From gauss@mailandnews.com Sat Jan  6 09:20:41 EST 2007
Article: 1170134 of alt.revisionism
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:1170134 alt.education:212338 alt.conspiracy:1209713 alt.politics.bush:3814917
Path: sn-us!sn-feed-sjc-02!sn-xt-sjc-11!sn-xt-sjc-06!sn-xt-sjc-13!supernews.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!postnews.google.com!11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Andrew" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.education,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Academic to be Tried for Attending Holocaust Conference
Date: 6 Jan 2007 05:20:33 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 2870
Message-ID: <1168089633.403912.136100@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com>
References: 
   <1166345549.910291.259670@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   
   
   
   <12oe57bg322jefe@news.supernews.com>
   <3pKdnQtkfNzWExrYnZ2dnUVZ_hy3nZ2d@giganews.com>
   <12ofueq6e2g1jcb@news.supernews.com>
   
   <1167870891.713316.188570@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com>
   <2u6dnSUIUZ5CXgHYnZ2dnUVZ_qqrnZ2d@giganews.com>
   <1167916696.213439.38710@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>
   
   <1167968639.584241.169070@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <12pu5dpis4r6v0a@corp.supernews.com>
   
   <1168064119.784983.140670@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.212.182.181
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1168089640 19008 127.0.0.1 (6 Jan 2007 13:20:40 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 13:20:40 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 Firefox/1.0.7,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: 11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.212.182.181;
   posting-account=htUeNwwAAAC_6sINURMRFNAueN4nxpZ2

B=2EH. C'r'amer wrote:
> "Andrew"  wrote in message
> news:1168064119.784983.140670@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > B.H. C'r'amer wrote:
> >> "Gord McFee"  wrote in message
> >> news:12pu5dpis4r6v0a@corp.supernews.com...
> >> > On 1/4/2007 10:43 PM, Andrew wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Kurt Knoll wrote:
> >> >>> I suppose the French believe they are in a democratic country when
> >> >>> in effect in Faurisson case they are only lackey for the holocaust
> >> >>> industrie.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Kurt Knoll.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> And this has what, exactly, to do with Mr. Cramer's absurd suggesti=
on
> >> >>  that Einstein was a plagiarist?
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh, right.  Nothing.
> >> >
> >> > Drew, you have to appreciate Mr Cramer's dilemma.  His belief system
> >> > forbids him to benefit from two of the freedoms that you and I proba=
bly
> >> > take for granted: freedom of thought and freedom of expression.
> >> > Because
> >> > he, like some of the other more virulent antisemites in this newsgro=
up,
> >> > loathes everything Jewish, he is forbidden to say anything good about
> >> > them, just as he is forbidden to think anything good about them.  If=
 he
> >> > were to admit that Einstein produced both theories of relativity and
> >> > the
> >> > unified field theory in one lifetime, winning the Nobel Prize for
> >> > physics in 1921, because he had possibly the greatest scientific mind
> >> > of
> >> > all time, he would by extension be saying something good about a Jew.
> >> > This he cannot do, so he must try to disparage Einstein in some way.
> >> > Calling him a plagiarist, as stupid as that assertion is, conforms to
> >> > his belief system, so he has to do it.
> >> >
> >> > In the same way, he cannot admit that the Holocaust happened.  If he
> >> > were to do so, that could be seen as some kind of expression, indire=
ct
> >> > I
> >> > admit, of sympathy for the Jews.  Or, an admission that a terrible
> >> > thing
> >> > happened to the Jews, which they had done nothing to deserve.  He
> >> > cannot
> >> > do that, since they are the enemy.  Thus, he denies the Holocaust.
> >> >
> >> > Like most of the virulent antisemites, other examples being Waldo and
> >> > Neil Harrington, he is actually fascinated by, afraid of and extreme=
ly
> >> > jealous of the Jews.  He and his ilk have contributed nothing to
> >> > humanity whereas the Jews, in spite of their small numbers, have made
> >> > immense contributions.  They are obsessed with this, have an extreme
> >> > inferiority complex and do what they can to drag Jews down to their
> >> > depth.  One example is that they want to give the impression that lo=
ts
> >> > of people support them.  Therefore, most of them post under a variety
> >> > of
> >> > nyms, believing that can't be seen through.  There are dozens of oth=
er
> >> > examples.
> >> >
> >> > I could go on, but you get the picture.  Watch now, while Cramer eit=
her
> >> > runs away completely from this post, or simply says I am a shabbas g=
oy,
> >> > likely calling me a "cunt" or some other such taunt.
> >>
> >>
> >> I posted a couple of articles with more than enough information includ=
ed
> >> suggesting that academe is not overly convinced Einstein was not a
> >> plagiarist you silly little shabbos goy cunt (There ya go. Don't want =
to
> >> dissapoint)
> >>
> >> Now, go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.
> >
> > And I posted a full refutation of both of those articles.  You have not
> > responded to it in any substantial manner.
>
> You posted some yid horsehsit, and a pathetic attempt to refute the
> argument. Nothing like a full refutation whatsoever.
>
> Do try to keep up, and do try to maintain at least a modicum of honesty.
>
> There's a good chap.

I, as well as others, have asked you repeatedly to point out where my
refutation is in error.  You have as yet failed to do so in any other
manner than to attempt to insult the author thereof (unsuccessfully, I
might add).  In case you have failed to notice the refutation, here it
is again.  Please feel free to point out where it is in error so that I
may correct it.  Be sure to provide references for all your claims.

> Albert Einstein: A Jewish Myth
>
> by Dr. Paul Bowers, B.S., M.E., Ch.D.

The first chunk of this claptrap is standard rhetoric.  I'm going to
deal specifically with the facts (or more accurately, the total lack
thereof) in this article, and steer clear of the rhetoric.  Ignoring
for a moment the fact that it's utterly irrelevant to the issue of
whether Einstein was a plagiarist, it clearly isn't meant to be
responded to, and has subsequently been snipped.

[=2E..]

>One of the great Jewish myths of the 20th century is
>Albert Einstein.
>
>Albert Einstein is held up by the Jewish liars

Who apparently conspired with the scientific community, every physicist
on earth, to elevate someone you claim is a dolt to near-deity level.

>as a rare genius who drastically changed the field of
>theoretical physics. As such, he is made an idol to
>young people and his very name has become synonymous
>with genius.

And it doesn't take an Einstein to see why.

>The truth, however, is very different. The reality is
>that Einstein was an inept, moronic Jew who could not
>even tie his own shoelaces;

Jew, yes.  Inept, no; moronic, definitely not.

Admittedly, Einstein was a little odd by most people's standards: he
had closets full of identical clothing (he said that he didn't want
to waste any mental effort deciding what to wear), his hair always
looked rather unkempt, but never anywhere have I heard that he
couldn't tie his shoelaces.

As if that were a measure of intelligence.  Stephen Hawking is
undeniably unable to tie his shoelaces, but even his harshest critics
would not describe him as unintelligent (most agree, however, that
he's no Einstein).

>he contributed nothing original to the field of
>quantum mechanics or any other science, but on the
>contrary he stole the ideas of other men and the
>Jewish media made him a hero.

With the possible exception of Newton, Einstein did more to advance the
science of physics than any other man or woman before or since, so it's
not terribly surprising that the scientific community worships him.
Strangely enough, the author of this paper, rather than celebrating
that fact, chooses to ridicule and trivialize it.  I find it difficult
to believe that this would have been written if Einstein weren't
Jewish, but I'm not judging.

This sentence represents the author's thesis statement, and it will
be shown over the following paragraphs that the author has no clue what
he's talking about.  Well, either that or he knows exactly what
he's talking about, but is practicing what I like to call voluntary
ignorance.

In short, to say that Einstein contributed nothing original to the
field of quantum mechanics or any other science is absurd, and it will
be shown just how absurd the author's position is as this essay
continues.

>When we actually examine the life of Albert Einstein,

We realize just how devoid of truthful statements this essay is.

>we find that his only brilliance lies in his ability
>to plagiarize and steal other people's ideas, passing
>them off as his own.

This is what the author will attempt to prove throughout this
discourse, and fail miserably.

>Einstein's education, or lack thereof,

We're just over one sentence into the "meat" of this essay, and already
the author has lied twice.

It is inaccurate (to say the least) to say that Einstein lacked an
education.  In fact, Einstein would receive a PhD in Physics for his
work on Brownian Motion.  Before that, he graduated from ETH, quite
possibly one of the top engineering schools in Europe.

The author, of course, never actually mentions this, choosing instead
to attempt to lead the reader to believe that Einstein just barely
scraped through high school and stopped there.

>is an important part of this story.

Not to mention, the part of the story you conveniently forget many
pertinent details of, such as the fact that Einstein had a PhD,
therefore, an education.

>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."

Technically true, but not in the way you're trying to imply.  Einstein
left High School because his family moved out of Munich.  He would
later enter another High School in Arau and graduate in 1896.

History was really not Einstein's strong suit, nor was geography or
languages.  When he applied to ETH, mentioned below, he would fail the
section of the exam in French.

It's worth mentioning that his teacher in High school commented that
his mathematical abilities were well above his age group.

Furthermore, I daresay that if we were all judged by our performance in
high school, I strongly doubt many of us would have made it far.

>Einstein himself wrote in a school paper of his "lack
>of imagination and practical ability."

I should mention at this point that the author made a tactical error in
quoting one of Einstein's most famous statements incompletely in the
hopes that the naive reader would take it out of context.  The full
statement reads thus:

"I imagine myself becoming a teacher in those branches of the natural
sciences, choosing the theoretical part of them. Here are the reasons
which lead me to this plan. Above all, it is my disposition for
abstract and mathematical thought, and my lack of imagination and
practical ability."

Basically, he doesn't think he'll make a very good engineer or an
artist, but considers math and science to be his future.  We all have
our aptitudes.  I'm a lousy painter, and I can't dance to save my
life.  Neither makes me a bad physicist.

It's also noted that the complete quote shows that Einstein is far
away from suggesting that he is mathematically or scientifically inept
as you imply here.

>In 1895, Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an
>engineering school in Zurich.

The internationally-recognized ETH.  And it wasn't a "simple" entrance
exam.  The majority of those who took the exam failed it.

>This exam consisted mainly of mathematical problems,

Nope.  Einstein only failed the section in french.  Languages were
never his strong suit.

>and Einstein showed himself to be mathematically inept
>in this exam.

Nope.  The math and physics portions of the exam, he passed (which is
something of an impressive feat since this exam is normally reserved
for those who had completed secondary school; Einstein was still a year
away from graduating).  The part of the exam he failed was in french.

>He then entered a lesser school

It's worth mentioning that he was 16 at the time.  The application to
ETH was an attempt to skip secondary school.  The "Lesser School"
was actually his high school in Arau.

>hoping to use it as a stepping stone to the
>engineering school he could not get into,

Not so much a stepping stone as a fall-back position.  Einstein was
trying to get into ETH over a year before he technically should have (a
feat which is practically unheard of; the fact that he passed the math
and physics portions of the exam over a year before he would graduate
is rather amazing), so it's not terribly surprising that he didn't
make it in.  He had to return to Arau to finish high school.

>but after graduating in 1900, he still could not get a
>position at the engineering school!

Oh boy, this one's going to be fun to respond to...

Actually, he would graduate from his high school in Arau in 1896 (I
point out that you "forgot" to mention that particular graduation,
leading the reader to believe that he never graduated from high
school), then he would apply for a position at the ETH, successfully
this time.

His 1900 graduation was from exactly the school you claim he was unable
to get into!

>Unable to go to the school as he had wanted,

Liar.

