brain sizes: Einstein's and women's
insomniac at winterslight.org
Fri Jul 26 20:14:20 EST 2002
"Cary Kittrell" <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:ahshor$bd7$1 at oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
> In article <zHJ%8.10681$sb5.1206492 at news20.bellglobal.com> "Parse Tree"
<parsetree at hotmail.com> writes:
> <"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
> <news:beJ%8.18111$Fq6.2230257 at news2.west.cox.net...
> <> >
> <> >
> <> >
> <> Einstein made up for having a little brain by being a BIG LIAR, and
> <> plagiarist. Everything this idiot who flunked algebra and never even
> <> lab of his own ever wrote had been published by the White guys in
> <> with the big brains 10-20 years earlier.
> <This simply isn't true.
> <Explain what you think of his was a rehash.
> Oh, John's in a bit of a quandry when it comes to Big Al. It
> cogs his dis considerably when a Jew is widely regarded
> as the most important physical scientist of the last century,
> and moreover as someone up there with Newton and Archimedes. So
> one day John comes across an article which provides him with
> an out -- Al just stole it all. Never mind that writers
> of the innumerable biographies about Einstein never noticed,
> never mind that all those historians of science never noticed,
> never mind that folks like Wheeler and Thorne and Hawking
> and Morris and Misner and Penrose never noticed,
> never mind that the very people that Einstein is alleged
> to have plagarized never noticed -- can you imagine
> Poincare (!) holding still for suchlike? Never mind that
> the readers of Annalen der Physik, who read it to keep
> abreast of the developments in their field, never noticed.
> And never mind that the Nobel Prize committee never noticed, even
> though Einstein's Prize was awarded almost 20 years
> after his annum mirable, and that this committee was
> selected, as they all are, for its knowledge of the
> state of the art in the field, and the preceding
> science upon which it was built.
> Never mind all that, because John has a single article
> (and a hilarious one at that), written by someone who makes
> ol' John himself seem like a Zionist, which says otherwise.
> That's his "explanation".
> By the way, as you may have noticed, you won't be able to draw
> John into any kind of detailed discussion about the claims
> made in the article. He's smart enough to realize how
> ignorant he is in these areas, so he can never supply
> any support other than to paraphrase (plagarize?) the
> article mentioned. So he doesn't dare enter into
> a detailed discussion of the specifics. He's got
> volume, but no depth in these areas (too).
> And I suspect he actually doesn't understand things like,
> oh, say, like the fact that when the Lorenz-FitzGerald
> equation appears in the paper on Special Relativity,
> it's there because it falls naturally out of Einstein's
> two initial (extremely simple) assumptions, instead
> of being an ad-hoc workaround based on a specious
> assumption (the existence of the aether). Every
> reader of the 1905 paper would have been familiar
> with the Lorenz-Fitzgerald equations, and would
> have appreciated the fact that Einstein had been
> able to show how they can be derived axiomatically --
> and not only that, but that the same two assumptions
> lead to the a whole host of other testable
> By John's logic, Newton was plagarizing Kepler.
> And Cauchy was plagerizing Newton. And Russell and
> Whitehead were plagarizing Newton, as well as just about
> every mathematician since Pythagoras.
> You get the idea.
> -- cary
Yeah, Cary. We're all plagiarizing each other. Every single word has been
seen and heard before.
More information about the Neur-sci