Einstein Was A Fraud
Pontiff Maximus
Source: The Homepage of John "Birdman" Bryant
Einstein Was A Fraud
(Thanks Henry)
by Joseph Wallace
One of the statements of Adolf Hitler most often quoted by the Jewish media
is the following from Mein Kampf, I:10:
"The great masses of people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than
to a small one."
Of course, Hitler is quoted out of context in an attempt to portray this
statement as Hitler's own, personal philosophy or strategy. But if we read
this selection in context, we find that he is speaking of the Jews who had
ruined his country, and he is trying to explain how the German people fell
victim to Jewish lies. In fact, Herr Hitler even tells us what this great
lie is that duped the German people into being controlled by the Jews. He
continues:
"Those who know best this truth about the possibilities of the application
of untruth and defamation, however, were at all times the Jews; for their
entire existence is built on one single great lie, namely, that here one had
to deal with a religious brotherhood, while in fact one has to deal with a
race what a race! As such they have been nailed down forever, in an
eternally correct sentence of fundamental truth, by one of the greatest
minds of mankind; he called them 'the great masters of lying.' He who does
not realize this or does not want to believe this will never be able to help
truth to victory in this world."
Hitler here was referring to Arthur Schopenhauer, the eminent 19th century
German philosopher who was outspoken regarding the true nature of Jews. We
do not need to rely upon the opinions of German philosophers and political
leaders regarding this character trait of the Jews, for Jesus Christ has
said of the Jews,
"You are of your father the Diabolical One, and the lusts of your father you
wish to do. That one was a murderer from the beginning, and he has not stood
in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he
speaks of his own, because he is a liar, and the father of it" (John 8:44
AST).
Furthermore, the New Testament warns us not to listen to "Judaizing myths"
(Titus 1:14). But Jewish myths are exactly what destroyed Germany and what
have destroyed America today. Herr Hitler may have been correct in what he
felt was the greatest Jewish lie, but there are many, many more which have
had a damning effect on the white race. One of the greatest is certainly the
lie of the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the removal of the Greek Septuagint
from the hands of white Christians, but each Jewish myth stings with the
same poisonous venom. One of the great Jewish myths of the 20th century is
Albert Einstein.
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. 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 groundbreaking 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
worshippers 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 1889, the Irish physicist George FitzGerald,
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 ether 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-FitzGerald 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 that,
"... 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 for him to take a position at a school by World
Jewry. Still, it was not until a 1919 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
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
"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 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, "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 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 "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.
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 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 "The 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 "Man of
the Year" while he was alive, but now, over forty years after his death, he
is named "Person of the Century."
Einstein was given this title in spite of the clear-cut choice for the
"Person of the Century," Adolf Hitler. Hitler was indeed named "Man 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 "nasty 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 FitzGerald and Lorentz deduced the concept of relativity
long before Einstein. Hawking also writes,
"Einstein 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 "success 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 "The 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,
"The 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.
(Article used by permission of and © CSCS, POB 188, Kodak, TN 37764).
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
David Gehrig
>
> Source: The Homepage of John "Birdman" Bryant
>
>
> Einstein Was A Fraud
>
>
> (Thanks Henry)
>
>
> by Joseph Wallace
Gee, every time this gets posted here, the author has a
different name.
Mind you, it's still nonsense no matter who claims to have
written it this week.
--
@%<
Pontiff Maximus
My observation is they are a lot of facts to the contrary. Under the FOIA
the FBI released tons of documents that Albert was a leader in the Communist
Party and was a personal friend of the Rosenberg's. The majority of the
Media Jews are Communists.
"David Gehrig" <zem...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:DWSl7.1472$d86.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
warren2
"Gluteus Maximus" (Tom Shaw)
<police...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3b980...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> Prove it is nonsense.
>
> My observation is they are a lot of facts to the contrary. Under the FOIA
> the FBI released tons of documents that Albert was a leader in the
Communist
> Party and was a personal friend of the Rosenberg's. The majority of the
> Media Jews are Communists.
Since they released 'tons' of documents, a genius like you should be able to
cite a pound's worth, Tommie boy. We'll wait.
sw
Orac
"Pontiff Maximus" <police...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Prove it is nonsense.
>
> My observation is they are a lot of facts to the contrary. Under the FOIA
> the FBI released tons of documents that Albert was a leader in the Communist
> Party and was a personal friend of the Rosenberg's.
Perhaps you'd like to cite a few of these "tons" of documents showing
these things. We'll wait.
>The majority of the
> Media Jews are Communists.
Which specific "media Jews"?
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
Pontiff Maximus
"Pontiff Maximus" <police...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3b980...@corp.newsgroups.com...
Pontiff Maximus
"Orac" <Or...@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
news:Orac-93D39D.2...@news2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
David Gehrig
> Prove it is nonsense.
