On Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 20:23:28 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> 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?

And what has FORCED you, poor halfbrain? And why was
GPS staff resistant?

On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 11:52:07 AM UTC-7, Buster Wise wrote:
> 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

Nonsense. That an adult can believe in such idiocies is truly amazing.

--
Jan

On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 12:23:28 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> 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?

I think I may have hurt his feelings :-)

--
Jan

In a former post I remarked that, while on Prague (April 1911 - July 1912), Einstein was advised by a mathematician colleague to find a
way to deal with his desire to integrate SR with gravitation by using riemannian geometry. And that such advice was instrumental for
Einstein to beg Grossmann to help him (or he would go crazy) by mid 1912, when he resigned his position at Prague and went to Zurich
as a professor in theoretical physics. Grossmann was residing at Zurich by then.

As I couldn't find the article with the name of that mathematician, I went back to this german site which has another bio of Einstein:

ALBERT EINSTEIN’S YEARS IN PRAGUE, 1911-1912
https://www.einstein-website.de/z_biography/prague.html

I did a search about who were who recommended Einstein for such position (among a choice of three), and I found that the vacancy for
the position of professor on theoretical physics existed because Ferdinand Lippich retired. The commission of experts was formed by
the mathematician Georg Pick and second dean Anton Lampa from the philosophical faculty.

And this was the man, Georg Pick, who advised Einstein. BUT, according to his bio, he did much more than advising him. He taught him:

Georg Alexander Pick
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Alexander_Pick

I rescued three excerpts:

"Georg Alexander Pick (10 August 1859 – 26 July 1942) was an Austrian-born mathematician."

"After receiving his doctorate he was appointed an assistant to Ernst Mach at the Charles-Ferdinand University in Prague. He became
a lecturer there in 1881. He took a leave from the university in 1884 during which he worked with Felix Klein at the University of Leipzig. Other than that year, he remained in Prague until his retirement in 1927 at which time he returned to Vienna."

"Pick headed the committee at the (then) German university of Prague, which appointed Albert Einstein to a chair of mathematical
physics in 1911. Pick introduced Einstein to the work of Italian mathematicians Gregorio Ricci-Curbastro and Tullio Levi-Civita in the
field of absolute differential calculus, which later in 1915 helped Einstein to successfully formulate general relativity."

It can be seen that every site preserving the memory of Einstein try to get some piece of history by claiming some parts of Einstein's
achievements, in one way or another. In this case, Wikipedia enhance the role of Pick. The problem is that the pieces of narratives
don't add up. "Something Funny Happened on the Way to the Forum", like in the musical comedy.

1) Einstein's connections were fundamental for Pick selecting him.
2) Pick did make a huge effort to get such position to him, including twisting the rules about nationality: having a Swiss nationality,
Einstein was "undenominational" and couldn’t swear a real oath of allegiance to Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria unless he had
a "confession of loyalty". Done that, the Emperor permitted the chair for Einstein with validity from April 1, on January 6. At the same
time the Institute for Theoretical Physics was opened by a minister decree and Einstein was entrusted with the management of it.
3) Sharing jewish roots, Pick and Einstein DID start to work together in secrecy on the mathematical side of relativity. The race for a
new theory of gravitation was opened by Minkowski in 1908 and, by 1911, several theories were under development (Abraham, Mie,
Nordstrom, Sommerfeld, etc.) and Einstein was FAR BEHIND.
4) Paul Ehrenfest come from Petersburg to met him and collaborate with him, starting a lifelong friendship.
5) Einstein only had 6 students during such period, with 5 classes per week, 1 hour each. He had a lot of free time to work with Pick.
6) The University got a place for Einstein to attend the October 1911 Solvay Conference, with Lorentz as President. Einstein, assisted
by Planck, made a lot of acquaintances from UK, France, Germany and others. It seemed glorious days for him.
7) SUDDENLY, months after all these efforts, Einstein RESIGNED to his position and returned to Zurich in June 2012.
The resignation had to be officially permitted by Emperor Franz Joseph I, due to his "confession of loyalty".

This narrative doesn't add up. Just doesn't.

Is that such prestigious University, the 3rd. oldest in Europe and where Tycho Brae walked around with his assistant Kepler 400
years before REALIZED that they had bought VAPORWARE?

That actually Einstein showed, in full colors, that he was an imbecile inept to talk coherently about physics and mathematics?

Were the motives behind this abrupt resignation, after 15 months, that the cold relationship with Planck started? Planck, very probably,
had a hand for the recommendation of Einstein to the position.

Did the collaboration with Pick turned nasty, so the adaptive Einstein preferred to play safe in a comfort zone with Grossmann and
Besso at Zurich?

Einstein was known for being and arrogant and stubborn bastard, who chewed and spat people as if they were objects.

As I wrote before, he was mainly a charlatan hypnotist, with enormous power to seduce/convince people. He was a natural
"social predator" who changed friends as anyone else change underwear. NOBODY HAS 100 FRIENDS. NOBODY.

So, while playing the role of partner with Grossmann in his safe place at Zurich, he was planning how to get his dream as a professor
at Berlin University, with no duties for teaching and only contracted as a "theoretical researcher". Einstein was visited by Planck and
Nerst on July 11, 1913 at his residence in Zurich. They brought a preliminary offer of a position at Berlin University with an annual
salary of 12,000 marks, a 12 years contract (about 6,000 1913 USD or about 240,000 USD today) and the direction of a future institute
to be created by 1917. Nobody saw WWI was coming, or that was one reason?

https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=LQz5DAAAQBAJ&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=how+much+was+earning+einstein+at+berlin&source=bl&ots=Ax2jWqomaf&sig=ACfU3U2fs8x2CJt9Njl3Lz9uDq4bwiLPhg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwin66GBvfbzAhWmHLkGHSxaCoMQ6AF6BAgcEAM#v=onepage&q=how%20much%20was%20earning%20einstein%20at%20berlin&f=false

BUT HE HAD TO show more advances, like the Entwurf II (1914) with Grossmann, another victim of the predator. It would only took
him some extra months to get close to the call (Schwarzschild's hand in between, to get the 3+ million USD funding as required). Of
course, WWI cut formal links with Grossmann (good for Einstein, so he could move on).

I think that we'll never know the TRUE AND FILTHY history behind Einstein, Grossmann, Besso and friends and the CONTEST for a general
theory of relativity. WWI changed EVERYTHING, and nothing was to be believed during WWI or after it, like the Eddington affair.

But, as it's said when any felony or crime is made: Follow the money.

I wonder what happen with Pick and the Prague position. We'll never know.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Well, there’s also all the blather you wrote surrounding the excerpts.

>
> The exaggerate attempt to portrait Einstein as a Titan of Science is pathetic

Who, exactly, portrays Einstein as a “Titan of Science”? Are you tilting at
windmills? Trying to deflate an ectoplasmic effigy with your rusty lance,
Mr. Quixote?

> , 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"

Who says, besides you, that he is a “religious icon of science”? Are you
frustrated with your own hyperbole?

> to sustain the CULT around him. UNDESERVED!
>
> A "lone genius",

Who says, besides you, that he was a “lone genius”?

Who has manufactured this fiction you’re trying to dissemble, besides you?

> 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.
>
>

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

On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 11:21:12 PM UTC-7, odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps eating shit:
>munch,munch,munch<.

On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 6:06:11 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It's, with all the evidence that exists, a need to build a "religious icon of science"
> Who says, besides you, that he is a “religious icon of science”? Are you
> frustrated with your own hyperbole?
> > to sustain the CULT around him. UNDESERVED!
> >
> > A "lone genius",
> Who says, besides you, that he was a “lone genius”?

Most of the Einstein Derangement Syndrome cranks of the past (on this NG)
erect a carefully crafted strawman designed solely to be thoroughly nuked.
Which they then proceed to do with gay abandon.

--
Jan

JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 6:06:11 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> It's, with all the evidence that exists, a need to build a "religious icon of science"
>> Who says, besides you, that he is a “religious icon of science”? Are you
>> frustrated with your own hyperbole?
>>> to sustain the CULT around him. UNDESERVED!
>>>
>>> A "lone genius",
>> Who says, besides you, that he was a “lone genius”?
>
> Most of the Einstein Derangement Syndrome cranks of the past (on this NG)
> erect a carefully crafted strawman designed solely to be thoroughly nuked.
> Which they then proceed to do with gay abandon.
>
> --
> Jan
>

Indeed. Because reality is harder to nuke than strawmen.

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

On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 11:37:28 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:

> erect a carefully crafted strawman designed solely to be thoroughly nuked.
> Which they then proceed to do with gay abandon.
>
....and with a lot of fun and entertainment. This is why this forum was created, to pin down the village idiots

One might wonder what was Einstein looking for to replace Newton's theory on gravitation using fields instead of forces, and
why he started to believe that advanced analytical geometry had the required complexity to explain effects of gravity that caused
elliptical orbitals of celestial bodies around a massive star.

Newton's actions at a distance of gravitational forces was a concept questioned since the beginning, but the undeniable success
explaining with almost perfect accuracy of planetary motions under Kepler's laws was (and is) an insuperable barrier.

For more than 200 years, the greatest minds at Europe surrendered under such empirical facts, which were under constant scrutiny
by the most advanced and exact science that nature provided: observational astronomy using geometry.

The works of Newton (1643-1727), Lagrange (1736-1813), Laplace (1749-1827), Le Verrier (1811-1877), among many other bright
contributors on celestial mechanics in the XVIII and XIX centuries reached almost perfection with the mathematical discovery of the
planet Neptune by Le Verrier on August 31, 1846. Such announcement was confirmed 5 days later by Galle and d'Arrest at the Berlin
Fraunhofer Observatory. By then, the theory of gravitation applied to the Solar System had reached an enormous complexity. Le Verrier
invested 16 years developing a Solar System model using perturbation methods and expansions of series up to the 7th. power for the
expressions of eccentricities and inclinations, including 469 terms dependent on 154 special functions. Le Verrier's legacy, comprising
more than 4,000 pages currently registered at the Annales de l’Observatoire de Paris. In particular, a calculated difference of 38"/100 y
in the advance of Mercury's perihelion was the FIRST example that Newton's theory couldn't account for 100% of facts in gravity.

But, even in times of absolute space and time plus actions at as distance widely accepted concepts, questions about ZERO reference
for space (Newton's bucket) and origins of Solar System (Laplace's nebular hypothesis) were common among philosophers of science.
And they had a common ground: ROTATION and VORTEXES, which were even addressed mathematically to find answers.

- Why evenly scattered matter gave birth to the Sun and planetary systems in the span of millions/billion years?
- Why elliptic orbits were the answer for "stable" motion of planets and periodic comets?
- Why gravity acted as if it had infinite speed, even when light didn't have one?
Before and after Le Verrier unexplained phenomena of Mercury's behavior (which was detected by tiny discrepancies over centuries),
many scientists of that epoch wondered if fluid mechanics could explain some things, using concepts of vortexes and spiral-like
rotations of fluids in a drain.

For instance, experiments at Germany using water spiraling in a vortex showed that heavy balls thrown into such vortex (using water
or compressed air) acted developing elliptical orbits (like planets) around the neutral axis of the vortex. It was like watching the
behavior of the solar system in accelerated time frames comprising millions of years.

Many different experiments were popular by the time Einstein was wondering how to profit from Minkowski's space time. It's not
difficult to imagine how such experiments worked in the mind of Einstein and many others: ROTATION AND VORTEX in a field (like
gravitational field, which was subject of attention of prior scientists like Poisson (1781- 1840) and his equation Δφ = 4πkρ, which
is the ideological basis of the 1913 Entwurf).

Also, it's NOT DIFFICULT to imagine Einstein seeking the help of Grossmann to mathematically model spacetime in terms of such
equation of Poisson, with the EXPECTATIONS that such complexity could work explaining the behavior of Mercury DRAGGING
spacetime along (as if it was a fluid substance), being such subtle DRAG of spacetime (ether anyone?) causing non-linear advance
in the orbit of the planet with the highest eccentricity (Mercury).

But the Grossmann's model FAILED to provide an answer (Einstein-Besso hidden manuscript).

This fact is HIGHLY VISIBLE if one study such manuscript, his equations and assumptions, derived from a FAILED THEORY:

- Sun as a rotating sphere, with given mass, radius and rotation period.
- Mercury as a captive mass, orbiting Sun with a (short term) period and high elliptical eccentricity.
- Calculations, using basic outputs g_uv of Entwurf, extended over 100 years time frame.

This is the result formulae, hidden for 42+41= 96 years, now publicly available at Princeton site:

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

A COMPLETE FAILURE OF THE RIEMANNIAN THEORY, post doctored by Ricci&Levi-Civita ABSOLUTE (irony here) DIFFERENTIAL
GEOMETRY.

Now, what happens when you abandon everything you worked for during 30 months and plagiarize someone's else (Hilbert?). You get:

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.

No rotating Sun, no mass for Mercury, no sphere-like but point-like representations of the Sun (old Newton all the way), PLUS
the ghost of 1898 Gerber's formula all over.

