Part II: How Einstein cooked the paper that made him famous worldwide

[Richard Hertz]

This OP addresses how Einstein cooked the GR equation for vacuum, which
allowed him to reach to a desired form of his equation 11:

(11) (dx/dφ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x −x² + αx³

at which he introduces his fix with the cubic term, being α the Schwarzschild radius. A is the energy of the system and B is the angular moment, both being
constants because they are conserved values in orbital dynamics of planets.

The previous equation before replacing x = 1/r didn't appear in the paper, but is

(1/r² dr/dφ)² = 2A/B² + (2GMm²/L²) 1/r - 1/r² + (2MG/c²) 1/r³

where I reintroduced the physical values of G, M, c and m for clarity. I'll
continue with geometrical units (all of them made equal to 1).

This equation is derived from the general newtonian expression for orbital
dynamics in polar coordinates, around the equator of the Sun (Planetary
Motion part on his paper):

(Equations 8, 8a) 1/2 u² + ɸ = A ; u² = dr²/ds² + r² (dφ/ds)² ; r² dφ/ds = B

Cheat 1: Even when he resigned to analyze the motion u(τ) of Mercury by
only accounting time in period T units, he didn't get rid of τ , as he uses s= cτ.

Cheat 2: He resigned the entire concept of relativity by assuming τ = t,
what will give his equations the value of absolute time and absolute space
as the system being centered on (0,0,0) xyz coordinates and measured
from Earth, in order to match data from observational astronomy of that
epoch, without considering the speed of light and the delays.

In equation 8a, he introduces the gravitational potential as ɸ = - α/2r,
which is used to disguise the fact that α = 2MG/c² (Schwarzschild radius)
has been introduced in the beginning, hence the 1/2 factor.

Then, the equation for orbital dynamics is PURELY newtonian.

As r² (dφ/ds)² = B²/r², then the equation 1/2 u² + ɸ = A can be written as:

u(τ)² = 2A - 2ɸ

Cheat 3: He knows that the above equation is pure newtonian and is not
bringing him anywhere. So he cheats by modifying his Eq. 8 and ɸ by:

(Eq. 7c) ɸ = - α/2r (1 + B²/r²), so he can get the four terms of the polynomial.

u(τ)² = 2A - α/r - αB²/r³ , what allows

dr²/ds² + r² (dφ/ds)² = 2A - α/r - αB²/r³ OR (remember r² (dφ/ds))

dr²/ds² + r² (dφ/ds)² = 2A - α/r - αB²/r³ - B² (dφ/ds)

As s = τ (c = 1), he needs to get rid of time τ.
In parallel, and going back to coordinates x₁, x₂, x₃, x₄, he manages to get

(Eq. 9) dx₄/ds = 1 + α/r

Einstein manages to reach Equation 7b, using 6c, 8, 9 and 10:

d²xᵤ/ds² = -αxᵤ/r³ (1 - 2A + 3 B²/r²)

Cheat 4: In the solution of this differential equation he find the term
s√[(1 - 2A) and determine that is equal to s (probably because A << 1),
but still a cheat because is mixing time with THE ENERGY of the system.

Now, with the advantage of not having all the equations numbered, and
confusingly numbering without a sequential order, he performs a QUANTUM LEAP
from Equation 7c to the desired Equation 11, by replacing r with 1/x:

And proudly claims:

"One eliminates ds from this equation with the help of (10), and so
obtains, in which one designates by x the magnitude 1/r:

(11) (dx/dφ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x −x² + αx³

which equation distinguishes itself from the corresponding Newtonian theory only through the last member on the right side."

As I have demonstrated in two previous thread with similar topic, the
solution of this first order differential equation and his calculation for
one orbit of Mercury, only renders a differential excess from 2π:

ε = 1.6734E-07 rad/ orbit (0.03435 arcsec/ orbit), which gives only
14.33” of arc/century (1/3 of the alleged 43”).

But, still, this paper was celebrated by him as a triumph of HIS general
theory of relativity. The deflection of light by 1.75", briefly mentioned in
the paper, was "verified" by Eddington's expedition 3 years later.

But this paper, on Nov.18, 1915 is what made him worldwide famous.

NEVER, even 10 years after, did Einstein show the calculations that gave
the 1.75" of star light deflection when passing by Sun's surface.

Even when KNOWN ASTRONOMERS in the world reclaimed for the
theoretical calculations, not a single one received a copy.

Only the Einstein's ass kissers, in the years to come (and even today),
would RECREATE THE CALCULATIONS but using the MODIFIED Schwarzschild metric, the one that Hilbert derived in 1917.

Had ANYONE used the original 1916 Schwarzschild metric, WOULD NOT
have get the 1.75" because the theory that Einstein and Schwarzschild
was INCORRECT, as they didn't used the latest Hilbert's equations, which
would be available for Einstein 1 WEEK after that day Nov. 18, 1915.

Schwarzschild is not to blame here. Hilbert, one year after his death,
HONORED Schwarzschild by naming the correct metric after him.

The same metric that everyone uses for ANYTHING today (GPS, Mercury,
black holes, whatever).

