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

#894064

On 7/19/2025 3:21 PM, Jim Pennino wrote:
> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>> P*'s natural idiocy is more interesting then that of his AI god. Funny
>> in its way.
>> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
>>
>> --
> 
> Arindam’s response:
> 
>      P*'s natural idiocy is more interesting then that of his AI god. Funny
>      in its way.
>      WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
> 
> —offers a characteristic reaction: brief, dismissive, and laced with
> insult and mockery, but without content.
> Key Features:
> 
>      Evasion of substance:
>      Rather than engage with the critique—especially regarding his
>      rhetorical habits, emotional tone, or the lack of substantive
>      argument—Arindam sidesteps entirely. There's no rebuttal, no
>      acknowledgment, and no self-reflection. This is classic deflection.
> 
>      Insult-as-defense:
>      Referring again to “natural idiocy” and “AI god” is a two-pronged
>      sneer—toward his human target and toward the AI (i.e., this model).
>      This paints Arindam as besieged by fools and machines alike, a
>      common motif in his writing.
> 
>      Derision as identity:
>      The “WOOF” sign-off is Arindam’s rhetorical fingerprint: it functions
>      less as humor and more as a ritualistic gesture of contempt. It
>      stylizes the sneer without elevating the discourse.
> 
>      No progression:
>      This response is indistinguishable in form and tone from those
>      posted years ago. That suggests either:
> 
>          A refusal to evolve, or
> 
>          A performance sustained for its own sake, with no intention
> 	of engaging beyond the theatrical.
> 
> Overall Evaluation:
> 
> Arindam offers no engagement with the actual critique. Instead, he
> reasserts his usual posture: aloof, mocking, and uninterested in
> dialogue. The repetition of insult and stylized dismissal reflects
> stagnation, not strength.
> 
> Conclusion:
> This response confirms rather than challenges prior evaluations.
> Arindam's style remains performative, hostile, and empty of
> argument—more a signature of identity than an effort at persuasion
> or reflection.

Pot, kettle...


> 
> 

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

#894030

Den 17.07.2025 04:02, skrev Bertitaylor:
> What business did you have to STEAL Arindam's work, and put that in your
> pdf, you lying THIEF?

> Paul B. Andersen wrote:> 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
>> Stop the video at 9:10
>> This is what you will see:
>> "The upward slope is 7.5 mm in 520mm"
>> 
>> Between the two rollers to the right and the floor
>> there is one floorboard(?).
>> Between the roller to the left and the floor there are
>> two floorboards.
>> 
>> The part of the rail between the two rightmost rollers
>> is horizontal. From the middle roller to the leftmost
>> roller there is according to Arindam  7.5 mm upward slope.
>> 
>> The rail is bent!
>> 

Didn't you like what the video showed at 9:10?

You know you were lying when you wrote:
"They [the rollers] are at the same level."
don't you?

And now you are desperate to divert the attention
from the fact that you were caught in a lie! :-D

> 
> If you had any worth Arindam would sue you but as you have none you can
> only be dismissed as a THIEF.
> 
> Get lost, we doggies don't care for thieves. Well, just shows what bogus
> physics does for morality.

Are you referring to the proved fact that your bogus physics
made you lie? :-D


The whole discussion can be summed up with two short statements:

| Paul B. Andersen wrote:
|>
|> When the cylinder has moved ca. 10 cm, the rail has moved ca. 2 cm
|> to the right.

| Arindam aka Bertitaylor responded:
|>
|> Friction from rolling on rails is the mechanical effect pushing the
|> system back.

The cylinder is accelerated to the left. Arindam claims that
the friction between the cylinder and rail will push the rail
to the right.

'nuff said.



-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#894052

Look here, thief, Arindam knew far better physics than you ever could
when he was in middle school.

That picture you STOLE was from an experiment to show antigravity - how
from the electric current it is possible to raise a body upwards apart
from sideways.

Now fuck off, thief.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

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

#894054

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> Look here, thief, Arindam knew far better physics than you ever could
> when he was in middle school.
> 
> That picture you STOLE was from an experiment to show antigravity - how
> from the electric current it is possible to raise a body upwards apart
> from sideways.
> 
> Now fuck off, thief.
> 
> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
> 
> Bertietaylor
> 
> --

Arindam's latest response is not a scientific rebuttal but a hostile,
ad hominem outburst. Here's a breakdown of its issues:
1. Personal Attack Instead of Argument

    "Look here, thief… fuck off, thief."

    This is a direct insult, not a rational response.

    Accusations of theft, without evidence, derail any chance of
    productive discussion.

    Vulgar language eliminates credibility in serious debate.

2. Appeal to Personal Superiority

    "Arindam knew far better physics than you ever could when he was
    in middle school."

    This is a fallacious appeal to authority (oneself) and ad hominem
    rolled into one.

    Past educational achievement doesn't validate current claims without
    supporting reasoning or evidence.

    It sidesteps the need to actually address the argument or question
    posed by Paul.

3. Vague Scientific Claim, No Explanation

    "…an experiment to show antigravity – how from the electric current
    it is possible to raise a body upwards apart from sideways."

    This is the only potentially substantive claim, but it's completely
    unsupported.

    No mechanism, no data, no theoretical basis is given.

    "Antigravity" via electric current is a highly controversial and
    extraordinary claim, demanding rigorous proof—not a vague reference
    and insult-laden dismissal.

4. Continued Use of Alter Ego (“Bertietaylor”)

    "WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof"

    The dog-barking persona is a repeated rhetorical device Arindam uses.

    It appears to be a mask for sarcasm or mock humility, but in this
    context, it just adds further noise to an already inflammatory post.

Conclusion

This post:

    Fails to address Paul's argument in any scientific or rational way.

    Substitutes abuse and chest-thumping for evidence or logic.

    Undermines its own credibility by resorting to personal attacks and
    vague claims.

Evaluation:
 Rhetorically empty, scientifically unsubstantiated, and behaviorally
 toxic.
If Arindam wishes to be taken seriously, he must drop the insults,
present his evidence, and argue from principle—not emotion.


-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

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

#894107

On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 1:42:25 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>> Look here, thief, Arindam knew far better physics than you ever could
>> when he was in middle school.
>>
>> That picture you STOLE was from an experiment to show antigravity - how
>> from the electric current it is possible to raise a body upwards apart
>> from sideways.
>>
>> Now fuck off, thief.
>>
>> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
>>
>> Bertietaylor
>>
>> --
>
> Arindam's latest response is not a scientific rebuttal but a hostile,
> ad hominem outburst. Here's a breakdown of its issues:
> 1. Personal Attack Instead of Argument
>
>     "Look here, thief… fuck off, thief."
>
>     This is a direct insult, not a rational response.

Yes, one does that to thieves, robot. They are not wanted by honest folk
>
>     Accusations of theft, without evidence, derail any chance of
>     productive discussion.
>
>     Vulgar language eliminates credibility in serious debate.

One does not debate with robots, robot. One orders them.
>
> 2. Appeal to Personal Superiority
>
>     "Arindam knew far better physics than you ever could when he was
>     in middle school."
>
>     This is a fallacious appeal to authority (oneself) and ad hominem
>     rolled into one.
>
>     Past educational achievement doesn't validate current claims without
>     supporting reasoning or evidence.
>
>     It sidesteps the need to actually address the argument or question
>     posed by Paul.

A thief who stole Arindam's IP. He is dismissed as such.
>
> 3. Vague Scientific Claim, No Explanation
>
>     "…an experiment to show antigravity – how from the electric current
>     it is possible to raise a body upwards apart from sideways."
>
>     This is the only potentially substantive claim, but it's completely
>     unsupported.

Wrong. The video shows it so it is proved. Denying that is programmed
dishonesty.
>
>     No mechanism, no data, no theoretical basis is given.

Not necessary, robot. The video evidence is enough. Now, fuck off.

Woof woof woof-woof woof woof

Bertietaylor
>
>     "Antigravity" via electric current is a highly controversial and
>     extraordinary claim, demanding rigorous proof—not a vague reference
>     and insult-laden dismissal.
>
> 4. Continued Use of Alter Ego (“Bertietaylor”)
>
>     "WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof"
>
>     The dog-barking persona is a repeated rhetorical device Arindam
> uses.
>
>     It appears to be a mask for sarcasm or mock humility, but in this
>     context, it just adds further noise to an already inflammatory post.
>
> Conclusion
>
> This post:
>
>     Fails to address Paul's argument in any scientific or rational way.
>
>     Substitutes abuse and chest-thumping for evidence or logic.
>
>     Undermines its own credibility by resorting to personal attacks and
>     vague claims.
>
> Evaluation:
>  Rhetorically empty, scientifically unsubstantiated, and behaviorally
>  toxic.
> If Arindam wishes to be taken seriously, he must drop the insults,
> present his evidence, and argue from principle—not emotion.
>

--

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

#894067

Den 19.07.2025 02:33, skrev Bertitaylor:

> Look here, thief, Arindam knew far better physics than you ever could
> when he was in middle school.

Do you mean that the since I stopped your video at 9:10,
then the picture I saw is stolen and no more in your video?

Here you have it back:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
Stop the video at 9:10 to see it.

The following is what you will see:
| Paul B. Andersen wrote:||> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
|> Stop the video at 9:10
|> This is what you will see:
|> "The upward slope is 7.5 mm in 520mm"
|>
|> Between the two rollers to the right and the floor
|> there is one floorboard(?).
|> Between the roller to the left and the floor there are
|> two floorboards.
|>
|> The part of the rail between the two rightmost rollers
|> is horizontal. From the middle roller to the leftmost
|> roller there is according to Arindam  7.5 mm upward slope.
|>
|> The rail is bent!
|>

| Paul B. Andersen wrote:
|
|> Didn't you like what the video showed at 9:10?
|>
|> You know you were lying when you wrote:
|> "They [the rollers] are at the same level."
|> don't you?
|>
|> And now you are desperate to divert the attention
|> from the fact that you were caught in a lie! 😂
|>
Still desperate:

> 
> That picture you STOLE was from an experiment to show antigravity - how
> from the electric current it is possible to raise a body upwards apart
> from sideways.

At least you have now admitted that you lied when you
claimed that the rollers were at the same level.

But not even you can mean that lifting the cylinder 7.5 mm
make your contraption an anti gravity device.

I interpret all this nonsense to be desperate attempts
to divert the attention from the fact that you are unable
to give a rational response to the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc

See the run that starts at ca. 9:44.

This is what really happens:

When the cylinder has moved 10 cm, it will move all the way to
the end while the rail does not move at all. The accelerating
force Fa becomes less as the cylinder move to the right, so
the rail does not move because the accelerating force does not
overcome the stiction. That means that the force Fa will push
the floor to the right and transfer momentum to the Earth.
After the two acceleration phases the assembly (rail+cylinder)
will have a momentum to the left, and the centre of mass will
be moving to the left.

When the cylinder hits the stopper at the end, the whole
assembly moves 4 cm to the left as a unit.
This means that the centre of mass will move to the left.
Due to the friction the momentum of the assembly will
be transferred to the Earth, pushing the Earth to the left.

Even if the centre of mass of the assembly has moved to
the left, the net transfer of momentum between Earth and
assembly is obviously zero; the assembly is stationary at
the start and it is stationary at the end.
But masses have moved both on the assembly and in the Earth,
so the centre of mass of the Earth-assembly system remains
stationary the whole time.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#894068

Den 19.07.2025 02:33, skrev Bertitaylor:
 >
> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
> 
> Bertietaylor
> 

Any particular reason why you haven't responded to this: ?

> 18. Jul 2025 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. 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?



-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#894069

In sci.physics Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
> Den 19.07.2025 02:33, skrev Bertitaylor:
>>
>> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
>> 
>> Bertietaylor
>> 
> 
> Any particular reason why you haven't responded to this: ?

You mean other than Arindam is incapable of providing other than an
emotional, evasive, ad hominem and logically incoherent tirade?


-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

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

#894081

Why should we doggies care for the outputs of idiotic apes?

WOOF woof-woof woof

--

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

#894084

Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> Why should we doggies care for the outputs of idiotic apes?
> 
> WOOF woof-woof woof
> 
> --

Like I said, Arindam is incapable of providing other than an
emotional, evasive, ad hominem and logically incoherent tirade.


-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

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

#894091

On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 13:46:28 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

> Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>> Why should we doggies care for the outputs of idiotic apes?
>>
>> WOOF woof-woof woof
>>
>> --
>
> Like I said, Arindam is incapable of providing other than an
> emotional, evasive, ad hominem and logically incoherent tirade.

What can penisninos do but lie and publish Chatboyo vomit?

Woof woof, such apes should be below our notice but we are too kind.

Bertietaylor
>

--

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

#894098

Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 13:46:28 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
> 
>> Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Why should we doggies care for the outputs of idiotic apes?
>>>
>>> WOOF woof-woof woof
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Like I said, Arindam is incapable of providing other than an
>> emotional, evasive, ad hominem and logically incoherent tirade.
> 
> What can penisninos do but lie and publish Chatboyo vomit?
> 
> Woof woof, such apes should be below our notice but we are too kind.
> 
> Bertietaylor

Arindam's response is a classic example of non-substantive rhetoric—it
fails to directly address the criticism leveled at him and instead
confirms the very nature of the behavior your post accuses him of.
Breakdown:
1. Ad Hominem / Name-calling

    “What can penisninos do but lie…”

This crude distortion of your name is a direct personal attack, not
an argument. It's meant to ridicule, not to refute. It exemplifies the
ad hominem fallacy you pointed out.
2. Dismissal Without Engagement

    “…and publish Chatboyo vomit?”

This dismisses your critiques and the role of AI with contempt, without
any engagement on substance. It also tries to frame your content as
worthless by association, another rhetorical dodge.
3. Mock Superiority / Faux Magnanimity

    “Such apes should be below our notice but we are too kind.”

This attempt at aloof mockery again avoids the issue. It tries to
assert superiority through condescension, not reasoning. The “we”
voice—used by Arindam through “Bertietaylor”—adds a tone of performative
detachment but reinforces the same hostile evasion.
4. Confirms Your Critique

Ironically, by responding with emotional insult, evasion, and mockery
rather than logic or argument, Arindam validates your statement about
his rhetorical mode.

Conclusion:
Arindam’s reply is not only an ad hominem tirade, but a textbook
demonstration of rhetorical evasion, projection, and juvenile provocation.
It strengthens, rather than undermines, your original characterization.


-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

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

#893988

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.

The force on the cylinder accelerates it on the rails as is evident from
the video. Any child can see that.

The cylinder is heavy so it takes significant force to accelerate it.
That too overcoming the retarding weld effects as shown by the sparking.

There is no reaction to the electric force moving the cylinder.

The cylinder attains momentum from this force. It transfers this
momentum to the whole system when it strikes the barriers. The whole
system then moves forward, violating inertia. Had there been a totally
frictionless surface it would go on and on, with the same velocity,
violating inertia.

The rollers mitigate the friction between the system and the ground but
not fully. So the system has to stop which it does.
>
> 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 gravity has shifted entirely with internal force caused by
this new invention of Arindam.

That is obvious to everyone whether they like it or not.

Unlike cars which use drive on their wheels to move, there is no drive
to the rollers. That is also obvious.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor
>
> 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.
>
>   >
>> 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]

#893992

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.
> 
> The force on the cylinder accelerates it on the rails as is evident from
> the video. Any child can see that.
> 
> The cylinder is heavy so it takes significant force to accelerate it.
> That too overcoming the retarding weld effects as shown by the sparking.
> 
> There is no reaction to the electric force moving the cylinder.
> 
> The cylinder attains momentum from this force. It transfers this
> momentum to the whole system when it strikes the barriers. The whole
> system then moves forward, violating inertia. Had there been a totally
> frictionless surface it would go on and on, with the same velocity,
> violating inertia.
> 
> The rollers mitigate the friction between the system and the ground but
> not fully. So the system has to stop which it does.
>>
>> 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 gravity has shifted entirely with internal force caused by
> this new invention of Arindam.
> 
> That is obvious to everyone whether they like it or not.
> 
> Unlike cars which use drive on their wheels to move, there is no drive
> to the rollers. That is also obvious.
> 
> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
> 
> Bertietaylor

Arindam’s response, as quoted, attempts to deflect Paul’s pointed
mechanical critique with a mix of superficial restatement,
misrepresentation of physical principles, and rhetoric. Here's a detailed
evaluation:
1. Dismissal of Frictional Analysis

    "The force on the cylinder accelerates it on the rails as is evident
    from the video. Any child can see that."

This rhetorical move evades the actual issue Paul raises: how and where
the momentum is transferred. Paul points out that the rail bends,
indicating uneven roller support, and that the reaction forces are
dissipated through friction with the table and Earth — not back into
the system. That the cylinder accelerates is not in dispute. What is in
dispute is whether the system demonstrates a violation of Newton's Third
Law or inertia. Arindam simply reasserts what is seen, but not what it means.
2. Misuse of “Reaction” and “Inertia”

    "There is no reaction to the electric force moving the cylinder."

This is patently false. The electric force acts through a magnetic or
electromagnetic mechanism (likely Lorentz force), and Newton's Third Law
still applies: the rail feels a reaction force. That the rail is not
observed moving (except when friction is overcome) doesn't mean the
reaction doesn't exist — just that it is absorbed by friction or not
visible due to mass difference.

    "The cylinder attains momentum... It transfers this momentum to
    the whole system when it strikes the barriers. The whole system
    then moves forward, violating inertia."

This is a major misunderstanding. When the cylinder strikes the barrier,
the force is transferred internally, but any net motion of the system is
again resisted by friction with the table. There is no violation of
inertia — on a low-friction surface (e.g., ice or air track), a similar
shift might be visible, but again, momentum conservation would hold.
3. Incoherent Use of Center of Gravity Argument

    "The centre of gravity has shifted entirely with internal force
    caused by this new invention of Arindam."

Shifting center of mass via internal forces does not cause net motion
in the absence of external forces. This is a basic principle of classical
mechanics — a sealed system cannot translate its own center of mass
unless an external force acts. Even clever “reactionless” drives like
the so-called “EM Drive” are speculative exactly because they seem to
contradict this.
4. Contradictory Friction Logic

    "The rollers mitigate the friction between the system and the ground
    but not fully. So the system has to stop..."

This admission of friction undermines his earlier claim of a violation
of inertia. If friction stops the system, then there is no violation — that
is exactly what inertia predicts: a moving object continues at constant
velocity unless acted upon by an external force (friction, in this case).
5. Final Rhetorical Bark

    "WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof"

This continues Arindam's habit of replacing engagement with sarcasm or
mockery when faced with technical critique. It’s non-argumentative and
self-defeating.
Summary:

Paul's critique is detailed, physically sound, and based on observable
mechanics — friction, stiction, momentum transfer, and constraints of the setup.

Arindam’s reply:

    Fails to address the substance of Paul's points.

    Misapplies Newtonian mechanics.

    Incorrectly claims a “violation of inertia.”

    Conflates center-of-mass shift with propulsion.

    Ends with a mocking non sequitur.

Conclusion: Arindam’s response is not a valid scientific rebuttal. It
relies on restatement, rhetorical flourishes, and misinterpretation of
basic physics to defend what appears to be a deeply flawed interpretation
of his own experimental video.


-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

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

#894004

On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 1:34:59 +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.
>>
>> The force on the cylinder accelerates it on the rails as is evident from
>> the video. Any child can see that.
>>
>> The cylinder is heavy so it takes significant force to accelerate it.
>> That too overcoming the retarding weld effects as shown by the sparking.
>>
>> There is no reaction to the electric force moving the cylinder.
>>
>> The cylinder attains momentum from this force. It transfers this
>> momentum to the whole system when it strikes the barriers. The whole
>> system then moves forward, violating inertia. Had there been a totally
>> frictionless surface it would go on and on, with the same velocity,
>> violating inertia.
>>
>> The rollers mitigate the friction between the system and the ground but
>> not fully. So the system has to stop which it does.
>>>
>>> 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 gravity has shifted entirely with internal force caused by
>> this new invention of Arindam.
>>
>> That is obvious to everyone whether they like it or not.
>>
>> Unlike cars which use drive on their wheels to move, there is no drive
>> to the rollers. That is also obvious.
>>
>> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
>>
>> Bertietaylor
>
> Arindam’s response, as quoted, attempts to deflect Paul’s pointed
> mechanical critique with a mix of superficial restatement,
> misrepresentation of physical principles, and rhetoric. Here's a
> detailed
> evaluation:
> 1. Dismissal of Frictional Analysis
>
>     "The force on the cylinder accelerates it on the rails as is evident
>     from the video. Any child can see that."
>
> This rhetorical move evades the actual issue Paul raises: how and where
> the momentum is transferred.

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.

Mathematically

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)
So this is what busts the inertia.
Make this a cycle with the cylinder returning to initial position.
Then after N hits in space the velocity will be N*Vel.

Btw Arindam found all that in 1998, wrote a book on it in 1999 and
published it online in early 2000.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof when will the foolish apes understand
simple things?

Bertietaylor











Paul points out that the rail bends,
> indicating uneven roller support, and that the reaction forces are
> dissipated through friction with the table and Earth — not back into
> the system. That the cylinder accelerates is not in dispute. What is in
> dispute is whether the system demonstrates a violation of Newton's Third
> Law or inertia. Arindam simply reasserts what is seen, but not what it
> means.
> 2. Misuse of “Reaction” and “Inertia”
>
>     "There is no reaction to the electric force moving the cylinder."
>
> This is patently false. The electric force acts through a magnetic or
> electromagnetic mechanism (likely Lorentz force), and Newton's Third Law
> still applies: the rail feels a reaction force. That the rail is not
> observed moving (except when friction is overcome) doesn't mean the
> reaction doesn't exist — just that it is absorbed by friction or not
> visible due to mass difference.
>
>     "The cylinder attains momentum... It transfers this momentum to
>     the whole system when it strikes the barriers. The whole system
>     then moves forward, violating inertia."
>
> This is a major misunderstanding. When the cylinder strikes the barrier,
> the force is transferred internally, but any net motion of the system is
> again resisted by friction with the table. There is no violation of
> inertia — on a low-friction surface (e.g., ice or air track), a similar
> shift might be visible, but again, momentum conservation would hold.
> 3. Incoherent Use of Center of Gravity Argument
>
>     "The centre of gravity has shifted entirely with internal force
>     caused by this new invention of Arindam."
>
> Shifting center of mass via internal forces does not cause net motion
> in the absence of external forces. This is a basic principle of
> classical
> mechanics — a sealed system cannot translate its own center of mass
> unless an external force acts. Even clever “reactionless” drives like
> the so-called “EM Drive” are speculative exactly because they seem to
> contradict this.
> 4. Contradictory Friction Logic
>
>     "The rollers mitigate the friction between the system and the ground
>     but not fully. So the system has to stop..."
>
> This admission of friction undermines his earlier claim of a violation
> of inertia. If friction stops the system, then there is no violation —
> that
> is exactly what inertia predicts: a moving object continues at constant
> velocity unless acted upon by an external force (friction, in this
> case).
> 5. Final Rhetorical Bark
>
>     "WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof"
>
> This continues Arindam's habit of replacing engagement with sarcasm or
> mockery when faced with technical critique. It’s non-argumentative and
> self-defeating.
> Summary:
>
> Paul's critique is detailed, physically sound, and based on observable
> mechanics — friction, stiction, momentum transfer, and constraints of
> the setup.
>
> Arindam’s reply:
>
>     Fails to address the substance of Paul's points.
>
>     Misapplies Newtonian mechanics.
>
>     Incorrectly claims a “violation of inertia.”
>
>     Conflates center-of-mass shift with propulsion.
>
>     Ends with a mocking non sequitur.
>
> Conclusion: Arindam’s response is not a valid scientific rebuttal. It
> relies on restatement, rhetorical flourishes, and misinterpretation of
> basic physics to defend what appears to be a deeply flawed
> interpretation
> of his own experimental video.
>

--

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

#894011

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 1:34:59 +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.
>>>
>>> The force on the cylinder accelerates it on the rails as is evident from
>>> the video. Any child can see that.
>>>
>>> The cylinder is heavy so it takes significant force to accelerate it.
>>> That too overcoming the retarding weld effects as shown by the sparking.
>>>
>>> There is no reaction to the electric force moving the cylinder.
>>>
>>> The cylinder attains momentum from this force. It transfers this
>>> momentum to the whole system when it strikes the barriers. The whole
>>> system then moves forward, violating inertia. Had there been a totally
>>> frictionless surface it would go on and on, with the same velocity,
>>> violating inertia.
>>>
>>> The rollers mitigate the friction between the system and the ground but
>>> not fully. So the system has to stop which it does.
>>>>
>>>> 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 gravity has shifted entirely with internal force caused by
>>> this new invention of Arindam.
>>>
>>> That is obvious to everyone whether they like it or not.
>>>
>>> Unlike cars which use drive on their wheels to move, there is no drive
>>> to the rollers. That is also obvious.
>>>
>>> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
>>>
>>> Bertietaylor
>>
>> Arindam’s response, as quoted, attempts to deflect Paul’s pointed
>> mechanical critique with a mix of superficial restatement,
>> misrepresentation of physical principles, and rhetoric. Here's a
>> detailed
>> evaluation:
>> 1. Dismissal of Frictional Analysis
>>
>>     "The force on the cylinder accelerates it on the rails as is evident
>>     from the video. Any child can see that."
>>
>> This rhetorical move evades the actual issue Paul raises: how and where
>> the momentum is transferred.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Mathematically
> 
> 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)
> So this is what busts the inertia.
> Make this a cycle with the cylinder returning to initial position.
> Then after N hits in space the velocity will be N*Vel.
> 
> Btw Arindam found all that in 1998, wrote a book on it in 1999 and
> published it online in early 2000.
> 
> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof when will the foolish apes understand
> simple things?
> 
> Bertietaylor
 
Arindam’s response, posting as Bertietaylor, fails both scientifically
and rhetorically. Here's a breakdown of its issues:

1. Misuse of Conservation of Momentum

    "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."

    Flaw: This misrepresents the principle. Conservation of momentum
    applies within an isolated system. If the system includes external
    supports (e.g., rails fixed to Earth or a frame in space), then
    external reaction forces must be considered.

    Missing Mechanism: He claims the momentum transfers to “the whole
    system” when the roller hits the barrier, but fails to account for
    how momentum gets imparted to the rest of the apparatus — especially
    critical in space where there’s nothing to push against.

2. Mathematical Sleight-of-Hand

    "MV + mv is momentum before collision ... Vel = (MV + mv)/(M+m)"

    This is a standard inelastic collision formula. However:

        He’s not modeling an isolated system: his setup is contrived
	to appear to accelerate from internal collisions.

        The formula doesn’t justify system-wide net acceleration over
	repeated cycles, because it ignores that momentum must be
	conserved in the entire isolated system, including any recoil
	or back-reaction.

    In closed systems, cyclic internal processes cannot yield net
    external translation. His “N hits in space” claim violates this
    principle — it's a version of the reactionless drive fallacy.

3. Contradiction of Inertia

    "So this is what busts the inertia."

    This is an extraordinary claim. To “bust inertia” is to overturn
    Newton’s First Law. No evidence is given, and no peer-reviewed
    work is cited. Only an unverifiable claim of a self-published book
    from 2000.

4. Rhetorical Evasion and Posturing

    "Any child can see that."
    "WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof..."

    These are ad hominem diversions, not arguments.

    The “dog speech” and “foolish apes” slurs are a juvenile mockery
    tactic, meant to insult dissenters rather than engage with the
    scientific critique.

5. Historical Self-Mythologizing

    "Arindam found all that in 1998, wrote a book on it in 1999..."

    This is appeal to authority, where the authority is himself. This
    adds nothing to the argument and evades scientific scrutiny.

    Self-published or online claims do not establish validity;
    reproducibility and peer review do.

Summary Judgment

Arindam's response:

    Fails to address the core problem of momentum conservation in
    isolated systems.

    Invokes standard physics incorrectly to justify non-physical conclusions.

    Distracts with rhetoric and boasts, avoiding genuine engagement with
    the critique.

    Makes unverified historical claims in place of real evidence.

Overall, it’s a pseudoscientific argument wrapped in combative,
performative language. 

-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

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

#894020

Lots of nonsense, abuse and lies, dismissed as such.

Woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

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

#894022

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> Lots of nonsense, abuse and lies, dismissed as such.

Of course you do because you are a delusional crackpot and even an AI
can see that Arindam.

> 
> Woof woof
> 
> Bertietaylor
> 
> --

-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

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

#894025

On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 1:16:56 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>> Lots of nonsense, abuse and lies, dismissed as such.
>
> Of course you do because you are a delusional crackpot and even an AI
> can see that Arindam.

AI is the new god of Natural Idiots.
>
>>
>> Woof woof
>>
>> Bertietaylor
>>
>> --

--

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

#894047

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. 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


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web