New: Proof about Einstein's fraud in the paper that made him famous worldwide

[Richard Hertz]

As the original thread had derailed with discussions about sign of integrals
and the usual written violence against who dares to try something against
Einstein, I have drop the integral issue and devote this OP to the most
important fraud, which is how he PLANTED a parameter to get Gerber's formula.

I want to be VERY PRECISE: This OP is not against GR which, IF I do, will
be in a separate post, in the future (part by part).

This story is to SHOW YOU ALL how I proved that Einstein committed
FRAUD in order to deliver his Nov.18, 1815 to the Prussian Academy of
Science.

Please, don't come to me with things like: "using Schwarzschild's metric it
has been proven right 1 million times". This is not the POINT that I'm
addressing here. The point it that HE CHEATED GREATLY with this paper
and, almost immediately, went out to shout loud and clear that the
achieved the first TRIUMPH of his GR, and THIS IS NOT TRUE.

Follow demonstration OF THE FRAUDULENT ACTION FUDGING THE PAPER:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Einstein (11): (dx/dΦ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³

Φ = ∫ dx/√(2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³) , between α₁ = 1/Aphelion and α₂ = 1/Perihelion

Quoting Einstein’s paper assertion: “Hereby we can with reasonable accuracy replace it with”

Φ = [1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂) ] ∫ dx/√[- (x - α₁) (x - α₂) (1 - αx)] ≈ [1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂)] ∫ (1 + α/2 x) dx/√[- (x - α₁) (x - α₂)]

Note 1) 1/α = 1/2954.13 m-1 ; α₁ = 1.43232E-11 m-1 ; α₂ = 2.17382E-11 m-1

Note 2) The replacement 1/√(1 - αx) ≈ 1 + α/2 x is correct between α₁ and α₂, with an error lower than 2.0E-15

Note 3) P(x) = √[- (x - α₁) (x - α₂)] = √[- x² + (α₁ + α₂) x - α₁ α₂] ; K = [1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂)] ≈ (1 + 5.3265E-08)

Note 4) The parameter K is planted out of nowhere, with the fallacy 1 – K = 0, which is false at the end of the paper, where the difference α/2 (α₁ + α₂) is used. This fudge is essential, and deceiving in a naive follow up, but it contributes with 28.67” of arc (or 2/3) to the final target of 43”. This FRAUD is eliminated by using K = 1, exactly.

Making the rest of the development, following Einstein without any other correction, it is that:

Φ ≈ Φ₁ + Φ₂ = ∫ dx/P(x) + 1/2 α ∫ x/P(x) dx , between limits α₁ and α₂

Three analytic solutions are available for each integral (using ln, arcsin or arcsinh). The first one is used.

Making, in general, P(x) = √[a x² + b x + c]

Φ1(x) = ∫ dx/P(x) = 1/√a ln [(2ax + b)/2a + P(x)] = π rad/half orbit, by calculating Φ₁(α₂) - Φ₁(α₁)

Φ₂(x) = 1/2 α ∫ x/P(x) dx = 1/2 α { P(x)/a - b/(2a √a) ln [(2ax + b)/2a + P(x)] } = π 1/4 α (α₁ + α₂) rad/half orbit.

Note 5) In both cases, ln(-1) is solved though Euler’s identity: eiπ = -1  ln (-1) = iπ

Φ ≈ Φ₁ + Φ₂ = π + π 1/4 α (α₁ + α₂) = π [1 + 1/4 α (α₁ + α₂)] rad/half orbit

Note 6) Einstein’s equation previous to Eq. 12 is Φ = π [1 + 3/4 α (α₁ + α₂)] rad/half orbit.

This equation is false, and was achieved by fudging (cooking) inventing and
planting K = [1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂)]. It can be seen the importance of the FRAUD,
because the result without it only gives 14.33” of arc/century (only 1/3 of the total). The difference with the real value and its origin is quite clear in
this explanation.

In one more step for a full orbit, Einstein multiplied Φ by 2 and subtracted 2π
in Equation 12. Being tricky to hide the result in geometrical units, he used
the equation of an ellipse to present the advance ε.

Note 7) α₁ + α₂ = 1/AP + 1/PE = (AP + PE)/AP.PE = 2a/[a² (1 – e²)] = 2/[a (1 – e²)]. Replacing this in Φ gives

Φ = π [1 + 1/4 α (α₁ + α₂)] = π [1 + 1/2 α/[a (1 – e²)]] , which lead to the modified value of Equation 12:

(New Eq. 12) Φ = π [1 + 1/2 α/[a (1 – e²)]] , and making ε = 2Φ - 2π

(New Eq. 13) ε = α/[a (1 – e²)] , which is 1/3 of Gerber’s formula, and gives only 14.33” of arc/century.

Due to this fatal result, Einstein fudged the development by planting the
parameter K ≈ 1. But this apparently innocent planting, which differs from 1
in 1: 18.8E+06 (about 19 ppm), adds 28.67” to the final value of 43”.

Besides showing more details about the process of reverse engineering to
match Gerber's formula, I can provide more details on calculations performed in this OP.

[Dono.]

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 8:59:00 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz regurgitated same cretinisms as before:

> I want to be VERY PRECISE: This OP is not against GR which,

No, you are just a lying piece of shit.

> Note 2) The replacement 1/√(1 - αx) ≈ 1 + α/2 x is correct between α₁ and α₂, with an error lower than 2.0E-15
>

Calculus 101, dumbestfuck, 1/√(1 - y) ≈ 1 + y/2 for y small

Note 3) K = [1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂)] ≈ (1 + 5.3265E-08)


> Note 4) This FRAUD is eliminated by using K = 1, exactly.


Look at Note 3 above , dumbestfuck, K=1 + 5.3265E-08 whereby 5.3265E-08<<1, so, K=1.
This is calculus 101 again, dumbestfuck.


What makes you so entertaining is that your pathetic attempts expose your crass math incompetence. You don't even get to the physics, you get tripped by basic math.

[Richard Hertz]

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 2:41:44 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 8:59:00 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> > I want to be VERY PRECISE: This OP is not against GR which,
> No, you are just a lying piece of shit.

It's not, Dono. It's against the Nov.18, 1915 presentation. I can't make a thread against GR with math. It requires 20 pages.

> > Note 2) The replacement 1/√(1 - αx) ≈ 1 + α/2 x is correct between α₁ and α₂, with an error lower than 2.0E-15
> >
> Calculus 101, dumbestfuck, 1/√(1 - y) ≈ 1 + y/2 for y small

Obviously you wrote that for the sake of writing something. I stated that the error is lower than a quadrillion, imbecile.
But I took the job to prove mathematically and numerically. Even Excel graph gave me the formula using trend lines and asking equations!
Even when one root is 30,000 times far away of the integrating range between the other two, I WANTED TO verify it. Any problem with it?
I just wanted to confirm that the relativistic root doesn't influence on the two newtonian roots, and that was verified.

> Note 3) K = [1 + α/2 (α₁ + α₂)] ≈ (1 + 5.3265E-08)

> > Note 4) This FRAUD is eliminated by using K = 1, exactly.
>
> Look at Note 3 above , dumbestfuck, K=1 + 5.3265E-08 whereby 5.3265E-08<<1, so, K=1.
> This is calculus 101 again, dumbestfuck.

This is where you show that you are LIAR, an INCOMPETENT mathematician or some kind of retarded.

Read this CAREFULLY: K=1 + 5.3265E-08 IS ALMOST EQUAL TO 1, UNLESS YOU WANT TO CHEAT AND USE (K-1) AT THE END. CAPITO?

"1" represent units of 2π in the integral of an entire orbit, BUT THE RESIDUAL 5.3265E-08 represent the deviation from Newton!

At the end, "1", or it equivalent 2π dissapear when subtracted from Φ, but the innocent residual (in the range of 20 millionth of π)
appears now to contribute with 2/3 the advance of 5.026E-07 rad/orbit which makes the 43"/cy.

Traduce such value in arcsec/century if you can, ignorant.

