Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years

[rhertz]

EXCERPTS FROM EINSTEIN'S 1911 PAPER: On the Influence of Gravitation on
the Propagation of Light

***********************************************************************
2. On the Gravitation of Energy
........................................
We consider the process of transmission of energy by radiation from S2
to S1 from a system K0, which is free of acceleration.
..................
Therefore by the ordinary theory of relativity the radiation arriving at
S1 does not possess the energy E2, but a greater energy E1, which is
related to E2; to a rst approximation, by the equation:

(1) E1 = E2 (1 + gh/c²)

By our assumption exactly the same relation holds if the same process
takes place in the system K, which is not accelerated, but is provided
with a gravitational field.

In this case we may replace by the potential gh of the gravitation
vector in S2, if the arbitrary constant of ɸ in S1 is set to zero. We
then have the equation:

(1a) E1 = E2 + E2 ɸ/c²

This equation expresses the energy law for the process under
observation. The energy E1 arriving at S1 is greater than the energy E2,
measured by the same means, which was emitted from S2, the excess being
the potential energy of the mass E2/c² in the gravitational field. This
shows that in order to satisfy the energy principle we have to ascribe
to the energy E, before its emission from S2, a potential energy, due to
gravity, which corresponds to the (GRAVITATIONAL) MASS E/c².
.....................................
3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field

If the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K0 in S2
toward S1 had the frequency f2 relative to the clock at S2, then,
relative to S1, at its arrival at S1 it no longer has the frequency f2
relative to an identical clock at S1, but a greater frequency f1, such
that, to a first approximation

(2) f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c²)

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


Since 1911, and for more than 100 years, Eq (2) has remained under the
form Δf/f₀ = gh/c² or equivalent, before or after the 1917
Schwarzschild-Hilbert solution in GR.

1911, Einstein: Δf/f₀ = gh/c² (light has mass E/c², asserted
Einstein)

1959, Pound-Rebka: Δf/f₀ = gh/c² (Is Einstein right with light having
mass?)

1971, Hafele-Keating: Δτ/τ₀ = gh/c² (Is Einstein right with GR time
dilation?)

2015, Mudrak et. all: Δf/f₀ = GMₑ/c² [(a - r)/(ar) + J₂/2] ≈ gh/c² (if
a ≈ r)





ALL OF THE AB0VE CRAP IS FALSE, AND CAN BE TRACED BACK TO THE 1907-1911
PERIOD, WHEN THE RETARDED TRIED TO INCORPORATE GRAVITY TO SR.

BY 1915-1917, THE SCHWARZSCHILS-HILBERT PARTICULAR SOLUTION EMERGED,
WITH A VERY SPECIFIC CONTEXT FOR APPLICABILITY. IN PARTICULAR, THE SUN
WAS MODELED AS A
NON-ROTATING POINT-LIKE MASS, WITH MERCURY AS A MASSLESS TEST PARTICLE.

YET, RELATIVISTIC MORONS INSIST ON APPLYING IT TO EVERYTHING ABOVE THE
EARTH'S SURFACE. EITHER MOVING OR STATIC. BECAUSE THEY ARE IMMORAL
SOLD-OUTS, THAT SAW A COW TO BE MILKED TO ITS DEATH, WHILE THEY'RE
PROFITING IN MANY WAYS.

THE PSEUDO-SCIENCE OF RELATIVISM IS USED BY PARASITES TO HAVE A NICE AND
UNACCOUNTABLE WAY OF LIVING. THEY ALSO RELY ON AMATEURS FOLLOWERS OF THE
CULT, TO SPREAD THEIR SHIT, TRUSTING IN THEIR BORN IMBECILITY AS
GULLIBLE CRETINS.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by rhertz
EXCERPTS FROM EINSTEIN'S 1911 PAPER: On the Influence of Gravitation on
the Propagation of Light
***********************************************************************
2. On the Gravitation of Energy
........................................
We consider the process of transmission of energy by radiation from S2
to S1 from a system K0, which is free of acceleration.
..................
Therefore by the ordinary theory of relativity the radiation arriving at
S1 does not possess the energy E2, but a greater energy E1, which is
(1) E1 = E2 (1 + gh/c²)
By our assumption exactly the same relation holds if the same process
takes place in the system K, which is not accelerated, but is provided
with a gravitational field.
In this case we may replace by the potential gh of the gravitation
vector in S2, if the arbitrary constant of ɸ in S1 is set to zero. We
(1a) E1 = E2 + E2 ɸ/c²
This equation expresses the energy law for the process under
observation. The energy E1 arriving at S1 is greater than the energy E2,
measured by the same means, which was emitted from S2, the excess being
the potential energy of the mass E2/c² in the gravitational field. This
shows that in order to satisfy the energy principle we have to ascribe
to the energy E, before its emission from S2, a potential energy, due to
gravity, which corresponds to the (GRAVITATIONAL) MASS E/c².
.....................................
3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field
If the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K0 in S2
toward S1 had the frequency f2 relative to the clock at S2, then,
relative to S1, at its arrival at S1 it no longer has the frequency f2
relative to an identical clock at S1, but a greater frequency f1, such
that, to a first approximation
(2) f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c²)
******************************************************************************
Since 1911, and for more than 100 years, Eq (2) has remained under the
form Δf/f₀ = gh/c² or equivalent, before or after the 1917
Schwarzschild-Hilbert solution in GR.
1911, Einstein: Δf/f₀ = gh/c² (light has mass E/c², asserted
Einstein)
1959, Pound-Rebka: Δf/f₀ = gh/c² (Is Einstein right with light having
mass?)
1971, Hafele-Keating: Δτ/τ₀ = gh/c² (Is Einstein right with GR time
dilation?)
2015, Mudrak et. all: Δf/f₀ = GMₑ/c² [(a - r)/(ar) + J₂/2] ≈ gh/c² (if
a ≈ r)
ALL OF THE AB0VE CRAP IS FALSE, AND CAN BE TRACED BACK TO THE 1907-1911
PERIOD, WHEN THE RETARDED TRIED TO INCORPORATE GRAVITY TO SR.
BY 1915-1917, THE SCHWARZSCHILS-HILBERT PARTICULAR SOLUTION EMERGED,
WITH A VERY SPECIFIC CONTEXT FOR APPLICABILITY. IN PARTICULAR, THE SUN
WAS MODELED AS A
NON-ROTATING POINT-LIKE MASS, WITH MERCURY AS A MASSLESS TEST PARTICLE.
YET, RELATIVISTIC MORONS INSIST ON APPLYING IT TO EVERYTHING ABOVE THE
EARTH'S SURFACE. EITHER MOVING OR STATIC. BECAUSE THEY ARE IMMORAL
SOLD-OUTS, THAT SAW A COW TO BE MILKED TO ITS DEATH, WHILE THEY'RE
PROFITING IN MANY WAYS.
THE PSEUDO-SCIENCE OF RELATIVISM IS USED BY PARASITES TO HAVE A NICE AND
UNACCOUNTABLE WAY OF LIVING. THEY ALSO RELY ON AMATEURS FOLLOWERS OF THE
CULT, TO SPREAD THEIR SHIT, TRUSTING IN THEIR BORN IMBECILITY AS
GULLIBLE CRETINS.

Actually space-contraction after motion was arrived
at long before that, where what you're looking at
is ten different things mashed into a muddy wad,
and what you're looking at is what _you're_ seeing.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by rhertz
EXCERPTS FROM EINSTEIN'S 1911 PAPER: On the Influence of Gravitation on
the Propagation of Light
***********************************************************************
2. On the Gravitation of Energy
........................................
We consider the process of transmission of energy by radiation from S2
to S1 from a system K0, which is free of acceleration.
..................
Therefore by the ordinary theory of relativity the radiation arriving at
S1 does not possess the energy E2, but a greater energy E1, which is
(1) E1 = E2 (1 + gh/c²)
By our assumption exactly the same relation holds if the same process
takes place in the system K, which is not accelerated, but is provided
with a gravitational field.
In this case we may replace by the potential gh of the gravitation
vector in S2, if the arbitrary constant of ɸ in S1 is set to zero. We
(1a) E1 = E2 + E2 ɸ/c²
This equation expresses the energy law for the process under
observation. The energy E1 arriving at S1 is greater than the energy E2,
measured by the same means, which was emitted from S2, the excess being
the potential energy of the mass E2/c² in the gravitational field. This
shows that in order to satisfy the energy principle we have to ascribe
to the energy E, before its emission from S2, a potential energy, due to
gravity, which corresponds to the (GRAVITATIONAL) MASS E/c².
.....................................
3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field
If the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K0 in S2
toward S1 had the frequency f2 relative to the clock at S2, then,
relative to S1, at its arrival at S1 it no longer has the frequency f2
relative to an identical clock at S1, but a greater frequency f1, such
that, to a first approximation
(2) f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c²)
******************************************************************************
Since 1911, and for more than 100 years, Eq (2) has remained under the
form Δf/f₀ = gh/c² or equivalent, before or after the 1917
Schwarzschild-Hilbert solution in GR.
1911, Einstein: Δf/f₀ = gh/c² (light has mass E/c², asserted
Einstein)
1959, Pound-Rebka: Δf/f₀ = gh/c² (Is Einstein right with light having
mass?)
1971, Hafele-Keating: Δτ/τ₀ = gh/c² (Is Einstein right with GR time
dilation?)
2015, Mudrak et. all: Δf/f₀ = GMₑ/c² [(a - r)/(ar) + J₂/2] ≈ gh/c² (if
a ≈ r)
ALL OF THE AB0VE CRAP IS FALSE, AND CAN BE TRACED BACK TO THE 1907-1911
PERIOD, WHEN THE RETARDED TRIED TO INCORPORATE GRAVITY TO SR.
BY 1915-1917, THE SCHWARZSCHILS-HILBERT PARTICULAR SOLUTION EMERGED,
WITH A VERY SPECIFIC CONTEXT FOR APPLICABILITY. IN PARTICULAR, THE SUN
WAS MODELED AS A
NON-ROTATING POINT-LIKE MASS, WITH MERCURY AS A MASSLESS TEST PARTICLE.
YET, RELATIVISTIC MORONS INSIST ON APPLYING IT TO EVERYTHING ABOVE THE
EARTH'S SURFACE. EITHER MOVING OR STATIC. BECAUSE THEY ARE IMMORAL
SOLD-OUTS, THAT SAW A COW TO BE MILKED TO ITS DEATH, WHILE THEY'RE
PROFITING IN MANY WAYS.
THE PSEUDO-SCIENCE OF RELATIVISM IS USED BY PARASITES TO HAVE A NICE AND
UNACCOUNTABLE WAY OF LIVING. THEY ALSO RELY ON AMATEURS FOLLOWERS OF THE
CULT, TO SPREAD THEIR SHIT, TRUSTING IN THEIR BORN IMBECILITY AS
GULLIBLE CRETINS.

Actually space-contraction after motion was arrived
at long before that, where what you're looking at
is ten different things mashed into a muddy wad,
and what you're looking at is what _you're_ seeing.

Length contraction was one of the first proposed solutions for saving
the ether from the MMX, and was the first discarded as ad hoc nonsense,
and rightly so.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by rhertz
EXCERPTS FROM EINSTEIN'S 1911 PAPER: On the Influence of Gravitation on
the Propagation of Light

[snip]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen

Post by Ross Finlayson
Actually space-contraction after motion was arrived
at long before that, where what you're looking at
is ten different things mashed into a muddy wad,
and what you're looking at is what _you're_ seeing.

Length contraction was one of the first proposed solutions for saving
the ether from the MMX, and was the first discarded as ad hoc nonsense,
and rightly so.

Until Lorentz made it respectable,
by deriving it from his electron theory.
So it is usually called Lorentz contraction these days,
(or Lorentz-Fitzgerald)

Jan

[Richard Hachel]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by rhertz
EXCERPTS FROM EINSTEIN'S 1911 PAPER: On the Influence of Gravitation on
the Propagation of Light

[snip]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen

Post by Ross Finlayson
Actually space-contraction after motion was arrived
at long before that, where what you're looking at
is ten different things mashed into a muddy wad,
and what you're looking at is what _you're_ seeing.

Length contraction was one of the first proposed solutions for saving
the ether from the MMX, and was the first discarded as ad hoc nonsense,
and rightly so.

Until Lorentz made it respectable,
by deriving it from his electron theory.
So it is usually called Lorentz contraction these days,
(or Lorentz-Fitzgerald)
Jan

Attention. Dilatation des temps et contraction des longueurs sont des
termes usuels, mais ce sont des termes impropres par manque de précision.


Ce qui se dilate n'est pas le temps.

Ce qui se contracte n'est pas les longueurs ou les distances.

On respire, on souffle, cela évitera de faire un malaise que le docteur
Hachel parle.

Ce qui se dilate, c'est la chronotropie (c'est à dire le mécanisme
interne des montres) ; ce qui se contracte, c'est la métrique
référentielle.

Ce n'est pas la même chose. Parler de temps mesurer sur les montres, ou
de longueurs et distances mesurées, c'est AUTRE CHOSE.

On respire, on souffle.

Nous allons maintenant prendre le contrôle de votre écran d'ordinateur
pour vous expliquer quelque chose de très simple.

Si une fusée longue de trente mètres s'approche de nous à vitesse
Vo=0.8c (deux cent quarante mille kilomètres pas seconde) et qu'elle nous
envoie deux bips séparés, dans sont temps propre d'une seconde,
il va y avoir dilatation de la longueur de la fusée, qui mesurera
réellement 90 mètres dans MON référentiel (un référentiel
relativiste ne peut être que propre, et ponctuel) ; et il y aura une
contraction du temps réelle, car l'intervalle entre les deux bips sera
pour moi de 0.333 secondes.

Il y aura donc, dans ce cas présent, une contraction des temps et une
dilatation des longueurs.

On respire, on souffle, en espérant ne pas faire un malaise.

J'enfonce le clou. Ces phénomènes sont réels. Ils font partie de MON
réel.

Pour bien comprendre les choses, il faut introduire l'effet Doppler
longitudinal relativiste, et considérer que cet effet est aussi vrai et
aussi réel que l'autre (effet Doppler interne : facteur de Lorentz).

Les deux équations correctes, vous les connaissez, je les ai données
depuis longtemps.

Elles sont universelles.

To=Tr.(1+cosµ.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

L'=L.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)

Attention, il faut appliquer cela aux distances aussi (une longueur est
une distance entre deux extrémité).

D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)

On respire on souffle, on va encore faire un malaise, mais il faut dire
les choses.

Si une fusée fonce directement sur la distance terre-lune à 0.8c, cette
distance n'est plus, pour elle,
d'environ 300 000 kms.

Mais elle n'est pas contractée (ne pas confondre contraction de la trame
et mesure), elle est dilatée de trois fois.

Neuf cent mille kilomètres.

Nous vous rendons le contrôle de votre écran d'ordinateur.

Vous pouvez continuer d'y inscrire les bêtises habituelles quand vous
parler de SR.

R.H.

[rhertz]

Einstein wrote, in his 1911 paper:

.....................................
3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field

If the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K0 in S2
toward S1 had the frequency f2 relative to the clock at S2, then,
relative to S1, at its arrival at S1 it no longer has the frequency f2
relative to an identical clock at S1, but a greater frequency f1, such
that, to a first approximation

(2) f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c²)

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

(2') hᴾf1 = hᴾf2 (1 + gh/c²)


(2'') E1(1 photon) - E2 (1 photon) = hᴾf2 gh/c²


hᴾ: Planck's constant

S2 is a point on the z axis at a distance h of point S1, located at the
z origin.

Einstein described how a photon falling vertically from a height h,
under gravity acceleration g, gained energy gh/c². It meant that the
photon's frequency was blue-shifted while it fell due to gravity.

By that epoch (1911), he kept talking about clocks as reference of time.
By today standards and the use of ANY atomic clock, the frequency of the
EM energy is what counts in his theory. It doesn't matter what kind of
EM clock is, as it ONLY counts cycles/sec of such EM energy, either at
9.6 Ghz for Cesium, 1.4 Ghz for Hydrogen maser or ANY derived frequency
that is obtained by digitally down scaling the frequency. The same
formula applies to 9.6 Ghz oscillation or a derived 1 Mhz signal. Clocks
just COUNT pulses.


What was behind this simple formula was that photons HAD MASS. And that
such mass, at the height h, had a NEWTONIAN POTENTIAL ENERGY, The higher
the height h, the higher the newtonian potential energy of radiation.

He inferred (even when mumble something about it) that such extra energy
hᴾf2 gh/c² was MAGICALLY TRANSFERRED to the photon, on its way down.
Why?

Because in his deranged mind, ENERGY HAD TO BE CONSERVED between S2 and
S1. So, the photon is blue-shifted when falling down, and the extra
potential energy at S2 (not declared explicitly) is being transferred to
the frequency of the photon.


BUT, if you discard that EM energy HAS MASS, then the equation IS FALSE.

It means that hᴾf1 = hᴾf2 and that Δf/f₀ = 0 (ZERO).

So, there it goes the crappy theory of gravitational time dilation. It's
false, it's an hoax, and raised clocks ticks the same amount of pulses
per second, not caring about the height h.


In other words, t' = t, as far as gravitational time dilation story is
falsely narrated.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by rhertz
.....................................
3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field
If the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K0 in S2
toward S1 had the frequency f2 relative to the clock at S2, then,
relative to S1, at its arrival at S1 it no longer has the frequency f2
relative to an identical clock at S1, but a greater frequency f1, such
that, to a first approximation
(2)                  f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c²)
******************************************************************************
(2')                  hᴾf1 = hᴾf2 (1 + gh/c²)
(2'')                 E1(1 photon) - E2 (1 photon) = hᴾf2 gh/c²
hᴾ: Planck's constant
S2 is a point on the z axis at a distance h of point S1, located at the
z origin.
Einstein described how a photon falling vertically from a height h,
under gravity acceleration g, gained energy gh/c². It meant that the
photon's frequency was blue-shifted while it fell due to gravity.
By that epoch (1911), he kept talking about clocks as reference of time.
By today standards and the use of ANY atomic clock, the frequency of the
EM energy is what counts in his theory. It doesn't matter what kind of
EM clock is, as it ONLY counts cycles/sec of such EM energy, either at
9.6 Ghz for Cesium, 1.4 Ghz for Hydrogen maser or ANY derived frequency
that is obtained by digitally down scaling the frequency. The same
formula applies to 9.6 Ghz oscillation or a derived 1 Mhz signal. Clocks
just COUNT pulses.

Forget the 1911 paper.

Einstein's last word on the matter is GR.

What GR predicts for the Pound - Rebka experiment:

https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf

---------------

Let's count pulses.

We have two equal, very precise atomic clocks.
These clocks are emitting the exact frequency f = 10 GHz.
We place one clock on the ground, and the other clock above
it in a tower with height h = 22.56 m.

After one day the ground clock will show τ₁ = 86400 s
and it will have emitted N₁ = 0.864e15 cycles.

The clock on the ground will have received:
N₂ = N₁⋅(1+g⋅h/c²) = N₁⋅(1+2.5e-15) = (0.864e15 + 2)
which means that that the clock in the tower will show:
τ₂ = 86400 s + 0.2 ns

After one year τ₂ - τ₁ = 78.2 ns

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Paul B. Andersen
Forget the 1911 paper.
Einstein's last word on the matter is GR.
https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf

And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by your bunch of idiots improper clocks keep
measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds.

[rhertz]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by rhertz
.....................................
3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field
If the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K0 in S2
toward S1 had the frequency f2 relative to the clock at S2, then,
relative to S1, at its arrival at S1 it no longer has the frequency f2
relative to an identical clock at S1, but a greater frequency f1, such
that, to a first approximation
(2)                  f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c²)
******************************************************************************
(2')                  hᴾf1 = f2 (1 + gh/c²)
(2'')                 E1(1 photon) - E2 (1 photon) = hᴾf2 gh/c²
hᴾ: Planck's constant
S2 is a point on the z axis at a distance h of point S1, located at the
z origin.
Einstein described how a photon falling vertically from a height h,
under gravity acceleration g, gained energy gh/c². It meant that the
photon's frequency was blue-shifted while it fell due to gravity.
By that epoch (1911), he kept talking about clocks as reference of time.
By today standards and the use of ANY atomic clock, the frequency of the
EM energy is what counts in his theory. It doesn't matter what kind of
EM clock is, as it ONLY counts cycles/sec of such EM energy, either at
9.6 Ghz for Cesium, 1.4 Ghz for Hydrogen maser or ANY derived frequency
that is obtained by digitally down scaling the frequency. The same
formula applies to 9.6 Ghz oscillation or a derived 1 Mhz signal. Clocks
just COUNT pulses.

Forget the 1911 paper.
Einstein's last word on the matter is GR.
https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf
---------------
Let's count pulses.
We have two equal, very precise atomic clocks.
These clocks are emitting the exact frequency f = 10 GHz.
We place one clock on the ground, and the other clock above
it in a tower with height h = 22.56 m.
After one day the ground clock will show τ₁ = 86400 s
and it will have emitted N₁ = 0.864e15 cycles.
N₂ = N₁⋅(1+g⋅h/c²) = N₁⋅(1+2.5e-15) = (0.864e15 + 2)
τ₂ = 86400 s + 0.2 ns
After one year τ₂ - τ₁ = 78.2 ns

Your comment is worthless, as you're ACCEPTING THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
IN 1911.
Then, your calculations based on the 1911 formula shows a parasitic
dependence on Einstein's words, without ANY SINGLE PROOF IN 113 YEARS.

Let me INSIST on Einstein's original hypothesis and further
calculations:


1) Einstein thought that light energy E had mass. For a single photon,

m = E/c² = hᴾf/c²

2) Einstein thought (and wrote exactly this) that such mass was subject
to
newtonian gravitational potential, when raised a height "h" from ground.

Therefore, such energy E (for a single photon) gained potential energy
when raised to height "h".

ΔE = hᴾf gh/c²

3) When such photon falls under the influence of gravitational
acceleration g,
such potential energy IS TRANSFERRED to its frequency, so it can verify
Planck.

Once the photon finish its fall, at ground level, the gravitational
potential HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED to the frequency of the photon, so it
verify Planck.


Therefore, at ground level, the photon's frequency blue-shifted so its
ground level frequency is


f(1 photon - ground level) = f(1 photon - at height h) (1 + gh/c²)

DO YOU UNDERSTAND HIS REASONING? YOU HAVE TO BE 100% RETARDED IF YOU
DON'T.

The COST of your stupid belief in Einstein's deranged mind is that you
HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT SUCH POTENTIAL ENERGY WAS MAGICALLY TRANSFERRED into
a higher frequency, according to Planck's E(1 photon) = hᴾf.

But such phenomenon is STRICTLY BASED ON THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.
What is not explained is: which is the physical mechanism behind
transformation of newtonian energy into electromagnetic energy, as the
photon is falling down.

It doesn't happen at once, as Einstein suggested, but it happens
CONTINUALLY while the photon is falling from the height "h", in a path
normal to the surface.

It starts with full newtonian potential gain at height h.

As the photon falls, the MAGIC TRANSFORMATION of newtonian potential to
electromagnetic energy happens CONTINUALLY.

at height = 0.9 h, 10% of the gav. potential mutated to EM energy of the
photon.

At height = 0.5 h, 50% of the gav. potential mutated to EM energy of the
photon


At height = 0.0 h, 100% of the gav. potential mutated to EM energy of
the photon


HOW AND WHY THIS TRANSFORMATION HAPPENS, AS RELATIVISTS THINK? IT'S PART
OF THE MYSTIQUE OF RELATIVITY AND THE FUCKING BRAINWASHING THAT, FOR
PEOPLE LIKE YOU, HAPPENED IN THE LAST 113 YEARS.

BUT YOU DON'T LIKE THE IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE: FOR RELATIVISTS, LIGHT HAS
MASS.

Then, you accept this to support such theory, or you call it off and
Δf/f = 0, which means that t' = t, in terms of gravitational time
dilation.

Now, show some FIRM EVIDENCE about this magic process or GTFO. And don't
use your lame papers, that age badly.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by rhertz

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by rhertz
.....................................
3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field
If the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K0 in S2
toward S1 had the frequency f2 relative to the clock at S2, then,
relative to S1, at its arrival at S1 it no longer has the frequency f2
relative to an identical clock at S1, but a greater frequency f1, such
that, to a first approximation
(2) f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c?)
***************************************************************************
(2') h?f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c?)
(2'') E1(1 photon) - E2 (1 photon) = h?f2 gh/c?
h?: Planck's constant
S2 is a point on the z axis at a distance h of point S1, located at the
z origin.
Einstein described how a photon falling vertically from a height h,
under gravity acceleration g, gained energy gh/c?. It meant that the
photon's frequency was blue-shifted while it fell due to gravity.
By that epoch (1911), he kept talking about clocks as reference of time.
By today standards and the use of ANY atomic clock, the frequency of the
EM energy is what counts in his theory. It doesn't matter what kind of
EM clock is, as it ONLY counts cycles/sec of such EM energy, either at
9.6 Ghz for Cesium, 1.4 Ghz for Hydrogen maser or ANY derived frequency
that is obtained by digitally down scaling the frequency. The same
formula applies to 9.6 Ghz oscillation or a derived 1 Mhz signal. Clocks
just COUNT pulses.

Forget the 1911 paper.
Einstein's last word on the matter is GR.
https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf
---------------
Let's count pulses.
We have two equal, very precise atomic clocks.
These clocks are emitting the exact frequency f = 10 GHz.
We place one clock on the ground, and the other clock above
it in a tower with height h = 22.56 m.
After one day the ground clock will show ?? = 86400 s
and it will have emitted N? = 0.864e15 cycles.
N? = N??(1+g?h/c?) = N??(1+2.5e-15) = (0.864e15 + 2)
?? = 86400 s + 0.2 ns
After one year ?? - ?? = 78.2 ns

Your comment is worthless, as you're ACCEPTING THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
IN 1911.

Of course he was, in the Newtonian limit of GR.

Post by rhertz
Then, your calculations based on the 1911 formula shows a parasitic
dependence on Einstein's words, without ANY SINGLE PROOF IN 113 YEARS.

Nonsense. Most GR textbooks (see MTW for example)
give a derivation of the Newtonian limit of GR.
And for all practical purposes the Newtonian limit is adequate.
(excepting only neutron stars and black holes)
[snip the same nonsense in more words]

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by rhertz
.....................................
3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field
If the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K0 in S2
toward S1 had the frequency f2 relative to the clock at S2, then,
relative to S1, at its arrival at S1 it no longer has the frequency f2
relative to an identical clock at S1, but a greater frequency f1, such
that, to a first approximation
(2) f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c?)
***************************************************************************
(2') h?f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c?)
(2'') E1(1 photon) - E2 (1 photon) = h?f2 gh/c?
h?: Planck's constant
S2 is a point on the z axis at a distance h of point S1, located at the
z origin.
Einstein described how a photon falling vertically from a height h,
under gravity acceleration g, gained energy gh/c?. It meant that the
photon's frequency was blue-shifted while it fell due to gravity.
By that epoch (1911), he kept talking about clocks as reference of time.
By today standards and the use of ANY atomic clock, the frequency of the
EM energy is what counts in his theory. It doesn't matter what kind of
EM clock is, as it ONLY counts cycles/sec of such EM energy, either at
9.6 Ghz for Cesium, 1.4 Ghz for Hydrogen maser or ANY derived frequency
that is obtained by digitally down scaling the frequency. The same
formula applies to 9.6 Ghz oscillation or a derived 1 Mhz signal. Clocks
just COUNT pulses.

Forget the 1911 paper.
Einstein's last word on the matter is GR.
https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf
---------------
Let's count pulses.
We have two equal, very precise atomic clocks.
These clocks are emitting the exact frequency f = 10 GHz.
We place one clock on the ground, and the other clock above
it in a tower with height h = 22.56 m.
After one day the ground clock will show ?? = 86400 s
and it will have emitted N? = 0.864e15 cycles.
N? = N??(1+g?h/c?) = N??(1+2.5e-15) = (0.864e15 + 2)
?? = 86400 s + 0.2 ns
After one year ?? - ?? = 78.2 ns

Your comment is worthless, as you're ACCEPTING THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
IN 1911.

Of course he was, in the Newtonian limit of GR.

The mumble of the idiot was not even consistent.

[rhertz]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by rhertz
.....................................
3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field
If the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K0 in S2
toward S1 had the frequency f2 relative to the clock at S2, then,
relative to S1, at its arrival at S1 it no longer has the frequency f2
relative to an identical clock at S1, but a greater frequency f1, such
that, to a first approximation
(2) f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c?)
***************************************************************************
(2') h?f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c?)
(2'') E1(1 photon) - E2 (1 photon) = h?f2 gh/c?
h?: Planck's constant
S2 is a point on the z axis at a distance h of point S1, located at the
z origin.
Einstein described how a photon falling vertically from a height h,
under gravity acceleration g, gained energy gh/c?. It meant that the
photon's frequency was blue-shifted while it fell due to gravity.
By that epoch (1911), he kept talking about clocks as reference of time.
By today standards and the use of ANY atomic clock, the frequency of the
EM energy is what counts in his theory. It doesn't matter what kind of
EM clock is, as it ONLY counts cycles/sec of such EM energy, either at
9.6 Ghz for Cesium, 1.4 Ghz for Hydrogen maser or ANY derived frequency
that is obtained by digitally down scaling the frequency. The same
formula applies to 9.6 Ghz oscillation or a derived 1 Mhz signal. Clocks
just COUNT pulses.

Forget the 1911 paper.
Einstein's last word on the matter is GR.
https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf
---------------
Let's count pulses.
We have two equal, very precise atomic clocks.
These clocks are emitting the exact frequency f = 10 GHz.
We place one clock on the ground, and the other clock above
it in a tower with height h = 22.56 m.
After one day the ground clock will show ?? = 86400 s
and it will have emitted N? = 0.864e15 cycles.
N? = N??(1+g?h/c?) = N??(1+2.5e-15) = (0.864e15 + 2)
?? = 86400 s + 0.2 ns
After one year ?? - ?? = 78.2 ns

Your comment is worthless, as you're ACCEPTING THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
IN 1911.

Of course he was, in the Newtonian limit of GR.

1) In 1911 didn't know SHIT about 1915 Hilbert GR solution for field
equations.
He was begging, around Europe, for some help to understand Minkowski.
Grossman saved his ass by using Ricci - Levi-Civita only 1.5 years
after.
And even so, he and his "friend" Besso managed to fuck up everything
that
Grossman developed in HIS Entwurf I.

2) Entwurf I open with Poisson's formula ∇²φ = 4πGρ, where ρ is the mass
density of Newton's point mass M distributed in a volume of radius r.

As Poisson did, Einstein didn't consider the gravitational attraction
between the infinite number of particles that conformed mass M in such
volume. Poisson was an imbecile trying to re-write Newton's law in terms
of fields (like Gauss).
Poisson was playing with formulae for LEAST ACTIONS when he came with
this.

3) AFTER 1915 (1917), Einstein used this concept to interpret the shape
of the "universe", only to find that it collapsed into itself after a
while. It was the russian Friedman (1922) who reinterpreted the GR field
equation, giving cosmology some mathematical toys to play with.

4) Such Newtonian limit of GR demanded WEAK gravitational fields, masses
moving AT VERY LOW SPEEDS (v<<c), a FLAT SPACETIME and actions at
infinity.


In 1911, Einstein was playing with RADIANT ENERGY (speed c). Nothing
farther than LOW SPEED v<<c. He just assumed that LIGHT HAD MASS, and
used Planck's
E = hf to derive his PROPOSITION of light gaining energy while falling
on Earth's surface.

It doesn't matter HOW MANY TURNS do you want to do to justify his 1911
hypothesis of light having mass and mixing newtonian gravitational
potential with electromagnetic energy. YOU CAN'T ESCAPE FROM THESE
FACTS.

WATCH THIS:

https://physics.aps.org/story/v16/st1

Apparent Weight of Photons
R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 337 (1960)
Published April 1, 1960

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
Then, your calculations based on the 1911 formula shows a parasitic
dependence on Einstein's words, without ANY SINGLE PROOF IN 113 YEARS.

Nonsense. Most GR textbooks (see MTW for example)
give a derivation of the Newtonian limit of GR.
And for all practical purposes the Newtonian limit is adequate.
(excepting only neutron stars and black holes)
[snip the same nonsense in more words]
Jan

Like these stupid links, trying to justify the IMPOSSIBLE?


Newtonian limit
https://phys.au.dk/~fedorov/backup/gtr/notes/note8.pdf


GENERAL RELATIVITY AND THE NEWTONIAN LIMIT
https://www.math.uchicago.edu/~may/VIGRE/VIGRE2010/REUPapers/Tolish.pdf

Newtonian limit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian_limit



THEY ALL FAIL, AS THEY DON'T CONSIDER NEWTONIAN ATTRACTION OF
MICROPARTICLES THAT FORMED THE ORIGINAL POINT-LIKE MASS M, from Newton.


It's like to say that the N-Body problem, with N approaching infinity,
is solved in A SINGLE FUCKING EQUATION from 200 years ago. Get a grip.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by rhertz

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by rhertz
.....................................
3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field
If the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K0 in S2
toward S1 had the frequency f2 relative to the clock at S2, then,
relative to S1, at its arrival at S1 it no longer has the frequency f2
relative to an identical clock at S1, but a greater frequency f1, such
that, to a first approximation
(2) f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c?)
***************************************************************************
(2') h?f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c?)
(2'') E1(1 photon) - E2 (1 photon) = h?f2 gh/c?
h?: Planck's constant
S2 is a point on the z axis at a distance h of point S1, located at the
z origin.
Einstein described how a photon falling vertically from a height h,
under gravity acceleration g, gained energy gh/c?. It meant that the
photon's frequency was blue-shifted while it fell due to gravity.
By that epoch (1911), he kept talking about clocks as reference of time.
By today standards and the use of ANY atomic clock, the frequency of the
EM energy is what counts in his theory. It doesn't matter what kind of
EM clock is, as it ONLY counts cycles/sec of such EM energy, either at
9.6 Ghz for Cesium, 1.4 Ghz for Hydrogen maser or ANY derived frequency
that is obtained by digitally down scaling the frequency. The same
formula applies to 9.6 Ghz oscillation or a derived 1 Mhz signal. Clocks
just COUNT pulses.

Forget the 1911 paper.
Einstein's last word on the matter is GR.
https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf
---------------
Let's count pulses.
We have two equal, very precise atomic clocks.
These clocks are emitting the exact frequency f = 10 GHz.
We place one clock on the ground, and the other clock above
it in a tower with height h = 22.56 m.
After one day the ground clock will show ?? = 86400 s
and it will have emitted N? = 0.864e15 cycles.
N? = N??(1+g?h/c?) = N??(1+2.5e-15) = (0.864e15 + 2)
?? = 86400 s + 0.2 ns
After one year ?? - ?? = 78.2 ns

Your comment is worthless, as you're ACCEPTING THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
IN 1911.

Of course he was, in the Newtonian limit of GR.

1) In 1911 didn't know SHIT about 1915 Hilbert GR solution for field
equations.
He was begging, around Europe, for some help to understand Minkowski.
Grossman saved his ass by using Ricci - Levi-Civita only 1.5 years
after.
And even so, he and his "friend" Besso managed to fuck up everything
that
Grossman developed in HIS Entwurf I.
2) Entwurf I open with Poisson's formula ∇²φ = 4πGρ, where ρ is the mass
density of Newton's point mass M distributed in a volume of radius r.
As Poisson did, Einstein didn't consider the gravitational attraction
between the infinite number of particles that conformed mass M in such
volume. Poisson was an imbecile trying to re-write Newton's law in terms
of fields (like Gauss).
Poisson was playing with formulae for LEAST ACTIONS when he came with
this.
3) AFTER 1915 (1917), Einstein used this concept to interpret the shape
of the "universe", only to find that it collapsed into itself after a
while. It was the russian Friedman (1922) who reinterpreted the GR field
equation, giving cosmology some mathematical toys to play with.
4) Such Newtonian limit of GR demanded WEAK gravitational fields, masses
moving AT VERY LOW SPEEDS (v<<c), a FLAT SPACETIME and actions at
infinity.
In 1911, Einstein was playing with RADIANT ENERGY (speed c). Nothing
farther than LOW SPEED v<<c. He just assumed that LIGHT HAD MASS, and
used Planck's
E = hf to derive his PROPOSITION of light gaining energy while falling
on Earth's surface.
It doesn't matter HOW MANY TURNS do you want to do to justify his 1911
hypothesis of light having mass and mixing newtonian gravitational
potential with electromagnetic energy. YOU CAN'T ESCAPE FROM THESE
FACTS.
https://physics.aps.org/story/v16/st1
Apparent Weight of Photons
R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 337 (1960)
Published April 1, 1960

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
Then, your calculations based on the 1911 formula shows a parasitic
dependence on Einstein's words, without ANY SINGLE PROOF IN 113 YEARS.

Nonsense. Most GR textbooks (see MTW for example)
give a derivation of the Newtonian limit of GR.
And for all practical purposes the Newtonian limit is adequate.
(excepting only neutron stars and black holes)
[snip the same nonsense in more words]
Jan

Like these stupid links, trying to justify the IMPOSSIBLE?
Newtonian limit
https://phys.au.dk/~fedorov/backup/gtr/notes/note8.pdf
GENERAL RELATIVITY AND THE NEWTONIAN LIMIT
https://www.math.uchicago.edu/~may/VIGRE/VIGRE2010/REUPapers/Tolish.pdf
Newtonian limit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian_limit
THEY ALL FAIL, AS THEY DON'T CONSIDER NEWTONIAN ATTRACTION OF
MICROPARTICLES THAT FORMED THE ORIGINAL POINT-LIKE MASS M, from Newton.
It's like to say that the N-Body problem, with N approaching infinity,
is solved in A SINGLE FUCKING EQUATION from 200 years ago. Get a grip.

If you consider that gravity in its usual formulation
or "Newton's law" is a constant violation of conservation
of energy, then perhaps you might understand why something
like a sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials least-action
least-gradient with a universal gradient provided by
time in space makes for a principled theory of a fall-gravity,
where the potential fields are the real fields,
and the Lagrangian is the wider out-side,
and inverse-square distance-proportional is inertial,
then for space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational,
otherwise there's that GR says nothing except "classical in the
limit", while equipping classical mechanics with a real
potentialist approach, the space-contraction is real and
that space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational
are two different things, while, Einstein's formulations
are "linear", yet the derivations always nominally "un-linear",
as with regards to why the Lorentzian is just fine
yet explains at least two entirely different things.

It's the unstated assumptions underneath classical mechanics
that simply revisited make simply retrofitted.


That the Lorentzian and then the Hamiltonians and the
eigensystems all are both linear and _partial_,
makes that they're "merely" approximations,
and furthermore, under-defined and over-defined,
variously, contrivances of convenience.


So, it's easy to have a better theory that's
always "attained" to, since mathematics has it
in universals, ideals, and absolutes, then as
with regards to the "severe abstraction" and
what would be a "mechanical reduction".


Two of Einstein's greatest contributions are
mass-energy equivalency, "formally un-linear",
i.e. with usual space-contraction-rotational,
because time-dilation and length-contraction
are always together for extended bodies, accelerated,
and "a vanishing yet non-zero cosmological constant".


The usual idea of discontinuities at all,
is just wrong. The space-time is, as according
to the cosmological constant, "flat, yet curving".

That is to say, that a theory, can take and keep GR,
and take and keep SR, and be a continuum mechanics,
and introduces a super-classical "zero-eth" law
of motion, or "worlds turn", the formally "un-linear".

Also of course to be providing why all the experiments
result as they do.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by rhertz

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by rhertz
.....................................
3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field
If the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K0 in S2
toward S1 had the frequency f2 relative to the clock at S2, then,
relative to S1, at its arrival at S1 it no longer has the frequency f2
relative to an identical clock at S1, but a greater frequency f1, such
that, to a first approximation
(2) f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c?)
***********************************************************************
(2') h?f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c?)
(2'') E1(1 photon) - E2 (1 photon) = h?f2 gh/c?
h?: Planck's constant
S2 is a point on the z axis at a distance h of point S1, located at the
z origin.
Einstein described how a photon falling vertically from a height h,
under gravity acceleration g, gained energy gh/c?. It meant that the
photon's frequency was blue-shifted while it fell due to gravity.
By that epoch (1911), he kept talking about clocks as reference of time.
By today standards and the use of ANY atomic clock, the frequency of the
EM energy is what counts in his theory. It doesn't matter what kind of
EM clock is, as it ONLY counts cycles/sec of such EM energy, either at
9.6 Ghz for Cesium, 1.4 Ghz for Hydrogen maser or ANY derived frequency
that is obtained by digitally down scaling the frequency. The same
formula applies to 9.6 Ghz oscillation or a derived 1 Mhz signal. Clocks
just COUNT pulses.

Forget the 1911 paper.
Einstein's last word on the matter is GR.
https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf
---------------
Let's count pulses.
We have two equal, very precise atomic clocks.
These clocks are emitting the exact frequency f = 10 GHz.
We place one clock on the ground, and the other clock above
it in a tower with height h = 22.56 m.
After one day the ground clock will show ?? = 86400 s
and it will have emitted N? = 0.864e15 cycles.
N? = N??(1+g?h/c?) = N??(1+2.5e-15) = (0.864e15 + 2)
?? = 86400 s + 0.2 ns
After one year ?? - ?? = 78.2 ns

Your comment is worthless, as you're ACCEPTING THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
IN 1911.

Of course he was, in the Newtonian limit of GR.

1) In 1911 didn't know SHIT about 1915 Hilbert GR solution for field
equations.

Einstein had guessed the correct Newtonian limit
before having the complete final theory.

Hilbert didn't solve a thing in 1915.
All he did was producing an unphysical monstruosity,
after which he tried to steal Einstein's achievenments.
Ultimately unsuccesfully, the affair has been settled by now.
Hilbert played false with the date in preprint and the published date.
(he should have added a 'modified' date)

Not even Ohanian supports Hilbert in this.
(despite always being out to put Einstein down)
Hilbert just didn't have it, get over it,

Jan

[snip more of the same garbage]

[rhertz]

<snip previous posts>

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
Your comment is worthless, as you're ACCEPTING THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
IN 1911.

Of course he was, in the Newtonian limit of GR.

1) In 1911 didn't know SHIT about 1915 Hilbert GR solution for field
equations.

Einstein had guessed the correct Newtonian limit
before having the complete final theory.

You can't be so ignorant or fanatic!. By 1911, Einstein was TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND MINKOWSKY, crying publicly about him not giving a shit about
differential geometry when he was at the college, 12 years before. It
was also the year when he wrote to Grossman: "Help me, Marcel, or I'll
go crazy".

He couldn't, in any way, anticipate Grossman's Entwurf (1.5 years
ahead). Einstein was an ignorant about advanced mathematics, beyond
Calculus 101.

Post by J. J. Lodder
Hilbert didn't solve a thing in 1915.

Again, You can't be so ignorant or fanatic (OR A LIAR AND DECEIVER)!
Hilbert solved the problem of the field equation IN THREE MONTHS, and
GAVE A PUBLIC LECTURE about it on Nov. 18, 1915 (one week before
Einstein's lecture to the PAC).

And keep in mind THIS: Both the field equation form (1915) and the
modified Schwarzschild solution (1917) ARE THE ONES USED TODAY. Learn
something, asshole.

Post by J. J. Lodder
All he did was producing an unphysical monstruosity,
after which he tried to steal Einstein's achievenments.

Another LIE, or a fairy tail that you developed in your head, so you can
feel comfortable about your perception of the crook, plagiarist and
deceiver.

By Dec. 1915, and AFTER his Nov. 25 lecture to the PAC, the IMBECILE
still didn't understand fully what he presented. He argued with
Schwarzschild about the particular solution, and negated his
contribution in the years to come.

Hilbert TOOK PITY of the cretin (Hilbert: the TOP MATHEMATICIAN OF THE
WORLD) and, patiently, explained to Einstein (from Dec. 1915 to March
1916) HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE SOLUTION. Einstein credited his help IN
WRITINGS available on the Princeton site.

Hilbert didn't care about GR and his solution, what he made public and
credited Einstein for being the physicist behind GR. PUBLICLY.
Hilbert didn't give a shit about the Schwarzschild's solution UNTIL
1917, when his collaborator Johannes Droste. The CURRENT FORMULA is the
one that Hilbert developed but, as a gentleman he was, he published it
as the SCHWARZSCHILD SOLUTION, not taking any credit for it (almost 1.5
years after Schwarzschild death). In contrast, the cretin Einstein put
the poor Schwarzschild in oblivion, JEALOUS of his intelligence and
knowledge (and resented for his help in 1915).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity_priority_dispute

Post by J. J. Lodder
Ultimately unsuccesfully, the affair has been settled by now.
Hilbert played false with the date in preprint and the published date.
(he should have added a 'modified' date)
Not even Ohanian supports Hilbert in this.
(despite always being out to put Einstein down)
Hilbert just didn't have it, get over it,

Who the fuck is Ohanian, imbecile? This asshole?

https://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Spacetime-Hans-C-Ohanian/dp/1107012945

Post by J. J. Lodder
Jan
[snip more of the same garbage]

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by rhertz
<snip previous posts>

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
Your comment is worthless, as you're ACCEPTING THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
IN 1911.

Of course he was, in the Newtonian limit of GR.

1) In 1911 didn't know SHIT about 1915 Hilbert GR solution for field
equations.

Einstein had guessed the correct Newtonian limit
before having the complete final theory.

You can't be so ignorant or fanatic!. By 1911, Einstein was TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND MINKOWSKY, crying publicly about him not giving a shit about
differential geometry when he was at the college, 12 years before. It
was also the year when he wrote to Grossman: "Help me, Marcel, or I'll
go crazy".
He couldn't, in any way, anticipate Grossman's Entwurf (1.5 years
ahead). Einstein was an ignorant about advanced mathematics, beyond
Calculus 101.

Post by J. J. Lodder
Hilbert didn't solve a thing in 1915.

Again, You can't be so ignorant or fanatic (OR A LIAR AND DECEIVER)!
Hilbert solved the problem of the field equation IN THREE MONTHS, and
GAVE A PUBLIC LECTURE about it on Nov. 18, 1915 (one week before
Einstein's lecture to the PAC).
And keep in mind THIS: Both the field equation form (1915) and the
modified Schwarzschild solution (1917) ARE THE ONES USED TODAY. Learn
something, asshole.

Post by J. J. Lodder
All he did was producing an unphysical monstruosity,
after which he tried to steal Einstein's achievenments.

Another LIE, or a fairy tail that you developed in your head, so you can
feel comfortable about your perception of the crook, plagiarist and
deceiver.
By Dec. 1915, and AFTER his Nov. 25 lecture to the PAC, the IMBECILE
still didn't understand fully what he presented. He argued with
Schwarzschild about the particular solution, and negated his
contribution in the years to come.
Hilbert TOOK PITY of the cretin (Hilbert: the TOP MATHEMATICIAN OF THE
WORLD) and, patiently, explained to Einstein (from Dec. 1915 to March
1916) HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE SOLUTION. Einstein credited his help IN
WRITINGS available on the Princeton site.
Hilbert didn't care about GR and his solution, what he made public and
credited Einstein for being the physicist behind GR. PUBLICLY.
Hilbert didn't give a shit about the Schwarzschild's solution UNTIL
1917, when his collaborator Johannes Droste. The CURRENT FORMULA is the
one that Hilbert developed but, as a gentleman he was, he published it
as the SCHWARZSCHILD SOLUTION, not taking any credit for it (almost 1.5
years after Schwarzschild death). In contrast, the cretin Einstein put
the poor Schwarzschild in oblivion, JEALOUS of his intelligence and
knowledge (and resented for his help in 1915).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity_priority_dispute

Post by J. J. Lodder
Ultimately unsuccesfully, the affair has been settled by now.
Hilbert played false with the date in preprint and the published date.
(he should have added a 'modified' date)
Not even Ohanian supports Hilbert in this.
(despite always being out to put Einstein down)
Hilbert just didn't have it, get over it,

Who the fuck is Ohanian, imbecile? This asshole?
https://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Spacetime-Hans-C-Ohanian/dp/1107012945

Post by J. J. Lodder
Jan
[snip more of the same garbage]

I wouldn't put Hilbert in front of Leibnitz, or,
you know, Poincare, or Dirichlet, though the
Hilbert Programme is a nice idea of an idealism
and the Hilbert Problems are quite well-known,
though that it doesn't seem he ever said that
some of the Hilbert problems don't have yes or no
answers, with theories with laws of large numbers
that make independent various conjectures of Goldbach,
or quite thoroughly open up complex analysis.


It's like "hey, Hilbert, how you doin" and he goes
"I've been studying complex function theory and it
really goes great with my studying anything Gauss
or Euler ever did" and it's like "great, Hilbert,
what's the idea", and he goes "it's like real space,
except with complex numbers".

Then, that that makes some things after Euler's formula
all ubiquitous to represent angles instead of looking
after director cosines, helping give triangle inequality
and a model of probabilistic quantum amplitudes and all,
I wouldn't say it's "necessary" yet something like the
deMoivre-Euler-Gauss-Hilbert Euler formula formalism
is very widely used.

About foundations or geometry, Hilbert has like a,
"Postulate of Continuity", he does establish that
besides Euclid that because DesCartes there's required
in that theory a "Postulate of Continuity". And it's
like "great, Hilbert, that sounds a lot like Leibnitz'
Principle of Continuity and Principle of Perfection"
and maybe he's like "well, I wouldn't say it's perfect, ...".

And it's like "that's OK, Leibnitz already did".

[rhertz]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by rhertz
<snip previous posts>

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
Your comment is worthless, as you're ACCEPTING THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
IN 1911.

Of course he was, in the Newtonian limit of GR.

1) In 1911 didn't know SHIT about 1915 Hilbert GR solution for field
equations.

Einstein had guessed the correct Newtonian limit
before having the complete final theory.

You can't be so ignorant or fanatic!. By 1911, Einstein was TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND MINKOWSKY, crying publicly about him not giving a shit about
differential geometry when he was at the college, 12 years before. It
was also the year when he wrote to Grossman: "Help me, Marcel, or I'll
go crazy".
He couldn't, in any way, anticipate Grossman's Entwurf (1.5 years
ahead). Einstein was an ignorant about advanced mathematics, beyond
Calculus 101.

Post by J. J. Lodder
Hilbert didn't solve a thing in 1915.

Again, You can't be so ignorant or fanatic (OR A LIAR AND DECEIVER)!
Hilbert solved the problem of the field equation IN THREE MONTHS, and
GAVE A PUBLIC LECTURE about it on Nov. 18, 1915 (one week before
Einstein's lecture to the PAC).
And keep in mind THIS: Both the field equation form (1915) and the
modified Schwarzschild solution (1917) ARE THE ONES USED TODAY. Learn
something, asshole.

Post by J. J. Lodder
All he did was producing an unphysical monstruosity,
after which he tried to steal Einstein's achievenments.

Another LIE, or a fairy tail that you developed in your head, so you can
feel comfortable about your perception of the crook, plagiarist and
deceiver.
By Dec. 1915, and AFTER his Nov. 25 lecture to the PAC, the IMBECILE
still didn't understand fully what he presented. He argued with
Schwarzschild about the particular solution, and negated his
contribution in the years to come.
Hilbert TOOK PITY of the cretin (Hilbert: the TOP MATHEMATICIAN OF THE
WORLD) and, patiently, explained to Einstein (from Dec. 1915 to March
1916) HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE SOLUTION. Einstein credited his help IN
WRITINGS available on the Princeton site.
Hilbert didn't care about GR and his solution, what he made public and
credited Einstein for being the physicist behind GR. PUBLICLY.
Hilbert didn't give a shit about the Schwarzschild's solution UNTIL
1917, when his collaborator Johannes Droste. The CURRENT FORMULA is the
one that Hilbert developed but, as a gentleman he was, he published it
as the SCHWARZSCHILD SOLUTION, not taking any credit for it (almost 1.5
years after Schwarzschild death). In contrast, the cretin Einstein put
the poor Schwarzschild in oblivion, JEALOUS of his intelligence and
knowledge (and resented for his help in 1915).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity_priority_dispute

Post by J. J. Lodder
Ultimately unsuccesfully, the affair has been settled by now.
Hilbert played false with the date in preprint and the published date.
(he should have added a 'modified' date)
Not even Ohanian supports Hilbert in this.
(despite always being out to put Einstein down)
Hilbert just didn't have it, get over it,

Who the fuck is Ohanian, imbecile? This asshole?
https://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Spacetime-Hans-C-Ohanian/dp/1107012945

Post by J. J. Lodder
Jan
[snip more of the same garbage]

I wouldn't put Hilbert in front of Leibnitz, or,
you know, Poincare, or Dirichlet, though the
Hilbert Programme is a nice idea of an idealism
and the Hilbert Problems are quite well-known,
though that it doesn't seem he ever said that
some of the Hilbert problems don't have yes or no
answers, with theories with laws of large numbers
that make independent various conjectures of Goldbach,
or quite thoroughly open up complex analysis.
It's like "hey, Hilbert, how you doin" and he goes
"I've been studying complex function theory and it
really goes great with my studying anything Gauss
or Euler ever did" and it's like "great, Hilbert,
what's the idea", and he goes "it's like real space,
except with complex numbers".
Then, that that makes some things after Euler's formula
all ubiquitous to represent angles instead of looking
after director cosines, helping give triangle inequality
and a model of probabilistic quantum amplitudes and all,
I wouldn't say it's "necessary" yet something like the
deMoivre-Euler-Gauss-Hilbert Euler formula formalism
is very widely used.
About foundations or geometry, Hilbert has like a,
"Postulate of Continuity", he does establish that
besides Euclid that because DesCartes there's required
in that theory a "Postulate of Continuity". And it's
like "great, Hilbert, that sounds a lot like Leibnitz'
Principle of Continuity and Principle of Perfection"
and maybe he's like "well, I wouldn't say it's perfect, ...".
And it's like "that's OK, Leibnitz already did".

You are right. I wouldn't dare to put Hilbert above Poincaré. I should
have
explained that, by 1915, Hilbert was the top mathematician of the world.
Poincaré was gone by 1912 and Klein, who worked closely with Hilbert,
had retired.

After decades of work, Hilbert was in its golden years by 1915, and he
went further with his developments in the next 8 years.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hilbert

QUOTE:

David Hilbert (23 January 1862 – 14 February 1943) was a German
mathematician and philosopher of mathematics and one of the most
influential mathematicians of his time.

Known for
Hilbert's basis theorem
Hilbert's Nullstellensatz
Hilbert's axioms
Hilbert's 23 problems
Hilbert's program
Einstein–Hilbert action
Hilbert space (quantum physics)
Hilbert system
Epsilon calculus

Hilbert considered the mathematician Hermann Minkowski to be his "best
and truest friend".


In 1920, Hilbert proposed a research project in metamathematics that
became known as Hilbert's program. He wanted mathematics to be
formulated on a solid and complete logical foundation. He believed that
in principle this could be done by showing that:

- all mathematics follows from a correctly chosen finite system of
axioms; and
- that some such axiom system is provably consistent through some means
such as the epsilon calculus.



By early summer 1915, Hilbert's interest in physics had focused on
general relativity, WHEN he invited Einstein to Göttingen to deliver a
week of lectures on the subject of relativity.

Hilbert offered his house to host Einstein, which allowed Einstein to
discuss in depth his work AND ASK Hilbert for some advices, which
continued for months with exchange of letters.

During November 1915, Einstein published several papers culminating in
The Field Equations of Gravitation. The final solution, the field
equation, was SHOWN to Einstein in a letter THAT DISAPPEARED.

Hilbert credited Einstein as the originator of THE THEORY (not the FE)
and no public priority dispute concerning the field equations ever arose
between the two men during their lives.

At the final stage (Nov. 1915), the correct general covariant equations
of gravitation were expressed, first by Hilbert. Hilbert's contribution
was always noted in the early classical relativistic literature. The
most exact and detailed evaluation was given by Wolfgang Pauli in his
famous encyclopedic
article, "Simultaneously with Einstein and independently of him, the
general covariant field equations were established by Hilbert".

Hilbert's presentation was not quite comfortable for the physicists,
because in the first place he axiomatically defined the variational
principle, and, which is more important, his equations were expressed
not for an arbitrary material system, but were based on Mie's theory of
matter.


On the discovery of the gravitational field equations: New material

https://www.ufn.ru/ufn01/ufn01_12/ufn0112d.pdf


Historical background of general relativity: 1830 - 1915

https://inspirehep.net/files/476245abe9fc78161f21345d06e569ff

[rhertz]

This deserves a DEEP READING by all, relativists or not:


https://www.privatdozent.co/p/einstein-and-hilberts-relativity

Einstein and Hilbert’s Relativity Race
Who generalized relativity first, Einstein or Hilbert?
Jørgen Veisdal
Jul 03, 2021

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by rhertz
https://www.privatdozent.co/p/einstein-and-hilberts-relativity
Einstein and Hilbert's Relativity Race
Who generalized relativity first, Einstein or Hilbert?
Jørgen Veisdal
Jul 03, 2021

So the answer is once again Einstein.
Why am I not surprised?

Jan

[rhertz]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
https://www.privatdozent.co/p/einstein-and-hilberts-relativity
Einstein and Hilbert's Relativity Race
Who generalized relativity first, Einstein or Hilbert?
Jørgen Veisdal
Jul 03, 2021

So the answer is once again Einstein.
Why am I not surprised?
Jan

Read it again, fanatic.

You have serious problem with text comprehension. Dyslexia or denial?

The author, politely, state that Einstein COPIED/ADOPTED Hilbert's
solution, sent to him IN THE LOST LETTER (of course the mob got rid of
it).

He didn't even understand what he presented on Nov. 25 1915 until March
1916, when Hilbert (patiently) explained to him HOW TO UNDERSTAND HIS
OWN THEORY (Hilbert's one).


Keep crying foul, deny what is written, etc., Einstein's widow.

By the way, are you paid to sustain the narrative? What is your gain?

READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE AGAIN, WITH AN UNBIASED MIND!

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by rhertz

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
https://www.privatdozent.co/p/einstein-and-hilberts-relativity
Einstein and Hilbert's Relativity Race
Who generalized relativity first, Einstein or Hilbert?
Jørgen Veisdal
Jul 03, 2021

So the answer is once again Einstein.
Why am I not surprised?
Jan

Read it again, fanatic.
You have serious problem with text comprehension. Dyslexia or denial?

The problem seems to be entirely yours.
What is it that you don't understand about:
=====
It is indisputable that Hilbert, like all of his other colleagues,
acknowledged Einstein as the sole creator of relativity theory (Fölsing,
1993). This is confirmed in many places, even on the first page of
Hilbert's publication. (in the conclusion of your ref.)
=====

Jan

[rhertz]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
https://www.privatdozent.co/p/einstein-and-hilberts-relativity
Einstein and Hilbert's Relativity Race
Who generalized relativity first, Einstein or Hilbert?
Jørgen Veisdal
Jul 03, 2021

So the answer is once again Einstein.
Why am I not surprised?
Jan

Read it again, fanatic.
You have serious problem with text comprehension. Dyslexia or denial?

The problem seems to be entirely yours.
=====
It is indisputable that Hilbert, like all of his other colleagues,
acknowledged Einstein as the sole creator of relativity theory (Fölsing,
1993). This is confirmed in many places, even on the first page of
Hilbert's publication. (in the conclusion of your ref.)
=====
Jan

History: Einstein was no lone genius
https://www.nature.com/articles/527298a

***************************************************************
A century ago, in November 1915, Albert Einstein published his general
theory of relativity in four short papers in the proceedings of the
Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin1. The theory is often presented
as the work of a lone genius. In fact, the physicist received a great
deal of help from friends and colleagues, most of whom never rose to
prominence and have been forgotten.

Michele Besso: Discussions between Besso and Einstein earned the former
the sole acknowledgment in the most famous of Einstein's 1905 papers,
the one introducing the special theory of relativity. Einstein worked
with Besso in the summer of 1913 to investigate whether the Grossman
They found that it could only explain less than 1˝. Nordström's theory
gave 7˝ in the wrong direction. These calculations are preserved in the
'Einstein–Besso manuscript' of 1913. Besso contributed significantly to
the calculations and raised interesting questions.
Einstein and Besso also checked whether the Entwurf equations hold in a
rotating coordinate system. In that case the, such as the centrifugal
force we experience on a merry-go-round,. The theory seemed to pass this
test. In August 1913, Besso warned Einstein that inertial forces of
rotation could not be interpreted as gravitational forces. Einstein did
not heed the warning, which would cost him to lose two years of work,
until November 1915.

Hermann Minkowski: reformulated the 1905 theory in pure mathematical
terms, introducing the concept of spacetime and the energy–momentum
tensor, when a special-relativistic reformulation of the theory of
electrodynamics of Maxwell and Lorentz was introduced. It soon became
clear that an energy–momentum tensor could be defined for physical
systems other than electromagnetic fields. The tensor took centre stage
in the new relativistic mechanics presented in the first textbook on
special relativity, Das Relativitätsprinzip, written by Max Laue in
1911.

Marcel Grossman: In 1912, Einstein returned to Zurich and was reunited
with Grossmann at the ETH. The pair joined forces to generate a fully
fledged theory. Grossman was the only author of the mathematical part,
based on derivations of Gauss's theory of curved surfaces. As we know
from recollected conversations, Einstein told Grossmann: “You must help
me, or else I'll go crazy.”. Grossman was highly recognized as a
mathematician by then, and used the body of work of the italian
Levi-Civita to build the core of the Entwurf I paper. The main advance
between this 1913 Entwurf theory and the general relativity theory of
November 1915 are the final field equations as 'generally covariant'.

Gunnar Nordström: Among several new theories proposed since 1911, in
which gravity, like electromagnetism, was represented by a field in the
flat space-time of special relativity, Nordström's theory was
particularly promising. Einstein compared the Entwurf theory to
Nordström's theory, and worked on both theories between May and late
August 1913.

Friedrich Kottler: In 1912, the Viennese physicist generalized Laue's
formalism from flat to curved space-time. Einstein and Grossmann relied
on this generalization in their formulation of the Entwurf theory.
During his 1913 Vienna lecture, Einstein called for Kottler to stand up
and be recognized for this work.

Adriaan Fokker: In Zurich, Einstein teamed up with Fokker, a student of
Lorentz, to reformulate the Nordström theory using the same kind of
mathematics that Grossmann had used to formulate the Entwurf theory.
Einstein and Fokker showed that in both theories the gravitational field
can be incorporated into the structure of a curved space-time. This work
gave Einstein a clearer picture of the structure of the Grossman's
Entwurf theory, which helped him and Grossmann in a second joint paper
on the theory, published in May 1914.

Lorentz and Paul Ehrenfest: Once the First World War began, Berlin's
scientific elite showed no interest in the Entwurf theory, although
renowned colleagues elsewhere did. From Leiden, the Netherlands Lorentz
and Ehrenfest volunteered to help Einstein in secret, due to the laws of
war imposed in Germany.

David Hilbert: In the summer of 1915, while lecturing in Göttingen due
to Hilbert's invitation, Einstein explained to Hilbert the status of
his work, and asked for help in many concepts of absolute differential
geometry. Due to Hilbert's comments on his work, Einstein started to
have serious doubts. He discovered to his dismay that the Entwurf theory
does not make rotational motion relative. Besso was right. Einstein
wrote to Freundlich for help: his “mind was in a deep rut”, so he hoped
that the young astronomer as “a fellow human being with unspoiled brain
matter” could tell him what he was doing wrong. Freundlich could not
help him.

Hilbert was curious about the true solution of the general covariant
field equation, and started to work on this problem by September 1915.
It was Klein, a colleague of Hilbert, who warned Einstein about
Hilbert's decision.
Worried that Hilbert might beat him to the punch, Einstein maintained
written communication with Hilbert, from which he learned that Hilbert
had finished a draft with the correct theory. Einstein asked Hilbert for
a copy of his work, to compare with his one, after what he rushed new
equations into print in early November 1915, modifying them the
following week and again two weeks later in subsequent papers submitted
to the Prussian Academy. The field equations were generally covariant at
last. That particular letter from Hilbert disappeared.


Freundlich: Working close to Einstein since 1912, when Einstein returned
to the perihelion motion of Mercury, Freundlich guided Einstein about
the reformulation of the theory by using only the Sun and a massless
point-like Mercury, for which he provided the astronomical data
developed by Le Verrier and Newcomb, which accounted for the total
influence of the relevant celestial bodies plus the (Newcomb) missing
43″ per century. Einstein kept quiet on why he had been able to do the
calculations, a partial variation of the work with Besso in 1913.

Other "almost intimate friends":

Alexander Pick: Got for Einstein the professorship in Vienna in 1911,
and introduced him into Riemann's geometry, hinting him about the
existence of new theories based on Riemann, from the school of northern
Italian mathematicians like Ricci Cubarstro and Levi-Civita. After a
quarrel with Pick, he abandoned Vienna only 14 months after, seeking for
Grossman's help. He was a mathematician, specialized in similar fields
than Grossman, as it was a trend in that epoch.

Arnold Sommerfeld: The head of theoretical physics department from
Munich University was a close confident of Einstein, and the first to
whom Einstein communicated about the last presentation to the PAS, on
Nov. 25 1915.

Tullio Levi-Civita: Once his name became known, due to the Grossman
Entwurf, he became a secret adviser for Einstein during 1914 and 1915.
The letters between them disappeared because, due to WWI, it was an act
of treason for Italians to have any connection with Germans.

Von Laue, Scharzschild, Mie (on the board of the Prussian Academy of
Science), Klein and several other physicists and astronomers helped
Einstein as well, between 1911 and 1917.

And MANY OTHER UNKNOWN people that helped him, which were erased from
history.

"Helped": a polite form to say that Einstein used them, to discard them
at the earliest convenience. Grossman and Besso are the most relevant
examples of his art of back-stabbing. Also, Max Planck, who introduced
him into the physics community at Germany.

A thief, plagiarist, liar, deceiver, usurper, fraudulent crook,
mythomaniac, pretender, etc. No name callings are sufficient to depict
the profile of this delinquent at large of physics.

Maybe he could do all that because he was a protected Jew? Zionism was
peaking by then. Only think of Eddington and the bridge that Lorentz
established between him and Einstein, in the middle of WWI. Lorentz, the
spokesperson in charge of EInstein's PR in Europe and US since 1910.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by rhertz

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
https://www.privatdozent.co/p/einstein-and-hilberts-relativity
Einstein and Hilbert's Relativity Race
Who generalized relativity first, Einstein or Hilbert?
Jørgen Veisdal
Jul 03, 2021

So the answer is once again Einstein.
Why am I not surprised?
Jan

Read it again, fanatic.
You have serious problem with text comprehension. Dyslexia or denial?

The problem seems to be entirely yours.
=====
It is indisputable that Hilbert, like all of his other colleagues,
acknowledged Einstein as the sole creator of relativity theory (Fölsing,
1993). This is confirmed in many places, even on the first page of
Hilbert's publication. (in the conclusion of your ref.)
=====
Jan

History: Einstein was no lone genius
https://www.nature.com/articles/527298a
***************************************************************
A century ago, in November 1915, Albert Einstein published his general
theory of relativity in four short papers in the proceedings of the
Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin1. The theory is often presented
as the work of a lone genius. In fact, the physicist received a great
deal of help from friends and colleagues, most of whom never rose to
prominence and have been forgotten.
Michele Besso: Discussions between Besso and Einstein earned the former
the sole acknowledgment in the most famous of Einstein's 1905 papers,
the one introducing the special theory of relativity. Einstein worked
with Besso in the summer of 1913 to investigate whether the Grossman
They found that it could only explain less than 1˝. Nordström's theory
gave 7˝ in the wrong direction. These calculations are preserved in the
'Einstein–Besso manuscript' of 1913. Besso contributed significantly to
the calculations and raised interesting questions.
Einstein and Besso also checked whether the Entwurf equations hold in a
rotating coordinate system. In that case the, such as the centrifugal
force we experience on a merry-go-round,. The theory seemed to pass this
test. In August 1913, Besso warned Einstein that inertial forces of
rotation could not be interpreted as gravitational forces. Einstein did
not heed the warning, which would cost him to lose two years of work,
until November 1915.
Hermann Minkowski: reformulated the 1905 theory in pure mathematical
terms, introducing the concept of spacetime and the energy–momentum
tensor, when a special-relativistic reformulation of the theory of
electrodynamics of Maxwell and Lorentz was introduced. It soon became
clear that an energy–momentum tensor could be defined for physical
systems other than electromagnetic fields. The tensor took centre stage
in the new relativistic mechanics presented in the first textbook on
special relativity, Das Relativitätsprinzip, written by Max Laue in
1911.
Marcel Grossman: In 1912, Einstein returned to Zurich and was reunited
with Grossmann at the ETH. The pair joined forces to generate a fully
fledged theory. Grossman was the only author of the mathematical part,
based on derivations of Gauss's theory of curved surfaces. As we know
from recollected conversations, Einstein told Grossmann: “You must help
me, or else I'll go crazy.”. Grossman was highly recognized as a
mathematician by then, and used the body of work of the italian
Levi-Civita to build the core of the Entwurf I paper. The main advance
between this 1913 Entwurf theory and the general relativity theory of
November 1915 are the final field equations as 'generally covariant'.
Gunnar Nordström: Among several new theories proposed since 1911, in
which gravity, like electromagnetism, was represented by a field in the
flat space-time of special relativity, Nordström's theory was
particularly promising. Einstein compared the Entwurf theory to
Nordström's theory, and worked on both theories between May and late
August 1913.
Friedrich Kottler: In 1912, the Viennese physicist generalized Laue's
formalism from flat to curved space-time. Einstein and Grossmann relied
on this generalization in their formulation of the Entwurf theory.
During his 1913 Vienna lecture, Einstein called for Kottler to stand up
and be recognized for this work.
Adriaan Fokker: In Zurich, Einstein teamed up with Fokker, a student of
Lorentz, to reformulate the Nordström theory using the same kind of
mathematics that Grossmann had used to formulate the Entwurf theory.
Einstein and Fokker showed that in both theories the gravitational field
can be incorporated into the structure of a curved space-time. This work
gave Einstein a clearer picture of the structure of the Grossman's
Entwurf theory, which helped him and Grossmann in a second joint paper
on the theory, published in May 1914.
Lorentz and Paul Ehrenfest: Once the First World War began, Berlin's
scientific elite showed no interest in the Entwurf theory, although
renowned colleagues elsewhere did. From Leiden, the Netherlands Lorentz
and Ehrenfest volunteered to help Einstein in secret, due to the laws of
war imposed in Germany.
David Hilbert: In the summer of 1915, while lecturing in Göttingen due
to Hilbert's invitation, Einstein explained to Hilbert the status of
his work, and asked for help in many concepts of absolute differential
geometry. Due to Hilbert's comments on his work, Einstein started to
have serious doubts. He discovered to his dismay that the Entwurf theory
does not make rotational motion relative. Besso was right. Einstein
wrote to Freundlich for help: his “mind was in a deep rut”, so he hoped
that the young astronomer as “a fellow human being with unspoiled brain
matter” could tell him what he was doing wrong. Freundlich could not
help him.
Hilbert was curious about the true solution of the general covariant
field equation, and started to work on this problem by September 1915.
It was Klein, a colleague of Hilbert, who warned Einstein about
Hilbert's decision.
Worried that Hilbert might beat him to the punch, Einstein maintained
written communication with Hilbert, from which he learned that Hilbert
had finished a draft with the correct theory. Einstein asked Hilbert for
a copy of his work, to compare with his one, after what he rushed new
equations into print in early November 1915, modifying them the
following week and again two weeks later in subsequent papers submitted
to the Prussian Academy. The field equations were generally covariant at
last. That particular letter from Hilbert disappeared.
Freundlich: Working close to Einstein since 1912, when Einstein returned
to the perihelion motion of Mercury, Freundlich guided Einstein about
the reformulation of the theory by using only the Sun and a massless
point-like Mercury, for which he provided the astronomical data
developed by Le Verrier and Newcomb, which accounted for the total
influence of the relevant celestial bodies plus the (Newcomb) missing
43″ per century. Einstein kept quiet on why he had been able to do the
calculations, a partial variation of the work with Besso in 1913.
Alexander Pick: Got for Einstein the professorship in Vienna in 1911,
and introduced him into Riemann's geometry, hinting him about the
existence of new theories based on Riemann, from the school of northern
Italian mathematicians like Ricci Cubarstro and Levi-Civita. After a
quarrel with Pick, he abandoned Vienna only 14 months after, seeking for
Grossman's help. He was a mathematician, specialized in similar fields
than Grossman, as it was a trend in that epoch.
Arnold Sommerfeld: The head of theoretical physics department from
Munich University was a close confident of Einstein, and the first to
whom Einstein communicated about the last presentation to the PAS, on
Nov. 25 1915.
Tullio Levi-Civita: Once his name became known, due to the Grossman
Entwurf, he became a secret adviser for Einstein during 1914 and 1915.
The letters between them disappeared because, due to WWI, it was an act
of treason for Italians to have any connection with Germans.
Von Laue, Scharzschild, Mie (on the board of the Prussian Academy of
Science), Klein and several other physicists and astronomers helped
Einstein as well, between 1911 and 1917.
And MANY OTHER UNKNOWN people that helped him, which were erased from
history.
"Helped": a polite form to say that Einstein used them, to discard them
at the earliest convenience. Grossman and Besso are the most relevant
examples of his art of back-stabbing. Also, Max Planck, who introduced
him into the physics community at Germany.
A thief, plagiarist, liar, deceiver, usurper, fraudulent crook,
mythomaniac, pretender, etc. No name callings are sufficient to depict
the profile of this delinquent at large of physics.
Maybe he could do all that because he was a protected Jew? Zionism was
peaking by then. Only think of Eddington and the bridge that Lorentz
established between him and Einstein, in the middle of WWI. Lorentz, the
spokesperson in charge of EInstein's PR in Europe and US since 1910.

Freundlich's 1923 paper on General Relativity was recently
released or to Gutenberg.

https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/70793/pg70793-images.html

"Dr. Freundlich is not only highly qualified as a specialist in the
various branches of knowledge involved to demonstrate the subject; he is
also the first amongst fellow-scientists who has taken pains to put the
theory to the test. " -- Einstein

He seems kind of like the Maclaurin to Newton.

Sagan one time said "thank libraries".


It used to be said "at one point only three people
in the world understood Relativity Theory, ...."

Now, one of them's usually assumed to be Einstein.

Yet, "relativity" since "absolutes" is a classical
concept of course - "relativity theory" is as old
as physics itself, it's like "ideals", "principles",
"relativity" is always a part of physics.

So, a theory like Einstein's Relaitvity:
"motion is relative (space and time are absolutes)"
has one time Einstein wrote, or in paraphrase,
"What are we to make of this theory that at all
merely is a single negative assertion, that
motion is not absolute?"

And it's like, yeah, Einstein, thanks, SR _is_ local.


So, like Sagan said one time: "thank libraries".


Now, we know these days that one of the crucial
tests, of the deflection of light, is about half-right.

What I mean by that is that it's better than zero right,
yet, it's as well that there yet remains more,
about light, and lensing.


Then, "light's speed is constant and photons are
particles and photons are 1-1 electrons that are
e/m atoms, SR", is just a thing. It's a good thing -
these days though Einstein advises that it is
GR that defines SR, not the other way around,
and, light is yet "special", and, "spacial".

(Or, Fresnel and Arago and Bell and Aspect.)

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by rhertz

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
https://www.privatdozent.co/p/einstein-and-hilberts-relativity
Einstein and Hilbert's Relativity Race
Who generalized relativity first, Einstein or Hilbert?
Jørgen Veisdal
Jul 03, 2021

So the answer is once again Einstein.
Why am I not surprised?
Jan

Read it again, fanatic.
You have serious problem with text comprehension. Dyslexia or denial?

The problem seems to be entirely yours.
=====
It is indisputable that Hilbert, like all of his other colleagues,
acknowledged Einstein as the sole creator of relativity theory (Fölsing,
1993). This is confirmed in many places, even on the first page of
Hilbert's publication. (in the conclusion of your ref.)
=====
Jan

History: Einstein was no lone genius
https://www.nature.com/articles/527298a
***************************************************************
A century ago, in November 1915, Albert Einstein published his general
theory of relativity in four short papers in the proceedings of the
Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin1. The theory is often presented
as the work of a lone genius. In fact, the physicist received a great
deal of help from friends and colleagues, most of whom never rose to
prominence and have been forgotten.
Michele Besso: Discussions between Besso and Einstein earned the former
the sole acknowledgment in the most famous of Einstein's 1905 papers,
the one introducing the special theory of relativity. Einstein worked
with Besso in the summer of 1913 to investigate whether the Grossman
They found that it could only explain less than 1˝. Nordström's theory
gave 7˝ in the wrong direction. These calculations are preserved in the
'Einstein–Besso manuscript' of 1913. Besso contributed significantly to
the calculations and raised interesting questions.
Einstein and Besso also checked whether the Entwurf equations hold in a
rotating coordinate system. In that case the, such as the centrifugal
force we experience on a merry-go-round,. The theory seemed to pass this
test. In August 1913, Besso warned Einstein that inertial forces of
rotation could not be interpreted as gravitational forces. Einstein did
not heed the warning, which would cost him to lose two years of work,
until November 1915.
Hermann Minkowski: reformulated the 1905 theory in pure mathematical
terms, introducing the concept of spacetime and the energy–momentum
tensor, when a special-relativistic reformulation of the theory of
electrodynamics of Maxwell and Lorentz was introduced. It soon became
clear that an energy–momentum tensor could be defined for physical
systems other than electromagnetic fields. The tensor took centre stage
in the new relativistic mechanics presented in the first textbook on
special relativity, Das Relativitätsprinzip, written by Max Laue in
1911.
Marcel Grossman: In 1912, Einstein returned to Zurich and was reunited
with Grossmann at the ETH. The pair joined forces to generate a fully
fledged theory. Grossman was the only author of the mathematical part,
based on derivations of Gauss's theory of curved surfaces. As we know
from recollected conversations, Einstein told Grossmann: “You must help
me, or else I'll go crazy.”. Grossman was highly recognized as a
mathematician by then, and used the body of work of the italian
Levi-Civita to build the core of the Entwurf I paper. The main advance
between this 1913 Entwurf theory and the general relativity theory of
November 1915 are the final field equations as 'generally covariant'.
Gunnar Nordström: Among several new theories proposed since 1911, in
which gravity, like electromagnetism, was represented by a field in the
flat space-time of special relativity, Nordström's theory was
particularly promising. Einstein compared the Entwurf theory to
Nordström's theory, and worked on both theories between May and late
August 1913.
Friedrich Kottler: In 1912, the Viennese physicist generalized Laue's
formalism from flat to curved space-time. Einstein and Grossmann relied
on this generalization in their formulation of the Entwurf theory.
During his 1913 Vienna lecture, Einstein called for Kottler to stand up
and be recognized for this work.
Adriaan Fokker: In Zurich, Einstein teamed up with Fokker, a student of
Lorentz, to reformulate the Nordström theory using the same kind of
mathematics that Grossmann had used to formulate the Entwurf theory.
Einstein and Fokker showed that in both theories the gravitational field
can be incorporated into the structure of a curved space-time. This work
gave Einstein a clearer picture of the structure of the Grossman's
Entwurf theory, which helped him and Grossmann in a second joint paper
on the theory, published in May 1914.
Lorentz and Paul Ehrenfest: Once the First World War began, Berlin's
scientific elite showed no interest in the Entwurf theory, although
renowned colleagues elsewhere did. From Leiden, the Netherlands Lorentz
and Ehrenfest volunteered to help Einstein in secret, due to the laws of
war imposed in Germany.
David Hilbert: In the summer of 1915, while lecturing in Göttingen due
to Hilbert's invitation, Einstein explained to Hilbert the status of
his work, and asked for help in many concepts of absolute differential
geometry. Due to Hilbert's comments on his work, Einstein started to
have serious doubts. He discovered to his dismay that the Entwurf theory
does not make rotational motion relative. Besso was right. Einstein
wrote to Freundlich for help: his “mind was in a deep rut”, so he hoped
that the young astronomer as “a fellow human being with unspoiled brain
matter” could tell him what he was doing wrong. Freundlich could not
help him.
Hilbert was curious about the true solution of the general covariant
field equation, and started to work on this problem by September 1915.
It was Klein, a colleague of Hilbert, who warned Einstein about
Hilbert's decision.
Worried that Hilbert might beat him to the punch, Einstein maintained
written communication with Hilbert, from which he learned that Hilbert
had finished a draft with the correct theory. Einstein asked Hilbert for
a copy of his work, to compare with his one, after what he rushed new
equations into print in early November 1915, modifying them the
following week and again two weeks later in subsequent papers submitted
to the Prussian Academy. The field equations were generally covariant at
last. That particular letter from Hilbert disappeared.
Freundlich: Working close to Einstein since 1912, when Einstein returned
to the perihelion motion of Mercury, Freundlich guided Einstein about
the reformulation of the theory by using only the Sun and a massless
point-like Mercury, for which he provided the astronomical data
developed by Le Verrier and Newcomb, which accounted for the total
influence of the relevant celestial bodies plus the (Newcomb) missing
43″ per century. Einstein kept quiet on why he had been able to do the
calculations, a partial variation of the work with Besso in 1913.
Alexander Pick: Got for Einstein the professorship in Vienna in 1911,
and introduced him into Riemann's geometry, hinting him about the
existence of new theories based on Riemann, from the school of northern
Italian mathematicians like Ricci Cubarstro and Levi-Civita. After a
quarrel with Pick, he abandoned Vienna only 14 months after, seeking for
Grossman's help. He was a mathematician, specialized in similar fields
than Grossman, as it was a trend in that epoch.
Arnold Sommerfeld: The head of theoretical physics department from
Munich University was a close confident of Einstein, and the first to
whom Einstein communicated about the last presentation to the PAS, on
Nov. 25 1915.
Tullio Levi-Civita: Once his name became known, due to the Grossman
Entwurf, he became a secret adviser for Einstein during 1914 and 1915.
The letters between them disappeared because, due to WWI, it was an act
of treason for Italians to have any connection with Germans.
Von Laue, Scharzschild, Mie (on the board of the Prussian Academy of
Science), Klein and several other physicists and astronomers helped
Einstein as well, between 1911 and 1917.
And MANY OTHER UNKNOWN people that helped him, which were erased from
history.
"Helped": a polite form to say that Einstein used them, to discard them
at the earliest convenience. Grossman and Besso are the most relevant
examples of his art of back-stabbing. Also, Max Planck, who introduced
him into the physics community at Germany.
A thief, plagiarist, liar, deceiver, usurper, fraudulent crook,
mythomaniac, pretender, etc. No name callings are sufficient to depict
the profile of this delinquent at large of physics.
Maybe he could do all that because he was a protected Jew? Zionism was
peaking by then. Only think of Eddington and the bridge that Lorentz
established between him and Einstein, in the middle of WWI. Lorentz, the
spokesperson in charge of EInstein's PR in Europe and US since 1910.

Freundlich's 1923 paper on General Relativity was recently
released or to Gutenberg.
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/70793/pg70793-images.html
"Dr. Freundlich is not only highly qualified as a specialist in the
various branches of knowledge involved to demonstrate the subject; he is
also the first amongst fellow-scientists who has taken pains to put the
theory to the test. " -- Einstein
He seems kind of like the Maclaurin to Newton.
Sagan one time said "thank libraries".
It used to be said "at one point only three people
in the world understood Relativity Theory, ...."
Now, one of them's usually assumed to be Einstein.
Yet, "relativity" since "absolutes" is a classical
concept of course - "relativity theory" is as old
as physics itself, it's like "ideals", "principles",
"relativity" is always a part of physics.
"motion is relative (space and time are absolutes)"
has one time Einstein wrote, or in paraphrase,
"What are we to make of this theory that at all
merely is a single negative assertion, that
motion is not absolute?"
And it's like, yeah, Einstein, thanks, SR _is_ local.
So, like Sagan said one time: "thank libraries".
Now, we know these days that one of the crucial
tests, of the deflection of light, is about half-right.
What I mean by that is that it's better than zero right,
yet, it's as well that there yet remains more,
about light, and lensing.
Then, "light's speed is constant and photons are
particles and photons are 1-1 electrons that are
e/m atoms, SR", is just a thing. It's a good thing -
these days though Einstein advises that it is
GR that defines SR, not the other way around,
and, light is yet "special", and, "spacial".
(Or, Fresnel and Arago and Bell and Aspect.)

I don't suppose you happen to have a copy of

C. Neumann. "Ueber die Prinzipien der Galilei-Newtonschen Theorie"

translated to English sitting around,
though there are 2023 editions of the original
since the 1870 is out-of-copyright.

"This is the attitude which was also taken up by L. Lange, H. Seeliger,
and others, in later researches. Maxwell selected this definition too
(in "Matter and Motion"). On the other hand, H. Streintz[11] (following
Poisson and d'Alembert) has demanded the disconnection and independence
of the time-measure from the law of inertia, on the ground that the
roots of the time-concept have a deeper and more general foundation than
the law of inertia. According to his opinion, every physical event,
which can be made to take place again under exactly the same conditions,
can serve for the determination of a time-measure, inasmuch as every
identical event must claim precisely the same duration of time;
otherwise, an ordered description of physical events would be out of the
question. In point of fact, the clock is constructed on this principle.
It is this principle which enables an observer to undertake a
time-measurement at least for his place of observation."


Einstein was pretty consistent with his final version
of Relativity with
"it's an inertial-system,
it's a differential-system,
there's a 'the time', ...,
and SR's kind of on the side, ...."




That the aether is not "that luminous aether that makes
a connectedness for gravity" has that if you have a fall-gravity
then there's still spaces where motion goes, and the usual sorts
of ideas that Einstein prefaces Turner introduces Freundlich
balances that "there's space-contraction" and the like in terms
of explanations of Michelson-Morley and the following and so on,
have that as well when in Sidelights on Relativity the Einstein
wrote about the aether he was like "well of course there is one".


Then, people probably confuse various concepts in mechanics
and electromechanics about aether, that Einstein means
"for electrical theory, the aether I mean".



Then, as is explained, it's all about line-elements
and path-elements what the tensors intend to entail.


"A mechanics of the relative motions of bodies, which is in harmony with
the two fundamental postulates of continuity and relativity, can be
built up only on a fundamental law of motion that preserves its form
independently of the kind of motion the system is undergoing."
-- Freundlich

Then, that acceleration gets involved, is still a thing.


("Freundlich" means "friendly" is my impression of it.)

Freundlich is a bit too quick to assume completions
of his deductions, which are pretty good.

Here then about motion is that yes there are frames
and yes there are space, _and_, yes there are space-frames
and yes there are frame-spaces, Rahme-Raumen and Raume-Rahmen.

"Rest-Exchange-Momentum", ....

"The experimental verification of Einstein's theory of gravitation has
thus not reached completion. But if, in spite of this, the theory can,
even at this early stage, justly claim general attention, the reason is
to be found in the unusual unity and logical structure of the ideas
underlying it." -- Freundlich 1923

That's pretty agreeable.

"In truth, it solves, at one stroke, all the riddles, concerning the
motions of bodies, which have presented themselves since the time of
Newton, as the result of the conventional view about the meaning of
space and time in the physical description of natural phenomena." --
Freundlich 1923

Then, that's disagreeable, though he qualifies it.


Then, what's disagreeable about the "unusual unity and logical
structure", like fluid models and like energy and like "the spectrum"
of all radiation, equivalencies, is that equivalencies are not
necessarily unities, and indeed, all the various empirical milieus
have they are not the same, while yet in terms of motion, mostly,
that energy and entelechy make content and connectedness,
about dunamis and dynamis is about how the potential fields
are the real fields and a sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials
least-constant-action least-constant-gradient, what makes a theory.


"Moreover, one can regard every vibrating system (which emits a spectral
line) as a clock, the motion of which, according to the investigation
made just above, depends upon the gravitational potentials of the place
where it is stationed. " -- Freundlich


"The third and particularly important inference from Einstein's theory
is the dependence of the velocity of light upon the gravitational
potential, ...", the potential.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by rhertz

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
https://www.privatdozent.co/p/einstein-and-hilberts-relativity
Einstein and Hilbert's Relativity Race
Who generalized relativity first, Einstein or Hilbert?
Jørgen Veisdal
Jul 03, 2021

So the answer is once again Einstein.
Why am I not surprised?
Jan

Read it again, fanatic.
You have serious problem with text comprehension. Dyslexia or denial?

The problem seems to be entirely yours.
=====
It is indisputable that Hilbert, like all of his other colleagues,
acknowledged Einstein as the sole creator of relativity theory (Fölsing,
1993). This is confirmed in many places, even on the first page of
Hilbert's publication. (in the conclusion of your ref.)
=====
Jan

History: Einstein was no lone genius
https://www.nature.com/articles/527298a
***************************************************************
A century ago, in November 1915, Albert Einstein published his general
theory of relativity in four short papers in the proceedings of the
Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin1. The theory is often presented
as the work of a lone genius. In fact, the physicist received a great
deal of help from friends and colleagues, most of whom never rose to
prominence and have been forgotten.
Michele Besso: Discussions between Besso and Einstein earned the former
the sole acknowledgment in the most famous of Einstein's 1905 papers,
the one introducing the special theory of relativity. Einstein worked
with Besso in the summer of 1913 to investigate whether the Grossman
They found that it could only explain less than 1˝. Nordström's theory
gave 7˝ in the wrong direction. These calculations are preserved in the
'Einstein–Besso manuscript' of 1913. Besso contributed significantly to
the calculations and raised interesting questions.
Einstein and Besso also checked whether the Entwurf equations hold in a
rotating coordinate system. In that case the, such as the centrifugal
force we experience on a merry-go-round,. The theory seemed to pass this
test. In August 1913, Besso warned Einstein that inertial forces of
rotation could not be interpreted as gravitational forces. Einstein did
not heed the warning, which would cost him to lose two years of work,
until November 1915.
Hermann Minkowski: reformulated the 1905 theory in pure mathematical
terms, introducing the concept of spacetime and the energy–momentum
tensor, when a special-relativistic reformulation of the theory of
electrodynamics of Maxwell and Lorentz was introduced. It soon became
clear that an energy–momentum tensor could be defined for physical
systems other than electromagnetic fields. The tensor took centre stage
in the new relativistic mechanics presented in the first textbook on
special relativity, Das Relativitätsprinzip, written by Max Laue in
1911.
Marcel Grossman: In 1912, Einstein returned to Zurich and was reunited
with Grossmann at the ETH. The pair joined forces to generate a fully
fledged theory. Grossman was the only author of the mathematical part,
based on derivations of Gauss's theory of curved surfaces. As we know
from recollected conversations, Einstein told Grossmann: “You must help
me, or else I'll go crazy.”. Grossman was highly recognized as a
mathematician by then, and used the body of work of the italian
Levi-Civita to build the core of the Entwurf I paper. The main advance
between this 1913 Entwurf theory and the general relativity theory of
November 1915 are the final field equations as 'generally covariant'.
Gunnar Nordström: Among several new theories proposed since 1911, in
which gravity, like electromagnetism, was represented by a field in the
flat space-time of special relativity, Nordström's theory was
particularly promising. Einstein compared the Entwurf theory to
Nordström's theory, and worked on both theories between May and late
August 1913.
Friedrich Kottler: In 1912, the Viennese physicist generalized Laue's
formalism from flat to curved space-time. Einstein and Grossmann relied
on this generalization in their formulation of the Entwurf theory.
During his 1913 Vienna lecture, Einstein called for Kottler to stand up
and be recognized for this work.
Adriaan Fokker: In Zurich, Einstein teamed up with Fokker, a student of
Lorentz, to reformulate the Nordström theory using the same kind of
mathematics that Grossmann had used to formulate the Entwurf theory.
Einstein and Fokker showed that in both theories the gravitational field
can be incorporated into the structure of a curved space-time. This work
gave Einstein a clearer picture of the structure of the Grossman's
Entwurf theory, which helped him and Grossmann in a second joint paper
on the theory, published in May 1914.
Lorentz and Paul Ehrenfest: Once the First World War began, Berlin's
scientific elite showed no interest in the Entwurf theory, although
renowned colleagues elsewhere did. From Leiden, the Netherlands Lorentz
and Ehrenfest volunteered to help Einstein in secret, due to the laws of
war imposed in Germany.
David Hilbert: In the summer of 1915, while lecturing in Göttingen due
to Hilbert's invitation, Einstein explained to Hilbert the status of
his work, and asked for help in many concepts of absolute differential
geometry. Due to Hilbert's comments on his work, Einstein started to
have serious doubts. He discovered to his dismay that the Entwurf theory
does not make rotational motion relative. Besso was right. Einstein
wrote to Freundlich for help: his “mind was in a deep rut”, so he hoped
that the young astronomer as “a fellow human being with unspoiled brain
matter” could tell him what he was doing wrong. Freundlich could not
help him.
Hilbert was curious about the true solution of the general covariant
field equation, and started to work on this problem by September 1915.
It was Klein, a colleague of Hilbert, who warned Einstein about
Hilbert's decision.
Worried that Hilbert might beat him to the punch, Einstein maintained
written communication with Hilbert, from which he learned that Hilbert
had finished a draft with the correct theory. Einstein asked Hilbert for
a copy of his work, to compare with his one, after what he rushed new
equations into print in early November 1915, modifying them the
following week and again two weeks later in subsequent papers submitted
to the Prussian Academy. The field equations were generally covariant at
last. That particular letter from Hilbert disappeared.
Freundlich: Working close to Einstein since 1912, when Einstein returned
to the perihelion motion of Mercury, Freundlich guided Einstein about
the reformulation of the theory by using only the Sun and a massless
point-like Mercury, for which he provided the astronomical data
developed by Le Verrier and Newcomb, which accounted for the total
influence of the relevant celestial bodies plus the (Newcomb) missing
43″ per century. Einstein kept quiet on why he had been able to do the
calculations, a partial variation of the work with Besso in 1913.
Alexander Pick: Got for Einstein the professorship in Vienna in 1911,
and introduced him into Riemann's geometry, hinting him about the
existence of new theories based on Riemann, from the school of northern
Italian mathematicians like Ricci Cubarstro and Levi-Civita. After a
quarrel with Pick, he abandoned Vienna only 14 months after, seeking for
Grossman's help. He was a mathematician, specialized in similar fields
than Grossman, as it was a trend in that epoch.
Arnold Sommerfeld: The head of theoretical physics department from
Munich University was a close confident of Einstein, and the first to
whom Einstein communicated about the last presentation to the PAS, on
Nov. 25 1915.
Tullio Levi-Civita: Once his name became known, due to the Grossman
Entwurf, he became a secret adviser for Einstein during 1914 and 1915.
The letters between them disappeared because, due to WWI, it was an act
of treason for Italians to have any connection with Germans.
Von Laue, Scharzschild, Mie (on the board of the Prussian Academy of
Science), Klein and several other physicists and astronomers helped
Einstein as well, between 1911 and 1917.
And MANY OTHER UNKNOWN people that helped him, which were erased from
history.
"Helped": a polite form to say that Einstein used them, to discard them
at the earliest convenience. Grossman and Besso are the most relevant
examples of his art of back-stabbing. Also, Max Planck, who introduced
him into the physics community at Germany.
A thief, plagiarist, liar, deceiver, usurper, fraudulent crook,
mythomaniac, pretender, etc. No name callings are sufficient to depict
the profile of this delinquent at large of physics.
Maybe he could do all that because he was a protected Jew? Zionism was
peaking by then. Only think of Eddington and the bridge that Lorentz
established between him and Einstein, in the middle of WWI. Lorentz, the
spokesperson in charge of EInstein's PR in Europe and US since 1910.

Freundlich's 1923 paper on General Relativity was recently
released or to Gutenberg.
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/70793/pg70793-images.html
"Dr. Freundlich is not only highly qualified as a specialist in the
various branches of knowledge involved to demonstrate the subject; he is
also the first amongst fellow-scientists who has taken pains to put the
theory to the test. " -- Einstein
He seems kind of like the Maclaurin to Newton.
Sagan one time said "thank libraries".
It used to be said "at one point only three people
in the world understood Relativity Theory, ...."
Now, one of them's usually assumed to be Einstein.
Yet, "relativity" since "absolutes" is a classical
concept of course - "relativity theory" is as old
as physics itself, it's like "ideals", "principles",
"relativity" is always a part of physics.
"motion is relative (space and time are absolutes)"
has one time Einstein wrote, or in paraphrase,
"What are we to make of this theory that at all
merely is a single negative assertion, that
motion is not absolute?"
And it's like, yeah, Einstein, thanks, SR _is_ local.
So, like Sagan said one time: "thank libraries".
Now, we know these days that one of the crucial
tests, of the deflection of light, is about half-right.
What I mean by that is that it's better than zero right,
yet, it's as well that there yet remains more,
about light, and lensing.
Then, "light's speed is constant and photons are
particles and photons are 1-1 electrons that are
e/m atoms, SR", is just a thing. It's a good thing -
these days though Einstein advises that it is
GR that defines SR, not the other way around,
and, light is yet "special", and, "spacial".
(Or, Fresnel and Arago and Bell and Aspect.)

I don't suppose you happen to have a copy of
C. Neumann. "Ueber die Prinzipien der Galilei-Newtonschen Theorie"
translated to English sitting around,
though there are 2023 editions of the original
since the 1870 is out-of-copyright.
"This is the attitude which was also taken up by L. Lange, H. Seeliger,
and others, in later researches. Maxwell selected this definition too
(in "Matter and Motion"). On the other hand, H. Streintz[11] (following
Poisson and d'Alembert) has demanded the disconnection and independence
of the time-measure from the law of inertia, on the ground that the
roots of the time-concept have a deeper and more general foundation than
the law of inertia. According to his opinion, every physical event,
which can be made to take place again under exactly the same conditions,
can serve for the determination of a time-measure, inasmuch as every
identical event must claim precisely the same duration of time;
otherwise, an ordered description of physical events would be out of the
question. In point of fact, the clock is constructed on this principle.
It is this principle which enables an observer to undertake a
time-measurement at least for his place of observation."
Einstein was pretty consistent with his final version
of Relativity with
"it's an inertial-system,
it's a differential-system,
there's a 'the time', ...,
and SR's kind of on the side, ...."
That the aether is not "that luminous aether that makes
a connectedness for gravity" has that if you have a fall-gravity
then there's still spaces where motion goes, and the usual sorts
of ideas that Einstein prefaces Turner introduces Freundlich
balances that "there's space-contraction" and the like in terms
of explanations of Michelson-Morley and the following and so on,
have that as well when in Sidelights on Relativity the Einstein
wrote about the aether he was like "well of course there is one".
Then, people probably confuse various concepts in mechanics
and electromechanics about aether, that Einstein means
"for electrical theory, the aether I mean".
Then, as is explained, it's all about line-elements
and path-elements what the tensors intend to entail.
"A mechanics of the relative motions of bodies, which is in harmony with
the two fundamental postulates of continuity and relativity, can be
built up only on a fundamental law of motion that preserves its form
independently of the kind of motion the system is undergoing."
-- Freundlich
Then, that acceleration gets involved, is still a thing.
("Freundlich" means "friendly" is my impression of it.)
Freundlich is a bit too quick to assume completions
of his deductions, which are pretty good.
Here then about motion is that yes there are frames
and yes there are space, _and_, yes there are space-frames
and yes there are frame-spaces, Rahme-Raumen and Raume-Rahmen.
"Rest-Exchange-Momentum", ....
"The experimental verification of Einstein's theory of gravitation has
thus not reached completion. But if, in spite of this, the theory can,
even at this early stage, justly claim general attention, the reason is
to be found in the unusual unity and logical structure of the ideas
underlying it." -- Freundlich 1923
That's pretty agreeable.
"In truth, it solves, at one stroke, all the riddles, concerning the
motions of bodies, which have presented themselves since the time of
Newton, as the result of the conventional view about the meaning of
space and time in the physical description of natural phenomena." --
Freundlich 1923
Then, that's disagreeable, though he qualifies it.
Then, what's disagreeable about the "unusual unity and logical
structure", like fluid models and like energy and like "the spectrum"
of all radiation, equivalencies, is that equivalencies are not
necessarily unities, and indeed, all the various empirical milieus
have they are not the same, while yet in terms of motion, mostly,
that energy and entelechy make content and connectedness,
about dunamis and dynamis is about how the potential fields
are the real fields and a sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials
least-constant-action least-constant-gradient, what makes a theory.
"Moreover, one can regard every vibrating system (which emits a spectral
line) as a clock, the motion of which, according to the investigation
made just above, depends upon the gravitational potentials of the place
where it is stationed. " -- Freundlich
"The third and particularly important inference from Einstein's theory
is the dependence of the velocity of light upon the gravitational
potential, ...", the potential.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.08885

Mentions Neumann and Streintz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Streintz

https://academic.oup.com/book/43798/chapter-abstract/370735070?redirectedFrom=fulltext

https://philarchive.org/archive/STAASA-9


Most people studying mechanics and momentum
should learn furthermore about inertia since
theorists like Einstein say that their mechanics
is an inertial-system.

Yet, as you can read from the surrounds, it's
not always considered the way of things,
in ways that are often simpler to compute.

If not necessarily as correct, ....


http://fair-use.org/bertrand-russell/the-principles-of-mathematics/chapter-lviii

https://academic.oup.com/book/43798/chapter-abstract/370735070?redirectedFrom=fulltext


Any one of these given the ideas of adding a Higgs
field, which is not a field, could be as,
"according to Occam's razor that's unlikely".

... Furthermore "and not Mach-ian".


Anyways there's much to be sorted out from not
so much and for not so much, about matter and
electricity and mass and charge and photons and
their velocity and nucleons and their duration.

Is it still a states-of-matter model of everything?
Indeed, it is, super-classical.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Ross Finlayson
It used to be said "at one point only three people
in the world understood Relativity Theory, ...."
Now, one of them's usually assumed to be Einstein.

Don't be silly, it was a joke. In full, something like:

Journalist: Professor Eddington, is it true that there are only three
people in the world who understand relativity?
Eddington: Hesitates, does'n answer.
Journalist: Why are you hesitating?
Eddington: Not hesitating, I was just thinking who might be the third.

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
https://www.privatdozent.co/p/einstein-and-hilberts-relativity
Einstein and Hilbert's Relativity Race
Who generalized relativity first, Einstein or Hilbert?
Jørgen Veisdal
Jul 03, 2021

So the answer is once again Einstein.
Why am I not surprised?
Jan

Read it again, fanatic.
You have serious problem with text comprehension. Dyslexia or denial?

The problem seems to be entirely yours.
=====
It is indisputable that Hilbert, like all of his other colleagues,
acknowledged Einstein as the sole creator of relativity theory (Fölsing,
1993). This is confirmed in many places, even on the first page of
Hilbert's publication. (in the conclusion of your ref.)
=====
Jan

[snip a no answer, and another ton of irrelevant text]

You are trying to change the subject.
Why can't you just admit to having been wrong?
And that you tried to mislead by quote mining,
selective paraphrasing, and by omitting the conclusion?

Do you really believe after all you have done here
that anyone will believe you on your word,
without having a look at the sources?

Jan

[rhertz]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
https://www.privatdozent.co/p/einstein-and-hilberts-relativity
Einstein and Hilbert's Relativity Race
Who generalized relativity first, Einstein or Hilbert?
Jørgen Veisdal
Jul 03, 2021

So the answer is once again Einstein.
Why am I not surprised?
Jan

Read it again, fanatic.
You have serious problem with text comprehension. Dyslexia or denial?

The problem seems to be entirely yours.
=====
It is indisputable that Hilbert, like all of his other colleagues,
acknowledged Einstein as the sole creator of relativity theory (Fölsing,
1993). This is confirmed in many places, even on the first page of
Hilbert's publication. (in the conclusion of your ref.)
=====
Jan

[snip a no answer, and another ton of irrelevant text]
You are trying to change the subject.
Why can't you just admit to having been wrong?
And that you tried to mislead by quote mining,
selective paraphrasing, and by omitting the conclusion?
Do you really believe after all you have done here
that anyone will believe you on your word,
without having a look at the sources?
Jan

I NEVER try to change the topic under discussion. I'm a honest person,
not A SHILL like you.

Most of the time, IF NOT ALWAYS, I provide one or many links so readers
can FACT-CHECK what I'm posting.


I'm against the costume of providing a link and then quote LITERALLY
what
is contained in the reference.

I believe that I'm not wrong in making comments based on the referenced
link,
EDITING some obvious "ball-sucking" comments of relativists that make me
puke.


If I read parts of text containing SHIT like:

- The monumental work of Einstein,
- The profound insights of the greatest mind in physics,
- He RELENTLESSLY worked for 10 years to achieve his extraordinary work,
- The "annus mirability",
- Einstein's figure rose above his counterparts due to his genius,
- Young physicists were in awe over Einstein's prodigious mind,
- Einstein's work changed physics forever,
- Einstein's work was INDEPENDENTLY developed from Hilbert's,
- Priority over field equation was settled favoring Einstein, as most
Scholars and scientists claim,
- tons of sucking phrases like the above ones.


I WILL NOT REPEAT THAT KIND OF SHIT. I'LL JUST ERASE SUCH BIASED
COMMENTS.



History is written by winners, until they lose their position, and
history
begin to be REWRITTEN once more.


In this particular case, the winners were the Jews and the Zionists,
mainly from Europe. It's a revenge for centuries of religious fights
between Christians and Jews. Through anarchism and communism since mid
XIX century, Jews started to organize with a clear plan: To DOMINATE
every aspect of civilized order, starting with the management of money,
civilian unrest and DEGENERACY in every aspect of life.

What started to bring fruits at the beginning of XX century (finance,
journalism, science, politics) is, TODAY, showing how far Jews went to
DOMINATE the world. Just THINK what has happened in the world in the
last 25 years:

On every major aspect of life, Jews have reached ALMOST the point of no
return:

- Social Media
- Science
- Woke movement
- Google
- AI
- Electronic ID for everyone and massive surveillance
- Banks, finance, commerce, education, media, politics, geo-sciences
- Immigration waves in Europe and USA
- Middle East affairs
- Massive networking of INFLUENCES/censorship IN EVERY ASPECT OF LIFE
- Every other aspect of civilization not mentioned above.


Einstein ICONIZATION was a smart move, in physics.
Freud ICONIZATION was a smart move, in psichology.
Marx ICONIZATION was a smart move, in populism/socialism.

The wave of changes in Europe was CLEARLY based on hate and desire for
revenge, originated in centuries of religious war. Current objectives
are very clear:

- Destroy european civilization, and rewrite their entire history since
year 1.
- Sequester and dominate the deep state in US, using its resources to
accomplish
the above objective.
- Downgrade education at worldwide level, creating generations of
gullible and
isolated people, erasing the foundations of western society: family,
religion,
property and solidarity.

Do you really think that the Einstein affair is a disconnected event in
the
scenario described above? Really?

Take any current activity and trace where are the roots of them. You'll
find
a Zionist hand controlling everything.

This is happening in Argentina RIGHT NOW.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz
Take any current activity and trace where are the roots of them. You'll
find
a Zionist hand controlling everything.
This is happening in Argentina RIGHT NOW.

So all the 300 Nazi fugitives who fled to Argentina are dead,
and the Zionists have taken over?

[rhertz]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
Take any current activity and trace where are the roots of them. You'll
find
a Zionist hand controlling everything.
This is happening in Argentina RIGHT NOW.

So all the 300 Nazi fugitives who fled to Argentina are dead,
and the Zionists have taken over?

Your comment is beyond stupidity. Operation Paperclip took place not
only in the US, but in England, Canada, Brazil and Argentina. Those who
came here in U-boats were mostly soldiers, who got shelter in Cordoba,
where they founded a now famous town that celebrates Oktoberfest, and
receive now more than 100,000 visitors each year.

The nazi scumb (less than 50) came here with false passports and
identities after 1945.

I'm talking about the Jews that came here in two immigration waves from
1880 to 1910. The POOR ONES went to different provinces (Tucuman, Entre
Rios, Misiones, Corrientes, Mendoza, etc.) and solidly established as
merchants or industrialist, founding small companies, many of which
still exist.

The RICH and VERY REACH came from Belgium and other Europeans countries
and created GIGANTIC corporations that still exist. Some examples:

- Bunge & Born: Came to Argentina from Belgium by 1905, and founded
several companies, mostly focused on trade with Europe and food
manufacturing. By 1970, this group OWNED more than 60 companies covering
almost every activity. Molinos Rio de la Plata was a food giant that
had/has a share market of 60%. By 1970, 40% of the international trade
in grains and other commodities was dominated by them.
They managed up to 11% of the Argentinian GDP in the 70's.

- Werthein family: Arrived from Russia in 1904, and created an empire
that covered many industries, finance, banking, agriculture,
communications and services. Today, one Werthein is the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, priorizing relations with US and Israel.

- Elsztain family: one of the most wealthy families in Argentina. Cover
almost every conceivable activity, and dominate the real state business
in the country.

- Galperin and Kazah family: Just one of their companies (Mercado Libre)
dominates the online commerce and electronic banking. It has expanded to
17 countries in LA and USA, and competes with Amazon.

The net worth of these four families alone is far above 90 billion USD.

Many other families of Jewish origin control banking, finances,
industry, airports, communications and services. In total, they control
more than 85% of the international trade of Argentina, in collusion with
US and European firms like: Dreyfuss, Cargill, Mosanto, etc.


When Einstein came to Argentina in 1925, due to his fundraising travels,
he was received as a king, and spent a month here, MOSTLY hosted by
Jewish/Zionist rich families in La Plata, Rosario, Cordoba, etc. The
amount of money that he brought out of Argentina is undisclosed, but
it's estimated that only his trips to US were more financially
redituable.

In contrast, many German nationalist families established in Argentina,
prior to WWI, and also created empires here. Having strong ties with
Siemens, Osram, AG Telefunken, etc., they settled mostly in Cordoba.



Basically, NO ANTISEMITISM existed/exist in Argentina. In Tucuman, jews
and syrian-lebanese has been establishing there since 1890, and still
live IN PEACE. These were the POOR ones, but still managed to drive
Northern Provinces economies to a privileged place.


The problem with Zionism in Argentina started to appear about 35 years
ago, when new capital entered into Argentina from vulture hedge funds
like Black Rock or due to Soros, who injected (and retired) more than
500,000 million USD in the bond market, owned almost exclusively by Jews
(locals and from abroad).

So, Argentina is basically owned by the Jews, either in finances,
banking, external debt. Agriculture, communications and most industries
and energy companies.

Every single politician here is OWNED by the Jewish mob. Nobody can
escape.



The current president is an enthusiast defender of Israel and US (only
these two), wants to convert to Judaism, and rejects any liaison with
any other country. Supports Ukraine, invited Zelensky to his
inauguration as President and sold the only warfare manufacturer to a US
firm, to manufacture arms for NATO.


It's common that "TV journalists" have two flags on their desk, while
airing: Argentina and Israel.

This is evolving exponentially since December 10, 2023.

Meanwhile, most of Argentinians are poor, making about USD 500/month.
It's a country for only 15% of the 45 million inhabitants. And things
are getting worse day after day. By now, cost of living here is far
higher than Europe or US, and tourism plummeted 50% in just ONE YEAR.




-

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
Take any current activity and trace where are the roots of them. You'll
find
a Zionist hand controlling everything.
This is happening in Argentina RIGHT NOW.

So all the 300 Nazi fugitives who fled to Argentina are dead,
and the Zionists have taken over?

Most Nazis are certainly dead now, because the Nazi empire is gone for
almost eighty years.

Many Nazis went to Argentina, however, but mainly in the 40th and 50th.

This included Hitler himself (allegedly) together with 'Eva Braun'
(cover name of Unity Mitford) and their children.

Whether or not they had anything to do with Zionism I cannot say.


TH

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
Take any current activity and trace where are the roots of them. You'll
find
a Zionist hand controlling everything.
This is happening in Argentina RIGHT NOW.

So all the 300 Nazi fugitives who fled to Argentina are dead,
and the Zionists have taken over?

Most Nazis are certainly dead now, because the Nazi empire is gone for
almost eighty years.
Many Nazis went to Argentina, however, but mainly in the 40th and 50th.
This included Hitler himself (allegedly) together with 'Eva Braun'
(cover name of Unity Mitford) and their children.

Good grief. You're even more of a crackpot than I already thought.

Post by Thomas Heger
Whether or not they had anything to do with Zionism I cannot say.
TH

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
Take any current activity and trace where are the roots of them. You'll
find
a Zionist hand controlling everything.
This is happening in Argentina RIGHT NOW.

So all the 300 Nazi fugitives who fled to Argentina are dead,
and the Zionists have taken over?

Most Nazis are certainly dead now, because the Nazi empire is gone for
almost eighty years.
Many Nazis went to Argentina, however, but mainly in the 40th and 50th.
This included Hitler himself (allegedly) together with 'Eva Braun'
(cover name of Unity Mitford) and their children.

Good grief. You're even more of a crackpot than I already thought.

How many cracks between a pot and a nut?

Jan

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by rhertz

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by rhertz
<snip previous posts>

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
Your comment is worthless, as you're ACCEPTING THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
IN 1911.

Of course he was, in the Newtonian limit of GR.

1) In 1911 didn't know SHIT about 1915 Hilbert GR solution for field
equations.

Einstein had guessed the correct Newtonian limit
before having the complete final theory.

You can't be so ignorant or fanatic!. By 1911, Einstein was TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND MINKOWSKY, crying publicly about him not giving a shit about
differential geometry when he was at the college, 12 years before. It
was also the year when he wrote to Grossman: "Help me, Marcel, or I'll
go crazy".
He couldn't, in any way, anticipate Grossman's Entwurf (1.5 years
ahead). Einstein was an ignorant about advanced mathematics, beyond
Calculus 101.

Post by J. J. Lodder
Hilbert didn't solve a thing in 1915.

Again, You can't be so ignorant or fanatic (OR A LIAR AND DECEIVER)!
Hilbert solved the problem of the field equation IN THREE MONTHS, and
GAVE A PUBLIC LECTURE about it on Nov. 18, 1915 (one week before
Einstein's lecture to the PAC).
And keep in mind THIS: Both the field equation form (1915) and the
modified Schwarzschild solution (1917) ARE THE ONES USED TODAY. Learn
something, asshole.

Post by J. J. Lodder
All he did was producing an unphysical monstruosity,
after which he tried to steal Einstein's achievenments.

Another LIE, or a fairy tail that you developed in your head, so you can
feel comfortable about your perception of the crook, plagiarist and
deceiver.
By Dec. 1915, and AFTER his Nov. 25 lecture to the PAC, the IMBECILE
still didn't understand fully what he presented. He argued with
Schwarzschild about the particular solution, and negated his
contribution in the years to come.
Hilbert TOOK PITY of the cretin (Hilbert: the TOP MATHEMATICIAN OF THE
WORLD) and, patiently, explained to Einstein (from Dec. 1915 to March
1916) HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE SOLUTION. Einstein credited his help IN
WRITINGS available on the Princeton site.
Hilbert didn't care about GR and his solution, what he made public and
credited Einstein for being the physicist behind GR. PUBLICLY.
Hilbert didn't give a shit about the Schwarzschild's solution UNTIL
1917, when his collaborator Johannes Droste. The CURRENT FORMULA is the
one that Hilbert developed but, as a gentleman he was, he published it
as the SCHWARZSCHILD SOLUTION, not taking any credit for it (almost 1.5
years after Schwarzschild death). In contrast, the cretin Einstein put
the poor Schwarzschild in oblivion, JEALOUS of his intelligence and
knowledge (and resented for his help in 1915).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity_priority_dispute

Post by J. J. Lodder
Ultimately unsuccesfully, the affair has been settled by now.
Hilbert played false with the date in preprint and the published date.
(he should have added a 'modified' date)
Not even Ohanian supports Hilbert in this.
(despite always being out to put Einstein down)
Hilbert just didn't have it, get over it,

Who the fuck is Ohanian, imbecile? This asshole?
https://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Spacetime-Hans-C-Ohanian/dp/1107012945

Post by J. J. Lodder
Jan
[snip more of the same garbage]

I wouldn't put Hilbert in front of Leibnitz, or,
you know, Poincare, or Dirichlet, though the
Hilbert Programme is a nice idea of an idealism
and the Hilbert Problems are quite well-known,
though that it doesn't seem he ever said that
some of the Hilbert problems don't have yes or no
answers, with theories with laws of large numbers
that make independent various conjectures of Goldbach,
or quite thoroughly open up complex analysis.
It's like "hey, Hilbert, how you doin" and he goes
"I've been studying complex function theory and it
really goes great with my studying anything Gauss
or Euler ever did" and it's like "great, Hilbert,
what's the idea", and he goes "it's like real space,
except with complex numbers".
Then, that that makes some things after Euler's formula
all ubiquitous to represent angles instead of looking
after director cosines, helping give triangle inequality
and a model of probabilistic quantum amplitudes and all,
I wouldn't say it's "necessary" yet something like the
deMoivre-Euler-Gauss-Hilbert Euler formula formalism
is very widely used.
About foundations or geometry, Hilbert has like a,
"Postulate of Continuity", he does establish that
besides Euclid that because DesCartes there's required
in that theory a "Postulate of Continuity". And it's
like "great, Hilbert, that sounds a lot like Leibnitz'
Principle of Continuity and Principle of Perfection"
and maybe he's like "well, I wouldn't say it's perfect, ...".
And it's like "that's OK, Leibnitz already did".

You are right. I wouldn't dare to put Hilbert above Poincaré. I should
have
explained that, by 1915, Hilbert was the top mathematician of the world.
Poincaré was gone by 1912 and Klein, who worked closely with Hilbert,
had retired.
After decades of work, Hilbert was in its golden years by 1915, and he
went further with his developments in the next 8 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hilbert
David Hilbert (23 January 1862 – 14 February 1943) was a German
mathematician and philosopher of mathematics and one of the most
influential mathematicians of his time.
Known for
Hilbert's basis theorem
Hilbert's Nullstellensatz
Hilbert's axioms
Hilbert's 23 problems
Hilbert's program
Einstein–Hilbert action
Hilbert space (quantum physics)
Hilbert system
Epsilon calculus
Hilbert considered the mathematician Hermann Minkowski to be his "best
and truest friend".
In 1920, Hilbert proposed a research project in metamathematics that
became known as Hilbert's program. He wanted mathematics to be
formulated on a solid and complete logical foundation. He believed that
- all mathematics follows from a correctly chosen finite system of
axioms; and
- that some such axiom system is provably consistent through some means
such as the epsilon calculus.
By early summer 1915, Hilbert's interest in physics had focused on
general relativity, WHEN he invited Einstein to Göttingen to deliver a
week of lectures on the subject of relativity.
Hilbert offered his house to host Einstein, which allowed Einstein to
discuss in depth his work AND ASK Hilbert for some advices, which
continued for months with exchange of letters.
During November 1915, Einstein published several papers culminating in
The Field Equations of Gravitation. The final solution, the field
equation, was SHOWN to Einstein in a letter THAT DISAPPEARED.
Hilbert credited Einstein as the originator of THE THEORY (not the FE)
and no public priority dispute concerning the field equations ever arose
between the two men during their lives.
At the final stage (Nov. 1915), the correct general covariant equations
of gravitation were expressed, first by Hilbert. Hilbert's contribution
was always noted in the early classical relativistic literature. The
most exact and detailed evaluation was given by Wolfgang Pauli in his
famous encyclopedic
article, "Simultaneously with Einstein and independently of him, the
general covariant field equations were established by Hilbert".
Hilbert's presentation was not quite comfortable for the physicists,
because in the first place he axiomatically defined the variational
principle, and, which is more important, his equations were expressed
not for an arbitrary material system, but were based on Mie's theory of
matter.
On the discovery of the gravitational field equations: New material
https://www.ufn.ru/ufn01/ufn01_12/ufn0112d.pdf
Historical background of general relativity: 1830 - 1915
https://inspirehep.net/files/476245abe9fc78161f21345d06e569ff

The variational principle is usually given to Lagrange.
Or, so I read from John Heilbron and Leonid Sedov.

The notion from electrical theory of two superimposed
charged circular bodies then offset infinitesimally,
thusly establishing poles, like O.W. Richardson points out,
makes for that electrons are quite super-classical while
though as Richardson also points out that though there's
an equivalence in the wave formalism about energy and
frequency and wavelength, relating to the optical, of
course various kinds of radiation are variously not optical.


Things like the variational principle and also the
virial principle and hypotheses of small perturbations
and so on, make for usual account of the non-adiabatic,
which has been pretty tough to figure out at least
since trapezoid rule and the Mertonian school.

It's all "Lagrangians", say.



With regards to Einstein and priority, Einstein's pretty
much held up as a giant and he's so sacred to people's
popular understanding of what they think science is,
that you're welcome to point out all kinds of others
that deserve more credit, yet then you kind of have
to explain it in terms of what people followed as
"the only physicist the public even knows", that,
even Einstein, Einstein himself, after his early successes,
and they're not wrong, Einstein himself of course was
always both refining his theories to eventually protect
himself from his own followers, and so that a generous
reading of revisions, to the theories, can explain to
people how Einstein's own theories changed along,
because that's the public's only concept of a physicist.


Then, among other physicists and there are any number
of them here, then you're welcome to point out the
issues in the theoretical developments, but there's
nothing anybody can do about non-physicists only
knowing and constantly being told Einstein was right,
somehow super-classical and right, that it's understood
among physicists and mathematicians that Einstein was
a pretty great physicist, and much improved _his_ theories
from "classic" SR and "classic" GR, say. Or, "Einstein's
Relativity", is _not_ "popular Relativity".


So, what you're looking for, is better theory, anybody
is welcome to establish more correctly what Einstein's
Relativity really is, _and the limits of its import_,
and kick the rest to the curb, then though what's relevant
is to extract all the empirical milieus like the
Heaviside and Faraday and Larmor and FitzGerald and
the Airy and the Fresnel and the Young and the,
the Lagrange, and so on, and Fatio and LeSage,
because anything that's "new physics" is somewhere
put aside in "old physics", so that the priority
belongs to them, and to avoid false new idols
whose claim to fame is a back-catalog of technical
reports from Old Big Science.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by rhertz
<snip previous posts>

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
Your comment is worthless, as you're ACCEPTING THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
IN 1911.

Of course he was, in the Newtonian limit of GR.

1) In 1911 didn't know SHIT about 1915 Hilbert GR solution for field
equations.

Einstein had guessed the correct Newtonian limit
before having the complete final theory.

? You can't be so ignorant or fanatic!

Of course he can. Why not?

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by rhertz

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by rhertz
(2)                  f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c²)
******************************************************************************

Forget the 1911 paper.
Einsteins last word on the matter is GR.
https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf

Your comment is worthless, as you're ACCEPTING THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
IN 1911.

No.

Read my paper:
https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf

My "comment" is based on the General Theory of Relativity.

According to a good approximation of the Schwarzschild  metric
the gravitational term is:

f1 = f2⋅(1 + (GM/c²R)⋅(h/(R+h)) (1)

where R is the radius of the Earth
and h is the altitude of the source of f2.


If h = R, we get:

According to Einstein 1915 (GR):
f1 = f2(1 + 3.48e-10)

(f1-f2)/f2 = Δf/f2 = 3.48e-10

According to Einstein 1911:
f1 = f2(1 + gh/c²) = f2(1 + 6.96e-10)

Δf/f2 = 6.96e-10, twice the 1915 prediction.



The 1915 (GR) prediction is, as you know, thoroughly experimentally
confirmed.

So Einstein's 1911 equation doesn't work for h = R!

------------

If h = 22.56 m we get:

According to Einstein 1915 (GR):
f1 = f2(1 + 2.46695e-10)

Δf/f2 = 2.46695e-10

According to Einstein 1911:
f1 = f2(1 + 2.46696e-10)

Δf/f2 = 2.46696e-10

So with this small height of the tower the difference is negligible.

-------------

Let us see how the approximation is calculated:

We start with equation (1)

Δf/f2 = (GM/c²R)⋅(h/(R+h)) = ((GM/R²)⋅h/c²)⋅(1/(1+h/R))

g = GM/R²

Δf/f2 = (g⋅h/c²)⋅(1/(1+h/R))

Note that the difference between the 1915 and the 1911 prediction
is the factor (1/(1+h/R)).

When h/R << 1 we can set h/R ≈ 0 and Δf/f2 ≈ g⋅h/c²


Now you can read my "comment":


The point is:
If it is a gravitational frequency shift, the inevitable consequence
is that the clock on the top of the tower measure longer proper time
than the clock om the ground.