• On Arindam Banerjee's recoil-less rail gun and Newton's 3rd Law violati

    From Aether Regained@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 12 11:56:00 2024
    @ArindamBanerjee

    I took a look at your video of your 'recoil-less' rail gun:

    My Movie8feb2022

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0

    My first impression was that, there is an obvious recoil of the 'gun' or rails+supercapacitors section, but you claim in the description that:

    "... we are creating momentum from internal energy/force in this
    experiment. The heavy (3Kg) armature is accelerated by electromagnetic
    forces. There is a recoil, the rest of the apparatus weighs 4.3Kg - BUT
    THAT IS DUE TO THE FRICTION FROM THE ROLLING ARMATURE. ... As I have
    shown in my other videos, the force that accelerates the armature has
    very little recoil, and this new effect can be used to make reactionless
    motors for the proper conquest of space."

    You have worked on this for a long time, but I think you are maybe
    overlooking that whatever electromagnetic forces act on the current
    flowing through the rolling bar/'armature', near [*] exactly opposite electromagnetic forces will act on the other end of the rails, i.e., on
    the oppositely flowing current through the supercapacitors, and the center-of-mass of the whole system will remain near stationary.

    [*] It is well known that in electrodynamics, Newton's 3rd law is
    inexact, namely it will appear to be violated if the momentum in the
    aether or em field is not also considered. I urge you to carefully read FLP-II:26-2, especially the last paragraph, and also FLP-II:27-6 on the (Electromagnetic) Field Momentum.

    https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6

    "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of
    action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
    matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
    field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
    of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
    THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
    MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."

    I think it is premature to believe that your inconclusive results can be
    the basis of a space motor. For that purpose, you may want to take a
    look at PROJECT ORION:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

    which is a design by the late Freeman Dyson, that works, and does not
    involve continuously ejecting mass.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Aether Regained@21:1/5 to All on Mon Apr 22 18:55:00 2024
    Aether Regained:
    @ArindamBanerjee

    I took a look at your video of your 'recoil-less' rail gun:

    My Movie8feb2022

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0

    My first impression was that, there is an obvious recoil of the 'gun' or rails+supercapacitors section, but you claim in the description that:

    "... we are creating momentum from internal energy/force in this
    experiment. The heavy (3Kg) armature is accelerated by electromagnetic forces. There is a recoil, the rest of the apparatus weighs 4.3Kg - BUT
    THAT IS DUE TO THE FRICTION FROM THE ROLLING ARMATURE. ... As I have
    shown in my other videos, the force that accelerates the armature has
    very little recoil, and this new effect can be used to make reactionless motors for the proper conquest of space."

    You have worked on this for a long time, but I think you are maybe overlooking that whatever electromagnetic forces act on the current
    flowing through the rolling bar/'armature', near [*] exactly opposite electromagnetic forces will act on the other end of the rails, i.e., on
    the oppositely flowing current through the supercapacitors, and the center-of-mass of the whole system will remain near stationary.

    [*] It is well known that in electrodynamics, Newton's 3rd law is
    inexact, namely it will appear to be violated if the momentum in the
    aether or em field is not also considered. I urge you to carefully read FLP-II:26-2, especially the last paragraph, and also FLP-II:27-6 on the (Electromagnetic) Field Momentum.

    https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6

    "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
    matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
    field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
    of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
    THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
    MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."

    I think it is premature to believe that your inconclusive results can be
    the basis of a space motor. For that purpose, you may want to take a
    look at PROJECT ORION:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

    which is a design by the late Freeman Dyson, that works, and does not
    involve continuously ejecting mass.


    Just a clarifying addendum to the OP:

    In light of:

    https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6

    "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of
    action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
    matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
    field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
    of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
    THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
    MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."

    the correct momentum balance equation for Arindam's rail gun is:

    (1) [rail gun momentum]_{backward} + [em field momentum]_{backward} =
    [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} + [em field momentum]_{forward}

    For a working space motor design, the following has to be satisfied:

    (2) [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} >> [rail gun momentum]_{backward}

    or what amounts to the same thing:

    (3) [em field momentum]_{backward} >> [em field momentum]_{forward}

    I'm skeptical that for the given rail gun setup, (2) or (3) holds. Also,
    it seems to me that, if all the energy in the supercapacitors were
    expended in generating a laser pulse, it is more likely that (3) would
    be achieved.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Aether Regained on Mon Apr 22 23:25:55 2024
    Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@invalid.com> wrote:

    [-]
    I think it is premature to believe that your inconclusive results can be
    the basis of a space motor. For that purpose, you may want to take a
    look at PROJECT ORION:

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)>


    which is a design by the late Freeman Dyson, that works, and does not
    involve continuously ejecting mass.

    Eh?

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bertietaylor@21:1/5 to Aether Regained on Sat Apr 27 02:28:02 2024
    Aether Regained wrote:

    @ArindamBanerjee

    I took a look at your video of your 'recoil-less' rail gun:

    My Movie8feb2022

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0

    My first impression was that, there is an obvious recoil of the 'gun' or rails+supercapacitors section, but you claim in the description that:

    "... we are creating momentum from internal energy/force in this
    experiment. The heavy (3Kg) armature is accelerated by electromagnetic forces. There is a recoil, the rest of the apparatus weighs 4.3Kg - BUT
    THAT IS DUE TO THE FRICTION FROM THE ROLLING ARMATURE. ... As I have
    shown in my other videos, the force that accelerates the armature has
    very little recoil, and this new effect can be used to make reactionless motors for the proper conquest of space."

    You have worked on this for a long time, but I think you are maybe overlooking that whatever electromagnetic forces act on the current
    flowing through the rolling bar/'armature', near [*] exactly opposite electromagnetic forces will act on the other end of the rails, i.e., on
    the oppositely flowing current through the supercapacitors, and the center-of-mass of the whole system will remain near stationary.

    That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force does NOT have an equal and opposite reaction.
    Your point is merely theoretical.
    My evidence is experimental.

    [*] It is well known that in electrodynamics, Newton's 3rd law is
    inexact, namely it will appear to be violated if the momentum in the
    aether or em field is not also considered. I urge you to carefully read FLP-II:26-2, especially the last paragraph, and also FLP-II:27-6 on the (Electromagnetic) Field Momentum.

    I urge you to repeat my experiments honestly and competently instead of persisting with theory proved wrong.

    https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6

    "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
    matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
    field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
    of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
    THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
    MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."

    Blah blah. Theoretical stuff. One may as well say the sun goes around the Earth because holy books and great people and Aristotle say so.

    I think it is premature to believe that your inconclusive results can be
    the basis of a space motor. For that purpose, you may want to take a
    look at PROJECT ORION:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

    which is a design by the late Freeman Dyson, that works, and does not
    involve continuously ejecting mass.

    Diversion, how unscientific.

    Disgusted.

    bt (The ghostly cyberdogs of Arindam who know better physics than Nobel laureates)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bertietaylor@21:1/5 to Aether Regained on Sat Apr 27 02:40:00 2024
    Aether Regained wrote:

    Aether Regained:
    @ArindamBanerjee

    I took a look at your video of your 'recoil-less' rail gun:

    My Movie8feb2022

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0

    My first impression was that, there is an obvious recoil of the 'gun' or
    rails+supercapacitors section, but you claim in the description that:

    "... we are creating momentum from internal energy/force in this
    experiment. The heavy (3Kg) armature is accelerated by electromagnetic
    forces. There is a recoil, the rest of the apparatus weighs 4.3Kg - BUT
    THAT IS DUE TO THE FRICTION FROM THE ROLLING ARMATURE. ... As I have
    shown in my other videos, the force that accelerates the armature has
    very little recoil, and this new effect can be used to make reactionless
    motors for the proper conquest of space."

    You have worked on this for a long time, but I think you are maybe
    overlooking that whatever electromagnetic forces act on the current
    flowing through the rolling bar/'armature', near [*] exactly opposite
    electromagnetic forces will act on the other end of the rails, i.e., on
    the oppositely flowing current through the supercapacitors, and the
    center-of-mass of the whole system will remain near stationary.

