The Einstein Hoax
John Knight
> In article <n0zKa.53570$1e.11555@fed1read04>, magi...@cox.net writes:
>
> >Perhaps you did not offfer proof that he broke posting rules. Absent that,
> >they could not act. They are functioning under a contract with Mr. Retic,
> >as are all ISPs with all of us.
>
> I did point out that the ISP he uses supposedly is cracking down on spam, and
> that his postings fall under their definition of such. They chose, as do most
> in power, inaction. It threatens their privilege less.
>
>
The following is from http://christianparty.net/einsteinplagiarist.htm
John Knight
Albert Einstein
Genius or Plagiarist
ALBERT EINSTEIN is held up as "a rare genius," who drastically changed
the field of theoretical physics. However, using the technique known
as 'The Often-Repeated Lie= Truth,' he has been made an idol to young
people, and his very name has become synonymous with genius. THE
TRUTH, HOWEVER, IS VERY DIFFERENT. Einstein was an inept & moronic
person, who could not even tie his own shoelaces; he contributed
NOTHING ORIGINAL to the field of quantum mechanics, nor any other
science. On the contrary -- he stole the ideas of others, and the
Jxxxx-controlled media made him a 'hero.'
When we actually examine the life of Albert Einstein, we find that
his only 'brilliance' was in his ability to PLAGIARIZE and STEAL OTHER
PEOPLE'S IDEAS, PASSING THEM OFF AS HIS OWN. 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 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, THE TRUTH IS: 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 in 1878.
Maxwell studied the phenomenon of light extensively and first
proposed that it was electromagnetic in nature.
James Maxwell 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, "...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!
FURTHER... IN 1892, HENDRIK LORENTZ, of 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-Fitzgerald 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: "...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 "his 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, "Perhaps 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
"lies 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 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 by World Jewry for him
to take a position at a school . 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,
"completely succeeded in convincing Hilbert and Klein." He is
referring to David Hilbert, perhaps the most brilliantmathematician 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 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 "before 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 Jxxxx-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, "Revolution 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 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 "emphatic denial" regarding the idea of
practical applications for the "energy of the atom." The article says,
"But the 'energy of the atom' is something else again. If you believe
that man will someday be able to harness this boundless energyto drive
a great steamship across the ocean on a pint of water, for
instancethen, 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 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.
Hosted by directNIC.com
Cary Kittrell
<vael...@aol.comUspamo (David Thomas) wrote in message news:<20030626211900...@mb-m02.aol.com>...
<> In article <n0zKa.53570$1e.11555@fed1read04>, magi...@cox.net writes:
<>
<> >Perhaps you did not offfer proof that he broke posting rules. Absent that,
<> >they could not act. They are functioning under a contract with Mr. Retic,
<> >as are all ISPs with all of us.
<>
<> I did point out that the ISP he uses supposedly is cracking down on spam, and
<> that his postings fall under their definition of such. They chose, as do most
<> in power, inaction. It threatens their privilege less.
<>
<>
<
<The following is from http://christianparty.net/einsteinplagiarist.htm
<
<John Knight
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<Albert Einstein
<Genius or Plagiarist
<
No, this is not the theory of relativity, nor would anyone with
a high-school level understanding of the theory of relativity
mistake it for the theory of relativity. This was a failed
attempt to save the concept of the ether, sometimes "aether"
(which your expert source mis-spells as "either") by proposing
an ad-hoc formula . Einstein does nothing of the sort: he sets
up three simple postulates (of which your "expert" got only
one correct) -- and everything else falls out
mathematically. Time dialation and compression of lengths
are not "premises", they are derived. The famous "E=mc^2"
is not something that Einstein plops in the middle of a
page after having secretly filched it: he derives it
from these three simple assumptions, derives it mathematically
with the whole world watching and free to check his math. Saying
that Einstein "stole" these results is exactly equivalent to
saying that Pythagoras "stole" a^2 + b^2 = c^2 from the
Egyptians. The Egyptians knew this empirically; Pythagoras
proves mathematically why it must be so. Yes, bits and pieces
of the results which appear in Einstein's 1905 paper -- but Einstein
was the first one to show mathematically all of them -- and other
interesting results as well -- MUST be so.
