Comments on: Exploring Einstein: Life of a Genius

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 05:19:00 +0000

@Vlatko bbc copyright error

By: Robby Baker

Robby Baker — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 20:56:00 +0000

Don’t disagree with Einstein just to make yourself feel smart. Einstein’s theories were accepted because all of the scientific minds at the time tested and failed to disprove Einstein. They weren’t ramblings of a mad man. That was proven when he was right about the eclipse. He also theorized the Einstein-Bose condensate which has been created about 70 years after he “theorized” it and guess what? He was RIGHT.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 06:03:00 +0000

i think it is disappointing when the film makers obviously had access to some rare early footage and to some close collaborators intermingled with various bits of bowie talking as well that they still managed to skim over the actual content of most of his work and equally make some serious omissions along the way ‘the man who sold the world’ for example except to say ‘here bowie wore a dress on his next album cover…’ there was no attention payed to any of the live albums or infact the ‘heroes tour…’ at times there was a mish-mashing and compression of chronological information and album releases… ‘lodger’ also got lost in there -as his end piece to the ‘berlin trilogy’ of 70′s albums that he made with brian eno- i dont think we need another puff piece about bowie i think there is a real opportunity now for an exploratory documentary of a massive body of work and the creator at the centre of that… this film made me at least imagine with my square eyes ‘what if…’ what if a great documentary filmmaker historian did an in depth study of our alien father as he stood through the second half of the 20th century and beyond… what if they had the budget and the person to make a hbo or a pbs 6 part series – now see how square my eyes are… it seems apparent to me that as early on as the name change to bowie and the release of ‘space oddity’ we have this integral questioning of the construct of self and the identity of character whether thats in this song or one about dylan or warhol or himself or a myriad of invented characters along the way who become fuel for the flame… i am of the school of thought that says bowie disappeared after the release of 1980′s ‘scary monsters’ album and didnt start to reemerge again until the release of -his wedding album- ‘black tie white noise’ and then fully came back into being with his character explorations and miniature plays on the album ‘outside’ and since then ‘earthling’ ‘heathen’ and ‘hours’ all hold good qualities… i think that ‘reality’ wanes as another attempt to launch a world tour and audience though… i am ever hopeful after all this time -the years are mounting- that there may be another good recording to come…

By: norlavine

norlavine — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 03:45:00 +0000

I agree James, well said !

By: de22lano

de22lano — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 04:29:00 +0000

with spacephotoshop

By: Abhisek Sinha

Abhisek Sinha — Sat, 21 May 2011 14:09:00 +0000

if space time can bent, how can i make a 3D picture of the space-time??

By: Jarrod Riggs

Jarrod Riggs — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:25:00 +0000

Denis is correct, Lights bends around the space time continuum. and because we all observe life within this continuum we are limited by our own perception.

By: Denis Rono

Denis Rono — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:19:00 +0000

but light bends into the curvature of space. that’s why black holes are black, they suck all the light into themselves (or rather bend all the light into themselves)

By: Warren Clyde

Warren Clyde — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 21:38:00 +0000

just a thought, If the suns mass in space is causing a sort of dent of whcih all planets now are in its gravitational pull.
wouldnt are view of the sun be obstructed even slightly?on top of the dent in space provoed by the sun, what about the dent provided by the other plaets earth included, if we are like a pond that ripples when a stone is thrown, the views of all the planets and the sun should in fact be obstrucuted.

By: James

James — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 03:30:47 +0000

“The kinetic energy increment could increase the mass only if it were actually converted to mass by some appropriate process, and in that event it would cease to be kinetic energy; that is, the corresponding velocity would no longer exist. Actually this hypothesis of Einstein’s is inconsistent with his concept of the conversion of mass into energy, regardless of the point of view from which the question is approached. Mass cannot be a by-product of kinetic energy and also an entity that can be converted into kinetic energy; the two concepts are mutually exclusive…
This hypothesis was formulated as a means of accounting for the otherwise unexplained decrease in acceleration at very high velocities (in particle accelerators), but in the system now being developed from the Fundamental Postulates this phenomenon is found to be due to the vanishing of (the electro-magnetic) force as velocity approaches unity, rather than to any variation in mass”. (The Structure of the Physical Universe, Chapter XXXII)
“In astronomy the currently accepted ideas are almost completely wrong, because of the strangely unquestioning acquiescence in Einstein’s assumption that the experimentally observed decrease in acceleration at high speeds is due to an increase in mass, and that speeds in excess of that of light are therefore impossible.
…As has been demonstrated in the course of the development of the theory of the universe of motion (The Reciprocal System of Theory), the speed of light is a limit applying only to one-dimensional motion in space, and there are vast regions of the universe in which motion takes place in time, or in multi-dimensional space. Most of these are inaccessible to (sensory) observation from our position in the universe, but some of the entities and phenomena of these regions do have observable effects on the material sector (Pulsars and Quasars), the sector in which we make our observations”. (The Universe of Motion, Chapter 10, )

