>
> * * *
>
> "Len" <len@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:akh6hvgsasld2ob8k2gfvko5ef13gj85l1@4ax.com...
> >> >How would you know?
>
> >> Bob, I've lurked a little on this thread with A.A.
> >> You seem like a smart guy, but you don't realize that troll is simply
> >> playing you. At a certain point it is over. You are corresponding with
> >> an idiot and it is a waste of bandwidth, but it is your time, so do as
> >> you will.
> >> Just a disinterested observer. No harm meant.
>
> >Let's see if we can get this straight, you STUPID freaking jew!
> >You're accusing aa of being a "troll", in the same breath that you insist
> >"no harm meant".
> >So the way this works is, if I call you a STUPID freaking jew", but
follow
> >with the disclaimer "no harm meant", then we're all pals, eh?
> >You STUPID freaking jew.
> >John Knight
>
> I am not Jewish, or a jew.
> If one does not agree with you, then you think of them as "stupid".
> Strange exchange of information and intelligence for learning. But
> then I guess you've no more to learn?
> The "no harm meant" was not directed at AA but rather I was breaching
> the exchange between Bob and AA with my humble apologies to Bob. Which
> is the "no harm meant" being the fact that Bob, in his exchange,
> should have his sleeved tugged to notify him that he is talking to one
> that, like you, has nothing left to learn, but in fact knows nothing
> or very little. It was one adult talking to another and had nothing to
> do with you.
> Passion can do that to a person, but then it appears the only feeling
> you have left is hatred. Outside of that you are, obviously, a hollow,
> little person.
>

Maybe something worse than being a STUPID jew is being a non-jew who
"thinks" like a jew.

> It was one adult talking to another and had nothing to
> do with you.

Then take your little jew love fest to the back room and quit posting that
nonsense to the entire usenet.

You obviously are incapable of refuting a single point aa ever made, which
is your only excuse for this poorly disguised character assassination.

You're an idiot. No harm meant.

Now, in your opinion, how many acts of plagiarism does Einstein need to
commit to make him a plagiarist, a LIAR, and a fraud?

John Knight

"Australopithecus Afarensis" <lucy@olduvaigorge.net> wrote in message
news:fvLQa.16392$zy.11599@fed1read06...
>
> "Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
> news:hfv6hvsm85jrbbq04ql1eco7daf0e50jud@4ax.com...
> > "Australopithecus Afarensis" <lucy@olduvaigorge.net> wrote:
> > >This is how history credited the people working in the electromagnetism
> > >field:
> > >
> > >** Ampere discovered the Ampere's Law.
> > >
> > >** Faraday discovered the Faraday's Law.
> > >
> > >** Gauss discovered the Gauss' Law.
> > >
> > >** Maxwell collected all these laws together and also added a term to
> the
> > >Ampere's Law. Collectively, all these laws (with Gauss' Laws having
two
> > >equations) are now called Maxwell's Equations.
> > >
> > >** Heaviside simplified Maxwell's Equations into the elegant four
> equations
> > >in vector calculus form.
> >
> > Notice that all of the above were "laws", not "theories". Learn the
> > difference.
>
> Notice "laws" and "theories" are the same.
>
> > >History has been very fair in crediting the right individuals in this
> field.
> > >Now, let's look at the case of relativity.
> > >
> > >** Michelson (a non-Zionist Jew) and Morley conducted the famous
> experiment
> > >in 1887 to get the ball rolling.
> > >
> > >** FitzGerald discovered length contraction by studying this
experiment.
> > >
> > >** Larmor discovered time dilation if FitzGerald's length contraction
is
> > >correct.
> > >
> > >** Lorentz took both FitzGerold's length contraction and Larmor's time
> > >dilation and molded into a set of equations called Lorentz Transform.
> > >
> > >** Poicare wrote an essay complimenting Lorentz's power yet very
simple
> > >equations.
> > >
> > >** Einstein took these equations (Lorentz Transform) AS IS and called
it
> > >the Special Theory of Relativity.
> >
> > No he did not, LIAR. The Special Theory of Relativity is an
> > explanation of WHY the equations work, without an ether. The
> > equations are NOT the theory.
>
> Yes, the equations for SR are exactly the same as Lorentz Transform. You
> can lie all you want. SR equations are exactly the same as Lorentz
> Tansform.
>

Even Einstein admitted they were the same, AFTER he got caught using
Lorentz's equations. So why is lobjab so interested now in making Einstein
a plagiarist, AND a LIAR?

AFTER Einstein got caught plagiarizing Lorentz's work, he even "agreed
Lorentz was right". Well, how gratuitous it was to compliment Lorentz for
getting it right, AFTER Einstein presented it has "HIS" own, getting a
doctors degree" for plagiarism, and getting the Nobel Prize that SHOULD have
been, and SHOULD still today be awarded to Lorentz.

Einstein ADMITTED he plagiarized Lorentz when he issued the jew weasel words
"he had a different interpretation", something that COULD NOT have been in
"his" paper, because he didn't even explain how "his" "interpretation" was
"different" from Lorentz, because he didn't even cite Lorentz.

SO, WHY is lojbab here, claiming that he didn't, making a LIAR out of
Einstein? Fear of the jews?

Even the jewsmedia tried desperately over several decades after 1905 to
paper over Einstein's plagiarism by calling it "The Einstein-Lorentz
Theory". IF Einstein added anything of value, why didn't they just call it
"The Einstein Theory"?!

John Knight

The bottom line here, aa, is what is called "affirmative action".

Under affirmative action, there are two different standards. White men are
held to one standard, and niggers like Einstein are held to a different,
MUCH lower, false, "standard".

NO White man in this country could have gotten his thesis approved had he
failed to cite even ONE prior source. Had it actually been PUBLISHED in a
trade journal like Anaalen der Physik, he would have been discredited, for
ALL time.

But with affirmative action, niggers like Einstein are "given a chance"--to
do ANYTHING they want.

They can be serial plagiarists, not only PUBLISH the work, but get fake
Ph.Ds. based on the work, and Nobel Prizes--IF they succeed in taking all
the credit away from those nasty, ungrateful WHITE men (who had the
laboratories, funding, research grants, universities, collaborators, who DID
cite each and every source they USED).

This mind numbing dumbing down of "America" is all the "benefit" we get out
of affirmative action--other than losing complete credibility, market share,
engineers, scientists, entire industries, to the rest of the world.

John Knight

"Australopithecus Afarensis" <lucy@olduvaigorge.net> wrote in message
news:8ULQa.16432$zy.14330@fed1read06...
> You can mock John all you want. Lorentz was the first to sum up
> FitzGerald's and Larmor's works together. Einstein's work showed exact
the
> same as Lorentz's. In his 1905 paper, he did not even link energy or mass
> into the whole pot.
>
> Lorentz is obviously not a plagiarist. Half of his work came from
> FitzGerold, and half of it came from Larmor. However, Einstein's bottom
> line equations are exactly the same as Lorentz Transform. Name two
natural
> laws or a theories that share the same exact mathematical equations
besides
> the Special Theory of Relativity and Lorentz Transform. If you want to
> support Einstein, it has to be based on philosophical means. Here is what
> Mr. Retic said in his "Einstein Haox" paper.
>
> "2.10- The author is seriously troubled by the historical accounts. The
fact
> that the knowledge and insight to resolve the dilemma represented by the
> Michelson-Morley Experiment had already been provided by truly intelligent
> men (Thompson, Lorentz, Larmor, and especially Fitzgerald), degrades Dr.
> Einstein's contribution in this area from a work of brilliance to the
rather
> trivial exercise of formulating the existing knowledge into mathematical
> terms for easier use in computational activities. [Dr. Einstein's famous
> equation, (dS)2=(dX)2+(dY)2+(dZ)2-C*(dT)2, which is accepted as the most
> succinct means of defining the effects of velocity, follows from the fact
> that the Lorentz Transformations for length and time are identical to the
> Pythagorean Theorem.] However, the politics of the scientific community
was
> not served by crediting Fitzgerald with the conceptual breakthrough since
> his approach did not suit its goals. As a result, Dr. Einstein was given
> that honor and was eventually proclaimed a deity of the new religion while
> the true contributors were relegated to footnotes in textbooks.
> 2.11- The strength of the feelings involved were brought home to the
writer
> by personal experience. In the late 1950's, assuming that Special
Relativity
> had been proven to validly represent our reality, the author began a good
> faith study of the subject for his own satisfaction. It was rather
upsetting
> to learn the information provided in the previous paragraphs. Digging
> deeper, the author borrowed a technique from mathematics to show that the
> Aether Relativity interpretation must be correct because assuming the
> non-existence of the Aether led to an absurdity. In due course, this
> material was shown to a physicist whose specialty was Special Relativity.
> The man's reaction was astonishing. He did not take the intellectually
> reasonable although undiplomatic step of telling the author that he was an
> ignorant fool, instead he went into a rage and accused the author of being
> "dangerous heretic who must be suppressed". (It is fortunate for the
author
> that this isn't the 16th century.) His violent emotional reaction was akin
> to that of the Muslim Ayatollah who allegedly condemned the author of the
> "Satanic Verses" to death. The reaction could only have come from an
> individual whose quasi-religious beliefs were threatened. They were not
the
> reactions of a man who accepted Dr. Einstein's dictum that the search for
> truth must take precedence over the teachings of established authority
> regardless of the prestige of that authority. "
> http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/hoax.htm
>
> Also, in Einstein's 1905 paper, he did not even mention Lorentz, or
Larmor,
> or FitzGerald, or Michelson. You tell me what that means. Is this
> acceptable as a PhD thesis that builds on some one else's work?
>
> And this historical instance is not the only case. All of Einstein's
works
> can be shown not to have a clean origin. He thanked Hilbert for given
> Einstein a copy of Hilbert's General Relativity which Hilbert had been
> working on. Yet, after Einstein presented his lecture in Berlin, he
started
> to discredit Hilbert.
>
> We have not even go to Bose-Einstein Condensation yet. The evidence is so
> obvious that Einstein did achieve his status through dishonest means.
>
> * * *
>
> "Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
> news:bevam4$ia6$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
> In article <TjFQa.15693$zy.2754@fed1read06> "Australopithecus Afarensis"
> <lucy@olduvaigorge.net> writes:
> <
> <This is how history credited the people working in the electromagnetism
> <field:
> <
> <** Ampere discovered the Ampere's Law.
> <
> <** Faraday discovered the Faraday's Law.
> <
> <** Gauss discovered the Gauss' Law.
> <
> <** Maxwell collected all these laws together and also added a term to
the
> <Ampere's Law. Collectively, all these laws (with Gauss' Laws having two
> <equations) are now called Maxwell's Equations.
> <
> <** Heaviside simplified Maxwell's Equations into the elegant four
> equations
> <in vector calculus form.
> <
> <History has been very fair in crediting the right individuals in this
> field.
> <Now, let's look at the case of relativity.
> <
> <** Michelson (a non-Zionist Jew) and Morley conducted the famous
> experiment
> <in 1887 to get the ball rolling.
> <
> <** FitzGerald discovered length contraction by studying this experiment.
> <
> <** Larmor discovered time dilation if FitzGerald's length contraction is
> <correct.
> <
> <** Lorentz took both FitzGerold's length contraction and Larmor's time
> <dilation and molded into a set of equations called Lorentz Transform.
> <
> <** Poicare wrote an essay complimenting Lorentz's power yet very simple
> <equations.
> <
> <** Einstein took these equations (Lorentz Transform) AS IS and called it
> <the Special Theory of Relativity.
> <
> <It looks like to me that Einstein took all the credits of Michelson,
> <FitzGerold, Larmor, and Lorentz.
> <
>
> Einstein set up a handful simple postulates, then showed how all of the
> above fell naturally out of these postulates, as elegantly and
> compellingly as those plane geometry derivations you went
> through in high school. Not only is this different from Lorentz
> et. al. pointing out that the concept of the aether could be saved
> if objects were compressed by just the right amount by the "pressure"
> of their passage, a number of other results fell out as well. Einstein
> did not simply call the Lorentz(-Fitzgerald) the Special Theory of
> Relativity, his paper contained results with implications for
> length, time, simultaneity, mass, and energy.
>
> <If Einstein can do it, you can do it, too. By explaining Maxwell's
> <Equations in a little bit more differently, you can walk away with the
> <credit of Kittrell's Equations. Ampere, Faraday, Gauss, Maxwell, and
> <Heaviside would disappear into oblivion in the fure textbooks.
> <
>
> Only if I could a) show how all of the above arose naturally from
> an even simpler set of assumptions than Big Al employed, or
> b) show how all of his results and MORE could be derived by some
> other approach.
>
>
> But all this aside, the purpose of my post which you were replying
> to was purely to mock John's resolute intention to willfully
> confuse the fact that Einstein was not the first -- or second,
> or third -- to write down sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), with theft. Everyone
> who knows the slightest physics knows of what are now called the
> Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms, knows that they appeared before
> Einstein, knows that Einstein did not claim precedence, knows
> that he was the first to show how all of the above results could be
> systematically derived.
>
> And my approach, of course, was to wonder how John could call Einstein
> a plagiarist, but not by the same token call Lorentz a plagiarist
> for "stealing" Larmor's work, and Larmor a plagiarist for "stealing"
> Fitzgerald's prior work.
>
>
> -- cary
>
>
>

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:34:05 -0500, John Knight wrote
(in message <Pa0Ra.10881$u51.8559@fed1read05>):

> How many acts of plagiarism by this moron do YOU believe he's guilty of?
>
> John Knight

"John Knight" <johnknight@usa.com> wrote:
>> Yes, the equations for SR are exactly the same as Lorentz Transform. You
>> can lie all you want. SR equations are exactly the same as Lorentz
>> Tansform.
>
>Even Einstein admitted they were the same, AFTER he got caught using
>Lorentz's equations.

Evidence?

>AFTER Einstein got caught plagiarizing Lorentz's work, he even "agreed
>Lorentz was right".

Evidence?

>Einstein ADMITTED he plagiarized Lorentz when he issued the jew weasel words
>"he had a different interpretation",

False.

lojbab

"John Knight" <johnknight@usa.com> wrote:
>How many acts of plagiarism by this moron do YOU believe he's guilty of?
>
>John Knight

The person named above has committed MANY acts of plagiarism.

The person named Albert Einstein committed ZERO acts of plagiarism.

lojbab

"Australopithecus Afarensis" ...

> "Bob LeChevalier" ...

> > "John Knight" <johnknight@usa.com> wrote:

> >If you're too clueless to contribute anything positive
> >[or negative]

Hey johnnie me boyo you forgot to mention neutral.

> >to the discussion, why open your mouth

No one is opening his/her mouth - he/she is typing, of course
if one's lips move while reading {as johnnie me boyo's
obviously do} then one may write that someone is OPENING
his mouth.

> >like this and demonstrate your ignorance?

Like. like how now is this ? Do you mean like you ? Does
your finger glide across your CRT when you read posts ?

> > Look in the mirror and say that.

Profound, like way tooooooooo profiund.

> Yes, Bob, did you?

Hey folks check this out a parroting rock, unbelieveable, eh ?

JHall.