Professor George Smoot, University of California Berkeley: "Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century should the General Theory of Relativity be correct." http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p10/gr/PrecessionperihelionMercury.htm

"In his presentations of the complete version of General Relativity in late 1915 and the overview paper in 1916, Einstein presented his calculations of the three experimental tests. These were the rate of precession of the perihelion of the planet Mercury, light bending close to the Sun and the gravitational redshift. He showed the Mercury orbit correction was in excellent agreement with observation, solving a long-standing problem. He repeatedly emphasized that there was no freedom in his theory to adjust the predictions (no free parameters)..." https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2020.0040

Here Michel Janssen describes countless ad hoc adjustments made again and again until "excellent agreement with observation" was reached:

"But - as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907 - one of the goals that Einstein set himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory.. [...] The Einstein-Grossmann theory - also known as the "Entwurf" ("outline") theory after the title of Einstein and Grossmann's paper - is, in fact, already very close to the version of general relativity published in November 1915 and constitutes an enormous advance over Einstein's first attempt at a generalized theory of relativity and theory of gravitation published in 1912. The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational field - or, as we would now say, the inertio-gravitational field - should not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the so-called metric tensor field. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertio-gravitational field. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed to formulate a theory along these lines. [...] Einstein did not give up the Einstein-Grossmann theory once he had established that it could not fully explain the Mercury anomaly. He continued to work on the theory and never even mentioned the disappointing result of his work with Besso in print.. So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board.. [...] On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the Einstein-Grossmann equations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury.. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the Einstein-Grossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation." Janssen, M. (2002) The Einstein-Besso Manuscript: A Glimpse Behind the Curtain of the Wizard. In The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein (Vols. 1-10, pp. 1987-2006). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 8:22:59 AM UTC-3, Pentcho Valev wrote:

<snip>

A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more.. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the Einstein-Grossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation." Janssen, M. (2002) The Einstein-Besso Manuscript: A Glimpse Behind the Curtain of the Wizard. In The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein (Vols. 1-10, pp. 1987-2006). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

This is an ABSOLUTE LIE, propagated by kazharian MSM since 1915.

The Nov. 18, 1915 paper calculations ARE COMPLETELY UNRELATED to the prior and LAME attempt made by Besso and Einstein
in the period Jun 1913-Feb 1914, as it's CLEARLY SHOWN in the INFAMOUS "Einstein-Besso 54 pages manuscript", that was HIDDEN
in Besso's house until his death in 1954. Such manuscript was studied by dozen of scholars, and is NOW part of the Princeton online
site, where copies of more than 10,000 documents are available to general public since 2005 (50 years in THE DARK).

Such manuscript (half made by Einstein and half by Besso) contain the FAILED and INFANTILE attempt to get a solution to the problem.
The many errors and IGNORANT assumptions present in the manuscript were hidden for 90 years, because they were A SHAME.

The document generated a value of 2"/century (far from the 18"/cy that they obtained with the Nordstrom's theory, written there). But
the huge amount of misconceptions and ERRORS, revealed after 70 years, show that the real result was -0.0132 "/cy. That's why the
papers were NEVER SHOWN while Einstein was alive (as the "calculation" of 1..75" of deflection of starlight passing by the Sun).

Those who are interested can read this old thread of mine:

Einstein’s Dirty Laundry: The lost 51 pages manuscript he wrote with M.Besso in 1913 about Mercury.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/oLRiO1XB0fU/m/dI7HBmg2AwAJ

****** Excerpt *****************************************************

CONCLUSIONS:

The Einstein-Besso 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, Adrian
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 problems 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 Göttingen, 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 handwriting) 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 in his sane mind, dares to confront the
establishment.

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

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 8:42:51 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> *******************************************************

Dick,

You are regurgitating the same shit that you have eaten many times before. Bon appetit!

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 1:27:04 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 8:42:51 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > *******************************************************
>
> Dick,
>
> You are regurgitating the same shit that you have eaten many times before. Bon appetit!

As a filthy romanian gypsy, you always resort to the "eating shit" thing that you and your kazharian ancestors had as main food.

As I told you many times before: your obsession with shit is A MENTAL DISEASE called Coprophilia, also called scatophilia, that
involves sexual arousal and pleasure from feces. But you were raised in that way, a family thing.

You are so mentally sick with Einstein's narrative in the same way you are with Zelenski. That's the power that indoctrination by
MSM causes, blinding you from truth and making you unable TO READ FACTS that are supported by scholars and researchers of
PURE jewish blood, which I DOUBT you have.

Einstein screwed up big time in 1913, along with Besso (Grossman was NOT INVOLVED on the calculations). The imbeciles tried:

1) To compute the Sun as A ROTATING SPHERE (changed in 1915 by a non-rotating, point-like mass - as adviced).
2) To compute the effects of Venus, Earth and (specially) Jupiter (changed in 1915 by using ONLY Sun&Mercury).
3) To REDEFINE the value of gravitational constant G in SIX DIFFERENT FORMS, resulting in SIX different values.
4) To HACK the result of Grossman's Entwurf, by MODIFYING Grossman's results to FIT their conceptions (which changed in
1915 when directly followed 1897 Gerber's approach, fudging the SAME FORMULAE published 17 years before).

And, EVEN WITH ALL OF THIS, the pair failed miserably to get a decent result (-0.0142"/cy, adjusted by scholars after 1954).

The Nov.18, 1915 paper and lecture to the PAS are not Einstein's creature. Contain many fudges and fraudulent manipulations
of Grossman's Entwurf, following instructions of his ADVISORS (mainly the astronomer Freundlich, and Schwarzschild), in order
to MIMIC the final part of the 1897 Gerber's solution (+43"/cy).

As with Zelenski nowadays, Einstein just followed instructions of OTHERS, who wanted him to succeed (curiously, all kazharians
with no scrupules).

I see no difference between one and the other, brought to fame by the drive of western collusion of MSM and zionist politics (UK, US).

He had to pay DEARLY for his fame, travelling around the world after WWI, collecting MONEY for the settlements at Palestine.

Zelenski does his world tour by using Internet on every political space in the west. No difference, even one century after.

And you, fucking imbecile, are obliged to respect and obey what is imposed to you by indoctrination or face being outcasted as a pariah.

I pity you, mental midget.

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 10:34:21 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 1:27:04 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 8:42:51 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > > *******************************************************
> >
> > Dick,
> >
> > You are regurgitating the same shit that you have eaten many times before. Bon appetit!

> And I, as a fucking imbecile, have to keep eating the same shit over and over.

You got it!

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 3:18:42 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 10:34:21 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 1:27:04 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 8:42:51 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >
> > > > *******************************************************
> > >
> > > Dick,
> > >
> > > You are regurgitating the same shit that you have eaten many times before. Bon appetit!
> > And I, as a fucking imbecile, have to keep eating the same shit over and over.
>
> You got it!

Retarded romanian gypsy, don't forget that the 43"/cy is derived FROM (FUDGED) CALCULATIONS, even today.

Le Verrier developed the math to do it, around 1850, and got 38"/cy. By 1897, new approximations gave 42.5"/cy
(value that Gerber used as INPUT PARAMETER on his paper). Few years later, Newcomb came with 43"/cy, using
EVERY FUCKING CELESTIAL BODY IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM, again BY CALCULATION (new values of planet's mass).

The fraudster used Newcomb's 43"/cy (written in STONE as of today) PLUS Gerber's formula, obtained by FRAUDULENT
FUDGING of his mathematics in the Nov.18, 1915 infamous paper & lecture. The cretin NEVER came to this problem again,
because the fucking rat knew he was going to be exposed. NOR did he show how the fuck he obtained his 1.75" for starlight
deflection (NEVER IN HIS FUCKING LIFE), because such FALSE VALUE was derived using THE SAME CRAPPY MATH that
he used with Mercury's problem. The COWARD only announced in a couple of paragraphs (same paper) that he had DOUBLED
his 1911 "Von Soldner" paper.

And for a century, bastards like you defend this crook just because he was manufactured to be the Jewish Newton.

You are a disgrace, a shameless shadow of a man, who lives to sustain LIES because it suits your roots, not your understanding.

Fucking cretin!

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 5:26:25 PM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz wrote:

> I am a disgrace, a shameless shadow of a man, who lives to sustain LIES because it suits your roots, not your understanding.
>
> ....and a fucking cretin!

Yep, you sure are.

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 9:34:37 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 5:26:25 PM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz wrote:
>
>
> > I am a disgrace, a shameless shadow of a man, who lives to sustain LIES because it suits your roots, not your understanding.
> >
> > ....and a fucking cretin!
>
> Yep, you sure are.

The description of the "value" of Einstein is clearly written in this site since 2006.
The site has only one concern: to decide if a famous figure is "not a jew", "barely a Jew", "sorry but not a jew", "borderline jew", "jew".

http://www.jewornotjew.com/profile.jsp?ID=11

Albert Einstein, Jew Score: 15
March 14, 1879 – April 18, 1955

You can have Leonardo da Vinci. We won't argue about Isaac Newton. Thomas Edison can take a hike. Archimedes, Pythagoras, Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates are all too ancient to be considered. Copernicus? Galileo? Descartes? No thanks.

We have Albert Einstein... the smartest man who ever lived.

The word "genius" gets thrown around so much today. That football coach is a genius! That movie director is a genius! Anyone who has an IQ over some number is a genius! The word's meaning is ever so diluted. But we're not here to argue about semantics, we're here to argue if someone is Jewish or not..

Albert Einstein: Genius. Jew.

But why such a high score for someone who was non-observant? All the proof you need is in Einstein's own quote, "A Jew who sheds his faith along the way, or who even picks up a different one, is still a Jew." Besides, anyone whose work was attempted to be discredited by the Nazis as "Jewish physics", anyone who was offered the presidency of Israel without being its citizen, anyone who has become a prototype for that overused word "genius", is clearly deserving of the perfect score.

Albert Einstein: Smartest Man Ever. Jew.

Verdict: Jew.

September 13, 2006

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

At least, in this site, the administrators don't hide their intentions. Also, they did extensive research before they rank everyone.
In particular, figures that hide their roots for convenience (mainly artists and radio/TV hosts).

This site reveals their real heritage. One case that makes me mad is about Don Adams ((Donald James Yarmy, Get Smart sitcom).

The Yarmy family had two sons. The older, Don, was raised Catholic, like his mother. His brother was raised Jewish, like his father.
Still the site ranks him as "barely a jew", which is fucking stupid and racist. He was

Don had become agnostic until he served in WWII. He was injured and, while in the hospital, got a lethal disease (90% mortality rate).
He found again his catholic faith and prayed to God for his life. He survived and stayed with US Navy until 1946. Then he started his
successful career as a comedian (he lost many jobs because he didn't want to make dirty acts or tell dirty jokes). A true gentleman.

I still enjoy the reruns of Get Smart, and discover more evidence about his HUGE TALENT as a comedian and his physical abilities.

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 8:42:51 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> 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 handwriting) 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.
Gerber used the speed of light for gravity but Tom Van Flandern has shown that gravity must be much faster than that. Also see Jonathan Bain and Bernard Burchell on speed of gravity.

Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 8:42:51?AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > 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 handwriting) 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.
> Gerber used the speed of light for gravity but Tom Van Flandern has shown
> that gravity must be much faster than that. Also see Jonathan Bain and
> Bernard Burchell on speed of gravity.

Yes, and all of them are wrong about it.
BTW, this is one of those things that were discussed
in great detail on usenet, in the other SPR,
when this was still a functioning newsgroup.

The wikipedia article on Van Flandern
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Van_Flandern>
gives references to the refutations of Van Flanderns claim.
(Steven Carlip in particular)

Of course the real measurement of the speed of gravity waves
from neutron star mergers have also refuted Van Flandern
by direct observation, to a very high accuracy, (about 10^-16)

Jan

On 3/4/23 6:13 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> [...] Tom Van Flandern has shown that gravity must be much faster than [c].

He did no such thing. He merely displayed his own incompetence.

Tom Roberts

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 10:54:58 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/4/23 6:13 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > [...] Tom Van Flandern has shown that gravity must be much faster than [c].
>
> He did no such thing. He merely displayed his own incompetence.
>
> Tom Roberts

Mercury orbit swivels opposite to its orbital direction.
Planets get their new angle ellipse at closest to their
star orbital points.