    [*] It is well known that in electrodynamics, Newton's 3rd law is
    inexact, namely it will appear to be violated if the momentum in the
    aether or em field is not also considered. I urge you to carefully read
    FLP-II:26-2, especially the last paragraph, and also FLP-II:27-6 on the
    (Electromagnetic) Field Momentum.

    https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6

    "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of
    action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal
    trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the
    action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
    matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
    field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
    of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
    THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
    MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."

    I think it is premature to believe that your inconclusive results can be
    the basis of a space motor. For that purpose, you may want to take a
    look at PROJECT ORION:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

    which is a design by the late Freeman Dyson, that works, and does not
    involve continuously ejecting mass.


    Just a clarifying addendum to the OP:

    In light of:

    https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6

    Irrelevant

    "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
    matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
    field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
    of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
    THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
    MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."

    Feynman does not believe in fields. He believes in particles of energy following e=mcc=hv
    Anyway his opinions are worthless in this context which is based upon Maxwellian electrodynamics.

    the correct momentum balance equation for Arindam's rail gun is:

    (1) [rail gun momentum]_{backward} + [em field momentum]_{backward} = [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} + [em field momentum]_{forward}

    Wrong. There is forward momentum found experimentally with my later 2023 videos with their detailed analysis and graphs.

    For a working space motor design, the following has to be satisfied:

    (2) [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} >> [rail gun momentum]_{backward}

    Which is tge case from my 2023 videos, the latest ones.
    However as the bar rolls there is a significant backward monentum from the friction upon the rails.
    Sliding will lessen it.

    or what amounts to the same thing:

    (3) [em field momentum]_{backward} >> [em field momentum]_{forward}

    I'm skeptical that for the given rail gun setup, (2) or (3) holds. Also,
    it seems to me that, if all the energy in the supercapacitors were
    expended in generating a laser pulse, it is more likely that (3) would
    be achieved.

    Check out my latest videos and the graphs. You should be able to find them from my links in sci.physics. Or I will repost here.

    Arindam Banerjee, for Bertie and Tyler, my faithful ghostly cyberdogs.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to bertietaylor on Sat Apr 27 11:50:59 2024
    bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:


    That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force does
    NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely theoretical.
    My evidence is experimental.

    Correct, merely experimental.
    It stands falsified by a reliable theory.

    FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
    do conserve energy-momentum.
    If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you
    to tell the world what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
    and how these equations must be modified.

    As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer,

    Jan

    --
    "No experimental result should be believed until it has been confirmed
    by a reliable theory" (Arthur Eddington)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Apr 28 09:24:33 2024
    On 4/27/2024 5:50 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:


    That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force does
    NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely theoretical. >> My evidence is experimental.

    Correct, merely experimental.
    It stands falsified by a reliable theory.

    FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
    do conserve energy-momentum.
    If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you
    to tell the world what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
    and how these equations must be modified.

    As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer,


    It is entirely possible that Banjo stumbled across that apparent
    violation of momentum by momentum being carried away by the
    electromagnetic field. But we will never know since he refuses to
    produce a writeup in sufficient detail for someone to reproduce his
    experiment, instead writing "Watch my videos!!!". Add his stubbornness
    that he insists this is something new that violates
    Newton/Einstein/Maxwell rather than a known existing behavior, you do
    get the incompetent tinkerer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Aether Regained@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 30 21:07:00 2024
    bertietaylor:
    Aether Regained wrote:

    Aether Regained:
    @ArindamBanerjee

    I took a look at your video of your 'recoil-less' rail gun:

    My Movie8feb2022

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0

    My first impression was that, there is an obvious recoil of the 'gun' or >>> rails+supercapacitors section, but you claim in the description that:

    "... we are creating momentum from internal energy/force in this
    experiment. The heavy (3Kg) armature is accelerated by electromagnetic
    forces. There is a recoil, the rest of the apparatus weighs 4.3Kg - BUT
    THAT IS DUE TO THE FRICTION FROM THE ROLLING ARMATURE. ...  As I have
    shown in my other videos, the force that accelerates the armature has
    very little recoil, and this new effect can be used to make reactionless >>> motors for the proper conquest of space."

    You have worked on this for a long time, but I think you are maybe
    overlooking that whatever electromagnetic forces act on the current
    flowing through the rolling bar/'armature', near [*] exactly opposite
    electromagnetic forces will act on the other end of the rails, i.e., on
    the oppositely flowing current through the supercapacitors, and the
    center-of-mass of the whole system will remain near stationary.

    [*] It is well known that in electrodynamics, Newton's 3rd law is
    inexact, namely it will appear to be violated if the momentum in the
    aether or em field is not also considered. I urge you to carefully read
    FLP-II:26-2, especially the last paragraph, and also FLP-II:27-6 on the
    (Electromagnetic) Field Momentum.

    https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6

    "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of >>> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal >>> trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the >>> action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
    matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
    field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
    of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
    THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
    MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."

    I think it is premature to believe that your inconclusive results can be >>> the basis of a space motor. For that purpose, you may want to take a
    look at PROJECT ORION:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

    which is a design by the late Freeman Dyson, that works, and does not
    involve continuously ejecting mass.


    Just a clarifying addendum to the OP:

    In light of:

    https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6

    Irrelevant

    "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of
    action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal
    trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the
    action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
    matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
    field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
    of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
    THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
    MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."

    Feynman does not believe in fields. He believes in particles of energy following e=mcc=hv
    Anyway his opinions are worthless in this context which is based upon Maxwellian electrodynamics.

    the correct momentum balance equation for Arindam's rail gun is:

    (1) [rail gun momentum]_{backward} + [em field momentum]_{backward} =
    [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} + [em field momentum]_{forward}

    Wrong. There is forward momentum found experimentally with my later 2023 videos with their detailed analysis and graphs.

    For a working space motor design, the following has to be satisfied:

    (2) [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} >> [rail gun momentum]_{backward}

    Which is tge case from my 2023 videos, the latest ones.
    However as the bar rolls there is a significant backward monentum from
    the friction upon the rails.
    Sliding will lessen it.

    or what amounts to the same thing:

    (3) [em field momentum]_{backward} >> [em field momentum]_{forward}

    I'm skeptical that for the given rail gun setup, (2) or (3) holds. Also,
    it seems to me that, if all the energy in the supercapacitors were
    expended in generating a laser pulse, it is more likely that (3) would
    be achieved.

    Check out my latest videos and the graphs. You should be able to find
    them from my links in sci.physics. Or I will repost here.

    Arindam Banerjee, for Bertie and Tyler, my faithful ghostly cyberdogs.

    ElectroBOOM's take on the rail gun:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJRDclzi5Vg

    On a more serious note, the laws of conservation of energy, linear
    momentum and angular momentum are at the foundations of both classical
    and modern physics. If you make the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM that these have
    been falsified, EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE will be demanded -- a lot more
    than crude experiments, made with half assed or hardly any instrumentation.

    Also, all the navy/military rail guns, such as the one below, have
    enormous recoil/back reactions, when fired, as expected:

    https://youtu.be/58MmOpSm4LY?t=66

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bertietaylor@21:1/5 to Aether Regained on Tue Apr 30 23:26:43 2024
    Aether Regained wrote:

    bertietaylor:
    Aether Regained wrote:

    Aether Regained:
    @ArindamBanerjee

    I took a look at your video of your 'recoil-less' rail gun:

    My Movie8feb2022

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0

    My first impression was that, there is an obvious recoil of the 'gun' or >>>> rails+supercapacitors section, but you claim in the description that:

    "... we are creating momentum from internal energy/force in this
    experiment. The heavy (3Kg) armature is accelerated by electromagnetic >>>> forces. There is a recoil, the rest of the apparatus weighs 4.3Kg - BUT >>>> THAT IS DUE TO THE FRICTION FROM THE ROLLING ARMATURE. ...  As I have >>>> shown in my other videos, the force that accelerates the armature has
    very little recoil, and this new effect can be used to make reactionless >>>> motors for the proper conquest of space."