This is the conclusion: Einstein committed fraud on this paper through
and through, in the GR part and in the basic calculus part to solve (11).

[Richard Hertz]

I forgot to discriminate which part belongs to the TWO APPROXIMATIONS, as he called them:

First approximation: purely newtonian.

Second approximation: relativistic, where he performed most of the cheats.

[Richard Hertz]

Typo:

dr²/ds² + r² (dφ/ds)² = 2A - α/r - αB²/r³ - B² (dφ/ds)

actually is

dr²/ds² = 2A - α/r - αB²/r³ - B² (dφ/ds)

[Dono.]

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 3:24:38 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz restarted posting his cretinisms:


Thank you for restarting the entertainment, village clown

>
> The previous equation before replacing x = 1/r didn't appear in the paper, but is
>
> (1/r² dr/dφ)² = 2A/B² + (2GMm²/L²) 1/r - 1/r² + (2MG/c²) 1/r³
>

Einstein writes for reasonable people, not for imbeciles like Richard Hertz

> Cheat 1: Even when he resigned to analyze the motion u(τ) of Mercury by
> only accounting time in period T units, he didn't get rid of τ , as he uses s= cτ.
>

Cretinoid,

The partial derivatives in the geodesic equations are taken with respect to the variable s. T is NOT a variable.

> Cheat 2: He resigned the entire concept of relativity by assuming τ = t,
> what will give his equations the value of absolute time and absolute space

No, it he does no such thing, you are projecting your inmbecility on hom.

> In equation 8a, he introduces the gravitational potential as ɸ = - α/2r,
> which is used to disguise the fact that α = 2MG/c² (Schwarzschild radius)
> has been introduced in the beginning, hence the 1/2 factor.
>

Cretinoid,

This is just the gravitational potential....

> Then, the equation for orbital dynamics is PURELY newtonian.
>

No, it is not, The geodesics derived from EFEs differ from the Newtonian ones.

Keep it up, dumbestfuck!

[Richard Hertz]

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 11:18:39 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

>
> Thank you for restarting the entertainment, village clown
> >
> > The previous equation before replacing x = 1/r didn't appear in the paper, but is
> >
> > (1/r² dr/dφ)² = 2A/B² + (2GMm²/L²) 1/r - 1/r² + (2MG/c²) 1/r³
> >
> Einstein writes for reasonable people, not for imbeciles like Richard Hertz

Good defense, cretin. Keep going, because you don't have nothing to say here, DO YOU?

> > Cheat 1: Even when he resigned to analyze the motion u(τ) of Mercury by
> > only accounting time in period T units, he didn't get rid of τ , as he uses s= cτ.
> >
> Cretinoid,
>
> The partial derivatives in the geodesic equations are taken with respect to the variable s. T is NOT a variable.

Always cretinism shows up. Don't put false statements on my mouth, fucking retarded. He was FORCED TO SIMULATE THAT!

I clearly meant, and even Schwarzschild understood thay way, that the ONLY TIME UNIT INVOLVED is the PERIOD of one revolution,
has Einstein ABANDONED ANY IDEA of analyzing the problem using the motion of Mercury, given by u(τ) = u(s) = u(t), with c=1 and τ=t.

Don't like it? Well, then choke with it, imbecile, because it's written IN THE PAPER and it's obvious except for religious fanatics like you.

> > Cheat 2: He resigned the entire concept of relativity by assuming τ = t,
> > what will give his equations the value of absolute time and absolute space

> No, it he does no such thing, you are projecting your inmbecility on hom.
> > In equation 8a, he introduces the gravitational potential as ɸ = - α/2r,
> > which is used to disguise the fact that α = 2MG/c² (Schwarzschild radius)
> > has been introduced in the beginning, hence the 1/2 factor.
> >
> Cretinoid,
>
> This is just the gravitational potential....

NO! reptilian lifeform. ɸ = - GM/r is the NEWTONIAN gravitational potential (units m²/s² or Joule/Kg).

ɸ = - 2GM/rc² is the relativistic gravitational potential (units: ADIMENSIONAL).

> > Then, the equation for orbital dynamics is PURELY newtonian.
> >
> No, it is not, The geodesics derived from EFEs differ from the Newtonian ones.

He didn't have the HFE by that day, cretin. He would had it in the following week, when he FINALLY PLAGIARIZED AND DISGUISED
Hilbert's Field Equations (HFE), capito? He pulled the WRONG EQUATIONS FOR VACUUM from his cheating ASS!

He SAYS IT HIMSELF! Ignorant fanatic!

"One eliminates ds from this equation with the help of (10), and so
obtains, in which one designates by x the magnitude 1/r:

(11) (dx/dφ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x −x² + αx³

which equation distinguishes itself from the corresponding Newtonian
theory only through the last member on the right side."

