 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / November 2008Einstein Who?
A. Zeynel at sci.physics.research asked the following. "if Einstein came back to Earth he would not recognize his theory and he would be told to study MTW if he wanted to learn General Relativity." The following “questions and answers” should address that. Q. Who first characterized the principle of relativity? A. Galileo did. That was almost 300 years before Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Q. Who first discovered the principle of equivalence? A. Again, it was Galileo. Through the principles of relativity and equivalence, Newton was able to formulate the law of gravity. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar after finally understood the Newtonian law of gravity claimed the principle of equivalence was his own discovery. Q. Who first surmised/postulated the constancy in the speed of light? A. Voigt in 1887 did to explain the null results of Michelson’s 1881 experiment (6 years before the same but more famous 1887 experiment with Morley). The result was the Voigt transform that replaces the Galilean transform. Notice Voigt did not have to address the validity in the principle of relativity. Q. Who first discovered the Lorentz transform? A. Noticing the Voigt transform can be modified to allow for the principle of relativity, Larmor wrote down the Lorentz transform in 1897 or 1898 time frame. Q. Who first pointed out relative simultaneity thus the very essence of the special theory of relativity by studying the Lorentz transform? A. Poincare did a few years before the 1905 plagiarized papers of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Q. Who first pointed out space and time form a mathematical coordinate? A. Technically, it was H. G. Wells. However, if anyone wants to credit Minkowski for that, I have no objections. In 1908, Minkowski noticed that he could write down the Lorentz transform into one single equation. Q. Who first conceived curved space? A. It was Gauss. The same genius who as a kid was able to add all the numbers from 1 to 100 in a few seconds. Q. Who first described mathematically what curved space is? A. It was Gauss’s student Riemann. It was also Riemann who first proposed gravity as a manifestation of curved space. Q. Who first proposed gravity as a curvature in spacetime? A. Right after Minkowski described space and time as a mathematical coordinate, his buddies at Goettingen such as Hilbert, Klein, Schwarzschild had already extended Riemann’s proposal of gravity being a curvature in space into spacetime. Space can be hopeless curved, but as long as there exists no gravitational time dilation, there exists no gravity. Q. Who first discovered the Einstein field equations? A. Towards the late summer of 1915, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar discovered Gerber’s work on Mercury’s orbital advance. Instead of modifying the Newtonian gravitational potential to be speed dependent, Einstein did it by adding a second-order term. The plagiarist was still a nitwit. The mathematics was all wrong. Nevertheless, the liar did claim he had solved Mercury’s orbital advance. Hilbert believed the nitwit’s story without seeing the actual calculation. In doing so, Hilbert revealed his own nonsense --- the Lagrangian to the BS Einstein-Hilbert action. The field equations can then be derived by taking the partial derivative with respect to each element of the inverse of the metric. MatheMAGICal surgery is also required along the alchemical process. So, it was Hilbert who first derived the field equations. Q. Who first discovered the Schwarzschild metric? A. In 1916, Schwarzschild started to solve the field equations with the common spherically symmetric polar coordinate system. However, realizing the Ricci tensor can be simplified drastically if the metric yields a determinate of -1. Representing the geometry, the metric with the polar coordinate system does not yield a determinant of -1. So, he set up to transform the polar coordinate system into one that is very non-linear and highly complex but with a metric yielding a determinant of -1. There are actually an infinite number of solutions, but Schwarzschild found one related to the Schwarzschild metric. He still had to convert it back to the polar coordinate system. The result was Schwarzschild’s original solution. Hilbert saw that the Schwarzschild solution is much simpler than Schwarzschild’s original solution. Knowing the field equations were a pile of crap, he walked away from them and allowed Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar to claim the credit that the plagiarist did not even deserve. Q. Was there really nothing that Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar had contributed? A. There is. That is the Cosmological constant. Poison when first wrote down the Poison’s equation had all the right to do so. He decided not to do such a foolish thing. Cosmological constant means a negative mass density in vacuum. The concept is utterly ridiculous and absurdity beyond any imagination. Thus, ** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM ** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY ** CONJECTURE IS REALITY ** FAITH IS THEORY ** LYING IS TEACHING ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote in message d68ed94b-0359-4926-a0b8-f235af34281b@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com [snip] > Thus, > ** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ** LYING IS TEACHING > ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING ** KOOBEE WUBLEE IS A RETIRED ENGINEER Dirk Vdm In sci.physics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote: > Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote in message > d68ed94b-0359-4926-a0b8-f235af34281b@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Dirk Vdm I highly doubt being a retired engineer is an issue of any sort as I know a lot of engineers, retired and otherwise, with a good handle on the work of Einstein and derivatives. However the onset of dementia is a likely suspect.  SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. On Nov 19, 3:35 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > However the onset of dementia is a likely suspect. Claiming that does assume the claimer does not suffer dementia himself. Go tell that to your psychiatrist. <shrug> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 12kev5-sd.ln1@mail.specsol.com > In sci.physics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote: >> Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > know a lot of engineers, retired and otherwise, with a good handle > on the work of Einstein and derivatives. Right, sure. But on *this* forum I know of only one (1!) with a good handle. Dirk Vdm > However the onset of dementia is a likely suspect. > > -- > Jim Pennino > > Remove .spam.sux to reply. On Nov 19, 6:35 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoor...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote: <snip> > > ** KOOBEE WUBLEE IS A RETIRED ENGINEER > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > Jim Pennino It makes you wonder how Dirk would have treated Einstein himself, who was merely a wannabe teacher who finally landed a job as assistant examiner at the patent office. -kk- kk <mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity" and former reviewer of http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm aka Kurt Kingston, aka Dark Energy, aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus, aka TymBuk2, aka Cadwgan Gedrych, aka 2ndPostulateDude, aka SRdude, aka Edward Travis, aka Ron Aikas, aka Roy Royce, aka John Reid, aka Martin Miller aka Wings of Truth aka delta-T wrote in message 09d71b35-9711-4321-8154-c587c16f7d47@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com > On Nov 19, 6:35 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoor...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > who finally landed a job as assistant examiner at > the patent office. It makes one wonder why a person (huh, person?) would use 16 (and probably much more) names to lay an egg. Does it hurt, Brian? Dirk Vdm [snip] >Q. Who first discovered the Einstein field equations? > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >surgery is also required along the alchemical process. So, it was >Hilbert who first derived the field equations. It has been abundantly established that you do not know anything about the field equations. [snip rest] > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > It has been abundantly established that you do not know anything about > the field equations. Neither do you. It is not because you can drive a car that you can build one, or even know how it works. Uwe Hayek. SignatureAls ik nu op dit moment geld transfereer [in België] naar een andere rekening staat dat een uur later daar gecrediteerd. -- Boutros Gali, realiteitsdeskundige. >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Uwe Hayek. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/bda48e44 5c49364e Kooby couldn't find any errors. You couldn't after the last time I showed it to you. Did you discover something since the last time I gave you this, or are you just making sh.t up as usual? > A. Zeynel at sci.physics.research asked the following. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > A. Galileo did. That was almost 300 years before Einstein the > nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Yes, Galileo did. > Q. Who first discovered the principle of equivalence? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > understood the Newtonian law of gravity claimed the principle of > equivalence was his own discovery. This is more or less right, too. > Q. Who first surmised/postulated the constancy in the speed of light? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Galilean transform. Notice Voigt did not have to address the validity > in the principle of relativity. This is also right. > Q. Who first discovered the Lorentz transform? > > A. Noticing the Voigt transform can be modified to allow for the > principle of relativity, Larmor wrote down the Lorentz transform in > 1897 or 1898 time frame. That is also right. > Q. Who first pointed out relative simultaneity thus the very essence > of the special theory of relativity by studying the Lorentz transform? > > A. Poincare did a few years before the 1905 plagiarized papers of > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. This is almost right. Poincare didn't get it quite right, but he was onto the idea. > Q. Who first pointed out space and time form a mathematical > coordinate? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > noticed that he could write down the Lorentz transform into one single > equation. Yes, this is also right. > Q. Who first conceived curved space? > > A. It was Gauss. The same genius who as a kid was able to add all > the numbers from 1 to 100 in a few seconds. Using a simple trick, 50 pairs that add up to 101 give you 5050 as the sum. This is clever but not astounding. But your point about curved space is noted. > Q. Who first described mathematically what curved space is? > > A. It was Gauss’s student Riemann. It was also Riemann who first > proposed gravity as a manifestation of curved space. Also right. > Q. Who first proposed gravity as a curvature in spacetime? > > A. Right after Minkowski described space and time as a mathematical > coordinate, his buddies at Goettingen such as Hilbert, Klein, > Schwarzschild had already extended Riemann’s proposal of gravity being > a curvature in space into spacetime. Yes, they had the germ of the idea. Lots of people recognized that curvature could mimic tidal effects, which is where the variation from the principle of equivalence makes itself known. > Space can be hopeless curved, > but as long as there exists no gravitational time dilation, there [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > surgery is also required along the alchemical process. So, it was > Hilbert who first derived the field equations. This is debatable historically, but it certainly was concurrent, which is why they are often called the Einstein-Hilbert field equations. > Q. Who first discovered the Schwarzschild metric? > > A. In 1916, Schwarzschild started to solve the field equations with > the common spherically symmetric polar coordinate system. Well, yes, of course, which is why it's called the Schwarzchild metric and not the Einstein metric. > However, > realizing the Ricci tensor can be simplified drastically if the metric [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Q. Was there really nothing that Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, > and the liar had contributed? Well, yes, quite a bit. Genius often manifests itself in *synthesis* and *follow-through*, rather than being the sole owner and originator of all of the ideas embodied in the work. This is commonplace. Newton, for example, owes his first law of motion solely to Galileo, and most of the laws that drive his law of gravitation were owed to Kepler. In addition, Newton had grave reservations about the implied "action at a distance" and it wasn't until Gauss that the notion of a field as a physical entity was established. The fact that Newton acknowledged that his profound acts of synthesis rested on results by others (hence his statement that he "stood on the shoulders of giants") in no way diminishes the impact that he had on physics, nor diminishes his deserved recognition. The same is true for *any* prominent physicist -- their work is often the assembly of initial insights and baby steps taken by contemporaries. You have it in your head that recognition of the sort bestowed upon Einstein should be (in your view) awarded ONLY to those who can claim sole and whole ownership of every seminal idea, and who continued to generate every significant result of the theory following. There is not a single physicist, living or dead, who would meet that bar. Simply put, physicists are awarded recognition for things that you don't feel are deserving of recognition. That's fine; that's your opinion. It's not shared. > A. There is. That is the Cosmological constant. Poison when first > wrote down the Poison’s equation had all the right to do so. He [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ** LYING IS TEACHING > ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING [...] >> Q. Who first discovered the Einstein field equations? >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >This is debatable historically, but it certainly was concurrent, which >is why they are often called the Einstein-Hilbert field equations. The history is right but the math is dead f.cking wrong. This is all he does. He mixes in a little correct history with his anti-Einstein agenda. Pretty funny considering he gets the math wrong every time. >> Q. Who first discovered the Schwarzschild metric? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> yields a determinate of -1. Representing the geometry, the metric >> with the polar coordinate system does not yield a determinant of -1. This is also hilariously wrong. >> So, he set up to transform the polar coordinate system into one that >> is very non-linear and highly complex but with a metric yielding a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar to claim the credit that the >> plagiarist did not even deserve. As is this. [...] > On Nov 19, 2:35 pm, Koobee wrote: > > Q. Who first characterized the principle of relativity? > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > This is almost right. Poincare didn't get it quite right, but he was > onto the idea. Well, only through faith, you can blend the simple concept of relative simultaneity into your own political goal. There is nothing ingenious about any interpretation to a set of mathematical equations. The genius is to derive the mathematical equations. Anyone can interpret them to whatever he wishes it to be. As long as it is based on the mathematics, there is no way one can prove him wrong. <shrug> > > Q. Who first pointed out space and time form a mathematical > > coordinate? [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > > Q. Who first discovered the Einstein field equations? Yes, so you agree on the actual historic account. Arguing for otherwise is fruitless and malevolent in intention. <shrug> > > Q. Who first discovered the Einstein field equations? > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > This is debatable historically, but it certainly was concurrent, which > is why they are often called the Einstein-Hilbert field equations. So, where is your argument? > > Q. Who first discovered the Schwarzschild metric? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well, yes, of course, which is why it's called the Schwarzchild metric > and not the Einstein metric. Canonizing saints are done by the worshippers. <shrug> > > However, > > realizing the Ricci tensor can be simplified drastically if the metric [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > and *follow-through*, rather than being the sole owner and originator > of all of the ideas embodied in the work. And how exactly did Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar who did not contribute to a small fraction of discover manage to “synthesize” and “follow-through”? By meaningless interpretations? If someone interprets the Lorentz transform to involve fairies, elves, and goblins, you can never prove him wrong. <shrug> > This is commonplace. Newton, > for example, owes his first law of motion solely to Galileo, and most > of the laws that drive his law of gravitation were owed to Kepler. Yes, also not to forget the principle of equivalence. <shrug> > In > addition, Newton had grave reservations about the implied "action at a > distance" and it wasn't until Gauss that the notion of a field as a > physical entity was established. Right, (forget Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar) the worshippers of GR fail to acknowledge why mass causes curvature in spacetime. Perhaps, they choose to stand on the shoulders of amoebas despite amoebas are known not to have any shoulders. <shrug> > The fact that Newton acknowledged that his profound acts of synthesis > rested on results by others (hence his statement that he "stood on the > shoulders of giants") in no way diminishes the impact that he had on > physics, nor diminishes his deserved recognition. Einstein on the other hand never chose to stand on his very own shoulders --- a task physically impossible but the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar managed to do so. <shrug> > The same is true for *any* prominent physicist -- their work is often > the assembly of initial insights and baby steps taken by > contemporaries. That does not apply to Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug> > You have it in your head that recognition of the sort bestowed upon > Einstein should be (in your view) awarded ONLY to those who can claim > sole and whole ownership of every seminal idea, and who continued to > generate every significant result of the theory following. No, you are wrong. I am merely pointing out an amoeba should not be worshipped as a demigod. <shrug> > There is not a single physicist, living or dead, who would meet that > bar. Simply put, physicists are awarded recognition for things that > you don't feel are deserving of recognition. That's fine; that's your > opinion. It's not shared. Yes, I actually agree, but not to amoebas and Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug> > > A. There is. That is the Cosmological constant. Poison when first > > wrote down the Poison’s equation had all the right to do so. He [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > ** LYING IS TEACHING > > ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING Einstein couldn't deny the appearence of the relative motion. Moving through space objects will appear to move around you at the same speed. The Sun has the appearence of motion which is created by the Earth's rotation. Mitch Raemsch > A. Zeynel at sci.physics.research asked the following. > [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > ** LYING IS TEACHING > ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING LOL...Who created Koobies? Some guy with $10 whose condom broke. > > "if Einstein came back to Earth he would not recognize his theory and > > he would be told to study MTW if he wanted to learn General [quoted text clipped - 116 lines] > LOL...Who created Koobies? > Some guy with $10 whose condom broke. LOL, Ken. At least, Koobee Wublee knows who his father definitively is. On the other hand, you can call the following father, each with a quantum probability. ** Kennedy ** Johnson ** Bush ** Reagan ** Jackson ** Obama :-) > > "if Einstein came back to Earth he would not recognize his theory and > > he would be told to study MTW if he wanted to learn General [quoted text clipped - 116 lines] > LOL...Who created Koobies? > Some guy with $10 whose condom broke. LOL, Ken. At least, Koobee Wublee knows who his father definitively is. On the other hand, you can call the following father, each with a quantum probability. ** Kennedy ** Johnson ** Bush ** Reagan ** Jackson ** Obama And thousands of other surnames. Tucker is just a random guess. :-) Tell me that you are amused by my innocent remark. Koobalator. > > LOL...Who created Koobies? > > Some guy with $10 whose condom broke. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Tell me that you are amused by my innocent remark. The obsession with AE by some in this group is more than his wife did! He was a poor SOB that worked his way up using hard work, even AE thought it queer he became a celebrity. Your ilk is like a nutcase stalker, get over it already, move on, get a life. Regards Ken > Koobalator. Attempting to call me other than Koobee Wublee is unnecessarily childish. <shrug> > > LOL, Ken. At least, Koobee Wublee knows who his father definitively > > is. On the other hand, you can call the following father, each with a [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > The obsession with AE by some in this group > is more than his wife did! Let’s see who is actually obsessed with Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. I have profiled Einstein as a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar with support both historically and mathematically. In doing so, you get all bend out of shape. Your admiration for someone like Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar collides with reality, and that result is that you become deeply bruised emotionally. Your messiah Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar in reality was nobody. You are the one who is deeply obsessed with Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug> > He was a poor SOB > that worked his way up using hard work, He got a lot of help. Besides, any gardener has done more hard work in a day than Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar in a life time. <shrug> > even > AE thought it queer he became a celebrity. This is not true. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar enjoyed to be labeled as a celebrity. He talked a lot. He knew how to talk. <shrug> > Your ilk is like a nutcase stalker, get over > it already, move on, get a life. I already have a life. Being such obsessed with Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar being your messiah, the question is “do you”? Woobalator. > > Koobalator. > > Attempting to call me other than Koobee Wublee is unnecessarily > childish. <shrug> I stand corrected. ... > > The obsession with AE by some in this group > > is more than his wife did! [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > I already have a life. What? In your parents basement?? >Being such obsessed with Einstein the nitwit, > the plagiarist, and the liar being ... You nailed it, you have an OCD on a fella who died over 50 years ago. I have discussed AE with older fellow theoreticians who have met him, and within that rareified group he was respected, END of STORY. Ken > Woobalator. > > > Attempting to call me other than Koobee Wublee is unnecessarily > > childish. <shrug> > > I stand corrected. So do I. <shrug> > > Let’s see who is actually obsessed with Einstein the nitwit, the > > plagiarist, and the liar. I have profiled Einstein as a nitwit, a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > What? In your parents basement?? No, sounds like you are still living in your parents’ basement! > >Being such obsessed with Einstein the nitwit, > > the plagiarist, and the liar being > > ... > > You nailed it, As usual. <shrug> > you have an OCD on a fella who > died over 50 years ago. I merely point out what Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar truly was. <shrug> > I have discussed AE > with older fellow theoreticians who have met > him, No, you have whoreshipped Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar with other Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug> > and within that rareified group he was > respected, Rare group. Most of the physicists are whoreshippers of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug> > END of STORY. We shall see if you are truly sincere or not. Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. He was nobody. <shrug> That is the END OF STORY. “The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best --- and therefore never scrutinize or question.” --- Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002), naturalist On Nov 21, 9:26 pm, Kookee Wukee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote: Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. He was nobody. Riiight :-) Then why do you spend so much time swallowing your own bile and licking your own sh.t, dick? Hi Koobeeconked > > Woobalator. > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > a plagiarist, and a liar. He was nobody. <shrug> That is the END OF > STORY. AE was TIME Magazine's Man of the Century, (I presume you get TIME in your parent's basement padded cell). Who do you think should have been TIME"S Man of the century? > “The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best --- and > therefore never scrutinize or question.” --- Stephen Jay Gould > (1941-2002), naturalist Agreed, I'm a naturist too. Ken > Agreed, I'm a naturist too. So am I... I've just studied the Nature of Physical Reality*, and proved that relativity is not nature... it is probably either religion or magic, or a mixture of both... * http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/89c54bc4ad1f20a4?sc oring=d& >>Agreed, I'm a naturist too. > > So am I... I've just studied the Nature of Physical Reality*, and > proved that relativity is not nature... You have proved that the strich theory of relativity is wrong and incompetent and not nature. it is probably either religion > or magic, or a mixture of both... If strich studies, he can learn about Einstein's theory of relativity and reject the strich theory of relativity which seems to be strich's religion. > * > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/89c54bc4ad1f20a4?sc oring=d& > If strich studies... what do you know about study? you don't even have a college degree! that programming diploma you got in jail does not count. >>Agreed, I'm a naturist too. > > So am I... I've just studied the Nature of Physical Reality*, and > proved that relativity is not nature... What you have proved is that your ignorant interpretation of relativity is not nature. Real relativity is. it is probably either religion > or magic, or a mixture of both... strich relativity is a mixture of ignorance and ego. Einstein relativity represents nature. > * > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/89c54bc4ad1f20a4?sc oring=d& > >>Agreed, I'm a naturist too. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What you have proved is that your ignorant interpretation of relativity > is not nature. Real relativity is. What you have proved is that a programmer like you can easily defend relativity using the same denial and trolling that regular relativists normally do. No logic is needed to defend relativity. Just keep asserting the same dogmas and fallacies. > Hi Koobeeconked More infantile babbling, I see. Just because your idol Einstein is exposed by yours truly to be a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar, you don’t have to behave like a 4-year-old stamping on his feet after been told “no”. <shrug> > > We shall see if you are truly sincere or not. Einstein was a nitwit, > > a plagiarist, and a liar. He was nobody. <shrug> That is the END OF > > STORY. > > AE was TIME Magazine's Man of the Century, Big f.cking deal! > (I presume > you get TIME in your parent's basement padded cell). Actually, no. > Who do you think should have been TIME"S Man of the > century? How about the existence of one man that can decide which side won WWII? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris > > “The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best --- and > > therefore never scrutinize or question.” --- Stephen Jay Gould > > (1941-2002), naturalist > > Agreed, I'm a naturist too. No, Ken. You are no naturalist. You are just a sheeple who possesses no intellectual capability to dissimulate any information. Just how many years have you been staring at Weinberg’s book on GR? I can count at least 40. And do you understand what Lagrangian is? No. <shrug> Hi Koobilite. [...] > > Who do you think should have been TIME"S Man of the > > century? > > How about the existence of one man that can decide which side won > WWII?> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris I very much respect your choice, indeed my choice is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Marshall > > Agreed, I'm a naturist too. > > No, Ken. You are no naturalist. ***NATURIST*** > And do you understand what Lagrangian is? When I get time I'll try to explain it to Koobilite again! Regards Ken S. Tucker > Q. Who first discovered the Einstein field equations? > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > surgery is also required along the alchemical process. So, it was > Hilbert who first derived the field equations. During the years preceding 1916, Einstein published extensively on his developing ideas towards an "allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie." From 1913 to 1915 alone, I count at least NINE major publications on the subject, as well as many letters and personal discussions with other researchers, including Hilbert! Gravitation was Einstein's obsession, and nobody working in the field could have been unaware of Einstein's thoughts on the subject. Given Hilbert's superior mathematical skills, it is not surprising that, inspired by Einstein's writings and personal communications, he should have been able to rapidly develop a theory that was almost, but not quite equivalent to general relativity. Hilbert's paper was published several days before Einstein's paper, but the evidence shows that Hilbert modified his paper in proof, possibly/probably after learning of Einstein's correct field equations. Note that Hilbert himself never claimed priority, and the argument against your deliberate misinterpretation of history is complete. Jerry > > Q. Who first discovered the Einstein field equations? > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > on his developing ideas towards an "allgemeinen > Relativitätstheorie." Oh, you mean the “Entwurf” stuff heavily dependent on coordinate transformation. The mathematics was all done by Marcel Grossmann. <shrug> Newton discovered the law of gravity by observing how a falling apple would behave in gravity. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar on the other hand tried to imagine himself as that falling apple and expected to better Newton on the law of gravity. Newton’s approach is scientific while the nitwit’s idea is utterly stupid. Somebody, please draw a cartoon showing Einstein and Grossmann holding hands while falling and say “Hey, look, mom! Marcel and I are falling! And we expect to crack the secret of gravity in doing so!” As Professor Roberts had skillfully pointed out, a free falling object would eventually meet the ground in a tragic end. <shrug> > From 1913 to 1915 alone, I count at least > NINE major publications on the subject, as well as many letters > and personal discussions with other researchers, including > Hilbert! Can you list them all? I would like to go over them with you one by one. > Gravitation was Einstein's obsession, and nobody > working in the field could have been unaware of Einstein's > thoughts on the subject. Who gives a damn about some nitwit thinking that he can discover the secret of gravity by free falling? <shrug> > Given Hilbert's superior mathematical skills, it is not > surprising that, inspired by Einstein's writings and personal > communications, he should have been able to rapidly develop a > theory that was almost, but not quite equivalent to general > relativity. Well, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was so disgusted with Grossmann’s work that “Entwurf” did not get anywhere. So, he tried to enlist Hilbert’s help. So what? After all, in 1908, Hilbert, Klein, Minkowski, and Schwarzschild had already started working on gravitation based on the curvature of spacetime. They just had no clues on how to resolve the metric. <shrug> > Hilbert's paper was published several days before > Einstein's paper, Yes, a whopping 5 days. <shrug> > but the evidence shows that Hilbert modified > his paper in proof, possibly/probably after learning of > Einstein's correct field equations. Bullshit! The evidence shows someone who worships Einstein went to the library of Goettingen and mutilated that historic document. However, that someone did not understand the mathematics involved. The forensic supporting me is all in the mathematics itself. It is just as Professor Lugunov had suggested. Once Hilbert came up with the bullshit Lagrangian, the field equations would reveal themselves. It is only a matter of partial differential operations. <shrug> The crucial step is the following. @det(g)/@g^ij = - det(g) / g^ij Where ** det(g) = determinant of the metric g ** g^ij = elements to the inverse of g ** g_ij = elements to the metric g That actually yields the following field equations. R_ij - R / g^ij / 2 = rho c^2 / H / g^ij / 2 Where ** R_ij = elements to Ricci tensor ** R = Ricci scalar ** rho = mass density ** H = constant to Lagrangian of Einstein-Hilbert action And not the historically accepted version below. R_ij - R g_ij / 2 = rho c^2 g_ij / H / 2 Notice they are the same when the metric g is diagonal. > Note that Hilbert himself never claimed priority, Hilbert was a very intelligent man. He knew his so-called Lagrangian was totally bullshit and his field equations had errors as I have shown above. Don’t under-estimate Hilbert. <shrug> > and the argument against your deliberate misinterpretation > of history is complete. Only through faith, your argument is sound, and there is no way I can argue against your faith. <shrug> [...] >Bullshit! The evidence shows someone who worships Einstein went to >the library of Goettingen and mutilated that historic document. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >@det(g)/@g^ij = - det(g) / g^ij Amazing how you still do not understand why this is wrong. >Where > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >R_ij - R / g^ij / 2 = rho c^2 / H / g^ij / 2 Oh look, you are doing it again. Nice to see you are making the same mistakes over and over while simultaneously blaming others for the nonsense that you get. The derivation of the field equations does not give this. I attempted to walk you through the derivation but you are just too stupid to understand. >Where > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >R_ij - R g_ij / 2 = rho c^2 g_ij / H / 2 This is also wrong. The right hand side of the field equations was pulled out of your a.s. >Notice they are the same when the metric g is diagonal. Notice how you are too stupid to process the subject intelligently? The first 'version' doesn't even have the right index placements, and the second was something you admitted you made up. Nothing you wrote is relevant to GR. >> Note that Hilbert himself never claimed priority, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Only through faith, your argument is sound, and there is no way I can >argue against your faith. <shrug> Projection. a) You can not show where you learned the subject. b) You can not demonstrate an understanding of the subject. c) You can not provide even one reference that agrees with your version of the mathematics. Faith is _the only thing_ you have. > >Bullshit! The evidence shows someone who worships Einstein went to > >the library of Goettingen and mutilated that historic document. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > [ignorance of a multi-year super-senior snipped] > >Notice they are the same when the metric g is diagonal. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the second was something you admitted you made up. Nothing you wrote > is relevant to GR. I shall stop here. You are a f.cking ignorant moron. <shrug> >> >Bullshit! The evidence shows someone who worships Einstein went to >> >the library of Goettingen and mutilated that historic document. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > >I shall stop here. You are a f.cking ignorant moron. <shrug> By snipping and running like this, you gave me the satisfaction of knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that you know I am right. > >That actually yields the following field equations. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > By snipping and running like this, you gave me the satisfaction of > knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that you know I am right. With remarks like that, it is no wonder that you are still a multi- year super-senior today. You don’t even understand how indices work. The rest just gives me satisfaction snipping all your whining garbage (emphasized) all full of crap. <shrug> >> >That actually yields the following field equations. >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >With remarks like that, it is no wonder that you are still a multi- >year super-senior today. You dont even understand how indices work. R_ij - R / g^ij / 2 = rho c^2 / H / g^ij / 2 Glass houses, kooby. Don't insult my education when you make repeated and glaring errors. >The rest just gives me satisfaction snipping all your whining garbage >(emphasized) all full of crap. <shrug> > >With remarks like that, it is no wonder that you are still a multi- > >year super-senior today. You don’t even understand how indices work. > > R_ij - R / g^ij / 2 = rho c^2 / H / g^ij / 2 > > Glass houses, kooby. Hmm... You need to consult a psychiatrist after seeing a glass house in that equation above. <shrug> > Don't insult my education when you make repeated > and glaring errors. I am not insulting your education. I am merely pointing the fact that you remain a multi-year super-senior. Is my profile of you incorrect? If so, you need to let me know. <shrug> > >The rest just gives me satisfaction snipping all your whining garbage > >(emphasized) all full of crap. >> >With remarks like that, it is no wonder that you are still a multi- >> >year super-senior today. You dont even understand how indices work. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Hmm... You need to consult a psychiatrist after seeing a glass house >in that equation above. <shrug> You say I don't know how indices work, then you write: R_ij - R / g^ij / 2 = rho c^2 / H / g^ij / 2 Yeah ok. >> Don't insult my education when you make repeated >> and glaring errors. > >I am not insulting your education. I am merely pointing the fact that >you remain a multi-year super-senior. Is my profile of you >incorrect? If so, you need to let me know. <shrug> Only did it once, and you ignored it. No point in repeating to a liar. >> >The rest just gives me satisfaction snipping all your whining garbage >> >(emphasized) all full of crap. Jerry wrote on Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:10:33 -0800: >> Q. Who first discovered the Einstein field equations? >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > working in the field could have been unaware of Einstein's thoughts on > the subject. This is as saying relativity was Poincaré obsesion, who started to publish in the topic even so early as 1898 "and nobody working in the field could have been unaware of Poincaré's thoughts on the subject" However, when asked about if knew Poincaré works, Einstein lied. Why? And as a related note. Poincaré was already working in gravitation by 1906. Poincaré was the first who computed *special* relativistic corrections to perihelion anomaly (and noticed was insufficient for explain the whole anomaly) and predicted gravitational waves. > Given Hilbert's superior mathematical skills, it is not surprising that, > inspired by Einstein's writings and personal communications, he should > have been able to rapidly develop a theory that was almost, but not > quite equivalent to general relativity. You mix apples and oranges. Hilbert unified theory was not equivalent to general relativity because Hilbert was working in an unified theory would include electromagnetism. However, the field equations that Hilbert obtained are those of General relativity. And the action for General Relativity is named the Einstein- Hilbert action http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein-Hilbert_action The equations of field of GR arise from the action by the usual variational method. > Hilbert's paper was published > several days before Einstein's paper, but the evidence shows that > Hilbert modified his paper in proof, possibly/probably after learning of > Einstein's correct field equations. Probably you mean Corry, Renn, and Stachel article published in Science in 1997. This article has been discredited as "unfounded" by many historians on General Relativity. It is right that Corry, Renn, and Stachel wrote "nowhere in the whole page proofs the correct equations can be found". But they 'forgot' to say that the proofs did not contained the field equations because the page containing the equations had been ***cut-off***. > Note that Hilbert himself never claimed priority, Einstein lied Hilbert about research result priorities and submission dates of papers. Moreover, in his writting Hilbert always considered the equations had originated from him. Signaturehttp://www.canonicalscience.org/ >A. Zeynel at sci.physics.research asked the following. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >The following questions and answers should address that. >Q. Who first discovered the Einstein field equations? > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >surgery is also required along the alchemical process. So, it was >Hilbert who first derived the field equations. [Hammond] Your answer is a lot of sham anti-intellectual poppycock bersides being flat out amateur misinformation. Fact is Einstein and Fokker first stumbled on the scalar version of the field equations, R=kT, in a famous joint paper by them in 1914 in which they analysed Gunnar Nordstorm's celebrated 1913 idea of producing a Relativistic theory of gravitation by simply replacing the 3D Laplacian in Poisson's equation with the 4D wave operator. Nordstrom was famous for this simple idea and his resulting gravitational theory was widely known when Einstein and Fokker analysed it in depth and discovered that it lead to the completely astounding and tantalyzing result: R = kT which is the scalar version of the now well known Einstein Field Equations which Einstein discovered the next year, in 1915. The Nordstrom/Einstein-Fokker result of 1914 was historic because it is the first time a geometric quantity (curvature-R) was equated with a physical quantity (the stress-energy tensor-T). It is reported that Einstein was visibly elated if not outright ecstatic by this result. Bolstered by this result which fell out of Nordstrom's scalar gravity theory, Einstein then rightly figured that a tensor gravity theory would probably result in a tensor version of Nordstrom's field equation. The following year of course, bolstered by this result, he discovered the full blown tensor version of the field equations: Ruv = k Tuv and the rest as we know, is history. Unfortunately, Nordstrom fell in love with a beautiful young German girl and with the financial help of Bohr and Einstein they eloped to Finland where, while engaged in experiments on Radium Gunnar tragically died of radioactivity. ===================================== HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god mirror site: http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3) http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 ===================================== > >"if Einstein came back to Earth he would not recognize his theory and > >he would be told to study MTW if he wanted to learn General [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Your answer is a lot of sham anti-intellectual poppycock > bersides being flat out amateur misinformation. Oh, whatever that is supposed to mean as a reverend of liberal interpretation to the Bible. > Fact is Einstein and Fokker first stumbled on the scalar > version of the field equations, R=kT, in a famous joint [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > R = kT Yes, the passages read like Genesis. <shrug> > which is the scalar version of the now well known Einstein > Field Equations which Einstein discovered the next year, in > 1915. Not quite, reverend. > The Nordstrom/Einstein-Fokker result of 1914 was historic > because it is the first time a geometric quantity > (curvature-R) was equated with a physical quantity (the > stress-energy tensor-T). It is reported that Einstein was > visibly elated if not outright ecstatic by this result. So, were you there to observe Einstein’s reaction? > Bolstered by this result which fell out of Nordstrom's > scalar gravity theory, Einstein then rightly figured that a > tensor gravity theory would probably result in a tensor > version of Nordstrom's field equation. You are giving way too much credit to the followers of Moses. <shrug> Moses was the one who received the Commandments not the others. Christoffel was the one who derived the Christoffel symbols and not the others. <shrug> > The following year of course, bolstered by this result, > he discovered the full blown tensor version of the field [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > and the rest as we know, is history. But that is not correct. <shrug> > Unfortunately, Nordstrom fell in love with a beautiful > young German girl and with the financial help of Bohr and > Einstein they eloped to Finland where, while engaged in > experiments on Radium Gunnar tragically died of > radioactivity. So, the great reverend finds his prophet in Nordstrom instead of Einstein. Oh, well. That leaves a lot of room for great funs in debating with the great reverend of them all. We shall discuss this again. >> >"if Einstein came back to Earth he would not recognize his theory and >> >he would be told to study MTW if he wanted to learn General [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > >Not quite, reverend. [Hammond] I'm not a "reverend" Sturmeister, I'm an M.S. in Physics. R=kT certainly IS the scalar EFE. This equation results from multiplying the tensor EFE by g^uv and contracting. >> The Nordstrom/Einstein-Fokker result of 1914 was historic >> because it is the first time a geometric quantity [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >So, were you there to observe Einsteins reaction? [Hammond] There were plenty of witnesses. Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordstr%C3%B6m's_theory_of_gravitation reports the following: "Einstein took the first opportunity to proclaim his approval of Nordstrom's theory. In a keynote address to the annual meeting of the Society of German Scientists and Physicians, given in Vienna on Sept. 23, 1913, Einstein surveyed the state of the art, declaring that only his own work... and the ... theory of Nordström were worthy of consideration." and at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordstr%C3%B6m%27s_theory_of_gravitation Wikipedia describes Einstein as "GLEEFUL" that Nordstrom's theory resulted in the field equation R=24piT : "Einstein gleefully pointed out that this equation (R=24piT) takes the form ... of a class of theories which Einstein had studied with Grossmann." >> Bolstered by this result which fell out of Nordstrom's >> scalar gravity theory, Einstein then rightly figured that a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >others. Christoffel was the one who derived the Christoffel symbols >and not the others. <shrug> [Hammond] Physics is not interested in your compulsive obsession with Jewish arcana Herr Sturmeister. >> The following year of course, bolstered by this result, >> he discovered the full blown tensor version of the field [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >But that is not correct. <shrug> [Hammond] Ruv in this equation denotes the "traceless" Ricci tensor Sturmeister, a subtlety which is not necessary to point out at a low brow Usenet bund rally such as this. >> Unfortunately, Nordstrom fell in love with a beautiful >> young German girl and with the financial help of Bohr and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >We shall discuss this again. [Hammond] I doubt it. ===================================== HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god mirror site: http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3) http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 ===================================== [...] George, you are the operating definition of "crazy, not stupid". <snip no content> ><snip no content> Never change, George. You are a beautiful unique snowflake. <snip no content> >> <snip no content> > > Never change, George. You are a beautiful unique snowflake. Mostly without the snow. Marc > I'm not a "reverend" Sturmeister, I'm an M.S. in Physics. Well, you have been preaching about God in GR. It might as well that you are a reverend. There is no better place to preach than among the Einstein Dingleberries. After all, they are inundated with the religious nature of SR and GR. <shrug> > R=kT certainly IS the scalar EFE. This equation results > from multiplying the tensor EFE by g^uv and contracting. Well, if you want to get down to the very technical, I will certainly entertain a great reverend as yourself. Starting with the Einstein field equations below, R_ij – R g_ij / 2 = rho c^2 g_ij / H / 2 As per your preaching, let’s multiply both sides by g^ij. Thus, we have g^ij R_ij – R g^ij g_ij / 2 = rho c^2 g^ij g_ij / H / 2 Or R – 2 R = 2 rho c^2 / H Or R = - 2 rho c^2 / H Where ** g^ij g_ij = 4 in 4-dimensional spactime If you try to reconcile yourself with Poisson’s equation, you end up with the following with the constant H identified. R_ij – R g_ij / 2 = 2 pi G T_j / c^2 Where ** T_ij = rho c^2 g_ij Want to go there? > >So, were you there to observe Einstein’s reaction? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > art, declaring that only his own work... and the ... > theory of Nordström were worthy of consideration." I do not give any credibility to a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug> > and at: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordstr%C3%B6m%27s_theory_of_gravitation [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (R=24piT) takes the form ... of a class of theories > which Einstein had studied with Grossmann." Einstein, the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar did not understand how the Ricci scalar is derived. <shrug> Well, most of the physicists today do not either. Does the great reverend? > >You are giving way too much credit to the followers of Moses. > ><shrug> Moses was the one who received the Commandments not the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Physics is not interested in your compulsive obsession > with Jewish arcana Herr Sturmeister. Physics should be backed up by sound mathematics. That should not be too much to ask whether Jews are involved or not. <shrug> > Ruv in this equation denotes the "traceless" Ricci tensor > Sturmeister, a subtlety which is not necessary to point out > at a low brow Usenet bund rally such as this. Ruv is the Ricci tensor. Are you confused, great reverend? > >So, the great reverend finds his prophet in Nordstrom instead of > >Einstein. Oh, well. That leaves a lot of room for great funs in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I doubt it. Oh, come on, great reverend. Your preaching has almost touched my heart. Are you going to quit now to save my soul? George Hammond wrote on Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:50:16 +0000: >>Q. Who first discovered the Einstein field equations? >> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Ruv = k Tuv > and the rest as we know, is history. Which are the *incorrect* field equations that Einstein proposed in his several papers of November before reading the *correct* field equations from Hilbert paper Einstein received. Signaturehttp://www.canonicalscience.org/ "Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote on Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:34:28 +0100: > George Hammond wrote on Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:50:16 +0000: >> which is the scalar version of the now well known Einstein Field >> Equations which Einstein discovered the next year, in 1915. (...) >> The following year of course, bolstered by this result, >> he discovered the full blown tensor version of the field equations: >> >> Ruv = k Tuv >> and the rest as we know, is history. Which are the *incorrect* field equations that Einstein proposed in his several papers of November [of 1915 as you correctly point] before reading the *correct* field equations from Hilbert paper Einstein received. Signaturehttp://www.canonicalscience.org/ [...] > The following year of course, bolstered by this result, >he discovered the full blown tensor version of the field [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >and the rest as we know, is history. Those aren't the Einstein field equations. > Unfortunately, Nordstrom fell in love with a beautiful >young German girl and with the financial help of Bohr and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 >===================================== >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Those aren't the Einstein field equations. [Hammond] As I said to Koober: Ruv in this equation denotes the "traceless" Ricci tensor Sturmeister, a subtlety which is not necessary to point out at a low brow Usenet bund rally such as this. >> Unfortunately, Nordstrom fell in love with a beautiful >>young German girl and with the financial help of Bohr and >>Einstein they eloped to Finland where, while engaged in >>experiments on Radium Gunnar tragically died of >>radioactivity. ==================================== HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god mirror site: http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3) http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 ==================================== >>[...] >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Sturmeister, a subtlety which is not necessary to point out >at a low brow Usenet bund rally such as this. That may be, George. However not only do you know the difference between the two, but you use the correct version on a regular basis. Plus you didn't distinguish, nor did you say you were using the traceless version. That is, of course, in addition to the fact that one of Einstein's early ideas for the field equations was R_uv = T_uv. >>> Unfortunately, Nordstrom fell in love with a beautiful >>>young German girl and with the financial help of Bohr and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 >==================================== A. Zeynel at sci.physics.research asked the following. "if Einstein came back to Earth he would not recognize his theory and he would be told to study MTW if he wanted to learn General Relativity." The following "questions and answers" should address that. Q. Who first characterized the principle of relativity? A. Galileo did. That was almost 300 years before Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Q. Who first discovered the principle of equivalence? A. Again, it was Galileo. Through the principles of relativity and equivalence, Newton was able to formulate the law of gravity. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar after finally understood the Newtonian law of gravity claimed the principle of equivalence was his own discovery. Q. Who first surmised/postulated the constancy in the speed of light? A. Voigt in 1887 did to explain the null results of Michelson's 1881 experiment (6 years before the same but more famous 1887 experiment with Morley). The result was the Voigt transform that replaces the Galilean transform. Notice Voigt did not have to address the validity in the principle of relativity. Q. Who first discovered the Lorentz transform? A. Noticing the Voigt transform can be modified to allow for the principle of relativity, Larmor wrote down the Lorentz transform in 1897 or 1898 time frame. Q. Who first pointed out relative simultaneity thus the very essence of the special theory of relativity by studying the Lorentz transform? A. Poincare did a few years before the 1905 plagiarized papers of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Q. Who first pointed out space and time form a mathematical coordinate? A. Technically, it was H. G. Wells. However, if anyone wants to credit Minkowski for that, I have no objections. In 1908, Minkowski noticed that he could write down the Lorentz transform into one single equation. Q. Who first conceived curved space? A. It was Gauss. The same genius who as a kid was able to add all the numbers from 1 to 100 in a few seconds. Q. Who first described mathematically what curved space is? A. It was Gauss's student Riemann. It was also Riemann who first proposed gravity as a manifestation of curved space. Q. Who first proposed gravity as a curvature in spacetime? A. Right after Minkowski described space and time as a mathematical coordinate, his buddies at Goettingen such as Hilbert, Klein, Schwarzschild had already extended Riemann's proposal of gravity being a curvature in space into spacetime. Space can be hopeless curved, but as long as there exists no gravitational time dilation, there exists no gravity. Q. Who first discovered the Einstein field equations? A. Towards the late summer of 1915, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar discovered Gerber's work on Mercury's orbital advance. Instead of modifying the Newtonian gravitational potential to be speed dependent, Einstein did it by adding a second-order term. The plagiarist was still a nitwit. The mathematics was all wrong. Nevertheless, the liar did claim he had solved Mercury's orbital advance. Hilbert believed the nitwit's story without seeing the actual calculation. In doing so, Hilbert revealed his own nonsense --- the Lagrangian to the BS Einstein-Hilbert action. The field equations can then be derived by taking the partial derivative with respect to each element of the inverse of the metric. MatheMAGICal surgery is also required along the alchemical process. So, it was Hilbert who first derived the field equations. Q. Who first discovered the Schwarzschild metric? A. In 1916, Schwarzschild started to solve the field equations with the common spherically symmetric polar coordinate system. However, realizing the Ricci tensor can be simplified drastically if the metric yields a determinate of -1. Representing the geometry, the metric with the polar coordinate system does not yield a determinant of -1. So, he set up to transform the polar coordinate system into one that is very non-linear and highly complex but with a metric yielding a determinant of -1. There are actually an infinite number of solutions, but Schwarzschild found one related to the Schwarzschild metric. He still had to convert it back to the polar coordinate system. The result was Schwarzschild's original solution. Hilbert saw that the Schwarzschild solution is much simpler than Schwarzschild's original solution. Knowing the field equations were a pile of crap, he walked away from them and allowed Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar to claim the credit that the plagiarist did not even deserve. Q. Was there really nothing that Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar had contributed? A. There is. That is the Cosmological constant. Poison when first wrote down the Poison's equation had all the right to do so. He decided not to do such a foolish thing. Cosmological constant means a negative mass density in vacuum. The concept is utterly ridiculous and absurdity beyond any imagination. Thus, ** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM ** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY ** CONJECTURE IS REALITY ** FAITH IS THEORY ** LYING IS TEACHING ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING ===================== Careful Koobee, or you will have members of the Einstein Cult gangbanging you. Although cultists react emotionally and attack messengers rather than address messages in a rational, intelligent, civilized way, it is interesting to tweak cultists, as tweaking religious, environmental, and Einstein cultists is a good way to study cult psychology. SignatureTom Potter http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/ http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm Careful Koobee, or you will have members of the Einstein Cult gangbanging you. Although cultists react emotionally and attack messengers rather than address messages in a rational, intelligent, civilized way, it is interesting to tweak cultists, as tweaking religious, environmental, and Einstein cultists is a good way to study cult psychology. SignatureTom Potter Careful, Potty. Kinky Wobbly is a cult aetherialist, as much a bigot as any Einstein kook. Both share a common belief :- there is only one speed of light. Neither accepts Galilean relativity where that's concerned or Kranky Wobbly would accept the result of MMX and Sagnac - especially Sagnac since it is now technology in the form the ring laser gyroscope. Siding with an ayatollah or imam against a cardinal or a bishop won't get you any brownie points. I am surprised (not) that Tom Potter is supporting Kooky Wobbly, who is neither rational nor intelligent. Androcles. > Careful Koobee, > or you will have members of the Einstein Cult [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > as tweaking religious, environmental, and Einstein cultists > is a good way to study cult psychology. What I support Androcles is free speech and civility. SignatureTom Potter http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/ http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm > Careful Koobee, > or you will have members of the Einstein Cult [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > as tweaking religious, environmental, and Einstein cultists > is a good way to study cult psychology. What I support Androcles is free speech and civility. ===================================== This is physics, Potty, not the unwritten constitution of England that the US borrowed and China declines, or a young lady's finishing school in Geneva. Kooky Wobbly has freedom of speech, you have the right to ignore his ignorant bigotted f.cking babble. Wooblee cultists is a good way to study cult psychology, but unlike you I've studied physics and mathematics instead. >> Careful Koobee, >> or you will have members of the Einstein Cult [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Wooblee cultists is a good way to study cult psychology, > but unlike you I've studied physics and mathematics instead. Good for you Androcles! I'll be looking forward to seeing some of your posts demonstrating this. SignatureTom Potter http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/ http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm > "Androcles" <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message > news:SYcVk.131667$QH3.72325@newsfe16.ams2... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Wooblee cultists is a good way to study cult psychology, > but unlike you I've studied physics and mathematics instead. Good for you Androcles! I'll be looking forward to seeing some of your posts demonstrating this. ======================================= Studying does not mean repeating crap like a potty parrot. Permittivity of space... and beam currents don't happen. what a f.cking joke! > "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > - Show quoted text - In the space of the electromagnetic field of the atom there is electric permitivity and magnetic permeability. Mitch Raemsch > A. Zeynel at sci.physics.research asked the following. > [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > ** LYING IS TEACHING > ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING Every day I become more fascinated with the fanboyism but it's starting to dwarf it self compared to people love for living a lie. I can see you are rightfully disgusted with the Attribution of false glory. But you should really abandon the glory concept all together. Think of it like cool Nike's. They are only cool if you forget Tiger Woods gets more money than the entire Nike workforce put together. The shoes are made in sweatshops by early teens who work 36 hour shifts with 8 hour breaks between them. Those are the heroes! Focus on those who suffer or suffered, this is where your effort may bear fruit. We want to pluck the shared electrons off the water molecule. Look how often it's been done? http://knol.google.com/k///1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2 All those inventors, opportunists and scientists did succeed but didn't mange to get noticed. They don't need any credit for their labor, their glory is in the application of things. Every time you shave it is a tribute to the inventor of the razor. You don't have to be aware of it. Forget about the conversation of energy, focus on applied science. Imagine the happiness it will cause if we power vehicles with water alone? Why would we want credit for accomplishing something like that? Are you really looking to be remembered as a great scientist? Who cares? Isn't the reward in the eating of the cake? The Physics fan boys love their virtual cake but it just doesn't pay off on the same scale. The CERN collider isn't going to give us anything we can use. It is virtual cake all the way you see? Galileo was just as much a plagiarist as Einstein was. When reading up on the Dutch "inventor"(s) of the telescope they mention getting the idea from the ancient civilisations. 3 of them tried to get a patent at the same time, Galileo merely prevented the church from buying one. A telescope is a useful device but a Fresnel lens can make heat from sun rays. We don't care if he really invented it, we should use it and it will be the reward for who e |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message