Some comments on "Inviting Women to Physics and Engineering", by M. C. Sequeira and J. D. Baptista.

http://tinyurl.com/e4op2 Page 10: I shall slip quickly past the comment about Einstein and Mileva discussing "in great detail the work of Lenard, Hertz, Drude, Boltmann, Kirchhoff and Planck", as this evidently originates from Bjerknes, a paragraph from which the authors quote. Bjerknes is clearly an eccentric whose claims about the Einstein/Maric controversy don't bear examination. (See my earlier posting). p. 11. The claims by the Serbian scholar Dard Krstic cited here can similarly be disregarded, despite the authors' referring to his "insights". Apparently he credits Mileva "with having formulated the Special Theory of Relativity as well as other ideas now commonly attributed to Einstein." Now I know Mileva was a Serb, but this is nationalist fervour taken to extremes. Presumably basing themselves on Krstic, the authors write: "Einstein tells his friends that his wife did his math for him." (Evidently they don't appreciate Einstein's little jokes.) They continue: When one realises the highly mathematical aspects of the 1905 Special Relativity paper, which relies heavily on derivations of the Lorentz transformations, then one can see the importance of having a first-rate mathematician's help." I don't know whether to laugh or cry over that last wonderful sentence. Doesn't it sound impressive "derivations of the Lorentz transformations"? I have in front of me Einstein's own book *Relativity: The Special and General Theory*, first published in 1920. It confirms, as I've already reported from my own experience of studying relativity theory at university, that there is nothing in Special Relativity as derived by Einstein that goes beyond high school algebra, and that includes the Lorentz transformations. As for the mathematically talented Einstein requiring "first rate mathematician's help" from the mediocre mathematician Mileva, we really are back in fantasy land. There follows the by-now inevitable (and manifestly false) assertion that Joffe is quoted "as having seen the original 1905 manuscript", and the supposed significance of Einstein's promising the Nobel Prize money to Mileva. Give me a break. There follows some misleading stuff on Einstein's and Mileva's respective exam results, but I really can't be bothered any more with such 'scholarship'. (The authors of the paper are at the Institute of Education, University of Minho, Portugal.) Allen Esterson --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]