On 2021-11-20 18:27:45 +0000, Richard Hertz said:

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

The paper that got Einstein the Nobel Prize was not that one, but the
one on the photoelectric effect. Do you have any opinions about whether
that work was fraudulent?
>
> 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 vanisheswhen 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)

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 3:32:15 PM UTC-3, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

<snip most of the reposting of my OP>

> On 2021-11-20 18:27:45 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
>
> > This post specifically address the paper that made Einstein famous, not
> > General Relativity, and is not a critic about GR in general (for now).
>
> The paper that got Einstein the Nobel Prize was not that one, but the
> one on the photoelectric effect. Do you have any opinions about whether
> that work was fraudulent?

<snip>

> Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

If you read carefully the title of this thread, it says: Proofs about Einstein fudging and cooking the paper that made him famous worldwide,
and I made it very clear that this thread was devoted ONLY to prove FALSE his famous Nov. 18, 1915, on Mercury's missing 43"/cy.

Many scientists before him had failed: Minkowski, Sommerfeld, von Laue, Nordstrom, Abraham, Mie, etc.

The only who got the right formula was Gerber, in 1898. And this because he used ψ = 4.789 × 10-7 rad/orbit as an entry parameter
in his search for the speed c of gravity.

Einstein failed again (first time with Entwurf in 1913) to find a correct formula, so he committed FRAUD in this promised paper to the
Prussian Academy of Science. He was VERY concerned.

In the same paper, let the PAS that he achieved to obtain twice the deflection of light by the Sun than in his 1911 paper, or 1.75" of arc.

Einstein went public to announce the triumph of his theory of GR, with the first proof (1 out of 3) for which GR was going to be tested.

Such publicity made him immediately famous in Europe and USA, but had to wait 3 more years for Eddington's dubious proof of light
deflection by the Sun's surface in 1.75" of arc. Then, his fame exploded worldwide overnight.

I've demonstrated here that his fame was undue, because his development was fraudulent, fudged and cooked in high cuisine.

No intention, AT THIS THREAD, to go against GR, SR or photoelectric effect. I did something here to prove how useless is SR in earthly
applications, including Moon and neighborhood.

But, thanks for reposting my OP. Too long and boring, so I'll make a new thread with a simplified explanation.

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 8:27:09 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> I've demonstrated here that his fame was undue, because his development was fraudulent, fudged and cooked in high cuisine.

No, you have not. You have only *claimed* that his fame was undue but you have failed to prove it.

You are a dumbfuck now and will remain a dumbfuck for a very long time. You should retire before you embarrass yourself any further...but, of course, this is just my opinion...

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 1:45:31 AM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 8:27:09 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > I've demonstrated here that his fame was undue, because his development was fraudulent, fudged and cooked in high cuisine.
> No, you have not. You have only *claimed* that his fame was undue but you have failed to prove it.
>
> You are a dumbfuck now and will remain a dumbfuck for a very long time. You should retire before you embarrass yourself any further...but, of course, this is just my opinion...

I had to use a dictionary on the dumbfuck insult. I found that (urban slang):

"A dumb fuck is someone that is undeniably stupid, they can't get their life together because of their epic level of stupidity."

Your opinion of me matches mine about you, but a little bit less. After all, you can type your imbecile "contributions" in this forum
and post them, but with the risk to appear as a fucking peacock, who thinks that's above something on Earth.

Let me tell you what I think of you, for a start: I think that you are a pathetic relativist with a fossilized brain, that are opinionated
with BORROWED KNOWLEDGE, because you are unable to generate a single original thought by yourself, even if your life is at stake.

I've seen lots of assholes like you, who didn't want the effort to discuss something with.

In your case, your mind is severely impaired by indoctrination, which prevent you from questioning NOTHING.

No difference between you and a robot working with Windows 3.1 (1991). Prone to fail and an OS wannabe. It applies to you, in
the intellectual activities that I can read in your history here. As I said: pathetic, void, a true peacock (which is dumb as fuck).

Don't miss your pagan church's meeting, with other retarded like you, in a near location to be disclosed soon. Fucking cretin.

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 8:27:09 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> I've demonstrated here that I am a cretin with a huge hard-on for Einstein

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 9:15:25 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 1:45:31 AM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 8:27:09 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > > I've demonstrated here that his fame was undue, because his development was fraudulent, fudged and cooked in high cuisine.
> > No, you have not. You have only *claimed* that his fame was undue but you have failed to prove it.
> >
> > You are a dumbfuck now and will remain a dumbfuck for a very long time. You should retire before you embarrass yourself any further...but, of course, this is just my opinion...
> I had to use a dictionary on the dumbfuck insult. I found that (urban slang):
>
> "A dumb fuck is someone that is undeniably stupid, they can't get their life together because of their epic level of stupidity."
>
> Your opinion of me matches mine about you, but a little bit less. After all, you can type your imbecile "contributions" in this forum
> and post them, but with the risk to appear as a fucking peacock, who thinks that's above something on Earth.
>
> Let me tell you what I think of you, for a start: I think that you are a pathetic relativist with a fossilized brain, that are opinionated
> with BORROWED KNOWLEDGE, because you are unable to generate a single original thought by yourself, even if your life is at stake.
>
> I've seen lots of assholes like you, who didn't want the effort to discuss something with.
>
> In your case, your mind is severely impaired by indoctrination, which prevent you from questioning NOTHING.
>
> No difference between you and a robot working with Windows 3.1 (1991). Prone to fail and an OS wannabe. It applies to you, in
> the intellectual activities that I can read in your history here. As I said: pathetic, void, a true peacock (which is dumb as fuck).
>
> Don't miss your pagan church's meeting, with other retarded like you, in a near location to be disclosed soon. Fucking cretin.

I hope you feel better after this rant... it is probably not good for you to get so worked up... but I must tell you that I have forgotten more physics than you have ever known... and there isn't a thing that you can do about that...

Den 26.11.2021 05:27, skrev Richard Hertz:
>
> If you read carefully the title of this thread, it says: Proofs about Einstein fudging and cooking the paper that made him famous worldwide,
> and I made it very clear that this thread was devoted ONLY to prove FALSE his famous Nov. 18, 1915, on Mercury's missing 43"/cy.
>
> Many scientists before him had failed: Minkowski, Sommerfeld, von Laue, Nordstrom, Abraham, Mie, etc.
>
> The only who got the right formula was Gerber, in 1898. And this because he used ψ = 4.789 × 10-7 rad/orbit as an entry parameter
> in his search for the speed c of gravity.

It is however now known that Gerber's theory was wrong,
the equation he found doesn't even follow from his theory.

>
> Einstein went public to announce the triumph of his theory of GR, with the first proof (1 out of 3) for which GR was going to be tested.
>
> Such publicity made him immediately famous in Europe and USA, but had to wait 3 more years for Eddington's dubious proof of light
> deflection by the Sun's surface in 1.75" of arc. Then, his fame exploded worldwide overnight.
>
> I've demonstrated here that his fame was undue, because his development was fraudulent, fudged and cooked in high cuisine.

So you will have us to believe that:
1. Einstein didn't know, and was unable to calculate
what GR predicts for the perihelion advance of Mercury.
2. Einstein found Gerber's equation and since it gave
the correct answer, he claimed that it followed from GR,
which he didn't believe was true. Thus it was a fraud.

>
> No intention, AT THIS THREAD, to go against GR,

I take that to mean that you know what we all know:
GR predicts the perihelion advance of a planet is:
ε = 24π³a²/T²c²(1−e²) radians/orbit.

This is calculated many times by many physicists
and astronomers.

So when Einstein in his 1915 paper:
https://tinyurl.com/yzzbratp
fraudulently claimed that GR predicted:
ε = 24π³a²/T²c²(1−e²) equation (14)
he was very lucky when his fudged and cooked
equation later proved to be what GR predicts.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Friday, 26 November 2021 at 13:56:42 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 26.11.2021 05:27, skrev Richard Hertz:
> >
> > If you read carefully the title of this thread, it says: Proofs about Einstein fudging and cooking the paper that made him famous worldwide,
> > and I made it very clear that this thread was devoted ONLY to prove FALSE his famous Nov. 18, 1915, on Mercury's missing 43"/cy.
> >
> > Many scientists before him had failed: Minkowski, Sommerfeld, von Laue, Nordstrom, Abraham, Mie, etc.
> >
> > The only who got the right formula was Gerber, in 1898. And this because he used ψ = 4.789 × 10-7 rad/orbit as an entry parameter
> > in his search for the speed c of gravity.
> It is however now known that Gerber's theory was wrong,
> the equation he found doesn't even follow from his theory.
> >
> > Einstein went public to announce the triumph of his theory of GR, with the first proof (1 out of 3) for which GR was going to be tested.
> >
> > Such publicity made him immediately famous in Europe and USA, but had to wait 3 more years for Eddington's dubious proof of light
> > deflection by the Sun's surface in 1.75" of arc. Then, his fame exploded worldwide overnight.
> >
> > I've demonstrated here that his fame was undue, because his development was fraudulent, fudged and cooked in high cuisine.
> So you will have us to believe that:
> 1. Einstein didn't know, and was unable to calculate
> what GR predicts for the perihelion advance of Mercury.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by
your moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 9:56:42 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

<snip>

> > Einstein went public to announce the triumph of his theory of GR, with the first proof (1 out of 3) for which GR was going to be tested.
> >
> > Such publicity made him immediately famous in Europe and USA, but had to wait 3 more years for Eddington's dubious proof of light
> > deflection by the Sun's surface in 1.75" of arc. Then, his fame exploded worldwide overnight.
> >
> > I've demonstrated here that his fame was undue, because his development was fraudulent, fudged and cooked in high cuisine.

> So you will have us to believe that:
> 1. Einstein didn't know, and was unable to calculate what GR predicts for the perihelion advance of Mercury.

NO! What I'm saying that he DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YET the Grossmann-Hilbert theory (it took one more year for him, and it's written).
So, he FAILED from the first part of the paper to manage equations for orbits of planets. Schwarzschild (an astronomer) did know, and
let it known to Einstein in personal letters and in HIS PUBLISHED PAPER. I quote from it:

"§2. Mr. Einstein showed that this problem, in first approximation, leads to Newton’s law and that the second approximation correctly
reproduces the known anomaly in the motion of the perihelion of Mercury. The following calculation yields the exact solution of the
problem. It is always pleasant to avail of exact solutions of simple form. More importantly, the calculation proves also the uniqueness of
the solution, about which Mr. Einstein’s treatment STILL LEFT DOUBT, and which could have been PROVED ONLY WITH GREAT
DIFFICULTY, in the way shown below, through SUCH AN APPROXIMATION METHOD The following lines THEREFORE let Mr. Einstein’s
result shine with increased clearness."

I wrote here many times that Schwarzschild HAD CRITICIZED Einstein's paper, in a VERY POLITE WAY, given that Germany was at war,
and was not a time to make the fight a big issue, and that Schwarzschild HAD RESPONSABILITIES UPON Einstein. He had been one
of the three persons responsible for giving Einstein a Berlin University's professorship by 1914 (because he believed on his ideas on GR),
but he couldn't be supportive of the Nov. 18 paper, because he KNEW THAT IT WAS PLAIN WRONG. Read carefully §2 , and tell me that's
not a SEVERE critic to his protegee (he was present at the Prussian Academy that day).

Also, read Schwarzschild FIRST paper (published Feb 1916) with extreme care, and will find more critics, and how he showed the way
to address the problem.

Also, read about his Equation 18, which contrast with Einstein's Equation 11:

( Schwarzschild Eq. 18) (dx/dΦ)² = (1 –h)/c² + hα/c² x −x² + αx³ = 2A/B + α/B x - x² + α x³

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

DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCES? Both produces different values for roots α₁ and α₂. Root 1/α remains the same.

And that differences are the cause of the FAILED PAPER, so Einstein had to cheat to get Gerber's expression.

Read the rest of the paper, and find out WHERE Einstein went wrong. In particular, because he should have used

1/x = R = (r³ + α³)^1/3 instead 1/x = r.

Schwarzschild too made a mistake on the coordinate origin, because he wasn't using the latest Hilbert's theory.

The solution known as Schwarzschild metric is not the one for Feb. 1916 paper, but a MODIFICATION made by Hilbert in 1917,
which was named as Schwarzschild's solution by Hilbert to HONOR his late colleague.

And using the CURRENT Schwarzschild metric is that 1,000+ proofs in the last 90+ years provide the correct Gerber's formula.

> 2. Einstein found Gerber's equation and since it gave the correct answer, he claimed that it followed from GR, which he didn't
> believe was true. Thus it was a fraud.

NO. Einstein knew that Gerber's formula was structurally correct, with disregard of the theory. He had to fudge his development
to match the final result, by introducing the dirty tricky K-1 ≈ 0 before solving the integral. In the ≈ 0 is hidden 2/3 of the 43" of arc/orbit.

> > No intention, AT THIS THREAD, to go against GR,

> I take that to mean that you know what we all know: GR predicts the perihelion advance of a planet is: ε = 24π³a²/T²c²(1−e²)
> radians/orbit.

Using the Hilbert-Schwarzschild metric YES. In the Einstein's paper NO.
> This is calculated many times by many physicists and astronomers.
>
> So when Einstein in his 1915 paper: https://tinyurl.com/yzzbratp fraudulently claimed that GR predicted:
> ε = 24π³a²/T²c²(1−e²) equation (14)
> he was very lucky when his fudged and cooked equation later proved to be what GR predicts.

It's not a matter of having luck. It's a matter of being a SOB cheater, as he always was. GR can "predict" many things,
but the mathematically INEPT fraudster couldn't. Inept, cheater and street-smart: enough for success with the PR around GR, which
was developed BY OTHER PERSONS, starting with Grossmann and ending with Hilbert.

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 9:16:56 AM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz wrote:

> Also, read about his Equation 18, which contrast with Einstein's Equation 11:
>
> ( Schwarzschild Eq. 18) (dx/dΦ)² = (1 –h)/c² + hα/c² x −x² + αx³ = 2A/B + α/B x - x² + α x³
>
> (Einstein Eq. 11) (dx/dΦ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³
>
> DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCES?

There aren't any, ignoramus. Both are the same thing, the same geodesic derived from the EFEs.

Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:
>
>
> Den 26.11.2021 05:27, skrev Richard Hertz:
>>
>> If you read carefully the title of this thread, it says: Proofs about
>> Einstein fudging and cooking the paper that made him famous worldwide,
>> and I made it very clear that this thread was devoted ONLY to prove
>> FALSE his famous Nov. 18, 1915, on Mercury's missing 43"/cy.
>>
>> Many scientists before him had failed: Minkowski, Sommerfeld, von Laue,
>> Nordstrom, Abraham, Mie, etc.
>>
>> The only who got the right formula was Gerber, in 1898. And this because
>> he used ψ = 4.789 × 10-7 rad/orbit as an entry parameter
>> in his search for the speed c of gravity.
>
> It is however now known that Gerber's theory was wrong,
> the equation he found doesn't even follow from his theory.
>
>>
>> Einstein went public to announce the triumph of his theory of GR, with
>> the first proof (1 out of 3) for which GR was going to be tested.
>>
>> Such publicity made him immediately famous in Europe and USA, but had to
>> wait 3 more years for Eddington's dubious proof of light
>> deflection by the Sun's surface in 1.75" of arc. Then, his fame exploded
>> worldwide overnight.
>>
>> I've demonstrated here that his fame was undue, because his development
>> was fraudulent, fudged and cooked in high cuisine.
>
> So you will have us to believe that:
> 1. Einstein didn't know, and was unable to calculate
> what GR predicts for the perihelion advance of Mercury.
> 2. Einstein found Gerber's equation and since it gave
> the correct answer, he claimed that it followed from GR,
> which he didn't believe was true. Thus it was a fraud.
>
>>
>> No intention, AT THIS THREAD, to go against GR,
>
> I take that to mean that you know what we all know:
> GR predicts the perihelion advance of a planet is:
> ε = 24π³a²/T²c²(1−e²) radians/orbit.
>
> This is calculated many times by many physicists
> and astronomers.

Hertz would have to claim that NO physicist has done the calculations after
Gerber. That either they just cited Einstein and did nothing themselves, or
that they copied Gerber themselves. Heh.

>
> So when Einstein in his 1915 paper:
> https://tinyurl.com/yzzbratp
> fraudulently claimed that GR predicted:
> ε = 24π³a²/T²c²(1−e²) equation (14)
> he was very lucky when his fudged and cooked
> equation later proved to be what GR predicts.
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Op 26-nov.-2021 om 19:07 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Den 26.11.2021 05:27, skrev Richard Hertz:
>>>
>>> If you read carefully the title of this thread, it says: Proofs about
>>> Einstein fudging and cooking the paper that made him famous worldwide,
>>> and I made it very clear that this thread was devoted ONLY to prove
>>> FALSE his famous Nov. 18, 1915, on Mercury's missing 43"/cy.
>>>
>>> Many scientists before him had failed: Minkowski, Sommerfeld, von Laue,
>>> Nordstrom, Abraham, Mie, etc.
>>>
>>> The only who got the right formula was Gerber, in 1898. And this because
>>> he used ψ = 4.789 × 10-7 rad/orbit as an entry parameter
>>> in his search for the speed c of gravity.
>>
>> It is however now known that Gerber's theory was wrong,
>> the equation he found doesn't even follow from his theory.
>>
>>>
>>> Einstein went public to announce the triumph of his theory of GR, with
>>> the first proof (1 out of 3) for which GR was going to be tested.
>>>
>>> Such publicity made him immediately famous in Europe and USA, but had to
>>> wait 3 more years for Eddington's dubious proof of light
>>> deflection by the Sun's surface in 1.75" of arc. Then, his fame exploded
>>> worldwide overnight.
>>>
>>> I've demonstrated here that his fame was undue, because his development
>>> was fraudulent, fudged and cooked in high cuisine.
>>
>> So you will have us to believe that:
>> 1. Einstein didn't know, and was unable to calculate
>> what GR predicts for the perihelion advance of Mercury.
>> 2. Einstein found Gerber's equation and since it gave
>> the correct answer, he claimed that it followed from GR,
>> which he didn't believe was true. Thus it was a fraud.
>>
>>>
>>> No intention, AT THIS THREAD, to go against GR,
>>
>> I take that to mean that you know what we all know:
>> GR predicts the perihelion advance of a planet is:
>> ε = 24π³a²/T²c²(1−e²) radians/orbit.
>>
>> This is calculated many times by many physicists
>> and astronomers.
>
> Hertz would have to claim that NO physicist has done the calculations after
> Gerber. That either they just cited Einstein and did nothing themselves, or
> that they copied Gerber themselves. Heh.

Imagine that this marks the point in history where all future
generations of retired engineers just cite Hertz and do
nothing themselves. Huh.

Dirk Vdm

On Friday, 26 November 2021 at 19:07:31 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Paul B. Andersen <paul.b....@paulba.no> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Den 26.11.2021 05:27, skrev Richard Hertz:
> >>
> >> If you read carefully the title of this thread, it says: Proofs about
> >> Einstein fudging and cooking the paper that made him famous worldwide,
> >> and I made it very clear that this thread was devoted ONLY to prove
> >> FALSE his famous Nov. 18, 1915, on Mercury's missing 43"/cy.
> >>
> >> Many scientists before him had failed: Minkowski, Sommerfeld, von Laue,
> >> Nordstrom, Abraham, Mie, etc.
> >>
> >> The only who got the right formula was Gerber, in 1898. And this because
> >> he used ψ = 4.789 × 10-7 rad/orbit as an entry parameter
> >> in his search for the speed c of gravity.
> >
> > It is however now known that Gerber's theory was wrong,
> > the equation he found doesn't even follow from his theory.
> >
> >>
> >> Einstein went public to announce the triumph of his theory of GR, with
> >> the first proof (1 out of 3) for which GR was going to be tested.
> >>
> >> Such publicity made him immediately famous in Europe and USA, but had to
> >> wait 3 more years for Eddington's dubious proof of light
> >> deflection by the Sun's surface in 1.75" of arc. Then, his fame exploded
> >> worldwide overnight.
> >>
> >> I've demonstrated here that his fame was undue, because his development
> >> was fraudulent, fudged and cooked in high cuisine.
> >
> > So you will have us to believe that:
> > 1. Einstein didn't know, and was unable to calculate
> > what GR predicts for the perihelion advance of Mercury.
> > 2. Einstein found Gerber's equation and since it gave
> > the correct answer, he claimed that it followed from GR,
> > which he didn't believe was true. Thus it was a fraud.
> >
> >>
> >> No intention, AT THIS THREAD, to go against GR,
> >
> > I take that to mean that you know what we all know:
> > GR predicts the perihelion advance of a planet is:
> > ε = 24π³a²/T²c²(1−e²) radians/orbit.
> >
> > This is calculated many times by many physicists
> > and astronomers.
> Hertz would have to claim that NO physicist has done the calculations after
> Gerber. That either they just cited Einstein and did nothing themselves, or
> that they copied Gerber themselves. Heh.

And in the meantime - forbidden by your moronic
religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.

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 or shut the fuck up, liar cretin.

One can never prove to an ignoramus that he is wrong. This has been noted
for centuries, Newton and Goethe commented on this phenomenon.

> 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.

You do. Sorry but you simply don't have what it takes to work in this.

--
Jan

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 5:27:06 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 10:53:19 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz 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.
>
> One can never prove to an ignoramus that he is wrong. This has been noted
> for centuries, Newton and Goethe commented on this phenomenon.

Show me and others at this forum where there is any mathematical error, genius. Honor your BsC in math, if it's true.

If not, you also shut the fuck up, ignorant. This is not post-post graduated math. It's only High School math, so it should
be very easy for you to find any error. Isn't it, imbecile?

Or it's that you CAN'T FIND ANY?

> > 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.
>
> You do. Sorry but you simply don't have what it takes to work in this.

You don't have any idea of what you're talking about. It looks like the reply of an angry and stupid child.

DO THE MATH AND PROVE ME WRONG, PEACOCK. It's your chance to show me as an idiot and you as a winner.

Richard Hertz wrote:

>> You do. Sorry but you simply don't have what it takes to work in this.
>
> You don't have any idea of what you're talking about. It looks like the
> reply of an angry and stupid child.
> DO THE MATH AND PROVE ME WRONG, PEACOCK. It's your chance to show me as
> an idiot and you as a winner.

his math is like his moon landing, fake.

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 6:30:39 PM UTC-3, Chason Aceta wrote:

<snip>

> Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> >> You do. Sorry but you simply don't have what it takes to work in this.
> >
> > You don't have any idea of what you're talking about. It looks like the
> > reply of an angry and stupid child.
> > DO THE MATH AND PROVE ME WRONG, PEACOCK. It's your chance to show me as
> > an idiot and you as a winner.

> his math is like his moon landing, fake.

Do you know what's really sad? That JabPB degree was a gift from USA to Poland for helping in the fall of the USSR.

After that event, USA was determined to conquer minds, souls and bodies of everyone living at Eastern Europe and, in particular,
Russia, Ukraine and Poland (geopolitical game plus NATO interests).

So, during all the '90s and among many other things, a line of grants were established to poor students at those countries, in order
to came to USA and get a degree at several first class universities, so they could go back to Europe highly brainwashed with the
American Way of Life. Of course, US gov. mandated that bright people be offered a job to stay at US. The rest was sent home.

JanPB is the kind of USA brainwashed type that was sent back (not good enough) but, as Indians while UK ruling there, he was converted.

Back in Poland with a BsC on Math (C+ grade), he only could find a job as a PIC/DSP programmer. But it wasn't to throw down his dream
to belong to the western community of mathematician, which was very though. So he did choose Applied Math, and selected GR, where
the competition was scarce and the complexity high enough to keep busy someone for years. But this was his pet project.

Once JanPB gained confidence with GR, he started to show off his knowledge at different forums by early 2000's. But he was repeteadly
kicked off for being a presumptuous amateur and, finally, he arrived here and claimed a position of "GR top dog" at first, and of
"any shit involving math Top Dog", which is his current state of mind.

And what's sad is that he need to downplay ANY OTHER that touch the domains of his own realm, in a fierce way, being highly derogatory.

He needs that, in his fucking and tortured mind, in order to avoid facing that HE FAILED AS A PROFESSIONAL.

So he come here to VOMIT his hate, disguised by comments like:

* You don't even understand what are you writing about.
* Why do you mess with things that are beyond your comprehension?
* You'll never understand this.
* Why do you persist doing things beyond your capabilities?
* Etc, etc.

He's not bad and dark as Bodkin or Dono, or a fucking cretin like Dork (Dirk). He's a child-like naive person who have to show his teeth
in self-defence, because he lives in fear like a chihuahua.

The chihuahua doesn't mean to be a bad boy. It respond aggressively just to be left alone, undisturbed.

JanPB is like a traumatized chihuahua. If you pet him and feed his ego, he´ll respond nicely, because he's a good boy, after all.

But, is a chihuahua equivalent of a mathematician like JanPB a TOP DOG?

Please, I can't even think about it. I'm laughing alone here, so badly that hurts. LOL!

Richard Hertz wrote:

> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 6:30:39 PM UTC-3, Chason Aceta wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>> >> You do. Sorry but you simply don't have what it takes to work in
>> >> this.
>> >
>> > You don't have any idea of what you're talking about. It looks like
>> > the reply of an angry and stupid child.
>> > DO THE MATH AND PROVE ME WRONG, PEACOCK. It's your chance to show me
>> > as an idiot and you as a winner.
>
>> his math is like his moon landing, fake.
>
> Do you know what's really sad? That JabPB degree was a gift from USA to
> Poland for helping in the fall of the USSR.

wow, I hate these traitors. Good post.

>
> After that event, USA was determined to conquer minds, souls and bodies
> of everyone living at Eastern Europe and, in particular, Russia, Ukraine
> and Poland (geopolitical game plus NATO interests).
>
> So, during all the '90s and among many other things, a line of grants
> were established to poor students at those countries, in order to came
> to USA and get a degree at several first class universities, so they
> could go back to Europe highly brainwashed with the American Way of
> Life. Of course, US gov. mandated that bright people be offered a job to
> stay at US. The rest was sent home.
>
> JanPB is the kind of USA brainwashed type that was sent back (not good
> enough) but, as Indians while UK ruling there, he was converted.
>
> Back in Poland with a BsC on Math (C+ grade), he only could find a job
> as a PIC/DSP programmer. But it wasn't to throw down his dream to belong
> to the western community of mathematician, which was very though. So he
> did choose Applied Math, and selected GR, where the competition was
> scarce and the complexity high enough to keep busy someone for years.
> But this was his pet project.
>
> Once JanPB gained confidence with GR, he started to show off his
> knowledge at different forums by early 2000's. But he was repeteadly
> kicked off for being a presumptuous amateur and, finally, he arrived
> here and claimed a position of "GR top dog" at first, and of "any shit
> involving math Top Dog", which is his current state of mind.
>
> And what's sad is that he need to downplay ANY OTHER that touch the
> domains of his own realm, in a fierce way, being highly derogatory.
>
> He needs that, in his fucking and tortured mind, in order to avoid
> facing that HE FAILED AS A PROFESSIONAL.
>
> So he come here to VOMIT his hate, disguised by comments like:
>
> * You don't even understand what are you writing about.
> * Why do you mess with things that are beyond your comprehension?
> * You'll never understand this.
> * Why do you persist doing things beyond your capabilities?
> * Etc, etc.
>
> He's not bad and dark as Bodkin or Dono, or a fucking cretin like Dork
> (Dirk). He's a child-like naive person who have to show his teeth in
> self-defence, because he lives in fear like a chihuahua.
>
> The chihuahua doesn't mean to be a bad boy. It respond aggressively just
> to be left alone, undisturbed.
>
> JanPB is like a traumatized chihuahua. If you pet him and feed his ego,
> he´ll respond nicely, because he's a good boy, after all.
>
> But, is a chihuahua equivalent of a mathematician like JanPB a TOP DOG?
>
> Please, I can't even think about it. I'm laughing alone here, so badly
> that hurts. LOL!

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 2:09:17 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Do you know what's really sad? That JabPB degree was a gift from USA to Poland for helping in the fall of the USSR.

Do you actually think that making shit up as you go along elevates anyone's opinion of you? You are even more delusional than I thought! Jan has forgotten more physics than you will ever know!

You should just slink off into the sunset before the embarrassment you suffer becomes fatal... or even worse!

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 11:45:38 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:

<snip>

> > Do you know what's really sad? That JabPB degree was a gift from USA to Poland for helping in the fall of the USSR.
> Do you actually think that making shit up as you go along elevates anyone's opinion of you? You are even more delusional than I thought! Jan has forgotten more physics than you will ever know!
>
> You should just slink off into the sunset before the embarrassment you suffer becomes fatal... or even worse!

1) You repeat yourself too often the shit "forgotten more physics than you will ever know". You applied it to you few days ago. Senility?

2) Ask JanPB IF and WHEN studied at USA (I don't want to tell where). Ask him if he tried hard to enhance his English there. Also
ask him when and why returned to Poland. Finally, you can fact check the old post of Jan Piotr Bielawski (he doesn't like Piotr).
Finally, ask him WHO got a degree by 2012 and where was he at that moment.

Pedantic idiot, good for nothing.

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:50:58 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 11:45:38 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > Do you know what's really sad? That JabPB degree was a gift from USA to Poland for helping in the fall of the USSR.
> > Do you actually think that making shit up as you go along elevates anyone's opinion of you? You are even more delusional than I thought! Jan has forgotten more physics than you will ever know!
> >
> > You should just slink off into the sunset before the embarrassment you suffer becomes fatal... or even worse!

> 1) You repeat yourself too often the shit "forgotten more physics than you will ever know". You applied it to you few days ago. Senility?

Many people here have forgotten more physics than you will ever know... so it is not 'shit', it is a fact! You may hear it many times more before it sinks into your shriveled brain...

You have probably seen this before, too, and will probably see it again since it is so apropos in your case...

"In an anti-intellectual society, people who know nothing about a complex subject are emboldened to ridicule experts who have spent a lifetime studying it."
- George Kiser

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 1:03:41 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 5:27:06 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 10:53:19 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz 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.
> >
> > One can never prove to an ignoramus that he is wrong. This has been noted
> > for centuries, Newton and Goethe commented on this phenomenon.
> Show me and others at this forum where there is any mathematical error, genius.

As I said, one cannot explain to an arrogant ignoramus that he is wrong, ever. This
is well-known and I won't belabor the point any further. If you're interested, you can
find a lot of resources on the Internet regarding this phenomenon.

> Honor your BsC in math, if it's true.
>
> If not, you also shut the fuck up, ignorant.

No, I will keep pointing out your made up idiocies regarding Einstein whenever
I am in the mood. It's a very easy thing to do as your output here is both
voluminous and virtually fully incorrect. It's amazing an adult (I'm assuming
you are an adult?) would waste his life away on pursuing a completely
nonsensical quest like this.

> This is not post-post graduated math. It's only High School math, so it should
> be very easy for you to find any error. Isn't it, imbecile?

But you don't understand this math, let alone the physics. Your posts are
full of idiocies, errors, and non-sequiturs.

> Or it's that you CAN'T FIND ANY?

I can find them very easily. They've been pointed out to you many times,
naturally this didn't work since all ignoramuses like you are like that: they never
accept that they can be wrong. It's infantilism that's amazing to see in an adult
(assuming you are one?)

> > > 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.
> >
> > You do. Sorry but you simply don't have what it takes to work in this.
> You don't have any idea of what you're talking about.

Yes, I do. You'll have to spend a few decades to catch up to me in that
department. There is nothing we can do about it.

--
Jan

On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:26:31 AM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:

<snip>

> "In an anti-intellectual society, people who know nothing about a complex subject are emboldened to ridicule experts who have spent a lifetime studying it."
> - George Kiser

Thank you. It serves me perfectly to demonstrate what a pompous and ridicule sentence is, and yet imbeciles quote it.

Complex subject: The Bible, Evolution of Species, Universe, the atom, etc.

Experts who have spent a lifetime studying it:

The Bible: Theologians. Do they understand the existence of God? NO! They give up and adopt a credo
or resign. A life spent FOR NOTHING.

Anthropology: the study of human biological and physiological characteristics and their evolution.
Evolution of Species: Anthropologists. Do they understand how, when and from what the actual human specie evolved? NO.
Worse than with Theologians because, day after day, a new piece of the puzzle appears and makes to fall apart previous
understanding. A life spent FOR NOTHING.

Universe: Cosmologists. Better for you that I don't address this subject, which is sinking into madness and ridiculous fixes
every day. A life spent FOR NOTHING.

GR specialists. I've read about people who spent 30 years of his life studying Ricci-Civita complexities and solutions, having to assign a
physical meaning or discard each that couldn't be explained IN HIS FUCKING MIND!. A life spent FOR NOTHING.

Human psyche: 100+ years of accumulated studies, 2000000000 hours invested at it, and yet it's not known why humans kill humans
in different circumstances, or humans cheat and or lie to other humans. A life spent FOR NOTHING.

I could keep going forever: Cubism, Beethoven music, molecular cuisine, etc.

So, the IDIOT you quote blindly (I'm sure that you bought his thought as you bought relativity) is just a presumptuous ass. Could be Bodkin,
the Supreme Thinker at this forum.

You are the inflexible with a fossilized mind and full of resentment upon free thinkers. You are the prisoner of your own mind.

But don't worry. It's not your blame. Nature just designed you in this way, as it does with EVERY single human. The problem is the
Hubris mental disease that affects you and many other assholes here.

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 9:15:49 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> You are the inflexible with a fossilized mind and full of resentment upon free thinkers. You are the prisoner of your own mind.

“It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out..”

― Author unclear...

On 11/29/2021 12:15 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:

> full of resentment upon free thinkers.

"Free thinkers". I think that should be included in my kook vocabulary list.