Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 4:23:46 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> See, oddly enough, though you confess to not understanding advanced
>> mathematics and not wasting any time learning it, you have decided from a
>> position of ignorance that this mathematics cannot apply to reality.
>
> *********
>
>> Well, it’s not all that complex. What’s true is that you have decided not
>> to learn it. See above. That which you have elected not to learn is not
>> necessarily a highly complex labyrinth.
>
> Bodkin, I'm sorry that you lost 4 years of your life in your double major.
>
> For having 2 years out of 4 wasted in philosophy and sophistry, you SUCK
> trolling people. It's like reading what a child wrote.
> Regarding the other 2 years in mathematics, having climbing to the
> heights of finding roots on polynomials or solving dx/dy=x
> doesn't allow you to discern what is complex and what is not.
>
> Maybe working with wood can habilitate you to talk about trees, but you
> can't talk about the ecosystem of a forest.
>
> In the case of GR math, try to solve a particular case managing the 500
> equations of full deployed GR math.

But of course you don’t have to, any more than you have to break each of
Maxwell’s equations into components. Are you daft or just simple?

> You can read
> about it here:
>
> https://profoundphysics.com/einstein-field-equations-fully-written-out-what-do-they-look-like-expanded/
>
> Remember that this is 100 years old pure math. Today, such subject has
> been expanded 10 folds.

I don’t think the Einstein field equations have changed. Do you? Have
Maxwell’s equations gotten more complicated by a factor of ten? Are you
daft or just slow?

>
> Good luck trying it. And don't make me challenge you a particular case,
> like expression for vacuum, or you are done.

While you’re complaining, you could bitch about analytical solutions of
Navier-Stokes.
Gee, I wonder how people use such a PRACTICAL and USEFUL mathematical law
with such a paucity of analytic solutions??? Hmmmmm.

Idiot.

Flaming idiot.

Self-immolated, flaming idiot.

>
> Finally, it's not that I don't UNDERSTAND ADVANCED MATH. i do, if I want.

Bullshit. See above. Are you daft or dense as a 3-ft stack of National
Geographics?

> I choose to IGNORE IT,
> as it's mathturbation for the pleasure of elfs that live on their fragile
> realm, detached from reality like PERELMAN.
>

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

On 11/5/2021 5:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
[]

> While you’re complaining, you could bitch about analytical solutions of
> Navier-Stokes.
> Gee, I wonder how people use such a PRACTICAL and USEFUL mathematical law
> with such a paucity of analytic solutions??? Hmmmmm.
>
> Idiot.
>
> Flaming idiot.
>
> Self-immolated, flaming idiot.

It takes quite a bit of stupidity to get normally good-natured Odd to
have a mini-rant like that. Congratulations, Richard, you managed to
reach that margin of stupidity rarely seen, even here.

On Saturday, 6 November 2021 at 05:00:56 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/5/2021 5:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> []
> > While you’re complaining, you could bitch about analytical solutions of
> > Navier-Stokes.
> > Gee, I wonder how people use such a PRACTICAL and USEFUL mathematical law
> > with such a paucity of analytic solutions??? Hmmmmm.
> >
> > Idiot.
> >
> > Flaming idiot.
> >
> > Self-immolated, flaming idiot.
> It takes quite a bit of stupidity to get normally good-natured Odd to
> have a mini-rant like that.

It always takes just a little bit of truth to make a fanatic idiot
mad, stupid Mike.

Some things to add regarding the calculation done by Einstein on his Nov. 18, 1915 paper about Mercury.

The controversy about FUDGING the elliptic integral required to solve his equation (11) has one exponent in the paper
of Anatoli Vankov: "Einstein’s Paper: “Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory”.

From this deep paper, which covers Einstein & Schwarzschild (among other papers on this subject) I' basing this post.

It starts from Einstein's integral following the equation (11) on his paper:

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

where α₁ and α₂, reciprocal values of the maximal and minimal distance from the Sun, are the corresponding first roots of the equation

2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³ = 0

QUOTE 1: "Hereby we can with reasonable accuracy replace it with"

Φ = [1 + 1/2 α (α₁+ α₂)] ∫ dx/√[ - (x - α₁) (x – α₂) (1 – α x)] , between α₁ and α₂

QUOTE 2: "or after expanding of 1/√(1 – α x)"

Φ = [1 + 1/2 α (α₁+ α₂)] ∫ (1 – α x/2)/√[ - (x - α₁) (x – α₂)] dx , between α₁ and α₂

NOTE 1: Einstein made a mistake by assuming that α₁ and α₂ roots are not affected by the relativistic effect, because are derived
from a newtonian approach, provided that an exact analytical solution is given under the form of

Φ = ∫ dx/√[ α (x - x₁) (x – x₂) (x – x₃) ] , between x₁ and x₂

where x₁, x₂ and x₃ (replacing α₁, α₂, α₃) are real roots of the homogeneous cubic equation of the bounded motion equation (11),
with the root x₃ be due to the GR effect on (11).

Einstein’s compare the last form with the analogous solution in the Newtonian formulation of the problem, assuming the
GR x₃ term as a perturbation source. Einstein’s eliminates x₃ using an exact relationship between the three roots:

x₁ + x₂ + x₃ = 1/α

QUOTE 3: "A fatal mistake in final Einstein’s solution in the problem of planetary perihelion advance is the assumption that the
impact of the GR term on the roots x₁ and x₂ is negligible."

NOTE 2: x₁ and x₂, representing the aphelion and perihelion respectively, are extracted (in approximations) under newtonian
assumptions about the orbital path, with disregard of the influence of x₃, which is estimated in the first step of the recursive
method to find the roots as x₃ = 1/α. This value is extracted from the cubic polinomial (see Einstein's QUOTE 2), replaced by

1 – α x/2 ≈ 1/√(1 – α x)

and integrated, now using a quadratic approximation for the denominator, for which a solution IS FOUND.

Φ = π [1 + 3/4 α (α₁+ α₂)]

NOTE 3: This questionable result let the derivation one step far from Gerber's formula, as it's written below.

QUOTE 4: "or, if one takes á1 and á2 as reciprocal values of the maximal and minimal distance from the Sun,

(12) Φ = π [1 + 3α/[2a (1 - e²)]]

For an entire passage, the perihelion moves by

(13) ε = 3π α/[a (1 - e²)]

in the directional sense of the orbital motion, when we designate by a the major half axis, and by e the eccentricity.
This leads one to the period T (in seconds), so one obtains with c as light velocity in cm/sec:

(14) ε = 24.π³.a²/[(1 – e²).T².c²]

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

END QUOTE 4

A) α = 2GM/c², the Schwarzschild's gravitational radius, and α/r ≈ 2 (V/c)², with V the orbital speed of Mercury. It is planted in
the replacement in equations

(4a) gᵤᵥ = − δᵤᵥ ; g₀₄ = g₄₀ = 0; g₄₄ = 1 by the equations

(4b) gᵤᵥ = − δᵤᵥ + α xᵤ xᵥ/r³ ; g₄₄ = 1 - α/r , being r = √ (x₁² + x₂² + x₃²)

along with the 4 requeriments (that Schwarzschild fulfilled):

1) All components are independent of x₄.
2) The solution is (spatially) symmetric about the origin of the coordinate system, in the sense that one obtains the
same solution if one makes a linear orthogonal (spatial) transformation.
3) The equations gᵥ₄ = g₄ᵥ = 0 are valid exactly (for v = 1, 2, 3).
4) The gᵤᵥ possess at infinity the values given in (4a)..

In this way, the geometric expressions in (4a) are conceded physical properties depending on the gravitational potential of a mass
INSERTED AT THE ORIGIN 0,0,0 that behaves as a static point-like mass (the Sun). And this means HACKING the math.

B) The calculations that lead to the values of the roots α₁, α₂ and 1/α from equation (11) are fallacious recursive approximations,
starting by assuming, without explanations, that 1/α is the first root.. This fallacy, that rescue the GR effect from the polynomial,
allows to derive the other roots α₁ and α₂ by using pure newtonian considerations (books have been written in 200 years about it).

So, the entire derivation is steered (manipulated) to get to equation (11), where the final HACK is perfomed by forcing it to approach
the Gerber's formulation.

The final stroke is performed, when equation (13) is transformed from geometric units (which they were not due to 4b), to the
final expression (14), which is identical to Gerber's composite final formula.

There is a FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE:

While Gerber had assumed ε as a input parameter, understanding that the orbital path covered 2π+ε radians, Einstein reverse
engineered this assumption by replacing c as input parameter (speed of light = speed of gravity) and left ε as output.

Not in a single part Einstein mentioned the constant change of the orbital path due to the accumulative precession.

Gerber, instead, assumed that since the first page:

QUOTE 5: "The expression for V contains not only r, but also the derivative of r with respect to time."
QUOTE 6: "The integrals in the denominator gradually take other values, if F does not vanish. If we assume that we knew
their value at a given time, then we could say that the planet is at this time on an ellipse described by these equations."
QUOTE 7: "We see, by observing the immutability of b/√a, that the movement of the planet can be interpreted as
if it was proceding along an ellipse whose ε and ω are changing constantly."

On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 1:00:56 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> It takes quite a bit of stupidity to get normally good-natured Odd to
> have a mini-rant like that. Congratulations, Richard, you managed to
> reach that margin of stupidity rarely seen, even here.

It's very easy: I use methods to manipulate indoctrinated retarded based on the principle of eroding its position of Supreme Thinker,
by carefully kicking emotional parts and pressing some "buttons". I'm immune to that shit, but it seems that Bodkin is not.

Nothing important, anyways.

On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 11:29:19 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 1:00:56 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > It takes quite a bit of stupidity to get normally good-natured Odd to
> > have a mini-rant like that. Congratulations, Richard, you managed to
> > reach that margin of stupidity rarely seen, even here.
> I eat that shit,

On a daily basis

On 11/6/2021 2:29 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 1:00:56 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> It takes quite a bit of stupidity to get normally good-natured Odd to
>> have a mini-rant like that. Congratulations, Richard, you managed to
>> reach that margin of stupidity rarely seen, even here.
>
> It's very easy:

It's very easy for you to act so stupidly? I agree; it is second nature
for you.

Op 06-nov.-2021 om 18:51 schreef Michael Moroney:
> On 11/6/2021 2:29 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 1:00:56 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> It takes quite a bit of stupidity to get normally good-natured Odd to
>>> have a mini-rant like that. Congratulations, Richard, you managed to
>>> reach that margin of stupidity rarely seen, even here.
>>
>> It's very easy:
>
> It's very easy for you to act so stupidly? I agree; it is second nature
> for you.

Overestimated.

Dirk Vdm

On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 2:51:33 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>
> >> It takes quite a bit of stupidity to get normally good-natured Odd to
> >> have a mini-rant like that. Congratulations, Richard, you managed to
> >> reach that margin of stupidity rarely seen, even here.
> >
> > It's very easy:
> It's very easy for you to act so stupidly? I agree; it is second nature for you.

No, it's not my second nature. It's called self-defense in a dirty discussion far ahead from the topic of this thread.

Bodkin is prone to downplay people when he doesn't like their opinions or posture. So he resort to all of his library of
derogatory comments, sometimes directly and sometimes coated with "sweet, elaborated wording".

But if he mess with somebody, he has to be up to the challenge. If he fails making "words punching" and SNAP, then let him do it.
I don't think for ONE SECOND that Bodkin need any help when he lost his balance, specially from AN IDIOT LIKE YOU, who is
messing with other people's business. It tells A LOT about your first, second and third nature:

You are an opinionated "attention whore°, who needs with despair to be WITHIN (like a child with no friends).

So, grow a pair, make your own OP (which barely you do, for years) and focus on technical topics, NOT ABOUT PERSONS.

I don't understand how your mind works, dealing with your internal roots of problems, but I've wondered for a long time WHY
do you need to DEFEND your EE degree, when I mock about it.

A more self-centered person would let the mock vanish with time, but you CAN'T. Why?

Watch me when you and Dono attack me fiercely, with very insulting terms: I DON'T GIVE A FUCK and move on. Get it?

On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 3:57:33 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 06-nov.-2021 om 18:51 schreef Michael Moroney:
> > On 11/6/2021 2:29 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 1:00:56 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>> It takes quite a bit of stupidity to get normally good-natured Odd to
> >>> have a mini-rant like that. Congratulations, Richard, you managed to
> >>> reach that margin of stupidity rarely seen, even here.
> >>
> >> It's very easy:
> >
> > It's very easy for you to act so stupidly? I agree; it is second nature
> > for you.
> Overestimated.
>
> Dirk Vdm

Dirk, you invested 40% of your life at this site. You used to be an opinionated asshole making fun of everyone else
with your OBSESSIVE FOLLOW-UP of what you considered "flops".

Lately, you are converging from "multi-wording shit" through "one liners" and reaching the current state of "one single word".

Is that age is claiming his toll on you, or that defending relativity has wasted your non-renovable energy?

I imagine that REPEATING YOUR SHIT FOR DECADES has to make some damage in your brain. Is that your "written in stone"
credo is cracking and crumbling, falling down to bits?

If it's so, there are other activities that can help you to get some inner peace: Origami, gardening, kits for model building, etc.

In short, anything far from any connected with relativity. Then, maybe, your mind and soul can heal after some time.

Too much hate within you, man. It costs.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 1:00:56 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> It takes quite a bit of stupidity to get normally good-natured Odd to
>> have a mini-rant like that. Congratulations, Richard, you managed to
>> reach that margin of stupidity rarely seen, even here.
>
> It's very easy: I use methods to manipulate indoctrinated retarded based
> on the principle of eroding its position of Supreme Thinker,
> by carefully kicking emotional parts and pressing some "buttons". I'm
> immune to that shit, but it seems that Bodkin is not.
>
> Nothing important, anyways.
>

If you are willing to say stupid things just to push buttons, then I’d say
there is no one better suited for the job.

