Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Who is the greatest jew in history or israeli?

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Last Online
    07-29-2023 @ 05:42 PM
    Location
    --
    Meta-Ethnicity
    --
    Ethnicity
    ---
    Ancestry
    --
    Country
    United States
    Region
    Quebec City
    Y-DNA
    --
    mtDNA
    --
    Taxonomy
    --
    Politics
    --
    Religion
    -+
    Relationship Status
    Single
    Gender
    Posts
    10,090
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 6,244
    Given: 1,444

    2 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOldNorth View Post
    If he existed, probably Josef or Moses, if not then Albert Einstein
    Definitely not Einstein :

    We’ve known about “quantum weirdness” for more than 100 years, but it’s still making headlines. In the summer of 2015, experimental groups in Boulder, Delft, and Vienna announced that they had completed a decades-long quest to demonstrate quantum nonlocality. The possibility of such nonlocal effects first captured the attention of physicists in the 1930s, when Einstein called it “spooky action at a distance”—indicating that he perceived it as a bug of the nascent theory. But on this particular issue, Einstein couldn’t have been more wrong: Nonlocality isn’t a bug of quantum mechanics, it’s a pervasive feature of the physical world.---Hans Halvorson Professor of philosophy, Princeton University


    Einstein plagiarized E=mc^2 :

    The mathematical equation that ushered in the atomic age was discovered by an unknown Italian dilettante two years before Albert Einstein used it in developing the theory of relativity, it was claimed yesterday.

    Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the equation E=mc2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903, said Umberto Bartocci, a mathematical historian.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/19...11/rorycarroll

    Objections to Relativity
    By John "Birdman" Bryant [Mensa high IQ member]



    I have some objections to Relativity Theory (hereinafter RT), but let me begin by stating that I really don't know a great deal about the subject. It is true that I diligently studied a layman's explanation in my youth -- a book entitled The Universe and Doctor Einstein -- and that I have worked thru the derivation of E=mc2 in a college physics course, and also that I have done a fair amount of thinking about the subject in an attempt to understand it. But that is about the limit of my qualifications, if you can call them that.

    My objections, then, are not so much technical as they are holistic, logical, and philosophical. So without further ado or do-do, here they are:

    * The very first 'experiment' done in order to verify relativity was done by Sir Arthur Eddington during observation of an eclipse of the sun in 1919 in Africa, and Eddington traveled to Africa specifically to test RT. He announced that the experiment was a success, but in fact the sky was overcast and his measurements did NOT verify RT, tho they did not refute it either. Yet Eddington's 'experiment' gave RT a boost that effectively sent it to the top of the mountain as far as the academic world is concerned. And Eddington's behavior is perhaps not surprising in view of the fact that Eddington had some of the most cockeyed notions about cosmology ever to come from the pen of a physicist -- ideas which were lambasted by philosopher and logician L Susan Stebbing in a book entitled Philosophy and the Physicists, where she also took to task Sir James Jeans. Eddington's experiment, however, is no isolated example of incompetent scientific work. A number of other highly questionable experiments are described in the book Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science (William Broad and Nicholas Wade, 1982), including one of the most famous of all modern experiments, the oil drop experiment of Milliken which won him the Nobel Prize. Even in the relatively narrow area of evolution, two books of English lay investigator Richard Milton have described scientific fraud and incompetence of literally unbelievable proportions. My point in all this is that to say RT has been 'proved by science' is to raise grave doubts, if not eyebrows or laughter.

    * Any pendulum set in motion will have a plane of motion which remains constant relative to the fixed stars (the so-called Foucault pendulum), altho the earth will move beneath the pendulum, as can be shown by allowing the pendulum bob to sweep out lines in a sandbox as it swings. This indicates that there is a framework of 'absolute space', contrary to relativity. (The properties of the FP are best illustrated with a large heavy pendulum hung from a hight of 30 feet or so. Any 3 FPs can determine the coordinates of an 'absolute' 3-dimensional space -- at least after the Coriolis effects are accouned for.)

