Re: Lousy non culture follows bogus physics

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 19:46:00 +0000, Aether Regained wrote:
 

Bertitaylor:

Lousy non culture follows bogus physics based.
>
When lies and fraud posing as imagination and pragmatism rule then only
disaster can result.
>
As is only too evident in the decadent West.
>
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
>
Bertietaylor
>
--

>
>
@Arindam aka @Bertietaylor,
>
What makes you so confidently dismiss the positron? Aren't cloud chamber
traces like the ones below irrefutable proof of positrons:

 
We don't see any need for the positron in the universe for the
explanation of its workings.
 
As for cloud chamber stuff it shows not just positrons but also Hell
knows how many so called fundamental particles. All as useless as
positrons. Hocus pocus.
 
We have no faith in the abilities of physicists as they follow bogus
physics : thermodynamics, relativity and quantum.
 
Let them repeat Arindam's rail gun experiments. Involve Arindam. Present
results. Then they regain credibility.
 
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
 
Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs, doing propaganda for
Arindam from low Heaven)

Arindam's post, writing as "Bertietaylor," continues his pattern of
rhetorical aggression, dismissal of mainstream science, and idiosyncratic
appeals to personal authority. Here's a breakdown of its features and an
evaluation of its scientific, rhetorical, and psychological dimensions:
 Scientific Evaluation

    Denial of Empirical Evidence:

        Arindam dismisses cloud chamber evidence — one of the most iconic
experimental validations of antimatter, specifically positrons
(first observed by Carl Anderson in 1932).

        Claiming it shows "Hell knows how many" particles implies ignorance
of how particle tracks are interpreted using well-understood physics
(track curvature in a magnetic field, ionization density, etc.).

        This is equivalent to saying: "I see a page of writing, therefore
all written language is fake." It's nonsensical.

    General Rejection of Foundational Physics:

        Arindam lumps together thermodynamics, relativity, and quantum
mechanics as "bogus."

        These fields underpin virtually all modern technology: GPS
(relativity), semiconductors and lasers (quantum), engines and
refrigeration (thermodynamics). Dismissing all three is an
extraordinary claim made without evidence.

    Appeal to Personal Experimentation (Rail Gun):

        He insists that his rail gun experiments be repeated to restore
credibility to mainstream physicists.

        No data, methodology, or peer-reviewed discussion of these alleged
experiments is provided — this is pure argument from personal
authority, a classic pseudoscientific tactic.

 Rhetorical and Stylistic Features

    Tone:

        Dismissive, mocking, and sarcastic — especially in phrases like
"Hocus pocus" and “Hell knows how many.”

        These phrases indicate disdain rather than argumentation.

    Invented Mythology (Celestial Cyberdogs):

        The post ends with a signature ("Arindam's celestial cyberdogs")
which appears to be a self-created mythos, possibly a coping
mechanism or stylistic flourish to reframe his arguments as
divinely inspired satire or metaphysics.

        It may be intended as humor, but it obscures rather than clarifies
his points.

 Psychological/Behavioral Interpretation

Assuming Arindam sincerely believes what he writes and is not trolling:

    Delusional Certainty: He shows unwavering belief in his own ideas,
    with no self-doubt or openness to evidence. This is common in
    individuals with delusional ideation or fixed belief systems.

    Grandiosity: Arindam positions himself above all of mainstream
    physics, claiming exclusive insight ("repeat Arindam's rail gun
    experiments"). This pattern fits a grandiose or narcissistic worldview.

    Disconnection from Empirical Method: He replaces repeatable
    observation and logic with personal assertion and ridicule,
    suggesting a fundamental misunderstanding (or rejection) of
    scientific methodology.

 Summary Judgment

    Scientific Merit: Zero. The post displays ignorance of well-established
    experimental and theoretical physics.

    Rhetorical Coherence: Low. Uses mockery instead of argument, and personal
    mythology instead of documentation.

    Psychological Consistency: Suggests possible delusional thinking,
    narcissistic traits, or compulsive contrarianism.

Conclusion:
This post is an exemplar of pseudoscientific rejectionism. Its refusal to
engage with empirical data or scientific reasoning makes it unworthy of
serious debate — except as a study in anti-scientific rhetoric and potential
cognitive pathology.


--
penninojim@yahoo.com