or is the question itself wrong in some way?
or is the question itself wrong in some way?
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 18:10:56 +0000, kami wrote:
or is the question itself wrong in some way?
Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon relating to infinity. Lines of
force emanate from any electron or proton to all others in the infinite universe.
On 21-Sept-24 2:10 am, kami wrote:
or is the question itself wrong in some way?
Consider the scenario where a photon goes through a double slit. A
photon has mass, and things with mass interact through the gravitational field.
So even after the photon passes through the double slit, there is going
to be some interaction with other things possessing mass. The task is to quantitatively describe that interaction.
Whether you call that quantization of gravity or not, the resulting
theory is going to have to handle the quantum nature of photons.
Of course, the problem we have at the moment is that we cannot perform
the required measurements to provide input to the theoreticians, nor
test any theories they may devise.
Sylvia.
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 22:54:51 +0000, bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 18:10:56 +0000, kami wrote:
or is the question itself wrong in some way?
Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon relating to infinity. Lines of
force emanate from any electron or proton to all others in the infinite
universe.
Since infinity is involved in gravity, there is no scope for
quantisation.
On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 07:50:26 +0000, bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 22:54:51 +0000, bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 18:10:56 +0000, kami wrote:
or is the question itself wrong in some way?
Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon relating to infinity. Lines of
force emanate from any electron or proton to all others in the infinite
universe.
Since infinity is involved in gravity, there is no scope for
quantisation.
there is one infinity which is pending renormalization which is
the singularity.
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 5:52:57 +0000, kami wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 07:50:26 +0000, bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 22:54:51 +0000, bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 18:10:56 +0000, kami wrote:
or is the question itself wrong in some way?
Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon relating to infinity. Lines of
force emanate from any electron or proton to all others in the infinite >>>> universe.
Since infinity is involved in gravity, there is no scope for
quantisation.
there is one infinity which is pending renormalization which is
the singularity.
The singularity of the infinite universe is compksed of infinite
infinities, all infinitely small to the level of non-existence, thus
offering no resistance to ever moving individual finite charges.
Such is the design of the universe as understood by Arindam.
Woof-woof
Bertietaylor
or is the question itself wrong in some way?
On 9/20/24 11:10, kami wrote:
or is the question itself wrong in some way?
Electtrons are 'quantized'.
In other words, they have a specific charge and mass, and
do not have an infinitely fine gradation of possible charges
and masses.
Is the charge and mass of the electron explicitly derived
from quarks and plank's constant?
Electrons obey Fermi-Dirac Statistics.
That means they obey the 'Pauli Exclusion Principle.
Only one of them can exist in a specific state, and so
the effect is that they take up space, and using common
terminology, are often called 'matter'.
Light however obeys Bose-Einstein statistics. There can
be more than one increment of energy or momentum transfer
in a waveform.
It does not 'take up space' like 'matter' does.
As for gravity, there are basic questions. Does static
electricity 'bend spacetime' in one direction for a positive
charge and 'bend spacetime' in the opposite direction for
a negative charge?
Is that 'unthinkable'? Why or why not?
Once upon a time, the word 'atom' meant 'that which can not
be cut'. When they found that they could 'cut' atoms however
they did not change the terminology. In a lot of ways the
ancient 'atom' is the modern 'quantum'.
As for gravity, there is the basic question, how is it formed?
Is it produced in some ways like the 'quanta' of light (photons)
in that it transfers energy or momentum in increments that
depend on something called a 'wavelength' or 'frequency' of
light?
How gravity might come into existence might have something
that then might relate to whether gravity transfers energy
or momentum to other objects in quantized increments or
not.
If one needs to ask who is Arindam one need not know.
The cause of gravity has been explained by Arindam in his essay
on that
subject, with supporting diagrams.
Bertietaylor wrote:
If one needs to ask who is Arindam one need not know.
well one will not know about arindam if one is not informed.
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 10:06:03 +0000, kazu wrote:
Bertietaylor wrote:
If one needs to ask who is Arindam one need not know.
well one will not know about arindam if one is not informed.
Hopefully that information will be available to all in public media
within a few years. Arindam has been well known in several usenet
groups
including this. One needs a certain minimum search skills.
Bertietaylor wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 10:06:03 +0000, kazu wrote:
Bertietaylor wrote:
If one needs to ask who is Arindam one need not know.
well one will not know about arindam if one is not informed.
Hopefully that information will be available to all in public media
within a few years. Arindam has been well known in several usenet
groups
including this. One needs a certain minimum search skills.
aah, well then i shall wait for it to become public.
Bertietaylor wrote:
The cause of gravity has been explained by Arindam in his essay
on that
subject, with supporting diagrams.
who is arindam??
kazu <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Bertietaylor wrote:
The cause of gravity has been explained by Arindam in his essay
on that
subject, with supporting diagrams.
who is arindam??
The raving crackpot alternate personality for this raving crackpot.
Old Penisnino still around.
Jim Pennino wrote:
kazu <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Bertietaylor wrote:
The cause of gravity has been explained by Arindam in his essay
on that
subject, with supporting diagrams.
who is arindam??
The raving crackpot alternate personality for this raving crackpot.
if he could provide one definite testable prediction of this
arindam thing.
All Penisnino can do is pull down his pants to make rude gestures. Metaphorically.
