It's a pity he died so soon, by a disease he contracted while fighting at the russian front in WWI. Even fatally ill, he had the intellectual power to disgrace
Einstein's approximation (plagiarism) of his solution for Mercury's perihelion.

Had such a bright mind lived long enough, he would provide a correct alternative to Einstein's GTR, providing a much more simple theory with
plenty of exact analytical solutions, instead of the crappy set of 10 nonlinear partial differential equations in 4 independent variables, reduced to 6 by means of Bianchi identities.

Yet, the number of parameters that exists allow physicists to fine tune them
and adjust results to any crappy result, at will.

The tensorial form for the Hilbert-Einstein field equation is:

R_µν − 1∕2 R g_µν = (8 π G∕c⁴) T_µν = x.T_µν

with the "x" constant value of 2.77x10^-43 N^-1. Such a huge value
for this multiplier is the EXCUSE for the "alleged" difficulties with LIGO's
teamwork to detect them, as the spatial distortion suffered here is in
the order of magnitude of 10^-18 meters and also (poor guys), it's
detected in the form of a gaussian shaped waveform that last millisecs.

The vacuum field equations, in an empty universe, are derived by
making energy–momentum tensor T_µν = 0 in the "trace reverse form":

R_µv = x.(T_µv - 1/2 T.g_µv)

makes R_µv = 0 the field equation in vacuum, to be used in weak fields,
where gμν (in Minkowski metric) is irrelevant.

Using this case to study the solution of R_uv = 0, without considering
the impact of a point-like mass M at the spatial point (0, 0, 0),
Schwartschild derived a set of related consequences in the parameters,
and obtained (in polar coordinates) his solution for a metric:

ds² = (1-α/R) dt² - dR²/(1-α/R) - R² (dθ² + sin² θ.dφ²)
and
R = (r³+α³)^⅓

As Schwartschild wrote, at the end of this:

"which is the exact solution of the Einstein problem.
This formula contains the sole constant of integration α, which is
dependent on the numerical value of the mass located at the origin of
the coordinates."

In the rest of his paper, Schwartschild derives the exact formulae for the
explanation of Mercury perihelion.

NOTE: This formulae was corrected by Hilbert in 1917, and named the
current formulae after Schwartschild, in tribute.

Schwartschild criticized Einstein's approximations in the paper published
in January 1916. In December 1915, he sent his solution to Einstein, which
was surprised that someone could find an exact analytical solution to his
highly non-linear equations. In several letters, he had an argument with
Schwartschild, which ended with critics to Einstein's approximations in
the published paper. Of course, this paper was forgotten, even with the
reprint by Hilbert one year after his death.

The critic (severe) was this one:

"§2. Einstein showed that this problem in the framework of the first
order approximation leads to Newton’s law, and also that the second
order approximation covers the anomaly in the motion of the perihelion
of Mercury. The following calculation provides an exact solution of
this problem. As supposed, in any case, an exact solution should have
a simple form. It is important that the resulting calculation shows the
uniqueness of this solution, while Einstein’s approach gives ambiguity,
and also that the method shown below gives (with some difficulty) the
same good approximation. The following text leads to the representation
of Einstein’s result with increasing precision."

SLAPPING EINSTEIN'S FACE (POLITELY).

Once a cheater, always a cheater.

As an astronomer (and a genius) he was very well informed. He knew
about Gerber solution, two years before his own paper on the curvature
of the Universe in 1900, and he hinted somehow that Einstein cheated
his approximation by rearranging Gerber formulae (two).

On 8/12/2021 1:50 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> It's a pity he died so soon, by a disease he contracted while fighting at the russian front in WWI. Even fatally ill, he had the intellectual power to disgrace
> Einstein's approximation (plagiarism) of his solution for Mercury's perihelion.

You're making up stuff again.

From a letter from Einstein to Schwartzchild in response to a letter
from Schwartzchild informing him of the solution:

"I have read your paper with the utmost interest. I had not expected
that one could formulate the exact solution of the problem in such a
simple way. I liked very much your mathematical treatment of the
subject. Next Thursday I shall present the work to the Academy with a
few words of explanation.

— Albert Einstein"

<snip crap>

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:09:57 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/12/2021 1:50 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > It's a pity he died so soon, by a disease he contracted while fighting at the russian front in WWI. Even fatally ill, he had the intellectual power to disgrace
> > Einstein's approximation (plagiarism) of his solution for Mercury's perihelion.
> You're making up stuff again.
>
> From a letter from Einstein to Schwartzchild in response to a letter
> from Schwartzchild informing him of the solution:
>
> "I have read your paper with the utmost interest. I had not expected
> that one could formulate the exact solution of the problem in such a
> simple way. I liked very much your mathematical treatment of the
> subject. Next Thursday I shall present the work to the Academy with a
> few words of explanation.
>
> — Albert Einstein"
>
> <snip crap>

Pure original translation of his paper. Here it's available for free:

https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905030

On the Gravitational Field of a Point-Mass, According to Einstein’s Theory
Karl Schwarzschild
Submitted on January 13, 1916

On 8/12/2021 2:22 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:09:57 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 8/12/2021 1:50 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> It's a pity he died so soon, by a disease he contracted while fighting at the russian front in WWI. Even fatally ill, he had the intellectual power to disgrace
>>> Einstein's approximation (plagiarism) of his solution for Mercury's perihelion.
>> You're making up stuff again.
>>
>> From a letter from Einstein to Schwartzchild in response to a letter
>> from Schwartzchild informing him of the solution:
>>
>> "I have read your paper with the utmost interest. I had not expected
>> that one could formulate the exact solution of the problem in such a
>> simple way. I liked very much your mathematical treatment of the
>> subject. Next Thursday I shall present the work to the Academy with a
>> few words of explanation.
>>
>> — Albert Einstein"
>>
>> <snip crap>
>
> Pure original translation of his paper. Here it's available for free:
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905030
>
> On the Gravitational Field of a Point-Mass, According to Einstein’s Theory
> Karl Schwarzschild
> Submitted on January 13, 1916
>

As I said, you're making up crap again.

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:30:26 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/12/2021 2:22 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:09:57 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 8/12/2021 1:50 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>> It's a pity he died so soon, by a disease he contracted while fighting at the russian front in WWI. Even fatally ill, he had the intellectual power to disgrace
> >>> Einstein's approximation (plagiarism) of his solution for Mercury's perihelion.
> >> You're making up stuff again.
> >>
> >> From a letter from Einstein to Schwartzchild in response to a letter
> >> from Schwartzchild informing him of the solution:
> >>
> >> "I have read your paper with the utmost interest. I had not expected
> >> that one could formulate the exact solution of the problem in such a
> >> simple way. I liked very much your mathematical treatment of the
> >> subject. Next Thursday I shall present the work to the Academy with a
> >> few words of explanation.
> >>
> >> — Albert Einstein"
> >>
> >> <snip crap>
> >
> > Pure original translation of his paper. Here it's available for free:
> >
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905030
> >
> > On the Gravitational Field of a Point-Mass, According to Einstein’s Theory
> > Karl Schwarzschild
> > Submitted on January 13, 1916
> >
> As I said, you're making up crap again.

READ THE FUCKING PAPER!!

On 8/12/2021 2:35 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:30:26 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 8/12/2021 2:22 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:09:57 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 8/12/2021 1:50 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>> It's a pity he died so soon, by a disease he contracted while fighting at the russian front in WWI. Even fatally ill, he had the intellectual power to disgrace
>>>>> Einstein's approximation (plagiarism) of his solution for Mercury's perihelion.
>>>> You're making up stuff again.
>>>>
>>>> From a letter from Einstein to Schwartzchild in response to a letter
>>>> from Schwartzchild informing him of the solution:
>>>>
>>>> "I have read your paper with the utmost interest. I had not expected
>>>> that one could formulate the exact solution of the problem in such a
>>>> simple way. I liked very much your mathematical treatment of the
>>>> subject. Next Thursday I shall present the work to the Academy with a
>>>> few words of explanation.
>>>>
>>>> — Albert Einstein"
>>>>
>>>> <snip crap>
>>>
>>> Pure original translation of his paper. Here it's available for free:
>>>
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905030
>>>
>>> On the Gravitational Field of a Point-Mass, According to Einstein’s Theory
>>> Karl Schwarzschild
>>> Submitted on January 13, 1916
>>>
>> As I said, you're making up crap again.
>
> READ THE FUCKING PAPER!!
>
I did; all you are doing is projecting your own hatred of Einstein on
Schwartzchild.

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:43:15 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/12/2021 2:35 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:30:26 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 8/12/2021 2:22 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:09:57 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 8/12/2021 1:50 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>>>> It's a pity he died so soon, by a disease he contracted while fighting at the russian front in WWI. Even fatally ill, he had the intellectual power to disgrace
> >>>>> Einstein's approximation (plagiarism) of his solution for Mercury's perihelion.
> >>>> You're making up stuff again.
> >>>>
> >>>> From a letter from Einstein to Schwartzchild in response to a letter
> >>>> from Schwartzchild informing him of the solution:
> >>>>
> >>>> "I have read your paper with the utmost interest. I had not expected
> >>>> that one could formulate the exact solution of the problem in such a
> >>>> simple way. I liked very much your mathematical treatment of the
> >>>> subject. Next Thursday I shall present the work to the Academy with a
> >>>> few words of explanation.
> >>>>
> >>>> — Albert Einstein"
> >>>>
> >>>> <snip crap>
> >>>
> >>> Pure original translation of his paper. Here it's available for free:
> >>>
> >>> https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905030
> >>>
> >>> On the Gravitational Field of a Point-Mass, According to Einstein’s Theory
> >>> Karl Schwarzschild
> >>> Submitted on January 13, 1916
> >>>
> >> As I said, you're making up crap again.
> >
> > READ THE FUCKING PAPER!!
> >
> I did; all you are doing is projecting your own hatred of Einstein on
> Schwartzchild.

And did you read §2., which I copied EXACTLY? Is that a severe criticism over Einstein's
"ambiguous" derivation of first order (Newton) and second order (sloppy copy of Gerber´s work, or not?

Are you so blind, stubborn (or something else)?

Reread my fucking OP, which may have some errors as I don't master English language.

On 8/12/2021 2:49 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:43:15 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 8/12/2021 2:35 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:

>>> READ THE FUCKING PAPER!!
>>>
>> I did; all you are doing is projecting your own hatred of Einstein on
>> Schwartzchild.
>
> And did you read §2., which I copied EXACTLY? Is that a severe criticism over Einstein's
> "ambiguous" derivation of first order (Newton) and second order (sloppy copy of Gerber´s work, or not?
>
You are still projecting your hatred of E. onto Schwartzchild.

Why are you fixated on "ambiguous"? He simply stated his solution was
exact. The translation I read didn't use that word or "ambiguity".

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:43:15 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 8/12/2021 2:35 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:30:26 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 8/12/2021 2:22 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:09:57 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/12/2021 1:50 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>>>> It's a pity he died so soon, by a disease he contracted while
>>>>>>> fighting at the russian front in WWI. Even fatally ill, he had the
>>>>>>> intellectual power to disgrace
>>>>>>> Einstein's approximation (plagiarism) of his solution for Mercury's perihelion.
>>>>>> You're making up stuff again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From a letter from Einstein to Schwartzchild in response to a letter
>>>>>> from Schwartzchild informing him of the solution:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I have read your paper with the utmost interest. I had not expected
>>>>>> that one could formulate the exact solution of the problem in such a
>>>>>> simple way. I liked very much your mathematical treatment of the
>>>>>> subject. Next Thursday I shall present the work to the Academy with a
>>>>>> few words of explanation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> — Albert Einstein"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip crap>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pure original translation of his paper. Here it's available for free:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905030
>>>>>
>>>>> On the Gravitational Field of a Point-Mass, According to Einstein’s Theory
>>>>> Karl Schwarzschild
>>>>> Submitted on January 13, 1916
>>>>>
>>>> As I said, you're making up crap again.
>>>
>>> READ THE FUCKING PAPER!!
>>>
>> I did; all you are doing is projecting your own hatred of Einstein on
>> Schwartzchild.
>
> And did you read §2., which I copied EXACTLY? Is that a severe criticism over Einstein's
> "ambiguous" derivation of first order (Newton) and second order (sloppy
> copy of Gerber´s work, or not?
>
> Are you so blind, stubborn (or something else)?
>
> Reread my fucking OP, which may have some errors as I don't master English language.
>

And so Schwarzchild’s rather mild statement of improvement over Einstein’s
work clearly indicates that other physicists did not revere Einstein in the
fashion you blather and foam about, doesn’t it? That hero-worship all seems
to be due to the general populace and the press.

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

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:49:46 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> (sloppy copy of Gerber´s work, or not?
>

Gerber "work" is invalid, nazi piece of shit. Hold your mouth open, have another spoonful of shit, swallow, like a good old nazi boy.

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 6:33:21 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:49:46 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > (sloppy copy of Gerber´s work, or not?
> >
> Gerber "work" is invalid, nazi piece of shit. Hold your mouth open, have another spoonful of shit, swallow, like a good old nazi boy. The predictions of Gerber’s potential differ significantly from those of general relativity for other phenomena, such as light deflection, which falsifies Gerber’s model. The nazi piece of shit named Richard Hertz gets to eat shit. Again.

Op 12-aug.-2021 om 07:50 schreef Richard Hertz:
> It's a pity he died so soon, by a disease he contracted while
> fighting at the russian front in WWI. Even fatally ill, he had the
> intellectual power to disgrace Einstein's approximation (plagiarism)

Trump.

Dirk Vdm

ambiguous
/amˈbɪɡjʊəs/

adjective: ambiguous

Open to more than one interpretation; not having one obvious meaning.
"ambiguous phrases"

Einstein's 1915 "solution" for Mercury's perihelion was AMBIGUOUS (not having one obvious meaning).

But he claimed victory everywhere, as it was the SELF proof that he anticipated. Idiot cheater, pulling a leg on everyone then.

And Gerber didn't want to explain any light path deflection by the Sun.

He only introduced retardation on Newton's potentials to explain Mercury's perihelion.

Paul Gerber (1854 Berlin, Germany – 13 August 1909 Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany) wasn't alive to defend himself
from Einstein's attacks in 1920. I quote from Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gerber

"So Gehrcke initiated a reprint of Gerber's 1902-paper in the Annalen der Physik in 1917, where he questioned the priority of Einstein and tried to prove a possible plagiarism by him.[A 5] However, according to Albrecht Fölsing,[B 5] Klaus Hentschel[B 6] and Roseveare,[B 7] those claims were rejected, because soon after Gerber's paper was reprinted, scientists like Hugo von Seeliger,[A 6] Max von Laue[A 7] published some papers, where it was claimed that Gerber's theory is inconsistent and his formula is not the consequence of his premises. And Einstein wrote in 1920:[A 8]

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]"

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 9:39:02 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> And Gerber didn't want to explain any light path deflection by the Sun.

Gerber's theory is FALSIFIED by the light deflection by gravitating bodies, swallow some more shit.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> ambiguous
> /amˈbɪɡjʊəs/
>
> adjective: ambiguous
>
> Open to more than one interpretation; not having one obvious meaning.
> "ambiguous phrases"
>
> Einstein's 1915 "solution" for Mercury's perihelion was AMBIGUOUS (not
> having one obvious meaning).
>
> But he claimed victory everywhere, as it was the SELF proof that he
> anticipated. Idiot cheater, pulling a leg on everyone then.
>

Oh the trouble one gets into, cherry-picking dictionary definitions to
argue a contextual meaning that isn’t really what the author intended.

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

On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 22:50:33 -0700 (PDT), Richard Hertz
<hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

>It's a pity he died so soon, by a disease he contracted while fighting at the russian front in WWI. Even fatally ill, he had the intellectual power to disgrace
>Einstein's approximation (plagiarism) of his solution for Mercury's perihelion.
>
>Had such a bright mind lived long enough, he would provide a correct alternative to Einstein's GTR, providing a much more simple theory with
>plenty of exact analytical solutions, instead of the crappy set of 10 nonlinear partial differential equations in 4 independent variables, reduced to 6 by means of Bianchi identities.
>
>Yet, the number of parameters that exists allow physicists to fine tune them
>and adjust results to any crappy result, at will.
>
>The tensorial form for the Hilbert-Einstein field equation is:
>
> R_µ? ? 1?2 R g_µ? = (8 ? G?c?) T_µ? = x.T_µ?
>
>with the "x" constant value of 2.77x10^-43 N^-1. Such a huge value
>for this multiplier is the EXCUSE for the "alleged" difficulties with LIGO's
>teamwork to detect them, as the spatial distortion suffered here is in
>the order of magnitude of 10^-18 meters and also (poor guys), it's
>detected in the form of a gaussian shaped waveform that last millisecs.
>
>The vacuum field equations, in an empty universe, are derived by
>making energy–momentum tensor T_µ? = 0 in the "trace reverse form":
>
> R_µv = x.(T_µv - 1/2 T.g_µv)
>
>makes R_µv = 0 the field equation in vacuum, to be used in weak fields,
>where g?? (in Minkowski metric) is irrelevant.
>
>Using this case to study the solution of R_uv = 0, without considering
>the impact of a point-like mass M at the spatial point (0, 0, 0),
>Schwartschild derived a set of related consequences in the parameters,
>and obtained (in polar coordinates) his solution for a metric:
>
> ds² = (1-?/R) dt² - dR²/(1-?/R) - R² (d?² + sin² ?.d?²)
> and
> R = (r³+?³)^?
>
>As Schwartschild wrote, at the end of this:
>
>"which is the exact solution of the Einstein problem.
>This formula contains the sole constant of integration ?, which is
>dependent on the numerical value of the mass located at the origin of
>the coordinates."
>
>In the rest of his paper, Schwartschild derives the exact formulae for the
>explanation of Mercury perihelion.
>
>NOTE: This formulae was corrected by Hilbert in 1917, and named the
>current formulae after Schwartschild, in tribute.
>
>Schwartschild criticized Einstein's approximations in the paper published
>in January 1916. In December 1915, he sent his solution to Einstein, which
>was surprised that someone could find an exact analytical solution to his
>highly non-linear equations. In several letters, he had an argument with
>Schwartschild, which ended with critics to Einstein's approximations in
>the published paper. Of course, this paper was forgotten, even with the
>reprint by Hilbert one year after his death.
>
>The critic (severe) was this one:
>
>"§2. Einstein showed that this problem in the framework of the first
>order approximation leads to Newton’s law, and also that the second
>order approximation covers the anomaly in the motion of the perihelion
>of Mercury. The following calculation provides an exact solution of
>this problem. As supposed, in any case, an exact solution should have
>a simple form. It is important that the resulting calculation shows the
>uniqueness of this solution, while Einstein’s approach gives ambiguity,
>and also that the method shown below gives (with some difficulty) the
>same good approximation. The following text leads to the representation
>of Einstein’s result with increasing precision."
>
>SLAPPING EINSTEIN'S FACE (POLITELY).
>
>Once a cheater, always a cheater.
>
>
>As an astronomer (and a genius) he was very well informed. He knew
>about Gerber solution, two years before his own paper on the curvature
>of the Universe in 1900, and he hinted somehow that Einstein cheated
>his approximation by rearranging Gerber formulae (two).
>

Gerber's formula was half-empirical.
He did not have the correct theory.

But this is beyond your capabilities, Richie.

w.

On 8/12/2021 12:39 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Paul Gerber (1854 Berlin, Germany – 13 August 1909 Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany) wasn't alive to defend himself
> from Einstein's attacks in 1920.

If Gerber's theory was falsified, what difference does it make whether
Einstein ignored or didn't know of the falsified theory? As Einstein
himself wrote:

> 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.

On 8/12/2021 12:32 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> ambiguous
> /amˈbɪɡjʊəs/
>
> adjective: ambiguous
>
> Open to more than one interpretation; not having one obvious meaning.
> "ambiguous phrases"
>
> Einstein's 1915 "solution" for Mercury's perihelion was AMBIGUOUS (not having one obvious meaning).

And your point is? Schwartzchild improved SR making it not ambiguous in
some way, and Einstein was happily surprised.

On 8/12/2021 12:41 PM, Dono. wrote:

> Subject: Re: Despicable kapo Richard Hertz perseveres

Don't tell him that Schwartzchild was also J*w*sh.

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 2:00:51 PM UTC-3, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
<snip>

> Gerber's formula was half-empirical.
> He did not have the correct theory.
>
> But this is beyond your capabilities, Richie.
>
> w.

And yet, his delayed potentials inspired the physicist Milgrom to develop his MOND in 1983.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics

I quote:

"Created in 1982 and first published in 1983 by Israeli physicist Mordehai Milgrom,[1] the hypothesis' original motivation was to explain why the velocities of stars in galaxies were observed to be larger than expected based on Newtonian mechanics. "

Try to dig it, Helmie.

And, actually, I proved time after time my capabilities to understand almost everything, except God, whom I accept without reserves.

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 2:21:51 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/12/2021 12:41 PM, Dono. wrote:
>
> > Subject: Re: Despicable kapo Richard Hertz perseveres
>
> Don't tell him that Schwartzchild was also J*w*sh.

Stop messing with religion and antisemitism here. Also were Hertz, Minkowski, Bohr, Born, Pauli and so many
other GENIUS (Einstein don't qualify as such, but he's at the top of the list of CHARLATANS, like Freud).

And also Scwhartschild had time for a second paper, where he abandoned the use of
point-like masses and the infinity at origin that it carries along.

Google this forgotten paper:

On the Gravitational Field of a Sphere of Incompressible Liquid, According to Einstein’s Theory
Karl Schwarzschild
Submitted on February 24, 1916

A work of a genius. He died two months after this publication.

And also a brave man and a patriot. He volunteered to fight for his country even when, being 45,
he could have been dispensed to do so. Other scientist victim of WWI.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 2:21:51 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 8/12/2021 12:41 PM, Dono. wrote:
>>
>>> Subject: Re: Despicable kapo Richard Hertz perseveres
>>
>> Don't tell him that Schwartzchild was also J*w*sh.
>
> Stop messing with religion and antisemitism here. Also were Hertz,
> Minkowski, Bohr, Born, Pauli and so many
> other GENIUS (Einstein don't qualify as such, but he's at the top of the
> list of CHARLATANS, like Freud).
>

Charlatan meaning “the guy who gets lots of shelf space in trade
bookstores”, compared with Hertz, Minkowski, Bohr, Pauli, etc. who you
think are being short-sheeted. Of course, that distinction has more to do
with what the lay public chooses to “ooh aaah” over, doesn’t it? I mean,
Bohr was freakin’ brilliant, but a charismatic personality — not so much.

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

On 8/11/21 11:50 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> It's a pity he died so soon, by a disease he contracted while fighting at the russian front in WWI. Even fatally ill, he had the intellectual power to disgrace
> Einstein's approximation (plagiarism) of his solution for Mercury's perihelion.
>

Interesting stuff!

When I studied Schwartschild's solution for a black hole, I had a
different take on the meaning of the two solutions for his quadratic
equation: I thought that it was possible that either (but not both) of
the two solutions could occur in any given universe. The usual
interpretation is that they both occur in our universe, one describing
the exterior of the black hole, and the other describing the interior of
the black hole. I found out accidentally that Dirac came to the same
conclusion ... he published a paper (in the mid 60's, I think) that
expressed that interpretation. So I'm in a tiny minority, but I'm in
good company.