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

Op 06-nov.-2021 om 20:15 schreef Richard Hertz:
> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 3:57:33 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de
> moortel wrote:
>> Op 06-nov.-2021 om 18:51 schreef Michael Moroney:
>>> On 11/6/2021 2:29 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 1:00:56 AM UTC-3, Michael
>>>> Moroney wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> It takes quite a bit of stupidity to get normally
>>>>> good-natured Odd to have a mini-rant like that.
>>>>> Congratulations, Richard, you managed to reach that margin of
>>>>> stupidity rarely seen, even here.
>>>>
>>>> It's very easy:
>>>
>>> It's very easy for you to act so stupidly? I agree; it is second
>>> nature for you.
>> Overestimated.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Dirk, you invested 40% of your life at this site.

0.04%, sub-moron.

Dirk Vdm

Richard Hertz wrote:

> Is that age is claiming his toll on you, or that defending relativity
> has wasted your non-renovable energy?
>
> I imagine that REPEATING YOUR SHIT FOR DECADES has to make some damage
> in your brain. Is that your "written in stone"
> credo is cracking and crumbling, falling down to bits?

does not matter. Relativity is still wrong. Nobody tells how Einstine
came from the speed SR to the spacetime GR and tensors. They are lying
their teeth.

On 11/6/2021 3:02 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 2:51:33 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> It takes quite a bit of stupidity to get normally good-natured Odd to
>>>> have a mini-rant like that. Congratulations, Richard, you managed to
>>>> reach that margin of stupidity rarely seen, even here.
>>>
>>> It's very easy:
>> It's very easy for you to act so stupidly? I agree; it is second nature for you.
>
> No, it's not my second nature.

Yet it is.

Richard, you invest 40% of your life at this site.

Is that age is claiming his toll on you, or that attacking relativity
has wasted your non-renovable energy?

I imagine that REPEATING YOUR SHIT FOR DECADES has to make some damage
in your brain. Is that your "written in stone"
credo is cracking and crumbling, falling down to bits?

If it's so, there are other activities that can help you to get some
inner peace: Origami, gardening, kits for model building, etc.

In short, anything far from any connected with relativity. Then, maybe,
your mind and soul can heal after some time.

Too much hate within you, man. It costs.

On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 3:15:28 PM UTC-7, Gregor Bicha wrote:

> ... Relativity is still wrong. Nobody tells how Einstine
> came from the speed SR to the spacetime GR and tensors. They are lying
> their teeth.

This claim is from a troll who cannot even spell the man's name correctly...

On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 3:15:28 PM UTC-7, Gregor Bicha wrote:
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > Is that age is claiming his toll on you, or that defending relativity
> > has wasted your non-renovable energy?
> >
> > I imagine that REPEATING YOUR SHIT FOR DECADES has to make some damage
> > in your brain. Is that your "written in stone"
> > credo is cracking and crumbling, falling down to bits?
> does not matter. Relativity is still wrong. Nobody tells how Einstine
> came from the speed SR to the spacetime GR and tensors. They are lying
> their teeth.

Why do crank idiots forever spell the name as "Einstine"? This has been
a pattern since forever on this NG.

--
Jan

On 11/6/2021 11:34 PM, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 3:15:28 PM UTC-7, Gregor Bicha wrote:

>> does not matter. Relativity is still wrong. Nobody tells how Einstine
>> came from the speed SR to the spacetime GR and tensors. They are lying
>> their teeth.
>
> Why do crank idiots forever spell the name as "Einstine"? This has been
> a pattern since forever on this NG.
>
That's the nymshifting troll. It does that deliberately since its only
purpose is to generate noise in here. Apparently it already knows that
it pisses both you and Paul A. off.

On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 9:23:58 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/6/2021 11:34 PM, JanPB wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 3:15:28 PM UTC-7, Gregor Bicha wrote:
>
> >> does not matter. Relativity is still wrong. Nobody tells how Einstine
> >> came from the speed SR to the spacetime GR and tensors. They are lying
> >> their teeth.
> >
> > Why do crank idiots forever spell the name as "Einstine"? This has been
> > a pattern since forever on this NG.
> >
> That's the nymshifting troll. It does that deliberately since its only
> purpose is to generate noise in here. Apparently it already knows that
> it pisses both you and Paul A. off.

Actually, it does not piss me off at all, but it does label him as a troll, big time...

JanPB wrote:

> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 3:15:28 PM UTC-7, Gregor Bicha wrote:
>> Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>> > Is that age is claiming his toll on you, or that defending relativity
>> > has wasted your non-renovable energy?
>> >
>> > I imagine that REPEATING YOUR SHIT FOR DECADES has to make some
>> > damage in your brain. Is that your "written in stone"
>> > credo is cracking and crumbling, falling down to bits?
>> does not matter. Relativity is still wrong. Nobody tells how Einstine
>> came from the speed SR to the spacetime GR and tensors. They are lying
>> their teeth.
>
> Why do crank idiots forever spell the name as "Einstine"? This has been
> a pattern since forever on this NG.

types are not illegal, you fucking stupid. Is your stupid fucking name
JanPB, what the fuck is JanPB stands for?? Put a fucking proper name to
yourself, so we know who the fuck you are.

Michael Moroney wrote:

> On 11/6/2021 11:34 PM, JanPB wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 3:15:28 PM UTC-7, Gregor Bicha wrote:
>
>>> does not matter. Relativity is still wrong. Nobody tells how Einstine
>>> came from the speed SR to the spacetime GR and tensors. They are lying
>>> their teeth.
>>
>> Why do crank idiots forever spell the name as "Einstine"? This has been
>> a pattern since forever on this NG.
>>
> That's the nymshifting troll. It does that deliberately since its only
> purpose is to generate noise in here. Apparently it already knows that
> it pisses both you and Paul A. off.

talking to imbeciles here, how many moon landing imbeciles are you in
here??

Paul Alsing wrote:

> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 9:23:58 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney
> wrote:
>> On 11/6/2021 11:34 PM, JanPB wrote:
>> > On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 3:15:28 PM UTC-7, Gregor Bicha
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> does not matter. Relativity is still wrong. Nobody tells how
>> >> Einstine came from the speed SR to the spacetime GR and tensors.
>> >> They are lying their teeth.
>> >
>> > Why do crank idiots forever spell the name as "Einstine"? This has
>> > been a pattern since forever on this NG.
>> >
>> That's the nymshifting troll. It does that deliberately since its only
>> purpose is to generate noise in here. Apparently it already knows that
>> it pisses both you and Paul A. off.
>
> Actually, it does not piss me off at all, but it does label him as a
> troll, big time...

but you are proved an impertinent, unemployable and uneducated bag of
shit, all the time. What shall I call you. You are a son of a bitch
impertinent right now.

On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 2:40:30 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip at many parts, to rescue fundamental assertions>

> PROOFS OF THE EINSTEIN HOAX REGARDING HIS NOV. 18, 1915 PAPER ON MERCURY'S PERIHELION.

Einstein's formulae from the paper are indicated by (nn).

I'll make a new OP with this topic once I finish to polish it, to be clearly readable (maybe late today or tomorrow).
It's required to have at hand the original Nov. 18, 1915 paper at hand (English or German).

> To start, Einstein arrives at this formula next to his (11) formula, from which is derived:
>
> (11) (dx/dΦ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³

He need to FUDGE this formula. One tool is his unnecessary replacement of x = 1/r, so he can discard values as small and 2nd. order.
He derived from (11) that

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

From NASA site,

α₁ = 1/AP = 1.43232E-08 = 1/69817000000 1/m EXACTLY
α₂ = 1/PE = 2.17382E-08 = 1/46002000000 1/m EXACTLY
> In this formula, are claimed the CONSTANTS A and B:
>
> A = 1/2 (dr² + r² dΦ²)/ds² - α/2r, claiming A as CONSTANT derived from equations (7c): d²xᵥ/ds² = - ∂Φ/dxᵥ [sic] ; Φ = - α/2r [1 +B²/r²]
>
> (10) B = r² dΦ/ds (NOTE: claiming NEWTONIAN angular momentum conservation under radial acceleration in GMm/r² = d²r/dt²)
........

> QUOTE 3: "α₁ and α₂ are the corresponding FIRST ROOTS of the equation
>
> 2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³ = 0

Einstein is HIDING THAT he stated, before hand, that he's using the third root

α₃ = 1/α = 3.385095E-04 = 1/2954.13 1/m EXACTLY

being α = 2954.13 m the FAMOUS TO BE (soon after 1915) Schwarzschild's radius.

Now, here is the FIRST CRIME, needed to FUDGE the approach to Gerber's solution:

QUOTE 3: "Hereby we can with reasonable accuracy replace it with"
>
> Φ = [1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂) ] ∫ dx/√ [ - (x - α₁) (x - α₂) (1 - αx) ] , between α₁ and α₂

[1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂) ] is the FIRST HACK, derived out from thin air, which is close to Gerber's solution.

He only need to FUDGE the integral calculation

∫ dx/√ [ - (x - α₁) (x - α₂) (1 - αx) ] , between α₁ and α₂

obtaining the result

π [1 + α/4 (α₁ + α₂) ]

which, multiplied by [1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂) ] gets Gerber's formula STILL IN DISGUISE:

QUOTE: "The integration leads to
>
> Φ = π [1 + 3/4 α (α₁ + α₂)]
>
> or, if one takes α₁ and α₂ as reciprocal values of the maximal and minimal distance from the Sun,
>
> (12) Φ = π [1 + 3α/[2a (1 - e²)]]
>
> For an entire passage, the perihelion moves by
>
> (13) ε = 3π α/[a (1 - e²)]

Now, the SECOND FUDGING:

> (14) ε = 24.π³.a²/[(1 – e²).T².c²]
>
QUOTE: "This calculation leads to the planet Mercury to move its perihelion forward by 43 ′′ per century, while the astronomers give
45 ′′±5′′, an exceptional difference between observation and Newtonian theory. This has great significance as full agreement."

This is enough for now. I'll deal with more details and, also, Schwarzschild's participation in a separate thread, soon.

If any of you have a bit of honesty, will accept the dishonesty present in the entire paper.

As I've learned, this paper is THE ONLY PAPER at which Einstein showed how he derived any solution from his GR modified Entwurf.

This paper (as Hilbert suspected, couldn't be written in less than 1 week, after his 2nd. (WRONG) paper presentation on Nov. 11, 1915.

And this paper was developed using incomplete GR theory, which he plagiarized between Nov. 15 and Nov. 24, 1915.

Finally, this is the paper which contains his assertion of light deflection by 1.75" of arc on Sun's surface. It was PLANTED without
any single proof. NONE, EVER.

Eddington was in charge to make this fucking number (twice the 1911 von Soldner's value) a WORLD STANDARD since today, and
without any calculation shown to support it for the next 7 years (1915 - 1922). Eddington FUDGED the 1922 calculation. Einstein
NEVER ADDRESSED these two problems again, for the next 40 years.

He couldn't face public scrutiny or his ineptitude, hacking, fudging, filthy methods, etc.

He entered into a "life conservation" scheme until Nov. 24, 1919. And he did nothing else than fund raising since then.

On Sunday, November 7, 2021 at 11:22:56 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 2:40:30 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> <snip at many parts, to rescue fundamental assertions>
>
> > PROOFS OF THE EINSTEIN HOAX REGARDING HIS NOV. 18, 1915 PAPER ON MERCURY'S PERIHELION.
>
> Einstein's formulae from the paper are indicated by (nn).
>
> I'll make a new OP with this topic once I finish to polish it, to be clearly readable (maybe late today or tomorrow).
> It's required to have at hand the original Nov. 18, 1915 paper at hand (English or German).
>
>
> > To start, Einstein arrives at this formula next to his (11) formula, from which is derived:
> >
> > (11) (dx/dΦ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³
>
> He need to FUDGE this formula. One tool is his unnecessary replacement of x = 1/r, so he can discard values as small and 2nd. order.
> He derived from (11) that
>
> > Φ = ∫ dx/√(2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³) , between α₁ = 1/AP and α₂ = 1/PE
>
> From NASA site,
>
> α₁ = 1/AP = 1.43232E-08 = 1/69817000000 1/m EXACTLY
> α₂ = 1/PE = 2.17382E-08 = 1/46002000000 1/m EXACTLY
>
> > In this formula, are claimed the CONSTANTS A and B:
> >
> > A = 1/2 (dr² + r² dΦ²)/ds² - α/2r, claiming A as CONSTANT derived from equations (7c): d²xᵥ/ds² = - ∂Φ/dxᵥ [sic] ; Φ = - α/2r [1 +B²/r²]
> >
> > (10) B = r² dΦ/ds (NOTE: claiming NEWTONIAN angular momentum conservation under radial acceleration in GMm/r² = d²r/dt²)
> .......
>
> > QUOTE 3: "α₁ and α₂ are the corresponding FIRST ROOTS of the equation
> >
> > 2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³ = 0
> Einstein is HIDING THAT he stated, before hand, that he's using the third root
>
> α₃ = 1/α = 3.385095E-04 = 1/2954.13 1/m EXACTLY
>
> being α = 2954.13 m the FAMOUS TO BE (soon after 1915) Schwarzschild's radius.
>
> Now, here is the FIRST CRIME, needed to FUDGE the approach to Gerber's solution:
>
>
> QUOTE 3: "Hereby we can with reasonable accuracy replace it with"
> >
> > Φ = [1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂) ] ∫ dx/√ [ - (x - α₁) (x - α₂) (1 - αx) ] , between α₁ and α₂
>
> [1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂) ] is the FIRST HACK, derived out from thin air, which is close to Gerber's solution.
>
> He only need to FUDGE the integral calculation
>
> ∫ dx/√ [ - (x - α₁) (x - α₂) (1 - αx) ] , between α₁ and α₂
>
> obtaining the result
>
> π [1 + α/4 (α₁ + α₂) ]
>
> which, multiplied by [1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂) ] gets Gerber's formula STILL IN DISGUISE:
>
> QUOTE: "The integration leads to
> >
> > Φ = π [1 + 3/4 α (α₁ + α₂)]
> >
> > or, if one takes α₁ and α₂ as reciprocal values of the maximal and minimal distance from the Sun,
> >
> > (12) Φ = π [1 + 3α/[2a (1 - e²)]]
> >
> > For an entire passage, the perihelion moves by
> >
> > (13) ε = 3π α/[a (1 - e²)]
> Now, the SECOND FUDGING:
> > (14) ε = 24.π³.a²/[(1 – e²).T².c²]
> >
> QUOTE: "This calculation leads to the planet Mercury to move its perihelion forward by 43 ′′ per century, while the astronomers give
> 45 ′′±5′′, an exceptional difference between observation and Newtonian theory. This has great significance as full agreement."
> This is enough for now. I'll deal with more details and, also, Schwarzschild's participation in a separate thread, soon.
>
> If any of you have a bit of honesty, will accept the dishonesty present in the entire paper.
>
> As I've learned, this paper is THE ONLY PAPER at which Einstein showed how he derived any solution from his GR modified Entwurf.
>
> This paper (as Hilbert suspected, couldn't be written in less than 1 week, after his 2nd. (WRONG) paper presentation on Nov. 11, 1915.
>
> And this paper was developed using incomplete GR theory, which he plagiarized between Nov. 15 and Nov. 24, 1915.
>
> Finally, this is the paper which contains his assertion of light deflection by 1.75" of arc on Sun's surface. It was PLANTED without
> any single proof. NONE, EVER.
>
> Eddington was in charge to make this fucking number (twice the 1911 von Soldner's value) a WORLD STANDARD since today, and
> without any calculation shown to support it for the next 7 years (1915 - 1922). Eddington FUDGED the 1922 calculation. Einstein
> NEVER ADDRESSED these two problems again, for the next 40 years.
>
> He couldn't face public scrutiny or his ineptitude, hacking, fudging, filthy methods, etc.
>
> He entered into a "life conservation" scheme until Nov. 24, 1919. And he did nothing else than fund raising since then.

