Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Rockets are for fireworks - Arindam
Followup-To: sci.physics
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 18:56:35 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <hnreil-qi8t1.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net>
References: <e921cf2d6a96b3a00b1095501c60f78a@www.novabbs.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 04:01:07 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dde583fb2ac04dc7e17042fdcb799db4";
	logging-data="286968"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX181Z2O+zlcQwKfvYT02w5lw"
User-Agent: tin/2.6.2-20220130 ("Convalmore") (Linux/5.15.0-141-lowlatency (x86_64))
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Rsw+IoZVCNXVo4oAlPuLwBxNwig=

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> In 1998 Arindam discovered that energy gets created and destroyed as per
> the equation e=0.5mvvN(N-k).
> 
> In 1999 he elaborated upon that in his incredibly wonderful book "To the
> stars!". How that formula naturally led to faster than light travel in
> internal force engines, aka reaction less motors.
> 
> The first chapter was titled "Rockets are for fireworks". Really rockets
> are useless for proper space travel. While best used for fireworks they
> are as we find most used for nasty purposes, as missiles for killing
> people.
> 
> Somebody should tell Elon Musk about this simple fact. With less than a
> tenth of the cost of Elon's most recent blazing space rocket failure,
> Arindam can create a reaction less motor following his physics. In due
> course it's derivatives will take his ashes to the stars, and back.
> 
> WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
> 
> Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)
> 
> --

AI evalutation:

This text appears to be a mixture of pseudoscientific claims, satire or
hyperbole, and informal or performative writing (e.g., the "WOOF
woof-woof" and reference to "cyberdogs"). Here's a breakdown of its
content and tone:
`
Scientific Claims Evaluation:

    Claim: "Energy gets created and destroyed as per the equationr
    e = 0.5mvvN(N–k)."

        This formula resembles the classical kinetic energy expression
	E=12mv2E=21​mv2, but with extra unexplained variables NN
	and kk. There is no known derivation or accepted physical theory
	involving such an equation that allows for creation or destruction
	of energy, which directly violates the law of conservation of
	energy — a foundational principle in physics.

        The phrase "energy gets created and destroyed" is a red flag for
	pseudoscience, unless framed very carefully (e.g., in discussions
	of quantum fluctuations or vacuum energy, which this text does
	not do).

    "Faster than light travel in internal force engines, aka reactionless
    motors":

        Reactionless motors (violating Newton’s third law) and
	faster-than-light travel (violating Einstein’s relativity)
	are speculative or discredited ideas in current mainstream physics.
	No credible experimental evidence supports these claims.

        Suggesting that such outcomes “naturally” follow from a previously
	unrecognized formula raises serious doubts unless substantiated
	through peer-reviewed research, which this text does not reference.

Style and Tone:

    The tone blends grandiosity, mockery (e.g., calling rockets "for
    fireworks"), and performative enthusiasm.

    References to Elon Musk, rockets as "missiles for killing people",
    and "ashes to the stars" inject a mix of critique, humor, and perhaps
    ideological positioning.

    The inclusion of "WOOF woof-woof" and "cyberdogs" personifies the
    text as part of a stylized mythology or cult of personality around
    "Arindam", further distancing it from objective scientific discourse.

Conclusion:

This text reads more like pseudoscientific propaganda or poetic
fan-fiction than serious scientific argumentation. It lacks:

    Empirical evidence

    Theoretical rigor

    Clear definitions of terms

    References to experimental validation or peer-reviewed sources

It may be entertaining or provocative to some audiences, but from a
scientific and logical perspective, it does not hold up to scrutiny
and should not be taken as a credible statement of physics.

If the intention is satire, performance art, or science fiction,
that might explain the tone. If the writer believes it to be genuine
science, it reflects a deep misunderstanding or rejection of modern physics.


-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com