By: James

James — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 03:29:12 +0000

Tesla statement on Einsteins theory:
“Stating that the Einstein theory is erroneous in many respects, Dr. Tesla stated as early as 1900, in his patent 787,412, that the current of his transmitter passed over the surface of the Earth with a speed of 292,830 miles a second. According to Einstein the highest possible speed is 186,300 miles a second.
Tesla indicated knowledge of speeds several times greater than light and had apparatus designed to project so-called electrons with a speed equal to twice that of light.
Tesla disagreed with the part of the Einstein theory which states that the mass of an object increases with it’s speed. The mass of a body is unalterable, contended Dr. Tesla, according to the article, ‘otherwise energy could be produced from nothing, since kinetic energy acquired in the fall of a body would be greater than that necessary to lift it a small velocity’.” (The Literary Digest, November 7th, 1931)

“Mass and Energy differ only in dimensions; that is, energy is the reciprocal of one-dimensional velocity while mass is the reciprocal of three-dimensional velocity. This mass-energy relation does not mean that a quantity of energy always has a certain mass associated with it; on the contrary it indicates that reciprocal velocity exists either as mass or as absolute momentum, or as absolute energy, depending on the effective dimensions, not as all three or any two simultaneously. Mass is equivalent to energy only when and if it is transformed from the one condition to the other and the mass-energy equation merely gives the (theoretical) mathematical equivalents in the event of such a conversion.
In other words, an existing quantity of energy does not correspond to any existing mass but to the mass that would exist if the energy were actually converted into mass. For these reasons Einstein’s hypothesis of an increase in mass accompanying increased velocity cannot be accepted”. (The Structure of the Physical Universe, Chapter XXXII)
Tesla also debased einstein’s notion of an “increase of mass” due to acceleration in the following statement: “The kinetic and potential energy of a body is the result of motion and determined by the product of it’s mass and the square of it’s velocity. Let the mass be reduced and the energy is diminished by the same properties. If it be reduced to zero, the energy is likewise zero for any finite velocity.” (New York Sun, July 12th, 1937)

By: James

James — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:06:00 +0000

1878 – James Maxwell in Scotland publishes Special Theory of Relativity in Encyclopedia Britannica which Einstein publishes as his own in 1905 without citing Maxwell
1888- Heinrich Hertz publishes his paper on the photoelectric effect, a paper which Einstein failed to cite
1898- Poincare in France wrote the paper on the theory of relativity, which never mentions Einstein, which Einstein plagiarized as one of his 1905 papers without citing Poincare
1900- Max Planck and Wilhelm Wien of Germany develop the quantum theory which Einstein plagiarized as his “Light Quantum” paper in 1905, citing neither Planck nor Wien
1903 – Olinto de Pretto publishes E=mc^2 in Atte, a scientific magazine known to be read by Einstein, which he later claimed as his own work and which he failed to cite
1904- Friedrich Hasenohrl of Germany, citing J.J. Thomson of England and W. Kaufmann of Sweden, publishes E=mc^2 in same journal as Einstein plagiarizes as his own in 1905, failing to cite any of the three
1905-Philipp Eduard Anton von Lenard, whom Einstein’s wife studied under, received a Nobel Prize for discovering the photo-electric effect, which Einstein plagiarizes the SAME year has “his” paper, with no reference to Lenard

By: Nappinnai NC

Nappinnai NC — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 01:45:58 +0000

@NotSoFastMrJew

You show ignorance openly wrt Einsteins works. If you haven’t had any basic Physics, don’t even open your mouth. First of all Einstein was not given Nobel Price for Relativity Theory for which he should have won definitely. He was awarded Nobel Prize for his work on Quantum which was experimentally verified. On top of of stupidity, 1/2 that prize money went as alimony and the remaining half as charity. Nothing is too late to start learning.

If one reads Mileva, her brain is nowhere near Einstein’s. Trajedy is all non-Physics guys are commenting on Einstein as if they are experts in Physics/Mathematics. The man behind Einstein’s Mathematics was Marcel Grossmann. Einstein wasn’t an expert in Math although ppl those days considered him as a Mathematician! So, he asked for a Mathematician who could help him convert his physical ideas into Math. This help is only true wrt his General relativity theory.

What’s your degree? Go and get some education. Pray God gives you some brain…and stop writing nonsense.
As a general remark Einstein didn’t agree with the conceptual ideas on which QM was based. Any scientific theory can be disproved by some other scientist after couple of yrs or decades or centuries. That’s why its called ‘research’.

By: NotSoFastMrJew

NotSoFastMrJew — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 02:39:48 +0000

Close, no cigar. The REAL title of the book is The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein. I guess I got a little dyslexic with the title.

By: Epicurean_Logic

Epicurean_Logic — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:38:09 +0000

First it was Archimides wife (dumb joke) now your telling me that Einsteins 1st wife Mileva Maric was the brains of the operation!! Next you will be telling me that the queen of England is a woman, ah, well, you know…

It’s really dissapointing to find out that Einstein was a mysogynist and horrible to Mileva. I have only read excerts as i can’t find the free pdf.

can anyone link us to the free copy of ‘The unexpected Einstein: The real man behind the icon’ by Denis Bryan?