"Cary Kittrell" <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:ahshor$bd7$1 at oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
> In article <zHJ%8.10681$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
Why would you make excuses for this STUPID jew criminal, Cary?
Whenever a non jew like those above cited material that was published a
decade or two ago, they always attributed the original author.
Einstein published THEIR writings word for word, didn't attribute them, AND
claimed it as his own. What's the big difference? Einstein is a CRIMINAL,
and the others were real scientists who had respect for the law and their fe
llow scientists.
John Knight
ps--you wrote:
> 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.
This would be a battle of wits with the unarmed, cary. It's likely that you
STILL haven't even understood H04 yet. Even after debating with the
feminazis for days, you thought the problem involved a spring, even though
it was clearly stated that it was a *string*. After you finally realized
that error, you then claimed that it had to be a strong string, when the
original problem CLEARLY stated they "are connected by a light string". The
problem states CLEARLY that they are "suspended at rest", but you and all
the feminazis went way out to lunch to try to ignore that significant point.
You couldn't have done a better job of demonstrating an inability to
comprehend the English language if you'd tried, then a Norwegian comes along
who doesn't even understand English that well and BLEW you all away.
Now you want to "debate" Einstein's plagiarism in detail? It's amazing that
you even spelled his name right.
John Knight