>he got a job (with the help of a friend)

The "Friend" was Marcel Grossman, a buddy of his from ETH, the
internationally-recognized school you insist he wasn't able to get
into.

>at the patent office in Bern.

After working a few months as a math teacher.  The degree for which he
earned at ETH, the school you insist he wasn't able to get into.

>He was to be a technical expert third class, which
>meant that he was too incompetent for a higher
>qualified position.

No, it meant that he was a "technical ***expert***" at an
entry-level position.

He became qualified as a "technical ***expert***" at ETH, the
internationally-recognized school that you insist he wasn't able to
get into.

This one sentence is one of the most delectable contradictions in this
entire essay: you're trying to argue that the man was incompetent,
but practically in the same proverbial breath, you're trying to claim
that he was so smart that the first position he would hold at a patent
office would be the top position.

>Even after publishing his so-called groundbreaking
>papers of 1905 and after working in the patent office
>for six years, he was only elevated to a second class
>standing.

One has nothing to do with the other.  In fact, you're about to
explain why he never advanced farther than 2nd class.

>Remember, the work he was doing at the patent office,
>for which he was only rated third class, was not
>quantum mechanics or theoretical physics,

Ah.  So his work at the patent office had absolutely nothing to do with
his academic work...  So why do you suggest in the previous paragraph
that there is some sort of link between his advancement in the patent
office and his academic publications?

>but was reviewing technical documents for patents of
>every day things;

The unfortunate truth is that graduate students don't make much money
just being graduate students.  Most seek employment elsewhere to make
ends meet.  The other side of the coin is that in their alternative
employment, they have practically no chance of advancement due to the
fact that their employer knows that they have no desire to continue in
their employ for any longer than is necessary to complete their degree.

Given this, it's hardly surprising that Einstein didn't advance far
as a patent clerk: he didn't need to.  His salary there was
sufficient to finance his education.

>yet he was barely qualified.

He would go on to invent and patent the electric refrigerator with Leo
Szilard.  You have yet to present any evidence that he was barely
qualified for the position.

>He would work at the patent office until 1909, all the
>while continuously trying to get a position at a
>university, but without success.

Not entirely correct.  Or more accurately: downright wrong.  He was
awarded a PhD in 1905 for his work in Brownian Motion.  Given that
doctorate degrees are generally awarded by univesities, it would seem
to contradict your claim that Einstein was "without success" in
getting a position at one.

It's also worth mentioning that the author made a clerical error.
Einstein left the patent office in 1908.

>All of these facts are true,

Only if you exclude the false ones.  You've also conveniently
"forgotten" a number of facts, and blatantly lied about others.
You've also expressed facts which are technically true in such a way
as to give the reader the wrong impression (for example, the fact that
he "left high school without a diploma" is technically true, but
neglecting to mention that he later re-entered high school in Arau and
graduated in 1896 gives this true statement a very false impression).
It's notable that the facts you've "forgotten" to mention, in
all cases, are the ones which directly oppose your thesis.  Not exactly
the mark of an honest scholar, is it?

>but now begins the Jewish myth.

The implication throughout this entire essay (which is not explicitly
spelled out for obvious reasons: if the author did spell it out
explicitly, it would show how absurd his position was) is that "the
Jews" were somehow able to conspire with every single physicist on
Earth to elevate an incompetent to the level of a genius.  What they
neglect to mention is the fact that if "the Jews" wanted to elevate
a Jewish person to the level of genius, there are a number of
physicists whom they could have so elevated.

For example:

Albert A. Michelson
Max Born
Niels Bohr
Richard Feynman
Wolfgang Pauli
Steven Weinberg
Heinrich Hertz
Marcel Grossman
Hans Bethe
Tullio Levi-Civita
Leonard Mandel
Karl Schwartzschild

I could go on, but I'll stop there.  I could point out that a number of
these physicists are actually applauded by the author of this essay.
He never actually admits that they're Jewish, of course...

Even if this were a myth (which you're going to fail miserably to
prove in the following paragraphs), it cannot, by any stretch of the
imagination be described as a "Jewish Myth."  Einstein's exploits
and insights are most often applauded by the scientific community
itself, very few of whom are Jewish.

For example, a recent survey went out to 250 of the most prominent
physicists worldwide in 1999, in which one of the questions asked was
"Name the Five Physicists who have made the most important
contributions to Physics."

It came as no surprise to anyone that the single most-voted physicist
was Albert Einstein, with 119 votes (out of 130 people who actually
replied).

If Einstein were a plagiarist and a fraud, those who would be most
likely to know about it would be the physicists themselves, those who
are applying Einstein's principles.  Not one Physicist, either when
Einstein was alive, or now, has ever come forward to claim that he was
a fraud.  Naturally, you have the odd crackpot that comes forward to
say that Einstein was in fact an incompetent moron, but not one of them
has yet provided any evidence supporting it.

The survey can be found here:
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/12/12/14/1

>Supposedly, while working a full time job,

To be honest, I'm not sure what Einstein's hours at the patent
office were, but I've never seen anybody describe them as full-time.

>without the aid of university colleagues, a staff of
>graduate students, a laboratory, or any of the things
>normally associated with an academic setting,

He was, at the time, working towards his PhD in physics.  In other
words, he had access to university colleagues, a staff of graduate
students, a laboratory (even though, as I'll point out later, it was
completely useless for the type of work he was doing), and all the
things 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.

It wasn't "in his spare time."  Publishing papers is what PhD
students do.  At least in Science.  Granted, very few of us manage to
put out as many ground breaking works as he did, but we can't all be
Einsteins.

Of course, you can't say that, because saying so would mean that you
had to admit that Einstein was seeking a PhD in physics.

Runs kinda contrary to your assertion that Einstein was an uneducated
moron, doesn't it?

>Many people have recognized the impossibility of such
>a feat, including Einstein himself,

Yep.  There's a reason "Einstein" is synonymous with
"Genius," and you've just stated it.

>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

The day that you can come up with Special Relativity is the day that
you can call Einstein an "inept moron."  I'll wait.

>could have written such documents at the age of 26
>without any real education.

How someone who was pursuing (and who would eventually get) a PhD can
be described as having no "real education" is beyond me.  The
author never explains the logic underlying this conclusion.

So, as if it wasn't bad enough that you're re-writing Einstein's
own personal history, now you're claiming that those with PhDs are
uneducated.

>However, a simpler explanation exists: he stole the
>ideas and plagiarized the papers.

Your "simpler explanation" rests upon the assumption of the
existence of an unknown, unnamed group of conspirators (for which, I
might add, you provide absolutely no evidence) which managed to
manipulate some of the most prominent and reputable organizations in
the world (not to mention public opinion) into believing that an
incompetent moron is actually a genius.

In a recent debate, David Gehrig who has far more eloquence than I do
on the matter phrased it this way:

Message ID: 

"=2E..you seem quite willing to postulate some grand conspiracy among
physicists to celebrate someone they would think is a dolt.  That's
far more ridiculous a stance than that of a lone genius recasting the
Laws of motion, which were themselves the work of a lone genius."

>Therefore, we will look at each of these ideas and
>discover the source of each....

.=2E.And discover that it was Einstein, himself...

>It should be remembered that these ideas are presented
>by Einstein's worshippers as totally new and
>completely different, each of which would change the
>landscape of science.

The fact that they are presented by Einstein's worshippers as totally
new and completely different, each of which would change the landscape
of science is largely related to the fact that that the ideas were
totally new and completely different, each of which has changed the
landscape of science.

>These four papers dealt with the following 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 relativity. This is perhaps the most famous
>idea falsely attributed to Einstein.

Which you're going to fail miserably to show is falsely attributed to
him.

>Specifically, this 1905 paper dealt with what Einstein
>called the Special Theory of Relativity (the General
>Theory would come in 1915).

Close to accurate.  He didn't actually call it the special theory of
relativity until he started working on his general theory.

>This theory contradicted
>the traditional Newtonian mechanics and was based upon
>two premises:

Actually, no.  If it contradicted Newtonian mechanics, then the
universe would be a really screwy place.  In fact, one of the
fundamental assumptions that makes Special Relativity work is that
Newton's laws hold true in all inertial reference frames, including
those that travel close to the speed of light.  Einstein merely
generalized Newtonian mechanics to all inertial reference frames.  At
velocities v<1) in the absence of acceleration, the laws of nature
>are the same for all observers;

Including Newton's Laws, which you just said were contradicted by
relativity.

Do your homework a little better next time.

>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.

It's out of sheer mercy that I'm not going to tear this paragraph into
tiny little pieces.  It's close enough to truthful that I'll just let
it pass.  Suffice it to say, the author has omitted a number of details
here, but nothing remotely on the scale of "forgetting" that Einstein
had a PhD.

>This theory has been validated by modern experiments
>and is the basis for modern physics. But these two
>premises are far from being originally Einstein's.
>First of all, the idea that the speed of light was a
>constant and was independent of the motion of its
>source was not Einstein's at all, but was proposed by
>the Scottish scientist James Maxwell. Maxwell studied
>the phenomenon of light extensively and first proposed
>that it was electromagnetic in nature. He wrote an
>article to this effect for the 1878 edition of the
>Encyclopedia Britannica.

Here, we come to the author's second tactical error, and this is a
biggie.  First he claims that Einstein's work is plagiarized, the
goes on to attribute the originals to some of the most famous
physicists ever to grace the pages of textbooks worldwide.  If (s)he
were intent on making this crap work any longer than it takes for the
reader to dust off their old high school physics text, (s)he should
have chosen papers that were so obscure nobody would ever be able to
find them. Instead, it took me less than 20 minutes to find to just
what level the author is full of it.

We'll see in the upcoming passages that the author of this paper will
not only claim Einstein was somehow able to steal the ideas of some of
the most prominent pre-Einstein physicists without anybody noticing
(which brings up the question of how they got to be the most prominent
pre-Einstein physicists in the first place if it was such a trivial
matter to steal their works), but he's going to do it over, and over,
and over again.  That Einstein was capable of so pulling the wool over
the eyes of some very intelligent men is one of the fundamental
(although unspoken) assumptions of this essay.  The implication (which
is not explicitly spelled out, for spelling it out would reveal how
ridiculous the author's stance is) is that the scientific community
(which includes the authors that Einstein was supposedly plagiarizing)
is so dumb that they are incapable of recognizing some of the defining
works of modern physics, and the authors thereof.

The extent to which the author is full of crap is nicely summarized by
looking at one of the opening sentences of this paragraph: "First of
all, the idea that the speed of light was a constant and was
independent of the motion of its source was not Einstein's at all,
but was proposed by the Scottish scientist James Maxwell."

Now, ignoring the fact that Maxwell went by the name James Clerk
Maxwell rather than James Maxwell, this one sentence is the combination
of a truth and a lie.  Yes, Maxwell suggested that the speed of light
was a constant, but no, he did not suggest that it was independent of
the motion of its source.

In fact, the motion of the source is given no consideration whatsoever
in Maxwell's work.  By contrast, relativity is specifically a study
of how the motion of the source affects an observation.

In other words, Maxwell's equations embody a completely different
physical principle from relativity.  Ergo, no plagiarism.

At this point, I feel it necessary to point out that all of Maxwell's
equations; the entire basis for electrodynamics, and the equations
which allowed him to draw the conclusion that the speed of light is a
constant already existed in the form of Gauss' law, Ampere's law,
Faraday's law, and an unnamed equation.  Maxwell's actual
contribution to what we call "Maxwell's Equations" is a single
mathematical expression at the end of Ampere's law.  So if we follow
through with the author's logic, we are left with the inevitable
conclusion that Maxwell as guilty as (and very possibly more guilty
than) Einstein of Plagiarism.

