Einstein - Plagiarist Cunt
Ben Cramer
PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. edi...@nexusmagazine.com
Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com
by Richard Moody, Jr © 2003
777 Treadlemire Road
Berne, NY 12023
USA
Email: Slm...@aol.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Abstract
Proponents of Einstein have acted in a way that appears to corrupt the
historical record. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Time Magazine's "Person of
the Century", wrote a long treatise on special relativity theory (it was
actually called "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", 1905a), without
listing any references. Many of the key ideas it presented were known to
Lorentz (for example, the Lorentz transformation) and Poincaré before
Einstein wrote the famous 1905 paper.
As was typical of Einstein, he did not discover theories; he merely
commandeered them. He took an existing body of knowledge, picked and chose
the ideas he liked, then wove them into a tale about his contribution to
special relativity. This was done with the full knowledge and consent of
many of his peers, such as the editors at Annalen der Physik.
The most recognisable equation of all time is E = mc2. It is attributed by
convention to be the sole province of Albert Einstein (1905). However, the
conversion of matter into energy and energy into matter was known to Sir
Isaac Newton ("Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another...",
1704). The equation can be attributed to S. Tolver Preston (1875), to Jules
Henri Poincaré (1900; according to Brown, 1967) and to Olinto De Pretto
(1904) before Einstein. Since Einstein never correctly derived E = mc2
(Ives, 1952), there appears nothing to connect the equation with anything
original by Einstein.
Arthur Eddington's selective presentation of data from the 1919 Eclipse so
that it supposedly supported "Einstein's" general relativity theory is
surely one of the biggest scientific hoaxes of the 20th century. His lavish
support of Einstein corrupted the course of history. Eddington was less
interested in testing a theory than he was in crowning Einstein the king of
science.
The physics community, unwittingly perhaps, has engaged in a kind of fraud
and silent conspiracy; this is the byproduct of simply being bystanders as
the hyperinflation of Einstein's record and reputation took place. This
silence benefited anyone supporting Einstein.
Introduction
Science, by its very nature, is insular. In general, chemists read and write
about chemistry, biologists read and write about biology, and physicists
read and write about physics. But they may all be competing for the same
research dollar (in its broadest sense). Thus, if scientists wanted more
money for themselves, they might decide to compete unfairly. The way they
can do this is convince the funding agencies that they are more important
than any other branch of science. If the funding agencies agree, it could
spell difficulty for the remaining sciences. One way to get more money is to
create a superhero - a superhero like Einstein.
Einstein's standing is the product of the physics community, his followers
and the media. Each group benefits enormously by elevating Einstein to icon
status. The physics community receives billions in research grants,
Einstein's supporters are handsomely rewarded, and media corporations like
Time Magazine get to sell millions of magazines by placing Einstein on the
cover as "Person of the Century".
When the scandal breaks, the physics community, Einstein's supporters and
the media will attempt to downplay the negative news and put a positive spin
on it. However, their efforts will be shown up when Einstein's paper, "On
the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", is seen for what it is: the
consummate act of plagiarism in the 20th century.
Special Relativity
Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) was a great scientist who made a
significant contribution to special relativity theory. The Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy website says that Poincaré: (1) "sketched a
preliminary version of the special theory of relativity"; (2) "stated that
the velocity of light is a limit velocity" (in his 1904 paper from the Bull.
of Sci. Math. 28, Poincaré indicated "a whole new mechanics, where the
inertia increasing with the velocity of light would become a limit and not
be exceeded"); (3) suggested that "mass depends on speed"; (4) "formulated
the principle of relativity, according to which no mechanical or
electromagnetic experiment can discriminate between a state of uniform
motion and a state of rest"; and (5) "derived the Lorentz transformation".
It is evident how deeply involved with special relativity Poincaré was. Even
Keswani (1965) was prompted to say that "As far back as 1895, Poincaré, the
innovator, had conjectured that it is impossible to detect absolute motion",
and that "In 1900, he introduced 'the principle of relative motion' which he
later called by the equivalent terms 'the law of relativity' and 'the
principle of relativity' in his book, Science and Hypothesis, published in
1902". Einstein acknowledged none of this preceding theoretical work when he
wrote his unreferenced 1905 paper.
In addition to having sketched the preliminary version of relativity,
Poincaré provided a critical part of the whole concept - namely, his
treatment of local time. He also originated the idea of clock
synchronisation, which is critical to special relativity.
Charles Nordman was prompted to write, "They will show that the credit for
most of the things which are currently attributed to Einstein is, in
reality, due to Poincaré", and "...in the opinion of the Relativists it is
the measuring rods which create space, the clocks which create time. All
this was known by Poincaré and others long before the time of Einstein, and
one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to him".
Other scientists have not been quite as impressed with "Einstein's" special
relativity theory as has the public. "Another curious feature of the now
famous paper, Einstein, 1905, is the absence of any reference to Poincaré or
anyone else," Max Born wrote in Physics in My Generation. "It gives you the
impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried
to explain, not true" (Born, 1956). G. Burniston Brown (1967) noted, "It
will be seen that, contrary to popular belief, Einstein played only a minor
part in the derivation of the useful formulae in the restricted or special
relativity theory, and Whittaker called it the relativity theory of Poincaré
and LorentzÉ"
Due to the fact that Einstein's special relativity theory was known in some
circles as the relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz, one would think
that Poincaré and Lorentz might have had something to do with its creation.
What is disturbing about the Einstein paper is that even though Poincaré was
the world's leading expert on relativity, apparently Einstein had never
heard of him or thought he had done anything worth referencing!
Poincaré, in a public address delivered in September 1904, made some notable
comments on special relativity theory. "From all these results, if they are
confirmed, would arise an entirely new mechanicsÉwould be, above all,
characterised by this fact that no velocity could surpass that of
lightÉbecause bodies would oppose an increasing inertia to the causes, which
would tend to accelerate their motion; and this inertia would become
infinite when one approached the velocity of lightNo more for an observer
carried along himself in a translation, he did not suspect any apparent
velocity could surpass that of light: and this would be then a
contradiction, if we recall that this observer would not use the same clocks
as a fixed observer, but, indeed, clocks marking 'local time'." (Poincaré,
1905)
Einstein, the Plagiarist
It is now time to speak directly to the issue of what Einstein was: he was
first and foremost a plagiarist. He had few qualms about stealing the work
of others and submitting it as his own. That this was deliberate seems
obvious.
Take this passage from Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times (there
are no references to Poincaré here; just a few meaningless quotes). This is
how page 101 reads: "'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies'...is in many
ways one of the most remarkable scientific papers that had ever been
written. Even in form and style it was unusual, lacking the notes and
references which give weight to most serious expositionsÉ" (emphasis added).
Why would Einstein, with his training as a patent clerk, not recognise the
need to cite references in his article on special relativity? One would
think that Einstein, as a neophyte, would overreference rather than
underreference.
Wouldn't one also expect somewhat higher standards from an editor when faced
with a long manuscript that had obviously not been credited? Apparently
there was no attempt at quality control when it was published in Annalen der
Physik. Most competent editors would have rejected the paper without even
reading it. At the barest minimum, one would expect the editor to research
the literature to determine whether Einstein's claim of primacy was correct.
Max Born stated, "The striking point is that it contains not a single
reference to previous literature" (emphasis added) (Born, 1956). He is
clearly indicating that the absence of references is abnormal and that, even
by early 20th century standards, this is most peculiar, even unprofessional.
Einstein twisted and turned to avoid plagiarism charges, but these were
transparent.
From Bjerknes (2002), we learn the following passage from James MacKaye:
"Einstein's explanation is a dimensional disguise for Lorentz'sThus
Einstein's theory is not a denial of, nor an alternative for, that of
Lorentz. It is only a duplicate and disguise for itEinstein continually
maintains that the theory of Lorentz is right, only he disagrees with his
'interpretation'. Is it not clear, therefore, that in this [case], as in
other cases, Einstein's theory is merely a disguise for Lorentz's, the
apparent disagreement about 'interpretation' being a matter of words only?"
Poincaré wrote 30 books and over 500 papers on philosophy, mathematics and
physics. Einstein wrote on mathematics, physics and philosophy, but claimed
he'd never read Poincaré's contributions to physics.
Yet many of Poincaré's ideas - for example, that the speed of light is a
limit and that mass increases with speed - wound up in Einstein's paper, "On
the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" without being credited.
Einstein's act of stealing almost the entire body of literature by Lorentz
and Poincaré to write his document raised the bar for plagiarism. In the
information age, this kind of plagiarism could never be perpetrated
indefinitely, yet the physics community has still not set the record
straight.
In his 1907 paper, Einstein spelled out his views on plagiarism: "It appears
to me that it is the nature of the business that what follows has already
been partly solved by other authors. Despite that fact, since the issues of
concern are here addressed from a new point of view, I am entitled to leave
out a thoroughly pedantic survey of the literature..."
With this statement, Einstein declared that plagiarism, suitably packaged,
is an acceptable research tool.
Here is the definition of "to plagiarise" from an unimpeachable source,
Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second
Edition, Unabridged, 1947, p. 1,878: "To steal or purloin and pass off as
one's own (the ideas, words, artistic productions, etc. of one another); to
use without due credit the ideas, expressions or productions of another. To
commit plagiarism" (emphasis added). Isn't this exactly what Einstein did?
Giving due credit involves two aspects: timeliness and appropriateness.
Telling the world that Lorentz provided the basis for special relativity 30
years after the fact is not timely (see below), is not appropriate and is
not giving due credit. Nothing Einstein wrote ex post facto with respect to
Lorentz's contributions alters the fundamental act of plagiarism.
The true nature of Einstein's plagiarism is set forth in his 1935 paper,
"Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy", where, in a
discussion on Maxwell, he wrote, "The question as to the independence of
those relations is a natural one because the Lorentz transformation, the
real basis of special relativity theory..." (emphasis added).
So, Einstein even acknowledged that the Lorentz transformation was the real
basis of his 1905 paper. Anyone who doubts that he was a plagiarist should
ask one simple question: "What did Einstein know and when did he know it?"
Einstein got away with premeditated plagiarism, not the incidental
plagiarism that is ubiquitous (Moody, 2001).
The History of E = mc2
Who originated the concept of matter being transformed into energy and vice
versa? It dates back at least to Sir Isaac Newton (1704). Brown (1967) made
the following statement: "Thus gradually arose the formula E = mc2,
suggested without general proof by Poincaré in 1900".
One thing we can say with certainty is that Einstein did not originate the
equation E = mc2.
Then the question becomes: "Who did?"
Bjerknes (2002) suggested as a possible candidate S. Tolver Preston, who
"formulated atomic energy, the atom bomb and superconductivity back in the
1870s, based on the formula E = mc2".
In addition to Preston, a major player in the history of E = mc2 who
deserves a lot of credit is Olinto De Pretto (1904). What makes this timing
so suspicious is that Einstein was fluent in Italian, he was reviewing
papers written by Italian physicists and his best friend was Michele Besso,
a Swiss Italian. Clearly, Einstein (1905b) would have had access to the
literature and the competence to read it. In "Einstein's E = mc2 'was
Italian's idea'" (Carroll, 1999), we see clear evidence that De Pretto was
ahead of Einstein in terms of the formula E = mc2.
In terms of his understanding the vast amount of energy that could be
released with a small amount of mass, Preston (1875) can be credited with
knowing this before Einstein was born. Clearly, Preston was using the E =
mc2 formula in his work, because the value he determined - e.g., that one
grain could lift a 100,000-ton object up to a height of 1.9 miles - yields
the equation E = mc2.
According to Ives (1952), the derivation Einstein attempted of the formula E
= mc2 was fatally flawed because Einstein set out to prove what he assumed.
This is similar to the careless handling of the equations for radioactive
decay which Einstein derived. It turns out that Einstein mixed kinematics
and mechanics, and out popped the neutrino. The neutrino may be a mythical
particle accidentally created by Einstein (Carezani, 1999). We have two
choices with respect to neutrinos: there are at least 40 different types or
there are zero types. Occam's razor rules here.
The Eclipse of 1919
There can be no clearer definition of scientific fraud than what went on in
the Tropics on May 29, 1919. What is particularly clear is that Eddington
fudged the solar eclipse data to make the results conform to "Einstein's"
work on general relativity. Poor (1930), Brown (1967), Clark (1984) and
McCausland (2001) all address the issues surrounding this eclipse.
What makes the expeditions to Sobral and Principe so suspect is Eddington's
zealous support of Einstein, as can be seen in his statement, "By standing
foremost in testing, and ultimately verifying the 'enemy' theory, our
national observatory kept alive the finest traditions of science..."
(emphasis added) (Clark, 1984). In this instance, apparently Eddington was
not familiar with the basic tenets of science. His job was to collect data -
not verify Einstein's theories.
Further evidence for the fraud can be deduced from Eddington's own
statements and the introduction to them provided by Clark (ibid., p. 285):
"May 29 began with heavy rain, which stopped only about noon. Not until 1.30
pm when the eclipse had already begun did the party get its first glimpse of
the sun: 'We had to carry out our programme of photographs on faith...'"
(emphasis added). Eddington reveals his true prejudice: he was willing to do
anything to see that Einstein was proved right. But Eddington was not to be
deterred: "It looked as though the effort, so far as the Principe expedition
was concerned, might have been abortive"; "We developed the photographs, two
each night for six nights after the eclipseThe cloudy weather upset my plans
and I had to treat the measures in a different way from what I intended;
consequently I have not been able to make any preliminary announcement of
the result" (emphasis added) (Clark, ibid.).
Actually, Eddington's words speak volumes about the result. As soon as he
found one shred of evidence that was consistent with "Einstein's" general
relativity theory, he immediately proclaimed it as proof of the theory. Is
this science?
Where were the astronomers when Eddington presented his findings? Did anyone
besides Eddington actually look at the photographic plates? Poor did, and he
completely repudiated the findings of Eddington. This should have given
pause to any ethical scientist.
Here are some quotes from Poor's summary: "The mathematical formula, by
which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75 seconds for light rays
passing the edge of the sun, is a well known and simple formula of physical
optics"; "Not a single one of the fundamental concepts of varying time, or
warped or twisted space, of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is
in any way involved in Einstein's prediction of, or formulas for, the
deflection of light"; "The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have,
therefore, been given a fictitious importance. Their results can neither
prove nor disprove the relativity theoryÉ" (emphasis added) (Poor, 1930).
From Brown (1967), we learn that Eddington couldn't wait to get it out to
the world community that Einstein's theory was confirmed. What Eddington
based this on was a premature assessment of the photographic plates.
Initially, stars did "appear" to bend as they should, as required by
Einstein, but then, according to Brown, the unexpected happened: several
stars were then observed to bend in a direction transverse to the expected
direction and still others to bend in a direction opposite to that predicted
by relativity.
The absurdity of the data collected during the Eclipse of 1919 was
demonstrated by Poor (1930), who pointed out that 85% of the data were
discarded from the South American eclipse due to "accidental error", i.e.,
it contradicted Einstein's scale constant. By a strange coincidence, the 15%
of the "good" data were consistent with Einstein's scale constant. Somehow,
the stars that did not conform to Einstein's theories conveniently got
temporarily shelved - and the myth began.
So, based on a handful of ambiguous data points, 200 years of theory,
experimentation and observation were cast aside to make room for Einstein.
Yet the discredited experiment by Eddington is still quoted as gospel by
Stephen Hawking (1999). It is difficult to comprehend how Hawking could
comment that "The new theory of curved space-time was called general
relativityIt was confirmed in spectacular fashion in 1919, when a British
expedition to West Africa observed a slight shift in the position of stars
near the sun during an eclipse. Their light, as Einstein had predicted, was
bent as it passed the sun. Here was direct evidence that space and time were
warped". Does Hawking honestly believe that a handful of data points,
massaged more thoroughly than a side of Kobe beef, constitutes the basis for
overthrowing a paradigm that had survived over two centuries of acid
scrutiny?
The real question, though, is: "Where was Einstein in all this?" Surely, by
the time he wrote his 1935 paper, he must have known of the work of Poor:
"The actual stellar displacements, if real, do not show the slightest
resemblance to the predicted Einstein deflections: they do not agree in
direction, in size, or the rate of decrease with distance from the sun". Why
didn't he go on the record and address a paper that directly contradicted
his work? Why haven't the followers of Einstein tried to set the record
straight with respect to the bogus data of 1919?
What makes this so suspicious is that both the instruments and the physical
conditions were not conducive to making measurements of great precision. As
pointed out in a 2002 Internet article by the British Institute of Precise
Physics, the cap cameras used in the expeditions were accurate to only
1/25th of a degree. This meant that just for the cap camera uncertainty
alone, Eddington was reading values over 200 times too precise.
McCausland (2001) quotes the former Editor of Nature, Sir John Maddox: "They
[Crommelin and Eddington] were bent on measuring the deflection of lightÉ";
"What is not so well documented is that the measurements in 1919 were not
particularly accurate"; "In spite of the fact that experimental evidence for
relativity seems to have been very flimsy in 1919, Einstein's enormous fame
has remained intact and his theory has ever since been held to be one of the
highest achievements of human thought" (emphasis added).
It is clear that from the outset Eddington was in no way interested in
testing "Einstein's" theory; he was only interested in confirming it. One of
the motivating factors in Eddington's decision to promote Einstein was that
both men shared a similar political persuasion: pacifism. To suggest that
politics played no role in Eddington's glowing support of Einstein, one need
ask only one question: "Would Eddington have been so quick to support
Einstein if Einstein had been a hawk?" This is no idle observation.
Eddington took his role as the great peacemaker very seriously. He wanted to
unite British and German scientists after World War I. What better way than
to elevate the "enemy" theorist Einstein to exalted status? In his zeal to
become peacemaker, Eddington lost the fundamental objectivity that is the
essential demeanour of any true scientist. Eddington ceased to be a
scientist and, instead, became an advocate for Einstein.
The obvious fudging of the data by Eddington and others is a blatant
subversion of scientific process and may have misdirected scientific
research for the better part of a century. It probably surpasses the
Piltdown Man as the greatest hoax of 20th-century science. The BIPP asked,
"Was this the hoax of the century?" and exclaimed, "Royal Society 1919
Eclipse Relativity Report Duped World for 80 Years!" McCausland stated that
"In the author's opinion, the confident announcement of the decisive
confirmation of Einstein's general theory in November 1919 was not a triumph
of science, as it is often portrayed, but one of the most unfortunate
incidents in the history of 20th-century science".
It cannot be emphasised enough that the Eclipse of 1919 made Einstein,
Einstein. It propelled him to international fame overnight, despite the fact
that the data were fabricated and there was no support for general
relativity whatsoever. This perversion of history has been known about for
over 80 years and is still supported by people like Stephen Hawking and
David Levy.
Summary and Conclusions
The general public tends to believe that scientists are the ultimate
defenders of ethics, that scientific rigour is the measure of truth. Little
do people realise how science is conducted in the presence of personality.
It seems that Einstein believed he was above scientific protocol. He thought
he could bend the rules to his own liking and get away with it; hang in
there long enough and his enemies would die off and his followers would win
the day. In science, the last follower standing wins - and gets to write
history. In the case of Einstein, his blatant and repeated dalliance with
plagiarism is all but forgotten and his followers have borrowed repeatedly
from the discoveries of other scientists and used them to adorn Einstein's
halo.
Einstein's reputation is supported by a three-legged stool. One leg is
Einstein's alleged plagiarism. Was he a plagiarist? The second leg is the
physics community. What did they know about Einstein and when did they know
it? The third leg is the media. Are they instruments of truth or deception
when it comes to Einstein? Only time will tell.
The physics community is also supported by a three-legged stool. The first
leg is Einstein's physics. The second leg is cold fusion. The third leg is
autodynamics. The overriding problem with a three-legged stool is that if
only one leg is sawed off, the stool collapses. There are at least three
very serious disciplines where it is predictable that physics may collapse.
Science is a multi-legged stool. One leg is physics; a second leg is the
earth sciences; a third, biology; and a fourth, chemistry (e.g., cold
fusion). What will happen if, for the sake of argument, physics collapses?
Will science fall?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
References:
Bjerknes, C.J. (2002), Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, XTX
Inc., Dowers Grove.
Born, M. (1956), Physics in My Generation, Pergamon Press, London, p. 193.
Brown, G. Burniston (1967), "What is wrong with relativity?", Bull. of the
Inst. of Physics and Physical Soc., pp. 71-77.
Carezani, R. (1999), Autodynamics: Fundamental Basis for a New Relativistic
Mechanics, SAA, Society for the Advancement of Autodynamics.
