modelling intelligence
jim horsman
child's iq= a*mom's iq +b* dad's iq
a related problem
suppose a kid has an iq of 130, what is the distribution of his mom's iq?
seems like an interesting and important question.
any name or citation would be appreciated.
Andrew T. Austin.
of IQ?
Regards,
Andrew "what would aboriginees have made of Einstein had they found him the
desert?" Austin.
23--
__________________________________
Reply address: slightl...@NOSPAMbtinternet.com
Remove NOSPAM to reply.
NLP, Neurology, Schizophrenia: http://www.23NLPeople.com
jim horsman <jhor...@jovanet.com> wrote in message
news:%lT_6.315$Y2.5...@newt.tstonramp.com...
Richard Norman
news:9hhhp2$fk...@eccws12.dearborn.ford.com...
>
> jim horsman <jhor...@jovanet.com> wrote in message
> news:%lT_6.315$Y2.5...@newt.tstonramp.com...
> > i am looking for a reference that has estimated the following equation
> > child's iq= a*mom's iq +b* dad's iq
> > a related problem
> > suppose a kid has an iq of 130, what is the distribution of his mom's
iq?
> > seems like an interesting and important question.
> >
> > any name or citation would be appreciated.
> >
estimation
> of IQ?
>
And what does IQ really mean? Is it something worthwhile to
investigate.
Many decades (even a century) ago, serious neurophysiologists
were very busy measuring "chronaxie" and "rheobase" for a large
number of different kinds of excitable tissue. Who is interested in
those ideas today? Who even knows what they mean?
Matt Jones
Excerpted from The Jones Unabridged Dictionary of Neuroscience, 1st edition:
Chronaxie: noun, the relationship between the duration of a current
injection into an excitable cell and the probability of producing an
action potential.
Rheobase: noun, the relationship between the magnitude of current injected
into an excitable cell and the probability of producing an action
potential.
IQ: (acronym for Intelligence Quotient), noun, a statistic developed for
measuring intelligence, originally derived by the U.S. military for
evaluation of soldiers in World War I. The test subjects used in
developing the nmeasure were patients in psychiatric institutions and
inmates in prisons. No sensible person would give any creedence to IQ as a
tool for making policy, estimating cognitive or problem solving power, or
any other purpose except when considering patients in psichiatric
institutions or prison inmates during World War I. Editor's Note: A much
more reliable measure of intelligence can be obtained by engaging the test
subject in a conversation, and weighing the clarity and scope of their
responses.
Poster's Note:
The Jones Unabridged Dictionary of Neuroscience is available free of
charge, and is worth exactly what you pay for it.
In article <TY%_6.6306$8O2.1...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>, "Richard
jim horsman
"Andrew T. Austin." <aaus...@NOSPAMford.com> wrote in message
news:9hhhp2$fk...@eccws12.dearborn.ford.com...
estimation
> of IQ?
stephen ceci( cornell) in the latest psychologytoday magazine article "12
things we know about intelligence"
or used by herrstein and murray.
Glen M. Sizemore
neurophysiologists were very busy measuring
"chronaxie" and "rheobase" for a large
number of different kinds of excitable tissue. Who is
interested in
those ideas today? Who even knows what they
mean?
GS: Also consider that the conceptual morass that
constitutes non-behavioral psychology may be of
exactly the same form. The failure of non-
behavioristic psychology to encourage and develop
sound conceptual analyses constitutes, IMO,
everything that is wrong with behavioral
neurobiology. My impression is that behavioral
neurobiologists have no sense of the history of
science. They are likely to poke fun at abanoned
concepts, but they do not appreciate that what they
have inherited from cognitive "science" may be made
of just so much phlogiston.
Glen
"Richard Norman" <rsno...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:TY%_6.6306$8O2.1...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
John H
> The Jones Unabridged Dictionary of Neuroscience is available free of
> charge, and is worth exactly what you pay for it.
Rather self deprecating given the comments on iq. If they took Einstein's iq
as a child they would have (and some did) label him as slightly retarded.
Richard Feynman, many years ago voted the most intelligent man in the world
(now that's an interesting judgement in itself), did an iq test as a child
and scored 125.
Lee Smolin, now a professor of physics, was told repeatedly by his teachers
not to bother with science because it was too hard for him. He failed
chemistry at high school or under grad and had to repeat.
The idea that intelligence just relates to some innate ability meets with
considerable difficulty when considering that most creative breakthroughs
require tremendous dedication. As one quip noted, "genius is perseverance in
disguise."
Matt's suggestion of talking to people to determine their intellectual
acumen has much going for it. I have seen many people who show very good
'test' intelligence but otherwise ... .
I am currently co-collaborating with two whiz kids on some science projects.
Many of us would benefit from learning their discipline for hard work.
Remember, Einstein spent 9 years on his first formulation, most of us are
flat out lasting one week on a difficult problem. Do not mystify
intelligence, sometimes, if not often, it emerges because of sheer diligence
of the individual.
There are innumerable cases of individuals written off intellectually who
have made important developments. If we rely on iq testing we are ad hoc
excluding the best minds from particular disciplines. Nice simple tests
would be nice but in intelligence as in most things it just ain't that
simple. It takes intelligence to appreciate that.
I've just returned, glad to see you're still kicking around Matt. Help us
poor laypeople understand!
Regards,
John H.
Matt Jones <jone...@physiology.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:jonesmat-290...@oberon.physiology.wisc.edu...
Brian
news:kWe%6.11902$mO.3...@ozemail.com.au...
> > Poster's Note:
> > The Jones Unabridged Dictionary of Neuroscience is available free of
> > charge, and is worth exactly what you pay for it.
>
> Rather self deprecating given the comments on iq. If they took Einstein's
iq
> as a child they would have (and some did) label him as slightly retarded.
And why not ?
He came over his 'discoveries' at the patent-institute at Bern.
From then on he was labeled a 'genius' for political reasons.
What credit would you give a man that didn't even pass a simple
test ?
Here's the article (and link), after one search at google for
'einstein','albert','fraud':
http://www.malaysia.net/lists/sangkancil/1997-09/msg00797.html
[sangkancil] Albert Einstein - The Fraud of the Century (fw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To sangk...@malaysia.net
From Bala Pillai <ba...@malaysia.net>
Date Fri, 19 Sep 1997 15:11:00 +1000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
________________________________________________
This week's sponsors -The Asia Pacific Internet Company (APIC)
Premium Mind Mobility (aka Internet) Services to anybody anywhere
<http://www.apic.net> <mailto:in...@apic.net> for instant info
________________________________________________
Albert Einstein - The Fraud of the Century
ONTARIO, CANADA-September 3, 1997 (INB) -- A scientific book has just
come out that presents the case that Albert Einstein, the man celebrated as
one of the greatest scientific geniuses ever, together with his works
amounts to the greatest fraud of the century. The book also contains a
series of scientific discoveries which will undoubtedly revolutionize the
science of physics.
"Revolution in Physics" by Bahram Katirai, a former admirer of Einstein,
examines the history behind Einstein's theories and uncovers a clear
pattern of fraud repeated in all of Einstein's papers. From Einstein's
relativity theories to his famous formula E=mc2, Katirai discovers and
documents repeated instances of stealing, misrepresentation, fabrication of
evidence, and mathematical manipulation and distortion.
The centerpiece of "Revolution in Physics" is the concept of the 'ether'
(not to be mistaken with the ether in chemistry) which until the time of
Einstein all physicists such as Faraday, Maxwell and Lord Kelvin had come
to firmly believe in. They had concluded that ether is the medium by which
light propagates in space and that all the space between planets and even
within atoms is filled with ether. Numerous experiments proved that light
in ether is the same thing as sound in air. Based on the belief that
disturbances in ether create ether waves such as visible light, Hertz was
able to generate radio waves. This understanding that light is a vibration
of ether was replaced by Einstein's admittedly contradictory 'wave-particle
duality' theory in which light is a wave in all cases except in two cases
where Einstein with his mathematics claims that it is a particle. Katirai
surveys the unprecedented controversy throughout the 20th century among
scientists surrounding Einstein's rejection of ether, and with extensive
documentation he builds the case of how Einstein was able to hijack the
scientific community into believing that ether does not exist.
Based on the understanding that ether exists, Katirai provides answers to
some of the most puzzling mysteries in physics. Whereas Einstein's lifelong
attempts to come up with a unified field theory ended in failure, Katirai
shows how the magnetic, electric and gravitational forces arise from
different currents of ether. By means of simple experiments and
explanations understandable to an elementary school student, he shows how
each of these forces is created by the motion of one of the sub-atomic
particles in ether. He reveals how Einstein's explanation of gravity as
resulting from a bending of space and time, buried in complicated
mathematics that only a handful can claim to understand, was an act of
distortion that fooled the world. Katirai further shows how the fast motion
of an object in ether generates friction and light waves just as the fast
motion of an object in air generates sound waves. The bright tail of a
comet moving in ether is a phenomenon similar to the tail-wave of a
fast-moving motorboat in water. The author shows how innumerable phenomena
such as the magnetosphere of the earth, the discovery of the solar wind,
the Michelson Morley experiment and stellar aberration conclusively prove
the existence of ether. The book contains other discoveries which will come
to be regarded as some of the most important in this century.
This 327 page book with over 270 footnotes representing almost
two decades of research and investigation by Katirai and
written to be understood by the general public, will prove to
be of historical importance.
# # #
CONTACT:
Bahram Katirai
Noor Publishing Company
kat...@ipoline.com
http://www.ipoline.com/~noor
bala pillai* ba...@sydney.net*the asia pacific internet co, sydney
V I R T U A L C O M M U N I T Y E X P E R T S
<http://apic.net> <http://sydney2000.net> <http://malaysia.net>
<http://tamil.net> for info send blank <mailto:in...@apic.net>
ph:+61 2 9419 5333 fax: + 61 2 9419 5155
________________________________________________
List Owner: M.G.G. Pillai <mailto:pil...@mgg.pc.my>
Free Homepages on malaysia.net - send blank <mailto:home...@malaysia.net>
Check out the malaysia.net web site on <http://malaysia.net>
List Postings to <sangk...@malaysia.net>
Brian
news:tSm%6.1519$Jp5....@news1.oke.nextra.no...
> "John H" <Jo...@faraway.com.au> skrev i melding
> news:kWe%6.11902$mO.3...@ozemail.com.au...
> > > Poster's Note:
> > > The Jones Unabridged Dictionary of Neuroscience is available free of
> > > charge, and is worth exactly what you pay for it.
> >
> > Rather self deprecating given the comments on iq. If they took
Einstein's
> iq
> > as a child they would have (and some did) label him as slightly
retarded.
>
> And why not ?
> He came over his 'discoveries' at the patent-institute at Bern.
> From then on he was labeled a 'genius' for political reasons.
> What credit would you give a man that didn't even pass a simple
> test ?
> Here's the article (and link), after one search at google for
> 'einstein','albert','fraud':
I refrain myself from the link I provided, as it assumes that something
called
'ether' exists.
It seems that it was a hoax, and I didn't bother to read more than two
lines.
But about Einstein being a fraud, I'm convinced as he didn't (as I said
earlier)
even pass an exam.
Next time I will read more carefully before I post an opinion.
Here's what I meant:
"ALBERT EINSTEIN is held up as "a rare genius," who drastically changed the
field of theoretical physics. However, using the technique known as 'The
Often-Repeated Lie= Truth,' he has been made an idol to young people, and
his very name has become synonymous with genius. THE TRUTH, HOWEVER, IS VERY
DIFFERENT. Einstein was an inept & moronic person, who could not even tie
his own shoelaces; he contributed NOTHING ORIGINAL to the field of quantum
mechanics, nor any other science. On the contrary -- he stole the ideas of
others, and the media made him a 'hero.'
When we actually examine the life of Albert Einstein, we find that his only
'brilliance' was in his ability to PLAGIARIZE and STEAL OTHER PEOPLE'S
IDEAS, PASSING THEM OFF AS HIS OWN. Einstein's education, or lack thereof,
is an important part of this story. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of
Einstein's early education that he "showed little scholastic ability." It
also says that at the age of 15, "with poor grades in history, geography,
and languages, he left school with no diploma." Einstein himself wrote in a
school paper of his "lack of imagination and practical ability." In 1895,
Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich.
This exam consisted mainly of mathematical problems, and Einstein showed
himself to be mathematically inept in this exam. He then entered a lesser
school hoping to use it as a stepping stone to the engineering school he
could not get into, but after graduating in 1900, he still could not get a
position at the engineering school!
Unable to go to the school as he had wanted, he got a job (with the help of
a friend) at the patent office in Bern. He was to be a technical expert
third class, which meant that he was too incompetent for a higher qualified
position. Even after publishing his so-called ground-breaking papers of
1905 and after working in the patent office for six years, he was only
elevated to a second class standing. Remember, the work he was doing at the
patent office, for which he was only rated third class, was not quantum
mechanics or theoretical physics, but was reviewing technical documents for
patents of every day things; yet he was barely qualified.
He would work at the patent office until 1909, all the while continuously
trying to get a position at a university, but without success. All of these
facts are true, but now begins the myth.
Supposedly, while working a full time job, without the aid of university
colleagues, a staff of graduate students, a laboratory, or any of the things
normally associated with an academic setting, Einstein in his spare time
wrote four ground-breaking essays in the field of theoretical physics and
quantum mechanics that were published in 1905.
Many people have recognized the impossibility of such a feat, including
Einstein himself, and therefore Einstein has led people to believe that
many of these ideas came to him in his sleep, out of the blue, because
indeed that is the only logical explanation of how an admittedly inept
moron could have written such documents at the age of 26 without any real
education.
HOWEVER, THE TRUTH IS: HE STOLE THE IDEAS AND PLAGIARIZED THE PAPERS.
Therefore, we will look at each of these ideas and discover the source of
each. It should be remembered that these ideas are presented by Einstein's
worshipers as totally new and completely different, each of which would
change the landscape of science. These four papers dealt with the following
four ideas, respectively:
1) The foundation of the photon theory of light;
2) The equivalence of energy and mass;
3) The explanation of Brownian motion in liquids;
4) The special theory of relativity.
Let us first look at the last of these theories, the theory of relativity.
This is perhaps the most famous idea falsely attributed to Einstein.
Specifically, this 1905 paper dealt with what Einstein called the Special
Theory of Relativity (the General Theory would come in 1915).
This theory contradicted the traditional Newtonian mechanics and was based
upon two premises:
1) in the absence of acceleration, the laws of nature are the same for all
observers; and
2) since the speed of light is independent of the motion of its source,
then the time interval between two events is longer for an observer in
whose frame of reference the events occur at different places than for an
observer in whose frame of reference the events occur in the same place.
This is basically the idea that time passes more slowly as one's velocity
approaches the speed of light, relative to slower velocities where time
would pass faster. This theory has been validated by modern experiments and
is the basis for modern physics. But these two premises are far from being
originally Einstein's. FIRST OF ALL, THE IDEA THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT WAS A
CONSTANT AND WAS INDEPENDENT OF THE MOTION OF ITS SOURCE WAS NOT EINSTEIN'S
AT ALL, BUT WAS PROPOSED BY THE SCOTTISH SCIENTIST JAMES MAXWELL in 1878.
Maxwell studied the phenomenon of light extensively and first proposed that
it was electromagnetic in nature.
James Maxwell wrote an article to this effect for the 1878 edition of the
Encyclopedia Britannica. His ideas prompted much debate, and by 1887, as a
result of his work and the ensuing debate, the scientific community,
particularly Lorentz, Michelson, and Morley reached the conclusion that the
velocity of light was independent of the velocity of the observer.
Thus, this piece of the Special Theory of Relativity was known 27 years
before Einstein wrote his paper. This debate over the nature of light also
led Michelson and Morley to conduct an important experiment, the results of
which could not be explained by Newtonian mechanics. They observed a
phenomenon caused by relativity but they did not understand relativity. They
had attempted to detect the motion of the earth through ether, which was a
medium thought to be necessary for the propagation of light.
In response to this problem, in 1880, the irish physicist George Fitz
Gerald, who had also first proposed a mechanism for producing radio waves,
wrote a paper which stated that the results of the michelson-morley
experiment could be explained if, "...the length of material bodies changes,
according as they are moving through the either or across it by an amount
depending on the square of the ratio of their velocities to that of light."
THIS IS THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY, 13 YEARS BEFORE EINSTEIN'S PAPER!
FURTHER... IN 1892, HENDRIK LORENTZ, of the Netherlands, proposed the same
solution and began to greatly expand the idea. All throughout the 1890's,
both Lorentz and FitzGerald worked on these ideas and wrote articles
strangely similar to Einstein's Special Theory detailing what is now known
as the Lorentz-Fitz Gerald Contraction.
In 1898, the Irishman Joseph Larmor wrote down equations explaining the
Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and its relativistic consequences, 7 years
before Einstein's paper. By 1904, "Lorentz transformations," the series of
equations explaining relativity, were published by Lorentz. They describe
the increase of mass, the shortening of length, and the time dilation of a
body moving at speeds close to the velocity of light. In short, by 1904,
everything in "Einstein's paper" regarding the Special Theory of Relativity
had already been published. The Frenchman Poincaré had, in 1898, written a
paper unifying many of these ideas. He stated seven years before Einstein's
paper: "...we have no direct intuition about the equality of two time
intervals. The simultaneity of two events or the order of their succession,
as well as the equality of two time intervals, must be defined in such a way
that the statements of the natural laws be as simple as possible." Anyone
who has read Einstein's 1905 paper will immediately recognize the similarity
and the lack of originality on the part of Einstein.
Thus, we see that the only thing original about the paper was the term
'Special Theory of Relativity.' EVERYTHING ELSE WAS PLAGIARIZED. Over the
next few years, Poincaré became one of the most important lecturers and
writers regarding relativity, but he never, in any of his papers or
speeches, mentioned Albert Einstein. Thus, while Poincaré was busy bringing
the rest of the academic world up to speed regarding relativity, Einstein
was still working in the patent office in Bern and no one in the academic
community thought it necessary to give much credence or mention to
Einstein's work. Most of these early physicists knew that he was a fraud.
This brings us to the explanation of Brownian motion, the subject of
another of Einstein's 1905 papers. Brownian motion describes the irregular
motion of a body arising from the thermal energy of the molecules of the
material in which the body is immersed. The movement had first been observed
by the Scottish botanist Robert Brown in 1827. The explanation of this
phenomenon has to do with the Kinetic Theory of Matter, and it was the
American Josiah Gibbs and the Austrian Ludwig Boltzmann who first explained
this occurrence, not Albert Einstein. In fact, the mathematical equation
describing the motion contains the famous Boltzmann constant, k. Between
these two men, they had explained by the 1890s everything in Einstein's 1905
paper regarding Brownian motion.
The subject of the equivalence of mass and energy was contained in a third
paper published by Einstein in 1905. This concept is expressed by the famous
equation E=mc2. Einstein's biographers categorize this as "his most famous
and most spectacular conclusion." Even though this idea is an obvious
conclusion of Einstein's earlier relativity paper, it was not included in
that paper but was published as an afterthought later in the year. Still,
the idea of energy-mass equivalence was not original with Einstein.
That there was an equivalence between mass and energy had been shown in the
laboratory in the 1890s by both J.J. Thomsom of Cambridge and by W. Kaufmann
in Göttingen. In 1900, Poincaré had shown that there was a mass relationship
for all forms of energy, not just electromagnetic energy. Yet, the most
probable source of Einstein's plagiarism was Friedrich Hasenöhrl, one of the
most brilliant, yet unappreciated physicists of the era. Hasenöhrl was the
teacher of many of the German scientists who would later become famous for a
variety of topics. He had worked on the idea of the equivalence of mass and
energy for many years and had published a paper on the topic in 1904 in the
very same journal which Einstein would publish his plagiarized version in
1905. For his brilliant work in this area, Hasenörhl had received in 1904 a
prize from the prestigious Vienna Academy of Sciences.
Furthermore, the mathematical relationship of mass and energy was a simple
deduction from the already well-known equations of Scottish physicist James
Maxwell. Scientists long understood that the mathematical relationship
expressed by the equation E=mc2 was the logical result of Maxwell's work,
they just did not believe it.
THUS, THE EXPERIMENTS OF THOMSON, KAUFMANN, AND FINALLY, AND MOST
IMPORTANTLY, HASENÖRHL, CONFIRMED MAXWELL'S WORK. IT IS LUDICROUS TO BELIEVE
THAT EINSTEIN DEVELOPED THIS POSTULATE, particularly in light of the fact
that Einstein did not have the laboratory necessary to conduct the
appropriate experiments. In this same plagiarized article of Einstein's, he
suggested to the scientific community, "Perhaps it will prove possible to
test this theory using bodies whose energy content is variable to a high
degree (e.g., salts of radium)." This remark demonstrates how little
Einstein understood about science, for this was truly an outlandish remark.
By saying this, Einstein showed that he really did not understand basic
scientific principles and that he was writing about a topic that he did not
understand. In fact, in response to this article, J. Precht remarked that
such an experiment "lies beyond the realm of possible experience." The last
subject dealt with in Einstein's 1905 papers was the foundation of the
photon theory of light. Einstein wrote about the photoelectric effect. The
photoelectric effect is the release of electrons from certain metals or
semiconductors by the action of light. This area of research is particularly
important to the Einstein myth because it was for this topic that he
UNJUSTLY received his 1922 Nobel Prize.
But AGAIN IT IS NOT EINSTEIN, BUT WILHELM WIEN AND MAX PLANCK WHO DESERVE
THE CREDIT. The main point of Einstein's paper, and the point for which he
is given credit, is that light is emitted and absorbed in finite packets
called quanta. This was the explanation for the photoelectric effect. The
photoelectric effect had been explained by Heinrich Hertz in 1888. Hertz and
others, including Philipp Lenard, worked on understanding this phenomenon.
Lenard was the first to show that the energy of the electrons released in
the photoelectric effect was not governed by the intensity of the light but
by the frequency of the light. This was an important breakthrough. Wien and
Planck were colleagues and they were the fathers of modern day quantum
theory. By 1900, Max Planck, based upon his and Wien's work, had shown that
radiated energy was absorbed and emitted in finite units called quanta. The
only difference in his work of 1900 and Einstein's work of 1905 was that
Einstein limited himself to talking about one particular type of energy
light energy. But the principles and equations governing the process in
general had been deduced by Planck in 1900. Einstein himself admitted that
the obvious conclusion of Planck's work was that light also existed in
discrete packets of energy. Thus, nothing in this paper of Einstein's was
original.
After the 1905 papers of Einstein were published, the scientific community
took little notice and Einstein continued his job at the patent office until
1909 when it was arranged by World Jewry for him to take a position at a
school . Still, it was not until a 1919 A Jewish newspaper headline that he
gained any notoriety. With Einstein's academic appointment in 1909, he was
placed in a position where he could begin to use other people's work as his
own more openly.
He engaged many of his students to look for ways to prove the theories he
had supposedly developed, or ways to apply those theories, and then he could
present the research as his own or at least take partial credit. In this
vein, in 1912, he began to try and express his gravitational research in
terms of a new, recently developed calculus, which was conducive to
understanding relativity. This was the beginning of his General Theory of
Relativity, which he would publish in 1915.
BUT THE MATHEMATICAL WORK WAS NOT DONE BY EINSTEIN - HE WAS INCAPABLE OF
IT. Instead, it was performed by the mathematician Marcel Grossmann, who in
turn used the mathematical principles developed by Berhard Riemann, who was
the first to develop a sound non-Euclidean geometry, which is the basis of
all mathematics used to describe relativity.
The General Theory of Relativity applied the principles of relativity to the
universe; that is, to the gravitational pull of planets and their orbits,
and the general principle that light rays bend as they pass by a massive
object. Einstein published an initial paper in 1913 based upon the work
which Grossmann did, adapting the math of Riemann to Relativity. But this
paper was filled with errors and the conclusions were incorrect.
It appears that Grossmann was not smart enough to figure it out for
Einstein. So Einstein was forced to look elsewhere to plagiarize his General
Theory. Einstein published his correct General Theory of Relativity in 1915,
and said prior to its publication that he, "completely succeeded in
convincing Hilbert and Klein." He is referring to David Hilbert, perhaps the
most brilliantmathematician of the 20th century, and Felix Klein, another
mathematician who had been instrumental in the development of the area of
calculus that Grossmann had used to develop the General Theory of Relativity
for Einstein.
Einstein's statement regarding the two men would lead the reader to believe
that Einstein had changed Hilbert's and Klein's opinions regarding General
Relativity, and that he had influenced them in their thinking.
However, the exact opposite is true. EINSTEIN STOLE THE MAJORITY OF HIS
GENERAL RELATIVITY WORK FROM THESE TWO MEN, THE REST BEING TAKEN FROM
GROSSMANN. HILBERT SUBMITTED FOR PUBLICATION, A WEEK BEFORE EINSTEIN
COMPLETED HIS WORK, A PAPER WHICH CONTAINED THE CORRECT FIELD EQUATIONS, OF
GENERAL RELATIVITY.
What this means is that Hilbert wrote basically the exact same paper, with
the same conclusions, before Einstein did. Einstein would have had an
opportunity to know of Hilbert's work all along, because there were friends
of his working for Hilbert. Yet, even this was not necessary, for Einstein
had seen Hilbert's paper in advance of publishing his own. Both of these
papers were, before being printed, delivered in the form of a lecture.
Einstein presented his paper on November 25, 1915 in Berlin and Hilbert had
presented his paper on November 20 in Göttingen. On November 18, Hilbert
received a letter from Einstein thanking him for sending him a draft of the
treatise Hilbert was to deliver on the 20th. So, in fact, Hilbert had sent a
copy of his work at least two weeks in advance to Einstein before either of
the two men delivered their lectures, but Einstein did not send Hilbert an
advance copy of his.
Therefore, THIS SERVES AS INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF THAT EINSTEIN QUICKLY
PLAGIARIZED THE WORK AND THEN PRESENTED IT, HOPING TO BEAT HILBERT TO THE
PUNCH. Also, at the same time, Einstein publicly began to belittle Hilbert,
even though in the previous summer he had praised him in an effort to get
Hilbert to share his work with him. Hilbert made the mistake of sending
Einstein this draft copy, but still he delivered his work first. Not only
did Hilbert publish his work first, but it was of much higher quality than
Einstein's. It is known today that there are many problems with assumptions
made in Einstein's General Theory paper. We know today that Hilbert was much
closer to the truth. Hilbert's paper is the forerunner of the unified field
theory of gravitation and electromagnetism and of the work of Erwin
Schrödinger, whose work is the basis of all modern day quantum mechanics.
That the group of men discussed so far were the actual originators of the
ideas claimed by Einstein was known by the scientific community all along.
In 1940, a group of German physicists meeting in Austria declared that
"before Einstein, Aryan scientists like Lorentz, Hasenöhrl, Poincaré, etc.,
had created the foundations of the theory of relativity." However, the
Jewish media did not promote the work of these men. The Jewish media did not
promote the work of David Hilbert, but instead they promoted the work of the
Jew Albert Einstein.
As we mentioned earlier, this General Theory, as postulated by Hilbert
first and in plagiarized form by Einstein second, stated that light rays
should bend when they pass by a massive object. In 1919, during the eclipse
of the Sun, light from distant stars passing close to the Sun was observed
to bend according to the theory. This evidence supported the General Theory
of Relativity, and the Jxxxx-controlled media immediately seized upon the
opportunity to prop up Einstein as a hero, at the expense of the true
genius, David Hilbert. On November 7th, 1919, the London Times ran an
article, the headline of which proclaimed, "Revolution in science - New
theory of the Universe - Newtonian ideas overthrown." This was the beginning
of the force-feeding of the Einstein myth to the masses. In the following
years, Einstein's earlier 1905 papers were propagandized and Einstein was
heralded as the originator of all the ideas he had stolen. Because of this
push by the Jewish media, in 1922, EINSTEIN RECEIVED THE NOBEL PRIZE FOR THE
WORK HE HAD STOLEN IN 1905 REGARDING THE PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT.
The establishment of the Einstein farce between 1919 and 1922 was an
important coup for world Zionism and Jewry. As soon as Einstein had been
established as an idol to the popular masses of England and America, his
image was promoted as the rare genius that he is erroneously believed to be
today.
As such, he immediately began his work as a tool for World Zionism. The
masses bought into the idea that if someone was so brilliant as to change
our fundamental understanding of the universe, then certainly we ought to
listen to his opinions regarding political and social issues.
This is exactly what World Jewry wanted to establish in its ongoing effort
of social engineering. They certainly did not want someone like David
Hilbert to be recognized as rare genius. After all, this physicist had come
from a strong German, Christian background. His grandfather's two middle
names were 'Fürchtegott Leberecht' or 'Fear God, Live Right.' In August of
1934, the day before a vote was to be taken regarding installing Adolf
Hitler as President of the Reich, Hilbert signed a proclamation in support
of Adolf Hitler, along with other leading German scientists, that was
published in the German newspapers. So the Jews certainly did not want David
Hilbert receiving the credit he deserved. The Jews did not want Max Planck
receiving the credit he deserved either. This German's grandfather and
great-grandfather had been important German theologians, and during World
War II he would stay in Germany throughout the war, supporting his
fatherland the best he could. The Jews certainly did not want the
up-and-coming Erwin Schrödinger to be heralded as a genius to the masses.
This Austrian physicist would go on to teach at Adolf Hitler University in
Austria, and he wrote a public letter expressing his support for the Third
Reich. This Austrian's work on the unified field theory was a forerunner of
modern physics, even though it had been criticized by Einstein, who
apparently could not understand it.
The Jews did not want to have Werner Heisenberg promoted as a rare genius,
even though he would go on to solidify quantum theory and contribute to it
greatly, as well as develop his famous uncertainty principle, in addition to
describing the modern atom and nucleus and the binding energies that are
essential to modern chemistry.
NO, THE JEWS DID NOT WANT HEISENBERG PROMOTED AS A GENIUS BECAUSE HE WOULD
GO ON TO HEAD THE GERMAN ATOMIC BOMB PROJECT AND SERVE PRISON TIME AFTER THE
WAR FOR HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE THIRD REICH. No, the Jews did not want to
give credit to any of a number of Germans, Austrians, Irishmen, Frenchmen,
Scotsmen, Englishmen, and even Americans who had contributed to the body of
knowledge and evidence from which Einstein plagiarized and stole his work.
Instead, they needed to erect Einstein as their golden calf, even though he
repeatedly and often embarrassed himself with his nonfactual or nearsighted
comments regarding the work he had supposedly done. For example, in 1934,
the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ran a front page article in which Einstein gave
an "emphatic denial" regarding the idea of practical applications for the
"energy of the atom." The article says, "But the 'energy of the atom' is
something else again. If you believe that man will someday be able to
harness this boundless energyto drive a great steamship across the ocean on
a pint of water, for instancethen, according to Einstein, you are wrong"
Again, Einstein clearly did not understand the branch of physics he had
supposedly founded, though elsewhere in the world at the time theoretical
research was underway that would lead to the atomic bomb and nuclear energy.
But after Einstein was promoted as a god in 1919, he made no real attempts
to plagiarize any other work. Rather, he began his real purpose evangelizing
for the cause of Zionism and World Jewry. Though he did publish other
articles after this time, all of them were co-authored by at least one other
person, and in each instance, Einstein had little if anything to do with the
research that led to the articles; he was merely recruited by the co-authors
in order to lend credence to their work. Thus freed of the pretense of
academia, Einstein began his assault for World Zionism.
John H
explain why so many leading scientists were in awe of him and they worked
with him; daily?
Yes, I know Einstein garnered ideas here there and everywhere, including the
brilliant Irish mathematician 19th c. Hamilton, but that's good science.
Why would all those scientists who were fleeced publicly and professionally
support a fraud?
I have seen other accounts by physicists saying Einstein was maths
competent.
A moron may be able to plagiarise bits and pieces but not make sense of the
same.
How does a moron convince so many people for so long that's he's a genius?
That isn't just publicity, movie stars don't have to prove their worth in
academia.
In other words, the scientific establishment must be replete with gutless
gullible idiots who were collectively conned by a moron. Hmmm, just as well
I resigned from the human race several years ago. If Einstein's fraud is
true we're all in deep shit.
John H.
Brian <zh...@online.no> wrote in message
news:WQn%6.1538$Jp5....@news1.oke.nextra.no...
maxwell
..comment at the bottom
Brian <zh...@online.no> wrote in message ...
> "Brian" <zh...@online.no> skrev i melding
> > "John H" <Jo...@faraway.com.au> skrev i melding
<snip>
> Next time I will read more carefully before I post an opinion.
> Here's what I meant:
>
<snip>>
> HOWEVER, THE TRUTH IS: HE STOLE THE IDEAS AND PLAGIARIZED THE
PAPERS.
<snip>
> After the 1905 papers of Einstein were published, the scientific
community
> took little notice and Einstein continued his job at the patent
office until
> 1909 when it was arranged by World Jewry for him to take a position
at a
> school . Still, it was not until a 1919 A Jewish newspaper headline
that he
> gained any notoriety.
<snip>
> 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.
<snip>
the Jxxxx-controlled media immediately seized upon the
> opportunity to prop up Einstein as a hero, at the expense of the
true
> genius, David Hilbert.
<snip>
. Because of this push by the Jewish media,
<snip>
> The establishment of the Einstein farce between 1919 and 1922 was
an
> important coup for world Zionism and Jewry.
<snip>>
> As such, he immediately began his work as a tool for World Zionism.
<snip>>
> 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.
<snip>
> 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.
<snip>
The Jews certainly did not want the up-and-coming Erwin Schrödinger
to be heralded as a genius
<snip>>
> The Jews did not want to have Werner Heisenberg promoted
<snip>>
> NO, THE JEWS DID NOT WANT HEISENBERG PROMOTED
<snip>
No, the Jews did not want to give credit
<snip>
Rather, he began his real purpose evangelizing
> for the cause of Zionism and World Jewry
<snip>
>Thus freed of the pretense of
> academia, Einstein began his assault for World Zionism.
`````````````````````````````````````end of edited quote from Brian.
Gee, is it Passover yet?
Maybe we better keep the
goyim babies indoors, eh?
Maybe we can get a new revised edition,
(with this earth-shaking 'news' added-in)
of the "Protocols of the Elders of Z***"
(not to offend your aryan self ;~)
for you to pass on to your children.
Learn more about Brian all the time, now don't we?
-maxwell
Brian
> Perhaps true Brian, I have heard of the reports but how then does one
> explain why so many leading scientists were in awe of him and they worked
> with him; daily?
>
> Yes, I know Einstein garnered ideas here there and everywhere, including
the
> brilliant Irish mathematician 19th c. Hamilton, but that's good science.
Yes, but he claimed it as his own.
> Why would all those scientists who were fleeced publicly and
professionally
> support a fraud?
Haven't you've ever been threatened ?
