Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 03:46:52 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <19ad68ad0279f9cc349abdb39cda434e@www.novabbs.com>
References: <84deac76f160f1f681f5275e10d7e683@www.novabbs.com> <e47a7acd067fb390d71e6fc9b6a76061@www.novabbs.com> <snA8P.4$511.3@fx08.ams4> <d5b6c7336db1a2bbf3805d67372fc551@www.novabbs.com> <676340b2$1$29715$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <1d7c6197c62f09b78c4ce8f8ef769f18@www.novabbs.com> <676432f5$2$5190$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <0089909a4c84f196746ec02b98b8d8a4@www.novabbs.com> <59ydnb1-iq6eVfn6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3721467"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="OjDMvaaXMeeN/7kNOPQl+dWI+zbnIp3mGAHMVhZ2e/A";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$cd/jCcq78ahDb9Gx6dP3vOs.v9Seq/8MJmx2t9xJnLgc4JLEx4gWW
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 26080b4f8b9f153eb24ebbc1b47c4c36ee247939
Bytes: 9735
Lines: 218

On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 1:27:34 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

> On 12/19/2024 04:49 PM, rhertz wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:51:32 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>> rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip previous posts>
>>
>>>>>> Your comment is worthless, as you're ACCEPTING THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
>>>>>> IN 1911.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Of course he was, in the Newtonian limit of GR.
>>>>
>>>> 1) In 1911 didn't know SHIT about 1915 Hilbert GR solution for field
>>>> equations.
>>>
>>> Einstein had guessed the correct Newtonian limit
>>> before having the complete final theory.
>>
>> You can't be so ignorant or fanatic!. By 1911, Einstein was TRYING TO
>> UNDERSTAND MINKOWSKY, crying publicly about him not giving a shit about
>> differential geometry when he was at the college, 12 years before. It
>> was also the year when he wrote to Grossman: "Help me, Marcel, or I'll
>> go crazy".
>>
>> He couldn't, in any way, anticipate Grossman's Entwurf (1.5 years
>> ahead). Einstein was an ignorant about advanced mathematics, beyond
>> Calculus 101.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hilbert didn't solve a thing in 1915.
>>
>> Again, You can't be so ignorant or fanatic (OR A LIAR AND DECEIVER)!
>> Hilbert solved the problem of the field equation IN THREE MONTHS, and
>> GAVE A PUBLIC LECTURE about it on Nov. 18, 1915 (one week before
>> Einstein's lecture to the PAC).
>>
>> And keep in mind THIS: Both the field equation form (1915) and the
>> modified Schwarzschild solution (1917) ARE THE ONES USED TODAY. Learn
>> something, asshole.
>>
>>
>>> All he did was producing an unphysical monstruosity,
>>> after which he tried to steal Einstein's achievenments.
>>
>> Another LIE, or a fairy tail that you developed in your head, so you can
>> feel comfortable about your perception of the crook, plagiarist and
>> deceiver.
>>
>> By Dec. 1915, and AFTER his Nov. 25 lecture to the PAC, the IMBECILE
>> still didn't understand fully what he presented. He argued with
>> Schwarzschild about the particular solution, and negated his
>> contribution in the years to come.
>>
>> Hilbert TOOK PITY of the cretin (Hilbert: the TOP MATHEMATICIAN OF THE
>> WORLD) and, patiently, explained to Einstein (from Dec. 1915 to March
>> 1916) HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE SOLUTION. Einstein credited his help IN
>> WRITINGS available on the Princeton site.
>>
>> Hilbert didn't care about GR and his solution, what he made public and
>> credited Einstein for being the physicist behind GR. PUBLICLY.
>> Hilbert didn't give a shit about the Schwarzschild's solution UNTIL
>> 1917, when his collaborator Johannes Droste. The CURRENT FORMULA is the
>> one that Hilbert developed but, as a gentleman he was, he published it
>> as the SCHWARZSCHILD SOLUTION, not taking any credit for it (almost 1.5
>> years after Schwarzschild death). In contrast, the cretin Einstein put
>> the poor Schwarzschild in oblivion, JEALOUS of his intelligence and
>> knowledge (and resented for his help in 1915).
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity_priority_dispute
>>
>>> Ultimately unsuccesfully, the affair has been settled by now.
>>> Hilbert played false with the date in preprint and the published date.
>>> (he should have added a 'modified' date)
>>>
>>> Not even Ohanian supports Hilbert in this.
>>> (despite always being out to put Einstein down)
>>> Hilbert just didn't have it, get over it,
>>
>>
>> Who the fuck is Ohanian, imbecile? This asshole?
>>
>> https://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Spacetime-Hans-C-Ohanian/dp/1107012945
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>> [snip more of the same garbage]
>
> I wouldn't put Hilbert in front of Leibnitz, or,
> you know, Poincare, or Dirichlet, though the
> Hilbert Programme is a nice idea of an idealism
> and the Hilbert Problems are quite well-known,
> though that it doesn't seem he ever said that
> some of the Hilbert problems don't have yes or no
> answers, with theories with laws of large numbers
> that make independent various conjectures of Goldbach,
> or quite thoroughly open up complex analysis.
>
>
> It's like "hey, Hilbert, how you doin" and he goes
> "I've been studying complex function theory and it
> really goes great with my studying anything Gauss
> or Euler ever did" and it's like "great, Hilbert,
> what's the idea", and he goes "it's like real space,
> except with complex numbers".
>
> Then, that that makes some things after Euler's formula
> all ubiquitous to represent angles instead of looking
> after director cosines, helping give triangle inequality
> and a model of probabilistic quantum amplitudes and all,
> I wouldn't say it's "necessary" yet something like the
> deMoivre-Euler-Gauss-Hilbert Euler formula formalism
> is very widely used.
>
> About foundations or geometry, Hilbert has like a,
> "Postulate of Continuity", he does establish that
> besides Euclid that because DesCartes there's required
> in that theory a "Postulate of Continuity". And it's
> like "great, Hilbert, that sounds a lot like Leibnitz'
> Principle of Continuity and Principle of Perfection"
> and maybe he's like "well, I wouldn't say it's perfect, ...".
>
> And it's like "that's OK, Leibnitz already did".


You are right. I wouldn't dare to put Hilbert above Poincaré. I should
have
explained that, by 1915, Hilbert was the top mathematician of the world.
Poincaré was gone by 1912 and Klein, who worked closely with Hilbert,
had retired.

After decades of work, Hilbert was in its golden years by 1915, and he
went further with his developments in the next 8 years.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hilbert

QUOTE:

David Hilbert (23 January 1862 – 14 February 1943) was a German
mathematician and philosopher of mathematics and one of the most
influential mathematicians of his time.

Known for
Hilbert's basis theorem
Hilbert's Nullstellensatz
Hilbert's axioms
Hilbert's 23 problems
Hilbert's program
Einstein–Hilbert action
Hilbert space (quantum physics)
Hilbert system
Epsilon calculus

Hilbert considered the mathematician Hermann Minkowski to be his "best
and truest friend".


In 1920, Hilbert proposed a research project in metamathematics that
became known as Hilbert's program. He wanted mathematics to be
formulated on a solid and complete logical foundation. He believed that
in principle this could be done by showing that:

-  all mathematics follows from a correctly chosen finite system of
axioms; and
- that some such axiom system is provably consistent through some means
such as the epsilon calculus.


========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========