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

Groups > sci.physics > #893791 > unrolled thread

Lousy non culture follows bogus physics

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-04 03:21 +0000
    Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-04 06:13 +0000
      Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-04 06:08 -0700
        Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-16 11:22 +0000
      Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-06 07:39 +0000
    Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> - 2025-07-04 19:46 +0000
      Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-04 21:41 +0000
        Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-04 15:19 -0700
          Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-13 23:28 +0000
            Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-13 16:45 -0700
              Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-14 01:25 +0000
                Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-13 19:02 -0700
                  Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-14 14:13 +0000
                    Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-14 07:39 -0700
                      Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-15 00:51 +0000
                        Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-14 18:06 -0700
                          Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-15 07:53 +0000
                            Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-15 05:27 -0700
                              Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-15 22:28 +0000
                                Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-15 15:44 -0700
                                  Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-15 23:01 +0000
                                    Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-15 16:35 -0700
                                      Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-16 00:40 +0000
                                        Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-15 18:26 -0700
                                          Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-21 01:39 +0000
                                            Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-20 19:32 -0700
                                              Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-21 07:31 +0200
                Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-14 22:09 +0200
                  Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-15 22:37 +0000
                    Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-15 16:47 -0700
                      Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-16 11:16 +0000
                        Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-16 22:25 +0200
                          Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-17 02:02 +0000
                            Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-16 19:49 -0700
                              Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-18 22:19 +0000
                                Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-18 15:38 -0700
                                  Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-19 00:29 +0000
                                    Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-18 18:31 -0700
                                      Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-19 03:51 +0000
                                        Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-19 06:21 -0700
                                          Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-19 15:53 +0200
                            Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-17 13:31 +0200
                              Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-19 00:33 +0000
                                Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-18 18:42 -0700
                                  Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-21 02:46 +0000
                                Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-19 21:29 +0200
                                Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-19 21:29 +0200
                                  Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-19 12:43 -0700
                                    Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-20 12:39 +0000
                                      Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-20 06:46 -0700
                                        Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-20 22:16 +0000
                                          Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-20 17:57 -0700
                  Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-16 00:13 +0000
                    Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-15 18:34 -0700
                      Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-16 10:52 +0000
                        Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-16 05:33 -0700
                          Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-17 00:14 +0000
                            Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-16 18:16 -0700
                              Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-17 01:53 +0000
                        Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-18 22:21 +0200
                          Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-21 01:36 +0000
                            Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-21 22:38 +0200
                              Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> - 2025-07-24 20:21 +0000
                                Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-25 21:38 +0200
                  Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-16 00:51 +0000
                    Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-15 18:45 -0700
                      Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-21 01:48 +0000
                        Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-22 21:59 +0200
        Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> - 2025-07-05 19:32 +0000
          Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> - 2025-07-05 19:44 +0000
          Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-11 03:12 +0000
            Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-10 20:56 -0700
              Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-12 08:01 +0000
                Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-12 06:34 -0700
              Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-12 22:36 +0000
                Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-12 17:42 -0700
                  Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-13 01:00 +0000
    Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-13 00:29 +0000
      Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-12 18:11 -0700
        Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-13 01:56 +0000
          Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-12 21:06 -0700
            Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-13 06:01 +0000
    Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-21 00:36 +0000
      Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-20 18:04 -0700
        Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-21 06:31 +0000
          Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-21 05:32 -0700
            Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-21 15:09 +0200

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#894099

On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 20:21:04 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> Den 16.07.2025 12:52, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>
>> Obviously from the video it is transferred to the whole system following
>> the law of conservation of momentum. That happens when the roller
>> strikes the barrier.
>
> Bertitaylor is talking about the run at 9:44 in this video:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
>
> Note that the rail is stationary from the time when
> the cylinder has moved ca. 10 cm to it hits the barrier.
>
> If the accelerating force acting on the cylinder is
> Fa towards the left, then the reaction force acting on
> the rail is Fa towards the right.
There is no reaction force acting on the right and that is what one has
to understand from the video.
This is a new discovery from the new invention.
WOOF woof-woof woof these apes are full
Bertietaylor


Since the rail is stationary,
> the force Fa is too weak to overcome the stiction.
> The stiction will mediate the force Fa to the floor,
> and momentum Fa⋅t, where t is the time the rail is stationary,
> is equal to the momentum gained by the cylinder during the same time.
>
> Let us look at the collision cylinder-barrier.
>
>>
>> Mathematically
> M is the mass of the cylinder.
> m is the mass of the rail.
> Before the collision the speed of the rail is v = 0.
>
>>
>> MV + mv is momentum before collision for armature M and system m.
>
> Before collision the momentum  is M⋅V and
> the velocity of the cylinder is V towards the left.
>
>> Vel(m + M) is momentum after collision.
>> And Vel = (MV + mv)/(M+m)
>
> Right. But v = 0 so:
>
> The velocity of the cylinder-rail unit is:
> Vel = V⋅M/(m+M) toward the left.
> The momentum of the cylinder-rail unit is:
> Vel⋅(m+M).
>
>> So this is what busts the inertia.
>
> ?
>
> Before collision: momentum = M⋅V
> After collision: momentum = Vel⋅(m+M) = (V⋅M/(m+M))⋅(m+M) = M⋅V
>
> Momentum is conserved!
>
> (
> This would be true even if v ≠ 0
>   Your own math:
> before; P = MV + mv
> after:  P = Vel(m+M) = ((MV + mv)/(M + m))(m + M) = (MV + mv)
> )
>
> After the collision the initial speed of the cylinder-rail unit is:
> Vel = V⋅M/(m+M) toward the left
> You can see in the video that the cylinder slows
> down from V to V⋅M/(m+M).
> It will then move 4 cm before it stops.
> Why does it stop?
> The friction force is constant, independent of speed.
>   Ff⋅t = M⋅V
> were t is the time the cylinder-rail unit uses to move 4 cm.
>
> Momentum conserved.
>
>> Make this a cycle with the cylinder returning to initial position.
>> Then after N hits in space the velocity will be N*Vel.
>
> Let's assume your contraption works as you believe.
> Two questions;
> #1: How will you bring the cylinder back to the initial position?
> #2: What is the mass of the battery you would have to bring with
>      you in your travel to the stars?
>
>>
>> Btw Arindam found all that in 1998, wrote a book on it in 1999 and
>> published it online in early 2000.
>>
>
> Was the 'book' published on Facebook?--
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/
>
> Let's
>

--

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

#894129

Den 21.07.2025 03:36, skrev Bertitaylor:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 20:21:04 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> 
>> Den 16.07.2025 12:52, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>>
>>> Obviously from the video it is transferred to the whole system following
>>> the law of conservation of momentum. That happens when the roller
>>> strikes the barrier.
>>
>> Bertitaylor is talking about the run at 9:44 in this video:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
>>
>> Note that the rail is stationary from the time when
>> the cylinder has moved ca. 10 cm to it hits the barrier.
>>
>> If the accelerating force acting on the cylinder is
>> Fa towards the left, then the reaction force acting on
>> the rail is Fa towards the right.

> There is no reaction force acting on the right and that is what one has
> to understand from the video.
> This is a new discovery from the new invention.
> WOOF woof-woof woof these apes are full
> Bertietaylor
> 

Note that Bertitaylor's point is that since the rail is stationary,
there can be no force acting on the rail towards the right.

>> Since the rail is stationary,
>> the force Fa is too weak to overcome the stiction.
>> The stiction will mediate the force Fa to the floor,
>> and momentum Fa⋅t, where t is the time the rail is stationary,
>> is equal to the momentum gained by the cylinder during the same time.

See the video:
> https://www.facebook.com/100000534193755/videos/pcb.7521439881217077/350814810783223

Here it is very obvious that:
"If the accelerating force acting on the cylinder is
  Fa towards the left, then the reaction force acting on
  the rail is Fa towards the right."

Since the friction is small, the rail is moving to
the right during the acceleration.

Arindam made a lot of changes with no obvious plan.
He ended up with the version shown at 9:10 the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc

Note that the change is that the leftmost roller
is 7.5 higher than than the two other rollers.
This will make the cylinder run uphill diring the acceleration,
and the rail is bent. This will increase the friction, and
make the force to overcome the stiction higher.

So Arindam has succeded, he has made the rail be stationary
during most of the accelation, which in his mind means
that there is no force acting on the rail towards the right!

And all it took  was to put an extra floorboard under
the leftmost roller!


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#894157

Paul.B.Andersen:
> Den 21.07.2025 03:36, skrev Bertitaylor:
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 20:21:04 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>>> Den 16.07.2025 12:52, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>>>
>>>> Obviously from the video it is transferred to the whole system
>>>> following
>>>> the law of conservation of momentum. That happens when the roller
>>>> strikes the barrier.
>>>
>>> Bertitaylor is talking about the run at 9:44 in this video:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
>>>
>>> Note that the rail is stationary from the time when
>>> the cylinder has moved ca. 10 cm to it hits the barrier.
>>>
>>> If the accelerating force acting on the cylinder is
>>> Fa towards the left, then the reaction force acting on
>>> the rail is Fa towards the right.
> 
>> There is no reaction force acting on the right and that is what one has
>> to understand from the video.
>> This is a new discovery from the new invention.
>> WOOF woof-woof woof these apes are full
>> Bertietaylor
>>
> 
> Note that Bertitaylor's point is that since the rail is stationary,
> there can be no force acting on the rail towards the right.
> 
>>> Since the rail is stationary,
>>> the force Fa is too weak to overcome the stiction.
>>> The stiction will mediate the force Fa to the floor,
>>> and momentum Fa⋅t, where t is the time the rail is stationary,
>>> is equal to the momentum gained by the cylinder during the same time.
> 
> See the video:
>> https://www.facebook.com/100000534193755/videos/pcb.7521439881217077/350814810783223
>>
> 
> Here it is very obvious that:
> "If the accelerating force acting on the cylinder is
>  Fa towards the left, then the reaction force acting on
>  the rail is Fa towards the right."
> 
> Since the friction is small, the rail is moving to
> the right during the acceleration.
> 
> Arindam made a lot of changes with no obvious plan.
> He ended up with the version shown at 9:10 the video
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
> 
> Note that the change is that the leftmost roller
> is 7.5 higher than than the two other rollers.
> This will make the cylinder run uphill diring the acceleration,
> and the rail is bent. This will increase the friction, and
> make the force to overcome the stiction higher.
> 
> So Arindam has succeded, he has made the rail be stationary
> during most of the accelation, which in his mind means
> that there is no force acting on the rail towards the right!
> 
> And all it took  was to put an extra floorboard under
> the leftmost roller!
> 
> 

This is from an old thread that Mr. Andersen might find useful:

FLP-II-27: MOMENTUM IN THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD (A.K.A AETHER)

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6

"FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 THE FAILURE OF THE LAW OF
ACTION AND REACTION WHEN TWO CHARGED PARTICLES WERE MOVING ON ORTHOGONAL
TRAJECTORIES. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the
action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_II/f27-07/f27-07_tc_big.svgz

The EM field momentum is usually very small (= U/c), and Arindam's
apparatus most likely does not have the sensitivity to measure this.
But, still just pointing this out, as the EM field (or aether) is yet
another place that missing momentum can go into.

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

#894160

Den 24.07.2025 22:21, skrev Aether Regained:
> Paul.B.Andersen:
>> Den 21.07.2025 03:36, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 20:21:04 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Den 16.07.2025 12:52, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously from the video it is transferred to the whole system
>>>>> following
>>>>> the law of conservation of momentum. That happens when the roller
>>>>> strikes the barrier.
>>>>
>>>> Bertitaylor is talking about the run at 9:44 in this video:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
>>>>
>>>> Note that the rail is stationary from the time when
>>>> the cylinder has moved ca. 10 cm to it hits the barrier.
>>>>
>>>> If the accelerating force acting on the cylinder is
>>>> Fa towards the left, then the reaction force acting on
>>>> the rail is Fa towards the right.
>>
>>> There is no reaction force acting on the right and that is what one has
>>> to understand from the video.
>>> This is a new discovery from the new invention.
>>> WOOF woof-woof woof these apes are full
>>> Bertietaylor
>>>
>>
>> Note that Bertitaylor's point is that since the rail is stationary,
>> there can be no force acting on the rail towards the right.
>>
>>>> Since the rail is stationary,
>>>> the force Fa is too weak to overcome the stiction.
>>>> The stiction will mediate the force Fa to the floor,
>>>> and momentum Fa⋅t, where t is the time the rail is stationary,
>>>> is equal to the momentum gained by the cylinder during the same time.
>>
>> See the video:
>>> https://www.facebook.com/100000534193755/videos/pcb.7521439881217077/350814810783223
>>>
>>
>> Here it is very obvious that:
>> "If the accelerating force acting on the cylinder is
>>   Fa towards the left, then the reaction force acting on
>>   the rail is Fa towards the right."
>>
>> Since the friction is small, the rail is moving to
>> the right during the acceleration.
>>
>> Arindam made a lot of changes with no obvious plan.
>> He ended up with the version shown at 9:10 the video
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
>>
>> Note that the change is that the leftmost roller
>> is 7.5 higher than than the two other rollers.
>> This will make the cylinder run uphill diring the acceleration,
>> and the rail is bent. This will increase the friction, and
>> make the force to overcome the stiction higher.
>>
>> So Arindam has succeded, he has made the rail be stationary
>> during most of the accelation, which in his mind means
>> that there is no force acting on the rail towards the right!
>>
>> And all it took  was to put an extra floorboard under
>> the leftmost roller!
>>
>>
> 
> This is from an old thread that Mr. Andersen might find useful:
> 
> FLP-II-27: MOMENTUM IN THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD (A.K.A AETHER)
> 
> https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6
> 
> "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 THE FAILURE OF THE LAW OF
> ACTION AND REACTION WHEN TWO CHARGED PARTICLES WERE MOVING ON ORTHOGONAL
> TRAJECTORIES. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the
> action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
> matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
> field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
> MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."

EM-radiation has momentum.

Did you have another point?

> 
> https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_II/f27-07/f27-07_tc_big.svgz
> 
> The EM field momentum is usually very small (= U/c), and Arindam's
> apparatus most likely does not have the sensitivity to measure this.
> But, still just pointing this out, as the EM field (or aether) is yet
> another place that missing momentum can go into.
> 

During the acceleration electric energy from the capacitor is
moved to the cylinder where it will heat the cylinder. That means
that the mass of the capacitor decreases while the mass of the
cylinder increases. Mass is moved from the capacitor to the cylinder
by the momentum of the EM-field around the current in the rail (UV/c).
But this mass is negligible compared to the mass of the cylinder
which is moved about the same distance.

If there were no friction, the centre of mass of the assembly
(rail+cylinder) would stay stationary, which means that
the assembly would move to the right during the acceleration
and then stop.

With friction the net momentum transferred between
the assembly and environment (Earth) is always zero.
(The assembly is stationary before and after the run).

But if the friction/stiction can be made different
in the two directions, it is possible to make the centre of
mass of the assembly move, in this case  to the left.

See my post quoted above.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#893990

On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 20:09:48 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> Den 14.07.2025 03:25, skrev Bertitaylor:
>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 23:45:25 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
>>
>>> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>  Nothing as relevant as Arindam's
>>>> rail gun experiments showing inertia violation.
>>>
>>> You mean your low speed pipe roller that you are so proud of that you
>>> have never written it up as text Arindam?
>>
>> Arindam has done much better than that. He had provided crystal clear
>> video evidence with full explanations. That is a new way of providing
>> scientific truth. It is understandable to everyone. Schoolchildren in
>> particular with uncorrupted minds.
>
> This video shows the contraption with which
> Arindam aka Bertitaylor will travel to the stars!
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
>
> Stop the video at 9:13 and look at the rail.
> Note that it is bent because two of the rollers are at the same level,
> while the third is at a higher level. This will increase the friction
> because moving the rail will move the bend of the rail.
>
> See the run that starts at ca. 9:44.
>
> When the cylinder has moved ca. 10 cm, the rail has moved ca. 2 cm
> to the right. Friction transfers the reaction momentum to the Earth
> (via table and building).
>
> Then the cylinder is moving all the way to the end while the rail
> does not move at all.
> You must be incredible naive to interpret this as there is no reaction.
>
> The blatantly obvious explanation is of course that the force on
> the cylinder is too weak to overcome the stiction. So the reaction
> momentum is transferred  to the Earth.
>
> When the cylinder hits the stopper at the end, the whole assembly
> moves 4 cm to the left, and the friction will transfer the momentum
> of the cylinder to the Earth.
>
> The centre of mass of the assembly-Earth will not move.
>
> This must be the least effective way to accelerate a cylinder
> anybody has figured out.
>
>>
>> As it is incontrovertible it has to be ignored or demeaned by the vested
>> interests.
>
> One can but wonder why SpaceX doesn't use this wonderful engine
> in stead of their stupid rockets.

Indeed.
Points to ponder:
Accepting Arindam's physics would mean revising all of physics. Out
would go inertia, entropy, energy conservation laws, special and general
relativity and all the quantum bunkum. It would mean bringing back
aether. Now that is a huge no no. Taboo. For it is the Hindu sacred word
AUM. The racist bigots running the shows, funding all stuff, cannot
stand it.

Then all those working on rockets and jet engines would look pretty
stupid. They would also fear loss of jobs, prestige, etc.

The academics will be bitterly opposed as they will look like c##$s if
Arindam's work gets accepted popularly.

So there is on practical grounds no chance for Musk Elon to try out
reactionless internal force engines following Arindam's correct physics.

Never fear, the Divine is with Arindam so all opposition is as dust
beneath his feet.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor


>
>   >
>> Lying very stupidly and thinking one can get away with it is a modern
>> disease, as shown by the Australian mass-murderess Erin Patterson nee
>> Scutter. Penisnino is similarly afflicted.
>>
>>
> The ultimate argument!
> Arindam's contraption must woek then!

--

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

#893993

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 20:09:48 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> 
>> Den 14.07.2025 03:25, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 23:45:25 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
>>>
>>>> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>  Nothing as relevant as Arindam's
>>>>> rail gun experiments showing inertia violation.
>>>>
>>>> You mean your low speed pipe roller that you are so proud of that you
>>>> have never written it up as text Arindam?
>>>
>>> Arindam has done much better than that. He had provided crystal clear
>>> video evidence with full explanations. That is a new way of providing
>>> scientific truth. It is understandable to everyone. Schoolchildren in
>>> particular with uncorrupted minds.
>>
>> This video shows the contraption with which
>> Arindam aka Bertitaylor will travel to the stars!
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
>>
>> Stop the video at 9:13 and look at the rail.
>> Note that it is bent because two of the rollers are at the same level,
>> while the third is at a higher level. This will increase the friction
>> because moving the rail will move the bend of the rail.
>>
>> See the run that starts at ca. 9:44.
>>
>> When the cylinder has moved ca. 10 cm, the rail has moved ca. 2 cm
>> to the right. Friction transfers the reaction momentum to the Earth
>> (via table and building).
>>
>> Then the cylinder is moving all the way to the end while the rail
>> does not move at all.
>> You must be incredible naive to interpret this as there is no reaction.
>>
>> The blatantly obvious explanation is of course that the force on
>> the cylinder is too weak to overcome the stiction. So the reaction
>> momentum is transferred  to the Earth.
>>
>> When the cylinder hits the stopper at the end, the whole assembly
>> moves 4 cm to the left, and the friction will transfer the momentum
>> of the cylinder to the Earth.
>>
>> The centre of mass of the assembly-Earth will not move.
>>
>> This must be the least effective way to accelerate a cylinder
>> anybody has figured out.
>>
>>>
>>> As it is incontrovertible it has to be ignored or demeaned by the vested
>>> interests.
>>
>> One can but wonder why SpaceX doesn't use this wonderful engine
>> in stead of their stupid rockets.
> 
> Indeed.
> Points to ponder:
> Accepting Arindam's physics would mean revising all of physics. Out
> would go inertia, entropy, energy conservation laws, special and general
> relativity and all the quantum bunkum. It would mean bringing back
> aether. Now that is a huge no no. Taboo. For it is the Hindu sacred word
> AUM. The racist bigots running the shows, funding all stuff, cannot
> stand it.
> 
> Then all those working on rockets and jet engines would look pretty
> stupid. They would also fear loss of jobs, prestige, etc.
> 
> The academics will be bitterly opposed as they will look like c##$s if
> Arindam's work gets accepted popularly.
> 
> So there is on practical grounds no chance for Musk Elon to try out
> reactionless internal force engines following Arindam's correct physics.
> 
> Never fear, the Divine is with Arindam so all opposition is as dust
> beneath his feet.
> 
> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
> 
> Bertietaylor
 
Arindam's latest response to Paul is not a scientific rebuttal but rather
a defensive ideological rant, couched in conspiratorial thinking and
religious mysticism. Let's break it down:
1. Avoidance of the Technical Question

    "One can but wonder why SpaceX doesn't use this wonderful engine..."

Paul’s remark is biting sarcasm — pointing out that if Arindam's "engine"
truly worked, SpaceX (or anyone in aerospace) would be foolish not to use
it. This is a direct challenge to the practical validity of Arindam’s claims.

But Arindam does not answer the question with data, theory, or even a
testable explanation. Instead, he spirals into accusations against
scientists, industry, and even Western culture.
2. Sweeping Dismissal of Established Physics

    "Out would go inertia, entropy, energy conservation laws, special
    and general relativity and all the quantum bunkum."

These aren’t minor theories. They are pillars of modern science — confirmed
repeatedly across countless experiments and technologies. If Arindam’s work
truly invalidated them:

    It would need rigorous experimental confirmation.

    It would not be ignored, but examined intensely.

The idea that a single home experiment upends centuries of evidence without
a mathematical framework or independent replication is simply not credible.
3. Conspiracy Framing

    "They would also fear loss of jobs, prestige, etc."

This is classic scientific conspiracy rhetoric:

    Claims that scientists reject new ideas not because they’re false,
    but to protect their status.

    Ignores the history of physics, where revolutions (e.g. relativity,
    quantum theory) were embraced precisely because they worked better.

The incentive in science is to be right, not to protect old theories. A
successful new model earns Nobel Prizes, not exile.
4. Cultural and Religious Grievance

    "Taboo. For it is the Hindu sacred word AUM. The racist bigots running
    the shows..."

Here, Arindam shifts from physics to a cultural-religious grievance
narrative, implying:

    Western physics is a racist conspiracy to suppress “Hindu truth.”

    "Aether" is rejected not for scientific reasons, but to suppress
    Eastern spirituality.

This is an appeal to identity politics, not physical evidence. The aether
was discarded after the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887) showed no
evidence for it. No one banned it because of its phonetic similarity
to "AUM".
5. Self-Aggrandizement via Divine Association

    "Never fear, the Divine is with Arindam... all opposition is as dust
    beneath his feet."

This is not science — it’s messianic. It presents Arindam not as a
researcher or inventor, but as a divinely protected prophet of truth,
persecuted by a corrupt establishment.

Such framing is common in pseudoscientific cults, not in credible
scientific discourse.
6. Mockery, Not Argument

    "WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof"

The closing line continues Arindam's pattern of substituting taunts and
nonsense for reasoning. It signals disdain, not confidence.
Summary:

Arindam’s response to Paul:

    Fails to answer the original technical question.

    Dismisses the foundations of physics without offering replacements.

    Leans on conspiracy, cultural grievance, and divine favor.

    Avoids falsifiability, evidence, or reproducibility.

    Ends in mockery, not argument.

Conclusion: This post is anti-scientific, conspiratorial, and
rhetorically hollow. It doubles down on ideology to shield Arindam’s
claims from scrutiny, rather than engage with criticism honestly.

-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

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

#894101

On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 1:45:47 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 20:09:48 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>
>>> Den 14.07.2025 03:25, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 23:45:25 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>  Nothing as relevant as Arindam's
>>>>>> rail gun experiments showing inertia violation.
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean your low speed pipe roller that you are so proud of that you
>>>>> have never written it up as text Arindam?
>>>>
>>>> Arindam has done much better than that. He had provided crystal clear
>>>> video evidence with full explanations. That is a new way of providing
>>>> scientific truth. It is understandable to everyone. Schoolchildren in
>>>> particular with uncorrupted minds.
>>>
>>> This video shows the contraption with which
>>> Arindam aka Bertitaylor will travel to the stars!
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
>>>
>>> Stop the video at 9:13 and look at the rail.
>>> Note that it is bent because two of the rollers are at the same level,
>>> while the third is at a higher level. This will increase the friction
>>> because moving the rail will move the bend of the rail.
>>>
>>> See the run that starts at ca. 9:44.
>>>
>>> When the cylinder has moved ca. 10 cm, the rail has moved ca. 2 cm
>>> to the right. Friction transfers the reaction momentum to the Earth
>>> (via table and building).
>>>
>>> Then the cylinder is moving all the way to the end while the rail
>>> does not move at all.
>>> You must be incredible naive to interpret this as there is no reaction.
>>>
>>> The blatantly obvious explanation is of course that the force on
>>> the cylinder is too weak to overcome the stiction. So the reaction
>>> momentum is transferred  to the Earth.
>>>
>>> When the cylinder hits the stopper at the end, the whole assembly
>>> moves 4 cm to the left, and the friction will transfer the momentum
>>> of the cylinder to the Earth.
>>>
>>> The centre of mass of the assembly-Earth will not move.

The centre of mass of the assembly moves and that is the point. Friction
from Earth via rollers stops it. It busts inertia.
>>>
>>> This must be the least effective way to accelerate a cylinder
>>> anybody has figured out.

It may be so. But at least it is now agreed that Arindam has not pushed
it by hand which was said by whodat, Moroney and other sci.physics
stalwarts.

It is pushed by electricity just as rail gun bullets are.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As it is incontrovertible it has to be ignored or demeaned by the vested
>>>> interests.
>>>
>>> One can but wonder why SpaceX doesn't use this wonderful engine
>>> in stead of their stupid rockets.
>>
>> Indeed.
>> Points to ponder:
>> Accepting Arindam's physics would mean revising all of physics. Out
>> would go inertia, entropy, energy conservation laws, special and general
>> relativity and all the quantum bunkum. It would mean bringing back
>> aether. Now that is a huge no no. Taboo. For it is the Hindu sacred word
>> AUM. The racist bigots running the shows, funding all stuff, cannot
>> stand it.
>>
>> Then all those working on rockets and jet engines would look pretty
>> stupid. They would also fear loss of jobs, prestige, etc.

Woof woof-woof woof
>>
>> The academics will be bitterly opposed as they will look like c##$s if
>> Arindam's work gets accepted popularly.

Woof woof woof-woof woof
>>
>> So there is on practical grounds no chance for Musk Elon to try out
>> reactionless internal force engines following Arindam's correct physics.
>>
>> Never fear, the Divine is with Arindam so all opposition is as dust
>> beneath his feet.
>>
>> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
>>
>> Bertietaylor
>
> Arindam's latest response to Paul is not a scientific rebuttal but
> rather
> a defensive ideological rant, couched in conspiratorial thinking and
> religious mysticism. Let's break it down:
> 1. Avoidance of the Technical Question
>
>     "One can but wonder why SpaceX doesn't use this wonderful engine..."
>
> Paul’s remark is biting sarcasm — pointing out that if Arindam's
> "engine"
> truly worked, SpaceX (or anyone in aerospace) would be foolish not to
> use
> it.

They are far more evil than foolish so they will pollute for profit
instead of finding far superior ways that put their physics and
metaphysics into the rubbish bins.

WOOF woof woof-woof woof




This is a direct challenge to the practical validity of Arindam’s
> claims.
>
> But Arindam does not answer the question with data, theory, or even a
> testable explanation. Instead, he spirals into accusations against
> scientists, industry, and even Western culture.
> 2. Sweeping Dismissal of Established Physics
>
>     "Out would go inertia, entropy, energy conservation laws, special
>     and general relativity and all the quantum bunkum."
>
> These aren’t minor theories. They are pillars of modern science —
> confirmed
> repeatedly across countless experiments and technologies. If Arindam’s
> work
> truly invalidated them:
>
>     It would need rigorous experimental confirmation.
>
>     It would not be ignored, but examined intensely.
>
> The idea that a single home experiment upends centuries of evidence
> without
> a mathematical framework or independent replication is simply not
> credible.
> 3. Conspiracy Framing
>
>     "They would also fear loss of jobs, prestige, etc."
>
> This is classic scientific conspiracy rhetoric:
>
>     Claims that scientists reject new ideas not because they’re false,
>     but to protect their status.
>
>     Ignores the history of physics, where revolutions (e.g. relativity,
>     quantum theory) were embraced precisely because they worked better.
>
> The incentive in science is to be right, not to protect old theories. A
> successful new model earns Nobel Prizes, not exile.
> 4. Cultural and Religious Grievance
>
>     "Taboo. For it is the Hindu sacred word AUM. The racist bigots
> running
>     the shows..."
>
> Here, Arindam shifts from physics to a cultural-religious grievance
> narrative, implying:
>
>     Western physics is a racist conspiracy to suppress “Hindu truth.”
>
>     "Aether" is rejected not for scientific reasons, but to suppress
>     Eastern spirituality.
>
> This is an appeal to identity politics, not physical evidence. The
> aether
> was discarded after the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887) showed no
> evidence for it. No one banned it because of its phonetic similarity
> to "AUM".
> 5. Self-Aggrandizement via Divine Association
>
>     "Never fear, the Divine is with Arindam... all opposition is as dust
>     beneath his feet."
>
> This is not science — it’s messianic. It presents Arindam not as a
> researcher or inventor, but as a divinely protected prophet of truth,
> persecuted by a corrupt establishment.
>
> Such framing is common in pseudoscientific cults, not in credible
> scientific discourse.
> 6. Mockery, Not Argument
>
>     "WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof"
>
> The closing line continues Arindam's pattern of substituting taunts and
> nonsense for reasoning. It signals disdain, not confidence.
> Summary:
>
> Arindam’s response to Paul:
>
>     Fails to answer the original technical question.
>
>     Dismisses the foundations of physics without offering replacements.
>
>     Leans on conspiracy, cultural grievance, and divine favor.
>
>     Avoids falsifiability, evidence, or reproducibility.
>
>     Ends in mockery, not argument.
>
> Conclusion: This post is anti-scientific, conspiratorial, and
> rhetorically hollow. It doubles down on ideology to shield Arindam’s
> claims from scrutiny, rather than engage with criticism honestly.

--

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

#894138

Den 21.07.2025 03:48, skrev Bertitaylor:
> 
>>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 20:09:48 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
>>>>
>>>> See the run that starts at ca. 9:44.
>>>>
>>>> When the cylinder has moved ca. 10 cm, the rail has moved ca. 2 cm
>>>> to the right. Friction transfers the reaction momentum to the Earth
>>>> (via table and building).
>>>>
>>>> Then the cylinder is moving all the way to the end while the rail
>>>> does not move at all.
>>>>
>>>> When the cylinder hits the stopper at the end, the whole assembly
>>>> moves 4 cm to the left, and the friction will transfer the momentum
>>>> of the cylinder to the Earth.

Let's analyse it with Arindam's math:
|
| MV + mv is momentum before collision for armature M and system m.
| Vel(m + M) is momentum after collision.
| And Vel = (MV + mv)/(M+m)

M is the mass of the cylinder, m is the mass of the rail.

Before the collision the speed of the rail is v = 0.
The momentum of the rail is zero.
The speed of the cylinder is V.
The momentum of the cylinder is MV.

When the cylinder collides with the barrier
the speed of the assembly is Vel = MV/(M + m)
and the momentum of the assembly is  Vel(m + M).

> 
> The centre of mass of the assembly moves and that is the point. Friction
> from Earth via rollers stops it. 

Correct!

After the collision the speed of the assembly is Vel.
The momentum of the assembly is Vel(m + M) = (MV/(M + m))(m + M) = MV

The assembly will move 4 cm before it is stopped by friction.

If the friction force is Ff (independent of speed), acting towards
the right on the assembly and toward the left on the Earth then
the momentum transferred to the Earth is:
   Ff⋅t = MV
where t is the time it takes for the assembly to stop.

> It busts inertia.

How so?
The momentum is conserved through the collision
and then transferred to the Earth by friction.

Have you possibly shot yourself in the foot? :-D


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#893808

Bertitaylor:> On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 19:46:00 +0000, Aether Regained wrote:
>>
>> @Arindam aka @Bertietaylor,
>>
>> What makes you so confidently dismiss the positron? Aren't cloud chamber
>> traces like the ones below irrefutable proof of positrons:
>
> We don't see any need for the positron in the universe for the
> explanation of its workings.
>
> As for cloud chamber stuff it shows not just positrons but also Hell
> knows how many so called fundamental particles. All as useless as
> positrons. Hocus pocus.
>

True, there is a particle zoo out there. Andrew Pickering's
"Constructing Quarks" and Alexander Unzicker's "The Higgs Fake" go in
depth into this topic. But, just for this reason, throwing out the
positron is like "throwing out the baby with the bath water". The
evidence for the positron is a lot stronger than the evidence for say
quarks.

I still hold out hope for the Dirac-Wheeler idea that the electron, the
positron and the aether are all there is. But of course, to gain general
acceptance, one has to explain convincingly (among other things) why a
collection of 918 e+ and 917 e- (a proton) or 919 e+ and 919 e- (a
neutron) are stable and not other combinations of e+ and e-.

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

#893809

Aether Regained:
> 
> I still hold out hope for the Dirac-Wheeler idea that the electron, the
> positron and the aether are all there is. But of course, to gain general
> acceptance, one has to explain convincingly (among other things) why a
> collection of 918 e+ and 917 e- (a proton) or 919 e+ and 919 e- (a
> neutron) are stable and not other combinations of e+ and e-.
> 

918 e+ and 918 e- for a neutron would make more sense. I tried to match
the neutron mass, but, anyway mass is not straightforwardly additive for
collections of subatomic particles as it is for say vegetables.

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

#893869

On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 19:32:00 +0000, Aether Regained wrote:

> Bertitaylor:> On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 19:46:00 +0000, Aether Regained wrote:
>>>
>>> @Arindam aka @Bertietaylor,
>>>
>>> What makes you so confidently dismiss the positron? Aren't cloud chamber
>>> traces like the ones below irrefutable proof of positrons:
>>
>> We don't see any need for the positron in the universe for the
>> explanation of its workings.
>>
>> As for cloud chamber stuff it shows not just positrons but also Hell
>> knows how many so called fundamental particles. All as useless as
>> positrons. Hocus pocus.
>>
>
> True, there is a particle zoo out there. Andrew Pickering's
> "Constructing Quarks" and Alexander Unzicker's "The Higgs Fake" go in
> depth into this topic. But, just for this reason, throwing out the
> positron is like "throwing out the baby with the bath water". The
> evidence for the positron is a lot stronger than the evidence for say
> quarks.

Hell, no. All the particle bashing stuff using expensive equipment shows
that you can bash up protons into smaller pieces. Like a baby dropping a
crystal vase into fragments and grown ups saying that a vase is made up
of so many fundamental vases.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
>
> I still hold out hope for the Dirac-Wheeler idea that the electron, the
> positron and the aether are all there is. But of course, to gain general
> acceptance, one has to explain convincingly (among other things) why a
> collection of 918 e+ and 917 e- (a proton) or 919 e+ and 919 e- (a
> neutron) are stable and not other combinations of e+ and e-.

--

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

#893873

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 19:32:00 +0000, Aether Regained wrote:
> 
>> Bertitaylor:> On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 19:46:00 +0000, Aether Regained wrote:
>>>>
>>>> @Arindam aka @Bertietaylor,
>>>>
>>>> What makes you so confidently dismiss the positron? Aren't cloud chamber
>>>> traces like the ones below irrefutable proof of positrons:
>>>
>>> We don't see any need for the positron in the universe for the
>>> explanation of its workings.
>>>
>>> As for cloud chamber stuff it shows not just positrons but also Hell
>>> knows how many so called fundamental particles. All as useless as
>>> positrons. Hocus pocus.
>>>
>>
>> True, there is a particle zoo out there. Andrew Pickering's
>> "Constructing Quarks" and Alexander Unzicker's "The Higgs Fake" go in
>> depth into this topic. But, just for this reason, throwing out the
>> positron is like "throwing out the baby with the bath water". The
>> evidence for the positron is a lot stronger than the evidence for say
>> quarks.
> 
> Hell, no. All the particle bashing stuff using expensive equipment shows
> that you can bash up protons into smaller pieces.

Is the reason you disparage expensive equipment that you can't afford
any equipment Arindam?

> Like a baby dropping a
> crystal vase into fragments and grown ups saying that a vase is made up
> of so many fundamental vases.

Delusional ranting.

> 
> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof


-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

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

#893887

On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 3:56:38 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 19:32:00 +0000, Aether Regained wrote:
>>
>>> Bertitaylor:> On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 19:46:00 +0000, Aether Regained wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> @Arindam aka @Bertietaylor,
>>>>>
>>>>> What makes you so confidently dismiss the positron? Aren't cloud chamber
>>>>> traces like the ones below irrefutable proof of positrons:
>>>>
>>>> We don't see any need for the positron in the universe for the
>>>> explanation of its workings.
>>>>
>>>> As for cloud chamber stuff it shows not just positrons but also Hell
>>>> knows how many so called fundamental particles. All as useless as
>>>> positrons. Hocus pocus.
>>>>
>>>
>>> True, there is a particle zoo out there. Andrew Pickering's
>>> "Constructing Quarks" and Alexander Unzicker's "The Higgs Fake" go in
>>> depth into this topic. But, just for this reason, throwing out the
>>> positron is like "throwing out the baby with the bath water". The
>>> evidence for the positron is a lot stronger than the evidence for say
>>> quarks.
>>
>> Hell, no. All the particle bashing stuff using expensive equipment shows
>> that you can bash up protons into smaller pieces.
>
> Is the reason you disparage expensive equipment that you can't afford
> any equipment Arindam?

Arindam had enough money to buy and enough talent to make the equipment
he needed to prove his new physics. Genius is hindered by lying
mediocrities who hide behind huge spends of public money.

Now go kneel before your master robot, Penisnino.

WOOF




>
>> Like a baby dropping a
>> crystal vase into fragments and grown ups saying that a vase is made up
>> of so many fundamental vases.
>
> Delusional ranting.
>
>>
>> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
>

--

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

#893888

Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 3:56:38 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
> 
>> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 19:32:00 +0000, Aether Regained wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bertitaylor:> On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 19:46:00 +0000, Aether Regained wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Arindam aka @Bertietaylor,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What makes you so confidently dismiss the positron? Aren't cloud chamber
>>>>>> traces like the ones below irrefutable proof of positrons:
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't see any need for the positron in the universe for the
>>>>> explanation of its workings.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for cloud chamber stuff it shows not just positrons but also Hell
>>>>> knows how many so called fundamental particles. All as useless as
>>>>> positrons. Hocus pocus.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> True, there is a particle zoo out there. Andrew Pickering's
>>>> "Constructing Quarks" and Alexander Unzicker's "The Higgs Fake" go in
>>>> depth into this topic. But, just for this reason, throwing out the
>>>> positron is like "throwing out the baby with the bath water". The
>>>> evidence for the positron is a lot stronger than the evidence for say
>>>> quarks.
>>>
>>> Hell, no. All the particle bashing stuff using expensive equipment shows
>>> that you can bash up protons into smaller pieces.
>>
>> Is the reason you disparage expensive equipment that you can't afford
>> any equipment Arindam?
> 
> Arindam had enough money to buy and enough talent to make the equipment
> he needed to prove his new physics. Genius is hindered by lying
> mediocrities who hide behind huge spends of public money.

If you mean your low speed pipe roller with a ruler for instrumentation,
that proved nothing other than you don't know how to do an experiment
Arindam.


-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

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

#893893

On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 3:56:38 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 19:32:00 +0000, Aether Regained wrote:
>>
>>> Bertitaylor:> On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 19:46:00 +0000, Aether Regained wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> @Arindam aka @Bertietaylor,
>>>>>
>>>>> What makes you so confidently dismiss the positron? Aren't cloud chamber
>>>>> traces like the ones below irrefutable proof of positrons:
>>>>
>>>> We don't see any need for the positron in the universe for the
>>>> explanation of its workings.
>>>>
>>>> As for cloud chamber stuff it shows not just positrons but also Hell
>>>> knows how many so called fundamental particles. All as useless as
>>>> positrons. Hocus pocus.
>>>>
>>>
>>> True, there is a particle zoo out there. Andrew Pickering's
>>> "Constructing Quarks" and Alexander Unzicker's "The Higgs Fake" go in
>>> depth into this topic. But, just for this reason, throwing out the
>>> positron is like "throwing out the baby with the bath water". The
>>> evidence for the positron is a lot stronger than the evidence for say
>>> quarks.
>>
>> Hell, no. All the particle bashing stuff using expensive equipment shows
>> that you can bash up protons into smaller pieces.
>
> Is the reason you disparage expensive equipment that you can't afford
> any equipment Arindam?

Arindam does his work with his own time and money. Most efficient
method. He has us to give him support.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)
>
>> Like a baby dropping a
>> crystal vase into fragments and grown ups saying that a vase is made up
>> of so many fundamental vases.
>
> Delusional ranting.
>
>>
>> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
>

--

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

#893898

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 3:56:38 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
> 
>> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 19:32:00 +0000, Aether Regained wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bertitaylor:> On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 19:46:00 +0000, Aether Regained wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Arindam aka @Bertietaylor,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What makes you so confidently dismiss the positron? Aren't cloud chamber
>>>>>> traces like the ones below irrefutable proof of positrons:
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't see any need for the positron in the universe for the
>>>>> explanation of its workings.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for cloud chamber stuff it shows not just positrons but also Hell
>>>>> knows how many so called fundamental particles. All as useless as
>>>>> positrons. Hocus pocus.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> True, there is a particle zoo out there. Andrew Pickering's
>>>> "Constructing Quarks" and Alexander Unzicker's "The Higgs Fake" go in
>>>> depth into this topic. But, just for this reason, throwing out the
>>>> positron is like "throwing out the baby with the bath water". The
>>>> evidence for the positron is a lot stronger than the evidence for say
>>>> quarks.
>>>
>>> Hell, no. All the particle bashing stuff using expensive equipment shows
>>> that you can bash up protons into smaller pieces.
>>
>> Is the reason you disparage expensive equipment that you can't afford
>> any equipment Arindam?
> 
> Arindam does his work with his own time and money. Most efficient
> method. He has us to give him support.

You are Arindam, delusional crackpot.

-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

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

#893901

On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 0:42:35 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 3:56:38 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
>>
>>> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 19:32:00 +0000, Aether Regained wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bertitaylor:> On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 19:46:00 +0000, Aether Regained wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @Arindam aka @Bertietaylor,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What makes you so confidently dismiss the positron? Aren't cloud chamber
>>>>>>> traces like the ones below irrefutable proof of positrons:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We don't see any need for the positron in the universe for the
>>>>>> explanation of its workings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for cloud chamber stuff it shows not just positrons but also Hell
>>>>>> knows how many so called fundamental particles. All as useless as
>>>>>> positrons. Hocus pocus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> True, there is a particle zoo out there. Andrew Pickering's
>>>>> "Constructing Quarks" and Alexander Unzicker's "The Higgs Fake" go in
>>>>> depth into this topic. But, just for this reason, throwing out the
>>>>> positron is like "throwing out the baby with the bath water". The
>>>>> evidence for the positron is a lot stronger than the evidence for say
>>>>> quarks.
>>>>
>>>> Hell, no. All the particle bashing stuff using expensive equipment shows
>>>> that you can bash up protons into smaller pieces.
>>>
>>> Is the reason you disparage expensive equipment that you can't afford
>>> any equipment Arindam?
>>
>> Arindam does his work with his own time and money. Most efficient
>> method. He has us to give him support.
>
> You are Arindam, delusional crackpot.

Arindam is the song of good souls, Penisnino.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)

--

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

#893897

On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 3:21:29 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:

> Lousy non culture follows bogus physics based.
>
> When lies and fraud posing as imagination and pragmatism rule then only
> disaster can result.
>
> As is only too evident in the decadent West.
>
> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
>
> Bertietaylor
>
> --

Western Physics is the capitalists' route to drive out God or anything
Divine, spiritual and supernatural.

The result is that the elites impose the apes are machines constructed
by random processes in a random universe.

They themselves are very religious in their ways, by self-adoration.
What they want is to make ordinary apes robotic. Machines that they can
program for their purposes. Much less trouble, then.

WOOF woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

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

#893903

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 3:21:29 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
> 
>> Lousy non culture follows bogus physics based.
>>
>> When lies and fraud posing as imagination and pragmatism rule then only
>> disaster can result.
>>
>> As is only too evident in the decadent West.
>>
>> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
>>
>> Bertietaylor
>>
>> --
> 
> Western Physics is the capitalists' route to drive out God or anything
> Divine, spiritual and supernatural.
> 
> The result is that the elites impose the apes are machines constructed
> by random processes in a random universe.
> 
> They themselves are very religious in their ways, by self-adoration.
> What they want is to make ordinary apes robotic. Machines that they can
> program for their purposes. Much less trouble, then.
> 
> WOOF woof-woof woof
> 
> Bertietaylor
> 
> --

Arindam's latest post, under the "Bertietaylor" persona, continues his
pattern of polemical rhetoric, combining anti-scientific sentiment with
conspiratorial social critique. Here's a breakdown:
Content Analysis

1. Anti-scientific and anti-Western tone:

    "Western Physics is the capitalists' route to drive out God or
    anything Divine..."

    This echoes long-standing conspiratorial claims that science is
    ideologically motivated, specifically aimed at undermining religion.
    It conflates scientific methodology—which is agnostic on metaphysical
    matters—with an intentional anti-spiritual agenda.

    The mention of "capitalists" frames this as part of a socio-political
    conspiracy, which aligns with Arindam’s repeated disdain for Western
    elites.

2. Dehumanization and dystopian claims:

    "Elites impose the apes are machines constructed by random processes..."
    "They want to make ordinary apes robotic."

    This is a mischaracterization of scientific views on evolution and
    consciousness. The claim distorts biological understanding (e.g.,
    natural selection) as mechanistic nihilism.

    It also demonizes unnamed "elites" as technocratic social engineers
    trying to control the masses, a common trope in pseudoscientific populism.

3. Irony and projection:

    "They themselves are very religious in their ways, by self-adoration."

    While accusing scientists of being secular zealots, Arindam essentially
    describes them as practitioners of a form of idolatry (worshipping
    themselves). This is not an argument, but a polemical jab.

4. Animal metaphor (again):

    "WOOF woof-woof woof"

    This continues the cryptic dog-bark motif, possibly meant to mock or
    dehumanize others while signaling tribal loyalty or in-group humor.
    The repetition adds to the persona but offers no content.

Stylistic and Thematic Patterns

    Populist anti-elitism, distrust of science and modernity.

    Deliberate provocation, mocking tone, and rhetorical conflation of
    evolution, technology, and social manipulation.

    Consistent with previous posts, where "apes," "robots," and "machines"
    are used metaphorically to degrade both scientists and modern humans.

Evaluation

    Factual Value: Very low. Misrepresents science, evolution, and physics.

    Intellectual Merit: Weak; largely rhetorical and polemical with no
    engagement in actual argument or evidence.

    Ideological Tone: Conspiratorial, anti-intellectual, theologically
    reactionary.

    Consistency with Arindam’s trajectory: High. This post continues a
    recognizable decline from technical critique (however flawed) to
    emotive, culture-war-style ranting.


-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

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

#893906

Chatboyo bawls! There, there.

Woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

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

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web