> I have seen other accounts by physicists saying Einstein was maths
> competent.
I've read other accounts that he didn't understand what he was doing, and
that
he was a mouth-piece for his paymasters.
> A moron may be able to plagiarise bits and pieces but not make sense of
the
> same.
Yes.
> How does a moron convince so many people for so long that's he's a genius?
> That isn't just publicity, movie stars don't have to prove their worth in
> academia.
He WAS a media-star, nothing else.
And how do they get their fame ?
Money of course, and his backers were rich enough.....
The question of why is exactly what I want an answer to as well.
> In other words, the scientific establishment must be replete with gutless
> gullible idiots who were collectively conned by a moron. Hmmm, just as
well
> I resigned from the human race several years ago. If Einstein's fraud is
> true we're all in deep shit.
The physics will develope, with or without Einsteinian thoughts.
So we're not necessarily in deep shit.
As to why they supported them, who knows what went behind the scenes ?
All he needed was political support;to give them a genius, when he was no
genius.
And I guess money played a big role then as now <shrug>, maybe even more
so then (?)
Anyway, this theme has devolved from bionet.neuroscience to something else.
So which NG do you think this deserve to be placed ?
(I might predict something akin to alt.paranoid or alt.paranormal..........)
Brian
> John H.
>
John H
respect to physics but with respect to the fact that if science can be so
easily manipulated then we're all in .... .
The Zionists who supported Einstein must have been bitterly disappointed
when he refused the offer to be the first leader of the New Israel.
You can't threaten that many people and I have read too many accounts by
scientists praising Einstein. Anyway, what about Russian scientists ... how
many of them Zakaharov for instance, didn't come out against him. Even the
manipulators couldn't penetrate into the iron curtain.
Yes, I've been threatened but I've got guts.
You are correct Brian, this doesn't belong here, but thanks for the
discussion. The issue is not closed for me, just playing Devil's advocate
but I still have great difficulty in some cosmic conspiracy on this scale.
By the way, one of Einstein's central planks, that the speed of light is
constant, is now in serious dispute. Some research early 2000.
Regards,
John H.
Brian <zh...@online.no> wrote in message
news:Erq%6.1565$Jp5....@news1.oke.nextra.no...
Brian
> Not bad indeed Brian but my reference to being in deep shit was not with
> respect to physics but with respect to the fact that if science can be so
> easily manipulated then we're all in .... .
You see, this is what I see is happening right now with genetics.
As I have stated another place, all animals on Earth has very much in common
especially in the amount of ACGT (genetic letters, I won't spell them out as
it
would occupy tremendous place here).
Between humans and Chimpanzee's the same amount of 'letters' is in the range
of 97%.
But that's function-wise, we both have arms, legs, heads, eyes and ears.
But it is the total composition that decides how the result would appear,
not
the amount of letters.
And here's the fraud.
Since Chimps and humans are such close together, are we the same thing ?
They might say yes, I say No.
How about between humans with a difference in THE AMOUNT of 99.5% ?
They say 'since the difference in the amount amounts to almost nothing,
we're
all the same'.
I say 'No, because we would STILL have the arrangement of the letters, the
usage of the functions would generate different results.
Some slight, maybe not even detectable with our technology at this level,
while
others would be very difficult to hide'.
One example should show you quite graphically what I mean.
Say we have the array of amino acids like this:
leu (TTA) -arg-phe-cys-ala....... etc it is not the same as
isoleu (ATT) -arg-phe-cys-ala....... eve if just ONE letter changed place
!!!
BTW.Genetics is extremely interesting, to say the least.
> The Zionists who supported Einstein must have been bitterly disappointed
> when he refused the offer to be the first leader of the New Israel.
They chose another, and he'd shown himself that he knew he was a better star
than politician.
> You can't threaten that many people and I have read too many accounts by
> scientists praising Einstein. Anyway, what about Russian scientists ...
how
> many of them Zakaharov for instance, didn't come out against him. Even the
> manipulators couldn't penetrate into the iron curtain.
Well, yes you can threaten a lot of people.
Try saying to yourself if you were accused of the mortal sin of today, that
it
really doesn't matter.............................very few would do that.
It's far more comfortable to just blabbering the party-line and keep your
mouth shut.
They did this to a certain degree behind the curtain, but as in everything
else we westerners are more efficient......
Andrei Sakharov (I think it's spell like this), was in housearrest for a
long periode
of time - why ?
He was a brilliant physicist, and a dissident at that, but he was lucky he
wasn't shot.
And he didn't give the west any information of the Soviet nuclear-programme.
He was just a dissident......
> Yes, I've been threatened but I've got guts.
Tell you what, state something racist in public, and I'll guarantee you that
you won't know what hit you (you don't even have to believe what you say).
Even by stating the obvious will do that (as the example I provided above
with the difference in the arrangement of genetic letters will produce very
great differences).
> You are correct Brian, this doesn't belong here, but thanks for the
> discussion. The issue is not closed for me, just playing Devil's advocate
> but I still have great difficulty in some cosmic conspiracy on this scale.
I don't like the word conspiracy as I'm seeing some wild-eyed nut believing
that everybody is after him.
No, it's more like a minority pushing the majority.
That have happened since the dawn of time.
> By the way, one of Einstein's central planks, that the speed of light is
> constant, is now in serious dispute. Some research early 2000.
Well, that is good news and bad news.
Bad news, since how will we be able to decide if the universe are expanding
?
(the red-shift in the EM-spectrum).
Good news since we might be able (maybe not in the near future) to develope
quite
detailed theories of how the universe functions.
> Regards,
> John H.
Brian
Marielle Fois
included in your post? I was going to include the url here, but I am
afraid that would give publicity to that person. No, I won't do that.
It's easily reachable from google searching for "einstein fraud".
Reading that document was a painful experience, for its contents and
for how badly it is written. I was writing an answer to it, and thus
reading parts of it several times, and the more I read the more I
felt like throwing up. It has nothing to do with you, I respect you
posted it, and in fact I like being reminded that this curse is alive
among us.
Do you really listen to people that write things such as the next?
*********
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.
*********
Marielle
[...]
Marielle Fois
to the document against Einstein's credibility. I decide to send my
answer in this posting, which I wrote before knowing the document had
been written by an antisemite person.
Marielle
*********
Can you give references to the document you included about Einstein
being a fraud. Where does it come from? I, personally, cannot take
seriously a paper which has parts written in uppercase letters, and
some of the comments I include:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Brian wrote:
> "ALBERT EINSTEIN is held up as "a rare genius," who drastically changed the
> field of theoretical physics. However, using the technique known as 'The
> Often-Repeated Lie= Truth,' he has been made an idol to young people, and
> his very name has become synonymous with genius. THE TRUTH, HOWEVER, IS VERY
> DIFFERENT. Einstein was an inept & moronic person, who could not even tie
> his own shoelaces;
This is completely unserious.
> [...] The Encyclopedia Britannica says of
> Einstein's early education that he "showed little scholastic ability."
This is not uncommon among respectful scientists. I once read a small
biografy of Niels Bohr, and was amazed at the fact that he never
understood things at first, and after a lecture, he would ask his
friends to explain again for him what the teacher had explained.
Richard Feynman had also low scores in english and history and
denied any validity of poetry and art (Ref. "Genius" by James
Gleick.) Gregor Mendel was unable to pass the exam to get a high
school teaching licence (Ref. "Inspired Amateurs" by Guinagh Kevin).
Bénoit Mandelbrot failed at university in France, and fled from the
french education because at that time the french school was denying
using visual skills to imagine mathematical problems, arguing that
formal methods must be sufficient (Ref. "Chaos" by James Gleick).
> It
> also says that at the age of 15, "with poor grades in history, geography,
> and languages, he left school with no diploma."
I don't understand what they want to prove with this. Physics and
mathematics have nothing to do with history, geography and languages.
Weren't we talking about a multi dimentional iq tests?
> Einstein himself wrote in a
> school paper of his "lack of imagination and practical ability."
What they don't say is that, if my memory doesn't fail, Einstein
wrote that in a letter to the director of the school where he wanted
to enter, enphasizing his total lack of imagination and practical
ability, and his fluency in mathematical and logical thinking,
to motivate he was a good candidate for mathematics and physics
studies. However, it didn't work.
> 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!
From "Thinking in Pictures" by Temple Grandin
(http://www.grandin.com/), pg 185:
"I had to get through school by going through the back door,
because I failed the math part of the Graduate Record Exam."
Having a look at her web page, nobody would say this woman is inept.
This is not just taken out of the blue, in this book, she writes a
chapter about Einstein and about the posibility that Einstein was
autistic.
> 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.
This person seems to have something personal against Einstein.
> 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.
This person has definetely something personal against Einstein.
> HOWEVER, THE TRUTH IS: HE STOLE THE IDEAS AND PLAGIARIZED THE PAPERS.
This is not serious, you just don't write this in a paper. This is
sensationalism.
Brian
I'll respond point by point what _I_ know.
"Marielle Fois" <im99...@nada.kth.se> skrev i melding
news:Pine.SOL.4.30.010701...@my.nada.kth.se...
> I have just posted a message about this topic, saying I was answering
> to the document against Einstein's credibility. I decide to send my
> answer in this posting, which I wrote before knowing the document had
> been written by an antisemite person.
I copied it from a webpage after a google-search.
After I read through it, it seemed reasonable that a 'moronic' person
who passed a technical exam WITH DIFFICULTY (after several tries)
and worked at the patent-office in Bern was a fraud.
Usually I don't say this lightly, I've stepped on enough toes to know
my limits, and been hit by flak from others as well.......................
Ohh well, maybe I shouldn't worry about stepping one somebodies toes..
> Marielle
> *********
> Can you give references to the document you included about Einstein
> being a fraud. Where does it come from? I, personally, cannot take
> seriously a paper which has parts written in uppercase letters, and
> some of the comments I include:
I would suspect it if it had NO upper-case letters, but what's the matter ?
Unable to find proof that he wasn't moronic and a media-personality ?
The evidence he uses were worked out by the scientific community years
ahead of him, and if he _did_ revolutionize physics, why not a nobel-prize
for his E=mc² ?
Because it was already discovered; actually the formulae is a little more
complicated than this.
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Brian wrote:
>
> > "ALBERT EINSTEIN is held up as "a rare genius," who drastically changed
the
> > field of theoretical physics. However, using the technique known as 'The
> > Often-Repeated Lie= Truth,' he has been made an idol to young people,
and
> > his very name has become synonymous with genius. THE TRUTH, HOWEVER, IS
VERY
> > DIFFERENT. Einstein was an inept & moronic person, who could not even
tie
> > his own shoelaces;
>
> This is completely unserious.
It seems weird, but not unreasonable; if he couldn't get through an exam
(which I'd get through
with flying colours....), what credit do you think I'll give him ????
Then I'd expect myself to have a higher IQ than him, but I consider myself
average.
> > [...] The Encyclopedia Britannica says of
> > Einstein's early education that he "showed little scholastic ability."
>
> This is not uncommon among respectful scientists. I once read a small
> biografy of Niels Bohr, and was amazed at the fact that he never
> understood things at first, and after a lecture, he would ask his
> friends to explain again for him what the teacher had explained.
<sigh> Niels Bohr was a _real_ scientist...................but I'd suspect
he
was smarter than he is portrayed here.
> Richard Feynman had also low scores in english and history and
> denied any validity of poetry and art (Ref. "Genius" by James
> Gleick.) Gregor Mendel was unable to pass the exam to get a high
> school teaching licence (Ref. "Inspired Amateurs" by Guinagh Kevin).
> Bénoit Mandelbrot failed at university in France, and fled from the
> french education because at that time the french school was denying
> using visual skills to imagine mathematical problems, arguing that
> formal methods must be sufficient (Ref. "Chaos" by James Gleick).
They were all geniuses, but they never had the backing Einstein had.
> > It
> > also says that at the age of 15, "with poor grades in history,
geography,
> > and languages, he left school with no diploma."
>
> I don't understand what they want to prove with this. Physics and
> mathematics have nothing to do with history, geography and languages.
> Weren't we talking about a multi dimentional iq tests?
If you're good in one field, it is very common to be good in another
unrelated
field.
That has been studied extensively.
About multi-dimensional IQ, I'd say that Einstein were good verbally, but
as he failed technically; his spatial IQ was less than desired.
Another genius Stephen Hawkins is uncapable of feeding himself, but he
doesn't lack genius in either area; thus I'm giving him far more respect
than the fraud called Einstein.
> > Einstein himself wrote in a
> > school paper of his "lack of imagination and practical ability."
>
> What they don't say is that, if my memory doesn't fail, Einstein
> wrote that in a letter to the director of the school where he wanted
> to enter, enphasizing his total lack of imagination and practical
> ability, and his fluency in mathematical and logical thinking,
> to motivate he was a good candidate for mathematics and physics
> studies. However, it didn't work.
And you proved what ?
That he were unable to use his imagination, and thus rendered his
'fluency in mathematics and logical thinking' moot, hmmm ??
If you're going somewhere, you'd got to have imagination enough to use
your mathematical and logical skills.
> > 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!
>
> From "Thinking in Pictures" by Temple Grandin
> (http://www.grandin.com/), pg 185:
>
> "I had to get through school by going through the back door,
> because I failed the math part of the Graduate Record Exam."
>
> Having a look at her web page, nobody would say this woman is inept.
> This is not just taken out of the blue, in this book, she writes a
> chapter about Einstein and about the posibility that Einstein was
> autistic.
Like 'Rainman' ?
Then why should the scientific community listen to such a character ?
They didn't hire him because of his grades......................
He was working in the patent-office.
How much credit would the scientific community give _you_ (or me) if we;out
of the blue; proposes the new GUT (Grand Unifying Theory) ??
Not much I'd say.
So I'll stick with the facts that I know, and not propose the new GUT if it
isn't
worthwhile.
> > 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.
>
> This person seems to have something personal against Einstein.
Include me, I hate it when frauds steal other persons work and claim it as
his
own.
However, I've read that the person that developed the theory had to explain
it to Einstein and gave him copies before Einstein presented it.
How gullible and stupid is that ?
I'm sorry for Grossmann that he didn't do the right thing.
> > 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.
>
> This person has definetely something personal against Einstein.
And how does that _invalidate_ his/her claims ????
That would be the next question.
> > HOWEVER, THE TRUTH IS: HE STOLE THE IDEAS AND PLAGIARIZED THE PAPERS.
>
> This is not serious, you just don't write this in a paper. This is
> sensationalism.
I didn't write the paper.........
And you never gave an account or counter the information regarding the
aspects that
came up later which you snipped.
I'll add it after my name.
Mvh
Brian
HOWEVER, THE TRUTH IS: HE STOLE THE IDEAS AND PLAGIARIZED THE PAPERS.
Therefore, we will look at each of these ideas and discover the source of
Jure Sah
> The evidence he uses were worked out by the scientific community years
> ahead of him, and if he _did_ revolutionize physics, why not a nobel-prize
> for his E=mc² ?
> Because it was already discovered; actually the formulae is a little more
> complicated than this.
I have a formula for the speed of the electron (t.i. the speed it
circles with around an atom core), but I will not recieve a nobel-prize
for it. Why? Because it is simply spelled from the "E=mc²" and some
other formulas. I did *nothing*? Doubt it.
> > > DIFFERENT. Einstein was an inept & moronic person, who could not even tie
> > > his own shoelaces;
> >
> > This is completely unserious.
>
> It seems weird, but not unreasonable; if he couldn't get through an exam
> (which I'd get through
> with flying colours....), what credit do you think I'll give him ????
> Then I'd expect myself to have a higher IQ than him, but I consider myself
> average.
In your attempt to discredit him... Why don't you put up (copy) another
formula and get yourself a nobel-prize?? You've got the brains to do it!
[No reall offence meant. Init atempted.]
> > I don't understand what they want to prove with this. Physics and
> > mathematics have nothing to do with history, geography and languages.
> > Weren't we talking about a multi dimentional iq tests?
>
> If you're good in one field, it is very common to be good in another
> unrelated field.
> That has been studied extensively.
> About multi-dimensional IQ, I'd say that Einstein were good verbally, but
> as he failed technically; his spatial IQ was less than desired.
Sigh, "multi-dimensional IQ"!? Are you atempting to set up dimensions to
diffirent memory allocations???
Some genius ppl that are very good at maths actualy use their memory
instead of what other people would use a piece of paper for. Einstein
obviously allocated (or had allocated) most of his memory to thinking.
Others could theoreticaly use a piece of paper for that matter, but I
guess that would make things much slower and harder.
The memory can be allocated, but it is hard and takes a long time (years
actualy). I guess it can naturaly get oddly allocated, making people
that have more memory allocated to certian tasks 'geniuses'.
> If you're going somewhere, you'd got to have imagination enough to use
> your mathematical and logical skills.
It seems to me that computers (just by existing) are prooving the
opposite.
> Include me, I hate it when frauds steal other persons work and claim it as
> his own.
Oh, yes. Reminds me when Ford stole the idea of the wheel and built the
car...
You Are Pathetic.
> > This person has definetely something personal against Einstein.
>
> And how does that _invalidate_ his/her claims ????
Directly.
> 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.
Indeed one of the most important thing in life, it revolutionized
science, the discovery that described in what direction are the stars
around us moving!! Why do you even bother? Spilt milk.
--
Don't feel bad about asking/telling me anything, I will always gladly
reply.
Direct SPAM-kill, Forward, include cuntry in subject line:
Mailto:spamr...@ChooseYourMail.com They stop immediately! ;]
GTSC4 -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?(TM)
HTTP://WWW.GeoCities.COM/GTSC4/
Brian
news:3B40627F...@guest.arnes.si...
> > The evidence he uses were worked out by the scientific community years
> > ahead of him, and if he _did_ revolutionize physics, why not a
nobel-prize
> > for his E=mc² ?
> > Because it was already discovered; actually the formulae is a little
more
> > complicated than this.
>
> I have a formula for the speed of the electron (t.i. the speed it
> circles with around an atom core), but I will not recieve a nobel-prize
> for it. Why? Because it is simply spelled from the "E=mc²" and some
> other formulas. I did *nothing*? Doubt it.
So ?
Did you researched and worked it out on your own ?
If you did, then you should get the credit and the prize for such a
discovery.
Even if you used previously discovered principles, but ithe condition is to
discover
something NEW; which Einstein did not.
> > It seems weird, but not unreasonable; if he couldn't get through an exam
> > (which I'd get through
> > with flying colours....), what credit do you think I'll give him ????
> > Then I'd expect myself to have a higher IQ than him, but I consider
myself
> > average.
>
> In your attempt to discredit him... Why don't you put up (copy) another
> formula and get yourself a nobel-prize?? You've got the brains to do it!
> [No reall offence meant. Init atempted.]
I am not discrediting a person that did it himself.
If he wasn't such a dumb-ass, he wouldn't flunk as he did.
And no, I have other things to do (no, not trolling around NG's).
And a second no, I recognise my capabilities far better than anybody else
and I won't attempt things that I won't accomplish (in a lifetime anyway).
But thanks for the sarcasm.............
> > If you're good in one field, it is very common to be good in another
> > unrelated field.
> > That has been studied extensively.
> > About multi-dimensional IQ, I'd say that Einstein were good verbally,
but
> > as he failed technically; his spatial IQ was less than desired.
>
> Sigh, "multi-dimensional IQ"!? Are you atempting to set up dimensions to
> diffirent memory allocations???
I didn't invent the expression.
But thanks for the credit :)
Anyway, it isn't such a bad idea to divide it into several dimensions if it
suits the task.
Why, women aren't stupid - they just use their brain differently............
Here I characterized it by calling it "verbal", but it could just as easily
be called "communicative".
Spatial is the mathematical, object-oriented world - which is what males
are good at.
Have there been any discussions on this that I'm unaware of ?
Please provide a link or an essay if you have one, thanks beforehand.
> Some genius ppl that are very good at maths actualy use their memory
> instead of what other people would use a piece of paper for. Einstein
> obviously allocated (or had allocated) most of his memory to thinking.
> Others could theoreticaly use a piece of paper for that matter, but I
> guess that would make things much slower and harder.
The really smart people would allocate at will, on paper or mind.
So I'm not really smart, maybe an Einstein (read:moronic) ? :)
Anyway, I digress, of course it could slow down thinking, but sometimes
it is an advantage as well, to 'keep certain points'.
I do that so I will remember certain points, and not get lost.......
> The memory can be allocated, but it is hard and takes a long time (years
> actualy). I guess it can naturaly get oddly allocated, making people
> that have more memory allocated to certian tasks 'geniuses'.
This is were I think multiple intelligences come in I'd guess <sigh>.......
> > If you're going somewhere, you'd got to have imagination enough to use
> > your mathematical and logical skills.
>
> It seems to me that computers (just by existing) are prooving the
> opposite.
LMAO !!!!
A computer is just a tool, a glorified pencil, nothing more.
Without YOU behind the keyboard, it's just so much junk.
And you should know this !!
Did you understood what I said ?
> > Include me, I hate it when frauds steal other persons work and claim it
as
> > his own.
>
> Oh, yes. Reminds me when Ford stole the idea of the wheel and built the
> car...
But but but, he didn't steal the wheel, he gave it something more, like a
chassis
and an engine and other things as well....... :)
> You Are Pathetic.
Me ?
It seems that you're not far behind in that regard.........
> > > This person has definetely something personal against Einstein.
> >
> > And how does that _invalidate_ his/her claims ????
>
> Directly.
>
> > 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.
>
> Indeed one of the most important thing in life, it revolutionized
> science, the discovery that described in what direction are the stars
> around us moving!! Why do you even bother? Spilt milk.
Reduced to insults, tsk tsk......
Humans knew that long before Einstein.
Brian
Ralf Zeitler
"Brian" <zh...@online.no> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:YIO%6.1843$tD1.2...@news3.oke.nextra.no...
> Hello Marielle,
> I'll respond point by point what _I_ know.
>
> "Marielle Fois" <im99...@nada.kth.se> skrev i melding
> news:Pine.SOL.4.30.010701...@my.nada.kth.se...
> > I have just posted a message about this topic, saying I was answering
> > to the document against Einstein's credibility. I decide to send my
> > answer in this posting, which I wrote before knowing the document had
> > been written by an antisemite person.
>
> I copied it from a webpage after a google-search.
> After I read through it, it seemed reasonable that a 'moronic' person
> who passed a technical exam WITH DIFFICULTY (after several tries)
> and worked at the patent-office in Bern was a fraud.
We don't have to go any further. Here u show that you do not really know
that much of physics or math.
An technical exam, and actually most of the exams one ever has to do, do not
show in the least wether a person is able to come up with new ideas in a
field. In most tests you have to be able to use some given formulas and use
them fast. That is what it is about most of the time.
But coming up with new ideas is s.th. really different (you should know
that). It requires the ability an will to read, learn, communicate (noone
can bring up a complex theory in physics on his own) and think a lot (seldom
one just looked at s.th. and knew what to do - especially in such complex
fields). And that was s.th. Einstein was really good at. I don't think a
really good idea is bad, because it took him so long to come up with it, do
you?
As a child in school he didn't care much for the things he learned there,
but he was very interestend in mathematics - but not with the math he
learned at school - but other (also IMO) areas that attracted his attention
more. Does this lack of interest in boring school subjects say anything
about his abilities?
And if you would take some time and study his works - and his history - you
would see, why his theories are so widely accepted.
cya
ralf
Ralf Zeitler
> Did you researched and worked it out on your own ?
> If you did, then you should get the credit and the prize for such a
> discovery.
> Even if you used previously discovered principles, but ithe condition is
to
> discover
> something NEW; which Einstein did not.
some links you should read before being too sure:
http://www.stater.kent.edu/stories_old/97fall/111997/w2c.html
http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/~aschatt/info/citations/423.html
http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/hilbert.html
cya
ralf
Ralf Zeitler
gets the facts straight. (all the articles I read, that tried to discredit
Einstein, got so many facts wrong ( I really didn't think, that some people
could believe, that Einstein ideas were all completely new - who ever stated
such nonsense has no clue how research works).
http://mathpages.com/rr/s8-08/8-08.htm
cya
ralf
Brian
news:9hqoa4$s04$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
Thanks for the links, Ralf.
Brian
Jure Sah
> > I have a formula for the speed of the electron (t.i. the speed it
> > circles with around an atom core), but I will not recieve a nobel-prize
> > for it. Why? Because it is simply spelled from the "E=mc²" and some
> > other formulas. I did *nothing*? Doubt it.
>
> So ?
> Did you researched and worked it out on your own ?
> If you did, then you should get the credit and the prize for such a
> discovery.
> Even if you used previously discovered principles, but ithe condition is to
> discover
> something NEW; which Einstein did not.
I didn't do anything NEW. I meerely processed the formulas that have
been droped into my brain from a magazine.
Here it is, in case anybody is interested:
to = square_root(deltaE/m)/2*PI*cubic_root(deltaV)
"to" is the time it needs to go around once
"deltaE" is the change of energy
"deltaV" is the change in the volume (per change of energy, temperature
probably)
In principle it is correct, but still requires a lot of processing. I
think it shows the idea tho.
> > Sigh, "multi-dimensional IQ"!? Are you atempting to set up dimensions to
> > diffirent memory allocations???
>
> I didn't invent the expression.
> But thanks for the credit :)
> Anyway, it isn't such a bad idea to divide it into several dimensions if it
> suits the task.
> Why, women aren't stupid - they just use their brain differently............
> Here I characterized it by calling it "verbal", but it could just as easily
> be called "communicative".
> Spatial is the mathematical, object-oriented world - which is what males
> are good at.
I am only saying that there is more to it and finaly, you will be
counting braincells as for providing a value for IQ.
> > Some genius ppl that are very good at maths actualy use their memory
> > instead of what other people would use a piece of paper for. Einstein
> > obviously allocated (or had allocated) most of his memory to thinking.
> > Others could theoreticaly use a piece of paper for that matter, but I
> > guess that would make things much slower and harder.
>
> Anyway, I digress, of course it could slow down thinking, but sometimes
> it is an advantage as well, to 'keep certain points'.
> I do that so I will remember certain points, and not get lost.......
There is actualy a lot of information to store in stack memory. If you
have enough memory to store all of the results at the end of one
process, the next one can begin right off where the previous one left
off. This way you can form an bottomless thought that ends when you're
left with too much data to memorize.
