I extracted a couple of posts lost in another thread's stack, to write them
here, as an OP.

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

χ Θᵤᵥ = Γᵤᵥ was proposed and developed by Marcel Grossmann in the 1913 Entwurf, co-authored with Einstein, while in Zurich:

https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol4-doc/325

Outline of a Generalized Theory of Relativity and of a Theory of Gravitation.
I. Physical Part by A. Einstein
II. Mathematical Part by M. Grossmann

Published by: Teubner, Leipzig (1913) Reprinted in: Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik 62 (1914)

It starts (Einstein's part) with:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 1. Equations of motion of the material point in the static gravitational field.

According to the usual theory of relativity, a point that moves without any force moves according to the equation

(1) δ { ∫ ds } = δ { ∫ √(- dx² - dy² - dz² + c² dt²) } = 0

Because this equation says nothing else than that the material point moves in a straight line and uniformly. This is the equation
of motion in the form of Hamilton's principle; because we can also say that

(1a) δ { ∫ H dt } = 0 where H = ds/dt m

is set if m is the rest mass of the material point. This results in the known impulse Jx, Jy, Jz and energy E of the moving point:

(2) Jx = m ∂H/∂x = m ẋ /√(c² - q²) ; etc

E = ∂H/∂ẋ ẋ + ∂H/∂ẏ ẏ + ∂H/∂ż ż - H = mc²/√(c² - q²)

This method of representation differs from the usual one only in that Jx, Jy, Jz and E still have a factor c in the latter. But since c is constant in the ordinary theory of relativity, the system given here is equivalent to the one usually given. The only difference is that J and E have different dimensions than in the usual representation.
.........................................................................................................................

And, just like that, he introduced the modifications of momentum and energy following the 1905 papers (redefining Hamilton).
The point § 5 introduces Riemann et. all through Poisson, with a lot of assumptions and zero subleties:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 5. The differential equations of the gravitational field.

After we have established the momentum-energy equation for the material processes (mechanical, electrical and other processes)
with reference to the gravitational field, we still have the following task.. Let the tensor Θᵤᵥ be given for the material process..

Which are the differential equations that define the quantities g_ik, and allow the gravitational field to be determined?

In other words, we are looking for the generalization of Poisson's equation

Δφ = 4 π k ρ

We have not found such a perfectly inevitable method for solving this problem as for solving the problem discussed above.

It was necessary to introduce some assumptions, the correctness of which appears plausible, but is not evident.

The generalization you are looking for is likely to be of form

(11) χ Θᵤᵥ = Γᵤᵥ

where χ is a constant, Γᵤᵥ is a contravariant tensor of the second order, which is derived from the fundamental tensor gᵤᵥ by
differential operations. According to Newton-Poisson's law one would be inclined to demand that these equations (11)
should be of the second order.
..........................................................................................................................

In point 7 of the 1913 Entwurf, Einstein could see how deeply he and Grossmann went into muddy waters
by using Riemann's non-euclidean geometry, so he ask (and warn to future generation of retarded relativists):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 7. Can the gravitational field be traced back to a scalar?

In view of the undeniable complexity of the theory of gravitation represented here, we must seriously ask ourselves
whether the view that has hitherto been exclusively held, according to which the gravitational field is reduced to a
scalar Φ, is not the only obvious and justified one.

I will briefly explain why we think we have to answer this question NEGATIVELY. Characterization of the gravitational
field by a scalar presents a path which is completely analogous to the one taken above.

One starts with the equation of motion of the material point in Hamiltonian form

δ { ∫ Φ ds } = 0

where ds is the four-dimensional line element of the usual relativity theory and Φ is a scalar, and then proceeds quite
analogously to the previous one, without having to leave the usual relativity theory.

Here, too, the material process of any kind is characterized by a stress-energy tensor Tᵤᵥ . But with this view a scalar is
decisive for the interaction between the gravitational field and the material process. This scalar, as Mr. Laue pointed out
to me, can only be

Σᵤ Tᵤᵤ = P

WHICH I want to call the "Laue Scalar". ONE can do justice to the principle of the equivalence of INERTIAL and
GRAVITATIONAL mass here to a certain extent. Mr Laue pointed out to me that for a closed system it is CERTAIN that

∫ P dV = ∫ T₄₄ dτ

*** HERE IS REMARKING THAT, IN THIS WAY, THERE ARE NO GUARANTIES THAT INERTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS BE EQUAL.

*** FROM "§ 6. Influence of the gravitational field on physical processes, especially on electromagnetic processes.":

*** "Because momentum and energy play a role in every physical process, the latter in turn determine the gravitational field
*** and are influenced by it, the variables gᵤᵥ determining the gravitational field must appear in all physical systems of equations."

*** THIS REMARK IS KEY FOR THE USE OF RICCI AND LEVI-CIVITA METHOD TO INCORPORATE GRAVITATION IN GR. IN THE
LINE ELEMENT ds² = Σᵤᵥ gᵤᵥ dxᵤ dxᵥ, 10 OUT OF 16 TERMS CAN BE ASSOCIATED WITH GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIALS
OR DYNAMIC FIELDS.

*** GROSSMAN, A MATHEMATICIAN EXPERT IN DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY FOR MORE THAN 12 YEARS (NOT A GENIUS, HOWEVER)
APPRECIATED HOW COMPATIBLE LEVI-CIVITA GEOMETRY WAS WITH A FOUR DIMENSIONAL SPACETIME. IN FACT, THE ONLY
PURE MATHEMATICAL THEORY AVAILABLE BY 1912 TO DEAL WITH THE LINE ELEMENT ds² = Σᵤᵥ gᵤᵥ dxᵤ dxᵥ.

From this one can see that, according to this view, its total energy is decisive for the WEIGHT of a closed system.
The WEIGHT of incomplete systems would depend on the orthogonal stresses T₁₁ etc. to which the system is subjected.
This gives rise to consequences that seem unacceptable to me, as the example of cavity radiation will show.
It is well known that the scalar P disappears for the radiation in a vacuum.. If the radiation is enclosed in a massless reflecting box,
its walls experience tensile stresses which cause the system - taken as a whole - to become a mass ∫ P dτ, which is the energy
E corresponds to the radiation.

*** HERE, EINSTEIN IS TRYING TO DEAL WITH GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS IN THE SAME WAY HE DID
IN HIS 1911 PAPER, WHERE HE STATED:

*** M'.g.h - M.g.h = E.g.h/c² OR (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."

Instead of enclosing the radiation in a hollow box, I imagine it to be limited

1. through the reflective walls of a fixed shaft S,
2. by two vertically movable reflective walls W1 and W2, which are firmly connected to one another by a rod.

In this case, the mass ∫ P dτ of the movable system is only the third part of the value that occurs in a box that is movable as a
whole. In order to raise the radiation against a gravity field, one would only have to spend the third part of the work than in the
case just considered, where the radiation is enclosed in a box.

*** REMEMBER THAT THE BOX IS MASSLESS. EINSTEIN IS PULLING OUT 1905 HASENHORL PAPER WHERE M = 4/3 E/c².

*** OBSERVE THAT, ACCORDING TO HASERNHORL, THE INCREASE IN MASS BY RADIATION IS M = 4/3 E/c² = M = 1/3 E/c² + E/c².

*** SO, 1/3 OF MASS E/c² IS "WASTED" IN WORK, IN ORDER TO EQUAL "HIS FORMULA" M = E/c² FOR A CLOSED SYSTEM.

*** AND, IN THIS PURE SAMPLE OF SOPHISTRY AND FALLACIES, HE USE HASENHORL TO TORN DOWN VON LAUE ARGUMENTS.

This seems unacceptable to me. I must admit, of course, that for me the most effective argument for rejecting such a theory is
based on the conviction that relativity is not only against orthogonal linear substitutions, but against a much broader group of substitutions.

