🧵 FRAUD UNMASKED
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 09:19:03 UTC No. 16469439
He stole SR from Lorentz and Fitzgerald.
He stole GR from Hilbert.
He stole Brownian motion from Thiel.
Even the Nobel committee wouldn't lie and credit him with those, just photo electric effect and "contributions to science". What a joke, you're own paid stooges would tell the big lies you wanted.
He had nothing to do with Bose Einstein Condensates.
He was wrong about the Big bang
he was wrong about Quantum Mechanics.
He was an adulterer and worse moral degenerate.
He and the other two jews were wrong about the EPR "paradox", and thus showed they not only didn't understand QM, but SR itself that they claim he discovered.
His first solution to the field equations were laughably bad, violating causality and the laws of thermodynamics.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 18:37:46 UTC No. 16469837
Dumbass take.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 18:50:06 UTC No. 16469848
First they tried to defame and dismiss his work by calling it "Jewish physics". When they realised that everyone could see that he was right and no one was buying their Aryan physics aether fairy crap, they started screaming that he stole from others.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 18:56:56 UTC No. 16469851
>Oh someone in a lower postion than us made and important breakthrough
>Get the daipers hans its time to throw a shitfit.
Absolutely disgusting, absolutely zero.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 19:04:56 UTC No. 16469857
no one cares about brownian motion, everything else he stole
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 20:36:33 UTC No. 16469927
>>16469439
You know i'd take you a lot more seriously if you knew the difference between your and you're, just saying
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 20:49:03 UTC No. 16469940
Based and redpilled take
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 20:51:15 UTC No. 16469943
>>16469837
Get the fuck out of here, you ignorant moron.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 20:53:50 UTC No. 16469945
>>16469848
The fact there are retards everywhere doesn't make him right. Simple as.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 20:57:29 UTC No. 16469950
>>16469439
>He stole SR from Lorentz and Fitzgerald.
Wasn't Einstein the first to apply the Lorentz factor to physics?
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 03:55:45 UTC No. 16470371
>>16469439
not a total "fraud", but by no means the "lone genius" daydreaming in a patent office. Unlike the true greats like Newton/Leibnitz and folks of that era and earlier is that Einstein had LOTS of help along the way from his wife, his old teachers, dozens of colleagues, favorable treatment by the various Unis and Institutions, etc.....Meanwhile the Newton & Co. were working truly along with no help, no "peers", no colleagues, no one to help them with the math because they were inventing it as they went along.
Newton was being sarcastic when talking about "standing on the shoulders of giants", but it's entirely accurate when it comes to Albert.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 04:13:28 UTC No. 16470396
>>16470371
Even Newton didn't reinvent math. The standard that's being applied to Einstein by the wingnut crowd is laughable.
He did upend much of what the physics establishment held to be true at the time and faced great resistance for it and no one can take that away from him.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 05:13:18 UTC No. 16470439
Stueckelberg the GOAT
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 05:19:30 UTC No. 16470447
>>16469848
Are 'they' in the room with you now?
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 05:23:11 UTC No. 16470451
>>16470396
No they didn't reinvent math, they invented the math that all other scientists use to this day. Also throw Hamilton in there.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 17:04:32 UTC No. 16471004
>>16470396
No one "invents" math. They "discover" various truths and proofs, which Newton and Leibnitz did in virtual isolation. Newton was a literal autist and there wasn't so much as a light bulb, or indoor plumbing to make things easier. Newton had to run around to avoid the Plague at various times, ffs.
Meanwhile, Albert has his wife write his papers, do the math. His old professors also had to come along and tidy up his work. The concept of the atom, electricity, etc...were already fairly well know and there were all sorts of instruments and colleagues at his disposal. Newton had a "telescope" that wouldn't pass for a kaleidoscope now days. Oh, and Newton pioneered optics, banking, architecture and even crazy Bible Code shit. His math career was really just one of many amazing achievements. Conversely, Einstein was already "quaint" if not irrelevant within his own lifetime.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 18:09:52 UTC No. 16471093
>>16469439
Based
>>16469837
>>16469851
JIDF not sending their best today
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 18:39:58 UTC No. 16471116
>>16469439
lol
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 18:55:31 UTC No. 16471137
>>16469439
>He stole SR from Lorentz and Fitzgerald.
Yes.
>He stole GR from Hilbert.
I'm fairly certain he cited Hilbert. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>He stole Brownian motion from Thiel.
Yes.
>Even the Nobel committee wouldn't lie and credit him with those, just photo electric effect and "contributions to science".
The photo electric effect was a good one though.
>were wrong about the EPR "paradox", and thus showed they not only didn't understand QM, but SR
He didn't understand QM I agree, but can you elaborate why you think he didn't understand SR either?
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 19:30:08 UTC No. 16471162
>>16469439
> just photo electric effect
oh yeah, that small little result that led to the entire development of quantum physics. not worth a nobel prize at all.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 02:30:08 UTC No. 16471544
>>16471162
Yes, QM, a "field" (get it?) that he basically despised being the Newtonian Classicist at heart that he was. Everyone knows him for Relativity, but he didn't win for that b/c it wasn't as "revolutionary" as it's made out to be. Again, he was putting the cheery on top of many other peoples' work.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 07:00:22 UTC No. 16473065
>>16471162
This is an exaggeration. It was just one part of the puzzle that led to ideas of particle-wave duality which in itself is not yet QM.
>>16471544
>, a "field" (get it?)
Kek.
Also you make a good point that he did not have insights into his own experiments that led to QM. However, he certainly did understand QM even if he didn't agree with it. It was a very well designed experiment as well.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 09:45:16 UTC No. 16473180
>>16469439
isn't this common knowledge now? Feynman was a fraud too
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 09:46:51 UTC No. 16473181
>>16470371
didn't Newton steal from Leibniz?
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 09:55:41 UTC No. 16473189
>>16473181
No, they never stole anything from each other. That's not what the priority dispute was about. Newton and Leibniz always stuck to the facts. It was mostly unrelated nationalists that argue about the importance of dates and value of those facts.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:15:27 UTC No. 16473199
>>16469950
Not even Lorentz was the first to apply it to physics. Heaviside discovered that electrostatic fields contract in motion by that factor. You only need the Maxwell equations for that
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:59:36 UTC No. 16473225
>>16473199
>>16469950
Lorentz applied it primarily to Physics (electrodynamics) and later in collaboration with Poincare also to gravitation.
There's a reason it's named after him.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:15:46 UTC No. 16473313
>>16473199
Heaviside was a loon in the end a based loon but a loon, driven that way by the state of physics and electrical engineering.
tragic to read about
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:16:46 UTC No. 16473314
>>16473180
I wasn't aware of the controversy until this thread.
Every mathematician is a fraud at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 14:05:31 UTC No. 16473365
>>16469439
>Poinc
OP omitted (on purpose?) Henri Poincaré, stated first in the list of people that "inspired" the most Einstein's theory of relativity.
In effect, from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rela
"Albert Einstein presented the theories of special relativity and general relativity in publications that either contained no formal references to previous literature, or referred only to a small number of his predecessors for fundamental results on which he based his theories, most notably to the work of Henri Poincaré and Hendrik Lorentz for special relativity, and to the work of David Hilbert, Carl F. Gauss, Bernhard Riemann, and Ernst Mach for general relativity"
Nowadays, one of the biggest fraud is Terence Tao with his Golbach Conjecture addition heavily inspired by Olivier Ramaré, ending with some ugly limiting logarithms to end his demos.
The world needs pop icons, including maths.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 02:15:35 UTC No. 16474217
>Einstein's Theory of Relativity is based heavily on Lorentz Ether Theory. Most of the equations are the same, but Einstein's theory removes all references to the ether.
So this is what it's about, is it?
>NOOOO! I can't believe chudenstein disrespected muh heccin etherino!
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:10:15 UTC No. 16474482
can you guys explain why NOBODY GOT NOBEL FOR SPECIAL RELATIVITY when the physicists themselves say it's major landmark in the history of physics?
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:19:09 UTC No. 16474492
>>16474482
that would be antisemitic
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:45:38 UTC No. 16474517
>>16469439
YWNBAP
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:58:45 UTC No. 16474528
>>16469837
>>16469943
this nigger is in my thread too
>I'll just be a hyper aggressive spastoid that'll troll them LOL
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 09:50:18 UTC No. 16474555
>>16469439
Cool story bro.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 13:50:46 UTC No. 16474757
>>16474482
Because no one person really "discovered" it. Many people suspected the basic premise, but there was no way to prove it until we had camera equipment, like Einstein used.
The problem is that the pics Einstien took were shit and everyone knew it, which means his "proof"/"evidence" were shit, but everyone just went along with it for """reasons""" and because they were very confident in the underlying mathematics.