https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why-does-physical-science-allow-biased-selection-of-experimental-data-while-engineering-science-does-not

Some quotes:

* - Engineers are living in our concurrent reality.
* - Physicists create some world by claiming existence of hypothetical
entities in physical worlds.

* Why do physicists worship Einstein so deeply?: They need a person to
show the way (an idol of crazyness), a prophet. Otherwise they would go astray.

* Why do physicists claim all others (especially all scholars) to adore Einstein?: Otherwise they would lose their faith.

* Alfred Korzybski wrote in 1921:
"Bending facts to theories is a constant danger, whereas bending theories
to facts is essential to science. Epistemologically, the fundamental
theories must develop in converging lines of investigation, and if they do not
converge, it is an indication that there are flaws in the theories, and they are
revised."

* Too much bending facts to self consistent theories in the physics
community and not enough revisions undertaken to match theories to
facts.

* Nothing changed, in principle, over past hundred years. But even worse,
"facts" due to increasing complexity of technical methods have got much
more difficult to analyze and, moreover, with introduction of world wide
information systems chance of desinformation has grown to dangerous
scales.

* Engineerable technology has been admirably well developed but the
science--the basic understanding of how the Universe truly works--is still
way off in the weeds.“

* Mass and charge have to be derived effects since all massive particles are
now known to be electromagnetic in nature and that mass and charge can
apparently not be proven to be immediate characteristics of pure energy.

* Why shouldn't physicists cooperate with engineers? What about public
investigation of experimental procedures by independent engineering
experts as obligatory precondition for publication in refereed print journals?

MY NOTE: It's time for qualified experts in engineering to take over ANY
project in physics involving public money, because modern engineering IS
what allowed experimental physicists to play at the edges of physical
reality with their instruments and computers (developed by engineers).
The insanity of such schizoid game has to be CONTROLLED and its value
has to be determined by rational experts, not the schizo themselves.

On Friday, 29 October 2021 at 19:04:02 UTC+2, Richard Hertz wrote:
> https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why-does-physical-science-allow-biased-selection-of-experimental-data-while-engineering-science-does-not
>
> Some quotes:
>
> * - Engineers are living in our concurrent reality.
> * - Physicists create some world by claiming existence of hypothetical
> entities in physical worlds.
>
> * Why do physicists worship Einstein so deeply?: They need a person to
> show the way (an idol of crazyness), a prophet. Otherwise they would go astray.
>
> * Why do physicists claim all others (especially all scholars) to adore Einstein?: Otherwise they would lose their faith.
>
> * Alfred Korzybski wrote in 1921:
> "Bending facts to theories is a constant danger, whereas bending theories
> to facts is essential to science.

Was a bullshit then, is a bullshit now. This way or that - theories
and facts are to match each other; both are just parts of the
same language.

Einstein was a first of his kind.
There are only a few geniuses
but the world does not like to
see it that way....

Einstein said on his last day
that the atheists were his problem....

Mitchell Raemsch

On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 10:04:02 AM UTC-7, utter crank Richard Hertz wrote:
>snip garbage<

Nurse,

Patient Richard Hertz escaped again.

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> Einstein was a first of his kind. There are only a few geniuses but the
> world does not like to see it that way....
> Einstein said on his last day that the atheists were his problem....

not sure. Did you ever read his 1915 paper about GR, nobody knows how
come he came from SR speed to equate the G tensor to the Energy tensor.
Nobody knows, nobody asks. Try again.

On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 3:29:24 PM UTC-3, Teal Doty wrote:

<mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:>

> > Einstein was a first of his kind. There are only a few geniuses but the world does not like to see it that way....
> > Einstein said on his last day that the atheists were his problem....

> not sure. Did you ever read his 1915 paper about GR, nobody knows how
> come he came from SR speed to equate the G tensor to the Energy tensor.
> Nobody knows, nobody asks. Try again.

Raemsch claimed for years: "God creates gravity".

You do the logical connection between this assertion and his last paragraph.. It's easy to deduce.

G_uv = X.T_uv was proposed and developed by Marcel Grossmann in the 1913 Entwurf, co-authored with Einstein, while in Zurich:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Δφ = 4 π k ρ

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

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

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

(11) χ Θᵤᵥ = Γᵤᵥ

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

From this point, Grossmann took over the manipulation of differential geometry theories to produce a "scratch" or Entwurf 1.0.

