Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: SAMSON123 on February 28, 2010, 08:27:23 AM
-
-
sorry thats more than a coinky dink
-
sorry thats more than a coinky dink
Yeah...I remember seeing the videos of these same people being interviewed the day of and the day after 911 and them telling how explosions were going off all of the towers and building 7. I am shocked seeing that so many of them are dead...I don't think the news reported anything about them dying
-
Yeah...I remember seeing the videos of these same people being interviewed the day of and the day after 911 and them telling how explosions were going off all of the towers and building 7. I am shocked seeing that so many of them are dead...I don't think the news reported anything about them dying
There's no way the DC madam committed suicide by hanging herself 2 days before court. That's a male MO
Women slit their wrists in bathtubs, or overdose on pills. They don't hang themselves or blow their brains out.
-
There's no way the DC madam committed suicide by hanging herself 2 days before court. That's a male MO
Women slit their wrists in bathtubs, or overdose on pills. They don't hang themselves or blow their brains out.
Very good observation...I did not think of that, but you are right. In all of these cases the deaths were definitely out of character for the person(s) and notice how many deaths were right before the release of further information, or investigations or some other form of exposure to what really happened on 911
-
Idiots....I mean, Idiot :D
2005:
% of suicides that were hangings, strangulation, suffocation for men = 22.7%
% of suicides that were hangings, strangulation, suffocation for women = 20.2%
2004 was roughly the same
http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
-
Idiots....I mean, Idiot :D
2005:
% of suicides that were hangings, strangulation, suffocation for men = 22.7%
% of suicides that were hangings, strangulation, suffocation for women = 20.2%
2004 was roughly the same
http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
Owned. :D
-
Idiots....I mean, Idiot :D
2005:
% of suicides that were hangings, strangulation, suffocation for men = 22.7%
% of suicides that were hangings, strangulation, suffocation for women = 20.2%
2004 was roughly the same
http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
Your so called statistics does not answer how a person committed suicide, just that it was suicide. If a person is SUICIDED it is still registered as suicide...not that someone killed them and made it look like a suicide.
second..what is the chance that all of these people who were from the WTC would all commit suicide or be involved in strange deaths soon thereafter? The same pattern of death took place after the Oklahoma City bombing as well. Many witnesses and people who spoke up were found dead soon thereafter. Also how come so many people who were a part of the WTC police, firemen, emergency help are afraid to speak up about what they saw?
Ya gotta stop being so naive skippy. You are the perfect candidate to be suckered into believing the sky is falling...you dismiss facts, but believe the LIES.
-
Your so called statistics does not answer how a person committed suicide, just that it was suicide. If a person is SUICIDED it is still registered as suicide...not that someone killed them and made it look like a suicide.
second..what is the chance that all of these people who were from the WTC would all commit suicide or be involved in strange deaths soon thereafter? The same pattern of death took place after the Oklahoma City bombing as well. Many witnesses and people who spoke up were found dead soon thereafter. Also how come so many people who were a part of the WTC police, firemen, emergency help are afraid to speak up about what they saw?
Ya gotta stop being so naive skippy. You are the perfect candidate to be suckered into believing the sky is falling...you dismiss facts, but believe the LIES.
I'm naive?
-
Your so called statistics does not answer how a person committed suicide, just that it was suicide. If a person is SUICIDED it is still registered as suicide...not that someone killed them and made it look like a suicide.
Your CT is neither here nor there. You were trying to claim women don't hang themselves and, in reality, the percentages are about the same for men and women.
-
Your CT is neither here nor there. You were trying to claim women don't hang themselves and, in reality, the percentages are about the same for men and women.
You mean Jag said that is not the MO for women, which I agree. Men and women may commit suicide nearly equal, but the means to that end are entirely different.
-
You mean Jag said that is not the MO for women, which I agree. Men and women may commit suicide nearly equal, but the means to that end are entirely different.
No, READ!
I didn't give you percentages of men and women committing suicide. I gave you percentages on the MEANS of suicide for each gender.
Hangings, strangulations, and suffocations, are nearly the same for both men and women.
-
Idiots....I mean, Idiot :D
2005:
% of suicides that were hangings, strangulation, suffocation for men = 22.7%
% of suicides that were hangings, strangulation, suffocation for women = 20.2%
2004 was roughly the same
http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
You know what, ...I'm going to take a very Palinesque approach to this.
I don't care what those numbers say. I refuse to believe that women commit suicide by hanging themselves
How does a person commit suicide by suffocating themselves, bodily reflexes would preclude that IMO.
how does a person commit suicide by strangling themselves, again, reflexes would preclude that.
I can see where alot of women could be murdered through suffocation and/or strangulation,
...but committing suicide that way? I think it would be very difficult if not impossible to do.
-
You know what, ...I'm going to take a very Palinesque approach to this.
I don't care what those numbers say. I refuse to believe that women commit suicide by hanging themselves
How does a person commit suicide by suffocating themselves, bodily reflexes would preclude that IMO.
how does a person commit suicide by strangling themselves, again, reflexes would preclude that.
I can see where alot of women could be murdered through suffocation and/or strangulation,
...but committing suicide that way? I think it would be very difficult if not impossible to do.
Great, and you can carry the same stupidity moniker that marks Palin everywhere she goes.
Oops, my bad. You've already been doing that. Of course, you are the same person who thought the fucking detention facility at Gitmo was supporting Haiti, so I guess I really shouldn't expect much.
However, there is good news. As a part of my charity work for GB-2010, I'm going to make it my mission to increase your level of intelligence. I'm taking you under my wing.
Lesson #1 - Suicide by suffocation
Suicide by suffocation is the act of inhibiting one's ability to breathe or limiting oxygen uptake while breathing, causing hypoxia and eventually asphyxia. This may involve an exit bag (a plastic bag fixed over the head) or confinement in an enclosed space without oxygen. These attempts involve using depressants to make the user pass out before oxygen deprivation triggers instinctive panic and the urge to escape due to the hypercapnic alarm response.
Helium, argon and nitrogen are commonly used in suicides by suffocation. Breathing inert gas quickly renders a person unconscious and causes death without any experience of panic or discomfort.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods
-
Great, and you can carry the same stupidity moniker that marks Palin everywhere she goes.
Oops, my bad. You've already been doing that. Of course, you are the same person who thought the fucking detention facility at Gitmo was supporting Haiti, so I guess I really shouldn't expect much.
However, there is good news. As a part of my charity work for GB-2010, I'm going to make it my mission to increase your level of intelligence. I'm taking you under my wing.
{giggle} Taking me under your wing? aw gee... how did I get so lucky? :P
Lesson #1 - Suicide by suffocation
Suicide by suffocation is the act of inhibiting one's ability to breathe or limiting oxygen uptake while breathing, causing hypoxia and eventually asphyxia. This may involve an exit bag (a plastic bag fixed over the head) or confinement in an enclosed space without oxygen. These attempts involve using depressants to make the user pass out before oxygen deprivation triggers instinctive panic and the urge to escape due to the hypercapnic alarm response.
Helium, argon and nitrogen are commonly used in suicides by suffocation. Breathing inert gas quickly renders a person unconscious and causes death without any experience of panic or discomfort.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods
please forgive me for not being up on the various ways to kill oneself. That's never been high on my priority list.
All I know is women generally have a tendency to want to avoid pain, ...and leave a pretty corpse.
Seems like a whole lot of trouble to seek out this argon. I thought helium only made you sound like Alvin & Theodore?
I just get the feeling this DC madam is more the sleeping pills type. I refuse to believe she committed suicide.
ps: When you say "taking me under your wing"... do you mean kinda like a big brother, ...or a sugar daddy? :D
-
No, READ!
I didn't give you percentages of men and women committing suicide. I gave you percentages on the MEANS of suicide for each gender.
Hangings, strangulations, and suffocations, are nearly the same for both men and women.
Skip -
Do you believe the US government is a source of good or evil?
Do you trust your government?
Have they ever lied to you?
Yes or no will do thanks.
-
Seems like a whole lot of trouble to seek out this argon.
Argon = very easy to get.
-
Yeah, you can get argon at Lowes I think. Used for welding...
-
Until today, ...I'd never even heard of argon before. :-[
-
Until today, ...I'd never even heard of argon before. :-[
Guess that 170 IQ (10 points above what Einstein's was estimated at) can only take a moron so far. :-[
-
Guess that 170 IQ (10 points above what Einstein's was estimated at) can only take a moron so far. :-[
Actually it's a 160 IQ.
hugo, is there anything you can do about this troll?
how about you really piss him off and decide to stay
-
Skip -
Do you believe the US government is a source of good or evil?
Do you trust your government?
Have they ever lied to you?
Yes or no will do thanks.
1. It's neither. We have some people who do good things, some people who do evil things. Sometimes they attempt to do good things with evil results.
2. I'll need you to clarify trust.
3. Read my lips, No new taxes. :D You may not have been in the country back then but that was Bush's daddy...just before he raised taxes.
4. I answer questions how I please, thanks.
-
Guess that 170 IQ (10 points above what Einstein's was estimated at) can only take a moron so far. :-[
Einstein was a hoax...
-
IMO, it all depends on what you studied in college.
I was 137 all through elementary school, MBA and computer certs without much effort..I'm pretty confident that's where I'm at IQ-wise. I don't remember much of chem from high school. I do know argon and noble gases, but only from freshman year chem in college when I had to memorize chunks of the periodic. If I had chosen not to take chem and opted for something else, I probably would be sitting at IQ 137 without knowing much about that.
-
Einstein was a hoax...
How so?
-
IMO, it all depends on what you studied in college.
I was 137 all through elementary school, MBA and computer certs without much effort..I'm pretty confident that's where I'm at IQ-wise. I don't remember much of chem from high school. I do know argon and noble gases, but only from freshman year chem in college when I had to memorize chunks of the periodic. If I had chosen not to take chem and opted for something else, I probably would be sitting at IQ 137 without knowing much about that.
I've never been tested, but I'm told that the score varies with the type of test. For the sake of humility I will give myself a 78 (then I'll give it a traditional Get Bigger padding of 10 points), bringing my final score to 88!
-
How so?
This was addressed on the HISTORY CHANNEL a couple of years ago along with a revealing expose on Issac Newton, who was illiterate, and never went to school, but rather worked with his parents, who were also illiterate, as farm hands. This is not the History Channel transcript, but it tells the same story...
Albert Einstein
-- was he a thief, a liar and a plagiarist?
ALBERT EINSTEIN is held up as "a rare genius," who drastically changed the field of theoretical physics. However, using the technique known as 'The Often-Repeated Lie=Truth,' he has been made an idol to young people, and his very name has become synonymous with genius.
THE TRUTH, HOWEVER, IS VERY DIFFERENT. Einstein was an inept and moronic person, who could not even tie his own shoelaces; he contributed NOTHING ORIGINAL to the field of quantum mechanics, nor any other science. On the contrary -- he stole the ideas of others, and the Jew-controlled media made him a 'hero.'
When we actually examine the life of Albert Einstein, we find that his only 'brilliance' was in his ability to PLAGIARIZE and STEAL OTHER PEOPLE'S IDEAS, PASSING THEM OFF AS HIS OWN. Einstein's education, or lack thereof, is an important part of this story.
The Encyclopedia Britannica says of Einstein's early education that he "showed little scholastic ability." It also says that at the age of 15, "with poor grades in history, geography, and languages, he left school with no diploma." Einstein himself wrote in a school paper of his "lack of imagination and practical ability." In 1895, Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich.
This exam consisted mainly of mathematical problems, and Einstein showed himself to be mathematically inept in this exam. He then entered a lesser school hoping to use it as a stepping stone to the engineering school he could not get into, but after graduating in 1900, he still could not get a position at the engineering school!
Unable to go to the school as he had wanted, he got a job (with the help of a friend) at the patent office in Bern. He was to be a technical expert third class, which meant that he was not competent to hold a higher qualified position. Even after publishing his so-called ground-breaking papers of 1905 and after working in the patent office for six years, he was only elevated to a second class standing. Remember, the work he was doing at the patent office, for which he was only rated third class, was not quantum mechanics or theoretical physics, but was reviewing technical documents for patents of every day things; yet he was barely qualified.
He would work at the patent office until 1909, all the while continuously trying to get a position at a university, but without success. All of these facts are true, but now begins the myth.
Supposedly, while working a full time job, without the aid of university colleagues, a staff of graduate students, a laboratory, or any of the things normally associated with an academic setting, Einstein in his spare time wrote four ground-breaking essays in the field of theoretical physics and quantum mechanics that were published in 1905.
Many people have recognized the impossibility of such a feat, including Einstein himself, and therefore Einstein has led people to believe that many of these ideas came to him in his sleep, out of the blue, because indeed that is the only logical explanation of how an admittedly inept moron could have written such documents at the age of 26 without any real education. 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 Fitzgerald, 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 change, 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!
FURTHER . . . IN 1892, HENDRIK LORENTZ, of the Netherlands, proposed the same solution and began to greatly expand the idea. All throughout the 1890's, both Lorentz and Fitzgerald worked on these ideas and wrote articles strangely similar to Einstein's Special Theory detailing what is now known as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction.
In 1898, the Irishman Joseph Larmor wrote down equations explaining the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and its relativistic consequences, 7 years before Einstein's paper. By 1904, "Lorentz transformations," the series of equations explaining relativity, were published by Lorentz. They describe the increase of mass, the shortening of length, and the time dilation of a body moving at speeds close to the velocity of light. In short, by 1904, everything in "Einstein's paper" regarding the Special Theory of Relativity had already been published.
The Frenchman Poincaré‚ had, in 1898, written a paper unifying many of these ideas. He stated seven years before Einstein's paper: ". . . we have no direct intuition about the equality of two time intervals. The simultaneity of two events or the order of their succession, as well as the equality of two time intervals, must be defined in such a way that the statements of the natural laws be as simple as possible."
Professor Umberto Bartocci, a mathematical historian, of the University of Perugia claims that Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the equation E=mc^2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903. Einstein allegedly used De Pretto's insight in a major paper published in 1905, but De Pretto was never acclaimed.
De Pretto had stumbled on the equation, but not the theory of relativity, while speculating about ether in the life of the universe, said Prof Bartocci. It was republished in 1904 by Veneto's Royal Science Institute, but the equation's significance was not understood.
According to Professor Bartocci, a Swiss Italian named Michele Besso alerted Einstein to the research and in 1905 Einstein published his own work. It took years for his breakthrough to be grasped. When the penny finally dropped, De Pretto's contribution was overlooked while Einstein went on to become the century's most famous scientist. De Pretto died in 1921.
"De Pretto did not discover relativity but there is no doubt that he was the first to use the equation. That is hugely significant. I also believe, though it's impossible to prove, that Einstein used De Pretto's research," said Professor Bartocci, who has written a book on the subject. ( The Guardian Unlimited).
Anyone who has read Einstein's 1905 paper will immediately recognize the similarity and the lack of originality on the part of Einstein.
Thus, we see that the only thing original about the paper was the term 'Special Theory of Relativity.' EVERYTHING ELSE WAS PLAGIARIZED. Over the next few years, Poincaré‚ became one of the most important lecturers and writers regarding relativity, but he never, in any of his papers or speeches, mentioned Albert Einstein.
Thus while Poincaré‚ was busy bringing the rest of the academic world up to speed regarding relativity, Einstein was still working in the patent office in Bern and no one in the academic community thought it necessary to give much credence or mention to Einstein's work. Most of these early physicists knew that he was a fraud.
This brings us to the explanation of Brownian motion, the subject of another of Einstein's 1905 papers. Brownian motion describes the irregular motion of a body arising from the thermal energy of the molecules of the material in which the body is immersed. The movement had first been observed by the Scottish botanist Robert Brown in 1827.
The explanation of this phenomenon has to do with the Kinetic Theory of Matter, and it was the American Josiah Gibbs and the Austrian Ludwig Boltzmann who first explained this occurrence, not Albert Einstein. In fact, the mathematical equation describing the motion contains the famous Boltzmann constant, k. Between these two men, they had explained by the 1890s everything in Einstein's 1905 paper regarding Brownian motion.
The subject of the equivalence of mass and energy was contained in a third paper published by Einstein in 1905. This concept is expressed by the famous equation E=mc2. Einstein's biographers categorize this as "his most famous and most spectacular conclusion." Even though this idea is an obvious conclusion of Einstein's earlier relativity paper, it was not included in that paper but was published as an afterthought later in the year. Still, the idea of energy-mass equivalence was not original with Einstein.
That there was an equivalence between mass and energy had been shown in the laboratory in the 1890s by both J. J. Thomsom of Cambridge and by W. Kaufmann in Göttingen. In 1900, Poincaré‚ had shown that there was a mass relationship for all forms of energy, not just electromagnetic energy. Yet, the most probable source of Einstein's plagiarism was Friedrich Hasenöhrl, one of the most brilliant, yet unappreciated physicists of the era.
Hasenöhrl was the teacher of many of the German scientists who would later become famous for a variety of topics. He had worked on the idea of the equivalence of mass and energy for many years and had published a paper on the topic in 1904 in the very same journal which Einstein would publish his plagiarized version in 1905. For his brilliant work in this area, Hasenöhrl had received in 1904 a prize from the prestigious Vienna Academy of Sciences.
Furthermore, the mathematical relationship of mass and energy was a simple deduction from the already well-known equations of Scottish physicist James Maxwell. Scientists long understood that the mathematical relationship expressed by the equation E=mc2 was the logical result of Maxwell's work, they just did not believe it.
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/einstein.htm READ THE REST HERE...
-
This was addressed on the HISTORY CHANNEL a couple of years ago along with a revealing expose on Issac Newton, who was illiterate, and never went to school, but rather worked with his parents, who were also illiterate, as farm hands. This is not the History Channel transcript, but it tells the same story...
Albert Einstein
-- was he a thief, a liar and a plagiarist?
ALBERT EINSTEIN is held up as "a rare genius," who drastically changed the field of theoretical physics. However, using the technique known as 'The Often-Repeated Lie=Truth,' he has been made an idol to young people, and his very name has become synonymous with genius.
THE TRUTH, HOWEVER, IS VERY DIFFERENT. Einstein was an inept and moronic person, who could not even tie his own shoelaces; he contributed NOTHING ORIGINAL to the field of quantum mechanics, nor any other science. On the contrary -- he stole the ideas of others, and the Jew-controlled media made him a 'hero.'
When we actually examine the life of Albert Einstein, we find that his only 'brilliance' was in his ability to PLAGIARIZE and STEAL OTHER PEOPLE'S IDEAS, PASSING THEM OFF AS HIS OWN. Einstein's education, or lack thereof, is an important part of this story.
The Encyclopedia Britannica says of Einstein's early education that he "showed little scholastic ability." It also says that at the age of 15, "with poor grades in history, geography, and languages, he left school with no diploma." Einstein himself wrote in a school paper of his "lack of imagination and practical ability." In 1895, Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich.
This exam consisted mainly of mathematical problems, and Einstein showed himself to be mathematically inept in this exam. He then entered a lesser school hoping to use it as a stepping stone to the engineering school he could not get into, but after graduating in 1900, he still could not get a position at the engineering school!
Unable to go to the school as he had wanted, he got a job (with the help of a friend) at the patent office in Bern. He was to be a technical expert third class, which meant that he was not competent to hold a higher qualified position. Even after publishing his so-called ground-breaking papers of 1905 and after working in the patent office for six years, he was only elevated to a second class standing. Remember, the work he was doing at the patent office, for which he was only rated third class, was not quantum mechanics or theoretical physics, but was reviewing technical documents for patents of every day things; yet he was barely qualified.
He would work at the patent office until 1909, all the while continuously trying to get a position at a university, but without success. All of these facts are true, but now begins the myth.
Supposedly, while working a full time job, without the aid of university colleagues, a staff of graduate students, a laboratory, or any of the things normally associated with an academic setting, Einstein in his spare time wrote four ground-breaking essays in the field of theoretical physics and quantum mechanics that were published in 1905.
Many people have recognized the impossibility of such a feat, including Einstein himself, and therefore Einstein has led people to believe that many of these ideas came to him in his sleep, out of the blue, because indeed that is the only logical explanation of how an admittedly inept moron could have written such documents at the age of 26 without any real education. 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 Fitzgerald, 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 change, 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!
FURTHER . . . IN 1892, HENDRIK LORENTZ, of the Netherlands, proposed the same solution and began to greatly expand the idea. All throughout the 1890's, both Lorentz and Fitzgerald worked on these ideas and wrote articles strangely similar to Einstein's Special Theory detailing what is now known as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction.
In 1898, the Irishman Joseph Larmor wrote down equations explaining the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and its relativistic consequences, 7 years before Einstein's paper. By 1904, "Lorentz transformations," the series of equations explaining relativity, were published by Lorentz. They describe the increase of mass, the shortening of length, and the time dilation of a body moving at speeds close to the velocity of light. In short, by 1904, everything in "Einstein's paper" regarding the Special Theory of Relativity had already been published.
The Frenchman Poincaré‚ had, in 1898, written a paper unifying many of these ideas. He stated seven years before Einstein's paper: ". . . we have no direct intuition about the equality of two time intervals. The simultaneity of two events or the order of their succession, as well as the equality of two time intervals, must be defined in such a way that the statements of the natural laws be as simple as possible."
Professor Umberto Bartocci, a mathematical historian, of the University of Perugia claims that Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the equation E=mc^2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903. Einstein allegedly used De Pretto's insight in a major paper published in 1905, but De Pretto was never acclaimed.
De Pretto had stumbled on the equation, but not the theory of relativity, while speculating about ether in the life of the universe, said Prof Bartocci. It was republished in 1904 by Veneto's Royal Science Institute, but the equation's significance was not understood.
According to Professor Bartocci, a Swiss Italian named Michele Besso alerted Einstein to the research and in 1905 Einstein published his own work. It took years for his breakthrough to be grasped. When the penny finally dropped, De Pretto's contribution was overlooked while Einstein went on to become the century's most famous scientist. De Pretto died in 1921.
"De Pretto did not discover relativity but there is no doubt that he was the first to use the equation. That is hugely significant. I also believe, though it's impossible to prove, that Einstein used De Pretto's research," said Professor Bartocci, who has written a book on the subject. ( The Guardian Unlimited).
Anyone who has read Einstein's 1905 paper will immediately recognize the similarity and the lack of originality on the part of Einstein.
Thus, we see that the only thing original about the paper was the term 'Special Theory of Relativity.' EVERYTHING ELSE WAS PLAGIARIZED. Over the next few years, Poincaré‚ became one of the most important lecturers and writers regarding relativity, but he never, in any of his papers or speeches, mentioned Albert Einstein.
Thus while Poincaré‚ was busy bringing the rest of the academic world up to speed regarding relativity, Einstein was still working in the patent office in Bern and no one in the academic community thought it necessary to give much credence or mention to Einstein's work. Most of these early physicists knew that he was a fraud.
This brings us to the explanation of Brownian motion, the subject of another of Einstein's 1905 papers. Brownian motion describes the irregular motion of a body arising from the thermal energy of the molecules of the material in which the body is immersed. The movement had first been observed by the Scottish botanist Robert Brown in 1827.
The explanation of this phenomenon has to do with the Kinetic Theory of Matter, and it was the American Josiah Gibbs and the Austrian Ludwig Boltzmann who first explained this occurrence, not Albert Einstein. In fact, the mathematical equation describing the motion contains the famous Boltzmann constant, k. Between these two men, they had explained by the 1890s everything in Einstein's 1905 paper regarding Brownian motion.
The subject of the equivalence of mass and energy was contained in a third paper published by Einstein in 1905. This concept is expressed by the famous equation E=mc2. Einstein's biographers categorize this as "his most famous and most spectacular conclusion." Even though this idea is an obvious conclusion of Einstein's earlier relativity paper, it was not included in that paper but was published as an afterthought later in the year. Still, the idea of energy-mass equivalence was not original with Einstein.
That there was an equivalence between mass and energy had been shown in the laboratory in the 1890s by both J. J. Thomsom of Cambridge and by W. Kaufmann in Göttingen. In 1900, Poincaré‚ had shown that there was a mass relationship for all forms of energy, not just electromagnetic energy. Yet, the most probable source of Einstein's plagiarism was Friedrich Hasenöhrl, one of the most brilliant, yet unappreciated physicists of the era.
Hasenöhrl was the teacher of many of the German scientists who would later become famous for a variety of topics. He had worked on the idea of the equivalence of mass and energy for many years and had published a paper on the topic in 1904 in the very same journal which Einstein would publish his plagiarized version in 1905. For his brilliant work in this area, Hasenöhrl had received in 1904 a prize from the prestigious Vienna Academy of Sciences.
Furthermore, the mathematical relationship of mass and energy was a simple deduction from the already well-known equations of Scottish physicist James Maxwell. Scientists long understood that the mathematical relationship expressed by the equation E=mc2 was the logical result of Maxwell's work, they just did not believe it.
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/einstein.htm READ THE REST HERE...
You are correct that is not the History Channel transcript. It is more of the typical garbage you seem to revel in posting. Einstein the moron? Yes he was so stupid he managed to earn a PHD. The guy taught physics at University. His failure of the simple entrance exam for the school in Zurich? Absolutely correct, however he did not fail the math portion. I could go on and on punching holes in this drivel but I won't waste the bandwidth. Is it entirely possible he stole and or plagiarised SOME of the work? Certainly, but if you would stop dumping bullshit articles that completely blur the line between truth and fiction for affect you might look like less of the moron you accuse Einstein of being and then true discussion could occur.
-
You are correct that is not the History Channel transcript. It is more of the typical garbage you seem to revel in posting. Einstein the moron? Yes he was so stupid he managed to earn a PHD. The guy taught physics at University. His failure of the simple entrance exam for the school in Zurich? Absolutely correct, however he did not fail the math portion. I could go on and on punching holes in this drivel but I won't waste the bandwidth. Is it entirely possible he stole and or plagiarised SOME of the work? Certainly, but if you would stop dumping bullshit articles that completely blur the line between truth and fiction for affect you might look like less of the moron you accuse Einstein of being and then true discussion could occur.
You obviously missed the part about Encyclopedia Britannica saying this is true..
-
You obviously missed the part about Encyclopedia Britannica saying this is true..
No, I chose to ignore such an obvious piece of lousy journalism.
"The Encyclopedia Britannica says of Einstein's early education that he "showed little scholastic ability." It also says that at the age of 15, "with poor grades in history, geography, and languages, he left school with no diploma." Einstein himself wrote in a school paper of his "lack of imagination and practical ability." In 1895, Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich."
Above is the exceprt from the garbage you posted. Britannica does not subsantiate anything. You want to base your belief in this whole article on this blurb supposedly taken from the encyclopedia Britannica? Stellar research by the author. Pull a couple biographies (even ones written by non Jews) and you might learn the truth.
So let's make it simple. The article claims Einstein failed his entrance exam to University in Zurich and that the exam consisted of mainly math problems. Odd, every other biographical source says he scored outstanding in physics and Math but poorly in all the other subjects (he sat for the exam at 16 years of age by the way. (What a moron)). Can you provide any documented sources claiming otherwise?
Please just answer the question above I don't really feel like walking through a bunch of twists and turns and posturing. Hit me with a factual supported answer to that simple question or just let the thread die.
-
And of course the part about the Jew controlled media - priceless.