Hi JanPB, the favorite math teacher at high schools of Warsaw!

I was reading the usual parade of your self entitled phrases, along to your disgusting habit
of using derogatory comments but this part hit a nerve on me.

> > > This is nothing new, the world is full of arrogant ignoramuses.
> > not you of course.
> Not as far as relativity is concerned, no. I can prove it but the nature of knowledge
> in general (not necessarily scientific) is such that it requires a certain amount
> of prerequisites on the part of the challenger.
>
> This is how the real world is and I cannot change it.

I knew a few persons that are as repulsive as you, in the sense of their exaggerated petulance
and vanity, but you are close to break a Guinness record on this subject.

If you had a single bone of decency and consciousness, you should regret about what you wrote here
and should be humble enough to admit publicly that you overdid and apologize.

This is not for me or for anyone here, who don't give a flying fuck about what you write, but FOR YOU
and to have a chance to recover part of your soul.

You can't expose yourself publicly in this way, claiming intellectual superiority in analyzing subtleties
in this or other matters and doubting that very few, or almost none, can have such abilities.

Shame on you, school teacher, shame on you!

I have to remember to you that, years ago, I posed a mathematical problem to you and you wasn't able
to solve it. Instead, you disappeared from this forum for a while.

If, in your little life, you need such self empowerment just to keep dragging your failed career, it is OK.
But do it in private, little prick! Don't make others to feel ashamed by reading such pile of elitist crap.

You don't understand relativity. Relativity owns you, and you obey the doctrinal mandates just to feel special.

Richard Hertz wrote:
> Hi JanPB, the favorite math teacher at high schools of Warsaw!
>
> I was reading the usual parade of your self entitled phrases, along to your disgusting habit
> of using derogatory comments but this part hit a nerve on me.
>
>
>>>> This is nothing new, the world is full of arrogant ignoramuses.
>>> not you of course.
>> Not as far as relativity is concerned, no. I can prove it but the nature of knowledge
>> in general (not necessarily scientific) is such that it requires a certain amount
>> of prerequisites on the part of the challenger.
>>
>> This is how the real world is and I cannot change it.
>
> I knew a few persons that are as repulsive as you, in the sense of their exaggerated petulance
> and vanity, but you are close to break a Guinness record on this subject.
>
> If you had a single bone of decency and consciousness, you should regret about what you wrote here
> and should be humble enough to admit publicly that you overdid and apologize.
>
> This is not for me or for anyone here, who don't give a flying fuck about what you write, but FOR YOU
> and to have a chance to recover part of your soul.
>
> You can't expose yourself publicly in this way, claiming intellectual superiority in analyzing subtleties
> in this or other matters and doubting that very few, or almost none, can have such abilities.
>
> Shame on you, school teacher, shame on you!
>
> I have to remember to you that, years ago, I posed a mathematical problem to you and you wasn't able
> to solve it. Instead, you disappeared from this forum for a while.
>
> If, in your little life, you need such self empowerment just to keep dragging your failed career, it is OK.
> But do it in private, little prick! Don't make others to feel ashamed by reading such pile of elitist crap.
>
> You don't understand relativity. Relativity owns you, and you obey the doctrinal mandates just to feel special.

Could you shut up, crank?

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi JanPB, the favorite math teacher at high schools of Warsaw!
>
> I was reading the usual parade of your self entitled phrases, along to
> your disgusting habit
> of using derogatory comments but this part hit a nerve on me.
>
>
>>>> This is nothing new, the world is full of arrogant ignoramuses.
>>> not you of course.
>> Not as far as relativity is concerned, no. I can prove it but the nature of knowledge
>> in general (not necessarily scientific) is such that it requires a certain amount
>> of prerequisites on the part of the challenger.
>>
>> This is how the real world is and I cannot change it.
>
> I knew a few persons that are as repulsive as you, in the sense of their
> exaggerated petulance
> and vanity, but you are close to break a Guinness record on this subject.
>
> If you had a single bone of decency and consciousness, you should regret
> about what you wrote here
> and should be humble enough to admit publicly that you overdid and apologize.
>
> This is not for me or for anyone here, who don't give a flying fuck about
> what you write, but FOR YOU
> and to have a chance to recover part of your soul.
>
> You can't expose yourself publicly in this way, claiming intellectual
> superiority in analyzing subtleties
> in this or other matters and doubting that very few, or almost none, can
> have such abilities.
>
> Shame on you, school teacher, shame on you!
>
> I have to remember to you that, years ago, I posed a mathematical problem
> to you and you wasn't able
> to solve it. Instead, you disappeared from this forum for a while.
>
> If, in your little life, you need such self empowerment just to keep
> dragging your failed career, it is OK.
> But do it in private, little prick! Don't make others to feel ashamed by
> reading such pile of elitist crap.
>
> You don't understand relativity. Relativity owns you, and you obey the
> doctrinal mandates just to feel special.
>
>
>

Oh my. Jan says something obviously true and you have a meltdown.

If you lack the prerequisites, you’re hosed. You can fix that, but it takes
time and effort.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 01:42:17 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> If you lack the prerequisites, you’re hosed. You can fix that, but it takes
> time and effort.

Bod, poor idiot, you can do as much wise faces as you want, but
you're just a bunch of religious cranks; take your "prerequisites"
and put them into your dumb, fanatic ass, where they belong.

Thief and plagiarist. I affirm that. Watch the writings of Lorentz (1904) and Einstein (1905).
First, some adjusts between the cgs and MKS units systems:

In the cgs system (used by Lorentz), the electron mass is defined by:

m = e^2/(6.PI.c^2.R)

where R is the electron radius as defined in that epoch. This is the only subatomic radius accepted
and validated by NIST, as classical electron radius: 2.8179403262 x 10^-15 meters.

https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/index.html (search classical electron radius).

In the current MKS system, the permittivity Epsilon_0 adopt a value different from 1 (like in cgs), so

m = e^2/(4.PI.Epsilon_0.c^2.R)

The classical electron radius is sometimes known as the Lorentz radius or the Thomson scattering length. (Wiki).
Attempts to model the electron as a non-point particle have been described as ill-conceived and counter-pedagogic.(Wiki)
Still, a value of 10^-18 mt. is widely used (read about LIGO).

Comparing one section on both papers:

Physics. - "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity smaller
than that of light." By Prof. H. A. LORENTZ (1904)

Excerpt:
-----------------------------------------------------------
" m1= e^2/(6.PI.c^2.R) , d(k.l.w)/dw and m2 = e^2/(6.PI.c^2.R).k.l

Hence, in phenomena in which there is an acceleration in the direction of motion, the electron behaves as if it
had a mass m1, in which the acceleration is normal to the path, as if the mass were m2. These quantities m1 and m2,
may therefore properly be called the "longitudinal" and "transverse" electromagnetic masses of the electron. I shall suppose
that there is no other, no "true" or "material" mass.°

Note: Lorentz used here the moment of the electron in only the X direction. The value of l=1 (Lorentz-Poincaré) and
k is the gamma factor Gamma (I'll use Y).

So, by solving the derivation and using the value m for very low speeds (as stated by Lorentz in the next page), it comes to be
that

m1 = m.Y^3 and m2 = m.Y (Y = (1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, in Einstein's "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" (section § 10. Dynamics of the Slowly Accelerated Electron):

"Now if we call this force simply “the force acting upon the electron,” and maintain the equation—mass × acceleration = force—and
if we also decide that the accelerations are to be measured in the stationary system K, we derive from the above equations

Longitudinal mass = m.Y^3

Transverse mass = m.Y^2 (an error, corrected by Planck the next year. The same values as Lorentz's, and also same names)."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Einstein's paper appeared more than one year after Lorentz one.

And THIS is what I call the job of a plagiarist, a thief, a deceiver and also an idiot. This is not the only one mistake in the paper.

Is anyone willing to challenge this? It's obvious the manner he disguises Lorentz work in his formulation, only to arrive to the same
formulae, NAMES and overall concepts.

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 4:21:41 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Hi JanPB, the favorite math teacher at high schools of Warsaw!

I never taught at high school. Again, stop the asinine routine, stop pretending
you know something you don't.

> I was reading the usual parade of your self entitled phrases, along to your disgusting habit
> of using derogatory comments but this part hit a nerve on me.

Stop fantasising. You have a choice to break free from the intellectual
prison of your own creation. The choice is yours.

We have nothing left to discuss.

--
Jan

On Friday, 6 August 2021 at 07:27:23 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:

> We have nothing left to discuss.

Nothing to discuss with Jan, ever; he's just got his credo.

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 2:27:23 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 4:21:41 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > Hi JanPB, the favorite math teacher at high schools of Warsaw!
> I never taught at high school. Again, stop the asinine routine, stop pretending
> you know something you don't.
> > I was reading the usual parade of your self entitled phrases, along to your disgusting habit
> > of using derogatory comments but this part hit a nerve on me.
> Stop fantasising. You have a choice to break free from the intellectual
> prison of your own creation. The choice is yours.

.............................................
> We have nothing left to discuss.
>
> --
> Jan

In case that you recall something you forgot when writing this, I'm here for you.
But don't forget to take your vitamins, just in case things turn nasty for you.
Pull together all of your brain power if you want to give it a try. You'll need it.

JanPB wrote:

>> > This is nothing new, the world is full of arrogant ignoramuses.
>> not you of course.
>
> Not as far as relativity is concerned, no. I can prove it but the nature
> of knowledge in general (not necessarily scientific) is such that it
> requires a certain amount of prerequisites on the part of the
> challenger.This is how the real world is and I cannot change it.

Nonsense, you've been proved, I guess, less than satisfactory many times.
You didn't pass.

>> Nobody makes money on relativity, everybody are amateurs.
>
> You are projecting again. Get real, stop acting like a child, look
> reality inthe face, even if it means you'd have to admit you don't know
> something. Act like an adult.

You are stupid like shit, saying garbage like that. You know very well at
nobody makes money "knowing" relativity as such. You wouldn't even get a
job pretending it. Get the fuck out of here, idiot.
>> especially GR (gravitons)
>
> GR has no gravitons. Only a certain related theory allows it (the
> first-order approximation of GR).

Meant as an explanatory mechanism, cretin, not as part of GR. How on
earth are you pretending understanding relativity and anything, when you
fail simple things. Bye.

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 9:13:07 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Thief and plagiarist. I affirm that. Watch the writings of Lorentz (1904) and Einstein (1905).
> First, some adjusts between the cgs and MKS units systems:
>
> In the cgs system (used by Lorentz), the electron mass is defined by:
>
> m = e^2/(6.PI.c^2.R)
>
> where R is the electron radius as defined in that epoch. This is the only subatomic radius accepted
> and validated by NIST, as classical electron radius: 2.8179403262 x 10^-15 meters.
>
> https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/index.html (search classical electron radius).
>
> In the current MKS system, the permittivity Epsilon_0 adopt a value different from 1 (like in cgs), so
>
> m = e^2/(4.PI.Epsilon_0.c^2.R)
>
> The classical electron radius is sometimes known as the Lorentz radius or the Thomson scattering length. (Wiki).
> Attempts to model the electron as a non-point particle have been described as ill-conceived and counter-pedagogic.(Wiki)
> Still, a value of 10^-18 mt. is widely used (read about LIGO).
>
> Comparing one section on both papers:
>
> Physics. - "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity smaller
> than that of light." By Prof. H. A. LORENTZ (1904)
>
> Excerpt:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> " m1= e^2/(6.PI.c^2.R) , d(k.l.w)/dw and m2 = e^2/(6.PI.c^2.R).k.l
>
> Hence, in phenomena in which there is an acceleration in the direction of motion, the electron behaves as if it
> had a mass m1, in which the acceleration is normal to the path, as if the mass were m2. These quantities m1 and m2,
> may therefore properly be called the "longitudinal" and "transverse" electromagnetic masses of the electron. I shall suppose
> that there is no other, no "true" or "material" mass.°
>
> Note: Lorentz used here the moment of the electron in only the X direction. The value of l=1 (Lorentz-Poincaré) and
> k is the gamma factor Gamma (I'll use Y).
>
> So, by solving the derivation and using the value m for very low speeds (as stated by Lorentz in the next page), it comes to be
> that
>
> m1 = m.Y^3 and m2 = m.Y (Y = (1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Now, in Einstein's "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" (section § 10. Dynamics of the Slowly Accelerated Electron):
>
> "Now if we call this force simply “the force acting upon the electron,” and maintain the equation—mass × acceleration = force—and
> if we also decide that the accelerations are to be measured in the stationary system K, we derive from the above equations
>
> Longitudinal mass = m.Y^3
>
> Transverse mass = m.Y^2 (an error, corrected by Planck the next year. The same values as Lorentz's, and also same names)."
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Einstein's paper appeared more than one year after Lorentz one.
>
> And THIS is what I call the job of a plagiarist, a thief, a deceiver and also an idiot. This is not the only one mistake in the paper.
>
> Is anyone willing to challenge this? It's obvious the manner he disguises Lorentz work in his formulation, only to arrive to the same
> formulae, NAMES and overall concepts.

Just for the record: the above consists of idiocies.

--
Jan