Antisemitic ramblings against Einstein
jacob navia
Valev, and many others.
What is new now is that a lot of antisemitic hate posts start appearing
like from this "Androcles":
<quote>
Why did you lie about the stupid Jew Einstein saying
<end quote>
The problem is that these people are the only ones left after
all others give up usenet because of their pile of shit.
sci.astro is one of the best examples of how they work. Almost
all posts are about their "theories".
I tried to tell Valev, for instance about the recent
experiment of NASA confirming the theories of Einstein.
I wrote:
<quote>
NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment
May 4, 2011: Einstein was right again. There is a space-time vortex
around Earth, and its shape precisely matches the predictions of
Einstein's theory of gravity.
Researchers confirmed these points at a press conference today at NASA
headquarters where they announced the long-awaited results of Gravity
Probe B (GP-B).
"The space-time around Earth appears to be distorted just as general
relativity predicts," says Stanford University physicist Francis
Everitt, principal investigator of the Gravity Probe B mission.
see
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic
<end quote>
The answer was 40 lines more of his stuff without ANY reference
to the experiment I pointed to. It is like talking to a
machine that has always the same answer for you no matter
your question.
Impossible either to reason with "hanson" that is an
antisemitic "no einstein" supporter apparently because
Einstein was a jew, like his buddy "Androcles"
Another crackpot is Archimedes Plutonium.
He is somebody that thinks that our knowledge
of the earth core is based on radar surveys...
I pointed out to him that it is easy to see that radio waves
do not go very far into the earth: Just start talking with
somebody in your cellphone and enter into the next subway
station and see how signal quality goes down, specially in the middle
of the tunnel. EM waves do not go beyond a few METERS into the earth...
Imagine scanning earth's core with EM waves!
Answer: I read too much books, etc etc. Obviously, he reads nothing.
He has no idea of anything and postulates that the sun has an iron
core like the earth... When I point him out that there is a small
difference between a star and a minuscule planet more nonsense
comes as a reply.
I do not speak about "wretch fossil" because it is so stupid I
never even tried to argue with him.
Most of these people are reactionary know nothings that think
attacking "the jew Einstein" will give them "scientist" status.
Obviously this post is not to try to convince them (or even try to start
a discussion with them) but to underscore that their antisemitic
ramblings do not go unnoticed and that there are people in Usenet
that still can tell a crackpot from a scientist.
jacob navia
Sam Wormley
> sci.astro is one of the best examples of how they work. Almost
> all posts are about their "theories".
Maybe it's time to ride back into sci.astro and clean up that town!
ben6993
If you feel that strongly, why don't you start a new group called eg
"sci.physics.noabuse", where you will be the moderator? You can
ensure that abusive posters do not get listed. There may be room for
a group which is moderated for abuse but not aimed solely at experts
as in dot_research and dot_foundations.
Archimedes Plutonium
(snipped)
>
> Another crackpot isArchimedesPlutonium.
>
> He is somebody that thinks that our knowledge
> of the earth core is based on radar surveys...
>
You lack comprehension of what scientists write and post to the
sci.newsgroups.
> I pointed out to him that it is easy to see that radio waves
> do not go very far into the earth: Just start talking with
> somebody in your cellphone and enter into the next subway
> station and see how signal quality goes down, specially in the middle
> of the tunnel. EM waves do not go beyond a few METERS into the earth...
> Imagine scanning earth's core with EM waves!
>
Jacob cannot even hold a science discussion with anyone, for he looks
to enter
a conversation only to misunderstand what the other person is saying,
and only
to gather misinformation on how to attack that other person.
When the location of the iron in the Sun which is about the volume of
Jupiter in whole
is rather unknown, where that iron is located, then we would try using
about almost
anything to reveal where it is located such as using radar or EM or
perhaps laser,
of some type, any type to try to reveal the location of iron in the
Sun.
To a nonscientist, like Jacob, trying to uncover what is not known--
the location
of iron in the Sun, is not a trip that can ever be taken, and only the
realization
that Jacob is not a scientist, and likely never to be one.
To someone of no science-mind like Jacob, then bouncing ideas off of
him is like
bouncing off of nothing.
> Answer: I read too much books, etc etc. Obviously, he reads nothing.
> He has no idea of anything and postulates that the sun has an iron
> core like the earth... When I point him out that there is a small
> difference between a star and a minuscule planet more nonsense
> comes as a reply.
>
> I do not speak about "wretch fossil" because it is so stupid I
> never even tried to argue with him.
Trouble with Jacob is that every book or magazine that endorses a
scientist
with a illogical idea, then Jacob accepts that idea with full faith
and never applies reason
or logic. And it ends up with Jacob bullying the scientist. Because
the Big Bang theory is everywhere in print, or that the Sun is a gas
even though it has iron the volume of Jupiter, that Jacob thus accepts
it
without question and attacks any idea against Big Bang or Sun as gas.
Based on Jacob's posts to the Internet, I recommend that his degree in
any science, be revoked
by that College or University that gave him that degree, and that it
is better to have his degree in science revoked rather than him
harming young
students with his bully nonscience-nonsense-attitude and illogic.He
has no mind in doing science-- and quick at
bullying others who are doing science
and is only going to do harm in science to those young and wanting to
learn science.
Let us use the Internet of posters in science newsgroups to weed them
out of education
in science, of these bully types, who really only talk about fighting
people, bullying people,
namecalling people, demonizing people.
One of the weaknesses of education in science is that educators rarely
tell people that they
have no science mind to prosper in science and just pass them with
passing grades to move them
up and out from under their responsibility, when they should have
given them a failing grade
and pointed them in a different career path. When I was in school, it
was called "grade inflation"
or "the curve".
So let us start using the SCI. NEWSGROUPS as an extension of a college
or university degree in science
and based on posts to that newsgroup such as Jacob's bullying posts
above and namecalling and demonizing.
Based on that, Jacob's degree in whatever science be revoked by that
College or University. Or, that
college or university posts that Jacob never had a degree in any
science.
> jacob navia
hanson
goyim made you crank yourself grievously, didn't they.
I am so sorry that they put a kink in your fine Yarmulke.
>
Ain't that a shame "Jewcap Naviass", a shame indeed,
isn't it. But "Naviass" listen", it is no longer the 1960s'
when you kikes were able to feed any shit, unquestioned,
to your goyim (your cattle) and brainwash him into
believing that ==== Jewish Shit don't stink =====
>
Dreg, Dreidel and Deranged kike "jacob navia"
aka "Jewcap Naviass"<ja...@spamsink.net>, is a
fanatical Einstein Dingleberry that worships Albert's
sphincter, but ran out of logic & scientific arguments
and so he politicized it, admitted defeat & waved his
"Anti-Semitism"-Flag, like kikes always do & he cried:
"Oye weh!"... "Trust Me!"... "Go Figure"...
>
Bigot & "Jew Nut" "jacob navia" <ja...@spamsink.net>
is a hate-filled & deranged full-kike & an embarrassment
and danger for the well-being of the Jewish community,
since he, Jacob Navia is an example who does cause
"Anti-Semitism" and he is a prime exhibit of "why Jews
are disliked", as is seen in Naviass' deranged ranting:
"Jewcap Naviass" wrote:
> There were always idiots complaining about
> Einstein's theories, like Valev, and a lot of
> antisemitic hate from this "Androcles", who said
> <quote> "the stupid Jew Einstein <end quote>.
>
> I tried to tell Valev abouit the results of Gravity
> Probe B (GP-B)... [[[[ which was cancelled since
> no value was found in spending tax money for
> Einstein's useless shit ]]]]]... Valevs' answer has
> always the same answer no matter my question.
>
> Impossible either to reason with "hanson" that is
> an antisemitic "no einstein" supporter apparently
> because Einstein was a jew, like his buddy "Androcles"
>
> Another crackpot is Archimedes Plutonium.
> I pointed out to him more nonsense but more comes
> back as a reply. Poster "wretch fossil" it is so stupid
> I never even tried to argue with him.
>
> these people are reactionary know nothings that think
> attacking "the jew Einstein" will give them "scientist" status.
>
hanson wrote:
No, Naviass, that only seems to you to be this way, cuz
you don't wanna admit that you are a very miserable and
full-fledged loser & an abject failure for making your case
that ==== Jewish shit don't stink === and that therefore
it still holds, in Kubblee Wulee's epic words, that
== Einstein is a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug> ==.
>
"Jewcap Naviass" wrote:
> Obviously this post is not to try to convince them
> (or even try to start > a discussion with them) but to
> underscore that their antisemitic ramblings do not go
> unnoticed and that there are people in Usenet that
> still can tell a crackpot from a scientist.
> jacob navia, lovingly known as "Jewcap Naviass"
>
hanson wrote:
... AHAHAHAHA... Naviass", obviously you have
not convinced ANYBODY, not even the posters
who responded to you... The reason why so, is
simple: You do not know what a scientist is, & you
have no idea what "Anti Semitism" is neither,
but you are struck in your ingrained fanaticism that
==== Jewish shit don't stink === BUT IT DOES,
as is obvious by the many of your Dingleberries
that you constantly post, even under other handles.
>
Thanks for the laughs, "Jewcap Naviass"... Go, iron
your Yarmulke now... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahanson
hanson
goyim made you crank yourself grievously, didn't they.
I am so sorry that they put a kink in your fine Yarmulke.
>
Ain't that a shame "Jewcap Naviass", a shame indeed,
isn't it. But "Naviass" listen", it is no longer the 1960s'
when you kikes were able to feed any shit, unquestioned,
to your goyim (your cattle) and brainwash him into
believing that ==== Jewish Shit don't stink =====
>
Dreg, Dreidel and Deranged kike "jacob navia"
aka "Jewcap Naviass"<ja...@spamsink.net>, is a
fanatical Einstein Dingleberry that worships Albert's
sphincter, but ran out of logic & scientific arguments
and so he politicized it, admitted defeat & waved his
"Anti-Semitism"-Flag, like kikes always do & he cried:
"Oye weh!"... "Trust Me!"... "Go Figure"...
>
Bigot & "Jew Nut" "jacob navia" <ja...@spamsink.net>
is a hate-filled & deranged full-kike & an embarrassment
and danger for the well-being of the Jewish community,
since he, Jacob Navia is an example who does cause
"Anti-Semitism" and he is a prime exhibit of "why Jews
are disliked", as is seen in Naviass' deranged ranting:
"Jewcap Naviass" wrote:
> There were always idiots complaining about
> Einstein's theories, like Valev, and a lot of
> antisemitic hate from this "Androcles", who said
> <quote> "the stupid Jew Einstein <end quote>.
>
> I tried to tell Valev abouit the results of Gravity
> Probe B (GP-B)... [[[[ which was cancelled since
> no value was found in spending tax money for
> Einstein's useless shit ]]]]]... Valevs' answer has
> always the same answer no matter my question.
>
> Impossible either to reason with "hanson" that is
> an antisemitic "no einstein" supporter apparently
> because Einstein was a jew, like his buddy "Androcles"
>
> Another crackpot is Archimedes Plutonium.
> I pointed out to him more nonsense but more comes
> back as a reply. Poster "wretch fossil" it is so stupid
> I never even tried to argue with him.
>
> these people are reactionary know nothings that think
> attacking "the jew Einstein" will give them "scientist" status.
>
hanson wrote:
No, Naviass, that only seems to you to be this way, cuz
you don't wanna admit that you are a very miserable and
full-fledged loser & an abject failure for making your case
that ==== Jewish shit don't stink === and that therefore
it still holds, in Kubblee Wulee's epic words, that
== Einstein is a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug> ==.
>
"Jewcap Naviass" wrote:
> Obviously this post is not to try to convince them
> (or even try to start > a discussion with them) but to
> underscore that their antisemitic ramblings do not go
> unnoticed and that there are people in Usenet that
> still can tell a crackpot from a scientist.
Anders Eklöf
You seem to have invented a new sport on usenet:
- How many trolls can you feed in a single post?
Having said that, of course you´re right :-(
--
I recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines
to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour
hanson
>
""Anders Eklöf"" <andekl_no@saaf_spam.se> wrote:
Congratulations jake.
You seem to have invented a new sport on usenet:
- How many trolls can you feed in a single post?
Having said that, of course you´re right :-(
>
... ahahaha... so, Eklöf, you must be one of those
trolls then... ahahaha... Are you also an Anti-Semite
like kike "jacob navia" is, or are you just one of those
garden variety Einstein Dingleberries that worship
Albert's sphincter but don't know why, except that
you believe that ==== Jewish Shit don't stink ====.
Here, for your befit, is the elucidation again.. and
thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
>
>
ahahahahahaha... Awww... awww... "Oye weh!"... the
goyim made you crank yourself grievously, didn't they.
I am so sorry that they put a kink in your fine Yarmulke.
>
Ain't that a shame "Jewcap Naviass", a shame indeed,
isn't it. But "Naviass" listen", it is no longer the 1960s'
when you kikes were able to feed any shit, unquestioned,
to your goyim (your cattle) and brainwash him into
believing that ==== Jewish Shit don't stink =====
>
Dreg, Dreidel and Deranged kike "jacob navia"
aka "Jewcap Naviass"<ja...@spamsink.net>, is a
fanatical Einstein Dingleberry that worships Albert's
sphincter, but ran out of logic & scientific arguments
and so he politicized it, admitted defeat & waved his
"Anti-Semitism"-Flag, like kikes always do & he cried:
"Oye weh!"... "Trust Me!"... "Go Figure"...
>
Bigot & "Jew Nut" "jacob navia" <ja...@spamsink.net>
is a hate-filled & deranged full-kike & an embarrassment
and danger for the well-being of the Jewish community,
since he, Jacob Navia is an example who does cause
"Anti-Semitism" and he is a prime exhibit of "why Jews
are disliked", as is seen in Naviass' deranged ranting:
"Jewcap Naviass" wrote:
> There were always idiots complaining about
> Einstein's theories, like Valev, and a lot of
> antisemitic hate from this "Androcles", who said
> <quote> "the stupid Jew Einstein <end quote>.
>
> I tried to tell Valev abouit the results of Gravity
> Probe B (GP-B)... [[[[ which was cancelled since
> no value was found in spending tax money for
> Einstein's useless shit ]]]]]... Valevs' answer has
> always the same answer no matter my question.
>
> Impossible either to reason with "hanson" that is
> an antisemitic "no einstein" supporter apparently
> because Einstein was a jew, like his buddy "Androcles"
>
> Another crackpot is Archimedes Plutonium.
> I pointed out to him more nonsense but more comes
> back as a reply. Poster "wretch fossil" it is so stupid
> I never even tried to argue with him.
>
> these people are reactionary know nothings that think
> attacking "the jew Einstein" will give them "scientist" status.
>
hanson wrote:
No, Naviass, that only seems to you to be this way, cuz
you don't wanna admit that you are a very miserable and
full-fledged loser & an abject failure for making your case
that ==== Jewish shit don't stink === and that therefore
it still holds, in Kubblee Wulee's epic words, that
== Einstein is a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug> ==.
>
"Jewcap Naviass" wrote:
> Obviously this post is not to try to convince them
> (or even try to start > a discussion with them) but to
> underscore that their antisemitic ramblings do not go
> unnoticed and that there are people in Usenet that
> still can tell a crackpot from a scientist.
Jacob
>...
>is a hate-filled & deranged full-kike & an embarrassment
>and danger for the well-being of the ... community,
>since he, ...is an example who does cause
> "Anti-Semitism" and he is a prime exhibit of "why Jews
>are disliked",
Hardly.
>> Impossible either to reason with "hanson"
Apparently so.
>hanson wrote:
>== Einstein is a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug> ==.
If so, that still doesn't make relativity wrong.
Is that your science: Theory disproof by character assassination?
>hanson wrote:
>... AHAHAHAHA... Naviass", obviously you have
>not convinced ANYBODY
Say you.
Project much?
Actually, convincing was not necessary.
As Uncle Al would say (though he would use Latin):
"The thing speaks for itself."
hanson
"Jacob" aka "Jewcap Naviass", <as...@hsu.edu> who
has no edu, said he was a nobody, which c an be
seen when he wrote:
>
As Uncle Al would say (though he would use Latin):
"The thing speaks for itself."
>
ahaha... AHAHA... you using Uncle rect-Al Schwartz
as a reference speaks indeed for yourself ...ahahaha...
>
Navia, you using uncle rect-Al is a self-indictment for
your absent memory because you look up to a kike,
Alan Schwartz, that is your idol and icon, who
1) had only a BSc in Chemistry and who plagiarized
the R&D results from Canadian Goyim, yet rect-Al
was unable to sell a cock-roach repellent that he
concocted form it: --- rect-Al Failure 1.
2) plagiarized and misused the work of others to
"make Einstein sweat" (rect-Al's words) & to overthrow
SR/GR with his unsuccessful Eotvos and Benzil
experiments: --- rect-Al Failure 2 & 3.
3) promised to produce pound size gem-quality
Diamonds that never materialized out of his rect-Al
devil-solvent: -- rect-Al Failure 4.
......... drum roll...... drum roll...... drum roll......
4) rect-Al's SUCCESS:... ahahahaha... he conned
heaps of posters, like you, into making himself into
an idol and role model for the feeble minded, like
yourself,... ahahahaha....
>
with such a low bar, typical for you, one can only say:
Jacob... Awww... awww... "Oye weh!"... the goyim
I am so sorry that they put a kink in your fine Yarmulke.
>
Ain't that a shame "Jewcap Naviass", a shame indeed,
isn't it. But "Naviass" listen", it is no longer the 1960s'
when you kikes were able to feed any shit, unquestioned,
to your goyim (your cattle) and brainwash him into
believing that ==== Jewish Shit don't stink =====
>
Dreg, Dreidel and Deranged kike "jacob navia"
aka "Jewcap Naviass"<ja...@spamsink.net>, is a
fanatical Einstein Dingleberry that worships Albert's
sphincter, but ran out of logic & scientific arguments
and so he politicized it, admitted defeat & waved his
"Anti-Semitism"-Flag, like kikes always do & he cried:
"Oye weh!"... "Trust Me!"... "Go Figure"...
>
Bigot & "Jew Nut" "jacob navia" <ja...@spamsink.net>
"Anti-Semitism" and he is a prime exhibit of "why Jews
== Einstein is a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug> ==.
>
"Jewcap Naviass" wrote:
> Obviously this post is not to try to convince them
> (or even try to start > a discussion with them) but to
> underscore that their antisemitic ramblings do not go
> unnoticed and that there are people in Usenet that
> still can tell a crackpot from a scientist.
> jacob navia, lovingly known as "Jewcap Naviass"
>
hanson wrote:
... AHAHAHAHA... Naviass", obviously you have
Martin Brown
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 14:14:22 -0700, hanson wrote:
>
>> ...
>> and danger for the well-being of the ... community,
>> since he, ...is an example who does cause
>> "Anti-Semitism" and he is a prime exhibit of "why Jews
>> are disliked",
>
> Hardly.
Please just put ahhahahahaHanson in your killfile. He is a prime example
of why you should never distil mercury on the open bench.
Mad as a hatter and getting worse by the day.
He seems to have developed a really nasty antisemitic streak too.
>>> Impossible either to reason with "hanson"
>
> Apparently so.
So why bother trying? Hanson never says anything of worth and is even
more foul mouthed than Androcles. Kill file him and be done with it.
sci.astro & sci.physics.* are only readable with aggressive killfile
these days unless you enjoy delusional nutter bating.
Remember the old Usenet maxim about not wrestling with pigs.
Regards,
Martin Brown
jacob navia
>
> So why bother trying? Hanson never says anything of worth and is even
> more foul mouthed than Androcles. Kill file him and be done with it.
> sci.astro & sci.physics.* are only readable with aggressive killfile
> these days unless you enjoy delusional nutter bating.
>
> Remember the old Usenet maxim about not wrestling with pigs.
>
The problem with that, and that is why I posted against those nuts, is
that NEW people coming to the group do not have killfiles and are
confronted to all this crap without ever seeing that there are
OTHER people in the group. They conclude that all the people in the
group AGREE with hanson, androcles et al.
That is why Usenet is dying. No newcomers...
jacob
hanson
Remember the old Usenet maxim about not wrestling with pigs.
>>
The problem with that is ... that they conclude that all the
people in the group AGREE with hanson, androcles et al.
>
ahahaha... Jackie-baby, listen: Martin Brown, the Farting
Clown, assumes that you are a pig, like him, and he wants
to wrestle with you... ahahahaha... over the precious
value of this here, which you should take to heart, Jabcob:
>
... AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha....Still cranking himself
"Jacob" aka "Jewcap Naviass", <as...@hsu.edu> who
has no edu, said he was a nobody, which c an be
seen when he wrote:
>
As Uncle Al would say (though he would use Latin):
"The thing speaks for itself."
>
hanson wrote:
ahaha... AHAHA... you using Uncle rect-Al Schwartz
as a reference speaks indeed for yourself ...ahahaha...
>
Navia, you using uncle rect-Al is a self-indictment for
your absent memory because you look up to a kike,
Alan Schwartz, that is your idol and icon, who
1) had only a BSc in Chemistry and who plagiarized
the R&D results from Canadian Goyim, yet rect-Al
was unable to sell a cock-roach repellent that he
concocted form it: --- rect-Al Failure 1.
2) plagiarized and misused the work of others to
"make Einstein sweat" (rect-Al's words) & to overthrow
SR/GR with his unsuccessful Eotvos and Benzil
experiments: --- rect-Al Failure 2 & 3.
3) promised to produce pound size gem-quality
Diamonds that never materialized out of his rect-Al
devil-solvent: -- rect-Al Failure 4.
......... drum roll...... drum roll...... drum roll......
4) rect-Al's SUCCESS:... ahahahaha... he conned
heaps of posters, like you, into making himself into
an idol and role model for the feeble minded, like
yourself,... ahahahaha....
>
with such a low bar, typical for you, one can only say:
Jacob... Awww... awww... "Oye weh!"... the goyim
made you crank yourself grievously, didn't they.
I am so sorry that they put a kink in your fine Yarmulke.
>
Ain't that a shame "Jewcap Naviass", a shame indeed,
isn't it. But "Naviass" listen", it is no longer the 1960s'
when you kikes were able to feed any shit, unquestioned,
to your goyim (your cattle) and brainwash him into
believing that ==== Jewish Shit don't stink =====
>
Dreg, Dreidel and Deranged kike "jacob navia"
aka "Jewcap Naviass"<ja...@spamsink.net>, is a
fanatical Einstein Dingleberry that worships Albert's
sphincter, but ran out of logic & scientific arguments
and so he politicized it, admitted defeat & waved his
"Anti-Semitism"-Flag, like kikes always do & he cried:
"Oye weh!"... "Trust Me!"... "Go Figure"...
>
Bigot & "Jew Nut" "jacob navia" <ja...@spamsink.net>
is a hate-filled & deranged full-kike & an embarrassment
and danger for the well-being of the Jewish community,
since he, Jacob Navia is an example who does cause
"Anti-Semitism" and he is a prime exhibit of "why Jews
== Einstein is a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug> ==.
>
"Jewcap Naviass" wrote:
> Obviously this post is not to try to convince them (or even try to start >
> a discussion with them) but to underscore that their antisemitic ramblings
> do not go unnoticed and that there are people in Usenet that still can
> tell a crackpot from a scientist.
> jacob navia, lovingly known as "Jewcap Naviass"
hanson wrote:
... AHAHAHAHA... Naviass", obviously you have
hanson
Jewish Cattle/goyim "Martin Brown", the Farting Clown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> cranked himself,
had no logic arguments but in his emotional despair he too
raise his Anti-Semitism flag, whined and wrote:
> "Jewcap Naviass", Please just put ahhahahahaHanson in your killfile.
> He seems to have developed a really nasty antisemitic streak too.
> So why bother trying? Hanson never says anything of worth and
> is even more foul mouthed than Androcles. Kill file him and be
> done with it. sci.astro & sci.physics.* are only readable with
> aggressive killfile these days unless you enjoy delusional nutter
> bating. R emember the old Usenet maxim about not wrestling with
> pigs. -- Regards, Martin Brown. the Farting Clown
>
>
>
hanson wrote:
Fucken-A-right you are, Fartin Martin. Killfile me so that you
don't have to see my posts. Most of the dingbats, kikes and
kikeophile Kacksies, like yourself, do NOT have the back
bone to stay way from me but follow me like lonesome, hungry
street mutts, who yearn for my company and hope to get
their inellectual sustenance from my pearls of wisdom....
ahahahahaha... Here is one of them:
>
... AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha....Still cranking himself
"Jacob" aka "Jewcap Naviass", <as...@hsu.edu> who
has no edu, said he was a nobody, which c an be
seen when....
>
Navia wrote:
As Uncle Al would say (though he would use Latin):
"The thing speaks for itself."
>
hanson wrote:
ahaha... AHAHA... you using Uncle rect-Al Schwartz
as a reference speaks indeed for yourself ...ahahaha...
>
Navia, you using uncle rect-Al is a self-indictment for
your absent memory because you look up to a kike,
Alan Schwartz, that is your idol and icon, who
1) had only a BSc in Chemistry and who plagiarized
the R&D results from Canadian Goyim, yet rect-Al
was unable to sell a cock-roach repellent that he
concocted form it: --- rect-Al Failure 1.
2) plagiarized and misused the work of others to
"make Einstein sweat" (rect-Al's words) & to overthrow
SR/GR with his unsuccessful Eotvos and Benzil
experiments: --- rect-Al Failure 2 & 3.
3) promised to produce pound size gem-quality
Diamonds that never materialized out of his rect-Al
devil-solvent: -- rect-Al Failure 4.
......... drum roll...... drum roll...... drum roll......
4) rect-Al's SUCCESS:... ahahahaha... he conned
heaps of posters, like you, into making himself into
an idol and role model for the feeble minded, like
yourself,... ahahahaha....
>
with such a low bar, typical for you, one can only say:
Jacob... Awww... awww... "Oye weh!"... the goyim
made you crank yourself grievously, didn't they.
I am so sorry that they put a kink in your fine Yarmulke.
>
Ain't that a shame "Jewcap Naviass", a shame indeed,
isn't it. But "Naviass" listen", it is no longer the 1960s'
when you kikes were able to feed any shit, unquestioned,
to your goyim (your cattle) and brainwash him into
believing that ==== Jewish Shit don't stink =====
>
Dreg, Dreidel and Deranged kike "jacob navia"
aka "Jewcap Naviass"<ja...@spamsink.net>, is a
fanatical Einstein Dingleberry that worships Albert's
sphincter, but ran out of logic & scientific arguments
and so he politicized it, admitted defeat & waved his
"Anti-Semitism"-Flag, like kikes always do & he cried:
"Oye weh!"... "Trust Me!"... "Go Figure"...
>
Bigot & "Jew Nut" "jacob navia" <ja...@spamsink.net>
is a hate-filled & deranged full-kike & an embarrassment
and danger for the well-being of the Jewish community,
since he, Jacob Navia is an example who does cause
"Anti-Semitism" and he is a prime exhibit of "why Jews
== Einstein is a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug> ==.
>
"Jewcap Naviass" wrote:
> Obviously this post is not to try to convince them
> (or even try to start > a discussion with them) but to
> underscore that their antisemitic ramblings do not go
> unnoticed and that there are people in Usenet that
> still can tell a crackpot from a scientist.
> jacob navia, lovingly known as "Jewcap Naviass"
>
hanson wrote:
... AHAHAHAHA... Naviass", obviously you have
Michael Moroney
apparently hate relativity because Einstein was Jewish. It does answer a
question, why he seems to be reasonably knowledgeable as long as the topic
has nothing to do with relativity, once relativity is involved, he kooks
out. The other anti-Semites have little or nothing positive to
contribute.
FWIW, Einstein considered himself German.
hanson
>
Anti Semite "Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.com>
celebrated and promoted Anti-Semitism in message
news:iqi2ra$1h2$1...@pcls6.std.com... as he wrote:
>
I find it interesting that John Parker (Androcles) made
Einstein was Jewish. It does answer a question, why
he seems to be reasonably knowledgeable as long
as the topic has nothing to do with relativity, once relativity
Moroney ] have little or nothing positive to contribute.
FWIW, Einstein considered himself German.
>
Moroneye, you stupid Anti-Semite, as usual you don't
know what you are talking about.... ahahahaha....
>
Einstein renounced his German citizenship TWICE,
in 1896 (to dodge military draft) & in 1940 for US Cit.
>
Already ca 1920, Einstein buried his SR/GR, saying:
|||AE:||| If Relativity is correct, the Germans
|||AE:||| & the French will say that I am one of
|||AE:||| their citizens. - If SR/GR is wrong they
|||AE:||| will say that I am a Jew.
>
Well, by Einstein's own judgment SR/GR is wrong
cuz neither county offered him their Citizenship.
>
BTW, gooogle a bit (even in my archive) and see
in Einstein's own words when he said that his
SR/GR was useless (as a castle in the air) & that
he would have been happier if he had learned how
to be a plumber instead of a physicist....
>
So much for your useful contributions to
Anti-Semitism, Moroney you stupid fuck...
Thanks for the laughs, though.... ahahahahanson
Tom Roberts
> FWIW, Einstein considered himself German.
Except, of course, that he repudiated his German citizenship at age 15, and
later became a Swiss citizen. He renewed German citizenship to take a position
in Berlin, and renounced it again in 1940 to become a U.S. citizen.
My grandfather emigrated from Switzerland to the U.S.A. in the early 1900s, and
happened to own a dairy farm outside Princeton N.J. in the 1940s and 50s; he
knew Einstein as a fellow Swiss expatriate.
Tom Roberts
Jacob
>... AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha....Still cranking himself
>"Jacob" aka "Jewcap Naviass", <as...@hsu.edu> who
>has no edu, said he was a nobody, which c an be
>seen when he wrote:
>>
>As Uncle Al would say (though he would use Latin):
>"The thing speaks for itself."
>>
>hanson wrote:
>ahaha... AHAHA... you using Uncle rect-Al Schwartz
>as a reference speaks indeed for yourself ...ahahaha...
>>
>Navia, ...
Mr. Navia didn't write the post you quoted.
Get that knee-jerk reaction fixed.
Compare the names under which messages are posted.
Look at the headers.
Isn't your bigoted, narrow thinking able to fathom that there is more
than one person in the world named Jacob?
Duh!
jacob navia
The social security administration says that the
most popular babies names in 2010 are Jacob and
Isabella
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/babynames/
Hanson has a lot of work to do...
:-)
Koobee Wublee
> Michael Moroney wrote:
> > FWIW, Einstein considered himself German.
>
> Except, of course, that he repudiated his German citizenship at age 15, and
> later became a Swiss citizen.
How can a kid deny his own citizenship? The parents must have
everything to do with that so called decision, eh? <shrug>
> He renewed German citizenship to take a position
> in Berlin, and renounced it again in 1940 to become a U.S. citizen.
The nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was an on-going puppet in
1940. Someones else were thinking for the nitwit. <shrug>
> My grandfather emigrated from Switzerland to the U.S.A. in the early 1900s, and
> happened to own a dairy farm outside Princeton N.J. in the 1940s and 50s; he
> knew Einstein as a fellow Swiss expatriate.
How long did Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar have
that Swiss citizenship? As far as Yours Truly understands, Swiss
citizenship is very, very difficult to obtain if your grandparents
were not citizens. So, how did Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist,
and the liar obtain his Swiss citizenship so easily? <shrug>
Your grandfather was a farmer. Not meant to be an insult to your
grandfather, just what do you expect a farmer to tell a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar from a sage? <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> I find it interesting that Parker (Androcles) made the list of those who
> apparently hate relativity because Einstein was Jewish.
Your observation should be flushed down the toilet. <shrug>
> It does answer a
> question, why he seems to be reasonably knowledgeable as long as the topic
> has nothing to do with relativity, once relativity is involved, he kooks
> out.
See what Yours Truly means? Andro is mentally unstable. He is
tormented and haunted by his daughter’s spirit and also perhaps
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
> The other anti-Semites have little or nothing positive to
> contribute.
What are those again? The Semites are Palestinians and Arabs. The
Sephardic Jews are Aryans. The Ethiopian Jews are Ethiopians. The
Iranian Jews are also Iranians. The Chinese Jews are Chinese. The
Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of Khazars, a Turkish tribe. So, where
does this Semitic association of the Jews come from? Is it another
identity crisis to deny their ancestry in order to profit from a short
term gain? <shrug>
> FWIW, Einstein considered himself German.
Anyone ought to be proud of his origin and his ancestry. <shrug>
What propels someone to deny his ancestry by claiming an ancestry that
is obviously not true? Shameful of his ancestry, perhaps. <shrug>
hanson
>
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
Michael Moroney wrote:
FWIW, Einstein considered himself German.
>
Except, of course, that he repudiated his German
citizenship at age 15, and later became a Swiss citizen.
He renewed German citizenship to take a position
in Berlin, and renounced it again in 1940 to become
a U.S. citizen.
>
My grandfather emigrated from Switzerland to the
U.S.A. in the early 1900s, and happened to own a
dairy farm outside Princeton N.J. in the 1940s and 50s;
he knew Einstein as a fellow Swiss expatriate.
Tom Roberts>
>
This is rich, Tom, ...ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
Longtime Poster & octogenarian Herbert Glazier,
the mental giant and "G=EMC^2" handle dude,
posted & claimed that HIS father came from
Switzerland also, and that not his father, but that
he, Herbie, the TreberT not only knew, but that
he himself had audiences with Einstein. ...
>
SoTom, it could be that you and the TreberT are
brothers, long lost... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>
ahahaha.. That then is how legends get born, and
why Jews go: "Goyim!"... "Goyim!"!"... "Goyim!"
Thanks for the laughs guys... hahaha... ahahanson
hanson
>
Anti-Semite "Jacob" <as...@hsu.edu> who has no
edu, said he was a nobody & lied in classical kike
fashion and utterly cranked himself which can be
seen when he wrote:
>
As Uncle Al would say (though he would use Latin):
"The thing speaks for itself."
>
hanson wrote:
ahaha... AHAHA... you using Uncle rect-Al Schwartz
as a reference speaks indeed for yourself ...ahahaha...
>
hanson
>
Anti-Semite "jacob navia" <ja...@spamsink.net>
is making sure to take advantage of the situation
to spread his virulent Anti-Semitism as can be
seen in what he wrote:
>
hanson a écrit :
Dreg, Dreidel and Deranged kike "jacob navia"
>
P.S. But of course, go on, I am a jew.
>
hanson wrote:
No "jewcap naviass" you are a Dreg, Dreidel and
Deranged kike with the following MO:
Step 1: Kikes loud-mouth and put the goyim down.
Step 2: Kikes lose argument, then cry "Anti-Semitism".
Step 3: Kikes cry "I am the virtuous victim".
Step 4: Kikes bring up the Holocaust.
Step 5: A few kikes realize that it is they, the
Kikes themselves, that with step 1 they
did cause and generate Anti-Semitism and
bring disrespect to the Jewish community.
>
Navia, you Dreg, Dreidel and Deranged Kike you
have done step 1 and 2, and you are now between
step 2 & 3... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA....
>
Kike Navia wrote:
most popular names of 2010 are Jacob and Isabella
Maybe you could consider that in your blind
antisemitism you are just seeing Jews everywhere.
>
hanson wrote:
... ahahahaha... See, my many posts with my good
Israeli friend Yehiel Porat. I like Jews. I grew up
amongst them. It was great fun. I loved it. But YOU
Navia, you are not like them. You are a KIKE and
a Dreg, Dreidel and Deranged Jew who CAUSES
Anti-Semitism, and it is kikes like you, "Jewcap Naviass",
that are a danger to the well being of the Jewish
community as can be seen in your initial post below.
Here it is again, for your benefit, you self-aggrandizing
Shaggitz:
>
> ------------------
>
... AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha....Still cranking himself
"Jacob" aka "Jewcap Naviass", <as...@hsu.edu> who
seen when he wrote:
>
As Uncle Al would say (though he would use Latin):
"The thing speaks for itself."
>
hanson wrote:
ahaha... AHAHA... you using Uncle rect-Al Schwartz
as a reference speaks indeed for yourself ...ahahaha...
>
hanson
... and the crankeree for the crankeroo of the
crankeration in this crankatorium is shifted into
the next higher gear:
>
>
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Michael Moroney wrote:
>
Michael Moroney wrote:
FWIW, Einstein considered himself German.
>>
Except, of course, that he repudiated his German
citizenship at age 15, and later became a Swiss citizen.
>
How can a kid deny his own citizenship? The parents
must have everything to do with that so called decision,
eh? <shrug>
>
He renewed German citizenship to take a position in Berlin,
and renounced it again in 1940 to become a U.S. citizen.
>
The nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was an on-going puppet in
1940. Someones else were thinking for the nitwit. <shrug>
>
My grandfather emigrated from Switzerland to the U.S.A.
in the early 1900s, and happened to own a dairy farm outside
Princeton N.J. in the 1940s and 50s; he knew Einstein as a
fellow Swiss expatriate.
>
How long did Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar have
that Swiss citizenship? As far as Yours Truly understands, Swiss
citizenship is very, very difficult to obtain if your grandparents
were not citizens. So, how did Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist,
and the liar obtain his Swiss citizenship so easily? <shrug>
>
Your grandfather was a farmer. Not meant to be an insult to your
grandfather, just what do you expect a farmer to tell a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar from a sage? <shrug>
>
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHA... Hey, KW,
do not sell the abilities of Tom's Swiss grandpa short.
Here is what Tom's Swiss grandpa taught to Einstein:
<http://0.tqn.com/d/physics/1/0/R/0/-/-/AlbertEinsteinbike.jpg>
>
See, how Einstein goes round and round in circles, uselessly?
He shows to Grandpa Tom how his SR/HR works. So,
credit for SR/GR really ought to belong to Tom's Grandpa...
>
Now watch how the Anti-Semites: Moroney, Navia, Jacob
& Chris use this wonderful finding to spread more of their
Anti-Semitism... It's like when that Dane Kurt Westergaard
(Chris B, son) drew the Mohammed cartoon and all the
Islamists went apeshit,... ahahaha..
>
The same happens here, with all the kikes and their
cattle/goyim going apeshit when Einstein and his useless
SR/GR shit is lampooned... The only difference between
the these 2 groups is that the penturnal ass-venters do
scream "Allah akhbar" while the kikes scream "Anti Semitism"
ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha....
>
It's true belletristic bliss how I have these fanatical kikes going!
Carry on KW, and all you "anti-semitic" kikes... thanks for the
laughs ... "Trust Me!".. "Go figure!"... ahahaha.... ahahahanson
jmfbahciv
One doesn't need the experience of a farmer to identify stupid;
OTOH, you need a lot more. You can solve this by looking in the
mirror often.
/BAH
Michael Moroney
>Michael Moroney wrote:
>> FWIW, Einstein considered himself German.
>Except, of course, that he repudiated his German citizenship at age 15, and
>later became a Swiss citizen. He renewed German citizenship to take a position
>in Berlin, and renounced it again in 1940 to become a U.S. citizen.
I wasn't talking about his citizenship, I was talking of what he
considered his ethnicity. You know, the same thing as how so many
Americans will call themselves "Irish" even though they've never been
to Ireland, or "African American" although they've never been to Africa or
whatever. Besides, there is no citizenship called "Jewish".
>My grandfather emigrated from Switzerland to the U.S.A. in the early 1900s, and
>happened to own a dairy farm outside Princeton N.J. in the 1940s and 50s; he
>knew Einstein as a fellow Swiss expatriate.
And if he was asked his origins or ethnicity, your grandfather probably
said "Swiss", even if he was long an American citizen, correct?
hanson
"jmfbahciv" <See....@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004A32...@aca2f113.ipt.aol.com...
Anti-Semitism, when she read what KW said... ahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, you splendid unkosher Yenta...
hahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHAHA... hahahahanson
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
hanson
"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:iqjhdp$k1$1...@pcls6.std.com...
> Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>>Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> FWIW, Einstein considered himself German.
>
>>Except, of course, that he repudiated his German citizenship at age 15,
>>and
>>later became a Swiss citizen. He renewed German citizenship to take a
>>position
>>in Berlin, and renounced it again in 1940 to become a U.S. citizen.
>
>
I wasn't talking about his citizenship, I was talking of what he
considered his ethnicity. You know, the same thing as how so many
Americans will call themselves "Irish" even though they've never been
to Ireland, or "African American" although they've never been to Africa or
whatever. Besides, there is no citizenship called "Jewish".
>
As usual, Mikey, your virulent Anti-Semitism clouds your
judgment. 1st off you just insulted the Irish & the Blacks.
2ndly, you miserable Anti Semite, your insulted every
Israeli, all 7.7 million citizens of the "Jewish State":
2,660,000 google hits for "Jewish State"... ahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs though... ahahahaha.. ahahahanson
>
Tom wrote:
>>My grandfather emigrated from Switzerland to the U.S.A. in the early
>>1900s, and
>>happened to own a dairy farm outside Princeton N.J. in the 1940s and 50s;
>>he
>>knew Einstein as a fellow Swiss expatriate.
>
> And if he was asked his origins or ethnicity, your grandfather probably
> said "Swiss", even if he was long an American citizen, correct?
Darwin123
wrote:
> It does answer a
> question, why he seems to be reasonably knowledgeable as long as the topic
> has nothing to do with relativity, once relativity is involved, he kooks
> out.
involved. I have had many discussions with him with topics that don't
involve relativity. I have even discussed topics that don't have a
Jewish scientist involved. The discussions show that he is loaded with
misconceptions about all things physical.
He also seems to have some type of communication disability. He
reads things that aren't there. He tends to put words in peoples
mouths. He will present a straw man theory to somebody, and then
attack that person for presenting that theory.
Someone else suggested that he has narcissist personality disorder
(NPD). Although I am not a professional, I looked it up. NPD sounds
like a perfect fit for him. For instance, he goes into fits when
someone contradicts him.
Our recent discussion concerning electric current may be more
revealing than the relativity discussions. We were discussing
electrolytic solutions. The common convention is that electrical
current flows from high potential to low potential. When I pointed
this out, he claimed I was clearly wrong. Note that this is a
convention, which is a matter of language. It was soon apparent that
he didn't know the difference between a gas discharge tube, an
electrolytic solution, and a metal.
You will note that he goes into a tizzy when you mention units,
numerical calculations, or anything mathematics where the solution is
not unique. He seems to have difficulty with word problems. He can not
take a sentence and turn it into an equation. This seems to indicate a
language problem.
He apparently can solve simple algebra equations, as long as the
symbols are already set up. However, he can not reliably take a
sentence and turn it into an equation. Furthermore, he has a lot of
trouble the other way. If he sees an equation, he automatically
assigns an English sentence to it that generally contradicts the
initial hypotheses on which the equation is based. He then claims that
that the person who wrote the equation also wrote the sentence. He
isn't aware, and can't be made aware, that he was the one who wrote
the sentence.
None of this is specific to relativity. He keeps going back to
relativity because he identifies it with Jews. No matter what you
discuss with him, it always goes back to relativity, Einstein, and the
Jews. I have quoted Lorentz, Faraday, Maxwell, Gauss, Fitzgerald,
Newton and a couple of other scientists that I don't remember. Each
time, he leads the discussion back to relativity and the Jews.
It surprised me when you said he was generally knowledgeable about
something outside of relativity. What was it? The command structure of
ZOG?
Brad Guth
> There were always idiots complaining about Einstein's theories, like
>
> What is new now is that a lot of antisemitic hate posts start appearing
> like from this "Androcles":
>
> <quote>
> Why did you lie about the stupid Jew Einstein saying
> <end quote>
>
> The problem is that these people are the only ones left after
> all others give up usenet because of their pile of shit.
>
> sci.astro is one of the best examples of how they work. Almost
> all posts are about their "theories".
>
> I tried to tell Valev, for instance about the recent
> experiment of NASA confirming the theories of Einstein.
>
> I wrote:
>
> <quote>
> NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment
>
> May 4, 2011: Einstein was right again. There is a space-time vortex
> around Earth, and its shape precisely matches the predictions of
> Einstein's theory of gravity.
>
> Researchers confirmed these points at a press conference today at NASA
> headquarters where they announced the long-awaited results of Gravity
> Probe B (GP-B).
>
> "The space-time around Earth appears to be distorted just as general
> relativity predicts," says Stanford University physicist Francis
> Everitt, principal investigator of the Gravity Probe B mission.
>
> seehttp://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic
> <end quote>
>
> The answer was 40 lines more of his stuff without ANY reference
> to the experiment I pointed to. It is like talking to a
> machine that has always the same answer for you no matter
> your question.
>
> Impossible either to reason with "hanson" that is an
> antisemitic "no einstein" supporter apparently because
> Einstein was a jew, like his buddy "Androcles"
>
> Another crackpot is Archimedes Plutonium.
>
> of the earth core is based on radar surveys...
>
> I pointed out to him that it is easy to see that radio waves
> do not go very far into the earth: Just start talking with
> somebody in your cellphone and enter into the next subway
> station and see how signal quality goes down, specially in the middle
> of the tunnel. EM waves do not go beyond a few METERS into the earth...
> Imagine scanning earth's core with EM waves!
>
> Answer: I read too much books, etc etc. Obviously, he reads nothing.
> He has no idea of anything and postulates that the sun has an iron
> core like the earth... When I point him out that there is a small
> difference between a star and a minuscule planet more nonsense
> comes as a reply.
>
> I do not speak about "wretch fossil" because it is so stupid I
> never even tried to argue with him.
>
> attacking "the jew Einstein" will give them "scientist" status.
>
> a discussion with them) but to underscore that their antisemitic
> ramblings do not go unnoticed and that there are people in Usenet
> that still can tell a crackpot from a scientist.
>
> jacob navia
The fact that Einstein was a serial wife beater doesn't seem to bother
you either. Do you worship other terrible individuals?
So, apparently there's no lower limits as to the qualifications that
you obviously admire about Einstein, even though others did much of
the work which he is given all the credit for.
BTW; is the gravity represented by Earth always a constant regardless
of the satellite locations other than GSO?
How much +/- time distortion does our extremely nearby and massive
moon cause?
Isn't our galaxy supposedly moving at near the velocity of c with
respect to many of those outer most galaxies?
What part of our universe isn't moving in any special direction?
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Androcles
"Darwin123" <drose...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ce652254-574c-4af2...@z19g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
============================================
Tell us again that Einstein who you don't remember didn't write
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same, lying anti-Aryan Jew.
jacob navia
>
> ============================================
> Tell us again that Einstein who you don't remember didn't write
> the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> the "time" each way is the same, lying anti-Aryan Jew.
Dear Mister
I do not have any serious doubt that that Jew wrote that.
Obviously he is wrong because he is a Jew but anyway I would
like to see a citation in some article he wrote
(he wrote a lot of papers) or in some other
document I could read.
It is not that I doubt that Aryans are always right and Jews
always wrong of course. That is obviously not even in question.
It is just that I would like to see the document where he
wrote that so that I could convince other doubters of the
Aryan superiority that what Jews write is always nonsense.
Your sincerely
Jacob
jacob navia
> On May 11, 11:10 am, jacob navia<ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
>
> The fact that Einstein was a serial wife beater doesn't seem to bother
> you either. Do you worship other terrible individuals?
>
This "Fact" is nothing more than rumours spread by antisemitic
people like you. In all forums that you participate guth, you bring
up those "zionist that rule the world" and similar stuff.
I have followed you in the space groups, where you never miss an
opportunity to attack the Jews.
Not a surprise that you continue to spread those lies here. Yes,
Einstein beated his wife, fathered 15 extra-marital kids, was a lier
all the time, had too many extra marital relationships, etc etc.
> So, apparently there's no lower limits as to the qualifications that
> you obviously admire about Einstein, even though others did much of
> the work which he is given all the credit for.
>
I just think that
(1) Einstein theories have been confirmed by experiments so far.
(2) The fact that he was a Jew has nothing to do with his physics.
Only antisemitic people bring that in to the discussion, like you
for instance.
> BTW; is the gravity represented by Earth always a constant regardless
> of the satellite locations other than GSO?
>
And what has that to do with relativity?
> How much +/- time distortion does our extremely nearby and massive
> moon cause?
>
I haven't calculated that. So what ?
> Isn't our galaxy supposedly moving at near the velocity of c with
> respect to many of those outer most galaxies?
>
Yes. And so what?
hanson
>
The Stallion of Anti-Semites Kike Rosen "Darwin123"
<drose...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The Arch Angel of Anti-Semites Michael Moroney
<mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>
>
>
Michael wrote:
It does answer a question, why he (John Parker Androcles)
seems to be reasonably knowledgeable as long as the topic
has nothing to do with relativity, once relativity is involved,
he kooks out.
>
Andro is not reasonably knowledgeable even when
relativity is not involved. I am not a professional,
I was clearly wrong. Note that this is a convention,
This seems to indicate a language problem. <huge
snip> None of this is specific to relativity. No matter
what you discuss with Andro, Androcles always goes
back to Einstein and Jews.
>
hanson wrote:
Well, wasn't it Einstein the Jew who put his SR/GR into
the public domain? Why are you complaining, Rosen?
Einstein himself already buried it ca 1920, when he said:
>
|||AE:||| If Relativity is correct, the Germans
|||AE:||| & the French will say that I am one of
|||AE:||| their citizens. - If SR/GR is wrong they
|||AE:||| will say that I am a Jew.
Well, by Einstein's own judgment SR/GR is wrong
>
BTW, gooogle a bit (even in my archive) and see
in Einstein's own words when he said that his
SR/GR was useless (as a castle in the air) & that
he would have been happier if he had learned how
to be a plumber instead of a physicist....
>
>
Rosen wrote:
Each time, Androcles leads the discussion back to
the Jews. Was it the command structure of ZOG?
>
hanson wrote:
The "ZOG"?, the Zionist Occupied Govenrment, Rosen?
Listen up, Rosen, here, to your delight, on October 3,
2001 (IAP News) George Paxinos geo...@bluewin.ch
wrote:
In an argument between the Israeli Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon [AS] and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres,
Peres said that Isralis' policies of continued violence
might "turn the US against us". To this Sharon retorted:
>
|||AS||| "Every time we do something, you, Peres, tell
|||AS||| me Americans will do this and will do that.
|||AS||| I, Sharn, want to tell you something very clear:
|||AS||| Don't worry about American pressure on Israel;
|||AS||| We, the Jewish people, control America. and
|||AS||| the Americans know it."
America is fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq under
Zionist control. Jews rule America by proxy. They trick
the USA into fighting and dying for THEM.
>
Israel's ex PM Ariel Sharon [AS] in < http://tinyurl.com/nwzvcj >
>
|||AS|||: We are **Judeo-Nazis**.We might use nuclear arms.
|||AS|||: W we might go wild and burn all the oil fields in the
|||AS|||: Middle East! --- We might start World War Three.
>
= Rosen you fool, why do you wanna fuck up a good thing?!!!
== Rosen, you fool, you are causing Anti-Semitism again.
>
Rosen, the gelded Jewish stallion, wrote:
I previously talked this over with neoNazis in my work
place, believe it or not. These people run the laboratory
as though it were a stud farm for gentile white Aryans
with German backgrounds. They had no interest in science,
nor any real talent in that direction.
||||| I was quite willing to be their gelded stallion, |||||
doing their work. I mean, they can pretend to guide
scientists and rise as high as they want in the management
center. However, I know that when Easter comes around,
they are going to organize a pogram and kill the Jews.
There is no need to castrate me because I do not even
want to have children. I am faithful to my wife who is sterile.
Details in <http://tinyurl.com/Rosen-the-Jewish-Stallion>
>
hanson wrote:
Rosen, since you know that = Jewish shit don't stink =
and that you are one of the Chosen, albeit gelded, Ones,
why do you wanna fuck up a good thing for you, Rosen,
by you creating so much Anti-Semitism?
>
It does not bode well for you, Rosen, that when you
lose an argument over the totally useless shit that
SR/GR relativity is ... and you politicize it and cry
"Anti Semitism", for your utter lack of logic.
>
Rosen, you are in the same class, as is a whole slew
of such deranged Anti-Semite-howling kikes, like are
posters Navia, Jerry, Gisse, McCullogh, Chris BHitler,
Moroney, Becky /BAH, & Jacob, etc... ahahahaha...
>
Rosen, listen up and listen good: Be very proud that
>
|||| Einstein & his contributions to physics is/are what ||||
|||| Picasso's contributions are to the world of fine art. ||||
>
The ejaculates of these two kikes are needed in the
really world as badly as a fish needs a bicycle... IOW:
>
------ SR is short for STUPID RANT ------ and
------ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL -----
>
& to round off the picture for your Anti-Semitism's benefit:
------ Wife beater Einstein was arrested, twice -------:
< http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-wife-beater-arrested >
< http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Vordergasse-pt-1 >
< http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Vordergasse-pt-2 >
>
Unfortunately, there is NOTHING Anti-Semitic in all
that but I am sure that you, the Jewish Stallion will
find some way to make it useful to spread your
Anti-Semitism... ahahahaha... Pity, Rosen, pity... BUT
>
... it's true belletristic bliss how I have these fanatical
kikes going! ... ... and the dumb bastards don't even
realize that they have been had... Thanks for the laughs
"Trust Me!".. "Go figure!"... AHAHAHA.... ahahahanson
Brad Guth
> Le 13/05/11 21:27, Brad Guth a crit :
>
> > On May 11, 11:10 am, jacob navia<ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
>
> > The fact that Einstein was a serial wife beater doesn't seem to bother
> > you either. Do you worship other terrible individuals?
>
> This "Fact" is nothing more than rumours spread by antisemitic
> people like you. In all forums that you participate guth, you bring
> up those "zionist that rule the world" and similar stuff.
been in charge of most everything that matters, as though they were
trying to keep the whole truth and nothing but the truth from ever
going public? (certainly Catholics seem to have more than their fair
share of problems that way)
>
> I have followed you in the space groups, where you never miss an
> opportunity to attack the Jews.
I only point out and/or object to the bad ones that seems to always
get away with most anything. Why is it my fault that so many of their
kind (percentage wise and especially as of lately) seem to be causing
so much spendy and time consuming grief for everyone else?
Did Einstein ever police another Jew for the greater good of humanity
or the environment?
>
> Not a surprise that you continue to spread those lies here. Yes,
> Einstein beated his wife, fathered 15 extra-marital kids, was a lier
> all the time, had too many extra marital relationships, etc etc.
