← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hugh Lincoln
Thread ID: 7278 | Posts: 19 | Started: 2003-06-11
2003-06-11 20:48 | User Profile
I should know better than to pop into the local Barnes & Noble. There's always something on display to piss me off, and last night set a record. Prominently displayed was a US News & World Report (published by AJC awardee Mortimer B. Zuckerman) "collector's edition" proclaiming Einstein, Marx and Freud the three greatest geniuses of all time. Or maybe it was the 20th Century. Whatever.
There they were, their three greasy Jew faces all staring out at me. I stopped in my tracks. I wanted to scream. I almost did. Should I have? Someone would have called the police. Never mind. I immediately thought of Wilmot Robertson's comment about Max Planck having made just as much of a contribution as Einstein. And pretty much everything McDonald's ever said. Somehow, I doubt Cuddihy's book will be mentioned in any of the coverage.
Someone say something to make me feel better.
2003-06-11 20:52 | User Profile
Originally posted by Hugh Lincoln@Jun 11 2003, 14:48 ** I should know better than to pop into the local Barnes & Noble. There's always something on display to piss me off, and last night set a record. Prominently displayed was a US News & World Report (published by AJC awardee Mortimer B. Zuckerman) "collector's edition" proclaiming Einstein, Marx and Freud the three greatest geniuses of all time. Or maybe it was the 20th Century. Whatever.
. **
If it makes you feel any better, I can think of at least 20 goyim who were more intelligent and contributed more to civilization that Sigmund Fraud, Einstein, etc...
Socrates, Leonardo Da Vinci, Isaac Newton, Thomas Edison, etc... all contributed much more to science that Einstein. I don't see what's so great about Sigmund Fraud-every single one of his major "theories" (sexual fantasies) has been conclusively refuted.
2003-06-11 20:59 | User Profile
Leaving aside the rather overblown reputation of Einstein, I have to wonder at the hutzpah (sp?) of these people openly praising Jews like Marx and Freud.
Marxism is a fraud; Das Kapital is unreadable and full of fraudulent source material (Marx often made up or distorted his "sources" to prove whatever point he was trying to make). If Marx was a genius, then every two bit political hack out there is a genius too. Marx is only important in the sense of the damage he and his followers have done. I guess being responsible for the slaughter of tens of millions of goyim is cause for Jews to label one a genius!
Freud = fraud. He's done damage to our culture just like Marx; not with open slaughter but with mental damage of a more subtle nature.
Are the Jews so confident now that they dare openly praise these scum? Do they really want to be drawing more attention to themselves?
2003-06-11 22:55 | User Profile
Good grief, Jews are really pathetic with their relentless self promotion.
2003-06-11 23:04 | User Profile
This paper discusses Freudââ¬â¢s ââ¬Ådebtââ¬Â to Nietzsche, which Freud, of course, denied.
Abstract
This paper develops the argument that Friedrich Nietzsche influenced several aspects of Freud's later writings by illustrating, in particular, the impact of Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morals on Freud's Civilization and its Discontents. The theoretical and conceptual schemes represented in Freud's Discontents are found to bear a remarkable similarity to Nietzsche's Genealogy on a number of highly specific points. It is suggested that ââ¬Ådas Esââ¬Â, ââ¬ÅUber-ich,ââ¬Â and ââ¬Åbad conscience,ââ¬Â concepts central to Freudââ¬â¢s moral theory of mind, are at least partly derived from Nietzsche. **Moreover, Freudââ¬â¢s phylogenetic theory of guilt is based upon premises found in Nietzsche, as are specific details relating to ideas on human prehistory and the ancestral family. **
Based on this evidence, a re-examination of the moral and social dimensions of Freudââ¬â¢s ââ¬Åstructuralââ¬Â model may be in order.
[url=http://www.upei.ca/~sgreer/BAD-CON.rtf]http://www.upei.ca/~sgreer/BAD-CON.rtf[/url]. [Requires Microsoft Word]
[url=http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:ZGS_9fFIR1oJ:www.upei.ca/~sgreer/BAD-CON.rtf+freud%27s+debt+to+nietzsche&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:ZGS_9...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8[/url] [Cached]
2003-06-12 00:43 | User Profile
U.S. News & World Report didn't claim that Einstein, Freud and Marx are the three greatest geniuses; they just presented them as three great minds who shaped the 20th century. The 20th century was definitely Jewish [and an unmitigated disaster for European man], so I think it is very appropriate that a Jewish owned magazine picks three Chosenites to represent the era.
2003-06-12 03:41 | User Profile
**Invoking Freud as one of the "greatest minds of all time" is a bigger fraud still. The entire body of Freudian psychoanalysis is pseudoscience at its finest: a combination of idle speculation better suited for literary philosophy than science combined with "proof by assertion" and "proof by Freud's authority." The few proposed ideas that Freud advanced that were testable were discredited, the vast majority involved speculation so vacuous that it couldn't even in principle be tested - the strongest mark that could be made against any claim to being "science." **
Quite right AY. Pychoanalysis resides in the same constellation as astrology as far as science is concerned. Psychoanalysis is nothing more than the silly superstition of the degenerate academic elites. Unfortunately, it's influence on modern thought ranging from psychology to sociology to art is undeniable. That's not even mentioning the deleterious effect it has on society and culture when it was foisted upon the world by it's chief proponents which ever so coincidentally where (and still are) mainly Jewish.
Why Freud's works remain part of university cannon for Arts and Science departments to this day is not difficult to acertain. Athough, it should be said the proponents of the medical model of mental illness have became more strident in their attacks on Freudism in recent years.
2003-06-12 10:41 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Hugh Lincoln@Jun 11 2003, 20:48 * ** I should know better than to pop into the local Barnes & Noble. There's always something on display to piss me off, and last night set a record. Prominently displayed was a US News & World Report (published by AJC awardee Mortimer B. Zuckerman) "collector's edition" proclaiming Einstein, Marx and Freud the three greatest geniuses of all time. Or maybe it was the 20th Century. Whatever.
There they were, their three greasy Jew faces all staring out at me. I stopped in my tracks. I wanted to scream. I almost did. Should I have? Someone would have called the police. Never mind. I immediately thought of Wilmot Robertson's comment about Max Planck having made just as much of a contribution as Einstein. And pretty much everything McDonald's ever said. Somehow, I doubt Cuddihy's book will be mentioned in any of the coverage.
Someone say something to make me feel better. **
Zuckerman's choice of Marx as a great genius speaks volumes of what the neo-cons really are.
Freud's theories are a bunch of mumbo-jumbo (see especially Totem and Taboo, a classic in Jewish obscurantism!). I can't believe anybody takes him seriously anymore.
Einstein was a true genius, or so my limited knowledge of physics leads me to believe.
Kevin MacDonald's got your number, Morty.
Walter
2003-06-12 12:59 | User Profile
I can't believe they left Al Goldstein off that list.
2003-06-12 13:43 | User Profile
**U.S. News & World Report didn't claim that Einstein, Freud and Marx are the three greatest geniuses; they just presented them as three great minds who shaped the 20th century. The 20th century was definitely Jewish [and an unmitigated disaster for European man], so I think it is very appropriate that a Jewish owned magazine picks three Chosenites to represent the era. **
Yes, true. I actually saw this magazine presentation operating on two levels: one, as reflective of the truth that Freud, Marx and Einstein really WERE influential, but two, that their "influence" was for worse, not better, and that Jewish self-promotion is a force unto itself.
2003-06-12 14:00 | User Profile
The Neocons are proving themselves sick Marxist when they put out trash like! Einstein, Marx and Freud the three men who did the most to destroy our Civilization in the 20th Century.
Marx caused the death of 100,000,000 people in the 20th Century!
**Marx Plagiarized Hegel and many others. And Hegel started a Follower of Fichte, who started as a Follower of Kant. There is nothing new in Marx's works. Fichte was greater philosopher than Marx.
North American Fichte Society [url=http://www.phil.upenn.edu/~cubowman/fichte/]http://www.phil.upenn.edu/~cubowman/fichte/[/url]
AntiYuppie is Right! As for Karl Marx, his intellectual contribution is virtually nill. One can say of Marx that his writings were both original and good, the problem being that the good parts weren't original and the original parts weren't very good. Where Marx's theories are correct, interesting, or contain grains of truth, they are borrowed from Malthus (law of diminishing returns), Adam Smith (theory of surplus value), Feuerbach (dialectical materialism), and Hegel (an evolutionary interpretation of human history). In contrast, Marx's "original contributions" (his firebrandery on behalf of a mythical "classless society" and "dictatorship of the proletariat") have been entirely discredited.-AntiYuppie **
Sigmund Freud start the sexpervert pseudoscience that is destroying our Civilization!
**Sigmund Freud work is pseudoscience; his "theories"(more like sick sexual fantasies) have been refuted by most. Sigmund Freud Plagiarized Friedrich Nietzsche. Carl jung was a much more genius than Sigmund Freud.
Carl Jung Page [url=http://www.cgjungpage.org/]http://www.cgjungpage.org/[/url]
AntiYuppie is Right! Invoking Freud as one of the "greatest minds of all time" is a bigger fraud still. The entire body of Freudian psychoanalysis is pseudoscience at its finest: a combination of idle speculation better suited for literary philosophy than science combined with "proof by assertion" and "proof by Freud's authority." The few proposed ideas that Freud advanced that were testable were discredited, the vast majority involved speculation so vacuous that it couldn't even in principle be tested - the strongest mark that could be made against any claim to being "science." -AntiYuppie **
Einstein Stalin-loving Marxist, who was greatly upset the atomic bomb was not used to kill millions of Europeans!
**The Other Einstein
Joseph Sobran
. . .
TimeÃÆâïÿýïÿýs cover story paints him in the familiar way as a naive, lovable champion of freedom, driven by "humane and democratic instincts," hated by Hitler and Stalin alike. It neglects to add that StalinÃÆâïÿýïÿýs hatred was unrequited: Einstein became a resolute fellow-traveler who defended the 1938 Moscow show trials and refused every opportunity to condemn Soviet tyranny. He spoke of the "great merits" and "important achievements" of Soviet Communism, whose "only aim is really the improvement of the lot of the Russian people." When a correspondent pointed out that Stalin had deliberately starved millions of peasants, Einstein made no reply, though on another occasion he doubted that the Soviets could have done so much good "by following softer methods."
Einstein was also the godfather of the nuclear age. A pacifist during World War I, he came to hate not only Hitler but his native Germany, and he urged Franklin Roosevelt to develop an atomic bomb the most practical application of his discovery of the energy latent in all matter. He was later distressed when this weapon of mass murder was dropped on Japan and brandished against Stalin; after all, it had been meant for Berlin.
. . .
[url=http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:YSIHk-hj3EUJ:www.sobran.com/columns/991228.shtml+%22other+Einstein%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:YSIHk...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8[/url]
AntiYuppie is Right! The fact of the matter is, of these three only Einstein has any legitimate claim to having made a lasting constribution to knowledge. While certainly not the "greatest genius of all time" (his importance pales besides that of Newton or Maxwell, and is basically on the same level as his gentile contemporaries such as Planck, Heisenberg, and Schroedinger), Einstein's place in modern physics is largely deserved. One should note, however, that at least as far as the Special Theory of Relativity is concerned, Einstein was more of a synthesizer than an innovator (combining ideas from Lorentz, Poincare, and others).-AntiYuppie
"Einstein's theories sprang from a ground of ideas prepared by decades of experiments(by other people). One of the most striking, in retrospect, was done in Cleveland, Ohio, by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley in 1887." **
2003-06-12 14:33 | User Profile
One should note, however, that at least as far as the Special Theory of Relativity is concerned
I'm not too scientific. Can I use the Theory of Relativity to trace my family tree?
2003-06-14 02:14 | User Profile
The internet is filled with reference material, links to books, etc. that all point to ol' Albert as ... a fraud for the most part. This particular gem goes into Poincare being ignored - we know why - and in fact the "insight" and work of Lorentz and Fitzgerald go uncredited and ignored to create and continue the legend and reputation of the most famous of the jew's mythical figures in science. Go to Google or better yet, Dogpile, the list of sources is staggering. The articles and individuals that counter the claims of Einstein being a plagiarist, juggling his figures, etc. seem to be almost all "jewish" in nature, so to speak.
My own father was involved in engineering physics, but the few references I heard him make to others regarding Einstein were always along the lines of the man's "... prowess and accomplishments being highly exaggerated, " with the coworkers nodding and tossing in their two cents along the same line. Back in the day, I never thought to ask him about this. Perhaps if any OD members have backgrounds in physics, they can shed some light. (I have been involved in areas of IT where jews tried to exaggerate their accomplishments and influence, take credit where little or none was due, so it's easy to imagine the scenario of Einstein using the work of others and INTENTIONALLY failing to give them credit while "synthesizing" the various conclusions etc. to arrive at his "theory")
[url=http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id6.html]http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinstei...iarist/id6.html[/url]
Albert Einstein: Prophet or Plagiarist
Relativity
Jules Henri Poincare (1854-1912) was a great man. At the time he appeared to be ripped off by Einstein, he was doing state-of-the-art work in physics, mathematics, and philosophy. In the last field he is featured in. philosophy, A Timeline of Western Philosophers, by Garth Kemerling in an Internet article dated 1997, 1998, 1999. He is only 1 of 500 philosophers featured on that timeline in the past 2600 years. In math, he is one of the top 26 mathematicians in the past 2600 years (see: Famous Mathematicians on the Internet). Even Einstein recognized Poincares superiority as thinker and author (Einsteins Reply to Criticisms in relation to Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics: The Library of Living Philosophers Series, 1949). For Poincare to fade into obscurity requires the cooperation of thousands of physicists. What did he contribute to the special theory of relativity? While the Internet is, at best, an uncertain source of material, the following site on Poincare is interesting: 1)... he sketched a preliminary version of the special theory of relativity, 2)he stated the velocity of light is a limit factor (In his 1904 paper from the Bull. of Sci. Math. 28, Poincare indicated, ...a whole new mechanics, where, the inertia increasing with the velocity of light would become a limit and not be exceeded.), 3)he suggested that mass depends on speed, 4)He formulated the principle of relativity...no mechanical or electromagnetic can discriminate between a state of uniform motion or one at rest, 5)...he derived the Lorentz transformations. What is immediately evident is how deeply involved with special relativity he was and even Keswani was prompted to say that, As far back as 1895, Poincare, the innovator, had conjectured that it is impossible to detect absolute motion. In 1900, he introduced the principle of relative motion which he later called by the equivalent terms The law of relativity and The principle of relativity in his book Science and Hypothesis published in 1902. Einstein professed ignorance of any of this when he wrote his paper in 1905. The question is, Why didnt he know this? Other scientists have not been quite as impressed with Einsteins special theory of relativity, as the public. Another curious feature of the now famous paper, Einstein, 1905, is the absence of any reference to Poincare or anyone else: As Max Born says, It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true (Born, 1956). It could be argued that not even Einstein viewed himself as the Father of Relativity. In the book, Einstein The Life and Times, by Ronald W. Clark, the following paper appears in the Bibliography, The Principle of Relativity, A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory of Relativity, New York, 1952, p.792. What is surprising is the authorship: Lorentz, H.A., Einstein, A.,Weyl, H., and Minkowski. Note that even though Einstein had been publishing articles for 47 years, he is second author behind Lorentz. This suggests that even Einstein was willing to defer probable origin of the theory of special relativity to Lorentz. When you add to the origin of these theories, Poincare, a more appropriate authorship of Einsteins Theory of Relativity, would be the relativity theory of Poincare and Lorentz as noted by by G. Burniston Brown, What is wrong with relativity?, It will be seen that, contrary to popular belief, Einstein played only a minor part in the derivation of the useful formulae in the restricted or special theory of relativity and Whittaker called it the relativity theory of Poincare and Lorentz.. You would tend to think that due to the fact that Einsteins special theory of relativity was known in some circles as the relativity theory of Poincare and Lorentz, that Poincare and Lorentz might have had something to do with its creation. According to Einstein when he wrote the 1905 paper, Poincare and Lorentz had done nothing worth referencing. It also seems odd that Einstein would be second author on a compilation of papers on the theories of general and special relativity when Einstein is supposedly the progenitor. What Einstein is effectively saying to the world when he agreed to a second authorship, was that he had renounced any claim to being the primary inventor of special relativity. Yet, by strange coincidence, the man who is intimately associated with the theory of special relativity, Lorentz, is first author. Lorentz probably would never have believed that Einstein would wind up owning relativity. Einsteins followers have outlived the followers of Poincare and Lorenz. Here are some concrete first order references as to Poincares contributions:
From all these results, if they are confirmed, would arise an entirely new mechanics, would be, above all, characterized by this fact, that no velocity could surpass that of light, any more than any temperature would fall below the zero absolute, because bodies would oppose an increasing inertia to the causes, which would tend to accelerate their motion; and this inertia would become infinite when one approached the velocity of light. No more for an observer carried along himself in a translation he did not suspect could any apparent velocity surpass that of light: and this would be then a contradiction, if we recall that this observer would not use the same clocks as a fixed observer, but, indeed. clocks marking local time . Poincare, The Principle of Mathematical Physics (From an address delivered before the International Congress of Arts and Sciences, St. Louis, September, 1904.) It is now time to speak directly to the issue of what Einstein was: He was first and foremost a plagiarist who had no qualms about borrowing the work of others and submitting it with little revision as his own. That this was deliberate is incredibly obvious: Take this passage from Ronald W. Clark, Einstein The Life and Times, Avon Books, New York, 878 pages (You will not find any references to Poincare here, just a few meaningless quotes). This is how p.101 reads: On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies ...it is in many ways one of the most remarkable scientific papers that had ever written. Even in form and style it was unusual, lacking the notes and references which give weight to most serious expositions... (emphasis added). Why would Einstein with his training as a patent clerk not recognize the absolute imperative need to thoroughly reference his article on special relativity? What is incredible about Einstein is that as a neophyte, you would think that he would overreference rather than underreference. To suggest as some (Jack Good, Mensa Bulletin, April May, 2001, p.4) that this was due to youthful indiscretion is belied by the fact that Einstein was 26 at the time of his plagiarism. Would we still speak of youthful indiscretion at 50? Another reader in the same journal said that Einstein borrowed, shamefully (Brian Wells, Mensa Bull. April/May 2001, p.5). Oh, is this like borrowing a cup of sugar that Einstein intended to return a day later? Or, was it more like stealing? Why would an editor publish a controversial manuscript which was grossly flawed? Supposedly, you would also expect somewhat higher standards from an editor when faced with a long manuscript that had obviously not been researched. Apparently there was no attempt at quality control when it was published in Annalen der Physik. Most competent editors would have rejected the paper without even reading it. Failing that, at a bare minimum, you would have expected them to research the literature to see if the fantastic nature of Einsteins claim of primacy was correct. Consider the writings of Max Born, Physics in My Generation. He states, The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous literature. (emphasis added). Look how important is to Born that there are no references. He is clearly indicating that this is abnormal and that even by early 20th Century standards that this is most peculiar, even unprofessional. It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course as I have already tried to explain, not true. We have Einsteins own testimony. At this point Born quotes a reference to Dr. Carl Seelig, who has published a most charming book on Einstein und die Schweiz asked Einstein which scientific literature had contributed most to his ideas on relativity.... Einstein replied, in the journal, Technische Rundschau, Concerning myself, I knew only Lorentzs important work of 1895 (the two papers quoted in the German text) but not Lorentzs later work, nor the consequent investigations of Poincare. (emphasis added). Einstein just acknowledged an incredible level of duplicity or ignorance. Poincare published 30 books and over 500 papers in philosophy, mathematics and physics. Einstein wrote in mathematics, physics and philosophy, but Einstein claimed he never read Poincares contributions to physics. This is on a par with an English Major never having heard of Shakespeare. This establishes one of two things: Either Einstein was incredibly ignorant or he was duplicitous. What makes you wonder is that many of Poincares ideas like the speed of light is a limit and that mass increases with speed wound up in Einsteins paper, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. This is about on a par with an English major writing sonnets, who, by strange coincidence wrote sonnets remarkably similar to ones written by Shakespeare. At the time of his plagiarism, Einstein knew how important the work of Lorentz was. If he were crossexamined today to determine whether he was a plagiarist, much of the discussion would center around the phrase deliberate ignorance. It appears that in view of Einsteins background as a patent clerk, he had to have known how to do research. He conveniently avoids rudimentary research that would have revealed a rich history of special relativity that would have rendered his paper on special relativity, trivial. Folks, what Einstein did is about as obvious an example of plagiarism as you can demonstrate. What Einstein did was provide a blueprint for plagiarism. In other words, either Einstein provided 100% new material or he was automatically a plagiarist. Ignorance is no defense against a charge of plagiarism. If it were, countless scientists would stop researching papers and just shoot from the hip. However, a minuscule number of reputable editors would publish such balderdash. Few scientists seem to be aware of this in the physics community. Here is the definition of to plagiarize from an unimpeachable source, Websters New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, 1947, p.1878. It gives the following definition:
To steal or purloin and pass off as ones own (the ideas, words, artistic productions, etc. of one another); to use without due credit the ideas, expressions, or productions of another. To commit plagiarism. (emphasis added).
Nowhere does this definition stipulate that the offender actually read the material he plagiarized.
Isnt this exactly what Einstein did?
The true nature of Einsteins plagiarism is set forth in his 1935 paper, Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy in which he states, The question as to the independence of those relations is a natural one because the Lorentz transformation, the real basis of the special relativity theory.... (emphasis added) What more needs to be said? This is the smoking gun. Einstein acknowledged that the Lorentz transformation was the real basis of his paper and that this made him a plagiarist. Anyone who doubts this should ask one simple question, What did Einstein know and when did he know it? If Einstein had been an honorable man, as soon as he learned that Lorentz and Poincare were there ahead of him, he should have immediately gone on the record and indicated their contribution to special relativity. It says a lot about Einstein that he did a mea culpa well after Poincare and Lorentz were dead. The honorable thing to do would have been to give these men credit. Although it is true that Einstein did eventually give Lorentz credit, it was not until after Einstein had stolen from Lorentz. Einsteins shabby treatment of Poincare continued after Einsteins 1905 paper. Einstein, with one exception for several years refused to reference anything Poincare wrote and vice versa. Who was at fault? Since Einstein plagiarized Poincare in the 1905 paper, the latters attitude is easily understandable. One indication just how much the physics community demonstrates its complete lack of candor with Americans is the following statement in a paper by G. Burniston Brown called What is wrong with relativity? (Bulletin of the Institute of Physics and the Physical Society, pp.71-77, March 1967), There were other disturbing features: the fact that Einstein never wrote a definitive account of his theory; that his first derivation of the Lorentz transformation equations contained velocities of light of c-v and c+v and (c^2 - v^2 )^1/2 to, quite contrary to his second postulate that the velocity of light was independent of the motion of the source; and that his first attempt to prove the formula E=mc^2 , suggested by Poincare, was fallacious because he assumed what he wanted to prove, as was shown by Ives (Ives, 1952). (emphasis added). Very few people in the physics community seem to find it at all important that the single most recognizable equation in human history may be attributed to the wrong man! Brown (ibid) now makes the following statement, Thus gradually arose the formula E=mc^2, suggested without general proof by Poincare in 1900. One of the most important principles in science is one my father either heard or originated---Concept must precede the mathematics. It was Poincares brilliant insight, or, even earlier, the insight of Fitzgerald and Lorentz, the intuitive thunderbolt, E=mc^2 which was the primary contribution to this formulae, not Einsteins eventual derivation which is backfilling behind a brilliant insight. Stated another way, **without Fitzgerald, Lorentz and Poincare it is highly probable that the discovery and derivation of E=mc^2 would have taken decades longer. **
2003-06-14 02:56 | User Profile
Roy Batty,
One has to be knowledgable both in physics AND history of physics to assign due credit to all scientists. Clearly Einsten didn't come up with the equations of special relativity because those are essentially Lorentz transformations. Einstein tried to disprove quantum mechanics up to his death. Another of his 1905 papers dealt with photoelectric effect, essentially a quantum phenomenon. Einstein put forth a speculative theory that didn't make any sense in classical physics. So the guy did have talent, but in my view was lucky to catch on to something that later turned out to appear as if Einstein had forseen everything, while in practice he compiled others' theories and equations and was the first one to put everything together and publish it. Today the fact that his 1905 papers were overlooked is presented as something inexplicable and puzzling. It's only puzzling provided one is subscribing to the dogma that Einstein singlehandedly and originally came up with all the theories by himself. If one takes another position that it's due to the fact that Einstein did little of original work in that period and only put some gloss on others' work and compiled everything together, it's far from puzzling. Only AFTER Einstein became God of science, people started to look back for the proof of his genius.
General relativity is probably the only theory that should be credited to Einstein as his original work. And even then, I read that the complicated math for the theory was worked out by someone else. Einstein did possess Jewish qualities of believing that one simple principle can be expanded speculatively to everything else, and he was stubborn and quick to not give others credit when it was due. So once successful with special relativity, he went ahead and expanded it to gravitation.
2003-06-14 03:16 | User Profile
Hasn't it been shown that privately Einstein acknowleged (Hill, Brown, Newcomb among others already listed?) as having worked out some of the deeper mathematical elements/roadwork he was credited for, and then of course publicly soaking up the praise?
2003-06-15 04:28 | User Profile
Madrussian and Roy Batty,
Great Posts!
2003-06-15 17:40 | User Profile
Roy Batty and madrussian:
Compared to other scientists Einstein was a very good mathematician, but nowhere near the top level. Poincare and David Hilbert both were far superior to him. At the Institute for Advanced Study his room mate, Kurt Godel, could solve any problem he could not. Godel's proof of how certain qualities in any proof system had to be assumed to be true just may be the great intellectual feat of the 20th century.
Later John Kemeny assisted Einstein in his math. Kemeny, one of the Hungarian Jewish geniuses, is best remembered today as the inventor of the BASIC programming language and being president of Dartmouth College.
2003-06-16 20:00 | User Profile
Wilmot Robertson in "The Dispossessed Majority" notes that Einstein's zeal for liberalism made him a scientist likely to draw attention from the Jewish media. He references John Murray Cuddihy on what Freud was REALLY up to --- humiliating Gentiles.
2003-06-16 20:56 | User Profile
Jung mentioned on several occasions that Freud was always making crude remarks or jokes about gentiles. Freud spent his career trying to humiliate them, and his life trying to figure out his own, genetically inbred scatological urges.