HINT: Multiply the radians/orbit by 414.77 orbits/100 years and by 2.0626481E+05 arcsec/radian.

After that, come here and tell me again that (K - 1) = 5.3265E-08 radians can be dismissed, FUCKING IGNORANT!

[Dono.]

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 10:40:50 PM UTC-8, odious kapo Richard Hertz kept on lying:

> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 2:41:44 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 8:59:00 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > > I want to be VERY PRECISE: This OP is not against GR which,
> > No, you are just a lying piece of shit.
> It's not, Dono. It's against the Nov.18, 1915 presentation.

You are still lying, odious kapo.

[Richard Hertz]

Read my reply to Paul Andersen today at this thread, and learn when to shut the fuck up:

Proofs about Einstein fudging and cooking the paper that made him famous worldwide
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/7wKGERgfxA0

[Dono.]

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 9:19:29 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz repeated the same imbecility:

> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 11:47:44 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 10:40:50 PM UTC-8, odious kapo Richard Hertz kept on lying:
> > > On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 2:41:44 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 8:59:00 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I want to be VERY PRECISE: This OP is not against GR which,
> > > > No, you are just a lying piece of shit.
> > > It's not, Dono. It's against the Nov.18, 1915 presentation.
>
> > You are still lying, odious kapo.

> Read my imbecillic reply to Paul Andersen today at this thread,

I read it, you are still the same old fart ignoramus, you couldn't tell a geodesic if it hit you in your bald spot.

[Richard Hertz]

And now it becomes more interesting, and involves Schwarzschild original reply to Einstein and further publication of his paper,
on Feb 1916, where he criticize Einstein and SHOW HIS CORRECT ANALYTICAL SOLUTION.

Read about the preliminary part on my reply to Paul Andersen, TODAY, at this thread:

Proofs about Einstein fudging and cooking the paper that made him famous worldwide

https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/7wKGERgfxA0

I told you that I wanted to check the infamous Eq. 11 (Einstein's paper) NUMERICALLY, because the solution CLEARLY
diverged to INFINITY and was solved by STUPID ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS.

The kind of solutions that also PROVES THAT Σ K (between K=1, K=∞) = -1/12, being K an integer.

The numerical solution for Φ = ∫G(x) dx = ∫dx/√(2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³) = (1 + K) ∫ dx/√ [- (x - α₁) (x - α₂) (1 - αx)] was given by using:

∫G(x) dx = Σ G[KΔx + α₁] Δx, between K=0 and K=N, and being Δx = (α₂ - α₁)/ N

No matter N, it diverged. I used N = 1000, 10000 and 30000, with the same problem. Going to infinity at the edges (α₁ ,α₂).
I never trusted in analytical solutions that use ln(-1) or arcsin ∞ but, under the critics of forum members versed in math, I settled.

But today, replying to him, I remarked that Schwarzschild had proposed a DIFFERENT equation, that he said was EQUAL to Einstein's one.

( Schwarzschild Eq. 18) (dx/dΦ)² = (1 –h)/c² + hα/c² x −x² + αx³ = 2A/B + α/B x - x² + α x³

(Einstein Eq. 11) (dx/dΦ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x - x² + α x³

So, I decided to try Schwarszchild equation. I rescued the values of A and B from Einstein's calculations:

A = -1,275269E-13; B = 28620,98368 ; α = 2954

And applied to Schwarzschild solution in his Eq. 18. What results is a new G(x) with no singularities at edges (α₁ ,α₂).

Φ = ∫G(x) dx = = ∫ dx/√(2954 x³ - x² + 0,103210988 x - 8,911429E-18) , between α₁ and α₂.

Using numerical integration and N = 10,000, the result is:

Φ + π = ε/2 = 6,015616931E-07 + π , in the range (α₁, α₂)

2Φ +2 π = ε = 1,203123386E-06+ 2π , in the range (α₁, α₂)

ε = 1,203123386E-06 rad/orbit = Integral total Schwarzschild

ε = 1,203123386E-06 rad/orbit = 0,24696 arcsec/orbit = 102,43 arcsec/cy

ISN'T IT A PEACHY? Both results are WRONG, but Schwarzschild WAS CORRECT claiming his equation.

I'm sure that Schwartzschild didn't seek for a solution of his equation 18, just to NOT HUMILIATE EINSTEIN MORE than with his paper.

But, AT LEAST, Schwarzschild 1916 solution gives a POSITIVE ADVANCE of the perihelion (more than twice the real value).

And this was because the equations that Einstein proposed HAD A PROBLEM with coordinate origins, that Hilbert solved.

Now, I'm sure that if anyone gives me the NEW EQUATION with Hilbert solution, it will give the desired 43".

But, for the record, NONE of the two pioneers of GR did provide A CORRECT SOLUTION.

One cheated by using Gerber's equation.

The other didn't want to get involved in such dirty paper, so he proposed a MUCH MORE CORRECT equation 18, but he didn't try
to solve it. After all, he was terminally ill by Feb. 1916, so he didn't give a fuck (probably).

Now you have the whole enchilada. Enjoy, and RESPECT HISTORICAL REVISIONISM.

[Dono.]

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 11:54:34 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz posted a cretinism:

> ∫G(x) dx = Σ G[KΔx + α₁] Δx, between K=0 and K=N, and being Δx = (α₂ - α₁)/ N
>
> No matter N, it diverged. I used N = 1000, 10000 and 30000, with the same problem. Going to infinity at the edges (α₁ ,α₂).

This is because you are a cretin, this is not how it is done. You obviously never learned the subject of integrals with infinities, I gave you a reference about two days ago but you persist in your inept approach.
No matter what you try, you will never prove Einstein paper wrong, all you are proving is that you are as cretin when it come to math as when you try your hand at physics.

[Richard Hertz]

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 5:09:13 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

> This is because you are a cretin, this is not how it is done. You obviously never learned the subject of integrals with infinities,
> I gave you a reference about two days ago but you persist in your inept approach.
> No matter what you try, you will never prove Einstein paper wrong, all you are proving is that you are as cretin when it come to
> math as when you try your hand at physics.

Keep posting things like these, Dono. It helps to show you as an IGNORANT, blinded by hate and deaf by pure hate.

Now, I'm sticking a ROD DEEP UP IN YOUR MATHEMATICIAN ASS, and you want to KILL YOURSELF, for MY amusement.

I can't believe the IGNORANCE that you display about numerical integration, which is one of the FINEST TOOLS available, even
to prove your FUCKING RELATIVITY, IMBECILE.

How do you think that space agencies in the entire world work with solutions for ORBITAL DYNAMICS?

With an imbecile, dumbfuck like you working for them? Stupid alienform.

Even supercomputers are required to calculate numerically analytic non linear expressions, and they do with 20 digits precision.

Or in structural engineering, with complex analytical models.
Or in mechanical engineering, with complex analytical models.
Or in electrical or electronic engineering, with complex analytical models.
Or in sound engineering, with complex analytical models.
Or in optics engineering, with .......
Or in Earth's sciences. with complex analytical models.
Or in mining or oil industry, with complex analytical models.

I know, they just hire 100 retarded like you and put them to work in parallel, like Feynman's staff in the Manhattan Project.
Or at the LHC or LIGO sites.

NUMERICAL INTEGRATION. NUMERICAL CALCULATION. APPROXIMATION BY USING 100 POLYNOMIALS OF 12th. power.

Fucking cretin! GIVE ME YOUR DIPLOMA RIGHT NOW, AND GET A JOB AT YOUR NEAREST JUNK FOOD SITE (cleaning bathrooms).

Liar, deceiver, imbecile, profoundly ignorant, BAD HUMAN BEING. That's what you irradiate when you post, miserable retarded.

Now, reconsider your position or shut the fuck up forever. Leave this forum for good, scumb.

[Michael Moroney]

Wow, Dick Hurts sure is having one hell of a meltdown! Look at the
count of FULLY CAPITALIZED WORDS to see how bad it is! Dick just hates
it that Dono never minces his words. Get well soon, Dick, and ask your
doc to adjust your meds.

[Brain Hubbs]

Michael Moroney wrote:

>> Now, reconsider your position or shut the fuck up forever. Leave this
>> forum for good, scumb.
>>
> Wow, Dick Hurts sure is having one hell of a meltdown! Look at the
> count of FULLY CAPITALIZED WORDS to see how bad it is! Dick just hates
> it that Dono never minces his words. Get well soon, Dick, and ask your
> doc to adjust your meds.

you are half russian, possibly half german, the other half.

[Dono.]

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 12:36:33 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 5:09:13 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> > This is because you are a cretin, this is not how it is done. You obviously never learned the subject of integrals with infinities,
> > I gave you a reference about two days ago but you persist in your inept approach.
> > No matter what you try, you will never prove Einstein paper wrong, all you are proving is that you are as cretin when it come to
> > math as when you try your hand at physics.
> Keep posting things like these, Dono. It helps to show you as an IGNORANT, blinded by hate and deaf by pure hate.
>

> Now, I'm sticking a ROD DEEP UP MY ASS, for MY amusement.
>

Good, keep it up, dumbestfuck

> I can't believe the IGNORANCE that you display about numerical integration, which is one of the FINEST TOOLS available,

Dumbestfuck,


Integrals with singularities cannot be integrated numerically, the link I provided shows how it is done correctly. You cannot use Riemann sums, ignoramus.

[Dono.]

What makes the Dick so entertaining is that he never learns. He is so arrogant in his ignorance that he is incapable and unwilling to follow the links. But this is what provides us with an unending amount of entertainment.

[Richard Hertz]

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 5:51:32 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> Wow, Dick Hurts sure is having one hell of a meltdown! Look at the
> count of FULLY CAPITALIZED WORDS to see how bad it is! Dick just hates
> it that Dono never minces his words. Get well soon, Dick, and ask your
> doc to adjust your meds.

Moroney, you don't know a thing about my/our idiosyncrasy as argentinians.

Most of us, in private, use a foul language as an art to "kill" the other in a heated discussion.

The one with the edgier insult wins, but it requires to corner the other and letting him (men only) void of words. It's an art, after all.

You should have noticed that I use Dono as a target practice. Sometimes, I hit him so severely that he goes off-line for 1 hour or 2,
then he come back with another try, based on a distortion of what I said.

Putting the scumbag out for a couple of hours is considered a triumph, because the MF is highly resilient, which match his personality:

He has all the parameters of a ass-kissing&licking persona, who has no self-respect. In that way (home, school, college, work) he
managed to survive and make some progress. But he moves like a slug, on his remains. A very bad, low person, I can tell.

And you, Moroney, instead of meddling only when gossips are hot, very well could write an opinion about the thread on Mercury.

Do some honor to your degree, and use your brain and knowledge (or what life left inside you), and grow a pair for once.

Or you only engage when the topic is about GPS, then you use your technical knowledge?

Is that nobody cares that the integral of the inverse square root of the cubic polynomial that Schwarzschild left gives EXACTLY
PI+small rest?

Where is your curious mind? These results doesn't happen by accident, and even less with a numerical integration of 10,000 terms,
that gives PI with an error in the order of 10 ppm.

But if you or anyone else don't care, it's OK for me.

Schwarzschild formula 18 that replace Einstein 11 has no singularities between perihelion and aphelion.

And as he WAS A GENIUS, something important is on the orbital equation when he redefined Einstein's momentum and total energy.

[Dono.]

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 4:56:58 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz ate some fresh shit:

> You should have noticed that I use Dono as a target practice. Sometimes, I hit him so severely that he goes off-line for 1 hour or 2,

Clown,

Unlike you, I have a job, so I cannot spend all the time mocking you and your imbecilities.




.

[Richard Hertz]

AND THE FUDGING AND COOKING TO DEFEND THE 1915 PAPER CONTINUES UNABATED AFTER 100 YEARS.

