Einstein gets all credit and glory: Olinto de Pretto had nothing to do with relativity theory

REQUIRED DISCLAIMER:  This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks


I hereby renounce my previous position that Olinto de Pretto, a Northern Italian, had derived the famed formula E=mc2.  It turns out that Albert Einstein indeed deserves all the credit.

Originally I read a book by Umberto Bartocci that claimed de Pretto as a precursor to Einstein.  Yet some years ago I got an Email from Professor Bartocci where he backed off such a claim.  Hence, de Pretto should not get any credit and all credit and glory to Albert Einstein (I always said Einstein was indisputably a super-genius).

My bad.  Einstein is now duly give credit as he always had in the past.

How tall was Enrico Fermi ? About 5 feet 4 inches tall

REQUIRED DISCLAIMER:  This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks

Nobel Prize laureate Enrico Fermi was among the greatest physicists. How tall was he?

In the book, "Remembering Fermi" his friend and scientific collaborator Emilio Segré was quoted as saying, "You know, Fermi is just a little guy." It is observed in the book that Segré was barely 5 feet 7 inches himself.  In photographs of both Segré and Fermi standing together (such photos are easily found on the Internet)  it is readily apparent that Segré stands about 3 inches taller than Fermi. Even accounting for shoes, the height difference is marked. Hence, 5 feet 4 inches tall for Fermi is about right.

Likewise, it is impossible to find a group photo with Fermi in it where Fermi is not the shortest person in the photo.  So, it can be confidently stated that Fermi was only 5 feet 4 inches tall.

In my protected opinion, the descendants of Enrico Fermi should be paid a fortune for nuclear power

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks

I should mind my own business and not fight for justice.  I should turn my head and pretend not to see when confronted with obvious wrong.  I should say, “it’s not my problem” and move on.   I should just accept injustice as the way of the world and not bother.  But that is not in my nature.  I must fight for justice.  I must speak out.  I must do what is right.

The descendants of Enrico Fermi are being cheated out of a fortune. This is wrong. It is unjust.  Am I the only one who sees this?

 (DISCLAIMER: This is not maintenance or champerty or solicitation of litigation; only a question):  

1.) Enrico Fermi literally invented controlled nuclear energy when he made and patented his reactor, on which design all current nuclear reactors are based. Recently discovered and hitherto unknown evidence proves conclusively that Enrico signed away his patent rights (for a paltry $24,000;  book by Emilio Segre, "Enrico Fermi, Physicist") under duress. Since this evidence was unknown until now there can be no laches defense to a claim by his family against the nuclear industry that the patent assignment made by Enrico is invalid since it was made under duress. Nor was he ever given due process since secrecy concerns at the time prevented him from competently defending his patent. 

2.)  Moreover, it is unclear if Fermi ever signed away his rights to the Canadian patent No. 407,559; hence, he preserved his rights to that patent. 

3.)  Also -- what about the rights to the original 1935 Italian patent: patent number 324458.  To my knowledge, those rights were NEVER assigned.  Has the Fermi family been paid for all of those rights?  All of France and half of Europe is run on controlled nuclear energy.  I doubt that the Fermi family has been paid even a fraction of what is owed to them from Europe for the use of their patent. 

So, why is no claim filed by the Fermi family and why is the Fermi family getting nothing while the nuclear industry rakes in billions of dollars on his invention?  Wouldn’t the multi-billion dollar nuclear industry settle with the Fermi family for a mere couple of billions of dollars rather than risk litigation wherein all rights to nuclear energy could devolve to the Fermi family? Am I the only one who thinks the Fermi family is being cheated??? I’m merely asking. Those are my questions; please, somebody explain.

Donald Trump and Nikola Tesla

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks

Reading the Wikipedia article on the life of Nikola Tesla, I read that when Tesla died in room 3327 of The New Yorker Hotel,  the F.B.I confiscated all the papers written by Tesla and had them examined by Professor John G. Trump of M.I.T., the uncle of the GOP Presidential candidate Donald Trump.
Professor John G. Trump announced that the Tesla papers were unimportant and there was nothing of value in them. But was he telling the truth?  Could Professor Trump have been privy to marvelous scientific secrets that he, and the F.B.I., did not want the world to know?  Would this secret knowledge explain the brash self-confidence of Donald Trump since the Trump family might know Tesla's explanation of the universe?  Check out this link: http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_mispapers.html

Other than the U.S., most World War 2 generals were really short

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks

Ever notice how short the generals were in World War 2? Granted, the U.S. had tall generals but all the others were really short. Based on photos, Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery was the same size as Churchill and Churchill was only 5 feet 6 inches.  Based on photos of them standing together, the fearless Soviet general Georgy Zhukov was shorter than Montgomery.  Likewise, the Germans had Erwin Rommel, who was only 5’6” according to his son Manfred, and Field Marshal Walter Model who was noticeably shorter in photos than the Fuehrer who was only 5’8’’.  Wonder why they were all so short?

