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

[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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

This rings a bell. It is the case that sometimes the simple is deeper and more
difficult to see than the complex.

[JanPB]

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]

Sometimes things work out that way, sometimes they don't. In this case they don't.

--
Jan

[Richard Hertz]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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.]

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]

>> 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]

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]

No, he didn't. But, of course, a fanatic relativistic piece of shit
will lie shamelessly for his religion.

[Richard Hertz]

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]

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]

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]

> 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]

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]

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]

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]

Faith/believing is similiar in religion and outside. So, do you
consider or not?

[Maciej Wozniak]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You should get an agent in Hollywood.

--
Jan

[Dono.]

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]

In the meantime in the real worlf, GPS clocks keep indicating t'=t,

[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.

>
>> 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]

In the meantime in the real world, however, the clocks of GPS

[Richard Hertz]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 10:23:28 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 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.

The point is, of course, that a person living under communism is
an expert in Leninism (from the practical side). So such person
can obviously validly criticise Lenin without reading a word of Lenin.

But science is not like that. Instead, it relies 100% on the purely
intellectual expertise. So if one didn't learn physics, one
cannot critcise it. There are no exceptions.

--
Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 12:36:26 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 10:23:28 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > 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.
> The point is, of course, that a person living under communism is
> an expert in Leninism (from the practical side).

Samely, a person listening to Tom's insane screams "We're FORCED!!!
To THE BEST WAY!!! We are THE COMMUNITY OF PHYSICISTS!!!!"
becomes an expert in relativity. Without studying your Holy Scripts.
Your Holy Scripts are just insignificant ideological fiction, just like
the works of Lenin were.

[Richard Hertz]

Why don't you stop derailing this thread, based on the stupidity of general relativity equations
and pay attention to my prove that Einstein HACKED the first and only public explanation of
Mercury's perihelion shift in Nov.4, 1915 just three weeks before his final presentation of GR
theory, completed with Hilbert solution for gravitational field equation?

It's on the Lorentz thread, here:

Lorentz 1920: Einstein is not an astronomer, yet.......
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/vzGK5XCe98Q

It started with my intention to show how much a lame sucker Lorentz was.

Then, I finally decided to make a FORENSIC ANALYSIS of the Einstein's paper using the tools
provided by mathematics (which I can manage very well), to finish FINDING how Einstein
HACKED his paper just at the beginning by introducing Sun Mass and Newton's gravitational
potential into the otherwise STERILE set of non-linear set of geometric equations.

In this FALSE WAY, Einstein connected BY HAND an artificial relationship between spacetime
and mass, which proves that SINCE TIME ZERO GR is false, void of ANY physical meaning, and
it's a joke on everyone of the idiot relativists, who bought Einstein's theories without THINKING!

[Thomas Heger]

Am 20.09.2021 um 12:36 schrieb JanPB:
...

>>> 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.
>
> The point is, of course, that a person living under communism is
> an expert in Leninism (from the practical side). So such person
> can obviously validly criticise Lenin without reading a word of Lenin.

A wast amount of time and paper was wasted on the scripts of Marx and
Lenin (and others).

This was 19th-century style of indoctrination with pure
pseudo-scientific crap.

> But science is not like that. Instead, it relies 100% on the purely
> intellectual expertise. So if one didn't learn physics, one
> cannot critcise it. There are no exceptions.

I'm sorry, but I do not agree.

You are not talking about science, but about religion.

A scientific discovery can be made by all possible means. The discovery
can be seen in a vision, which was sent from heaven, can be found on the
street or encoutered after the consumption of illegal drugs.

It is not at all important, how someone came to a certain insight.
Important is its quality.

Good quality is unlikely, however, if someone has no proper training.

But pure luck is also valid and pure guesswork, too, if it produces good
results.


TH

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 15:46:05 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:

> > You are not talking about science, but about religion.

> No, I'm talking about certain FACTS.

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

[Dono.]

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 7:25:17 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> Then, I finally decided to make a FORENSIC ANALYSIS of the Einstein's paper using the tools
> provided by mathematics (which I can manage very well),

Actually, you CAN'T. Because you are an imbecile. All that you managed over the tears is to demonstrate how BIG of an imbecile you are. Keep up the entertainment, old clown fart.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 15.09.2021 um 06:05 schrieb John Doe:
> On Sep 14, 2021 at 2:56:38 PM EDT, "Richard Hertz" <hert...@gmail.com> 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.
>>
>> 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?
>
> This rings a bell. It is the case that sometimes the simple is deeper and more
> difficult to see than the complex.
>


This is a pattern, which universally valid:

things start from chaos

then something very complicated is the result of attempts to sort that out

another huge amount of effort is needed to simplify that.


Therefore the simple solution is the most difficult one.

('Non-solutions' look quite similar, but are called primitive).


TH

[Thomas Heger]

I understand Poincaré's use of rho now as 'density of free electrons',
which he called 'density of electricity'.

The reason is the following equation in 'Sur la dynamic de l'electron',
which was u= df/dt + rho*xsi

u was the x component of the current vector and xsi the x-component of
the electrons velocity.

The only thing, that would make sense would be 'electron density'.

Einstein used actually a similar concept, but treated electricity as
'substance', like a strange fluid, which could be added to an atom and
turn it into an ion.

He also used the same greek letter, but for other things.


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 19.09.2021 um 09:47 schrieb Thomas Heger:

I really think, that Poincare invented the main concepts of relativity,
much more than Hendrik Lorentz.

Poincare was a mathematician and used a mathematical approach.

