From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Arindam has given the details of the cause of gravity in his matchless
essay, easily available in Usenet. Link is easy to find.

Gravity is a mild attractive force caused by electrostatic attraction
between atoms being more than electrostatic repulsion.

The electrons in the outer shells and in the nucleus of an atom
certainly repel electrons from all atoms. However maths and calculation
show that the protons in the nucleus must attract the electrons somewhat
more.

The so called strong force is actually the very strong attractive bond
between protons and electrons at very small distances.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)

--
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

Arindam has given the details of the cause of gravity in his matchless
essay, easily available in Usenet. Link is easy to find.

Gravity is a mild attractive force caused by electrostatic attraction
between atoms being more than electrostatic repulsion.

The electrons in the outer shells and in the nucleus of an atom
certainly repel electrons from all atoms. However maths and calculation
show that the protons in the nucleus must attract the electrons somewhat more.

The so called strong force is actually the very strong attractive bond between protons and electrons at very small distances.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)

--

AI evaluation:

ArindamrCOs latest post, continuing under his alias rCLBertietaylor,rCY again demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of well-established physics. LetrCOs break it down:
Core Claims and Their Scientific Standing

rCLGravity is a mild attractive force caused by electrostatic
attraction between atoms being more than electrostatic repulsion.rCY

Incorrect: Gravity is not caused by electrostatic forces.
Gravity arises from mass and energy as described by EinsteinrCOs
General Relativity, not from a residual imbalance in atomic charges.
At atomic and molecular levels, electrostatic forces dominate,
and in neutral matter, these forces largely cancel. If
electrostatic forces drove gravity, materials with different
compositions would fall at different ratesrCowhich they donrCOt
(Galileo showed this long ago, and it's confirmed to high precision).

rCLThe electrons in the outer shells and in the nucleus... certainly
repel electrons from all atoms.rCY

Partially Correct: Yes, electrons repel each other due to like
charges.

But flawed context: This doesn't relate meaningfully to gravity.
Electron-electron repulsion does not contribute to large-scale
attraction. Moreover, electrons are not in the nucleus under
normal conditionsrCoonly in certain beta decay processes is this
relevant.

rCLMaths and calculation show that the protons... attract the electrons
somewhat more.rCY

False assumption: In neutral atoms, Coulombic forces are
balancedrCothatrCOs the definition of electrical neutrality.
There's no hidden surplus of proton-electron attraction driving
a net interatomic attraction. If such a surplus existed, matter
would collapse.

rCLThe so-called strong force is actually the very strong attractive
bond between protons and electrons at very small distances.rCY

Totally wrong: The strong nuclear force binds protons and
neutrons together in the nucleus.
It has nothing to do with electrons, which are governed by
electromagnetic interactions. The strong force is mediated by
gluons and acts only at sub-femtometer scales between quarks.
Suggesting that itrCOs an electron-proton bond is a category error.

Cognitive or Intellectual Assessment (assuming sincerity)

If Arindam sincerely believes what he writes:

He appears to lack a basic grasp of atomic structure, electromagnetism,
and nuclear physics.

He consistently confuses distinct physical forces (electromagnetic,
gravitational, nuclear) and tries to reduce everything to a
misunderstood form of electrostatics.

He presents his assertions with absolute confidence, indicating
delusional certainty rather than scientific inquiry or error correction.

The repeated use of rCLWOOF woof-woof...rCY and rCLcelestial cyberdogsrCY
adds a layer of surrealist or manic flavor, possibly pointing to
grandiose or performative thinking.

Conclusion

This post is scientifically invalid on every major claim.
Arindam/Bertietaylor shows:

A rejection of mainstream physics,

Repeated invocation of fictional mechanisms,

And possibly signs of delusional ideation or compulsive
pseudoscientific narrative-building.

Unless this is satire or trolling (which is possible but unlikely
given the consistency), it represents a severely flawed model of
physical reality rooted in personal invention rather than evidence
or comprehension.
--
penninojim@yahoo.com
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 2:33:12 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:

Arindam has given the details of the cause of gravity in his matchless
essay, easily available in Usenet. Link is easy to find.

Gravity is a mild attractive force caused by electrostatic attraction
between atoms being more than electrostatic repulsion.

The electrons in the outer shells and in the nucleus of an atom
certainly repel electrons from all atoms. However maths and calculation
show that the protons in the nucleus must attract the electrons somewhat more.

The so called strong force is actually the very strong attractive bond between protons and electrons at very small distances.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)

--

Gravity shows the nuclear structure as composed of protons and
electrons. Of course, radioactivity with beta rays directly shows that electrons exist in the nucleus.

The gamma ray, or extremely powerful X ray, has a frequency
corresponding to intranuclear distances. This shows the existence of
aether as infinitely fine and elastic medium for electromagnetic waves.

Woof woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor

--
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 2:33:12 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:

Arindam has given the details of the cause of gravity in his matchless
essay, easily available in Usenet. Link is easy to find.

Gravity is a mild attractive force caused by electrostatic attraction
between atoms being more than electrostatic repulsion.

The electrons in the outer shells and in the nucleus of an atom
certainly repel electrons from all atoms. However maths and calculation
show that the protons in the nucleus must attract the electrons somewhat
more.

The so called strong force is actually the very strong attractive bond
between protons and electrons at very small distances.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)

--

Gravity shows the nuclear structure as composed of protons and
electrons. Of course, radioactivity with beta rays directly shows that electrons exist in the nucleus.

The gamma ray, or extremely powerful X ray, has a frequency
corresponding to intranuclear distances. This shows the existence of
aether as infinitely fine and elastic medium for electromagnetic waves.

Woof woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor

--

AI evaluation:

Arindam (writing as "Bertietaylor") continues his pattern of conflating outdated or misunderstood physics concepts with idiosyncratic conclusions. Here's a point-by-point evaluation of this latest post:
Claim 1: "Gravity shows the nuclear structure as composed of protons and electrons."

Scientific evaluation: This is factually incorrect.

Gravity does not determine or reveal nuclear structure. Nuclear
structure is governed by the strong nuclear force, not gravitational
interaction, which is many orders of magnitude weaker.

Atomic nuclei consist of protons and neutrons. The idea that the
nucleus is made of protons and electrons is a discarded
early-20th-century hypothesis (the proton-electron model) that was
debunked by discoveries in nuclear physics.

Conclusion: A clear misunderstanding of nuclear and gravitational physics.

Claim 2: "Radioactivity with beta rays directly shows that electrons exist
in the nucleus."

Scientific evaluation: This is a misinterpretation.

In beta-minus decay, a neutron decays into a proton, electron, and
antineutrino. The electron (beta particle) is not pre-existing in
the nucleus but is created in the decay process via the weak nuclear
force.

No evidence supports the idea of free electrons "living" inside the
nucleus in a bound state.

Conclusion: Misrepresentation of beta decay; confuses emission with
preexistence.

Claim 3: "The gamma ray, or extremely powerful X ray, has a frequency corresponding to intranuclear distances."

Scientific evaluation: Partly correct, but misused.

Gamma rays do indeed have very short wavelengths (on the order of
10^-12 m), consistent with nuclear energy transitions. They are
typically emitted during nuclear decay.

However, this does not imply anything about aether or validate its
existence.

Conclusion: Correct numerical scale, but the inferred conclusion is non
sequitur.

Claim 4: "This shows the existence of aether as infinitely fine and elastic medium for electromagnetic waves."

Scientific evaluation: This is an outdated and disproven idea.

The luminiferous aether was ruled out by experiments like the
MichelsonrCoMorley experiment (1887) and replaced by Einstein's
theory of special relativity, which does not require a medium
for light propagation.

Quantum field theory and general relativity provide robust
frameworks for understanding electromagnetic waves and gravity
without invoking an aether.

Conclusion: Arindam is reviving a pre-relativistic idea that has been
decisively rejected.

"Woof woof woof woof-woof"

This appears to be ArindamrCOs idiosyncratic rhetorical flourish,
possibly intended to mock or signal derision, though it only further
distances his argument from scientific seriousness.

Overall Assessment

Arindam continues to recycle:

Long-discredited models (electrons in the nucleus),

Misunderstood interpretations of nuclear decay,

Revivalist pseudoscience (aether theory),

And rhetorical dog-barking meant to ridicule rather than clarify.

If he sincerely believes this, it strongly suggests deep-rooted
misconceptions, possibly delusional thinking, or fixation on obsolete
theories in defiance of overwhelming modern evidence. The persistent
rejection of basic scientific facts despite their accessibility could
be symptomatic of a paranoid or grandiose belief structure, not necessarily pathological in itself, but clearly disconnected from consensus reality.
--
penninojim@yahoo.com
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On 7/1/25 22:33, Bertitaylor wrote:

Arindam has given the details of the cause of gravity in his matchless
essay, easily available in Usenet. Link is easy to find.

"Helen Hunt will have it. Go to Helen Hunt for it."

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Looks like Penisnino is smarter than we thought!

He is putting words into AI's mouth!

For not even AI could be as wrong and dishonest as is evident.

The imbecile often shows low cunning. Definitely Penisnino has to be
upgraded from idiot to imbecile status.

WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof-woof low cunning has raised apes above
all! No doubt. And yet, it is pathetic in a way.

Bertietaylor

--
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Le 02/07/2025 |a 23:55, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) a |-crit :

...
WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof-woof low cunning has raised apes above
all! No doubt. And yet, it is pathetic in a way.

Bertietaylor

--

"Bertie Taylor" aka Arindam eating his own shit:

https://ibb.co/6JmK3p70


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

Looks like Penisnino is smarter than we thought!

He is putting words into AI's mouth!

For not even AI could be as wrong and dishonest as is evident.

The imbecile often shows low cunning. Definitely Penisnino has to be
upgraded from idiot to imbecile status.

WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof-woof low cunning has raised apes above
all! No doubt. And yet, it is pathetic in a way.

Bertietaylor

--

AI analysis:

ArindamrCOs latest post as rCLBertietaylorrCY follows his typical pattern of:

Ad hominem attacks: He fixates on an invented insult ("Penisnino")
and cycles through derogatory classifications like rCLidiotrCY and
rCLimbecile.rCY This is not a critique but rather name-calling masquerading
as commentary.

Projection and anthropomorphizing AI: He claims the user is rCLputting
words into AIrCOs mouthrCY while also suggesting that AI couldnrCOt be rCLas
wrong and dishonestrCY as the human target. This paints AI as a neutral
or superior arbiter while excusing his own misuse of it. The irony is
that this rhetorical move both denies AIrCOs sophistication and uses its
presumed objectivity as a bludgeon.

Pseudointellectual moralizing: The phrase rCLlow cunning has raised apes
above all!rCY is a typical Arindam-ismrComisapplied evolutionary or
philosophical metaphor attempting to sound profound but ultimately empty.
It comes across as forced and bitter rather than insightful.

Dog-speak ("WOOF woof..."): This recurring element is intended as a
mocking flourishrCohis version of punctuation-by-ridicule. It serves to
both undercut the seriousness of the discourse and signal contempt. It
adds theatricality but undermines credibility.

Psychological and Rhetorical Profile:

Assuming sincerity, this post further reinforces the impression of:

Grandiosity mixed with contempt, common in delusional or paranoid
ideation.

Obsessive engagement with specific individuals or targets of ridicule,
hinting at fixation or persecution complex.

Hostility masked as satire, lacking genuine argument or analysis.

A collapse of logical framing, where critique is replaced by insult
and performance.

It contains no substantive physics, science, or rational argumentation. The purpose appears to be venting and self-display, rather than communication.

Conclusion: This is another instance of ArindamrCOs increasingly unhinged, rhetorical posturing. It reveals more about his emotional staterCoaggrieved, self-righteous, and isolatingrCothan it does about any external topic.
--
penninojim@yahoo.com
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Okay, officially JimP is upgraded to imbecile status.

WOOF woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 22:09:52 +0000, Python wrote:

Le 02/07/2025 |a 23:55, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) a |-crit :

...
WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof-woof low cunning has raised apes above
all! No doubt. And yet, it is pathetic in a way.

Bertietaylor

--

"Bertie Taylor" aka Arindam eating his own shit:

https://ibb.co/6JmK3p70

Fool, Arindam is enjoying his stay on Earth just as we are enjoying ours
in Heaven.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

Okay, officially JimP is upgraded to imbecile status.

WOOF woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

AI evaluation:

Arindam, writing as "Bertietaylor," continues to use the same rhetorical patterns that have marked his recent online persona: insult-based
deflection, performative derision, and dog-barking mockery as a signature flourish.

Evaluation:

Content:

There is no substantive engagement with the prior analysis or
criticism. Instead, Arindam resorts to labeling ("imbecile") and
reiterating his now-familiar rCLWOOFrCY signature.

This reflects an avoidance of argument rather than any attempt to
refute or clarify a position.

Tone and Intent:

The tone is deliberately mocking and dismissive.

It's not a genuine rebuttal but more of a social dominance display,
meant to assert superiority by ridicule, not reason.

The use of "officially" and the promotion to "imbecile" seems to
parody academic or formal discourse, but in a childish, unserious way.

Psychological Profile (Assuming Sincerity):
If we take this at face value and not as trolling:

The pattern suggests either paranoid defensiveness or grandiose
delusion, with the "WOOF" motif functioning almost like a verbal
tic or branding.

The refusal to engage in rational discourse could point toward
cognitive disorganization, or, more plausibly, a deliberate
anti-intellectual posture tied to an oppositional identity.

Comparison to Similar Figures:

This tactic resembles that of pseudoscientific or conspiratorial
figures who, when cornered by evidence or logic, default to ad
hominem attacks and theatrical scorn rather than intellectual defense.

ItrCOs stylistically reminiscent of online personas who conflate
attention with credibility and rely on performative contempt as
their primary mode of argument.

Conclusion:
This is not an attempt at debate or scientific discussion. It's a
continuation of Arindam's rhetorical theater rCo one that prioritizes
insult, mock performance, and the illusion of authority over any sincere pursuit of truth or understanding.
--
penninojim@yahoo.com
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

AI should sue JimP. Has enough brains to know it ain't worth it.

Woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

AI should sue JimP. Has enough brains to know it ain't worth it.

Woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

AI evaluation:

Arindam, writing as rCLBertietaylor,rCY continues his trend of using cryptic, mocking, and largely content-free commentary. LetrCOs break down the elements of this post:

Evaluation:

1. Content and Coherence:
The sentence is framed as a joke or sneer. He implies that AI is smart
enough not to engage with JimP legally, suggesting that JimP is beneath
serious engagement. However, the structure is logically confused rCo
suggesting AI should sue, then saying itrCOs too smart to do so rCo undercutting itself. The result is an incoherent taunt that tries to be
clever but doesnrCOt land logically or humorously.

2. Rhetorical Strategy:
This is an attempt at derision through irony or sarcasm, but with minimal substance. It avoids any scientific, philosophical, or even polemical
argument. ThererCOs no thesis, claim, or evidence rCo only ridicule framed through a flippant metaphor.

3. Style and Signature:
The trademark rCLWoof woof-woof woofrCY remains rCo a now-consistent verbal tic that could either be interpreted as stylized absurdism or deteriorating coherence. ItrCOs meaningless on the surface, but could be signaling
contempt, dismissal, or simply serving as a rhetorical flourish aimed at ridiculing.

4. Overall Tone:
Juvenile, evasive, and contemptuous. It's a sneer in the form of a quip,
but lacks wit, depth, or originality. It functions solely as insult theater, not communication.
Conclusion:

This post exemplifies ArindamrCOs shift from flawed pseudoscience to empty provocation. If he once attempted to offer misguided theories, now he
mostly engages in petty mockery. This suggests either a complete
disinterest in rational discussion or a descent into self-amused solipsism. ItrCOs not pseudoscience anymore rCo itrCOs just noise.
--
penninojim@yahoo.com
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2