On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 7:25:29 PM UTC-3, Townes Olson wrote:

<snip>

> The problem with Gerber's paper was not trivial math errors, it was simply that his conclusions don't follow from his premises. He smuggled in an extra factor into the potential without justification, other than to match the known precession rate. Again, you can read a detailed analysis of Gerber's paper (and Besso's and Einstein's discussion of Gerber's paper) in any good book on the foundations of relativity.

Besso's and Einstein's discussion of Gerber's paper? But this is IMPOSSIBLE! Einstein firmly sworn that he DIDN'T KNOW about Gerber's
paper until the accusations of plagiarism started in 1916.

And regarding "smuggling" a factor to delay potentials, as done by Gerber, what about Einstein's kitchen?:

"Finally, one chooses s√(1 − 2A) as the second variable, and AGAIN CALLS IT s, so that one has a SLIGHTLY CHANGED
meaning of the constant B:"

(Eq. 7c) Φ = - α/2r (1+ B²/r²) "

Remember (Eq. 8a) Φ = - α/2r , which is written TWO PAGES BEFORE 7c. Why he planted there what he needed for a cubic polynomial?

Cooking with the MasterCheff, at plain sight and no remorse.

Now, of course you or Dono will rationalize and justify this fudging. I'll wait.

On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 8:24:06 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> No, you are lying, you are not learning anything. Because you are a crank, blinded by your hatred for Einstein.
> Integrals with singularities are taught in second year calculus, you obviously flunked the subject. Because you keep insisting that the integral in Einstein paper is "infinite". Keep up the enetertainment, clown.

Demential LIAR! What a miserable piece of shit you are!

My OP is far from the derail of the thread. I stated there that he FUDGED the formuale TWICE to get Gerber's one, but he FAILED,
and his REAL result is negative (FORMULA) and 1/3 of Gerber's formula.

If he was an IMBECILE. You couldn't expect less from him. He had the luck to have Schwarzschild's back up, who HELPED HIM by
providing his exact analytical solution, that put the fucking paper into oblivion!

No one used Einstein's "approximations" or "high cuisine". Every further reinterpretation of Mercury's problem is under the light
of Scwarzschild metric, and NONE of the IMBECILE!

On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 3:33:10 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Now, of course you or Dono will rationalize and justify this fudging. I'll wait.

You are clearly a cretin when it comes to calculating integrals, a more advanced subject. Now, you demonstrate that you are an even bigger cretin by not understanding simple expression substitutions. You see, Dick, your hatred for Einstein really blocks your brain. Whatever you have left inside your skull.

On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 3:40:59 PM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 8:24:06 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

> > No, you are lying, you are not learning anything. Because you are a crank, blinded by your hatred for Einstein.
> > Integrals with singularities are taught in second year calculus, you obviously flunked the subject. Because you keep insisting that the integral in Einstein paper is "infinite". Keep up the entertainment, clown.
> Demential LIAR! What a miserable piece of shit you are!
>
> My OP is far from the derail of the thread. I stated there that he FUDGED the formuale TWICE to get Gerber's one,

All you have proved, once again, is that you are a crank. Keep it up, dumbestfuck.

On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 3:10:19 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > That is not true. The integrand is infinite at the boundaries of integration, but the
> > integral is finite.
>
> Yes it is, Townes.

No, for example the integral from x=0 to 1 of 1/sqrt(x) is 2, even though the integrand is infinite at x=0.

> Just try to analyze, by approximations and the limit of the FPU of your computer...

The analytical solution is trivial.. you can evaluate it without using a computer. If you are getting infinite numerical results, you are making mistakes.

> It doesn't converge at all, unless Excel starts to break with such small values...

You are losing numerical significance. The only way to evaluate the integral is to do so analytically to give an expression for the result that can be computed trivially.

> The problem with Gerber's paper was not trivial math errors, it was simply that his conclusions don't follow from his premises. He smuggled in an extra factor into the potential without justification, other than to match the known precession rate. Again, you can read a detailed analysis of Gerber's paper (and Besso's and Einstein's discussion of Gerber's paper) in any good book on the foundations of relativity.

> Besso's and Einstein's discussion of Gerber's paper? But this is IMPOSSIBLE!

Nope. You can read about this in any good book on the history of relativity.

> And regarding "smuggling" a factor to delay potentials, as done by Gerber, what
> about Einstein's kitchen?

Gerber smuggled, Einstein did not.

> Remember (Eq. 8a) Φ = - α/2r , which is written TWO PAGES BEFORE 7c.

You can read a detailed explanation of every step in Einstein's analysis in any good book on the foundations of relativity. Each step is valid. In contrast, the steps in Gerber's paper are not valid. This has all been studied very carefully, and is quite well known.

On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 7:25:29 PM UTC-3, Townes Olson wrote:

<snip many>

> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 1:59:41 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > There is NO ANALYTICAL SOLUTION for the problem.

> I think you mean there is no closed-form solution in terms of "simple" functions (which is an arbitrary classification). That is obviously true, but the integral has a unique real value, which can easily be explicitly evaluated to any desired precision.

Townes: I insist: There is NO ANALYTICAL SOLUTION for the problem.

> > It happens that at α₁ and α₂, G(x) diverges to infinity, which indicates the impossibility
> > to obtain any number or expression for the area.

> That is not true. The integrand is infinite at the boundaries of integration, but the integral is finite. See above. This is not unusual. To understand why, consider the area under 1/x^2 as x ranges from 1 to infinity. Just because the region has infinite width doesn't mean the area is infinite. The same applies to regions with infinite height.

Townes: I insist: There is NO ANALYTICAL SOLUTION for the problem.

> > You can prove it in Excel, as I did.
> We can easily evaluate the integral analytically to any desired precision, so playing with Excel is pointless and not leading you to any insight.

Townes: I insist: There is NO ANALYTICAL SOLUTION for the problem.

> > If any has some idea or comment about this case of integrals, I'll appreciate.
> Anagin, the integral is easily evaluated analytically to any desired precision. You can find this is any good book on relativity.
> > In the case of the Gerber's paper, he didn't need to work with algebraic polynomials but with trigonometric equations, so it was error free.

Townes: I insist: There is NO ANALYTICAL SOLUTION for the problem. Einstein's paper is FULL OF SHIT. He cooked it with
approximations that replaces the cubic polynomial with a quadratic one. So, he CHEATED!

The error margin for the substitution, which I've calculated is HUGE. He fudged and cooked the paper to get Gerber's formula.

I'm giving up finding an analytical solution for Φ = ∫ dx/√(2A/B² + α/B² x −x² + αx³) = K ∫ dx/√[- (x - α₁) (x - α₂) (1 - αx)]

1) A first substitution of variable x = = α₁ + u² gives new limits u₁ = 0 and u₂ = √(α₂ – α₁) and an integral

Φ = 2K/√α ∫ du/√ [ (u² + α₁ - α₂) (u² + α₁ – 1/α) ] = ∫ P(u) du

While P(u₁) = 0, P(u₂) = ∞ , so GOOD BYE for a solution with this substitution.

Following the paper "ELLIPTIC INTEGRALS AND SOME APPLICATIONS ", devoted to the Mercury's problem and GR , the author state
that "Many integrals are reducible to elliptic type.". MANY, NOT ALL OF THEM.

I continue with the following step, as adviced.

2) A second substitution of variable u = tan ϴ, ; A = (α₁ - α₂) ; B = (α₁ – 1/α) , gives new limits ϴ₁ = 0 and ϴ₂ = √(α₂ – α₁) and an integral

Φ = 2K/√α ∫ dϴ/√[sin⁴ ϴ + (A + B) sin² ϴ cos² ϴ + A . B cos⁴ ϴ] = ∫ P(ϴ) dϴ , between ϴ₁ and ϴ₂

P(ϴ₁) = K/√[(α₁ - α₂) (α₁ – 1/α)] , which is finite and > 0.

But P(ϴ₂) = ∞ , so GOOD BYE for ANY SOLUTION for this integral.

However, after using a battery of tricks and limits on infinite series decomposition, the author manages to obtain a DUBIOUS solution,
because again, APPROXIMATIONS ARE INTRODUCED in limit theorems.

He uses the substitution x = α₁ + 1/t² and 1/α = α₃ , to obtain a substitution:

Φ = K ∫ dx/√[(x - α₁) (x - α₂) (x - α₃)] = C ∫ dt/√[ (t² - a²) (t² - b²) ]

where a² = 1/(α₂ - α₁) and b² = 1/(α₃ - α₁)

only to finish in a quotient of TRUNCATED expansions of series UP TO second order.

ε = 2κ/η - 2π = A QUOTIENT OF TRUNCATED SERIES = 3𝜋α (in the limit).

What is funny in THIS FINE PAPER, PRO-RELATIVITY, is that α = 5.09×E−08 (extra relativistic precession), has been used
all the time and PRESUMED TO EXIST before the end.

α was introduced early on, on the solution of an elliptic integral 30 steps before, as θ √α = desired solution. (THIS IS FUDGING, COOKING, CHEATING).

Infinite series WITH THREE PARAMETERS estimated on the limit of many recursions, an error function 𝑂(α²) conveniently
forgotten in the final expression (even when it's declared 5 steps before, and α = 5.09×E−08 previously known IS NOT SERIOUS.

BTW, this is the paper that Dono called as, QUOTE, "A very good paper. Contradicts the imbecilities you have been posting."

But of course it is, because it fits the narrative: Keep proving Einstein is right, no matter what.

Fucking cretin. Get it for once and al: THERE IS NO ANALYTICAL SOLUTION FOR EINSTEIN'S INTEGRAL, AND ANY ATTEMPT TO SOLVE
IT BY APPROXIMATIONS IS FALSE. The objective is to reach to Gerber's formula AT ANY COST.

And the next 100 years worshipers will try to fill the gaps, so the fucking paper can be protected. What is it? A CULT?

On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 10:11:35 PM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz wrote:

> BTW, this is the paper that Dono called as, QUOTE, "A very good paper. Contradicts the imbecilities you have been posting."
>
....in stark contrast with the cretinisms that you have been posting. The only consolation is that you will continue to post (even bigger) cretinisms until the end of your life. For our amusement and for your embarrassment. Keep it up, dumbestfuck.

On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 10:11:35 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > I think you mean there is no closed-form solution in terms of "simple" functions
> (which is an arbitrary classification). That is obviously true, but the integral has a
> unique real value, which can easily be explicitly evaluated to any desired precision.
>
> I insist: There is NO ANALYTICAL SOLUTION for the problem.

You are mistaken. There is no "closed form solution in simple functions", but that's an arbitrary classification, and there is a simple analytic solution.

> > > It happens that at α₁ and α₂, G(x) diverges to infinity, which indicates the impossibility
> > > to obtain any number or expression for the area.
>
> > That is not true. The integrand is infinite at the boundaries of integration, but the integral is finite. See above. This is not unusual. To understand why, consider the area under 1/x^2 as x ranges from 1 to infinity. Just because the region has infinite width doesn't mean the area is infinite. The same applies to regions with infinite height.
>
> I insist: There is NO ANALYTICAL SOLUTION for the problem.

Repeating your error doesn't make it correct. Remember, you said the reason there can be no analytic solution is that the integrand is infinite at the boundary, but I just gave you a trivial example of a finite integral that is infinite at the boundary. This illustrates that your reasoning is invalid.

> [Einstein] cooked it with approximations that replaces the cubic polynomial with a
> quadratic one. So, he CHEATED!

No, he was expressly evaluating the precession to just the lowest order of approximation, which is the only order that is large enough to be perceptible in this circumstance. That is not cheating. Of course, we can work out the solution analytically to all higher orders as well.

> I'm giving up finding an analytical solution...

That is wise... you will never find it on your own.

> BTW, this is the paper that Dono called as, QUOTE, "A very good paper..."

If it doesn't show you the simple and well-known analytic solution, it isn't a very good paper.

> The objective is to reach to Gerber's formula AT ANY COST.

No, the objective is to account for the known non-Newtonian precession of orbits in a rational way that is not ad hoc. Gerber just smuggled in the known answer, which does not follow rationally from his (frankly wacky) premises, whereas the result follows quite naturally and unambiguously from the very plausible premises of general relativity (equivalence principle, etc.)..

THIS IS WHAT A DIALOG BETWEEN TWO DEAF PERSONS LOOKS LIKE:

One is an retired EE, very good at math in general, who doesn't give up easily, who's relearning things 45 years in the past.
The other one is a physicist or mathematician, good at his skills, but highly biased toward relativity, who doesn't want to concede one of many Einstein's fudges.

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 11:25:56 AM UTC-3, Townes Olson wrote:

<snip>

> > I insist: There is NO ANALYTICAL SOLUTION for the problem.
> You are mistaken. There is no "closed form solution in simple functions", but that's an arbitrary classification, and there is a simple analytic solution.

Pure sophism and dialectics. A self-contradictory statement: "No closed form solution" but there is "a simple analytic solution".
Remember that we are talking here with an elliptic integral with THREE singularities: two very close one to each other, and a third 1,000 time far away
WITHOUT ANY SUBSTITUTION that may change that fact. You can eliminate 2 out of 3 singularities with change of variables, BUT NOT ALL OF THEM!

> > > > It happens that at α₁ and α₂, G(x) diverges to infinity, which indicates the impossibility to obtain any number or expression for the area.
> > > That is not true. The integrand is infinite at the boundaries of integration, but the integral is finite. See above. This is not unusual. To understand why,
> > > consider the area under 1/x^2 as x ranges from 1 to infinity. Just because the region has infinite width doesn't mean the area is infinite. The same applies
> > > to regions with infinite height.

Again a deaf person's dialog: You can get rid of ONE out of TWO singularities at the boundaries of integration, but not BOTH. It doesn't matter how
sophisticated is your variable's replacement. The only solution that remains is:

1) Remove the farthest singularity from the inverse polynomial (Einstein's solution). Prove that substitution introduces a negligible error (less than 0.0001).
2) Solve the remaining inverse quadratic polynomial by integrating within its TWO singularities. Apply here substitution of values (Newton's remains).

> > I insist: There is NO ANALYTICAL SOLUTION for the problem.
> Repeating your error doesn't make it correct. Remember, you said the reason there can be no analytic solution is that the integrand is infinite at the
> boundary, but I just gave you a trivial example of a finite integral that is infinite at the boundary. This illustrates that your reasoning is invalid.

Exactly a TRIVIAL example. Now try with the integral of the inverse square roots of a quadratic polynomial, EXACTLY between its singularities.
After all, it's all about HOW TO CALCULATE an area of an expression that diverges at infinity in both ends. Newton's methods for planet orbitals are problems
of THIS KIND. But you did an APPROXIMATION to the real problem with an inverse cubic polynomial.

Given that the DIFFERENCE that is been sought has a positive value and is about 1/1000000 of the numerical solution, I'd like to see how do you operate
with accuracy in such a difference on ε = (FINAL VALUE - π), being ε = +10E08. This is not a mathematical problem. This is a precision engineering problem.

> > [Einstein] cooked it with approximations that replaces the cubic polynomial with a quadratic one. So, he CHEATED!
> No, he was expressly evaluating the precession to just the lowest order of approximation, which is the only order that is large enough to be perceptible
> in this circumstance. That is not cheating. Of course, we can work out the solution analytically to all higher orders as well.

You seem to forget that Einstein's paper has ONLY ONE NUMBER: the famous 43" at the final. Not a single clue about the values of α, α₁, α₂ or ε are provided.
That would have been very interesting to know for what they were valued 105 years ago. A lot of data has changed since then (except for ε > 0).

> > I'm giving up finding an analytical solution...
> That is wise... you will never find it on your own.

Don't be so sure. In the end, ALL THE PROBLEM REDUCES TO calculate the length of HALF the perimeter of an ellipse, or his equivalent area.
And let me say this, under this new light: IT HAS NOT AN ANALYTICAL PROBLEM.. You have: Euler's approximation, Ramanujan's approximation, etc.

P ≈ π [ 3 (a + b) - √[(3a + b) (a + 3b) ]] P ≈ π (a + b) [ 1 + (3h) / (10 + √(4 - 3h) ) ], where h = (a - b)2/(a + b) (SEE? APPROXIMATION TO THE PERIMETER)

> > BTW, this is the paper that Dono called as, QUOTE, "A very good paper...."
> If it doesn't show you the simple and well-known analytic solution, it isn't a very good paper.

Because the author introduces ε as a KNOWN PARAMETER, when start the development, which is about to TRY TO PROVE that such PLANT OF ε is OK
within certain limits of error after truncating TWO INFINITE SERIES. This is not the problem. The problem is TO DERIVE ε.

> > The objective is to reach to Gerber's formula AT ANY COST.
> No, the objective is to account for the known non-Newtonian precession of orbits in a rational way that is not ad hoc. Gerber just smuggled in the
> known answer, which does not follow rationally from his (frankly wacky) premises, whereas the result follows quite naturally and unambiguously from
> the very plausible premises of general relativity (equivalence principle, etc.).

You are misguided on purpose here. You are denying the truth: Gerber used ε as a KNOWN PARAMETER, because his paper is about to find the value of c,
the speed of gravity, which resulted to be very close to the speed of light..

His goal was to prove that delayed gravitational potentials caused ε, which is (after all) what GR causes to the limits of "action at a distance" effects, that
forbid them to being instantaneous.

At any case, here we are discussing a fucking integral, to prove or disprove Einstein. Incredible how the things reduce to the elementary, isn't it?

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-8, imbecile Richard Hertz admits his cretinism:
> One is an imbecile retired EE, totally inept at math in general and at physics in specific, who has an insane fixation on Einstein

Right Dickie-boy, right

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 1:05:25 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

You, disgrace of a human being, has become an reincarnation of Paul Joseph Goebbels. You have succeeded on it, SOB!

A jew using nazi tacticts: LIE, THAT SOMETHING WILL REMAIN.

What a disgusting piece of shit you are. I feel pity for those who live around you, cretin.

Paul Joseph Goebbels: a German Nazi politician who was the Gauleiter of Berlin, chief propagandist for the Nazi Party,
and then Reich Minister of propaganda from 1933 to 1945

Goebbels quotes:

"A lie told once remains a lie but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth"

"If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself."

My contributions:

"If I, Dono, change what other people said to arrange it at my convenience, some idiots will believe it's true"

"I, Dono, have for highest purpose on life, to lie, to distort true and to make a living, in order to preserve the narrative about my pagan god, Einstein".

"I, Dono, believe that there are no enough low blows when it comes to defend my patrons, who feed me. I'm the rottweiler of hell in this forum, and
I live 24x7 permanent watch to attack who dares to question."

See, Dono? You are a fucking nazi jew. And this is a conflict that rotten your life and your soul. I called you a reptilian lifeform, because you have not
a single trace of humanity.

Life takes care of SOB like you: It's called KARMA, and never ever fails.

My purposes on this thread are clear since the OP: To prove Einstein wrong in this paper. It's a legitimate challenge, and should be dealt with respect.
You, on the contrary, are a dark person, who's hiding his agenda while monitoring this forum and reacting like the fucking piece of shit that you have being
for more than 15 years here. No less than 40 threads have been dedicated to show how despicable you are, but you never cease, because you need to
put your evil being at work. And, as this forum is, somehow, a sample of the character of a person, it pictures you as a miserable human being. You was born
that way, lives being such and will die being a miserable and despicable being (not human at all).

> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-8, imbecile Richard Hertz admits his cretinism:
>
> > One is an imbecile retired EE, totally inept at math in general and at physics in specific, who has an insane fixation on Einstein
>
>
> Right Dickie-boy, right

Op 24-nov.-2021 om 16:44 schreef Richard Hertz:
> THIS IS WHAT A DIALOG BETWEEN TWO DEAF PERSONS LOOKS LIKE:
>
> One is an retired EE,

Say no more.

Dirk Vdm

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 9:18:37 AM UTC-8, odious kapo Richard Hertz wrote:

>
> I, kapo Richard Hertz, am a disgrace of a human being and I am trying to become a reincarnation of Paul Joseph Goebbels. Nazi Party, and then Reich Minister of propaganda from 1933 to 1945
>

You are right again, Dick

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> A self-contradictory statement: "No closed form solution" but there is "a simple analytic solution".

Not at all. Suppose that you are seeking the value of f(x) and you determine that f(x) = x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ... This is an analytic function that converges for all x. You might say this is not a legitimate solution or "only approximate", but that isn't true in any meaningful sense, because it is a well-define analytic function. Now, if someone tells you that f(x)=sin(x), suddenly you are happy, and you say "that's an exact solution!". But that is just silly, because sin(x) is just a name given to that power series. They represent the same thing. Likewise we can analytically define the solution of the perihelion problem, as an analytic function of m/r. If you want to call that function Fred, then you can say the solution is Fred(m/r), just like sin(x).

> You can eliminate 2 out of 3 singularities with change of variables, BUT NOT ALL OF THEM!

The solution does not involve "eliminating" any singularities. The analytic function that solves the problem is well-behaved.
The point is that an integral with any number of singularities can have a finite value (I gave you a trivial example, which you can splice together into as many singularities as you like), so your argument is obviously specious.

> Exactly a TRIVIAL example.

The more trivial the counter-example to your claim, the more ridiculous is your claim.

> Now try with the integral of the inverse square roots of
> a quadratic polynomial, EXACTLY between its singularities.

That has already been done. We (meaning scientists) have the exact analytic function that is the solution of the perihelion integral. It doesn't happen to be a named function, like sine(m/r), but you can name it Fred(m/r) if you like.

> But you did an APPROXIMATION to the real problem with an inverse cubic polynomial.

No, it is solved exactly and analytically. It is no more an approximation than x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ... is an approximation of sin(x). Note the three dots.

> Not a single clue about the values of α, α₁, α₂ or ε are provided.

Huh? Those are just a orbital elements for Mercury.

Op 24-nov.-2021 om 20:54 schreef Townes Olson:
> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> A self-contradictory statement: "No closed form solution" but there is "a simple analytic solution".
>
> Not at all. Suppose that you are seeking the value of f(x) and you determine that f(x) = x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ... This is an analytic function that converges for all x. You might say this is not a legitimate solution or "only approximate", but that isn't true in any meaningful sense, because it is a well-define analytic function. Now, if someone tells you that f(x)=sin(x), suddenly you are happy, and you say "that's an exact solution!". But that is just silly, because sin(x) is just a name given to that power series. They represent the same thing. Likewise we can analytically define the solution of the perihelion problem, as an analytic function of m/r. If you want to call that function Fred, then you can say the solution is Fred(m/r), just like sin(x).

I can't believe this. You are lowering yourself to arguing
about such elementary mathematics. With an engineer of all
people. Good grief.

Dirk Vdm

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 6:01:06 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

<snip>

> I can't believe this. You are lowering yourself to arguing > about such elementary mathematics. With an engineer of all people. Good grief.
>
> Dirk Vdm

At least he's not posting about what happens with twins and imaginary rockets that fly at 800,000,000 Km/hour like you do, imbecile and asshole!

Your superiority complex should pay dearly in your fucking life, of which you WASTED 20% of the your past 20 years or more at this forum.

Your psychological profile has been deteriorating SEVERELY in your last 6 years here, becoming more and more a perfect imbecile asshole at this forum.

Dirk, know it: You are more the Inspector Closeau type of asshole than Mr. Bean type of asshole. At least Mr. Bean know that he's an asshole and
don't give a shit about it. But Closeau embrace his hubris with conviction.

I'll persist in the work about the topic of this thread because I CAN. And, regarding precission and accuracy, I have an entire professional life working
at the limits of state of the art instrumentation, so suffer and shut the fuck up.

To increase your pain, now I'm searching about the REAL ORIGIN of integrals for the inverse square root of quadratic polynomials, and I'm checking
the accuracy of some special integrals NUMERICALLY, because I can. And I have more SW tools than a fucking Excel, with precision well beyond 30
digits, if I want. Now, eat your soup and go to bed, imbecile.

On 11/24/2021 4:43 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 6:01:06 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I can't believe this. You are lowering yourself to arguing > about such elementary mathematics. With an engineer of all people. Good grief.

> Your superiority complex should pay dearly in your fucking life, of which you WASTED 20% of the your past 20 years or more at this forum.
>

And how many years of your life have you wasted by barking at the 1905
SR paper and your obsession of hating Einstein for no other reason than
'just because' ?

Op 24-nov.-2021 om 23:54 schreef Michael Moroney:
> On 11/24/2021 4:43 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 6:01:06 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de
>> moortel wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I can't believe this. You are lowering yourself to arguing > about
>>> such elementary mathematics. With an engineer of all people. Good grief.
>
>> Your superiority complex should pay dearly in your fucking life, of
>> which you WASTED 20% of the your past 20 years or more at this forum.
>>
>
> And how many years of your life have you wasted by barking at the 1905
> SR paper and your obsession of hating Einstein for no other reason than
> 'just because' ?

Hold on. Not 'just because'.
For no other reason than because 'I really, honestly don't get it,
and I SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD! Because I am an ENGINEER GODDAMMIT!'

Dirk Vdm

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 2:59:16 PM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 24-nov.-2021 om 23:54 schreef Michael Moroney:
> > On 11/24/2021 4:43 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 6:01:06 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de
> >> moortel wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>> I can't believe this. You are lowering yourself to arguing > about
> >>> such elementary mathematics. With an engineer of all people. Good grief.
> >
> >> Your superiority complex should pay dearly in your fucking life, of
> >> which you WASTED 20% of the your past 20 years or more at this forum.
> >>
> >
> > And how many years of your life have you wasted by barking at the 1905
> > SR paper and your obsession of hating Einstein for no other reason than
> > 'just because' ?
> Hold on. Not 'just because'.
> For no other reason than because 'I really, honestly don't get it,
> and I SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD! Because I am an ENGINEER GODDAMMIT!'
>
> Dirk Vdm

What makes Richard Hertz stand out:

1. He dabbles in GR (like Koobee Wublee)
2. He's strident, he gets quickly violent when proven wrong
3. He dabbles in calculus (and fails miserably)
4. He is very conceited
5. He is Jewish but he's an antisemite, with a deep hatred for Einstein in specific (just like "hanson")
6. He is an exponent of the Nazi doctrine of Deutsche Physik (cannot like enough ass the Gerber, Soldner, etc)

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 3:18:25 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 2:59:16 PM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > Op 24-nov.-2021 om 23:54 schreef Michael Moroney:
> > > On 11/24/2021 4:43 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 6:01:06 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de
> > >> moortel wrote:
> > >>
> > >> <snip>
> > >>
> > >>> I can't believe this. You are lowering yourself to arguing > about
> > >>> such elementary mathematics. With an engineer of all people. Good grief.
> > >
> > >> Your superiority complex should pay dearly in your fucking life, of
> > >> which you WASTED 20% of the your past 20 years or more at this forum.
> > >>
> > >
> > > And how many years of your life have you wasted by barking at the 1905
> > > SR paper and your obsession of hating Einstein for no other reason than
> > > 'just because' ?
> > Hold on. Not 'just because'.
> > For no other reason than because 'I really, honestly don't get it,
> > and I SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD! Because I am an ENGINEER GODDAMMIT!'
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
> What makes Richard Hertz stand out:
>
> 1. He dabbles in GR (like Koobee Wublee)
> 2. He's strident, he gets quickly violent when proven wrong
> 3. He dabbles in calculus (and fails miserably)
> 4. He is very conceited
> 5. He is Jewish but he's an antisemite, with a deep hatred for Einstein in specific (just like "hanson")
> 6. He is an exponent of the Nazi doctrine of Deutsche Physik (cannot lick enough ass to the likes of Gerber, Soldner, etc)

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 8:19:39 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> > What makes Richard Hertz stand out:
> >
> > 1. He dabbles in GR (like Koobee Wublee)

I returned here on July 2021, after a trial by 2019. I never liked GR or SR just because are
fairy tails (SR) and products of sick MINDS (GR).
Space is Euclidean, the Universe is infinite and eternal, no length contraction exist, t' = t,
the only BB that happened was when you farted after eating a burrito, and the only thing
that has severe time delay and is twisted is your fucking rotten brain.
I started to meddle with GR, months ago, only to make all of you cry foul, faggots.

> > 2. He's strident, he gets quickly violent when proven wrong

And the fucking nazi jew accuse me of written violence. Just you, piece of shit,
with your 15 years of recorded insults in this forum only. What a cretin.
I can be violent with words, but is up to others to counteract. You can't, because I word
every phrase in the most possible hurting way to make you cry. Obviously, I succeed and
you don't have the INTELLIGENCE to reply accordingly, because YOU ARE AN IMBECILE.
Don't play if you are not apt enough for the wording game.

> > 3. He dabbles in calculus (and fails miserably)

I'm relearning calculus after decades of oblivion. Rusty at the start, but gaining traction
day after day. It's called REFINEMENT OF LEARNING CURVE BY SUCCESSIVE STEPS..
A valuable lesson for any of you. What is more, now I'm willing to use the PC up to the
limit of precision in any mathematical expression, and I will not tolerate less than six sigma
of errors to accept something. I can do it, and I will do it.

For instance, TODAY I verified that the error replacing 1/√(1 - αx) ≈ 1 + α/2 x is lower than
2E-15 for the integration range between α₁ and α₂, what allows me to continue with quadratic
polynomials. Also, reversing the development of the solution for the integral ∫ [dx/√ [- (x - α₁) (x - α₂)
allowed me to find substitutions by exponentials.

See how it works, retarded? Refinement by successive steps, plus the PLEASURE to confirm things by myself,
without using any book (except to fact-check). And I enjoy this game, and will continue until satisfaction.

> > 4. He is very conceited

I'm not going around like you, Dork, Jan and others, showing off knowledge that you BORROWED. I'm developing
know how on myself, but I'm not the type of person who is intellectually racist like you all, cretins.

> > 5. He is Jewish but he's an antisemite, with a deep hatred for Einstein in specific (just like "hanson")

Fuck you. You are more a nazi than a jew. You would have fit perfectly with Ukrainian jews that sided with Hitler's SS in WWII.
There is a lot still there, where you should live.

> > 6. He is an exponent of the Nazi doctrine of Deutsche Physik (cannot lick enough ass to the likes of Gerber, Soldner, etc)

Von Soldner died 180 years ago. Gerber died in 1908. Are you so in despair that uses whatever you can trying to construct a LIE?

Not only a nazi jew, but a FAILED nazi jew. That's you, nazi Dono (pathetic Dono sounds similar to me).

AND I'LL CONTINUE TRYING TO PROVE NUMERICALLY THAT EINSTEIN'S PAPER ON MERCURY IS FRAUDULENT.
I already did, theoretically in the OP here. Now, I'll try to do numerically.

And, finally, fuck you, cretin.

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 5:21:58 PM UTC-8, dumbestfuck Richard Hertz brainfarted:
> I never liked GR or SR just because are fairy tails (SR) and products of sick MINDS (GR).
> Space is Euclidean, the Universe is infinite and eternal, no length contraction exist, t' = t,
> the only BB that happened was when you farted after eating a burrito, and the only thing
> that has severe time delay and is twisted is your fucking rotten brain.

Very entertaining, keep it up, dumbestfuck!

On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 22:01:06 UTC+1, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 24-nov.-2021 om 20:54 schreef Townes Olson:
> > On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >> A self-contradictory statement: "No closed form solution" but there is "a simple analytic solution".
> >
> > Not at all. Suppose that you are seeking the value of f(x) and you determine that f(x) = x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ... This is an analytic function that converges for all x. You might say this is not a legitimate solution or "only approximate", but that isn't true in any meaningful sense, because it is a well-define analytic function. Now, if someone tells you that f(x)=sin(x), suddenly you are happy, and you say "that's an exact solution!". But that is just silly, because sin(x) is just a name given to that power series. They represent the same thing. Likewise we can analytically define the solution of the perihelion problem, as an analytic function of m/r. If you want to call that function Fred, then you can say the solution is Fred(m/r), just like sin(x).
> I can't believe this. You are lowering yourself to arguing
> about such elementary mathematics. With an engineer of all
> people. Good grief.

Speaking of mathematics, it's always good to remind that
your moronic cult had to announce its oldest part false,
as it didn't want to cooperate with the Holy Postulates.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 8:19:39 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> What makes Richard Hertz stand out:
>>>
>>> 1. He dabbles in GR (like Koobee Wublee)
>
> I returned here on July 2021, after a trial by 2019. I never liked GR or
> SR just because are
> fairy tails (SR) and products of sick MINDS (GR).
> Space is Euclidean, the Universe is infinite and eternal, no length
> contraction exist, t' = t,
> the only BB that happened was when you farted after eating a burrito, and the only thing
> that has severe time delay and is twisted is your fucking rotten brain.
> I started to meddle with GR, months ago, only to make all of you cry foul, faggots.
>
>
>>> 2. He's strident, he gets quickly violent when proven wrong
>
> And the fucking nazi jew accuse me of written violence. Just you, piece of shit,
> with your 15 years of recorded insults in this forum only. What a cretin.
> I can be violent with words, but is up to others to counteract. You can't, because I word
> every phrase in the most possible hurting way to make you cry. Obviously, I succeed and
> you don't have the INTELLIGENCE to reply accordingly, because YOU ARE AN IMBECILE.
> Don't play if you are not apt enough for the wording game.
>
>>> 3. He dabbles in calculus (and fails miserably)
>
> I'm relearning calculus after decades of oblivion. Rusty at the start, but gaining traction
> day after day. It's called REFINEMENT OF LEARNING CURVE BY SUCCESSIVE STEPS.
> A valuable lesson for any of you. What is more, now I'm willing to use the PC up to the
> limit of precision in any mathematical expression, and I will not
> tolerate less than six sigma
> of errors to accept something. I can do it, and I will do it.
>
> For instance, TODAY I verified that the error replacing 1/√(1 - αx) ≈ 1 +
> α/2 x is lower than
> 2E-15 for the integration range between α₁ and α₂, what allows me to
> continue with quadratic
> polynomials. Also, reversing the development of
> the solution for the integral ∫ [dx/√ [- (x - α₁) (x - α₂)
> allowed me to find substitutions by exponentials.
>
> See how it works, retarded? Refinement by successive steps, plus the
> PLEASURE to confirm things by myself,
> without using any book (except to fact-check). And I enjoy this game, and
> will continue until satisfaction.
>
>>> 4. He is very conceited
>
> I'm not going around like you, Dork, Jan and others, showing off
> knowledge that you BORROWED. I'm developing
> know how on myself, but I'm not the type of person who is intellectually
> racist like you all, cretins.
>
>>> 5. He is Jewish but he's an antisemite, with a deep hatred for Einstein
>>> in specific (just like "hanson")
>
> Fuck you. You are more a nazi than a jew. You would have fit perfectly
> with Ukrainian jews that sided with Hitler's SS in WWII.
> There is a lot still there, where you should live.
>
>>> 6. He is an exponent of the Nazi doctrine of Deutsche Physik (cannot
>>> lick enough ass to the likes of Gerber, Soldner, etc)
>
> Von Soldner died 180 years ago. Gerber died in 1908. Are you so in
> despair that uses whatever you can trying to construct a LIE?
>
> Not only a nazi jew, but a FAILED nazi jew. That's you, nazi Dono
> (pathetic Dono sounds similar to me).
>
> AND I'LL CONTINUE TRYING TO PROVE NUMERICALLY THAT EINSTEIN'S PAPER ON
> MERCURY IS FRAUDULENT.
> I already did, theoretically in the OP here. Now, I'll try to do numerically.
>
> And, finally, fuck you, cretin.
>
>

My, my, my. Don Quixote hones his rusty lance to tilt at windmills.
Cursing the whole while.

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

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 5:46:47 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 8:19:39 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>> What makes Richard Hertz stand out:
> >>>
> >>> 1. He dabbles in GR (like Koobee Wublee)
> >
> > I returned here on July 2021, after a trial by 2019. I never liked GR or
> > SR just because are
> > fairy tails (SR) and products of sick MINDS (GR).
> > Space is Euclidean, the Universe is infinite and eternal, no length
> > contraction exist, t' = t,
> > the only BB that happened was when you farted after eating a burrito, and the only thing
> > that has severe time delay and is twisted is your fucking rotten brain.
> > I started to meddle with GR, months ago, only to make all of you cry foul, faggots.
> >
> >
> >>> 2. He's strident, he gets quickly violent when proven wrong
> >
> > And the fucking nazi jew accuse me of written violence. Just you, piece of shit,
> > with your 15 years of recorded insults in this forum only. What a cretin.
> > I can be violent with words, but is up to others to counteract. You can't, because I word
> > every phrase in the most possible hurting way to make you cry. Obviously, I succeed and
> > you don't have the INTELLIGENCE to reply accordingly, because YOU ARE AN IMBECILE.
> > Don't play if you are not apt enough for the wording game.
> >
> >>> 3. He dabbles in calculus (and fails miserably)
> >
> > I'm relearning calculus after decades of oblivion. Rusty at the start, but gaining traction
> > day after day. It's called REFINEMENT OF LEARNING CURVE BY SUCCESSIVE STEPS.
> > A valuable lesson for any of you. What is more, now I'm willing to use the PC up to the
> > limit of precision in any mathematical expression, and I will not
> > tolerate less than six sigma
> > of errors to accept something. I can do it, and I will do it.
> >
> > For instance, TODAY I verified that the error replacing 1/√(1 - αx) ≈ 1 +
> > α/2 x is lower than
> > 2E-15 for the integration range between α₁ and α₂, what allows me to
> > continue with quadratic
> > polynomials. Also, reversing the development of
> > the solution for the integral ∫ [dx/√ [- (x - α₁) (x - α₂)
> > allowed me to find substitutions by exponentials.
> >
> > See how it works, retarded? Refinement by successive steps, plus the
> > PLEASURE to confirm things by myself,
> > without using any book (except to fact-check). And I enjoy this game, and
> > will continue until satisfaction.
> >
> >>> 4. He is very conceited
> >
> > I'm not going around like you, Dork, Jan and others, showing off
> > knowledge that you BORROWED. I'm developing
> > know how on myself, but I'm not the type of person who is intellectually
> > racist like you all, cretins.
> >
> >>> 5. He is Jewish but he's an antisemite, with a deep hatred for Einstein
> >>> in specific (just like "hanson")
> >
> > Fuck you. You are more a nazi than a jew. You would have fit perfectly
> > with Ukrainian jews that sided with Hitler's SS in WWII.
> > There is a lot still there, where you should live.
> >
> >>> 6. He is an exponent of the Nazi doctrine of Deutsche Physik (cannot
> >>> lick enough ass to the likes of Gerber, Soldner, etc)
> >
> > Von Soldner died 180 years ago. Gerber died in 1908. Are you so in
> > despair that uses whatever you can trying to construct a LIE?
> >
> > Not only a nazi jew, but a FAILED nazi jew. That's you, nazi Dono
> > (pathetic Dono sounds similar to me).
> >
> > AND I'LL CONTINUE TRYING TO PROVE NUMERICALLY THAT EINSTEIN'S PAPER ON
> > MERCURY IS FRAUDULENT.
> > I already did, theoretically in the OP here. Now, I'll try to do numerically.
> >
> > And, finally, fuck you, cretin.
> >
> >
> My, my, my. Don Quixote hones his rusty lance to tilt at windmills.
> Cursing the whole while.
Exactly. He's losing more of the plot with every post.