This is based on my post at another thread. I think it's worth of his own thread.

Bodkin: What is the point of inventing history?

It´s a poetic license that I indulged myself using it to present, as a fairy tail, an approximation of how the mind of an imbecile, yet
ambitious and with no moral sophist, wanted to make a career on physics after years of being rejected from any academic position
for not having the required intelligence, respect for others and mathematical and experimental abilities for achieving any success in
physics, either experimental or theoretical. So, the imbecile found a hiding in the most remote and impossible to be proven corners
of modern physics, which was stalling in the fields of dynamics and thermodynamics.

The people's smart, yet not intellectually gifted fucker, found that sophistry and philosophy were the right tools for deception and
introduction of fallacies IN SUCH CORNERS, to which 99% of physicists didn't give a flying fuck in that epoch. So, his metaphysics
found a fertile ground to grow: THE LAND OF THE UNOBSERVABLE AND THE UNVERIFIABLE.

Newton's Principia created physics and calculus in a single publication,
which was done for first time many years after his developments, due to
the encouragement and monetary support that the Astronomer Halley
provided to Newton, after him enlightened Halley with the explanations for
the trajectory and periodicity of his now famous comet. If not for Halley,
maybe Newton would never published his "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia
Mathematica", which brought light to the darkness in science.

Newton emphasized the empirical nature of the work with the expression Hypotheses non fingo ("I feign no hypotheses"). And he did due credit to
those before him, in particular Kepler and Galileo, as well as many others.

The 19th-century philosopher of science William Whewell stated, and
should be compared with Einstein's modus operandi:

"What is requisite is, that the hypothesis should be close to the facts, and
not connected with them by other arbitrary and untried facts; and that the
philosopher should be ready to resign it as soon as the facts refuse to
confirm it."

To describe what Newton did is risky, because words worth very little in
attempts to describe his monumental, unique contribution to the world.

Yet, LEGIONS of paid parasites of science and his LEGIONS of followers,
like the self-entitled AMATEURS that pollute this forum for decades, have
the STONEFACE hard enough to compare Newton with a mental midget,
who colluded with some peers and establishment to get the "icon of
science", "King of sky", "Emperor of the Universe" titles, that he enjoyed
without a bit of shame, as he lacked any trace of morality.

His "scientific method": invent any shit that can be proven experimentally,
make use of mathematics in the most absurd way to get gains while let
people confused with fallacies and paradoxes, make an extraordinary PR
effort to sell yourself (a la Musk or Kardashian way), destroy opponents
with racist insinuations and enjoy whatever you are given.

Compare his "scientific methods", as a 25 y.o. clerk in a patent office, with what Newton had conceived being the same age (1668):

A. RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY (NEWTON SCIENTIFIC METHOD)

Newton introduced a methodology for handling unknown phenomena in nature and how to develop explanations for them.

1) We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
2) Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
3) The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all
bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
4) In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or
very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by
which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.

With this rules for REASONING within limits of OBSERVATION (“hypotheses non fingo”, the famous Newton's remark to his critics),
230 years of scientific method applications created the modern world, which surrounded Einstein by 1905. And is as simple as:

1) Use observations, documented by your experiment or other people's experiments (i.e.: Gauss, Maxwell, Planck, Thomson, Rutherford,..)
2) Ask questions and develop TESTABLE explanations (same examples as above)..
3) Make predictions based on such TESTABLE explanations (same examples as above).
4) Get experimental tests of such predictions (either done by you or other scientists, as the names provided above)
5) If the outcome of testing is successful, write and publish a documented presentation of the findings, REFERENCING any help
obtained by collaborators or previous works in that area of knowledge (AGAIN: Gauss, Maxwell, Planck, Thomson, Rutherford,..).

The damn plagiarist and pretender FAILED IN 5 OUT OF 5 rules (100%), and yet was ALLOWED TO PUBLISH HIS SR and E=mc² shit!

In the year of 1905, EXACTLY 184 papers were published at the Annalen der Physik, comprising EXACTLY 3,017 pages.

ALL OF THEM, in Volumes 321 to 323 and Issues 1 to 15, are available online at Wiley database.

There are:

- 139 papers on experimental physics.
- 28 papers on theoretical physics, mostly supported by experimental physics.
- 17 papers on comments or remarks about other papers published at the ADP.

ALL OF THEM, except 3, present one or more references to others in the footprint of the first page or within the body of the paper.

- 2 papers from Einstein, having the second (E=mc²) a self reference to the first (Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper).
- 1 paper from Fritz Hasenöhrl ("On the theory of radiation in moving bodies. Rectification"), referencing his previous paper, which
curiously presented m=4/3.E/c², months BEFORE Einstein's paper. Hasenöhrl was well known 31 y.o. physicist and professor at the
University of Vienna as Boltzmann's successor as the head of the Department of Theoretical Physics. He was credited by Planck
asserting that "That the black body radiation possesses inertia was first pointed out by F. Hasenöhrl". Since J. J. Thomson in 1881,
many physicists like Wilhelm Wien (1900), Max Abraham (1902), and Hendrik Lorentz (1904) used equations equivalent to m=4/3.E/c².

So, it's easy to understans that Einstein WAS CREATED BY Annalen der Physik in 1905, under Drude's direction. Also, that Drude gave
Einstein 19 PAPERS to comment about them at the Beiblätter zu den Annalen der Physik in 1905 HAS NO RATIONAL EXPLANATION.

His very strange paper "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper", without any references and credentials for the author, was ignored in
the first years, until Planck (nobody will know why, but it started after gaining ADP command, along with Wien) started to talk about
it AT EVERY MEETING with known physicists. The physics community rejected the paper's content as presumptuous in the first part,
REDEFINING space and time as relative, and a copycat of 1904 Lorentz in the second part.

Well into 1910, such paper was known as Lorentz-Einstein relativity EVERYWHERE. Only after Lorentz (aging and vanishing rapidly)
mounted on the hype of relativity, prompted by Einstein, choose sides with him and brought him to the 1911 Solvay's conference.

The rest of the script is well known.

Now, compare what Newton did in almost a single stroke with what
Einstein has contributed to celestial mechanics ONLY:

Newton's contributions, from an absolute void before him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica

1. Astronomical observations prove the inverse square law for gravitation
2. Estimates of relative masses for known giant planets, Earth and Sun.
3. Defines the motion of the Sun relative to the solar-system barycenter.
4. Shows how the theory of gravity can account for irregularities in the
motion of the Moon.
5. Identifies the oblateness of the figure of the Earth;
6. Accounts for marine tides by the perturbing gravitational attractions
of the Sun and Moon on the Earth's waters.
7. Explains the precession of the equinoxes as an effect of the
gravitational attraction of the Moon on the Earth's equatorial bulge,
and gives theoretical basis for numerous phenomena about comets
and their elongated, near-parabolic orbits.

And these sub-theories were just a part of what Newton gave to the world,
like differential analysis and basic laws of motion.

Einstein contributed with ZERO VALUE to this world, yet is claimed as the
highest intellect that has ever lived on Earth.

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 1:14:58 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> This is based on my post at another thread. I think it's worth of his own thread.
>
> Bodkin: What is the point of inventing history?
>
> It´s a poetic license that I indulged myself using it to present, as a fairy tail, an approximation of how the mind of an imbecile, yet
> ambitious and with no moral sophist, wanted to make a career on physics after years of being rejected from any academic position
> for not having the required intelligence, respect for others and mathematical and experimental abilities for achieving any success in
> physics, either experimental or theoretical. So, the imbecile found a hiding in the most remote and impossible to be proven corners
> of modern physics, which was stalling in the fields of dynamics and thermodynamics.

No, that's not at all what happened. You, like all the other cranks before you here, are
just making up stuff that boosts your ego. It has nothing to do with reality, incidentally.

> The people's smart, yet not intellectually gifted fucker,

"Fucker"? You obviously have some sort of obsessive disorder fixated on Einstein. Again,
it's nothing new around here.

> found that sophistry and philosophy were the right tools for deception and
> introduction of fallacies IN SUCH CORNERS, to which 99% of physicists didn't give a flying fuck in that epoch. So, his metaphysics
> found a fertile ground to grow: THE LAND OF THE UNOBSERVABLE AND THE UNVERIFIABLE.

All nonsense. A fantasy.

[skipping the Newton part]

> Yet, LEGIONS of paid parasites of science and his LEGIONS of followers,
> like the self-entitled AMATEURS that pollute this forum for decades,

Like you.

> have
> the STONEFACE hard enough to compare Newton with a mental midget,

No, Einstein was not mental midget. You are projecting again.
You simply have no clue what physics is, what it was after
Maxwell especially (which is where special relativity came from).

> who colluded with some peers and establishment to get the "icon of
> science", "King of sky", "Emperor of the Universe" titles, that he enjoyed
> without a bit of shame, as he lacked any trace of morality.

Oh, boo-hoo. Aren't we jealous. You are a complete cretin, Richard.
Sorry, but it's just what it is. See a doctor or something. Your
fixation is unhealthy, it poisons your mind.

> His "scientific method": invent any shit that can be proven experimentally,

Needless to say, this is not what happened.

> make use of mathematics in the most absurd way

No, in a rather clever way. Not perfect but nothing wrong with it.
You cannot derive (reproduce) many of his results in his 1905
paper yet you pontificate cretinisms about his work. Good luck
with that.

> to get gains

What gains?

> while let
> people confused

Who got confused?

> with fallacies and paradoxes,

What fallacies?

> make an extraordinary PR

What PR?

> effort to sell yourself (a la Musk or Kardashian way), destroy opponents
> with racist insinuations and enjoy whatever you are given.

What racist insinuations?

> Compare his "scientific methods", as a 25 y.o. clerk in a patent office, with what Newton had conceived being the same age (1668):
>
> A. RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY (NEWTON SCIENTIFIC METHOD)

See a doctor. What you experience may actually be a result of something
physically happening in your head. I'm not joking, I lost a friend to precisely
this kind of tragedy a few years ago because her doctor thought an MRI of
the head was not necessary and instead prescribed her some stupid pills.

--
Jan

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is based on my post at another thread. I think it's worth of his own thread.
>
> Bodkin: What is the point of inventing history?
>
> It´s a poetic license that I indulged myself using it to present, as a fairy tail,

Ah, so it’s a self-indulgent fiction. Very well, say no more.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 5:14:58 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

AGAIN. AND FACT-CHECK IT, IDIOTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the year of 1905, EXACTLY 184 papers were published at the Annalen der Physik, comprising EXACTLY 3,017 pages.

ALL OF THEM, in Volumes 321 to 323 and Issues 1 to 15, are available online at Wiley database.

There are:

- 139 papers on experimental physics.
- 28 papers on theoretical physics, mostly supported by experimental physics.
- 17 papers on comments or remarks about other papers published at the ADP.

ALL OF THEM, except 3, present one or more references to others in the footprint of the first page or within the body of the paper.

- 2 papers from Einstein, having the second (E=mc²) a self reference to the first (Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper).
- 1 paper from Fritz Hasenöhrl ("On the theory of radiation in moving bodies. Rectification"), referencing his previous paper, which
curiously presented m=4/3.E/c², months BEFORE Einstein's paper. Hasenöhrl was well known 31 y.o. physicist and professor at the
University of Vienna as Boltzmann's successor as the head of the Department of Theoretical Physics. He was credited by Planck
asserting that "That the black body radiation possesses inertia was first pointed out by F. Hasenöhrl". Since J. J. Thomson in 1881,
many physicists like Wilhelm Wien (1900), Max Abraham (1902), and Hendrik Lorentz (1904) used equations equivalent to m=4/3.E/c².

So, it's easy to understand that Einstein WAS CREATED BY Annalen der Physik in 1905, under Drude's direction.

Also, that Drude gave Einstein 19 PAPERS to comment about them at the Beiblätter zu den Annalen der Physik in 1905
HAS NO RATIONAL EXPLANATION.

His very strange paper "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper", without any references and credentials for the author, was ignored in
the first years, until Planck (nobody will know why, but it started after gaining ADP command, along with Wien) started to talk about
it AT EVERY MEETING with known physicists. The physics community rejected the paper's content as presumptuous in the first part,
REDEFINING space and time as relative, and a copycat of 1904 Lorentz in the second part.

Well into 1910, such paper was known as Lorentz-Einstein relativity EVERYWHERE. Only after Lorentz (aging and vanishing rapidly)
mounted on the hype of relativity, prompted by Einstein, choose sides with him and brought him to the 1911 Solvay's conference.

The rest of the script is well known.

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 1:14:58 PM UTC-7, wanker Richard Hertz jerked off:
> snip huge amount of BS<

You are jerking off. Again.

AGAIN. AND FACT-CHECK IT, IDIOTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the year of 1905, EXACTLY 184 papers were published at the Annalen der Physik, comprising EXACTLY 3,017 pages.

ALL OF THEM, in Volumes 321 to 323 and Issues 1 to 15, are available online at Wiley database.

There are:

- 139 papers on experimental physics.
- 28 papers on theoretical physics, mostly supported by experimental physics.
- 17 papers on comments or remarks about other papers published at the ADP.

ALL OF THEM, except 3, present one or more references to others in the footprint of the first page or within the body of the paper.

- 2 papers from Einstein, having the second (E=mc²) a self reference to the first (Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper).
- 1 paper from Fritz Hasenöhrl ("On the theory of radiation in moving bodies. Rectification"), referencing his previous paper, which
curiously presented m=4/3.E/c², months BEFORE Einstein's paper. Hasenöhrl was well known 31 y.o. physicist and professor at the
University of Vienna as Boltzmann's successor as the head of the Department of Theoretical Physics. He was credited by Planck
asserting that "That the black body radiation possesses inertia was first pointed out by F. Hasenöhrl". Since J. J. Thomson in 1881,
many physicists like Wilhelm Wien (1900), Max Abraham (1902), and Hendrik Lorentz (1904) used equations equivalent to m=4/3.E/c².

So, it's easy to understand that Einstein WAS CREATED BY Annalen der Physik in 1905, under Drude's direction.

BEIDOU is a satellite navigation system developed and deployed by the People’s Republic of China, which don't give a shit about GR.

Newtonian space time vs. Relativistic space time

TIME IS ABSOLUTE vs. Time is relative and depends on the observer frame of reference.
SPACE IS ABSOLUTE vs. Space is relative and depends on the observer frame of reference, which change behaviors upon selection.
SPACE IS EUCLIDEAN vs. Space non-euclidean and its form depend on proximity to bodies with mass, as well as origin coordinates.

GRAVITY IS A FORCE vs. gravity is an illusion caused by the curvature of spacetime due to massive bodies nearby.

GRAVITY SPEED IS INFINITE vs. only gravitational waves have speed, which is c. Deformed spacetime is preset due to mass of bodies.

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 3:40:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz lied:
> BEIDOU is a satellite navigation system developed and deployed by the People’s Republic of China, which don't give a shit about GR.
>

You are making up shit. And you are eating it. All of it.

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 8:26:56 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 3:40:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz lied:
> > BEIDOU is a satellite navigation system developed and deployed by the People’s Republic of China, which don't give a shit about GR.
> >
> You are making up shit. And you are eating it. All of it.

Try to use your beloved Schwarzschild solution to a Beidou receiver, imbecile. The chinese are fucking every western physics,
including your relativities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeiDou
https://satellite-navigation.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43020-020-00025-9
https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/content/-/article/cnss

BeiDou-2 (formerly known as COMPASS) supersedes BeiDou-1. The new system is a constellation of 35 satellites that offer
complete coverage of the globe:

* 5 geostationary orbit satellites.
* 27 in medium Earth orbit, Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) .
* 3 in inclined geosynchronous orbit, Inclined GeoSynchronous Orbit (IGSO)..

All BeiDou satellites are equipped with laser retroreflector arrays for Satellite Laser Ranging[53] and the verification of the orbit quality.[

The free civilian service has a 10-metre location-tracking accuracy, synchronizes clocks with an accuracy of 10 nanoseconds,
and measures speeds to within 0.2 m/s. The restricted military service has a location accuracy of 10 centimetre, can be
used for communication (SMS services), and will supply information about the system status to the user.

El viernes, 22 de octubre de 2021 a las 18:32:34 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 5:14:58 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>

>
> The rest of the script is well known.

The only way to deal with people like this guy is just ignore them.

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 9:24:07 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:

<snip>

> The only way to deal with people like this guy is just ignore them.

Of course you have to, otherwise your fossilized brain will explode into bits.

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 5:13:24 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 8:26:56 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 3:40:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz lied:
> > > BEIDOU is a satellite navigation system developed and deployed by the People’s Republic of China, which don't give a shit about GR.
> > >
> > You are making up shit. And you are eating it. All of it.
> Try to use your beloved Schwarzschild solution to a Beidou receiver,

Uber crank

ALL GPS types of system, be it Russian, Chines or American obey the principles of GR. Keep eating shit.

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 5:24:07 PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> El viernes, 22 de octubre de 2021 a las 18:32:34 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> > On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 5:14:58 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > The rest of the script is well known.
> The only way to deal with people like this guy is just ignore them.
There is where we disagree, the Richard Hertz kapo provides us with never ending entertainment. Through the imbecilities and lies that he spews.

Newton's "Hypotheses non fingo" or "I don't invent hypotheses":

* Kepler's three laws, verified by himself.
* Galileo's concepts of inertia and action of gravity on parabolic trajectories of projectiles.
* Gravity (he invented the term) is a force, and fits very well with Galileo's experiments.
* The force of gravity is proportional to the rate of change of "vis viva", from Galileo's experiments.
* The force of gravity decreases with the inverse square of the distance (from Galileo's and others experiments, and his own), is
a better approximation that the inverse of the distance.
* The force of gravity is independent of the weight of bodies, and is related to their inertia.
* Inertial motion holds if no change in the rate of "vis viva" is present (Galileo and others experiments).
* Action and reaction are equal but opposite forces.
* Etc. (all proposals based on his concepts of the scientific method, later spread all over the world).

Einstein's "I'll postulate absurd crap and I'll fit mathematics to contain it"

* Time is relative

* Time is relative and depends on the observer frame of reference. Lorentz shows 1 nanosecond difference between clocks in a
train at 100 Km/Hr and clocks at rest. Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!

* Space is relative and depends on the observer frame of reference, which change behaviors upon selection. Lorentz shows 10E-18 m
length contraction between difference between distances in a train at 100 Km/Hr and lengths at rest. Go and CHECK IT, experimental
physicists!

* Space non-euclidean and its form depend on proximity to bodies with mass, as well as origin coordinates. Go and CHECK IT,
experimental physicists!

* Gravity is an illusion caused by the curvature of spacetime due to massive bodies nearby. Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!

* Gravitational waves exists and have speed, which is c, even when they are so faint that bursts of deformations around 10E-18 m can
reach us if an star explodes. Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!

* Gravitational fields have inertia, which relates to E/c2 and height. Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!

* Gravitational fields change frequency of light, proportionally to the height of the light-generator. Time go slower as GF increases.
Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!

* The proof of GR being correct is that Mercury's perihelion advance 43"/century with my Gerber's formula and that light is deflected
twice my von Soldner solution from 1911, when passing by the surface of the Sun. Disprove me, experimental physicists.

* My loss of mass E/c2 is better in my thought experiment with open systems than the GAIN OF 4/3 E/c2 mass in the closed system's
thought experiment that Hasenhorl published in this same ADP months ago. It's even much shorter derivation, and simpler.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A GENIUS AND A RETARDED THIRSTY OF FAME AND GLORY, 230 YEARS AFTER.

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 2:32:34 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 5:14:58 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> AGAIN. AND FACT-CHECK IT, IDIOTS

Who is doing those fact checks - you?

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> In the year of 1905, EXACTLY 184 papers were published at the Annalen der Physik, comprising EXACTLY 3,017 pages.
>
> ALL OF THEM, in Volumes 321 to 323 and Issues 1 to 15, are available online at Wiley database.
>
> There are:
>
> - 139 papers on experimental physics.
> - 28 papers on theoretical physics, mostly supported by experimental physics.
> - 17 papers on comments or remarks about other papers published at the ADP.
>
> ALL OF THEM, except 3, present one or more references to others in the footprint of the first page or within the body of the paper.

As I said earlier, not listing references was not unusual. You need to check
other journals as well, not just the Annalen. I did that once in front of
a library (Berkeley) shelf full of ca. 1905 journals and found lots of
such instances easily.

[...]
> University of Vienna as Boltzmann's successor as the head of the Department of Theoretical Physics. He was credited by Planck
> asserting that "That the black body radiation possesses inertia was first pointed out by F. Hasenöhrl". Since J. J. Thomson in 1881,
> many physicists like Wilhelm Wien (1900), Max Abraham (1902), and Hendrik Lorentz (1904) used equations equivalent to m=4/3.E/c².
> So, it's easy to understand that Einstein WAS CREATED BY Annalen der Physik in 1905, under Drude's direction.

Again, like most amateurs, you fixate on equations, not on theories (which
you don't understand).

> Also, that Drude gave Einstein 19 PAPERS to comment about them at the Beiblätter zu den Annalen der Physik in 1905
> HAS NO RATIONAL EXPLANATION.

To you.

> His very strange paper "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper", without any references and credentials for the author, was ignored in
> the first years, until Planck (nobody will know why, but it started after gaining ADP command, along with Wien) started to talk about
> it AT EVERY MEETING with known physicists. The physics community rejected the paper's content as presumptuous in the first part,
> REDEFINING space and time as relative, and a copycat of 1904 Lorentz in the second part.

You are making stuff up again. The paper's second part is in fact the opposite of
any competent person would call "copycat".

> Well into 1910, such paper was known as Lorentz-Einstein relativity EVERYWHERE. Only after Lorentz (aging and vanishing rapidly)
> mounted on the hype of relativity, prompted by Einstein, choose sides with him and brought him to the 1911 Solvay's conference.
>
> The rest of the script is well known.

There is no script. It's all in your head.

--
Jan

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 9:16:42 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Newton's "Hypotheses non fingo" or "I don't invent hypotheses":
>
> * Kepler's three laws, verified by himself.
> * Galileo's concepts of inertia and action of gravity on parabolic trajectories of projectiles.
> * Gravity (he invented the term) is a force, and fits very well with Galileo's experiments.
> * The force of gravity is proportional to the rate of change of "vis viva", from Galileo's experiments.
> * The force of gravity decreases with the inverse square of the distance (from Galileo's and others experiments, and his own), is
> a better approximation that the inverse of the distance.
> * The force of gravity is independent of the weight of bodies, and is related to their inertia.
> * Inertial motion holds if no change in the rate of "vis viva" is present (Galileo and others experiments).
> * Action and reaction are equal but opposite forces.
> * Etc. (all proposals based on his concepts of the scientific method, later spread all over the world).
>
> Einstein's "I'll postulate absurd crap and I'll fit mathematics to contain it"
>
> * Time is relative
>
> * Time is relative and depends on the observer frame of reference. Lorentz shows 1 nanosecond difference between clocks in a
> train at 100 Km/Hr and clocks at rest. Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!
>
> * Space is relative and depends on the observer frame of reference, which change behaviors upon selection. Lorentz shows 10E-18 m
> length contraction between difference between distances in a train at 100 Km/Hr and lengths at rest. Go and CHECK IT, experimental
> physicists!
>
> * Space non-euclidean and its form depend on proximity to bodies with mass, as well as origin coordinates. Go and CHECK IT,
> experimental physicists!
>
> * Gravity is an illusion caused by the curvature of spacetime due to massive bodies nearby. Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!
>
> * Gravitational waves exists and have speed, which is c, even when they are so faint that bursts of deformations around 10E-18 m can
> reach us if an star explodes. Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!
>
> * Gravitational fields have inertia, which relates to E/c2 and height. Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!
>
> * Gravitational fields change frequency of light, proportionally to the height of the light-generator. Time go slower as GF increases.
> Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!
>
> * The proof of GR being correct is that Mercury's perihelion advance 43"/century with my Gerber's formula and that light is deflected
> twice my von Soldner solution from 1911, when passing by the surface of the Sun. Disprove me, experimental physicists.
>
> * My loss of mass E/c2 is better in my thought experiment with open systems than the GAIN OF 4/3 E/c2 mass in the closed system's
> thought experiment that Hasenhorl published in this same ADP months ago. It's even much shorter derivation, and simpler.
>
> DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A GENIUS AND A RETARDED THIRSTY OF FAME AND GLORY, 230 YEARS AFTER.

Cutting and pasting the same long thing on two different threads is
considered bad form.

Otherwise, you write nonsense that's not even wrong again. You are
wasting your time here, you should spend it in a doctor's office.

--
Jan

On 23-Oct-21 7:14 am, Richard Hertz wrote:

> His "scientific method": invent any shit that can be proven experimentally,
> make use of mathematics in the most absurd way to get gains while let
> people confused with fallacies and paradoxes, make an extraordinary PR
> effort to sell yourself (a la Musk or Kardashian way), destroy opponents
> with racist insinuations and enjoy whatever you are given.
>

Einstein explains his thinking, and the motivation for the postulates.
He then provides the math that shows the consequences of those postulates.

It's all very understandable, and stands on its own merits.

No amount of character assassination is going to make relativity go
away, regardless of how much you dislike it.

Sylvia.

On Saturday, 23 October 2021 at 09:11:30 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 23-Oct-21 7:14 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > His "scientific method": invent any shit that can be proven experimentally,
> > make use of mathematics in the most absurd way to get gains while let
> > people confused with fallacies and paradoxes, make an extraordinary PR
> > effort to sell yourself (a la Musk or Kardashian way), destroy opponents
> > with racist insinuations and enjoy whatever you are given.
> >
> Einstein explains his thinking, and the motivation for the postulates.
> He then provides the math that shows the consequences of those postulates.

Einstein mumbles inconsistently, like an idiot he is.
As for math - he's announcing false its oldest, very
important and successful part.

On 10/23/2021 3:26 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Saturday, 23 October 2021 at 09:11:30 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 23-Oct-21 7:14 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>>> His "scientific method": invent any shit that can be proven experimentally,
>>> make use of mathematics in the most absurd way to get gains while let
>>> people confused with fallacies and paradoxes, make an extraordinary PR
>>> effort to sell yourself (a la Musk or Kardashian way), destroy opponents
>>> with racist insinuations and enjoy whatever you are given.
>>>
>> Einstein explains his thinking, and the motivation for the postulates.
>> He then provides the math that shows the consequences of those postulates.
>
> Einstein mumbles inconsistently, like an idiot he is.

Einstein IS an idiot? Well, I suppose that maybe you can outsmart him
now. Maybe. Considering that he has been dead for well over half a
century and his brain is pickled in a jar somewhere, there is a remote
possibility of that.

Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> On 23-Oct-21 7:14 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > His "scientific method": invent any shit that can be proven experimentally,
> > make use of mathematics in the most absurd way to get gains while let
> > people confused with fallacies and paradoxes, make an extraordinary PR
> > effort to sell yourself (a la Musk or Kardashian way), destroy opponents
> > with racist insinuations and enjoy whatever you are given.
> >
>
> Einstein explains his thinking, and the motivation for the postulates.
> He then provides the math that shows the consequences of those postulates.

> Sylvia.

He failed with the grand unified theory because he couldn't do the
....math.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 9:50:39 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
> >
> > On 23-Oct-21 7:14 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > > His "scientific method": invent any shit that can be proven experimentally,
> > > make use of mathematics in the most absurd way to get gains while let
> > > people confused with fallacies and paradoxes, make an extraordinary PR
> > > effort to sell yourself (a la Musk or Kardashian way), destroy opponents
> > > with racist insinuations and enjoy whatever you are given.
> > >
> >
> > Einstein explains his thinking, and the motivation for the postulates.
> > He then provides the math that shows the consequences of those postulates.
> > Sylvia.
>
> He failed with the grand unified theory because he couldn't do the
> ...math.

No, it's because (as we know now) one cannot get anywhere with this
without quantum field theory or something very much like it. Einstein
was hoping this would be avoidable.

--
Jan

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> Newton's "Hypotheses non fingo" or "I don't invent hypotheses":
>
> * Kepler's three laws, verified by himself.
> * Galileo's concepts of inertia and action of gravity on parabolic
> trajectories of projectiles.
> * Gravity (he invented the term) is a force, and fits very well with Galileo's experiments.
> * The force of gravity is proportional to the rate of change of "vis
> viva", from Galileo's experiments.
> * The force of gravity decreases with the inverse square of the distance
> (from Galileo's and others experiments, and his own), is
> a better approximation that the inverse of the distance.
> * The force of gravity is independent of the weight of bodies, and is
> related to their inertia.
> * Inertial motion holds if no change in the rate of "vis viva" is present
> (Galileo and others experiments).
> * Action and reaction are equal but opposite forces.
> * Etc. (all proposals based on his concepts of the scientific method,
> later spread all over the world).

Yes.

>
> Einstein's "I'll postulate absurd crap and I'll fit mathematics to contain it"

Well, diminish all you want. Others see more than you do. What does that
say about you?

>
> * Time is relative

Yes. Confirmed in experiment later.

>
> * Time is relative and depends on the observer frame of reference.
> Lorentz shows 1 nanosecond difference between clocks in a
> train at 100 Km/Hr and clocks at rest. Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!

But confirmed experimentally in other situations well within experimental
error. Well within. Well well within.

>
> * Space is relative and depends on the observer frame of reference, which
> change behaviors upon selection. Lorentz shows 10E-18 m
> length contraction between difference between distances in a train at
> 100 Km/Hr and lengths at rest. Go and CHECK IT, experimental
> physicists!

Again, trains have little to do with the experimental verification, but
flounder all you wish.

>
> * Space non-euclidean and its form depend on proximity to bodies with
> mass, as well as origin coordinates. Go and CHECK IT,
> experimental physicists!

Yes, this is called making a PREdiction, as opposed to making a
POSTdiction, which is what you lauded from Newton’s work. Somehow you think
this is inferior. How could you get it so wrong?

>
> * Gravity is an illusion caused by the curvature of spacetime due to
> massive bodies nearby. Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!

Well, that’s not actually the statement made, is it? Gravity is no
illusion.

>
> * Gravitational waves exists and have speed, which is c, even when they
> are so faint that bursts of deformations around 10E-18 m can
> reach us if an star explodes. Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!

Which they did and found. Amazing, isn’t it?

>
> * Gravitational fields have inertia, which relates to E/c2 and height. Go
> and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!
>
> * Gravitational fields change frequency of light, proportionally to the
> height of the light-generator. Time go slower as GF increases.
> Go and CHECK IT, experimental physicists!

Indeed.

>
> * The proof of GR

No, there’s no proof of any theory. Where did you hear such tripe?

> being correct is that Mercury's perihelion advance 43"/century with my
> Gerber's formula and that light is deflected
> twice my von Soldner solution from 1911, when passing by the surface
> of the Sun. Disprove me, experimental physicists.
>
> * My loss of mass E/c2 is better in my thought experiment with open
> systems than the GAIN OF 4/3 E/c2 mass in the closed system's
> thought experiment that Hasenhorl published in this same ADP months
> ago. It's even much shorter derivation, and simpler.
>
> DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A GENIUS AND A RETARDED THIRSTY OF FAME AND GLORY, 230 YEARS AFTER.
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Sunday, 24 October 2021 at 00:36:18 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Einstein's "I'll postulate absurd crap and I'll fit mathematics to contain it"
> Well, diminish all you want. Others see more than you do.

I'M A WOODWORKER!!!! I SEE MORE, THAN ORDINARY
MORTAL WORMS!!!!!!

> > * Time is relative
>
> Yes. Confirmed in experiment later.

Sorry, trash, anyone can check GPS, or UTC, or TAI,
clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like they always did.

JanPB wrote:
>
> On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 9:50:39 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Sylvia Else wrote:
> > >
> > > On 23-Oct-21 7:14 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >
> > > > His "scientific method": invent any shit that can be proven experimentally,
> > > > make use of mathematics in the most absurd way to get gains while let
> > > > people confused with fallacies and paradoxes, make an extraordinary PR
> > > > effort to sell yourself (a la Musk or Kardashian way), destroy opponents
> > > > with racist insinuations and enjoy whatever you are given.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Einstein explains his thinking, and the motivation for the postulates.
> > > He then provides the math that shows the consequences of those postulates.
> > > Sylvia.
> >
> > He failed with the grand unified theory because he couldn't do the
> > ...math.
>
> No, it's because (as we know now) one cannot get anywhere with this
> without quantum field theory or something very much like it. Einstein
> was hoping this would be avoidable.
>
> --
> Jan

No one can do the math because the math needed does not exist.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 10:19:06 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 9:50:39 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Sylvia Else wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 23-Oct-21 7:14 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > His "scientific method": invent any shit that can be proven experimentally,
> > > > > make use of mathematics in the most absurd way to get gains while let
> > > > > people confused with fallacies and paradoxes, make an extraordinary PR
> > > > > effort to sell yourself (a la Musk or Kardashian way), destroy opponents
> > > > > with racist insinuations and enjoy whatever you are given.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Einstein explains his thinking, and the motivation for the postulates.
> > > > He then provides the math that shows the consequences of those postulates.
> > > > Sylvia.
> > >
> > > He failed with the grand unified theory because he couldn't do the
> > > ...math.
> >
> > No, it's because (as we know now) one cannot get anywhere with this
> > without quantum field theory or something very much like it. Einstein
> > was hoping this would be avoidable.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> No one can do the math because the math needed does not exist.

That's unlikely. It's much more likely we simply do not yet have the right
physical model.

--
Jan