Einstein’s Dirty Laundry: The lost 51 pages manuscript he wrote with M.Besso in 1913 about Mercury.

112 views
Skip to first unread message

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 2:54:56 PMSep 26
to
Einstein’s Dirty Laundry sounds heavy, but it’s the name of the 1996 article
at science.org to tell about the auction of several papers and documents from Einsten. The 1913 paper "On the motion of the perihelion of
Mercury," written by Einstein and Michele Besso was purchased for
$398,500 by the scientific book dealer Jeremy Norman & Co. The paper
was resold by 2019 at almost 10 times the 1996 price.

https://www.science.org/news/1996/11/highest-bidders-win-einsteins-dirty-laundry

The 51 pages manuscript, with mathematical and physical calculations
and some comments and additional text, was hidden from the public view
for more than 40 years, and surfaced after the death of Besso in Geneva,
Switzerland , on March 15, 1955. The manuscript consists of loose sheets,
most of them single-sided, some double-sided, with no continuous
numbering. Roughly half the pages are in Einstein's hand, the other half in
Besso's.

The document was toroughly analyzed by scientists since then, which
contributed with hundred of observations in the next 50 years. After an
impressive work to digitalize and order the document, it was made available
online at Princeton’s web site:

https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol4-doc/382

in the section “Volume 4: The Swiss Years: Writings 1912-1914 Pages 360 to
473. There, the complete work performed by Einstein and Besso between
June 1913 and early 1914, is presented with 249 Notes and 376 formulae,
numbered by specialists who gave order to the temporal sequence of the
calculations, and inserted the numerations to make the document legible.

IMO, the analysis of the online document allows anyone with patience and
some knowledge on physics and mathematics, to witness how both
partners started from Square One up to a final part, where competing
Nordstrom theory was analyzed under the light of the mathematical
framework of the June 1913 published Entwurf, co-authored by Grossman
and Einstein. The 114 pages available on line contain a digitalized form of
the manuscript plus more than 63 pages with the 249 notes elaborated by
unknown specialists. I didn’t have the time who they were, and when any of
those comments was elaborated in the period 1955 – 2005.

It’s have been difficult for me, in the last days, to follow the developments
within the document, because the transcription is literal and don’t provide
any help to further decode the calculations. So, it was needed an effort to go
forward and back along the 376 formulae and 249 notes in order to obtain
the real formulae for Mercury’s perihelion, as Besso and Einstein obtained.
The part where they both analyze Nordstrom’s theory (at the end) is easier
and compact.

As it’s commented, the document contain many gross errors in concepts
and calculations, which were not corrected by then. Only a century later,
such errors (which amount to a difference of about 2,000 times the final
1913 value) are made public. Also, an incredible expression of Nordstrom
final formula was derived by them, which differs EXACTLY in a factor “6”
from the 1897 Gerber’s formula and the “clone” that Einstein presented
2 and half years later (Nov.18, 1915) to the Prussian Academy of Science,
where he claimed the validity of his GR for the explanation of Mercury’s
perihelion shift. Such historical date marks the BIRTH of Einstein’s General
Relativity theory in modern form, but it had to wait for another 4 years until
Eddington’s expedition to prove light deflection in 1919, after the Great War
(WWI) ended. Then, Einstein was made a worldwide sensation by the media,
and his journey around the world to promote it started until late 1925.

To make this OP short, I’ll post four formulae as a result of such manuscript:
Einstein-Besso 1913 formulae, Nordstrom 1913 formulae, Einstein 1915
formulae and Gerber 1898 formulae. Maybe, in next posts on this thread I’ll
write several considerations, which are EXCLUSIVELY BASED on the
document online at Princeton’s web site. For now, this is a start:

[Eq. 331] δθ = -π.So.k/2f . 1/r = - 4π.K.M.Rs².(Tm/Ts)/(10.c².Rm³) = -5.6 . 10E-7 rad/orbit = - 2.3"/century [Einstein-Besso, 1913]

[Eq. 331 with errors detected and corrected] δθ = -1.4 . 10E-11 rad/orbit = -1.2 . 10E-3 "/century [Einstein, 2005]

(Equation 376, Nordström) Ψ = π (1 + ½ 4. π².a²/((1 – e²).T².c²)))

(from Equation 376) ΔΨ = 2Ψ - 2π = 4.π³.a²/((1 – e²).T.c²) = 0.8 × 10E-7 rad/orbit = 7.2 ′′/century [Nordström, 1913]

[Gerber, 1898] ΔΨ = 24π³.a²/[c². T². (1- e²)]

Nordström and Gerber in natural units. Einstein-Besso in cgs system.

ΔΨ [Nordström, 1913] = 1/6 𝜖 [Einstein, Nov. 18, 1915] = 1/6ΔΨ [Gerber, 1898]

For those who wonder what are the coefficients at Einstein-Besso formulae,
I add:

[Eq. 331] δθ = - 4π.K.M.Rs².(Tm/Ts)/(10.c².Rm³)

Related to the Sun: M: mass; Rs: radius; Ts: rotation period.
Related to Mercury: Tm: period for one orbit; Rm: semi-major axis.


CONCLUSIONS:

The Einstein-Gerber 1913 manuscript, which was never made public while
Einstein was alive, is totally UNRELATED to his Nov. 18, 1915 paper. And
that work done in a week or two? Everyone here is blind to the fact that
Einstein was inept in mathematics, even at algebra level. He had a TEAM
working for him all the time he was not plagiarizing someone else (like
Stark on thermodynamics, or Lorenz-Poincaré in relativity). His 1913 team
don’t match the figure of “a lone genius”: Grossman, Besso, Adriaan
Fokker, Lorentz, Ehrenfest, Sommerfeld, Lorentz, etc. (last three as
advisors). It’s HIGHLY PROBABLY that Schwarzschild was an advisor too.

After all, the astronomer had been influential for the position offered by
Planck at Berlin, because there were problem about HOW to fund the 12
years contract for Einstein there, which was expensive. Schwarzschild,
along with Planck, found the way to split the sources of the funding in 1914.

By October 1915, he received STRONG GUIDANCE from Hilbert himself, as
a result of his summer lecture at Gottingen, due to Hilbert’s invitation. He
stayed for a week and told Hilbert WHY he was lost with GR math and Hilbert helped him there and after, with many letters exchanged. He had
left Grossman in the past and was connected with Levi-Civita as an
advisor for his math, plus who don’t know else. But the path he followed in
the next weeks were ALIEN for him, as he changed his 1913 approach in a
radical way:

1) Instead of messing with the Sun as a rotating sphere, calculating his mass by comparisons with Earth's mass, re.inventing the gravitational constant G in 4 or 5 different ways, using the real radius of the Sun and
the influence of Earth, Venus and Jupiter on Mercury, he replaced the Sun
with a NEWTONIAN point-like non-rotating mass, as it was done for 200 years.

2) Abandoned any attempt to include gravitational drag originated by the
rotation of the Sun (read his 1913 formula) and abandoned any attempt to
work with the energy-stress tensor, by making Rᵤᵥ = 0 and proposing an
expression for the gravitational field in vacuum (with pure mathematical
meaning, not physical) for the behavior of this equation on an space VOID
of matter and energy, with a “suitable choice of coordinates”:

Σᵢ ∂Γⁱᵤᵥ/∂xᵢ + Σᵢᵣ Γⁱᵤᵣ Γʳᵥᵢ = 0 ,

with Γⁱᵤᵥ = -1/2 gᵛˣ (∂gᵤₓ/∂xᵢ + ∂gᵢₓ/∂xᵥ - ∂gᵢᵤ/∂xₓ)

3) He went backward from the solution to the origin of the development by
HACKING the math at the very beginning, installing the influences of the
Sun’s gravitational field CHANGING his equation (4a):

"Or more compactly gᵤᵥ = - δᵤᵥ ; gᵤ₄ = g₄ᵤ ; g₄₄ = 1 (equation 4a, pure mathematics)

with

gᵤᵥ = - δᵤᵥ + α . (∂²r/∂xᵤxᵥ - δᵤᵥ/r) = - δᵤᵥ - α . xᵤxᵥ/r³ ; g₄₄ = 1 - α/r (equation 4b, which HACKED 4a, now physical)

4) After (4b), and with disregard of the assumption of a void universe, he
PLANTED the Sun at the origin and CONNECTED this HACK with the
hacked equation (4b). With these SIMPLIFICATIONS, it was easy to get
Gerber’s formula (which was TREMENDOUSLY CORRECT, 17 years before)
and get a similar formula with the famous 43”.

A final, but fundamental fact: the value obtained in 1913 [Equation 331]
was thought to be - 2.3"/century, which was about 6 times lower than the
18” that Einstein (his hand writing) wrote above the [Eq. 188].

The exact factor “6” is the difference between Einstein-Besso derived
formula for Nordstrom theory [Equation 376] and the Gerber’s formula that
Einstein used on his Nov.18, 1915 presentation on the problem of
Mercury. Read Notes [136], [242], [243], [246] and [249] from Princeton site.

The conclusion is obvious for me: after hacking his 1915 paper and
reingeneering [Eq. 376], Nordström) formula to increment its value
EXACTLY 6x to match Gerber’s formula, he presented his famous paper at
the Prussian Academy of Science.

Never ever Einstein did make public his 1913 teamwork and, even less, the
absurd result of - 2.3"/century, which was found decades after to be
-0.0012”/century, due to the numerous errors and misconception they had
in 1913.

But nobody, in the world of physics or mathematics since 1955, DARED to
publish the incoherence in the narrative of GR history. Even the Notes at
the Princeton's site, even when find mistakes and inconsistencies, justify
Einstein in many ways, but NEVER address the weird coincidences.

And this is because the script for GR history was written since 1916 and
perfected even to insanity in the last 40 years, when Einstein's figure was
revitalized. And, of course, nobody on his sane mind, dares to confront the
establishment.



Paul Alsing

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 3:34:52 PMSep 26
to
On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 11:54:56 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> ... And, of course, nobody on his sane mind, dares to confront the
> establishment.

... and yet here you are, both insane and daring to confront the establishment!

Congratulations, I believe that your spiral to the bottom is nearly complete!

Michael Moroney

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 4:00:30 PMSep 26
to
I think what Richard wrote was an admission that he's insane, by
confronting it and stating nobody sane would dare to do so.

carl eto

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 5:16:25 PMSep 26
to
Not SR

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 5:58:28 PMSep 26
to
Some additions to the OP.

About Gunnar Nordström and his scalar theory of gravity.

https://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/eisaksso/nordstrom/nordstrom.html

Some excerpts from the link above:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gunnar Nordström was a contemporary of Albert Einstein. Both men took a circuitous path to university careers. During
Einstein's early years at the Berne patent office, Nordström became an engineer. Never a very practically oriented man, he
turned into studying physical chemistry. He arrived in Göttingen in April 1906 for about one year to study chemistry under
Walther Nernst. In Göttingen, the young Nordström became a wholehearted believer in relativity in its Minkowskiian
formulation. After having published only one paper in chemistry, Nordström's whole remaining published work was focused
almost exclusively in issues of relativity, electrodynamics and gravitation."
...................
"Abraham was soon to engage in another debate. In 1911, Einstein began to publish on gravitation after a four-year-long silence.
His early papers on scalar gravitation with a variable velocity of light inspired Abraham both to attack relativity and to believe
that even Einstein himself had now abandoned his own basic principles. Abraham designed a scalar theory of gravitation which was neither relativistic nor consistent. Einstein abandoned scalar theories altogether and began his long struggle with tensor theory.

Nordström's response to both was to suggest a scalar theory of gravitation in a rigid relativistic sense of gravitation in a rigid
relativistic sense. Nordström required the constancy of the velocity of light in all frames of reference. Adopting Abraham's
modification of the Poisson equation, Nordström arrived at a potential dependence of gravitational mass. This first version
of the Nordström theory was sent to Physikalische Zeitschrift in October 1912."
...................
"After arriving in Leiden in 1916, Nordström entered a first-rate community of theoretical physicists. He soon began working
with Einstein's new ideas on the Hamiltonian formulation of general relativity."
..................
"This significant contribution by Nordström can be found in modern textbooks of general relativity as the Reissner-Nordström
metric for a nonrotating charge distribution.

After 1918, Gunnar Nordström disappeared from the international scientific arena. Instead of entering the competition for an
assistant professorship in Berlin under Max Planck, he chose to return to Helsinki with his new Dutch wife, Cornelia van
Leeuwen, a physics student of Lorentz's."
..................
"In 1916, when the only physical argument in favour of general relativity was the explanation of the perihelion advance of the
planet Mercury, Nordström gave up his own, then still current theory in favour of Einstein's. His seemingly abrupt change of
mind is a result of ten years of thinking in terms of Minkowskiian electrodynamics, and getting no further with it."
.................
"Once in Helsinki, Nordström continued his work until his early death at an early age of 42 in 1923. Experimenting with
radioactive substances had been one of his hobbies and very likely a cause of his illness. As a professor at Helsinki
University of Technology, Nordström twice nominated Einstein for the Nobel prize in physics for his special and general
theories of relativity."
.................
"In 1917 Max von Laue published a comprehensive exposition of the Nordström theory. As late as over a year after the completion
of general relativity, a scientist of Laue's standing could still consider the Nordström theory as a serious rival to the Einstein theory."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About fist (and only?) Einstein recognition of his 18" 1913 value, which was just a hand-written
value above a formula in the manuscript:

From this link, I quote an excerpt (page 119):

History of Einstein’s General Relativity: Conceptual Development of the Theory
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-02893156/document

-------------------------------------------- Excerpt --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Einstein's confidence was to persist until October 1915, when he suddenly realized that the theory was untenable.
In a postcard to David Hilbert, dated 7 November 1915, Einstein indicated that he had been aware for "about four
weeks" that his 1914 derivation of the field equations was "delusive."

Furthermore, in a letter to Sommerfeld dated 28 November 1915, Einstein explained in detail the reasons which
led him to abandon his theory:

"1. I proved that the gravitational field in a uniformly rotating system does not satisfy the field equations.
2. The motion of the perihelion of Mercury came out to be 18" instead of 45" per century.
3. The covariance consideration of my paper of last year did not yield the Hamiltonian function H. It allows,
if properly generalized, an arbitrary H. From this it followed that the covariance with respect to "adapted"
coordinate systems was a flop."

Einstein mentioned the same three reasons in a letter to H. A. Lorentz in January 1916, but inverted items (1)
and (2). Since, with Sommerfeld, Einstein felt quite at ease to discuss his ideas, it is possible that the ordering
of the reasons that Einstein gave to Sommerfeld represents historical sequence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 7:49:10 PMSep 26
to
About the reception of General Relativity in most countries, this book (1987) contains analysis
about the impact of SR and GR in several countries. I only address here GR, with some excerpts:

The Comparative Reception of Relativity (419 pages)

Edited by THOMAS F. GLICK. Department of History, Boston University
"The present volume grew out of a double session of the Boston Colloquium for
the Philosophy of Science held on March 25, 1983"-

1987 by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland

Index Summary:

1. STANLEY GOLDBERG / Putting New Wine in Old Bottles: The Assimilation of Relativity in America
2. JOSE M. SANCHEZ-RoN / The Reception of Special Relativity in Great Britain
3. LEWIS PYENSON / The Relativity Revolution in Germany
4. MICHEL PATY / The Scientific Reception of Relativity in France
5. MICHEL BIEZUNSKI/ Einstein's Reception in Paris in 1922
6. BARBARA J. REEVES / Einstein Politicized: The Early Reception of Relativity in Italy
7. THOMAS F. GLICK/Relativity in Spain
8. V.P. VIZGIN AND G.E. GORELIK/The Reception of theTheory of Relativity in Russia and the USSR
9. BRONISLAW SREDNIA WA / The Reception of the Theory of Relativity in Poland
10. TSUTOMU KANEKO/Einstein's Impact on Japanese Intellectuals

One of the parts that seemed interesting to me is about the reception in Italy, where GR in particular
generated movements and counter-movements around Newton and Einstein (maybe because of Galileo?)

I only post some excerpts of this chapter, about GR only:

---------------------------------- Excerpts (since Page 201) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RELATIVITY: THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

After World War I, as with so much else, the dimensions of the presentation of relativity were transformed.
The newspapers, first of all, seemed to have had few qualms about the language they used.
The London Times headlines for the article on the 6 November 1919 Royal Society "canonization" of Einstein
read, "Revolution in science l New theory of the universe l Newtonian ideas overthrown," and a subhead
read "space 'warped. ",20 Although the New York Times avoided any form of the word "revolution," the headline
of its second story certainly implied an upsetting theory:

Lights all askew in the heavens/Men of science more or less agog over results of eclipse observation/
Einstein theory triumphs/Stars not where they seem or were calculated to be, but nobody need worry/
A book for 12 wise men/No more in all the world could comprehend it, said Einstein when his daring
publishers accepted it. 21
..........................
Levi-Civita had been in correspondence with Einstein in the spring of 1915,23 and he followed the final stages
of Einstein's development of the general theory later that year, even though the war divided them. Levi-Civita
had then made relativity central to his own research, publishing fourteen papers on it by the end of 1918,
just at the time when he was called to the University of Rome.24

The Rome geometer Guido Castelnuovo, who had also interested himself in relativity before the war, promoted a
series of lectures by Levi-Civita and Marcolongo, mathematical physicist at Naples, for the Mathematical Seminar
of the University of Rome with the support of Vito Volterra, its director and preeminent mathematical physicist.

The lectures took place in the spring of 1919,25 as if to prepare the Italians for the announcement of the positive
results of the eclipse expeditions at the Royal Society the following November.
............................
If relativity's supporters used political metaphors at all, they chose the opposite: "conservative." Levi-Civita and his
student Attilio Palatini,28 Marcolongo,29 Castelnuovo,3o Luigi Donati,31 and the geometers Guido Fubini32 and
Gino Fan033 - all practitioners and promoters of relativity in their own work, in their teaching, and in popular articles
for journals such as Scientia and Elettrotecnica and articles and interviews for newspapers - all stressed continuity
with the past, improvement, generalization, progress: in effect, evolution rather than revolution.

The mathematical physicist and electrical engineering professor Luigi Donati, in lectures delivered to the Bologna
section of the Associazione Elettrotecnica Italiana in December 1921 and January and February 1922, presented
relativity as "a successful attempt at compromise" between classical physics and the facts observed in opposition to it.
............
Marcolongo, in an article printed in the newspaper La provincia di Padova the day after Einstein lectured at the University
of Padua in October 1921, asserted that relativity was "not a revolution, but a slow, constrained evolution," to which physical
theories, as all things human, were subject. In spite of the call of "a certain astronomer" to "save the law of Newton," for
Marcolongo

the great law of Newton is not in any danger, and ... there is nothing to be saved because all is secure. On the contrary, one
of the most beautiful characteristics of the new theories is that they conserve the glorious edifice constructed by Newton,
while improving it with modifications which are qualitatively very slight and conceptually grandiose. 35
.....................
Consider finally the case of Giuseppe Armellini, the principal astronomer who supported relativity....

At LeviCivita's suggestion to the publisher Ulrico Hoepli,38 Armellini wrote the preface to the Italian translation of the text on
relativity by the German astronomer August Kopff. There he affirmed his belief that general relativity represented real progress
in science; by implication it was therefore not revolutionary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This was on the early '20s at Italy: politics and relativity; ardent defenders vs. ardent oppositors; Newton vs. Einstein all over.

What is impressive to know is how much advanced had Italy became in differential geometry (Ricci-Curbastro and Levi-Civita
creating entire schools of thought at Northern Italy). Also, it's interesting to verify the important role in personal relationships
between Levi-Civita and Einstein, along the 2nd. half of 1915, prior to Einstein final 4 presentations by November.

Similar movements to introduce GR were made at many other European countries, even at France (Poincaré never forgave Einstein
and academia and laymen followed Poincaré lead). So, the induction to GR (even without any substance) became a matter of PR,
for better or worse. PR on academic and gov. sites, PR on laymen through MSM permanent bombardment about Einstein and GR/SR.

It all turned out to be about which part had (has) the most powerful machinery for PR and academic and scientific penetration.

As Planck said once: It only takes to wait one generation to die, for the next to adopt what's being rejected (Words of wisdom).

Dono.

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 8:05:38 PMSep 26
to
On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 4:49:10 PM UTC-7, work Richard Hertz wrote:
> snip verbosity <

Odious kapo,

No matter how much you twist and turn, relativity is mainstream science. Choke on it, disgusting nazi bootlicker.

Michael Moroney

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 8:22:07 PMSep 26
to
On 9/26/2021 7:49 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> About the reception of General Relativity in most countries, this book (1987) contains analysis
> about the impact of SR and GR in several countries. I only address here GR, with some excerpts:
>
> The Comparative Reception of Relativity (419 pages)
>
> Edited by THOMAS F. GLICK. Department of History, Boston University

<snip crap>

That and the index doesn't sound like any sort of science book.

For actual scientists, relativity is century old settled science.

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 11:39:32 PMSep 26
to
The OP of this thread was written using as sources of physics and mathematics of GR, exclusively and without any
changes, the 114 web pages from the Princeton site, with the 376 original formulae used/derived by Einstein-Besso
in 1913 (starting with elementary reasons based on the first Entwurf) in 1913, plus 249 Notes from,probably, dozens
of highly qualified physicists and mathematicians along decades since 1955, AND, without any alterations, the English
version of the Nov.18, 1915 paper "Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory".

The main idea behind this thread, after expending a couple of days reading EVERY page of the manuscript, plus the
aditional 63 web pages with hundred of precise analysis of each original manuscript page, was to show in a compact
way that Einstein was an inept charlatan, with absurd ideas about physics, and prone to errors of thought and inability
to detect any of them while having 8 months to deliver such work. I don't have anything to say about Besso's flaws
because, afterwards, he was assisting Einstein as a calculist. Yet, Besso (an engineer, who should have known it better)
validated every line of thought of Einstein, and Einstein allowed Besso to incorporate his own ideas about planetary
motion, the nature of fundamental constans like G (which was DERIVED in 4 or 5 different ways with different values),
the gravitational influence of Venus, Earth and Jupiter on Mercury's behavior, the negation of any "sacred" celestial
mechanics (Laplace, Lagrange, Poincaré, etc.) in a DEGENERATE PURSUIT to replace EVERY newtonian theory applied
for 200 years and ACHIEVE a full replacement of such theories, in an attempt that failed MISERABLY. The shame they
could have for such huge flop was buried for 40 YEARS, and SILENCED for another 50 more years, until the document
started to appear online, available to anyone.

Such shameful objective is CONSERVED, any time that the Cavendish proven G (universal gravitational constant) is
OMITTED from the expression of the GFE, usually wrote as:

Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = κ Tᵤᵥ instead of Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ

because G means Newton (all over at any formulae) and has nothing to do with theories that tried/try to replace
the universal validity of

F = G.M.m/r²

for the Solar System or his ground-level expression

g = G.M/r²

for gravity acceleration at any celestial body, at least in this Solar System.

Such original attempt at 1913, and the THEORETICAL proof of the validation of the GR (just using a hacked formulae),
which Schwarzschild made eternal AND a pathetic, weak, invalid proof manufactured by Eddington 3 years later, were
enough to insert into the collective mind (due to use and abuse of PR and indoctrination) a FAILED THEORY which can't:

1) Be used in general, without thinking is a particular mathematical outcome has or not a physical meaning.
2) Can't be used for a general N-Body problem. Newton plus a computer programmed without resorting to esoteric
algoritms in software or require a 100 Teraflop/sec supercomputer.
3) To predict, with minor corrections, the behavior of the Halley's comet (from -10,000 years ago to 3,000 years ahead).
4) Model at a level of perfection, with minor amendments to include perturbations, spatial orbits or trajectories for
any spacecraft from any space capable country (US, Russia, France, China, India, Israel, N. Korea, etc.)
5) Directly, or with minor modifications like in MOND, explain galaxies rotation, formation of clusters and superclusters
of galaxies along billion of years.
6) Many other celestial events.

Instead, with a major modification to include Λ cosmological constant (impossible to be measured here) models
like ΛCDM (only 5% of baryonic matter), the degenerative evolution of an universe born from a singularity that contained
all the matter and the energy of the universe in just 10E-34 seconds (go and prove it), inflating spacetime in just a blip
and evolving to an universe expanding with acceleration, which has a NONPHYSICAL radius of 43 bly instead of 13.5.

OR Earth based "measurements" (SR, GR) of alleged avoidance of 38.5 μsec daily shift correction by detuning atomic
clocks in GPS prior lunch, or the Pound–Rebka experiment, or the Hafele–Keating experiment , or the decay time of cosmic
muons, or the LIGO GW detection, or results "not coming" from the LHC, etc.

Not a single relativist here or there witnessed any of these experiments, because they are old and simpler or
because they are highly complex and compartmentalized for anyone to understand if everything or something is
real or false.

No, all of the relativists here and there JUST READ ABOUT IT (or was just taught about it) and had two choices:
ACCEPT (you got the job) or REJECT (try flipping burgers).

But ALL OF YOU feel and test Newton every day. If you REJECT Newton, then:

1) Try to jump 6 meters high on your backyard (g will teach you a lesson).
2) Try to hit a tree with your car at 100 Km/hr (1/2 m.v² will show you something)
3) Try to jump without parachute from 3,000 meters (G.M/r² will work with you, but you'll need Houdini to tell us how it worked)
4) Try to run against a wall (Newton's 3rd. Law will tell you something).
5) Try to use a bicycle (Newton's mechanics will help you).
6) Try to measure your time with the one of other person halfway the world apart (you know the answer).

So, to conclude this post: GR is one of the biggest crime of thought ever allowed to disseminate worldwide. The consequences
are that mankind is becoming more and more idiotic, with life support provided by feeders of food, work and entertainment,
while an elite of few enjoy the pleasures derived by placing 99.999% of humans in darkness and submission.

Keep your indoctrination at will. Not my problem.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 12:29:21 AMSep 27
to
And in the meantime in the real world, GPS clocks keep indicating t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did. Choke on it, poor fanatic idiot.

Dono.

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 1:49:07 AMSep 27
to
On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 8:39:32 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz frothed at the mouth:
> snip verbose utter nuttiness<

Dick,

You need to write longer posts.

Paul Alsing

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 2:01:25 AMSep 27
to
:>)

JanPB

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 2:41:40 AMSep 27
to
On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 11:54:56 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
A couple of recommendations:

1. If you are merely summarising a work, post a link instead.

2. If you are making comments, which as in this case they would be necessarily
spread across a very long post - include a summary on top which in one
concentrated paragraph describes what it is that you are saying.

Otherwise, nobody will read your post, even if it's 100% correct and
interesting. It's just not the right medium for this sort of thing.

--
Jan

Kye Fox

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 5:41:42 AMSep 27
to
JanPB wrote:

>> And this is because the script for GR history was written since 1916
>> and perfected even to insanity in the last 40 years, when Einstein's
>> figure was revitalized. And, of course, nobody on his sane mind, dares
>> to confront the establishment.
>
> A couple of recommendations:
> 1. If you are merely summarising a work, post a link instead.
> 2. If you are making comments, which as in this case they would be
> necessarily spread across a very long post - include a summary on top
> which in one concentrated paragraph describes what it is that you are
> saying.
> Otherwise, nobody will read your post, even if it's 100% correct and
> interesting. It's just not the right medium for this sort of thing.

what are you talking about, switzerland is a fake money shithole of a
country. Nobody is wondering the young Einstine got a job at that patent
office. These kind of countries should not be allowed to even exists.

Dono.

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 9:58:03 AMSep 27
to
No, no, no, Dick needs to write longer, much longer posts

JanPB

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 10:22:26 AMSep 27
to
Another odd crank trait, and a very consistent one, is to misspell
the name as "Einstine".

> These kind of countries should not be allowed to even exists.

That's OK. Just calm down.

--
Jan

Dono.

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 11:59:55 AMSep 27
to
You are conversing with the nymshifting troll

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 3:04:45 PMSep 27
to
SUMMARY OF THE OP:

Einstein-Besso final formula for Mercury's perihelion shift (by Jan 1914)

[Eq. 331] δθ = -π.So.k/2f . 1/r = - 4π.K.M.Rs².(Tm/Ts)/(10.c².Rm³) = - 2.3"/century [corrected to - 0.0012"/century by 2005]

(Eq. 376, Nordström 1913) ΔΨ = 4.π³.a²/((1 – e²).T.c²) = 7.2 ′′/century (exactly 1/6 Gerber's formula)

[Gerber, 1898] ΔΨ = 24π³.a²/[c². T². (1- e²)] (exactly the same formula 𝜖 that Einstein presented by Nov.18, 1915)

In Einstein-Besso formula - M: Sun mass; Rs: Sun radius; Ts: Sun rotation period; Tm: Mercury's period; Rm: semi-major axis.


REMARKS:

1) The Einstein-Gerber 1913 manuscript, which was never made public while Einstein was alive, is totally UNRELATED
to his Nov. 18, 1915 final paper, which is EXACTLY the 1897 Gerber's formula.

2) By October 1915, Einstein had abandoned his 1913 teamwork and received guidance from Hilbert and Levi-Civita.

3) Not a single trace of the 1913-1914 formulae and physical concepts were present in the final work. A new approach
was developed (in less than 1 month?) with the next drastic changes:

3.1) Made the Ricci tensor Rᵤᵥ = 0, deriving a set of formulae for an universe void of any matter and energy.
3.2) Used the newtonian point-like non rotating mass at the origin, which was placed manually at such origin.
3.3) Altered the metric component by hand, replacing a PURE MATHEMATICAL formula (4a) with (4b), with physical meaning.

gᵤᵥ = - δᵤᵥ ; gᵤ₄ = g₄ᵤ ; g₄₄ = 1 (equation 4a, pure mathematics)

gᵤᵥ = - δᵤᵥ + α . (∂²r/∂xᵤxᵥ - δᵤᵥ/r) = - δᵤᵥ - α . xᵤxᵥ/r³ ; g₄₄ = 1 - α/r (equation 4b, hacking by force 4a)

3.4) After these dramatic changes since 1914, he obtained Gerber's formula and the desired 43"/century:

𝜖 = 24π³.a²/[c². T². (1- e²)]


4) Einstein never acknowledged publicly the 1913-1914 calculations that gave a wrong - 2.3" (corrected to - 0.0012" by 2005].
Instead, he handwrote 18" above the [Eq. 188]. Read Notes [136], [242], [243], [246] and [249] from Princeton site.

The only private use of this artificial 18" value was done in a letter to Sommerfeld (Nov.28, 1915) where he apologized for
not answering him before and explaining that the result of 18" was one of the three reasons by which he suddenly drop
2 and 1/2 years of previous work on Entwurf releases. His work with Besso on Mercury remained a secret for everyone else.

In 1916 and 1917, suspicion of plagiarism of Gerber's work arouse in scientific circles. Among others, Ernst Gehrcke, who
claimed that both formulae were mathematically identical. Gehrcke initiated a reprint of Gerber's paper in the Annalen der
Physik in 1917, where he questioned the priority of Einstein.

5) In 1920, Einstein answered (in an article) questions of journalists about accusations of plagiarism, which he denied. In the
particular case of Gerber's formula, Einstein wrote:

"Mr. Gehrcke wants to make us believe that the perihelion shift of Mercury can be explained without the theory of relativity.
So there are two possibilities. Either you invent special interplanetary masses. [...] Or you rely on a work by Gerber, who already
gave the right formula for the perihelion shift of Mercury before me. The experts are not only in agreement that Gerber’s derivation
is wrong through and through, but the formula cannot be obtained as a consequence of the main assumption made by Gerber.
Mr. Gerber’s work is therefore completely useless, an unsuccessful and erroneous theoretical attempt. I maintain that the theory
of general relativity has provided the first real explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury. I did not mention the work by Gerber
initially, because I did not know about it when I wrote my work on the perihelion motion of Mercury; even if I had been aware of it, I
would not have had any reason to mention it.[C 1]"

Paul Gerber died on 13 August 1909, so didn't have a change to discuss about priorities on retarded potentials. Same thing about
Poincaré's work using HIS relativity (7"/century), who died on July 17, 1912 in Paris, France.

Dono.

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 3:33:46 PMSep 27
to
On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 12:04:45 PM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz brainfarted:

> Paul Gerber died on 13 August 1909, so didn't have a change to discuss about priorities on retarded potentials. Same thing about
> Poincaré's work using HIS relativity (7"/century), who died on July 17, 1912 in Paris, France.


Gerber's formula fails:

1. Starlight bending by the Sun
2. Shapiro delay
3. Gravitational time dilation

You have been shown this, repeatedly, nazi boot licker

Michael Moroney

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 3:37:58 PMSep 27
to
On 9/27/2021 1:49 AM, Dono. wrote:
> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 8:39:32 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz frothed at the mouth:

Yes the mouth foam was especially thick with that one, wasn't it.

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 4:09:02 PMSep 27
to
I quote an excerpt from this link, as an additional proof that Einstein was not the author of the 1915 GR theory.

Let me be clear about what transpire on this article of one of the major modern biographers of Einstein (Galina Weinstein):

1. Einstein presented his final work on the GR theory on Nov.25 1915, with Hilbert's formulae.
2. Einstein only understood Hilbert work only by March 1916.
3. Levi-Civita convinced Einstein about a fault in his arguments (in several letters exchanged in summer-autum 1915).

Did Einstein really understood entirely what he presented to the PAS in Nov. 1915? Or he just rushed to present
other's people work?

And why this happened, if Hilbert had already made his final presentation in a lecture by Nov. 18, at Gottingen?

First, check this link and some excerpts:

Einstein’s Italian Mathematicians: Ricci, Levi-Civita, and the Birth of General Relativity
By Judith R. Goodstein

https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201909/rnoti-p1477.pdf?trk=1951&cat=collection

--------------------------- Excerpts ------------------------------------------
Einstein’s general tendency, on the other hand, was often to downplay the importance of higher mathematics
for theoretical physics.
He saw himself—along with Paul Ehrenfest (1880–1933) and Niels Bohr (1885–1962)—as “mad advocates of
principles,” a type of theoretician he contrasted with another group, the “virtuosi,” as exemplified by the Munich
physicist Arnold Sommerfeld.
........................
As Goodstein rightly notes, however, these geometrical ideas had relatively little importance for Einstein; what he wanted
from the mathematicians was an analytical tool. Thanks to his friend Marcel Grossmann (1878–1936), he found what
he was looking for in a paper Ricci and Levi-Civita wrote for Klein’s Mathematische Annalen.
........................
It is worth noting that from this time onward Einstein was rarely without a mathematical assistant or younger
physicist of the “virtuoso” type.
......................
Einstein had this to say about these exchanges:

The theory of gravitation will not find its way into my colleagues’ heads for a long time yet, no doubt. Only one, Levi-Civita
in Padua, has probably grasped the main point completely, because he is familiar with the mathematics used. But he
is seeking to tamper with one of the most important proofs in an incessant exchange of correspondence. Corresponding
with him is unusually interesting; it is currently my favorite pastime. (p. 111)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now, the first link and excerpts:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4305

Einstein the Stubborn: Correspondence between Einstein and Levi-Civita
Galina Weinstein

Before developing his 1915 General Theory of Relativity, Einstein held the "Entwurf" theory.

Tullio Levi-Civita from Padua, one of the founders of tensor calculus, objected to a major problematic element in this
theory, which reflected its global problem: its field equations were restricted to an adapted coordinate system.
Einstein proved that his gravitational tensor was a covariant tensor for adapted coordinate systems.

In an exchange of letters and postcards that began in March 1915 and ended in May 1915, Levi-Civita presented his
objections to Einstein's above proof. Einstein tried to find ways to save his proof, and found it hard to give it up.
Finally Levi-Civita convinced Einstein about a fault in his arguments. However, only in spring 1916, long after Einstein
had abandoned the 1914 theory, did he finally understand the main problem with his 1914 gravitational tensor.

In autumn 1915 the Göttingen brilliant mathematician David Hilbert found the central flaw in Einstein's 1914 derivation.

On March 30, 1916, Einstein sent to Hilbert a letter admitting, "The error you found in my paper of 1914 has now become
completely clear to me".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 4:09:15 PMSep 27
to
The dirts on you richard.
You are a hypocrite.
Liars lie and that was not Einstein.
Hawking was a liar.
Why did he say "We shall know the Mind of God."
and then say no one should believe?

Mitchell Raemsch

Dono.

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 4:30:49 PMSep 27
to
Yep, Dick is choking on it.

Dono.

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 4:32:43 PMSep 27
to
On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 1:09:02 PM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz kept on lying:

> 1. Einstein presented his final work on the GR theory on Nov.25 1915, with Hilbert's formulae.


Nope. you need to stop lying, odious kapo.



Kye Fox

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 4:52:43 PMSep 27
to
kiss my ass, dick is consistent.

Colin Brazier - European mocking of Brits queuing for fuel is short-
sighted https://www.bitchute.com/video/UtEYRH0OPGg/

Kye Fox

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 5:17:40 PMSep 27
to
Michael Moroney wrote:

>> Congratulations, I believe that your spiral to the bottom is nearly
>> complete!
>>
>>
> I think what Richard wrote was an admission that he's insane, by
> confronting it and stating nobody sane would dare to do so.

welcome to capitalist america, the country of dreams. Man down, shoot as
a dog.

MAN GETS SHOT MULTIPLE TIMES BY POLICE!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ir5tCP6PtLp6/

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 7:21:45 PMSep 27
to
Let's recap, using some excerpts from this link (about a book with the same title):

Einstein’s Italian Mathematicians: Ricci, Levi-Civita, and the Birth of General Relativity
By Judith R. Goodstein

https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201909/rnoti-p1477.pdf?trk=1951&cat=collection

--------------------------- Excerpts ------------------------------------------

Einstein’s general tendency, on the other hand, was often to downplay the importance of higher mathematics
for theoretical physics.

*******************
My NOTE: It was until he didn't find any answer with newtonian gravity morphed by HIS relativity. Read 1911 paper,
where he ended plagiarizng von Soldner (1802) for deflection of corpuscular light and Planck, for the lame and
DISTORTED transformation of the mass-energy excess E/c² from HIS light-generator at a given "h" height into a
frequency variation of light emitted at such height (f2), in a way that gravitational potential Φ (Newton) affected the
frequency at reception (f1):

(1a) E1 = E2 + E2/c² . Φ
(2a) f1 = f2 . (1+Φ/c²) **** NOTE: Using Planck's E = hf (for a photon), he applied it to (1a)

And the IDIOTIC EQUATION (2a) is still applied by physicists to explain GPS clock behavior 110 years after. Because
the retarded WAS TOLD, in his dreams, by SPACE ALIENS that the excess energy was stored into the gravitational
potential, so such inexplicable FIELD changed frequencies of light!
********************

He saw himself—along with Paul Ehrenfest (1880–1933) and Niels Bohr (1885–1962)—as “mad advocates of
principles,” a type of theoretician he contrasted with another group, the “virtuosi,” as exemplified by the Munich
physicist Arnold Sommerfeld.

*******************
My NOTE: His philosophical (machian) approach to science, as a good charlatan and indefatigable parrot, was way above
any scientific inductive/deductive focus on the physical theories of their "virtuosi colleagues". The man was sick with
resentment and ENVY about anyone gifted on mathematics and physics (Newton, Hertz, Maxwell, Planck, Lorentz, Poincaré, etc.).
But as an astute cretin, he knew what feet to suck publicly (Lorentz, Planck, etc.). In resume, he was a bootlicker with
anyone who could help him to make social advancements in the physics community. It only takes a while to read some
correspondences with others between 1905 and 1915, and HOW his self inducted sense of superiority made him to have
TWO FACES (having in private letters, available now, the most derogatory thoughts about them).
*******************
........................

As Goodstein rightly notes, however, these geometrical ideas had relatively little importance for Einstein; what he wanted
from the mathematicians was an analytical tool........ It is worth noting that from this time onward Einstein was rarely without
a mathematical assistant or YOUNGER physicist of the “virtuoso” type.

*******************
My NOTE: This is a clear evidence (one of many that historians bring to present) that he was willing TO SELL HIS SOUL TO
THE DEVIL, no matter what consequences it could create afterwards, in order to extend SR to include gravity. He probably
didn't dream that it would require abstract diff. geometry WHERE SPACE IS BENT BY GRAVITY, or that such mathematical
FANTASY would be so non-linear that it would create hundred of non-physical solutions, or that the first one (void space,
Schwarzschild) would create, since mid '50s, the myth of BLACK HOLES or, since the '70s, the myth of GW that travel along
the space STRETCHING AND WIDENING IT!

Does anybody here really believe that the retarded, by 1912, really was thinking THAT GRAVITY BENT THE SPACE-TIME?
Really? If he barely could understand, after bitching for years, the euclidean reformulation of Minkowski's relativity.


CONCLUSION: He was a charlatan, full of metaphysical fallacious philosophy. He got "partners"
all along his career from 1905 up to his peak in 1916, to help him in many ways: to bury criticism
about his plagiarism; to hand to him other's people work; to help him to move up in the society of
physics at Germany and to connect him with "young naive physicists or mathematicians", to whom
he promised fame and glory. Some of the few that made it are Ehrenfest, Levi-Civita and Bose
(who lived in perpetual gratitude to him) while others like Grossman, Besso, Fokker, etc. were buried alive.

But, ironically, Besso kept the FAILED 51 pages 1913 manuscript for 42 years until his death.
Which reason could Besso had to do such thing? Blackmail? Why this manuscript wasn't burnt
as it was done with any DRAFT on the 1905 papers, if Besso helped him since then or before?
Did Einstein knew that Besso kept it?

AGAIN: Einstein didn't produce ANYTHING concerning General Relativity (as well as SR). But,
still, he stole the work of others in a web of threads with all the ingredients of a movie.

Do any of you want to see how the machinery of the establishment RE-WRITE the history?

Watch this movie:

Einstein and Eddington
TV Movie - 2008 - 1h 34min

"Brilliant physicist Albert Einstein forges a partnership with British scientist Sir Arthur Eddington at great
personal risk and changes the course of modern science FOREVER."

Or the series Genius, with Season 1 (10 episodes, 2017): Einstein

I'll post a summary of the ten chapters later. They are described here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius_(American_TV_series)#Season_1:_Einstein_(2017)

Dono.

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 7:52:18 PMSep 27
to
On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 4:21:45 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote about himself:

> But as an astute cretin, Dick Hertz knows what shit to suck

Agreed

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 10:46:24 PMSep 27
to
1) Hypocrite: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.

False accusation, Mitchell. I stated here, all the time, what I'm writing about Einstein, E=mc², c being an universal constant
(Einstein himself abandoned it since 1910 or 1911. Read his papers), cosmology, that mathematics is not physics, etc.

I'm against the metaphysics of the special relativity, which is a result of a mathematical transformation of coordinates, and
that has a timeline for development that cover from 1887 to 1908 (Voigt to Minkowski), with actors like FitzGerald, Lorentz,
Larmor, Einstein, Poincaré (the highest mind involved into this mathematical game), and early supporters and PR people who
made a career on such theory (like Ehrenfest, Planck, Eddington, de Broglie, Dirac, Born). Others like Bohr, Schrodinger, Rutherford,
Heisenberg didn't need it.

Plus, I believe that basic relativity (SR) is just mathematical food for thought, without any physical meaning. Read this definition
from Poincaré (Wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space

"In his second relativity paper in 1905–06 Henri Poincaré showed how, BY TAKING TIME to be an imaginary fourth spacetime
coordinate ict, where c is the speed of light and i is the imaginary unit, Lorentz transformations can be VISUALIZED as ordinary
rotations of the four dimensional Euclidean SPHERE:

x² + y² + z² + (ict)² = constant"

And Minkowski, a Gottingen mathematician, took from this assertion of Poincaré to develop his space, reformulating SR.

2) Einstein not a liar but Hawking was? I don't know too much about Hawking, except that he was a gifted physical mathematician
(or mathematical physicist, as you wish) who was condemned by a disgraceful act of nature to suffer his entire adult life. And
only for this, I can tolerate anything that Hawking developed (not accept), because it was a remarkable sample of the power of will.

Einstein publicly lied for years that he didn't know about MMX or Lorentz work, only to accept both as a lie when he gained worldwide
fame. Disprove me on this, if you can. But read the thread "Lorentz 1920: Einstein is not an astronomer, yet..." before replying.

I googled your comment and found this:

"On why the universe exists: "If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would
know the mind of God"

"From A Brief History of Time (1988): Hawking later said he had used the word "God" FIGURATIVELY and was in fact an atheist."

3) The metaphysics of SR is the fuel of this forum. With 68,954 threads and 30 per page, this forum store about 1,034,310 posts
in 20 years. Eliminating 15% as unrelated crap, and separating another 5% on general relativity, it's left an amount of 827,448
posts on special relativity. Then, my hypothesis (based on the law of big numbers):

* About rockets and SR: 250,000 posts
* About twin paradox: 227,448 posts
* About bitching on SR: 50,000 posts
* About GPS and/or time dilation: 300,000 posts

Now, is this the ultimate goal of SR? To generate endless discussions about 2 or 3 concepts stated 120 years ago?
Or it's a mind's game, to see how one outperforms other's thoughts on this metaphysical, philosophical crap?

Mathematics DON'T TELL NATURE HOW TO BEHAVE. Even less, don't follow nature behavior.

All what some thousands of pretentious ants believe is WRONG, by extending what they THINK that happens on Earth and his
surroundings to the ENTIRE UNIVERSE. And this BELIEF of RELATIVISTS really enervates me.

Not for nothing, relativists are atheists, godless people. Also, in their majority, they are fvcking commies, and I can prove it on a
majority basis. Just read THE REASONS by which Einstein was invited to Japan by the nascent communist movement in 1921,
or the acceptance of relativity in the USSR and Italy, in the first decades of the XX century.

Relativity rejects God and his acts, since the early beginnings, by 1890.

Relativity promotes that everything is relative (read about political and philosophical movements behind its adoption worldwide).

Then,

- Moral and decency are RELATIVE.
- Family values are RELATIVE.
- Money power is RELATIVE.
- Politics is RELATIVE.
- Personal values are RELATIVE.
- Human measure of time by using clocks is RELATIVE.
- Intelligence is RELATIVE.
- Emotions are RELATIVE.

Everything is relative, depending on YOUR FRAME OF REFERENCE (coordinates).

And this is a perverse mechanism of thought (not a mind game anymore) that has brought DEGENERACY on this
world as NEVER was witnessed in such a vast scale. Today you have to live with self-entitled people, who live on
their OWN FRAME OF REFERENCE. Gender is relative, relationships are based on relative compatibility, etc.

No more MORAL COMPASSES to measure values against. So, everyone defines the world at wish, and this is anarchic.

There you have the consequences of relativity applied to every sphere of human activities, for the last century.

And, instead of calling me hypocrite, think about US dropping two atomic bombs on Japan to "win" a war and save more
than 1 million lives of allies, and how US behave with the "defense of Human Rights" worldwide. That's hypocrisy at national level.


Michael Moroney

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 12:15:39 AMSep 28
to
On 9/27/2021 10:46 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 5:09:15 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The dirts on you richard.
>> You are a hypocrite.
>> Liars lie and that was not Einstein.
>> Hawking was a liar.
>> Why did he say "We shall know the Mind of God."
>> and then say no one should believe?
>>
>> Mitchell Raemsch
>
> 1) Hypocrite: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.

Like Richard Hertz, who posts that he doesn't hate Einstein, but posts
all kinds of derogatory things about him and is obsessed with finding
anything and everything wrong with him, regardless whether it's true or not?

> Plus, I believe that basic relativity (SR) is just mathematical food for thought, without any physical meaning.

Sorry, but SR is 100+ year old settled science. Many things need SR to
be accounted for in their design, otherwise they wouldn't work.

> Read this definition
> from Poincaré (Wikipedia):

> And Minkowski, a Gottingen mathematician,

In case you haven't noticed, it's the XXI century and has been for a
while. We can see from all kinds of recent, much more accurate data
that SR simply works great, whether you like it or not.

> Mathematics DON'T TELL NATURE HOW TO BEHAVE.

That's right, nature does what nature does. The mathematics is part of
the MODEL we use to describe nature and predict outcomes.

Do you believe math is telling nature what to do, by the math 1+1=2, if
one apple is placed in a bag and then another apple is placed in the bag
and we look and there are two apples in the bag?

> All what some thousands of pretentious ants believe is WRONG, by extending what they THINK that happens on Earth and his
> surroundings to the ENTIRE UNIVERSE.

That is accepted science, long before Einstein, that the laws of physics
are the same everywhere. Einstein used that belief as his first
postulate. Do you think that's wrong? We can observe the spectral
lines of sodium and other atoms from a galaxy 10 billion light years
away (albeit redshifted) which is an indication the laws of physics are
(were) the same there as they are here?

> And this BELIEF of RELATIVISTS really enervates me.

This was the belief of scientists from long before Einstein, you can't
"blame" him for physics observations long before him.
>
> Not for nothing, relativists are atheists, godless people. Also, in their majority, they are fvcking commies, and I can prove it on a
> majority basis.

You can prove physicists are godless atheists and commies? I'm sure
that will come as a surprise to many religious and/or conservative
physicists!

> Just read THE REASONS by which Einstein was invited to Japan by the nascent communist movement in 1921,
> or the acceptance of relativity in the USSR and Italy, in the first decades of the XX century.

So you perhaps are saying that _those_ physicists were communists? Yawn.
>
> Relativity rejects God and his acts, since the early beginnings, by 1890.

Galileo rejected God, by coming up with relativity? Well maybe he did
after the church rejected him, and I can't blame him for that.

Science doesn't make a stand on God, neither embracing nor rejecting
God. God isn't something proven or disproven by experiments so science
takes no stand on it.

> Relativity promotes that everything is relative (read about political and philosophical movements behind its adoption worldwide).
>
> Then,
>
> - Moral and decency are RELATIVE.
> - Family values are RELATIVE.
<snip rest of blithering>

Galileo did all that 400 years ago by pointing the relativity of a
ship's motion? Wow, so Galileo was an evil man and the church was right
to come down on him hard, is that what you imply?

> Everything is relative, depending on YOUR FRAME OF REFERENCE (coordinates).
>
> And this is a perverse mechanism of thought (not a mind game anymore) that has brought DEGENERACY on this
> world as NEVER was witnessed in such a vast scale. Today you have to live with self-entitled people, who live on
> their OWN FRAME OF REFERENCE. Gender is relative, relationships are based on relative compatibility, etc.

That evil Galileo! He brought so much evil by his ship experiment! But
why did everything take some 400 years to go bad?

<snip more blithering>

> And, instead of calling me hypocrite, think about US dropping two atomic bombs on Japan to "win" a war and save more
> than 1 million lives of allies,

The bombs saved millions of Japanese lives, too. Yeah I know, tell it
to the few hundred thousand who died in the bombings who otherwise may
have survived the then-future invasion of the Japanese mainland. But
millions of others didn't die in the never-happening invasion of Japan.

> and how US behave with the "defense of Human Rights" worldwide. That's hypocrisy at national level.

Yes the US does all kinds of things I hate but that's not relevant here.
Also you have to consider the mindset of 1945, not of now, that was
relevant. In 1945 things nuclear weren't taboo like they are now. To
the 1945 generals, the atomic bombs were just big (VERY big) bombs.

Dono.

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 1:21:57 AMSep 28
to
On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 7:46:24 PM UTC-7, cretin Richard Hertz brainfarted:

> Relativity promotes that everything is relative (read about political and philosophical movements behind its adoption worldwide).
>
> Then,
>
> - Moral and decency are RELATIVE.
> - Family values are RELATIVE.
> - Money power is RELATIVE.
> - Politics is RELATIVE.
> - Personal values are RELATIVE.
> - Human measure of time by using clocks is RELATIVE.
> - Intelligence is RELATIVE.
> - Emotions are RELATIVE.
>


Dick,

This is a classical trope of all the cretins that confuse the theory of relativity with relativism. You reached a new level (of imbecility)

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 3:54:01 AMSep 28
to
On Tuesday, 28 September 2021 at 06:15:39 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Sorry, but SR is 100+ year old settled science. Many things need SR to
> be accounted for in their design, otherwise they wouldn't work.

In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep
indicating t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did, and if they
treated seriously poor idiot Tom's mad ravings of what they're
allegedly FORCED to - they wouldn't work for sure.

> That's right, nature does what nature does. The mathematics is part of
> the MODEL we use to describe nature and predict outcomes.

Speaking of mathematics, it's always good to remind that your
bunch of idiots had to assume its oldest part false, as it didn't
want to fit your madness.

JanPB

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 4:43:42 AMSep 28
to
On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 1:09:02 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> I quote an excerpt from this link, as an additional proof that Einstein was not the author of the 1915 GR theory.

Let's see:

> Let me be clear about what transpire on this article of one of the major modern biographers of Einstein (Galina Weinstein):
>
> 1. Einstein presented his final work on the GR theory on Nov.25 1915, with Hilbert's formulae.

What makes you think they were "Hilbert's formulae"? And where Hilbert would have been
without all of Einstein's prior work?

> 2. Einstein only understood Hilbert work only by March 1916.

Not even wrong.

> 3. Levi-Civita convinced Einstein about a fault in his arguments (in several letters exchanged in summer-autum 1915).

So it's forbidden now to make missteps while developing a theory?

> Did Einstein really understood entirely what he presented to the PAS in Nov. 1915? Or he just rushed to present
> other's people work?

He understood it very well. You are grasping at straws to save your little conspiracy theory.

--
Jan

JanPB

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 4:44:55 AMSep 28
to
On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 4:21:45 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Let's recap, using some excerpts from this link (about a book with the same title):

So whatever happened top your "200 mistakes" in Einstein's SR 1905 paper? Found
a brand new piece of nonsense to post idiocies about?

--
Jan

JanPB

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 5:22:30 AMSep 28
to
On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 7:46:24 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> I'm against the metaphysics of the special relativity, which is a result of a mathematical transformation of coordinates,

Not even wrong.

> and
> that has a timeline for development that cover from 1887 to 1908 (Voigt to Minkowski),

SR was not based on Voigt or Minkowski (cranks always look at formulas only, without
understanding the actual development of the theory). It was based on Maxwell's
electrodynamics and (I'm pretty sure) the direct impulse was Lorentz's 1904 big paper
(published, oddly enough for the times, in English). That paper contained formulas
similar to Voigt's yet I don't see you accusing Lorentz of copying Voigt or Fitzgerald.

> with actors like FitzGerald, Lorentz,
> Larmor, Einstein, Poincaré (the highest mind involved into this mathematical game),

Suddenly Richard likes mathematics and a mathematician.

> Plus, I believe that basic relativity (SR) is just mathematical food for thought, without any physical meaning. Read this definition
> from Poincaré (Wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space

You simply don't understand this theory and how physics is done in general. The claim
you've just made is a standard crank one, comes up here all the time. It's a result
of SR having a very low mathematical barrier of entry which has fooled countless
victims into believing they understand the theory.

> "In his second relativity paper in 1905–06 Henri Poincaré showed how, BY TAKING TIME to be an imaginary fourth spacetime
> coordinate ict, where c is the speed of light and i is the imaginary unit, Lorentz transformations can be VISUALIZED as ordinary
> rotations of the four dimensional Euclidean SPHERE:
>
> x² + y² + z² + (ict)² = constant"

Yes, it's a bad approach. It's shoehorning hyperbolic geometry into a faux-Euclidean
context which achieves nothing but confusion.

> And Minkowski, a Gottingen mathematician, took from this assertion of Poincaré to develop his space, reformulating SR.

Maybe, maybe not. We don't know how Minkowski thought of it. For him it could simply have
been the presence of the invariant (ct)^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2 in Einstein's paper that was the
inspiration.

> Einstein publicly lied for years that he didn't know about MMX or Lorentz work,

That he didn't know about the MMX is plainly obvious from his 1905 paper which is
entirely directed at reverse engineering Lorentz's 1904 results by superior means,
while discovering the brand new effect, like the transverse Doppler.

Likewise, you are completely wrong about Einstein's denial of his knowledge of
Lorentz's work given the fact I've just mentioned: his 1905 paper goes over
Lorentz's results one by one (in the "Electrodynamical part"):

1. re-derivation of the "Lorentz transformation",
2. re-derivation of the transverse and longitudinal mass,
3. re-derivation (sketch, details left to the reader) of the transformed E and B.

(Not to mention the new parts: the plausible physicality of Lorentz's
"abstract time", the transverse Doppler, etc.)

> only to accept both as a lie when he gained worldwide fame.

It's just a baseless accusation.

> Disprove me on this, if you can.

Life doesn't work that way. It is up to the accuser to supply a proof of guilt,
not to anyone else to supply a proof of innocence.

You've provided no such proof, only distortions and non-sequiturs.
All are very easy to debunk but you cannot understand those refutations.
This is a very well-known phenomenon.

--
Jan

JanPB

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 5:23:50 AMSep 28
to
Yes, he is confused by the name of the theory (it should be called "Einsteinian mechanics").

--
Jan
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages