This post specifically address the paper that made Einstein famous, not General Relativity, and is not a critic about GR in general (for now).

On Nov. 18, 1915, Einstein made his third presentation in November to the Prussian Academy of Science. The final paper, with the solution of the gravitational field equation, would be made on Nov. 18, 1915. The Nov.18 paper would be celebrated as a triumph of General Relativity, and would made him famous immediately in the scientific community and a worldwide celebrity in 1919, thanks to Eddington’s expedition outcome.

In its 10 pages, it delivered two numbers: An explanation for the missing +43”/century in the total advance of the perihelion of Mercury, and a brief comment about a new value of 1.75” for the deflection of stars light by the Sun, when it passes by its surface. It was twice the value he announced in 1911.

The paper, “Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory”, contains 44 formulae and less than a half are numbered, for references within the paper. The equation 11, only 9 before the end of the paper, divide it in two parts: the application of GR for the gravitational field in a vacuum for a suitably chosen system of coordinates and the calculations for the extra Mercury’s perihelion advance, ε.

The last part contains two fudging and cooking actions, in order to obtain the final Eq. 14 (43”/cy) from Eq. 11.

Going backward from Eq. 14, allows to understand the process done to reverse engineering the 1898 Gerber’s formula, which was known to include as a parameter (not an unknown), ε = 43”/century.

From Eq. 14: ε = 24π³a²/[T²c² (1 – e²)], and using Kepler’s identity a³/T² = GM/4π² (error 0.07%).

Knowing that the relativistic gravitational potential α =rS = 2GM/c², the equation 14 can be expressed as Eq. 13:

(Equation 13) ε = + 3π α/[a (1 – e²)] , which is the difference per orbit (radians) respect to Newton’s theory..

The problem is that ε should have a value ε = + 5.0186E-07 rad/orbit to obtain ε = 42.94”/cy ≈ 43”/cy.

Given α = 2953.25 m ; a = 5.7909E10 m ; e = 0.2056 ; T = 87..9694 days or T = 7600556.16 sec (NASA)

The real calculated values (as values in this paper only) are:

ε = -1.6729E-07 rad/orbit , which gives to obtain ε = -14.31”/century.

Then, the paper contains two errors: a negative sign for precession and a 2/3 times higher real value of ε.

Real ε = -8π³a²/[T²c² (1 – e²)], as recalculated using correct results of the integral and avoiding fudging.

Mathematical proofs

(Equation 11) (dx/dφ)²= 2A/B² + α/B² x −x² + αx³

Is the relativistic equation for the orbital motion of a planet around the Sun, in geometrical units (G, M, m, c and T equal to 1).

The newtonian equivalent has the form:

1/r⁴ . (dr/dɸ)² = 2A.m/L² + (2GM.m²/L²) .. 1/r – 1/r² , which after a substitution x = 1/r has the form

(dx/dɸ)² = 2A.m/B² + (2GM.m²/B²) . x – x² , where A: Total energy of the system ; B: angular moment

This equation has two real roots: α₁ = 1/AP = 2.17378E-11 m-1 and α₂ = 1/PE = 1.43236E-11 m-1

These are the same two newtonian roots that are contained in the cubic polynomial of Equation 11.

The third root of Eq. 11, never detailed because α is the variable variable, is α3 = 1/α = 1/rS = 1/2953.25 m-1.

Going one step back from Eq. 13, and considering that the integral only cover half an orbit (from α₁ to α₂), the angular sweep in half orbit is given by Equation 12:

(Equation 12) Φ = π [ 1+ 3α/[2a (1 – e²)]] , and replacing with the identity 1/[2a (1 – e²)] = (α₁ + α₂)/2

Φ = π [ 1+ 3/4 α (α₁ + α₂)] , which is the equation previous to Eq. 12, as given in the paper.

The problem is that going from Eq. 11 to this point, actually Φ = π [1 – 1/4 α (α₁ + α₂)].

This produces a value 2/3 times lower in the final Equation 14, plus a (-) sign that indicates a retrograde orbital difference with Newton, not an advance.

And due to these facts, two actions of fudging and cooking happens between Eq. 11 and Eq. 12.

1) Einstein equated the polynomial in Eq. 11 to a new one, with a fudge parameter K introduced from nowhere:

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

K = α/2 (α₁ + α₂). Now proceeds to extract 1/√(1 - αx) ≈ 1 + α/2 x from the polynomial to make it quadratic:

Φ ≈ [(1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂)] ∫ [1 + α/2 x)] dx /√[ - (x - α₁) (x - α₂)] (between α₁ and α₂), the next equation.

And Einstein simply writes an expression before writing the Eq. 12, commenting “The integration leads to”

Φ = π [ 1+ 3/4 α (α₁ + α₂)]

What happens in one single step is two fold:

1) Take (1 + K) = [(1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂)] = 1 + 5.3265E-05 ≈ 1, is deceiving, not innocent at all.

This is because the value that counts is K = 5.3265E-05, which constitutes 2/3 of the final value for ε, because the value 1 present in the equation vanishes
when a 2π value for an entire orbit is subtracted from Φ.

So, this is cheating, fudging.

2) The result of the integral: ∫ [1 + α/2 x)] dx /√[ - (x - α₁) (x - α₂)] (between α₁ and α₂), is literally replaced.

The real result +π [1 - 1/4 α(α₁ + α₂)] is replaced by +π [1 + 1/4 α(α₁ + α₂)].
This is needed to make

Φ ≈ π [(1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂)] . [1 + 1/4 α(α₁ + α₂)] ≈ π [ 1+ 3/4 α (α₁ + α₂)] , discarding the product 1/8 α² (α₁ + α₂)²

3/4 α (α₁ + α₂) = 7.9874E-08 ; 1/8 α² (α₁ + α₂)² = 1.4177E-15

Introducing K falsely gives the desired value for Φ. If discarded making K = 0, as should be, the REAL VALUE of Φ:

Φ = π [1 – 1/4 α (α₁ + α2) ] , which makes ε = - 1/2 π α (α₁ + α₂) = - π α/[a (1 – e2)] (only 1/3 of the published value).

Solving the integral ∫ [1 + α/2 x)] dx /√[ - (x - α₁) (x - α₂)]

It has two parts:

P1(x) = ∫ dx /√[ - (x - α₁) (x - α₂)] , (between α₁ and α₂)

P2(x) = ∫ [α/2 x dx /√[ - (x - α₁) (x - α₂)] , (between α₁ and α₂)

For simplicity, P(x) = - (x - α₁) (x - α₂) = - x² + (α₁ + α₂) x - α₁ α₂ = ax² + bx + c ; P(α₁) = P(α₂) = 0

P1(x) = ∫ dx /√P(x) = 1/√a ln [(2ax+b)/√a + 2 P(x)] = 1/√a ln [(2ax+b)/√a], between α₁ and α₂ ; P(x) = 0

P1(α₂) – P1(α₁) = 1/√(-1) ln [(-2α₂+b)/(-2α₁+b)] = 1/√(-1) ln [(-α₂+ α₁)/(-α₁+ α₂)] = +π

P2(x) = α/2 ∫ x/√P(x) dx = α/2 . 1/a P(x) – α/2. b/(2a^3/2) ln {[(2a x +b)/√a ] + 2 P(x) }

P2(x) = – α/2. b/(2a^3/2) ln [(2a x +b)/√a ] between α₁ and α₂ ; P(x) = 0

replacing a = -1 ; b = (α₁ + α₂)

P2(α₂) – P2(α₁) = – α/2. (α₁ + α₂)/(2√(-1)) { ln (- α₂ + α₁)/(- α₁ + α₂)} = - 1/4π α (α₁ + α₂)

Finally,

H(α₂) - H(α₁) = π - 1/4π α (α₁ + α₂) = π [1 - 1/4 α (α₁ + α₂)] , which produces a difference

ε = - π α/[a(1 – e²)]

Which is very different by the value required by Einstein to reach Eq. 13 and Eq. 14.

The final result Φ, using K = 0 (it was planted with no reason) and H(α2) - H(α1) gives

Φ = π [1 - 1/4 α (α₁ + α₂)] = - π [1 - 1/2 α/[a(1 – e²)]] , as calculated here.

Φ = π [1 + 3/4 α (α₁ + α₂)] = + π [1 + 3/2 α/[a(1 – e²)] , as written by Einstein on his Nov. 18, 1915 paper.

The new and real value of Φ causes that the final result be:

(Equation 14) ε = - 8π3a²/[T²c² (1 – e²)], negative and 3 times lower.

ε(Einstein)/ε(Real) = -3 ; ε(Real) = -1/3 ε(Einstein)

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 10:27:47 AM UTC-8, stubborn crank Richard Hertz perseveres:
> Snip Richard Hertz' imbecilities<

You tried this before only to prove that you are unable to calculate a simple integral correctly.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 3:42:57 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> You tried this before only to prove that you are unable to calculate a simple integral correctly.

Prove me wrong or shut the fuck up, liar cretin. I NEVER did this before. It's a work that took me 20 hours to complete,
with an study and representations in the computer of BOTH EQUATIONS for the orbital motion of planets.

I don't make crap when I become serious on a subject. And I'm not prone to make mistakes, if I analyze things many times,
like in this case. I'm not going to expose myself so naively, fucking retarded!

Now, instead of talking, do the walking or SHUT UP!

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 10:53:19 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 3:42:57 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > You tried this before only to prove that you are unable to calculate a simple integral correctly.
> Prove me wrong

You already calculated the integral incorrectly a few days ago, lying piece of shit.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 3:58:04 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>
> > > You tried this before only to prove that you are unable to calculate a simple integral correctly.
> > Prove me wrong

> You already calculated the integral incorrectly a few days ago, lying piece of shit.

Fucking retarded. What I did two weeks ago was to use TWO different sources for the solution of both integrals.

Now, due to doubts from other forum members, I used the same origin for the solution of each integral.

NOW, both solution are based on ln, and come from the same manual.

Once again: prove me wrong or SHUT YOUR FILTHY MOUTH.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 11:06:00 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz continued to dig himself:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 3:58:04 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > > You tried this before only to prove that you are unable to calculate a simple integral correctly.
> > > Prove me wrong
>
> > You already calculated the integral incorrectly a few days ago, lying piece of shit.
> What I did two weeks ago was to use TWO different sources for the solution of both integrals.
>

......and you made elementary mistakes on BOTH of them. You are repaeting the same mistakes, Thank you for the continued entertainment.

This topic was addressed once, 15 years ago, and a couple of forum members reached the same
conclusion, except that they used a different approach, analyzing the Lagrangian of orbits.

The whole Einstein paper is dubious and that's why Schwarzschild, who was present at the Prussian
Academy on Nov. 18, 1915, criticized Einstein's approach and proceeded to write his paper about an
exact analytical solution of the problem that Einstein posted in the first part of the paper.

Obviously, being one of three that recommended Einstein for Berlin's professorship, he was not going
to accuse Einstein of plagiarism or fudging, but his letter on Dec. 1915 to Einstein put the things in
perspective, with a careful diplomatic language:

1) I don't know what you did to reach Eq. 11, but here you have A NEW ONE.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 11:37:59 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> This topic was addressed once, 15 years ago, and a couple of forum members reached the same
> conclusion, except that they used a different approach, analyzing the Lagrangian of orbits.
>

Cretinoid

Einstein eq (13) is exactly the same as the solution obtained by using the Euler-Lagrange equations derived from Schwarzschild metric. It is well known (not by cranks like you) that the Euler-Lagrange equations derived from the Schwarzschild metric are IDENTICAL to the geodesics equations obtained from the EFEs. Therefore, the eq (13) from the Einstein paper is the SAME solution as the one that once can see for example on page 243 on Rindler's book (Relativity, Special, General and Cosmological) whereby \alpha=2m. You being a crank, would never learn that

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 4:37:59 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> This topic was addressed once, 15 years ago, and a couple of forum members reached the same
> conclusion, except that they used a different approach, analyzing the Lagrangian of orbits.
>
> The whole Einstein paper is dubious and that's why Schwarzschild, who was present at the Prussian
> Academy on Nov. 18, 1915, criticized Einstein's approach and proceeded to write his paper about an
> exact analytical solution of the problem that Einstein posted in the first part of the paper.
>
> Obviously, being one of three that recommended Einstein for Berlin's professorship, he was not going
> to accuse Einstein of plagiarism or fudging, but his letter on Dec. 1915 to Einstein put the things in
> perspective, with a careful diplomatic language:
>
> 1) I don't know what you did to reach Eq. 11, but here you have A NEW ONE.

2) I will not deliver a formula for the problem. Do it yourself with these new factors of the polynomial.

Then, he focused on his metric.

This shameful paper NEVER, EVER was addressed again by Einstein. Once having the right field equations
from Hilbert, he focused on UNDERSTANDING THEM and making a fuss about "his" theory, like if he developed it.

But he committed FRAUD on the Nov. 18 paper, and in a shameful way. He was an INEPT in terms of mathematics.

And only takes an analysis on the 1913 Einstein-Besso manuscript to UNDERSTAND how ignorant he and Besso could be,
regarding celestial mechanics.

As Lorentz said in 1920: "Einstein is not an astronomer......."

Schwarzschild was, and also a gifted mathematician. Read how this letter to Einstein (one of many) begins:

"Honored Mr. Einstein,

In order to be able to verify your gravitational theory, I have brought
myself nearer to your work on the perihelion of Mercury, and occupied myself
with the problem solved with the First Approximation. Thereby, I FOUND
MYSELF IN A STATE OF GREAT CONFUSSION.".

Of course he was. He was trapped in a dilemma about what to do with Einstein's paper.

Hilbert was in a dilemma also. He walked away from the subject, after "congratulating" Einstein for his FAST development
of the Nov. 18 paper. He knew, but had more important things to do. He was the "top dog" at mathematics, not physics. And
his equations were developed as a personal challenge, in three months (not 3 years).

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 11:55:49 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz continued to eat shit:
> snip shit eating by crank Richard Hertz<

Crank,

Crack open a book. I already gave you two very god references.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 10:27:47 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> This post specifically address the paper that made Einstein famous...

Your comments are not correct at all. First, the extra degree of freedom that confused Schwarzschild was nothing but the free choice of origin for the radial coordinate, which has no physical significance. Second, Schwarzschild was just pointing out that the essentially unique exact solution of Einstein's field equations for the metric can be used, in place of Einstein's first-order approximation. Third, Schwarzschild was not criticizing the evaluation of the elementary integral (well known to astronomers) used by Einstein, nor was he saying that this well-known integral is ambiguous. And for good reason, because (fourth) the integral is not ambiguous at all, as was explained in a recent thread. There is a simple substitution of variables that makes the integral trivial. You can find this (and the subsequent developments of Droste, etc.) explained in detail in any good book on the foundations of relativity.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 4:24:37 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>
> > > > > You tried this before only to prove that you are unable to calculate a simple integral correctly.
> > > > Prove me wrong
> >
> > > You already calculated the integral incorrectly a few days ago, lying piece of shit.
> > What I did two weeks ago was to use TWO different sources for the solution of both integrals.
> >
> .....and you made elementary mistakes on BOTH of them. You are repaeting the same mistakes, Thank you for the continued entertainment.

I'm truly convinced that a fanatic relativist like you, also an ignorant imbecile depending on a SW to do math,
can't deal with the FACTS that I specifically detailed.

If you don't like the integrals part, then try with the other fudge:

How he used 1 = 1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂) so he could FUDGE, COOK the final formula.

Just explain this or justifiy this FRAUD, fudge, hack our of many others in the paper, that I didn't tell.

But of course, you are a cretin FANATIC and will never concede anything against your pagan religion of science.

Because you are a cheater like him, and you proved it here infinite times.

How come you are not going to endorse a cheater that TRIPLED HIS RESULT.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 12:28:07 PM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz persevered:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 4:24:37 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > > > > You tried this before only to prove that you are unable to calculate a simple integral correctly.
> > > > > Prove me wrong
> > >
> > > > You already calculated the integral incorrectly a few days ago, lying piece of shit.
> > > What I did two weeks ago was to use TWO different sources for the solution of both integrals.
> > >
> > .....and you made elementary mistakes on BOTH of them. You are repeating the same mistakes, Thank you for the continued entertainment.
> How he used 1 = 1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂) so he could FUDGE, COOK the final formula.
>

Cretinoid

The same exact approximation can be seen on page 243 in the book that I just recommended (Rindler). Keep up the entertainment, clown.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 5:18:37 PM UTC-3, Townes Olson wrote:

<snip>

> Your comments are not correct at all. First, the extra degree of freedom that confused Schwarzschild was nothing but the free choice of origin for the radial coordinate, which has no physical significance. Second, Schwarzschild was just pointing out that the essentially unique exact solution of Einstein's field equations for the metric can be used, in place of Einstein's first-order approximation. Third, Schwarzschild was not criticizing the evaluation of the elementary integral (well known to astronomers) used by Einstein, nor was he saying that this well-known integral is ambiguous. And for good reason, because (fourth) the integral is not ambiguous at all, as was explained in a recent thread. There is a simple substitution of variables that makes the integral trivial. You can find this (and the subsequent developments of Droste, etc.) explained in detail in any good book on the foundations of relativity.

Schwarzschild criticized the GR part, not 1st. year calculus.

About the integral, one of the two FRAUDS, forget about it.

Tell me why IS NOT CHEATIN to make 1 = 1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂)

being that this FUDGE contributes with 67% of the final value.

Go ahead, and justify how he pulled out of his ass the factor α/2 (α₁ + α₂). It's calling FRAUD, cheating.

And another thing: Stop lecturing me, because for me you are an important asshole, and I could put you
down on any physical or mathematical problem.

I'm smarter that you, and you hate it, like the fucking reptilian lifeform.

Deal with it every day, asshole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal

The Schön scandal concerns German physicist Jan Hendrik Schön (born August 1970 in Verden an der Aller, Lower Saxony, Germany) who briefly rose to prominence after a series of apparent breakthroughs with semiconductors that were later discovered to be fraudulent.[1] Before he was exposed, Schön had received the Otto-Klung-Weberbank Prize for Physics and the Braunschweig Prize in 2001, as well as the Outstanding Young Investigator Award of the Materials Research Society in 2002, both of which were later rescinded.

The scandal provoked discussion in the scientific community about the degree of responsibility of coauthors and reviewers of scientific articles. The debate centered on whether peer review, traditionally designed to find errors and determine relevance and originality of articles, should also be required to detect deliberate fraud.

Julia Hsu and Lynn Loo originally noticed issues with Schön's paper describing the assembly of molecular transistors whilst attempting to patent research on lithography, realising by accident that Schön had DUPLICATED figures.

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

The physicist Jan Schön was caught duplicating figures in one paper and lost everything.

Einstein, on his Nov. 18, 1915, TRIPLICATED ONE FIGURE, DUPLICATED OTHER in the same paper and become
the icon of science.

Corruption + fraud, and managed to get free of charges?

My, my, how times are changed. Einstein should have represented powerful interests of the establishment to get unpunished.

Tell me that everyone is equal under the law. Some are much more equal than others.

Nobody in his sane mind can justify a double fudging done to FIT the formula of a dead physicist.
Not Gerber or von Soldner, not even Poincaré or the poor Bose, etc.

To be a crook and get clean, you need powerful friends, like it happens today in finance.

And regarding elliptic integrals, if one pair of solutions provide the required answer to a problem, and poses no doubts: WHY
should one select OTHER solution that get what OTHERS are looking for?

The solutions using natural logaritms ARE PERFECT, no doubt about it.

F(x) = ax² + bx + c

∫ dx /√F(x) = (1/√a) ln [(2ax+b)/√a + 2 F(x)] + C

∫ x √F(x) dx = 1/a √F(x) – b/(2a^3/2) {ln [(2a x +b)/√a ] +2 F(x) } + C

What is SO HARD to understand or SO DIFFICULT to accept? Only that these integrals prove, without any doubt, Einstein WRONG.

And that is the problem: proving Einstein WRONG is forbidden, due to 100 years of worship and advantages saying NO, NO, NO!

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 6:46:42 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal
>
> The Schön scandal concerns German physicist Jan Hendrik Schön (born August 1970 in Verden an der Aller, Lower Saxony, Germany) who briefly rose to prominence after a series of apparent breakthroughs with semiconductors that were later discovered to be fraudulent.[1] Before he was exposed, Schön had received the Otto-Klung-Weberbank Prize for Physics and the Braunschweig Prize in 2001, as well as the Outstanding Young Investigator Award of the Materials Research Society in 2002, both of which were later rescinded.
>
> The scandal provoked discussion in the scientific community about the degree of responsibility of coauthors and reviewers of scientific articles. The debate centered on whether peer review, traditionally designed to find errors and determine relevance and originality of articles, should also be required to detect deliberate fraud.
>
> Julia Hsu and Lynn Loo originally noticed issues with Schön's paper describing the assembly of molecular transistors whilst attempting to patent research on lithography, realising by accident that Schön had DUPLICATED figures.
>
> ********************
>
> The physicist Jan Schön was caught duplicating figures in one paper and lost everything.
>
> Einstein, on his Nov. 18, 1915, TRIPLICATED ONE FIGURE, DUPLICATED OTHER in the same paper and become
> the icon of science.
>
> Corruption + fraud, and managed to get free of charges?
>
> My, my, how times are changed. Einstein should have represented powerful interests of the establishment to get unpunished.
>
> Tell me that everyone is equal under the law. Some are much more equal than others.
>
> Nobody in his sane mind can justify a double fudging done to FIT the formula of a dead physicist.
> Not Gerber or von Soldner, not even Poincaré or the poor Bose, etc.
>
> To be a crook and get clean, you need powerful friends, like it happens today in finance.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> And regarding elliptic integrals, if one pair of solutions provide the required answer to a problem, and poses no doubts: WHY
> should one select OTHER solution that get what OTHERS are looking for?
>
> The solutions using natural logaritms ARE PERFECT, no doubt about it.
>
> F(x) = ax² + bx + c
>
> ∫ dx /√F(x) = (1/√a) ln [(2ax+b)/√a + 2 F(x)] + C
>
> ∫ x √F(x) dx = 1/a √F(x) – b/(2a^3/2) {ln [(2a x +b)/√a ] +2 F(x) } + C
>
> What is SO HARD to understand or SO DIFFICULT to accept? Only that these integrals prove, without any doubt, Einstein WRONG.
>
> And that is the problem: proving Einstein WRONG is forbidden, due to 100 years of worship and advantages saying NO, NO, NO!

Typo. Should say ∫ x/√F(x) dx and not ∫ x √F(x) dx

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 12:36:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> About the integral... forget about it.

Good, so we can dispense with your erroneous claim about the evaluation of the integral being ambiguous.

> Tell me why IS NOT CHEATIN to make 1 = 1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂)

The paper does not claim 1 equals 1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂). It asserts, correctly, that, to the first order, 1/sqrt[1-a(a1+a2)] equals 1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂). Understand?

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:46:42 PM UTC-8, odious kapo Richard Hertz perseveres:

> Einstein, on his Nov. 18, 1915, TRIPLICATED ONE FIGURE,

No, he didn't but you are too much of an imbecile to learn the basics.

>
> And regarding elliptic integrals,

Keep repeating the same mistake, thanks for the entertainment, clown.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 7:44:15 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> > And regarding elliptic integrals,
>
> Keep repeating the same mistake, thanks for the entertainment, clown.

Imbecile, who doesn't want to acknowledge Einstein's frauds on this particular paper.

I think that we have a communication problem here.

I don't deny the action of gravity as having a limited velocity, almost equal to c.

Since 1898 Gerber's paper (who was trying the speed of gravity, assuming the extra advance of perihelion as A FACT),
many others (Einstein included) used GR or scalar theories with delayed gravitational potentials and reached the SAME formula.

In THIS THREAD, I'm not discussing if GR is right or wrong. I'm discussing about the imbecile Einstein, his fucking paper, three
years of OBSESSIVE SEARCH to use Mercury as an EASY theoretical proof (not depending from astronomers to fact-check) and
his CLUMSY, almost infantile paper, where he TRIED to reach Gerber's formula, but FAILED.

Do we understand now? Gerber anticipated Einstein, with a different theory, and HIS FORMULA is still UNDISPUTED. His methods yes,
but NOT HIS FORMULA!!

This thread is about Einstein committing FRAUD, fudging a paper twice in order to present results of his GR in the middle of WWI,
with no chances to experimentally verify stars light deflection using an eclipse.

And his despair (IMHO) made him to cook the paper.

I know that there are many other derivations. What do you think that I've read in the last month? My memories?

Focus on my target on the OP: to prove that Einstein CHEATED on this particular paper. Nothing more, nothing less. So, STOP defending
what is not defensible, like Wilson tried to do minutes ago, telling me WHY PLANTING 1 = 1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂) is MORALLY CORRECT.

It's not morally correct, and you should concede defeat on THIS SPECIFIC POINT: Einstein cheated on such paper, TWICE!

And regarding your advice about Rindler's relativity, page 246, I have it open in front of me right now. And I ask you:

What the FUCK has to be with this thread HIS almost newtonian demonstration (11.51) with this discussion?

His Δ = 2π/(1- 3 m²/h²) ≈ 6πm/[a (1 – e²)] comes from a completely different equation, with his "wiggling" and use of "u".

There are almost one different approach on any GR book dealing with Mercury, as well as in papers not based in GR but delayed potentials.

So, give me a break, imbecile, and FOCUS on my specific topic. Engineers usually don't digress as physicists do, and go
straight to the point: Einstein cheated ON THIS PAPER, and I proved. Period..

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 3:19:13 PM UTC-8, odious crank Richard Hertz inserted feet (both of them) into his mouth:
> And regarding your advice about Rindler's relativity, page 246, I have it open in front of me right now. And I ask you:
>
> What the FUCK has to be with this thread HIS almost newtonian demonstration (11.51) with this discussion?
>

Rindler's demonstration is GR, not Newtonian , cretinoid.

> His Δ = 2π/(1- 3 m²/h²) ≈ 6πm/[a (1 – e²)] comes from a completely different equation, with his "wiggling" and use of "u".
>

Comes from the EFE geodesics, utter crank. Same equations used by Einstein in his 1915 paper but you are too cretin to understand.
Keep up the entertainment, old fart clown.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 7:40:13 PM UTC-3, Townes Olson wrote:

<snip>

> Good, so we can dispense with your erroneous claim about the evaluation of the integral being ambiguous.
> > Tell me why IS NOT CHEATIN to make 1 = 1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂)
> The paper does not claim 1 equals 1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂). It asserts, correctly, that, to the first order, 1/sqrt[1-a(a1+a2)] equals
1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂). Understand?

Still patronizing, Wilson? You never learn, don't you?

You now, TO SAVE FACE or because you are an IDIOT, pretend to impose to me the rationalization of the cheating done by Einstein?

Stop fucking around, and show some intelligence, please!

In this IDENTITY:

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

where 1 + K =1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂) or, 1 = 1 + K ≈ 1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂) and α/2 (α₁ + α₂) = 5.3265E-05

you have the stone face to affirm that α/2 (α₁ + α₂) = 5.3265E-05 OR α/2 (α₁ + α₂) = 0, DEPENDING ON the circumstances.
And, specially, because K contributes with 67% to the final result of 43"/century.

Just write about THAT IDENTITY, and don't INVENT. There are only 6 formulae between the first integral and the end of the paper.

FOCUS on my topic. Don't derail it because you CAN'T or DON'T WANT TO understand the fudge.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 8:25:08 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 3:19:13 PM UTC-8, odious crank Richard Hertz inserted feet (both of them) into his mouth:
> > And regarding your advice about Rindler's relativity, page 246, I have it open in front of me right now. And I ask you:
> >
> > What the FUCK has to be with this thread HIS almost newtonian demonstration (11.51) with this discussion?
> >
> Rindler's demonstration is GR, not Newtonian , cretinoid.
> > His Δ = 2π/(1- 3 m²/h²) ≈ 6πm/[a (1 – e²)] comes from a completely different equation, with his "wiggling" and use of "u".
> >
> Comes from the EFE geodesics, utter crank. Same equations used by Einstein in his 1915 paper but you are too cretin to understand.
> Keep up the entertainment, old fart clown.

It comes from (dx/dφ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x −x² + αx³ , LIAR!

(Equation 11) (dx/dφ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x −x² + αx³

"we are led without approximation to the following differential equation:"

(11.45 ) d²u/dφ² + u = m/h² + 3m u²

Quite different, aren't they? An square of a first derivative versus a second derivative.

You are the champion of the cretins in the world, imbecile.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 3:42:48 PM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz continued to embarrass himself:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 8:25:08 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 3:19:13 PM UTC-8, odious crank Richard Hertz inserted feet (both of them) into his mouth:
> > > And regarding your advice about Rindler's relativity, page 246, I have it open in front of me right now. And I ask you:
> > >
> > > What the FUCK has to be with this thread HIS almost newtonian demonstration (11.51) with this discussion?
> > >
> > Rindler's demonstration is GR, not Newtonian , cretinoid.
> > > His Δ = 2π/(1- 3 m²/h²) ≈ 6πm/[a (1 – e²)] comes from a completely different equation, with his "wiggling" and use of "u".
> > >
> > Comes from the EFE geodesics, utter crank. Same equations used by Einstein in his 1915 paper but you are too cretin to understand.
> > Keep up the entertainment, old fart clown.
> It comes from (dx/dφ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x −x² + αx³ , LIAR!
> (Equation 11) (dx/dφ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x −x² + αx³
> "we are led without approximation to the following differential equation:"
>

These are the geodesics, crank

Keep it up, dumbestfuck!

The liar and deceiver knew when he fucked it up beyond any explanation or correction.
With E=mc2, at least he tried six more times to prove it, before giving up in 1942.

Einstein’s Paper: “Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory”
Anatoli Andrei Vankov
IPPE, Obninsk, Russia; Bethany College, KS, USA; anatolivankov@hotmail.com

2.1.1 Historical remarks

Einstein’s paper devoted to the GR prediction of Mercury’s perihelion advance,
Doc.24 (see Notes), is the only one among his publications that contains
the explanation of the GR effect. In his following paper The Foundations
of the General Theory of Relativity, 1916, Doc.30, Einstein presents
his new (he called it “correct”) calculation of the bending of light

while the Mercury perihelion is only mentioned by referring it as in Doc.24, along
with Schwarzshild’s work on “the exact solution”.

Since then, to our knowledge, he never returned to the methodology of the GR perihelion advance problem.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 3:33:05 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> In this IDENTITY:
> Φ = ∫dx/√(2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³) = (1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂)) ∫ dx/√ [- (x - α₁) (x - α₂) (1 - αx)]

That isn't an *identity*, it is "established with the precision demanded of us", which is to say, to the first significant order of approximation necessary to show the non-Newtonian effects to the precision of observation. If you have trouble seeing how Einstein goes from the left side to the right side of that expression, it's because the high school curriculum in those days included things like the algebraic theory of polynomials that make it obvious, but modern students don't have that background, so it looks mysterious. (Likewise the simple substitution of variables that trivializes the integral is fairly obvious to any mathematically literate person, but looks mysterious to most students today.) Fortunately you can find a detailed explanation of the intermediate steps (which are omitted from Einstein's paper as being obvious to his readers) in any good book on the foundations of relativity.