Here is a link to a historic document published by Lorentz in 1919,
defending Einstein's GR, and republished in NY in 1920.

After all, this sucker had gained immortality thanks to him, forgetting
that was Poincaré who named the corrections of the transforms after him.

And, in his last years (he was when he wrote this) he continued to suck
Einstein for the fame that he gained after the 1905 SR paper.

One of the first european "top dogs" in physics that came to the rescue of
him, when the debate about SR and GR was at the peak of the heat.

The Einstein Theory of Relativity
A CONCISE STATEMENT
BY Prof. H. A. LORENTZ of the University of Leyden

NEW YORK, BRENTANO'S Publisher, 1920
Third Edition

https://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/IL-publications/sources/Lorentz_Einstein_1920.pdf

I quote some lame excerpts from the translation of his 1919 book:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whether it is true or not that not more than twelve persons in all the
world are able to understand Einstein's Theory, it is nevertheless a
fact that there is a constant demand for information about this
much-debated topic of relativity.
...........
The action of the Royal Society at its meeting in London on November
6, in recognizing Dr. Albert Einstein's " theory of relativity " has caused a
great stir in scientific circles on both sides of the Atlantic.
...........
This striking confirmation has led certain German scientists to assert
that no scientific discovery of such importance has been made since
Newton's theory of gravitation was promulgated.

**********************************************************************
Dr. Einstein, it must be remembered, is a physicist and not an
astronomer. He developed his theory as a mathematical formula.
**********************************************************************
...........................
**********************************************************************
When this query was propounded by the Times correspondent to
Dr. Einstein he replied as follows:
" The term relativity refers to time and space."
...............
"This led the Dutch professor, Lorentz, and myself to develop the
theory of special relativity."
**********************************************************************

I hope that you can appreciate the high level of hypocrisy of both of
them, throwing flowers one to each other.

Here, Einstein openly admit Lorentz as co-author of his old SR theory,
because he had now an enhanced mathematical theory that he knew
it was out of reach for Lorentz. Einstein cretinism knew no limits.

If you can't appreciate how deeply involved into vanity and mendacity
the fucker was by then, you are blind, deaf and mentally impaired.

There is much more in the 62 pages booklet. I left the rest for you, if
any is interested to read something by first hand of one of the sponsors
of the sucker/fucker since 1910.

Lorentz was 67 y.o. by then, and was revered as a physicist. He was
semi-retired, but his ego felt the need to compliment Einstein's
declarations to the press, which posted him to worldwide fame along
with the fucker. Everyone was happy by then (1919), isn't it? NO, the
answer is NO.

Op 19-sep.-2021 om 21:18 schreef Richard Hertz:
> Here is a link to a historic document published by Lorentz in 1919,
> defending Einstein's GR, and republished in NY in 1920.
>
> After all, this sucker had gained immortality thanks to him, forgetting
> that was Poincaré who named the corrections of the transforms after him.
>
> And, in his last years (he was when he wrote this) he continued to suck
> Einstein for the fame that he gained after the 1905 SR paper.
>
> One of the first european "top dogs" in physics that came to the rescue of
> him, when the debate about SR and GR was at the peak of the heat.
>
> The Einstein Theory of Relativity
> A CONCISE STATEMENT
> BY Prof. H. A. LORENTZ of the University of Leyden
>
> NEW YORK, BRENTANO'S Publisher, 1920
> Third Edition
>
> https://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/IL-publications/sources/Lorentz_Einstein_1920.pdf
>
> I quote some lame excerpts from the translation of his 1919 book:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Whether it is true or not that not more than twelve persons in all the
> world are able to understand Einstein's Theory, it is nevertheless a
> fact that there is a constant demand for information about this
> much-debated topic of relativity.
> ..........
> The action of the Royal Society at its meeting in London on November
> 6, in recognizing Dr. Albert Einstein's " theory of relativity " has caused a
> great stir in scientific circles on both sides of the Atlantic.
> ..........
> This striking confirmation has led certain German scientists to assert
> that no scientific discovery of such importance has been made since
> Newton's theory of gravitation was promulgated.
>
> **********************************************************************
> Dr. Einstein, it must be remembered, is a physicist and not an
> astronomer. He developed his theory as a mathematical formula.
> **********************************************************************
> ..........................
> **********************************************************************
> When this query was propounded by the Times correspondent to
> Dr. Einstein he replied as follows:
> " The term relativity refers to time and space."
> ..............
> "This led the Dutch professor, Lorentz, and myself to develop the
> theory of special relativity."
> **********************************************************************
>
> I hope that you can appreciate the high level of hypocrisy of both of
> them, throwing flowers one to each other.
>
> Here, Einstein openly admit Lorentz as co-author of his old SR theory,
> because he had now an enhanced mathematical theory that he knew
> it was out of reach for Lorentz. Einstein cretinism knew no limits.
>
> If you can't appreciate how deeply involved into vanity and mendacity
> the fucker was by then, you are blind, deaf and mentally impaired.
>
> There is much more in the 62 pages booklet. I left the rest for you, if
> any is interested to read something by first hand of one of the sponsors
> of the sucker/fucker since 1910.
>
> Lorentz was 67 y.o. by then, and was revered as a physicist. He was
> semi-retired, but his ego felt the need to compliment Einstein's
> declarations to the press, which posted him to worldwide fame along
> with the fucker. Everyone was happy by then (1919), isn't it? NO, the
> answer is NO.

Whatever.
As long as you feel unhappy, we feel happy.

Dirk Vdm

Quotes from the original document published in November 15, 1915, at Königlich
Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Meanwhile, he was working to
disguise Hilbert's work, to present a final and mathematically correct field equation
only 2 weeks after this presentation:

Zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie (To the general theory of relativity. )

NOTE: He start by saying: This theory is magic, and if anyone doesn't grasp it, then he's
an idiot. The mathematicians Gauss, Riemann, Christoffel, Ricci and Levi-Civiter support
this theory, which is not about physics but about differential analytical geometry.

Nice start for the cult of relativity. I don't see ANY DIFFERENCE between these words and
the parroting of relativists at this forum: It's magic. It's based on the state of the art
mathematics available today. Once you really grasp it (totally shove it up into your ass and
brain), you'll be converted and start to believe: MATHEMATICS IS PHYSICS!

Meanwhile, during the WWI, Lorentz was his lapdog.

-------------------------------------------- Excerpt 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dem Zauber dieser Theorie wird sich kaum jemand entziehen können, der sie wirklich
erfaßt hat; sie bedeutet einen wahren Tri- umph der durch Gauss, Riemann, Christoffel,
Ricci und Levi-Civiter begründeten Methode des allgemeinen Differentialkalkuls.
Google translate:

Hardly anyone who has really grasped it will be able to escape the magic of this theory;
it signifies a true triumph of the method of general differential calculus established by
Gauss, Riemann, Christoffel, Ricci and Levi-Civiter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The paper, not the last with the Hilbert solution, start with:

-------------------------------------------- Excerpt 2 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
In den letzten Jahren war ich bemüht, auf die Voraussetzung der Re- lativität auch nicht
gleichförmiger Bewegungen eine allgemeine Re- lativitätstheorie zu gründen. Ich glaubte
in der Tat, das einzige Gra- vitationsgesetz gefunden zu haben, das dem sinngemäß gefaßten,
all- gemeinen Relativitätspostulate entspricht, und suchte die Notwendigkeit gerade dieser
Lösung in einer im vorigen Jahre in diesen Sitzungs- berichten erschienenen Arbeit darzutun.

Google translate:

In the last few years I have tried not to rely on the presupposition of relativity either
of uniform movements to establish a general theory of relativity. I believed
in fact to have found the only law of gravity that corresponds to the corresponds to general
postulates of relativity, and sought the necessity of precisely this to show the solution in a
paper that appeared in these meeting reports last year.

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

Eine erneute Kritik zeigte mir, daß sich jene Notwendigkeit auf dem dort eingeschlagenen Wege
absolut nicht erweisen läßt; daß dies doch der Fall zu sein schien, beruhte auf Irrtum. Das Postulat
der Relativität, soweit ich es dort gefordert habe, ist stets erfüllt, wenn man das Hamiltonsche Prinzip
zugrunde legt; es liefert aber in Wahrheit keine Handhabe fur eine Ermittelung der Hamiltonschen
Funktion H des Gravitationsfeldes. In der Tat drückt die die Wahl von H einschränkende Gleichung
(77) a. a. O. nichts anderes aus, als daß H eine Invariante bezüglich linearer Transformationen sein
soll, welche Forderung mit der der Relativität der Beschleunigung nichts zu schaffen hat.

Google translate:

Another criticism showed me that this necessity can absolutely not be proven on the path taken there;
that this did appear to be the case was based on an error. The postulate of relativity, as far as I demanded
it there, is always fulfilled if one takes Hamilton's principle as a basis; but in truth it does not provide any
means of determining the Hamiltonian function H of the gravitational field. Indeed, Equation (77), which
restricts the choice of H, expresses a. a. O. nothing else than that H should be an invariant with respect
to linear transformations, which requirement has nothing to do with the relativity of acceleration.

Wie die spezielle Relativitätstheorie auf das Postulat gegründet ist, daß ihre Gleichungen bezüglich linearer,
orthogonaler Transformationen kovariant sein sollen, so ruht die hier darzulegende Theorie auf dem Postulat
der Kovarianz aller Gleichungssysteme bezüg- lich Transformationen von der Substitutionsdeterminante

Google translate:

Just as the special theory of relativity is based on the postulate that its equations should be covariant with
regard to linear, orthogonal transformations, so the theory to be presented here rests on the postulate of the
covariance of all systems of equations with regard to transformations from the substitution determinant

Aus diesen Gründen verlor ich das Vertrauen zu den von mir aufgestellten Feldgleichungen
vollständig und suchte nach einem Wege, der die Möglichkeiten in einer natürlichen Weise
einschränkte. So ge- langte ich zu der Forderung einer allgemeineren Kovarianz der Feld-
gleichungen zurück, von der ich vor drei Jahren, als ich zusammen mit meinem Freunde
Grossmann arbeitete, nur mit schwerem Herzen abgegangen war. In der Tat waren wir damals
der im nachfolgenden gegebenen Lösung des Problems bereits ganz nahe gekommen.

Google translate:

For these reasons, I completely lost confidence in the field equations I had set up and looked
for a way that limited the possibilities in a natural way. In this way I came back to the demand
for a more general covariance of the field equations, which I had reluctantly abandoned three
years ago when I was working with my friend Grossmann. In fact, at that time we had already
come very close to the solution to the problem given below.

--------------------------------------------------- End Excerpt 2 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone on his reason has to appreciate the abilities as "snake-oil salesman" that Albert had
to show with his "friends" at the Prussian Academy of Science, who kindly attended him about
once a week for the last month, to listen corrections after corrections. And this one was not
the final. They had to wait two more weeks, before he plagiarize Hilbert by November 25.

I forgot the link to the document:

https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-doc/243

Nikola Tesla, a genius who shaped the form of the modern world with his contributions to AC current and
radio (patents sold to Westinghouse and stolen by Marconi, respectively), told to a journalist of the NYT in
1935, when he was 79:

"The theory, wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which
fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in
purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists
rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved."

The NYT paid tribute to Tesla in this way:

https://www.nytimes.com/1935/07/11/archives/tesla-79-promises-to-transmit-force-scientist-on-birthday-reveals.html

"Nikola Tesla, the man with seven hundred basic patents to his credit who startled the world on a number of
occasions in the past by achieving what others had regarded as impossible, including the large-scale generation
and distribution of alternating current, yesterday treated the combined metropolitan press to a personally
conducted tour of the labyrinthine laboratory of his fertile mind."

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nikola Tesla, a genius who shaped the form of the modern world with his
> contributions to AC current and
> radio (patents sold to Westinghouse and stolen by Marconi, respectively),
> told to a journalist of the NYT in
> 1935, when he was 79:
>
> "The theory, wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in
> magnificent mathematical garb which
> fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The
> theory is like a beggar clothed in
> purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very
> brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists
> rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved."
>
> The NYT paid tribute to Tesla in this way:
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/1935/07/11/archives/tesla-79-promises-to-transmit-force-scientist-on-birthday-reveals.html
>
> "Nikola Tesla, the man with seven hundred basic patents to his credit who
> startled the world on a number of
> occasions in the past by achieving what others had regarded as
> impossible, including the large-scale generation
> and distribution of alternating current, yesterday treated the combined
> metropolitan press to a personally
> conducted tour of the labyrinthine laboratory of his fertile mind."
>

So Tesla is the hero you prefer be worshipped.

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

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 12:18:47 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz choked on his bile:
> snip garbage<.

Choke , piece of shit, choke!

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 10:34:16 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

> Choke , piece of shit, choke!

Wait, reptilian lifeform, this ain't over till the fat lady sings.

More to come.

Meanwhile, eat your usual snack, a rat.

On 9/19/2021 10:40 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 10:34:16 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
>> Choke , piece of shit, choke!
>
> Wait, reptilian lifeform, this ain't over till the fat lady sings.
>
Sorry, Richard, the fat lady sang a century ago.

Like it or not, relativity is settled science, used daily by all kinds
of scientists and engineers, so cranks such as yourself can scream in
their rubber rooms "It isn't so!!!" and people worldwide can laugh at
said cranks.

Step by step, the last mile.

EINSTEIN’S FIRST SYSTEMATIC EXPOSITION OF GENERAL RELATIVITY
MICHEL JANSSEN

------------------------------------------------------- Excerpts--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the fall of 1915, Einstein came to the painful realization that the “Entwurf” field equations are untenable.

