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
--
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 22:45:51 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
6 files (8,794K bytes) |
| Messages: | 186,546 |
| Posted today: | 1 |