The spammers have wiped out soc.culture.indian, for obvious reasons.
On Thursday, 8 December 2022 at 10:54:38 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 November 2022 at 20:01:34 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
Arindam: Lord Krishna had unlimited gold. He had so much gold as He was loved, and so he could give wholeheartedly to his poor Brahmin friend Sudama. We should follow the golden ways of Lord Krishna, certainly, get rich, powerful, famous, loving,
wonderful... Unfortunately such is not the case now, with the feku gujJew Modi refusing to acknowledge my existence and the good I could do with my genius.
The Lord works in mysterious ways. In Adi Sankara's kanakadhara stotra, Goddess Lakshmi rained down gold. They make good stories for non-believers. But Gita is something else. It is the essence of upanishads.
True. Upanishads explain the Vedas in the most rational way, and the Vedas can only make sense when the Puranas are well internalised.
The Gita is a summary of Upanishad thinking, with integration from historical/legendary presences existing as the backdrop - which is not the case in the Vedas, which are purely about explaining the mystery of life and the universe with the spiritual
backdrop of the Puranas. That is the power of the Gita, making it so popular. However, the Gita is just a few pages of the epic Mahabharata, which is ancient history and not scripture. That way, strictly speaking the Gita is not scripture, but literature
of the highest quality taken as scripture accordingly. To hold the Gita as the sole entity of Sanatana Dharma is a terrific reductionist practice, highly favoured by the anti+pseudoHindus, effectively outing the actual scriptures: Puranas, Vedas and
Vedanta.
Wherever we see in hindu mythology, we see gold adorned beings. This kind of lusting for gold is not healthy to say the least. Countries that have progressed without gold as basis have advanced scientifically and technically much more than
India.
Arindam: No, they are the most miserable of unscientific wretches as they believe in e=mcc=hv and its associated crap, all leading to all-gobbling pollution and environmental vandalism.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327944980_Derivation_of_Hawking_Radiation_Part_I_Gravity_and_Thermodynamics_of_Black_Holes_English_translation
Rubbish, need not go through it for black holes as such do not exist; what does exist is stars without atmosphere that emit no light. They are called black holes, neutron stars, etc. I have written about thess in detail in sci.physics in 2000. Let us
forget Einstein, Hawking, black holes, big bang or regard them as gibberish.
If you have understood anything of what I have been up to in the field of physics for the past 23 years, you will know that I
1. have found a new formula that is e=0.5mVVN(N-k) which is the non-destructive kinetic relationship between matter and energy, so making e=mcc unnecessary
2. shown the hideous bungle in the MMI experiment, which actually shows that light speed changes with the velocity of the source, making the derivation of e=mcc wrong
3. explained the Doppler effect elegantly from the above; the frequency changes with the relative velocity change
4. Now, 1 above depends for validity the proof that internal force can move any object without reaction. As you know, guns do fire with internal force, but there is a reaction. Is there a kind of gun which does not have recoil?
5. Yes, the rail gun I made shows clearly that there is no recoil (apart from some mechanical force relating to friction) in my experiments described in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
where the new design (low voltage, heavy armature) rail gun invention is shown
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
and further developed with explanations for its potential above https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
and the lack of reaction to the force causing the armature to move is shown, causing a net increase of speed per hit, exactly as my formula indicated way back in 1999.
6. Now, this causes a violation to the law of conservation of energy, and that means, the notion of entropy goes down the toilet. Energy is constantly getting created and destroyed in our infinite universe.
7. This leads to the understanding that as the universe is infinite, it cannot have a beginning. So no big bang.
Search sci.physics for the aphorisms of Arindam for more details.
You may not believe in black holes but they are interesting, possibly because of E=mcc and, as in the above reference the escape velocity required for a body to not fall into a black hole is C the velocity of light. Do you agree with it?
No. Black holes may serve the needs of science fiction, along with rest of the e=mcc stuff, for wormholes, etc. Bad scifi.
If not, please state your reasons. If there is no upper limit to the velocity, as recently astrophysicists found that some bodies are moving faster than the speed of light, please explain it to me. All in all how can we harness your equation to not
collide with a black hole?
My reasons are pretty clear. There are no black holes, no worm holes, no big bang, with my formula any object can attain unlimited speed beyond light when fitted with my new motor to be. A black hole is a star that has lost its gases so cannot shine.
When it reaches a nebula it will swallow the hydrogen there and become bright once again. Then again lose the gases, in a cycle of trillions of years.
I think your theory about star cycles is interesting. Let me ask you: how do you detect a star that has lost, so to say, its atmosphere?
The so-called dark matter is there, to influence the motion of bright stars. The dark matter is stars that have lost their atmosphere totally.
When they show up before a star, they can be photographed. Now that is evidence, even though it is passed off as a black hole.
When scientists focus their telescopes on some regions of space, they can see a stream of light in a vortex or something like that around a round black region. As far as I know they call it a black hole.
The evidence that is possible scientific as opposed to a lot of computer art is easily found at
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=picture+of+a+black+hole+in+front+of+a+star&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Flh3.googleusercontent.com%2FdGIkFMu6SbcwNzHPfGrP_fomYXNCCuNrz-siPjt0sQZPs3sIcH8tXDGytRcOYglqgB2GkerEdkSHIFJFGb4UgnQy5OkpMhkZL3xssMyqPP3ufG74O7QY-
imNusM9lwAKIhvnau8
It shows my point, that a black hole is a huge core of a star that has lost its hydrogen and is trying to suck up the atmosphere of other stars.
The rings show matter orbiting around it.
Just see the size of the black matter with the star behind it, and the matter around it. It is huge. It cannot be any kind of hole! It is highly magnetic as the core is extremely cold, so there is plenty of electromagnetic forces around it sucking in
matter. Over time, it will get an atmosphere and that will become a bright star. I had worked upon this in 2020 in a series of articles published in sci.physics.
As light seems to be flowing into the black object, one can surmise the object has great gravitational pull.
Certainly it has. It is a huge solid black object, like a star with a core that is very cold at the centre. Gravity is an electrostatic force, as I have shown earlier. The electromagnetic forces are also there.
I wonder why people think of black holes and not dark matter for this, they do talk of dark matter!
There is no such thing as a black hole, but there is dark matter and what the images show is dark matter, the core of stars, visible before the light of stars behind it or around.
How much computer art there is to "prove" this is a black hole and the relativity theories, I do not know nor care.
Suffice that this supports what I have been saying so far.
Anyway, since I can't convince you about black holes,
Let us say, that the black holes to be seen are far too big. They make more sense as dark matter. Dark matter is plausible as a star sans atmosphere. The sun loses its atmosphere regularly, so one day it will become dark matter, shed no light.
let me ask another question: how does the star, in your theory, re-acquire hydrogen? By what means and how can you detect it with a telescope?
Just see, how the so-called black hole sucks in matter.
We are told that stars form in nebulae.
My analysis shows it cannot happen with just hydrogen atoms.
On the other hand, when a dark star enters a nebula it will pick up the hydrogen atoms in the nebula and will be formed as a star in due course.
As I said, these are trillion year cycles, and this period is noted by the rate of loss of hydrogen from our sun.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)