Comprehensive coverage

What does the Talmud have to say about Einstein?

Dr. Gali Weinstein criticizes the decision to translate into Hebrew the book "Einstein's Jewish Science" by Steven Gimbel.

The cover of the book "Einstein's Jewish Science", Keter Publishing 2014
The cover of the book "Einstein's Jewish Science", Keter Publishing 2014

The book "Einstein's Jewish Science" was scientifically edited by Dr. Yachin Ona and translated into Hebrew by Emmanuel Lotem. The translator is experienced and the translation is faithful to the original, so I will refer to the Hebrew translation here.

The author Steven Gimbel explains the provocative central idea that is the basis of his book at the very beginning (on page 11): "We know that great thinkers such as the Nobel laureate Leonard, the celebrated mathematician Ludwig Beiberbach..., all stood together with their Nazi brothers. It is impossible to dismiss the thinking of such minds in vain... We may be hasty - too hasty - to reject outright claims made in defense of the abominable beliefs of Nazism. This is not to say that Nazism should be treated with some degree of sympathy; The intention is only to say that perhaps it is possible to gather insights through a more in-depth investigation of certain claims made in support of him." Philip Lenard has not stopped digging and looking for ways to discredit Einstein's theory of relativity since it arose as special relativity; And he did it for reasons of nationalism-racism and anti-Semitism.

Gimbel asks on page 75. Could it be Einstein's Jewish background that tipped the scales? And Gimbel asks it in a different way on page 76: "Were the Nazis advocating Aryan physics right, in their claim that there is a Jewish version of the scientific method, and Einstein's work is an example of it?" Gimbel continues to say that the Nazi argument came from three assumptions: 1) There is a typical Jewish way of thinking. 2) This way of thinking influenced the content of the theory of relativity. 3) This influence was malignant, and tarnished the theory. Gimbel concludes that the second premise was false. The content of Einstein's work was not influenced in any way by the Torah, the Talmud or anything else Jewish. The third assumption is racist nonsense. But he does not rule out the first assumption. He asks: "Is there indeed a Jewish way of thinking, ... and if so, can we find it in Einstein's science?" Again, Einstein himself thought that he was." In addition, Gimble asks: "Was Einstein Jewish?" And answers: "The Nazis thought the answer was positive." The Jews thought the answer was positive. Even Einstein himself thought the answer was positive." (page 21). And he writes on page 18: "Relativity will be a Jewish science if Einstein himself is Jewish."

Gimbel uses Einstein quotes to back up implicit anti-Semitic claims. Einstein never thought that there was a Jewish way of thinking and did not bother with personal questions. Einstein once wrote about the offer to write a biography about him: "As long as my personality is connected with it, I tend to give a negative answer; So no biography!". Einstein was opposed to preoccupation with his personality, he was opposed to preoccupation with nationality, his religion and anything that did not belong to the science he created.

But Gimbel insists on asking on page 75: "Why did a Jew formulate the theory of relativity?" Gimbel borrows the anti-Semitic phrase "Jewish science" and asks on page 18: "The theory of relativity, argued the followers of Aryan physics, is not real science, but 'Jewish science.' indeed? We will not be able to respond to this accusation if we do not first give an answer to the question 'What is Jewish science?' Why even raise this question when on page 143 Gimbel writes explicitly: "It is true that the concept of 'Jewish science' developed in part out of the so widespread anti-Semitism, especially in what concerns the general opposition to modernity in all its forms, and in part out of personal enmity towards Albert Einstein..." and on page 161 he Writes that the Nazis created the concept of Jewish science with the express intention of tattooing the theory of relativity.

Gimbel again asks if Einstein was Jewish? And he answers on page 23 yes. and why? The answer lies in the stereotype of the Jewish mother: "In truth, Einstein's mother was not just Jewish - and in many ways she was more Yiddish than the stereotypical mother - fierce, sharp-tongued, always ready and willing to take advantage of feelings of guilt to get what she wanted from her children, especially her son Albert." Lucky he didn't describe Einstein's father as Shylock.

Gimbel concludes: "When he worked on the theory of relativity, Einstein was no longer a theistic Jew, or an observant Jew." Hence the science he produced was not Jewish science. But he insists on asking on page 47: "Is relativity full of Jewish ideas?" After a long discussion, he answers on page 74: "But none of the intellectual ammunition that Einstein used came from Jewish suppliers... There is nothing in the software of the theory of relativity that is influenced by something Hebrew, drawn from it or refers to it." So why did Gimbal raise the question on page 47? After all, already on page 23 he answered this answer. And so it was unnecessary from the beginning to 'borrow' the phrase "Jewish science" from Nazism.

Gimbel decides at the end on pages 112 and 116 and 216 that relativity is not Jewish science but "science in a Jewish style" or thinking in a Jewish style" (in the style of the Talmud). He talks about methodology "in the Christian style" and "in the Jewish style", and writes on page 114 that not all Jewish scientists engage in science "in the Jewish style". What is the difference between Jewish science and Jewish science? Not clear from the book. On page 151 relativity returns to being "Jewish science". Gimbel says that one of the side meanings attached to the term "Jew" is disloyalty. He writes that the followers of Aryan science found this explicitly in "Jewish science". They argued that like everything else that man creates, science is dictated by race. He asks on page 159: "What about the disloyalty aspect?" He explores this aspect in one passage where he completely distorts history and presents Einstein as unfaithful:

"On the one hand, special relativity was the result of an aspiration to explain an experiment done by two Americans (Michaelson and Morley) through the work of a Dutchman (Lorenz), which combined with the methodological insights of a German (Mach) and a Frenchman (Poincare) led to conversations in Switzerland with members of the Olympia Academy who came From Romania (Moritz Solovin) and from Italy (Michela Basso). On the other hand, Einstein did not flaunt the multinational lineage of his theory. In fact, the noteworthy fact that his article does not mention any of these influences, other than words of thanks to Basso…”

Einstein did not remember whether he was specifically familiar with the Michelson-Morley experiment before he formulated the theory of relativity. In general, he knew that the site drift experiment had all yielded a negative result, meaning that no movement of the earth relative to the site had been detected. The problem for him was not experimental, to find a generalization of experiments; The problem was theoretical - to find the guiding principles, a principle that would guide him theoretically. It was Lorentz who tried through constructive efforts (the electron theory, transformations and the contraction hypothesis) to explain the Michelson-Morley and Poincaré experiment involving Lorentz's electron theory, which was based on the ether. Mach was the spiritual father of Einstein and Solovin and Besso, his close friends (Besso was not a member of the Olympia Academy). There is no reason for him to mention his friends and philosophical influences in an academic article.

On page 196, Gimbel adds to this passage other gross (!) mistakes: "Not only did neither of the two, neither Lorentz nor Poincaré, claim first rights to the discovery, but both even showed open hostility towards it, and Einstein worked hard to change their positions. He tried to convince the two, more than once and twice. As for Poincaré, his efforts failed again and again." Here Gimbel refers in a footnote to one of the world's greatest researchers Gerald Holton. Holton never said anything like that. But what is worse is that Gimble refers to the book from which he allegedly drew this incorrect information:
Holton, Gerald, Einstein's Clocks, Poincare's Maps. New York: WW Norton, 2003.
This book was not written by Gerald Holton! It was written by Peter Gleason, and even Peter Gleason, an esteemed researcher, did not write in his book nonsense like the ones Gimble wrote above.

On page 144, Gimbel defines "Aryan science" and says that the German nationalists engaged in "Aryan science"; And on page 156 Gimbel comes to the following strange conclusion: "Einstein was engaged in Aryan science" and on page 158 he again writes that "in the terms of the Nazis themselves, Einstein turns out to be an Aryan thinker and not necessarily a Jew." First Gimbel said that Einstein practiced science in a Jewish style, then he demonstrated that Einstein practiced Jewish science and finally he wrote that Einstein practiced Aryan science.

In this context, it is worth recalling a joke that Einstein once told. Einstein became famous and not because of the Germans. It was precisely the English (Arthur Eddington), the sworn enemies of the Germans, who carried out the historical verification in 1919 of the theory of general relativity. The English Times asked Einstein to contribute an article on the new theory and to uplift his English colleagues and especially to bow to Newton's genius. Einstein agreed and on November 28, 1919 he published the article "Time, Space and Gravity". Einstein ended his article with a joke: "A final note. The description of me and my situation in the Times shows an amusing act of imagination on the part of the writer. Applying the theory of relativity to the readers' taste, today in Germany I am referred to as a German scientist, and in England I am presented as a Swiss Jew. If I am considered an abomination, the description will be reversed, and I will become a Swiss Jew for the Germans and a German scientist for the English!"
This joke annoyed the German nationalists who attacked Einstein's theory of relativity. In 1918 Einstein answered the German anti-Semites who attacked his theory of relativity. The paradox of the clocks (twins) especially bothered them. Einstein wrote a dialogue between a critic of relativity and a supporter of relativity:

The auditor: We will examine a reference system S in which there are two identical clocks at rest 1 and 2 and they both move at the same rate. Clock 2 moves with respect to the reference system S at a uniform speed. As seen from S it will move at a slower rate than clock 1 which is at rest at S. Suppose there are two points in our frame of reference: A and B. A is at the beginning of S and B is a point forward on the X-axis. Both clocks are initially at rest at A. They move at the same rate and the positions of the hands are exactly the same in both watches. Now clock 2 is given a constant speed in the positive direction of the X-axis and it moves towards B. At B its speed changes direction and clock 2 returns back to A. When it reaches A it slows down and is again at rest relative to clock 1. Now clock 2 lags behind clock 1. According to the principle of relativity the same process should occur in exactly the same way when it is represented in a frame of reference S' which moves together with clock 2. relative to a new frame of reference This is S' we say clock 1 is in motion and clock 2 is at rest. Hence clock 1 should lag behind clock 2 and this is contrary to the result we got before. If the two clocks are standing next to each other they cannot at the same time both lag behind each other and speed up with respect to each other.

Relativistic: according to the special theory of relativity the two coordinate systems S and S' are not equivalent. Because the theory of relativity says that only non-accelerating reference systems, that is, reference systems relative to which bodies move uniformly and in a straight line, are balanced. The system S is such an inertial system, but not the system S', which is momentarily an accelerated system. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that clock 2, after leaving clock 1, does not contradict the basis of relativity.

The critic: I see no reason why anyone would choose such terrible complications and mathematical difficulties just for the sake of intellectual preference, that is, for the sake of the idea of ​​relativity. This seems contrary to our everyday logic.
Relativistic: We will turn to an example from everyday life and demonstrate why it is better to choose a complication. Suppose we consider the uniformly moving train to be at rest on the railroad tracks. In this situation the landscape is in uniform motion relative to the train. Will the common sense of the locomotive driver allow such a definition? The locomotive driver will strongly object to this, as it does not start the scenery, but starts the engine of the locomotive. Therefore, it is the movement of the locomotive that shows the effect of his work and not the other way around.

When you look at the classic example of the locomotive driver, you realize that the principles that stand behind it only come from physical thinking: work, energy and physical principles, which we know so well.

In his book, Gimbel repeatedly asks the same question: Is Einstein's theory of relativity a Jewish science? And cancels most of the achievements of the Jews in science by saying on page 13: "In the global Jewish community, not many have been awarded the same stature attributed to Einstein. Many enjoy pointing out that the actors Dana Shore and William Shatner, the supreme judges Abe Ports and Felix Frankfurter, the painter Marc Chagall, as well as Simon and Garfunkel, the three Stooges and the four Marx brothers, are Jews."
While a quarter of the world's Nobel Prize winners are Jews, Gimbel does not forget to point out repeatedly in his book that the German anti-Semitic nationalists won the Nobel Prize. For example, on page 147, he writes: "The two central figures who headed the Harry science movement, Leonard and Stark, won their Nobel Prizes for discoveries that resulted from their slow and meticulous observations of complex phenomena."

The translator Emanuel Lotem did a wonderful job in that in the Hebrew translation you don't find some stupid grammar mistakes that appear in the English original.

The book claims to be provocative by making controversial claims, which are backed up by quotes from Einstein and authoritative researchers. However, the author takes Einstein's quotes out of context and distorts the researchers' statements. The book is riddled with historical errors, errors in familiarity with scientific literature, and scientific errors so embarrassing that it is difficult to understand how a reputable publisher like Ketter agreed to publish a translation of it.

Dana Elazar-Halevi, editor of the non-fiction books at Keter Publishing, responds: "When we decided to publish the book, we had the review of the New York Times, which was certainly respectful, as well as a positive opinion on the book in terms of the interest it might arouse. Emanuel Lotem, an experienced translator of popular science books, and Yakhin Ona, who edited the book Scientific Editing, are, as far as I'm concerned, worthy trustees."

"It is clear to me that the starting point of the book is provocative, and it is possible that there were even mistakes in it. You probably understand more about this than I do. However, we are not an academic publication, and it often happens that books intended for the general public are not liked by professionals. "

"As far as I'm concerned, the very discussion of the question of the relationship between religion and science is interesting and thought-provoking, and therefore I think there should be a place for the book on the bookshelf - as mentioned, those intended for the general public and not necessarily for researchers and students."

For a review of Stephen Gimbel's book by Dr. Zev Rosencrantz, The former curator of the Einstein Archives at the Hebrew University and one of the editors of Einstein's writings at the Einstein Project at Caltech, Pasadena

More of the topic in Hayadan:

43 תגובות

  1. Miracles If you don't believe in miracles and in nature that made itself with its limitation and its lack also with its limitation and you don't believe then why do you have a dirty mouth almost like the smelly and mobile hole of the mammoth that came out of it after it opened its legs to its neighbor and to every passer-by.
    There is nothing more rubbish than an obstinate atheist who hides his lust for rubbish as if canceling the faith you don't have has become intelligence if it wasn't just a matter of insolence disguised as education in order to remain uncommitted
    And Rabbi Amnon Yitzchak is not a jerk at all and is extremely wise. He also saves Ben Mokion-Gurion's Relaite refugee Jews from a life of garbage that ends in hell.

  2. It is said about this: "The jealous will die" Einstein is definitely someone you can either admire or be jealous of (and the scientist as well as the great singer) I stopped reading in the middle because I got angry..., the bottom line, Nazis and non-Nazis or those in disguise - let them eat the heart the theory is alive and well And proven time and time again as valid, if they want to call it "Jewish thinking" no one will argue, it is known that the Jews touch to think and tottov..

  3. Jealousy eats up every good part of the anti-Semites and haters of Israel. and better this way. Jealousy comes from a fear that hates you stronger than itself. Fear and anxiety are allies of hysteria which is the source of the book's errors as beautifully presented by Mr. Weinstein

  4. To say that Maimonides does not represent Judaism is like saying that Einstein does not represent science.

  5. Miracles
    This phenomenon has a name: "mother Taliban". There was an investigative work on this on the second channel. Try to find this article. It's scary.

  6. Life
    Right! More than that - I get to see ultra-Orthodox women dressed exactly like the Taliban, and children too... . Shame and shame on the country!!

  7. Miracles
    The fact that you called Amnon Yitzhak Kashkashen is a compliment. He is just a Taliban with a tallit.

  8. Nietzsche
    I have no pretensions to replace Nietzsche. Try not to get into the situation he was in in his last years..

  9. Mount Rav
    I didn't say no for a moment. What I am saying is that it does not represent "Judaism". It doesn't seem to me that there can be one person who represents a great religion like Judaism. Personally, I was very surprised that Rambam used philosophical arguments (some of them not original) to prove the existence of a Creator. This somewhat offends, in my opinion, the meaning of the term "faith". Today it is common in dark circles such as creationists, intelligent planning and charlatans such as Amnon Yitzchak the Kashkashen.

  10. First of all, it's an 'embarrassed teacher' and not a 'turned off teacher'.
    Second, Maimonides represents his opinion.
    And Maimonides' opinion represents a respectable and important current in the Jewish religion.

  11. Nietzsche is dead - so God said

    The Maimonides, in Morah Nachovim (Book II) talks about a number of proofs for the existence of God. Do you claim that he represents the opinion of the Torah elders on the subject? I would love to hear your learned opinion.

  12. Miracles
    You're an idiot, and you're making a fool of yourself.
    Maimonides represents the religion.
    And you don't even understand what you're talking about. Your only evidence is "I know about Maimonides".
    So that's what you don't know.
    What is not clear to you and what are you ranting about?

    Life

    Who replaces Nietzsche? Not you that's for sure 🙂

  13. Nietzsche is dead
    Who replaces Nietzsche? Are you his ghost or his reincarnation? I understand that you wrote "Thus Said Zarathustra"

  14. Nietzsche is dead
    The connection is that I know more about Maimonides than you do, and Maimonides does not represent the Jewish religion. And please, save your dirty mouth for other places.

  15. What are you, an idiot?
    What is the connection?
    You said that Rambam does not represent the religion.
    And you are wrong.
    What is not clear to you?

  16. "The Rambam does not represent the religion"?
    Hmmm…. "interesting"…. So who represents the religion - the commenter "miracles"? 🙂

  17. rummy
    With all due respect to Rambam, and there is respect, he does not represent the religion! What did I say that you disagree with? What do you think I'm ignorant of?

    Maimonides gave "scientific" proof of the existence of a Creator. His proof is wrong and misleading. Is this what we are arguing about?

  18. Lenisim - I have no problem with your anti-religious views, I have a problem with ignorance, especially on a site that tries to promote
    Knowledge and based rational thinking. Maimonides, one of the greats of Judaism since time immemorial, spoke of natural explanations for phenomena in nature as the key to his understanding.

    Put your agendas aside, and look objectively, as much as possible, at facts and interpretations.

  19. Einstein himself would dismiss the theory of Jewish (religious or national) influence on his scientific outlook altogether. To remind you, he refused to head the Hebrew University because he opposed Magnes's policy of preferring Jewish scientists (German refugees) to non-Jews, and demanded that the scientific criteria be the only criterion for the professorship. Einstein's Jewish identification faded shortly after his Bar Mitzvah, and did not return to play a role until the rise of Nazism and the beginning of the persecution of Jews. And this happened 20 years after the publication of the general theory of relativity, 30 years after the special theory of relativity (to which the Dutch Lorenz and the French Poincaré also contributed, of course) became one of the undisputed foundations of physics (strongly supported by Max Planck, the most authoritative physicist in German science and a declared nationalist during the First World War , when Einstein was assigned in Germany for being a pacifist).

  20. Luckily for us, the Germans were so radical in their view of "Jewish science" that they preferred ideas that contradicted them, so this is one of the reasons they delayed and failed in developing the atomic bombs.

  21. point
    There is no connection between the Jewish religion and science, and in general between religion and science. The idea that there is a natural explanation for all the phenomena we see is completely against religion. The idea that man is a contingent species like any other species is completely against religion. The idea that it is a mistake to rely on authority is completely against religion.

    It is enough to look for a moment at the ultra-orthodox education system...

  22. The Nazi scum did everything to tattoo the simple fact, the Jew surpassed the German in everything. Jews have more Nobel Prizes than Germans. The science of Jewish scientists moved the world forward more than any other population. And even more so than the Germans. Any attempt to attribute to the Jews some kind of "Jewish science" or the influence of Judaism on science is delusional, stupid and stupid. All these articles are not even worth looking at. and their place in the trash can.

  23. It should be noted that from a logical point of view the concept of "Jewish science" acts as a double-edged sword towards the Nazi racist Torah.
    According to the Nazi Torah, the absolute ideological truth is: Judaism = evil and everything negative.
    From this it follows, in their opinion, that Jewish science is fundamentally wrong and bad.
    However, on the day that the objective scientific experiment showed that Einstein's theory was correct, the discovery caused the challenge and the collapse of the Nazi "scientific" argument. This happened, for example, in 1919, when an astronomical observation, during a solar eclipse, proved the theory of gravitational contraction, which is one of the predictions of Einstein's "Jewish" theory of relativity.
    Of course, the Nazis did not let this scientific discovery spoil their racist Torah,
    And that is understandable and clear. Racism is not a science but only pretends to be a science to serve its political goals

  24. deer,
    What I wrote on Ynet:
    The book contains quite a few mistakes. The author carelessly wrote the list of sources for the book; He used quotes from Einstein to justify his claims and distorted the meaning of the quotes. For example here in the article above it is written: "Even Einstein himself thought so". There is no historical basis in Einstein's quotes. Gimbel wrote some nonsense in his book such as: "And Einstein worked hard to change their positions. He tried to convince the two [Lorenz and Poincaré], more than once and twice. As for Poincaré, his efforts failed again and again." And Gimbel wrote: "Special relativity was the result of an ambition to explain an experiment done by two Americans (Michaelson and Morley)." It shows that he has not read any (!) articles on the history of relativity.
    Next to Gimbal's book in the Stimatsky store was another book with a picture of Einstein by Prof. Moshe Zimmerman. So I bought. And what a difference, literally heaven and earth. The richness of the list of sources in Zimmerman's book and the accuracy in Zimmerman's book. Zimmerman's book is also intended for the intelligent audience that is not a doctor from the university. But the intelligent audience also deserves to receive a high-quality book without historical errors, with a list of sources written without errors.

  25. Peace,

    I bought the book before I saw the article here and in the meantime I still haven't finished reading it (I'm somewhere around page 120), so I may later change my mind, but for now I think the attack on the book here is quite exaggerated.

    The claim of the book is broadly that just as philosophy or literature is influenced by the cultural background of the thinker, so a person's culture also influences his scientific thought. As evidence he brings (even before the Einstein discussion) apparent evidence of Catholic influences on Descartes' scientific theories and Protestant influences on Newton's view. Accordingly, he claims that Einstein's thinking has Jewish cultural characteristics and if indeed Einstein's Jewish origins have an influence on his scientific thought, then just as one can speak of a philosophy whose origins in Christian culture are "Christian philosophy", so one can speak of physics that originates in a Talmudic thinking methodology As for "Jewish physics".
    It is important to emphasize that, in my impression, the book does not contain even a shadow of an anti-Semitic tone. The cultural characteristics attributed to Einstein's theory are not necessarily presented as negative. On the contrary, while the Christian view is presented as bow-headed, fixed and looking for absolute truths in places where they do not exist, precisely the Jewish way of thinking as expressed in Einstein's Jewish thinking is presented as open and wise. This Jewish thinking is attributed (in my opinion in a rather unfounded way) to the continuation of the Talmudic tradition, which knows how to look at the complex picture in contrast to Christian dogmatic thinking.
    So why does he use the term "Jewish physics" which originates from the Nazi worldview?
    I think there are two reasons:
    The first, the cheapest, is for the provocation - so that he makes headlines and the New York Times publishes a review of him.
    The second is more significant - to get reinforcement for the thesis he presents, by demonstrating that great physicists, not Jews, were hindered by these Jewish elements in their way of thinking (ah....).

    In my opinion, the author's view is partly trivial and partly far-fetched.
    It is clear that cultural background is of some importance - no Tibetan from the 28th century BC could formulate Maxwell's equations because there is not so much background missing that this achievement was simply beyond the powers of a single person. Furthermore, a Tibetan from the 28th century BC would not have thought to formulate the laws of nature in a mathematical way, to build an orderly set of experiments, to isolate external influences, etc., and all this before we talked about the willingness of his community to respond positively to his attempts to engage in science. In short, the statement that cultural background is important in the ability to create science is trivial.
    On the other hand, the statement that Einstein's Jewishness was necessary for him to rebel against authority in absolute space sounds really far-fetched to me. First of all, seeing Judaism as a terribly pluralistic and egalitarian religion based on learning in fellowship and discussing the Talmud, sounds to me like a romantic and one-sided view of Judaism. Furthermore, even if we examine the simple facts, it is clear that many learned Jews did not rebel for years against scientific hypotheses that were much more far-fetched than Newton's absolute space, and on the other hand, quite complete and close-minded Gentiles such as Planck, or Heisenberg, put forward no less revolutionary hypotheses.
    In conclusion,
    In my opinion, accusing the author of anti-Semitism seems completely wrong and unfair to me, and apparently not only to me, but also to "Ketar" publishing house and the newspaper called "Jewish Gurnell" (whose recommendation appears on the back of the book).
    Beyond that, the book is quite interesting overall, touches on a variety of historical and scientific topics and provides a lot of information (which according to Gali is not accurate - maybe). Unfortunately, it basically presents a rather far-fetched, if not completely unfounded, hypothesis. In the meantime, I think that my disagreement with this hypothesis does not interfere with my enjoyment of the book.

  26. By the way, the book is a XNUMXnd year organic chemistry textbook.
    I remember showing the dedication to a classmate of mine, after he claimed that the Jews were thieves (I did some research and found out that his father and uncle thought so).
    It was my first face-to-face encounter with European anti-Semitism (I've heard such comments before from African or Middle Eastern immigrants, but not from Europeans especially given their history). The market was huge, because we are not talking about some bum living on scraps, but a master's degree student in chemistry.

    But there is a happy ending to this story, I remember I invited him to coffee (which was a huge market for him) and then I came home and so on, today I am one of his close friends. Not long ago he admitted to me that his father is primitive and thinks he knows everything... He claimed that he found out how ignorant he was when he told him about me

  27. The question arises as to whether the writer is faced with conclusive evidence and reaches the inevitable conclusion that Jews are thieves of opinion?.... Or does he think in advance that the Jew is a thief and selectively collects "evidence"?

    Let's examine the matter logically...would the author of the book have come to the opposite conclusion if there were Aryans who stole ideas from Jewish scientists?

    It is claimed that the lack of Jewish loyalty, came to Lady Betoy in that Einstein was significantly influenced by a number of scientists, who did not bother to admit or mention them in his writings.

    Next we see; "Lisa Meitner, an Austrian Jewish scientist who in the XNUMXs bombarded heavy atoms like uranium with subatomic particles in order to expand the periodic table. She shared the knowledge with the scientist Otto Hahn from the German team who worked on the synthesis of new elements, the team discovered nine new elements, immediately after applying for recognition of the discovery, Meitner had to leave Germany because of her Jewish background and moved to Sweden.

    Otto Hahn reported to her that one of the new elements they had found behaved like barium. After a trip in the Swedish snow with her nephew, Meitner immediately realized that "an atomic nucleus could split in two just like a drop of water." No wonder the resulting particle behaved like barium - it was barium.'

    And so the idea of ​​nuclear fission was born. She immediately informed Otto about her proposed solution. When Otto Hahn published his paper he barely mentioned Meitner's crucial contribution and briefly mentioned another scientist, Fritz. As a result, Michal Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Meitner's flash of genius was completely ignored.

    Only recently has Meitner's contribution been praised. And element number 109 is named after her Maitranium.''

    Taken from the book dedicated to the memory of Lisa Meitner:

    Discriptide inorganic chemistry

    Geoff Rayner and Tina Overton

    Translated by 🙂

  28. In addition, the list of sources includes Hitler's book "Mein Kampf". It says: Hitler, Adolf, "Mein Kampf", the German publishing house, 1971. This is not so common in the books that sit in Stimatsky and Tzumat Sharifim.
    I am holding in my hand Prof. Moshe Zimmerman's book, "Germans against Germans, the fate of the Jews 1938-1945".
    The book is so precise in its list of sources and so in-depth in its list of sources, multitudes of sources from which it is evident that the author has vast knowledge in the field. Difference of Heaven and Earth compared to Gimbal's book.

  29. One more mistake that Gimbal makes in his book that I forgot to correct and it is important to correct it. In the bibliographic list in the book Gimbel writes:
    Collected Papers of Albert Einstein. Edited by Diana K. Buchwald. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987.
    In 1987 Diana Buchwald was not an editor of Einstein's writings!! This is the first volume of Einstein's writings edited by John Stachel, the first editor of Einstein's writings.
    Gimbel sloppily wrote the bibliographic list of his book and even in a book intended for the general public it is important to respect the intelligent audience and write the bibliographic list accurately.

  30. If there is anything that can be learned from the book (based on the article) it is the unimaginable hatred towards the Jews, and this hatred has no scientific explanation.

  31. The Zoroastrians in India, in an above average socioeconomic situation. But they do not arouse emotions like the Jews. Because Judaism is related to the great religions - Christianity, Islam.

  32. In the coming Ramadan the movie. As popular movies and series do about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, they will begin to do about Jewish science.

  33. To anonymous user (unidentified), agree with every word!

    Then all kinds of Jewish racists will come and boast about the Jewish genius that was actually created thanks to (?) anti-Semitic racists. The way of the world...

  34. This is not surprising, prevent the Jews from earning a living, and send them to study theories. Then it turned out that all the theories were developed by Jews. There is something for everyone and ours came out on top.

  35. Why did you even translate such a book? After all, if I had bought it without reading the review, the translator and the publisher would have burned me in such a way that I would not buy anything from them in the future, regardless of its quality.

  36. Since the author is obsessed with Judaism, maybe he should convert. In any case, he turns the Jewish religion into something very dramatic. And Einstein's mother was a musician. And that's how Einstein gained an advantage. Music develops thinking.

  37. The whole idea of ​​modern science revolves around understanding the unified causality of things.
    This monotheistic idea is essentially Jewish.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.

Skip to content