Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 16:19:55 +0000
Subject: Re: Steel Man of Einstein & Relativity.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <23387e561af5e3d769b94ab9ddc5f74b@www.novabbs.com>
 <7dfa7214e108991221d9b7115961ca87@www.novabbs.com>
 <00a9cb00ad7df66a0aaeefeac11278a7@www.novabbs.com>
 <-hc8RY2DvPYBVYYkPGqCAQ_LJH8@jntp> <vbnhuq$2h766$1@dont-email.me>
 <bd0ef39e13f5bbc44f19458c6e6238e1@www.novabbs.com>
 <8OqdnXqgqLxCMX77nZ2dnZfqnPoAAAAA@giganews.com>
 <d026450701e796e11040ce91412fa87c@www.novabbs.com>
 <vc31l3$19el9$1@dont-email.me>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 09:20:23 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <vc31l3$19el9$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <5zqdnb2qHtQ2Knj7nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 79
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-sIQNZQgHZuLie189TS0RqWHhM7Pq1OO8h1rthgTfJglJIAl0e0JWnYhiZEukpEkv5l7rMvHcd/8uCac!g3VD9MAmi0bGosjpASZGaNwrDW6kRZ4yWUJ9bTwSjBYIiBfam8WSgR6okE0jBw34MK3J6/s3jSYz!9g==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 5341

On 09/13/2024 08:58 PM, Volney wrote:
> On 9/13/2024 2:00 AM, rhertz wrote:
>
>> α = 8π² a³/[c² T²]  = 2 GM/c² (curiously, it's the Schwarzschild radius
>> for the Sun).
>
> Not "curiously", the GR formula for deflection depends on the
> Schwarzschild radius. Look what happens when you calculate deflection of
> light grazing a Schwarzschild radius object.
>>
>> The only possible explanation is that he commited FRAUD, in order to
>> obtain the 43"/cy.
>>
>> Finally, I'm shure that his ADVISOR Schwarzschild had a cut in the 1915
>> paper that he presented to the Prussian Academy of Science. Even when he
>> was serving as a Lieutenant on the Eastern Front (WWI),  Schwarzschild
>> made sure to be present on that day (Nov. 18, 1915). After all, he was
>> not at the vanguard of the eastern front.
>>
>> Just ONE MONTH AFTER THIS PRESENTATION, Schwarzschild came out with his
>> analytical solution that formally introduced what is known today as the
>> Schwarzschild´s radius formula.
>>
>> TOO MANY COINCIDENCES AND TOO MUCH ROTTEN FISH AROUND GR INTRODUCTION IN
>> SOCIETY.
>
> Nobody cares about your obvious paranoia created delusions.

Here that's considered with respect to the "cube wall", as with
regards to systems of coordinates, what there is of the tensorial
preserving the affine for otherwise the "not-coordinate-free",
and under torsions, then as with regards to the Kerr, Kruzkeles (sp.),
and turtle coordinates, with regards to Schw. and Chandrasekhar.

Einstein's work on the centrally symmetrical and his
"second most-famous mass-energy equivalency relation
that nobody's ever heard of", also enter the picture
as with regards to the laws of motion and classical,
and the sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials as what's
considered "real", for realists, today.

Then, as with regards to doubling-spaces and doubling-measures,
and halving-spaces and halving-measures, gets involved with
the continuum mathematically, as with regards to the
individuation of parts, or points, a.k.a. quantization,
with regards to models of flow and the fluid, and flux
and the super-fluid.

So, when doubling or halving really very is according to
ponderance of derivation, capricious, to make it fit,
then gets into these days what's called quasi-invariance
and the quasi-invariant in the measure theory, as with
regards to the measure problem, and why mathematics has
required a "re-Vitali-ization", of the measurable really
of Vitali's example, and why Vitali and Hausdorff are at
least as good geometers as Banach and Tarski algebraists,
that mathematics _owes_ physics more about why this is so,
and as with regards to the usual notions of stress and
strain tensors, about Green and Euler and Cauchy and Dirac,
and Piola-Kirchhoff, with regards to Birkhoff and the lacunary
and the Ramsey theory, why there are more than the standard
laws of large numbers, for it to result that and when the
doubling and halving are _not_ capricious, conscientiously.

It's like, "Einstein, what coordinates maintain continuity
among and between these systems of coordinates", and it's
like, "whatever works, one of the major aspects of my later
researches into the total field theory of the differential-system
of the inertial-system that's real gets involved the centrally
symmetric with regards to the un-linear", while physics yet
doesn't even have a model of "the infinitely-many higher orders
of acceleration, nominally non-zero yet vanishing", then it's
like, "you know, the cosmological constant is about that".

.... Which of course is available to reason. Poincare and Dirichlet
are pretty great, and, one of Hilbert's greater ideas is that
"you know, geometry needs a postulate of continuity or one made".