Arindam's theories and rail gun experiment have demolished E=mcc
physics.
Check out his inertia violation experiment with his new design rail gun.
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
All Penisnino can do is pull down his pants to make rude gestures.
Metaphorically.
Still penis obsessed, I see.
Arindam's theories and rail gun experiment have demolished E=mcc
physics.
Both your "theories" and "experiments" are laughable, delusional
nonsense,
Arindam. Where are your data, math, and predictions, Arindam?
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 0:54:54 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
All Penisnino can do is pull down his pants to make rude gestures.
Metaphorically.
Still penis obsessed, I see.
No, fool.
Arindam's theories and rail gun experiment have demolished E=mcc
physics.
Both your "theories" and "experiments" are laughable, delusional
nonsense,
Arindam. Where are your data, math, and predictions, Arindam?
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 7:31:47 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 0:54:54 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
All Penisnino can do is pull down his pants to make rude gestures.
Metaphorically.
Still penis obsessed, I see.
No, fool.
Arindam's theories and rail gun experiment have demolished E=mcc
physics.
Both your "theories" and "experiments" are laughable, delusional
nonsense,
Arindam. Where are your data, math, and predictions, Arindam?
Arindam has posted all of them online over the decades, Penisnino.
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 12:59:35 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 7:31:47 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 0:54:54 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
All Penisnino can do is pull down his pants to make rude gestures. >>>>>> Metaphorically.
Still penis obsessed, I see.
No, fool.
Arindam's theories and rail gun experiment have demolished E=mcc
physics.
Both your "theories" and "experiments" are laughable, delusional
nonsense,
Arindam. Where are your data, math, and predictions, Arindam?
Arindam has posted all of them online over the decades, Penisnino.
Still penis obsessed like a 10 year
Yes, I know you have posted your laughable experiments that contain no
data and no math over and over, Arindam.
They do.
They make supreme sense unlike all the relativity crap.
Values have got inverted with the supremacy of Einstein's
pseudo-science.
Where science is all about extorting money from various foolish sources blinded by fear and propaganda.
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 7:31:47 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 0:54:54 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
All Penisnino can do is pull down his pants to make rude gestures.
Metaphorically.
Still penis obsessed, I see.
No, fool.
Arindam's theories and rail gun experiment have demolished E=mcc
physics.
Both your "theories" and "experiments" are laughable, delusional
nonsense,
Arindam. Where are your data, math, and predictions, Arindam?
Arindam has posted all of them online over the decades, Penisnino.
Still penis obsessed like a 10 year
Yes, I know you have posted your laughable experiments that contain no
data and no math over and over, Arindam.
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 12:59:35 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 7:31:47 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 0:54:54 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
All Penisnino can do is pull down his pants to make rude gestures. >>>>>>> Metaphorically.
Still penis obsessed, I see.
No, fool.
Arindam's theories and rail gun experiment have demolished E=mcc >>>>>>> physics.
Both your "theories" and "experiments" are laughable, delusional
nonsense,
Arindam. Where are your data, math, and predictions, Arindam?
Arindam has posted all of them online over the decades, Penisnino.
Still penis obsessed like a 10 year
Yes, I know you have posted your laughable experiments that contain no
data and no math over and over, Arindam.
They do.
They make supreme sense unlike all the relativity crap.
Values have got inverted with the supremacy of Einstein's
pseudo-science.
Where science is all about extorting money from various foolish sources
blinded by fear and propaganda.
Delusional babble of a crackpot.
Having watched your videos I have to ask, what is it that you think is
new in YOUR railgun in one sentence? Where is your math that shows it is anything new?
A railgun is defined as parallel conductors with a conductive armature
or projectile that moves along the rails by electically generated
force, which is exactly what your railgun is, nothing more, nothing
less and nothing new, Arindam.
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:00:12 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Having watched your videos I have to ask, what is it that you think is
new in YOUR railgun in one sentence? Where is your math that shows it is
anything new?
Heavy armature, very low voltage, very light weight.
It is a new design
rail gun which proved Arindam's thesis that it has no reaction by easily reproducible experiment. Which is the greatest science discovery of our
time.
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:00:12 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip old crap>
Having watched your videos I have to ask, what is it that you think is
new in YOUR railgun in one sentence? Where is your math that shows it is >>> anything new?
Heavy armature, very low voltage, very light weight.
Nothing new there whatsoever.
It is a new design
rail gun which proved Arindam's thesis that it has no reaction by easily
reproducible experiment. Which is the greatest science discovery of our
time.
Yet you have no details, no instrumentation, no data and no analysis
with error bars that prove anything. Just crackpot ravings.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 12:39:22 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:00:12 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip old crap>
Having watched your videos I have to ask, what is it that you think is >>>> new in YOUR railgun in one sentence? Where is your math that shows it is >>>> anything new?
Heavy armature, very low voltage, very light weight.
Nothing new there whatsoever.
Keep on lying.
It is a new design
rail gun which proved Arindam's thesis that it has no reaction by easily >>> reproducible experiment. Which is the greatest science discovery of our
time.
Yet you have no details, no instrumentation, no data and no analysis
with error bars that prove anything. Just crackpot ravings.
Keep on lying. What better to expect from racist bigots!
