Halley's Comet: Newton's theory triumph and Einstein's GR disgrace (among many).

159 views
Skip to first unread message

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 23, 2021, 1:52:10 PMSep 23
to
It's well known the history of Halley's comet and how the astronomer sought
Newton's help to explain how did it behave, resulting in a most striking proof
of Newton's Law of Gravity (no hack needed, by the way).

In gratitude and in recognition of Newton's intellectual stature, Halley paid
for the expensive publication of Newton's "Mathematical Principles of
Natural Philosophy", fact that changed the world forever.

Newton's law, applied to Halley's comet, has been accurate within +/-1 day
in 75 years (36 ppm) and the continuous corrections using N-Bodies models
are projected for the next 3,000 years (next 40 orbits).

Meanwhile, Einstein's GR fails miserably even to explain Venus orbital path, and even more when was tried to explain the behavior of the Universe, finding that (in current cosmology) GR can't explain why half of the known
universe mass is not there, being needed the INVENTION of Dark Matter to
sustain its applicability (not to mention Dark Energy), because only 5% of
the "known Universe" mass is baryonic.

Here is one link from NASA:

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/asteroids-comets-and-meteors/comets/1p-halley/in-depth/

And some excerpts:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until the time of English astronomer Edmond Halley (1656-1742), comets were believed to make only one pass through the solar system.

But in 1705, Halley used Isaac Newton's theories of gravitation and planetary motions to compute the orbits of several comets. Halley found the similarities in the orbits of bright comets reported in 1531, 1607 and 1682 and he suggested that the trio were actually a single comet making return trips. Halley correctly predicted the comet's return in 1758-1759 — 16 years after his death — and history's first known "periodic" comet was later named in his honor.

The comet has since been connected to ancient observations going back more than 2,000 years. It is featured in the famous Bayeux tapestry, which chronicles the Battle of Hastings in 1066.
...............
In 1986, an international fleet spacecraft met the comet for an
unprecedented study from a variety of vantage points. The science fleet
included Japan's Suisei and Sakigake spacecraft, the Soviet Union's Vega
1 and Vega 2 (repurposed after a successful Venus mission), the
international ISEE-3 (ICE) spacecraft and the European Space Agency's
Giotto. NASA's Pioneer 7 and Pioneer 12 also contributed the the bounty
of science data collected.
...............
Scientists calculate that an average periodic comet lives to complete
about 1,000 trips around the Sun. Halley has been in its present orbit
for at least 16,000 years, but it has shown no obvious signs of aging
in its recorded appearances.
..............
Comet Halley moves backward (opposite to Earth's motion) around the
Sun in a plane tilted 18 degrees to that of the Earth's orbit. Halley's
backward, or retrograde, motion is unusual among short-period comets,
as is its greatest distance from the Sun (aphelion) is beyond the orbit of
Neptune.

Halley's orbit period is, on average, 76 Earth years. This corresponds to
an orbital circumference around the Sun of about 7.6 billion miles (12.2
billion kilometers). The period varies from appearance to appearance
because of the gravitational effects of the planets.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, if you want to watch a video with computed orbits for Halley's comet
and the perturbation of planets, specially Saturn, this is the link:

https://astronomynow.com/2016/07/01/chaotic-orbit-of-comet-halley-explained/


Meanwhile, for GR fanatics, Halley's comet is a forbidden name, because
it shows the fallacies of General Relativity explaining such local behavior.
Much less can be pretended by extending the use of GR, without shame, to the entire Einstein's "universe" and patches from cosmology in the last
100 years. And, even when patches pile up, it's Newton's theory what is
used in supercomputer's models to explain galaxies and clusters of
galaxies motion, in million years units in the time scale.

Shame on all of you, fanatic worshipers of GR (and also SR).

Dono.

unread,
Sep 23, 2021, 1:59:32 PMSep 23
to
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 10:52:10 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz lied:

> Meanwhile, Einstein's GR fails miserably even to explain Venus orbital path,

You need to stop spewing lies, odious piece of shit. GR explains the Venus orbit complete with its secular precesion, something that Newtonian gravitation cannot.

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 23, 2021, 2:15:17 PMSep 23
to
Dono, форма життя reptile. Перестань міняти пости, яйце синку.

Dono.

unread,
Sep 23, 2021, 2:15:48 PMSep 23
to
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 10:52:10 AM UTC-7, odious piece of shit Richard Hertz lied:

> Meanwhile, for GR fanatics, Halley's comet is a forbidden name, because
> it shows the fallacies of General Relativity explaining such local behavior.

You are lying, odious one. Again. Here shiteater: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/461/4/3576/2608575?login=true

Michael Moroney

unread,
Sep 23, 2021, 2:40:50 PMSep 23
to
Why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?

I already corrected you on this and Venus, yet you repost it.

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 23, 2021, 3:07:31 PMSep 23
to
Dono, форма життя reptile. Перестань міняти пости, яйце синку.

Newton örökké uralkodni fog, míg Einstein tolvaj, plágiumíró és matematikai vicc.

Newton regnerà per sempre, mentre Einstein è un ladro, un plagiatore e uno scherzo matematico.

Newton će vladati zauvijek, dok je Einstein lopov, plagijator i matematička šala.

Newton 將永遠統治,而Einstein是小偷、剽竊者和數學笑話。

سيحكم Newton إلى الأبد ، بينما Einstein هو لص ، منتحل ومزحة رياضية.


Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 23, 2021, 3:17:32 PMSep 23
to
<Meanwhile, Moroney persist on his relativity credo>

On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 3:40:50 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
>
> I already corrected you on this and Venus, yet you repost it.

Who the fuck do you believe you are TO CORRECT ME?

I did post EXACT EXCERPTS from respectable sites.

My final opinion is based on the ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENT about GR applied to a 3-Body problem.

Why do YOU persist in sustain a fvcking lie? Keep reading and REFUTE IT (I'll give you the next 10 years or so)


Google search: GR applied to a 3-Body problem

GENERAL ANSWER IN THE FIRST PAGE OF THE SEARCH:
---------------------------------------------------------
People also ask
Is there a solution to the 3 body problem?

No general solution of this problem (or the more general problem involving more than three bodies)
is possible, as the motion of the bodies quickly becomes chaotic.
---------------------------------------------------------

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 23, 2021, 3:21:08 PMSep 23
to
Dono, форма життя reptile. Перестань міняти пости, яйце синку.

Use Google Translate, imbecile, and tell me how did it work (Use "detect language", idiotic reptilian lifeform)

JanPB

unread,
Sep 23, 2021, 3:28:56 PMSep 23
to
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 10:52:10 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> Meanwhile, Einstein's GR fails miserably even to explain Venus orbital path,

False.

> and even more when was tried to explain the behavior of the Universe, finding that (in current cosmology) GR can't explain why half of the known
> universe mass is not there, being needed the INVENTION of Dark Matter to
> sustain its applicability (not to mention Dark Energy), because only 5% of
> the "known Universe" mass is baryonic.

Yes, but this is nothing new and not just GR-specific. It's a result of us not having
a theory that would encompass both GR and QM.

So your point is moot.
And?

> Shame on all of you, fanatic worshipers of GR (and also SR).

Why do the cranks here ALWAYS refer to scientists who know the stuff as
"worshipers"? Do you guys hold secret meetings to agree on the common
terminology or something?

(It's a rhetorical question, of course.)

--
Jan

JanPB

unread,
Sep 23, 2021, 3:33:41 PMSep 23
to
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 12:17:32 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> <Meanwhile, Moroney persist on his relativity credo>
> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 3:40:50 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
> >
> > I already corrected you on this and Venus, yet you repost it.
> Who the fuck do you believe you are TO CORRECT ME?

You don't understand this stuff and he does. What's so complicated
about that and why is it so difficult to accept? You behave like a child.

> I did post EXACT EXCERPTS from respectable sites.

Which you do not understand.

> My final opinion is based on the ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENT about GR applied to a 3-Body problem.

The 3-body problem is unsolvable even in Newtonian mechanics. GR is
no different in that regard.

> Google search: GR applied to a 3-Body problem

Again, the 3-body problem is unsolvable in Newtonian mechanics already.
It's not GR's fault that this is a difficult problem.

> GENERAL ANSWER IN THE FIRST PAGE OF THE SEARCH:
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> People also ask
> Is there a solution to the 3 body problem?
>
> No general solution of this problem (or the more general problem involving more than three bodies)
> is possible, as the motion of the bodies quickly becomes chaotic.
> ---------------------------------------------------------

Yes, and this is Newtonian.

--
Jan

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Sep 23, 2021, 3:37:46 PMSep 23
to
On Thursday, 23 September 2021 at 21:28:56 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 10:52:10 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > Meanwhile, Einstein's GR fails miserably even to explain Venus orbital path,
> False.
> > and even more when was tried to explain the behavior of the Universe, finding that (in current cosmology) GR can't explain why half of the known
> > universe mass is not there, being needed the INVENTION of Dark Matter to
> > sustain its applicability (not to mention Dark Energy), because only 5% of
> > the "known Universe" mass is baryonic.
> Yes, but this is nothing new and not just GR-specific. It's a result of us not having
> a theory that would encompass both GR and QM.
>
> So your point is moot.
> > Here is one link from NASA:
> >
> > https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/asteroids-comets-and-meteors/comets/1p-halley/in-depth/
> And?
> > Shame on all of you, fanatic worshipers of GR (and also SR).
> Why do the cranks here ALWAYS refer to scientists who know the stuff as
> "worshipers"?

Not to "scientists who know the stuff" but to a bunch
of idiots worshipping an insane ideology. That some
of you indeed are scientists and indeed know some
stuff - is independent.

Michael Moroney

unread,
Sep 23, 2021, 6:24:50 PMSep 23
to
Should we be impressed that you know how to use Google Translate?

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 23, 2021, 7:20:03 PMSep 23
to
Jan, 30 years of your life wasted defending insanity (SR and GR). I really feel sorry for your pathetic life.
Why don't stuck your head onto programming? Or you was replaced by AI?

I want you to remember old times, when you was a punching ball for Kublee. Hilarious!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koobee Wublee

On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 4:48:18 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:

> Tom can answer for himself but my guess is his reaction comes from years on this NG.

Koobee Wublee doubts that. Tom is thoroughly opinionated. Put it in a more scientifically oriented way,
Tom is exceedingly mystified with the fvcked religion known as SR and GR. <shrug>

> Tom and I have been here since before this group's beginning, in my case since 1991 or so.

Gee! You old timers still have not evolved. You old farts are still stuck in stone age in terms of scientific
understandings. <shrug>

> On Usenet since 1985 (at that time only academic institutions had access, so it was a rather sane place unlike
> current mental disorders zoo).

Koobee Wublee will bet that Jan cannot even do simple calculus stuff since day one. That would be since 1985.
Oh, yes, since the Bears won the Superbowl with another trouble maker known as Jim McMahon as the overly
sensational quarterback. <shrug>

> And before you get any ideas, over that entire time Tom and I exchanged e-mails only once, IIRC.

Gee! You old farts are so fvckingly ancient. Stop writing to each via US mail then. Use emails. At least, emails are free so far. <shrug>

> Simply put: to a normal sane person it is simply _astonishing_ to the Nth
> power to see people who obviously must realise they know nothing on the
> subject, yet still persist not only in creating nonsensical theories (that
> would be just fine, everyone has a hobby) but most _amazingly_ and
> _incomprehensibly_ call the others "fools", "ignorant", etc.

Koobee Wublee was totally taken by a surprise when Jan cannot do simple calculus. Well, that was Koobee Wublee's
fault, was it not? A dumb fungus exists wherever pile of dung it can grow and proliferate on. <shrug>

> (This of course includes the obligatory calling Albert Einstein names - a pathetic spectacle.)

Well, Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. Using any other words to describe the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
would be guilty of lying. Jan needs to get over with that reality instead of worshipping a nitwit, a plagiarist, a liar such as
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar as a god. <shrug>

> It is disturbing because one imagines what if a person so _totally dishonest with himself_ gets called, say, to jury duty?
> Can you imagine?? And what's frightening is the sheer number of such people.
> On this NG the cranks easily outnumber knowledgeable people by 20:1. The same is true for other science groups.

Hmmm... Jan's babbling nonsense is quite mundane. Not only Jan cannot do simple calculus, Jan also has problems in
even simpler geometry concept. Professionally, what does Jan do?
************* Oh, just a computer technician programming z-transforms in a biotech company. Of course, the very humble
************* position does not prevent Jan from identifying itself as a scientist of some sort. <shrug>

> Of course science couldn't care less about any of this.

That is correct. Science does not care how ignorant Jan or Tom is. <shrug>

> As we say in Polish: "The dogs bark, the caravan keeps moving along just fine".

