No Jew can refute this about Einstein
K-Cloud
Knowing how you Jews are, you'll probably pick a sentence
or two out of this 10 pages single-spaced I had on MS
Word. So I dare any of you to refute my article in its
entirety!
-K-Cloud
Einstein the FRAUD
By K-Cloud
"The great masses of people ... will more easily fall
victims to a big lie than to a small one."
Of course, Hitler is quoted out of context in an attempt to
portray this statement as Hitler's own, personal philosophy
or strategy. But if we read this selection in context, we
find that he is speaking of the Jews who had ruined his
country, and he is trying to explain how the German people
fell victim to Jewish lies.
In fact, Herr Hitler even tells us what this great lie is
that duped the German people into being controlled by the
Jews. He continues:
"Those who know best this truth about the possibilities of
the application of untruth and defamation, however, were at
all times the Jews; for their entire existence is built on
one single great lie, namely, that here one had to deal
with a religious brotherhood, while in fact one has to deal
with a race - what a race! As such they have been nailed
down forever, in an eternally correct sentence of
fundamental truth, by one of the greatest minds of mankind;
he called them 'the great masters of lying.' He who does
not realize this or does not want to believe this will
never be able to help truth to victory in this world."
Hitler here was referring to Arthur Schopenhauer, the
eminent 19th century German philosopher who was outspoken
regarding the true nature of Jews. In the 20th Century the
Jews would go on to force a great many myths upon their
gullible White sheep. Each Jewish myth stings with the same
poisonous venom. One of the great Jewish myths of the 20th
century was Albert Einstein.
Albert Einstein is held up by the Jewish liars as a rare
genius who drastically changed the field of theoretical
physics. As such, he is made an idol to young people and
his very name has become synonymous with genius. The truth,
however, is very different. The reality is that Einstein
was an inept, moronic Jew who could not even tie his own
shoelaces; he contributed nothing original to the field of
quantum mechanics or any other science, but on the contrary
he stole the ideas of other men and the Jewish media made
him a hero.
When we actually examine the life of Albert Einstein, we
find that his only brilliance lies in his ability to
plagiarize and steal other people's ideas, passing them off
as his own.
Einstein's education, or lack thereof, is an important part
of this story. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of
Einstein's early education that he "showed little
scholastic ability." It also says that at the age of
15, "with poor grades in history, geography, and languages,
he left school with no diploma." Einstein himself wrote in
a school paper of his "lack of imagination and practical
ability."
In 1895, Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an
engineering school in Zurich. This exam consisted mainly of
mathematical problems, and Einstein showed himself to be
mathematically inept in this exam. He then entered a lesser
school hoping to use it as a stepping stone to the
engineering school he could not get into, but after
graduating in 1900, he still could not get a position at
the engineering school!
Unable to go to the school as he had wanted, he got a job
(with the help of a friend) at the patent office in Bern.
He was to be a technical expert third class, which meant
that he was too incompetent for a higher qualified
position. Even after publishing his so-called
groundbreaking papers of 1905 and after working in the
patent office for six years, he was only elevated to a
second class standing. Remember, the work he was doing at
the patent office, for which he was only rated third class,
was not quantum mechanics or theoretical physics, but was
reviewing technical documents for patents of every day
things; yet he was barely qualified. He would work at the
patent office until 1909, all the while continuously trying
to get a position at a university, but without success. All
of these facts are true, but now begins the Jewish myth.
Supposedly, while working a full time job, without the aid
of university colleagues, a staff of graduate students, a
laboratory, or any of the things normally associated with
an academic setting, Einstein in his spare time wrote four
ground-breaking essays in the field of theoretical physics
and quantum mechanics that were published in 1905.
Many people have recognized the impossibility of such a
feat, including Einstein himself, and therefore Einstein
has led people to believe that many of these ideas came to
him in his sleep, out of the blue, because indeed that is
the only logical explanation of how an admittedly inept
moron could have written such documents at the age of 26
without any real education. However, a simpler explanation
exists: he stole the ideas and plagiarized the papers.
Therefore, we will look at each of these ideas and discover
the source of each. It should be remembered that these
ideas are presented by Einstein's worshippers as totally
new and completely different, each of which would change
the landscape of science. These four papers dealt with the
following four ideas, respectively:
1. The foundation of the photon theory of light;
2. The equivalence of energy and mass;
3. The explanation of Brownian motion in liquids;
4. The special theory of relativity.
Let us first look at the last of these theories, the theory
of relativity. This is perhaps the most famous idea falsely
attributed to Einstein. Specifically, this 1905 paper dealt
with what Einstein called the Special Theory of Relativity
(the General Theory would come in 1915).
This theory contradicted the traditional Newtonian
mechanics and was based upon two premises: 1) in the
absence of acceleration, the laws of nature are the same
for all observers; and 2) since the speed of light is
independent of the motion of its source, then the time
interval between two events is longer for an observer in
whose frame of reference the events occur at different
places than for an observer in whose frame of reference the
events occur in the same place. This is basically the idea
that time passes more slowly as one's velocity approaches
the speed of light, relative to slower velocities where
time would pass faster.
This theory has been validated by modern experiments and is
the basis for modern physics. But these two premises are
far from being originally Einstein's. First of all, the
idea that the speed of light was a constant and was
independent of the motion of its source was not Einstein's
at all, but was proposed by the Scottish scientist James
Maxwell.
Maxwell studied the phenomenon of light extensively and
first proposed that it was electromagnetic in nature. He
wrote an article to this effect for the 1878 edition of the
Encyclopedia Britannica. His ideas prompted much debate,
and by 1887, as a result of his work and the ensuing
debate, the scientific community, particularly Lorentz,
Michelson, and Morley reached the conclusion that the
velocity of light was independent of the velocity of the
observer.
Thus, this piece of the Special Theory of Relativity was
known 27 years before Einstein wrote his paper.
This debate over the nature of light also led Michelson and
Morley to conduct an important experiment, the results of
which could not be explained by Newtonian mechanics. They
observed a phenomenon caused by relativity but they did not
understand relativity. They had attempted to detect the
motion of the earth through ether, which was a medium
thought to be necessary for the propagation of light.
In response to this problem, in 1889, the Irish physicist
George FitzGerald, who had also first proposed a mechanism
for producing radio waves, wrote a paper which stated that
the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment could be
explained if,
"... the length of material bodies changes, according as
they are moving through the ether or across it, by an
amount depending on the square of the ratio of their
velocities to that of light."
This is the theory of relativity, 13 years before
Einstein's paper!
Furthermore, in 1892, Hendrik Lorentz, from The
Netherlands, proposed the same solution and began to
greatly expand the idea. All throughout the 1890's, both
Lorentz and FitzGerald worked on these ideas and wrote
articles strangely similar to Einstein's Special Theory
detailing what is now known as the Lorentz-FitzGerald
Contraction.
In 1898, the Irishman Joseph Larmor wrote down equations
explaining the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction and its
relativistic consequences, 7 years before Einstein's paper.
By 1904, Lorentz transformations, the series of equations
explaining relativity, were published by Lorentz. They
describe the increase of mass, the shortening of length,
and the time dilation of a body moving at speeds close to
the velocity of light.
In short, by 1904, everything in Einstein's paper regarding
the Special Theory of Relativity had already been published.
The Frenchman Poincaré had, in 1898, written a paper
unifying many of these ideas. He stated seven years before
Einstein's paper that,
"... we have no direct intuition about the equality of two
time intervals. The simultaneity of two events or the order
of their succession, as well as the equality of two time
intervals, must be defined in such a way that the
statements of the natural laws be as simple as possible."
Anyone who has read Einstein's 1905 paper will immediately
recognize the similarity and the lack of originality on the
part of Einstein. Thus we see that the only thing original
about the paper was the term 'Special Theory of
Relativity.' Everything else was plagiarized.
Over the next few years, Poincaré became one of the most
important lecturers and writers regarding relativity, but
he never, in any of his papers or speeches, mentioned
Albert Einstein. Thus, while Poincaré was busy bringing the
rest of the academic world up to speed regarding
relativity, Einstein was still working in the patent office
in Bern and no one in the academic community thought it
necessary to give much credence or mention to Einstein's
work. Most of these early physicists knew that he was a
fraud.
This brings us to the explanation of Brownian motion, the
subject of another of Einstein's 1905 papers. Brownian
motion describes the irregular motion of a body arising
from the thermal energy of the molecules of the material in
which the body is immersed.
The movement had first been observed by the Scottish
botanist Robert Brown in 1827. The explanation of this
phenomenon has to do with the Kinetic Theory of Matter, and
it was the American Josiah Gibbs and the Austrian Ludwig
Boltzmann who first explained this occurrence, not Albert
Einstein. In fact, the mathematical equation describing the
motion contains the famous Boltzmann constant, k. Between
these two men, they had explained by the 1890s everything
in Einstein's 1905 paper regarding Brownian motion.
The subject of the equivalence of mass and energy was
contained in a third paper published by Einstein in 1905.
This concept is expressed by the famous equation E=mc².
Einstein's biographers categorize this as "his most famous
and most spectacular conclusion."
Even though this idea is an obvious conclusion of
Einstein's earlier relativity paper, it was not included in
that paper but was published as an afterthought later in
the year. Still, the idea of energy-mass equivalence was
not original with Einstein.
That there was an equivalence between mass and energy had
been shown in the laboratory in the 1890s by both J.J.
Thomsom of Cambridge and by W. Kaufmann in Göttingen. In
1900, Poincaré had shown that there was a mass relationship
for all forms of energy, not just electromagnetic energy.
Yet, the most probable source of Einstein's plagiarism was
Friedrich Hasenöhrl, one of the most brilliant, yet
unappreciated physicists of the era.
Hasenöhrl was the teacher of many of the German scientists
who would later become famous for a variety of topics. He
had worked on the idea of the equivalence of mass and
energy for many years and had published a paper on the
topic in 1904 in the very same journal which Einstein would
publish his plagiarized version in 1905. For his brilliant
work in this area, Hasenörhl had received in 1904 a prize
from the prestigious Vienna Academy of Sciences.
Furthermore, the mathematical relationship of mass and
energy was a simple deduction from the already well-known
equations of Scottish physicist James Maxwell. Scientists
long understood that the mathematical relationship
expressed by the equation E=mc² was the logical result of
Maxwell's work, they just did not believe it.
Thus, the experiments of Thomson, Kaufmann, and finally,
and most importantly, Hasenörhl, confirmed Maxwell's work.
It is ludicrous to believe that Einstein developed this
postulate, particularly in light of the fact that Einstein
did not have the laboratory necessary to conduct the
appropriate experiments.
In this same plagiarized article of Einstein's, he
suggested to the scientific community, "Perhaps it will
prove possible to test this theory using bodies whose
energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts of
radium)." This remark demonstrates how little Einstein
understood about science, for this was truly an outlandish
remark.
By saying this, Einstein showed that he really did not
understand basic scientific principles and that he was
writing about a topic that he did not understand. In fact,
in response to this article, J. Precht remarked that such
an experiment "lies beyond the realm of possible
experience."
The last subject dealt with in Einstein's 1905 papers was
the foundation of the photon theory of light. Einstein
wrote about the photoelectric effect. The photoelectric
effect is the release of electrons from certain metals or
semiconductors by the action of light. This area of
research is particularly important to the Einstein myth
because it was for this topic that he unjustly received his
1922 Nobel Prize.
But again, it is not Einstein, but Wilhelm Wien and Max
Planck who deserve the credit. The main point of Einstein's
paper, and the point for which he is given credit, is that
light is emitted and absorbed in finite packets called
quanta. This was the explanation for the photoelectric
effect.
The photoelectric effect had been explained by Heinrich
Hertz in 1888. Hertz and others, including Philipp Lenard,
worked on understanding this phenomenon. Lenard was the
first to show that the energy of the electrons released in
the photoelectric effect was not governed by the intensity
of the light but by the frequency of the light. This was an
important breakthrough.
Wien and Planck were colleagues and they were the fathers
of modern day quantum theory. By 1900, Max Planck, based
upon his and Wien's work, had shown that radiated energy
was absorbed and emitted in finite units called quanta. The
only difference in his work of 1900 and Einstein's work of
1905 was that Einstein limited himself to talking about one
particular type of energy - light energy.
But the principles and equations governing the process in
general had been deduced by Planck in 1900. Einstein
himself admitted that the obvious conclusion of Planck's
work was that light also existed in discrete packets of
energy. Thus, nothing in this paper of Einstein's was
original.
After the 1905 papers of Einstein were published, the
scientific community took little notice and Einstein
continued his job at the patent office until 1909 when it
was arranged for him to take a position at a school by
World Jewry. Still, it was not until a 1919 newspaper
headline that he gained any notoriety.
With Einstein's academic appointment in 1909, he was placed
in a position where he could begin to use other people's
work as his own more openly. He engaged many of his
students to look for ways to prove the theories he had
supposedly developed, or ways to apply those theories, and
then he could present the research as his own or at least
take partial credit.
In this vein, in 1912, he began to try and express his
gravitational research in terms of a new, recently
developed calculus, which was conducive to understanding
relativity. This was the beginning of his General Theory of
Relativity, which he would publish in 1915. But the
mathematical work was not done by Einstein - he was
incapable of it.
Instead, it was performed by the mathematician Marcel
Grossmann, who in turn used the mathematical principles
developed by Berhard Riemann, who was the first to develop
a sound non-Euclidean geometry, which is the basis of all
mathematics used to describe relativity.
The General Theory of Relativity applied the principles of
relativity to the universe; that is, to the gravitational
pull of planets and their orbits, and the general principle
that light rays bend as they pass by a massive object.
Einstein published an initial paper in 1913 based upon the
work which Grossmann did, adapting the math of Riemann to
Relativity. But this paper was filled with errors and the
conclusions were incorrect.
It appears that Grossmann was not smart enough to figure it
out for Einstein. So Einstein was forced to look elsewhere
to plagiarize his General Theory. Einstein published his
correct General Theory of Relativity in 1915, and said
prior to its publication that he, "...completely succeeded
in convincing Hilbert and Klein." He is referring to David
Hilbert, perhaps the most brilliant mathematician of the
20th century, and Felix Klein, another mathematician who
had been instrumental in the development of the area of
calculus that Grossmann had used to develop the General
Theory of Relativity for Einstein.
Einstein's statement regarding the two men would lead the
reader to believe that Einstein had changed Hilbert's and
Klein's opinions regarding General Relativity, and that he
had influenced them in their thinking. However, the exact
opposite is true. Einstein stole the majority of his
General Relativity work from these two men, the rest being
taken from Grossmann.
Hilbert submitted for publication, a week before Einstein
completed his work, a paper which contained the correct
field equations of General Relativity. What this means is
that Hilbert wrote basically the exact same paper, with the
same conclusions, before Einstein did. Einstein would have
had an opportunity to know of Hilbert's work all along,
because there were Jewish friends of his working for
Hilbert.
Yet, even this was not necessary, for Einstein had seen
Hilbert's paper in advance of publishing his own. Both of
these papers were, before being printed, delivered in the
form of a lecture.
Einstein presented his paper on November 25, 1915 in Berlin
and Hilbert had presented his paper on November 20 in
Göttingen. On November 18, Hilbert received a letter from
Einstein thanking him for sending him a draft of the
treatise Hilbert was to deliver on the 20th.
So, in fact, Hilbert had sent a copy of his work at least
two weeks in advance to Einstein before either of the two
men delivered their lectures, but Einstein did not send
Hilbert an advance copy of his. Therefore, this serves as
incontrovertible proof that Einstein quickly plagiarized
the work and then presented it, hoping to beat Hilbert to
the punch. Also, at the same time, Einstein publicly began
to belittle Hilbert, even though in the previous summer he
had praised him in an effort to get Hilbert to share his
work with him. Hilbert made the mistake of sending Einstein
this draft copy, but still he delivered his work first.
Not only did Hilbert publish his work first, but it was of
much higher quality than Einstein's. It is known today that
there are many problems with assumptions made in Einstein's
General Theory paper. We know today that Hilbert was much
closer to the truth. Hilbert's paper is the forerunner of
the unified field theory of gravitation and
electromagnetism and of the work of Erwin Schrödinger,
whose work is the basis of all modern day quantum mechanics.
That the group of men discussed so far were the actual
originators of the ideas claimed by Einstein was known by
the scientific community all along. In 1940, a group of
German physicists meeting in Austria declared that "before
Einstein, Aryan scientists like Lorentz, Hasenöhrl,
Poincaré, etc., had created the foundations of the theory
of relativity..."
However, the Jewish media did not promote the work of these
men. The Jewish media did not promote the work of David
Hilbert, but instead they promoted the work of the Jew
Albert Einstein.
As we mentioned earlier, this General Theory, as postulated
by Hilbert first and in plagiarized form by Einstein
second, stated that light rays should bend when they pass
by a massive object. In 1919, during the eclipse of the
Sun, light from distant stars passing close to the Sun was
observed to bend according to the theory. This evidence
supported the General Theory of Relativity, and the Jewish-
controlled media immediately seized upon the opportunity to
prop up Einstein as a hero, at the expense of the true
genius, David Hilbert.
On November 7th, 1919, the London Times ran an article, the
headline of which proclaimed, "Revolution in science - New
theory of the Universe - Newtonian ideas overthrown." This
was the beginning of the force-feeding of the Einstein myth
to the masses.
In the following years, Einstein's earlier 1905 papers were
propagandized and Einstein was heralded as the originator
of all the ideas he had stolen. Because of this push by the
Jewish media, in 1922, Einstein received the Nobel Prize
for the work he had stolen in 1905 regarding the
photoelectric effect.
The establishment of the Einstein farce between 1919 and
1922 was an important coup for world Zionism and Jewry. As
soon as Einstein had been established as an idol to the
popular masses of England and America, his image was
promoted as the rare genius that he is erroneously believed
to be today. As such, he immediately began his work as a
tool for World Zionism.
The masses bought into the idea that if someone was so
brilliant as to change our fundamental understanding of the
universe, then certainly we ought to listen to his opinions
regarding political and social issues. This is exactly what
World Jewry wanted to establish in its ongoing effort of
social engineering. They certainly did not want someone
like David Hilbert to be recognized as rare genius. After
all, this physicist had come from a strong German, Gentile
background.
In August of 1934, the day before a vote was to be taken
regarding installing Adolf Hitler as President of the
Reich, Hilbert signed a proclamation in support of Adolf
Hitler, along with other leading German scientists, that
was published in the German newspapers. So the Jews
certainly did not want David Hilbert receiving the credit
he deserved.
The Jews did not want Max Planck receiving the credit he
deserved either. This German's grandfather and great-
grandfather had been important German theologians, and
during World War II Planck would stay in Germany throughout
the war, supporting his fatherland the best he could.
The Jews certainly did not want the up-and-coming Erwin
Schrödinger to be heralded as a genius to the masses. This
Austrian physicist would go on to teach at Adolf Hitler
University in Austria, and he wrote a public letter
expressing his support for the Third Reich. This Austrian's
work on the unified field theory was a forerunner of modern
physics, even though it had been criticized by Einstein,
who apparently could not understand it.
The Jews did not want to have Werner Heisenberg promoted as
a rare genius, even though he would go on to solidify
quantum theory and contribute to it greatly, as well as
develop his famous uncertainty principle, in addition to
describing the modern atom and nucleus and the binding
energies that are essential to modern chemistry. No, the
Jews did not want Heisenberg promoted as a genius because
he would go on to head the German atomic bomb project and
serve prison time after the war for his involvement with
the Third Reich.
No, the Jews did not want to give credit to any of a number
of white Germans, Austrians, Irishmen, Frenchmen, Scotsmen,
Englishmen, and even Americans who had contributed to the
body of knowledge and evidence from which Einstein
plagiarized and stole his work. Instead, they needed to
erect Einstein as their golden calf, even though he
repeatedly and often embarrassed himself with his
nonfactual or nearsighted comments regarding the work he
had supposedly done.
For example, in 1934, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ran a
front page article in which Einstein gave an "emphatic
denial" regarding the idea of practical applications for
the "energy of the atom." The article says,
"But the 'energy of the atom' is something else again. If
you believe that man will someday be able to harness this
boundless energy--to drive a great steamship across the
ocean on a pint of water, for instance-then, according to
Einstein, you are wrong..."
Again, Einstein clearly did not understand the branch of
physics he had supposedly founded, though elsewhere in the
world at the time theoretical research was underway that
would lead to the atomic bomb and nuclear energy. But after
Einstein was promoted as a god in 1919, he made no real
attempts to plagiarize any other work.
Rather, he began his real purpose--evangelizing for the
cause of Zionism and World Jewry. Though he did publish
other articles after this time, all of them were co-
authored by at least one other person, and in each
instance, Einstein had little if anything to do with the
research that led to the articles; he was merely recruited
by the co-authors in order to lend credence to their work.
Thus freed of the pretense of academia, Einstein began his
assault for World Zionism.
In 1921, Einstein made his first visit to the United States
on a fund-raising tour for the Hebrew University in
Jerusalem and to promote Zionism. In April of 1922,
Einstein used his status to gain membership in a Commission
of the League of Nations. In February of 1923, Einstein
visited Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. In June of 1923, he became
a founding member of the Association of Friends of the New
Russia. In 1926, Einstein took a break from his Communist
and Zionistic activities to again embarrass himself
scientifically by criticizing the work of Schrödinger and
Heisenberg.
Following a brief illness, he resumed his Zionistic agenda,
wanting an independent Israel and at the same time a World
Government.
In the 1930s he actively campaigned against all forms of
war, although he would reverse this position during World
War II when he advocated war against Germany and the
creation of the atomic bomb, which he supposedly thought
was impossible to build. In 1939 and 1940, Einstein, at the
request of other Jews, wrote two letters to Roosevelt
urging an American program to develop an atomic bomb to be
used on Germany--not Japan. Einstein would have no part in
the actual construction of the bomb, theoretical or
practical, because he lacked the skills for either.
After World War II, Einstein demonstrated his hatred of the
White Race and of the Germans in particular in the
following statements. He was asked what he thought about
Germany and about re-educating the Germans after the war
and said,
"The nation has been on the decline mentally and morally
since 1870 . . . Behind the Nazi party stands the German
people, who elected Hitler after he had in his book and in
his speeches made his shameful intentions clear beyond the
possibility of misunderstanding. . . . The Germans can be
killed or constrained after the war, but they cannot be re-
educated to a democratic way of thinking and acting . . ."
In December of 1946, Einstein rekindled his efforts for a
World Government, with Israel apparently being the only
autonomous nation. This push continues through the rest of
the 1940s. In 1952, Einstein, who had been instrumental in
the creation of the State of Israel, both politically and
economically, was offered the presidency of Israel. He
declined.
In 1953, he spent his time attacking the McCarthy
Committee, and he supported communists such as J. Robert
Oppenheimer. Einstein encouraged civil disobedience in
response to the McCarthy trials. Finally, on April 18,
1955, this filthy Jewish demagogue died.
Dead, the Jews no longer had to worry about Einstein making
stupid statements. His death was just the beginning of his
usage and exploitation by World Jewry. The Jewish-
controlled media continued to promote the myth of this
Super-Jew long after his death, and as more and more of the
men who knew better died off, the Jews were more and more
able to aggrandize his myth and lie more boldly.
This brazen lying has culminated in the Jew controlled Time
magazine naming Einstein "The Person of the Century" at the
close of 1999. It may be demonstrated that the Jewish lies
have become more bold with the passage of time because
Einstein was never named "Man of the Year" while he was
alive, but now, over forty years after his death, he is
named "Person of the Century."
Einstein was given this title in spite of the clear-cut
choice for the "Person of the Century," Adolf Hitler.
Hitler was indeed named "Man of the Year" while he was
still living by Time magazine, and according to a December
27, 1999, article in the USA Today, Einstein was chosen
over Adolf Hitler because of the perceived "nasty public
relations fallout" that would accompany that choice; yet in
internet polling by Time, Hitler finished third and was the
top serious candidate.
Still the issue of Time magazine dedicated to Einstein,
which has articles by men with names like Isaacson, Golden,
Stein, Rudenstine, and Rosenblatt, is interesting to read.