He had the idea, that physical system should behave similar in inertial
motion, which required a certain kind of symmetry in descriptive equations.

As a mathematician he worked on the electrodynamics of Maxwell and on
the ideas of Lorentz for a long time, until they had the symmetries,
which he though were necessary.

This is, what I would call 'mathematical approach' (to a problem is
physics).

The book about this concept was 'Sur la dynamic de l'electron', which
was handed in to the publisher on 23rd of July 1905, which was roughly
three weeks later, than when Einstein handed his paper 'Zur
Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper' to the journal 'Annalen der Physik'.


TH

[Ruben Pike]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> The book about this concept was 'Sur la dynamic de l'electron', which
> was handed in to the publisher on 23rd of July 1905, which was roughly
> three weeks later, than when Einstein handed his paper 'Zur
> Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper' to the journal 'Annalen der Physik'.

you mean one year before.

[Richard Hertz]

Henri Poincaré versus Albert Einstein – SR Priority Question
Wolfgang G. Gasser

http://www.pandualism.com/d/poincare.html

1) Sur la Dynamique de l'Électron, Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de L'Académie des sciences,
Volume 140, (5 June 1905), pp. 1504-1508

2) Sur la Dynamique de l'Électron, Rendiconti del Circolo matimatico di Palermo, Volume 21, (1906, submitted July 23rd, 1905)

[Mikko]

In article <2b47aac4-82db-40e8...@googlegroups.com>,

Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Henri Poincaré versus Albert Einstein – SR Priority Question
> Wolfgang G. Gasser
>
> http://www.pandualism.com/d/poincare.html

On that page the conclusion is that Einstein developed the relativity
theory independently and published it first.

Mikko

[JanPB]

It's clear Einstein was following a different line of reasoning, namely
Lorentz's 1904 results. Einstein felt he could develop a physical
basis for the results of Lorentz's paper. In this, he succeeded.

He also included new results, like the transverse Doppler effect.
Did Poincare even notice that effect?

--
Jan

[JanPB]

On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 3:30:01 AM UTC-7, Mikko wrote:

There is an odd quote from Einstein on that page:

"Concerning myself, I knew only Lorentz' important work of 1895 La théorie électromagnétique de Maxwell and Versuch einer Theorie der elektrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern, but not Lorentz later work, nor the consecutive work of Poincaré. In this sense my work of 1905 was independent."

When did he say that? It seems odd that he seems to be specifically excluding Lorentz's
1904 paper ("Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity smaller
than that of light") as an influence given the obvious line his 1905 paper is
following, namely all of the relevant Lorentz's 1904 results, including re-using his
terms "transverse mass" and "longitudinal mass", as well as things like skipping
the details of the derivation formulas for the transformed E and B fields (which
are from Lorentz's 1904 paper). If Einstein had truly thought he was deriving them
from scratch, he would have devoted much more space to them simply because
it would have been a Very Big Deal.

So I don't understand that quote. Did he say this at the end of his life? Where is
it from? I'm probably missing something...

--
Jan

[Ho Im]

JanPB wrote:

>> > http://www.pandualism.com/d/poincare.html
>> On that page the conclusion is that Einstein developed the relativity
>> theory independently and published it first.
>>
>> Mikko
>
> It's clear Einstein was following a different line of reasoning, namely
> Lorentz's 1904 results. Einstein felt he could develop a physical basis
> for the results of Lorentz's paper. In this, he succeeded.
> He also included new results, like the transverse Doppler effect.
> Did Poincare even notice that effect?

abs. Einstine never published any relativity in 1905. The part 2 of it
came AFTER 1915. Prove me wrong.

[Ho Im]

JanPB wrote:

> There is an odd quote from Einstein on that page:
>
> "Concerning myself, I knew only Lorentz' important work of 1895 La
> théorie électromagnétique de Maxwell and Versuch einer Theorie der
> elektrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern, but not
> Lorentz later work, nor the consecutive work of Poincaré. In this sense
> my work of 1905 was independent."
>
> When did he say that? It seems odd that he seems to be specifically
> excluding Lorentz's 1904 paper ("Electromagnetic phenomena in a system

you must be a freemason, believing in a fake moon landing without proofs.

[Kevin Aylward]

"JanPB" wrote in message
news:1b71ee57-a9c9-48c0...@googlegroups.com...

>On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 3:30:01 AM UTC-7, Mikko wrote:
>> In article <2b47aac4-82db-40e8...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >Henri Poincaré versus Albert Einstein – SR Priority Question
> >> Wolfgang G. Gasser
> >
>> > http://www.pandualism.com/d/poincare.html
>> On that page the conclusion is that Einstein developed the relativity
>> theory independently and published it first.
>
> Mikko

>It's clear Einstein was following a different line of reasoning, namely
>Lorentz's 1904 results. Einstein felt he could develop a physical
>basis for the results of Lorentz's paper. In this, he succeeded.

Not really. Einstein explicitly stated that:

"The theory of relativity belongs to a class of "principle-theories...As
such, it employs an analytic method, which means that the elements of this
theory are not based on hypothesis but on empirical discovery."

That is, physical hypothesis (mechanisms) are ignored from the outset, so
clearly makes no statement as to what those processes might be. Einstein is
directly declaring here explicitly, that he not even going to offer an
explanation, for example, a hypothesis as to why "sources could immediately
find a common speed". However, there is no suggestion or implication that
such a physical process does not exist.

The speed of light is taken as an *axiom*, without proof. No *physical*
basis is provides as to why it is invariant. Its a behavioural model.

The Lorentz view (LET) is that light only appears to behave that way,
essentially, because clocks are effected by motion in a physical ether.

If clocks themselves are constructed from an "ether", as essentially the
case in QFT, apparently, than such a result would make logical sense.

Quantum Fields: The Real Building Blocks of the Universe - with David Tong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg

QF are, essentially, only a more fashionable name for "ether"

-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html

[Tom Roberts]

On 9/30/21 2:52 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> [Quantum fields] are, essentially, only a more fashionable name for "ether"

Nonsense. Those concepts are incommensurate.

The ether is presumed to be an invisible substance that, when waving, we
interpret as light. The quantum field for light does not wave like that;
excitations in the field are photons, which in large numbers make up
light beams, but that is not at all any sort of wave.

You need to learn what quantum fields actually are before attempting to
assert things about them.

Tom Roberts

[Richard Hertz]

The analogy that Kevin Aylward did is correct (ANALOGY).
He's not thinking that "modern ether" is like water in a pond.

He's talking about ether in the way of Dirac's seas, where emissions and
absorptions of photons are DISCRETE, bubbles in Dirac's sea.

Maxwell didn't think of light as corpuscles, but waves in a continuum. Had he
thought that emission and absorption of light in the Faraday's field in terms
of discrete events, I don't have the slightest doubt that he would have find
the correct equations, without relativity, anticipating Dirac by 70 years. That
was the intellectual stature of one of the five greatest minds that nature
produced in 2,000 years (and Einstein is not in such short list).

[Huy Dew]

Richard Hertz wrote:

>> Nonsense. Those concepts are incommensurate.
>> The ether is presumed to be an invisible substance that, when waving,
>> we interpret as light. The quantum field for light does not wave like
>> that; excitations in the field are photons, which in large numbers
>> make up light beams, but that is not at all any sort of wave.
>> You need to learn what quantum fields actually are before attempting to
>> assert things about them. Tom Roberts
>
> The analogy that Kevin Aylward did is correct (ANALOGY).
> He's not thinking that "modern ether" is like water in a pond.
> He's talking about ether in the way of Dirac's seas, where emissions and
> absorptions of photons are DISCRETE, bubbles in Dirac's sea.

nonsense, that's why they couldn't send any motion pictures from the fake
moon landing 1969. There is no need for aether. You aether would NOT
interfere to the signal at all. At all.

[Michael Moroney]

On 10/1/2021 5:55 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 6:41:24 PM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 9/30/21 2:52 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>>> [Quantum fields] are, essentially, only a more fashionable name for "ether"
>>
>> Nonsense. Those concepts are incommensurate.
>>
>> The ether is presumed to be an invisible substance that, when waving, we
>> interpret as light. The quantum field for light does not wave like that;
>> excitations in the field are photons, which in large numbers make up
>> light beams, but that is not at all any sort of wave.
>>
>> You need to learn what quantum fields actually are before attempting to
>> assert things about them.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> The analogy that Kevin Aylward did is correct (ANALOGY).
> He's not thinking that "modern ether" is like water in a pond.

But there is no water in the pond in SR.

> He's talking about ether in the way of Dirac's seas, where emissions and
> absorptions of photons are DISCRETE, bubbles in Dirac's sea.
>
> Maxwell didn't think of light as corpuscles, but waves in a continuum. Had he
> thought that emission and absorption of light in the Faraday's field in terms
> of discrete events, I don't have the slightest doubt that he would have find
> the correct equations,

Maxwell was from when the aether was king. Quantization wasn't known yet.

> without relativity, anticipating Dirac by 70 years.

Actually he was onto SR, but died too soon. He realized his equations
gave a speed and figured out it was the speed of light. He also realized
that speed did not depend on location or the speed of the observer or
observed, it was the same for all cases. Just like SR.

> That
> was the intellectual stature of one of the five greatest minds that nature
> produced in 2,000 years

Yes, he could have discovered SR.

[Odd Bodkin]

Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 6:41:24 PM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 9/30/21 2:52 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>>> [Quantum fields] are, essentially, only a more fashionable name for "ether"
>>
>> Nonsense. Those concepts are incommensurate.
>>
>> The ether is presumed to be an invisible substance that, when waving, we
>> interpret as light. The quantum field for light does not wave like that;
>> excitations in the field are photons, which in large numbers make up
>> light beams, but that is not at all any sort of wave.
>>
>> You need to learn what quantum fields actually are before attempting to
>> assert things about them.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> The analogy that Kevin Aylward did is correct (ANALOGY).
> He's not thinking that "modern ether" is like water in a pond.
>
> He's talking about ether in the way of Dirac's seas, where emissions and
> absorptions of photons are DISCRETE, bubbles in Dirac's sea.
>
> Maxwell didn't think of light as corpuscles, but waves in a continuum. Had he
> thought that emission and absorption of light in the Faraday's field in terms
> of discrete events, I don't have the slightest doubt that he would have find
> the correct equations, without relativity, anticipating Dirac by 70 years.

LOL. Such confidence in what some hero of yours can do. You think it’s
possible to do without relativity? Show that. Otherwise it’s just
time-machine and transporter science fiction crapola from a propagandist.

> That
> was the intellectual stature of one of the five greatest minds that nature
> produced in 2,000 years (and Einstein is not in such short list).
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Thomas Heger]

There are actually two possibilities, how content of Poincare's book
could eventually enter into Einstein's article:

a) the date of Einstein's paper was faked

b) Hermann Minkowski gave information to Einstein (Minkowski was a
friend of Poincare and was known to have helped Einstein)

I personally think, there are certain similarities between Einstein's
text and the text of Poincare, which suggest, that the text of Einstein
was partially based on Poincare's text.

For instance there was the use of the variable names xsi, eta and zeta.

In my oppinion, the use of these letters was an error in Einstein's
text. It was simply wrong to use Greek letters for the coordinates in
the moving frame instead of an idex or similar on a latin letter.

So why used Einstein the same variable names as Poincare, even if
Poincare's system was a little odd?


Also the small rho is suspicious.

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

BUT: Poincare was discussing electrons and meant something like density
of free electrons, while Einstein gave no hint at all for his
intentions, how to interpret 'Dichte der Elektrizität' (what was imho
rubbish).


Also the equation for the elipsoid looks quite similar.

BUT: Poincare researched electrons and the deformation of the field by
motion, while Einstein was studing the spherical shell around rays of
light, which was deformed by motion (crap again).


So: I would think, that Einstein knew the book and copied at least a
few ideas, but without mentioning that (he wrote no quotes or references
at all).


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 21.09.2021 um 15:46 schrieb JanPB:

> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 10:53:27 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 20.09.2021 um 12:36 schrieb JanPB:
>> ...
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> The point is, of course, that a person living under communism is
>>> an expert in Leninism (from the practical side). So such person
>>> can obviously validly criticise Lenin without reading a word of Lenin.
>> A wast amount of time and paper was wasted on the scripts of Marx and
>> Lenin (and others).
>>
>> This was 19th-century style of indoctrination with pure
>> pseudo-scientific crap.
>

> And the relevance of this remark is...?

Germany was devided in two parts and one was under the rule of the
communists.

The former border is not too far away from where I live.

So I know a bit about the 'advantages' of socialism.

I also knew a lot of Marxists.

My personal view: Marxism was not even a proper science (in the sense of
economy).

It was just a huge waste of time, money, paper and people.

I also think, this was intentional (by the intentions of the so called
'elite' of the UK), with the aim, to harm the people of Germany and
Russia and to hinder the development of these countries.

>>> But science is not like that. Instead, it relies 100% on the purely
>>> intellectual expertise. So if one didn't learn physics, one
>>> cannot critcise it. There are no exceptions.
>> I'm sorry, but I do not agree.
>

> It's not up to you to agree or disagree.

You cannot decide, what is up to me.

>> You are not talking about science, but about religion.
>

> No, I'm talking about certain FACTS. If you don't know them, you cannot
> sensibly comment on them. It's very simple.

You should be VERY careful with the term 'fact'.

There are in fact only assumptions and hypothesises in physics. But we
only know with a certain degree of certainty, whether they are true or not.

It is ONLY in religion, where you have 'facts', which are absolute and
untouchable.


But you should not mix religion and physics.

Both have their value. But to bring them into the same context could
create a mess.

So, you may believe in God and still be a good physicist, which disprove
the bible on a dayly basis.

That is absolutely possible.

But you should never try to apply the bible to physics.

>> A scientific discovery can be made by all possible means. The discovery
>> can be seen in a vision, which was sent from heaven, can be found on the
>> street or encoutered after the consumption of illegal drugs.
>

> We are not talking about that. The point under discussion is your
> attempt to criticise Einstein while not understanding physics. This
> approach will never work.

I can criticise Einstein's text, as I did.

That is simply, how science works.

It does not require anything at all, to utter critizism.

Most of the time, such critique is not worth the effort, because it is
so easy to disprove.

But that does not say, that the utterer is not allowed to criticise,
because we (at least in Germany) have the constitutional right to do
just that.

So, physics is unlike religion in this aspect, too, where criticism is
called 'heresy' and could eventually bring you in trouble.
...


TH
>

[Dono.]

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 10:06:57 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 28.09.2021 um 05:45 schrieb Richard Hertz:

<snip imbecilities>

A nazi (Thomas Heger) and his jewish kapo (Richard Hertz) munching on shit.

[Ilya Boon]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> So I know a bit about the 'advantages' of socialism.
> I also knew a lot of Marxists.
> My personal view: Marxism was not even a proper science (in the sense of
> economy).

it's because you big mouth capitalists never know how communism looks
like from inside. In communism you own everything on the planet. The one
who says NO, gets OFF from his position in the Central Committee. Not
years from now, but right now. In stinking capitalism, you are sooner
than later dead, since the big capitalist will eat you, LITERALLY.

aLSO, forgot to mention, my *Divergent_Matter_of_the_Moving_Objects*
theory is stronger than both Quantum and Relativity, togetherness.

[Ilya Boon]

more over, you all not_essential workers in capitalism, all you own is
your deep debt, your entire life, until they come making you
non_essential worker, again.

[Ilya Boon]

JanPB wrote:

>> I personally think, there are certain similarities between Einstein's
>> text and the text of Poincare, which suggest, that the text of Einstein
>> was partially based on Poincare's text.
>

> You are not qualified to reach any conclusion in this matter.
> We've seen countless examples already of your near total
> misunderstanding of how science (physics) works and esp.
> how ideas develop and the credit gets assigned.

