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).
Was Albert Einstein a Historical Fraud?
- Thread starter Charles_Wong
- Start date
- Status
Its not. Debate it all you want.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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.
...at this rate our 200 years since the WIII, the existence of our civilization will be cited as hoax.
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
Registered Senior Member
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
Registered Senior Member
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
Valued Senior Member
I know Jews who are complete dumbasses, you can't judge individuals using statistical analysis.
Charles_Wong:
Fine. I accept your apology.
No, since the the work didn't previously exist.
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?
What do you believe he is credited for that he did not do?
Completely incorrect. Many important contributions to science and technology originated outside Europe.
Fine. I accept your apology.
No, since the the work didn't previously exist.
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?
What do you believe he is credited for that he did not do?
Completely incorrect. Many important contributions to science and technology originated outside Europe.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Charles Wong said:
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
Registered Member
brilliance is brilliance brilliance is as brilliance does.
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.
Last edited:
Unfortunately that source is in Dutch.
N
nikita14576
Guest
Einstein stole ideas from the Germans, and French and Scottish
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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
-=-
How can I get a job at the FDA & pretend to be Jewishness?
How can I get a job at the FDA & pretend to be Jewishness?
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.
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.
- Status