On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 3:17:54 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz bumbled one more time:
> On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 2:25:08 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > Yep, you sure are. You cannot perform very elementary algebra and calculus, this is why you keep getting the wrong results. BTW, Hua is a lot worse than Vankov. And you are a lot worse than both of those two cranks.
> Maybe both are a couple of idiots.

Yes, they both are idiots. And so are you. After so many months, you are still unable to calculate a simple integral. This is what makes you the number one clown, thanks for the entertainment.

On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 3:36:57 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 8:37:49 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 12:45:27 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Comes to show that there are other imbeciles who cannot calculate a simple integral correctly. Maybe you should collaborate with your fellow cranks....
> > I'm tired of your BIG MOUTH, cretin!
> Well, you started it and we are tired of YOU (in case it's not obvious).
> > Show me, and show to this forum, the correct solution of THIS INTEGRAL.
> You'll have to be patient. What you are doing is:
>
> 1. Arrive here and defecate all over the place,
> 2. Complain when we complain about this,
> 3. You also demand that WE clean up the mess, never mind that this sort
> of thing requires MUCH more work than what you are doing (proving
> claims of that sort wrong require (a) much more time than the original
> accusation, and (b) people are hesitant to waste time on you because
> you seem unable to understand the arguments anyway. So the only reason
> to dive into this for someone like me would be to post it for somebody
> else's benefit. It's not a very interesting path to pursue.
> 4. And then you announce that the lack of rebuttal on our part means
> that you were right.
> > Please, enlighten us with your SUPERIOR knowledge.
> Yes, it is in fact SUPERIOR (as you typed it) and I'll consider doing some
> enlightening. But it's going to be a 100% waste on you though. You need
> to learn relativity first. And in general learn what self-criticism is, learn
> to see your own limits, leave arrogance in the kindergarten sandbox,
> and stop posting idiocies 24/7.
>
> --
> Jan
Don't show the crank how to solve the problem, do not show him Hua's error, let him die the way he was born: an imbecile.

On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 8:36:57 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>

> > Please, enlighten us with your SUPERIOR knowledge.

> Yes, it is in fact SUPERIOR (as you typed it) and I'll consider doing some enlightening. But it's going to be a 100% waste on you though.
> You need to learn relativity first. And in general learn what self-criticism is, learn to see your own limits, leave arrogance in the
> kindergarten sandbox, and stop posting idiocies 24/7.

I don't deny that's SUPERIOR in Math only, IF AND ONLY IF the reptilian lifeform got his BsC by 2007 (when he was begging here for help).
Add to that ALLEGED DEGREE (4 years, but it cost him 5) 10 years of using Mathematica SW to discuss here about SR/GR, Dono has been
dealing with MATHEMATICS ONLY for about 20 years. The rest, for him, is mathturbation, because he hasn't a bone of a physicist or an EE
within his fucking reptilian body. I think that he has an exo-skeleton.

But SUPERIOR in Math is not the same as ABSOLUTE in math. The imbecile is not an Euler, Gauss or Poincaré. Just an average converted.

And he has gaps of knowledge. INFINITE amount of gaps, as EVERYONE HERE (including myself).

But the reptilian lifeform pretend to pass as a know-it-all in mathematics, type Bodkin with life affairs in general.

And, more arrogant and idiot than Bodkin (it must be costly), he play the downplay game with me. And I'm not a newcomer to high level
mathematics. I knew a lot, I forgot a lot, and I can regain a lot.

Mathematics is as easy for me as breathing. And I NEVER KNEW ANY OTHER LIMIT in my mind other than boredom or lack of interest.

And when you marry such dormant abilities with an enormous patience and work-power, as in my case, I can get into anything ANY TIME
I WANT, because I can and many others can't.

And the stupid people who mock at me for using Excel 2013, they DON'T KNOW the incredible accuracy available at my hands, IF IT'S
managed properly. And another thing that I have is an extensive background in PROGRAMMING!

So, I can make Excel to sign a song designed in Excel and exported in .wav style (Yes, fudging the .wav headers and trailers).

When I know, I know. And I can know if I don't know, and know how to know what I don't know.

REFINEMENT BY SUCCESSIVE STEPS have been one of my major guidance in life.

And I don't need to know relativity. I know relativity AND I HATE IT, since the '70s.

SR is not physics, it's METAPHYSICS.

And GR inherits all the crap of SR plus deformed 4D Ricci-Civita, inventing the CRAP of pseudo-riemannian geometry. DEGENERATES!

On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 9:09:44 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 3:36:57 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 8:37:49 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 12:45:27 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Comes to show that there are other imbeciles who cannot calculate a simple integral correctly. Maybe you should collaborate with your fellow cranks....
> > > I'm tired of your BIG MOUTH, cretin!
> > Well, you started it and we are tired of YOU (in case it's not obvious)..
> > > Show me, and show to this forum, the correct solution of THIS INTEGRAL.
> > You'll have to be patient. What you are doing is:
> >
> > 1. Arrive here and defecate all over the place,
> > 2. Complain when we complain about this,
> > 3. You also demand that WE clean up the mess, never mind that this sort
> > of thing requires MUCH more work than what you are doing (proving
> > claims of that sort wrong require (a) much more time than the original
> > accusation, and (b) people are hesitant to waste time on you because
> > you seem unable to understand the arguments anyway. So the only reason
> > to dive into this for someone like me would be to post it for somebody
> > else's benefit. It's not a very interesting path to pursue.
> > 4. And then you announce that the lack of rebuttal on our part means
> > that you were right.
> > > Please, enlighten us with your SUPERIOR knowledge.
> > Yes, it is in fact SUPERIOR (as you typed it) and I'll consider doing some
> > enlightening. But it's going to be a 100% waste on you though. You need
> > to learn relativity first. And in general learn what self-criticism is, learn
> > to see your own limits, leave arrogance in the kindergarten sandbox,
> > and stop posting idiocies 24/7.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> Don't show the crank how to solve the problem, do not show him Hua's error, let him die the way he was born: an imbecile.

I've told you, MF, where is one of many solutions: Fitzpatrick's book on Celestial mechanics, eq (3.51) to eq. (3.60).

Just take the fucking Einstein's equation, change again to r = 1/x and, given that it's all about elliptic orbits, make a substitution

r =PE/(1 − e) (1 − e cos E) (3.55)
dr = PE/(1 − e) e sinE dE (3.56)

PE: Perihelion ; e: excentricity ; E: an angle that varies between −π and +π.

The solution is given when integrating a function WITH NO INFINITIES, like when expressed with x.

The integral of the inverse root of a quadratic polynomial in x, multiplied by x, HAS NO ANALYTICAL SOLUTION!

Idiot Einstein's asskisser. Don't be so cocky, because 99.7% of you is GENETIC GARBAGE, and also stinks.

On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 4:17:16 PM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz wrote:

> And when you marry such dormant abilities with an enormous patience and work-power, as in my case, I can get into anything ANY TIME
> I WANT, because I can and many others can't.
,,,,and yet, for all these passed months you have been unable to get the correct value for the Mercury perihelion advancement. And you never will, thus keeping us entertained with your imbecilities.

On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 4:30:43 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz inserted feet in mouth :

> The integral of the inverse root of a quadratic polynomial in x, multiplied by x, HAS NO ANALYTICAL SOLUTION!
>
Actually, it does. But you are too imbecile to find it.

On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 4:17:16 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 8:36:57 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > Please, enlighten us with your SUPERIOR knowledge.
>
> > Yes, it is in fact SUPERIOR (as you typed it) and I'll consider doing some enlightening. But it's going to be a 100% waste on you though.
> > You need to learn relativity first. And in general learn what self-criticism is, learn to see your own limits, leave arrogance in the
> > kindergarten sandbox, and stop posting idiocies 24/7.
> I don't deny that's SUPERIOR in Math only, IF AND ONLY

Like all cranks here, you have a vendetta against mathematics. Just like
cranks on sci.math have a vendetta against physics. The reason is simple:
what you cannot have, you simply declare unimportant.

> IF the reptilian lifeform got his BsC by 2007 (when he was begging here for help).

Whatever you are referring to here.

> Add to that ALLEGED DEGREE (4 years, but it cost him 5) 10 years of using Mathematica SW to discuss here about SR/GR, Dono has been
> dealing with MATHEMATICS ONLY for about 20 years.

Again, you treat "mathematics" as a bad thing, just like the idiots at
sci.math do it with "physics". It's just a cheat to patch up the holes in
knowledge.

> The rest, for him, is mathturbation,

Same thing over and over. It obviously bothers you enough to have to
repeat it at every opportunity.

> SR is not physics, it's METAPHYSICS.

No, it's physics all right, you simply don't understand it. The trap SR sets for
so many people is that it's a rather subtle and difficult theory that HAPPENS
to be fully expressible in formal formulas not far exceeding high school education.
So it naturally attracts cranks affected by inferiority complex, especially given
the obvious Siren song of Einstein's media fame and recognition. It just makes
the weak brains feel so superior.

--
Jan

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 8:36:57 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Please, enlighten us with your SUPERIOR knowledge.
>
>> Yes, it is in fact SUPERIOR (as you typed it) and I'll consider doing
>> some enlightening. But it's going to be a 100% waste on you though.
>> You need to learn relativity first. And in general learn what
>> self-criticism is, learn to see your own limits, leave arrogance in the
>> kindergarten sandbox, and stop posting idiocies 24/7.
>
> I don't deny that's SUPERIOR in Math only, IF AND ONLY IF the reptilian
> lifeform got his BsC by 2007 (when he was begging here for help).
> Add to that ALLEGED DEGREE (4 years, but it cost him 5) 10 years of using
> Mathematica SW to discuss here about SR/GR, Dono has been
> dealing with MATHEMATICS ONLY for about 20 years. The rest, for him, is
> mathturbation, because he hasn't a bone of a physicist or an EE
> within his fucking reptilian body. I think that he has an exo-skeleton.
>
> But SUPERIOR in Math is not the same as ABSOLUTE in math. The imbecile is
> not an Euler, Gauss or Poincaré. Just an average converted.
>
> And he has gaps of knowledge. INFINITE amount of gaps, as EVERYONE HERE (including myself).
>
> But the reptilian lifeform pretend to pass as a know-it-all in
> mathematics, type Bodkin with life affairs in general.
>
> And, more arrogant and idiot than Bodkin (it must be costly), he play the
> downplay game with me. And I'm not a newcomer to high level
> mathematics. I knew a lot, I forgot a lot, and I can regain a lot.
>
> Mathematics is as easy for me as breathing. And I NEVER KNEW ANY OTHER
> LIMIT in my mind other than boredom or lack of interest.
>
> And when you marry such dormant abilities with an enormous patience and
> work-power, as in my case, I can get into anything ANY TIME
> I WANT, because I can and many others can't.

You make a lot of blustering noises for someone who can’t catch an obvious
sign error until it’s pointed out to you.

>
> And the stupid people who mock at me for using Excel 2013, they DON'T
> KNOW the incredible accuracy available at my hands, IF IT'S
> managed properly. And another thing that I have is an extensive background in PROGRAMMING!
>
> So, I can make Excel to sign a song designed in Excel and exported in
> .wav style (Yes, fudging the .wav headers and trailers).
>
> When I know, I know. And I can know if I don't know, and know how to know
> what I don't know.
>
> REFINEMENT BY SUCCESSIVE STEPS have been one of my major guidance in life.
>
> And I don't need to know relativity. I know relativity AND I HATE IT, since the '70s.
>
> SR is not physics, it's METAPHYSICS.
>
> And GR inherits all the crap of SR plus deformed 4D Ricci-Civita,
> inventing the CRAP of pseudo-riemannian geometry. DEGENERATES!
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 11:44:08 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>

> Like all cranks here, you have a vendetta against mathematics. Just like cranks on sci.math have a vendetta against physics.
> The reason is simple: what you cannot have, you simply declare unimportant.
.........
> Again, you treat "mathematics" as a bad thing, just like the idiots at sci.math do it with "physics". It's just a cheat to patch up the holes in
> knowledge.
.......
> Same thing over and over. It obviously bothers you enough to have to repeat it at every opportunity.

Jan, see why you are an idiot? Probably not, but your trend to judge people and draw conclusions is LAME, to use the lightest term.

I love mathematics, maybe more than EE or physics. It has brought to me so many personal satisfactions that you wouldn't believe.
Mathematics in ITS REALM, only. As applied tools, statistics and probability are also something that I enjoy. But, when some non linear
branches of mathematics are applied to model reality, I have several limits of acceptance.

In particular, the most critical limit is: Don't use non-linear mathematics to model reality, specially if you use it:

1) To describe how the 3D space (born in the mind of Descartes 400 years ago, while resting on his bed) is SENSITIVE to matter,
and deforms itself severely in the neighborhood of massive celestial bodies. THIS IS SO IDIOTIC THAT MAKES ME PUKE.

2) To give physical meaning to an stupid idea called spacetime, born in the mind of two first class mathematicians (Poincaré first,
and Minkowski later, who followed the path that his "master" show to him).

3) To rationalize singularities in functions has if they have ANY PHYSICAL MEANING. Black holes and shit like that.

4) To put all of the above derivations together to justify that a FUCKING DOT contained all the matter and energy of the universe.

> > SR is not physics, it's METAPHYSICS.

> No, it's physics all right, you simply don't understand it.

THIS is the consolation of mental midgets or degenerate people. Which one are you?

> The trap SR sets for so many people is that it's a rather subtle and difficult theory that HAPPENS
> to be fully expressible in formal formulas not far exceeding high school education.

You are falling into mathematical theology (not even science, not even in any other science). Keep going by this
road, which is the consolation of mental eunuchs thinking about they have a better life without sex. Did you ever?

> So it naturally attracts cranks affected by inferiority complex, especially given
> the obvious Siren song of Einstein's media fame and recognition. It just makes
> the weak brains feel so superior.

I don't have an inferiority complex, nor I have a superiority complex. I know and prove myself that I'm just SUPERIOR. Deal with it.

For me, most people are like insects of some kind (and you are there)

But relativists (like you) are like insects after being sprayed with poison: crazy behavior before the last step (in your case: mental death).

On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 11:46:18 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> You make a lot of blustering noises for someone who can’t catch an obvious sign error until it’s pointed out to you.

OBVIOUSLY, obvious for you but not for me.

One of the many differences between us is that I recognize an error when I or others detect it, and I correct the error.

I'm not hiding so I don't recognize it. I admit ANY ERROR publicly and go on, as SANE and evolved people should do all the time.

But this is not you, asshole. When was the last time that you RECOGNIZED HERE an error of any kind that you did?

You can't, because limited, tortured people with poor or weak self-stem can't afford the consequences in their psyches. And you
Bodkin, a great pretender, struggle instant by instant to project fortitude but you don't realize that you cause the opposite effect.

You need other's people approval to keep being, while I really don't give a shit (didn't, never will) about what any other person think about me.

And this, Bodkin, is the key of real fortitude.

Also, add to it that I enjoy debating with you, killing point after point after point. Deal with it.

On Wednesday, 22 December 2021 at 03:44:08 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:

> No, it's physics all right, you simply don't understand it. The trap SR sets for
> so many people is that it's a rather subtle and difficult theory that HAPPENS
> to be fully expressible in formal formulas not far exceeding high school education.
> So it naturally attracts cranks affected by inferiority complex, especially given
> the obvious Siren song of Einstein's media fame and recognition. It just makes
> the weak brains feel so superior.

In the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all
serious clocks always did.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 11:46:18 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> You make a lot of blustering noises for someone who can’t catch an
>> obvious sign error until it’s pointed out to you.
>
> OBVIOUSLY, obvious for you but not for me.

Apparently so. Should have been. That’s the kind of sanity check that most
competent people do.

>
> You need other's people approval to keep being, while I really don't give
> a shit (didn't, never will) about what any other person think about me.
>
> And this, Bodkin, is the key of real fortitude.

LOL. Is THAT what you call it?

>
> Also, add to it that I enjoy debating with you, killing point after point
> after point. Deal with it.
>

Oh yes, I’m dealing with it just fine. Having a mighty good chuckle.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 10:48:43 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> > > You make a lot of blustering noises for someone who can’t catch an obvious sign error until it’s pointed out to you.
> >
> > OBVIOUSLY, obvious for you but not for me.
> Apparently so. Should have been. That’s the kind of sanity check that most competent people do.

Bodkin: I've been studying the graphics of these kind of polynomials for more than a month, to LEARN MORE.
A mistake IS a mistake, not a misconception, idiot. I analyzed their roots with 1:10000 resolution, in particular the cubic polynomial.
So, I knew already about signs.

N(x) = (dx/dɸ)² = -3.11361875046120E-22 + 3,60613719164666E-11 x - x²

E(x) = 2954.1265550554 x³ − x² + 3,6061344412266E-11 x - 3,1135948689132E-22

> > You need other's people approval to keep being, while I really don't give a shit (didn't, never will) about what any
> > other person think about me.
> >
> > And this, Bodkin, is the key of real fortitude.

> LOL. Is THAT what you call it?

Laugh all you want. Strength was the right word. I spanglished "fortaleza", which equals to strength in English. My bad.

> > Also, add to it that I enjoy debating with you, killing point after point after point. Deal with it.
> >
> Oh yes, I’m dealing with it just fine. Having a mighty good chuckle.

You have the same behavioral pattern of a beaten partner who keep staying. Are you a masochist like Dono?

Because he really likes it, love it. Poor Dono, I feel sorry for IT.

On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 6:41:26 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Bodkin: I've been studying the graphics of these kind of polynomials for more than a month, to LEARN MORE.

.....and you still know nothing

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 10:48:43 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> You make a lot of blustering noises for someone who can’t catch an
>>>> obvious sign error until it’s pointed out to you.
>>>
>>> OBVIOUSLY, obvious for you but not for me.
>> Apparently so. Should have been. That’s the kind of sanity check that
>> most competent people do.
>
> Bodkin: I've been studying the graphics of these kind of polynomials for
> more than a month, to LEARN MORE.

What?? You can’t tell from (x-a)(x-b) that it’s negative for a<x<b? You
have to “study the graphics” for a month, plugging in numbers to “learn
more”?

> A mistake IS a mistake, not a misconception, idiot. I analyzed their
> roots with 1:10000 resolution, in particular the cubic polynomial.
> So, I knew already about signs.
>
> N(x) = (dx/dɸ)² = -3.11361875046120E-22 + 3,60613719164666E-11 x - x²
>
> E(x) = 2954.1265550554 x³ − x² + 3,6061344412266E-11 x - 3,1135948689132E-22
>
>>> You need other's people approval to keep being, while I really don't
>>> give a shit (didn't, never will) about what any
>>> other person think about me.
>>>
>>> And this, Bodkin, is the key of real fortitude.
>
>> LOL. Is THAT what you call it?
>
> Laugh all you want. Strength was the right word. I spanglished
> "fortaleza", which equals to strength in English. My bad.
>

LOL, yeah I get it, it’s just as funny as “strength”. Wozniak has the same
“strength”. So does Pentcho Valev and Ken Seto.

>
>
>>> Also, add to it that I enjoy debating with you, killing point after
>>> point after point. Deal with it.
>>>
>> Oh yes, I’m dealing with it just fine. Having a mighty good chuckle.
>
> You have the same behavioral pattern of a beaten partner who keep
> staying. Are you a masochist like Dono?

LOL. You’re just like little Wozniak, viewing this group as a coliseum for
battle, and if he fires off one of his tired chants and receives no
response, then he’s “won” something. Just like that little mutt down the
street from me, barking and growling at passers-by, exulting in his victory
if they just keep walking.

So, tell me Richard, how is it that at your age, when you should have
serenity and a peaceful view of people, you have such a deep need to craft
and spew so much bile? I mean, I get why you’d need to do this loud
chest-thumping to vent off stress during your career working for The Man,
but now that you’re stress-free, what’s the value of this posturing and
venting?

>
> Because he really likes it, love it. Poor Dono, I feel sorry for IT.
>
>

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

On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 12:39:38 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 6:41:26 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > Bodkin: I've been studying the graphics of these kind of polynomials for more than a month, to LEARN MORE.

> ....and you still know nothing

I know more than before. For instance, the fucker sold to retarded people like you this false equality:

(dx/dɸ)² = N(x) + α x³ = [1+ α/2 (α₁ + α₂)]⁻² [α (x - α₁) (x - α₂) (x – 1/α)]

where N(x) = - (x - n₁) (x - n₂) , newtonian roots, and clearly

α₁ ≠ n₁ and α₂ ≠ n₂ , and you and your idiotic relativistic gang bought it without question, imbeciles.

Extracting 1/α as a root from the cubic polynomial changes the values of n₁ = 1/AP and n₂ =1/PE, affecting them with α.

Due to the fact that n₁ = 10E-06/69817 m⁻¹ and n₂ =10E-06/46002 m⁻¹ (NASA values for Mercury), using

α₁ = 10E-06/69817.005706 m⁻¹ and α₂ =10E-06/46001.9913396 m⁻¹ (real values for the right side)

is a BIG DEAL, specially if you integrate between (α₁ , α₂) and NOT THE REAL values (n₁ , n₂). You are OUT OF THE ELLIPSE
by +5.7 Km at the aphelion and -8.66 Km from the perihelion.

And given that you're trying to detect an advance of the perihelion of 29.1 Km in one single orbit, the ERROR in the integral IS A BIG DEAL.

This is a fine tuning of the equations. The gross fraud was changing the sign of the front-end factor from [1 - α/2 (α₁ + α₂)]⁻²,
which modified the precession by 2/3 in magnitude plus a negative value (-14.33").

But, as you are an stubborn cretin, you'll ignore this, of course.

On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 8:38:13 AM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 12:39:38 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 6:41:26 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > > Bodkin: I've been studying the graphics of these kind of polynomials for more than a month, to LEARN MORE.
>
> > ....and you still know nothing
> I know more than before.

Based on the new imbecilities you just posted, you clearly don't. Actually, you are getting worse, failing to calculate the integral, you shifted your tactics to attacking the simple polynomial. Keep up the entertainment, village clown!
>

On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 8:42:00 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 8:38:13 AM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 12:39:38 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 6:41:26 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bodkin: I've been studying the graphics of these kind of polynomials for more than a month, to LEARN MORE.
> >
> > > ....and you still know nothing
> > I know more than before.
> Based on the new imbecilities you just posted, you clearly don't. Actually, you are getting worse, failing to calculate the integral, you shifted your tactics to attacking the simple polynomial. Keep up the entertainment, village clown!
> >
Dickie-boy

Once you get a new asshole ripped, you abandon the thread and you open new ones, only to get asshole ripped there as well. Enjoy your newly ripped assholes, asshole.

On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 12:56:49 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> What?? You can’t tell from (x-a)(x-b) that it’s negative for a<x<b? You
> have to “study the graphics” for a month, plugging in numbers to “learn more”?

I do it because I like it, asshole. It takes me minutes to figure out obvious things, but
it take hours to zoom in at Excel, changing (x, y) parameters and yet preserving accuracy.
I find this activity very entertaining. But you have problems with it, don't you? Asshole, live and let live!

> So, tell me Richard, how is it that at your age, when you should have
> serenity and a peaceful view of people, you have such a deep need to craft
> and spew so much bile? I mean, I get why you’d need to do this loud
> chest-thumping to vent off stress during your career working for The Man,
> but now that you’re stress-free, what’s the value of this posturing and venting?

As you are a pretentious know-it-all, you have to assert your "Supreme Tought" about
how people has to behave as they age. What a monument to idiocy is coming from your comment.

Serenity and peaceful view of people: Why? Because you believe this, as you believe that relativity is true science?

I wrote here many times what I think about people, not individuals but as a herd: THEY BEHAVE AS FUCKING IDIOTS,
at least in the western world. And as they age, they behave less idiotically because they are increasingly fossilized in
body and mind. But you call it "peaceful behavior"? I call it "pre-death behavior" and start at 60, more or less.

I don't spew bile. I'm OK and have no hate, really. What CONFUSE YOU is that I like very much to get MAD assholes
like you, at this forum in particular. You'll never understand my mental processes, as you are a fucking cyborg, who
can't live without your "database cartridges", where you find your answers WRITTEN BY OTHERS.

I always, ALWAYS, refused to behave in that way. i don't take ANYTHING FOR GRANTED, Bodkin, UNTIL I've found a
DOUBLE or TRIPLE WAY to prove it, OK?

It happened at school, college, work and life in general. I'm identified with Dr. House mantra: "Everybody lies", and I
work according to that fundamental premise. And IT NEVER, EVER failed to me.. So, I have to verify it for myself,
either theoretically (on my own path of research) or experimentally.

But look at you: a pure breed ASSHOLE, living by the words of others. SO SAD, SO PATHETIC.

I really feel sorry for you and your "achievements" in life.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 12:56:49 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> What?? You can’t tell from (x-a)(x-b) that it’s negative for a<x<b? You
>> have to “study the graphics” for a month, plugging in numbers to “learn more”?
>
> I do it because I like it, asshole.

Ok, then. I hope this was not your approach to engineering, taking a month
by a method you liked to do something that could otherwise be recognized in
a few seconds.

> It takes me minutes to figure out obvious things, but
> it take hours to zoom in at Excel, changing (x, y) parameters and yet preserving accuracy.
> I find this activity very entertaining. But you have problems with it,
> don't you? Asshole, live and let live!
>
>
>> So, tell me Richard, how is it that at your age, when you should have
>> serenity and a peaceful view of people, you have such a deep need to craft
>> and spew so much bile? I mean, I get why you’d need to do this loud
>> chest-thumping to vent off stress during your career working for The Man,
>> but now that you’re stress-free, what’s the value of this posturing and venting?
>
> As you are a pretentious know-it-all, you have to assert your "Supreme Tought" about
> how people has to behave as they age. What a monument to idiocy is coming
> from your comment.

I’m asking you questions. Feel free to answer honestly for yourself why you
feel the need to blow bile.

>
> Serenity and peaceful view of people: Why? Because you believe this, as
> you believe that relativity is true science?
>
> I wrote here many times what I think about people, not individuals but as
> a herd: THEY BEHAVE AS FUCKING IDIOTS,

Ah. So a generally angry and pessimistic view of people, and worth spewing
bile in every direction. I see.

> at least in the western world. And as they age, they behave less
> idiotically because they are increasingly fossilized in
> body and mind. But you call it "peaceful behavior"? I call it "pre-death
> behavior" and start at 60, more or less.

Plus fatalistic “pre-death” collapse, a stage you are well into, given your
age and the turning point you mention. Lovely.

>
> I don't spew bile. I'm OK and have no hate, really. What CONFUSE YOU is
> that I like very much to get MAD assholes

Assholes? No bile? Really?

> like you, at this forum in particular. You'll never understand my mental
> processes, as you are a fucking cyborg, who
> can't live without your "database cartridges", where you find your
> answers WRITTEN BY OTHERS.
>
> I always, ALWAYS, refused to behave in that way. i don't take ANYTHING
> FOR GRANTED, Bodkin, UNTIL I've found a
> DOUBLE or TRIPLE WAY to prove it, OK?
>
> It happened at school, college, work and life in general. I'm identified
> with Dr. House mantra: "Everybody lies", and I
> work according to that fundamental premise. And IT NEVER, EVER failed to
> me. So, I have to verify it for myself,
> either theoretically (on my own path of research) or experimentally.

Been to Madagascar? We’re you lied to about it?

>
> But look at you: a pure breed ASSHOLE, living by the words of others. SO SAD, SO PATHETIC.

No hate? No bile? Well, right there must be a shining example of what you
attest to.

>
> I really feel sorry for you and your "achievements" in life.
>

Aww. Now I feel so worthless because of your estimation.

Now then, what does that get for you?

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

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 9:39:05 PM UTC-8, uber crank Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> The book:
>
> Unsolved Problems in Special and General Relativity
> 21 collected papers
>
> can be found here:
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267472901_Unsolved_problems_in_special_and_general_relativity_21_collected_papers

A steaming pile of shit for uber crank Richard Hertz to feed on for the years to come.

Op 23-dec.-2021 om 17:18 schreef Richard Hertz:
> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 12:56:49 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> What?? You can’t tell from (x-a)(x-b) that it’s negative for a<x<b? You
>> have to “study the graphics” for a month, plugging in numbers to “learn more”?
>
> I do it because I like it, asshole. It takes me minutes to figure out obvious things, but

seconds to demonstrate your stupidity.

Dirk Vdm

On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 7:39:04 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 11:44:08 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Like all cranks here, you have a vendetta against mathematics. Just like cranks on sci.math have a vendetta against physics.
> > The reason is simple: what you cannot have, you simply declare unimportant.
> ........
> > Again, you treat "mathematics" as a bad thing, just like the idiots at sci.math do it with "physics". It's just a cheat to patch up the holes in
> > knowledge.
> ......
> > Same thing over and over. It obviously bothers you enough to have to repeat it at every opportunity.
> Jan, see why you are an idiot? Probably not, but your trend to judge people and draw conclusions is LAME, to use the lightest term.
>
> I love mathematics, maybe more than EE or physics. It has brought to me so many personal satisfactions that you wouldn't believe.
> Mathematics in ITS REALM, only. As applied tools, statistics and probability are also something that I enjoy. But, when some non linear
> branches of mathematics are applied to model reality, I have several limits of acceptance.

Makes sense so far.

> In particular, the most critical limit is: Don't use non-linear mathematics to model reality,

....and suddenly all reason is lost right here.

> specially if you use it:
>
> 1) To describe how the 3D space (born in the mind of Descartes 400 years ago, while resting on his bed) is SENSITIVE to matter,
> and deforms itself severely in the neighborhood of massive celestial bodies. THIS IS SO IDIOTIC THAT MAKES ME PUKE.

Nope. You simply don't understand this stuff. So you make an entire castle in the air to support this cheat on your part.

> 2) To give physical meaning to an stupid idea called spacetime,

Not even wrong.

The rest is not worth responding, it's what's also known in the trade as "fractally wrong".

--
Jan