Caravans in Poland? For Jan's information, Poland is part of eastern Europe and not in some patch of desert where
the camels are the top survivors. Jan is really out of reality. It can only live happily in its own fantasy world where Jan
is free to invent its own laws of physics and proverbs. <shrug>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, Jan, you believe that because you've being here for 30+ years, the SAME SHIT that you've posted tirelessly again and
again is MORE CERTAIN?

By the way, when Kublee was OWNING YOU here, it was OBVIOUS that you had access (simultaneously) to several books
or documents, which you literally PLAGIARIZED in your comments to sound more knowledgeable. Of course, it doesn't
surprise me, as it is the way your MASTER taught to you it was MORALLY CORRECT to do.

No, Jan. It's not correct. It's immoral no matter how much your perverted mind try to accept without guilt (if any neuron is left,
after 30 years of fossilization by coming here and other sites (like math) where you are not exactly admired.

By the way: do you still use z-transforms in DSP programming? Tell me something about your past years of glory in SW.


Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 23, 2021, 7:36:10 PMSep 23
to
Look Jan, you received thanks three times here:

Errata for Early Printings of The C++ Programming Language (3rd Edition, 2004)
https://www.stroustrup.com/3rd_old_errata.html

And wrote THIS. Don't deny: the email direction was what you used here a decade ago.

Returning memory to the OS
Jan Bielawski <fil...@gmail.com>
https://www.thecodingforums.com/threads/returning-memory-to-the-os.701025/

SO, THAT'S WHY YOU ARE UNBEARABLE AND ARROGANT. Just a programmer like Tom,
except that he's a physicist and you are just an impostor.

Is this your son, an ENGINEER? Can't be possible! If you hate Engineers. That's why you're such a bitch?

Uninitialized Field Access Detection in Scala Language Using Static Code Analysis (2012)
https://repo.pw.edu.pl/info/bachelor/WUTe843cd2078044e2a8f3ee152eadbaf8d/

I'm done forever with you, POS. Get a life while you can. It's too late for your sidekicks here.

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 23, 2021, 7:50:57 PMSep 23
to
Newton 將永遠統治,而Einstein是小偷、剽竊者和數學笑話。

Dono.

unread,
Sep 23, 2021, 8:31:42 PMSep 23
to

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Sep 23, 2021, 8:37:10 PMSep 23
to
Note that Koobee’s “treatise” vanished when he passed. All that’s left of
him is this kind of jackwagon cackling. As will be true of you, Mr Retired
Engineer. Congratulations on your future legacy.

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

JanPB

unread,
Sep 24, 2021, 1:23:20 AMSep 24
to
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Jan, 30 years of your life wasted defending insanity (SR and GR).

The only insanity is yours. And your opinion about it is not even wrong (that's
Pauli's phrase).

> I really feel sorry for your pathetic life.

Oh boo-hoo, doesn't this feel you good about yourself now?

> Why don't stuck your head onto programming? Or you was replaced by AI?

Glad to see you have no arguments left. Just a crybaby now.

--
Jan

JanPB

unread,
Sep 24, 2021, 1:26:03 AMSep 24
to
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 5:37:10 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Note that Koobee’s “treatise” vanished when he passed.

Didn't Koobee post here recently?

He was more competent than Richard but his OCD was rather bad.

--
Jan

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Sep 24, 2021, 6:55:42 AMSep 24
to
No, that was a spoofer, sadly.
I could be wrong but don’t think so.

Michael Moroney

unread,
Sep 24, 2021, 12:27:48 PMSep 24
to
On 9/23/2021 3:17 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> <Meanwhile, Moroney persist on his relativity credo>
>
> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 3:40:50 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
>>
>> I already corrected you on this and Venus, yet you repost it.
>
> Who the fuck do you believe you are TO CORRECT ME?
Silence, imbecile! I did not give you permission to speak rudely!
>
> I did post EXACT EXCERPTS from respectable sites.

Yeah, tell me another one.
>
> My final opinion is based on the ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENT about GR applied to a 3-Body problem.

Yes, in GR, the three body problem does not have a closed solution. It
doesn't have a closed solution in Newtonian physics, either.
>
> Why do YOU persist in sustain a fvcking lie? Keep reading and REFUTE IT (I'll give you the next 10 years or so)

What lie is that? The only liar I see here is you.

> Google search: GR applied to a 3-Body problem
>
> GENERAL ANSWER IN THE FIRST PAGE OF THE SEARCH:
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> People also ask
> Is there a solution to the 3 body problem?
>
> No general solution of this problem (or the more general problem involving more than three bodies)
> is possible, as the motion of the bodies quickly becomes chaotic.

That would be discussing Newtonian mechanics, of course. Rarely is the
accuracy of GR needed for orbital mechanics. (usually involving black
holes or tiny effects like Mercury, ~1/10 arc second precession per
orbit) It is true that there is no closed solution for the 3 body
problem under GR either.

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 24, 2021, 1:16:41 PMSep 24
to
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 1:27:48 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> Rarely is the accuracy of GR needed for orbital mechanics. (usually involving black
> holes or tiny effects like Mercury, ~1/10 arc second precession per orbit)

Moroney, make a poster with the above paragraph and have some butter at hand.
It will help to shove it up into your ass, entirely, when I post findings in the BURIED
1913 Einstein-Besso Manuscript, a digitalized copy of which is hold at Princeton,
and has been studied by 100's of scholars since mid '50s.

Of course, EVERYONE tried to help to prevent the evidence that Einstein and Besso
were plagiarists, liars, deceivers and that the only honest person in that 1913-1915
trio was Marcel Grossman.

If you want to be prepared, you and your idiot relativist partners can try to anticipate
the butthurt by analyzing such document, here:

Einstein and Besso: Manuscript on the Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury.

https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol4-doc/382

I warn you all that the evidence about Einstein and Besso being idiots and plagiarists
is all over the document, which also shows the FAILED ATTEMPTS on light deflection
as well as the GHOSTS OF NORDSTROM AND GERBER were present there (written by
hand) in the summer of 1913: 51 pages with pure garbage and more than 400 formulae.

Also, you'll appreciate HOW they DISSECTED the theory of Nordstrom, which final formulae
differs from Gerber's formulae by an EXACT VALUE OF SIX (6), plus the intention of Einstein
(written by his hand) was to plagiarize Nordstrom AND Gerber, when he fudged it to include
the 6 factor into his use of Nordstrom formula.

That got the famous 18" that he claimed as a fail at the Prussian Academy, with his
introduction with a paper with 43", that I've mentioned here.

It will hurt your butt to witness how a couple of retarded persons had to resort to
plagiarism, because they WERE SO LOST after 51 pages of calculations that they had to
give up.

Only when the fucker stole Hilbert's work by Oct. 1915, went back to these calculations in
order to FUDGE THEM (HACKING GR) to get his famous 43".

And you come here to praise GR? INDOCTRINATED IDIOT!

The evidence is in front of your eyes now (and of every other retarded eyes).
You just have to be such LAZY DOGS (as Einstein) and start analyzing such Besso-Einstein SILENCED 51 pages.

Enjoy the ride!

P.D.: I don't believe that you have the intelligence nor the ability to do such analysis (nor JanPB, etc.).

Ruben Pike

unread,
Sep 24, 2021, 1:35:58 PMSep 24
to
Richard Hertz wrote:

> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 1:27:48 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney
> wrote:
>> Rarely is the accuracy of GR needed for orbital mechanics. (usually
>> involving black
>> holes or tiny effects like Mercury, ~1/10 arc second precession per
>> orbit)
>
> Moroney, make a poster with the above paragraph and have some butter at
> hand.
> It will help to shove it up into your ass, entirely, when I post
> findings in the BURIED 1913 Einstein-Besso Manuscript, a digitalized
> copy of which is hold at Princeton,
> and has been studied by 100's of scholars since mid '50s.
> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol4-doc/382
> I warn you all that the evidence about Einstein and Besso being idiots
> Only when the fucker stole Hilbert's work by Oct. 1915, went back to
> these calculations in order to FUDGE THEM (HACKING GR) to get his famous
> 43". And you come here to praise GR? INDOCTRINATED IDIOT!

lol, morony cant physics.

Dono.

unread,
Sep 24, 2021, 1:49:16 PMSep 24
to
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 10:16:41 AM UTC-7, pervert Richard Hertz wrote:
> I have some butter at hand. It will help to shove it up my ass, entirely,

You have a lot of experience doing that to yourself

JanPB

unread,
Sep 24, 2021, 2:05:11 PMSep 24
to
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 10:16:41 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 1:27:48 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Rarely is the accuracy of GR needed for orbital mechanics. (usually involving black
> > holes or tiny effects like Mercury, ~1/10 arc second precession per orbit)
> Moroney, make a poster with the above paragraph and have some butter at hand.
> It will help to shove it up into your ass, entirely, when I post findings in the BURIED
> 1913 Einstein-Besso Manuscript, a digitalized copy of which is hold at Princeton,
> and has been studied by 100's of scholars since mid '50s.

And you'll lose, of course.

> Of course, EVERYONE tried to help to prevent the evidence that Einstein and Besso
> were plagiarists, liars, deceivers and that the only honest person in that 1913-1915
> trio was Marcel Grossman.

Another stupid fantasy.

> If you want to be prepared, you and your idiot relativist partners can try to anticipate
> the butthurt by analyzing such document, here:

Ah, finally you utter another obligatory crank phrase (perhaps you did earlier but
I've noticed it only now): "relativist".

Of course in real life there is no such thing.

> Einstein and Besso: Manuscript on the Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury.
>
> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol4-doc/382

And you have no clue what it really says. As always.

> I warn you all that the evidence about Einstein and Besso being idiots and plagiarists
> is all over the document,

Nonsense.

> which also shows the FAILED ATTEMPTS on light deflection
> as well as the GHOSTS OF NORDSTROM AND GERBER were present there (written by
> hand) in the summer of 1913: 51 pages with pure garbage and more than 400 formulae.

Nonsense. Not even wrong.

> P.D.: I don't believe that you have the intelligence nor the ability to do such analysis (nor JanPB, etc.).

Ah, finally the other crank shoe drops as well: "Everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot".

What a moron.

--
Jan

Michael Moroney

unread,
Sep 25, 2021, 12:20:35 AMSep 25
to
On 9/24/2021 1:16 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 1:27:48 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Rarely is the accuracy of GR needed for orbital mechanics. (usually involving black
>> holes or tiny effects like Mercury, ~1/10 arc second precession per orbit)
>
> Moroney, make a poster with the above paragraph and have some butter at hand.
> It will help to shove it up into your ass, entirely, when I post findings in the BURIED
> 1913 Einstein-Besso Manuscript, a digitalized copy of which is hold at Princeton,
> and has been studied by 100's of scholars since mid '50s.

No need for homoeroticism.
>
> Of course, EVERYONE tried to help to prevent the evidence that Einstein and Besso
> were plagiarists, liars, deceivers and that the only honest person in that 1913-1915
> trio was Marcel Grossman.

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.
>
> If you want to be prepared, you and your idiot relativist partners can try to anticipate
> the butthurt by analyzing such document, here:
>
> Einstein and Besso: Manuscript on the Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury.
>
> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol4-doc/382

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.

> It will hurt your butt to witness how a couple of retarded persons had to resort to
> plagiarism, because they WERE SO LOST after 51 pages of calculations that they had to
> give up.

As I said, chasing a dead end.

> 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.

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 25, 2021, 1:40:43 AMSep 25
to
On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 1:20:35 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> 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.

I have a problem with the plagiarism involved here, 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.)

Nov. 4, 1915: When Einstein hacked his GR equations for Mercury problem.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/UVVohqmqnfw

> 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, 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 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.

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 to have the last word (or post) or to have the first reply after any given post. It's his
sick personality which forces him to behave in that way as well as, for instance, the despicable actions for
replacing topics on the headers, throw back at you what you posted but changing the subject from him to
you, etc. Pathetic attitude, but I've learned that there are infinite pathological and/or neurotic behaviors in
life. And not only between humans, but also among many mammal species (cat, dogs, monkeys, etc.).

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 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 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. 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.

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.

Besides, as I said once to Bodkin, Einstein is an easy target to beat (like kicking an ant nest). Immediately,
relativists like you (fanatics in a wide gaussian dispersion) appear, screaming and kicking. And is funny as hell!

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?

Be less naive and fanatic, Moroney, and enjoy sarcasm or irony more. Aren't you British?


JanPB

unread,
Sep 25, 2021, 2:33:26 AMSep 25
to
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:
>
> <snip>
> > 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
Einstein's work.

> 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
result.

> > 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).

Ditto.

> > > 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
asinine posts?

> 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.

> Immediately,
> 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,
etc.

> 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.

--
Jan

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 25, 2021, 3:12:59 AMSep 25
to
Jan, I have to remember that you are just a SW programmer and not a physicist or mathematician?

If you was, that is 30 years behind. So, stop pretending being someone who you are not. That your
frustration and resentment makes you write here as if you were "the sucker at the ivory tower" doesn't
make your wishes true. You have to stop behaving like an educated Dono, I warn you, because usually
the deranged people can't perceive the true self while looking at the mirror.

You are nothing more than a simple person which is literate in math, but a failure in physics, logic and
critical thinking. And, to have critical thinking abilities, a person has to put aside dogmas and indoctrination.

You are so deep in the credo of relativity and Einstein that the stink coming from you is intolerable.
Or is it a thing related with religion? If so, you are defending the wrong pagan god. Let other retarded do it.

Or do whatever you want. After all, life is too short, and if you want to spent it defending insanity, it's your choice.

I laugh at your pathetic attempt to psychoanalyze people. Let it to Bodkin, along his path toward philosophical
enlightenment, even when it's a failure because fallacies betray him. You're more coherent. Keep that, at least,
as you can't stop replying me. You just can't, because I know I hit many nerves on your personality.

If I want, I can play around with you by just pressing "your inner buttons". You are that easy. I used to manage
teams of dozen of programmers who had the "god of SW" syndrome. I know how to make them stop. And you.

JanPB

unread,
Sep 25, 2021, 3:55:45 AMSep 25
to
No, you are wrong.

> If you was, that is 30 years behind. So, stop pretending being someone who you are not.

Glad to see you've run out of arguments and have been reduced to dissecting some
minutiae of my person.

> That your
> frustration and resentment makes you write here as if you were "the sucker at the ivory tower"

Don't project your own insecurities on others. The truth is very simple. One more time:

1. What you post here about relativity is about 100% incorrect,
2. It also happens to be insulting to anyone working in the field,
3. You attack people when they point out your errors instead of addressing your
mistakes.

When you repeat the above cycle hundreds of times (which is what you did), you get
the predictable result: you get yelled at. There simply exists in real life such thing as
facts and truth, and if you attempt to ignore them, they'll bite you.

> doesn't make your wishes true.

They are not "wishes". You've erected en entire castle in the air based on your
made-up nonsense about relativity theory and Einstein and now are frustrated
because your little game is up and leading nowhere fast.

> You have to stop behaving like an educated Dono, I warn you, because usually
> the deranged people can't perceive the true self while looking at the mirror.

You keep pointing idiocies and I'll point them out. It's very simple, there is no
need to make a big drama out of it. You bet on the wrong horse and you lost.
Just get over it, it's not the end of the world. There are many people around
the world who don't know anything about relativity and they lead perfectly
fulfilled, productive, honest, happy lives. What's wrong with you?

> You are nothing more than a simple person which is literate in math, but a failure in physics,

You are again repeating the standard crank lines around here. Are you sure you
are not one of our old visitors here that came back under a different name?

> logic and
> critical thinking. And, to have critical thinking abilities, a person has to put aside dogmas and indoctrination.

Again, standard crank lines. They always claim that the experts have been "indoctrinated"
and they "merely" "regurgitate" what they "were told". We've heard it all here
before many times.

> You are so deep in the credo of relativity and Einstein that the stink coming from you is intolerable.

The problem is yours. You don't know the first thing about the theory yet you crap
all over it and the people associated with it. You just get the only correct response.

> Or is it a thing related with religion? If so, you are defending the wrong pagan god. Let other retarded do it.

Hollywood, again.

> I laugh at your pathetic attempt to psychoanalyze people.

They are not "pathetic attempt to psychoanalyze people" (do you even bother to READ
what I write?) They were descriptions of actual posts by actual people in the past.
When I was not sure, I clearly stated that. You don't like facts? Yes, I thought so.

> Let it to Bodkin, along his path toward philosophical
> enlightenment, even when it's a failure because fallacies betray him. You're more coherent. Keep that, at least,
> as you can't stop replying me. You just can't, because I know I hit many nerves on your personality.
>
> If I want, I can play around with you by just pressing "your inner buttons". You are that easy. I used to manage
> teams of dozen of programmers who had the "god of SW" syndrome. I know how to make them stop. And you.

Oh boo-hoo, are you so hurt that your idiotic quest has been destroyed?

--
Jan

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Sep 25, 2021, 4:05:20 AMSep 25
to
In the meantime in the real world, however, the clocks of
GPS keep indicating t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Sep 25, 2021, 4:07:02 AMSep 25
to
On Saturday, 25 September 2021 at 09:55:45 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:

> Again, standard crank lines. They always claim that the experts have been "indoctrinated"

You're no experts, Jan. You're a bunch of lunatics screaming
of THE BEST WAY and being FORCED.

Michael Moroney

unread,
Sep 25, 2021, 12:00:35 PMSep 25
to
On 9/25/2021 1:40 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 1:20:35 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> 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.
>
> I have a problem with the plagiarism involved here, as well as with the presentation on Nov. 18, 1915
> about Mercury's perihelion.

I'm not so sure what Hilbert did qualifies as plagiarism, but I need to
read up on that more. Maybe it really was.

> Nov. 4, 1915: When Einstein hacked his GR equations for Mercury problem.
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/UVVohqmqnfw
>

Not hacked, but properly worked out.

>> 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.

Yes, finding 400+ "mistakes" sure was an idiotic claim by yourself.

> I analyzed only one 1905 paper, and it was about E=mc2.

What about your "analysis" of the 1905 SR paper?

> The math involved can be managed by
> a lucid high-school student, so no merits for me doing that analysis.

As Jan or Odd pointed out, that's why SR attracts cranks. The math is
simple enough so that the cranks can do it.

> These are THREE ERRORS, not 400.

The "400 errors" is what you claimed of the SR paper, not that one.

> 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,

Scientists do continue to revise their work.

My brother, considered an expert worldwide of certain details of plant
photosynthesis, published several papers and continues to work on it.

> finally
> giving up (he was 63 yo by then, and was bored as hell at Princeton).

I love how you can somehow read the mind of a long-dead person.

Of course, we all know that "giving up" and "boredom" is just your fiction.

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).

No, physicists see that all the time. Whether particle decay (becoming
energy and less mass), pair production (mass from pure energy), particle
annihilation (the reverse) it's accepted fact.

Actually it's not completely true as the correct formula is:
E=sqrt((mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2). E=mc^2 is only true for the special case of
stationary (no momentum) mass, which that formula simplifies to when p=0.

>>> 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.

Yet it's true. You don't understand most of it because of your
obsessive hate for the man.

I'm not like Dono, who
> has this childish OCD to have the last word (or post) or to have the first reply after any given post.

Projection.