For one, they found it necessary to include an article
rationalizing why they did not pick the obvious choice,
Adolf Hitler. But more interesting is the article by
Stephen Hawking which purports to be a history of the
theory of relativity. In it, Hawking admits many of the
things in this article, such as the fact that Hilbert
published the General Theory of Relativity before Einstein
and that FitzGerald and Lorentz deduced the concept of
relativity long before Einstein.
Hawking also writes,
"Einstein . . . was deeply disturbed by the work of Werner
Heisenberg in Copenhagen, Paul Dirac in Cambridge and Erwin
Schrödinger in Zurich, who developed a new picture of
reality called quantum mechanics. . . . Einstein was
horrified by this . . . Most scientists, however, accepted
the validity of the new quantum laws because they showed
excellent agreement with observations . . . They are the
basis of modern developments in chemistry, molecular
biology and electronics and the foundation of the
technology that has transformed the world in the past half-
century."
This is all very true, yet the same magazine credits
Einstein with all of the modern developments that Hawking
names, even though Einstein was so stupid as to be
vehemently against the most important idea of modern
science, just as he opposed Schrödinger's work in unified
field theory which was far ahead of its time. The same
magazine admits that "success eluded" Einstein in the field
of explaining the contradictions between relativity and
quantum mechanics.
Today, these contradictions are explained by the unified
field theory, but Einstein, who proves himself to be one of
the least intelligent of 20th century scientists, refused
to believe in either quantum theory or the unified field
theory.
To name Einstein as "The Person of the Century" is one of
the most ludicrous and absurd lies of all time, yet it has
been successfully pulled off by Isaacson, Golden, Stein,
Rudenstine, and Rosenblatt and the Jewish owners of Time
magazine. If the Jews at Time wanted to give the title to
an inventor or scientist, then the most obvious choice
would have been men like Hilbert, Planck, or Heisenberg. If
they wanted to give it to the scientist who most
fundamentally changed the landscape of 20th century
science, then the obvious choice would be William Shockley.
This Nobel prize winning scientist invented the transistor,
which is the basis of all modern electronic devices and
computers, everything from modern cars and telephones, VCRs
and watches, to the amazing computers which have allowed
incomprehensible advances in all fields of science. Without
the transistor, all forms of science today would be
basically in the same place that they were in the late
1940s.
However, the Jews cannot allow the due credit to go to
William Shockley because he spent the majority of his
scientific career demonstrating the genetic and mental
inferiority of non-whites and arguing for their
sterilization. His scientific, genetic views led the Jews
to financially destroy Shockley who founded the first
company in the Silicon Valley, his hometown, to develop
computer chips. The Jews hired away his entire staff and
used them to start Fairchild semiconductor, the company
that today is known as Intel.
No, the Jews could not let any of the truly great geniuses
of our time be recognized, not the anti-Semite Henry Ford,
not the great German scientists who helped the National
Socialists in Germany, not Charles Lindbergh, who was
sympathetic to National Socialist causes, and certainly not
William Shockley, one of the most brilliant physicists and
geneticists of our time. Instead, the Jews propped up the
Zionist, Communist Albert Einstein who hated everything
white.
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
--
Anon news web interface. FAQ available for review at:
http://packetderm.cotse.com/cgi-bin/blockit.cgi
mxy...@my-deja.com
"K-Cloud" <anon...@cotse.com> wrote:
>
> Knowing how you Jews are, you'll probably pick a sentence
> or two out of this 10 pages single-spaced I had on MS
> Word. So I dare any of you to refute my article in its
> entirety!
>
> -K-Cloud
Get a life, you worm.
I have already sent message to ab...@cotse.com
Loser.
Have a nice day ! :)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
kcl...@my-deja.com
loser now?
By the way, despite the fact that you Jews fight
free speech in every way you possibly can, there
was absolutely nothing illegal about my post.
Loser.
But then maybe COTSE.com will bow to Jewish
pressure, like every other private company does.
God you people make me sick.
-Kcloud
In article <8c6g7o$3f6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
mxy...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Get a life, you worm.
> I have already sent message to ab...@cotse.com
> Loser.
Joseph Hertzlinger
>
>Knowing how you Jews are, you'll probably pick a sentence
>or two out of this 10 pages single-spaced I had on MS
>Word. So I dare any of you to refute my article in its
>entirety!
A chain is as strong as its weakest link.
Joseph Hertzlinger
<mxy...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Get a life, you worm.
> I have already sent message to ab...@cotse.com
They have an abuse department?
Kim Bebbington
>Haha! That means I win the debate. Who's the
>loser now?
>
>By the way, despite the fact that you Jews fight
>free speech in every way you possibly can, there
>was absolutely nothing illegal about my post.
>Loser.
>
>But then maybe COTSE.com will bow to Jewish
>pressure, like every other private company does.
>God you people make me sick.
Good. Let's hope it's something terminal....
debra leone
> snipped to remove blather
And Bill Gates never graduated from college...what's your point?
debra leone
K-Cloud wrote:
>.In August of 1934, the day before a vote was to be taken
regarding installing Adolf Hitler as President of the
Reich, Hilbert signed a proclamation in support of Adolf
Hitler, along with other leading German scientists, that
was published in the German newspapers. So the Jews
certainly did not want David Hilbert receiving the credit
he deserved.
This in and of itself proves Hilbert to be a moron...
Matthew Levy
>
>Knowing how you Jews are, you'll probably pick a sentence
>or two out of this 10 pages single-spaced I had on MS
>Word. So I dare any of you to refute my article in its
>entirety!
>
>-K-Cloud
Yes, Yes, you can cut and paste with the best of them. I will be
happy to refute your article in its entirety. Please post the name of
author as well as the publication and or/cite any sources if you are
the author. I trust there is some *proof* for these claims. You
know, just because you post it does not make it right.
-Levy
dltjxx
>keyboard and pecked out:
>>Einstein the FRAUD
>>By K-Cloud
>>"The great masses of people ... will more easily fall
>>victims to a big lie than to a small one."
>>Of course, Hitler is quoted out of context in an attempt to
>>portray this statement as Hitler's own, personal philosophy
>>or strategy. But if we read this selection in context, we
>>find that he is speaking of the Jews who had ruined his
>>country, and he is trying to explain how the German people
>>fell victim to Jewish lies.
On the contrary, your Fuhrer was addressing the issue of effective
propaganda:
"Propaganda for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and
only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect. All
propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be
adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is
addressed to. Consquently, the greater the mass it is intended
to reach, the lower its purely intellectual content will have
to be."
"The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence
is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence,
all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and
must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public
understands what you want him to understand."
Television programming operates on the same principles.
Herr Schickelgruber seems to have been right on point, in
your case anyway.
>snipped to remove blather
debra leone <debl...@home.com> writes:
>And Bill Gates never graduated from college...what's your point?
MOTSOS, I would imagine.
Deborah
Kcloud
I wrote it myself. It was a posting of mine on
stormfront.org, in the discussion forum.
Delenda est Judaica!
-Kcloud
Patricia Heil
punishment for slander?
apta...@webtv.net
What are the legitimate sources for the drivel you posted?
if you can't post them than the world knows you made it all up. That you
are asking the people here to refute something that has no basis in
truth in the first place.
So post them, you schmuck---- or be gone.
Matthew Levy
>
>I wrote it myself. It was a posting of mine on
>stormfront.org, in the discussion forum.
>Delenda est Judaica!
>
>-Kcloud
I am familiar with Stormfront.org. However, a serious author such as
youself should easily be able to produce his sources. I am sure you
don't just make this stuff up. Please provide those sources so that I
may do my best (like it would be good enough, eh?) to try to repudiate
your works.
-Levy
Susan Cohen
Patricia Heil wrote:
> Like maybe leprosy -- isn't that the
> punishment for slander?
Is leprosy teminal??
Susan
Pierre
> By K-Cloud
>
> "The great masses of people ... will more easily fall
> victims to a big lie than to a small one."
1------I agree with you, you are perfectly right. That is the reason why
nearly 6 billions people on earth are antisemitic : the more and bigger lies
against the jews, the more the goim believe these lies!.........
(only one example for illustration: the blood of christian children to make
the matsot for Pessah...)
But if we read this selection in context, we
> find that he is speaking of the Jews who had ruined his
> country, and he is trying to explain how the German people
> fell victim to Jewish lies.
2---Actually I dont see any ruin the jews brought to Germany ! ? ? It is
EXACTLY the contrary ! ! !
Not to mention the billions that germans took from the jews after (ot even
before...) having killed them !
> "Those who know best this truth about the possibilities of
> the application of untruth and defamation, however, were at
> all times the Jews; for their entire existence is built on
> one single great lie, namely, that here one had to deal
> with a religious brotherhood, while in fact one has to deal
> with a race - what a race!
3---It seems you are not fully aware of the jewish tradition and learning.
Jews are not a race. Otherwise it could not be possible to convert to
judaism.
> he called them 'the great masters of lying.'
4---Hitler thought what he thought. He was desequilibrated. His thought is
irrelevant. Everybody knows that to-day, but you ?
> Albert Einstein is held up by the Jewish liars as a rare
> genius who drastically changed the field of theoretical
> physics. As such, he is made an idol to young people and
> his very name has become synonymous with genius. The truth,
> however, is very different. The reality is that Einstein
> was an inept, moronic Jew who could not even tie his own
> shoelaces;
5---I aknowledge that even mongolian children can tie their shoelaces
themselve. So this particular point you highlight it also irrelevant.
> Einstein's education, or lack thereof, is an important part
> of this story. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of
> Einstein's early education that he "showed little
> scholastic ability."
6---True, many genius are like that.
> In 1895, Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an
> engineering school in Zurich. This exam consisted mainly of
> mathematical problems, and Einstein showed himself to be
> mathematically inept in this exam. He then entered a lesser
> school hoping to use it as a stepping stone to the
> engineering school he could not get into, but after
> graduating in 1900, he still could not get a position at
> the engineering school!
7---I agree with you. His genious was at a so high level that he could not
cope with ordinary people and studies. He was really a superman, not adapted
to the common level of human intelligence.
..........................
.........................
........................
Excuse-me not to have so much of my precious time to read all the rest of
your shit, but
as a special conclusion, just for you, I would say:
"So what ? All this story just confirms that the non-jews are the eternal
losers.........."
kcl...@my-deja.com
stormfront.org. It's mine.
If you actually read it, you can tell that I know
a thing or two about science.
-Kcloud
> Yes, Yes, you can cut and paste with the best
of them. I will be
> happy to refute your article in its entirety.
Please post the name of
> author as well as the publication and or/cite
any sources if you are
> the author. I trust there is some *proof* for
these claims. You
> know, just because you post it does not make it
right.
>
> -Levy
>
Joseph Hertzlinger
>K-Cloud wrote:
>>.In August of 1934, the day before a vote was to be taken
>regarding installing Adolf Hitler as President of the
>Reich, Hilbert signed a proclamation in support of Adolf
>Hitler, along with other leading German scientists, that
>was published in the German newspapers. So the Jews
>certainly did not want David Hilbert receiving the credit
>he deserved.
>
>
>This in and of itself proves Hilbert to be a moron...
David Hilbert is also notable for replying to "How is mathematics
in G\"ottingen since it has been free of the Jewish influence?"
with "It doesn't really exist any more."
kcl...@my-deja.com
"Pierre" <gira...@actcom.co.il> wrote:
>
> > Einstein's education, or lack thereof, is an important part
> > of this story. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of
> > Einstein's early education that he "showed little
> > scholastic ability."
>
> 6---True, many genius are like that.
>
> > In 1895, Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an
> > engineering school in Zurich. This exam consisted mainly of
> > mathematical problems, and Einstein showed himself to be
> > mathematically inept in this exam. He then entered a lesser
> > school hoping to use it as a stepping stone to the
> > engineering school he could not get into, but after
> > graduating in 1900, he still could not get a position at
> > the engineering school!
>
> 7---I agree with you. His genious was at a so high level that he
could not
> cope with ordinary people and studies. He was really a superman, not
adapted
> to the common level of human intelligence.
>
Yeah, keep grasping at straws, dumbass. Do all you can keep hold of
that absurd myth about Einstein that has been shattered. (Although the
Jewish-controlled media will always fawn over this supposed
Jewish "genius.)
With Einstein gone, all you've got left is a piddly penicillin guy.
Sure Jonas Salk won the race to discover penicillin. (As if no other
scientist would have discovered it had Salk not been alive.) What I
find amusing is that he sued for years afterwards in order to get his
patent money and royalties. How Jewish.
Jews have contributed nothing to civilization. You are mere
parasites. Even Israel itself has virtually no heavy industry; it is a
country dependent on "foreign aid."
I wonder how you Jews are going to survive after the White Race goes
extinct. When the host dies, the parasite loses his source of
sustenance, and dies as well.
Delenda est Judaica!
-Kcloud
David S. Maddison
: I posted it on the message forum in
: stormfront.org. It's mine.
: If you actually read it, you can tell that I know
: a thing or two about science.
Actually, if you knew "a thing or two" about science you would:
a) have provided a citation for each claim - an essay of that length
should probably have 30-50 references, perhaps more.
b) have published it in a scholarly journal, not on a Nazi web site.
c) you would not have made value judgements about your subject based on
his religion.
d) you would not have used classic propoganda techniques in your writing.
David Maddison
binyomin
wrote:
>I posted it on the message forum in
>stormfront.org. It's mine.
>
>If you actually read it, you can tell that I know
>a thing or two about science.
How proud you must be of yourself! And you are obviously
itching for a debate on your little treatise. Why don't you edit
your essay as follows: Cut out all the goose-stepping and
sieg-heiling parts, the Hitler quote at the beginning, all the
sentences that contain the word "Jew" or "Zionist," everything
about Einstein's political activities, so that nothing is left
but your argument that Einstein was an incompetent and a
plagiarist. Then post your essay to sci.physics.relativity.
Binyomin
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Binyamin Dissen
:>Patricia Heil wrote:
:>> Like maybe leprosy -- isn't that the
:>> punishment for slander?
:>Is leprosy teminal??
Tzara'at is translated as leprosy, but it is a spiritual disease, not a
physical disease.
If fact, if one was completely covered Tzara'at, the person is pure and
remains in the camp. He would be sent away if any part of his body became
"cured". And he would return to the camp if he became fully "infected" again.
Thus Tzara'at is not contagious.
[ snipped ]
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Matthew Levy
>I posted it on the message forum in
>stormfront.org. It's mine.
>
>If you actually read it, you can tell that I know
>a thing or two about science.
>
Bernard Mushinsky
simply a hate-monger that has patched together a bunch of misleading dates,
references, names of scientists and just outright lies. There's nothing
whatever to what you say, except that many physicists operated in the time
before and after Einstein. Newton, who was perhaps even a greater genius
than Einstein (there's no way to know, because genius is not measured in
precise terms, like mass or energy) said of his own work, "If I have seen
further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants."
Einstein would have said essentially the same thing.
Apparently you're so deluded as to think that you have finally put an end to
the "myth" of Einstein. Having accomplished this spectacular feat, perhaps
you should now apply your scientific genius to some actual scientific
problems. Here are a few that you could easily solve:
- Goldbach's conjecture. Goldbach may have been Jewish, so you may want to
steer clear of this one. As you know, it's not considered socially
acceptable in your circles to be involved with "Jewish science." But it
would be interesting to have a proof. Even the great Hilbert couldn't find
one. Think how famous you could become!
- Fermat's last theorem. The recent proof is too complicated. With your
genius, you might give the world a "simple" proof (Fermat alluded to it more
than 400 years ago, but didn't publish it) that would make you incredibly
famous. Try it.
- A unified field theory that would show how all forces are related. The
world would literally fall at your feet if you would just be good enough to
solve this problem. So don't hesitate.
While you're at it, all the worst to you and your ilk.
Bernard
K-Cloud wrote in message <2000040200...@cotse.com>...
Joseph Hertzlinger
demonstrated his scholarship by writing:
>Yeah, keep grasping at straws, dumbass. Do all you can keep hold of
>that absurd myth about Einstein that has been shattered. (Although the
>Jewish-controlled media will always fawn over this supposed
>Jewish "genius.)
>
>With Einstein gone, all you've got left is a piddly penicillin guy.
>Sure Jonas Salk won the race to discover penicillin.
That was Fleming, bonehead.
If we limit ourselves to just mathematics and physics, there was also
Heinrich Hertz (Spengler used extremely contorted reasoning to try to
show that a Jew such as Hertz could not be a true physicist), Niels Bohr,
John von Neumann, Richard Feynmann, Robert Oppenheimer, Leo Szilard,
Lise Meitner, Felix Hausdorff, Leopold Kronecker, Edward Teller,
Paul Erdos, Arno Penzias, etc.
> (As if no other
>scientist would have discovered it had Salk not been alive.)
That's true of just about any scientist. If Einstein had never existed,
we'd be have Poincare's theory of relativity. If Darwin had
never existed, we'd have Wallace's theory of evolution. If Heisenberg
had never existed, we'd have Dirac's uncertainty principle.
> What I
>find amusing is that he sued for years afterwards in order to get his
>patent money and royalties. How Jewish.
It's a racial characteristic. All Jews (so far) belong to the human race.
>Delenda est Judaica!
But that trick never works!
--
THE WORLD DOMINATION PLOT WILL BE REAL NEXT TIME!
kcl...@my-deja.com
In article <028c67a0...@usw-ex0105-040.remarq.com>,
binyomin <binyomin...@gs.net.invalid> wrote:
> In article <8c8okc$d32$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, kcl...@my-deja.com
> wrote:
> >I posted it on the message forum in
> >stormfront.org. It's mine.
> >
> >If you actually read it, you can tell that I know
> >a thing or two about science.
>
> How proud you must be of yourself! And you are obviously
> itching for a debate on your little treatise. Why don't you edit
> your essay as follows: Cut out all the goose-stepping and
> sieg-heiling parts, the Hitler quote at the beginning, all the
> sentences that contain the word "Jew" or "Zionist," everything
> about Einstein's political activities, so that nothing is left
> but your argument that Einstein was an incompetent and a
> plagiarist. Then post your essay to sci.physics.relativity.
>
> Binyomin
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
>
>
Susan Cohen
Binyamin Dissen wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Apr 2000 20:11:12 -0400 Susan Cohen <fla...@his.com> wrote:
>
> :>Patricia Heil wrote:
>
> :>> Like maybe leprosy -- isn't that the
> :>> punishment for slander?
>
> :>Is leprosy teminal??
>
> Tzara'at is translated as leprosy, but it is a spiritual disease, not a
> physical disease.
I figured that we were discussing the biblical leprosy.
Should I have put it in quotes? - "leprosy"?
Susan
Susan Cohen
Joseph Hertzlinger wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Apr 2000 07:02:59 GMT, kcl...@my-deja.com <kcl...@my-deja.com>
> demonstrated his scholarship by writing:
>
> >Yeah, keep grasping at straws, dumbass. Do all you can keep hold of
> >that absurd myth about Einstein that has been shattered. (Although the
> >Jewish-controlled media will always fawn over this supposed
> >Jewish "genius.)
> >
> >With Einstein gone, all you've got left is a piddly penicillin guy.
> >Sure Jonas Salk won the race to discover penicillin.
>
> That was Fleming, bonehead.
Y'know, I totally forgot to mention that - thanks for catching it.
> If we limit ourselves to just mathematics and physics, there was also
> Heinrich Hertz (Spengler used extremely contorted reasoning to try to
> show that a Jew such as Hertz could not be a true physicist), Niels Bohr,
> John von Neumann, Richard Feynmann, Robert Oppenheimer, Leo Szilard,
> Lise Meitner, Felix Hausdorff, Leopold Kronecker, Edward Teller,
> Paul Erdos, Arno Penzias, etc.
But let's not leave the area of medicine, & the one JEWISH
doctor to whom this clown obviously owes the greatest debt:
Wasserman.
> > (As if no other
> >scientist would have discovered it had Salk not been alive.)
>
> That's true of just about any scientist. If Einstein had never existed,
> we'd be have Poincare's theory of relativity. If Darwin had
> never existed, we'd have Wallace's theory of evolution. If Heisenberg
> had never existed, we'd have Dirac's uncertainty principle.
>
> > What I
> >find amusing is that he sued for years afterwards in order to get his
> >patent money and royalties. How Jewish.
>
> It's a racial characteristic. All Jews (so far) belong to the human race.
>
> >Delenda est Judaica!
>
> But that trick never works!
"Jes button up ma sleeve - presto! (An idiot!)"
> --
> THE WORLD DOMINATION PLOT WILL BE REAL NEXT TIME!
(Whaday mean "next time"?)
Orac
>With Einstein gone, all you've got left is a piddly penicillin guy.
>Sure Jonas Salk won the race to discover penicillin. (As if no other
>scientist would have discovered it had Salk not been alive.) What I
>find amusing is that he sued for years afterwards in order to get his
>patent money and royalties. How Jewish.
Jonas Salk did not discover penicillin, you blithering idiot. Go to an
encyclopedia and look up who actually did discover penicillin and what important
medical discovery Jonas Salk actually did make before you start making such
ridiculous statements.
[Drivel snipped]
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
birk...@my-deja.com
K-Cloud....what an appropriate handle for somebody whose ideas consist of
"thin air".
In article <2000040200...@cotse.com>,
birk...@my-deja.com
birk...@my-deja.com
kcl...@my-deja.com
88!/14 Words
In article <8cas8l$nee$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
birk...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> K-Cloud....what an appropriate handle for somebody whose ideas
consist of
> "thin air".
>
Patricia Heil
was a physician.
Susan Cohen wrote:
>
> Patricia Heil wrote:
>
> > Like maybe leprosy -- isn't that the
> > punishment for slander?
>
> Is leprosy teminal??
>
Joseph Hertzlinger
>Gee .. . such a clever statement that the Jew had to say it three times.
>
>88!/14 Words
14 words?
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...
dltjxx
>But let's not leave the area of medicine, & the one JEWISH
>doctor to whom this clown obviously owes the greatest debt:
>Wasserman.
How true.
>>>Delenda est Judaica!
>> But that trick never works!
Neither does the quote: the original is "Carthago delenda est".
>>THE WORLD DOMINATION PLOT WILL BE REAL NEXT TIME!
>(Whaday mean "next time"?)
It means the clown is behind the times. Everyone knows the
Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy (tm) is just fluff. But only the
intellectual elite know it's REALLY to cover up that Earth is
being (secretly) monitored by a galaxy-class starship of the
Federation of Zionist Planets.
Deborah
Hagashash Harevi'i
>
> And the "Chosen Few" are more equal than all the rest . . .
>
Certainly more equal than you, kcloud.
How's your derivation of e=mc^2 from Maxwell going?
Given up yet?
Or are you too dumb to try?
kcl...@my-deja.com
In article <8cav85$v9v$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
jher...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created
equal...
>
David S. Maddison
: Knowing how you Jews are, you'll probably pick a sentence
: or two out of this 10 pages single-spaced I had on MS
: Word. So I dare any of you to refute my article in its
: entirety!
: -K-Cloud
Well, if you don't trust "Jooish" commentary, perhaps you'd like to see
some comments from non-Jew Williams, Chief executive Officer of
Australian Skeptics, Inc.:
Our anonymous correspondent clearly owns The Boy's Own Guide to Modern
Physics. Regrettably he doesn't appear to have the analytical skills to
fully understand it, nor does he seem to have any concept of history.
Certainly if one was of a mind to, one could paint an interesting picture
of dramatic scientific advances made by non-Jewish scientists; equally,
one could paint an interesting picture of dramatic scientific advances
made by Jewish scientists. In either case you would not be presenting a
comprehensive picture of modern physics, and only a peculiarly warped
character would even try. Trying to tell this story, leaving out Einstein
and all the other prominent Jewish scientists is like trying to tell the
story of opera while ignoring Verdi and the other Italians, or jazz
without mentioning Louis Armstrong and all those others with African
antecedents. It is simply a stupidly pointless exercise.
