...forcibly lead, out of expulsion from any challenge, to totally wrong
and absolutely absurd understanding of the universe.
What fools these apes be!
Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:14:03 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
...forcibly lead, out of expulsion from any challenge, to totally wrong
and absolutely absurd understanding of the universe.
What fools these apes be!
Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
The universe is eternal and infinite, filled with solid aether so fine
that electrons glide through it with no resistance. The cores of stars
are very cold, containing permanent currents creating large magnetic
fields. Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon. Stars lose their
hydrogen cover which becomes nebulae. Then regain them after their dark
cores reach nebulae, over trillion year cycles.
--
The universe is eternal and infinite, filled with solid aether so
fine that electrons glide through it with no resistance. The cores
of stars are very cold, containing permanent currents creating
large magnetic fields. Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
Stars lose their hydrogen cover which becomes nebulae. Then regain
them after their dark cores reach nebulae, over trillion year
cycles.
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:14:03 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
...forcibly lead, out of expulsion from any challenge, to totally wrong
and absolutely absurd understanding of the universe.
What fools these apes be!
Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
The universe is eternal and infinite, filled with solid aether so fine
that electrons glide through it with no resistance. The cores of stars
are very cold, containing permanent currents creating large magnetic
fields. Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon. Stars lose their
hydrogen cover which becomes nebulae. Then regain them after their dark
cores reach nebulae, over trillion year cycles.
--
On 8/03/2025 11:00 a.m., Bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:14:03 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
...forcibly lead, out of expulsion from any challenge, to totally wrong
and absolutely absurd understanding of the universe.
What fools these apes be!
Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
The universe is eternal and infinite, filled with solid aether so fine
that electrons glide through it with no resistance. The cores of stars
are very cold, containing permanent currents creating large magnetic
fields. Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon. Stars lose their
hydrogen cover which becomes nebulae. Then regain them after their dark
cores reach nebulae, over trillion year cycles.
--
Bow-wow-wow!
The universe is eternal and infinite, filled with solid aether so
fine that electrons glide through it with no resistance. The cores
of stars are very cold, containing permanent currents creating
large magnetic fields. Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
Stars lose their hydrogen cover which becomes nebulae. Then regain
them after their dark cores reach nebulae, over trillion year
cycles.
People honestly believed some of these things a few hundred years ago,
and at the time there wasn't enough evidence either to confirm or refute
such conjectures. They could hold such beliefs without being laughed at.
I believe, though, that the proposition that the cores of stars are cold
is a genuine new addition to humanity's collection of stupid ideas.
just as implausible as the suggestion (easily disproved) that the
pressure is zero at the centre of the earth.
On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 7:09:19 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 1:03:29 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote:
The universe is eternal and infinite, filled with solid aether so
fine that electrons glide through it with no resistance. The cores
of stars are very cold, containing permanent currents creating
large magnetic fields. Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
Stars lose their hydrogen cover which becomes nebulae. Then regain
them after their dark cores reach nebulae, over trillion year
cycles.
People honestly believed some of these things a few hundred years ago,
and at the time there wasn't enough evidence either to confirm or refute >>> such conjectures. They could hold such beliefs without being laughed at.
High time to boot out the Einsteinian pseudo scientists, but that is not
enough. The ridiculous so-called laws of thermodynamics are wrong as
Arindam proved by violating inertia with his new design rail gun
experiments.
I believe, though, that the proposition that the cores of stars are cold >>> is a genuine new addition to humanity's collection of stupid ideas.
No, foolish ape. It is typical of the original genius of Arindam far
beyond the grasp of thy colonised and brainwashed mind.
It is perfectly reasonable and indeed inevitable from logic. The steady
magnetic field has to be formed from a steady electric current which has
to exist in the core of stars and planets. Superconductivity at the core
will allow such a current. Superconductivity needs very cold
temperatures. So the cores of the stars and planets must be cold.
It's
just as implausible as the suggestion (easily disproved) that the
pressure is zero at the centre of the earth.
The pressure is most certainly zero at the centre of the stars and
planets. Read a first year book on physics.
Which will say that within an enclosed surface with mass the net gravitational force or pressure is zero.
Now consider the Earth as an overlapping set of such concentric
surfaces. So what is the result ? Huh??
Which means that neutron stars, black holes, fusion in cores of suns for heat, etc. are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
Arindam's physics is correct. Sooner or later the current hastily
pigheads in global academia will have to follow it. Or get fired, in
droves.
Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor (teaching the basics of physics)
--
--
On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 1:03:29 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote:
The universe is eternal and infinite, filled with solid aether so
fine that electrons glide through it with no resistance. The cores
of stars are very cold, containing permanent currents creating
large magnetic fields. Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
Stars lose their hydrogen cover which becomes nebulae. Then regain
them after their dark cores reach nebulae, over trillion year
cycles.
People honestly believed some of these things a few hundred years ago,
and at the time there wasn't enough evidence either to confirm or refute
such conjectures. They could hold such beliefs without being laughed at.
High time to boot out the Einsteinian pseudo scientists, but that is not enough. The ridiculous so-called laws of thermodynamics are wrong as
Arindam proved by violating inertia with his new design rail gun
experiments.
I believe, though, that the proposition that the cores of stars are cold
is a genuine new addition to humanity's collection of stupid ideas.
No, foolish ape. It is typical of the original genius of Arindam far
beyond the grasp of thy colonised and brainwashed mind.
It is perfectly reasonable and indeed inevitable from logic. The steady magnetic field has to be formed from a steady electric current which has
to exist in the core of stars and planets. Superconductivity at the core
will allow such a current. Superconductivity needs very cold
temperatures. So the cores of the stars and planets must be cold.
It's
just as implausible as the suggestion (easily disproved) that the
pressure is zero at the centre of the earth.
The pressure is most certainly zero at the centre of the stars and
planets. Read a first year book on physics.
Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor (teaching the basics of physics)
--
Which will say that within an enclosed surface with mass the net gravitational force or pressure is zero.
In sci.physics Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
<snip old crap>
Which will say that within an enclosed surface with mass the net
gravitational force or pressure is zero.
Gravitational force and pressure are two different things, crackpot.
But what can one expect from a barking mad crackpot?
On 08/03/2025 22:46, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 7:09:19 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 1:03:29 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote:
High time to boot out the Einsteinian pseudo scientists, but that is not >>> enough. The ridiculous so-called laws of thermodynamics are wrong asThe universe is eternal and infinite, filled with solid aether so
fine that electrons glide through it with no resistance. The cores >>>>>> of stars are very cold, containing permanent currents creating
large magnetic fields. Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
Stars lose their hydrogen cover which becomes nebulae. Then regain >>>>>> them after their dark cores reach nebulae, over trillion year
cycles.
People honestly believed some of these things a few hundred years ago, >>>> and at the time there wasn't enough evidence either to confirm or refute >>>> such conjectures. They could hold such beliefs without being laughed at. >>>
Arindam proved by violating inertia with his new design rail gun
experiments.
I believe, though, that the proposition that the cores of stars are cold >>>> is a genuine new addition to humanity's collection of stupid ideas.
No, foolish ape. It is typical of the original genius of Arindam far
beyond the grasp of thy colonised and brainwashed mind.
It is perfectly reasonable and indeed inevitable from logic. The steady
magnetic field has to be formed from a steady electric current which has >>> to exist in the core of stars and planets. Superconductivity at the core >>> will allow such a current. Superconductivity needs very cold
temperatures. So the cores of the stars and planets must be cold.
It's
just as implausible as the suggestion (easily disproved) that the
pressure is zero at the centre of the earth.
The pressure is most certainly zero at the centre of the stars and
planets. Read a first year book on physics.
Which will say that within an enclosed surface with mass the net
gravitational force or pressure is zero.
Now consider the Earth as an overlapping set of such concentric
surfaces. So what is the result ? Huh??
Presumably, by an analogous argument, the pressure at the centre of a
balloon is also zero?
Which means that neutron stars, black holes, fusion in cores of suns for
heat, etc. are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
Arindam's physics is correct. Sooner or later the current hastily
pigheads in global academia will have to follow it. Or get fired, in
droves.
Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor (teaching the basics of physics)
--
--
On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:00:22 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
<snip old crap>
Which will say that within an enclosed surface with mass the net
gravitational force or pressure is zero.
Gravitational force and pressure are two different things, crackpot.
Ridiculous penisnano Penisnino still around, and as stupid, pigheaded
and ignorant as ever.
In sci.physics bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:00:22 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
<snip old crap>
Which will say that within an enclosed surface with mass the net
gravitational force or pressure is zero.
Gravitational force and pressure are two different things, crackpot.
Ridiculous penisnano Penisnino still around, and as stupid, pigheaded
and ignorant as ever.
So what effect does gravity have on tire pressure or the pressure in a pressure cooker, barking mad crackpot?
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 1:50:56 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:00:22 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
<snip old crap>
Which will say that within an enclosed surface with mass the net
gravitational force or pressure is zero.
Gravitational force and pressure are two different things, crackpot.
Ridiculous penisnano Penisnino still around, and as stupid, pigheaded
and ignorant as ever.
So what effect does gravity have on tire pressure or the pressure in a
pressure cooker, barking mad crackpot?
Suns and planets are not equivalent to tires and pressure cookers, o
stupid, pigheaded and ignorant JimPee the Penisnino.
Okay, I can imagine the the center is slightly less compressed
than what surrounds it.
Wrong analogy. The balloon is full of pressurised gas and in every point >within the balloon the pressure is the same. The Earth is solid, which
melts after someway down, then again becomes hot solid, then cold solid,
then very cold solid at the core, cold enough to support superconducting >currents.
On 08/03/2025 22:46, Bertietaylor wrote:
It's just as implausible as the suggestion (easily disproved)
that the pressure is zero at the centre of the earth.
The pressure is most certainly zero at the centre of the stars
and planets. Read a first year book on physics.
Which will say that within an enclosed surface with mass the net
gravitational force or pressure is zero.
Presumably, by an analogous argument, the pressure at the centre of a
balloon is also zero?
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:38:55 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com
(bertietaylor) wrote:
Wrong analogy. The balloon is full of pressurised gas and in every point >within the balloon the pressure is the same. The Earth is solid, which >melts after someway down, then again becomes hot solid, then cold solid, >then very cold solid at the core, cold enough to support superconducting >currents.
I hadn't figured out that system before.
Okay, I can imagine the the center is slightly less compressed
than what surrounds it.
But you seem to imagine that heat and pressure are not
transmitted toward the center. Over millenia, the center will
approach the temperature of what surrounds it. And the pressure.
Equilibria.
But the planet is cooling.
The center can only lose heat through the surrounding layers.
So whatever max heat was reached by the center, it will be the last to be touched by the cooling of the planet.
In sci.physics bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 1:50:56 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:00:22 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
<snip old crap>
Which will say that within an enclosed surface with mass the net
gravitational force or pressure is zero.
Gravitational force and pressure are two different things, crackpot.
Ridiculous penisnano Penisnino still around, and as stupid, pigheaded
and ignorant as ever.
So what effect does gravity have on tire pressure or the pressure in a
pressure cooker, barking mad crackpot?
Suns and planets are not equivalent to tires and pressure cookers, o
stupid, pigheaded and ignorant JimPee the Penisnino.
Yes, and that was exactly the point, barking mad crackpot, i.e. gravity
can cause pressure in some circumstances but gravity is an entirely
different thing than pressure and has different units.
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 4:36:39 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 1:50:56 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:00:22 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:Ridiculous penisnano Penisnino still around, and as stupid, pigheaded >>>>> and ignorant as ever.
<snip old crap>
Which will say that within an enclosed surface with mass the net >>>>>>> gravitational force or pressure is zero.
Gravitational force and pressure are two different things, crackpot. >>>>>
So what effect does gravity have on tire pressure or the pressure in a >>>> pressure cooker, barking mad crackpot?
Suns and planets are not equivalent to tires and pressure cookers, o
stupid, pigheaded and ignorant JimPee the Penisnino.
Yes, and that was exactly the point, barking mad crackpot, i.e. gravity
can cause pressure in some circumstances but gravity is an entirely
different thing than pressure and has different units.
One cannot know whether to laugh of cry by such absurdity.
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:14:03 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
...forcibly lead, out of expulsion from any challenge, to totally wrong
and absolutely absurd understanding of the universe.
What fools these apes be!
Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
The universe is eternal and infinite, filled with solid aether so fine
that electrons glide through it with no resistance. The cores of stars
are very cold, containing permanent currents creating large magnetic
fields. Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon. Stars lose their
hydrogen cover which becomes nebulae. Then regain them after their dark
cores reach nebulae, over trillion year cycles.
On 3/9/25 4:21 PM, bertietaylor wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 4:36:39 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 1:50:56 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:00:22 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:Ridiculous penisnano Penisnino still around, and as stupid, pigheaded >>>>>> and ignorant as ever.
<snip old crap>
Which will say that within an enclosed surface with mass the net >>>>>>>> gravitational force or pressure is zero.
Gravitational force and pressure are two different things, crackpot. >>>>>>
So what effect does gravity have on tire pressure or the pressure in a >>>>> pressure cooker, barking mad crackpot?
Suns and planets are not equivalent to tires and pressure cookers, o
stupid, pigheaded and ignorant JimPee the Penisnino.
Yes, and that was exactly the point, barking mad crackpot, i.e. gravity
can cause pressure in some circumstances but gravity is an entirely
different thing than pressure and has different units.
One cannot know whether to laugh of cry by such absurdity.
That's because you're talking to the dead.
On 3/7/25 17:00, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:14:03 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
...forcibly lead, out of expulsion from any challenge, to totally wrong
and absolutely absurd understanding of the universe.
What fools these apes be!
Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
The universe is eternal and infinite, filled with solid aether so fine
that electrons glide through it with no resistance. The cores of stars
are very cold, containing permanent currents creating large magnetic
fields. Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon. Stars lose their
hydrogen cover which becomes nebulae. Then regain them after their dark
cores reach nebulae, over trillion year cycles.
The universe does not obey your religion.
On 09/03/25 09:58, Phil wrote:
On 08/03/2025 22:46, Bertietaylor wrote:
It's just as implausible as the suggestion (easily disproved)
that the pressure is zero at the centre of the earth.
The pressure is most certainly zero at the centre of the stars
and planets. Read a first year book on physics.
Which will say that within an enclosed surface with mass the net
gravitational force or pressure is zero.
Read that first year book yourself. Did you find the words "or
pressure"?
about the pressure from the gravitational force. That doesn't work,
because they are different quantities.
Gravitational force, like all forces, is a vector quantity. It has a magnitude and a direction. That makes it possible that a number of
nonzero vectors can sum to zero; and, indeed, that is what happens
inside a spherical shell.
Pressure is a scalar.
Think of a cone, or similar shape, whose point is at the centre of the
earth. You can separate out a section with thickness dr, and write down
the force balance equation for that slab. (This, too, is first year
physics.) From that you get a differential equation for the pressure as
a function of radius. No matter what simplifications you make, you will
get the same conclusion: the deeper you go, the higher the pressure.
Which is something that ocean divers can confirm from their own experience.
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:50:06 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
Think of a cone, or similar shape, whose point is at the centre of the >earth. You can separate out a section with thickness dr, and write down
the force balance equation for that slab. (This, too, is first year >physics.) From that you get a differential equation for the pressure as
a function of radius. No matter what simplifications you make, you will
get the same conclusion: the deeper you go, the higher the pressure.
Which is something that ocean divers can confirm from their own experience.
Right, thanks.
The pressure going deeper always increases, assuming it is
transmitted. Whether it is metal or hot fluid, the transmission
is good.
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 10:27:09 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:38:55 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com
(bertietaylor) wrote:
Wrong analogy. The balloon is full of pressurised gas and in every point >>>within the balloon the pressure is the same. The Earth is solid, which >>>melts after someway down, then again becomes hot solid, then cold solid, >>>then very cold solid at the core, cold enough to support superconducting >>>currents.
I hadn't figured out that system before.
Then don't.
You have allowed yourself to be misled by our resident nutter.
The pressure in a balloon in NOT the same at every point.
There is a pressure gradient.
In fact, that pressure gradient is precisely the reason why it floats.
It took a real genius, named Archimedes, 2500 years ago,
to see that.
That is, the similar pressure gradient in the air
/around/ a helium or hot-air balloon is why it floats.
Okay, I can imagine the the center is slightly less compressed
than what surrounds it.
I'm sure you can imagine it, if you have practiced enough with Alice,
but it is impossible nevertheless.
But you seem to imagine that heat and pressure are not
transmitted toward the center. Over millenia, the center will
approach the temperature of what surrounds it. And the pressure.
Equilibria.
But the planet is cooling.
Not. It is in a quasi-stationary state.
Quasi-stationary, but actually slowly cooling, as
the rate of radioactive heating decreases?
The center can only lose heat through the surrounding layers.
Correct.
So whatever max heat was reached by the center, it will be the last to
be touched by the cooling of the planet.
More nonsense.
Hint: there is radioactive heating throughout,
I agree with the rest of what you wrote.
--
Jerry Friedman
--
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 1:05:55 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/7/25 17:00, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:14:03 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
...forcibly lead, out of expulsion from any challenge, to totally wrong >>>> and absolutely absurd understanding of the universe.
What fools these apes be!
Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
The universe is eternal and infinite, filled with solid aether so fine
that electrons glide through it with no resistance. The cores of stars
are very cold, containing permanent currents creating large magnetic
fields. Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon. Stars lose their
hydrogen cover which becomes nebulae. Then regain them after their dark
cores reach nebulae, over trillion year cycles.
The universe does not obey your religion.
Our religion in low Heaven is to do propaganda for Arindam and his superlative genius works.
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 3:54:39 +0000, bertitaylor wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 9:50:06 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote:...
On 09/03/25 09:58, Phil wrote:
On 08/03/2025 22:46, Bertietaylor wrote:
It's just as implausible as the suggestion (easily disproved)
that the pressure is zero at the centre of the earth.
The pressure is most certainly zero at the centre of the stars
and planets. Read a first year book on physics.
Which will say that within an enclosed surface with mass the net
gravitational force or pressure is zero.
Read that first year book yourself. Did you find the words "or
pressure"?
You must have been a lousy student in school, Moylan. Did you not learn
there that Pressure = Force/Area, Where the area involved is
perpendicular to the force? So if force is say 10 newtons ACTS
UNIFORMLY upon an immovable area of 1 square meter, then the pressure
upon that surface is 10 newtons per square meter.
No, I didn't think so. You've tried to conclude something
about the pressure from the gravitational force. That doesn't work,
because they are different quantities.
Don't be a bigger fool than you can help, Moylan. Read above. Basically
if there is no force, there cannot be any pressure. As there is no force
from gravity at the centre of the Earth/sun, there cannot be any
pressure there.
So pressure = force/area. When force = 0, pressure = 0.
Think you can get this?
Gravitational force, like all forces, is a vector quantity. It has a
magnitude and a direction. That makes it possible that a number of
nonzero vectors can sum to zero; and, indeed, that is what happens
inside a spherical shell.
Right.
Pressure is a scalar.
No. Which ***idiot*** told you that????
Okay, let us do some school level physics (what Arindam was taught in
Std 8)
Pressure is force/area. (Fundamental school level education, useful in
hydraulics, which Arindam learnt in Std 9).
Force is a vector
Area is a scalar, when by convention its orientation is perpendicular to
the force.
The division of a vector by a scalar is a vector.
So pressure is a VECTOR.
Still have your old textbooks?
in person to any textbook you trust? You should find
that it says pressure is the /magnitude/ of force over
area, which is a scalar.
carefully and even pay attention to typefaces. The
textbooks I have use italic for vectors and boldface
for scalars.
--
Jerry Friedman
--
Still have your old textbooks? Or access on line or
in person to any textbook you trust? You should find
that it says pressure is the /magnitude/ of force over
area, which is a scalar. You may have to read
carefully and even pay attention to typefaces. The
textbooks I have use italic for vectors and boldface
for scalars.
On 10/03/2025 19:16, jerryfriedman wrote:
<snip>
Still have your old textbooks? Or access on line or
in person to any textbook you trust? You should find
that it says pressure is the /magnitude/ of force over
area, which is a scalar. You may have to read
carefully and even pay attention to typefaces. The
textbooks I have use italic for vectors and boldface
for scalars.
This is not an argument you can win,
correct is of no consequence.
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 9:50:06 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 09/03/25 09:58, Phil wrote:
On 08/03/2025 22:46, Bertietaylor wrote:
It's just as implausible as the suggestion (easily disproved)
that the pressure is zero at the centre of the earth.
The pressure is most certainly zero at the centre of the stars
and planets. Read a first year book on physics.
Which will say that within an enclosed surface with mass the net
gravitational force or pressure is zero.
Read that first year book yourself. Did you find the words "or
pressure"? No, I didn't think so. You've tried to conclude something
about the pressure from the gravitational force. That doesn't work,
because they are different quantities.
Gravitational force, like all forces, is a vector quantity. It has a
magnitude and a direction. That makes it possible that a number of
nonzero vectors can sum to zero; and, indeed, that is what happens
inside a spherical shell.
Pressure is a scalar. If you add two pressures, you get a higher
pressure. There's no such thing as a negative pressure to cancel out the
first pressure.
Think of a cone, or similar shape, whose point is at the centre of the
earth. You can separate out a section with thickness dr, and write down
the force balance equation for that slab. (This, too, is first year
physics.) From that you get a differential equation for the pressure as
a function of radius. No matter what simplifications you make, you will
get the same conclusion: the deeper you go, the higher the pressure.
Which is something that ocean divers can confirm from their own
experience.
Even swimming pool divers.
At the centre of the earth, the gravitational force is zero but the
pressure is at a maximum.
Presumably, by an analogous argument, the pressure at the centre of a
balloon is also zero?
Actually, the gravitational force at the centre of a balloon is zero, if
you count only the force due to the balloon itself. But of course, you
do have to count the attraction from the earth as well.
Either way, what you conclude about the gravitational force says nothing
about the pressure. They're different quantities.
They're different, but they are connected. Since
the gravitational force at the center of the Earth is
0,
there is 0. Hint to Arindam.
--
Jerry Friedman
--
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 9:50:06 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 09/03/25 09:58, Phil wrote:
On 08/03/2025 22:46, Bertietaylor wrote:
It's just as implausible as the suggestion (easily
disproved) that the pressure is zero at the centre of the
earth.
The pressure is most certainly zero at the centre of the
stars and planets. Read a first year book on physics.
Which will say that within an enclosed surface with mass the
net gravitational force or pressure is zero.
Read that first year book yourself. Did you find the words "or
pressure"? No, I didn't think so. You've tried to conclude
something about the pressure from the gravitational force. That
doesn't work, because they are different quantities.
Gravitational force, like all forces, is a vector quantity. It has
a magnitude and a direction. That makes it possible that a number
of nonzero vectors can sum to zero; and, indeed, that is what
happens inside a spherical shell.
Pressure is a scalar. If you add two pressures, you get a higher
pressure. There's no such thing as a negative pressure to cancel
out the first pressure.
Think of a cone, or similar shape, whose point is at the centre of
the earth. You can separate out a section with thickness dr, and
write down the force balance equation for that slab. (This, too, is
first year physics.) From that you get a differential equation for
the pressure as a function of radius. No matter what
simplifications you make, you will get the same conclusion: the
deeper you go, the higher the pressure. Which is something that
ocean divers can confirm from their own experience.
Even swimming pool divers.
At the centre of the earth, the gravitational force is zero but
the pressure is at a maximum.
Presumably, by an analogous argument, the pressure at the centre
of a balloon is also zero?
Actually, the gravitational force at the centre of a balloon is
zero, if you count only the force due to the balloon itself. But of
course, you do have to count the attraction from the earth as
well.
Either way, what you conclude about the gravitational force says
nothing about the pressure. They're different quantities.
They're different, but they are connected. Since the gravitational
force at the center of the Earth is 0, you can conclude that the
pressure /gradient/ there is 0. Hint to Arindam.
On 3/10/25 7:37 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
As pressure is force divided by area there cannot be pressure where
force is zero.
You keep making this mistake. Your grasp of physics is like those in
junior high, and that's why I think you are a high school drop out.
And since you're surrounded here by fucking "engineers", nobody can
correct you or make you understand this.
So I have to again spend my dick's time to do what they couldn't :-(
Fucking assholes.
Net force of gravity is of course zero at the center of the Earth. But
not higher up! And since all these forces higher up are "press"ing the material downward toward the center symmetrically, the resulting
pressure of electromagnetic nature
the center of the Earth, from all directions, creating enormous
pressure, cause such pressures won't cancel each other out, but add.
A simpler example is if you stand in a street and two identical trucks
press you from front and back with equal forces, net force on you will
be zero but the pressure from electromagnetic forces at contact surfaces
of trucks and your body on your two sides will not cancel out. They add
and will crush you.
Deep underground, the pressure is so high that no voids canThat can't be right. I read a book about just such a journey.
exist. No caves, so no journey to the centre of the earth.
Thus spake Peter Moylan:
At the centre of the earth, you also have to taken into account the
radially directed non-gravitational force that comes from the
weight of all the rocks (and so on) above your head.
Say what? "non-graviational" from "weight"?
On 11/03/25 06:54, jerryfriedman wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 9:50:06 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 09/03/25 09:58, Phil wrote:
On 08/03/2025 22:46, Bertietaylor wrote:
It's just as implausible as the suggestion (easily
disproved) that the pressure is zero at the centre of the
earth.
The pressure is most certainly zero at the centre of the
stars and planets. Read a first year book on physics.
Which will say that within an enclosed surface with mass the
net gravitational force or pressure is zero.
Read that first year book yourself. Did you find the words "or
pressure"? No, I didn't think so. You've tried to conclude
something about the pressure from the gravitational force. That
doesn't work, because they are different quantities.
Gravitational force, like all forces, is a vector quantity. It has
a magnitude and a direction. That makes it possible that a number
of nonzero vectors can sum to zero; and, indeed, that is what
happens inside a spherical shell.
Pressure is a scalar. If you add two pressures, you get a higher
pressure. There's no such thing as a negative pressure to cancel
out the first pressure.
Think of a cone, or similar shape, whose point is at the centre of
the earth. You can separate out a section with thickness dr, and
write down the force balance equation for that slab. (This, too, is
first year physics.) From that you get a differential equation for
the pressure as a function of radius. No matter what
simplifications you make, you will get the same conclusion: the
deeper you go, the higher the pressure. Which is something that
ocean divers can confirm from their own experience.
Even swimming pool divers.
At the centre of the earth, the gravitational force is zero but
the pressure is at a maximum.
Presumably, by an analogous argument, the pressure at the centre
of a balloon is also zero?
Actually, the gravitational force at the centre of a balloon is
zero, if you count only the force due to the balloon itself. But of
course, you do have to count the attraction from the earth as
well.
Either way, what you conclude about the gravitational force says
nothing about the pressure. They're different quantities.
They're different, but they are connected. Since the gravitational
force at the center of the Earth is 0, you can conclude that the
pressure /gradient/ there is 0. Hint to Arindam.
Re-reading this thread, I have suddenly realised what has misled
Arindam. He keeps using "force" and "gravitational force" as if they
were interchangeable. Not all forces are gravitational forces; and to calculate pressure you have to add up all the forces, not just the gravitational component. At the centre of the earth, you also have to
taken into account the radially directed non-gravitational force that
comes from the weight of all the rocks (and so on) above your head.
On 3/9/25 23:19, bertitaylor wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 1:05:55 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/7/25 17:00, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:14:03 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
...forcibly lead, out of expulsion from any challenge, to totally wrong >>>>> and absolutely absurd understanding of the universe.
What fools these apes be!
Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
The universe is eternal and infinite, filled with solid aether so fine >>>> that electrons glide through it with no resistance. The cores of stars >>>> are very cold, containing permanent currents creating large magnetic
fields. Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon. Stars lose their
hydrogen cover which becomes nebulae. Then regain them after their dark >>>> cores reach nebulae, over trillion year cycles.
The universe does not obey your religion.
Our religion in low Heaven is to do propaganda for Arindam and his
superlative genius works.
Historically, cheerleaders have never helped along significant
advances in scientific knowledge.
1.3 trillion-year cycles are a feature of Hinduism. Hindus
are not typically aggressive assholes, but one particular
offshoot of Hinduism, Krishna Consciousness, seems to produce
that personality type reliably.