But don't take my word for it. Here. See for your self:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Read it. Digest it. Then we'll argue...
-- cary
GodEvolved
news:bdlhl4$40h$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu:
> In article <ed80adae.03062...@posting.google.com>
> johnk...@usa.com (John Knight) writes: <vael...@aol.comUspamo
<Snip>
> But don't take my word for it. Here. See for your self:
>
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> Read it. Digest it. Then we'll argue...
Sorry, Cary, but you have failed to quote from christianparty.net,
therefore anything you say is false. You do not understand that there is
only one true source of truth. Bwahahahahahaha!
>
>
> -- cary
>
keith stein
news:bdlhl4$40h$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
> But don't take my word for it. Here. See for your self:
>
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein wrote:
" velocity = (light path) / (time interval) "
Big deal eh! but he couldn't even apply this elementary equation
correctly, because the very next equations he wrote were:
" tB - tA = rAB / (c - v ) and tA' - tB = rAB / ( c + v ) "
where
tA is the time the light left A,
tB the time the light is reflected at B,
tA' the time the light arrived back at A.
v is the velocity of the rod.
rAB denotes the length of the rod - measured in the stationary system.
keith stein wrote:
AND THESE EQUATIONS ARE WRONG!
Since the rod is moving, the far end of the rod must move during the
time it takes light to travel between A and B. Therefore the distance the
light travels is not, and cannot be represented as,equal to the length
of the rod 'rAB'
The easiest way to see that both of Einstein's equations given above
are very definitely WRONG, is to note that the LHS of both equations
are independent of the velocity of the rod, while the RHS of both these
equations are dependant on the arbitary velocity of the rod.
Einstein's radical conclusion from this thought experiment was:-
"Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that
the two clocks were not synchronous,while observers in the
stationary system would declare the clocks to be synchronous.
So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification
to the concept of simultaneity........." A. Einstein
and this is of course just as erroneous as the equations he derived it from.
keith stein
magi...@cox.net
On 28-Jun-2003, johnk...@usa.com (John Knight) wrote:
> > >Perhaps you did not offfer proof that he broke posting rules. Absent
> > >that,
> > >they could not act. They are functioning under a contract with Mr.
> > >Retic,
> > >as are all ISPs with all of us.
> >
> > I did point out that the ISP he uses supposedly is cracking down on
> > spam, and
> > that his postings fall under their definition of such. They chose, as
> > do most
> > in power, inaction. It threatens their privilege less.
> >
I am deficient as to what spam really is. How do his posts fall into the
arena of spam?
Is there a standard definition?
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
Rusty Shackleford
news:bdlhl4$40h$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
Why would you post a Hitler loving anti-semetic web site as a argument
against Einstein? to see where they are going check out another page of
their web site http://christianparty.net/standard.htm or how about
http://christianparty.net/kolnidre.htm for more of their lunacy.
--
Rusty Shackleford
'What ever happens, happens necessarily'
msha...@NOSPAMrglobal.net
Remove NOSPAM from E-mail address to reply.
Double-A
Because John Knight is the founder of the Christian Party, as well as
Fathers Manifesto, a misogynistic men's rights group. Obviously,
Wittke fits well into Knight's agenda. The question is, does Knight
fit comfortably into Wittke's agenda?
Double-A
Cary Kittrell
<"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
<news:bdlhl4$40h$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
<> In article <ed80adae.03062...@posting.google.com>
<johnk...@usa.com (John Knight) writes:
<>
{...}
<>
<> But don't take my word for it. Here. See for your self:
<>
<> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
<>
<> Read it. Digest it. Then we'll argue...
<>
<>
<> -- cary
<
<Why would you post a Hitler loving anti-semetic web site as a argument
<against Einstein? to see where they are going check out another page of
<their web site http://christianparty.net/standard.htm or how about
<http://christianparty.net/kolnidre.htm for more of their lunacy.
<
<
I trust you're asking that of John Knight, and not of me? If that's
not the case, then go back and check the attributions, please. But
if you really were adressing that to John -- well, guess whom
the soi-dissant christianparty.net belongs to?
-- cary
Rusty Shackleford
I was addressing it to John and I would like to know who the "soi-dissant
christaianparty.net" belongs to. I can hazard a guess and it probably
wouldn't be far from the fact that it is some lunatic Neo-Nazi, brown
shirted, boot stomping, Hitler ass kissing group.
Bob LeChevalier
>I was addressing it to John and I would like to know who the "soi-dissant
>christaianparty.net" belongs to.
It belongs to him. Someone tracked it down, and it is registered to
him, and he nominally lives in the LA area.
lojbab
Rusty Shackleford
news:q2k2gvot0bknacfdp...@4ax.com...
I just used Sam Spade to research the web site and there is a reference to a
JW Knight for an E-mail contact..
----------------------------------------------
Registrant:
FM
2131 S. Primrose Ave
Alhambra, CA 91803
US
866 259 4245
Fax:866 259 4245
Domain Name: CHRISTIANPARTY.NET
Administrative Contact:
Party, Christian jwkn...@polbox.com
2131 S. Primrose Ave
Alhambra, CA 91803
US
866 259 4245
Fax:866 259 4245
Technical Contact:
Party, Christian jwkn...@polbox.com
2131 S. Primrose Ave
Alhambra, CA 91803
US
866 259 4245
Fax:866 259 4245
Record last updated 07-17-2002 09:20:43 AM
Record expires on 09-09-2003
Record created on 09-09-2001
Domain servers in listed order:
NS0.DIRECTNIC.COM 204.251.10.100
NS1.DIRECTNIC.COM 206.251.177.2
----------------------------------------------
Cary Kittrell
Not that it wasn't obvious from stylistic considerations. The
manner is the same, although the tone is perhaps a bit less fevered.
Perhaps long late ardous hours of hammering on reality til
all traces of the truth are beaten out of it leaves one
pleasantly fatigued.
-- cary
John Knight
"Rusty Shackleford" <msha...@NOSPAMrglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bdn5q...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> against Einstein? to see where they are going check out another page of
> their web site http://christianparty.net/standard.htm or how about
> http://christianparty.net/kolnidre.htm for more of their lunacy.
>
>
> --
> Rusty Shackleford
>
Why would you LIE and claim that someone who knows the TRUTH about Hitler
being a STUPID jew http://christianparty.net/hitler.htm , and that his top
Nazis were STUPID jews http://christianparty.net/nazi.htm would be a "Hitler
loving" anything?
And why don't you at least FIRST learn what a SEMITE is, so you can choose
your slurs properly?
This looks like typical jew rantings.
John Knight
Gray Shockley
> Why would you LIE and claim that someone who knows the TRUTH about Hitler
> being a STUPID jew http://christianparty.net/hitler.htm ,
christianparty.nit is a parody of many internet sites which also demonstrate
a psychotic mind crazed, apparently, by third stage syphilis or something
closely related to it.
> and that his top
> Nazis were STUPID jews http://christianparty.net/nazi.htm would be a "Hitler
> loving" anything?
>
> And why don't you at least FIRST learn what a SEMITE is, so you can choose
> your slurs properly?
>
> This looks like typical jew rantings.
Are you a member of the Christian race, then? I realize that you are in the
worship of John Knight business but do you profess a common religion in the
hope that you can suck them in?
> John Knight
Criminal, pervert and poor writer.
It's so tragic that John "lights out for" Knight couldn't have been born
intelligent and not a sniviling coward.
But little JohnBoy Knight will - in all liklihood - never be able to achieve
the starus of a man. JohnBoy is locked into the "Boy 8usiness" and will
always be a "boy toy" to whomever comes along.
g
purrcy
papers at
http://www.savefile.com/projects/880850
Cary Kittrell
>
> If you want to believe that Einstein is a hoax, you should read the
> papers at
>
> http://www.savefile.com/projects/880850
You are replying to a three-year-plus old post of mine? Is this
an example of marked relativistic time dilation?
-- cary
Sorcerer
"purrcy" <pur...@mminternet.com> wrote in message
news:44EE14A1...@mminternet.com...
| If you want to believe that Einstein is a hoax, you should read the
| papers at
|
| http://www.savefile.com/projects/880850
|
If you want to believe Einstein's drool is not a hoax, you should read the
page at
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
Androcles
Bob LeChevalier
>purrcy <pur...@mminternet.com>
>>
>> If you want to believe that Einstein is a hoax, you should read the
>> papers at
>>
>> http://www.savefile.com/projects/880850
>
>You are replying to a three-year-plus old post of mine? Is this
>an example of marked relativistic time dilation?
And he's replying with a link that has probably been dead for three
years too.
The link points to a page with a title and nothing more.
lojbab
Cary Kittrell
Pity. I also bemoan the loss of the "Einstein Hoax" page
John Knight used to have on his site. One paper said,
basically, that Relativity was utter garbage, easily
and thoroughly debunked...while the other paper said that
Relativity was a major touchstone of physics, and was
far too complex to have been worked out by the simple-minded
Einstein, who stole it from his betters.
John either 1) never read the papers, 2) didn't recognize
the cognitive dissonance of playing the one off the other,
and/or 3) didn't care, as long as both could be used
for Jew-bashing.
-- cary
Gray Shockley
(in article <ecn81a$sj5$1...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>):
> In article <l4ete2hkitnvf1nhd...@4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier
> <loj...@lojban.org> writes:
>> ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>>
>>> purrcy <pur...@mminternet.com>
>>>>
>>>> If you want to believe that Einstein is a hoax, you should read the
>>>> papers at
>>>>
>>>> http://www.savefile.com/projects/880850
>>>
>>> You are replying to a three-year-plus old post of mine? Is this
>>> an example of marked relativistic time dilation?
>>
>> And he's replying with a link that has probably been dead for three
>> years too.
>>
>> The link points to a page with a title and nothing more.
>>
>
> Pity. I also bemoan the loss
He's b-a-a-a-c-c-c-k-k-k-k . . .
> of the "Einstein Hoax" page
> John Knight used to have on his site.
< http://christianparty.net/einstein.htm>
++ gray
Cary Kittrell
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:20:58 -0500, Cary Kittrell wrote
> (in article <ecn81a$sj5$1...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>):
>
> > In article <l4ete2hkitnvf1nhd...@4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier
> > <loj...@lojban.org> writes:
> >> ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> >>
> >>> purrcy <pur...@mminternet.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> If you want to believe that Einstein is a hoax, you should read the
> >>>> papers at
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.savefile.com/projects/880850
> >>>
> >>> You are replying to a three-year-plus old post of mine? Is this
> >>> an example of marked relativistic time dilation?
> >>
> >> And he's replying with a link that has probably been dead for three
> >> years too.
> >>
> >> The link points to a page with a title and nothing more.
> >>
> >
> > Pity. I also bemoan the loss
>
> He's b-a-a-a-c-c-c-k-k-k-k . . .
>
>
> > of the "Einstein Hoax" page
> > John Knight used to have on his site.
>
>
> < http://christianparty.net/einstein.htm>
Ah, and the one paper I mentioned is in fact there -- the "Retic"
paper, which spends a looong time saying "Relativity is a crock",
along with the claim -- which I have corrected John repeatedly
on -- that the Global Positioning System does not use relativistic
corrections (it does).