Yet, the author of this piece applauds Maxwell as a genius, but
condemns Einstein as a plagiarist.

I bring this up primarily to point out the blatant double-standard the
author demonstrates throughout this essay.  This double standard will
become the norm rather than the exception as this essay progresses.

>His ideas prompted much debate, and by 1887, as a
>result of his work and the ensuing debate, the
>scientific community, particularly Lorentz, Michelson,
>and Morley reached the conclusion that the 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.

Which was really why Einstein wrote it in the first place.  What the
author completely ignores is what science is.  Scientific research, by
its very definition, is a journey.  Your measure as a scientist lies in
how far you carry that journey.  If every scientist had started from
scratch, scientific thought would go nowhere.  Every scientific
discovery or conclusion (not just Einstein's) is built upon the work
of others.  That's the whole reason for having a reference section in
a scientific publication.

The challenge, of course, is to carry that journey as far as possible
without having to throw out the work that others did.

>This debate over the nature of light also led
>Michelson and Morley to conduct an important
>experiment, the results of which could not be
>explained by Newtonian mechanics. They observed a
>phenomenon caused by relativity

Um, no.  They observed a consequence of the absence of a medium through
which light traveled.  Nowhere in their publications do Michelson &
Morley ever discuss inertial reference frames, relative motion, time
dilation, length contraction, or any of the other benchmarks of Special
Relativity.

Where's the plagiarism?

Incidentally, to believe that the only reason for Einstein's fame was
because he was Jewish, one would have to wonder why Michelson isn't
equally famous.  He, too, was Jewish.

>but they did not understand relativity.

Which they can hardly be blamed for, since Einstein hadn't published
it yet.

>They had attempted to detect the motion of the earth
>through ether, which was a medium thought to be
>necessary for the propagation of light.

The experiment employed a Michelson Interferometer in the hopes of
studying velocity of the Ether Wind relative to that of the earth.
They came up with a rather shocking conclusion: there is no ether.

This, while fascinating, has absolutely nothing to do with Einstein.
In fact, the Ether (whose velocity Michelson and Morley were attempting
to measure) is only mentioned very superficially by Einstein in his
"Electrodynamics of Moving bodies," when he says that:

"The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be
superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require
an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special properties,
nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
electromagnetic processes take place."

This is the only time at which the "luminiferous ether" Maxwell
proposed, and Michelson and Morley attempted to measure is ever
mentioned in Einstein's work.  Note that he specifically debunks the
very concept you claim he was copying from Michelson and Morley's
experiment.

In other words, Einstein's work embodies a completely different
concept from Michelson and Morley's.

I should also mention, for completeness' sake, that it has been
extensively argued whether Einstein would have published "The
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (More commonly known as Special
Relativity) had the Michelson-Morley experiment not occurred.  Most
agree that he would have gone ahead and done it anyway... Special
Relativity stands nicely on its own feet, without the assistance of the
M-M experiment.  If the M-M experiment had measured something other
than a null result, we might think differently, but it didn't.

>In response to this problem, in 1889, the Irish
>physicist George FitzGerald, 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 changes, according
>as they are moving through the ether or across it, by
>an amount depending on the square of the ratio of
>their velocities to that of light."
>
>This is the theory of relativity, 13 years before
>Einstein's paper!

The minor flaw in this argument being that this is *not* the theory of
relativity.  Even if Lorentz and Fitzgerald had known anything about
Relativity (which they didn't, and I'll explain why in a moment), this
is not the theory of relativity.  This is one of the *consequences* of
relativity.  There's a difference.

Like the M-M experiment, Fitzgerald and Lorentz had absolutely no idea
that they'd stumbled upon a relativistic phenomenon.  This equation
was an attempt by the two scientists to keep the Ether alive, and
explain the completely unexpected result from the M-M experiment.
Basically, the mathematical equivalent of a band-aid.  Einstein, on the
other hand, started from the governing principles, and derived his way
all the way to the same result Lorentz and Fitzgerald got to.  Lorentz
and Fitzgerald didn't do that, ergo, no plagiarism.  It's also worth
mentioning that most people agree that Einstein was likely unaware of
Lorentz' and Fitzgerald's work (not surprising, considering that it
wasn't really taken seriously until Einstein managed to derive it from
first principles), since he could have referred to it as evidence that
his special theory of relativity was correct.  That, by the way, would
not be plagiarism either.

It is important to note here (and observant readers will find that this
is a rather constant theme in this pseudo-intellectual exercise) that
the author seems convinced that the fact that two works finished at the
same end result is enough to conclude plagiarism.  This is, of course,
bullshit.  If this were true, Newton (who, next to Einstein is probably
the most prominent physicist in history) plagiarized Kepler.  Kepler
knew the equations of planetary motion many years before Newton figured
out what made them work.  Snell plagiarized whoever looked up and first
saw a rainbow.

But it is the governing principles that we give Newton and Snell credit
for, in the same way that we give Einstein credit for the governing
principles behind relativity.

>Furthermore, in 1892, Hendrik Lorentz, from The
>Netherlands, proposed the same solution and began to
>greatly expand the idea.

NOTE: The author has just labeled Lorentz as a plagiarist, if we apply
the same standard to Lorentz as (s)he has applied to Einstein.

>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-FitzGerald Contraction.

Also known as the Lorentz transformations.  They were still dealing
with the propagation of electromagnetic waves through the Ether.  It
was Einstein who realized that when their transformations were applied
to his special relativity, the ether became superfluous.

In other words, they weren't "strangely similar to Einstein's
Special Theory" because they dealt with the end result of the special
theory, whereas Einstein dealt with the root cause thereof.

>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
>Relativity had already been published.

Except for the theory itself.

Again, Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformations are not the special theory of
relativity.  They are just the consequences of it.  And they were
working from a flawed assumption: that the Ether exists.  Einstein
showed a) that the ether is superfluous, and b) derived all of the
transformations from first principles, and developed the physics on
which relativity is based.  Lorentz and Fitzgerald didn't do either
of these.

Where's the plagiarism?

It's also worth mentioning that any physics textbook refers to
Einstein's application of Lorentz transformations as just that:
Lorentz transformations.  It's not like it's some kind of dirty
secret that someone's been trying to hush up.  It's also generally
agreed that Einstein was unaware of Lorentz' work.  Not terribly
surprising when it is considered that nobody really gave much thought
to Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction *until* Einstein proposed a mechanism
by which it could occur.

However, after Special Relativity was published, Einstein became very
vocal in his praise of Lorentz when he realized that the two had
stumbled on the same results from different angles.

He also refers to Maxwell's equations as "Maxwell's Equations."
 If you're plagiarizing, it makes very little sense to identify the
people you're supposedly plagiarizing by name.

So, not only are you claiming that the scientists themselves were so
dumb that they didn't realize that their own works were being
plagiarized, but that the scientific community was so dumb that they
didn't realize that Einstein was plagiarizing when he identified the
authors you claim that he was copying by name.

>The Frenchman Poincar=E9 had, in 1898, written a paper
>unifying many of these ideas. He stated seven years
>before Einstein's paper that,
>
>"... we have no direct intuition about the equality of
>two time intervals. The simultaneity of two events or
>the order of their succession, as well as the equality
>of two time intervals, must be defined in such a way
>that the statements of the natural laws be as simple
>as possible."

Which is merely another piece of the puzzle.  The author has a nasty
habit of mistaking the parts for the whole.  Anybody else notice that?

It should also be mentioned, for completeness sake, that while
Poincar=E9 may have had the insight to see the trailhead, what he did
not do was follow the path where it led.  Poincar=E9 never formulated
relativity.

What Einstein managed to do was quite beautifully tie together what
appeared to be conflicting (or more accurately, crackpot) theories
about the nature of the universe, and show that they weren't
conflicting (or crack-pottish) after all.

That's what he gets, and deserves, the credit for.

>Anyone who has read Einstein's 1905 paper

Ah, yes, the "everybody knows I'm right" line of evidence.  With
the minor flaw that not everybody knows that you're right.

>will immediately recognize the similarity and the lack
>of originality on the part of Einstein.

Um, no.  Anybody who actually takes the time to Read "The
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and compare it to Maxwell's,
Fitzgerald's, Lorentz and Michelson & Morley's work, will in fact
realize that Einstein was the first to draw together all the pieces
that formed relativity.  Many scientists may have seen the proverbial
tip of the iceberg, but Einstein was indisputably the first to dive
below the surface and see its entire expanse.

>Thus we see that the only thing original about the
>paper was the term "Special Theory of Relativity."

That's a rather impressive conclusion, since "On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (the paper which later became known
as "Special Relativity") doesn't actually have the term
"Special Theory of Relativity," or "Special Relativity," or for
that matter, any term with both of the words "Special" and
"Relativity" in it.

In fact, the word "special" only actually appears once in the whole
paper, and is not in any way associated with the word "relativity."

In fact, it wasn't until Einstein started work on his General
Relativity that he started using the term "Special Theory of
Relativity."

For someone who spouts this bullshit claiming to have "examine[d] the
life of Albert Einstein," you seem remarkably ignorant of the content
of his works.

>Everything else was plagiarized.

Well, at least you were consistent in your utter failure to prove it.

>Over the next few years, Poincar=E9 became one of the
>most important lecturers and writers regarding
>relativity, but he never, in any of his papers or
>speeches, mentioned Albert Einstein.

The reasons behind this have always been something of a mystery, and
nobody seems to have an answer.  And nobody denies that he came awfully
close to having formulated Relativity in his paper "Sur le Dynamique de
L'=E9lectron."  Likewise, nobody denies that Einstein truly deserves the
credit for Relativity.

However, it's important to ask here, regardless of Poincar=E9's reasons
for remaining silent with respect to Einstein, does it make any sense
at all for him to have remained silent if he felt that Einstein was
fraudulently using his work?

>Thus, while Poincar=E9 was busy bringing the rest of the
>academic world up to speed regarding relativity,
>Einstein was still working in the patent office in
>Bern

And, don't forget, he was also completing a PhD in physics.

>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.

Okay.  Please produce, say, one example of a physicist stating or even
implying that Einstein was a fraud, and produce supporting evidence
that they in fact said so.

Here you have claimed that Einstein pilfered the works of some of the
greatest physicists who have ever lived.   Strangely enough, you make
no mention of the fact that no physicist ever came forward to claim
that Einstein stole their results (all of the ones you've named
except for Maxwell and Fitzgerald were alive and kicking when Special
Relativity came out). Lorentz never came forward to say that he
deserved all the credit for Special Relativity.  Larmor never said:
"Hey, Al, that's my work you're profiting off of."  Poincar=E9
never announced to the world that Einstein had pilfered his ideas.
This would be the equivalent of my publishing Hawking's work on
radiating black holes as my own, and nobody noticing.  Even if the
scientific community never caught on to it, you can be damn sure
Hawking would, and I guarantee he would raise holy hell for it.

So, please provide the name of the physicist who took all these
conflicting theories, and tied them together with a beautiful, elegant
theory.

I'll give you a hint: his last name is "Einstein."

Of course, pieces that ultimately led Einstein to formulate Relativity
existed already.  Why else would he have formulated it?  If no
unexpected observation has been made, there's really no point in
attempting to formulate a theory which explains it, is there?  As
I've mentioned before, this is the way that science works.  An
observation is made, and a theory is modified to explain that
observation.

>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 observed by the Scottish
>botanist Robert Brown in 1827.

Hence the name "Brownian Motion."

The title of Einstein's work is "Investigations on the Theory of
Brownian Movement."

So you would have us believe that Einstein would plagiarize someone,
then identify the person he plagiarized by name *in the title of his
thesis*?

Not only that, but you would have us believe that his PhD committee
(which you fail to mention, because doing so would require you to
mention that Einstein got a PhD for this work) was too stupid to
realize that he was plagiarizing his work on Brownian motion in spite
of the fact that he identified the people you claim he was plagiarizing
by name.

>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 explained this occurrence, not Albert Einstein.

Gibbs and Boltzmann are credited with creating what would become
Statistical Thermal Physics.  Namely, using statistical methods to
bridge the microscopic world with the macroscopic.

Why does this make Einstein a plagiarist?  If I use Newton's
equations of motion to calculate the trajectory of a satellite, am I
plagiarizing Newton?  Of course not.

And again, you would have us believe that his PhD committee would be so
dumb as to not notice that he was plagiarizing what are still today
considered the definitive works in Statistical Thermal Physics.

>In fact, the mathematical equation describing the
>motion contains the famous Boltzmann constant, k.

Not only does it have the Boltzmann constant, it has the whole
Boltzmann equation in it.

And not only that, but Einstein refers to it as the Boltzmann equation!

So, are you really suggesting that the Boltzmann equation, one of the
most fundamental equations in statistical physics, was unrecognizable
by Einstein's PhD committee, even when he identifies it by name!?

>Between these two men, they had explained by the 1890s
>everything in Einstein's 1905 paper regarding Brownian
>motion.

Except the experiment Einstein did, which was to statistically analyze
the momenta of gas molecules based upon the movement of soot.

What made this paper ground-breaking (and a fact you omit) is that this
was the first experimental evidence of the existence of molecules, as
well as data on their size.

Again, you're suspiciously tight-lipped about the fact that this
paper earned Einstein a PhD.

And again, you claim that Einstein stole the results of two of the
leading scientists of the pre-Einstein age without anybody so much as
batting an eyelash.

It is worth noting that after bullshitting your way, at length, through
Special Relativity, Einstein's work on Brownian Motion barely gets a
token few paragraphs in your pile of cra-, I mean, essay.

This may well be related to the fact that if you spoke much longer
about it, you would have to admit that Einstein had a PhD in Physics
>from the University of Zurich for this work.  Somewhat contrary to your
insistence that Einstein was an uneducated moron, isn't it?

And you would have had to explain why Einstein's PhD committee
didn't realize that he was plagiarizing some of the most prominent
physicists of the pre-Einstein era.

>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=3Dmc2. 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,

This "obvious conclusion" takes up the better part of four pages in
"Modern Physics" by Serway, Moses and Moyer, 2nd edition (and
that's when they skip a lot of the technical details).  And given
that he was able to go from electrodynamics to the conclusion that
matter and energy are interchangeable quantities, I'd say that this
is a pretty spectacular conclusion, especially considering that it
holds together under scrutiny.

This principle is also the basis for nuclear power; which, while we can
argue until we're blue in the face as to whether it's something we
should be using, is still a pretty incredible discovery from a physical
perspective.

>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.

Yes, it was.  You're about to (again) fail miserably to show that it
was not.

>That there was an equivalence between mass and energy
>had been shown in the laboratory in the 1890s by both
>J.J. Thomson

This is gonna be another of my favorite responses.

The experiment the author refers to above is the infamous "Thomson
Experiment," performed in 1897.

However, the value Thomson (whose major claim to fame is the discovery
of the electron) measured represented nothing close to mass-energy
equivalence...

Thomson forced a beam of electrons through opposing electrical and
magnetic fields and measured the ratio of the electron's charge (not
its rest energy) to its mass.

In fact, the only similarity between Einstein's work and Thomson's
is that the end results both have the letters "e" and "m" in
them.  Unfortunately (for you) Thomson's "e" represents charge
(and not just any old charge either, specifically the charge of an
electron), whereas Einstein's "E" represents rest energy (for any
matter).  Likewise Thomson's "m" represents mass (and not just
any old mass either, specifically the mass of an electron), and
Einstein's "m" represents mass (for any matter).

Didn't think anybody would catch on to that, didja?

Now, in fairness, Thomson did suggest once that matter arose from an
energy field, but he never was able to provide any supporting evidence
thereof; either theoretical or experimental.  What you, sir, need to
recognize is that saying: "maybe this is happening" is very
different from saying "here's my evidence that this is
happening."  The former is what Thomson did, the latter was
Einstein's work.

>of Cambridge and by W. Kaufmann in G=F6ttingen.

If you're trying to establish plagiarism here, Kaufmann really should
be mentioned in the section on Special Relativity.  Kaufmann, in an
experiment similar to Thomson's (which, by your logic, also makes
Kaufmann a plagiarist), stumbled on the fact that the inertial mass of
an electron increases with its velocity in 1901.

He succeeded in neither formulating, nor explaining the phenomenon, and
to the best of anybody's knowledge, Einstein was unaware of his work.
 If he were, he would have referred to his work as evidence that his
Special Theory of Relativity was correct (which, by the way, isn't
plagiarism either).

It is also important to note that this has absolutely nothing to do
with mass-energy equivalence, since the E=3Dmc^2 refers to the object's
rest mass, not its inertial mass.

>In 1900, Poincar=E9 had shown that there was a mass
>relationship for all forms of energy, not just
>electromagnetic energy.

Which means nothing.  Einstein actually determined what that
relationship is.  Saying that a relationship exists, and actually
determining what that relationship is are two different things.

Furthermore, what Einstein is given credit for is the fact that he was
able to bind this conclusion to his special relativity, which in turn,
he was able to bind to electrodynamics.

In other words, he created a chain of knowledge from Maxwell's
Equations to Special Relativity to Mass-energy equivalence.

Poincar=E9 didn't do that.  Thomson and Kaufmann, I've already
established, had absolutely nothing to do with mass-energy equivalence.

Where's the plagiarism?

>Yet, the most probable source of Einstein's plagiarism
>was Friedrich Hasen=F6hrl, one of the most brilliant,
>yet unappreciated physicists of the era. Hasen=F6hrl was
>the teacher of many of the German scientists who would
>later become famous for a variety of topics.

Indeed.  One of his major claims to fame is that he had Schr=F6dinger as
a pupil.

>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.

And somehow the Journal reviewers managed to miss the fact that it was
plagiarized, in spite of the fact that the article he was supposedly
plagiarizing had been published less than a year before in the exact
same journal.

You are aware that there's a process called "peer review" when a paper
is submitted, right?

>
>For his brilliant work in this area, Hasen=F6rhl had
>received in 1904 a prize from the prestigious Vienna
>Academy of Sciences.

Actually, the first attempt to replace Einstein's name with
Hasen=F6hrl was by Lenard in 1930.  Lenard had had his nose bloodied by
the fact that Einstein had beaten him to Photoelectricity.  Lenard was
an open and unabashed antisemite and an avid supporter of the Nazi
party.  This does not, in and of itself dismiss his allegations, but I
point it out merely to demonstrate that Lenard's opinions on Einstein
may have been somewhat, shall we say, colored.  Lenard was not only
openly opposed to all things Jewish (he was one of the physicists who
openly condemned "Jewish Physics" in Nazi Germany), but anything
that wasn't German.  For example, he insisted that all instruments
which measured current in Amperes (named for a Frenchman) changed to
measure current in Webers (Named for German Wilhelm Weber).

Lenard spent several years trying to either find logical contradictions
in Einstein's work, or to experimentally disprove them.  He failed,
so he started a smear campaign against Einstein, in an attempt to
rewrite history, giving Hasen=F6hrl credit for mass-energy equivalence

Hasen=F6hrl observed an increase in mass which was associated with a
cavity flooded with energy radiation.  First, it is important to note
that his formulation was in error, and was later corrected by
Hasen=F6hrl (after Einstein published his works).  Second, it is very
important to note that Hasen=F6hrl himself never contested Einstein's
claims.  He was certainly aware of Einstein's work.  In fact, he was
a great admirer of it (which, ultimately, is why Lenard's smear
campaign failed: Hasen=F6hrl objected to being used in such a way).  But
he never once stepped forward to contest it.

>Furthermore, the mathematical relationship of mass and
>energy was a simple deduction from the already
>well-known equations of Scottish physicist James
>Maxwell.

Or even James Clerk Maxwell.

To go from Maxwell to E=3Dmc^2 took close to a chapter in Serway, Moses &
Moyer (all three are quite admirable physicists in their own rights),
and even they needed Einistein to see it.

>Scientists long understood that the mathematical
>relationship expressed by the equation E=3Dmc2 was the
>logical result of Maxwell's work, they just did not
>believe it.

Um, no.  Actually, Einstein was the first to realize that E=3Dmc^2 was
the logical end result of Maxwell's work.  So far, you've found a
grand total of zero (0) people who realized it before him.

>Thus, the experiments of Thomson,

What the hell does the charge to mass ratio of an electron have to do
with E=3Dmc^2?

>Kaufmann,

What the hell does an increase in the inertial mass of an electron have
to do with E=3Dmc^2?

>and finally, and most importantly, Hasen=F6rhl,

Who, of these three is the only one whose work was actually in a
similar area to Einstein's work, yet in no way resembles it.

Hasen=F6hrl himself never accused Einstein of Plagiarism.

>confirmed Maxwell's work.

With the minor problem that Maxwell's work has absolutely nothing to
do with mass-energy equivalence.

>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.

Which is what ***theoretical*** physics is.  Your laboratory is your
brain, a pencil, and a pad of paper.  And if it's Einstein's brain
you're working with, that's one hell of a well-equipped laboratory.

Remember, this was about 50 years pre-Sputnik.  We couldn't get an
object moving fast enough to get it into orbit, much less travelling at
a non-negligible fraction of the speed of light.

In fact, it took a Solar Eclipse for one of Einstein's theories to be
experimentally verified.  Even today, we haven't managed to reproduce
a solar eclipse in a laboratory.

Later, studies of the orbit of Mercury substantiated more of
Einstein's claims.  Even today, we haven't managed to reproduce
Mercury's orbit in a laboratory setting either.

On December 2nd, 1942 (over 37 years after Einstein published his work
on mass-energy equivalence), Fermi managed to sustain a nuclear chain
reaction (which is a direct application of mass-energy equivalence). He
did it on a volleyball court, and a greater understanding of the
properties of Uranium (unavailable in when Einstein published his
papers) was necessary prior to the creation of this sustained reaction.

More recently, some of the most accurate radiotelescopes on earth were
employed to measure the "speed of gravity," which Einstein
predicted would be equal to c.  These radiotelescopes were not
available to Einstein.  They hadn't been built yet.

In other words, not only did Einstein lack the laboratory to perform
the "appropriate experiments," but he lacked the "appropriate
experiments" themselves.  He was dealing with quantities for which it
was (and in some cases, still is) impossible to make any experimental
measurements.  A laboratory was not only unnecessary for the studies he
was doing, but it would have been completely useless for them.

>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.

No, actually this experiment is perfectly possible on paper and would,
in principle, work.  However, equipment capable of measuring such a
small change in mass is still unavailable.

>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.

No, in your own quote, Einstein is speaking theoretically.  He's
suggesting that in the future (he doesn't specify when) that such a
correlation may be directly observable, as indeed it would be, if we
had equipment which could measure a change in mass that small.

>In fact, in response to this article, J. Precht
>remarked that such an experiment "lies beyond the
>realm of possible experience."

And it does, right now.  A hundred years down the road?  Who knows?
The catch is that we cannot measure a change in mass that small.

Think about it, the change in mass is proportional to the energy
emitted divided by the square of the speed of light (a value of about
9=2E0x10^16 m^2/s^2... That's a 9 followed by 16 zeroes).  This gives a
tiny number, unless the amount of energy is absolutely gargantuan.  For
a more concrete example, the amount of mass transformed into energy in
Fat Man and Little Boy was of the order of about a gram, yet you've
seen the devastation caused to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Try to picture
measuring the reverse when the amount of energy released is a miniscule
fraction of that released by those detonations.  It's entirely
possible that equipment sensitive enough to measure such a small change
in mass will someday become available, and if it were to become
available, a correlation between energy release and change in mass
would be observable (ie, measure the amount of energy thrown off, then
correlate it with the loss of mass).  We just can't do it now.

>The last 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 particularly important
>to the Einstein myth because it was for this topic
>that he unjustly received his 1922 Nobel Prize.

1: It was 1921, unless you want to explain to Niels Bohr why you've
just awarded his Nobel Prize to Einstein.

2: Are you honestly attempting to argue that the Nobel Committee
couldn't spot a plagiarism which you are again about to attribute to
two of the most celebrated physicists of all time?

I believe it's worth mentioning that someone who had actually done
any real research into Einstein's life would have at least got the
year he won the Nobel Prize right.

>But again, it is not Einstein, but Wilhelm Wien and
>Max Planck who deserve the credit.

It should also be mentioned that if you follow the author's logic
through to conclusion; Planck, who combined the formulae of Raleigh and
Wein to come up with his principle, is also a plagiarist.

Not to mention that Planck's derivations are a direct application of
the Boltzmann equation, which you claim that Einstein stole in a
previous paragraph.

The same double-standard rears its head yet again.

At least when the author was writing about Special Relativity, he used
scientists who were working in the same (broad) area as Einstein.

Now, he's going to claim that Einstein plagiarized from scientists
who were working in a completely different field, namely Black Body
Radiation.

>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 concluded his paper with the words: "... I confine myself at
present to communicating the results obtained, without attempting any
theory respecting the manner in which the observed phenomena are
brought about."

This is, put simply, what separates Hertz' work from Einstein's.
Hertz concentrated on what happened, whereas Einstein's work
concentrated on how it happened.  There's a difference.  Hertz'
work never included the theory that light is emitted and absorbed in
finite packets, which was the central point of Einstein's work.

Where's the plagiarism?

It also, again, raises the question that if Einstein were truly a
fraud, and he is worshipped so because he was Jewish, why Hertz isn't
equally worshipped.  He, too, was Jewish.

>Hertz and 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 but by the frequency of the light. This
>was an important breakthrough.

True, technically, but Lenard failed to explain the phenomenon.  He was
unable to come up with a sound theory which explained his observation.
This is where Einstein came in.

Einstein possessed theoretical insight that Lenard lacked, and
succeeded in explaining and formulating the photoelectric effect.

To the best of my knowledge, Lenard never forgave Einstein for beating
him to Photoelectricity, but he never once contested Einstein's claim
to it.

In fact, he would spend years trying to disprove Einstein's theory,
either experimentally or by showing a logical fallacy in his work.  He
would ultimately fail, and resorted to a smear campaign.  This would
ultimately fail because the person he was attempting to give credit for
Einstein's work (Hasen=F6hrl) told him to stop.

>Wien and Planck were colleagues and they were the
>fathers of modern day quantum theory.

Which I don't believe anybody seriously denies, including those who
think Einstein is pretty cool.

>By 1900, Max Planck, based upon his and Wien's work,
>had shown that radiated energy was absorbed and
>emitted in finite units called quanta.

However, they discovered this in relation to Black Bodies (which, for
those of you who care about such things, is something of a misnomer.
"Black Bodies" don't necessarily need to be black.  For that
matter, they don't necessarily need to be bodies).  Planck came up
with the theory that energy exists in quantized amounts to explain what
was known as the "Ultraviolet Catastrophe."  This had absolutely
nothing to do with photoelectricity.

>The only difference in his work of 1900 and Einstein's
>work of 1905

.=2E.apart from the fact that they dealt with completely different
physical concepts...

>was that Einstein limited himself to talking about one
>particular type of energy - light energy.

Photoelectric: Photo=3Dlight, electric=3Dself-explanatory.

If he'd meant to study another form of energy, he would have called
it something else.

>But the principles and equations governing the process
>in general had been deduced by Planck in 1900.

Um, no.  To those of us who actually learned to read, Planck's work
and derivations look nothing whatsoever like Einstein's.

In fact, Black Body radiation is governed by completely different
equations from photoelectricity.

Sorry.

Nice try, though.

>Einstein himself admitted that the obvious conclusion
>of Planck's work was that light also existed in
>discrete packets of energy.

But nobody had considered the possibility before Einstein came along.

And more importantly, nobody had considered the consequences of it.

>Thus, nothing in this paper of Einstein's was
>original.

Please provide the name of the scientist who formulated
photoelectricity (what Einstein is credited with) before Einstein.
I'll wait.

>After the 1905 papers of Einstein were published, the
>scientific community took little notice and Einstein
>continued his job at the patent office until 1909 when
>it was arranged for him to take a position at a school
>by World Jewry.

Sieg Heil.

>Still, it was not until a 1919 newspaper headline that
>he gained any notoriety.

And that headline is suspiciously absent here.  It, of course,
announced that direct observation had substantiated Einstein's
postulates.

>With Einstein's academic appointment in 1909,

And you don't mention how he managed that when you insist that up to
this point, he was "without success" in getting a position at a
university.

Academic appointments generally aren't given to people who lack at
least one degree.

>he was placed in a position where he could begin to
>use other people's work as his own more openly.

He probably could have.  What you have not established, and do not
establish, is that he did.

>He engaged many of his students to look for ways to
>prove the theories he had supposedly developed,

This is possibly the closest to a truthful statement in the entire
essay.  All you need to do is remove the word "supposedly" in the
sentence above, and you have a completely true statement.

>or ways to apply those theories, and then he could
>present the research as his own or at least take
>partial credit.

And you have yet to cast any doubt whatsoever on whether he was
perfectly right to do so.

>In this vein, in 1912, he began to try and express his
>gravitational research in terms of a new, recently
>developed calculus,

The tensor calculus developed by Levi-Civita.  Also, by the way,
Jewish.

>which was conducive to understanding relativity. This
>was the beginning of his General Theory of Relativity,
>which he would publish in 1915.

True.

>But the mathematical work was not done by Einstein -
>he was incapable of it.

He wasn't the only one.  Even today, people who can are few and far
between.  He would, however, learn to do it.

>Instead, it was performed by the mathematician Marcel
>Grossmann,

Einstein's buddy from ETH, the internationally-recognized school you
insist he wasn't able to get into.

Grossman was also, incidentally, Jewish.

>who in turn used the mathematical principles developed
>by Berhard Riemann, who was the first to develop a
>sound non-Euclidean geometry, which is the basis of
>all mathematics used to describe relativity.

I am going to make something of a revelation here to the author:

Mathematics and Physics are separate disciplines.

The application of a mathematical concept to a physical principle does
not equate to plagiarism.  For example: Gauss' Divergence Theorem is
one of the most-often used mathematical principles in electrodynamics.
Yet, if applying this theorem equated to plagiarism, it should be noted
that the author of this piece has in previous paragraphs applauded as a
genius someone who should be a plagiarist: James Clerk Maxwell.

In fact, if we follow the author's logic through to conclusion,
Riemann plagiarized his work as well: he applied the mathematical
principles of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division;
concepts he did not invent.

>The General Theory of Relativity applied the
>principles of relativity to the 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.

Throughout this passage, you would have us believe that the application
of a mathematical principle is sufficient grounds to assume plagiarism.

This is, of course, bullshit.

>But this paper was filled with errors and the
>conclusions were incorrect.

Which, far from establishing plagiarism, only goes to show that even
Einstein doesn't always get it exactly right on his first try.

It also brings up a rather interesting question... If the only reason
for Einstein's fame is the fact that he was Jewish, as you would have
us believe; why didn't the unidentified conspirators (for which, I
might add, the author provides absolutely no evidence) bury his faulty
1913 paper?

>It appears that Grossmann was not smart enough to
>figure it out for Einstein.  So Einstein was forced to
>look elsewhere to plagiarize his General Theory.
>
>Einstein published his correct General Theory of
>Relativity in 1915, and said prior to its publication
>that he, "...completely succeeded in convincing
>Hilbert and Klein." He is referring to David Hilbert,
>perhaps the most brilliant mathematician 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 Relativity for Einstein.

Except that Grossmann developed the math that Einstein used to
formulate General Relativity, not relativity itself.  There's a
difference.

For example, I'm not plagiarizing whoever invented multiplication if
I employ a formula that uses it, am I?

If one of my derivations happens to include Pythagoras' theorem, am I
plagiarizing Pythagoras?

>Einstein's statement regarding the two men would lead
>the reader to believe 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.

See, the author has basically two strategies at his disposal:

1) Twist the facts so that they fit your agenda.

or

2) When you don't have any facts that can be made to fit your agenda,
make some up.  Most civilized people call this lying.

Basically, this whole paragraph is one completely unfounded allegation.

>Hilbert submitted for publication, a week before
>Einstein completed his work, a paper which contained
>the correct field equations of General Relativity.
>What this means is that Hilbert wrote basically the
>exact same paper, with the same conclusions, before
>Einstein did.

No, what this means is that Hilbert published a paper which included
field equations which were also used in General Relativity. They're
far from being all of it.  Indeed, Hilbert saw a small piece of the
greater puzzle that was General Relativity.

Of course, the fact that Hilbert's work involves Tensor calculus, and
mathematical concepts that he did not invent, renders Hilbert's work
plagiarized as well, according to the author of this piece.

For those of you keeping score, I've pointed out four prominent
scientists named in this essay: Planck, Hilbert, Lorentz, and Maxwell.

I have pointed out that the author's logic leads to the conclusion
that each one was a plagiarist.  Yet, the author does not denounce even
one as a fraud.  I wonder why.

>Einstein would have had an opportunity to know of
>Hilbert's work all along, because there were Jewish
>friends of his working for Hilbert.

Sieg Heil.

>Yet, even this was not necessary, for Einstein had
>seen Hilbert's paper in advance of publishing his own.

Which begs the obvious question: if Einstein didn't need friends to
collect Hilbert's work (ignoring for the moment that you provide no
evidence that he had such friends available to obtain Hilbert's work
for him), why do you even bother mentioning it?

>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 had presented his paper on November
>20 in G=F6ttingen. On November 18, Hilbert received a
>letter from Einstein thanking him for sending him a
>draft of the treatise Hilbert was to deliver on the
>20th. So, in fact, Hilbert had sent a copy of his work
>at least two weeks in advance to Einstein before
>either of 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.

In the printed version of his paper, Hilbert wrote:

"The differential equations of gravitation that result are, as it
seems to me, in agreement with the magnificent theory of general
relativity ***established by Einstein in his later papers.***"
(***Emphasis*** mine)

Among scientists, this constitutes a concession of the priority of
Einstein's work.  A very nice paper putting to rest the question of
priority between Einstein and Hilbert can be found in "Science"
Volume 278 (Nov. 14, 1997) pages 1270-1273.  The title of the article
is "Belated Decision on the Hilbert-Einstein priority dispute" and
is written by L Corry, J Renn and J Stachel.

It would seem that I've just contested your "incontrovertible
proof."  If Hilbert felt he was being plagiarized, why on Earth did
he go out of his way to concede priority for General Relativity to
Einstein?

>Also, at the same time, Einstein publicly began to
>belittle Hilbert, 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.

Whether he delivered it first or not, you fail to explain why he
conceded priority for General Relativity to Einstein.

>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.

Not on General Relativity, no.

>Hilbert's paper is the forerunner of the unified field
>theory of gravitation and electromagnetism and of the
>work of Erwin Schr=F6dinger, whose work is the basis of
>all modern day quantum mechanics.

You do realize that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are two different
things, right?

And note, applying the same standard to Schr=F6dinger as the author has
to Einstein, the author has him/herself described Schr=F6dinger as a
plagiarist.

>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,
>Hasen=F6hrl, Poincar=E9, etc., had created the foundations
>of the theory of relativity..."

Hold that thought for just a moment...

>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.

Don't you think it's just slightly hypocritical to accuse the media
of biased promotion of Einstein because he was Jewish in the same
proverbial breath as you quoted scientists from Nazi Germany (during
the time when "Jewish Physics" was being openly and publicly
condemned) to support your thesis that Einstein was a dolt?

>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.

Actually, Einstein first suggested that light would bend around a
massive object in a paper in 1907, four years before Hilbert and
Einstein would publish their papers on General Relativity.

>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.

If you're looking for someone to blame for the credit given to
Einstein, blame Hilbert.  I point out that he himself conceded priority
for General Relativity to Einstein, as demonstrated above.

>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.

With the minor flaw in your logic being that he hadn't stolen his
ideas.  So far you've established that exactly zero (0) of his ideas
were stolen.

>Because of this push by the Jewish media, in 1922, ...

.=2E.1921, actually...

>=2E..Einstein received the Nobel Prize for the work he
>had stolen in 1905 regarding the photoelectric effect.

And work you failed to establish was, in fact, stolen.

>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.

Indeed, he is probably a greater genius than he is erroneously believed
to be today, as more and more of his postulates are being supported by
experimentation which he could not have performed during his lifetime.

>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

Hilbert was really far more of a mathematician than a physicist.

>had come from a strong German, Christian background.
>His grandfather's two middle names were "F=FCrchtegott
>Leberecht" or "Fear God, Live Right."

I'd like to hear your explanation of exactly what Hilbert's
Grandfater's middle names have to do with anything.

What's the next irrelevant detail you're going to bring up, the
maiden name of Hilbert's second cousin, four times removed's
chiropractor's aunt?

>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.

Hilbert, admittedly, never won a Nobel Prize.  This is largely a
consequence of the fact that none is offered in mathematics.

He did, however, receive many honors throughout his career, and is
still viewed by those who care about such things as one of the most
brilliant mathematicians of the 20th century.

If the Jews didn't want him getting any credit, they did a really
lousy job of keeping it away from him.

>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.

Planck got the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in Blackbody
Radiation in 1918...  Three years before Einstein, and is today
regarded as one of the most brilliant physicists ever to have lived;
looked upon with nearly as much reverence as Einstein himself.

If the Jews didn't want him receiving any credit, they did a crappy
job of keeping it away from him, too.

It's also worth mentioning that Planck wasn't as supportive of his
"fatherland" as you're making it sound here.  His son was executed for
a plot to assasinate Hitler, and for a time he both praised Einstein
(in direct opposition to the Nazis who were openly condemning "Jewish
Physics"), and publicly denounced the actions of the Nazis, intervening
on behalf of Jewish scientists.  He even met with Hitler in an attempt
to stop actions against Jewish scientists and when that ultimately
failed, he resigned his position as president at the Kaiser Wilhelm
Institute in 1937 in protest.  He had held the position since 1930.

Many people, Jews and non-Jews view Planck as a hero.

>The Jews certainly did not want the up-and-coming
>Erwin Schr=F6dinger to be heralded as a genius to the
>masses.

Schr=F6dinger won the Nobel prize in Physics in 1933... Twelve years
after Einstein.

He, also, is considered one of the most brilliant physicists who ever
lived.  The infamous "Schr=F6dinger Equation" is one of the greatest
discoveries in the history of physics, and is perhaps second only to
E=3Dmc2 as the single most famous equation in modern physics.

So far, the Jews are zero for three keeping credit away from prominent
scientists.

>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.

Not exactly.  It wasn't actually Adolf Hitler University while
Schr=F6dinger started teaching there. Schr=F6dinger left Germany in 1933
specifically because he felt he could not live in a country where the
persecution of Jews had become national policy.  He ended up in Graz
where he taught until 1938.  He would be dismissed from his post on
August 26, 1938 for "political unreliability."  He would work in
conjunction with Alexander Lindemann to arrange positions in England
for Jewish scientists.

Not exactly the kind of guy that the Jews would want to condemn,
frankly.

>This Austrian's work on the unified field theory was a
>forerunner of modern physics, even though it had been
>criticized by Einstein, who apparently could not
>understand it.

On the contrary, he understood it well enough to punch what was thought
for years to be a gigantic hole in it, known as the
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox.

>The Jews did not want to have Werner Heisenberg
>promoted as a rare genius,

Heisenberg won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1932, and his famous
"Uncertainty Principle" is still the benchmark of modern Quantum
Mechanics.

In the past few paragraphs, you've named three prominent physicists,
and one prominent mathematician (Namely Planck, Heisenberg, Hilbert and
Schrodinger), claiming that each was denied credit for their work
because of "the Jews."

Planck, Heisenberg, and Schr=F6dinger (all Nobel Prize winners), are
among the most celebrated physicists of all time.  Among those of us
who actually study physics (if not the general public), their names are
spoken with almost the same level of reverence reserved for Einstein.
Hilbert, for those who care about such things, is considered one of the
greatest, if not the greatest mathematician who ever lived (with the
possible exceptions of Gauss or Euler).

>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 to
>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 the war for his involvement with the Third
>Reich.

Heisenberg had his appointment as professor of theoretical physics at
Munich blocked several times by the Third Reich, because he was working
in an area of physics that was deemed "Jewish."  He refused on several
occasions, and with the possibility of very serious consequences, and
under constant attacks from the press for his area of research, to
change his area of research.  Not exactly the kind of guy that the Jews
would have an interest in condemning.

The reason why Planck, Heisenberg and Schr=F6dinger are not terribly
close to people's minds is because they chose an area of physics
people find difficult to understand.  Not to mention one that isn't
terribly elegant (QM tends to be big and ugly).  Einstein, on the other
hand, formulated something concrete, observable, and elegant in its
simplicity.  Something the general population could get a grip on.
Relativity is a lot easier to get a grasp of than Quantum Mechanics,
especially if you don't have to do the math behind either one.  Even
in qualitative terms, many have trouble grasping (as Einstein did) that
a particle has no definite quantities until you measure them.

Not to mention the fact that Relativity is still the best blueprint we
have so far of the universe.

Nevertheless, among those who care about such things (if not the
general public), Planck, Heisenberg and Schr=F6dinger are still among
the most celebrated physicists of all time.  Second only, perhaps, to
Einstein himself.

>No, the Jews did not want to give credit to any of a
>number of white Germans,

Um, not to point out the obvious, but Einstein ***was*** a white
German.

>Austrians, Irishmen, Frenchmen, Scotsmen, Englishmen,
>and even Americans who had contributed to the body of
>knowledge and evidence from which Einstein plagiarized
>and stole his work.

And, strangely enough, you've failed miserably to show that the work
is plagiarized.

>Instead, they needed to erect Einstein as their golden
>calf, even though he repeatedly and often embarrassed
>himself with his nonfactual or nearsighted comments
>regarding the work he had supposedly done. For
>example, in 1934, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ran a
>front page article in which Einstein gave an "emphatic
>denial" regarding the idea of practical applications
>for the "energy of the atom."

In which he doesn't actually deny the applications of the energy of
the atom, merely that this is a power that he doesn't trust human
beings to wield.  We detonated the first atomic bomb in Hiroshima.
We've been trying to atone for it ever since.

>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 energy-to
>drive a great steamship across the ocean on a pint of
>water, for instance-then, according to Einstein, you
>are wrong..."

No... According to Einstein, the energy of the Atom is something that
shouldn't be used, not something that can't.  There's an
important distinction there.

I also point out that nobody has managed yet to derive any substantial
quantity of energy from a pint of water.  Pons and Fleischmann claim
that they've managed to do it, but so far their experiment has never
been reproduced.

>Again, Einstein clearly did not understand the branch
>of physics he had supposedly founded,

On the contrary, he understood it so well that he realized how
terrifyingly powerful the technology was.  Considering that the first
application of this technology was to flatten two cities, I'd say
that his concerns were quite well founded.

>though elsewhere in the world at the time theoretical
>research was underway that would lead to the atomic
>bomb and nuclear energy. But after Einstein was
>promoted as a god in 1919, he made no real attempts to
>plagiarize any other work.

And, while we're on the subject, he made no such attempts before
then, either.

>Rather, he began his real purpose - evangelizing for
>the cause of Zionism and World Jewry.

If his "real purpose" was "evangelizing for the cause of Zionism
and World Jewry" (whatever the heck that is), how do you explain the
fact that the human population at large views Einstein as a brilliant
physicist?  Either he did a really lousy job at it, or that wasn't
his "real purpose."

Actually, try an experiment.  Go out into the street and ask the first
100 people you meet who Albert Einstein was.  Count the number of times
you receive the answer "Albert Einstein was an evangelist for Zionism
and World Jewry."  Then compare it to the number of times you get the
answer "Albert Einstein was a physicist," or "Albert Einstein is
the guy who came up with the theory of relativity," or something
similar.

>Though he did publish other articles after this time,
>all of them were co-authored by at least one other
>person,

Try an experiment sometime: go through a peer-reviewed scientific
journal (any peer-reviewed scientific journal), and count the number of
articles which have only one author.  Such a thing, believe me, is
extremely uncommon.

>and in each instance, Einstein had little if anything
>to do with the research that led to the articles; he
>was merely recruited by the co-authors in order to
>lend credence to their work. Thus freed of the
>pretense of academia,

Einstein was never truly freed from academia.  He would continue in his
attempts to bridge the quantum universe with the relativistic universe
until he died.

>Einstein began his assault for World Zionism.

Sieg Heil.

>In 1921,

The same year he won the Nobel Prize... one year before you say he did.

>Einstein made his first visit to the United States on
>a fund-raising tour for the Hebrew University in
>Jerusalem and to promote Zionism. In April of 1922,

The year you claim he won the Nobel Prize...  Let me know when Bohr
calls you, asking in which direction you'd like him to roll over in
his grave.

>Einstein used his status to gain membership in a
>Commission of the League of Nations. In February of
>1923, Einstein visits Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. In June
>of 1923, he becomes a founding member of the
>Association of Friends of the New Russia. In 1926,
>Einstein took a break from his Communist and Zionistic
>activities to again embarrass himself scientifically
>by criticizing the work of Schr=F6dinger and Heisenberg.

And for a time (nearly 30 years) it looked as though he was right to do
so.  He found what appeared to be a gigantic hole in quantum theory
which the quantum theorists, try as they might, couldn't patch up.

>Following a brief illness, he resumes his Zionistic
>agenda, wanting an independent Israel and at the same
>time a World Government.
>
>In the 1930s he actively campaigns against all forms
>of war, although he would reverse this position during
>World War II when he advocated war against Germany and
>the creation of the atomic bomb, which he thought was
>impossible to build.

Actually, this is a completely false statement.

Einstein never once said, nor even implied that the atom bomb was
impossible to make.

In fact, he wrote a letter to Roosevelt saying specifically that such a
weapon could be built.

I have quoted the first few paragraphs of his letter (dated August 2,
1939) below:

Sir:

Some recent work by E. Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been
communicated to me in a manuscript, leads me to expect that the element
uranium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the
immediate future.  Certain aspects of the situation which has arisen
seem to call for watchfulness and, if necessary, quick action on the
part of the Administration.  I believe therefore that it is my duty to
bring to your attention the following facts and recommendations.

In the course of the last four months it has been made probable -
through the work of Joliot in France as well as Fermi and Szilard in
America - that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain
reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amounts of power and
large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated.  Now
it appears almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate
future.

This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs, and
it is conceivable - though much less certain - that extremely
powerful bombs of a new type, may thus be constructed. A single bomb of
this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well
destroy the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory.
 However, such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for
transportation by air.

[=2E..]

Note that Einstein predicts, with somewhat eerie accuracy, what an
atomic bomb is capable of.

However, while he knew that such a weapon was possible, he didn't
feel that one should be used.  His final letter to Roosevelt (which,
sadly, did not arrive before Roosevelt's death) detailed his concern
over the possible applications of this technology.

The fact that something can be done doesn't necessarily mean that it
should.

>In 1939 and 1940, Einstein, at the request of other
>Jews, wrote two letters to Roosevelt urging an
>American program to develop an atomic bomb

Actually, he wrote four letters to Roosevelt, but none of them were
"urging the production of an atomic bomb."

All of them concerned the applications of atomic energy.

The first three (between August 1939, and May 1940) mentioned that
Germany was pursuing research into Uranium as an energy source.  The
fourth (drafted in 1945), voiced his concern over the separation
between the physicists who developed the technology, and the people who
would actually be using it.  The former wanted a new energy source.
The latter wanted bombs.

>to be used on Germany - not Japan.

Not one single letter ever mentions the United States using a bomb on
anybody.  His concern was the fact that Germany could be developing
atomic technology when the United States wasn't.

Never once did he advocate the actual use of such an atomic weapon.  In
fact he was very publicly vocal on his opposition of the use of such a
weapon.

All four letters Einstein wrote to Roosevelt can be found here:
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml#first

Readers will note the complete absence of the words "Bomb Germany
back into the stone age."

>Einstein would have no part in the actual construction
>of the bomb, theoretical or practical,

This is not entirely true.

Vannevar Bush, the "man behind the scenes" of the atom bomb,
approached Einstein in December 1941 to ask for his help with regards
to separating fissionable material by gaseous diffusion.

But for a large part, Einstein was kept out of it.

>because he lacked the skills for either.

And this is entirely false.

Bush later specifically excluded Einstein from the construction of the
atomic bomb.  Not because Einstein was incompetent, but because, in his
words:

"I am not at all sure... [Einstein] would not discuss it in a way
that it should not be discussed."

Einstein had openly said that he opposed the use of such a weapon, Bush
likely feared that his statements about it would carry some weight if
he knew more about how it was built.

For example, if Einstein had known how Louis P. Slotin died during the
construction of the first bomb at Los Alamos, he may well have been
able to bolster the support necessary to halt construction of Fat Man
and Little Boy.

>In December of 1946, Einstein rekindles his efforts
>for a World Government,

To the best of my knowledge, nothing Einstein ever wrote has the words
"World Government" in it.

To date, I have never seen any evidence that he ever actually used the
words "World Government," at least not in the context that you're
attempting to create.

>with Israel apparently being the only autonomous
>nation. This push continues through the rest of the
>1940s. In 1952, Einstein, who had been instrumental in
>the creation of the State of Israel, both politically
>and economically, is offered the presidency of Israel.
>He declines.

This would prove to be something of an embarrassment to Einstein.  It
was difficult to decline the offer without giving offence.

It also brings up another obvious question: Why would he turn down a
position which would aid in his quest for a "World Government" if
that was what he was seeking?

>In 1953, he spends his time attacking the McCarthy
>Committee,

And rightly so: McCarthy was on a witch hunt, plain and simple.

>and he supports Communists such as J. Robert
>Oppenheimer.

The fact of the matter is that no credible evidence has ever been
produced that Oppenheimer was a communist.  His mistress was, but
that's a completely different matter.

>He encourages civil disobedience in response to the
>McCarthy trials.

And rightly so, for the same reasons stated above.  The House
UnAmerican Activities Committee was, ironically, among the most
un-American activities ever taken on American soil.  As Americans, it
is not only our right, but our duty to raise our voices against those
in power when we feel that power is being abused.

>Finally, on April 18, 1955, this filthy Jewish
>demagogue dies.

Wow.  You actually got the date of his death correct.  I'm officially
impressed.

However, while his hair was often quite unkempt, I think it's
something of an exaggeration to describe him as "filthy."

>Dead, the Jews no longer had to worry about Einstein
>making stupid statements.

"Where the world ceases to be the scene of our personal hopes and
wishes, where we face it as free beings, admiring, asking and
observing, there we enter the realm of art and science."
				A. Einstein

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
				A. Einstein

"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from
mediocre minds."
				A. Einstein

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World
War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
				A. Einstein

"The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of
thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind.
If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."
				A. Einstein

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.  It is
the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is
a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is
as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
				A. Einstein

>His death was just the beginning of his usage and
>exploitation by World Jewry. The Jewish-controlled
>media continued to promote the myth of this Super-Jew
>long after his death, and as more and more of the men
>who knew better died off,

Translation:  We have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anybody at
all knew that Einstein was a fraud, but since they're dead, we can
claim that they did without fear of contradiction.

>the Jews were more and more able to aggrandize his
>myth and lie more boldly. This brazen lying has
>culminated in the Jew controlled Time magazine naming
>Einstein "The Person of the Century" at the close of
>1999. It may be demonstrated that the Jewish lies have
>become more bold with the passage of time because
>Einstein was never named "Man of the Year" while he
>was alive, but now, over forty years after his death,
>he is named "Person of the Century."

and deservedly so.

>Einstein was given this title in spite of the
>clear-cut choice for the "Person of the Century,"
>Adolf Hitler.

Sieg Heil.

>Hitler was indeed named "Man of the Year" while he was
>still living by Time magazine,

You realize that being "Man of the Year," doesn't necessarily make you
a good person, right?

>and according to a
>December 27, 1999, article in the USA Today, Einstein
>was chosen over Adolf Hitler because of the perceived
>"nasty public relations fallout" that would accompany
>that choice;

Or maybe they wanted to start the century on a positive note.

>yet in internet polling by Time, Hitler
>finished third and was the top serious candidate.
>Still the issue of Time magazine dedicated to
>Einstein, which has articles by men with names like
>Isaacson, Golden, Stein, Rudenstine, and Rosenblatt,
>is interesting to read. For one, they found it
>necessary to include an article rationalizing why they
>did not pick the obvious choice, Adolf Hitler.

Obvious, why?

>But more interesting is the article by Stephen Hawking
>which purports to be a history of the theory of
>relativity. In it, Hawking admits many of the things
>in this article, such as the fact that Hilbert
>published the General Theory of Relativity before
>Einstein and that FitzGerald and Lorentz deduced the
>concept of relativity long before Einstein.

Note, you don't actually quote Hawking here, largely because if you
did, you'd find that you were misrepresenting (to be kind) his words.

Instead, you lie about what Hawking says, and hope that nobody notices.

To those of us who learned to read in kindergarten, Hawking's words
actually support what I've presented in this refutation.

You can find the actual article, entitled "A Brief History of
Relativity" here:
http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc/magazine/a_brief_history_of_rela6a.html

Hawking's own words refute this bullshit much more effectively than I
can.

It is also worth mentioning that Hawking works with Einstein's theory
of Relativity more closely than most people.  Never once in any of his
publications, speeches, or lectures, has Hawking ever claimed the
Einstein was a plagiarist.

>Hawking also writes,
>
>"Einstein...was deeply disturbed by the work of Werner
>Heisenberg in Copenhagen, Paul Dirac in Cambridge and
>Erwin Schr=F6dinger in Zurich, who developed a new
>picture of reality called quantum mechanics. ...
>Einstein was horrified by this ... Most scientists,
>however, accepted the validity of the new quantum laws
>because they showed excellent agreement with
>observations ... They are the basis of modern
>developments in chemistry, molecular biology and
>electronics and the foundation of the technology that
>has transformed the world in the past half-century."

And when you actually do quote Hawking, you've sliced 'n' diced
what he actually wrote, removing the most relevant details:



Einstein continued to work on the quantum idea into the 1920s but was
deeply disturbed by the work of Werner Heisenberg in Copenhagen, Paul
Dirac in Cambridge and Erwin Schrodinger in Zurich, who developed a new
picture of reality called quantum mechanics. No longer did tiny
particles have a definite position and speed. On the contrary, the more
accurately you determined the particle's position, the less
accurately you could determine its speed, and vice versa.

Einstein was horrified by this random, unpredictable element in the
basic laws and never fully accepted quantum mechanics. His feelings
were expressed in his famous God-does-not-play-dice dictum. Most other
scientists, however, accepted the validity of the new quantum laws
because they showed excellent agreement with observations and because
they seemed to explain a whole range of previously unaccounted-for
phenomena. They are the basis of modern developments in chemistry,
molecular biology and electronics and the foundation of the technology
that has transformed the world in the past half-century.



To your credit, you did mark the points you sliced and diced from the
passage above.  However it is quite clear that you selected the words
you actually quoted very carefully to give the impression that Einstein
was a dolt, and to suggest that Hawking supports this position.  In
other words, while the words themselves may be Hawking's, you have
radically changed their meaning by selectively removing that which is
important in the passage.

What Einstein opposed wasn't Quantum Mechanics as such, but the
element of randomness incorporated in it.  He didn't like the idea
that the properties of a particle cannot be determined exactly.  And,
for a time (nearly 30 years, in fact), it looked as though he was able
to completely reject this principle on theoretical grounds.

More on that later.

>This is all very true,

.=2E.If you exclude all the false parts...  but if you did that, you
wouldn't have much left of your essay.

>yet the same magazine credits Einstein with all of the
>modern developments that Hawking names,

And even Hawking himself credits Einstein with all of the modern
developments that Hawking names; your griping notwithstanding.

Why, exactly, do you think that is?

>even through Einstein was so stupid

The day you can come up with something as ground-breaking as relativity
is the day you can describe Einstein as "stupid."

>as to be vehemently against the most important idea of
>modern science,

Again, he didn't oppose Quantum Mechanics, he felt that there was
something fundamental to it that Heisenberg and Schr=F6dinger were
missing.

More on that later.

Furthermore, it's somewhat arguable that Quantum Mechanics is "the
most important idea of modern science."

>just as he opposed Schr=F6dinger's work in unified field
>theory which was far ahead of its time.

Um, scientists are still trying to develop a Unified Field Theory.

>The same magazine admits that "success eluded"
>Einstein in the field of explaining the contradictions
>between relativity and quantum mechanics.

Considering that in the 50 years since his death, we're still not
that much closer to explaining the contradictions between relativity
and quantum mechanics, that's hardly a basis to conclude he's
incompetent.

The first attempt was made to make QM consistent with relativity by
Dirac.  Quantum Field theory works quite nicely at the subatomic level.
 However, when you try to apply it to Solar System-sized systems, it
falls apart.  The Graviton is represented by a divergent series, which
is bad.

>Today, these contradictions are explained by the
>unified field theory,

How can something which does not yet exist explain anything?  What you
probably mean is Quantum Field Theory, which doesn't yet explain the
contradictions between relativity and quantum mechanics.  There are
also a number of physicists who think they're on to something with
string theory, but it'll be a while before it's really stapled
down.

Moreover, care to guess who it was that discovered that Quantum
Mechanics and Relativity are inconsistent with each other?

I'll give you a hint: his last name begins with an "E-" and ends
with "-instein."

>but Einstein, who proves himself to be one of the
>least intelligent of 20th century scientists, refused
>to believe in either quantum theory

Einstein is famous for his statement: "God Does not play dice."

Basically, Einstein's opposition wasn't of Quantum Mechanics per se
(actually, he was a strong advocate of it), but the orthodox view of
quantum mechanics.  He felt that Quantum mechanics, such that it was,
was "correct," but that there was a lot more to the story.

Let me explain that.

Suppose, in a time-independent system (and before you ask: yes, there
are such systems that exist in Quantum Mechanics), we measure the
position of a particle, and we find that it is at position b.

The positions on Quantum Mechanics can be neatly summarized by one
question: where was the particle just before you measured it?  There
are, in essence, three different viewpoints.

1) The particle really wasn't anywhere.  By making the measurement,
we forced the particle to "take a stand" (why and how it settled on
position b, we dare not ask).  It's also worth mentioning that if this
is the "correct" position, then there's something fundamental about the
act of measuring that we still don't fully understand.  Therefore, the
best we can do is determine what the probability distribution of the
particle's position is.  Basically, playing dice.  This is known as
the orthodox viewpoint (the one advocated by Schrodinger and
Heisenberg).  It is also worth noting that if this is correct, then
there is something very fundamental about the very act of measuring
which many years of science have done little to illuminate.

2) The particle was at position b, we just didn't know it.  This is
the position that Einstein advocated.  It should be mentioned that if
this is correct, then Quantum Mechanics is incomplete, because the
particle really was at b, but QM was unable to tell us so.  So,
corrections are necessary to QM before it is a complete theory.  This
is what Einstein called "the hidden variable."

3) The agnostic viewpoint.  Basically: "Who cares?" It is
completely senseless to worry about what the particle was doing before
you measured it when the only way you can determine whether you were
right is by measuring it.  It's just as sensible to ponder the number
of angels which can dance on the head of a pin.

For a long time, the most common procedure among Quantum-Theorists was
to adopt position #1, then when that started faltering, switch to
position #3, then change the subject.

What led Einstein to adopt his position on Quantum Mechanics was a
thought experiment which found what appeared for almost 30 years to be
a gigantic hole in QM.  It's called the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen, or
EPR paradox.

The argument goes something like this:

1=2E all particles have a property called "spin."
2=2E electrons can "spin up" or "spin down."
3=2E in Quantum Mechnics, it is always possible to couple two electrons
together so that one spins up and one spins down, but until you
actually measure the spin of one of the particles you do not know which
is which.
4=2E according to Quantum Mechanics, as long as these two electrons are
isolated from all other particles in the universe, the distance between
them does not matter (it can be two feet, to yards, or two light years,
and it would not change the Quantum Mechanical properties of the
coupling).
5=2E according to Quantum Mechanics, as long as we have not measured the
spin of a electron after they are coupled, then neither particle has
"selected" a spin direction.
6=2E suppose we now measure the spin of electron #1, and we find it to
spin up.
7=2E I reiterate: by the orthodox viewpoint of QM, the electron wasn't
spinning up or down before now, it was spinning up *and* down with
equal probabilities.  It wasn't until you measured it that you made
the electron spin up.
8=2E by the orthodox viewpoint of Quantum Mechanics, electron #2 (which
may be light years from electron #1, as long as the two electrons
remain isolated from all particles in the universe) must now spin down.
9=2E by the orthodox viewpoint of Quantum Mechanics, if there is any time
lag between the measurement of the spin of electron #1, and electron #2
spinning down, conservation of angular momentum is violated.
10. Therefore, somehow information was passed from electron #1 to
electron #2 faster than the speed of light (electron #1 had to
"tell" electron #2 to start spinning down).
11. This is a direct violation of relativity.
12. Therefore, he concluded, the orthodox position cannot be correct,
because it is inconsistent with relativity.  Electron #2 must have
already been spinning down, but we simply did know enough about the
system to determine that it was spinning down.  He called this unknown
information "the hidden variable."

(NB: this argument works with any property of two coupled particles,
but I've used spin here because it's the simplest to follow.)

The EPR paradox was studiously ignored by quantum physicists
everywhere, largely because nobody could figure out how to put it to
rest.

It wasn't until 1964 that Bell dealt the EPR paradox what is
considered a death blow, by developing formalisms which can be
experimentally verified.  In the past 30-or-so years, we've been
slowly gathering evidence.  It's still somewhat hazy as to whether
Einstein was right or not.

It is worth mentioning that if Einstein was correct, then all of
Quantum Mechanics (and that which flows from it) will have to be
abandoned.  Bell also established that if Einstein was correct, and the
EPR paradox is truly paradoxical, then QM is not only incomplete,
it's downright wrong.  No combination of variables will ever render
QM into a complete theory.  So, if Einstein was correct, we're going
to see a lot of physicists jumping out of windows and trying to slit
their wrists with butter knives.

>or the unified field theory.

Of course Einstein didn't believe in unified field theory... It
doesn't exist yet.

>To name Einstein as "The Person of the Century" is one
>of the most ludicrous and absurd lies of all time,

He was named as "The Person of the Century."  Just ask Time
Magazine.

>yet it has been successfully pulled off by Isaacson,
>Golden, Stein, Rudenstine, and Rosenblatt and the
>Jewish owners of Time magazine.

Sieg Heil

>If the Jews at Time wanted to give the title to an
>inventor or scientist, then the most obvious choice
>would have been men like Hilbert, Planck, or
>Heisenberg. If they wanted to give it to the scientist
>who most fundamentally changed the landscape of 20th
>century science, then the obvious choice would be
>William Shockley. This Nobel Prize winning scientist
>invented the transistor, which is the basis of all
>modern electronic devices and computers, everything
>from modern cars and telephones, VCRs and watches, to
>the amazing computers which have allowed
>incomprehensible advances in all fields of science.

Which they felt (and rightly so, in my humble opinion) was secondary to
the best blueprint we have so far of the universe.

>Without the transistor, all forms of science today
>would be basically in the same place that they were in
>the late 1940s.

Rhetoric.

>However, the Jews cannot allow the due credit to go to
>William Shockley because he spent the majority of his
>scientific career demonstrating the genetic and mental
>inferiority of non-whites and arguing for their
>sterilization.

Sieg Heil

>His scientific, genetic views led the Jews to
>financially destroy Shockley who founded the first
>company in the Silicon Valley, his hometown, to
>develop computer chips.  The Jews hired away his
>entire staff and used them to start Fairchild
>semiconductor, the company that today is known as
>Intel.

What the hell does this have to do with Einstein?

>No the Jews could not let any of the truly great
>geniuses of our time be recognized,

They *did* recognize one of the truly great geniuses of our time: his
name was Einstein.

>not the anti-Semite Henry Ford, not the great German
>scientists who helped the National Socialists in
>Germany,

Such as?

>not Charles Lindbergh, who was sympathetic to
>National Socialist causes, and certainly not William
>Shockley, one of  the most brilliant physicists and
>geneticists of our time.  Instead, the Jews propped up
>the Zionist, Communist Albert Einstein

Einstein was not a communist.  He supported one's right to be a
communist.  There's a difference.

>who hated everything white.

Um, Einstein *was* white.  Are you trying to claim that he was full of
self-loathing?

>After World War II, Einstein demonstrated his hatred
>of the White Race and of the Germans in particular in
>the following statements. He was asked what he thought
>about Germany and about re-educating the Germans after
>the war and said,
>
>"The nation has been on the decline mentally and
>morally since 1870...Behind the Nazi party stands the
>German people, who elected Hitler after he had in his
>book and in his speeches made his shameful intentions
>clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding. ...
>The Germans can be killed or constrained after the
>war, but they cannot be re-educated to a democratic
>way of thinking and acting..."
>
>Einstein here is advocating the murder of Germans,

I have only been able to find the first sentence in your quote above,
in an interview Einstein gave in 1935.  The only source I have been
able to find which includes the part about Germans being killed or
constrained after the war, or for that matter, anything after your
first "..." above, is in other copies of this document.

In fact, I've found absolutely nothing that is independently
verifiable that Einstein, in fact, said the latter two thirds of this
quote.

If you provide me with a link to the complete quote, without your
selective clippings, as you've already demonstrated that you're
both capable and willing to clip quotes in such a manner as to
radically change the context, then I can respond to it.

>because he feels that this is the only way that they
>can be kept in check. He is right about one thing, the
>Germans did knowingly support the cause of National
>Socialism, but what Einstein is attacking is
>Christianity, because it was Christianity that led the
>German people to overwhelmingly support National
>Socialism.

Nope.  Even if Einstein said what you say he said (which I have found
absolutely no corroborating evidence of), Christianity is never
mentioned in your quotation.  He specifically condemns Nazism.

>It was the German Christian Faith Movement and the
>Christian Social Party of men like Karl Lueger that
>led the German people to their understanding of  Jews.
>The Jew Daniel Goldhagen has recently shown the
>Christian basis of National Socialism in his book,
>Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and
>the Holocaust, and the book Why The Jews? by Prager
>and Telushkin similarly proves the Christian origins
>of what the Jews call 'anti-Semitism.' Einstein
>understood this and Einstein, like all Jews, hated
>Christians

Please provide evidence that all Jews hate Christians.  You must
conclusively establish that not one Jew exists who does not harbor
hatred for Christianity.

>So what Einstein was really advocating was the killing
>and constraining of all true Christians, not just
>German Christians.

Out of curiosity, exactly how do you type when both hands are busy
stuffing words in Einstein's mouth?

Ignoring, for the moment, that I have been unable to find any
corroborating evidence that he ever said anything like what you quote
him as saying above (and considering how vocal he was as a pacifist, I
find it unlikely that he did), you've taken what you claim he said,
and somehow came to the conclusion that he said something completely
different from what you quote him as saying.

>This is the true purpose and intent of Zionism and the
>demagogue Einstein was merely a tool of World Zionism
>and Jewry towards this end.
>
>Zionistic Jews understand that true, primitive
>Christianity is the mortal enemy of mongrel Judaism.
>This is why the Jews, like Einstein, hated Nazi
>Germany so much,

Frankly, I find it more likely that the Jews hated Nazi Germany because
the regime had made it its mission to exterminate them.  But I'm just
guessing.

>for National Socialist Germany advocated primitive,
>positive Christianity in the 24th point of its Party
>Platform.

And more rhetoric.

In short, the author of this piece had no understanding of the way
science works.  By his logic, no biologist has ever written an
unplagiarized paper because they involve cells, a theory they did not
advance.  No mathematician has ever published an unplagiarized paper,
because the basic building blocks; addition, subtraction,
multiplication and division; have been available for centuries.  No
physicist since Newton has ever written a paper on Mechanics...

In fact, if you follow this through to conclusion, there has never been
any original discovery in science, because the very methodology, the
scientific method, was established in ancient Greece.  Exactly who came
up with it is somewhat open to debate, but if the author's right,
we're all plagiarizing him or her.

Science, by its very nature is built upon the accomplishments of
others.  The average human lifetime being as short as it is, we'd
never get anywhere if it wasn't.  Einstein was no different.  His
theories were based upon the discoveries being made at the time, but
that does not invalidate them, on the contrary, it strengthens them,
for they were the first to truly explain the incomprehensible results
with a single, central insight.

--Drew

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor