On Sat, 13 Apr 2024, at 07:15:52, bertitaylor posted:
>occam wrote:
>
>> On 12/04/2024 23:09, bertietaylor wrote:
>>> occam wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/04/2024 03:49, bertitaylor wrote:
>>>>> Well, I suppose Arindam must make a cheap permanent motion machine to
>>>>> show that he was right.
>>>>> How the physicists will react to that, should be interesting to watch!
>>>>>
>>>>> My bet is that he will succeed, for he has already done apparently
>>>>> impossible things like violating the principle of inertia.
>>>
>>>> Hold your breath, Bertie. (I'm rooting for you on this one.)
>>> Let's get sporting!
>
>> What's more sporting than you holding your breath? For one, six or
>> twelve months - I'll take them all.
>
>Good idea - now go demonstrate how to hold your breath for one, six or
>twelve months.
>
That's easy in theory. I don't know what the practical limits of an
artificial lung are though; for how long can a pulmonary bypass through
synthetic alveoli stay functional, before some clot intervenes?
--
Paul W

Peter Moylan wrote:

> On 11/04/24 22:29, bertitaylor wrote:

>>> "These thoughts arise because the Einstein-Gandhi bigJew-guj-Jew
>>> two for the price of one buy one get one free bunny-ah combo pack
>>> suppresses my Vedic-Arya self with success." (Arindam Banerjee
>>> post.)
>>
>> Whew. That flowery stuff may smell sweet to some, but not so much to
>> others! What's a bunny-ah?

> That question has never been answered. Googling did not help. A speaker
> of Indian English could probably tell us what a bunny-ah is, but we seem
> to have lost our Indian regulars.

I think it was an invention of Arindam's. He explained it once but
I don't remember.

> But a lot of Arindam's utterances are unclear. For just one example, I
> can understand the Einstein-Jew connection, but I have no idea how
> Gandhi fits into the picture.

Maybe just another person Arindam doesn't like.

--
Jerry Friedman

On 2024-04-12 07:20, bertietaylor wrote:
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
>> bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> lar3ryca wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 2024-04-07 16:00, bertietaylor wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Now the last bit indicates why physicists avoid Arindam. Hmm. He
>>> is not
>>> >> the first original thinker to be persecuted for demonstrating
>>> originality.
>>> >> I don't see why he should be killfiled by everyone here. It takes all
>>> >> sorts, what.
>>>
>>> > Yes it takes all sorts, and some sorts just aren't worth the effort to
>>> > bother with. I have people in my killfile for a wide variety of
>>> reasons,
>>> > and I suspect that anyone that has a killfile does as well. The more
>>> > killfiles a regular poster is in is probably a good indicator of just
>>> > how annoying they are.
>>>
>>> Hmm, quite a mismatch!  Arindam was killfiled by everybody, so must have
>>> been really annoying.
>
>> He violated the 11th command of Usenet,
>> (beware)
>
>> Jan
>
> So one gets killfiled here for being a stubborn boring racist who is
> also delusional with their crackpot physics notions expressed in a
> strange English.
>
> Rich!

You assume too much, bertie. Not everyone who killfiled him may havd
done so for the same reason.

--
It’s no use going back to yester­day, because I was a differ­ent person
then.
~ Lewis Carroll

On 2024-04-13 00:23, bertietaylor wrote:
> lar3ryca wrote:
>
>> On 2024-04-11 06:29, bertitaylor wrote:
>>> - snip -
>>>
>>>>> Has it been confirmed that Bertie and Arindam aren't close mates
>>>>> (or even the same person)?
>>>
>>>> No, they are not the same. I detect no flowery Hindi in Bertie's
>>>> English. Plenty of Hindi-Bindi in Arindam's English. He is a true
>>>> Chaiwallah.
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>>> Bertie is a recent AB groupie. And he has not yet made the sort of
>>>> remarks Aridnam was well know for.
>>>
>>>> "These thoughts arise because the Einstein-Gandhi bigJew-guj-Jew two
>>>> for
>>>> the price of one buy one get one free bunny-ah combo pack suppresses my
>>>> Vedic-Arya self with success." (Arindam Banerjee post.)
>>>
>>> Whew. That flowery stuff may smell sweet to some, but not so much to
>>> others! What's a bunny-ah?
>>>
>>> On another note, is it fair to quote a kill-filed entity?
>
>> Of course it is. That entity can read it or not. It is of no interest
>> to the kill-filer.
>
> A kill-filed entity cannot expect fairness from those who have
> kill-filed them.
> They should care as little for the kill-filers as the kill-filers care
> for them.
>
> The fairness issue I raised was out of generality.
>
> A kill-filed entity must be ignored, not quoted, by the kill-filing
> community.
> Gratuitously quoting what the kill-filed may have written amounts to
> theft of intellectual property on one hand; and show of heed for their
> opinion on the other. It also opens the field for the victim's
> vilification by putting misleading words in their mouth.
> I find it disgusting for the kill-filers to discuss, let alone quote,
> anyone comprehensively kill-filed by them.