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 12:39:22 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:00:12 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip old crap>
Having watched your videos I have to ask, what is it that you think is >>>>> new in YOUR railgun in one sentence? Where is your math that shows it is >>>>> anything new?
Heavy armature, very low voltage, very light weight.
Nothing new there whatsoever.
Keep on lying.
It is a new design
rail gun which proved Arindam's thesis that it has no reaction by easily >>>> reproducible experiment. Which is the greatest science discovery of our >>>> time.
Yet you have no details, no instrumentation, no data and no analysis
with error bars that prove anything. Just crackpot ravings.
Keep on lying. What better to expect from racist bigots!
Does your railgun have two parallel conductors connected to a DC power source?
Yes, nothing new there.
Does your railgun have a conductive armateur across the rails?
Yes, nothing new there.
Do you have any measurements that show your railgun does not follow the
same equations of all other railguns since 1917?
No, nothing new there.
Size, weight, and power supply size are irrelevant as railguns have been built using paper clips and a joule or so of energy to megajoule guns.
You have no data, no analysis, no math and nothing new, crackpot.
In one sentence, what is new about your railgun, crackpot?
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:40:09 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 12:39:22 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:00:12 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip old crap>
Having watched your videos I have to ask, what is it that you think is >>>>>> new in YOUR railgun in one sentence? Where is your math that shows it is >>>>>> anything new?
Heavy armature, very low voltage, very light weight.
Nothing new there whatsoever.
Keep on lying.
It is a new design
rail gun which proved Arindam's thesis that it has no reaction by easily >>>>> reproducible experiment. Which is the greatest science discovery of our >>>>> time.
Yet you have no details, no instrumentation, no data and no analysis
with error bars that prove anything. Just crackpot ravings.
Keep on lying. What better to expect from racist bigots!
Does your railgun have two parallel conductors connected to a DC power
source?
Yes, nothing new there.
Did any other railgun design work in this manner?
Did any previous railgun design have manually portable low weight, low voltage, and very heavy armature?
NO
This PARTICULAR railgun ***design*** IS A NEW INVENTION.
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 12:39:22 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:00:12 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip old crap>
Having watched your videos I have to ask, what is it that you think is >>>>> new in YOUR railgun in one sentence? Where is your math that shows it is >>>>> anything new?
Heavy armature, very low voltage, very light weight.
Nothing new there whatsoever.
Keep on lying.
It is a new design
rail gun which proved Arindam's thesis that it has no reaction by easily >>>> reproducible experiment. Which is the greatest science discovery of our >>>> time.
Yet you have no details, no instrumentation, no data and no analysis
with error bars that prove anything. Just crackpot ravings.
Keep on lying. What better to expect from racist bigots!
Does your railgun have two parallel conductors connected to a DC power source?
Yes, nothing new there.
Does your railgun have a conductive armateur across the rails?
Yes, nothing new there.
Do you have any measurements that show your railgun does not follow the
same equations of all other railguns since 1917?
No, nothing new there.
Size, weight, and power supply size are irrelevant as railguns have been built using paper clips and a joule or so of energy to megajoule guns.
You have no data, no analysis, no math and nothing new, crackpot.
In one sentence, what is new about your railgun, crackpot?
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:40:09 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 12:39:22 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:00:12 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip old crap>
Having watched your videos I have to ask, what is it that you think is >>>>>> new in YOUR railgun in one sentence? Where is your math that shows it is >>>>>> anything new?
Heavy armature, very low voltage, very light weight.
Nothing new there whatsoever.
Keep on lying.
It is a new design
rail gun which proved Arindam's thesis that it has no reaction by easily >>>>> reproducible experiment. Which is the greatest science discovery of our >>>>> time.
Yet you have no details, no instrumentation, no data and no analysis
with error bars that prove anything. Just crackpot ravings.
Keep on lying. What better to expect from racist bigots!
Does your railgun have two parallel conductors connected to a DC power
source?
Yes, nothing new there.
Does your railgun have a conductive armateur across the rails?
Yes, nothing new there.
Do you have any measurements that show your railgun does not follow the
same equations of all other railguns since 1917?
No, nothing new there.
Size, weight, and power supply size are irrelevant as railguns have been
built using paper clips and a joule or so of energy to megajoule guns.
Different designs, fool. Not one of them could provide enough momentum
for inertia violation the way Arindam's new design does.
You have no data, no analysis, no math and nothing new, crackpot.
Lies. They are all given in detail online. Anyone can follow the links.
In one sentence, what is new about your railgun, crackpot?
Proved reaction less.
Thus completing Arindam's PhD thesis at RMIT Melbourne not that he
wants anything from them any more.
Enough satisfaction to have proved them and the physics world wrong.
Anyway to give the P* its due that one now does say that Arindam did
indeed make a working model of a railgun. This goes against what the
final viva committee at RMIT thought which thought was repeated in this newsgroup by whodat, Moroney, Alsing, etc. The viva committee said that Arindam did NOT make a working model of a railgun so his thesis that it
was performing reactionlessly (thus violating Newtonian laws) was to be dismissed.
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:40:09 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 12:39:22 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:00:12 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip old crap>
Having watched your videos I have to ask, what is it that you think is >>>>>>> new in YOUR railgun in one sentence? Where is your math that shows it is
anything new?
Heavy armature, very low voltage, very light weight.
Nothing new there whatsoever.
Keep on lying.
It is a new design
rail gun which proved Arindam's thesis that it has no reaction by easily >>>>>> reproducible experiment. Which is the greatest science discovery of our >>>>>> time.
Yet you have no details, no instrumentation, no data and no analysis >>>>> with error bars that prove anything. Just crackpot ravings.
Keep on lying. What better to expect from racist bigots!
Does your railgun have two parallel conductors connected to a DC power
source?
Yes, nothing new there.
Does your railgun have a conductive armateur across the rails?
Yes, nothing new there.
Do you have any measurements that show your railgun does not follow the
same equations of all other railguns since 1917?
No, nothing new there.
Size, weight, and power supply size are irrelevant as railguns have been >>> built using paper clips and a joule or so of energy to megajoule guns.
Different designs, fool. Not one of them could provide enough momentum
for inertia violation the way Arindam's new design does.
What are the force equations for this different design and where is the
data analysis that shows them to be true, crackpot.
What exactly is different about this design, crackpot?
You have no data, no analysis, no math and nothing new, crackpot.
Lies. They are all given in detail online. Anyone can follow the links.
I have found no data, no analysis, no math and nothing new in any of
your links, crackpot.
In one sentence, what is new about your railgun, crackpot?
Proved reaction less.
Proved by what since you have no data, no analysis, no math in any of
your posts, i.e. nothing but videos of your feet crackpot.
Thus completing Arindam's PhD thesis at RMIT Melbourne not that he
wants anything from them any more.
You mean the thesis that got you removed from the PhD program?
If your written thesis was as laughable as your videos, it is no wonder
you were removed crackpot.
Enough satisfaction to have proved them and the physics world wrong.
Anyway to give the P* its due that one now does say that Arindam did
indeed make a working model of a railgun. This goes against what the
final viva committee at RMIT thought which thought was repeated in this
newsgroup by whodat, Moroney, Alsing, etc. The viva committee said that
Arindam did NOT make a working model of a railgun so his thesis that it
was performing reactionlessly (thus violating Newtonian laws) was to be
dismissed.
Of course it was dismissed and it still would be dismissed as videos of
your feet prove nothing other than you have bad taste in footwear
crackpot.
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:40:09 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 12:39:22 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:00:12 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip old crap>
Having watched your videos I have to ask, what is it that you think is >>>>>>> new in YOUR railgun in one sentence? Where is your math that shows it is
anything new?
Heavy armature, very low voltage, very light weight.
Nothing new there whatsoever.
Keep on lying.
It is a new design
rail gun which proved Arindam's thesis that it has no reaction by easily >>>>>> reproducible experiment. Which is the greatest science discovery of our >>>>>> time.
Yet you have no details, no instrumentation, no data and no analysis >>>>> with error bars that prove anything. Just crackpot ravings.
Keep on lying. What better to expect from racist bigots!
Does your railgun have two parallel conductors connected to a DC power
source?
Yes, nothing new there.
Did any other railgun design work in this manner?
Did any previous railgun design have manually portable low weight, low
voltage, and very heavy armature?
NO
Yes.
This PARTICULAR railgun ***design*** IS A NEW INVENTION.
Nope.
The mathmatics that describes how railguns work has been known for a
long time.
How is the mathmatics that describes how your railguns works any
different crackpot?
Oh, sorry, I forgot, you have no mathmatics, crackpot.
<snip information free kook babble unread>
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:29:35 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:40:09 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 12:39:22 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:00:12 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip old crap>
Having watched your videos I have to ask, what is it that you think is >>>>>>>> new in YOUR railgun in one sentence? Where is your math that shows it is
anything new?
Heavy armature, very low voltage, very light weight.
Nothing new there whatsoever.
Keep on lying.
It is a new design
rail gun which proved Arindam's thesis that it has no reaction by easily
reproducible experiment. Which is the greatest science discovery of our >>>>>>> time.
Yet you have no details, no instrumentation, no data and no analysis >>>>>> with error bars that prove anything. Just crackpot ravings.
Keep on lying. What better to expect from racist bigots!
Does your railgun have two parallel conductors connected to a DC power >>>> source?
Yes, nothing new there.
Did any other railgun design work in this manner?
Did any previous railgun design have manually portable low weight, low
voltage, and very heavy armature?
NO
Yes.
Who did that, lying wretch?
This PARTICULAR railgun ***design*** IS A NEW INVENTION.
Nope.
Yes. No one did it before.
The mathmatics that describes how railguns work has been known for a
long time.
How is the mathmatics that describes how your railguns works any
different crackpot?
Penisnino that maths is beyond your scope.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 0:15:51 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:40:09 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 12:39:22 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:00:12 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip old crap>
Having watched your videos I have to ask, what is it that you think is >>>>>>>> new in YOUR railgun in one sentence? Where is your math that shows it is
anything new?
Heavy armature, very low voltage, very light weight.
Nothing new there whatsoever.
Keep on lying.
It is a new design
rail gun which proved Arindam's thesis that it has no reaction by easily
reproducible experiment. Which is the greatest science discovery of our >>>>>>> time.
Yet you have no details, no instrumentation, no data and no analysis >>>>>> with error bars that prove anything. Just crackpot ravings.
Arindam has presented the most powerful proofs using video evidence,
lying fool.
Keep on lying. What better to expect from racist bigots!
Does your railgun have two parallel conductors connected to a DC power >>>> source?
Yes, nothing new there.
The DC source is only 12 volts. Show another rail gun which accelerates
a 4000gm bullet and weighs 8 Kg.
The weight of bullet to weight of gun including power supply is a few
orders of magnitude less than normal guns let alone rail guns.
That ratio is new.
Does your railgun have a conductive armateur across the rails?
Yes, nothing new there.
New thing is the huge heaviness of the armature or bullet with respect
to the gun and its showing how it moves over the rails on a frame by
frame basis.
Penisnino, show the video of ANY gun where the movement of the bullet
within the barrel or on rails is videoed on a frame by frame basis.
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 12:59:35 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 7:31:47 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 0:54:54 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
All Penisnino can do is pull down his pants to make rude
gestures.
Metaphorically.
Still penis obsessed, I see.
No, fool.
Arindam's theories and rail gun experiment have demolished
E=mcc
physics.
Both your "theories" and "experiments" are laughable,
delusional
nonsense,
Arindam. Where are your data, math, and predictions, Arindam?
Arindam has posted all of them online over the decades,
Penisnino.
Still penis obsessed like a 10 year
Yes, I know you have posted your laughable experiments that
contain no
data and no math over and over, Arindam.
They do.
They make supreme sense unlike all the relativity crap.
Values have got inverted with the supremacy of Einstein's
pseudo-science.
Where science is all about extorting money from various foolish
sources
blinded by fear and propaganda.
Bertietaylor wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 12:59:35 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 7:31:47 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 0:54:54 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
All Penisnino can do is pull down his pants to make rude
gestures.
Metaphorically.
Still penis obsessed, I see.
No, fool.
Arindam's theories and rail gun experiment have demolished
E=mcc
physics.
Both your "theories" and "experiments" are laughable,
delusional
nonsense,
Arindam. Where are your data, math, and predictions, Arindam?
Arindam has posted all of them online over the decades,
Penisnino.
Still penis obsessed like a 10 year
Yes, I know you have posted your laughable experiments that
contain no
data and no math over and over, Arindam.
They do.
They make supreme sense unlike all the relativity crap.
Values have got inverted with the supremacy of Einstein's
pseudo-science.
Where science is all about extorting money from various foolish
sources
blinded by fear and propaganda.
bertie, science is not about belief or faith.
you need to show that things are according to xyz, and i have no
doubt that certain avenues of inquiry get stifled? fine, but
results talk.
Fully agree so all decent scientists must carefully read and see the
physics works of Arindam. Then verify by repeating his rail gun
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 0:15:51 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:40:09 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 12:39:22 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:00:12 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip old crap>
Having watched your videos I have to ask, what is it that you think is
new in YOUR railgun in one sentence? Where is your math that shows it is
anything new?
Heavy armature, very low voltage, very light weight.
Nothing new there whatsoever.
Keep on lying.
It is a new design
rail gun which proved Arindam's thesis that it has no reaction by easily
reproducible experiment. Which is the greatest science discovery of our
time.
Yet you have no details, no instrumentation, no data and no analysis >>>>>>> with error bars that prove anything. Just crackpot ravings.
Arindam has presented the most powerful proofs using video evidence,
lying fool.
Keep on lying. What better to expect from racist bigots!
Does your railgun have two parallel conductors connected to a DC power >>>>> source?
Yes, nothing new there.
The DC source is only 12 volts. Show another rail gun which accelerates
a 4000gm bullet and weighs 8 Kg.
The weight of bullet to weight of gun including power supply is a few
orders of magnitude less than normal guns let alone rail guns.
That ratio is new.
To claim anything new, you have to show that your railgun does not
follow the well known equations for railguns, crackpot.
Since you have no data, no analysis and no error bars, you have nothing crackpot.
Does your railgun have a conductive armateur across the rails?
Yes, nothing new there.
New thing is the huge heaviness of the armature or bullet with respect
to the gun and its showing how it moves over the rails on a frame by
frame basis.
A railgun is a direct current homopolar linear motor designed for high acceleration and thus high velocity.
Penisnino, show the video of ANY gun where the movement of the bullet
within the barrel or on rails is videoed on a frame by frame basis.
Since your "railgun" operates at low acceleration and low velocity, it
is not a railgun by definition and nothing more than a low speed linear motor.
<snip>
It is evident to anyone with the faintest intelligence that Arindam had conceived, designed, constructed and tested a new design of rail gun
with low weight, low voltage, and heavy armature.
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
<snip old crap>
It is evident to anyone with the faintest intelligence that Arindam had
conceived, designed, constructed and tested a new design of rail gun
with low weight, low voltage, and heavy armature.
It is evident to anyone with the faintest intelligence that you
you haven't a clue what the word "railgun" means crackpot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun
"A railgun or rail gun, sometimes referred to as a rail cannon, is a
linear motor device, typically designed as a weapon, that uses electromagnetic force to launch high-velocity projectiles."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rail%20gun
"an electromagnetic catapult designed to hurl projectiles at
extremely high speeds"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rail-gun
"a weapon consisting of a pair of parallel conductive rails, using a
magnetic field and electric current to launch projectiles at very
high velocity"
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/railgun
"a gun that uses electromagnetic force to propel a projectile at
very high speeds"
https://www.yourdictionary.com/rail-gun
"A weapon, consisting mainly of conducting metal rails, that uses electromagnetic force to accelerate a projectile to a much greater
speed than that achieved by conventional chemical propellant weapons."
To be a railgun, the device has to launch a projectile.
All your videos clearly show that your device propels an armature down
a track at very low speed where it falls off at the end. That is NOT a railgun and is nothing more than a linear motor crackpot.
<snip remaining crap>
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 23:56:42 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
<snip old crap>
It is evident to anyone with the faintest intelligence that Arindam had
conceived, designed, constructed and tested a new design of rail gun
with low weight, low voltage, and heavy armature.
It is evident to anyone with the faintest intelligence that you
you haven't a clue what the word "railgun" means crackpot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun
"A railgun or rail gun, sometimes referred to as a rail cannon, is a
linear motor device, typically designed as a weapon, that uses
electromagnetic force to launch high-velocity projectiles."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rail%20gun
"an electromagnetic catapult designed to hurl projectiles at
extremely high speeds"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rail-gun
"a weapon consisting of a pair of parallel conductive rails, using a
magnetic field and electric current to launch projectiles at very
high velocity"
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/railgun
"a gun that uses electromagnetic force to propel a projectile at
very high speeds"
https://www.yourdictionary.com/rail-gun
"A weapon, consisting mainly of conducting metal rails, that uses
electromagnetic force to accelerate a projectile to a much greater
speed than that achieved by conventional chemical propellant weapons."
To be a railgun, the device has to launch a projectile.
All your videos clearly show that your device propels an armature down
a track at very low speed where it falls off at the end. That is NOT a
railgun and is nothing more than a linear motor crackpot.
<snip remaining crap>
Fool, it is a *working model* of a new design rail gun
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
<snip old craP>
Fully agree so all decent scientists must carefully read and see the
physics works of Arindam. Then verify by repeating his rail gun
It seems that you haven't a clue what the word "railgun" means crackpot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun
"A railgun or rail gun, sometimes referred to as a rail cannon, is a
linear motor device, typically designed as a weapon, that uses electromagnetic force to launch high-velocity projectiles."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rail%20gun
"an electromagnetic catapult designed to hurl projectiles at
extremely high speeds"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rail-gun
"a weapon consisting of a pair of parallel conductive rails, using a
magnetic field and electric current to launch projectiles at very
high velocity"
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/railgun
"a gun that uses electromagnetic force to propel a projectile at
very high speeds"
https://www.yourdictionary.com/rail-gun
"A weapon, consisting mainly of conducting metal rails, that uses electromagnetic force to accelerate a projectile to a much greater
speed than that achieved by conventional chemical propellant weapons."
To be a railgun, the device has to launch a projectile.
All your videos clearly show that your device propels an armature down
a track at low speed where it falls off at the end. That is NOT a
railgun
and is nothing more than a linear motor.
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 3:42:13 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
<snip old craP>
Fully agree so all decent scientists must carefully read and see the
physics works of Arindam. Then verify by repeating his rail gun
It seems that you haven't a clue what the word "railgun" means crackpot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun
"A railgun or rail gun, sometimes referred to as a rail cannon, is a
linear motor device, typically designed as a weapon, that uses
electromagnetic force to launch high-velocity projectiles."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rail%20gun
"an electromagnetic catapult designed to hurl projectiles at
extremely high speeds"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rail-gun
"a weapon consisting of a pair of parallel conductive rails, using a
magnetic field and electric current to launch projectiles at very
high velocity"
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/railgun
"a gun that uses electromagnetic force to propel a projectile at
very high speeds"
https://www.yourdictionary.com/rail-gun
"A weapon, consisting mainly of conducting metal rails, that uses
electromagnetic force to accelerate a projectile to a much greater
speed than that achieved by conventional chemical propellant weapons."
To be a railgun, the device has to launch a projectile.
All your videos clearly show that your device propels an armature down
a track at low speed where it falls off at the end. That is NOT a
railgun
and is nothing more than a linear motor.
It is most certainly a linear motor like a railgun but over 1000 times
more efficient with its new design.
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 3:42:13 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
<snip old craP>
Fully agree so all decent scientists must carefully read and see the
physics works of Arindam. Then verify by repeating his rail gun
It seems that you haven't a clue what the word "railgun" means crackpot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun
"A railgun or rail gun, sometimes referred to as a rail cannon, is a
linear motor device, typically designed as a weapon, that uses
electromagnetic force to launch high-velocity projectiles."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rail%20gun
"an electromagnetic catapult designed to hurl projectiles at
extremely high speeds"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rail-gun
"a weapon consisting of a pair of parallel conductive rails, using a
magnetic field and electric current to launch projectiles at very
high velocity"
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/railgun
"a gun that uses electromagnetic force to propel a projectile at
very high speeds"
https://www.yourdictionary.com/rail-gun
"A weapon, consisting mainly of conducting metal rails, that uses
electromagnetic force to accelerate a projectile to a much greater
speed than that achieved by conventional chemical propellant weapons."
