|
|
|
The Einstein Hoax The joke's on us "Ein stein" means "one stone", a metaphor for half a brain "An Einstein" is the smartest jew in the world, which means a filthy lying plagiarizing Edomite who never even passed algebra whose three offspring were mental vegetables who HATES Whites [especially Germans] almost as much as he HATES Arabs
"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..." Albert Einstein This "brilliant", "pacifist" jew, who condemned us for nuking Japan, is referring to a people who, almost totally destroyed in a jew-created world war, succeeded in ridding themselves of the scourge of jews, and within half a century rebuilding their country to achieve family incomes almost twice as high as ours and proved that exiling the jew is worth every electron of effort required to accomplish that noble goal "Einstein rarely mentioned those who assisted him. Indeed, in all the famous 1905 papers that he published, only Michele Besso, his friend and sounding board, is mentioned. There is simply no other source material cited in any other of his 1905 papers."
By the last quarter of the 19th century, the Science of Physics was considered to be nearly complete. The electromagnetic equations of James Clark Maxwell had explained electromagnetic radiation and light was considered to be a vibrational wave propagating through a medium called the Aether in a manner similar to the propagation of sound through air. Using Maxwell's Electromagnetic Equations, J. J. Thomson derived the relationship between mass and energy, E=M*C2, in 1888 when the alleged source of that relationship (Dr. Einstein) was still in knee pants. (The author has since received an E-mail which asserts that a Mr. Olinto D. Pretto of Italy published this relationship in 1903. This really doesn't matter too much, what is clear is that Dr. Einstein was not the original source of the relationship for which he was credited.) If this jew was so brilliant, why did the US government not tap his talents for the Manhattan Project which SUCESSFULLY developed the atom bomb? Why was GPS a SUCCESS without any consideration for "his theory"? Why were two thirds of his children brain dead? Why did he publish "his" papers under his wife's name? Why did his wife do his math for him, and who did his math after he dumped her for a prettier woman? Why did he NEVER cite any prior paper to demonstrate that prior papers were used as references, and not just plagiarized? Why did Time Magazine name him as "person of the year" when he wasn't even in the top 100 of America's favorite personalities? Why was he denied admission to the US, along with all other jews who at that time were "feeble minded ... morons"? Why should this kike with the morals of an alley cat, with a downs syndrome child born out of wedlock, caught in the act of adultery by his wife, believing that Jesus is now boiling in hot semen, proclaiming Germans "cannot be re-educated to a democratic way of thinking and acting", whose disdain for moral character and upstanding principles are dripping off the walls, be presented as a moral example to America's youth? Niggers in Africa wouldn't even accept this degenerate kike as a role model. Why should our Christian children be forced to? This moron's children
The Einstein Time Line
Einstein's plagiarized papers:
http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/ "The appearance of Dr. Silberstein's recent article on 'General Relativity without
the Equivalence Hypothesis' encourages me to restate my own views on the subject. I am
perhaps entitled to do this as my work on the subject of General Relativity was published
before that of Einstein and Kottler, and appears to have been overlooked by recent
writers." -- Harry Bateman
"Oh, and Dr. Harvey told me that so far he had found nothing to indicate the physical nature of this particular brain was anything special. But some scientists in California heard about the brain from my story and eventually did some work which showed some anomalies. Anyway, the big excitement for me was seeing those little brain-pieces, each the size of a Goldenberg's peanut chew, bobbing up and down in solution. This changed everything." It sure did. The brain of the smartest jew in the world is smaller than a woman's--and the smartest jew sin the world is a LIAR, plagiarist, and idiot
"Unfortunately, Dr. Einstein failed to recognize that Tensor Calculus cannot be used to derive a relativistic theory (as discussed later) and employed that mathematical technique in the theory's derivation. Its use for such a purpose introduced a mathematical error of a type which, if persistently made by a student of Elementary Calculus, would result in a failing grade for the course. As a result of this error, the derivation of General Relativity was impossible in terms of our observable three dimensional Euclidian Space."
Could it be at all possible that this "anti-Semitism" referred to in the following statement, that which got jews kicked out of 86 nations before us, was based on reality and not mythology?:
http://www.stormfront.org/archive/t-46698 Engineering, the work of applied physics, uses Newtonian physics almost exclusively. It
is far easier to calculate the trajectory of an orbiting body, for example, if one
neglects what has come to be called "Einsteinian physics".
"Albert Einstein *FAILED*
to credit the scientists whose work he borrowed for his special relativity
theory, and allowed the data from the 1919 eclipse to be fudged." EINSTEIN:
PLAGIARIST OF THE CENTURY. Richard Moody, Jr, [Moody has a Master's Degree in
Geology, is the author of three books on chess theory and has wri...tten
for the Mensa Bulletin.] Nexus Magazine Volume 11, Number 1 (December
2003-January 2004)
Albert Einstein, Plagiarist of the Century
Einstein plagiarized the work of several notable scientists in his 1905 papers
on special relativity and E = mc2, yet the physics community has never bothered
to set the record straight in the past century.
THE FIRST UNIFIED THEORY
Richard Moody Jr in Nexus vol 11 no 1 (Albert Einstein plagiarist of the
century) accuses Einstein ofcommandeering theories of others; well in the case
of theunified field theory although most of the Mainstreammakes out that
Einstein never discovered it, in fact thetheory actually predates Einstein. Some
scientists even point this out, contrary to their peers.
Abstract
It is attributed by convention to be the sole province of Albert Einstein
(1905). However, the conversion of matter into energy and energy into matter was
known to Sir Isaac Newton ("Gross bodies and light are convertible into one
another...", 1704). The equation can be attributed to S. Tolver Preston
(1875), to Jules Henri Poincaré (1900; according to Brown, 1967) and to Olinto
De Pretto (1904) before Einstein. Since Einstein never correctly derived E = mc2
(Ives, 1952), there appears nothing to connect the equation with anything
original by Einstein.
This silence benefited anyone supporting Einstein.
Introduction
However, their efforts will be shown up when Einstein's paper, "On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", is seen for what it is: the consummate
act of plagiarism in the 20th century.
(1) "sketched a preliminary version of the special theory of relativity"
(2) "stated that the velocity of light is a limit velocity" (in his 1904 paper
from the Bull. of Sci. Math. 28, Poincaré indicated "a whole new mechanics,
where the inertia increasing with the velocity of light would become a limit and
not be exceeded")
(3) suggested that "mass depends on speed"
(4) "formulated the principle of relativity, according to which no mechanical or
electromagnetic experiment can discriminate between a state of uniform motion
and a state of rest"
(5) "derived the Lorentz transformation"
It is evident how deeply involved with special relativity Poincaré was. Even
Keswani (1965) was prompted to say that,
"As far back as 1895, Poincaré, the innovator, had conjectured that it is
impossible to detect absolute motion", and that "In 1900, he introduced 'the
principle of relative motion' which he later called by the equivalent terms 'the
law of relativity' and 'the principle of relativity' in his book, Science and
Hypothesis, published in 1902".
Einstein acknowledged none of this preceding theoretical work when he
wrote his unreferenced 1905 paper.
"They will show that the credit for most of the things which are currently
attributed to Einstein is, in reality, due to Poincaré", and "...in the opinion
of the Relativists it is the measuring rods which create space, the clocks which
create time. All this was known by Poincaré and others long before the time of
Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to him".
Other scientists have not been quite as impressed with "Einstein's"
special relativity theory as has the public.
"Another curious feature of the now famous paper, Einstein, 1905, is the absence
of any reference to Poincaré or anyone else," Max Born wrote in Physics in My
Generation.
"It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as
I have tried to explain, not true" (Born, 1956).
G. Burniston Brown
(1967) noted,
"It will be seen that, contrary to popular belief, Einstein played only a minor
part in the derivation of the useful formulae in the restricted or special
relativity theory, and Whittaker called it the relativity theory of Poincaré
and Lorentz!"
Due to the fact that Einstein's special relativity theory was known in some
circles as the relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz, one would think that
Poincaré and Lorentz might have had something to do with its creation. What is
disturbing about the Einstein paper is that even though Poincaré was the world's
leading expert on relativity, apparently Einstein had never heard of him or
thought he had done anything worth referencing!
"From all these results, if they are confirmed, would arise an entirely new
mechanics - would be, above all, characterized by this fact that no velocity
could surpass that of light - because bodies would oppose an increasing inertia
to the causes, which would tend to accelerate their motion; and this inertia
would become infinite when one approached the velocity of light. No more for an
observer carried along himself in a translation, he did not suspect any apparent
velocity could surpass that of light: and this would be then a contradiction, if
we recall that this observer would not use the same clocks as a fixed observer,
but, indeed, clocks marking 'local time'." (Poincaré, 1905)
Einstein, the Plagiarist
This is how page 101 reads:
"'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies'...is in many ways one of the
most remarkable scientific papers that had ever been written. Even in form and
style it was unusual, lacking the notes and references which give weight to most
serious expositions!!!" (emphasis added).
Why would Einstein, with his training as a patent clerk, not recognize the need
to cite references in his article on special relativity? One would think that
Einstein, as a neophyte, would over-reference rather than under-reference.
"The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous
literature"
(Born, 1956)
He is clearly indicating that the absence of references is abnormal and that,
even by early 20th century standards, this is most peculiar, even
unprofessional.
"Einstein's explanation is a dimensional disguise for Lorentz's. Thus Einstein's
theory is not a denial of, nor an alternative for, that of Lorentz. It is only a
duplicate and disguise for it. Einstein continually maintains that the theory of
Lorentz is right, only he disagrees with his 'interpretation'. Is it not clear,
therefore, that in this [case], as in other cases, Einstein's theory is merely a
disguise for Lorentz's, the apparent disagreement about 'interpretation' being a
matter of words only?"
Poincaré wrote 30 books and over 500 papers on philosophy, mathematics and
physics. Einstein wrote on mathematics, physics and philosophy, but claimed he'd
never read Poincaré's contributions to physics.
"It appears to me that it is the nature of the business that what follows has
already been partly solved by other authors. Despite that fact, since the issues
of concern are here addressed from a new point of view, I am entitled to leave
out a thoroughly pedantic survey of the literature..."
With this statement, Einstein declared that plagiarism, suitably packaged, is an
acceptable research tool.
"To steal or purloin and pass off as one's own (the ideas, words, artistic
productions, etc. of one another); to use without due credit the ideas,
expressions or productions of another. To commit plagiarism" (emphasis added).
Isn't this exactly what Einstein did?
"The question as to the independence of those relations is a natural one because
the Lorentz transformation, the real basis of special relativity theory..."
(emphasis added).
So, Einstein even acknowledged that the Lorentz transformation was the real
basis of his 1905 paper.
Anyone who doubts that he was a plagiarist should ask one simple question:
"What did Einstein know and when did he know it?" Einstein got away with
premeditated plagiarism, not the incidental plagiarism that is ubiquitous
(Moody, 2001).
"Thus gradually arose the formula E = mc2, suggested without general
proof by Poincaré in 1900".
One thing we can say with certainty is that Einstein did not originate the
equation E = mc2. Then the question becomes: "Who did?"
"formulated atomic energy, the atom bomb and superconductivity back in the
1870s, based on the formula E = mc2".
In addition to Preston, a major player in the history of E = mc2 who
deserves a lot of credit is Olinto De Pretto (1904). What makes this
timing so suspicious is that Einstein was fluent in Italian, he was reviewing
papers written by Italian physicists and his best friend was Michele Besso, a
Swiss Italian. Clearly, Einstein (1905b) would have had access to the literature
and the competence to read it. In "Einstein's E = mc2 'was Italian's
idea'" (Carroll, 1999), we see clear evidence that De Pretto was ahead of
Einstein in terms of the formula E = mc2.
We have two choices with respect to neutrinos: there are at least 40 different
types or there are zero types.
Occam's razor rules here.
"By standing foremost in testing, and ultimately verifying the 'enemy' theory,
our national observatory kept alive the finest traditions of science..." (
(Clark, 1984)
In this instance, apparently Eddington was not familiar with the basic tenets of
science. His job was to collect data - not verify Einstein's theories.
"May 29 began with heavy rain, which stopped only about noon. Not until 1.30 pm
when the eclipse had already begun did the party get its first glimpse of the
sun: 'We had to carry out our programme of photographs on faith...'" (emphasis
added).
Eddington reveals his true prejudice: he was willing to do anything to see that
Einstein was proved right.
But Eddington was not to be deterred:
"It looked as though the effort, so far as the Principe expedition was
concerned, might have been abortive"; "We developed the photographs, two each
night for six nights after the eclipse. The cloudy weather upset my plans and I
had to treat the measures in a different way from what I intended; consequently
I have not been able to make any preliminary announcement of the result"
(emphasis added) (Clark, ibid.).
Actually, Eddington's words speak volumes about the result. As soon as he found
one shred of evidence that was consistent with "Einstein's" general relativity
theory, he immediately proclaimed it as proof of the theory. Is this science?
"The mathematical formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75
seconds for light rays passing the edge of the sun, is a well known and simple
formula of physical optics"
"Not a single one of the fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or
twisted space, of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way
involved in Einstein's prediction of, or formulas for, the deflection of light"
"The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore, been given a
fictitious importance. Their results can neither prove nor disprove the
relativity theory"
(Poor, 1930).
From Brown (1967), we learn that Eddington couldn't wait to get it out to the
world community that Einstein's theory was confirmed.
What Eddington based this on was a premature assessment of the photographic
plates. Initially, stars did "appear" to bend as they should, as required by
Einstein, but then, according to Brown, the unexpected happened: several stars
were then observed to bend in a direction transverse to the expected direction
and still others to bend in a direction opposite to that predicted by
relativity.
It is difficult to comprehend how Hawking could comment that,
"The new theory of curved space-time was called general relativity. It was
confirmed in spectacular fashion in 1919, when a British expedition to West
Africa observed a slight shift in the position of stars near the sun during an
eclipse. Their light, as Einstein had predicted, was bent as it passed the sun.
Here was direct evidence that space and time were warped".
Does Hawking honestly believe that a handful of data points, massaged more
thoroughly than a side of Kobe beef, constitutes the basis for overthrowing a
paradigm that had survived over two centuries of acid scrutiny?
"Where was Einstein in all this?"
Surely, by the time he wrote his 1935 paper, he must have known of the work of
Poor:
"The actual stellar displacements, if real, do not show the slightest
resemblance to the predicted Einstein deflections: they do not agree in
direction, in size, or the rate of decrease with distance from the sun".
Why didn't he go on the record and address a paper that directly contradicted
his work? Why haven't the followers of Einstein tried to set the record straight
with respect to the bogus data of 1919?
"They [Crommelin and Eddington] were bent on measuring the deflection of light"
"What is not so well documented is that the measurements in 1919 were not
particularly accurate"
"In spite of the fact that experimental evidence for relativity seems to have
been very flimsy in 1919, Einstein's enormous fame has remained intact and his
theory has ever since been held to be one of the highest achievements of human
thought"
It is clear that from the outset Eddington was in no way interested in testing
"Einstein's" theory; he was only interested in confirming it. One of the
motivating factors in Eddington's decision to promote Einstein was that both men
shared a similar political persuasion: pacifism.
To suggest that politics played no role in Eddington's glowing support of
Einstein, one need ask only one question:
"Would Eddington have been so quick to support Einstein if Einstein had been a
hawk?"
This is no idle observation. Eddington took his role as the great peacemaker
very seriously. He wanted to unite British and German scientists after World War
I. What better way than to elevate the "enemy" theorist Einstein to exalted
status? In his zeal to become peacemaker, Eddington lost the fundamental
objectivity that is the essential demeanor of any true scientist. Eddington
ceased to be a scientist and, instead, became an advocate for Einstein.
The BIPP asked,
"Was this the hoax of the century?" and exclaimed, "Royal Society 1919 Eclipse
Relativity Report Duped World for 80 Years!"
McCausland stated that,
"In the author's opinion, the confident announcement of the decisive
confirmation of Einstein's general theory in November 1919 was not a triumph of
science, as it is often portrayed, but one of the most unfortunate incidents in
the history of 20th-century science".
It cannot be emphasized enough that the Eclipse of 1919 made Einstein, Einstein.
It propelled him to international fame overnight, despite the fact that the
data were fabricated and there was no support for general relativity
whatsoever.
This perversion of history has been known about for over 80 years and is
still supported by people like Stephen Hawking and David Levy.
§
One leg is Einstein's alleged plagiarism. Was he a plagiarist?
§
The second leg is the physics community. What did they know about Einstein and
when did they know it?
§
The third leg is the media. Are they instruments of truth or deception when it
comes to Einstein? Only time will tell.
The physics community is also supported by a three-legged stool.
§
The first leg is Einstein's physics
§
The second leg is cold fusion
§
The third leg is autodynamics
The overriding problem with a three-legged stool is that if only one leg is
sawed off, the stool collapses. There are at least three very serious
disciplines where it is predictable that physics may collapse.
§
one leg is physics
§
a second leg is the earth sciences
§
a third, biology
§
a fourth, chemistry (e.g., cold fusion)
What will happen if, for the sake of argument, physics collapses? Will science
fall?
·
Bjerknes, C.J. (2002), Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, XTX Inc.,
Dowers Grove.
·
Born, M. (1956), Physics in My Generation, Pergamon Press, London, p. 193.
·
Brown, G. Burniston (1967), "What is wrong with relativity?", Bull. of the Inst.
of Physics and Physical Soc., pp. 71-77.
·
Carezani, R. (1999), Autodynamics: Fundamental Basis for a New Relativistic
Mechanics, SAA, Society for the Advancement of Autodynamics.
·
Carroll, R., "Einstein's E = mc2 'was Italian's idea'", The Guardian, November
11, 1999.
·
Clark, R.W. (1984), Einstein: The Life and Times, Avon Books, New York.
·
De Pretto, O. (1904), "Ipotesi dell'etere nella vita dell'universo", Reale
Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, Feb. 1904, tomo LXIII, parte II,
pp. 439-500.
·
Einstein, A. (1905a), "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" ("On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"), Annalen der Physik 17:37-65.
·
Einstein, A. (1905b), Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Energy Content?",
Annalen der Physik 18:639-641.
·
Einstein, A. (1907), "Über die vom Relativitätspringzip geforderte Trägheit der
Energie", Annalen der Physik 23(4):371-384 (quote on p. 373)
·
Einstein, A. (1935), "Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and
Energy", Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 61:223-230 (first delivered as The Eleventh
Josiah Willard Gibbs Lecture at a joint meeting of the American Physical Society
and Section A of the AAAS, Pittsburgh, December 28, 1934).
·
Hawking, S., "Person of the Century", Time Magazine, December 31, 1999.
·
Ives, H.E. (1952), "Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation", J. Opt. Soc. Amer.
42:540-543.
·
Keswani, G.H. (1965), "Origin and Concept of Relativity", Brit. J. Phil. Soc.
15:286-306.
·
Mackaye, J. (1931), The Dynamic Universe, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, pp.
42-43.
·
Maddox, J. (1995), "More Precise Solar-limb Light-bending", Nature 377:11.
·
Moody, R., Jr (2001), "Plagiarism Personified", Mensa Bull. 442(Feb):5.
·
Newton, Sir Isaac (1704), Opticks, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, p. cxv.
·
Nordman, C. (1921), Einstein et l'univers, translated by Joseph McCabe as
"Einstein and the Universe", Henry Holt and Co., New York, pp. 10-11, 16 (from
Bjerknes, 2002).
·
Poincaré, J.H. (1905), "The Principles of Mathematical Physics", The Monist,
vol. XV, no. 1, January 1905; from an address delivered before the International
Congress of Arts and Sciences, St Louis, September 1904.
·
Poor, C.L. (1930), "The Deflection of Light as Observed at Total Solar
Eclipses", J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 20:173-211.
·
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Jules Henri Poincaré
(1854&endash;1912), at
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/poincare.htm
·
Webster, N. (1947), Webster's New International Dictionary of the English
Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, p. 1878.
|
               |
|
Modified Tuesday, November 02, 2010 Copyright @ 2010 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party |