Carroll, R., "Einstein's E = mc2 'was Italian's idea'", The Guardian,
November 11, 1999.
Clark, R.W. (1984), Einstein: The Life and Times, Avon Books, New York.
De Pretto, O. (1904), "Ipotesi dell'etere nella vita dell'universo", Reale
Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, Feb. 1904, tomo LXIII, parte
II, pp. 439-500.
Einstein, A. (1905a), "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" ("On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"), Annalen der Physik 17:37-65.
Einstein, A. (1905b), Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Energy
Content?", Annalen der Physik 18:639-641.
Einstein, A. (1907), "Über die vom Relativitätspringzip geforderte Trägheit
der Energie", Annalen der Physik 23(4):371-384 (quote on p. 373).
Einstein, A. (1935), "Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and
Energy", Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 61:223-230 (first delivered as The Eleventh
Josiah Willard Gibbs Lecture at a joint meeting of the American Physical
Society and Section A of the AAAS, Pittsburgh, December 28, 1934).
Hawking, S., "Person of the Century", Time Magazine, December 31, 1999.
Ives, H.E. (1952), "Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation", J. Opt. Soc.
Amer. 42:540-543.
Keswani, G.H. (1965), "Origin and Concept of Relativity", Brit. J. Phil.
Soc. 15:286-306.
Mackaye, J. (1931), The Dynamic Universe, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York,
pp. 42-43.
Maddox, J. (1995), "More Precise Solar-limb Light-bending", Nature 377:11.
Moody, R., Jr (2001), "Plagiarism Personified", Mensa Bull. 442(Feb):5.
Newton, Sir Isaac (1704), Opticks, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, p.
cxv.
Nordman, C. (1921), Einstein et l'univers, translated by Joseph McCabe as
"Einstein and the Universe", Henry Holt and Co., New York, pp. 10-11, 16
(from Bjerknes, 2002).
Poincaré, J.H. (1905), "The Principles of Mathematical Physics", The Monist,
vol. XV, no. 1, January 1905; from an address delivered before the
International Congress of Arts and Sciences, St Louis, September 1904.
Poor, C.L. (1930), "The Deflection of Light as Observed at Total Solar
Eclipses", J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 20:173-211.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912),
at http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/poincare.htm.
Webster, N. (1947), Webster's New International Dictionary of the English
Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, p. 1878.
About the Author:
Richard Moody, Jr, has a Master's Degree in Geology, is the author of three
books on chess theory and has written for the Mensa Bulletin. For the past
four years, he has done intensive research into Albert Einstein. He can be
contacted by email at Slm...@aol.com.
Dr. Gassen Burnham
superior man (whites).
Isn't it just oh so jewish?
Ben Cramer
"Dr. Gassen Burnham" <gasenb...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1143464241.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Yep...the old kike was a patents clerk who stole the work of the
> superior man (whites).
>
> Isn't it just oh so jewish?
Watch this space, Mate. I've got shitloads more to come.
>
Heinrich
"Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:e08nk5$285h$1...@otis.netspace.net.au...
Joe Bruno
Ben Cramer wrote:
> Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 11, Number 1 (December-January 2004)
> PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. edi...@nexusmagazine.com
> Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
> From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com
>
> by Richard Moody, Jr © 2003
> 777 Treadlemire Road
> Berne, NY 12023
> USA
> Email: Slm...@aol.com
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
> Abstract
> Proponents of Einstein have acted in a way that appears to corrupt the
> historical record. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Time Magazine's "Person of
> the Century", wrote a long treatise on special relativity theory (it was
> actually called "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", 1905a), without
> listing any references. Many of the key ideas it presented were known to
> Lorentz (for example, the Lorentz transformation) and Poincaré before
> Einstein wrote the famous 1905 paper.
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/revolution/index.php
YAWN! All this namecalling and blather wouldn't have anything to do
with the fact that Einstein was Jewish, right?
I don't see you complaining about the frauds perpetrated by P.T. Barnum
on the world.
Barnum made himself wealthy by conning people, too.
What? No mention of "The Hitler Diaries"?
How about the fraud we all are exposed to on a daily basis?
I mean Ben Cramer, who claims he isn't Anti-Semitic, and then says:
"Yids are lice, Laddie" and
"Never trust a sheenie lawyer".
Gallows Cheater
You've outdone yourself with this one Kramer. Everybody who has studied
relativity knows about the works of Lorenz and Poincaré. Einstein's work
was not simply a reproduction of the other works. Whether he was directly
influenced by them is not clear. He may likely have been indirectly
influenced by them, perhaps without even realizing it.
--
SSGG - When somebody talks of shutting them down, you get three hundred
thousand "1st amendment" types jumping to the guy's defense, giving you a
class on the Bill of Rights - Jacob Baltuch, Brandeis University
http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/newsreleases/articles/051115chicago.htm
Salah Jafar
SJ
Ron Jacobson
Einstein the greatest
Albert Einstein has been voted the greatest physicist of all time in
an end of the millennium poll, pushing Sir Isaac Newton into second place.
The survey was conducted among 100 of today's leading physicists.
"Einstein's special and general theories of relativity completely
overturned previous conceptions of a universal, immutable space and
time, and replaced them with a startling new framework in which space
and time are fluid and malleable," said physicist Brian Greene from
Columbia University, US, who participated in the poll for Physics
World magazine.
</quote>
RJ.
Ron Jacobson
Gallows Cheater <swin...@gallows.pole> wrote:
> You've outdone yourself with this one Kramer. Everybody who has studied
> relativity knows about the works of Lorenz and Poincaré. Einstein's work
> was not simply a reproduction of the other works.
See this, Benjie? Even your fellow deniers are saying
that you're crazy.
Can you please elaborate further on those "shitty
experiences with hallucinogenics" you had? Message-ID:
<1125145048.cafe8828396fceebe6c6eb01bec409b3@teranews>.
Seems you suffered some serious damage. Why don't you
seek help?
RJ.
Joe Bruno
You know what happens next? Cramer will tell us, without any specific
proof, that all 100 of those leading physicists were Jews.
Then Alex Vange will enthusiastically agree with him.
Eugene Holman
"ataturkey" <atat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<deletions>
>
> You may have a point here but it is hardly ever disputed that Einstein
> as well as King were plagarists who stole from others and claimed
> credit for it.
So did Shakespeare, so did Händel, so did Haydn. As Händel once said about
his large-scale musical "borrowings": "I found pebbles and made them into
diamonds".
Regards,
Eugene Holman
DoD
"Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e08mni$27rp$1...@otis.netspace.net.au...
> Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 11, Number 1 (December-January 2004)
> PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. edi...@nexusmagazine.com
> Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
> From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com
I think I figured out why you are so damn dumb.
bazz...@yahoo.com
Ben Cramer wrote:
>
> As was typical of Einstein, he did not discover theories; he merely
> commandeered them. He took an existing body of knowledge, picked and chose
> the ideas he liked, then wove them into a tale about his contribution to
> special relativity.
That's what physicists do. Einstein even said "I have stood on the
shoulders of giants." He was referring to Newton, et al. But he was the
first to connect the dots.
Besides, how "jewish" was Einstein, really?
Joe Bruno
Charles Darwin did not actually discover anything new. He merely
organized the research done to date into a coherent theory.
Joe Bruno
ataturkey wrote:
> Joe Bruno wrote:
> > Ben Cramer wrote:
> > > Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 11, Number 1 (December-January 2004)
> > > PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. edi...@nexusmagazine.com
> > > Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
> > > From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com
> > >
> > > by Richard Moody, Jr © 2003
> > > 777 Treadlemire Road
> > > Berne, NY 12023
> > > USA
> > > Email: Slm...@aol.com
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----
> > >
> > > Abstract
> > > Proponents of Einstein have acted in a way that appears to corrupt the
> > > historical record. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Time Magazine's "Person of
> > > the Century", wrote a long treatise on special relativity theory (it was
> > > actually called "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", 1905a), without
> > > listing any references. Many of the key ideas it presented were known to
> > > Lorentz (for example, the Lorentz transformation) and Poincaré before
> > > Einstein wrote the famous 1905 paper.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/revolution/index.php
> >
> >
> > YAWN! All this namecalling and blather wouldn't have anything to do
> > with the fact that Einstein was Jewish, right?
>
> as well as King were plagarists who stole from others and claimed
> credit for it.
Theft is a legal term, dinglebrain. Theft involves taking something
that is legally the property of another. If those others had
copyrighted their ideas, we could call it theft.
As it is, we can't.
Charles Darwin did not discover anything new. He merely organized
previous discoveries into a coherent theory. You want to put him in
jail for that?
Perhaps you want to prosecute Louis Armstrong for jazzing up old songs
like
"Don't get around much Anymore" or prosecute The Firehouse Five for
doing a Dixieland version of By The Beautiful Sea?????????
What you are is ridiculous.
Sheldon Liberman
No doubt about that, Kramer. When it comes to shit-loads, you're the
distributor king.
>
>
> >
William Daffer
And each as stupid and wretched as the last.
When I complained that the only 'history' you know is what you read
from denier websites I had no idea that you would be so stupid as to
prove that fact beyond all doubt by posting a positive deluge of
cut-n-paste jobs from denier websites!
All I can say is: thanks! You saved me all the work, not that much
is required to prove that you're an ignorant lout who's completely
gullible and who will believe anything posted on any denier website.
whd
p.s. Stop lying about Weisenthal yet?
--
Yids are genetic liars. There's a fact.
From: "Ben Cramer" <[REMOVE]bencr...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:11:00 +1000
Message-ID: <dltr71$2ftq$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>
William Daffer
> Joe Bruno wrote:
>> Ben Cramer wrote:
>> > Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 11, Number 1 (December-January 2004)
>> > PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. edi...@nexusmagazine.com
>> > Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
>> > From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com
>> >
>> > by Richard Moody, Jr © 2003
>> > 777 Treadlemire Road
>> > Berne, NY 12023
>> > USA
>> > Email: Slm...@aol.com
>> >
>> >
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > ----
>> >
>> > Abstract
>> > Proponents of Einstein have acted in a way that appears to corrupt the
>> > historical record. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Time Magazine's "Person of
>> > the Century", wrote a long treatise on special relativity theory (it was
>> > actually called "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", 1905a), without
>> > listing any references. Many of the key ideas it presented were known to
>> > Lorentz (for example, the Lorentz transformation) and Poincar é before
>> > Einstein wrote the famous 1905 paper.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/revolution/index.php
>>
>>
>> YAWN! All this namecalling and blather wouldn't have anything to do
>> with the fact that Einstein was Jewish, right?
>
> You may have a point here but it is hardly ever disputed that Einstein
> as well as King were plagarists who stole from others and claimed
> credit for it.
By 'hardly ever disputed' he means 'among the 3 other idiots who
think like me.'
Here's a hint, braniac. Try to figure out why Lorentz didn't get it
right and Einstein did. The phrase 'ad hoc hypothesis' should come
up in your investigation.
whd
--
National Runt, demonstrating his idea of informed debate
Hello! I can barely make out the relevant portions of what you are
saying! Can you hear me? Hello! Are you in need of assistance?
William Daffer
[snip]
>> Theft is a legal term, dinglebrain. Theft involves taking something
>> that is legally the property of another. If those others had
>> copyrighted their ideas, we could call it theft.
>> As it is, we can't.
>
> The problem with Einstein, King and others like them is that they
> presented other people's work as if it was their work.
The problem with idiots like you is that you think you understand
the works of people like Einstein, Lorentz and Poincare enough to be
able to determine whether Einstein stole something from Lorentz or
Poincare.
It's pretty clear that you don't.
[snip]
whd
--
Tom Moran, in <3b945797....@news.pacificnet.net>
Daffer says:
> Do you understand the concept of an 'exothermic' reaction?
Yes, I understand the Holocaust community's understanding. The same as
a candle burning, or a piece of wood. You know, Holocaust bodies
burned like candles or wood.
Ben Cramer
"Joe Bruno" <br...@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:1143464776.9...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ben Cramer wrote:
> Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 11, Number 1 (December-January 2004)
> PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. edi...@nexusmagazine.com
> Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
> From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com
>
> by Richard Moody, Jr © 2003
> 777 Treadlemire Road
> Berne, NY 12023
> USA
> Email: Slm...@aol.com
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
> Abstract
> Proponents of Einstein have acted in a way that appears to corrupt the
> historical record. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Time Magazine's "Person of
> the Century", wrote a long treatise on special relativity theory (it was
> actually called "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", 1905a), without
> listing any references. Many of the key ideas it presented were known to
> Lorentz (for example, the Lorentz transformation) and Poincaré before
> Einstein wrote the famous 1905 paper.
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/revolution/index.php
YAWN! All this namecalling and blather wouldn't have anything to do
with the fact that Einstein was Jewish, right?
Only partly. He was a plagiarist cunt. That's the main issue I have with
him.
Ben Cramer
Is that where the shoah industry got their inspiration from?
Ben Cramer
In academe it is theft, joey. Plagiarism is theft. Pure, simple, no
question.
More evidence of ole joey's totally fucked head.
DoD
You also have an issue with my choad, since it resembles your face, so what
gives?
Ben Cramer
And why would I do that, joey. It's only 96.8%.
Ben Cramer
"DoD" <the...@ss.mil> wrote in message
news:hFUVf.7288$a97....@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
Don't leave it there, dopey. Elaborate.
>
>
Ben Cramer
"Sheldon Liberman" <she...@liberman.com> wrote in message
news:1143494889....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
G'day Ikey. Got the shits, have you?
Good! My efforts are not in vain.
DoD
I need to elaborate, yet I am the dopey one. It is not my fault your face
looks like my choad. Go have something done about it and quit your whining.
Ben Cramer
"William Daffer" <whda...@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
news:3MmdnYYCxPq...@giganews.com...
> "Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> "Dr. Gassen Burnham" <gasenb...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:1143464241.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> Yep...the old kike was a patents clerk who stole the work of the
>>> superior man (whites).
>>>
>>> Isn't it just oh so jewish?
>>
>> Watch this space, Mate. I've got shitloads more to come.
>
> And each as stupid and wretched as the last.
>
> When I complained that the only 'history' you know is what you read
> from denier websites I had no idea that you would be so stupid as to
> prove that fact beyond all doubt by posting a positive deluge of
> cut-n-paste jobs from denier websites!
Why is it, that anything which comes from any site not yid sanctioned, is
automatically a "denier" website?
And what is it, that makes their comments any less pertinent than those
coming from yid sanctioned websites?
Care to explain that?
>
> All I can say is: thanks! You saved me all the work, not that much
> is required to prove that you're an ignorant lout who's completely
> gullible and who will believe anything posted on any denier website.
>
> whd
> p.s. Stop lying about Weisenthal yet?
No lies, daffy. That is what was posted in Stars and Stripes.
Joe Bruno
William Daffer wrote:
> "ataturkey" <atat...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Theft is a legal term, dinglebrain. Theft involves taking something
> >> that is legally the property of another. If those others had
> >> copyrighted their ideas, we could call it theft.
> >> As it is, we can't.
> >
> > The problem with Einstein, King and others like them is that they
> > presented other people's work as if it was their work.
>
> The problem with idiots like you is that you think you understand
> the works of people like Einstein, Lorentz and Poincare enough to be
> able to determine whether Einstein stole something from Lorentz or
> Poincare.
>
> It's pretty clear that you don't.
>
> [snip]
>
> whd
> --
This clown can't comprehend half of what he reads, let alone fathom the
depths of theoretical Physics.
Joe Bruno
> plagarism or stealing can be used for what people like they do. This
> kind of garbage goes on all the time because most people have little
> integrity but it is up to you decide who you want to take sides with.
> Just to give you an example; if you call out your opponent ball in a
> tennis match that you know that it is in, you have lost the match and
> you know it, no matter what the final outcome is but no one goes to
> jail.
> >
> > Charles Darwin did not discover anything new. He merely organized
> > previous discoveries into a coherent theory. You want to put him in
> > jail for that?
>
We're talking about the principle involved, but, of course, you're too
damn stupid to understand that.
> >
> > Perhaps you want to prosecute Louis Armstrong for jazzing up old songs
> > like
> > "Don't get around much Anymore" or prosecute The Firehouse Five for
> > doing a Dixieland version of By The Beautiful Sea?????????
>
> No problem as long as credit is given where credit is due.
But they don't give credit. Old songs are part of the public domain.
you fucking idiot.
> >
> > What you are is ridiculous.
>
> I just leave the name calling to you because that is what people like
> you do.
I'll just leave the ignorance and stupidity to you because that's all
you have.
philip...@comcast.net
"Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e08mni$27rp$1...@otis.netspace.net.au...
> 2004)
NEXUS is an international bi-monthly alternative news magazine,
covering the fields of: Health Alternatives; Suppressed Science;
Earth's Ancient Past; UFOs & the Unexplained; and Government
Cover-Ups.
LOL!
And the funny part is the halfwit wouldn't have the first clue what
the science was all about.
--
Philip Mathews
Dr. Gassen Burnham
"Whether he was directly influenced by them is not clear. He may
likely have been indirectly
influenced by them, perhaps without even realizing it. "
Srry....not a valid defence for plagiarism.
what if Art Tandy was to say "Yaeh well...I discovered the earth was
not the centre of the universe...but that fukkin Copernicus used time
travel and stole my ideas!!!!
And the wheel......that was me too!
And the apostrophe !
All discovered last year and stolen...taken back in time,,,,Oy Vey!"
He is jsut as credible as Einstein...no?
Dr. Gassen Burnham
"When it comes to shit-loads'
I see your ano-centrism has not waned, Shelly!
Dr. Gassen Burnham
"Theft is a legal term, dinglebrain. Theft involves taking something
that is legally the property of another. If those others had
copyrighted their ideas, we could call it theft.
As it is, we can't."
So you agree Einstein stole other peoples work then, Joe.?
Heinrich
"Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:e08mni$27rp$1...@otis.netspace.net.au...
Prof. Dr. Ernst Heymann, Perpetual Secretary.
Le Coq, near Ostende,
April 5, 1933
To the Prussian Academy of Sciences,
I have received information from a thoroughly reliable source that the
Academy of Sciences has spoken in an official statement of "Einstein's
participation in atrocity-mongering in America and France."
I hereby declare that I have never taken any part in atrocity-mongering, and
I must add that I have seen nothing of any such mongering anywhere. In
general people have contented themselves with reproducing and commenting on
the official statements and orders of responsible members of the German
Government, together with the programme for the annihilation of the German
Jews by economic methods.
The statements I have issued to the Press were concerned with my intention
to resign my position in the Academy and renounce my Prussian citizenship; I
gave as my reason for these steps that I did not wish to live in a country
where the individual does not enjoy equality before the law and freedom to
say and teach what he likes.
Further, I described the present state of affairs in Germany as a state of
psychic distemper in the masses and also made some remarks about its causes.
In a written document which I allowed the International League for combating
Anti-Semitism to make use of for the purpose of enlisting support, and which
was not intended for the Press at all, I also called upon all sensible
people, who are still faithful to the ideals of a civilization in peril, to
do their utmost to prevent this mass-psychosis, which is exhibiting itself
in such terrible symptoms in Germany to-day, from spreading further.
It would have been an easy matter for the Academy to get hold of a correct
version of my words before issuing the sort of statement about me that it
has. The German Press has reproduced a deliberately distorted version of my
words, as indeed was only to be expected with the Press muzzled as it is
to-day.
I am ready to stand by every word I have published. In return, I expect the
Academy to communicate this statement of mine to its members and also to the
German public before which I have been slandered, especially as it has
itself had a hand in slandering me before that public.
<http://lib.ru/FILOSOF/EJNSHTEJN/theworld_engl.txt_Piece40.04>
Ben Cramer
What's that, mister CPR is only useful to unconscious people?
>
Ben Cramer
Much appreciated.
"Heinrich" <Hein...@Ruhrgasnet.ch> wrote in message
news:48s1kgF...@individual.net...
Heinrich
> Thank you Heinrich.
>
> Much appreciated.
Ron Jacobson
Ben Cramer <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
(snip Benjie)
Benjie, In Message-ID: <dvj35h$u3h$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>
you wrote: "'No gassing took place in any camp on Germany soil.'
(Nazi-Hunter Simon Wisenthal, in his Books and Bookmen, p. 5)".
However, this sentence does not appear in Wiesenthal's letter
published in p. 5 of "Books and Bookmen" (April 1975).
Why did you lie, Benjie?
RJ.
AnonMoos
a genius, while you'll still be a lying racist hate-bigot, robotically
cutting-and-pasting from neo-Nazi websites...
--
Hamas motto: لا إله لهم
إلا الموت،
«حماس» رسول
الموت (The death-worshipping cult)
Murderers are not martyrs! http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/
Ben Cramer
"AnonMoos" <anon...@io.com> wrote in message
news:44291E13...@io.com...
> You can try to throw all the mud you want, but Einstein will still be
> a genius, while you'll still be a lying racist hate-bigot, robotically
> cutting-and-pasting from neo-Nazi websites...
I don't lie, I'm not a racist, not a hate-bigot (whatever the fuck that is),
not robotically cutting and pasting, and certainly not from neo-Nazi
websites. All very carefully selected, fuckwit.
Still doesn't alter the fact, that Einstein was a plagiarist cunt.
Heinrich
"AnonMoos" <anon...@io.com> schreef in bericht
news:44291E13...@io.com...
> You can try to throw all the mud you want, but Einstein will still be
> a genius, while you'll still be a lying racist hate-bigot, robotically
> cutting-and-pasting from neo-Nazi websites...
o dear good old moose lost it again.
Heinrich
AnonMoos
I guess it's still true that you never met a hate-bigot you didn't like!
Heinrich
> Still playing with your very dear friend "Ben Cramer", Gehaessiger Heinie?
> I guess it's still true that you never met a hate-bigot you didn't like!
donot jump to conclussions moose. i donot like you that is for sure. why
donot you start crying over a picture of Golda Meir.
Ron Jacobson
Ben Cramer <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
(snip)
Benjie, can you please elaborate further on those "shitty
experiences with hallucinogenics" you had? Message-ID:
<1125145048.cafe8828396fceebe6c6eb01bec409b3@teranews>.
Seems you suffered some serious damage. Why don't you
seek help?
RJ.
Eugene Holman
"ataturkey" <atat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<deletions>
>
> Why are you wasting your valuable time arguing the pros and cons of
> Jewish Genocide and trying to justify the imprisonment of an old man
> for his books and lectures?
Because the issues interest me and I think I have something intelligent to
contribute to the discussion.
> It would be far more interesting if you
> would give us an insight to high illegitimacy, drug use and criminal
> behavior inside the Black community.
The issue interests me, but I know very little about it. And it is the
Black community in the US you are speaking about. Here in Finland the
black community, if you want to call it that, is much smaller and not
beset by any of those problems.
> Some of us may be interested on
> your take on what happened in New Orleans.
All I know about New Orleans is what I read in the newspapers.
> Why are so many multi
> generational Black on welfare and why did they turn on each other,
> raping, murdering and robbing each other at the sport arena?
I presume it was an "end-of-the-world" scenario, but knowing how
sensation-mongering the media can be, I have to say that I really don't
know.
> I was in New Your at the time of black out and the looting and mayhem
> by your brethren was so scary that we were so grateful for the safety
> of our 7th floor secured apartment.
My brethren? Please. Looters and mayhem-mongers of any race or ethnicity
typically belong to the underclass. My background is different, nor have I
lived in the US for the past forty years. I visit there seldom, and have
only a few relatives there, all of whom have been comfortably in the
middle class for generations.
> You could teach us so much:)
But not about American sociopathologies. One of the reasons that I sought
a life in Scandinavia is that I realized at a very early age that they
have their social priorities right. We have few very rich people but
virtually no grinding poverty. Medical care and education are free, thus
children are not punished for any stupid mistakes that their parents might
have made.
>
> Have a nice vegetarian day!
Thanks.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
William Daffer
> William Daffer wrote:
>> "ataturkey" <atat...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> >
>> > The problem with Einstein, King and others like them is that they
>> > presented other people's work as if it was their work.
>>
>> The problem with idiots like you is that you think you understand
>> the works of people like Einstein, Lorentz and Poincare enough to be
>> able to determine whether Einstein stole something from Lorentz or
>> Poincare.
>
> Obviously you either have difficulty comprehending simple English or
> you never read newspapers or listen to news on TV. Einstein's and
> King's plagiarism was widely reported by the press
Don't know about King but your claim about Einstein is either a lie
or you're simply too stupid to understand what you've read, or
you're reading trash and believing it unequestioningly. Given the
other traits you share with deniers, I tend to think it's the
latter.
In any case, Einstein didn't plagiarize anything.
Here's a full rebuttal of all the standard claims about Einstein's
supposed 'plagiarism,' written by David Gehrig in 2000 (you're 6
years behind the curve, turkey).
Let's see if you can even understand it.
<quote http://tinyurl.com/r9s7d>
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 (zemb...@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
kclo...@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 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."
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, 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 ...
... 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, Poincaré 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 Hasenöhrl, ...
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.
>
> 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.
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, Hasenörhl, 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
> 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.
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 Schrödinger,
> 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, Hasenöhrl,
> Poincaré, 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.
@%<
</quote>
You're welcome to rise to the challenge and attempt to rebut David
Gehrig's rebuttal with something more than your customary "my claim
is true because I say it's true, I don't have to produce any
evidence for my claims", but, given your history in this newsgroup I
rather doubt that you will. I suspect that what you'll do instead is
simply snip the whole thing and go back to the same claim without a
blush of shame or a backward glance.
But then all you'll be doing is continuing the proof of your
lightweighthood.
It's up to you.
whd
--
In <3b87...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>,
David E. Michael, in response to my observation that "the Nazis didn't kill
. . ." 33,000 Jewish men, women and children of Kiev by marching them to a
ditch at Babi-Yar, forcing them to undress and shooting them in the head
"for 'military purposes.' They killed them for *racialist* purposes"
said:
(a) How the f*** would you know?
(b) So what?
Joe Bruno
Medical care and education are free, thus
> children are not punished for any stupid mistakes that their parents might
> have made.
The reason the USA leads the world in standard of living and areas like
research and electronics, computers is that the possibility of becoming
wealthy is the incentive that drives our people to achieve and work
long hours to produce and develop. To do that, you need to let people
keep and invest what they earn. That means lower income taxes.
Without tax deferrals, I could not have retired as early as I did.
We have free education through the high school level. Personally, I
think that's far enough, since any economy needs skilled tradesmen and
not everybody is academically suited to college.
If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't even go to college.
What would I do? I'd join the Navy after high school and stay for 20
years in one of the Engineering ratings.I went to college because my
parents had indoctrinated me into believing that I had to.
I have the intelligence for higher education,but lack the motivation.I
hate classrooms. I got so damn nervous during final week each semester,
I couldn't eat. If I could have
avoided college, I wouldn't have needed psychiatric counseling and
medications for all those years.
We have Medicare for the aged and state medical programs for the poor,
like Medi-cal.
I don't believe other people should pay for something I can afford
myself and I shouldn't pay for theirs if they can afford it.
Eugene Holman
"ataturkey" <atat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<deletions>
>
> I have to admit that your response was well written and left no
> question unanswered with the exception of one; your interest in Jewish
> issues.
>
> Normally, I do not ask and response to personal questions on the
> Internet (some Zionazi fanatic is sure to harass your family if you
> talk about Jewish Communists and give out your name) but you seem to
> almost want to talk (brag) about yourself, your family and your
> accomplishments. So, here is my question; are you sure that you are not
> at least part Jew?
I hope you haven't seen it as bragging. I find it more pleasant to
exchange views with people if I know something about them and they know
something about me.
I am part Sephardic Jew in the distant past. One of my ancestors on my
mother's side, Jacob Nunhez, a descendant of Jews who had been kicked out
of Spain, lived in Portugal during the 1760s. He responded to a request
for prison guards in Georgia, which was then primarily a penal colony.
But, like many so-called African Americans, I have African (many strands,
but slave ships kept very poor records, few of whgich even survive, so I
do not know where from), English (hence my surname an Englishman named
Holman owned and was a blood relative [due to the hany-panky that
slaveowners practiced with slave women] of my paternal grandfather's
grandfather when he was released from slavery and, as was the custom at
the time, he took his former owner's surname; another English branch of
the family goes back to James Oglethorpe, a major figure in the colonial
history of Georgia, whose daughter married one of Nunhez's sons), Dutch
(my paternal grandmother was born in Sint Maarten and was a Dutch/Carib
creole), and American Indian (mostly Seminole) ancestry as well.
More important than that bit of Sephardic Jewish ancestry, though, was my
education in the US. I attended a high school that was about 95% Jewish,
had Holocaust Education in the late 50s, and in the 1970s, long after I
had left, acquired a Holocaust museum and research center
(http://www.bxscience.edu/holocaust/Holocaust.htm). Many of my fellow
classmates, including one who was born in the Warsaw ghetto and another
who was born in Serbia during a deportation transport to a concentration
camp, were themselves or the children of Holocaust survivors. As I have
written here before, one of the most exciting experiences of my high
school career was following the trial of Adolf Eichmann during the spring
of 1961. At university, Cornell, most of my friends and many of my
teachers were Jews. Most of my former classmates have gone into academia,
and at least two of them are now leading scholars in Holocaust studies.
> It is OK if you do not want to answer it. Oddly, I
> also found that some of the most vocal Jew-haters are also part Jewish.
> Remember the Nazi leader in Skokie Illinois? It would be funny if our
> good friend Protagonist (Szaki) turned out to be part Jew. Life is very
> strange and I do not even try to understand what motivates people -
> just take it as entertainment. I noted that you and Al Smith are just
> about the only people on this list capable of discussing controversial
> issues without getting into the gutter. Good for you!
Thanks.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Jason James
"William Daffer" <whda...@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
news:3MmdnYYCxPq...@giganews.com...
> "Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > "Dr. Gassen Burnham" <gasenb...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:1143464241.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> Yep...the old kike was a patents clerk who stole the work of the
> >> superior man (whites).
> >>
> >> Isn't it just oh so jewish?
> >
> > Watch this space, Mate. I've got shitloads more to come.
>
> And each as stupid and wretched as the last.
>
> When I complained that the only 'history' you know is what you read
> from denier websites I had no idea that you would be so stupid as to
> prove that fact beyond all doubt by posting a positive deluge of
> cut-n-paste jobs from denier websites!
>
> All I can say is: thanks! You saved me all the work, not that much
> is required to prove that you're an ignorant lout who's completely
> gullible and who will believe anything posted on any denier website.
>
> whd
> p.s. Stop lying about Weisenthal yet?