But HOW the hack happened, at plain sight? EASY: Solve THIS equation:

Φ = ∫ dx/√(2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³) , between α₁ and α₂

claiming that α₁ = 1/a and α₂ = 1/b (major and minor Mercury's semi-axis)

STATE that the solution for the advance of the perihelion in half orbit is:

Φ = π [1 + 3/2 α/[ a (1 - e²)]] , equation (12) in the original Nov. 18, 1915 presentation to the PAS.

Make a full revolution and extract 2π. You are left with a non-newtonian difference:

ε = 3π α/[ a (1 - e²)]] , equation (13) in the original Nov. 18, 1915.

Now, "restore" all the physical units made "1° under the geometric analysis, and you got:

ε = 24.π³.a²/[(1 – e²).T.c²] , equation (14), valued as 43"/century, in the original Nov. 18, 1915.

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

HINT: The elliptic integral ∫ dx/√(2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³) HAS NOT AN EXACT ANALYTICAL SOLUTION.

Only fancy approximations, discarding and planting whatever you want, can be achieved. APPROXIMATIONS!

And, when it comes to approximations, you can to APPROXIMATE to whatever you want, like Gerber's formula!

This is ONE of many reasons for which GR is a pile of pure CRAP. Not to mention the "never shown" original calculation
for the 1.75" of star light passing by Sun's surface.

By 1927, even for the MOST EXPERT ASTRONOMERS in the world, such calculation was IMPOSSIBLE to be reconstructed.

There you have, relativists, the "proofs" of the validity of GR: Pure crap, lies, deception, cover up, nonphysical meaning, SHIT.

Now, go and explain that such values have been obtained even theoretically, by different sources in the last 100 years.

Still, no solution for the elliptical integral exists. And regarding deflection of light, with mathemagics you can prove that a pig can fly.

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + ......... = -1/12 (mathemagics at work, used to explain the Casimir effect).

MATHEMATICS IS NOT PHYSICS.

On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 19:37:28 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 6:06:11 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > It's, with all the evidence that exists, a need to build a "religious icon of science"
> > Who says, besides you, that he is a “religious icon of science”? Are you
> > frustrated with your own hyperbole?
> > > to sustain the CULT around him. UNDESERVED!
> > >
> > > A "lone genius",
> > Who says, besides you, that he was a “lone genius”?
> Most of the Einstein Derangement Syndrome cranks of the past (on this NG)
> erect a carefully crafted strawman designed solely to be thoroughly nuked..

While, on the other hand, all of Einstein's fanatic defenders
of the past (this NG) erect a carefully crafted strawman
designed solely to be thoroughly nuked.

On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 12:37:03 PM UTC-7, rabid dog Richard Hertz barked:
> One might wonder what was Einstein looking for to replace Newton's theory on gravitation using fields instead of forces, and
> why he started to believe that advanced analytical geometry had the required complexity to explain effects of gravity that caused
> elliptical orbitals of celestial bodies around a massive star.

Cretinoid,

GR does NOT use analytical geometry, it uses differential geometry, a completely different field. Keep on barking. .

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> One might wonder what was Einstein looking for to replace Newton's theory
> on gravitation using fields instead of forces, and
> why he started to believe that advanced analytical geometry had the
> required complexity to explain effects of gravity that caused
> elliptical orbitals of celestial bodies around a massive star.
>
> Newton's actions at a distance of gravitational forces was a concept
> questioned since the beginning, but the undeniable success
> explaining with almost perfect accuracy of planetary motions under
> Kepler's laws was (and is) an insuperable barrier.
>
> For more than 200 years, the greatest minds at Europe surrendered under
> such empirical facts, which were under constant scrutiny
> by the most advanced and exact science that nature provided:
> observational astronomy using geometry.
>
> The works of Newton (1643-1727), Lagrange (1736-1813), Laplace
> (1749-1827), Le Verrier (1811-1877), among many other bright
> contributors on celestial mechanics in the XVIII and XIX centuries
> reached almost perfection with the mathematical discovery of the
> planet Neptune by Le Verrier on August 31, 1846. Such announcement was
> confirmed 5 days later by Galle and d'Arrest at the Berlin
> Fraunhofer Observatory. By then, the theory of gravitation applied to the
> Solar System had reached an enormous complexity. Le Verrier
> invested 16 years developing a Solar System model using perturbation
> methods and expansions of series up to the 7th. power for the
> expressions of eccentricities and inclinations, including 469 terms
> dependent on 154 special functions. Le Verrier's legacy, comprising
> more than 4,000 pages currently registered at the Annales de
> l’Observatoire de Paris. In particular, a calculated difference of 38"/100 y
> in the advance of Mercury's perihelion was the FIRST example that
> Newton's theory couldn't account for 100% of facts in gravity.
>
> But, even in times of absolute space and time plus actions at as distance
> widely accepted concepts, questions about ZERO reference
> for space (Newton's bucket) and origins of Solar System (Laplace's
> nebular hypothesis) were common among philosophers of science.
> And they had a common ground: ROTATION and VORTEXES, which were even
> addressed mathematically to find answers.
>
> - Why evenly scattered matter gave birth to the Sun and planetary systems
> in the span of millions/billion years?
> - Why elliptic orbits were the answer for "stable" motion of planets and periodic comets?
> - Why gravity acted as if it had infinite speed, even when light didn't have one?

The fact that electromagnetic effects propagate at finite speed is one of
the key reasons that the field formulation prevailed over a description by
forces at a distance, which have no concept of delay. In the force at a
distance model between two bodies, a change in one body has an immediate
effect on the other body. Since this is manifestly incorrect experimentally
for electromagnetism, the field model progressed.

Then, if gravity is described also with a field, then finite propagation
speeds are also an implication. The observation of gravitational waves is
in full support of that implication. Gravity does not propagate as though
it has infinite speed, and I don’t know why you think this is an open
question.

Rest of your uninformed nonsense left unread. It doesn’t take long for you
to say something stupid.

>
> Before and after Le Verrier unexplained phenomena of Mercury's behavior
> (which was detected by tiny discrepancies over centuries),
> many scientists of that epoch wondered if fluid mechanics could explain
> some things, using concepts of vortexes and spiral-like
> rotations of fluids in a drain.
>
> For instance, experiments at Germany using water spiraling in a vortex
> showed that heavy balls thrown into such vortex (using water
> or compressed air) acted developing elliptical orbits (like planets)
> around the neutral axis of the vortex. It was like watching the
> behavior of the solar system in accelerated time frames comprising millions of years.
>
> Many different experiments were popular by the time Einstein was
> wondering how to profit from Minkowski's space time. It's not
> difficult to imagine how such experiments worked in the mind of Einstein
> and many others: ROTATION AND VORTEX in a field (like
> gravitational field, which was subject of attention of prior scientists
> like Poisson (1781- 1840) and his equation Δφ = 4πkρ, which
> is the ideological basis of the 1913 Entwurf).
>
> Also, it's NOT DIFFICULT to imagine Einstein seeking the help of
> Grossmann to mathematically model spacetime in terms of such
> equation of Poisson, with the EXPECTATIONS that such complexity could
> work explaining the behavior of Mercury DRAGGING
> spacetime along (as if it was a fluid substance), being such subtle DRAG
> of spacetime (ether anyone?) causing non-linear advance
> in the orbit of the planet with the highest eccentricity (Mercury).
>
> But the Grossmann's model FAILED to provide an answer (Einstein-Besso hidden manuscript).
>
> This fact is HIGHLY VISIBLE if one study such manuscript, his equations
> and assumptions, derived from a FAILED THEORY:
>
> - Sun as a rotating sphere, with given mass, radius and rotation period.
> - Mercury as a captive mass, orbiting Sun with a (short term) period and
> high elliptical eccentricity.
> - Calculations, using basic outputs g_uv of Entwurf, extended over 100 years time frame.
>
> This is the result formulae, hidden for 42+41= 96 years, now publicly
> available at Princeton site:
>
> δθ = - 4π.K.M.Rs².(Tm/Ts)/(10.c².Rm³) = = -0.0012"/century
> [Einstein-Besso, 1913] , with the Sun as a rotating sphere.
>
> A COMPLETE FAILURE OF THE RIEMANNIAN THEORY, post doctored by
> Ricci&Levi-Civita ABSOLUTE (irony here) DIFFERENTIAL
> GEOMETRY.
>
> Now, what happens when you abandon everything you worked for during 30
> months and plagiarize someone's else (Hilbert?). You get:
>
> 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.
>
> No rotating Sun, no mass for Mercury, no sphere-like but point-like
> representations of the Sun (old Newton all the way), PLUS
> the ghost of 1898 Gerber's formula all over.
>
> But HOW the hack happened, at plain sight? EASY: Solve THIS equation:
>
>
> Φ = ∫ dx/√(2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³) , between α₁ and α₂
>
> claiming that α₁ = 1/a and α₂ = 1/b (major and minor Mercury's semi-axis)
>
> STATE that the solution for the advance of the perihelion in half orbit is:
>
> Φ = π [1 + 3/2 α/[ a (1 - e²)]] , equation (12) in the original Nov.
> 18, 1915 presentation to the PAS.
>
> Make a full revolution and extract 2π. You are left with a non-newtonian difference:
>
> ε = 3π α/[ a (1 - e²)]] , equation (13) in the original Nov. 18, 1915.
>
> Now, "restore" all the physical units made "1° under the geometric analysis, and you got:
>
> ε = 24.π³.a²/[(1 – e²).T.c²] , equation (14), valued as 43"/century, in
> the original Nov. 18, 1915.
>
> *******************
>
> HINT: The elliptic integral ∫ dx/√(2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³) HAS
> NOT AN EXACT ANALYTICAL SOLUTION.
>
> Only fancy approximations, discarding and planting whatever you want, can
> be achieved. APPROXIMATIONS!
>
> And, when it comes to approximations, you can to APPROXIMATE to whatever
> you want, like Gerber's formula!
>
> This is ONE of many reasons for which GR is a pile of pure CRAP. Not to
> mention the "never shown" original calculation
> for the 1.75" of star light passing by Sun's surface.
>
> By 1927, even for the MOST EXPERT ASTRONOMERS in the world, such
> calculation was IMPOSSIBLE to be reconstructed.
>
> There you have, relativists, the "proofs" of the validity of GR: Pure
> crap, lies, deception, cover up, nonphysical meaning, SHIT.
>
> Now, go and explain that such values have been obtained even
> theoretically, by different sources in the last 100 years.
>
> Still, no solution for the elliptical integral exists. And regarding
> deflection of light, with mathemagics you can prove that a pig can fly.
>
> 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + ......... = -1/12 (mathemagics at work, used
> to explain the Casimir effect).
>
> MATHEMATICS IS NOT PHYSICS.
>
>

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

On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 4:37:03 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

> Now, what happens when you abandon everything you worked for during 30 months and plagiarize someone's else (Hilbert?). You get:
>
> 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.
>
> No rotating Sun, no mass for Mercury, no sphere-like but point-like representations of the Sun (old Newton all the way), PLUS
> the ghost of 1898 Gerber's formula all over.
>
> But HOW the hack happened, at plain sight? EASY: Solve THIS equation:
>
>
> Φ = ∫ dx/√(2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³) , between α₁ and α₂
>
> claiming that α₁ = 1/a and α₂ = 1/b (major and minor Mercury's semi-axis)
>
> STATE that the solution for the advance of the perihelion in half orbit is:
>
> Φ = π [1 + 3/2 α/[ a (1 - e²)]] , equation (12) in the original Nov. 18, 1915 presentation to the PAS.
>
> Make a full revolution and extract 2π. You are left with a non-newtonian difference:
>
> ε = 3π α/[ a (1 - e²)]] , equation (13) in the original Nov. 18, 1915.
>
> Now, "restore" all the physical units made "1° under the geometric analysis, and you got:
>
> ε = 24.π³.a²/[(1 – e²).T².c²] , equation (14), valued as 43"/century, in the original Nov. 18, 1915.
>
> *******************
>
> HINT: The elliptic integral ∫ dx/√(2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³) HAS NOT AN EXACT ANALYTICAL SOLUTION.
>
> Only fancy approximations, discarding and planting whatever you want, can be achieved. APPROXIMATIONS!
>
> And, when it comes to approximations, you can to APPROXIMATE to whatever you want, like Gerber's formula!

<snip>

Something funny happened in the "SOLUTION" of this elliptic integral:

Φ = ∫ dx/√(2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³) , between α₁ = 1/a and α₂ = 1/b

WOULD GIVE

ε = 12.π³.a²/[(1 – e²).T².c²] , valued as 21.5"/century or HALF THE VALUE calculated by Einstein.

because the integral covers only 1/4 the length of the perimeter of an ellipse (covering π/2 radians, NOT π radians).

IS IT TRUE THAT THE INTEGRAL OVER THE PERIMETER OF THE ORBIT OF MERCURY ONLY COVERED π/2 RADIANS?

Opinions accepted!.

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

So, in consequence, even the simple exact analytical solution for the perimeter of an ellipse DOES NOT EXIST. The problem with
the elliptical integral

Φ = ∫ dx/√(2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³) , between α₁ = 1/a and α₂ = 1/b

is MUCH MORE COMPLEX, and requires two orders of approximation.

In the simple case of an ellipse with equation x²/a² + y²/b² = 1, the replacement with α₁ = 1/a and α₂ = 1/b gives x² α₁² + y² α₂² = 1.
The integration between α₁ and α₂ only covers 1/4 of the perimeter of an ellipse. One approximation was given by Euler in 1773:

P ≈ 2π√[(a²+b²)/2] = 2π.a.√(1 - e²/2), being 2π.a if e = 0.

In 1914, Ramanujan gave the approximation

P ≈ π [3(a+b) - √(a+3b)(3a+b)] = π a [3(1+√(1 - e²)) - √(1+3√(1 - e²))(3+√(1 - e²))], being 2π.a if e = 0.

So, if not even the perimeter of an ellipse can be exactly obtained with 1st. degree approximations, HOW COME an elliptic integral
over such perimeter COULD BE ACHIEVED by Einstein in Nov. 18, 1915 paper?

And, such APPROXIMATION OF 43" (maybe 21.5") has been maintained by 100 years as certain?

Smelly fish, in any way you look at the solution provided by the inept con man in 1915 (with a slide rule calculator)!

On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 5:54:46 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> If Grossmann participated with Einstein without asking for anything
> how are you going to judge that. No. You like to lie about Einstein...
> The liar lies...
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

I didn't judge Grossmann in any way. Quite the opposite.

I started the OP here regarding him as a humble and loyal friend, MUCH MORE CAPABLE than Einstein in any possible way.

He created the entire basis for Einstein and his GR, pulling the idiot out of the mental darkness. But, as an opinionated bastard,
he didn't follow Grossmann's advices. So, after the Entwurf II, in 1914, and mediating WWI breakout, they NEVER worked together again.

Grossmann had respect within mathematicians circles at Europe by then. Einstein didn't.

Grossmann work is still respected today, within the community of relativists, who gather every three years under his name.

On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 4:04:42 PM UTC-7, despicable kapo Richard Hertz kept on barking:
> bark,bark,bark,bark<

On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 4:04:42 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> In the simple case of an ellipse with equation x²/a² + y²/b² = 1, the replacement with α₁ = 1/a and α₂ = 1/b gives x² α₁² + y² α₂² = 1.
> The integration between α₁ and α₂ only covers 1/4 of the perimeter of an ellipse. One approximation was given by Euler in 1773:
>
> P ≈ 2π√[(a²+b²)/2] = 2π.a.√(1 - e²/2), being 2π.a if e = 0.
>
> In 1914, Ramanujan gave the approximation
>
> P ≈ π [3(a+b) - √(a+3b)(3a+b)] = π a [3(1+√(1 - e²)) - √(1+3√(1 - e²))(3+√(1 - e²))], being 2π.a if e = 0.
>
> So, if not even the perimeter of an ellipse can be exactly obtained with 1st. degree approximations, HOW COME an elliptic integral
> over such perimeter COULD BE ACHIEVED by Einstein in Nov. 18, 1915 paper?

Man, your questions are just amazing. That you can even think of attempting to
criticise relativity with this competence level is simply astonishing.

--
Jan

ABOUT THE HOAX OF EINSTEIN'S FIRST PROOF OF THE GENERAL RELATIVITY ON NOV. 18, 1915.

Continuing with previous posts where I remarked the MUTATION of the formula for the advance of Mercury's perihelion from
Grossmann Entwurf (1913) to Hilbert outline (1915) APPROXIMATIONS:

(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.

Being (2) an EXACT REPLICA of 1989 Gerber's derivation, I want to HIGHLIGHT some contents of the Nov. 18, 1915 paper, which
can be read (translated to English) at this link:

Einstein's Paper:“Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228923053_Einstein%27s_PaperExplanation_of_the_Perihelion_Motion_of_Mercury_from_General_Relativity_Theory

The paper, 9 pages long, is claimed as the FIRST PROOF of the success of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. It was claimed
by Einstein and friendly journalists as the ultimate proof of GR by explaining the non-newtonian difference of 43"/cy excess in the
calculations of Le Verrier 40 years before. Le Verrier calculated (with a very complex theoretical model plus 200 years observations)
that Newton's celestial mechanics only could account for 530"/cy of the total CALCULATED ADVANCE OF 568"/cy. The 38"/cy was
updated by Newcomb to 43"/cy, very close to the 42.5"/cy that Gerber used as a INPUT PARAMETER for his formulae.

The problem, A SHAME FOR ARDENT RELATIVISTS in the last 100 years, is that such formula COULDN'T NEVER EVER BE DERIVED AGAIN.

It left Gerber as THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER, 17 years before Einstein HACK. Einstein COULDN'T SHOW how he derived such formula,
nor any other scientist since 1915, either by trying to reproduce Einstein's approximation or using Schwarzschild's metric nor any other
metric. If you do a deep research on this BIG ISSUE, you find only NUMERICAL APPROXIMATIONS but not a single attempt to derive
Einstein's formula. ZERO, NONE!.

A translation of Gerber's paper can be read here:

The Spatial and Temporal Propagation of Gravity
by Paul Gerber, in Stargard, Pomerania, 1898

http://www.alternativephysics.org/gerber/Perihelion.htm

where you can read the final part of the document, trying to find the speed of gravity, a non-elliptical integral:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For the perihelion movement ψ during an orbit, we therefore find

Ψ = ∫ [ (v/(c²/γ + 2) - v.w/(c²/γ + 2)² ] dα , for α between 0 and 2π
...............
Finally we obtain

c² = 24.π³.a²/[(1 – e²).τ². Ψ]

where τ is the orbital period of the planet. For Mercury in particular, the following values apply:

a = 0.3871 × 149 × 10⁶ km (= 5.768 × 10¹⁰ m),
ε = 0.2056,
τ = 88 days (= 7.603 × 10⁶ sec),
ψ = 4.789 × 10⁻⁷.

From this we find that c = 305500 km/sec.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the case of Einstein's 1915 paper, which approximate derivation could never be reconstructed, you find that from

Φ = ∫ dx/√(2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³) , between α₁ = 1/a and α₂ = 1/b

being A = 1/2 (dr² + r² dθ²)/ds² - α/2r and B = r² dθ/ds , BOTH CLAIMED CONSTANTS.

ε = 24.π³.a²/[(1 – e²).T.c²] IS OBTAINED (as an approximation, but exactly the same formula from Gerber, anyway).

The PROBLEM for relativists, willing to defend Einstein, is that the approximation Φ is an elliptical integral with not known solution.

So, since 1916, while many accused Einstein of plagiarism, fudging and hacking on such infamous paper, other (among them notable
scholars) tried to JUSTIFY Einstein through Schwarzschild metric (which ALSO has no exact analytical solution).

These papers, without any shame, try to justify the solution by providing ONLY numerical final values from approximations, using
Schwarzschild of other similar metric derived from GR solutions TO AN SPACE VOID OF MATTER.

1) Complete calculations of the perihelion precession of Mercury and the deflection of light by the Sun in General Relativity
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.3709.pdf

2) Explanation of Light Deflection, Precession of Mercury's Perihelion, Gravitational Red Shift and Rotation Curves in Galaxies, by using
General Relativity or equivalent Generalized Scalar Gravitational Potential, according to Special Relativity and Newtonian Physics
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1730/1/012080/meta

3) Gravitation, field and rotation of mercury perihelion
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228428991_Gravitation_field_and_rotation_of_mercury_perihelion

4) ELLIPTIC INTEGRALS AND SOME APPLICATIONS
https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/us/en/files/Jay-Villanuevaictcm3013.pdf

5) The Precession of Mercury’s Perihelion
https://sites.math.washington.edu/~morrow/papers/Genrel.pdf

And, if any is interested in treatment of the subject in books written by specialists since 1960, just look at the references in above papers.

CONCLUSIONS:

1) Grossmann's Entwurf I (1913) and II (1914) didn't work for Mercury or the solution of a GFE, but introduced Riemann's to Einstein world.

2) First and second papers of the "famous 4", presented in November 1915, were PLAIN WRONG.

3) Third paper, by Nov. 18, on Mercury's perihelion advance is an intellectual scam. It was impossible to reproduce it in 100 years.
Only numerical approximations of different orders (dozens, mostly using Schwarzschild) can't provide a formula. In the best case,
results are presented as quotients of truncated series. Never again Gerber's formula appeared, except for claims of plagiarism.

4) The fourth and final paper, by Nov. 25 1915, is a deceiving and tricky copy of Hilbert's paper from Nov. 18. It was manipulated to
hide the source in a febrile 24x7 work of Team Einstein to deliver the GFE and corrections to the 1st. and 2nd. paper.

5) Except to attack those who accused plagiarism of Gerber's work in the next years, Einstein NEVER ADDRESSED this subject again.

6) Einstein, biased press and friends did a lot of PR for the next three years about the success of GR, just based on Gerber's formula.
He rejected criticism by calling them anti-relativistic and anti-semite. The controversies followed even after the Eddington affair.

7) General relativity is one of the most impressive hoax in science supported by a monumental coverup that didn't cease in 100 years.
Meanwhile, NASA/ESA and Russia & China space agencies uses Newton for any purpose on space missions.

I'll continue this posts analyzing the events of November 1915, using non-biased historical sources and analysis by historians of science.

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 11:31:01 AM UTC-7, rabid kapo Richard Hertz kept on barking:
> bark,bark,bark<

ABOUT THE HOAX OF EINSTEIN'S FIRST PROOF OF THE GENERAL RELATIVITY ON NOV. 18, 1915.

Continuing with previous posts where I remarked the MUTATION of the formula for the advance of Mercury's perihelion from
Grossmann Entwurf (1913) to Hilbert outline (1915) APPROXIMATIONS:

(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.

Being (2) an EXACT REPLICA of 1989 Gerber's derivation, I want to HIGHLIGHT some contents of the Nov. 18, 1915 paper, which
can be read (translated to English) at this link:

Einstein's Paper:“Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228923053_Einstein%27s_PaperExplanation_of_the_Perihelion_Motion_of_Mercury_from_General_Relativity_Theory

The paper, 9 pages long, is claimed as the FIRST PROOF of the success of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. It was claimed
by Einstein and friendly journalists as the ultimate proof of GR by explaining the non-newtonian difference of 43"/cy excess in the
calculations of Le Verrier 40 years before. Le Verrier calculated (with a very complex theoretical model plus 200 years observations)
that Newton's celestial mechanics only could account for 530"/cy of the total CALCULATED ADVANCE OF 568"/cy. The 38"/cy was
updated by Newcomb to 43"/cy, very close to the 42.5"/cy that Gerber used as a INPUT PARAMETER for his formulae.

The problem, A SHAME FOR ARDENT RELATIVISTS in the last 100 years, is that such formula COULDN'T NEVER EVER BE DERIVED AGAIN.

It left Gerber as THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER, 17 years before Einstein HACK. Einstein COULDN'T SHOW how he derived such formula,
nor any other scientist since 1915, either by trying to reproduce Einstein's approximation or using Schwarzschild's metric nor any other
metric. If you do a deep research on this BIG ISSUE, you find only NUMERICAL APPROXIMATIONS but not a single attempt to derive
Einstein's formula. ZERO, NONE!.

A translation of Gerber's paper can be read here:

The Spatial and Temporal Propagation of Gravity
by Paul Gerber, in Stargard, Pomerania, 1898

http://www.alternativephysics.org/gerber/Perihelion.htm

where you can read the final part of the document, trying to find the speed of gravity, a non-elliptical integral:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For the perihelion movement ψ during an orbit, we therefore find

Ψ = ∫ [ (v/(c²/γ + 2) - v.w/(c²/γ + 2)² ] dα , for α between 0 and 2π
...............
Finally we obtain

c² = 24.π³.a²/[(1 – e²).τ². Ψ]

where τ is the orbital period of the planet. For Mercury in particular, the following values apply:

a = 0.3871 × 149 × 10⁶ km (= 5.768 × 10¹⁰ m),
ε = 0.2056,
τ = 88 days (= 7.603 × 10⁶ sec),
ψ = 4.789 × 10⁻⁷.

From this we find that c = 305500 km/sec.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the case of Einstein's 1915 paper, which approximate derivation could never be reconstructed, you find that from

Φ = ∫ dx/√(2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³) , between α₁ = 1/a and α₂ = 1/b

being A = 1/2 (dr² + r² dθ²)/ds² - α/2r and B = r² dθ/ds , BOTH CLAIMED CONSTANTS.

ε = 24.π³.a²/[(1 – e²).T².c²] IS OBTAINED (as an approximation, but exactly the same formula from Gerber, anyway).

The PROBLEM for relativists, willing to defend Einstein, is that the approximation Φ is an elliptical integral with not known solution.

So, since 1916, while many accused Einstein of plagiarism, fudging and hacking on such infamous paper, other (among them notable
scholars) tried to JUSTIFY Einstein through Schwarzschild metric (which ALSO has no exact analytical solution).

These papers, without any shame, try to justify the solution by providing ONLY numerical final values from approximations, using
Schwarzschild of other similar metric derived from GR solutions TO AN SPACE VOID OF MATTER.

1) Complete calculations of the perihelion precession of Mercury and the deflection of light by the Sun in General Relativity
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.3709.pdf

2) Explanation of Light Deflection, Precession of Mercury's Perihelion, Gravitational Red Shift and Rotation Curves in Galaxies, by using
General Relativity or equivalent Generalized Scalar Gravitational Potential, according to Special Relativity and Newtonian Physics
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1730/1/012080/meta

3) Gravitation, field and rotation of mercury perihelion
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228428991_Gravitation_field_and_rotation_of_mercury_perihelion

4) ELLIPTIC INTEGRALS AND SOME APPLICATIONS
https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/us/en/files/Jay-Villanuevaictcm3013.pdf

5) The Precession of Mercury’s Perihelion
https://sites.math.washington.edu/~morrow/papers/Genrel.pdf

And, if any is interested in treatment of the subject in books written by specialists since 1960, just look at the references in above papers.

CONCLUSIONS:

1) Grossmann's Entwurf I (1913) and II (1914) didn't work for Mercury or the solution of a GFE, but introduced Riemann's to Einstein world.

2) First and second papers of the "famous 4", presented in November 1915, were PLAIN WRONG.

3) Third paper, by Nov. 18, on Mercury's perihelion advance is an intellectual scam. It was impossible to reproduce it in 100 years.
Only numerical approximations of different orders (dozens, mostly using Schwarzschild) can't provide a formula. In the best case,
results are presented as quotients of truncated series. Never again Gerber's formula appeared, except for claims of plagiarism.

4) The fourth and final paper, by Nov. 25 1915, is a deceiving and tricky copy of Hilbert's paper from Nov. 18. It was manipulated to
hide the source in a febrile 24x7 work of Team Einstein to deliver the GFE and corrections to the 1st. and 2nd. paper.

5) Except to attack those who accused plagiarism of Gerber's work in the next years, Einstein NEVER ADDRESSED this subject again.

6) Einstein, biased press and friends did a lot of PR for the next three years about the success of GR, just based on Gerber's formula.
He rejected criticism by calling them anti-relativistic and anti-semite. The controversies followed even after the Eddington affair.

7) General relativity is one of the most impressive hoax in science supported by a monumental coverup that didn't cease in 100 years.
Meanwhile, NASA/ESA and Russia & China space agencies uses Newton for any purpose on space missions.

I'll continue this posts analyzing the events of November 1915, using non-biased historical sources and analysis by historians of science.

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 11:39:38 AM UTC-7, Nazi bootlicker Richard Hertz barked:
> bark,bark,bark<

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 3:39:38 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

> Continuing with previous posts where I remarked the MUTATION of the formula for the advance of Mercury's perihelion from
> Grossmann Entwurf (1913) to Hilbert outline (1915) APPROXIMATIONS:
>
> (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).T².c²] = 43′′/century [Einstein, 1915] , with the Sun as a fixed point-like mass & Mercury's mass = 0.
>
> Being (2) an EXACT REPLICA of 1989 Gerber's derivation, I want to HIGHLIGHT some contents of the Nov. 18, 1915 paper, which
> can be read (translated to English) at this link:
>
> Einstein's Paper:“Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory”
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228923053_Einstein%27s_PaperExplanation_of_the_Perihelion_Motion_of_Mercury_from_General_Relativity_Theory
>
> The paper, 9 pages long, is claimed as the FIRST PROOF of the success of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. It was claimed
> by Einstein and friendly journalists as the ultimate proof of GR by explaining the non-newtonian difference of 43"/cy excess in the
> calculations of Le Verrier 40 years before. Le Verrier calculated (with a very complex theoretical model plus 200 years observations)
> that Newton's celestial mechanics only could account for 530"/cy of the total CALCULATED ADVANCE OF 568"/cy. The 38"/cy was
> updated by Newcomb to 43"/cy, very close to the 42.5"/cy that Gerber used as a INPUT PARAMETER for his formulae.

<snip>

> It left Gerber as THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER, 17 years before Einstein HACK. Einstein COULDN'T SHOW how he derived such formula,
> nor any other scientist since 1915, either by trying to reproduce Einstein's approximation or using Schwarzschild's metric nor any other
> metric. If you do a deep research on this BIG ISSUE, you find only NUMERICAL APPROXIMATIONS but not a single attempt to derive
> Einstein's formula. ZERO, NONE!.
>
> A translation of Gerber's paper can be read here:
>
> The Spatial and Temporal Propagation of Gravity
> by Paul Gerber, in Stargard, Pomerania, 1898
>
> http://www.alternativephysics.org/gerber/Perihelion.htm
>
> where you can read the final part of the document, trying to find the speed of gravity, a non-elliptical integral:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "For the perihelion movement ψ during an orbit, we therefore find
>
> Ψ = ∫ [ (v/(c²/γ + 2) - v.w/(c²/γ + 2)² ] dα , for α between 0 and 2π
> ..............
> Finally we obtain
>
> c² = 24.π³.a²/[(1 – e²).τ². Ψ]
>
> where τ is the orbital period of the planet. For Mercury in particular, the following values apply:
>
> a = 0.3871 × 149 × 10⁶ km (= 5.768 × 10¹⁰ m),
> ε = 0.2056,
> τ = 88 days (= 7.603 × 10⁶ sec),
> ψ = 4.789 × 10⁻⁷.
>
> From this we find that c = 305500 km/sec.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In the case of Einstein's 1915 paper, which approximate derivation could never be reconstructed, you find that from
>
> Φ = ∫ dx/√(2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³) , between α₁ = 1/a and α₂ = 1/b
>
> being A = 1/2 (dr² + r² dθ²)/ds² - α/2r and B = r² dθ/ds , BOTH CLAIMED CONSTANTS.
> ε = 24.π³.a²/[(1 – e²).T².c²] IS OBTAINED (as an approximation, but exactly the same formula from Gerber, anyway).
> The PROBLEM for relativists, willing to defend Einstein, is that the approximation Φ is an elliptical integral with not known solution.
>
> So, since 1916, while many accused Einstein of plagiarism, fudging and hacking on such infamous paper, other (among them notable
> scholars) tried to JUSTIFY Einstein through Schwarzschild metric (which ALSO has no exact analytical solution).
>
<snip>

Stjepan Mohorovičić

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stjepan_Mohorovi%C4%8Di%C4%87

"Stjepan Mohorovičić (August 20, 1890 – February 13, 1980) was a Croatian physicist, geophysicist and meteorologist.

Mohorovičić is often called "the father of positronium" because his most significant work is the prediction of the existence of
positronium.[8] Positronium is the bound state of an electron and a positron and therefore the lightest atom. It was experimentally
discovered in 1951 by Martin Deutsch and became known as positronium. Mohorovičić in his paper also calculated spectra of
positronium and predicted the existence of positronium in stars because of which he suggested the identification of possible spectral
lines of positronium in spectra of stars."