Casting about for new field equations, he fortuitously found his way back to equations of broad
covariance that he had reluctantly abandoned three years earlier. He had learned enough in the
meantime to see that they were physically viable after all. He silently dropped the hole argument,
which had supposedly shown that such equations were not to be had, and on November 4, 1915,
presented the rediscovered old equations to the Berlin Academy (Einstein 1915a).

He returned a week later with an important modification, and two weeks after that with a further
modification (Einstein 1915b, d). In between these two appearances before his learned colleagues,
he presented yet another paper showing that his new theory explains the anomalous advance of
the perihelion of Mercury (Einstein 1915c). Fortunately, this result was not affected by the final
modification of the field equations presented the following week.

When it was all over, Einstein commented with typical self-deprecation: “unfortunately I have immortalized
my final errors in the academy-papers;” and, referring to (Einstein 1914b): “it’s convenient with that fellow
Einstein, every year he retracts what he wrote the year before.”

What excused Einstein’s rushing into print was that he knew that the formidable Göttingen mathematician
David Hilbert was hot on his trail.

Nevertheless, these hastily written communications to the Berlin Academy proved hard to follow even for
Einstein’s staunchest supporters, such as the Leyden theorists H. A.. Lorentz and Paul Ehrenfest.

Ehrenfest took Einstein to task for his confusing treatment of energy-momentum conservation and his sudden
silence about the hole argument. Ehrenfest’s queries undoubtedly helped Einstein organize the material of
November 1915 for an authoritative exposition of the new theory. A new treatment was badly needed, since the
developments of November 1915 had rendered much of the premature review article of November 1914 obsolete.
********************************************************************************************************************

The world will never know how Einstein hacked his 1914 Entwurf 2.0, on his Nov. 4, 1915 paper:

Erklarung der Perihelbewegung des Merkur aus der allgemeinen Realtivitatstheorie
Von A. Einstein, 1915

to come to a final (Gerber's formula) from this modern expression (Hilbert final):

Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 0, by making 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ = 0

In the above paper, Einstein simplified the equation to this equation that opens the Nov.4 paper:

Σᵢ ∂Γⁱᵤᵥ/∂xᵢ + Σᵢᵣ Γⁱᵤᵣ Γʳᵥᵢ = 0 (1)

with

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

and, due to his assertion: "Otherwise, we make the same fundamental hypothesis as in the last paper,
that the scalar of the energy tensor of the ”material“ always vanishes, so that we have the determinant equation"

|gᵤᵥ| = -1 (3)

Einstein follows: "We place a point mass (the Sun) at the origin of the coordinate system. The gravitational
field, which this mass point produces, can be calculated from these equations through successive
approximations. In this regard, one may think that the gᵤᵥ for the given solar mass is not yet mathematically
fully determined through (1) and (3).
.....................
"These overlying considerations allow me to obtain a solution without considering the question whether or not
it is the only unique possibility. With the above in mind, we go forward. The gᵤᵥ is given next in the “zero-th
approximation” in accord with the Relativity Theory scheme"

Note: follows the -1, -1, -1, +1 matrix.

"Or more compactly gᵤᵥ = - δᵤᵥ ; gᵤ₄ = g₄ᵤ ; g₄₄ = 1

Hereby, u and v are the indices 1, 2, 3: the δᵤᵥ is the Kronecker delta symbol equal to 1 or 0,
that is when either u = v or u ≠ v."

Now, with the simplifications that Schwarzschild used to obtain an exact analytical result:

"The following given solutions have the following coordinate system-tied properties:

1. All components are independent of x4.
2. The solution is (spatially) symmetric about the origin of the coordinate system, in the sense that
one obtains the same solution if one makes a linear orthogonal (spatial) transformation.
3. The equations gᵤ₄ = g₄ᵤ = 0 are valid exactly (for u = 1, 2, 3).
4. The gᵤᵥ possess at infinity the values given in (4a)."

Is obtained the 1898 Gerber's formula (by hacking the approximations, fudging the formulae that follows).

"This leads one to the period T (in seconds), so one obtains with c as light velocity in cm/sec:

𝜖 = 24π³.a²/[c² . T². (1- e²)]

This calculation leads to the planet Mercury to move its perihelion forward by 43′′ per century, while the
astronomers give 45′′±5′′, an exceptional difference between observation and Newtonian theory. This has
great significance as full agreement."
.........
END OF PAPER

Now, the original Gerber's formula (he died on August 1909, so he couldn't defend himself):

c² =24π³.a²/[ψ . τ² . (1- ε²)] (Gerber original search, assuming as equals the speed of gravity and light).

Values used by Gerber in 1898:

a = a = 5.768 × 1010 m (semi-major axis)
ε = e = 0.2056 (excentricity of Mercury’s orbit)
τ = T = 88 days (7.603 × 10^6 sec) (period of Mercury’s orbit)
ψ = 𝜖 = 4.789 × 10^-7 rad/orb (perihelion shift per 1 orbit, in rad/orbit)

Gerber obtained c = 305500 km/sec and, 17 years later, Einstein obtained the value of ψ = 𝜖 .

Is it enough? No? Schwarzschild will follow, if necessary.

I forgot to add a comment about HOW he introduces the Sun mass as a point-like particle
into the equations (CRETIN) even when he had set the mass-energy tensor Tᵤᵥ = 0.

Without shame, he just did that (and NOBODY questioned the fucker?):

> Einstein follows: "We place a point mass (the Sun) at the origin of the coordinate system. The gravitational
> field, which this mass point produces, can be calculated from these equations through successive
> approximations. In this regard, one may think that the gᵤᵥ for the given solar mass is not yet mathematically
> fully determined through (1) and (3).

He hide the Sun mass in α and the newtonian gravitational potential in 1/r term by modifying the original set:

"Or more compactly gᵤᵥ = - δᵤᵥ ; gᵤ₄ = g₄ᵤ ; g₄₄ = 1"

with a CONVENIENT HACK, to relate mass with geometry:

"It is easy to verify, that first order accuracy of the equations (1) and (3) as well as the above named 4 conditions
is satisfied through the substitution of

gᵤᵥ = - δᵤᵥ + α . (∂²r/∂xᵤxᵥ - δᵤᵥ/r) = - δᵤᵥ - α . xᵤxᵥ/r³ ; g₄₄ = 1 - α/r "

SEE HOW EASY IS TO HACK A THEORY? You just do it at PLAIN SIGHT, introducing mass and gravitational potential
where before THERE WAS NOTHING!

Now, tell me that the cretin wasn't laughing at EVERYONE then AND since then!

There you have "mass bending space", retarded relativists!

Now, how are you going to DEFEND this fact: a jump from differential geometry to physics in 1, 2, 3!

Bye.

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 2:36:00 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> I forgot to add a comment about HOW he introduces the Sun mass as a point-like particle
> into the equations (CRETIN) even when he had set the mass-energy tensor Tᵤᵥ = 0.
>
> Without shame, he just did that (and NOBODY questioned the fucker?):
> > Einstein follows: "We place a point mass (the Sun) at the origin of the coordinate system. The gravitational
> > field, which this mass point produces, can be calculated from these equations through successive
> > approximations. In this regard, one may think that the gᵤᵥ for the given solar mass is not yet mathematically
> > fully determined through (1) and (3).
> He hide the Sun mass in α and the newtonian gravitational potential in 1/r term by modifying the original set:
> "Or more compactly gᵤᵥ = - δᵤᵥ ; gᵤ₄ = g₄ᵤ ; g₄₄ = 1"
> with a CONVENIENT HACK, to relate mass with geometry:
>
> "It is easy to verify, that first order accuracy of the equations (1) and (3) as well as the above named 4 conditions
> is satisfied through the substitution of
>
> gᵤᵥ = - δᵤᵥ + α . (∂²r/∂xᵤxᵥ - δᵤᵥ/r) = - δᵤᵥ - α . xᵤxᵥ/r³ ; g₄₄ = 1 - α/r "
>
> SEE HOW EASY IS TO HACK A THEORY? You just do it at PLAIN SIGHT, introducing mass and gravitational potential
> where before THERE WAS NOTHING!
>
> Now, tell me that the cretin wasn't laughing at EVERYONE then AND since then!
>
> There you have "mass bending space", retarded relativists!
>
> Now, how are you going to DEFEND this fact: a jump from differential geometry to physics in 1, 2, 3!
>
> Bye.

More: You may wonder how these equations from GR relates to Gerber's delayed gravitational potential?

Pay attention to the term g₄₄, originally set to 1 (equation 4a) to g₄₄ = 1 - α/r (equation 4b), just half a
page ahead. g₄₄ relates to time and "c", which he had declared invariant in 4a. Now, in 4b, this part of the
metric is tied to gravitational potential and the speed of light. Interesting HACK, born due to the reverse
engineering of Gerber's formulae.

ds² = Σ gᵤᵥ dxᵘ dxᵛ, for u,v = 1,2,3,4 (16 terms in cartesian coordinates)

In the paper presented on November 4, 1915, this is simplified by the 4 conditions and it leads to formula (7):

"Planetary Motion
From the General Relativity theory motion equations of a material point in a strong field, we obtain

d²xᵤ/ds² = Σᵢᵣ Γᵘᵢᵣ . dxᵢ/ds . dxᵣ/ds (7)

From this equation, it follows that the Newton motion equation is obtained as a first approximation.
Namely, when the speed of a point particle is small with respect to the speed of light, so dx₁ , dx₂ , dx₃
are small against dx₄. It follows that we come to the first approximation, in which we take on the right
side always the condition i = r = 4. One obtains then with consideration of (6b)

d²xᵤ/ds² = Γᵘ₄₄ = - 1/2 . α . x₄/r³ (u: 1, 2, 3) ; d²x₄/ds² = 0 (7a)"

And the HACK is near complete. Read the last part, if you want to know how he approximated to the Gerber's
formula for the shift in Mercury's perihelion.

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 12:18:47 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Here is a link to a historic document published by Lorentz in 1919,
> defending Einstein's GR, and republished in NY in 1920.
>
> After all, this sucker had gained immortality thanks to him, forgetting
> that was Poincaré who named the corrections of the transforms after him.

What corrections? The transformation as published by Lorentz in his
1904 article is correct.

> And, in his last years (he was when he wrote this) he continued to suck
> Einstein for the fame that he gained after the 1905 SR paper.

Why do you think those people cared about fame one iota?

> One of the first european "top dogs" in physics that came to the rescue of
> him, when the debate about SR and GR was at the peak of the heat.

What debate?

The rest of your comments is asinine.

--
Jan

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 4:57:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Quotes from the original document published in November 15, 1915, at Königlich
> Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Meanwhile, he was working to
> disguise Hilbert's work, to present a final and mathematically correct field equation
> only 2 weeks after this presentation:
>
> Zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie (To the general theory of relativity. )
>
> NOTE: He start by saying: This theory is magic, and if anyone doesn't grasp it, then he's
> an idiot. The mathematicians Gauss, Riemann, Christoffel, Ricci and Levi-Civiter support
> this theory, which is not about physics but about differential analytical geometry.

Not even wrong.

> Nice start for the cult of relativity.

What cult?

> I don't see ANY DIFFERENCE between these words and
> the parroting of relativists at this forum: It's magic.

It's apparently magic to you. And for some reason you cannot come to terms
with it, and to keep the beast at bay you invent all sorts of increasingly
unhinged conspiracies, all to safe your ego from some kind of injury.
This is infantile.

> It's based on the state of the art
> mathematics available today. Once you really grasp it (totally shove it up into your ass and
> brain),

Inferiority complex strikes again.

> you'll be converted and start to believe: MATHEMATICS IS PHYSICS!

Nobody says that, it's a strawmen invented by lunatics like you in order
to maintain some illusion of relevance.

> Meanwhile, during the WWI, Lorentz was his lapdog.

Inferiority complex strikes again.

> -------------------------------------------- Excerpt 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dem Zauber dieser Theorie wird sich kaum jemand entziehen können, der sie wirklich
> erfaßt hat; sie bedeutet einen wahren Tri- umph der durch Gauss, Riemann, Christoffel,
> Ricci und Levi-Civiter begründeten Methode des allgemeinen Differentialkalkuls.
> Google translate:
>
> Hardly anyone who has really grasped it will be able to escape the magic of this theory;
> it signifies a true triumph of the method of general differential calculus established by
> Gauss, Riemann, Christoffel, Ricci and Levi-Civiter.

"Civiter"?

The rest (a bunch of quotes) is fine as the quotes go but your commentary to them
is not even wrong.

--
Jan

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 11:45:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz posted a fresh cretinism:

> More: You may wonder how these equations from GR relates to Gerber's delayed gravitational potential?
It doesn't, despicable kapo.

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 10:36:00 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> I forgot to add a comment about HOW he introduces the Sun mass as a point-like particle
> into the equations (CRETIN)

No, it's CORRECT in this context. What kind of engineer are you that you don't know
such simple things?

> even when he had set the mass-energy tensor Tᵤᵥ = 0.

Good grief. And it's not called "mass-energy tensor" either.

> Without shame, he just did that (and NOBODY questioned the fucker?):

Because Einstein this is correct.

> > Einstein follows: "We place a point mass (the Sun) at the origin of the coordinate system. The gravitational
> > field, which this mass point produces, can be calculated from these equations through successive
> > approximations. In this regard, one may think that the gᵤᵥ for the given solar mass is not yet mathematically
> > fully determined through (1) and (3).
> He hide the Sun mass in α and the newtonian gravitational potential in 1/r term by modifying the original set:
> "Or more compactly gᵤᵥ = - δᵤᵥ ; gᵤ₄ = g₄ᵤ ; g₄₄ = 1"
> with a CONVENIENT HACK, to relate mass with geometry:

You have no clue what's being done here. You won't get anywhere with this unless you
learn the subject.