Donald Trump and the Protestant advantage in Republican primaries

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks

The other day billionaire Donald Trump went out of his way to mention to a crowd in the South that he was a Protestant.  A Presbyterian, to be precise.
  
The Republican party has never nominated a Catholic for President. NEVER. Not for President.

This is not a minor point:  Jeb Bush is a convert to Roman Catholicism and Marco Rubio is a Roman Catholic from birth. Chris Christie is listed in Wikipedia as being Roman Catholic.  George Pataki and Rick Santorum are also listed as Catholic.  Hence, they cannot win the Republican Presidential nomination.

The Republican party has never nominated a Catholic for President.  True, Paul Ryan, a Catholic,  was its VICE-presidential nominee in 2012 but the vice-presidential nomination is hand-selected by the Republican presidential nominee and rubber-stamped by the Republican convention.  Ryan would never have been on the ticket if he had to go through the primary process.  Simply put, a Catholic cannot win the Republican Presidential nomination. It has NEVER happened.  Moreover, no Catholic has ever even come close to winning the REPUBLICAN Presidential nomination.  Even the Mormon Mitt Romney was more acceptable than a Catholic.

The bulk of Republican PRIMARY voters are Protestants.  
These are just facts.  Trump knows this.  Hence, Trump is one of the few WASPs (White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestants) running. 
Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Scott Walker are some of the other WASPs but they are fading fast. 

Dr. Ben Carson is a Protestant (Seventh Day Adventist) but Dr. Carson is no WASP.  

Likewise, Ted Cruz is Protestant but -- like Dr. Carson-- he is no WASP. Also, the obviously Hispanic surname "Cruz" sounds too  Latino and, hence, confusingly "Catholic-sounding."  Again, like Dr. Carson, Ted Cruz is no WASP.

Carly Fiorina was raised Episcopalian and is now a non-denominational Christian, so it is fair to say she is a Protestant.  She certainly is NOT a Catholic.  She does, however, have a very "Latin" sounding name, the italian surname "Fiorina".  Ironically, "Fiorina" is her married name; her maiden name, and the name she was born under, is Sneed.  So she has the same problem that Ted Cruz has: they both have surnames that are very "Latin" sounding and, hence, confusingly "Catholic-sounding."  Also, as a woman, Fiorina is not a White MALE Anglo-Saxon Protestant.  Again, Fiornia's married surname "Fiorina" does not sound Anglo-Saxon and this, along with her gender, will hurt her in getting the nomination. Fiorina will do all right but eventually she will hit the proverbial "glass ceiling."

 The only White Male Anglo-Saxon Protestant with the resources to win the Republican nomination is Trump. Trump knows this.  Ergo, Trump wins the Republican Presidential nomination.

Why Estate Tax is WRONG: "May a man keep his mistress in luxury but not his daughter?"

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks

Evelyn Waugh summed up the absurdity of an estate tax by merely asking, "May a man keep his mistress in luxury but not his daughter?"

Meaning, while you are alive, your money remains your money.  The moment you die, for some strange reason, what was your money suddenly belongs to the government.  While you're alive you can spend your own money as you see fit:  You can spend it on riotous living or you can give it to a TV preacher or  gamble it all away at a casino or spend it on your mistress to keep her in luxury.  But your daughter will not gain the benefit of your fortune when you die because the government suddenly says it is wrong for her to have it since she didn't work for it.

So . . . a man is allowed to keep his mistress in luxury but not his daughter.  The daughter must work (assuming there is any work to be found, which appears more and more unlikely).  

Hence, a man may keep his mistress in luxury but not his daughter.  

• Moreover, the Estate Tax is BOTH immoral and COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE ! The government actually gets MORE money if you eliminate the estate tax. With the estate tax (i.e., "Death Tax") in place, the incentive is to die BROKE. Why give it all to the gov't? Just spend it all on riotous living in your own lifetime! Your heirs get nothing; no business gets built up over time and no extra long-term income to the government. Your mistress will be kept in luxury but not your daughter. Check this link out:  http://www.thestandardleader.com/stephen-moore-right-now-is-the-time-to-kill-estate-tax/5560/
• 
  

HAIR PART THEORY DEBUNKED: Left side hair part for men or right side hair part? Which is better?

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks

Left Part or Right Part [for men]

I’m not saying the argument that there is an advantage in life for “left side” hair part (for men) is necessarily wrong.  There might be something to that theory, although it seems to me that the evidence is mainly anecdotal.

In the spirit of free discussion and open debate, I offer some counter arguments and counter examples to show that the right side part for men may actually be the superior part. 

·      In 1976 Jimmy Carter parted his hair on the right side and won the Presidential election. In 1980, Carter switched hair part sides and was parting his hair on the left side.  The result:  he lost the election in a landslide to Ronald Reagan, who parted his hair on the right.

·      Ronald Reagan, famously parted his hair on the right side.  He won 46 out of 50 states in the 1980 Presidential election (defeating newly left hair-parted incumbent President Jimmy Carter).  In 1984,  right side hair-parter President Reagan won 49 out of 50 states against the left side-parter, Walter Mondale, one of the biggest landslides of all time.  This seems to me to be a powerful counter-example to the “left side hair part is better” theory.

·      In the 2000 Presidential election, Al Gore (right side-parter) lost the election but won popular vote.  The retort is Gore should have even won MORE votes than he did but the right side part cost him votes. Huh?  That’s pure speculation.  What everyone concedes is that Gore, the right side hair part candidate, got more votes than his opponent, George W. Bush, the left side hair part candidate. Anything else is mere speculation.  If you are going to speculate – and you shouldn’t --you could even argue that if Gore were a left side hair parter he would have received much fewer votes. The irrefutable fact is, Gore, the right side hair-parter,  got more votes than George W. Bush, the left side hair-parter. REPEAT:  The right side hair-parter,  got more votes than the left side hair-parter. 

·      Much of what matters with hair part has to do with your face.  In my opinion, men with larger noses might actually look better with the right side part. I note that Bobby Kennedy (right side parter) had a larger nose than his brother, JFK (left side parter).  The right side part drew less attention to Bobby’s large nose. 

·      Right side parters have been very successful:  For example---  Frank Sinatra; Cary Grant; the aforementioned Ronald Reagan; Dean Martin; Bobby Kennedy; Gary Cooper; Paul Newman; Gregory Peck; the late actor Steve McQueen; Warren Beatty;  Matthew Broderick; Dustin Hoffman (e.g., "The Graduate"); Laurence Olivier; Bill Clinton; the poet Robert Frost; Steve Martin; the young Ryan O'Neal; Spencer Tracy; Peter Lawford; Rock Hudson; John Wayne (see"Reap the Wild Wind"); Orson Welles (see Citizen Kane) and Clint Eastwood were all right side parters.  Sometimes Ryan Reynolds sports a right side part. Sometimes, in his early career, Peter O’Toole had a right side part. It didn’t hurt their careers and nobody shunned them.  The argument that you have to be tall and handsome for the right side hair part to work doesn’t follow: see the not unhandsome but definitely not tall John Major (right sider), below. In 2014, Matt Damon was sporting a right side part, and Mr. Damon -- while handsome -- is not particularly tall.  

·      Former British Prime Minister John Major – and right side parter -- did not come from a wealthy background and was said to have lost a job opportunity because he was short of stature.  Nevertheless, despite lack of social status and stature, this right side parter made it all the way “to the top of the greasy pole” (in the phrase of Benjamin Disraeli) and became Prime Minister of Great Britain.  Hardly an example of someone being “shunned.”

·      Depending on one’s degree of baldness, the right side part can do a lot to make you look like you have more hair. I think as a man ages, parting the hair has more to do with which side of his hairline is receding more.  Hence, if the right side hair part covers the baldness better, men choose the right side. In my personal case, I notice that with my right side part, my head is fully covered with hair and it looks like I have a nice, thick head of hair.  This coincides with the theory that “thinning hair” looks the absolute worse;  better to shave your head and go with the completely bald look than walk around with thinning hair.  So, a right side part that makes you look like you have lots of hair is superior to a thinning hair look.  This might explain why Rush Limbaugh used to be a right side parter in his youth.  His hair was thinning and parting it on the right side made him look like he had more hair.  Eventually, he went bald.

      In conclusion, there are too many counter-examples to support the theory of an overall advantage to the left side part.  Perhaps back in the day the left side was considered better in stodgier times but in today's hip, tattoo loving, modern society there may be, if anything, a slight advantage to the right side hair part for men.  The right side parters give off the vibe of being a tad bit more individualistic; more of the "entrepreneurial" mindset; a bit more daring.   

I object to the reposting of my De Pretto book review on websites that I find highly objectionable and which I denounce

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks

As previously posted on this blog, I, Michael Falotico, wrote a book review some years ago about a book which purported to show that Olinto De Pretto was a precursor to the formula E = mc2.  The book was written in the Italian language by a mathematician, Professor Bartocci of Perugia, Italy.  This book was widely reported on by the British press but was rather unknown outside of Great Britain.  Professor Bartocci has since issued a clarification on his book which makes the De Pretto connection to the famous formula more murky.

Sadly, some other websites, of which I have NO CONNECTION and which I DENOUNCE, have re-posted this simple book review and have made comments that I think are, in my view, invidiously prejudicial and highly offensive against Albert Einstein and his ethnic background.

Again, I have NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER to any such website/websites and I object to my review being posted on those websites.  Indeed, I have found such website horrible and highly objectionable.

 For the record, I am a strong supporter of the country of Israel and I admire Albert Einstein enormously.  I merely wanted to cast light on where his ideas may have originated and I was taken with this book. Since the book was written in the Italian language,  I thought that the book should receive more attention among English speaking people.  Albert Einstein had a strong affinity for Italy. He could  read and speak Italian as "The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein" show; Einstein occasionally published reviews of articles he read in Italian physics journals which demonstrate his extraordinary strong command of the Italian language. Indeed, Einstein's father is buried in Milan.  My point was only to review a book by Professor Bartocci that made these Italian connections explicit and possibly shed some light as to the origin of the famous "E=mc2" formula.  Since his book's publication, Professor Bartocci has backed off a bit regarding whether De Pretto can truly be a precursor to Einstein.  Hence, my book review is dated and, perhaps, obsolete, given new information from Professor Bartocci.

What is terrible, terrible, terrible, is that some strange websites, which I abhor, would re-post my simple book review of a fairly obscure Italian book (written in Italian) and make scurrilous comments about Einstein.  I have no connection to such websites.  I find them completely and utterly horrendous.  Sadly, I cannot control what gets re-posted on the Internet and by whom.  Again, I admire the genius Albert Einstein enormously,-- indeed, I am truly in awe -- especially now that new information has come to light from Professor Bartocci demonstrating Einstein's preeminence in physics.
Michael Falotico

Einstein -- the greatest! Professor Bartocci review (plus clarification) of book about Olinto De Pretto

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks

I am Michael Falotico, an attorney.  Years ago I wrote a review of an Italian book by Professor Umberto Bartocci about an early 20^th century Italian physicist, Olinto De Pretto.  In that book it was theorized that De Pretto was a true precursor of Albert Einstein.  The book purported to show that the famous equation “E=mc2” was published by De Pretto first.  The science is complicated and, indeed, over my head.  Yet, it seemed pretty clear that Professor Bartocci was on to something.  Since the first publication of his book, Professor Bartocci has issued a clarification  (in Italian) found here:

http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/st/DEPR-003.htm

In light of this clarification, it can only be safe to say that the precursor status of De Pretto is more murky than originally thought. 

I do believe, however, that considerable more research needs to be done on Albert Einstein and his Italian connections, which are deep.  In this way, light may possibly be shed on where his astonishing ideas originated.

May I also say that I am in no way responsible for the reposting of my review of Professor Bartocci’s book, which has appeared on some website which I disapprove. 

Finally, for the record, there can be no question that Einstein was a brilliant, brilliant man, perhaps the smartest person of all time.  He was also, I believe, the greatest person of the 20^th century and one of the greatest, wisest persons of all time.  I admire him deeply and I am in awe of his genius.  I wrote my review only to encourage further delving into where his fantastic ideas originated.  

 Could Einstein really have done so much? Where did his ideas come from? What did he read? What did his first wife do to help his work, if anything?

I pose the issue, “Is it really possible for one human being to have been this smart?” It seems so staggering that it is understandable one could have doubts.  But as evidence accumulates, these doubts dissipate.