The rest is history, including the fact that Einstein get rid of Grossmann by 1915 (his usual "use and discard" method).

See how easily an absurd theory was developed? Just by INVENTING SHIT AFTER SHIT, and piling the results. Or, if it doesn't
work, then pile up another load of invented+plagiarized shit (like in Nov. 1915, post Gerber and Hilbert).

On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 1:15:07 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 3:29:24 PM UTC-3, Teal Doty wrote:
>
> <mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:>
>
> > > Einstein was a first of his kind. There are only a few geniuses but the world does not like to see it that way....
> > > Einstein said on his last day that the atheists were his problem....
>
> > not sure. Did you ever read his 1915 paper about GR, nobody knows how
> > come he came from SR speed to equate the G tensor to the Energy tensor.
> > Nobody knows, nobody asks. Try again.
> Raemsch claimed for years: "God creates gravity".
>

Crank Richard Hertz quotes fellow crank Mitch Raemsch.
<snip utter garbage by old fart Richard Hertz>

Nurse, patient Richard Hertz is running around, send for the straightjacket. And the water hose.

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

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

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

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

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

δ { ∫ Φ ds } = 0

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

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

Σᵤ Tᵤᵤ = P

be what I want to call the "Laue Scalar". Then one can also do justice to the principle of the equivalence of inert and
heavy mass here to a certain extent. Mr Laue pointed out to me that for a closed system it is that

∫ P dV = ∫ T₄₄ dτ

From this one can see that, according to this view, its total energy is decisive for the seriousness of a closed system.
The seriousness of incomplete systems would depend on the orthogonal stresses T₁₁ etc. to which the system is subjected.
This gives rise to consequences that seem unacceptable to me, as the example of cavity radiation will show.

It is well known that the scalar P disappears for the radiation in a vacuum.. If the radiation is enclosed in a massless reflecting box,
its walls experience tensile stresses which cause the system - taken as a whole - to become a mass ∫ P dτ, which is the energy
E corresponds to the radiation.

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

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

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

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

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

NOTE: It can be noticed that, without any proof about the Hasenhorl-like "thought experiment", assess a loss of 1/3 of the energy
as work against gravity when attempts to raise E within an enclosed box or just as pure energy.

Also, note that von Laue (Planck behind) was his ADVISOR on the theoretical part. What follows next is Grossmann part:

https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol4-doc/346
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Mathematical part. By MARCEL GROSSMANN.

The mathematical tools for the development of the vector analysis of a gravitational field, which is characterized by the
invariance of the line element

ds² = Σᵤᵥ gᵤᵥ dxᵤ dxᵥ

go back to Christoffel's fundamental treatise on the transformation of quadratic differential forms. Based on Christoffel's
results, Ricci and Levi-Civita developed their methods of absolute differential calculus independent of the coordinate system,
which allow the differential equations of mathematical physics to be given an invariant form.

But since the vector analysis of the Euclidean space related to any curvilinear coordinates is formally identical to the vector
analysis of any manifold given by its line element, there are no difficulties in using the vector-analytical concept formations
as they were in the last few years by Minkowski, Sommerfeld, Laue et al for the theory of relativity, to be extended to the
general theory of Einstein above.

............... 15 pages of utter differential geometriy shit, trying to marry the curvature of donuts to energy, motion, time and gravity.
..........................................................................................................................................................................

Aggghhh! This shit is perverse!

On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 11:29:24 AM UTC-7, Teal Doty wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Einstein was a first of his kind. There are only a few geniuses but the
> > world does not like to see it that way....
> > Einstein said on his last day that the atheists were his problem....
> not sure. Did you ever read his 1915 paper about GR, nobody knows how
> come he came from SR speed to equate the G tensor to the Energy tensor.
> Nobody knows, nobody asks. Try again.

What are you talking about? There is a ton of research into this,
volumes have been published on precisely this topic.

--
Jan

On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 10:04:02 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why-does-physical-science-allow-biased-selection-of-experimental-data-while-engineering-science-does-not
>
> Some quotes:
>
> * - Engineers are living in our concurrent reality.
> * - Physicists create some world by claiming existence of hypothetical
> entities in physical worlds.

