On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 10:05:50 AM UTC-8, cretin Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> I was born this way,
You sure were and you are boasting about it.

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 3:22:41 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 10:05:50 AM UTC-8, cretin Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > I was born this way,
> You sure were and you are boasting about it.

Not at all. Proud is something that is projected, one way or the other, to those who surround you.

I never, on purpose, rub other's people nose with my way of being. Nor I attempted to show it off by publishing in any way.

I tried several times to write a technical book, finishing with a mammoth of 1200+ pages, 500+ graphics, etc. I just printed it by
my own (expensive hard-cover), and gave as a present to less than a dozen people that worked with me in the last decades. And
I posted it for free, anonymously, at a site in New Zealand that could storage without charges almost 65 Mbytes, Then I announced
its availability at a spanish site for engineers.
I found a good definition of myself on a movie (War Games): Intelligent but without ambitions. Perfectly suit me.

Many asked me for publishing, but I didn't care. Almost any idiot get published if have the right connections. One connection, through
a friend, was the owner of a publishing house who wanted that I published a dozen articles plus a book, without really knowing my
background. I left the meeting and never came back.

I have problems with other people's judgment and I think that THIS WORLD is fucking rotten to the core.

I prefer to be a silent spectator, except THE ONLY MANIFESTATIONS OVER HERE. And it took me 64 years to do THIS, and only here.

Call me whatever you want. I prefer to be a very private person, with my own thoughts, which I BARELY share here.

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 10:45:07 AM UTC-8, cretin Richard Hertz kept boasting:
< I found a good definition of myself on a movie (War Games): cretin and proud of showing off my cretinism

Den 19.01.2022 18:02, skrev Richard Hertz:
> On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 5:01:28 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>>>>> Lagrangians, Hamiltonian and similar shit are basically Newton's laws for mechanical energy, WHICH DISIPATES
>>>>>>>> with enough time (say acouple of billion years for celestial mechanics).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's why dL/dt = 0 and its integral renders L = CONSTANT.
>
> THIS IS AN ASSERTION OF MY OWN, DERIVED FROM THE FACT THAT THE SOLAR SYSTEM IS KNOWN AS BORN 4.5 BILLION YEARS AGO.

Indeed it is an assertion of yours. Proud of it?

<snip>

>> Still having fun? :-D
>
> You bet, Paul. This a game for me. I'm not Brahe, Kepler or Euler. This is just a hobby.

This game is getting boring, I won't bother to play any more.

I am also fed up with your profanities and the nastiest
ad hominem attacks I have ever seen in this forum.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 4:39:04 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 19.01.2022 18:02, skrev Richard Hertz:

<snip>

> >
> > THIS IS AN ASSERTION OF MY OWN, DERIVED FROM THE FACT THAT THE SOLAR SYSTEM IS KNOWN
> > AS BORN 4.5 BILLION YEARS AGO.

> Indeed it is an assertion of yours. Proud of it?

I don't see any reason to be proud of something that is FUCKING obvious for anyone with half a brain.

<snip>

> I am also fed up with your profanities and the nastiest ad hominem attacks I have ever seen in this forum.

I took special care to not engage with you in a contest about who's the most word-thought SOB here, Paul.

I only addressed arrogant assholes or cretins, but you took offense instead of them.

So, stop engaging with my posts in the future.

I don't like passive-aggressive people. It's a futile effort to decrypt the aggression.

Anyways, this cesspool not only contains comments about physics or math. It's also a ring where
one/many try to make other/others to loose balance.

And making other asshole to loss his temper and snap is a legit tactic in modern relationships. I'm fed up with hypocrisy.

Then, keep playing THERE and I'll keep playing HERE, far away. No hard feelings, anyways.

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 6:17:06 PM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 5:57:15 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 9:15:15 PM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>> You mean d/dt dV - dT = 0 ?
> >>>
> >>> No, I mean that given E = T - V = 1/2 ∑ᴺ mᵢ vᵢ² - V(r⃗₁, r⃗₂, r⃗₃, r⃗₄,
> >>> ..., r⃗ᶰ) , for conservative systems like in newtonian gravity.
> >> E = T + U, not T - U.
> >>
> >> Perhaps you are confusing the Lagrangian with the total energy.
> >>>
> >>> This implies to solve a Lagrangian expressed as:
> >>>
> >>> ∂L/∂r⃗ᵢ - d/dt ∂L/∂ṙ⃗ᵢ + ∑ᴱ λᵦ ∂fᵦ/∂r⃗ᵤ = 0 , where i: 1, 2, 3,
> >>> ...., N particles and u: 1, 2, 3, ..., E constraints.
> >> Conservation of energy implies no such thing. The principle of stationary
> >> action implies the Euler-Lagrange equations you just learned.
> >>>
> >>> ∂r⃗ᵢ ≡ (∂/∂xᵢ , ∂/∂yᵢ , ∂/∂zᵢ). Use the same notation for ∂ṙ⃗ᵢ .
> >>>
> >>> At any case, ask Bodkin, who knows this shit in depth.
> >> Well, I know it more than you do. But if you scramble fast enough, you
> >> might learn something about it in a hurry.
> >>>
> >>> Also, ask him how the first order Lagrangian derives in this simple
> >>> expression used for planetary motion (even Einstein used it):
> >>>
> >>> 1/2 m [r² (dθ/dt)² + (dr/dt)²] – GMm/r = E
> >>>
> >>> or
> >>>
> >>> d²r/dt² + μ/r² = 0 ------> 1/2 v² - μ/r = constant = E (all derived
> >>> from Newton-Euler m d²r⃗/dt² = - GMmr⃗/r³).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > Thanks, digesting - that's part of how energy is attached to force.
> >
> > d/dt dV - dT = 0
> >
> > dV - dT = 0t
> >
> > "... the smooth path x_0 is a stationary point of S if all its directional
> > derivatives at x_0 vanish, ...".
> >
> > "The Lagrangian is a function of time since the Lagrangian density
> > has implicit space dependence via the fields, and may have explicit
> > spatial dependence, but these are removed in the integral, leaving
> > only time in as the variable for the Lagrangian."
> >
> > About representing energy and average energy, and normalization,
> > yes I am talking about what happens after the Lagrangian and
> > total energy are both zero or same, _and_, about the energy
> > computed from rest and the energy computed from motion,
> > as having effectively different Lagrangians, because the one's
> > integral is the others' derivative.
> Ross, you're using a random text generator fed by a few articles,
> right? Why that? What's the point?

Ah, if you'll excuse me, this was also asked on a thread in sci.math,
the answer was "infinite monkeys theorem: bounds above on combinatorics,
or effectively infinite, or once discontinuous".

I.e. I defined a Monkey-Shakespeare as 25,000 different words then
that a 25,000 different words is a code for Shakespeare.

While the usual combinatoric bound is much beyond, ....

Clearly my point is to monopolize my reply with respect to the Lagrangian,
for example readings from "AMS A Century of Calculus, Part II, ..." Boas and so on.

And L'Hopital and Rolle, ..., in line integration. I.e. for Lagrangians,
it's a usual boundary or singularity condition.

"In 1784, Lagrange and his colleagues posed the problem of
foundations of the calculus as the Berlin Academy's prize problem".

"In fact, even well into the nineteenth century, Weierstrass,
Dedekind ..., Dini and Landau ..., Cauchy ... "Cours d'analyse"."
-- Grabiner

"... how did Lagrange obtain this result? The answer is surprising;
for Langrange, f(x+h) = f(x) +hf'(x) + hV was a consequence of
Taylor's theorem Lagrange believed that each function (that is,
any analytic expression, whether finite or infinite, involving
the variable) had a unique power-series expansion....".

"... this assumption led Lagrange to define f'(x) without reference to limits,
as the coefficient of the linear term in h in the Taylor series expansion for f(x+h)."

"Following Euler...".

Boas on indeterminate forms is pretty great or about how conditions
in Lagrangians, is as where the Lagrangian is an indeterminate form.
(....)

The analogies of special relativity, simultaneity, the rocket problem, time-space, time space black holes, gradational waves, GPS, are used to justify Lorentz's transformation of Michelson's experiment that is testing the existence of the ether drift where the  motion of the ether, composed of matter, forms the ether drift.

"The undulatory theory of light assumes the existence of a medium called the ether, whose vibrations produce the phenomena of heat and light, and which is supposed to fill all space. According to Fresnel, the ether, which is enclosed in optical media, partakes of the motion of these media, to an extent depending on their indices of refraction. For air, this motion would be but a small fraction of that of the air itself and will be neglected." (Michelson, p. 120).

The wave theory of light was the premiere question of the 1900's where the ether is part of Maxwell's theory since physicists could not explain electromagnetic field theory without an ether.. 

"The only aether which has survived is that which was invented by Huygens to explain the propagation of light. The evidence for the existence of the luminiferous aether has accumulated as additional phenomena of light and radiation have been discovered" (Maxwell, Part XCVII, p. 764)."If we adopt either Fresnel's or Maccullagh's form of the undulatory theory, half of this energy is in the form of potential energy, due to the distortion of elementary portions of the medium, and half in the form of kinetic energy, due to the motion of the medium. We must therefore regard the aether as possessing elasticity similar to that of a solid body, and also as having a finite density." (Maxwell, Part XCVII, p. 767). 

The analogies are based on Einstein's coordinate system transformation (time-space) that originates from Lorentz theory.

"On the other hand, all coordinate systems moving relatively were to be regarded as in motion with respect to the æther. To this motion against the æther ("æther-drift") were attributed more complicated laws which were supposed to hold relative to. Strictly speaking, such an æther-drift ought also to be assumed relative to the earth, and for a long time the efforts of physicists were devoted to attempts to detect the existence of an æther-drift at the earth's surface....Although the estimated difference between these two times is exceedingly small, Michelson and Morley performed an experiment involving interference in which this difference should have been clearly detectable. But the experiment gave a negative result — a fact very perplexing to physicists. Lorentz and FitzGerald rescued the theory from this difficulty by assuming that the motion of the body relative to the æther produces a contraction of the body in the direction of motion, the amount of contraction being just sufficient to compensate for the difference in time mentioned above." (Einstein6, § 16).

Really did Einstein do anything original? Everything Einstein did came from someone else. The question is Lorentz transformation valid but it really does not matter if you look farther into the question since if the time-space cs transformation is valid that mean it can to applied to Michelson's experiment to justify the ether and if you argue that the time-space transformation is invalid than there can be not reversal of the negative result of Michelson experiment to justify the ether yet in any case vacuum proves the ether, composed of matter, does not exist and has precedence before the reversal of Michelson-Morley experiment since the negative result of vacuum cannot be reversed but the ether is extremely important the Maxwell's theory since within a finite volume there is an infinite number of positions which result in an energy divergence since when position is depicted with a field vector (energy) the result is an infinite energy which is solved with the ether particles.

"Such was the state of things when H. A. Lorentz entered upon the scene. He brought theory into harmony with experience by means of a wonderful simplification of theoretical principles. He achieved this, the most important advance in the theory of electricity since Maxwell, by taking from ether its mechanical, and from matter its electromagnetic qualities. As in empty space, so too in the interior of material bodies, the ether, and not matter viewed atomistically, was exclusively the seat of electromagnetic fields. According to Lorentz the elementary particles of matter alone are capable of carrying out movements; their electromagnetic activity is entirely confined to the carrying of electric charges. Thus Lorentz succeeded in reducing all electromagnetic happenings to Maxwell's equations for free space.

As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian ether, it may be said of it, in a somewhat playful spirit, that immobility is the only mechanical property of which it has not been deprived by H. A. Lorentz. It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility. How this is to be understood will forthwith be expounded.........More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the inconceivability of which I shall at once endeavor to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity.." (Einstein7, Lecture).

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 3:53:09 PM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
> The analogies of special relativity, simultaneity, the rocket problem, time-space, time space black holes, gradational waves, GPS, are used to justify Lorentz's transformation of Michelson's experiment that is testing the existence of the ether drift where the motion of the ether, composed of matter, forms the ether drift.
>
> "The undulatory theory of light assumes the existence of a medium called the ether, whose vibrations produce the phenomena of heat and light, and which is supposed to fill all space. According to Fresnel, the ether, which is enclosed in optical media, partakes of the motion of these media, to an extent depending on their indices of refraction. For air, this motion would be but a small fraction of that of the air itself and will be neglected." (Michelson, p. 120).
>
>
> The wave theory of light was the premiere question of the 1900's where the ether is part of Maxwell's theory since physicists could not explain electromagnetic field theory without an ether..
>
> "The only aether which has survived is that which was invented by Huygens to explain the propagation of light. The evidence for the existence of the luminiferous aether has accumulated as additional phenomena of light and radiation have been discovered" (Maxwell, Part XCVII, p. 764)."If we adopt either Fresnel's or Maccullagh's form of the undulatory theory, half of this energy is in the form of potential energy, due to the distortion of elementary portions of the medium, and half in the form of kinetic energy, due to the motion of the medium. We must therefore regard the aether as possessing elasticity similar to that of a solid body, and also as having a finite density." (Maxwell, Part XCVII, p. 767).
>
> The analogies are based on Einstein's coordinate system transformation (time-space) that originates from Lorentz theory.
>
> "On the other hand, all coordinate systems moving relatively were to be regarded as in motion with respect to the æther. To this motion against the æther ("æther-drift") were attributed more complicated laws which were supposed to hold relative to. Strictly speaking, such an æther-drift ought also to be assumed relative to the earth, and for a long time the efforts of physicists were devoted to attempts to detect the existence of an æther-drift at the earth's surface....Although the estimated difference between these two times is exceedingly small, Michelson and Morley performed an experiment involving interference in which this difference should have been clearly detectable. But the experiment gave a negative result — a fact very perplexing to physicists. Lorentz and FitzGerald rescued the theory from this difficulty by assuming that the motion of the body relative to the æther produces a contraction of the body in the direction of motion, the amount of contraction being just sufficient to compensate for the difference in time mentioned above." (Einstein6, § 16).
>
> Really did Einstein do anything original? Everything Einstein did came from someone else. The question is Lorentz transformation valid but it really does not matter if you look farther into the question since if the time-space cs transformation is valid that mean it can to applied to Michelson's experiment to justify the ether and if you argue that the time-space transformation is invalid than there can be not reversal of the negative result of Michelson experiment to justify the ether yet in any case vacuum proves the ether, composed of matter, does not exist and has precedence before the reversal of Michelson-Morley experiment since the negative result of vacuum cannot be reversed but the ether is extremely important the Maxwell's theory since within a finite volume there is an infinite number of positions which result in an energy divergence since when position is depicted with a field vector (energy) the result is an infinite energy which is solved with the ether particles.
>
>
> "Such was the state of things when H. A. Lorentz entered upon the scene. He brought theory into harmony with experience by means of a wonderful simplification of theoretical principles. He achieved this, the most important advance in the theory of electricity since Maxwell, by taking from ether its mechanical, and from matter its electromagnetic qualities. As in empty space, so too in the interior of material bodies, the ether, and not matter viewed atomistically, was exclusively the seat of electromagnetic fields. According to Lorentz the elementary particles of matter alone are capable of carrying out movements; their electromagnetic activity is entirely confined to the carrying of electric charges. Thus Lorentz succeeded in reducing all electromagnetic happenings to Maxwell's equations for free space.
>
> As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian ether, it may be said of it, in a somewhat playful spirit, that immobility is the only mechanical property of which it has not been deprived by H. A. Lorentz. It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility. How this is to be understood will forthwith be expounded.........More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the inconceivability of which I shall at once endeavor to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity." (Einstein7, Lecture).

Carl Eto is no Ben Ito.

"The only ether that survived was Huygens who explained propagation of light."

Please go on about Huygens where Fresnel, I think most agree.

Yours

Or thanks, Carl or Ben Eto or Ito.

On January 17, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> I.e. there are separate derivations
> for rest momentum and exchange momentum.
> About acceleration and rest, and velocity, about
> distance, which in time measures velocity, is
> that constant acceleration results in a shared frame,
> and a shared frame is rest.
> I.e., here the differential and integrable components,
> integrable and differentiable with respect to each other,
> result potential for rest in action.

Are you on Ritalin?

--
Rich

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 6:45:42 PM UTC-8, RichD wrote:
> On January 17, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > I.e. there are separate derivations
> > for rest momentum and exchange momentum.
> > About acceleration and rest, and velocity, about
> > distance, which in time measures velocity, is
> > that constant acceleration results in a shared frame,
> > and a shared frame is rest.
> > I.e., here the differential and integrable components,
> > integrable and differentiable with respect to each other,
> > result potential for rest in action.
>
> Are you on Ritalin?
>
> --
> Rich

No, sorry, though, I have studied mathematics for thirty years.
Thanks, no, I've never had a Ritalin. Though, I imagine like other
excreted drugs it often ends up in the water.

The reason I define "rest momentum, and, 'exchange' momentum",
basically is for the experiment in moving frame and start and stop,
rest and exchange in frames.

Then, since learning about particle/wave duality, it is always an
example here to look at what is the complementary part of
the theory, that defines a fuller theory. I.e. everything is already
defined as particles, it was, here that for inertia, and,
momentum, and torque, for angular and linear motion,
is the classical or Newton's momentum and potential,
what exchange momentum has waves up in resonance.

And constant velocity....

No, sorry, or thanks, though, I guess.

There is a physical interpretation - and I mean that.

The more I learn already about classical theory and potential
theory, it is always that the potential is true - i.e. it's almost
always seeming the physical interpretation is on the potential
component. So if you know otherwise where "no indeed only
the classical component has a physical interpretation and the
potential is indeed zero", is for a usual gravity.

Rich, the other day I was playing a guitar or today. Then, when,
the acoustic guitar, has tone or echoes as it were the instrument,
is for that a guitar is an easy instrument to play, and that when
it gets going, the inputs of the instrument, it continues to sound.

That's in the audio wave, the point is it's a very nice sound,
the echo of a song what results not that the strings are still
vibrating, but the air inside the body. Like the echo in a shell....

Which is kind of like its "frame", sustained over time.

So, here "getting everybody to agree that Lagrangians,
are as under indeterminate forms, that usual theories are
defined in it, and, alternate and stronger support makes
for less indeterminate forms, what still satisfy carrying
determinate forms".

Then immediately the idea is that if potential theory is true
and I've already put "light-speed rest-frame theory" and
"rest exchange momentum theory", these are potential theories
a.k.a. theories of potential, that any conserved quantity implies
an associated real potential.

Let's see, other theories I wrote or mentioned here are, "fall gravity",
what is same as making gravity the strong nuclear force with fall gravity,
what results adding gravity back to the standard model and also unifying
all field theory, because physics already unified strong and weak nuclear
and charge and electroweak forces.

Here then the London-Lorentz-Lagrange is all sorts usual Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen.
For example - it's also most all the other QED, QCD regimes, besides
condensed matter physics.

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 7:45:30 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 6:45:42 PM UTC-8, RichD wrote:
> > On January 17, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > I.e. there are separate derivations
> > > for rest momentum and exchange momentum.
> > > About acceleration and rest, and velocity, about
> > > distance, which in time measures velocity, is
> > > that constant acceleration results in a shared frame,
> > > and a shared frame is rest.
> > > I.e., here the differential and integrable components,
> > > integrable and differentiable with respect to each other,
> > > result potential for rest in action.
> >
> > Are you on Ritalin?
> >
> > --
> > Rich
> No, sorry, though, I have studied mathematics for thirty years.
> Thanks, no, I've never had a Ritalin. Though, I imagine like other
> excreted drugs it often ends up in the water.
>
> The reason I define "rest momentum, and, 'exchange' momentum",
> basically is for the experiment in moving frame and start and stop,
> rest and exchange in frames.
>
> Then, since learning about particle/wave duality, it is always an
> example here to look at what is the complementary part of
> the theory, that defines a fuller theory. I.e. everything is already
> defined as particles, it was, here that for inertia, and,
> momentum, and torque, for angular and linear motion,
> is the classical or Newton's momentum and potential,
> what exchange momentum has waves up in resonance.
>
> And constant velocity....
>
> No, sorry, or thanks, though, I guess.
>
> There is a physical interpretation - and I mean that.
>
>
>
> The more I learn already about classical theory and potential
> theory, it is always that the potential is true - i.e. it's almost
> always seeming the physical interpretation is on the potential
> component. So if you know otherwise where "no indeed only
> the classical component has a physical interpretation and the
> potential is indeed zero", is for a usual gravity.
>
> Rich, the other day I was playing a guitar or today. Then, when,
> the acoustic guitar, has tone or echoes as it were the instrument,
> is for that a guitar is an easy instrument to play, and that when
> it gets going, the inputs of the instrument, it continues to sound.
>
> That's in the audio wave, the point is it's a very nice sound,
> the echo of a song what results not that the strings are still
> vibrating, but the air inside the body. Like the echo in a shell....
>
> Which is kind of like its "frame", sustained over time.
>
> So, here "getting everybody to agree that Lagrangians,
> are as under indeterminate forms, that usual theories are
> defined in it, and, alternate and stronger support makes
> for less indeterminate forms, what still satisfy carrying
> determinate forms".
>
> Then immediately the idea is that if potential theory is true
> and I've already put "light-speed rest-frame theory" and
> "rest exchange momentum theory", these are potential theories
> a.k.a. theories of potential, that any conserved quantity implies
> an associated real potential.
>
> Let's see, other theories I wrote or mentioned here are, "fall gravity",
> what is same as making gravity the strong nuclear force with fall gravity,
> what results adding gravity back to the standard model and also unifying
> all field theory, because physics already unified strong and weak nuclear
> and charge and electroweak forces.
>
> Here then the London-Lorentz-Lagrange is all sorts usual Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen.
> For example - it's also most all the other QED, QCD regimes, besides
> condensed matter physics.

I mean, doesn't it kind of make you grit your teeth, or something?

I also have a space-warp theory, after "don't forget space contraction",
from a usual notion besides of space-time wheel and resulting from
fall gravity theory, other effects predicted by general relativity.
(Or mass-energy equivalence.)

Here that I would be writing in Lagrangians, ....

On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 1:08:02 AM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

<snip>

> > No, sorry, though, I have studied mathematics for thirty years. Thanks, no, I've never had a Ritalin.
..........
> > Rich, the other day I was playing a guitar or today.
........
> > Let's see, other theories I wrote or mentioned here are, "fall gravity",
........
> I also have a space-warp theory, after "don't forget space contraction",
.........
> Here that I would be writing in Lagrangians, ....
-----

Ross, I don't doubt about your intelligence and knowledge. But I write this as a "wake-up call" for you.

You don't need Ritalin or similar stimulants. Quite the opposite, you need Diazepam 10 mg twice a day, plus seeing
a professional MD that deal with anxiety disorders.

I tell you this from my heart, sincerely. You need to calm down, whatever it take. Also, a good daily amount of aerobics
may help to balance your stress, which is visible BIG.

Nobody can be all day dealing with abstractions filling their minds, non stop. There is a risk of overload for anyone.

I sense that you are extremely overloading your mind and body, so you require to get help. Once you trespass certain limits in
your mind, you will have severe problems. I saw it happen to people younger than you, on my years working actively.

You can keep doing your business but in a more controlled way, with proper medication, exercise and healthy food.

I hope you can follow these advises without being offended.

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 9:30:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 1:08:02 AM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > No, sorry, though, I have studied mathematics for thirty years. Thanks, no, I've never had a Ritalin.
> .........
> > > Rich, the other day I was playing a guitar or today.
> .......
> > > Let's see, other theories I wrote or mentioned here are, "fall gravity",
> .......
> > I also have a space-warp theory, after "don't forget space contraction",
> ........
> > Here that I would be writing in Lagrangians, ....
> -----
>
> Ross, I don't doubt about your intelligence and knowledge. But I write this as a "wake-up call" for you.
>
> You don't need Ritalin or similar stimulants. Quite the opposite, you need Diazepam 10 mg twice a day, plus seeing
> a professional MD that deal with anxiety disorders.
>
> I tell you this from my heart, sincerely. You need to calm down, whatever it take. Also, a good daily amount of aerobics
> may help to balance your stress, which is visible BIG.
>
> Nobody can be all day dealing with abstractions filling their minds, non stop. There is a risk of overload for anyone.
>
> I sense that you are extremely overloading your mind and body, so you require to get help. Once you trespass certain limits in
> your mind, you will have severe problems. I saw it happen to people younger than you, on my years working actively.
>
> You can keep doing your business but in a more controlled way, with proper medication, exercise and healthy food.
>
> I hope you can follow these advises without being offended.

Ah: Lagrangians....

Let's agree Lagrangians are a usual rule for integration, though
here as we are talking it is about the Lagrangians' derivatives,
that the integration having a sum bounds the derivatives zero below,
it is fine and exactly that way.

"Lagrangians: I ate a zinc today"

"Lagrangians: I ate a zinc today, the Lagrangian held up the derivative"

-- "it is not a lemma"

Now that I have built a simple template mathematics joke for
Lagrange, "it is not a lemma", is I don't even eat aspirin.

I.e., it's not a joke if it's a lemma.

"Lagrangian: derivative sums for terms"

This is that the Lagrangian is able to add one way,
after it is bounded zero, below, from what the is actually
the integration case that builds the Lagrangian building
only a one-sided bound, makes for the derivative case why it
matches the Taylor term as a first quadratic term, of sorts,
(x+y)^2, then, for exampling what it actually is, is that only
in the limit is it that term, instead as it would build.

How about that, then a formulation for the Lagrangian,
as physicists agree Lagrangians, this instead the usual
is for the time term: in both the case and the condition,
that dt and T are the same time term: or so as a function,
what so results as a function is a determinate form.

I.e., Lagrangians are entirely parameterized in t: one t.

I.e., there are many ways to establish the same conditions
of a Lagrangian,
in a given transformation of coordinates and variables
in t keeping time symmetry
here that these Lagrangians reflect both that they contribute
only courtesy what they can be defined in the classical limit
what looks like and is a the initial "quadratic" term, then the
has that it can give and take, for example to another, so contrived,
system.

(Lagrangians.)

Do you know any Lagrangians which also have R metric also,
the R-metric Lagrangian here basically makes for a system in
all space at the same time at once.

Here as above is for building one with these integrable regions.

(Lagrangians.)

On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 12:23:29 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 9:30:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 1:08:02 AM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > > No, sorry, though, I have studied mathematics for thirty years. Thanks, no, I've never had a Ritalin.
> > .........
> > > > Rich, the other day I was playing a guitar or today.
> > .......
> > > > Let's see, other theories I wrote or mentioned here are, "fall gravity",
> > .......
> > > I also have a space-warp theory, after "don't forget space contraction",
> > ........
> > > Here that I would be writing in Lagrangians, ....
> > -----
> >
> > Ross, I don't doubt about your intelligence and knowledge. But I write this as a "wake-up call" for you.
> >
> > You don't need Ritalin or similar stimulants. Quite the opposite, you need Diazepam 10 mg twice a day, plus seeing
> > a professional MD that deal with anxiety disorders.
> >
> > I tell you this from my heart, sincerely. You need to calm down, whatever it take. Also, a good daily amount of aerobics
> > may help to balance your stress, which is visible BIG.
> >
> > Nobody can be all day dealing with abstractions filling their minds, non stop. There is a risk of overload for anyone.
> >
> > I sense that you are extremely overloading your mind and body, so you require to get help. Once you trespass certain limits in
> > your mind, you will have severe problems. I saw it happen to people younger than you, on my years working actively.
> >
> > You can keep doing your business but in a more controlled way, with proper medication, exercise and healthy food.
> >
> > I hope you can follow these advises without being offended.
> Ah: Lagrangians....
>
> Let's agree Lagrangians are a usual rule for integration, though
> here as we are talking it is about the Lagrangians' derivatives,
> that the integration having a sum bounds the derivatives zero below,
> it is fine and exactly that way.
>
>
> "Lagrangians: I ate a zinc today"
>
> "Lagrangians: I ate a zinc today, the Lagrangian held up the derivative"
>
> -- "it is not a lemma"
>
> Now that I have built a simple template mathematics joke for
> Lagrange, "it is not a lemma", is I don't even eat aspirin.
>
> I.e., it's not a joke if it's a lemma.
>
> "Lagrangian: derivative sums for terms"
>
> This is that the Lagrangian is able to add one way,
> after it is bounded zero, below, from what the is actually
> the integration case that builds the Lagrangian building
> only a one-sided bound, makes for the derivative case why it
> matches the Taylor term as a first quadratic term, of sorts,
> (x+y)^2, then, for exampling what it actually is, is that only
> in the limit is it that term, instead as it would build.
>
> How about that, then a formulation for the Lagrangian,
> as physicists agree Lagrangians, this instead the usual
> is for the time term: in both the case and the condition,
> that dt and T are the same time term: or so as a function,
> what so results as a function is a determinate form.
>
> I.e., Lagrangians are entirely parameterized in t: one t.
>
> I.e., there are many ways to establish the same conditions
> of a Lagrangian,
> in a given transformation of coordinates and variables
> in t keeping time symmetry
> here that these Lagrangians reflect both that they contribute
> only courtesy what they can be defined in the classical limit
> what looks like and is a the initial "quadratic" term, then the
> has that it can give and take, for example to another, so contrived,
> system.
>
> (Lagrangians.)
>
> Do you know any Lagrangians which also have R metric also,
> the R-metric Lagrangian here basically makes for a system in
> all space at the same time at once.
>
> Here as above is for building one with these integrable regions.
>
> (Lagrangians.)

I searched the entire Internet and found this,

Kreutzer 2021,
"Canonical analysis of E_6(6)(R) invariant five dimensional (super-)gravity"
-- https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/5.0037092

"In addition, there is a metric independent topological term of the
form A /\ F /\ F -- note that this term is also second order in derivatives."

"The coefficient ... of the topological term (the sign is convention dependent)
is needed for maximal supersymmetry in five dimensions. This value ... also
guarantees ... invariance upon reduction to three dimensions."

J. Math. Phys.

"The remaining canonical momenta do not vanish since the Lagrangian
does contain time derivatives of their conjugate fields".

"To compare with the metric formulation of canonical general relativity,
...., one can ... relate the canonical momenta of the spatial vielbein to the
canonical momenta of the metric, ...".

"In this section, we compute the explicit form of all infinitesimal gauge
transformations. To do so, we calculate the Poisson brackets of all the
contraints Phi[lambda] with all the canonical coordinates X via deltaX = {X, Phi[lambda]}."

("We only state the non-vanishing gauge transformations.")

Here the point is there exists a Lagrangian,
what includes the vanishing gauge transformations.

Then, it looks this kind of theory has some notion of space-contraction.

"The starting point of the canonical analysis is most often
the Lagrangian formulation of a theory."

On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 1:17:31 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 12:23:29 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 9:30:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 1:08:02 AM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > > No, sorry, though, I have studied mathematics for thirty years. Thanks, no, I've never had a Ritalin.
> > > .........
> > > > > Rich, the other day I was playing a guitar or today.
> > > .......
> > > > > Let's see, other theories I wrote or mentioned here are, "fall gravity",
> > > .......
> > > > I also have a space-warp theory, after "don't forget space contraction",
> > > ........
> > > > Here that I would be writing in Lagrangians, ....
> > > -----
> > >
> > > Ross, I don't doubt about your intelligence and knowledge. But I write this as a "wake-up call" for you.
> > >
> > > You don't need Ritalin or similar stimulants. Quite the opposite, you need Diazepam 10 mg twice a day, plus seeing
> > > a professional MD that deal with anxiety disorders.
> > >
> > > I tell you this from my heart, sincerely. You need to calm down, whatever it take. Also, a good daily amount of aerobics
> > > may help to balance your stress, which is visible BIG.
> > >
> > > Nobody can be all day dealing with abstractions filling their minds, non stop. There is a risk of overload for anyone.
> > >
> > > I sense that you are extremely overloading your mind and body, so you require to get help. Once you trespass certain limits in
> > > your mind, you will have severe problems. I saw it happen to people younger than you, on my years working actively.
> > >
> > > You can keep doing your business but in a more controlled way, with proper medication, exercise and healthy food.
> > >
> > > I hope you can follow these advises without being offended.
> > Ah: Lagrangians....
> >
> > Let's agree Lagrangians are a usual rule for integration, though
> > here as we are talking it is about the Lagrangians' derivatives,
> > that the integration having a sum bounds the derivatives zero below,
> > it is fine and exactly that way.
> >
> >
> > "Lagrangians: I ate a zinc today"
> >
> > "Lagrangians: I ate a zinc today, the Lagrangian held up the derivative"
> >
> > -- "it is not a lemma"
> >
> > Now that I have built a simple template mathematics joke for
> > Lagrange, "it is not a lemma", is I don't even eat aspirin.
> >
> > I.e., it's not a joke if it's a lemma.
> >
> > "Lagrangian: derivative sums for terms"
> >
> > This is that the Lagrangian is able to add one way,
> > after it is bounded zero, below, from what the is actually
> > the integration case that builds the Lagrangian building
> > only a one-sided bound, makes for the derivative case why it
> > matches the Taylor term as a first quadratic term, of sorts,
> > (x+y)^2, then, for exampling what it actually is, is that only
> > in the limit is it that term, instead as it would build.
> >
> > How about that, then a formulation for the Lagrangian,
> > as physicists agree Lagrangians, this instead the usual
> > is for the time term: in both the case and the condition,
> > that dt and T are the same time term: or so as a function,
> > what so results as a function is a determinate form.
> >
> > I.e., Lagrangians are entirely parameterized in t: one t.
> >
> > I.e., there are many ways to establish the same conditions
> > of a Lagrangian,
> > in a given transformation of coordinates and variables
> > in t keeping time symmetry
> > here that these Lagrangians reflect both that they contribute
> > only courtesy what they can be defined in the classical limit
> > what looks like and is a the initial "quadratic" term, then the
> > has that it can give and take, for example to another, so contrived,
> > system.
> >
> > (Lagrangians.)
> >
> > Do you know any Lagrangians which also have R metric also,
> > the R-metric Lagrangian here basically makes for a system in
> > all space at the same time at once.
> >
> > Here as above is for building one with these integrable regions.
> >
> > (Lagrangians.)
> I searched the entire Internet and found this,
>
> Kreutzer 2021,
> "Canonical analysis of E_6(6)(R) invariant five dimensional (super-)gravity"
> -- https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/5.0037092
>
> "In addition, there is a metric independent topological term of the
> form A /\ F /\ F -- note that this term is also second order in derivatives."
>
> "The coefficient ... of the topological term (the sign is convention dependent)
> is needed for maximal supersymmetry in five dimensions. This value ... also
> guarantees ... invariance upon reduction to three dimensions."
>
> J. Math. Phys.
>
> "The remaining canonical momenta do not vanish since the Lagrangian
> does contain time derivatives of their conjugate fields".
>
> "To compare with the metric formulation of canonical general relativity,
> ..., one can ... relate the canonical momenta of the spatial vielbein to the
> canonical momenta of the metric, ...".
>
>
> "In this section, we compute the explicit form of all infinitesimal gauge
> transformations. To do so, we calculate the Poisson brackets of all the
> contraints Phi[lambda] with all the canonical coordinates X via deltaX = {X, Phi[lambda]}."
>
> ("We only state the non-vanishing gauge transformations.")
>
> Here the point is there exists a Lagrangian,
> what includes the vanishing gauge transformations.
>
> Then, it looks this kind of theory has some notion of space-contraction.
>
>
> "The starting point of the canonical analysis is most often
> the Lagrangian formulation of a theory."

Thanks, I fixed this.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 2:08:04 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> THIS IS AN ASSERTION OF MY OWN, DERIVED FROM THE FACT THAT THE SOLAR
>>> SYSTEM IS KNOWN AS BORN 4.5 BILLION YEARS AGO.
>
>> And given your history with statements you assert on your own, it’s very
>> likely worthless. Rest unread.
>
> You shouldn't hate or despise my ideas because you have issues with me, Bodkin.
>
> You're being judgmental, which goes against most of your written thoughts at this forum.
>
>
> I was born this way, which is the source of many controversies in the
> past with colleagues. Actually, it doesn't matter the discipline.
>
> But don't hate me for having this "ability"?, which is more a source of
> trouble than a bridge, when I relate to others.
>
>

Enough said.

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

On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 4:47:17 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 2:08:04 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>> THIS IS AN ASSERTION OF MY OWN, DERIVED FROM THE FACT THAT THE SOLAR
> >>> SYSTEM IS KNOWN AS BORN 4.5 BILLION YEARS AGO.
> >
> >> And given your history with statements you assert on your own, it’s very
> >> likely worthless. Rest unread.
> >
> > You shouldn't hate or despise my ideas because you have issues with me, Bodkin.
> >
> > You're being judgmental, which goes against most of your written thoughts at this forum.
> >
> >
> > I was born this way, which is the source of many controversies in the
> > past with colleagues. Actually, it doesn't matter the discipline.
> >
> > But don't hate me for having this "ability"?, which is more a source of
> > trouble than a bridge, when I relate to others.
> >
> >
>
> Enough said.
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Don't blame me for you being just a parrot without imagination.

If a small parrot, with a 30 grams brain can almost exactly sing 40 songs in YT videos, I assume that you
can sing 40 x 40 songs. But the parrot doesn't understand the lyrics, it just memorize and reproduce.

You are as a big parrot with your borrowed knowledge. Just repeat it, without understanding even a bit.

And also, you may some some monkey's DNA. Monkey sees, monkey does.

Monkey + parrot is a close description of your being, Paudkin.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 4:47:17 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 2:08:04 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> THIS IS AN ASSERTION OF MY OWN, DERIVED FROM THE FACT THAT THE SOLAR
>>>>> SYSTEM IS KNOWN AS BORN 4.5 BILLION YEARS AGO.
>>>
>>>> And given your history with statements you assert on your own, it’s very
>>>> likely worthless. Rest unread.
>>>
>>> You shouldn't hate or despise my ideas because you have issues with me, Bodkin.
>>>
>>> You're being judgmental, which goes against most of your written thoughts at this forum.
>>>
>>>
>>> I was born this way, which is the source of many controversies in the
>>> past with colleagues. Actually, it doesn't matter the discipline.
>>>
>>> But don't hate me for having this "ability"?, which is more a source of
>>> trouble than a bridge, when I relate to others.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Enough said.
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Don't blame me for you being just a parrot without imagination.
>
> If a small parrot, with a 30 grams brain can almost exactly sing 40 songs
> in YT videos, I assume that you
> can sing 40 x 40 songs. But the parrot doesn't understand the lyrics, it
> just memorize and reproduce.
>
> You are as a big parrot with your borrowed knowledge. Just repeat it,
> without understanding even a bit.

Well, that’s fascinating that you would take this old crank tactic.
“You don’t understand it. It’s not possible you understand it. You’ve
memorized it only. The way I know that is that I’m the ONLY one that
understands it, and I see that it’s trash. Everyone — EVERYONE — who says
they understand it and it’s ok is just lying that they do.”
That about capture it?

>
> And also, you may some some monkey's DNA. Monkey sees, monkey does.
>
> Monkey + parrot is a close description of your being, Paudkin.
>
>

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

On Friday, 21 January 2022 at 21:05:11 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 4:47:17 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 2:08:04 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>>> THIS IS AN ASSERTION OF MY OWN, DERIVED FROM THE FACT THAT THE SOLAR
> >>>>> SYSTEM IS KNOWN AS BORN 4.5 BILLION YEARS AGO.
> >>>
> >>>> And given your history with statements you assert on your own, it’s very
> >>>> likely worthless. Rest unread.
> >>>
> >>> You shouldn't hate or despise my ideas because you have issues with me, Bodkin.
> >>>
> >>> You're being judgmental, which goes against most of your written thoughts at this forum.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I was born this way, which is the source of many controversies in the
> >>> past with colleagues. Actually, it doesn't matter the discipline.
> >>>
> >>> But don't hate me for having this "ability"?, which is more a source of
> >>> trouble than a bridge, when I relate to others.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Enough said.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > Don't blame me for you being just a parrot without imagination.
> >
> > If a small parrot, with a 30 grams brain can almost exactly sing 40 songs
> > in YT videos, I assume that you
> > can sing 40 x 40 songs. But the parrot doesn't understand the lyrics, it
> > just memorize and reproduce.
> >
> > You are as a big parrot with your borrowed knowledge. Just repeat it,
> > without understanding even a bit.
> Well, that’s fascinating that you would take this old crank tactic.

The tactic used by all strawmen of the poor idiot woodworker.

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 10:34:08 PM UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 21:22:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> Being a mumbling moron is no tactic.
> >> If it "is no tactic", why are acting like one? Maybe because
> >> you ARE one, Maciej.
> >
> > In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
> > by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
> > like all serious clocks always did.
> You've just done it again.

I concluded a few years ago that Maciej is mentally ill, and
since I have no way of helping him otherwise, I just cut him off my feed.
There was (and is?) an obvious OCD component to his posts as well as infantile
magic word thinking, all mixed together with the very obvious impairment
to basic rules of logical inference.

My diagnosis: mild schizophrenia. I had a neighbour like this once, his fantasy
world was different (diplomacy instead of science) but same pattern otherwise.
Very intelligent, taught himself two languages fluently, but a total mish-mash as
far as the grasp of reality went.

--
Jan

JanPB wrote:

> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 10:34:08 PM UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> > On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 21:22:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> >> ...
>> >>> Being a mumbling moron is no tactic.
>> >> If it "is no tactic", why are acting like one? Maybe because
>> >> you ARE one, Maciej.
>> >
>> > In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
>> > by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
>> > like all serious clocks always did.
>> You've just done it again.

> I concluded a few years ago that Maciej is mentally ill, and

See, poor trash, I've proven that the mumble of your
beloved guru was not even consistent, and you can do
nothing about it apart of throwing on me some shit from
a safe distance. But you will do what you can for your
idiot guru and your insane religion.

On 2/14/2024 8:19 AM, JanPB wrote:
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 10:34:08 PM UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 21:22:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> Being a mumbling moron is no tactic.
>>>> If it "is no tactic", why are acting like one? Maybe because
>>>> you ARE one, Maciej.
>>>
>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
>>> by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
>>> like all serious clocks always did.
>> You've just done it again.
>
> I concluded a few years ago that Maciej is mentally ill, and
> since I have no way of helping him otherwise, I just cut him off my feed.
> There was (and is?) an obvious OCD component to his posts as well as infantile
> magic word thinking, all mixed together with the very obvious impairment
> to basic rules of logical inference.
>
> My diagnosis: mild schizophrenia. I had a neighbour like this once, his fantasy
> world was different (diplomacy instead of science) but same pattern otherwise.
> Very intelligent, taught himself two languages fluently, but a total mish-mash as
> far as the grasp of reality went.
>
Probably. Definitely the 'magic word' syndrome, repeating things over
and over. I don't know how to place his reverse interpretations of
everything, especially the laughable claim the GPS 'proves' Newtonian
time when in fact the GPS wouldn't even work correctly without GR
compensation.

MaciejWozniak wrote:

> JanPB wrote:
>>> > In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your
>>> > moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
>>> > clocks always did.
>>> You've just done it again.
>
>> I concluded a few years ago that Maciej is mentally ill, and
>
> See, poor trash, I've proven that the mumble of your beloved guru was
> not even consistent, and you can do nothing about it apart of throwing
> on me some shit from a safe distance. But you will do what you can for
> your idiot guru and your insane religion.

not true. You both seems stupid polakers, the scam bags of planet earth. I
strongly suspect the Volney is a stupid polaker too, or seemingly, an
immigrant of amrica from the fucking ukrein. lol. You guys are amazing.
Transforming the entire amrica into a lying bitch, year 2024.

𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻_𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗯𝗲_𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗱_–_𝗨𝗦_𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲’𝘀_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘆_𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 lol
West Virginia’s Patrick Morrisey has urged Vice President puppet Kamala
Harris to invoke the 25th Amendment and declare the puppet president unfit
for office
https://r%74.com/news/592438-harris-remove-joe-biden/

"Biden must be removed..." - So make Kamala as president? Anyone lives in
this century just witness the biggest joke of the century for SATANIC US.

Yes, he should be removed from power, along with his entire
administration, not one left behind, they all should go.

Yeah, let’s change an abnormal unfit brain for a plain stupid one. That
must be it.

Biden cannot walk and chew gum at the same time but he can walk and poop
his pants at the same time.

On 02/14/2024 05:19 AM, JanPB wrote:
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 10:34:08 PM UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 21:22:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> Being a mumbling moron is no tactic.
>>>> If it "is no tactic", why are acting like one? Maybe because
>>>> you ARE one, Maciej.
>>>
>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
>>> by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
>>> like all serious clocks always did.
>> You've just done it again.
>
> I concluded a few years ago that Maciej is mentally ill, and
> since I have no way of helping him otherwise, I just cut him off my feed.
> There was (and is?) an obvious OCD component to his posts as well as infantile
> magic word thinking, all mixed together with the very obvious impairment
> to basic rules of logical inference.
>
> My diagnosis: mild schizophrenia. I had a neighbour like this once, his fantasy
> world was different (diplomacy instead of science) but same pattern otherwise.
> Very intelligent, taught himself two languages fluently, but a total mish-mash as
> far as the grasp of reality went.
>
> --
> Jan
>

Quoth erat demonstrandum?

Obviously as a sort of personality,
Maciej Wozniak has a language barrier
through which his constant opinion is
that "relativity works with GPS"
vis-a-vis a usual other-way-around.

Of course it's very well-known that the
premier Earth ephemeris is the JPL's
"Parameterized Post-Newtonian".

About Einstein's "Special" and
about Einstein's "spatial" and
about Einstein's "spacial", and
that Einstein's "Special" is "spacial",
about bradyonic flow and tachyonic flux,
has it so that anybody can make their
own opinion as with regards to the value
or lack thereof of yours.

So anyways if you're a devout student
of Einstein you'll really find his
last word in "Out of My Later Years"
and it's great.

It makes for "space contraction" then
for things like a "Rest Exchange Momentum"
theory and a "Light Speed Rest Frame" theory.

You know, a field theory, that's a gauge theory,
with a continuous manifold called space-time
and its contents Space-Time, or, you know,
all the usual desiderata and requirements of
a unified sort of theory.

Python wrote:

> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 22:34:08 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 21:22:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Being a mumbling moron is no tactic.
>>>>> If it "is no tactic", why are acting like one? Maybe because
>>>>> you ARE one, Maciej.
>>>>
>>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
>>>> by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
>>>> like all serious clocks always did.
>>> You've just done it again.
>>
>> And I will do it many, many times more

> No doubt about that. Fortunately soon you'll die and all
> the nonsense you've been posting will only be of some
> interest for historians looking for information on fools
> and cranks.

His case is a psychiatric one. That's why one cannot discuss
anything with him, it's all just a form of hysteria and magic
thinking.

--
Jan