Yes,..Cramer appears to be a yapping yes-man of Grossout, as well..what a
depressing fate.
Jason
Jason James
"ataturkey" <atat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143563686....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> question unanswered with the exception of one; your interest in Jewish
> issues.
I'm sure your admission is of infinite comfort to Eugene,..LOL!
> Normally, I do not ask and response to personal questions on the
> Internet (some Zionazi fanatic is sure to harass your family if you
> talk about Jewish Communists and give out your name)
Well,..duhhh! Use a screen name. There are enough nutters using Usenet to
warrent it.
but you seem to
> almost want to talk (brag) about yourself, your family and your
> accomplishments.
Stating facts is not bragging. Perhaps you should get out more.
So, here is my question; are you sure that you are not
> at least part Jew?
And there you have it,..the first pick into the lode of the antisemite,..the
frightened, closetted individual afraid to form his own opinions,..to be
afraid to have those opinions tested,..in other words a coward.
It is OK if you do not want to answer it. Oddly, I
> also found that some of the most vocal Jew-haters are also part Jewish.
"some?". At least have the guts to put a figure, supported by referenced
facts on your claim, or, in the absence of that, how you came to that
conclusion.
> Remember the Nazi leader in Skokie Illinois? It would be funny if our
> good friend Protagonist (Szaki) turned out to be part Jew. Life is very
> strange and I do not even try to understand what motivates people -
> just take it as entertainment.
Life is strange when Turkey's like you come out and rabbit on about your
muddled thoughts.
I noted that you and Al Smith are just
> about the only people on this list capable of discussing controversial
> issues without getting into the gutter. Good for you!
Try crawling out yourself,..then we'd not have to talk down to you.
Jason
Joe Bruno
The turkey operates by a flagrant double standard. He objects when
anyone insults him, yet he feels free to make disparaging remarks about
Jews and make claims about us without a shred of evidence to support
it. Most people are ashamed to be ignorant. This clown is proud of it.
Neocon
> You can try to throw all the mud you want, but Einstein will still be
> a genius, while you'll still be a lying racist hate-bigot, robotically
> cutting-and-pasting from neo-Nazi websites...
>
Nice refutation! You've made your case with the 7 yr old and younger crowd.
Neocon
Neocon
> Still playing with your very dear friend "Ben Cramer", Gehaessiger
> Heinie? I guess it's still true that you never met a hate-bigot you
> didn't like!
Why are you so hateful?
Sure.....
it's fun to do a little name-calling, but you should also try to
address the substance of the issue.
Neocon
Joe Bruno
He didn't have to make a case with me. I already detest you as a stupid
bigmouth with the IQ of a railroad spike.
she...@liberman.com
Ben Cramer wrote:
> "Sheldon Liberman" <she...@liberman.com> wrote in message
> news:1143494889....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Ben Cramer wrote:
> >> "Dr. Gassen Burnham" <gasenb...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
> >> news:1143464241.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Yep...the old kike was a patents clerk who stole the work of the
> >> > superior man (whites).
> >> >
> >> > Isn't it just oh so jewish?
> >>
> >> Watch this space, Mate. I've got shitloads more to come.
> >
> > distributor king.
>
> G'day Ikey. Got the shits, have you?
This you're asking of me, mate? That's like the virus asking the
sufferer what's ailing him.
>
> Good! My efforts are not in vain.
I never said it would be. Your efforts are towards embarrassing
yourself, and they certainly haven't been in vain.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be ataturkey wrote
in message
<1143548715....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
<snip to>
>Einstein
>is even worse than King because he initially acknowledged and later
>denied that it was his wife who helped him with his "research".
Cite?
>Does
>anyone know anything about his wife? Didn't they get a divorce? Can
>someone discuss this without going nuts?
You first.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be ataturkey wrote
in message
>Roger wrote:
>> <snip to>
>> >Einstein
>> >is even worse than King because he initially acknowledged and later
>> >denied that it was his wife who helped him with his "research".
>> Cite?
>Try this:
>
>Was Einstein's Wife His Silent Collaborator?
>A recent PBS documentary highlights the role that Albert Einstein's
>first wife, Mileva Maric, may have played in the development of his
>theories of relativity, quantum physics, and Brownian motion.
>womenshistory.about.com/b/a/081034.htm Cached page
And linked from that page:
<quote>
The documentary and website state "In 1955, a Soviet physicist (now
deceased) claimed that he personally saw the original manuscripts and
that Mileva's name appeared as co-author." They refer to Abram Joffe
and reproduce a fragment of a page on which the name "Einstein-Marity"
appears in Russian. (Maric used her surname in the form "Marity" when
Joffe met her when once seeking Einstein in Switzerland.)
But Joffe made no such claim. What he actually wrote, in an obituary
for Einstein in 1955, was "In 1905, three articles appeared in the
Annalen der Physik which began three very important branches of
20th-century physics. Those were the theory of Brownian motion, the
photon theory of light, and the theory of relativity. The author of
these articles, an unknown person at the time, was a bureaucrat at the
Patent Office in Bern, Einstein-Marity (Marity - the maiden name of
his wife, which by Swiss custom is added to the husband's family
name)."
</quote>
Got anything better?
>> >Does
>> >anyone know anything about his wife? Didn't they get a divorce? Can
>> >someone discuss this without going nuts?
>> You first.
>Maybe someone else.
Maybe someone else will actually be able to 8support* the claim, since
it's obvious you cannot.
Sheldon Liberman
Dr. Gassen Burnham wrote:
> From: Sheldon Liberman
>
> "When it comes to shit-loads'
>
> I see your ano-centrism has not waned, Shelly!
And I can see that your IQ hasn't waxed.
AnonMoos
> you should also try to address the substance of the issue.
"The substance of the issue"? When none of the people who is trying
to make a big deal about the Einstein allegations has the slightest
knowledge of or interest in physics, but they're only trying to slander
Einstein to get at "DA JOOZ"? I've abserved these people in
soc.culture.israel over many months, and I know exactly what they are...
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be ataturkey wrote
in message
>Roger wrote:
>[...]
>> Maybe someone else will actually be able to 8support* the claim, since
>> it's obvious you cannot.
>It appears that there are enough "facts" to support what one chooses to
>believe.
Only if you very indiscriminate about what you choose to call facts.
For example, here's what you choose not to even attempt to address:
<restore>
<quote>
The documentary and website state "In 1955, a Soviet physicist (now
deceased) claimed that he personally saw the original manuscripts and
that Mileva's name appeared as co-author." They refer to Abram Joffe
and reproduce a fragment of a page on which the name "Einstein-Marity"
appears in Russian. (Maric used her surname in the form "Marity" when
Joffe met her when once seeking Einstein in Switzerland.)
But Joffe made no such claim. What he actually wrote, in an obituary
for Einstein in 1955, was "In 1905, three articles appeared in the
Annalen der Physik which began three very important branches of
20th-century physics. Those were the theory of Brownian motion, the
photon theory of light, and the theory of relativity. The author of
these articles, an unknown person at the time, was a bureaucrat at the
Patent Office in Bern, Einstein-Marity (Marity - the maiden name of
his wife, which by Swiss custom is added to the husband's family
name)."
</quote>
Got anything better?
</restore>
Apparently, you do not.
>Still, the claims of Einstein's plagiarism and taking of
>credit for his (ex) wife's work are made far too frequently to be
>disregarded.
Only if you subscribe to the theory that if you tell a lie often
enough, it becomes the truth.
>If one considers the personal attacks here against those
>who dare to question Einstein's "genius", one can come to the
>conclusion that these charges are probably well founded.
Only if one forgets that while they laughed at Galileo, and they
laughed at Edison, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
William Daffer
> "William Daffer" <whda...@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3MmdnYYCxPq...@giganews.com...
>> "Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> "Dr. Gassen Burnham" <gasenb...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:1143464241.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Yep...the old kike was a patents clerk who stole the work of the
>>>> superior man (whites).
>>>>
>>>> Isn't it just oh so jewish?
>>>
>>> Watch this space, Mate. I've got shitloads more to come.
>>
>> And each as stupid and wretched as the last.
>>
>> When I complained that the only 'history' you know is what you read
>> from denier websites I had no idea that you would be so stupid as to
>> prove that fact beyond all doubt by posting a positive deluge of
>> cut-n-paste jobs from denier websites!
>
> Why is it, that anything which comes from any site not yid sanctioned, is
> automatically a "denier" website?
Because it is.
> And what is it, that makes their comments any less pertinent than those
> coming from yid sanctioned websites?
>
> Care to explain that?
Because they, like you, lie about the evidence, Like you did about
the Weisenthal quote.
However, as much as it's fun to rub your nose in the lies you post
here regularly, your 'rebuttal' is actually beside the point
here. My comment was about you not knowing any *real* history, that
is, your only knowledge of the subject comes from denier websites.
Clearly I'm correct to say this. Whether you argue that denier
websites are a reliable source of information is completely
irrelevent. Whether reliable or not it is nevertheless true that
they are *your only source*, as you've made abundantly clear in this
last week.
So when you claim that you've read 'normative history,' that's just
another of your lies, like your lie about what Weisenthal said.
What you've read is what the deniers websites *say* is the normative
account, but since you haven't *actuall read* the account on your
own you don't know whether the denier websites are telling the
truth. And, as we consistently show, they aren't. But you're too
stupid to learn that and so you keep posting their trash as if it
gave a fair accounting of what the normative account actually says.
Which means that I've won this debate on the larger issue: you're
too ignorant to 'criticize' the normative account because you don't
know it.
>>
>> All I can say is: thanks! You saved me all the work, not that much
>> is required to prove that you're an ignorant lout who's completely
>> gullible and who will believe anything posted on any denier website.
>>
>> whd
>> p.s. Stop lying about Weisenthal yet?
>
> No lies, daffy. That is what was posted in Stars and Stripes.
Yet you posted two 'quotations', both from the same source, yet they
weren't the same quote! There's no way to make that be anything
other than a lie, Cramer.
whd
--
> Have you noticed how scarce Ewan Jackson has become in this ng since
> Mental Ben arrived? Do you think it's a coincidence?
We're one and the same wokkie.
From: "Ben Cramer" <[REMOVE]bencr...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 15:10:29 +1000
Message-ID: <dm8qo7$d17$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>
Neocon
> Neocon <neo...@npr.org> wrote:
>
>> you should also try to address the substance of the issue.
>
> "The substance of the issue"?
That's right.
> When none of the people who is trying
> to make a big deal about the Einstein allegations has the slightest
> knowledge of or interest in physics, but they're only trying to slander
> Einstein to get at "DA JOOZ"? I've abserved these people in
> soc.culture.israel over many months, and I know exactly what they are...
Keep playing victim. You're still not addressing the issue.
How much of an interest in physics do you have?
Does it matter?
Why do you even bother to post?
Other than to smear people, that is.
Neocon
Ben Cramer
"Joe Bruno" <br...@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:1143571357.3...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Most people are ashamed to be ignorant. This clown is proud of it.
As are you, joey. As are you.
>
Ben Cramer
>
> I have the intelligence for higher education,
BWWWWWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!
Cut it out, joey. You're killin' me.
Ben Cramer
"AnonMoos" <anon...@io.com> wrote in message
news:4429F3F0...@io.com...
> Neocon <neo...@npr.org> wrote:
>
>> you should also try to address the substance of the issue.
>
> "The substance of the issue"? When none of the people who is trying
> to make a big deal about the Einstein allegations has the slightest
> knowledge of or interest in physics, but they're only trying to slander
> Einstein to get at "DA JOOZ"? I've abserved these people in
> soc.culture.israel over many months, and I know exactly what they are...
You don't have a clue about that which you spout, moose. None of it, I'm
afraid.
Ben Cramer
Christ, joey. That should cut him up something chronic.
To be though ill of by joey da b'runo. Such a mitzvah already.
>
Ben Cramer
<she...@liberman.com> wrote in message
news:1143589842.7...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ben Cramer wrote:
>> "Sheldon Liberman" <she...@liberman.com> wrote in message
>> news:1143494889....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Ben Cramer wrote:
>> >> "Dr. Gassen Burnham" <gasenb...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
>> >> news:1143464241.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Yep...the old kike was a patents clerk who stole the work of the
>> >> > superior man (whites).
>> >> >
>> >> > Isn't it just oh so jewish?
>> >>
>> >> Watch this space, Mate. I've got shitloads more to come.
>> >
>> > No doubt about that, Kramer. When it comes to shit-loads, you're the
>> > distributor king.
>>
>> G'day Ikey. Got the shits, have you?
>
> This you're asking of me, mate? That's like the virus asking the
> sufferer what's ailing him.
Simple question directed at a simple object. Nothing more than concern for
your well being.
Altruistic bugger, me.
>
>>
>> Good! My efforts are not in vain.
>
> I never said it would be. Your efforts are towards embarrassing
> yourself, and they certainly haven't been in vain.
Right! Keep you hook nosed cunts hopping, don't I.
>
Ben Cramer
> "Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> "William Daffer" <whda...@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3MmdnYYCxPq...@giganews.com...
>>> "Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> "Dr. Gassen Burnham" <gasenb...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:1143464241.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Yep...the old kike was a patents clerk who stole the work of the
>>>>> superior man (whites).
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't it just oh so jewish?
>>>>
>>>> Watch this space, Mate. I've got shitloads more to come.
>>>
>>> And each as stupid and wretched as the last.
>>>
>>> When I complained that the only 'history' you know is what you read
>>> from denier websites I had no idea that you would be so stupid as to
>>> prove that fact beyond all doubt by posting a positive deluge of
>>> cut-n-paste jobs from denier websites!
>>
>> Why is it, that anything which comes from any site not yid sanctioned, is
>> automatically a "denier" website?
>
> Because it is.
By whose definition?
>
>> And what is it, that makes their comments any less pertinent than those
>> coming from yid sanctioned websites?
>>
>> Care to explain that?
You want I should draw pictures already?
>
> Because they, like you, lie about the evidence, Like you did about
> the Weisenthal quote.
I didn't lie at all, daffy. I posted the exact quote as reported in Stars
and Stripes, and followed it up with a quote from Nizkor. As we all know,
much of what is posted on nizkor, is shite.
>
> However, as much as it's fun to rub your nose in the lies you post
> here regularly, your 'rebuttal' is actually beside the point
> here. My comment was about you not knowing any *real* history, that
> is, your only knowledge of the subject comes from denier websites.
>
> Clearly I'm correct to say this. Whether you argue that denier
> websites are a reliable source of information is completely
> irrelevent. Whether reliable or not it is nevertheless true that
> they are *your only source*, as you've made abundantly clear in this
> last week.
>
> So when you claim that you've read 'normative history,' that's just
> another of your lies, like your lie about what Weisenthal said.
I've read everything posted by the pathological liar jacobsOn, a significant
amount of the shite on nizkor, and most of every other bit of information
provided through posted links from you shoah industry shills.
Up to you whether you believe it or not. I'm sure you'll adopt the usual
stance.
>
> What you've read is what the deniers websites *say* is the normative
> account, but since you haven't *actuall read* the account on your
> own you don't know whether the denier websites are telling the
> truth. And, as we consistently show, they aren't. But you're too
> stupid to learn that and so you keep posting their trash as if it
> gave a fair accounting of what the normative account actually says.
>
> Which means that I've won this debate on the larger issue: you're
> too ignorant to 'criticize' the normative account because you don't
> know it.
Only if you say so, daffy. And of course you're the sole keeper of the
truth, aren't you.
Ben Cramer
"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
news:61vj22pjoeetbqqlj...@4ax.com...
> In one age, called the Second Age by some,
> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
> someone claiming to be ataturkey wrote
> in message
> <1143600412....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
>>Roger wrote:
>
>>[...]
>
>>> Maybe someone else will actually be able to 8support* the claim, since
>>> it's obvious you cannot.
>
>>It appears that there are enough "facts" to support what one chooses to
>>believe.
>
> Only if you very indiscriminate about what you choose to call facts.
That's the yid twait, woger.
Joe Bruno
Ben Cramer wrote:
> "AnonMoos" <anon...@io.com> wrote in message
> news:44291E13...@io.com...
> > You can try to throw all the mud you want, but Einstein will still be
> > a genius, while you'll still be a lying racist hate-bigot, robotically
> > cutting-and-pasting from neo-Nazi websites...
>
HAHAHAHAHA! The archives say otherwise.
I'm not a racist,
HAHAHAHAHA! The archives say otherwise.
not a hate-bigot (whatever the fuck that is),
HAHAHAHAHA! The archives say otherwise
> not robotically cutting and pasting, and certainly not from neo-Nazi
> websites.
HAHAHAHAHA! The archives say otherwise
Ben Cramer
>
> Ben Cramer wrote:
>> "AnonMoos" <anon...@io.com> wrote in message
>> news:44291E13...@io.com...
>> > You can try to throw all the mud you want, but Einstein will still be
>> > a genius, while you'll still be a lying racist hate-bigot, robotically
>> > cutting-and-pasting from neo-Nazi websites...
>>
>> I don't lie,
>
> HAHAHAHAHA! The archives say otherwise.
No they don't joey. If you were to extract your posts stating Cramer lies,
there's fuck all left there. It's only you makes that claim, you dopey cunt.
Do a search on joey b'runo and poofter, and see what the results are.
>
>
>
> I'm not a racist,
>
> HAHAHAHAHA! The archives say otherwise.
Never been a racist remark cross my lips, you stupid yid cunt.
>
>
>
> not a hate-bigot (whatever the fuck that is),
>
> HAHAHAHAHA! The archives say otherwise
Still don't know what a hate-bigot it, you dopey yid cunt. Care to
elaborate?
>
>
>
>> not robotically cutting and pasting, and certainly not from neo-Nazi
>> websites.
>
> HAHAHAHAHA! The archives say otherwise
Not at all. All very carefully selected, and certainly not from neo-nazi
websites. Not a yid website anywhere.
>
Joe Bruno
What a pleasant thought
Joe Bruno
Pot.Kettle.Black
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be ataturkey wrote
in message
>Roger wrote:
and "turkey" ran.
Again.
>[...]
>> >Still, the claims of Einstein's plagiarism and taking of
>> >credit for his (ex) wife's work are made far too frequently to be
>> >disregarded.
>> Only if you subscribe to the theory that if you tell a lie often
>> enough, it becomes the truth.
>I see a lot of that from both sides.
>
>If you search for:
>einstein wife research
>and
>einstein plagarist
>
>You get a lot of hits.
And ... ? Everything that is posted on the web is automatically true?
>The "facts" proving either argument are pretty convincing.
And yet, the only time you actually *cited* any of these "facts," it
turned out that they were nothing of the sort, but relied upon the
misinterpretation of a single fragment of a document.
Something so damaging to your argument about the "facts" that you have
had to snip and run from it rather than address the shambles it makes
of your assertion.
Here it is again, so you can demonstrate your fundamental dishonesty
and intellectual bankruptcy by running away again:
<restore>
<quote>
The documentary and website state "In 1955, a Soviet physicist (now
deceased) claimed that he personally saw the original manuscripts and
that Mileva's name appeared as co-author." They refer to Abram Joffe
and reproduce a fragment of a page on which the name "Einstein-Marity"
appears in Russian. (Maric used her surname in the form "Marity" when
Joffe met her when once seeking Einstein in Switzerland.)
But Joffe made no such claim. What he actually wrote, in an obituary
for Einstein in 1955, was "In 1905, three articles appeared in the
Annalen der Physik which began three very important branches of
20th-century physics. Those were the theory of Brownian motion, the
photon theory of light, and the theory of relativity. The author of
these articles, an unknown person at the time, was a bureaucrat at the
Patent Office in Bern, Einstein-Marity (Marity - the maiden name of
his wife, which by Swiss custom is added to the husband's family
name)."
</quote>
Got anything better?
</restore>
>> >If one considers the personal attacks here against those
>> >who dare to question Einstein's "genius", one can come to the
>> >conclusion that these charges are probably well founded.
>> Only if one forgets that while they laughed at Galileo, and they
>> laughed at Edison, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
>Maybe so, but did they and their families get obscene and threatening
>calls from Jewish fanatics?
And what proof do you offer that any such calls were made to anyone
who does no more than "question Einstein's genius," and that they were
made by "Jewish fanatics?"
Sheldon Liberman
Ben Cramer wrote:
> <she...@liberman.com> wrote in message
> news:1143589842.7...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Ben Cramer wrote:
> >> "Sheldon Liberman" <she...@liberman.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1143494889....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Ben Cramer wrote:
> >> >> "Dr. Gassen Burnham" <gasenb...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1143464241.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> > Yep...the old kike was a patents clerk who stole the work of the
> >> >> > superior man (whites).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Isn't it just oh so jewish?
> >> >>
> >> >> Watch this space, Mate. I've got shitloads more to come.
> >> >
> >> > No doubt about that, Kramer. When it comes to shit-loads, you're the
> >> > distributor king.
> >>
> >> G'day Ikey. Got the shits, have you?
> >
> > This you're asking of me, mate? That's like the virus asking the
> > sufferer what's ailing him.
>
> Simple question directed at a simple object.
But a simpleton whose apparently capable of nothing more.
> Nothing more than concern for
> your well being.
>
> Altruistic bugger, me.
>
If that's what drives you bugger, you already do your share by standing
diametrically opposed to the Jewish point of view. I'd be more worried
if you stood with us.
> >
> >>
> >> Good! My efforts are not in vain.
> >
> > I never said it would be. Your efforts are towards embarrassing
> > yourself, and they certainly haven't been in vain.
>
> Right! Keep you hook nosed cunts hopping, don't I.
Last time you commented on by "breasts". I'll bet you didn't do very
well in anatomy class did you? Then again, why should that one class
stand out?
Moreover, your need to refer to female body parts whatever the context
is quite revealing. It certainly helps explains your obvious
frustrations that are somehow made manifest in these NGs.
>
>
>
> >
Ron Jacobson
Ben Cramer <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I didn't lie at all, daffy.
Of course you did, scum.
In Message-ID: <dvj35h$u3h$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>
you wrote: "'No gassing took place in any camp on Germany soil.'
(Nazi-Hunter Simon Wisenthal, in his Books and Bookmen, p. 5)".
However, this sentence does not appear in Wiesenthal's letter
published in p. 5 of "Books and Bookmen" (April 1975).
Why did you lie, scum?
RJ.
William Daffer
> "William Daffer" <whda...@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2PKdnQgzTeVcn7fZ...@giganews.com...
>> "Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> "William Daffer" <whda...@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3MmdnYYCxPq...@giganews.com...
>>>> "Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> "Dr. Gassen Burnham" <gasenb...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1143464241.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> Yep...the old kike was a patents clerk who stole the work of the
>>>>>> superior man (whites).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't it just oh so jewish?
>>>>>
>>>>> Watch this space, Mate. I've got shitloads more to come.
>>>>
>>>> And each as stupid and wretched as the last.
>>>>
>>>> When I complained that the only 'history' you know is what you read
>>>> from denier websites I had no idea that you would be so stupid as to
>>>> prove that fact beyond all doubt by posting a positive deluge of
>>>> cut-n-paste jobs from denier websites!
>>>
>>> Why is it, that anything which comes from any site not yid sanctioned, is
>>> automatically a "denier" website?
>>
>> Because it is.
>
> By whose definition?
By any definition ammenable to reason. Which leaves yours out.
>
>>
>>> And what is it, that makes their comments any less pertinent than those
>>> coming from yid sanctioned websites?
>>>
>>> Care to explain that?
>
> You want I should draw pictures already?
You're talking to yourself, nitwit. (Hint: count the chevrons)
>
>>
>> Because they, like you, lie about the evidence, Like you did about
>> the Weisenthal quote.
>
> I didn't lie at all, daffy. I posted the exact quote as reported in Stars
> and Stripes, and followed it up with a quote from Nizkor.
No, stupid. You quoted an article from a deniers website that
'quoted' the letter. What's on Nizkor is the actual letter. The
quotes aren't the same.
Which means that the article you posted lied about the contents of
the letter. You're just too stupid to see it.
> As we all know, much of what is posted on nizkor, is shite.
Says the man who can't see that two articles he posted quoted the
same letter using different, inconsistent quotes.
>
>>
>> However, as much as it's fun to rub your nose in the lies you post
>> here regularly, your 'rebuttal' is actually beside the point
>> here. My comment was about you not knowing any *real* history, that
>> is, your only knowledge of the subject comes from denier websites.
>>
>> Clearly I'm correct to say this. Whether you argue that denier
>> websites are a reliable source of information is completely
>> irrelevent. Whether reliable or not it is nevertheless true that
>> they are *your only source*, as you've made abundantly clear in this
>> last week.
>>
>> So when you claim that you've read 'normative history,' that's just
>> another of your lies, like your lie about what Weisenthal said.
>
> I've read everything posted by the pathological liar jacobsOn,
You a bare-faced liar. You evidence absolutely no such
understanding.
Your only source for your crap is denier's websites.
[snip]
>> Which means that I've won this debate on the larger issue: you're
>> too ignorant to 'criticize' the normative account because you don't
>> know it.
>
> Only if you say so, daffy. And of course you're the sole keeper of the
> truth, aren't you.
If the race is between you and I, then yes.
whd
--
I've told you on many occasions now rozenstein - I'm not a yid - ergo - I
can't be a fraud.
From: "Ben Cramer" <[REMOVE]bencram...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 00:41:02 +1000
Message-ID: <dlvam3$30gs$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>
Ron Jacobson
Ben Cramer <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
(snip)
Benjie, can you please elaborate further on those "shitty
experiences with hallucinogenics" you had? Message-ID:
<1125145048.cafe8828396fceebe6c6eb01bec409b3@teranews>.
Seems you suffered some serious damage. Why don't you
seek help?
RJ.
Joe Bruno
ataturkey wrote:
> Roger wrote:
> [...]
> > Got anything better?
>
> This looks pretty convincing to me:
> ------------------------------------
> Was Einstein's Wife His Silent Collaborator? A recent PBS documentary
> highlights the role that Albert Einstein's first wife, Mileva Maric,
> may have played in the development of his theories of relativity,
> his ... Arguing about Einstein's wife. A strong accusation: Albert
> Einstein: the Incorrigible Plagiarist ...
> womenshistory.about.com
> ------------------------------------
You would take something at face value, without a shred of evidence to
support a single word of it.
That's why we're laughing at you.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be ataturkey wrote
in message
>Roger wrote:
>[...]
>> Got anything better?
>This looks pretty convincing to me:
>------------------------------------
>Was Einstein's Wife His Silent Collaborator? A recent PBS documentary
>highlights the role that Albert Einstein's first wife, Mileva Maric,
>may have played in the development of his theories of relativity,
>quantum physics, and Brownian motion. He doesn't even mention her in
>his ...
... autobiographies. A demonstrably untruth given that none of the
books written by Einstein can really be considered as any kind of
comprehensive autobiography.
>Arguing about Einstein's wife. A strong accusation: Albert
>Einstein: the Incorrigible Plagiarist ...
>womenshistory.about.com
>------------------------------------
Except for the small fact, contained in the part you keep snipping,
that this entire thing is based on a misreading of a single fragment
of a single document on another topic altogether.
Why do you keep trying to pretend that this doesn't trash your thesis?
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be ataturkey wrote
in message
>Joe Bruno wrote:
>> You would take something at face value, without a shred of evidence to
>> support a single word of it.
>It is a reference to a recent PBS documentary and they are usually well
>researched.
*Usually*. But what about the fact that they are demonstrably *wrong*
about Joffe ?
bazz...@yahoo.com
>Theft is a legal term, dinglebrain. Theft involves taking something
>that is legally the property of another. If those others had
>copyrighted their ideas, we could call it theft.
As a matter of law that would be copyright "infringement" not "theft".
Theft involves tangilble property.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be ataturkey wrote
in message
>Roger wrote:
>> >> You would take something at face value, without a shred of evidence to
>> >> support a single word of it.
>> >It is a reference to a recent PBS documentary and they are usually well
>> >researched.
>> *Usually*. But what about the fact that they are demonstrably *wrong*
>> about Joffe ?
>Are we supposed to disregards the PBS documentary and just take your
>word for it?
No, you're supposed to have read the citation I keep including and you
keep snipping.
Here it is again, so you can demonstrate your fundamental dishonesty
and intellectual bankruptcy by running away again:
<restore>
<quote>
The documentary and website state "In 1955, a Soviet physicist (now
deceased) claimed that he personally saw the original manuscripts and
that Mileva's name appeared as co-author." They refer to Abram Joffe
and reproduce a fragment of a page on which the name "Einstein-Marity"
appears in Russian. (Maric used her surname in the form "Marity" when
Joffe met her when once seeking Einstein in Switzerland.)
But Joffe made no such claim. What he actually wrote, in an obituary
for Einstein in 1955, was "In 1905, three articles appeared in the
Annalen der Physik which began three very important branches of
20th-century physics. Those were the theory of Brownian motion, the
photon theory of light, and the theory of relativity. The author of
these articles, an unknown person at the time, was a bureaucrat at the
Patent Office in Bern, Einstein-Marity (Marity - the maiden name of
his wife, which by Swiss custom is added to the husband's family
name)."
</quote>
Got anything better?
</restore>
>The work of most scientists is hardly ever questioned
Demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the concept of "peer
reviewed journals."
>and the charges of plagiarism and theft are not at all common.
... because they are so easily proven.
>There are those who believe that Einstein was a plagiarist and a thief
... in complete contradiction of the known facts...
>while
>others (mostly Jews) will not even consider that there may be some
>truth to the accusations.
Your proof that it is "mostly Jews" who realize that no scientific
advance was made in a vacuum, but that building on the work of others
is not theft?
>While I am not yet convinced one way or
>another, your obviously biased arguments
Other than a bias for the truth, what "obvious bias" do you see in my
pointing out your willful ignorance of the facts of this matter?
>suggest that it is more likely
>than not that if there is smoke, there is fire.
But you haven't shown any smoke which is not based on a misreading of
a single fragment of a single document on another topic altogether.
Funny, that.
Joe Bruno
ataturkey wrote:
> researched.
It doesn't make a definite statement. It merely begins a controversy by
asking a tricky question, genius. That sort of question is designed to
pique your curiousity so you'll watch the program to get the answer.
You still have reading problems.
> >
> > That's why we're laughing at you.
>
> We? Do you speak for the Nazis or the Zionazis?
I don't speak for anyone, so take a poll and you'll find out.
>
Ben Cramer
There's shit loads been posted about einstein's being a plagiarist cunt,
joey. You're just too dim to be able to comprehend it, is all.
>
> That's why we're laughing at you.
Nope. You provide the laughter, you useless, worn out, has been dopey old
fart.
>