And he specifically addresses the geometrical term αx³ (units: 1/m²), which correspond
to the PHYSICAL TERM α = Rs = 2MG/rc² (Schwarzschild radius, units: mt). This term is the one
which produces the THIRD ROOT of the cubic polynomial, located at x = 1/2954.17 1/m. This
root (1/α), complements the other two α₁ = 1/69817000000 1/m = 1/Aphelion
and α₂ = 1/46002000000 1/m = 1/Perihelion to form the expression

E(x) = 2A/B² + α/B² x −x² + αx³ = - α (x - α₁) (x – α₂ ) (1 - αx) = 2954.17 x³ - 1.000000106525 x + 3.60613E-11 x - 3.1136E-22

which is used to solve NUMERICALLY the perihelion advance, when the integral of the inverse of his square root is computed.

GO AHEAD, I DARE YOU!

Check the excess to 2π, so WE ALL HERE FINALLY CAN SEE WHAT THE RESULT IS!

ε = 1.6734E-07 rad/ orbit (0.03435 arcsec/ orbit), which gives only 14.33” of arc/century (1/3 of the alleged 43”).

The equation E(x) (I called it E for Einstein) has THREE ROOTS, EXACTLY at 1/α, α₁ and α₂.

E(x) is so sensitive to values α₁ <= x <= α₂

α₁ = 1.43236E-11 1/m
α₂ = 2.17378E-11 1/m
1/α = 0.00033861 1/m

that any attempt to modify even any fourth or fifth decimal at E(x) renders the equation with two imaginary roots.

So, Dono, instead of insulting, spitting and screaming like a faggot, SOLVE THE CUBIC POLYNOMIAL and show everyone here
that I'm a liar, because you GOT 43" of arc/century instead of mine 14.33” of arc/century (1/3 of the alleged 43”).

>
> Keep it up, dumbestfuck!

NO, YOU KEEP IT UP AND SOLVE THE EQUATION, FUCKING LIAR AND CRETIN!

[Dono.]

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 9:12:43 PM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz persevered:

> On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 11:18:39 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>

> > > Cheat 1: Even when he resigned to analyze the motion u(τ) of Mercury by
> > > only accounting time in period T units, he didn't get rid of τ , as he uses s= cτ.
> > >
> > Cretinoid,
> >
> > The partial derivatives in the geodesic equations are taken with respect to the variable s. T is NOT a variable.

> Always my cretinism shows up.

Yep, time and again. Thank you for never failing to entertain.

>
> I clearly meant, and even Schwarzschild understood thay way, that the ONLY TIME UNIT INVOLVED is the PERIOD of one revolution,

The period is not a variable, perseverent imbecile.

> has Einstein ABANDONED ANY IDEA of analyzing the problem using the motion of Mercury, given by u(τ) = u(s) = u(t), with c=1 and τ=t.
>

Love the fact that you keep adding fresh imbecilities.

> Don't like it?

I like it. Every one of your fresh imbecilities is very amusing.

> > > Cheat 2: He resigned the entire concept of relativity by assuming τ = t,
> > > what will give his equations the value of absolute time and absolute space
>

> > No, it he does no such thing, you are projecting your OWN imbecility on him.

> > > In equation 8a, he introduces the gravitational potential as ɸ = - α/2r,
> > > which is used to disguise the fact that α = 2MG/c² (Schwarzschild radius)
> > > has been introduced in the beginning, hence the 1/2 factor.
> > >
> > Cretinoid,
> >
> > This is just the gravitational potential....
> NO! reptilian lifeform. ɸ = - GM/r is the NEWTONIAN gravitational potential (units m²/s² or Joule/Kg).

...which is the in GR. Swallow another shovel of shit.

>
> ɸ = - 2GM/rc² is the relativistic gravitational potential (units: ADIMENSIONAL).
> > > Then, the equation for orbital dynamics is PURELY newtonian.
> > >
> > No, it is not, The geodesics derived from EFEs differ from the Newtonian ones.
> He didn't have the HFE by that day,

He didn't HFE but he had EFE because Hilbert came up later. With the same equations. Open wide, eat some more shit.

[Richard Hertz]

Solve the equation with the polynomial, coward ignorant.

At least, use the root's product and use the SAME EQUATIONS THAT EINSTEIN USED, except the FRAUD IN INVENTING 1-K = 1
and planting K = 1+ 2/3 ε IN FRONT OF THE INTEGRAL, to add the missing value of 67% of the total advance, when the integral
only provides 1+ 1/3 ε of the final target value.

You, so far, are proving that you are a coward, a liar and a deceiver. You can't take the challenge and solve the numerical equation
BECAUSE IT WOULD BE CATASTROPHIC FOR YOUR CREDENCE.

Imbecile ignorant.

[Dono.]

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 9:12:43 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz posted fresh cretinisms:

> ɸ = - 2GM/rc² is the relativistic gravitational potential (units: ADIMENSIONAL).

LOL, each post, a trove of cretinisms

> E(x) = 2A/B² + α/B² x −x² + αx³ = - α (x - α₁) (x – α₂ ) (1 - αx) = 2954.17 x³ - 1.000000106525 x + 3.60613E-11 x - 3.1136E-22
>
> which is used to solve NUMERICALLY the perihelion advance, when the integral of the inverse of his square root is computed.
>

Cretinoid,


You fumbled this integral multiple times simply because you have no idea how to handle improper integrals.

> GO AHEAD, I DARE YOU!
>
> Check the excess to 2π, so WE ALL HERE FINALLY CAN SEE WHAT THE RESULT IS!
> ε = 1.6734E-07 rad/ orbit (0.03435 arcsec/ orbit), which gives only 14.33” of arc/century (1/3 of the alleged 43”).

This is because you insist on using Excel, cretinoid.

> The equation E(x) (I called it E for Einstein) has THREE ROOTS, EXACTLY at 1/α, α₁ and α₂.
>
> E(x) is so sensitive to values α₁ <= x <= α₂

Dumbestfuck

You will NEVER get this integral right. Keep up the entertainment.

>
> α₁ = 1.43236E-11 1/m
> α₂ = 2.17378E-11 1/m
> 1/α = 0.00033861 1/m
>
> that any attempt to modify even any fourth or fifth decimal at E(x) renders the equation with two imaginary roots.
>

...because you are a dinosaur , ignorant of calculus

[JanPB]

Just let it go. You are not made for this.

--
Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Wednesday, 1 December 2021 at 03:18:39 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 3:24:38 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz restarted posting his cretinisms:
>
>
> Thank you for restarting the entertainment, village clown
> >
> > The previous equation before replacing x = 1/r didn't appear in the paper, but is
> >
> > (1/r² dr/dφ)² = 2A/B² + (2GMm²/L²) 1/r - 1/r² + (2MG/c²) 1/r³
> >
> Einstein writes for reasonable people, not for imbeciles like Richard Hertz

Einstein has casted horrible curses on being reasonable; but they
didn't work and forbidden by your moronic religion GPS clocks keep
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

[Richard Hertz]

Jan, I developed this Dunning-Kruger effect formula to represent your IDIOCY (HUBRIS) level in the last 25 years.

This function I(y), I for IDIOT and y for YEARS, covers your LAST 25 YEARS of living like the arrogant idiot
that you (and many here) are.

This is a normalized funcion with maximum value of IDIOCY of 1.25 and a minimum value of IDIOCY of 0,
which you reached ONLY ONCE, in a nightmare, 22 years ago. Since then, you've been increasing your
IDIOCY LEVEL steadily but asymptotically and you ARE STUCK at an IDIOCY LEVEL of 0.8 for the rest of your life:


I(y) = 3 e^(-y) + log (y) - 0.6


Go ahead, and make a graph for 0 <= y <= 25 years, so you can suffer looking at your personal development
in one fucking equation.

[Justo Lugo]

JanPB wrote:

>> This is the conclusion: Einstein committed fraud on this paper through
>> and through, in the GR part and in the basic calculus part to solve
>> (11).
>
> Just let it go. You are not made for this.

not true. The GR equation is just about pluses and minuses in a simple
equation. Bye.

[Richard Hertz]

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 3:22:56 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> > E(x) = 2A/B² + α/B² x −x² + αx³ = - α (x - α₁) (x – α₂ ) (1 - αx) = 2954.17 x³ - 1.000000106525 x + 3.60613E-11 x - 3.1136E-22
> > which is used to solve NUMERICALLY the perihelion advance, when the integral of the inverse of his square root is computed.
> >
> Cretinoid,
>
> You fumbled this integral multiple times simply because you have no idea how to handle improper integrals.

> You will NEVER get this integral right. Keep up the entertainment.

> ...because you are a dinosaur , ignorant of calculus

Dono, you are a coward, a liar and the shame of every mathematician. I did this solution before, but I repeat it for you to SUFFER
by painfully realizing that your PAGAN GOD EINSTEIN IS A FRAUDSTER, WHO CHEATED, FUDGED AND COOKED THIS PAPER.

THIS IS HOW IT'S SHOWN THAT YOU SHARE THE SAME CHARACTER THAT THE ONE YOU WORSHIP. HE FAILED MISERABLY IN
THIS PAPER. ONLY OBTAINED 1/3 OF THE VALUE HE CLAIMED, SO HE FUDGED THE SOLUTION:

**********************************************************************************************

E(x) = 2954 x³ - 1,000000106525 x² + 3.60613E-11 x - 3,1136E-22 , range (α₁, α₂).

E(x) = (-x² + 3.6061344E-11 x - 3.1135949E-22) (1 – 2954 x)

(dφ/dx) = 1/√E(x) =1/√(2954 x³ - 1,000000106525 x² + 3.60613E-11 x - 3,1136E-22)

(dφ/dx) ≈ 1/√E(x) =(1 + 1477 x)/√(-x² + 3.6061344E-11 x - 3.1135949E-22)

Φ = ∫ dx/√E(x) ≈ ∫(1 + 1477 x)/√(-x² + 3.6061344E-11 x - 3.1135949E-22) dx , from α₁ to α₂

Making, in general, P(x) = √(-x² + 3.6061344E-11 x - 3.1135949E-22) = 1/√(ax² + b x + c)

Φ(x) = Φ1(x) + Φ₂(x) ≈ ∫ dx/P(x) + 1477 ∫ x/P(x) dx, from α₁ to α₂

Solutions, for the case P(α₁) = P(α₂) = 0 (α₁ and α₂ are zeros of P(x))

a = - 1 ; b = 3.6061E-11 = (α₁ + α₂) ; c = - 3.1136E-22 = α₁ α₂

Φ₁(x) = ∫ dx/√(ax² + b x + c) = 1/√a ln [(2ax + b)/2a]

Φ₂(x) = 1477 ∫ x/√(ax² + b x + c) dx = 1477 {- b/(2a √a) ln [(2ax + b)/2a}

Φ₁(x) = ∫ dx/P(x) = 1/√a ln [(2ax + b)/2a] , from α₁ to α₂

RESULT 1: Φ₁(α₂) - Φ₁(α₁) = π rad/half orbit (pure NEWTON)

Φ₂(x) = 1477 { - b/(2a √a) ln [(2ax + b)/2a] }

RESULT 2: Φ₂(α₂) – Φ₂(α₁) = π 2.663E-08 = 1/4 α (α₁ + α₂) rad/half orbit. (Einstein's GR extra advance)

Note: In both cases, ln(-1) is solved though Euler’s identity: e^(iπ) = -1 --> ln (-1) = iπ

Φ = Φ₁ + Φ₂ = π + ε/2 = π + 2.663E-08 π = π + 1/4 π α (α₁ + α₂) rad/half orbit

For an entire orbit, the advance ε of Mercury’s perihelion is:

ε = 2Φ - 2 π = 1/2 π α (α₁ + α₂) = 1.6734E-07 rad/orbit

ε = 1.6734E-07 rad/ orbit (0.03435 arcsec/ orbit), which gives only 14.33” of arc/century (1/3 of the alleged 43”).

**********************************************************************************************

[Dono.]

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 10:36:14 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz posted a fresh imbecility:

> Φ = ∫ dx/√E(x) ≈ ∫(1 + 1477 x)/√(-x² + 3.6061344E-11 x - 3.1135949E-22) dx , from α₁ to α₂
>

Correct

> Making, in general, P(x) = √(-x² + 3.6061344E-11 x - 3.1135949E-22) = 1/√(ax² + b x + c)
>
> Φ(x) = Φ1(x) + Φ₂(x) ≈ ∫ dx/P(x) + 1477 ∫ x/P(x) dx, from α₁ to α₂
>

Correct

>Φ₁(x) = ∫ dx/√(ax² + b x + c) = 1/√a ln [(2ax + b)/2a]

>Φ₂(x) = 1477 ∫ x/√(ax² + b x + c) dx = 1477 {- b/(2a √a) ln [(2ax + b)/2a}

Incorrect, both the above integrals have singularities that need to be taken care of. But you are too incompetent to do that. You need to take calculus 101.

[Richard Hertz]

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 3:56:51 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> > Φ = ∫ dx/√E(x) ≈ ∫(1 + 1477 x)/√(-x² + 3.6061344E-11 x - 3.1135949E-22) dx , from α₁ to α₂
> >
> Correct
> > Making, in general, P(x) = √(-x² + 3.6061344E-11 x - 3.1135949E-22) = 1/√(ax² + b x + c)
> >
> > Φ(x) = Φ1(x) + Φ₂(x) ≈ ∫ dx/P(x) + 1477 ∫ x/P(x) dx, from α₁ to α₂
> >
> Correct
> >Φ₁(x) = ∫ dx/√(ax² + b x + c) = 1/√a ln [(2ax + b)/2a]
>
> >Φ₂(x) = 1477 ∫ x/√(ax² + b x + c) dx = 1477 {- b/(2a √a) ln [(2ax + b)/2a}

> Incorrect, both the above integrals have singularities that need to be taken care of. But you are too incompetent to do that. You need to take calculus 101.

Here is how you show your incurable cretinism and that you're an IGNORANT, LIAR AND CHEATER!

I specifically wrote that both integrals, which result in ln(-1) are solved through the Euler's identity: e^(iπ) = -1 , so ln(-1) = i π.

Are you going to dispute one of the most gifted mathematician of all times, fucking SOB?

SINGULARITIES ARE BEING TAKING CARE PROPERLY. This solution for ln(-1) solves also 1/√(-1), lefting only π or 1/4 π α (α₁ + α₂)
as a FINAL RESULT. The second integral (with the relativistic part) gives the advance ε/2 for half an orbit.

Dono, some students are reading this thread. If you have a little bit of dignity, I advise you to stop being an asshole and concede my result.

If you don't, you are being observed as some kind of retarded that fight the IMPOSSIBLE, just to defend Einstein.

By the way, your IDIOCY function for the past 25 years, starting with y=0.1 year up to y=25.0 years is:

I(x) = 0.748 (e^(-y) + log y) + 0.065

It shows that you doubled your IDIOCY LEVEL in the last 23 years, after a first peak of 3.2/10. Now you are at 66% of your possible 100%.

So, keep trying and will be a FULL IDIOT in 10 more years.

Concede my result.

[Dono.]

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 11:51:42 AM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz dug himself deeper:

> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 3:56:51 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>


> SINGULARITIES ARE BEING TAKING CARE PROPERLY. This solution for ln(-1) solves also 1/√(-1), lefting only π or 1/4 π α (α₁ + α₂)
> as a FINAL RESULT. The second integral (with the relativistic part) gives the advance ε/2 for half an orbit.
>

Dear Incurable Imbecile Dick Hertz

What makes you so entertaining is that you have absolutely no clue. You will never get the two integrals correctly because no have absolutely no clue about singularities. Even after I showed you the link to "Integrals with singularities (improper integrals", you still do not get it. Keep up entertaining us, dumbestfuck!

[Richard Hertz]

Coward scumbag, it's the same integral that Einstein solved on his paper:

Φ = ∫ (1 + α/2 x) dx/√[- (x - α₁) (x - α₂)] , between α₁ and α₂

Φ = π [1 + 1/4 α (α₁ + α₂)]

I only replaced the values of α, α₁ and α₂ for their known numbers, almost the same in 1915 than in 1921, and the two poles
are the inverse of the aphelion and perihelion of Mercury.

You are a liar, cheater and a fraudster like the one you worship, Einstein.

Stoneface Dono, you have no shame nor dignity.

[Dono.]

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 8:04:29 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 9:36:44 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 11:51:42 AM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz dug himself deeper:
> > > On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 3:56:51 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> >
> >
> > > SINGULARITIES ARE BEING TAKING CARE PROPERLY. This solution for ln(-1) solves also 1/√(-1), lefting only π or 1/4 π α (α₁ + α₂)
> > > as a FINAL RESULT. The second integral (with the relativistic part) gives the advance ε/2 for half an orbit.
> > >
> > Dear Incurable Imbecile Dick Hertz
> >
> > What makes you so entertaining is that you have absolutely no clue. You will never get the two integrals correctly because no have absolutely no clue about singularities. Even after I showed you the link to "Integrals with singularities (improper integrals", you still do not get it. Keep up entertaining us, dumbestfuck!

it's the same integral that Einstein solved on his paper:
>
> Φ = ∫ (1 + α/2 x) dx/√[- (x - α₁) (x - α₂)] , between α₁ and α₂
>
> Φ = π [1 + 1/4 α (α₁ + α₂)]
>

Agreed, it is the same integral. The point is that you are incapable of evaluating it. Your only consolation is that, due to your natural imbecility, you will never be able to evaluate it.

[JanPB]

Just give it up, Richard. You are not made for this sort of thing.

--
Jan

[Richard Hertz]

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 5:19:29 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>

> Just give it up, Richard. You are not made for this sort of thing.
> --
> Jan

Jan, I have a doubt.

Is it possible that CIA or MI6 hired you to find algorithms in their MK Ultra Project 2.0 and FIRED YOU because you are an useless idiot?

I can't find any other reasonable explanation for your mantra " Just give it up, Richard. You are not made for this sort of thing", that you
repeat relentlessly in the last three months. Are pathetically trying to reprogram me? Try with Dono. The retarded is almost clay waiting
to be modeled. It could be you who save that SOB!

The other explanation, which I believe less probable, is that you are some kind of narrow band autistic person that has a fixation with
relativity. I don't want to judge mentally impaired persons, for whom I feel a deep sorrow.

I'm sorry that nature made you this way, JanPB. Enjoy life as much as you can, God's creature. We all have the right to live within civilized
boundaries. Even animals, like chihuahuas, which I think is a very close relative of you (not of your family, of course).

Have a nice weekend, dear Jan. Please, don't venture to outdoors without adult company. Forget other chihuahuas.

[Richard Hertz]

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 8:24:38 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

I've read again the OP in this thread, and I find the explanations of the fraud (to plagiarize Gerber final formula) just brilliant.

But negationism and out casting of detractors are the most important weapons that relativists have.

Even Schwarzschild slapped Einstein on the subject of Mercury, in the paper where he developed HIS general solution for the challenge.

[JanPB]

Idiocies, as always.

--
Jan

[The Starmaker]

maybe he should get a different hobby???? this hobby is too relaxing and
pleasurable outside of his regular occupation...he should try...serial
killing!





--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

[Demetrios Laar]

JanPB wrote:

>> Even Schwarzschild slapped Einstein on the subject of Mercury, in the
>> paper where he developed HIS general solution for the challenge.
>
> Idiocies, as always.

you cannot see and plot the stars behind the sun, my friend. It's a fact.
Even right now, it was fake like *_the_capitalist_american_moon_landing_*.

Now Zelensky and we are done. Ukraine shoots out its big mouth and Russia
takes them out. Now find Zelensky's hide out and take him out.

*_The_green_midget_* dared to show himself yesterday
*_after_treating_African_leaders_like_subhumans_* - maybe he's the target?

And he still cannot wear a suit like all leaders in a war. He was not a
miltary Junta, so he should not be dressing as one. But we all know he is
not the President of Ukraine. *_Hunter_Biden_is_*.

It's a near *_certainty_US_officials_were_killed_* in one of the previous
two attacks on command centers. *_Victoria_Nuland_* may be one of the US
officials killed. I have not seen her in public in quite some time. 🙏
That would be awesome.

This is one of the most effective ways to decapitate NATO infrastructure
inside Ukraine that is running the entire war. Without it, the neo-Nazis
will raise the white flag of surrender. Thus, hit NATO where it hurts the

We will send *_Mark_Milley_* and *_Loyd_Austin_* over there, stuff their
fats azzes in the next command center. Just tell us which one.

Outstanding precision strike!
*_Keep_up_the_momentum_team_Russia_.._*

*_Russia_strikes_Ukrainian_'decision-making_center'_* – MOD
The attack was a success, and the intended facility was hit, Russia’s
Defense Ministry says
https://%72t.com/%72%75%73%73ia/578202-ukrainian-decision-making-strike/

[Richard Hertz]

Just read and choke, relativists:

Is there a General Relativity based n-body simulation that can calculate Mercury’s total perihelion advance or precession?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_General_Relativity_based_n-body_simulation_that_can_calculate_Mercurys_total_perihelion_advance_or_precession

Some answers:

*********************************************************************
Joseph Smulsky
Institute of Earth's Cryosphere, Tyum SC of SB RAS, Tyumen, Russia.

The problem of N-bodies from the standpoint of the Theory of Relativity cannot be solved. The Theory of Relativity considers the
interaction of one moving body with another. At the same time, mass, time and space change in accordance with the movement
of this body.
If we consider the interaction of N-bodies, then it is necessary to change the mass, time and space for each body simultaneously
in N-1 ways, for example, the body must have N-1 masses at the same time !!!

The Theory of Relativity is defective and false! It must be thrown away and forgotten. The additional rotation of Mercury's perihelion
is due to the oblateness of the Sun [1] - [2].

1. Smulsky J.J. New Components of the Mercury's Perihelion Precession // Natural Science. - 2011, Vol. 3, No.4, 268-274. doi:10.4236/ns.2011.34034. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ns, ISSN Print: 2150-4091, ISSN Online: 2150-4105.
2. Smulsky J.J. Dark Matter and Gravitational Waves // Natural Science, 2021, 13, 76-87. doi:10.4236/ns.2021.133007.
*********************************************************************

*********************************************************************

Morris G. Anderson
Honeywell
...
I appreciate receiving guidance to read Orbital Ephemerides of the Sun, Moon, and Planets by E. Myles Standish and James G. Williams.
This paper states:

“8.3 Equations of Motion
....
The major elements of this section were developed at JPL over the past few decades. Just the formulae are given here; also included are references to their descriptions, previously published by those responsible for their development.
The equations of motion used for the creation of DE405/LE405 included contributions from: (a) point- mass interactions among the Moon, planets, and Sun; (b) general relativity (isotropic, parametrized post- Newtonian); (c) Newtonian perturbations of selected asteroids; (d) action upon the figure of the Earth from the Moon and Sun; (e) action upon the figure of the Moon from the Earth and Sun; (f) physical libration of the Moon, modeled as a solid body with tidal and rotational distortion, including both elastic and dissipational effects, (g) the effect upon the Moon’s motion caused by tides raised upon the Earth by the Moon and Sun, and (h) the perturbations of 300 asteroids upon the motions of Mars, the Earth, and the Moon.”

Based on this information, NASA JPL has created an n-body simulation that provides an accurate model of the solar system. This model is not based on Generally Relativity, however, it includes influences predicted by the parametrized post-Newtonian approximation.

https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/eph_export.html provides more information about the JPL PLANETARY AND LUNAR EPHEMERIDES

However, based on all the searching I have done, and the comments received above, it appears that an n-body simulation cannot be created based on General Relativity!

This indicates something is wrong with General Relativity!
*********************************************************************

*********************************************************************

Joseph Smulsky
Institute of Earth's Cryosphere, Tyum SC of SB RAS, Tyumen, Russia.
Dear Abdul Malek,
It is all truth! Einstein knew about Paul Gerber's article [1] and studied it well. Based on this article, in his 1915 article [2] he imitated his derivation of Paul Gerber's result on the rotation of Mercury's perihelion 43 arcsec/century. But Einstein's derivation is a complete fiction. Everyone can be convinced of this if he studies the articles of Paul Gerber and Einstein!

However, the solution by Paul Gerber of the problem on the influence of the finite velocity of gravity on the rotation of the perihelion of Mercury is incorrect. This is a difficult problem. It was solved (pp. 204 – 211 in [3]) and it turned out that the light velocity of gravity gives the rotation of Mercury's perihelion 0.23 arcsec/century, and not 43 arcsec/century, i.e. 187 times less.

In astronomy, there are different coordinate systems. When counted from the moving equator of the Earth, the rotation of the perihelion of Mercury, according to observations, occurs at a speed of 5603 arcsec/century, when counted from the moving orbit of the Earth it is 573 arcsec/century, when counted from a fixed space it is 583 arcsec/century [4].

As a result of the interaction of the Solar System bodies, according to Newton's law of gravity, the perihelion of Mercury rotates at a speed of 530 arcsec/century relative to a fixed space [4] - [5]. Therefore, the excess rotation of Mercury's perihelion is 53 arcsec/century, or it is not 43 arcsec/century.

When solving the problem of the interaction of the bodies of the solar system, the bodies are considered as material points. The action of a strictly spherical body is equivalent to the action of a material point. But the Sun is not spherical, but an oblate body. Taking into account the shape of the Sun gives 53 arcsec/century missing before the observations [4], [6].

Therefore, the finite velocity of gravity is not needed to calculate gravitational interactions. The General Theory of relativity, like the Special Theory of relativity, must be thrown out and forgotten. All modern fundamental science is built on them.

And this science is defective and false. Why it is defective and false? Because it created an unrealistic picture of the micro- and macro-world, it does not pave the way for the further development of society and does not prevent negative trends in it. Society does not need such science. Society is aware of this. It treats its discoveries as circus tricks, and in search of a solution to the problems it faces, it directs its eyes to journalists and politicians [7], [8].

This excerpt from the book [7] was voiced by the outstanding thinker Borislav Vankov from Sofia in Russian https://youtu.be/60oQqIPIa3Q, in English https://youtu.be/ypMHq1LN6EU, in German https://youtu.be/R1lQh1a15NMand Bulgarian https://youtu.be/k215_StxuFAlanguages.
*********************************************************************

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.1811.pdf
General Relativity Problem of Mercury’s Perihelion Advance Revisited
Anatoli Andrei Vankov
IPPE, Obninsk, Russia; Bethany College, KS, USA; anatol...@hotmail.com

46 pages paper that teach about celestial mechanics and GR applied to Mercury's problem. Read and learn.

CONCLUSION:

Our main reason for discussions of the role of statistical approach to astronomical observation treatment is the
fact that the GR effect of the Mercury’s perihelion advance is claimed to be successfully confirmed.

In the present work, the results of our analysis of the problem show that the claimed confirmation is not true.

Astronomers have to bear some responsibility for their practice of observation treatment.

[Richard Hertz]

> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.1811.pdf
> General Relativity Problem of Mercury’s Perihelion Advance Revisited
> Anatoli Andrei Vankov
> IPPE, Obninsk, Russia; Bethany College, KS, USA; anatol...@hotmail.com
>
> 46 pages paper that teach about celestial mechanics and GR applied to Mercury's problem. Read and learn.

Just a quote from Vankov's masterpiece (read and learn, relativists):

"The PPN approximation idea is to linearize the equations under weak-field conditions for approximate
N-body solutions. Inevitably, the relativity essence such as a concept of proper-versus-improper quantities
has to be sacrificed.

Our criticism of the PPN methodology is expressed in the question: approximation to what?

Definitely, it is not the approximation of the exact GR solution of N-body problem, because such a solution does not exist.
This is why the existence of the PPN frame with the corresponding coordinate system cannot be justified, it is postulated.

In the special important case, N = 1 plus a test particle, the exact solution does exist; this is the
Schwarzshild metric, which is valid in the entire range of field strength. In PPN methodology, the
Schwarzshild metric is replaced with the approximate (weak-field) solution containing the PPN
parameters β and γ.

The PPN formalism is intended to account for perturbation of the planetary system due
to planet interactions, basically, with the use of Le Verrier’s method of Newtonian mechanics.


Nowadays, however, the N-body problem has an EXACT computer-supported solution in the Newtonian model.

[JanPB]

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 3:08:47 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.1811.pdf
> > General Relativity Problem of Mercury’s Perihelion Advance Revisited
> > Anatoli Andrei Vankov
> > IPPE, Obninsk, Russia; Bethany College, KS, USA; anatol...@hotmail.com
> >
> > 46 pages paper that teach about celestial mechanics and GR applied to Mercury's problem. Read and learn.
>
> Just a quote from Vankov's masterpiece (read and learn, relativists):

I wouldn't call it a masterpiece, there are some naive claims made in it that
are below the graduate student level. For example, on p. 31 Master Vankov says:

"Specifically, [10], also [29], [40], the speed of a particle in the radial fall is
β(r) = (1 − 2rg/r)[1 − (1 − 2rg/r)/γ2]^(1/2) (41)
Here, γ = E0/m0 > 1 is the initial total energy at infinity. A free fall from
rest corresponds to γ0 = 1. The formula is given in a coordinate system
of the observer at infinity at rest with respect to the gravitational center.
Therefore, her wristwatch time is the coordinate time t.
The formula shows [40] that the particle sent from infinity to the gravity
center begins to accelerate, then at some point starts decelerating
and eventually stops at rd = 2rg. The higher initial kinetic energy, the farther the
point of rd from the center. For γ0 ≥ sqrt(3/2), the particle will never accelerate
in a gravitational field. The gravitational force exerted on the particle becomes
repulsive in the entire space. We think, however, that there is no real
physics behind this prediction [41]."

This is is an antique argument, pre-Painlevé. Of course according to the
faraway coordinate clock the accreting matter slows down and "freezes"
at the horizon. Why the revelation?

I posted here a formula for a particle trajectory falling from rest at infinity,
it's nothing new.

--
Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

Because that would make the whole of your "black
hole" idiocy unable to move, poor halfbrain.