The approximation used by the GPS Directoriate to explain the part of
gravitational blue shifting (45 usec) since it was made public by 1989, and
that plagues the web in any article dealing with the 38.5 μsec/day clock's
shift was INVENTED by Einstein and published on In June 1911 in the Annalen
der Physik as "Uber den Einfluβ der Schwerkraft auf die Ausbreitung des Lichtes" ("On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light")..

Here is a link to the 1923 translation of that paper, so you can fact-check it:

http://www.relativitycalculator.com/pdfs/On_the_influence_of_Gravitation_on_the_Propagation_of_Light_English.pdf

This old and forgotten paper was not related in any way to the mathematics
of his GR, presented to the Prussian Academy of Science on Nov. 25, 1915.

It anticipates results that come out from complex and non-linear set
of equations that form "his" gravitational field equation by 54 months,
and the formulae into it is exclusively based on his 1905 SR plus E=mc²,
plus a lot of fallacies to hide the use of Planck's quanta of energy and
to justify his assertion of equality between inertial and gravitational
mass.

I'll only copy here excerpts from such 1911 paper, what can be verified by
anyone by just clicking on the link and read it. It's EXTREMELY simple, but
fallacious as hell.

Maybe you'll wonder how such extremely elemental but fallacious
invention of concepts out of thin air survived not only 54 months to
be embedded into the complexity of GR. You also might wonder how
come the "exact analytical solution" given by Schwarzschild and later
corrected by Hilbert (1917) can be TUNED to match such simplicity.

Also, you might wonder how come such 1911 fallacies survived until
today and has been spread to any article or paper (as approximation)
to justify the Schwarzschild's effect on the 38.5 μsec/day.

Now, the excerpts from the 1911 paper:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 2. On the Gravitation of Energy

The theory of relativity shows that the inertial mass of a body increases
with the energy it contains; if the increase of energy amounts to E, the
increase in inertial mass is equal to E/c², where c denotes the velocity of
light. Now, is there an increase of gravitational mass corresponding to
this increase of inertial mass?
................
We consider the process of transmission of energy by radiation from S2
to S1 from a system K0, which is free of acceleration. At the moment
when the radiation energy E2 is emitted from S2 toward S1, let the velocity
of K′ relative to K0 be ZERO. The radiation will arrive at S1 when the time
h/c has elapsed (to a first approximation).

But at this moment the velocity of S1 relative to K0 is γh/c = v. Therefore
by the ordinary theory of relativity the radiation arriving at S1 does not possess the energy E2, but a greater energy E1, which is related to E2, to
a first approximation, by the equation:

(1) E1 = E2 . (1+ v/c) = E2 . (1+γh/c²)

By our ASSUMPTION exactly the same relation HOLDS if the same
process takes place in the system K, which is NOT ACCELERATED, but
is provided with a GRAVITATIONAL FIELD.
In this case we may replace γh by the potential Φ of the gravitation vector in S2, if the arbitrary constant of Φ in S1 is set to zero. We then have the
equation:

(1a) E1 = E2 + E2/c² . Φ

This equation expresses the energy law for the process under
observation. The energy E1 arriving at S1 is greater than the energy E2,
measured by the same means, which was emitted from S2, the EXCESS
BEING THE POTENTIAL ENERGY of the mass E2/c² in the gravitational
field.
............
(1b) M' - M = E/c²

The increase in GRAVITATIONAL mass is thus equal to E/c2, and therefore
equal to the increase in INERTIAL mass as given by the theory of relativity..
............

§ 3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field

f the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K′ in S2 toward
S1 had the frequency f2 relative to the clock at S2, then, relative to S1, at
its arrival at S1 it no longer has the frequency f2 relative to an identical
clock at S1, but a greater frequency f1, such that, to a first approximation

(2) f1 = f2 . (1+γh/c²)
...............
(2a) f1 = f2 . (1+Φ/c²)

********
NOTE: Using Planck's E = hf (for a photon), he applied it to (1a)
********

This result (which by our derivation is valid to a first approximation)
permits, first, the following application. Let f0 be the oscillation-number
of an ELEMENTARY LIGHT-GENERATOR, measured by a CLOCK U at the
same location. This oscillation-number is then independent of the
locations of the LIGHT-GENERATOR and the CLOCK.
...............

If we measure time at S1 with the clock U, then we must measure time
at S2 with a clock which goes 1 + Φ/c² times more slowly than the clock
U when compared with U at one at the same location. For when measured
by such a clock, the frequency of the light-ray which is considered above
is at its emission from S2

f2 . (1+Φ/c²)

and is therefore, by (2a), equal to the frequency ν1 of the same light-ray
on its arrival at S1.
..........
If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates c0, then the
velocity of light c at a location with the gravitation potential Φ will be
given by the relation

(3) c= c0 . (1+Φ/c²)

------------------------------------- End of excerpts --------------------------------------------------

Now, fast forward 104 years to 2015, in order to read the paper from
Dr. A. Mudrak et. all: "Relativistic Corrections in the European GNSS
Galileo", working at the European Space Agency - The Netherlands.

This paper criticizes the decision to NOT USE relativistic corrections
in the Galileo satellites. I posted an analysis of this paper here:

New thread for GPS, Galileo satellites and relativistic corrections.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/a1oNIn7KIFw

I quote this excerpt from the Mudrak's paper:
********************************************
3.1. Gravitational Frequency Shift

As shown in [2], the relative frequency shift between a clock experiencing
the gravitational potential Φ+ΔΦ and the one at the gravitational potential
Φ is:

Δf/f = ΔΦ/c² (1)

For an unperturbed circular Keplerian orbit, the gravitational potential omitting the higher-order harmonics in line with the approach taken in
[2] and [12] is given by

Φsat = −G.Me/r (2)

where r is the radius of the satellite orbit.
********************************************

And this EXACTLY what can be directly derived from the 1911 equation:

(2a) f1 = f2 . (1+Φ/c²)

If the elementary formula adopted by Mudrak (without questions) is
applied to Galileo satellites, as he did using for ΔΦ:

Δf/f = −G.Me/c². (1/Re - 1/Rs) , for gravitational shift.

Δf/f = + 5.3146 . 10^-10 , which gives clock differences of
47.1982 μsec/day, using:

G.ME = 3.986004418×10^14 m³/s²
c = 299792458 m/s
Rs = 26936715 m (Galileo satellite orbit radius)
Re = 6378136.55 m (Earth radius)

So, if 120 years ago, Einstein had imagined his "light-generator" located
about 26.5 Km over his head and emitting microwaves at about 2 Ghz
(I wonder why he didn't), he could have forecast future by 75 years, and
left to the future GPS enterprise a sheer warning about to take him
seriously!

Hell! He could even had invented GPS, with trilateration math and else.
After all, it is far less complex than GR, and he "invented" the laser
in 1917, when meddling with Bohr's theory, as fanatics like to point out.

BUT, and THIS is very important to HIGHLIGHT: He did all of this without
messing with non-linear, mass sensitive, space-time and tensors.

He just used the OLD LINEAR AND EUCLIDEAN SR, plus E=mc², plus
E = h.f, plus Eotvos (1885 - 1909) results for inertial and gravitational masses, plus a lot of fallacies to make you believe it.

Now, as the topic of the Schwarzschild Effect is open to many
interpretations (GR is that flexible, with more than 20 parameters to
fit into anything that appears), I left to you to wonder if this effect is
real or not.

What are the answers for:

1) t ≠ t' or t = t'?
2) Δf/f = 0 or Δf/f = −G.Me/c². (1/Re - 1/Rs) , for gravitational shift.
3) GR is correct or is a mathematical expression brought to the
physical world?
4) What are the consequences in the real life and technologies if all of
this shit is ABSOLUTELY FALSE?

On Monday, 13 September 2021 at 07:53:20 UTC+2, Richard Hertz wrote:
> The approximation used by the GPS Directoriate to explain the part of
> gravitational blue shifting (45 usec) since it was made public by 1989, and
> that plagues the web in any article dealing with the 38.5 μsec/day clock's
> shift was INVENTED by Einstein and published on In June 1911 in the Annalen

Einstein hasn't invented clock adjusting. Galileo was adjusting
his clocks, Newton was adjusting his clocks, all sane people
were and are adjusting their clocks since the beginning of the
clock history.
Oppositely, what Einstein and his minions have invented is
the law that adjusting clocks is evil and we're FORCED not to
adjust them, as not adjusting them is THE BEST WAY.

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:54:44 AM UTC-3, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Monday, 13 September 2021 at 07:53:20 UTC+2, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > The approximation used by the GPS Directoriate to explain the part of
> > gravitational blue shifting (45 usec) since it was made public by 1989, and
> > that plagues the web in any article dealing with the 38.5 μsec/day clock's
> > shift was INVENTED by Einstein and published on In June 1911 in the Annalen
> Einstein hasn't invented clock adjusting. Galileo was adjusting
> his clocks, Newton was adjusting his clocks, all sane people
> were and are adjusting their clocks since the beginning of the
> clock history.
> Oppositely, what Einstein and his minions have invented is
> the law that adjusting clocks is evil and we're FORCED not to
> adjust them, as not adjusting them is THE BEST WAY.

Very interesting comment, maluw!

As you could see, he ASSUMED that energy rise linearly with height, for a start. For doing it,
he ask his readers to disregard (for a moment) his 1905 SR and use Newton kinematics. And
with this, he start to pile up fallacies after fallacies and inserting absurd assumptions like in:

***************
§ 1. A Hypothesis as to the Physical Nature of the Gravitational Field
To avoid unnecessary complications, let us for the present DISREGARD the theory of relativity, and
regard both systems from the CUSTOMARY point of view of kinematics, and the movements occurring
in them from that of ORDINARY mechanics.
**************
And he introduces γ = - d²z/dt² as the acceleration of gravity on the vertical z axis (γ = - g at ground level).
Then, in "§ 2. On the Gravitation of Energy", he derives that there is a velocity v = γ.h/c when a particle is
coming down (involving ABSOLUTE MOTION!).

Then, he REINTRODUCED his 1905 theory of relativity to obtain (as written, in first degree of approximation)

(1) E1 = E2 . (1+ v/c) = E2 . (1+γh/c²)

and, finally, he equates γh = Φ(h) = G.Me/h (last term introduced by me, on purpose).

So, he obtain E1 = E2 . (1 + Φ/c²) (nice!)

And, when writing about his LIGHT-GENERATOR, he uses Planck's E = h.f (but doesn't declare it), to obtain

(2a) f1 = f2 . (1+Φ/c²)

And, since there, everything has been the same for more than 100 years.

And about the mystery of the "missing pulses" in clock's frequencies, he STATES that is the energy stored in
the gravitational field is responsible for such weird behavior.

Funny that not a single relativist here has post a single comment about this thread, which CAN'T BE QUESTIONED!

Maybe they CAN'T FIND any argument to contradict 1911 Einstein. Is that possible or they have to shut the fuck up?

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 8:05:36 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> And he introduces γ = - d²z/dt² as the acceleration of gravity on the vertical z axis (γ = - g at ground level).

This is basic mechanics, odious kapo.
The whole 1911 paper does all the derivations anticipating GR using only the EINSTEIN Principle of Equivalence.

You inserted your both feet in your mouth, clown. Keep up the entertainment!

> And, since there, everything has been the same for more than 100 years.

Yep, testimony of Einstein's genius. Choke on it, shiteater!

>
> And about the mystery of the "missing pulses" in clock's frequencies,

The are no "missing pulses", stubborn cretinoid.

And I forgot to say that, in the same paper where he abandoned the constancy of the speed of light:

**************************
If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates c0, then the
velocity of light c at a location with the gravitation potential Φ will be
given by the relation

(3) c= c0 . (1+Φ/c²)
**************************

He ABSOLUTELY plagiarized the paper from von Soldner (1802) about gravitational deflection of beams of light:

*****************************************************
§ 4. Bending of Light-Rays in the Gravitational Field

From the proposition which has just been proved, that the velocity of light in the
gravitational field is a function of the location, we may easily infer, by means of
Huygens's principle, that light-rays propagated across a gravitational field undergo
deflection.
...........
*****************************************************

Here is the link to the von Soldner's 1802 paper (translated):

On the Deflection of a Light Ray from its Rectilinear Motion (1801)
by Johann Georg von Soldner, translated from German by Wikisource

https://en.wikisource.org/?curid=755966

So, we have from one single paper from 1911:

- That energy E=mc² actually depends on the height above ground, besides velocity.
- That SR can be replaced by Newtonian absolute references when it's convenient, and then go back and insert results in SR.
- That Planck's quanta of energy (photon) is embedded into the formula for frequency change with gravity.
- That the speed of light is sensitive to gravity every time a beam of light goes through gravitational potentials.

- That Einstein could use fallacies and came up with anything he could INVENT, in order to be DIFFERENT than physicists
of that epoch.

- That the development of GR by Einstein Corp. was/is an artificial mathematical construct, complex
on purpose to hide fallacies and stupid 1911 assertions, only to introduce MUCH MORE of them, and that
is analytical non-linear geometry conception of nature WHICH HAS NO PHYSICAL MEANING!

MATHEMATICS IS NOT PHYSICS, but Einstein and his partners in crime paved the way to the modern degeneracy
that plagues the theoretical physics (particles, cosmology).

The world should HOMAGE engineering to make a livable and modern world, by not paying
attentions to such degeneracies of thought about how nature works and produce systems that
makes living more secure and comfortable.

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 9:09:41 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz inserted feet in mouth:
> And I forgot to say that, in the same paper where he abandoned the constancy of the speed of light:
>

No, he didn't. Proper speed of light is constant. Coordinate speed of light varies.

> He ABSOLUTELY plagiarized the paper from von Soldner (1802) about gravitational deflection of beams of light:
This is the old nazi canard, odious kapo. Keep up the entertainment!

I'm still waiting that a pro-relativity human lifeform at this forum challenge my assertions
on the 1911 paper and further consequences (called general relativity or gr).

It seems that what I posted is very difficult to digest and that answers contradicting my findings
are almost impossible.

What happens, relativity fanatics? Are you still trying to find a FAULT in my post? There is not a
single one!

Hertz: 1; relativists: 0.

It must hurt so much!

On Monday, 13 September 2021 at 17:40:56 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 8:05:36 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > And he introduces γ = - d²z/dt² as the acceleration of gravity on the vertical z axis (γ = - g at ground level).
> This is basic mechanics, odious kapo.
> The whole 1911 paper does all the derivations anticipating GR using only the EINSTEIN Principle of Equivalence.

Only such an idiot can believe such an impudent lie.

> > And, since there, everything has been the same for more than 100 years.
> Yep, testimony of Einstein's genius. Choke on it, shiteater!

In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks
keep indicating t'=t, and so do TAI and UTC. Your
"elapsed proper time" idiocy exists only in your gedankens.

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:04:54 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz spewed up:

> It seems that what I posted is yet another a total imbecility

Yep.

On Monday, 13 September 2021 at 19:21:47 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:04:54 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz spewed up:
>
> > It seems that what I posted is yet another a total imbecility

He didn't, but why wouldn't Dono lie, as expected
from relativistic scum?

On 9/13/21 11:09 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> And I forgot to say that, in the same paper [1911] where he abandoned
> the constancy of the speed of light:

Hmmmm. In 1911 he did not understand where he was going, and had only
achieved a rather small part of the journey.

General Relativity (1915) restored the constancy of the LOCAL speed of
light. (His 1911 paper was not considering a local speed; indeed the
local/global distinction had not yet been recognized.)

Look at a calendar -- today is not 1911, and today we know A LOT more
about this, including the fact that your claims are either wrong or
irrelevant.

Tom Roberts

On Monday, 13 September 2021 at 21:26:28 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

> General Relativity (1915) restored the constancy of the LOCAL speed of
> light. (His 1911 paper was not considering a local speed; indeed the
> local/global distinction had not yet been recognized.)

Sure. The constancy of the LOCAL speed of
light. We can be absolutely sure that the distance 0
will be passed in 0/c. Praise The Shit!!!

VON SOLDNER, EINSTEIN, EDDINGTON AND FRIENDS.

Starting with:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light
By A. Einstein.
Annalen der Physik, 35, pp. 898-908, 1911

******* Excerpt ****************************
§ 4. Bending of Light-Rays in the Gravitational Field

...........
α = 2kM/c²Δ

where k denotes the constant of gravitation, M the mass of the heavenly body, Δ the
distance of the ray from the center of the body.......

A light-ray going past the Sun would accordingly undergo deflection by the amount of
4 x 10^6 = 0.83 seconds of arc.
...........

It would be urgently wished that astronomers TAKE UP the question here raised, even though the
considerations presented above may seem INSUFICIENTLY established or even BIZARRE.

For, apart from any theory, there is the question whether it is possible with the equipment at present
available to detect an influence of gravitational fields on the propagation of light.

Prague, June 1911.
(Submitted 21 June 1911.)
*****************************************************

FOLLOWS: THE GHOST OF VON SOLDNER EMERGES FROM THE PAST.:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the Deflection of a Light Ray from its Rectilinear Motion (Berlin, March 1801)
by Johann Georg von Soldner, translated from German by Wikisource
https://en.wikisource.org/?curid=755966

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

.................
If thus a light ray passes a celestial body, then it will be forced by the attraction of the body to describe a hyperbola
whose concave side is directed against the attracting body, instead of progressing in a straight direction.
.................

tan ω = 2g/v. √ (v² – 4g)
.................
If we substitute into the formula for tang ω the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the sun, and assume
the radius of this body as unity, then we find ω = 0".84.
*********************************************

In von Soldner formula, Laplacian values were used (s. Traité de mécanique céleste par Laplace, Tome I, pag. 118).

tan ω = 2g/v. √ (v² – 4g) = 2g/v² . √ (1 – 4g/v²)

As ω << 1 and 4g/v² << 1, von Soldner formula reduces to:

ω ≈ 2g/v² or, being v = c, ω ≈ 2g/c²

For α = ω, 2kM/c²Δ = 2g/c² ----> g = kM/Δ

Considering that von Soldner formula contains 1800's units of current use in astronomy (origin: Laplace),

Both approximations ARE EQUAL (except 110 years difference), and both drawings are geometrically equivalent,
so the conclusion is:

Einstein (1911) plagiarized 100% von Soldner (1800), and mathematically disguised his formulae to hide that fact.

Today, Einstein wouldn't have survived a day, with the power that brings the web to almost anyone.

At any case, that result was proven to be HALF the value measured by astronomers, which Einstein later
corrected with GR manipulation and the help of Eddington and a huge establishment coverup at US and UK.

Einstein doubled the 1911 value within his paper: “The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity”, May 1916
in Annalen der Physik, probably with information that was given to him (or his friends), and obtained from
measurements at the NINE solar eclipses between April 17, 1912 and August 10, 1915. There were 11 more
solar eclipses (up to, and including the famous eclipse that Eddington used), which amount to 20 solar eclipses
between 1912 and 1919.

Enough amount to gather data, adjust math and and proofs, but only Eddington succeeded?

And not only these facts around the tricky AE. It can be proven that Einstein's Nov. 1915 paper with the approximations
for Mercury's perihelion are an exact reverse engineering of 1897 formulae, using clever tricks and multiple
approximations and fudging, to hide Gerber's results.

Gerber's formulae contained the value of Mercury's perihelion shift, as accepted in that epoch.
His paper was devoted to proof that, using delayed gravitational potentials, he could prove that
the speed of gravity (the variable) was the same as the speed of light.

Einstein's formulae, with the known value of c and delays embedded into his embryonic Entwurf II (1914),
pretended to derive the Mercury's perihelion shift in a original way, as compatible with his future Hilbert's GR.

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 4:26:28 PM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote:

<snip>

> Hmmmm. In 1911 he did not understand where he was going, and had only
> achieved a rather small part of the journey.
>
> General Relativity (1915) restored the constancy of the LOCAL speed of
> light. (His 1911 paper was not considering a local speed; indeed the
> local/global distinction had not yet been recognized.)
>
> Look at a calendar -- today is not 1911, and today we know A LOT more
> about this, including the fact that your claims are either wrong or
> irrelevant.
>
> Tom Roberts

Tom, I respect your involvement with relativity as well as Paul's and JanPB's, so far.
Each one of you are professionals and work/worked in the physics world.

But, of course, I do not adhere to such credences, as it's notorious.

I think that Einstein knew where he wanted to go, but didn't know HOW to get there
by 1911-1912, starting from Minkowski's reformulation of 1905 SR (which he hated,
territorialy and mathematically speaking) until he realized it was not going to help.

Somebody advised him about the value of Riemannian differential geometry and manifolds,
but he was helpless and ignorant until he asked Grossman's help by 1912, promising co-authoring.

He wanted to became a Newton + Maxwell kind of physics hero (nothing wrong with that).
He wanted a mathematical framework which could deal with gravity, which had no limits of
applicability and that could provide analytical solutions for a NEW physics where:

- Gravity bended beams of light when passing by massive stellar objects.
- Consequently, that caused red-shifting of light, to preserve universal constancy of light.
- Gravity was not an instantaneous force, so it had delays (as Gerber attempted to prove).
- To use his future theory to prove Gerber's attempts for Mercury, under a new light.
- To preserve the concept of space-time, so metrics like Minkowski's could exist, preserving
the legacy of SR.

And, in his own way, he turned to Maxwell-Faraday concept of fields. It was enough for him,
now the problem was: How to replace Newton's instantaneous forces with manifestations
of fields existing to have gravitational potentials (like Poisson led him to think about it).

I DON'T FIND anything questionable in such pursuit. I question what Einstein and friends
did to achieve such pursuit: They worked on behaviors of cosmic nature in a way detached
of any physical meaning, and relied on pure and abstract mathematical tools to achieve
their goals.

And this is reprehensible from any point of view, not only because it was/is unreal, but also
because such GR theory opened a Pandora Box that plagued physics ever since, creating
paradoxes, abstract explanations of reality and consumed the life of five generation of
physicists devoted to this subject, with million of man-years power of thought of bright
minds that could have used such enormous amount of effort to help in the development
of a better REAL world.

GR and cosmology, IMHO, have nothing to provide to this human world. It's an sterile effort.

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 4:13:25 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> FOLLOWS: THE GHOST OF VON SOLDNER EMERGES FROM THE PAST.:

Dumbestfuck,

Soldner result was off by 50%.

On 9/13/2021 7:46 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 4:26:28 PM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Hmmmm. In 1911 he did not understand where he was going, and had only
>> achieved a rather small part of the journey.
>>
>> General Relativity (1915) restored the constancy of the LOCAL speed of
>> light. (His 1911 paper was not considering a local speed; indeed the
>> local/global distinction had not yet been recognized.)
>>
>> Look at a calendar -- today is not 1911, and today we know A LOT more
>> about this, including the fact that your claims are either wrong or
>> irrelevant.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
>
> Tom, I respect your involvement with relativity as well as Paul's and JanPB's, so far.
> Each one of you are professionals and work/worked in the physics world.
>
> But, of course, I do not adhere to such credences, as it's notorious.

What, are you saying that relativity works fine for Tom, Paul and JanPB,
but it doesn't work for you? Now that is a rather bizarre violation of
the first postulate.
>
> He wanted to became a Newton + Maxwell kind of physics hero (nothing wrong with that).
> He wanted a mathematical framework which could deal with gravity, which had no limits of
> applicability and that could provide analytical solutions for a NEW physics where:

I don't think Einstein had a huge ego which needed to be fed like that.
I think he simply loved the physics and loved accomplishing things.

> I DON'T FIND anything questionable in such pursuit. I question what Einstein and friends
> did to achieve such pursuit: They worked on behaviors of cosmic nature in a way detached
> of any physical meaning, and relied on pure and abstract mathematical tools to achieve
> their goals.

I think assigning physical meaning to intermediate steps was skipped
simply because development was quicker. As long as the results were
meaningful in the end.
>
> And this is reprehensible from any point of view, not only because it was/is unreal,

As long as the final result was real and wasn't self-contradictory,
there isn't a problem.

> but also
> because such GR theory opened a Pandora Box that plagued physics ever since,

???

> creating paradoxes,

What plague? What paradoxes? The "paradoxes" in assorted thought
experiments aren't actual paradoxes, just something that appears to be a
paradox until the situation is analyzed. Like the traveling twin being
younger than the stay-at-home twin upon return.

> abstract explanations of reality and consumed the life of five generation of
> physicists devoted to this subject, with million of man-years power of thought of bright
> minds that could have used such enormous amount of effort to help in the development
> of a better REAL world.

The REAL world does involve relativity. Physicists developing
relativity isn't "life consumed". From relativity and those physicists,
we have the GPS, outgrowths of particle accelerators (which cannot work
without SR other than at the lowest power) treating cancer,
semiconductors, everything resulting from QFT etc.
>
> GR and cosmology, IMHO, have nothing to provide to this human world. It's an sterile effort.
>
Other than correctly working GPS systems, there really isn't too much
advantage to the common person from GR (not SR), and cosmology perhaps
less so, but they are pure science which does tend to have uses decades
later and therefore worth pursuing.

On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 02:18:45 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> What, are you saying that relativity works fine for Tom, Paul and JanPB,
> but it doesn't work for you? Now that is a rather bizarre violation of
> the first postulate.

See: Tom, Paul, Jan - what is important for them is to make
idiots like you worshipping their skill. GR is a perfect tool
for that.

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:12:55 PM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> snip cretinisms<

Maciej

You need to stop licking toilets while drunk. Which is pretty much all the time.

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 9:18:45 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> > Tom, I respect your involvement with relativity as well as Paul's and JanPB's, so far.
> > Each one of you are professionals and work/worked in the physics world.
> >
> > But, of course, I do not adhere to such credences, as it's notorious.

> What, are you saying that relativity works fine for Tom, Paul and JanPB,
> but it doesn't work for you? Now that is a rather bizarre violation of
> the first postulate.

No, it doesn't. I firmly believe that SR is a mathematical framework NOT LINKED with the real world
that I inhabit, in any possible way. Why?. Because it's a final stage of a movement within SOME
physicists that were shocked by the outcome of the Michelson experiment in 1881 and the
Michelson-Morley experiments between 1885 and 1887. FitzGerald (1889) and Lorentz (since 1892)
introduced the hypothesis of length contraction, by which Lorentz finally got a MATHEMATICAL
EXPRESSION by 1904 (corrected by Poincaré). The final stroke of a 25 years contest (a game) was
done by Einstein in 1905. ONLY MATHEMATICAL ABSTRACTIONS without connections with the real world.

But when the mathematical framework of that relativity started to gain acceptance within the physics
community in the next 20-25 years and was believed to BE THE REAL DEAL about how nature works,
then it became dangerous for any rational and logic mind outside of the metaphysical and philosophical
world. When MATHEMATICS displace PHYSICS, things turn ugly, weird. More than 116 years after that
end of contest, people is bombarded with paradoxes, incoherence and permanent indoctrination since
early age to accept these dogmas without questioning them (or you are a cranck, a weirdo, ignorant, etc.).

> > He wanted to became a Newton + Maxwell kind of physics hero (nothing wrong with that).
> > He wanted a mathematical framework which could deal with gravity, which had no limits of
> > applicability and that could provide analytical solutions for a NEW physics where:

> I don't think Einstein had a huge ego which needed to be fed like that.
> I think he simply loved the physics and loved accomplishing things.

I think the opposite of your posture. For me, he was an egomaniac desperate for public recognition ABOVE
peers. Compare his behavior with others, like Szilard, Pauli, Hertz, Bohr, von Neumann, etc. (most of them
real wunderkind). At any case, Bohr personality was closer to Einstein's one, both of them masters in PR.
He was anything but humble, at difference with Bohr.

> > I DON'T FIND anything questionable in such pursuit. I question what Einstein and friends
> > did to achieve such pursuit: They worked on behaviors of cosmic nature in a way detached
> > of any physical meaning, and relied on pure and abstract mathematical tools to achieve
> > their goals.

> I think assigning physical meaning to intermediate steps was skipped
> simply because development was quicker. As long as the results were
> meaningful in the end.

Meaningful from your point of view, not mine.

> > And this is reprehensible from any point of view, not only because it was/is unreal,
> As long as the final result was real and wasn't self-contradictory, there isn't a problem.
> > but also because such GR theory opened a Pandora Box that plagued physics ever since,
> ???
>
> > creating paradoxes,
> What plague? What paradoxes? The "paradoxes" in assorted thought experiments aren't actual paradoxes,
> just something that appears to be a paradox until the situation is analyzed. Like the traveling twin being
> younger than the stay-at-home twin upon return.

I never played the game of traveling twin paradox. I'm smart enough to not fall in paradoxes, because they
are fallacious as hell. I prefer to analyze why it's stupid to play such games or not.

> > abstract explanations of reality and consumed the life of five generation of
> > physicists devoted to this subject, with million of man-years power of thought of bright
> > minds that could have used such enormous amount of effort to help in the development
> > of a better REAL world.

> The REAL world does involve relativity. Physicists developing relativity isn't "life consumed". From relativity and
> those physicists, we have the GPS, outgrowths of particle accelerators (which cannot work without SR other than
> at the lowest power) treating cancer, semiconductors, everything resulting from QFT etc.

See? While you think you are rational, you sound like an irrational fanatic of relativity and his originators. I don't know
why you don't allow yourself to doubt, even for a moment. Fanatics don't doubt because they don't think. They repeat
their credence and don't date to question them.

> > GR and cosmology, IMHO, have nothing to provide to this human world. It's an sterile effort.
> Other than correctly working GPS systems, there really isn't too much
> advantage to the common person from GR (not SR), and cosmology perhaps
> less so, but they are pure science which does tend to have uses decades
> later and therefore worth pursuing.

We will not reach the stage of Star Trek's technologies EVER.

On 9/14/2021 1:51 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 9:18:45 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Tom, I respect your involvement with relativity as well as Paul's and JanPB's, so far.
>>> Each one of you are professionals and work/worked in the physics world.
>>>
>>> But, of course, I do not adhere to such credences, as it's notorious.
>
>> What, are you saying that relativity works fine for Tom, Paul and JanPB,
>> but it doesn't work for you? Now that is a rather bizarre violation of
>> the first postulate.
>
> No, it doesn't. I firmly believe that SR is a mathematical framework NOT LINKED with the real world
> that I inhabit, in any possible way. Why?. Because it's a final stage of a movement within SOME
> physicists that were shocked by the outcome of the Michelson experiment in 1881 and the
> Michelson-Morley experiments between 1885 and 1887. FitzGerald (1889) and Lorentz (since 1892)
> introduced the hypothesis of length contraction, by which Lorentz finally got a MATHEMATICAL
> EXPRESSION by 1904 (corrected by Poincaré).

While it was shocking to the aether scientists, real physicists analyzed
the results to figure out what went "wrong", discard any theories
disproven and try to figure out a solution that actually works. In the
case of M-M, certain (not all) aether theories were disproven but all
the ones not disproven by M-M were disproven by other experiments.

(Remember if an experiment disproves a theory, it is the theory which is
wrong, not the experiment. Mother Nature isn't lying to us)

> The final stroke of a 25 years contest (a game) was
> done by Einstein in 1905.

Game? Contest? You are really bad at trying to analyze what the people
100+ years ago were up to. They were doing physics. Not playing chess
or Monopoly or something.

> ONLY MATHEMATICAL ABSTRACTIONS without connections with the real world.

The connections to the real world are given by definitions in the
formulas used. For example:

t' = gamma*(t-vx/c^2)

is just a mathematical expression with no real world connection.
However if I explain that this is how time is viewed in one frame given
time velocity in another, and I give the definitions and meanings of the
variables such as t, t', gamma, c etc. I provide the connection to the
real world.
>
> But when the mathematical framework of that relativity started to gain acceptance within the physics
> community in the next 20-25 years and was believed to BE THE REAL DEAL about how nature works,

Well, just like always, the best theory is the one being used, until a
better one comes along. SR, then later GR were the best.

> then it became dangerous for any rational and logic mind outside of the metaphysical and philosophical
> world.

??? Just a bunch of paranoid nonsense. Science follows the scientific
method, just like always.

> When MATHEMATICS displace PHYSICS, things turn ugly, weird.

Except that never happened. Mathematics is a tool of physics, nothing more.

> More than 116 years after that
> end of contest,

What was the contest? Chess? Arm wrestling? Tiddlywinks?

> people is bombarded with paradoxes,

No paradoxes known.

> incoherence and permanent indoctrination since
> early age to accept these dogmas without questioning them

More incoherent paranoid babble.

> (or you are a cranck, a weirdo, ignorant, etc.).

Cranks get labeled as cranks by their anti-science behavior. Such as
imagining up crap like physics "indoctrination" and so forth, but the
real mark of cranks is disregarding and ignoring actual evidence which
proves their claims false and sticking to them.
>
>
> > > He wanted to became a Newton + Maxwell kind of physics hero (nothing wrong with that).
>>> He wanted a mathematical framework which could deal with gravity, which had no limits of
>>> applicability and that could provide analytical solutions for a NEW physics where:
>
>> I don't think Einstein had a huge ego which needed to be fed like that.
>> I think he simply loved the physics and loved accomplishing things.
>
> I think the opposite of your posture.

I think you are very wrong. Einstein seemed rather humble, esp.
considering the celebrity praise he started to get.

> For me, he was an egomaniac desperate for public recognition ABOVE
> peers.

A rather bizarre view.

>>> I DON'T FIND anything questionable in such pursuit. I question what Einstein and friends
>>> did to achieve such pursuit: They worked on behaviors of cosmic nature in a way detached
>>> of any physical meaning, and relied on pure and abstract mathematical tools to achieve
>>> their goals.
>
>> I think assigning physical meaning to intermediate steps was skipped
>> simply because development was quicker. As long as the results were
>> meaningful in the end.
>
> Meaningful from your point of view, not mine.

Because you are not thinking logically, since your overriding obsession
is your hatred for Einstein, facts are secondary to that. (Don't deny
it, everyone can see your mouth foam whenever the name 'Einstein' is
mentioned)
>
>>> And this is reprehensible from any point of view, not only because it was/is unreal,
>> As long as the final result was real and wasn't self-contradictory, there isn't a problem.
>>> but also because such GR theory opened a Pandora Box that plagued physics ever since,
>> ???
>>
>>> creating paradoxes,
>
>> What plague? What paradoxes? The "paradoxes" in assorted thought experiments aren't actual paradoxes,
>> just something that appears to be a paradox until the situation is analyzed. Like the traveling twin being
>> younger than the stay-at-home twin upon return.
>
> I never played the game of traveling twin paradox. I'm smart enough to not fall in paradoxes, because they
> are fallacious as hell. I prefer to analyze why it's stupid to play such games or not.

These 'paradoxes' were created to be teaching examples. Many people
think of situations similar to that described in the 'paradoxes' and
think they found a flaw, when they haven't.
>
>>> abstract explanations of reality and consumed the life of five generation of
>>> physicists devoted to this subject, with million of man-years power of thought of bright
>>> minds that could have used such enormous amount of effort to help in the development
>>> of a better REAL world.
>
>> The REAL world does involve relativity. Physicists developing relativity isn't "life consumed". From relativity and
>> those physicists, we have the GPS, outgrowths of particle accelerators (which cannot work without SR other than
>> at the lowest power) treating cancer, semiconductors, everything resulting from QFT etc.
>
> See? While you think you are rational, you sound like an irrational fanatic of relativity and his originators.

You are projecting. It is you who is acting irrationally, since your
hatred of Einstein derails your logic.

> I don't know
> why you don't allow yourself to doubt, even for a moment.

I most certainly did doubt when I first heard claims of SR etc.
Velocities don't simply add? The speed of light is c regardless of the
motions of source and destination? That can't be right. But I knew
scientists wouldn't make such claims without evidence. So I studied.

I look at the evidence generated in the years since SR. Muons reach the
earth's surface. Particle accelerators work. I read engineering specs.
The GPS explicitly gives frequencies generated by the satellites, plus
the reason for it (relativity). I had to take college courses in
semiconductor theory which has QFT under it, thus SR under it.

I also look at the behavior of so-called critics, when I see them act
irrationally or illogically when certain subjects are touched, and when
I see crankspeak such as "Einsteinians" I know much of what is being
written is regurgitated garbage from some other crank he read.

Fanatics don't doubt because they don't think. They repeat
> their credence and don't date to question them.

Yes and I can tell when fanatics such as yourself repeat their creed,
esp. when crankspeak shows up, I know the fanatics are spewing what they
read on some other crank source.
>
>>> GR and cosmology, IMHO, have nothing to provide to this human world. It's an sterile effort.
>
>> Other than correctly working GPS systems, there really isn't too much
>> advantage to the common person from GR (not SR), and cosmology perhaps
>> less so, but they are pure science which does tend to have uses decades
>> later and therefore worth pursuing.
>
> We will not reach the stage of Star Trek's technologies EVER.
>
Not a useful argument. Nobody mentioned Star Trek. It is science
fiction, with lots of stuff not possible, with or without relativity.

On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 07:24:06 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:12:55 PM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > snip cretinisms<
>
> Maciej
>
> You need to stop licking toilets while drunk. Which is pretty much all the time.

See, Dono: I'm one of the best logicians the humanity ever had and
you're just an insane religious maniac. Of course, you can't discuss
against me, you can only rave, spit and slander. So you do.

On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 09:03:19 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> While it was shocking to the aether scientists, real physicists analyzed
> the results to figure out what went "wrong", discard any theories

In the meantime in the real world, however, the clocks of GPS
keep indicating t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 9:18:45 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Tom, I respect your involvement with relativity as well as Paul's and JanPB's, so far.
>>> Each one of you are professionals and work/worked in the physics world.
>>>
>>> But, of course, I do not adhere to such credences, as it's notorious.
>
>> What, are you saying that relativity works fine for Tom, Paul and JanPB,
>> but it doesn't work for you? Now that is a rather bizarre violation of
>> the first postulate.
>
> No, it doesn't. I firmly believe that SR is a mathematical framework NOT
> LINKED with the real world
> that I inhabit, in any possible way. Why?. Because it's a final stage of
> a movement within SOME
> physicists that were shocked by the outcome of the Michelson experiment in 1881 and the
> Michelson-Morley experiments between 1885 and 1887. FitzGerald (1889) and
> Lorentz (since 1892)
> introduced the hypothesis of length contraction, by which Lorentz finally
> got a MATHEMATICAL
> EXPRESSION by 1904 (corrected by Poincaré). The final stroke of a 25
> years contest (a game) was
> done by Einstein in 1905. ONLY MATHEMATICAL ABSTRACTIONS without
> connections with the real world.
>
> But when the mathematical framework of that relativity started to gain
> acceptance within the physics
> community in the next 20-25 years and was believed to BE THE REAL DEAL
> about how nature works,

The rationale for that acceptance was continued agreement with further
experimental tests. This IS the defining metric form validity in physics.

> then it became dangerous for any rational and logic mind outside of the
> metaphysical and philosophical
> world. When MATHEMATICS displace PHYSICS, things turn ugly, weird.

What you are bemoaning is that the mathematics (which agreed with
experiment) conflicted with a previous Newtonian worldview. That is NOT
displacing physics. It is how physics actually works. Your desire that
physics be Newtonian physics is not allegiance to physics at all. To say
that this physics is ugly and weird is simply cerebral ossification on your
part, something you plainly do not want to confess. Nature IS weird. That’s
what makes it interesting. Wanting nature to be comfortably understandable
in a familiar way is the nostalgia of an old man who no longer likes
challenges. That this has happened to you is unfortunate, and you are now
like the coot on the porch bellowing “You kids get off my lawn!”

> More than 116 years after that
> end of contest, people is bombarded with paradoxes, incoherence and
> permanent indoctrination since
> early age to accept these dogmas without questioning them (or you are a
> cranck, a weirdo, ignorant, etc.).
>
>
> > > He wanted to became a Newton + Maxwell kind of physics hero (nothing
> wrong with that).
>>> He wanted a mathematical framework which could
> deal with gravity, which had no limits of
>>> applicability and that could provide analytical solutions for a NEW physics where:
>
>> I don't think Einstein had a huge ego which needed to be fed like that.
>> I think he simply loved the physics and loved accomplishing things.
>
> I think the opposite of your posture. For me, he was an egomaniac
> desperate for public recognition ABOVE
> peers. Compare his behavior with others, like Szilard, Pauli, Hertz,
> Bohr, von Neumann, etc. (most of them
> real wunderkind). At any case, Bohr personality was closer to Einstein's
> one, both of them masters in PR.
> He was anything but humble, at difference with Bohr.
>
>>> I DON'T FIND anything questionable in such pursuit. I question what Einstein and friends
>>> did to achieve such pursuit: They worked on behaviors of cosmic nature in a way detached
>>> of any physical meaning, and relied on pure and abstract mathematical tools to achieve
>>> their goals.
>
>> I think assigning physical meaning to intermediate steps was skipped
>> simply because development was quicker. As long as the results were
>> meaningful in the end.
>
> Meaningful from your point of view, not mine.
>
>>> And this is reprehensible from any point of view, not only because it was/is unreal,
>> As long as the final result was real and wasn't self-contradictory,
>> there isn't a problem.
>>> but also because such GR theory opened a
>> Pandora Box that plagued physics ever since,
>> ???
>>
>>> creating paradoxes,
>
>> What plague? What paradoxes? The "paradoxes" in assorted thought
>> experiments aren't actual paradoxes,
>> just something that appears to be a paradox until the situation is
>> analyzed. Like the traveling twin being
>> younger than the stay-at-home twin upon return.
>
> I never played the game of traveling twin paradox. I'm smart enough to
> not fall in paradoxes, because they
> are fallacious as hell. I prefer to analyze why it's stupid to play such games or not.
>
>>> abstract explanations of reality and consumed the life of five generation of
>>> physicists devoted to this subject, with million of man-years power of thought of bright
>>> minds that could have used such enormous amount of effort to help in the development
>>> of a better REAL world.
>
>> The REAL world does involve relativity. Physicists developing
>> relativity isn't "life consumed". From relativity and
>> those physicists, we have the GPS, outgrowths of particle accelerators
>> (which cannot work without SR other than
>> at the lowest power) treating cancer, semiconductors, everything resulting from QFT etc.
>
> See? While you think you are rational, you sound like an irrational
> fanatic of relativity and his originators. I don't know
> why you don't allow yourself to doubt, even for a moment. Fanatics don't
> doubt because they don't think. They repeat
> their credence and don't date to question them.
>
>>> GR and cosmology, IMHO, have nothing to provide to this human world.
>>> It's an sterile effort.
>
>> Other than correctly working GPS systems, there really isn't too much
>> advantage to the common person from GR (not SR), and cosmology perhaps
>> less so, but they are pure science which does tend to have uses decades
>> later and therefore worth pursuing.
>
> We will not reach the stage of Star Trek's technologies EVER.
>

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

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:51:54 PM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz brainfarted:
>The final stroke of a 25 years contest (a game) was
> done by Einstein in 1905. ONLY MATHEMATICAL ABSTRACTIONS without connections with the real world.
>

The sole reason hardened cranks like you can spew their idiocies for the whole world to see via computer and internet is SR. (QED).

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:11:31 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 07:24:06 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:12:55 PM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > snip cretinisms<
> >
> > Maciej
> >
> > You need to stop licking toilets while drunk. Which is pretty much all the time.

You are licking the toilets. Again.