Catching a big troll
Juan R.
available
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/12/catching-big-troll.html
Initially, I waited Dono, the troll, would repeat the same mistakes
that he did in the past and I could not reproduce because he deleted
his messages.
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-iii-nasty.html
Then I only could cite some nonsense he wrote like
> the relativistic Lagrangian is indeed:
>
> L=-m_0*c^2 *(1-(v/c)^2)
which is archived in places as
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6db93e88919413fe?
and
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2008-07/msg00824.html
But I could not cite other nonsense he said. For laughing, I prepared
a trap for trolls using the recommendation in the troll FAQ and, of
course, Dono fall into it :-)
Dono repeated the same mistakes than before but now, he added some
other new mistakes :-)
This time it was all well-linked and quoted, before Dono could start
to delete his nonsensical messages again...
We already knew that Dono, the troll, has no idea of relativity and
mechanics. Now, we know he has no idea of electrodynamics also.
His two more laughable posts are:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7c1b2697a4e73960
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f5bee64f3b044249
The old mistakes Dono repeats above were already commented in previous
articles:
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-iii-nasty.html
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-ii.html
Therefore, in the new article I have commented only the new mistakes
that the troll does, such as his wrong definition of electric field or
his wrong definition of p :-)
Yes, after *six* months Dono, the troll, still cannot solve a trivial
exercise as obtaining the relativistic Hamiltonian from the given
Lagrangian!
Their first attempt:
H = L = – mc^2 * [1 – v^2/ c^2 ]
FAILED
Their second attempt:
H = – mc^2 [1 – v^2 / c^2 ]^1/2
FAILED
Their third attempt:
H = – mc^2 [1 – p^2 / (mc)^2 ]^1/2
FAILED
Their fourth attempt:
H = gamma*m0*v^2 + m0c^2/gamma + e*phi – eAv
FAILED
But the more interesting part of this bizarre individual, Dono, is
that he continues claiming to be an expert in the topic and continues
posting completely wrong stuff!
The article includes extra material as images of Dono and an online
chat.
Dono
<juanrgonzal...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> snip imbecilities<
Cretin, Juanshito:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_mechanics#Charged_particle_in_an_electromagnetic_field
Juan R.
> On Dec 12, 8:53 am, "JuanShito R."
>
> <juanrgonzal...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> > snip imbecilities<
>
> Cretin, Juanshito:
Wow Dono, you give me 73 stars! Last time you falsified Groups rating
you were banned by administrators
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-iii-nasty.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_mechanics#Charged_particle_i...
An approximation to the Hamiltonian given in
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/12/catching-big-troll.html
Troll, *your* Hamiltonian
H = gamma*m0*v^2 + m0c^2/gamma + e*phi – eAv
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f5bee64f3b044249
is pure nonsense. You are a PRETENDER. After six month still can solve
this trivial exercise :-)
Juan R.
wrote:
> On 12 dic, 18:12, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 12, 8:53 am, "JuanShito R."
>
> > <juanrgonzal...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> > > snip imbecilities<
>
> > Cretin, Juanshito:
>
> Wow Dono, you give me 73 stars! Last time you falsified Groups rating
> you were banned by administrators
>
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_mechanics#Charged_particle_i...
>
> An approximation to the Hamiltonian given in
>
> http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/12/catching-big-troll.html
>
> Troll, *your* Hamiltonian
>
> H = gamma*m0*v^2 + m0c^2/gamma + e*phi – eAv
>
That is another nonsensical message from you. The message where you
wrote the wrong Hamiltonian is
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7c1b2697a4e73960
TROLL :-)
Dono
<juanrgonzal...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> snip pathetic whinning from old fart Juanshito<
This is all you can answer, pathetic old fart.
Look at paragraph 1.5, Juanshito imbecile:
http://www-thphys.physics.ox.ac.uk/people/JamesBinney/cmech.pdf
Eric Gisse
wrote:
> As promised [...]
How about posting the article that explain why GR has no Newtonian
limit? You've been promising that for years now.
How about responding to criticisms of arguments with something other
than character assassination attempts?
How about you stop being a disgusting little troll?
Juan R.
Pathetic old fart. It certifies you are an IGNORANT TROLL.
First the section 1.5 explain that of L = T - V. You and Eric both
were corrected about this in the past
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-ii.html
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-iii-nasty.html
and your repeated this mistake again in the trap :-)
here
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/12/catching-big-troll.html
and here
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f5bee64f3b044249
The expression 1.31 in cmech.pdf is only valid for low velocity.
The expression given for electric field is correct. The same
expression given in
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/12/catching-big-troll.html
The expression you wrote is wrong
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7c1b2697a4e73960
He does not obtain the Hamiltonian. The Hamiltonian is given in
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/12/catching-big-troll.html
The Hamiltonian you wrote is completely wrong
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7c1b2697a4e73960
You FELL into the trap :-)
After six month still you cannot obtain the Hamiltonian PRETENDER :-)
Dono
It's fun to see the despicable weasel squirm :-)
Dono
<juanrgonzal...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
> The expression 1.31 in cmech.pdf is only valid for low velocity.
>
> The expression given for electric field is correct.
Juanshito, old fart
It is fun to see you weasel squim. :-)
Juan R.
It is fun you wrote wrong E, p and H.
Yes, after *six* months Dono you still cannot solve a trivial
exercise as obtaining the relativistic Hamiltonian from the given
Lagrangian!
First attempt:
H = L = – mc^2 * [1 – v^2/ c^2 ]
FAILED
Second attempt:
H = – mc^2 [1 – v^2 / c^2 ]^1/2
FAILED
Third attempt:
H = – mc^2 [1 – p^2 / (mc)^2 ]^1/2
FAILED
Fourth attempt:
H = gamma*m0*v^2 + m0c^2/gamma + e*phi – eAv
FAILED
How many more months you need?
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/12/catching-big-troll.html
Dono
Juan R.
Do you really think that changing the title people will be not
noticing that you wrote wrong E, p, and H :-)
Yes, after *six* months Dono you still cannot solve a trivial
exercise as obtaining the relativistic Hamiltonian from the given
Lagrangian!
First attempt:
H = L = – mc^2 * [1 – v^2/ c^2 ]
FAILED
Second attempt:
H = – mc^2 [1 – v^2 / c^2 ]^1/2
FAILED
Third attempt:
H = – mc^2 [1 – p^2 / (mc)^2 ]^1/2
FAILED
Fourth attempt:
H = gamma*m0*v^2 + m0c^2/gamma + e*phi – eAv
FAILED
How many more months you need Dono to understand you are a pretender?
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/12/catching-big-troll.html
Dono
<juanrgonzal...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
Squirm, weasel:
Juanshito, old fart
L=-m0c^2/gamma-e*phi+eAv
where:
B=curl A
E=-@A/@t-grad(phi)
p=gamma*m0*v
H=pv-L=pv+m0c^2/gamma+e*phi-eAv=gamma*m0*v^2+m0c^2/gamma+e*phi-eAv
Now, answer the question I asked you 6 months ago: derive L. Let's see
you do it, old nutter.
Juan R.
And by *fifth* time, Dono, have showed to USENET audience that you
have no idea of elementary relativity or mechanics.
Yes, you have been exposed to be the biggest fraud on spr :-)
The blog article has been updated to contain your new nonsense :-)
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/12/catching-big-troll.html
Many thanks troll!
Dono
<juanrgonzal...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> On 12 dic, 22:11, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 12, 11:05 am, "JuanShito R."
>
> > <juanrgonzal...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
> > Squirm, weasel:
>
> > Juanshito, old fart
>
> > L=-m0c^2/gamma-e*phi+eAv
>
> > where:
>
> > B=curl A
> > E=-@A/@t-grad(phi)
>
> > p=gamma*m0*v
>
> > H=pv-L=pv+m0c^2/gamma+e*phi-eAv=gamma*m0*v^2+m0c^2/gamma+e*phi-eAv
>
> > Now, answer the question I asked you 6 months ago: derive L. Let's see
> > you do it, old nutter.
>
Exposing you as a crackpot , Juanshito, old fart:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f5bee64f3b044249
Juan R.
Thanks by that link but is already included in the blog article as
example of your ignorance :-)
Dono I can see you voted against me 49 times above. Some doubt that
your false votes will vanish tomorrow?
Dono
Juan R.
Thanks again by that link Dono but I already included in the blog
article as example of your ignorance :-)
Dono I can see you voted against me 55 times now. Some doubt that