COSMOS magazine

Get COSMOS Teacher's Notes
  • Add this story to stumbleupon
  • Add this story to Yahoo Buzz
  • Add this story to Digg
  • Add this story to reddit
  • Add this story to Slashdot
  • Add this story to newsvine
  • Add this story to facebook
  • Add this story to technorati
  • Add this story to del-icio-us
  • Add this story to furl

Feature - print

Was Einstein a fake?


There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein a fake?


Single page print view

Was Einstein a fake?

If you're tired of hearing about 'Intelligent design' creationists and the court wars against Darwin's theory in the U.S., you might be surprised to learn that another pillar of modern science, Einstein and his Theory of Relativity, is under attack.

A burgeoning underground of 'dissident' scientists and self-described experts publish their theories in newsletters and blogs on the Net, exchanging ideas in a great battle against 'the temple of relativity'. According to these critics, relativity is not only wrong, it's an affront to common sense, and its creator, Albert Einstein, was no less than a cheat.

A quick glance at anti-relativity proponents and their publications reveals a plethora of alternative theories about how the universe really works – very few of them in agreement with each other. But despite their many differences, common themes among these self-described iconoclasts do emerge: resentment of academic 'elites', suspicion of the entire peer-review process in mainstream scientific journals and a deep-seated paranoia about the extent of government involvement in scientific projects.

An aethro-kinematics website (www.aethro-kinematics.com) claims to refute relativity by resurrecting René Descartes' theory that the Earth and all the planets are carried around the Sun by an "Aether vortex". Another site points to the work of one Stefan Marinov, a self-described dissident, who apparently threatened to immolate himself in front of the British Embassy in Vienna, Austria, because he was so incensed by the refusal of the respected journal Nature to publish his 'proofs' against relativity.

This is just a taste. A visit to Google reveals the extent of the phenomenon. Is this a new front in the war on science? Can we expect a new Discovery Institute, armed with millions of dollars from eccentric fundamentalists, spoiling for a rematch in school boards across the U.S. — this time attacking Einstein and not Darwin?

Hopefully not, according to Bryan Gaensler, a professor of physics at the University of Sydney. "The anti-relativity cranks are not nearly as well-organised as the creationists. Probably none of them would get along well enough to form a serious threat to science."

Having said that, he adds, "there has just begun a new series of conferences, held by anti-relativity cranks, called 'Crisis in Cosmology'. I think the first one was held in Spain and they're planning another. It looks exactly like a legitimate scientific conference, with the difference that everyone delivering a talk there is insane."

The conference planners sent out invitations to Gaensler and hundreds of other physicists. "Before registering," he says, "you had to fill out this 10-point, bulleted manifesto, agreeing to all sorts of propositions from the start. For example, 'I do not accept that the universe is expanding', and so on, the kind of thing you would never see at a real scientific conference. It was hilarious."

The anti-relativity movement got underway as soon as Einstein's first paper on special relativity was published, in 1905. Some scientists disputed its assertion that the old Newtonian concepts of absolute space and time — which had never been scientifically established — were superfluous. Indeed, the attempt to restore these concepts to mainstream physics has been the essential foundation of almost every crank theory since.

Even more enraging to some scientists and engineers was the worldwide fame Einstein attained with the 1916 publication of his General Theory of Relativity, which extended special relativity and offered a radically new explanation for gravity.

A number of Germans, many of them anti-Semites, despised Einstein's socialist views and envied his fame. Outside Germany, however, Einstein's theory also met resistance. Albert Michelson, famous as the American who devised the failed Michelson-Morley experiment to detect aether, the invisible medium that 19th century scientists supposed responsible for the propagation of light waves through space, never accepted relativity and he politely admitted this to Einstein when they met.

Like many physicists and astronomers, Gaensler routinely hears from individuals claiming to have proven Einstein's theory false. "I have a boxload of material from cranks," he says, "but currently it's in storage aboard a ship somewhere between the U.S. and Sydney." A native Australian, Gaensler has just completed an eight-year stint in Boston, teaching at Harvard University and conducting research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics.

"But there is a pattern," he says. "They're always male — never female. Normally professionals of some kind, doctors, pilots, engineers. And they're always retired and have years to spend on their pet theory.

"Whenever the observatory sends out a press release, they read it and send out mass-mailings to every scientist listed as having anything to do with the event."

Readers' comments

How right you are

Agreed - the editors just created a provocative headline. It's clear that they and the author do not think Einstein was a fake.

But all of the anti-Einstein nuts see it as a clarion call to come to this site and purloin their half-baked weirdo claptrap. It's like they haven't read the article at all; can't they see themselves in the characters being discussed?

Because 'kooks' is subjective

"The distance between insanity and genius is measured only by success." - Bruce Feirstein

After all, if Einstein's theory had been proven wrong, we'd all still hold to Newtonian worldview and Einstein would be synonymous with well-meaning-kook.

Who knows how many other 'moronic pseudo-scientific theories' out there will some day be proven correct? It took millenia for Copernicus and Galileo to finally settle the geocentric-heliocentric debate which was started by the Ancient Greeks (or earlier).

@Provoking article

I don't give any credibility to this poorly written paper. It is too sensational, uninformative and highly flawed. The ideal ingredients for a SR fanatic.

EINSTEIN WAS NO FAKE!! ( ( E=MC2 ) )

To say that one of the greatest minds in earth history was a fake, is like saying there is no God.

The problem with today's towering academics is that not all the evidence is taken into account. This great knowledge that is acquired by man has blinded us to other points of views.

"That's religion, so it must be fiction. After all, it holds no bearings in the scientific realm!"

But WHAT IF everyone got it wrong??

That is, what if we're all partly right?

If we could inter-marry all these different points-of-views, beliefs and opinions -- maybe, just maybe -- we could step closer to unlocking the mysteries of the universe!

Let's not also ignore the facts either. Take Darwin's so-called theory of evolution. The man himself -- before his death -- admitted that he was WRONG...

Even scientists agree that creation itself (the Universe) is perfectly held in balance. Any degrees off, by the slightest hint, and everything goes KAPUT!!

There has to be the acknowledment of A GREATER VOICE, otherwise we're just fooling ourselves into believing life originated out of nothing -- without A GREAT ENGINEER at work.

Einstein, just like any other great mind, could not have been 100% correct all of the time. After all, he was only human.

We could sit here debating back and forth, but the truth of it all -- and history will back me up -- is that Robert Einstein was not only a visionary (a man ahead of his time), but he was truly a man of courage (a revolutionary) to go against the norm, the status quo.

E=MC2 -- still the coolest equation in God's green earth!!

The other Einstein!

Most interesting view of science. Unsubstantiated comments, when listed one after the other, clearly create a new truth that scientific minds have over-looked, and like a politician might make his case "I say it is so, so it must be so". But then all becomes clear - it was Robert, not Albert.

Einstein

Einstein was in fact wrong about E=M*c^2 and several other things but it will take 10-20 years before anyone will recognize it officially.

Still eh was brilliant but he is not the kind of saint everybdy thinks. Look at quantum aether theory and you will see the new future that is our next scientific revolution.

Let´s face it, for 100 years noone managed to unify Einstein and Bohr, clue, they were both partly wrong...

The Unified Theory is Found(ed)

It's no idéa to argue against Einstein's fictions.

I have by observations and experiments discovered the basic wave-displacement phenomenon that is misinterpreted as quanta or photon by Planck and as Doppler velocity by Hubble.

Derivations show that a new entropy law explains the connection between hydrodynamics and electrodynamics and air-dynamics.

So, there is no reality behind the quantum- or relativity hypotheses or Big Bang.

I have found(ed) an understandable and sound strong theory that is simple and self-consistent and that solves all the problem in physics since 100 years.

Ingvar, Sweden

Well, you just knew sooner

Well, you just knew sooner or later someone was going to show up promoting hydrodynamics etc. at some point in this thread...

:)

Einstein and god

The analogy comparing the stating of one's disbelief in Einstein's theories to saying there is no god is pretty hilarious especially in the light of Einstein's Agnosticism.
He (Einstein) made a point of keeping his disbelief away from an ignorant public.
Things haven't changed much, as your comparison indicates.
There is no place for "god" in science. Science requires EVIDENCE for it to work and so far I haven't seen or heard of, any evidence to convince me of god's existence.
Science is based on "facts" and religion is based on "faith" so let's not confuse the two, eh?
Emile, you're a fence sitter which is more dangerous than fundamentalism, please make up your mind.
Of course we can wonder,... but there's a vast difference between wondering and stating that it "MUST" be.
Science doesn't need the support of dullards who believe in things that don't exist!

Was Einstein a fake?

Anything published and "worthy of reading" has to go through a certain peer review channel (see article).

If this is the case, then how would it be possible to publish original and alterntive insights to Einstein's Theory of Relativity in such Journals, if those reviewing the submission have invested so much time and effort in defending it?

Certainly I am not capable of launching any critique or appraisal of Einstin's work. But it irks me that so many scientists think any theory that has not been tweaked and tempered by their lovely hands, and printed in their lovely Journals, is crack-pot.

Thomas Kuhn's remarks are suitable here: generally, scientists are merely mopping up the loose ends of a paradigmatic shift left behind by a revolutionary.

97% of all Journal submissions are rejected.

Science is a closed shop.