In post 8 I was JOKING! I would never violate the sanctity of a science class with something so vile.

Lula, did you actually read the Guardian article?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/nov/11/rorycarroll

"De Pretto had stumbled on the equation, but not the theory of relativity, while speculating about ether in the life of the universe, said Prof Bartocci. It was republished in 1904 by Veneto's Royal Science Institute, but the equation's significance was not understood."

You seem to confuse here the formula e=mc^2 with the Theory of Special Relativity. Einstein was never celebrated for "discovering" the formula e=mc^2 but for formulating (not "discovering" either) a theory from which this formula could be derived.

The problem with non-scientists is always that they imagine science the wrong way around. It's not about inventing formulas, it's about showing how relevant they are.

The "equation's significance was not understood" indeed, because De Pretto had no theory to explain its significance. An informed guess to get a right formula is a scientific achievement, but it's not as relevant and complete as a theory. (I do know that you have difficulty understand that a "theory" is in the scientific sense.)

Here are a few more people who are confused about the significance of the formula:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t785268/

They also believe that it was Einstein's "discovery" of the formula e=mc^2 that was his achievement. It wasn't.

Here is a short discussion about science and how journalists understand it:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=11135

Notice the hint that the important part is not finding the formula but finding out how to derive it.

It would also help, Lula, if you read the original article. The idea that ethnicity is significant in science was not mine, as you claim, but the National Survey of Student Engagement's.

That ethnicity is significant in science may well be the National Survey of Student Engagement's idea, but I said what I said based on your #5 and #6 remarks....that ethnicity is significant in science "makes sense" and "we have a Jewish theory of relativity." [/quote]

 I have not confused anything. I said in my #7 comment that "One of the biggest myths surrounding Einstein is that he was the inventor of E=mc2. But there are other scientists (Lorentz, Gibbs, Poincare, Hilbert and Boltzmann) who had either developed or employed the formula prior to Einstein."

C'mon?  Einstein is most certainly celebrated for "discovering" the formula.

One after another Google search entries support the myth that Einstein established E=mc2.

E = MC2
Albert Einstein developed a theory about the relationship of mass and energy. The formula, E=mc[2], is probably the most famous outcome from Einstein's special theory of relativity.

Why is the equation E=mc² significant?

The famous equation E=mc² was established in 1905 by German-born physicist Albert Einstein (1879–1955). (A physicist is a scientist specializing in the interaction between matter and energy.) The equation is significant because it contributed to the development of nuclear energy and the atomic bomb. In the formula E stands for energy, m stands for mass, and c2 is a symbol called a constant factor, in which c stands for the speed of light and 2 means squared (the factor, or number, is multiplied by itself). This equation illustrates the relationship between energy and matter, as well as their exchangeability. In the 1930s scientists used Einstein's formula and discovered that when the atom is split, part of the atom is transformed into particles but that some is also converted into energy.

I simply disagree with your claim that we have a Jewish theory of relativity based on the fact that Einstein's work isn't entirely original but rather contains the formulas and principles of many others.

.....................................

I did and on the idea that ethnicity is significant in science, I agree with Taltimer who describes it as "nonsense" and with BoobzTwo when she writes: