modelling intelligence

John H John at faraway.com.au
Sun Jul 1 03:57:04 EST 2001


Not bad indeed Brian but my reference to being in deep shit was not with
respect to physics but with respect to the fact that if science can be so
easily manipulated then we're all in .... .

The Zionists who supported Einstein must have been bitterly disappointed
when he refused the offer to be the first leader of the New Israel.

You can't threaten that many people and I have read too many accounts by
scientists praising Einstein. Anyway, what about Russian scientists ... how
many of them Zakaharov for instance, didn't come out against him. Even the
manipulators couldn't penetrate into the iron curtain.

Yes, I've been threatened but I've got guts.

You are correct Brian, this doesn't belong here, but thanks for the
discussion. The issue is not closed for me, just playing Devil's advocate
but I still have great difficulty in some cosmic conspiracy on this scale.

By the way, one of Einstein's central planks, that the speed of light is
constant, is now in serious dispute. Some research early 2000.

Regards,


John H.


Brian <zhil at online.no> wrote in message
news:Erq%6.1565$Jp5.24652 at news1.oke.nextra.no...
>
> "John H" <John at faraway.com.au> skrev i melding
> news:aao%6.23223$mO.45966 at ozemail.com.au...
> > Perhaps true Brian, I have heard of the reports but how then does one
> > explain why so many leading scientists were in awe of him and they
worked
> > with him; daily?
> >
> > Yes, I know Einstein garnered ideas here there and everywhere, including
> the
> > brilliant Irish mathematician 19th c. Hamilton, but that's good science.
>
> Yes, but he claimed it as his own.
>
> > Why would all those scientists who were fleeced publicly and
> professionally
> > support a fraud?
>
> Haven't you've ever been threatened ?
>
> > I have seen other accounts by physicists saying Einstein was maths
> > competent.
>
> I've read other accounts that he didn't understand what he was doing, and
> that
> he was a mouth-piece for his paymasters.
>
> > A moron may be able to plagiarise bits and pieces but not make sense of
> the
> > same.
>
> Yes.
>
> > How does a moron convince so many people for so long that's he's a
genius?
> > That isn't just publicity, movie stars don't have to prove their worth
in
> > academia.
>
> He WAS a media-star, nothing else.
> And how do they get their fame ?
> Money of course, and his backers were rich enough.....
> The question of why is exactly what I want an answer to as well.
>
> > In other words, the scientific establishment must be replete with
gutless
> > gullible idiots who were collectively conned by a moron. Hmmm, just as
> well
> > I resigned from the human race several years ago. If Einstein's fraud is
> > true we're all in deep shit.
>
> The physics will develope, with or without Einsteinian thoughts.
> So we're not necessarily in deep shit.
> As to why they supported them, who knows what went behind the scenes ?
> All he needed was political support;to give them a genius, when he was no
> genius.
> And I guess money played a big role then as now <shrug>, maybe even more
> so then (?)
> Anyway, this theme has devolved from bionet.neuroscience to something
else.
> So which NG do you think this deserve to be placed ?
> (I might predict something akin to alt.paranoid or
alt.paranormal..........)
>
> Brian
>
> > John H.
> >
>
>
>







More information about the Neur-sci mailing list