On Oct 6, 3:15 pm, nill wrote:
i hear a lot of people around me telling
that it wasnt einstein inventing relativity,
but some other guys before him

exactly what was einsteins contributon
to relativity, did he stole his tensors?

He invented Special Relativity,
and Quantum Mechanics Morons DIDN't.
That's his contribution to Relativity.

drill wrote:
On Oct 7, 6:22 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
[... much misinformation]

good post, thanx

You might think it "good", but to actual physicists and historians of
physics is it nonsense.


i didnt knew he did all those dishonest things

Einstein didn't. Koobee Wublee makes stuff up without any significant
justification, just to fit Koobeee's twisted sense of things. Most of
what he writes is just plain wrong, but he insists everybody else is
wrong. It is not possible to have a serious discussion with him.


Tom Roberts

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 6, 1:21 pm, "Pmb" wrote:
"nill" wrote in message

ups.com...

i hear a lot of people around me telling
that it wasnt einstein inventing relativity,
but some other guys before him

And yet these other guys can't prove it for themselves?

There were at least two other people who were significanlty involved. One
was a mathematician named David Hilbert who also worked on General
Relativity. In fact he worked with Einstein during November 1915. The
final
steps to the theory of general relativity were taken by Einstein and
Hilbert
at almost the same time. They both discovered the same final form of the
gravitational field equations within days of each other must indicate
that
their exchange of ideas was helpful.

The other his friend was his friend Marcel Grossman. I'm not sure how
much
they worked together but I do know that they published a paper together
called "Outline of a Generalized Theory of Relativity and of a Theory of
Gravitation." The first part was called "Physical Part" and was written
by
Einstein while the second part was called "Mathematical Part" and was
written by Grossman.

exactly what was einsteins contributon to relativity,

To hard to quantify but he contributed to most of it. Ask an historian
that
question.

.. did he stole his tensors?

You can steal a tensor as much as you can steal the number 4.

Pete

123 567, something looks missing.
From what I've gleened from bio's, AE
learned tensors in his 30's, but most
guys today started in their teens, that's
a big advantage, growing up with them.

I learned enough mathematics to get a degree in math during my 20's. I had
two majors and they only let me have one major on the diploma. Since I'd
rather be a physicist than a mathematician I chose Physics as my primary
major. All I really did is to take a handful of courses that I otherwise
would have filled with basketweaving and wham! Second major. I started
learning about tensors in my 30's and really hammered down on them when I
was 39. Since then its mostly what I've been studying. Or I've been studying
something which would aid in my sudy of tensors such as refreshing my memory
on Linear and Abstract Algebra.


If I had my way, I'd start tensors in
public school, which in a way is done
by learning conversion from metric units
to imperial units for length, areas,
volumes, mass etc.
Yea Fahrenheit!
Ken

I woder if it'd work?

Pete

On Oct 6, 7:37 pm, "Pmb" wrote:
On Oct 6, 10:45 pm, Eric Gisse
wrote:
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 16:21:58 -0400, "Pmb"
wrote:
[snip junk]

Goddamnit Pete, all you do is give him a reason to continue his
dyslexic trolling. Learn some pattern recognition.

It takes time for me to determine who I should Plonk. It took me a while to
figure out that I needed to plonk you!

Pete

Bravo! Houra!

On Oct 7, 6:36 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
drill wrote:
On Oct 7, 6:22 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
[... much misinformation]

good post, thanx

You might think it "good", but to actual physicists and historians of
physics is it nonsense.

i didnt knew he did all those dishonest things

Einstein didn't. Koobee Wublee makes stuff up without any significant
justification, just to fit Koobeee's twisted sense of things. Most of
what he writes is just plain wrong, but he insists everybody else is
wrong. It is not possible to have a serious discussion with him.

Tom Roberts

My two cents, Poincare was very well known and studied extensively
with Relativity. Einstein worked in a Patent Office. Einstein did not
come up with Relativity without reading other people's current
research such as MMX and Poincare. Before Einstein, through RESEARCH,
Poincare discover that radiation generated the following formula M = E/
c^2.

Larmor brought relativity to the micro or quantum world through time
dilation for electrons.
Einstein brought relativity to the macro world, for all objects and
not just particles.

Eisntein and Schrodinger (who's equation determines the probability of
the electron's location) both refused to bring Heinsenberg's quantum
principles to the Macro world. Through Einstein's no dice, and
Shrodinger's cat.

On Oct 7, 12:31 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Oct 6, 9:16 pm, Dave Cook wrote:

Lorentz and Poincare did important work but were never able to make
the final leap that Einstein made. Also, I don't believe they had
that much influence on Einstein's 1905 paper.

Who care about what Lorentz and Poincare did? Their interpretations
were all based on the Lorentz transform which was first derived by
Larmor anyway. shrug

The event that would branch SR from the traditional development of
physics came in 1881 when Michelson improvised an experiment utilizing
the interferometer to detect the earth's speed relative to the
background of the Aether. The results showed this speed was zero
through out the seasons. While all contemporary physicists would
claim Michelson's experiment lacked the necessary accuracy, Voigt
finally proposed the Voigt transform below as a modification of the
Galilean transform to explain these null results.

** dt' = dt - v dx / c^2
** dx' = dx - v dt
** dy' = dy sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
** dz' = dz sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

Understanding that the classical Doppler shift is to keep the
wavelength to be constant in the medium of transmission, Voigt's
insight was to hold the speed constant instead of the wavelength.
Voigt in 1887 was already suggesting constancy in the speed of light.
Obviously, the Voigt transform violates the principle of relativity in
which the Galilean transform does not as described below.

** dt'= dt
** dx' = dx - v dt
** dy' = dy
** dz' = dz'

In 1887, Michelson would co-operate with Morley to conduct the more
famous Michelson-Morley experiment which was essentially the same
experiment as in 1881 but with better accuracy. Once again, the
results were null. It prompted FitzGerald and then Lorentz
independently to suggest a length contraction, but this suggestion was
totally unnecessary. In 1897, Larmor, knowing about the Voigt
transform, modified the Voigt transform to the Lorentz transform below
that allows the principle of relativity which was already established
by Galileo several hundred years prior.

** dt' = (dt - v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
** dx' = (dx - v dt) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
** dy' = dy
** dz' = dz

Over the years, Poincare and Lorentz each would come up with his own
interpretation to the mathematics of the Lorentz transform. By 1905,
Einstein or whoever the author of that 1905 paper was merely echoed
Poincare's conjecture.

The nonsense of the Lorentz transform was finally pointed out by
Langevin in 1911 as the twin's paradox. The combination of time
dilation and the principle of relativity is the cause of this
paradox. To this day, besides numerous false claims all contracting
each other, this paradox is still not yet resolved. The most serious
attempt in resolution of this paradox was suggested by Einstein
through the break-up of the symmetry due to different experiences of
acceleration by each twin. However, one can easily dispute this
nonsense by suggesting an experiment that both twins going through the
same acceleration profile.

Einstein's GR depended on mathematics developed by Ricci and
Levi-Civita (and many others that preceded them).

It was Hilbert who derived the field equations from the mathematical
inventions of Ricci and Levi-Civita after Riemann and Christoffel had
already paved the necessary but still very valid mathematics.

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.

d[s] = [Q] d[q] = [Q'] d[q']

Where

** d[s] = Invariant geometry in displacement vector
** [Q], [Q'] = Matrices
** d[q], dq[q'] = Coordinate systems

The above equation squared is

ds^2 = [g] * d[q^2] = [g'] * d[q'^2]

Where

** [g] = [Q]^Transpose [Q]
** [g'] = [Q']^Transpose [Q']
** d[q^2] = d[q] d[q]^Transpose
** d[q'^2] = d[q'] d[q']^Transpose
** [A] * [b] = SUM(SUM(A_ij B_ij)), dot product
** ds^2 = Invariant, still

The metric [g] and the metric [g'] cannot be the same if the choice of
coordinate system [q] is different from [q'].

ds^2 = [g] * d[q^2] = g_ij dq^i dq^j = Invariant

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?

Hmmmm something is missing.

On Oct 7, 12:53 am, JanPB wrote:
Jan Bielawski

My two cents, Poincare was very well known and studied extensively
with Relativity. Einstein worked in a Patent Office. Einstein did not
come up with Relativity without reading other people's current
research such as MMX and Poincare. Before Einstein, through RESEARCH,
Poincare discover that radiation generated the following formula M = E/
c^2.

Larmor brought relativity to the micro or quantum world through time
dilation for electrons.
Einstein brought relativity to the macro world, for all objects and
not just particles.

Eisntein and Schrodinger (who's equation determines the probability of
the electron's location) both refused to bring Heinsenberg's quantum
principles to the Macro world. Through Einstein's no dice, and
Shrodinger's cat.

On Oct 6, 7:19 pm, JanPB wrote:
On Oct 6, 12:15 pm, nill wrote:



1. for all practical purposes all claims that relativity has an error
in it or that Einstein didn't create relativity can be safely ignored

Jan Bielawski

SNIFF. That was BeeUteeFULL JAN just like u.

I am so happy to know that if JAN or Poincare ever finds out through
her extensive research that M = E/C^2, all I need to do is write E =
MC^2 and I'M no longer a PLAGIARIST!!!

Oh and the lipstick on your Hubby's colar are INDEED FROM HIS MOMMA!

On Oct 7, 4:35 am, "Pmb" wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in oglegroups.com...



On Oct 6, 1:21 pm, "Pmb" wrote:
"nill" wrote in message

roups.com...

i hear a lot of people around me telling
that it wasnt einstein inventing relativity,
but some other guys before him

And yet these other guys can't prove it for themselves?

There were at least two other people who were significanlty involved. One
was a mathematician named David Hilbert who also worked on General
Relativity. In fact he worked with Einstein during November 1915. The
final
steps to the theory of general relativity were taken by Einstein and
Hilbert
at almost the same time. They both discovered the same final form of the
gravitational field equations within days of each other must indicate
that
their exchange of ideas was helpful.

The other his friend was his friend Marcel Grossman. I'm not sure how
much
they worked together but I do know that they published a paper together
called "Outline of a Generalized Theory of Relativity and of a Theory of
Gravitation." The first part was called "Physical Part" and was written
by
Einstein while the second part was called "Mathematical Part" and was
written by Grossman.

exactly what was einsteins contributon to relativity,

To hard to quantify but he contributed to most of it. Ask an historian
that
question.

.. did he stole his tensors?

You can steal a tensor as much as you can steal the number 4.

Pete

123 567, something looks missing.
From what I've gleened from bio's, AE
learned tensors in his 30's, but most
guys today started in their teens, that's
a big advantage, growing up with them.

I learned enough mathematics to get a degree in math during my 20's. I had
two majors and they only let me have one major on the diploma. Since I'd
rather be a physicist than a mathematician I chose Physics as my primary
major. All I really did is to take a handful of courses that I otherwise
would have filled with basketweaving and wham! Second major. I started
learning about tensors in my 30's and really hammered down on them when I
was 39. Since then its mostly what I've been studying. Or I've been studying
something which would aid in my sudy of tensors such as refreshing my memory
on Linear and Abstract Algebra.

Well in tensors (IMHO) you're in Daryl's
league, which is about as good as they come.

If I had my way, I'd start tensors in
public school, which in a way is done
by learning conversion from metric units
to imperial units for length, areas,
volumes, mass etc.
Yea Fahrenheit!
Ken

I woder if it'd work?

As a brat I'd enjoy tracing and drafting.
When it hit me that I could trace a plain
line from a blank sheet of paper onto any
kind of graph paper, (metric , 1/4", polar,
isometric graph paper etc), it's the *same*
line, simple enough but it was a wow moment.
Later, when reading GR, CS transformations,
General Covariance and Invariance were all
very impressive - that the big shots had
actually formulated an entire branch of math
to that subject, tensor analysis.
It was also democratic, in that anyone may
select there own PoV (CS) and arrive at
different numbers even looking at the same
thing.

So I think it would work, it also provides
a simple way of "relating" different CS's
which is a basis of relativity. The "wow"
moment I described is easily available to
Public School kids.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

On Oct 7, 6:11 am, " wrote:
On Oct 6, 7:19 pm, JanPB wrote:

On Oct 6, 12:15 pm, nill wrote:

1. for all practical purposes all claims that relativity has an error
in it or that Einstein didn't create relativity can be safely ignored
Jan Bielawski

SNIFF. That was BeeUteeFULL JAN just like u.

Thank you.

I am so happy to know that if JAN or Poincare ever finds out through
her extensive research that M = E/C^2, all I need to do is write E =
MC^2 and I'M no longer a PLAGIARIST!!!

Writing down a formula is one thing, creating a new theory which
reproduces this formula is another thing.

Obviously, if the formula was correct, the new theory must necessarily
reproduce it if it's to be any good.

Both authors deserve credit for what they did.

[snip]

--
Jan Bielawski