On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 10:40:43 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 1:20:35 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > To be realistic, anything related to GR from 1913 could easily be something else or a dead-end they
> > were chasing. For GR you need to consider the 1915 paper and its followons.
> I know that the date Nov. 25, 1915 is an historical landmark in GR. It's when the Hilbert solution to the
> Einstein problems with Entwurf 1913 and Entwurf 1914 was presented by Einstein as his own.
That's not what happened. You are raving again.
> I have a problem with the plagiarism involved here,
If there is any "plagiarism" (more like "riding a wave that's not 100% yours") it's by Hilbert using
> as well as with the presentation on Nov. 18, 1915
> about Mercury's perihelion. As I wrote in a thread (which has a mistake on the date: Nov. 4 instead of
> Nov. 18. Nov 4, 1915 is the date where he presented his RENEWED GR, which was still wrong because
> of missing corrections that he received from Hilbert days after that date (Hilbert sent to him as he asked
> or his spies sent him a copy? A mystery that won't be solved.)
What did he receive from Hilbert? You just keep asserting things that make your ego happy but
the devil is in the details. Given your past track record on "analysing" Einstein's
SR work, I'm *extremely* doubtful of *any* of your claims.
> Nov. 4, 1915: When Einstein hacked his GR equations for Mercury problem.
He didn't "hack" anything, he simply used a proper power series approximation
to obtain one higher order correction over the Newtonian solution. It did not
occur to him to seek an exact solution to the spherically symmetric vacuum,
this was done by Schwarzschild whose solution confirmed Einstein's
> > Considering all your other misinterpretations (such as finding 400+
> > errors in the 1905 paper, all investigated so far have been YOUR mistake
> > or misinterpretation) I doubt there will be anything of actual interest.
> Sometimes exaggerations are wit and funny. Sometimes they are just as idiotic as the originator.
> I analyzed only one 1905 paper, and it was about E=mc2. The math involved can be managed by
> a lucid high-school student,
That's precisely the trap (the sirens' song) that SR lures the poor amateurs into: the
math is easy, the physics is *incredibly* subtle.
> so no merits for me doing that analysis. I, as 10,000's of others since
> the publication, was struck by the circular reasoning (petitio principii) on the 3 pages "paper"
> (assuming a loss of mass dm which magically connect to the emission of light beams with energy
> L/2 each). I did prove that he hide such fallacy through dirty algebraic tricks when analyzing energies
> "perceived" before and after light was turned on, from the systems at rest and moving inertially.
I don't have the time to look into it right now but by your past track record I
don't believe one word of what you are saying above is correct. Perhaps someone
else can comment in detail. (I'm travelling until 12 Oct.)
> I also questioned his fallacious rest between both systems (as if they were closed like with the
> 1904 Hasenhorl's paper) and, finally, his approximation from a series expansion by "cherry picking"
> the first two terms of Y, which he justified valid for only low values of v/c.
Ditto. Perhaps you are onto something but I have serious doubts.
> These are THREE ERRORS, not 400. Einstein was always criticized for his approach to this paper and
> was so obsessed to correct it that he tried SIX MORE TIMES (until 1942) to find a right answer, finally
> giving up (he was 63 yo by then, and was bored as hell at Princeton). Since 1910-1911, E=mc2 was
> used as if it was TRUE, something that NEVER EVER has been demonstrated (including von Laue
> attempt in 1911 and Klein attempt in 1919: Munich and Gottingen schools).
> > > And you come here to praise GR? INDOCTRINATED IDIOT!
> > Somehow, you have managed to indoctrinate yourself to blindly hate Einstein, to the point where you are
> > obsessed with finding any mistake. So far, no success by you.
> No, Moroney. I let you all to deprecate my posts with these words: "hate", "obsession", "don't understand",
> "can't understand", etc., because it's impossible to try a reply every time it happens. I'm not like Dono, who
> has this childish OCD
Oh, yet another landmark of a crank here: he starts re-using the terms his opponents use.
You are like an exact replica of every crank that has ever visited this NG.
There are a few more features which you have not demonstrated yet but I won't state them
here because I'd like to see if you get to them on your own.
> What I do here is two-folds: I laugh with some posts that I do (just humorous, for me) and I learn/prove
> myself that I'm still capable, as I always was, to get into any math/logical problem or theory and refine
> my knowledge with recursive approach, adding more know-how on each loop.
It would be nice if that's what you did. But this is not what you do. Instead, you post insults,
wild accusations, and plain idiocies 24/7. And then you complain when people get fed up
with the sheer volume of that flood of total nonsense from you.
> It always worked for me
> at ANY discipline (you name it) and is a source of intellectual pleasure. For instance, except while being
> at college decades ago, I never did a flying fuck to differential geometry and tensors
Ah, tensors. I forgot about that one: it's ANOTHER sore point with many cranks, they have
been fetishizing and screaming at it here with gay abandon, yes.
> because I found it
> BORING, not difficult. But, in the last two months, I decided to get into it step by step, and I'm doing great.
> I know that it hurt feelings of territoriality.
No. The feeling of reality, facts, honesty, good will, and logic.
> I have had the same response while being in front of SOME IDIOTIC
> M.D., whose response to a comment of mine was almost a trade-mark: "Are you a doctor?". I found that
> the best way to manage it is NOT ANSWER and find other M.D. who's not an ASSHOLE.
> I never, ever in my entire life had such lame attitude. In front of anyone who meddle with electronics, math,
> physics, technology, cosmology, etc., my behavior (born in my innermost) is TO TEACH, not to denigrate.
And now, when your mistakes are pointed out to you, you accuse the others of "denigrating" you?
Are you insane? You've spent I don't know how many months here insulting everyone in sight,
both living and dead, and now are throwing a tantrum because people are fed up with your
> Because I don't have inferiority complexes as usually those who act in that way have. I'm sure about myself,
> I don't need recognition or validation from others (since I was 6) and I live and let live. Simple, isn't it?
> I don't hate Einstein. I just want to ridicule his theories, which I consider profoundly insane and nonphysical.
And you are wrong. You simply don't understand them.
> Besides, as I said once to Bodkin, Einstein is an easy target to beat (like kicking an ant nest).
To an ignoramus everything is easy. This is a well-known phenomenon, people like Goethe, Newton,
and many others have commented on it.
> relativists like you (fanatics in a wide gaussian dispersion) appear, screaming and kicking. And is funny as hell!
We are not "screaming and kicking", we are simply (1) pointing out your errors (which, incidentally,
never works with ignoramuses, so this is more a service to other readers, potentially), and (2)
giving you your due because, as all cranks, you very quickly (within a week or two) reduced from
a "critic" to a raving lunatic.
> In Argentina we have a saying: "Si quieres saber donde está el dueño, pegale al chancho y dejá que chille".
> I google translate: "If you want to know where the owner is, hit the pig and let him scream".
> And it works 100 out of 100 times with relativity or Einstein. Isn't it curious? Why does it happens?
Because you don't understand the subject. So naturally everything surrounding it will
appear to you incomprehensible and everyone expert in it a member of some conspiracy,
> Be less naive and fanatic, Moroney, and enjoy sarcasm or irony more. Aren't you British?
The time for this approach has expired long time ago. You've overstayed your welcome,
that's why you get the treatment you get.