Simple formulae in physics vs. GR formulae (which have physical meaning?)

404 views
Skip to first unread message

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 2:56:40 PMSep 14
to
Simple, useful formulae that shaped the modern world:

F = m.a
v = x/t
E = 1/2 m.v²
U = F . d
P . V = n . R . T
V = I . R
W = I . V
∇ x E = - ∂B/∂t and ∇ x B = μₒ.εₒ ∂E/∂t, with c = 1/√μₒ.εₒ
...
E = h . f
etc.

Now, compare this simple formula:

F = G.M.m/r² (Newton Law of Gravitational Force)

with this, pretending to substitute the product of the greatest mind in history:

Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ , Hilbert-Einstein field equation for GR.

and tell me if something didn't started to be fucked up 115 years ago.

SOME DETAILS (and only are details. Real things are messier):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) gᵤᵥ =gᵥᵤ , is the metric tensor and can be represented by a 4 x 4 matrix
(gᵘᵛ) for u,v = 0,1,2,3. The most studied component of the GFE.

The metric determines the invariant square of an infinitesimal line
element ds, often referred to as an interval, being

ds² = gᵤᵥ dxᵘ dxᵛ, for u,v = 0,1,2,3.

ds² has so many properties that has occupied the entire professional life
of ten of thousand of physicists in the last 100 years. Brought to life
black holes, worm holes, white holes, ΛCDM cosmology, etc. You name it.

2) R: Scalar curvature (not a tensor).

3) Rᵤᵥ = ∂ᵢ Γⁱᵤᵥ - ∂ᵤ Γⁱᵥᵢ + Γⁱᵢᵣ Γʳᵤᵥ - Γⁱᵤᵣ Γʳᵢᵥ , Ricci curvature tensor

where

Γᵛᵢᵤ = 1/2 gᵛˣ (∂ᵢ gᵤₓ + ∂ᵥ gᵢₓ - ∂ₓ gᵢᵤ) , Christoffel symbols


4) Tᵤᵥ = (Tᵘᵛ) for u,v = 0,1,2,3 , Stress-energy tensor (4 x 4)

being Tᵘᵛ = Tᵛᵘ and

4.1) T⁰⁰ = ρ = 1/c² (1/2 εₒ E² + 1/(2μₒ) B²) , the relativistic mass per unit
volume ρ for an electromagnetic field in the space.

4.2) T⁰ᵉ = Tᵉ⁰ , the flux of relativistic mass across the xᵉ surface,
equivalent to the density of the e_th component of linear momentum.

4.3) Tᵏˡ represent flux of kth component of linear momentum across the xˡ
surface. In particular

Tᵏᵏ , (k = 1, 2, 3) represents normal stress ("pressure") in the kth
co-ordinate direction.

4.4) Remaining components Tᵏˡ (k ≠ l) represent shear (co-planar) stress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you notice anything about the real work of nature?
Or just mathematics?

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 3:19:29 PMSep 14
to
Op 14-sep.-2021 om 20:56 schreef Richard Hertz:
> Simple, useful formulae that shaped the modern world:
>
> F = m.a
> v = x/t
> E = 1/2 m.v²
> U = F . d
> P . V = n . R . T
> V = I . R
> W = I . V
> ∇ x E = - ∂B/∂t and ∇ x B = μₒ.εₒ ∂E/∂t, with c = 1/√μₒ.εₒ
> ...
> E = h . f
> etc.

That's not simple for people like, say, Ed Lake. Not even close.
Poor Ed.

>
> Now, compare this simple formula:
>
> F = G.M.m/r² (Newton Law of Gravitational Force)
>
> with this, pretending to substitute the product of the greatest mind in history:
>
> Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ , Hilbert-Einstein field equation for GR.
>
> and tell me if something didn't started to be fucked up 115 years ago.

It clearly started to be too difficult for simple engineers.
Poor Richard.

Dirk Vdm

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 3:40:59 PMSep 14
to
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 4:19:29 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

<snip>

> > Now, compare this simple formula:
> >
> > F = G.M.m/r² (Newton Law of Gravitational Force)
> >
> > with this, pretending to substitute the product of the greatest mind in history:
> >
> > Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ , Hilbert-Einstein field equation for GR.
> >
> > and tell me if something didn't started to be fucked up 115 years ago.

> It clearly started to be too difficult for simple engineers.
> Poor Richard.

Obviously you're in deep pain due to your butthurt. Probably you find difficult to digest
the correct summary of such a fucking theory using HTML and in 10 lines.

Or did you find ANY MISTAKE in my post? There is NOT A SINGLE ONE.

And I was not going to write a book of 1,000 pages about this SHIT, here.

Maybe you can learn how to express things in a compact way, like I did!

Wait! You can't, because you are not an engineer, so life is tortuous, difficult and
full of wording and rhetoric. Read and learn, DICK!

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 3:47:39 PMSep 14
to
Op 14-sep.-2021 om 21:40 schreef Richard Hertz:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 4:19:29 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Now, compare this simple formula:
>>>
>>> F = G.M.m/r² (Newton Law of Gravitational Force)
>>>
>>> with this, pretending to substitute the product of the greatest mind in history:
>>>
>>> Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ , Hilbert-Einstein field equation for GR.
>>>
>>> and tell me if something didn't started to be fucked up 115 years ago.
>
>> It clearly started to be too difficult for simple engineers.
>> Poor Richard.
>
> Obviously you're in deep pain due to your butthurt. Probably you find difficult to digest
> the correct summary of such a fucking theory using HTML and in 10 lines.
>
> Or did you find ANY MISTAKE in my post? There is NOT A SINGLE ONE.

The mistake lies in the getting together of your parents, way back.

Dirk Vdm


Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 5:25:16 PMSep 14
to
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 4:47:39 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

<snip>

> The mistake lies in the getting together of your parents, way back.
>
> Dirk Vdm

Nice, Dick. Now apply that to your Einstein and five generations of retarded who followed the math in my OP.

Oh, wait a minute! Are you one 5th. generation descendant of some of your grand-grand-grand father who was
indoctrinated at the beginning of the stupidity chain?

Still, mathematics is not physics, Dick. And GR is a mathematical fairy tail pretended to be physics.

No matter how much do you dislike that, you can't change the truth embedded into such simple statement.

Dono.

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 7:20:41 PMSep 14
to
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 11:56:40 AM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz spewed fresh imbecoilities:
> Simple, useful formulae that shaped the modern world:
>
> F = m.a

False, F=dp/dt

> v = x/t

False v=dx/dt

> E = 1/2 m.v²

False, the above shows only a part of energy

> U = F . d

False , U=\int{\vec{F} \dot \vec{dx}}

Face it Dick, you are a cretin.

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 7:22:47 PMSep 14
to
Op 14-sep.-2021 om 23:25 schreef Richard Hertz:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 4:47:39 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The mistake lies in the getting together of your parents, way back.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Nice, Dick. Now apply that to your Einstein

I don't have an Einstein. Otoh, you seem to be someone who has one.
Must be hell in there. Poor Richard ;-)

Dirk Vdm

John Doe

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 12:05:38 AMSep 15
to
This rings a bell. It is the case that sometimes the simple is deeper and more
difficult to see than the complex.

JanPB

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 3:58:48 AMSep 15
to
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 11:56:40 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Simple, useful formulae that shaped the modern world:
>
> F = m.a
> v = x/t
> E = 1/2 m.v²
> U = F . d
> P . V = n . R . T
> V = I . R
> W = I . V
> ∇ x E = - ∂B/∂t and ∇ x B = μₒ.εₒ ∂E/∂t, with c = 1/√μₒ.εₒ
> ...
> E = h . f
> etc.
>
> Now, compare this simple formula:
>
> F = G.M.m/r² (Newton Law of Gravitational Force)
>
> with this, pretending to substitute the product of the greatest mind in history:
>
> Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ , Hilbert-Einstein field equation for GR.
>
> and tell me if something didn't started to be fucked up 115 years ago.

Why? Just because it's more complex? Since when this is a criterion for
anything?

