The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode
The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode
Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ
***
Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into
near space , and horizontal tunneling shown in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating
inertia can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and imparting that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
bertietaylor:
The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode
Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ
***
Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into
near space , and horizontal tunneling shown in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating
inertia can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and imparting that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
@Arindam (there is no need to use the transparent bertietaylor alias):
If the aether is fluid-like, which I believe it to be, as opposed to
your belief that the aether is solid-like, then there is a simple
disproof of your "violation of inertia" claim:
There is no violation of inertia or conservation-of-momentum in fluid mechanics: any unseen/unaccounted for momentum is carried away by the fluid!
bertietaylor:
The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode
Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ
***
Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into
near space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating
inertia can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and
imparting that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
@Arindam (there is no need to use the transparent bertietaylor alias):
If the aether is fluid-like, which I believe it to be,
your belief that the aether is solid-like, then there is a simple
disproof of your "violation of inertia" claim:
There is no violation of inertia or conservation-of-momentum in fluid mechanics: any unseen/unaccounted for momentum is carried away by the
fluid!
Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote:
bertietaylor:
The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode
Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ
***
Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into
near space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating
inertia can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and
imparting that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
@Arindam (there is no need to use the transparent bertietaylor alias):
If the aether is fluid-like, which I believe it to be, as opposed to
your belief that the aether is solid-like, then there is a simple
disproof of your "violation of inertia" claim:
There is no violation of inertia or conservation-of-momentum in fluid
mechanics: any unseen/unaccounted for momentum is carried away by the
fluid!
As 'everybody' in the 19th century already knew:
the aether must be solid-like.
A fluid aether cannot support transversverse waves,
and this is what electromagnetic waves obviously are.
As for Woofster's claims about inertia violations:
they are bunk, with or without an aether,
Jan
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 9:52:47 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote:
bertietaylor:
The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode
Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ
***
Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into
near space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating
inertia can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and >>>> imparting that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
@Arindam (there is no need to use the transparent bertietaylor alias):
If the aether is fluid-like, which I believe it to be, as opposed to
your belief that the aether is solid-like, then there is a simple
disproof of your "violation of inertia" claim:
There is no violation of inertia or conservation-of-momentum in fluid
mechanics: any unseen/unaccounted for momentum is carried away by the
fluid!
As 'everybody' in the 19th century already knew:
the aether must be solid-like.
A fluid aether cannot support transversverse waves,
and this is what electromagnetic waves obviously are.
As for Woofster's claims about inertia violations:
they are bunk, with or without an aether,
Jan
Another e=mcc chap denying reality of inertia violation by Arindam's
rail gun experiment.
This one seems better informed, though.
On 2024-10-13 01:01:03 +0000, Bertietaylor said:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 9:52:47 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote:
bertietaylor:
The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode
Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ >>>>>
***
Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into >>>>> near space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating
inertia can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and >>>>> imparting that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
@Arindam (there is no need to use the transparent bertietaylor alias): >>>>
If the aether is fluid-like, which I believe it to be, as opposed to
your belief that the aether is solid-like, then there is a simple
disproof of your "violation of inertia" claim:
There is no violation of inertia or conservation-of-momentum in fluid
mechanics: any unseen/unaccounted for momentum is carried away by the
fluid!
As 'everybody' in the 19th century already knew:
the aether must be solid-like.
A fluid aether cannot support transversverse waves,
and this is what electromagnetic waves obviously are.
As for Woofster's claims about inertia violations:
they are bunk, with or without an aether,
Jan
Another e=mcc chap denying reality of inertia violation by Arindam's
rail gun experiment.
Where is this work published (in a serious journal)?
This one seems better informed, though.
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 10:42:00 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-10-13 01:01:03 +0000, Bertietaylor said:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 9:52:47 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote:
bertietaylor:
The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode
Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ >>>>>>
***
Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into >>>>>> near space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating
inertia can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and >>>>>> imparting that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
@Arindam (there is no need to use the transparent bertietaylor alias): >>>>>
If the aether is fluid-like, which I believe it to be, as opposed to >>>>> your belief that the aether is solid-like, then there is a simple
disproof of your "violation of inertia" claim:
There is no violation of inertia or conservation-of-momentum in fluid >>>>> mechanics: any unseen/unaccounted for momentum is carried away by the >>>>> fluid!
As 'everybody' in the 19th century already knew:
the aether must be solid-like.
A fluid aether cannot support transversverse waves,
and this is what electromagnetic waves obviously are.
As for Woofster's claims about inertia violations:
they are bunk, with or without an aether,
Jan
Another e=mcc chap denying reality of inertia violation by Arindam's
rail gun experiment.
Where is this work published (in a serious journal)?
Why bother about journals? Why not look at what has been done?
This one seems better informed, though.
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 10:42:00 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-10-13 01:01:03 +0000, Bertietaylor said:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 9:52:47 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote:
bertietaylor:
The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode
Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ >>>>>
***
Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into >>>>> near space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating
inertia can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and >>>>> imparting that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
@Arindam (there is no need to use the transparent bertietaylor alias): >>>>
If the aether is fluid-like, which I believe it to be, as opposed to >>>> your belief that the aether is solid-like, then there is a simple
disproof of your "violation of inertia" claim:
There is no violation of inertia or conservation-of-momentum in fluid >>>> mechanics: any unseen/unaccounted for momentum is carried away by the >>>> fluid!
As 'everybody' in the 19th century already knew:
the aether must be solid-like.
A fluid aether cannot support transversverse waves,
and this is what electromagnetic waves obviously are.
As for Woofster's claims about inertia violations:
they are bunk, with or without an aether,
Jan
Another e=mcc chap denying reality of inertia violation by Arindam's
rail gun experiment.
Where is this work published (in a serious journal)?
Why bother about journals? Why not look at what has been done?
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 10:42:00 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-10-13 01:01:03 +0000, Bertietaylor said:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 9:52:47 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote:
bertietaylor:
The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode >>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ >>>>>>>
***
Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into >>>>>>> near space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating >>>>>>> inertia can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and >>>>>>> imparting that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
@Arindam (there is no need to use the transparent bertietaylor alias): >>>>>>
If the aether is fluid-like, which I believe it to be, as opposed to >>>>>> your belief that the aether is solid-like, then there is a simple
disproof of your "violation of inertia" claim:
There is no violation of inertia or conservation-of-momentum in fluid >>>>>> mechanics: any unseen/unaccounted for momentum is carried away by the >>>>>> fluid!
As 'everybody' in the 19th century already knew:
the aether must be solid-like.
A fluid aether cannot support transversverse waves,
and this is what electromagnetic waves obviously are.
As for Woofster's claims about inertia violations:
they are bunk, with or without an aether,
Jan
Another e=mcc chap denying reality of inertia violation by Arindam's
rail gun experiment.
Where is this work published (in a serious journal)?
Why bother about journals? Why not look at what has been done?
Nothing has been done until it has generated some peer approval,
or at least a tiny bit of peer interest,
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 10:42:00 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-10-13 01:01:03 +0000, Bertietaylor said:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 9:52:47 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote:
bertietaylor:
The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode
Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ >>>>>
***
Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into >>>>> near space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating
inertia can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and >>>>> imparting that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
@Arindam (there is no need to use the transparent bertietaylor alias): >>>>
If the aether is fluid-like, which I believe it to be, as opposed to >>>> your belief that the aether is solid-like, then there is a simple
disproof of your "violation of inertia" claim:
There is no violation of inertia or conservation-of-momentum in fluid >>>> mechanics: any unseen/unaccounted for momentum is carried away by the >>>> fluid!
As 'everybody' in the 19th century already knew:
the aether must be solid-like.
A fluid aether cannot support transversverse waves,
and this is what electromagnetic waves obviously are.
As for Woofster's claims about inertia violations:
they are bunk, with or without an aether,
Jan
Another e=mcc chap denying reality of inertia violation by Arindam's
rail gun experiment.
Where is this work published (in a serious journal)?
Why bother about journals? Why not look at what has been done?
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 10:42:00 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-10-13 01:01:03 +0000, Bertietaylor said:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 9:52:47 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote:
bertietaylor:
The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode >>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ >>>>>>>
***
Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into >>>>>>> near space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating >>>>>>> inertia can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and >>>>>>> imparting that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
@Arindam (there is no need to use the transparent bertietaylor alias): >>>>>>
If the aether is fluid-like, which I believe it to be, as opposed to >>>>>> your belief that the aether is solid-like, then there is a simple
disproof of your "violation of inertia" claim:
There is no violation of inertia or conservation-of-momentum in fluid >>>>>> mechanics: any unseen/unaccounted for momentum is carried away by the >>>>>> fluid!
As 'everybody' in the 19th century already knew:
the aether must be solid-like.
A fluid aether cannot support transversverse waves,
and this is what electromagnetic waves obviously are.
As for Woofster's claims about inertia violations:
they are bunk, with or without an aether,
Jan
Another e=mcc chap denying reality of inertia violation by Arindam's
rail gun experiment.
Where is this work published (in a serious journal)?
Why bother about journals? Why not look at what has been done?
Because nothing has been done yet.
An experiment isn't an experiment until it has been correctly
interpreted. Your say-so doesn't qualify as correct interpretation.
The first step in achieving that is to publish it under peer review,
to make it likely that the most obvious errors have been avoided.
Next, if it looks worthwhile, others may try to reproduce it.
If they succeed there may be a possibilty that you are on to something.
Base experience so far: all proposed 'reactionless EM drives'
have been found to be based on erroneous interpretation of experiments.
(on more competent testing)
You have not given any reason for believing yours to be any better.
Jan
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 10:42:00 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-10-13 01:01:03 +0000, Bertietaylor said:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 9:52:47 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote:
bertietaylor:
The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode >>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ >>>>>>>
***
Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into >>>>>>> near space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating >>>>>>> inertia can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and >>>>>>> imparting that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
@Arindam (there is no need to use the transparent bertietaylor alias): >>>>>>
If the aether is fluid-like, which I believe it to be, as opposed to >>>>>> your belief that the aether is solid-like, then there is a simple
disproof of your "violation of inertia" claim:
There is no violation of inertia or conservation-of-momentum in fluid >>>>>> mechanics: any unseen/unaccounted for momentum is carried away by the >>>>>> fluid!
As 'everybody' in the 19th century already knew:
the aether must be solid-like.
A fluid aether cannot support transversverse waves,
and this is what electromagnetic waves obviously are.
As for Woofster's claims about inertia violations:
they are bunk, with or without an aether,
Jan
Another e=mcc chap denying reality of inertia violation by Arindam's
rail gun experiment.
Where is this work published (in a serious journal)?
Why bother about journals? Why not look at what has been done?
Because nothing has been done yet.
An experiment isn't an experiment until it has been correctly
interpreted. Your say-so doesn't qualify as correct interpretation.
The first step in achieving that is to publish it under peer review,
to make it likely that the most obvious errors have been avoided.
Next, if it looks worthwhile, others may try to reproduce it.
If they succeed there may be a possibilty that you are on to something.
Base experience so far: all proposed 'reactionless EM drives'
have been found to be based on erroneous interpretation of experiments.
(on more competent testing)
You have not given any reason for believing yours to be any better.
Jan
On 2024-10-14 09:49:11 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 10:42:00 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-10-13 01:01:03 +0000, Bertietaylor said:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 9:52:47 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote:
bertietaylor:
The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode >>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ >>>>>>>
***
Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into >>>>>>> near space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating >>>>>>> inertia can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and
imparting that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
@Arindam (there is no need to use the transparent bertietaylor alias): >>>>>>
If the aether is fluid-like, which I believe it to be, as opposed to >>>>>> your belief that the aether is solid-like, then there is a simple >>>>>> disproof of your "violation of inertia" claim:
There is no violation of inertia or conservation-of-momentum in fluid >>>>>> mechanics: any unseen/unaccounted for momentum is carried away by the >>>>>> fluid!
As 'everybody' in the 19th century already knew:
the aether must be solid-like.
A fluid aether cannot support transversverse waves,
and this is what electromagnetic waves obviously are.
As for Woofster's claims about inertia violations:
they are bunk, with or without an aether,
Jan
Another e=mcc chap denying reality of inertia violation by Arindam's >>>> rail gun experiment.
Where is this work published (in a serious journal)?
Why bother about journals? Why not look at what has been done?
Nothing has been done until it has generated some peer approval,
or at least a tiny bit of peer interest,
Right. Let us suppose (a huge supposition, and almost certainly false)
that Arindam's inertia violation turns out to be correct. Will he get
credit for it? No, the discovery will be attributed in the textbooks to
the scientist who described and discussed it in a serious journal. The
best he can hope for is a footnote saying "Banerjee claimed some years earlier in popular science sources that inertia violation could occur,
but he provided no verifiable evidence of the claim." I'm reminded of
Marie Mikhailovna Manasseďn: few people today have heard of her, and of
those few virtually none accept her claim to have discovered cell-free fermentation 15 or so years before Eduard Buchner. OK, her results were published in a serious journal (Ber. dt. Chem. Ges. (1872)), but her experiments were unverifiable, and were very badly designed.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 19:38:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 10:42:00 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-10-13 01:01:03 +0000, Bertietaylor said:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 9:52:47 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote:
bertietaylor:
The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode >>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ >>>>>>>
***
Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into >>>>>>> near space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating >>>>>>> inertia can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and
imparting that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
@Arindam (there is no need to use the transparent bertietaylor alias): >>>>>>
If the aether is fluid-like, which I believe it to be, as opposed to >>>>>> your belief that the aether is solid-like, then there is a simple >>>>>> disproof of your "violation of inertia" claim:
There is no violation of inertia or conservation-of-momentum in fluid >>>>>> mechanics: any unseen/unaccounted for momentum is carried away by the >>>>>> fluid!
As 'everybody' in the 19th century already knew:
the aether must be solid-like.
A fluid aether cannot support transversverse waves,
and this is what electromagnetic waves obviously are.
As for Woofster's claims about inertia violations:
they are bunk, with or without an aether,
Jan
Another e=mcc chap denying reality of inertia violation by Arindam's >>>> rail gun experiment.
Where is this work published (in a serious journal)?
Why bother about journals? Why not look at what has been done?
Because nothing has been done yet.
What a lie. Arindam has been theorising from 1998 and experimenting from 2014. All the relevant information is online. But while the powers that
be will go to the ends of the universe in search of new things they strenuously fail to notice Arindam.
An experiment isn't an experiment until it has been correctly
interpreted. Your say-so doesn't qualify as correct interpretation.
Arindam's new design rail gun can be compared to the invention of the telescope. Anyone can see bigly with that. No doubt there. Whether that disproved the crystal spheres metaphysics was a matter of interest. The Cardinals thought it did not shatter the spheres. Earth was still and
all above moved in such crystal spheres. Now satellites circling Jupiter sorta did seem to be sphere-shattering. Not what their Holinesses wanted
to know! So what to do, but persecute Galileo, the Arindam of his time.
Read Lodder's comment above as that new experiment has to satisfy and
not upset the interests and prejudices of the powers that be. In short, Lodder types hold theology over science or belief over truth.
