On Feb 9, 1:05*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Feb 8, 9:39 wrote:

On Feb 1, 4:23 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
The bottom line is that Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar. *shrug

That is total nonsense.

What I said is based on facts backed by the very mathematics
involved. *Please sort through my previous posts to find these
forensic evidences hidden in the mathematics.

I don't care what math you're talking about. Your claim is that
Einstein plagerized Poincare. What does that have to do with the math?
However I'll sort through your previous posts to see if there is any
substance to what you say.

[snippped flame]



If one were to follow
the historical trail of Poincare and Einstein's work then its obvious
that there was no plagerism whatsoever.

On the contrary, if one were to follow the historic accounts of
Poincare and Einstein, one will find obvious plagiarism on Einstein's
part. *shrug

I have followed it as I said above. Please provide proof of your claim
by referencing legitimate historical science references on this
subject.



Face it. *Poincare was no vegetable as Pais lied in his book.

Nonsense. Just because the historical facts represented in Pais's book
prove you wrong is no reason to insult Pais. Tell ya what. Why don'y
you provide proof of this claim?

Try reading a little before
backing such absurd claims.

I did, ..

And what is it that you have read??

...and you need to follow your own advice for a change.

And you need to read closer since I already told you I've read a lot
about this in the physics literature. Besides Pais and Whittaker that
also includes the American Journal of Physics.

Pete

ps - If you can't respond without flaming then please don't respond at
all. I have zero tolerance for those who use insults to force their
views on others.

On Feb 9, 12:43*am, wrote:
On Feb 8, wrote:

On Feb 1, 4:23*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

The bottom line is that Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar. *shrug

That is total nonsense. It is a statement made in ignorance and
without any facts to back these aburd claims up. If one were to follow
the historical trail of Poincare and Einstein's work then its obvious
that there was no plagerism whatsoever. Try reading a little before
backing such absurd claims.

Pete

Einstein at the end of his life said that he could not reconcile the
particle nature of light with the wave. He was willing to question
what he won the Nobel prize for. That he went in another direction in
the end should be noted. I am willing to go in the no particle
direction just as Einstein did. I believe light is soley a wave.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

What does thast have to do with the absurd claim that Einstein
plagerized Poincare?

Pete

On Feb 1, 4:23*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 31, 4:24 pm, " wrote:

Right on! *Post like the one you are responding to is somewhat
indicative of the ignorance most of Einstein's critics post.

This proves you are ignorant of what Einstein actually was. *shrug

Funny too, since among physicists, Einstein's name is held with the
same reverance which was previously accorded *Galaleo, Newton, and
Maxell.

Einstein is held higher than Galileo, Newton, and Maxwell by the so
called physicists. *Why is that? *Einstein's re-stating of the same
principle of relativity has more bearing than Galileo. *Einstein's re-
stating of the principle of equivalence has more bearing than
Galileo. *Based on the principles of relativity and equivalence,
Einstein's plagiarisms on Larmor's Lorentz transform and Hilbert's
field equations have more bearing than Newton's work based on
Galileo's principles of relativity and equivalence. *The list goes
on. *This tells about the lack of understanding of these so called
physicists. *shrug

You are correct in that Einstein's only Nobel Prize was awarded by his
work on photoelectric effects, findings that are taught today.

You mean the work of Einstein's plagiarism of Planck's work. *He was
canonized by the physicists because the religion they believe in needs
a Messiah.

His
work on Special Relativity I find it at least curious that he was
never accorded a Nobel prize for this, his most outstanding
contribution to mankind.

Let's see. *The Lorentz transform was already derived by Larmor. *The
mathematics of the Lorentz transform was already interpreted by
Lorentz (LET) and Poincare (SR). *The Lorentz transform manifests the
twin's paradox. *It is stupid. *shrug

I believe that this was not accidental, and
it had either to do with his political leanings or the fact that he
was a Jew.

No, it is accidental. *Einstein was at the right place and the right
time to be canonized into a Messiah by the desperate physicists then.

What many lay posters to not realize (possible because they are
uneducated) is that Einsteins later work was on his Special Theory of
Relativity, which he neither completed or published by the time of his
death.

It looks like you are the one who is uneducated. *shrug

Fragmentary notes of his uncompleted work leaked into the hands of
somewhat desperate and unscrupulous people, which today form the basis
of laymen's understanding of Special Relativity.

Excuse not to understand SR. *I bet you do not understand SR.

Not realizing that
Einstein never published any "Theory of General Relativity",

Have you not read his 1905 papers on relativity?

it is
easy to understand why laymen reading these bits and fragmentary
pieces of an ongoing throught process, and believing that Einstein
published it, become critical of Einstein.

You are so full of sh*t.

I can understand the basis for that confusion.

You are confused.

In Special Relativity, Einstein stood on the shounder of older
geniuses, like Newton and Maxwell, to went to basics.

In SR, Einstein plagiarized from Larmor and Poincare. *shrug

(Even highshool
student appreciate the genius of Einsteins writings,

What high school students? *They only are interested in opposite ...
Come on. *You are I were once that age. *Right?

when read as he
explained his logic. School childred understand his explanation of
Special Relativity,

If anyone has truly understood SR, he will conclude SR is stupid
because of the twin's paradox. *shrug

not General Relativity, because Einstein never
completed his work in that area prior to his death.

Bullsh*t. *GR was a complete plagiarism from the crap Hilbert came up
with. *shrug

Oh, I headed into a rant, but it stops here.

It is about time. *I need to go to sleep myself.

The bottom line is that Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar. *shrug

Now, good night.

So this stuff above is your so called "proof" that Einstein
plagerized? I see no proof whatsoever that Einstein was aware of the
work of Poincare. And arriving at the same transformation as a result
of two postulates doesn't mean that Einstein plagerized Lamor either.
Then again I see no proof above that Einstein was aware of Lamor's
derivation.

The burden of proof still remains on you to show that Einstein was
aware of Poincare and others results. A requirement that one has
plagerized is that they must have done so knowing that they did.

Pete

On Feb 9, 2:25 am, pmb wrote:
On Feb 1, 4:23 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:



On Jan 31, 4:24 pm, " wrote:

Right on! Post like the one you are responding to is somewhat
indicative of the ignorance most of Einstein's critics post.

This proves you are ignorant of what Einstein actually was. shrug

Funny too, since among physicists, Einstein's name is held with the
same reverance which was previously accorded Galaleo, Newton, and
Maxell.

Einstein is held higher than Galileo, Newton, and Maxwell by the so
called physicists. Why is that? Einstein's re-stating of the same
principle of relativity has more bearing than Galileo. Einstein's re-
stating of the principle of equivalence has more bearing than
Galileo. Based on the principles of relativity and equivalence,
Einstein's plagiarisms on Larmor's Lorentz transform and Hilbert's
field equations have more bearing than Newton's work based on
Galileo's principles of relativity and equivalence. The list goes
on. This tells about the lack of understanding of these so called
physicists. shrug

You are correct in that Einstein's only Nobel Prize was awarded by his
work on photoelectric effects, findings that are taught today.

You mean the work of Einstein's plagiarism of Planck's work. He was
canonized by the physicists because the religion they believe in needs
a Messiah.

His
work on Special Relativity I find it at least curious that he was
never accorded a Nobel prize for this, his most outstanding
contribution to mankind.

Let's see. The Lorentz transform was already derived by Larmor. The
mathematics of the Lorentz transform was already interpreted by
Lorentz (LET) and Poincare (SR). The Lorentz transform manifests the
twin's paradox. It is stupid. shrug

I believe that this was not accidental, and
it had either to do with his political leanings or the fact that he
was a Jew.

No, it is accidental. Einstein was at the right place and the right
time to be canonized into a Messiah by the desperate physicists then.

What many lay posters to not realize (possible because they are
uneducated) is that Einsteins later work was on his Special Theory of
Relativity, which he neither completed or published by the time of his
death.

It looks like you are the one who is uneducated. shrug

Fragmentary notes of his uncompleted work leaked into the hands of
somewhat desperate and unscrupulous people, which today form the basis
of laymen's understanding of Special Relativity.

Excuse not to understand SR. I bet you do not understand SR.

Not realizing that
Einstein never published any "Theory of General Relativity",

Have you not read his 1905 papers on relativity?

it is
easy to understand why laymen reading these bits and fragmentary
pieces of an ongoing throught process, and believing that Einstein
published it, become critical of Einstein.

You are so full of sh*t.

I can understand the basis for that confusion.

You are confused.

In Special Relativity, Einstein stood on the shounder of older
geniuses, like Newton and Maxwell, to went to basics.

In SR, Einstein plagiarized from Larmor and Poincare. shrug

(Even highshool
student appreciate the genius of Einsteins writings,

What high school students? They only are interested in opposite ...
Come on. You are I were once that age. Right?

when read as he
explained his logic. School childred understand his explanation of
Special Relativity,

If anyone has truly understood SR, he will conclude SR is stupid
because of the twin's paradox. shrug

not General Relativity, because Einstein never
completed his work in that area prior to his death.

Bullsh*t. GR was a complete plagiarism from the crap Hilbert came up
with. shrug

Oh, I headed into a rant, but it stops here.

It is about time. I need to go to sleep myself.

The bottom line is that Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar. shrug

Now, good night.

So this stuff above is your so called "proof" that Einstein
plagerized? I see no proof whatsoever that Einstein was aware of the
work of Poincare. And arriving at the same transformation as a result
of two postulates doesn't mean that Einstein plagerized Lamor either.
Then again I see no proof above that Einstein was aware of Lamor's
derivation.

The burden of proof still remains on you to show that Einstein was
aware of Poincare and others results. A requirement that one has
plagerized is that they must have done so knowing that they did.

Plus he needs to explain why Poincare and such just sat by and let
Einstein do that assuming that's what happened.

This is like the arguments the Apollo deniers use. Oh wait, KW doesn't
think we landed on the moon either.


Pete

On Jan 31, 5:28*pm, wrote:
At the end of his life he said that he could not reconcile a light
wave with a particle. Light is just a wave and the spin attributed to
it is doesn't apply. There has never been any measurement of it.

Mitch Raemsch Two Time Nobel Lauraete 2008

GR Was Einsein's greatest thoughts. This was origenal thinking and he
should have received his Nobel for Bert

On Feb 9, 7:53*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 9, 2:25 am, pmb wrote:





On Feb 1, 4:23 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

On Jan 31, 4:24 pm, " wrote:

Right on! *Post like the one you are responding to is somewhat
indicative of the ignorance most of Einstein's critics post.

This proves you are ignorant of what Einstein actually was. *shrug

Funny too, since among physicists, Einstein's name is held with the
same reverance which was previously accorded *Galaleo, Newton, and
Maxell.

Einstein is held higher than Galileo, Newton, and Maxwell by the so
called physicists. *Why is that? *Einstein's re-stating of the same
principle of relativity has more bearing than Galileo. *Einstein's re-
stating of the principle of equivalence has more bearing than
Galileo. *Based on the principles of relativity and equivalence,
Einstein's plagiarisms on Larmor's Lorentz transform and Hilbert's
field equations have more bearing than Newton's work based on
Galileo's principles of relativity and equivalence. *The list goes
on. *This tells about the lack of understanding of these so called
physicists. *shrug

You are correct in that Einstein's only Nobel Prize was awarded by his
work on photoelectric effects, findings that are taught today.

You mean the work of Einstein's plagiarism of Planck's work. *He was
canonized by the physicists because the religion they believe in needs
a Messiah.

His
work on Special Relativity I find it at least curious that he was
never accorded a Nobel prize for this, his most outstanding
contribution to mankind.

Let's see. *The Lorentz transform was already derived by Larmor. *The
mathematics of the Lorentz transform was already interpreted by
Lorentz (LET) and Poincare (SR). *The Lorentz transform manifests the
twin's paradox. *It is stupid. *shrug

I believe that this was not accidental, and
it had either to do with his political leanings or the fact that he
was a Jew.

No, it is accidental. *Einstein was at the right place and the right
time to be canonized into a Messiah by the desperate physicists then.

What many lay posters to not realize (possible because they are
uneducated) is that Einsteins later work was on his Special Theory of
Relativity, which he neither completed or published by the time of his
death.

It looks like you are the one who is uneducated. *shrug

Fragmentary notes of his uncompleted work leaked into the hands of
somewhat desperate and unscrupulous people, which today form the basis
of laymen's understanding of Special Relativity.

Excuse not to understand SR. *I bet you do not understand SR.

Not realizing that
Einstein never published any "Theory of General Relativity",

Have you not read his 1905 papers on relativity?

it is
easy to understand why laymen reading these bits and fragmentary
pieces of an ongoing throught process, and believing that Einstein
published it, become critical of Einstein.

You are so full of sh*t.

I can understand the basis for that confusion.

You are confused.

In Special Relativity, Einstein stood on the shounder of older
geniuses, like Newton and Maxwell, to went to basics.

In SR, Einstein plagiarized from Larmor and Poincare. *shrug

(Even highshool
student appreciate the genius of Einsteins writings,

What high school students? *They only are interested in opposite ...
Come on. *You are I were once that age. *Right?

when read as he
explained his logic. School childred understand his explanation of
Special Relativity,

If anyone has truly understood SR, he will conclude SR is stupid
because of the twin's paradox. *shrug

not General Relativity, because Einstein never
completed his work in that area prior to his death.

Bullsh*t. *GR was a complete plagiarism from the crap Hilbert came up
with. *shrug

Oh, I headed into a rant, but it stops here.

It is about time. *I need to go to sleep myself.

The bottom line is that Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar. *shrug

Now, good night.

So this stuff above is your so called "proof" that Einstein
plagerized? I see no proof whatsoever that Einstein was aware of the
work of Poincare. And arriving at the same transformation as a result
of two postulates doesn't mean that Einstein plagerized Lamor either.
Then again I see no proof above that Einstein was aware of Lamor's
derivation.

The burden of proof still remains on you to show that Einstein was
aware of Poincare and others results. A requirement that one has
plagerized is that they must have done so knowing that they did.

Plus he needs to explain why Poincare and such just sat by and let
Einstein do that assuming that's what happened.

This is like the arguments the Apollo deniers use. Oh wait, KW doesn't
think we landed on the moon either.

And let us not forget that (1) Einstein didn't have access to a
library when he was working at the pattent office in Bern during the
time he was creatint SR (It was closed during his free hours) and (2)
Assuming that the article was peer reviewed then the reviewer was also
unaware of Poincares work.

Pete

On Feb 10, 9:53*am, pmb wrote:
On Feb 9, 7:53*am, Eric Gisse wrote:



On Feb 9, 2:25 am, pmb wrote:

On Feb 1, 4:23 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

On Jan 31, 4:24 pm, " wrote:

Right on! *Post like the one you are responding to is somewhat
indicative of the ignorance most of Einstein's critics post.

This proves you are ignorant of what Einstein actually was. *shrug

Funny too, since among physicists, Einstein's name is held with the
same reverance which was previously accorded *Galaleo, Newton, and
Maxell.

Einstein is held higher than Galileo, Newton, and Maxwell by the so
called physicists. *Why is that? *Einstein's re-stating of the same
principle of relativity has more bearing than Galileo. *Einstein's re-
stating of the principle of equivalence has more bearing than
Galileo. *Based on the principles of relativity and equivalence,
Einstein's plagiarisms on Larmor's Lorentz transform and Hilbert's
field equations have more bearing than Newton's work based on
Galileo's principles of relativity and equivalence. *The list goes
on. *This tells about the lack of understanding of these so called
physicists. *shrug

You are correct in that Einstein's only Nobel Prize was awarded by his
work on photoelectric effects, findings that are taught today.

You mean the work of Einstein's plagiarism of Planck's work. *He was
canonized by the physicists because the religion they believe in needs
a Messiah.

His
work on Special Relativity I find it at least curious that he was
never accorded a Nobel prize for this, his most outstanding
contribution to mankind.

Let's see. *The Lorentz transform was already derived by Larmor. *The
mathematics of the Lorentz transform was already interpreted by
Lorentz (LET) and Poincare (SR). *The Lorentz transform manifests the
twin's paradox. *It is stupid. *shrug

I believe that this was not accidental, and
it had either to do with his political leanings or the fact that he
was a Jew.

No, it is accidental. *Einstein was at the right place and the right
time to be canonized into a Messiah by the desperate physicists then..

What many lay posters to not realize (possible because they are
uneducated) is that Einsteins later work was on his Special Theory of
Relativity, which he neither completed or published by the time of his
death.

It looks like you are the one who is uneducated. *shrug

Fragmentary notes of his uncompleted work leaked into the hands of
somewhat desperate and unscrupulous people, which today form the basis
of laymen's understanding of Special Relativity.

Excuse not to understand SR. *I bet you do not understand SR.

Not realizing that
Einstein never published any "Theory of General Relativity",

Have you not read his 1905 papers on relativity?

it is
easy to understand why laymen reading these bits and fragmentary
pieces of an ongoing throught process, and believing that Einstein
published it, become critical of Einstein.

You are so full of sh*t.

I can understand the basis for that confusion.

You are confused.

In Special Relativity, Einstein stood on the shounder of older
geniuses, like Newton and Maxwell, to went to basics.

In SR, Einstein plagiarized from Larmor and Poincare. *shrug

(Even highshool
student appreciate the genius of Einsteins writings,

What high school students? *They only are interested in opposite ....
Come on. *You are I were once that age. *Right?

when read as he
explained his logic. School childred understand his explanation of
Special Relativity,

If anyone has truly understood SR, he will conclude SR is stupid
because of the twin's paradox. *shrug

not General Relativity, because Einstein never
completed his work in that area prior to his death.

Bullsh*t. *GR was a complete plagiarism from the crap Hilbert came up
with. *shrug

Oh, I headed into a rant, but it stops here.

It is about time. *I need to go to sleep myself.

The bottom line is that Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar. *shrug

Now, good night.

So this stuff above is your so called "proof" that Einstein
plagerized? I see no proof whatsoever that Einstein was aware of the
work of Poincare. And arriving at the same transformation as a result
of two postulates doesn't mean that Einstein plagerized Lamor either.
Then again I see no proof above that Einstein was aware of Lamor's
derivation.

The burden of proof still remains on you to show that Einstein was
aware of Poincare and others results. A requirement that one has
plagerized is that they must have done so knowing that they did.

Plus he needs to explain why Poincare and such just sat by and let
Einstein do that assuming that's what happened.

This is like the arguments the Apollo deniers use. Oh wait, KW doesn't
think we landed on the moon either.

And let us not forget that (1) Einstein didn't have access to a
library when he was working at the pattent office in Bern during the
time he was creatint SR (It was closed during his free hours) and (2)
Assuming that the article was peer reviewed then the reviewer was also
unaware of Poincares work.

Pete

Einstein's job at the Swiss patent Office involved being fully up to
date with all recent developments in science & technology. He was
PAID to read all these books & papers. Einstein's SRT paper was only
reviewed very briefly by Max Planck (the theoretical adviser to
Annalen in 1905), who should have insisted on citations. Planck
shared Einstein's Platonic views of the world (timeless principles
supercede experiments) and became Einstein's patron thereafter in
Germany's growing competition with all other European countries,
especially French physics, headed by Poincare. The subsequent
outbreak of war in 1914 was not a coincidence - nationalism was
rampant.

pmb wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

What I said is based on facts backed by the very mathematics
involved. Please sort through my previous posts to find these
forensic evidences hidden in the mathematics.

I don't care what math you're talking about. Your claim is that
Einstein plagerized Poincare.

And Larmor in SR. The nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, Einstein,
also plagiarized on Hilbert in GR.

What does that have to do with the math?

Oh, the forensic evidences reside in the derivations of the Lorentz
transform and the field equations.

However I'll sort through your previous posts to see if there is any
substance to what you say.

Go ahead. Make my day.

[snippped flame]

I wrote:

You must be an Einstein Dingleberry. You worship Einstein despite
he being a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. shrug

So, pointing out the fact that you worship Einstein hurts your
sorrowful feelings does not constitute flaming. That is because the
truth hurts. shrug

On the contrary, if one were to follow the historic accounts of
Poincare and Einstein, one will find obvious plagiarism on Einstein's
part. shrug

I have followed it as I said above. Please provide proof of your claim
by referencing legitimate historical science references on this
subject.

OK, Poincare pointed out the relative simultaneity which is basically
SR. Do you want to bring up the two stupid postulates?

Face it. Poincare was no vegetable as Pais lied in his book.

Nonsense. Just because the historical facts represented in Pais's book
prove you wrong is no reason to insult Pais.

Well, just because Pais insulted Poincare by basically describing
Poincare as a vegetable does not warrant me to respect Pais. shrug.

Tell ya what. Why don'y you provide proof of this claim?

Just read his book if you like. He worshipped Einstein, and everyone
else was a moron.

I did, ..

And what is it that you have read??

That depends on what I did. shrug

...and you need to follow your own advice for a change.

And you need to read closer since I already told you I've read a lot
about this in the physics literature. Besides Pais and Whittaker that
also includes the American Journal of Physics.

Well, that does not show. Have you really read their works?

ps - If you can't respond without flaming then please don't respond at
all. I have zero tolerance for those who use insults to force their
views on others.

You are totally flaming. I also have zero tolerance for the usurpers
trying to present a false version of history as well as alchemical
physics. shrug

Einstein is held higher than Galileo, Newton, and Maxwell by the so
called physicists. Why is that? Einstein's re-stating of the same
principle of relativity has more bearing than Galileo. Einstein's re-
stating of the principle of equivalence has more bearing than
Galileo. Based on the principles of relativity and equivalence,
Einstein's plagiarisms on Larmor's Lorentz transform and Hilbert's
field equations have more bearing than Newton's work based on
Galileo's principles of relativity and equivalence. The list goes
on. This tells about the lack of understanding of these so called
physicists. shrug

You are correct in that Einstein's only Nobel Prize was awarded by his
work on photoelectric effects, findings that are taught today.

You mean the work of Einstein's plagiarism of Planck's work. He was
canonized by the physicists because the religion they believe in needs
a Messiah.

His
work on Special Relativity I find it at least curious that he was
never accorded a Nobel prize for this, his most outstanding
contribution to mankind.

Let's see. The Lorentz transform was already derived by Larmor. The
mathematics of the Lorentz transform was already interpreted by
Lorentz (LET) and Poincare (SR). The Lorentz transform manifests the
twin's paradox. It is stupid. shrug

I believe that this was not accidental, and
it had either to do with his political leanings or the fact that he
was a Jew.

No, it is accidental. Einstein was at the right place and the right
time to be canonized into a Messiah by the desperate physicists then.

What many lay posters to not realize (possible because they are
uneducated) is that Einsteins later work was on his Special Theory of
Relativity, which he neither completed or published by the time of his
death.

It looks like you are the one who is uneducated. shrug

Fragmentary notes of his uncompleted work leaked into the hands of
somewhat desperate and unscrupulous people, which today form the basis
of laymen's understanding of Special Relativity.

Excuse not to understand SR. I bet you do not understand SR.

Not realizing that
Einstein never published any "Theory of General Relativity",

Have you not read his 1905 papers on relativity?

it is
easy to understand why laymen reading these bits and fragmentary
pieces of an ongoing throught process, and believing that Einstein
published it, become critical of Einstein.

You are so full of sh*t.

I can understand the basis for that confusion.

You are confused.

In Special Relativity, Einstein stood on the shounder of older
geniuses, like Newton and Maxwell, to went to basics.

In SR, Einstein plagiarized from Larmor and Poincare. shrug

(Even highshool
student appreciate the genius of Einsteins writings,

What high school students? They only are interested in opposite ...
Come on. You are I were once that age. Right?

when read as he
explained his logic. School childred understand his explanation of
Special Relativity,

If anyone has truly understood SR, he will conclude SR is stupid
because of the twin's paradox. shrug

not General Relativity, because Einstein never
completed his work in that area prior to his death.

Bullsh*t. GR was a complete plagiarism from the crap Hilbert came up
with. shrug

Oh, I headed into a rant, but it stops here.

It is about time. I need to go to sleep myself.

The bottom line is that Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar. shrug

Now, good night.

So this stuff above is your so called "proof" that Einstein
plagerized?

It depends on your interpretation. You are welcome to construe what
you have read in a few sentences as the proof. shrug

I see no proof whatsoever that Einstein was aware of the
work of Poincare.

You are blind because you worship Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist,
and the liar. shrug

And arriving at the same transformation as a result
of two postulates doesn't mean that Einstein plagerized Lamor either.

Bullsh*t. Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transform was
gibberish in 1905. His re-derivation in 1920 was totally
matheMagical. Einstein, the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar must
have known about the Lorentz transform before hand. shrug

Then again I see no proof above that Einstein was aware of Lamor's
derivation.

You are blind because you worship Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist,
and the liar. shrug

The burden of proof still remains on you to show that Einstein was
aware of Poincare and others results.

Oh, that is easy. shrug

A requirement that one has
plagerized is that they must have done so knowing that they did.

That is correct. shrug

On Feb 9, 4:53*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 9, 2:25 am, pmb wrote:





On Feb 1, 4:23 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

On Jan 31, 4:24 pm, " wrote:

Right on! *Post like the one you are responding to is somewhat
indicative of the ignorance most of Einstein's critics post.

This proves you are ignorant of what Einstein actually was. *shrug

Funny too, since among physicists, Einstein's name is held with the
same reverance which was previously accorded *Galaleo, Newton, and
Maxell.

Einstein is held higher than Galileo, Newton, and Maxwell by the so
called physicists. *Why is that? *Einstein's re-stating of the same
principle of relativity has more bearing than Galileo. *Einstein's re-
stating of the principle of equivalence has more bearing than
Galileo. *Based on the principles of relativity and equivalence,
Einstein's plagiarisms on Larmor's Lorentz transform and Hilbert's
field equations have more bearing than Newton's work based on
Galileo's principles of relativity and equivalence. *The list goes
on. *This tells about the lack of understanding of these so called
physicists. *shrug

You are correct in that Einstein's only Nobel Prize was awarded by his
work on photoelectric effects, findings that are taught today.

You mean the work of Einstein's plagiarism of Planck's work. *He was
canonized by the physicists because the religion they believe in needs
a Messiah.

His
work on Special Relativity I find it at least curious that he was
never accorded a Nobel prize for this, his most outstanding
contribution to mankind.

Let's see. *The Lorentz transform was already derived by Larmor. *The
mathematics of the Lorentz transform was already interpreted by
Lorentz (LET) and Poincare (SR). *The Lorentz transform manifests the
twin's paradox. *It is stupid. *shrug

I believe that this was not accidental, and
it had either to do with his political leanings or the fact that he
was a Jew.

No, it is accidental. *Einstein was at the right place and the right
time to be canonized into a Messiah by the desperate physicists then.

What many lay posters to not realize (possible because they are
uneducated) is that Einsteins later work was on his Special Theory of
Relativity, which he neither completed or published by the time of his
death.

It looks like you are the one who is uneducated. *shrug

Fragmentary notes of his uncompleted work leaked into the hands of
somewhat desperate and unscrupulous people, which today form the basis
of laymen's understanding of Special Relativity.

Excuse not to understand SR. *I bet you do not understand SR.

Not realizing that
Einstein never published any "Theory of General Relativity",

Have you not read his 1905 papers on relativity?

it is
easy to understand why laymen reading these bits and fragmentary
pieces of an ongoing throught process, and believing that Einstein
published it, become critical of Einstein.

You are so full of sh*t.

I can understand the basis for that confusion.

You are confused.

In Special Relativity, Einstein stood on the shounder of older
geniuses, like Newton and Maxwell, to went to basics.

In SR, Einstein plagiarized from Larmor and Poincare. *shrug

(Even highshool
student appreciate the genius of Einsteins writings,

What high school students? *They only are interested in opposite ...
Come on. *You are I were once that age. *Right?

when read as he
explained his logic. School childred understand his explanation of
Special Relativity,

If anyone has truly understood SR, he will conclude SR is stupid
because of the twin's paradox. *shrug

not General Relativity, because Einstein never
completed his work in that area prior to his death.

Bullsh*t. *GR was a complete plagiarism from the crap Hilbert came up
with. *shrug

Oh, I headed into a rant, but it stops here.

It is about time. *I need to go to sleep myself.

The bottom line is that Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar. *shrug

Now, good night.

So this stuff above is your so called "proof" that Einstein
plagerized? I see no proof whatsoever that Einstein was aware of the
work of Poincare. And arriving at the same transformation as a result
of two postulates doesn't mean that Einstein plagerized Lamor either.
Then again I see no proof above that Einstein was aware of Lamor's
derivation.

The burden of proof still remains on you to show that Einstein was
aware of Poincare and others results. A requirement that one has
plagerized is that they must have done so knowing that they did.

Plus he needs to explain why Poincare and such just sat by and let
Einstein do that assuming that's what happened.

This is like the arguments the Apollo deniers use. Oh wait, KW doesn't
think we landed on the moon either.





Pete- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

About the math. Calculus in the case of intergration is just an
approximation. You can't intergrate a million times. And if you say
you can you can't intergrate an infinite ammount of times which is
required to produce an exact answer in the calculus. The same is true
of Differentiation. You cannot do it a million times. And you cannot
do it the infinite amount ofthe times required to produce the exact
derivitive of the curve. Calculus is only exact in derivatives of the
polynomials not real world problems. It is always an estimation in
real the world problems.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

On Feb 10, 10:21*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
...
Let's see. *The Lorentz transform was already derived by Larmor. *The
mathematics of the Lorentz transform was already interpreted by
Lorentz (LET) and Poincare (SR). *The Lorentz transform manifests the
twin's paradox. *It is stupid. *shrug
...
Then again I see no proof above that Einstein was aware of Lamor's
derivation.
...
The Irish physicist, Joseph Larmor was regarded (at least by the
British) as the leading successor to Maxwell in the 1890s. In 1901 he
became Lucasian professor at Cambridge, Newton's old chair. His
magnum opus, 'Aether & Matter' was published in 1900; as this became
an international bestseller it is hard to imagine that Einstein had
not read it prior to 1905. (Interesting enough, it is almost
impossible to find a copy today.) Larmor's theory viewed the universe
as ONLY consisting of a continuum of fixed aether populated solely by
postive and negative electrons, which provided a physical explanation
for the FitzGerald contraction hypothesis. He was the first to show
how a suitable transformation could relate the E & B fields in two
inertial reference frames that Einstein rederived five years later in
section 10 of his SRT paper. These transformations were seen as being
IN space & time and NOT OF space & time.