Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Steel Man of Einstein & Relativity.
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 10:00:44 +0200
Lines: 133
Message-ID: <lki9pdFdmk2U7@mid.individual.net>
References: <23387e561af5e3d769b94ab9ddc5f74b@www.novabbs.com>
 <7dfa7214e108991221d9b7115961ca87@www.novabbs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net cpIAwil4Sp77Si3Td5PAXAXAYY/iMbcJhGxH7WDDhvrSHjsbhY
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mFVrzQhwYr64RpQenE8yWEM6El0= sha256:Q/oAg1vg3hEix5PCMIX8HiUk2Yc7IPEVd+vuOzqZnLo=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <7dfa7214e108991221d9b7115961ca87@www.novabbs.com>
Bytes: 7577

Am Montag000009, 09.09.2024 um 03:58 schrieb rhertz:
> Things were as follows, in the period 1911-1915:
> 
> 1) Einstein followed the ideas of Poisson, Faraday and Maxwell (gravity
> and electromagnetism),in the sense that gravity was exerted through
> FIELDS, not FORCES (Newton). To clarify, Poisson and Gauss didn't
> rejected Newton, but only re-wrote Newton's equations of gravitation in
> terms of fields and density.
> 
> 2) In his 1911 Einstein, very stupidly, assimilated the POTENTIAL ENERGY
> of electromagnetic energy (photons) to ANY gravitational potential
> energy of any object raised from Earth's surface. But he APPLIED IT to
> photons, writing the infamous equation f=f' (1+g.h/c2). This stupid
> formula was brought up to the light again in 1961, by the Pound-Rebka
> experiment in the paper "Do photons have mass?", which they later
> reproduced by changing the name to "Red-shifting", using gamma rays from
> Fe57 compound and the Mossbauer effect (no recoil).
> 
> 3) Einstein was desperate to find a mathematician that could do the
> dirty work since then. Firs tried with Alexander Pick, in Prague, but
> the "partnership" lasted one year. He abandoned the professorship in
> Prague and run to Berna, when he convinced his "friend" Marcel Grossman
> to be the co-author of a paper on GR, promising him fame and glory.
> Grossman, old pal from college, was specialized in differential
> geometry, but his know-how was FAR AWAY from what was needed to write
> even the first sketch of GR (Entwurf I, 1913).
> 
> 4) Looking for HELP to find a mathematics that could cover spacetime
> (four variables), he got the advice and full support of Levi-Civita, an
> italian mathematician that (in his school), had expanded Riemann's
> theory of N-Dimensions space with the use of Ricci tensors and
> Christoffen symbols. Using it for 4-space dimensions posed a problem
> because, as it described 4D objects of any form, as a point was used to
> navigate such 4D surface, it suffered TORSIONS. There was only ONE
> SOLUTION to avoid the problem of variant and contravariant variables and
> IT WAS to use a Ricci's connector, which was torsion-free. Yet, the
> solution was used ONLY for 4 dimensions of space!
> 
> 5) What Grossman did was to replace the fourth spatial coordinate for
> ct, which IS NOT A SPATIAL DIMENSION. By doing so, he created the tensor
> notation of GR with spacetime embedded. When Grossman presented his
> solution to Einstein, he went bananas and BEGGED to Grossman to develop
> the mathematical framework of GR (1913 solution). Simplifying the
> complex set of equations by using a context of ONLY ONE MASS in vacuum,
> at the center of reference, it was all set to present it in society.
> Only that it didn't work, because neither Grossman nor Einstein did
> accept the hysterical advices of Levi-Civita, who detailed to them the
> errors while using contravariant expressions.
> 
> 6) Prior to the start of WWI, and the moving of Einstein to Berlin in
> March 1914, a second publication with both names (Entwurf II) was
> published, but was MATHEMATICALLY WRONG
> 
> 7) It took, for Einstein, more than 1.5 years and THE ADVICES of
> Levi-Civita, Schwarzschild, Hilbert and other advisors like Lorentz (to
> cite a few of the impressive staff supporting him), to obtain a
> MATHEMATICALLY CORRECT STRUCTURE OF GR, just exactly in November 1915).
> Einstein promptly presented to the Prussian Academy of Science
> (Schwarzchild was present that day) HIS SOLUTION for the Mercury's
> problem. In the same paper included a few cryptic lines about that he
> obtained a new value for the deflection of starlight grazing the Sun's
> surface. He used APPROXIMATIONS to solve Mercury's problem, and NEVER
> EVER presented any written proof of his assertion about startlight
> deflection. Yet, by then HE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE MATHEMATICS THAT HE
> PRESENTED!
> 
> As a gentleman he was, Hilbert taught Einstein about the field equations
> composition, what took up to March 1916. Einstein did thank Hilbert IN A
> LETTER (also to Levi-Civita. Incredibly, he was more than UNGRATEFUL to
> Scharzschild, who provided THE ONLY ANALYTICAL SOLUTION to the case of
> GR with only one mass in December 1915. A solution that remained unique
> until 1962, with the Kerr's solution for a rotating mass. At any case,
> due to complexities, Schawrzchild's solution (with a minor correction
> published by Hilbert in 1917) is the FAVORITE SOLUTION for relativists
> AS OF TODAY.
> 
> 8) That GR equations implied a twisted and retorted spacetime (IDIOTIC,
> IMPOSSIBLE) was not a problem for the new generation of "apostles of
> physics", avid to use the complex mathematical set of GR to invent any
> possible (and stupid) new theory mounted on it (Black Holes,
> Gravitational Waves, space moving faster than light, support for the
> BBT, etc.).
> 
> 9) The core of the theory, for laymen, is that heavy gravitational
> masses (like the Sun) bend space. So, the gravitational field (a result
> of GEOMETRICAL DISTORTIONS OF SPACE) produce A WELL INTO SPACE, through
> which objects FALL TOWARDS THE CENTER, where the heavy mass is located).
> As you can see, GRAVITY in GR is not caused by FORCES, but by objects
> that accelerate while falling toward the center of the spatial
> depletion.
> 


You should see 'space' as antagonistic to 'matter' and both as 'relative'.

This can be obtained, if you regard time as 'imaginary scalar'.

So time is defining an imaginary axis, to which a real 'inverse' 
belongs, which we call 'space'.

If you would regard a common spacetime diagramm as a variant of an 
Argand diagramm, you would draw time upwards and spacelike axes horizontal.

Since these spacelike axes are actually three (say: x, y and z), we 
would need to multiply a flat (2-dimensional) spacetime diagramm by three.

Then the axis of time is a an imaginary scalar and 'perpendicular' to 
the axes of space.

The axis of time defines actually, what we call 'matter', while the axes 
of space define, what we call 'vacuum'.

Now: what is actually matter?

I would say: matter is actually 'timelike stable structures'.

This means: what is matter in one space isn't necessarily matter in 
another space.

This is kind of odd and difficult to understand, because humans are kind 
of 'hard wired' to think 'materialistic'.

But, if we regard celestial objects as huge lumps of such structures, 
those objects could easily bent space.

see here:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

....


TH