I only glanced through the rest (especially the aptly-named
crank dot net page) but I'm delighted to see that John has
not only preserved, but expanded on the mix of
Einstein's work is garbage/no, great work, but he stole it
citations.
jacob1s...@gmail.com
While you're persuing the *possibility* that a STUPID evil sodomite
scumbag Edomite jew like "Einstein", like those who claim they have an
"iq of 120" while "Israel", a morally and financially bankrupt "nation"
which is 98% [NINETY EIGHT PERCENT] Ashkenazi jews scored on TWO tests,
PISA and TIMSS, closer to nigger Africa than to Singapore, might have
been a "genius"--please tell us this, jooschlochley:
Why were TWO out of THREE of Einstein's children MENTALLY RETARDED, and
why was the grandest accomplishment of the third to maintain his
subscription "Civil Engineering Weekly" for 32 years?
John Knight
ps--these test scores are where people who are too STUPID to grow their
own food score:
http://christianparty.net/pisa.htm
http://christianparty.net/timssjews.htm
Cary Kittrell
> This link was never gone.
>
> While you're persuing the *possibility* that a STUPID evil sodomite
> scumbag Edomite jew like "Einstein",
{drool sponged}
Hey, John, whereya been?
And while you were there, did you give any thought to editing that
page down a bit, so that you say only one of:
Einstein's alleged "physics" is total garbage, wrong from start
to finish
or
Einstein's alleged "physics" is a high-water mark of science -- but
he stole it from his betters?
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
>
> While you're persuing the *possibility* that a STUPID evil sodomite
> scumbag Edomite jew like "Einstein", like those who claim they have an
> "iq of 120" while "Israel", a morally and financially bankrupt "nation"
> which is 98% [NINETY EIGHT PERCENT] Ashkenazi jews scored on TWO tests,
> PISA and TIMSS, closer to nigger Africa than to Singapore, might have
> been a "genius"--please tell us this, jooschlochley:
>
> Why were TWO out of THREE of Einstein's children MENTALLY RETARDED,
Easy: they weren't.
-- Eduard was schizophrenic, not "mentally retarded". These two are quite
different -- for example, I do not think that you are schizophrenic.
-- absolutely no documents exist regarding Lieserl after 1902, the year of
her birth. She is thought to have died in infancy, but no one knows even
that for certain. The "retarded" idea comes from a single book writen a
century later, a book one reviewer termed to be "devoted, with
understandable feminist bias, to the Einstein's disastrous marriage".
While I do understand that in general you regard feminist sources as
unimpeachable, in this case the thesis -- the sole source for your claim --
is a lone voice.
> and
> why was the grandest accomplishment of the third to maintain his
> subscription "Civil Engineering Weekly" for 32 years?
Oh, that one's easy too: it wasn't. Hans Albert was a highly regarded profesor
of hydraulic engineering at UC Berkeley for a quarter-century; the bed-loading
equation he developed for sediment transport is still in use today, and the
American Society of Civil Engineers annually hands out the Hans Albert
Einstein Award to a "member of the Society who has made a significant
contribution to the engineering profession in the areas of erosion control,
sedimentation and/or waterway development either in teaching, research,
planning, design, or management".
Anything else we can help you with?
-- cary
Sorcerer
Yes.
Whilst I agree with you that schizophrenia does not mean
mentally retarded, and also appreciate your inference that
jacob1s...@gmail.com is probably not suffering from
schizophrenia, although the suggestion that he may be suffering
from something which, like mental retardation, is not
schizophrenia, nevertheless Einstein was suffering from delusions.
He, like you, preferred the royal 'we' of Queen Victoria to mean 'I',
as in
"We
have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be
defined at all unless
we
establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A
to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. "
ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
because he was a mental retard.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
Anything else *I* can help *you* with?
Androcles
Cary Kittrell
OMIGOD!
You're absolutely right. No one who used the editorial "we"
could possibly have extended Bose's ideas or showed
how Planck's insight apply to matter as well as energy.
Not a chance in hell.
And the fact that the editorial "we" is employed on a nearly
universal basis in scientific papers and textbooks only shows that
the rest of these so-called "scientists" are morons to boot.
-- cary
Sorcerer
Oh dear... another religious freak.
| You're absolutely right.
I know I am.
| No one who used the editorial "we"
| could possibly have extended Bose's ideas or showed
| how Planck's insight apply to matter as well as energy.
| Not a chance in hell.
Non sequitur, I was discussing you and Einstein, not Charles Bronson,
Queen Elizabeth II of England or anyone else. Do try to concentrate.
| And the fact that the editorial "we" is employed on a nearly
| universal basis in scientific papers and textbooks only shows that
| the rest of these so-called "scientists" are morons to boot.
Of course. I agree with you 100%. You began a sentence with "And", BTW.
This is an extract from a well-known scientific document, do you see any
"we" in it?
AXIOMS, OR LAWS OF MOTION.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAW I.
Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right
line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed
thereon.
PROJECTILES persevere in their motions, so far as they are not retarded by
the resistance of the air, or impelled downwards by the force of gravity. A
top, whose parts by their cohesion are perpetually drawn aside from
rectilinear motions, does not cease its rotation, otherwise than as it is
retarded by the air. The greater bodies of the planets and comets, meeting
with less resistance in more free spaces, preserve their motions both
progressive and circular for a much longer time.
LAW II.
The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed;
and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is
impressed.
If any force generates a motion, a double force will generate double the
motion, a triple force triple the motion, whether that force be impressed
altogether and at once, or gradually and successively. And this motion
(being always directed the same way with the generating force), if the body
moved before, is added to or subtracted from the former motion, according as
they directly conspire with or are directly contrary to each other; or
obliquely joined, when they are oblique, so as to produce a new motion
compounded from the determination of both.
LAW III.
To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or the mutual
actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to
contrary parts.
Whatever draws or presses another is as much drawn or pressed by that other.
If you press a stone with your finger, the finger is also pressed by the
stone. If a horse draws a stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say)
will be equally drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the
same endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much
towards the stone as it does the stone towards the horse, and will obstruct
the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the other.
If a body impinges upon another, and by its force change the motion of the
other, that body also (became of the quality of, the mutual pressure) will
undergo an equal change, in its own motion, towards the contrary part. The
changes made by these actions are equal, not in the velocities but in the
motions of bodies; that is to say, if the bodies are not hindered by any
other impediments. For, because the motions are equally changed, the changes
of the velocities made towards contrary parts are reciprocally proportional
to the bodies. This law takes place also in attractions, as will be proved
in the next scholium.
So why do you do it (unless you are mentally retarded)?
Cary Kittrell
> Queen Elizabeth II of England or anyone else.
Ah. So then you regard a collection of atoms all occupying the same
quantum state as a Kittrell-Einstein Condensate. I am honored.
And, unlike Lizzie's great-great nana, amused.
-- cary
Sorcerer
You snipped. You were unable to respond to my argument.
You are a boring fuckwit.
*plonk*
Androcles
Cary Kittrell
Now, now, just because I'm parsecs wittier than you doesn't
mean you have to leave in a huff (they get ATROCIOUS gas
mileage; why do you hate America so?)
> *plonk*
Promise?
-- cary
Bob LeChevalier
>So why do you do it (unless you are mentally retarded)?
Because we feel like it.
lojbab
Gray Shockley
(in article <ed29mt$lo4$1...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>):
And that's not even including those of "us" for whom
you speak - ex cathedra - on matters of physical
philosophy & immorals.
Gray Shockley
------------------
Do you realize that Cthulhu is
running as a reform candidate?
Sorcerer
Cary Kittrell
Way way WAY ex. Can't even see the cathedra from here.
-- cary