"Cary Kittrell" <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:agnpd4$t8c$1 at oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
> In article <B6FX8.47995$P%6.3382751 at news2.west.cox.net> "John Knight"
<johnknight at usa.com> writes:
> <
> <"Cary Kittrell" <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
> <news:agn4an$i8m$1 at oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...> <> In article <ZksX8.46464$P%6.3231202 at news2.west.cox.net> "John Knight"
> <<johnknight at usa.com> writes:
> <> <
> {...}
> <>
> <> SMURFLE!! Yeah, those primitive early twentieth century Krauts, why
> <> it sometimes took several weeks for the latest issue of "Annalen der
> <Physik"
> <> to reach the universities.
> <>
> <>
> <
> <Are you denying that Einstein was a LIAR, and a PLAGIARIST, cary?
>> Yep.
>> <
> <
> <
> <http://christianparty.net/einstein.htm> <Not only did Hilbert publish his work first, but it was of much higher
> <quality than Einstein's. It is known today that there are many problems
with
> <assumptions made in Einstein's General Theory paper. We know today that
> <Hilbert was much closer to the truth. Hilbert's paper is the forerunner
of
> <the unified field theory of gravitation and electromagnetism and of the
work
> <of Erwin Schrödinger, whose work is the basis of all modern day quantum
> <mechanics. [Note: see critique].
>> From the thoroughly Aryan Max Plack Institute:
>>>> Einstein Freed from Charge of Plagiarism
>> According to the accepted view, the mathematician David Hilbert
> completed General Relativity five days before Albert Einstein in
> November 1915. Einstein may thus have copied crucial equations of
> this theory from Hilbert.
> Members of an international research group at the Max Planck
> Institute for the History of Science, Berlin, argue in their
> study, published in this week's issue of Science, that it was
> instead Hilbert who appropriated crucial results from Einstein and
> then published his paper under a misleading dateline.
>> Albert Einstein submitted his conclusive paper on General
> Relativity on 25 November 1915. David Hilbert, one of the most
> eminent mathematicians of the 20th century, published a paper in
> March 1916 which also contains the correct field equations of
> General Relativity. Einstein came to know Hilbert's contribution
> in late November, even before he found his final equations. He
> immediately claimed that Hilbert had appropriated his results. The
> dateline of Hilbert's paper, "20 November 1915," however, suggests
> that it was submitted five days earlier than Einstein's
> contribution. Did Einstein even copy the correct field equations
> from Hilbert's paper, as has been argued? This possibility can now
> definitely be excluded.
>> The authors of the present paper succeeded in identifying proofs
> of Hilbert's article that are dated "6 December 1915," that is
> after the submission of Einstein's conclusive contribution. Their
> detailed analysis of these proofs has revealed that they contain
> only an immature version of General Relativity, without the
> explicit field equations. These equations must have been inserted
> only later - after 6 December and before the published version
> appeared in 1916. Hilbert was, so the authors argue, still deeply
> ingrained in wrong assumptions about the physical meaning of his
> formalism, asssumptions which Einstein had meanwhile painfully
> overcome. Einstein can hence definitively be freed from the charge
> of plagiarism.
>> Hilbert's contribution, on the other hand, cannot even be
> considered as an independent alternative discovery of the field
> equations of General Relativity. Clearly, before he published the
> final version of his article, he must have seen Einstein's
> conclusive paper. If Hilbert had only altered the dateline of this
> paper to the date when he inserted the correct equations into the
> proofs no later priority discussion could have arisen.
>> Although disputes about priority and plagiarism can be crucially
> important to working scientists, they are not necessarily a key
> issue in the history of science. Historians of science are often
> less interested in who made an important new discovery but rather
> in how new insights become possible. In the case of Einstein's and
> Hilbert's struggle for establishing the field equations of a new,
> relativistic theory of gravitation the situation is, however,
> different since the approaches taken by the two scientists were
> dramatically distinct: Whereas Einstein combined mathematical
> strategies with a search for physical meaning, Hilbert very much
> relied on the power of his superior mathematical formalism.
> Clearly, in this case, the who of the discovery tells indeed much
> about the how.
>> Since 1907 Einstein had attempted to carefully reconcile, step by
> step, tentative mathematical formulations of his heuristic goal to
> formulate a relativistic theory of gravitation with the then
> available physical knowledge. Hilbert, on the other hand, had only
> begun to work on General Relativity in the second half of 1915. He
> boldly aimed from the beginning at an axiomatic foundation of
> physics and at a kind of world formula, unifying gravitation with
> electromagnetism. This approach caused the wrong impression that
> the field equations of General Relativity could be found by pure
> mathematical reasoning.
>> The results reported in the article in Science are an outcome of
> an international research project dedicated to the history of
> General Relativity. The project is centered at the Max Planck
> Institute for the History of Science in Berlin and has produced in
> the last years several new insights into the development of this
> theory.
>> Published:
11-11-97
>> Max Planck Institute for
the
> History of Science, Berlin
>> <
> <That the group of men discussed so far were the actual originators of the
> <ideas claimed by Einstein was known by the scientific community all
along.
> <In 1940, a group of German physicists meeting in Austria declared that
> <"before Einstein, Aryan scientists like Lorentz, Hasenöhrl, Poincaré,
etc.,
> <had created the foundations of the theory of relativity..."
> <
>> SNIKKT! Scientists all over Germany were denouncing "Jewish Science"
> during the Nazi regime. (you on the other hand, I'm sure, would have
> retained your intellectual integrity and explained in person to Hitler
> how he was actually a Jew. I'd love to see that one). By renouncing
> "Jewish Science", as you may recall, Germany lost out in the race
> to develop the atom bomb, and hence the war (sorry, John). Lise
> Mitner, a Jew and a woman who had not even been allowed to finish
> high school, played a crucial role in the discovery of fission.
>> <However, the Jewish media did not promote the work of these men. The
Jewish
> <media did not promote the work of David Hilbert, but instead they
promoted
> <the work of the Jew Albert Einstein. As we mentioned earlier, this
General
> <Theory, as postulated by Hilbert first and in plagiarized form by
Einstein
> <second, stated that light rays should bend when they pass by a massive
> <object. In 1919, during the eclipse of the Sun, light from distant stars
> <passing close to the Sun was observed to bend according to the theory.
This
> <evidence supported the General Theory of Relativity, and the
> <Jewish-controlled media immediately seized upon the opportunity to prop
up
> <Einstein as a hero, at the expense of the true genius, David Hilbert.
> <
> <On November 7th, 1919, the London Times ran an article, the headline of
> <which proclaimed, "Revolution in science - New theory of the Universe -
> <Newtonian ideas overthrown." This was the beginning of the force-feeding
of
> <the Einstein myth to the masses. In the following years, Einstein's
earlier
> <1905 papers were propagandized and Einstein was heralded as the
originator
> <of all the ideas he had stolen. Because of this push by the Jewish media,
in
> <1922, Einstein received the Nobel Prize for the work he had stolen in
1905
> <regarding the photoelectric effect.
> <
> <The establishment of the Einstein farce between 1919 and 1922 was an
> <important coup for world Zionism and Jewry. As soon as Einstein had been
> <established as an idol to the popular masses of England and America, his
> <image was promoted as the rare genius that he is erroneously believed to
be
> <today. As such, he immediately began his work as a tool for World
Zionism.
> <The masses bought into the idea that if someone was so brilliant as to
> <change our fundamental understanding of the universe, then certainly we
> <ought to listen to his opinions regarding political and social issues.
This
> <is exactly what World Jewry wanted to establish in its ongoing effort of
> <social engineering. They certainly did not want someone like David
Hilbert
> <to be recognized as rare genius. After all, this physicist had come from
a
> <strong German, Christian background. His grandfather's two middle names
were
> <'Fürchtegott Leberecht' or 'Fear God, Live Right.' In August of 1934, the
> <day before a vote was to be taken regarding installing Adolf Hitler as
> <President of the Reich, Hilbert signed a proclamation in support of Adolf
> <Hitler, along with other leading German scientists, that was published in
> <the German newspapers. So the Jews certainly did not want David Hilbert
> <receiving the credit he deserved.
> <
> <
>> Well, I'd say the above pretty much speaks for itself, eh?
>>>> -- cary
Would you like a little hint at how easy it is to mislead the entire country
with FALSE writings like the above, Cary?
Would you like to know how seriously misled you've been all your life?
Would you like to know the TRUTH about worldwide zionism, and how they've
taken control of your very life?
Hitler WAS a jew http://christianparty.net/hitler.htm and
http://christianparty.net/nazi.htm
John Knight
