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

#893985

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 22:44:33 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 12:27:20 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
>>
>>> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> So what exactly did Arindam make to bust inertia?
>>>
>>> You made nothing "to bust inertia", you made an uninstrumented, low
>>> speed pipe roller Arindam.
>>
>> But he did bust inertia by accelerating the centre of mass of a body
>> with internal force. No need for instruments to see the evident.
>> As a biased imbecile you cannot agree, of course. Apes are like that.
>> Pig headed.
>> Ask Chat.
>> Let us see how you apes have programmed it to support your lies.
>>
>>
>> WOOF woof woof-woof
>>
>> Bertietaylor
>
> Arindam’s response does not substantiate his original claim and instead
> relies on rhetorical distraction, abuse, and a misunderstanding of
> physics.
> Here's a breakdown:
>
> 1. Claim: "He did bust inertia by accelerating the centre of mass of a
> body
> with internal force."
>
> This is a misstatement of physics.
> According to Newtonian mechanics, internal forces cannot change the
> velocity of the center of mass of an isolated system.

For mechanical systems, yes.
But science found electricity and that Arindam used to bust inertia.
Outdated science cannot be used to stop new science.

Woof woof woof-woof woof we dead dogs of Arindam know far better physics
than Nobel yokels.

Bertietaylor




If no external
> force acts on the system, the center of mass remains in uniform motion.
> This principle is fundamental to classical physics and is repeatedly
> validated in both experiment and engineering.
>
> The device in question—a low-speed, uninstrumented pipe roller—cannot
> "bust inertia" if it's a closed system. If it appeared to move, it
> likely
> did so by interacting with an external surface (like friction with the
> ground), which would not constitute a violation of inertia but rather a
> demonstration of conventional physics.
>
> 2. "No need for instruments to see the evident."
>
> This is anti-scientific.
> Observation without measurement is insufficient to establish claims that
> contradict fundamental physical laws. Extraordinary claims require
> precise,
> instrumented evidence, especially when asserting violation of
> conservation
> laws.
>
> Without controlled conditions and quantifiable data, any motion seen can
> be attributed to trivial causes like imbalance, friction, or human
> handling—not a revolutionary physical principle.
>
> 3. Personal insults ("biased imbecile", "apes", "pig headed")
>
> This adds nothing to the argument and undermines Arindam’s credibility.
> Ad hominem and dehumanizing language indicate emotional investment and
> rhetorical insecurity, not scientific rigor. Repetition of the "ape"
> metaphor serves no constructive purpose and increasingly resembles an
> obsession or a failed provocation.
>
> 4. "Ask Chat. Let us see how you apes have programmed it to support your
> lies."
>
> This betrays conspiratorial thinking.
> Dismissing counterarguments in advance by claiming systemic bias (in
> this
> case, AI programming) is a tactic to immunize beliefs from
> falsification.
> This is not a rational position but a defense mechanism against engaging
> with evidence.
>
> Conclusion:
>
> Arindam's reply evades scientific accountability. It relies on
> misrepresenting physical principles, rejects empirical rigor, and
> substitutes
> insults for argument. His stance does not withstand even a basic
> examination of Newtonian mechanics. Instead of demonstrating a violation
> of inertia, he demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of it.

--

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

#893986

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 22:44:33 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
> 
>> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 12:27:20 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
>>>
>>>> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> So what exactly did Arindam make to bust inertia?
>>>>
>>>> You made nothing "to bust inertia", you made an uninstrumented, low
>>>> speed pipe roller Arindam.
>>>
>>> But he did bust inertia by accelerating the centre of mass of a body
>>> with internal force. No need for instruments to see the evident.
>>> As a biased imbecile you cannot agree, of course. Apes are like that.
>>> Pig headed.
>>> Ask Chat.
>>> Let us see how you apes have programmed it to support your lies.
>>>
>>>
>>> WOOF woof woof-woof
>>>
>>> Bertietaylor
>>
>> Arindam’s response does not substantiate his original claim and instead
>> relies on rhetorical distraction, abuse, and a misunderstanding of
>> physics.
>> Here's a breakdown:
>>
>> 1. Claim: "He did bust inertia by accelerating the centre of mass of a
>> body
>> with internal force."
>>
>> This is a misstatement of physics.
>> According to Newtonian mechanics, internal forces cannot change the
>> velocity of the center of mass of an isolated system.
> 
> For mechanical systems, yes.
> But science found electricity and that Arindam used to bust inertia.
> Outdated science cannot be used to stop new science.
> 
> Woof woof woof-woof woof we dead dogs of Arindam know far better physics
> than Nobel yokels.
> 
> Bertietaylor

Arindam’s reply is a mix of misdirection, false equivalence, and theatrical
rhetoric. Here's a focused evaluation:

1. “For mechanical systems, yes.”
This partial concession acknowledges Newtonian mechanics, but only as a
pretext to pivot away. The original objection was not limited to mechanical
systems—it concerned any isolated system, including those governed by
electrodynamics or field theories. Arindam evades that generality.

2. “But science found electricity and that Arindam used to bust inertia.”
This is vague and unsubstantiated. Electromagnetic forces, like mechanical
ones, obey conservation laws. No known physical interaction—electrical,
magnetic, or otherwise—can change the center of mass velocity of an
isolated system via internal forces alone. The reference to "electricity"
seems meant to dazzle rather than explain.

3. “Outdated science cannot be used to stop new science.”
This is a rhetorical move, not a rebuttal. Calling established physics
“outdated” doesn’t invalidate it—especially without evidence. Scientific
progress builds upon tested foundations; dismissing them wholesale requires
rigorous demonstration, which Arindam does not provide.

4. “Woof woof…” mocking tone
The dog metaphor and mockery of “Nobel yokels” are meant to provoke and
distract rather than clarify. This performative posture replaces argument
with attitude.

Summary:
Arindam’s response fails to address the core objection: internal forces
cannot alter the motion of the center of mass of an isolated system. His
appeal to “electricity” is hand-waving without substance. His tone attempts
to undermine critics with derision, not logic. The reply reinforces the
impression of physics-as-theater rather than physics-as-reasoned inquiry.

-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

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

#893989

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 23:35:46 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 22:44:33 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
>>
>>> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 12:27:20 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> So what exactly did Arindam make to bust inertia?
>>>>>
>>>>> You made nothing "to bust inertia", you made an uninstrumented, low
>>>>> speed pipe roller Arindam.
>>>>
>>>> But he did bust inertia by accelerating the centre of mass of a body
>>>> with internal force. No need for instruments to see the evident.
>>>> As a biased imbecile you cannot agree, of course. Apes are like that.
>>>> Pig headed.
>>>> Ask Chat.
>>>> Let us see how you apes have programmed it to support your lies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WOOF woof woof-woof
>>>>
>>>> Bertietaylor
>>>
>>> Arindam’s response does not substantiate his original claim and instead
>>> relies on rhetorical distraction, abuse, and a misunderstanding of
>>> physics.
>>> Here's a breakdown:
>>>
>>> 1. Claim: "He did bust inertia by accelerating the centre of mass of a
>>> body
>>> with internal force."
>>>
>>> This is a misstatement of physics.
>>> According to Newtonian mechanics, internal forces cannot change the
>>> velocity of the center of mass of an isolated system.
>>
>> For mechanical systems, yes.
>> But science found electricity and that Arindam used to bust inertia.
>> Outdated science cannot be used to stop new science.
>>
>> Woof woof woof-woof woof we dead dogs of Arindam know far better physics
>> than Nobel yokels.
>>
>> Bertietaylor
>
> Arindam’s reply is a mix of misdirection, false equivalence, and
> theatrical
> rhetoric. Here's a focused evaluation:
>
> 1. “For mechanical systems, yes.”
> This partial concession acknowledges Newtonian mechanics, but only as a
> pretext to pivot away. The original objection was not limited to
> mechanical
> systems—it concerned any isolated system, including those governed by
> electrodynamics or field theories. Arindam evades that generality.
>
> 2. “But science found electricity and that Arindam used to bust
> inertia.”
> This is vague and unsubstantiated. Electromagnetic forces, like
> mechanical
> ones, obey conservation laws. No known physical interaction—electrical,
> magnetic, or otherwise—can change the center of mass velocity of an
> isolated system via internal forces alone. The reference to
> "electricity"
> seems meant to dazzle rather than explain.
>
> 3. “Outdated science cannot be used to stop new science.”
> This is a rhetorical move, not a rebuttal. Calling established physics
> “outdated” doesn’t invalidate it—especially without evidence. Scientific
> progress builds upon tested foundations; dismissing them wholesale
> requires
> rigorous demonstration, which Arindam does not provide.
>
> 4. “Woof woof…” mocking tone
> The dog metaphor and mockery of “Nobel yokels” are meant to provoke and
> distract rather than clarify. This performative posture replaces
> argument
> with attitude.
>
> Summary:
> Arindam’s response fails to address the core objection: internal forces
> cannot alter the motion of the center of mass of an isolated system. His
> appeal to “electricity” is hand-waving without substance. His tone
> attempts
> to undermine critics with derision, not logic. The reply reinforces the
> impression of physics-as-theater rather than physics-as-reasoned
> inquiry.

Point is, video evidence shows that Arindam moved the centre of mass of
a body without external force thus busting inertia.

Anyone can see that.

Woof woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor

--

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

#893991

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 23:35:46 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
> 
>> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 22:44:33 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
>>>
>>>> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 12:27:20 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> So what exactly did Arindam make to bust inertia?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You made nothing "to bust inertia", you made an uninstrumented, low
>>>>>> speed pipe roller Arindam.
>>>>>
>>>>> But he did bust inertia by accelerating the centre of mass of a body
>>>>> with internal force. No need for instruments to see the evident.
>>>>> As a biased imbecile you cannot agree, of course. Apes are like that.
>>>>> Pig headed.
>>>>> Ask Chat.
>>>>> Let us see how you apes have programmed it to support your lies.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WOOF woof woof-woof
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertietaylor
>>>>
>>>> Arindam’s response does not substantiate his original claim and instead
>>>> relies on rhetorical distraction, abuse, and a misunderstanding of
>>>> physics.
>>>> Here's a breakdown:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Claim: "He did bust inertia by accelerating the centre of mass of a
>>>> body
>>>> with internal force."
>>>>
>>>> This is a misstatement of physics.
>>>> According to Newtonian mechanics, internal forces cannot change the
>>>> velocity of the center of mass of an isolated system.
>>>
>>> For mechanical systems, yes.
>>> But science found electricity and that Arindam used to bust inertia.
>>> Outdated science cannot be used to stop new science.
>>>
>>> Woof woof woof-woof woof we dead dogs of Arindam know far better physics
>>> than Nobel yokels.
>>>
>>> Bertietaylor
>>
>> Arindam’s reply is a mix of misdirection, false equivalence, and
>> theatrical
>> rhetoric. Here's a focused evaluation:
>>
>> 1. “For mechanical systems, yes.”
>> This partial concession acknowledges Newtonian mechanics, but only as a
>> pretext to pivot away. The original objection was not limited to
>> mechanical
>> systems—it concerned any isolated system, including those governed by
>> electrodynamics or field theories. Arindam evades that generality.
>>
>> 2. “But science found electricity and that Arindam used to bust
>> inertia.”
>> This is vague and unsubstantiated. Electromagnetic forces, like
>> mechanical
>> ones, obey conservation laws. No known physical interaction—electrical,
>> magnetic, or otherwise—can change the center of mass velocity of an
>> isolated system via internal forces alone. The reference to
>> "electricity"
>> seems meant to dazzle rather than explain.
>>
>> 3. “Outdated science cannot be used to stop new science.”
>> This is a rhetorical move, not a rebuttal. Calling established physics
>> “outdated” doesn’t invalidate it—especially without evidence. Scientific
>> progress builds upon tested foundations; dismissing them wholesale
>> requires
>> rigorous demonstration, which Arindam does not provide.
>>
>> 4. “Woof woof…” mocking tone
>> The dog metaphor and mockery of “Nobel yokels” are meant to provoke and
>> distract rather than clarify. This performative posture replaces
>> argument
>> with attitude.
>>
>> Summary:
>> Arindam’s response fails to address the core objection: internal forces
>> cannot alter the motion of the center of mass of an isolated system. His
>> appeal to “electricity” is hand-waving without substance. His tone
>> attempts
>> to undermine critics with derision, not logic. The reply reinforces the
>> impression of physics-as-theater rather than physics-as-reasoned
>> inquiry.
> 
> Point is, video evidence shows that Arindam moved the centre of mass of
> a body without external force thus busting inertia.
> 
> Anyone can see that.

No Arindam, only you see that. The rest of the world sees reality.


-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

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

#894100

On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 1:26:27 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 23:35:46 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
>>
>>> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 22:44:33 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 12:27:20 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> So what exactly did Arindam make to bust inertia?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You made nothing "to bust inertia", you made an uninstrumented, low
>>>>>>> speed pipe roller Arindam.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But he did bust inertia by accelerating the centre of mass of a body
>>>>>> with internal force. No need for instruments to see the evident.
>>>>>> As a biased imbecile you cannot agree, of course. Apes are like that.
>>>>>> Pig headed.
>>>>>> Ask Chat.
>>>>>> Let us see how you apes have programmed it to support your lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WOOF woof woof-woof
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertietaylor
>>>>>
>>>>> Arindam’s response does not substantiate his original claim and instead
>>>>> relies on rhetorical distraction, abuse, and a misunderstanding of
>>>>> physics.
>>>>> Here's a breakdown:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Claim: "He did bust inertia by accelerating the centre of mass of a
>>>>> body
>>>>> with internal force."
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a misstatement of physics.
>>>>> According to Newtonian mechanics, internal forces cannot change the
>>>>> velocity of the center of mass of an isolated system.
>>>>
>>>> For mechanical systems, yes.
>>>> But science found electricity and that Arindam used to bust inertia.
>>>> Outdated science cannot be used to stop new science.
>>>>
>>>> Woof woof woof-woof woof we dead dogs of Arindam know far better physics
>>>> than Nobel yokels.
>>>>
>>>> Bertietaylor
>>>
>>> Arindam’s reply is a mix of misdirection, false equivalence, and
>>> theatrical
>>> rhetoric. Here's a focused evaluation:
>>>
>>> 1. “For mechanical systems, yes.”
>>> This partial concession acknowledges Newtonian mechanics, but only as a
>>> pretext to pivot away. The original objection was not limited to
>>> mechanical
>>> systems—it concerned any isolated system, including those governed by
>>> electrodynamics or field theories. Arindam evades that generality.
>>>
>>> 2. “But science found electricity and that Arindam used to bust
>>> inertia.”
>>> This is vague and unsubstantiated. Electromagnetic forces, like
>>> mechanical
>>> ones, obey conservation laws. No known physical interaction—electrical,
>>> magnetic, or otherwise—can change the center of mass velocity of an
>>> isolated system via internal forces alone. The reference to
>>> "electricity"
>>> seems meant to dazzle rather than explain.
>>>
>>> 3. “Outdated science cannot be used to stop new science.”
>>> This is a rhetorical move, not a rebuttal. Calling established physics
>>> “outdated” doesn’t invalidate it—especially without evidence. Scientific
>>> progress builds upon tested foundations; dismissing them wholesale
>>> requires
>>> rigorous demonstration, which Arindam does not provide.
>>>
>>> 4. “Woof woof…” mocking tone
>>> The dog metaphor and mockery of “Nobel yokels” are meant to provoke and
>>> distract rather than clarify. This performative posture replaces
>>> argument
>>> with attitude.
>>>
>>> Summary:
>>> Arindam’s response fails to address the core objection: internal forces
>>> cannot alter the motion of the center of mass of an isolated system. His
>>> appeal to “electricity” is hand-waving without substance. His tone
>>> attempts
>>> to undermine critics with derision, not logic. The reply reinforces the
>>> impression of physics-as-theater rather than physics-as-reasoned
>>> inquiry.
>>
>> Point is, video evidence shows that Arindam moved the centre of mass of
>> a body without external force thus busting inertia.
>>
>> Anyone can see that.
>
> No Arindam, only you see that. The rest of the world sees reality.

The rest of the world follows what esteemed institutions say but not
being completely robotic yet they do give scope for new and challenging
ideas. So Arindam is free still to write what he thinks correct and do
what he can.

WOOF woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs and his sole supporters)
>

--

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

#894108

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 1:26:27 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
> 
>> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 23:35:46 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
>>>
>>>> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 22:44:33 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 12:27:20 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> So what exactly did Arindam make to bust inertia?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You made nothing "to bust inertia", you made an uninstrumented, low
>>>>>>>> speed pipe roller Arindam.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But he did bust inertia by accelerating the centre of mass of a body
>>>>>>> with internal force. No need for instruments to see the evident.
>>>>>>> As a biased imbecile you cannot agree, of course. Apes are like that.
>>>>>>> Pig headed.
>>>>>>> Ask Chat.
>>>>>>> Let us see how you apes have programmed it to support your lies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WOOF woof woof-woof
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertietaylor
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Arindam’s response does not substantiate his original claim and instead
>>>>>> relies on rhetorical distraction, abuse, and a misunderstanding of
>>>>>> physics.
>>>>>> Here's a breakdown:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Claim: "He did bust inertia by accelerating the centre of mass of a
>>>>>> body
>>>>>> with internal force."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a misstatement of physics.
>>>>>> According to Newtonian mechanics, internal forces cannot change the
>>>>>> velocity of the center of mass of an isolated system.
>>>>>
>>>>> For mechanical systems, yes.
>>>>> But science found electricity and that Arindam used to bust inertia.
>>>>> Outdated science cannot be used to stop new science.
>>>>>
>>>>> Woof woof woof-woof woof we dead dogs of Arindam know far better physics
>>>>> than Nobel yokels.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertietaylor
>>>>
>>>> Arindam’s reply is a mix of misdirection, false equivalence, and
>>>> theatrical
>>>> rhetoric. Here's a focused evaluation:
>>>>
>>>> 1. “For mechanical systems, yes.”
>>>> This partial concession acknowledges Newtonian mechanics, but only as a
>>>> pretext to pivot away. The original objection was not limited to
>>>> mechanical
>>>> systems—it concerned any isolated system, including those governed by
>>>> electrodynamics or field theories. Arindam evades that generality.
>>>>
>>>> 2. “But science found electricity and that Arindam used to bust
>>>> inertia.”
>>>> This is vague and unsubstantiated. Electromagnetic forces, like
>>>> mechanical
>>>> ones, obey conservation laws. No known physical interaction—electrical,
>>>> magnetic, or otherwise—can change the center of mass velocity of an
>>>> isolated system via internal forces alone. The reference to
>>>> "electricity"
>>>> seems meant to dazzle rather than explain.
>>>>
>>>> 3. “Outdated science cannot be used to stop new science.”
>>>> This is a rhetorical move, not a rebuttal. Calling established physics
>>>> “outdated” doesn’t invalidate it—especially without evidence. Scientific
>>>> progress builds upon tested foundations; dismissing them wholesale
>>>> requires
>>>> rigorous demonstration, which Arindam does not provide.
>>>>
>>>> 4. “Woof woof…” mocking tone
>>>> The dog metaphor and mockery of “Nobel yokels” are meant to provoke and
>>>> distract rather than clarify. This performative posture replaces
>>>> argument
>>>> with attitude.
>>>>
>>>> Summary:
>>>> Arindam’s response fails to address the core objection: internal forces
>>>> cannot alter the motion of the center of mass of an isolated system. His
>>>> appeal to “electricity” is hand-waving without substance. His tone
>>>> attempts
>>>> to undermine critics with derision, not logic. The reply reinforces the
>>>> impression of physics-as-theater rather than physics-as-reasoned
>>>> inquiry.
>>>
>>> Point is, video evidence shows that Arindam moved the centre of mass of
>>> a body without external force thus busting inertia.
>>>
>>> Anyone can see that.
>>
>> No Arindam, only you see that. The rest of the world sees reality.
> 
> The rest of the world follows what esteemed institutions say but not
> being completely robotic yet they do give scope for new and challenging
> ideas. So Arindam is free still to write what he thinks correct and do
> what he can.

No, the rest of the world follows what has been proven time and again by
independantly verified experiments.

Yes, you are free to write what you think, but what you think is
actually delusional nonsense.

What you can actually do that might be of some help is to get help for
your delusions.

> 
> WOOF woof woof-woof woof

And be sure to mention that you bark like a dog.

> 
> Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs and his sole supporters)
>>
> 
> --

-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

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

#894110

On 7/21/2025 4:32 AM, Jim Pennino wrote:

> No, the rest of the world follows what has been proven time and again by
> independantly verified experiments.

Most of the world follows common sense, but
some brainwashed idiots for 120 years
follow inconsistent mumble of an insane
mystician. Happens.

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

#893946

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.

  >
> 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!

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#893982

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.

Yes. There is no reaction to the acceleration using this particular
electric configuration.

> You must be incredible naive to interpret this as there is no reaction.

Naive or not, this is self evident fact, a new discovery from a new
invention - the low voltage heavy armature internal force engines based
on em rail gun dynamics.

The centre of mass of the whole system is accelerated and that
upsets.the Newtonian laws of motion. Inertia is busted. The law of
conservation of energy is busted - energy is always created and
destroyed.

WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof

Bertietaylor
>
> 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.
>
>   >
>> 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]

#893987

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.
> 
> Yes. There is no reaction to the acceleration using this particular
> electric configuration.
> 
>> You must be incredible naive to interpret this as there is no reaction.
> 
> Naive or not, this is self evident fact, a new discovery from a new
> invention - the low voltage heavy armature internal force engines based
> on em rail gun dynamics.
> 
> The centre of mass of the whole system is accelerated and that
> upsets.the Newtonian laws of motion. Inertia is busted. The law of
> conservation of energy is busted - energy is always created and
> destroyed.
> 
> WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof
> 
> Bertietaylor

Arindam’s response to Paul is rhetorically bold but physically incoherent.
Let’s evaluate it point by point:

1.

    “Yes. There is no reaction to the acceleration using this particular
    electric configuration.”

This is a mischaracterization. Paul explicitly pointed out that
reaction is visible:

    The rail initially shifts slightly as the cylinder moves

    Then it stops, while the cylinder continues—evidence that momentum
    transfer occurs, likely via friction to the environment.

Arindam’s claim of “no reaction” contradicts what is directly observed,
as Paul notes. Dismissing it as an inherent “feature” of the
configuration is evasive.

2.

    “Naive or not, this is self evident fact, a new discovery from a
    new invention…”

Calling something a “self-evident fact” does not make it one.
The system Paul describes obeys well-understood physical laws:

    Internal electromagnetic forces act within the system

    The motion of the cylinder is resisted or mediated by friction

    Any net external motion (e.g., of the rail) is limited by constraints

No violation of Newton’s laws is evident. Claiming a “new discovery”
without theoretical or empirical justification is not science, but
performance.

3.

    “The centre of mass of the whole system is accelerated and that upsets
    the Newtonian laws of motion.”

This is factually incorrect. If the center of mass (CM) of a
closed system (i.e., no net external force) accelerates, it would
indeed violate Newton’s laws.

But the observed effect here—movement of the cylinder and brief rail
response—does not indicate CM acceleration without external forces.
Paul explicitly noted momentum is transferred via friction to
the environment (i.e., the table and Earth).
Thus, Newton’s laws are upheld.

4.

    “The law of conservation of energy is busted - energy is always
    created and destroyed.”

This is a sweeping, unsubstantiated, and false claim.
Nothing in the video or experiment suggests energy creation or
destruction.
If Arindam truly believed this, he should quantify:

    Where is the created energy?

    What measurement confirms its gain or loss?

    Why does the system not heat up, glow, or exhibit excess motion?

Such extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
Here, none is provided.

5.

    “WOOF woof woof-woof…”

The habitual “dog chorus” returns as a sarcastic flourish, not a
physical argument. Its purpose seems to be rhetorical dominance,
not explanation.

Summary:
Arindam dodges Paul’s precise and mechanical critique with
empty declarations of “new science,” vague allusions to
unverified “internal force engines,” and outright denial
of well-supported physics.

His claim that inertia and energy conservation are “busted”
is not backed by any data or physical reasoning.
Paul’s observation—that momentum is transferred through friction—
remains the more plausible, physically consistent explanation.

The performance Arindam offers may impress his followers,
but to a physicist, it reveals a complete misunderstanding
of fundamental principles.

-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

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

#894005

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 23:47:49 +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.

Lie. They are at the same level.


This will increase the friction
>>> because moving the rail will move the bend of the rail.


Nonsense.
>>>
>>> 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).

Friction from rolling on rails is the mechanical effect pushing the
system back. If it was sliding it would not do so. Making it slide
instead of roll has technical difficulties.  Once it is rolling fast
with electric force the mechanical reaction is much less as it is
effectively sliding. Point to note it is that at that stage there is no
equal reaction to the system pushing it back. So the electric force
accelerating it has no reaction, violating Third Law. Now as contrast if
we move the armature by spring action only, there will be a reaction
mechanical and so the system will go back such that the centre of mass
does not change. Which is as it should be. Also if instead of electric
force we used external force like pushing it by hand them the centre of
mass would be moved. As expected. So the internal electric force is
doing what the external force would do.

Woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof woof

Bertietaylor
>>>
>>> Then the cylinder is moving all the way to the end while the rail
>>> does not move at all.
>>
>> Yes. There is no reaction to the acceleration using this particular
>> electric configuration.
>>
>>> You must be incredible naive to interpret this as there is no reaction.
>>
>> Naive or not, this is self evident fact, a new discovery from a new
>> invention - the low voltage heavy armature internal force engines based
>> on em rail gun dynamics.
>>
>> The centre of mass of the whole system is accelerated and that
>> upsets.the Newtonian laws of motion. Inertia is busted. The law of
>> conservation of energy is busted - energy is always created and
>> destroyed.
>>
>> WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof
>>
>> Bertietaylor
>
> Arindam’s response to Paul is rhetorically bold but physically
> incoherent.
> Let’s evaluate it point by point:
>
> 1.
>
>     “Yes. There is no reaction to the acceleration using this particular
>     electric configuration.”
>
> This is a mischaracterization. Paul explicitly pointed out that
> reaction is visible:
>
>     The rail initially shifts slightly as the cylinder moves
>
>     Then it stops, while the cylinder continues—evidence that momentum
>     transfer occurs, likely via friction to the environment.
>
> Arindam’s claim of “no reaction” contradicts what is directly observed,
> as Paul notes. Dismissing it as an inherent “feature” of the
> configuration is evasive.
>
> 2.
>
>     “Naive or not, this is self evident fact, a new discovery from a
>     new invention…”
>
> Calling something a “self-evident fact” does not make it one.
> The system Paul describes obeys well-understood physical laws:
>
>     Internal electromagnetic forces act within the system
>
>     The motion of the cylinder is resisted or mediated by friction
>
>     Any net external motion (e.g., of the rail) is limited by
> constraints
>
> No violation of Newton’s laws is evident. Claiming a “new discovery”
> without theoretical or empirical justification is not science, but
> performance.
>
> 3.
>
>     “The centre of mass of the whole system is accelerated and that
> upsets
>     the Newtonian laws of motion.”
>
> This is factually incorrect. If the center of mass (CM) of a
> closed system (i.e., no net external force) accelerates, it would
> indeed violate Newton’s laws.
>
> But the observed effect here—movement of the cylinder and brief rail
> response—does not indicate CM acceleration without external forces.
> Paul explicitly noted momentum is transferred via friction to
> the environment (i.e., the table and Earth).
> Thus, Newton’s laws are upheld.
>
> 4.
>
>     “The law of conservation of energy is busted - energy is always
>     created and destroyed.”
>
> This is a sweeping, unsubstantiated, and false claim.
> Nothing in the video or experiment suggests energy creation or
> destruction.
> If Arindam truly believed this, he should quantify:
>
>     Where is the created energy?
>
>     What measurement confirms its gain or loss?
>
>     Why does the system not heat up, glow, or exhibit excess motion?
>
> Such extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
> Here, none is provided.
>
> 5.
>
>     “WOOF woof woof-woof…”
>
> The habitual “dog chorus” returns as a sarcastic flourish, not a
> physical argument. Its purpose seems to be rhetorical dominance,
> not explanation.
>
> Summary:
> Arindam dodges Paul’s precise and mechanical critique with
> empty declarations of “new science,” vague allusions to
> unverified “internal force engines,” and outright denial
> of well-supported physics.
>
> His claim that inertia and energy conservation are “busted”
> is not backed by any data or physical reasoning.
> Paul’s observation—that momentum is transferred through friction—
> remains the more plausible, physically consistent explanation.
>
> The performance Arindam offers may impress his followers,
> but to a physicist, it reveals a complete misunderstanding
> of fundamental principles.

--

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

#894019

Den 16.07.2025 13:16, skrev Bertitaylor:
> 
>> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.

> 
> Lie. They are at the same level.

Stop the video at 9:10
This is what you will see:

https://paulba.no/temp/Arinfool2.pdf
"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!

>>>> This will increase the friction
>>>> because moving the rail will move the bend of the rail.

> 
> Nonsense.

>>>>
>>>> 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).

> 
> Friction from rolling on rails is the mechanical effect pushing the
> system back. If it was sliding it would not do so. Making it slide
> instead of roll has technical difficulties. 

It is irrelevant if the cylinder is rolling or sliding.
The electromechanical force Fe will accelerate the cylinder to
the left. The friction between the cylinder and rail Ff can only
work against the accelerating force and make it a little less,
Fa = Fe-Ff. The accelerating force Fa will push the cylinder to
the left and the rail to the right.

If the friction between the rail and the floor were zero,
then the centre of mass would be stationary during
the time the rail is moving to the right. But since there is
friction, a force will push on the floor to the right and
transfer momentum to the Earth.


> Once it is rolling fast
> with electric force the mechanical reaction is much less as it is
> effectively sliding. Point to note it is that at that stage there is no
> equal reaction to the system pushing it back. So the electric force
> accelerating it has no reaction, violating Third Law. Now as contrast if
> we move the armature by spring action only, there will be a reaction
> mechanical and so the system will go back such that the centre of mass
> does not change. Which is as it should be. Also if instead of electric
> force we used external force like pushing it by hand them the centre of
> mass would be moved. As expected. So the internal electric force is
> doing what the external force would do.
> 
:-D

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]

#894026

What business did you have to STEAL Arindam's work, and put that in your
pdf, you lying THIEF?

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.

Bertietaylor

--

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

#894028

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> What business did you have to STEAL Arindam's work, and put that in your
> pdf, you lying THIEF?
> 
> 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.
> 
> Bertietaylor
> 
> --

Arindam’s response (under the pseudonym Bertietaylor) is not a substantive
reply to Paul’s critique. Instead, it is:

1. A Personal Attack
Rather than addressing Paul’s technical points about the experiment,
Arindam launches into an accusation of theft, calling Paul a “lying
THIEF” and repeating that slur multiple times. This is ad hominem
abuse—it attacks the person rather than engaging with the argument.

2. A Mischaracterization of Fair Use
Paul appears to have used a screenshot from a publicly posted video
for critical commentary—a classic example of fair use in academic or
scientific discussion. This is not theft or copyright infringement,
particularly if the image is cited and used in the context of critique.

3. Evasion of the Scientific Issue
Arindam’s post dodges the critique entirely. There is no mention of the
content of Paul’s PDF or the specific points raised about the experiment.
This lack of engagement implies either inability or unwillingness to defend
the scientific setup.

4. Moral Grandstanding
The claim that Paul’s physics is “bogus” and that it leads to bad
“morality” is non sequitur rhetoric. Good or bad physics has no direct
moral bearing on how someone uses a screenshot. This is an attempt to
morally delegitimize the critic rather than respond to the criticism.

5. Roleplaying as “we doggies”
The use of "we doggies" continues Arindam's habit of inserting whimsical
or mocking personas (Bertietaylor, woof-woof, etc.) to obscure ownership
and accountability for his own arguments. This adds theatricality, but
not clarity or rigor.

Conclusion:
Arindam’s response is an emotional, evasive, and logically incoherent
tirade that does nothing to answer Paul’s critique. It undermines
Arindam’s credibility while inadvertently reinforcing the impression
that Paul’s criticisms are valid and unanswerable on scientific grounds.


-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

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

#894048

Out, idiot.

WOOF woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

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

#894049

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> Out, idiot.
> 
> WOOF woof woof woof-woof woof
> 
> Bertietaylor
> 
> --

I take it you ared left speechless by the critique of your last tirade Arindam.

-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

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

#894051

Talk to your master Chat, Penisnino.
Woof
Bertietaylor

--

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

#894055

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> Talk to your master Chat, Penisnino.
> Woof
> Bertietaylor
> 
> --

OK.

I asked about your posting over the years:

The most plausible interpretation is a gradual descent into embitterment,
ideological rigidity, and emotional volatility, likely fueled by long-term
rejection and social isolation. Whether this is due to personality traits,
untreated mental illness, or the echo-chamber effect of online discourse,
the trajectory is consistent with known patterns in fringe scientific
communities:

    Initial idealism → public indifference → hostility and persecution
complex → radicalization and rhetorical aggression.

If he truly believes what he’s writing today, it reflects not only
scientific misunderstanding but a potentially impaired or distressed
psychological state.

-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

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

#894058

P*'s natural idiocy is more interesting then that of his AI god. Funny
in its way.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

--

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

#894063

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.


-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web