Sure. Happy to. Let me repost something I wrote in April 2000.
Please feel free to point out my scientific errors.
---- begin repost from April 2000:
From: David Gehrig (zem...@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: No Jew but @%< can refute this about Einstein
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish, alt.revisionism
View: Complete Thread (4 articles) | Original Format Date: 2000/04/05
kcl...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> There's nothing to retract. My piece stands on its own. So far
> unrefuted, I might add. You may be able to attack me--the messenger--
> but my message stands true!
>
> -KCloud
>
> > >
> > > -K-Cloud
> > >
> > > Einstein the FRAUD
> > > By K-Cloud
> >
> > Actually, yes, having looked it over, I probably could
> > refute it in its entirety. But I'm feeling charitable and
> > will give you a chance to retract it before I address it.
> >
> > @%<
Well, you can't say that I didn't give you a chance.
------ Begin the demolition of K-Cloud's narrischkeit
> Knowing how you Jews are, you'll probably pick a sentence
> or two out of this 10 pages single-spaced I had on MS
> Word. So I dare any of you to refute my article in its
> entirety!
>
> -K-Cloud
>
>
> Einstein the FRAUD
> By K-Cloud
Well, I did offer you a chance to retract before I took a look at it,
but you decided to bluster on. So here is my response.
I'm going to pay you the favor -- completely undeserved and obviously
wrong -- of treating this as if you wrote it. There's nothing in any of
your posts which suggest you have the depth (the very modest depth,
given all the errors and omissions) to do so.
The obvious first thing that needs to be said here is that -- on the
assumption that you actually wrote this, to any particular degree,
yourself -- that your "I-looked-it-up-in-Brittanica" level of
understanding shows through again and again, leading you to a number of
fundamental errors, which I will list below.
I mention this up front, because your attempt to distort the history
of science for your racist and antisemitic ends is just plain
immoral.
Worse, you start out by declaring your unabashed antisemitism. As has
already been pointed out to you, your explanation of the context of
Hitler's "Big Lie" is wrong. The rest is just boilerplate neo-Nazi
rah-rah of the shoot-yourself-in-the-foot kind, and I have snipped it.
> 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.
Einstein's impact on modern physics is unmatched by that of any other
single individual, with the possible exception of Neils Bohr. Anyone who
has studied it -- even on an undergrad level, as I have -- will probably
come to the same conclusion. But that annoys the hell out of toy-Nazis
like you, so you have to do what toy-Nazis always do when reality gets
uncomfortable: cobble up a fantasy alternative history and pretend that
it's the _real_ truth.
> 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 thesis statement. Unfortunately, your thesis falls apart on
examination, as I show below.
> 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."
This probably says more about the conventional teaching methods
than it does about Einstein's aptitude. Notice that you make no
further reference to his education, intentionally implying that
he was merely a high school dropout.
Let's look at that letter a little more:
"I imagine myself becoming a teacher in those branches of the natural
sciences, choosing the theoretical part of them. Here are the reasons
which lead me to this plan. Above all, it is my disposition for abstract
and mathematical thought, and my lack of imagination and practical
ability."
So, far from portraying himself as inept mathematically, he records
that he actually has a mathematical, abstract predisposition. He's
ruling out, in other words, engineering and the arts, leaving
the theoretical natural sciences such as physics.
> 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!
But in the meantime, he graduated from a secondary school in Aarau as a
teacher of mathematics and physics, another significant fact you omit,
presumably intentionally. Apparently Einstein was so inept at
mathematics that he was qualified to teach it.
> 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. ...
... or that these positions were seniority based and he was
low man on the totem pole.
> ... Even after publishing his so-called
> groundbreaking 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. ...
But he was not barely qualified. In fact, he would become a
patented inventor himself, co-inventing an electric
refrigerator woth Leo Szilard.
> ... He would work at the
> patent office until 1909, all the while continuously trying
> to get a position at a university, but without success.
... until 1908, two years after getting his doctorate.
> All
> of these facts are true,
... except for the ones that I showed were lies. And other
significant true facts have mysteriously been left out of your
version.
> 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.
"Supposedly" because it's true. How do we know it's true? Well, just to
idly give an example, the paper on Brownian motion, how was it received
in the community of professional physicists? Some indication of its
reception can be found in this fact: on the strength of the paper, the
University of Bern gave Einstein a doctorate in physics. Obviously, the
physics faculty at Bern was in a position to determine whether or not it
was plagiarism; obviously they determined it was not, and stuck the
little letters PhD after Einstein's name to prove it.
Surely, if Einstein was a high-school drop-out trying to swap a plagiarized
paper for a doctorate, the hardest people to hide that from would be
university physics faculty, right? But the faculty didn't say, "This
is stolen, Al." They said, "Congratulations, Dr. Einstein."
