The Einstein Hoax
John Knight
> In article <fIwLa.56794$1e.35574@fed1read04>, magi...@cox.net writes:
>
> >I am deficient as to what spam really is. How do his posts fall into the
> >arena of spam?
>
> You want to know my definition?
>
> To be spam, a communication must be:
>
> a) undesired,
>
> b) either inescapable, or unavoidable, without unreasonable effort,
>
> c) inconvenient, and,
>
> d) in most cases, incommunicable--that is, the receiver is unable to respond
> adequately, usually preventing a cease on sending.
>
> Retic's postings simultaneously achieve all of these.
>
> >Is there a standard definition?
>
> Depending on what ISP one uses, yes. As I said, his posts fall under the
> definition set out under his ISP.
>
> >I hear that that is what the justice people are going after next. Perhaps
> >they can come up with an all-encompassing definition for spam.
> >
> >Maginsta
>
> They have.
By your own definition, Thomas, all of your posts are spam. In fact,
I have never yet seen a single one of your posts which was not:
a) undesired,
b) either inescapable, or unavoidable, without unreasonable effort,
c) inconvenient, and,
d) in most cases, incommunicable--that is, the receiver is unable to
respond
adequately, usually preventing a cease on sending.
Furthermore, according to the Patriot Act, you are now subject to
immediate arrest, imprisonment, and execution, because your posts are
also:
a) Hate language.
b) Intentionally incendiary.
c) Inflammatory.
d) Without any redeeming social value.
e) Anti-semitic, with a Semite being defined as a descendant of Shem.
John Knight
Gray Shockley
(in message <ed80adae.03070...@posting.google.com>):
> a) Hate language.
>
> b) Intentionally incendiary.
>
> c) Inflammatory.
>
> d) Without any redeeming social value.
>
> e) Anti-semitic, with a Semite being defined as a descendant of Shem.
>
> John Knight
--------------------------------------------------------
From what I've seen, you are indeed correct.
JohnBoy Knight - as you noted - is all these things and more (or less).
After all, it's not as if we're talking about a rational human being; we're
just talking about JohnBoy "the creep" Knight.
After all, Mr/Miss/Mrs Knight is more of a joke than someone with whom it is
worth while to debate.
S/he/it just isn't bright enough.
Knight is completely in the dark and keeps screaming, "It's all everybody's
fault except mine, and I'm leading the way from my rear because my ass is the
most prominent part of my body and I, continually, talk out of it."
g
magi...@cox.net
> e) Anti-semitic, with a Semite being defined as a descendant of Shem.
>
> John Knight
Mr. Knight:
I believe you are being a bit too intimidating with such an esoteric
imputation. Then again, this is as cience forum and I suppose it might be
appropriate to bring genetics into the discussion.
I should mention that my paternal relatives coopted the term anti-semitic
as pertaining to Jews somewhere in the late 19th century, so it is
reasonable that many shold be disabused of your meaning.
Maginsta
James Hall
JHall.
"John Knight" <johnk...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:ed80adae.03070...@posting.google.com...
John Knight
<magi...@cox.net> wrote in message news:hjuMa.58106$1e.24212@fed1read04...
Not to worry. Any coopting of the phrase is more than compensated for by
the 2 billion copies of the Holy Bible which dedicate about 85% of it's
content to making sure that the genealogy of Semites is never forgotten.
http://christianparty.net/israelites.htm
John Knight
magi...@cox.net
On 2-Jul-2003, "John Knight" <jwkn...@polbox.com> wrote:
> > Mr. Knight:
> >
> > I believe you are being a bit too intimidating with such an esoteric
> > imputation. Then again, this is as cience forum and I suppose it might
> > be
> > appropriate to bring genetics into the discussion.
> >
> > I should mention that my paternal relatives coopted the term
> > anti-semitic
> > as pertaining to Jews somewhere in the late 19th century, so it is
> > reasonable that many shold be disabused of your meaning.
> >
> > Maginsta
>
>
> Not to worry. Any coopting of the phrase is more than compensated for by
> the 2 billion copies of the Holy Bible which dedicate about 85% of it's
> content to making sure that the genealogy of Semites is never forgotten.
> http://christianparty.net/israelites.htm
>
> John Knight
Not worried. Merely pointing out that anti-semite is more a marketing term
and no longer marketed in any biblical sense.
The marketing aspect can be seen with Israel considering creating more Jews
by declaring that if your father is Jewish, you can be Jewish also. Instant
creation of a semite as viewed today. Heck, I am told now that I am even
eligible under the Right of Return law of Israel, which is exclusively for
Jews. Never non-jewss.
Maginsta
Gray Shockley
(in message <Ab5Na.65023$1e.41929@fed1read04>):
Path:
news5.aus1.giganews.com!firehose2!nntp4!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!border1
.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp-
relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!west.cox.net!east.cox.net!cox.net!p01!fed1read04.POS
TED!not-for-mail
John Knight
<magi...@cox.net> wrote in message news:Ab5Na.65023$1e.41929@fed1read04...
If Christ was right about the "jews" who He met outside the temple, who
demanded He be crucified, then He was a Semite (and a Hebrew, and an
Israelite), and they weren't. Their reply to Him suggested they knew He
knew they were mamzers who aren't even permitted into the congregation of
the LORD, even until the tenth generation:
We be not born of miscegenation we have one ancestry, God of Abraham. John
8:41
Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a
Samaritan, and hast a devil? John 8:48
iow, by Israelite law, which is almost 180 degrees different than jewish
law, both parents need to be Israelites for the offspring to be considered
an Israelite.
John Knight
Double-A
> <magi...@cox.net> wrote in message news:hjuMa.58106$1e.24212@fed1read04...
> > >
> > > e) Anti-semitic, with a Semite being defined as a descendant of Shem.
> > >
> > > John Knight
> >
> > Mr. Knight:
> >
> > I believe you are being a bit too intimidating with such an esoteric
> > imputation. Then again, this is as cience forum and I suppose it might be
> > appropriate to bring genetics into the discussion.
> >
> > I should mention that my paternal relatives coopted the term anti-semitic
> > as pertaining to Jews somewhere in the late 19th century, so it is
> > reasonable that many shold be disabused of your meaning.
> >
> > Maginsta
>
>
> Not to worry.
Such a Jewish expression!
Any coopting of the phrase is more than compensated for by
> the 2 billion copies of the Holy Bible which dedicate about 85% of it's
> content to making sure that the genealogy of Semites is never forgotten.
> http://christianparty.net/israelites.htm
>
> John Knight
Are you sure you're not a self loathing Jew?
Double-A
Bob LeChevalier
>If Christ was right about the "jews" who He met outside the temple, who
>demanded He be crucified,
Prove that THEY were the ones who demanded that He be crucified.
>then He was a Semite (and a Hebrew, and an Israelite), and they weren't.
No. Because His claim had nothing to do with blood ancestry.
>Their reply to Him suggested they knew He
>knew they were mamzers who aren't even permitted into the congregation of
>the LORD, even until the tenth generation:
>
>We be not born of miscegenation we have one ancestry, God of Abraham. John
>8:41
>
>Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a
>Samaritan, and hast a devil? John 8:48
>
>iow, by Israelite law, which is almost 180 degrees different than jewish
>law, both parents need to be Israelites for the offspring to be considered
>an Israelite.
Nope, as has been dealt with before, nincompoop.
And now, as your next biblical lesson:
>Isa.56
>[1] Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my
> salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.
>[2] Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth
> hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth
> his hand from doing any evil.
>[3] Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to
> the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his
> people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.
>[4] For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths,
> and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
>[5] Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a
> place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give
> them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
>[6] Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD,
> to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants,
> every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold
> of my covenant;
>[7] Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful
> in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices
> shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an
> house of prayer for all people.
Verses 6 and 7 are a thorough denunciation of your nincompoop
interpretation of the Holy Bible.
You lose again, loser.
lojbab
John Knight
"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:v5cbgv4l98kfqnkpa...@4ax.com...
> "John Knight" <f...@christianparty.net> wrote:
> >If Christ was right about the "jews" who He met outside the temple, who
> >demanded He be crucified,
>
> Prove that THEY were the ones who demanded that He be crucified.
>
"Prove" it? Do you EVER read the Holy Bible? Here are Christ's own words:
Joh 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you doeth the law?
Why seek ye to kill me?
Joh 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed: yet ye seek to kill me, because
my word hath not free course in you.
Joh 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth,
which I heard from God: this did not Abraham.
Joh 8:48 The Jews answered and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art
a Samaritan, and hast a demon?
And here is what Christ's Disciples said about the jews trying to kill
Christ:
Joh 5:18 For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him,
Joh 7:1 And after these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not
walk in Judaea, because the Jews sought to kill him.
How much "proof" does a mamzer need?
> >then He was a Semite (and a Hebrew, and an Israelite), and they weren't.
>
> No. Because His claim had nothing to do with blood ancestry.
>
Then He coulnd't have been a pure sacrifice, because God won't accept an
impure sacrifice. And He wouldn't have said he came ONLY for the house of
Israel:
He said in reply, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel." Matthew 15:24
"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the
way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But
go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach,
saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 10:5-9
So you mamzers REALLY "think" that the Holy Bible cancels itself so easily,
by Israelites just ignoring GOD'S commandment in Deuteronomy 23:2 to not let
a mamzer into the congregation of the LORD?
Deuteronomy 23:2 A mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD;
even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the
LORD.
Deuteronomy 23:3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the
congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not
enter into the congregation of the LORD forever:
Not quite.
The Hebrew word "nekar" from which "stranger" was translated means
"foreigner", which means an ISRAELITE, from another Tribe, another city,
another country, or another community:
sa 56:6 Also the sons1121 of the stranger,5236 that join themselves3867
to5921 the LORD,3068
You are correct that if you can prove that Israelites abandoned God's Law by
ignoring Deuteronomy 23:2, or if these foreigners had been Ammonites or
Moabites, that you MAY build a case that Israelites didn't always do as God
commanded them to, but this specific Scripture is a reference ONLY to
Israelites.
John Knight
Bob LeChevalier
>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:v5cbgv4l98kfqnkpa...@4ax.com...
>> "John Knight" <f...@christianparty.net> wrote:
>> >If Christ was right about the "jews" who He met outside the temple, who
>> >demanded He be crucified,
>>
>> Prove that THEY were the ones who demanded that He be crucified.
>
>"Prove" it? Do you EVER read the Holy Bible?
Yes, nincompoop. And since you are relying on John, you will find no
mention of crucifixion before
>John.19
>[6] When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.
>[7] The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
And it is clear that even then "The Jews" in that sentence refers to
"the chief priests thereof and officers" and not every Jew in the
world.
So now prove that the Jews that He met outside the temple were "the
chief priests thereof and officers".
>How much "proof" does a mamzer need?
I dunno. It seems that a nincompoop needs a lot though.
>> >then He was a Semite (and a Hebrew, and an Israelite), and they weren't.
>>
>> No. Because His claim had nothing to do with blood ancestry.
>
>Then He coulnd't have been a pure sacrifice, because God won't accept an
>impure sacrifice.
As the Son of God, he was de facto a pure sacrifice.
>And He wouldn't have said he came ONLY for the house of Israel:
>
>He said in reply, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of
>Israel." Matthew 15:24
Why don't you read the rest of the chapter, nincompoop?
>[25] Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
>[26] But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
>[27] And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
>[28] Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
So while he may have been sent to the house of Israel, he is there
also for those not of the House of Israel who have great faith.
>"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the
>way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But
>go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach,
>saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 10:5-9
Keep reading. Matthew 28:
>[16] Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
>[17] And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
>[18] And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
>[19] Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
>So you mamzers REALLY "think" that the Holy Bible cancels itself so easily,
>by Israelites just ignoring GOD'S commandment in Deuteronomy 23:2 to not let
>a mamzer into the congregation of the LORD?
The Holy Bible doesn't "cancel itself". God gave new instructions for
new times and differing situations, such as Matthew 10 and Matthew 28
above.
lojbab
James Hall
"A person who shoves his/her head too far up an anal tract may
come face to face with poo-poo." JHall, Life Long Testies 4:23
"John Knight"
> ...
BTB, how that War on Buggering Little Children Unto Us movin'
along ?
JHall.
John Knight
"James Hall" <jh...@cuic.ca> wrote in message
news:3OUNa.241$Rv5.47...@news.nnrp.ca...
What is it about you STUPID jews that you're so fixated with scatology? No
other race on the planet, not even niggers, spend so much time writing,
talking, "thinking", dwelling, on scatology. No other "religions" document
besides the Talmud contains claims that Christ is boiling in hot excrement.
Could it be because you STUPID jews have never gotten over how creative were
the WHITE people who invented the flush toilet?
You're all just a bunch of little einsteins [read: LYING, plagiarizing,
MORONIC algebra flunking feeble minded ... morons], eh?
John Knight
Rusty Shackleford
Germanic stock right. Nah, I think your one of those Heinz 57 variety boot
stomping bald headed freaks that get turned on by other tough talking men of
the same elk. Your not going to pass on your high quality genes to the next
generation that way John. Your going to actually have to boink a person of
the opposite sex to do the job. That's the only way your going to get some
more John boy's or girls out there making the world a better place to live.
BTW your name isn't John Tomaso is it? I remember him from years back. Use
to be a member of some local Brown shirts group in Alhambra Ca. Used to see
him on TV news every once in a while spouting almost the same identical crap
you put out. Or maybe it was Joe Tomaso probably one of your sex partners.
Cheers
--
Rusty Shackleford
'What ever happens, happens necessarily'
msha...@NOSPAMrglobal.net
Remove NOSPAM from E-mail address to reply.
John Knight
"Rusty Shackleford" <msha...@NOSPAMrglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bec1q...@enews2.newsguy.com...
You're a bit late Rusty, because us Israelites have already passed on our
high quality genes and there's nothing you niggers, latrinos, jews, and
other muds and mamzers can do to stop it, no matter how much you hate "blue
eyes, blond hair and [] Germanic stock right".
Just in case you hadn't noticed, shaq, while you muds were waddling with
moronic einsteins and darwins, it was those who possess our high quality
genes who put up GPS and proved how moronic you einsteins [read: one stones,
or half brains] are.
Aren't you proud that they did it without a whisper from your jewsmedia,
while elevating communist foreign born einstein to "person of the century"?
John Knight
John Knight
"Double-A" <doub...@hush.com> wrote in message
news:79094630.03070...@posting.google.com...
Positive. There is no such thing as a White Christian Israelite who
"thinks" he's a jew.
John Knight
Bob LeChevalier
>You're a bit late Rusty, because us Israelites
You are no "Israelite"; you are a certifiable nincompoop.
>have already passed on our high quality genes
You have no high quality genes
>Just in case you hadn't noticed, shaq, while you muds were waddling with
>moronic einsteins and darwins, it was those who possess our high quality
>genes who put up GPS
I hate to burst your bubble, but I did some work on GPS. So did a lot
of other people, of a variety of ethnicities (a quick check shows that
one Mitre Corp project manager for GPS upgrade is Hispanic).
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>> Are you sure you're not a self loathing Jew?
>>
>> Double-A
>
>Positive. There is no such thing as a White Christian Israelite who
>"thinks" he's a jew.
Of course there is no such thing as a "White Christian Israelite" in
the first place, nincompoop.
lojbab
John Knight
Sure, lojbab, thanks to affirmative action, there were lots of muds,
including einsteinians, involved in the project, and each one of them can
claim "I hate to burst your bubble, but I did some work on GPS". And
garbage collectors in Detroit can claim "I hate to burst your bubble, but I
did some work on" reducing the record high mud murder rate in this black
infested murder capitol of the world.
But that's not what we're talking about here, is it? We're talking about
the fact that GPS WORKS, proof positive that jew Einstein's "theories" were
just more darwinian psycho babble which had nothing to do with reality.
When a mud like Einstein, a communist, zionist, socialist, and member of a
race which was known by the US INS as "feeble minded ... morons" [read:
"jews"] as late as 1924, says:
"I'm so smart and you're so dumb, which is why I 'know' the 'theory of
evolution' but just can't explain it to your dumb as.",
you know he's a bag of darwinian hot air which couldn't even launch a
birthday party baloon.
John Knight
Bob LeChevalier
>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:ssrjgv023lu1d1lpq...@4ax.com...
>> "John Knight" <johnk...@usa.com> wrote:
>> >You're a bit late Rusty, because us Israelites
>>
>> You are no "Israelite"; you are a certifiable nincompoop.
>>
>> >have already passed on our high quality genes
>>
>> You have no high quality genes
>>
>> >Just in case you hadn't noticed, shaq, while you muds were waddling with
>> >moronic einsteins and darwins, it was those who possess our high quality
>> >genes who put up GPS
>>
>> I hate to burst your bubble, but I did some work on GPS. So did a lot
>> of other people, of a variety of ethnicities (a quick check shows that
>> one Mitre Corp project manager for GPS upgrade is Hispanic).
>Sure, lojbab, thanks to affirmative action, there were lots of muds,
>including einsteinians, involved in the project, and each one of them can
>claim "I hate to burst your bubble, but I did some work on GPS".
Therefore "those who possess our high quality genes who put up GPS"
included those who you call "muds". Thanks for the admission.
>But that's not what we're talking about here, is it? We're talking about
>the fact that GPS WORKS, proof positive that jew Einstein's "theories" were
>just more darwinian psycho babble which had nothing to do with reality.
They have a LOT to do with reality. They remain more accurate than
Newton's formulations.
>When a mud like Einstein, a communist, zionist, socialist, and member of a
>race which was known by the US INS as "feeble minded ... morons" [read:
>"jews"] as late as 1924, says:
>
>"I'm so smart and you're so dumb, which is why I 'know' the 'theory of
>evolution' but just can't explain it to your dumb as.",
Provide evidence that Einstein said these words, which you attribute
to him.
>you know he's a bag of darwinian hot air which couldn't even launch a
>birthday party baloon.
If you can prove that he said those words, then maybe you'll have
shown that YOU are more than a bag of hot air with a strange orifice
from which you eject all sorts of noisome spew.
lojbab
John Knight
> "John Knight" <johnk...@usa.com> wrote:
> >"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
> >news:ssrjgv023lu1d1lpq...@4ax.com...
> >> "John Knight" <johnk...@usa.com> wrote:
> >> >You're a bit late Rusty, because us Israelites
> >>
> >> You are no "Israelite"; you are a certifiable nincompoop.
> >>
> >> >have already passed on our high quality genes
> >>
> >> You have no high quality genes
> >>
> >> >Just in case you hadn't noticed, shaq, while you muds were waddling
with
> >> >moronic einsteins and darwins, it was those who possess our high
quality
> >> >genes who put up GPS
> >>
> >> I hate to burst your bubble, but I did some work on GPS. So did a lot
> >> of other people, of a variety of ethnicities (a quick check shows that
> >> one Mitre Corp project manager for GPS upgrade is Hispanic).
>
> >Sure, lojbab, thanks to affirmative action, there were lots of muds,
> >including einsteinians, involved in the project, and each one of them can
> >claim "I hate to burst your bubble, but I did some work on GPS".
>
> Therefore "those who possess our high quality genes who put up GPS"
> included those who you call "muds". Thanks for the admission.
>
Your inability to grasp the point is commendable, so let's clarify that the
point was NOT that muds contributed anything of value whatsoever to the
project. Au contraire, as with niggers, for every one dollar they
contribute to GDP, they receive $16 from WHITES in the form of "social
transfer payments", which means their net contribution is a huge financial
HOLE.
http://christianparty.net/blackcosts.htm
> >But that's not what we're talking about here, is it? We're talking about
> >the fact that GPS WORKS, proof positive that jew Einstein's "theories"
were
> >just more darwinian psycho babble which had nothing to do with reality.
>
> They have a LOT to do with reality. They remain more accurate than
> Newton's formulations.
>
The following is just one of many far better explanations for the phenomena
than what Einstein PLAGIARIZED, but nobody would expect a mud couch potato
to know that, since the WHITE MEN who proved Einstein to be a bungling
buffoon are rarely mentioned on your boob tube.
John Knight
The following is from
http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm
John Knight
RETHINKING RELATIVITY
BY TOM BETHEL
No one has paid attention yet, but a well-respected physics journal just
published an article whose conclusion, if generally accepted, will undermine
the foundations of modern physics -- Einstein's Theory of Relativity in
particular. Published in Physics Letters A (December 21, 1998), the article
claims that the speed with which the force of gravity propagates must be at
least twenty billion times faster than the speed of light. This would
contradict the Special Theory of Relativity of 1905, which asserts that
nothing can go faster than light. This claim about the special status of the
speed of light has become part of the world view of educated laymen in the
twentieth century.
NOTE: Tom Van Flandern's article, titled "The Speed of Gravity - What the
Experiments Say," is provided as a Web Page on this Website.
Special Relativity, as opposed to the General Theory (1916), is considered
by experts to be above criticism, because it has been confirmed "over and
over again." But several dissident physicists believe that there is a
simpler way of looking at the facts, a way that avoids the mind-bending
complications of Relativity. Their arguments can be understood by laymen. I
wrote about one of these dissidents, Peter Beckmann, over five years ago
(TAS, August 1993, and Correspondence, TAS, October 1993). The present
article introduces new people and arguments. The subject is important
because if Special Relativity is supplanted, much of twentieth-century
physics, including quantum theory, will have to be reconsidered in that
light.
The article in Physics Letters A was written by Tom Van Flandern, a research
associate in the physics department at the University of Maryland. He also
publishes Meta Research Bulletin which supports "promising but unpopular
alternative ideas in astronomy." In the 1990's, he worked as a special
consultant to the Global Positioning System (GPS), a set of satellites whose
atomic clocks allow ground observers to determine their position to within
about a foot. Van Flandern reports that an intriguing controversy arose
before GPS was even launched. Special Relativity gave Einsteinians reason to
doubt whether it would work at all. In fact, it works fine (But more on that
later).
The publication of his article is a breakthrough of sorts. For years, most
editors of mainstream physics journals have automatically rejected articles
arguing against Special Relativity. This policy was informally adopted in
the wake of the Herbert Dingle controversy. A professor of science at the
University of London, Dingle had written a book popularizing Special
Relativity, but by the 1960's he had become convinced that it couldn't be
true. So he wrote another book, Science at the Crossroads (1972),
contradicting the first. Scientific journals, especially Nature, were
bombarded with his (and others') letters.
An editor of Physics Letters A promised Van Flandern that reviewers would
not be allowed to reject his article simply because it conflicted with
received wisdom. Van Flandern begins with the "most amazing thing" he
learned as a graduate student of celestial mechanics at Yale: that all
gravitational interactions must be taken as instantaneous. At the same time,
students were also taught that Einstein's Special Relativity proved that
nothing could propagate faster than light in a vacuum. The disagreement "sat
there like an irritant," Van Flandern told me. He determined that one day he
would find its resolution. Today, he thinks that a new interpretation of
Relativity may be needed.
The argument that gravity must travel faster than light goes like this. If
its speed limit is that of light, there must be an appreciable delay in its
action. By the time the Sun's "pull" reaches us, the Earth will have "moved
on" for another 8.3 minutes (the time of light travel). But by then the
Sun's pull on the Earth will not be in the same straight line as the Earth's
pull on the Sun. The effect of these misaligned forces "would be to double
the Earth's distance from the Sun in 1200 years." Obviously, this is not
happening. The stability of planetary orbits tells us that gravity must
propagate much faster than light. Accepting this reasoning, Isaac Newton
assumed that the force of gravity must be instantaneous.
Astronomical data support this conclusion. We know, for example, that the
Earth accelerates toward a point 20 arc-seconds in front of the visible
Sun -- that is, toward the true, instantaneous direction of the Sun. Its
light comes to us from one direction, its "pull" from a slightly different
direction. This implies different propagation speeds for light and gravity.
It might seem strange that something so fundamental to our understanding of
physics can still be a matter of debate. But that in itself should encourage
us to wonder how much we really know about the physical world. In certain
Internet discussion groups, "the most frequently asked question and debated
topic is 'What is the speed of gravity?,'" Van Flandern writes. It is heard
less often in the classroom, but only "because many teachers and most
textbooks head off the question." They understand the argument that it must
go very fast indeed, but they also have been trained not to let anything
exceed Einstein's speed limit.
So maybe there is something wrong with Special Relativity after all. In The
ABC of Relativity (1925), Bertrand Russell said that just as the Copernican
system once seemed impossible and now seems obvious, so, one day, Einstein's
Relativity theory "will seem easy." But it remains as "difficult" as ever,
not because the math is easy or difficult (Special Relativity requires only
high-school math, General Relativity really is difficult), but because
elementary logic must be abandoned. "Easy Einstein" books remain baffling to
almost all. The sun-centered solar system, on the other hand, has all along
been easy to grasp.
Nonetheless, Special Relativity (which deals with motion in a straight line)
is thought to be beyond reproach. General Relativity (which deals with
gravity, and accelerated motion in general) is not regarded with the same
awe. Stanford's Francis Everitt, the director of an experimental test of
General Relativity due for space-launch next year, has summarized the
standing of the two theories in this way: "I would not be at all surprised
if Einstein's General Theory of Relativity were to break down," he wrote.
"Einstein himself recognized some serious shortcomings in it, and we know on
general grounds that it is very difficult to reconcile with other parts of
modern physics. With regard to Special Relativity, on the other hand, I
would be much more surprised. The experimental foundations do seem to be
much more compelling." This is the consensus view.
Dissent from Special Relativity is small and scattered. But it is there, and
it is growing. Van Flandern's article is only the latest manifestation. In
1987, Peter Beckmann, who taught at the University of Colorado, published
Einstein Plus Two, pointing out that the observations that led to Relativity
can be more simply reinterpreted in a way that preserves universal time. The
journal he founded, Galilean Electrodynamics was taken over by Howard Hayden
of the University of Connecticut (Physics), and is now edited by Cynthia
Kolb Whitney of the Electro-Optics Technology Center at Tufts. Hayden held
colloquia on Beckmann's ideas at several New England universities, but could
find no physicist who even tried to put up an argument.
A brief note on Einstein's most famous contribution to physics -- the
formula that everyone knows. When they hear that heresy is in the air, some
people come to the defense of Relativity with this question: "Atom bombs
work, don't they?" They reason as follows: The equation E = mc2 was
discovered as a byproduct of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (True).
Relativity, they conclude, is indispensable to our understanding of the way
the world works. But that does not follow. Alternative derivations of the
famous equation dispense with Relativity. One such was provided by Einstein
himself in 1946. And it is simpler than the relativistic rigmarole. But few
Einstein books or biographies mention the alternative. They admire
complexity, and cling to it.
Consider Clifford M. Will of Washington University, a leading proponent of
Relativity today. "It is difficult to imagine life without Special
Relativity," he says in Was Einstein Right? "Just think of all the phenomena
or features of our world in which Special Relativity plays a role. Atomic
energy, both the explosive and the controlled kind. The famous equation E =
mc2 tells how mass can be converted into extraordinary amounts of energy."
Note the misleading predicate, "plays a role." He knows that the stronger
claim, "is indispensable," would be pounced on as inaccurate.
Is there an alternative way of looking at all the facts that supposedly
would be orphaned without Relativity? Is there a simpler way? A criterion of
simplicity has frequently been used as a court of appeal in deciding between
theories. If it is made complex enough, the Ptolemaic system can predict
planetary positions correctly. But the Sun-centered system is much simpler,
and ultimately we prefer it for that reason.
Tom Van Flandern says the problem is that the Einstein experts who have
grown accustomed to "Minkowski diagrams and real relativistic thinking" find
the alternative of universal time and "Galilean space" actually more
puzzling than their own mathematical ingenuities. Once relativists have been
thoroughly trained, he says, it's as difficult for them to rethink the
subject in classical terms as it is for laymen to grasp time dilation and
space contraction. For laymen, however, and for those physicists who have
not specialized in Relativity, which is to say the vast majority of
physicists, there's no doubt that the Galilean way is far simpler than the
Einsteinian. Special Relativity was first proposed as a way of sidestepping
the great difficulty that arose in physics as a result of the
Michelson-Morley experiment (1887). Clerk Maxwell had shown that light and
radio waves share the same electromagnetic spectrum, differing only in wave
length. Sea waves require water, sound waves air, so, it was argued,
electromagnetic waves must have their own medium to travel in. It was called
the ether. "There can be no doubt that the interplanetary and interstellar
spaces are not empty," Maxwell wrote, "but are occupied by a material
substance or body, which is certainly the largest, and probably the most
uniform body of which we have any knowledge." As today's dissidents see
things, it was Maxwell's assumption of uniformity that was misleading.
The experiment of Michelson and Morley tried to detect this ether. Since the
Earth in its orbital motion must plow through it, an "ether wind" should be
detectable, just as a breeze can be felt outside the window of a moving car.
Despite repeated attempts, however, no ethereal breeze could be felt. A
pattern of interference fringes was supposed to shift when Michelson's
instrument was rotated. But there was no fringe shift.
Einstein explained this result in radical fashion. There is no need of an
ether, he said. And there was no fringe shift because the speed of an
approaching light wave is unaffected by the observer's motion. But if the
speed of light always remains the same, time itself would have to slow down,
and space contract to just the amount needed to ensure that the one divided
by the other -- space divided by time -- always gave the same value: the
unvarying speed of light. The formula that achieved this result was quite
simple, and mathematically everything worked out nicely and agreed with
observation.
The skeptical, meanwhile, were placated with this formula: "I know it seems
odd that time slows down and space contracts when things move, but don't
worry, a measurable effect only occurs at high velocities -- much higher
than anything we find in everyday life. So for all practical purposes we can
go on thinking in the same old way." (Meanwhile, space and time have been
subordinated to velocity. Get used to it.)
Now we come to some modern experimental findings. Today we have very
accurate clocks, accurate to a billionth of a second a day. The tiny
differentials predicted by Einstein are now measurable. And the interesting
thing is this: Experiments have shown that atomic clocks really do slow down
when they move, and atomic particles really do live longer. Does this mean
that time itself slows down? Or is there a simpler explanation?
The dissident physicists I have mentioned disagree about various things, but
they are beginning to unite behind this proposition: There really is an
ether, in which electromagnetic waves travel, but it is not the
all-encompassing, uniform ether proposed by Maxwell. Instead, it corresponds
to the gravitational field that all celestial bodies carry about with them.
Close to the surface (of sun, planet, or star) the field, or ether, is
relatively more dense. As you move out into space it becomes more
attenuated. Beckmann's Einstein Plus Two introduces this hypothesis, I
believe for the first time, and he told me it was first suggested to him in
the 1950's by one of his graduate students, Jiri Pokorny, at the Institute
of Radio Engineering and Electronics in Prague. Pokorny later joined the
department of physics at Prague's Charles University, and today is retired.
I believe that all the facts that seem to require special or General
Relativity can be more simply explained by assuming an ether that
corresponds to the local gravitational field. Michelson found no "ether
wind," or fringe shift, because of course the Earth's gravitational field
moves forward with the Earth. As for the bending of starlight near the Sun,
the confirmation of General Relativity that made Einstein world-famous, it
is easily explained given a non-uniform light medium. It is a well known law
of physics that wave fronts do change direction when they enter a denser
medium. According to Howard Hayden, refracted starlight can be derived this
way "with a few lines of high school algebra.? And derived exactly. The
tensor calculus and Riemannian geometry of General Relativity gives only an
approximation. Likewise the "Shapiro Time-Delay," observed when radar beams
pass close to the Sun and bounce back from Mercury. Some may prefer to try
to understand all this in terms of the "curvature of Space-Time," to use the
Einstein formulation (unintelligible to laymen, I believe). But they should
know that a far simpler alternative exists.
The advance of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit, another famous
confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look (the perihelion
is the point in the orbit closest to a sun). Graduate theses may one day be
written about this peculiar episode in the history of science. In his book,
Subtle Is the Lord, Abraham Pais reports that when Einstein saw that his
calculations agreed with Mercury's orbit, "he had the feeling that something
actually snapped in him ... This experience was, I believe, by far the
strongest emotional experience in Einstein's scientific life, perhaps in all
his life. Nature had spoken to him."
Fact: The equation that accounted for Mercury's orbit had been published 17
years earlier, before Relativity was invented. The author, Paul Gerber, used
the assumption that gravity is not instantaneous, but propagates with the
speed of light. After Einstein published his General Relativity derivation,
arriving at the same equation, Gerber's article was reprinted in *Annalen
der Physik* (the journal that had published Einstein's Relativity papers).
The editors felt that Einstein should have acknowledged Gerber's priority.
Although Einstein said he had been in the dark, it was pointed out that
Gerber's formula had been published in Mach's Science of Mechanics, a book
that Einstein was known to have studied. So how did they both arrive at the
same formula?
Tom Van Flandern was convinced that Gerber's assumption (gravity propagates
with the speed of light) was wrong. So he studied the question. He points
out that the formula in question is well known in celestial mechanics.
Consequently, it could be used as a "target" for calculations that were
intended to arrive at it. He saw that Gerber's method "made no sense, in
terms of the principles of celestial mechanics." Einstein had also said (in
a 1920 newspaper article) that Gerber's derivation was "wrong through and
through."
So how did Einstein get the same formula? Van Flandern went through his
calculations, and found to his amazement that they had "three separate
contributions to the perihelion; two of which add, and one of which cancels
part of the other two; and you wind up with just the right multiplier." So
he asked a colleague at the University of Maryland, who as a young man had
overlapped with Einstein at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study, how in
his opinion Einstein had arrived at the correct multiplier. This man said it
was his impression that, "knowing the answer," Einstein had "jiggered the
arguments until they came out with the right value."
If the General Relativity method is correct, it ought to apply everywhere,
not just in the solar system. But Van Flandern points to a conflict outside
it: binary stars with highly unequal masses. Their orbits behave in ways
that the Einstein formula did not predict. "Physicists know about it and
shrug their shoulders," Van Flandern says. They say there must be "something
peculiar about these stars, such as an oblateness, or tidal effects."
Another possibility is that Einstein saw to it that he got the result needed
to "explain" Mercury's orbit, but that it doesn't apply elsewhere.
The simplest way to understand all this "without going crazy," Van Flandern
says, is to discard Einsteinian Relativity and to assume that "there is a
light-carrying medium." When a clock moves through this medium "it takes
longer for each electron in the atomic clock to complete its orbit."
Therefore, it makes fewer "ticks" in a given time than a stationary clock.
Moving clocks slow down, in short, because they are "ploughing through this
medium and working more slowly." It's not time that slows down. It's the
clocks. All the experiments that supposedly "confirm" Special Relativity do
so because all have been conducted in laboratories on the Earth's surface,
where every single moving particle, or moving atomic clock, is in fact
"ploughing through" the Earth's gravitational field, and therefore slowing
down.
Both theories, Einsteinian and local field, would yield the same results. So
far. Now let's turn back to the Global Positioning System. At high altitude,
where the GPS clocks orbit the Earth, it is known that the clocks run
roughly 46,000 nanoseconds (one-billionth of a second) a day faster than at
ground level, because the gravitational field is thinner 20,000 kilometers
above the Earth. The orbiting clocks also pass through that field at a rate
of three kilometers per second -- their orbital speed. For that reason, they
tick 7,000 nanoseconds a day slower than stationary clocks.
To offset these two effects, the GPS engineers reset the clock rates,
slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day. They then
proceed to tick in orbit at the same rate as ground clocks, and the system
"works." Ground observers can indeed pin-point their position to a high
degree of precision. In (Einstein) theory, however, it was expected that
because the orbiting clocks all move rapidly and with varying speeds
relative to any ground observer (who may be anywhere on the Earth's
surface), and since in Einstein's theory the relevant speed is always speed
relative to the observer, it was expected that continuously varying
relativistic corrections would have to be made to clock rates. This in turn
would have introduced an unworkable complexity into the GPS. But these
corrections were not made. Yet "the system manages to work, even though they
use no relativistic corrections after launch," Van Flandern said. "They have
basically blown off Einstein."
The latest findings are not in agreement with relativistic expectations. To
accommodate these findings, Einsteinians are proving adept at arguing that
if you look at things from a different "reference frame," everything still
works out fine. But they have to do the equivalent of standing on their
heads, and it's not convincing. A simpler theory that accounts for all the
facts will sooner or later supplant one that looks increasingly Rube
Goldberg-like. I believe that is now beginning to happen.
Dingle's Question:
University of London Professor Herbert Dingle showed why Special Relativity
will always conflict with logic, no matter when we first learn it. According
to the theory, if two observers are equipped with clocks, and one moves in
relation to the other, the moving clock runs slower than the non-moving
clock. But the Relativity principle itself (an integral part of the theory)
makes the claim that if one thing is moving in a straight line in relation
to another, either one is entitled to be regarded as moving. It follows that
if there are two clocks, A and B, and one of them is moved, clock A runs
slower than B, and clock B runs slower than A. Which is absurd.
Dingle's Question was this: Which clock runs slow? Physicists could not
agree on an answer. As the debate raged on, a Canadian physicist wrote to
Nature in July 1973: "Maybe the time has come for all of those who want to
answer to get together and to come up with one official answer. Otherwise
the plain man, when he hears of this matter, may exercise his right to
remark that when the experts disagree they cannot all be right, but they can
all be wrong."
The problem has not gone away. Alan Lightman of MIT offers an unsatisfactory
solution in his Great Ideas in Physics (1992). "The fact that each observer
sees the other clock ticking more slowly than his own clock does not lead to
a contradiction. A contradiction could arise only if the two clocks could be
put back together side by side at two different times." But clocks in
constant relative motion in a straight line "can be brought together only
once, at the moment they pass." So the theory is protected from its own
internal logic by the impossibility of putting it to a test. Can such a
theory be said to be scientific? --TB
Tom Van Flandern's Meta Research Bulletin ($15) and his book, Dark Matter,
Missing Planets ($24.50), may be obtained from P.O. Box 15186, Chevy Chase,
MD 20825; Peter Beckmann's Einstein Plus Two ($40) from Golem Press, P.O.
Box 1342, Boulder, CO 80306. Beckmann's book is highly technical; Van
Flandern's is mostly accessible to laymen.
Tom Bethell is TAS's Washington correspondent. His new book, The Noblest
Triumph, was recently published by St. Martin's Press.
Posted 04/28/99 http://www.spectator.org/499TAS/bethell.htm
Copyright © 1999 The American Spectator. All rights reserved.
Index and Direct Links to the Other Web Pages on this Website:
Nuclear Gravitation Field Theory (Specific Chapter Links are Provided on
this Web Page)
History of My Research and Development of the Nuclear Gravitation Field
Theory
"The Zeta Reticuli Incident" by Terence Dickinson
Supporting Information for the Nuclear Gravitation Field Theory
Government Scientist Goes Public
"Sport Model" Flying Disc Archway
Design and Operation of the "Sport Model" Flying Disc Anti-Matter Reactor
Element 115
United States Patent Number 3,626,605: "Method and Apparatus for Generating
a Secondary Gravitational Force Field"
United States Patent Number 3,626,606: "Method and Apparatus for Generating
a Dynamic Force Field"
The Physics of Star Trek and Subspace Communication: Science Fiction or
Science Fact?
Constellation: Reticulum
Reticulan Extraterrestrial Biological Entity
Zeta 2 Reticuli: Home System of the Greys?
UFO Encounter and Time Backs Up
Pushing the Limits of the Periodic Table
General Relativity
Rethinking Relativity
The Speed of Gravity - What the Experiments Say
Negative Gravity
The Wright Brothers
Website Endorsements and Favorite Quotes
Sponsors of This Website
© Copyright Kenneth F.Wright, April 10, 2000. All rights reserved. No
portion of this document may be reproduced in any form without written
permission of the author.
Bob LeChevalier
>The following is from
>http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm
>RETHINKING RELATIVITY
>BY TOM BETHEL
>
>No one has paid attention yet, but a well-respected physics journal just
>published an article whose conclusion, if generally accepted,
Key problem: demonstrate that the conclusion is generally accepted (it
isn't).
> will undermine
>the foundations of modern physics -- Einstein's Theory of Relativity in
>particular. Published in Physics Letters A (December 21, 1998), the article
>claims that the speed with which the force of gravity propagates must be at
>least twenty billion times faster than the speed of light. This would
>contradict the Special Theory of Relativity of 1905, which asserts that
>nothing can go faster than light.
The Special Theory did not cover gravity.
>So maybe there is something wrong with Special Relativity after all.
Note the "maybe".
>Nonetheless, Special Relativity (which deals with motion in a straight line)
>is thought to be beyond reproach. General Relativity (which deals with
>gravity, and accelerated motion in general) is not regarded with the same
>awe.
Thus confirming that special relativity doesn't deal with gravity.
>Dissent from Special Relativity is small and scattered.
Yep.
>© Copyright Kenneth F.Wright, April 10, 2000. All rights reserved. No
>portion of this document may be reproduced in any form without written
>permission of the author.
Another copyright violation, nincompoop.
lojbab
Di Bright
John Knight
> "John Knight" <johnk...@usa.com> wrote:
> >The following is from
> >http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm
>
> >RETHINKING RELATIVITY
> >BY TOM BETHEL
> >
> >No one has paid attention yet, but a well-respected physics journal just
> >published an article whose conclusion, if generally accepted,
>
> Key problem: demonstrate that the conclusion is generally accepted (it
> isn't).
>
If it wasn't generally accepted by GPS, and if instead the REAL scientists
who installed GPS had listened to einsteinians [read: morons with one
stone], GPS wouldn't work.
GPS does work.
>
> >© Copyright Kenneth F.Wright, April 10, 2000. All rights reserved. No
> >portion of this document may be reproduced in any form without written
> >permission of the author.
>
> Another copyright violation, nincompoop.
>
> lojbab
\
The purpose of a copyright has already been explained to, but obviously you
muds will never quite get it.
John Knight
Mark Palenik
General Realitivity, however, does cover gravity. And gravitational fields
*do* only propegate at the speed of light.
John Knight
"Mark Palenik" <markp...@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:lyCdnSHGP7s...@wideopenwest.com...
The following excerpt from that paper makes complete sense, and proves that
the einsteinian mind.uck is a complete waste of electrons.
John Knight
"The argument that gravity must travel faster than light goes like this. If
its speed limit is that of light, there must be an appreciable delay in its
action. By the time the Sun's "pull" reaches us, the Earth will have "moved
on" for another 8.3 minutes (the time of light travel). But by then the
Sun's pull on the Earth will not be in the same straight line as the Earth's
pull on the Sun. The effect of these misaligned forces "would be to double
the Earth's distance from the Sun in 1200 years." Obviously, this is not
happening. The stability of planetary orbits tells us that gravity must
propagate much faster than light. Accepting this reasoning, Isaac Newton
assumed that the force of gravity must be instantaneous.
"Astronomical data support this conclusion. We know, for example, that the
Earth accelerates toward a point 20 arc-seconds in front of the visible
Sun -- that is, toward the true, instantaneous direction of the Sun. Its
light comes to us from one direction, its "pull" from a slightly different
direction. This implies different propagation speeds for light and gravity."
http://christianparty.net/gps.htm
John Knight
"Di Bright" <bright...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f6287d7a.03070...@posting.google.com...
> His moustache was a hologram.
His wife did his math for him.
Quite a "genius", eh?
He NEVER cited a single prior paper, published them as "his" papers under
his WIFE's name, while working for the patent office, stayed as a technical
assistant at the patent office for FIVE YEARS after getting his doctorate
degree.
Right!
John Knight
http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep4/ep4maric.htm
Mileva Einstein-Maric
(the author prefers to remain anonymous)
It is a truism to state that Albert Einstein was undoubtedly a genius and a
breathtakingly original thinker. Nothing in this article can or should take
away from the accomplishments of the most celebrated scientist of all time.
But a basic sense of justice and fair play requires that credit must be
given where credit is due. It is in that spirit that the world should know
the name (and credit should be given) to an equally brilliant scientist,
Mileva Maric, the first wife of Albert Einstein.
Albert Einstein met Mileva Maric when he entered the elite Swiss Polytechnic
school ("ETH") in Zurich. [An aside: Albert did not initially gain
admittance to this elite school and much has been made by Einstein's critics
that Einstein was only admitted on his second attempt. While it is true that
Einstein did not initially pass the admittance test, this had nothing to do
with his mathematical or scientific understanding. In fact, Einstein scored
very well in math and science on the admission test (See the Collected
Papers of Albert Einstein, Princeton University Press). Where he failed was
in his French test; the Swiss were very picky about French, and although it
seems Einstein's French essay was very good, it was not good enough to
satisfy the high standards of the picky French professors. Further, Einstein
was trying to gain admission to the Swiss Polytechnic at the tender age of
16, without even having first completed high school. The Swiss Polytechnic
advised the young Einstein that they were impressed by his math and science
scores but he should really finish high school first and then try to gain
admission the next year.
Encouraged by kind words of the Swiss Polytechnic, Einstein went back to
high school in Germany, got his high school diploma, and was easily admitted
on his second attempt to enter the Swiss Polytechnic. See Abram Pais, Subtle
is the Lord.- The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, Oxford University
Press, 1982]. On entering the Swiss Polytechnic school in Zurich, the young
17 year old noticed the only woman in the class, Mileva Maric, a brilliant
Serbian student. Maric remained the only woman studying physics at the Swiss
Polytechnic the entire time Einstein was there. Maric was four years
Einstein's senior. She was a Serb, an Eastern Orthodox Christian, short of
stature, had a limp and was extremely bookish. In addition to taking the
exact same course-work in college that Einstein took, Maric studied on her
own for one semester in Germany under Phillipe Lenard, the Nobel Prize
winning physicist who discovered the photo-electric effect (which was
explained in one of the 1905 papers attributed to Einstein).
Soon the two physics students fell in love and began living together,
sharing love and textbooks. The work they would do together would change the
world of science and re-arrange the universe. Maric is finally beginning to
be noticed among scholars. Her achievements were first chronicled by Desanka
Trbuhovic-Gjuric in her book In the Shadow of Albert Einstein, which,
unfortunately, has been published only in German. Because Trbuhovic-Gjuric
relied on oral reports of friends of the Einsteins her documentation is not
considered rigorous enough. Trbuhovic-Gjuric writes that Maric always
considered herself as partner of Einstein, and when asked why she did not
insist on more of the credit for their joint work, she replied, "We are one
stone; Ein stein."
The Serbian scholar Dord Krstic has written about Maric's close working
relationship in an Appendix to the book, Hans Albert Einstein: Reminiscences
of his LIfe and our LIfe Together, written by Elizabeth Einstein, the wife
of Einstein's son, Hans Albert Einstein.