************************
Die Einsteinsche Relativitätstheorie und ihr mathematischer, physikalischer ...
By Stjepan Mohorovicic

“In the general theory of relativity, Einstein tried to explain the perihelion shift of the planets, and he arrived at the same formula P. Gerber
had found a long time before him, based on the assumption that the effects of gravitation do not propagate at an infinite speed in space.”

https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=PPXIzXzaSC4C&pg=PT15&lpg=PT15&dq=Stjepan+Mohorovi%C4%8Di%C4%87;+%E2%80%9CIn+the+general+theory+of+relativity,+Einstein&source=bl&ots=YfTmGhnDww&sig=ACfU3U2TPq5oQtoTR9IR7tSN8Q_uH8hfVQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjLsKP2qvvzAhW-pZUCHVEbAgMQ6AF6BAgpEAM#v=onepage&q=Stjepan%20Mohorovi%C4%8Di%C4%87%3B%20%E2%80%9CIn%20the%20general%20theory%20of%20relativity%2C%20Einstein&f=false

History of Croatian Science, 20th-21st centuries

http://www.croatianhistory.net/etf/et22a2.html

Stjepan Mohorovicic (1880-1980), professor of physics at a grammar school in Zagreb, made a very important theoretical discovery of the positronium (rotational pair of electron and positron) as early as in 1934, published in "Astronomishe Nachrichten", a prestigeous German scientific journal (precise reference is A. Mohorovicic, Astron. Nachr. 253, 94 (1934)). Its existence was confirmed experimentally in 1951 by Martin Deutsch, MIT physicist (and a member of Manhattan Project).

Still earlier, in 1927, Stjepan Mohorovicic predicted the existence of the MOHO-layer on the Moon, analogous to that of the Earth, discovered by his father Andrija Mohorovicic. Its existence has been proved in 1969 during the famous Apollo 11 flight to the Moon. Seismic measurements have been carried out by Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, the first humans to land on the Moon.

Einstein reply to the press, discrediting Gerber (1917 - 1920):

International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching
Edited by Michael R. Matthews

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gerber#cite_note-15

"[...] Or you rely on a work by Gerber, who already gave the right formula for the perihelion shift of Mercury before me. The experts are not only in agreement that Gerber’s derivation is wrong through and through, BUT THE FORMULA CANNOT BE OBTAINED as a consequence of
the main assumption made by Gerber. Mr. Gerber’s WORK IS therefore COMPLETELY USELESS, an unsuccessful and erroneous theoretical attempt. I maintain that MY THEORY of general relativity has PROVIDED THE FIRST REAL EXPLANATION of the perihelion motion of Mercury. I DID NOT MENTION THE WORK OF GERBER INITIALLY, because I did not know about it when I wrote my work on the perihelion motion of Mercury; EVEN IF I HAD BEEN AWARE OF IT, I would not have had any reason to mention it."

First hand WRITTEN CONFESSION of a treasonous liar, bad spirited, plagiarist and hypocrite SON OF A BITCH.

And the press let him go, and relativists "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil". Fucking retarded.

The Private Albert Einstein
by Peter A. Bucky, Allen G. Weakland, 1993

"Written by a personal friend of the great scientist, an intimate biography of the father of modern physics reveals details of
Einstein's private life, from his arrival in America in 1933 to his death."

Quote from Einstein (by 1947):

“EVEN AFTER I BECAME WELL-KNOWN I MANY TIMES MADE USE of experts to assist me in COMPLICATED calculations in order to
prove CERTAIN PHYSICS PROBLEMS. Also, I have always strongly believed that one should not burden his mind with formulae when
one can go to a textbook and LOOK THEM UP. I have done that, too, ON MANY OCCASIONS.”

My understanding of the facts around such CONFESSION:

* As it happens today, "attention whores" tell about their shitty past when they are not in the limelight anymore.

* He MADE USE of people close to him: he chewed them and spat remains, when the flavors were gone, like a chewing gum.

* He only could do the talk (charlatan). He looked upon other people's works to obtain fresh ideas, covering from 1600 to 1930.
What are books and scientific publications IF NOT?. The art is in the "cherry picking".

* He took credit only for himself, and his deviated mind supported such deserved theft. He was a racist, believing he was born a king.

* People is idiot. They believe anything that reach the press, true or false, scientific or not.

* My method reached perfection between 1905 and 1915. Then I started to decline and retired, because the fuckers woke up.
* Now I'm living a bore retirement, too long for my taste. But I invest my time with these equations all day. Maybe I'll catch another
sucker(s) one more time. Fucking electrons, they ruined my life.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The Private Albert Einstein
> by Peter A. Bucky, Allen G. Weakland, 1993
>
> "Written by a personal friend of the great scientist, an intimate
> biography of the father of modern physics reveals details of
> Einstein's private life, from his arrival in America in 1933 to his death."
>
> Quote from Einstein (by 1947):
>
> “EVEN AFTER I BECAME WELL-KNOWN I MANY TIMES MADE USE of experts to
> assist me in COMPLICATED calculations in order to
> prove CERTAIN PHYSICS PROBLEMS. Also, I have always strongly believed
> that one should not burden his mind with formulae when
> one can go to a textbook and LOOK THEM UP. I have done that, too, ON MANY OCCASIONS.”

This is not unusual behavior for physicists. It’s not unusual behavior for
engineers either. Why did you think Einstein should be held to a different
measure?

The above quotation is in no way startling or revelatory. The below
propaganda is useless crap.

>
> My understanding of the facts around such CONFESSION:
>
> * As it happens today, "attention whores" tell about their shitty past
> when they are not in the limelight anymore.
>
> * He MADE USE of people close to him: he chewed them and spat remains,
> when the flavors were gone, like a chewing gum.
>
> * He only could do the talk (charlatan). He looked upon other people's
> works to obtain fresh ideas, covering from 1600 to 1930.
> What are books and scientific publications IF NOT?. The art is in the "cherry picking".
>
> * He took credit only for himself, and his deviated mind supported such
> deserved theft. He was a racist, believing he was born a king.
>
> * People is idiot. They believe anything that reach the press, true or
> false, scientific or not.
>
> * My method reached perfection between 1905 and 1915. Then I started to
> decline and retired, because the fuckers woke up.
>
> * Now I'm living a bore retirement, too long for my taste. But I invest
> my time with these equations all day. Maybe I'll catch another
> sucker(s) one more time. Fucking electrons, they ruined my life.
>
>

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

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 8:41:51 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> I am an idiot.

Agreed