If you really thought jews were so smart, TwAut, then you wouldn't mind at
all if we quit letting them blackmail Germany into sending them $10 billion
every year in these phoney baloney "reparations" payments, right? Or that
we quit letting them blackmail our own Congress into giving them another $10
billion per year [which is 70% of our "foreign aid" to other countries],
right?
But you do know the truth, don't you? You know that these jews are so
STUPID that they'd be an oil slick on the Mediterranean Sea the week we quit
subsidizing their sorry ass.s, don't you? You know that it's ludicrous to
think that jews could do on Madagascar what Christians did on the North
American Continent in less than 400 years, don't you?
You KNOW that the jews are so STUPID that they wouldn't last 6 months on
their own, anywhere, Madagascar or anywhere else, UNLESS we CHRISTIANS
continued to pay welfare to them, don't you?
Maybe to feminazis this makes jews "smart", but to normal people, it's the
exact opposite.
John Knight
----- Original Message -----
From: "Autymn D. C." <lysdexia at jps.net>
To: <ChristianPatriot at yahoogroups.com>; "ZOGs War"
<ZOGs_WAR-owner at yahoogroups.com>; "White Christian Patriot"
<WhiteChristianPatriot at yahoogroups.com>; "Sons of Liberty"
<SonsofLiberty at yahoogroups.com>; "Repeal 19th" <repeal19th at smartgroups.com>;
<info at givemeliberty.org>; "CINDS" <CINDS at yahoogroups.com>;
<parsetree at hotmail.com>; <lojbab at lojban.org>
Cc: <esotericworldnews at egroups.com>; <the_discipline_group at egroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 3:08 AM
Subject: [repeal19th] Re: brain sizes: Einstein's and women's (Einstein
thread)
> From: Christian Party, christianparty at HotPOP.com>>>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Einstein+Emperor&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rnum=1
> >Einstein and Emperor's new cloths
> Something could be said about the whole article's spelling.
> >Einstein was the smartest person in the world. I am so impressed that I
> >try to read everything about Einstein.. The more I've read, the more I
> >have questions.
> >How come he gets so much fame? How come he gets all the name and credit
> >even though some other scientists should get more then him?
> You see, other Jews (each at least half) were unique contributors to
> physics: Freemann, Levi-Civita, Boltzmann, Feynman, Heisenberg,
> Schwinger, Oppenheimer, Minkowski, Rosen, Podolsky, Bloch, Pierls,
> Meitner (f), Bohm, von Neumann, Friedman, [Henrich] Hertz, [Gustav]
> Hertz, Lifschitz, Cherenkov(?), Primakoff, Hameroff, Witten, Wolf(?),
> Sarfatti, Schwarzschild, (After here I used a web list and picked the
> more famous ones.) Aharanov, Bethe, Bohr, Born, Frisch, Gell-Mann,
> Josephson, Landau, Michelson, Pauli, Segre, Teller, Weinberg, Weisskopf,
> Wigner, and Sagan. Not related to physics but to science in general are
> Cantor, Mandelbroit, Klein, Noether (f), Gould, [Michael] Dell, and
> [Dean] Kamen(?). Many on the first list I recalled right away; given
> another evening I can get a list of composers and musicians if you want.
> The hell with Einstein. People often say that certain physical ideas
> came from him because he popularised them, and most other physicists
> aren't famous to them. Stupid John uses Einstein (like Darwin) as a
> strawman scapegoat because he doesn't know any other way to attack groups
> or ideas he doesn't like, and because he has no literacy of the subject.
> You put up that article about Einstein being a plagiarist on your site
> and use the URL like a Pez dispenser because you can't find a thing to
> say about everyone else in the field and day. Stupid John, what do you
> have to say? What have you contributed in comparison to the above
> figures?
>> And no, Einstein was not the smartest person in the world, not even
> close. (Hawking's only at about the same level as Einstein, so the
> general public shouldn't use him as an idol either.) Sidis was, and he
> was also a Jew. These are not opinions (I don't give opinions.) but
> facts. Gnaw on those odd ones.
>> -Aut
>> >(Question 1)
> >How come when people discover something, they always like to make a
> >connection with Einstein and give their credit to Einstein?
> >(question2)
> >How come Einstein say "yes" then say "no". Either way, "yes" people
> >or "no" people both believe Einstein is right and both give credit to
> >Einstein?
> >(question 3)How come when people discover something, which even does not
> >mention
> >Einstein's name nor relativity, people still make a connection with
> >relativity and give credit to Einstein? Even Einstein himself would be
> >surprised.
> >(question 4)I raised some equations to be open discussion to clear my
> >thoughts.
> >1. From what I read, Lorentz transformation is the first instance to
> >assume the speed of light is constant. And measure of time and distance
> >very systematically as anything moves relative to anything else. These
> >concepts were created by Lorentz, not Einstein. Einstein may use the
> >common language to interpret these concepts and call it another
> >name "special relativity". Everything derived from special relativity
> >are based on Lorentz transformations. So the packaging may belong to
> >Einstein, but the content belongs to Lorentz. When you hear
> >famous "where is the beaf". We should know that content is more
> >important than packaging. In my opinion, Lorentz should be called the
> >father of special relativity not Einstein. How come Einstein gets all
> >the credit, but Lorentz gets nothing? 98% percent of people in the
> >world do not know who is the guy called "Lorentz", but 100% of people
> >know Einstein. It is not fair. Besides, for the 1912 Nobel prize in
> >physics, Lorentz is the major winner and Einstein took place in second.
> >I don't think many people know that, too. In 1912, when Lorentz was
> >selected to win the 1912 Nobel Prize, Wien, the winner of 1911 who
> >recommended Einstein says
> > While Lorentz must be considered as the first to have found the
> >mathematical content of the relativity principle. Einstein succeeded in
> >reducing it to a simple principal. One should therefore assess the
> >merit of both investigators as being comparable...
> >2. At first, Einstein said the Universe is static with cosmological
> >constant. He cannot prove it only mention it. In 1930, when Hubble
> >prove that the galaxies actually moving away from the earth, Einstein
> >changed his mind and believed Universe is expanding and the Big Bang
> >theory was started. I do not know what happened, one of only 12 people
> >in the world who knew general relativity, he said that Big Bang is
> >derive from equations of general relativity and conclude that Universe
> >can be expand or contract (He may be Alexander Freemann -- information
> >from NOVA on line). Even Einstein himself had a big surprise that his
> >general relativity had that kind of conclusion. I don't think Fred
> >Hoyle or Steve Hawkins mentioned anything about general relativity, but
> >Einstein still get whole credit.
> >In recent years, some people believe that Universe is static there is a
> >cosmological constant. . So people say, "you see" Einstein was right
> >from the beginning. They still give the credit to Einstein. I don't
> >know if those people who give credit to Einstein realize that if the
> >Universe is static, the conclusion of general relativity by Alexander
> >Freemann is wrong. So general relativity may be wrong. Nobody mentions
> >it they just ignore it. So general relativity is still the greatest
> >theory in the world.
> >Alexander Freemann derived his conclusion from equations of GR that the
> >Universe can expand or contract are very ambiguous. Because if somebody
> >concluded from a set mathematical equations, the conclusion must be
> >either expand or contract not both. Otherwise there is a parameter to
> >determine expansion or contraction. Can not be both without any
> >constrain.
> >Equations of general relativity are the key point of this conclusion.
> >So I found the equations in web site. The equations of GR are in Ricci
> >tensor form. This tensor form is based on elliptic geometry. Einstein
> >assumes Universe was elliptic geometry only because when he found a
> >serious error in his reserch, he remembered that he had studied
> >Gaussian theory in school, which is a theory of Riemannian geometry
> >(Elliptic geometry). So he consulted his friend Grossman who was able
> >to tell Einstein about important developments of Riemann, Ricci and
> >Levi-Civita. In 1913 Einstein and Grossman joint published the
> >equations of GR in metric tensor form, but still the theory was not
> >right. In fact every year he corrected and submitted a new version of
> >equations of GR. Even Einstein himself says, "That follow Einstein
> >suits his convenience. Every year he retracts what he wrote the year
> >before."
> >November 1915, Einstein and Hilbert worked together to get the so-
> >called final form of "gravitational field equations". It was so
> >complicated that nobody understands to be able to challenge if the
> >equations are right or wrong. So that is the so-called final version of
> >the equations stick. In my opinion, nobody challenging the correction
> >of the equations does not mean it is right. Einstein had changed it so
> >many times, how could he guarantee that it is really the correct
> >version. If person really understands what he doing, he should not make
> >corrections so many times.
> >Besides, there are two kinds of Non-Euclidean geometry, Hyperbolic and
> >Elliptic.
> >In Elliptic space, every light ray is a geodesic line. Light rays will
> >be circling the geodesic line forever unless blocked by some object. We
> >can see the same light ray of star many times over, because the light
> >ray circles in the space forever. Also, we can see the same star from
> >opposite directions many times too. The Universe was at least many
> >billions old. All the lights of the sun and stars had collected so many
> >billions of years. The Universe should be so bright even at nighttime.
> >Of course that is not the case. So the possibility of the Universe is
> >ether Euclidean or Hyperbolic Universe, if the Universe is not an
> >Elliptic space. We don't care if Einstein's equations are right or
> >wrong, it simply not suitable to applied. All the GR go out of the door.
> >Hundreds of years before Einstein, many people believed the Universe is
> >Non-Euclidean space. Non-Euclidean space means there is a space
> >constant. Space constant means cosmological constant. They are same
> >things with difference names. When cosmological constant was proved (or
> >believed to be proved), how come the credit went to Einstein but not
> >the many people who believed the Universe is Non-Euclidean before
> >Einstein.
> >Einstein covers both "yes" and "no". He definitely gets credit either
> >way. It is not fair.
> >Both "yes" and "no" are contradiction each other. How could they both
> >developed from the same general relativity? Is it possible people just
> >try to use Einstein's name to prove they are right?
> >I tried to find out what general relativity is. I found a very good
> >article written by Alan Lightman. In the article, he says "Einstein
> >publish in 1915, general relativity proposed that gravity, as well as
> >motion, can affect the intervals of time and of space. The key ideal of
> >general relativity, called the equivalence of principle, is that
> >gravity pulling in one direction is completely equivalence to an
> >acceleration in the opposite direction." There is no equations, no
> >transformations, no result but only a statement. How could this one
> >statement conclude the Universe is static and also conclude the
> >Universe is expanding even though they both contradict each other.
> >3. One of the most famous predictions of general relativity is bending
> >of starlight by gravity in 1917 and proved in 1922 (Einstein still
> >believed in the cosmological constant). When light was proved to be
> >bending, people say general relativity is right. I don't see much
> >connection with general relativity. If light is a particle with mass,
> >and the sun has a massive mass. Obviously, light will be attracted by
> >the sun's gravity. Even Newton's theory says so. How come this light
> >bending is so great only because Einstein says so?
> >Besides, Einstein predicts the bending angle is 1.74 degree. But the
> >actual measurement is off by a factor of 2. So Einstein said the one
> >half is banded by Newton's gravity. And other half is caused by general
> >relativity's space curvature. There are two reasons this 1.74 degree
> >angle has problems.
> > (A). In 1922, when light bending was proved, Einstein still
> >believed in the cosmological constant. So, he uses space curvature to
> >explain the other half of light bending. After 1930, Einstein dropped
> >the concept of cosmological constant, so to use space curvature to
> >explained the other half of light bending after 1930 is not consistent.
> >Before 1922, Einstein uses some theory to explain the other half of
> >light bending. After he dropped that theory in 1930, keeping the same
> >explanation is wrong, because the base of that theory does not exist
> >any more.
> > (B). From Einstein's general relativity, the closer to the sun,
> >the curvature bends more. That means every point has different
> >curvature. That means there are infinite different space curvatures in
> >one space. There is no such space. One space can only have one space
> >curvature. Besides, in uniform Non-Euclidean space, curvature does not
> >bend any direction. They don't bend toward the sun or away from the
> >sun. Straight line in Non-Euclidean space, observed by Euclidean space,
> >looks like a bending curve. They simply do not bend. That means there
> >is no such thing as space curvature cause the straight line bends 1.74
> >degree to any direction. If they really bend to any special direction,
> >they cannot be called space curvature.
> >I think Einstein did it again. He simply bent the facts to suits his
> >convenience.
> >4. When Dewey B. Larson wrote an article to prove Einstein was wrong,
> >and Mr. Robert E. McElwaine post in remarq.com called "Lasonian
> >Relativity, Einstein was wring!" to be discussed, people don't even
> >bother to read the article. People say "You do not try to ridicule me
> >with silly joke", " on Nards! Lutefisk! Durian fruit!" I don't know
> >about you, but only scientific source I believed are the ones which
> >have a lot of the nouns in capital letters" " Perhaps god is a cow
> >guiding us with gamma rays". When people proved Einstein was right, we
> >don't see any detail or equations, but the whole world believes it.
> >When people proved Einstein is wrong, they write down so much detail
> >that people don't even want to look at it. I wonder if Einstein is god?
> >Equations of general relativity in tensor form are so complicated that
> >nobody understands. I don't think even Einstein understood his own
> >equations. If he really understood, he wouldn't need other scientist's
> >help to correct them so many times. If he really understood, he
> >wouldn't need to be surprised when Alexander Freemann used his
> >equations of general relativity to prove the universe can be expand or
> >contract. Instead of believing in cosmological constant and
> >embarrassing himself, he should have proved it by his own.(He
> >says "that is my blunder time in my life") Don't you think if anyone
> >really understood something, they should be able to easily derived the
> >conclusion. In recent years, some people may have proved the Big Bang
> >theory is wrong. If the Big Bang theory is really wrong, then Alexander
> >Freemann is wrong and general relativity is wrong.
> >Since Einstein published his theory of relativity, almost one century
> >has passed. From my understanding, less than 12 people in the world
> >really understand general relativity. It also difficult to identify
> >those 12 people. I don't know they really exist or not. Even one of the
> >famous scientist (I don't remember his name) being identified as the
> >third people in the world who understands general relativity, he simply
> >deny it and say, "I am still looking for the third person".
> >People like Relativity because they can exercise their unlimited and
> >spectacular imaginations. All they need to say is relativity, curve
> >time space, four dimensions, near light speed or Einstein's gravity.
> >After Einstein publish his final version of equations of general
> >relativity. He did not do too much work on relativity. Most creation of
> >fantasy world are the result of public imagination, more like science
> >fictions. So many kind of versions just like Allice's wonder land.
> >And just recenly, NEC research group public there experiment of
> >breaking the speed of light. That put special relativity in questions
> >too.
> >Even after almost one century, still only less than 12 people really
> >understand general relativity. There must be something wrong. It makes
> >me think about the similarity to the Emperor's new clothes. Maybe I am
> >stupid. But the Emperor's new cloths were first seen-through by a
> >stupid kid. Smart people do not dare to say so.
> >If the special relativity is right. Lorentz is the father of special
> >relativity, and general relativity like Emperor's new cloths. L don't
> >know how much left for Einstein.
> >Is Einstein fake?
> >In this hundred years, Einstein creates the science of Alice's
> >wonderland. It wastes so much time and talent let scientist live in
> >fantasy world. Every thing again relativity will be repelled even they
> >are right. What had been happen like this is the most tradigy in the
> >scientific world.
>