> SOME DETAILS (and only are details. Real things are messier):
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1) gᵤᵥ =gᵥᵤ , is the metric tensor and can be represented by a 4 x 4 matrix
> (gᵘᵛ) for u,v = 0,1,2,3. The most studied component of the GFE.
>
> The metric determines the invariant square of an infinitesimal line
> element ds, often referred to as an interval, being
>
> ds² = gᵤᵥ dxᵘ dxᵛ, for u,v = 0,1,2,3.
>
> ds² has so many properties that has occupied the entire professional life
> of ten of thousand of physicists in the last 100 years. Brought to life
> black holes, worm holes, white holes, ΛCDM cosmology, etc. You name it.

Why are you focusing on GR then? Particle physics is MUCH more weird than
anything in GR. Oh, I see, particle physics uses more advanced mathematics,
so you cannot doodle with it.

> 2) R: Scalar curvature (not a tensor).
>
> 3) Rᵤᵥ = ∂ᵢ Γⁱᵤᵥ - ∂ᵤ Γⁱᵥᵢ + Γⁱᵢᵣ Γʳᵤᵥ - Γⁱᵤᵣ Γʳᵢᵥ , Ricci curvature tensor
>
> where
>
> Γᵛᵢᵤ = 1/2 gᵛˣ (∂ᵢ gᵤₓ + ∂ᵥ gᵢₓ - ∂ₓ gᵢᵤ) , Christoffel symbols
>
>
> 4) Tᵤᵥ = (Tᵘᵛ) for u,v = 0,1,2,3 , Stress-energy tensor (4 x 4)
>
> being Tᵘᵛ = Tᵛᵘ and
>
> 4.1) T⁰⁰ = ρ = 1/c² (1/2 εₒ E² + 1/(2μₒ) B²) , the relativistic mass per unit
> volume ρ for an electromagnetic field in the space.
>
> 4.2) T⁰ᵉ = Tᵉ⁰ , the flux of relativistic mass across the xᵉ surface,
> equivalent to the density of the e_th component of linear momentum.
>
> 4.3) Tᵏˡ represent flux of kth component of linear momentum across the xˡ
> surface. In particular
>
> Tᵏᵏ , (k = 1, 2, 3) represents normal stress ("pressure") in the kth
> co-ordinate direction.
>
> 4.4) Remaining components Tᵏˡ (k ≠ l) represent shear (co-planar) stress.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Do you notice anything about the real work of nature?
> Or just mathematics?

You simply don't know what those tensors mean in real experimental terms. To
you it all looks just like a bunch of math.

It's been a very common thread on this NG since its inception: "I don't understand
it, therefore it's inferior. I understand F=ma, therefore it's superior." Etc. etc.

To your credit, you haven't yet claimed that the LACK of knowledge is "superior" to
knowledge because it allows "my superior physics intuition to blossom unfettered
by the mathematics" - another very common claim here by people who want to do
physics but cannot be bothered to learn it.

--
Jan

JanPB

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 3:59:57 AMSep 15
to
Sometimes things work out that way, sometimes they don't. In this case they don't.

--
Jan

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 10:36:58 AMSep 15
to
On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 4:58:48 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>

> > Now, compare this simple formula:

> > F = G.M.m/r² (Newton Law of Gravitational Force)

> > with this, pretending to substitute the product of the greatest mind in history:

> > Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ , Hilbert-Einstein field equation for GR.
> >
> > and tell me if something didn't started to be fucked up 115 years ago.


> Why? Just because it's more complex? Since when this is a criterion for anything?


> > SOME DETAILS (and only are details. Real things are messier):
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > 1) gᵤᵥ =gᵥᵤ , is the metric tensor and can be represented by a 4 x 4 matrix
> > (gᵘᵛ) for u,v = 0,1,2,3. The most studied component of the GFE.
> >
> > The metric determines the invariant square of an infinitesimal line
> > element ds, often referred to as an interval, being
> >
> > ds² = gᵤᵥ dxᵘ dxᵛ, for u,v = 0,1,2,3.
> >
> > ds² has so many properties that has occupied the entire professional life
> > of ten of thousand of physicists in the last 100 years. Brought to life
> > black holes, worm holes, white holes, ΛCDM cosmology, etc. You name it.


> Why are you focusing on GR then? Particle physics is MUCH more weird than
> anything in GR. Oh, I see, particle physics uses more advanced mathematics,
> so you cannot doodle with it.

I'm focusing on GR, Jan, because I want to know as exactly as I'm able to do it,
WHY the GR movement started after 1910 and Minkowski. Call it curiosity, but
this particular contest involved about ten competing theories between 1911 and
1915, as well as different personalities with different backgrounds.

In particular, I'm trying to understand every step that was done by Einstein and
friends. This approach is VERY telling, for me, because I'll be able to find the
roots of every particular modification (in the GR timeline) to tune up the underlying
mathematical basis so they could satisfy both fields: mathematics and physics, as
they were nurtured by external influences on the minds of those involved: Not only
Einstein but the "supervisors" at the Prussian Academy of Sciences (in particular Mie).

And this is a novel and entertaining approach for me. Instead of heavy rhetoric and
philosophically supported rants (based on my logic and knowledge), I've decided that's
more fruitful to be involved into the mathematical framework and how it was linked to
physical meanings (if any). New hobby, fascinating, and started to pay off when I
decided to trace back when the concepts of GPS alleged relativistic corrections were
born. It did pay off, and I wrote my post about the genesis in the March 1911 paper.

Not only that, but also the deflection of light theory as developed between March 1911
(it was von Soldner's work, rearranged), and twice that value by Nov. 1915, which is
explained in the Nov. 1915 Einstein's paper about approximations of his incomplete
GR math (not Hilbert influenced yet) to explain Mercury's perihelion which, in turn,
moved Schwarzschild to find an exact analytical solution (which Einstein didn't believe
that was possible).

The above concepts also will help me to understand WHY Einstein kept developing a theory,
about which he was convinced that nobody could refute without crippling it with approximations.
This, and alone this, is very telling for me about the psychological drive for Einstein to keep going:
Maybe that he was too much involved in efforts to NOT RUIN his "career", so he couldn't either
drop the work or publicly accept that such work was OUT OF HIS HANDS and have life on its own.
And all of this because of MATHEMATICAL FORMALISM, not PHYSICAL COHERENCE.

I know that it must hit you that I dare to do what I'm starting to do, as this topic is very important
for you, and for a long time. But, besides your feelings, I have every right to do what I'm doing.

Now, if you have to resort (again) to "ad-hominem" attacks like: "You can't do it because you don't
have the required expertise" OR "How dare you to mess with this sacred body of "knowledge" when
you don't even understand what's the meaning of the simplest term", then you are the one who has
a problem, Jan, not me. Prejudices are a horrible manifestation of human flaws, moves people to
the wrong direction AND, most of the time, are based on jealousy and incorrect feelings of superiority.

> > 2) R: Scalar curvature (not a tensor).
> >
> > 3) Rᵤᵥ = ∂ᵢ Γⁱᵤᵥ - ∂ᵤ Γⁱᵥᵢ + Γⁱᵢᵣ Γʳᵤᵥ - Γⁱᵤᵣ Γʳᵢᵥ , Ricci curvature tensor
> >
> > where
> >
> > Γᵛᵢᵤ = 1/2 gᵛˣ (∂ᵢ gᵤₓ + ∂ᵥ gᵢₓ - ∂ₓ gᵢᵤ) , Christoffel symbols
> >
> >
> > 4) Tᵤᵥ = (Tᵘᵛ) for u,v = 0,1,2,3 , Stress-energy tensor (4 x 4)
> >
> > being Tᵘᵛ = Tᵛᵘ and
> >
> > 4.1) T⁰⁰ = ρ = 1/c² (1/2 εₒ E² + 1/(2μₒ) B²) , the relativistic mass per unit
> > volume ρ for an electromagnetic field in the space.
> >
> > 4.2) T⁰ᵉ = Tᵉ⁰ , the flux of relativistic mass across the xᵉ surface,
> > equivalent to the density of the e_th component of linear momentum.
> >
> > 4.3) Tᵏˡ represent flux of kth component of linear momentum across the xˡ
> > surface. In particular
> >
> > Tᵏᵏ , (k = 1, 2, 3) represents normal stress ("pressure") in the kth
> > co-ordinate direction.
> >
> > 4.4) Remaining components Tᵏˡ (k ≠ l) represent shear (co-planar) stress.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Do you notice anything about the real work of nature?
> > Or just mathematics?


