How'd The Jews End Up On Hitler's Radar?

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: How'd The Jews End Up On Hitler's Radar?

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Dec 19, 2019 6:03 pm

There is overhead to money lending on a large scale.

You’re really asking banks to be 501c3’s

Not for profit organizations. They should be.

But let’s not pretend that usury is evil here.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11025
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: How'd The Jews End Up On Hitler's Radar?

Postby Aegean » Thu Dec 19, 2019 6:03 pm

phyllo wrote:There are going to be disputes about what constitutes a "reasonable interest rate". That's certain.

I don't see a Jewish banker as being necessarily evil or exploitative.
I never use the word "evil"...only opportunistic; indifferent to the plight of the other because there is no kinship.
They do not relate to the people they exploit.

Have you heard of Singer, the multi-billionaire and how he makes his wealth?
Tucker Carlson had a report on him recently.
See what callous exploitation is. Would he do this to an Israeli town? Never.
Aegean
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: How'd The Jews End Up On Hitler's Radar?

Postby iambiguous » Thu Dec 19, 2019 7:48 pm

Aegean wrote:I never use the word "evil"...only opportunistic; indifferent to the plight of the other because there is no kinship.
They do not relate to the people they exploit.


Let's cut to the chase...

Suppose you were able to acquire the political power necessary to actually act on your views regarding the Jews.

What laws would you enact/enforce so as to prescribe or proscribe particular behaviors of particular Jews in particular contexts. Banking or otherwise.

If you controlled the government in an actual nation what might be the fate of Jews there?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38461
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: How'd The Jews End Up On Hitler's Radar?

Postby Aegean » Thu Dec 19, 2019 7:54 pm

Every ethnos must have their own territory, and not pretend to belong to what it is alien to and cares nothing about.
I would not go to India and demand that they change their policies concerning Muslims, ro demand that they accept more Muslim immigrants.
Aegean
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: How'd The Jews End Up On Hitler's Radar?

Postby iambiguous » Thu Dec 19, 2019 8:27 pm

Aegean wrote:Every ethnos must have their own territory, and not pretend to belong to what it is alien to and cares nothing about.
I would not go to India and demand that they change their policies concerning Muslims, ro demand that they accept more Muslim immigrants.


Note to others:

See how it works with objectivists of his ilk? You ask them to be more specific. You want them to reconfigure their intellectual contraptions, their political ideals qua prejudices into a set of actual social, political and economic policies that they would enact if they acquired the political power to accomplish this.

In regard to the Jews. And in regard to blacks, women, homosexuals and right on down the line with respect to all of the other conflicting goods that have rent our species going back now for thousands of years.

Instead you get an "assessment" like the one above. :shock:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38461
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: How'd The Jews End Up On Hitler's Radar?

Postby iambiguous » Thu Dec 19, 2019 9:26 pm

WendyDarling wrote:...how'd the Jews end up on Hitler's radar?


I noted my own thoughts about this above. But, just out of curiosity, allow me to pose to you the same thing I posed to Aegean:

Let's cut to the chase...

Suppose you were able to acquire the political power necessary to actually act on your views regarding the Jews.

What laws would you enact/enforce so as to prescribe or proscribe particular behaviors of particular Jews in particular contexts. Banking or otherwise.

If you controlled the government in an actual nation what might be the fate of Jews there?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38461
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: How'd The Jews End Up On Hitler's Radar?

Postby Kriswest » Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:18 am

WendyDarling wrote:Anyone can answer, but I'd really like to know what liberals and progressives think the reason was for Hitler to pursue the Jews across Europe especially when there were so few in Germany before WWII began?

Back when I was in school we were taught that Hitler’s mother was Jewish which according to that religion it would make him Jewish. Well a theory was brought up was one of abuse then full resentment .
The second was that the attack on the Jewish was used to keep the little dictator happy while the main goal of the men closest to him was to control as much of the world as possible. They used him as a figurehead/target and hid behind him while trying to amass fortune and properties for themselves and country. This is the short version of that theory.
I will be bitchy, cranky, sweet, happy, kind, pain in the ass all at random times from now on. I am embracing my mentalpause until further notice. Viva lack of total control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not a test,,, this is my life right now. Have a good day and please buckle up for safety reasons,, All those in high chairs, go in the back of the room.
User avatar
Kriswest
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20554
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: stuck in permanent maternal mode.

Re: How'd The Jews End Up On Hitler's Radar?

Postby Aegean » Fri Dec 20, 2019 12:36 pm

An inability to infer may be a sign of autism.

Back on-topic.
One has to go back to the state of Germany after the first world war. A state of decadence, and impoverishment.
The fertile ground for parasites to flourish.
Resentment about the German defeat and what was imposed upon them was the weakness to exploit German pride.
When an organism is suffering, a fly can be a source of annoyance and a focus of its stress.
An economic war had already been declared on the Germans.
Aegean
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: How'd The Jews End Up On Hitler's Radar?

Postby phyllo » Fri Dec 20, 2019 1:50 pm

Jews were accused of undermining the war effort, which lead to defeat and a humiliating peace treaty.

That conveniently shifted responsibility away from the German military.
The stab-in-the-back myth (German: Dolchstoßlegende, pronounced [ˈdɔlçʃtoːsleˌɡɛndə] (About this soundlisten), literally "dagger stab myth")[a] was the notion, widely believed and promulgated in right-wing circles in Germany after 1918, that the German Army did not lose World War I on the battlefield but was instead betrayed by the civilians on the home front, especially the republicans who overthrew the Hohenzollern monarchy in the German Revolution of 1918–19. Advocates denounced the German government leaders who signed the Armistice on November 11, 1918, as the "November Criminals" (German: November­verbrecher).

When the Nazi Party came to power in 1933, they made the legend an integral part of their official history of the 1920s, portraying the Weimar Republic as the work of the "November criminals" who stabbed the nation in the back to seize power while betraying it. The Nazi propaganda depicted Weimar as "a morass of corruption, degeneracy, national humiliation, ruthless persecution of the honest 'national opposition'—fourteen years of rule by Jews, Marxists, and 'cultural Bolsheviks', who had at last been swept away by the National Socialist movement under Adolf Hitler and the victory of the 'national revolution' of 1933".[1]

Historians inside and outside Germany unanimously reject the notion, pointing out the German army was out of reserves, was being overwhelmed by the entrance of the United States into the war, and by late 1918 had lost the war militarily.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12112
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: How'd The Jews End Up On Hitler's Radar?

Postby Aegean » Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:29 pm

Something...ahem...relative

Einstein and Emperor’s new cloths
Einstein was the smartest person in the world. I am so impressed that I try to read everything about Einstein.. The more I’ve read, the more I have questions.
How come he gets so much fame? How come he gets all the name and credit even though some other scientists should get more then him?
(Question 1) How come when people discover something, they always like to make a connection with Einstein and give their credit to Einstein?
(question2) How come Einstein say “yes” then say “no”. Either way, “yes” people or “no” people both believe Einstein is right and both give credit to
Einstein?
(question 3)How come when people discover something, which even does not mention Einstein‘s name nor relativity, people still make a connection with
relativity and give credit to Einstein? Even Einstein himself would be surprised.
(question 4)I raised some equations to be open discussion to clear my thoughts.
1. From what I read, Lorentz transformation is the first instance to assume the speed of light is constant. And measure of time and distance very systematically as anything moves relative to anything else. These concepts were created by Lorentz, not Einstein. Einstein may use the common language to interpret these concepts and call it another name “special relativity”. Everything derived from special relativity are based on Lorentz transformations. So the packaging may belong to
Einstein, but the content belongs to Lorentz. When you hear famous “where is the beaf”. We should know that content is more important than packaging. In my opinion, Lorentz should be called the father of special relativity not Einstein. How come Einstein gets all the credit, but Lorentz gets nothing? 98% percent of people in the world do not know who is the guy called “Lorentz”, but 100% of people know Einstein. It is not fair. Besides, for the 1912 Nobel prize in physics, Lorentz is the major winner and Einstein took place in second.
I don‘t think many people know that, too. In 1912, when Lorentz was selected to win the 1912 Nobel Prize, Wien, the winner of 1911 who recommended Einstein says While Lorentz must be considered as the first to have found the mathematical content of the relativity principle. Einstein succeeded in reducing it to a simple principal. One should therefore assess the merit of both investigators as being comparable...
2. At first, Einstein said the Universe is static with cosmological constant. He cannot prove it only mention it. In 1930, when Hubble prove that the galaxies actually moving away from the earth, Einstein changed his mind and believed Universe is expanding and the Big Bang theory was started. I do not know what happened, one of only 12 people in the world who knew general relativity, he said that Big Bang is derive from equations of general relativity and conclude that Universe
can be expand or contract (He may be Alexander Freemann -- information from NOVA on line). Even Einstein himself had a big surprise that his general relativity had that kind of conclusion. I don‘t think Fred Hoyle or Steve Hawkins mentioned anything about general relativity, but Einstein still get whole credit.
In recent years, some people believe that Universe is static there is a cosmological constant. . So people say, “you see” Einstein was right from the beginning. They still give the credit to Einstein. I don‘t know if those people who give credit to Einstein realize that if the Universe is static, the conclusion of general relativity by Alexander Freemann is wrong. So general relativity may be wrong. Nobody mentions it they just ignore it. So general relativity is still the greatest theory in the world.
Alexander Freemann derived his conclusion from equations of GR that the Universe can expand or contract are very ambiguous. Because if somebody concluded from a set mathematical equations, the conclusion must be either expand or contract not both. Otherwise there is a parameter to determine expansion or contraction. Can not be both without any constrain.
Equations of general relativity are the key point of this conclusion.
So I found the equations in web site. The equations of GR are in Ricci tensor form. This tensor form is based on elliptic geometry. Einsteinassumes Universe was elliptic geometry only because when he found a serious error in his reserch, he remembered that he had studied Gaussian theory in school, which is a theory of Riemannian geometry (Elliptic geometry). So he consulted his friend Grossman who was able to tell Einstein about important developments of Riemann, Ricci and
Levi-Civita. In 1913 Einstein and Grossman joint published the equations of GR in metric tensor form, but still the theory was not right. In fact every year he corrected and submitted a new version of equations of GR. Even Einstein himself says, “That follow Einstein
suits his convenience. Every year he retracts what he wrote the year before.”
November 1915, Einstein and Hilbert worked together to get the so called final form of “gravitational field equations”. It was so complicated that nobody understands to be able to challenge if the equations are right or wrong. So that is the so-called final version of the equations stick. In my opinion, nobody challenging the correction of the equations does not mean it is right. Einstein had changed it so many times, how could he guarantee that it is really the correct version. If person really understands what he doing, he should not make corrections so many times.
Besides, there are two kinds of Non-Euclidean geometry, Hyperbolic and Elliptic.
In Elliptic space, every light ray is a geodesic line. Light rays will be circling the geodesic line forever unless blocked by some object. We can see the same light ray of star many times over, because the light ray circles in the space forever. Also, we can see the same star from opposite directions many times too. The Universe was at least many billions old. All the lights of the sun and stars had collected so many billions of years. The Universe should be so bright even at nighttime.
Of course that is not the case. So the possibility of the Universe is ether Euclidean or Hyperbolic Universe, if the Universe is not an Elliptic space. We don’t care if Einstein’s equations are right or wrong, it simply not suitable to applied. All the GR go out of the door. Hundreds of years before Einstein, many people believed the Universe is Non-Euclidean space. Non-Euclidean space means there is a space constant. Space constant means cosmological constant. They are same
things with difference names. When cosmological constant was proved (or believed to be proved), how come the credit went to Einstein but not the many people who believed the Universe is Non-Euclidean before Einstein.
Einstein covers both “yes” and “no”. He definitely gets credit either way. It is not fair.
Both “yes” and “no” are contradiction each other. How could they both developed from the same general relativity? Is it possible people just try to use Einstein‘s name to prove they are right?
I tried to find out what general relativity is. I found a very good article written by Alan Lightman. In the article, he says “Einstein publish in 1915, general relativity proposed that gravity, as well as motion, can affect the intervals of time and of space. The key ideal of general relativity, called the equivalence of principle, is that gravity pulling in one direction is completely equivalence to an acceleration in the opposite direction.” There is no equations, no transformations, no result but only a statement. How could this one statement conclude the Universe is static and also conclude the Universe is expanding even though they both contradict each other.
3. One of the most famous predictions of general relativity is bending of starlight by gravity in 1917 and proved in 1922 (Einstein still believed in the cosmological constant). When light was proved to be bending, people say general relativity is right. I don‘t see much connection with general relativity. If light is a particle with mass, and the sun has a massive mass. Obviously, light will be attracted by the sun‘s gravity. Even Newton’s theory says so. How come this light bending is so great only because Einstein says so?
Besides, Einstein predicts the bending angle is 1.74 degree. But the actual measurement is off by a factor of 2. So Einstein said the one half is banded by Newton‘s gravity. And other half is caused by general relativity’s space curvature. There are two reasons this 1.74 degree angle has problems.
(A). In 1922, when light bending was proved, Einstein still believed in the cosmological constant. So, he uses space curvature to explain the other half of light bending. After 1930, Einstein dropped the concept of cosmological constant, so to use space curvature to explained the other half of light bending after 1930 is not consistent.
Before 1922, Einstein uses some theory to explain the other half of light bending. After he dropped that theory in 1930, keeping the same explanation is wrong, because the base of that theory does not exist any more.
(B). From Einstein‘s general relativity, the closer to the sun, the curvature bends more. That means every point has different curvature. That means there are infinite different space curvatures in one space. There is no such space. One space can only have one space curvature. Besides, in uniform Non-Euclidean space, curvature does not bend any direction. They don‘t bend toward the sun or away from the sun. Straight line in Non-Euclidean space, observed by Euclidean space, looks like a bending curve. They simply do not bend. That means there is no such thing as space curvature cause the straight line bends 1.74 degree to any direction. If they really bend to any special direction, they cannot be called space curvature.
I think Einstein did it again. He simply bent the facts to suits his convenience.
4. When Dewey B. Larson wrote an article to prove Einstein was wrong, and Mr. Robert E. McElwaine post in remarq.com called “Lasonian Relativity, Einstein was wring!” to be discussed, people don’t even bother to read the article. People say “You do not try to ridicule me with silly joke”, “ on Nards! Lutefisk! Durian fruit!“ I don’t know about you, but only scientific source I believed are the ones which have a lot of the nouns in capital letters” “ Perhaps god is a cow guiding us with gamma rays”. When people proved Einstein was right, we don’t see any detail or equations, but the whole world believes it.
When people proved Einstein is wrong, they write down so much detail that people don‘t even want to look at it. I wonder if Einstein is god?
Equations of general relativity in tensor form are so complicated that nobody understands. I don‘t think even Einstein understood his own equations. If he really understood, he wouldn’t need other scientist‘s help to correct them so many times. If he really understood, he wouldn’t need to be surprised when Alexander Freemann used his equations of general relativity to prove the universe can be expand or contract. Instead of believing in cosmological constant and embarrassing himself, he should have proved it by his own.(He says “that is my blunder time in my life”) Don‘t you think if anyone really understood something, they should be able to easily derived the conclusion. In recent years, some people may have proved the Big Bang theory is wrong. If the Big Bang theory is really wrong, then Alexander Freemann is wrong and general relativity is wrong.
Since Einstein published his theory of relativity, almost one century has passed. From my understanding, less than 12 people in the world really understand general relativity. It also difficult to identify those 12 people. I don‘t know they really exist or not. Even one of the famous scientist (I don’t remember his name) being identified as the third people in the world who understands general relativity, he simply deny it and say, “I am still looking for the third person”.
People like Relativity because they can exercise their unlimited and spectacular imaginations. All they need to say is relativity, curve time space, four dimensions, near light speed or Einstein’s gravity.
After Einstein publish his final version of equations of general relativity. He did not do too much work on relativity. Most creation of fantasy world are the result of public imagination, more like science fictions. So many kind of versions just like Allice’s wonder land.
And just recenly, NEC research group public there experiment of breaking the speed of light. That put special relativity in questions too.
Even after almost one century, still only less than 12 people really understand general relativity. There must be something wrong. It makes me think about the similarity to the Emperor‘s new clothes. Maybe I am stupid. But the Emperor’s new cloths were first seen-through by a stupid kid. Smart people do not dare to say so.
If the special relativity is right. Lorentz is the father of special relativity, and general relativity like Emperor‘s new cloths. L don’t know how much left for Einstein.
Is Einstein fake?
In this hundred years, Einstein creates the science of Alice’s wonderland. It wastes so much time and talent let scientist live in fantasy world. Every thing again relativity will be repelled even they are right. What had been happen like this is the most tradigy in the scientific world.

Einstein Hoax
Last edited by Aegean on Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Aegean
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: How'd The Jews End Up On Hitler's Radar?

Postby Aegean » Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:32 pm

Albert Einstein Genius or 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 & 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 Jxxxx-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 too incompetent for 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.
HOWEVER, THE TRUTH IS: HE STOLE THE IDEAS AND PLAGIARIZED THE PAPERS.
Therefore, we will look at each of these ideas and discover the source of each. It should be remembered that these ideas are presented by Einstein's worshipers as totally new and completely different, each of which
would change the landscape of science. These four papers dealt with the following four ideas, respectively:
1) The foundation of the photon theory of light;
2) The equivalence of energy and mass;
3) The explanation of Brownian motion in liquids;
4) The special theory of relativity.
Let us first look at the last of these theories, the theory of relativity. This is perhaps the most famous idea falsely attributed to Einstein. Specifically, this 1905 paper dealt with what Einstein called the Special Theory
of Relativity (the General Theory would come in 1915). This theory contradicted the traditional Newtonian mechanics and was based upon two premises:
1) in the absence of acceleration, the laws of nature are the same for all observers; and
2) since the speed of light is independent of the motion of its source, then the time interval between two events is longer for an observer in whose frame of reference the events occur at different places than for an
observer in whose frame of reference the events occur in the same place. This is basically the idea that time passes more slowly as one's velocity approaches the speed of light, relative to slower velocities where time
would pass faster. This theory has been validated by modern experiments and is the basis for modern physics. But these two premises are far from being originally Einstein's. FIRST OF ALL, THE IDEA THAT THE
SPEED OF LIGHT WAS A CONSTANT AND WAS INDEPENDENT OF THE MOTION OF ITS SOURCE WAS NOT EINSTEIN'S AT ALL, BUT WAS PROPOSED BY THE SCOTTISH SCIENTIST JAMES MAXWELL in 1878.
Maxwell studied the phenomenon of light extensively and first proposed that it was electromagnetic in nature.
James Maxwell wrote an article to this effect for the 1878 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. His ideas prompted much debate, and by 1887, as a result of his work and the ensuing debate, the scientific
community, particularly Lorentz, Michelson, and Morley reached the conclusion that the velocity of light was independent of the velocity of the observer.
Thus, this piece of the Special Theory of Relativity was known 27 years before Einstein wrote his paper.
This debate over the nature of light also led Michelson and Morley to conduct an important experiment, the results of which could not be explained by Newtonian mechanics. They observed a phenomenon caused by relativity but they did not understand relativity. They had attempted to detect the motion of the earth through ether, which was a medium thought to be necessary for the propagation of light.
In response to this problem, in 1880, the irish physicist george fitz gerald, who had also first proposed a mechanism for producing radio waves, wrote a paper which stated that the results of the michelson-morley
experiment could be explained if, "...the length of material bodies changes, according as they are moving through the either or across it by an amount depending on the square of the ratio of their velocities to that of
light."
THIS IS THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY, 13 YEARS BEFORE EINSTEIN'S PAPER! 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-Fitz Gerald 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." 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, Hasenörhl 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.
THUS, THE EXPERIMENTS OF THOMSON, KAUFMANN, AND FINALLY, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, HASENÖRHL, CONFIRMED MAXWELL'S WORK. IT IS LUDICROUS TO BELIEVE THAT EINSTEIN DEVELOPED THIS POSTULATE, particularly in light of the fact that
Einstein did not have the laboratory necessary to conduct the appropriate experiments. In this same plagiarized article of Einstein's, he suggested to the scientific community, "Perhaps it will prove possible to test this theory using bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts of radium)." This remark demonstrates how little Einstein understood about science, for this was truly an outlandish remark. By saying this, Einstein showed that he really did not understand basic scientific principles and that he was writing about a topic that he did not understand. In fact, in response to this article, J. Precht remarked that such an experiment "lies beyond the realm of possible experience." The last subject dealt with in Einstein's 1905 papers was the foundation of the photon theory of light. Einstein wrote about the photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect
is the release of electrons from certain metals or semiconductors by the action of light. This area of research is particularly important to the Einstein myth because it was for this topic that he UNJUSTLY received his 1922 Nobel Prize.
But AGAIN IT IS NOT EINSTEIN, BUT WILHELM WIEN AND MAX PLANCK WHO DESERVE THE CREDIT. The main point of Einstein's paper, and the point for which he is given credit, is that light is emitted and absorbed in finite packets called quanta. This was the explanation for the photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect had been explained by Heinrich Hertz in 1888. Hertz and others, including Philipp Lenard, worked on understanding this phenomenon.
Lenard was the first to show that the energy of the electrons released in the photoelectric effect was not governed by the intensity of the light but by the frequency of the light. This was an important breakthrough.
Wien and Planck were colleagues and they were the fathers of modern day quantum theory. By 1900, Max Planck, based upon his and Wien's work, had shown that radiated energy was absorbed and emitted in finite units called quanta. The only difference in his work of 1900 and Einstein's work of 1905 was that Einstein limited himself to talking about one particular type of energy light energy. But the principles and equation
governing the process in general had been deduced by Planck in 1900. Einstein himself admitted that the obvious conclusion of Planck's work was that light also existed in discrete packets of energy. Thus, nothing in
this paper of Einstein's was original.
After the 1905 papers of Einstein were published, the scientific community took little notice and Einstein continued his job at the patent office until 1909 when it was arranged by World Jewry for him to take a position
at a school . Still, it was not until a 1919 A Jewish newspaper headline that he gained any notoriety. With Einstein's academic appointment in 1909, he was placed in a position where he could begin to use other people's
work as his own more openly.
He engaged many of his students to look for ways to prove the theories he had supposedly developed, or ways to apply those theories, and then he could present the research as his own or at least take partial credit. In this
vein, in 1912, he began to try and express his gravitational research in terms of a new, recently developed calculus, which was conducive to understanding relativity. This was the beginning of his General Theory of
Relativity, which he would publish in 1915.
BUT THE MATHEMATICAL WORK WAS NOT DONE BY EINSTEIN - HE WAS INCAPABLE OF IT. Instead, it was performed by the mathematician Marcel Grossmann, who in turn used the mathematical principles developed by Berhard Riemann, who was the first to develop a sound non-Euclidean geometry,
which is the basis of all mathematics used to describe relativity.
The General Theory of Relativity applied the principles of relativity to the universe; that is, to the gravitational pull of planets and their orbits, and the general principle that light rays bend as they pass by a massive object.
Einstein published an initial paper in 1913 based upon the work which Grossmann did, adapting the math of Riemann to Relativity. But this paper was filled with errors and the conclusions were incorrect.
It appears that Grossmann was not smart enough to figure it out for Einstein. So Einstein was forced to look elsewhere to plagiarize his General Theory. Einstein published his correct General Theory of Relativity in 1915, and said prior to its publication that he, "completely succeeded in convincing Hilbert and Klein." He is referring to David Hilbert, perhaps the most brilliantmathematician of the 20th century, and Felix Klein, another mathematician who had been instrumental in the development of the area of calculus that Grossmann had used to develop the General Theory of Relativity for Einstein.
Einstein's statement regarding the two men would lead the reader to believe that Einstein had changed Hilbert's
and Klein's opinions regarding General Relativity, and that he had influenced them in their thinking.
However, the exact opposite is true. EINSTEIN STOLE THE MAJORITY OF HIS GENERAL RELATIVITY WORK FROM THESE TWO MEN, THE REST BEING TAKEN FROM GROSSMANN. HILBERT SUBMITTED FOR PUBLICATION, A WEEK BEFORE EINSTEIN COMPLETED HIS WORK, A PAPER WHICH CONTAINED THE CORRECT FIELD EQUATIONS, OF GENERAL RELATIVITY.
What this means is that Hilbert wrote basically the exact same paper, with the same conclusions, before Einstein did. Einstein would have had an opportunity to know of Hilbert's work all along, because there were friends of his working for Hilbert. Yet, even this was not necessary, for Einstein had seen Hilbert's paper in advance of publishing his own. Both of these papers were, before being printed, delivered in the form of a
lecture.
Einstein presented his paper on November 25, 1915 in Berlin and Hilbert had presented his paper on November 20 in Göttingen. On November 18, Hilbert received a letter from Einstein thanking him for sending him a draft of the treatise Hilbert was to deliver on the 20th. So, in fact, Hilbert had sent a copy of his work at least two weeks in advance to Einstein before either of the two men delivered their lectures, but Einstein did not send Hilbert an advance copy of his.
Therefore, THIS SERVES AS INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF THAT EINSTEIN QUICKLY PLAGIARIZED THE WORK AND THEN PRESENTED IT, HOPING TO BEAT HILBERT TO THE PUNCH. Also, at the same time, Einstein publicly began to belittle Hilbert, even though in the previous summer he had praised him in an effort to get Hilbert to share his work with him. Hilbert made the mistake of sending Einstein this draft copy, but still he delivered his work first. Not only did Hilbert publish his work first,
but it was of much higher quality than Einstein's. It is known today that there are many problems with assumptions made in Einstein's General Theory paper. We know today that Hilbert was much closer to the truth.
Hilbert's paper is the forerunner of the unified field theory of gravitation and electromagnetism and of the work of Erwin Schrödinger, whose work is the basis of all modern day quantum mechanics. That the group of men discussed so far were the actual originators of the ideas claimed by Einstein was known by the scientific community all along. In 1940, a group of German physicists meeting in Austria declared that "before Einstein, Aryan scientists like Lorentz, Hasenöhrl, Poincaré, etc., had created the foundations of the theory of relativity."
However, the Jewish media did not promote the work of these men. The Jewish media did not promote the work of David Hilbert, but instead they promoted the work of the Jew Albert Einstein.
As we mentioned earlier, this General Theory, as postulated by Hilbert first and in plagiarized form by Einstein second, stated that light rays should bend when they pass by a massive object. In 1919, during the eclipse of the Sun, light from distant stars passing close to the Sun was observed to bend according to the theory. This evidence supported the General Theory of Relativity, and the Jxxxx-controlled media immediately seized upon the opportunity to prop up Einstein as a hero, at the expense of the true genius, David Hilbert. On November 7th, 1919, the London Times ran an article, the headline of which proclaimed, "Revolution in
science - New theory of the Universe - Newtonian ideas overthrown." This was the beginning of the force-feeding of the Einstein myth to the masses. In the following years, Einstein's earlier 1905 papers were propagandized and Einstein was heralded as the originator of all the ideas he had stolen. Because of this push by the Jewish media, in 1922, EINSTEIN RECEIVED THE NOBEL PRIZE FOR THE WORK HE HAD STOLEN IN 1905 REGARDING THE PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT.
The establishment of the Einstein farce between 1919 and 1922 was an important coup for world Zionism and Jewry. As soon as Einstein had been established as an idol to the popular masses of England and America, his
image was promoted as the rare genius that he is erroneously believed to be today.
As such, he immediately began his work as a tool for World Zionism. The masses bought into the idea that if someone was so brilliant as to change our fundamental understanding of the universe, then certainly we ought to
listen to his opinions regarding political and social issues.
This is exactly what World Jewry wanted to establish in its ongoing effort of social engineering. They certainly did not want someone like David Hilbert to be recognized as rare genius. After all, this physicist had come from a strong German, Christian background. His grandfather's two middle names were 'Fürchtegott Leberecht' or 'Fear God, Live Right.' In August of 1934, the day before a vote was to be taken regarding installing Adolf Hitler as President of the Reich, Hilbert signed a proclamation in support of Adolf Hitler, along with other leading German scientists, that was published in the German newspapers. So the Jews certainly did not want David Hilbert receiving the credit he deserved. The Jews did not want Max Planck receiving the credit he deserved either. This German's grandfather and great-grandfather had been important German theologians, and during World War II he would stay in Germany throughout the war, supporting his fatherland the best he could. The Jews certainly did not want the up-and-coming Erwin Schrödinger to be heralded as a genius to the masses. This Austrian physicist would go on to teach at Adolf Hitler University in Austria, and he wrote a public letter expressing his support for the Third Reich. This Austrian's work on the unified field theory was a forerunner of modern physics, even though it had been criticized by Einstein, who apparently could not understand it.
The Jews did not want to have Werner Heisenberg promoted as a rare genius, even though he would go on to solidify quantum theory and contribute to it greatly, as well as develop his famous uncertainty principle, in addition to describing the modern atom and nucleus and the binding energies that are essential to modern chemistry.
NO, THE JEWS DID NOT WANT HEISENBERG PROMOTED AS A GENIUS BECAUSE HE WOULD GO ON TO HEAD THE GERMAN ATOMIC BOMB PROJECT AND SERVE PRISON TIME AFTER THE WAR FOR HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE THIRD REICH. No, the Jews did not want to give credit to any of a number of Germans, Austrians, Irishmen, Frenchmen, Scotsmen, Englishmen, and even Americans who had contributed to the body of knowledge and evidence from which Einstein plagiarized and stole his work. Instead, they needed to erect Einstein as their golden calf, even though he repeatedly and often embarrassed himself with his nonfactual or nearsighted comments regarding the work he had supposedly done. For example, in 1934, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ran a front page article in which Einstein gave an "emphatic denial" regarding the idea of practical applications for the "energy of the atom." The article says, "But the 'energy of the atom' is something else again. If you believe that man will someday be able to harness this boundless energyto drive a great steamship across the ocean on a pint of water, for instancethen, according to Einstein, you are wrong"
Again, Einstein clearly did not understand the branch of physics he had supposedly founded, though elsewhere in the world at the time theoretical research was underway that would lead to the atomic bomb and nuclear energy. But after Einstein was promoted as a god in 1919, he made no real attempts to plagiarize any other work. Rather, he began his real purpose evangelizing for the cause of Zionism and World Jewry. Though he did publish other articles after this time, all of them were co-authored by at least one other person, and in each instance, Einstein had little if anything to do with the research that led to the articles; he was merely recruited by the co-authors in order to lend credence to their work. Thus freed of the pretense of academia, Einstein began his assault for World Zionism.

Einstein Hoax
Aegean
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: How'd The Jews End Up On Hitler's Radar?

Postby phyllo » Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:53 pm

Who wrote that?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12112
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: How'd The Jews End Up On Hitler's Radar?

Postby Aegean » Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:19 pm

He prefers to remain anonymous. The book is called 'Einstein's Hoax'.
Aegean
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: How'd The Jews End Up On Hitler's Radar?

Postby phyllo » Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:30 pm

So let me get this straight ... Einstein is inept and moronic and he is also able to pull off an elaborate hoax?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12112
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: How'd The Jews End Up On Hitler's Radar?

Postby Aegean » Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:34 pm

Did he pull it off?
I think the writer, a bit expressive, explains it.

There are many parts. That's only a segment.
The ad hom aside, he explains from where this theory comes from, but nobody says so.

He also goes into his first wife's contributions. Some Serbian woman who collaborated, doing the mathematics, but then was forgotten.
And what happened to his children?
Such genetics must have produced something magnificent, no?
Aegean
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: How'd The Jews End Up On Hitler's Radar?

Postby phyllo » Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:55 pm

Women didn't/don't get a lot of credit in science.

Lots of people were working on the same and similar problems in physics. There was sharing of information. Nobody was working in isolation. Maybe he got a disproportionate amount of credit.

At a certain point he became the "Face of Physics" and stopped doing important work. It's the same with war heroes ... battles are won by many soldiers but public adulation is often directed at specific individuals.

He had 4 children. One died young. Another developed schizophrenia as a young adult. Two were successful engineers.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12112
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: How'd The Jews End Up On Hitler's Radar?

Postby Aegean » Fri Dec 20, 2019 4:24 pm

He goes into the Mathletics.
How these ideas pre-existed his theory and he simply altered the title and claimed it as his own.
Sounds familiar.
This was attempted on ILP. Who knows, it may be attempted again, after I depart.

Repackage, rename, baptize, and resell - recycling - marketing. The art of the sale.
An Abrahamic hybrid.
Christianity 2.0.

Some use words to conceal, not to reveal. When too much prose and poetics and obscurantism and occultism is employed, this indicates a concealment.
Aegean
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: How'd The Jews End Up On Hitler's Radar?

Postby WendyDarling » Sat Dec 21, 2019 5:10 pm

I think I'm going to read Mein Kampf written by Hitler.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7756
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: How'd The Jews End Up On Hitler's Radar?

Postby promethean75 » Sat Dec 21, 2019 5:25 pm

Read this one too. Excellent book. Lol @ at the deodorant sticker. We didn't have tape in prison.

After you read them both, you must then listen to this song to fully appreciate the experience.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3571
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: How'd The Jews End Up On Hitler's Radar?

Postby promethean75 » Sat Dec 21, 2019 5:45 pm

https://m.imgur.com/gallery/syhJWsw

Lol!!! Clever comments too.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3571
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Previous

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users