That seems a wee bit extreme. Do you actually have any public records
on behalf of any of that other nasty stuff? (I’d only mentioned what
others have frequently confirmed)
So, anything that's of a public record is strictly a "rumor" and/or a
lie, that is unless it's only about perfectly good stuff that you and
others of your kind approve of?
You don't seem to like anyone that reads and interprets anything
that's not approved by your closed mainstream mindset. Is that
normal?
BTW; there's number of Jews I really do like, so apparently you
wouldn't like any of them because they've managed to stay out of
trouble and perhaps having even policed some of their own. I've also
never said Einstein wasn't well educated and at least as smart as most
of his teachers. Are you suggesting that Einstein was self taught?
I was just mentioning the public record as having been pointed out by
many others shows that Einstein wasn't always such a nice guy all the
time, or always the initial creator/author of a given theory that he
got all the credit for, and apparently other Jews simply don't want
their Einstein known as such.
>
> > So, apparently there's no lower limits as to the qualifications that
> > you obviously admire about Einstein, even though others did much of
> > the work which he is given all the credit for.
>
> I just think that
> (1) Einstein theories have been confirmed by experiments so far.
> (2) The fact that he was a Jew has nothing to do with his physics.
> Only antisemitic people bring that in to the discussion, like you
> for instance.
In other words, you don't find it just a wee bit odd how all the real
and/or typically pretend-Atheists of science and physics act/react, or
rather over-act/over-react exactly like another Semite promoting and
protecting all things Einstein?
Would you treat some other faith-based or Atheist individuals the same
if he/she didn't happen to like how Catholics or Muslims had the
public media as well as public and private education systems
extensively rigged or stacked in their favor?
In my interpretation, mainstream religions (meaning most of them) have
a lot of explaining to do, which means some revisions to history are
not only in order but way past due.
Don’t you tend to point out and exaggerate every conceivable flaw in
those you don’t happen to like or care to bother understanding? (it’s
kinda faith-based or cabal/mafia human nature to do just that, if not
take a whole lot worse actions or even inflict revenge, such as
Muslims tend to over-react)
I wouldn’t have approved of the deliberate execution of OBL any more
than executing Jesus Christ, and I sure as hell wouldn’t have
intentionally over-irradiated 100,000 dark skinned Sefardi Jewish
kids, so if that makes me an anti-Semite, so be it.
>
> > BTW; is the gravity represented by Earth always a constant regardless
> > of the satellite locations other than GSO?
>
> And what has that to do with relativity?
I suppose as long as mass and gravity variables, as well as velocity
and direction has no cause or affect on or interpreted from
relativity, then it has no meaning whatsoever.
>
> > How much +/- time distortion does our extremely nearby and massive
> > moon cause?
>
> I haven't calculated that. So what ?
It just seems like a rather handy relativity proof that should be
fairly obvious if our local space-time fabric is in fact distorted or
morphed by mass in motion (aka frame dragging).
>
> > Isn't our galaxy supposedly moving at near the velocity of c with
> > respect to many of those outer most galaxies?
>
> Yes. And so what?
Isn't time for us rather terribly distorted when estimating the vast
distances as based upon the speed of light that isn’t supposed to vary
no matters what, but then also constant in whichever xyz direction
(all at the same time)?
If time slows down at c, and those furthest galaxies that have been
exiting away from us or rather us moving away from them at near c,
then perhaps those galaxies are not so far away as some have thought
(or is it the other way around)?
BTW; contributor “hanson” is not exactly on my side of most topics or
replies, because he/she seems to have more than enough loose cannons
as is pointed at certain Jews. However, I do agree with the “hanson”
interpretation as to the Jewish perpetrated false flag wars and the
bogus global energy inflation that’s insider speculated to death by
mostly the Zionist/Jewish dominated industry and their energy related
investments, made even worse by the loot borrowed we obtain from their
Rothschild private bank that gets to do pretty much whatever they like
because conventional banking/lending rules do not apply.
Darwin123
> .... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha...
>
>
> The Arch Angel of Anti-Semites Michael Moroney
>
> Michael wrote:
>
> It does answer a question, why he (John Parker Androcles)
> seems to be reasonably knowledgeable as long as the topic
> has nothing to do with relativity, once relativity is involved,
> he kooks out.
>
> Rosen wrote:
>
> Andro is not reasonably knowledgeable even when
> relativity is not involved. I am not a professional,
> I was clearly wrong. Note that this is a convention,
> a matter of language difficulty with word problems.
> This seems to indicate a language problem. <huge
> snip> None of this is specific to relativity. No matter
> what you discuss with Andro, Androcles always goes
> back to Einstein and Jews.
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> Well, wasn't it Einstein the Jew who put his SR/GR into
> the public domain? Why are you complaining, Rosen?
> Einstein himself already buried it ca 1920, when he said:
So far as I know, Einstein had nothing to do with it. The electrically
charged particles in electrolytic solutions move in both directions.
Einstein had nothing to do with this either. Androcles denies both.
Newtonian corpuscles do not display inteferance and diffraction.
Electromagnetic waves do. This has nothing to do with Einstein.
Androcles thinks it does.
Electric field strengths and magnetic field strengths vary with
the velocity of the observer. This is apparent from both Faradays Laws
and Maxwell's equations without relativity. Androcles denies it.
However, he blames the common belief on Einstein and the Jews.
Etc.
Like you, Androcles can't get enough of Einstein. Androcles lays
blame on the head of Einstein for facts known in the time of Newton.
Darwin123
> Le 13/05/11 22:06, Androcles a écrit :
>
>
>
> > ============================================
> > Tell us again that Einstein who you don't remember didn't write
> > the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> > the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> > the "time" each way is the same, lying anti-Aryan Jew.
>
> Dear Mister
>
> I do not have any serious doubt that that Jew wrote that.
>
> Obviously he is wrong because he is a Jew but anyway I would
> like to see a citation in some article he wrote
> (he wrote a lot of papers) or in some other
> document I could read.
All you are going to get is a link to a copy of two equations by
Einstein that Androcles interprets as meaning the English sentences
that Androcles wrote. The English sentences that he wrote have nothing
to do with the equations.
Androcles will never be able to give you that citation because it
doesn't exist. He will show you a link to Einstein's original 1905
paper and ask you to read the paper. No where in that link will you
find those sentences. The equations do not imply the sentences he
wrote.
Sometimes, he writes equations in text that he interprets as
meaning those English sentences. However, the equations still doesn't
mean the same thing as the equations.
Androcles will sometimes select definitions from a dictionary
that appear to support what he says. There are generally three or four
meanings per word listed in a dictionary. However, he doesn't read the
article fully. Therefore, he chooses the definition that least fits
the meaning in the article.
In short, Androcles can't read plain English.
Michael Moroney
> Conventional current flows from high potential to low potential.
>So far as I know, Einstein had nothing to do with it. The electrically
>charged particles in electrolytic solutions move in both directions.
>Einstein had nothing to do with this either. Androcles denies both.
It was Benjamin Franklin who defined which kind of electrical charge was
"+" and which was "-", and thus conventional current flow. He didn't
know of electrons, and therefore had a 50% chance of getting it correct,
and happened to get it wrong. So to this day, conventional current flow
is opposite that of the electrons that usually carry all the current.
hanson
>
The Stallion of Anti-Semites, Kike Rosen "Darwin123"
<drose...@yahoo.com> gave one of his many
classic Yiddisher street corner performance when
"Conventional current flows from high potential to low
was better as can be seen at the end of this (re)post:
>
>
The Arch Angel of Anti-Semites Michael Moroney
>
It does answer a question, why he (John Parker Androcles)
seems to be reasonably knowledgeable as long as the topic
has nothing to do with relativity, once relativity is involved,
he kooks out.
>
Rosen wrote:
Andro is not reasonably knowledgeable even when
relativity is not involved. I am not a professional,
I was clearly wrong. Note that this is a convention,
a matter of language difficulty with word problems.
This seems to indicate a language problem. <huge
snip> None of this is specific to relativity. No matter
what you discuss with Andro, Androcles always goes
back to Einstein and Jews.
>
hanson wrote:
Well, wasn't it Einstein the Jew who put his SR/GR into
the public domain? Why are you complaining, Rosen?
Einstein himself already buried it ca 1920, when he said:
>
hanson
>
The Stallion of Anti-Semites, Kike Rosen "Darwin123"
<drose...@yahoo.com> gave one of his many
classic Yiddisher street corner performance when
was better as can be seen at the end of this (re)post:
>
>
<mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> also tried
to make an Anti-Semitic Side-Step Tango, but Mikey
too was much better when he was spreading his
Anti-Semitism, like here when he wrote:
>
It does answer a question, why he (John Parker Androcles)
seems to be reasonably knowledgeable as long as the topic
has nothing to do with relativity, once relativity is involved,
he kooks out.
>
Rosen wrote:
Andro is not reasonably knowledgeable even when
relativity is not involved. I am not a professional,
I was clearly wrong. Note that this is a convention,
a matter of language difficulty with word problems.
This seems to indicate a language problem. <huge
snip> None of this is specific to relativity. No matter
what you discuss with Andro, Androcles always goes
back to Einstein and Jews.
>
hanson wrote:
Well, wasn't it Einstein the Jew who put his SR/GR into
the public domain? Why are you complaining, Rosen?
Einstein himself already buried it ca 1920, when he said:
>
Androcles
On May 13, 4:16 pm, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
> Le 13/05/11 22:06, Androcles a écrit :
>
>
>
> > ============================================
> > Tell us again that Einstein who you don't remember didn't write
> > the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> > the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> > the "time" each way is the same, lying anti-Aryan Jew.
>
> Dear Mister
>
> I do not have any serious doubt that that Jew wrote that.
>
> Obviously he is wrong because he is a Jew but anyway I would
> like to see a citation in some article he wrote
> (he wrote a lot of papers) or in some other
> document I could read.
All you are going to get is a link to a copy of two equations by
Einstein that Androcles interprets as meaning the English sentences
that Androcles wrote. The English sentences that he wrote have nothing
to do with the equations.
======================================
Lying insane anti-Aryan bastard, you are too stupid to read plain algebra
or the text surrounding it.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
QUOTE/
§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine
the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the
positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is
at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at
A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of
events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without
further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an
event at B. We have so far defined only an "A time" and a "B time." We have
not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at
all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to
travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. Let
a ray of light start at the "A time" tA from A towards B, let it at the "B
time" tB be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at
the "A time" t'A.
In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB-tA = tB - tA
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img6.gif
/UNQUOTE
====================================
There it is, two clocks, both read the same time and they stay synchronized
with each other by bouncing light between them.
====================================
QUOTE/
§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, and that
these observers apply to both clocks the criterion established in § 1 for
the synchronization of two clocks. Let a ray of light depart from A at the
time tA, let it be reflected at B at the time tB, and reach A again at the
time t'A. Taking into consideration the principle of the constancy of the
velocity of light we find that
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif
tB-tA = rAB/(c-v)
and
t'A-tB = rAB/(c+v)
/UNQUOTE
====================================
So the "time" for light to go one way, A to B, is
tB-tA
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the "time" for light to go back again, B to A, is
t'A-tB
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the distance travelled out is rAB,
the distance travelled back is rAB,
the "time" each way is the same,
you LYING worthless anti-Aryan bastard.
Peter Webb
> Tell us again that Einstein who you don't remember didn't write
> the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> the "time" each way is the same, lying anti-Aryan Jew.
>
Einstein didn't actually say that.
If you are inventing quotes to try and discredit Einstein, why not simply
claim he said "All non-Jews must be killed, so that Jew science can
triumph." ?
It is as real as your quote, discredits Einstein and feeds your
anti-semitism.
A much better invented quote.
You owe me $2.
Androcles
"Peter Webb" <webbf...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> wrote in message
news:4dce1f1e$0$24911$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
| >
| > Tell us again that Einstein who you don't remember didn't write
| > the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
| > the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
| > the "time" each way is the same, lying anti-Aryan Jew.
| >
|
| Einstein didn't actually say that.
So you believe they are different ages?
Androcles
On May 13, 4:16 pm, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
> Le 13/05/11 22:06, Androcles a écrit :
>
>
>
> > ============================================
> > Tell us again that Einstein who you don't remember didn't write
> > the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> > the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> > the "time" each way is the same, lying anti-Aryan Jew.
>
> Dear Mister
>
> I do not have any serious doubt that that Jew wrote that.
>
> Obviously he is wrong because he is a Jew
So you don't like Jews, you racist bastard.
He was wrong because he was a lying shithead, NOT because
he was Jewish.
Same goes for the lying racist anti-Aryan fuckwit drosen who can't read
plain algebra.
Read it for yourself!
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
jacob navia
Yes Sir, of course. I am as always completely wrong, obviously
it can't be otherwise since I am a Jew.
Nevertheless I would like to point out that you did not answer
the question I sent you:
I would like to see some article written by that Einstein Jew where he says:
>>> the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
>>> the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
You see, I am conscious that I am nothing compared to your sublime and
deep thoughts. I just need that citation for my peace of mind...
Jacob
Marvin the Martian
> I find it interesting that Parker (Androcles) made the list of those who
> apparently hate relativity because Einstein was Jewish. It does answer
> a question, why he seems to be reasonably knowledgeable as long as the
> topic has nothing to do with relativity, once relativity is involved, he
> kooks out. The other anti-Semites have little or nothing positive to
> contribute.
>
> FWIW, Einstein considered himself German.
He was proud to say he was a Zionist.
Marvin the Martian
This discussion went down hill very fast.
It is fair to say, I think, that Einstein was and is very much over-
rated.
He is famous for SR, which is the work of a guy named Lorentz.
He is famous for being the first to explain the photo-electric effect,
which is no small work but come on, it is a plug and chug application of
Planck's quantum theory.
And he is famous for explaining Brownian motion, which was explained
before but Einstein claimed utter ignorance of. If a real grad student
had done this, he would have been charged with plagiarism... literature
searches and all that.
Mind you, this was at a time when there were many papers being published
that Jews had a below average intelligence. It very well may be that he
was chosen to be the poster boy for the (false) claims of Jewish superior
intellect.
Then came SR, which Einstein made a laughable attempt at which failed
because it violated causality and conservation of energy. Einstein
struggled with the problem until one day, Hilbert told Einstein of HIS GR
theory and his paper that was submitted to Gottingen Nachrichten. Once
Einstein knew the correct answer, which was provided by Hilbert, Einstein
derived the same results though in a much more inelegant way, and
immediately went to publish. That's just out-right academic dishonesty!!
A violation of the professional courtesy that Hilbert gave Einstein. Yet
it is known as "Einstein Theory". Why's that?
So yes, it is insulting that Einstein is the image people think of when
they imagine a scientist, a physicist in particular; and considering his
academic dishonesty and that he isn't even a great physicist, is rather
insulting to scientist and particularly physicist....
But this thread is just gone wacky.
Look, SR is nothing more than electromagnetism. If you understand
Maxwell's equations, SR follows because the Lorentz transformation is
nothing more than the transformation that Maxwell's equations are
invariant. If you're gonna disprove SR, you have to start with disproving
Maxwell's equations. Good luck with that!!
Peter Webb
"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote in message
news:IcKdndOM5uORqFPQ...@giganews.com...
> Wow.
>
> This discussion went down hill very fast.
>
> It is fair to say, I think, that Einstein was and is very much over-
> rated.
>
> He is famous for SR, which is the work of a guy named Lorentz.
>
No.
> He is famous for being the first to explain the photo-electric effect,
> which is no small work but come on, it is a plug and chug application of
> Planck's quantum theory.
>
Which didn't exist at the time, he helped invent it.
> And he is famous for explaining Brownian motion, which was explained
> before but Einstein claimed utter ignorance of.
No
> If a real grad student
> had done this, he would have been charged with plagiarism... literature
> searches and all that.
>
No
> Mind you, this was at a time when there were many papers being published
> that Jews had a below average intelligence. It very well may be that he
> was chosen to be the poster boy for the (false) claims of Jewish superior
> intellect.
>
> Then came SR, which Einstein made a laughable attempt at which failed
> because it violated causality and conservation of energy.
No. Perhaps you can tell us why you think this is true?
> Einstein
> struggled with the problem until one day, Hilbert told Einstein of HIS GR
> theory and his paper that was submitted to Gottingen Nachrichten. Once
> Einstein knew the correct answer, which was provided by Hilbert, Einstein
> derived the same results though in a much more inelegant way, and
> immediately went to publish. That's just out-right academic dishonesty!!
No.
> A violation of the professional courtesy that Hilbert gave Einstein. Yet
> it is known as "Einstein Theory". Why's that?
>
Hilbert didn't formulate GR; Einstein did. That's why its called "Einstein's
theory".
But apart from SR, GR, his contributions to QM, and the fact that he did the
underlying research to help found two new branches of physics - statistical
mechanics and Quantum Mechanics - he was much like any other scientist.
jacob navia
>
>> And he is famous for explaining Brownian motion, which was explained
>> before but Einstein claimed utter ignorance of.
>
> No
In 1827 the biologist Robert Brown noticed that if you looked at pollen
grains in water through a microscope, the pollen jiggles about. He
called this jiggling 'Brownian motion', but Brown couldn't work out what
was causing it. The first of the three papers that Einstein published in
1905 finally came up with an explanation.
Everything around us is made up of atoms and molecules: the chair you're
sitting on, the food you eat, the air you're breathing. The idea of
atoms has been around since the time of the ancient Greeks, and a
century before Einstein, the great chemist John Dalton had suggested
that all chemicals were made of tiny invisible molecules, which in turn
were made of even tinier atoms. The problem was that there was no proof
of their existence, until Einstein looked into the problem of Brownian
motion.
Einstein realised that the jiggling of the pollen grains seen in
Brownian motion was due to molecules of water hitting the tiny pollen
grains, like players kicking the ball in a game of football. The pollen
grains were visible but the water molecules weren't, so it looked like
the grains were bouncing around on their own.
Einstein also showed that it was possible to work out how many molecules
were hitting a single pollen grain and how fast the water molecules were
moving - all by looking at the pollen grains.
Importantly, Einstein's paper also made predictions about the properties
of atoms that could be tested. The French physicist Jean Perrin used
Einstein's predictions to work out the size of atoms and remove any
remaining doubts about the existence of atoms.
jacob navia
>
> news:IcKdndOM5uORqFPQ...@giganews.com...
>> Wow.
>>
>> This discussion went down hill very fast.
>>
>> It is fair to say, I think, that Einstein was and is very much over-
>> rated.
>>
>> He is famous for SR, which is the work of a guy named Lorentz.
>>
>
> No.
>
>> He is famous for being the first to explain the photo-electric effect,
>> which is no small work but come on, it is a plug and chug application of
>> Planck's quantum theory.
>>
>
> Which didn't exist at the time, he helped invent it.
>
From
http://www.einsteinyear.org/facts/photoelectric_effect/
In 20th century physics two ideas stand out as being totally
revolutionary: relativity and quantum theory. Although Einstein is best
known for his theory of relativity, he also played a major role in
developing quantum theory. And it was his contribution to quantum theory
- explaining the photoelectric effect - which won Einstein his Nobel
Prize in 1921.
The photoelectric effect is the name given to the observation that when
light is shone onto a piece of metal, a small current flows through the
metal. The light is giving its energy to electrons in the atoms of the
metal and allowing them to move around, producing the current. However,
not all colours of light affect metals in this way. No matter how bright
a red light you have, it will not produce a current in a metal, but even
a very dim blue light will result in a current flowing. The problem was
that these results can't be explained if light is thought of as a wave.
Waves can have any amount of energy you want - big waves have a lot of
energy, small waves have very little. And if light is a wave, then the
brightness of the light affects the amount of energy - the brighter the
light, the bigger the wave, the more energy it has. The different
colours of light are defined by the amount of energy they have. If all
else is equal, blue light has more energy than red light with yellow
light somewhere in between. But this means that if light is a wave, a
dim blue light would have the same amount of energy as a very bright red
light. And if this is the case, then why won't a bright red light
produce a current in a piece of metal as well as a dim blue light?
Einstein realised that the only way to explain the photoelectric effect
was to say that instead of being a wave, as was generally accepted,
light was actually made up of lots of small packets of energy called
photons that behaved like particles. Einstein wasn't the first person to
use the idea of photons, but he was the first to make it the starting
point of an explanation rather than a convenient fiddle to explain away
odd results.
With light as photons, Einstein showed that red light can't dislodge
electrons because its individual photons don't have enough energy - the
impacts are just not large enough to shift the electrons. However, blue
light can dislodge electrons - each individual photon has more energy
than the red photon. And photons of ultraviolet light, which have yet
more energy, will give electrons enough energy to whizz away from the
metal altogether. A good way to think of the photoelectric effect is
like a full car park with lots of really bad drivers. There is a car
parked in a space, and lots of other drivers want that space. To get it
they can try knocking the parked car out of the way, but they can only
manage to hit it one car at a time. A tiny red mini just won't have the
energy to knock the parked car out of the parking space, but a big blue
van will. And imagine hitting the parked car with a big ultraviolet
lorry - the parked car is most likely going to move far enough to
collide with something else. Returning to light and electrons, there is
never really just one photon of light at a time. A bright light emits
lots of photons, but it doesn't matter how bright a red light gets; red
photons will still not be able to budge a single electron. This is like
having a car park full of red minis each randomly hitting a parked car
in turn - there will be a lot of dents but the parked car will remain
where it is. However, even a dim blue light will shift some electrons -
we know that even one blue van will be able to move the parked car.
Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect was just the start of
an avalanche of discoveries that became quantum theory. In this theory,
light is not just a particle and not just a wave: it can be one or the
other, depending on how it is measured. And it was discovered later that
even the electrons are not just particles but are waves too.
Androcles
If you're gonna disprove the Easter Bunny, you have to start with disproving
chocolate eggs.
Good luck with that!!
Look, there are four Maxwell equations, two are correct and two depend on
Maxwell's aether.
You've just gone wacky. This discussion hit rock bottom very fast.
Wrap Maxwell's equations around this expensive drivel:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Muons/Muons.htm
Androcles
|
| "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote in message
| news:IcKdndOM5uORqFPQ...@giganews.com...
| > Wow.
| >
| > This discussion went down hill very fast.
| >
| > It is fair to say, I think, that Einstein was and is very much over-
| > rated.
| >
| > He is famous for SR, which is the work of a guy named Lorentz.
| >
|
| No.
So you don't believe they are the same age?
Marvin The Martian
> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote in message
> news:IcKdndOM5uORqFPQ...@giganews.com...
>> Wow.
>>
>> This discussion went down hill very fast.
>>
>> It is fair to say, I think, that Einstein was and is very much over-
>> rated.
>>
>> He is famous for SR, which is the work of a guy named Lorentz.
>>
>>
> No.
What part do you disagree...
That Einstein is famous,
OR
That SR is basically the Lorentz transformation and its applications?
Be specific.
>> He is famous for being the first to explain the photo-electric effect,
>> which is no small work but come on, it is a plug and chug application
>> of Planck's quantum theory.
>>
>>
> Which didn't exist at the time, he helped invent it.
So, now Einstein invented Planck's quantum theory? Please prove that.
It makes a little sense to say that Einstein helped Planck's quantum
theory by showing how it applied to the Photo-electric effect, but to say
it Planck's idea of quantized energy didn't exist when Einstein wrote his
photo-electric paper is wrong.
>> And he is famous for explaining Brownian motion, which was explained
>> before but Einstein claimed utter ignorance of.
>
> No
Look it up. Bachelier wrote it up first in 1900, 5 years before Einstein.
>> If a real grad student
>> had done this, he would have been charged with plagiarism... literature
>> searches and all that.
>>
>>
> No
You're pretty good about having strong but utterly baseless opinions.
Like I said, Bachelier wrote about Brownian motion first. Einstein's
defense was that he never saw the paper.
>> Mind you, this was at a time when there were many papers being
>> published that Jews had a below average intelligence. It very well may
>> be that he was chosen to be the poster boy for the (false) claims of
>> Jewish superior intellect.
>>
>> Then came SR, which Einstein made a laughable attempt at which failed
>> because it violated causality and conservation of energy.
>
> No. Perhaps you can tell us why you think this is true?
History. And I read translations of his early papers.
>> Einstein
>> struggled with the problem until one day, Hilbert told Einstein of HIS
>> GR theory and his paper that was submitted to Gottingen Nachrichten.
>> Once Einstein knew the correct answer, which was provided by Hilbert,
>> Einstein derived the same results though in a much more inelegant way,
>> and immediately went to publish. That's just out-right academic
>> dishonesty!!
>
> No.
You're not discussing, your just expressing ignorant and baseless
opinions. Even YOU won't try to explain why you say "no".
>> A violation of the professional courtesy that Hilbert gave Einstein.
>> Yet it is known as "Einstein Theory". Why's that?
>>
>>
> Hilbert didn't formulate GR; Einstein did. That's why its called
> "Einstein's theory".
>
>
> But apart from SR, GR, his contributions to QM, and the fact that he did
> the underlying research to help found two new branches of physics -
> statistical mechanics and Quantum Mechanics - he was much like any other
> scientist.
Einstein's contributions to QM consist mostly of making an ass of himself
saying it isn't so, and then being proven wrong.
Just like how Einstein made an ass of himself by saying that Lemaitre's
big bang theory was "Catholic Science", which proved Einstein to be a
bigot as well as a piss poor physicist.
I don't even want to get into his personal life; he was a dirty old man,
at best.
Marvin The Martian
Einstein knew all that because he read Bachelier's paper. It wouldn't
have been so bad if he had CITED the earlier work.
Marvin The Martian
Excuse me... Thiele's paper. I said Bachelier in two other posts, and I
was wrong. It was Thiele who described the mathematics of Brownian
motion. And it was 1880, not 1900. My bad. Same point, however.
Marvin The Martian
Hell, Lorentz used to get top billing!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Lorentz
"In 1900, Henri Poincaré called Lorentz's local time a "wonderful
invention" and illustrated it by showing that clocks in moving frames are
synchronized by exchanging light signals that are assumed to travel at
the same speed against and with the motion of the frame. ...
"Because Lorentz laid the fundamentals for the work by Einstein, this
theory was called the Lorentz-Einstein theory originally."
Mr. Webb doesn't appear to know much of the history of physics, and seems
to take everything he thinks he knows as gospel truth. I hate that in a
person. One should always look at new information and be curious and not
mindlessly dismissive.
Marvin The Martian
First of all, most physicist find no problem with Maxwell's equations,
aether or no.
It is interesting you take issue with them. It says pretty plainly "I
don't understand undergraduate lower division physics".
> You've just gone wacky. This discussion hit rock bottom very fast.
>
> Wrap Maxwell's equations around this expensive drivel:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Muons/Muons.htm
Do you even KNOW what it means for a set of equations to be invariant
under a given transformation?
Daryl McCullough
>Einstein's contributions to QM consist mostly of making an ass of himself
>saying it isn't so, and then being proven wrong.
That isn't true. Einstein was a major contributor to the statistical
mechanics of quantum particles.
The original poster was correct: Einstein made major contributions
to relativity theory, quantum theory, statistical mechanics, the
photoelectric effect, and the explanation of Brownian motion in
terms of atomic theory.
I have been looking for a description of Thiele's derivation of
Brownian motion, but what I haven't seen is something that says
whether he derived it from atomic theory, which was what Einstein
did.
Einstein's Special Relativity was certainly *not* just an
application of Lorentz's theory, it was a new derivation of
it from a different set of starting principles. Einstein's
version set the stage for the tremendous explosion of
development of relativistic physics in the 20th century
in a way that Lorentz's could not. In particular, relativistic
quantum field theory, which describes the quantum-mechanical
behavior of light and electrons, comes from the geometric
view of spacetime that was initiated by Einstein, not from
the mechanical aether view of Lorentz.
Anyway, I'm sure any particular contribution from a physicist
could be argued about, how original it was, how significant
it was. But the cumulative work of Einstein in physics is not
disputed by anyone who knows physics. Each of his five papers
in 1905 may have been anticipated by earlier work, but each
paper consists of an original take on the material, and each
paper made a contribution to the field. His work on Brownian
motion, for example, was taken as the final proof of the
atomic theory of matter.
Any one of his 1905 papers would have made Einstein a famous
scientist. The fact that he published all 5 in one year is
unprecedented. I don't know why you are going to so much
trouble to minimize that accomplishment.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Daryl McCullough
>
>Wow.
>
>This discussion went down hill very fast.
>
>It is fair to say, I think, that Einstein was and is very much over-
>rated.
No, it's not fair to say that.
Daryl McCullough
>Then came SR, which Einstein made a laughable attempt at which failed
>because it violated causality and conservation of energy.
Somehow I missed this part. So I see that you are a crackpot.
There is nothing about SR that violates causality or conservation
of energy.
>Einstein struggled with the problem until one day, Hilbert told
>Einstein of HIS GR theory and his paper that was submitted to
>Gottingen Nachrichten. Once Einstein knew the correct answer,
>which was provided by Hilbert, Einstein derived the same results
>though in a much more inelegant way, and immediately went to publish.
I don't agree with that description of events. The key elements of
General Relativity as curved spacetime were due to Einstein. What was
lacking were the field equations. There is a history of the interactions
among Einstein, Hilbert, and Grossman here:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0504/0504179v1.pdf
I would agree that credit for the final form of the equations should be
shared among Einstein, Grossman and Hilbert, but it is completely incorrect
to describe it as Einstein stealing Hilbert's theory of relativity. It
wasn't Hilbert's theory.
Hilbert himself didn't portray the situation in the way that you have.
Hilbert always described what he was doing as an attempt to axiomatize
the ideas that were due to Einstein. You could say that that was just
modesty on the part of Hilbert, but Hilbert never belittled Einstein's
achievement the way that you have, and Hilbert certainly understood
Einstein's contributions better than you do.
Einstein's theory of General Relativity was essentially in place
long before the final publication of the field equations. There was
one last mathematical puzzle to be solved: Coming up with a generally
covariant equation relating the gravitational field (curvature tensor)
to sources (stress-energy tensor) in a way that reduces to Newtonian
gravity in the nonrelativistic limit. This was much harder for Einstein
(and for Hilbert, for that matter) because of their unfamiliarity with
Riemannian geometry and with Noether's theorem (which was under
development around the same time).
Brad Guth
Exactly, so simply revise history in order to give credit where credit
is do, of which I'm certain that Einstein will still hold onto a
number of credits while losing a few others.
The Jewish poster child may have been talented in looking and acting
crazy enough to be an Einstein, but such looks can be deceiving.
Meanwhile GR and SR can't seem to put another grain of food on any
table or extend the life of any soul on Earth. So why is it worth our
wasting decades and spending billions of our hard earned loot on (same
as taking food off the table)?
How many thousand wasteful GR/SR related investigations can we afford
to sustain?
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
herbert glazier
> ahahahahahaha... Awww... awww... "Oye weh!"... the
> goyim made you crank yourself grievously, didn't they.
> I am so sorry that they put a kink in your fine Yarmulke.
>
> Ain't that a shame "Jewcap Naviass", a shame indeed,
> isn't it. But "Naviass" listen", it is no longer the 1960s'
> when you kikes were able to feed any shit, unquestioned,
> to your goyim (your cattle) and brainwash him into
> believing that ==== Jewish Shit don't stink =====
>
> Dreg, Dreidel and Deranged kike "jacob navia"
> aka "Jewcap Naviass"<ja...@spamsink.net>, is a
> fanatical Einstein Dingleberry that worships Albert's
> sphincter, but ran out of logic & scientific arguments
> and so he politicized it, admitted defeat & waved his
> "Anti-Semitism"-Flag, like kikes always do & he cried:
> "Oye weh!"... "Trust Me!"... "Go Figure"...
>
> Bigot & "Jew Nut" "jacob navia" <ja...@spamsink.net>
> is a hate-filled & deranged full-kike & an embarrassment
> and danger for the well-being of the Jewish community,
> since he, Jacob Navia is an example who does cause
> "Anti-Semitism" and he is a prime exhibit of "why Jews
> are disliked", as is seen in Naviass' deranged ranting:
>
>
>
> "Jewcap Naviass" wrote:
> > There were always idiots complaining about
> > Einstein's theories, like Valev, and a lot of
> > antisemitic hate from this "Androcles", who said
> > <quote> "the stupid Jew Einstein <end quote>.
>
> > I tried to tell Valev abouit the results of Gravity
> > Probe B (GP-B)... [[[[ which was cancelled since
> > no value was found in spending tax money for
> > Einstein's useless shit ]]]]]... Valevs' answer has
> > always the same answer no matter my question.
>
> > Impossible either to reason with "hanson" that is
> > an antisemitic "no einstein" supporter apparently
> > because Einstein was a jew, like his buddy "Androcles"
>
> > Another crackpot is Archimedes Plutonium.
> > I pointed out to him more nonsense but more comes
> > back as a reply. Poster "wretch fossil" it is so stupid
> > I never even tried to argue with him.
>
> > these people are reactionary know nothings that think
> > attacking "the jew Einstein" will give them "scientist" status.
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> No, Naviass, that only seems to you to be this way, cuz
> you don't wanna admit that you are a very miserable and
> full-fledged loser & an abject failure for making your case
> that ==== Jewish shit don't stink === and that therefore
> it still holds, in Kubblee Wulee's epic words, that
> == Einstein is a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug> ==.
>
>
>
> "Jewcap Naviass" wrote:
> > Obviously this post is not to try to convince them
> > (or even try to start > a discussion with them) but to
> > underscore that their antisemitic ramblings do not go
> > unnoticed and that there are people in Usenet that
> > still can tell a crackpot from a scientist.
> > jacob navia, lovingly known as "Jewcap Naviass"
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> ... AHAHAHAHA... Naviass", obviously you have
> not convinced ANYBODY, not even the posters
> who responded to you... The reason why so, is
> simple: You do not know what a scientist is, & you
> have no idea what "Anti Semitism" is neither,
> but you are struck in your ingrained fanaticism that
> ==== Jewish shit don't stink === BUT IT DOES,
> as is obvious by the many of your Dingleberries
> that you constantly post, even under other handles.
>
> Thanks for the laughs, "Jewcap Naviass"... Go, iron
> your Yarmulke now... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahanson
Brain washed people are low wit bigots. Until religions stop turning
out hate the free thinking people will suffer. Einstein as I are free
thinkers. Freedom of speech in USA has suffered under the GOPers.
TreBert
Brad Guth
wrote:
It's relatively easy to accomplish 5 papers per year when you take and
assimilate critical information from the works of others, and a little
easier yet when the judges are all Semites or deathly afraid of their
own shadow for not going with the flow.
herbert glazier
> WOAhahaha... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHA....
>
> "jacob navia" <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
>
> > Le 12/05/11 08:54, Martin Brown a écrit :
>
> Martin Brown, le clown, a écrit :
> Remember the old Usenet maxim about not wrestling with pigs.
>
> "jacob navia" wrote:
>
> The problem with that is ... that they conclude that all the
> people in the group AGREE with hanson, androcles et al.
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> ahahaha... Jackie-baby, listen: Martin Brown, the Farting
> Clown, assumes that you are a pig, like him, and he wants
> to wrestle with you... ahahahaha... over the precious
> value of this here, which you should take to heart, Jabcob:
>
>
>
> ... AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha....Still cranking himself
> "Jacob" aka "Jewcap Naviass", <a...@hsu.edu> who
> has no edu, said he was a nobody, which c an beseen when he wrote:
>
> As Uncle Al would say (though he would use Latin):
> "The thing speaks for itself."
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> ahaha... AHAHA... you using Uncle rect-Al Schwartz
> as a reference speaks indeed for yourself ...ahahaha...
>
> Navia, you using uncle rect-Al is a self-indictment for
> your absent memory because you look up to a kike,
> Alan Schwartz, that is your idol and icon, who
> 1) had only a BSc in Chemistry and who plagiarized
> the R&D results from Canadian Goyim, yet rect-Al
> was unable to sell a cock-roach repellent that he
> concocted form it: --- rect-Al Failure 1.
> 2) plagiarized and misused the work of others to
> "make Einstein sweat" (rect-Al's words) & to overthrow
> SR/GR with his unsuccessful Eotvos and Benzil
> experiments: --- rect-Al Failure 2 & 3.
> 3) promised to produce pound size gem-quality
> Diamonds that never materialized out of his rect-Al
> devil-solvent: -- rect-Al Failure 4.
> ......... drum roll...... drum roll...... drum roll......
> 4) rect-Al's SUCCESS:... ahahahaha... he conned
> heaps of posters, like you, into making himself into
> an idol and role model for the feeble minded, like
> yourself,... ahahahaha....
>
> with such a low bar, typical for you, one can only say:
> Jacob... Awww... awww... "Oye weh!"... the goyim
Hanson you have so much hate for others Delta will not let you fly.
When will your Muslin friend El get out of prison? TreBert
Daryl McCullough
stupid and anti-Semitic seem to go together: Hanson, Androcles,
Koobee.
herbert glazier
> .... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHAHA.. AHAHAHA..
>
> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> FWIW, Einstein considered himself German.
>
>
> Except, of course, that he repudiated his German
> citizenship at age 15, and later became a Swiss citizen.
> He renewed German citizenship to take a position
> in Berlin, and renounced it again in 1940 to become
> a U.S. citizen.
>
> My grandfather emigrated from Switzerland to the
> U.S.A. in the early 1900s, and happened to own a
> dairy farm outside Princeton N.J. in the 1940s and 50s;
> he knew Einstein as a fellow Swiss expatriate.
> Tom Roberts>
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> This is rich, Tom, ...ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
> Longtime Poster & octogenarian Herbert Glazier,
> the mental giant and "G=EMC^2" handle dude,
> posted & claimed that HIS father came from
> Switzerland also, and that not his father, but that
> he, Herbie, the TreberT not only knew, but that
> he himself had audiences with Einstein. ...
>
> SoTom, it could be that you and the TreberT are
> brothers, long lost... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>
> ahahaha.. That then is how legends get born, and
> why Jews go: "Goyim!"... "Goyim!"!"... "Goyim!"
> Thanks for the laughs guys... hahaha... ahahanson
Reality is I was building a deck on Irma Rings house,and Einstein was
staying there (Newton) since he was giving a talk at Harvard. The
morning he was waiting to be picked up to go back to Prinston we had
a 15 minute one on one talk. We discussed inertia,and gravity. That
was over 60 years ago. He gave me a book,and signed it. TreBert
Peter Webb
"Marvin The Martian" <Mar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jbudnZjXecwcylPQ...@giganews.com...
Nobody paid any attention to your reference.
Nobody here thinks you have actually read Einstein's paper. Most of us would
be aware that it is in German, and the chance of some troll on the internet
being able to actually read a scientific paper in German are close to zero.
So we all figured you were full of shit, and nobody even bothered to check
for themselves, which is why nobody picked up your error.
Peter Webb
> On Sat, 14 May 2011 10:19:18 +0100, Androcles wrote:
>
>> "Peter Webb" <webbf...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4dce37a5$0$22468$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au... |
>> | "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote in message |
>> news:IcKdndOM5uORqFPQ...@giganews.com... | > Wow.
>> | >
>> | > This discussion went down hill very fast. | >
>> | > It is fair to say, I think, that Einstein was and is very much over-
>> | > rated.
>> | >
>> | > He is famous for SR, which is the work of a guy named Lorentz. | >
>> |
>> | No.
>>
>> So you don't believe they are the same age?
>
> Hell, Lorentz used to get top billing!
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Lorentz
> "In 1900, Henri Poincaré called Lorentz's local time a "wonderful
> invention" and illustrated it by showing that clocks in moving frames are
> synchronized by exchanging light signals that are assumed to travel at
> the same speed against and with the motion of the frame. ...
>
> "Because Lorentz laid the fundamentals for the work by Einstein, this
> theory was called the Lorentz-Einstein theory originally."
Kepler laid the fundamentals for Newton.
So?
Does this mean Newton plagiarised universal gravtitation from Kepler?
How do you believe Einstein's building on Lorentz differs from Newton
building on Kepler?
Other than the fact that Einstein is Jewish, of course?
>
> Mr. Webb doesn't appear to know much of the history of physics,
Actually I do.
> and seems
> to take everything he thinks he knows as gospel truth. I hate that in a
> person. One should always look at new information and be curious and not
> mindlessly dismissive.
Lorentz did not invent SR any more than Kepler invented Newtonian gravity.
If you think that Lorentz's ether theories are the same as SR, you should
study physics.
Peter Webb
> On Sat, 14 May 2011 18:04:44 +1000, Peter Webb wrote:
>
>> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote in message
>> news:IcKdndOM5uORqFPQ...@giganews.com...
>>> Wow.
>>>
>>> This discussion went down hill very fast.
>>>
>>> It is fair to say, I think, that Einstein was and is very much over-
>>> rated.
>>>
>>> He is famous for SR, which is the work of a guy named Lorentz.
>>>
>>>
>> No.
>
> What part do you disagree...
>
> That Einstein is famous,
> OR
> That SR is basically the Lorentz transformation and its applications?
>
> Be specific.
>
That SR is basically the Lorentz transformation and its applications.
That is one of the parts I disagree with.
>>> He is famous for being the first to explain the photo-electric effect,
>>> which is no small work but come on, it is a plug and chug application
>>> of Planck's quantum theory.
>>>
>>>
>> Which didn't exist at the time, he helped invent it.
>
> So, now Einstein invented Planck's quantum theory? Please prove that.
>
He helped invent Quantum Mechanics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
"The foundations of quantum mechanics were established during the first half
of the twentieth century by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Planck, Louis
de Broglie, Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, Max Born, John von Neumann,
Paul Dirac, Wolfgang Pauli, David Hilbert, and others."
> It makes a little sense to say that Einstein helped Planck's quantum
> theory by showing how it applied to the Photo-electric effect, but to say
> it Planck's idea of quantized energy didn't exist when Einstein wrote his
> photo-electric paper is wrong.
>
>>> And he is famous for explaining Brownian motion, which was explained
>>> before but Einstein claimed utter ignorance of.
>>
>> No
>
> Look it up. Bachelier wrote it up first in 1900, 5 years before Einstein.
>
No.
>>> If a real grad student
>>> had done this, he would have been charged with plagiarism... literature
>>> searches and all that.
>>>
>>>
>> No
>
> You're pretty good about having strong but utterly baseless opinions.
> Like I said, Bachelier wrote about Brownian motion first. Einstein's
> defense was that he never saw the paper.
No. Bachelier did not provide the equations of state of Brownian motion.
>
>>> Mind you, this was at a time when there were many papers being
>>> published that Jews had a below average intelligence. It very well may
>>> be that he was chosen to be the poster boy for the (false) claims of
>>> Jewish superior intellect.
>>>
>>> Then came SR, which Einstein made a laughable attempt at which failed
>>> because it violated causality and conservation of energy.
>>
>> No. Perhaps you can tell us why you think this is true?
>
> History. And I read translations of his early papers.
>
So no cite for this or any of your other fictions?
>>> Einstein
>>> struggled with the problem until one day, Hilbert told Einstein of HIS
>>> GR theory and his paper that was submitted to Gottingen Nachrichten.
>>> Once Einstein knew the correct answer, which was provided by Hilbert,
>>> Einstein derived the same results though in a much more inelegant way,
>>> and immediately went to publish. That's just out-right academic
>>> dishonesty!!
>>
>> No.
>
> You're not discussing, your just expressing ignorant and baseless
> opinions. Even YOU won't try to explain why you say "no".
Hilbert did not produce the equations of General Relativity.
What do you want me to say?
You may have well claimed that Al Gore invented GR, and you would get the
same response.
How about *you* show us where Hilbert produced the stress-energy tensor
underlying GR before Einstein did.
Go on, do it ...
>
>
>
>>> A violation of the professional courtesy that Hilbert gave Einstein.
>>> Yet it is known as "Einstein Theory". Why's that?
>>>
>>>
>> Hilbert didn't formulate GR; Einstein did. That's why its called
>> "Einstein's theory".
>>
>>
>> But apart from SR, GR, his contributions to QM, and the fact that he did
>> the underlying research to help found two new branches of physics -
>> statistical mechanics and Quantum Mechanics - he was much like any other
>> scientist.
>
> Einstein's contributions to QM consist mostly of making an ass of himself
> saying it isn't so, and then being proven wrong.
And winning a Nobel prize for it.
>
> Just like how Einstein made an ass of himself by saying that Lemaitre's
> big bang theory was "Catholic Science", which proved Einstein to be a
> bigot as well as a piss poor physicist.
>
> I don't even want to get into his personal life; he was a dirty old man,
> at best.
Why would you want to discuss his personal life? Who cares? And what has
this got do with physics?
I am afraid you have just revealed your true motivation, and it has nothing
to do with physics.
Anyway, if you could provide a link to the paper where Lorentz created SR,
or to where Hilbert invented GR, we could at least reduce Einstein's
discoveries to those that he won the Nobel prize for, plus his contributions
to Quantum Physics and Statistical mechanics.
So, how about those links?
Androcles
Isaac Asimov wrote in "Quasar, Quasar, Burning Bright" ,
ISBN 0-380-44610-3
(concerning life after death)
[ If you want to argue the point, present the evidence.
I must warn you, though, that there are some arguments I will not
accept.
I won't accept any argument from authority. ("The Bible says so")
I won't accept any argument from internal conviction ("I have faith it
is so")
I won't accept any argument from personal abuse ("What are you, an
atheist?")
I won't accept any argument from irrelevance ("Do you think you have
been put on this Earth just to exist for a moment of time?)
I won't accept any argument from anecdote ("My cousin has a friend who
went to a medium and talked to her dead husband")
And when all that, and other varieties of non-evidence are eliminated,
there turns out to be nothing.]
Strike 1, Martian: You just attempted to argue from authority.
|
| It is interesting you take issue with them. It says pretty plainly "I
| don't understand undergraduate lower division physics".
Strike 2, Martian: You just attempted to argue from personal abuse .
|
| > You've just gone wacky. This discussion hit rock bottom very fast.
| >
| > Wrap Maxwell's equations around this expensive drivel:
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Muons/Muons.htm
|
| Do you even KNOW what it means for a set of equations to be invariant
| under a given transformation?
Strike 3, Martian, You just attempted to argue from irrelevance.
Three strikes, Martian, you are out.
And when all that, and other varieties of non-evidence are eliminated,
there turns out to be nothing.
My turn to bat.
All velocities are relative.
What's that 1/c doing in Ampere's equation that you say is Maxwell's,
Martian,
and what is c relative to?
We'll get to "I don't understand undergraduate lower division physics" when
you
can answer it.
Androcles
So you don't believe that the other one travelled?
Androcles
Webb is notorious for repeating the same question endlessly, so now
I interrupt him and do the same.
jmfbahciv
> Wow.
>
> This discussion went down hill very fast.
No, it didn't. Your goal is, obviously, to denounce Einstein
and try to denigrate all his work which helped our understanding
of physical aspects of existence.
<snip more stupidity> You need to either look in that mirror
or crack a high phyics book, read it and do the labs.
/BAH
Marvin the Martian
> "Marvin The Martian" <Mar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:jbudnZvXecyNxFPQ...@giganews.com...
>> On Sat, 14 May 2011 10:19:18 +0100, Androcles wrote:
>>
>>> "Peter Webb" <webbf...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:4dce37a5$0$22468$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au... | | "Marvin the
>>> Martian" <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote in message |
>>> news:IcKdndOM5uORqFPQ...@giganews.com... | > Wow. | >
>>> | > This discussion went down hill very fast. | > | > It is fair to
>>> say, I think, that Einstein was and is very much over- | > rated.
>>> | >
>>> | > He is famous for SR, which is the work of a guy named Lorentz. | >
>>> |
>>> | No.
>>>
>>> So you don't believe they are the same age?
>>
>> Hell, Lorentz used to get top billing!
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Lorentz "In 1900, Henri Poincaré
>> called Lorentz's local time a "wonderful invention" and illustrated it
>> by showing that clocks in moving frames are synchronized by exchanging
>> light signals that are assumed to travel at the same speed against and
>> with the motion of the frame. ...
>>
>> "Because Lorentz laid the fundamentals for the work by Einstein, this
>> theory was called the Lorentz-Einstein theory originally."
>
> Kepler laid the fundamentals for Newton.
>
> So?
>
> Does this mean Newton plagiarised universal gravtitation from Kepler?
Kepler came up with three laws that described motion of planets. No
masses involved. No forces
Newton came up with F=dp/dt, and formulated the laws of Newtonian
mechanics, the principles of conservation of energy and momentum. If you
don't understand the vast difference between the two, then you're
ignorant and, quite frankly, and offensive little poser.
No, Newton didn't just build on Kepler, but DERIVED Kepler's laws from
first principles of his laws of mechanics.
> How do you believe Einstein's building on Lorentz differs from Newton
> building on Kepler?
Because SR is entirely stated by the Lorentz transformation. Einstein's
paper "On the electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" is nothing more than an
application of Lorentz's SR.
> Other than the fact that Einstein is Jewish, of course?
>
>
>> Mr. Webb doesn't appear to know much of the history of physics,
>
> Actually I do.
Then you wouldn't have made the silly comparison of Newton is to Kepler
what Einstein is to Lorentz.
>> and seems
>> to take everything he thinks he knows as gospel truth. I hate that in a
>> person. One should always look at new information and be curious and
>> not mindlessly dismissive.
>
> Lorentz did not invent SR any more than Kepler invented Newtonian
> gravity.
>
> If you think that Lorentz's ether theories are the same as SR, you
> should study physics.
The mathematics, and thus the physics, of SR was given to us by Lorentz.
Einstein's handling of the either issue was to ignore it, and to say that
light is a wave with no medium, which is logically inconsistent and not
good physics by a long shot.
But the math works, and that's what matters.
Marvin the Martian
> Marvin The Martian says...
>
>>Einstein's contributions to QM consist mostly of making an ass of
>>himself saying it isn't so, and then being proven wrong.
>
> That isn't true. Einstein was a major contributor to the statistical
> mechanics of quantum particles.
>
> The original poster was correct: Einstein made major contributions to
> relativity theory, quantum theory, statistical mechanics, the
> photoelectric effect, and the explanation of Brownian motion in terms of
> atomic theory.
As I explained, Einstein's contribution to SR and the photo-electric
effect was a plug and chug of other people's work. His contribution to
Brownian motion was to plagiarize someone else. His contributions to QM
was to make bad arguments against it - "God doesn't play dice..." and all
that. Turns out that Einstein doesn't dictate the behavior of "God", God
make the whole damned universe into his crap game.
As for statical mechanics... meh. I've not looked into the history of
that and I have no reason to doubt his contributions there. Good point,
though.
> I have been looking for a description of Thiele's derivation of Brownian
> motion, but what I haven't seen is something that says whether he
> derived it from atomic theory, which was what Einstein did.
>
> Einstein's Special Relativity was certainly *not* just an application of
> Lorentz's theory, it was a new derivation of it from a different set of
> starting principles.
The math is exactly the same. The rest is handwaving. Fact is, Lorentz
discovered it first and a hundred years ago, people knew this.
> Einstein's version set the stage for the tremendous
> explosion of development of relativistic physics in the 20th century in
> a way that Lorentz's could not. In particular, relativistic quantum
> field theory, which describes the quantum-mechanical behavior of light
> and electrons, comes from the geometric view of spacetime that was
> initiated by Einstein, not from the mechanical aether view of Lorentz.
>
> Anyway, I'm sure any particular contribution from a physicist could be
> argued about, how original it was, how significant it was. But the
> cumulative work of Einstein in physics is not disputed by anyone who
> knows physics. Each of his five papers in 1905 may have been anticipated
> by earlier work, but each paper consists of an original take on the
> material, and each paper made a contribution to the field. His work on
> Brownian motion, for example, was taken as the final proof of the atomic
> theory of matter.
>
> Any one of his 1905 papers would have made Einstein a famous scientist.
> The fact that he published all 5 in one year is unprecedented. I don't
> know why you are going to so much trouble to minimize that
> accomplishment.
Because this Annus Mirabilius stuff is bullshit. It is obviously
bullshit. I mean, even aside from Einstein's idiot mistakes and non-
science; I mentioned his stupid bigoted ridicule of Lemaitre and the big
bang theory and his early blunder that violated conservation of energy,
but also his idiot "hidden variable" non-science and his blunder with the
EPR paradox that shows he didn't understand SR very well; he was a
contributor to physics, but there are many more deserving physicist out
there who should be more highly honored. Yet he is worshiped, and we have
to put up with bullshit like "Genius Among Geniuses" crap of that silly
1997 NOVA series.
One has to wonder, why? Especially given the social issues at the
beginning of the 20th century. Einstein is totally overblown.
Androcles
| The mathematics, and thus the physics, of SR was given to us by Lorentz.
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
Another one that doesn't know division from multiplication.
What's the fucking difference between 1/2 and 1*2, Martian?
This is schoolboy shit, Martian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
"The so called Length contraction without expansion perpendicularly to the
line of motion and by the precise value L = Lo * sqrt(1-v^2.c^2) (where Lo
is the length at rest in the ether) was given by Larmor in 1897 and by
Lorentz in 1904. "
Einstein:
"Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be L as
measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine
the axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of
co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with
velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then
imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod" --
Einstein
"The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call ``the length
of the (moving) rod in the stationary system.''"-- Einstein
"This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall
find that it differs from L." -- Einstein.
AND THE ANSWER IS...
"xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)" -- Einstein.
Yep, xi differs from L, Greek letters differ from Roman letters.
In agreement with experience we further assume the deranged babbling
incompetent cretin couldn't answer his own inquiry, he was too stupid
to realise xi is greater than L when he wrote 'for v=c all moving
objects--viewed from the "stationary'' system--shrivel up into plane
figures', whereas his own equation shows they stretch to infinity...
sqrt(1-c^2/c^2) = 0.
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" - Einstein
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity" - Einstein.
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A -tA) = c to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in
empty space." -- Einstein
He was right. The distance from A to A divided by the time it takes
to get there is undefined. Anyone that divides by zero is a lunatic.
hanson
"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mc Fulloff (Daryl McCullough) stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
<snip crap>
>
McFullof wrote:
Any one of his 1905 papers would have made Einstein a famous
scientist. The fact that he published all 5 in one year is
unprecedented. I don't know why you are going to so much
trouble to minimize that accomplishment.
>
It's relatively easy to accomplish 5 papers per year
when you take and assimilate critical information from
the works of others, and a little easier yet when the
judges are all Semites or deathly afraid of their
own shadow for not going with the flow.
>
Right on, and in addition, Brad, it was the Zios who
infested Academia in Germany at that time, used and
promoted Einstein into the lime light, for their agenda
to get the world's Jewry back to the promised land.
Einstein paid them his dues by going on a world tour
for them in 1921 for promote Zionism:
>
<http://tinyurl.com/Zio-Politics-with-Relativity> &/or
<http://tinyurl.com/Alberts-Zio-Politics-w-SR-GR>
>
Einstein had little to say in the matter once they
got hold of him. It was all scripted, like you have
indicated above. The Zios even offered Albert to
be Israel's 1st President. With too many skeletons
in his closet. Einstein refused... ahahahaha.....
>
Daryl McFullof is just one of those unfortunate
Einstein Dingleberries that go thrown into the
Zio brainwashing machine... ahahahaha...
>
Thnakd for the laughs, guys... ahahahahanson
Marvin the Martian
> "Marvin The Martian" <Mar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:jbudnZ7Xecw4y1PQ...@giganews.com...
>> On Sat, 14 May 2011 18:04:44 +1000, Peter Webb wrote:
>>
>>> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote in message
>>> news:IcKdndOM5uORqFPQ...@giganews.com...
>>>> Wow.
>>>>
>>>> This discussion went down hill very fast.
>>>>
>>>> It is fair to say, I think, that Einstein was and is very much over-
>>>> rated.
>>>>
>>>> He is famous for SR, which is the work of a guy named Lorentz.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> What part do you disagree...
>>
>> That Einstein is famous,
>> OR
>> That SR is basically the Lorentz transformation and its applications?
>>
>> Be specific.
>>
>>
>
> That SR is basically the Lorentz transformation and its applications.
>
> That is one of the parts I disagree with.
So, what part of "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" was NOT the
Lorentz transformation and it's application? Take your time.
>>>> He is famous for being the first to explain the photo-electric
>>>> effect, which is no small work but come on, it is a plug and chug
>>>> application of Planck's quantum theory.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Which didn't exist at the time, he helped invent it.
>>
>> So, now Einstein invented Planck's quantum theory? Please prove that.
>>
>>
> He helped invent Quantum Mechanics.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
>
> "The foundations of quantum mechanics were established during the first
> half of the twentieth century by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max
> Planck, Louis de Broglie, Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, Max Born,
> John von Neumann, Paul Dirac, Wolfgang Pauli, David Hilbert, and
> others."
What, specifically, did Einstein do? He showed Planks quantum postulate
to explain the photo-electric effect... that was a plug and chug.
Other than that, Einstein OBJECTED to QM. His "hidden variable theory"
was pure non-science.
His biggest contribution was that he lost the debate, thus giving QM more
credibility because at Einstein's reputation was overblown.
>> It makes a little sense to say that Einstein helped Planck's quantum
>> theory by showing how it applied to the Photo-electric effect, but to
>> say it Planck's idea of quantized energy didn't exist when Einstein
>> wrote his photo-electric paper is wrong.
>>
>>>> And he is famous for explaining Brownian motion, which was explained
>>>> before but Einstein claimed utter ignorance of.
>>>
>>> No
>>
>> Look it up. Bachelier wrote it up first in 1900, 5 years before
>> Einstein.
>>
>>
> No.
Right. It was Thiele in 1880. My bad. Same point, however.
>>>> If a real grad student
>>>> had done this, he would have been charged with plagiarism...
>>>> literature searches and all that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No
>>
>> You're pretty good about having strong but utterly baseless opinions.
>> Like I said, Bachelier wrote about Brownian motion first. Einstein's
>> defense was that he never saw the paper.
>
> No. Bachelier did not provide the equations of state of Brownian motion.
>
>
>
>>>> Mind you, this was at a time when there were many papers being
>>>> published that Jews had a below average intelligence. It very well
>>>> may be that he was chosen to be the poster boy for the (false) claims
>>>> of Jewish superior intellect.
>>>>
>>>> Then came SR, which Einstein made a laughable attempt at which failed
>>>> because it violated causality and conservation of energy.
>>>
>>> No. Perhaps you can tell us why you think this is true?
>>
>> History. And I read translations of his early papers.
>>
>>
> So no cite for this or any of your other fictions?
Moffat, "Reinventing Gravity", chapter 2 notes 8 to 10. And you can look
up the 1913 paper yourself.
Go ahead and lie about that, too.
>>>> Einstein
>>>> struggled with the problem until one day, Hilbert told Einstein of
>>>> HIS GR theory and his paper that was submitted to Gottingen
>>>> Nachrichten. Once Einstein knew the correct answer, which was
>>>> provided by Hilbert, Einstein derived the same results though in a
>>>> much more inelegant way, and immediately went to publish. That's just
>>>> out-right academic dishonesty!!
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> You're not discussing, your just expressing ignorant and baseless
>> opinions. Even YOU won't try to explain why you say "no".
>
> Hilbert did not produce the equations of General Relativity.
A flat out lie.
> What do you want me to say?
>
> You may have well claimed that Al Gore invented GR, and you would get
> the same response.
>
> How about *you* show us where Hilbert produced the stress-energy tensor
> underlying GR before Einstein did.
>
> Go on, do it ...
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>> A violation of the professional courtesy that Hilbert gave Einstein.
>>>> Yet it is known as "Einstein Theory". Why's that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hilbert didn't formulate GR; Einstein did. That's why its called
>>> "Einstein's theory".
>>>
>>>
>>> But apart from SR, GR, his contributions to QM, and the fact that he
>>> did the underlying research to help found two new branches of physics
>>> - statistical mechanics and Quantum Mechanics - he was much like any
>>> other scientist.
>>
>> Einstein's contributions to QM consist mostly of making an ass of
>> himself saying it isn't so, and then being proven wrong.
>
> And winning a Nobel prize for it.
No, he won the Nobel for the photo-electric effect.
Just for context, Obama won a Nobel Peace prize for what he was GOING to
do - apparently the Nobel Peace prize is given for starting new wars and
conducting political assassinations.
>> Just like how Einstein made an ass of himself by saying that Lemaitre's
>> big bang theory was "Catholic Science", which proved Einstein to be a
>> bigot as well as a piss poor physicist.
>>
>> I don't even want to get into his personal life; he was a dirty old
>> man, at best.
>
> Why would you want to discuss his personal life? Who cares? And what has
> this got do with physics?
>
> I am afraid you have just revealed your true motivation, and it has
> nothing to do with physics.
>
> Anyway, if you could provide a link to the paper where Lorentz created
> SR, or to where Hilbert invented GR, we could at least reduce Einstein's
> discoveries to those that he won the Nobel prize for, plus his
> contributions to Quantum Physics and Statistical mechanics.
>
> So, how about those links?
Sorry, if you don't know what the Lorentz transformation is, and openly
lie, then you're not serious. I reply to you not to convince you; you
will not change your mind for anything. I reply to you to show the third
party reader how absurd this Einstein worship has become.
Marvin the Martian
> Marvin the Martian says...
>>
>>Wow.
>>
>>This discussion went down hill very fast.
>>
>>It is fair to say, I think, that Einstein was and is very much over-
>>rated.
>
> No, it's not fair to say that.
I explained why.
1) SR is mostly the work of Lorentz and Fitzgerald, not Einstein.
2) Einstein only got GR when Hilbert told him the answer. Einstein then
rushed to publish and only managed to publish at the same time as
Hilbert's more elegant derivation.
3) Einstein made stupid blunders in his 1913 paper that lead it his
"theory" violating Conservation of energy.
4) His paper on Brownian motion was a lifted from Thiele, and later
Bachelier. Had a real grad student done this it would have been called
plagiarism because he did not cite the earlier work.
5) His paper on the photoelectric effect, using Planck's quantum idea,
was good, but it was just a plug and chug. He didn't discover the photo-
electric effect, he didn't discover the quantum, and this was just about
his single contribution to quantum mechanics - the rest of which he
objected too.
6) His smear of Lemaitre and his big bang theory was non-science and
totally bigoted.
On the other hand, you don't have answers for any of this, and you
believe Einstein is a big deal because you've been programmed to think
that. You've never questioned your belief, which means you're not much of
a scientist or a thinker.
Marvin the Martian
> Marvin the Martian says...
>
>>Then came SR, which Einstein made a laughable attempt at which failed
>>because it violated causality and conservation of energy.
>
> Somehow I missed this part. So I see that you are a crackpot. There is
> nothing about SR that violates causality or conservation of energy.
If I said that I made an error. It was Einstein's 1913 paper on GR that
violated conservation of energy.
Peter Webb
I didn't say Newton plagiarised that stuff.
I said that Kepler laid the fundamentals for Newton.
More particularly, Kepler's third law of planetary motion is mathemetically
identical to Newton's law of gravitation, in much the same way that
Einstein's SR includes parts that are identical to Lorentz.
> No, Newton didn't just build on Kepler, but DERIVED Kepler's laws from
> first principles of his laws of mechanics.
>
Similarly, Einstein DERIVED the Lorentz transform from first principles
using his two postulates alone.
>> How do you believe Einstein's building on Lorentz differs from Newton
>> building on Kepler?
>
> Because SR is entirely stated by the Lorentz transformation.
That is entirely untrue. The relationship between matter and energy is
certainly not part of it.
Whereas Newton's law of gravity says nothing more or less than Kepler's 3rd
law; with Calculus you can see that each implies the other.
> Einstein's
> paper "On the electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" is nothing more than an
> application of Lorentz's SR.
>
That is entirely incorrect. This paper provided a radicaly different world
view, as well as many relationships (energy, momentum, mass) unseen
previously.
He independently DERIVED these equations from first principles, just as
Newton DERIVED Kepler's 3rd law by assuming an inverse square law for
gravity.
>> Other than the fact that Einstein is Jewish, of course?
>>
>>
>>> Mr. Webb doesn't appear to know much of the history of physics,
>>
>> Actually I do.
>
> Then you wouldn't have made the silly comparison of Newton is to Kepler
> what Einstein is to Lorentz.
Again, what do you see as the difference?
You say Newton DERIVED Kepler from first principles; that is correct.
Einstein also DERIVED Lorentz from first principles.
That is why I picked it as an example.
Now, what do you see as the differences?
>
>>> and seems
>>> to take everything he thinks he knows as gospel truth. I hate that in a
>>> person. One should always look at new information and be curious and
>>> not mindlessly dismissive.
>>
>> Lorentz did not invent SR any more than Kepler invented Newtonian
>> gravity.
>>
>> If you think that Lorentz's ether theories are the same as SR, you
>> should study physics.
>
> The mathematics, and thus the physics, of SR was given to us by Lorentz.
> Einstein's handling of the either issue was to ignore it, and to say that
> light is a wave with no medium, which is logically inconsistent and not
> good physics by a long shot.
>
We were talking about SR, not your apparent ignorance of Maxwell.
> But the math works, and that's what matters.
Well, the physics is correct, that's what matters.
Peter Webb
> On Sat, 14 May 2011 04:34:19 -0700, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>
>> Marvin The Martian says...
>>
>>>Einstein's contributions to QM consist mostly of making an ass of
>>>himself saying it isn't so, and then being proven wrong.
>>
>> That isn't true. Einstein was a major contributor to the statistical
>> mechanics of quantum particles.
>>
>> The original poster was correct: Einstein made major contributions to
>> relativity theory, quantum theory, statistical mechanics, the
>> photoelectric effect, and the explanation of Brownian motion in terms of
>> atomic theory.
>
> As I explained, Einstein's contribution to SR and the photo-electric
> effect was a plug and chug of other people's work. His contribution to
> Brownian motion was to plagiarize someone else. His contributions to QM
> was to make bad arguments against it - "God doesn't play dice..." and all
> that. Turns out that Einstein doesn't dictate the behavior of "God", God
> make the whole damned universe into his crap game.
No, this isn't correct. Try Googling Einstein to see the contributions he
made.
Androcles
So you don't believe they are the same age?
Androcles
Be specific.
Do you believe they are the same age?
Jacob
>
>"Peter Webb" <webbf...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> wrote in message
>news:4dce37a5$0$22468$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>|
>| "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote in message
>| news:IcKdndOM5uORqFPQ...@giganews.com...
>| > Wow.
>| >
>| > This discussion went down hill very fast.
>| >
>| > It is fair to say, I think, that Einstein was and is very much over-
>| > rated.
>| >
>| > He is famous for SR, which is the work of a guy named Lorentz.
>| >
>|
>| No.
>
>So you don't believe they are the same age?
Stalking with non sequitors is loony.
Peter Webb
> On Sat, 14 May 2011 23:23:03 +1000, Peter Webb wrote:
>
>> "Marvin The Martian" <Mar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:jbudnZ7Xecw4y1PQ...@giganews.com...
>>> On Sat, 14 May 2011 18:04:44 +1000, Peter Webb wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:IcKdndOM5uORqFPQ...@giganews.com...
>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>
>>>>> This discussion went down hill very fast.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is fair to say, I think, that Einstein was and is very much over-
>>>>> rated.
>>>>>
>>>>> He is famous for SR, which is the work of a guy named Lorentz.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> What part do you disagree...
>>>
>>> That Einstein is famous,
>>> OR
>>> That SR is basically the Lorentz transformation and its applications?
>>>
>>> Be specific.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That SR is basically the Lorentz transformation and its applications.
>>
>> That is one of the parts I disagree with.
>
> So, what part of "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" was NOT the
> Lorentz transformation and it's application? Take your time.
>
1. Derivation from first postulates.
2. The relationships between mass, energy and momentum
3. The decoupling of the transformation of Maxwell's equations from those
deriving from velocity
>>>>> He is famous for being the first to explain the photo-electric
>>>>> effect, which is no small work but come on, it is a plug and chug
>>>>> application of Planck's quantum theory.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Which didn't exist at the time, he helped invent it.
>>>
>>> So, now Einstein invented Planck's quantum theory? Please prove that.
>>>
>>>
>> He helped invent Quantum Mechanics.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
>>
>> "The foundations of quantum mechanics were established during the first
>> half of the twentieth century by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max
>> Planck, Louis de Broglie, Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, Max Born,
>> John von Neumann, Paul Dirac, Wolfgang Pauli, David Hilbert, and
>> others."
>
> What, specifically, did Einstein do? He showed Planks quantum postulate
> to explain the photo-electric effect... that was a plug and chug.
>
No, that postulate didn't exist at that time.
Einstein laid the groundwork for its creation, for which he won the Nobel
prize.
> Other than that, Einstein OBJECTED to QM. His "hidden variable theory"
> was pure non-science.
>
Huh?
> His biggest contribution was that he lost the debate, thus giving QM more
> credibility because at Einstein's reputation was overblown.
>
No, I would say his biggest contributions were SR, GR, Brownian motion and
the explanation of the photo-electric effect.
God you are a tedious and clueless bigot. Learn some physics, learn some
history, then kill yourself.
Androcles
|
| "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote in message
| news:0_idnfdWWNWTP1PQ...@giganews.com...
| > On Sat, 14 May 2011 23:23:03 +1000, Peter Webb wrote:
| >
| >> "Marvin The Martian" <Mar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
| >> news:jbudnZ7Xecw4y1PQ...@giganews.com...
| >>> On Sat, 14 May 2011 18:04:44 +1000, Peter Webb wrote:
| >>>
| >>>> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote in message
| >>>> news:IcKdndOM5uORqFPQ...@giganews.com...
| >>>>> Wow.
| >>>>>
| >>>>> This discussion went down hill very fast.
| >>>>>
| >>>>> It is fair to say, I think, that Einstein was and is very much over-
| >>>>> rated.
| >>>>>
| >>>>> He is famous for SR, which is the work of a guy named Lorentz.
| >>>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>> No.
| >>>
| >>> What part do you disagree...
| >>>
| >>> That Einstein is famous,
| >>> OR
| >>> That SR is basically the Lorentz transformation and its applications?
| >>>
| >>> Be specific.
| >>>
| >>>
| >>
| >> That SR is basically the Lorentz transformation and its applications.
| >>
| >> That is one of the parts I disagree with.
| >
| > So, what part of "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" was NOT the
| > Lorentz transformation and it's application? Take your time.
| >
|
| 1. Derivation from first postulates.
So you don't believe they are the same age?
Peter Webb
> On Sat, 14 May 2011 04:44:39 -0700, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>
>> Marvin the Martian says...
>>>
>>>Wow.
>>>
>>>This discussion went down hill very fast.
>>>
>>>It is fair to say, I think, that Einstein was and is very much over-
>>>rated.
>>
>> No, it's not fair to say that.
>
> I explained why.
>
> 1) SR is mostly the work of Lorentz and Fitzgerald, not Einstein.
Crap.
You obviously haven't read the paper and understand the implications.
Lorentz and Fitzgerald existed in a world of absolute space, time and
simultaneity. There was nothing before that provided his "mechanics", the
relationships between matter, energy, and momentum.
The ideas in that paper are so innovative that 105 years later cranks still
argue on the internet as to whether they were correct.
Androcles
|
| "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote in message
| news:0_idnfZWWNWLOVPQ...@giganews.com...
| > On Sat, 14 May 2011 04:44:39 -0700, Daryl McCullough wrote:
| >
| >> Marvin the Martian says...
| >>>
| >>>Wow.
| >>>
| >>>This discussion went down hill very fast.
| >>>
| >>>It is fair to say, I think, that Einstein was and is very much over-
| >>>rated.
| >>
| >> No, it's not fair to say that.
| >
| > I explained why.
| >
| > 1) SR is mostly the work of Lorentz and Fitzgerald, not Einstein.
|
| Crap.
So you believe one being older than the other is crap?
Peter Webb
So your complaint is that Einstein made an error in a paper?
Marvin the Martian
> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote in message
> news:0_idnfVWWNXRBlPQ...@giganews.com... | The mathematics,
> and thus the physics, of SR was given to us by Lorentz.
>
> Bwahahahahahahahaha!
> Another one that doesn't know division from multiplication.
>
> What's the fucking difference between 1/2 and 1*2, Martian?
>
> This is schoolboy shit, Martian.
>
I suggest you don't use wikipedia as a source, as you seem to be
gleefully gibbering over a typo or some other such error, I don't really
care.