Funny how your little essay never bothers to mention that Einstein had a
doctorate in physics. You leave your readers with the impression that he
barely escaped high school. But lying to your readers is part of what
being a toy-Nazi is all about, right?
> 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.
You're busily jamming words into Einstein's mouth here. Einstein was
aware -- of course -- that he was building on the work of others. Any
anybody who reads Einstein's papers is aware that he was building on the
work of others, so it's not like Einstein tried to somehow disguise it.
But building on the work of others is how science works, and your
stature as a scientist is determined by what you have _added_ to the
structure. And even a quick look at the history of science shows that
Einstein added many new and innovative ideas.
It's also simply wrong, as I have shown above, to argue that Einstein
had "no real education."
> Therefore, we will look at each of these ideas and discover
> the source of each. ...
... in each of which case we will discover that the source is
Einstein.
> ... It should be remembered that these
> ideas are presented by Einstein's worshippers 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.
Here you're simply hoping that your audience is as inept in
the history of science as you are. The founding of a completely
new science is an incredibly rare thing. Einstein was addressing
problems others before him had tried with varying degrees of
success, and like other scientists before him, used the work
of scientists still earlier. The reputation of any scientist
is measured, not by the mass of knowledge in his field, but by
what he has added to that pre-existing mass of knowledge.
> 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 is perhaps Einstein's greatest contribution to science, one that
almost a hundred years later, mingy little antisemites and neo-Nazis
would try to deny but the rest of the world justly celebrate.
> This theory contradicted the traditional Newtonian
> mechanics ...
... actually, no, because by the equivalence principle it had to reduce
to Newtonian physics under nonrelativistic conditions. What it did was
extend Newton's laws of motion to take into consideration laboratory
results Newton's laws alone couldn't handle.
Didn't take you long to crash and burn, did it.
> ... 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.
And "The Raven," of course, was written by Edgar Poe. Unless you
have a clue, of course, and know that he went by the name Edgar
Allan Poe. Just like James Clerk Maxwell went by the name James
Clerk Maxwell, and only idiots don't know it.
Maxwell's 1873 calculations of the speed of propagation of
electromagnetic waves didn't address the idea of inertial frames at all.
It described the behavior of light in a stationary inertial frame. He
did not predict the constant speed of light independent of the motion of
the inertial frame -- in other words, you're taking attributing the
wrong result to 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.
You get the sequence on Michelson-Morley a bit mixed up here. The reason
that Michelson and Morely had "reached the conclusion" that c was
invariant was because they had done an experiment which had demonstrated
it. They weren't working from theory but from experimental data. They
were hoping to find a universal coordinate system -- a universial "up"
and "down" -- relative to which the earth was moving. Instead they found
a result which was utterly inexplicable to them, which is that there
_is_ no universal "up."
What it was up to Einstein to do was take a system of physics which
seemed to pretty much have everything solved and correlate it with this
one, singular, inexplicable but undeniable result.
> Thus, this piece of the Special Theory of Relativity was
> known 27 years before Einstein wrote his paper.
But this is what prompted the paper in the first place -- trying to
explain this bizarre result without throwing out the rest of physics.
The effect may have been noted 27 years before, but an explanation was
not. See the difference? Rainbows were known for millenia before Snell's
laws of refraction explained how they were made. The bizarre motion of
the planets in the sky was known for millenia before Kepler figured out
how it all worked with elliptical orbits and all. And so on.
> 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. ...
And only now do you get to the M-M experiment. As I noted before,
the experiment came first, then the conclusion about the invariance
of c. If you had more of a clue of what you're talking about, you
might have spotted that.
> ... They
> observed a phenomenon caused by relativity but they did not
> understand relativity. ...
... because Einstein had not yet formulated it.
> ... 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 1889, the Irish physicist
> George FitzGerald, 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 ether 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!
No, this is not the theory of relativity, if it's still referring to the
motion of bodies in "the ether," or "through the ether or across it."
FitzGerald had found another puzzle piece -- and is honored for it in
every modern physics text as co-creator of the "Lorentz-FitzGerald
contraction -- but it was still up to Einstein to put all the pieces in
place.
Here's how one of my physics textbooks puts it (Sears, Zemansky, and
Young, fifth edition, chapter 14, "Relativistic Mechanics"):
"Newton's laws of motion are valid only in inertial frames, but they are
valid in _all_ inertial frames. Any frame moving with constant velocity
with respect to an inertial frame is itself an inertial frame, and all
such frames are equivalent to expressing the basic principles of
mechanics [i.e. Newton's laws of motion]. The laws of mechanics are the
same in every inertial frame of reference.
