On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 12:47:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> The extraction of the third root of a polynomial, given that you know the other two, is
> a process that is known since 250 years!

Yes, and that's how we know that the third root is not 1/a.

> Also, if you have P(x) = [- (x - α₁) (x – α₂) (1 - αx)], the third root is at plain sight (x = 1/α).

But we don't have that, i.e., that expression contains the error. What we actually have is the cubic polynomial ax^2 - x^2 + (a/B^2)x + 2A/B^2, and it follows that if a1,a2,a3 are the roots, then we have 1/a = a1 + a2 + a3. You have mistakenly assumed that 1/a = a3, which is wrong. If you fix that mistake, you get the right precession rate.

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 3:42:16 PM UTC-8, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 12:47:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > The extraction of the third root of a polynomial, given that you know the other two, is
> > a process that is known since 250 years!
> Yes, and that's how we know that the third root is not 1/a.
> > Also, if you have P(x) = [- (x - α₁) (x – α₂) (1 - αx)], the third root is at plain sight (x = 1/α).
> But we don't have that, i.e., that expression contains the error. What we actually have is the cubic polynomial ax^2 - x^2 + (a/B^2)x + 2A/B^2, and it follows that if a1,a2,a3 are the roots, then we have 1/a = a1 + a2 + a3. You have mistakenly assumed that 1/a = a3, which is wrong. If you fix that mistake, you get the right precession rate.

The author of the paper the idiot is following made the same mistake, this is why the Dick is so adamant

El viernes, 3 de diciembre de 2021 a las 16:23:46 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 3:57:20 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> > El viernes, 3 de diciembre de 2021 a las 15:01:09 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> >
> > > Before all, to Paparios (Miguelito): Siempre supe que eras un boludo, pero ahora sos un boludo ignorante. La peor clase.
> > >
> > Keep up the good job of entertaining us. If you had any minimal research capability, you would not be writing all your nonsense here, but you will be writing a paper and submitting it to some journal (preferably cited by ISI) and you would find if some one (any one) disagree with the notion that you are nuts.
> > > Now, you (Townes), Dono and the newcomer Miguelito (AKA Paparios) have to return your degrees from HIGH SCHOOL, ignorants!
> > At least we have some degrees!!!
> Don't be an asshole! I started this shit about 1 month ago because I saw funny things on Einstein's paper, which didn't fit reason.
>
> Never before I gave a shit about GR, except to prove that Einstein was a complete imbecile, cretin and crook. The Einstein-Besso
> manuscript, which I analyzed very carefully months ago, gave me proofs of their complete ineptitude. I couldn't believe what I read.
>
> And, in this way, this story started.
>
> I don't have any interest in research about GR. I'm just learning new things or relearning things that I haven't used for decades.
>
> I'm retired, and with a lot of time available to study whatever I want.
>
> But studying about the shitty relativity and post here controversial truths is PRICELESS, and very entertaining when I observe reactions.

In other words, you are a typical troll!!!!

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 3:52:53 PM UTC-8, Paparios wrote:
> El viernes, 3 de diciembre de 2021 a las 16:23:46 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> > On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 3:57:20 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> > > El viernes, 3 de diciembre de 2021 a las 15:01:09 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> > >
> > > > Before all, to Paparios (Miguelito): Siempre supe que eras un boludo, pero ahora sos un boludo ignorante. La peor clase.
> > > >
> > > Keep up the good job of entertaining us. If you had any minimal research capability, you would not be writing all your nonsense here, but you will be writing a paper and submitting it to some journal (preferably cited by ISI) and you would find if some one (any one) disagree with the notion that you are nuts.
> > > > Now, you (Townes), Dono and the newcomer Miguelito (AKA Paparios) have to return your degrees from HIGH SCHOOL, ignorants!
> > > At least we have some degrees!!!
> > Don't be an asshole! I started this shit about 1 month ago because I saw funny things on Einstein's paper, which didn't fit reason.
> >
> > Never before I gave a shit about GR, except to prove that Einstein was a complete imbecile, cretin and crook. The Einstein-Besso
> > manuscript, which I analyzed very carefully months ago, gave me proofs of their complete ineptitude. I couldn't believe what I read.
> >
> > And, in this way, this story started.
> >
> > I don't have any interest in research about GR. I'm just learning new things or relearning things that I haven't used for decades.
> >
> > I'm retired, and with a lot of time available to study whatever I want.
> >
> > But studying about the shitty relativity and post here controversial truths is PRICELESS, and very entertaining when I observe reactions.
> In other words, you are a typical troll!!!!

The Dick is very similar to Kobee Wublee :

1. Calculates (all his calculations are wrong)
2. He is a rabid antisemite in general and hates Einstein in specific
3. He is a proud exponent of Deutsche Physik (Lennard and co)

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 8:42:16 PM UTC-3, Townes Olson wrote:

<snip>

> Yes, and that's how we know that the third root is not 1/a.

> > Also, if you have P(x) = [- (x - α₁) (x – α₂) (1 - αx)], the third root is at plain sight (x = 1/α).

> But we don't have that, i.e., that expression contains the error. What we actually have is the cubic polynomial ax^2 - x^2 + (a/B^2)x + 2A/B^2, and it follows that if a1,a2,a3 are the roots, then we have 1/a = a1 + a2 + a3. You have mistakenly assumed that 1/a = a3, which is wrong. If you fix that mistake, you get the right precession rate.

Kid, you are so ignorant that I don't believe you wrote the above being in your sane judgement.

Maybe later I'll post the demonstration, but I doubt you will understand. Not because it's difficult, not at all. It's high school math.

What happens here is that you are a DEVIATED TROLL, not an IGNORANT. You are like Dono IN DISGUISE: RETORTED AND CRETIN.

You lie, you change text and attribute it to me, you invent any STUPID math use of known theories, you distort, you're relentless,
you are a cretin: YOU ARE DONO.

And Paparios, fuck you, stupid chileno.

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 5:06:29 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 8:42:16 PM UTC-3, Townes Olson wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Yes, and that's how we know that the third root is not 1/a.
>
> > > Also, if you have P(x) = [- (x - α₁) (x – α₂) (1 - αx)], the third root is at plain sight (x = 1/α).
>
> > But we don't have that, i.e., that expression contains the error. What we actually have is the cubic polynomial ax^2 - x^2 + (a/B^2)x + 2A/B^2, and it follows that if a1,a2,a3 are the roots, then we have 1/a = a1 + a2 + a3. You have mistakenly assumed that 1/a = a3, which is wrong. If you fix that mistake, you get the right precession rate.
> Kid, you are so ignorant that I don't believe you wrote the above being in your sane judgement.
>
> Maybe later I'll post the demonstration, but I doubt you will understand. Not because it's difficult, not at all. It's high school math.
>
> What happens here is that you are a DEVIATED TROLL, not an IGNORANT. You are like Dono IN DISGUISE: RETORTED AND CRETIN.
>
> You lie, you change text and attribute it to me, you invent any STUPID math use of known theories, you distort, you're relentless,
> you are a cretin: YOU ARE DONO.
>
> And Paparios, fuck you, stupid chileno.

Pants on fire, Dickie-boy, you have been arsed.