View Full Version : Was Albert Einstein a Historical Fraud?


Charles_Wong
01-02-07, 11:30 PM
The only two reasons Albert Einstein has been portrayed as the poster child for Physics, Genius, and High Intelligence is because he was Jewish and most of the mass media (TV stations, news companies, newspapers, radio stations, magazines, book publishing companies, etc.) have been owned by Jews. The gentile Niels Bohr formulated quantum mechanics, but no one would recognize that name except for Physics majors. So, the only reason Einstein has developed such a big name for himself is extreme nepotism:

Was Albert Einstein a hoax?

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.

[ . . . ]

Full text at http://www.samsloan.com/einstein.htm

spidergoat
01-02-07, 11:49 PM
The atomic bomb? He discovered the basic principle.

Lots of smart people aren't well adjusted to our society. You may think he wasn't exceptional, but appearances are deceiving.

Charles_Wong
01-03-07, 12:05 AM
The atomic bomb? He discovered the basic principle.

Lots of smart people aren't well adjusted to our society. You may think he wasn't exceptional, but appearances are deceiving.


Why has he exclusively been portrayed in the media as the epitome of greatness? What about Niels Bohr, Dimitreev Mendaleev, Dalton, Isaac Newton, and all those other physicists, chemists, and biologists who have played major parts in formulating theory? What about Gregory Mendel?

Pure nepotism.

spidergoat
01-03-07, 12:32 AM
He was a celebrity. It's not just Jews who appreciate him. I'm sure Einstein would be uncomfortable with the attention. Now it's Stephen Hawking.

invert_nexus
01-03-07, 01:24 AM
The masses are fickle.

And yes, Hawking is a good non-jewish example.
So is Edison.
Tesla has some fame but not as much as he deserves.

The idea behind this thread is idiotic.

Zephyr
01-03-07, 01:38 AM
Most of those people you mention weren't 20th century physicists, so they can't be compared. Rather look at someone like Dirac. That guy was brilliant.

Incidentally, it's unfair to credit Newton alone with calculus - a lot of those were Leibniz's ideas. Just another instance where popular history parts with the actual version.


The gentile Niels Bohr formulated quantum mechanics, but no one would recognize that name except for Physics majors.
'Fraid not, actually.

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Bohr_Niels.html

"Bohr, although he had been christened in the Christian Church, had Jewish origins on his mother's side and so, when the Nazis occupied Denmark in 1940, his life became exceeding difficult. He had to escape in 1943 by being taken to Sweden by fishing boat."

However, Bohr didn't 'formulate quantum mechanics'. He took some of the first steps on the road, but remember that Schroedinger discovered Schroedinger's equation, Pauli discovered Pauli's exclusion principle, etc ... and the Standard Model we know and love came along much later.

Nasor
01-03-07, 09:29 AM
Why don't you make at least a little effort to fact-check before you post this sort of nonsense?



The basic idea is this: Einstein was a poor student, of average ability. He even failed seventh grade math.
He failed 7th grade math because at the age of 12 he started teaching himself calculus and stopped bothering to do his assigned homework, which didn't interest him. By highschool his math teacher allowed him to do his own advanced study, because the stuff he was teaching himself was beyond what the instructor could teach.

Look, why don't you try using a little critical-thinking ability here; does it makes any sense at all to you that a guy who became a physics professor could be bad at 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.
Yeah...he was just a low-level patent clerk with a phd in theoretical physics. He took a job as a patent clerk because he pissed off his professors at university, which prevented him from getting a university job right out of school.

Prince_James
01-03-07, 09:57 AM
Charles Wong:

Where I agree it probably is in part because he was Jewish (and the Jews are a very proud people) I think it is also because he, as far as we can tell, revolutionized physics.

No one since him has really attained near his notoriety or overall importance, however Stephen Hawking (probably because he is in a wheel-chair) is also considered a "super genius that everyone knows".

Charles_Wong
01-03-07, 10:26 AM
He was a celebrity.

Exactly: the media turned him into a celebrity because of his ethnic background.


It's not just Jews who appreciate him.

Exactly: the media turned him into a demigod for the gentiles.


I'm sure Einstein would be uncomfortable with the attention.

I speculate the opposite.


Now it's Stephen Hawking.

Hawking is not nearly as big a household name as Einstein. In fact, most people would not even recognize Hawking's name: but Einstein is part of common folk media: most adolescents would even recognize his name: "Hey Einstein brain . . ."

Charles_Wong
01-03-07, 10:31 AM
The idea behind this thread is idiotic.

I am confused. What do you mean?

Charles_Wong
01-03-07, 10:41 AM
Another example of Jewish nepotism is Sigmund Freud: everyone knows about him, the "great psychologist", even though his work is now recognized as 100% pseudo-science in acadamia. But the big contributors to science-based psychology, like Francis Galton, Charles Spearman, and Hans J. Eysenck (gentiles), are not recognized by anyone besides Psychology majors.

Prince_James
01-03-07, 10:44 AM
Charles Wong:

Pseudoscience? I am not so sure. Freud is still widely respected and many psychoanalyists remain.

In terms of therapy, I probably think either him and/or Jung are most prominent.

But yes, the Jews are nepotistic in general. They realize the benefit of helping out one's own race and religion, as a means to attain evolutionary success.

Charles_Wong
01-03-07, 10:57 AM
Pseudoscience? I am not so sure. Freud is still widely respected


He is widely respected in tv shows like "Frasier": the so-called "psychiatrist" who does not apply any psychiatric science or medications but instead analyzes everyone using Freud's ideas.

To get results for mental illness, people see psychiatrists for medications to put neurotransmitters in the brain back into balance. Or they see Psychologists to be tested for learning disorders or ADD or for autism and the like. But Sigmund Freud's ideas have no practical application: it's all just speculation. Freud has no mathematical models to quantify his ideas.

Prince_James
01-03-07, 11:01 AM
Charles Wong:

I would not call psychiatry a "science" at all. Any psychiatrist with an iota of intellectual integrity will tell you they have no clue about the science - that it works, in essence, by making you high - and that they have, ultimately, a zero cure rate.

Nasor
01-03-07, 11:05 AM
I am confused. What do you mean?

What he means is that anyone who does even a little research should be able to tell that the article you posted is crap. It claims that he was bad at math, when in fact he taught himself calculus at age 12. It goes on to claim "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." Well, most people would consider a child teaching himself calculus at age 12 to be a sign that he had exceptional ability...but even ignoring that, this article is forgetting to mention that he had a phd in theoretical physics when he published his papers. It's not like he was just some random guy.

So, clearly whoever wrote that article either
1. Didn't bother to do any research on Einstein
2. Did the research, but decided to leave out key facts in order to paint a distorted picture of him

Combine that with the fact that you shouldn't even have to do any research or actually know anything about Einstein to see that the article is full of crap (unless you're such an idiot that you don't see any logical inconsistencies with the idea of a guy who is bad at math being a professor of theoretical physics), and it's clear that this is indeed quite idiotic.

Charles_Wong
01-03-07, 11:12 AM
Any psychiatrist with an iota of intellectual integrity will tell you they have no clue about the science

Actually, psychiatrists will say that they don't understand the complete physiological mechanism by which certain medications work. They study the affects of various neurotransmitters, generally dopamine, norepinephrine, and seratonin, on mental conditions like ADD, depression, OCD, and anxiety. If various drugs show to improve these conditions without much side-effects, they will use it for prescription even though the complete physiological mechanism is unknown.


and that they have, ultimately, a zero cure rate.


Psychiatric medications don't cure, they mimic normal physiological mechanisms in those patients who show abnormal processes. The meds have to be taken for life. But actually, in many cases, SSRIs do cure and you can get off them.

Charles_Wong
01-03-07, 11:19 AM
What he means is that anyone who does even a little research should be able to tell that the article you posted is crap.

What does "crap" mean?



you're such an idiot

Do you think I have a low IQ?

But, regarding Einstein, I have no way to verify anything about him. All I know is that the Western mass media backs him.

orcot
01-03-07, 11:47 AM
My I ask a bid of a weird quistion?
What comes closer to the epitome of greatness jessica alba's ass or brad pitts face.

No offence but math, science in general isn't abouth looking pretty and getting your face printed on T-shirts. Do you wreally think that atomic rechearge would have benifited if Bohr or einstein had fan mail by people telling him how much they loved his shirt during his last presentation.

The somewhat celibrity status of scientist has mainly come because somehow they have writen a unique paper that fundamentley changed math in a way normal people could understand. And offcourse in steven hawkings case because some people wonder if it's some sort of robot. It's a terrible desease but onestly if a midget with 7 arms would be a top scientist then he would also get some media attention regardless of if he was the absolute best in the field.

spidergoat
01-03-07, 11:57 AM
Wong wouldn't like anyone Jewish to have any fame, I guess. Perhaps Einstein's achievements really are as great as people claim.

przyk
01-03-07, 12:03 PM
Charles Wong:

How many of these "Einstein was a hoax" articles do you think were actually published by professional physicists (you know, the people actually likely to understand the importance of the guy's contributions)?

Bashing Einstein and his work is becoming something of a fashion outside the scientific community, and it's about as credible as the opposition to evolution by creationists and the moon landing conspiracy theories.

Nasor
01-03-07, 12:44 PM
Do you think I have a low IQ?

No, I said you would have to be an idiot to believe that a person who was bad at math could be a professor of theoretical physics.

Walter L. Wagner
01-03-07, 12:48 PM
Einstein's greatest recognition is for: E = mc^2

To prove a mathematical relationship to the equivalence of mass and energy was a fundamental change in the perspective of reality by scientists. It's what drove all subsequent physics revelations.

Einstein's Nobel Prize, however, was for something a little more simple, the fact that photons are quantized (or indeed, that they are photons at all, not merely wave functions), or the photoelectric effect.

Now, let's see you write out the mathematical proof of the equivalency of mass and energy, off the top of your head. No cheating, don't look it up!

Prince_James
01-03-07, 07:10 PM
Charles Wong:


Actually, psychiatrists will say that they don't understand the complete physiological mechanism by which certain medications work. They study the affects of various neurotransmitters, generally dopamine, norepinephrine, and seratonin, on mental conditions like ADD, depression, OCD, and anxiety. If various drugs show to improve these conditions without much side-effects, they will use it for prescription even though the complete physiological mechanism is unknown.

Yes, in essence: They get you high and that works for what they want to do.

But here's a question: Is there any blood tests for mental disorders? Any biopsies? Any brain scans or other tests?

No. Because they have -no clue- what would be tested for. That is why it is dangerous to call psychiatry a science.


Psychiatric medications don't cure, they mimic normal physiological mechanisms in those patients who show abnormal processes. The meds have to be taken for life. But actually, in many cases, SSRIs do cure and you can get off them.

I am unsure about the SSRI claim, but you are correct that most medicines have to be taken to life, and which also proves that they are, in essence, "high" inducing drugs.

cpt.scruffy
01-03-07, 09:08 PM
well given that he has said many things of genius in the past, and that he studied in the realm of science, but in philosphy, i doubt that einstein was a hoax.
many of his sayings have to do with both science and philosophy.

and to further add to that, i usually think of scientists as skeptists who seek truth. einstein seemed to have been surrounded by them too often to lie.
that's speculation though. i might be wrong?

James R
01-03-07, 09:35 PM
Charles_Wong:


The only two reasons Albert Einstein has been portrayed as the poster child for Physics, Genius, and High Intelligence is because he was Jewish and most of the mass media (TV stations, news companies, newspapers, radio stations, magazines, book publishing companies, etc.) have been owned by Jews.

Anti-semitic bullshit. You really have to widen the sites you read.

If you're going to attempt to comment on physics, at least learn some first.


The gentile Niels Bohr formulated quantum mechanics, but no one would recognize that name except for Physics majors. So, the only reason Einstein has developed such a big name for himself is extreme nepotism.

Einstein became famous because he revolutionised physics. He showed that Isaac Newton, probably the most famous physicist before him, was wrong (or, more accurately, didn't have the full picture).

The publicity surrounding the proof of general relativity by the bending of light by the Sun was what really propelled Einstein to fame and made him a household name.


Articles have been appearing all over the Internet asserting that Albert Einstein was a hoax.

Tall poppy syndrome. Everybody wants to attack the "big guns". How much better would it be if some backyard crackpot could prove Einstein wrong, than proving, say, Niels Bohr, a guy few have heard of, wrong?


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.

I agree that his achievements in physics imply nothing about his more general wisdom. His contributions in other areas must equally be assessed on their merits.


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.

Yes, until then...


Why has he exclusively been portrayed in the media as the epitome of greatness?

Many reasons - Judaism being insignificant among them.


Hawking is not nearly as big a household name as Einstein.

Nor does he deserve to be.

Mr. G
01-03-07, 10:29 PM
The only two reasons Albert Einstein has been portrayed as the poster child for Physics, Genius, and High Intelligence is because he was Jewish and most of the mass media (TV stations, news companies, newspapers, radio stations, magazines, book publishing companies, etc.) have been owned by Jews. The gentile Niels Bohr formulated quantum mechanics, but no one would recognize that name except for Physics majors. So, the only reason Einstein has developed such a big name for himself is extreme nepotism:

Was Albert Einstein a hoax?

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.

[ . . . ]

Full text at http://www.samsloan.com/einstein.htm
One should note your preferential reliance on a "basic idea" as the basis of your personally significant world view.

One must also note the illogic of your insistance that the rest of us must also be constrained by your lack of imagination.

Wong!

spidergoat
01-03-07, 11:40 PM
Oh man, have you seen the website Charles Wong Linked to?

http://www.samsloan.com/

What a weirdo.

MetaKron
01-04-07, 01:26 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr

"Niels Bohr was born in Copenhagen, Denmark in 1885. His father, Christian Bohr, was professor of physiology at the University of Copenhagen, while his mother, Ellen Adler Bohr, came from a wealthy Sephardic Jewish family prominent in Danish banking and parliamentary circles. His brother was Harald Bohr, a mathematician and Olympic soccer player who played in the Danish national team. Niels Bohr was a passionate soccer player as well, and the two brothers played a number of matches for Akademisk Boldklub. Bohr played goalie."

Bohr was just as Jewish as Einstein.

Alva
01-04-07, 12:50 PM
There is however a lot of speculation his wife may have been some of the brains behind the man.

grover
01-04-07, 01:07 PM
Asked to make a list of the men who have most dominated the thinking of the modern world, many educated people would name Freud, Einstein, Marx and Darwin. Of these four, only Darwin was not Jewish. In a world where Jews are only a tiny percentage of the population, what is the secret of the disproportionate importance the Jews have had in the history of Western culture?"

- Ernest van den Haag, The Jewish Mystique

More intersting quotes about judaism http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/quotes.htm

Nasor
01-04-07, 03:06 PM
Asked to make a list of the men who have most dominated the thinking of the modern world, many educated people would name Freud, Einstein, Marx and Darwin.

Maybe, but it wouldn't be a very good list. A better list would be:

Aristotle - came up with the idea that we can use logic and empirical
observation to understand the world around us. Basically invented what today we would call "science".

Adam Smith - came up with capitalism, and pretty much single-handedly invented most of the ideas that we use to think about economics (markets, supply and demand, etc).

Cleisthenes - ancient Greek guy who basically invented what we think of today of democracy, including voting on leaders, laws, etc.

Maybe you could include Darwin as your fourth, since his work had a huge impact on both scientific and religious thought.

grover
01-04-07, 03:32 PM
Well then Nasor, I guess you are agreeing with the person who started this topic that jews really are controlling who we think of when we think of great minds.

(no one can deny that those four listed are easily some of the top four minds that have shaped modern thought. Modern thought, not ancient thought.)

Nasor
01-04-07, 03:42 PM
Well then Nasor, I guess you are agreeing with the person who started this topic that jews really are controlling who we think of when we think of great minds.
No, I'm just saying that it's a shallow, stupid list. Until you can demonstrate that any academic would actually make such a list, it's just meaningless speculation.



(no one can deny that those four listed are easily some of the top four minds that have shaped modern thought. Modern thought, not ancient thought.)
Modern thought is based on ancient though. No one in recent times has really fundamentally changed the way we think.

Sputnik
01-04-07, 03:47 PM
The basic idea is this: Einstein was a poor student, of average ability. He even failed seventh grade math.


No, I said you would have to be an idiot to believe that a person who was bad at math could be a professor of theoretical physics.



Another urban legend !!!

Einstein is supposed to have flunked in math - you will find numerous links on the internet saying that ......

However, that is not true ..
He was very good in math .... actually the ONLY subject, he never flunked...

He tried to enter the famous Zuricher Polytechnikum in Switzerland (actually an equivalent of a university) - but at the entrance test , he failed every subject but math and physics ...
However , the teachers were so impressed at his mathskill - that they informed him , that they would accept him, if he graduated first from a hochschule = american highschool ....

So he tried to be accepted at "Eidgenøssische Technische Hochschule" in Zurich, Switzerland ...again he flunked every subject (including physics this time) EXCEPT math ....
Eventually he got a highschool graduation (from a highschool in the city of Arau , Switzerland) and started at Zuricher Polytechnicum ........

It is however interesting, that he got a F in the subject of "physical experiments for beginners " :p

http://www.jimloy.com/physics/einstein.htm

grover
01-04-07, 03:50 PM
Modern thought is based on ancient though. No one in recent times has really fundamentally changed the way we think.[/QUOTE]


Then, once again, I have to believe that you agree with the orignator of this topic that jews are manipulating us into believing that jews are more important than they really are, since both you and he are saying that Einstein really isn't as important as he's made out to be. (you're going even further by saying that freud and marx aren't important either, in fact the only person you think has had any influence is the only gentile - Darwin, coincidence? I think not).

grover
01-04-07, 03:51 PM
"Modern thought is based on ancient though. No one in recent times has really fundamentally changed the way we think."

Then, once again, I have to believe that you agree with the orignator of this topic that jews are manipulating us into believing that jews are more important than they really are, since both you and he are saying that Einstein really isn't as important as he's made out to be. (you're going even further by saying that freud and marx aren't important either, in fact the only person you think has had any influence is the only gentile - Darwin. Coincidence? I think not).

SkinWalker
01-04-07, 04:30 PM
If this is going to be jewish/anti-jewish propaganda thread it'll find its way to the cesspool.

Indeed, the topic is whether or not Einstein was an historical fraud, so unless someone is willing to debunk his mathematical work by demonstrating where it was wrong or how Einstein plagiarized someone else, this thread will close fast.

Sputnik
01-04-07, 04:33 PM
How much better would it be if some backyard crackpot could prove Einstein wrong, than proving, say, Niels Bohr, a guy few have heard of, wrong?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr



Niels Bohr proved Einstein wrong numerous times .........

Bohr and Einstein were actually good friends , but for some reason Einstein would not accept Bohr´s theories readily .... everytime Einstein came up with some kind of argument against them , Bohr however quashed it into something next of oblivion ..........

When Einstein at last ran out of valid arguments .... Einstein claimed , that Bohr´s theories were not acceptable to God ...... :p

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr-Einstein_debates

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/ae63.htm

Sputnik
01-04-07, 04:56 PM
Indeed, the topic is whether or not Einstein was an historical fraud, so unless someone is willing to debunk his mathematical work by demonstrating where it was wrong or how Einstein plagiarized someone else, this thread will close fast.


I have heard the rumours, about his first wife beeing a partner in his theories - however so far, no proof exists of that .......some circumstantial evidence do exist however .... Einstein , in a letter to her, writes about OUR theory/theories ......... and some russian guy , who saw the first papers of one of the theories , said he saw the names of both Einstein and his wife on them ....

I do not think anybody can easily debunk his scientific work from the
1920´s ....

So .... no , so far there is no proof for Einstein to be a fraud !!!

:m:

grover
01-04-07, 06:10 PM
Actually, the question was asked if Einstein is famous because he is jewish and there is a heavy jewish influence in the media. I don't understand why this can't be debated. Why is it that anytime someone starts a debate about judaism someone starts making a big fuss? Seriously, why is it literally a taboo subject?

zanket
01-04-07, 07:20 PM
I saw the original high school report cards for Einstein, in a museum. They were mostly A's & B's (equivalents). The caption said that Einstein's low grades are a myth, probably caused because he switched between two school systems that ordered their grades oppositely (e.g. a 5 is best in one, worst in the other).

SkinWalker
01-04-07, 09:17 PM
Why is it that anytime someone starts a debate about judaism someone starts making a big fuss? Seriously, why is it literally a taboo subject?Its not. Debate it all you want.

Dinosaur
01-04-07, 09:45 PM
Einstein disagreed with the lack of causality implied by the probabilistic nature of quantum theory. He did not object to the basic concepts.

From about 1905 to 1915, Einstein was focused almost entirely on the development of General Relativity, and did not put much effort into following the development of Quantum Theory. His arguments with Bohr & ohters were due to his belief that more deterministic laws would be discovered. He did not believe in the probalisitic concepts of Quantum Theory, but accepted almost all the other aspects of it.

Most people do not realize that Einstein was the first to propose that energy was quantized. For a year or so, he was considered a nut for that view, but actually should be considered the founder of Quantum Theory. Planck did not understand the implications of his paper on Black Body radiation, while Einstein did.

I think that Albert was given his Nobel prize for work related to Quantum Theory as an apology and as a way of recognizing his contribution to that theory. He was not given a Nobel for relativity because all recognized that he was a genius for developing it. The scientific community owed him for calling him crazy when he proposed that energy was quantized.

It is astonishing that one man was reponsibility for both of the great theories of modern physics. He did General Relativity almost entirely on his own, and kick started Quantum Theory, which was developed by quaite a few others.

Walter L. Wagner
01-05-07, 06:28 PM
Exactly.

His work on the photoelectric effect showed that no matter how much energy was deposited on a surface, electrons were not kicked off until the wavelength was sufficiently short, even if the amount of energy was much less, showing that electro-magnetic energy was quantized, which "kick-started" quantum theory. However, that likely was much simpler conceptually than his relativity ideas, showing that mass and energy are opposite sides of the same coin, and how they can be mathematically related.

draqon
01-05-07, 06:30 PM
The only two reasons Albert Einstein has been portrayed as the poster child for Physics, Genius, and High Intelligence is because he was Jewish and most of the mass media (TV stations, news companies, newspapers, radio stations, magazines, book publishing companies, etc.) have been owned by Jews. The gentile Niels Bohr formulated quantum mechanics, but no one would recognize that name except for Physics majors. So, the only reason Einstein has developed such a big name for himself is extreme nepotism:

Was Albert Einstein a hoax?

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.

[ . . . ]

Full text at http://www.samsloan.com/einstein.htm

...at this rate our 200 years since the WIII, the existence of our civilization will be cited as hoax.

Alva
01-05-07, 09:33 PM
If this is going to be jewish/anti-jewish propaganda thread it'll find its way to the cesspool.

Indeed, the topic is whether or not Einstein was an historical fraud, so unless someone is willing to debunk his mathematical work by demonstrating where it was wrong or how Einstein plagiarized someone else, this thread will close fast.

Well this is why i said it was speculation. It's very hard to prove what goes on behind closed doors, and that is about the only bit of information that makes this even plausible.

Charles_Wong
01-09-07, 07:27 PM
Anti-semitic


Red Herring.

But going back to the original theme: my original point has been misunderstood:

I am asking if it's possible that Einstein plagarized his work while working in the Patent Office where he had access to other scientist's research.

I am not denying that Einstein had an above average IQ (most Jews are above average in IQ) or that he received a phD in physics and taught it. I know of several phD professors in science who are poor teachers and only teach because they were not smart enough to do research and produce.

I am also questioning if it's possible that Einstein was perhaps not the sole greatest genius in all of human recorded history, and that if the only reason he has been promoted as such is because his ethnic background is the same as the ethnic background of those who own most of the media and book publishing companies.

Charles_Wong
01-09-07, 08:32 PM
If Einstein indeed did everything he is credited with, then I would accept that. But it just seems out of pattern for Jews to lead in novel scientific theory. Jewish average IQ is highest at 117, which is heavily influenced by the very high verbal IQ score, but the performance IQ is the same as Whites. The high 117 is due to the verbal weight. So jews do very well in the field law, politics, ethics, philosophy, etc. But in theoretical science, it's a small handful of Euro elites that tend to create everything. But if Einstein indeed was a rare example, then I would accept that: my goal here is to simply to understand the underlying patterns of the world. Whatever is proven is what I'll accept.

spidergoat
01-09-07, 08:34 PM
I know Jews who are complete dumbasses, you can't judge individuals using statistical analysis.

James R
01-09-07, 08:41 PM
Charles_Wong:


Red Herring.

Fine. I accept your apology.


I am asking if it's possible that Einstein plagarized his work while working in the Patent Office where he had access to other scientist's research.

No, since the the work didn't previously exist.


I am also questioning if it's possible that Einstein was perhaps not the sole greatest genius in all of human recorded history, and that if the only reason he has been promoted as such is because his ethnic background is the same as the ethnic background of those who own most of the media and book publishing companies.

Nominating a "sole greatest genius in all of human recorded history" is a wildly subjective task, don't you think? I wouldn't be game to attempt it. How do you hope to compare Einstein to Aristotle to Genghis Khan to Neitszche to Charles Darwin to Shakespeare?


If Einstein indeed did everything he is credited with, then I would accept that.

What do you believe he is credited for that he did not do?


But it just seems out of pattern for Jews to lead in novel scientific theory. Jewish average IQ is highest at 117, which is heavily influenced by the very high verbal IQ score, but the performance IQ is the same as Whites. The high 117 is due to the verbal weight. So jews do very well in the field law, politics, ethics, philosophy, etc. But in theoretical science, it's a small handful of Euro elites that tend to create everything.

Completely incorrect. Many important contributions to science and technology originated outside Europe.

spidergoat
01-09-07, 08:57 PM
I am asking if it's possible that Einstein plagarized his work while working in the Patent Office where he had access to other scientist's research.

It could have been that machine that enables you to kick your own ass that gave him the idea for relativity! Or maybe he stole the patent for the pneumatic tire, moved some numbers around, and made everyone believe that it meant something about mass and energy!

You could be on to something, I recommend that you submit your findings to the Journal of Caucasian Euroscience immediately, it could revolutionize the world!

socraeblu2534
01-09-07, 09:19 PM
brilliance is brilliance brilliance is as brilliance does.

spuriousmonkey
01-10-07, 04:29 AM
What about Gregory Mendel?



Mendel actually gets too much credit.

Mendel was terribly disappointed by his pea experiments. He therefore dropped them and started working on other plants.


He actually was part of a mainstream tradition back then that was interested in the appearance of new plant species in nature, because....he was a religious man. He wanted to support the notion of god. He wanted to show that new species arose by crossing and NOT evolution.

Therefore his pea (pisum)experiments were for him personally a major disappointment. After working with his pea plants he switched to working with Hieracium. Hieracium doesn't show the normal 'mendelian' patterns of inheritance. And he was very pleased with this.

This meant that Mendel had to be rediscovered. And actually there was no re-discovery, merely discovery. Mendel never realized what he had. Hence he did not discover it.

To place mendel on the same pedestal as Einstein is a farce.


source: Did mendel discover the Mendelian laws? Bert Theunissen.
Netwon's God & Mendel's Bastards 1997.

Alva
01-10-07, 05:35 AM
I never knew that much about the guy, and the source may be an even better read.

spuriousmonkey
01-10-07, 05:44 AM
I never knew that much about the guy, and the source may be an even better read.

Unfortunately that source is in Dutch.

nikita14576
07-04-09, 03:47 PM
I was shocked to find out how duped the general masses have been to belive Einstein was a geneus. He was a master of deception....
The following shows that there were other scientists who had already discovered
these theories and Einstein had access to their work....


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 famous equation E=mc^2. 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 the laboratory in the 1890s by both J.J. Thomsom of Cambridge and by W. Kaufmann in Göttingen. In 1900, Poincaré had shown that there was a mass relationship for all forms of energy, not just electromagnetic energy. Yet, the most probable source of Einstein's plagiarism was Friedrich Hasenöhrl, one of the most brilliant, yet unappreciated physicists of the era. Hasenöhrl was the teacher of many of the German scientists who would later become famous for a variety of topics. He had worked on the idea of the equivalence of mass and energy for many years and had published a paper on the topic in 1904 in the very same journal which Einstein would publish his plagiarized version in 1905. For his brilliant work in this area, Hasenörhl had received in 1904 a prize from the prestigious Vienna Academy of Sciences.

Furthermore, the mathematical relationship of mass and energy was a simple deduction from the already well-known equations of Scottish physicist James Maxwell. Scientists long understood that the mathematical relationship expressed by the equation E=mc^2 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 believe 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, he 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 remark. 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 not understand. In fact, in response to this article, J. Precht remarked that such an experiment "lies beyond the realm of possible experience."

James R
07-04-09, 11:19 PM
Scientists long understood that the mathematical relationship expressed by the equation E=mc^2 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 believe that Einstein developed this postulate, particularly in light of the fact that Einstein did not have the laboratory necessary to conduct the appropriate experiments.

The writer of this obviously knows nothing about the derivation of E=mc^2.

It is not a postulate, but a derived result from special relativity. Einstein was the first to produce a derivation of the equation.

iceaura
07-06-09, 01:33 PM
The real mystery at the center of the Jewish conspiracy, when the Jews used their hidden control of the popular newspapers and radio to dictate to scientific journals the authorship of findings in theoretical physics, is why they picked a young patent clerk of no reputation to be their front guy, and how they knew which findings to ascribe to him.

Dozens of professional and Jewish scientists, including several with reputations in physics and mathematics, were available as more plausible sources. And before publication no one outside that Jewish media conspiracy had any idea that these were the key insights they proved to be.

I wonder if modern Jewish movie moguls have similar interest and expertise in theoretical physics? Maybe it's biology now - somewhere in Hollywood the producers of "Zombies Arise" has been combing the back issues of Theoretical Genomics, picking out the obscure and overlooked discoveries by the soon-cheated Aryan genius that will revolutionize the way we even think about the world, and selecting the FDA clerk whose Jewishness will be his ticket to worldwide scientific renown.

StrangerInAStrangeLa
07-08-09, 09:27 PM
-=-

How can I get a job at the FDA & pretend to be Jewishness?

DRZion
07-24-09, 12:42 PM
I certainly agree that Einstein's genius is over-blown. What useful inventions have we gotten from Einstein's work??? The atomic bomb, and, admittedly, the nuclear power plant. He certainly put his credibility on the line with his beliefs. . .

What about Maxwell??? Maxwell compiled Electro-Magnetic theory!

No point in bringing up Bill Gates here..

What about Fleming, who popularized the notion of antibiotics? Without antibiotics we would still be dropping like flies, from birth till the advanced age of 45!

Truth is that you need to be good at publishing in order for your work to have any impact. Social dynamics is very important in science, especially when it is moving at the break-neck speed of the 21st century. The case of Mendel is a good one- his work was important, but he never did popularize it.

Xylene
07-24-09, 06:15 PM
Please excuse what seems like an ignorant question, but is there any way that light can be slowed down under experimental or natural conditions?

Pandaemoni
07-24-09, 07:32 PM
Please excuse what seems like an ignorant question, but is there any way that light can be slowed down under experimental or natural conditions?

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light

mike47
07-24-09, 07:55 PM
I know Jews who are complete dumbasses, you can't judge individuals using statistical analysis.
I see good science here...hahaha..!.

mike47
07-24-09, 08:04 PM
-=-

How can I get a job at the FDA & pretend to be Jewishness?
Buy two cuppas.:) .

James R
07-24-09, 08:17 PM
I certainly agree that Einstein's genius is over-blown. What useful inventions have we gotten from Einstein's work???

Have you ever owned a CD player or DVD? There's one example.


Please excuse what seems like an ignorant question, but is there any way that light can be slowed down under experimental or natural conditions?

Yes. Get a fish tank and fill it with water. Shine some light through the tank. The light in the tank will move at about 3/4 of the speed of the light outside the tank.

DRZion
07-24-09, 08:50 PM
Have you ever owned a CD player or DVD? There's one example.

Haha, thats a good point. Stimulated emission was predicted by Einstein, wasn't it? This lead to MASERS, which led to LASERS, which are the basis of CD readers and a vital component of fiber optics.

Dywyddyr
07-27-09, 05:19 PM
"The theory [General Relativity] is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists..." -- Nikola Tesla

Don't forget his other "interesting" comments.


“The aeroplane is fatally defective. It is merely a toy—a sporting play-thing. It can never become commercially practical.”


“...the aeroplane must always be subject to chance and its operator to the risk of fatal accident. Sportsmen will always take these chances, but as a business proposition the risk is too great.


“The aeroplane of the Langley type, such as was used by Farman and others with some success, will hardly ever prove a practical aerial machine"

Wow, that guy really nailed it didn't he.
I can see why he's so highly regarded...

Tiassa
07-27-09, 05:40 PM
Mod Hat — Closure and redirect

This thread was dead for over two years before its unfortunate resurrection. Given the "Jewish conspiracy" aspect of its topic post, I will drive the final nail.

Many thanks to those who tried to make something useful of this discussion.

Done and gone.