> It's his
> sick personality which forces him to behave in that way as well as, for instance, the despicable actions for
> replacing topics on the headers, throw back at you what you posted but changing the subject from him to
> you, etc.

It's his style, some too far with name calling, but all his subject
changes do have a grain of truth to them.

> Pathetic attitude, but I've learned that there are infinite pathological and/or neurotic behaviors in
> life.

And IMO you demonstrate many of them.

> 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.

Good attitude, but I'm not sure it applies re you and Einstein.

> I know that it hurt feelings of territoriality. 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 bet your comment to him wasn't well thought out. I did make (well
thought out) comments to a doctor (a specialist, no less) and "diagnosed
myself" (according to him, later) when I suggested/told him I had an
issue he didn't suspect. He was skeptical of course but ordered tests
which came back positive.

> 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.

In order to teach a topic, you have to know it first. Regarding
relativity, you don't. Period.
>
> Because I don't have inferiority complexes as usually those who act in that way have.

You have a (very misguided) superiority complex. You are full of yourself.

> 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?

Not from what I see here!

> I don't hate Einstein. I just want to ridicule his theories, which I consider profoundly insane and nonphysical.

No from your attacks on the man, you despise him.
>
> Besides, as I said once to Bodkin, Einstein is an easy target to beat (like kicking an ant nest).

See what I mean?

> Immediately,
> relativists like you (fanatics in a wide gaussian dispersion) appear, screaming and kicking. And is funny as hell!

Crankspeak.

> Be less naive and fanatic, Moroney, and enjoy sarcasm or irony more. Aren't you British?

Something else you do. When called on your behavior which you really
can't defend, you say you were joking or satirical or sarcastic to
deflect that.

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 25, 2021, 4:29:20 PMSep 25
to
This is interesting, for me at least: SUPERIORITY COMPLEX at the forum of sci.physics.relativity (my findings).

THERAPY TIME!
****************************
A superiority complex is a belief that your abilities or accomplishments are somehow dramatically better than other people's.
People with a superiority complex may be condescending, smug, or mean to other people who don't agree with them.

"A superiority complex is really a defense mechanism to what's really going on with the person," licensed professional counselor,
Nickia Lowery, tells Bustle. "When a person acts superior to another, they really feel that the other is a perceived threat. In some
way they believe others will find out that they really are 'inadequate' and therefore behave in ways that make them feel like they
are 'better' than the rest."

https://www.bustle.com/wellness/signs-someone-may-have-a-superiority-complex

1 . They Constantly Seeking Validation (Moroney, Bodkin, JanPB, Dirk)

When someone has a superiority complex, their sense of self-worth will come from external sources. They only feel good
enough or worthy enough if others see them that way. As As Dr. Sanam Hafeez, neuropsychologist and faculty member at
Columbia University, tells Bustle, “They exaggerate their accomplishments and opinions because they cannot convince
themselves that they are worthy and have accomplished enough in their lives.” .........

2 It's Hard For Them To Own Up To Their Mistakes (Dono, Moroney, Bodkin, JanPB, Dirk)

People who act as if they’re superior to others have trouble, or flat out refuse, to take responsibility for their poor behavior.
According to Hafeez, they tend to believe that they’re always right, and are unwilling to consider any opposing opinions from
others. They may even throw a fit when someone contradicts them. When you're not at peace with who you truly are, the
tendency is to hide behind a "perfect" version of yourself that you think others will like. And owning up to your mistakes
means recognizing that you're not perfect.

3. They Compare Themselves To Others A Lot (Bodkin, JanPB)

It’s human nature to compare ourselves with other people. But people with a superiority complex do it constantly because
their sense of self-worth is based off how they perceive others are doing. According to Hafeez, “These individuals show
condescending traits but often act this way to hide their true feelings of insecurity and inferiority.”

When others make them feel as if they’re lacking in some way, they’re more likely to put up on a front and act as if they’re
above everyone else.

4. They're Prone To Mood Swings (Dono, JanPB, Dirk)

When someone has a superiority complex, you can’t always anticipate how they’ll act. To one person, they may be totally
fine and easy to get along with, and to another, they may display poor behavior. According to psychotherapist Kimberly
Perlin, LCSW-C, “A superiority complex is often used to describe someone that engages in a constant game of
one-up-manship. Their interactions revolve around trying to prove to others that they are superior.” Because of this, they
may be prone to mood swings. If they come across someone they feel threatened by, they might go from feeling entirely
inferior to convincing themselves that they're superior. Because of that, you can't always anticipate how they're going to behave.

5. They Have A Tendency To Make Things All About Them (Dono, Moroney, Bodkin, JanPB)

When someone has a superiority complex, they can sometimes come off as self-centered. According to Lowery, some might
challenge the beliefs and ideas of others in a way that communicates they have all the "right" answers. They may even devalue
the accomplishments of others by one-upping them with their own accomplishments.............

6. They Have A Sense Of Entitlement (Dono, Moroney, Bodkin, JanPB, Dirk)

"A superiority complex can be another way of saying 'entitlement,'" Dr. Cali Estes, Ph.D, founder of The Addictions Academy, tells
Bustle. "This type of individual believes that others are beneath them." Many times, this type of thinking stems from being given
everything as a child. According to Dr. Estes, they learned early on that they can treat any individual the way they want, and get
what they want.

7. They Like Things To Be Under Their Control (Dono, Moroney, Bodkin, JanPB)

If you're around someone who has a superiority complex and you don't act the way they expect, they might get mean. That's
because they like being right, and they like the feeling of being in control. When someone doesn’t act in a way they want, they
may become aggravated. According to Perlin, they may get into conflicts with co-workers over small slights, and there’s a good
chance that they’re not an effective team player. People with superiority complexes also tend to shoot for leadership positions
at work as it helps to validate them.

8. They Get Offended If They Don’t Get Positive Feedback (Dono, Moroney, Bodkin, JanPB, Dirk)

As you can guess, people with a superiority complex don’t take too well to criticism. In fact, they don’t want to hear anything but
positive feedback. According to Perlin, they may even feel criticized if you’re giving them neutral feedback. “Often individuals with
a superiority complex did not get validation from their parents as having value as a person, rather they were only given attention
when were better than others or the best,” Perlin says. They’re now unconsciously re-enacting their dynamic with their parents
as an adult.

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

NOTE: I didn't want to include other members, as I didn't have enough interactions with them. But by reading their posts, it's
possible to get some evaluations.

I believe that people far from these points (at least by what I perceived here) are: Paul, Sylvia and Tom (there are more, but
I'm not familiar with them).

In my case, I've found myself MILDLY represented only with the point 6. I analyzed my life in general, and my doings are not
represented in the other points. Quite the opposite.

Historic physicists that make the meter to EXPLODE: Einstein, Newton, Shockley, Pauli, Rutherford, Shannon, Oppenheimer, Teller, etc.

Historic physicists that had no superiority complex: Gauss, Maxwell, Poincaré, Born, Szilard, Bohr, Schrodinger, Planck, Hertz, etc.

Dono.

unread,
Sep 25, 2021, 5:00:40 PMSep 25
to
On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 1:29:20 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> THERAPY TIME!
> ****************************

Time for the straightjacket and the water hose for lunatic asylum patient Richard Hertz.


> People with a superiority complex may be condescending, smug, or mean to other people who don't agree with them.


Describes you to a tee, Dick. Add to the above that you are an imbecile and we have the complete picture. Of course you were born this way, your only consolation that you will die this way.






Michael Moroney

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 12:00:05 AMSep 26
to
On 9/25/2021 4:29 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 1:00:35 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 9/25/2021 1:40 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:

>>> Because I don't have inferiority complexes as usually those who act in that way have.
>> You have a (very misguided) superiority complex. You are full of yourself.

>
> This is interesting, for me at least: SUPERIORITY COMPLEX at the forum of sci.physics.relativity (my findings).

Definitely! Let me quote just one sentence of yours from a recent post:

>> Who the fuck do you believe you are TO CORRECT ME?

How dare I correct you? Why, because you believe you to be superior to
me, you little ant?
>
> THERAPY TIME!

For you.
> ****************************
> A superiority complex is a belief that your abilities or accomplishments are somehow dramatically better than other people's.

Sounds like you. You're not as bad as some megakooks like Plutonium or
Gabriel in other groups, but definitely describes you.

> People with a superiority complex may be condescending, smug, or mean to other people who don't agree with them.

Yes, that's you, alright!

>> Who the fuck do you believe you are TO CORRECT ME?

> "A superiority complex is really a defense mechanism to what's really going on with the person," licensed professional counselor,
> Nickia Lowery, tells Bustle. "When a person acts superior to another, they really feel that the other is a perceived threat. In some
> way they believe others will find out that they really are 'inadequate' and therefore behave in ways that make them feel like they
> are 'better' than the rest."

Sounds like you! But why would you perceive me, Dono and others as a threat?


> 1 . They Constantly Seeking Validation

You again.

> (Moroney, Bodkin, JanPB, Dirk)

Psychological projection of your need on us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection


> 2 It's Hard For Them To Own Up To Their Mistakes

Like refusing to admit that none of your 400+ "errors" in Einstein's SR
paper are valid.

> (Dono, Moroney, Bodkin, JanPB, Dirk)

Projection again.

> 3. They Compare Themselves To Others A Lot

Like when you pretend to be some retarded "professor" "correcting"
Einstein's SR paper?

> 4. They're Prone To Mood Swings

You again. Sometimes you're nice (except to Einstein) and sometimes
you're a real jerk.

> (Dono, JanPB, Dirk)

Projection again.

> 5. They Have A Tendency To Make Things All About Them

Not quite right, you try to make things all about hating Einstein.

> (Dono, Moroney, Bodkin, JanPB)

Projection yet again.

> 6. They Have A Sense Of Entitlement

>> Who the fuck do you believe you are TO CORRECT ME?

Need I say more?

> (Dono, Moroney, Bodkin, JanPB, Dirk)

And again, projection.

> 7. They Like Things To Be Under Their Control

Yes, you get mad when a topic drifts away from hating Einstein, usually
to how you are wrong.

> (Dono, Moroney, Bodkin, JanPB)

I think everyone knows what goes here.

> 8. They Get Offended If They Don’t Get Positive Feedback

>> Who the fuck do you believe you are TO CORRECT ME?

Again, need I say more?

> (Dono, Moroney, Bodkin, JanPB, Dirk)

I know everyone knows what goes here!

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 3:00:13 AMSep 26
to
On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 1:00:05 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> Definitely! Let me quote just one sentence of yours from a recent post:
> >> Who the fuck do you believe you are TO CORRECT ME?

> How dare I correct you? Why, because you believe you to be superior to me, you little ant?

HERE IS THE REAL POST, MORONEY. You are acting as a jerk again, in a Dono way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/j896HQqGIeQ
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 3:40:50 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
>
> I already corrected you on this and Venus, yet you repost it.

Who the fuck do you believe you are TO CORRECT ME?
I did post EXACT EXCERPTS from respectable sites.
My final opinion is based on the ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENT about GR applied to a 3-Body problem.
Why do YOU persist in sustain a fvcking lie? Keep reading and REFUTE IT (I'll give you the next 10 years or so)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And this post, the only one you can find about me making an angry response in ACCUSATORY TERMS (not
derogatory terms, liar who truncate posts at your convenience, is a LEGITIMATE RESPONSE to somebody
who pretend to STAND OVER MY HEAD, showing EXACTLY the pattern of someone with superiority complex.
You CORRECTED ME? Again, Who the fuck do you believe you are TO CORRECT ME?

You can disprove me, you can refute me, you can call names on me, you can be derogatory to me (you don't understand)
BUT if in your HEAVY HEAD you can't understand how PRETENTIOUS is your comment (I already corrected you) then
you REALLY are a SOB! And I hope that you can understand the reach of your insulting (and false) comment.

Maybe I can't express myself very well in English, but "I already corrected you" is an INSULT far above the usual kit of
attacks usually used here. It means: I, the GREAT Moroney, have already TOLD YOU HOW DO YOU HAVE TO THINK!

Do you get it, idiot? You telling me HOW to think? Even when it's beyond ridiculous, the intention behind is (for me) far
more insulting than anything Dono have said to me (and I can write a 1,000 pages about it).

Now, If I know you, you'll answer that you didn't mean what you said. If that's the case, I don't believe you. Once you
show your teeth, you are not reliable any longer, like a FUCKING DOG!

Regarding the rest of your comments, I cleaned them, so it's more visible for you and others.
Of course, I reject any of such claims. I'm only faulty with the point 6, as I wrote before.

And, also, it's supposed that this post IS A JOKE. And if you or others can't take a joke well, then FUCK YOU!


> > 1 . They Constantly Seeking Validation
> You again.
TRY BEING HONEST, SOB.

> > 2 It's Hard For Them To Own Up To Their Mistakes
> Like refusing to admit that none of your 400+ "errors" in Einstein's SR paper are valid.
TRY BEING HONEST, SOB.

> > 3. They Compare Themselves To Others A Lot
> Like when you pretend to be some retarded "professor" "correcting" Einstein's SR paper?
WELL, IF THIS IS ABOUT CORDA, THEN MY PERCEPTION OF YOU AS A LIAR AND DECEIVER IS CORRECT.

> > 4. They're Prone To Mood Swings
> You again. Sometimes you're nice (except to Einstein) and sometimes you're a real jerk.

> > 5. They Have A Tendency To Make Things All About Them
> Not quite right, you try to make things all about hating Einstein.

> > 6. They Have A Sense Of Entitlement
> >> Who the fuck do you believe you are TO CORRECT ME?
> Need I say more?
TRY BEING HONEST, SOB.

> > 7. They Like Things To Be Under Their Control
> Yes, you get mad when a topic drifts away from hating Einstein, usually to how you are wrong.

> > 8. They Get Offended If They Don’t Get Positive Feedback
> >> Who the fuck do you believe you are TO CORRECT ME?
> Again, need I say more?
TRY BEING HONEST, SOB.

Michael Moroney

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 12:25:25 PMSep 26
to
On 9/26/2021 3:00 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 1:00:05 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Definitely! Let me quote just one sentence of yours from a recent post:
>>>> Who the fuck do you believe you are TO CORRECT ME?
>
>> How dare I correct you? Why, because you believe you to be superior to me, you little ant?
>
> HERE IS THE REAL POST, MORONEY. You are acting as a jerk again, in a Dono way.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/j896HQqGIeQ
> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 3:40:50 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
>>
>> I already corrected you on this and Venus, yet you repost it.
>
> Who the fuck do you believe you are TO CORRECT ME?
> I did post EXACT EXCERPTS from respectable sites.
> My final opinion is based on the ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENT about GR applied to a 3-Body problem.
> Why do YOU persist in sustain a fvcking lie? Keep reading and REFUTE IT (I'll give you the next 10 years or so)

You posted something wrong, I corrected you, you ignore the correction
and repost the same incorrect statement so I state I already corrected
you. Perfectly reasonable response.

Instead, your ego RAGES at the idea of being corrected, not once but
twice, so you lash out "Who the fuck do you believe you are TO CORRECT
ME?" because your superiority complex just can't stand that!

> You CORRECTED ME? Again, Who the fuck do you believe you are TO CORRECT ME?

Wow, your superiority complex is really raging!
>
> Maybe I can't express myself very well in English, but "I already corrected you" is an INSULT far above the usual kit of
> attacks usually used here. It means: I, the GREAT Moroney, have already TOLD YOU HOW DO YOU HAVE TO THINK!

Nope, it means what it says. I corrected your mistake, you ignore your
correction, you repeat your mistake and I point out my previous
correction by stating "I already corrected you". Either counter my
correction or admit you were wrong, or donate your body to rabies
research or something, whatever causes your mouth to foam with outrage.
>
> Do you get it, idiot? You telling me HOW to think? Even when it's beyond ridiculous, the intention behind is (for me) far
> more insulting than anything Dono have said to me (and I can write a 1,000 pages about it).

And your ego continues to rage.
>
> Now, If I know you, you'll answer that you didn't mean what you said. If that's the case, I don't believe you. Once you
> show your teeth, you are not reliable any longer, like a FUCKING DOG!

Nope. You made a mistake, you ignored my correction, you repeat your
mistake, I made my comment on that.

> And, also, it's supposed that this post IS A JOKE. And if you or others can't take a joke well, then FUCK YOU!

Looks like another attempt at what I said elsewhere, if cornered you'll
claim it's all a joke or out of context or whatever.
>
>
>>> 1 . They Constantly Seeking Validation
>> You again.
> TRY BEING HONEST, SOB.

I am being honest. I know you don't like it.
>
>>> 2 It's Hard For Them To Own Up To Their Mistakes
>> Like refusing to admit that none of your 400+ "errors" in Einstein's SR paper are valid.
> TRY BEING HONEST, SOB.

Own up to the fact you have some 400+ misunderstandings or mistakes of
your own.
>
>>> 3. They Compare Themselves To Others A Lot
>> Like when you pretend to be some retarded "professor" "correcting" Einstein's SR paper?

> WELL, IF THIS IS ABOUT CORDA, THEN MY PERCEPTION OF YOU AS A LIAR AND DECEIVER IS CORRECT.

The mythical "professor" is you, trying to "correct" the 1905 paper.

>>> Who the fuck do you believe you are TO CORRECT ME?

>> Again, need I say more?
> TRY BEING HONEST, SOB.
>

Again I am being honest. Do you need all that spelled out in more detail?

Richard Hertz

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 11:46:27 AMSep 28
to
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 9:37:10 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> Note that Kobee’s “treatise” vanished when he passed. All that’s left of
> him is this kind of jackwagon cackling. As will be true of you, Mr Retired
> Engineer. Congratulations on your future legacy.

I didn't follow Kobee's “treatise” development here (if remotely such thing existed).
I was just poking JanPB for his discussions with Koobee years ago.

I don't have an "intellectual legacy" to be left, as you pretend to build here, Mr. "physics dropout".

I've found an interesting thread of posts about a physics dropout whining about his decision
and how badly he wants to success in life, at any field and personal efforts. Maybe you can
use it to validate yourself in your doings for a career development:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/life-of-a-physics-dropout.603336/

Dono.

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 12:07:23 PMSep 28
to
On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 8:46:27 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> I don't have an "intellectual legacy" to be left

Actually, you do. Your imbecilities are recorded in this forum. Be proud, the world knows you (as an imbecile)

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Sep 29, 2021, 8:12:51 AMSep 29
to
Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 9:37:10 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Note that Kobee’s “treatise” vanished when he passed. All that’s left of
>> him is this kind of jackwagon cackling. As will be true of you, Mr Retired
>> Engineer. Congratulations on your future legacy.
>
> I didn't follow Kobee's “treatise” development here (if remotely such thing existed).
> I was just poking JanPB for his discussions with Koobee years ago.
>
> I don't have an "intellectual legacy" to be left, as you pretend to build
> here, Mr. "physics dropout".

Hard to be a physics dropout if one is never a drop in.

Your intellectual legacy is what others remember about you. What do you
think you are establishing there?

>
> I've found an interesting thread of posts about a physics dropout whining
> about his decision
> and how badly he wants to success in life, at any
> field and personal efforts. Maybe you can
> use it to validate yourself in your doings for a career development:
>
> https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/life-of-a-physics-dropout.603336/
>
>



Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages