On Jan 31, 4:24 pm, " wrote:

Right on! Post like the one you are responding to is somewhat
indicative of the ignorance most of Einstein's critics post.

This proves you are ignorant of what Einstein actually was. shrug

Funny too, since among physicists, Einstein's name is held with the
same reverance which was previously accorded Galaleo, Newton, and
Maxell.

Einstein is held higher than Galileo, Newton, and Maxwell by the so
called physicists. Why is that? Einstein's re-stating of the same
principle of relativity has more bearing than Galileo. Einstein's re-
stating of the principle of equivalence has more bearing than
Galileo. Based on the principles of relativity and equivalence,
Einstein's plagiarisms on Larmor's Lorentz transform and Hilbert's
field equations have more bearing than Newton's work based on
Galileo's principles of relativity and equivalence. The list goes
on. This tells about the lack of understanding of these so called
physicists. shrug

You are correct in that Einstein's only Nobel Prize was awarded by his
work on photoelectric effects, findings that are taught today.

You mean the work of Einstein's plagiarism of Planck's work. He was
canonized by the physicists because the religion they believe in needs
a Messiah.

His
work on Special Relativity I find it at least curious that he was
never accorded a Nobel prize for this, his most outstanding
contribution to mankind.

Let's see. The Lorentz transform was already derived by Larmor. The
mathematics of the Lorentz transform was already interpreted by
Lorentz (LET) and Poincare (SR). The Lorentz transform manifests the
twin's paradox. It is stupid. shrug

I believe that this was not accidental, and
it had either to do with his political leanings or the fact that he
was a Jew.

No, it is accidental. Einstein was at the right place and the right
time to be canonized into a Messiah by the desperate physicists then.

What many lay posters to not realize (possible because they are
uneducated) is that Einsteins later work was on his Special Theory of
Relativity, which he neither completed or published by the time of his
death.

It looks like you are the one who is uneducated. shrug

Fragmentary notes of his uncompleted work leaked into the hands of
somewhat desperate and unscrupulous people, which today form the basis
of laymen's understanding of Special Relativity.

Excuse not to understand SR. I bet you do not understand SR.

Not realizing that
Einstein never published any "Theory of General Relativity",

Have you not read his 1905 papers on relativity?

it is
easy to understand why laymen reading these bits and fragmentary
pieces of an ongoing throught process, and believing that Einstein
published it, become critical of Einstein.

You are so full of sh*t.

I can understand the basis for that confusion.

You are confused.

In Special Relativity, Einstein stood on the shounder of older
geniuses, like Newton and Maxwell, to went to basics.

In SR, Einstein plagiarized from Larmor and Poincare. shrug

(Even highshool
student appreciate the genius of Einsteins writings,

What high school students? They only are interested in opposite ...
Come on. You are I were once that age. Right?

when read as he
explained his logic. School childred understand his explanation of
Special Relativity,

If anyone has truly understood SR, he will conclude SR is stupid
because of the twin's paradox. shrug

not General Relativity, because Einstein never
completed his work in that area prior to his death.

Bullsh*t. GR was a complete plagiarism from the crap Hilbert came up
with. shrug

Oh, I headed into a rant, but it stops here.

It is about time. I need to go to sleep myself.

The bottom line is that Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar. shrug

Now, good night.

Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jan 31, 2:28 pm, Randy Poe wrote:

On Jan 31, 6:17 pm, compiz wrote:


On Jan 31, 11:28 pm, wrote:

At the end of his life he said that he could not reconcile a light
wave with a particle. Light is just a wave and the spin attributed to
it is doesn't apply. There has never been any measurement of it.

Mitch Raemsch Two Time Nobel Lauraete 2008

what is lauraete?

It's the plant they get bay leaves from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_leaf

Mitch is saying he eats a lot of bay leaves.

- Randy


I had a macaroni and cheese recipe that called for bay leaves.

I couldn't tell the difference between "bay leaves" and "no bay
leaves".

Figgers......

On Jan 31, 5:28*pm, wrote:
At the end of his life he said that he could not reconcile a light
wave with a particle. Light is just a wave and the spin attributed to
it is doesn't apply. There has never been any measurement of it.

Well, Newton couldn't reconcile light as anything
other than a particle.
So, that's were computers, lasers, HDTV, and CD and DVD comes
from.
So the duelies in QM just gotta go with it.




Mitch Raemsch Two Time Nobel Lauraete 2008

On Jan 31, 5:28*pm, wrote:
At the end of his life he said that he could not reconcile a light
wave with a particle. Light is just a wave and the spin attributed to
it is doesn't apply. There has never been any measurement of it.

Mitch Raemsch Two Time Nobel Lauraete 2008

For talk a hell of lot about light for someone that's always in the
dark.

On Feb 1, 1:23 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 31, 4:24 pm, " wrote:

Right on! Post like the one you are responding to is somewhat
indicative of the ignorance most of Einstein's critics post.

This proves you are ignorant of what Einstein actually was. shrug

Funny too, since among physicists, Einstein's name is held with the
same reverance which was previously accorded Galaleo, Newton, and
Maxell.

Einstein is held higher than Galileo, Newton, and Maxwell by the so
called physicists. Why is that? Einstein's re-stating of the same
principle of relativity has more bearing than Galileo. Einstein's re-
stating of the principle of equivalence has more bearing than
Galileo. Based on the principles of relativity and equivalence,
Einstein's plagiarisms on Larmor's Lorentz transform and Hilbert's
field equations have more bearing than Newton's work based on
Galileo's principles of relativity and equivalence. The list goes
on. This tells about the lack of understanding of these so called
physicists. shrug

You are correct in that Einstein's only Nobel Prize was awarded by his
work on photoelectric effects, findings that are taught today.

You mean the work of Einstein's plagiarism of Planck's work. He was
canonized by the physicists because the religion they believe in needs
a Messiah.

His
work on Special Relativity I find it at least curious that he was
never accorded a Nobel prize for this, his most outstanding
contribution to mankind.

Let's see. The Lorentz transform was already derived by Larmor. The
mathematics of the Lorentz transform was already interpreted by
Lorentz (LET) and Poincare (SR). The Lorentz transform manifests the
twin's paradox. It is stupid. shrug

I believe that this was not accidental, and
it had either to do with his political leanings or the fact that he
was a Jew.

No, it is accidental. Einstein was at the right place and the right
time to be canonized into a Messiah by the desperate physicists then.

What many lay posters to not realize (possible because they are
uneducated) is that Einsteins later work was on his Special Theory of
Relativity, which he neither completed or published by the time of his
death.

It looks like you are the one who is uneducated. shrug

Fragmentary notes of his uncompleted work leaked into the hands of
somewhat desperate and unscrupulous people, which today form the basis
of laymen's understanding of Special Relativity.

Excuse not to understand SR. I bet you do not understand SR.

Not realizing that
Einstein never published any "Theory of General Relativity",

Have you not read his 1905 papers on relativity?

it is
easy to understand why laymen reading these bits and fragmentary
pieces of an ongoing throught process, and believing that Einstein
published it, become critical of Einstein.

You are so full of sh*t.

I can understand the basis for that confusion.

You are confused.

In Special Relativity, Einstein stood on the shounder of older
geniuses, like Newton and Maxwell, to went to basics.

In SR, Einstein plagiarized from Larmor and Poincare. shrug

(Even highshool
student appreciate the genius of Einsteins writings,

What high school students? They only are interested in opposite ...
Come on. You are I were once that age. Right?

when read as he
explained his logic. School childred understand his explanation of
Special Relativity,

If anyone has truly understood SR, he will conclude SR is stupid
because of the twin's paradox. shrug

not General Relativity, because Einstein never
completed his work in that area prior to his death.

Bullsh*t. GR was a complete plagiarism from the crap Hilbert came up
with. shrug

Oh, I headed into a rant, but it stops here.

It is about time. I need to go to sleep myself.

The bottom line is that Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar. shrug

Now, good night.

The above post of Koobee's consist of lies from start to finish. Every
single statement about Einstein he has made above is incorrect. I
called them "lies" because he persists in reposting them despite being
shown numerous times that they are fabrications.

Being ignorant of physics and mathematics himself, he must rely on pop-
sci and Hollywood versions of the story which he chooses to believe in
because of a fixation on the person of Albert Einstein. The reasons
for his mania concerning Einstein are not very hard to guess, IMHO,
but I won't post them.

--
Jan Bielawski

On Feb 1, 11:11 am, JanPB wrote:
On Feb 1, 1:23 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:





On Jan 31, 4:24 pm, " wrote:

Right on! Post like the one you are responding to is somewhat
indicative of the ignorance most of Einstein's critics post.

This proves you are ignorant of what Einstein actually was. shrug

Funny too, since among physicists, Einstein's name is held with the
same reverance which was previously accorded Galaleo, Newton, and
Maxell.

Einstein is held higher than Galileo, Newton, and Maxwell by the so
called physicists. Why is that? Einstein's re-stating of the same
principle of relativity has more bearing than Galileo. Einstein's re-
stating of the principle of equivalence has more bearing than
Galileo. Based on the principles of relativity and equivalence,
Einstein's plagiarisms on Larmor's Lorentz transform and Hilbert's
field equations have more bearing than Newton's work based on
Galileo's principles of relativity and equivalence. The list goes
on. This tells about the lack of understanding of these so called
physicists. shrug

You are correct in that Einstein's only Nobel Prize was awarded by his
work on photoelectric effects, findings that are taught today.

You mean the work of Einstein's plagiarism of Planck's work. He was
canonized by the physicists because the religion they believe in needs
a Messiah.

His
work on Special Relativity I find it at least curious that he was
never accorded a Nobel prize for this, his most outstanding
contribution to mankind.

Let's see. The Lorentz transform was already derived by Larmor. The
mathematics of the Lorentz transform was already interpreted by
Lorentz (LET) and Poincare (SR). The Lorentz transform manifests the
twin's paradox. It is stupid. shrug

I believe that this was not accidental, and
it had either to do with his political leanings or the fact that he
was a Jew.

No, it is accidental. Einstein was at the right place and the right
time to be canonized into a Messiah by the desperate physicists then.

What many lay posters to not realize (possible because they are
uneducated) is that Einsteins later work was on his Special Theory of
Relativity, which he neither completed or published by the time of his
death.

It looks like you are the one who is uneducated. shrug

Fragmentary notes of his uncompleted work leaked into the hands of
somewhat desperate and unscrupulous people, which today form the basis
of laymen's understanding of Special Relativity.

Excuse not to understand SR. I bet you do not understand SR.

Not realizing that
Einstein never published any "Theory of General Relativity",

Have you not read his 1905 papers on relativity?

it is
easy to understand why laymen reading these bits and fragmentary
pieces of an ongoing throught process, and believing that Einstein
published it, become critical of Einstein.

You are so full of sh*t.

I can understand the basis for that confusion.

You are confused.

In Special Relativity, Einstein stood on the shounder of older
geniuses, like Newton and Maxwell, to went to basics.

In SR, Einstein plagiarized from Larmor and Poincare. shrug

(Even highshool
student appreciate the genius of Einsteins writings,

What high school students? They only are interested in opposite ...
Come on. You are I were once that age. Right?

when read as he
explained his logic. School childred understand his explanation of
Special Relativity,

If anyone has truly understood SR, he will conclude SR is stupid
because of the twin's paradox. shrug

not General Relativity, because Einstein never
completed his work in that area prior to his death.

Bullsh*t. GR was a complete plagiarism from the crap Hilbert came up
with. shrug

Oh, I headed into a rant, but it stops here.

It is about time. I need to go to sleep myself.

The bottom line is that Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar. shrug

Now, good night.

The above post of Koobee's consist of lies from start to finish.

The above statement is a lie.

Every
single statement about Einstein he has made above is incorrect.

The above statement is also a lie.

I
called them "lies" because he persists in reposting them despite being
shown numerous times that they are fabrications.

You called them "lies" because you *believe in* your Messiah,
Einstein, the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. I call your
statements lies because they are just false.

Being ignorant of physics and mathematics himself, he must rely on pop-
sci and Hollywood versions of the story which he chooses to believe in
because of a fixation on the person of Albert Einstein.

Get your fact straight. The Hollywood version of Einstein is to
worship him as a Messiah just like yourself. In fact in real historic
accounts, Einstein was nothing more than a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar. shrug

The reasons
for his mania concerning Einstein are not very hard to guess, IMHO,
but I won't post them.

Well, it is time for the queer of England to retire into your fat
castle in the air. It won't be there long. Enjoy it while it last.
Well, your poster of Einstein the Messiah will be replaced by Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar.

Thank you for allowing me so many opportunities to address Einstein
truthfully as the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar.

wrote:
compiz wrote:
and einstine dident got noblel for his relaticity,
which is kinda downer for a so good stable
theory

hahahaa not even a nobel, hahaaha, thanks- Hide quoted text -

That's an odd phrase: "not even a Nobel." I never got one;
did you? Unlike you and I, Einstein *did* win the Nobel
prize in physics. You need to learn some respect.


Right on! Post like the one you are responding to is somewhat
indicative of the ignorance most of Einstein's critics post.

Funny too, since among physicists, Einstein's name is held with the
same reverence which was previously accorded Galileo, Newton, and
Maxwell.

Moreover, non-physicists also extol Einstein. Time magazine, which
has named the most influential news-maker of the year annually
since 1927, chose him as "Person of the Century". Runners-up were
Franklin D. Roosevelt and Mohandas Gandhi.

You are correct in that Einstein's only Nobel Prize was awarded by his
work on photoelectric effects, findings that are taught today.

The delay in awarding Einstein the physics prize, and the failure
to specifically recognize relativity, speak worse for the Nobel
prize than for Einstein.

His
work on Special Relativity I find it at least curious that he was
never accorded a Nobel prize for this, his most outstanding
contribution to mankind.

I agree that special relativity is Nobel-worthy, but general
relativity is greater still.

I believe that this was not accidental, and
it had either to do with his political leanings or the fact that he
was a Jew.

Yup. And, worse, a theorist:

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/sep...in-nobel-prize


--
--Bryan

On Feb 1, 8:52 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Feb 1, 11:11 am, JanPB wrote:



On Feb 1, 1:23 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

On Jan 31, 4:24 pm, " wrote:

Right on! Post like the one you are responding to is somewhat
indicative of the ignorance most of Einstein's critics post.

This proves you are ignorant of what Einstein actually was. shrug

Funny too, since among physicists, Einstein's name is held with the
same reverance which was previously accorded Galaleo, Newton, and
Maxell.

Einstein is held higher than Galileo, Newton, and Maxwell by the so
called physicists. Why is that? Einstein's re-stating of the same
principle of relativity has more bearing than Galileo. Einstein's re-
stating of the principle of equivalence has more bearing than
Galileo. Based on the principles of relativity and equivalence,
Einstein's plagiarisms on Larmor's Lorentz transform and Hilbert's
field equations have more bearing than Newton's work based on
Galileo's principles of relativity and equivalence. The list goes
on. This tells about the lack of understanding of these so called
physicists. shrug

You are correct in that Einstein's only Nobel Prize was awarded by his
work on photoelectric effects, findings that are taught today.

You mean the work of Einstein's plagiarism of Planck's work. He was
canonized by the physicists because the religion they believe in needs
a Messiah.

His
work on Special Relativity I find it at least curious that he was
never accorded a Nobel prize for this, his most outstanding
contribution to mankind.

Let's see. The Lorentz transform was already derived by Larmor. The
mathematics of the Lorentz transform was already interpreted by
Lorentz (LET) and Poincare (SR). The Lorentz transform manifests the
twin's paradox. It is stupid. shrug

I believe that this was not accidental, and
it had either to do with his political leanings or the fact that he
was a Jew.

No, it is accidental. Einstein was at the right place and the right
time to be canonized into a Messiah by the desperate physicists then.

What many lay posters to not realize (possible because they are
uneducated) is that Einsteins later work was on his Special Theory of
Relativity, which he neither completed or published by the time of his
death.

It looks like you are the one who is uneducated. shrug

Fragmentary notes of his uncompleted work leaked into the hands of
somewhat desperate and unscrupulous people, which today form the basis
of laymen's understanding of Special Relativity.

Excuse not to understand SR. I bet you do not understand SR.

Not realizing that
Einstein never published any "Theory of General Relativity",

Have you not read his 1905 papers on relativity?

it is
easy to understand why laymen reading these bits and fragmentary
pieces of an ongoing throught process, and believing that Einstein
published it, become critical of Einstein.

You are so full of sh*t.

I can understand the basis for that confusion.

You are confused.

In Special Relativity, Einstein stood on the shounder of older
geniuses, like Newton and Maxwell, to went to basics.

In SR, Einstein plagiarized from Larmor and Poincare. shrug

(Even highshool
student appreciate the genius of Einsteins writings,

What high school students? They only are interested in opposite ...
Come on. You are I were once that age. Right?

when read as he
explained his logic. School childred understand his explanation of
Special Relativity,

If anyone has truly understood SR, he will conclude SR is stupid
because of the twin's paradox. shrug

not General Relativity, because Einstein never
completed his work in that area prior to his death.

Bullsh*t. GR was a complete plagiarism from the crap Hilbert came up
with. shrug

Oh, I headed into a rant, but it stops here.

It is about time. I need to go to sleep myself.

The bottom line is that Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar. shrug

Now, good night.

The above post of Koobee's consist of lies from start to finish.

The above statement is a lie.

Every
single statement about Einstein he has made above is incorrect.

The above statement is also a lie.

I
called them "lies" because he persists in reposting them despite being
shown numerous times that they are fabrications.

You called them "lies" because you *believe in* your Messiah,
Einstein, the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. I call your
statements lies because they are just false.

Being ignorant of physics and mathematics himself, he must rely on pop-
sci and Hollywood versions of the story which he chooses to believe in
because of a fixation on the person of Albert Einstein.

Get your fact straight. The Hollywood version of Einstein is to
worship him as a Messiah just like yourself. In fact in real historic
accounts, Einstein was nothing more than a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar. shrug

The reasons
for his mania concerning Einstein are not very hard to guess, IMHO,
but I won't post them.

Well, it is time for the queer of England to retire into your fat
castle in the air. It won't be there long. Enjoy it while it last.
Well, your poster of Einstein the Messiah will be replaced by Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar.

Thank you for allowing me so many opportunities to address Einstein
truthfully as the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar.

So you have nothing to say beyond cutting and pasting same old
balonium.

--
Jan Bielawski

On Feb 2, 10:21 am, JanPB wrote:

So you have nothing to say beyond cutting and pasting same old
balonium.

You need to peruse what I have to say about GR as well.

* * * * General Theory of Relativity (GR) * * * *

The development of GR first diverged from Newtonian physics around the
middle of the nineteenth century, when Riemann wrote down the
relationship of an actual displacement segment to how an observer
observes this same displacement segment.

ds^2 = g_ij dq^i dq^j

Where

** ds = Invariant geometry in displacement
** g_ij = Elements of the metric
** dg^i = Observer's choice of coordinate system
** i, j = 1, 2, 3 (3 spatial dimensions)

The shortest distance through the actual space (invariant geometry)
can now be computed using the calculus of variations. This was
exactly how Christoffel did it in the famous geodesic equations.

d^2q^n/ds^2 + g^nk (@g_ik/@q^j + @g_jk/@q^i - @g_ij/@q^k) @q^i/@s @q^j/
@s / 2 = 0

Where

** i, j, k, n = 1, 2, 3
** @ = Partial derivative operator

The quantities called the connection coefficients in the geodesic
equations become the Christoffel symbols of the second kind below.

Y^n_ij = g^nk (@g_ik/@q^j + @g_jk/@q^i - @g_ij/@q^k) / 2

Where

** d^2q^n/ds^2 + Y^n_ij @q^i/@s @q^j/@s = 0

However, due to the symmetry in the metric, there is at least another
way of presenting the geodesic equations.

d^2q^n/ds^2 + g^nk (@g_ik/@q^j - @g_ij/@q^k / 2) @q^i/@s @q^j/@s = 0

In doing so, the connection coefficients are very different from the
Christoffel symbols of the second kind.

Z^n_ij = g^nk @g_ik/@q^j - @g_ij/@q^k / 2

Where

** d^2q^n/ds^2 + Z^n_ij @q^i/@s @q^j/@s = 0

About a decade before the transition of the nineteenth and the
twentieth centuries, Ricci defined the covariant derivative based on
the geodesic equations and the connection coefficients. However,
Ricci did not know there is another set of connection coefficients
that are equally valid to describe the geodesic equations as the
Christoffel symbols of the second kind.

DX^n/Ds = dX^n/ds + Y^n_ij dq^i/ds X^j

Where

** DX^n/DS = Covariant derivative on X, a vector

The idea is to allow the covariant derivative of (X = dq^n/ds) to be
null in accordance with the geodesic equations. However,
mathematically there exists another operator that can achieve the
exact same thing.

EX^n/Es = dX^n/ds + Z^n_ij dq^i/ds X^j

Where

** EX^n/ES = Another operator on X, a vector

Ricci went on to derive (invent) the Riemann tensor which just like
the metric is merely a matrix. The derivation takes us through the
null geodesic variations.

R^n_ikj = @Y^n_ij/@q^k - @Y^n_ik/@q^j + Y^n_kl Y^l_jk - Y^n_jl Y^l_ik

Or

R^n_ikj = @Y^n_ij/@q^k - @Y^n_ik/@q^j + Y^n_jl Y^l_ik - Y^n_jl Y^l_ik

Ricci, however, only discovered the first tensor above while the
second one is also very mathematically valid in accordance with the
method of null geodesic variations. Ricci's student Levi-Civita then
invented the Ricci tensor based on the Riemann tensor derived by Ricci
(the first equation above).

R_ij = @Y^k_ij/@q^k - @Y^k_ik/@q^j + Y^k_kl Y^l_ij - Y^k_jl Y^l_ik

Where

** R_ij = R^k_ikj

The Ricci scalar follows as described below.

R = g^ij R_ij

Where

** g^ij = inverse of the matrix g_ij the metric

After the introduction of the Lorentz transformation, the Goettingen
group of physicists including Minkowski, Hilbert, Schwarzschild, and
Klein extended Riemann's description of curved space into a four-
dimensional spacetime.

ds^2 = g_ij dq^i dq^j

Where

** ds = Invariant geometry in spacetime
** g_ij = Elements of the metric
** dg^i = Observer's choice of coordinate system
** i, j = 0, 1, 2, 3 (1 temporal and 3 spatial dimensions)

In 1915, Hilbert finally invented the following Lagrangian which does
not even satisfy as a Lagrangian according to the variations of
calculus.

L = (H R + p c^2) sqrt(-det(g^ij))

Where

** L = Hilbert's Lagragian
** R = Ricci scalar
** p = density of matter
** det() = determinant of the matrix as operand
** H = a constant

Hilbert then went on to take the partial derivative of this Lagrangian
with respect to each element of the metric represented by g^ij and
setting it to zero.

@L/@g^ij = H sqrt(-det(g^ij)) @R/@g^ij - H R @det(g^ij)/@g^ij / sqrt(-
det(g^ij)) / 2 - p c^2 @det(g^ij)/@g^ij / sqrt(-det(g^ij)) / 2 = 0

Where (mathematical identity)

** @R/@g^ij = R_ij
** @det(g^ij)/@g^ij = g_ij det(g^ij)

The result is the set of Einstein field equations.

R_ij - R g_ij / 2 = c^2 p g_ij / H / 2

Or

G_ij = T_ij

Where

** G_ij = R_ij - R g_ij / 2
** T_ij = c^2 p g_ij / H / 2

Einstein played no role. His rediscovery of the equivalence principle
also finds no role in the derivation. The derivation of GR is totally
based on mathematical nonsense.

Very soon after the introduction of the field equations, Schwarzschild
discovered the following static and spherically symmetric solution
(metric).

ds^2 = c^2 (1 - R / (r^3 + R^3)^(1/3)) dt^2 - r^4 dr^2 / (r^3 + R^3) /
((r^3 + R^3)^(1/3) - R) - (r^3 + R^3)^(2/3) dO^2

Where

** R = G M / c^2
** dO^2 = cos^2Phi dTheta^2 + dPhi^2

There are actually an infinite number of solutions (metric) to the
field equations using the same set of coordinate system. The most
popular one was derived by Hilbert in 1916 now called the
Schwarzschild metric.

ds^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 R / r) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 R / r) - r^2 dO^2

Notice Schwarzschild's original solution does not manifest black holes
but Schwarzschild metric does. The following solution also as simple
as the Schwarzschild metric does not manifest black holes as well.

ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 / ( 1 + 2 R / r) - (1 + 2 R / r) dr^2 - (r + R)^2 dO^2

Although not all the static and spherically symmetric solutions
degenerate to Newtonian law of gravity, all these three metrics above
do. This means the universe must be expanding and finally collapsing
back to itself. After observing the universe to be static, Einstein
correctly identified the field equations and Newtonian law of gravity
as not fit this observation. He cleverly introduced (pull out of his
*ss) a negative mass density to counter the attraction of gravity.
The reason is very simple. Positive mass manifests attraction in
gravity; negative mass manifests repulsion in gravity. In order to
hide the embarrassment of introducing negative mass in vacuum, he
again cleverly called this quantity as the Cosmological constant. The
development of GR at this stage is a total joke, but the nonsense did
not end here. Friedman, Lemaitre, Robertson, and Walker discovered a
non-static but spherically symmetric solution to the field equations
called the Friedman-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric.

ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - a^2 (dr^2 / (1 - r^2 / R^2) + r^2 dO^2)

Where

** a = Function of t only
** R = Constant

This means two of the field equations are

** (da/dt)^2 / a^2 + c^2 / R^2 / a^2 = 8 pi G p / 3
** 2 d^2a/dt^2 / a + (da/dt)^2 / a^2 + c^2 / R^2 / a^2 = 8 pi G p

We can very easily solve these differential equations.

If R^2 = 0,

** a^2 = c^2 cosh^2(w(t+T)) / (w^2 R^2)
** p = 3 w^2 / (4 pi G)

If R^2 0,

** a^2 = - c^2 cos^2(w(t+T)) / (w^2 R^2)
** p = - 3 w^2 / (4 pi G)

Where

** w, T = Integration constants

The density of the universe, p, must always remain constant. This
means the universe must be static as observed back then. Even with
the introduction of the Cosmological constant, the basic form of the
solution above remains the same. The Cosmological becomes totally
useless. The introduction of the Cosmological constant is the only
blunder in Einstein's contribution in GR.

There are two problems with this FLRW metric.

** There is no solution combining the Schwarzschild metric and the
FLRW metric. This means the FLRW metric does not satisfy the
Newtonian law of gravity. Gravity is not caused by a curvature in
spacetime in general but only the gravitational time dilation.

** When Lemaitre first then Hubble discovered the red shift of
distant galaxies, there is no remedy for the FLRW metric to satisfy
this observation even with the Cosmological constant.

There are so many problems with GR right from the start. The most
basic is even more embarrassing. Any diligent grade school children
can identify the mathematical relationship below.

Given that

A = B C

If (A = constant and B != 0), then (C = A / B).

This blunder came as early as during Ricci's time when the Riemann
tensor which is merely a matrix was incorrectly identified as a tensor
which means invariance to any coordinate transformation. Similarly,
the metric is merely a matrix. Ricci deified the metric into a
tensor. Mathematically, this can easily be proven wrong.

We have two different geometries described by the same coordinate
system with two different metrics.

** ds^2 = [g] * [dq^2] = g_ij dq^i dq^j
** ds'^2 = [g'] * [dq^2] = g'_ij dq^i dq^j

Where

** ds^2 = Geometry #1
** ds'^2 = Geometry #2
** [g] = Metric #1
** [g'] = Metric #2
** [dq^2] = Coordinate system, same
** * = Dot/inner product of two matrices

Or we have the same geometry described below by different metrics and
different coordinate systems. One example involves the linearly
rectangular and the spherically symmetric polar coordinate systems.

** ds^2 = [g] * [dq^2] = [g']* [dq'^2]
** ds^2 = g_ij dq^i dq^j = g'_ab dq'^a dq'^b

The geometry, ds^2, must be invariant due to obvious reason. The
choice of coordinate system, d[q^2], is observer dependent. This can
only mean the metric, [g], must also be observer dependent. The
metric, the Riemann, and the Ricci tensors cannot be tensors after
all. All solutions to the field equations must be unique and
independent of each one where all solutions must reference to the same
choice of coordinate system in describing vastly different invariant
geometries. What good is the set of field equations that can generate
an infinite numbers of solutions to describe infinitely different and
independent universes? What good is the set of field equations that
can either generate a solution that manifests black holes and also
ones that don't?


* * * * Malicious Troll McCullough's Stupid Question * * * *

The static and spherically symmetric solutions to the field equations
in general take one such form below.

ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 / (1 + K / R) - (1 + K / R) (dR/dr)^2 dr^2 - (R + K)^2
dO^2

Where

** R(r) = Function of r
** dO^2 = cos^2(Phi) dTheta^2 + dPhi^2
** K = Integration constant
** dr, dTheta, dPhi = Choiced coordinate system

Only if the following is true, you get the Schwarzschild metric.

** R = r - K

Where

** K = 2 G M / c^2

If the following is true, you get Schwarzschild's original solution
which does not manifest any black holes.

** R = (r^3 + K^3)^(1/3) - K

If the following is true, you get another solution just as simple as
the Schwarzschild metric but without manifestation of black holes.

** R = r

If the following is true, you get a constantly expanding universe that
also obeys the Schwarzschild metric --- a trait that even the FLRW
metric fails to do so.

** R = r / (1 + r^2 / K / L)

Where

** L = Cosmic constant

If the following is true, you get an accelerated expanding universe.

** R = r / (1 + r^2 / K / L + r^3 / K / L / N)

Where

** L, N = Cosmic constants

Each of these solutions is uniquely independent of the others.
Claiming these solutions being the same is utter nonsense --- a
misunderstanding on your part of failure to understand the metric is
not a tensor but merely a matrix. In addition, the last two metrics
prove the Birkhoff's theorem wrong.

On Feb 2, 10:29*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Feb 2, 10:21 am, JanPB wrote:

So you have nothing to say beyond cutting and pasting same old
balonium.

You need to peruse what I have to say about GR as well.

* * * * General Theory of Relativity (GR) * * * *

The development of GR first diverged from Newtonian physics around the
middle of the nineteenth century, when Riemann wrote down the
relationship of an actual displacement segment to how an observer
observes this same displacement segment.

ds^2 = g_ij dq^i dq^j

Where

** *ds = Invariant geometry in displacement
** *g_ij = Elements of the metric
** *dg^i = Observer's choice of coordinate system
** *i, j = 1, 2, 3 (3 spatial dimensions)

The shortest distance through the actual space (invariant geometry)
can now be computed using the calculus of variations. *This was
exactly how Christoffel did it in the famous geodesic equations.

d^2q^n/ds^2 + g^nk (@g_ik/@q^j + @g_jk/@q^i - @g_ij/@q^k) @q^i/@s @q^j/
@s / 2 = 0

Where

** *i, j, k, n = 1, 2, 3
** *@ = Partial derivative operator

The quantities called the connection coefficients in the geodesic
equations become the Christoffel symbols of the second kind below.

Y^n_ij = g^nk (@g_ik/@q^j + @g_jk/@q^i - @g_ij/@q^k) / 2

Where

** *d^2q^n/ds^2 + Y^n_ij @q^i/@s @q^j/@s = 0

However, due to the symmetry in the metric, there is at least another
way of presenting the geodesic equations.

d^2q^n/ds^2 + g^nk (@g_ik/@q^j - @g_ij/@q^k / 2) @q^i/@s @q^j/@s = 0

In doing so, the connection coefficients are very different from the
Christoffel symbols of the second kind.

Z^n_ij = g^nk @g_ik/@q^j - @g_ij/@q^k / 2

Where

** *d^2q^n/ds^2 + Z^n_ij @q^i/@s @q^j/@s = 0

About a decade before the transition of the nineteenth and the
twentieth centuries, Ricci defined the covariant derivative based on
the geodesic equations and the connection coefficients. *However,
Ricci did not know there is another set of connection coefficients
that are equally valid to describe the geodesic equations as the
Christoffel symbols of the second kind.

DX^n/Ds = dX^n/ds + Y^n_ij dq^i/ds X^j

Where

** *DX^n/DS = Covariant derivative on X, a vector

The idea is to allow the covariant derivative of (X = dq^n/ds) to be
null in accordance with the geodesic equations. *However,
mathematically there exists another operator that can achieve the
exact same thing.

EX^n/Es = dX^n/ds + Z^n_ij dq^i/ds X^j

Where

** *EX^n/ES = Another operator on X, a vector

Ricci went on to derive (invent) the Riemann tensor which just like
the metric is merely a matrix. *The derivation takes us through the
null geodesic variations.

R^n_ikj = @Y^n_ij/@q^k - @Y^n_ik/@q^j + Y^n_kl Y^l_jk - Y^n_jl Y^l_ik

Or

R^n_ikj = @Y^n_ij/@q^k - @Y^n_ik/@q^j + Y^n_jl Y^l_ik - Y^n_jl Y^l_ik

Ricci, however, only discovered the first tensor above while the
second one is also very mathematically valid in accordance with the
method of null geodesic variations. *Ricci's student Levi-Civita then
invented the Ricci tensor based on the Riemann tensor derived by Ricci
(the first equation above).

R_ij = @Y^k_ij/@q^k - @Y^k_ik/@q^j + Y^k_kl Y^l_ij - Y^k_jl Y^l_ik

Where

** *R_ij = R^k_ikj

The Ricci scalar follows as described below.

R = g^ij R_ij

Where

** *g^ij = inverse of the matrix g_ij the metric

After the introduction of the Lorentz transformation, the Goettingen
group of physicists including Minkowski, Hilbert, Schwarzschild, and
Klein extended Riemann's description of curved space into a four-
dimensional spacetime.

ds^2 = g_ij dq^i dq^j

Where

** *ds = Invariant geometry in spacetime
** *g_ij = Elements of the metric
** *dg^i = Observer's choice of coordinate system
** *i, j = 0, 1, 2, 3 (1 temporal and 3 spatial dimensions)

In 1915, Hilbert finally invented the following Lagrangian which does
not even satisfy as a Lagrangian according to the variations of
calculus.

L = (H R + p c^2) sqrt(-det(g^ij))

Where

** *L = Hilbert's Lagragian
** *R = Ricci scalar
** *p = density of matter
** *det() = determinant of the matrix as operand
** *H = a constant

Hilbert then went on to take the partial derivative of this Lagrangian
with respect to each element of the metric represented by g^ij and
setting it to zero.

@L/@g^ij = H sqrt(-det(g^ij)) @R/@g^ij - H R @det(g^ij)/@g^ij / sqrt(-
det(g^ij)) / 2 - p c^2 @det(g^ij)/@g^ij / sqrt(-det(g^ij)) / 2 = 0

Where (mathematical identity)

** *@R/@g^ij = R_ij
** *@det(g^ij)/@g^ij = g_ij det(g^ij)

The result is the set of Einstein field equations.

R_ij - R g_ij / 2 = c^2 p g_ij / H / 2

Or

G_ij = T_ij

Where

** *G_ij = R_ij - R g_ij / 2
** *T_ij = c^2 p g_ij / H / 2

Einstein played no role. *His rediscovery of the equivalence principle
also finds no role in the derivation. *The derivation of GR is totally
based on mathematical nonsense.

Very soon after the introduction of the field equations, Schwarzschild
discovered the following static and spherically symmetric solution
(metric).

ds^2 = c^2 (1 - R / (r^3 + R^3)^(1/3)) dt^2 - r^4 dr^2 / (r^3 + R^3) /
((r^3 + R^3)^(1/3) - R) - (r^3 + R^3)^(2/3) dO^2

Where

** *R = G M / c^2
** *dO^2 = cos^2Phi dTheta^2 + dPhi^2

There are actually an infinite number of solutions (metric) to the
field equations using the same set of coordinate system. *The most
popular one was derived by Hilbert in 1916 now called the
Schwarzschild metric.

ds^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 R / r) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 R / r) - r^2 dO^2

Notice Schwarzschild's original solution does not manifest black holes
but Schwarzschild metric does. *The following solution also as simple
as the Schwarzschild metric does not manifest black holes as well.

ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 / ( 1 + 2 R / r) - (1 + 2 R / r) dr^2 - (r + R)^2 dO^2

Although not all the static and spherically symmetric solutions
degenerate to Newtonian law of gravity, all these three metrics above
do. *This means the universe must be expanding and finally collapsing
back to itself. *After observing the universe to be static, Einstein
correctly identified the field equations and Newtonian law of gravity
as not fit this observation. *He cleverly introduced (pull out of his
*ss) a negative mass density to counter the attraction of gravity.
The reason is very simple. *Positive mass manifests attraction in
gravity; negative mass manifests repulsion in gravity. *In order to
hide the embarrassment of introducing negative mass in vacuum, he
again cleverly called this quantity as the Cosmological constant. *The
development of GR at this stage is a total joke, but the nonsense did
not end here. *Friedman, Lemaitre, Robertson, and Walker discovered a
non-static but spherically symmetric solution to the field equations
called the Friedman-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric.

ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - a^2 (dr^2 / (1 - r^2 / R^2) + r^2 dO^2)

Where

** *a = Function of t only
** *R = Constant

This means two of the field equations are

** *(da/dt)^2 / a^2 + c^2 / R^2 / a^2 = 8 pi G p / 3
** *2 d^2a/dt^2 / a + (da/dt)^2 / a^2 + c^2 / R^2 / a^2 = 8 pi G p

We can very easily solve these differential equations.

If R^2 = 0,

** *a^2 = c^2 cosh^2(w(t+T)) / (w^2 R^2)
** *p = 3 w^2 / (4 pi G)

If R^2 0,

** *a^2 = - c^2 cos^2(w(t+T)) / (w^2 R^2)
** *p = - 3 w^2 / (4 pi G)

Where

** *w, T = Integration constants

The density of the universe, p, must always remain constant. *This
means the universe must be static as observed back then. *Even with
the introduction of the Cosmological constant, the basic form of the
solution above remains the same. *The Cosmological becomes totally
useless. *The introduction of the Cosmological constant is the only
blunder in Einstein's contribution in GR.

There are two problems with this FLRW metric.

** *There is no solution combining the Schwarzschild metric and the
FLRW metric. *This means the FLRW metric does not satisfy the
Newtonian law of gravity. *Gravity is not caused by a curvature in
spacetime in general but only the gravitational time dilation.

** *When Lemaitre first then Hubble discovered the red shift of
distant galaxies, there is no remedy for the FLRW metric to satisfy
this observation even with the Cosmological constant.

There are so many problems with GR right from the start. *The most
basic is even more embarrassing. *Any diligent grade school children
can identify the mathematical relationship below.

Given that

A = B C

If (A = constant and B != 0), then (C = A / B).

This blunder came as early as during Ricci's time when the Riemann
tensor which is merely a matrix was incorrectly identified as a tensor
which means invariance to any coordinate transformation. *Similarly,
the metric is merely a matrix. *Ricci deified the metric into a
tensor. *Mathematically, this can easily be proven wrong.

We have two different geometries described by the same coordinate
system with two different metrics.

** ds^2 = [g] * [dq^2] = g_ij dq^i dq^j
** ds'^2 = [g'] * [dq^2] = g'_ij dq^i dq^j

Where

** ds^2 = Geometry #1
** ds'^2 = Geometry #2
** [g] = Metric #1
** [g'] = Metric #2
** [dq^2] = Coordinate system, same
** * = Dot/inner product of two matrices

Or we have the same geometry described below by different metrics and
different coordinate systems. *One example involves the linearly
rectangular and the spherically symmetric polar coordinate systems.

** ds^2 = [g] * [dq^2] = [g']* [dq'^2]
** ds^2 = g_ij dq^i dq^j = g'_ab dq'^a dq'^b

The geometry, ds^2, must be invariant due to obvious reason. *The
choice of coordinate system, d[q^2], is observer dependent. *This can
only mean the metric, [g], must also be observer dependent. *The
metric, the Riemann, and the Ricci tensors cannot be tensors after
all. *All solutions to the field equations must be unique and
independent of each one where all solutions must reference to the same
choice of coordinate system in describing vastly different invariant
geometries. *What good is the set of field equations that can generate
an infinite numbers of solutions to describe infinitely different and
independent universes? *What good is the set
...

read more »

Weightless acceleration begins above zero.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008