> You simply don't know what those tensors mean in real experimental terms. To
> you it all looks just like a bunch of math.

Read my above statement, and stop forecasting people's behavior or capabilities.
Try to switch to weather forecasting and, maybe, you'll be more certain than with
your understanding of other people.

> It's been a very common thread on this NG since its inception: "I don't understand
> it, therefore it's inferior. I understand F=ma, therefore it's superior." Etc. etc.

Again, you are showing your flaws as a person. Read above.

> To your credit, you haven't yet claimed that the LACK of knowledge is "superior" to
> knowledge because it allows "my superior physics intuition to blossom unfettered
> by the mathematics" - another very common claim here by people who want to do
> physics but cannot be bothered to learn it.

I find this digression a complement to prove my previous comments.

Gale Binz

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 10:41:00 AMSep 15
to
Richard Hertz wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 4:58:48 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>> Why are you focusing on GR then? Particle physics is MUCH more weird
>> than anything in GR. Oh, I see, particle physics uses more advanced
>> mathematics,
>> so you cannot doodle with it.
>
> I'm focusing on GR, Jan, because I want to know as exactly as I'm able
> to do it,
> WHY the GR movement started after 1910 and Minkowski. Call it curiosity,
> but this particular contest involved about ten competing theories
> between 1911 and 1915, as well as different personalities with different
> backgrounds.

another academia bites the dust:

Professor of ethic has been fired from Canadian university, her video has
been deleted by Youtube (Gafa are involved in the "great reset" that use
covid and vaccin to transform societies)
https://www.brighteon.com/096beca3-b66d-4dbe-94ab-a4e284fee107

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 10:48:15 AMSep 15
to
On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 4:58:48 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>

> Why are you focusing on GR then? Particle physics is MUCH more weird than
> anything in GR. Oh, I see, particle physics uses more advanced mathematics,
> so you cannot doodle with it.

I forgot to comment about the last part of the above comment.

I wonder why you do have such "visions". Besides the childish desire that someone
CAN'T DO something, so you feel safe and protected at your "ivory tower" of superior
knowledge, I read "FEAR" at it, in the same way a professional musician fears to be
beaten by natural talent of an improvised musician who can find the notes that are
beyond the "mathematics" of music composition: "You CAN'T DO THAT!" says the
professional musician, in denial of what the amateur one achieved. Pathetic, lame!



Dono.

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 11:31:09 AMSep 15
to
On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 7:36:58 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz lied:


> Not only that, but also the deflection of light theory as developed between March 1911
> (it was von Soldner's work, rearranged),

Soldner result was off by 50%, lying piece of shit. You need to stop licking nazi boots, kapo.






Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 4:56:27 PMSep 15
to
100% higher values in 4 years, after someone (in the world, following his claim to astronomers)
hinted him about the results of observations in 9 solar eclipses between 1911 and 1915: Fishy!!


---------------------------------------------------------1911------------------------------------------------------------
On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light
By A. Einstein.
Annalen der Physik, 35, pp. 898-908, 1911

******* Excerpt ****************************
§ 4. Bending of Light-Rays in the Gravitational Field

..........
α = 2kM/c²Δ

where k denotes the constant of gravitation, M the mass of the heavenly body, Δ the
distance of the ray from the center of the body.......

A light-ray going past the Sun would accordingly undergo deflection by the amount of
4 x 10^6 = 0.83 seconds of arc.
..........

It would be urgently wished that astronomers TAKE UP the question here raised, even though the
considerations presented above may seem INSUFICIENTLY established or even BIZARRE.

For, apart from any theory, there is the question whether it is possible with the equipment at present
available to detect an influence of gravitational fields on the propagation of light.

Prague, June 1911. (Submitted 21 June 1911.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, 4 years and 100% increase later:

---------------------------------------------------------1915 ------------------------------------------------------------
Erklarung der Perihelbewegung des Merkur aus der allgemeinen Realtivitatstheorie
Von A. Einstein
Published 25 November 1915 in Koniglich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin)
Translated in 1923 (UK)
.............
.............
First Approximation
.............
We will see later that hereby there is no difference between Newton’s law (in the first order approximation).
However, it gives a somewhat different influence of the gravitational field on the light ray as in my previous
work; as the light velocity is introduced through the equation

Σ gᵤᵥ dxᵤ dxᵥ = 0.

By use of the Huygens principle, one finds from (5) and (4b) through a simple calculation, that a light ray
from the Sun at distance Δ undergoes an angular deflection of magnitude 2α/Δ, while the earlier calculation,
by which the Hypothesis Σ Tᵘᵤ = 0 was not involved, had given the value α/Δ,. A corresponding light ray from
the surface rim of the Sun should give a deviation of 1.7′′ (instead of 0.85′′).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: He's talking about his previous paper earlier in November 1915, where he kept OBTAINING THE SAME VALUE
as in his 1911 paper (a plagiarism of 1801 von Soldner work). So, who hinted him 1 month before 25 Nov. 1915?

1915 - Fundamental Ideas of the General Theory of Relativity and the Application of this Theory in Astronomy -
Prussian Academy of Sciences, Proceedings, 4 November 1915 (part 1), 315



JanPB

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 6:00:32 PMSep 15
to
On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 7:36:58 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 4:58:48 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > Now, compare this simple formula:
>
> > > F = G.M.m/r² (Newton Law of Gravitational Force)
>
> > > with this, pretending to substitute the product of the greatest mind in history:
>
> > > Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ , Hilbert-Einstein field equation for GR.
> > >
> > > and tell me if something didn't started to be fucked up 115 years ago.
>
>
> > Why? Just because it's more complex? Since when this is a criterion for anything?
>
>
> > > SOME DETAILS (and only are details. Real things are messier):
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > 1) gᵤᵥ =gᵥᵤ , is the metric tensor and can be represented by a 4 x 4 matrix
> > > (gᵘᵛ) for u,v = 0,1,2,3. The most studied component of the GFE.
> > >
> > > The metric determines the invariant square of an infinitesimal line
> > > element ds, often referred to as an interval, being
> > >
> > > ds² = gᵤᵥ dxᵘ dxᵛ, for u,v = 0,1,2,3.
> > >
> > > ds² has so many properties that has occupied the entire professional life
> > > of ten of thousand of physicists in the last 100 years. Brought to life
> > > black holes, worm holes, white holes, ΛCDM cosmology, etc. You name it.
>
>
> > Why are you focusing on GR then? Particle physics is MUCH more weird than
> > anything in GR. Oh, I see, particle physics uses more advanced mathematics,
> > so you cannot doodle with it.
> I'm focusing on GR, Jan, because I want to know as exactly as I'm able to do it,

If you want to know THAT, it means, by definition, that you cannot criticise it (yet).

> WHY the GR movement started after 1910 and Minkowski. Call it curiosity, but
> this particular contest involved about ten competing theories between 1911 and
> 1915, as well as different personalities with different backgrounds.
>
> In particular, I'm trying to understand every step that was done by Einstein and
> friends.

That's fine, but in that case you cannot criticise it. You can only ask questions.

> This approach is VERY telling, for me, because I'll be able to find the
> roots of every particular modification (in the GR timeline) to tune up the underlying
> mathematical basis so they could satisfy both fields: mathematics and physics,

No, it's an illusion. You cannot find any roots of anything if you don't understand
the subject.

> as they were nurtured by external influences on the minds of those involved: Not only
> Einstein but the "supervisors" at the Prussian Academy of Sciences (in particular Mie).

Ditto. Your approach to all this is one colossal waste of your time.

The rest of your answer is not worth responding to. You insist on plying
Godowski's Chopin transcriptions while not being able to play scales.

--
Jan

Dono.

