Op 16-nov.-2021 om 22:07 schreef Michael Moroney:
> On 11/16/2021 2:58 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
>> Watch yourself at a distance, cretin:
>>
>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
>
> I wonder why Richard brings that up? He must have a few fumbles in
> there, I'll have to look.

My ISP stops web hosting next year.
I have copied the lot to
https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html

Dirk Vdm

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 5:18:56 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> And so how are you, o engineer in a physics group, taking your own advice?
>
> I come here for:
>
> 1) To troll imbecile relativists, specially those who poses as wannabe physicists.
> 2) To troll advocates of (1905 - 2021) physics on the fields of: quantum
> and nuclear physics, "applied relativity, SR and GR" and BBT.
> 3) To find out from which planet the reptilian lifeform (A.K.A. Dono)
> comes. Vulcan, that I cited here?. Also, what eats and if see colors.
> 4) To show why physicists are not needed today in fields 2), except on Earth Sciences.
> 5) To prove that in GPS world, t = t'.
> 6) To post whatever comes to my mind concerning affairs in the current
> world, and its history.
> 7) To learn why Moroney tries harder after failing, time after time.
> 8) To prove that you are an asshole.
> 9) To create polemics, because it's fun and help to upgrade debate abilities.

I’ll just mention that trolling is not debate. Trolling is trolling. You
learn nothing about debate by trolling. You learn a lot about being an ass.

> 10) Because in sites for engineers, they are so RATIONAL, FULL OF COMMON
> SENSE AND HUMBLE, that it's a crime to troll there.
> 11) To observe how the average IQ on this group is declining year after
> year, by searching debates on the database. Very helpful.
> 12) To gain knowledge from some exceptional posts on a variety of
> subjects. There were some few smart people at this site.
>
> I think the above points answer your question.
>

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

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:09:39 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> > 1) Forget the Sun and every other celestial body other than Mercury and Vulcan.
> >
> > 2) Both are rotating alone in a void universe, in a plane with reference x,y equal to 0,0:
> >
> > Mercury with an elliptical orbit described by the ellipse equation, with period 88 days.
> Cretinoid,
>
> If you "Forget the Sun" Mercury cannot describe an ellipse. We all knew that you are a cretin when it comes to GR, you have demonstrated that you are an even bigger cretin when it comes to Newtonian mechanics. Well done, keep up the entertainment.

I said differential perturbation, cretin. Assume that the orbit of Mercury is ALREADY SETTLED by this equation:

(dr/dɸ)² = 2E.m.r⁴/L² + 2GM.m².r³/L² – r² (Newton)

Now, work with the differential due to the influence of two bodies rotating like binary stars:

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

Fucking ignorant and retarded reptilian lifeform!

You should be banned from the entire Internet, as you are not a human being, giant lizard.

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:32:22 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> I’ll just mention that trolling is not debate. Trolling is trolling. You
> learn nothing about debate by trolling. You learn a lot about being an ass.

Intelligent trolling creates debate out of thin air. Sophistry is an art.

Sophistry: the use of clever but partially FALSE arguments, with the intention of winning a debate with deception hidden on some points.

Lord Keynes was a master on sophistry, and he enjoyed doing it a lot. Yet he had valid points,
only that changed them overnight to prove the opposite as true. Masterful mind work.

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

>>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
>>
>> I wonder why Richard brings that up? He must have a few fumbles in
>> there, I'll have to look.
>
> My ISP stops web hosting next year.
> I have copied the lot to
> https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html

but dvdm is dirk already, why dvdm/dirk?? How many dirks are you over
there?

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 1:55:23 PM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz dug himself deeper:
> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:09:39 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > 1) Forget the Sun and every other celestial body other than Mercury and Vulcan.
> > >
> > > 2) Both are rotating alone in a void universe, in a plane with reference x,y equal to 0,0:
> > >
> > > Mercury with an elliptical orbit described by the ellipse equation, with period 88 days.
> > Cretinoid,
> >
> > If you "Forget the Sun" Mercury cannot describe an ellipse. We all knew that you are a cretin when it comes to GR, you have demonstrated that you are an even bigger cretin when it comes to Newtonian mechanics. Well done, keep up the entertainment.
> I said differential perturbation

You are desperately trying to lie your way out of the imbecility you posted.. You posted an imbecility, you got exposed and now you are trying lie your way out, there is no mention of any "differential perturbation" in your previous posts. You just made it up because you got pantsed. I am quite sure that you got pantsed a lot when you were a kid, you had already developed the despicable traits that you are exhibiting here. Keep digging yourself deeper, do you want a shovel?

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 7:54:42 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 1:55:23 PM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz dug himself deeper:
> > On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:09:39 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > > 1) Forget the Sun and every other celestial body other than Mercury and Vulcan.
> > > >
> > > > 2) Both are rotating alone in a void universe, in a plane with reference x,y equal to 0,0:
> > > >
> > > > Mercury with an elliptical orbit described by the ellipse equation, with period 88 days.
> > > Cretinoid,
> > >
> > > If you "Forget the Sun" Mercury cannot describe an ellipse. We all knew that you are a cretin when it comes to GR, you have demonstrated that you are an even bigger cretin when it comes to Newtonian mechanics. Well done, keep up the entertainment.
> > I said differential perturbation
> You are desperately trying to lie your way out of the imbecility you posted. You posted an imbecility, you got exposed and now you are trying lie your way out, there is no mention of any "differential perturbation" in your previous posts. You just made it up because you got pantsed. I am quite sure that you got pantsed a lot when you were a kid, you had already developed the despicable traits that you are exhibiting here. Keep digging yourself deeper, do you want a shovel?

Fucking retarded: If I wrote that all the typical newtonian effects are already included by mere addition, what remains is the 43" difference,
which IS NOT EXPLAINED BY NORMAL NEWTONIAN THEORY!

Then, excluding the Sun and analyzing ONLY Mercury and Vulcan's interactions is what I (and anyone else with a brain) understand as
as difference (DIFFERENTIAL EFFECT, which eliminates Mercury's newtonian effect due to the Sun).

Do you get it now, imbecile?

Only two bodies rotating at (0,0) WITHOUT the Sun!

One with established and fixed circular orbit (Vulcan) and the second orbiting with an ellipse described in the differential equation that
I posted.

Now, YOU (mathematician) try to calculate the effect of Vulcan over Mercury.. The OPPOSITE doesn't happen.

IMBECILE! That's why I don't give classes anymore, because cretins like you make me want to ............

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:32:22 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I’ll just mention that trolling is not debate. Trolling is trolling. You
>> learn nothing about debate by trolling. You learn a lot about being an ass.
>
> Intelligent trolling creates debate out of thin air.

Nope. Trolling produces ridicule on the troller. It’s attention, but it’s
bad attention. Some people would prefer bad attention to no attention, and
so troll. Congratulations, you lonely attention whore.

> Sophistry is an art.
>
> Sophistry: the use of clever but partially FALSE arguments, with the
> intention of winning a debate with deception hidden on some points.
>
> Lord Keynes was a master on sophistry, and he enjoyed doing it a lot. Yet
> he had valid points,
> only that changed them overnight to prove the opposite as true. Masterful mind work.
>
>
>

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

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 3:09:22 PM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz dug himself even deeper:
> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 7:54:42 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 1:55:23 PM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz dug himself deeper:
> > > On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:09:39 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > > 1) Forget the Sun and every other celestial body other than Mercury and Vulcan.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Both are rotating alone in a void universe, in a plane with reference x,y equal to 0,0:
> > > > >
> > > > > Mercury with an elliptical orbit described by the ellipse equation, with period 88 days.
> > > > Cretinoid,
> > > >
> > > > If you "Forget the Sun" Mercury cannot describe an ellipse. We all knew that you are a cretin when it comes to GR, you have demonstrated that you are an even bigger cretin when it comes to Newtonian mechanics. Well done, keep up the entertainment.
> > > I said differential perturbation
> > You are desperately trying to lie your way out of the imbecility you posted. You posted an imbecility, you got exposed and now you are trying lie your way out, there is no mention of any "differential perturbation" in your previous posts. You just made it up because you got pantsed. I am quite sure that you got pantsed a lot when you were a kid, you had already developed the despicable traits that you are exhibiting here. Keep digging yourself deeper, do you want a shovel?

> Only two bodies rotating at (0,0) WITHOUT the Sun!
>
1. "Vulcan" does not exist.
2. Two planets do not act like binary stars, they do not gravitate around each other because the gravitational attraction is too weak
3. See 1 and 2

Keep digging yourself deeper

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 8:48:48 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> 1. "Vulcan" does not exist.
> 2. Two planets do not act like binary stars, they do not gravitate around each other because the gravitational attraction is too weak
> 3. See 1 and 2
>
> Keep digging yourself deeper

Dono: born an idiot, lives as an idiot and will die idiotically, honoring his DNA.

1) You can't disprove the existence of the "virtual Vulcan". Nobody can. Too weak gravitational effects on the Sun
behavior to be measured.

2) Do you know what an analogy is, fucking retarded?. Vulcan is ALREADY ORBITING at 600,000 from the Sun's center. And its orbit
is CIRCULAR, because magnetofluidogravitodynamics IMPOSE SO!

3) Now you have two parts of the problem ALREADY SOLVED:

1) The behavior of Vulcan: circular orbit with 81days period.
2) The overall behavior of Mercury: elliptic orbit with 88 days period, known eccentricity and known mass.

What is missing?

Calculate the MASS of the virtual Vulcan to cause a perturbation on Mercury's orbit that derives on an advance of the perihelion
of +5,026E-07 rad/orbit.

Fucking IMBECILE!

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 4:45:24 PM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz dug himself even deeper:
> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 8:48:48 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > 1. "Vulcan" does not exist.
> > 2. Two planets do not act like binary stars, they do not gravitate around each other because the gravitational attraction is too weak
> > 3. See 1 and 2
> >
> > Keep digging yourself deeper
> Dono: born an idiot, lives as an idiot and will die idiotically, honoring his DNA.
>
> 1) You can't disprove the existence of the "virtual Vulcan". Nobody can.

Especially since "Vulcan" exists only in your demented brain. It is entertaining to watch your mental unraveling.

> 2) Vulcan is ALREADY ORBITING in Richard Hertz' demented brain.

Agreed.
> What is missing?
Your brain. Gone.

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 5:36:21 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 4:45:24 PM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz dug himself even deeper:
> > On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 8:48:48 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > 1. "Vulcan" does not exist.
> > > 2. Two planets do not act like binary stars, they do not gravitate around each other because the gravitational attraction is too weak
> > > 3. See 1 and 2
> > >
> > > Keep digging yourself deeper
> > Dono: born an idiot, lives as an idiot and will die idiotically, honoring his DNA.
> >
> > 1) You can't disprove the existence of the "virtual Vulcan". Nobody can.
> Especially since "Vulcan" exists only in your demented brain. It is entertaining to watch your mental unraveling.
>
> > 2) Vulcan is ALREADY ORBITING in Richard Hertz' demented brain.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > What is missing?
> Your brain. Gone.

Why does the Moon drift away?
How does a Galaxy grow?
Their once inner stars are faster and
further out...

No. No Dark matter galaxy halo.
It would tug from all directions
not giving the faster outer stars.
Cosmology of galaxy growing
is why we see faster stars instead.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 4:45:24 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 8:48:48 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > 1. "Vulcan" does not exist.
> > 2. Two planets do not act like binary stars, they do not gravitate around each other because the gravitational attraction is too weak
> > 3. See 1 and 2
> >
> > Keep digging yourself deeper
> Dono: born an idiot, lives as an idiot and will die idiotically, honoring his DNA.
>
> 1) You can't disprove the existence of the "virtual Vulcan". Nobody can. Too weak gravitational effects on the Sun
> behavior to be measured.
>
> 2) Do you know what an analogy is, fucking retarded?. Vulcan is ALREADY ORBITING at 600,000 from the Sun's center. And its orbit
> is CIRCULAR, because magnetofluidogravitodynamics IMPOSE SO!
>
> 3) Now you have two parts of the problem ALREADY SOLVED:
>
> 1) The behavior of Vulcan: circular orbit with 81days period.
> 2) The overall behavior of Mercury: elliptic orbit with 88 days period, known eccentricity and known mass.
>
> What is missing?

Evidence!

On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 00:12:24 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Nope. Trolling produces ridicule on the troller. It’s attention, but it’s
> bad attention. Some people would prefer bad attention to no attention, and
> so troll.

Congratulations, Bod.

Orbits swivel perpetually placing planets into
to different positions in a star system.
Swivel gives new orientations of orbits..
Star ellipse orbits swivel on the larger
level than the planet ellipse.

Mitchell Raemsch

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> Orbits swivel perpetually placing planets into to different positions in
> a star system. Swivel gives new orientations of orbits.. Star ellipse
> orbits swivel on the larger level than the planet ellipse.

ellipses is not orbit. Do you believe in Roswell alien crash and cattle
mutilation? All capitalist propaganda of "advancement", iff you ask me.

On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 3:33:13 PM UTC-8, Luigi Cotta wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Orbits swivel perpetually placing planets into to different positions in
> > a star system. Swivel gives new orientations of orbits.. Star ellipse
> > orbits swivel on the larger level than the planet ellipse.
> ellipses is not orbit.

Most orbits are ellipses. Planetary rings are round.

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 3:33:13 PM UTC-8, Luigi Cotta wrote:
>> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Orbits swivel perpetually placing planets into to different positions
>> > in a star system. Swivel gives new orientations of orbits.. Star
>> > ellipse orbits swivel on the larger level than the planet ellipse.
>> ellipses is not orbit.
>
> Most orbits are ellipses. Planetary rings are round.

none. All helix. In space and time. Two components, x and y.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helix#/media/File:Rising_circular.gif

On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 5:46:13 PM UTC-8, Luigi Cotta wrote:

> > Most orbits are ellipses. Planetary rings are round.
> none. All helix. In space and time. Two components, x and y.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helix#/media/File:Rising_circular.gif

All helixes have 3 components, x, y and z... exactly as shown in your very own link!

Paul Alsing wrote:

> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 5:46:13 PM UTC-8, Luigi Cotta wrote:
>
>> > Most orbits are ellipses. Planetary rings are round.
>> none. All helix. In space and time. Two components, x and y.
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helix#/media/File:Rising_circular.gif
>
> All helixes have 3 components, x, y and z... exactly as shown in your
> very own link!

sure, meant the two active components, pushes into z. I thought was
obvious.

On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 6:47:22 PM UTC-8, Luigi Cotta wrote:
> Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 5:46:13 PM UTC-8, Luigi Cotta wrote:
> >
> >> > Most orbits are ellipses. Planetary rings are round.
> >> none. All helix. In space and time. Two components, x and y.
> >
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helix#/media/File:Rising_circular.gif
> >
> > All helixes have 3 components, x, y and z... exactly as shown in your
> > very own link!

> sure, meant the two active components, pushes into z. I thought was
> obvious.

Not really obvious at all. You need to say what you mean and not make assumptions...

Paul Alsing wrote:

>> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helix#/media/File:Rising_circular.gif
>> >
>> > All helixes have 3 components, x, y and z... exactly as shown in your
>> > very own link!
>
>> sure, meant the two active components, pushes into z. I thought was
>> obvious.
>
> Not really obvious at all. You need to say what you mean and not make
> assumptions...

okay, I understand you now, kiss my ass.

Paul Alsing wrote:

>> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helix#/media/File:Rising_circular.gif
>> >
>> > All helixes have 3 components, x, y and z... exactly as shown in your
>> > very own link!
>
>> sure, meant the two active components, pushes into z. I thought was
>> obvious.
>
> Not really obvious at all. You need to say what you mean and not make
> assumptions...

actually the name itself, helix, refers to a 3D construction. You don't
follow the discussion, which was from orbits to helixes.