Senta Toremel-Ploetz has written a noteworthy article on Maric, "Mileva
Einstein Maric, the woman who did Einstein's mathematics" in Women's Studies
International Forum, vol. 13, no. 5 (1990).
By far the most interesting and insightful writer on Maric is Dr. Evan
Harris Walker, who literally has turned the Einstein image around, crediting
Maric with having formulated the Special Theory of Relativity as well as
other ideas now commonly attributed to Einstein. Many other popular writers
have adopted the insights of Dr. Walker; it is his manuscript Ms. Einstein
(1990) that remains the leading work so far on the collaboration between
Einstein and Maric. Dr. Walker is hereby credited for the information and
ideas contained in this article. It was he who first seriously pushed the
idea of an Einstein/Maric collaboration. And what a collaboration it was!
The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein prove to any open-minded person,
that Maric did indeed collaborate on the authorship of Einstein's famous
papers in 1905. Einstein even uses the word "collaboration". Just a sample
quote from Albert to Mileva from their love letters:
"How happy and proud I will be when the two of us together will have brought
our work on the relative motion to a victorious conclusion!"
Our work???
This is just one isolated quotation. One should read the entire Love
Letters, published in the Collected Papers of Albert Einstein by the
Princeton University Press and separately as The Love Letters; Albert
Einstein and Mileva Maric edited by Jurgen Renn and Robert Schulmann and
translated by Shawn Smith. There you will find that Albert shares all his
physics ideas with her and is extremely interested in her opinion. There are
literally dozens of examples. See also the copyrighted manuscript by Evan
Harris Walker Ms. Einstein.
No two physicists ever had a closer relationship: Mileva and Albert ate
together, went to school together, shared ideas together, shared textbooks
together, slept together, raised children together and discussed physics
together. The Love Letters prove incontrovertibly that they discussed in
great detail the work of physicists and mathematicians like Lenard,
Helmholtz, Hertz, Drude, Boltzmann, Kirchhoff, and Planck. In their leisure
hours, Mileva often would play the piano accompanying Einstein's violin
while they entertained friends, including Einstein's inner circle: Michele
Besso, Paul Ehrenfest, Conrad Habicht, Marcel Grossmann, Maurice Slovine.
This group eventually became known as "The Olympia Academy."
Senta Troemmel Ploetz, in her excellent paper, quotes Einstein as telling
his friends that his wife did his math for him. When one realizes the highly
mathematical aspect 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. The Collected Papers
of Albert Einstein even have a photo-static copy of one of Albert's college
notebooks, in which Mileva has gone through and corrected Albert's math! Yet
the myth of the isolated Einstein working alone, who all by himself, without
help from anyone, wrote four brilliant papers on physics in 1905, endures.
These papers included the work on Special Relativity; the photo-electric
effect; an explanation of Brownian motion; and the famed formula, E=mc2. All
this is detailed in the Love Letters and in Dr. Walker's paper, Ms.
Einstein.
Yet "Einstein Establishment" has been reluctant to recognize the important
role Maric played. John Stachel, the first editor of the Collected Papers of
Albert Einstein, has recently moved away from previous statements that Maric
was a mere "sounding board" for Einstein, and has grudgingly stated that she
has played a "small but significant role" in Einstein's work.
See http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/cain/pubs/rev-pyc.htm.
But was her role really so small?
In addition to the many references to joint work and swapping of textbooks,
Dr. Walker has found fascinating evidence that Mileva Maric may have
actually put her name on the original manuscript of the Special Relativity.
Naturally, the original manuscript for the Special Relativity paper is
missing. It was lost during Einstein's lifetime. Yet, Abram Joffe, a summa
cum laude Russian physics graduate of the ETH is quoted as having seen the
original 1905 manuscript and said it was signed, "Einstein-Marity" (Marity
being the Hungarianized version of Maric'; at that time Serbia was under the
dominion of Austro-Hungarian empire). Joffe died in 1961. (see Ms. Einstein
by Evan Harris Walker.)
It is interesting that Joffe would remember the name as "Einstein-Marity"
since "Marity" was the Hungarianized version of Maric. Mileva Maric rarely
wrote her name as "Marity" except on important formal documents, such as her
wedding certificate. That Joffe would remember the name specifically as
"Marity" lends credence to his having seen the original Special Relativity
manuscript. It is extremely unlikely that Joffe could have made a mistake.
Moreover, when Albert admitted adultery and divorced Mileva in 1919, he
promised that in the event he should win the Nobel Prize all the money-not
part of the money but all the money-would go to Mileva. According to the
Einstein biography, Subtle is the Lord, Einstein kept his promise. When he
received the Nobel Prize money in 1922 (he was awarded the prize for the
year 1921; the award was announced and he received the money in 1922) Albert
did indeed give Mileva all the money from the Nobel Prize. Why all the
money?
There are other strange aspects to Einstein's life. Einstein was extremely
secretive about his first marriage. It was only in 1987, with the
publication of the Love Letters between Albert and Mileva that we find out
Einstein fathered a daughter, named Lieserl, the first child of Albert
Einstein and Mileva Maric. Nobody really knows what happened to this child;
there is a mention in one of the letters to her having scarlet fever and it
is believed that the child was put up for adoption in Serbia. Albert never
breathed a word about her publicly during his lifetime, which is quite
strange.
The Love Letters also make clear that Mileva Maric was absolutely hated by
Einstein's mother, Pauline, who protested to her son that Mileva was, "a
book like you." Still, despite his mother's fierce objections, Einstein
stubbornly went ahead and married her. It was during this marriage that
Einstein is credited with producing the 1905 papers which made him famous.
After they married, Mileva bore Albert two more children, sons Hans Albert
and Eduard. Eduard suffered psychological troubles throughout his life, and
according to Dord Krstic was even seen by Sigmund Freud.
Maric seems never quite willing to take complete credit for the work she
did. Much has been made of Maric never having graduated from the Swiss
Polytechnic, implying that she could not have been the intellectual equal of
Albert Einstein. This is simply not accurate.
Mileva faced the obvious invidious prejudice of being a woman. Remember, in
1900 women couldn't even vote! Even to be allowed admittance as a woman to
the elite Swiss Polytechnic, she had to have been brilliant. Although her
grades were comparable to Einstein's grades, Mileva ultimately did not pass
her final examinations. It must be noted, however, that at the time she was
taking these exams she was late in her pregnancy with Albert's second child
(his son, Hans Albert) and also faced the prejudice of her teachers for
being both a Slav and a woman. She was, indeed, the only student in Albert's
class not to graduate, although she did receive a research position with
Professor Weber, which later fell through. Of the students who did actually
graduate, Einstein had the lowest grade point average (see The Collected
Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 1, which lists the grades of all those who
graduated; also see Dr. Evan Harris Walker, Ms. Einstein.)
Einstein rarely mentioned those who assisted him. Indeed, in all the famous
1905 papers that he published, only Michele Besso, his friend and sounding
board, is mentioned. There is simply no other source material cited in any
other of his 1905 papers.
We know from the Love Letters that he had a very close collaboration with
Maric. Unfortunately, these letters are heavily edited, the omissions being
mainly from Maric's letters. Why are Maric's letters so heavily edited? Why
are there so many omissions? Will the editors of the Collected Papers of
Albert Einstein publish or make available Maric's letters in their entirety?
Some have felt that Maric's senior thesis at the Swiss Polytechnic might
actually have dealt with Relativity theory but, according to correspondence
I have had with Professor Bartocci of the University of Perugia, her thesis
cannot be located in the Polytechnic's archives.
Einstein's marriage to Maric ended in acrimony. He began treating Maric, for
whom he had originally professed such great love, cruelly toward the end of
the marriage, even calling her "uncommonly ugly" (see Collected Papers). He
admitted in a deposition during divorce proceedings (28 December 1918) that
he had carried on an adulterous relationship with one of his cousins, whom
he later married. During this second marriage, Einstein had numerous
affairs, even including -apparently - an affair with a Russian spy! And
again, Einstein never breathed a word about having fathered a daughter with
Maric.
The full truth of Mileva Maric's role in the work now commonly attributed
exclusively to Einstein will only become known when the complete, unedited
letters of Mileva Maric are made available to scholars. It is also a fervent
hope that the senior thesis of Maric might be found - or at least its
subject might become known - because that thesis might actually have been
about Relativity theory. Clearly, further research on her life and her
physics work needs to be done.
nobody
"John Knight" <johnk...@usa.com> wrote:
> "Di Bright" <bright...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:f6287d7a.03070...@posting.google.com...
> > His moustache was a hologram.
>
> His wife did his math for him.
Whatever worked.
Bob LeChevalier
>The purpose of a copyright has already been explained to, but obviously you
>muds will never quite get it.
The purpose of a copyright is that the copyright owner gets to decide
who may make use of their work, and for what purposes, among other
things. I doubt that many copyright owners want a nincompoop like you
misusing their work. You give them a bad reputation.
lojbab
Mark Palenik
A similar phenomenon occurs with EM fields which since they *are*
transmitted by photons, must proppegate at the speed of light. If you look
at Maxwell's equations, which were designed based on the assumption that EM
fields proppegate at c, you'll see that the field actually points toward a
linearly extrapolated position, rather than the retarded position. This
comes naturally out of the equations for EM fields proppegating at c, not
out of corrections added in later. For gravity, when you solve Einstein's
equations of motion, an even more complete cancellation of the retardation
effect occurs.
James Hall
"nobody" ...
> ...
> Whatever worked.
Which begs the ? what is it about you that does work being
somewhat brain-dead, eh ?
JHall.
James Hall
Quick definitions (Copyright)
a.. noun: a document granting exclusive right to publish and sell
literary or musical or artistic work
a.. verb: secure a copyright on a written work (Example: "Did you
copyright your manuscript?")
a.. adjective: (of literary or musical or dramatic or artistic work)
protected by copyright (Example: "Permission to publish copyright material")
Encyclopedia article
A copyright provides the author of a work of authorship (e.g.,
literary work, movie, music, painting, software, mask work, etc.) with the
exclusive right to control the reproduction of the work for a set period of
time, provided that the work meets minimal standards of originality.
(continued)
Reposted by JHall. and NOT copyrighted.
John Knight
http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/
"The appearance of Dr. Silberstein's recent article on 'General Relativity
without the Equivalence Hypothesis' encourages me to restate my own views on
the subject. I am perhaps entitled to do this as my work on the subject of
General Relativity was published before that of Einstein and Kottler, and
appears to have been overlooked by recent writers." -- Harry Bateman
"All this was maintained by Poincare and others long before the time of
Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to
him." -- Charles Nordmann
"[Einstein's] paper 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper' in Annalen der
Physik. . . contains not a single reference to previous literature. It gives
you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have
tried to explain, not true." -- Max Born
"In point of fact, therefore, Poincare was not only the first to enunciate
the principle, but he also discovered in Lorentz's work the necessary
mathematical formulation of the principle. All this happened before
Einstein's paper appeared." -- G. H. Keswani
"Einstein's explanation is a dimensional disguise for Lorentz's. . . . Thus
Einstein's theory is not a denial of, nor an alternative for, that of
Lorentz. It is only a duplicate and disguise for it. . . . Einstein
continually maintains that the theory of Lorentz is right, only he disagrees
with his 'interpretation.' Is it not clear, therefore, that in this, as in
other cases, Einstein's theory is merely a disguise for Lorentz's, the
apparent disagreement about 'interpretation' being a matter of words
only?" -- James Mackaye
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." -- Albert
Einstein
John Knight
The "theory" which is wrong, the one that Einstein stole from prior papers
without the proper cites, is that light has a constant speed.
In order to force the equations to match the observations, you have to
presume things about time which make no sense to the ordinary 12 year old
boy.
Teaching Einstein's "theories" to ordinary 12 year old boys was even worse
than teaching the "theory of evolution"--particularly now that it has been
PROVEN that light does not have a constant speed.
Your point about EM fields is well taken, but it's likely that the
difference between the speed of EM fields and the speed of gravity is
equivalent to the difference between the speed of light and the speed of
gravity.
"No one has paid attention yet, but a well-respected physics journal just
published an article whose conclusion, if generally accepted, will undermine
the foundations of modern physics -- Einstein's Theory of Relativity in
particular. Published in Physics Letters A (December 21, 1998), the article
claims that the speed with which the force of gravity propagates must be at
least twenty billion times faster than the speed of light. This would
contradict the Special Theory of Relativity of 1905, which asserts that
nothing can go faster than light. This claim about the special status of the
speed of light has become part of the world view of educated laymen in the
twentieth century."
This makes sense. It's easy to see that the speed of gravity must be about
this much faster than the speed of light, and it doesn't leave us thinking
about why time would slow down just because of your speed of travel.
John Knight
Bob LeChevalier
>The "theory" which is wrong, the one that Einstein stole from prior papers
>without the proper cites, is that light has a constant speed.
>In order to force the equations to match the observations, you have to
>presume things about time which make no sense to the ordinary 12 year old
>boy.
Correct. That is why they don't teach relativity theory to 12 year
old boys.
>Teaching Einstein's "theories" to ordinary 12 year old boys
They don't.
>was even worse
>than teaching the "theory of evolution"--particularly now that it has been
>PROVEN that light does not have a constant speed.
It has NOT been proven that light does not have a constant speed.
There are some different questions about the constancy of the speed of
light (whether it is decreasing with the age of the universe), but
that is relatively recent and orthogonal to the arguments in
Einstein's theory.
http://www.ldolphin.org/constc.shtml
>"No one has paid attention yet, but a well-respected physics journal just
>published an article whose conclusion, if generally accepted, will undermine
>the foundations of modern physics -- Einstein's Theory of Relativity in
>particular. Published in Physics Letters A (December 21, 1998), the article
>claims that the speed with which the force of gravity propagates must be at
>least twenty billion times faster than the speed of light. This would
>contradict the Special Theory of Relativity of 1905, which asserts that
>nothing can go faster than light. This claim about the special status of the
>speed of light has become part of the world view of educated laymen in the
>twentieth century."
>
>This makes sense. It's easy to see that the speed of gravity must be about
>this much faster than the speed of light, and it doesn't leave us thinking
>about why time would slow down just because of your speed of travel.
Oops. Reality intervenes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2639043.stm
>The speed of gravity has been measured for the first time, revealing
> that it does indeed travel at the speed of light.
>It means that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity has passed yet
> another test with flying colours.
>
>The measurement was made by Ed Fomalont of the National Radio
> Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) in Charlottesville, Virginia, and Sergei
> Kopeikin of the University of Missouri, in Columbia, both US.
>
>Writing in New Scientist magazine, they say: "We became the first two
> people to know the speed of gravity, one of the fundamental constants
> of nature."
lojbab
John Knight
That'll keep lojbab busy for the next 10 years. Good work, Hall.
To lojbab, this is just like handing a Pollack a piece of paper with "see
other side" written on both sides.
John Knight
John Knight
Well now, lojbab, you get a golden opportunity to prove that you muds can
think by telling us which of these contradictory statements is correct.
They both can't be correct. Either the speed of gravity is much faster than
the speed of light, or it's the same.
The following is actually a very simple statement that a 12 year old boy CAN
understand, because I know one who can:
"The argument that gravity must travel faster than light goes like this. If
its speed limit is that of light, there must be an appreciable delay in its
action. By the time the Sun's "pull" reaches us, the Earth will have "moved
on" for another 8.3 minutes (the time of light travel). But by then the
Sun's pull on the Earth will not be in the same straight line as the Earth's
pull on the Sun. The effect of these misaligned forces "would be to double
the Earth's distance from the Sun in 1200 years." Obviously, this is not
happening. The stability of planetary orbits tells us that gravity must
propagate much faster than light. Accepting this reasoning, Isaac Newton
assumed that the force of gravity must be instantaneous.
"Astronomical data support this conclusion. We know, for example, that the
Earth accelerates toward a point 20 arc-seconds in front of the visible
Sun -- that is, toward the true, instantaneous direction of the Sun. Its
light comes to us from one direction, its "pull" from a slightly different
direction. This implies different propagation speeds for light and gravity."
It's obvious that the speed of gravity CAN be calculated very accurately
here.
What do you calculate it to be?
John Knight
Bob LeChevalier
>"James Hall" <jh...@cuic.ca> wrote in message
>news:sCgPa.3854$HL4.27...@news.nnrp.ca...
>> "Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>> news:f1spgv437e5qq1gd6...@4ax.com...
>> > who may make use of their work, and for what purposes, among other
>> > things. I doubt that many copyright owners want a nincompoop like you
>> > misusing their work. You give them a bad reputation.
>> Encyclopedia article
>>
>> A copyright provides the author of a work of authorship (e.g.,
>> literary work, movie, music, painting, software, mask work, etc.) with the
>> exclusive right to control the reproduction of the work for a set period of
>> time, provided that the work meets minimal standards of originality.
>> (continued)
>>
>> Reposted by JHall. and NOT copyrighted.
>
>That'll keep lojbab busy for the next 10 years. Good work, Hall.
Glad you like it, since it agrees with me. "Exclusive right to
control the reproduction of the work".
Now tell me how those people, whose copyrights you are continually
violating, are being allowed to exercise "exclusive right to control",
when you neither seek nor receive permission from them. Exclusive
right means that THEY get to decide, not you.
And no sane person would allow you to use anything of theirs.
lojbab
James Powell
>
<snip>
>
> But that's not what we're talking about here, is it? We're talking about
> the fact that GPS WORKS, proof positive that jew Einstein's "theories"
were
> just more darwinian psycho babble which had nothing to do with reality.
Incorrect assumption and conclusion.
"At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which
contained the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who
doubted that relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was
built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the
rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by GR, then the
synthesizer could be turned on bringing the clock to the coordinate rate
necessary for operation. The atomic clock was first operated for about 20
days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer. The
frequency measured during that interval was parts in faster than clocks on
the ground; if left uncorrected this would have resulted in timing errors of
about 38,000 nanoseconds per day. The difference between predicted and
measured values of the frequency shift was only parts in , well, within the
accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock."
"At present one cannot easily perform tests of relativity with the system
because the SV clocks are actively steered to be within 1 microsecond of
Universal Coordinated Time (USNO). "
"Therefore, we can assert with confidence that the predictions of relativity
are confirmed to high accuracy over time periods of many days."
"So we can state that the clock rate effect predicted by GR is confirmed to
within no worse than ą200 / 45,900 or about 0.7%, and that predicted by SR
is confirmed to within ą200 / 7,200 or about 3%. This is a very conservative
estimate."
The GPS system CAN (and did) provide proof of Einstein's theory of
relativity. The current system is specifically corrected to eliminate any
possible influences.
James Powell
James Powell
And shows that unless you
(A) are Kenneth F.Wright
(B) possess WRITTEN authorization from Kenneth F.Wright to republish the
work
you are in violation of the copyright.
Are you really that dense, Johnny boy?
James Powell
James Powell
Why CALCULATE it, John, when it has been MEASURED?
The speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light, per Ed Fomalont. If you
disagree, then PROVE his observations to be false.
James Powell
John Knight
"James Powell" <ja...@example.com> wrote in message
news:2HWdncwrzat...@wideopenwest.com...
You STILL don't understand, do you, Powell!??
And besides that, it's NONE of your bees wax.
So shut up and go back to reading something that might be more
intellectually stimulating for you, like Ms. Magazine, so us boys can sort
our the jew hoaxes.
John Knight
John Knight
With the two examples above, Tom Van Flandern just PROVED it.
http://christianparty.net/vanflandern.htm
http://christianparty.net/einstein.htm
If the speed of gravity were that slow, then the pull of gravity from the
sun wouldn't appear arc-seconds in front of where the sun appears to be when
the light from the sun finally gets here (about 8 minutes later than gravity
gets here).
AND it would be too slow to keep the earth in a constant orbit around the
sun.
Don't believe what you read in the jewsmedia anymore, Powell. Don't believe
a single word of their LIES.
John Knight
John Knight
No, Powell, the einsteinians recommendations were not implemented, and
they're still whining that GPS can't possibly work.
And besides THAT, this is not the "theory of relativity"--this is the
LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION published by Hendrik Lorentz, SEVENTEEN YEARS before
Einstein STOLE it from Hendrik and claimed it as his OWN work [read: paper,
math, theories, the entire magilla], with nary a cite.
John Knight
James Powell
What? That you do not care about Copyright Laws? Quit whining like a little
fascist, johnny. You 'boys' don't have enough intelligence amongst you to be
a good joke.
James Powell
James Powell
>
> "James Powell" <ja...@example.com> wrote in message
> news:tbydnW5f3P3...@wideopenwest.com...
> > "John Knight" <johnk...@usa.com> wrote in message
> > news:wBCPa.2320$u51.245@fed1read05...
<snip>
He hasn't proved anything. Try to stay on target, John. You need to disprove
the OBSERVATIONS made which prove the speed of gravity. Waving your hands
with a story is trumped by first-hand observation everytime.
DO try to get a clue.
James Powell
James Powell
Prove it, nutcase.
> And besides THAT, this is not the "theory of relativity"--this is the
> LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION published by Hendrik Lorentz, SEVENTEEN YEARS
before
> Einstein STOLE it from Hendrik and claimed it as his OWN work [read:
paper,
> math, theories, the entire magilla], with nary a cite.
>
And that is why it is referred to as the Fitgerald-Lorentz Contraction and
not the Einstein Contraction! Sheesh, get a clue!
If you do not comprehend the difference between Einsteinien relativity and
Lorentzian relativity, that is your problem, johnny boy. Physicists who do
understand the difference do not agree with you.
> John Knight
>
>
>
John Knight
Oh, they do too.
In a "politically correct academic environment" filled with morons like you,
they're virtually prohibited from speaking out about the TRUTH about this
jew LIAR.
The FEW who have spoken up and expressed the TRUTH about this STUPID jew
Einstein have been punished, insulted, fired, character assassinated,
demoted, and demoralized.
"Einstein's explanation is a dimensional disguise for Lorentz's. . . . Thus
Einstein's theory is not a denial of, nor an alternative for, that of
Lorentz. It is only a duplicate and disguise for it. . . . Einstein
continually maintains that the theory of Lorentz is right, only he disagrees
with his 'interpretation.' Is it not clear, therefore, that in this, as in
other cases, Einstein's theory is merely a disguise for Lorentz's, the
apparent disagreement about 'interpretation' being a matter of words
only?" -- James Mackaye
WHY?
Because after almost a century, the STUPID jews STILL need to prop up this
dead corpse of Einstein as a "genius" because he's no longer around to make
the STUPID statements he made, like the following, which PROVED what a MORON
he was. Why haven't the jews produced another "genius" like Einstein in all
this time? Because they couldn't get away with it this time around. Why
were two thirds of Einstein's offspring mental vegetables? Because Einstein
was a mental vegetable.
"But the 'energy of the atom' is something else again. If you believe that
man will someday be able to harness this boundless energy-to drive a great
steamship across the ocean on a pint of water, for instance-then, according
to Einstein, you are wrong..." 1934, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
"The nation has been on the decline mentally and morally since 1870...Behind
the Nazi party stands the German people, who elected Hitler after he had in
his book and in his speeches made his shameful intentions clear beyond the
possibility of misunderstanding. ... The Germans can be killed or
constrained after the war, but they cannot be re-educated to a democratic
way of thinking and acting..." Albert Einstein
John Knight
John Knight
Powell, even some einsteinians admit, under duress of course, that the speed
of gravity has to be much faster than the speed of light. Newton presumed
that the speed of gravity was instantaneous, and einsteinians have NOT
refuted this presumption (even though it's not quite this fast).
You and your einsteinian friends need to get your LIES straight, Powell.
John Knight
John Knight
Albert Einstein arrives in America and accepts a position at Abraham
Flexner's Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton. WHERE ALBERT EINSTEIN
IS HELD UP BY THE JEWISH LIARS AS A RARE GENIUS WHO DRASTICALLY CHANGED THE
FIELD OF THEORETICAL PHYSICS. As such, he is made an idol to young people
and his very name has become synonymous with genius. THE TRUTH, HOWEVER, IS
VERY DIFFERENT. THE REALITY IS THAT EINSTEIN WAS AN INEPT, MORONIC JEW WHO
COULD NOT EVEN TIE HIS OWN SHOELACES; HE CONTRIBUTED NOTHING ORIGINAL TO THE
FIELD OF QUANTUM MECHANICS OR ANY OTHER SCIENCE, BUT ON THE CONTRARY HE
STOLE THE IDEAS OF OTHER MEN AND THE JEWISH MEDIA MADE HIM A HERO.
When we actually examine the life of Albert Einstein, WE FIND THAT HIS ONLY
BRILLIANCE LIES IN HIS ABILITY TO PLAGIARIZE AND STEAL OTHER PEOPLE=S IDEAS,
PASSING THEM OFF AS HIS OWN (A typical Jewish expertise). Einstein's
education, or lack thereof, is an important part of this story.
The Encyclopedia Britannica says of Einstein's early education that he
>showed little scholastic ability.= It also says that at the age of 15,
>with poor grades in history, geography, and languages, he left school with
no diploma.= Einstein himself wrote in a school paper of his >lack of
imagination and practical ability.= In 1895, Einstein failed a simple
entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich.
This exam consisted mainly of mathematical problems, and Einstein showed
himself to be mathematically inept in this exam. He then entered a lesser
school hoping to use it as a stepping stone to the engineering school he
could not get into, but after graduating in 1900, he still could not get a
position at the engineering school!
Unable to go to the school as he had wanted, he got a job (with the help of
a friend) at the patent office in Bern. He was to be a technical expert
third class, which meant that he was too incompetent for a higher qualified
position. Even after publishing his so-called ground-breaking papers of 1905
and after working in the patent office for six years, he was only elevated
to a second class standing. Remember, the work he was doing at the patent
office, for which he was only rated third class, was not quantum mechanics
or theoretical physics, but was reviewing technical documents for patents of
every day things; yet he was barely qualified.
He would work at the patent office until 1909, all the while continuously
trying to get a position at a university, but without success. All of these
facts are true, but now begins the Jewish myth.
Supposedly, while working a full time job, without the aid of university
colleagues, a staff of graduate students, a laboratory, or any of the things
normally associated with an academic setting, Einstein in his spare time
wrote four ground-breaking essays in the field of theoretical physics and
quantum mechanics that were published in 1905.
Many people have recognized the impossibility of such a feat, including
Einstein himself, and therefore Einstein has led people to believe that many
of these ideas came to him in his sleep, out of the blue, because indeed
that is the only logical explanation of how an admittedly inept moron could
have written such documents at the age of 26 without any real education.
HOWEVER, A SIMPLER EXPLANATION EXISTS: HE STOLE THE IDEAS AND PLAGIARIZED
THE PAPERS.
Therefore, we will look at each of these ideas and discover the source of
each. It should be remembered that these ideas are presented by Einstein's
worshipers as totally new and completely different, each of which would
change the landscape of science. These four papers dealt with the following
four ideas, respectively:
1) The foundation of the photon theory of light;
2) The equivalence of energy and mass;
3) The explanation of Brownian motion in liquids;
4) The special theory of relativity.
Let us first look at the last of these theories, the theory of relativity.
This is perhaps the most famous idea falsely attributed to Einstein.
Specifically, this 1905 paper dealt with what Einstein called the Special
Theory of Relativity (the General Theory would come in 1915). This theory
contradicted the traditional Newtonian mechanics and was based upon two
premises: 1) in the absence of acceleration, the laws of nature are the same
for all observers; and 2) since the speed of light is independent of the
motion of its source, then the time interval between two events is longer
for an observer in whose frame of reference the events occur at different
places than for an observer in whose frame of reference the events occur in
the same place.
This is basically the idea that time passes more slowly as one's velocity
approaches the speed of light, relative to slower velocities where time
would pass faster.
This theory has been validated by modern experiments and is the basis for
modern physics. But these two premises are far from being originally
Einstein's. FIRST OF ALL, THE IDEA THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT WAS A CONSTANT
AND WAS INDEPENDENT OF THE MOTION OF ITS SOURCE WAS NOT EINSTEIN=S AT ALL,
BUT WAS PROPOSED BY THE SCOTTISH SCIENTIST JAMES MAXWELL. Maxwell studied
the phenomenon of light extensively and first proposed that it was
electromagnetic in nature.
He wrote an article to this effect for the 1878 edition of the Encyclopedia
Britannica. His ideas prompted much debate, and by 1887, as a result of his
work and the ensuing debate, the scientific community, particularly Lorentz,
Michelson, and Morley reached the conclusion that the velocity of light was
independent of the velocity of the observer. Thus, this piece of the Special
Theory of Relativity was known 27 years before Einstein wrote his paper.
This debate over the nature of light also led Michelson and Morley to
conduct an important experiment, the results of which could not be explained
by Newtonian mechanics. They observed a phenomenon caused by relativity but
they did not understand relativity.
They had attempted to detect the motion of the earth through ether, which
was a medium thought to be necessary for the propagation of light. IN
RESPONSE TO THIS PROBLEM, IN 1880, THE IRISH PHYSICIST GEORGE FITZ GERALD,
WHO HAD ALSO FIRST PROPOSED A MECHANISM FOR PRODUCING RADIO WAVES, WROTE A
PAPER WHICH STATED THAT THE RESULTS OF THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT COULD
BE EXPLAINED IF, A...THE LENGTH OF MATERIAL BODIES CHANGES, ACCORDING AS
THEY ARE MOVING THROUGH THE EITHER OR ACROSS IT BY AN AMOUNT DEPENDING ON
THE SQUARE OF THE RATIO OF THEIR VELOCITIES TO THAT OF LIGHT.@
THIS IS THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY, 13 YEARS BEFORE EINSTEIN=S PAPER!
FURTHERMORE, IN 1892, HENDRIK LORENTZ, FROM THE NETHERLANDS, PROPOSED THE
SAME SOLUTION AND BEGAN TO GREATLY EXPAND THE IDEA. All throughout the
1890's, both Lorentz and FitzGerald worked on these ideas and wrote articles
strangely similar to Einstein's Special Theory detailing what is now known
as the Lorentz-Fitz Gerald Contraction.
IN 1898, THE IRISHMAN JOSEPH LARMOR WROTE DOWN EQUATIONS EXPLAINING THE
LORENTZ-FITZ GERALD CONTRACTION AND ITS RELATIVISTIC CONSEQUENCES, 7 YEARS
BEFORE EINSTEIN=S PAPER. By 1904, Lorentz transformations, the series of
equations explaining relativity, were published by Lorentz. They describe
the increase of mass, the shortening of length, and the time dilation of a
body moving at speeds close to the velocity of light. In short, by 1904,
everything in Einstein's paper regarding the Special Theory of Relativity
had already been published.
The Frenchman Poincaré had, in 1898, written a paper unifying many of these
ideas. HE STATED SEVEN YEARS BEFORE EINSTEIN=S PAPER THAT, A...we have no
direct intuition about the equality of two time intervals. The simultaneity
of two events or the order of their succession, as well as the equality of
two time intervals, must be defined in such a way that the statements of the
natural laws be as simple as possible.@
ANYONE WHO HAS READ EINSTEIN=S 1905 PAPER WILL IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZE THE
SIMILARITY AND THE LACK OF ORIGINALITY ON THE PART OF EINSTEIN.
Thus we see that the only thing original about the paper was the term
'Special Theory of Relativity.' EVERYTHING ELSE WAS PLAGIARIZED. Over the
next few years, Poincaré became one of the most important lecturers and
writers regarding relativity, but he never, in any of his papers or
speeches, mentioned Albert Einstein.
Thus, while Poincaré was busy bringing the rest of the academic world up to
speed regarding relativity, Einstein was still working in the patent office
in Bern and no one in the academic community thought it necessary to give
much credence or mention to Einstein's work. Most of these early physicists
knew that he was a fraud.
This brings us to the explanation of Brownian motion, the subject of another
of Einstein's 1905 papers. Brownian motion describes the irregular motion of
a body arising from the thermal energy of the molecules of the material in
which the body is immersed. The movement had first been observed by the
Scottish botanist Robert Brown in 1827.
The explanation of this phenomenon has to do with the Kinetic Theory of
Matter, and it was the American Josiah Gibbs and the Austrian Ludwig
Boltzmann who first explained this occurrence, not Albert Einstein. In fact,
the mathematical equation describing the motion contains the famous
Boltzmann constant, k. Between these two men, they had explained by the
1890s everything in Einstein's 1905 paper regarding Brownian motion.
The subject of the equivalence of mass and energy was contained in a third
paper published by Einstein in 1905. This concept is expressed by the famous
equation E=mc2. Einstein's biographers categorize this as Ahis most famous
and most spectacular conclusion.@ Even though this idea is an obvious
conclusion of Einstein's earlier relativity paper, it was not included in
that paper but was published as an afterthought later in the year. Still,
the idea of energy-mass equivalence was not original with Einstein.
That there was an equivalence between mass and energy had been shown in the
laboratory in the 1890s by both J.J. Thomsom of Cambridge and by W. Kaufmann
in Göttingen. In 1900, Poincaré had shown that there was a mass relationship
for all forms of energy, not just electromagnetic energy. Yet, the most
probable source of Einstein's plagiarism was Friedrich Hasenöhrl, one of the
most brilliant, yet unappreciated physicists of the era.
Hasenöhrl was the teacher of many of the German scientists who would later
become famous for a variety of topics. He had worked on the idea of the
equivalence of mass and energy for many years and had published a paper on
the topic in 1904 in the very same journal which Einstein would publish his
plagiarized version in 1905. For his brilliant work in this area, Hasenörhl
had received in 1904 a prize from the prestigious Vienna Academy of
Sciences.
Furthermore, the mathematical relationship of mass and energy was a simple
deduction from the already well-known equations of Scottish physicist James
Maxwell. Scientists long understood that the mathematical relationship
expressed by the equation E=mc2 was the logical result of Maxwell's work,
they just did not believe it.
THUS, THE EXPERIMENTS OF THOMSON, KAUFMANN, AND FINALLY, AND MOST
IMPORTANTLY, HASENÖRHL, CONFIRMED MAXWELL=S WORK. IT IS LUDICROUS TO BELIEVE
THAT EINSTEIN DEVELOPED THIS POSTULATE, particularly in light of the fact
that Einstein did not have the laboratory necessary to conduct the
appropriate experiments.
In this same plagiarized article of Einstein's, he suggested to the
scientific community, APerhaps it will prove possible to test this theory
using bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts
of radium).@
This remark demonstrates how little Einstein understood about science, for
this was truly an outlandish remark. By saying this, Einstein showed that he
really did not understand basic scientific principles and that he was
writing about a topic that he did not understand. In fact, in response to
this article, J. Precht remarked that such an experiment Alies beyond the
realm of possible experience.@
The last subject dealt with in Einstein's 1905 papers was the foundation of
the photon theory of light. Einstein wrote about the photoelectric effect.
The photoelectric effect is the release of electrons from certain metals or
semiconductors by the action of light. This area of research is particularly
important to the Einstein myth because it was for this topic that he
UNJUSTLY received his 1922 Nobel Prize.
But AGAIN IT IS NOT EINSTEIN, BUT WILHELM WIEN AND MAX PLANCK WHO DESERVE
THE CREDIT. The main point of Einstein's paper, and the point for which he
is given credit, is that light is emitted and absorbed in finite packets
called quanta. This was the explanation for the photoelectric effect. The
photoelectric effect had been explained by Heinrich Hertz in 1888. Hertz and
others, including Philipp Lenard, worked on understanding this phenomenon.
Lenard was the first to show that the energy of the electrons released in
the photoelectric effect was not governed by the intensity of the light but
by the frequency of the light. This was an important breakthrough.
Wien and Planck were colleagues and they were the fathers of modern day
quantum theory. By 1900, Max Planck, based upon his and Wien's work, had
shown that radiated energy was absorbed and emitted in finite units called
quanta. The only difference in his work of 1900 and Einstein's work of 1905
was that Einstein limited himself to talking about one particular type of
energy n light energy. But the principles and equations governing the
process in general had been deduced by Planck in 1900. Einstein himself
admitted that the obvious conclusion of Planck's work was that light also
existed in discrete packets of energy. Thus, nothing in this paper of
Einstein's was original.
After the 1905 papers of Einstein were published, the scientific community
took little notice and Einstein continued his job at the patent office until
1909 when it was arranged for him to take a position at a school by World
Jewry.
Still, it was not until a 1919 (A Jewish) newspaper headline that he gained
any notoriety. With Einstein's academic appointment in 1909, he was placed
in a position where he could begin to use other people's work as his own
more openly.
He engaged many of his students to look for ways to prove the theories he
had supposedly developed, or ways to apply those theories, and then he could
present the research as his own or at least take partial credit.
In this vein, in 1912, he began to try and express his gravitational
research in terms of a new, recently developed calculus, which was conducive
to understanding relativity. This was the beginning of his General Theory of
Relativity, which he would publish in 1915. BUT THE MATHEMATICAL WORK WAS
NOT DONE BY EINSTEIN; HE WAS INCAPABLE OF IT. Instead, it was performed by
the mathematician Marcel Grossmann, who in turn used the mathematical
principles developed by Berhard Riemann, who was the first to develop a
sound non-Euclidean geometry, which is the basis of all mathematics used to
describe relativity.
The General Theory of Relativity applied the principles of relativity to the
universe; that is, to the gravitational pull of planets and their orbits,
and the general principle that light rays bend as they pass by a massive
object. Einstein published an initial paper in 1913 based upon the work
which Grossmann did, adapting the math of Riemann to Relativity. But this
paper was filled with errors and the conclusions were incorrect.
It appears that Grossmann was not smart enough to figure it out for
Einstein. So Einstein was forced to look elsewhere to plagiarize his General
Theory. Einstein published his correct General Theory of Relativity in 1915,
and said prior to its publication that he, Acompletely succeeded in
convincing Hilbert and Klein.@ He is referring to David Hilbert, perhaps the
most brilliant mathematician of the 20th century, and Felix Klein, another
mathematician who had been instrumental in the development of the area of
calculus that Grossmann had used to develop the General Theory of Relativity
for Einstein.
Einstein's statement regarding the two men would lead the reader to believe
that Einstein had changed Hilbert's and Klein's opinions regarding General
Relativity, and that he had influenced them in their thinking.
However, the exact opposite is true. EINSTEIN STOLE THE MAJORITY OF HIS
GENERAL RELATIVITY WORK FROM THESE TWO MEN, THE REST BEING TAKEN FROM
GROSSMANN. HILBERT SUBMITTED FOR PUBLICATION, A WEEK BEFORE EINSTEIN
COMPLETED HIS WORK, A PAPER WHICH CONTAINED THE CORRECT FIELD EQUATIONS OF
GENERAL RELATIVITY.
What this means is that Hilbert wrote basically the exact same paper, with
the same conclusions, before Einstein did. Einstein would have had an
opportunity to know of Hilbert's work all along, because there were Jewish
friends of his working for Hilbert. Yet, even this was not necessary, for
Einstein had seen Hilbert's paper in advance of publishing his own. Both of
these papers were, before being printed, delivered in the form of a lecture.
Einstein presented his paper on November 25, 1915 in Berlin and Hilbert had
presented his paper on November 20 in Göttingen. On November 18, Hilbert
received a letter from Einstein thanking him for sending him a draft of the
treatise Hilbert was to deliver on the 20th. So, in fact, Hilbert had sent a
copy of his work at least two weeks in advance to Einstein before either of
the two men delivered their lectures, but Einstein did not send Hilbert an
advance copy of his.
Therefore, THIS SERVES AS INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF THAT EINSTEIN QUICKLY
PLAGIARIZED THE WORK AND THEN PRESENTED IT, HOPING TO BEAT HILBERT TO THE
PUNCH. Also, at the same time, Einstein publicly began to belittle Hilbert,
even though in the previous summer he had praised him in an effort to get
Hilbert to share his work with him. Hilbert made the mistake of sending
Einstein this draft copy, but still he delivered his work first.
Not only did Hilbert publish his work first, but it was of much higher
quality than Einstein's. It is known today that there are many problems with
assumptions made in Einstein's General Theory paper. We know today that
Hilbert was much closer to the truth. Hilbert's paper is the forerunner of
the unified field theory of gravitation and electromagnetism and of the work
of Erwin Schrödinger, whose work is the basis of all modern day quantum
mechanics.
That the group of men discussed so far were the actual originators of the
ideas claimed by Einstein was known by the scientific community all along.
In 1940, a group of German physicists meeting in Austria declared that
Abefore Einstein, Aryan scientists like Lorentz, Hasenöhrl, Poincaré, etc.,
had created the foundations of the theory of relativity.@ However, the
Jewish media did not promote the work of these men. The Jewish media did not
promote the work of David Hilbert, but instead they promoted the work of the
Jew Albert Einstein.
As we mentioned earlier, this General Theory, as postulated by Hilbert first
and in plagiarized form by Einstein second, stated that light rays should
bend when they pass by a massive object. In 1919, during the eclipse of the
Sun, light from distant stars passing close to the Sun was observed to bend
according to the theory. This evidence supported the General Theory of
Relativity, and the Jewish-controlled media immediately seized upon the
opportunity to prop up Einstein as a hero, at the expense of the true
genius, David Hilbert.
On November 7th, 1919, the London Times ran an article, the headline of
which proclaimed, ARevolution in science; New theory of the Universe,
Newtonian ideas overthrown.@ This was the beginning of the force-feeding of
the Einstein myth to the masses. In the following years, Einstein's earlier
1905 papers were propagandized and Einstein was heralded as the originator
of all the ideas he had stolen. Because of this push by the Jewish media, in
1922, EINSTEIN RECEIVED THE NOBEL PRIZE FOR THE WORK HE HAD STOLEN IN 1905
REGARDING THE PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT.
The establishment of the Einstein farce between 1919 and 1922 was an
important coup for world Zionism and Jewry. As soon as Einstein had been
established as an idol to the popular masses of England and America, his
image was promoted as the rare genius that he is erroneously believed to be
today.
As such, he immediately began his work as a tool for World Zionism. The
masses bought into the idea that if someone was so brilliant as to change
our fundamental understanding of the universe, then certainly we ought to
listen to his opinions regarding political and social issues.
This is exactly what World Jewry wanted to establish in its ongoing effort
of social engineering. They certainly did not want someone like David
Hilbert to be recognized as rare genius. After all, this physicist had come
from a strong German, Christian background. His grandfather's two middle
names were 'Fürchtegott Leberecht' or 'Fear God, Live Right.' In August of
1934, the day before a vote was to be taken regarding installing Adolf
Hitler as President of the Reich, Hilbert signed a proclamation in support
of Adolf Hitler, along with other leading German scientists, that was
published in the German newspapers. So the Jews certainly did not want David
Hilbert receiving the credit he deserved.
The Jews did not want Max Planck receiving the credit he deserved either.
This German's grandfather and great-grandfather had been important German
theologians, and during World War II he would stay in Germany throughout the
war, supporting his fatherland the best he could.
The Jews certainly did not want the up-and-coming Erwin Schrödinger to be
heralded as a genius to the masses. This Austrian physicist would go on to
teach at Adolf Hitler University in Austria, and he wrote a public letter
expressing his support for the Third Reich. This Austrian's work on the
unified field theory was a forerunner of modern physics, even though it had
been criticized by Einstein, who apparently could not understand it.
The Jews did not want to have Werner Heisenberg promoted as a rare genius,
even though he would go on to solidify quantum theory and contribute to it
greatly, as well as develop his famous uncertainty principle, in addition to
describing the modern atom and nucleus and the binding energies that are
essential to modern chemistry.
NO, THE JEWS DID NOT WANT HEISENBERG PROMOTED AS A GENIUS BECAUSE HE WOULD
GO ON TO HEAD THE GERMAN ATOMIC BOMB PROJECT AND SERVE PRISON TIME AFTER THE
WAR FOR HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE THIRD REICH.
No, the Jews did not want to give credit to any of a number of white
Germans, Austrians, Irishmen, Frenchmen, Scotsmen, Englishmen, and even
Americans who had contributed to the body of knowledge and evidence from
which Einstein plagiarized and stole his work.
Instead, they needed to erect Einstein as their golden calf, even though he
repeatedly and often embarrassed himself with his nonfactual or nearsighted
comments regarding the work he had supposedly done. For example, in 1934,
the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ran a front page article in which Einstein gave
an Aemphatic denial@ regarding the idea of practical applications for the
Aenergy of the atom.@ The article says, ABut the 'energy of the atom' is
something else again. If you believe that man will someday be able to
harness this boundless energynto drive a great steamship across the ocean on
a pint of water, for instancenthen, according to Einstein, you are wrong@
Again, Einstein clearly did not understand the branch of physics he had
supposedly founded, though elsewhere in the world at the time theoretical
research was underway that would lead to the atomic bomb and nuclear energy.
But after Einstein was promoted as a god in 1919, he made no real attempts
to plagiarize any other work. Rather, he began his real purpose n
evangelizing for the cause of Zionism and World Jewry. Though he did publish
other articles after this time, all of them were co-authored by at least one
other person, and in each instance, Einstein had little if anything to do
with the research that led to the articles; he was merely recruited by the
co-authors in order to lend credence to their work. Thus freed of the
pretense of academia, Einstein began his assault for World Zionism.
In 1921, Einstein made his first visit to the United States on a
fund-raising tour for the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and to promote
Zionism. In April of 1922, Einstein used his status to gain membership in a
Commission of the League of Nations. In February of 1923, Einstein visits
Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. In June of 1923, he becomes a founding member of the
Association of Friends of the New Russia. In 1926, Einstein took a break
from his Communist and Zionistic activities to again embarrass himself
scientifically by criticizing the work of Schrödinger and Heisenberg.
Following a brief illness, he resumes his Zionistic agenda, wanting an
independent Israel and at the same time a World Government.
In the 1930s he actively campaigns against all forms of war, although he
would reverse this position during World War II when he advocated war
against Germany and the creation of the atomic bomb, which he thought was
impossible to build. In 1939 and 1940, Einstein, at the request of other
Jews, wrote two letters to Roosevelt urging an American program to develop
an atomic bomb to be used on Germany n not Japan. Einstein would have no
part in the actual construction of the bomb, theoretical or practical,
because he lacked the skills for either.
In December of 1946, Einstein rekindles his efforts for a World Government,
with Israel apparently being the only autonomous nation. This push continues
through the rest of the 1940s. In 1952, Einstein, who had been instrumental
in the creation of the State of Israel, both politically and economically,
is offered the presidency of Israel. He declines. In 1953, he spends his
time attacking the McCarthy Committee, and he supports Communists such as J.
Robert Oppenheimer. He encourages civil disobedience in response to the
McCarthy trials. Finally, on April 18, 1955, this filthy Jewish demagogue
dies.
Dead, the Jews no longer had to worry about Einstein making stupid
statements. His death was just the beginning of his usage and exploitation
by World Jewry. The Jewish-controlled media continued to promote the myth of
this Super-Jew long after his death, and as more and more of the men who
knew better died off, the Jews were more and more able to aggrandize his
myth and lie more boldly. This brazen lying has culminated in the
Jew-controlled Time magazine naming Einstein AThe Person of the Century@ at
the close of 1999.
It may be demonstrated that the Jewish lies have become more bold with the
passage of time because Einstein was never named AMan of the Year@ while he
was alive, but now, over forty years after his death, he is named APerson of
the Century.@
Einstein was given this title in spite of the clear-cut choice for the
APerson of the Century,@ Adolf Hitler. Hitler was indeed named AMan of the
Year@ while he was still living by Time magazine, and according to a
December 27, 1999, article in the USA Today, Einstein was chosen over Adolf
Hitler because of the perceived Anasty public relations fallout@ that would
accompany that choice; yet in Internet polling by Time, Hitler finished
third and was the top serious candidate. Still the issue of Time magazine
dedicated to Einstein, which has articles by men with names like Isaacson,
Golden, Stein, Rudenstine, and Rosenblatt, is interesting to read.
For one, they found it necessary to include an article rationalizing why
they did not pick the obvious choice, Adolf Hitler. But more interesting is
the article by Stephen Hawking which purports to be a history of the theory
of relativity. In it, Hawking admits many of the things in this article,
such as the fact that Hilbert published the General Theory of Relativity
before Einstein and that Fitz Gerald and Lorentz deduced the concept of
relativity long before Einstein. Hawking also writes,
AEinstein was deeply disturbed by the work of Werner Heisenberg in
Copenhagen, Paul Dirac in Cambridge and Erwin Schrödinger in Zurich, who
developed a new picture of reality called quantum mechanics. Einstein was
horrified by this Most scientists, however, accepted the validity of the new
quantum laws because they showed excellent agreement with observations They
are the basis of modern developments in chemistry, molecular biology and
electronics and the foundation of the technology that has transformed the
world in the past half-century.@
This is all very true, yet the same magazine credits Einstein with all of
the modern developments that Hawking names, even through Einstein was so
stupid as to be vehemently against the most important idea of modern
science, just as he opposed Schrödinger's work in unified field theory which
was far ahead of its time.
The same magazine admits that Asuccess eluded@ Einstein in the field of
explaining the contradictions between relativity and quantum mechanics.
Today, these contradictions are explained by the unified field theory, but
Einstein, who proves himself to be one of the least intelligent of 20th
century scientists, refused to believe in either quantum theory or the
unified field theory.
To name Einstein as AThe Person of the Century@ is one of the most ludicrous
and absurd lies of all time, yet it has been successfully pulled off by
Isaacson, Golden, Stein, Rudenstine, and Rosenblatt and the Jewish owners of
Time magazine. If the Jews at Time wanted to give the title to an inventor
or scientist, then the most obvious choice would have been men like Hilbert,
Planck, or Heisenberg.
If they wanted to give it to the scientist who most fundamentally changed
the landscape of 20th century science, then the obvious choice would be
William Shockley. This Nobel prize winning scientist invented the
transistor, which is the basis of all modern electronic devices and
computers, everything from modern cars and telephones, VCRs and watches, to
the amazing computers which have allowed incomprehensible advances in all
fields of science. Without the transistor, all forms of science today would
be basically in the same place that they were in the late 1940s.
However, the Jews cannot allow the due credit to go to William Shockley
because he spent the majority of his scientific career demonstrating the
genetic and mental inferiority of non-whites and arguing for their
sterilization. His scientific, genetic views led the Jews to financially
destroy Shockley who founded the first company in the Silicon Valley, his
hometown, to develop computer chips. The Jews hired away his entire staff
and used them to start Fairchild semiconductor, the company that today is
known as Intel.
No the Jews could not let any of the truly great geniuses of our time be
recognized, not the anti-Semite Henry Ford, not the great German scientists
who helped the National Socialists in Germany, not Charles Lindbergh, who
was sympathetic to National Socialist causes, and certainly not William
Shockley, one of the most brilliant physicists and geneticists of our time.
Instead, the Jews propped up the Zionist, Communist Albert Einstein who
hated everything white.
After World War II, Einstein demonstrated his hatred of the White Race and
of the Germans in particular in the following statements. He was asked what
he thought about Germany and about re-educating the Germans after the war
and said,
AThe nation has been on the decline mentally and morally since 1870Behind
the Nazi party stands the German people, who elected Hitler after he had in
his book and in his speeches made his shameful intentions clear beyond the
possibility of misunderstanding. The Germans can be killed or constrained
after the war, but they cannot be re-educated to a democratic way of
thinking and acting@
Einstein here is advocating the murder of Germans, because he feels that
this is the only way that they can be kept in check. He is right about one
thing, the Germans did knowingly support the cause of National Socialism,
but what Einstein is attacking is Christianity, because it was Christianity
that led the German people to overwhelmingly support National Socialism.
It was the German Christian Faith Movement and the Christian Social Party of
men like Karl Lueger that led the German people to their understanding of
Jews. The Jew Daniel Goldhagen has recently shown the Christian basis of
National Socialism in his book, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary
Germans and the Holocaust, and the book Why The Jews? by Prager and
Telushkin similarly proves the Christian origins of what the Jews call
'anti-Semitism.' Einstein understood this and Einstein, like all Jews, hated
Christianity.
So what Einstein was really advocating was the killing and constraining of
all true Christians, not just German Christians. This is the true purpose
and intent of Zionism and the demagogue Einstein was merely a tool of World
Zionism and Jewry towards this end.
Zionistic Jews understand that true, primitive Christianity is the mortal
enemy of mongrel Judaism. This is why the Jews, like Einstein, hated Nazi
Germany so much, for National Socialist Germany advocated primitive,
positive Christianity in the 24th point of its Party Platform.
James Powell
This is really pitiful, John. Even for you.
> In a "politically correct academic environment" filled with morons like
you,
> they're virtually prohibited from speaking out about the TRUTH about this
> jew LIAR.
>
No scientist has been prevented from speaking out. Even now, there are
arguments on finer points of Einstein's theories. The only ones who have
hushed are the idiots that are laughed out of the halls because they do not
have a clue - like you.
> The FEW who have spoken up and expressed the TRUTH about this STUPID jew
> Einstein have been punished, insulted, fired, character assassinated,
> demoted, and demoralized.
>
Proof? Name names, johnny.
> "Einstein's explanation is a dimensional disguise for Lorentz's. . . .
Thus
> Einstein's theory is not a denial of, nor an alternative for, that of
> Lorentz. It is only a duplicate and disguise for it. . . . Einstein
> continually maintains that the theory of Lorentz is right, only he
disagrees
> with his 'interpretation.' Is it not clear, therefore, that in this, as in
> other cases, Einstein's theory is merely a disguise for Lorentz's, the
> apparent disagreement about 'interpretation' being a matter of words
> only?" -- James Mackaye
>
The only reference I find for a 'James Mackaye' died in 1935. Hardly a
relevant quote, now, is it?
> WHY?
>
> Because after almost a century, the STUPID jews STILL need to prop up this
> dead corpse of Einstein as a "genius" because he's no longer around to
make
> the STUPID statements he made, like the following, which PROVED what a
MORON
> he was. Why haven't the jews produced another "genius" like Einstein in
all
> this time? Because they couldn't get away with it this time around. Why
> were two thirds of Einstein's offspring mental vegetables? Because
Einstein
> was a mental vegetable.
>
Even if true, that would make him a giant compared to your demonstrated
mental abilities. BTW - You need proof that the 'Jews' are propping Einstein
up as a genius. Last time I checked, he was considered a genius by anyone
with a wit of intelligence.
> "But the 'energy of the atom' is something else again. If you believe that
> man will someday be able to harness this boundless energy-to drive a great
> steamship across the ocean on a pint of water, for instance-then,
according
> to Einstein, you are wrong..." 1934, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
>
Don't know where you dug this up, but the author had no clue what they were
talking about.
> "The nation has been on the decline mentally and morally since
1870...Behind
> the Nazi party stands the German people, who elected Hitler after he had
in
> his book and in his speeches made his shameful intentions clear beyond the
> possibility of misunderstanding. ... The Germans can be killed or
> constrained after the war, but they cannot be re-educated to a democratic
> way of thinking and acting..." Albert Einstein
>
> John Knight
Interesting. The only source on the web for this quote are those who swallow
the whole 'Einstein is a plagiarist' bullshit. Methinks the quote is bogus.
Provide a true source.
James Powell
James Powell
So what is it? Does Gravity go Warp Factor 5 or 6?
> You and your einsteinian friends need to get your LIES straight, Powell.
>
> John Knight
You need to get your brain straight. This isn't even a good comeback.
You lose.
James Powell
Rusty Shackleford
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Albert Einstein arrives in America and accepts a position at Abraham
> Flexner's Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton. WHERE ALBERT
EINSTEIN
> IS HELD UP BY THE JEWISH LIARS AS A RARE GENIUS WHO DRASTICALLY CHANGED
THE
<sniped fascist dribble>
So who wrote this? The late George Lincoln Rockwell. It's odd that like
George Lincoln Rockwell you fascist pigs are usually done in by your own
kind. I guess it was one of your kind that killed the 5 people in
Mississippi last week at the Lockheed plant. Seems he lost it when he found
out he wasn't quite as superior has he was led to believe by trailer park
trash like yourself.
--
Rusty Shackleford
'What ever happens, happens necessarily'
msha...@NOSPAMrglobal.net
Remove NOSPAM from E-mail address to reply.
Mark Palenik
> >
> > Powell, even some einsteinians admit, under duress of course, that the
> speed
> > of gravity has to be much faster than the speed of light. Newton
presumed
> > that the speed of gravity was instantaneous, and einsteinians have NOT
> > refuted this presumption (even though it's not quite this fast).
> >
>
> So what is it? Does Gravity go Warp Factor 5 or 6?
Come on, everybody knows gravity goes at Warp 9.9
Bob LeChevalier
>"James Powell" <ja...@example.com> wrote in message
>news:2HWdncwrzat...@wideopenwest.com...
>> And shows that unless you
>>
>> (A) are Kenneth F.Wright
>>
>> (B) possess WRITTEN authorization from Kenneth F.Wright to republish the
>> work
>>
>> you are in violation of the copyright.
>>
>> Are you really that dense, Johnny boy?
>>
>> James Powell
>
>You STILL don't understand, do you, Powell!??
He understands; you don't.
>And besides that, it's NONE of your bees wax.
Public respect for the law is every citizen's business. You are
publicly flouting the law.
lojbab
John Knight
"Rusty Shackleford" <msha...@NOSPAMrglobal.net> wrote in message
news:besec...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Tell us quick, Rusty, how many Whites in America were killed by niggers
yesterday?
How many of them did you see reported in the jewsmedia?
How many Whites are killed by niggers on the AVERAGE in the US each year?
Why is this never mentioned by your jewspaper?
And why would you equate Rockwell with that shooting? Did Rockwell do
something like that? Do you have any idea AT ALL how RARE such an event is
compared to niggers killing Whites, or niggers killing each other?
Or are you just a little einstein?
John Knight
Bob LeChevalier
>Albert Einstein arrives in America and accepts a position at Abraham
>Flexner's Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton. WHERE ALBERT EINSTEIN
>IS HELD UP BY THE JEWISH LIARS AS A RARE GENIUS WHO DRASTICALLY CHANGED THE
>FIELD OF THEORETICAL PHYSICS.
Actually, even before this, he was held up by the Nobel Committee as a
rare genius who had drastically changed the field of theoretical
physics. Which of course is true.
>THE TRUTH, HOWEVER, IS
>VERY DIFFERENT. THE REALITY IS THAT EINSTEIN WAS AN INEPT, MORONIC JEW WHO
>COULD NOT EVEN TIE HIS OWN SHOELACES;
I'm sure that you have no evidence to support this claim, but it would
hardly matter. Steven Hawkings DEFINITELY cannot tie his own shoes,
and is still considered a rare genius who had drastically changed the
field of theoretical physics.
>HE CONTRIBUTED NOTHING ORIGINAL TO THE FIELD OF QUANTUM MECHANICS OR ANY OTHER SCIENCE,
Scientists disagree with you, observing that he INVENTED quantum
theory, and earned a Nobel for his work with the photoelectric effect.
But if you think you are smarter, let's see your original contribution
to the field of theoretical physics.
>... In 1895, Einstein failed a simple
>entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich.
It was not a "simple" entrance exam.
>This exam consisted mainly of mathematical problems,
The exam he failed was in French. He passed all of the math and
science exams.
>and Einstein showed
>himself to be mathematically inept in this exam. He then entered a lesser
>school hoping to use it as a stepping stone to the engineering school he
>could not get into, but after graduating in 1900, he still could not get a
>position at the engineering school!
He was admitted to the "engineering school", internationally known
ETH, in 1896, the year after he failed the exam, and the 1900
graduation was from precisely that school that you say he could not
get into.
>Unable to go to the school as he had wanted,
Liar.
> he got a job (with the help of a friend) at the patent office in Bern.
You skip the fact that he worked for a few months as a math teacher,
but we'll ignore that.
>He was to be a technical expert
>third class, which meant that he was too incompetent for a higher qualified
>position.
Which meant that he was an entry level worker with a degree. After
all, he was a technical "expert", which hardly suggests
"incompetence".
>Even after publishing his so-called ground-breaking papers of 1905
>and after working in the patent office for six years, he was only elevated
>to a second class standing.
By which time he was also lecturing at the University of Bern and
continuing his research. Once doesn't get promoted quickly when one's
job is merely a sideline means of paying the bills.
>Remember, the work he was doing at the patent
>office, for which he was only rated third class,
I'll bet that you aren't qualified for that work.
>was not quantum mechanics
>or theoretical physics, but was reviewing technical documents for patents of
>every day things;
Actually, patents are not only for "everyday things" and you probably
haven't a clue as to what he did on his job as a "technical expert".
>yet he was barely qualified.
Evidence? I thought not.
>He would work at the patent office until 1909, all the while continuously
>trying to get a position at a university, but without success.
Except that he did have a position at a university.
>All of these facts are true,
No, these non-facts are lies, liar.
>Supposedly, while working a full time job,
I've never seen any record as to what his working hours were.
>without the aid of university colleagues,
His special relativity paper explicitly acknowledged the assistance of
one colleague.
>a staff of graduate students,
Since he WAS a graduate student, he would not have a staff.
>a laboratory
Theoretical physicists seldom need a laboratory.
>or any of the things normally associated with an academic setting,
A university has all the things needed for an "academic setting", and
he was at a university.
>Einstein in his spare time
>wrote four ground-breaking essays in the field of theoretical physics and
>quantum mechanics that were published in 1905.
Actually, he wrote FIVE, since his PhD thesis was also a major paper,
and one of the most cited of his works in other researchers' papers.
>Many people have recognized the impossibility of such a feat,
That he did it shows that it was not impossible.
>including
>Einstein himself, and therefore Einstein has led people to believe that many
>of these ideas came to him in his sleep, out of the blue,
What idiots like you believe is irrelevant.
>because indeed
>that is the only logical explanation of how an admittedly inept moron could
>have written such documents at the age of 26 without any real education.
A PhD from a major university is a real education, and to no sane
person was he "an admittedly inept moron".
>HOWEVER, A SIMPLER EXPLANATION EXISTS: HE STOLE THE IDEAS AND PLAGIARIZED
>THE PAPERS.
Unfortunately, such a "simpler" explanation is false, and reflects the
"simple" minds of those who concocted it, most of whom could not
understand any of those 5 papers.
>He wrote an article to this effect for the 1878 edition of the Encyclopedia
>Britannica. His ideas prompted much debate, and by 1887, as a result of his
>work and the ensuing debate, the scientific community, particularly Lorentz,
>Michelson, and Morley reached the conclusion that the velocity of light was
>independent of the velocity of the observer. Thus, this piece of the Special
>Theory of Relativity was known 27 years before Einstein wrote his paper.
>
>This debate over the nature of light also led Michelson and Morley to
>conduct an important experiment, the results of which could not be explained
>by Newtonian mechanics. They observed a phenomenon caused by relativity but
>they did not understand relativity.
Key admission.
>They had attempted to detect the motion of the earth through ether, which
>was a medium thought to be necessary for the propagation of light. IN
>RESPONSE TO THIS PROBLEM, IN 1880, THE IRISH PHYSICIST GEORGE FITZ GERALD,
>WHO HAD ALSO FIRST PROPOSED A MECHANISM FOR PRODUCING RADIO WAVES, WROTE A
>PAPER WHICH STATED THAT THE RESULTS OF THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT COULD
>BE EXPLAINED IF, A...THE LENGTH OF MATERIAL BODIES CHANGES, ACCORDING AS
>THEY ARE MOVING THROUGH THE EITHER OR ACROSS IT BY AN AMOUNT DEPENDING ON
>THE SQUARE OF THE RATIO OF THEIR VELOCITIES TO THAT OF LIGHT.@
>
>THIS IS THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY,
No. It is *a* theory of relativity. It is not THE special theory of
relativity.
>FURTHERMORE, IN 1892, HENDRIK LORENTZ, FROM THE NETHERLANDS, PROPOSED THE
>SAME SOLUTION AND BEGAN TO GREATLY EXPAND THE IDEA. All throughout the
>1890's, both Lorentz and FitzGerald worked on these ideas and wrote articles
>strangely similar to Einstein's Special Theory detailing what is now known
>as the Lorentz-Fitz Gerald Contraction.
Not strange. Science was converging on the theory that would result.
Einstein was the one that put the pieces together.
>IN 1898, THE IRISHMAN JOSEPH LARMOR WROTE DOWN EQUATIONS EXPLAINING THE
>LORENTZ-FITZ GERALD CONTRACTION AND ITS RELATIVISTIC CONSEQUENCES, 7 YEARS
>BEFORE EINSTEIN=S PAPER. By 1904, Lorentz transformations, the series of
>equations explaining relativity, were published by Lorentz. They describe
>the increase of mass, the shortening of length, and the time dilation of a
>body moving at speeds close to the velocity of light. In short, by 1904,
>everything in Einstein's paper regarding the Special Theory of Relativity
>had already been published.
Except for Einstein's explanation, which is in fact what the Special
Theory of Relativity is.
>ANYONE WHO HAS READ EINSTEIN=S 1905 PAPER WILL IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZE THE
>SIMILARITY AND THE LACK OF ORIGINALITY ON THE PART OF EINSTEIN.
You almost certainly haven't read it and don't understand it.
>Thus, while Poincaré was busy bringing the rest of the academic world up to
>speed regarding relativity, Einstein was still working in the patent office
>in Bern and no one in the academic community thought it necessary to give
>much credence or mention to Einstein's work.
Unfortunately for you, the citations in the journals prove you wrong.
>The last subject dealt with in Einstein's 1905 papers was the foundation of
>the photon theory of light. Einstein wrote about the photoelectric effect.
>The photoelectric effect is the release of electrons from certain metals or
>semiconductors by the action of light. This area of research is particularly
>important to the Einstein myth because it was for this topic that he
>UNJUSTLY received his 1922 Nobel Prize.
The Nobel committee disagrees. They have far more credibility than
you.
>After the 1905 papers of Einstein were published, the scientific community
>took little notice
The scientific community took great notice.
>He engaged many of his students to look for ways to prove the theories he
>had supposedly developed, or ways to apply those theories, and then he could
>present the research as his own or at least take partial credit.
Evidence is not provided for these absurd claims, of course. The fact
that the typical student could not understand Einstein's work means
that it is silly to think that students did much of the work to
further his theories.
>What this means is that Hilbert wrote basically the exact same paper, with
>the same conclusions, before Einstein did. Einstein would have had an
>opportunity to know of Hilbert's work all along, because there were Jewish
>friends of his working for Hilbert. Yet, even this was not necessary, for
>Einstein had seen Hilbert's paper in advance of publishing his own.
Probably he himself was working with Hilbert.
>Therefore, THIS SERVES AS INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF THAT EINSTEIN QUICKLY
>PLAGIARIZED THE WORK AND THEN PRESENTED IT, HOPING TO BEAT HILBERT TO THE
>PUNCH.
It "proves" no such thing.
>Also, at the same time, Einstein publicly began to belittle Hilbert,
Evidence?
>Not only did Hilbert publish his work first, but it was of much higher
>quality than Einstein's.
Evidence?
>It is known today that there are many problems with
>assumptions made in Einstein's General Theory paper. We know today that
>Hilbert was much closer to the truth. Hilbert's paper is the forerunner of
>the unified field theory of gravitation and electromagnetism and of the work
>of Erwin Schrödinger, whose work is the basis of all modern day quantum
>mechanics.
Nonsensical gobbledygook, since there is no unified field theory of
gravitation and electromagnetism.
>Einstein was given this title in spite of the clear-cut choice for the
>APerson of the Century,@ Adolf Hitler. Hitler was indeed named AMan of the
>Year@ while he was still living by Time magazine, and according to a
>December 27, 1999, article in the USA Today, Einstein was chosen over Adolf
>Hitler because of the perceived Anasty public relations fallout@ that would
>accompany that choice; yet in Internet polling by Time, Hitler finished
>third and was the top serious candidate.
Hitler is a candidate for madman of the century, competing only with
Stalin.
>For one, they found it necessary to include an article rationalizing why
>they did not pick the obvious choice, Adolf Hitler.
The author reveals himself to be a contemptible Nazi. Since the
nincompoop does not admit that he stole this work unattributed from
another source, the nincompoop demonstrates himself to be the
plagiarist he accuses Einstein of being. Since he elsewhere condemns
Hitler as being a "Jew" while here plaudits him as the obvious man of
the century, he also reveals himself to be a confused fool who can't
make up his mind (or one who has such poor reading comprehension
skills, he cannot recognize when the article he has plagiarized
contradicts his own bullshit).
>After World War II, Einstein demonstrated his hatred of the White Race
There is no such thing.
>Einstein here is advocating the murder of Germans, because he feels that
>this is the only way that they can be kept in check. He is right about one
>thing, the Germans did knowingly support the cause of National Socialism,
>but what Einstein is attacking is Christianity, because it was Christianity
>that led the German people to overwhelmingly support National Socialism.
Yet the nincompoop elsewhere claims it was the "Joos".
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>Interesting. The only source on the web for this quote are those who swallow
>the whole 'Einstein is a plagiarist' bullshit. Methinks the quote is bogus.
>Provide a true source.
The hilarious thing is that the nincompoop himself is plagiarizing
rampantly in posting stuff written by others without attribution.
lojbab
Rusty Shackleford
> "John Knight" <johnk...@usa.com> wrote:
> >Albert Einstein arrives in America and accepts a position at Abraham
> >Flexner's Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton. WHERE ALBERT
EINSTEIN
> >IS HELD UP BY THE JEWISH LIARS AS A RARE GENIUS WHO DRASTICALLY CHANGED
THE
> >FIELD OF THEORETICAL PHYSICS.
>
<snip>
>
> >Remember, the work he was doing at the patent
> >office, for which he was only rated third class,
>
> I'll bet that you aren't qualified for that work.
>
Ha, I bet Johny boy works in a car wash. He's got to pay for that prime
space he has at the trailer park.
--
Rusty Shackleford
'What ever happens, happens necessarily'
msha...@NOSPAMrglobal.net
Remove NOSPAM from E-mail address to reply.
Bob LeChevalier
>Tell us quick, Rusty, how many Whites in America were killed by niggers
>yesterday?
None. There are no such things as "Whites".
lojbab
Rusty Shackleford
You don't even know the history of the American fascist party. George
Lincoln Rockwell was killed by his own fascist party member who was white.
As far as the reference to the killings in Mississippi, it was not George
Lincoln Rockwell I was equating it with. I was equating it with you. You
have the same mental sickness that the guy in Mississippi had. Your a
ticking time bomb just waiting to explode. Eventually you will discover that
you are a complete dufus and are vastly outnumbered by the people you call
the muds, jews blacks and all others who seem to challenge your superiority
complex and manlyhood. Who knows how many innocent people will suffer
because of your sick mind and others like you.
John Knight
"Rusty Shackleford" <msha...@NOSPAMrglobal.net> wrote in message
Well, I must admit, even with your inability to stay on point with a thread
entitled "The Einstein Hoax", even though you've never contributed a shred
of intelligence to the actual discussion, even though you seem incapable of
the task of examining why Einstein felt the need to plagiarize from dozens
of WHITE MEN without ever citing them, you've done a great job of summing up
the mud mentality.
In fact, it's so good, it's going to be framed.
I think you'll like it.
John Knight
ps--let's see if we can get you involved in this discussion, Shaq. Do you
think Einstein might have stolen any ideas from George Washington Carver?
Or Martin Luther King?
Bob LeChevalier
>Well, I must admit, even with your inability to stay on point with a thread
>entitled "The Einstein Hoax", even though you've never contributed a shred
>of intelligence to the actual discussion,
You haven't contributed a shred of intelligence to the world at all.
>even though you seem incapable of
>the task of examining why Einstein felt the need to plagiarize from dozens
>of WHITE MEN without ever citing them,
Why do you feel the need to beat your wife three times a day?
He had no need, since he did no such thing.
>you've done a great job of summing up the mud mentality.
Whereas you've done a great job of what it is like to have mud
mentality (i.e. a brain composed of slimy wet dirt and rotten
compost).
lojbab
Henrietta K Thomas
wrote:
>
>"nobody" ...
>
>> ...
>
>> Whatever worked.
>
>Which begs the ? what is it about you that does work being
>somewhat brain-dead, eh ?
Maybe he knows something the rest of us don't know.
>
James Hall
"John Knight" 's
dumps are anything like his/her posts then that is one smelly
smelly overflowing toilet, eh.
JHall.
Gray Shockley
(in message <nHKMa.117381$hd6.49447@ fed1 read05>):
> Not to worry. Any coopting of the phrase is more than compensated for by
> the 2 billion copies of the Holy Bible which dedicate about 85% of it's
> content to making sure that the genealogy of Semites is never forgotten.
Your reference does not back up your 85% claim.
More sloppy (or, rather, non-existent) "scholarship.
Have you ever written a paper that was coherent? Between your distortion of
history, your trashing of Christ's life and your mockingbird recitations of
rather silly pseudo-science, you obviously should have struck to being a
bootblack.
Gray Shockley
(in message <bJ9Na.118093$hd6.22206@fed1read05>):
> If Christ was right about the "jews" who He met outside the temple, who
> demanded He be crucified, then He was a Semite (and a Hebrew, and an
> Israelite), and they weren't. Their reply to Him suggested they knew He
> knew they were mamzers who aren't even permitted into the congregation of
> the LORD, even until the tenth generation:
So, after approx 363 CE, they were permitted into the Congregation.
And that's using the old, "conservative" time-period of a "generation" of 33
years.
It's quite more likely that they were allowed back into the Congregation
around 260 CE.
That's more than fifteen centuries ago, Knightie.
Do you need help with simple arithmetic, too?
Gray Shockley
(in message <bJ9Na.118093$hd6.22206@fed1read05>):
> iow, by Israelite law, which is almost 180 degrees different than jewish
> law, both parents need to be Israelites for the offspring to be considered
> an Israelite.
Is that according to British Israelism, which you reference?
How's the old pyramidology, Johnkins?
Gray Shockley
(in message <4_JNa.119721$hd6.93820@fed1read05>):
> "Prove" it? Do you EVER read the Holy Bible? Here are Christ's own words:
>
> Joh 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you doeth the law?
> Why seek ye to kill me?
>
> Joh 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed: yet ye seek to kill me, because
> my word hath not free course in you.
>
> Joh 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth,
> which I heard from God: this did not Abraham.
>
> Joh 8:48 The Jews answered and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art
> a Samaritan, and hast a demon?
>
> And here is what Christ's Disciples said about the jews trying to kill
> Christ:
>
> Joh 5:18 For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him,
>
> Joh 7:1 And after these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not
> walk in Judaea, because the Jews sought to kill him.
And "Joh" is?
Oh, I see that your "spiritual sons", Uday and Qusay - who agreed with you on
almost everything - may have had an interruption in their Identity religion
transformation.
Of course, John Knight has never had the guts to be a terrorist itself.
John Knight's main claim to infamy is having not paid child support payments.
John "Deadbeat Dad" Knight who tries to justify his abuse by claiming that
his child was a Jewish plot and the devil made him do it and it was all God's
or the Jew's or somebody else's fault.
Nothing - it might be noticed - is EVER John W. Knight's (or whatever his
real name is) fault.
John is another one of the amusing southern California cultists, although
most of the others have been men and women.
John Knight is one of the first cultists, however, to have - as a central
tenet of its religion - to de a "Deadbeat Dad".
Gray Shockley
(in message <6z8Oa.120037$hd6.6978@fed1read05>):
> What is it about you STUPID jews that you're so fixated with scatology? No
> other race on the planet, not even niggers, spend so much time writing,
> talking, "thinking", dwelling, on scatology. No other "religions" document
> besides the Talmud contains claims that Christ is boiling in hot excrement.
>
> Could it be because you STUPID jews have never gotten over how creative were
> the WHITE people who invented the flush toilet?
>
> You're all just a bunch of little einsteins [read: LYING, plagiarizing,
> MORONIC algebra flunking feeble minded ... morons], eh?
>
> John Knight
Ah, yes, John Knight being "Christ-like" again.
Just makes ya want to become a "Deadbeat Dud" just like
John the Con Knight.
Gray Shockley
(in message <hHiOa.120068$hd6.78814@fed1read05>):
> You're a bit late Rusty, because us Israelites have already passed on our
> high quality genes and there's nothing you niggers, latrinos, jews, and
> other muds and mamzers can do to stop it, no matter how much you hate "blue
> eyes, blond hair and [] Germanic stock right".
>
> Just in case you hadn't noticed, shaq, while you muds were waddling with
> moronic einsteins and darwins, it was those who possess our high quality
> genes who put up GPS and proved how moronic you einsteins [read: one stones,
> or half brains] are.
>
> Aren't you proud that they did it without a whisper from your jewsmedia,
> while elevating communist foreign born einstein to "person of the century"?
>
> John Knight
Oh, come on, Lying Johnnie!
GPS was invented by the United States Department of Defense when they found
that they had an extra twelve billion dollars and nothing to spend it on.
GPS wasn't invented by any "ethnic" group of people unless you consider
Americans with high-security clearances to be an "ethnic group".
And, let us never forget, that Johnnie Whiskas Knight can't get an United
States government security clearance.
Gray Shockley
(in message <yrDOa.120283$hd6.108592@fed1read05>):
> Sure, lojbab, thanks to affirmative action, there were lots of muds,
> including einsteinians, involved in the project, and each one of them can
> claim "I hate to burst your bubble, but I did some work on GPS".
Document it.
You're too much of a congenital psychopath for anything you say to be taken
as truth.
Document it, JohnnyGoDown.
That should be pretty easy to check through Department of Defense FOIA.
I bet we'll never get enough info to run it on ya, LyingLikeaDog Johnnie
Knight.