Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #659625 > unrolled thread

Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-17 19:50 +0000
    Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 14:28 -0800
      Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-12-20 21:31 +0000
        Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-21 11:01 +0100
          Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-21 12:49 +0000
          Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-12-27 22:38 +0000
            Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-29 10:53 +0100
            Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-29 14:49 +0100
    Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-17 22:58 +0000
      Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-18 14:48 +0100
        Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-18 16:11 +0100
        Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-18 17:40 +0000
          Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-18 22:37 +0100
            Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-18 22:43 +0100
            Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-18 23:51 +0000
              Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-18 18:02 -0800
              Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-19 15:51 +0100
                Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-20 00:49 +0000
                  Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-19 17:27 -0800
                    Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-20 03:46 +0000
                      Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-20 04:10 +0000
                        Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-20 12:56 +0100
                          Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-20 16:38 +0000
                            Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-20 23:36 +0100
                              Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-21 00:58 +0000
                                Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-20 17:56 -0800
                                  Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-20 18:30 -0800
                                    Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-23 19:30 -0800
                                  Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-21 11:01 +0100
                                    Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2024-12-27 02:20 -0600
                                      Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-27 10:45 +0100
                                      Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-29 10:53 +0100
                                Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-21 11:01 +0100
                                  Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-21 15:38 +0000
                                    Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-22 14:25 +0100
                                      Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-22 16:34 +0000
                                        Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-12-28 19:42 +0000
                                      Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-12-23 09:54 +0100
                                        Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-12-23 10:59 +0100
                                          Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-23 23:05 +0100
                      Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-19 20:30 -0800
                  Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-20 06:32 +0100
                Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-12-27 22:29 +0000
                  Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-27 22:37 +0000
                    Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-12-27 23:52 +0000
                    Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-12-28 01:34 +0000
                      Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-28 02:21 +0000
                        Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-12-28 03:40 +0000
                          Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-28 13:18 +0000
                            Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2024-12-28 13:55 +0000
                              Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-28 14:18 +0000
                                Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-29 14:29 +0100
                                  Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-29 18:17 +0000
                                    Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-30 20:47 +0100
                                    Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-31 11:01 +0100
                              Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-12-29 10:26 +0100
                    Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-12-28 01:32 +0000
                      Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-28 02:19 +0000
                      Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-27 19:22 -0800
                        Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-12-28 03:37 +0000
                  Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-29 16:06 +0100
          Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-20 21:40 +0100

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#659681

On 12/19/2024 07:46 PM, rhertz wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
> By early summer 1915, Hilbert's interest in physics had focused on
> general relativity, WHEN he invited Einstein to Göttingen to deliver a
> week of lectures on the subject of relativity.
>
> Hilbert offered his house to host Einstein, which allowed Einstein to
> discuss in depth his work AND ASK Hilbert for some advices, which
> continued for months with exchange of letters.
>
> During November 1915, Einstein published several papers culminating in
> The Field Equations of Gravitation. The final solution, the field
> equation, was SHOWN to Einstein in a letter THAT DISAPPEARED.
>
> Hilbert credited Einstein as the originator of THE THEORY (not the FE)
> and no public priority dispute concerning the field equations ever arose
> between the two men during their lives.
>
> At the final stage (Nov. 1915), the correct general covariant equations
> of gravitation were expressed, first by Hilbert. Hilbert's contribution
> was always noted in the early classical relativistic literature. The
> most exact and detailed evaluation was given by Wolfgang Pauli in his
> famous encyclopedic
> article, "Simultaneously with Einstein and independently of him, the
> general covariant field equations were established by Hilbert".
>
> Hilbert's presentation was not quite comfortable for the physicists,
> because in the first place he axiomatically defined the variational
> principle, and, which is more important, his equations were expressed
> not for an arbitrary material system, but were based on Mie's theory of
> matter.
>
>
> On the discovery of the gravitational field equations: New material
>
> https://www.ufn.ru/ufn01/ufn01_12/ufn0112d.pdf
>
>
> Historical background of general relativity: 1830 - 1915
>
> https://inspirehep.net/files/476245abe9fc78161f21345d06e569ff

The variational principle is usually given to Lagrange.
Or, so I read from John Heilbron and Leonid Sedov.

The notion from electrical theory of two superimposed
charged circular bodies then offset infinitesimally,
thusly establishing poles, like O.W. Richardson points out,
makes for that electrons are quite super-classical while
though as Richardson also points out that though there's
an equivalence in the wave formalism about energy and
frequency and wavelength, relating to the optical, of
course various kinds of radiation are variously not optical.


Things like the variational principle and also the
virial principle and hypotheses of small perturbations
and so on, make for usual account of the non-adiabatic,
which has been pretty tough to figure out at least
since trapezoid rule and the Mertonian school.

It's all "Lagrangians", say.



With regards to Einstein and priority, Einstein's pretty
much held up as a giant and he's so sacred to people's
popular understanding of what they think science is,
that you're welcome to point out all kinds of others
that deserve more credit, yet then you kind of have
to explain it in terms of what people followed as
"the only physicist the public even knows", that,
even Einstein, Einstein himself, after his early successes,
and they're not wrong, Einstein himself of course was
always both refining his theories to eventually protect
himself from his own followers, and so that a generous
reading of revisions, to the theories, can explain to
people how Einstein's own theories changed along,
because that's the public's only concept of a physicist.


Then, among other physicists and there are any number
of them here, then you're welcome to point out the
issues in the theoretical developments, but there's
nothing anybody can do about non-physicists only
knowing and constantly being told Einstein was right,
somehow super-classical and right, that it's understood
among physicists and mathematicians that Einstein was
a pretty great physicist, and much improved _his_ theories
from "classic" SR and "classic" GR, say. Or, "Einstein's
Relativity", is _not_ "popular Relativity".


So, what you're looking for, is better theory, anybody
is welcome to establish more correctly what Einstein's
Relativity really is, _and the limits of its import_,
and kick the rest to the curb, then though what's relevant
is to extract all the empirical milieus like the
Heaviside and Faraday and Larmor and FitzGerald and
the Airy and the Fresnel and the Young and the,
the Lagrange, and so on, and Fatio and LeSage,
because anything that's "new physics" is somewhere
put aside in "old physics", so that the priority
belongs to them, and to avoid false new idols
whose claim to fame is a back-catalog of technical
reports from Old Big Science.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659685

W dniu 20.12.2024 o 01:49, rhertz pisze:
> 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!

Of course he can. Why not?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659862

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:51:32 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 21:37:54 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>> rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 13:48:34 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Den 17.12.2024 23:58, skrev rhertz:
>>>>>> Einstein wrote, in his 1911 paper:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .....................................
>>>>>> 3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K0 in S2
>>>>>> toward S1 had the frequency f2 relative to the clock at S2, then,
>>>>>> relative to S1, at its arrival at S1 it no longer has the frequency f2
>>>>>> relative to an identical clock at S1, but a greater frequency f1, such
>>>>>> that, to a first approximation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2)                  f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ***********************************************************************
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2')                  h?f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2'')                 E1(1 photon) - E2 (1 photon) = h?f2 gh/c?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> h?: Planck's constant
>>>>>>
>>>>>> S2 is a point on the z axis at a distance h of point S1, located at the
>>>>>> z origin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Einstein described how a photon falling vertically from a height h,
>>>>>> under gravity acceleration g, gained energy gh/c?. It meant that the
>>>>>> photon's frequency was blue-shifted while it fell due to gravity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By that epoch (1911), he kept talking about clocks as reference of time.
>>>>>> By today standards and the use of ANY atomic clock, the frequency of the
>>>>>> EM energy is what counts in his theory. It doesn't matter what kind of
>>>>>> EM clock is, as it ONLY counts cycles/sec of such EM energy, either at
>>>>>> 9.6 Ghz for Cesium, 1.4 Ghz for Hydrogen maser or ANY derived frequency
>>>>>> that is obtained by digitally down scaling the frequency. The same
>>>>>> formula applies to 9.6 Ghz oscillation or a derived 1 Mhz signal. Clocks
>>>>>> just COUNT pulses.
>>>>>
>>>>> Forget the 1911 paper.
>>>>>
>>>>> Einstein's last word on the matter is GR.
>>>>>
>>>>> What GR predicts for the Pound - Rebka experiment:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's count pulses.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have two equal, very precise atomic clocks.
>>>>> These clocks are emitting the exact frequency f = 10 GHz.
>>>>> We place one clock on the ground, and the other clock above
>>>>> it in a tower with height h = 22.56 m.
>>>>>
>>>>> After one day the ground clock will show ?? = 86400 s
>>>>> and it will have emitted N? = 0.864e15 cycles.
>>>>>
>>>>> The clock on the ground will have received:
>>>>>   N? = N??(1+g?h/c?) = N??(1+2.5e-15) = (0.864e15 + 2)
>>>>> which means that that the clock in the tower will show:
>>>>>   ?? = 86400 s + 0.2 ns
>>>>>
>>>>> After one year  ?? - ?? = 78.2 ns
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> Hilbert didn't solve a thing in 1915.
> All he did was producing an unphysical monstruosity,
> after which he tried to steal Einstein's achievenments.
> 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,
>
> Jan
>
> [snip more of the same garbage]
Since Einstein admitted being inept at math, who did he credit for the
Field Equations?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659864

Le 27/12/2024 à 23:29, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit 
:
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:51:32 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Since Einstein admitted being inept at math, who did he credit for the
> Field Equations?

 Albert Einstein was a myth.

 A pure media creation.

 R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659869

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:37:46 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 27/12/2024 à 23:29, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
> :
>> On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:51:32 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
>> Since Einstein admitted being inept at math, who did he credit for the
>> Field Equations?
>
>  Albert Einstein was a myth.
>
>  A pure media creation.
>
>  R.H.
If I were Emperor Titus when the Israelites were fiercely rebelling, and
considering he had Philo and Josephus in his court, I would have had
them publish some pacificist propaganda.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659873

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:37:46 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 27/12/2024 à 23:29, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
> :
>> On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:51:32 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
>> Since Einstein admitted being inept at math, who did he credit for the
>> Field Equations?
>
>  Albert Einstein was a myth.
>
>  A pure media creation.
>
>  R.H.
Unfortunately Einstein was a historical person.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659876

Le 28/12/2024 à 02:34, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit 
:
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:37:46 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
> 
>> Le 27/12/2024 à 23:29, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
>> :
>>> On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:51:32 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>> Since Einstein admitted being inept at math, who did he credit for the
>>> Field Equations?
>>
>>  Albert Einstein was a myth.
>>
>>  A pure media creation.
>>
>>  R.H.
> Unfortunately Einstein was a historical person.

Absolutely, Einstein was a historical person.

But his personal genius was a myth. 

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659881

On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 2:21:30 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 28/12/2024 à 02:34, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
> :
>> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:37:46 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>
>>> Le 27/12/2024 à 23:29, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
>>> :
>>>> On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:51:32 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since Einstein admitted being inept at math, who did he credit for the
>>>> Field Equations?
>>>
>>>  Albert Einstein was a myth.
>>>
>>>  A pure media creation.
>>>
>>>  R.H.
>> Unfortunately Einstein was a historical person.
>
> Absolutely, Einstein was a historical person.
>
> But his personal genius was a myth.
>
> R.H.
Yes, he was a charlatan and fraud who stole his field equations and
didn't understand anything about the subjects his "theories" allegedly
addressed. His stupidity is so incredible and his followers so
credulous...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659892

Le 28/12/2024 à 04:40, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit 
:
> Yes, he was a charlatan and fraud who stole his field equations and
> didn't understand anything about the subjects his "theories" allegedly
> addressed. His stupidity is so incredible and his followers so
> credulous...

Yes, there are some pretty incredible things about human naivety. People 
believe anything, and apart from gigantic lights (not my doing but the 
immense stupidity of others) like me, you make them swallow what you want.
The biggest snakes being that Einstein was not a copyist, that Saint Paul 
translated Jesus Christ, that the Titanic hit an iceberg, that some 
Bedouins attacked America with butter knives on September 11, that it is 
good to vaccinate populations with an untested vaccine, which does not 
cure, does not protect, and does not prevent contamination, etc...
I even have the impression that over the centuries the problem is getting 
worse and that we have gone from the methodical doubt of Descartes to the 
yes-man belief of Jean-Pierre Messager.

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659893

Le 28/12/2024 à 14:18, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
> Le 28/12/2024 à 04:40, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit :
>> Yes, he was a charlatan and fraud who stole his field equations and
>> didn't understand anything about the subjects his "theories" allegedly
>> addressed. His stupidity is so incredible and his followers so
>> credulous...
> 
> Yes, there are some pretty incredible things about human naivety. People believe 
> anything, and apart from gigantic lights (not my doing but the immense stupidity 
> of others) like me, you make them swallow what you want.
> The biggest snakes being that Einstein was not a copyist, that Saint Paul 
> translated Jesus Christ, that the Titanic hit an iceberg, that some Bedouins 
> attacked America with butter knives on September 11, that it is good to vaccinate 
> populations with an untested vaccine, which does not cure, does not protect, and 
> does not prevent contamination, etc...
> I even have the impression that over the centuries the problem is getting worse 
> and that we have gone from the methodical doubt of Descartes to the yes-man belief 
> of Jean-Pierre Messager.

Not following demented conspirationist demented claims about 9/11, the 
Titanic or Covid vaccines (no surprise that you don't practice as a M.D. 
anymore!) is definitely not being a "yes-man".

Almost all your claims are non sequitur or without any kind of interest 
(like Saint Paul and Jesus), off-topic when it comes to relativity or 
provably WRONG (the so-called plagiarism of Einstein, his lack of ability 
in math, etc. are lies debunked for ages).

On the other hand, believing whatever is popping out of your silly brain, 
without any kind of self-exigence) IS being a "yes-man". You are such a 
kind of person, as much cranks down here.

Moreover, all your claims about SR has been proven WRONG. And you ALWAYS 
fly away, whining, when it is recalled to you, Richard.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659894

Le 28/12/2024 à 14:55, Python a écrit :
> 
> Not following demented conspirationist demented claims about 9/11, the Titanic 
> or Covid vaccines (no surprise that you don't practice as a M.D. anymore!) is 
> definitely not being a "yes-man".
> 
> Almost all your claims are non sequitur or without any kind of interest (like 
> Saint Paul and Jesus), off-topic when it comes to relativity or provably WRONG 
> (the so-called plagiarism of Einstein, his lack of ability in math, etc. are lies 
> debunked for ages).
> 
> On the other hand, believing whatever is popping out of your silly brain, 
> without any kind of self-exigence) IS being a "yes-man". You are such a kind of 
> person, as much cranks down here.
> 
> Moreover, all your claims about SR has been proven WRONG. And you ALWAYS fly 
> away, whining, when it is recalled to you, Richard.

All my statements have been experimentally proven to be true. All of them. 
I put some examples, and I will put some, in my book "Principles of 
Special Relativity".
Physicists are not at my level and telling them this does not lead to 
healthy thinking in them, which should say: "Sir, sit down, we are going 
to hear you, and tell us where we are wrong, and why you claim to be much 
stronger than us", but rather "Get lost, you poor fool, you have the IQ of 
a bull".
It is not scientific, especially when, like them, we try to explain the 
Langevin paradox by the Doppler effect, when it only magnifies it since we 
obtain, in their case, non-reciprocal apparent speeds, which is frankly 
contradictory.
It should be noted that I raise this paradox, like that of Erhenfest, and 
that of Andromeda. They continue to tell their lies and fantasies.
Don't distort things by putting them upside down.
Thanks, Jean-Pierre.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659923

Den 28.12.2024 15:18, skrev Richard Hachel:
> 
> All my statements have been experimentally proven to be true. All of 
> them.

If that is true, the following statement of yours
must be true:

| Den 24.07.2024 00:19, skrev Richard Hachel:
|>
|> The proton rotates 11.25 thousand times per second in the laboratory 
frame
|> but 78 million times per second in the proton frame.
|>
|> This is called time dilation.
|>


The above is equivalent to saying:

"While the proton runs once around the circuit in the laboratory frame,
  the same proton runs 6933 times around the circuit in the proton frame.
  This is called time dilation"

Do you still claim that this statement of yours is
experimentally proven?

:-D

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659941

Le 29/12/2024 à 14:27, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 28.12.2024 15:18, skrev Richard Hachel:
>> 
>> All my statements have been experimentally proven to be true. All of 
>> them.
> 
> If that is true, the following statement of yours
> must be true:
> 
> | Den 24.07.2024 00:19, skrev Richard Hachel:
> |>
> |> The proton rotates 11.25 thousand times per second in the laboratory 
> frame
> |> but 78 million times per second in the proton frame.
> |>
> |> This is called time dilation.
> |>
> 
> 
> The above is equivalent to saying:
> 
> "While the proton runs once around the circuit in the laboratory frame,
>   the same proton runs 6933 times around the circuit in the proton frame.
>   This is called time dilation"
> 
> Do you still claim that this statement of yours is
> experimentally proven?
> 
> :-D

Please do not use violence against me.

I never said that and your words are violent and stupid to try to have a 
hold.

You make me say: "When a proton makes one turn of the experimental system, 
it does it 6933 times". That's stupid.

That's not what I said.

I explained hundreds (or thousands of times) that time was relative, and 
that in particular, the chronotropy of durations was different when 
changing the frame of reference.

And that what is measured in one nanosecond for a particle could be 
measured as 6933 nanoseconds for a clock in the laboratory.

I said that for it, it turned 6933 times faster.

I never said that it turned 6933 times in the system while we saw it turn 
once.

That's absurd.

You are the one who is absurd and telling stupid things that I did not say 
for the sole purpose of destroying an enemy who wants to help you write 
more coherent and true pdfs.

I remind you that the way you integrate carrots and turnips is 
mathematically correct, but physically wrong.

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659966

Den 29.12.2024 19:17, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 29/12/2024 à 14:27, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>> Den 28.12.2024 15:18, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>>
>>> All my statements have been experimentally proven to be true. All of 
>>> them.
>>
>> If that is true, the following statement of yours
>> must be true:

For lurkers: this is about the LHC.

>>
>> | Den 24.07.2024 00:19, skrev Richard Hachel:
>> |>
>> |> The proton rotates 11.25 thousand times per second in the 
>> laboratory frame
>> |> but 78 million times per second in the proton frame.
>> |>
>> |> This is called time dilation.
>> |>
>>
>>
>> The above is equivalent to saying:
>>
>> "While the proton runs once around the circuit in the laboratory frame,
>>   the same proton runs 6933 times around the circuit in the proton frame.
>>   This is called time dilation"
>>
>> Do you still claim that this statement of yours is
>> experimentally proven?
>>
>> :-D


> 
> Please do not use violence against me.
> 
> I never said that and your words are violent and stupid to try to have a 
> hold.
> 
> You make me say: "When a proton makes one turn of the experimental 
> system, it does it 6933 times". That's stupid.
> 
> That's not what I said.


Let's first look at the correct numbers:

Measured in the lab frame:
---------------------------
  v = 0.9999999896*c     γ = 6933

The length of the ring is L = 26659 m
The proton will go once around ring in the time:

   τ = L/v = 8.89248531e-05 s  ≈ 88.92 μs

  The proton will go around the ring 1/τ times per second.

  N = 1/τ ≈ 11246 times/s (≈ 11.25 thousand times per second)

Measured in the rest frame of the proton:
------------------------------------------
  Length of the tube in which the proton is moving:
  (circumference of the ring)

  L' = L/γ

Speed of the tube relative to the proton:
  v' = 0.9999999896*c

Proper time of the photon to go around the ring
   τ' = L'/v' = L/γv = τ/γ = 1.28249e-8 s ≈ 12.824 ns

  A point in the ring will pass the proton 1/τ' times per second.

  N' = 1/τ' ≈ 77973167 times/s (≈ 78 millions time per second)

---------------

A correct statement would be:
In the laboratory frame the proton moves around the ring
11.25 thousand times per second.
In the rest frame of the proton a point in the ring will pass
the proton 78 millions time per second.

--------------------------

Let's look at the background for your statement quoted above:

| Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
|> Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
|>>
|>> Are you claiming that the real speed of the protons in the LHC is
|>>   Vr = 6927⋅c ?
|>
|> Absolutely.
|>
|> That's what I said.

| Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:
|> Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
|>>
|>> You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
|>> ≈ 78 million times per second.
|>> The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
|>
|> CERN physicists are doing their job.
|> We have accustomed them to working at classic relativistic speed.
|> So it makes sense that they find the speed they expect.
|> I tell them that the proton rotates 78 million times per second,

The point is that you claimed that the _real_ speed of the proton
in the LHC moved 6933 faster than the physicist at CERN said.

The CERN physicists say that a proton runs around the circuit
11.25 thousand times per second, but "I [Richard Hachel] tell
them that the proton rotates 78 million times per second."

=================================================
You claim the proton is moving around the circuit
78 million times per second in the lab frame.
=================================================


> 
> And that what is measured in one nanosecond for a particle could be 
> measured as 6933 nanoseconds for a clock in the laboratory.

Quite.
When the proton move once around the circuit,
the duration of the journey will be measured to last
τ  ≈ 88.92 μs in the lab frame,
while the duration of the same journey will be measured to last
τ' ≈  12.824 ns in the rest frame of the proton.

> 
> I said that for it, it turned 6933 times faster.

And that is your absolute idiotic claim.

In the rest frame of the proton, its speed is zero,
and the speed of the tube in which the proton is moving is
  0.9999999896*c.

You said the proton moved 6933 times faster than
  0.9999999896*c = 6932 c which is ridiculous.

Adding "in the proton frame" only makes it worse, because
the proton doesn't move at all in the proton frame.

> 
> I never said that it turned 6933 times in the system while we saw it 
> turn once.

You said it turned 6933 times while the CERN physicists said it turned once.

> 
> That's absurd.

Indeed.

> 
> You are the one who is absurd and telling stupid things that I did not 
> say for the sole purpose of destroying an enemy who wants to help you 
> write more coherent and true pdfs.
> 
> I remind you that the way you integrate carrots and turnips is 
> mathematically correct, but physically wrong.
> 
> R.H.


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659978

Den 29.12.2024 19:17, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 29/12/2024 à 14:27, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>> Den 28.12.2024 15:18, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>>
>>> All my statements have been experimentally proven to be true. All of 
>>> them.
>>
>> If that is true, the following statement of yours
>> must be true:
>>
>> | Den 24.07.2024 00:19, skrev Richard Hachel:
>> |>
>> |> The proton rotates 11.25 thousand times per second 
>> l> in the laboratory frame
>> |> but 78 million times per second in the proton frame.
>> |>
>> |> This is called time dilation.
>> |>
>>
>>


We can express the whole thing much simpler.
See my other post for the data.


While the proton has made ≈ 11.25 thousand turns around the ring,
the proton will have aged 144.2 μs
and the lab clock will have advanced 1 second.
This is called time dilation.

OR

While the proton has made ≈ 78 million turns around the ring,
the proton will have aged 1 second
and the lab clock will have advanced 6933 seconds.
This is called time dilation.

Does your statement express the same as my statements above?

Hint: the proton doesn't "rotate 78 million times in the proton frame."
It "rotates" 78 million times around the ring in the lab.


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659914

Am Samstag000028, 28.12.2024 um 14:55 schrieb Python:
> Le 28/12/2024 à 14:18, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
>> Le 28/12/2024 à 04:40, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a 
>> écrit :
>>> Yes, he was a charlatan and fraud who stole his field equations and
>>> didn't understand anything about the subjects his "theories" allegedly
>>> addressed. His stupidity is so incredible and his followers so
>>> credulous...
>>
>> Yes, there are some pretty incredible things about human naivety. 
>> People believe anything, and apart from gigantic lights (not my doing 
>> but the immense stupidity of others) like me, you make them swallow 
>> what you want.
>> The biggest snakes being that Einstein was not a copyist, that Saint 
>> Paul translated Jesus Christ, that the Titanic hit an iceberg, that 
>> some Bedouins attacked America with butter knives on September 11, 
>> that it is good to vaccinate populations with an untested vaccine, 
>> which does not cure, does not protect, and does not prevent 
>> contamination, etc...
>> I even have the impression that over the centuries the problem is 
>> getting worse and that we have gone from the methodical doubt of 
>> Descartes to the yes-man belief of Jean-Pierre Messager.
> 
> Not following demented conspirationist demented claims about 9/11, the 
> Titanic or Covid vaccines (no surprise that you don't practice as a M.D. 
> anymore!) is definitely not being a "yes-man".

As 'conspirationist' I can write something about all of these topics.

E.g. look at these two pictures


https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:WTC_Sphere_-_1979_-_1.jpg


https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20160721/financial-district/koenig-sphere-moving-wtc-liberty-park-port-authority-says/

Both show the sculpture 'The Sphere', which stood next to the 
North-tower of the WTC.

Both pictures were taken from almost the same location and pointing 
into the same direction.

But one was taken a day after the event and the first some years earlier.

Now you can clearly see the effect:

Since the 'Sphere' stood upon its pedestal after the event, we can 
safely assume, the WTC-plaza and the street-level was still intact.

This would exclude a lot of debris in subterranean levels.

There was some, but not that much. The Mall below the WTC-Plaza was 
mainly intakt, the windows of the shops there were not broken, the 
clothes were hanging on their coat hangers and even glasses were 
standing on the shelves in a hardware store.

Nothing was broken there, no rubble and no seismic activity was measurable.

That was, at least, astonishing, since a million tons of steel and 
concretion had fallen from great height upon that WTC-Plaza.

Now look at those picture from above again and try to estimate, how much 
rubble made it finally to the ground.

I would say: a lot, but FAR less than a million tons.

The pile of rubble only reached half of the height of the former lobby, 
while it had to be at least ten to twelve storey high.

IOW: an enormous amount of debris went missing, while the components of 
the twin towers were still in free fall.

This is quite unusual, since usually debris of large buildings is not 
blown away.

So: where did all these materials go?




...


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659874

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:37:46 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 27/12/2024 à 23:29, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
> :
>> On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:51:32 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
>> Since Einstein admitted being inept at math, who did he credit for the
>> Field Equations?
>
>  Albert Einstein was a myth.
>
>  A pure media creation.
>
>  R.H.
Even Jesus is a myth. Joseph Atwill pointed out that bit about Titus in
his book, "Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus." But
the best case against an historical Jesus is by Richard Carrier and his
talks are on YouTube.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659875

Le 28/12/2024 à 02:32, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit 
:
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:37:46 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

> Even Jesus is a myth. Joseph Atwill pointed out that bit about Titus in
> his book, "Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus." But
> the best case against an historical Jesus is by Richard Carrier and his
> talks are on YouTube.

 

No, Jesus is not a myth, he existed in the sense that it is certain that a 
man came and that his doctrine made a great noise.
In addition, it is attested by historians: "There were disciples of 
Chretos, but Caesar accused them of having set fire to Rome. This fire 
occurred 33 years after the death of John the Baptist".

This sentence is simply incredible, because it reveals two of the immense 
secrets that history has hidden from us.

Two enormous secrets.

So no, Jesus is not a myth, simply his story was astonishingly disfigured 
(according to the prophecy of Isaiah).

On the other hand, Paul is a myth. He is just a poor guy suffering from 
verbal logirrhea, using a lot of abstract and incomprehensible terms to 
introduce a ridiculous and unjust theory of redeeming bastards by the 
blood of a righteous man.

In this sense, Saint Paul was indeed the Antichrist predicted by Jesus 
Christ, to preach things that betrayed his teaching.

We had the same thing with Albert Einstein the day when, subjugated by 
Hanri Poincaré, he became completely crazy.

With the blessing of the Germans and the Anglo-Saxons, too happy to "pay 
for the French"

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659878

On 12/27/2024 05:32 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:37:46 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> Le 27/12/2024 à 23:29, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
>> :
>>> On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:51:32 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>> Since Einstein admitted being inept at math, who did he credit for the
>>> Field Equations?
>>
>>  Albert Einstein was a myth.
>>
>>  A pure media creation.
>>
>>  R.H.
> Even Jesus is a myth. Joseph Atwill pointed out that bit about Titus in
> his book, "Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus." But
> the best case against an historical Jesus is by Richard Carrier and his
> talks are on YouTube.

Judas was many figures in the time of circa the
times of Jesus and 60-75 A.D. up to the fall of
the Second Temple and only hundreds of years
later the Rabbinical.

It's usually recognized that Jesus was definitely
a historical figure.  And is, ....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659882

On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 3:22:42 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

> On 12/27/2024 05:32 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:37:46 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>
>>> Le 27/12/2024 à 23:29, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
>>> :
>>>> On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:51:32 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since Einstein admitted being inept at math, who did he credit for the
>>>> Field Equations?
>>>
>>>  Albert Einstein was a myth.
>>>
>>>  A pure media creation.
>>>
>>>  R.H.
>> Even Jesus is a myth. Joseph Atwill pointed out that bit about Titus in
>> his book, "Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus." But
>> the best case against an historical Jesus is by Richard Carrier and his
>> talks are on YouTube.
>
> Judas was many figures in the time of circa the
> times of Jesus and 60-75 A.D. up to the fall of
> the Second Temple and only hundreds of years
> later the Rabbinical.
>
> It's usually recognized that Jesus was definitely
> a historical figure.  And is, ....
That's is as easily seen through as the interpolation in Josephus.
Carrier is an excellent scholar who has published his refutation of the
alleged historicity of Jesus in scholarly venues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web