Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years

On 12/19/2024 07:46 PM, rhertz wrote:

On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 1:27:34 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>

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".

>
>
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

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.