John at faraway.com.au
Sat Jun 30 12:35:58 EST 2001
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.
Why would all those scientists who were fleeced publicly and professionally
support a fraud?
I have seen other accounts by physicists saying Einstein was maths
A moron may be able to plagiarise bits and pieces but not make sense of the
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
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.
Brian <zhil at online.no> wrote in message
news:WQn%6.1538$Jp5.23536 at news1.oke.nextra.no...
> "Brian" <zhil at online.no> skrev i melding
> news:tSm%6.1519$Jp5.22966 at news1.oke.nextra.no...
> > "John H" <John at faraway.com.au> skrev i melding
> > news:kWe%6.11902$mO.33977 at ozemail.com.au...
> > > > Poster's Note:
> > > > The Jones Unabridged Dictionary of Neuroscience is available free of
> > > > charge, and is worth exactly what you pay for it.
> > >
> > > Rather self deprecating given the comments on iq. If they took
> > iq
> > > as a child they would have (and some did) label him as slightly
> > And why not ?
> > He came over his 'discoveries' at the patent-institute at Bern.
> > From then on he was labeled a 'genius' for political reasons.
> > What credit would you give a man that didn't even pass a simple
> > test ?
> > Here's the article (and link), after one search at google for
> > 'einstein','albert','fraud':
> I refrain myself from the link I provided, as it assumes that something
> 'ether' exists.
> It seems that it was a hoax, and I didn't bother to read more than two
> But about Einstein being a fraud, I'm convinced as he didn't (as I said
> even pass an exam.
> Next time I will read more carefully before I post an opinion.
> Here's what I meant:
> "ALBERT EINSTEIN is held up as "a rare genius," who drastically changed
> field of theoretical physics. However, using the technique known as 'The
> Often-Repeated Lie= Truth,' he has been made an idol to young people, and
> his very name has become synonymous with genius. THE TRUTH, HOWEVER, IS
> DIFFERENT. Einstein was an inept & moronic person, who could not even tie
> his own shoelaces; he contributed NOTHING ORIGINAL to the field of quantum
> mechanics, nor any other science. On the contrary -- he stole the ideas of
> others, and the media made him a 'hero.'
> When we actually examine the life of Albert Einstein, we find that his
> 'brilliance' was in his ability to PLAGIARIZE and STEAL OTHER PEOPLE'S
> IDEAS, PASSING THEM OFF AS HIS OWN. Einstein's education, or lack
> 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
> 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
> 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
> position. Even after publishing his so-called ground-breaking 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
> patent office, for which he was only rated third class, was not quantum
> mechanics or theoretical physics, but was reviewing technical documents
> 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
> facts are true, but now begins the 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
> 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
> HOWEVER, THE TRUTH IS: 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
> worshipers as totally new and completely different, each of which would
> change the landscape of science. These four papers dealt with the
> 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
> 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
> upon two premises:
> 1) in the absence of acceleration, the laws of nature are the same for
> 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
> is the basis for modern physics. But these two premises are far from
> originally Einstein's. FIRST OF ALL, THE IDEA THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT WAS
> CONSTANT AND WAS INDEPENDENT OF THE MOTION OF ITS SOURCE WAS NOT
> AT ALL, BUT WAS PROPOSED BY THE SCOTTISH SCIENTIST JAMES MAXWELL in 1878.
> Maxwell studied the phenomenon of light extensively and first proposed
> it was electromagnetic in nature.
> James Maxwell wrote an article to this effect for the 1878 edition of
> Encyclopedia Britannica. His ideas prompted much debate, and by 1887, as
> result of his work and the ensuing debate, the scientific community,
> particularly Lorentz, Michelson, and Morley reached the conclusion that
> 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
> led Michelson and Morley to conduct an important experiment, the results
> which could not be explained by Newtonian mechanics. They observed a
> phenomenon caused by relativity but they did not understand relativity.
> 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 1880, the irish physicist George Fitz
> Gerald, 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
> according as they are moving through the either or across it by an amount
> depending on the square of the ratio of their velocities to that of
> THIS IS THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY, 13 YEARS BEFORE EINSTEIN'S PAPER!
> FURTHER... IN 1892, HENDRIK LORENTZ, of the Netherlands, proposed the
> 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-Fitz Gerald 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
> had already been published. The Frenchman Poincaré had, in 1898, written a
> paper unifying many of these ideas. He stated seven years before
> paper: "...we have no direct intuition about the equality of two time
> intervals. The simultaneity of two events or the order of their
> as well as the equality of two time intervals, must be defined in such a
> that the statements of the natural laws be as simple as possible." Anyone
> who has read Einstein's 1905 paper will immediately recognize the
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> laboratory in the 1890s by both J.J. Thomsom of Cambridge and by W.
> in Göttingen. In 1900, Poincaré had shown that there was a mass
> for all forms of energy, not just electromagnetic energy. Yet, the most
> probable source of Einstein's plagiarism was Friedrich Hasenöhrl, one of
> most brilliant, yet unappreciated physicists of the era. Hasenöhrl was the
> teacher of many of the German scientists who would later become famous for
> variety of topics. He had worked on the idea of the equivalence of mass
> energy for many years and had published a paper on the topic in 1904 in
> very same journal which Einstein would publish his plagiarized version in
> 1905. For his brilliant work in this area, Hasenörhl had received in 1904
> prize from the prestigious Vienna Academy of Sciences.
> Furthermore, the mathematical relationship of mass and energy was a
> deduction from the already well-known equations of Scottish physicist
> 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
> 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,
> 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
> 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
> understand. In fact, in response to this article, J. Precht remarked that
> such an experiment "lies beyond the realm of possible experience." The
> 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
> 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
> 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
> by the frequency of the light. This was an important breakthrough. Wien
> 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
> radiated energy was absorbed and emitted in finite units called quanta.
> 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
> After the 1905 papers of Einstein were published, the scientific community
> took little notice and Einstein continued his job at the patent office
> 1909 when it was arranged by World Jewry for him to take a position at a
> school . Still, it was not until a 1919 A Jewish newspaper headline that
> 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
> 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
> 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
> turn used the mathematical principles developed by Berhard Riemann, who
> 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
> 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
> Theory. Einstein published his correct General Theory of Relativity in
> and said prior to its publication that he, "completely succeeded in
> convincing Hilbert and Klein." He is referring to David Hilbert, perhaps
> most brilliantmathematician 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
> for Einstein.
> Einstein's statement regarding the two men would lead the reader to
> 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,
> GENERAL RELATIVITY.
> What this means is that Hilbert wrote basically the exact same paper,
> the same conclusions, before Einstein did. Einstein would have had an
> opportunity to know of Hilbert's work all along, because there were
> 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
> 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
> treatise Hilbert was to deliver on the 20th. So, in fact, Hilbert had sent
> copy of his work at least two weeks in advance to Einstein before either
> 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
> 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
> made in Einstein's General Theory paper. We know today that Hilbert was
> closer to the truth. Hilbert's paper is the forerunner of the unified
> 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,
> 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
> promote the work of David Hilbert, but instead they promoted the work of
> 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
> 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
> of Relativity, and the Jxxxx-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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> of social engineering. They certainly did not want someone like David
> Hilbert to be recognized as rare genius. After all, this physicist had
> from a strong German, Christian background. His grandfather's two middle
> names were 'Fürchtegott Leberecht' or 'Fear God, Live Right.' 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
> 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 he 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> WAR FOR HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE THIRD REICH. No, the Jews did not want to
> give credit to any of a number of Germans, Austrians, Irishmen, Frenchmen,
> Scotsmen, Englishmen, and even Americans who had contributed to the body
> knowledge and evidence from which Einstein plagiarized and stole his work.
> Instead, they needed to erect Einstein as their golden calf, even though
> repeatedly and often embarrassed himself with his nonfactual or
> comments regarding the work he had supposedly done. For example, in 1934,
> the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ran a front page article in which Einstein
> 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 energyto drive a great steamship across the ocean
> a pint of water, for instancethen, 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
> 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
> 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
> person, and in each instance, Einstein had little if anything to do with
> research that led to the articles; he was merely recruited by the
> in order to lend credence to their work. Thus freed of the pretense of
> academia, Einstein began his assault for World Zionism.
More information about the Neur-sci