Re: No true relativist!

On 11/10/2024 02:45 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 09.11.2024 17:17, skrev rhertz:

The concept of the "curvature of the universe° has infested astronomy
MANY years before 1915 GR. Blame to Riemann's theory about N-dimensional
SPACE, published shortly after his death in 1864.
>
Also blame Schwarzschild (astronomer and polymath) who, in 1900,
published this paper:
>
>
`On the permissible curvature of space'
K Schwarzschild, 1900
>
Schwarzschild is considered the founder of cosmology, with this seminal
paper, written 15 years before 1915 GR.
>
By that epoch (and until early 1920s), the "universe" was thought as
being only the Milky Way, estimated being 10,000 ly wide and having
about 5,000 stars, plus cosmic dust.
>
It would be required to wait until the 2.5 mt telescope was built, by
1922, and the actions of his director (Hubble), to understand the huge
vastness of the universe and the existence of myriad of galaxies.
>
So, talks about the curvature of space PRECEDES RELATIVITY for decades.
>
Schwarszchild analyzed three types of curvatures, thinking about a
"closed universe". He concluded that the "known universe" WAS FLAT.
>
>
You can see that there is a HUGE CONNECTION between Schwarzchild and
Einstein since 1914, when Einstein started at the Berlin University.
Schwarzschild WAS INSTRUMENTAL in getting Einstein there, because he was
the one who obtained 50% of the funding for Einstein's salary for a 12
years contract (Total: 240,000 Marks), from a Jew industrialist.
>
Schwarzschild was a borderline Jew (from his father), so HIS DUE FAME
WAS DENIED from the jew establishment, EVEN AS OF TODAY. But HE WAS THE
REAL BRAIN BEHIND 1915 GENERAL RELATIVITY, and it's acceptance by the
Pruaaian Academy of Science. He was PRESENT every week, in Nov. 1915,
when Einstein had to explain GR to the PAS.
>
Curiously, Schwarzschild was an artillery officer on the Eastern Front
(where he got his fatal disease), but managed to get A LICENSE to be
present there in Nov. 1915.
>
Schwarzschild (as Hilbert) WAS TOO MUCH for the imbecile Einstein, so
both WERE CANCELLED FROM HISTORY by the zio media.
>
See? Knowing HISTORY OF SCIENCE really matters.

>
The fact is that the Schwarzschild metric is an exact solution to
the Einstein field equations for a universe with only one
non rotating spherical mass, so it is based on the General Theory
of Relativity.
It is a very good approximation of the curvature of spacetime
in the vicinity of the Earth, and an extremely good approximation
if the quadrupole moment due to the rotation of the Earth is
accounted for.
>
So the predictions of the Schwarzschild metric are predictions of
GR, and they are very well experimentally confirmed.
>
https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1964.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1968.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf
(See pages 708-716)
https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/GravityProbeB.pdf
>
Now you can make a fool by yourself by claiming that all
the physicists who made the experiments above are frauds.
>

Schwarzschild radius is a rather simple result after
Newtonian gravity, insofar as what GR predicts only
matches for being "Newtonian in the limit, ...".
The other day one of the ideas was "the speed of
gravity is the same as the speed of light only
at the center of a black hole", yet, as singularity
of sorts then it's often considered anathema when
the mathematics refuses any notion of "infinity"
at all.
Of course a usual idea of the point/local/global/total,
makes for black-holes as gravitational singularities,
that there is the white-hole concept, and that being
each of the black-hole's virtual partner, the universe
altogether, and a sea like Dirac's for positrons,
Dirac and Einstein's positronic white-hole sea,
then also there's the notion that atoms themselves
are rather like black-holes of an atomic sort, and
the universe itself is also black-hole/white-hole.
Concepts here from mathematics include "space inversion",
and usual notions of complementary duals, which well
reflect on usual notions of symmetry and conservation.
When GR doesn't say so much about gravity except
"classical (Newtonian) in the limit", so that the
Riemannian metrics and "whatever-tensors" are
"whatever-adds-up", and in GR then simply "gravity
is down, the rubber-sheet model", with no explanation
at all of mechanism of curving or flattening space-time,
and the only bonus supposedly being light following
the geodesy, any changes in the geodesy are not much
explained by GR only following out "whatever-tensors"
result "classical in the limit".
I.e., nothing explains gravity in GR, and it's just
"whatever-tensors" and "whatever-metrics" fit, then
that as with regards to something like rest-exchange-momentum,
and moving frames and rotating frames, the moving frames
move relative to _all_ observers, and the geodesy is
only ever "always instantaneous".
So, the dynamics of GR are mostly as what must get into
the difference between moving linear/rectilinear frames,
and rotating/curvilinear frames, then that as well
should be "classical in the limit" as classical and
of course as Lagrangian and as with regards to a
sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials, with a clock
hypothesis as an Einstein's "the time", as inertial
again, and that otherwise physics needs better
classical mechanics.
Of course "SR is local" and furthermore "SR is weak".