Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years

On 12/19/2024 04:49 PM, rhertz wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:51:32 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

>
<snip previous posts>
>

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.
>
>
>
>
>

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.
>
>

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
>

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
>
>
>
>

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".