But we are not justified to assert this argument because we were unable to find the (most general) substitution
group that belongs to our gravitational equations.

*** REPHRASING IT: GROSSMANN COULDN'T FIND AN EXPRESSION FOR THE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD, BUT WE HAVE TO PUBLISH
THIS CRAP ANYWAY. WE DID A LOT OF P.R. AND PUBLICITY STUNTS TO DISCREDIT OTHER COMPETING THEORIES, SO WE
ARE FORCED TO PUBLISH THIS SCRATCH (ENTWURF), TO HAVE A CHANCE AGAINST NORDSTROM AND MIE.

*** WE CAN'T PUBLISH OUR "SECRET CALCULATIONS" WITH BESSO, ABOUT MERCURY, BECAUSE WE GOT THIS STUPID FORMULA:

*** δθ = - 4π.K.M.Rs².(Tm/Ts)/(10.c².Rm³) = - 2.3"/century (ACTUALLY, AFTER CORRECTING ERRORS, GIVES -0.0012”/century)

On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 9:21:38 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> I extracted a couple of posts lost in another thread's stack, to write them
> here, as an OP.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> χ Θᵤᵥ = Γᵤᵥ was proposed and developed by Marcel Grossmann in the 1913 Entwurf, co-authored with Einstein, while in Zurich:
>
> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol4-doc/325
>
> Outline of a Generalized Theory of Relativity and of a Theory of Gravitation.
> I. Physical Part by A. Einstein
> II. Mathematical Part by M. Grossmann
>
> Published by: Teubner, Leipzig (1913) Reprinted in: Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik 62 (1914)
>
> It starts (Einstein's part) with:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> § 1. Equations of motion of the material point in the static gravitational field.
>
> According to the usual theory of relativity, a point that moves without any force moves according to the equation
>
> (1) δ { ∫ ds } = δ { ∫ √(- dx² - dy² - dz² + c² dt²) } = 0
>
> Because this equation says nothing else than that the material point moves in a straight line and uniformly. This is the equation
> of motion in the form of Hamilton's principle; because we can also say that
>
> (1a) δ { ∫ H dt } = 0 where H = ds/dt m
>
> is set if m is the rest mass of the material point. This results in the known impulse Jx, Jy, Jz and energy E of the moving point:
>
> (2) Jx = m ∂H/∂x = m ẋ /√(c² - q²) ; etc
>
> E = ∂H/∂ẋ ẋ + ∂H/∂ẏ ẏ + ∂H/∂ż ż - H = mc²/√(c² - q²)
>
> This method of representation differs from the usual one only in that Jx, Jy, Jz and E still have a factor c in the latter. But since c is constant in the ordinary theory of relativity, the system given here is equivalent to the one usually given. The only difference is that J and E have different dimensions than in the usual representation.
> ........................................................................................................................
>
> And, just like that, he introduced the modifications of momentum and energy following the 1905 papers (redefining Hamilton).
> The point § 5 introduces Riemann et. all through Poisson, with a lot of assumptions and zero subleties:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> § 5. The differential equations of the gravitational field.
>
> After we have established the momentum-energy equation for the material processes (mechanical, electrical and other processes)
> with reference to the gravitational field, we still have the following task. Let the tensor Θᵤᵥ be given for the material process.
>
> Which are the differential equations that define the quantities g_ik, and allow the gravitational field to be determined?
>
> In other words, we are looking for the generalization of Poisson's equation
>
> Δφ = 4 π k ρ
>
> We have not found such a perfectly inevitable method for solving this problem as for solving the problem discussed above.
>
> It was necessary to introduce some assumptions, the correctness of which appears plausible, but is not evident.
>
> The generalization you are looking for is likely to be of form
>
> (11) χ Θᵤᵥ = Γᵤᵥ
>
> where χ is a constant, Γᵤᵥ is a contravariant tensor of the second order, which is derived from the fundamental tensor gᵤᵥ by
> differential operations. According to Newton-Poisson's law one would be inclined to demand that these equations (11)
> should be of the second order.
> .........................................................................................................................
>
>
> In point 7 of the 1913 Entwurf, Einstein could see how deeply he and Grossmann went into muddy waters
> by using Riemann's non-euclidean geometry, so he ask (and warn to future generation of retarded relativists):
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> § 7. Can the gravitational field be traced back to a scalar?
>
> In view of the undeniable complexity of the theory of gravitation represented here, we must seriously ask ourselves
> whether the view that has hitherto been exclusively held, according to which the gravitational field is reduced to a
> scalar Φ, is not the only obvious and justified one.
>
> I will briefly explain why we think we have to answer this question NEGATIVELY. Characterization of the gravitational
> field by a scalar presents a path which is completely analogous to the one taken above.
>
> One starts with the equation of motion of the material point in Hamiltonian form
>
> δ { ∫ Φ ds } = 0
>
> where ds is the four-dimensional line element of the usual relativity theory and Φ is a scalar, and then proceeds quite
> analogously to the previous one, without having to leave the usual relativity theory.
>
> Here, too, the material process of any kind is characterized by a stress-energy tensor Tᵤᵥ . But with this view a scalar is
> decisive for the interaction between the gravitational field and the material process. This scalar, as Mr. Laue pointed out
> to me, can only be
>
> Σᵤ Tᵤᵤ = P
>
> WHICH I want to call the "Laue Scalar". ONE can do justice to the principle of the equivalence of INERTIAL and
> GRAVITATIONAL mass here to a certain extent. Mr Laue pointed out to me that for a closed system it is CERTAIN that
>
> ∫ P dV = ∫ T₄₄ dτ
>
> *** HERE IS REMARKING THAT, IN THIS WAY, THERE ARE NO GUARANTIES THAT INERTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS BE EQUAL.
>
> *** FROM "§ 6. Influence of the gravitational field on physical processes, especially on electromagnetic processes.":
>
> *** "Because momentum and energy play a role in every physical process, the latter in turn determine the gravitational field
> *** and are influenced by it, the variables gᵤᵥ determining the gravitational field must appear in all physical systems of equations.."
>
> *** THIS REMARK IS KEY FOR THE USE OF RICCI AND LEVI-CIVITA METHOD TO INCORPORATE GRAVITATION IN GR. IN THE
> LINE ELEMENT ds² = Σᵤᵥ gᵤᵥ dxᵤ dxᵥ, 10 OUT OF 16 TERMS CAN BE ASSOCIATED WITH GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIALS
> OR DYNAMIC FIELDS.
>
> *** GROSSMAN, A MATHEMATICIAN EXPERT IN DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY FOR MORE THAN 12 YEARS (NOT A GENIUS, HOWEVER)
> APPRECIATED HOW COMPATIBLE LEVI-CIVITA GEOMETRY WAS WITH A FOUR DIMENSIONAL SPACETIME. IN FACT, THE ONLY
> PURE MATHEMATICAL THEORY AVAILABLE BY 1912 TO DEAL WITH THE LINE ELEMENT ds² = Σᵤᵥ gᵤᵥ dxᵤ dxᵥ.
>
>
> From this one can see that, according to this view, its total energy is decisive for the WEIGHT of a closed system.
> The WEIGHT of incomplete systems would depend on the orthogonal stresses T₁₁ etc. to which the system is subjected.
> This gives rise to consequences that seem unacceptable to me, as the example of cavity radiation will show.
> It is well known that the scalar P disappears for the radiation in a vacuum. If the radiation is enclosed in a massless reflecting box,
> its walls experience tensile stresses which cause the system - taken as a whole - to become a mass ∫ P dτ, which is the energy
> E corresponds to the radiation.
>
> *** HERE, EINSTEIN IS TRYING TO DEAL WITH GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS IN THE SAME WAY HE DID
> IN HIS 1911 PAPER, WHERE HE STATED:
>
> *** M'.g.h - M.g.h = E.g.h/c² OR (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."
>
>
> Instead of enclosing the radiation in a hollow box, I imagine it to be limited
>
> 1. through the reflective walls of a fixed shaft S,
> 2. by two vertically movable reflective walls W1 and W2, which are firmly connected to one another by a rod.
>
> In this case, the mass ∫ P dτ of the movable system is only the third part of the value that occurs in a box that is movable as a
> whole. In order to raise the radiation against a gravity field, one would only have to spend the third part of the work than in the
> case just considered, where the radiation is enclosed in a box.
>
> *** REMEMBER THAT THE BOX IS MASSLESS. EINSTEIN IS PULLING OUT 1905 HASENHORL PAPER WHERE M = 4/3 E/c².
>
> *** OBSERVE THAT, ACCORDING TO HASERNHORL, THE INCREASE IN MASS BY RADIATION IS M = 4/3 E/c² = M = 1/3 E/c² + E/c².
>
> *** SO, 1/3 OF MASS E/c² IS "WASTED" IN WORK, IN ORDER TO EQUAL "HIS FORMULA" M = E/c² FOR A CLOSED SYSTEM.
>
> *** AND, IN THIS PURE SAMPLE OF SOPHISTRY AND FALLACIES, HE USE HASENHORL TO TORN DOWN VON LAUE ARGUMENTS.
>
>
> This seems unacceptable to me. I must admit, of course, that for me the most effective argument for rejecting such a theory is
> based on the conviction that relativity is not only against orthogonal linear substitutions, but against a much broader group of substitutions.
>
> But we are not justified to assert this argument because we were unable to find the (most general) substitution
> group that belongs to our gravitational equations.
>
> *** REPHRASING IT: GROSSMANN COULDN'T FIND AN EXPRESSION FOR THE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD, BUT WE HAVE TO PUBLISH
> THIS CRAP ANYWAY. WE DID A LOT OF P.R. AND PUBLICITY STUNTS TO DISCREDIT OTHER COMPETING THEORIES, SO WE
> ARE FORCED TO PUBLISH THIS SCRATCH (ENTWURF), TO HAVE A CHANCE AGAINST NORDSTROM AND MIE.
>
> *** WE CAN'T PUBLISH OUR "SECRET CALCULATIONS" WITH BESSO, ABOUT MERCURY, BECAUSE WE GOT THIS STUPID FORMULA:
>
> *** δθ = - 4π.K.M.Rs².(Tm/Ts)/(10.c².Rm³) = - 2.3"/century (ACTUALLY, AFTER CORRECTING ERRORS, GIVES -0.0012”/century)
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/oLRiO1XB0fU/m/dI7HBmg2AwAJ
>
> *** SO, WE ARE PUBLISHING 32 PAGES OF "STATE OF THE ART" CRAP. PLEASE, WAIT 30 MONTHS FOR HILBERT COMING IN.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: It can be noticed that, without any proof about the Hasenhorl-like "thought experiment", assess a loss of 1/3 of the energy
> as work against gravity when attempts to raise E within an enclosed box or just as pure energy.
>
> *** Note that von Laue (Planck behind) was his ADVISOR on the theoretical part. What follows next is Grossmann part:
>
> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol4-doc/346
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> II. Mathematical part. By MARCEL GROSSMANN.
>
> The mathematical tools for the development of the vector analysis of a gravitational field, which is characterized by the
> invariance of the line element
>
> ds² = Σᵤᵥ gᵤᵥ dxᵤ dxᵥ
>
> go back to Christoffel's fundamental treatise on the transformation of quadratic differential forms. Based on Christoffel's
> results, Ricci and Levi-Civita developed their methods of absolute differential calculus independent of the coordinate system,
> which allow the differential equations of mathematical physics to be given an invariant form.
>
> But since the vector analysis of the Euclidean space related to any curvilinear coordinates is formally identical to the vector
> analysis of any manifold given by its line element, there are no difficulties in using the vector-analytical concept formations
> as they were in the last few years by Minkowski, Sommerfeld, Laue et al for the theory of relativity, to be extended to the
> general theory of Einstein above.
>
> .......... 15 pages of differential geometry, trying to marry the curvature of
> donuts to energy, motion, time and gravity.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 2021-10-30 04:37:58 +0000, JanPB said:

> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 9:21:38 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> I extracted a couple of posts lost in another thread's stack, to write
>> them> here, as an OP.>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->>
>> χ Θᵤᵥ = Γᵤᵥ was proposed and developed by Marcel Grossmann in the 1913
>> Entwurf, co-authored with Einstein, while in Zurich:>>
>> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol4-doc/325>> Outline of a
>> Generalized Theory of Relativity and of a Theory of Gravitation.> I.
>> Physical Part by A. Einstein> II. Mathematical Part by M. Grossmann>>
>> Published by: Teubner, Leipzig (1913) Reprinted in: Zeitschrift für
>> Mathematik und Physik 62 (1914)>> It starts (Einstein's part) with:>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>> § 1. Equations of motion of the material point in the static
>> gravitational field.>> According to the usual theory of relativity, a
>> point that moves without any force moves according to the equation>>
>> (1) δ { ∫ ds } = δ { ∫ √(- dx² - dy² - dz² + c² dt²) } = 0>> Because
>> this equation says nothing else than that the material point moves in a
>> straight line and uniformly. This is the equation> of motion in the
>> form of Hamilton's principle; because we can also say that>> (1a) δ { ∫
>> H dt } = 0 where H = ds/dt m>> is set if m is the rest mass of the
>> material point. This results in the known impulse Jx, Jy, Jz and energy
>> E of the moving point:>> (2) Jx = m ∂H/∂x = m ẋ /√(c² - q²) ; etc>> E =
>> ∂H/∂ẋ ẋ + ∂H/∂ẏ ẏ + ∂H/∂ż ż - H = mc²/√(c² - q²)>> This method of
>> representation differs from the usual one only in that Jx, Jy, Jz and E
>> still have a factor c in the latter. But since c is constant in the
>> ordinary theory of relativity, the system given here is equivalent to
>> the one usually given. The only difference is that J and E have
>> different dimensions than in the usual representation.>
>> .......................................................................................................................>>
>> And, just like that, he introduced the modifications of momentum and
>> energy following the 1905 papers (redefining Hamilton).> The point § 5
>> introduces Riemann et. all through Poisson, with a lot of assumptions
>> and zero subleties:>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>> § 5. The differential equations of the gravitational field.>> After we
>> have established the momentum-energy equation for the material
>> processes (mechanical, electrical and other processes)> with reference
>> to the gravitational field, we still have the following task. Let the
>> tensor Θᵤᵥ be given for the material process.>> Which are the
>> differential equations that define the quantities g_ik, and allow the
>> gravitational field to be determined?>> In other words, we are looking
>> for the generalization of Poisson's equation>> Δφ = 4 π k ρ>> We have
>> not found such a perfectly inevitable method for solving this problem
>> as for solving the problem discussed above.>> It was necessary to
>> introduce some assumptions, the correctness of which appears plausible,
>> but is not evident.>> The generalization you are looking for is likely
>> to be of form>> (11) χ Θᵤᵥ = Γᵤᵥ>> where χ is a constant, Γᵤᵥ is a
>> contravariant tensor of the second order, which is derived from the
>> fundamental tensor gᵤᵥ by> differential operations. According to
>> Newton-Poisson's law one would be inclined to demand that these
>> equations (11)> should be of the second order.>
>> ........................................................................................................................>>>
>> In point 7 of the 1913 Entwurf, Einstein could see how deeply he and
>> Grossmann went into muddy waters> by using Riemann's non-euclidean
>> geometry, so he ask (and warn to future generation of retarded
>> relativists):>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>> § 7. Can the gravitational field be traced back to a scalar?>> In view
>> of the undeniable complexity of the theory of gravitation represented
>> here, we must seriously ask ourselves> whether the view that has
>> hitherto been exclusively held, according to which the gravitational
>> field is reduced to a> scalar Φ, is not the only obvious and justified
>> one.>> I will briefly explain why we think we have to answer this
>> question NEGATIVELY. Characterization of the gravitational> field by a
>> scalar presents a path which is completely analogous to the one taken
>> above.>> One starts with the equation of motion of the material point
>> in Hamiltonian form>> δ { ∫ Φ ds } = 0>> where ds is the
>> four-dimensional line element of the usual relativity theory and Φ is a
>> scalar, and then proceeds quite> analogously to the previous one,
>> without having to leave the usual relativity theory.>> Here, too, the
>> material process of any kind is characterized by a stress-energy tensor
>> Tᵤᵥ . But with this view a scalar is> decisive for the interaction
>> between the gravitational field and the material process. This scalar,
>> as Mr. Laue pointed out> to me, can only be>> Σᵤ Tᵤᵤ = P>> WHICH I want
>> to call the "Laue Scalar". ONE can do justice to the principle of the
>> equivalence of INERTIAL and> GRAVITATIONAL mass here to a certain
>> extent. Mr Laue pointed out to me that for a closed system it is
>> CERTAIN that>> ∫ P dV = ∫ T₄₄ dτ>> *** HERE IS REMARKING THAT, IN THIS
>> WAY, THERE ARE NO GUARANTIES THAT INERTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS BE
>> EQUAL.>> *** FROM "§ 6. Influence of the gravitational field on
>> physical processes, especially on electromagnetic processes.":>> ***
>> "Because momentum and energy play a role in every physical process, the
>> latter in turn determine the gravitational field> *** and are
>> influenced by it, the variables gᵤᵥ determining the gravitational field
>> must appear in all physical systems of equations.">> *** THIS REMARK IS
>> KEY FOR THE USE OF RICCI AND LEVI-CIVITA METHOD TO INCORPORATE
>> GRAVITATION IN GR. IN THE> LINE ELEMENT ds² = Σᵤᵥ gᵤᵥ dxᵤ dxᵥ, 10 OUT
>> OF 16 TERMS CAN BE ASSOCIATED WITH GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIALS> OR DYNAMIC
>> FIELDS.>> *** GROSSMAN, A MATHEMATICIAN EXPERT IN DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY
>> FOR MORE THAN 12 YEARS (NOT A GENIUS, HOWEVER)> APPRECIATED HOW
>> COMPATIBLE LEVI-CIVITA GEOMETRY WAS WITH A FOUR DIMENSIONAL SPACETIME.
>> IN FACT, THE ONLY> PURE MATHEMATICAL THEORY AVAILABLE BY 1912 TO DEAL
>> WITH THE LINE ELEMENT ds² = Σᵤᵥ gᵤᵥ dxᵤ dxᵥ.>>> From this one can see
>> that, according to this view, its total energy is decisive for the
>> WEIGHT of a closed system.> The WEIGHT of incomplete systems would
>> depend on the orthogonal stresses T₁₁ etc. to which the system is
>> subjected.> This gives rise to consequences that seem unacceptable to
>> me, as the example of cavity radiation will show.> It is well known
>> that the scalar P disappears for the radiation in a vacuum. If the
>> radiation is enclosed in a massless reflecting box,> its walls
>> experience tensile stresses which cause the system - taken as a whole -
>> to become a mass ∫ P dτ, which is the energy> E corresponds to the
>> radiation.>> *** HERE, EINSTEIN IS TRYING TO DEAL WITH GRAVITATIONAL
>> POTENTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS IN THE SAME WAY HE DID> IN HIS 1911
>> PAPER, WHERE HE STATED:>> *** M'.g.h - M.g.h = E.g.h/c² OR (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.">>> Instead of enclosing the radiation in a
>> hollow box, I imagine it to be limited>> 1. through the reflective
>> walls of a fixed shaft S,> 2. by two vertically movable reflective
>> walls W1 and W2, which are firmly connected to one another by a rod.>>
>> In this case, the mass ∫ P dτ of the movable system is only the third
>> part of the value that occurs in a box that is movable as a> whole. In
>> order to raise the radiation against a gravity field, one would only
>> have to spend the third part of the work than in the> case just
>> considered, where the radiation is enclosed in a box.>> *** REMEMBER
>> THAT THE BOX IS MASSLESS. EINSTEIN IS PULLING OUT 1905 HASENHORL PAPER
>> WHERE M = 4/3 E/c².>> *** OBSERVE THAT, ACCORDING TO HASERNHORL, THE
>> INCREASE IN MASS BY RADIATION IS M = 4/3 E/c² = M = 1/3 E/c² + E/c².>>
>> *** SO, 1/3 OF MASS E/c² IS "WASTED" IN WORK, IN ORDER TO EQUAL "HIS
>> FORMULA" M = E/c² FOR A CLOSED SYSTEM.>> *** AND, IN THIS PURE SAMPLE
>> OF SOPHISTRY AND FALLACIES, HE USE HASENHORL TO TORN DOWN VON LAUE
>> ARGUMENTS.>>> This seems unacceptable to me. I must admit, of course,
>> that for me the most effective argument for rejecting such a theory is>
>> based on the conviction that relativity is not only against orthogonal
>> linear substitutions, but against a much broader group of
>> substitutions.>> But we are not justified to assert this argument
>> because we were unable to find the (most general) substitution> group
>> that belongs to our gravitational equations.>> *** REPHRASING IT:
>> GROSSMANN COULDN'T FIND AN EXPRESSION FOR THE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD, BUT
>> WE HAVE TO PUBLISH> THIS CRAP ANYWAY. WE DID A LOT OF P.R. AND
>> PUBLICITY STUNTS TO DISCREDIT OTHER COMPETING THEORIES, SO WE> ARE
>> FORCED TO PUBLISH THIS SCRATCH (ENTWURF), TO HAVE A CHANCE AGAINST
>> NORDSTROM AND MIE.>> *** WE CAN'T PUBLISH OUR "SECRET CALCULATIONS"
>> WITH BESSO, ABOUT MERCURY, BECAUSE WE GOT THIS STUPID FORMULA:>> *** δθ
>> = - 4π.K.M.Rs².(Tm/Ts)/(10.c².Rm³) = - 2.3"/century (ACTUALLY, AFTER
>> CORRECTING ERRORS, GIVES -0.0012”/century)>>
>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/oLRiO1XB0fU/m/dI7HBmg2AwAJ>>
>> *** SO, WE ARE PUBLISHING 32 PAGES OF "STATE OF THE ART" CRAP. PLEASE,
>> WAIT 30 MONTHS FOR HILBERT COMING IN.>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>> NOTE: It can be noticed that, without any proof about the
>> Hasenhorl-like "thought experiment", assess a loss of 1/3 of the
>> energy> as work against gravity when attempts to raise E within an
>> enclosed box or just as pure energy.>> *** Note that von Laue (Planck
>> behind) was his ADVISOR on the theoretical part. What follows next is
>> Grossmann part:>>
>> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol4-doc/346>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>> II. Mathematical part. By MARCEL GROSSMANN.>> The mathematical tools
>> for the development of the vector analysis of a gravitational field,
>> which is characterized by the> invariance of the line element>> ds² =
>> Σᵤᵥ gᵤᵥ dxᵤ dxᵥ>> go back to Christoffel's fundamental treatise on the
>> transformation of quadratic differential forms. Based on Christoffel's>
>> results, Ricci and Levi-Civita developed their methods of absolute
>> differential calculus independent of the coordinate system,> which
>> allow the differential equations of mathematical physics to be given an
>> invariant form.>> But since the vector analysis of the Euclidean space
>> related to any curvilinear coordinates is formally identical to the
>> vector> analysis of any manifold given by its line element, there are
>> no difficulties in using the vector-analytical concept formations> as
>> they were in the last few years by Minkowski, Sommerfeld, Laue et al
>> for the theory of relativity, to be extended to the> general theory of
>> Einstein above.>> .......... 15 pages of differential geometry, trying
>> to marry the curvature of> donuts to energy, motion, time and
>> gravity.>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
> Richard, you comments to the papers are complete, total, idiocies.

On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 1:38:00 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>

> Richard, you comments to the papers are complete, total, idiocies. Sorry.
>
> --
> Jan

I don't think the comments are idiocies. Maybe some descriptive adjectives.

But you have to concede to me that there is a huge, abysmal distance between these formulae:

(1) δθ = - 4π.K.M.Rs².(Tm/Ts)/(10.c².Rm³) = = -0.0012"/century [Einstein-Besso, 1913] , with the Sun as a rotating sphere.

(2) ΔΨ = 24.π³.a²/[(1 – e²).T.c²] = 43′′/century [Einstein, 1915] , with the Sun as a fixed point-like mass & Mercury's mass = 0.

1913, 1914 and 1915 spent trying to figure out how to fudge Gerber's formula through Nordstrom, failing time after time?

Then, in 1 month by Nov. 1915, equation (2) is achieved, along with the 2X increase in the 1911 von Soldner's plagiarism for
light deflection, pulling 1.75" out of his ass? COME ON!

Not to mention that the 43"/100 years Mercury's perihelion advance is an exact match of Newcomb 1898 calculation, and
very close to the 42.57"/100 years that Gerber used as a PARAMETER to calculate the speed of gravity.

Snakes can change a layer of skin several times a year, but it would take them several hundred million years to change its
constitution into a four legged lizard, isn't it?.

For me, the above is a good analogy about mutation in physics and in physiology.

You had an snake in 1913, which mutated to a lizard by 1915.

Anyway, I'm not the expert here. Dono, the reptilian lifeform, is more adequate to tell us something about mutation (in both fields).

On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 11:43:41 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 1:38:00 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Richard, you comments to the papers are complete, total, idiocies. Sorry.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> I don't think the comments are idiocies. Maybe some descriptive adjectives.
>
> But you have to concede to me that there is a huge, abysmal distance between these formulae:
>
> (1) δθ = - 4π.K.M.Rs².(Tm/Ts)/(10.c².Rm³) = = -0.0012"/century [Einstein-Besso, 1913] , with the Sun as a rotating sphere.
>
> (2) ΔΨ = 24.π³.a²/[(1 – e²).T.c²] = 43′′/century [Einstein, 1915] , with the Sun as a fixed point-like mass & Mercury's mass = 0.

What is your point? That a theory under development has changed? Mozart also
changed his compositions while working on them (contrary to the popular myth).

> 1913, 1914 and 1915 spent trying to figure out how to fudge Gerber's formula through Nordstrom, failing time after time?

Why are you using a pejorative here? Why "fudge"? Why not "adapt", "use", etc.?
And why are you making "failing" into such a problem? All theories in all
sciences are, by definition, "failing" until they aren't. Why is this such
an unheard-of revelation?

> Then, in 1 month by Nov. 1915, equation (2) is achieved, along with the 2X increase in the 1911 von Soldner's plagiarism for
> light deflection, pulling 1.75" out of his ass? COME ON!

Again, you seem to think scientists work in a vacuum, with no influences
either existing or allowed.

> Not to mention that the 43"/100 years Mercury's perihelion advance is an exact match of Newcomb 1898 calculation, and
> very close to the 42.57"/100 years that Gerber used as a PARAMETER to calculate the speed of gravity.

Irrelevant. You are completely blind to the physics here and see this
entire thing more like a lawyer. Science is not done this way and,
likewise, credit is assigned differently.

> Snakes can change a layer of skin several times a year, but it would take them several hundred million years to change its
> constitution into a four legged lizard, isn't it?.
>
> For me, the above is a good analogy about mutation in physics and in physiology.
>
> You had an snake in 1913, which mutated to a lizard by 1915.
>
> Anyway, I'm not the expert here. Dono, the reptilian lifeform, is more adequate to tell us something about mutation (in both fields).

Don't bother with this, it's not a good match for your talents.

--
Jan

On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 9:21:38 PM UTC-7, rabid kapo Richard Hertz barked:
> bark, bark, bark

Keep barking, odious kapo

Marcel Grossmann was a loyal and humble friend of Einstein, and his participation in Einstein's years 1897-1914 (17 years) was
exceptional. Without Grossmann, Einstein would NEVER HAD SUCCEEDED in any way because he made himself a fame of a
bastard renegate, starting with his years at the Polytechnic.

Einstein was a charlatan, charming with men and women, but not gifted in any particular area of hard sciences (physics, mathematics,
chemistry). However, as a philosopher and a sophist with a strong command of language (speech, writing and communication skills)
Einstein was special. He was a charismatic hypnotist in terms of philosophy, in particular the old natural philosophy, and charmed his
acquaintances and friends (like in the 1902-1904 Olympia Society, with Conrad Habicht, and Maurice Solovine) with his pure exercises
of sophistry and the use of fallacies. Such topics were fundamental for the intellectual development of Einstein since the Polytechnic
which, along with his extraordinary ability to manipulate other persons, excessive sense of superiority plus personal ambitions, marked
his trajectory until he peaked when being 35 years old. His success was based on strong social networking abilities, from which he
profitted by using his extraordinary "emotional intelligence".

Grossmann documented interventions to save Einstein from his problems in life are in:

https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Grossmann/

The help of friends/lovers/acquaintances between 1899 and 1915 is widely documented (Maric, Solovine, Habicht, Drude, Wien, Planck,
von Laue, Sommerfeld, Lorentz, Schwarzschild, Besso, Laub, Hopf, Stern, Fokker, de Haas, Ehrenfest, and several others just in this period).
The extraordinary amount of written material that Einstein produced in about 40 years (more than 40,000 documents) were filtered and
digitalized in the last decades to create the project "Albert Einstein Papers", with more than 15,000 documents available online. I have to
remark that, regarding scientific papers, there is an strange void in the period 1900-1906. Only his publications, some love letters and
letters with friends/acquaintances survived until these days, but few notebooks with his scratches prior to publications have survived. Also, with the exception of the "51 pages Einstein-Besso manuscript from 1913-1914", very few other manuscript with his ideas and calculations prior to 1917 survived, which cast DOUBTS about how he elaborated his 1915 calculations. The Einstein-Besso manuscript, found after Besso's death in 1955, are a good example of the way their minds worked, and how prone to errors they were.

The fundamental contribution of Marcel Grossmann to the general relativity started in August 1912, when Einstein arrived back at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zürich having been appointed to the chair of theoretical physics. He was struggling to extend his special theory of relativity to include gravitation. Einstein approached his friend, seeking help with the following words: “Grossmann, you have to help me, or else I'll go crazy!” It is fortunate for physics that Grossman helped. This is quoted from the journal Nature:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys2885

The cry for help to Grossmann was not arbitrary. By 1912, Grossmann was a well known and respected specialist in differential geometry
and, by 1910, co-founded the Swiss Mathematical Society. While in Prague (April 1911 - July 1912), Einstein occupied the chair in
theoretical physics at the German Charles Ferdinand University, where he returned to his ideas about relativity and gravitation, and wrote
the 1911 paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light".

Being cornered by his lack of mathematical abilities, and knowing that other scientists were trying to expand the works of Poincaré and
Minkowski on relativity and gravitation, he asked for help to a mathematician at the Ferdinand University, who advised him to the use of differential geometry (which, ironically, he thought it was an stupid waste of time by 1899, requiring the help of Grossmann to pass the
course).

It was at Prague, in 1911 that Einstein claimed he "discovered that the equivalence principle demands a refraction of the rays of light at
the sun", along with other conceptions that he reflected on his paper (without knowing of von Soldner, he claimed).

https://www.einstein-website.de/z_biography/prague.html

After reunited with Grossmann at Zurich, it was Grossmann who pointed out to him the relevance of the tensor calculus proposed by
Christoffel in 1864, and developed by Ricci-Curbastro and Levi-Civita around 1901. Einstein was convinced by Grossmann's expert
explanations. Einstein wrote to Arnold Sommerfeld on 29 October 1912:-

"I am now working exclusively on the gravitation problem and believe that I can overcome all difficulties with the help of a mathematician
friend of mine here [Marcel Grossmann]. But one thing is certain: never before in my life have I toiled any where near as much, and I have
gained enormous respect for mathematics, whose more subtle parts I considered until now, in my ignorance, as pure luxury. Compared
with this problem, the original theory of relativity is child's play."

And, IN THIS WAY, the humble Marcel Grossmann (who never asked public recognition for his INVENTION), created the MONSTROUS
MONUMENT to human idiocy (no pun for Grossmann, in any way). A mathematician TOOK DIRECT COMMAND for the development
of a theory where non-linear spacetime twist and bend under MASS, JUST BECAUSE mathematics dictated how space, time and energy
work together.

Even more: as such theoretical body only found use in physics ONLY IN GR, it's even credited to Grossmann the term TENSOR.

No other single source before 1912 has been found using such denomination.

So, there you have it: Grossmann INVENTED General Relativity and also INVENTED the term TENSOR, used ever since.

Without Grossmann, we would have a MORE RATIONAL SCALAR THEORY OF GRAVITATION, 300 years after Newton.

On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 4:20:13 PM UTC-7, odious kapo Richard Hertz barked:
>bark,bark,bark,bark<

This post addresses the attempt of historians to REWRITE how Einstein positively evolved in his mathematical abilities about absolute
differential analytic geometry in a short period of time and how historians ATTEMPT to show much more strong capacity to deal with
such complexity prior to his partnership with Grossmann. Also, the contribution of MANY "friends" is conveniently not shown.

As in so many other cases of study about historical occurrences, the truth will never be known. Only the biased opinions transcend
time (decades, centuries,..) and original 2nd. versions are very difficult to find (or impossible if you burn things and rewrite them).

It's an excerpt of the "Einstein's Research Notes on a Generalized Theory of Relativity" documentation presented here:

Volume 4: The Swiss Years: Writings 1912-1914 Page 192

https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol4-doc/214

--------------------------------------------------- Excerpt ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Einstein's research notebook contains two larger sections on gravitation, in addition to a variety of entries related to thermodynamics,
radiation theory, and electrodynamics.

All entries are related to Einstein's scientific interests or to his teaching duties in the years 1912 and 1913. Those parts pertaining to
gravitation are presented here as Doc. 10.[1] They derive from the TRANSITION between Einstein's theory of static gravitational fields
of 1912 (Docs. 3, 4, and 7)[2] and the "Entwurf" theory presented in Einstein and Grossmann 1913 (Doc. 13).[3]

These calculations on gravitation MUST HAVE BEEN undertaken AFTER Einstein's move from Prague to Zurich in August 1912 because
they already assume that gravitation is to be represented by the metric tensor of space-time. They were complete by May 1913 with the
submission of Einstein and Grossmann 1913 (Doc. 13). The notes fall into three parts. The first, referred to as Part I in the following,
covers [pp. 1-9]. The next two parts, [pp. 10-26] and [pp. 27- 58], start from the other end of the notebook.

In the course of these calculations, Einstein proceeds from a recapitulation of ELEMENTARY properties of the metric tensor to
SOPHISTICATED computations using the absolute differential calculus set forth in Ricci and Levi-Civita 1901. IT IS NOT CLEAR WHY
Einstein did many of these calculations, even though MOST of them can be RECONSTRUCTED unambiguously.

Major portions of Einstein's notes, however, are attempts to devise the gravitational field equations that are presented in Einstein and
Grossmann 1913 (Doc. 13). As a result, Doc. 10 is able to throw considerable light onto the historical development of Einstein's general
theory of relativity. With the completion of Einstein and Grossmann 1913 (Doc. 13), the two authors had laid out virtually all the elements
of the general theory of relativity, which at this point LACKED ONLY the gravitational field equations that Einstein would FINALLY ADOPT
in November 1915.

These latter field equations, now part of the accepted general theory of relativity, are generally covariant. In 1913, however, Einstein and
Grossmann had to report their FAILURE to find acceptable GENERALLY COVARIANT field equations and their decision to settle for
gravitational field equations of LIMITED COVARIANCE. This decision cost Einstein THREE YEARS OF PAINFUL STRUGGLE as he tried first
to reconcile himself to the limited covariance of his theory and then retracted it.

The text of Einstein and Grossmann 1913 (Doc.13) contains ONLY SCANT CLUES as to the reasons for this decision. Doc. 10, and especially its third part, provide the most complete record available of the progression in Einstein's thinking as he EXPLORED possibilities
for the gravitational field equations, considered the now standard choices, but abandoned them in favor of the equations of the Entwurf theory.
................
Einstein had not known originally of the relevant works of Riemann, Ricci, and Levi-Civita, only learning of them from Marcel Grossmann
after seeking Grossmann's help in constructing generally covariant quantities from the space-time metric (see sec. III below).

--------------------------------------------------- End of Excerpt ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The digitalized form of these documents are RECONSTRUCTED in the following link, replacing the handwriting with computerized
alphabets (PostScript?). Each digital page is presented with ESTIMATED DATES, as well as marks [nn] made by those who worked
in the reconstruction, which are used at the end to provide INTERPRETATIONS of the manuscripts.

The 68 web pages comprises about 58 digitalized pages of the original manuscripts, along with 220 equations numbered by
researchers as [eq. 220] and 139 aclarations, marked as (139) for instance. The fist date is estimated to be August 1912.

Volume 4: The Swiss Years: Writings 1912-1914 Page 201(through 269)
https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol4-doc/223

Almost all equations are credited to be written by Einstein himself in a period that SHOULD EXCEED the last date of the Einstein-Besso
manuscript, which covered from the summer of 1913 to early 1914, well after the publishing of the Entwurf.

This manuscript is devoted to the calculation of Mercury's perihelion advance (100% wrong), and is analyzed here:

Einstein’s Dirty Laundry: The lost 51 pages manuscript he wrote with M.Besso in 1913 about Mercury.
https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/oLRiO1XB0fU/m/dI7HBmg2AwAJ

Finally, I'd like to comment about what historians and biographers call a NATURAL EVOLUTION between 1907 and 1915 the effort
credited to Einstein to incorporate gravitation to relativity.

For whom is called the greatest mind in the history, it is not NATURAL neither EVOLUTIVE to produce quantum leaps in productivity
in steps 1907-1911 (zero advance), 1912-1915 (poor advance, even with Grossmann-Besso) and Nov 1915 (100% completion).

It's well known that Einstein dismissed every previous work by July-August 1915, when he asked Hilbert for help. It's also known
(not so well) the extensive exchange of letters with Levi-Civita in the first half of 1915 (which produced NOTHING). So, doing the
math in term of months:

1907-1911: 60 months producing nothing of value regarding relativity and gravitation.

1912-1915: 46 months producing some products discarded entirely.

Oct-Nov 1915: 2 months to produce 4 final papers with the right theory of GR, the right value of 43"/cent. in Mercury's problem and
the "to be right four years in the future" value of 1.75" on deflection of star light when passing by the Sun's surface.

The time ratio of 2:108 months to synthesize EVERYTHING is not natural nor an evolution. It's a MUTATION, to say the least.

Other prodigal minds, in modern history of physics and electronics, provide an stark contrast when it comes to talk about geniuses:

1) Planck, with the right data from lab, required only TWO febrile months of work to derive his famous solution to the BBC in 1900.

2) Maxwell required only half the year of 1865 to deliver his field equations, and invested his next 7 years to produce his
monumental Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism (more than 1,000 pages) which can be used still today and contained the
entire knowledge accumulated in the previous 50 years.

3) Bohr required half a year, by 1913, to provide the FIRST modern atomic model which opened the way to QM in the next decade.

4) Schrodinger required only an inspired Christmas vacation to develop his first model of Wave Mechanics.

5) Dirac used 6 months of 1928 to produce his relativistic Wave Equation, foundational of QFT and else.

6) Wien invested 6 months of 1893, in lab and theoretical work, to deliver his famous displacement law (Nobel Prize)

7) Rutherford delivered insights of radioactivity and atoms about once a year, since 1897 to 1920.

8) Shockley delivered his famous book "Electrons and Holes in Semiconductors" (a 558-page treatise used for decades) in one year,
inventing at the same time the junction transistor.

9) Heisenberg conceived his Matrix Mechanics in a break for health issues, in a couple of months in 1925.

10) Le Verrier predicting the existence and position of Neptune in 1846, using his model of perturbation in orbits, with which he
found a calculated 38"/century difference in the advance of the perihelion of Mercury that couldn't be explained under Newton.
His theory had more than 400 formulae and used observational registers since 1631 to 1840 to compute the whole solar system.

All of the above had natural evolutionary path in their developments, PLUS quantum leaps of thought provided by their insightful minds.

Einstein evolution is as non-linear as its GR. It's a MUTATION that happened in 2 months and that is not proven certain or justified
until these days. Something fishy always surrounded Einstein short career of 10 years, after which he produced NOTHING.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> This post addresses the attempt of historians to REWRITE how Einstein
> positively evolved in his mathematical abilities about absolute
> differential analytic geometry in a short period of time and how
> historians ATTEMPT to show much more strong capacity to deal with
> such complexity prior to his partnership with Grossmann. Also, the
> contribution of MANY "friends" is conveniently not shown.
>

For as much as you extol then importance of knowing the history of physics,
you sure seem to favor writing fiction.

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

On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 12:20:23 AM UTC-7, despicable kapo Richard Hertz barked some more:
> bark,bark,bark,bark<

On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 10:08:10 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> For as much as you extol then importance of knowing the history of physics,
> you sure seem to favor writing fiction.

The excerpt is INTACT, except for my use of CAPITAL LETTERS to highlight the funny comments of researchers.

The exaggerate attempt to portrait Einstein as a Titan of Science is pathetic, but retarded relativists buy anything that
suit their image of the iconic "lone genius", when actually he was running an enterprise with 100's employees.

It's like to believe about Disney watching the movie "Walt Disney, the early days" and documentaries in its different versions, but
with a production effort 1,000,000 times larger and longer along decades, portraying him as a naive talented dreamer, when
actually he was a magnificent SOB, who spared no dirty efforts to succeed.

The fame and reaches of Einstein is undeserved and out of any proportion. And the more they try to show his "scientific side"
struggling to overcome the flaws of "his human side", the more ridicule such attempts are.

It's, with all the evidence that exists, a need to build a "religious icon of science" to sustain the CULT around him. UNDESERVED!

A "lone genius", working as a patent clerk until his 30's, against the entire scientific community. Why he didn't last more than 1 year
in Prague and found shelter at Zurich, until he was rescued by Planck and Schwarzschild in 1914? This history is CONVENIENTLY
buried 6 feet under, except for some historians who tell the truth.

Which was the REAL role of Schwarzschild in his life, between late 1913 and 1915?
Why he turned down Levi-Civita, when he was teaching him in the first half of 1915 with "secret letters". Was it
because it was an "act of treason" being Italy and German at war?
How come Eddington (again being UK and Germany being at war) overcome accusations of treason while "corresponding"
with Einstein (papers, future expeditions for the eclipse, etc.)?

WHO CREATED EINSTEIN AND BY WHAT REASONS?

That's the main question that remains unanswered for 100 years.

Op 31-okt.-2021 om 18:31 schreef Richard Hertz:

[snip to essence]

> WHO CREATED EINSTEIN AND BY WHAT REASONS?
>
> That's the main question that remains unanswered for 100 years.
>

I answered the question: an editor with an agenda to annoy
the shit out of people like you.

Dirk Vdm

On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 2:37:06 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

[snip to essence]

> > WHO CREATED EINSTEIN AND BY WHAT REASONS?
> >
> > That's the main question that remains unanswered for 100 years.
> >
> I answered the question: an editor with an agenda to annoy
> the shit out of people like you.

The first "editor with an agenda" was Paul Drude (12 July 1863 – 5 July 1906), as the Chief Editor of
the Annalen der Physik. He authorized the publications from 1902 to 1905, plus 19 works of revisionism
of scientific papers in THERMODYNAMICS, which complemented Einstein's incomes.
He killed himself the next year. Guilt?

The other editor, advisor on Experimental Physics, was Willy Wien (he hated Planck), who almost devised
the "photoelectric effect" paper and provided Einstein with TONS of data to write an anti-planckian paper.
The hand of Wien is evident all over the paper, as he almost NEGATED the work of Planck, which turned
down his theory on BBC (aniways, Willy got his Nobel).

Wien, it's said and proven, was who provided Einstein with FULL DATA about Eotvos experiment, which is
what Einstein used to open the 1913 Entwurf. Read it, is available at Princeton site.

Even when Wien and Planck shared the steering of Annalen since Drude's death, the hate was there. The
seed of the evil pure theoretical physics vs. centuries old experimental+theoretical physics.

What was it all about? A FIGHT between two ways to understand physics?

It only takes the job of listing who helped Einstein in that epoch vs. who didn't. The data is all out there,
and is quite revealing.

Was a kind of undercover, cannibalistic war going on between two fractions at Germany MANY YEARS BEFORE
the ascendance of national-socialism to the power (20-30 years later)?

Also, check the other publishing journals and sites which allowed Einstein's 92 publications in that epoch (1901-1917).

61 publications at Annalen der Physik (papers, reviews, comments)
2 publications at Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik (1913 and 1914 Entwurf, with Grossmann. WHY?)
8 publications at Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, after he came to Berlin, and about GR.
21 publications at 12 different journals in four countries, almost repeating the same things.

Then, WHO CREATED Einstein between 1905 and 1915 and WHY?

On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 11:22:27 AM UTC-7, despicable kapo Richard Hertz wrote:

> Also, check the other publishing journals and sites which allowed Einstein's 92 publications in that epoch (1901-1917).
>
> 61 publications at Annalen der Physik (papers, reviews, comments)
> 2 publications at Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik (1913 and 1914 Entwurf, with Grossmann. WHY?)
> 8 publications at Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, after he came to Berlin, and about GR.
> 21 publications at 12 different journals in four countries, almost repeating the same things.
>
Right, Einstein was a genius, while you are just a piece of shit. You were born this way, your only consolation is that you will die an even bigger piece of shit, courtesy of your kapo posts on the internet

Op 31-okt.-2021 om 19:22 schreef Richard Hertz:
>
> Then, WHO CREATED Einstein between 1905 and 1915 and WHY?
>

It doesn't matter who did it. They did a fine job annoying the
liquid shit out of you.

Dirk Vdm

On 10/31/2021 1:31 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> WHO CREATED EINSTEIN AND BY WHAT REASONS?
>
Well, it went something like this. Einstein's mom and his dad loved
each other very much, and it was a chilly night so they snuggled to keep
warm, then one thing led to another and 9 months later, Baby Albert!

On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 3:22:27 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

> Also, check the other publishing journals and sites which allowed Einstein's 92 publications in that epoch (1901-1917).
>
> 61 publications at Annalen der Physik (papers, reviews, comments)
> 2 publications at Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik (1913 and 1914 Entwurf, with Grossmann. WHY?)
> 8 publications at Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, after he came to Berlin, and about GR.
> 21 publications at 12 different journals in four countries, almost repeating the same things.
>
> Then, WHO CREATED Einstein between 1905 and 1915 and WHY?

Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik, where Einstein and Grossmann published their two Entwurf (1913, 1914), was
the vixra of that epoch. It was created in 1856 and closed in 1917.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitschrift_f%C3%BCr_Mathematik_und_Physik

"Schlömilch and Teubner wanted a journal that was also accessible and of interest to
teachers and applied mathematicians and that was not as academic in its contributions
as the Annalen der Physik or the Journal für die pure and applied mathematics."

Is this because Planck turned down any chances to publish the HIGHLY SPECULATIVE Entwurf at the Annalen der Physik?

And is THIS the reason due to which the resented Einstein pulled his strings to publish further advances in GR
at the Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, instead of Annalen, by kissing the asses of Mie and Abraham there?

Is true that Planck distanced from supporting Einstein after Grossmann came in with the idiotic Riemaniann shit from Levi-Civita?
Space bending by matter and all that shit of GR?

Only 1 paper, co-authored with Fokker, appeared in that period:

(1914) Nordstöm's Theory of Gravitation from the Point of View of the Absolute Differential Calculus

Plus one response to von Laue (1915), after von Laue's opinion about the fundaments of GR (von Laue: right hand of Planck).

Then, something smells rotten in denmark, isn't it?

JanPB wrote:

> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 11:43:41 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> Not to mention that the 43"/100 years Mercury's perihelion advance is
>> an exact match of Newcomb 1898 calculation, and very close to the
>> 42.57"/100 years that Gerber used as a PARAMETER to calculate the speed
>> of gravity.
>
> Irrelevant. You are completely blind to the physics here and see this
> entire thing more like a lawyer. Science is not done this way and,
> likewise, credit is assigned differently.

idiot.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/m7UgUBADy0Ei/
Wikileaks Releases Moon Landing Cut Scenes in Nevada Desert

On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 11:47:43 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz admitted that his brain is rotting. :

> Then, something smells rotten

It is your brain, Dick. Has been rotting ever since you were in college.

Op 31-okt.-2021 om 19:47 schreef Richard Hertz:
> On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 3:22:27 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

[snip]

>
> Then, something smells rotten in denmark, isn't it?
>

In Argentina.

Dirk Vdm

On 10/29/21 11:37 PM, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 9:21:38 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> [...]
> Richard, you comments to the papers are complete, total, idiocies. Sorry.

Why should you apologize for telling the truth about his errors?

Tom Roberts

Continuing with my OP about who created GR, and further posts about Einstein as a dishonest person, quick to promote
himself without shame, this is another DROP in the cup: How he "killed Nordstrom" as competitor by publicly humiliating
him and his theory in 1914, using the effort of his protegee Fokker (who was sent by Lorentz to "study" under Einstein).

Einstein-Fokker: "Nordstöm's Theory of Gravitation from the Point of View of the Absolute Differential Calculus", ADP 1914.

Einstein had invited the poor Nordstrom to Zurich to "discuss" about their theories, but it was an "act of treason", because
he used Nordstrom's naive discussions to DESTROY Nordstrom's theory by using Fokker for the dirty job. And this wasn't
to be the last time Einstein was going to be around parroting that everyone else theories were wrong except HIS, and using
Nordstrom as the failed alternative: scalars vs. tensors.

In this paper, the Mercury problem wasn't even mentioned. The truth behind such critic paper was to be revealed in the
"Einstein-Besso-Fokker manuscript" only 40+46 years after (YES, 86 years after).

Einstein asked the young Fokker to RECALCULATE Nordstrom theory under Entwurf I. What Fokker achieved was two-fold:

1) To prove Nordstrom theory as incorrect, because it gave a value of - 7"/century to the Mercury's problem.

2) To force Nordstrom, to whom he invited to Zurich in July 1913 to get info from the naive foreigner, to ABANDON his
scalar theory of gravitation. He achieved this in the next year, causing Nordstrom to find another areas for research.

What the FUCKER didn't told to Nordstrom was that he and Besso barely achieved -0.0012"/century in that epoch.

Einstein MASACRED Nordstrom publicly, but kept his secret to the grave!. Only 40 years after, when Besso died, a forgotten
51 pages manuscript saw the light and, STILL, was preserved within a reduced group of scholars for ANOTHER 40 years,
until it was made public in 1993, when it was MONETIZED in $398,500 at a public auction in 1996, and resold by the buyer
in 2019 at almost 4 million USD.

Anyone can read the TRUE history in this thread, and appreciate how idiots Einstein&Besso were, as well as what Fokker achieved:

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

And a curious part of the Fokker paper is that it provided a formula EXACTLY 6 TIMES lower than 1898 Gerber's formula.
Einstein's greedy eyes should have stuck on such formula, figuring out HOW TO fudge the factor "6" in Nordstrom's derivation.

He succeeded (without explanations) on Nov. 18, 1915, under the intense watch of Schwarzschild, who was there under
military license.

Just to remember:

δθ = - 4π.K.M.Rs².(Tm/Ts)/(10.c².Rm³) = - -1.4 . 10E-11 rad/orbit = -1.2 . 10E-3 "/century [Einstein-Besso, 1913]

ΔΨ = 4.π³.a²/[(1 – e²).T².c²] = 0.8 × 10E-7 rad/orbit = 7.2 ′′/century [Fokker, using Nordström and Entwurf theories, 1913]

Note that Fokker derivation was exactly 1/6 the value of Gerber's formula. This factor was fudged in the 1915 paper.

Einstein NEVER mentioned publicly such SECRET manuscript. Why did Besso kept it?

Einstein's dirty laundry, as the 1996 article called the manuscript after the auction.

On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 3:43:15 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz continued to eat shit:
> further posts about Richard Hertz as a dishonest person, quick to promote
>myself without shame,

On Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 19:27:22 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 11:22:27 AM UTC-7, despicable kapo Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > Also, check the other publishing journals and sites which allowed Einstein's 92 publications in that epoch (1901-1917).
> >
> > 61 publications at Annalen der Physik (papers, reviews, comments)
> > 2 publications at Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik (1913 and 1914 Entwurf, with Grossmann. WHY?)
> > 8 publications at Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, after he came to Berlin, and about GR.
> > 21 publications at 12 different journals in four countries, almost repeating the same things.
> >
> Right, Einstein was a genius, while you are just a piece of shit.

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