Dirk Van de moortel wrote in message

Nice read:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

"There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
a fake?"

The article mentions this newsgroup and a few well
known names.

Anyone any idea about the name of that "giant hulk of
a guy who really put the fear of physical harm into some
of the folks over there"? I'm sure he's present in this
newsgroup...

Enjoy reading,
Dirk Vdm

Nice collection of Imbeciles in order of appearance:
rbwinn
Shubee
Koobee Wublee
Steve Bell
Mike
Androcles
Alen
Don Stockbauwer
Spirit of Truth
Surfer
Pentcho Valev
zzbunker
Bradguth
Mitch Raemsch

Where is Henri Wilson when you need him.

Dirk Vdm

On May 6, 11:44�am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote in message
�





Nice read:
�http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

� "There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
� �relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
� �outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
� �a fake?"

The article mentions this newsgroup and a few well
known names.

Anyone any idea about the name of that "giant hulk of
a guy who really put the fear of physical harm into some
of the folks over there"? I'm sure he's present in this
newsgroup...

Enjoy reading,
Dirk Vdm

Nice collection of Imbeciles in order of appearance:
� �rbwinn
� �Shubee
� �Koobee Wublee
� �Steve Bell
� �Mike
� �Androcles
� �Alen
� �Don Stockbauwer
� �Spirit of Truth
� �Surfer
� �Pentcho Valev
� �zzbunker
� �Bradguth
� �Mitch Raemsch

Where is Henri Wilson when you need him.

Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, here we see the difference between a Doctor and a person.
People talk about relativity, and Doctors talk about people.
Robert B. Winn

Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 2, 2:36 pm, JanPB wrote:
On May 1, 11:56 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Sometime ago, you promised to look through the mathematics I have
posted on GR. In doing so, you were gun-ho about pointing out errors
within. Well, it has been over a year.

It's really quite simple:

1. In general, it's easy to make false claims with bogus technical
terminology,

Yes, but what I have presented was GR pre-1958, and it is an actual
account of mathematical history. shrug

2. In general, it's a lot of work to dissect such claims and expose
them for what they are (namely, baloney). The technical complication
of the argument makes it irrelevant to 99.9% of the population anyway
- most of them will make their judgment based on common sense which
obviously concludes that the probablity you are right is
infinitesimal. The remaining 0.1% already knows your claims are
nonsense from start to finish.

Therefore, your promise is worth nothing. shrug

What I have presented is the reason why Einstein never received that
Nobel Prize in GR as everyone thinks he should deserve. In fact,
there is nothing the Einstein had contributed. Your idol is a nitwit,
a plagiarist, and a liar. shrug

He is not my "idol". Of course you have to repeat this childish lie in
order to belittle your opponents, given that you have no arguments.

Well, here is once again for you enjoyment. Upon request, I have SR
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)

This is already all wrong - the terminology, the concepts, everything.
Complete mess. Hire a grad student to teach you this stuff properly.
The only thing you got right is the last item about i and j.

New readers should keep in mind that despite those mountains of
borderline nonsensical mathematics he is so fond of cutting and
pasting, Koobee is unable to answer simple questions on the subject,
like calculating areas of easy surfaces (e.g. spheres) in curved
manifolds.

--
Jan Bielawski

On May 7, 11:05 pm, JanPB wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

What I have presented is the reason why Einstein never received that
Nobel Prize in GR as everyone thinks he should deserve. In fact,
there is nothing the Einstein had contributed. Your idol is a nitwit,
a plagiarist, and a liar. shrug

He is not my "idol".

Oh, really. Hard to tell. All you have been talking about is how the
genius called Einstein has been. Some one even suggested that he
should win a Nobel Prize on each subject that he had plagiarized. It
is utter sickening.

Of course you have to repeat this childish lie in
order to belittle your opponents, given that you have no arguments.

It is no lie. Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. Doing
a little research in history will tell you exactly that. The
mathematics can back up what I have said. shrug

Well, here is once again for you enjoyment. Upon request, I have SR
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)

This is already all wrong - the terminology,

How can terminology be wrong? If I want to name my God Maggot, you
cannot do anything about it. shrug

the concepts,

shrug

everything.

Yes, keep whining, your majesty, the self-proclaimed queer of England.

Complete mess. Hire a grad student to teach you this stuff properly.
The only thing you got right is the last item about i and j.

shrug

New readers should keep in mind that despite those mountains of
borderline nonsensical mathematics he is so fond of cutting and
pasting, Koobee is unable to answer simple questions on the subject,
like calculating areas of easy surfaces (e.g. spheres) in curved
manifolds.

Yes, spacetime is now a manifold. It can be cut like a diamond. The
Beatles must be true geniuses. Diamond in the sky... Or rather
diamond in spactime...

The following is what you should not have snipped.

* * * * 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.

But Einstein is their pagan God, or perhaps even better than God. To
suggest the truth that "Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar" as merely a perfectly good and reasonably smart puppet, as
having been peer selected out of a crowd of potential clowns, and
subsequently orchestrated along and otherwise promoted by the Zionist/
Jewish intellectual and mainstream status quo cartel, is only going to
bring you a great deal of the most faith-based kind of grief.
. - Brad Guth


Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 7, 11:05 pm, JanPB wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

What I have presented is the reason why Einstein never received that
Nobel Prize in GR as everyone thinks he should deserve. In fact,
there is nothing the Einstein had contributed. Your idol is a nitwit,
a plagiarist, and a liar. shrug

He is not my "idol".

Oh, really. Hard to tell. All you have been talking about is how the
genius called Einstein has been. Some one even suggested that he
should win a Nobel Prize on each subject that he had plagiarized. It
is utter sickening.

Of course you have to repeat this childish lie in
order to belittle your opponents, given that you have no arguments.

It is no lie. Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. Doing
a little research in history will tell you exactly that. The
mathematics can back up what I have said. shrug

Well, here is once again for you enjoyment. Upon request, I have SR
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)

This is already all wrong - the terminology,

How can terminology be wrong? If I want to name my God Maggot, you
cannot do anything about it. shrug

the concepts,

shrug

everything.

Yes, keep whining, your majesty, the self-proclaimed queer of England.

Complete mess. Hire a grad student to teach you this stuff properly.
The only thing you got right is the last item about i and j.

shrug

New readers should keep in mind that despite those mountains of
borderline nonsensical mathematics he is so fond of cutting and
pasting, Koobee is unable to answer simple questions on the subject,
like calculating areas of easy surfaces (e.g. spheres) in curved
manifolds.

Yes, spacetime is now a manifold. It can be cut like a diamond. The
Beatles must be true geniuses. Diamond in the sky... Or rather
diamond in spactime...

The following is what you should not have snipped.

* * * * 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 May 8, 12:22 am, JanPB wrote:
On May 7, 11:45 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Oh, really. Hard to tell. All you have been talking about is how the
genius called Einstein has been.

All I have been talking about is how the genius called Einstein has
been? Really? You really think this is anywhere near what I've been
posting?

Whenever I said the truth about Einstein being a nitwit, a plagiarist,
and a liar, you get all bend out of shape. So, yes, really.

Some one even suggested that he
should win a Nobel Prize on each subject that he had plagiarized. It
is utter sickening.

I couldn't care less about such speculations.

There is no speculation here. shrug


Of course you have to repeat this childish lie in
order to belittle your opponents, given that you have no arguments.

It is no lie. Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar.

Brush up on your reading comprehension skills. I said it was a lie to
claim that Einstein was my "idol" (where "idol" in your sense means
literally mindless worship or some such).

Denying Einstein being your idol is still a lie. Peter did not
recognize Christ three times. How many are you going to turn your
back on your very idol, the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar?

The
mathematics can back up what I have said. shrug

It's just a false statement.

It’s done in the past. You are lying again.

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)

It's meaningless and incompetent:

1. "Invariant geometry in displacement" - this is gobbledy-gook,
2. "Elements of the metric" - elements? Anybody ever use the word
"elements" in this context? (that's a rhetorical question),
3. "Observer’s choice of coordinate system" - no, it's not a "choice
of a coordinate system",
4. this one is correct.

So, you do not ever understand the following equation.

ds^2 = g_ij dq^i dq^j

Why don’t you retire yourself back into that fat castle in the air?
Come back after you understand it.