This is the last post of mine in this thread, of which I wrote the OP.

As I wrote, I'm analyzing the Nov.4, 1915 paper backwards, from the end to the beginning, with the conviction that Einstein
HAD PLAGIARIZED Gerber and, to fill the gaps, used gobbledygook to deceive and went short of explanations to hide his fudging.

The methodology for reverse engineering over the 1898 Gerber's formula is very simple and stupid, because the fudging is hiding
at plain sight. It only required for Einstein to produce quantum leaps in the development without any explanation.

I already proved, in this thread, that the solution for

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

produced four different values (I accepted the use of combinations of +/- sign for the two elliptic integrals that follows).

The problem with the above integral is that is has not an exact analytical solution, because the polynomial has two real roots
(inverses of the perihelion and of the aphelion) but also has an imaginary root, related to the Schwarzschild radius that is present there.

Einstein cooked the integral to generate a quadratic polynomial in the denominator, plus an approximation (1 + α/2 x) in the
numerator. Doing so, get rid of the imaginary root in the denominator.

But, going backward in the paper, the former equation was derived directly from his equation (11). He took care to give numbers ONLY
to those equations who favored the development, so it's difficult to reference them without writing them entirely.

(Equation 11) (dx/dΦ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³

This equation is followed by the integral

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

which is followed by its equivalence, once "extract" the roots α₁ and α₂, which are OBVIOUSLY within the polynomial, as they are
the newtonian roots used for 200 years before him, to describe elliptical motion of planets.

What follows is this, and I quote him: "Hereby we can with reasonable accuracy replace it with"

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

So, the analysis, going backwards, was based on the proof that:

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

is correct or not.

I've found that it's not even WRONG, and I'm going to create a new thread specifically dedicate TO PROVE that he lied, cheated, hacked
and plagiarize to get ONE TRIUMPH of his GR that day (Nov.18, 1915), because he was in problems with Hilbert and also with his WELL
PAID job at the University of Berlin (more than $250,000/year and a secured 12 years contract). Germany was in the middle of WWI and
finance was tight due to Germany's budget derivations to the war effort.

I don't know if I'm a complete fool because I was WRONG in my proof that such equation is untenable (NOT TRUE) or, as I said almost
for three years here, that the COVERUP about the CRAP that relativity is has lasted more than 100 years because of the powerful
interests that the advocates of relativity (and the men behind the curtains) have promoted because of money, power and privileges.

Anyway, at least with THIS SLOPPY PAPER, I found Albert with the pants down..

I had already ridiculed his STUPID MANUSCRIPT with Besso on the same subject, between 1913 and 1914.

But, compared with this SHAMEFUL paper, I have to recognize that they worked hard for MONTHS, even when such previous effort
didn't work. But, compared with this SHIT, what did with Besso and Grossmann is a tribute to hard working even when full of mistakes.

This short paper, conceived with their new partners (Schwarzschild was advicing, but Einstein didn't give a fuck), is a monument to
the FRAUD because, along with the 1.75" for light deflection (again no proofs), helped him to claim victory until the final show with
Eddington and the ELITE that govern the world in 1919.

And that undeserved fame between 1916 and 1919 (while Schwarzschild was 6 feet under and forgotten) is what really upset me.
Of course, such period of fame between a rather small group of scientists at Europe was NOTHING compared to what was coming.

For those interested, I'll try to create the thread tonight or tomorrow.

I finished my work on this thread.

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 4:53:31 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> I already proved, in this thread, that the solution for
> Φ = [1 + 1/2 α (α₁+ α₂)] ∫ dx/√[ - (x - α₁) (x – α₂) (1 – α x)] , between α₁ and α₂
> produced four different values ...

Nope, there is just a single unambiguous solution, as can be shown in several different ways. The substitution of variable that makes the integral trivial is well known. This was explained up above in this thread.

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 4:53:31 PM UTC-8, despicable kapo Richard Hertz kept eating shit:
> snip garbage<