Einstein never went along with the BH...
He said he didn't believe in a completely collapsed star.
Schwartschild wanted to say he went beyond
Einstein where he did not...

Mitchell Raemsch

Mike Fontenot wrote:

> 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! […]

It is only interesting because it is completely false; probably even a lie,
(as the record shows) born out of ignorance, arrogance, and low self-esteem,
or a mental illness, that compels the claimant to seek public attention by
posting such most ridiculous claims.

The historical truth is instead:

On 1916-01-13, Karl _Schwarzschild_¹ submitted his finding of the first
_exact solution_ of Einstein’s field equations (of general relativity) to
the Royal-Prussian Academy of Sciences, which the latter had published on
1915-11-18, ALMOST TWO MONTHS EARLIER. He arrived at that solution by
discussing the perihelion precession of Mercury AS DID EINSTEIN BEFORE.

There can be no doubt that he held Einstein in high regard (and one can see
FROM THEIR CORRESPONDENCE that this was mutual), and he never suggested any
plagiarism, not least because his paper is TITLED

„Über das Gravitationsfeld eines Massenpunktes nach der Einsteinschen
Theorie.“

which translates from German to

“On the gravitational field of a point mass ACCORDING TO THE EINSTEINIAN
THEORY.”

(emphasis mine)

<https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/%C3%9Cber_das_Gravitationsfeld_eines_Massenpunktes_nach_der_Einsteinschen_Theorie>

As one can read there, in his paper he provides an exact solution of the EFE
that CONFIRMS and IMPROVES Einsteins previous approach which was based only
on approximation. Einstein reacted to that feat in correspondence by
CONGRATULATING Schwarzschild, and promising him that he would present it to
the Academy on Schwarzschild’s behalf due to the latter’s absence:

“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.”

(Schwarzschild had mailed him a pre-print of the paper on 1915-12-22 for
PEER REVIEW, saying: “As you see, the war treated me kindly enough, in spite
of the heavy gunfire, to allow me to get away from it all and take this walk
in the land OF YOUR IDEAS.”)

See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild#Relativity>

One wonders which unfortunate combination of the aforementioned personality
traits, and a complete inability to read properly, caused the claimant to
think (if that) that any of this would amount to an accusation of plagiarism
from Schwarzschild against Einstein.

PointedEars
___________
¹ see also point 8 in <https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html>
--
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?
A: To a prism.

(from: WolframAlpha)

> One wonders which unfortunate combination of the aforementioned personality
> traits, and a complete inability to read properly, caused the claimant to
> think (if that) that any of this would amount to an accusation of plagiarism
> from Schwarzschild against Einstein.
>
Richard Hertz is a very sick man. That is the only explanation.

On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 8:33:06 PM UTC-3, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Mike Fontenot wrote:
>
> > 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! […]
>
> It is only interesting because it is completely false; probably even a lie,
> (as the record shows) born out of ignorance, arrogance, and low self-esteem,
> or a mental illness, that compels the claimant to seek public attention by
> posting such most ridiculous claims.
>
> The historical truth is instead:
>
> On 1916-01-13, Karl _Schwarzschild_¹ submitted his finding of the first
> _exact solution_ of Einstein’s field equations (of general relativity) to
> the Royal-Prussian Academy of Sciences, which the latter had published on
> 1915-11-18, ALMOST TWO MONTHS EARLIER. He arrived at that solution by
> discussing the perihelion precession of Mercury AS DID EINSTEIN BEFORE.
>
> There can be no doubt that he held Einstein in high regard (and one can see
> FROM THEIR CORRESPONDENCE that this was mutual), and he never suggested any
> plagiarism, not least because his paper is TITLED
>
> „Über das Gravitationsfeld eines Massenpunktes nach der Einsteinschen
> Theorie.“
>
> which translates from German to
>
> “On the gravitational field of a point mass ACCORDING TO THE EINSTEINIAN
> THEORY.”
>
> (emphasis mine)
>
> <https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/%C3%9Cber_das_Gravitationsfeld_eines_Massenpunktes_nach_der_Einsteinschen_Theorie>
>
> As one can read there, in his paper he provides an exact solution of the EFE
> that CONFIRMS and IMPROVES Einsteins previous approach which was based only
> on approximation. Einstein reacted to that feat in correspondence by
> CONGRATULATING Schwarzschild, and promising him that he would present it to
> the Academy on Schwarzschild’s behalf due to the latter’s absence:
>
> “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.”
>
> (Schwarzschild had mailed him a pre-print of the paper on 1915-12-22 for
> PEER REVIEW, saying: “As you see, the war treated me kindly enough, in spite
> of the heavy gunfire, to allow me to get away from it all and take this walk
> in the land OF YOUR IDEAS.”)
>
> See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild#Relativity>
>
> One wonders which unfortunate combination of the aforementioned personality
> traits, and a complete inability to read properly, caused the claimant to
> think (if that) that any of this would amount to an accusation of plagiarism
> from Schwarzschild against Einstein.
>
>
> PointedEars
> ___________
> ¹ see also point 8 in <https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html>
> --
> Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?
> A: To a prism.
>
> (from: WolframAlpha)

