bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

> Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> > On 04/04/24 17:37, bertietaylor wrote:
> >> Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> >>> His starting point is that the equations of General Relativity
> >>> work equally well with time running forwards or backwards. So far,
> >>> that's in agreement with mainstream thinking. But from this he
> >>> creates a scenario where matter that falls into a black hole can
> >>> get close to the singularity, in a region where General Relativity
> >>> does not hold, and then be time-reversed and bounce back out as the
> >>> product of a white hole.
> >>
> >>> [My immediate reaction: if a time-reversed object travels out of
> >>> the hole, then those of us who live forward in time will see it as
> >>> falling into the hole. But maybe I've missed his point.]
> >>
> >>> What is the reason such a bounce is possible? Well, Dante
> >>> explained that. You can travel down to the innermost part of Hell,
> >>> and there you will find ... not a singularity, but a way to exit
> >>> from Hell. QED.
> >>
> >>> Have I missed seeing something important?
> >>
> >> Gravitons!
> >>
> >> They are the basic to quantum entanglement. In a quantum entangled
> >> world, one can assume that gravitons fill the void called space, with
> >> instantaneous communication from any point to the other. The ancient
> >> "action at a distance" principle for gravity remains valid!!!!!
>
> > Traditional action at a distance has a time delay. For example, if an
> > electron suddenly came into existence, the resulting change in the
> > electric field would propagate outwards at the speed of light. The
> > concept of quantum entanglement is upsetting because it suggests that
> > information can be communicated at greater than the speed of light.
> > That, in turn, says that Special Relativity is wrong. Which brings a
> > whole lot of theory tumbling down ... is Arindam reading this?
>
> > Long-distance communication via gravity waves does assume a time delay,
> > so it's not a quantum entanglement effect. As I understand it, quantum
> > entanglement does not allow any information transfer, and that's how a
> > paradox is avoided.
>
> >> It is charming to bring in an ancient poet to a modern physics
> >> discussion. What wonderful insights great poets have!
>
> > Charming? From an artistic viewpoint, yes. But I reject the suggestion
> > that Dante's opinions had any relationship to reality.
>
> Action of a distance theory was proposed long before electrons were known,
> let alone their sudden appearance disturbing the law of conservation of
> mass.
>
> The movement of stars indicate action of a distance, since a change of
> motion of one star instantaneously changes the motion of another, light
> years away

Huh? Who observed that, and when?
And how did some person achieve such an observation?

> - like an electrostatic field, the study of which led to action
> at a distance. (Increase a potential here, thus enhance the electric field
> and measure the corresponding force there, happenign at the same time.)

Huh? again. Electrostatics is about, the word says it, -statics-.
No change in time, hence no speed of propagation is involved.

> Varying electric fields came later and yes they do relate to the speed of
> light.

Indeed. Maxwell constructed his equations in such a way
that waves propagating at the speed of light do come out.
(because of experimental hints that this needed to be the case)

> Following Einstein: The spacetime geodesic is independent of
> electromagnetic fields, for the aether theory is no longer considered
> valid. Gravitons, then, replace aetheric components for the transfer of
> forces, on the purely theoretical basis.

Gobbledygook,

Jan

J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:

>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 13:18:38 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com
>> (bertietaylor) wrote:
>>
>> >I tried Arindam with some other keywords such as energy and relativity in
>> >Google. It did turn up one Arindam Banerjee who was branded a fraud and
>> >shame of IIT by someone called Jai Maharaj. And yes I found in
>> >sci.physics.relativity a very recent post by perhaps that person quoting
>> >Tesla about Tesla's thoughts on relativity.
>> >That was interesting!

> Summary: Tesla was a brilliant scientist/engineer when young,
> and a crackpot in old age.

An arbitrary statement.

>> >I take it that Arindam may have some background in electrical
>> >engineering. Electrical engineers are not always keen on relativity
>> >theories.
>> >
>>
>> IIRC, his physics department rejected his thesis and
>> refused to grant him a Ph.D.
>>
>> He was probably specific about what was in the thesis,
>> but that detail did not stick. I read him in some cites by
>> people who might have had something to say. Kill-filing
>> by eyeball.

That is mean, so I followed his links and what shall I say, I am enchanted!

> IIRC same subject: lack of momentum conservation in rail guns.
> There have indeed been some controversies about the subject.

Yes, and Arindam tried to resolve those issues, by making a new design rail gun which was so light that it could be suspended as a pendulum, and that showed lack of momentum conservation; but was not given a PhD as he was told that he had not made a working model of a rail gun.

As far as is known, no one has tried to repeat his experiments.

On the other hand, the US Navy has made a railgun following Arindam's new design! Arindam seems elated at this appropriation of his invention, which he claims is more than a 100 times better than the earlier design railgun that followed conventional artillery barrel thinking.

> Another is that the sbject has to often been dealt with
> by, how shall I say it, less than competent people.

> Less mildly, a lot of nonsense has been written about.
> Summary: Electromagnetic railguns do conserve momentum,
> just like everything else.

Another arbitrary statement.

> (but it is not always immediately obvious where the forces act)

So where do they?

> Jan

> The problem is that at least some of the compoments are heavy,
> and need to be bolted down. so the Earth may take up momentum.

Yes, that seems to have been the problem.
The Earth may NOT take up the momentum.

bt

* (Mark Brader) <SZidnae0ge0cooz7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> :
Wrote on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 12:26:41 +0000:

> Bertel Lund Hansen:
>> I may have told this before, but here goes:
>>
>> A man is driving along the highway when he hears a traffic message over
>> the radio:
>>
>> Here is a warning: A ghost driver is currently driving on the
>> highway between London and Southhampton.
>>
>> - One? There are hundreds!
>
> I believe you mean "There is currently a driver using the wrong side of
> the road between London and Southhampton."

I coulnd't grep it under usr/share/fortune, but from "THE WEB"

%
As a senior citizen was driving down the freeway, his car phone rang.
Answering, he heard his wife's voice urgently warning him, "Herman, I
just heard on the news that there's a car going the wrong way on
280. Please be careful!"

"Hell," said Herman, "It's not just one car. It's hundreds of them!"
%

This is all I found in fortune

%
There is a lady driving down a one way street going the wrong way, and
a policeman hails her over to the curb and says, "Hey, lady! Didn't
you see the arrows?"
To which the lady replies, "Sorry, officer. I didn't even see the indians!"

The same lady is driving down another one way street going the wrong
way, and ANOTHER policemen waves her down and says, "Hey lady! This
is one way!"
To which the lady replies, "But officer, I'm only going one way!"

The lady is driving down ANOTHER one way street going the wrong way,
and another policeman pulls her over and says, "Hey, lady! Where do
ya think yer goin?"
To which she says, (she's getting good at this by now) "I don't know
officer. But I must be late. They're all coming back!"
%

On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 01:04:39 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com
(bertietaylor) wrote:

me >
>>> He was probably specific about what was in the thesis,
>>> but that detail did not stick. I read him in some cites by
>>> people who might have had something to say. Kill-filing
>>> by eyeball.
>
>That is mean, so I followed his links and what shall I say, I am enchanted!

I'm sorry. That does sound mean of me, and I usually try to avoid
sounding mean.

When aue had hundreds of posts every day, I did a lot of
kill-filing of entire threads by eyeball. There was enough for
me to read when I read posts, plus their threads, by names
I knew might say "something I would understand and that
would interest me." - More completely and kindly, I would
have included that sort of qualification.

--
Rich Ulrich

On 6 Apr 2024 at 12:26:41, msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> Bertel Lund Hansen:
>> I may have told this before, but here goes:
>>
>> A man is driving along the highway when he hears a traffic message over
>> the radio:
>>
>> Here is a warning: A ghost driver is currently driving on the
>> highway between London and Southhampton.
>>
>> - One? There are hundreds!
>
> I believe you mean "There is currently a driver using the wrong side of
> the road between London and Southhampton."

It's Southampton.

Mark Brader wrote:

>> Here is a warning: A ghost driver is currently driving on the
>> highway between London and Southhampton.

> I believe you mean "There is currently a driver using the wrong side of
> the road between London and Southhampton."

I do. Isn't there a name for this in English? We call them "ghost
drivers" (spøgelses-bilister) in Danish.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

Bertel Lund Hansen suggested that ...
> Mark Brader wrote:
>
>>> Here is a warning: A ghost driver is currently driving on the
>>> highway between London and Southhampton.
>
>> I believe you mean "There is currently a driver using the wrong side of
>> the road between London and Southhampton."
>
> I do. Isn't there a name for this in English? We call them "ghost
> drivers" (spøgelses-bilister) in Danish.

Wrong-way drivers.

/dps

--
Yes, I have had a cucumber soda. Why do you ask?

Le 07/04/2024 à 10:17, Snidely a écrit :
> Bertel Lund Hansen suggested that ...
>> Mark Brader wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>       Here is a warning: A ghost driver is currently driving on the
>>>>       highway between London and Southhampton.
>>>
>>> I believe you mean "There is currently a driver using the wrong side of
>>> the road between London and Southhampton."
>>
>> I do. Isn't there a name for this in English? We call them "ghost
>> drivers" (spøgelses-bilister) in Danish.

Not very appropriate, I think, since it suggests one could pass through
them.

Reminds me of my theory about phone zombies. Since they are in
cyberspace, and not really present in this breathing world, I reasoned,
one should be able to walk through them. Much to their surprise, this
turns out to be false.

> Wrong-way drivers.

Dead man driving.

Hibou wrote:

> Dead man driving.

That suggests that they have had a fatal heart attack.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 13:18:38 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com
> >> (bertietaylor) wrote:
> >>
> >> >I tried Arindam with some other keywords such as energy and relativity in
> >> >Google. It did turn up one Arindam Banerjee who was branded a fraud and
> >> >shame of IIT by someone called Jai Maharaj. And yes I found in
> >> >sci.physics.relativity a very recent post by perhaps that person quoting
> >> >Tesla about Tesla's thoughts on relativity.
> >> >That was interesting!
>
> > Summary: Tesla was a brilliant scientist/engineer when young,
> > and a crackpot in old age.
>
> An arbitrary statement.

Yes, merely factual.

[snip railguns]
Sorry, no crackpot physics discussion in AUE.
Take it elsewhere, where it is on topic.

> > Another is that the sbject has to often been dealt with
> > by, how shall I say it, less than competent people.
>
> > Less mildly, a lot of nonsense has been written about.
> > Summary: Electromagnetic railguns do conserve momentum,
> > just like everything else.
>
> Another arbitrary statement.

Yes, merely laws of physcs.

Jan

PS (not for discussion here)
Like for all perpetum mobile inventors:
If our resident genius wants to be taken seriously
he should explain what is wrong with Maxwell/Lorentz,
and how their equations must be modified.
(without coming into conflict with 150 years
of science and engineering experience.

Le 07/04/2024 à 10:40, Bertel Lund Hansen a écrit :
> Hibou wrote:
>>
>> Dead man driving.
>
> That suggests that they have had a fatal heart attack.

I don't think so. I think all native speakers would see the parallel
with 'dead man walking' - someone who is alive but doomed.

<https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/dead-man-walking>

On 07/04/24 11:04, bertietaylor wrote:
>> Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:

[Arindam]
>>> IIRC, his physics department rejected his thesis and refused to
>>> grant him a Ph.D. He was probably specific about what was in the
>>> thesis, but that detail did not stick. I read him in some cites
>>> by people who might have had something to say. Kill-filing by
>>> eyeball.
>
> That is mean, so I followed his links and what shall I say, I am
> enchanted!

Nevertheless, the people who understand physics were not enchanted.
There were so many holes in his "logic" that he ends up making no sense
at all. For a while we regarded it as a comedy act, but in the long run
it was just boring.

By the way, nobody can get a PhD by designing and building a railgun,
although it might qualify as a good undergraduate project. A PhD
typically requires new original theory, or a major contribution to the
state of the art. If the examiners failed his PhD submission, it would
have been for serious faults in the theory.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 07/04/24 19:40, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Hibou wrote:
>
>> Dead man driving.
>
> That suggests that they have had a fatal heart attack.

No, the idiom does not mean literally dead (yet). It means they are on
their way to a fatal event.

ObWeirdNews: last week a two-year-old fell into a swimming pool. The
girl's father and grandfather both jumped in to rescue her, and both
died of heart failure.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

> Mark Brader wrote:
>
> >> Here is a warning: A ghost driver is currently driving on the
> >> highway between London and Southhampton.
>
> > I believe you mean "There is currently a driver using the wrong side of
> > the road between London and Southhampton."
>
> I do. Isn't there a name for this in English? We call them "ghost
> drivers" (spøgelses-bilister) in Danish.

Pensioners. <darfc>

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator

My pet rock Gordon just is.

J. J. Lodder wrote:

> bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>> > Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 13:18:38 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com
>> >> (bertietaylor) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I tried Arindam with some other keywords such as energy and relativity in
>> >> >Google. It did turn up one Arindam Banerjee who was branded a fraud and
>> >> >shame of IIT by someone called Jai Maharaj. And yes I found in
>> >> >sci.physics.relativity a very recent post by perhaps that person quoting
>> >> >Tesla about Tesla's thoughts on relativity.
>> >> >That was interesting!
>>
>> > Summary: Tesla was a brilliant scientist/engineer when young,
>> > and a crackpot in old age.
>>
>> An arbitrary statement.

> Yes, merely factual.

Opinion is not fact.

> [snip railguns]
> Sorry, no crackpot physics discussion in AUE.
> Take it elsewhere, where it is on topic.

Tell that to Peter Moylan. He started it, and that caught my interest.
Who are you to give orders?

>> > Another is that the sbject has to often been dealt with
>> > by, how shall I say it, less than competent people.
>>
>> > Less mildly, a lot of nonsense has been written about.
>> > Summary: Electromagnetic railguns do conserve momentum,
>> > just like everything else.
>>
>> Another arbitrary statement.

> Yes, merely laws of physcs.

As currently understood, but all scientific laws are provisional. Change is the way for progress and also regress.

> Jan

> PS (not for discussion here)
> Like for all perpetum mobile inventors:
> If our resident genius wants to be taken seriously
> he should explain what is wrong with Maxwell/Lorentz,
> and how their equations must be modified.
> (without coming into conflict with 150 years
> of science and engineering experience.

Does he care to be taken seriously by those he despises?

On 2024-04-05 07:52:46 +0000, occam said:

> On 04/04/2024 23:04, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/04/2024 15:16, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think Arindam gave up on this group long ago because he couldn't find
>>>> anyone to accept his claptrap.
>>>
>>> I think he was forced to give up this group (an others) because he was
>>> posting via GG. Like one other ex-poster, he could not figure out how to
>>> post using a proper user agent.
>>>
>>>> He's recently become quite noticeable at
>>>> sci.physics.relativity.
>>>
>>> Are you sure? How recently? Look at his latest post and let us know
>>> what he is using as a user agent - if not GG?
>>
>> He is using NemoWeb, like many other Google escapees,
>> Used to post to sci.physics, but that group has been taken over
>> completely by Russian trolls, so he has moved to sci.physics.relativity.
>> The content remains unchanged,
>>
Arindam favoured sci.physics.relativity with a post today. I checked
the headers and confirmed what Jan says.
>
> 'Russian trolls'? Are these anything like Russian dolls? You peel away
> one layer, and there is another one inside ?

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On 07-Apr-24 10:48, Hibou wrote:
> Le 07/04/2024 à 10:40, Bertel Lund Hansen a écrit :
>> Hibou wrote:
>>>
>>> Dead man driving.
>>
>> That suggests that they have had a fatal heart attack.
>
> I don't think so. I think all native speakers would see the parallel
> with 'dead man walking' - someone who is alive but doomed.
>
> <https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/dead-man-walking>

How about the honour guard they take to Valhalla with them?

(They usually collide with someone.)

--
Sam Plusnet

Peter Moylan wrote:

> On 07/04/24 11:04, bertietaylor wrote:
>>> Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:

> [Arindam]
>>>> IIRC, his physics department rejected his thesis and refused to
>>>> grant him a Ph.D. He was probably specific about what was in the
>>>> thesis, but that detail did not stick. I read him in some cites
>>>> by people who might have had something to say. Kill-filing by
>>>> eyeball.
>>
>> That is mean, so I followed his links and what shall I say, I am
>> enchanted!

> Nevertheless, the people who understand physics were not enchanted.

Either Arindam is nuts or the physicists are nuts. Logically!
> There were so many holes in his "logic" that he ends up making no sense
> at all.

I did not find any holes in his logic. He showed that inertia was violated when

his rail gun moved forward when the heavy bullet was arrested in the barrel. A totally new experiment with a new apparatus which could be both a gun or a motor. It also upsets the most fundamental law in physics.

Now the last bit indicates why physicists avoid Arindam. Hmm. He is not the first original thinker to be persecuted for demonstrating originality.

I don't see why he should be killfiled by everyone here. It takes all sorts, what.

For a while we regarded it as a comedy act, but in the long run
> it was just boring.

> By the way, nobody can get a PhD by designing and building a railgun,
> although it might qualify as a good undergraduate project. A PhD
> typically requires new original theory, or a major contribution to the
> state of the art. If the examiners failed his PhD submission, it would
> have been for serious faults in the theory.

J. J. Lodder wrote:

> bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>
>> > On 04/04/24 17:37, bertietaylor wrote:
>> >> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>
>> >>> His starting point is that the equations of General Relativity
>> >>> work equally well with time running forwards or backwards. So far,
>> >>> that's in agreement with mainstream thinking. But from this he
>> >>> creates a scenario where matter that falls into a black hole can
>> >>> get close to the singularity, in a region where General Relativity
>> >>> does not hold, and then be time-reversed and bounce back out as the
>> >>> product of a white hole.
>> >>
>> >>> [My immediate reaction: if a time-reversed object travels out of
>> >>> the hole, then those of us who live forward in time will see it as
>> >>> falling into the hole. But maybe I've missed his point.]
>> >>
>> >>> What is the reason such a bounce is possible? Well, Dante
>> >>> explained that. You can travel down to the innermost part of Hell,
>> >>> and there you will find ... not a singularity, but a way to exit
>> >>> from Hell. QED.
>> >>
>> >>> Have I missed seeing something important?
>> >>
>> >> Gravitons!
>> >>
>> >> They are the basic to quantum entanglement. In a quantum entangled
>> >> world, one can assume that gravitons fill the void called space, with
>> >> instantaneous communication from any point to the other. The ancient
>> >> "action at a distance" principle for gravity remains valid!!!!!
>>
>> > Traditional action at a distance has a time delay. For example, if an
>> > electron suddenly came into existence, the resulting change in the
>> > electric field would propagate outwards at the speed of light. The
>> > concept of quantum entanglement is upsetting because it suggests that
>> > information can be communicated at greater than the speed of light.
>> > That, in turn, says that Special Relativity is wrong. Which brings a
>> > whole lot of theory tumbling down ... is Arindam reading this?
>>
>> > Long-distance communication via gravity waves does assume a time delay,
>> > so it's not a quantum entanglement effect. As I understand it, quantum
>> > entanglement does not allow any information transfer, and that's how a
>> > paradox is avoided.
>>
>> >> It is charming to bring in an ancient poet to a modern physics
>> >> discussion. What wonderful insights great poets have!
>>
>> > Charming? From an artistic viewpoint, yes. But I reject the suggestion
>> > that Dante's opinions had any relationship to reality.
>>
>> Action of a distance theory was proposed long before electrons were known,
>> let alone their sudden appearance disturbing the law of conservation of
>> mass.
>>
>> The movement of stars indicate action of a distance, since a change of
>> motion of one star instantaneously changes the motion of another, light
>> years away

> Huh? Who observed that, and when?
> And how did some person achieve such an observation?

All persons know that gravity is distance independent. All masses are tied together by strange invisible strings. Call them lines of force. Or gravitons making up the strings. A tug from motion has instant impact irrespective of distance but subject to the inverse square law. Such strings or lines of force tie us to the Sun, Moon, planets and stars and galaxies.

>> - like an electrostatic field, the study of which led to action
>> at a distance. (Increase a potential here, thus enhance the electric field
>> and measure the corresponding force there, happenign at the same time.)

> Huh? again. Electrostatics is about, the word says it, -statics-.
> No change in time, hence no speed of propagation is involved.

Quite, so there is distance independence.

>> Varying electric fields came later and yes they do relate to the speed of
>> light.

> Indeed. Maxwell constructed his equations in such a way
> that waves propagating at the speed of light do come out.
> (because of experimental hints that this needed to be the case)

Other way around.

>> Following Einstein: The spacetime geodesic is independent of
>> electromagnetic fields, for the aether theory is no longer considered
>> valid. Gravitons, then, replace aetheric components for the transfer of
>> forces, on the purely theoretical basis.

> Gobbledygook,

Or new wisdom like black holes. Anyway, just theoretical.

bt

> Jan

On 07/04/24 23:12, bertietaylor wrote:
> J. J. Lodder wrote:

>> [snip railguns]
>> Sorry, no crackpot physics discussion in AUE.
>> Take it elsewhere, where it is on topic.
>
> Tell that to Peter Moylan. He started it, and that caught my
> interest. Who are you to give orders?

I think this qualifies, at least peripherally, as a use/mention
distinction. I mentioned a crackpot. I did not recommend him.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:04:22 +1000, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 07/04/24 11:04, bertietaylor wrote:
>>> Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>[Arindam]
>>>> IIRC, his physics department rejected his thesis and refused to
>>>> grant him a Ph.D. He was probably specific about what was in the
>>>> thesis, but that detail did not stick. I read him in some cites
>>>> by people who might have had something to say. Kill-filing by
>>>> eyeball.
>>
>> That is mean, so I followed his links and what shall I say, I am
>> enchanted!
>
>Nevertheless, the people who understand physics were not enchanted.
>There were so many holes in his "logic" that he ends up making no sense
>at all. For a while we regarded it as a comedy act, but in the long run
>it was just boring.
>
>By the way, nobody can get a PhD by designing and building a railgun,
>although it might qualify as a good undergraduate project. A PhD

The U.S. will not award a patent for a perpetual motion machine
unless you provide a working model. I think that is an actual rule,
but I don't remmeber a statement by an authority.

On reading about the rail gun provided for his Ph.D., I assumed
it was supposed to be a similar sort of demonstration. If
momentum is not conserved, show us.

>typically requires new original theory, or a major contribution to the
>state of the art. If the examiners failed his PhD submission, it would
>have been for serious faults in the theory.

--
Rich Ulrich

Rich Ulrich wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:04:22 +1000, Peter Moylan
> <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>>On 07/04/24 11:04, bertietaylor wrote:
>>>> Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>[Arindam]
>>>>> IIRC, his physics department rejected his thesis and refused to
>>>>> grant him a Ph.D. He was probably specific about what was in the
>>>>> thesis, but that detail did not stick. I read him in some cites
>>>>> by people who might have had something to say. Kill-filing by
>>>>> eyeball.
>>>
>>> That is mean, so I followed his links and what shall I say, I am
>>> enchanted!
>>
>>Nevertheless, the people who understand physics were not enchanted.
>>There were so many holes in his "logic" that he ends up making no sense
>>at all. For a while we regarded it as a comedy act, but in the long run
>>it was just boring.
>>
>>By the way, nobody can get a PhD by designing and building a railgun,
>>although it might qualify as a good undergraduate project. A PhD

> The U.S. will not award a patent for a perpetual motion machine
> unless you provide a working model. I think that is an actual rule,
> but I don't remmeber a statement by an authority.

Good idea from the US.

> On reading about the rail gun provided for his Ph.D., I assumed
> it was supposed to be a similar sort of demonstration. If
> momentum is not conserved, show us.

He has done that. The links are there in sci.physics where they should belong (and not here).

>>typically requires new original theory, or a major contribution to the
>>state of the art. If the examiners failed his PhD submission, it would
>>have been for serious faults in the theory.

Or they were corrupt.

bt.

Peter Moylan wrote:

> On 07/04/24 23:12, bertietaylor wrote:
>> J. J. Lodder wrote:

>>> [snip railguns]
>>> Sorry, no crackpot physics discussion in AUE.
>>> Take it elsewhere, where it is on topic.
>>
>> Tell that to Peter Moylan. He started it, and that caught my
>> interest. Who are you to give orders?

> I think this qualifies, at least peripherally, as a use/mention
> distinction. I mentioned a crackpot. I did not recommend him.

You referred to him as someone who could be interested about white holes with its special relativity implications, and asked whether he was reading your post. Was he in the group? I don't think at that stage you mentioned him as a crackpot. I got the impression he was some kind of authority in physics. Others said he had departed, finding no support here for his crackpot theories. You added that he has been killfiled by everyone who was worthy here, but he did manifest at times in the writings of those not killfiled but were replying to him. That excited my interest in Arindam, thanks. I was puzzled as to why someone who did not break any UseNet etiquette nor community rules, should be so massively outcasted and vilified by the entire group of the worthiest people one may find in cyberspace.

Even if he was a crackpot, I wondered why he managed to generate so much hatred; after following his links with one leading to his Facebook timeline I think I have found the answer.

bt

On Sun, 07 Apr 2024 00:51:12 -0400, Rich Ulrich
<rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:

>When aue had hundreds of posts every day, I did a lot of
>kill-filing of entire threads by eyeball. There was enough for
>me to read when I read posts, plus their threads, by names
>I knew might say "something I would understand and that
>would interest me." - More completely and kindly, I would
>have included that sort of qualification.

One of my criteria for skipping threads was that if the subject line
began with a lower-case letter it was probably posted by someone who
had nothing useful to say about English usage. I hope I haven't
skipped any posts by e.e. cummings.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

bertietaylor wrote:

> Even if he was a crackpot, I wondered why he managed to generate so
> much hatred; after following his links with one leading to his
> Facebook timeline I think I have found the answer.

If you call that hatred, you don't want to see real hate.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark