Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #892231 > unrolled thread

The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia'

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' greysky <ftlsite@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-07 21:37 -0700
    Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-08 05:28 +0000
      Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2025-04-08 08:33 +0200
        Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2025-04-08 08:37 +0000
          Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2025-04-08 09:50 +0000
      Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-10 07:51 +0200
        Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-10 08:22 +0000
          Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> - 2025-04-10 22:42 +1200
            Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2025-04-10 11:47 +0100
              Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-10 12:03 +0000
              Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-12 14:04 +0000
              Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-12 22:12 +0000
                Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-12 23:04 +0000
            Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2025-04-10 14:00 +0000
          Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' x <x@x.org> - 2025-04-10 12:11 -0700
            Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-11 03:57 +0000
              Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-12 10:29 +0200
                Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-12 13:59 +0000
                  Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-13 09:15 +0200
              Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2025-04-13 18:15 +1000
                Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-13 08:26 +0000
                Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-13 10:50 +0100
                  Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2025-04-13 20:54 +1000
                    Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-13 13:32 +0100
                Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' Chris Elvidge <chris@internal.net> - 2025-04-13 12:11 +0100
                  Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2025-04-13 21:28 +1000
                  Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-14 21:01 +0200
                    Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 21:19 +0000
        Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2025-04-10 09:54 +0100
          Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-11 06:44 +0200
            Re: The Angry Man's review of Newtons 'Principia' bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2025-04-11 09:39 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#892323

On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 8:15:14 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote:

> On 11/04/25 13:57, Bertitaylor wrote:
>
>> Pushing protons past neutrons to get deuterium, then bombarding it
>> with high energy electrons to fission it as is done in the sun and
>> stars, will work to solve energy problems.
>
> You understand, I assume, that all the stars will go dark if E=mc^2 ever
> fails to be true. Fission depends critically on mass-energy equivalence.

Wrong as ever, Moylan.
As e = mcc is a bogus formula it is useful to frauds and SciFi for money
making.
It does not explain solar energy.
From Arindam's physics energy or rather em radiation meaning em force is
continuously created by the sun and stars on a kinetic basis. No need
for e=mcc when the laws of thermodynamics are thrown out.
E=0.5mvvN(N-k) rules
Check his links where he has described his future physics in detail.
And stop telling lies. Grow up.

Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892324

On 13/04/2025 09:15, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 11/04/25 13:57, Bertitaylor wrote:
> 
>> Pushing protons past neutrons to get deuterium, then bombarding it
>> with high energy electrons to fission it as is done in the sun and
>> stars, will work to solve energy problems.
> 
> You understand, I assume, that all the stars will go dark if 
> E=mc^2 ever
> fails to be true. Fission depends critically on mass-energy 
> equivalence.

You understand, I assume, that all the stars will go dark if they 
ever come to depend upon fission? Stars depend critically upon 
fusion.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892325

On 13/04/25 19:50, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 13/04/2025 09:15, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 11/04/25 13:57, Bertitaylor wrote:
>>
>>> Pushing protons past neutrons to get deuterium, then bombarding
>>> it with high energy electrons to fission it as is done in the sun
>>> and stars, will work to solve energy problems.
>>
>> You understand, I assume, that all the stars will go dark if E=mc^2
>> ever fails to be true. Fission depends critically on mass-energy
>> equivalence.
>
> You understand, I assume, that all the stars will go dark if they
> ever come to depend upon fission? Stars depend critically upon
> fusion.

Oops. I swear I had fusion in mind when I wrote that, but my fingers
must have had a different opinion.

-- 
Peter Moylan       peter@pmoylan.org    http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892328

On 13/04/2025 11:54, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 13/04/25 19:50, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 13/04/2025 09:15, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> On 11/04/25 13:57, Bertitaylor wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pushing protons past neutrons to get deuterium, then bombarding
>>>> it with high energy electrons to fission it as is done in the 
>>>> sun
>>>> and stars, will work to solve energy problems.
>>>
>>> You understand, I assume, that all the stars will go dark if 
>>> E=mc^2
>>> ever fails to be true. Fission depends critically on mass-energy
>>> equivalence.
>>
>> You understand, I assume, that all the stars will go dark if they
>> ever come to depend upon fission? Stars depend critically upon
>> fusion.
> 
> Oops. I swear I had fusion in mind when I wrote that, but my fingers
> must have had a different opinion.

You've earned one of these.
   ________    ________
  /        `--'        \
/___|              |___\
     |  MY TYPO WAS |
     |  STELLAR BUT |
     |   ALL I GOT  |
     |   WAS THIS   |
     |    LOUSY     |
     |   T-SHIRT    |
     |______________|


-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892326

On 13/04/2025 at 09:15, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 11/04/25 13:57, Bertitaylor wrote:
> 
>> Pushing protons past neutrons to get deuterium, then bombarding it
>> with high energy electrons to fission it as is done in the sun and
>> stars, will work to solve energy problems.
> 
> You understand, I assume, that all the stars will go dark if E=mc^2 ever
> fails to be true. Fission depends critically on mass-energy equivalence.
> 

Or indeed if we ever manage to recite the 9 billion names of God (which 
God? you may ask.)


-- 
Chris Elvidge, England
SHERRI DOES NOT "GOT BACK"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892327

On 13/04/25 21:11, Chris Elvidge wrote:
> On 13/04/2025 at 09:15, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 11/04/25 13:57, Bertitaylor wrote:
>>
>>> Pushing protons past neutrons to get deuterium, then bombarding it
>>> with high energy electrons to fission it as is done in the sun and
>>> stars, will work to solve energy problems.
>>
>> You understand, I assume, that all the stars will go dark if E=mc^2 ever
>> fails to be true. Fission depends critically on mass-energy equivalence.
>
> Or indeed if we ever manage to recite the 9 billion names of God (which
> God? you may ask.)

The one whose name is Legion.

-- 
Peter Moylan       peter@pmoylan.org    http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892356

Chris Elvidge <chris@internal.net> wrote:

> On 13/04/2025 at 09:15, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 11/04/25 13:57, Bertitaylor wrote:
> > 
> >> Pushing protons past neutrons to get deuterium, then bombarding it
> >> with high energy electrons to fission it as is done in the sun and
> >> stars, will work to solve energy problems.
> > 
> > You understand, I assume, that all the stars will go dark if E=mc^2 ever
> > fails to be true. Fission depends critically on mass-energy equivalence.
> > 
> 
> Or indeed if we ever manage to recite the 9 billion names of God (which
> God? you may ask.)

All of them of course,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892362

On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 19:01:46 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Chris Elvidge <chris@internal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 13/04/2025 at 09:15, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> On 11/04/25 13:57, Bertitaylor wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pushing protons past neutrons to get deuterium, then bombarding it
>>>> with high energy electrons to fission it as is done in the sun and
>>>> stars, will work to solve energy problems.
>>>
>>> You understand, I assume, that all the stars will go dark if E=mc^2 ever
>>> fails to be true. Fission depends critically on mass-energy equivalence.

Fission depends upon local or external agencies splitting the nucleus
causing electrostatic repulsion forcefully.

Nothing to do with e is mcc, a bogus concept.
>>>
>>
>> Or indeed if we ever manage to recite the 9 billion names of God (which
>> God? you may ask.)

All consciousness has divine imprint and can be named individually. No
problem for a robot to recite 9 billion names or more.
>
> All of them of course,

Yes.

Woof-woof woof woof woof woof

Bertietaylor
>
> Jan

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892266

Le 10/04/2025 à 06:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am Dienstag000008, 08.04.2025 um 07:28 schrieb Bertitaylor:
>>
>> Undoubtedly Sir Isaac Newton was the greatest benefactor of humanity.
> 
> As far as I know, Newton was an alchemist and tried to create gold from 
> other metals.
> 
> So, in a way he was a forger himself.
> 
> But I also have heard, that Newton was actually 'fabricated' himself 
> (similar to Shakespeare).

He was a mere lightweight. He weighed only one Newton (0.225 lbf).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892287

Am Donnerstag000010, 10.04.2025 um 10:54 schrieb Hibou:
> Le 10/04/2025 à 06:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> Am Dienstag000008, 08.04.2025 um 07:28 schrieb Bertitaylor:
>>>
>>> Undoubtedly Sir Isaac Newton was the greatest benefactor of humanity.
>>
>> As far as I know, Newton was an alchemist and tried to create gold 
>> from other metals.
>>
>> So, in a way he was a forger himself.
>>
>> But I also have heard, that Newton was actually 'fabricated' himself 
>> (similar to Shakespeare).
> 
> He was a mere lightweight. He weighed only one Newton (0.225 lbf).
> 

There exists a theory, that Shakespeare and Newton didn't write what 
they were famous for.

They simply borrowed their names for sinister plots.


Newtons 'Principia' were not written more or less at the end of Newton's 
life, but in the middle.

This was quite astonishing, since Newton wrote about occultism and 
alchemy later and not about physics.

But why?

I mean: you had just written the most influential book in physics of 
your entire era and then you stop????

Usually scientific careers have 'momentum' and once in full swing, you 
cannot simply stop.

But Newton did just that and after 'Principia' he studied the art of 
making Gold and the influence of the stars upon the course of life.

That was a VERY odd succession!


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892292

On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 4:44:28 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am Donnerstag000010, 10.04.2025 um 10:54 schrieb Hibou:
>> Le 10/04/2025 à 06:51, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>> Am Dienstag000008, 08.04.2025 um 07:28 schrieb Bertitaylor:
>>>>
>>>> Undoubtedly Sir Isaac Newton was the greatest benefactor of humanity.
>>>
>>> As far as I know, Newton was an alchemist and tried to create gold
>>> from other metals.
>>>
>>> So, in a way he was a forger himself.
>>>
>>> But I also have heard, that Newton was actually 'fabricated' himself
>>> (similar to Shakespeare).
>>
>> He was a mere lightweight. He weighed only one Newton (0.225 lbf).
>>
>
> There exists a theory, that Shakespeare and Newton didn't write what
> they were famous for.

When lies need respectability, the liars call them theories. Examples
abound - from big bang theory to black hole theory with thermodynamics,
relativity and quantum in between.
>
> They simply borrowed their names for sinister plots.

Wow, they must have made the ruling bigots and their present descendants
unhappy.
>
>
> Newtons 'Principia' were not written more or less at the end of Newton's
> life, but in the middle.

Just as Arindam wrote his book "To the stars!" in 1999, when he was
middle aged. In that book he laid the basis for future physics, updating
Newton's laws of motion, with his new formula relating matter and energy
on a kinetic non-destructive anti-inertia basis.
>
> This was quite astonishing, since Newton wrote about occultism and
> alchemy later and not about physics.

After revising physics, Arindam turned to metaphysics involving Arya
mythology. He wrote the supreme work of English literature "The Son of
Hiranyaksh". Now, that is totally different from physics!
>
> But why?

What could Newton do?  His colleagues were pigheaded Aristotleans who
were hostile to his new ideas. Just as Arindam currently faces total
hostility from the Einsteinians (who are essentially Aristotleans out to
please the funding fundies who adore Aristotle, as they want the Earth
to remain the centre of their small universe).
>
> I mean: you had just written the most influential book in physics of
> your entire era and then you stop????

Other things to do, see. Not much more can be done in your field, for
your new revolutionary outlook, when all around who are influential are
stone cold to your new ideas.
In time, when the old fools die out, and new uses are found for new
physics, there is scope. But not just after. Newton was trying to keep
himself away from outright physical harm from the Aristotle/Einstein
class bigots (the type who had burned Bruno at the stake).
Similarly Arindam is now at last getting some traction for his future
physics, what with the regressive old fools slowly fading from the
scene. eg, whodat of sci.physics fame.
>
> Usually scientific careers have 'momentum' and once in full swing, you
> cannot simply stop.

Ah, here we have it. You have used the magic word "career". No careerist
depending upon wages and lusting for fames and awards would have
stopped. Yes. But Newton was not a careerist. He was a hobbyist, like
Arindam. Like Arindam he was a loner, who worked with his hands, made
his own models, as that was the most efficient way to go.
>
> But Newton did just that and after 'Principia' he studied the art of
> making Gold and the influence of the stars upon the course of life.

He did try to stretch the boundaries of his knowledge. You need not
always go in the  most productive direction.

Finally he got a good job in the Mint and a decent salary at last. Then
he laid the basis for the modern economy we enjoy today, and will do so,
for ever and aye. By stopping forgery, and thus making all the moeny in
the world, converting labour and materials into gold, effectively, via
unforgeable paper and now twists in cyblerspace!
>
> That was a VERY odd succession!

Not from Arindam's point of view, but then, the ways of the greatest
geniuses cannot be understood by mediocre opportunist careerists.

Woof woof woof woof

Bertietaylor


>
>
> TH

--

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web