With maths it just happens to be so that you start up with lots of data
and end up with very little.
> > The memory can be allocated, but it is hard and takes a long time (years
> > actualy). I guess it can naturaly get oddly allocated, making people
> > that have more memory allocated to certian tasks 'geniuses'.
>
> This is were I think multiple intelligences come in I'd guess <sigh>.......
Yes.
> > > If you're going somewhere, you'd got to have imagination enough to use
> > > your mathematical and logical skills.
> >
> > It seems to me that computers (just by existing) are prooving the
> > opposite.
>
> LMAO !!!!
> A computer is just a tool, a glorified pencil, nothing more.
> Without YOU behind the keyboard, it's just so much junk.
> And you should know this !!
> Did you understood what I said ?
Indeed I have. And indeed you should know of Artificial Inteligence. The
inteligent pencil does quite a lot on it's own. And I could tell noting
about it if I wasn't devoloping it.
I'll put it like this: A server hasn't got anybody behind a keyboard and
it is working. The same goes for just about any microcontroler (these
devices are quite fond of not seeing a human being within their
lifetime; an ABS is quite a nice example).
> > Oh, yes. Reminds me when Ford stole the idea of the wheel and built the
> > car...
>
> But but but, he didn't steal the wheel, he gave it something more, like a
> chassis and an engine and other things as well....... :)
Like Einstein gave the formulas a publish and a person to represent
them.
> > Indeed one of the most important thing in life, it revolutionized
> > science, the discovery that described in what direction are the stars
> > around us moving!! Why do you even bother? Spilt milk.
>
> Reduced to insults, tsk tsk......
> Humans knew that long before Einstein.
What? Of spilt milk?? ;]
Brian
> > Even if you used previously discovered principles, but ithe condition is
to
> > discover
> > something NEW; which Einstein did not.
>
> I didn't do anything NEW. I meerely processed the formulas that have
> been droped into my brain from a magazine.
If you used the equations in a new way, you've indeed done something
new................
> Here it is, in case anybody is interested:
> to = square_root(deltaE/m)/2*PI*cubic_root(deltaV)
>
> "to" is the time it needs to go around once
> "deltaE" is the change of energy
> "deltaV" is the change in the volume (per change of energy, temperature
> probably)
>
> In principle it is correct, but still requires a lot of processing. I
> think it shows the idea tho.
>
> > I didn't invent the expression.
> > But thanks for the credit :)
> > Anyway, it isn't such a bad idea to divide it into several dimensions if
it
> > suits the task.
> > Why, women aren't stupid - they just use their brain
differently............
> > Here I characterized it by calling it "verbal", but it could just as
easily
> > be called "communicative".
> > Spatial is the mathematical, object-oriented world - which is what males
> > are good at.
>
> I am only saying that there is more to it and finaly, you will be
> counting braincells as for providing a value for IQ.
Not likely to the last statement, at least not yet.
Killer-whales have bigger brains, but how intelligent are they ?
More than humans ?
> > Anyway, I digress, of course it could slow down thinking, but sometimes
> > it is an advantage as well, to 'keep certain points'.
> > I do that so I will remember certain points, and not get lost.......
>
> There is actualy a lot of information to store in stack memory. If you
> have enough memory to store all of the results at the end of one
> process, the next one can begin right off where the previous one left
> off. This way you can form an bottomless thought that ends when you're
> left with too much data to memorize.
>
> With maths it just happens to be so that you start up with lots of data
> and end up with very little.
>
> > > The memory can be allocated, but it is hard and takes a long time
(years
> > > actualy). I guess it can naturaly get oddly allocated, making people
> > > that have more memory allocated to certian tasks 'geniuses'.
> >
> > This is were I think multiple intelligences come in I'd guess
<sigh>.......
>
> Yes.
>
> > A computer is just a tool, a glorified pencil, nothing more.
> > Without YOU behind the keyboard, it's just so much junk.
> > And you should know this !!
> > Did you understood what I said ?
>
> Indeed I have. And indeed you should know of Artificial Inteligence. The
> inteligent pencil does quite a lot on it's own. And I could tell noting
> about it if I wasn't devoloping it.
Any AI would not reach the level of consciousness as we have.
They're tools, machines and even if they were left to their own devices,
what
would they do ?
Ohhh, and I think there will be built in fail-safety into their software to
ensure
their cooperation (the three laws of robotics - Isaac Asimov).
> I'll put it like this: A server hasn't got anybody behind a keyboard and
> it is working. The same goes for just about any microcontroler (these
> devices are quite fond of not seeing a human being within their
> lifetime; an ABS is quite a nice example).
A server is nothing but junk in selfrunning mode.
> > But but but, he didn't steal the wheel, he gave it something more, like
a
> > chassis and an engine and other things as well....... :)
>
> Like Einstein gave the formulas a publish and a person to represent
> them.
The difference is that Einstein stole the formulaes and gave the real author
absolutely no credit.
Wasn't it somebody who said they could get the nobelprize (him and Hilbert),
but that it was not released before they could ensure Einstein the entire
'authorship' after 1915 ?
> > > Indeed one of the most important thing in life, it revolutionized
> > > science, the discovery that described in what direction are the stars
> > > around us moving!! Why do you even bother? Spilt milk.
> >
> > Reduced to insults, tsk tsk......
> > Humans knew that long before Einstein.
>
> What? Of spilt milk?? ;]
No, moving stars and physics described the 'Einsteinian way'........
Brian
Jure Sah
> > I didn't do anything NEW. I meerely processed the formulas that have
> > been droped into my brain from a magazine.
>
> If you used the equations in a new way, you've indeed done something
> new................
Then my parents must have been responsible for it. ;]
> > I am only saying that there is more to it and finaly, you will be
> > counting braincells as for providing a value for IQ.
>
> Not likely to the last statement, at least not yet.
> Killer-whales have bigger brains, but how intelligent are they ?
> More than humans ?
Hey, there is no way you could test it anyway.
...And guesswork isn't exactly scientific.
> > > A computer is just a tool, a glorified pencil, nothing more.
> > > Without YOU behind the keyboard, it's just so much junk.
> > > And you should know this !!
> > > Did you understood what I said ?
> >
> > Indeed I have. And indeed you should know of Artificial Inteligence. The
> > inteligent pencil does quite a lot on it's own. And I could tell noting
> > about it if I wasn't devoloping it.
>
> Any AI would not reach the level of consciousness as we have.
Oh, but of course. The holy consciousness. I should have expected this.
Do you have any more of such pseudo-facts??
> They're tools, machines and even if they were left to their own devices,
> what would they do ?
Exactly what humans do: Practicaly nothing.
> Ohhh, and I think there will be built in fail-safety into their software to
> ensure their cooperation (the three laws of robotics - Isaac Asimov).
I am a programer, not a philosopher and the way I see it, machines will
eventualy get to do all the things that humans can do, that's when you
will see there is nothing left and that even the almighty human mind is
just another machine. A neural network to be precise.
> > I'll put it like this: A server hasn't got anybody behind a keyboard and
> > it is working. The same goes for just about any microcontroler (these
> > devices are quite fond of not seeing a human being within their
> > lifetime; an ABS is quite a nice example).
>
> A server is nothing but junk in selfrunning mode.
Indeed very usefull junk. What do you say about microcontrolers?
> The difference is that Einstein stole the formulaes and gave the real author
> absolutely no credit.
> Wasn't it somebody who said they could get the nobelprize (him and Hilbert),
> but that it was not released before they could ensure Einstein the entire
> 'authorship' after 1915 ?
...Reminds me what Feyman said. Getting a Nobel prize is the worst thing
that can happen to you. In his book, he also explains why.
> > > Reduced to insults, tsk tsk......
> > > Humans knew that long before Einstein.
> >
> > What? Of spilt milk?? ;]
>
> No, moving stars and physics described the 'Einsteinian way'........
Aye, how come then, is he credited for it??
Ian
Exactly!!!
Who was it that said: "If I've been able to see further than others,
its because I've stood on the shoulders of giants."?
Ian
.
.
John H
> eventualy get to do all the things that humans can do, that's when you
> will see there is nothing left and that even the almighty human mind is
> just another machine. A neural network to be precise
Machines intelligence just took a big leap forward.
John H.
Jure Sah <jure...@guest.arnes.si> wrote in message
news:3B43223C...@guest.arnes.si...
Jure Sah
> > I am a programer, not a philosopher and the way I see it, machines will
> > eventualy get to do all the things that humans can do, that's when you
> > will see there is nothing left and that even the almighty human mind is
> > just another machine. A neural network to be precise
>
> www.synapse-solutions.co.uk
>
> Machines intelligence just took a big leap forward.
One of many many many many many many many many many many.
CYC? Mindpixel? RDF? To name just a few.
P.S.: Big leaps never work.
P.P.S: news:comp.ai.philosophy