To be a railgun, the device has to launch a projectile.
All your videos clearly show that your device propels an armature down
a track at low speed where it falls off at the end. That is NOT a
railgun
and is nothing more than a linear motor.
It is most certainly a linear motor like a railgun but over 1000 times
more efficient with its new design.
into reactionless motors for interstellar travel
You are incapable of comprehension, Penisnino.
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
You are incapable of comprehension, Penisnino.
You said your device has 1000 times better efficiency while I pointed
out that exiting devices have about 50% efficiency,
device has a 50,000% effiency, which is obviously ridiculous crackpot.
<snip delusional raving unread>
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 3:53:55 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
You are incapable of comprehension, Penisnino.
You said your device has 1000 times better efficiency while I pointed
out that exiting devices have about 50% efficiency,
Idiot you have no clue about engineering. There are many parameters
related to efficiency not just making up figures on the fly as you did.
Arindam's design is certainly 1000 times at least better
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 3:53:55 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
You are incapable of comprehension, Penisnino.
You said your device has 1000 times better efficiency while I pointed
out that exiting devices have about 50% efficiency,
Idiot you have no clue about engineering. There are many parameters
related to efficiency not just making up figures on the fly as you did.
Irrelevant drivel. Efficiency can be trivially measured,
understand how to measure anything nor apparently do you understand what
the word efficiency means, crackpot.
Arindam's design is certainly 1000 times at least better
Delusional nonsense. As I have pointed out, the measured efficieny of
such devices is about 50%. An efficiency of 50,000% is utter lunacy
crackpot.
<snip remaining delusional raving unread>
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:29:35 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:40:09 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 12:39:22 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:00:12 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip old crap>
Having watched your videos I have to ask, what is it that you think is
new in YOUR railgun in one sentence? Where is your math that shows it is
anything new?
Heavy armature, very low voltage, very light weight.
Nothing new there whatsoever.
Keep on lying.
It is a new design
rail gun which proved Arindam's thesis that it has no reaction by easily
reproducible experiment. Which is the greatest science discovery of our
time.
Yet you have no details, no instrumentation, no data and no analysis >>>>>>> with error bars that prove anything. Just crackpot ravings.
Keep on lying. What better to expect from racist bigots!
Does your railgun have two parallel conductors connected to a DC power >>>>> source?
Yes, nothing new there.
Did any other railgun design work in this manner?
Did any previous railgun design have manually portable low weight, low >>>> voltage, and very heavy armature?
NO
Yes.
Who did that, lying wretch?
LOTS of people crackpot.
Do a google search for DIY railgun and enjoy the thousands of hits
crackpot.
This PARTICULAR railgun ***design*** IS A NEW INVENTION.
Nope.
Yes. No one did it before.
No one did WHAT before crackpot?
The mathmatics that describes how railguns work has been known for a
long time.
How is the mathmatics that describes how your railguns works any
different crackpot?
Penisnino that maths is beyond your scope.
You have no math, Arindam, never had, never will because you are just a
penis obsessed, arm waving crackpot.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 13:44:51 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
You have no math, Arindam, never had, never will because you are just a
penis obsessed, arm waving crackpot.
tch tch, Penisnino should cool down, chant e-mcc at least 300000000
times on his rosary.
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 23:48:15 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 3:53:55 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
You are incapable of comprehension, Penisnino.
You said your device has 1000 times better efficiency while I pointed
out that exiting devices have about 50% efficiency,
Idiot you have no clue about engineering. There are many parameters
related to efficiency not just making up figures on the fly as you did.
Irrelevant drivel. Efficiency can be trivially measured,
No it can't fool. You are making up figures on the fly with no basis whatsoever. Typical.
What happens to the concept of efficiency in a now theoretical motor
that creates energy out of everpresent force? Such as gravity
(supposedly held impossible by none less than da Vinci) or permanent
magnets like in the free energy generators marketed in Alibaba?
Woof-woof
What fools these apes be!
Bertietaylor (Arindam's other personality)
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
What happens to the concept of efficiency in a now theoretical motor
that creates energy out of everpresent force? Such as gravity
(supposedly held impossible by none less than da Vinci) or permanent
magnets like in the free energy generators marketed in Alibaba?
Gibberish of a delusional, multiple personality crackpot.
efficiency = energy imparted / total energy expended.
5th grade math, crackpot.
Woof-woof
What fools these apes be!
Bertietaylor (Arindam's other personality)
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 3:20:46 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
What happens to the concept of efficiency in a now theoretical motor
that creates energy out of everpresent force? Such as gravity
(supposedly held impossible by none less than da Vinci) or permanent
magnets like in the free energy generators marketed in Alibaba?
Gibberish of a delusional, multiple personality crackpot.
efficiency = energy imparted / total energy expended.
5th grade math, crackpot.
Woof-woof
What fools these apes be!
Bertietaylor (Arindam's other personality)
What is the efficiency of a motor that generates 10kw of power with NO
energy input?
Alibaba sells that motor for $10000.
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 3:20:46 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
What happens to the concept of efficiency in a now theoretical motor
that creates energy out of everpresent force? Such as gravity
(supposedly held impossible by none less than da Vinci) or permanent
magnets like in the free energy generators marketed in Alibaba?
Gibberish of a delusional, multiple personality crackpot.
efficiency = energy imparted / total energy expended.
5th grade math, crackpot.
Woof-woof
What fools these apes be!
Bertietaylor (Arindam's other personality)
What is the efficiency of a motor that generates 10kw of power with NO
energy input?
That would be a perpetual motion machine, i.e. a favorite of delusional crackpots.
Alibaba sells that motor for $10000.
Does it come with a money back warrenty, crackpot?
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:14:11 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 3:20:46 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
What happens to the concept of efficiency in a now theoretical motor >>>>> that creates energy out of everpresent force? Such as gravity
(supposedly held impossible by none less than da Vinci) or permanent >>>>> magnets like in the free energy generators marketed in Alibaba?
Gibberish of a delusional, multiple personality crackpot.
efficiency = energy imparted / total energy expended.
5th grade math, crackpot.
Woof-woof
What fools these apes be!
Bertietaylor (Arindam's other personality)
What is the efficiency of a motor that generates 10kw of power with NO
energy input?
That would be a perpetual motion machine, i.e. a favorite of delusional
crackpots.
The whole universe is a pmm, fool.
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:14:11 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 3:20:46 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
What happens to the concept of efficiency in a now theoretical motor >>>>>> that creates energy out of everpresent force? Such as gravity
(supposedly held impossible by none less than da Vinci) or permanent >>>>>> magnets like in the free energy generators marketed in Alibaba?
Gibberish of a delusional, multiple personality crackpot.
efficiency = energy imparted / total energy expended.
5th grade math, crackpot.
Woof-woof
What fools these apes be!
Bertietaylor (Arindam's other personality)
What is the efficiency of a motor that generates 10kw of power with NO >>>> energy input?
That would be a perpetual motion machine, i.e. a favorite of delusional
crackpots.
The whole universe is a pmm, fool.
Nope and just proves again you are a delusional crackpot.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:49:33 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:14:11 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 3:20:46 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
What happens to the concept of efficiency in a now theoretical motor >>>>>>> that creates energy out of everpresent force? Such as gravity
(supposedly held impossible by none less than da Vinci) or permanent >>>>>>> magnets like in the free energy generators marketed in Alibaba?
Gibberish of a delusional, multiple personality crackpot.
efficiency = energy imparted / total energy expended.
5th grade math, crackpot.
Woof-woof
What fools these apes be!
Bertietaylor (Arindam's other personality)
What is the efficiency of a motor that generates 10kw of power with NO >>>>> energy input?
That would be a perpetual motion machine, i.e. a favorite of delusional >>>> crackpots.
The whole universe is a pmm, fool.
Nope and just proves again you are a delusional crackpot.
Woof-woof these spawn of Einstein like Penisnino here are such
ridiculous fools, denying the most obvious reality, have far less wits
than the wits of snails.
The ridiculous Einsteinians have no clue about actual reality but are
very good at creating fakes.
Woof-woof
What fools these apes be!
bertie, are you for real???
Alibaba sells that motor for $10000.
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 13:42:30 +0000, kazu wrote:
bertie, are you for real???
As real as celestial cyberdogs barking for the Sarvadaman Shriman
Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandhi) Banerjee, greatest genius of
all time
and sole god among lotsa devils, can get.
Woof-woof
Bertietaylor
Bertietaylor wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 13:42:30 +0000, kazu wrote:
bertie, are you for real???
As real as celestial cyberdogs barking for the Sarvadaman Shriman
Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandhi) Banerjee, greatest genius of
all time
and sole god among lotsa devils, can get.
Woof-woof
Bertietaylor
ok, does he have a linkedin account? i dont want to search
because linkedin displays analytics.
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 18:52:44 +0000, kazu wrote:
Bertietaylor wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 13:42:30 +0000, kazu wrote:
bertie, are you for real???
As real as celestial cyberdogs barking for the Sarvadaman Shriman
Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandhi) Banerjee, greatest genius of
all time
and sole god among lotsa devils, can get.
Woof-woof
Bertietaylor
ok, does he have a linkedin account? i dont want to search
because linkedin displays analytics.
No but he has a Facebook account. And a google email. Also a name, face, address. He is very easy to contact. Thousands know him although we two
are his only
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 18:52:44 +0000, kazu wrote:
Bertietaylor wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 13:42:30 +0000, kazu wrote:
bertie, are you for real???
As real as celestial cyberdogs barking for the Sarvadaman Shriman
Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandhi) Banerjee, greatest genius of
all time
and sole god among lotsa devils, can get.
Woof-woof
Bertietaylor
ok, does he have a linkedin account? i dont want to search
because linkedin displays analytics.
No but he has a Facebook account. And a google email. Also a name, face,
address. He is very easy to contact. Thousands know him although we two
are his only
You are Arindam, you deluionally insane crackpot.
Write sense if you can, Penisnino.
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
Write sense if you can, Penisnino.
It will make sense so sane people, you penis obsessed crackpot with
multiple personallity disorder.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 505 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 34:03:35 |
| Calls: | 9,913 |
| Calls today: | 9 |
| Files: | 13,799 |
| Messages: | 6,346,475 |
| Posted today: | 3 |