On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 2:30:15 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Richard Hertz is simply pitching a battle against a strawman that Einstein
> is revered as a god,

It looks like it's something deeply emotional for him, a
borderline obsession or a monomania.

This NG is littered with spent former posters like this.

--
Jan

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 4:41:22 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> 3) By then (Internet), I had the chance to access the original 1905 paper about m = L/c² (in German), which struck me for fallacious,
> incomplete and fully circular (petitio principii).

And the reason you are not a scientist is that you didn't catch
yourself here.

> I ALWAYS used ORIGINAL SOURCES, because I know the distortions made by historians.

That's THE standard crank claim on this forum. It follows directly from being
unable to understand the actual theory, so they must rely on some sort of
"Holy Writ" in order to be able to navigate.

> I started a "hobby" 3 years ago: to analyze why such stupid paper prospered for 113 years, as well as any other "product" of Einstein.

It's not "stupid", you simply never understood it. That's why Einstein was
a genius and you are not one. The fact alone that the paper remains
considered important after "113 years" should have given you a pause.
What do you think, man - that everyone except you is stupid or something?
How were you able to survive your life-so-far with that kind of attitude?

The rest of your post is not worth responding to, it's pseudoscientific junk.

--
Jan

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 4:58:47 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
>
> Yep, you are full of hate (and full of shit)

It seems more mental/emotional than based on hate. Whatever
hate there is, is the result of a slightly pathological monomania
or perhaps obsession.

If he needed to hate someone in science, he could find much
better candidates for that sort of thing than Einstein.
"Unfortunately", their scientific writings would be inaccessible
to Richard so there goes this possibility.

The only reason cranks attach themselves to Einstein like
"rzep psiego ogona" as we say in Polish ("a burdock clinging
to dog's tail") is the low barrier of technical entry to
special relativity. This opens the door for all sorts of
maniacs and, especially, retired EEs (there is a whole
slew of them marking this NG over several decades now).

--
Jan

On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 3:37:51 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 4:58:47 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > Yep, you are full of hate (and full of shit)
> It seems more mental/emotional than based on hate. Whatever
> hate there is, is the result of a slightly pathological monomania
> or perhaps obsession.
>
> If he needed to hate someone in science, he could find much
> better candidates for that sort of thing than Einstein.
> "Unfortunately", their scientific writings would be inaccessible
> to Richard so there goes this possibility.
>
> The only reason cranks attach themselves to Einstein like
> "rzep psiego ogona" as we say in Polish ("a burdock clinging
> to dog's tail") is the low barrier of technical entry to
> special relativity. This opens the door for all sorts of
> maniacs and, especially, retired EEs (there is a whole
> slew of them marking this NG over several decades now).
>
What makes this scumbag interesting is that he progressed to GR. Kobee Wublee reincarnated.

El jueves, 4 de noviembre de 2021 a las 17:25:13 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 12:05:22 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>

> I feel your pain, frustration and hate, Bodkin. You are using strawman arguments to deviate the attention to the FACT
> that the pagan god of science that you worship continuously DIDN'T CONTRIBUTE WITH ANYTHING OF VALUE to this
> world, where you enjoy comfort, health and economies built upon accumulated contributions of REAL SCIENTISTS AND
> ENGINEERS, not from a FRAUD that founded a para-science where time DILATES, lengths CONTRACT, gravity BENDS space,
> masses are used as GRAVITATIONAL LENTS, atomic clocks depends on its HEIGHT above ground, and UTC is impossible.
>
> You are one more on the crowd of religious fanatic that promotes the personality cult and encourage MSM to write constantly
> about "Einstein proven right one more time", and that created an establishment around a myth just to divert public funds for
> their institutions and enjoy the pleasures of life by establishing "fortress of thought" and "surveillance polices" to erase any
> criticism over Einstein's work and legacy.

What a big load of crap you write here. Physics models, like SR, GR, QED, QFT were proposed and improved by thousands of physicists. That Einstein was fundamental in the original developments of some of those models do not diminish the contributions of all physicists, that took the token and improve all those models.

> Physics, as a science, is destined to vanish and merge as a RESIDUAL of Engineering. And it goes for Chemistry too.
>

Another unfounded and baseless nonsense....

> Relativity HAS CONTRIBUTED NOTHING TO ANY OF THESE FIELDS, except for creating a new field of its own, without practical value.

Even if that was real (physics, like mathematics, are not meant to pursue their application to real life), the aim of physics is to find models that can explain what Nature does.

Engineering is the use of scientific principles (physics and mathematics) to design and build machines, structures, and other items, including bridges, tunnels, roads, vehicles, and buildings. The discipline of engineering encompasses a broad range of more specialized fields of engineering, each with a more specific emphasis on particular areas of applied mathematics, applied science, and types of application.
Electrical engineering is an engineering discipline concerned with the study, design and application of equipment, devices and systems which use electricity, electronics, and electromagnetism. All students of electrical engineering require to know basic and advanced mathematics

On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 21:50:39 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 1:40:19 PM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 21:33:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 1:25:13 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz ate shit by the spade:
> > > > Relativity HAS CONTRIBUTED NOTHING TO ANY OF THESE FIELDS, except for creating a new field of its own, without practical value.
> > > You are eating shit. Again. A lot.
> > >
> > > 1. CRT
> > > 2. Cat Scan
> > > 3. GPS
> > > 4. Particle separators
> > > 5. Particle accelerators
> > In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS
> > clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
> > clocks always did.
> Janitor,
>
> You need to stop drinking straight out of the toilets.

See, Dono: I'm one of the best logicians the humanity
ever had, you're just a fanatic religious crank. Of course,
you can't discuss against me and facts. You can only
bark, spit and slander. But you will do what you can
for The Shit you love.

On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 01:13:51 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:

> Even if that was real (physics, like mathematics, are not meant to pursue their application to real life), the aim of physics is to find models that can explain what Nature does.
>
> Engineering is the use of scientific principles

Not anymore, since your science has got mad. Anyone
can check GPS, the clocks keep measuring t'=t, fucking
your precious principles.

I'll prove here THE HOAX of Einstein's derivation of Mercury's perihelion advance, showing how he FUDGED THE
DERIVATION to obtain Gerber's formula.

Better that you have the translation of the paper at hand, so you can fact-check.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROOFS OF THE EINSTEIN HOAX REGARDING HIS NOV. 18, 1915 PAPER ON MERCURY'S PERIHELION.

I'll not follow the paper's sequence for the results of the 43"/100 years advance in the Mercury's perihelion. I'll present the
facts going back and forth on the paper, as it suits me. Einstein's formulae from the paper are indicated by (nn).

To start, Einstein arrives at this formula next to his (11) formula, from which is derived:

(11) (dx/dΦ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³

QUOTE 1: "which equation distinguishes itself from the corresponding Newtonian theory only
through the last member on the right side."

Φ = ∫ dx/√(2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³) , between α₁ = 1/a and α₂ = 1/b

α₁ and α₂ are the first two roots of the right side of (11) polynomial, and DECLARED as inverse of major and minor axis of the ellipse.

In this formula, are claimed the CONSTANTS A and B:

A = 1/2 (dr² + r² dΦ²)/ds² - α/2r (claiming A as CONSTANT derived from equations (7c))

(7c) d²xᵥ/ds² = - ∂Φ/dxᵥ [sic] ; Φ = - α/2r [1 +B²/r²]

(10) B = r² dΦ/ds (NOTE: claiming NEWTONIAN angular momentum conservation under radial acceleration in GMm/r² = d²r/dt²)

QUOTE 2: "The Law of Areas is also accurate in the magnitude of second order, when one uses the ”period“ of the planet
for the time measurement."

Continuing from (11), he stated that:

QUOTE 3: "α₁ and α₂ are the corresponding first roots of the equation

2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³ = 0

which means, the very close neighboring roots of the equation corresponding to leaving out the last term member."

Now, an EXCERPT from this point up to the final derivation:

--------- EXCERPT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hereby we can with reasonable accuracy replace it with

Φ = [1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂) ] ∫ dx/√ [ - (x - α₁) (x - α₂) (1 - αx) ] , between α₁ and α₂

or after expanding of

1/√(1 - αx)

Φ = [1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂)] ∫ (1 + αx/2) dx/√ [ - (x - α₁) (x - α₂) ] , between α₁ and α₂

The integration leads to

Φ = π [1 + 3/4 α (α₁ + α₂)]

or, if one takes α₁ and α₂ as reciprocal values of the maximal and minimal distance from the Sun,

(12) Φ = π [1 + 3α/[2a (1 - e²)]]

For an entire passage, the perihelion moves by

(13) ε = 3π α/[a (1 - e²)]

in the directional sense of the orbital motion, when we designate by a the major half axis, and by e the eccentricity.
This leads one to the period T (in seconds), so one obtains with c as light velocity in cm/sec:

(14) ε = 24.π³.a²/[(1 – e²).T².c²]

This calculation leads to the planet Mercury to move its perihelion forward by 43 ′′ per century, while the astronomers give
45 ′′±5′′, an exceptional difference between observation and Newtonian theory. This has great significance as full agreement."

------ END OF EXCERPT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Equation (11), as well as a derivation done by Schwarzschild are based on an approximation Φ, which is an elliptical integral with
not known solution until the present.

There are MANY "licenses" took by Einstein to reach equation (13) and, SPECIALLY, to derive equation (14), which is Gerber's solution.

Here I start to detail WHY such paper is UTTER CRAP without a bit of TRUTH. As I wrote before, an HOAX that's supported by relativists
until these days. As Mercury's problem is not interesting, except for some physicists and astronomers, this paper has been buried into
the history, and only a modification of Schwarzschild's solution survives.

*************************************************************************************************

A) FALLACY: Elliptic orbits covering 2π (Newton) versus 2π+ε (GR).

For more than 400 years, it's well known and accepted that planetary motion describe static ellipses around the Sun. It was Le Verrier
that, in 1847, discovered through calculations of his mathematical theory of celestial mechanics and perturbations, a difference of
38"/century on the total precession of Mercury's orbit (568"/century) that newtonian theory couldn't explain.

Using the newtonian binding energy E (per unit mass) of the planetary motion, in polar coordinates, gives:

1/2 [ r². (dɸ/dt)² + (dr/dt)²] – GM/r = E

(dr/dɸ)² = 2E.r⁴/L² + 2GM.r³/L² – r² = r² . (2E/L² r² + 2GM/L² r – 1)

Φ = ∫ dr/√[r² (1 - r/R₁) (r/R₂ - 1)] = arctan [r² + (R₁ - r) (r - R₂) - R₁R₂]/[2 √[(R₁ - r) (r - R₂) R₁R₂] , between R₁ and R₂

R₁ and R₂ are the aphelion and the perihelion of a closed orbit, so the integral gives the value of Φ for half an orbit.

Φ = arctan (+∞) - arctan (-∞) = π/2 + π/2 = π

Then, a periodic elliptical orbit r(Φ) covers from Φ to Φ + 2π in a constant period T. This behavior repeats forever.

It can be seen that, under Newton-Kepler, the perihelion is found again EXACTLY after 2π radians swept by an orbiting planet.

But GR, for a space void of matter (Rᵤᵥ = 0), after each orbit, the perihelion has advanced ε radians, which accumulates as TIME PASS.

This concept of 2π+ε radians per orbit DON'T DESCRIBE AN ELLIPSE. Not, at least, if time now HAS TO be included in r(Φ,t).

And the condition of irrelevance of time in the change of the orbital path is then A FALLACY.

In GR, the angle of the orbital path is described by increments dΦ = dx/√(2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³).

If the motion is observed in a plane (x,y) where, at t = to, R₁ and R₂ are aphelion and perihelion are located at (x₁ = R₁, 0) and (x₂ = -R₂,0),
the plane (x,y) has to be rotated to the left, changing to a new reference (x',y') such that the elliptical path is maintained. This imply
that y' is moving apart from the original y at t=0 by an infinitesimal fraction of the total ε shift in the infinitesimal time dt.

As this COMPLEX MOTION is not incorporated in the formulae developed for the motion of the perihelion, the entire paper IS WRONG!

And more wrong is as one imagine the displacement of the perihelion in 100 years, after almost 415 orbits.

The explanation using GR doesn't satisfy the elementary geometric concepts of an ellipse. The angle swept by starting to any arbitrary
point (xo,yo) until it's reached again 88 days after HAS TO BE 2π radians EXACTLY, or we are not talking about an elliptical path anymore.

That GR FAILS to include TIME in the equation of the orbital path, and this alone is enough to claim such proof AN HOAX!

**********************

B) Other FALLACIES and FUDGING present in the Nov. 18, 1915 paper.

This can be take a while and be too long for this post. If needed, I'll make a new thread with this particular problem.

I'll only enumerate some wrongdoings:

B1) In equations (4b), Einstein introduces a HACK by stating without explanations that g₄₄ = 1 - α/r.

Being α the Schwarzschild’s radius: α = 2GM/c², it's conveniently PLANTED modifying entirely (4a), where stated that g₄₄ = 1.

This modifies ENTIRELY the subsequent development, by HACKING the expression for time, introducing gravitational effect initially.

Schwarzschild (17): (1 −α/R) dt/ds = const. = 1 (Definition of the time unit). THIS EXPRESSION IS PROOF ENOUGH. However, it's
not the energy that Einstein used, but the definition of TIME.

*************

B2) The exact analytical solution of the problem that Einstein posted is USELESS to prove Einstein right on the derivation of the
final formula for the advance of the perihelion.

Einstein (11): (dx/dΦ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³ , with B = r²dΦ/ds and A = 1/2 (dr² + r² dΦ²)/ds² - α/2r

Schwarzschild (18): (dx/dΦ)² = (1 –h)/c² + hα/c² x −x² + α x³ = 2A/B + α/B x −x² + α x³ , with B = c/h and A = (1 −h)/2h

Schwarzschild (15): h = (1 −α/R)(dt/ds)2 − (dR/ds)2 /(1 −α/R) − R2(dφ/ds)2 = const.

Schwarzschild (16): R²dΦ/ds = const. = c, (16)

Schwarzschild's claim about reproducing Einstein’s development of the perihelion advance is not true, because both formulae
about dΦ/dx ARE DIFFERENT, as the "constants" A and B have different meaning, and the concept of energy is not used.

Schwarzschild left the development of the formula UNFINISHED, so it CAN'T BE SAID that Schwarzschild proves Einstein right.

*************

B3) The transition from eq. (13) for ε in geometrical units to eq. (14), which is the Gerber formula is fallacious and hide the use
of Kepler's 3rd. Law.

*************

There are many more wrongdoings, like arbitrary replacements of times τ and t, α₁ and α₂ roots derived from ALMOST CIRCULAR
NEWTONIAN CALCULATIONS, etc., etc.

On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 10:40:30 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz posted yet another imbecility:
> This concept of 2π+ε radians per orbit DON'T DESCRIBE AN ELLIPSE.

Because, cretinoid, the planets' trajectories are not closed, they are not ellipses. That was known since Bradley and Laplace.

On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 9:30:11 PM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 21:50:39 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 1:40:19 PM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 21:33:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 1:25:13 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz ate shit by the spade:
> > > > > Relativity HAS CONTRIBUTED NOTHING TO ANY OF THESE FIELDS, except for creating a new field of its own, without practical value.
> > > > You are eating shit. Again. A lot.
> > > >
> > > > 1. CRT
> > > > 2. Cat Scan
> > > > 3. GPS
> > > > 4. Particle separators
> > > > 5. Particle accelerators
> > > In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS
> > > clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
> > > clocks always did.
> > Janitor,
> >
> > You need to stop drinking straight out of the toilets.
> See, Dono: I'm one lowest scum the humanity
> ever had, a water toilet drinker and an all around drunk

Agreed

On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 13:00:23 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 9:30:11 PM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 21:50:39 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 1:40:19 PM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 21:33:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 1:25:13 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz ate shit by the spade:
> > > > > > Relativity HAS CONTRIBUTED NOTHING TO ANY OF THESE FIELDS, except for creating a new field of its own, without practical value.
> > > > > You are eating shit. Again. A lot.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. CRT
> > > > > 2. Cat Scan
> > > > > 3. GPS
> > > > > 4. Particle separators
> > > > > 5. Particle accelerators
> > > > In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS
> > > > clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
> > > > clocks always did.
> > > Janitor,
> > >
> > > You need to stop drinking straight out of the toilets.
> > See, Dono: I'm one lowest scum the humanity
> > ever had, a water toilet drinker and an all around drunk
>
> Agreed

Of course, I didn't write it. Of course, Dono is lying again,
as expected from relativistic scum. Of course. That's
how famous "scientific method" of Einsteinians is looking
in practice.

On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 8:58:27 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

Behold what the imbecile wrote:

> On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 10:40:30 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz posted yet another imbecility:
> > This concept of 2π+ε radians per orbit DON'T DESCRIBE AN ELLIPSE.

> Because, cretinoid, the planets' trajectories are not closed, they are not ellipses. That was known since Bradley and Laplace.

The trajectory of planets have been known as being continuously varying with time ALONG AN ELLIPTICAL PATH over an ellipse,
mathematical described, which perihelion is PRECESSING along the ENTIRE ORBITAL PERIOD.

This EFFECT forces that TIME BE INVOLVED in the equations for CLOSED ORBITAL PATH of every planet. The success of such
understanding since XVIII century has allowed to CALCULATE newtonian precession of EVERY PLANET in the Solar System.

Using CORRECT EQUATIONS for r(Φ,t) allowed, for centuries, to calculate elliptical orbits from Φ to EXACTLY Φ + 2π in a CONSTANT
PERIOD T, even when accounting for DISPLACEMENT of perihelion.

This was done by Laplace, Lagrange, Le Verrier, hundred of astronomers and theoreticians and, in particular, by GERBER!.

The phenomena of precession was largely known in physics for thousand of years, and formal equations could account for this once
CALCULUS was developed enough and applied to problems like:

- Precession of the equinoxes: motion of the equinoxes along the ecliptic (the plane of Earth's orbit) caused by the cyclic
precession of Earth's axis of rotation, calculated to have a period of 25,772 years.

- Gyroscopic precession: Torque-induced precession is the phenomenon in which the axis of a spinning object (e.g., a gyroscope)
describes a cone in space when an external torque is applied to it. The phenomenon is commonly seen in a spinning toy top, but
ALL ROTATING OBJECTS can undergo precession.

ONE OF THE MANY ERRORS that the fucker and his buddy, Dr. Freundlich, made on the IDIOTIC PAPER is to ELIMINATE TIME EFFECTS
in the equation for the orbital path. By doing so, VIOLATING KNOWN RULES OF REASON, his paper tells about an STATIC ORBITAL PATH
which happens to be ε radians SHORT.

What the fucker did was to attribute the WRONG INTEGRAL RESULT π+ε/2 (half the orbit) to his "successful but incomplete" GR theory.

But he didn't account for the change ∂r(Φ,t)/∂t, and FUDGED the result for ∂r(Φ,t)/∂Φ, passing it as dr(Φ)/dΦ EXCLUSIVELY.

Read something about Gerber's paper here, cretin:

The Spatial and Temporal Propagation of Gravity
by Paul Gerber, in Stargard, Pomerania, 1898

http://www.alternativephysics.org/gerber/Perihelion.htm

Excerpts:

"Newton's law defines the potentials that reach the masses in every position if they have the necessary time to achieve their realization. This condition is always satisfied when the masses are held at a distance from each other. The condition ceases in the case of free movement directed towards each other, if the time concerned has a finite measured size."
......................
"The assumption that dr/dt is small compared with c, applies in the area of the usual gravitational phenomena; otherwise Newton's law
might not be true of moving masses to the degree that it is. But under special conditions, for example, a given initial velocity of the
masses, dr/dt can become so big, that neither Δr/Δt may be set equal to it, nor is the development of the binomial series to the second
power sufficient. The derived formula is therefore only valid if the gravitating masses form a free, independent system, with respect to
the exterior. In this present most important case it defines a situation in which Newton's law breaks down, in that the potentials do not
propagate between the masses instantaneously, but with loss of time."
......................
"We see, by observing the IMMUTABILITY of b/√a, that the movement of the planet can be interpreted as if it was proceding along an
ELLIPSE whose ε and ω ARE CHANGING CONSTANTLY. This change only stops in the case that F = 0. It is thus through this change
that the presence of a finite value of c comes into effect."
.....................

Then, GERBER proceed to derive the Nov. 18, 1915 formulae (traveling in time forth and back) without ANY SHIT LIKE SPACE BENT under
Sun's gravity effect 60 million Km far away.

Of course you WILL NOT ACCEPT THESE FACTS, because your pagan god was caught with his pants down.

But, as a cretin imbecile that you are, nothing honest can be expected coming from you. YOU ARE A FUCKING LIAR, willing to make
the UNTHINKABLE to defend Einstein and your position (I think that it's 99% about you and 1% about the other fucker).

And wait for more data ABOUT THE FUDGING and mistakes the RETARDED did in one single paper. All he wanted was to get
GERBER'S FORMULA, whatever it took to reach there.

On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 3:41:38 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 3:37:51 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 4:58:47 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > Yep, you are full of hate (and full of shit)
> > It seems more mental/emotional than based on hate. Whatever
> > hate there is, is the result of a slightly pathological monomania
> > or perhaps obsession.
> >
> > If he needed to hate someone in science, he could find much
> > better candidates for that sort of thing than Einstein.
> > "Unfortunately", their scientific writings would be inaccessible
> > to Richard so there goes this possibility.
> >
> > The only reason cranks attach themselves to Einstein like
> > "rzep psiego ogona" as we say in Polish ("a burdock clinging
> > to dog's tail") is the low barrier of technical entry to
> > special relativity. This opens the door for all sorts of
> > maniacs and, especially, retired EEs (there is a whole
> > slew of them marking this NG over several decades now).
> >
> What makes this scumbag interesting is that he progressed to GR. Kobee Wublee reincarnated.

Koobee was also an EE :-) Except Koobee actually knew some of the
relevant math so it was possible to exchange ideas with him to
some extent. For example, he knew how to derive the geodesic
equation from the Lagrangian and he knew that once the
coefficients were symmetrised, you got the Christoffel symbols.

--
Jan

On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 18:47:28 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 3:41:38 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 3:37:51 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 4:58:47 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yep, you are full of hate (and full of shit)
> > > It seems more mental/emotional than based on hate. Whatever
> > > hate there is, is the result of a slightly pathological monomania
> > > or perhaps obsession.
> > >
> > > If he needed to hate someone in science, he could find much
> > > better candidates for that sort of thing than Einstein.
> > > "Unfortunately", their scientific writings would be inaccessible
> > > to Richard so there goes this possibility.
> > >
> > > The only reason cranks attach themselves to Einstein like
> > > "rzep psiego ogona" as we say in Polish ("a burdock clinging
> > > to dog's tail") is the low barrier of technical entry to
> > > special relativity. This opens the door for all sorts of
> > > maniacs and, especially, retired EEs (there is a whole
> > > slew of them marking this NG over several decades now).
> > >
> > What makes this scumbag interesting is that he progressed to GR. Kobee Wublee reincarnated.
> Koobee was also an EE :-) Except Koobee actually knew some of the
> relevant math

Unlike poor idiot Jan, still believing immutable mathematical
truth, 150 years after Lobachevsky.

On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 10:47:28 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 3:41:38 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 3:37:51 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 4:58:47 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yep, you are full of hate (and full of shit)
> > > It seems more mental/emotional than based on hate. Whatever
> > > hate there is, is the result of a slightly pathological monomania
> > > or perhaps obsession.
> > >
> > > If he needed to hate someone in science, he could find much
> > > better candidates for that sort of thing than Einstein.
> > > "Unfortunately", their scientific writings would be inaccessible
> > > to Richard so there goes this possibility.
> > >
> > > The only reason cranks attach themselves to Einstein like
> > > "rzep psiego ogona" as we say in Polish ("a burdock clinging
> > > to dog's tail") is the low barrier of technical entry to
> > > special relativity. This opens the door for all sorts of
> > > maniacs and, especially, retired EEs (there is a whole
> > > slew of them marking this NG over several decades now).
> > >
> > What makes this scumbag interesting is that he progressed to GR. Kobee Wublee reincarnated.
> Koobee was also an EE :-) Except Koobee actually knew some of the
> relevant math so it was possible to exchange ideas with him to
> some extent. For example, he knew how to derive the geodesic
> equation from the Lagrangian and he knew that once the
> coefficients were symmetrised, you got the Christoffel symbols.
>
> --
> Jan

Yes, not as stupid as Richard Butthurts

On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 10:33:44 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz continued to eat shit:
> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 8:58:27 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> Behold what the imbecile wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 10:40:30 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz posted yet another imbecility:
> > > This concept of 2π+ε radians per orbit DON'T DESCRIBE AN ELLIPSE.
>
> > Because, cretinoid, the planets' trajectories are not closed, they are not ellipses. That was known since Bradley and Laplace.
> The trajectory of planets have been known as being continuously varying with time ALONG AN ELLIPTICAL PATH over an ellipse,

Yet, none of the trajectories is closed, they are OPEN, contrary to your earlier claims. None of the "ellipses" is closed, contrary to your imbecillic claims. Keep eating shit.

> Then, GERBER proceed to derive the Nov. 18, 1915 formulae (traveling in time forth and back) without ANY SHIT LIKE SPACE BENT under
> Sun's gravity effect 60 million Km far away.
>

Gerber's theory fails:

1. Shapiro delay
2. Starlight bending by the sun
3. Gravitational time delay

Keep licking nazi boots, odious kapo.

On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 19:19:55 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 10:33:44 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz continued to eat shit:
> > On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 8:58:27 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > Behold what the imbecile wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 10:40:30 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz posted yet another imbecility:
> > > > This concept of 2π+ε radians per orbit DON'T DESCRIBE AN ELLIPSE.
> >
> > > Because, cretinoid, the planets' trajectories are not closed, they are not ellipses. That was known since Bradley and Laplace.
> > The trajectory of planets have been known as being continuously varying with time ALONG AN ELLIPTICAL PATH over an ellipse,
> Yet, none of the trajectories is closed, they are OPEN, contrary to your earlier claims. None of the "ellipses" is closed, contrary to your imbecillic claims. Keep eating shit.
> > Then, GERBER proceed to derive the Nov. 18, 1915 formulae (traveling in time forth and back) without ANY SHIT LIKE SPACE BENT under
> > Sun's gravity effect 60 million Km far away.
> >
> Gerber's theory fails:
>
> 1. Shapiro delay
> 2. Starlight bending by the sun
> 3. Gravitational time delay

While in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by
your moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 2:47:28 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>

> Koobee was also an EE :-) Except Koobee actually knew some of the
> relevant math so it was possible to exchange ideas with him to
> some extent. For example, he knew how to derive the geodesic
> equation from the Lagrangian and he knew that once the
> coefficients were symmetrised, you got the Christoffel symbols.

Let me be more clear, Jan:

1) I have some respect for your "relevant math", and recognize mathematics as one of the three "hard sciences", besides
physics and chemistry.

2) Each one of this sciences has its own REALM and, many times, their domains overlap.

3) Advanced mathematics is a territory for gifted people, HIGHLY DETACHED FROM REALITY. My best example is the case
of Grigori Perelman, a Russian mathematician who invested 8 years of his life researching about the analytical and geometric
structure of the Ricci flow, while almost starving along with his mother, and that rejected the $ 1 million award, stating: "I'm not
interested in money or fame; I don't want to be on display like an animal in a zoo."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman

4) I'm not interested in WASTING MY TIME in the realm of advanced mathematics, for which I find no affinity, but respect.

What I REJECT is when one REALM (Mathematics) attempt to advance over the other two realms (Physics, in this case) and
TOOK OVER IT, putting physics in submission. My best example for this is the long term attempt by Hilbert (no less than 30 years)
to try this "coup d'etate" in the early decades of XX century. At least, Levi-Civita and Ricci knew the boundaries of their realm
and didn't attempt anything like that, before Civita tasted the fame after 1914. Then, he turned greedy and devoted himself to
apply his know-how to physics (GR). And he profited from such career change for the next 35 years of his life, traveling all over
the world and influencing national institutions to get a place for his collaborators prior to WWII (like in Argentina).

5) Due to 4), I reject any attempt to give physical meaning in THE REAL WORLD of the applications of the mathematical skeleton
of absolute differential geometry and its non-linear twisted N-dimensional spaces.

Curiously, it was Grossmann who found the desired connection between Einstein's needs for a vectorial representation of spacetime
and Levi-Civita "torsion-free" spaces (connected to Ricci, therefore connected to Christoffel symbols, describing a metric connection).

And, under the greedy eyes of Einstein, such theories provided a HIGHLY COMPLEX MATHEMATICAL LABYRINTH where he could
OCCULT all of his crappy thoughts, counting that such COMPLEXITY AND LACK OF ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS could hide his
deceptions forever.

Meanwhile, he could continue his predatory journey protected by such labyrinth with INFINITE ramifications that couldn't be proven ever.

6) And 108 years later, retarded GR relativists still try to understand the UNUNDERSTABLE: How the fuck Riemann's non-euclidean
geometry marries with REALITY. As NONE can with the original body of work, they LINEARIZE.

And linearizing spacetime, as derived from GR 500 equations, is ARBITRARY, anyone can get a different solution reaching nowhere.

And, because of this, the marriage between Einstein's ideas about gravity and time (expanded by curvatures caused by gravity) has
produced NOTHING OF VALUE. ZERO.

In no other theory at physics, Levi-Civita absolute differential geometry has found A SINGLE APPLICATION. It was born within GR and
will die within relativity.

So, Jan, if you stop being cocky about your manipulations of GR math, pretending that it's USEFUL IN ANY WAY, I'll consider to STOP
THINKING that you are an AUTISTIC IMBECILE that (and this is funny) is ARROGANT and DOWNPLAY others because don't understand.

Think about Perelman, who is far above your head, and how he ended, lost in the deserts of Israel after FAILING TO HIS MOTHER because,
money and fame or not, he was the ULTIMATE ARROGANT.

When you talk about your "intelligence", think about this bastard and how many others lost their minds pretending to be above humans.

Richard Hertz wrote:

>> you got the Christoffel symbols.
>
> Let me be more clear, Jan:
>
> 1) I have some respect for your "relevant math", and recognize
> mathematics as one of the three "hard sciences", besides
> physics and chemistry.

please don't. His mathematics is of a PLC level. Yet I doubt he knows
what it takes to program a PID to control a system.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 2:47:28 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Koobee was also an EE :-) Except Koobee actually knew some of the
>> relevant math so it was possible to exchange ideas with him to
>> some extent. For example, he knew how to derive the geodesic
>> equation from the Lagrangian and he knew that once the
>> coefficients were symmetrised, you got the Christoffel symbols.
>
> Let me be more clear, Jan:
>
> 1) I have some respect for your "relevant math", and recognize
> mathematics as one of the three "hard sciences", besides
> physics and chemistry.
>
> 2) Each one of this sciences has its own REALM and, many times, their domains overlap.
>
> 3) Advanced mathematics is a territory for gifted people, HIGHLY DETACHED
> FROM REALITY. My best example is the case
> of Grigori Perelman, a Russian mathematician who invested 8 years of
> his life researching about the analytical and geometric
> structure of the Ricci flow, while almost starving along with his
> mother, and that rejected the $ 1 million award, stating: "I'm not
> interested in money or fame; I don't want to be on display like an animal in a zoo."
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman
>
> 4) I'm not interested in WASTING MY TIME in the realm of advanced
> mathematics, for which I find no affinity, but respect.

And rightly so, because you have little aptitude for it.

>
> What I REJECT is when one REALM (Mathematics) attempt to advance over
> the other two realms (Physics, in this case) and
> TOOK OVER IT, putting physics in submission. My best example for this
> is the long term attempt by Hilbert (no less than 30 years)
> to try this "coup d'etate" in the early decades of XX century. At
> least, Levi-Civita and Ricci knew the boundaries of their realm
> and didn't attempt anything like that, before Civita tasted the fame
> after 1914. Then, he turned greedy and devoted himself to
> apply his know-how to physics (GR). And he profited from such career
> change for the next 35 years of his life, traveling all over
> the world and influencing national institutions to get a place for
> his collaborators prior to WWII (like in Argentina).

Well, I don’t think that the excursions of a couple of mathematicians
should warrant the interpretation of one whole discipline taking over
another whole discipline. The fact that there are overlaps and people
interested in both does not constitute a power grab. You did not mention
Penrose, surprisingly, given that he is both a professor of mathematics and
a Nobel Laureate in physics. You also did not note that Newton was the
Lucasian Professor of Mathematics for 33 years (as was Stokes, Larmor, and
Dirac), and that James Clerk Maxwell was trained as a mathematician.

>
> 5) Due to 4), I reject any attempt to give physical meaning in THE REAL
> WORLD of the applications of the mathematical skeleton
> of absolute differential geometry and its non-linear twisted N-dimensional spaces.

See, oddly enough, though you confess to not understanding advanced
mathematics and not wasting any time learning it, you have decided from a
position of ignorance that this mathematics cannot apply to reality.

It’s as though you are saying that unless you understand a subject, it
cannot possibly have anything to do with reality. This goes to your earlier
arrogance in claiming that engineering completely overlaps all physics that
is of social value, as far as you’re concerned, and that engineering will
supplant physics going forward.

>
> Curiously, it was Grossmann who found the desired connection between
> Einstein's needs for a vectorial representation of spacetime
> and Levi-Civita "torsion-free" spaces (connected to Ricci, therefore
> connected to Christoffel symbols, describing a metric connection).
>
> And, under the greedy eyes of Einstein, such theories provided a
> HIGHLY COMPLEX MATHEMATICAL LABYRINTH where he could
> OCCULT all of his crappy thoughts, counting that such COMPLEXITY AND
> LACK OF ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS could hide his
> deceptions forever.

Well, it’s not all that complex. What’s true is that you have decided not
to learn it. See above. That which you have elected not to learn is not
necessarily a highly complex labyrinth.

But I also understand that, as a boorish and self-promoting engineer, it is
your campaign to diminish and demean anything that lies outside the domain
of your interest by whatever propaganda you choose to fabricate.

>
> Meanwhile, he could continue his predatory journey protected by such
> labyrinth with INFINITE ramifications that couldn't be proven ever.
>
> 6) And 108 years later, retarded GR relativists still try to understand
> the UNUNDERSTABLE: How the fuck Riemann's non-euclidean
> geometry marries with REALITY. As NONE can with the original body of
> work, they LINEARIZE.
>
> And linearizing spacetime, as derived from GR 500 equations, is
> ARBITRARY, anyone can get a different solution reaching nowhere.
>
> And, because of this, the marriage between Einstein's ideas about
> gravity and time (expanded by curvatures caused by gravity) has
> produced NOTHING OF VALUE. ZERO.
>
> In no other theory at physics, Levi-Civita absolute differential
> geometry has found A SINGLE APPLICATION. It was born within GR and
> will die within relativity.
>
>
> So, Jan, if you stop being cocky about your manipulations of GR math,
> pretending that it's USEFUL IN ANY WAY, I'll consider to STOP
> THINKING that you are an AUTISTIC IMBECILE that (and this is funny) is
> ARROGANT and DOWNPLAY others because don't understand.

Well, isn’t that projective of you?

>
> Think about Perelman, who is far above your head, and how he ended, lost
> in the deserts of Israel after FAILING TO HIS MOTHER because,
> money and fame or not, he was the ULTIMATE ARROGANT.
>
> When you talk about your "intelligence", think about this bastard and how
> many others lost their minds pretending to be above humans.
>
>
>
>

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

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>> 1. Shapiro delay 2. Starlight bending by the sun 3. Gravitational time
>> delay
>
> While in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by your moronic
> religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
> always did.

nevertheless, the POLICE was invented to protect the aristocracy from the
people. End of story. That's why they want feudalism back in function.
Not capitalism or communism, but FEUDALISM.

On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 20:23:46 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Well, I don’t think that the excursions of a couple of mathematicians
> should warrant the interpretation of one whole discipline taking over
> another whole discipline. The fact that there are overlaps and people
> interested in both does not constitute a power grab.

Odd, stop fucking. You didn't know Pythagorean theorem and you
were caught

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 20:23:46 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Well, I don’t think that the excursions of a couple of mathematicians
>> should warrant the interpretation of one whole discipline taking over
>> another whole discipline. The fact that there are overlaps and people
>> interested in both does not constitute a power grab.
>
> Odd, stop fucking. You didn't know Pythagorean theorem and you
> were caught
>
>

No, Woz, you caught nothing.

It’s you that doesn’t know the Pythagorean theorem, what the definition of
a triangle is, what “proper time” means, what adhering to a standard means
or is for, what a reference frame is, and a hundred other things you’ve
been a persistent blowhard about.

You are phenomenally under-educated and mentally and emotionally crippled,
and you are in no position to say you represent any portion of humanity
other than the clientele of your neighborhood sanitarium. You get raving
and spitting because 1) you earn it, and 2) you enter every conversation
with an attitude of hostility and condescension. And yet you project your
deficiencies on others, and you claim victories where you have nothing. It
is emotionally important to you to say you’ve won battles, because you lose
so much elsewhere in your life. It’s pathetic.

I entertain only brief conversations with you because there is nothing you
have to offer and there is nothing to be gained with you. And this
terminates the current conversation.

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

On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 4:23:46 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> See, oddly enough, though you confess to not understanding advanced
> mathematics and not wasting any time learning it, you have decided from a
> position of ignorance that this mathematics cannot apply to reality.

*********

> Well, it’s not all that complex. What’s true is that you have decided not
> to learn it. See above. That which you have elected not to learn is not
> necessarily a highly complex labyrinth.

Bodkin, I'm sorry that you lost 4 years of your life in your double major.

For having 2 years out of 4 wasted in philosophy and sophistry, you SUCK trolling people. It's like reading what a child wrote.
Regarding the other 2 years in mathematics, having climbing to the heights of finding roots on polynomials or solving dx/dy=x
doesn't allow you to discern what is complex and what is not.

Maybe working with wood can habilitate you to talk about trees, but you can't talk about the ecosystem of a forest.

In the case of GR math, try to solve a particular case managing the 500 equations of full deployed GR math. You can read
about it here:

https://profoundphysics.com/einstein-field-equations-fully-written-out-what-do-they-look-like-expanded/

Remember that this is 100 years old pure math. Today, such subject has been expanded 10 folds.

Good luck trying it. And don't make me challenge you a particular case, like expression for vacuum, or you are done.

Finally, it's not that I don't UNDERSTAND ADVANCED MATH. i do, if I want. I choose to IGNORE IT,
as it's mathturbation for the pleasure of elfs that live on their fragile realm, detached from reality like PERELMAN.

On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 21:18:30 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 20:23:46 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Well, I don’t think that the excursions of a couple of mathematicians
> >> should warrant the interpretation of one whole discipline taking over
> >> another whole discipline. The fact that there are overlaps and people
> >> interested in both does not constitute a power grab.
> >
> > Odd, stop fucking. You didn't know Pythagorean theorem and you
> > were caught
> >
> >
> No, Woz, you caught nothing.
>
> It’s you that doesn’t know the Pythagorean theorem, what the definition of
> a triangle is,

Google keeps record and your impudent lies won't change it,
poor halfbrain. Samely as they won't change the fact, that
forbidden by your moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.