I'm reposting this excerpt from a recent post of mine, which I find amusing..

Remember Newton Law of Universal Gravitation?

He stated a very simple equation:

F = GMm/r²,

which works almost perfectly, for instance, to measure your weight.

Now, watch what Einstein did, to offer as a theoretical proof of GR in
Nov. 1915. He STATED (and asked for Newton's forgiveness) that

F' = GMm/r² [1 + B²/(m²c²r²)]

where B is the angular moment of whatever with a mass m spinning around M.

So, thanks to Einstein next time you control your weight. Now you have to include your mass m, which is orbiting around
the center of Earth, at height of 6.3 Km and with a period of almost 24 hours.

Your NEW WEIGHT, not measured by any scale at a drugstore YET, will be given in EINSTEINS, not NEWTONS.

He ACTUALLY REDEFINED the gravitational potential energy as:

U = GMm/r [1 + B²/(m²c²r²)] = 1/2 α m/r [1 + B²/(m²c²r²)]

where α was HIS FUDGE of the gravitational potential under relativity,
derived from his 1911 attempt to use E = mc² in gravitational energy..

α = Rs = 2GM/c² , known later as Schwarzschild's radius for the Sun.

which did his stellar first ever utilization on his paper on Mercury, where
also used it to mention a new value of 1.75" of arc for star light deflection
when passing by the Sun.

θ = 2α/Δ = 2 (2/c²) GM/Δ = 1.75" of arc if Δ = Rs ( Sun's radius).

TWICE his 1911 value: θ = (2GM/c²)/Δ = α/Δ = 0.83" of arc.

All that he did was to INVENT α = 2GM/c², and use 1 for c, m, G and M, with
the excuse of using GEOMETRICAL or NATURAL units. In this way, and
exploiting the use of E = mc², he shoved GR into the throat of retarded
people for 100 years.

Such invention, pulled out of his ass, corrected his prior calculation of
about 18" of arc/century in his failed attempts with his 1913/14 Entwurf.

He just DOUBLED Newton's gravitational potential, inventing his relativistic
gravitational potential α = 2GM/c².

And the same change can be applied to the gravitational blue shifting and
the success of GPS!

He was really an inept charlatan and fraudster, because the actual value
for his development on Mercury problem gives ε = -14.33" of arc/cy, and
no the published fraud of ε = +43" of arc/cy, following Gerber.

I don't care that many others, using Schwarzschild's metric, and 100s of
variations, got 43". His paper was WRONG. He knew that, and he
committed FRAUD at plain sight.

Of course, Einstein's bitches will cry foul and will jump on my throat. He
cheated to obtain Gerber, and it can be proven with high school algebra.

Everyone criticizing him by 1917 was HALF RIGHT. They didn't analyze the
paper thoroughly enough, or the SCANDAL would have been HUGE:

Imagine this headline at newspapers by 1916:

EINSTEIN, THE IMBECILE PLAGIARIST, GOT CAUGHT!

That would have been the end of the fucking relativity. No Eddington, no
"all lights skew" or "Newton dethroned" shit.

Physics would had advanced in a SANE way, much more than with the fucker.

Did you EVER questioned yourself WHY there is NOT A SINGLE PHYSICAL UNIT named after Einstein?

Why?

On 13-Dec-21 3:47 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> I'm reposting this excerpt from a recent post of mine, which I find amusing.
>
> Remember Newton Law of Universal Gravitation?
>
> He stated a very simple equation:
>
> F = GMm/r²,
>
> which works almost perfectly, for instance, to measure your weight.

As you say, "almost" perfectly.

>
> Now, watch what Einstein did, to offer as a theoretical proof of GR in

General relativity is a theory. Theories do not get proven.

> Nov. 1915. He STATED (and asked for Newton's forgiveness) that
>
> F' = GMm/r² [1 + B²/(m²c²r²)]
>
> where B is the angular moment of whatever with a mass m spinning around M.
>
> So, thanks to Einstein next time you control your weight. Now you have to include your mass m, which is orbiting around
> the center of Earth, at height of 6.3 Km and with a period of almost 24 hours.
>
> Your NEW WEIGHT, not measured by any scale at a drugstore YET, will be given in EINSTEINS, not NEWTONS.
>
> He ACTUALLY REDEFINED the gravitational potential energy as:
>
> U = GMm/r [1 + B²/(m²c²r²)] = 1/2 α m/r [1 + B²/(m²c²r²)]
>
> where α was HIS FUDGE of the gravitational potential under relativity,
> derived from his 1911 attempt to use E = mc² in gravitational energy.
>
> α = Rs = 2GM/c² , known later as Schwarzschild's radius for the Sun.
>
> which did his stellar first ever utilization on his paper on Mercury, where
> also used it to mention a new value of 1.75" of arc for star light deflection
> when passing by the Sun.
>
> θ = 2α/Δ = 2 (2/c²) GM/Δ = 1.75" of arc if Δ = Rs ( Sun's radius).
>
> TWICE his 1911 value: θ = (2GM/c²)/Δ = α/Δ = 0.83" of arc.
>
> All that he did was to INVENT α = 2GM/c², and use 1 for c, m, G and M, with
> the excuse of using GEOMETRICAL or NATURAL units. In this way, and
> exploiting the use of E = mc², he shoved GR into the throat of retarded
> people for 100 years.
>
> Such invention, pulled out of his ass, corrected his prior calculation of
> about 18" of arc/century in his failed attempts with his 1913/14 Entwurf.
>
> He just DOUBLED Newton's gravitational potential, inventing his relativistic
> gravitational potential α = 2GM/c².
>
> And the same change can be applied to the gravitational blue shifting and
> the success of GPS!
>
> He was really an inept charlatan and fraudster, because the actual value
> for his development on Mercury problem gives ε = -14.33" of arc/cy, and
> no the published fraud of ε = +43" of arc/cy, following Gerber.
>
> I don't care that many others, using Schwarzschild's metric, and 100s of
> variations, got 43". His paper was WRONG. He knew that, and he
> committed FRAUD at plain sight.
>
> Of course, Einstein's bitches will cry foul and will jump on my throat. He
> cheated to obtain Gerber, and it can be proven with high school algebra.
>
> Everyone criticizing him by 1917 was HALF RIGHT. They didn't analyze the
> paper thoroughly enough, or the SCANDAL would have been HUGE:
>
> Imagine this headline at newspapers by 1916:
>
> EINSTEIN, THE IMBECILE PLAGIARIST, GOT CAUGHT!
>
> That would have been the end of the fucking relativity. No Eddington, no
> "all lights skew" or "Newton dethroned" shit.
>
> Physics would had advanced in a SANE way, much more than with the fucker.
>
>
>
> Did you EVER questioned yourself WHY there is NOT A SINGLE PHYSICAL UNIT named after Einstein?
>
> Why?
>

When measuring your weight, good luck detecting any difference with that
c^2 term in the divisor.

Sylvia.

On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 8:47:34 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> I'm reposting this excerpt from a recent post of mine, which I find amusing.
>
> Remember Newton Law of Universal Gravitation?
>
> He stated a very simple equation:
>
> F = GMm/r²,
>
> which works almost perfectly, for instance, to measure your weight.

Except it's false.

> Now, watch what Einstein did, to offer as a theoretical proof of GR in
> Nov. 1915. He STATED (and asked for Newton's forgiveness) that
>
> F' = GMm/r² [1 + B²/(m²c²r²)]

Not worth a detailed response. Check with your psychiatrist.

--
Jan

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:58:21 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 8:47:34 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

> > F = GMm/r²,
> >
> > which works almost perfectly, for instance, to measure your weight.

> Except it's false.

Ignorant negationist.

A scale or balance is a device to measure weight or mass, and there are hundred of millions worldwide.

The force F = GMm/r² = m d²r/dt² = m.g (Kg m/s² or Newton) is known as your weight when m is your mass.

The correct expression Kg-force has degenerated into Kg (mass), as it was popularized as being a natural unit
to express the force of gravity on Earth's surface.

You don't need psychiatric help. You just need a big African adult male to put you in place, resented.

On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 8:47:34 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> I'm reposting this imbecility

Yep

Richard Hertz wrote:

> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:58:21 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 8:47:34 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> <snip>
>> > F = GMm/r²,
>> > which works almost perfectly, for instance, to measure your weight.
>
>> Except it's false.
>
> Ignorant negationist.
> A scale or balance is a device to measure weight or mass, and there are
> hundred of millions worldwide.

how would you measure the mass without a gravity force. I said measure,
not approximation.

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:32:28 PM UTC-3, Dwight Batta wrote:
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:58:21 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> >> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 8:47:34 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> > F = GMm/r²,
> >> > which works almost perfectly, for instance, to measure your weight.
> >
> >> Except it's false.
> >
> > Ignorant negationist.
> > A scale or balance is a device to measure weight or mass, and there are
> > hundred of millions worldwide

> how would you measure the mass without a gravity force. I said measure,
> not approximation.

Relativists will find a way to express it as m = E/c². Of course, this imply that
energy has to be measured with certain accuracy (not precission, exactly).

Or will jump on you telling that gravitational masses can be derived from measured
perihelion and aphelion (some astrophysicist really did it in this way), or from some
orbital parameters in stellar bodies, etc.

Regarding YOUR mass or weight, well, no answers.

Ask this to a relativistic physics professor, and he will run for his life of lies.

Richard Hertz wrote:

>> how would you measure the mass without a gravity force. I said measure,
>> not approximation.
>
> Relativists will find a way to express it as m = E/c². Of course, this
> imply that energy has to be measured with certain accuracy (not
> precission, exactly).
>
> Or will jump on you telling that gravitational masses can be derived
> from measured perihelion and aphelion (some astrophysicist really did it
> in this way), or from some orbital parameters in stellar bodies, etc.

well, those are observations, not measurements.

On 12/12/2021 11:47 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> I'm reposting this excerpt from a recent post of mine, which I find amusing.
>
> Remember Newton Law of Universal Gravitation?
>
> He stated a very simple equation:
>
> F = GMm/r²,
>
> which works almost perfectly, for instance, to measure your weight.
>
> Now, watch what Einstein did, to offer as a theoretical proof of GR in
> Nov. 1915. He STATED (and asked for Newton's forgiveness) that
>
> F' = GMm/r² [1 + B²/(m²c²r²)]
>
> where B is the angular moment of whatever with a mass m spinning around M.
>
> So, thanks to Einstein next time you control your weight. Now you have to include your mass m, which is orbiting around
> the center of Earth, at height of 6.3 Km and with a period of almost 24 hours.

Did you calculate how much this affects the weight of an 80 kg person on
earth? And you claim to be an engineer?
>
> Your NEW WEIGHT, not measured by any scale at a drugstore YET, will be given in EINSTEINS, not NEWTONS.
>
> He ACTUALLY REDEFINED the gravitational potential energy as:

"Redefined" is the wrong word. It is the formula predicted by GR.
>
> U = GMm/r [1 + B²/(m²c²r²)] = 1/2 α m/r [1 + B²/(m²c²r²)]
>
> where α was HIS FUDGE of the gravitational potential under relativity,

Looks like α = 2GM, not a 'fudge'.

> derived from his 1911 attempt to use E = mc² in gravitational energy.
>
> α = Rs = 2GM/c² , known later as Schwarzschild's radius for the Sun.

Different from how it was used by yourself a couple lines earlier. Which
is correct?

> He just DOUBLED Newton's gravitational potential, inventing his relativistic
> gravitational potential α = 2GM/c².

Did you read the part where he explained where he got his figure and why
it is double Newton's value?
>
> And the same change can be applied to the gravitational blue shifting and
> the success of GPS!

The GPS works, you cannot deny that, even if the drunk janitor denies it.

> That would have been the end of the fucking relativity. No Eddington, no
> "all lights skew" or "Newton dethroned" shit.

Science doesn't care who discovers it. Relativity would be there
waiting for someone else to come along and discover it, had there been
no Einstein.

> Did you EVER questioned yourself WHY there is NOT A SINGLE PHYSICAL UNIT named after Einstein?
>
> Why?
>
Kind of unfair that Einstein doesn't have a unit (yet?), isn't it.

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 12/12/2021 11:47 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

>
>> Did you EVER questioned yourself WHY there is NOT A SINGLE PHYSICAL UNIT
>> named after Einstein?
>>
>> Why?
>>
> Kind of unfair that Einstein doesn't have a unit (yet?), isn't it.
>

Because, as you know, any physicist who doesn’t have a unit named after him
isn’t worth all the deity worship that doesn’t actually happen except in
Richard Hertz’s OCD-riddled mind.

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

On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 8:47:34 PM UTC-8, dumbestfuck Richard Hertz inserted his feet into his mouth:
> I'm reposting this excerpt from a recent post of mine, which I find amusing.
>
> Remember Newton Law of Universal Gravitation?
>
> He stated a very simple equation:
>
> F = GMm/r²,
>
> which works almost perfectly, for instance, to measure your weight.
>
> Now, watch what Einstein did, to offer as a theoretical proof of GR in
> Nov. 1915. He STATED (and asked for Newton's forgiveness) that
>
> F' = GMm/r² [1 + B²/(m²c²r²)]
>
> where B is the angular moment of whatever with a mass m spinning around M..
>

Dumbestfuck,
The formula is the Earth quadrupole formula (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrupole#Gravitational_quadrupole) and takes into consideration that the Earth is rotating, thus there is a centrifugal force that needs to be subtracted.

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 4:07:15 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 8:47:34 PM UTC-8, dumbestfuck Richard Hertz inserted his feet into his mouth:
> > I'm reposting this excerpt from a recent post of mine, which I find amusing.
> >
> > Remember Newton Law of Universal Gravitation?
> >
> > He stated a very simple equation:
> >
> > F = GMm/r²,
> >
> > which works almost perfectly, for instance, to measure your weight.
> >
> > Now, watch what Einstein did, to offer as a theoretical proof of GR in
> > Nov. 1915. He STATED (and asked for Newton's forgiveness) that
> >
> > F' = GMm/r² [1 + B²/(m²c²r²)]
> >
> > where B is the angular moment of whatever with a mass m spinning around M.
> >
> Dumbestfuck,
> The formula is the Earth quadrupole formula (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrupole#Gravitational_quadrupole) and takes into consideration that the Earth is rotating, thus there is a centrifugal force that needs to be subtracted. Take a class , dumbestfuck: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/earth-atmospheric-and-planetary-sciences/12-201-essentials-of-geophysics-fall-2004/lecture-notes/ch2.pdf

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 9:07:15 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 8:47:34 PM UTC-8, dumbestfuck Richard Hertz inserted his feet into his mouth:
> > I'm reposting this excerpt from a recent post of mine, which I find amusing.
> >
> > Remember Newton Law of Universal Gravitation?
> >
> > He stated a very simple equation:
> >
> > F = GMm/r²,
> >
> > which works almost perfectly, for instance, to measure your weight.
> >
> > Now, watch what Einstein did, to offer as a theoretical proof of GR in
> > Nov. 1915. He STATED (and asked for Newton's forgiveness) that
> >
> > F' = GMm/r² [1 + B²/(m²c²r²)]
> >
> > where B is the angular moment of whatever with a mass m spinning around M.
> >
> Dumbestfuck,
> The formula is the Earth quadrupole formula (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrupole#Gravitational_quadrupole) and takes into consideration that the Earth is rotating, thus there is a centrifugal force that needs to be subtracted.

Dear imbecile ignorant reptilian lifeform: the formula that I posted is an extension done by myself, following Einstein's paper on Mercury,
where he, shamelessly, develops a classic newtonian equation for orbits of planets, starting with KE+U=-2A.

Once he got Newton's (dx/dɸ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x − x², with roots α₁, α₂ and x = 1/r

he changes, cheating without shame, α by α (1 + B² x²), which adds a cubic term α x³ to the newtonian equation.

And later, he try to assert the falsity that there exist now a third root α₃ = 1/α , which IS FALSE!

Because, actually, α₃ = 1/α [1 - α (α₁ + α₂)]

Do the math, and also STUDY!

Fucking imbecile!

On 14-Dec-21 2:12 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:58:21 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 8:47:34 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> F = GMm/r²,
>>>
>>> which works almost perfectly, for instance, to measure your weight.
>
>> Except it's false.
>
> Ignorant negationist.
>
> A scale or balance is a device to measure weight or mass, and there are hundred of millions worldwide.
>
> The force F = GMm/r² = m d²r/dt² = m.g (Kg m/s² or Newton) is known as your weight when m is your mass.
>
> The correct expression Kg-force has degenerated into Kg (mass), as it was popularized as being a natural unit
> to express the force of gravity on Earth's surface.
>
> You don't need psychiatric help. You just need a big African adult male to put you in place, resented.
>
>

Your weight is the actual force, not the force predicted by an equation.
The point of the equation is to predict the actual force. Newton's
formula does a pretty good job, but it is not exact.

Sylvia.

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 11:46:01 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 14-Dec-21 2:12 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:58:21 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> >> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 8:47:34 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>> F = GMm/r²,
> >>>
> >>> which works almost perfectly, for instance, to measure your weight.
> >
> >> Except it's false.
> >
> > Ignorant negationist.
> >
> > A scale or balance is a device to measure weight or mass, and there are hundred of millions worldwide.
> >
> > The force F = GMm/r² = m d²r/dt² = m.g (Kg m/s² or Newton) is known as your weight when m is your mass.
> >
> > The correct expression Kg-force has degenerated into Kg (mass), as it was popularized as being a natural unit
> > to express the force of gravity on Earth's surface.
> >
> > You don't need psychiatric help. You just need a big African adult male to put you in place, resented.
> >
> >
> Your weight is the actual force, not the force predicted by an equation.
> The point of the equation is to predict the actual force. Newton's
> formula does a pretty good job, but it is not exact.
>
> Sylvia.

Actually, NIST CODATA shows the value of g, at average ground height, is g(NIST) = 9.806 65 m/s², with a standard
uncertainty of 0.000 32.5 m/s². Given an accuracy of 4 decimal digits, supported by the precision that NIST brings,
I think that using such value to calculate weight is close to 0.01% accuracy, applying the same precision to mass.

Averaging an error of 1% in commercial balances, I'm more than satisfied with my measure of weight in Newtons.

But, relativists will jump to say NO!, you have to verify it up to 10 decimal digits. Our GR theory is that exact.

After all, we verified our theory up to 1 part in 1.25011E+07 when we apply it to Mercury's perihelion advance (theoretically).

Which one is more exact: Newton or Einstein formulae?

About the fact that I weight what I weight, it's really a fiction, as balances are calibrated to give 1 Newton per theoretical Newton
within the full range of values for which the balance is certified.

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 5:01:14 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz admitted that he created yet another imbecility:
> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 9:07:15 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 8:47:34 PM UTC-8, dumbestfuck Richard Hertz inserted his feet into his mouth:
> > > I'm reposting this excerpt from a recent post of mine, which I find amusing.
> > >
> > > Remember Newton Law of Universal Gravitation?
> > >
> > > He stated a very simple equation:
> > >
> > > F = GMm/r²,
> > >
> > > which works almost perfectly, for instance, to measure your weight.
> > >
> > > Now, watch what Einstein did, to offer as a theoretical proof of GR in
> > > Nov. 1915. He STATED (and asked for Newton's forgiveness) that
> > >
> > > F' = GMm/r² [1 + B²/(m²c²r²)]
> > >
> > > where B is the angular moment of whatever with a mass m spinning around M.
> > >
> > Dumbestfuck,
> > The formula is the Earth quadrupole formula (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrupole#Gravitational_quadrupole) and takes into consideration that the Earth is rotating, thus there is a centrifugal force that needs to be subtracted.
>the idiotic formula that I posted is an extension done by myself, my personal imbecility

Yes, I know, this is why I sent you some MIT study material, so that you don't die an utter imbecile. Did you have a look at it? Or is it too difficult for your dementia-addled brain?

On 14-Dec-21 3:15 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 11:46:01 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 14-Dec-21 2:12 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:58:21 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 8:47:34 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> F = GMm/r²,
>>>>>
>>>>> which works almost perfectly, for instance, to measure your weight.
>>>
>>>> Except it's false.
>>>
>>> Ignorant negationist.
>>>
>>> A scale or balance is a device to measure weight or mass, and there are hundred of millions worldwide.
>>>
>>> The force F = GMm/r² = m d²r/dt² = m.g (Kg m/s² or Newton) is known as your weight when m is your mass.
>>>
>>> The correct expression Kg-force has degenerated into Kg (mass), as it was popularized as being a natural unit
>>> to express the force of gravity on Earth's surface.
>>>
>>> You don't need psychiatric help. You just need a big African adult male to put you in place, resented.
>>>
>>>
>> Your weight is the actual force, not the force predicted by an equation.
>> The point of the equation is to predict the actual force. Newton's
>> formula does a pretty good job, but it is not exact.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Actually, NIST CODATA shows the value of g, at average ground height, is g(NIST) = 9.806 65 m/s², with a standard
> uncertainty of 0.000 32.5 m/s². Given an accuracy of 4 decimal digits, supported by the precision that NIST brings,
> I think that using such value to calculate weight is close to 0.01% accuracy, applying the same precision to mass.
>
> Averaging an error of 1% in commercial balances, I'm more than satisfied with my measure of weight in Newtons.
>
> But, relativists will jump to say NO!, you have to verify it up to 10 decimal digits. Our GR theory is that exact.
>
> After all, we verified our theory up to 1 part in 1.25011E+07 when we apply it to Mercury's perihelion advance (theoretically).
>
> Which one is more exact: Newton or Einstein formulae?
>
> About the fact that I weight what I weight, it's really a fiction, as balances are calibrated to give 1 Newton per theoretical Newton
> within the full range of values for which the balance is certified.
>
There is no question that for everyday purposes, and indeed for moving
around the solar system, Newton's formula is more than adequate.

But that is no reason to say that we should just leave matters there.
For other purposes, such as precise predictions of Mercury's orbit, or
how events unfold near to a black hole, Newton's formula doesn't cut it,
and we need the modifications provided by Einstein in general relativity.

This does not impose on us the complexity of general relativity for
everyday use - we know that the corrections are negligible for these
purposes, and are far below the limits of accuracy in our measurements
anyway. So we just use Newton's formula.

You seem to be saying that we should ignore general relativity because
you personally don't need it.

Sylvia.

On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 1:42:06 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 14-Dec-21 3:15 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 11:46:01 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 14-Dec-21 2:12 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:58:21 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 8:47:34 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>>> F = GMm/r²,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> which works almost perfectly, for instance, to measure your weight.
> >>>
> >>>> Except it's false.
> >>>
> >>> Ignorant negationist.
> >>>
> >>> A scale or balance is a device to measure weight or mass, and there are hundred of millions worldwide.
> >>>
> >>> The force F = GMm/r² = m d²r/dt² = m.g (Kg m/s² or Newton) is known as your weight when m is your mass.
> >>>
> >>> The correct expression Kg-force has degenerated into Kg (mass), as it was popularized as being a natural unit
> >>> to express the force of gravity on Earth's surface.
> >>>
> >>> You don't need psychiatric help. You just need a big African adult male to put you in place, resented.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Your weight is the actual force, not the force predicted by an equation.
> >> The point of the equation is to predict the actual force. Newton's
> >> formula does a pretty good job, but it is not exact.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > Actually, NIST CODATA shows the value of g, at average ground height, is g(NIST) = 9.806 65 m/s², with a standard
> > uncertainty of 0.000 32.5 m/s². Given an accuracy of 4 decimal digits, supported by the precision that NIST brings,
> > I think that using such value to calculate weight is close to 0.01% accuracy, applying the same precision to mass.
> >
> > Averaging an error of 1% in commercial balances, I'm more than satisfied with my measure of weight in Newtons.
> >
> > But, relativists will jump to say NO!, you have to verify it up to 10 decimal digits. Our GR theory is that exact.
> >
> > After all, we verified our theory up to 1 part in 1.25011E+07 when we apply it to Mercury's perihelion advance (theoretically).
> >
> > Which one is more exact: Newton or Einstein formulae?
> >
> > About the fact that I weight what I weight, it's really a fiction, as balances are calibrated to give 1 Newton per theoretical Newton
> > within the full range of values for which the balance is certified.
> >
> There is no question that for everyday purposes, and indeed for moving
> around the solar system, Newton's formula is more than adequate.
>
> But that is no reason to say that we should just leave matters there.
> For other purposes, such as precise predictions of Mercury's orbit, or
> how events unfold near to a black hole, Newton's formula doesn't cut it,
> and we need the modifications provided by Einstein in general relativity.
>
> This does not impose on us the complexity of general relativity for
> everyday use - we know that the corrections are negligible for these
> purposes, and are far below the limits of accuracy in our measurements
> anyway. So we just use Newton's formula.
>
> You seem to be saying that we should ignore general relativity because
> you personally don't need it.
>
> Sylvia.

Regarding singularities and black holes, the last concept went out of proportions
thanks to relativity theologians, who wasted and still waste their lives looking for
some occult meaning within the 300+ formulae of GR, like those religion theologians
looking for some occult secrets encoded within the sacred books: The Talmud, the
versions of the Bible, the Quran and many other religious Books of Faith.

I have nothing about religion theologians, even when I don't understand why they
invest almost their entire adult existence looking for messages or predictions, but
I'm totally against theologians of science (if such qualification can be applied to them),
because I believe that they are possessed by a mystical conviction that there are hidden
meanings in the interpretation of second and higher orders of approximations in functions
or in their singularities.

In mathematics, a singularity is a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined,
or a point where the mathematical object ceases to be well-behaved in some particular way,
such as by lacking differentiability or analyticity (Wikipedia).

The case of black holes history, and the interpretations of the singularities of Schwarzschild-Hilbert
metrics, which the original 1915 metric hasn't, always have irritated me big time.

To give a physical interpretation of the meaning of a function when approaching a singularity,
either by the negative or the positive side toward infinity, makes me believe that one of two
things happens: either they are mentally ill or they are opportunistic charlatans who seek fame
and a sounding name in the community. Worse, yet, are those indoctrinated followers of the
initiator of the movement (kind of cult), who stop questioning about sanity and start believing
that such interpretations have real physical meaning.

For instance, Newton's theories are plagued with infinities, starting with the Universal Law of Gravitation,
which are trivial, or with the equation for planetary motion:

N(x) = dx/dɸ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x − x², with roots α₁, α₂ and x = 1/r , which solutions has been (for 200+ years)

Φ = ∫ dx/√N(x) = ∫ dx/[√[- (x - α₁) (x – α₂)], between α₁= 1/AP and α₂ = 1/PE.

Nobody, in 250 years, questioned the singularities of 1/√N(x). They took it as what they are: FAILURES OF CALCULUS.

Even in the case of Einstein, for the next 50 years since 1915, nobody questioned the meaning of the third singularity
introduced with his modification of Newton's formulae that day of Nov. 18. 1915, when he lectured his paper to the
Prussian Academy of Science. The third singularity was there that day, at plain sight for a moment, until Einstein got
rid of it by his approximation:

Φ = ∫ dx/√E(x) = K ∫ dx/[√[- (x - α₁) (x – α₂) (1 – α x)], between α₁= 1/AP and α₂ = 1/PE

There it was, 1/α = Rs = 2GM/c²

Einstein didn't care about it, Schwarzschild did care even less, and this equation or the re-development through the
Schwarzschild-Hilbert metric (1917) brought any attention to it for almost 50 years.

Suddenly, in the '50s, a retarded physicists without nothing else to do, started to propose that such singularity was
REAL and HAD A PHYSICAL MEANING.

After a decade invested in spreading such subcult, and even with the mock of Hoyle coining the term Black Hole,
new generations of IMBECILES, looking a HOLE in physics theories were they COULD HIDE, such idiocy took
momentum and, 20 years later and a new generations of physicists avid of fame and glory, the absurdity was
PLANTED in some other equally insane but ambitious minds, that knew how to get the first page in newspapers.

For any RATIONAL MIND, a singularity at 1/(x - 1/α) is JUST A FLOP OF THE POORLY DEVELOPED BRANCH OF CALCULUS,
which is completely avoidable if you make a change of variables and coordinates (s, z transforms, any kind of polar coordinate, etc.).

But, when you have a RETARDED OR ROTTEN MIND, you don't want that to happen.. You want to profit in many ways
from your stand keeping the singularity and building a fortress of sophistry to defend and spread your position.

This vision of mine about science is not applied only to relativity or physics, but to any other field where such kind of flops happen.

Remember what Feynman and other founders of QED did with singularities and their renormalization. They were much more
practical, not science theologians. Physics engineers is the best description. They took apart the singularities and put the expected
value in their place. IT'S WRONG BUT IT WORKS, Feynman justified.

But not such a thing happened with GR theologians. They were, are and always will be seeking hidden secrets in the result of
the infinite number of solutions for the final set of 200+ non linear differential equations.

And the number of solutions is INFINITE, because you have 10 complex equations out of 16 (4x4), which left 6 sets free to
promote infinite alternate solutions. This is a problem with no end, and is one of the roots of the crappy use of GR in cosmology.

On Tuesday, 14 December 2021 at 05:42:06 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 14-Dec-21 3:15 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 11:46:01 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 14-Dec-21 2:12 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:58:21 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 8:47:34 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>>> F = GMm/r²,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> which works almost perfectly, for instance, to measure your weight.
> >>>
> >>>> Except it's false.
> >>>
> >>> Ignorant negationist.
> >>>
> >>> A scale or balance is a device to measure weight or mass, and there are hundred of millions worldwide.
> >>>
> >>> The force F = GMm/r² = m d²r/dt² = m.g (Kg m/s² or Newton) is known as your weight when m is your mass.
> >>>
> >>> The correct expression Kg-force has degenerated into Kg (mass), as it was popularized as being a natural unit
> >>> to express the force of gravity on Earth's surface.
> >>>
> >>> You don't need psychiatric help. You just need a big African adult male to put you in place, resented.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Your weight is the actual force, not the force predicted by an equation.
> >> The point of the equation is to predict the actual force. Newton's
> >> formula does a pretty good job, but it is not exact.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > Actually, NIST CODATA shows the value of g, at average ground height, is g(NIST) = 9.806 65 m/s², with a standard
> > uncertainty of 0.000 32.5 m/s². Given an accuracy of 4 decimal digits, supported by the precision that NIST brings,
> > I think that using such value to calculate weight is close to 0.01% accuracy, applying the same precision to mass.
> >
> > Averaging an error of 1% in commercial balances, I'm more than satisfied with my measure of weight in Newtons.
> >
> > But, relativists will jump to say NO!, you have to verify it up to 10 decimal digits. Our GR theory is that exact.
> >
> > After all, we verified our theory up to 1 part in 1.25011E+07 when we apply it to Mercury's perihelion advance (theoretically).
> >
> > Which one is more exact: Newton or Einstein formulae?
> >
> > About the fact that I weight what I weight, it's really a fiction, as balances are calibrated to give 1 Newton per theoretical Newton
> > within the full range of values for which the balance is certified.
> >
> There is no question that for everyday purposes, and indeed for moving
> around the solar system, Newton's formula is more than adequate.
>
> But that is no reason to say that we should just leave matters there.
> For other purposes, such as precise predictions of Mercury's orbit, or
> how events unfold near to a black hole, Newton's formula doesn't cut it,
> and we need the modifications provided by Einstein in general relativity.

Unfortunately, that's a lie. The models used for these tasks
may be not Newtonian, but that doesn't make them
Einsteinian. They're - 3 dimensional Euclidean space
+[a single] time. Clasically.

On 14-Dec-21 5:35 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 1:42:06 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 14-Dec-21 3:15 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 11:46:01 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 14-Dec-21 2:12 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:58:21 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 8:47:34 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> F = GMm/r²,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which works almost perfectly, for instance, to measure your weight.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Except it's false.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ignorant negationist.
>>>>>
>>>>> A scale or balance is a device to measure weight or mass, and there are hundred of millions worldwide.
>>>>>
>>>>> The force F = GMm/r² = m d²r/dt² = m.g (Kg m/s² or Newton) is known as your weight when m is your mass.
>>>>>
>>>>> The correct expression Kg-force has degenerated into Kg (mass), as it was popularized as being a natural unit
>>>>> to express the force of gravity on Earth's surface.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't need psychiatric help. You just need a big African adult male to put you in place, resented.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Your weight is the actual force, not the force predicted by an equation.
>>>> The point of the equation is to predict the actual force. Newton's
>>>> formula does a pretty good job, but it is not exact.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> Actually, NIST CODATA shows the value of g, at average ground height, is g(NIST) = 9.806 65 m/s², with a standard
>>> uncertainty of 0.000 32.5 m/s². Given an accuracy of 4 decimal digits, supported by the precision that NIST brings,
>>> I think that using such value to calculate weight is close to 0.01% accuracy, applying the same precision to mass.
>>>
>>> Averaging an error of 1% in commercial balances, I'm more than satisfied with my measure of weight in Newtons.
>>>
>>> But, relativists will jump to say NO!, you have to verify it up to 10 decimal digits. Our GR theory is that exact.
>>>
>>> After all, we verified our theory up to 1 part in 1.25011E+07 when we apply it to Mercury's perihelion advance (theoretically).
>>>
>>> Which one is more exact: Newton or Einstein formulae?
>>>
>>> About the fact that I weight what I weight, it's really a fiction, as balances are calibrated to give 1 Newton per theoretical Newton
>>> within the full range of values for which the balance is certified.
>>>
>> There is no question that for everyday purposes, and indeed for moving
>> around the solar system, Newton's formula is more than adequate.
>>
>> But that is no reason to say that we should just leave matters there.
>> For other purposes, such as precise predictions of Mercury's orbit, or
>> how events unfold near to a black hole, Newton's formula doesn't cut it,
>> and we need the modifications provided by Einstein in general relativity.
>>
>> This does not impose on us the complexity of general relativity for
>> everyday use - we know that the corrections are negligible for these
>> purposes, and are far below the limits of accuracy in our measurements
>> anyway. So we just use Newton's formula.
>>
>> You seem to be saying that we should ignore general relativity because
>> you personally don't need it.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Regarding singularities and black holes, the last concept went out of proportions
> thanks to relativity theologians, who wasted and still waste their lives looking for
> some occult meaning within the 300+ formulae of GR, like those religion theologians
> looking for some occult secrets encoded within the sacred books: The Talmud, the
> versions of the Bible, the Quran and many other religious Books of Faith.

And there you go, as usual, off at a tangent.

Your basic premise appears to be that we should stick with Newton,
because it is good enough for your needs.

Sylvia.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 1:42:06 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 14-Dec-21 3:15 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 11:46:01 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 14-Dec-21 2:12 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:58:21 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 8:47:34 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> F = GMm/r²,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which works almost perfectly, for instance, to measure your weight.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Except it's false.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ignorant negationist.
>>>>>
>>>>> A scale or balance is a device to measure weight or mass, and there
>>>>> are hundred of millions worldwide.
>>>>>
>>>>> The force F = GMm/r² = m d²r/dt² = m.g (Kg m/s² or Newton) is known
>>>>> as your weight when m is your mass.
>>>>>
>>>>> The correct expression Kg-force has degenerated into Kg (mass), as it
>>>>> was popularized as being a natural unit
>>>>> to express the force of gravity on Earth's surface.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't need psychiatric help. You just need a big African adult
>>>>> male to put you in place, resented.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Your weight is the actual force, not the force predicted by an equation.
>>>> The point of the equation is to predict the actual force. Newton's
>>>> formula does a pretty good job, but it is not exact.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> Actually, NIST CODATA shows the value of g, at average ground height,
>>> is g(NIST) = 9.806 65 m/s², with a standard
>>> uncertainty of 0.000 32.5 m/s². Given an accuracy of 4 decimal digits,
>>> supported by the precision that NIST brings,
>>> I think that using such value to calculate weight is close to 0.01%
>>> accuracy, applying the same precision to mass.
>>>
>>> Averaging an error of 1% in commercial balances, I'm more than
>>> satisfied with my measure of weight in Newtons.
>>>
>>> But, relativists will jump to say NO!, you have to verify it up to 10
>>> decimal digits. Our GR theory is that exact.
>>>
>>> After all, we verified our theory up to 1 part in 1.25011E+07 when we
>>> apply it to Mercury's perihelion advance (theoretically).
>>>
>>> Which one is more exact: Newton or Einstein formulae?
>>>
>>> About the fact that I weight what I weight, it's really a fiction, as
>>> balances are calibrated to give 1 Newton per theoretical Newton
>>> within the full range of values for which the balance is certified.
>>>
>> There is no question that for everyday purposes, and indeed for moving
>> around the solar system, Newton's formula is more than adequate.
>>
>> But that is no reason to say that we should just leave matters there.
>> For other purposes, such as precise predictions of Mercury's orbit, or
>> how events unfold near to a black hole, Newton's formula doesn't cut it,
>> and we need the modifications provided by Einstein in general relativity.
>>
>> This does not impose on us the complexity of general relativity for
>> everyday use - we know that the corrections are negligible for these
>> purposes, and are far below the limits of accuracy in our measurements
>> anyway. So we just use Newton's formula.
>>
>> You seem to be saying that we should ignore general relativity because
>> you personally don't need it.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Regarding singularities and black holes, the last concept went out of proportions
> thanks to relativity theologians, who wasted and still waste their lives looking for
> some occult meaning within the 300+ formulae of GR, like those religion theologians
> looking for some occult secrets encoded within the sacred books: The Talmud, the
> versions of the Bible, the Quran and many other religious Books of Faith.
>
> I have nothing about religion theologians, even when I don't understand why they
> invest almost their entire adult existence looking for messages or predictions, but
> I'm totally against theologians of science (if such qualification can be applied to them),
> because I believe that they are possessed by a mystical conviction that there are hidden
> meanings in the interpretation of second and higher orders of approximations in functions
> or in their singularities.
>
> In mathematics, a singularity is a point at which a given mathematical
> object is not defined,
> or a point where the mathematical object ceases to be well-behaved in some particular way,
> such as by lacking differentiability or analyticity (Wikipedia).
>
> The case of black holes history, and the interpretations of the
> singularities of Schwarzschild-Hilbert
> metrics, which the original 1915 metric hasn't, always have irritated me big time.
>
> To give a physical interpretation of the meaning of a function when
> approaching a singularity,
> either by the negative or the positive side toward infinity, makes me
> believe that one of two
> things happens: either they are mentally ill or they are opportunistic
> charlatans who seek fame
> and a sounding name in the community. Worse, yet, are those indoctrinated followers of the
> initiator of the movement (kind of cult), who stop questioning about
> sanity and start believing
> that such interpretations have real physical meaning.
>
> For instance, Newton's theories are plagued with infinities, starting
> with the Universal Law of Gravitation,
> which are trivial, or with the equation for planetary motion:
>
> N(x) = dx/dɸ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x − x², with roots α₁, α₂ and x = 1/r ,
> which solutions has been (for 200+ years)
>
> Φ = ∫ dx/√N(x) = ∫ dx/[√[- (x - α₁) (x – α₂)], between α₁= 1/AP and α₂ = 1/PE.
>
> Nobody, in 250 years, questioned the singularities of 1/√N(x). They took
> it as what they are: FAILURES OF CALCULUS.
>
> Even in the case of Einstein, for the next 50 years since 1915, nobody
> questioned the meaning of the third singularity
> introduced with his modification of Newton's formulae that day of Nov.
> 18. 1915, when he lectured his paper to the
> Prussian Academy of Science. The third singularity was there that day, at
> plain sight for a moment, until Einstein got
> rid of it by his approximation:
>
> Φ = ∫ dx/√E(x) = K ∫ dx/[√[- (x - α₁) (x – α₂) (1 – α x)], between α₁= 1/AP and α₂ = 1/PE
>
> There it was, 1/α = Rs = 2GM/c²
>
> Einstein didn't care about it, Schwarzschild did care even less, and this
> equation or the re-development through the
> Schwarzschild-Hilbert metric (1917) brought any attention to it for almost 50 years.
>
> Suddenly, in the '50s, a retarded physicists without nothing else to do,
> started to propose that such singularity was
> REAL and HAD A PHYSICAL MEANING.
>
> After a decade invested in spreading such subcult, and even with the mock
> of Hoyle coining the term Black Hole,
> new generations of IMBECILES, looking a HOLE in physics theories were
> they COULD HIDE, such idiocy took
> momentum and, 20 years later and a new generations of physicists avid of
> fame and glory, the absurdity was
> PLANTED in some other equally insane but ambitious minds, that knew how
> to get the first page in newspapers.
>
> For any RATIONAL MIND, a singularity at 1/(x - 1/α) is JUST A FLOP OF THE
> POORLY DEVELOPED BRANCH OF CALCULUS,
> which is completely avoidable if you make a change of variables and
> coordinates (s, z transforms, any kind of polar coordinate, etc.).
>
> But, when you have a RETARDED OR ROTTEN MIND, you don't want that to
> happen. You want to profit in many ways
> from your stand keeping the singularity and building a fortress of
> sophistry to defend and spread your position.
>
> This vision of mine about science is not applied only to relativity or
> physics, but to any other field where such kind of flops happen.
>
> Remember what Feynman and other founders of QED did with singularities
> and their renormalization. They were much more
> practical, not science theologians. Physics engineers is the best
> description. They took apart the singularities and put the expected
> value in their place. IT'S WRONG BUT IT WORKS, Feynman justified.
>
> But not such a thing happened with GR theologians. They were, are and
> always will be seeking hidden secrets in the result of
> the infinite number of solutions for the final set of 200+ non linear
> differential equations.
>
> And the number of solutions is INFINITE, because you have 10 complex
> equations out of 16 (4x4), which left 6 sets free to
> promote infinite alternate solutions. This is a problem with no end, and
> is one of the roots of the crappy use of GR in cosmology.
>
>

On Tuesday, 14 December 2021 at 14:15:14 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 1:42:06 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 14-Dec-21 3:15 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 11:46:01 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 14-Dec-21 2:12 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:58:21 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 8:47:34 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> F = GMm/r²,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> which works almost perfectly, for instance, to measure your weight.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Except it's false.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ignorant negationist.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A scale or balance is a device to measure weight or mass, and there
> >>>>> are hundred of millions worldwide.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The force F = GMm/r² = m d²r/dt² = m.g (Kg m/s² or Newton) is known
> >>>>> as your weight when m is your mass.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The correct expression Kg-force has degenerated into Kg (mass), as it
> >>>>> was popularized as being a natural unit
> >>>>> to express the force of gravity on Earth's surface.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You don't need psychiatric help. You just need a big African adult
> >>>>> male to put you in place, resented.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Your weight is the actual force, not the force predicted by an equation.
> >>>> The point of the equation is to predict the actual force. Newton's
> >>>> formula does a pretty good job, but it is not exact.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> Actually, NIST CODATA shows the value of g, at average ground height,
> >>> is g(NIST) = 9.806 65 m/s², with a standard
> >>> uncertainty of 0.000 32.5 m/s². Given an accuracy of 4 decimal digits,
> >>> supported by the precision that NIST brings,
> >>> I think that using such value to calculate weight is close to 0.01%
> >>> accuracy, applying the same precision to mass.
> >>>
> >>> Averaging an error of 1% in commercial balances, I'm more than
> >>> satisfied with my measure of weight in Newtons.
> >>>
> >>> But, relativists will jump to say NO!, you have to verify it up to 10
> >>> decimal digits. Our GR theory is that exact.
> >>>
> >>> After all, we verified our theory up to 1 part in 1.25011E+07 when we
> >>> apply it to Mercury's perihelion advance (theoretically).
> >>>
> >>> Which one is more exact: Newton or Einstein formulae?
> >>>
> >>> About the fact that I weight what I weight, it's really a fiction, as
> >>> balances are calibrated to give 1 Newton per theoretical Newton
> >>> within the full range of values for which the balance is certified.
> >>>
> >> There is no question that for everyday purposes, and indeed for moving
> >> around the solar system, Newton's formula is more than adequate.
> >>
> >> But that is no reason to say that we should just leave matters there.
> >> For other purposes, such as precise predictions of Mercury's orbit, or
> >> how events unfold near to a black hole, Newton's formula doesn't cut it,
> >> and we need the modifications provided by Einstein in general relativity.
> >>
> >> This does not impose on us the complexity of general relativity for
> >> everyday use - we know that the corrections are negligible for these
> >> purposes, and are far below the limits of accuracy in our measurements
> >> anyway. So we just use Newton's formula.
> >>
> >> You seem to be saying that we should ignore general relativity because
> >> you personally don't need it.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > Regarding singularities and black holes, the last concept went out of proportions
> > thanks to relativity theologians, who wasted and still waste their lives looking for
> > some occult meaning within the 300+ formulae of GR, like those religion theologians
> > looking for some occult secrets encoded within the sacred books: The Talmud, the
> > versions of the Bible, the Quran and many other religious Books of Faith.
> >
> > I have nothing about religion theologians, even when I don't understand why they
> > invest almost their entire adult existence looking for messages or predictions, but
> > I'm totally against theologians of science (if such qualification can be applied to them),
> > because I believe that they are possessed by a mystical conviction that there are hidden
> > meanings in the interpretation of second and higher orders of approximations in functions
> > or in their singularities.
> >
> > In mathematics, a singularity is a point at which a given mathematical
> > object is not defined,
> > or a point where the mathematical object ceases to be well-behaved in some particular way,
> > such as by lacking differentiability or analyticity (Wikipedia).
> >
> > The case of black holes history, and the interpretations of the
> > singularities of Schwarzschild-Hilbert
> > metrics, which the original 1915 metric hasn't, always have irritated me big time.
> >
> > To give a physical interpretation of the meaning of a function when
> > approaching a singularity,
> > either by the negative or the positive side toward infinity, makes me
> > believe that one of two
> > things happens: either they are mentally ill or they are opportunistic
> > charlatans who seek fame
> > and a sounding name in the community. Worse, yet, are those indoctrinated followers of the
> > initiator of the movement (kind of cult), who stop questioning about
> > sanity and start believing
> > that such interpretations have real physical meaning.
> >
> > For instance, Newton's theories are plagued with infinities, starting
> > with the Universal Law of Gravitation,
> > which are trivial, or with the equation for planetary motion:
> >
> > N(x) = dx/dɸ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x − x², with roots α₁, α₂ and x = 1/r ,
> > which solutions has been (for 200+ years)
> >
> > Φ = ∫ dx/√N(x) = ∫ dx/[√[- (x - α₁) (x – α₂)], between α₁= 1/AP and α₂ = 1/PE.
> >
> > Nobody, in 250 years, questioned the singularities of 1/√N(x). They took
> > it as what they are: FAILURES OF CALCULUS.
> >
> > Even in the case of Einstein, for the next 50 years since 1915, nobody
> > questioned the meaning of the third singularity
> > introduced with his modification of Newton's formulae that day of Nov.
> > 18. 1915, when he lectured his paper to the
> > Prussian Academy of Science. The third singularity was there that day, at
> > plain sight for a moment, until Einstein got
> > rid of it by his approximation:
> >
> > Φ = ∫ dx/√E(x) = K ∫ dx/[√[- (x - α₁) (x – α₂) (1 – α x)], between α₁= 1/AP and α₂ = 1/PE
> >
> > There it was, 1/α = Rs = 2GM/c²
> >
> > Einstein didn't care about it, Schwarzschild did care even less, and this
> > equation or the re-development through the
> > Schwarzschild-Hilbert metric (1917) brought any attention to it for almost 50 years.
> >
> > Suddenly, in the '50s, a retarded physicists without nothing else to do,
> > started to propose that such singularity was
> > REAL and HAD A PHYSICAL MEANING.
> >
> > After a decade invested in spreading such subcult, and even with the mock
> > of Hoyle coining the term Black Hole,
> > new generations of IMBECILES, looking a HOLE in physics theories were
> > they COULD HIDE, such idiocy took
> > momentum and, 20 years later and a new generations of physicists avid of
> > fame and glory, the absurdity was
> > PLANTED in some other equally insane but ambitious minds, that knew how
> > to get the first page in newspapers.
> >
> > For any RATIONAL MIND, a singularity at 1/(x - 1/α) is JUST A FLOP OF THE
> > POORLY DEVELOPED BRANCH OF CALCULUS,
> > which is completely avoidable if you make a change of variables and
> > coordinates (s, z transforms, any kind of polar coordinate, etc.).
> >
> > But, when you have a RETARDED OR ROTTEN MIND, you don't want that to
> > happen. You want to profit in many ways
> > from your stand keeping the singularity and building a fortress of
> > sophistry to defend and spread your position.
> >
> > This vision of mine about science is not applied only to relativity or
> > physics, but to any other field where such kind of flops happen.
> >
> > Remember what Feynman and other founders of QED did with singularities
> > and their renormalization. They were much more
> > practical, not science theologians. Physics engineers is the best
> > description. They took apart the singularities and put the expected
> > value in their place. IT'S WRONG BUT IT WORKS, Feynman justified.
> >
> > But not such a thing happened with GR theologians. They were, are and
> > always will be seeking hidden secrets in the result of
> > the infinite number of solutions for the final set of 200+ non linear
> > differential equations.
> >
> > And the number of solutions is INFINITE, because you have 10 complex
> > equations out of 16 (4x4), which left 6 sets free to
> > promote infinite alternate solutions. This is a problem with no end, and
> > is one of the roots of the crappy use of GR in cosmology.
> >
> >
> So, your religious faith is that nature cannot exhibit anything that
> resembles a mathematical singularity,

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 December 2021 at 14:15:14 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 1:42:06 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 14-Dec-21 3:15 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 11:46:01 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> On 14-Dec-21 2:12 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:58:21 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 8:47:34 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> F = GMm/r²,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> which works almost perfectly, for instance, to measure your weight.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except it's false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ignorant negationist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A scale or balance is a device to measure weight or mass, and there
>>>>>>> are hundred of millions worldwide.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The force F = GMm/r² = m d²r/dt² = m.g (Kg m/s² or Newton) is known
>>>>>>> as your weight when m is your mass.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The correct expression Kg-force has degenerated into Kg (mass), as it
>>>>>>> was popularized as being a natural unit
>>>>>>> to express the force of gravity on Earth's surface.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't need psychiatric help. You just need a big African adult
>>>>>>> male to put you in place, resented.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your weight is the actual force, not the force predicted by an equation.
>>>>>> The point of the equation is to predict the actual force. Newton's
>>>>>> formula does a pretty good job, but it is not exact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, NIST CODATA shows the value of g, at average ground height,
>>>>> is g(NIST) = 9.806 65 m/s², with a standard
>>>>> uncertainty of 0.000 32.5 m/s². Given an accuracy of 4 decimal digits,
>>>>> supported by the precision that NIST brings,
>>>>> I think that using such value to calculate weight is close to 0.01%
>>>>> accuracy, applying the same precision to mass.
>>>>>
>>>>> Averaging an error of 1% in commercial balances, I'm more than
>>>>> satisfied with my measure of weight in Newtons.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, relativists will jump to say NO!, you have to verify it up to 10
>>>>> decimal digits. Our GR theory is that exact.
>>>>>
>>>>> After all, we verified our theory up to 1 part in 1.25011E+07 when we
>>>>> apply it to Mercury's perihelion advance (theoretically).
>>>>>
>>>>> Which one is more exact: Newton or Einstein formulae?
>>>>>
>>>>> About the fact that I weight what I weight, it's really a fiction, as
>>>>> balances are calibrated to give 1 Newton per theoretical Newton
>>>>> within the full range of values for which the balance is certified.
>>>>>
>>>> There is no question that for everyday purposes, and indeed for moving
>>>> around the solar system, Newton's formula is more than adequate.
>>>>
>>>> But that is no reason to say that we should just leave matters there.
>>>> For other purposes, such as precise predictions of Mercury's orbit, or
>>>> how events unfold near to a black hole, Newton's formula doesn't cut it,
>>>> and we need the modifications provided by Einstein in general relativity.
>>>>
>>>> This does not impose on us the complexity of general relativity for
>>>> everyday use - we know that the corrections are negligible for these
>>>> purposes, and are far below the limits of accuracy in our measurements
>>>> anyway. So we just use Newton's formula.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be saying that we should ignore general relativity because
>>>> you personally don't need it.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> Regarding singularities and black holes, the last concept went out of proportions
>>> thanks to relativity theologians, who wasted and still waste their lives looking for
>>> some occult meaning within the 300+ formulae of GR, like those religion theologians
>>> looking for some occult secrets encoded within the sacred books: The Talmud, the
>>> versions of the Bible, the Quran and many other religious Books of Faith.
>>>
>>> I have nothing about religion theologians, even when I don't understand why they
>>> invest almost their entire adult existence looking for messages or predictions, but
>>> I'm totally against theologians of science (if such qualification can
>>> be applied to them),
>>> because I believe that they are possessed by a mystical conviction that there are hidden
>>> meanings in the interpretation of second and higher orders of
>>> approximations in functions
>>> or in their singularities.
>>>
>>> In mathematics, a singularity is a point at which a given mathematical
>>> object is not defined,
>>> or a point where the mathematical object ceases to be well-behaved in
>>> some particular way,
>>> such as by lacking differentiability or analyticity (Wikipedia).
>>>
>>> The case of black holes history, and the interpretations of the
>>> singularities of Schwarzschild-Hilbert
>>> metrics, which the original 1915 metric hasn't, always have irritated me big time.
>>>
>>> To give a physical interpretation of the meaning of a function when
>>> approaching a singularity,
>>> either by the negative or the positive side toward infinity, makes me
>>> believe that one of two
>>> things happens: either they are mentally ill or they are opportunistic
>>> charlatans who seek fame
>>> and a sounding name in the community. Worse, yet, are those
>>> indoctrinated followers of the
>>> initiator of the movement (kind of cult), who stop questioning about
>>> sanity and start believing
>>> that such interpretations have real physical meaning.
>>>
>>> For instance, Newton's theories are plagued with infinities, starting
>>> with the Universal Law of Gravitation,
>>> which are trivial, or with the equation for planetary motion:
>>>
>>> N(x) = dx/dɸ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x − x², with roots α₁, α₂ and x = 1/r ,
>>> which solutions has been (for 200+ years)
>>>
>>> Φ = ∫ dx/√N(x) = ∫ dx/[√[- (x - α₁) (x – α₂)], between α₁= 1/AP and α₂ = 1/PE.
>>>
>>> Nobody, in 250 years, questioned the singularities of 1/√N(x). They took
>>> it as what they are: FAILURES OF CALCULUS.
>>>
>>> Even in the case of Einstein, for the next 50 years since 1915, nobody
>>> questioned the meaning of the third singularity
>>> introduced with his modification of Newton's formulae that day of Nov.
>>> 18. 1915, when he lectured his paper to the
>>> Prussian Academy of Science. The third singularity was there that day, at
>>> plain sight for a moment, until Einstein got
>>> rid of it by his approximation:
>>>
>>> Φ = ∫ dx/√E(x) = K ∫ dx/[√[- (x - α₁) (x – α₂) (1 – α x)], between α₁=
>>> 1/AP and α₂ = 1/PE
>>>
>>> There it was, 1/α = Rs = 2GM/c²
>>>
>>> Einstein didn't care about it, Schwarzschild did care even less, and this
>>> equation or the re-development through the
>>> Schwarzschild-Hilbert metric (1917) brought any attention to it for almost 50 years.
>>>
>>> Suddenly, in the '50s, a retarded physicists without nothing else to do,
>>> started to propose that such singularity was
>>> REAL and HAD A PHYSICAL MEANING.
>>>
>>> After a decade invested in spreading such subcult, and even with the mock
>>> of Hoyle coining the term Black Hole,
>>> new generations of IMBECILES, looking a HOLE in physics theories were
>>> they COULD HIDE, such idiocy took
>>> momentum and, 20 years later and a new generations of physicists avid of
>>> fame and glory, the absurdity was
>>> PLANTED in some other equally insane but ambitious minds, that knew how
>>> to get the first page in newspapers.
>>>
>>> For any RATIONAL MIND, a singularity at 1/(x - 1/α) is JUST A FLOP OF THE
>>> POORLY DEVELOPED BRANCH OF CALCULUS,
>>> which is completely avoidable if you make a change of variables and
>>> coordinates (s, z transforms, any kind of polar coordinate, etc.).
>>>
>>> But, when you have a RETARDED OR ROTTEN MIND, you don't want that to
>>> happen. You want to profit in many ways
>>> from your stand keeping the singularity and building a fortress of
>>> sophistry to defend and spread your position.
>>>
>>> This vision of mine about science is not applied only to relativity or
>>> physics, but to any other field where such kind of flops happen.
>>>
>>> Remember what Feynman and other founders of QED did with singularities
>>> and their renormalization. They were much more
>>> practical, not science theologians. Physics engineers is the best
>>> description. They took apart the singularities and put the expected
>>> value in their place. IT'S WRONG BUT IT WORKS, Feynman justified.
>>>
>>> But not such a thing happened with GR theologians. They were, are and
>>> always will be seeking hidden secrets in the result of
>>> the infinite number of solutions for the final set of 200+ non linear
>>> differential equations.
>>>
>>> And the number of solutions is INFINITE, because you have 10 complex
>>> equations out of 16 (4x4), which left 6 sets free to
>>> promote infinite alternate solutions. This is a problem with no end, and
>>> is one of the roots of the crappy use of GR in cosmology.
>>>
>>>
>> So, your religious faith is that nature cannot exhibit anything that
>> resembles a mathematical singularity,
>
> Odd, poor halfbrain, nature knows no mathematics. Mathematics
> is a human invention, and whatever includes mathematics must
> be another.
>
>

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 10:35:38 PM UTC-8, utter crank Richard Hertz kept munching shit:
> N(x) = dx/dɸ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x − x², with roots α₁, α₂ and x = 1/r , which solutions has been (for 200+ years)
>
> Φ = ∫ dx/√N(x) = ∫ dx/[√[- (x - α₁) (x – α₂)], between α₁= 1/AP and α₂ = 1/PE.
>
> Nobody, in 250 years, questioned the singularities of 1/√N(x). They took it as what they are: FAILURES OF CALCULUS.

Cretinoid,

Improper integrals are solved routinely, you demonstrated that you couldn't in several threads that you opened on the subject. Keep munching shit.

On Tuesday, 14 December 2021 at 15:13:28 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 14 December 2021 at 14:15:14 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 1:42:06 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 14-Dec-21 3:15 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 11:46:01 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>>> On 14-Dec-21 2:12 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:58:21 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 8:47:34 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> F = GMm/r²,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> which works almost perfectly, for instance, to measure your weight.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Except it's false.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ignorant negationist.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A scale or balance is a device to measure weight or mass, and there
> >>>>>>> are hundred of millions worldwide.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The force F = GMm/r² = m d²r/dt² = m.g (Kg m/s² or Newton) is known
> >>>>>>> as your weight when m is your mass.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The correct expression Kg-force has degenerated into Kg (mass), as it
> >>>>>>> was popularized as being a natural unit
> >>>>>>> to express the force of gravity on Earth's surface.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You don't need psychiatric help. You just need a big African adult
> >>>>>>> male to put you in place, resented.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Your weight is the actual force, not the force predicted by an equation.
> >>>>>> The point of the equation is to predict the actual force. Newton's
> >>>>>> formula does a pretty good job, but it is not exact.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Actually, NIST CODATA shows the value of g, at average ground height,
> >>>>> is g(NIST) = 9.806 65 m/s², with a standard
> >>>>> uncertainty of 0.000 32.5 m/s². Given an accuracy of 4 decimal digits,
> >>>>> supported by the precision that NIST brings,
> >>>>> I think that using such value to calculate weight is close to 0.01%
> >>>>> accuracy, applying the same precision to mass.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Averaging an error of 1% in commercial balances, I'm more than
> >>>>> satisfied with my measure of weight in Newtons.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But, relativists will jump to say NO!, you have to verify it up to 10
> >>>>> decimal digits. Our GR theory is that exact.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> After all, we verified our theory up to 1 part in 1.25011E+07 when we
> >>>>> apply it to Mercury's perihelion advance (theoretically).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which one is more exact: Newton or Einstein formulae?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> About the fact that I weight what I weight, it's really a fiction, as
> >>>>> balances are calibrated to give 1 Newton per theoretical Newton
> >>>>> within the full range of values for which the balance is certified.
> >>>>>
> >>>> There is no question that for everyday purposes, and indeed for moving
> >>>> around the solar system, Newton's formula is more than adequate.
> >>>>
> >>>> But that is no reason to say that we should just leave matters there..
> >>>> For other purposes, such as precise predictions of Mercury's orbit, or
> >>>> how events unfold near to a black hole, Newton's formula doesn't cut it,
> >>>> and we need the modifications provided by Einstein in general relativity.
> >>>>
> >>>> This does not impose on us the complexity of general relativity for
> >>>> everyday use - we know that the corrections are negligible for these
> >>>> purposes, and are far below the limits of accuracy in our measurements
> >>>> anyway. So we just use Newton's formula.
> >>>>
> >>>> You seem to be saying that we should ignore general relativity because
> >>>> you personally don't need it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> Regarding singularities and black holes, the last concept went out of proportions
> >>> thanks to relativity theologians, who wasted and still waste their lives looking for
> >>> some occult meaning within the 300+ formulae of GR, like those religion theologians
> >>> looking for some occult secrets encoded within the sacred books: The Talmud, the
> >>> versions of the Bible, the Quran and many other religious Books of Faith.
> >>>
> >>> I have nothing about religion theologians, even when I don't understand why they
> >>> invest almost their entire adult existence looking for messages or predictions, but
> >>> I'm totally against theologians of science (if such qualification can
> >>> be applied to them),
> >>> because I believe that they are possessed by a mystical conviction that there are hidden
> >>> meanings in the interpretation of second and higher orders of
> >>> approximations in functions
> >>> or in their singularities.
> >>>
> >>> In mathematics, a singularity is a point at which a given mathematical
> >>> object is not defined,
> >>> or a point where the mathematical object ceases to be well-behaved in
> >>> some particular way,
> >>> such as by lacking differentiability or analyticity (Wikipedia).
> >>>
> >>> The case of black holes history, and the interpretations of the
> >>> singularities of Schwarzschild-Hilbert
> >>> metrics, which the original 1915 metric hasn't, always have irritated me big time.
> >>>
> >>> To give a physical interpretation of the meaning of a function when
> >>> approaching a singularity,
> >>> either by the negative or the positive side toward infinity, makes me
> >>> believe that one of two
> >>> things happens: either they are mentally ill or they are opportunistic
> >>> charlatans who seek fame
> >>> and a sounding name in the community. Worse, yet, are those
> >>> indoctrinated followers of the
> >>> initiator of the movement (kind of cult), who stop questioning about
> >>> sanity and start believing
> >>> that such interpretations have real physical meaning.
> >>>
> >>> For instance, Newton's theories are plagued with infinities, starting
> >>> with the Universal Law of Gravitation,
> >>> which are trivial, or with the equation for planetary motion:
> >>>
> >>> N(x) = dx/dɸ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x − x², with roots α₁, α₂ and x = 1/r ,
> >>> which solutions has been (for 200+ years)
> >>>
> >>> Φ = ∫ dx/√N(x) = ∫ dx/[√[- (x - α₁) (x – α₂)], between α₁= 1/AP and α₂ = 1/PE.
> >>>
> >>> Nobody, in 250 years, questioned the singularities of 1/√N(x).. They took
> >>> it as what they are: FAILURES OF CALCULUS.
> >>>
> >>> Even in the case of Einstein, for the next 50 years since 1915, nobody
> >>> questioned the meaning of the third singularity
> >>> introduced with his modification of Newton's formulae that day of Nov..
> >>> 18. 1915, when he lectured his paper to the
> >>> Prussian Academy of Science. The third singularity was there that day, at
> >>> plain sight for a moment, until Einstein got
> >>> rid of it by his approximation:
> >>>
> >>> Φ = ∫ dx/√E(x) = K ∫ dx/[√[- (x - α₁) (x – α₂) (1 – α x)], between α₁=
> >>> 1/AP and α₂ = 1/PE
> >>>
> >>> There it was, 1/α = Rs = 2GM/c²
> >>>
> >>> Einstein didn't care about it, Schwarzschild did care even less, and this
> >>> equation or the re-development through the
> >>> Schwarzschild-Hilbert metric (1917) brought any attention to it for almost 50 years.
> >>>
> >>> Suddenly, in the '50s, a retarded physicists without nothing else to do,
> >>> started to propose that such singularity was
> >>> REAL and HAD A PHYSICAL MEANING.
> >>>
> >>> After a decade invested in spreading such subcult, and even with the mock
> >>> of Hoyle coining the term Black Hole,
> >>> new generations of IMBECILES, looking a HOLE in physics theories were
> >>> they COULD HIDE, such idiocy took
> >>> momentum and, 20 years later and a new generations of physicists avid of
> >>> fame and glory, the absurdity was
> >>> PLANTED in some other equally insane but ambitious minds, that knew how
> >>> to get the first page in newspapers.
> >>>
> >>> For any RATIONAL MIND, a singularity at 1/(x - 1/α) is JUST A FLOP OF THE
> >>> POORLY DEVELOPED BRANCH OF CALCULUS,
> >>> which is completely avoidable if you make a change of variables and
> >>> coordinates (s, z transforms, any kind of polar coordinate, etc.).
> >>>
> >>> But, when you have a RETARDED OR ROTTEN MIND, you don't want that to
> >>> happen. You want to profit in many ways
> >>> from your stand keeping the singularity and building a fortress of
> >>> sophistry to defend and spread your position.
> >>>
> >>> This vision of mine about science is not applied only to relativity or
> >>> physics, but to any other field where such kind of flops happen.
> >>>
> >>> Remember what Feynman and other founders of QED did with singularities
> >>> and their renormalization. They were much more
> >>> practical, not science theologians. Physics engineers is the best
> >>> description. They took apart the singularities and put the expected
> >>> value in their place. IT'S WRONG BUT IT WORKS, Feynman justified.
> >>>
> >>> But not such a thing happened with GR theologians. They were, are and
> >>> always will be seeking hidden secrets in the result of
> >>> the infinite number of solutions for the final set of 200+ non linear
> >>> differential equations.
> >>>
> >>> And the number of solutions is INFINITE, because you have 10 complex
> >>> equations out of 16 (4x4), which left 6 sets free to
> >>> promote infinite alternate solutions. This is a problem with no end, and
> >>> is one of the roots of the crappy use of GR in cosmology.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> So, your religious faith is that nature cannot exhibit anything that
> >> resembles a mathematical singularity,
> >
> > Odd, poor halfbrain, nature knows no mathematics. Mathematics
> > is a human invention, and whatever includes mathematics must
> > be another.
> >
> >
> Nature exhibits regularities. Mathematics and science are the practices of
> discovering, describing, and cataloging those regularities.