Get a good book on SR and go by what they call the Lorentz
transformation.
Androcles
Yep. He was a fucking idiot, like you, totally incompetent at mathematics.
Androcles
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
and I've got this paper:
http://tinyurl.com/6go8no5
I suggest you don't use books as a source but go straight to
the horse's arse, as you seem to be gleefully gibbering over
your own illiteracy. I really don't give a flying fuck, you are just
another troll babbling over shit you know fuck all about, Martian.
hanson
Hebe Herbie "herbert glazier" <herbert...@gmail.com> wrote:
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
"jacob navia" <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
Le 12/05/11 08:54, Martin Brown a écrit :
>
> Martin Brown, le clown, a écrit :
> Remember the old Usenet maxim about not wrestling with pigs.
>
> "jacob navia" wrote:
> The problem with that is ... that they conclude that all the
> people in the group AGREE with hanson, androcles et al.
>
> hanson wrote:
> ahahaha... Jackie-baby, listen: Martin Brown, the Farting
> Clown, assumes that you are a pig, like him, and he wants
> to wrestle with you... ahahahaha... over the precious
> value of this here, which you should take to heart, Jabcob:
>
> ... AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha....Still cranking himself
> "Jacob" aka "Jewcap Naviass", <a...@hsu.edu> who
> has no edu, said he was a nobody, which c an beseen when he wrote:
> As Uncle Al would say (though he would use Latin):
> "The thing speaks for itself."
>
> hanson wrote:
> ahaha... AHAHA... you using Uncle rect-Al Schwartz
> as a reference speaks indeed for yourself ...ahahaha...
>
> Navia, you using uncle rect-Al is a self-indictment for
> your absent memory because you look up to a kike,
> Alan Schwartz, that is your idol and icon, who
> 1) had only a BSc in Chemistry and who plagiarized
> the R&D results from Canadian Goyim, yet rect-Al
> was unable to sell a cock-roach repellent that he
> concocted form it: --- rect-Al Failure 1.
> 2) plagiarized and misused the work of others to
> "make Einstein sweat" (rect-Al's words) & to overthrow
> SR/GR with his unsuccessful Eotvos and Benzil
> experiments: --- rect-Al Failure 2 & 3.
> 3) promised to produce pound size gem-quality
> Diamonds that never materialized out of his rect-Al
> devil-solvent: -- rect-Al Failure 4.
> ......... drum roll...... drum roll...... drum roll......
> 4) rect-Al's SUCCESS:... ahahahaha... he conned
> heaps of posters, like you, into making himself into
> an idol and role model for the feeble minded, like
> yourself,... ahahahaha....
>
> with such a low bar, typical for you, one can only say:
> Jacob... Awww... awww... "Oye weh!"... the goyim
> made you crank yourself grievously, didn't they.
> I am so sorry that they put a kink in your fine Yarmulke.
>
> Ain't that a shame "Jewcap Naviass", a shame indeed,
> isn't it. But "Naviass" listen", it is no longer the 1960s'
> when you kikes were able to feed any shit, unquestioned,
> to your goyim (your cattle) and brainwash him into
> believing that ==== Jewish Shit don't stink =====
>
> Dreg, Dreidel and Deranged kike "jacob navia"
> aka "Jewcap Naviass"<ja...@spamsink.net>, is a
> fanatical Einstein Dingleberry that worships Albert's
> sphincter, but ran out of logic & scientific arguments
> and so he politicized it, admitted defeat & waved his
> "Anti-Semitism"-Flag, like kikes always do & he cried:
> "Oye weh!"... "Trust Me!"... "Go Figure"...
>
> Bigot & "Jew Nut" "jacob navia" <ja...@spamsink.net>
> is a hate-filled & deranged full-kike & an embarrassment
> and danger for the well-being of the Jewish community,
> since he, Jacob Navia is an example who does cause
> "Anti-Semitism" and he is a prime exhibit of "why Jews
> are disliked", as is seen in Naviass' deranged ranting:
>
> "Jewcap Naviass" wrote:
> > There were always idiots complaining about Einstein's theories, like
> > Valev, and a lot of antisemitic hate from this "Androcles", who said
> > <quote> "the stupid Jew Einstein <end quote>.
> > I tried to tell Valev abouit the results of Gravity Probe B (GP-B)...
> > [[[[ which was cancelled since
> > no value was found in spending tax money for
> > Einstein's useless shit ]]]]]... Valevs' answer has always the same
> > answer
> > no matter my question.
> > Impossible either to reason with "hanson" that is an antisemitic "no
> > einstein" supporter apparently because Einstein was a jew, like his
> > buddy
> > "Androcles"
> > Another crackpot is Archimedes Plutonium.
> > I pointed out to him more nonsense but more comes
> > back as a reply. Poster "wretch fossil" it is so stupid I never even
> > tried
> > to argue with him.
> > these people are reactionary know nothings that think
> > attacking "the jew Einstein" will give them "scientist" status.
>
> hanson wrote:
> No, Naviass, that only seems to you to be this way, cuz
> you don't wanna admit that you are a very miserable and
> full-fledged loser & an abject failure for making your case
> that ==== Jewish shit don't stink === and that therefore
> it still holds, in Kubblee Wulee's epic words, that
> == Einstein is a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug> ==.
>
> "Jewcap Naviass" wrote:
> > Obviously this post is not to try to convince them (or even try to start
> > >
> > a discussion with them) but to underscore that their antisemitic
> > ramblings
> > do not go unnoticed and that there are people in Usenet that still can
> > tell a crackpot from a scientist.
> > jacob navia, lovingly known as "Jewcap Naviass"
>
> hanson wrote:
> ... AHAHAHAHA... Naviass", obviously you have
> not convinced ANYBODY, not even the posters
> who responded to you... The reason why so, is
> simple: You do not know what a scientist is, & you
> have no idea what "Anti Semitism" is neither,
> but you are struck in your ingrained fanaticism that
> ==== Jewish shit don't stink === BUT IT DOES,
> as is obvious by the many of your Dingleberries
> that you constantly post, even under other handles.
> Thanks for the laughs, "Jewcap Naviass"... Go, iron
> your Yarmulke now... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahanson
>
>
Olde kacker Hebie Herbie wrote:
Hanson you have so much hate for others Delta will
not let you fly. When will your Muslin friend El get
out of prison? TreBert
>
hanson wrote:
ahahahaha... Hebe-Herbie you got a few things
wrong in your feeble brain and dried up memory:
>
YOU Hebe Herbie were prison. You posted so
yourself. --- Poster EL was never in prison like
YOU were, Herbie... and EL is a Christian Bible
beater, NOT a Muslim at all... which of course in
your Jewish panhatred on all others is all the same...
>
BTW, Hebe Herbie can you remember, or do I have
to dig up for you how many times your Zio-landsman
uncle rect-Al Schwartz said to you: "Glazier = idiot"
and "Glazier you are an embarrassment to the Jewish
community"... That hate is of course Jewish love
in your book. --- Different strokes for different folks
n'est pas, Hebe Herbie... ahahahahaha.....
>
Thanks for the laughs Hebe-Herbie and read that
post and complements I just gave you for you
you being the only living person here who touched
Albert's sphincter and got a book from him for it...
Enjoy.... ahahahaha.... ahahahahanson
Marvin the Martian
Newton's law of gravition is F = G*M_1*m_2 / r^2.
Kepler never said word one about mass. He said
1. The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the
two foci.
2. A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during
equal intervals of time.[1]
3. The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly
proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.
Which doesn't even MENTION force or mass. You clearly don't know
fundamental physics
>> No, Newton didn't just build on Kepler, but DERIVED Kepler's laws from
>> first principles of his laws of mechanics.
>>
>>
> Similarly, Einstein DERIVED the Lorentz transform from first principles
> using his two postulates alone.
Bullshit. Maxwell derived the constant speed of light.
SR IS the Lorentz transformation. Period.
>>> How do you believe Einstein's building on Lorentz differs from Newton
>>> building on Kepler?
>>
>> Because SR is entirely stated by the Lorentz transformation.
>
> That is entirely untrue. The relationship between matter and energy is
> certainly not part of it.
That falls out from the plug and chug with the Lorentz transformation. If
you were a physics student, you'd have done that in upper division
undergrad stuff.
> Whereas Newton's law of gravity says nothing more or less than Kepler's
> 3rd law; with Calculus you can see that each implies the other.
I can't tell if you're ignorant about Newton or Kepler, but this is
utterly wrong.
>
>> Einstein's
>> paper "On the electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" is nothing more than an
>> application of Lorentz's SR.
>>
>>
> That is entirely incorrect. This paper provided a radicaly different
> world view, as well as many relationships (energy, momentum, mass)
> unseen previously.
> He independently DERIVED these equations from first principles,
The constant speed of light postulate was derived by maxwell and are
incorporated into the Lorentz transformation. Just use the transformation
to try and get a speed greater than the speed of light. It fails.
Einstein was too bloody stupid to SEE that. :-D He made it a postulate.
Einstein's other two postulates are... rather bogus and not needed.
> just as
> Newton DERIVED Kepler's 3rd law by assuming an inverse square law for
> gravity.
Your analogy sucks. Again, Kepler never said word one about mass.
>>> Other than the fact that Einstein is Jewish, of course?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Mr. Webb doesn't appear to know much of the history of physics,
>>>
>>> Actually I do.
>>
>> Then you wouldn't have made the silly comparison of Newton is to Kepler
>> what Einstein is to Lorentz.
>
> Again, what do you see as the difference?
>
> You say Newton DERIVED Kepler from first principles; that is correct.
Correct.
> Einstein also DERIVED Lorentz from first principles.
Which if false and proof that your stupid reasoning by analogy is a
logical fallacy. Just drop the Kepler/Newton thing. Logic doesn't work
that way.
> That is why I picked it as an example.
>
> Now, what do you see as the differences?
>
>
>
>>>> and seems
>>>> to take everything he thinks he knows as gospel truth. I hate that in
>>>> a person. One should always look at new information and be curious
>>>> and not mindlessly dismissive.
>>>
>>> Lorentz did not invent SR any more than Kepler invented Newtonian
>>> gravity.
>>>
>>> If you think that Lorentz's ether theories are the same as SR, you
>>> should study physics.
>>
>> The mathematics, and thus the physics, of SR was given to us by
>> Lorentz. Einstein's handling of the either issue was to ignore it, and
>> to say that light is a wave with no medium, which is logically
>> inconsistent and not good physics by a long shot.
>>
>>
> We were talking about SR, not your apparent ignorance of Maxwell.
SR follows from Maxwell's equations and keeping them invariant under a
transformation.
>> But the math works, and that's what matters.
>
> Well, the physics is correct, that's what matters.
Issue being, as stated in the Subject line, about "Antisemitic ramblings
against Einstein". IF Einstein's accomplishments are grossly overstated,
and the Rantings against Einstein are because he is Jewish - then the
rantings are wrong because Einstein is credited with a theory that is not
his.
I don't know if Lorentz was Jewish or not, and I don't give a damn. I
doubt the anti-Einstein ranters know either.
On the other hand, if Einstein was built up and made a poster boy of the
superior Jewish Scientist and his accomplishments are not all that great
as I have pointed out, then that says something about anti-Goy and
political correctness - even in 1905. I suspect but cannot prove that
Einstein was given an undeserved amount of praise simply BECAUSE he was
Jewish and "enlighted" people at the time wanted to dispel the prevalent
belief at the time that Jews lagged the general population in
intelligence.
hanson
>
McFullof aka "Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com>
cranked himself antisemitically and wrote:
>
Not all stupid people are anti-Semitic, but in this
newsgroup, stupid and anti-Semitic seem to go
together: Hanson, Androcles, Koobee.
Daryl McFullof, Ithaca, NY
>
hanson wote:
Each one of these folks you are calling "stupid and
anti-Semitic" are mental giants when compared to
you who is just a worshipping Dingleberry at Einstein's
sphincter. --- Your only redeeming values is that you
are a great source for laughs, because you are so
Fullof, McCullough, especially when yoyo run out
of arguments and have to fall back onto YOUR
Anti Semitism,. which must the hate you have onto
tour Yiddisher Auntie Semanta...
Thanks for the laughs, you uptight olde kacker...
AHAHAHAHA....ahahahanson
Marvin the Martian
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> Wow.
>>
>> This discussion went down hill very fast.
>
> No, it didn't. Your goal is, obviously, to denounce Einstein and try to
> denigrate all his work which helped our understanding of physical
> aspects of existence.
You're quite the little bullshitter.
No, I have no problem with Brownian motion. Thiele wrote the first paper
on it, not Einstein. In honest universities, Einstein would have been
tossed on his ear for plagiarizing that one.
I have no problem with Einstein's contribution to Quantum mechanics of
applying Planck's quantum idea - and how Planck applied it to Black Body
Radiation, to the Photo electric effect. Original and valuable work? Yes!
Worth a Nobel prize? No. It was worth a foot note.
As for SR, all Einstein did was do an application of the Lorentz
transformation. Not even worth a foot note.
> <snip more stupidity> You need to either look in that mirror or crack a
> high phyics book, read it and do the labs.
yeah, that's why they gave me the graduate physics degree for. I asked a
lot of question and accepted anything at face value, I had to know why
they said it. And when it came to Einstein whore-ship, I found it to be
not only baseless, but totally irrational.
hanson
Michael Moroney wrote:
>
Moroney wrote:
FWIW, Einstein considered himself German.
>
Roberts wrote:
Except, of course, that he repudiated his German
citizenship at age 15, and later became a Swiss citizen.
He renewed German citizenship to take a position
in Berlin, and renounced it again in 1940 to become
a U.S. citizen.
My grandfather emigrated from Switzerland to the
U.S.A. in the early 1900s, and happened to own a
dairy farm outside Princeton N.J. in the 1940s and 50s;
he knew Einstein as a fellow Swiss expatriate.
Tom Roberts.
>
hanson wrote:
This is rich, Tom, ...ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
Longtime Poster & octogenarian Herbert Glazier,
the mental giant and "G=EMC^2" handle dude,
posted & claimed that HIS father came from
Switzerland also, and that not his father, but that
he, Herbie, the TreberT not only knew, but that
he himself had audiences with Einstein. ...
SoTom, it could be that you and the TreberT are
brothers, long lost... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
ahahaha.. That then is how legends get born, and
why Jews go: "Goyim!"... "Goyim!"!"... "Goyim!"
Thanks for the laughs guys... hahaha... ahahanson
>
Hebe-Herbie wrote:
Reality is I was building a deck on Irma Rings house,
and Einstein was staying there (Newton) since he
was giving a talk at Harvard. The morning he was
waiting to be picked up to go back to Prinston we
had a 15 minute one on one talk. We discussed inertia,
and gravity. That was over 60 years ago. He gave me
a book,and signed it. TreBert
>
hanson wrote:
That is so wonderful, Herbie. Especially the humble
and prosaic way you have put it. Kudos to you, Herbie.
>
You appear to be ONLY living person who knew Einstein
in the flesh & touched him. Do you still have that book?
Herbie, put it into perspective, for crying out loud:
>
To all his disciples, known as Einstein Dingleberries
like do posters Webb, Navia, Jerry, Gisse, McCullogh,
Chris BHitler, Moroney, Becky /BAH, Darwin-Rosen &
Jacob, etc. who worship Albert's Sphincter with a
passion, and who label anybody as Anti-Semitic, who
does not share their fetish & belief, ... to these fanatic
Dingleberries, you Herbie must be like Abraham was
to the ancient, now unfortunately extinct Israelites.
>
Herbie, do lead the Dingleberries to their promised
Sphincter. These Einstein Dingleberries must awe &
ENVY you, like religious Jews do adore their Abe.
>
Herbie, do savor your status and cash in on it!. Herbie,
offer that book, which Einstein gave you, for sale to
the highest bidder and fleece'em. Let's see whether
Dingleberry Webb, Navia, Gisse, McCullogh, Moroney,
Chris BHitler, Becky /BAH, Darwin-Rosen Jacob, &
Jerry, etc. will put they money where their mouth is...
ahahaha...
>
"Reality is": Great Post by you, Herbie, you splendid Olde
Kacker. Thanks for the laughs, Herbie... ahahahahanson
Peter Webb
Force is a derived quantity.
And if you remove that, Newtons gravity is just y''=ky^(-2), of which
Keplers third law is te only non trivial solution.
>>> No, Newton didn't just build on Kepler, but DERIVED Kepler's laws from
>>> first principles of his laws of mechanics.
>>>
>>>
>> Similarly, Einstein DERIVED the Lorentz transform from first principles
>> using his two postulates alone.
>
> Bullshit. Maxwell derived the constant speed of light.
>
I didn't say Einstein derived the constant speed of light. In fact, he
didn't, it was a postulate.
You really should try reading it.
> SR IS the Lorentz transformation. Period.
>
Umm, what about e=mc^2 ??
>>>> How do you believe Einstein's building on Lorentz differs from Newton
>>>> building on Kepler?
>>>
>>> Because SR is entirely stated by the Lorentz transformation.
>>
>> That is entirely untrue. The relationship between matter and energy is
>> certainly not part of it.
>
> That falls out from the plug and chug with the Lorentz transformation. If
> you were a physics student, you'd have done that in upper division
> undergrad stuff.
>
I did study physics.
Show me where the Lorentz transforms produce e=mc^2
>> Whereas Newton's law of gravity says nothing more or less than Kepler's
>> 3rd law; with Calculus you can see that each implies the other.
>
> I can't tell if you're ignorant about Newton or Kepler, but this is
> utterly wrong.
How?
Kepler's laws predict *identical* planetary motion to Newton's law of
gravity.
>
>>
>>> Einstein's
>>> paper "On the electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" is nothing more than an
>>> application of Lorentz's SR.
>>>
>>>
>> That is entirely incorrect. This paper provided a radicaly different
>> world view, as well as many relationships (energy, momentum, mass)
>> unseen previously.
>
>
>
>> He independently DERIVED these equations from first principles,
>
> The constant speed of light postulate was derived by maxwell and are
> incorporated into the Lorentz transformation. Just use the transformation
> to try and get a speed greater than the speed of light. It fails.
>
I didn't say he derived the speed of light postulate.
I said he independently derived the Lorentz transform from first principles,
just as Newton independently derived Kepler's third law from first
principles.
Can't you read? How dumb are you?