[continued from previous message]   
      
   > This admission of friction undermines his earlier claim of a violation   
   > of inertia. If friction stops the system, then there is no violation —   
   > that   
   > is exactly what inertia predicts: a moving object continues at constant   
   > velocity unless acted upon by an external force (friction, in this   
   > case).   
   > 5. Final Rhetorical Bark   
   >   
   >     "WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof"   
   >   
   > This continues Arindam's habit of replacing engagement with sarcasm or   
   > mockery when faced with technical critique. It’s non-argumentative and   
   > self-defeating.   
   > Summary:   
   >   
   > Paul's critique is detailed, physically sound, and based on observable   
   > mechanics — friction, stiction, momentum transfer, and constraints of   
   > the setup.   
   >   
   > Arindam’s reply:   
   >   
   >     Fails to address the substance of Paul's points.   
   >   
   >     Misapplies Newtonian mechanics.   
   >   
   >     Incorrectly claims a “violation of inertia.”   
   >   
   >     Conflates center-of-mass shift with propulsion.   
   >   
   >     Ends with a mocking non sequitur.   
   >   
   > Conclusion: Arindam’s response is not a valid scientific rebuttal. It   
   > relies on restatement, rhetorical flourishes, and misinterpretation of   
   > basic physics to defend what appears to be a deeply flawed   
   > interpretation   
   > of his own experimental video.   
   >   
      
   --   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)