Communists started the Einstein hoax, for the same reasons they started
the holocaust hoax.
---------------------------------------------------
Even though Einstein could not pass his 7th grade math test, he could
not inter the better universities because of low intelegence, and left
school without a deploma.
-------------------------------------------------
Communists started the hoax promoting the idea Einstein was the smarted
man that ever lived, to atract simple minded Jews to the Atheist
socialist movement.
---------------------------------------------------
The abstract and complex math was atractive to Communists because, it
helped promote the idealogy ''No Intelegent design in the creation''.
Relativity and Evolution were the hooks that led Jews to start
WWII.............
--------------------------------------------------
Millions of simple minded Jews, joined the Communist movement that led
to their death, because of their atraction to Communist propaganda
''Jews were superiour thinkers'' Einstein's brilliance was their proof.
Articles have been appearing all over the Internet asserting that Albert
Einstein was a hoax. I have always been troubled by the thought that any
one man, regardless of how brilliant or exceptional, could be head and
shoulders above all of the other men of his time. Since I have long
doubted that Albert Einstein could possibly be the greatest genius that
he is made out to be, I find the theory interesting. I have also been
wondering why Einstein became so famous, whereas other great scientists
remained virtually unknown.
The basic idea is this: Einstein was a poor student, of average ability.
He even failed seventh grade math. There was nothing exceptional about
his ability or accomplishments, until he got a job as a low level clerk
in the patent office in Bern, Switzerland.
It was during the period that Albert Einstein worked in the patent
office that he produced the greatest works of genius in the history of
humanity. Does this not strike anybody as strange? The claim is made
that by working in the patent office, Albert Einstein had access to
secret documents submitted by the leading scientists of his day. Albert
Einstein essentially cut and pasted together these secret documents and
published them as his own work. The scientists could hardly complain, as
they had patent applications pending in his patent office.
Here are a few basic facts:
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 he
wanted, he got a job at the patent office in Bern. In 1905, Einstein
published his four ground-breaking papers. Even after publishing these
works, he still could not get a job in the university, although he
applied several times, and he stayed in the patent office and continued
to work there until 1909.
None of the ideas of Albert Einstein were completely new. He drew on the
works of James Maxwell and Max Planck. No less an authority than Stephen
Hawking has said that none of the works of Einstein were original.
Hawking provides a list of names of scientists, all of whom are unknown
to the general public today, but who had the ideas now associated with
Einstein before Einstein had them.
This, however, is hardly conclusive. The mark of every great thinker is
that he takes the ideas of others before him, combines them together,
improves and comes out with a unified theory. If that is what Einstein
did, then he fully deserves his reputation of being the greatest genius
in human history.
On the other hand, if he simply copied in his own hand works written by
others, then he probably does not deserve the reputation he enjoys. Here
are some curious facts:
After he died, the brain of Albert Einstein was taken out, preserved and
studied. It is still in a glass jar somewhere. Scientists who have
studied the brain say that it appears to be an average brain, no
different from many others.
A nanny named Alice, who took care of me when I was a little boy, said
that she knew Albert Einstein. She used to live in Princeton, New Jersey
and he would walk by her house on the way to work every morning. She
said that he appeared to be a very unexceptional and average man. She
had heard but could hardly believe that he could be a great genius.
Albert Einstein had several children, one of whom he gave away for
adoption. For a number of years, his descendants have been fighting a
court case in the San Francisco Bay Area over the ownership of the
original papers of Albert Einstein. I know one of the lawyers in that
case. The case is still going on. None of the children of Albert
Einstein are in any way exceptional. One is an invalid. The one that is
an invalid wants the original papers of Albert Einstein sold at public
auction, where they will fetch millions of dollars. Other descendants
are opposed to the sale or even the photocopying of the original
documents. Examination of the original hand written papers of Albert
Einstein might provide clues as to whether he wrote them or merely
copied them. Typically, original works contain a lot of cross-outs,
re-writes and changes in the text, whereas copies do not. I personally
do not have an opinion on any of this. I merely think that it raises new
questions which have not been asked before.
Henri Wilson - 20 Dec 2006 05:13 GMT
> Communists started the Einstein hoax, for the same reasons they started
>the holocaust hoax.
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>wondering why Einstein became so famous, whereas other great scientists
>remained virtually unknown.
His Special Relativity is just the maths and conclusions of LET run backwards.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Thank christ there is one genuine physicist on the NG.
Koobee Wublee - 20 Dec 2006 05:54 GMT
You are very brave to post this.
The usurpers can distort the history which they did to make Poincare
look like a vegetable. The usurpers can mutilate historic documents
which they did to make Hilbert look like the devil himself. However,
they cannot change the rules of mathematics. It is through the very
mathematics that you can catch the usurpers in the act and expose their
evil intentions. The concept of mathematical methodology of forensic
science pioneered by yours truly is very simple. It works as follows.
If an equation, R, is credited to a person, E, then the derivation of R
exists as derived by E. By carefully examine the derivation of R, one
can easily tell the style and legality of this derivation. Especially,
if the derivation is utterly nonsense or just out right erroneous, and
then one can conclude E must have seen R somewhere because E has no
clue as how R is derived.
The situation with Einstein happened at least 4 times. Here are the
stories of these 4.
** In Einstein's 1905 paper on SR, the derivation of Lorentz
transform in which SR becomes an interpretation to is total gibberish.
Einstein must have seen the Lorentz transform before.
** In Einstein's book a couple decades later, his re-derivation of
the Lorentz transform is utterly nonsense as well. Please indulge
yourself with the mathmagic trick of pulling two meaningful equations
out of two equating zero with zero. Einstein had no clue as how the
Lorentz transform came about.
** Back to Einstein's 1905 paper on SR, the derivation of (E = m c^2
/ sqrt(1 - v^2 /c^2)) again is thoroughly ludicrous and full of
obvious errors. He must have seen the equation somewhere else.
** The derivation of the Einstein field equations which yield
Schwarzschild metric and others must require a quantity called the
Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian. This quantity was not even a Lagrangian.
It was desperately sewn together by Hilbert in haste. It is a total
BS. The odds for two persons to be able to come up with this BS within
a few days of each other is astronomically small. This is so
especially how Einstein had demonstrated his very poor math skills in
the previous three instances mentioned immediately above. Therefore,
the most logical conclusion is that Einstein saw Hilbert's Lagrangian
in a letter sent to Einstein by Hilbert a week prior to Hilbert's own
presentation of the field equations at Goettingen. Hilbert knew it was
a total BS. That was why he never challenged Einstein's claim.
If anyone wants to discuss more about the mathematics of Einstein's
errors, yours truly would be very happy to oblige.
JanPB - 21 Dec 2006 02:08 GMT
> [...]
>
> If anyone wants to discuss more about the mathematics of Einstein's
> errors, yours truly would be very happy to oblige.
Total waste of time - one can never "win" an argument with a crank.
--
Jan Bielawski
Koobee Wublee - 21 Dec 2006 06:05 GMT
> Total waste of time - one can never "win" an argument with a crank.
You can never win this argument fairly period.
I have challenged anyone on this subject, and all have run away with
their tails between their legs. That is except you. Not only you have
your tail between your legs, you just cannot resist to bark back at me
before running away whining. You are a coward.
All usurpers are cowards and evil. All are zombies (blind followers).
Some of them are retarded like the ones who still cannot understand the
calculus of variations and still insist on pressing the issue. Our
educational system is pathetic.
JanPB - 21 Dec 2006 06:39 GMT
> > Total waste of time - one can never "win" an argument with a crank.
>
> You can never win this argument fairly period.
>
> I have challenged anyone on this subject, and all have run away with
> their tails between their legs.
Total waste of time - one can never "win" an argument with a crank. By
definition they lack the ability to understand their errors.
--
Jan Bielawski
Russell - 21 Dec 2006 20:36 GMT
> You are very brave to post this.
What, brave to make one's flagrant anti-semitism public?
Alas, that seems to require less and less courage these
days. I notice you made no reference to it (e.g. his Holocaust
denial) in your response; does this mean that you concur?
[snip]
John Kennaugh - 28 Dec 2006 12:20 GMT
>You are very brave to post this.
If you have a point to make then why not start your own thread rather
than respond to a racially motivated one. While the absurdity within the
history of physics is something I try to highlight I see no reason to
confuse it with racism or conspiracy theory. Human nature, human
gullibility and dogma allowed physicists to made a cock up of physics
without the need of any help.
I look forward to your expanding on the points you make in your own
thread.

Signature
John Kennaugh
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently
strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray