Surely Einstein wasn't the only person working out problems with the limits of Newtonian physics. Who were the others, did history forget what their contributions were to lionize a "winner?" For that matter, who did Einstein, et al cite in their papers on special relativity and general relativity? I think of this in the present as another race to crown a "winner" of science history. But, also, a name matters less than a contribution. Did Einstein's coauthors know or care that history overshadowed them (off the top of my head I roughly know their names but not the spelling of those names)? I suspect–and may investigate this in a future publication after exploring **#****autaxy** and **#autology**–that these "names of science" are all rather randomly chosen, in The sense that were it not Einstein's paper about general relativity it would have been someone else's paper about a similar finding (and different name), a few years give or take. And had Galileo or Copernicus or Newton not been the names we remember in this constructed linear progression, give or take a few years again, it would have been other names. I perceive this pattern as my own work emerges amid a seemingly disconnected and disparate field of "new physics" that nevertheless slowly and gradually informs each of us.  Today's independent researchers will become distinguished professors and Nobel Prize laureates. The outsiders will come into the "establishment," like Einstein. Like Einstein some will go on to be dismissive of the next generation after them, either fearing their own insecurity or call too comfortable with their own success to care about the inevitable falsification of their ideas. Some of us will move on to other things, and inform new fields yet to be conceived with our endeavors (ask me 2 years ago what quantum mechanics was, let alone whether I'd ever be so bold to pioneer a new discipline of study). #idea #explore