[garygreen]

Einstein has a ton of work that is not cited.

then it sounds like no one was particularly impressed with those papers.  is there a point to all the goalpost moving?

Take out the co-authored papers and we find that much of Einstein's individual work was not cited.

what difference does a co-author make?  nearly all scientific papers (esp physics) have co-authors.

also einstein has 14 papers with 100+ citations as the sole author.  that's outrageous.  that's like 10 sigma production.  he's got to be one of the most cited names in physics.

Anything not cited is invalid, right?

no, what i said was, "to say that it's endorsed by the scientific community is really not accurate."  and it's not.  citations are pretty much a direct measure of "how much does the scientific community care about this reference."

[stack]

I'm not sure how far back Google Scholar goes, but here's your guy, 0 citations:



Einstein, a partial list:



In any case, EurekaAlert publishes press release submissions that meet their guidelines, e.g., referencing an underlying peer reviewed published paper. Along with a check for $335.

Have you actually read the paper or are you just smitten with the press release title and abstract?

[Tom Bishop]

Einstein has a ton of work that is not cited.

then it sounds like no one was particularly impressed with those papers.  is there a point to all the goalpost moving?

Take out the co-authored papers and we find that much of Einstein's individual work was not cited.

what difference does a co-author make?  nearly all scientific papers (esp physics) have co-authors.

Moving goalposts? Those are the arguments in quora link: If we take out the co-authored papers we find that much of what Einstein published is not cited.

And therefore, according to you, much of Einstein's work has been rejected by the scientific community. There are no other reasons for a paper to go uncited.

[garygreen]

actually what you said was

According to this guy, Einstein was not cited.

then you quoted some guy who says:

I just had a geek look into this for me. Papers written by Einstein [not co-authored] have been cited ZERO TIMES in the past century.

Papers written by other authors hypothesizing on Einstein’s work have been cited 189,132 times. No one has read his original papers. The above authors [over the entire past century] do not cite Einstein’s original papers.

but however you want to modify that statement, it's outrageously false.  he has 14 papers with 100+ citations as the solo author.  those are crazy numbers.  he's one of the most cited figures in physics, even if you throw out his papers with co-authors.

and again, what different does having a co-author make? 

[Tom Bishop]

The title of the quora link says "most", not "all".

Clearly, people only really cared when Einstein was making up illusions for why the earth seemed to be horizontally motionless and for why the earth seemed to be accelerating upwards. Einstein pushed the party line and solved some mysteries to keep the model alive.

Maybe if this NAC Society guy was pushing the party line and making up some illusions helpful for the model he would get some citation as well. The number of citations clearly has nothing to do with the validity of a work, as exampled by much of Einstein's work going uncited.

[Tom Bishop]

The work makes similar statements about the Fizeau experiment that other journals make.

NAC: "the corrected calculation of Fizeau experiment based on Newton's velocity addition formula is much closer to the experimental measurement than the result calculated based on the relativistic velocity addition formula."

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/optical-fizeau-experiment-with-moving-water-is-explained-withoutfresnels-hypothesis-and-contradicts-special-relativity-2090-0902-1000207.php?aid=86879

Abstract: "Fizeau experiment actually proves not partial, as the special relativity asserts, but complete dragging of the light by moving medium. The decrease of the fringe shift in the Fizeau's two-beam interferometer is explained not with wrong Fresnel's aether drag hypothesis but with the phase deviations arising in the interfering beams because of Doppler shift of the frequencies. Fizeau experiment does not prove but, on the contrary, refutes Einstein's theory of relativity."

[Rama Set]

The title of the quora link says "most", not "all".

Clearly, people only really cared when Einstein was making up illusions for why the earth seemed to be horizontally motionless and for why the earth seemed to be accelerating upwards. Einstein pushed the party line and solved some mysteries to keep the model alive.

Maybe if this NAC Society guy was pushing the party line and making up some illusions helpful for the model he would get some citation as well. The number of citations clearly has nothing to do with the validity of a work, as exampled by much of Einstein's work going uncited.

You know Einstein’s did a bunch of work on Quantum Mechanics that was poorly regarded and seen as him trying to validate his biases? This isn’t news and has nothing to do with his highly regarded work on Relativity. One person is capable of succeeding and failing in their field within their lifetime. We are seeing it now with a Stephen Hawking; his papers are not met with much acclaim anymore despite his extremely important work on unifying cosmology and quantum mechanics.

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

You know Einstein’s did a bunch of work on Quantum Mechanics that was poorly regarded and seen as him trying to validate his biases?

Didn't he get a Nobel prize for his QM work though? Or are you referring to more obscure work?

[Rama Set]

You know Einstein’s did a bunch of work on Quantum Mechanics that was poorly regarded and seen as him trying to validate his biases?

Didn't he get a Nobel prize for his QM work though? Or are you referring to more obscure work?

I was thinking of his work on finding a unified theory.