The RE Community Has a New Enemy

Laws can be broken, or found to be unfair or harsh and thus changed.

Do you believe a simple man living centuries ago came up with a complete works and understanding of the universe? On his own? Just by an apple bumping him on the noggin? Now if that's not the most awesome case of savant syndrome I dont know what is!!

Exactly.

I like to tell this story. Once, in the twilight hour, a visitor came to my study, a distinguished-looking gentleman.

He brought me a manuscript dealing with celestial mechanics. After a glance at some of the pages, I had the feeling that this was the work of a mathematical genius.

I entered into conversation with my visitor and mentioned the name of James Clerk Maxwell. My guest asked: "Who is he?" Embarrassed, I answered: "You know, the scientist who gave a theoretical explanation of the experiments of Faraday."

"And who is Faraday?" inquired the stranger. In growing embarrassment 1 said: "Of course, the man who did the pioneer work in electromagnetism." "And what is electromagnetism?" asked the gentleman.

"What is your name?" I inquired. He answered: "Isaac Newton."

I awoke. On my knees was an open volume: Newton's Principia.

This story is told to illustrate what I have said before. Would you listen to anybody discuss the mechanics of the spheres who does not know the elementary physical forces existing in nature? But this is the position adopted by astronomers who acclaim as infallible a celestial mechanics conceived in the 1660s in which electricity and magnetism play not the slightest role.

(from Earth in Upheaval)

Don’t forget aether!

The Earth is shaped by gravitation that keeps it together, and by tectonics and rotation.

You have to explain how gravitation works on a spherical Earth.

Unless you can do that you no longer have the option to leisurely state that "The Earth is shaped by gravitation".

How is it kept together?

Attractive gravitation?

Please explain the attractive mechanism.

Use gravitons or spacetime, your choice.

Those things were measured and checked many times.

What was measured is A FORCE OF PRESSURE, nothing else.

If you want gravity to be attractive YOU MUST EXPLAIN THE MECHANISM.

Unless you can do so, you no longer have the option to lie through your teeth on this forum.

I have the EXACT FORMULA for the Biefeld-Brown effect which immediately proves my point.

How does it work?
Well, it is actually very simple:

Every piece on Earth has mass.
Those masses attract each other stronger that distant celestial bodies attract them.
So, the resultant forces point/pull towards the center of the planet.

Quote from: sandokhan on September 09, 2019, 09:47:25 PM

The Earth is shaped by gravitation that keeps it together, and by tectonics and rotation.

You have to explain how gravitation works on a spherical Earth.

Unless you can do that you no longer have the option to leisurely state that "The Earth is shaped by gravitation".

How is it kept together?

Attractive gravitation?

Please explain the attractive mechanism.

Use gravitons or spacetime, your choice.

Those things were measured and checked many times.

What was measured is A FORCE OF PRESSURE, nothing else.

If you want gravity to be attractive YOU MUST EXPLAIN THE MECHANISM.

Unless you can do so, you no longer have the option to lie through your teeth on this forum.

I have the EXACT FORMULA for the Biefeld-Brown effect which immediately proves my point.

How does it work?
Well, it is actually very simple:

Every piece on Earth has mass.
Those masses attract each other stronger that distant celestial bodies attract them.
So, the resultant forces point/pull towards the center of the planet.

Yes and my mass supposedly has a measurable pull on an asteroid out there in the asteroid belt. Or the mythical 'Planet 9'. Or a grain of sand on an alien beach in the Triangulum galaxy.  Your 'laws' state this

Those masses attract each other stronger that distant celestial bodies attract them.

But your pal HAS JUST STATED THAT THERE IS NO ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY AT ALL:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201634#msg2201634

So you are unable to describe the ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM.

You want mass to ATTRACT another mass.

PLEASE EXPLAIN THE ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM.

How in the world do your know it is ATTRACTIVE?

Explain the attractive mechanism.

Use anything you want, gravitons, spacetime.

If you cannot explain the attractive mechanism, YOU NO LONGER CAN state that mass "attracts" another mass.

Those masses attract each other stronger that distant celestial bodies attract them.

But your pal HAS JUST STATED THAT THERE IS NO ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY AT ALL:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201634#msg2201634

So you are unable to describe the ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM.

You want mass to ATTRACT another mass.

PLEASE EXPLAIN THE ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM.

How in the world do your know it is ATTRACTIVE?

Explain the attractive mechanism.

Use anything you want, gravitons, spacetime.

If you cannot explain the attractive mechanism, YOU NO LONGER CAN state that mass "attracts" another mass.

What you describe as an "explanation" has nothing to do with what I said.
And I don't want to interfere with your right to deny whatever you want.

Meanwhile you have two options:

1. The Earth is spherical because gravitation keeps it together.

2. The Earth is flat because WHAT? keeps it together.

Which one you can explain directly?

NOTE: Here I talk only about the manifestation of gravitation, not about its nature.
Was it fundamental force or spacetime distortion, or which math approach you accept in which situation, are another subjects.

The Earth is spherical because gravitation keeps it together.

Explain the ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM.

If you have NO THEORY concerning this essential point, YOU HAVE NOTHING.

Was it fundamental force or spacetime distortion, or which math approach you accept in which situation, are another subjects.

They are not just another subject, they are fundemantal to our discussion.

What you are telling your readers is that YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY, OR HOW IT WORKS.

You want mass to "attract" another mass.

How does it work?

If you cannot explain, THEN I CAN IMMEDIATELY CLAIM THAT TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY IS FORCE OF PRESSURE, the pressure exerted by the ether waves.

You want me to bring here the RUDERFER EXPERIMENT which does prove the existence of ether?

Relativists are switching to LORENTZ ETHER THEORY.

They have to, since the GPS satellites do not record/register the orbital Coriolis effect, nor do they record the solar gravitational potential.

The Earth is spherical because gravitation keeps it together.

Explain the ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM.

If you have NO THEORY concerning this essential point, YOU HAVE NOTHING.

Was it fundamental force or spacetime distortion, or which math approach you accept in which situation, are another subjects.

They are not just another subject, they are fundemantal to our discussion.

What you are telling your readers is that YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY, OR HOW IT WORKS.

You want mass to "attract" another mass.

How does it work?

If you cannot explain, THEN I CAN IMMEDIATELY CLAIM THAT TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY IS FORCE OF PRESSURE, the pressure exerted by the ether waves.

You want me to bring here the RUDERFER EXPERIMENT which does prove the existence of ether?

Relativists are switching to LORENTZ ETHER THEORY.

They have to, since the GPS satellites do not record/register the orbital Coriolis effect, nor do they record the solar gravitational potential.

We don't know WHY masses attract each other, but does it mean they don't?
We don't know WHY charged particles attract each other, but does it mean they don't?
We don't know WHY magnets attract each other, but does it mean they don't?

We all see all of those in action.

On the other hand, I don't try to interfere with your right to deny any of it.

We don't know WHY masses attract each other

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND.

There is no attractive mechanism IF YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN IT.

How in the world can you claim, again, that masses "attract" each other, if you haven't the faintest idea of how that might occur?

but does it mean they don't?

OF COURSE.

If you want ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, you must explain it.

If you have NO THEORY AT ALL, your attractive gravity model is worthless.

We don't know WHY charged particles attract each other, but does it mean they don't?
We don't know WHY magnets attract each other, but does it mean they don't?


Don't even think to try to mix electromagnetism with gravity unless you want me to start to describe ELECTROGRAVITY for you.

The mechanism concerning ELECTROMAGNETISM is well established, FOR GRAVITY, in heliocentrism, IT IS NOT.

You have to explain ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.

If you cannot, you no longer have the option to come here is state that a spherical Earth is held together by gravity.

Those masses attract each other stronger that distant celestial bodies attract them.

But your pal HAS JUST STATED THAT THERE IS NO ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY AT ALL:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201634#msg2201634

That I did !

Terrestrial gravity IS NOT ATTRACTIVE?

Then, by all means, tell us what it is then.

I do not "claim that terrestrial gravity is attractive"!

Gravitation is no longer claimed be an attractive force between masses but an inertial force somewhat akin to centripetal force.

But on a superficial level it behaves and can be calculated as an "attractive force between masses" as in,

So you are unable to describe the ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM.

No I won't attempt to here, because gravitation is not caused by mass attracting mass!

You want mass to ATTRACT another mass.
PLEASE EXPLAIN THE ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM.
How in the world do your know it is ATTRACTIVE?

Because it has been measured and demonstrated as such in hundreds of experiments using different techniques.

Explain the attractive mechanism.

Use anything you want, gravitons, spacetime.

If you cannot explain the attractive mechanism, YOU NO LONGER CAN state that mass "attracts" another mass.

But I did not ever claim "that mass attracts another mass" only that it behaves as if . . . . etc.

And what's the point of explaining gravitation using "spacetime"? You don't accept it anyway.

And your claim that "If you cannot explain the attractive mechanism, YOU NO LONGER CAN state that mass 'attracts' another mass" is quite false.

It was known experimentally that electric charges can attract long before the "the attractive mechanism" could be explained.
It was known experimentally that prisms split white light into colours long before the mechanism could be explained.

rabinoz, are you sober?

You can't have it both ways.

Gravitation is no longer claimed be an attractive force between masses but an inertial force somewhat akin to centripetal force.

In the next sentence you state this however:

But on a superficial level it behaves and can be calculated as an "attractive force between masses"

If it is NOT ATTRACTIVE you can no longer use that concept to describe anything pertaining to gravity.



It takes a single COUNTEREXAMPLE to flush the toilet with your formula.

HERE IS THE EXACT FORMULA FOR THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT:




https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507082.pdf

Weyl electrovacuum solutions and gauge invariance
Dr. B.V. Ivanov

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf

On the gravitational field induced by static electromagnetic sources
Dr. B.V Ivanov

The formula was obtained for the first time in 1917 by Hermann Weyl, the greatest mathematician in the world at that time, several ranks higher than Einstein.

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2177463#msg2177463

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2179065#msg2179065


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTON'S ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.


YOUR FORMULA IS WORTHLESS.



Please explain the attractive mechanism.

How does mass 'attract' mass?

If you do not want attractive gravity, then gravity is caused BY PRESSURE.


Because it has been measured and demonstrated as such in hundreds of experiments using different techniques.

YOU HAVE MEASURED AN EFFECT.

Please describe the CAUSE of the effect.

You no longer have attractive gravity as an option.

You want to use relativity?

You can't.

Let me explain to everyone here why the RE cannot resort to general relativity to account for gravity.

General Relativity postulates that gravity is a curvature of spacetime created by mass, but it does not explain how that curvature occurs. Actually, it is just a DESCRIPTION that leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.

So, in order to make any sense at all out of explaining the cause of gravity, physicists have resorted to the use of gravitational waves assumed to be ripples in the fabric of spacetime.

The Hulse-Taylor experiment proved their existence and in 2016 it was announced by LIGO that they had made the first direct observation of gravitational waves.

It was ALWAYS assumed that Einstein's equations can describe these gravitational waves, that is, that Einstein's equations have a BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION.



However, as early as 1917, one of the greatest mathematicians in the world, T. Levi-Civita discovered a huge flaw in these equations: there is no bounded dynamic solution.

A paper by T. Levi-Civita in 1917, one of the inventors of Tensor Calculus, showing that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is nonsense because it leads to the requirement for a first-order, intrinsic, differential invariant, which, as is well known to the pure mathematicians, does not exist:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090902090420/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Levi-Civita.pdf

A. Gullstrand, the chairman of the Nobel prize committee, also discovered in 1921 that Einstein's equations cannot be applied to DYNAMIC situations: that is why he refused to give Einstein the Nobel prize for general relativity.

None other than Einstein himself also discovered this very fact in 1936:



https://archive.org/details/TheBornEinsteinLetters/page/n72

THAT IS, THERE ARE NO GRAVITATIONAL WAVE SOLUTIONS USING THE ORIGINAL EINSTEIN EQUATIONS.

Now, the best part.

Gravitational waves become possible if, and only if, an ANTIGRAVITATIONAL TERM is added to the original equations, which is exactly what Reissner and Nordstrom and Weyl did.

But this takes the wind out of round earth theory immediately.

Here is the proof that the original Einstein equations do not have a BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2196454#msg2196454

https://cirworld.com/index.php/jap/article/view/354

See also:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194825#msg2194825


The experiments, including the Cavendish experiment, HAVE RECORDED THE EFFECT OF ETHER PRESSURE, not attractive gravity.

Your formula is worthless since I was able to post a counterexample derived by the greatest mathematician in the world in the period 1917-1955.


but an inertial force somewhat akin to centripetal force.

What?

Inertia is simply built into the theory due to the assertion that test particles move along geodesics.

That’s not a cause of inertia.

YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE CAUSE.

rabinoz, are you sober?

You can't have it both ways.

Quote from: rabinoz on September 09, 2019, 11:58:21 PM

Gravitation is no longer claimed be an attractive force between masses but an inertial force somewhat akin to centripetal force.

In the next sentence you state this however:

Quote from: rabinoz on September 09, 2019, 11:58:21 PM

But on a superficial level it behaves and can be calculated as an "attractive force between masses"

If it is NOT ATTRACTIVE you can no longer use that concept to describe anything pertaining to gravity.



It takes a single COUNTEREXAMPLE to flush the toilet with your formula.

HERE IS THE EXACT FORMULA FOR THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT:




https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507082.pdf

Weyl electrovacuum solutions and gauge invariance
Dr. B.V. Ivanov

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf

On the gravitational field induced by static electromagnetic sources
Dr. B.V Ivanov

The formula was obtained for the first time in 1917 by Hermann Weyl, the greatest mathematician in the world at that time, several ranks higher than Einstein.

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2177463#msg2177463

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2179065#msg2179065


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTON'S ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.


YOUR FORMULA IS WORTHLESS.



Please explain the attractive mechanism.

How does mass 'attract' mass?

If you do not want attractive gravity, then gravity is caused BY PRESSURE.


Because it has been measured and demonstrated as such in hundreds of experiments using different techniques.

YOU HAVE MEASURED AN EFFECT.

Please describe the CAUSE of the effect.

You no longer have attractive gravity as an option.

You want to use relativity?

You can't.

Let me explain to everyone here why the RE cannot resort to general relativity to account for gravity.

General Relativity postulates that gravity is a curvature of spacetime created by mass, but it does not explain how that curvature occurs. Actually, it is just a DESCRIPTION that leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.

So, in order to make any sense at all out of explaining the cause of gravity, physicists have resorted to the use of gravitational waves assumed to be ripples in the fabric of spacetime.

The Hulse-Taylor experiment proved their existence and in 2016 it was announced by LIGO that they had made the first direct observation of gravitational waves.

It was ALWAYS assumed that Einstein's equations can describe these gravitational waves, that is, that Einstein's equations have a BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION.



However, as early as 1917, one of the greatest mathematicians in the world, T. Levi-Civita discovered a huge flaw in these equations: there is no bounded dynamic solution.

A paper by T. Levi-Civita in 1917, one of the inventors of Tensor Calculus, showing that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is nonsense because it leads to the requirement for a first-order, intrinsic, differential invariant, which, as is well known to the pure mathematicians, does not exist:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090902090420/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Levi-Civita.pdf

A. Gullstrand, the chairman of the Nobel prize committee, also discovered in 1921 that Einstein's equations cannot be applied to DYNAMIC situations: that is why he refused to give Einstein the Nobel prize for general relativity.

None other than Einstein himself also discovered this very fact in 1936:



https://archive.org/details/TheBornEinsteinLetters/page/n72

THAT IS, THERE ARE NO GRAVITATIONAL WAVE SOLUTIONS USING THE ORIGINAL EINSTEIN EQUATIONS.

Now, the best part.

Gravitational waves become possible if, and only if, an ANTIGRAVITATIONAL TERM is added to the original equations, which is exactly what Reissner and Nordstrom and Weyl did.

But this takes the wind out of round earth theory immediately.

Here is the proof that the original Einstein equations do not have a BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2196454#msg2196454

https://cirworld.com/index.php/jap/article/view/354

See also:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194825#msg2194825


The experiments, including the Cavendish experiment, HAVE RECORDED THE EFFECT OF ETHER PRESSURE, not attractive gravity.

Your formula is worthless since I was able to post a counterexample derived by the greatest mathematician in the world in the period 1917-1955.


but an inertial force somewhat akin to centripetal force.

What?

Inertia is simply built into the theory due to the assertion that test particles move along geodesics.

That’s not a cause of inertia.

YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE CAUSE.

Current understanding of gravitation is not complete, but that doesn't invalidate what we know.

Gravity happens to be the best and simplest model explaining observed natural phenomena such as things falling to the ground, planets orbiting the sun or black holes and it has proven predictive power.

Until we have something better than gravity, we'll keep using gravity to explain things.

If you have an alternative model to gravity that accounts for all the facts better than gravity, is simpler and has better predictive power, by all means go ahead and publish your work, then submit it to peer review.

You could also first post your theory in a science forum such as this one: https://www.scienceforums.net , so that other people with deep knowledge of physics can tell you what they think of your theory.

There is no attractive mechanism IF YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN IT.

How in the world can you claim, again, that masses "attract" each other, if you haven't the faintest idea of how that might occur?

but does it mean they don't?

OF COURSE.

I didn't add any attribute to gravity, was it attractive or repulsive or whichever.
And it is not what I "want". It is observed in reality.
The final result is that masses tend to each other, whether you call it "attraction" or not.
Mathematical representation of that tendency is force.

If you want ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, you must explain it.

Does it go for "attractive electrostatic" and "attractive magnetism" as well?

Or you have different sandards for those?

so that other people with deep knowledge of physics can tell you what they think of your theory.

You mean what they think of Hermann Weyl, since the exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown was derived by him.

“And now I want to ask you something more: They tell me that you and Einstein are the only two real sure-enough high-brows and the only ones who can really understand each other. I won’t ask you if this is straight stuff for I know you are too modest to admit it. But I want to know this -- Do you ever run across a fellow that even you can’t understand?”

“Yes,” says he.

“This will make a great reading for the boys down at the office,” says I. “Do you mind releasing to me who he is?”

“Weyl,” says he.

(an interview that Paul Dirac gave in America back in April, 1929)

by all means go ahead and publish your work, then submit it to peer review.

Has already been done.

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2192962#msg2192962

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00756267

In a classic treatise, the theory was published again in 2017:

Gauge Approach and Quantization Methods in Gravity Theory

http://www.ibrae.ac.ru/docs/publictions/kniga_Ponomarev_Obukhov_Barvinsky_web.pdf (see pg. 74)

These results were further improved by N. V. Kharuk, S. A. Paston and A. A. Sheykin:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.02284.pdf

Classical electromagnetic potential as a part of gravitational connection: ideas and history

Mathematical representation of that tendency is force.

What?

Now you are saying that gravity is a FORCE?

THEN, YOU NEED A FORCE CARRIER: THE GRAVITON.

Can you explain to your readers how two gravitons attract each other? What is the mechanism of attraction?

You cannot, therefore those trillions of billions of liters of water are glued to an outer surface by pure magic.

Even pure magic cannot explain this horrendous hypothesis.

It is even worse than pure magic.

Please explain the physics to your readers.

The attractive gravity hypothesis is not even a credible fairy tale, it is even beyond the powers of pure magic to explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

It is though the exemplification of a fanatical and dogmatic agenda which goes even beyond what organized religion has to offer.

Do you want to use gravitons?

So, how do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?

Let us examine the graviton problem. There are only two possible choices: either these gravitons were a one-time emission five billion years ago, or they are being emitted continuously by the iron/nickel core. In both cases the graviton must either consist of two kinds of particles, one which has an emissive vortex, the other one which has a receptive vortex, or a single particle with two ends consisting of an emissive vortex, while the other end has a receptive vortex.

In both cases we are dealing immediately with the defiance of the law of conservation of energy: how in the world can these vortices function after five billion years with no loss of energy?

Moreover, you have another huge problem: each object on the surface of the earth must connect to the gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core through strings of gravitons which fit neatly and totally to each and every graviton released by the object itself. How then can that object move freely on the surface of the sphere? Obviously the strings of gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core are not intelligent enough to know the random direction of movement of the object. Are you telling your readers that the strings of the object can slide freely from a static string of gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core, to another with no loss of energy, not to mention the very mechanism itself?

The gravitons cannot be used to explain attractive gravity on a spherical earth.


was it attractive or repulsive or whichever.

It has to be BOTH attractive and repulsive.

Otherwise you can kiss goodbye the existence of GRAVITATIONAL WAVES.

Gravitational waves are possible ONLY for general relativity equations which have a BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION.

In order to obtain that bounded dynamic solution you need antigravitational/repulsive terms as well:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2196454#msg2196454


The final result is that masses tend to each other, whether you call it "attraction" or not.

They can tend to each other by having received AN OUTSIDE PUSHING FORCE.

As a matter of fact, Newton was pressed from all sides to provide an explanation for terrestrial gravity, that is why the second edition of the Principia, in the official chronology of history, includes the essay on the CAUSE of gravity.

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A


Newton's clear description again:

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail

https://books.google.ro/books?id=VW_CAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=isaac+newton+In+attractions,+I+briefly+demonstrate+the+thing+after+this+manner.+Suppose+an+obstacle+is+interposed+to+hinder+the+meeting+of+any+two+bodies+A,+B,+attracting+one+the+other&source=bl&ots=eRsq4NaOYt&sig=ACfU3U3NMCiW4fsquNSq0t25is5H6aobrA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwipgr6fw6fgAhWnAGMBHXZMAlQQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=isaac%20newton%20In%20attractions%2C%20I%20briefly%20demonstrate%20the%20thing%20after%20this%20manner.%20Suppose%20an%20obstacle%20is%20interposed%20to%20hinder%20the%20meeting%20of%20any%20two%20bodies%20A%2C%20B%2C%20attracting%20one%20the%20other&f=false

Right from the pages of the Principia.

ATTRACTION = PRESSURE EXERTED FROM OUTSIDE PUSHING TWO OBJECTS TOGETHER


Does it go for "attractive electrostatic" and "attractive magnetism" as well?

Or you have different sandards for those?

Don't even think to try to mix electromagnetism with gravity unless you want me to start to describe ELECTROGRAVITY for you.

The mechanism concerning ELECTROMAGNETISM is well established, FOR GRAVITY, in heliocentrism, IT IS NOT.

You have to explain ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.

If you cannot, you no longer have the option to come here is state that a spherical Earth is held together by gravity.

rabinoz, are you sober?

You can't have it both ways.

1) I'm perfectly sober! 2) I'm not "having it both ways"!

Quote from: rabinoz on September 09, 2019, 11:58:21 PM

Gravitation is no longer claimed be an attractive force between masses but an inertial force somewhat akin to centripetal force.

In the next sentence you state this however:

Quote from: rabinoz on September 09, 2019, 11:58:21 PM

But on a superficial level it behaves and can be calculated as an "attractive force between masses"

If it is NOT ATTRACTIVE you can no longer use that concept to describe anything pertaining to gravity.

Yes, I can.
What appears to be "attraction" is an indirect effect of mass curving the geodesics in spacetime and the apparently attractive force is simply the force required to prevent the mass following the geodesic.

It takes a single COUNTEREXAMPLE to flush the toilet with your formula.

HERE IS THE EXACT FORMULA FOR THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT:

• Show experimental evidence that confirms those theorical predictions and
• if that is done, prove that the Biefeld-Brown is simply an additional effect.

but an inertial force somewhat akin to centripetal force.

What?

Yes!

Inertia is simply built into the theory due to the assertion that test particles move along geodesics. That’s not a cause of inertia.

YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE CAUSE.

No, I do not have to explain the cause because I never hinted that inertia was caused by test particles move along geodesics.

In Euclidean space, close enough to our locality, geodesics are simple straight lines and unless acted of by a nett force a  moving body will travel in a straight line at uniform velocity.
An inertial force is any force, such as centripetal force, that forces that body to take some other path, such as a circle.

But I'm not going to waste my time trying to school you in curved spacetime.

Mathematical representation of that tendency is force.

What?

Now you are saying that gravity is a FORCE?

THEN, YOU NEED A FORCE CARRIER: THE GRAVITON.

Why?
Do we need a force carrier to explain acceleration forces (inertial force) such as that needed accelerate an object or cause an object to move in a circle?

Can you explain to your readers how two gravitons attract each other? What is the mechanism of attraction?

No, I can't!
Who ever claims that "two gravitons attract each other"? You are the only one that seems ever suggests that.
Nobody even hypothesises that a graviton is a "force carrier".
No more than a photon is a force carrier in electromagnetic theory.

Now go and learn what photons are and what gravitons are hypothesised to be.

so that other people with deep knowledge of physics can tell you what they think of your theory.

You mean what they think of Hermann Weyl, since the exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown was derived by him.

“And now I want to ask you something more: They tell me that you and Einstein are the only two real sure-enough high-brows and the only ones who can really understand each other. I won’t ask you if this is straight stuff for I know you are too modest to admit it. But I want to know this -- Do you ever run across a fellow that even you can’t understand?”

“Yes,” says he.

“This will make a great reading for the boys down at the office,” says I. “Do you mind releasing to me who he is?”

“Weyl,” says he.

(an interview that Paul Dirac gave in America back in April, 1929)

by all means go ahead and publish your work, then submit it to peer review.

Has already been done.

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2192962#msg2192962

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00756267

In a classic treatise, the theory was published again in 2017:

Gauge Approach and Quantization Methods in Gravity Theory

http://www.ibrae.ac.ru/docs/publictions/kniga_Ponomarev_Obukhov_Barvinsky_web.pdf (see pg. 74)

These results were further improved by N. V. Kharuk, S. A. Paston and A. A. Sheykin:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.02284.pdf

Classical electromagnetic potential as a part of gravitational connection: ideas and history

I looked at those papers and didn't find any of those authors claiming that terrestrial gravity is caused by pressure exerted by ether waves.

This is what you said:

If you cannot explain, THEN I CAN IMMEDIATELY CLAIM THAT TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY IS FORCE OF PRESSURE, the pressure exerted by the ether waves.

Did Weyl say that gravity is caused by ether pressure?

It seems to be the case that ether pressure theories have been discarded long ago and any modern attempt to revive them has failed. Maybe you can share with us which author is your source for "TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY IS FORCE OF PRESSURE, the pressure exerted by the ether waves".

What those papers prove is the UNIFICATION OF ELECTROMAGNETISM AND GRAVITY: ELECTROGRAVITY.

They prove the existence of REPULSIVE GRAVITY.

Now, try and smoke that on a spherical Earth.

Do you understand what is going on?

Mainstream science is telling you and everyone else that terrestrial gravity is attractive.

However, the general relativity equations which have a bounded dynamic solution MUST INCLUDE AN ANTIGRAVITATIONAL/REPULSIVE GRAVITY TERM.

This antigravitational term expresses itself, as an example, through the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT.

In fact the exact formula for the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT was obtained by Hermann Weyl in 1917.

Here is the paper:

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

PLEASE READ:

In this context, the energy-momentum tensor will be comprised only of that valid for the electromagnetic field in the ćther

But you said that you read the paper.

You did no such thing.

didn't find any of those authors claiming that terrestrial gravity is caused by pressure exerted by ether waves.

A REPULSIVE TERM/FORCE TO THE ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATIONAL TERM IS A PUSHING FORCE CAUSED BY PRESSURE.

The repulsive term acts in opposition to the terrestrial gravitational term.

That is, it is a force of PRESSURE.

And Weyl clearly spells out what the source of the force is: AETHER.

That is how he was able to derive those equations.


What appears to be "attraction" is an indirect effect of mass curving the geodesics in spacetime and the apparently attractive force is simply the force required to prevent the mass following the geodesic.

You are not sober and you can't be serious.

General Relativity postulates that gravity is a curvature of spacetime created by mass, but it does not explain how that curvature occurs. Actually, it is just a DESCRIPTION that leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.

So, in order to make any sense at all out of explaining the cause of gravity, physicists have resorted to the use of gravitational waves assumed to be ripples in the fabric of spacetime.

The Hulse-Taylor experiment proved their existence and in 2016 it was announced by LIGO that they had made the first direct observation of gravitational waves.

It was ALWAYS assumed that Einstein's equations can describe these gravitational waves, that is, that Einstein's equations have a BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION.



However, as early as 1917, one of the greatest mathematicians in the world, T. Levi-Civita discovered a huge flaw in these equations: there is no bounded dynamic solution.

A paper by T. Levi-Civita in 1917, one of the inventors of Tensor Calculus, showing that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is nonsense because it leads to the requirement for a first-order, intrinsic, differential invariant, which, as is well known to the pure mathematicians, does not exist:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090902090420/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Levi-Civita.pdf

A. Gullstrand, the chairman of the Nobel prize committee, also discovered in 1921 that Einstein's equations cannot be applied to DYNAMIC situations: that is why he refused to give Einstein the Nobel prize for general relativity.

None other than Einstein himself also discovered this very fact in 1936:




https://archive.org/details/TheBornEinsteinLetters/page/n72

THAT IS, THERE ARE NO GRAVITATIONAL WAVE SOLUTIONS USING THE ORIGINAL EINSTEIN EQUATIONS.

Now, the best part.

Gravitational waves become possible if, and only if, an ANTIGRAVITATIONAL TERM is added to the original equations, which is exactly what Reissner and Nordstrom and Weyl did.

But this takes the wind out of round earth theory immediately.

Here is the proof that the original Einstein equations do not have a BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2196454#msg2196454

https://cirworld.com/index.php/jap/article/view/354

See also:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194825#msg2194825


if that is done, prove that the Biefeld-Brown is simply an additional effect.

Again, you are trolling the upper forums.

The papers just referenced PROVE that you cannot have A BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION WITHOUT THE ANTIGRAVITATIONAL/REPULSIVE GRAVITY TERM.

Show experimental evidence that confirms those theorical predictions

BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT IN MINERAL OIL:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2177463#msg2177463


http://www.space-mixing-theory.com/article2.pdf

Exploratory Research on the Phenomenon of the Movement of High Voltage Capacitors
D.R. Buehler

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.06915.pdf

On the Anomalous Weight Losses of High Voltage Symmetrical Capacitors
E.B. Porcelli and V.S. Filho

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/2dacap.htm

Test of Nasa patent for thrust using a two dimensional asymmetrical capacitor module

http://jnaudin.online.fr/html/elpex10.htm

http://jnaudin.online.fr/elecpexp/elecpexp.html

Electrostatic pendulum experiment

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1913909#msg1913909 (Biefeld-Brown experiments in vacuum)


https://web.archive.org/web/20140602175747/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_2F__Annexe_4.pdf (annex 4.3 describes the positive results obtained in vacuum (vide) using plexiglass and 80 Kv)

Page 100 (pg 11 of the pdf document)



Essais sous vide (vacuum tests)

Le systčme commence ŕ entrer ŕ rotation vers 80 Kv et en forcant la tension l'on peut parvenir a des rotations de l'ordre de 1 tour/seconde.

The system begins to rotate at 80 Kv and by forcing the tension one can achieve rotations of the order of 1 turn/second.


https://web.archive.org/web/20140602175742/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_2E__Annexes_3.4-3.6.pdf

Essais sous vide (vacuum tests)

On obtient des rotations entretenues a des vitesses de l'ordre des 1 tour/seconde.

We obtain rotations maintained at speeds of the order of 1 turn/second.




No, I do not have to explain the cause

BUT YOU MUST EXPLAIN IT IF YOU ARE PROPOSING THAT THE EARTH IS SPHERICAL.

WHO IS GOING TO BELIEVE YOU IF YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THE CAUSE?

Is this what you are telling your readers that you simply cannot explain the cause of terrestrial gravity?

Then, if you have NO IDEA what causes terrestrial gravity, you are in no position to come here, every day, to present the RE hypothesis.

It seems to be the case that ether pressure theories have been discarded long ago and any modern attempt to revive them has failed. Maybe you can share with us which author is your source for "TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY IS FORCE OF PRESSURE, the pressure exerted by the ether waves".

This might be of interest: THE MATHEMATICS OF GRAVITATIONAL WAVES:
Part One: How the Green Light Was Given for Gravitational Wave Search by C. Denson Hill and Paweł Nurowski p 686
Part Two: Gravitational Waves and Their Mathematics by Lydia Bieri, David Garfinkle, and Nicolás Yunes

This might be of interest: THE MATHEMATICS OF GRAVITATIONAL WAVES:
Part One: How the Green Light Was Given for Gravitational Wave Search by C. Denson Hill and Paweł Nurowski p 686
Part Two: Gravitational Waves and Their Mathematics by Lydia Bieri, David Garfinkle, and Nicolás Yunes

Is this supposed to be a practical joke on your part?

THE INVALIDATION OF THE CHRISTODOULOU-KLAINERMAN SOLUTION TO THE EINSTEIN EQUATIONS:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194825#msg2194825


The Necessary Existence of Gravitational Waves and the Repulsive Gravitation

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d92d/7f8b7771e0e3c4df0a25b712d7de2274ed59.pdf

Christodoulou and Klainerman [30] actually have never completed the construction of any dynamic solutions [31].


Errors of the Wheeler School, the Distortions to General Relativity and the Damage to Education in MIT Open Courses in Physics

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/432f/4c2f76f6ea7235981e9a0131973e9d0aabe2.pdf

Christodoulou & Klainerman [9] were unaware of that their set of solutions may have only static physical solutions [70-72]. Obviously, Christodoulou was still not aware of this when he received his half Shaw Prize in 2011.


The Repulsive Gravitation and Errors of Einstein

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6057/f99c6fcb7ffdb7584749aeb345b97a7e8a79.pdf

It turns out also the claim of Christodoulou and Klainerman [35] on their construction of dynamic solutions is also due to elementary mathematical errors [36] that they overlooked the need to prove the set of dynamic solutions is non-empty.
Although Christodoulou got his Ph. D. degree from Princeton University, it should be noted that his thesis adviser is J. A. Wheeler, who has been known to make crucial mathematical errors at the undergraduate level [19] in their well-known book "Gravitation".


Linearization of the Einstein Equation and The 1993 Press Release of the Nobel Prize in Physics

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/28d8/db055f7258cd6151cde8964ca573e27e287b.pdf

(Lots of links and formulas no one asked for)

Let me get this clear, none of those papers and authors you are citing claim that gravity is caused by pressure of ether waves, is that right? They are saying other things and you are the one reinterpreting their work in your own way.

So only if we follow your logic and derivations we come to this conclusion:

THEN I CAN IMMEDIATELY CLAIM THAT TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY IS FORCE OF PRESSURE, the pressure exerted by the ether waves.

Since you are the only one coming to this conclusion and you believe your ether waves theory is a better explanation of reality than Einstein's GR, I'd suggest the following:

1. Publish your work, then submit it to peer review. Let other people check how ether waves explain facts better than GR, is simpler than GR and ether waves have more predictive power than GR.

2. You could also start with a post in a science forum such as this one: https://www.scienceforums.net , so that other people with deep knowledge of physics can tell you what they think of ether waves as replacement of GR.

Let me get this clear, none of those papers and authors you are citing claim that gravity is caused by pressure of ether waves, is that right?

Let's put your word to the test.


http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

In this context, the energy-momentum tensor will be comprised only of that valid for the electromagnetic field in the ćther


The repulsive/antigravitational term can only be obtained if we acknowledge the medium called aether.

It is as simple as this.

You cannot have gravitational waves (a solution to the general relativity equations) without that antigravitational term.

Repulsive to what? Answer: to the terrestrial gravitational force which is assumed to be attractive.

Opposite of attractive = PRESSURE/Pushing force

Try again.

The RE Community has a new enemy, “Infrared Aerial Photogrammetry”.

This new technology reveals the shape of Earth’s surface through aerial observation using infrared and Photogrammetry software and the results prove it’s not curved. High tech equipment has been used to continue the Globe fantasy and make people believe the great hoax, now it’s being used to expose it.  How ironic.

If you haven’t heard of JTolan Media1 and his work you should have a look at his amazing work.

Rather than providing a crappy con man's video why don't you provide something of more substance. Just what is involved in this photgrammetry and how does it reveal that Earth is flat?
So far all you have presented is just another baseless claim.

And please stop using Plane Earth talking points to discribe your theory, and use your own like "Means Sea Curve, Curvevel, Curvontal and Curvision. That would make more sense.

We will keep using the same words everyone except flatties agree upon.
Cherry picking a single definition doesn't magically change what the word means.
Sea level is curved, no matter how much you want to reject that.

Going off topic is an act of desperation.

You mean like how Plat and other FEers repeatedly avoid simple questions and repeatedly change the topic to try and bury their opponents in BS?
Just look at Sandy, jumping in with a completely different topic and not even remaining on it.
Yes, the FEers here do seem quite desperate.

Let me get this clear, none of those papers and authors you are citing claim that gravity is caused by pressure of ether waves, is that right?

Let's put your word to the test.


http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

In this context, the energy-momentum tensor will be comprised only of that valid for the electromagnetic field in the ćther


The repulsive/antigravitational term can only be obtained if we acknowledge the medium called aether.

It is as simple as this.

You cannot have gravitational waves (a solution to the general relativity equations) without that antigravitational term.

Repulsive to what? Answer: to the terrestrial gravitational force which is assumed to be attractive.

Opposite of attractive = PRESSURE/Pushing force

Try again.

That's about the only time the word aether is used in the whole document, which again you reinterpret in your own way...

Weyl is not saying that gravity is caused by ether waves, that's your idea. Weyl was trying to unify the theories of gravitation and electrodynamics, which ultimately didn't work as he himself recognized.

I'm sorry for you, but H Weyl was a major supporter of Einstein's Theoy of Relativity.

Relativity is the basis of much if Weyl's work and he contributed to the development of the mathematical and philosophical foundations of relativity theory.  You will have to look harder.

Let me get this clear, none of those papers and authors you are citing claim that gravity is caused by pressure of ether waves, is that right?

It is as simple as this.

Not quite as simple as you might hope!

You cannot have gravitational waves (a solution to the general relativity equations) without that antigravitational term.

Einstein's GR does allow a gravitational wave solution though Einstein himself only found a gravitational wave solution to the linearised version.
Read:THE MATHEMATICS OF GRAVITATIONAL WAVES:
Part One: How the Green Light Was Given for Gravitational Wave Search by C. Denson Hill and Paweł Nurowski p 686
Part Two: Gravitational Waves and Their Mathematics by Lydia Bieri, David Garfinkle, and Nicolás Yunes

Einstein’s Theory of Relativity has advanced our ideas of the structure of the cosmos a step further. It is as if a wall which separated us from Truth has collapsed. Wider expanses and greater depths are now exposed to the searching eye of knowledge, regions of which we had not even a presentiment. It has brought us much nearer to grasping the plan that underlies all physical happening.

HERMANN WEYL
SPACE—TIME—MATTER, 1918

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/43006/43006-pdf.pdf

Weyl is not saying that gravity is caused by ether waves, that's your idea.

No, it was Whittaker's idea.

E.T. Whittaker, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time.

He even PROVED it, in two formidable papers published in 1903 and 1904:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059

ETHER = POTENTIAL = LONGITUDINAL WAVES = SCALAR WAVES

In general relativity the ether = the affine connection which captures the gravitational potential (something that the metric cannot do).

Weyl was trying to unify the theories of gravitation and electrodynamics, which ultimately didn't work as he himself recognized.

BUT HE DID UNIFY gravity and electromagnetism.

The initial criticism brought by Einstein was unfounded.

Weyl's solution was refined by Ponomarev and Obukhov in 1978.

Please read:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2192962#msg2192962

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2195432#msg2195432

So, you haven't done your homework on the subject.

Relativity is the basis of much if Weyl's work and he contributed to the development of the mathematical and philosophical foundations of relativity theory.  You will have to look harder.

You still don't get it.

Einstein's metric captures only the transverse waves, and NOT the potential.

If you want the potential, the most important concept in physics today, you need THE AFFINE CONNECTION, which involves NON-RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY.

G. 't Hooft discovered that "by using light rays alone, one cannot detect the scalar component of the energy-momentum tensor":

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.6675.pdf


HERMANN WEYL
SPACE—TIME—MATTER, 1918

Hermann Weyl was the greatest mathematician in the world in the period 1917-1955, greater than Einstein.

Here is quote you might have missed:

"Later the quantum-theory introduced the Schrodinger-Dirac potential ψ of the electron-positron field; it carried with it an experimentally-based principle of gauge-invariance which guaranteed the conservation of charge, and connected the ψ with the electromagnetic potentials A_µ in the same way that my speculative theory had connected the gravitational potentials g_µν with the A_µ, and measured the A_µ in known atomic, rather than unknown cosmological units."

Hermann Weyl


Hermann Weyl derived in 1917, for the first time, using the AFFINE CONNECTION NON-RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY, the exact solution to the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT.

Einstein's GR does allow a gravitational wave solution though Einstein himself only found a gravitational wave solution to the linearised version.

You are embarrassing yourself.

You are showing to everyone that you simply have no idea what you are talking about.

In 1917 T. Levi-Civita PROVED that Einstein's original equations are invalid.

A paper by T. Levi-Civita in 1917, one of the inventors of Tensor Calculus, showing that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is nonsense because it leads to the requirement for a first-order, intrinsic, differential invariant, which, as is well known to the pure mathematicians, does not exist:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090902090420/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Levi-Civita.pdf

Here is Einstein himself telling you that the HE DID NOT find a gravitational wave solution using his linearized equation:




You have a definite cognitive dissonance problem, and you are refusing to face this fact.


You have just stated that, "though Einstein himself only found a gravitational wave solution to the linearised version". Using Einstein's own words and quote I was able to debunk your lie.


Einstein's GR cannot allow a gravitational wave solution SINCE IT DOES NOT HAVE A BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION.

If you want a bounded dynamic solution, you need the antigravitational coupling term.


Read:THE MATHEMATICS OF GRAVITATIONAL WAVES:
Part One: How the Green Light Was Given for Gravitational Wave Search by C. Denson Hill and Paweł Nurowski p 686
Part Two: Gravitational Waves and Their Mathematics by Lydia Bieri, David Garfinkle, and Nicolás Yunes

I did read it.

You haven't done your homework on the subject.

THE INVALIDATION OF THE CHRISTODOULOU-KLAINERMAN SOLUTION TO THE EINSTEIN EQUATIONS:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194825#msg2194825


The Necessary Existence of Gravitational Waves and the Repulsive Gravitation

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d92d/7f8b7771e0e3c4df0a25b712d7de2274ed59.pdf

Christodoulou and Klainerman [30] actually have never completed the construction of any dynamic solutions [31].


Errors of the Wheeler School, the Distortions to General Relativity and the Damage to Education in MIT Open Courses in Physics

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/432f/4c2f76f6ea7235981e9a0131973e9d0aabe2.pdf

Christodoulou & Klainerman [9] were unaware of that their set of solutions may have only static physical solutions [70-72]. Obviously, Christodoulou was still not aware of this when he received his half Shaw Prize in 2011.


The Repulsive Gravitation and Errors of Einstein

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6057/f99c6fcb7ffdb7584749aeb345b97a7e8a79.pdf

It turns out also the claim of Christodoulou and Klainerman [35] on their construction of dynamic solutions is also due to elementary mathematical errors [36] that they overlooked the need to prove the set of dynamic solutions is non-empty.
Although Christodoulou got his Ph. D. degree from Princeton University, it should be noted that his thesis adviser is J. A. Wheeler, who has been known to make crucial mathematical errors at the undergraduate level [19] in their well-known book "Gravitation".


Linearization of the Einstein Equation and The 1993 Press Release of the Nobel Prize in Physics

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/28d8/db055f7258cd6151cde8964ca573e27e287b.pdf

Who cares who came up with what. Is the thing figured out by whomever the one widely accepted because it seems like the best one according to most? Not of much interested the ones which did not make it. They are sidenotes.