There we go again. We've heard this before, countless times.
You are not even trying to be original.

--
Jan

On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 8:17:13 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>

> What are you talking about? There is a ton of research into this,
> volumes have been published on precisely this topic.
>
> --
> Jan

Whether you like or NOT, these two posts are EXACT translations of the FAILED 1913 Entwurf, where Grossmann
was unable to find an expression for the gravitational field equations upon such non-euclidean framework.

It was done by Hilbert two years after, when Einstein rushed to beg him for help, as his time to develop such theory
UNDER CONTRACT with the University of Berlin was expiring.

Kick, scream, cry, call foul, call names. I don't give a FLYING FUCK about your complains.

This translations of the 1913 Entwurf shows clearly that the hypocrite didn't spare any fallacy to INVENT SHIT, and
to assert such shit with attitude between arrogance and subtle care (we might be wrong, said the fucker!).

Now, go and study what I posted so you can observe, at a distance, how much was your brain BRAINWASHED and INDOCTRINATED.

I know, Jan, that you WASTED more than 20 years of your life following this CULT.

I read a lengthy post from you (20 pages easily) where you explained the use of tensors in your discussion with other forum members,
so I know that you have a strong background in mathematics. But priests have a strong background in theology also, and it doesn't help
to explain what God is or why acts in such ways.

You surrendered to pagan gods, in this case to differential geometry messing with physics. It cost to you an empty and senseless life.

Maybe you can redempt yourself, if re-start finding the physical meaning of algebraic quadratic equations. But don't go any further.

On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 4:37:20 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz frothed at the mouth:

<snip imbecilities>

Wipe the spittle off your face, disgusting old fart.

<snip intro>

CORRECTION ON TRANSLATION FROM GERMAN:

> § 7. Can the gravitational field be traced back to a scalar?
>
> In view of the undeniable complexity of the theory of gravitation represented here, we must seriously ask ourselves
> whether the view that has hitherto been exclusively held, according to which the gravitational field is reduced to a
> scalar Φ, is not the only obvious and justified one.
>
> I will briefly explain why we think we have to answer this question NEGATIVELY. Characterization of the gravitational
> field by a scalar presents a path which is completely analogous to the one taken above.
>
> One starts with the equation of motion of the material point in Hamiltonian form
>
> δ { ∫ Φ ds } = 0
>
> where ds is the four-dimensional line element of the usual relativity theory and Φ is a scalar, and then proceeds quite
> analogously to the previous one, without having to leave the usual relativity theory.
>
> Here, too, the material process of any kind is characterized by a stress-energy tensor Tᵤᵥ . But with this view a scalar is
> decisive for the interaction between the gravitational field and the material process. This scalar, as Mr. Laue pointed out
> to me, can only be
>
> Σᵤ Tᵤᵤ = P
>
> WHICH I want to call the "Laue Scalar". ONE can do justice to the principle of the equivalence of INERTIAL and
> GRAVITATIONAL mass here to a certain extent. Mr Laue pointed out to me that for a closed system it is CERTAIN that
>
> ∫ P dV = ∫ T₄₄ dτ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M'.g.h - M.g.h = E.g.h/c² OR (M' - M) = E/c²

"The increase in gravitational mass is thus equal to E/c², and therefore equal to the increase in inertial mass as given
by the theory of relativity."

> Instead of enclosing the radiation in a hollow box, I imagine it to be limited
>
> 1. through the reflective walls of a fixed shaft S,
> 2. by two vertically movable reflective walls W1 and W2, which are firmly connected to one another by a rod.
>
> In this case, the mass ∫ P dτ of the movable system is only the THIRD PART of the value that occurs in a box that is movable as a
> whole. In order to raise the radiation against a gravity field, one would only have to spend the third part of the work than in the
> case just considered, where the radiation is enclosed in a box.

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

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

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

AND, IN THIS PURE SAMPLE OF SOPHISTRY AND FALLACIES, HE USE HASENHORL TO TORN DOWN VON LAUE ARGUMENTS.
AND THE INEPT BUT STREET SMART EINSTEIN WAS JUST WARMING UP TO FUDGE FACTS AND THEORY: 43"/cy; 1.75" deflection...
> This seems unacceptable to me. I must admit, of course, that for me the most effective argument for rejecting such a theory is
> based on the conviction that relativity is not only against orthogonal linear substitutions, but against a much broader group of
> substitutions.
>
> But we are not justified to assert this argument because we were unable to find the (most general) substitution group that belongs
> to our gravitational equations.

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

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

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

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/oLRiO1XB0fU/m/dI7HBmg2AwAJ

SO, WE ARE PUBLISHING 32 PAGES OF "STATE OF THE ART" CRAP. PLEASE, WAIT 30 MONTHS FOR HILBERT COMING IN.

<snip>

On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 8:55:21 PM UTC-7, odious kapo Richard Hertz barked:
> bark, bark, bark

Keep on barking, odious kapo

On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 4:37:20 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 8:17:13 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > What are you talking about? There is a ton of research into this,
> > volumes have been published on precisely this topic.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> Whether you like or NOT, these two posts are EXACT translations of the FAILED 1913 Entwurf, where Grossmann
> was unable to find an expression for the gravitational field equations upon such non-euclidean framework.

Irrelevant. I was responding to your post, quote:

> Did you ever read his 1915 paper about GR, nobody knows how
> come he came from SR speed to equate the G tensor to the Energy tensor.
> Nobody knows, nobody asks.

unquote.

It's a false statement, there are entire books written on the subject, based
on poring over Einstein's papers, original notes, letters, etc., almost line
by line, word for word in some instances. The research was initiated
precisely to figure out what you are complaining about: the line of
reasoning that went from SR to GR. This was all done in the 1980s,
with even more research done later when more of Einstein's
archive was made easily accessible to the public.

> It was done by Hilbert two years after, when Einstein rushed to beg him for help,

Nonsense. You talk like you've never seen scientists at work (which seems
now a distinct possibility). People talk to one another while researching
stuff all the time. When they get stuck, they frequently talk to others,
they talk about their bottlenecks in seminars all over the country or
the world, I heard this sort of thing countless times in my academic
days.

> as his time to develop such theory
> UNDER CONTRACT with the University of Berlin was expiring.

Oh, the tragedy.

> Kick, scream, cry, call foul, call names. I don't give a FLYING FUCK about your complains.

And I don't care about your idiocies you post here 24/7. And whenever I feel
like it's worth my time, I'll point out your stupid non-sequiturs, your
completely meaningless "critique", and your plain arrogance and stupidity
the size of Mt. Everest.

You are simply NOT equipped for the sort of activity you have chosen to
pursue, you just don't have the mental hardware for this sort of thing.
If you were less arrogant, you might have a chance to fix it but it would
still take more than a decade for you to catch up. Not to me (for that
you'd need several decades) but just to reach a tolerably competent level,
so at least you wouldn't post idiocies 24/7 literally 100% of the time.

Likewise, I would need a decade or more to catch up to YOU in YOUR
domain of expertise. But the difference is that I'm very well aware of
my shortcomings in your professional area, PLUS I don't go to
EE newsgroups posting utter idiocies about THEIR domain of expertise.

> This translations of the 1913 Entwurf shows clearly

It doesn't matter, trust me.

--
Jan

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 3:37:57 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 4:37:20 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 8:17:13 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > What are you talking about? There is a ton of research into this,
> > > volumes have been published on precisely this topic.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jan
> > Whether you like or NOT, these two posts are EXACT translations of the FAILED 1913 Entwurf, where Grossmann
> > was unable to find an expression for the gravitational field equations upon such non-euclidean framework.
> Irrelevant. I was responding to your post, quote:
> > Did you ever read his 1915 paper about GR, nobody knows how
> > come he came from SR speed to equate the G tensor to the Energy tensor.
> > Nobody knows, nobody asks.
> unquote.
>
> It's a false statement, there are entire books written on the subject, based
> on poring over Einstein's papers, original notes, letters, etc., almost line
> by line, word for word in some instances. The research was initiated
> precisely to figure out what you are complaining about: the line of
> reasoning that went from SR to GR. This was all done in the 1980s,
> with even more research done later when more of Einstein's
> archive was made easily accessible to the public.
> > It was done by Hilbert two years after, when Einstein rushed to beg him for help,
> Nonsense. You talk like you've never seen scientists at work (which seems
> now a distinct possibility). People talk to one another while researching
> stuff all the time. When they get stuck, they frequently talk to others,
> they talk about their bottlenecks in seminars all over the country or
> the world, I heard this sort of thing countless times in my academic
> days.
> > as his time to develop such theory
> > UNDER CONTRACT with the University of Berlin was expiring.
> Oh, the tragedy.
> > Kick, scream, cry, call foul, call names. I don't give a FLYING FUCK about your complains.
> And I don't care about your idiocies you post here 24/7. And whenever I feel
> like it's worth my time, I'll point out your stupid non-sequiturs, your
> completely meaningless "critique", and your plain arrogance and stupidity
> the size of Mt. Everest.
>
> You are simply NOT equipped for the sort of activity you have chosen to
> pursue, you just don't have the mental hardware for this sort of thing.
> If you were less arrogant, you might have a chance to fix it but it would
> still take more than a decade for you to catch up. Not to me (for that
> you'd need several decades) but just to reach a tolerably competent level,
> so at least you wouldn't post idiocies 24/7 literally 100% of the time.
>
> Likewise, I would need a decade or more to catch up to YOU in YOUR
> domain of expertise. But the difference is that I'm very well aware of
> my shortcomings in your professional area, PLUS I don't go to
> EE newsgroups posting utter idiocies about THEIR domain of expertise.
> > This translations of the 1913 Entwurf shows clearly
> It doesn't matter, trust me.
>
> --
> Jan

This is not a reply. It's a CONFESSION of your impotence confronting facts that can ruin the leftovers of conscience that you may have.

I think that it should SUCK being you, wondering if all the efforts that you spent on a failed religious view of a tiny aspect of science
did really paid off.

Day after day you have to observe as GR is being destroyed in cannibalistic ways, morphing into something (even when stupid) more
comprehensive that what the retarded worshiped by you farted 100 years ago.

To understand how painful can be your journey down the hill that you proudly climbed, screaming "I'm a god of mathematics", I only
have to think about other fields that VANISHED in the time, being replaced by whatever was trendy:

- 1975-2000 computer scientists (whichever branch you choose).

- 1965-1980 cosmologists (I take 25 years of "active professional life").

- 1970-2000 electronic engineers (whichever field you choose).

- 1905-1935 special relativity (Ehrenfest is a very sad example)

- 1928-1940 QFT (Dirac is a sad example, even when he didn't kill himself).

-1948-1968 QED (1,000 subatomic particles for what?)

So, JanPB, reality devours arrogant pricks like you. If nature has pity, your mind will drift away, losing your skills without pain.

Don't be such kind of despicable idiot, Jan. THINK OUT OF THE BOX OF RELATIVITY THAT IMPRISON YOU.

Silly, vain boy!

On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 19:37:57 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:

> Likewise, I would need a decade or more to catch up to YOU in YOUR
> domain of expertise.

So, when caught there, you will simply say "A, B, C, D, E..." and
pretend there is some incredible wisdom in it.

Am 30.10.2021 um 01:20 schrieb JanPB:
> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 10:04:02 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why-does-physical-science-allow-biased-selection-of-experimental-data-while-engineering-science-does-not
>>
>> Some quotes:
>>
>> * - Engineers are living in our concurrent reality.
>> * - Physicists create some world by claiming existence of hypothetical
>> entities in physical worlds.
>
> There we go again. We've heard this before, countless times.
> You are not even trying to be original.

As I am an engineer, I would agree to the initial statement.

My experience is more, that physicists behave like members of a sect or
a cult:

The 'master druid' tells them something 'magic' and the 'monks' sing
that, until they know it by heart. Then they carry this like a treasure
to the next generation of adepts.

If any of the 'monks' dared to question the magic wisdom, they were
expelled from the sanctuary (or stoned to death).

TH

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 30.10.2021 um 01:20 schrieb JanPB:
>> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 10:04:02 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why-does-physical-science-allow-biased-selection-of-experimental-data-while-engineering-science-does-not
>>>
>>> Some quotes:
>>>
>>> * - Engineers are living in our concurrent reality.
>>> * - Physicists create some world by claiming existence of hypothetical
>>> entities in physical worlds.
>>
>> There we go again. We've heard this before, countless times.
>> You are not even trying to be original.
>
> As I am an engineer, I would agree to the initial statement.
>
> My experience is more, that physicists behave like members of a sect or
> a cult:
>
> The 'master druid' tells them something 'magic' and the 'monks' sing
> that, until they know it by heart.

This is an often-repeated mantra of the crank: “You are only memorizing
what your masters teach you. You claim to understand it, but you do not.
You have only memorized blindly. You cannot possibly correctly say you
understand it, because I do not understand it, and if I don’t understand
it, you cannot possibly understand it.”

> Then they carry this like a treasure
> to the next generation of adepts.
>
> If any of the 'monks' dared to question the magic wisdom, they were
> expelled from the sanctuary (or stoned to death).

There is no reason to question calculus if you understand calculus. There
is no reason to question classical electromagnetism if you understand
classical magnetism. There is no reason to question relativity if you
understand relativity.

>
>
> TH
>
>
>
>

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

On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 14:05:36 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> > Am 30.10.2021 um 01:20 schrieb JanPB:
> >> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 10:04:02 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>> https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why-does-physical-science-allow-biased-selection-of-experimental-data-while-engineering-science-does-not
> >>>
> >>> Some quotes:
> >>>
> >>> * - Engineers are living in our concurrent reality.
> >>> * - Physicists create some world by claiming existence of hypothetical
> >>> entities in physical worlds.
> >>
> >> There we go again. We've heard this before, countless times.
> >> You are not even trying to be original.
> >
> > As I am an engineer, I would agree to the initial statement.
> >
> > My experience is more, that physicists behave like members of a sect or
> > a cult:
> >
> > The 'master druid' tells them something 'magic' and the 'monks' sing
> > that, until they know it by heart.
> This is an often-repeated mantra of the crank:

This is just sad truth about your moronic bunch.

On 11/5/2021 9:38 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 14:05:36 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:

>>> The 'master druid' tells them something 'magic' and the 'monks' sing
>>> that, until they know it by heart.

>> This is an often-repeated mantra of the crank:
>> “You are only memorizing what your masters teach you. You claim to
>> understand it, but you do not. You have only memorized blindly. You
>> cannot possibly correctly say you understand it, because I do not
>> understand it, and if I don’t understand it, you cannot possibly
>> understand it.”

> This is just sad truth about your moronic bunch.

Odd's statement is spot on, especially his last sentence. From my recent
prodding of you, it is obvious that you do not understand GR/the GPS
system and how time works in them AT ALL. Because you don't understand
that, you think that I, Odd and a few others don't understand it, and
you even think the scientists and engineers who designed and built the
system don't understand it either (to the extent you apparently seem to
think those who built the system ignored the design specs or something!).

So I'll leave you in your autistic parroting ignorance, to mindlessly spout:
"In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did."
"In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did. BRAWWWK!!"
"In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did. Polly want a cracker!"
"In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did. BRAWWK!"

On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 16:27:10 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/5/2021 9:38 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 14:05:36 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>
> >>> The 'master druid' tells them something 'magic' and the 'monks' sing
> >>> that, until they know it by heart.
>
> >> This is an often-repeated mantra of the crank:
> >> “You are only memorizing what your masters teach you. You claim to
> >> understand it, but you do not. You have only memorized blindly. You
> >> cannot possibly correctly say you understand it, because I do not
> >> understand it, and if I don’t understand it, you cannot possibly
> >> understand it.”
> > This is just sad truth about your moronic bunch.
> Odd's statement is spot on, especially his last sentence. From my recent
> prodding of you, it is obvious that you do not understand GR/the GPS
> system and how time works in them AT ALL. Because you don't understand

Keep barking, trash, in the meantime in the real world
forbidden by your moronic church GPS clocks will keep
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 16:43:47 UTC+1, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 16:27:10 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 11/5/2021 9:38 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 14:05:36 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> >
> > >>> The 'master druid' tells them something 'magic' and the 'monks' sing
> > >>> that, until they know it by heart.
> >
> > >> This is an often-repeated mantra of the crank:
> > >> “You are only memorizing what your masters teach you. You claim to
> > >> understand it, but you do not. You have only memorized blindly. You
> > >> cannot possibly correctly say you understand it, because I do not
> > >> understand it, and if I don’t understand it, you cannot possibly
> > >> understand it.”
> > > This is just sad truth about your moronic bunch.
> > Odd's statement is spot on, especially his last sentence. From my recent
> > prodding of you, it is obvious that you do not understand GR/the GPS
> > system and how time works in them AT ALL. Because you don't understand
> Keep barking, trash, in the meantime in the real world
> forbidden by your moronic church GPS clocks will keep
> measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

And, of course, you took my staement out of the context
it was and put it into another one. Nothing else, of course,
should be expected from as stupid and fanatic piece of
shit as you.

On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 10:05:36 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> There is no reason to question calculus if you understand calculus. There
> is no reason to question classical electromagnetism if you understand
> classical magnetism. There is no reason to question relativity if you
> understand relativity.

Bodkin, I want to thanks you very much for this exquisite gem, fruit of your STUPID MIND, that is enough to portrait you as an IDIOT.

I think that this SOPHIST comment reveals entirely how the mind of a fanatic indoctrinated works.

There is no reason to question "WHATEVER" if you understand "WHATEVER". 100% genuine Bodkin, JanPB, Dono and other imbeciles.

Clearly, such sclerotic thought eliminates (in your LIMITED, FOSSILIZED mind) any chance of DOUBTS.

This is the way A FUCKING PC or SMARTPHONE "thinks":

1) I fully understand the instructions coded in this program.
2) Every time I run this code, I don't DIE (Halt or infinite recursion) and I provide a result, AS PROGRAMMED.
3) Therefore, as I understand and fulfill the instructions, one by one, I'm CORRECT.

But the stupid CPU is bounded by the LIMITS OF THE CODE. It's not allowed to doubt, as it's programmed to OBEY.

That's you, Bodkin, and your program is called RELATIVITY BY THE FUCKER. So, you have to OBEY without ANY DOUBT.

But many others, Bodkin, have a more developed "CPU". One with "intelligence", even if artificial.

So, an enlightened mind can understand the program, follow the program and YET, at any given time, wonder IF THE PROGRAM IS RIGHT.

And that proves that, even for highly indoctrinated minds HAVING INTELLIGENCE, it is possible to DOUBT about you UNDERSTAND.

I don't believe that you'll understand this post, anyways.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 10:05:36 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> There is no reason to question calculus if you understand calculus. There
>> is no reason to question classical electromagnetism if you understand
>> classical magnetism. There is no reason to question relativity if you
>> understand relativity.
>
> Bodkin, I want to thanks you very much for this exquisite gem, fruit of
> your STUPID MIND, that is enough to portrait you as an IDIOT.
>
> I think that this SOPHIST comment reveals entirely how the mind of a
> fanatic indoctrinated works.
>
> There is no reason to question "WHATEVER" if you understand "WHATEVER".
> 100% genuine Bodkin, JanPB, Dono and other imbeciles.
>
> Clearly, such sclerotic thought eliminates (in your LIMITED, FOSSILIZED
> mind) any chance of DOUBTS.
>
> This is the way A FUCKING PC or SMARTPHONE "thinks":
>
> 1) I fully understand the instructions coded in this program.
> 2) Every time I run this code, I don't DIE (Halt or infinite recursion)
> and I provide a result, AS PROGRAMMED.
> 3) Therefore, as I understand and fulfill the instructions, one by one, I'm CORRECT.
>
> But the stupid CPU is bounded by the LIMITS OF THE CODE. It's not allowed
> to doubt, as it's programmed to OBEY.
>
> That's you, Bodkin, and your program is called RELATIVITY BY THE FUCKER.
> So, you have to OBEY without ANY DOUBT.
>
> But many others, Bodkin, have a more developed "CPU". One with
> "intelligence", even if artificial.
>
> So, an enlightened mind can understand the program, follow the program
> and YET, at any given time, wonder IF THE PROGRAM IS RIGHT.
>
> And that proves that, even for highly indoctrinated minds HAVING
> INTELLIGENCE, it is possible to DOUBT about you UNDERSTAND.
>
> I don't believe that you'll understand this post, anyways.
>
>
>

I think it’s adorable that you, as an EE, equate understanding with
following a program.

Meanwhile, your boorish arrogance about engineering’s gift to mankind in a
physics discussion group goes unrepentantly unfettered.

So, you’re not just a pig, you’re a stupid pig.

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