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 10:54:58 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 3/4/23 6:13 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> > [...] Tom Van Flandern has shown that gravity must be much faster
>> > than [c].
>>
>> He did no such thing. He merely displayed his own incompetence.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Mercury orbit swivels opposite to its orbital direction.
> Planets get their new angle ellipse at closest to their star orbital
> points.

not true. Mercury is a planet for america.

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 2:00:34 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 8:42:51?AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > 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 handwriting) 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.
> > Gerber used the speed of light for gravity but Tom Van Flandern has shown
> > that gravity must be much faster than that. Also see Jonathan Bain and
> > Bernard Burchell on speed of gravity.
> Yes, and all of them are wrong about it.
> BTW, this is one of those things that were discussed
> in great detail on usenet, in the other SPR,
> when this was still a functioning newsgroup.
>
> The wikipedia article on Van Flandern
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Van_Flandern>
> gives references to the refutations of Van Flanderns claim.
> (Steven Carlip in particular)
>
> Of course the real measurement of the speed of gravity waves
> from neutron star mergers have also refuted Van Flandern
> by direct observation, to a very high accuracy, (about 10^-16)
>
> Jan

Why would neutron stars merge if they have both been a star
from before that stayed in a stable orbit for billions of years?
How could a completely stable orbit in time change to
unstable? Don't blame a supernova because that
would push the stars farther apart instead jan.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 10:54:58 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/4/23 6:13 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > [...] Tom Van Flandern has shown that gravity must be much faster than [c].
>
> He did no such thing. He merely displayed his own incompetence.
>
> Tom Roberts
Typical illogical response from a relativist making an ad hominem instead of a pertinent reason. Obviously, you can't deliver.

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 2:00:34?AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 8:42:51?AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
[-]
> > > > 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.
> > > Gerber used the speed of light for gravity but Tom Van Flandern has
> > > shown that gravity must be much faster than that. Also see Jonathan
> > > Bain and Bernard Burchell on speed of gravity.
> > Yes, and all of them are wrong about it.
> > BTW, this is one of those things that were discussed
> > in great detail on usenet, in the other SPR,
> > when this was still a functioning newsgroup.
> >
> > The wikipedia article on Van Flandern
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Van_Flandern>
> > gives references to the refutations of Van Flanderns claim.
> > (Steven Carlip in particular)
> >
> > Of course the real measurement of the speed of gravity waves
> > from neutron star mergers have also refuted Van Flandern
> > by direct observation, to a very high accuracy, (about 10^-16)
> >
> > Jan
>
> Why would neutron stars merge if they have both been a star
> from before that stayed in a stable orbit for billions of years?
> How could a completely stable orbit in time change to
> unstable? Don't blame a supernova because that
> would push the stars farther apart instead jan.

The orbit is stable by itself, but the neutron stars
lose energy by emitting gravitational waves.
Hence the orbit must decay,

Jan

On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:48:01 AM UTC+7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 2:00:34?AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 8:42:51?AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> [-]
> > > > > 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.
> > > > Gerber used the speed of light for gravity but Tom Van Flandern has
> > > > shown that gravity must be much faster than that. Also see Jonathan
> > > > Bain and Bernard Burchell on speed of gravity.
> > > Yes, and all of them are wrong about it.
> > > BTW, this is one of those things that were discussed
> > > in great detail on usenet, in the other SPR,
> > > when this was still a functioning newsgroup.
> > >
> > > The wikipedia article on Van Flandern
> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Van_Flandern>
> > > gives references to the refutations of Van Flanderns claim.
> > > (Steven Carlip in particular)
> > >
> > > Of course the real measurement of the speed of gravity waves
> > > from neutron star mergers have also refuted Van Flandern
> > > by direct observation, to a very high accuracy, (about 10^-16)
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > Why would neutron stars merge if they have both been a star
> > from before that stayed in a stable orbit for billions of years?
> > How could a completely stable orbit in time change to
> > unstable? Don't blame a supernova because that
> > would push the stars farther apart instead jan.
> The orbit is stable by itself, but the neutron stars
> lose energy by emitting gravitational waves.
> Hence the orbit must decay,
>
> Jan

Sorry, I keep wanting to address you as Sancho Panza, but you don't mind, right. I just want to express my appreciation for your work on the perihelion hoax and other stuff. I discussed this issue in The Big Bang Boozle, essentially that though I held the Holy Grail of Gravity and other laws of the universe firmly in my grasp, I really had no idea why the orbit would wander so, but consistent with numerous examples of Einstein's fakery could say with certainty that he would have juggled variables around more or less at random until they matched the observed result, or in the case of the Pound-Rebka GR wonder came not quite close enough to conceal it from a modern spreadsheet until the little sneak on this forum went on wiki and hid it from those who wanted to know. We may not agree on everything, but thank you for helping to document details about the dishonesty behind the government's Einsteinian mythology. Thanks to Einstein, we may never know the real cause of Mercury's perihelion. There may be many variables involved, maybe too many to decipher.
Al Foos

Foos Research <cusanusnicolas@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:48:01?AM UTC+7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 2:00:34?AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 8:42:51?AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz:
> > [-]
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > > Gerber used the speed of light for gravity but Tom Van Flandern has
> > > > > shown that gravity must be much faster than that. Also see Jonathan
> > > > > Bain and Bernard Burchell on speed of gravity.
> > > > Yes, and all of them are wrong about it.
> > > > BTW, this is one of those things that were discussed
> > > > in great detail on usenet, in the other SPR,
> > > > when this was still a functioning newsgroup.
> > > >
> > > > The wikipedia article on Van Flandern
> > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Van_Flandern>
> > > > gives references to the refutations of Van Flanderns claim.
> > > > (Steven Carlip in particular)
> > > >
> > > > Of course the real measurement of the speed of gravity waves
> > > > from neutron star mergers have also refuted Van Flandern
> > > > by direct observation, to a very high accuracy, (about 10^-16)
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > Why would neutron stars merge if they have both been a star
> > > from before that stayed in a stable orbit for billions of years?
> > > How could a completely stable orbit in time change to
> > > unstable? Don't blame a supernova because that
> > > would push the stars farther apart instead jan.
> > The orbit is stable by itself, but the neutron stars
> > lose energy by emitting gravitational waves.
> > Hence the orbit must decay,
> >
> > Jan
>
> Sorry, I keep wanting to address you as Sancho Panza,

I really can't imagine why you would want to do that,
[snip nonsense]

Jan

On 2023-03-06 09:57:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> Foos Research <cusanusnicolas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> [ … ]
>>>>>
>>>>> The orbit is stable by itself, but the neutron stars
>>> lose energy by emitting gravitational waves.
>>> Hence the orbit must decay,
>>>
>>> Jan
>>
>> Sorry, I keep wanting to address you as Sancho Panza,
>
> I really can't imagine why you would want to do that,

It didn't make any sense addressed to you. I thought it was probably
intended for Pentcho Valev, one of our resident geniuses.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 8:56:40 AM UTC-3, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-03-06 09:57:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>
> > Foos Research <cusanus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [ … ]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The orbit is stable by itself, but the neutron stars
> >>> lose energy by emitting gravitational waves.
> >>> Hence the orbit must decay,
> >>>
> >>> Jan
> >>
> >> Sorry, I keep wanting to address you as Sancho Panza,
> >
> > I really can't imagine why you would want to do that,
> It didn't make any sense addressed to you. I thought it was probably
> intended for Pentcho Valev, one of our resident geniuses.
>
> --
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Comparing with your real life, if you really are Athel, Pentcho has contributed here with about 200 times
the amount of papers and books that you, allegedly, wrote.

He's a persistent, relentless researcher that has exposed here, SCIENTIFICALLY, the many deceptions
that relativity has buried within.

And exposed them with clarity, proper references and depth.

What did you do in your "scientific" life?

On 3/6/2023 8:06 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:

>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
>
> Comparing with your real life, if you really are Athel, Pentcho has contributed here with about 200 times
> the amount of papers and books that you, allegedly, wrote.
>
> He's a persistent, relentless researcher that has exposed here, SCIENTIFICALLY, the many deceptions
> that relativity has buried within.
>
> And exposed them with clarity, proper references and depth.

What, you're trying to suck Pentcho's dick here? Wow, you must be
*really* desperate for *anyone* to support you, even Pentcho! Pentcho's
lies have been shot down here for decades!

On 2023-03-07 06:22:16 +0000, Volney said:

> On 3/6/2023 8:06 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
>>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
>>
>> Comparing with your real life, if you really are Athel, Pentcho has
>> contributed here with about 200 times
>> the amount of papers and books that you,

47500? That's a lot. I don't think even my colleague Didier Raoult
approaches that. I'm also in the dark where the serial liar has
published all these papers: I can't find them and neither can the Web
of Science. It only lists one:

"The law of self-acting machines and irreversible processes with
reversible replicas" Liar, S., 1st International Conference on Quantum
Limits to the Second Law, 2002, QUANTUM LIMITS TO THE SECOND LAW 643,
pp.430-435
>> allegedly, wrote.
>>
>> He's a persistent, relentless researcher that has exposed here,
>> SCIENTIFICALLY, the many deceptions
>> that relativity has buried within.
>>
>> And exposed them with clarity, proper references and depth.
>
> What, you're trying to suck Pentcho's dick here? Wow, you must be
> *really* desperate for *anyone* to support you, even Pentcho! Pentcho's
> lies have been shot down here for decades!

I find I'm always tempted to violate Godwin's Law when I contemplate
the Argentinian crackpot's posts.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2023-03-07 06:22:16 +0000, Volney said:
>
> > On 3/6/2023 8:06 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> >>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
> >>
> >> Comparing with your real life, if you really are Athel, Pentcho has
> >> contributed here with about 200 times
> >> the amount of papers and books that you,
>
> 47500? That's a lot. I don't think even my colleague Didier Raoult
> approaches that.

Your dear collegue has been much in the news,
some time ago in the Netherlands,
because of his nasty behaviour wrt Elisabeth Bik.
(a well known hnter of scientific plagiarism and fraud)
She had dared to expose some of his frauds.

All the usual, intimidation, harrassment by law,
doxxing, sexist insults, and so on.

You have real nice company, down there,

Jan

On 2023-03-07 10:14:32 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-03-07 06:22:16 +0000, Volney said:
>>
>>> On 3/6/2023 8:06 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>
>>>>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
>>>>
>>>> Comparing with your real life, if you really are Athel, Pentcho has
>>>> contributed here with about 200 times
>>>> the amount of papers and books that you,
>>
>> 47500? That's a lot. I don't think even my colleague Didier Raoult
>> approaches that.
>
> Your dear collegue has been much in the news,
> some time ago in the Netherlands,
> because of his nasty behaviour wrt Elisabeth Bik.
> (a well known hnter of scientific plagiarism and fraud)
> She had dared to expose some of his frauds.
>
> All the usual, intimidation, harrassment by law,
> doxxing, sexist insults, and so on.
>
> You have real nice company, down there,

We're on different campuses, and I've never met him. However, I know
several people who have worked with him. Note that "dear" is your word,
not mine!

Elisabeth Bik is a hero of our time. She gave a seminar here (by Zoom,
unfortunately) a few months ago.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 11:14:35 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2023-03-07 06:22:16 +0000, Volney said:
> >
> > > On 3/6/2023 8:06 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >
> > >>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
> > >>
> > >> Comparing with your real life, if you really are Athel, Pentcho has
> > >> contributed here with about 200 times
> > >> the amount of papers and books that you,
> >
> > 47500? That's a lot. I don't think even my colleague Didier Raoult
> > approaches that.
> Your dear collegue has been much in the news,
> some time ago in the Netherlands,
> because of his nasty behaviour wrt Elisabeth Bik.
> (a well known hnter of scientific plagiarism and fraud)
> She had dared to expose some of his frauds.
>
> All the usual, intimidation, harrassment by law,
> doxxing, sexist insults, and so on.

Well, well - aren't you scientists unfailiable demigods
free of weeknesses of ordinary mortal worms?