World Renowned Vaccine Expert Dr.Geert Vanden Bossche:Vaccine Disaster
Ahead https://www.bitchute.com/video/crcbxDvKIboc/

[Thomas Heger]

Am 10.10.2021 um 09:42 schrieb JanPB:

> On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 10:06:57 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 28.09.2021 um 05:45 schrieb Richard Hertz:
>>> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 6:16:21 AM UTC-3, Ruben Pike wrote:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The book about this concept was 'Sur la dynamic de l'electron', which
>>>>> was handed in to the publisher on 23rd of July 1905, which was roughly
>>>>> three weeks later, than when Einstein handed his paper 'Zur
>>>>> Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper' to the journal 'Annalen der Physik'.
>>>> you mean one year before.
>>>
>>> Henri Poincaré versus Albert Einstein – SR Priority Question
>>> Wolfgang G. Gasser
>>>
>>> http://www.pandualism.com/d/poincare.html
>>>
>>> 1) Sur la Dynamique de l'Électron, Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de L'Académie des sciences,
>>> Volume 140, (5 June 1905), pp. 1504-1508
>>>
>>> 2) Sur la Dynamique de l'Électron, Rendiconti del Circolo matimatico di Palermo, Volume 21, (1906, submitted July 23rd, 1905)
>>>
>> There are actually two possibilities, how content of Poincare's book
>> could eventually enter into Einstein's article:
>>
>> a) the date of Einstein's paper was faked
>>
>> b) Hermann Minkowski gave information to Einstein (Minkowski was a
>> friend of Poincare and was known to have helped Einstein)
>>
>> I personally think, there are certain similarities between Einstein's
>> text and the text of Poincare, which suggest, that the text of Einstein
>> was partially based on Poincare's text.
>

> You are not qualified to reach any conclusion in this matter.

Actually I'm qualified, even if I don't speak enough French.

I'm quite familiar with text of Einstein ('On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies'), because I wrote about four-hundred annotations into it
and know it almost by heart.

The text of Poincare is in French and much more difficult.

But I know some French and math symbols are actually the same in other
languages.

So I can understand Poincaré's 'Sur la dynamic d'electron' enough to see
similarities.

Wether my findings can withstand critique, that is a question of discussion.

But possibly another person, who speaks better French than I do and who
is more familiar with the complex math of Poincare can join into the
analysis of these similarities.

TH

> We've seen countless examples already of your near total
> misunderstanding of how science (physics) works and esp.
> how ideas develop and the credit gets assigned.
>

> --
> Jan
>

[Thomas Heger]

Am 10.10.2021 um 14:06 schrieb Ilya Boon:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> So I know a bit about the 'advantages' of socialism.
>> I also knew a lot of Marxists.
>> My personal view: Marxism was not even a proper science (in the sense of
>> economy).
>
> it's because you big mouth capitalists never know how communism looks
> like from inside. In communism you own everything on the planet. The one
> who says NO, gets OFF from his position in the Central Committee. Not
> years from now, but right now. In stinking capitalism, you are sooner
> than later dead, since the big capitalist will eat you, LITERALLY.

Well, you are actually right in your critique of capitalism.

But that is another story.

My critique was about a system, which was created by British
aristocrats, with the intention to harm the middle class and to hinder
the development of European countries (other than England).

This system was called 'socialism', but was neither 'social', nor in the
interest of the working class.

It was a ruthless system, which was in the interest of the so called
'avantgarde' (another name for 'scum').


TH


...

[Michael Moroney]

On 10/12/2021 12:56 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 10.10.2021 um 09:42 schrieb JanPB:
>> On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 10:06:57 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

>>> I personally think, there are certain similarities between Einstein's
>>> text and the text of Poincare, which suggest, that the text of Einstein
>>> was partially based on Poincare's text.
>>
>> You are not qualified to reach any conclusion in this matter.
>
> Actually I'm qualified, even if I don't speak enough French.
>
> I'm quite familiar with text of Einstein ('On the electrodynamics of
> moving bodies'), because I wrote about four-hundred annotations into it
> and know it almost by heart.

You are not qualified to reach any conclusion in this matter.

Thinking you found some 400 errors in Einstein's 1905 SR paper, when
every single "error" examined so far was an error on your part, not
Einstein's, is incontrovertible proof of your lack of qualification.

[Richard Hertz]

On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 1:56:43 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:

<snip>

> >>> Henri Poincaré versus Albert Einstein – SR Priority Question
> >>> Wolfgang G. Gasser

<snip>

> > You are not qualified to reach any conclusion in this matter.
> Actually I'm qualified, even if I don't speak enough French.
>
> I'm quite familiar with text of Einstein ('On the electrodynamics of
> moving bodies'), because I wrote about four-hundred annotations into it
> and know it almost by heart.

<snip>

> But possibly another person, who speaks better French than I do and who is more familiar with the complex math of Poincare can
> join into the analysis of these similarities.
>
> TH
> > We've seen countless examples already of your near total
> > misunderstanding of how science (physics) works and esp.
> > how ideas develop and the credit gets assigned.
> >

> > Jan

by Richard Moody, Jr © 2003
.....................
As was typical of Einstein, he did not discover theories; he merely commandeered them. He took an existing body of knowledge, picked and chose the ideas he liked, then wove them into a tale about his contribution to special relativity. This was done with the full knowledge and consent of many of his peers, such as the editors at Annalen der Physik.
.....................
Arthur Eddington's selective presentation of data from the 1919 Eclipse so that it supposedly supported "Einstein's" general relativity theory is surely one of the biggest scientific hoaxes of the 20th century. His lavish support of Einstein corrupted the course of history. Eddington was less interested in testing a theory than he was in crowning Einstein the king of science.