About light and that in the motion that it tracks about celestial objects
in what lenses the optical what radiates the geometric, is with the Sun
having a Fresnel effect as a part with respect to images about it. I.e.,
lensing is usually figured to concentrate or focus as reflected from a
lens the image, where here besides the "gravity well" it's also as flux
lenses over the image, here Mercury's and the Sun. I.e., here is for making
for the rest of the component, besides what "drops out in reverse" for
the usual "flux lets out this difference", also here the syzygy and eclipse
aspect in the sense of a theory of Fresnel, or Fresnel flux.

On Sunday, November 7, 2021 at 11:44:56 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, November 7, 2021 at 11:22:56 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 2:40:30 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > <snip at many parts, to rescue fundamental assertions>
> >
> > > PROOFS OF THE EINSTEIN HOAX REGARDING HIS NOV. 18, 1915 PAPER ON MERCURY'S PERIHELION.
> >
> > Einstein's formulae from the paper are indicated by (nn).
> >
> > I'll make a new OP with this topic once I finish to polish it, to be clearly readable (maybe late today or tomorrow).
> > It's required to have at hand the original Nov. 18, 1915 paper at hand (English or German).
> >
> >
> > > To start, Einstein arrives at this formula next to his (11) formula, from which is derived:
> > >
> > > (11) (dx/dΦ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³
> >
> > He need to FUDGE this formula. One tool is his unnecessary replacement of x = 1/r, so he can discard values as small and 2nd. order.
> > He derived from (11) that
> >
> > > Φ = ∫ dx/√(2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³) , between α₁ = 1/AP and α₂ = 1/PE
> >
> > From NASA site,
> >
> > α₁ = 1/AP = 1.43232E-08 = 1/69817000000 1/m EXACTLY
> > α₂ = 1/PE = 2.17382E-08 = 1/46002000000 1/m EXACTLY
> >
> > > In this formula, are claimed the CONSTANTS A and B:
> > >
> > > A = 1/2 (dr² + r² dΦ²)/ds² - α/2r, claiming A as CONSTANT derived from equations (7c): d²xᵥ/ds² = - ∂Φ/dxᵥ [sic] ; Φ = - α/2r [1 +B²/r²]
> > >
> > > (10) B = r² dΦ/ds (NOTE: claiming NEWTONIAN angular momentum conservation under radial acceleration in GMm/r² = d²r/dt²)
> > .......
> >
> > > QUOTE 3: "α₁ and α₂ are the corresponding FIRST ROOTS of the equation
> > >
> > > 2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³ = 0
> > Einstein is HIDING THAT he stated, before hand, that he's using the third root
> >
> > α₃ = 1/α = 3.385095E-04 = 1/2954.13 1/m EXACTLY
> >
> > being α = 2954.13 m the FAMOUS TO BE (soon after 1915) Schwarzschild's radius.
> >
> > Now, here is the FIRST CRIME, needed to FUDGE the approach to Gerber's solution:
> >
> >
> > QUOTE 3: "Hereby we can with reasonable accuracy replace it with"
> > >
> > > Φ = [1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂) ] ∫ dx/√ [ - (x - α₁) (x - α₂) (1 - αx) ] , between α₁ and α₂
> >
> > [1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂) ] is the FIRST HACK, derived out from thin air, which is close to Gerber's solution.
> >
> > He only need to FUDGE the integral calculation
> >
> > ∫ dx/√ [ - (x - α₁) (x - α₂) (1 - αx) ] , between α₁ and α₂
> >
> > obtaining the result
> >
> > π [1 + α/4 (α₁ + α₂) ]
> >
> > which, multiplied by [1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂) ] gets Gerber's formula STILL IN DISGUISE:
> >
> > QUOTE: "The integration leads to
> > >
> > > Φ = π [1 + 3/4 α (α₁ + α₂)]
> > >
> > > or, if one takes α₁ and α₂ as reciprocal values of the maximal and minimal distance from the Sun,
> > >
> > > (12) Φ = π [1 + 3α/[2a (1 - e²)]]
> > >
> > > For an entire passage, the perihelion moves by
> > >
> > > (13) ε = 3π α/[a (1 - e²)]
> > Now, the SECOND FUDGING:
> > > (14) ε = 24.π³.a²/[(1 – e²).T².c²]
> > >
> > QUOTE: "This calculation leads to the planet Mercury to move its perihelion forward by 43 ′′ per century, while the astronomers give
> > 45 ′′±5′′, an exceptional difference between observation and Newtonian theory. This has great significance as full agreement."
> > This is enough for now. I'll deal with more details and, also, Schwarzschild's participation in a separate thread, soon.
> >
> > If any of you have a bit of honesty, will accept the dishonesty present in the entire paper.
> >
> > As I've learned, this paper is THE ONLY PAPER at which Einstein showed how he derived any solution from his GR modified Entwurf.
> >
> > This paper (as Hilbert suspected, couldn't be written in less than 1 week, after his 2nd. (WRONG) paper presentation on Nov. 11, 1915.
> >
> > And this paper was developed using incomplete GR theory, which he plagiarized between Nov. 15 and Nov. 24, 1915.
> >
> > Finally, this is the paper which contains his assertion of light deflection by 1.75" of arc on Sun's surface. It was PLANTED without
> > any single proof. NONE, EVER.
> >
> > Eddington was in charge to make this fucking number (twice the 1911 von Soldner's value) a WORLD STANDARD since today, and
> > without any calculation shown to support it for the next 7 years (1915 - 1922). Eddington FUDGED the 1922 calculation. Einstein
> > NEVER ADDRESSED these two problems again, for the next 40 years.
> >
> > He couldn't face public scrutiny or his ineptitude, hacking, fudging, filthy methods, etc.
> >
> > He entered into a "life conservation" scheme until Nov. 24, 1919. And he did nothing else than fund raising since then.
> About light and that in the motion that it tracks about celestial objects
> in what lenses the optical what radiates the geometric, is with the Sun
> having a Fresnel effect as a part with respect to images about it. I.e.,
> lensing is usually figured to concentrate or focus as reflected from a
> lens the image, where here besides the "gravity well" it's also as flux
> lenses over the image, here Mercury's and the Sun. I.e., here is for making
> for the rest of the component, besides what "drops out in reverse" for
> the usual "flux lets out this difference", also here the syzygy and eclipse
> aspect in the sense of a theory of Fresnel, or Fresnel flux.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-99955-w

https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/425/4/3002/1079754

On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 9:23:58 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/6/2021 11:34 PM, JanPB wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 3:15:28 PM UTC-7, Gregor Bicha wrote:
>
> >> does not matter. Relativity is still wrong. Nobody tells how Einstine
> >> came from the speed SR to the spacetime GR and tensors. They are lying
> >> their teeth.
> >
> > Why do crank idiots forever spell the name as "Einstine"? This has been
> > a pattern since forever on this NG.
> >
> That's the nymshifting troll. It does that deliberately since its only
> purpose is to generate noise in here. Apparently it already knows that
> it pisses both you and Paul A. off.

It doesn't piss me off, I'm only puzzled why it's always the same misspelling.

--
Jan