    You have worked on this for a long time, but I think you are maybe
    overlooking that whatever electromagnetic forces act on the current
    flowing through the rolling bar/'armature', near [*] exactly opposite
    electromagnetic forces will act on the other end of the rails, i.e., on >>>> the oppositely flowing current through the supercapacitors, and the
    center-of-mass of the whole system will remain near stationary.

    [*] It is well known that in electrodynamics, Newton's 3rd law is
    inexact, namely it will appear to be violated if the momentum in the
    aether or em field is not also considered. I urge you to carefully read >>>> FLP-II:26-2, especially the last paragraph, and also FLP-II:27-6 on the >>>> (Electromagnetic) Field Momentum.

    https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6

    "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of >>>> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal >>>> trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the >>>> action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
    matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
    field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount >>>> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER, >>>> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
    MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED." >>>>
    I think it is premature to believe that your inconclusive results can be >>>> the basis of a space motor. For that purpose, you may want to take a
    look at PROJECT ORION:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

    which is a design by the late Freeman Dyson, that works, and does not
    involve continuously ejecting mass.


    Just a clarifying addendum to the OP:

    In light of:

    https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6

    Irrelevant

    "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of >>> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal >>> trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the >>> action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
    matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
    field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount
    of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER,
    THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
    MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."

    Feynman does not believe in fields. He believes in particles of energy
    following e=mcc=hv
    Anyway his opinions are worthless in this context which is based upon
    Maxwellian electrodynamics.

    the correct momentum balance equation for Arindam's rail gun is:

    (1) [rail gun momentum]_{backward} + [em field momentum]_{backward} =
    [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} + [em field momentum]_{forward}

    Wrong. There is forward momentum found experimentally with my later 2023
    videos with their detailed analysis and graphs.

    For a working space motor design, the following has to be satisfied:

    (2) [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} >> [rail gun momentum]_{backward}

    Which is tge case from my 2023 videos, the latest ones.
    However as the bar rolls there is a significant backward monentum from
    the friction upon the rails.
    Sliding will lessen it.

    or what amounts to the same thing:

    (3) [em field momentum]_{backward} >> [em field momentum]_{forward}

    I'm skeptical that for the given rail gun setup, (2) or (3) holds. Also, >>> it seems to me that, if all the energy in the supercapacitors were
    expended in generating a laser pulse, it is more likely that (3) would
    be achieved.

    Check out my latest videos and the graphs. You should be able to find
    them from my links in sci.physics. Or I will repost here.

    Arindam Banerjee, for Bertie and Tyler, my faithful ghostly cyberdogs.

    ElectroBOOM's take on the rail gun:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJRDclzi5Vg

    On a more serious note, the laws of conservation of energy, linear
    momentum and angular momentum are at the foundations of both classical
    and modern physics.

    Yes. So read my bew physics which upgrades Newtonian and Maxwelluan physics. That us much of classical physics. And all of modern physics.

    If you make the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM that these have
    been falsified, EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE will be demanded -- a lot more
    than crude experiments, made with half assed or hardly any instrumentation.

    They were done with what was sufficient for the purpose. They can be compared with the experiments of Archimedes and his SG experiments, Torricelli and his water barometer, Galileo and his telescope, Curie with their radioactivity, Galvani and his frogs,
    Faraday and his early motors. Yes it is extraordinary that way. Just scales, and a multimeter. But very latest equipment like supercapacitors were used and a video camera with 30-40 ms resolution.

    For such outstanding results from such simplicity, against all odds, just homself with no or negative help, with only his savings to fund the work... only Arindam, the greatest genius of all time could do it.


    Also, all the navy/military rail guns, such as the one below, have
    enormous recoil/back reactions, when fired, as expected:

    https://youtu.be/58MmOpSm4LY?t=66

    You need to accelerate the missile before it enters the barrel and that causes reaction. Whether or not rail guns gad reaction was unclear. It was a research issue for Arindam's PhD which was not given as they said he had not made a working model of a
    rail gun. That was in 2016 with an early design.

    bt

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to bertietaylor on Tue Apr 30 19:55:40 2024
    On 4/30/2024 7:26 PM, bertietaylor wrote:
    Aether Regained wrote:

    bertietaylor:
    Aether Regained wrote:

    Aether Regained:
    @ArindamBanerjee

    I took a look at your video of your 'recoil-less' rail gun:

    My Movie8feb2022

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0

    My first impression was that, there is an obvious recoil of the
    'gun' or
    rails+supercapacitors section, but you claim in the description that: >>>>>
    "... we are creating momentum from internal energy/force in this
    experiment. The heavy (3Kg) armature is accelerated by electromagnetic >>>>> forces. There is a recoil, the rest of the apparatus weighs 4.3Kg -
    BUT
    THAT IS DUE TO THE FRICTION FROM THE ROLLING ARMATURE. ...  As I have >>>>> shown in my other videos, the force that accelerates the armature has >>>>> very little recoil, and this new effect can be used to make
    reactionless
    motors for the proper conquest of space."

    You have worked on this for a long time, but I think you are maybe
    overlooking that whatever electromagnetic forces act on the current
    flowing through the rolling bar/'armature', near [*] exactly opposite >>>>> electromagnetic forces will act on the other end of the rails,
    i.e., on
    the oppositely flowing current through the supercapacitors, and the
    center-of-mass of the whole system will remain near stationary.

    [*] It is well known that in electrodynamics, Newton's 3rd law is
    inexact, namely it will appear to be violated if the momentum in the >>>>> aether or em field is not also considered. I urge you to carefully
    read
    FLP-II:26-2, especially the last paragraph, and also FLP-II:27-6 on
    the
    (Electromagnetic) Field Momentum.

    https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6

    "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of >>>>> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on
    orthogonal
    trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so >>>>> the
    action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the >>>>> matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the >>>>> field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount >>>>> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER, >>>>> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
    MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED." >>>>>
    I think it is premature to believe that your inconclusive results
    can be
    the basis of a space motor. For that purpose, you may want to take a >>>>> look at PROJECT ORION:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

    which is a design by the late Freeman Dyson, that works, and does not >>>>> involve continuously ejecting mass.


    Just a clarifying addendum to the OP:

    In light of:

    https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6

    Irrelevant

    "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of >>>> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on
    orthogonal
    trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the >>>> action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the
    matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the
    field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount >>>> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER, >>>> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
    MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED."

    Feynman does not believe in fields. He believes in particles of energy
    following e=mcc=hv
    Anyway his opinions are worthless in this context which is based upon
    Maxwellian electrodynamics.

    the correct momentum balance equation for Arindam's rail gun is:

    (1) [rail gun momentum]_{backward} + [em field momentum]_{backward} =
    [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} + [em field momentum]_{forward}

    Wrong. There is forward momentum found experimentally with my later 2023 >>> videos with their detailed analysis and graphs.

    For a working space motor design, the following has to be satisfied:

    (2) [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} >> [rail gun momentum]_{backward}

    Which is tge case from my 2023 videos, the latest ones.
    However as the bar rolls there is a significant backward monentum from
    the friction upon the rails.
    Sliding will lessen it.

    or what amounts to the same thing:

    (3) [em field momentum]_{backward} >> [em field momentum]_{forward}

    I'm skeptical that for the given rail gun setup, (2) or (3) holds.
    Also,
    it seems to me that, if all the energy in the supercapacitors were
    expended in generating a laser pulse, it is more likely that (3) would >>>> be achieved.

    Check out my latest videos and the graphs. You should be able to find
    them from my links in sci.physics. Or I will repost here.

    Arindam Banerjee, for Bertie and Tyler, my faithful ghostly cyberdogs.