The physics community, unwittingly perhaps, has engaged in a kind of fraud and silent conspiracy; this is the byproduct of simply being bystanders as the hyperinflation of Einstein's record and reputation took place. This silence benefited anyone supporting Einstein.
.....................
Einstein's standing is the product of the physics community, his followers and the media. Each group benefits enormously by elevating Einstein to icon status. The physics community receives billions in research grants, Einstein's supporters are handsomely rewarded, and media corporations like Time Magazine get to sell millions of magazines by placing Einstein on the cover as "Person of the Century".

When the scandal breaks, the physics community, Einstein's supporters and the media will attempt to downplay the negative news and put a positive spin on it. However, their efforts will be shown up when Einstein's paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", is seen for what it is: the consummate act of plagiarism in the 20th century.


Special Relativity

Jules Henri Poincaré (1854&endash;1912) was a great scientist who made a significant contribution to special relativity theory. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy website says that Poincaré: (1) "sketched a preliminary version of the special theory of relativity"; (2) "stated that the velocity of light is a limit velocity" (in his 1904 paper from the Bull. of Sci. Math. 28, Poincaré indicated "a whole new mechanics, where the inertia increasing with the velocity of light would become a limit and not be exceeded"); (3) suggested that "mass depends on speed"; (4) "formulated the principle of relativity, according to which no mechanical or electromagnetic experiment can discriminate between a state of uniform motion and a state of rest"; and (5) "derived the Lorentz transformation".

It is evident how deeply involved with special relativity Poincaré was. Even Keswani (1965) was prompted to say that "As far back as 1895, Poincaré, the innovator, had conjectured that it is impossible to detect absolute motion", and that "In 1900, he introduced 'the principle of relative motion' which he later called by the equivalent terms 'the law of relativity' and 'the principle of relativity' in his book, Science and Hypothesis, published in 1902". Einstein acknowledged none of this preceding theoretical work when he wrote his unreferenced 1905 paper.

In addition to having sketched the preliminary version of relativity, Poincaré provided a critical part of the whole concept - namely, his treatment of local time. He also originated the idea of clock synchronisation, which is critical to special relativity.

Charles Nordman was prompted to write, "They will show that the credit for most of the things which are currently attributed to Einstein is, in reality, due to Poincaré", and "...in the opinion of the Relativists it is the measuring rods which create space, the clocks which create time. All this was known by Poincaré and others long before the time of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to him".

Other scientists have not been quite as impressed with "Einstein's" special relativity theory as has the public. "Another curious feature of the now famous paper, Einstein, 1905, is the absence of any reference to Poincaré or anyone else," Max Born wrote in Physics in My Generation. "It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true" (Born, 1956). G. Burniston Brown (1967) noted, "It will be seen that, contrary to popular belief, Einstein played only a minor part in the derivation of the useful formulae in the restricted or special relativity theory, and Whittaker called it the relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz"

Due to the fact that Einstein's special relativity theory was known in some circles as the relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz, one would think that Poincaré and Lorentz might have had something to do with its creation. What is disturbing about the Einstein paper is that even though Poincaré was the world's leading expert on relativity, apparently Einstein had never heard of him or thought he had done anything worth referencing!

Poincaré, in a public address delivered in September 1904, made some notable comments on special relativity theory. "From all these results, if they are confirmed, would arise an entirely new mechanicsÉwould be, above all, characterised by this fact that no velocity could surpass that of lightÉbecause bodies would oppose an increasing inertia to the causes, which would tend to accelerate their motion; and this inertia would become infinite when one approached the velocity of light. No more for an observer carried along himself in a translation, he did not suspect any apparent velocity could surpass that of light: and this would be then a contradiction, if we recall that this observer would not use the same clocks as a fixed observer, but, indeed, clocks marking 'local time'." (Poincaré, 1905)


Einstein, the Plagiarist

It is now time to speak directly to the issue of what Einstein was: he was first and foremost a plagiarist. He had few qualms about stealing the work of others and submitting it as his own. That this was deliberate seems obvious.

Take this passage from Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times (there are no references to Poincaré here; just a few meaningless quotes). This is how page 101 reads: "'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies'...is in many ways one of the most remarkable scientific papers that had ever been written. Even in form and style it was unusual, lacking the notes and references which give weight to most serious expositions" (emphasis added).

Why would Einstein, with his training as a patent clerk, not recognise the need to cite references in his article on special relativity? One would think that Einstein, as a neophyte, would overreference rather than underreference.

Wouldn't one also expect somewhat higher standards from an editor when faced with a long manuscript that had obviously not been credited? Apparently there was no attempt at quality control when it was published in Annalen der Physik. Most competent editors would have rejected the paper without even reading it. At the barest minimum, one would expect the editor to research the literature to determine whether Einstein's claim of primacy was correct.

Max Born stated, "The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous literature" (emphasis added) (Born, 1956). He is clearly indicating that the absence of references is abnormal and that, even by early 20th century standards, this is most peculiar, even unprofessional.

Einstein twisted and turned to avoid plagiarism charges, but these were transparent.

From Bjerknes (2002), we learn the following passage from James MacKaye: "Einstein's explanation is a dimensional disguise for Lorentz's. Thus Einstein's theory is not a denial of, nor an alternative for, that of Lorentz. It is only a duplicate and disguise for it. Einstein continually maintains that the theory of Lorentz is right, only he disagrees with his 'interpretation'. Is it not clear, therefore, that in this [case], as in other cases, Einstein's theory is merely a disguise for Lorentz's, the apparent disagreement about 'interpretation' being a matter of words only?"

Poincaré wrote 30 books and over 500 papers on philosophy, mathematics and physics. Einstein wrote on mathematics, physics and philosophy, but claimed he'd never read Poincaré's contributions to physics.

Yet many of Poincaré's ideas - for example, that the speed of light is a limit and that mass increases with speed - wound up in Einstein's paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" without being credited.

Einstein's act of stealing almost the entire body of literature by Lorentz and Poincaré to write his document raised the bar for plagiarism. In the information age, this kind of plagiarism could never be perpetrated indefinitely, yet the physics community has still not set the record straight.

In his 1907 paper, Einstein spelled out his views on plagiarism: "It appears to me that it is the nature of the business that what follows has already been partly solved by other authors. Despite that fact, since the issues of concern are here addressed from a new point of view, I am entitled to leave out a thoroughly pedantic survey of the literature..."

With this statement, Einstein declared that plagiarism, suitably packaged, is an acceptable research tool.

Here is the definition of "to plagiarise" from an unimpeachable source, Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, 1947, p. 1,878: "To steal or purloin and pass off as one's own (the ideas, words, artistic productions, etc. of one another); to use without due credit the ideas, expressions or productions of another. To commit plagiarism" (emphasis added). Isn't this exactly what Einstein did?

Giving due credit involves two aspects: timeliness and appropriateness. Telling the world that Lorentz provided the basis for special relativity 30 years after the fact is not timely (see below), is not appropriate and is not giving due credit. Nothing Einstein wrote ex post facto with respect to Lorentz's contributions alters the fundamental act of plagiarism.

The true nature of Einstein's plagiarism is set forth in his 1935 paper, "Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy", where, in a discussion on Maxwell, he wrote, "The question as to the independence of those relations is a natural one because the Lorentz transformation, the real basis of special relativity theory..." (emphasis added).

So, Einstein even acknowledged that the Lorentz transformation was the real basis of his 1905 paper. Anyone who doubts that he was a plagiarist should ask one simple question: "What did Einstein know and when did he know it?" Einstein got away with premeditated plagiarism, not the incidental plagiarism that is ubiquitous (Moody, 2001).
.........................
.........................

Note by the webmaster

I wish to add some personal remarks to the above article.

These remarks relate to the political climate prevailing between France and Germany during these years which preceded the First World War. It was really a very bad climate which may bring some light on the misbehaviour of the young Einstein (26 years old). He may have been manipulated by his editors, who bear an overwhelming responsability.

Obviously, the plagiarism in 1905 by Einstein of Lorentz's and Poincaré 's ideas has necessitated the entire complicity of the editors of the Annalen der Physik.
**********************************
Yet, it is somewhat difficult to admit that Einstein could not know the work of Poincaré. But as regards the editors, this is strictly impossible.
*********************************
How these people belonging to the medium of the scientific editions could make such a filoutery with regard to a scientist as eminent and known over the world as was Poincaré? How could they admit to publish the paper of Einstein not comprising any reference, whereas it is an absolute rule practised internationally in editions of this kind, violating thus knowingly and deliberately the ethics of their own profession?

It is interesting to remind the political climate between France and Germany in these years which preceded the First World War. It cannot in any way be an excuse but it may be an explanation.

Let's remind :

In the middle of 1904, the policy followed by Delcassé, the French Foreign Minister, goes from success in success: reinforcement of Russian alliance, bringing together very marked with Italy, friendly understanding with England, agreement in sight with Spain.

In particular, the conclusion on April 8, 1904 of the Franco-British agreements ulcerated the German emperor Wilhelm II who was completely kept away of this important negotiation. When in October 1904, Spain adheres to the part of the Franco-British agreements relating to Morocco, irritation grows in Berlin. A first Franco-German hitch occurs in January 1905 when France installs in Morocco some French public servants to help the creation of the moroccan administration. The German government declares that it feels by no means committed in Morocco by agreements concluded apart from him.

While all this was going on, the yacht of Wilhelm II arrives to Tangier on March 31, 1905. He lets know clearly his will to be opposed to the French interests.

On April 25, 1905, the British ambassador in Paris, Sir Francis Bertie, gives to the French government a memorandum specifying that if Germany claimed a port in Morocco, the British government would act in concert with the French government " to be opposed to it firmly. "

In Germany, the climate hardens clearly so much so that the word of "war" is propagated by emissary which traverse Europe with alarming noises.

On June 6, 1905, during a dramatic Council of Ministers in the Elysee House, the question is put: Is it possible to continue in the direction of the reinforcement of a Franco-British agreement which is likely to involve the war? To calm the play, Delcassé resigns.

On June 26, 1905, the President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, advises France to give up and to accept the internationalization of the Moroccan affairs. It will be the Conference of Algeciras.

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

It results from what precedes that the Franco-German climate in 1904 and 1905 was more than hateful. Already maintained by the question of Alsace Lorraine, all were ready to fight and one can be assured that the public opinions of the two countries followed these events with passion.

In this context, to diddle Poincaré was a kind of revenge that a small editor offered to his country against these Frenchmen who tread on their toes…
***********
But it must also be said that Einstein accepted it without any scruple and never expressed any remorse...
**********

With regard to the editor of Annalen der Physik, the physicist Paul DRUDE, it should be known that he committed suicide the following
year in July 1906. All the German scientists certainly knew about the plagiarism and it is probable that many of them become indignant
about it. DRUDE had to become aware of the hugeness of his fault and drew to the conclusions.
***************************************************
Michel Gendrot

[Thomas Heger]

Actually the number of annotations was 428.

Most of them contained more than one error (of Einstein, of course).

If you find any errors on my side, feel free to show them and prove,
that what I wrote was wrong.

I made actually a number of errors. But, fortunately, I have rewritten
my annotations already and can present a flawless version, if you insist.

TH

[Dono.]

On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 12:14:47 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
.
> Actually the number of annotations was 428.
>

You mean that you have 428 imbecilities of your own. We knew that.

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 12:14:47 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 12.10.2021 um 07:44 schrieb Michael Moroney:
> > On 10/12/2021 12:56 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 10.10.2021 um 09:42 schrieb JanPB:
> >>> On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 10:06:57 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> >>>> I personally think, there are certain similarities between Einstein's
> >>>> text and the text of Poincare, which suggest, that the text of Einstein
> >>>> was partially based on Poincare's text.
> >>>
> >>> You are not qualified to reach any conclusion in this matter.
> >>
> >> Actually I'm qualified, even if I don't speak enough French.
> >>
> >> I'm quite familiar with text of Einstein ('On the electrodynamics of
> >> moving bodies'), because I wrote about four-hundred annotations into
> >> it and know it almost by heart.
> >
> > You are not qualified to reach any conclusion in this matter.
> >
> > Thinking you found some 400 errors in Einstein's 1905 SR paper, when
> > every single "error" examined so far was an error on your part, not
> > Einstein's, is incontrovertible proof of your lack of qualification.
> Actually the number of annotations was 428.
>
> Most of them contained more than one error (of Einstein, of course).

There are no errors in Einstein's paper besides little trivialities which
all scientific papers have.

> If you find any errors on my side, feel free to show them and prove,
> that what I wrote was wrong.

This was done countless of times but the well-known feature of
an ignoramus is that it's impossible to prove his errors to him.
It's just how life is.

You can probably fix this if you want it but the key to any success
is honestly with oneself.

Instead, all you do is fantasise.

> I made actually a number of errors. But, fortunately, I have rewritten
> my annotations already and can present a flawless version, if you insist.

Your annotations are worthless.

OTOH, it is possible to write a good critique of Einstein's paper but
it can only be done by someone who understands the issues involved.

--
Jan

[Odd Bodkin]

Don’t flatter yourself.

Just a couple of comments, which I’m sure will go in one ear and out the
other.

1. Yes, you made a number of errors, and you have removed those erroneous
comments from your annotation list. From here, there is a difference in
perception. To those who have pointed out your errors, it is now plain that
the rest of your comments are ALSO errors and are not worth the effort for
detailed rebuttal. To you, however, the rest of your comments are pristine
and legitimate, and the fact that several errors have been shown to you
does not give you pause about the remainder. So here’s the situation: the
rest of your readership believes that none of your annotations are
legitimate, while you and you alone believe the rest of your annotations
are legitimate. And so what is the outcome of this difference in
interpretation?

2. You are taking the stance that, even if 427 of your comments were
thoroughly demonstrated to be your errors, then just one remaining error
would be sufficient to dismiss the paper, which in turn would cause SR to
fall, which in turn would cause the rest of modern physics to fall, which
in turn would open up a vacuum for your ideas to get considered. You
believe that the existence of one error should be fatal, because you think
Einstein’s paper is held up as perfect and unassailable. Unfortunately,
Thomas, this isn’t actually the case. There are a couple of known errors in
his paper (which you do not notice), and yet the paper is still accepted in
its imperfect state as the launch point for special relativity and a lot of
modern physics. So your hope that even one imperfection should be enough to
cause modern physics to fall is unfortunately misguided.

>
> TH
>
>
>



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

[Michael Moroney]

On 10/13/2021 3:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 12.10.2021 um 07:44 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>> On 10/12/2021 12:56 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 10.10.2021 um 09:42 schrieb JanPB:
>>>> On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 10:06:57 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>>>> I personally think, there are certain similarities between Einstein's
>>>>> text and the text of Poincare, which suggest, that the text of
>>>>> Einstein
>>>>> was partially based on Poincare's text.
>>>>
>>>> You are not qualified to reach any conclusion in this matter.
>>>
>>> Actually I'm qualified, even if I don't speak enough French.
>>>
>>> I'm quite familiar with text of Einstein ('On the electrodynamics of
>>> moving bodies'), because I wrote about four-hundred annotations into
>>> it and know it almost by heart.
>>
>> You are not qualified to reach any conclusion in this matter.
>>
>> Thinking you found some 400 errors in Einstein's 1905 SR paper, when
>> every single "error" examined so far was an error on your part, not
>> Einstein's, is incontrovertible proof of your lack of qualification.
>
> Actually the number of annotations was 428.

The actual number is irrelevant.

>
> Most of them contained more than one error (of Einstein, of course).

By you, of course.

>
> If you find any errors on my side, feel free to show them and prove,
> that what I wrote was wrong.

This was done many times. But nobody is going to slog through 428 or
whatever comments especially since the ones looked at are all your
misinterpretations or mistakes, not Einstein's.

>
> I made actually  a number of errors. But, fortunately, I have rewritten
> my annotations already and can present a flawless version, if you insist.

Please don't. Unfortunately everyone here has seen some random
"annotations" of yours analyzed and found wrong, so statistically all or
nearly all are likely defective. However you have the attitude that if
nobody has proven them wrong [because nobody looked], they must be
correct, and it was merely coincidence that the ones looked at were the
only bad ones. (hah!)
>
> TH
>
>

[carl eto]

Is Einstein justifying MT.