Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old February 19th, 2013 #21
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Marr View Post
It's Goode to finally learn the whole truth about O'Malley. Thank you.

If you're ever inclined to do an exposé on Reynard Louse, I'd be interested in reading that one, too.
While you're at it, do one on Marr(supials) too.
 
Old February 19th, 2013 #22
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thad Charles View Post
Undoubtedly, yes.

I for one cannot wait to crack this: http://archive.org/details/TheManufa...ndaOfSupremacy
Excellent find Charles! Out of rep, for now.
 
Old February 19th, 2013 #23
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred O'Malley View Post
Randy (what a name!) you have me confused with someone who gives a shit what you think.

Thad Charles just blew your balls off, but you prefer to suck on lies. Be my guest, I don't give a fuck if you think Bibi Netanyahu(sp), David Rockefeller and Obama are the holy trinity.
LOL, you know, I saw your posts last night on that other thread and since I have seen a few similar comments over the years on these sites I thought it might be worth it to discuss the matter. So I took a couple of hours of my time and created this thread and typed all of that first post out. Very patiently. Today I responded to your posts. For the most part patiently.

Now, I understand modern physics is a little tough and not everyone understands much about it. It is after all pretty "heavy" going. So I understand and even think it not unreasonable that someone could see an article like the one you and another poster cited and take it seriously. I really do.

BUT, after having someone patiently address your, or rather that article's, points and problems, and after showing you, like I just did not long ago on that other thread, AND you STILL remain an idiot, well...

And BTW, speaking of "blown away" I think you better check that other thread. It is YOU who has just been blown completely away. Not that you were still standing here. Everything has pretty much been covered now and the basics facts outlined or cited, between this thread and the other one, and your, excuse me, I mean that article's, "facts" completely torn apart and shown to be completely, ridiculously wrong and out to lunch.

I think everybody that is literate and actually bothered to read the posts here has a pretty good idea what the facts and truth is.

You must be one of the dumbest hillbillies. Truth is, most of them quit after being shown something several times. I mean, Christ, are you STILL going to go around with the "Einstein was not even trained or educated" bit even after I cited and quoted his friggin biography on the other thread? I didn't really expect you to comprehend or even read anything on this thread, but that is easy enough and well enough detailed and documented to penetrate even your consciousness and aught to signal something to you about maybe checking out a few other things your article has to say. I'm pretty sure even a two-day old nigger might stop and retrack after being that badly contradicted.
 
Old February 19th, 2013 #24
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

What part of "I don't give a fuck," are you having trouble with?
 
Old February 19th, 2013 #25
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred O'Malley View Post
What part of "I don't give a fuck," are you having trouble with?

LOL, oh, I get it, alright. I didn't know I was dealing with a cousin Billy Bob here. But I do now.
 
Old February 19th, 2013 #26
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randal Goode View Post
LOL, oh, I get it, alright. I didn't know I was dealing with a cousin Billy Bob here. But I do now.
I'm quite sure our DNA is significantly different, but thanks for playing.

This whole argument comes down to basic internal philosophy at our core. It has very little to do with Einstein, other than being used as a football.

If you believe jews lied and promoted Einstein, which I certainly do, then where do the lies end and the truth begin?

Once the well has been poisoned, I won't drink from it again.
 
Old February 19th, 2013 #27
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred O'Malley View Post
If you believe jews lied and promoted Einstein, which I certainly do, then where do the lies end and the truth begin?

Once the well has been poisoned, I won't drink from it again.
Yes, I think Jews lie and I already said they, and others, went too far in deifying Einstein. No argument there.

But I do know physics, too. I am conversant with the two theories discussed here, as well as Einstein's other work. And of course I know how to read and consult reference material. As I already stated, I understand that this material is hard to understand for laymen, very hard. It is hard for someone not trained in physics and who has not studied and been interested in this material for years to be able to make much judgment here. It is not like a lot of things.

I've only been trying, as best I can, to convey some understanding of Einstein's work and theories to the readers here. The article and claim you have come across is simply specious. That's all. I've only tried to show that as best I can. Yes, Einstein was a jew. But that is just the way it is (or was, rather). So have more than a few other really good scientists and mathematicians been jews.

If you just don't like jews but you really don't understand or know enough to evaluate something like this, just say so; ask for help. Hey, no one knows everything. I don't know anything about brain surgery or a hundred other subjects. But just don't go off half-cocked because you don't like jews or something and go around making forceful statements that you really are not for sure about because it is something you are not knowledgeable about. Ask first.
 
Old February 19th, 2013 #28
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Oh, I'm very well aware that you're preaching those kike-inspired lies to the visitors, because the resident members are far too smart and aware to buy that shit. Your tenacity and propaganda are very telling.

Provide sources by white men or women, if you can. Your praise of Anne Frank said lots too. (in the other thread)
 
Old February 19th, 2013 #29
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Default cuz jews say so, truth being what jews say

 
Old February 19th, 2013 #30
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred O'Malley View Post
Oh, I'm very well aware that you're preaching those kike-inspired lies to the visitors, because the resident members are far too smart and aware to buy that shit. Your tenacity and propaganda are very telling.

Provide sources by white men or women, if you can. Your praise of Anne Frank said lots too. (in the other thread)
Quote here any post I have ever made praising Anne Frank. Do it. Post it or admit that you are straight out lying. And since there is no such post by me in this world, retract your lie and admit you made that up.

And after you come forth and be a man and admit that you told a gross lie, why don't you quote the post where I did respond to you concerning the Diary. Copy and post it so everyone can get a good look-see at how your reading comprehension--no, pure illiteracy, apparently, if you think that was praise--is worse than the lies you tell.
 
Old February 19th, 2013 #31
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randal Goode View Post
Yes, it hurts, doesn't it?
 
Old February 19th, 2013 #32
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Default from physicsworld.com

Who discovered that E = mc2?

It's not as easy a question as you might think. Scientists ranging from James Clerk Maxwell and Max von Laue to a string of now-obscure early 20th-century physicists have been proposed as the true discovers of the mass–energy equivalence now popularly credited to Einstein's theory of special relativity. These claims have spawned headlines accusing Einstein of plagiarism, but many are spurious or barely supported. Yet two physicists have now shown that Einstein's famous formula does have a complicated and somewhat ambiguous genesis – which has little to do with relativity.

One of the more plausible precursors to E = mc2 is attributed to Fritz Hasenöhrl, a physics professor at the University of Vienna. In a 1904 paper Hasenöhrl clearly wrote down the equation E = 3/8mc2. Where did he get it from, and why is the constant of proportionality wrong? Stephen Boughn of Haverford College in Pennsylvania and Tony Rothman of Princeton University examine this question in a paper submitted to the arXiv preprint server.

Hasenöhrl's name has a certain notoriety now, as he is commonly invoked by anti-Einstein cranks. His reputation as the man who really discovered E = mc2 owes much to the efforts of the antisemitic and pro-Nazi [notice the ad hominems, as usual] physics Nobel laureate Philipp Lenard, who sought to separate Einstein's name from the theory of relativity so that it was not seen as a product of "Jewish science".

'Leading Austrian physicist of his day'

Yet all this does Hasenöhrl a disservice. He was Ludwig Boltzmann's student and successor at Vienna, and was lauded by Erwin Schrödinger among others. "Hasenöhrl was probably the leading Austrian physicist of his day", Rothman told physicsworld.com. He might have achieved much more if he had not been killed in the First World War.

The relationship of energy and mass was already being widely discussed by the time Hasenöhrl considered the matter. Henri Poincaré had stated that electromagnetic radiation had a momentum and thus effectively a mass, according to E = mc2. German physicist Max Abraham argued that a moving electron interacts with its own field, E0, to acquire an apparent mass given by E0 = 3/4 mc2. All this was based on classical electrodynamics, assuming an ether theory. "Hasenöhrl, Poincaré, Abraham and others suggested that there must be an inertial mass associated with electromagnetic energy, even though they may have disagreed on the constant of proportionality", says Boughn.

Fritz Hasenöhrl

Robert Crease, a philosopher and historian of science at Stony Brook University in New York, agrees. "Historians often say that, had there been no Einstein, the community would have converged on special relativity shortly", he says. "Events were pushing them kicking and screaming in that direction." Boughn and Rothman's work, he says, shows that Hasenöhrl was among those headed this way.

Hasenöhrl approached the problem by asking whether a black body emitting radiation changes in mass when it is moving relative to the observer. He calculated that the motion adds a mass of 3/8c2 times the radiant energy. The following year he corrected this to 3/4c2.

A different style of scientific paper

However, no-one has properly studied Hasenöhrl's derivation to understand his reasoning or why the prefactor is wrong, claim Bough and Rothman. That's not easy, they admit. "The papers are by today's standards presented in a cumbersome manner and are not free of error. The greatest hindrance is that they are written from an obsolete world view, which can only confuse the reader steeped in relativistic physics." Even Enrico Fermi apparently did not bother to read Hasenöhrl's papers properly before concluding wrongly that the discrepant 3/4 prefactor was due to the electron self-energy identified by Abraham.

"What Hasenöhrl really missed in his calculation was the idea that if the radiators in his cavity are emitting radiation, they must be losing mass, so his calculation wasn't consistent", says Rothman. "Nevertheless, he got half of it right. If he had merely said that E is proportional to m, history would probably have been kinder to him."

But if that's the case, where does relativity come into it? Actually, perhaps it doesn't. While Einstein's celebrated 1905 paper, "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies", clearly laid down the foundations of relativity by abandoning the ether and making the speed of light invariant, his derivation of E = mc2 did not depend on those assumptions. You can get the right answer with classical physics, says Rothman, all in an ether theory without c being either constant or the limiting speed. "Although Einstein begins relativistically, he approximates away all the relativistic bits, and you are left with what is basically a classical calculation."

A controversial issue

Physicist Clifford Will of Washington University in St Louis, a specialist on relativity, considers the preprint "very interesting". Boughn and Rothman "are well-regarded physicists", he says, and as a result he "tend[s] to trust their analysis". However, the controversies that have been previously aroused over the issue of priority perhaps account for some of the reluctance of historians of physics to comment when contacted by physicsworld.com.

Did Einstein know of Hasenöhrl's work? "I can't prove it, but I am reasonably certain that Einstein must have done, and just decided to do it better", says Rothman. But failure to cite it was not inconsistent with the conventions of the time. In any event, Einstein asserted his priority for the mass–energy relationship when this was challenged by Johannes Stark (who credited it in 1907 to Max Planck). Both Hasenöhrl and Einstein were at the famous first Solvay conference in 1911, along with most of the other illustrious physicists of the time. "One can only imagine the conversations", say Boughn and Rothman.

Rothman told physicsworld.com that he had run across Hasenöhrl's name a number of times but with no real explanation as to what he did. "One of my old professors, E C G Sudarshan, once remarked that he gave Hasenöhrl credit for mass–energy equivalence. So around Christmas-time last year, I said to Steve, 'why don't we spend a couple hours after lunch one day looking at Hasenöhrl's papers and see what he did wrong?' Well, two hours turned into eight months, because the problem ended up being extremely difficult."

About the author
Philip Ball is a science writer based in the UK

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...als-mc-squared


Last edited by Rick Ronsavelle; February 19th, 2013 at 07:21 PM.
 
Old February 19th, 2013 #33
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

There can be little doubt that Einstein was a brilliant man, but he was still a jew and he hated my tribe. He did steal the work he is credited with, in typical kike fashion. And, he stole it from white men. He was a traitor to his country as well.
 
Old February 19th, 2013 #34
littlefieldjohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,105
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
Despite Randalgoodes posts that grow more frenzied with every sentence, common sense regarding the Jew and its media deems their levitating of their Jew Einstein to godlike reputation or into one of the greatest minds in human history a bit of an overstatement.
 
Old February 19th, 2013 #35
Michael St James
Junior Member
 
Michael St James's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: White City
Posts: 42
Default

Drum roll waiting for the great Einstein defender, Hans Norling (LA) to appear in defence of his tribal brother.
 
Old February 19th, 2013 #36
Walter E. Kurtz
Senior Member
 
Walter E. Kurtz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,919
Default

Einstein's "famous" equation E=mc squared is a farce on its face. It doesn't take a scientist to figure that out. Einstein was obsessed about tring to come up with a simple equation that "unified" all mechanics and explained all relations between mass and "energy" in one simple, elegant equation. The "Unified Theory". Really? Does E=mc squared really explain all relationships between mass and "energy" everywhere throughout the universe? Why is the speed of light (c) squared and not cubed, or even tertiaried? Doesn't make sense on its face. How does the speed of light have anything at all to do with the amount of potential energy any given object possesses? Doesn't make sense. Speed of light is a constant value, so where does it fit in any estimation of potential "energy" release of an object? C'mon folks, this ain't rocket science. Ask yourself, regardless of how great the jews have built up the alleged genius of Einstein, does that equation make sense to you?
__________________
I'm so depressed about outsourcing I called the suicide hotline and got a call center in Pakistan. They got all excited and asked me if I could drive a truck.
 
Old February 20th, 2013 #37
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter E. Kurtz View Post
Einstein's "famous" equation E=mc squared is a farce on its face. It doesn't take a scientist to figure that out. Einstein was obsessed about tring to come up with a simple equation that "unified" all mechanics and explained all relations between mass and "energy" in one simple, elegant equation. The "Unified Theory". Really? Does E=mc squared really explain all relationships between mass and "energy" everywhere throughout the universe? Why is the speed of light (c) squared and not cubed, or even tertiaried? Doesn't make sense on its face. How does the speed of light have anything at all to do with the amount of potential energy any given object possesses? Doesn't make sense. Speed of light is a constant value, so where does it fit in any estimation of potential "energy" release of an object? C'mon folks, this ain't rocket science. Ask yourself, regardless of how great the jews have built up the alleged genius of Einstein, does that equation make sense to you?
Ok, at least you are asking a few questions about the subject. As far as what Einstein, and many others of the time, were obsessed with, it was more involved than energy mass equivalence. Once again, I didn't write up all of that first post just to kill time. I outlined the entire issues and what it all was about. Why don't you read it? It's fairly straightforward. It was about far more than finding a single equation.

Does the equation explain and describe all relationships between mass and energy throughout the entire universe? So far, all experiments conducted over the last century and more say it does. It is describing all mass energy relationships here and around our solar system for certain. It is on solid ground. So far as I know, there is not even an alternative relationship being suggested by anyone, Jew or Aryan scientist. Anyone. I don't even know of any crank or fringe scientists who challenged the relation. There are a very few challenges to special and general relativity, alternatives, but I know of no challenge to mass-energy equivalence. There really cannot be, it works, gives the right results, provides accurate predictions, and is continuously experimentally verified. Moreover, it is simple in form.

Why is the equation squared and not cubed or whatever? Why does the speed of light have anything to do with potential energy any given object possesses? It is actually kinetic energy you are talking about here, not potential energy. Allow me to explain and derive the equation for kinetic energy for you.

I don't know if you are familiar with calculus, so I will give a down and dirty crash lesson first. For you and the benefit of other readers, too.

Calculus consists of two parts: differentiation and integration. Let us take the variable x and assign it to length. Meters, for example. In other words, distance. Now, as everyone knows, velocity--speed--is the ratio of some changing distance covered over a period of time. Miles per hour. Meters per second, and so on. This is another way of saying a change of x, our variable representing distance, with respect to a change of time.

Now, our good buddy Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz, who, many will recall, developed the calculus independently and simultaneously with Newton, he used to write up "change of x with respect to change of time as:

dx/dt

T of course representing time. This is Leibnitz notation, and we still use it today. It is a symbol for differentiation, a part of calculus. It's a lot easier than saying or writing "A change of x divided by a change of time."

So we now have v, for velocity, equals X times dx/dt.

v = (x)dx/dt

Integration is anti-differentiation. The reverse. Let's do some simple algebra here and find a differential equation that will lead us to a function for velocity in terms of time.

We get vdt = xdx.

Integrating both side of this equation gives

integral (that funny looking s symbol in calculus) vdt = integral xdx.

The left side then becomes v(t).

The right side becomes 1/2 X^2 plus some constant C. This is an indefinite integral. (A definite integral results in a number.) In other words, to integrate X, you raise its power by one and divide it by the number of the new power, in our case 2. This gives 1/2 X^2. That's integration. So our function for velocity with respect to time is

V(t) = 1/2 X^2 (one half x squared).

Now, on to kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is derived from work. In physics, work, w, means some force, f, moving an object through some distance x.

W = FX (F times X)

Now, change of distance means the measurement of length difference between final position and the initial position. X final minus x initial.

Force is equal to mass times acceleration.

F = ma

Work is a mechanism for transferring energy into a system. Pushing on an object is doing work on it. Your hand is applying a force and you are moving the object through a distance. One possible outcome of doing work on a system is that the system changes its speed. As you push on an object, you are also changing its speed.

The net work done on an object is described by the following definite integral:

W = integral (F times dx) or, since F is equal to ma,

W = integral (m times a times dx.)

W = integral madx. (Writing out calculus is sloppy if you don't have the symbols available to use like with Word or some other good text program.)

Acceleration is a change in velocity with respect to time, dv/dt.

W = integral m dv/dt dx

Doing the substitutions finally gives

W = integral (mv dv)

Integrating this, we finally get

1/2mv^2.

That is why the velocity is squared and not cubed or trebled or so on. In the relativistic E = mc squared equation the 1/2 goes away and the velocity is that of light and therefore c because of the limits. You can easily Google the equation for physics sites references to see the derivation.

This isn't obscure esoterea, guys.
 
Old February 20th, 2013 #38
Vance Stubbs
Hatespeaker
 
Vance Stubbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,281
Default

Quote:
In 1899 and again in 1904, Lorentz added time dilation to his transformations and published what Poincaré in 1905 named Lorentz transformations.[6][7] It was apparently unknown to Lorentz that Joseph Larmor had used identical transformations to describe orbiting electrons in 1897. Larmor's and Lorentz's equations look somewhat unfamiliar, but they are algebraically equivalent to those presented by Poincaré and Einstein in 1905.[B 3] Lorentz's 1904 paper includes the covariant formulation of electrodynamics, in which electrodynamic phenomena in different reference frames are described by identical equations with well defined transformation properties. The paper clearly recognizes the significance of this formulation, namely that the outcomes of electrodynamic experiments do not depend on the relative motion of the reference frame. The 1904 paper includes a detailed discussion of the increase of the inertial mass of rapidly moving objects.
Quote:
In 1905, Einstein would use many of the concepts, mathematical tools and results discussed to write his paper entitled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies",[8] known today as the theory of special relativity. Because Lorentz laid the fundamentals for the work by Einstein, this theory was originally called the Lorentz-Einstein theory.
Quote:
Einstein wrote of Lorentz:


1928: The enormous significance of his work consisted therein, that it forms the basis for the theory of atoms and for the general and special theories of relativity. The special theory was a more detailed expose of those concepts which are found in Lorentz's research of 1895.[B 7]
1953: For me personally he meant more than all the others I have met on my life's journey.
From these quotes, it seems like Lorentz was the first to start the whole relativism thing, which Einstein then improved/simplified (no fixed point of reference) and Minkowski simplified (no division between space and time) further.

This wouldn't make Einstein a fraud or a poor physicist (he and Lorentz liked each other's work), but it seems like he easily could've been relegated to the same sort of supporting role Minkowski's in now.
 
Old February 20th, 2013 #39
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

So, from reading the sequence of posts on this thread it appears that some of my readers have gone from Einstein being a stupid, untrained clerk with somewhere around maybe a grade school education to him being brilliant but getting the drop on other scientists concerning a unifying theory of relativity.

About that last, well, the history of science has an abundance of that. That is one of the main reasons there is such a rush to publish these days, not infrequently far too great a rush. In the past, certain scientist's made a discovery and either did not see its importance or just plain beat around the bush too long before reporting it. In some cases a scientist or inventor came up with something, but his version was either not as workable or was of a form of limited utility compare to a later version of someone else. The post several spaces above of Rick Ronsavelle's describes some of this.

It appears to me to not be the case that Einstein ripped off anyone. Yes, there were others working on very similar aspects at the time, but they were not working towards a comprehensive and unifying theory. Even Ronsavelle's article finally concedes this is the case by its author finally resorting to simply stating that someone would have eventually developed a theory anyway. No doubt. But in science, the trophy goes to he who gets there first and with the most general and workable innovation.
 
Old February 20th, 2013 #40
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vance Stubbs View Post
From these quotes, it seems like Lorentz was the first to start the whole relativism thing, which Einstein then improved/simplified (no fixed point of reference) and Minkowski simplified (no division between space and time) further.

This wouldn't make Einstein a fraud or a poor physicist (he and Lorentz liked each other's work), but it seems like he easily could've been relegated to the same sort of supporting role Minkowski's in now.
Yes, probably so if he had only presented the special theory. It is because of his later general theory, though, and its completely revolutionary concept of unification with gravity and the whole of space and science why he has the status he holds. Minkowski elaborated on it further and complemented it. That is why his is a supporting role; he never developed the concept, only the mathematics.

It is the general theory of relativity that is being ignored by the detractors here, notice.

Quote:
It seems like Lorentz was the first to start the whole relativism thing.
Again, read my first post in its entirety. I give the history of the principle. Relativity goes back to Galileo and Newton. Maxwell's constant, c, disrupted things by rendering non-covariant the laws of motion with respect to reference frames.

Ninety-five percent of the posters on this thread and their concerns and accusations were answered in my first post. But I don't think anyone has actually read it, except for one other poster.
 
Reply

Tags
albert einstein, einstein, fraud, jew fraud, jew fraud einstein, jew lies, physics

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:54 PM.
Page generated in 0.20932 seconds.