> "It is easy to verify, that first order accuracy of the equations (1) and (3) as well as the above named 4 conditions
> is satisfied through the substitution of
>
> gᵤᵥ = - δᵤᵥ + α . (∂²r/∂xᵤxᵥ - δᵤᵥ/r) = - δᵤᵥ - α . xᵤxᵥ/r³ ; g₄₄ = 1 - α/r "
>
> SEE HOW EASY IS TO HACK A THEORY? You just do it at PLAIN SIGHT, introducing mass and gravitational potential
> where before THERE WAS NOTHING!

Not even wrong, again. What a truly pathetic dunce you are.

> Now, tell me that the cretin wasn't laughing at EVERYONE then AND since then!

No, the "cretin" is you. You simply don't understand any of it, and the relevant
mathematics and physics in general. Why do you even bother with this hobby?
It will lead you nowhere.

> There you have "mass bending space", retarded relativists!

First of all, there is no such thing in the real world parlance as "relativist". Just like
there is no "two-armer". Secondly, you have no standing to call any physicist
"retarded" given the fact that you don't know any physics.

> Now, how are you going to DEFEND this fact: a jump from differential geometry to physics in 1, 2, 3!

There is nothing to "defend". We will only laugh at you.

--
Jan

On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 15:24:47 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:

> You have no clue what's being done here. You won't get anywhere with this unless you
> learn the subject.

The subject is outside your Holy Scripts, however.
The subject is in Dono's "You're licking toilets, you
Polish nazi drunkard!!". That's what your Shit really
is.

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 10:17:41 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip all the shitty replies the RETARTED & TORTURED Jan PB, except one>

> > Hardly anyone who has really grasped it will be able to escape the magic of this theory;
> > it signifies a true triumph of the method of general differential calculus established by
> > Gauss, Riemann, Christoffel, Ricci and Levi-Civiter.
> "Civiter"?

Yes, Civiter, fucking retarded.

Dishonest and psychologically damaged persons like you CAN'T BELIEVE that I did copy literally
the original German text, without introducing a single change.

But you are too lazy to fact-check it with the link that I always provide. As your life is always full
of lies and deceptions, you can't accept that I did an honest job without modifications.

Also, I can see that you started to attack my fact-check about the formulae used in the Nov. 4, 1915
paper by arguing: "You don't know what I'm doing", as usual with a fucking fanatic relativist who is
cornered by the hard facts of mathematics.

I know mathematics enough to manage the subject, and I also used superscripts and subscripts so
the equations can be more readable for "mathematicians" like you claim to be. I proved that:

1) Einstein's ONLY paper presented to the Prussian Academy about Mercury is FLAWED and HACKED.

2) Einstein paper presented in Nov. 4, 1915 is based on his 1914 Entwurf II, deleting any sign of energy tensor
and (due to simplifications) didn't need the field equations he was to get from Hilbert, to make his final
presentation on Nov.25, 1915 (only 3 weeks after).

3) That in this paper about Mercury, Einstein introduced Newton's gravitational potential HACKING his terms
at PLAIN SIGHT and without any explanation. This HACK is the reason by which a purely geometrical set
of equations moved from the realm of mathematics to the one of physics, FORCING GEOMETRY to be
DEPENDENT OF GRAVITY (there you have the MAGIC of matter BENDING space).

4) That this HACK made the otherwise useless set of tensor based equations SENSITIVE to an ALIEN MASS
introduced without explanation (the Sun as a point-like mass and its newtonian gravitational potential).

5) That, as his Entwurf II is plagued by the use of four dimensional space-time, "c" is present everywhere. And
with the ARTIFICIAL CHANGE OF VARIABLES, Newton's gravity was introduced INTO Riemann's geometry.

6) That, IF he didn't do that HACK, he would NEVER EVER had the change to CONNECT MASS and geometry of space.

7) That Gerber's concept of DELAYED POTENTIAL is present there, thanks to the HACKING that I detailed and that is
just at plain sight as it was introduced artificially by Einstein himself.

8) That the entire paper IS A PILE OF PURE CRAP, so shameful that Einstein NEVER came back to the problem of Mercury
because he knew that the paper was FALSE and WORTHLESS.

9) That such a paper could have pass through such allegedly SUMMIT OF EXPERTS at the Prussian Academy HAS NO
EXPLANATIONS and it's a shame. How come such group of experts did allow this to happen?
Did they THINK that nothing was going to happen, because they knew that the CLOWN, LIAR and FUDGING Einstein
wasn't go to any place with such ridiculous paper?

10)That he was "protected" and felt full of omnipotence, when he claimed that his paper WAS MAGICAL and deserved
ADORATION.

I don't want to waste more time here, with you. I'll do a more concise explanation of the ORIGINAL SIN and I'll post it.

I know that you'll suffer and retort, as well as many retarded here, what makes me HAPPY.

The problem with any of the fuckers like you is that YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE ME WRONG!

Now, deal with that and suffer, fucking retarded!

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 6:29:33 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 15:24:47 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
>
> > You have no clue what's being done here. You won't get anywhere with this unless you
> > learn the subject.
> The subject is outside your Holy Scripts, however.
> The subject is in Dono's "You're licking toilets, you
> Polish nazi drunkard!!".

Yep, you are

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 7:10:21 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 10:17:41 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>
> <snip all the shitty replies the RETARTED & TORTURED Jan PB, except one>
> > > Hardly anyone who has really grasped it will be able to escape the magic of this theory;
> > > it signifies a true triumph of the method of general differential calculus established by
> > > Gauss, Riemann, Christoffel, Ricci and Levi-Civiter.
> > "Civiter"?
> Yes, Civiter, fucking retarded.

What do you mean, "Civiter"?

> Dishonest and psychologically damaged persons like you CAN'T BELIEVE that I did copy literally
> the original German text, without introducing a single change.

I hadn't noticed, true.

> But you are too lazy to fact-check it with the link that I always provide. As your life is always full
> of lies and deceptions, you can't accept that I did an honest job without modifications.

No. I just know the stuff and you don't. All you do is post nonsense.

> Also, I can see that you started to attack my fact-check about the formulae used in the Nov. 4, 1915
> paper by arguing: "You don't know what I'm doing", as usual with a fucking fanatic relativist who is
> cornered by the hard facts of mathematics.

You don't have a clue what you are doling, correct.

> I know mathematics enough to manage the subject,

No, you have no clue.

> and I also used superscripts and subscripts so
> the equations can be more readable for "mathematicians" like you claim to be. I proved that:
>
> 1) Einstein's ONLY paper presented to the Prussian Academy about Mercury is FLAWED and HACKED.
>
> 2) Einstein paper presented in Nov. 4, 1915 is based on his 1914 Entwurf II, deleting any sign of energy tensor
> and (due to simplifications) didn't need the field equations he was to get from Hilbert, to make his final
> presentation on Nov.25, 1915 (only 3 weeks after).
>
> 3) That in this paper about Mercury, Einstein introduced Newton's gravitational potential HACKING his terms
> at PLAIN SIGHT and without any explanation. This HACK is the reason by which a purely geometrical set
> of equations moved from the realm of mathematics to the one of physics, FORCING GEOMETRY to be
> DEPENDENT OF GRAVITY (there you have the MAGIC of matter BENDING space).
>
> 4) That this HACK made the otherwise useless set of tensor based equations SENSITIVE to an ALIEN MASS
> introduced without explanation (the Sun as a point-like mass and its newtonian gravitational potential).
>
> 5) That, as his Entwurf II is plagued by the use of four dimensional space-time, "c" is present everywhere. And
> with the ARTIFICIAL CHANGE OF VARIABLES, Newton's gravity was introduced INTO Riemann's geometry.
>
> 6) That, IF he didn't do that HACK, he would NEVER EVER had the change to CONNECT MASS and geometry of space.
>
> 7) That Gerber's concept of DELAYED POTENTIAL is present there, thanks to the HACKING that I detailed and that is
> just at plain sight as it was introduced artificially by Einstein himself.
>
> 8) That the entire paper IS A PILE OF PURE CRAP, so shameful that Einstein NEVER came back to the problem of Mercury
> because he knew that the paper was FALSE and WORTHLESS.
>
> 9) That such a paper could have pass through such allegedly SUMMIT OF EXPERTS at the Prussian Academy HAS NO
> EXPLANATIONS and it's a shame. How come such group of experts did allow this to happen?
> Did they THINK that nothing was going to happen, because they knew that the CLOWN, LIAR and FUDGING Einstein
> wasn't go to any place with such ridiculous paper?
>
> 10)That he was "protected" and felt full of omnipotence, when he claimed that his paper WAS MAGICAL and deserved
> ADORATION.
>
> I don't want to waste more time here, with you. I'll do a more concise explanation of the ORIGINAL SIN and I'll post it.
>
> I know that you'll suffer and retort, as well as many retarded here, what makes me HAPPY.
>
> The problem with any of the fuckers like you is that YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE ME WRONG!
>
> Now, deal with that and suffer, fucking retarded!

Gobbledygook.

--
Jan

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 3:39:29 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 7:10:21 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 10:17:41 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> >
> > <snip all the shitty replies the RETARTED & TORTURED Jan PB, except one>
> > > > Hardly anyone who has really grasped it will be able to escape the magic of this theory;
> > > > it signifies a true triumph of the method of general differential calculus established by
> > > > Gauss, Riemann, Christoffel, Ricci and Levi-Civiter.
> > > "Civiter"?
> > Yes, Civiter, fucking retarded.
> What do you mean, "Civiter"?
> > Dishonest and psychologically damaged persons like you CAN'T BELIEVE that I did copy literally
> > the original German text, without introducing a single change.
> I hadn't noticed, true.
> > But you are too lazy to fact-check it with the link that I always provide. As your life is always full
> > of lies and deceptions, you can't accept that I did an honest job without modifications.
> No. I just know the stuff and you don't. All you do is post nonsense.
> > Also, I can see that you started to attack my fact-check about the formulae used in the Nov. 4, 1915
> > paper by arguing: "You don't know what I'm doing", as usual with a fucking fanatic relativist who is
> > cornered by the hard facts of mathematics.
> You don't have a clue what you are doling, correct.
> > I know mathematics enough to manage the subject,
> No, you have no clue.
> > and I also used superscripts and subscripts so
> > the equations can be more readable for "mathematicians" like you claim to be. I proved that:
> >
> > 1) Einstein's ONLY paper presented to the Prussian Academy about Mercury is FLAWED and HACKED.
> >
> > 2) Einstein paper presented in Nov. 4, 1915 is based on his 1914 Entwurf II, deleting any sign of energy tensor
> > and (due to simplifications) didn't need the field equations he was to get from Hilbert, to make his final
> > presentation on Nov.25, 1915 (only 3 weeks after).
> >
> > 3) That in this paper about Mercury, Einstein introduced Newton's gravitational potential HACKING his terms
> > at PLAIN SIGHT and without any explanation. This HACK is the reason by which a purely geometrical set
> > of equations moved from the realm of mathematics to the one of physics, FORCING GEOMETRY to be
> > DEPENDENT OF GRAVITY (there you have the MAGIC of matter BENDING space).
> >
> > 4) That this HACK made the otherwise useless set of tensor based equations SENSITIVE to an ALIEN MASS
> > introduced without explanation (the Sun as a point-like mass and its newtonian gravitational potential).
> >
> > 5) That, as his Entwurf II is plagued by the use of four dimensional space-time, "c" is present everywhere. And
> > with the ARTIFICIAL CHANGE OF VARIABLES, Newton's gravity was introduced INTO Riemann's geometry.
> >
> > 6) That, IF he didn't do that HACK, he would NEVER EVER had the change to CONNECT MASS and geometry of space.
> >
> > 7) That Gerber's concept of DELAYED POTENTIAL is present there, thanks to the HACKING that I detailed and that is
> > just at plain sight as it was introduced artificially by Einstein himself.
> >
> > 8) That the entire paper IS A PILE OF PURE CRAP, so shameful that Einstein NEVER came back to the problem of Mercury
> > because he knew that the paper was FALSE and WORTHLESS.
> >
> > 9) That such a paper could have pass through such allegedly SUMMIT OF EXPERTS at the Prussian Academy HAS NO
> > EXPLANATIONS and it's a shame. How come such group of experts did allow this to happen?
> > Did they THINK that nothing was going to happen, because they knew that the CLOWN, LIAR and FUDGING Einstein
> > wasn't go to any place with such ridiculous paper?
> >
> > 10)That he was "protected" and felt full of omnipotence, when he claimed that his paper WAS MAGICAL and deserved
> > ADORATION.
> >
> > I don't want to waste more time here, with you. I'll do a more concise explanation of the ORIGINAL SIN and I'll post it.
> >
> > I know that you'll suffer and retort, as well as many retarded here, what makes me HAPPY.
> >
> > The problem with any of the fuckers like you is that YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE ME WRONG!
> >
> > Now, deal with that and suffer, fucking retarded!
> Gobbledygook.
>
> --
> Jan

Jan, you can have one PhD, two PhD, ... N PhD in the full spectrum of knowledge.

But it doesn't you smarter than me. Have a tea and DEAL WITH IT.

I don't need to write here 1,000 pages of your gobbledygook math language to prove
my point. In the same sense, you don't need to use my gobbledygook engineering language
to prove that I'm "superior" to you, intellectually.

An autistic person can make both of us appear as insects if is gifted by superior
intellectual powers.

I'm not competing with your field of knowledge, so stop to be so jealous. Leave it to
dogs living in a house, which can't accept that any other of them is receiving owner's
attention. Don't be so territorial.

I don't have ANY PROBLEM if you post something related with EE (radars, telecom networks,
laser & FO, electronic circuits, systems, etc.).

Go ahead. I'll not be offended by "your intrusion" into my fields or any other (medical science,
for instance).

So, behave as a senior adult as you are and manage things here with less possessive feelings.

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 12:03:44 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 3:39:29 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 7:10:21 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 10:17:41 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip all the shitty replies the RETARTED & TORTURED Jan PB, except one>
> > > > > Hardly anyone who has really grasped it will be able to escape the magic of this theory;
> > > > > it signifies a true triumph of the method of general differential calculus established by
> > > > > Gauss, Riemann, Christoffel, Ricci and Levi-Civiter.
> > > > "Civiter"?
> > > Yes, Civiter, fucking retarded.
> > What do you mean, "Civiter"?
> > > Dishonest and psychologically damaged persons like you CAN'T BELIEVE that I did copy literally
> > > the original German text, without introducing a single change.
> > I hadn't noticed, true.
> > > But you are too lazy to fact-check it with the link that I always provide. As your life is always full
> > > of lies and deceptions, you can't accept that I did an honest job without modifications.
> > No. I just know the stuff and you don't. All you do is post nonsense.
> > > Also, I can see that you started to attack my fact-check about the formulae used in the Nov. 4, 1915
> > > paper by arguing: "You don't know what I'm doing", as usual with a fucking fanatic relativist who is
> > > cornered by the hard facts of mathematics.
> > You don't have a clue what you are doling, correct.
> > > I know mathematics enough to manage the subject,
> > No, you have no clue.
> > > and I also used superscripts and subscripts so
> > > the equations can be more readable for "mathematicians" like you claim to be. I proved that:
> > >
> > > 1) Einstein's ONLY paper presented to the Prussian Academy about Mercury is FLAWED and HACKED.
> > >
> > > 2) Einstein paper presented in Nov. 4, 1915 is based on his 1914 Entwurf II, deleting any sign of energy tensor
> > > and (due to simplifications) didn't need the field equations he was to get from Hilbert, to make his final
> > > presentation on Nov.25, 1915 (only 3 weeks after).
> > >
> > > 3) That in this paper about Mercury, Einstein introduced Newton's gravitational potential HACKING his terms
> > > at PLAIN SIGHT and without any explanation. This HACK is the reason by which a purely geometrical set
> > > of equations moved from the realm of mathematics to the one of physics, FORCING GEOMETRY to be
> > > DEPENDENT OF GRAVITY (there you have the MAGIC of matter BENDING space).
> > >
> > > 4) That this HACK made the otherwise useless set of tensor based equations SENSITIVE to an ALIEN MASS
> > > introduced without explanation (the Sun as a point-like mass and its newtonian gravitational potential).
> > >
> > > 5) That, as his Entwurf II is plagued by the use of four dimensional space-time, "c" is present everywhere. And
> > > with the ARTIFICIAL CHANGE OF VARIABLES, Newton's gravity was introduced INTO Riemann's geometry.
> > >
> > > 6) That, IF he didn't do that HACK, he would NEVER EVER had the change to CONNECT MASS and geometry of space.
> > >
> > > 7) That Gerber's concept of DELAYED POTENTIAL is present there, thanks to the HACKING that I detailed and that is
> > > just at plain sight as it was introduced artificially by Einstein himself.
> > >
> > > 8) That the entire paper IS A PILE OF PURE CRAP, so shameful that Einstein NEVER came back to the problem of Mercury
> > > because he knew that the paper was FALSE and WORTHLESS.
> > >
> > > 9) That such a paper could have pass through such allegedly SUMMIT OF EXPERTS at the Prussian Academy HAS NO
> > > EXPLANATIONS and it's a shame. How come such group of experts did allow this to happen?
> > > Did they THINK that nothing was going to happen, because they knew that the CLOWN, LIAR and FUDGING Einstein
> > > wasn't go to any place with such ridiculous paper?
> > >
> > > 10)That he was "protected" and felt full of omnipotence, when he claimed that his paper WAS MAGICAL and deserved
> > > ADORATION.
> > >
> > > I don't want to waste more time here, with you. I'll do a more concise explanation of the ORIGINAL SIN and I'll post it.
> > >
> > > I know that you'll suffer and retort, as well as many retarded here, what makes me HAPPY.
> > >
> > > The problem with any of the fuckers like you is that YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE ME WRONG!
> > >
> > > Now, deal with that and suffer, fucking retarded!
> > Gobbledygook.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> Jan, you can have one PhD, two PhD, ... N PhD in the full spectrum of knowledge.
>
> But it doesn't you smarter than me. Have a tea and DEAL WITH IT.

It's a question of you not understanding the problems you attempt to discuss.
Let's leave the question of who is smarter for another time. It's not relevant here.
What's relevant is that your critique of relativity and Einstein are junk. They cannot
even be discussed sensibly, you post mostly gobbledygook.

> I don't need to write here 1,000 pages of your gobbledygook math language to prove
> my point.

Yes, you do.

> In the same sense, you don't need to use my gobbledygook engineering language
> to prove that I'm "superior" to you, intellectually.

This is not relevant to the discussion. Your claim is that Einstein was an idiot and that
relativity is fundamentally wrong. Such claims would be fine if they were backed up by
actual content. You provide none.

> An autistic person can make both of us appear as insects if is gifted by superior
> intellectual powers.
>
> I'm not competing with your field of knowledge, so stop to be so jealous.

I'm not jealous. Just pointing out that you have no argument.

> Leave it to
> dogs living in a house, which can't accept that any other of them is receiving owner's
> attention. Don't be so territorial.
>
> I don't have ANY PROBLEM if you post something related with EE (radars, telecom networks,
> laser & FO, electronic circuits, systems, etc.).
>
> Go ahead. I'll not be offended by "your intrusion" into my fields or any other (medical science,
> for instance).
>
> So, behave as a senior adult as you are and manage things here with less possessive feelings.

Again, the point is that you have no arguments against relativity and treat everyone like
an idiot. This strategy doesn't work, stop wasting your time.

What you need to do is lay off the Internet and devote next decade or so to learning
physics. There is no other way. I did do that, that's why I can talk and you cannot.

--
Jan

On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 21:27:14 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 12:03:44 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 3:39:29 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 7:10:21 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 10:17:41 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <snip all the shitty replies the RETARTED & TORTURED Jan PB, except one>
> > > > > > Hardly anyone who has really grasped it will be able to escape the magic of this theory;
> > > > > > it signifies a true triumph of the method of general differential calculus established by
> > > > > > Gauss, Riemann, Christoffel, Ricci and Levi-Civiter.
> > > > > "Civiter"?
> > > > Yes, Civiter, fucking retarded.
> > > What do you mean, "Civiter"?
> > > > Dishonest and psychologically damaged persons like you CAN'T BELIEVE that I did copy literally
> > > > the original German text, without introducing a single change.
> > > I hadn't noticed, true.
> > > > But you are too lazy to fact-check it with the link that I always provide. As your life is always full
> > > > of lies and deceptions, you can't accept that I did an honest job without modifications.
> > > No. I just know the stuff and you don't. All you do is post nonsense.
> > > > Also, I can see that you started to attack my fact-check about the formulae used in the Nov. 4, 1915
> > > > paper by arguing: "You don't know what I'm doing", as usual with a fucking fanatic relativist who is
> > > > cornered by the hard facts of mathematics.
> > > You don't have a clue what you are doling, correct.
> > > > I know mathematics enough to manage the subject,
> > > No, you have no clue.
> > > > and I also used superscripts and subscripts so
> > > > the equations can be more readable for "mathematicians" like you claim to be. I proved that:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Einstein's ONLY paper presented to the Prussian Academy about Mercury is FLAWED and HACKED.
> > > >
> > > > 2) Einstein paper presented in Nov. 4, 1915 is based on his 1914 Entwurf II, deleting any sign of energy tensor
> > > > and (due to simplifications) didn't need the field equations he was to get from Hilbert, to make his final
> > > > presentation on Nov.25, 1915 (only 3 weeks after).
> > > >
> > > > 3) That in this paper about Mercury, Einstein introduced Newton's gravitational potential HACKING his terms
> > > > at PLAIN SIGHT and without any explanation. This HACK is the reason by which a purely geometrical set
> > > > of equations moved from the realm of mathematics to the one of physics, FORCING GEOMETRY to be
> > > > DEPENDENT OF GRAVITY (there you have the MAGIC of matter BENDING space).
> > > >
> > > > 4) That this HACK made the otherwise useless set of tensor based equations SENSITIVE to an ALIEN MASS
> > > > introduced without explanation (the Sun as a point-like mass and its newtonian gravitational potential).
> > > >
> > > > 5) That, as his Entwurf II is plagued by the use of four dimensional space-time, "c" is present everywhere. And
> > > > with the ARTIFICIAL CHANGE OF VARIABLES, Newton's gravity was introduced INTO Riemann's geometry.
> > > >
> > > > 6) That, IF he didn't do that HACK, he would NEVER EVER had the change to CONNECT MASS and geometry of space.
> > > >
> > > > 7) That Gerber's concept of DELAYED POTENTIAL is present there, thanks to the HACKING that I detailed and that is
> > > > just at plain sight as it was introduced artificially by Einstein himself.
> > > >
> > > > 8) That the entire paper IS A PILE OF PURE CRAP, so shameful that Einstein NEVER came back to the problem of Mercury
> > > > because he knew that the paper was FALSE and WORTHLESS.
> > > >
> > > > 9) That such a paper could have pass through such allegedly SUMMIT OF EXPERTS at the Prussian Academy HAS NO
> > > > EXPLANATIONS and it's a shame. How come such group of experts did allow this to happen?
> > > > Did they THINK that nothing was going to happen, because they knew that the CLOWN, LIAR and FUDGING Einstein
> > > > wasn't go to any place with such ridiculous paper?
> > > >
> > > > 10)That he was "protected" and felt full of omnipotence, when he claimed that his paper WAS MAGICAL and deserved
> > > > ADORATION.
> > > >
> > > > I don't want to waste more time here, with you. I'll do a more concise explanation of the ORIGINAL SIN and I'll post it.
> > > >
> > > > I know that you'll suffer and retort, as well as many retarded here, what makes me HAPPY.
> > > >
> > > > The problem with any of the fuckers like you is that YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE ME WRONG!
> > > >
> > > > Now, deal with that and suffer, fucking retarded!
> > > Gobbledygook.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jan
> > Jan, you can have one PhD, two PhD, ... N PhD in the full spectrum of knowledge.
> >
> > But it doesn't you smarter than me. Have a tea and DEAL WITH IT.
> It's a question of you not understanding the problems you attempt to discuss.
> Let's leave the question of who is smarter for another time. It's not relevant here.
> What's relevant is that your critique of relativity and Einstein are junk. They cannot
> even be discussed sensibly, you post mostly gobbledygook.
> > I don't need to write here 1,000 pages of your gobbledygook math language to prove
> > my point.
> Yes, you do.
> > In the same sense, you don't need to use my gobbledygook engineering language
> > to prove that I'm "superior" to you, intellectually.
> This is not relevant to the discussion. Your claim is that Einstein was an idiot and that
> relativity is fundamentally wrong. Such claims would be fine if they were backed up by
> actual content. You provide none.
> > An autistic person can make both of us appear as insects if is gifted by superior
> > intellectual powers.
> >
> > I'm not competing with your field of knowledge, so stop to be so jealous.
> I'm not jealous. Just pointing out that you have no argument.
> > Leave it to
> > dogs living in a house, which can't accept that any other of them is receiving owner's
> > attention. Don't be so territorial.
> >
> > I don't have ANY PROBLEM if you post something related with EE (radars, telecom networks,
> > laser & FO, electronic circuits, systems, etc.).
> >
> > Go ahead. I'll not be offended by "your intrusion" into my fields or any other (medical science,
> > for instance).
> >
> > So, behave as a senior adult as you are and manage things here with less possessive feelings.
> Again, the point is that you have no arguments against relativity and treat everyone like
> an idiot. This strategy doesn't work, stop wasting your time.

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

Am 20.09.2021 um 03:04 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Nikola Tesla, a genius who shaped the form of the modern world with his
>> contributions to AC current and
>> radio (patents sold to Westinghouse and stolen by Marconi, respectively),
>> told to a journalist of the NYT in
>> 1935, when he was 79:
>>
>> "The theory, wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in
>> magnificent mathematical garb which
>> fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The
>> theory is like a beggar clothed in
>> purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very
>> brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists
>> rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved."
>>
>> The NYT paid tribute to Tesla in this way:
>>
>> https://www.nytimes.com/1935/07/11/archives/tesla-79-promises-to-transmit-force-scientist-on-birthday-reveals.html
>>
>> "Nikola Tesla, the man with seven hundred basic patents to his credit who
>> startled the world on a number of
>> occasions in the past by achieving what others had regarded as
>> impossible, including the large-scale generation
>> and distribution of alternating current, yesterday treated the combined
>> metropolitan press to a personally
>> conducted tour of the labyrinthine laboratory of his fertile mind."
>>
>
> So Tesla is the hero you prefer be worshipped.
>

Heros do not need to be worshipped, because they do things of greatness
without any applause. That's why they are called 'heros' (otherwise they
are called 'celebreties').

Tesla was certainly more of the hero kind, because he invented a
thousand things for fun of inventing things (and for money).

Whether or not he liked applause is not certain.

TH

On 9/21/2021 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 20.09.2021 um 03:04 schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>> So Tesla is the hero you prefer be worshipped.
>>
>
> Heros do not need to be worshipped, because they do things of greatness
> without any applause. That's why they are called 'heros' (otherwise they
> are called 'celebreties').

So by that definition, Einstein was a 'hero', as he did things of
greatness without expecting applause. Although he got more than his
share later when the media latched onto him.
>
> Tesla was certainly more of the hero kind, because he invented a
> thousand things for fun of inventing things (and for money).
>
> Whether or not he liked applause is not certain.

Not sure how much Einstein liked the applause he got.