@Thaw
Other theoretical physicists contributed to Einsteins work, but it was he that put it all together.
No, Einstein wasn't a fraud.

A lot of people discovered E=mc2 , or more commonly, E=kmc2 , where K is some constant. It's easy to do using dimensional analysis, and the formula for kinetic energy is E=1/2mv2 , which is kind of a hint.

However, this is not the contribution of Einstein, even in Special Relativity. What Einstein did, which was quite brilliant, was to work out the Lorentz transformations (Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and Lorentz time dilation) in a way that came from simple Euclidean geometry, most notably the Pythagorean Theorem, in such a way that it made sense without extraneous concepts like the Luminiferous Aether. The Aether experiment done by Michelson–Morley disproved the need for it and Einsteins special relativity was born.

The real equation is E2−p2c2=m2c4

which relates energy, momentum, and mass in a 4-D Minkowskian space-time manifold in exactly the same way that space and time are related. This was quite brilliant. E=mc^2 is simply what happens when you set the momentum p to zero and take the (positive) square root of both sides. This equation caught on, partially because it's easy to remember, and partially because people tried to make it work with a concept called the "relativistic mass." Talking about this hasn't been fashionable for about 60 years, though, because it has the potential of muddying more than clarifying, and it distracts from the beauty of the 4-D view.

The fact that there are other names for these things (Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Minkowski) should provide a clue that other people had done bits of important work, and they are appropriately recognized by the names (even if they are harder to spell). Einstein put it all together and made it simple.

With respect to Einstein's wife, it was pretty common at the time for scientists at to get their spouses to help with writing papers (for a gender-reversed case, see Marie and Pierre Curie). The strong claim I have seen is that she was better at maths (along with the myth that Einstein was terrible with maths). This runs into two problems: 1) the maths in Special Relativity is very simple, well within the skills of a reasonably intelligent 9th-grader, and 2) had already been devised by the people mentioned. What Einstein really did in Special Relativity was provide a keen, childlike insight that made what had been known for years make sense.

There's a small problem in that Einstein's Special Relativity paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," was what we would now call a "sketch" paper and did not have the kind of references we now expect from papers. However, throughout his career, Einstein was, if anything, effusive in his recognition of and thanks to other people.

Still, it is unlikely that Einstein would be remembered for Special Relativity alone. General Relativity was his crowning achievement. He started to get famous because General Relativity correctly explained the precession of Mercury, about which nobody had a good idea. Even without this, General Relativity would have been a brilliant accomplishment, as it provides a way to deal with all reference frames with the same set of equations, though at the expense of great mathematical complexity. For the first time since Galileo came up with the principle of relativity that all motion could be treated equally.

In his later life, Einstein ran up against some brick walls and made some serious mistakes. Once he thought he had come up with a way of unifying gravity and electromagnetism. It was so popular that a London shopkeeper attached the paper to the inside of their windows, and it drew significant crowds. It was wrong, but still, it makes me more tolerant of the various people (who mostly seem to be electrical engineers) who come up with similar ideas from time to time.

Still, General Relativity is amazing, and his work in quantum Mechanics was at least very good. He was nowhere near a fraud.

@Thaw Several of his theories were proven to be correct after his death,the existence of gravitational waves being the most recent one.

No. Segregation is a poor method of improving SOCIETY. If you just want to deal with 'tribes', then you MUST include consequences - and that won't be sanctioned in this society.... Hmmm, that seems counterintuitive to me.

Separating identities but demanding the same quality of output, the same acceptance of societal norms, seems impossible - why have separate systems if the goal is a unified society? Unless your goal is NOT a unified society....

That is the stupidest thing I've ever read. People ought to overcome the nonsense, not to build society around it. There are no standard anymore. We need to set up a minimum requirements bar when it comes to maturity. I'm sick of the tyranny of the majority. The retarded majority says "oh, no; this white friend of mine went to the beach on vacas and now he's a nigga; somebody help me" and everyone starts planning segregation. When an outcast takes his life because he cannot live between all the lies anymore because he can't make sense of the world and his place in it, then--fuck him. Crazy person. Psychological damage. It's because of you society is stuck at moronically retarded.

@tracycoyle There is no unity in the US when corporations, schools, universities, virtually all media claims that whites are all racist and privileged and anything they created must be destroyed. We are past the point of unity. Blacks vote for the left and Socialism over 90% of the time while the Hispanic demographic votes left around 70% of the time. The blacks and Latinos overwhelmingly don't care about preserving free speech or gun rights. The clock is up. There really is no political solution. The only way forward is to have the population divided up into zones free of influence of Marxists and woke non-whites.

We already give grades to kids, we evaluate them.
We already have opinions of kids, this is a way to record and compare attitude with performance.

@SupraLibrix So...descriptive, not predictive. Turning grades into colors? I will admit that maybe I am insufficiently capable of understanding the value of the change.

IQ measures the ability to learn, generally speaking. The above measure the ability to perform...

I maybe reading too much into it but it seems there is a disconnect between attitude and performance as provided for in the example...

I agree. Isn't grades some sort of way to segregate? Couldn't we expand out thinking into a more abstract and holistic way of understanding each other? There's this thing where we need numbers to qualify our value, but perhaps somebody who doesn't care about the individual enough doesn't have any business knowing that person's value, whether a valid measurement or not (which I would say "not." ) How about being a parent and getting interested in finding out if your child is learning or not, instead of relying on a number on some paper? Aren't we feeding the trolls by giving the children the tools on which to judge one another? I would like to see more incentivizing trough curiosity, natural ways of positive motivation. Perhaps the people in charge have never cared about anything and therefore don't know what those motivations feel like, so they don't even know they exist. Geez. I sure would have lived in a world like that... I'm rambling...

Inference. And as broad a brush as it makes suggests it is as useful as any other broad brush.

Headings would be weeks or any other time unit.

Spectrum is grade:
Red is worst, Purple is best.

Intuitive, can see immediately where problems are.

@tracycoyle The brush can be as fine as you want to measure, yearly, monthly, weekly, by the minute, etc.

It's as useful as you want to make it.

It just puts what's in your head onto paper, if recorded digitally, a computer can evaluate and help identify problems that teachers might miss.

@SupraLibrix
Thanks Supra.