REFERENCIAL PAPER:

Complete calculations of the perihelion precession of Mercury and the
deflection of light by the Sun in General Relativity

Christian Magnan; College de France, Paris; Universite de Montpellier

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Introduction

The deviation of light rays near the Sun and the change in the orientation of Mercury’s orbit with each revolution were the FIRST
DRAMATIC confirmations of the correctness of Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

Surprisingly it is UNEASY to find the detailed calculations of those phenomena in the SPECIALIZED scientific literature.

For example EVEN the comprehensive reference book Gravitation by Misner et al (1973) does not provide the reader with
FULL EXPLICIT demonstrations of the effects.

Truly it would seem that there is NO SIMPLE WAY to conduct the complete calculation since it is necessary to dive into the full
theory of general relativity. Fortunately, in their book about black holes and General Relativity, Taylor and Wheeler (2000) have
succeeded in deriving the needed equations of motion WITHOUT appealing to TENSOR formalism.

To determine the motion of a free object in curved geometry, they use what they call a “PRINCIPLE OF EXTREMAL AGING” along
the path of the particle. That principle directly leads to the desired equations while using ONLY SIMPLE ALGEBRA.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If any of you don't get the meaning of this, it says (translated from gobbledigook):
************************************************************************
We regret to inform that Minkowski's metric dτ² = dt² − dx² − dy² − dz² or dτ² = dt² − dr² − r²dφ² (in polar coordinates), can be
transformed (using the shit of "Principle of extremal aging") that we CONVENIENTLY INVENTED, in:

dτ² = (1 - 2M/r) dt² − dr²/(1 - 2M/r) − r²dφ²

And we can prove that such SIMPLE equation embodies the whole structure of spacetime, even the famous black hole

Also, this hacking of Minkowski's metric by PLANTING gravity renders an ALGEBRAIC ONLY development to derive Gerber's formula
for Mercury's perihelion advance, as well as the SECRETIVE formula for light deflection under massive bodies (M).

We also are SAD when we have to tell you that the entire GR SHIT, with all the package of 500 nonlinear equations using Ricci-Civita
is reduced to a pile of CRAP, and is USELESS and extremely IDIOTIC.

So, as physics have come to be a matter of fudging, cooking and using fantasy from mathematics, we came here with our own, of which
we are VERY PROUD: we call our creature a product of the "Principle of extremal aging", which has its origins in SR and proper time.

We believe that PROPER TIME IS AFFECTED BY GRAVITY in the way that's shown.

And, IF the retarded used a complex geometric theory of spacetime that is justified by "results", our approach to explain how things
happens out there IS EXTRAORDINARILY MUCH simpler than the retarded's math with tensors.

AND, as it can be "verified" theoretically and experimentally, we DON'T NEED GR.

We call our post-Minkowskian metric SRg, which replace GR ENTIRELY. Also we have patented the method and the logo "SRg".

************************************************************************

See? With proper cooking and fudging you get your desired results, and even render the entire GR useless.

[Brigdare Doss]

Richard Hertz wrote:

> We regret to inform that Minkowski's metric dτ² = dt² − dx² − dy² − dz²

It makes no sense. Subtracting distances from time violates the law of
entropy.

[Michael Moroney]

On 11/26/2021 7:56 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 5:51:32 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Wow, Dick Hurts sure is having one hell of a meltdown! Look at the
>> count of FULLY CAPITALIZED WORDS to see how bad it is! Dick just hates
>> it that Dono never minces his words. Get well soon, Dick, and ask your
>> doc to adjust your meds.
>
>
> Moroney, you don't know a thing about my/our idiosyncrasy as argentinians.
>
> Most of us, in private, use a foul language as an art to "kill" the other in a heated discussion.
>
> The one with the edgier insult wins, but it requires to corner the other and letting him (men only) void of words. It's an art, after all.
>

...

Yet another instance of when Dick Hurts gets his ass handed to him on a
silver platter, he backs down and says "I was just joking!" or some
variant of that.

[Richard Hertz]

c = 1, as usual in papers dealing the subject. The posterior development keep using geometric units. Examples:

M has the dimension of a length, a quantity also measured in seconds. M will be measured in seconds. The formula allowing to
transform grams in seconds is M (in seconds) = (G/c³) M (in grams) ; (G/c³) = 2.5E−39 s/g. The mass of the Sun is 2E33 g or
5E−06 s or 1.5 km.

On the end, geometric units are reinstated to their real physical value.

[Richard Hertz]

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 4:48:29 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> Yet another instance of when Dick Hurts gets his ass handed to him on a
> silver platter, he backs down and says "I was just joking!" or some
> variant of that.

When in your 10 cm thick skull it may enter that I actually don't give a shit about posts (even mine), and that I'm here
just to spend some time entertaining myself with whatever I think that fits with the madness of this place,
you will understand, Mr. EE.

[Odd Bodkin]

Which seems like a spectacular waste of time. I see you have nothing better
to do than troll.

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

[Richard Hertz]

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 5:44:23 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> Which seems like a spectacular waste of time. I see you have nothing better
> to do than troll.

And by trolling, as you call it, simultaneously proving that einstein was a fraudster, a cheater, an hoax.

I didn't read any comment of you about my OP here. Butthurt maybe?

[Odd Bodkin]

Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 5:44:23 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Which seems like a spectacular waste of time. I see you have nothing better
>> to do than troll.
>
> And by trolling, as you call it, simultaneously proving that einstein
> was a fraudster, a cheater, an hoax.

Nah. As you say, none of your stuff is to be taken seriously.

>
> I didn't read any comment of you about my OP here. Butthurt maybe?
>
>

From trolling? And you cajole responses to your trolling?


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

[Brigdare Doss]

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 5:44:23 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com

>>> Which seems like a spectacular waste of time. I see you have nothing
>>> better to do than troll.
>>
>> And by trolling, as you call it, simultaneously proving that einstein
>> was a fraudster, a cheater, an hoax.
>
> Nah. As you say, none of your stuff is to be taken seriously.

the young Einstine was living with his cousin, still illegal in some
countries. Imagine his outbreed.

[Richard Hertz]

Because you can't stand the truth of my OP here. You are afraid of the truth. Also, you're a lazy dog like the one you worship
was called by his teacher Minkowski (what could he know?). So, verifying the OP with all the power of you BsC degree is too much
for your exhausted mind. Better take a nap, Bodkin. If you're lucky, you'll dream with Einsteinland and will have the chance to kiss
Einstein's ass once again, but in your fairy tail dream.

[Brigdare Doss]

Richard Hertz wrote:

> Because you can't stand the truth of my OP here. You are afraid of the
> truth. Also, you're a lazy dog like the one you worship was called by
> his teacher Minkowski (what could he know?). So, verifying the OP with
> all the power of you BsC degree is too much for your exhausted mind.

Listen what these *war_criminals* are saying, year 2008:

Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab discussed future public health goals at DAVOS
2008 https://www.bitchute.com/video/GhwhOBjYj1Wf/

bill gaytes: "we have things in the pipeline; population reduction growth
(through vaccines) is a *great_benefit*"

[Odd Bodkin]

Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 8:41:17 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 5:44:23 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Which seems like a spectacular waste of time. I see you have nothing better
>>>> to do than troll.
>>>
>>> And by trolling, as you call it, simultaneously proving that einstein
>>> was a fraudster, a cheater, an hoax.
>> Nah. As you say, none of your stuff is to be taken seriously.
>>>
>>> I didn't read any comment of you about my OP here. Butthurt maybe?
>>>
>>>
>> From trolling? And you cajole responses to your trolling?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Because you can't stand the truth of my OP here.

What truth? You JUST GOT THROUGH saying that you don’t even take your own
posts seriously. And yet you want engagement in wasting other people’s
time, as you waste your own. Your time is becoming limited. You’d think
you’d be a better steward of it.

> You are afraid of the truth. Also, you're a lazy dog like the one you worship
> was called by his teacher Minkowski (what could he know?). So, verifying
> the OP with all the power of you BsC degree is too much
> for your exhausted mind. Better take a nap, Bodkin. If you're lucky,
> you'll dream with Einsteinland and will have the chance to kiss
> Einstein's ass once again, but in your fairy tail dream.
>
>

[Richard Hertz]

My trolling is not liying. It's about PUSHING THE EDGES OF OTHERS. I don't LIE here, EVER!

One thing is to make a joking post, which is clearly visible for NOT a lesser mind, and another thing is to TROLL YOUR CREDENCES,
which I believe ARE RIDICULOUS, regarding relativity.

Don't get confused or, better yet for your pace of mind, keep your confusion and don't pay attention of the content of the OP.

Truth hurts when told to alcoholics, drug addicts or relativists.

[Odd Bodkin]

You said you did. You said you mix truth with lies.

Was that a lie?

>
> One thing is to make a joking post, which is clearly visible for NOT a
> lesser mind, and another thing is to TROLL YOUR CREDENCES,
> which I believe ARE RIDICULOUS, regarding relativity.
>
> Don't get confused or, better yet for your pace of mind, keep your
> confusion and don't pay attention of the content of the OP.
>
> Truth hurts when told to alcoholics, drug addicts or relativists.
>

[Richard Hertz]

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 11:05:17 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > My trolling is not liying. It's about PUSHING THE EDGES OF OTHERS. I don't LIE here, EVER!
> You said you did. You said you mix truth with lies.
>
> Was that a lie?

To write a sophism is not to write a lie.

sophism: also sophistry, is a clever but deceiving concept introduced in a statement, specifically to make it to sound
coherent and rational, in order to win a debate or to profit from it, like political discourses, philosophical theories, etc.

A sophist is one of a class of teachers of rhetoric, philosophy, and politics in ancient Greece while liar is one who tells lies.

Examples of sophism:
* Women live longer than men, in average, mostly due to the fact that men carry most with the burden of life.
* Bodkin is a retired mathematician, who preferred a simpler life other than carrying the weight of developing complex algorithms in
the finance world, just to make some others to win a lot of money, at the expense of many others who loose a lot of money.
* Dono behaves as such because he was a wonderkid, admired and respected by everybody, but he lost his edge with the years and
this causes him severe resentment about life in general, as the think of what would have been if he had held such edge on his adult life.


lie: an untrue statement with intent to hide the truth with an opposite statement or a false statement.

Example of a lie:
* Women live longer than men, mostly because their brain works differently and with less burden than brain of men.
* Bodkin Bodkin is a retired mathematician, who preferred a simpler life other than carrying the burden of making much more money
the finance world, but having to stand with extreme pressure in his work's atmosphere, specially with bosses who hated him.
* Dono behaves as such because he had an traumatic childhood, with parents that disliked him and mistreated him all the time, forbidding
to have even a single friend until his college days.

Now, my OP contains ZERO SOPHISTRY and ZERO LIES. Just the COLD TRUE that comes from LOGIC and MATHEMATICS.

Do you want to make a try now?


<snip>

[Odd Bodkin]

Nah, you’ve already shredded your integrity.

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

[Michael Moroney]

On 11/27/2021 10:49 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

> To write a sophism is not to write a lie.
>
> sophism: also sophistry, is a clever but deceiving concept introduced in a statement, specifically to make it to sound
> coherent and rational, in order to win a debate or to profit from it, like political discourses, philosophical theories, etc.
>
> A sophist is one of a class of teachers of rhetoric, philosophy, and politics in ancient Greece while liar is one who tells lies.
>

> lie: an untrue statement with intent to hide the truth with an opposite statement or a false statement.
>

> Now, my OP contains ZERO SOPHISTRY and ZERO LIES. Just the COLD TRUE that comes from LOGIC and MATHEMATICS.
>

Since your OP is full of falsehoods and you claim it's not lies and not
sophistry, what is the remaining possibility? Ignorance?

[JanPB]

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 8:59:00 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> As the original thread had derailed with discussions about sign of integrals
> and the usual written violence against who dares to try something against
> Einstein,

There is nothing wrong with saying anything against Einstein. The reason you
are attacked is different: you post constant idiocies and non-sequiturs about
Einstein whose very repetitiveness clogs the group with nonsense.

Nothing to do with Einstein per se.

--
Jan

[Chason Aceta]

you just say it because you don't understand relativity. You don't know
what's in it.