However our vaporous friend misses one point. The reason why all the noted
Jewish scientists (and many others who supported them) wound up on one
side in WWII, despite their points of origin, was a characteristic piece
of political ineptitude by his pin-up boy, Mr A Hitler. Had this demagog
and amateur military strategist not been so virulently anti-Semitic and
had he concentrated his venom on some other group, he may well have
retained the services of quite a lot of brilliant scientific minds on his
side.
This lad really should try to read some history, particularly the history
of science, and he might understand the world a little better.
Barry Williams
Kim Bebbington
Hertzlinger) wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Apr 2000 07:02:59 GMT, kcl...@my-deja.com <kcl...@my-deja.com>
>demonstrated his scholarship by writing:
>
>>Yeah, keep grasping at straws, dumbass. Do all you can keep hold of
>>that absurd myth about Einstein that has been shattered. (Although the
>>Jewish-controlled media will always fawn over this supposed
>>Jewish "genius.)
>>
>>With Einstein gone, all you've got left is a piddly penicillin guy.
>>Sure Jonas Salk won the race to discover penicillin.
>
>That was Fleming, bonehead.
Well, not so fast. The 1945 Nobel Prize for Medicine was actually
awarded to Alexander Fleming, Howard Florey and Ernst Chain.
Fleming was unable to isolate penicillin and concluded that it could
have only limited use. The process by which penicillin was refined and
made available as a drug was discovered by Florey and Chain.
So while we Australians can claim Florey (the guy on the A$100 bill),
- yes, you guessed it - we Jews can claim Chain.
>
>If we limit ourselves to just mathematics and physics, there was also
>Heinrich Hertz (Spengler used extremely contorted reasoning to try to
>show that a Jew such as Hertz could not be a true physicist), Niels Bohr,
>John von Neumann, Richard Feynmann, Robert Oppenheimer, Leo Szilard,
>Lise Meitner, Felix Hausdorff, Leopold Kronecker, Edward Teller,
>Paul Erdos, Arno Penzias, etc.
>
>> (As if no other
>>scientist would have discovered it had Salk not been alive.)
>
>That's true of just about any scientist. If Einstein had never existed,
>we'd be have Poincare's theory of relativity. If Darwin had
>never existed, we'd have Wallace's theory of evolution. If Heisenberg
>had never existed, we'd have Dirac's uncertainty principle.
>
>> What I
>>find amusing is that he sued for years afterwards in order to get his
>>patent money and royalties. How Jewish.
>
>It's a racial characteristic. All Jews (so far) belong to the human race.
>
Hagashash Harevi'i
>
> Knowing how you Jews are, you'll probably pick a sentence
> or two out of this 10 pages single-spaced I had on MS
> Word. So I dare any of you to refute my article in its
> entirety!
I can refute this easily:
> In response to this problem, in 1889, the Irish physicist
> George FitzGerald, who had also first proposed a mechanism
> for producing radio waves, wrote a paper which stated that
> the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment could be
> explained if,
>
> "... the length of material bodies changes, according as
> they are moving through the ether or across it, by an
> amount depending on the square of the ratio of their
> velocities to that of light."
And this shows that you are too dumb to understand what Einstein
added to the discussion.
Maxwell assumed the ether existed, since it is an essential element of
Newtonian mechanics. He discussed the issue no further.
Michelson and Morely showed that the ether could not be observed, with
their interferometry.
Fitzgerald, Larmor, and Lorenz, showed that a correction factor to
Newton could account for the M&M experiment's results.
But what they did not understand was that
THERE IS NO ETHER.
Without Einstein, physicists would still have been basing their
equations
on a nonexistent ether frame of reference, and this would have made
physics
too unwieldy for serious study. By stating that THERE IS NO ETHER,
Einstein
made a breakthrough in physics.
But you have already shown that you are too dumb to understand that.
> Furthermore, in 1892, Hendrik Lorentz, from The
> Netherlands, proposed the same solution and began to
> greatly expand the idea.
Lorenz proposed a correction factor as posed against the ether.
Without Einstein Lorenz's correction factor would still be dismissed
as a fudge factor.
> This brings us to the explanation of Brownian motion, the
> subject of another of Einstein's 1905 papers. Brownian
> motion describes the irregular motion of a body arising
> from the thermal energy of the molecules of the material in
> which the body is immersed.
>
> The movement had first been observed by the Scottish
> botanist Robert Brown in 1827. The explanation of this
> phenomenon has to do with the Kinetic Theory of Matter, and
> it was the American Josiah Gibbs and the Austrian Ludwig
> Boltzmann who first explained this occurrence, not Albert
> Einstein. In fact, the mathematical equation describing the
> motion contains the famous Boltzmann constant, k. Between
> these two men, they had explained by the 1890s everything
> in Einstein's 1905 paper regarding Brownian motion.
Everything except the implications for cosmology, that is.
That's where Einstein chimes in.
> The subject of the equivalence of mass and energy was
> contained in a third paper published by Einstein in 1905.
> This concept is expressed by the famous equation E=mc².
> Einstein's biographers categorize this as "his most famous
> and most spectacular conclusion."
>
> Even though this idea is an obvious conclusion of
> Einstein's earlier relativity paper, it was not included in
> that paper but was published as an afterthought later in
> the year. Still, the idea of energy-mass equivalence was
> not original with Einstein.
It is a given in mathematics that theorems derived by deduction
contain no more information than is already in the axioms.
However, that does not mean that a person who writes a deductive chain
is not doing original work.
Otherwise, we would forget all about Pythagoras and Thales and
only regard Euclid as an original thinker.
>
> That there was an equivalence between mass and energy had
> been shown in the laboratory in the 1890s by both J.J.
> Thomsom of Cambridge and by W. Kaufmann in Göttingen. In
Bullshit.
There was no laboratory demonstration of it until Enrico
Fermi did it in Chicago.
> Furthermore, the mathematical relationship of mass and
> energy was a simple deduction from the already well-known
> equations of Scottish physicist James Maxwell. Scientists
Bullshit.
To derive the equivalence of mass and energy you need the Lorenz
equations,
not Maxwell's equations.
I challenge you to start with Maxwell and derive the
equivalence of mass and energy.
Go on, hayseed. Try it.
> In this same plagiarized article of Einstein's, he
> suggested to the scientific community, "Perhaps it will
> prove possible to test this theory using bodies whose
> energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts of
> radium)." This remark demonstrates how little Einstein
> understood about science, for this was truly an outlandish
> remark.
In 1905 there was nothing outlandish about saying that.
Radium was "autoluminescent" in the terms of the day, therefore
it could have been used.
However...
> By saying this, Einstein showed that he really did not
> understand basic scientific principles and that he was
> writing about a topic that he did not understand. In fact,
> in response to this article, J. Precht remarked that such
> an experiment "lies beyond the realm of possible
> experience."
Because the mass defect in reactions involving radium was immeasurable
in 1905's gear.
It took uranium to show the equivalence, many years later.
But Einstein was no experimentalist. He would not have known.
> The last subject dealt with in Einstein's 1905 papers was
> the foundation of the photon theory of light. Einstein
> wrote about the photoelectric effect. The photoelectric
> effect is the release of electrons from certain metals or
> semiconductors by the action of light. This area of
> research is particularly important to the Einstein myth
> because it was for this topic that he unjustly received his
> 1922 Nobel Prize.
And you hayseed deign to judge the Nobel comittee.
> But again, it is not Einstein, but Wilhelm Wien and Max
> Planck who deserve the credit. The main point of Einstein's
> paper, and the point for which he is given credit, is that
> light is emitted and absorbed in finite packets called
> quanta. This was the explanation for the photoelectric
> effect.
As Pauli would say, Ganstz falsch.
The point is that the photoelectric effect's dependency of short
wavelength radiation is due to the higher energy in
quanta of high frequency, (as per Planck's rule).
> The photoelectric effect had been explained by Heinrich
> Hertz in 1888. Hertz and others, including Philipp Lenard,
> worked on understanding this phenomenon. Lenard was the
> first to show that the energy of the electrons released in
> the photoelectric effect was not governed by the intensity
> of the light but by the frequency of the light. This was an
> important breakthrough.
Show, yes. Explain, no.
It took Plank to publish the frequency to energy relation
and Einstein to put Planck's observations and Hertz's together.
> Wien and Planck were colleagues and they were the fathers
> of modern day quantum theory. By 1900, Max Planck, based
> upon his and Wien's work, had shown that radiated energy
> was absorbed and emitted in finite units called quanta. The
> only difference in his work of 1900 and Einstein's work of
> 1905 was that Einstein limited himself to talking about one
> particular type of energy - light energy.
Incorrect.
David Gehrig
>
> Knowing how you Jews are, you'll probably pick a sentence
> or two out of this 10 pages single-spaced I had on MS
> Word. So I dare any of you to refute my article in its
> entirety!
>
>
> Einstein the FRAUD
> By K-Cloud
Actually, yes, having looked it over, I probably could
refute it in its entirety. But I'm feeling charitable and
will give you a chance to retract it before I address it.
@%<
Stephen R Gould
first, very few scientific discoveries come fully-grown like Pallas Athene -
that, after all, is what Newton implied when he said that if he had seen
further than others, it is because he had stood on the shoulders of giants.
Much of what Einstein had put together was already known - what was lacking
was any coherent theoretical underpinning. The constancy of the speed of
light simultaneously explained the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction and
allowed for the derivation of E=MC^2 - but no-one had put these 3 pieces
together before Einstein.
His explanation of Brownian motion and of the photoelectric effect were
considered sufficiently profound in themselves that the mainstream physics
community have acknowledged that Einstein would be regarded as a very great
scientist even had he not discovered relativity.
Certainly he fought QM - which he helped found, of course - though on
philosophical grounds rather than clearly scientific, and his attacks with
hindsight are probably his genuinely greatest blunder - though he reserved
that comment for his fudge of the cosmological constant, which turns out may
actually be valid after all. His pursuit of a unified field theory was
handicapped by the problem being somewhat more difficult than even he
envisaged - if current ideas are anything to go by, the mathematics required
are far in advance of anything that Einstein - or anyone else - could have
known at the time. (See Michio Kaku's writings on the subject.)
As for his time in a Berne patent office - given that his ideas lent
themselves admirably to "pure reason" - sitting and thinking - one can
suggest that he was better off there than continuing to work as a
privatdozent.
But to denigrate Einstein's achievements on the grounds of plagiarism is to
demonstrate ignorance both of the nature of science itself and the nature of
Einstein's theories.
BTW unlike the buffoon who started the thread I didn't cut and paste someone
else's drivel.
SRG
kcl...@my-deja.com
unrefuted, I might add. You may be able to attack me--the messenger--
but my message stands true!
-KCloud
> >
> > -K-Cloud
> >
> > Einstein the FRAUD
> > By K-Cloud
>
> Actually, yes, having looked it over, I probably could
> refute it in its entirety. But I'm feeling charitable and
> will give you a chance to retract it before I address it.
>
> @%<
>
Susan Cohen
kcl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> There's nothing to retract. My piece stands on its own. So far
> unrefuted, I might add.
Except for all the refutations that you are
either ignoring - or simply can't read.
> You may be able to attack me--the messenger--
> but my message stands true!
Attack you? Heck, you do that better than we do
just by opening your mouth.
The only true message you spread is that bigots are all stupid.
Hagashash Harevi'i
> Jonas Salk did not discover penicillin, you blithering idiot. Go to an
> encyclopedia and look up who actually did discover penicillin and what important
> medical discovery Jonas Salk actually did make before you start making such
> ridiculous statements.
Apropos, Salk's greatest contribution wasn't his vaccine
(we use Sabin's vaccine these days anyway -- and Sabin is also a MOT),
but the hypothesis behind it. By demonstrating that an immune response
against poliovirus could be provoked with killed virus rather than
weakened
virus, he demonstrated that the mammal immune system responds to
something
other than a fully living creature, i.e. a mere molecule.
All of biotech is based on that little insight.
Hagashash Harevi'i
>
> I wrote it myself. It was a posting of mine on
> stormfront.org, in the discussion forum.
> Delenda est Judaica!
>
So if you wrote it yourself,
let's see you derive the equivalence of mass and energy from Maxwell.
Hayseed.
Orac
wrote:
>Orac wrote:
Maybe not all of biotech, but certainly all of today's clinically useful
immunology. BTW, kcl...@my-deja.com still hasn't told us who discovered
Penicillin. Personally, I was somewhat unhappy that you gave him the above hint
about what Salk discovered, because I wanted to see if his single neuron could
figure it out. Oh, well...
binyomin
K-Cloud, did you see this post?
Isn't this the kind of response you were soliciting?
dltjxx
[o.s.'s knowledgeable and excellent response
to the kcloud klown snipped for space]
>K-Cloud, did you see this post?
>Isn't this the kind of response you were soliciting?
>Binyomin
Probably not. If the kcloud klown actually read it--if
he could read it, that is--the single-cell which passes
for a brain in his pinhead could not have absorbed it.
He must therefore await further instructions from his SS
oberleutnant.
Deborah
David Gehrig
> but my message stands true!
>
>
> > >
> > > -K-Cloud
> > >
> > > Einstein the FRAUD
> > > By K-Cloud
> >
> > Actually, yes, having looked it over, I probably could
> > refute it in its entirety. But I'm feeling charitable and
> > will give you a chance to retract it before I address it.
> >
> > @%<
Well, you can't say that I didn't give you a chance.
------ Begin the demolition of K-Cloud's narrischkeit
> Knowing how you Jews are, you'll probably pick a sentence
> or two out of this 10 pages single-spaced I had on MS
> Word. So I dare any of you to refute my article in its
> entirety!
>
> -K-Cloud
>
>
> Einstein the FRAUD
> By K-Cloud
Well, I did offer you a chance to retract before I took a look at it,
but you decided to bluster on. So here is my response.
I'm going to pay you the favor -- completely undeserved and obviously
wrong -- of treating this as if you wrote it. There's nothing in any of
your posts which suggest you have the depth (the very modest depth,
given all the errors and omissions) to do so.
The obvious first thing that needs to be said here is that -- on the
assumption that you actually wrote this, to any particular degree,
yourself -- that your "I-looked-it-up-in-Brittanica" level of
understanding shows through again and again, leading you to a number of
fundamental errors, which I will list below.
I mention this up front, because your attempt to distort the history
of science for your racist and antisemitic ends is just plain
immoral.
Worse, you start out by declaring your unabashed antisemitism. As has
already been pointed out to you, your explanation of the context of
Hitler's "Big Lie" is wrong. The rest is just boilerplate neo-Nazi
rah-rah of the shoot-yourself-in-the-foot kind, and I have snipped it.
> Albert Einstein is held up by the Jewish liars as a rare
> genius who drastically changed the field of theoretical
> physics. As such, he is made an idol to young people and
> his very name has become synonymous with genius. The truth,
> however, is very different. The reality is that Einstein
> was an inept, moronic Jew who could not even tie his own
> shoelaces; he contributed nothing original to the field of
> quantum mechanics or any other science, but on the contrary
> he stole the ideas of other men and the Jewish media made
> him a hero.
Einstein's impact on modern physics is unmatched by that of any other
single individual, with the possible exception of Neils Bohr. Anyone who
has studied it -- even on an undergrad level, as I have -- will probably
come to the same conclusion. But that annoys the hell out of toy-Nazis
like you, so you have to do what toy-Nazis always do when reality gets
uncomfortable: cobble up a fantasy alternative history and pretend that
it's the _real_ truth.
> When we actually examine the life of Albert Einstein, we
> find that his only brilliance lies in his ability to
> plagiarize and steal other people's ideas, passing them off
> as his own.
A thesis statement. Unfortunately, your thesis falls apart on
examination, as I show below.
> Einstein's education, or lack thereof, is an important part
> of this story. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of
> Einstein's early education that he "showed little
> scholastic ability." It also says that at the age of
> 15, "with poor grades in history, geography, and languages,
> he left school with no diploma." Einstein himself wrote in
> a school paper of his "lack of imagination and practical
> ability."
This probably says more about the conventional teaching methods
than it does about Einstein's aptitude. Notice that you make no
further reference to his education, intentionally implying that
he was merely a high school dropout.
Let's look at that letter a little more:
"I imagine myself becoming a teacher in those branches of the natural
sciences, choosing the theoretical part of them. Here are the reasons
which lead me to this plan. Above all, it is my disposition for abstract
and mathematical thought, and my lack of imagination and practical
ability."
So, far from portraying himself as inept mathematically, he records
that he actually has a mathematical, abstract predisposition. He's
ruling out, in other words, engineering and the arts, leaving
the theoretical natural sciences such as physics.
> In 1895, Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an
> engineering school in Zurich. This exam consisted mainly of
> mathematical problems, and Einstein showed himself to be
> mathematically inept in this exam. He then entered a lesser
> school hoping to use it as a stepping stone to the
> engineering school he could not get into, but after
> graduating in 1900, he still could not get a position at
> the engineering school!
But in the meantime, he graduated from a secondary school in Aarau as a
teacher of mathematics and physics, another significant fact you omit,
presumably intentionally. Apparently Einstein was so inept at
mathematics that he was qualified to teach it.
> Unable to go to the school as he had wanted, he got a job
> (with the help of a friend) at the patent office in Bern.
> He was to be a technical expert third class, which meant
> that he was too incompetent for a higher qualified
> position. ...
... or that these positions were seniority based and he was
low man on the totem pole.
> ... Even after publishing his so-called
> groundbreaking papers of 1905 and after working in the
> patent office for six years, he was only elevated to a
> second class standing. Remember, the work he was doing at
> the patent office, for which he was only rated third class,
> was not quantum mechanics or theoretical physics, but was
> reviewing technical documents for patents of every day
> things; yet he was barely qualified. ...
But he was not barely qualified. In fact, he would become a
patented inventor himself, co-inventing an electric
refrigerator woth Leo Szilard.
> ... He would work at the
> patent office until 1909, all the while continuously trying
> to get a position at a university, but without success.
... until 1908, two years after getting his doctorate.
> All
> of these facts are true,
... except for the ones that I showed were lies. And other
significant true facts have mysteriously been left out of your
version.
> but now begins the Jewish myth.
> Supposedly, while working a full time job, without the aid
> of university colleagues, a staff of graduate students, a
> laboratory, or any of the things normally associated with
> an academic setting, Einstein in his spare time wrote four
> ground-breaking essays in the field of theoretical physics
> and quantum mechanics that were published in 1905.
"Supposedly" because it's true. How do we know it's true? Well, just to
idly give an example, the paper on Brownian motion, how was it received
in the community of professional physicists? Some indication of its
reception can be found in this fact: on the strength of the paper, the
University of Bern gave Einstein a doctorate in physics. Obviously, the
physics faculty at Bern was in a position to determine whether or not it
was plagiarism; obviously they determined it was not, and stuck the
little letters PhD after Einstein's name to prove it.
Surely, if Einstein was a high-school drop-out trying to swap a plagiarized
paper for a doctorate, the hardest people to hide that from would be
university physics faculty, right? But the faculty didn't say, "This
is stolen, Al." They said, "Congratulations, Dr. Einstein."
Funny how your little essay never bothers to mention that Einstein had a
doctorate in physics. You leave your readers with the impression that he
barely escaped high school. But lying to your readers is part of what
being a toy-Nazi is all about, right?
> Many people have recognized the impossibility of such a
> feat, including Einstein himself, and therefore Einstein
> has led people to believe that many of these ideas came to
> him in his sleep, out of the blue, because indeed that is
> the only logical explanation of how an admittedly inept
> moron could have written such documents at the age of 26
> without any real education. However, a simpler explanation
> exists: he stole the ideas and plagiarized the papers.
You're busily jamming words into Einstein's mouth here. Einstein was
aware -- of course -- that he was building on the work of others. Any
anybody who reads Einstein's papers is aware that he was building on the
work of others, so it's not like Einstein tried to somehow disguise it.
But building on the work of others is how science works, and your
stature as a scientist is determined by what you have _added_ to the
structure. And even a quick look at the history of science shows that
Einstein added many new and innovative ideas.
It's also simply wrong, as I have shown above, to argue that Einstein
had "no real education."
> Therefore, we will look at each of these ideas and discover
> the source of each. ...
... in each of which case we will discover that the source is
Einstein.
> ... It should be remembered that these
> ideas are presented by Einstein's worshippers as totally
> new and completely different, each of which would change
> the landscape of science. These four papers dealt with the
> following four ideas, respectively:
> 1. The foundation of the photon theory of light;
> 2. The equivalence of energy and mass;
> 3. The explanation of Brownian motion in liquids;
> 4. The special theory of relativity.
Here you're simply hoping that your audience is as inept in
the history of science as you are. The founding of a completely
new science is an incredibly rare thing. Einstein was addressing
problems others before him had tried with varying degrees of
success, and like other scientists before him, used the work
of scientists still earlier. The reputation of any scientist
is measured, not by the mass of knowledge in his field, but by
what he has added to that pre-existing mass of knowledge.
> Let us first look at the last of these theories, the theory
> of relativity. This is perhaps the most famous idea falsely
> attributed to Einstein. Specifically, this 1905 paper dealt
> with what Einstein called the Special Theory of Relativity
> (the General Theory would come in 1915).
This is perhaps Einstein's greatest contribution to science, one that
almost a hundred years later, mingy little antisemites and neo-Nazis
would try to deny but the rest of the world justly celebrate.
> This theory contradicted the traditional Newtonian
> mechanics ...
... actually, no, because by the equivalence principle it had to reduce
to Newtonian physics under nonrelativistic conditions. What it did was
extend Newton's laws of motion to take into consideration laboratory
results Newton's laws alone couldn't handle.
Didn't take you long to crash and burn, did it.
> ... and was based upon two premises: 1) in the
> absence of acceleration, the laws of nature are the same
> for all observers; and 2) since the speed of light is
> independent of the motion of its source, then the time
> interval between two events is longer for an observer in
> whose frame of reference the events occur at different
> places than for an observer in whose frame of reference the
> events occur in the same place. This is basically the idea
> that time passes more slowly as one's velocity approaches
> the speed of light, relative to slower velocities where
> time would pass faster.
>
> This theory has been validated by modern experiments and is
> the basis for modern physics. But these two premises are
> far from being originally Einstein's. First of all, the
> idea that the speed of light was a constant and was
> independent of the motion of its source was not Einstein's
> at all, but was proposed by the Scottish scientist James
> Maxwell.
And "The Raven," of course, was written by Edgar Poe. Unless you
have a clue, of course, and know that he went by the name Edgar
Allan Poe. Just like James Clerk Maxwell went by the name James
Clerk Maxwell, and only idiots don't know it.
Maxwell's 1873 calculations of the speed of propagation of
electromagnetic waves didn't address the idea of inertial frames at all.
It described the behavior of light in a stationary inertial frame. He
did not predict the constant speed of light independent of the motion of
the inertial frame -- in other words, you're taking attributing the
wrong result to Maxwell.
> Maxwell studied the phenomenon of light extensively and
> first proposed that it was electromagnetic in nature. He
> wrote an article to this effect for the 1878 edition of the
> Encyclopedia Britannica. His ideas prompted much debate,
> and by 1887, as a result of his work and the ensuing
> debate, the scientific community, particularly Lorentz,
> Michelson, and Morley reached the conclusion that the
> velocity of light was independent of the velocity of the
> observer.
You get the sequence on Michelson-Morley a bit mixed up here. The reason
that Michelson and Morely had "reached the conclusion" that c was
invariant was because they had done an experiment which had demonstrated
it. They weren't working from theory but from experimental data. They
were hoping to find a universal coordinate system -- a universial "up"
and "down" -- relative to which the earth was moving. Instead they found
a result which was utterly inexplicable to them, which is that there
_is_ no universal "up."
What it was up to Einstein to do was take a system of physics which
seemed to pretty much have everything solved and correlate it with this
one, singular, inexplicable but undeniable result.
> Thus, this piece of the Special Theory of Relativity was
> known 27 years before Einstein wrote his paper.
But this is what prompted the paper in the first place -- trying to
explain this bizarre result without throwing out the rest of physics.
The effect may have been noted 27 years before, but an explanation was
not. See the difference? Rainbows were known for millenia before Snell's
laws of refraction explained how they were made. The bizarre motion of
the planets in the sky was known for millenia before Kepler figured out
how it all worked with elliptical orbits and all. And so on.
> This debate over the nature of light also led Michelson and
> Morley to conduct an important experiment, the results of
> which could not be explained by Newtonian mechanics. ...
And only now do you get to the M-M experiment. As I noted before,
the experiment came first, then the conclusion about the invariance
of c. If you had more of a clue of what you're talking about, you
might have spotted that.
> ... They
> observed a phenomenon caused by relativity but they did not
> understand relativity. ...
... because Einstein had not yet formulated it.
> ... They had attempted to detect the
> motion of the earth through ether, which was a medium
> thought to be necessary for the propagation of light.
>
> In response to this problem, in 1889, the Irish physicist
> George FitzGerald, who had also first proposed a mechanism
> for producing radio waves, wrote a paper which stated that
> the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment could be
> explained if,
>
> "... the length of material bodies changes, according as
> they are moving through the ether or across it, by an
> amount depending on the square of the ratio of their
> velocities to that of light."
>
> This is the theory of relativity, 13 years before
> Einstein's paper!
No, this is not the theory of relativity, if it's still referring to the
motion of bodies in "the ether," or "through the ether or across it."
FitzGerald had found another puzzle piece -- and is honored for it in
every modern physics text as co-creator of the "Lorentz-FitzGerald
contraction -- but it was still up to Einstein to put all the pieces in
place.
Here's how one of my physics textbooks puts it (Sears, Zemansky, and
Young, fifth edition, chapter 14, "Relativistic Mechanics"):
"Newton's laws of motion are valid only in inertial frames, but they are
valid in _all_ inertial frames. Any frame moving with constant velocity
with respect to an inertial frame is itself an inertial frame, and all
such frames are equivalent to expressing the basic principles of
mechanics [i.e. Newton's laws of motion]. The laws of mechanics are the
same in every inertial frame of reference.
"Einstein proposed in 1905 that this principle should be extended to
include _all_ the basic laws of physics. This innocent-sounding
proposition has far-reaching and startling consequences, a few of which
have already been mentioned. If the principle of conservation of
momentum is to be valid in all inertial systems, for example, the
definition of momentum, for particles moving at speeds comparable to the
speed of light, must be changed from mv to mv/(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2). Even
more fundamental are the modifications needed in the kinematic aspects
of motion, as we shall see. Nevertheless, Einstein's _principle of
relativity_, as it has come to be called, is now accepted as an
essential requirement for a physical theory. The principle of relativity
states that _the laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame of
reference._"
Note particularly that last sentence. The Lorentz-FitzGerald
contraction, otherwise called the Lorentz transformations, are _part_ of
relativity theory, because they describe relativistic mechanics, but
they are not relativity theory itself. You confuse the part for the
whole.
> Furthermore, in 1892, Hendrik Lorentz, from The
> Netherlands, proposed the same solution and began to
> greatly expand the idea. All throughout the 1890's, both
> Lorentz and FitzGerald worked on these ideas and wrote
> articles strangely similar to Einstein's Special Theory
> detailing what is now known as the Lorentz-FitzGerald
> Contraction.
But again, they were studying something specific, the propagation of
light waves through the ether. Einstein recognized that the equations
described much, much more than just what Lorentz and FitzGerald thought
they did.
> In 1898, the Irishman Joseph Larmor wrote down equations
> explaining the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction and its
> relativistic consequences, 7 years before Einstein's paper.
> By 1904, Lorentz transformations, the series of equations
> explaining relativity, were published by Lorentz. They
> describe the increase of mass, the shortening of length,
> and the time dilation of a body moving at speeds close to
> the velocity of light.
As I mentioned above, Lorentz was treating electromagnetic waves, which
he regarded as massless. When you're taking relativity and mass or
momentum, you're talking Einstein, not Lorentz. But since the idea used
Lorentz work as a starting point, the equations describing spacial
relativistic coordinates are still called the Lorentz transformation --
Einstein clearly giving credit where it's due.
> In short, by 1904, everything in Einstein's paper regarding
> the Special Theory of Relativity had already been published.
Except for the main revolutionary idea itself, the invariance
of all the basic laws of physics regardless of the inertial
frame chosen.
> The Frenchman Poincar» had, in 1898, written a paper
> unifying many of these ideas. He stated seven years before
> Einstein's paper that,
>
> "... we have no direct intuition about the equality of two
> time intervals. The simultaneity of two events or the order
> of their succession, as well as the equality of two time
> intervals, must be defined in such a way that the
> statements of the natural laws be as simple as possible."
Again, another piece of the puzzle, a puzzle which it still fell
to Einstein to put together into one coherent whole, thanks to
his central insight.
Now you try the "everybody knows I'm right" rhetorical trope.
> Anyone who has read Einstein's 1905 paper will ....
... obviously be half a mile beyond KCloudd.
> immediately
> recognize the similarity and the lack of originality on the
> part of Einstein. Thus we see that the only thing original
> about the paper was the term 'Special Theory of
> Relativity.' Everything else was plagiarized.
And, as I have shown, KCloudd is talking through his hat.
> Over the next few years, Poincar» became one of the most
> important lecturers and writers regarding relativity, but
> he never, in any of his papers or speeches, mentioned
> Albert Einstein. Thus, while Poincar» was busy bringing the
> rest of the academic world up to speed regarding
> relativity, Einstein was still working in the patent office
> in Bern ...
... for three more years, until he was appointed a professor
of physics at Bern -- and, given the glacial pace of physics
"revolutions," this was an very quick turnaround.
> ... and no one in the academic community thought it
> necessary to give much credence or mention to Einstein's
> work. Most of these early physicists knew that he was a
> fraud.
Except, of course, that he wasn't. Your basic argument is just
nonsensical. You're arguing that the works of the world's leading
pre-Einstein physicists were so unknown that Einstein could pilfer them
at will. Then how did they get to be the world's leading pre-Einstein
physicists in the first place, if nobody knew what they wrote?
> This brings us to the explanation of Brownian motion, the
> subject of another of Einstein's 1905 papers. Brownian
> motion describes the irregular motion of a body arising
> from the thermal energy of the molecules of the material in
> which the body is immersed.
>
> The movement had first been observed by the Scottish
> botanist Robert Brown in 1827. The explanation of this
> phenomenon has to do with the Kinetic Theory of Matter, and
> it was the American Josiah Gibbs and the Austrian Ludwig
> Boltzmann who first explained this occurrence, not Albert
> Einstein. In fact, the mathematical equation describing the
> motion contains the famous Boltzmann constant, k. Between
> these two men, they had explained by the 1890s everything
> in Einstein's 1905 paper regarding Brownian motion.
Except, again, that they hadn't. And I think you know it, which is why
you keep your discussion of Brownian motion down to a single paragraph.
Because if you went into much more detail than that, you'd have to
describe what Einstein's doctorate-deserving breakthrough was.
The Boltzmann constant related the average kinetic energy of a molecule
in a gas to the temperature of the gas. Since Einstein's analysis of
Brownian motion involves a statistical analysis of the motion of gas
particles as _part_ of his result, it's no surprise that the Boltzmann
constant shows up, despite all your efforts to make it look like
Einstein is plagiarizing. (By that standard, since Newton came up with
the gravitational constant G, any calculation using G must be suspected
of having been plagiarized from Newton.)
Einstein's work was to analyze the "random walk" a barely visible
particle of soot makes ("Brownian motion") as it is buffeted from all
sides by molecules of air. By statistically analyzing the motion, he
could draw conclusions about the momenta of the molecules hitting the
soot particle. In effect, Einstein had provided the first experimentally
verifiable observation of the existence of molecules which also allowed
some determination of their scale. Hence the title of his doctoral
dissertation, _On a new determination of molecular dimensions_.
Neither Brown, Gibbs, nor Boltzmann tried to do this analysis. It is
original with Einstein.
> The subject of the equivalence of mass and energy was
> contained in a third paper published by Einstein in 1905.
> This concept is expressed by the famous equation E=mc*.
> Einstein's biographers categorize this as "his most famous
> and most spectacular conclusion."
And probably second only to F=ma in its amazing brevity for such a
powerful concept. Flip through a physics book some time and you'll see
that things rarely work out that neatly.
> Even though this idea is an obvious conclusion of
> Einstein's earlier relativity paper, it was not included in
> that paper but was published as an afterthought later in
> the year. Still, the idea of energy-mass equivalence was
> not original with Einstein.
But the formula was, and the way that it fit into the revolutionary
insight I mentioned above was too.
> That there was an equivalence between mass and energy had
> been shown in the laboratory in the 1890s by both J.J.
> Thomsom ...
... Thompson, discoverer of the electron. And it's quite true that
Thompson was famous for measuring the ratio e/m of the electron.
Unfortunately for you, in this case e means electric charge, not
energy. These are two different concepts measured in two completely
different units. The fact that both are abbreviated as e seems to have
made you pull another dope-osity.
> ... of Cambridge and by W. Kaufmann in Goettingen. ...
who I couldn't turn up in a quick check of my physics books. But if you
can bobble something as basic as Thompson on the electron (!) then
there's no reason to believe the comparatively less known will suffer a
better fate at your hands.
> In
> 1900, Poincar» had shown that there was a mass relationship
> for all forms of energy, not just electromagnetic energy. ...
... and by this time it's hard not to reach the conclusion that you're
just throwing words around that you don't understand. "A mass
relationship" -- what was the one Poincare postulated, and where did he
publish it? Just saying there is a relationship doesn't cut the mustard
among physicists -- you also need to define what the relationship is.
> Yet, the most probable source of Einstein's plagiarism was
> Friedrich Hasenàhrl, ...
I assume you mean Fritz Hasenoehrl, whose main claim to fame was having
Schroedinger as a pupil.
> one of the most brilliant, yet
> unappreciated physicists of the era.
>
> Hasenàhrl was the teacher of many of the German scientists
> who would later become famous for a variety of topics. He
> had worked on the idea of the equivalence of mass and
> energy for many years and had published a paper on the
> topic in 1904 in the very same journal which Einstein would
> publish his plagiarized version in 1905. For his brilliant
> work in this area, Hasenàrhl had received in 1904 a prize
> from the prestigious Vienna Academy of Sciences.
But you are being so amazingly vague that I can no longer tell if you're
simply trying to cover things up -- like you did with Einstein's
doctorate -- or simply haven't the foggiest of what you're talking
about. _What_, specifically, was Hasenhoehrl's "idea of the equivalence
of mass and energy"? Did he predict a linear relationship? An
exponential one? A quartic or cubic or x^pi or any of a zillion other
incorrect solutions?
> Furthermore, the mathematical relationship of mass and
> energy was a simple deduction from the already well-known
> equations of Scottish physicist James Maxwell. ....
... or even of James Clerk Maxwell...
> Scientists
> long understood that the mathematical relationship
> expressed by the equation E=mc* was the logical result of
> Maxwell's work, they just did not believe it.
Ah, if it's so simple, then maybe you could derive it for us.
Take a few minutes for it, if you'd like.
> Thus, the experiments of Thomson, Kaufmann, and finally,
> and most importantly, Hasenàrhl, confirmed Maxwell's work.
... except of course that Maxwell hadn't done a damned thing dealing
with mass/energy equivalence.
> It is ludicrous to believe that Einstein developed this
> postulate, particularly in light of the fact that Einstein
> did not have the laboratory necessary to conduct the
> appropriate experiments.
He had a brain. That was his laboratory. That's the interesting thing
about theoretical physics -- in some cases a brain is all you need.
Especially if it's an Einsteinian brain.
> In this same plagiarized article of Einstein's, he
> suggested to the scientific community, "Perhaps it will
> prove possible to test this theory using bodies whose
> energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts of
> radium)." This remark demonstrates how little Einstein
> understood about science, for this was truly an outlandish
> remark.
What's outlandish about it? In 1905 almost nothing was known about
radioactivity except that it existed. In 1905 they hadn't even
postulated the atomic nucleus yet, let alone protons and neutrons -- the
neutrons wouldn't show up in Cavendish's lab for another quarter
century. So what exactly is the point of your mockery?
> By saying this, Einstein showed that he really did not
> understand basic scientific principles and that he was
> writing about a topic that he did not understand. ...
Again, you don't explain why, you just mock.
> In fact,
> in response to this article, J. Precht remarked that such
> an experiment "lies beyond the realm of possible
> experience."
Which it would be -- in this form, trying to measure the change
in weight of some radium and correlate it with the cast-off
radiation, since the difference in mass would be too small to
measure by any means available. Which is why, I gather,
Einstein says uses a subjunctive future tense -- perhaps it
will someday be possible to measure the difference.
> The last subject dealt with in Einstein's 1905 papers was
> the foundation of the photon theory of light. Einstein
> wrote about the photoelectric effect. ...
... and gathered a Nobel Prize for it in 1921. Are you now
going to argue that the Nobel Committee was unable to spot
what you seem to consider obvious plagiarism?
> The photoelectric
> effect is the release of electrons from certain metals or
> semiconductors by the action of light. This area of
> research is particularly important to the Einstein myth
> because it was for this topic that he unjustly received his
> 1922 Nobel Prize.
If he received the 1922 Nobel prize, it was indeed unjust, because
it was 1921 when he won it.
> But again, it is not Einstein, but Wilhelm Wien and Max
> Planck who deserve the credit. The main point of Einstein's
> paper, and the point for which he is given credit, is that
> light is emitted and absorbed in finite packets called
> quanta. This was the explanation for the photoelectric
> effect.
But Planck had postulated quanta to explain a completely different
phenomenon, the black-body radiation paradox. Although Planck had
postulated the photon, it was up to Einstein to formulate its behavior
in relation to the photoelectric effect. There's a reason the Einstein
photoelectric equation is called the Einstein photoelectric equation.
But what level of scientific understanding can we expect from a neo-Nazi
who thinks a black body is what you have left after a lynching?
> The photoelectric effect had been explained by Heinrich
> Hertz in 1888. Hertz and others, including Philipp Lenard,
> worked on understanding this phenomenon. Lenard was the
> first to show that the energy of the electrons released in
> the photoelectric effect was not governed by the intensity
> of the light but by the frequency of the light. This was an
> important breakthrough.
But it was not a complete formulation.
> Wien and Planck were colleagues and they were the fathers
> of modern day quantum theory. By 1900, Max Planck, based
> upon his and Wien's work, had shown that radiated energy
> was absorbed and emitted in finite units called quanta. The
> only difference in his work of 1900 and Einstein's work of
> 1905 was that Einstein limited himself to talking about one
> particular type of energy - light energy.
Because he was trying to explain one particular effect -- the
photoelectric effect -- which was otherwise inexplicable, and it just
happened to involve light energy. And it just happened to be confirmed
by experiment, and it just happened to be right, and it just happpened
to earn Einstein a Nobel.
> But the principles and equations governing the process in
> general had been deduced by Planck in 1900. ...
... not for the photoelectric effect, no. For blackbody
radiation. Different matter completely.
> ... Einstein
> himself admitted that the obvious conclusion of Planck's
> work was that light also existed in discrete packets of
> energy. Thus, nothing in this paper of Einstein's was
> original.
And again your case dissolves under you. That makes four out of four you
lost.
> After the 1905 papers of Einstein were published, the
> scientific community took little notice and Einstein
> continued his job at the patent office until 1909 when it
> was arranged for him to take a position at a school by
> World Jewry. ....
... guffaw! Tell me, do you goosestep when you say that?
> Still, it was not until a 1919 newspaper
> headline that he gained any notoriety. ...
... because his strange theories had been spectacularly
vindicated by experiment, and he became the first and only
person to touch up Newton's laws of motion. Not for nothing
is "Einstein" synonymous with genius.
> With Einstein's academic appointment in 1909, he was placed
> in a position where he could begin to use other people's
> work as his own more openly. He engaged many of his
> students to look for ways to prove the theories he had
> supposedly developed, or ways to apply those theories, and
> then he could present the research as his own or at least
> take partial credit.
>
> In this vein, in 1912, he began to try and express his
> gravitational research in terms of a new, recently
> developed calculus,
... the tensor calculus of Levi-Civita...
> which was conducive to understanding
> relativity. This was the beginning of his General Theory of
> Relativity, which he would publish in 1915. But the
> mathematical work was not done by Einstein - he was
> incapable of it.
As were all but a handful of mathematicians in the world, since it was
so new. Keep in mind that Einstein was so highly regarded by this time
by his peers that in 1914 the Germans -- remember them? -- offered him a
research position at the Prussian Academy of the Sciences _along with_ a
position (without teaching duties) at the University of Berlin. What
else did they offer him? The Kaiser was establishing research institutes
around the country. Guess who they asked to direct the Kaiser Wilhelm
Institute of Physics in Berlin?
> Instead, it was performed by the mathematician Marcel
> Grossmann, who in turn used the mathematical principles
> developed by Berhard Riemann, who was the first to develop
> a sound non-Euclidean geometry, which is the basis of all
> mathematics used to describe relativity.
Out of sheer pity, I won't put the previous paragraph through the
grinder, other than to note that they show all the signs of Deep
Clueless. You're clearly in way over your head, and it shows.
> The General Theory of Relativity applied the principles of
> relativity to the universe; that is, to the gravitational
> pull of planets and their orbits, and the general principle
> that light rays bend as they pass by a massive object.
> Einstein published an initial paper in 1913 based upon the
> work which Grossmann did, adapting the math of Riemann to
> Relativity. But this paper was filled with errors and the
> conclusions were incorrect.
... demonstrating that not even Einstein gets everything right the first
time.
> It appears that Grossmann was not smart enough to figure it
> out for Einstein. So Einstein was forced to look elsewhere
> to plagiarize his General Theory.
He looked inside his own brain and worked it out. Your claims
to the opposite are unsubstantiated below.
> Einstein published his
> correct General Theory of Relativity in 1915, and said
> prior to its publication that he, "...completely succeeded
> in convincing Hilbert and Klein." He is referring to David
> Hilbert, perhaps the most brilliant mathematician of the
> 20th century, and Felix Klein, another mathematician who
> had been instrumental in the development of the area of
> calculus that Grossmann had used to develop the General
> Theory of Relativity for Einstein.
>
> Einstein's statement regarding the two men would lead the
> reader to believe that Einstein had changed Hilbert's and
> Klein's opinions regarding General Relativity, and that he
> had influenced them in their thinking. However, the exact
> opposite is true. Einstein stole the majority of his
> General Relativity work from these two men, the rest being
> taken from Grossmann.
So you say but do not prove. The closest you come to providing
even a shred of evidence is to repeat the not-at-all-secret
fact that Hilbert anticipated once facet of general relativity.
> Hilbert submitted for publication, a week before Einstein
> completed his work, a paper which contained the correct
> field equations of General Relativity. ...
True.
> What this means is
> that Hilbert wrote basically the exact same paper, with the
> same conclusions, before Einstein did. ...
False. But nice try. There's more to general relativity than
the field equations Hilbert anticipated. Anyway, the next bit
of stunning deduction is too priceless to snip.
> Einstein would have
> had an opportunity to know of Hilbert's work all along,
> because there were Jewish friends of his working for
> Hilbert.
.... oooh, look out, it's the great Jooooish conspiracy.
> Yet, even this was not necessary, for Einstein had seen
> Hilbert's paper in advance of publishing his own. Both of
> these papers were, before being printed, delivered in the
> form of a lecture.
>
> Einstein presented his paper on November 25, 1915 in Berlin
> and Hilbert had presented his paper on November 20 in
> Gàttingen. On November 18, Hilbert received a letter from
> Einstein thanking him for sending him a draft of the
> treatise Hilbert was to deliver on the 20th.
>
> So, in fact, Hilbert had sent a copy of his work at least
> two weeks in advance to Einstein before either of the two
> men delivered their lectures, but Einstein did not send
> Hilbert an advance copy of his.
But, uh, you already said that Einstein had published earlier
forms of the work, right? Or did you forget?
> Therefore, this serves as
> incontrovertible proof that Einstein quickly plagiarized
> the work and then presented it, hoping to beat Hilbert to
> the punch.
... "incontrovertable proof" !! LOL! When logic fails, just
talk louder, toy-Nazi!
> Also, at the same time, Einstein publicly began
> to belittle Hilbert, even though in the previous summer he
> had praised him in an effort to get Hilbert to share his
> work with him. Hilbert made the mistake of sending Einstein
> this draft copy, but still he delivered his work first.
At this point you go so far off the rails that there's really
no point in commenting further.
> Not only did Hilbert publish his work first, but it was of
> much higher quality than Einstein's. It is known today that
> there are many problems with assumptions made in Einstein's
> General Theory paper. We know today that Hilbert was much
> closer to the truth. Hilbert's paper is the forerunner of
> the unified field theory of gravitation and
> electromagnetism and of the work of Erwin Schràdinger,
> whose work is the basis of all modern day quantum mechanics.
In other words, Einstein and Hilbert were treating two different
areas.
> That the group of men discussed so far were the actual
> originators of the ideas claimed by Einstein was known by
> the scientific community all along.
.... toy-Nazi bullshit.
> In 1940, a group of
> German physicists meeting in Austria declared that "before
> Einstein, Aryan scientists like Lorentz, Hasenàhrl,
> Poincar», etc., had created the foundations of the theory
> of relativity..."
One of the reasons that "Aryan science" remains even today a
laughingstock -- because at the same time they were holding their big
rallies promoting how wonderful "Aryan science" was, a huge fraction of
their best scientists were being chased out by Nazi nuttiness -- more
than a few chased straight to Los Alamos, where they would in a fair
square race beat the pants of the inept Nazi atomic bomb project.
> However, the Jewish media did not promote the work of these
> men.
And at this point the essay degenerates into the same old jewbait
World Conspiracy to Destroy the Aryans foolishness that loons like
you always devolve to sooner or later. So I've snipped a dozen
or so crapperfuls.
> This brazen lying has culminated in the Jew controlled Time
> magazine naming Einstein "The Person of the Century" at the
> close of 1999. It may be demonstrated that the Jewish lies
> have become more bold with the passage of time because
> Einstein was never named "Man of the Year" while he was
> alive, but now, over forty years after his death, he is
> named "Person of the Century."
>
> Einstein was given this title in spite of the clear-cut
> choice for the "Person of the Century," Adolf Hitler.
... and, well, it goes on in High Nazi Rant mode for a few more
crapperfuls, but by now my point is made. (Although again I note that
Oppenheimer wasn't a communist, as much as the toy-Nazis wish he was.)
Now, at this point, a reader might reasonably ask, why did I go to all
this trouble to wipe out what was clearly a chunk of coagulated
cluelessness? First, it was fun brushing the dust off my old modern
physics text (_Elementary Modern Physics, 3rd Edition_ by Weidner and
Sells) and taking another look at the birth of modern physics. It's also
fun to shoot fish in a barrel every now and then, KCloudd's barrel was
smaller than his fish, and the fish themselves were all carrying
placards saying "Please Shoot Me!"
@%<
David S. Maddison
In article <38EADA62...@earthlink.net> Wed, 05 Apr 2000 06:17:21
GMT David Gehrig <zem...@earthlink.net> wrote:
EXCELLENT post, David!
Another clueless Nazi loser bites the dust.
May I suggest you put it on the web, or I'd be happy to host it
myself. As you know, regardless of the fabrications in the article you
were addressing, the knuckledraggers are going to keep posting it
because their audience are empty, gullible vessels that will believe
anything, no matter how bizarre.
David Maddison
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815
David Gehrig
>
> In article <38EADA62...@earthlink.net> Wed, 05 Apr 2000 06:17:21
> GMT David Gehrig <zem...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> EXCELLENT post, David!
>
> Another clueless Nazi loser bites the dust.
Well, I gave him fair warning, didn't I?
> May I suggest you put it on the web, or I'd be happy to host it
> myself. As you know, regardless of the fabrications in the article you
> were addressing, the knuckledraggers are going to keep posting it
> because their audience are empty, gullible vessels that will believe
> anything, no matter how bizarre.
If you'd like to host it, feel free. I'd be glad to know that I'd
helped with something on your terrific site.
@%<
David Gehrig
One minor change, on rereading it: for "Cavendish" put "Chadwick."
But, as I said in the essay, not even Einstein always got it right
the first try.
@%<