Poincaré vs. Einstein

On Apr 9, 5:06 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Edward Green wrote:

I believe it was Hilbert who gets the credit for having come within a
hair's breadth of developing general relativity before Einstein.

Their papers overlapped while in preparation for publication. But it was
Einstein who laid the groundwork for both of their papers, and who got Hilbert
interested in the problem in the first place.

Someone is not using his head. shrug

Nordstrom started with his quest for the field equations by stating
the following Lagragian.

** L = k R

Where

** k = constant
** R = Ricci curvature scalar

Giving the benefit of the doubt, he actually meant the following.

** L = k R + p c^2

Where

** p = rho, density of mass

Demanding for the stationary action (but not the necessary conditions
for the Lagrangian method), taking the partial derivative of this
Lagrangian with respect to each element of metric results in the
following.

** R_ij = 0

Where

** R_ij = 0

It agrees with the Laplace equation but not the more general case of
the Poisson equation. So, clearly another fudge must be applied to
achieve just that.

At that time, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar had
completely abandoned Grossmann’s “entwurf” which was heavily dependent
on coordinate transformation to derive the field equations. The
nitwit knew nothing about physics. However, he did discover the work
of Gerber. What Gerber did to explain Mercury’s perihelion advance
was to modify the Newtonian gravitation potential to include a time
dependent term as explained below.

** U = G M / r / c^2 / (1 – (dr/dt)^2 / c^2)^2

Applying the Euler-Lagrange equations, the result matches with the
observed.

Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar liked the approach
so much. The nitwit saw another way to modify the Newtonian
gravitational potential as follows.

** U = (G M / r/ c^2) (1 + k G M / r / c^2)

Where

** k = constant necessary to explain Mercury’s perihelion advance

Well, Hilbert actually did not know the groundless fudge by Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Through hours of fudging,
Hilbert came up with the following Lagrangian.

** L = k R sqrt(-det([g])

Or rather

** L = (k R + p c^2) sqrt(-det([g]))

Where

** det([g]) = determinant of the matrix [g] (the metric)

Taking the partial derivative of Hilbert’s Lagrangian with respect to
each element of the metric, the result is the set of the field
equations. Gee! It is so ridiculous simple. It was the self-styled
physicists in the past 100 years that would try to make the derivation
of the field equations ever so mysterious in which they all now are
oblivious to how the field equations are derived. To proliferate the
energy momentum tensor, they took the ordinate result from the (p c^2)
term and grossly mystified it to no end. shrug

Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar started with no
Lagrangian but just with more nonsense like what he did before.
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar rewrote Hilbert’s
work through a letter Hilbert sent him days before. The forensic
evidences were all in the mathematics as Professor Lugunov has pointed
out in arXivhysics/0405075 v3 16 Jun 2004. shrug

Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was nobody but a
nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. However, that does not mean what
Nordstrom and Hilbert had done was valid. shrug

Just how long can the self-styled physicists parade their nonsense?
shrug

The whole thing about SR and GR can be summed up with the following.

** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** BULL**** IS TRUTH
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS

shrug

You have previously stated that you believe that the outcome predicted by SR
in the case of the Twin's "paradox" is incorrect.

But you have never told us what you believe the actual outcome would be.

Do you believe the travelling twin be younger, older, or the same age as the
stay at home twin when they are re-united?

On Apr 10, 12:16*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
You have previously stated that you believe that the outcome predicted by SR
in the case of the Twin's "paradox" is incorrect.

But you have never told us what you believe the actual outcome would be.

Do you believe the travelling twin be younger, older, or the same age as the
stay at home twin when they are re-united?

He has absolutely no idea, as he is unable to work the mathematics of
relativity beyond his catchphrase level of knowledge.

On Apr 10, 9:14*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Apr 9, 5:06 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

Edward Green wrote:
I believe it was Hilbert who gets the credit for having come within a
hair's breadth of developing general relativity before Einstein.

Their papers overlapped while in preparation for publication. But it was
Einstein who laid the groundwork for both of their papers, and who got Hilbert
interested in the problem in the first place.

Someone is not using his head. *shrug

Nordstrom started with his quest for the field equations by stating
the following Lagragian.

** *L = k R

Where

** *k = constant
** *R = Ricci curvature scalar

Giving the benefit of the doubt, he actually meant the following.

** *L = k R + p c^2

Where

** *p = rho, density of mass

Demanding for the stationary action (but not the necessary conditions
for the Lagrangian method), taking the partial derivative of this
Lagrangian with respect to each element of metric results in the
following.

** *R_ij = 0

Where

** *R_ij = 0


Unbelievable! So it results that if R_ij = 0 then R_ij = 0 ?? shrug

No contest: you're the genius, Einstein isn't. shrug and shrug

Tonio
shrug shrug shruuuuuug

On Apr 10, 7:14 am, Tonico wrote:
On Apr 10, 9:14 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

** R_ij = 0

Where

** R_ij = 0

Unbelievable! So it results that if R_ij = 0 then R_ij = 0 ?? shrug

Oh, that was just a typo. Just eliminate the following. shrug

Where

** R_ij = 0

The Einstein Dingleberries are just getting dumber and dumber from
generation after generation. Now, they are so ****ing stupid that
their error correction capabilities are totally lacking. After
encountering such a simple typo, they just got stuck and become
vegetables. shrug

So, here is the post again.

Nordstrom started with his quest for the field equations by stating
the following Lagragian.

** L = k R

Where

** k = constant
** R = Ricci curvature scalar

Giving the benefit of the doubt, he actually meant the following.

** L = k R + p c^2

Where

** p = rho, density of mass

Demanding for the stationary action (but not the necessary conditions
for the Lagrangian method), taking the partial derivative of this
Lagrangian with respect to each element of metric results in the
following.

** R_ij = 0

It agrees with the Laplace equation but not the more general case of
the Poisson equation. So, clearly another fudge must be applied to
achieve just that.

At that time, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar had
completely abandoned Grossmann’s “entwurf” which was heavily dependent
on coordinate transformation to derive the field equations. The
nitwit knew nothing about physics. However, he did discover the work
of Gerber. What Gerber did to explain Mercury’s perihelion advance
was to modify the Newtonian gravitation potential to include a time
dependent term as explained below.

** U = G M / r / c^2 / (1 – (dr/dt)^2 / c^2)^2

Applying the Euler-Lagrange equations, the result matches with the
observed.

Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar liked the approach
so much. The nitwit saw another way to modify the Newtonian
gravitational potential as follows.

** U = (G M / r/ c^2) (1 + k G M / r / c^2)

Where

** k = constant necessary to explain Mercury’s perihelion advance

Well, Hilbert actually did not know the groundless fudge by Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Through hours of fudging,
Hilbert came up with the following Lagrangian.

** L = k R sqrt(-det([g])

Or rather

** L = (k R + p c^2) sqrt(-det([g]))

Where

** det([g]) = determinant of the matrix [g] (the metric)

Taking the partial derivative of Hilbert’s Lagrangian with respect to
each element of the metric, the result is the set of the field
equations. Gee! It is so ridiculous simple. It was the self-styled
physicists in the past 100 years that would try to make the derivation
of the field equations ever so mysterious in which they all now are
oblivious to how the field equations are derived. To proliferate the
energy momentum tensor, they took the ordinate result from the (p c^2)
term and grossly mystified it to no end. shrug

Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar started with no
Lagrangian but just with more nonsense like what he did before.
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar rewrote Hilbert’s
work through a letter Hilbert sent him days before. The forensic
evidences were all in the mathematics as Professor Lugunov has pointed
out in arXivhysics/0405075 v3 16 Jun 2004. shrug

Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was nobody but a
nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. However, that does not mean what
Nordstrom and Hilbert had done was valid. shrug

Just how long can the self-styled physicists parade their nonsense?
shrug

The whole thing about SR and GR can be summed up with the following.

** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** BULL**** IS TRUTH
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS

shrug

You have said that you believe that SR's predictions regarding the so-called
Twins paradox is incorrect.

However, you have never said what you believe would actually happen.

Do you think the travelling twin will be younger, older or the same age as
the stay at home twin when they are re-united?

And while we are on the subject, why do you dodge simple questions about
your beliefs? Scared somebody might prove them wrong?

Hmmm ????

Ref: http://www.scienceblog.com/community...199700660.html
From: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft

Einstein Freed From Charge Of Plagiarism

According to the accepted view, the mathematician David Hilbert completed General
Relativity five days before Albert Einstein in November 1915. Einstein may thus have
copied crucial equations of this theory from Hilbert.

Members of an international research group at the Max Planck Institute for the History of
Science, Berlin, argue in their study, published in this week's issue of Science, that it
was instead Hilbert who appropriated crucial results from Einstein and then published his
paper under a misleading dateline.

Albert Einstein submitted his conclusive paper on General Relativity on 25 November 1915.
David Hilbert, one of the most eminent mathematicians of the 20th century, published a
paper in March 1916 which also contains the correct field equations of General Relativity.
Einstein came to know Hilbert's contribution in late November, even before he found his
final equations. He immediately claimed that Hilbert had appropriated his results. The
dateline of Hilbert's paper, "20 November 1915," however, suggests that it was submitted
five days earlier than Einstein's contribution. Did Einstein even copy the correct field
equations from Hilbert's paper, as has been argued? This possibility can now definitely be
excluded.

The authors of the present paper succeeded in identifying proofs of Hilbert's article that
are dated "6 December 1915," that is after the submission of Einstein's conclusive
contribution. Their detailed analysis of these proofs has revealed that they contain only
an immature version of General Relativity, without the explicit field equations. These
equations must have been inserted only later - after 6 December and before the published
version appeared in 1916. Hilbert was, so the authors argue, still deeply ingrained in
wrong assumptions about the physical meaning of his formalism, assumptions which Einstein
had meanwhile painfully overcome. Einstein can hence definitively be freed from the charge
of plagiarism.

Hilbert's contribution, on the other hand, cannot even be considered as an independent
alternative discovery of the field equations of General Relativity. Clearly, before he
published the final version of his article, he must have seen Einstein's conclusive paper.
If Hilbert had only altered the dateline of this paper to the date when he inserted the
correct equations into the proofs no later priority discussion could have arisen.

Although disputes about priority and plagiarism can be crucially important to working
scientists, they are not necessarily a key issue in the history of science. Historians of
science are often less interested in who made an important new discovery but rather in how
new insights become possible. In the case of Einstein's and Hilbert's struggle for
establishing the field equations of a new, relativistic theory of gravitation the
situation is, however, different since the approaches taken by the two scientists were
dramatically distinct: Whereas Einstein combined mathematical strategies with a search for
physical meaning, Hilbert very much relied on the power of his superior mathematical
formalism. Clearly, in this case, the who of the discovery tells indeed much about the how.

Since 1907 Einstein had attempted to carefully reconcile, step by step, tentative
mathematical formulations of his heuristic goal to formulate a relativistic theory of
gravitation with the then available physical knowledge. Hilbert, on the other hand, had
only begun to work on General Relativity in the second half of 1915. He boldly aimed from
the beginning at an axiomatic foundation of physics and at a kind of world formula,
unifying gravitation with electromagnetism. This approach caused the wrong impression that
the field equations of General Relativity could be found by pure mathematical reasoning.

The results reported in the article in Science are an outcome of an international research
project dedicated to the history of General Relativity. The project is centered at the Max
Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin and has produced in the last years
several new insights into the development of this theory.

On Apr 10, 9:39*pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
You have said that you believe that SR's predictions regarding the so-called
Twins paradox is incorrect.

Believe once.

However, you have never said what you believe would actually happen.

Believe once too often. shrug

Do you think the travelling twin will be younger, older or the same age as
the stay at home twin when they are re-united?

Physics is indifferent to the thoughts of individuals.

And while we are on the subject, why do you dodge simple questions about
your beliefs? Scared somebody might prove them wrong?

That KW does not address questions of belief -- even his own -- makes
KW a Scientist -- wrong or otherwise.

Hmmm ????

Hmmm!

Enjo(y)...
---
Mahipal

In the so-called Twin paradox, do you believe the travelling twin will
return younger, the same age, or older than the stay at home twin?

On Apr 10, 11:12*pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
In the so-called Twin paradox, do you believe the travelling twin will
return younger, the same age, or older than the stay at home twin?

Are you asking me, KW, or just Usenetters -- with their
inconsequential beliefs -- in general?

Enjo(y)...
---
Mahipal