    ElectroBOOM's take on the rail gun:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJRDclzi5Vg

    On a more serious note, the laws of conservation of energy, linear
    momentum and angular momentum are at the foundations of both classical
    and modern physics.

    Yes. So read my bew physics which upgrades Newtonian and Maxwelluan
    physics. That us much of classical physics. And all of modern physics.

    If you make the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM that these have
    been falsified, EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE will be demanded -- a lot more
    than crude experiments, made with half assed or hardly any
    instrumentation.

    They were done with what was sufficient for the purpose. They can be
    compared with the experiments of Archimedes and his SG experiments, Torricelli and his water barometer, Galileo and his telescope, Curie
    with their radioactivity, Galvani and his frogs, Faraday and his early motors. Yes it is extraordinary that way. Just scales, and a multimeter.
    But very latest equipment like supercapacitors were used and a video
    camera with 30-40 ms resolution.

    For such outstanding results from such simplicity, against all odds,
    just homself with no or negative help, with only his savings to fund the work... only Arindam, the greatest genius of all time could do it.

    No, Banjo, what he said is true. Extraordinary claims require
    extraordinary evidence. Low quality youtube videos without a proper
    writeup are worthless, and you will be ignored as you should be. Too
    bad, if in the unlikely event you were actually on to something, it will
    have to wait until the next person to come along and discover it (and
    write a proper scientific paper on his discovery).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Volney on Wed May 1 09:38:20 2024
    On 2024-04-30 23:55:40 +0000, Volney said:

    On 4/30/2024 7:26 PM, bertietaylor wrote:
    Aether Regained wrote:

    bertietaylor:
    Aether Regained wrote:

    Aether Regained:
    @ArindamBanerjee

    I took a look at your video of your 'recoil-less' rail gun:

    My Movie8feb2022

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0

    My first impression was that, there is an obvious recoil of the 'gun' or >>>>>> rails+supercapacitors section, but you claim in the description that: >>>>>>
    "... we are creating momentum from internal energy/force in this
    experiment. The heavy (3Kg) armature is accelerated by electromagnetic >>>>>> forces. There is a recoil, the rest of the apparatus weighs 4.3Kg - BUT >>>>>> THAT IS DUE TO THE FRICTION FROM THE ROLLING ARMATURE. ...  As I have >>>>>> shown in my other videos, the force that accelerates the armature has >>>>>> very little recoil, and this new effect can be used to make reactionless >>>>>> motors for the proper conquest of space."

    You have worked on this for a long time, but I think you are maybe >>>>>> overlooking that whatever electromagnetic forces act on the current >>>>>> flowing through the rolling bar/'armature', near [*] exactly opposite >>>>>> electromagnetic forces will act on the other end of the rails, i.e., on >>>>>> the oppositely flowing current through the supercapacitors, and the >>>>>> center-of-mass of the whole system will remain near stationary.

    [*] It is well known that in electrodynamics, Newton's 3rd law is
    inexact, namely it will appear to be violated if the momentum in the >>>>>> aether or em field is not also considered. I urge you to carefully read >>>>>> FLP-II:26-2, especially the last paragraph, and also FLP-II:27-6 on the >>>>>> (Electromagnetic) Field Momentum.

    https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6

    "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of >>>>>> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal >>>>>> trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the
    action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the >>>>>> matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the >>>>>> field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount >>>>>> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER, >>>>>> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
    MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED." >>>>>>
    I think it is premature to believe that your inconclusive results can be >>>>>> the basis of a space motor. For that purpose, you may want to take a >>>>>> look at PROJECT ORION:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

    which is a design by the late Freeman Dyson, that works, and does not >>>>>> involve continuously ejecting mass.


    Just a clarifying addendum to the OP:

    In light of:

    https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6

    Irrelevant

    "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of >>>>> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal >>>>> trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the >>>>> action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the >>>>> matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the >>>>> field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount >>>>> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER, >>>>> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
    MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED." >>>>
    Feynman does not believe in fields. He believes in particles of energy >>>> following e=mcc=hv
    Anyway his opinions are worthless in this context which is based upon
    Maxwellian electrodynamics.

    the correct momentum balance equation for Arindam's rail gun is:

    (1) [rail gun momentum]_{backward} + [em field momentum]_{backward} = >>>>> [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} + [em field momentum]_{forward}

    Wrong. There is forward momentum found experimentally with my later 2023 >>>> videos with their detailed analysis and graphs.

    For a working space motor design, the following has to be satisfied:

    (2) [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} >> [rail gun momentum]_{backward} >>>>
    Which is tge case from my 2023 videos, the latest ones.
    However as the bar rolls there is a significant backward monentum from >>>> the friction upon the rails.
    Sliding will lessen it.

    or what amounts to the same thing:

    (3) [em field momentum]_{backward} >> [em field momentum]_{forward}

    I'm skeptical that for the given rail gun setup, (2) or (3) holds. Also, >>>>> it seems to me that, if all the energy in the supercapacitors were
    expended in generating a laser pulse, it is more likely that (3) would >>>>> be achieved.

    Check out my latest videos and the graphs. You should be able to find
    them from my links in sci.physics. Or I will repost here.

    Arindam Banerjee, for Bertie and Tyler, my faithful ghostly cyberdogs.

    ElectroBOOM's take on the rail gun:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJRDclzi5Vg

    On a more serious note, the laws of conservation of energy, linear
    momentum and angular momentum are at the foundations of both classical
    and modern physics.

    Yes. So read my bew physics which upgrades Newtonian and Maxwelluan
    physics. That us much of classical physics. And all of modern physics.

    If you make the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM that these have
    been falsified, EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE will be demanded -- a lot more
    than crude experiments, made with half assed or hardly any instrumentation. >>
    They were done with what was sufficient for the purpose. They can be
    compared with the experiments of Archimedes and his SG experiments,
    Torricelli and his water barometer, Galileo and his telescope, Curie
    with their radioactivity, Galvani and his frogs, Faraday and his early
    motors. Yes it is extraordinary that way. Just scales, and a
    multimeter. But very latest equipment like supercapacitors were used
    and a video camera with 30-40 ms resolution.

    For such outstanding results from such simplicity, against all odds,
    just homself with no or negative help, with only his savings to fund
    the work... only Arindam, the greatest genius of all time could do it.

    I thought "Dr" Hachel was the greatest genius of all time, or am I confused?

    No, Banjo, what he said is true. Extraordinary claims require
    extraordinary evidence. Low quality youtube videos without a proper
    writeup are worthless, and you will be ignored as you should be. Too
    bad, if in the unlikely event you were actually on to something, it
    will have to wait until the next person to come along and discover it
    (and write a proper scientific paper on his discovery).


    --
    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bertietaylor@21:1/5 to Athel Cornish-Bowden on Wed May 1 09:05:30 2024
    Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

    On 2024-04-30 23:55:40 +0000, Volney said:

    On 4/30/2024 7:26 PM, bertietaylor wrote:
    Aether Regained wrote:

    bertietaylor:
    Aether Regained wrote:

    Aether Regained:
    @ArindamBanerjee

    I took a look at your video of your 'recoil-less' rail gun:

    My Movie8feb2022

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0

    My first impression was that, there is an obvious recoil of the 'gun' or
    rails+supercapacitors section, but you claim in the description that: >>>>>>>
    "... we are creating momentum from internal energy/force in this >>>>>>> experiment. The heavy (3Kg) armature is accelerated by electromagnetic >>>>>>> forces. There is a recoil, the rest of the apparatus weighs 4.3Kg - BUT >>>>>>> THAT IS DUE TO THE FRICTION FROM THE ROLLING ARMATURE. ...  As I have >>>>>>> shown in my other videos, the force that accelerates the armature has >>>>>>> very little recoil, and this new effect can be used to make reactionless
    motors for the proper conquest of space."

    You have worked on this for a long time, but I think you are maybe >>>>>>> overlooking that whatever electromagnetic forces act on the current >>>>>>> flowing through the rolling bar/'armature', near [*] exactly opposite >>>>>>> electromagnetic forces will act on the other end of the rails, i.e., on >>>>>>> the oppositely flowing current through the supercapacitors, and the >>>>>>> center-of-mass of the whole system will remain near stationary.

    [*] It is well known that in electrodynamics, Newton's 3rd law is >>>>>>> inexact, namely it will appear to be violated if the momentum in the >>>>>>> aether or em field is not also considered. I urge you to carefully read >>>>>>> FLP-II:26-2, especially the last paragraph, and also FLP-II:27-6 on the >>>>>>> (Electromagnetic) Field Momentum.

    https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6

    "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of
    action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal
    trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the
    action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the >>>>>>> matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the >>>>>>> field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount >>>>>>> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER, >>>>>>> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
    MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED." >>>>>>>
    I think it is premature to believe that your inconclusive results can be
    the basis of a space motor. For that purpose, you may want to take a >>>>>>> look at PROJECT ORION:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) >>>>>>>
    which is a design by the late Freeman Dyson, that works, and does not >>>>>>> involve continuously ejecting mass.


    Just a clarifying addendum to the OP:

    In light of:

    https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6

    Irrelevant

    "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of >>>>>> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on orthogonal >>>>>> trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the
    action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the >>>>>> matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the >>>>>> field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount >>>>>> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER, >>>>>> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
    MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED." >>>>>
    Feynman does not believe in fields. He believes in particles of energy >>>>> following e=mcc=hv
    Anyway his opinions are worthless in this context which is based upon >>>>> Maxwellian electrodynamics.

    the correct momentum balance equation for Arindam's rail gun is:

    (1) [rail gun momentum]_{backward} + [em field momentum]_{backward} = >>>>>> [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} + [em field momentum]_{forward}

    Wrong. There is forward momentum found experimentally with my later 2023 >>>>> videos with their detailed analysis and graphs.

    For a working space motor design, the following has to be satisfied: >>>>>
    (2) [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} >> [rail gun momentum]_{backward} >>>>>
    Which is tge case from my 2023 videos, the latest ones.
    However as the bar rolls there is a significant backward monentum from >>>>> the friction upon the rails.
    Sliding will lessen it.

    or what amounts to the same thing:

    (3) [em field momentum]_{backward} >> [em field momentum]_{forward} >>>>>
    I'm skeptical that for the given rail gun setup, (2) or (3) holds. Also, >>>>>> it seems to me that, if all the energy in the supercapacitors were >>>>>> expended in generating a laser pulse, it is more likely that (3) would >>>>>> be achieved.

    Check out my latest videos and the graphs. You should be able to find >>>>> them from my links in sci.physics. Or I will repost here.

    Arindam Banerjee, for Bertie and Tyler, my faithful ghostly cyberdogs. >>>
    ElectroBOOM's take on the rail gun:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJRDclzi5Vg

    On a more serious note, the laws of conservation of energy, linear
    momentum and angular momentum are at the foundations of both classical >>>> and modern physics.

    Yes. So read my bew physics which upgrades Newtonian and Maxwelluan
    physics. That us much of classical physics. And all of modern physics.

    If you make the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM that these have
    been falsified, EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE will be demanded -- a lot more
    than crude experiments, made with half assed or hardly any instrumentation.

    They were done with what was sufficient for the purpose. They can be
    compared with the experiments of Archimedes and his SG experiments,
    Torricelli and his water barometer, Galileo and his telescope, Curie
    with their radioactivity, Galvani and his frogs, Faraday and his early
    motors. Yes it is extraordinary that way. Just scales, and a
    multimeter. But very latest equipment like supercapacitors were used
    and a video camera with 30-40 ms resolution.

    For such outstanding results from such simplicity, against all odds,
    just homself with no or negative help, with only his savings to fund
    the work... only Arindam, the greatest genius of all time could do it.

    I thought "Dr" Hachel was the greatest genius of all time, or am I confused?

    You are old and foolish. And lost your sense of smell as well, bow-wow chappie. SAD.

    bt (Arindam's best friends)





    No, Banjo, what he said is true. Extraordinary claims require
    extraordinary evidence. Low quality youtube videos without a proper
    writeup are worthless, and you will be ignored as you should be. Too
    bad, if in the unlikely event you were actually on to something, it
    will have to wait until the next person to come along and discover it
    (and write a proper scientific paper on his discovery).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bertietaylor@21:1/5 to Volney on Wed May 1 21:55:54 2024
    Volney wrote:

    On 4/27/2024 5:50 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:


    That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force does >>> NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely theoretical. >>> My evidence is experimental.

    Correct, merely experimental.
    It stands falsified by a reliable theory.

    FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
    do conserve energy-momentum.
    If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you
    to tell the world what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
    and how these equations must be modified.

    As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer,


    It is entirely possible that Banjo stumbled across that apparent
    violation of momentum by momentum being carried away by the
    electromagnetic field.


    It does just that as all except pigheads can see.

    But we will never know since he refuses to
    produce a writeup in sufficient detail for someone to reproduce his experiment, instead writing "Watch my videos!!!". Add his stubbornness
    that he insists this is something new that violates
    Newton/Einstein/Maxwell rather than a known existing behavior, you do
    get the incompetent tinkerer.
    Nonsense. The experiments prove Arindam's new physics. Which is also available online.

    bt

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bertietaylor@21:1/5 to Volney on Wed May 1 21:47:38 2024
    Volney wrote:

    On 4/30/2024 7:26 PM, bertietaylor wrote:
    Aether Regained wrote:

    bertietaylor:
    Aether Regained wrote:

    Aether Regained:
    @ArindamBanerjee

    I took a look at your video of your 'recoil-less' rail gun:

    My Movie8feb2022

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0

    My first impression was that, there is an obvious recoil of the
    'gun' or
    rails+supercapacitors section, but you claim in the description that: >>>>>>
    "... we are creating momentum from internal energy/force in this
    experiment. The heavy (3Kg) armature is accelerated by electromagnetic >>>>>> forces. There is a recoil, the rest of the apparatus weighs 4.3Kg - >>>>>> BUT
    THAT IS DUE TO THE FRICTION FROM THE ROLLING ARMATURE. ...  As I have >>>>>> shown in my other videos, the force that accelerates the armature has >>>>>> very little recoil, and this new effect can be used to make
    reactionless
    motors for the proper conquest of space."

    You have worked on this for a long time, but I think you are maybe >>>>>> overlooking that whatever electromagnetic forces act on the current >>>>>> flowing through the rolling bar/'armature', near [*] exactly opposite >>>>>> electromagnetic forces will act on the other end of the rails,
    i.e., on
    the oppositely flowing current through the supercapacitors, and the >>>>>> center-of-mass of the whole system will remain near stationary.

    [*] It is well known that in electrodynamics, Newton's 3rd law is
    inexact, namely it will appear to be violated if the momentum in the >>>>>> aether or em field is not also considered. I urge you to carefully >>>>>> read
    FLP-II:26-2, especially the last paragraph, and also FLP-II:27-6 on >>>>>> the
    (Electromagnetic) Field Momentum.

    https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6

    "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of >>>>>> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on
    orthogonal
    trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so >>>>>> the
    action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the >>>>>> matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the >>>>>> field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount >>>>>> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER, >>>>>> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
    MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED." >>>>>>
    I think it is premature to believe that your inconclusive results
    can be
    the basis of a space motor. For that purpose, you may want to take a >>>>>> look at PROJECT ORION:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

    which is a design by the late Freeman Dyson, that works, and does not >>>>>> involve continuously ejecting mass.


    Just a clarifying addendum to the OP:

    In light of:

    https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html#Ch27-S6

    Irrelevant

    "FLP-II:27-6: We pointed out in Section 26–2 the failure of the law of >>>>> action and reaction when two charged particles were moving on
    orthogonal
    trajectories. The forces on the two particles don’t balance out, so the >>>>> action and reaction are not equal; therefore the net momentum of the >>>>> matter must be changing. It is not conserved. But the momentum in the >>>>> field is also changing in such a situation. If you work out the amount >>>>> of momentum given by the Poynting vector, it is not constant. HOWEVER, >>>>> THE CHANGE OF THE PARTICLE MOMENTA IS JUST MADE UP BY THE FIELD
    MOMENTUM, SO THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES PLUS FIELD IS CONSERVED." >>>>
    Feynman does not believe in fields. He believes in particles of energy >>>> following e=mcc=hv
    Anyway his opinions are worthless in this context which is based upon
    Maxwellian electrodynamics.

    the correct momentum balance equation for Arindam's rail gun is:

    (1) [rail gun momentum]_{backward} + [em field momentum]_{backward} = >>>>> [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} + [em field momentum]_{forward}

    Wrong. There is forward momentum found experimentally with my later 2023 >>>> videos with their detailed analysis and graphs.

    For a working space motor design, the following has to be satisfied:

    (2) [rolling bar momentum]_{forward} >> [rail gun momentum]_{backward} >>>>
    Which is tge case from my 2023 videos, the latest ones.
    However as the bar rolls there is a significant backward monentum from >>>> the friction upon the rails.
    Sliding will lessen it.

    or what amounts to the same thing:

    (3) [em field momentum]_{backward} >> [em field momentum]_{forward}

    I'm skeptical that for the given rail gun setup, (2) or (3) holds.
    Also,
    it seems to me that, if all the energy in the supercapacitors were
    expended in generating a laser pulse, it is more likely that (3) would >>>>> be achieved.

    Check out my latest videos and the graphs. You should be able to find
    them from my links in sci.physics. Or I will repost here.

    Arindam Banerjee, for Bertie and Tyler, my faithful ghostly cyberdogs.

    ElectroBOOM's take on the rail gun:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJRDclzi5Vg

    On a more serious note, the laws of conservation of energy, linear
    momentum and angular momentum are at the foundations of both classical
    and modern physics.

    Yes. So read my bew physics which upgrades Newtonian and Maxwelluan
    physics. That us much of classical physics. And all of modern physics.

    If you make the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM that these have
    been falsified, EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE will be demanded -- a lot more
    than crude experiments, made with half assed or hardly any
    instrumentation.

    They were done with what was sufficient for the purpose. They can be
    compared with the experiments of Archimedes and his SG experiments,
    Torricelli and his water barometer, Galileo and his telescope, Curie
    with their radioactivity, Galvani and his frogs, Faraday and his early
    motors. Yes it is extraordinary that way. Just scales, and a multimeter.
    But very latest equipment like supercapacitors were used and a video
    camera with 30-40 ms resolution.

    For such outstanding results from such simplicity, against all odds,
    just homself with no or negative help, with only his savings to fund the
    work... only Arindam, the greatest genius of all time could do it.

    No, Banjo, what he said is true. Extraordinary claims require
    extraordinary evidence.


    Which Arindam has provided for the whole world to see. It is not his fault that his genius ideas and experimental eork is dismissed by the vested interests. Nothing new here, of course.

    Low quality youtube videos without a proper
    writeup are worthless, and you will be ignored as you should be.

    They are not low quality. That is a typical lie. They are conclusive evidence of Arindam's ideas which is obvious to all honest and scientific people. They are detailed painstakingly. All information is oresented online and is free to all. Much better
    than any paper in a journal. The experiments can be easily repeated by anyone and the results and conclusions verified. That way it is novel. One gets out of the clutches of the estanlishments. Freedom.




    Too
    bad, if in the unlikely event you were actually on to something, it will
    have to wait until the next person to come along and discover it (and
    write a proper scientific paper on his discovery).

    No doubt there will be efforts to steal Arindam's work as you suggest. Thieves rule. However youtube gives wide publicity and that should deter the thieves. Like if one thief claims the genius work then the others will say no, Arindam has done it
    starting from 2015. Online publication naturally outs plagiarism. There are too many onlookers.

    bt (Arindam's ghostly cyberdogs and his best friends)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu May 2 09:51:27 2024
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 4/27/2024 5:50 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:


    That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force does >> NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely theoretical. >> My evidence is experimental.

    Correct, merely experimental.
    It stands falsified by a reliable theory.

    FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
    do conserve energy-momentum.
    If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you
    to tell the world what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
    and how these equations must be modified.

    As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer,


    It is entirely possible that Banjo stumbled across that apparent
    violation of momentum by momentum being carried away by the
    electromagnetic field.

    If the momentum is carried away by the electromagnetic fiel
    there is still momentum conservation.
    And photon drive really isn't a new idea.
    However, it suffers from the unpleasant fact
    that c = 300 megawatt/newton, in slightly unconventional units.

    But we will never know since he refuses to
    produce a writeup in sufficient detail for someone to reproduce his experiment, instead writing "Watch my videos!!!".

    There is of course no momentum violation at all.
    Whatever seems to be missing must be taken up by the sources of the
    fields. (and of course I don't watch videos)

    Add his stubbornness that he insists this is something new that violates Newton/Einstein/Maxwell rather than a known existing behavior, you do get
    the incompetent tinkerer.

    Or the faker who thinks he is being clever.
    There is no lack of videos showing really rotating unbalanced wheels,
    rotating wheels with water bottles, and so on.

    The one I like best are the 3D reproductions of Escher's waterfal,
    with really flowing water.

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bertietaylor@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu May 2 11:30:13 2024
    J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 4/27/2024 5:50 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:


    That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force
    does
    NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely theoretical.
    My evidence is experimental.

    Correct, merely experimental.
    It stands falsified by a reliable theory.

    FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
    do conserve energy-momentum.
    If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you
    to tell the world what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
    and how these equations must be modified.

    As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer,


    It is entirely possible that Banjo stumbled across that apparent
    violation of momentum by momentum being carried away by the
    electromagnetic field.

    If the momentum is carried away by the electromagnetic fiel
    there is still momentum conservation.
    And photon drive really isn't a new idea.
    However, it suffers from the unpleasant fact
    that c = 300 megawatt/newton, in slightly unconventional units.

    Arindam's work has nothing to do with photon drives.
    It has to do with the discovery that the Lorenz force does not have an
    equal and opposite reaction

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu May 2 12:27:24 2024
    On 5/2/2024 3:51 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 4/27/2024 5:50 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:


    That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force does >>>> NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely theoretical. >>>> My evidence is experimental.

    Correct, merely experimental.
    It stands falsified by a reliable theory.

    FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
    do conserve energy-momentum.
    If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you
    to tell the world what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
    and how these equations must be modified.

    As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer,


    It is entirely possible that Banjo stumbled across that apparent
    violation of momentum by momentum being carried away by the
    electromagnetic field.

    If the momentum is carried away by the electromagnetic fiel
    there is still momentum conservation.

    Exactly. I just allowed for the extremely remote possibility he detected something relevant. Almost certainly, if he found anything he found the
    known momentum conserving electric field.

    And photon drive really isn't a new idea.

    Even solar sails use that effect (momentum of sunlight).

    However, it suffers from the unpleasant fact
    that c = 300 megawatt/newton, in slightly unconventional units.

    That is why what we are really seeing is sloppy demonstrations, it is
    very unlikely Aridam's experiments could detect that small effect. We
    won't know because Aridam's experiments are unreproduceable,
    insufficient detail to reproduce his situation.

    But we will never know since he refuses to
    produce a writeup in sufficient detail for someone to reproduce his
    experiment, instead writing "Watch my videos!!!".

    There is of course no momentum violation at all.
    Whatever seems to be missing must be taken up by the sources of the
    fields.

    Certainly. But we won't ever know.

    (and of course I don't watch videos)

    Smart. His videos are a waste of time.

    Add his stubbornness that he insists this is something new that violates
    Newton/Einstein/Maxwell rather than a known existing behavior, you do get
    the incompetent tinkerer.

    Or the faker who thinks he is being clever.
    There is no lack of videos showing really rotating unbalanced wheels, rotating wheels with water bottles, and so on.

    No lack of snake oil salesmen, even these days.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to bertietaylor on Thu May 2 20:16:52 2024
    bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

    J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 4/27/2024 5:50 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:


    That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force does
    NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely theoretical.
    My evidence is experimental.

    Correct, merely experimental.
    It stands falsified by a reliable theory.

    FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
    do conserve energy-momentum.
    If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you
    to tell the world what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
    and how these equations must be modified.

    As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer,


    It is entirely possible that Banjo stumbled across that apparent
    violation of momentum by momentum being carried away by the
    electromagnetic field.

    If the momentum is carried away by the electromagnetic fiel
    there is still momentum conservation.
    And photon drive really isn't a new idea.
    However, it suffers from the unpleasant fact
    that c = 300 megawatt/newton, in slightly unconventional units.

    Arindam's work has nothing to do with photon drives.

    No, of course not. Photon drives realy work,
    Arindam's things don't.

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bertietaylor@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu May 2 21:37:49 2024
    J. J. Lodder wrote:

    bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

    J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 4/27/2024 5:50 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:


    That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz
    force
    does
    NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely
    theoretical.
    My evidence is experimental.

    Correct, merely experimental.
    It stands falsified by a reliable theory.

    FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
    do conserve energy-momentum.
    If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you
    to tell the world what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
    and how these equations must be modified.

    As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent
    tinkerer,


    It is entirely possible that Banjo stumbled across that apparent
    violation of momentum by momentum being carried away by the
    electromagnetic field.

    If the momentum is carried away by the electromagnetic fiel
    there is still momentum conservation.
    And photon drive really isn't a new idea.
    However, it suffers from the unpleasant fact
    that c = 300 megawatt/newton, in slightly unconventional units.

    Arindam's work has nothing to do with photon drives.

    No, of course not. Photon drives realy work,
    Arindam's things don't.

    Wrong. Photon drives are useless for photons are not particles with
    momentum unless we are talking such rubbish as the ridiculous e=mcc=hv.
    They are as ideas absolutely bad like big bang, black holes, etc however
    they do provide funding for corrupt pseudo scientists from stupid
    governments and foolish people.

    Arindam's physics will take humanity to the stars after fixing the energy
    and motion issues on Earth and then populating the solar system

    Woof-woof

    bt (Arindam Banerjee's best friends)

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bertietaylor@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu May 2 22:19:08 2024
    Volney wrote:

    On 5/2/2024 3:51 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 4/27/2024 5:50 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:


    That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force
    does
    NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely theoretical.
    My evidence is experimental.

    Correct, merely experimental.
    It stands falsified by a reliable theory.

    FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
    do conserve energy-momentum.
    If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you
    to tell the world what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
    and how these equations must be modified.

    As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer,


    It is entirely possible that Banjo stumbled across that apparent
    violation of momentum by momentum being carried away by the
    electromagnetic field.

    No Arindam found that inertia gets violated with his new design rail gun.
    Which justifies his new physics that he developed from 1998.

    If the momentum is carried away by the electromagnetic fiel
    there is still momentum conservation.


    No ifs with the experiments of Arindam which show inertia violation by
    arrest of the gravy rail gun bullet. With cyclic action this gun turned
    motor will reach faster than light speeds.



    Exactly. I just allowed for the extremely remote possibility he detected

    something relevant. Almost certainly, if he found anything he found the
    known momentum conserving electric field.

    He found that the Lorenz force does not have an equal and opposite
    reaction. Thus justifying Maxwell and upgrading Newton. While outing all
    modern physics.

    The meanness of the racist and bigoted Eurocentric is hereby noted. Nothing new. Same old suppression to be followed by the thefts, colonial style.
    While demeaning the non-white throughout. We cyberdogs of Arindam are disgusted.

    And photon drive really isn't a new idea.

    Irrelevant.

    Even solar sails use that effect (momentum of sunlight).

    No that is a heat engine. Temperature differences on either side cause the motion. Radiant heat is em waves raising the temperature on one side, that facing the sun.

    However, it suffers from the unpleasant fact
    that c = 300 megawatt/newton, in slightly unconventional units.

    That is why what we are really seeing is sloppy demonstrations, it is
    very unlikely Aridam's experiments could detect that small effect. We
    won't know because Aridam's experiments are unreproduceable,
    insufficient detail to reproduce his situation.

    But we will never know since he refuses to
    produce a writeup in sufficient detail for someone to reproduce his
    experiment, instead writing "Watch my videos!!!".

    There is of course no momentum violation at all.
    Whatever seems to be missing must be taken up by the sources of the
    fields.

    Certainly. But we won't ever know.

    (and of course I don't watch videos)

    Smart. His videos are a waste of time.

    None so blind... these whiteys will make huge telescopes to see the ends of
    the universe but will not look at videos one cluck away. Beyond disgusting.


    Add his stubbornness that he insists this is something new that
    violates
    Newton/Einstein/Maxwell rather than a known existing behavior, you do
    get
    the incompetent tinkerer.

    Or the faker who thinks he is being clever.
    There is no lack of videos showing really rotating unbalanced wheels,
    rotating wheels with water bottles, and so on.

    No lack of snake oil salesmen, even these days.

    True all the physicists who are deliberstely blind and spout e=mcc=hv lies
    are snake oil salesmen. Their huge success makes them only more so. Arindam isn't selling anything. He is leading future generations to better living.

    Woof-woof

    bt (Arindam's best friends)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bertietaylor@21:1/5 to bertietaylor on Fri May 3 00:46:03 2024
    bertietaylor wrote:

    Volney wrote:

    On 5/2/2024 3:51 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 4/27/2024 5:50 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:


    That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz
    force
    does
    NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely
    theoretical.
    My evidence is experimental.

    Correct, merely experimental.
    It stands falsified by a reliable theory.

    FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
    do conserve energy-momentum.
    If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you
    to tell the world what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
    and how these equations must be modified.

    As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer, >>>>>

    It is entirely possible that Banjo stumbled across that apparent
    violation of momentum by momentum being carried away by the
    electromagnetic field.

    No Arindam found that inertia gets violated with his new design rail
    gun.
    Which justifies his new physics that he developed from 1998.

    If the momentum is carried away by the electromagnetic fiel
    there is still momentum conservation.


    No ifs with the experiments of Arindam which show inertia violation by
    arrest of the gravy rail gun bullet. With cyclic action this gun turned
    motor will reach faster than light speeds.



    Exactly. I just allowed for the extremely remote possibility he
    detected

    something relevant. Almost certainly, if he found anything he found the

    known momentum conserving electric field.

    He found that the Lorenz force does not have an equal and opposite
    reaction. Thus justifying Maxwell and upgrading Newton. While outing all modern physics.

    The meanness of the racist and bigoted Eurocentric is hereby noted.
    Nothing
    new. Same old suppression to be followed by the thefts, colonial style.
    While demeaning the non-white throughout. We cyberdogs of Arindam are disgusted.

    And photon drive really isn't a new idea.

    Irrelevant.

    Even solar sails use that effect (momentum of sunlight).

    No that is a heat engine. Temperature differences on either side cause
    the
    motion. Radiant heat is em waves raising the temperature on one side,
    that
    facing the sun.

    However, it suffers from the unpleasant fact
    that c = 300 megawatt/newton, in slightly unconventional units.

    That is why what we are really seeing is sloppy demonstrations, it is
    very unlikely Aridam's experiments could detect that small effect. We
    won't know because Aridam's experiments are unreproduceable,
    insufficient detail to reproduce his situation.

    Now this is a damned lie. Arindam's experiments are very easy to repeat.
    Any talented teenager and every college student can reproduce them. He has given full details in all his videos. Ignoring the videos but twisting the conclusions from the experiments done there on arbitrary basis is
    unscientific to say the least



    But we will never know since he refuses to
    produce a writeup in sufficient detail for someone to reproduce his
    experiment, instead writing "Watch my videos!!!".

    It is not necessary for Arindam to do more than what he has already done. Providing a single writeup will only make it easier for the thieves to
    steal his work while ridiculing Arindam. That is standard practice for the colonislist racist bigots who are well represented here and in all
    important positions. Why should Arindam help those lying thieves? Honest people can find out the truths simply by watching the videos and following related links which give full details.

    For the progress of his work Arindam depends not ipon the rich and powerful
    of his time but upon the Higher Powers, the Gods and Goddesses; while dedicating his work for the uncorrupted future generations.

    Woof-woof

    bt (Arindam's ghostly cyberdogs who know far better physics than the Nobel prizewinners)



    There is of course no momentum violation at all.
    Whatever seems to be missing must be taken up by the sources of the
    fields.

    Certainly. But we won't ever know.

    (and of course I don't watch videos)

    Smart. His videos are a waste of time.

    None so blind... these whiteys will make huge telescopes to see the ends
    of
    the universe but will not look at videos one cluck away. Beyond
    disgusting.


    Add his stubbornness that he insists this is something new that
    violates
    Newton/Einstein/Maxwell rather than a known existing behavior, you do
    get
    the incompetent tinkerer.

    Or the faker who thinks he is being clever.
    There is no lack of videos showing really rotating unbalanced wheels,
    rotating wheels with water bottles, and so on.

    No lack of snake oil salesmen, even these days.

    True all the physicists who are deliberstely blind and spout e=mcc=hv
    lies
    are snake oil salesmen. Their huge success makes them only more so.
    Arindam
    isn't selling anything. He is leading future generations to better
    living.

    Woof-woof

    bt (Arindam's best friends)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Aether Regained@21:1/5 to bertietaylor on Sun May 5 15:06:00 2024
    bertietaylor wrote:

    Volney wrote:

    Even solar sails use that effect (momentum of sunlight).

    No that is a heat engine. Temperature differences on either side cause
    the motion. Radiant heat is em waves raising the temperature on one side, that facing the sun.


    @bertietaylor a.k.a @ArindamBanerjee,

    You are confusing the action of the Crookes' radiometer with Nichols' radiometer.

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

    Crookes' radiometer is a heat engine that uses a light source as the
    source of (radiant) heat, and a working substance, air.

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

    Nichols' radiometer measures radiation pressure caused by light
    momentum. The concept of photons are not required to explain this
    momentum, Maxwell's wave theory is sufficient.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Aether Regained on Sun May 5 23:18:02 2024
    Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@invalid.com> wrote:

    bertietaylor wrote:

    Volney wrote:

    Even solar sails use that effect (momentum of sunlight).

    No that is a heat engine. Temperature differences on either side cause
    the motion. Radiant heat is em waves raising the temperature on one side, that facing the sun.


    @bertietaylor a.k.a @ArindamBanerjee,

    You are confusing the action of the Crookes' radiometer with Nichols' radiometer.

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

    Crookes' radiometer is a heat engine that uses a light source as the
    source of (radiant) heat, and a working substance, air.

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

    Nichols' radiometer measures radiation pressure caused by light
    momentum. The concept of photons are not required to explain this
    momentum, Maxwell's wave theory is sufficient.

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

    Nichols' radiometer is a heat engine too.
    Its heatsink is either the walls of the room,
    or ultimately, if you go outside,
    the cosmic background radiation,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun May 5 23:18:01 2024
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 5/2/2024 3:51 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 4/27/2024 5:50 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:


    That is not the case, so this is a new discovery - the Lorentz force >>>> does NOT have an equal and opposite reaction. Your point is merely
    theoretical.
    My evidence is experimental.

    Correct, merely experimental.
    It stands falsified by a reliable theory.

    FYI, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations as they stand
    do conserve energy-momentum.
    If you want to be taken seriously it is up to you
    to tell the world what is wrong with Maxwell-Lorentz,
    and how these equations must be modified.

    As long as you can't do that you are merely an incompetent tinkerer,


    It is entirely possible that Banjo stumbled across that apparent
    violation of momentum by momentum being carried away by the
    electromagnetic field.

    If the momentum is carried away by the electromagnetic fiel
    there is still momentum conservation.

    Exactly. I just allowed for the extremely remote possibility he detected something relevant. Almost certainly, if he found anything he found the
    known momentum conserving electric field.

    And photon drive really isn't a new idea.

    Even solar sails use that effect (momentum of sunlight).

    Radiation pressure must be taken into account
    when calculating corrections to satellite orbits.

    And it costs real dollars, in fuel expended for station keeping
    for geostationary sats, so it is really real.
    And it was also found to be the cause of the Pioneer anomaly.

    However, it suffers from the unpleasant fact
    that c = 300 megawatt/newton, in slightly unconventional units.

    That is why what we are really seeing is sloppy demonstrations, it is
    very unlikely Aridam's experiments could detect that small effect. We
    won't know because Aridam's experiments are unreproduceable,
    insufficient detail to reproduce his situation.

    Arindam's errors in his original demonstrations
    of momentum non-conservation are trivial.
    A bright high school kid can spot them.

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bertietaylor@21:1/5 to Aether Regained on Mon May 6 22:40:17 2024
    Aether Regained wrote:

    bertietaylor wrote:

    Volney wrote:

    Even solar sails use that effect (momentum of sunlight).

    No that is a heat engine. Temperature differences on either side cause
    the motion. Radiant heat is em waves raising the temperature on one side,
    that facing the sun.


    @bertietaylor a.k.a @ArindamBanerjee,

    Actually we are the ghostly cyberdogs of Arindam. And his only friends in the physics world of liars and frauds.

    You are confusing the action of the Crookes' radiometer with Nichols' radiometer.

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

    Crookes' radiometer is a heat engine that uses a light source as the
    source of (radiant) heat, and a working substance, air.

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

    Nichols' radiometer measures radiation pressure caused by light
    momentum. The concept of photons are not required to explain this
    momentum, Maxwell's wave theory is sufficient.

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

    Thanks for the links. Yes wave theory is sufficient to explain so-called radiation pressure. As I explained the temperature difference caused by currents causing heat on the lighted side causes the motion. This does not mean that light has momentum. It
    is an aetheric disturbance causing fluctuations in the orbital paths of electrons thus causing potentials to drive the heat creating currents. The heated atoms push against the cooler atoms till that force reaches the last layer of atoms. Having nothing
    to push against they have to move. Thus there is motion from the impact of light.

    bt

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bertietaylor@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 6 22:48:15 2024
    Arindam's inertia violation experiments can be repeated by anyone willing to spend a few hundred dollars and some time.

    bt

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bertietaylor@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Tue May 7 00:04:12 2024
    J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@invalid.com> wrote:

    bertietaylor wrote:

    Volney wrote:

    Even solar sails use that effect (momentum of sunlight).

    No that is a heat engine. Temperature differences on either side cause
    the motion. Radiant heat is em waves raising the temperature on one side, >> > that facing the sun.


    @bertietaylor a.k.a @ArindamBanerjee,

    You are confusing the action of the Crookes' radiometer with Nichols'
    radiometer.

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

    Crookes' radiometer is a heat engine that uses a light source as the
    source of (radiant) heat, and a working substance, air.

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

    Nichols' radiometer measures radiation pressure caused by light
    momentum. The concept of photons are not required to explain this
    momentum, Maxwell's wave theory is sufficient.

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

    Nichols' radiometer is a heat engine too.
    Its heatsink is either the walls of the room,
    or ultimately, if you go outside,
    the cosmic background radiation,

    Jan

    The CBR is the radiation from all the stars and galaxies. Radiation provides no monentum for radiation has no mass. Momentum is mass multiplied by velocity. No mass, no momentum. But there us APPEARANCE of momentum with solar sails in sunlight.

    bt

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)