| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 26 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 64:11:36 |
| Calls: | 633 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,188 |
| D/L today: |
32 files (20,076K bytes) |
| Messages: | 182,511 |
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 23:45:25 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 22:19:05 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip old stuff>
Arindam dismisses cloud chamber evidence rCo
It has nothing to do with Nature. Just an artificial construct at best. >>>> So yes, that evidence is irrelevant. 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.
Youtube videos of your feet do not constitute documentation Arindam.
As it is incontrovertible it has to be ignored or demeaned by the vested
interests.
WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
Unlike your low speed pipe roller, it has been trivial to find detailed
instructions on how to build one since it's invention in 1911.
Can one make it for $1000 which is the equipment cost of Arindam's
apparatus? Can one make it work in one's garage or living room?
Yes and if you payed $1,000 for that pipe roller you got ripped off big
time Arindam.
Scientific American in The Amateur Scientist column of April 1956
published the plans for a DIY cloud chamber.
Most of the parts were junkyard bits and pieces and cost next to nothing
to procure even in 1956 dollars Arindam.
They also published articles in that time frame on how to build DIY
particle accelerators, xray machines, finishing vacuum pumps and many
other pieces of real scientific equipment.
CERN published a manual for a DIY cloud chamber in 2016 that would cost
well under $100 to build.
https://indico.cern.ch/event/508578/contributions/2327916/attachments/1367925/2073120/SCoolLAB_CloudChamber_DIYManual_2016_v2.pdf
There are LOTS of plans out there for DIY cloud chambers that would cost
well under $100 to build.
There is a kit to build a cloud chamber on ebay for $29.99.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/115162907606?chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&mkscid=101&itemid=115162907606&targetid=2295557531950&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=1014089&poi=&campaignid=21400677539&mkgroupid=173029508628&rlsatarget=pla-2295557531950&abcId=9448483&merchantid=6296724&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=21400677539&gclid=Cj0KCQjwss3DBhC3ARIsALdgYxOrerHJCaWCpLRPd-BnZ0VOT-Xngc1doWJ2hhrglluLyRP0OtTzmKwaAigREALw_wcB
You can buy one fully built on Amazon for $387.73.
https://www.amazon.com/Arbor-Scientific-Ionizing-Radiation-Specially/dp/B0DY23HNMH/ref=sr_1_3?crid=2N09Y99X6CPEH&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.XB2Vsz00dEbn62QueM_CnnDdTZwUMPHfdSx0xOHKNiE.eSv-1U8f9MomInZE71KTSf2p2lcmSa_1NpzEByOW9uQ&dib_tag=se&keywords=cloud+chamber&qid=1752458169&s=toys-and-games&sprefix=cloud+chamber%2Ctoys-and-games%2C207&sr=1-3
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 2:02:55 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 23:45:25 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 22:19:05 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip old stuff>
Arindam dismisses cloud chamber evidence rCo
It has nothing to do with Nature. Just an artificial construct at best. >>>>> So yes, that evidence is irrelevant. 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.
Youtube videos of your feet do not constitute documentation Arindam.
As it is incontrovertible it has to be ignored or demeaned by the vested >>> interests.
WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
Unlike your low speed pipe roller, it has been trivial to find detailed >>>> instructions on how to build one since it's invention in 1911.
Can one make it for $1000 which is the equipment cost of Arindam's
apparatus? Can one make it work in one's garage or living room?
Yes and if you payed $1,000 for that pipe roller you got ripped off big
time Arindam.
The super capacitors cost hundreds and then there are chargers, cameras, rollers, copper, wood, fasteners, power supply for charging,
multimeters, workshop equipment, brass cylinder, computers for
analysis...
You have no clue of even the most elementary costing. Your attempts to
pull down Arindam's work show desperation.
Scientific American in The Amateur Scientist column of April 1956
published the plans for a DIY cloud chamber.
Most of the parts were junkyard bits and pieces and cost next to nothing
to procure even in 1956 dollars Arindam.
Who cares for ancient history.
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 2:02:55 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 23:45:25 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 22:19:05 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip old stuff>
Arindam dismisses cloud chamber evidence rCo
It has nothing to do with Nature. Just an artificial construct at best. >>>>>> So yes, that evidence is irrelevant. 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.
Youtube videos of your feet do not constitute documentation Arindam.
As it is incontrovertible it has to be ignored or demeaned by the vested >>>> interests.
WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
Unlike your low speed pipe roller, it has been trivial to find detailed >>>>> instructions on how to build one since it's invention in 1911.
Can one make it for $1000 which is the equipment cost of Arindam's
apparatus? Can one make it work in one's garage or living room?
Yes and if you payed $1,000 for that pipe roller you got ripped off big
time Arindam.
The super capacitors cost hundreds and then there are chargers, cameras,
rollers, copper, wood, fasteners, power supply for charging,
multimeters, workshop equipment, brass cylinder, computers for
analysis...
You have no clue of even the most elementary costing. Your attempts to
pull down Arindam's work show desperation.
If you payed $1,000 for that pipe roller you are a piss poor shopper and haven't a clue what you are doing.
Since there is no equipment to gather data, why would you need a
computer to do analysis at all much less computerS Arindam?
Scientific American in The Amateur Scientist column of April 1956
published the plans for a DIY cloud chamber.
Most of the parts were junkyard bits and pieces and cost next to nothing >>> to procure even in 1956 dollars Arindam.
Who cares for ancient history.
You asked if a cloud chamber could be DIY and less than $1000.
I gave you lots of examples of such for under $100.
Why are you ranting over your question being answered Arindam?
<snip ranting>
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 14:39:54 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 2:02:55 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 23:45:25 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 22:19:05 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip old stuff>
Arindam dismisses cloud chamber evidence rCo
It has nothing to do with Nature. Just an artificial construct at best. >>>>>>> So yes, that evidence is irrelevant. 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.
Youtube videos of your feet do not constitute documentation Arindam.
As it is incontrovertible it has to be ignored or demeaned by the vested >>>>> interests.
WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
Unlike your low speed pipe roller, it has been trivial to find detailed >>>>>> instructions on how to build one since it's invention in 1911.
Can one make it for $1000 which is the equipment cost of Arindam's
apparatus? Can one make it work in one's garage or living room?
Yes and if you payed $1,000 for that pipe roller you got ripped off big >>>> time Arindam.
The super capacitors cost hundreds and then there are chargers, cameras, >>> rollers, copper, wood, fasteners, power supply for charging,
multimeters, workshop equipment, brass cylinder, computers for
analysis...
You have no clue of even the most elementary costing. Your attempts to
pull down Arindam's work show desperation.
If you payed $1,000 for that pipe roller you are a piss poor shopper and
haven't a clue what you are doing.
As you are a wannabe robot you have no clue about real life, Penisnino. Besides you don't understand English. Arindam did not buy it. It is his invention. He made it.
So what exactly did Arindam make to bust inertia?
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.
As it is incontrovertible it has to be ignored or demeaned by the vested interests.
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.
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.
<snip delusional raving>
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 modernThe ultimate argument!
disease, as shown by the Australian mass-murderess Erin Patterson nee
Scutter. Penisnino is similarly afflicted.
Arindam's contraption must woek then!
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
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
ArindamrCOs 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.
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 questionrCoa low-speed, uninstrumented pipe rollerrCocannot "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 handlingrConot a revolutionary physical principle.
3. Personal insults ("biased imbecile", "apes", "pig headed")
This adds nothing to the argument and undermines ArindamrCOs 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.
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
ArindamrCOs 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
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
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 modernThe ultimate argument!
disease, as shown by the Australian mass-murderess Erin Patterson nee
Scutter. Penisnino is similarly afflicted.
Arindam's contraption must woek then!
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
ArindamrCOs 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
ArindamrCOs reply is a mix of misdirection, false equivalence, and
theatrical
rhetoric. Here's a focused evaluation:
1. rCLFor mechanical systems, yes.rCY
This partial concession acknowledges Newtonian mechanics, but only as a pretext to pivot away. The original objection was not limited to
mechanical
systemsrCoit concerned any isolated system, including those governed by electrodynamics or field theories. Arindam evades that generality.
2. rCLBut science found electricity and that Arindam used to bust
inertia.rCY
This is vague and unsubstantiated. Electromagnetic forces, like
mechanical
ones, obey conservation laws. No known physical interactionrCoelectrical, magnetic, or otherwiserCocan 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. rCLOutdated science cannot be used to stop new science.rCY
This is a rhetorical move, not a rebuttal. Calling established physics rCLoutdatedrCY doesnrCOt invalidate itrCoespecially without evidence. Scientific
progress builds upon tested foundations; dismissing them wholesale
requires
rigorous demonstration, which Arindam does not provide.
4. rCLWoof woofrCarCY mocking tone
The dog metaphor and mockery of rCLNobel yokelsrCY are meant to provoke and distract rather than clarify. This performative posture replaces
argument
with attitude.
Summary:
ArindamrCOs 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 rCLelectricityrCY 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.
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 modernThe ultimate argument!
disease, as shown by the Australian mass-murderess Erin Patterson nee
Scutter. Penisnino is similarly afflicted.
Arindam's contraption must woek then!
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
ArindamrCOs 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
ArindamrCOs reply is a mix of misdirection, false equivalence, and
theatrical
rhetoric. Here's a focused evaluation:
1. rCLFor mechanical systems, yes.rCY
This partial concession acknowledges Newtonian mechanics, but only as a
pretext to pivot away. The original objection was not limited to
mechanical
systemsrCoit concerned any isolated system, including those governed by
electrodynamics or field theories. Arindam evades that generality.
2. rCLBut science found electricity and that Arindam used to bust
inertia.rCY
This is vague and unsubstantiated. Electromagnetic forces, like
mechanical
ones, obey conservation laws. No known physical interactionrCoelectrical,
magnetic, or otherwiserCocan 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. rCLOutdated science cannot be used to stop new science.rCY
This is a rhetorical move, not a rebuttal. Calling established physics
rCLoutdatedrCY doesnrCOt invalidate itrCoespecially without evidence. Scientific
progress builds upon tested foundations; dismissing them wholesale
requires
rigorous demonstration, which Arindam does not provide.
4. rCLWoof woofrCarCY mocking tone
The dog metaphor and mockery of rCLNobel yokelsrCY are meant to provoke and >> distract rather than clarify. This performative posture replaces
argument
with attitude.
Summary:
ArindamrCOs 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 rCLelectricityrCY 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.
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
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 20:09:48 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 14.07.2025 03:25, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 23:45:25 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
Nothing as relevant as Arindam's
rail gun experiments showing inertia violation.
You mean your low speed pipe roller that you are so proud of that you
have never written it up as text Arindam?
Arindam has done much better than that. He had provided crystal clear
video evidence with full explanations. That is a new way of providing
scientific truth. It is understandable to everyone. Schoolchildren in
particular with uncorrupted minds.
This video shows the contraption with which
Arindam aka Bertitaylor will travel to the stars!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
Stop the video at 9:13 and look at the rail.
Note that it is bent because two of the rollers are at the same level,
while the third is at a higher level. This will increase the friction
because moving the rail will move the bend of the rail.
See the run that starts at ca. 9:44.
When the cylinder has moved ca. 10 cm, the rail has moved ca. 2 cm
to the right. Friction transfers the reaction momentum to the Earth
(via table and building).
Then the cylinder is moving all the way to the end while the rail
does not move at all.
You must be incredible naive to interpret this as there is no reaction.
The blatantly obvious explanation is of course that the force on
the cylinder is too weak to overcome the stiction. So the reaction
momentum is transferred to the Earth.
When the cylinder hits the stopper at the end, the whole assembly
moves 4 cm to the left, and the friction will transfer the momentum
of the cylinder to the Earth.
The centre of mass of the assembly-Earth will not move.
This must be the least effective way to accelerate a cylinder
anybody has figured out.
As it is incontrovertible it has to be ignored or demeaned by the vested >>> interests.
One can but wonder why SpaceX doesn't use this wonderful engine
in stead of their stupid rockets.
Indeed.
Points to ponder:
Accepting Arindam's physics would mean revising all of physics. Out
would go inertia, entropy, energy conservation laws, special and general relativity and all the quantum bunkum. It would mean bringing back
aether. Now that is a huge no no. Taboo. For it is the Hindu sacred word
AUM. The racist bigots running the shows, funding all stuff, cannot
stand it.
Then all those working on rockets and jet engines would look pretty
stupid. They would also fear loss of jobs, prestige, etc.
The academics will be bitterly opposed as they will look like c##$s if Arindam's work gets accepted popularly.
So there is on practical grounds no chance for Musk Elon to try out reactionless internal force engines following Arindam's correct physics.
Never fear, the Divine is with Arindam so all opposition is as dust
beneath his feet.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
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
ArindamrCOs response, as quoted, attempts to deflect PaulrCOs 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.
indicating uneven roller support, and that the reaction forces are
dissipated through friction with the table and Earth rCo 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 rCLReactionrCY and rCLInertiarCY
"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 rCo 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 rCo 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 rCo a sealed system cannot translate its own center of mass
unless an external force acts. Even clever rCLreactionlessrCY drives like
the so-called rCLEM DriverCY 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 rCo
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. ItrCOs non-argumentative and self-defeating.
Summary:
Paul's critique is detailed, physically sound, and based on observable mechanics rCo friction, stiction, momentum transfer, and constraints of
the setup.
ArindamrCOs reply:
Fails to address the substance of Paul's points.
Misapplies Newtonian mechanics.
Incorrectly claims a rCLviolation of inertia.rCY
Conflates center-of-mass shift with propulsion.
Ends with a mocking non sequitur.
Conclusion: ArindamrCOs 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.
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.
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
ArindamrCOs response to Paul is rhetorically bold but physically
incoherent.
LetrCOs evaluate it point by point:
1.
rCLYes. There is no reaction to the acceleration using this particular
electric configuration.rCY
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 continuesrCoevidence that momentum
transfer occurs, likely via friction to the environment.
ArindamrCOs claim of rCLno reactionrCY contradicts what is directly observed, as Paul notes. Dismissing it as an inherent rCLfeaturerCY of the configuration is evasive.
2.
rCLNaive or not, this is self evident fact, a new discovery from a
new inventionrCarCY
Calling something a rCLself-evident factrCY 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 NewtonrCOs laws is evident. Claiming a rCLnew discoveryrCY without theoretical or empirical justification is not science, but performance.
3.
rCLThe centre of mass of the whole system is accelerated and that
upsets
the Newtonian laws of motion.rCY
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 NewtonrCOs laws.
But the observed effect hererComovement of the cylinder and brief rail responserCodoes 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, NewtonrCOs laws are upheld.
4.
rCLThe law of conservation of energy is busted - energy is always
created and destroyed.rCY
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.
rCLWOOF woof woof-woofrCarCY
The habitual rCLdog chorusrCY returns as a sarcastic flourish, not a
physical argument. Its purpose seems to be rhetorical dominance,
not explanation.
Summary:
Arindam dodges PaulrCOs precise and mechanical critique with
empty declarations of rCLnew science,rCY vague allusions to
unverified rCLinternal force engines,rCY and outright denial
of well-supported physics.
His claim that inertia and energy conservation are rCLbustedrCY
is not backed by any data or physical reasoning.
PaulrCOs observationrCothat momentum is transferred through frictionrCo 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.
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 3:21:29 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
Lousy non culture follows bogus physics based.
When lies and fraud posing as imagination and pragmatism rule then only
disaster can result.
As is only too evident in the decadent West.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
So it is that after e=mcc nonsenses there have been world wars and many
other wars; bad manners and selfish-greedy goals set by vulgar elites;
total dumbing down of the public mind; extraordinary inequalities and
corruption galore...
Woof woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
To their lips He closely hung!
Out He tore their lying tongues -
Their means of sin and wickedness.
--
Overall Assessment:
Cognitive Patterns: These posts show entrenched paranoid ideation,
conspiratorial worldviews, grandiosity (implying access to higher
truths), and fixation on Western scientific and cultural
"degeneration."
Stylistic Shift: The second post marks a stylistic
divergencerCopoetic,
almost liturgical. This might indicate either an aesthetic
experiment
or a deepening sense of messianic identity.
Mental State (assuming sincerity): The posts suggest increasing
detachment from consensus reality, rigid moral absolutism, and
possible
delusional elaboration around themes of decay and punishment.
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
ArindamrCOs response, as quoted, attempts to deflect PaulrCOs 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
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.
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.
Lots of nonsense, abuse and lies, dismissed as such.
Woof woof--
Bertietaylor
--
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
--
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
--
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!
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.
When the cylinder has moved ca. 10 cm, the rail has moved ca. 2 cm
to the right.
Friction from rolling on rails is the mechanical effect pushing the
system back.
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.
MathematicallyM is the mass of the cylinder.
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.
Out, idiot.
WOOF woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
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
--
Talk to your master Chat, Penisnino.
Woof
Bertietaylor
--
P*'s natural idiocy is more interesting then that of his AI god. Funny
in its way.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
--
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
--
ArindamrCOs 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
rCooffers a characteristic reaction: brief, dismissive, and laced with
insult and mockery, but without content.
Key Features:
Evasion of substance:
Rather than engage with the critiquerCoespecially regarding his
rhetorical habits, emotional tone, or the lack of substantive
argumentrCoArindam sidesteps entirely. There's no rebuttal, no
acknowledgment, and no self-reflection. This is classic deflection.
Insult-as-defense:
Referring again to rCLnatural idiocyrCY and rCLAI godrCY is a two-pronged
sneerrCotoward 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 rCLWOOFrCY sign-off is ArindamrCOs 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
argumentrComore a signature of identity than an effort at persuasion
or reflection.
Look here, thief, Arindam knew far better physics than you ever could
when he was in middle school.
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! Efye
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.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
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 Fariat, 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.
M is the mass of the cylinder.
Mathematically
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 MriaV 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 = VriaM/(m+M) toward the left.
The momentum of the cylinder-rail unit is:
Velria(m+M).
So this is what busts the inertia.
?
Before collision: momentum = MriaV
After collision: momentum = Velria(m+M) = (VriaM/(m+M))ria(m+M) = MriaV
Momentum is conserved!
(
This would be true even if v rea 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 = VriaM/(m+M) toward the left
You can see in the video that the cylinder slows
down from V to VriaM/(m+M).
It will then move 4 cm before it stops.
Why does it stop?
The friction force is constant, independent of speed.
Ffriat = MriaV
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?
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: ?
Why should we doggies care for the outputs of idiotic apes?
WOOF woof-woof woof
--
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, thiefrCa 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
"rCaan experiment to show antigravity rCo 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 proofrConot a vague reference
and insult-laden dismissal.
4. Continued Use of Alter Ego (rCLBertietaylorrCY)
"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 principlerConot emotion.
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
ArindamrCOs 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
ArindamrCOs reply is a mix of misdirection, false equivalence, and
theatrical
rhetoric. Here's a focused evaluation:
1. rCLFor mechanical systems, yes.rCY
This partial concession acknowledges Newtonian mechanics, but only as a >>>> pretext to pivot away. The original objection was not limited to
mechanical
systemsrCoit concerned any isolated system, including those governed by >>>> electrodynamics or field theories. Arindam evades that generality.
2. rCLBut science found electricity and that Arindam used to bust
inertia.rCY
This is vague and unsubstantiated. Electromagnetic forces, like
mechanical
ones, obey conservation laws. No known physical interactionrCoelectrical, >>>> magnetic, or otherwiserCocan 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. rCLOutdated science cannot be used to stop new science.rCY
This is a rhetorical move, not a rebuttal. Calling established physics >>>> rCLoutdatedrCY doesnrCOt invalidate itrCoespecially without evidence. Scientific
progress builds upon tested foundations; dismissing them wholesale
requires
rigorous demonstration, which Arindam does not provide.
4. rCLWoof woofrCarCY mocking tone
The dog metaphor and mockery of rCLNobel yokelsrCY are meant to provoke and
distract rather than clarify. This performative posture replaces
argument
with attitude.
Summary:
ArindamrCOs 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 rCLelectricityrCY 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)--
--
No, the rest of the world follows what has been proven time and again by independantly verified experiments.
Penisnino gets his blessings from his flatulent Aidiot chatgod.
WOOF woof woof-woof woof they should go back to swinging from tree to
tree.
--
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
Penisnino gets his blessings from his flatulent Aidiot chatgod.
WOOF woof woof-woof woof they should go back to swinging from tree to
tree.
--
ArindamrCOs latest post is yet another ad hominem-laced, content-free outburst.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 20:21:04 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.07.2025 12:52, skrev Bertitaylor:
Obviously from the video it is transferred to the whole system following >>> the law of conservation of momentum. That happens when the roller
strikes the barrier.
Bertitaylor is talking about the run at 9:44 in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
Note that the rail is stationary from the time when
the cylinder has moved ca. 10 cm to it hits the barrier.
If the accelerating force acting on the cylinder is
Fa towards the left, then the reaction force acting on
the rail is Fa towards the right.
There is no reaction force acting on the right and that is what one has
to understand from the video.
This is a new discovery from the new invention.
WOOF woof-woof woof these apes are full
Bertietaylor
Since the rail is stationary,
the force Fa is too weak to overcome the stiction.
The stiction will mediate the force Fa to the floor,
and momentum Fariat, where t is the time the rail is stationary,
is equal to the momentum gained by the cylinder during the same time.
https://www.facebook.com/100000534193755/videos/pcb.7521439881217077/350814810783223
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 20:09:48 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
See the run that starts at ca. 9:44.
When the cylinder has moved ca. 10 cm, the rail has moved ca. 2 cm
to the right. Friction transfers the reaction momentum to the Earth
(via table and building).
Then the cylinder is moving all the way to the end while the rail
does not move at all.
When the cylinder hits the stopper at the end, the whole assembly
moves 4 cm to the left, and the friction will transfer the momentum
of the cylinder to the Earth.
The centre of mass of the assembly moves and that is the point. Friction
from Earth via rollers stops it.
It busts inertia.
Den 21.07.2025 03:36, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 20:21:04 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.07.2025 12:52, skrev Bertitaylor:
Obviously from the video it is transferred to the whole system
following
the law of conservation of momentum. That happens when the roller
strikes the barrier.
Bertitaylor is talking about the run at 9:44 in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
Note that the rail is stationary from the time when
the cylinder has moved ca. 10 cm to it hits the barrier.
If the accelerating force acting on the cylinder is
Fa towards the left, then the reaction force acting on
the rail is Fa towards the right.
There is no reaction force acting on the right and that is what one has
to understand from the video.
This is a new discovery from the new invention.
WOOF woof-woof woof these apes are full
Bertietaylor
Note that Bertitaylor's point is that since the rail is stationary,
there can be no force acting on the rail towards the right.
Since the rail is stationary,
the force Fa is too weak to overcome the stiction.
The stiction will mediate the force Fa to the floor,
and momentum Fariat, where t is the time the rail is stationary,
is equal to the momentum gained by the cylinder during the same time.
See the video:
https://www.facebook.com/100000534193755/videos/pcb.7521439881217077/350814810783223
Here it is very obvious that:
"If the accelerating force acting on the cylinder is
-aFa towards the left, then the reaction force acting on
-athe rail is Fa towards the right."
Since the friction is small, the rail is moving to
the right during the acceleration.
Arindam made a lot of changes with no obvious plan.
He ended up with the version shown at 9:10 the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
Note that the change is that the leftmost roller
is 7.5 higher than than the two other rollers.
This will make the cylinder run uphill diring the acceleration,
and the rail is bent. This will increase the friction, and
make the force to overcome the stiction higher.
So Arindam has succeded, he has made the rail be stationary
during most of the accelation, which in his mind means
that there is no force acting on the rail towards the right!
And all it took-a was to put an extra floorboard under
the leftmost roller!
Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 21.07.2025 03:36, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 20:21:04 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 16.07.2025 12:52, skrev Bertitaylor:
Obviously from the video it is transferred to the whole system
following
the law of conservation of momentum. That happens when the roller
strikes the barrier.
Bertitaylor is talking about the run at 9:44 in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
Note that the rail is stationary from the time when
the cylinder has moved ca. 10 cm to it hits the barrier.
If the accelerating force acting on the cylinder is
Fa towards the left, then the reaction force acting on
the rail is Fa towards the right.
There is no reaction force acting on the right and that is what one has
to understand from the video.
This is a new discovery from the new invention.
WOOF woof-woof woof these apes are full
Bertietaylor
Note that Bertitaylor's point is that since the rail is stationary,
there can be no force acting on the rail towards the right.
Since the rail is stationary,
the force Fa is too weak to overcome the stiction.
The stiction will mediate the force Fa to the floor,
and momentum Fariat, where t is the time the rail is stationary,
is equal to the momentum gained by the cylinder during the same time.
See the video:
https://www.facebook.com/100000534193755/videos/pcb.7521439881217077/350814810783223
Here it is very obvious that:
"If the accelerating force acting on the cylinder is
-aFa towards the left, then the reaction force acting on
-athe rail is Fa towards the right."
Since the friction is small, the rail is moving to
the right during the acceleration.
Arindam made a lot of changes with no obvious plan.
He ended up with the version shown at 9:10 the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
Note that the change is that the leftmost roller
is 7.5 higher than than the two other rollers.
This will make the cylinder run uphill diring the acceleration,
and the rail is bent. This will increase the friction, and
make the force to overcome the stiction higher.
So Arindam has succeded, he has made the rail be stationary
during most of the accelation, which in his mind means
that there is no force acting on the rail towards the right!
And all it took-a was to put an extra floorboard under
the leftmost roller!
This is from an old thread that Mr. Andersen might find useful:
FLP-II-27: MOMENTUM IN THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD (A.K.A AETHER)
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6
"FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26rCo2 THE FAILURE OF THE LAW OF ACTION AND REACTION WHEN TWO CHARGED PARTICLES WERE MOVING ON ORTHOGONAL TRAJECTORIES. The forces on the two particles donrCOt balance out, so the action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_II/f27-07/f27-07_tc_big.svgz
The EM field momentum is usually very small (= U/c), and Arindam's
apparatus most likely does not have the sensitivity to measure this.
But, still just pointing this out, as the EM field (or aether) is yet
another place that missing momentum can go into.
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
Den 16.07.2025 12:52, skrev Bertitaylor:There is no reaction force acting on the right and that is what one has
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.
the force Fa is too weak to overcome the stiction.
The stiction will mediate the force Fa to the floor,
and momentum Fariat, 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.
M is the mass of the cylinder.
Mathematically
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 MriaV 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 = VriaM/(m+M) toward the left.
The momentum of the cylinder-rail unit is:
Velria(m+M).
So this is what busts the inertia.
?
Before collision: momentum = MriaV
After collision: momentum = Velria(m+M) = (VriaM/(m+M))ria(m+M) = MriaV
Momentum is conserved!
(
This would be true even if v rea 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 = VriaM/(m+M) toward the left
You can see in the video that the cylinder slows
down from V to VriaM/(m+M).
It will then move 4 cm before it stops.
Why does it stop?
The friction force is constant, independent of speed.
Ffriat = MriaV
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
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
ArindamrCOs 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
ArindamrCOs reply is a mix of misdirection, false equivalence, and
theatrical
rhetoric. Here's a focused evaluation:
1. rCLFor mechanical systems, yes.rCY
This partial concession acknowledges Newtonian mechanics, but only as a
pretext to pivot away. The original objection was not limited to
mechanical
systemsrCoit concerned any isolated system, including those governed by
electrodynamics or field theories. Arindam evades that generality.
2. rCLBut science found electricity and that Arindam used to bust
inertia.rCY
This is vague and unsubstantiated. Electromagnetic forces, like
mechanical
ones, obey conservation laws. No known physical interactionrCoelectrical, >>> magnetic, or otherwiserCocan 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. rCLOutdated science cannot be used to stop new science.rCY
This is a rhetorical move, not a rebuttal. Calling established physics
rCLoutdatedrCY doesnrCOt invalidate itrCoespecially without evidence. Scientific
progress builds upon tested foundations; dismissing them wholesale
requires
rigorous demonstration, which Arindam does not provide.
4. rCLWoof woofrCarCY mocking tone
The dog metaphor and mockery of rCLNobel yokelsrCY are meant to provoke and >>> distract rather than clarify. This performative posture replaces
argument
with attitude.
Summary:
ArindamrCOs 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 rCLelectricityrCY 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.
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 20:09:48 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 14.07.2025 03:25, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 23:45:25 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
Nothing as relevant as Arindam's
rail gun experiments showing inertia violation.
You mean your low speed pipe roller that you are so proud of that you >>>>> have never written it up as text Arindam?
Arindam has done much better than that. He had provided crystal clear
video evidence with full explanations. That is a new way of providing
scientific truth. It is understandable to everyone. Schoolchildren in
particular with uncorrupted minds.
This video shows the contraption with which
Arindam aka Bertitaylor will travel to the stars!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
Stop the video at 9:13 and look at the rail.
Note that it is bent because two of the rollers are at the same level,
while the third is at a higher level. This will increase the friction
because moving the rail will move the bend of the rail.
See the run that starts at ca. 9:44.
When the cylinder has moved ca. 10 cm, the rail has moved ca. 2 cm
to the right. Friction transfers the reaction momentum to the Earth
(via table and building).
Then the cylinder is moving all the way to the end while the rail
does not move at all.
You must be incredible naive to interpret this as there is no reaction.
The blatantly obvious explanation is of course that the force on
the cylinder is too weak to overcome the stiction. So the reaction
momentum is transferred to the Earth.
When the cylinder hits the stopper at the end, the whole assembly
moves 4 cm to the left, and the friction will transfer the momentum
of the cylinder to the Earth.
The centre of mass of the assembly-Earth will not move.
This must be the least effective way to accelerate a cylinder
anybody has figured out.
As it is incontrovertible it has to be ignored or demeaned by the vested >>>> interests.
One can but wonder why SpaceX doesn't use this wonderful engine
in stead of their stupid rockets.
Indeed.
Points to ponder:
Accepting Arindam's physics would mean revising all of physics. Out
would go inertia, entropy, energy conservation laws, special and general
relativity and all the quantum bunkum. It would mean bringing back
aether. Now that is a huge no no. Taboo. For it is the Hindu sacred word
AUM. The racist bigots running the shows, funding all stuff, cannot
stand it.
Then all those working on rockets and jet engines would look pretty
stupid. They would also fear loss of jobs, prestige, etc.
The academics will be bitterly opposed as they will look like c##$s if
Arindam's work gets accepted popularly.
So there is on practical grounds no chance for Musk Elon to try out
reactionless internal force engines following Arindam's correct physics.
Never fear, the Divine is with Arindam so all opposition is as dust
beneath his feet.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
Arindam's latest response to Paul is not a scientific rebuttal but
rather
a defensive ideological rant, couched in conspiratorial thinking and religious mysticism. Let's break it down:
1. Avoidance of the Technical Question
"One can but wonder why SpaceX doesn't use this wonderful engine..."
PaulrCOs remark is biting sarcasm rCo pointing out that if Arindam's
"engine"
truly worked, SpaceX (or anyone in aerospace) would be foolish not to
use
it.
claims.
But Arindam does not answer the question with data, theory, or even a testable explanation. Instead, he spirals into accusations against scientists, industry, and even Western culture.
2. Sweeping Dismissal of Established Physics
"Out would go inertia, entropy, energy conservation laws, special
and general relativity and all the quantum bunkum."
These arenrCOt minor theories. They are pillars of modern science rCo confirmed
repeatedly across countless experiments and technologies. If ArindamrCOs
work
truly invalidated them:
It would need rigorous experimental confirmation.
It would not be ignored, but examined intensely.
The idea that a single home experiment upends centuries of evidence
without
a mathematical framework or independent replication is simply not
credible.
3. Conspiracy Framing
"They would also fear loss of jobs, prestige, etc."
This is classic scientific conspiracy rhetoric:
Claims that scientists reject new ideas not because theyrCOre false,
but to protect their status.
Ignores the history of physics, where revolutions (e.g. relativity,
quantum theory) were embraced precisely because they worked better.
The incentive in science is to be right, not to protect old theories. A successful new model earns Nobel Prizes, not exile.
4. Cultural and Religious Grievance
"Taboo. For it is the Hindu sacred word AUM. The racist bigots
running
the shows..."
Here, Arindam shifts from physics to a cultural-religious grievance narrative, implying:
Western physics is a racist conspiracy to suppress rCLHindu truth.rCY
"Aether" is rejected not for scientific reasons, but to suppress
Eastern spirituality.
This is an appeal to identity politics, not physical evidence. The
aether
was discarded after the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887) showed no
evidence for it. No one banned it because of its phonetic similarity
to "AUM".
5. Self-Aggrandizement via Divine Association
"Never fear, the Divine is with Arindam... all opposition is as dust
beneath his feet."
This is not science rCo itrCOs messianic. It presents Arindam not as a researcher or inventor, but as a divinely protected prophet of truth, persecuted by a corrupt establishment.
Such framing is common in pseudoscientific cults, not in credible
scientific discourse.
6. Mockery, Not Argument
"WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof"
The closing line continues Arindam's pattern of substituting taunts and nonsense for reasoning. It signals disdain, not confidence.
Summary:
ArindamrCOs response to Paul:
Fails to answer the original technical question.
Dismisses the foundations of physics without offering replacements.
Leans on conspiracy, cultural grievance, and divine favor.
Avoids falsifiability, evidence, or reproducibility.
Ends in mockery, not argument.
Conclusion: This post is anti-scientific, conspiratorial, and
rhetorically hollow. It doubles down on ideology to shield ArindamrCOs
claims from scrutiny, rather than engage with criticism honestly.
People are thus so stupid, they think burning fuel near the ground
causes global climate change. They are even more stupid, far more so,
when they neglect jet engines exhausts spreading greenhouse gases high
above.
Bogus physics education is to blame what with all in power forced to
chant the bogus e=mcc crap.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--