[boringuser2]

If you want to talk about contributions to the general theory of relativity, why not talk about the people that Einstein is alleged to have plagiarized, Henri Poincaré, David Hilbert and Hendrik Antoon Lorentz?

[pnin]

Neither Poincare nor Lorentz are relevant to the genesis of General Relativity. The only relevant priority dispute is whether Einstein or Hilbert wrote down the correct field equations first. This was after a long correspondence between the two, in which Einstein explained his ideas -- there is no dispute that Einstein "invented" General Relativity. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity_priority_di...

[BenoitP]

> Neither Poincare nor Lorentz are relevant to the genesis of General Relativity

Well, that's just plain wrong. From the horse's mouth:

> As we know, this is connected with the relativity of the concepts of "simultaneity" and "shape of moving bodies." To fill this gap, I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether, and which, like the principle of relativity, contains a physical assumption that seemed to be justified only by the relevant experiments

More from here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute

[simpletone]

> there is no dispute that Einstein "invented" General Relativity.

Just like there is no dispute Newton invented calculus, gutenburg invented the printing press or columbus discovered the americas...

[BenoitP]

Plagiarized is too strong of a word. Poincaré too based his work on Lorentz's. And both with Einstein he sort of derived E = m c * 2, independently and earlier. But Einstein's publication was more complete.

Science is not totally ordered, the same invention can occur at two different places from the same shoulders of the same giant. Science is just partially ordered.

[boringuser2]

The problem is when the "ordering" of science is horizontal.

I.e. Einstein reading their works and copying their conclusions.

This is highly likely to have happened, regardless of the "completeness" of one work or another.

The thing I like about this is that it levels celebrity (something man-made) with rationality.

Why not reduce Einstein's celebrity? It reflects reality more accurately to do so.

[pvg]

Because the author wanted to talk about Grossman? It's odd to criticize a piece for covering its chosen topic.

[boringuser2]

Right, it's not so much a critique of the author's work that I've presented as much as a meta-commentary on the article in the context that we're posting on a forum that aggregates content for public consumption.

The author is fine, he can publish whatever he pleases. I can't stop him, as you've pointed out.

From a meta-commentary perspective, it is actually quite interesting that Einstein's alleged plagiarism covers many diverse sources.

[codethief]

What exactly do you think Einstein plagiarized?

[BenoitP]

Relativity was ripe for discovery. And a lot of other scientists came very close:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute

But that's just how science work, and no ill will would have been employed by any participant; just as their fanclub want to pit them against one another.

[optimalsolver]

Relevant username.

[boringuser2]

I don't think anything, im referring to allegations.

[fngjdflmdflg]

You are thinking of specific relativity. He didn't plagiarize the theory of specific relativity either because nobody had suggested it. Poincaré's idea of relativity relied on the existence of a Luminiferous aether which was disproved in the early 20th century.

[fngjdflmdflg]

*Special relativity

[pdonis]

Who made these allegations of plagiarism? Do you have any references?