On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 14:30:19 -0500, JohnBoy Knight wrote

Why would you LIE and claim that someone who knows the TRUTH about Hitler
being a STUPID jew http://christianparty.net/hitler.htm ,

christianparty.nit is a parody of many internet sites which also demonstrate
a psychotic mind crazed, apparently, by third stage syphilis or something
closely related to it.


and that his top
Nazis were STUPID jews http://christianparty.net/nazi.htm would be a "Hitler
loving" anything?

And why don't you at least FIRST learn what a SEMITE is, so you can choose
your slurs properly?

This looks like typical jew rantings.

Are you a member of the Christian race, then? I realize that you are in the
worship of John Knight business but do you profess a common religion in the
hope that you can suck them in?


John Knight
Criminal, pervert and poor writer.


It's so tragic that John "lights out for" Knight couldn't have been born
intelligent and not a sniviling coward.

But little JohnBoy Knight will - in all liklihood - never be able to achieve
the starus of a man. JohnBoy is locked into the "Boy 8usiness" and will
always be a "boy toy" to whomever comes along.

g

If you want to believe that Einstein is a hoax, you should read the
papers at

http://www.savefile.com/projects/880850



Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article (John Knight) writes:
(David Thomas) wrote in message ...
In article n0zKa.53570$1e.11555@fed1read04, writes:

Perhaps you did not offfer proof that he broke posting rules. Absent that,
they could not act. They are functioning under a contract with Mr. Retic,
as are all ISPs with all of us.

I did point out that the ISP he uses supposedly is cracking down on spam, and
that his postings fall under their definition of such. They chose, as do most
in power, inaction. It threatens their privilege less.



The following is from http://christianparty.net/einsteinplagiarist.htm

John Knight








Albert Einstein
Genius or Plagiarist

{...}


HOWEVER, THE TRUTH IS: HE STOLE THE IDEAS AND PLAGIARIZED THE PAPERS.

Therefore, we will look at each of these ideas and discover the
source of each. It should be remembered that these ideas are presented
by Einstein's worshipers as totally new and completely different, each
of which would change 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. Specifically, this 1905 paper dealt with what Einstein
called the Special Theory of Relativity (the General Theory would
come in 1915).

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

1) in the absence of acceleration, the laws of nature are the same
for all observers; 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. 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 in 1878.

Maxwell studied the phenomenon of light extensively and first
proposed that it was electromagnetic in nature.

James Maxwell wrote an article to this effect for the 1878 edition
of the Encyclopedia Britannica. 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. 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 but they
did not understand relativity. 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.

In response to this problem, in 1880, the irish physicist george fitz
gerald, 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
either 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!



No, this is not the theory of relativity, nor would anyone with
a high-school level understanding of the theory of relativity
mistake it for the theory of relativity. This was a failed
attempt to save the concept of the ether, sometimes "aether"
(which your expert source mis-spells as "either") by proposing
an ad-hoc formula . Einstein does nothing of the sort: he sets
up three simple postulates (of which your "expert" got only
one correct) -- and everything else falls out
mathematically. Time dialation and compression of lengths
are not "premises", they are derived. The famous "E=mc^2"
is not something that Einstein plops in the middle of a
page after having secretly filched it: he derives it
from these three simple assumptions, derives it mathematically
with the whole world watching and free to check his math. Saying
that Einstein "stole" these results is exactly equivalent to
saying that Pythagoras "stole" a^2 + b^2 = c^2 from the
Egyptians. The Egyptians knew this empirically; Pythagoras
proves mathematically why it must be so. Yes, bits and pieces
of the results which appear in Einstein's 1905 paper -- but Einstein
was the first one to show mathematically all of them -- and other
interesting results as well -- MUST be so.


But don't take my word for it. Here. See for your self:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Read it. Digest it. Then we'll argue...


-- cary

purrcy

If you want to believe that Einstein is a hoax, you should read the
papers at

http://www.savefile.com/projects/880850

You are replying to a three-year-plus old post of mine? Is this
an example of marked relativistic time dilation?


-- cary




Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article (John Knight) writes:
(David Thomas) wrote in message ...
In article n0zKa.53570$1e.11555@fed1read04, writes:

Perhaps you did not offfer proof that he broke posting rules. Absent that,
they could not act. They are functioning under a contract with Mr. Retic,
as are all ISPs with all of us.

I did point out that the ISP he uses supposedly is cracking down on spam, and
that his postings fall under their definition of such. They chose, as do most
in power, inaction. It threatens their privilege less.



The following is from http://christianparty.net/einsteinplagiarist.htm

John Knight








Albert Einstein
Genius or Plagiarist

{...}


HOWEVER, THE TRUTH IS: HE STOLE THE IDEAS AND PLAGIARIZED THE PAPERS.

Therefore, we will look at each of these ideas and discover the
source of each. It should be remembered that these ideas are presented
by Einstein's worshipers as totally new and completely different, each
of which would change 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. Specifically, this 1905 paper dealt with what Einstein
called the Special Theory of Relativity (the General Theory would
come in 1915).

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

1) in the absence of acceleration, the laws of nature are the same
for all observers; 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. 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 in 1878.

Maxwell studied the phenomenon of light extensively and first
proposed that it was electromagnetic in nature.

James Maxwell wrote an article to this effect for the 1878 edition
of the Encyclopedia Britannica. 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. 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 but they
did not understand relativity. 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.

In response to this problem, in 1880, the irish physicist george fitz
gerald, 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
either 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!



No, this is not the theory of relativity, nor would anyone with
a high-school level understanding of the theory of relativity
mistake it for the theory of relativity. This was a failed
attempt to save the concept of the ether, sometimes "aether"
(which your expert source mis-spells as "either") by proposing
an ad-hoc formula . Einstein does nothing of the sort: he sets
up three simple postulates (of which your "expert" got only
one correct) -- and everything else falls out
mathematically. Time dialation and compression of lengths
are not "premises", they are derived. The famous "E=mc^2"
is not something that Einstein plops in the middle of a
page after having secretly filched it: he derives it
from these three simple assumptions, derives it mathematically
with the whole world watching and free to check his math. Saying
that Einstein "stole" these results is exactly equivalent to
saying that Pythagoras "stole" a^2 + b^2 = c^2 from the
Egyptians. The Egyptians knew this empirically; Pythagoras
proves mathematically why it must be so. Yes, bits and pieces
of the results which appear in Einstein's 1905 paper -- but Einstein
was the first one to show mathematically all of them -- and other
interesting results as well -- MUST be so.


But don't take my word for it. Here. See for your self:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Read it. Digest it. Then we'll argue...


-- cary

"purrcy" wrote in message
...
| If you want to believe that Einstein is a hoax, you should read the
| papers at
|
| http://www.savefile.com/projects/880850
|


If you want to believe Einstein's drool is not a hoax, you should read the
page at
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ket/Rocket.htm

Androcles

(Cary Kittrell) wrote:

purrcy

If you want to believe that Einstein is a hoax, you should read the
papers at

http://www.savefile.com/projects/880850

You are replying to a three-year-plus old post of mine? Is this
an example of marked relativistic time dilation?

And he's replying with a link that has probably been dead for three
years too.

The link points to a page with a title and nothing more.

lojbab

In article Bob LeChevalier writes:
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:

purrcy

If you want to believe that Einstein is a hoax, you should read the
papers at

http://www.savefile.com/projects/880850

You are replying to a three-year-plus old post of mine? Is this
an example of marked relativistic time dilation?

And he's replying with a link that has probably been dead for three
years too.

The link points to a page with a title and nothing more.


Pity. I also bemoan the loss of the "Einstein Hoax" page
John Knight used to have on his site. One paper said,
basically, that Relativity was utter garbage, easily
and thoroughly debunked...while the other paper said that
Relativity was a major touchstone of physics, and was
far too complex to have been worked out by the simple-minded
Einstein, who stole it from his betters.

John either 1) never read the papers, 2) didn't recognize
the cognitive dissonance of playing the one off the other,
and/or 3) didn't care, as long as both could be used
for Jew-bashing.


-- cary

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:20:58 -0500, Cary Kittrell wrote
(in article ):

In article Bob LeChevalier
writes:
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:

purrcy

If you want to believe that Einstein is a hoax, you should read the
papers at

http://www.savefile.com/projects/880850

You are replying to a three-year-plus old post of mine? Is this
an example of marked relativistic time dilation?

And he's replying with a link that has probably been dead for three
years too.

The link points to a page with a title and nothing more.


Pity. I also bemoan the loss

He's b-a-a-a-c-c-c-k-k-k-k . . .


of the "Einstein Hoax" page
John Knight used to have on his site.


http://christianparty.net/einstein.htm

++ gray


One paper said,
basically, that Relativity was utter garbage, easily
and thoroughly debunked...while the other paper said that
Relativity was a major touchstone of physics, and was
far too complex to have been worked out by the simple-minded
Einstein, who stole it from his betters.

John either 1) never read the papers, 2) didn't recognize
the cognitive dissonance of playing the one off the other,
and/or 3) didn't care, as long as both could be used
for Jew-bashing.


-- cary

In article writes:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:20:58 -0500, Cary Kittrell wrote
(in article ):

In article Bob LeChevalier
writes:
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:

purrcy

If you want to believe that Einstein is a hoax, you should read the
papers at

http://www.savefile.com/projects/880850

You are replying to a three-year-plus old post of mine? Is this
an example of marked relativistic time dilation?

And he's replying with a link that has probably been dead for three
years too.

The link points to a page with a title and nothing more.


Pity. I also bemoan the loss

He's b-a-a-a-c-c-c-k-k-k-k . . .


of the "Einstein Hoax" page
John Knight used to have on his site.


http://christianparty.net/einstein.htm

Ah, and the one paper I mentioned is in fact there -- the "Retic"
paper, which spends a looong time saying "Relativity is a crock",
along with the claim -- which I have corrected John repeatedly
on -- that the Global Positioning System does not use relativistic
corrections (it does).

I only glanced through the rest (especially the aptly-named
crank dot net page) but I'm delighted to see that John has
not only preserved, but expanded on the mix of
Einstein's work is garbage/no, great work, but he stole it
citations.


++ gray


One paper said,
basically, that Relativity was utter garbage, easily
and thoroughly debunked...while the other paper said that
Relativity was a major touchstone of physics, and was
far too complex to have been worked out by the simple-minded
Einstein, who stole it from his betters.

John either 1) never read the papers, 2) didn't recognize
the cognitive dissonance of playing the one off the other,
and/or 3) didn't care, as long as both could be used
for Jew-bashing.


-- cary

In article om writes:
This link was never gone.

While you're persuing the *possibility* that a STUPID evil sodomite
scumbag Edomite jew like "Einstein",


{drool sponged}

Hey, John, whereya been?

And while you were there, did you give any thought to editing that
page down a bit, so that you say only one of:

Einstein's alleged "physics" is total garbage, wrong from start
to finish

or

Einstein's alleged "physics" is a high-water mark of science -- but
he stole it from his betters?




-- cary

"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message
...

You snipped. You were unable to respond to my argument.
You are a boring ****wit.
*plonk*

Androcles