Einstein, the fraud and the plagiarist - All of his works were stolen from scientists that came before him. And what's worse is, most of the theories that he stole were incorrect, or at least partially incorrect to begin with. Yet he is treated like a saint within the science community to the point where you will lose your job for speaking out against him, or at the very least lose your reputation if you bring him into question. And the reverence of and the fear of questioning einstein is equivalent to the science of the dark ages, ie the world was flat and the earth was he centre of the universe, though most scientists at the time likely knew this to be false, who wants to be burnt at the stake? People can't be burnt at the stake today but people will toe the line to keep their living and reputation.
On a side note
The system that gives brainwashed people false truths also gave us the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on 9/11 and is a typical case of the untrustworthy nature of jewish mainstream 'truth', when NIST come out and say that 'There is no evidence that explosives were used on 9/11'. But they can't make a legitimate claim like this because when their investigation 'began' in april 2004, all of the debris at ground zero had been removed and or destroyed. How can you investigate a crime scene that has been swept clean? Not only that, but later it has been revealed that the steel that they did find at ground zero was never tested for explosive residue.
Back to the subject.
Einstein is hailed as the greatest genius of the 20th century and his relativity theory is universally accepted all over the world. It is academic heresy to even suggest questioning his theories. You would be hard pressed to find a university that didn't sport his picture in on a wall somewhere.
But is his theory of relativity sound? Is it tried and tested? Well not really, it's like evolution, its 'gospel' truth but none of it has been proven. These things are still referred to as theory, (relativity, evolution) but in texts books they are served as a given. And a great deal of what is considered modern science is not tested or proven, it's all theory.
We have been told that Einstein in his thinking was all original, this is not true at all. Einstein's paper on relativity that he wrote in 1805 was called "On the electro dynamics of moving bodies' In it, he gave absolutely no references . This was his first paper. But he also didn't do much in the way of references for any other of his works either.
A lot of people would say 'Well that's because he was a genius'. This is what is taught in the most prestigious universities.
But how, one has to ask, did he get this paper published in the first place with no references? As it is today, and also back then, it was completely unheard of to not have any references.
Many of the key ideas presented in the first 1905 paper were known by scientists before him. Hendrik Lorentz, and Henri Poincare, who laid out in 1900, the framework of the ideas that would become part of Einstein's theory.
But the equation itself ( e=mc2) should be more rightly attributed to S. Tolver Preston also as early as 1885.
Henri Poincare though defined many concepts long before Einstein. For example, he first sketched the special theory of relativity. He stated that the velocity of light is a limited velocity, and also first suggested that mass depends upon the speed it is traveling. Now a lot of theories have been either proven wrong or partially false, but never the less, Einstein did not originate these things.
It is telling that even though a great number of scientists today know the truth, they choose not to 'rock the boat' lest they be thrown overboard.
It's not hard to figure out that Einstein attempted to take credit for these theories because of his omission of references.
Some of Einstein's ardent followers in a way admit that his work was not completely his own, for example in the book ' Einstein, The Life And Times by Ronald W Clark, we read this comment "on 'The electrodynamics of moving bodies' It is in many ways it is one of the most remarkable papers that had ever been written, even in form and style, unusual and lacking the notes and references which give weight"
Max Borne 1956, noted that the work was ' most unusual, the striking point is that Einstein's paper contains not a single reference to previous literature'.
Another man, James Mckay had this to say on the matter 'Einstein's explanation is a dimensional disguise for Lorentz's, thus Einstein's theory is not a denial of, nor an alternative for that of Lorentz, it is instead only a duplicate and disguise for it'.
Obviously Einstein had some back-room connections for his paper to be published as it was, without references.
What is telling is that even at the time that he wrote his first paper Einstein was still working as a Patent Clerk, and more than most others should have known the importance of references and notes. If anyone else should have known better it was him.
And for this paper to be published despite it's lack of notes and references speaks volumes as to the motive behind it.
What makes this worse is that when questioned about the similarities to Poincare's work, he denied even knowing who he was or that work he did. A flat out lie.
To spit in the faces of those he stole from, Einstein makes this smug and disrespectful note in that first work 'It appears to me that it is the nature of the business that what follows has already been partly solved by other authors, despite this fact since the issues that are considered here from a new point of view, i am entitled to leave out a thoroughly pedantic survey of the literature'.
Arrogant jew, who has debased science.
And he wasn't that bright either. This is evident by his refusal to debate with any of his colleagues about anything he wrote about. His excuse for not debating was that he claimed he wasn't a skilled debater.
All he did when talking to people was speak from memory of what he read. He didn't even understand the concepts he was talking about.
And guess what he labelled scientists who questioned him or accused him of plagiarism .. Yep
-Anti semite.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica has this to say about Einstein's early education ' showed little scholastic ability'.
Einstein was an idiot.
He wrote in a school paper about himself ' lack of imagination and practical ability'.
In 1895 Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich. The test consisted primarily of mathematical problems.
This is ten years before his first paper he published . without references.
But it gets worse. After he failed the engineering exam he went to a lesser school as a stepping stone, but once he graduated he still was unable to enter the engineering school.
Now it's five years before his first work.
Once he failed to get into the school he got a job at a patenting office. But his abilities were such he was still only able to secure a 'third class' patenting officer position.
How did this bumbling idiot become sciences holy of holy's only a few years after proving himself inept at even an entry level engineering mathematical test?
Because he's a jew who plagiarised faulty science.
mostly a small excerpt from Charles Giuliani's radio episode: Einstein The Fraud
Hail Satan!
88!
On a side note
The system that gives brainwashed people false truths also gave us the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on 9/11 and is a typical case of the untrustworthy nature of jewish mainstream 'truth', when NIST come out and say that 'There is no evidence that explosives were used on 9/11'. But they can't make a legitimate claim like this because when their investigation 'began' in april 2004, all of the debris at ground zero had been removed and or destroyed. How can you investigate a crime scene that has been swept clean? Not only that, but later it has been revealed that the steel that they did find at ground zero was never tested for explosive residue.
Back to the subject.
Einstein is hailed as the greatest genius of the 20th century and his relativity theory is universally accepted all over the world. It is academic heresy to even suggest questioning his theories. You would be hard pressed to find a university that didn't sport his picture in on a wall somewhere.
But is his theory of relativity sound? Is it tried and tested? Well not really, it's like evolution, its 'gospel' truth but none of it has been proven. These things are still referred to as theory, (relativity, evolution) but in texts books they are served as a given. And a great deal of what is considered modern science is not tested or proven, it's all theory.
We have been told that Einstein in his thinking was all original, this is not true at all. Einstein's paper on relativity that he wrote in 1805 was called "On the electro dynamics of moving bodies' In it, he gave absolutely no references . This was his first paper. But he also didn't do much in the way of references for any other of his works either.
A lot of people would say 'Well that's because he was a genius'. This is what is taught in the most prestigious universities.
But how, one has to ask, did he get this paper published in the first place with no references? As it is today, and also back then, it was completely unheard of to not have any references.
Many of the key ideas presented in the first 1905 paper were known by scientists before him. Hendrik Lorentz, and Henri Poincare, who laid out in 1900, the framework of the ideas that would become part of Einstein's theory.
But the equation itself ( e=mc2) should be more rightly attributed to S. Tolver Preston also as early as 1885.
Henri Poincare though defined many concepts long before Einstein. For example, he first sketched the special theory of relativity. He stated that the velocity of light is a limited velocity, and also first suggested that mass depends upon the speed it is traveling. Now a lot of theories have been either proven wrong or partially false, but never the less, Einstein did not originate these things.
It is telling that even though a great number of scientists today know the truth, they choose not to 'rock the boat' lest they be thrown overboard.
It's not hard to figure out that Einstein attempted to take credit for these theories because of his omission of references.
Some of Einstein's ardent followers in a way admit that his work was not completely his own, for example in the book ' Einstein, The Life And Times by Ronald W Clark, we read this comment "on 'The electrodynamics of moving bodies' It is in many ways it is one of the most remarkable papers that had ever been written, even in form and style, unusual and lacking the notes and references which give weight"
Max Borne 1956, noted that the work was ' most unusual, the striking point is that Einstein's paper contains not a single reference to previous literature'.
Another man, James Mckay had this to say on the matter 'Einstein's explanation is a dimensional disguise for Lorentz's, thus Einstein's theory is not a denial of, nor an alternative for that of Lorentz, it is instead only a duplicate and disguise for it'.
Obviously Einstein had some back-room connections for his paper to be published as it was, without references.
What is telling is that even at the time that he wrote his first paper Einstein was still working as a Patent Clerk, and more than most others should have known the importance of references and notes. If anyone else should have known better it was him.
And for this paper to be published despite it's lack of notes and references speaks volumes as to the motive behind it.
What makes this worse is that when questioned about the similarities to Poincare's work, he denied even knowing who he was or that work he did. A flat out lie.
To spit in the faces of those he stole from, Einstein makes this smug and disrespectful note in that first work 'It appears to me that it is the nature of the business that what follows has already been partly solved by other authors, despite this fact since the issues that are considered here from a new point of view, i am entitled to leave out a thoroughly pedantic survey of the literature'.
Arrogant jew, who has debased science.
And he wasn't that bright either. This is evident by his refusal to debate with any of his colleagues about anything he wrote about. His excuse for not debating was that he claimed he wasn't a skilled debater.
All he did when talking to people was speak from memory of what he read. He didn't even understand the concepts he was talking about.
And guess what he labelled scientists who questioned him or accused him of plagiarism .. Yep
-Anti semite.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica has this to say about Einstein's early education ' showed little scholastic ability'.
Einstein was an idiot.
He wrote in a school paper about himself ' lack of imagination and practical ability'.
In 1895 Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich. The test consisted primarily of mathematical problems.
This is ten years before his first paper he published . without references.
But it gets worse. After he failed the engineering exam he went to a lesser school as a stepping stone, but once he graduated he still was unable to enter the engineering school.
Now it's five years before his first work.
Once he failed to get into the school he got a job at a patenting office. But his abilities were such he was still only able to secure a 'third class' patenting officer position.
How did this bumbling idiot become sciences holy of holy's only a few years after proving himself inept at even an entry level engineering mathematical test?
Because he's a jew who plagiarised faulty science.
mostly a small excerpt from Charles Giuliani's radio episode: Einstein The Fraud
Hail Satan!
88!