On 3/11/25 12:00 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 4:07:38 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:
On 3/10/25 7:37 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
As pressure is force divided by area there cannot be pressure where
force is zero.
You keep making this mistake. Your grasp of physics is like those in
junior high, and that's why I think you are a high school drop out.
Wrong as always you are, Roachie. Your knowledge of physics is lower by
far than a bee.
And since you're surrounded here by fucking "engineers", nobody can
correct you or make you understand this.
Engineers know far far better physics than the current crop of
pseudoscientific scoundrels posing as physicists. They have the highest
contempt for these frauds who abuse maths to promote their nonsense
theories. Having nothing useful to do, unlike engineers, these creatures
spend their time sucking up to politicians for funding their weird
antics. Computer art is now their greatest friend! All sorts of rubbish
are made to appear true with their graphic presentation of absolute
rubbish.
So I have to again spend my dick's time to do what they couldn't :-(
Fucking assholes.
Not having the wits for math abuse nor computer art you are left with
mere abuse with the hope that will give you a credibility of sorts to
the brainwashed.
Net force of gravity is of course zero at the center of the Earth. But
not higher up! And since all these forces higher up are "press"ing the
material downward toward the center symmetrically, the resulting
pressure of electromagnetic nature
Looks like you have heard of something called electromagnetic but you do
not have a clue about it
As a joke you are passable, Roachie.
is conducted downward all the way to
the center of the Earth, from all directions, creating enormous
pressure, cause such pressures won't cancel each other out, but add.
Just a stupid statement from one who has no clue that when there is no
force there cannot be any pressure for pressure is force divided by
area.
There is no net force at the core for the forces go all around as in a
done. No pressure under a dome unlike the pressure you get from the flat
rock under which you reside, Roachie.
A simpler example is if you stand in a street and two identical trucks
press you from front and back with equal forces, net force on you will
be zero but the pressure from electromagnetic forces at contact surfaces >>> of trucks and your body on your two sides will not cancel out. They add
and will crush you.
Plain rubbish in many ways. Firstly it is a wrong analogy. The dome
analogy suits the Earth core pressure situation, not trucks colliding
with velocities. Dishonest as always you are, Roachie but that is only
normal for a physicist who is licensed to bullshit.
There is extraordinary force from the pressures on both sides doing the
crushing. Force from pressure is always there, just got to be, causing
distortion to the body
Thirdly no em forces are involved. To pretend they do further
demonstrates your dishonesty.
If Trump really wants to Maga he must sack all physicists if they do not
follow Arindam's physics.
Woof woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
You're handled when I fart you out after you kill yourself. My dick
explained the process for others who were confused.
They keep talking about pressure without mentioning (or even noticing perhaps) the symmetry involved. Symmetry is the key here. That's how pressures add instead of setting things in motion.Symmetry that is realistic for the geometry of stars and planets - of overlapping and underlapping domes representing the spherical sutfaces - ensures zero force,
Hindu scientists will kill you on the spot for what you're doing here to them, Arindam. That's probably why you're somewhere in Australian
desert.
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 0:29:28 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 11/03/25 06:54, jerryfriedman wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 9:50:06 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 09/03/25 09:58, Phil wrote:
On 08/03/2025 22:46, Bertietaylor wrote:
It's just as implausible as the suggestion (easily
disproved) that the pressure is zero at the centre of the
earth.
The pressure is most certainly zero at the centre of the
stars and planets. Read a first year book on physics.
Which will say that within an enclosed surface with mass the
net gravitational force or pressure is zero.
Read that first year book yourself. Did you find the words "or
pressure"? No, I didn't think so. You've tried to conclude
something about the pressure from the gravitational force. That
doesn't work, because they are different quantities.
Gravitational force, like all forces, is a vector quantity. It has
a magnitude and a direction. That makes it possible that a number
of nonzero vectors can sum to zero; and, indeed, that is what
happens inside a spherical shell.
Pressure is a scalar. If you add two pressures, you get a higher
pressure. There's no such thing as a negative pressure to cancel
out the first pressure.
Pressure is not a scalar. It is a vector with the same dimension
force. Yes there is such a thing as negative pressure, if we are talking about force directions.. Heard of decompression? There the force pulls
the surface inwards, as pressure inside is negative with respect to
outside.
Think of a cone, or similar shape, whose point is at the centre of
the earth. You can separate out a section with thickness dr, and
write down the force balance equation for that slab. (This, too, is
first year physics.) From that you get a differential equation for
the pressure as a function of radius. No matter what
simplifications you make, you will get the same conclusion: the
deeper you go, the higher the pressure. Which is something that
ocean divers can confirm from their own experience.
Handwaving above, typically pedantic, which needs to be fixed by the
great good sense of Arindam, as he provided many years ago. To repeat,
thus, as he had to do many times.
Yes pressure increases with depth. But this is not continuously so. At
some stage it peaks when there is enough mass below as there is enough
mass above. There is crushing with mass above and mass below enough heat generated thus for rocks to melt. Then there is less crushing with less
mass below and too much mass above pulling the molten matter up. At some depth there is thus less compression. The rocks cool. They become solid
and act as thousands of kilometers of insulation from the lava heat.
Till when the core is reached there is veryblittle pressure, very low temperature but a lot of current in the core. Remaining heat or pressure
by the piezoelectric effect converts to continuously circulating direct steady current responsible for the magnetic field which is undeniable in presence. Without extreme coldness in the core the magnetic fields of
Earth, Sun, dark matter, etc. could not exist.
Thus there is nonlinearity involved. Small pedantic minds do not
understand nonlinearity. They just don't get it, especially when they
are puffed up academics. Arindam the greatest genius of all time made
his living from all sorts of nonlinearities - and that too in hostile environments where he was always persecuted for his background and independent outlook. He has changed the world with his brilliant works, ranging from phased array antenna design to complex queuing systems for teletraffic.Now as he works fir himself he is enjoying himself
thoroughly.
Even swimming pool divers.
Did they swim in a pool at the centre of the Earth?
Woof-woof, what fools these pedantic apes be!
Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs, educating academics)
At the centre of the earth, the gravitational force is zero but
the pressure is at a maximum.
Presumably, by an analogous argument, the pressure at the centre
of a balloon is also zero?
Actually, the gravitational force at the centre of a balloon is
zero, if you count only the force due to the balloon itself. But of
course, you do have to count the attraction from the earth as
well.
Either way, what you conclude about the gravitational force says
nothing about the pressure. They're different quantities.
They're different, but they are connected. Since the gravitational
force at the center of the Earth is 0, you can conclude that the
pressure /gradient/ there is 0. Hint to Arindam.
Re-reading this thread, I have suddenly realised what has misled
Arindam.
were interchangeable.
calculate pressure you have to add up all the forces, not just the
gravitational component.
taken into account the radially directed non-gravitational force that
comes from the weight of all the rocks (and so on) above your head.
Okay, let us do some school level physics (what Arindam was taught in
Std 8)
Pressure is force/area. (Fundamental school level education, useful in hydraulics, which Arindam learnt in Std 9).
Force is a vector
Area is a scalar, when by convention its orientation is perpendicular to
the force.
The division of a vector by a scalar is a vector.
So pressure is a VECTOR.
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 18:55:11 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/9/25 23:19, bertitaylor wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 1:05:55 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/7/25 17:00, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:14:03 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
...forcibly lead, out of expulsion from any challenge, to totally
wrong
and absolutely absurd understanding of the universe.
What fools these apes be!
Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
The universe is eternal and infinite, filled with solid aether so fine >>>>> that electrons glide through it with no resistance. The cores of stars >>>>> are very cold, containing permanent currents creating large magnetic >>>>> fields. Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon. Stars lose their
hydrogen cover which becomes nebulae. Then regain them after their
dark
cores reach nebulae, over trillion year cycles.
The universe does not obey your religion.
Our religion in low Heaven is to do propaganda for Arindam and his
superlative genius works.
Historically, cheerleaders have never helped along significant
advances in scientific knowledge.
Very true for the abominable Einsteinian cheerleaders and there are so
many of them.
They have corrupted not just physics. And humanity too
with moral relativism, setting up wrongs as rights and rights as wrongs.
On 3/11/25 16:19, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 18:55:11 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/9/25 23:19, bertitaylor wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 1:05:55 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/7/25 17:00, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:14:03 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
...forcibly lead, out of expulsion from any challenge, to totally >>>>>>> wrong
and absolutely absurd understanding of the universe.
What fools these apes be!
Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
The universe is eternal and infinite, filled with solid aether so fine >>>>>> that electrons glide through it with no resistance. The cores of stars >>>>>> are very cold, containing permanent currents creating large magnetic >>>>>> fields. Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon. Stars lose their
hydrogen cover which becomes nebulae. Then regain them after their >>>>>> dark
cores reach nebulae, over trillion year cycles.
The universe does not obey your religion.
Our religion in low Heaven is to do propaganda for Arindam and his
superlative genius works.
Historically, cheerleaders have never helped along significant
advances in scientific knowledge.
Very true for the abominable Einsteinian cheerleaders and there are so
many of them.
Serious scientists and engineers use Einstein's equations to solve
the problem before them, such as designing a particle accelerator.
They are thinking about the problem they're trying to solve, not
thinking about Einstein. They are not cheerleaders.
The most successful theories are taken for granted by the people
who use them to solve real-world problems.
They have corrupted not just physics. And humanity too
with moral relativism, setting up wrongs as rights and rights as wrongs.
The relativism you hate didn't come from Einstein. It was there
all along in Newton's physics. Strange that you selectively hate
Einstein but not Newton.
Regarding your obsessive focus on Einstein: "Great minds discuss
ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people."
Remember Wednesday, when David Canzi asked plaintively:
On 3/9/25 23:54, bertitaylor wrote:
Okay, let us do some school level physics (what Arindam was taught in
Std 8)
Pressure is force/area. (Fundamental school level education, useful in
hydraulics, which Arindam learnt in Std 9).
Force is a vector
Area is a scalar, when by convention its orientation is perpendicular to >> the force.
The division of a vector by a scalar is a vector.
So pressure is a VECTOR.
The formula for gravitational attraction between two bodies is:
F = G m1 m2 / d^2
The left side is a force, therefore (according to you) a vector. None
of the quantities on the right side are vectors. How does that happen?
You're missing the unit vector in the direction of the attracted to the attractor. Instead, you're only looking at magnitudes.
Forces always act in a direction, which means that they are described
by vectors. Note that in case of gravitation, both parties are being forceful.
On 3/9/25 23:54, bertitaylor wrote:
Okay, let us do some school level physics (what Arindam was taught in
Std 8)
Pressure is force/area. (Fundamental school level education, useful in
hydraulics, which Arindam learnt in Std 9).
Force is a vector
Area is a scalar, when by convention its orientation is perpendicular to
the force.
The division of a vector by a scalar is a vector.
So pressure is a VECTOR.
The formula for gravitational attraction between two bodies is:
F = G m1 m2 / d^2
The left side is a force, therefore (according to you) a vector. None
of the quantities on the right side are vectors. How does that happen?
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 21:55:47 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 19:16:49 +0000, jerryfriedman wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 3:54:39 +0000, bertitaylor wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 9:50:06 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote:...
On 09/03/25 09:58, Phil wrote:
On 08/03/2025 22:46, Bertietaylor wrote:
It's just as implausible as the suggestion (easily disproved) >>>>>>>>> that the pressure is zero at the centre of the earth.
The pressure is most certainly zero at the centre of the stars >>>>>>>> and planets. Read a first year book on physics.
Which will say that within an enclosed surface with mass the net >>>>>>> gravitational force or pressure is zero.
Read that first year book yourself. Did you find the words "or
pressure"?
You must have been a lousy student in school, Moylan. Did you not learn >>>> there that Pressure = Force/Area, Where the area involved is
perpendicular to the force? So if force is say 10 newtons ACTS
UNIFORMLY upon an immovable area of 1 square meter, then the pressure
upon that surface is 10 newtons per square meter.
No, I didn't think so. You've tried to conclude something
about the pressure from the gravitational force. That doesn't work,
because they are different quantities.
Don't be a bigger fool than you can help, Moylan. Read above. Basically >>>> if there is no force, there cannot be any pressure. As there is no force >>>> from gravity at the centre of the Earth/sun, there cannot be any
pressure there.
So pressure = force/area. When force = 0, pressure = 0.
Think you can get this?
Gravitational force, like all forces, is a vector quantity. It has a >>>>> magnitude and a direction. That makes it possible that a number of
nonzero vectors can sum to zero; and, indeed, that is what happens
inside a spherical shell.
Right.
Pressure is a scalar.
No. Which ***idiot*** told you that????
Okay, let us do some school level physics (what Arindam was taught in
Std 8)
Pressure is force/area. (Fundamental school level education, useful in >>>> hydraulics, which Arindam learnt in Std 9).
Force is a vector
Area is a scalar, when by convention its orientation is perpendicular to >>>> the force.
The division of a vector by a scalar is a vector.
So pressure is a VECTOR.
Still have your old textbooks?
Yes.
Or access on line or
in person to any textbook you trust? You should find
that it says pressure is the /magnitude/ of force over
area, which is a scalar.
It is satisfying to point out the true reason for the evils of this
world.
You have managed to do that with your deliberate confusion to justify
the evil and wrong theory of relativity accounting for energy formation
by mass destruction - which has absolutely no basis.
Pressure in all texts is force divided by area. No text says that it is
just the magnitude of the force. All texts say that force is a vector.
In other words, pressure is a vector acting in the same direction of the
applied force.
Here you have a textbook that says pressure is a
scalar. I picked one from before Einstein's relativity
so you couldn't fall back on your "true reason".
https://books.google.com/books?id=b51RAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA257#v=onepage&q&f=false
You will not find a textbook that says pressure is a
vector or writes pressure using its notation for
vectors or refers to the components of a pressure
vector. You probably will find or have found one
that says in words "pressure is force divided by
area" or something similar, not realizing that some
students could misinterpret that as saying pressure
is a vector, but it's pretty certain that the book
will get the equations right.
When we say tire pressure is so much, that means there is so much force
acting normally on the tire wall per square inch.
That's true. The magnitude of the force is given by
the pressure and the area, both scalars, and the
direction of the force vector is normal to the tire wall.
So it is a vector all
right even though it may sound like a scalar. Like velocity is a vector
but speed is a scalar even though they are dimensionally same.
No, it's a scalar even though it may sound like a
vector.
You may have to read
carefully and even pay attention to typefaces. The
textbooks I have use italic for vectors and boldface
for scalars.
Irrelevant and dishonest.
Relevant--that's how books distinguish between
vectors and scalars--and true.
--
Jerry Friedman
--
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 21:55:47 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
You must have been a lousy student in school, Moylan.
You will not find a textbook that says pressure is a vector or
writes pressure using its notation for vectors or refers to the
components of a pressure vector. You probably will find or have
found one that says in words "pressure is force divided by area"
or something similar, not realizing that some students could
misinterpret that as saying pressure is a vector, but it's pretty
certain that the book will get the equations right.
When we say tire pressure is so much, that means there is so much
force acting normally on the tire wall per square inch.
That's true. The magnitude of the force is given by the pressure
and the area, both scalars, and the direction of the force vector is
normal to the tire wall.
So it is a vector all right even though it may sound like a
scalar. Like velocity is a vector but speed is a scalar even though
they are dimensionally same.
No, it's a scalar even though it may sound like a vector.
You may have to read carefully and even pay attention to
typefaces. The textbooks I have use italic for vectors and
boldface for scalars.
Irrelevant and dishonest.
Relevant--that's how books distinguish between vectors and
scalars--and true.
Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
Remember Wednesday, when David Canzi asked plaintively:
The formula for gravitational attraction between two bodies is:
F = G m1 m2 / d^2
The left side is a force, therefore (according to you) a vector.
None of the quantities on the right side are vectors. How does
that happen?
You're missing the unit vector in the direction of the attracted to
the attractor. Instead, you're only looking at magnitudes.
Forces always act in a direction, which means that they are
described by vectors. Note that in case of gravitation, both
parties are being forceful.
Unlike parties in real life....
Fortunately, by Newtons third law, his physical bodies have no choice
about it.
The relativism you hate didn't come from Einstein. It was there all
along in Newton's physics. Strange that you selectively hate
Einstein but not Newton.
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 21:55:47 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
When we say tire pressure is so much, that means there is so much
force acting normally on the tire wall per square inch.
That's true. The magnitude of the force is given by the pressure and
the area, both scalars, and the direction of the force vector is
normal to the tire wall.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 11:32:07 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 13/03/25 03:21, jerryfriedman wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 21:55:47 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
You must have been a lousy student in school, Moylan.
I don't normally blow my own trumpet, but it seems to be appropriate in >>this case. In my high school matriculation exams I got first class
honours in Physics. First class honours again in first year university >>physics. This was at a university (Melbourne) that is regularly ranked >>number 1 in the country and among the top 50 in the world. And they
didn't run any Mickey Mouse "physics for beginners" subject. It was the >>same Physics I as taken by the physics majors.
I haven't looked up where you got your degree, Bertie. If it was a >>reputable university, you're doing your level best to damage its
reputation.
Every graduating class has someone at the bottom.
On 13/03/25 02:40, David Canzi wrote:
The relativism you hate didn't come from Einstein. It was there all
along in Newton's physics. Strange that you selectively hate
Einstein but not Newton.
That's an important point. If you read Arindam's claims, which I once
did on a day when I was bored, he has disproved Newton's laws of motion.
He doesn't say that himself, because he hasn't yet realised that a
failure of conservation of momentum would contradict what Newton said.
So Einstein gets the blame for accepting Newton's results.
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
On 13/03/25 02:40, David Canzi wrote:
The relativism you hate didn't come from Einstein. It was there all
along in Newton's physics. Strange that you selectively hate
Einstein but not Newton.
That's an important point. If you read Arindam's claims, which I once
did on a day when I was bored, he has disproved Newton's laws of motion.
He doesn't say that himself, because he hasn't yet realised that a
failure of conservation of momentum would contradict what Newton said.
So Einstein gets the blame for accepting Newton's results.
Our genius gets his results from an incorrect application
of Newto's third law. (forgetting about some forces)
Since that makes the internal forces non-balancing
an isolated body can accellerate by itself.
Hence the perpetuum mobile, and the starship.
Einstein doesn't come into it, that's another fuck-up.
Jan
(enough said)
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
On 13/03/25 08:01, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
Remember Wednesday, when David Canzi asked plaintively:
The formula for gravitational attraction between two bodies is:
F = G m1 m2 / d^2
The left side is a force, therefore (according to you) a vector.
None of the quantities on the right side are vectors. How does
that happen?
You're missing the unit vector in the direction of the attracted to
the attractor. Instead, you're only looking at magnitudes.
Forces always act in a direction, which means that they are
described by vectors. Note that in case of gravitation, both
parties are being forceful.
Unlike parties in real life....
Fortunately, by Newtons third law, his physical bodies have no choice
about it.
Now you're making me imagine an outlaw that chooses not to obey the law.
You may laugh, but I've seen enough examples in real life of politicians
who don't understand the difference between natural law and man-made law.
Hitting a brick wall may be educational experience....
About brick walls pushing back...
Jan
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:50:06 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
Think of a cone, or similar shape, whose point is at the centre of the >>earth. You can separate out a section with thickness dr, and write down
the force balance equation for that slab. (This, too, is first year >>physics.) From that you get a differential equation for the pressure as
a function of radius. No matter what simplifications you make, you will
get the same conclusion: the deeper you go, the higher the pressure.
Which is something that ocean divers can confirm from their own
experience.
Right, thanks.
The pressure going deeper always increases, assuming it is
transmitted.
is good.
The real-world heating by radioactive decay is not trivial, but
that isn't a part of the other issue.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 15:40:27 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/11/25 16:19, Bertitaylor wrote:
They have corrupted not just physics. And humanity too
with moral relativism, setting up wrongs as rights and rights as wrongs.
The relativism you hate didn't come from Einstein. It was there
all along in Newton's physics. Strange that you selectively hate
Einstein but not Newton.
Nonsense but typical. Newton was correcting Science. Einstein was
corrupting Science.
On 3/12/25 16:05, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 15:40:27 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/11/25 16:19, Bertitaylor wrote:
They have corrupted not just physics. And humanity tooThe relativism you hate didn't come from Einstein. It was there
with moral relativism, setting up wrongs as rights and rights as wrongs. >>>
all along in Newton's physics. Strange that you selectively hate
Einstein but not Newton.
Nonsense but typical. Newton was correcting Science. Einstein was
corrupting Science.
If relativism is wrong and immoral when Einstein says it, it must
also be wrong and immoral when Newton says it.
The fundamental difference between religion and science is this:
When somebody wants to convince you of one of his religious
ideas, and you resist, he will sooner or later say you're immoral.
When somebody wants to convince you of one of his scientific ideas,
and you resist, he will sooner or later say you're stupid or crazy,
but rarely will he say you're immoral.
The worst possible reason to believe something is that somebody
will morally disapprove of you if you don't believe it.
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 21:08:24 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/12/25 16:05, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 15:40:27 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/11/25 16:19, Bertitaylor wrote:
They have corrupted not just physics. And humanity tooThe relativism you hate didn't come from Einstein. It was there
with moral relativism, setting up wrongs as rights and rights as wrongs. >>>
all along in Newton's physics. Strange that you selectively hate
Einstein but not Newton.
Quote Newton on that. Did he say that light velocity did not vary with
that of what emitted it? That is the first postulate of Einsteinian relativity and absolutely nonsense.
Woof woof woof-woof
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
On 13/03/25 03:21, jerryfriedman wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 21:55:47 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
When we say tire pressure is so much, that means there is so much
force acting normally on the tire wall per square inch.
That's true. The magnitude of the force is given by the pressure and
the area, both scalars, and the direction of the force vector is
normal to the tire wall.
Something that I forgot to mention.
Although all of the above is true, it talks only about the force on the
wall. There is also pressure all the way through the interior of the
tyre.
In what direction is that pressure acting? If we accept that pressure is
a scalar, there is nothing more to explain. If it's a vector, then away
from the walls it is acting in all directions, which is at least a
little weird.
Actually it is a tensor,
which may reduce to a scalar under suitable circumstances,
Jan
In article <08dab68206a29d41e17b3a44b6161d7c@www.novabbs.org>,
bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 21:08:24 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/12/25 16:05, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 15:40:27 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/11/25 16:19, Bertitaylor wrote:
They have corrupted not just physics. And humanity tooThe relativism you hate didn't come from Einstein. It was there
with moral relativism, setting up wrongs as rights and rights as wrongs. >>>>>
all along in Newton's physics. Strange that you selectively hate
Einstein but not Newton.
Quote Newton on that. Did he say that light velocity did not vary with
that of what emitted it? That is the first postulate of Einsteinian
relativity and absolutely nonsense.
Except that it has been measured and confirmed. Multiple times. The
light will blue-shift if the source is moving towards the observer and
will red-shift if it is moving away. But the velocity remains the
same.
Woof woof woof-woof
Actual observations versus your barking mad opinions. This is the very difference between science and religion.
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 8:08:49 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
On 13/03/25 03:21, jerryfriedman wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 21:55:47 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
When we say tire pressure is so much, that means there is so much
force acting normally on the tire wall per square inch.
That's true. The magnitude of the force is given by the pressure and >>>>> the area, both scalars, and the direction of the force vector is
normal to the tire wall.
Something that I forgot to mention.
Although all of the above is true, it talks only about the force on the >>>> wall. There is also pressure all the way through the interior of the
tyre.
In what direction is that pressure acting? If we accept that pressure is >>>> a scalar, there is nothing more to explain. If it's a vector, then away >>>> from the walls it is acting in all directions, which is at least a
little weird.
Actually it is a tensor,
which may reduce to a scalar under suitable circumstances,
Like trying to prove certain wrong theories. Immense gravitational
pressure existing (despite gravitational zero force) at the centre of
the Sun to create fusion for solar energy!
Since you have no education in nuclear physics and zero experimental information on the subject, what leads you to believe you know anything
about the subject, Arindam?
Of course I mean other than your insanity?
In article <08dab68206a29d41e17b3a44b6161d7c@www.novabbs.org>, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 21:08:24 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/12/25 16:05, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 15:40:27 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/11/25 16:19, Bertitaylor wrote:
They have corrupted not just physics. And humanity too with
moral relativism, setting up wrongs as rights and rights as
wrongs.
The relativism you hate didn't come from Einstein. It was
there all along in Newton's physics. Strange that you
selectively hate Einstein but not Newton.
Quote Newton on that. Did he say that light velocity did not vary
with that of what emitted it? That is the first postulate of
Einsteinian relativity and absolutely nonsense.
Except that it has been measured and confirmed. Multiple times.
The light will blue-shift if the source is moving towards the
observer and will red-shift if it is moving away. But the velocity
remains the same.
Woof woof woof-woof
Actual observations versus your barking mad opinions. This is the
very difference between science and religion.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 8:08:49 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
On 13/03/25 03:21, jerryfriedman wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 21:55:47 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
When we say tire pressure is so much, that means there is so much
force acting normally on the tire wall per square inch.
That's true. The magnitude of the force is given by the pressure and
the area, both scalars, and the direction of the force vector is
normal to the tire wall.
Something that I forgot to mention.
Although all of the above is true, it talks only about the force on the
wall. There is also pressure all the way through the interior of the
tyre.
In what direction is that pressure acting? If we accept that pressure is >>> a scalar, there is nothing more to explain. If it's a vector, then away
from the walls it is acting in all directions, which is at least a
little weird.
Actually it is a tensor,
which may reduce to a scalar under suitable circumstances,
Like trying to prove certain wrong theories. Immense gravitational
pressure existing (despite gravitational zero force) at the centre of
the Sun to create fusion for solar energy!
On 27/03/25 09:21, Johnny LaRue wrote:
In article <08dab68206a29d41e17b3a44b6161d7c@www.novabbs.org>,
bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 21:08:24 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/12/25 16:05, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 15:40:27 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/11/25 16:19, Bertitaylor wrote:
They have corrupted not just physics. And humanity too with
moral relativism, setting up wrongs as rights and rights as
wrongs.
The relativism you hate didn't come from Einstein. It was
there all along in Newton's physics. Strange that you
selectively hate Einstein but not Newton.
Quote Newton on that. Did he say that light velocity did not vary
with that of what emitted it? That is the first postulate of
Einsteinian relativity and absolutely nonsense.
Except that it has been measured and confirmed. Multiple times.
The light will blue-shift if the source is moving towards the
observer and will red-shift if it is moving away. But the velocity
remains the same.
Arindam has been told repeatedly where his mistakes are. He's also been
told that a violation of conservation of momentum is a violation of
Newton's laws. All of his responses show that he doesn't want to listen
or to learn.
Woof woof woof-woof
Actual observations versus your barking mad opinions. This is the
very difference between science and religion.
In case it's not clear: Bertie is the barking mad aspect of Arindam.
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 23:12:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 8:08:49 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
On 13/03/25 03:21, jerryfriedman wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 21:55:47 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
When we say tire pressure is so much, that means there is so much >>>>>>> force acting normally on the tire wall per square inch.
That's true. The magnitude of the force is given by the pressure and >>>>>> the area, both scalars, and the direction of the force vector is
normal to the tire wall.
Something that I forgot to mention.
Although all of the above is true, it talks only about the force on the >>>>> wall. There is also pressure all the way through the interior of the >>>>> tyre.
In what direction is that pressure acting? If we accept that pressure is >>>>> a scalar, there is nothing more to explain. If it's a vector, then away >>>>> from the walls it is acting in all directions, which is at least a
little weird.
Actually it is a tensor,
which may reduce to a scalar under suitable circumstances,
Like trying to prove certain wrong theories. Immense gravitational
pressure existing (despite gravitational zero force) at the centre of
the Sun to create fusion for solar energy!
Since you have no education in nuclear physics and zero experimental
information on the subject, what leads you to believe you know anything
about the subject, Arindam?
Of course I mean other than your insanity?
Projecting, tch tch, the ridiculous penisnano Penisnino, who is a
composition of lies of the most absurd quality.
On 27/03/25 09:21, Johnny LaRue wrote:
In article <08dab68206a29d41e17b3a44b6161d7c@www.novabbs.org>, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 21:08:24 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/12/25 16:05, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 15:40:27 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/11/25 16:19, Bertitaylor wrote:
They have corrupted not just physics. And humanity too with
moral relativism, setting up wrongs as rights and rights as
wrongs.
The relativism you hate didn't come from Einstein. It was
there all along in Newton's physics. Strange that you
selectively hate Einstein but not Newton.
Quote Newton on that. Did he say that light velocity did not vary
with that of what emitted it? That is the first postulate of
Einsteinian relativity and absolutely nonsense.
Except that it has been measured and confirmed. Multiple times.
The light will blue-shift if the source is moving towards the
observer and will red-shift if it is moving away. But the velocity remains the same.
Arindam has been told repeatedly where his mistakes are. He's also been
told that a violation of conservation of momentum is a violation of
Newton's laws. All of his responses show that he doesn't want to listen
or to learn.
Woof woof woof-woof
Actual observations versus your barking mad opinions. This is the
very difference between science and religion.
In case it's not clear: Bertie is the barking mad aspect of Arindam.
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 22:21:31 +0000, Johnny LaRue wrote:
In article <08dab68206a29d41e17b3a44b6161d7c@www.novabbs.org>,
bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 21:08:24 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/12/25 16:05, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 15:40:27 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/11/25 16:19, Bertitaylor wrote:
They have corrupted not just physics. And humanity too
with moral relativism, setting up wrongs as rights and rights as >>>>>> wrongs.
The relativism you hate didn't come from Einstein. It was there
all along in Newton's physics. Strange that you selectively hate >>>>> Einstein but not Newton.
Quote Newton on that. Did he say that light velocity did not vary with
that of what emitted it? That is the first postulate of Einsteinian
relativity and absolutely nonsense.
Except that it has been measured and confirmed. Multiple times. The light will blue-shift if the source is moving towards the observer and
will red-shift if it is moving away. But the velocity remains the
same.
No. The change of velocity causes the frequency shifts as in Doppler
effect.
In article <946a852dd9b780adb92e73422eb35136@www.novabbs.org>,
bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 22:21:31 +0000, Johnny LaRue wrote:
In article <08dab68206a29d41e17b3a44b6161d7c@www.novabbs.org>,
bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 21:08:24 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/12/25 16:05, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 15:40:27 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/11/25 16:19, Bertitaylor wrote:
They have corrupted not just physics. And humanity too
with moral relativism, setting up wrongs as rights and rights as >>>>>>>> wrongs.
The relativism you hate didn't come from Einstein. It was there >>>>>>> all along in Newton's physics. Strange that you selectively hate >>>>>>> Einstein but not Newton.
Quote Newton on that. Did he say that light velocity did not vary with >>>> that of what emitted it? That is the first postulate of Einsteinian
relativity and absolutely nonsense.
Except that it has been measured and confirmed. Multiple times. The
light will blue-shift if the source is moving towards the observer and
will red-shift if it is moving away. But the velocity remains the
same.
No. The change of velocity causes the frequency shifts as in Doppler
effect.
AGAIN, no. This has been measured/observed countless times. See Michelson-Morley,
experiments confirm predictions made by Einstein in Special Relativity.
Which is the best test of a hypothesis. Predictions being verified is
how hypotheses become theory.
If you knew ANYTHING about physics, you would understand/accept this.
Your claims have no basis in reality. What does it feel like to be
insane?
Woof woof indeed.
As genius appears insanity to any penisnino, JimPee is acknowledging Arindam's genius.
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 21:08:24 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/12/25 16:05, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 15:40:27 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/11/25 16:19, Bertitaylor wrote:
They have corrupted not just physics. And humanity too
with moral relativism, setting up wrongs as rights and rights as
wrongs.
The relativism you hate didn't come from Einstein. It was there
all along in Newton's physics. Strange that you selectively hate
Einstein but not Newton.
Quote Newton on that. Did he say that light velocity did not vary with
that of what emitted it? That is the first postulate of Einsteinian relativity and absolutely nonsense.
Woof woof woof-woof
The worst possible reason to believe something is that somebody
will morally disapprove of you if you don't believe it.
On 3/26/25 17:33, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 21:08:24 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/12/25 16:05, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 15:40:27 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/11/25 16:19, Bertitaylor wrote:
They have corrupted not just physics. And humanity too
with moral relativism, setting up wrongs as rights and rights as
wrongs.
The relativism you hate didn't come from Einstein. It was there
all along in Newton's physics. Strange that you selectively hate
Einstein but not Newton.
Quote Newton on that. Did he say that light velocity did not vary with
that of what emitted it? That is the first postulate of Einsteinian
relativity and absolutely nonsense.
Actually it's the second postulate. You should actually KNOW
SOMETHING about the theory you criticize, instead of sounding
off ignorantly.
The first postulate is this: The laws of physics take the same
form in all inertial frames of reference. This is known as
the principle of relativity. It means that the equations of
physics have the same form for all observers in any inertial
state of motion. That's the relativism that is shared by both
Newton and Einstein.
If you think that the coordinate-system relativism of Newton
and Einstein is somehow deeply connected to moral relativism
because their descriptions both contain the word relativism,
you should also expect sun dogs to bark.
Woof woof woof-woof
The worst possible reason to believe something is that somebody
will morally disapprove of you if you don't believe it.
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 4:14:27 +0000, Johnny LaRue wrote:
In article <946a852dd9b780adb92e73422eb35136@www.novabbs.org>,
bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 22:21:31 +0000, Johnny LaRue wrote:
In article <08dab68206a29d41e17b3a44b6161d7c@www.novabbs.org>,
bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 21:08:24 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/12/25 16:05, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 15:40:27 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/11/25 16:19, Bertitaylor wrote:
They have corrupted not just physics. And humanity too
with moral relativism, setting up wrongs as rights and rights as >>>>>>>>> wrongs.
The relativism you hate didn't come from Einstein. It was there >>>>>>>> all along in Newton's physics. Strange that you selectively hate >>>>>>>> Einstein but not Newton.
Quote Newton on that. Did he say that light velocity did not vary with >>>>> that of what emitted it? That is the first postulate of Einsteinian
relativity and absolutely nonsense.
Except that it has been measured and confirmed. Multiple times. The >>>> light will blue-shift if the source is moving towards the observer and >>>> will red-shift if it is moving away. But the velocity remains the
same.
No. The change of velocity causes the frequency shifts as in Doppler
effect.
AGAIN, no. This has been measured/observed countless times. See
Michelson-Morley,
Oh dear dear apes, so steadfastly aping!
Arindam being blessed and so outgrown his ape nature, found out the incredible bungle in the analysis of MMI.
In 2005. Wrote and published a paper explaining lucidly and logically
what the bungle was about.
The nulls have to happen because light speed is variant.
The esteemed fools forgot the equipment was on a moving Earth so the
light path distances must change from moment to monent.
Woof woof woof woof
When will these apes ever learn?
Bertitaylor
Kennedy-Thorndike and Ives-Stillwell. These
experiments confirm predictions made by Einstein in Special Relativity.
Which is the best test of a hypothesis. Predictions being verified is
how hypotheses become theory.
If you knew ANYTHING about physics, you would understand/accept this.
Your claims have no basis in reality. What does it feel like to be
insane?
Woof woof indeed.
--
bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
As genius appears insanity to any penisnino, JimPee is acknowledging
Arindam's genius.
Keep telling yourself that Arindam.
In sci.physics Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:14:03 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
...forcibly lead, out of expulsion from any challenge, to totally wrong
and absolutely absurd understanding of the universe.
What fools these apes be!
Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
The universe is eternal and infinite, filled with solid aether so fine
that electrons glide through it with no resistance. The cores of stars
are very cold, containing permanent currents creating large magnetic
fields. Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon. Stars lose their
hydrogen cover which becomes nebulae. Then regain them after their dark
cores reach nebulae, over trillion year cycles.
--
Still batshit crazy I see, Arindam.
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:07:33 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
As genius appears insanity to any penisnino, JimPee is acknowledging
Arindam's genius.
Keep telling yourself that Arindam.
Arindam does what he does.
On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 0:11:21 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:14:03 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
...forcibly lead, out of expulsion from any challenge, to totally wrong >>>> and absolutely absurd understanding of the universe.
What fools these apes be!
Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
The universe is eternal and infinite, filled with solid aether so fine
that electrons glide through it with no resistance. The cores of stars
are very cold, containing permanent currents creating large magnetic
fields. Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon. Stars lose their
hydrogen cover which becomes nebulae. Then regain them after their dark
cores reach nebulae, over trillion year cycles.
--
Still batshit crazy I see, Arindam.
Arindam sends his thanks,
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:07:33 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
As genius appears insanity to any penisnino, JimPee is acknowledging
Arindam's genius.
Keep telling yourself that Arindam.
Arindam does what he does.
Yes, you do what you do Arindam and it is all quite delusionally insane
what you do.
<snip usual insane, rambling drivel>
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 0:35:13 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:07:33 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
As genius appears insanity to any penisnino, JimPee is acknowledging >>>>> Arindam's genius.
Keep telling yourself that Arindam.
Arindam does what he does.
Yes, you do what you do Arindam and it is all quite delusionally insane
what you do.
What Arindam does is
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 0:35:13 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:07:33 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
As genius appears insanity to any penisnino, JimPee is acknowledging >>>>>> Arindam's genius.
Keep telling yourself that Arindam.
Arindam does what he does.
Yes, you do what you do Arindam and it is all quite delusionally insane
what you do.
What Arindam does is
constantly babble delusionally insane nonsense.
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 23:12:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
and zero experimental
information on the subject,
Wrong Arindam found in 2005 that the Michelson Morley interferometer experiment showed that the results actually showed that light speed
varied with the emitter. That knocked out the basis for e=mcc.
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:59:47 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/26/25 17:33, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 21:08:24 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/12/25 16:05, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 15:40:27 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/11/25 16:19, Bertitaylor wrote:
They have corrupted not just physics. And humanity too
with moral relativism, setting up wrongs as rights and rights as >>>>>>> wrongs.
The relativism you hate didn't come from Einstein. It was there
all along in Newton's physics. Strange that you selectively hate >>>>>> Einstein but not Newton.
Quote Newton on that. Did he say that light velocity did not vary with
that of what emitted it? That is the first postulate of Einsteinian
relativity and absolutely nonsense.
Actually it's the second postulate. You should actually KNOW
SOMETHING about the theory you criticize, instead of sounding
off ignorantly.
Tch tch.
The first postulate is this: The laws of physics take the same
form in all inertial frames of reference. This is known as
the principle of relativity. It means that the equations of
physics have the same form for all observers in any inertial
state of motion. That's the relativism that is shared by both
Newton and Einstein.
So far so good. Nothing original.
If you think that the coordinate-system relativism of Newton
and Einstein is somehow deeply connected to moral relativism
because their descriptions both contain the word relativism,
you should also expect sun dogs to bark.
The moral relativism comes from corruption of the thought process by
making right and wrong equally valid.
What about the second postulate about the invariance of light speed. Did Newton say that?
That is the corruption underlying moral relativism. Making lies truth.
The worst possible reason to believe something is that somebody
will morally disapprove of you if you don't believe it.
On 3/27/25 17:40, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:59:47 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/26/25 17:33, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 21:08:24 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/12/25 16:05, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 15:40:27 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/11/25 16:19, Bertitaylor wrote:
They have corrupted not just physics. And humanity too
with moral relativism, setting up wrongs as rights and rights as >>>>>>>> wrongs.
The relativism you hate didn't come from Einstein. It was there >>>>>>> all along in Newton's physics. Strange that you selectively hate >>>>>>> Einstein but not Newton.
Quote Newton on that. Did he say that light velocity did not vary with >>>> that of what emitted it? That is the first postulate of Einsteinian
relativity and absolutely nonsense.
Actually it's the second postulate. You should actually KNOW
SOMETHING about the theory you criticize, instead of sounding
off ignorantly.
Tch tch.
The first postulate is this: The laws of physics take the same
form in all inertial frames of reference. This is known as
the principle of relativity. It means that the equations of
physics have the same form for all observers in any inertial
state of motion. That's the relativism that is shared by both
Newton and Einstein.
So far so good. Nothing original.
If you think that the coordinate-system relativism of Newton
and Einstein is somehow deeply connected to moral relativism
because their descriptions both contain the word relativism,
you should also expect sun dogs to bark.
The moral relativism comes from corruption of the thought process by
making right and wrong equally valid.
What about the second postulate about the invariance of light speed. Did
Newton say that?
That is the corruption underlying moral relativism. Making lies truth.
The first postulate is that the equations of dynamics, the motions of
bodies influenced by forces, stay the same in the coordinate systems
that all inertial observers construct for themselves.
postulate extends this to optics.
to remain the same for all inertial observers, hence the speed of
light must, when measured by an inertial observer, always be the
same.
Now how does that second postulate make something true and something
false equivalent? What are the true thing and the false thing that
the second postulate makes equivalent? And how do you tell which
one is true and which one is false?
The worst possible reason to believe something is that somebody
will morally disapprove of you if you don't believe it.
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 23:12:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
and zero experimental
information on the subject,
Wrong Arindam found in 2005 that the Michelson Morley interferometer
experiment showed that the results actually showed that light speed
varied with the emitter. That knocked out the basis for e=mcc.
The first such experiment was performed in 1881.
Susequent experiments, of which there were about 33 peformed between
1887 and 2015 with ever increasing sensitivity and accuracy, all agree
with the original 1881 experiment null result with ever decreasing
possible error.
The current result maximum deviation from a null result is less than
10^-18.
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 23:38:43 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:Quite, they religiously make the same mistake. Which is that the Earth's movement (with the apparatus fixed on it
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 23:12:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
and zero experimental
information on the subject,
Wrong Arindam found in 2005 that the Michelson Morley interferometer
experiment showed that the results actually showed that light speed
varied with the emitter. That knocked out the basis for e=mcc.
The first such experiment was performed in 1881.
Susequent experiments, of which there were about 33 peformed between
1887 and 2015 with ever increasing sensitivity and accuracy, all agree
with the original 1881 experiment null result with ever decreasing
possible error.
The current result maximum deviation from a null result is less than
10^-18.
different paths) can only cause the nulls when the light speed is
variant.
Arindam worked that out in 2005.
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 23:38:43 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:Quite, they religiously make the same mistake. Which is that the Earth's
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 23:12:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
and zero experimental
information on the subject,
Wrong Arindam found in 2005 that the Michelson Morley interferometer
experiment showed that the results actually showed that light speed
varied with the emitter. That knocked out the basis for e=mcc.
The first such experiment was performed in 1881.
Susequent experiments, of which there were about 33 peformed between
1887 and 2015 with ever increasing sensitivity and accuracy, all agree
with the original 1881 experiment null result with ever decreasing
possible error.
The current result maximum deviation from a null result is less than
10^-18.
movement (with the apparatus fixed on it
Except, crackpot, not all the experiments done have used apparatus fixed
on the Earth.
different paths) can only cause the nulls when the light speed is
variant.
Delusional nonsense, crackpot.
Arindam worked that out in 2005.
So now you can explain in 2025 how experiments NOT fixed on the Earth
get the same result Arindam.
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 3:33:39 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 23:38:43 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:Quite, they religiously make the same mistake. Which is that the Earth's >>> movement (with the apparatus fixed on it
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 23:12:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
and zero experimental
information on the subject,
Wrong Arindam found in 2005 that the Michelson Morley interferometer >>>>> experiment showed that the results actually showed that light speed
varied with the emitter. That knocked out the basis for e=mcc.
The first such experiment was performed in 1881.
Susequent experiments, of which there were about 33 peformed between
1887 and 2015 with ever increasing sensitivity and accuracy, all agree >>>> with the original 1881 experiment null result with ever decreasing
possible error.
The current result maximum deviation from a null result is less than
10^-18.
Except, crackpot, not all the experiments done have used apparatus fixed
on the Earth.
Stupid penisnono, the MMI experiment apparatus most certainly was fixed
to the moving Earth. And that was the experiment that was and is the
basis of the e=mcc bullshit.
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 23:38:43 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:Quite, they religiously make the same mistake. Which is that the Earth's
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 23:12:06 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
and zero experimental
information on the subject,
Wrong Arindam found in 2005 that the Michelson Morley interferometer
experiment showed that the results actually showed that light speed
varied with the emitter. That knocked out the basis for e=mcc.
The first such experiment was performed in 1881.
Susequent experiments, of which there were about 33 peformed between
1887 and 2015 with ever increasing sensitivity and accuracy, all agree
with the original 1881 experiment null result with ever decreasing
possible error.
The current result maximum deviation from a null result is less than
10^-18.
movement (with the apparatus fixed on it
Except, crackpot, not all the experiments done have used apparatus fixed
on the Earth.
different paths) can only cause the nulls when the light speed is
variant.
Delusional nonsense, crackpot.
Arindam worked that out in 2005.
So now you can explain in 2025 how experiments NOT fixed on the Earth
get the same result Arindam.
Doppler effect proves that light speed varies as the speed of the light emitter.
On 3/9/25 23:19, bertitaylor wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 1:05:55 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 3/7/25 17:00, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:14:03 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
...forcibly lead, out of expulsion from any challenge, to totally wrong >>>>> and absolutely absurd understanding of the universe.
What fools these apes be!
Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
The universe is eternal and infinite, filled with solid aether so fine >>>> that electrons glide through it with no resistance. The cores of stars >>>> are very cold, containing permanent currents creating large magnetic
fields. Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon. Stars lose their
hydrogen cover which becomes nebulae. Then regain them after their dark >>>> cores reach nebulae, over trillion year cycles.
The universe does not obey your religion.
Our religion in low Heaven is to do propaganda for Arindam and his
superlative genius works.
Historically, cheerleaders have never helped along significant
advances in scientific knowledge.
1.3 trillion-year cycles are a feature of Hinduism.
are not typically aggressive assholes, but one particular
offshoot of Hinduism, Krishna Consciousness, seems to produce
that personality type reliably.
On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 14:45:58 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
Doppler effect proves that light speed varies as the speed of the light
emitter.
Nope, it proves the opposite on a daily basis, crackpot.
Wrong, Penisnino, as always.
Mathematics proves Doppler effect simply. Arindam has shown that several times. Schoolchildren understand.
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
Doppler effect proves that light speed varies as the speed of the light
emitter.
Nope, it proves the opposite on a daily basis, crackpot.
<snip crackpot babble>
On 3/7/25 17:00, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:14:03 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
...forcibly lead, out of expulsion from any challenge, to totally wrong
and absolutely absurd understanding of the universe.
What fools these apes be!
Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
The universe is eternal and infinite, filled with solid aether so fine
that electrons glide through it with no resistance. The cores of stars
are very cold, containing permanent currents creating large magnetic
fields. Gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon. Stars lose their
hydrogen cover which becomes nebulae. Then regain them after their dark
cores reach nebulae, over trillion year cycles.
The universe does not obey your religion.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 468 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 14:49:41 |
| Calls: | 9,440 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,591 |
| Messages: | 6,109,504 |