I NEVER wrote anything about what Schwarzschild thought about Einstein's approximation
of second order!!

I deducted that it was a veiled critic on his words: "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."

Also, Schwartschild was a consummate astronomer, a brilliant mathematician and the founding father of
cosmology, being the first one who wondered about the form and curvature of the universe (the world, by then).
By the year 1900, he had published his seminal paper:

On the Permissible Numerical Value of the Curvature of Space
Karl Schwarzschild
The presentation held at the German Astronomical Society
Annual Meeting in Heidelberg, July 8–11, 1900

Einstein was still at college while Schwarzschild was thinking and developing written proofs about the three
possible types of curvature of the universe. Quite a pioneer!

In addition, Gerber's paper was only three years old. There are HIGH chances that Schwarzchild read it, as it
was a theoretical paper on his field, as he was an erudite.

This the actual formulation made by Gerber. The real one, from german Wiki (in english Wiki, one integral formula is published):

https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Die_r%C3%A4umliche_und_zeitliche_Ausbreitung_der_Gravitation

Relation between the speed of gravity "c" and Mercury's perihelion shift Ψ is given by Gerber as:

c² = 6πµ/[ a.(1-ε²).ψ ], with µ = 4π².a³/τ²

being values for the parameters:

a = 0,3871 · 149 · 10⁶ km,
ε = 0,2056,
τ = 88 Days,
ψ = 4,789 · 10^−7

Applying Gerber's formula to the Mercury's perihelion, it gives (as done by others, time later, not by him):

ψ = 24.π³.α²/[ τ².c².(1-ε²) ]

And, 17 years after, Einstein came with (English Wiki):

ε = 24.π³.a²/[ T².c².(1-e²) ]

where e is Eccentricity, a is Semi-major axis, and T = Orbital period.

This is: the formulae are identical and give the SAME result (1898 vs. 1915).

And THAT is plagiarism with a futile attempt to disguise Gerber's results.

Also from Wiki, and I quote:
--------------------------
"It was noted by the Einstein- and relativity critic Ernst Gehrcke in 1916,[A 3] that this formula is mathematically identical
to Albert Einstein's formula (1915) for general relativity."
.....
"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."
---------------------------

OK, inconsistent they said. Lucky finding they said, indirectly.

But Gerber also anticipated 17 years that the speed of gravity was the same as of the light. And he also rejected Newton's "actions at a
distance, with infinite speed for gravity", introducing MOND's concepts of delayed gravitational potentials!

He also anticipated physicist Mordehai Milgrom MOND theory (1983) by 85 years! What a genius. And now it comes to be that MOND
is being used to explain phenomena in the Universe that GR can't.

Then? The pioneer work of Gerber should be fully recognized publicly, not only within the cosmologist's community.

New Research Supports ‘Modified Gravity’ Theory
Dec 17, 2020 by News Staff
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/modified-gravity-theory-09165.html

On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 8:45:53 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Then? The pioneer work of Gerber should be fully recognized publicly, not only within the cosmologist's community.

Cretinoid,

Gerber's "theory" fails miltiple tests:

1. Starlight bending by the sun
2. Shapiro delay
3. Gravitational dime dilation

Keep eating shit.

On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 10:35:52 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 8:45:53 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
>
>
> > Then? The pioneer work of Gerber should be fully recognized publicly, not only within the cosmologist's community.
> Cretinoid,
>
> Gerber's "theory" fails multiple tests:
>
> 1. Starlight bending by the sun
> 2. Shapiro delay
> 3. Gravitational dime dilation
>
> Keep eating shit, despicable kapo.

On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 10:41:18 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 10:35:52 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 8:45:53 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Then? The pioneer work of Gerber should be fully recognized publicly, not only within the cosmologist's community.
> > Cretinoid,
> >
> > Gerber's "theory" fails multiple tests:
> >
> > 1. Starlight bending by the sun
> > 2. Shapiro delay
> > 3. Gravitational time dilation
> >
> > Keep eating shit, despicable kapo.

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 2:42:12 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

What happens, Dono?
Is that you are scared of the tirade of rants and tantrum that you write in a public place, that you
erased your posts TWICE before the one above?

I'm talking EXCLUSIVELY of Mercury's perihelion subject. Other "proofs" were LICENSED from other sources, I guess.

On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 11:38:39 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> I'm talking EXCLUSIVELY of Mercury's perihelion subject.

Cretinoid,

The point is that Gerber theory is falsified by multiple experiments. As such, it is false. Has been false for over a 100 years. Yet, you keep sucking to "aryan science", kapo piece of shit.

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 10:36:25 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 11:38:39 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > I'm talking EXCLUSIVELY of Mercury's perihelion subject.
> Cretinoid,
>
> The point is that Gerber theory is falsified by multiple experiments. As such, it is false. Has been false for over a 100 years. Yet, you keep sucking to "aryan science", kapo piece of shit.

And what about a modern MOND theory about retarded potentials, by Mordehai Milgrom MOND? Jewish, Israeli citizen and anti-Einstein.
What, is he a "kapo" too?

See, retarded? The problem is Einstein and his crappy theories, not people with ANY KIND of religion.

I remember how you treated a person of islamic faith (apparently), years ago. All your fucking hate at full power,
and the poor guy left the forum. And this is antisemitism!

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 10:36:25 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 11:38:39 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>>> I'm talking EXCLUSIVELY of Mercury's perihelion subject.
>> Cretinoid,
>>
>> The point is that Gerber theory is falsified by multiple experiments. As
>> such, it is false. Has been false for over a 100 years. Yet, you keep
>> sucking to "aryan science", kapo piece of shit.
>
> And what about a modern MOND theory about retarded potentials, by
> Mordehai Milgrom MOND? Jewish, Israeli citizen and anti-Einstein.

What makes you think Milgrom is anti-Einstein?

I’m sure you know btw, that MOND theory, though investigated seriously for
a while and not just by the MOND folks, has been ruled out.

> What, is he a "kapo" too?
>
> See, retarded? The problem is Einstein and his crappy theories,

Why are his theories crappy if MOND is the one that failed experiment and
GR has not?

> not people with ANY KIND of religion.
>
> I remember how you treated a person of islamic faith (apparently), years
> ago. All your fucking hate at full power,
> and the poor guy left the forum. And this is antisemitism!
>

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

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 9:58:25 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 10:36:25 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 11:38:39 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > > I'm talking EXCLUSIVELY of Mercury's perihelion subject.
> > Cretinoid,
> >
> > The point is that Gerber theory is falsified by multiple experiments. As such, it is false. Has been false for over a 100 years. Yet, you keep sucking to "aryan science", kapo piece of shit.
> And what about a modern MOND theory about retarded potentials, by Mordehai Milgrom MOND? Jewish, Israeli citizen and anti-Einstein.
> What, is he a "kapo" too?

I have no idea about Milgrom but I do know that you are a kapo piece of shit pushing aryan "science". Take another spoonful of shit - open wide.

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 10:50:34 PM UTC-7, 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.

It wasn't a plagiarism. Why are you even bothering wasting your life away on this physics thing?

> 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.

Not even wrong. A random technical terms salad.

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

False. You are repeating the same lie that Pentcho Valev pushed periodically on his
idiotic posts. In fact this very question has been investigated and it turns out that
GR is actually using a minimal set of "tuning knobs", so it cannot be made to "adjust"
to anything at will. IIRC Feynman wrote some papers on that.

> 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

It's the Einstein equation. Hilbert's name is attached to the action integral.

> 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.

Gobbledygook.

> 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.

Gobbledygook.

> 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

His name was Schwarzschild. Might also learn how to pronounce it correctly,
more or less.

> 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

Schwarzschild.

> 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."

Schwarzschild was incorrect here. At the time many people hadn't yet noticed
that singularities present in a tensor written out in coordinates are NOT necessarily
present but instead they can arise from certain properties of the chosen coordinate
system. Because of that, the correct way to proceed when encountering such
singularities is to examine their nature: are they actually there or are they just
the result of a coordinate choice? It's a question analogous to the fact that
the north and south pole on Earth are perfectly well-defined points yet they
have singularities when expressed in the Mercator coordinate system.

It's actually pretty easy to see that Schwarzschild's own formula in his own
coordinates does NOT describe a point mass at the origin. This point was raised
so many times over the years here that I wrote a quick proof of this here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2N1X7SgQnLRV1otWnE2T2F6aEk

> In the rest of his paper, Schwartschild

Schwarzschild.

> derives the exact formulae for the
> explanation of Mercury perihelion.

Yes.

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

Schwarzschild.

> in tribute.

AFAIK Schwarzschild's formula is correct, although he has a typo in his
first letter to Einstein regarding this.

> Schwartschild

Schwarzschild.

> 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,

Schwarzschild. And it wasn't any "argument".

> 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.

Gobbledygook and Hollywood conspiracy fantasising. You behave like you've
never read a science paper in your life. Criticising Einstein's approximation,
good grief, what naivete!

The rest of your post is littered with similar idiocies.

--
Jan

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 11:16:29 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 10:50:34 PM UTC-7, 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.
> It wasn't a plagiarism. Why are you even bothering wasting your life away on this physics thing?
> > 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.
> Not even wrong. A random technical terms salad.
> > Yet, the number of parameters that exists allow physicists to fine tune them
> > and adjust results to any crappy result, at will.
> False. You are repeating the same lie that Pentcho Valev pushed periodically on his
> idiotic posts. In fact this very question has been investigated and it turns out that
> GR is actually using a minimal set of "tuning knobs", so it cannot be made to "adjust"
> to anything at will. IIRC Feynman wrote some papers on that.
> > 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
>
> It's the Einstein equation. Hilbert's name is attached to the action integral.
> > 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.
> Gobbledygook.
> > 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.
>
> Gobbledygook.
> > 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
> His name was Schwarzschild. Might also learn how to pronounce it correctly,
> more or less.
> > 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
>
> Schwarzschild.
> > 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."
> Schwarzschild was incorrect here. At the time many people hadn't yet noticed
> that singularities present in a tensor written out in coordinates are NOT necessarily
> present but instead they can arise from certain properties of the chosen coordinate
> system. Because of that, the correct way to proceed when encountering such
> singularities is to examine their nature: are they actually there or are they just
> the result of a coordinate choice? It's a question analogous to the fact that
> the north and south pole on Earth are perfectly well-defined points yet they
> have singularities when expressed in the Mercator coordinate system.
>
> It's actually pretty easy to see that Schwarzschild's own formula in his own
> coordinates does NOT describe a point mass at the origin. This point was raised
> so many times over the years here that I wrote a quick proof of this here:
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2N1X7SgQnLRV1otWnE2T2F6aEk
> > In the rest of his paper, Schwartschild
> Schwarzschild.
> > derives the exact formulae for the
> > explanation of Mercury perihelion.
> Yes.
> > NOTE: This formulae was corrected by Hilbert in 1917, and named the
> > current formulae after Schwartschild,
> Schwarzschild.
>
> > in tribute.
>
> AFAIK Schwarzschild's formula is correct, although he has a typo in his
> first letter to Einstein regarding this.
>
> > Schwartschild
>
> Schwarzschild.
> > 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,
>
> Schwarzschild. And it wasn't any "argument".
> > 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.
> Gobbledygook and Hollywood conspiracy fantasising. You behave like you've
> never read a science paper in your life. Criticising Einstein's approximation,
> good grief, what naivete!
>
> The rest of your post is littered with similar idiocies.
>
> --
> Jan

Once a butthurt, always a butthurt.

Why don't start watching TV, specially the sitcom The Big Bang Theory?
You are pathetically represented there in one of the characters. I won't tell a soul about the sex.

Don't cry again if I respond badly to you, as you deserve. Don't cry foul then.

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 8:51:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 11:16:29 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 10:50:34 PM UTC-7, 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.
> > It wasn't a plagiarism. Why are you even bothering wasting your life away on this physics thing?
> > > 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.
> > Not even wrong. A random technical terms salad.
> > > Yet, the number of parameters that exists allow physicists to fine tune them
> > > and adjust results to any crappy result, at will.
> > False. You are repeating the same lie that Pentcho Valev pushed periodically on his
> > idiotic posts. In fact this very question has been investigated and it turns out that
> > GR is actually using a minimal set of "tuning knobs", so it cannot be made to "adjust"
> > to anything at will. IIRC Feynman wrote some papers on that.
> > > 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
> >
> > It's the Einstein equation. Hilbert's name is attached to the action integral.
> > > 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.
> > Gobbledygook.
> > > 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.
> >
> > Gobbledygook.
> > > 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
> > His name was Schwarzschild. Might also learn how to pronounce it correctly,
> > more or less.
> > > 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
> >
> > Schwarzschild.
> > > 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."
> > Schwarzschild was incorrect here. At the time many people hadn't yet noticed
> > that singularities present in a tensor written out in coordinates are NOT necessarily
> > present but instead they can arise from certain properties of the chosen coordinate
> > system. Because of that, the correct way to proceed when encountering such
> > singularities is to examine their nature: are they actually there or are they just
> > the result of a coordinate choice? It's a question analogous to the fact that
> > the north and south pole on Earth are perfectly well-defined points yet they
> > have singularities when expressed in the Mercator coordinate system.
> >
> > It's actually pretty easy to see that Schwarzschild's own formula in his own
> > coordinates does NOT describe a point mass at the origin. This point was raised
> > so many times over the years here that I wrote a quick proof of this here:
> > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2N1X7SgQnLRV1otWnE2T2F6aEk
> > > In the rest of his paper, Schwartschild
> > Schwarzschild.
> > > derives the exact formulae for the
> > > explanation of Mercury perihelion.
> > Yes.
> > > NOTE: This formulae was corrected by Hilbert in 1917, and named the
> > > current formulae after Schwartschild,
> > Schwarzschild.
> >
> > > in tribute.
> >
> > AFAIK Schwarzschild's formula is correct, although he has a typo in his
> > first letter to Einstein regarding this.
> >
> > > Schwartschild
> >
> > Schwarzschild.
> > > 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,
> >
> > Schwarzschild. And it wasn't any "argument".
> > > 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.
> > Gobbledygook and Hollywood conspiracy fantasising. You behave like you've
> > never read a science paper in your life. Criticising Einstein's approximation,
> > good grief, what naivete!
> >
> > The rest of your post is littered with similar idiocies.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> Once a butthurt, always a butthurt.
>
> Why don't start watching TV, specially the sitcom The Big Bang Theory?
> You are pathetically represented there in one of the characters. I won't tell a soul about the sex.
>
> Don't cry again if I respond badly to you, as you deserve. Don't cry foul then.

Glad to see you have no response except a childish tantrum.

--
Jan

On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 10:34:00 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:

> > > Gobbledygook and Hollywood conspiracy fantasising. You behave like you've
> > > never read a science paper in your life. Criticising Einstein's approximation,
> > > good grief, what naivete!
> > >
> > > The rest of your post is littered with similar idiocies.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jan
> > Once a butthurt, always a butthurt.
> >
> > Why don't start watching TV, specially the sitcom The Big Bang Theory?
> > You are pathetically represented there in one of the characters. I won't tell a soul about the sex.
> >
> > Don't cry again if I respond badly to you, as you deserve. Don't cry foul then.
> Glad to see you have no response except a childish tantrum.

Not like Jan's " Gobbledygook! good grief, what naivete! fantasising!
similar idiocies!".
Not at all.