On 11/3/2021 12:56 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 3:39:38 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
>> It left Gerber as THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER, 17 years before Einstein HACK. Einstein COULDN'T SHOW how he derived such formula,
>> nor any other scientist since 1915, either by trying to reproduce Einstein's approximation or using Schwarzschild's metric nor any other
>> metric. If you do a deep research on this BIG ISSUE, you find only NUMERICAL APPROXIMATIONS but not a single attempt to derive
>> Einstein's formula. ZERO, NONE!.
>>
>> A translation of Gerber's paper can be read here:
>>
>> The Spatial and Temporal Propagation of Gravity
>> by Paul Gerber, in Stargard, Pomerania, 1898
>>
>> http://www.alternativephysics.org/gerber/Perihelion.htm
>>
> <snip>
>
> Stjepan Mohorovičić
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stjepan_Mohorovi%C4%8Di%C4%87
>
[snip irrelevancy]

>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gerber#cite_note-15
>
> "[...] Or you rely on a work by Gerber, who already gave the right formula for the perihelion shift of Mercury before me.

So Einstein acknowledged Gerber was before him and the formula is
correct. Doesn't sound like plagiarism to me. Unless you find actual
evidence of Einstein's knowledge of Gerber's work before 1915.

> The experts are not only in agreement that Gerber’s derivation is wrong through and through, BUT THE FORMULA CANNOT BE OBTAINED as a consequence of
> the main assumption made by Gerber.

If "the experts" agree Gerber's derivation is wrong (not just simply
wrong but "wrong through and through"!) why should something that wrong
be used?

Did Gerber pull his formula out of his butt? Sounds like it's useless to me.

> Mr. Gerber’s WORK IS therefore COMPLETELY USELESS, an unsuccessful and erroneous theoretical attempt.

....and to Einstein.

> I maintain that MY THEORY of general relativity has PROVIDED THE FIRST REAL EXPLANATION of the perihelion motion of Mercury.

Einstein provided a derivation. Gerber pulled his formula from his butt.
Which is real science? That derivation is why E said he provided the
first explanation.

> I DID NOT MENTION THE WORK OF GERBER INITIALLY, because I did not know about it when I wrote my work on the perihelion motion of Mercury;

If you accuse Einstein of plagiarism, point out the evidence this
statement is false.

> EVEN IF I HAD BEEN AWARE OF IT, I would not have had any reason to mention it."

The right number for the wrong reason isn't exactly useful in science.

> First hand WRITTEN CONFESSION of a treasonous liar, bad spirited, plagiarist and hypocrite SON OF A BITCH.

Where did he confess he plagiarized Gerber's work?

The foam from your mouth is still so thick that you cannot see the lack
of evidence of your claims.

> And the press let him go, and relativists "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil". Fucking retarded.

Nothing wrong to see, hear or speak of. Period. What you see is just
your own foam.

On 11/3/2021 11:41 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Quote from Einstein (by 1947):
>
> “EVEN AFTER I BECAME WELL-KNOWN I MANY TIMES MADE USE of experts to assist me in COMPLICATED calculations in order to
> prove CERTAIN PHYSICS PROBLEMS.

And the problem with this is...? Remember, he didn't have calculators
or computers. (other than people working the job "computer", who just
did calculations all day long)

> Also, I have always strongly believed that one should not burden his mind with formulae when
> one can go to a textbook and LOOK THEM UP. I have done that, too, ON MANY OCCASIONS.”

If, when deriving something, you need to be able to calculate the
integral of, for example, tan(x). Do you derive the formula for the
integral of tan(x) from scratch or just look it up in a table of integrals?

As a kid, my father had an old book which I jokingly called 'the world's
most boring book'. It was nothing but numbers, a table of logarithms to
many decimal places. Did my father somehow "cheat" in his work as an
engineer if he looked up a logarithm in the book rather than computing
it from scratch? (remember, before electronic calculators and computers)
>
> My understanding of the facts around such CONFESSION:

[snip foolishness]

And once again, your interpretations of how people thought and acted
really SUCK.

Final part of this thread, without entering into the technical details (mostly mathematical) that resume the failures of Entwurf I and II
and the correct use of absolute differential calculus that Hilbert taught to him.

I'll post here some EXCERPTS of letters to Sommerfeld, Lorentz, Hilbert and Besso (there are many more between Nov. 1915 - Feb 1916):

Einstein to Hilbert, Dec. 20, 1915:

“On this occasion I feel compelled to say something else to you that is of much more importance to me.
There has been a CERTAIN ILL-FEELING between us, THE CAUSE OF WHICH I do not wish to analyze.
I have struggled against the feeling of BITTERNESS attached to it, and this with success.
I think of you AGAIN with unmixed congeniality and I ASK THAT YOU TRY TO DO THE SAME WITH ME.
Objectively it is a shame when TWO REAL FELLOWS who have managed to extricate themselves somewhat from
this shabby world DO NOT GIVE ONE ANOTHER PLEASURE.”

MY COMMENT: This excerpt portrait the hypocrisy and cynicism of Einstein completely. He still fears that Hilbert can
COMPLETELY DESTROY his 1915 presentation. Hilbert was, by then, the GREATEST LIVING FIGURE in the world of
mathematics and could, IF HE WANTED, crush Einstein on the ground as an insect.

But Hilbert was not a vindictive person and, for him, his work was just ENTERTAINMENT and did it for pleasure, and physics
was not a target for his ambitions. He wanted to rule the mathematical world (he was that ambitious, plus arrogant).
For Einstein, instead, was a matter or LIFE OR DEATH, as his work at Berlin University was hanging on a fine thread
waiting for the approval of his work by the Prussian Academy of Science.

So, as a child (a malicious one) he asked for Hilbert forgiveness and stop any reckoning. Einstein STILL DIDN'T UNDERSTAND
what he presented (hiding traces to Hilbert). He would understand (being taught by "friends"), and barely, two months later.
Such understanding would cause him to write a letter sucking Hilbert's ass by Feb. 1916, telling him that he NOW REALLY
UNDERSTOOD what Hilbert tried to teach him.

Einstein to Sommerfeld, Nov. 28, 1915 (The same day of his presentation at the PAS, trying to make some "damage control":

“I realized ... that my previous gravitational field equations were completely untenable. (...) After all confidence thus
had been lost in the results and methods of the earlier theory, I saw clearly that only through a connection with the general
theory of covariants, i.e., with Riemann’s covariant [tensor], could a satisfactory solution be found. (..."

MY COMMENT: And with this single letter to such a famous figure, Einstein threw Grossmann under the bus, blaming HIM for
everything since July 1912. Grossman NEVER, EVER, FORGAVE EINSTEIN for such treasonous and disloyal act. NEVER!

Einstein to Lorentz (17.1.1916):

"The basic equations are now finally good, but the derivations abominable; this drawback still has to be removed."

MY COMMENT: The idiot STILL didn't understand the plagiarism of Hilbert's theory. It didn't work with his changes to disguise it.
It would require a BOOST from Levi-Civita, to whom he returned again, BEGGING for his help.
This time, the wrongs would be fixed, which caused his letter to Hilbert in March 1916: "Now I understand", the fucker wrote.

"Early in 1915, in his letters, Levi-Civita noticed an error in the proof of the Entwurf paper, whose consequences involve the
covariant properties of the gravitation tensor. Einstein tried several times to refute Levi-Civita’s objections."

After succeeding correcting Einstein work , "Levi-Civita engaged in popularizing the theory of relativity in Italy—and not just in Italy".
"Levi-Civita’s reputation as an internationalist was one of the reasons that he was asked to supportscientific cooperation in Europe
after the First World War."

Levi-Civita visited most european countries, USA, Canada, Perú, Brazil, Argentina, etc., being received as a celebrity. When Hitler came
to power in Germany, the staff of Levi-Civita started to migrate. Here, due to the influential jewish community, Levi-Civita managed to
put two fellows in universities: AlessandroTerracini—who obtained a position in Tucuman, Argentina and Enrico Volterra secured a position at the University of Rosario,Santa Fè, Argentina. Levi-Civita visited Argentina several times since 1925. being received as an star.

https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0315086004000229?token=0E947CC6C0C9B6CBC1A92C118B2D6AC5D9CFB713395C153A8A08D3778CDCF94F2806D4EC057D258C295922F9976F7D3E&originRegion=us-east-1&originCreation=20211103165211

FINAL COMMENTS:

Marcel Grossmann was essential for the creation of the GR theory. Even when it was not his field of expertise, he found the connections
of Levi-Civita "torsion free" absolute differential geometry approach with gravitational potential, and wrote the Entwurf I and II.

Critical aspects, not fully developed yet, escaped from his understanding or his capability to TEACH the imbecile, and force him to
follow his LEAD. WWI cut the direct collaboration "in situ", and Einstein found a REPLACEMENT. Even with Levi-Civita on his side in 1915,
he rejected his recommendations because he was an IGNORANT ARROGANT.

When Levi-Civita cut him COLD, he turned to Hilbert by mid 1915. He convinced Hilbert to work on the problem, which he solved in months.
Then, Einstein plagiarized Hilbert's development (not even understanding Hilbert's mathematics) and presented a FLAWED THEORY to
the Prussian Academy of Science in 4 steps during Nov. 1915, with the final stroke (GFE) by Nov. 25.

Once he realized that such presentation had MISTAKES, he turned again to Levi-Civita (this time being submisive), and accepted everything
was told, publishing a final version by Feb. 1916. Then, and again, he asked Hilbert for his forgiveness, recognizing by hand-writing that he
WAS AN IDIOT and that finally reached "enlightenment".

After such events, Einstein got as many mathematicians to work with him as he wanted. Fame attracts ambitious people like the flame
attracts moths, but they don't realize that they are going to be burnt (which was the fate of those who collaborated with the bastard).

The End of Part I.

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 2:00:02 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip shameful comments, even for a technician>

> Einstein provided a derivation. Gerber pulled his formula from his butt.
> Which is real science? That derivation is why E said he provided the first explanation.

Read this carefully, imbecile:

Gerber used 9 pages to derive his FAMOUS EQUATIONS when Einstein was still sucking fellow's dicks at the Polytechnic.

Einstein used 9 pages, 17 years later, to plagiarize Gerber's work by using mathemagics in the last 2 pages, which CAN'T BE
REDERIVED for the last 100 years, because HE CHEATED AND FUDGED THE SOLUTION of the elliptic and utterly wrong integral.
The derivation is WRONG through and through, as the fucker accused the dead Gerber of.

Now, I have a puzzle for you, imbecile.

IF Einstein's 18 Nov. paper is "correct", THEN his solution SHOULD PROVIDE an perihelion advance of ZERO if the orbit of Mercury
was CIRCULAR, but it DOESN'T!!

ε = 24.π³.a²/[(1 – e²).T².c²] , equation (14), valued as 43"/century, in the original Nov. 18, 1915.

IF e = 0 (circular orbit), ε (the perihelion advance per orbit) SHOULD BE ZERO, not

ε = 24.π³.R²/(T².c²) , with R = a, the radius of the circular orbit.

The arrogant&ignorant fucker end his 1915 paper with (even QUESTIONING OBSERVATIONAL ASTRONOMY):

"For Earth and Mars the astronomers give a forward movement of 11′′ and 9′′ respectively per century, while our formula gives
only 4′′ and 1′′, respectively. It appears HOWEVER from these results, considering the small eccentricity of the orbits of each
planet, a smaller effect is appropriate."

No, Moroney, the formula that your pagan god "DERIVED/FUDGED" is completely USELESS (as he said from Gerber's work).

Even in this simple case, GR proves to be a SHITTY AND FLAWED THEORY.

Do you UNDERSTAND? No precession in circular orbits. NONE. Yet, for the retarded such value (always positive) is NOT ZERO, but

ε = 24.π³.R²/(T².c²) ≠ 0, even for a planet 10 times farther than Neptune.

Now, digest this news and post some additional crap, as usual.

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 3:32:33 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 2:00:02 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip shameful comments, even for a technician>
> > Einstein provided a derivation. Gerber pulled his formula from his butt..
> > Which is real science? That derivation is why E said he provided the first explanation.
> Read this carefully, imbecile:
>
> Gerber used 9 pages to derive his FAMOUS EQUATIONS when Einstein was still sucking fellow's dicks at the Polytechnic.
>
> Einstein used 9 pages, 17 years later, to plagiarize Gerber's work by using mathemagics in the last 2 pages, which CAN'T BE
> REDERIVED for the last 100 years, because HE CHEATED AND FUDGED THE SOLUTION of the elliptic and utterly wrong integral.
> The derivation is WRONG through and through, as the fucker accused the dead Gerber of.
>
> Now, I have a puzzle for you, imbecile.
>
> IF Einstein's 18 Nov. paper is "correct", THEN his solution SHOULD PROVIDE an perihelion advance of ZERO if the orbit of Mercury
> was CIRCULAR, but it DOESN'T!!
> ε = 24.π³.a²/[(1 – e²).T².c²] , equation (14), valued as 43"/century, in the original Nov. 18, 1915.
> IF e = 0 (circular orbit), ε (the perihelion advance per orbit) SHOULD BE ZERO, not
>
> ε = 24.π³.R²/(T².c²) , with R = a, the radius of the circular orbit.
>
> The arrogant&ignorant fucker end his 1915 paper with (even QUESTIONING OBSERVATIONAL ASTRONOMY):
>
> "For Earth and Mars the astronomers give a forward movement of 11′′ and 9′′ respectively per century, while our formula gives
> only 4′′ and 1′′, respectively. It appears HOWEVER from these results, considering the small eccentricity of the orbits of each
> planet, a smaller effect is appropriate."
>
> No, Moroney, the formula that your pagan god "DERIVED/FUDGED" is completely USELESS (as he said from Gerber's work).
>
> Even in this simple case, GR proves to be a SHITTY AND FLAWED THEORY.
>
> Do you UNDERSTAND? No precession in circular orbits. NONE. Yet, for the retarded such value (always positive) is NOT ZERO, but
>
> ε = 24.π³.R²/(T².c²) ≠ 0, even for a planet 10 times farther than Neptune.
>
> Now, digest this news and post some additional crap, as usual.

Oh!, this is funny!

The retarded close his Nov. 18, 1915 paper CREDITING Simon Newcomb (1835-1909), from the USA USNO, for his 43"/century.
Is that the origin for US science establishment to hold such value until now (remember, it's a theoretical calculation)?

But, another thing that amuse me: the idiot posted a table with the expression (e.dπ/dt)" at the last part. Did he believe that dπ/dt
HAD A PHYSICAL MEANING ALSO? Was the idiot challenging ancient Greeks, besides Newton?

The man knew no limits.

This is the closure:

"One considers for these the magnitudes of the Newcomb given values, which I thank Dr. Freundlich for supplying, so one gains the impression that only the forward movement of the perihelion of Mercury will ever be truly proven."

NOW, read what is written at ResearchGate. Almost everyone credits Gerber with the formula, and accuse Einstein of plagiarism.

How was the Newtonian mercury perihelion precession calculated?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_was_the_Newtonian_mercury_perihelion_precession_calculated

Specially this post is funny (excerpt):

___________________________Mercury___Venus___Earth____Mars
Hall (Newcomb) [6] _______43.37___ 16.98____10.45____ 5.55
Einstein (Subbotin) [7] _____ 43.0_____8.6_____3.8______ 1.4
Gerber (Khaydarov) [8] ____ 43.0_____8.6_____3.8______ 1.4
Ritz (Rouzver) [9]__________41.0____ 8.0_____3.4_______----
Max (Zaitsev) [10] ________43.0____23.0____17.0______ 11.0
Zeelinger (Rouzver) [9] ____41.3_____7.3_____4.2_______ 6.3

Gerber's values are IDENTICAL to Einstein's. Funny as hell. Most posts support Gerber as the man.

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 12:33:44 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz showcased his imbecility:
> ___________________________Mercury___Venus___Earth____Mars
> Hall (Newcomb) [6] _______43.37___ 16.98____10.45____ 5.55
> Einstein (Subbotin) [7] _____ 43.0_____8.6_____3.8______ 1.4
> Gerber (Khaydarov) [8] ____ 43.0_____8.6_____3.8______ 1.4
> Ritz (Rouzver) [9]__________41.0____ 8.0_____3.4_______----
> Max (Zaitsev) [10] ________43.0____23.0____17.0______ 11.0
> Zeelinger (Rouzver) [9] ____41.3_____7.3_____4.2_______ 6.3
>
> Gerber's values are IDENTICAL to Einstein's.

Kapo imbecile

The values have to agree with the MEASURED data.

Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 12:33:44 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz
> showcased his imbecility:
>> ___________________________Mercury___Venus___Earth____Mars
>> Hall (Newcomb) [6] _______43.37___ 16.98____10.45____ 5.55
>> Einstein (Subbotin) [7] _____ 43.0_____8.6_____3.8______ 1.4
>> Gerber (Khaydarov) [8] ____ 43.0_____8.6_____3.8______ 1.4
>> Ritz (Rouzver) [9]__________41.0____ 8.0_____3.4_______----
>> Max (Zaitsev) [10] ________43.0____23.0____17.0______ 11.0
>> Zeelinger (Rouzver) [9] ____41.3_____7.3_____4.2_______ 6.3
>>
>> Gerber's values are IDENTICAL to Einstein's.
>
>
> Kapo imbecile
>
> The values have to agree with the MEASURED data.
>
>
>

Richard Hertz is simply pitching a battle against a strawman that Einstein
is revered as a god, that he is esteemed as head and shoulders above any
other physicist living or dead, that he is infallible, that he did things
all by himself that no one else could do. Of course, none of that is true,
nor is it even DEEMED true except in the wild fanboy mosh pit of popular
press.

So, anyway, he takes this poorly constructed and sloppily painted strawman
and tries to tear it down with all of the usual complaints:
- That predecessors landed on partial answers that were replicated in
Einstein’s work. (That is ALWAYS true for the key innovations in
fundamental physics, including Newton, Maxwell, Feynman, Bardeen, you name
it.)
- That he collaborated. (Of COURSE he collaborated. All good physicists
do.)
- That he got the answers wrong at first and had to work to get them right.
(That is the norm in physics, not the exception.)
- That he relied on others for skills that weren’t his strengths. (That is
what collaboration is for, after all.)
- That he got press and fame for things that had nothing to do with
physics. (Yeah, so? Feynman was famous for playing bongos and working in
strip joints. Schrödinger got a lot of buzz because he cohabited with two
women. Boltzmann lost his job because of bipolar mood swings and he took
his own life shortly after. Newton was famous for working without pants.
Dirac was famous for saying almost nothing. So?)

Then Richard points to the strawman and splutters, “But these mundane
attributes are NOT ALLOWED for the strawman. The strawman is perfect and
above all these things! This Son of God is nothing but a MORTAL physicist!
Why should there be any gushing about a mortal physicist?” Alas, the
strawman topples over dead. But it is just a strawman after all.

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

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 2:30:15 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 12:33:44 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz
> > showcased his imbecility:
> >> ___________________________Mercury___Venus___Earth____Mars
> >> Hall (Newcomb) [6] _______43.37___ 16.98____10.45____ 5.55
> >> Einstein (Subbotin) [7] _____ 43.0_____8.6_____3.8______ 1.4
> >> Gerber (Khaydarov) [8] ____ 43.0_____8.6_____3.8______ 1.4
> >> Ritz (Rouzver) [9]__________41.0____ 8.0_____3.4_______----
> >> Max (Zaitsev) [10] ________43.0____23.0____17.0______ 11.0
> >> Zeelinger (Rouzver) [9] ____41.3_____7.3_____4.2_______ 6.3
> >>
> >> Gerber's values are IDENTICAL to Einstein's.
> >
> >
> > Kapo imbecile
> >
> > The values have to agree with the MEASURED data.
> >
> >
> >
> Richard Hertz is simply pitching a battle against a strawman that Einstein
> is revered as a god, that he is esteemed as head and shoulders above any
> other physicist living or dead, that he is infallible, that he did things
> all by himself that no one else could do. Of course, none of that is true,
> nor is it even DEEMED true except in the wild fanboy mosh pit of popular
> press.
>
> So, anyway, he takes this poorly constructed and sloppily painted strawman
> and tries to tear it down with all of the usual complaints:
> - That predecessors landed on partial answers that were replicated in
> Einstein’s work. (That is ALWAYS true for the key innovations in
> fundamental physics, including Newton, Maxwell, Feynman, Bardeen, you name
> it.)
> - That he collaborated. (Of COURSE he collaborated. All good physicists
> do.)
> - That he got the answers wrong at first and had to work to get them right.
> (That is the norm in physics, not the exception.)
> - That he relied on others for skills that weren’t his strengths. (That is
> what collaboration is for, after all.)
> - That he got press and fame for things that had nothing to do with
> physics. (Yeah, so? Feynman was famous for playing bongos and working in
> strip joints. Schrödinger got a lot of buzz because he cohabited with two
> women. Boltzmann lost his job because of bipolar mood swings and he took
> his own life shortly after. Newton was famous for working without pants.
> Dirac was famous for saying almost nothing. So?)
>
> Then Richard points to the strawman and splutters, “But these mundane
> attributes are NOT ALLOWED for the strawman. The strawman is perfect and
> above all these things! This Son of God is nothing but a MORTAL physicist!
> Why should there be any gushing about a mortal physicist?” Alas, the
> strawman topples over dead. But it is just a strawman after all.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Good description, very funny

On 11/3/2021 3:33 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 3:32:33 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

>> IF e = 0 (circular orbit), ε (the perihelion advance per orbit) SHOULD BE ZERO, not
>>
>> ε = 24.π³.R²/(T².c²) , with R = a, the radius of the circular orbit.

So Gerber fucked up and came up with a nonzero perihelion advance per
orbit for a circular orbit? I don't think that matters so much since for
a circle, the "perihelion" is the same as the rest of the orbit and thus
not observable. It's because there's a (1 – e²) term in the denominator
which for e=0 goes to 1, not tending toward infinity. But we can
forgive Gerber for his screwup.

>> Do you UNDERSTAND? No precession in circular orbits. NONE. Yet, for the retarded such value (always positive) is NOT ZERO, but
>>
>> ε = 24.π³.R²/(T².c²) ≠ 0, even for a planet 10 times farther than Neptune.

Don't be so hard on Gerber.

> The retarded close his Nov. 18, 1915 paper CREDITING Simon Newcomb (1835-1909), from the USA USNO, for his 43"/century.
> Is that the origin for US science establishment to hold such value until now (remember, it's a theoretical calculation)?

No, it is OBSERVED, after subtracting Newtonian precession values from
the other planets/sources.
>
> But, another thing that amuse me: the idiot posted a table with the expression (e.dπ/dt)" at the last part. Did he believe that dπ/dt
> HAD A PHYSICAL MEANING ALSO? Was the idiot challenging ancient Greeks, besides Newton?

You'll need to provide some detail about that. Is it possible that 100+
years ago π had multiple meanings, even if it doesn't now? And π was
just some actual variable in that case? Remember how so many of your
400+ "mistakes" you "found" in the 1905 paper were simply your own
misinterpretation of now-obsolete terminology? But to answer your
question, "dπ/dt" does have a physical meaning when talking about the
constant we call π these days. Namely, 0. So provide details of this
oddball expression.
>
> The man knew no limits.

Neither is there a limit on the amount of foam your mouth can generate.

> Specially this post is funny (excerpt):
>
> ___________________________Mercury___Venus___Earth____Mars
> Hall (Newcomb) [6] _______43.37___ 16.98____10.45____ 5.55
> Einstein (Subbotin) [7] _____ 43.0_____8.6_____3.8______ 1.4
> Gerber (Khaydarov) [8] ____ 43.0_____8.6_____3.8______ 1.4
> Ritz (Rouzver) [9]__________41.0____ 8.0_____3.4_______----
> Max (Zaitsev) [10] ________43.0____23.0____17.0______ 11.0
> Zeelinger (Rouzver) [9] ____41.3_____7.3_____4.2_______ 6.3
>
> Gerber's values are IDENTICAL to Einstein's. Funny as hell. Most posts support Gerber as the man.

Since Gerber got the correct formula, even if for the wrong reason, no
surprise there.
>

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 6:30:15 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip hate speech from Dono, the failed paid relativist shill/troll. Only addressing to Bodkin>

> Richard Hertz is simply pitching a battle against a strawman that Einstein
> is revered as a god, that he is esteemed as head and shoulders above any
> other physicist living or dead, that he is infallible, that he did things
> all by himself that no one else could do. Of course, none of that is true,
> nor is it even DEEMED true except in the wild fanboy mosh pit of popular press.

Bodkin: I'm sure that relativists like your attempt to defend Einstein one more time, after your 10⁷ failed previous attempts since 2015.
But be sure of a couple of things about me:

1) Before 2018 I didn't give a flying fuck about Einstein or his relativity.. I had rejected it entirely, as non physical, more than 40 years ago.

2) Having plenty of free time available, I decided to use it to study history of physics more in deep, starting with Kirchoff-Planck BBC.

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

4)Early on, I read many long biographies about his life and doings. Most of them written by Jewish historians and some others NOT.
I decided to NEVER address the antisemitism (or prosemitism) present in works like the ones of Bjerknes, but not buying also the
sweetness of Weinstein or Isaacson, among many others.

5) About Einstein, the human being and his views of the world, I never did care. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, is entitled to think
whatever want about life, politics, economy, sex, morality, religion, friendship, society, etc. And everyone of us IS FLAWED in one or
more ways, which reflects on our SOCIAL BEHAVIOR.
So, I don't care if Einstein did beat his wife or not, if he cheated her as many times as he could or if he was a cold blood misogynist.
I never addressed any aspect regarding his human flaws WHILE BEING a human being interacting with other human beings.

6)My interest in Einstein is focused on his professional behavior and his professional achievements. Exactly THESE ASPECTS.
Why? Because INTELLIGENCE and the products derived by such divine gift is the ONLY THING that I admire from people.

But, as a perfectionist that I am, such "products" have to be the pure expression of geniality, not stained by ANY occurrence.

And is because the above paragraph has been the intellectual and moral compass in my entire adult life, is that I read so much
about the history of major scientists (physics and mathematics mainly, a bit of chemistry). Then, when I put it together, only one
figure stands years light ahead of others: James Clerk Maxwell, the same known idol that Einstein had. No Newton, Gauss, Euler,
Laplace, Lagrange, Hamilton, etc. Only HERTZ is close in my admiration: humble, tenacious, genial, 50 years ahead of his time.

7)Given all of the above, and following my natural instinct to research until I found the ORIGIN of whatever, plus the burden of a
"gift" that nature gave to me to handle TONS OF DATA without losing my mind (and make me unbearable in discussions) is that
I started to gather the threads of the web of "productions" of Einstein's mind, which are HIGHLY DISTORTED after 100,000+ persons
messed with such history and wrote BIASED opinions (in one way or another).

It's an interesting hobby for me to LOW-PASS filter such documentation, trying to reconstruct what happened between 1905 and 1915.

Given the fact that Einstein's history occupies MILLIONS OF DOCUMENTS written in 5 generations, it's not an easy job.

But, as I told you once: "FUNDAMENTALS, BODKIN, FUNDAMENTALS", such simple concept is enough for my "hobby". It worked
well at anything that I did in my past active years.

Well, I consider that the above statements about the origin and justifications of my "hobby" are enough (for me). I'm coherent and
honest with myself, which is the only that matters (for me, again).

My hobby about reading biographies and history is a natural part of my personality, and I did that since I can remember (maybe since
being about 6 or 7 y.o.). And I read about everything in my life, which married to a rather good communications ability made me gain
respect and hate (people, you know) since being a child.

For me, Einstein is the epitome of pseudo-science, not physics. A well versed charlatan, an hypnotist, a philosopher and a completely
inept person regarding mathematics. However, his emotional intelligence allowed him to manipulate people at will.

It's people like him who sold the Eiffel tower TWICE in few years (Lustig), stole people's money at big scale (Ponzi, Madoff), or made
economic empires recently (Gates, Zuckerberg, Musk, Bezos) or deceived entire countries at will (JFK, Clinton, Peron, Trump, Berlusconi).

I could find dozens of examples but I'm tired of this post.

<snip rest of Bodkin crap>

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 4:41:22 PM UTC-7, Odious kapo Richard Hertz admits he's a nutter:

> 1) Before 2018 I didn't give a flying fuck about Einstein or his relativity. I had rejected it entirely, as non physical, more than 40 years ago.
>

Yep, you were a nutter at 27, the same way you are a nutter now, at 67. Your only consolation is that you are going to die a nutter, derided by the whole world, courtesy of your idiocies that you post here. Keep up the entertainment

> 4)Early on, I read many long biographies about his life and doings. Most of them written by Jewish historians and some others NOT.
> I decided to NEVER address the antisemitism (or prosemitism) present in works like the ones of Bjerknes, but not buying also the
> sweetness of Weinstein or Isaacson, among many others.
>

But you are a kapo, yourself, an odious one.

> But, as a lying piece of shit that I am,
>

Agreed

> My hobby about reading biographies and history is a natural part of my personality, and I did that since I can remember (maybe since
> being about 6 or 7 y.o.).

Yep, you were born a nutter, we know that.

And I read about everything in my life, which married to a rather good communications ability made me gain
> respect and hate (people, you know) since being a child.
>

Yep, you are full of hate (and full of shit)

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 7:51:00 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> >> ε = 24.π³.R²/(T².c²) , with R = a, the radius of the circular orbit.

> So Gerber fucked up and came up with a nonzero perihelion advance per
> orbit for a circular orbit? I don't think that matters so much since for
> a circle, the "perihelion" is the same as the rest of the orbit and thus
> not observable. It's because there's a (1 – e²) term in the denominator
> which for e=0 goes to 1, not tending toward infinity. But we can

> forgive Gerber for his screwup.

> >> Do you UNDERSTAND? No precession in circular orbits. NONE. Yet, for the retarded such value (always positive) is NOT ZERO, but
> >>
> >> ε = 24.π³.R²/(T².c²) ≠ 0, even for a planet 10 times farther than Neptune.

> Don't be so hard on Gerber.

I NEVER said that Gerber was a genius. He was a humble man, and his work value was reflected in DOZENS of documents in the next
years following the publication. His work was considered speculative but inspirational by recognized physicists and astronomers.
And Einstein COULD NOT be unaware of such paper, due to his constant need of support by astronomers since 1911. In particular
Dr. Freundlich, to whom he thanks in his Nov.18, 1915 paper.

> > The retarded close his Nov. 18, 1915 paper CREDITING Simon Newcomb (1835-1909), from the USA USNO, for his 43"/century.
> > Is that the origin for US science establishment to hold such value until now (remember, it's a theoretical calculation)?

> No, it is OBSERVED, after subtracting Newtonian precession values from the other planets/sources.

OK, Dono (I mean Moroney): OBSERVED in the fucking paper where the calculations are done, as a FINAL VALUE (on the paper).

> > But, another thing that amuse me: the idiot posted a table with the expression (e.dπ/dt)" at the last part. Did he believe that dπ/dt
> > HAD A PHYSICAL MEANING ALSO? Was the idiot challenging ancient Greeks, besides Newton?

> You'll need to provide some detail about that. Is it possible that 100+
> years ago π had multiple meanings, even if it doesn't now? And π was
> just some actual variable in that case? Remember how so many of your
> 400+ "mistakes" you "found" in the 1905 paper were simply your own
> misinterpretation of now-obsolete terminology? But to answer your
> question, "dπ/dt" does have a physical meaning when talking about the
> constant we call π these days. Namely, 0. So provide details of this
> oddball expression.

<snip>

You forget to grasp that there are no circles in non-euclidean surfaces. So π = Perimeter/Diameter is untenable.
But if circular orbits are changing its period slowly, century after century, it's reflected in the DRIFT of its perimeter, orbit after orbit.

And this is what, mathematically, a perihelion advance MEANS!

Because, to find the angular displacement, you are forced by the current mathematics to INTEGRATE the orbital motion on an
angular sweep 2π+ε. The translation of this mathematical expression (failed mathematics) is that the orbital path WIDENS in
every orbit by ε radians. Translating this to MOTION + GEOMETRY it's not strange that the fucker thought about a non-linear
value of non-euclidean π(t).

I don't find it strange, as the fucker wanted to REINVENT all, even Levi-Civita geometry. A born fucker is always a fucker.

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 5:05:15 PM UTC-7, utter cretin Richard Hertz brainfarted another imbecility:

> You forget to grasp that there are no circles in non-euclidean surfaces.

You are full of shit, imbecile: https://www.cs.unm.edu/~joel/NonEuclid/pseudosphere.html

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 10:30:51 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> > You forget to grasp that there are no circles in non-euclidean surfaces..
> You are full of shit, imbecile: https://www.cs.unm.edu/~joel/NonEuclid/pseudosphere.html

Reptilian lifeform, I'm started to think that your parents left here on purpose and ran away on the mothership (not like E.T.).

1) Take a banana (you can shove it up in your ass later, don't be impatient).

2) Take two pins and manage to tie a flexible and fine wire to each one, so the distance between the pins is 1 when you pull them apart.

3) Now pinch the banana with one pin and move the other around for one entire turn while barely scratching the surface of the banana.

4) Now remove the pin and measure the area delimited by the pseudo-circular scratched line. Prove that the area A = π² EXACTLY.

If you succeed proving that, you drew a circle on a banana. Now you can enjoy the banana as you wish (you know, at any orifice you have).

P.S.: How many orifices have a reptilian lifeform like you? Humans have between 7 and 8, and you?

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 7:33:33 PM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz keeps eating shit:
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 10:30:51 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > You forget to grasp that there are no circles in non-euclidean surfaces.
> > You are full of shit, imbecile: https://www.cs.unm.edu/~joel/NonEuclid/pseudosphere.html

You are still eating shit. Good.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 6:30:15 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip hate speech from Dono, the failed paid relativist shill/troll. Only
> addressing to Bodkin>
>
>
>> Richard Hertz is simply pitching a battle against a strawman that Einstein
>> is revered as a god, that he is esteemed as head and shoulders above any
>> other physicist living or dead, that he is infallible, that he did things
>> all by himself that no one else could do. Of course, none of that is true,
>> nor is it even DEEMED true except in the wild fanboy mosh pit of popular press.
>
> Bodkin: I'm sure that relativists like your attempt to defend Einstein
> one more time, after your 10⁷ failed previous attempts since 2015.

When a smoked turkey leg remains unconvinced of something true, does that
count as a failure?

It’s interesting that you count every time you open your mouth to say
something stupid as a victory.

> But be sure of a couple of things about me:
>
> 1) Before 2018 I didn't give a flying fuck about Einstein or his
> relativity. I had rejected it entirely, as non physical, more than 40 years ago.

Don’t care.

>
> 2) Having plenty of free time available, I decided to use it to study
> history of physics more in deep, starting with Kirchoff-Planck BBC.

Don’t care.

>
> 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,

That’s your mistake for taking it as some kind of proof.

> incomplete and fully circular (petitio principii). I ALWAYS used
> ORIGINAL SOURCES, because I know the distortions made by historians.

And yet you spent a lot of time, and advocate for, studying physics through
biographies and historian accounts. Hmmmm.

> 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.

For the record: the paper did not prosper. Relativity prospered, as
investigated by hundreds of physicists both theoreticians and
experimentalists. What you mistakenly attribute to the prosperity of the
paper is in fact the prosperity of a popular press personality cult about
scientists with eccentricities — and this you rant about endlessly.

>
> 4)Early on, I read many long biographies about his life and doings. Most
> of them written by Jewish historians and some others NOT.
> I decided to NEVER address the antisemitism (or prosemitism) present
> in works like the ones of Bjerknes, but not buying also the
> sweetness of Weinstein or Isaacson, among many others.

Don’t care.

>
> 5) About Einstein, the human being and his views of the world, I never
> did care. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, is entitled to think
> whatever want about life, politics, economy, sex, morality, religion,
> friendship, society, etc. And everyone of us IS FLAWED in one or
> more ways, which reflects on our SOCIAL BEHAVIOR.
> So, I don't care if Einstein did beat his wife or not, if he cheated
> her as many times as he could or if he was a cold blood misogynist.
> I never addressed any aspect regarding his human flaws WHILE BEING a
> human being interacting with other human beings.

Well, you seemed to focus a lot on his collaboration with others (which is
a commonplace scientific behavior), his incorporation of others’ ideas
(also a commonplace scientific behavior), his willingness to use assistants
for some of the work (also a commonplace scientific behavior), and other
basic behaviors of humans who are scientists. No, you say, he needs to be
held to a different standard, a superhuman one.

>
> 6)My interest in Einstein is focused on his professional behavior and his
> professional achievements. Exactly THESE ASPECTS.
> Why? Because INTELLIGENCE and the products derived by such divine gift
> is the ONLY THING that I admire from people.

Who cares what YOU admire? You are an engineer. You value the products that
engineers make, not the products that fundamental physicists make.

>
> But, as a perfectionist that I am, such "products" have to be the pure
> expression of geniality, not stained by ANY occurrence.

Who cares about your perfectionism?

>
> And is because the above paragraph has been the intellectual and moral
> compass in my entire adult life, is that I read so much
> about the history of major scientists (physics and mathematics mainly,
> a bit of chemistry). Then, when I put it together, only one
> figure stands years light ahead of others: James Clerk Maxwell, the
> same known idol that Einstein had.

And who cares what figure YOU wish to transform into an object of
adoration?

> No Newton, Gauss, Euler,
> Laplace, Lagrange, Hamilton, etc. Only HERTZ is close in my
> admiration: humble, tenacious, genial, 50 years ahead of his time.
>
> 7)Given all of the above, and following my natural instinct to research
> until I found the ORIGIN of whatever, plus the burden of a
> "gift" that nature gave to me to handle TONS OF DATA without losing my
> mind (and make me unbearable in discussions) is that
> I started to gather the threads of the web of "productions" of
> Einstein's mind, which are HIGHLY DISTORTED after 100,000+ persons
> messed with such history and wrote BIASED opinions (in one way or another).

That’s what you get for focusing on popular press treatments of eccentric
scientists. Whose fault is that? Why do you place blame on the subject of
those treatments, rather than on those who write them, and rather than on
YOURSELF for indulging yourself in reading them. You wound yourself up in
this little disillusionment journey. You have only yourself to blame for
that.

>
> It's an interesting hobby for me to LOW-PASS filter such
> documentation, trying to reconstruct what happened between 1905 and 1915.
>
> Given the fact that Einstein's history occupies MILLIONS OF DOCUMENTS
> written in 5 generations, it's not an easy job.
>
> But, as I told you once: "FUNDAMENTALS, BODKIN, FUNDAMENTALS", such
> simple concept is enough for my "hobby". It worked
> well at anything that I did in my past active years.
>
> Well, I consider that the above statements about the origin and
> justifications of my "hobby" are enough (for me). I'm coherent and
> honest with myself, which is the only that matters (for me, again).
>
> My hobby about reading biographies and history is a natural part of my
> personality, and I did that since I can remember (maybe since
> being about 6 or 7 y.o.). And I read about everything in my life, which
> married to a rather good communications ability made me gain
> respect and hate (people, you know) since being a child.

Don’t care.

>
> For me, Einstein is the epitome of pseudo-science, not physics. A well
> versed charlatan, an hypnotist, a philosopher and a completely
> inept person regarding mathematics. However, his emotional intelligence
> allowed him to manipulate people at will.

Nonsense. Don’t blame Einstein for what popular press fanboys did with him.

>
> It's people like him who sold the Eiffel tower TWICE in few years
> (Lustig), stole people's money at big scale (Ponzi, Madoff), or made
> economic empires recently (Gates, Zuckerberg, Musk, Bezos) or deceived
> entire countries at will (JFK, Clinton, Peron, Trump, Berlusconi).
>
> I could find dozens of examples but I'm tired of this post.
>
>
> <snip rest of Bodkin crap>
>

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

On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 12:05:22 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Richard Hertz is simply pitching a battle against a strawman that Einstein
> >> is revered as a god, that he is esteemed as head and shoulders above any
> >> other physicist living or dead, that he is infallible, that he did things
> >> all by himself that no one else could do. Of course, none of that is true,
> >> nor is it even DEEMED true except in the wild fanboy mosh pit of popular press.

> For the record: the paper did not prosper. Relativity prospered, as
> investigated by hundreds of physicists both theoreticians and
> experimentalists. What you mistakenly attribute to the prosperity of the
> paper is in fact the prosperity of a popular press personality cult about
> scientists with eccentricities — and this you rant about endlessly.

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.

> Well, you seemed to focus a lot on his collaboration with others (which is
> a commonplace scientific behavior), his incorporation of others’ ideas
> (also a commonplace scientific behavior), his willingness to use assistants
> for some of the work (also a commonplace scientific behavior), and other
> basic behaviors of humans who are scientists. No, you say, he needs to be
> held to a different standard, a superhuman one.

Keep rationalizing. True scientists are HONEST and HUMBLE, and this is so at ANY FIELD.
Dishonest bastard and plagiarists couldn't survive ONE MONTH in this days, as in the case of Einstein. He was a product
of an epoch where politics and war were above any science, theories that couldn't be proven experimentally could survive
years and people wanted to believe that something of value could be obtained from the marvels of the para-sciences of SR/GR.

> Who cares what YOU admire? You are an engineer. You value the products that
> engineers make, not the products that fundamental physicists make.

You are an imbecile, vain and arrogant, and profoundly IGNORANT.

These are the MAJOR fields of physics that exist today, and most of them have more than 200 years:

1- Mechanics
2- Electricity and magnetism
3- Heat and thermodynamics
4- Light and vision
5- Sound and hearing
6- Condensed matter
7- Nuclear physics
8- Quantum physics
9- Astrophysics
10- Relativity

These are the MAJOR fields of engineering that exist today, and most of them have more than 200 years:

1- Mechanical Engineering
2- Civil Engineering
3- Electrical Engineering
4- Electronic Engineering
5- Chemical Engineering
6- Industrial Engineering
7- Nuclear Engineering
8- Software Engineering

Even when the major fields of chemistry are not listed, this is enough to state: The most innovative contributions to society are
provided by Engineering, which is displacing Physics due to the continuing advances that are being provided by modern engineering.

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

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

On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 1:25:13 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz at 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

6. Keep eating shit.

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 at 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.

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.

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 11:33:33 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 10:30:51 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > You forget to grasp that there are no circles in non-euclidean surfaces.
> > You are full of shit, imbecile: https://www.cs.unm.edu/~joel/NonEuclid/pseudosphere.html
> Reptilian lifeform, I'm started to think that your parents left here on purpose and ran away on the mothership (not like E.T.).
>
> 1) Take a banana (you can shove it up in your ass later, don't be impatient).
>
> 2) Take two pins and manage to tie a flexible and fine wire to each one, so the distance between the pins is 1 when you pull them apart.
>
> 3) Now pinch the banana with one pin and move the other around for one entire turn while barely scratching the surface of the banana.
>
> 4) Now remove the pin and measure the area delimited by the pseudo-circular scratched line. Prove that the area A = π² EXACTLY.
>
> If you succeed proving that, you drew a circle on a banana. Now you can enjoy the banana as you wish (you know, at any orifice you have).
>
>
>
> P.S.: How many orifices have a reptilian lifeform like you? Humans have between 7 and 8, and you?

What did yo do with the banana?

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 12:05:22 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>> Richard Hertz is simply pitching a battle against a strawman that Einstein
>>>> is revered as a god, that he is esteemed as head and shoulders above any
>>>> other physicist living or dead, that he is infallible, that he did things
>>>> all by himself that no one else could do. Of course, none of that is true,
>>>> nor is it even DEEMED true except in the wild fanboy mosh pit of popular press.
>
>
>> For the record: the paper did not prosper. Relativity prospered, as
>> investigated by hundreds of physicists both theoreticians and
>> experimentalists. What you mistakenly attribute to the prosperity of the
>> paper is in fact the prosperity of a popular press personality cult about
>> scientists with eccentricities — and this you rant about endlessly.
>
> I feel your pain, frustration and hate, Bodkin.

Dear, dear, dear, don’t project.

> 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

On the contrary. Fundamental physics offers enormous value that I am
grateful for. That you personally do not regard it valuable is immaterial.
You find value only in the things that engineers produce. That’s why you’re
an engineer and not a fundamental physicist. But to say that what someone
else does is not valuable because it’s not engineering is just arrogance of
the highest stink.

Musicians also provide value. So do philosophers. So do novelists. So do
paleontologists. So do astronomers.

But you just rant endlessly about the outsized and disproportionate value
of technologists and engineers, and dismiss the value of everything else.
That’s the behavior of someone masking a huge inferiority complex, or
someone who has a desperate need of validation and praise.

> 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

No sir. I’m not the one who juxtaposes Einstein’s name with “god of
science” and “most intelligent of all time.” YOU do that, and then you
complain about it. The only one between us that is obsessing about the
personality cult is YOU, and you can’t let go of it. You are all lathered
up about fanboy popular press adulation, and you got yourself into this
state by choosing to consume a lot of that crap.

> and encourage MSM to write constantly
> about "Einstein proven right one more time",

See? Popular press headline. If you don’t like it, STOP CONSUMING IT, as it
only enrages you. Stop tasting shit, and you’ll stop complaining that
everything tastes like shit.

> and that created an establishment around a myth just to divert public funds for
> their institutions

If this is about using public funds to support things outside of technology
and engineering, then complain to your local politicians. They’re the ones
charged to administer public funds. As for technological applications and
engineering, that’s what the business sector does. They build things for
profit and for sale. That’s where technology and engineering is best
utilized. Has it not occurred to you that politicians devote public funds
to things that private industry will NOT invest in? The stuff you do, the
stuff you value, is already funded. If you desire to have nothing else
funded other than what private industry already funds, then your voice is
through your cast vote, period.

> and enjoy the pleasures of life by establishing "fortress of thought" and
> "surveillance polices" to erase any
> criticism over Einstein's work and legacy.
>
>
>> Well, you seemed to focus a lot on his collaboration with others (which is
>> a commonplace scientific behavior), his incorporation of others’ ideas
>> (also a commonplace scientific behavior), his willingness to use assistants
>> for some of the work (also a commonplace scientific behavior), and other
>> basic behaviors of humans who are scientists. No, you say, he needs to be
>> held to a different standard, a superhuman one.
>
> Keep rationalizing. True scientists are HONEST and HUMBLE, and this is so at ANY FIELD.

You have a weird expectation of what science should be and how the humans
involved in it should be different than in other professions. There are
oodles of arrogant, prima donna engineers. Edison was a manipulative prick.
There are oodles of dishonest technologists in private industry — Theranos,
Cambridge Analytica, Morton Thiokol, I could go on. If you want scientists
to be superhuman and Jesus-like in their pursuits, then please do not go
into that field because you are poorly suited to your own expectations.

> Dishonest bastard and plagiarists couldn't survive ONE MONTH in this
> days, as in the case of Einstein. He was a product
> of an epoch where politics and war were above any science, theories that
> couldn't be proven experimentally could survive
> years and people wanted to believe that something of value could be
> obtained from the marvels of the para-sciences of SR/GR.
>
>
>> Who cares what YOU admire? You are an engineer. You value the products that
>> engineers make, not the products that fundamental physicists make.
>
> You are an imbecile, vain and arrogant, and profoundly IGNORANT.
>
> These are the MAJOR fields of physics that exist today, and most of them
> have more than 200 years:
>
> 1- Mechanics
> 2- Electricity and magnetism
> 3- Heat and thermodynamics
> 4- Light and vision
> 5- Sound and hearing
> 6- Condensed matter
> 7- Nuclear physics
> 8- Quantum physics
> 9- Astrophysics
> 10- Relativity

Yup, look at the last five, all driven almost entirely by fundamental
physics work done in the last century, the work you dismiss.

>
> These are the MAJOR fields of engineering that exist today, and most of
> them have more than 200 years:
>
> 1- Mechanical Engineering
> 2- Civil Engineering
> 3- Electrical Engineering
> 4- Electronic Engineering
> 5- Chemical Engineering
> 6- Industrial Engineering
> 7- Nuclear Engineering
> 8- Software Engineering
>
> Even when the major fields of chemistry are not listed, this is enough to
> state: The most innovative contributions to society are
> provided by Engineering,

Bullshit. There’s your puffed-chest, overcompensating arrogance wallowing
about again. YOU may think that the best thing that has happened to mankind
is engineering. It may not have crossed your mind that this is not a
globally held opinion. You may not care if anyone disagrees with you — more
blindered arrogance on your part. If you want to celebrate engineers, I,
sure that opinion would be warmly welcomed in an engineering group. To make
the same celebration in a PHYSICS newsgroup is pure boorish hubris and an
inability to read a room.

All this egomaniacal blathering you do is making you more clearly a pompous
ass each passing post. Every time you say, “no, what *I* do is more
important than what anybody else does,” you are turning more and more into
a churlish, self-centered 3-year-old.

Go ahead and stomp your foot and say you don’t care if you do.

> which is displacing Physics due to the continuing advances that are being
> provided by modern engineering.
>
> Physics, as a science, is destined to vanish and merge as a RESIDUAL of
> Engineering. And it goes for Chemistry too.
>
> Relativity HAS CONTRIBUTED NOTHING TO ANY OF THESE FIELDS, except for
> creating a new field of its own, without practical value.
>
>
>

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

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 11:31:01 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> ABOUT THE HOAX OF EINSTEIN'S FIRST PROOF OF THE GENERAL RELATIVITY ON NOV. 18, 1915.

There is no "hoax".

As a piece of fiction your posts are not very good either (too tedious).

--
Jan

On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 2:19:34 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 11:33:33 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz kept eating shit:
> > On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 10:30:51 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > > You forget to grasp that there are no circles in non-euclidean surfaces.
> > > You are full of shit, imbecile: https://www.cs.unm.edu/~joel/NonEuclid/pseudosphere.html
You are full of shit and you also eat shit.

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 11:32:33 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 2:00:02 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip shameful comments, even for a technician>
> > Einstein provided a derivation. Gerber pulled his formula from his butt.
> > Which is real science? That derivation is why E said he provided the first explanation.
> Read this carefully, imbecile:
>
> Gerber used 9 pages to derive his FAMOUS EQUATIONS when Einstein was still sucking fellow's dicks at the Polytechnic.

Nonsense.

--
Jan