the photo effect; then I'm sorry anon. You never stood a chance from the beginning...

>>16726231
>degenerate gamblers btfoing anyone
in a cringe compo maybe

>>16726523
Did other scientists work and thought go into deriving the original SR paper? Yes, were they credited and cited for their contribution? No. Literal facts.

>>16726528
So?

>>16726531
So it's ok for you to do the tiniest amount of work and ok for me to take 100% of the credit?

>>16726533
That's a rather hyperbolic assessment. But anyway, what are you gonna do about it, faggot?

>>16726531
So it would be ok for you to do all the work and ok for me to take 100% of the credit?

>>16726535
Make sure you never see a single cent from literal fraud perhaps?

>>16726541
What?

>>16726528
>Did other scientists work and thought go into deriving the original SR paper? Yes
Correct.
>were they credited and cited for their contribution?
Yes.
Just because you decided the answer is "no" doesn't mean that's the correct answer.
As I said a few times before: Einstein literally credited those responsible for their contributions.

But you don't care about reality. You only care about what supports your preconceived notions.

You absolutely cannot expect even professors to act like grown up when even a tiny bit of prestige or money are on the line. By definition presenting another persons work as your own even when you obfuscate it a little is plagiarism, by definition deliberate misleading others when you have no legal basis to do so to benefit yourself financially is fraud.

>>16726219 (OP)
To prove OP's point to all the retards itt: what is the doppler effect, does it apply to light, and what does this tell you about wave velocity?

>>16726399
/pol/ propaganda and general ignorance of how scientific knowledge progressed. You can explain to them that everyone he allegedly ripped off admitted, on record, that Einsteins work was unique. The only way to not consneed is to construct an entire conspiracy theory that the world's experts across a range of disciplines all conspired to prop up a literal Jewish nobody for .. you know, reasons

>>16726407
>Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Who is this and why are his opinions relevant

>>16726693
Shut up Nathan, you've been exposed as a pseud so many times over the years. Why don't you try sharing your vixra paper here again to get torn a new asshole

>>16726407
CJB does some pretty decent work on some topics but on others he is a total retard. He is also a weirdo, blowhard sperg. But as I said the stuff he actually is good at it he is good at. Have you read this book? I may check it out

Einstein was right
Bohr was wrong

Only retards think something comes from nothing

>>16726219 (OP)
Jews own the popsci industry and he was king of popsci. They also don't like to give credit to non-jews, which is why no one outside of mathematics or physics knows who Hilbert, Riemann or Lorenz are.

>>16726387
He practically begged and pleaded for Hilbert to create the mathematics for "his" theory LMAOOOOOOO
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504179

>>16726938
>cites article
>completely inverts what the article says
what kind of creature does this

>>16726944
Please show me where it says Hilbert begged Memestein to create any sort of math

>>16726949
you don't know the difference between logical convert and invert. gtfo

>>16726219 (OP)
He provided the mental framing for non newtonian physics. More of a verbal intelligence thing than a physical or practical one.

>>16726990
Do you mean converse? It wasn't a conditional expression so I loosely considered what you meant by inverting what the article says. Please, explain how my original post inverts the article

>>16727004
he didn't beg or plead with hilbert to do anything, retard

>>16726737
no one ever refuted the paper--feel free to cite a single post that did (you can't). and also, it was peer-reviewed and published.

>>16727926
you mean here?
https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1982-3-nathan-rapport-classical-doppler-shift-explains.html
dude. just lmao. its impact factor is less than 1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_Essays
>In 2024, the Norwegian Scientific Index downgraded the journal from a level-1 journal to level 0, meaning that publication there no longer counts in the official academic career system or towards public funding of research institutions
i sincerely hope you didn't give them money for this.

btw you know we have an archive right?
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/15019040#p15029079
the whole thread is funny. and there are countless others that you spammed your schizo shit in.

>>16726219 (OP)
>jew

https://rumble.com/vc2ltb-alphabet-fun-featuring-the-conspiracy-to-overthrow-the-republic.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp_a

>>16727956
not sure what that screenshot you posted is, but it's not from the paper. here's the paper: https://osf.io/vkb2z/download

there actually is a subtle issue with the paper, btw, but it's not mathematical, and no one on /sci/ ever pointed it out.

>>16727982
you know what paper it's from (considering you wrote it), don't play stupid. you got BTFO so badly you even deleted it from vixra (which is a wise move on your part). you should definitely send that one to physics essays too - i bet they'll even accept it!

>>16727982
ring any bells, nathan?
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/12788657
https://web.archive.org/web/20210304145622/https://vixra.org/abs/2102.0169
as of now, you can currently still download the pdf to witness nathan's retardation, in full glory

>>16726219 (OP)
Because people prop him up. His work wasn’t that revolutionary. General relativity was his only useful theory that has any use. And its application is very niche. Like you can use its for gps satellites or icbm rockets. And time transfer mechanisms. Like cell phone towers. The rest of his work was very questionable and downright unproven. People just want to believe his work was more important and consequential than it actually was.


Like redshift is dumb and an ether in outer space was never proven. The is no mass in between the universe it’s just empty space. Nothing. a void. But retard astrofags will tell you there’s some dark matter. Space and time don’t bend. I don’t even know what that even fucking means. Since time is only a measurement of earths rotation in front of the sun. Time cant Bend because it doesn’t exist.


It’s just a mystic cult. No different then astrology or witchcraft.

>>16726219 (OP)
He got general relativity wrong, space and time are seperate. They keep using his models and wonder why dark matter pops up despite dark matter not being real, it's just empty space.

He fucked over physics for a few centuries.

>>16726260
I first saw this meme on iFunny in 2013.

>>16727990
Thought we were done namefagging

>>16728052
when a namefag can be easily identified even as an anonymous poster, one should question where that "anonymous" user fucked up.

>>16726737
Who the fuck is nathan? I'm only here to make fun of "time dilation."

>>16728055
lol you guys get so angry when anyone dares to question your messiah your holy never wrong Einstein.


Peter Thiel was right I’m starting to see. The fact you aren’t even allowed to question the science. Shows there’s something seriously wrong with the institution of science.

The hostility must be some sort of projection or defense mechanism. That they know deep down their theories are bullshit.

>>16726509
>if it was a patent
typically scientific theories are not patentable. i mean what kind of fucking retard thinks this in the first place.

so nigger, show me poincare's patent application for his ideas. or schrodingers. lol. lmao even.

>>16726523
>Yes. He has been open about the fact that most of his insights came from working there.
yeah, because he was working a make work fucking job that left him a lot of time to think about shit. not because he was reading super secret megaphysics. fucks sake.

>>16726935
>king of popsci
>popsci
>in the early 20th century
>when the only people who could understand his work were his peers
>and most people only still only had literacy and basic numeracy and the university educated were a tiny fraction of the culture
>and radio was barely even a thing
never change anon

>>16728077
I didn’t know what e = mc2 meant when I was 5 years old but it sure as shit was postered up all over my kindergarten class next to the coexist and lgbt posters

>>16728077
To be fair gravitational waves aren’t really proven. Neither is gravitational lensing.

Blurry images in telescope due to the limitations of optics. See that weird squiggle on this blurry picture. That’s right it’s gravitational lensing.

Space time is bending and objects roll to the bend of space time. Which is how gravity works………. Ok so prove it. Crickets… show me space time is bending. Crickets

In high gravity time slows down. How do you prove this? Does the opposite happen in low gravity? Why has nobody mentioned time in low gravity.


It’s a black hole silly. Nothing can escape this black hole but here’s a picture. Of a red circle.

I hate all of you

>>16728074
>because he was working a make work fucking job that left him a lot of time to think about shit.
Yes and no. He was the technical expert. His job was to understand and analyze the application to make sure it qualifies. Among these responsibilities is to extensively read any existing similar patents to ensure the new application isn't just repackaging a preexisting idea.

His job required a lot of reading and keeping up on innovations in various fields. It wouldn't surprise me to hear he got a lot of his inspiration from reading up on various electromechanical gizmos that used clever concepts.

>>16726219 (OP)
good books about the evolution of aether theories into special relativity? from Mitchelson, Stokes, Lorentz, Fizeau etc to Einstein?

>>16728124
Whittaker's History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity is considered authoritative and comprehensive by both relativists and aetherists.

>G04T2G

>>16726944
>article
It is a single paragraph that supports neither of you two's assertion. wtf are you on about?

>>16729049
You do realize there's a 15 page PDF there...