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 6:47:57 PMSep 15
to
On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 1:56:27 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz brainfarted:


> By use of the Huygens principle, one finds from (5) and (4b) through a simple calculation, that a light ray
> from the Sun at distance Δ undergoes an angular deflection of magnitude 2α/Δ, while the earlier calculation,
> by which the Hypothesis Σ Tᵘᵤ = 0 was not involved, had given the value α/Δ,. A corresponding light ray from
> the surface rim of the Sun should give a deviation of 1.7′′ (instead of 0.85′′).
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dumbestfuck


It is right in the text, Newtonian theory gives half of the result, GR is needed for the correct result.
When Eichmann lived in Argentina did you go every day to lick his boots, stinking kapo?

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 7:46:18 PMSep 15
to
On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 7:00:32 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>

> > I'm focusing on GR, Jan, because I want to know as exactly as I'm able to do it,
> > WHY the GR movement started after 1910 and Minkowski. Call it curiosity, but
> > this particular contest involved about ten competing theories between 1911 and
> > 1915, as well as different personalities with different backgrounds.
> > In particular, I'm trying to understand every step that was done by Einstein and
> > friends.

> > This approach is VERY telling, for me, because I'll be able to find the
> > roots of every particular modification (in the GR timeline) to tune up the underlying
> > mathematical basis so they could satisfy both fields: mathematics and physics,
> > as they were nurtured by external influences on the minds of those involved: Not only
> > Einstein but the "supervisors" at the Prussian Academy of Sciences (in particular Mie).

> If you want to know THAT, it means, by definition, that you cannot criticise it (yet).

> That's fine, but in that case you cannot criticise it. You can only ask questions.

> No, it's an illusion. You cannot find any roots of anything if you don't understand the subject.

> Ditto. Your approach to all this is one colossal waste of your time.

> The rest of your answer is not worth responding to.

<snip>

Inserting your comments in the middle of my sentences (and with the same fixation on "cannot")
reveals to me that you are a fucking idiot who deserve no respect from me.

I had pity on you, and because of that, I answered to you politely in the last months.

But I'm sorry to confirm that you're some kind of self-entitled retarded person, who doesn't deserve
the slightest consideration nor any kind of response to your replies on my posts to you.

Follow your journey and live long and prosper, but forget about me. You brought to me memories
about some people of your kind, which I made eat dust over and over decades ago. I find no more
any pleasure to defeat arrogant persons like you, as I found that it's better to let them to consume
themselves into their bitterness and stupidity about judging and telling others what can or can't do.

A true imbecile are you, Jan. Just keep away.


Dono.

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 9:27:43 PMSep 15
to
On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 4:46:18 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz admitted:

> But I'm sorry to confirm that I am some kind of self-entitled retarded person, who doesn't deserve
> the slightest consideration
> A true imbecile

Yep

John Doe

unread,
Sep 16, 2021, 12:14:33 AMSep 16
to

>> This rings a bell. It is the case that sometimes the simple is deeper and more
>> difficult to see than the complex.
>
> Sometimes things work out that way, sometimes they don't. In this case they
> don't.
>
> --
> Jan

True. I am not a physicist, but I like this topic. I would like to understand
why Einstein assumed the velocity of light as constant and started measuring
everything with it, and then started to get weird results like time dilation
and lenght contraction as a result. I am understanding this right?

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Sep 16, 2021, 12:27:14 AMSep 16
to
On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 00:47:57 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:

> It is right in the text, Newtonian theory gives half of the result, GR is needed for the correct result.

Only such an idiot can believe such an impudent lie, Dono.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Sep 16, 2021, 12:28:35 AMSep 16
to
No, he didn't. But, of course, a fanatic relativistic piece of shit
will lie shamelessly for his religion.

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 16, 2021, 2:51:50 AMSep 16
to
On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 1:14:33 AM UTC-3, John Doe wrote:

<snip>

> True. I am not a physicist, but I like this topic. I would like to understand
> why Einstein assumed the velocity of light as constant and started measuring
> everything with it, and then started to get weird results like time dilation
> and lenght contraction as a result. I am understanding this right?


John, I copy an explanation (mi idea) about why Einstein assumed the constancy of "c". It's extracted
from this thread: https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/eOuE7zI2iHQ

and now I'm modifying it a little bit:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMHO, SR has everything to do with light because at its foundations, tracing back to the first attempt to
describe relativistic behaviors due to the invariance of "c": Woldemar Voigt and his 1887 paper.

His goal was to find what were the formulae for a linear transform of E(x,y,z,t) into another domain E'(x',y',z',t')
in such a way that the WAVE EQUATION be invariant under such linear transformation. Voigt used these three
general wave equations in 1887, one for each dimension (x,y,z). The value ω is the universal velocity of the wave,
independent of any direction x, y, z (represents the modern c).

∂²u/∂t² = ω² Δu = ω² ( ∂²u/∂x² + ∂²u/∂y² + ∂²u/∂z²)
∂²v/∂t² = ω² Δv = ω² ( ∂²v/∂x² + ∂²v/∂y² + ∂²v/∂z²)
∂²w/∂t² = ω² Δw = ω² ( ∂²w/∂x² + ∂²w/∂y² + ∂²w/∂z²)

verifying that the gradient for the general wave function u(x,y,z,t) is:

∂u/∂x + ∂v/∂y + ∂w/∂z = 0

where ∇ is the Gradient operator, Δ is the Laplacian operator, and is

Usually, the wave equation is analyzed traveling only in one direction, and is usually u(x):

∂²u/∂t² = ω² . ∂²u/∂x²

You can read more about the wave equation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_equation

This apply for Maxwell's equation application for a light wave traveling on a unidimensional x direction:

∂²u/∂t² = ω² . ∂²u/∂x² = 1/(μₒ.εₒ) . ∂²u/∂x², where ω² = c² = 1/(μₒ.εₒ)

For Einstein 2nd. postulate of 1905 SR:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”)
to the status of a postulate, and also introduce ANOTHER POSTULATE, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that LIGHT is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is INDEPENDENT OF THE STATE OF MOTION OF THE EMITTING BODY. These two
postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of
moving bodies based on Maxwell’s theory for stationary bodies."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

is crucial (as it was for Voigt, Lorentz and Poincaré) that "c" be invariant under any linear transform, so
any beam light emitted from one frame reference E' be received and measured with "c" speed at E, and
reciprocally. Its independence of the inertial motion at a relative velocity "v" makes c independent of v.

So, Einstein claims that measurements of c+v or c-v are IMPOSSIBLE, otherwise Lorentz transforms
can´t be applied and the wave function of light would DEPEND on the selected inertial frame, moving
with any constant velocity v.

Accepting the 2nd. Postulate with the meaning stated above, everything else is valid within SR domain
of applicability.

Most physicists adhere to this constancy. Others don't agree and say that the measure value can be:
c' = c + v OR c' = c - v. The discussion is on for the last 100 years. If the constancy of c is disproved,
the entire theory of special relativity collapses, and everything in modern physics has to be reformulated.

Personally, I don't believe in the universal constancy of "c" value. Too big and too old is the universe for
this be hold as true in the last 10 billion years or at 10 bly away. But this is just me.

Also, the domain of applicability of SR requires the absence of gravity and a flat (euclidean) space, void
of any trace of matter or energy. And this is obviously NOT TRUE.

But relativists insist into applying SR here on Earth: mean life of cosmic muons coming down from 10-16 Km
from above, suffering permanent gravitational acceleration; kinematic time dilation in Hafele–Keating
experiment, CERN LHC and the huge presence of electric and magnetic energy, and many other experiments
which violate the domain of applicability for SR.

Special Relativity allows muons to make it to sea level (page 11)
https://physics.nyu.edu/NYSCPT/summer02/sb1.pdf

Hafele–Keating experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

Restarting the LHC: Why 13 Tev?
https://home.cern/science/engineering/restarting-lhc-why-13-tev

Michael Moroney

unread,
Sep 16, 2021, 2:57:56 AMSep 16
to
On 9/16/2021 12:14 AM, John Doe wrote:
>
>>> This rings a bell. It is the case that sometimes the simple is deeper and more
>>> difficult to see than the complex.
>>
>> Sometimes things work out that way, sometimes they don't. In this case they
>> don't.
>>
>> --
>> Jan
>
> I would like to understand why Einstein assumed the velocity of light as constant and started measuring
> everything with it,

He didn't assume the speed of light was constant. It is what the
scientists of the time kept measuring. The speed of light was always
the same. They knew it was constant, even though they did not know why.
All Einstein did was make it into a postulate, that it was some
unknown law of physics that the speed of light is constant.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Sep 16, 2021, 3:47:48 AMSep 16
to
On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 08:57:56 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> He didn't assume the speed of light was constant. It is what the
> scientists of the time kept measuring.

Only such an idiot, stupid Mike, can believe such an impudent
lie; of course, with unit of time valid also in physics in the time
of your idiot guru was making such a result completely impossible.

John Doe

unread,
Sep 16, 2021, 7:03:27 AMSep 16
to
> If the constancy of c is disproved,
> the entire theory of special relativity collapses, and everything in modern
> physics has to be reformulated.
>

I understand, this would be a monumental task. What a conundrum we have. I
believe the reason of doing science and Physics in particular is to understand
what's going on. But also we do it to get real numbers, to get real results.
Due to my lack of knowledge I can not assert this but if we are getting good
numbers then we could continue to do it Einstein's way, while at the same time
creating a fork just beginning at the time SR was formulated and look for
alternatives, until the fork catches up with current science. Then we can
chose wich branch of the fork we keep. I am sure there must be young scientist
up to the task of making new science, just like Einstein was.
Don't know, this are just some ideas.

Thanks for all the replies.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Sep 16, 2021, 8:29:52 AMSep 16
to
On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 13:03:27 UTC+2, John Doe wrote:
> > If the constancy of c is disproved,
> > the entire theory of special relativity collapses, and everything in modern
> > physics has to be reformulated.
> >
> I understand, this would be a monumental task. What a conundrum we have. I
> believe the reason of doing science and Physics in particular is to understand
> what's going on.

Do you consider a possibility that your faith can be mistaken?

John Doe

unread,
Sep 16, 2021, 8:39:06 AMSep 16
to
On Sep 16, 2021 at 8:29:51 AM EDT, "Maciej Wozniak" <maluw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Faith as in religion? I am not e religious person.

John Doe

unread,
Sep 16, 2021, 8:57:55 AMSep 16
to
On Sep 16, 2021 at 8:29:51 AM EDT, "Maciej Wozniak" <maluw...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I tend to believe in what I can understand.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Sep 16, 2021, 1:04:30 PMSep 16
to
Faith/believing is similiar in religion and outside. So, do you
consider or not?

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Sep 16, 2021, 1:08:45 PMSep 16
to
Everyone does. Well, that's a trick science is using to
take the control of your brain and use it for its own purposes.
Religion is doing the same, BTW, but there are significant
differences in the technique and other details.

JanPB

unread,
Sep 16, 2021, 2:58:21 PMSep 16
to
On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 4:46:18 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 7:00:32 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > I'm focusing on GR, Jan, because I want to know as exactly as I'm able to do it,
> > > WHY the GR movement started after 1910 and Minkowski. Call it curiosity, but
> > > this particular contest involved about ten competing theories between 1911 and
> > > 1915, as well as different personalities with different backgrounds.
> > > In particular, I'm trying to understand every step that was done by Einstein and
> > > friends.
> > > This approach is VERY telling, for me, because I'll be able to find the
> > > roots of every particular modification (in the GR timeline) to tune up the underlying
> > > mathematical basis so they could satisfy both fields: mathematics and physics,
> > > as they were nurtured by external influences on the minds of those involved: Not only
> > > Einstein but the "supervisors" at the Prussian Academy of Sciences (in particular Mie).
> > If you want to know THAT, it means, by definition, that you cannot criticise it (yet).
> > That's fine, but in that case you cannot criticise it. You can only ask questions.
> > No, it's an illusion. You cannot find any roots of anything if you don't understand the subject.
> > Ditto. Your approach to all this is one colossal waste of your time.
>
> > The rest of your answer is not worth responding to.
> <snip>
>
> Inserting your comments in the middle of my sentences (and with the same fixation on "cannot")
> reveals to me that you are a fucking idiot who deserve no respect from me.

I don't care. The point is that as far as physics is concerned you keep posting nothing but
insults and idiocies.

> A true imbecile are you, Jan. Just keep away.

No. That will happen only if I feel like it.

--
Jan

JanPB

unread,
Sep 16, 2021, 3:24:35 PMSep 16
to
On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 11:51:50 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 1:14:33 AM UTC-3, John Doe wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > True. I am not a physicist, but I like this topic. I would like to understand
> > why Einstein assumed the velocity of light as constant and started measuring
> > everything with it, and then started to get weird results like time dilation
> > and lenght contraction as a result. I am understanding this right?
> John, I copy an explanation (mi idea) about why Einstein assumed the constancy of "c". It's extracted
> from this thread: https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/eOuE7zI2iHQ
>
> and now I'm modifying it a little bit:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> IMHO, SR has everything to do with light because at its foundations, tracing back to the first attempt to
> describe relativistic behaviors due to the invariance of "c": Woldemar Voigt and his 1887 paper.

Einstein's work or inspiration was not based on Voigt's work. Amateurs frequently assume that
literal semblance of formulas implies the actual source of a theory.

> His goal was to find what were the formulae for a linear transform of E(x,y,z,t) into another domain E'(x',y',z',t')
> in such a way that the WAVE EQUATION be invariant under such linear transformation.

No. Einstein's inspiration was Lorentz's 1904 paper and its transformation formulas for E and B fields
in _Maxwell's equations_ (not merely the wave equation), esp. the curious fact that those fields
could not be transformed _at all_ under the standard Newtonian change of coordinates but they
_did_ transform if one imposed an extra coordinate change involving _time_. Lorentz himself did
not recognise the importance of this fact and simply treated the transformed time as a
mathematical property or "abstract parameter". Einstein realised there was a way to
make this transformation and the transformed E and B fields "real" in the sense that their values
would be what the "moving" observer would actually measure.

> Voigt used these three
> general wave equations in 1887, one for each dimension (x,y,z).

[etc.] Yes, but this didn't lead anywhere, similarities notwithstanding.

--
Jan

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Sep 17, 2021, 2:10:23 AMSep 17
to
On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 21:24:35 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:

> mathematical property or "abstract parameter". Einstein realised there was a way to
> make this transformation and the transformed E and B fields "real" in the sense that their values
> would be what the "moving" observer would actually measure.

Common sense was warning your idiot guru, and, of course, now,
having GPS we know that what he "realised" was a delusion of
a mystical crank.

Thomas Heger

unread,
Sep 17, 2021, 3:01:11 AMSep 17
to
Am 16.09.2021 um 21:24 schrieb JanPB:
> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 11:51:50 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 1:14:33 AM UTC-3, John Doe wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> True. I am not a physicist, but I like this topic. I would like to understand
>>> why Einstein assumed the velocity of light as constant and started measuring
>>> everything with it, and then started to get weird results like time dilation
>>> and lenght contraction as a result. I am understanding this right?
>> John, I copy an explanation (mi idea) about why Einstein assumed the constancy of "c". It's extracted
>> from this thread: https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/eOuE7zI2iHQ
>>
>> and now I'm modifying it a little bit:
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> IMHO, SR has everything to do with light because at its foundations, tracing back to the first attempt to
>> describe relativistic behaviors due to the invariance of "c": Woldemar Voigt and his 1887 paper.
>
> Einstein's work or inspiration was not based on Voigt's work. Amateurs frequently assume that
> literal semblance of formulas implies the actual source of a theory.

Einstein's text contains equations and concepts, which were seemingly
inpisred by Poincaré's 'sur la electrodynamic de la electron'. This was
handed to the publisher two weeks after Einstein's 'On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies'.

There are two possible ways, how that could happen:

1st possibility:

the date of the presentation of the text to the journal 'Annalen der
Physik' was wrong and it was actually handed in a few weeks later.

2nd possibility

Hermann Minkowski was a friend of Poincaré (who didn't like Einstein)
and Minkowski gave Einstein a few hints.

...
TH

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 17, 2021, 3:06:26 AMSep 17
to
On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 4:24:35 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>

> No. Einstein's inspiration was Lorentz's 1904 paper and its transformation formulas for E and B fields
> in _Maxwell's equations_ (not merely the wave equation), esp. the curious fact that those fields
> could not be transformed _at all_ under the standard Newtonian change of coordinates but they
> _did_ transform if one imposed *********an extra coordinate change involving _time***********.

Einstein's inspiration was multi-source, from where he could plagiarize and fudge to hide origins: Voigt, Lorentz,
FitzGerald, Larmor, Poincaré, Heaviside, Michelson, Thomson, Maxwell, Hertz, Planck, Lenard, Wien, Boltzmann, ....


> Lorentz himself did not recognise the importance of this fact and simply treated the transformed time as a
> mathematical property or "abstract parameter". Einstein realised there was a way to make this transformation
> and the transformed E and B fields "real" in the sense that their values would be what the "moving" observer
> would actually measure.

Even when radiowaves were widely known and used worldwide by 1905, Einstein wouldn't had known what an
electromagnetic wave was even if he was just about to be vaporized by one EM beam, by standing in front of
an antenna at that epoch. The only thing he knew was how to gather vast amount of information by himself, at
the huge library of the patent office, or through his network of friends/lovers along Europe. Then, he did "cherry
picking" over that pile of data and, even at such simple task, he received advice about what topic was to be chosen.

He was a retarded plagiarist and copycat, while you are just a retarded fanatic who's wondering why invested your
life decodifying relativity as if it is some kind of Book of the Secrets, in your particular sect. Keep doing so, and
maybe you'll decode the encrypted message repeated all along his work: "IF YOU CAN READ THIS, THEN YOU
ARE AN IDIOT. THANKS FOR PARTICIPATE".

Oh! The irony! A life invested in nothing, while expecting everything.

E ≠ mc².



Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 17, 2021, 3:17:45 AMSep 17
to
Try to find connections between Langevin (Poincaré) and Solovine (Einstein).
Same epoch, direct connections on each side. Minkowski (german) also fits, as Poincaré (french)
embodied his major competitor at Europe (only in math, as Poincaré was a polymath
way above Minkowski in knowledge and intelligence). It was pre-WWI time, and sentiments
between France and Germany had been mounting since 1872 (remember the Dreyfus affair).

If, in any possible way, one national could top the other, it was perfect for the sentiments around.
It didn't matter what or how, it was a brutal and silent pre-war.

Dono.

unread,
Sep 17, 2021, 10:30:19 AMSep 17
to
On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 12:06:26 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz apewed imnecilities:

> Even when radiowaves were widely known and used worldwide by 1905, Einstein wouldn't had known what an
> electromagnetic wave was even if he was just about to be vaporized by one EM beam, by standing in front of
> an antenna at that epoch. The only thing he knew was how to gather vast amount of information by himself, at
> the huge library of the patent office, or through his network of friends/lovers along Europe. Then, he did "cherry
> picking" over that pile of data and, even at such simple task, he received advice about what topic was to be chosen.
>
> He was a retarded plagiarist and copycat, while you are just a retarded fanatic who's wondering why invested your
> life decodifying relativity as if it is some kind of Book of the Secrets, in your particular sect. Keep doing so, and
> maybe you'll decode the encrypted message repeated all along his work: "IF YOU CAN READ THIS, THEN YOU
> ARE AN IDIOT. THANKS FOR PARTICIPATE".


You have a serious hard on for Einstein. This is because he was a genius and you are just a piece of shit. Your only consolation is that you will die a piece of shit and you will be remembered a piece of shit.



> E ≠ mc².

Of course not, cretinoid, E=\sqrt{(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2}
I have shown you that countless times but you are too cretin to learn.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Sep 17, 2021, 11:09:39 AMSep 17
to
On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 16:30:19 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:

> You have a serious hard on for Einstein. This is because he was a genius and you are just a piece of shit.

In the meantime in the real world, the clocks of GPS keep indicating t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.

JanPB

unread,
Sep 17, 2021, 3:38:05 PMSep 17
to
As I said, my take at it that neither of the above is true and Einstein simply
got his inspiration from Lorentz's paper (which apparently created quite
a stir when it was published).

Lorentz himself a bit later, in 1908, in a memoir devoted to Poincare,
mentions Einstein's contribution and specifically how he (Lorentz) missed
the importance of the altered time coordinate. I'm assuming Lorentz
was not paid millions in gold by Einstein in order to state this in print while
not mentioning Minkowski and others in that context.

--
Jan

JanPB

unread,
Sep 17, 2021, 3:41:38 PMSep 17
to
On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 7:30:19 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 12:06:26 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz apewed imnecilities:
> > Even when radiowaves were widely known and used worldwide by 1905, Einstein wouldn't had known what an
> > electromagnetic wave was even if he was just about to be vaporized by one EM beam, by standing in front of
> > an antenna at that epoch. The only thing he knew was how to gather vast amount of information by himself, at
> > the huge library of the patent office, or through his network of friends/lovers along Europe. Then, he did "cherry
> > picking" over that pile of data and, even at such simple task, he received advice about what topic was to be chosen.
> >
> > He was a retarded plagiarist and copycat, while you are just a retarded fanatic who's wondering why invested your
> > life decodifying relativity as if it is some kind of Book of the Secrets, in your particular sect. Keep doing so, and
> > maybe you'll decode the encrypted message repeated all along his work: "IF YOU CAN READ THIS, THEN YOU
> > ARE AN IDIOT. THANKS FOR PARTICIPATE".
> You have a serious hard on for Einstein.

99% of the time on this NG once you have drilled deep enough into a "denier"(*),
it will in the end reveal a simple deep hatred of Albert Einstein as a person.

(*)about 3/4 of the time it's a male retired EE (for some reason)

--
Jan

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Sep 17, 2021, 5:10:15 PMSep 17
to
Isn’t it actually hatred for hero-worship? Hatred in particular for the
idea that everyone would know the name of a famous physicist, but names of
famous engineers are less ethereal?

Never mind that it’s Barnes & Noble popularizations that mound adulation on
Einstein, not physicists.

Never mind that in fact there are lots of famous engineers, like Steve
Wozniak, Charles Babbage, Henry Ford, Alexander Bell, Rudolph Diesel, Amar
Bose, Elon Musk. Still hurting for attention?

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Sep 18, 2021, 1:02:59 AMSep 18
to
Never mind, indeed. What matters is that the mumble
of your idiot guru is violating common sense, basic
mathematics, elementary definitions and is not even
consistent.

Thomas Heger

unread,
Sep 18, 2021, 1:57:00 AMSep 18
to
I personally think, that Poincarè had not copied the work of Lorentz,
but had developed entirely new ideas about relativity on his own, which
were ahead of those of Lorentz.

So I think, that Poincaré's ideas found their way into Einstein's text.

For instance the titles of both papers were quite similar.

Einstein used also Poincare's odd Greek variables: xsi, eta and zeta.

But in my opinon, this is not the correct translation of x, y and z into
Greek, because I would translate y to epsilon.

Also some equations look quite similar.

Therefore, it could be a good idea to compare the papers of Einstein and
Poincare for similarities.


TH



Thomas Heger

unread,
Sep 18, 2021, 2:05:06 AMSep 18
to
Am 17.09.2021 um 09:17 schrieb Richard Hertz:
...
>>> Einstein's work or inspiration was not based on Voigt's work. Amateurs frequently assume that
>>> literal semblance of formulas implies the actual source of a theory.
>> Einstein's text contains equations and concepts, which were seemingly
>> inpisred by Poincaré's 'sur la electrodynamic de la electron'. This was
>> handed to the publisher two weeks after Einstein's 'On the
>> electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
>>
>> There are two possible ways, how that could happen:
>>
>> 1st possibility:
>>
>> the date of the presentation of the text to the journal 'Annalen der
>> Physik' was wrong and it was actually handed in a few weeks later.
>>
>> 2nd possibility
>>
>> Hermann Minkowski was a friend of Poincaré (who didn't like Einstein)
>> and Minkowski gave Einstein a few hints.
>>
>> ...
>> TH
>
> Try to find connections between Langevin (Poincaré) and Solovine (Einstein).
> Same epoch, direct connections on each side. Minkowski (german) also fits, as Poincaré (french)
> embodied his major competitor at Europe (only in math, as Poincaré was a polymath
> way above Minkowski in knowledge and intelligence). It was pre-WWI time, and sentiments
> between France and Germany had been mounting since 1872 (remember the Dreyfus affair).

Hermann Minkowski was a world-class mathematician as Poincaré. Both were
not really physicists, but extended math into the natural science.

Both were actually friends and sent lots of letters to the other one.

Therefore, I would not think, they regarded themselves as competitors,
but as cooperators.

Both were not the type of nationalistic war-lovers, but communcated
about other stuff than national pride.

> If, in any possible way, one national could top the other, it was perfect for the sentiments around.
> It didn't matter what or how, it was a brutal and silent pre-war.
???

Einstein lived actually in Bern and was a Swiss citizen.

TH

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 18, 2021, 2:59:30 AMSep 18
to
On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:57:00 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:

<snip>

> > As I said, my take at it that neither of the above is true and Einstein simply
> > got his inspiration from Lorentz's paper (which apparently created quite
> > a stir when it was published).
> >
> > Lorentz himself a bit later, in 1908, in a memoir devoted to Poincare,
> > mentions Einstein's contribution and specifically how he (Lorentz) missed
> > the importance of the altered time coordinate. I'm assuming Lorentz
> > was not paid millions in gold by Einstein in order to state this in print while
> > not mentioning Minkowski and others in that context.
> >
> I personally think, that Poincarè had not copied the work of Lorentz,
> but had developed entirely new ideas about relativity on his own, which
> were ahead of those of Lorentz.
>
> So I think, that Poincaré's ideas found their way into Einstein's text.
>
> For instance the titles of both papers were quite similar.
>
> Einstein used also Poincare's odd Greek variables: xsi, eta and zeta.
>
> But in my opinon, this is not the correct translation of x, y and z into
> Greek, because I would translate y to epsilon.
>
> Also some equations look quite similar.
>
> Therefore, it could be a good idea to compare the papers of Einstein and
> Poincare for similarities.

Try with Voigt (1887 paper). It is a better match and, as Internet wasn't working by then, the
fucking retarded, plagiarist and copycat thought that nobody was going to seek 18 year before
for a forgotten paper that nobody noticed (except Lorentz, who publicly apologized to Voigt in
1910 regarding the "invention" of local time). Watch this:

Einstein 1905:

"To any system of values x, y, z, t, which completely defines the place and time of an event in the
stationary system, there belongs a system of values , determining that event relatively
to the system k, and our task is now to find the system of equations connecting these quantities."

Voigt 1887:

"If we substitute in U , V , W , respectively,

x by ξ
y by η
z by ζ
t by τ

and describe the resulting functions, respectively, ..............................................."

Sound familiar?. And don't forget that Voigt is the recognized grandfather of relativity.
Lorentz used his work "without knowing" and apologized publicly for borrowing Voigt
formulae for local time and, PARTICULARLY, for the first ever introduction of γ factor,
both derived by Voigt on his 1887 paper.

Voigt used q = 1/√(1 - v²/c²), later γ, and τ = t - v.x/c² 16-17 years before Lorentz and Einstein.

Regarding the choice of greek names for variables, there is no reason except plagiarism.

The greek alfabet for small letters goes as:

small alpha α
small beta β ------------------> This for γ in 1905 Einstein (k for Lorentz)
small gamma γ -----------> introduced years after 1905
small delta δ
small epsilon ε
small zeta ζ ------------------> This for z (z' for Lorentz)
small eta η ------------------> This for y (y' for Lorentz)
small theta θ
small iota ι
small kappa κ
small lamda λ
small mu μ
small nu ν
small xi ξ ------------------> This for x (x' for Lorentz)
small pi π
small rho ρ
small sigma σ
small tau τ ------------------> This for t (t' for Lorentz)
small upsilon υ
small phi φ
small chi χ
small psi ψ
small omega ω

There is not a logical pattern for choices in the mind of Einstein, the copycat, isn't it?


Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 18, 2021, 3:11:33 AMSep 18
to
On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 3:05:06 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:

<skip>

> Einstein lived actually in Bern and was a Swiss citizen.

He was obliged to respond to german physicists or he wouldn't published at the Annalen, since 1902.

Forced by circumstances of life. He was a german ex-pat, and dreamed to comeback with glory to Germany, not Prussia.
Planck found an sponsor ($$$) for him by 1912 at Berlin University, with a "special professorship position": no duties for
teaching, as the retarded couldn't put one word after the next and was always digressing in class in his two years as
professor in prior positions. In short, he sucked as a teacher and was always lost and wrong in his math at the board.

He depended 100% on german physicists at the Annalen der Physik to publish every paper and revisions (they gave some
money to him by doing this: comments about other's papers. Wien and Planck, since 1902 were fundamental for that).



Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 18, 2021, 3:15:46 AMSep 18
to
On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 3:59:30 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

Correcting typo (or miss of it, better):

<snip>

Einstein 1905:

"To any system of values x, y, z, t, which completely defines the place and time of an event in the
stationary system, there belongs a system of values ξ, η, ζ, τ determining that event relatively

JanPB

unread,
Sep 18, 2021, 9:49:40 AMSep 18
to
No, Einstein's entire line of reasoning is different.

> For instance the titles of both papers were quite similar.
>
> Einstein used also Poincare's odd Greek variables: xsi, eta and zeta.

I have no time to check this right now but my guess this was a common
piece of notation.

> But in my opinon, this is not the correct translation of x, y and z into
> Greek, because I would translate y to epsilon.

Well, that's how it was.

> Also some equations look quite similar.

Of course they have to.

> Therefore, it could be a good idea to compare the papers of Einstein and
> Poincare for similarities.

I agree. I guess there would be no connection (other than some of the formulas, which,
of course, must be so by definition) while connections with Lorentz's 1904 paper are
very visible. Large parts of "Electrodynamical part" are devoted to re-deriving
Lorentz's formulas for the coordinate transformation and for the transformed
E and B fields. Einstein's way leads to those formulas much faster, Lorentz
gets his transformation by splitting it into two steps: the Newtonian-like first,
then the time-coordinate change second. And even then he still has an overall
multiplicative factor he works quite a bit to prove it's equal to 1 identically.

--
Jan

JanPB

unread,
Sep 18, 2021, 9:51:09 AMSep 18
to
You should get an agent in Hollywood.

--
Jan

Dono.

unread,
Sep 18, 2021, 10:58:23 AMSep 18
to
On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 12:11:33 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 3:05:06 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
> nazi propaganda<

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Sep 18, 2021, 2:19:45 PMSep 18
to
In the meantime in the real worlf, GPS clocks keep indicating t'=t,

Michael Moroney

unread,
Sep 18, 2021, 11:10:11 PMSep 18
to
On 9/18/2021 9:49 AM, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 10:57:00 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

>> So I think, that Poincaré's ideas found their way into Einstein's text.
>
> No, Einstein's entire line of reasoning is different.

That's the important part.
>
>> For instance the titles of both papers were quite similar.
>>
>> Einstein used also Poincare's odd Greek variables: xsi, eta and zeta.
>
> I have no time to check this right now but my guess this was a common
> piece of notation.

Nothing odd, he used the closest Greek letters to t, x, z. Y has no
Greek equivalent but if it were me, I would have chosen upsilon since
upper case upsilon looks like Y, plus Y ultimately descended from
upsilon. This is something not used any longer (people usually use x'
instead) so perhaps it was common notation.
>
>> But in my opinon, this is not the correct translation of x, y and z into
>> Greek, because I would translate y to epsilon.
>
> Well, that's how it was.

One odd translation of four letters. But even Richard's choice of
epsilon vs. upsilon (assuming not a typo) shows there is no agreement of
the "right" equivalent for y.
>
>> Also some equations look quite similar.
>
> Of course they have to.
>
>> Therefore, it could be a good idea to compare the papers of Einstein and
>> Poincare for similarities.
>
> I agree. I guess there would be no connection (other than some of the formulas, which,
> of course, must be so by definition) while connections with Lorentz's 1904 paper are
> very visible. Large parts of "Electrodynamical part" are devoted to re-deriving
> Lorentz's formulas for the coordinate transformation and for the transformed
> E and B fields. Einstein's way leads to those formulas much faster, Lorentz
> gets his transformation by splitting it into two steps: the Newtonian-like first,
> then the time-coordinate change second. And even then he still has an overall
> multiplicative factor he works quite a bit to prove it's equal to 1 identically.
>
The important part of the 1905 paper was showing why something like
Lorentz's formula worked, plus working out many other resulting things.
Plus giving an actual derivation of it from only two postulates in the
first place. Lorentz figured out what worked, but he really didn't know
why it worked, instead he credited it to an undetectable ether.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Sep 19, 2021, 12:33:52 AMSep 19
to
In the meantime in the real world, however, the clocks of GPS

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 19, 2021, 1:31:31 AMSep 19
to
You are shortening your motto week after week. Soon I'll read only:

"In the meantime in the real world, however, ..................."

And that will do the job! Smooth!

Thomas Heger

unread,
Sep 19, 2021, 3:48:00 AMSep 19
to
Am 19.09.2021 um 05:10 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> On 9/18/2021 9:49 AM, JanPB wrote:
>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 10:57:00 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>> So I think, that Poincaré's ideas found their way into Einstein's text.
>>
>> No, Einstein's entire line of reasoning is different.
>
> That's the important part.
>>
>>> For instance the titles of both papers were quite similar.
>>>
>>> Einstein used also Poincare's odd Greek variables: xsi, eta and zeta.
>>
>> I have no time to check this right now but my guess this was a common
>> piece of notation.
>
> Nothing odd, he used the closest Greek letters to t, x, z. Y has no
> Greek equivalent but if it were me, I would have chosen upsilon since
> upper case upsilon looks like Y, plus Y ultimately descended from
> upsilon. This is something not used any longer (people usually use x'
> instead) so perhaps it was common notation.
>>
>>> But in my opinon, this is not the correct translation of x, y and z into
>>> Greek, because I would translate y to epsilon.
>>
>> Well, that's how it was.
>
> One odd translation of four letters. But even Richard's choice of
> epsilon vs. upsilon (assuming not a typo) shows there is no agreement of
> the "right" equivalent for y.

The reason to choose small eta instead of small epsilon was, that italic
'v' and small Greek epsilon look too similar.

So a different letter was chosen and Poincaré used eta.

I found it quite odd, that these letters were chosen (but in Einstein's
text).

Another strange coincidence is the use of the small Greek 'rho'.

Einstein used it for 'density of electricity' and Poincare, too.

But 'electricity' in English is not the same 'electricite' in French.

Poincare used the French term similar to 'current' (actually I'm
uncertain about this).

This is called a 'false friend' and an indication, that something was
copied without thinking too much.


...

TH

JanPB

unread,
Sep 19, 2021, 6:27:52 AMSep 19
to
On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 12:06:26 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 4:24:35 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > No. Einstein's inspiration was Lorentz's 1904 paper and its transformation formulas for E and B fields
> > in _Maxwell's equations_ (not merely the wave equation), esp. the curious fact that those fields
> > could not be transformed _at all_ under the standard Newtonian change of coordinates but they
> > _did_ transform if one imposed *********an extra coordinate change involving _time***********.
>
> Einstein's inspiration was multi-source, from where he could plagiarize and fudge to hide origins: Voigt, Lorentz,
> FitzGerald, Larmor, Poincaré, Heaviside, Michelson, Thomson, Maxwell, Hertz, Planck, Lenard, Wien, Boltzmann, ....

No, this is false. You're just making stuff up because you don't like the guy. This is not science, it's
throwing a tantrum.

Where do those types get this idea that Einstein "plagiarized" something? They have no clue what the
theory actually *is*, they have no clue how it originated, so how would they know about any possible
plagiarizing in the first place?

> > Lorentz himself did not recognise the importance of this fact and simply treated the transformed time as a
> > mathematical property or "abstract parameter". Einstein realised there was a way to make this transformation
> > and the transformed E and B fields "real" in the sense that their values would be what the "moving" observer
> > would actually measure.
> Even when radiowaves were widely known and used worldwide by 1905, Einstein wouldn't had known what an
> electromagnetic wave was

He knew it very well. In fact, electrodynamics AFAIK was not taught at regular physics lectures at the ETH at
that time and Einstein, as a student, had to organize something along those lines. Perhaps someone here
has more historical details about that.

Either way, it's perfectly obvious from his 1905 paper that he knew very well how to work with EM waves.
His "Electrodynamical part", for example, contains a few quite complex derivations which he skips
(he wrote the paper for professional physicists, not for students). The fact alone that he even noticed the
need to derive the transverse Doppler effect (a new effect defined in this paper for the first time) tells
you he knew how to work with EM radiation backwards and forwards.

> even if he was just about to be vaporized by one EM beam, by standing in front of
> an antenna at that epoch.

Looks like antennas are your professional field of work, hence you keep barking this tree all
the time. It's irrelevant to your fabricated claim of "plagiarism".

> The only thing he knew was how to gather vast amount of information by himself, at
> the huge library of the patent office, or through his network of friends/lovers along Europe.

No. Your ignorance shows here. You simply make up a story that keeps your ego happy and feeds your
bizarre Einstein Derangement Syndrome and your ignorance allows this to happen by NOT throwing
IMMEDIATE brakes upon this idyllic scenario.

It's only ignorant people who have the "courage" to state nonsense without the immediate
feeling of a contradiction (which is what an expert immediately senses in such cases).

> Then, he did "cherry
> picking" over that pile of data and, even at such simple task, he received advice about what topic was to be chosen.

You talk like Pentcho Valev here. He is also forever harping on the (false) idea of Einstein's
"cherrypicking". Again, it is the lack of knowledge of the theory that allows you to create
those fantasies at will, without any intellectual consequences that would normally follow and
immediately arrest that line of development. But you need to know this stuff first.

From your first posts on this NG you've been spinning wheels getting nowhere.

> He was a retarded plagiarist and copycat,

No, it's a dear fantasy of yours, and other deranged people like you.

> while you are just a retarded fanatic who's wondering why invested your
> life decodifying relativity as if it is some kind of Book of the Secrets, in your particular sect. Keep doing so, and
> maybe you'll decode the encrypted message repeated all along his work: "IF YOU CAN READ THIS, THEN YOU
> ARE AN IDIOT. THANKS FOR PARTICIPATE".

Exactly right. If you don't know X, you cannot critique X and you cannot contribute ANY valid
opinion on the process of the creation of X by its creator. There are no exceptions to this rule.
Sorry to burst your bubble but you'll never get anywhere with your argument. You are just
mentally masturbating in public, that's all.

--
Jan

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Sep 19, 2021, 6:42:29 AMSep 19
to
On Sunday, 19 September 2021 at 12:27:52 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:

> Exactly right. If you don't know X, you cannot critique X and you cannot contribute ANY valid
> opinion on the process of the creation of X by its creator.

How dare you criticising communism, fool!!! Have you ever
studied the works of comerade Lenin?

> There are no exceptions to this rule.

Or, at least, poor fanatic idiot Jan says so. A kind of the same thing.

Thomas Heger

unread,
Sep 20, 2021, 1:23:28 AMSep 20
to
Am 19.09.2021 um 12:42 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> On Sunday, 19 September 2021 at 12:27:52 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
>
>> Exactly right. If you don't know X, you cannot critique X and you cannot contribute ANY valid
>> opinion on the process of the creation of X by its creator.
>
> How dare you criticising communism, fool!!! Have you ever
> studied the works of comerade Lenin?

There is and was always a gap between theories and realitity.

So, lets hope, that Lenin had at least good intentions.

But did you know, that the German emperor Wilhelm II send Lenin to
Russia, with the intentions, that this would harm the enemy?


'Stalin' was actually much more important for Russia than Lenin, anyhow.

He was allegdly sent by British intelligence for the very same reason:
https://www.abebooks.co.uk/9780473120733/Stalins-British-Training-Greg-Hallett-0473120739/plp

To Germany they sent a guy, who is commonly called 'Hitler':

https://www.amazon.com/Hitler-British-Agent-Solving-History/dp/047311478X

..

TH

JanPB

unread,
Sep 20, 2021, 6:36:26 AMSep 20