In article <zHJ%8.10681$sb5.1206492 at news20.bellglobal.com> "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> writes:
<"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
<news:beJ%8.18111$Fq6.2230257 at news2.west.cox.net...
<> >
<> >
{...}
<> >
<>
<> Einstein made up for having a little brain by being a BIG LIAR, and
<> plagiarist. Everything this idiot who flunked algebra and never even had
<a
<> lab of his own ever wrote had been published by the White guys in Europe
<> with the big brains 10-20 years earlier.
<
<This simply isn't true.
<
<Explain what you think of his was a rehash.
Oh, John's in a bit of a quandry when it comes to Big Al. It
cogs his dis considerably when a Jew is widely regarded
as the most important physical scientist of the last century,
and moreover as someone up there with Newton and Archimedes. So
one day John comes across an article which provides him with
an out -- Al just stole it all. Never mind that writers
of the innumerable biographies about Einstein never noticed,
never mind that all those historians of science never noticed,
never mind that folks like Wheeler and Thorne and Hawking
and Morris and Misner and Penrose never noticed,
never mind that the very people that Einstein is alleged
to have plagarized never noticed -- can you imagine
Poincare (!) holding still for suchlike? Never mind that
the readers of Annalen der Physik, who read it to keep
abreast of the developments in their field, never noticed.
And never mind that the Nobel Prize committee never noticed, even
though Einstein's Prize was awarded almost 20 years
after his annum mirable, and that this committee was
selected, as they all are, for its knowledge of the
state of the art in the field, and the preceding
science upon which it was built.
Never mind all that, because John has a single article
(and a hilarious one at that), written by someone who makes
ol' John himself seem like a Zionist, which says otherwise.
That's his "explanation".
By the way, as you may have noticed, you won't be able to draw
John into any kind of detailed discussion about the claims
made in the article. He's smart enough to realize how
ignorant he is in these areas, so he can never supply
any support other than to paraphrase (plagarize?) the
article mentioned. So he doesn't dare enter into
a detailed discussion of the specifics. He's got
volume, but no depth in these areas (too).
And I suspect he actually doesn't understand things like,
oh, say, like the fact that when the Lorenz-FitzGerald
equation appears in the paper on Special Relativity,
it's there because it falls naturally out of Einstein's
two initial (extremely simple) assumptions, instead
of being an ad-hoc workaround based on a specious
assumption (the existence of the aether). Every
reader of the 1905 paper would have been familiar
with the Lorenz-Fitzgerald equations, and would
have appreciated the fact that Einstein had been
able to show how they can be derived axiomatically --
and not only that, but that the same two assumptions
lead to the a whole host of other testable
phenomina.
By John's logic, Newton was plagarizing Kepler.
And Cauchy was plagerizing Newton. And Russell and
Whitehead were plagarizing Newton, as well as just about
every mathematician since Pythagoras.
You get the idea.
-- cary