    * RT claims indifference to the coordinate system selected; but this violates the relativistic principle that the speed of light is constant. In particular, if we choose the Earth as the coordinate system, then the 'fixed stars' rotate around the Earth every 24 hours. But since the fixed stars are very distant from the earth, this would mean that they would have to exceed the speed of light in order to cover the huge distances of their daily rotation. An interesting question which the above raises is, if the coordinate system is not a matter of indifference, then what is the best one? The obvious choice is the fixed stars, and yet we cannot say for sure that the fixed stars are fixed in relation to one another. Yes, we can say that it SEEMS that way; but when stars are billions of light years apart, apparent motion among them may not show up for thousands of years, if ever.

    * RT holds that the speed of light is invariant no matter what the reference frame. This notion is bound up with the theory that objects 'contract' when approaching the speed of light (the 'Lorentz transformation') -- a necessity if the speed of light is to remain invariant to all observers. My objection to this is that it is just plain silly. It has the sound of an ad hoc explanation whose purpose is to cover up for other inadequacies -- much like the little boy's explanation that he was nowhere near the cookie jar, and that all the crumbs on his mouth were placed there by fairies who were trying to get him in trouble.

    * RT holds that time slows down for objects accelerated to near the speed of light. But this again smacks of gross silliness -- does anyone seriously think that my twin brother, if packed off in a space ship accelerated to near the speed of light which goes to some distant star and then returns to earth after a few years, is going to be physically younger than me? It sounds like just another ad hoc explanation intended to cover for theoretical error.

    * While the wave-particle nature of light has so far defied explanation, it seems that the waveular nature of light requires a medium -- the 'ether' -- to be transported thru. (If something makes waves, it has to have a medium -- like water or air -- to make them in, since waves are simply the vibrations of the medium). The existence of the ether has apparently been proved by the experiments of Dayton Miller (also posted on the James DeMeo site), and this disproves the major basis for RT, namely, the (erroneous) results of the Michelson-Morley experiments. But if the ether exists, then this is proof of the universe's absolute spatial framework (as opposed to the relativistic one): If the universe is immersed in a 'jelly-bowl' of ether, then the ether provides a physical framework for 'absolute' position and movement.

    * Einstein's explanation of the precession of the perihelion of mercury is considered by some to be in error. Here is a quote from an author who believes this, in spite of the fact that he does not question RT in general:

    "This mistake was just one in a long series. In this paper I will show that the entire historical analysis of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury has been riddled with basic logical and mathematical errors. I find this not only shocking to consider but also painful to report since the central character here is once again Einstein, a scientist I admire and like in many ways. I admire his stance against the Copenhagen interpretation. I like his humility in regard to 20th century science (about which he said, "If I have learned anything from a long life’s ponderings it is that we are much further from a deeper insight into the elementary processes than most of our contemporaries believe, so that noisy celebrations are not much in line [for] the real state of affairs."—compared to the horn tooting we get now from all quarters, this is highly refreshing). And I admire the brash synthesizing he did in his early years, collecting data from all over and forcing it into a semi-viable theory. Without his self-confidence, both Relativity and Quantum physics might never have gotten off the block.
    "In many other papers I have also defended the basic postulates of [Special Relativity] and [General Relativity]. so this paper cannot be seem as a fundamental attack on Relativity. Everyone who has read my papers knows that I am not an anti-Relativist of any sort. I have spent a great deal of time correcting Einstein's math, but these corrections only make Relativity stronger. Time dilation, mass increase, gravity-acceleration equivalence, the constancy of the speed of light from all systems: these all must stand. There is no return to Newton. Which makes it all the more difficult for me to say that Einstein failed to follow the simplest procedural rules for problem-solving regarding Mercury’s perihelion. The only mitigating fact in his favor is that no one else followed these rules either. None of his contemporaries or precursors followed any basic rules of logic in trying to solve the problem, none of them seriously questioned his findings (based on these flaws), and no one since has launched a serious critique against [General Relativity] based on the way it was applied to this problem. The entire set of logical and mathematical anomalies I will relate has passed unremarked for almost a century."--Mathis


    Einstein has been accused of plagiarism, and he was certainly guilty of it in at least the case of having stolen E=mc2 from another researcher without acknowledgement. Whether other elements of relativity were plagiarized or not I do not know; but my concern here is not whether Einstein was dishonest, but only whether he was wrong. I do know that a small number of qualified investigators have been convinced that RT is full of serious error, and that some impressive works have been published on this subject. But I also know that questions about RT, like questions about many other Establishment 'givens', have been suppressed, hushed up, poo-pooed, and generally relegated to the cold back burner of a stove that has been left in a junkyard to rust.

    In short, RT is just one more instanace of an intellectual Establishment whose corruption is so insufferably fetid as to induce one to barf at both ends.

    Note: A man from Nikola Tesla country by the name of Milan Pavlovik has argued at length and convincingly that Relativity is mostly mistaken. From his home page you can access his online book, and for those who want a taste of the author's technical expertise, I suggest you start by reading the Conclusion (last chapter). Mr Pavlovik has read my above comments on Relativity and in a letter to me dated 10/5/03 he remarks:

    "In the matter of your objection to Relativity, I can say, in brief, you are right. In detail about that you can find [the specifics] in my book."





    Articles and Books Critical of Relativity Theory



    The following is a list of books and articles I have collected over the years. I have no idea about the quality or importance of most of them.

    Articles on the Net:

    Tom Bethell on Rethinking Relativity



    Other Articles:

    Essen, L, "The Special Theory of Relativity -- A Critical Analysis", Oxford Scientific Research Papers 5, Clarendon Press 1971

    ---, "Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity", Proceedings of the Royal Institution 145 (1972): 141

    "Stefan Marinov Wins Some Friends", Nature 316 (1985): 209

    Owen, WH & GD, "The Variable Speed of Light", Nexus, Nov 1997: 43

    Morton, Oliver, "Science in the Dark", Wall Street Journal, 11 Aug 1999

    Baird, Frank, "An Inertial Clock Paradox and the Real Meaning of the Lorentz Transformations", Physics Essays 5/1 (1992): 115



    Books:

    Parsinger, Michael, Space-Time Transients and Unusual Events, c 1970

    Wolf, Fred A, Space Time and Beyond

    Fauvel, John, Let Nature Be, 1990

    Aspden, Harold, Physics Without Einstein, Cambridge, 1969

    Spolter, Pari, Gravitational Force of the Sun, c 1996 - A good critique of both Einstein and Newton

    Bohm, David, and Hiley, BJ, The Undivided Universe, Routledge (NY) 1993 - Primarily on Bohm's breakthru recasting of quantum theory



    See also works by Dr Al Kelly (Ireland), Dr Borge Nodlan (U of Rochester) and Dr John Ralston (U of KS)

    https://web.archive.org/web/20140530...elativity.html

  2. #12
    Veteran Member
    Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Daco Celtic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Vlach Irish
    Country
    United States
    Y-DNA
    E-V13 Dacian Mocani
    mtDNA
    V3 Viking Queen
    Gender
    Posts
    10,986
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 17,873
    Given: 18,276

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    That's obvious, Larry David.


  3. #13
    Junior Member Kurgan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Last Online
    06-13-2022 @ 10:17 PM
    Location
    San Fernando de las Barrancas
    Ethnicity
    Mostly Germanic & Anglo-Celtic
    Country
    United States
    Politics
    Moderate Right Wing
    Hero
    Genghis Khan
    Religion
    Christian
    Gender
    Posts
    46
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 19
    Given: 2

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    That's a broad category. Not all Jews actively identify as primarily a Jew, especially in immigrant societies (USA, Canada, etc). Even in Germany, after Frederick the Great's reforms, most Jews identified as German and only saw their Judaism as a matter of spirituality. Would some of the potential greatest this or that even consider their contributions as representing Jews, or would they see their contributions as more related to their national identity? Likewise, greatest is pretty broad. Greatest comedian? Greatest scientist? Etc.

    6,000+ years is a pretty long time span to pick just one greatest Jew.

    Historically? Judah Macabee, Bar Kochba, Yeshua, Hillel
    Modern Israeli? David Ben-Gurion
    Israeli comedian? Topol
    "Jewish" comedian? Larry David
    Musician? Chaim Moshe

    Too many to single out one as THE greatest
    En un lugar de la Mancha, de cuyo nombre no quiero acordarme...

  4. #14
    ⚡treet ⚡atyr KuriousKatKommittee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Last Online
    10-19-2021 @ 11:18 PM
    Ethnicity
    Ashkenazi
    Country
    Antarctica
    Gender
    Posts
    1,810
    Blog Entries
    18
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,104
    Given: 3

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    That's obvious,

    Mortimer—The King of Jews.

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Last Online
    07-17-2021 @ 07:07 AM
    Ethnicity
    Finnish
    Country
    Finland
    Gender
    Posts
    1,679
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,840
    Given: 2,076

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    I think the biggest Jew is some nephilim or fallen angel who lives in a deep underground base and whose net worth is counted in quadrillions of US dollars. Lord Rothschild is only a cover, and there are levels of Jews above him.

    I agree that the greatest Jew is not Einstein.

    Einstein's Plagiarism of the General Theory of Relativity:

    A thorough documentation of Albert Einstein's plagiarism of the general theory of relativity. Republishes the relevant papers of Einstein's predecessors, captures the history of the major priority disputes and exposes how Einstein manipulated credit for the work of others. In 1997, amid much fanfare, Leo Corry announced to the world that he had uncovered proof that Albert Einstein arrived at the generally covariant field equations of gravitation before David Hilbert. Leo Corry joined with Jürgen Renn and John Stachel and published an article in the journal Science arguing against Hilbert's priority. Their claims were largely based on a set of printer's proofs of David Hilbert's 20 November 1915 Göttingen lecture, which Corry had uncovered. However, in this 1997 article, "Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute," Corry, Renn and Stachel failed to disclose the fact that these printer's proofs were mutilated, and are missing a critical part. Full disclosure of the facts reveals that even in their mutilated state, these proofs prove that Hilbert had a generally covariant theory of gravitation before Einstein. In 1915, Albert Einstein manipulated credit for Paul Gerber's 1898 formula for the perihelion motion of Mercury. The extensive history of the question of the speed at which gravitational effects propagate and the perihelion motion of the planet Mercury has largely been forgotten, with the full credit for the raising of these questions and their solution too often wrongfully given to an undeserving Einstein. In 1919, (on dubious grounds) Frank Watson Dyson, Charles Davidson and Arthur Stanley Eddington made Albert Einstein internationally famous by affirming that experiment had confirmed, without an attribution to Soldner, Johann Georg von Soldner's 1801 hypothesis that the gravitational field of the Sun should curve the path of a light ray coming from a star and grazing the limb of the Sun. Shortly after that Einstein won the Nobel Prize, though it is unclear why he won it, other than as a reward for his newly found fame for reiterating Soldner's ideas, and for his pacificist stance during World War I--the law of the photoelectric effect was mentioned as a possible reason for the prize. Albert Einstein was fond of propounding thought experiments as if they would somehow account for the research he had never conducted. Einstein also tried to lay claim to well-known experimental facts by postulating that a posteriori problems were instead a priori first principles. He confused induction with deduction and analysis with synthesis. However, even Einstein's thought experiments were unoriginal.

    The manufacture and sale of St Einstein:

    Racist physicist Albert Einstein became internationally famous in 1919 when newspapers around the world reported that he had correctly predicted that the gravitational field of the sun would deflect rays of light. The press promoted the virulently racist and segregationist Zionist, Albert Einstein, as if he were the world's greatest mind, a mind that had surpassed the genius of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton. In April of 1921, Albert Einstein took advantage of his newly found fame and traveled to America. He promoted racist Zionism to the Jews of America, while raising money for the Eastern European Zionists who had made him famous. Einstein championed the racist doctrine of Theodor Herzl, that Jews were a distinct race of human beings, who could not assimilate into any Gentile society and therefore ought to segregate themselves and form a nation in Palestine. Einstein also believed that there ought to be a world government. However, Einstein thought that Israel ought to be a distinct nation. Though he described himself as non-religious, Einstein's racist views, and his concurrent call for a world government and a segregated "Jewish State" mirrored Jewish Messianic prophecies. Einstein raised money in America for the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He also tried to popularize the racist Zionist cause. The news media enthusiastically covered his trip to the United States. Mainstream news media claimed that all of Einstein's critics were anti-Semites, but did not criticize Einstein for his rabid racism or his segregationist politics. Prof. Arvid Reuterdahl of St. Thomas College, in St. Paul, Minnesota, responded to Einstein's aggressive self-promotion. With reference to the notorious circus promoter P. T. Barnum, Prof. Reuterdahl dubbed Albert Einstein the "Barnum of the Scientific World". He publicly challenged Einstein to a debate over the merits of the theory of relativity and publicly accused Einstein of plagiarism. Einstein refused to debate Reuterdahl. Einstein stated that his sole purpose for coming to America was to raise money for the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and that he could not be bothered with issues related to "his" theories. Even before coming to America, Einstein had earned an international reputation for hiding from his critics. His favorite tactic to avoid debate was to accuse his critics of being "anti-Semites", while refusing to address their legitimate accusations of his, Einstein's, irrationality and plagiarism. Like most bullies by bluff, Einstein was a coward, who hid behind the power of the racist Jews who attempted to shield him from criticism through well-orchestrated smear campaigns in the international press.


  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Online
    09-04-2023 @ 02:54 PM
    Location
    The Deep Spain
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Spanish paleto culture
    Ethnicity
    Spanish paleto culture
    Ancestry
    Castellanos
    Country
    Spain
    Region
    Castile and Leon
    Y-DNA
    Castellanos
    mtDNA
    Castellanos
    Taxonomy
    Spanish paleto culture
    Politics
    Preserving Spanish paleto culture
    Religion
    The only one true Christianism is the Spanish Inquisition
    Gender
    Posts
    49,212
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 25,689
    Given: 23,948

    0 Not allowed!

  7. #17
    Veteran Member The Lawspeaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    11-05-2023 @ 04:45 AM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Ancestry
    Brabant, Holland, Guelders and some Hainaut.
    Country
    Netherlands
    Politics
    Norway Deal-NEXIT, Dutch Realm Atlanticist, Habsburg Legitimist
    Religion
    Sedevacantist
    Relationship Status
    Engaged
    Age
    36
    Gender
    Posts
    70,134
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 34,728
    Given: 61,131

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    I personally have three candidates for that title:

    Jesus Christ
    Titus Flavius Josephus (Yosef ben Matityahu)
    Benedictus de Spinoza

    Norman Finkelstein is also a very interesting character.



    Wake up and smell the coffee.


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Greatest leader in history?
    By GoneWithTheWind in forum History
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 07-31-2019, 09:11 AM
  2. Top 10 Greatest Empires In History
    By Joe McCarthy in forum History
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-26-2018, 09:13 AM
  3. Greatest Empires in history
    By Baluarte in forum History
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-17-2017, 01:47 AM
  4. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-07-2017, 02:51 AM
  5. History's Greatest Courtesans
    By Kazimiera in forum History
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-11-2017, 11:11 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •