brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Cary Kittrell cary at
Fri Jul 12 18:40:20 EST 2002

In article <B6FX8.47995$P%6.3382751 at> "John Knight" <johnknight at> writes:
<"Cary Kittrell" <cary at> wrote in message
<news:agn4an$i8m$1 at
<> In article <ZksX8.46464$P%6.3231202 at> "John Knight"
<<johnknight at> writes:
<> <
<> SMURFLE!!  Yeah, those primitive early twentieth century Krauts, why
<> it sometimes took several weeks for the latest issue of "Annalen der
<> to reach the universities.
<Are you denying that Einstein was a LIAR, and a PLAGIARIST, cary?


<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. [Note:  see critique].

>From the thoroughly Aryan Max Plack Institute:

     Einstein Freed from Charge of Plagiarism

     According to the accepted view, the mathematician David Hilbert
     completed General Relativity five days before Albert Einstein in
     November 1915. Einstein may thus have copied crucial equations of
     this theory from Hilbert.
     Members of an international research group at the Max Planck
     Institute for the History of Science, Berlin, argue in their
     study, published in this week's issue of Science, that it was
     instead Hilbert who appropriated crucial results from Einstein and
     then published his paper under a misleading dateline.

     Albert Einstein submitted his conclusive paper on General
     Relativity on 25 November 1915. David Hilbert, one of the most
     eminent mathematicians of the 20th century, published a paper in
     March 1916 which also contains the correct field equations of
     General Relativity. Einstein came to know Hilbert's contribution
     in late November, even before he found his final equations. He
     immediately claimed that Hilbert had appropriated his results. The
     dateline of Hilbert's paper, "20 November 1915," however, suggests
     that it was submitted five days earlier than Einstein's
     contribution. Did Einstein even copy the correct field equations
     from Hilbert's paper, as has been argued? This possibility can now
     definitely be excluded.

     The authors of the present paper succeeded in identifying proofs
     of Hilbert's article that are dated "6 December 1915," that is
     after the submission of Einstein's conclusive contribution. Their
     detailed analysis of these proofs has revealed that they contain
     only an immature version of General Relativity, without the
     explicit field equations. These equations must have been inserted
     only later - after 6 December and before the published version
     appeared in 1916. Hilbert was, so the authors argue, still deeply
     ingrained in wrong assumptions about the physical meaning of his
     formalism, asssumptions which Einstein had meanwhile painfully
     overcome. Einstein can hence definitively be freed from the charge
     of plagiarism.

     Hilbert's contribution, on the other hand, cannot even be
     considered as an independent alternative discovery of the field
     equations of General Relativity. Clearly, before he published the
     final version of his article, he must have seen Einstein's
     conclusive paper. If Hilbert had only altered the dateline of this
     paper to the date when he inserted the correct equations into the
     proofs no later priority discussion could have arisen.

     Although disputes about priority and plagiarism can be crucially
     important to working scientists, they are not necessarily a key
     issue in the history of science. Historians of science are often
     less interested in who made an important new discovery but rather
     in how new insights become possible. In the case of Einstein's and
     Hilbert's struggle for establishing the field equations of a new,
     relativistic theory of gravitation the situation is, however,
     different since the approaches taken by the two scientists were
     dramatically distinct: Whereas Einstein combined mathematical
     strategies with a search for physical meaning, Hilbert very much
     relied on the power of his superior mathematical formalism.
     Clearly, in this case, the who of the discovery tells indeed much
     about the how.

     Since 1907 Einstein had attempted to carefully reconcile, step by
     step, tentative mathematical formulations of his heuristic goal to
     formulate a relativistic theory of gravitation with the then
     available physical knowledge. Hilbert, on the other hand, had only
     begun to work on General Relativity in the second half of 1915. He
     boldly aimed from the beginning at an axiomatic foundation of
     physics and at a kind of world formula, unifying gravitation with
     electromagnetism. This approach caused the wrong impression that
     the field equations of General Relativity could be found by pure
     mathematical reasoning.

     The results reported in the article in Science are an outcome of
     an international research project dedicated to the history of
     General Relativity. The project is centered at the Max Planck
     Institute for the History of Science in Berlin and has produced in
     the last years several new insights into the development of this

                                                         Published: 11-11-97
                                               Max Planck Institute for the
                                            History of Science, Berlin

<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..."

SNIKKT!  Scientists all over Germany were denouncing "Jewish Science"
during the Nazi regime.  (you on the other hand, I'm sure, would have
retained your intellectual integrity and explained in person to Hitler 
how he was actually a Jew. I'd love to see that one).  By renouncing 
"Jewish Science", as you may recall, Germany lost out in the race
to develop the atom bomb, and hence the war (sorry, John).  Lise
Mitner, a Jew and a woman who had not even been allowed to finish
high school, played a crucial role in the discovery of fission.

<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, 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 David Hilbert
<receiving the credit he deserved.

Well, I'd say the above pretty much speaks for itself, eh?

-- cary

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list