Your disgust is noted, and filed away.

--
One of the "A"s in "Aaron" is silent, but we will never know which one.

lar3ryca wrote:

> On 2024-04-12 07:20, bertietaylor wrote:
>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>> bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> lar3ryca wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On 2024-04-07 16:00, bertietaylor wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> Now the last bit indicates why physicists avoid Arindam. Hmm. He
>>>> is not
>>>> >> the first original thinker to be persecuted for demonstrating
>>>> originality.
>>>> >> I don't see why he should be killfiled by everyone here. It takes all
>>>> >> sorts, what.
>>>>
>>>> > Yes it takes all sorts, and some sorts just aren't worth the effort to
>>>> > bother with. I have people in my killfile for a wide variety of
>>>> reasons,
>>>> > and I suspect that anyone that has a killfile does as well. The more
>>>> > killfiles a regular poster is in is probably a good indicator of just
>>>> > how annoying they are.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, quite a mismatch!  Arindam was killfiled by everybody, so must have
>>>> been really annoying.
>>
>>> He violated the 11th command of Usenet,
>>> (beware)
>>
>>> Jan
>>
>> So one gets killfiled here for being a stubborn boring racist who is
>> also delusional with their crackpot physics notions expressed in a
>> strange English.
>>
>> Rich!

> You assume too much, bertie. Not everyone who killfiled him may havd
> done so for the same reason.

Yes, you may be right.
I checked out the first book of his "God of War" that he posted in sci.physics.
No wonder he was kill-filed here, for being a Mozart among milli-Salieris.
Human nature works like that.

bt

On 14-Apr-24 6:19, lar3ryca wrote:
> On 2024-04-13 00:23, bertietaylor wrote:
>> lar3ryca wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-04-11 06:29, bertitaylor wrote:
>>>> - snip -
>>>>
>>>>>> Has it been confirmed that Bertie and Arindam aren't close mates
>>>>>> (or even the same person)?
>>>>
>>>>> No, they are not the same. I detect no flowery Hindi in Bertie's
>>>>> English. Plenty of Hindi-Bindi in Arindam's English. He is a true
>>>>> Chaiwallah.
>>>>
>>>> Huh?
>>>>> Bertie is a recent AB groupie. And he has not yet made the sort of
>>>>> remarks Aridnam was well know for.
>>>>
>>>>> "These thoughts arise because the Einstein-Gandhi bigJew-guj-Jew
>>>>> two for
>>>>> the price of one buy one get one free bunny-ah combo pack
>>>>> suppresses my
>>>>> Vedic-Arya self with success." (Arindam Banerjee post.)
>>>>
>>>> Whew. That flowery stuff may smell sweet to some, but not so much to
>>>> others! What's a bunny-ah?
>>>>
>>>> On another note, is it fair to quote a kill-filed entity?
>>
>>> Of course it is. That entity can read it or not. It is of no interest
>>> to the kill-filer.
>>
>> A kill-filed entity cannot expect fairness from those who have
>> kill-filed them.
>> They should care as little for the kill-filers as the kill-filers care
>> for them.
>>
>> The fairness issue I raised was out of generality.
>>
>> A kill-filed entity must be ignored, not quoted, by the kill-filing
>> community.
>> Gratuitously quoting what the kill-filed may have written amounts to
>> theft of intellectual property on one hand; and show of heed for their
>> opinion on the other. It also opens the field for the victim's
>> vilification by putting misleading words in their mouth.
>> I find it disgusting for the kill-filers to discuss, let alone quote,
>> anyone comprehensively kill-filed by them.
>
> Your disgust is noted, and filed away.
Larry, you are lending a gadfly an extra pair of wings.

--
Sam Plusnet

occam <occam@erewhon.nix> wrote:

> On 04/04/2024 14:12, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > Long-distance communication via gravity waves does assume a time delay,
> > so it's not a quantum entanglement effect. As I understand it, quantum
> > entanglement does not allow any information transfer, and that's how a
> > paradox is avoided.
>
> Is quantum entanglement a 'pairs only' thing? Can there be triad (or
> quad) of entangled photons (say).

Of course not. Everything is always entangled with everything.
An isolated system is an impossible idealisation.
(but it may be good enough for practical purposes)
And of course most entanglement is lost in the noise,

Jan

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:35:54 +0200
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

> occam <occam@erewhon.nix> wrote:
>
> > On 04/04/2024 14:12, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > > Long-distance communication via gravity waves does assume a time delay,
> > > so it's not a quantum entanglement effect. As I understand it, quantum
> > > entanglement does not allow any information transfer, and that's how a
> > > paradox is avoided.
> >
> > Is quantum entanglement a 'pairs only' thing? Can there be triad (or
> > quad) of entangled photons (say).
>
> Of course not. Everything is always entangled with everything.
> An isolated system is an impossible idealisation.
> (but it may be good enough for practical purposes)
> And of course most entanglement is lost in the noise,
>
Feh, stop mucking about with yer fancy strings, gimme a monopole.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:35:54 +0200
> nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

>> occam <occam@erewhon.nix> wrote:
>>
>> > On 04/04/2024 14:12, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> > > Long-distance communication via gravity waves does assume a time delay,
>> > > so it's not a quantum entanglement effect. As I understand it, quantum
>> > > entanglement does not allow any information transfer, and that's how a
>> > > paradox is avoided.
>> >
>> > Is quantum entanglement a 'pairs only' thing? Can there be triad (or
>> > quad) of entangled photons (say).
>>
>> Of course not. Everything is always entangled with everything.
>> An isolated system is an impossible idealisation.
>> (but it may be good enough for practical purposes)
>> And of course most entanglement is lost in the noise,
>>
> Feh, stop mucking about with yer fancy strings, gimme a monopole.

"Dirac's monopole solution in fact describes an infinitesimal line
solenoid ending at a point, and the location of the solenoid is
the singular part of the solution, the Dirac string."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole

(I assume you know entanglement has nothing to do with strings.)

--
Jerry Friedman

On 15/04/24 06:31, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:35:54 +0200 nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
>> occam <occam@erewhon.nix> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/04/2024 14:12, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>> Long-distance communication via gravity waves does assume a
>>>> time delay, so it's not a quantum entanglement effect. As I
>>>> understand it, quantum entanglement does not allow any
>>>> information transfer, and that's how a paradox is avoided.
>>>
>>> Is quantum entanglement a 'pairs only' thing? Can there be triad
>>> (or quad) of entangled photons (say).
>>
>> Of course not. Everything is always entangled with everything. An
>> isolated system is an impossible idealisation. (but it may be good
>> enough for practical purposes) And of course most entanglement is
>> lost in the noise,
>>
> Feh, stop mucking about with yer fancy strings, gimme a monopole.

Forget the strings. I'm currently reading a Greg Egan book where the
dominant theory is that every elementary particle is the mouth of a
wormhole.

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

On 15/04/24 09:53, jerryfriedman wrote:
>
> (I assume you know entanglement has nothing to do with strings.)

Apparently you've never had to untie a deeply knotted string.

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

On 15/04/24 09:53, jerryfriedman wrote:
> Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

>> Feh, stop mucking about with yer fancy strings, gimme a monopole.
>
> "Dirac's monopole solution in fact describes an infinitesimal line
> solenoid ending at a point, and the location of the solenoid is the
> singular part of the solution, the Dirac string."
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole

I don't necessarily believe in monopoles, but every time I look at
Maxwell's equations I worry about the missing terms. In an ideal world
we would have symmetry between electricity and magnetism.

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

On 15-Apr-24 1:09, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 15/04/24 09:53, jerryfriedman wrote:
>>
>> (I assume you know entanglement has nothing to do with strings.)
>
> Apparently you've never had to untie a deeply knotted string.

Nor did Alexander.
Had a great way of dealing with knotty problems, that lad.

--
Sam Plusnet

Peter Moylan wrote:

> On 15/04/24 09:53, jerryfriedman wrote:
>> Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

>>> Feh, stop mucking about with yer fancy strings, gimme a monopole.
>>
>> "Dirac's monopole solution in fact describes an infinitesimal line
>> solenoid ending at a point, and the location of the solenoid is the
>> singular part of the solution, the Dirac string."
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole

> I don't necessarily believe in monopoles, but every time I look at
> Maxwell's equations I worry about the missing terms. In an ideal world
> we would have symmetry between electricity and magnetism.

What, and not have hysteresis for the real core memory!

bt

jerryfriedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:

> Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:35:54 +0200
> > nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> >> occam <occam@erewhon.nix> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 04/04/2024 14:12, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >> > > Long-distance communication via gravity waves does assume a time delay,
> >> > > so it's not a quantum entanglement effect. As I understand it, quantum
> >> > > entanglement does not allow any information transfer, and that's how a
> >> > > paradox is avoided.
> >> >
> >> > Is quantum entanglement a 'pairs only' thing? Can there be triad (or
> >> > quad) of entangled photons (say).
> >>
> >> Of course not. Everything is always entangled with everything.
> >> An isolated system is an impossible idealisation.
> >> (but it may be good enough for practical purposes)
> >> And of course most entanglement is lost in the noise,
> >>
> > Feh, stop mucking about with yer fancy strings, gimme a monopole.
>
> "Dirac's monopole solution in fact describes an infinitesimal line
> solenoid ending at a point, and the location of the solenoid is
> the singular part of the solution, the Dirac string."

I protest.
It is the end of an infinitely long string of point-sized bar magnets.

Jan

--
(who knows that there really is no need
for such naive pictural representantions)

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 15/04/24 09:53, jerryfriedman wrote:
> > Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>
> >> Feh, stop mucking about with yer fancy strings, gimme a monopole.
> >
> > "Dirac's monopole solution in fact describes an infinitesimal line
> > solenoid ending at a point, and the location of the solenoid is the
> > singular part of the solution, the Dirac string."
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole
>
> I don't necessarily believe in monopoles, but every time I look at
> Maxwell's equations I worry about the missing terms. In an ideal world
> we would have symmetry between electricity and magnetism.

Yes, perhaps, but whatever, Dirac monopoles
do not produce such a symmetrical situation,

Jan
(your naive way of looking at Maxwell's equations is misleading)

Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

> On 15-Apr-24 1:09, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 15/04/24 09:53, jerryfriedman wrote:
> >>
> >> (I assume you know entanglement has nothing to do with strings.)
> >
> > Apparently you've never had to untie a deeply knotted string.
>
> Nor did Alexander.
> Had a great way of dealing with knotty problems, that lad.

I followed his lead, last year, with the christmas lights,

Jan
(but, unlike him, I rejoined)

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 23:53:42 +0000
jerry.friedman99@gmail.com (jerryfriedman) wrote:

> Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:35:54 +0200
> > nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> >> occam <occam@erewhon.nix> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 04/04/2024 14:12, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >> > > Long-distance communication via gravity waves does assume a time delay,
> >> > > so it's not a quantum entanglement effect. As I understand it, quantum
> >> > > entanglement does not allow any information transfer, and that's how a
> >> > > paradox is avoided.
> >> >
> >> > Is quantum entanglement a 'pairs only' thing? Can there be triad (or
> >> > quad) of entangled photons (say).
> >>
> >> Of course not. Everything is always entangled with everything.
> >> An isolated system is an impossible idealisation.
> >> (but it may be good enough for practical purposes)
> >> And of course most entanglement is lost in the noise,
> >>
> > Feh, stop mucking about with yer fancy strings, gimme a monopole.
>
> "Dirac's monopole solution in fact describes an infinitesimal line
> solenoid ending at a point, and the location of the solenoid is
> the singular part of the solution, the Dirac string."
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole
>
> (I assume you know entanglement has nothing to do with strings.)
>
Nonsense; Ane Fule Kno that strings get tangled easily and make a
right knotty puzzle. Ain't that right, Alexander?

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 03:00:37 +0100
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

> On 15-Apr-24 1:09, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 15/04/24 09:53, jerryfriedman wrote:
> >>
> >> (I assume you know entanglement has nothing to do with strings.)
> >
> > Apparently you've never had to untie a deeply knotted string.
>
> Nor did Alexander.
> Had a great way of dealing with knotty problems, that lad.
>

I shudda read ahead.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

on 4/11/2024, Peter Moylan supposed :
> On 12/04/24 08:25, lar3ryca wrote:
>> On 2024-04-07 16:00, bertietaylor wrote:
>>
>>> Now the last bit indicates why physicists avoid Arindam. Hmm. He is
>>> not the first original thinker to be persecuted for demonstrating
>>> originality. I don't see why he should be killfiled by everyone
>>> here. It takes all sorts, what.
>>
>> Yes it takes all sorts, and some sorts just aren't worth the effort
>> to bother with. I have people in my killfile for a wide variety of
>> reasons, and I suspect that anyone that has a killfile does as well.
>> The more killfiles a regular poster is in is probably a good
>> indicator of just how annoying they are.
>
> Every now and then I empty my killfile completely, on the grounds that
> some short-term pests are probably gone by now. Now seems like a good
> time to do it again, now that Google Groups has disappeared into oblivion.
>
> But it will probably fill up again soon.

Is there a performance problem if you don't empty the killfile? If
not, I don't see an advantage to doing it.

Of course, sometimes people who had good reputations go bad, and
sometimes they heal themselves, and not emptying the killfile would
hide that, but is that a big problem? Individual reprieves should bee
possible, and you can be clued in by who is responding to whom.

/dps

--
"Inviting people to laugh with you while you are laughing at yourself
is a good thing to do, You may be a fool but you're the fool in
charge." -- Carl Reiner

On 16/04/24 05:41, Snidely wrote:
> on 4/11/2024, Peter Moylan supposed :
>> On 12/04/24 08:25, lar3ryca wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-07 16:00, bertietaylor wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now the last bit indicates why physicists avoid Arindam. Hmm.
>>>> He is not the first original thinker to be persecuted for
>>>> demonstrating originality. I don't see why he should be
>>>> killfiled by everyone here. It takes all sorts, what.
>>>
>>> Yes it takes all sorts, and some sorts just aren't worth the
>>> effort to bother with. I have people in my killfile for a wide
>>> variety of reasons, and I suspect that anyone that has a killfile
>>> does as well. The more killfiles a regular poster is in is
>>> probably a good indicator of just how annoying they are.
>>
>> Every now and then I empty my killfile completely, on the grounds
>> that some short-term pests are probably gone by now. Now seems like
>> a good time to do it again, now that Google Groups has disappeared
>> into oblivion.
>>
>> But it will probably fill up again soon.
>
> Is there a performance problem if you don't empty the killfile? If
> not, I don't see an advantage to doing it.
>
> Of course, sometimes people who had good reputations go bad, and
> sometimes they heal themselves, and not emptying the killfile would
> hide that, but is that a big problem? Individual reprieves should
> bee possible, and you can be clued in by who is responding to whom.

I haven't noticed any performance problem. My problem with a large
killfile, though, is that if it gets large then I lose track of why some
entries are there, because there will be lots of names I don't
recognise. I prefer something small enough to understand.

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

On 2024-04-15 22:51:17 +0000, Peter Moylan said:

> On 16/04/24 05:41, Snidely wrote:
>> on 4/11/2024, Peter Moylan supposed :
>>> On 12/04/24 08:25, lar3ryca wrote:
>>>> On 2024-04-07 16:00, bertietaylor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Now the last bit indicates why physicists avoid Arindam. Hmm.
>>>>> He is not the first original thinker to be persecuted for
>>>>> demonstrating originality. I don't see why he should be
>>>>> killfiled by everyone here. It takes all sorts, what.
>>>>
>>>> Yes it takes all sorts, and some sorts just aren't worth the
>>>> effort to bother with. I have people in my killfile for a wide
>>>> variety of reasons, and I suspect that anyone that has a killfile
>>>> does as well. The more killfiles a regular poster is in is
>>>> probably a good indicator of just how annoying they are.
>>>
>>> Every now and then I empty my killfile completely, on the grounds
>>> that some short-term pests are probably gone by now. Now seems like
>>> a good time to do it again, now that Google Groups has disappeared
>>> into oblivion.
>>>
>>> But it will probably fill up again soon.
>>
>> Is there a performance problem if you don't empty the killfile? If
>> not, I don't see an advantage to doing it.
>>
>> Of course, sometimes people who had good reputations go bad, and
>> sometimes they heal themselves, and not emptying the killfile would
>> hide that, but is that a big problem? Individual reprieves should
>> bee possible, and you can be clued in by who is responding to whom.
>
> I haven't noticed any performance problem. My problem with a large
> killfile, though, is that if it gets large then I lose track of why some
> entries are there, because there will be lots of names I don't
> recognise. I prefer something small enough to understand.

Exactly

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