Talk:Olinto De Pretto

Untitled

Olinto de Tretto did not find mass-energy equivalence in his 1903 paper. At least this is certainly not accepted by mainstream science. Support for this idea comes from Bartocci and some extremist groups. See Talk:Albert Einstein Wricardoh 22:06 5 dic 2004.

Fastfission: The Henri Poincare connection to e=mc^2 is on the Henri Poincare page. Why did you remove it? Saying this does not make it anti-Einstein. User:MarcAurel 28 jan 2006.

The mass-energy equivalence is explicitly stated in that paper, and thus not open for "interpretation". Different is the claim that that paper contains that exact equation: I did not find it. Harald88 20:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. Mass-energy equivalence in a very broad sense was very common in late-19th century physics (not surprisingly, given the many connections between the two implied by work in thermodynamics), so it is not very surprising that this fellow seems to have come up with something similar (there is a brief discussion of this in Chapter 1, "Fin-de-Siècle Physics: A World Picture in Flux" of Helge Kragh, Quantum Generations: A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century, Princeton University Press, 1999). (Even Poincaré's discussions of this seem to be in the context of Gustave Le Bon, from what I understand, which is still pretty far from what we now consider the import of E=mc^2). --Fastfission 22:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

questionable addition

The following was added to the article: At the same time that the Nobel Committee was considering Albert Einstein for the Prize in physics, Olinto de Pretto --the true discoverer of the most famous formula in history, e = mc (squared)-- was preparing for publication his collected papers. Then suddenly, in what was reported as a "business dispute", a woman shot de Pretto to death, so securing for many years the fraudulent basis of the reputation of Earth's most heavily promoted Jewish scientist. Mystery lovers may wish to compare the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln in 1865 WRT Judah P.Benjamin; of Senator Huey P.Long by Carl Weiss MD in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in 1935; of British High Commissioner for the Middle East, Lord Moyne in Cairo in 1944; of United Nations Chief Negotiator for Palestine, Count Folke Bernadotte, in Jerusalem in 1948; of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 WRT his attempted inspection of the secret Israeli A-bomb factory @ Dimona the previous Spring; of Princess Diana in Paris in 1999 and of Senator Paul Wellstone in Minnesota in 2002. I believe that this highly relevant observation on the tragic fate of Olinto de Pretto will turn out to be a mere Wikipedia blip, like a cosmic ray in a cloud chamber. Hence I am copying it for republication elsewhere.

- no publication of De Pretto is known in which e = mc (squared) appears.

- the above contribution obviously belongs to an anti-Jewish hate campaign as well as conspiracy theory and probably WP:OR; it's therefore in this form not suited for Wikipedia. Harald88 21:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Umberto Bartocci's claims peer reviewed?

It has been seven years now since Bartocci made his claims. Has he published them yet in a peer-reviewed source? If not, I think this is worth mentioning. --Fastfission 14:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 10:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Precise" Formula?

The article erroneously says that DePretto found the "precise" formula" E=mc². This is not correct, as it was even admitted by Bartocci [1] (sec. 3.4) himself (see also the German version). In fact, DePretto's formula "mv²" was simply a re-arrangement of the formula ½mv² for "vis viva" (=kinetic energy). DePretto calculated the energy of a body by using the formula ${\tfrac {mv^{2}}{8338}}$ in calories - however, since the Mechanical equivalent of heat is only 'half of this value (4186,05 - DePretto's value is evidently 4169) - the formula actually used by DePretto is:

${\frac {1}{2}}{\frac {mv^{2}}{4169}}={\frac {mv^{2}}{8338}},$

I included the new section and deleted the remarks "the first" and "precise formula". --D.H (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Why did you revert potential energy back from kinetic energy?-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 11:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, in 19th century, there were many attempts to explain "potential energy" as a manifestation of some sort of kinetic aether energy. (In fact, DePretto used the word "latent energy" which was translated above as potential energy.)--D.H (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is Albert Einstein credited with deriving the precise formula E=mc2?

Why? 184.96.236.214 (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it is explained in the article in subsection Olinto_De_Pretto#½mv² versus mc² and in Mass–energy equivalence#History, and in the various references you will find overthere. - DVdm (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Claims about De Pretto deriving E=mc^2

This article seems to have fallen victim to typical "Einstein-Conspiracy-Theorists" as lurk around on the internet. I have for now only corrected the first paragraph, i.e. made it clear that those are only claims by few and not proven facts. The subsequent paragraphs, especially the section about his contribution to physics and E-M-Equivalence, will need further attention. However, I don't suggest removing all references to the controversy, since this is in fact something worth knowing when one looks up De Pretto. The given references (i.e. one book which endorses many conspiracy theories in physics about Big-Bang and Relativity, of course non-peer-reviewed. The author, Al Kelly, is a "Power Station Shift Charge Engineer, Design Engineer and Regional Manager". Not an Expert by all means.) are not suitable to support the claims made, certainly not in wikipedia. Wikipedia must take a stance that is accepted by the majority of historians and scientists, and mustn't be abused to propagate personal leanings. DerManu (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that "Wikipedia must take a stance that is accepted by the majority of historians and scientists", because the majority can be wrong. But the information on Wikipedia should reliably verifiable. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)