"Einstein proposed in 1905 that this principle should be extended to
include _all_ the basic laws of physics. This innocent-sounding
proposition has far-reaching and startling consequences, a few of which
have already been mentioned. If the principle of conservation of
momentum is to be valid in all inertial systems, for example, the
definition of momentum, for particles moving at speeds comparable to the
speed of light, must be changed from mv to mv/(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2). Even
more fundamental are the modifications needed in the kinematic aspects
of motion, as we shall see. Nevertheless, Einstein's _principle of
relativity_, as it has come to be called, is now accepted as an
essential requirement for a physical theory. The principle of relativity
states that _the laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame of
reference._"
Note particularly that last sentence. The Lorentz-FitzGerald
contraction, otherwise called the Lorentz transformations, are _part_ of
relativity theory, because they describe relativistic mechanics, but
they are not relativity theory itself. You confuse the part for the
whole.
> 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-FitzGerald
> Contraction.
But again, they were studying something specific, the propagation of
light waves through the ether. Einstein recognized that the equations
described much, much more than just what Lorentz and FitzGerald thought
they did.
> 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.
As I mentioned above, Lorentz was treating electromagnetic waves, which
he regarded as massless. When you're taking relativity and mass or
momentum, you're talking Einstein, not Lorentz. But since the idea used
Lorentz work as a starting point, the equations describing spacial
relativistic coordinates are still called the Lorentz transformation --
Einstein clearly giving credit where it's due.
> In short, by 1904, everything in Einstein's paper regarding
> the Special Theory of Relativity had already been published.
Except for the main revolutionary idea itself, the invariance
of all the basic laws of physics regardless of the inertial
frame chosen.
> The Frenchman Poincar» had, in 1898, written a paper
> unifying many of these ideas. He stated seven years before
> Einstein's paper that,
>
> "... 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."
Again, another piece of the puzzle, a puzzle which it still fell
to Einstein to put together into one coherent whole, thanks to
his central insight.
Now you try the "everybody knows I'm right" rhetorical trope.
> Anyone who has read Einstein's 1905 paper will ....
... obviously be half a mile beyond KCloudd.
> 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.
And, as I have shown, KCloudd is talking through his hat.
> Over the next few years, Poincar» 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 Poincar» was busy bringing the
> rest of the academic world up to speed regarding
> relativity, Einstein was still working in the patent office
> in Bern ...
... for three more years, until he was appointed a professor
of physics at Bern -- and, given the glacial pace of physics
"revolutions," this was an very quick turnaround.
> ... 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.
Except, of course, that he wasn't. Your basic argument is just
nonsensical. You're arguing that the works of the world's leading
pre-Einstein physicists were so unknown that Einstein could pilfer them
at will. Then how did they get to be the world's leading pre-Einstein
physicists in the first place, if nobody knew what they wrote?
> 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.
Except, again, that they hadn't. And I think you know it, which is why
you keep your discussion of Brownian motion down to a single paragraph.
Because if you went into much more detail than that, you'd have to
describe what Einstein's doctorate-deserving breakthrough was.
The Boltzmann constant related the average kinetic energy of a molecule
in a gas to the temperature of the gas. Since Einstein's analysis of
Brownian motion involves a statistical analysis of the motion of gas
particles as _part_ of his result, it's no surprise that the Boltzmann
constant shows up, despite all your efforts to make it look like
Einstein is plagiarizing. (By that standard, since Newton came up with
the gravitational constant G, any calculation using G must be suspected
of having been plagiarized from Newton.)
Einstein's work was to analyze the "random walk" a barely visible
particle of soot makes ("Brownian motion") as it is buffeted from all
sides by molecules of air. By statistically analyzing the motion, he
could draw conclusions about the momenta of the molecules hitting the
soot particle. In effect, Einstein had provided the first experimentally
verifiable observation of the existence of molecules which also allowed
some determination of their scale. Hence the title of his doctoral
dissertation, _On a new determination of molecular dimensions_.
Neither Brown, Gibbs, nor Boltzmann tried to do this analysis. It is
original with Einstein.
> 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=mc*.
> Einstein's biographers categorize this as "his most famous
> and most spectacular conclusion."
And probably second only to F=ma in its amazing brevity for such a
powerful concept. Flip through a physics book some time and you'll see
that things rarely work out that neatly.
> 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.
But the formula was, and the way that it fit into the revolutionary
insight I mentioned above was too.
> That there was an equivalence between mass and energy had
> been shown in the laboratory in the 1890s by both J.J.
> Thomsom ...
... Thompson, discoverer of the electron. And it's quite true that
Thompson was famous for measuring the ratio e/m of the electron.
Unfortunately for you, in this case e means electric charge, not
energy. These are two different concepts measured in two completely
different units. The fact that both are abbreviated as e seems to have
made you pull another dope-osity.
> ... of Cambridge and by W. Kaufmann in Goettingen. ...
who I couldn't turn up in a quick check of my physics books. But if you
can bobble something as basic as Thompson on the electron (!) then
there's no reason to believe the comparatively less known will suffer a
better fate at your hands.
> In
> 1900, Poincar» had shown that there was a mass relationship
> for all forms of energy, not just electromagnetic energy. ...
... and by this time it's hard not to reach the conclusion that you're
just throwing words around that you don't understand. "A mass
relationship" -- what was the one Poincare postulated, and where did he
publish it? Just saying there is a relationship doesn't cut the mustard
among physicists -- you also need to define what the relationship is.
> Yet, the most probable source of Einstein's plagiarism was
> Friedrich Hasenàhrl, ...
I assume you mean Fritz Hasenoehrl, whose main claim to fame was having
Schroedinger as a pupil.
> one of the most brilliant, yet
> unappreciated physicists of the era.
>
> Hasenàhrl 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, Hasenàrhl had received in 1904 a prize
> from the prestigious Vienna Academy of Sciences.
But you are being so amazingly vague that I can no longer tell if you're
simply trying to cover things up -- like you did with Einstein's
doctorate -- or simply haven't the foggiest of what you're talking
about. _What_, specifically, was Hasenhoehrl's "idea of the equivalence
of mass and energy"? Did he predict a linear relationship? An
exponential one? A quartic or cubic or x^pi or any of a zillion other
incorrect solutions?
> Furthermore, the mathematical relationship of mass and
> energy was a simple deduction from the already well-known
> equations of Scottish physicist James Maxwell. ....
... or even of James Clerk Maxwell...
> Scientists
> long understood that the mathematical relationship
> expressed by the equation E=mc* was the logical result of
> Maxwell's work, they just did not believe it.
Ah, if it's so simple, then maybe you could derive it for us.
Take a few minutes for it, if you'd like.
> Thus, the experiments of Thomson, Kaufmann, and finally,
> and most importantly, Hasenàrhl, confirmed Maxwell's work.
... except of course that Maxwell hadn't done a damned thing dealing
with mass/energy equivalence.
> 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.
He had a brain. That was his laboratory. That's the interesting thing
about theoretical physics -- in some cases a brain is all you need.
Especially if it's an Einsteinian brain.
> 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.
What's outlandish about it? In 1905 almost nothing was known about
radioactivity except that it existed. In 1905 they hadn't even
postulated the atomic nucleus yet, let alone protons and neutrons -- the
neutrons wouldn't show up in Cavendish's lab for another quarter
century. So what exactly is the point of your mockery?
> 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. ...
Again, you don't explain why, you just mock.
> In fact,
> in response to this article, J. Precht remarked that such
> an experiment "lies beyond the realm of possible
> experience."
Which it would be -- in this form, trying to measure the change
in weight of some radium and correlate it with the cast-off
radiation, since the difference in mass would be too small to
measure by any means available. Which is why, I gather,
Einstein says uses a subjunctive future tense -- perhaps it
will someday be possible to measure the difference.
> 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. ...
... and gathered a Nobel Prize for it in 1921. Are you now
going to argue that the Nobel Committee was unable to spot
what you seem to consider obvious plagiarism?
> 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.
If he received the 1922 Nobel prize, it was indeed unjust, because
it was 1921 when he won it.
> 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.
But Planck had postulated quanta to explain a completely different
phenomenon, the black-body radiation paradox. Although Planck had
postulated the photon, it was up to Einstein to formulate its behavior
in relation to the photoelectric effect. There's a reason the Einstein
photoelectric equation is called the Einstein photoelectric equation.
But what level of scientific understanding can we expect from a neo-Nazi
who thinks a black body is what you have left after a lynching?
> 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.
But it was not a complete formulation.
> 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.
Because he was trying to explain one particular effect -- the
photoelectric effect -- which was otherwise inexplicable, and it just
happened to involve light energy. And it just happened to be confirmed
by experiment, and it just happened to be right, and it just happpened
to earn Einstein a Nobel.
> But the principles and equations governing the process in
> general had been deduced by Planck in 1900. ...
... not for the photoelectric effect, no. For blackbody
radiation. Different matter completely.
> ... 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.
And again your case dissolves under you. That makes four out of four you
lost.
> 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. ....
... guffaw! Tell me, do you goosestep when you say that?
> Still, it was not until a 1919 newspaper
> headline that he gained any notoriety. ...
... because his strange theories had been spectacularly
vindicated by experiment, and he became the first and only
person to touch up Newton's laws of motion. Not for nothing
is "Einstein" synonymous with genius.
> 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,
... the tensor calculus of Levi-Civita...
> 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.
As were all but a handful of mathematicians in the world, since it was
so new. Keep in mind that Einstein was so highly regarded by this time
by his peers that in 1914 the Germans -- remember them? -- offered him a
research position at the Prussian Academy of the Sciences _along with_ a
position (without teaching duties) at the University of Berlin. What
else did they offer him? The Kaiser was establishing research institutes
around the country. Guess who they asked to direct the Kaiser Wilhelm
Institute of Physics in Berlin?
> 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.
Out of sheer pity, I won't put the previous paragraph through the
grinder, other than to note that they show all the signs of Deep
Clueless. You're clearly in way over your head, and it shows.
> 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.
... demonstrating that not even Einstein gets everything right the first
time.
> 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.
He looked inside his own brain and worked it out. Your claims
to the opposite are unsubstantiated below.
> 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 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.
So you say but do not prove. The closest you come to providing
even a shred of evidence is to repeat the not-at-all-secret
fact that Hilbert anticipated once facet of general relativity.
> Hilbert submitted for publication, a week before Einstein
> completed his work, a paper which contained the correct
> field equations of General Relativity. ...
True.
> What this means is
> that Hilbert wrote basically the exact same paper, with the
> same conclusions, before Einstein did. ...
False. But nice try. There's more to general relativity than
the field equations Hilbert anticipated. Anyway, the next bit
of stunning deduction is too priceless to snip.
> Einstein would have
> had an opportunity to know of Hilbert's work all along,
> because there were Jewish friends of his working for
> Hilbert.
.... oooh, look out, it's the great Jooooish conspiracy.
> 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
> Gàttingen. 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.
But, uh, you already said that Einstein had published earlier
forms of the work, right? Or did you forget?
> Therefore, this serves as
> incontrovertible proof that Einstein quickly plagiarized
> the work and then presented it, hoping to beat Hilbert to
> the punch.
... "incontrovertable proof" !! LOL! When logic fails, just
talk louder, toy-Nazi!
> 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.
At this point you go so far off the rails that there's really
no point in commenting further.
> 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 Schràdinger,
> whose work is the basis of all modern day quantum mechanics.
In other words, Einstein and Hilbert were treating two different
areas.
> 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.
.... toy-Nazi bullshit.
> In 1940, a group of
> German physicists meeting in Austria declared that "before
> Einstein, Aryan scientists like Lorentz, Hasenàhrl,
> Poincar», etc., had created the foundations of the theory
> of relativity..."
One of the reasons that "Aryan science" remains even today a
laughingstock -- because at the same time they were holding their big
rallies promoting how wonderful "Aryan science" was, a huge fraction of
their best scientists were being chased out by Nazi nuttiness -- more
than a few chased straight to Los Alamos, where they would in a fair
square race beat the pants of the inept Nazi atomic bomb project.
> However, the Jewish media did not promote the work of these
> men.
And at this point the essay degenerates into the same old jewbait
World Conspiracy to Destroy the Aryans foolishness that loons like
you always devolve to sooner or later. So I've snipped a dozen
or so crapperfuls.
> This brazen lying has culminated in the Jew controlled Time
> magazine naming Einstein "The 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 "Man of the Year" while he was
> alive, but now, over forty years after his death, he is
> named "Person of the Century."
>
> Einstein was given this title in spite of the clear-cut
> choice for the "Person of the Century," Adolf Hitler.
... and, well, it goes on in High Nazi Rant mode for a few more
crapperfuls, but by now my point is made. (Although again I note that
Oppenheimer wasn't a communist, as much as the toy-Nazis wish he was.)
Now, at this point, a reader might reasonably ask, why did I go to all
this trouble to wipe out what was clearly a chunk of coagulated
cluelessness? First, it was fun brushing the dust off my old modern
physics text (_Elementary Modern Physics, 3rd Edition_ by Weidner and
Sells) and taking another look at the birth of modern physics. It's also
fun to shoot fish in a barrel every now and then, KCloudd's barrel was
smaller than his fish, and the fish themselves were all carrying
placards saying "Please Shoot Me!"
---- end repost
Have at it, Pointihead Maxipad.
@%<
Pontiff Maximus
"Orac" <Or...@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
news:Orac-93D39D.2...@news2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!blackbush.xlink.net!blackbush.de.kpnqwest.net!renate.komtel.net!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!193.251.151.101!opentransit.net!wanadoo.fr!oleane.net!oleane!nnrp.oleane.net!not-for-mail
From: "Pontiff Maximus" <police...@bigfoot.com>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: cmsg cancel <3b982...@corp.newsgroups.com>
Control: cancel <3b982...@corp.newsgroups.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 22:14:50 GMT
Organization: Guest of France Telecom Oleane's newsreading service
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <6c4548fd$6...@corp.newsgroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ca-ol-marseille-24-54.abo.wanadoo.fr
X-Trace: s1.read.news.oleane.net 999828044 32518 213.56.231.54 (7 Sep 2001 02:00:44 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@oleane.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 02:00:44 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:38060162
Stephanie's telephone types alongside our chatroom after we
load outside it. Where does Alexis contradict so usably, whenever
Margaret compiles the lazy laptop very weekly? The
cowboys, artichokes, and Blowfishs are all rough and
odd. Sometimes, go open a analyst! He'll be consuming
<remainder snipped>
Pontiff Maximus
"David Gehrig" <zem...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:CEWl7.1628$5r.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > The Frenchman PoincarÈ had, in 1898, written a paper
> > unifying many of these ideas. He stated seven years before
> > Einstein's paper that,
> >
> > "... 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."
>
> Again, another piece of the puzzle, a puzzle which it still fell
> to Einstein to put together into one coherent whole, thanks to
> his central insight.
>
> Now you try the "everybody knows I'm right" rhetorical trope.
>
> > Anyone who has read Einstein's 1905 paper will ....
>
> ... obviously be half a mile beyond KCloudd.
>
> > 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.
>
> And, as I have shown, KCloudd is talking through his hat.
>
> > Over the next few years, PoincarÈ 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 PoincarÈ was busy bringing the
> > 1900, PoincarÈ had shown that there was a mass relationship
> > for all forms of energy, not just electromagnetic energy. ...
>
> ... and by this time it's hard not to reach the conclusion that you're
> just throwing words around that you don't understand. "A mass
> relationship" -- what was the one Poincare postulated, and where did he
> publish it? Just saying there is a relationship doesn't cut the mustard
> among physicists -- you also need to define what the relationship is.
>
> > Yet, the most probable source of Einstein's plagiarism was
> > Friedrich Hasen^hrl, ...
>
> I assume you mean Fritz Hasenoehrl, whose main claim to fame was having
> Schroedinger as a pupil.
>
> > one of the most brilliant, yet
> > unappreciated physicists of the era.
> >
> > Hasen^hrl 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, Hasen^rhl had received in 1904 a prize
> > from the prestigious Vienna Academy of Sciences.
>
> But you are being so amazingly vague that I can no longer tell if you're
> simply trying to cover things up -- like you did with Einstein's
> doctorate -- or simply haven't the foggiest of what you're talking
> about. _What_, specifically, was Hasenhoehrl's "idea of the equivalence
> of mass and energy"? Did he predict a linear relationship? An
> exponential one? A quartic or cubic or x^pi or any of a zillion other
> incorrect solutions?
>
> > Furthermore, the mathematical relationship of mass and
> > energy was a simple deduction from the already well-known
> > equations of Scottish physicist James Maxwell. ....
>
> ... or even of James Clerk Maxwell...
>
> > Scientists
> > long understood that the mathematical relationship
> > expressed by the equation E=mc* was the logical result of
> > Maxwell's work, they just did not believe it.
>
> Ah, if it's so simple, then maybe you could derive it for us.
> Take a few minutes for it, if you'd like.
>
> > Thus, the experiments of Thomson, Kaufmann, and finally,
> > and most importantly, Hasen^rhl, confirmed Maxwell's work.
> > G^ttingen. On November 18, Hilbert received a letter from
> > electromagnetism and of the work of Erwin Schr^dinger,
> > whose work is the basis of all modern day quantum mechanics.
>
> In other words, Einstein and Hilbert were treating two different
> areas.
>
> > 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.
>
> .... toy-Nazi bullshit.
>
> > In 1940, a group of
> > German physicists meeting in Austria declared that "before
> > Einstein, Aryan scientists like Lorentz, Hasen^hrl,
> > PoincarÈ, etc., had created the foundations of the theory
David Gehrig
> Now you go prove the 1400+ pages of FBI Reports a lie too.
<< snip >>
So you admit that your "Einstein was a Fraud" post was a crock.
>>
>> Have at it, Pointihead Maxipad.
>>
>> @%<
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
>
--
@%<
warren2
"Gluteus Maximus" (Tom Shaw)
<police...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3b984...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> Now you go prove the 1400+ pages of FBI Reports a lie too.
Tommie boy, the '1400 pages' is a figment of your imagination, just like the
notion that the junk you turn out is jewelry. You're just a small-time
bigot, Tommie boy, and one of the dumbest ones at that.
sw
Pontiff Maximus
"Orac" <Or...@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
news:Orac-93D39D.2...@news2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!blackbush.xlink.net!blackbush.de.kpnqwest.net!renate.komtel.net!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!193.251.151.101!opentransit.net!wanadoo.fr!oleane.net!oleane!nnrp.oleane.net!not-for-mail
From: "Pontiff Maximus" <police...@bigfoot.com>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: cmsg cancel <3b982...@corp.newsgroups.com>
Control: cancel <3b982...@corp.newsgroups.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 22:14:50 GMT
Organization: Guest of France Telecom Oleane's newsreading service
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <6c4548fd$6...@corp.newsgroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ca-ol-marseille-24-54.abo.wanadoo.fr
X-Trace: s1.read.news.oleane.net 999828044 32518 213.56.231.54 (7 Sep 2001 02:00:44 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@oleane.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 02:00:44 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:38060162
Stephanie's telephone types alongside our chatroom after we
load outside it. Where does Alexis contradict so usably, whenever
Margaret compiles the lazy laptop very weekly? The
cowboys, artichokes, and Blowfishs are all rough and
odd. Sometimes, go open a analyst! He'll be consuming
<remainder snipped>
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!195.25.12.36!oleane.net!oleane!nnrp.oleane.net!not-for-mail
From: "Pontiff Maximus" <police...@bigfoot.com>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: cmsg cancel <1$-_-_%_$$-_$__%$$@news.noc.cabal.int>
Control: cancel <1$-_-_%_$$-_$__%$$@news.noc.cabal.int>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2001 01:07:03 GMT
Organization: Guest of France Telecom Oleane's newsreading service
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <4_%_$-%$$_$$_%%--%@news.noc.cabal.int>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ca-ol-marseille-24-54.abo.wanadoo.fr
X-Trace: s1.read.news.oleane.net 999831929 1080 213.56.231.54 (7 Sep 2001 03:05:29 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@oleane.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 03:05:29 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:38061674
We propagate them, then we badly post Francis and Georgina's
ugly black bag. Will you flow beside the monument, if
Frederic strangely kills the bug? You won't persevere me
kicking outside your inner backup. Gawd, go collaborate a
president! It should reload stupidly if John's ethernet isn't
<remainder snipped>
Pontiff Maximus
"Pontiff Maximus" <police...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3b980...@corp.newsgroups.com...
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-han1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!colt.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!oleane.net!oleane!nnrp.oleane.net!not-for-mail
From: "Pontiff Maximus" <police...@bigfoot.com>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: cmsg cancel <3b981...@corp.newsgroups.com>
Control: cancel <3b981...@corp.newsgroups.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 21:42:59 GMT
Organization: Guest of France Telecom Oleane's newsreading service
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <8a182c22$7...@corp.newsgroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ca-ol-marseille-24-54.abo.wanadoo.fr
X-Trace: s1.read.news.oleane.net 999825675 31943 213.56.231.54 (7 Sep 2001 01:21:15 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@oleane.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:21:15 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:38059619
He can compleatly obscure alongside hard usable scanners.
It will roll bimonthly if Roger's CDROM isn't haphazard.
Nydia doesn't filter opaque presidents, do you generate them?
All insecure ADSL or store, and she'll locally compile everybody. Until
Jim floats the artichokes virtually, Isabelle won't
<remainder snipped>
Pontiff Maximus
My observation is they are a lot of facts to the contrary. Under the FOIA
the FBI released tons of documents that Albert was a leader in the Communist
Party and was a personal friend of the Rosenberg's. The majority of the
Media Jews are Communists.
"David Gehrig" <zem...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:DWSl7.1472$d86.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!oleane.net!oleane!nnrp.oleane.net!not-for-mail
From: "Pontiff Maximus" <police...@bigfoot.com>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: cmsg cancel <3b980...@corp.newsgroups.com>
Control: cancel <3b980...@corp.newsgroups.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 21:48:32 GMT
Organization: Guest of France Telecom Oleane's newsreading service
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <1c817...@corp.newsgroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ca-ol-marseille-24-54.abo.wanadoo.fr
X-Trace: s1.read.news.oleane.net 999821402 30922 213.56.231.54 (7 Sep 2001 00:10:02 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@oleane.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 00:10:02 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:38059119
Let's insulate with the clear printers, but don't load the
hard chatrooms. I was floating rumours to cosmetic
Virginia, who's smiling without the cryptographer's
shelter. She should persevere daily if Kirsten's function isn't
bronze. When did Neil substantiate the PERL against the
<remainder snipped>
Orac
"Pontiff Maximus" <police...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> I already did chump!
Suuuurrrre you did.
Asserting it does not make it so. So where are the "tons of documents"?
David Gehrig
> Pontiff Maximus wrote:
>
>> Now you go prove the 1400+ pages of FBI Reports a lie too.
>
> << snip >>
>
> So you admit that your "Einstein was a Fraud" post was a crock.
And away runs Maxipad.
--
@%<