On 2024-10-14 09:49:11 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 10:42:00 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-10-13 01:01:03 +0000, Bertietaylor said:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 9:52:47 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote:
bertietaylor:
The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode >>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ >>>>>>>>
***
Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into >>>>>>>> near space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating >>>>>>>> inertia can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and >>>>>>>> imparting that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
@Arindam (there is no need to use the transparent bertietaylor alias): >>>>>>>
If the aether is fluid-like, which I believe it to be, as opposed to >>>>>>> your belief that the aether is solid-like, then there is a simple >>>>>>> disproof of your "violation of inertia" claim:
There is no violation of inertia or conservation-of-momentum in fluid >>>>>>> mechanics: any unseen/unaccounted for momentum is carried away by the >>>>>>> fluid!
As 'everybody' in the 19th century already knew:
the aether must be solid-like.
A fluid aether cannot support transversverse waves,
and this is what electromagnetic waves obviously are.
As for Woofster's claims about inertia violations:
they are bunk, with or without an aether,
Jan
Another e=mcc chap denying reality of inertia violation by Arindam's >>>>> rail gun experiment.
Where is this work published (in a serious journal)?
Why bother about journals? Why not look at what has been done?
Nothing has been done until it has generated some peer approval,
or at least a tiny bit of peer interest,
Right. Let us suppose (a huge supposition, and almost certainly false)
that Arindam's inertia violation turns out to be correct. Will he get
credit for it? No, the discovery will be attributed in the textbooks to
the scientist who described and discussed it in a serious journal. The
best he can hope for is a footnote saying "Banerjee claimed some years earlier in popular science sources that inertia violation could occur,
but he provided no verifiable evidence of the claim." I'm reminded of
Marie Mikhailovna Manasseďn: few people today have heard of her, and of
those few virtually none accept her claim to have discovered cell-free fermentation 15
or so years before Eduard Buchner. OK, her results were published in a serious journal (Ber. dt. Chem. Ges. (1872)), but her experiments were unverifiable, and were very badly designed.
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 19:38:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 10:42:00 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-10-13 01:01:03 +0000, Bertietaylor said:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 9:52:47 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote:
bertietaylor:
The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode >>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ >>>>>>>>>
***
Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into >>>>>>>>> near space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating >>>>>>>>> inertia can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and
imparting that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
@Arindam (there is no need to use the transparent bertietaylor alias): >>>>>>>>
If the aether is fluid-like, which I believe it to be, as opposed to >>>>>>>> your belief that the aether is solid-like, then there is a simple >>>>>>>> disproof of your "violation of inertia" claim:
There is no violation of inertia or conservation-of-momentum in fluid >>>>>>>> mechanics: any unseen/unaccounted for momentum is carried away by the >>>>>>>> fluid!
As 'everybody' in the 19th century already knew:
the aether must be solid-like.
A fluid aether cannot support transversverse waves,
and this is what electromagnetic waves obviously are.
As for Woofster's claims about inertia violations:
they are bunk, with or without an aether,
Jan
Another e=mcc chap denying reality of inertia violation by Arindam's >>>>>> rail gun experiment.
Where is this work published (in a serious journal)?
Why bother about journals? Why not look at what has been done?
Because nothing has been done yet.
What a lie. Arindam has been theorising from 1998 and experimenting from
2014. All the relevant information is online. But while the powers that
be will go to the ends of the universe in search of new things they
strenuously fail to notice Arindam.
Of course, nothing to notice there.
(except perhaps amusement value)
An experiment isn't an experiment until it has been correctly
interpreted. Your say-so doesn't qualify as correct interpretation.
Arindam's new design rail gun can be compared to the invention of the
telescope. Anyone can see bigly with that. No doubt there. Whether that
disproved the crystal spheres metaphysics was a matter of interest. The
Cardinals thought it did not shatter the spheres. Earth was still and
all above moved in such crystal spheres. Now satellites circling Jupiter
sorta did seem to be sphere-shattering. Not what their Holinesses wanted
to know! So what to do, but persecute Galileo, the Arindam of his time.
50 points on the crackpot index for any comparison of self to Galileo,
or mention of cardinals working on the case. (John Baez)
Read Lodder's comment above as that new experiment has to satisfy and
not upset the interests and prejudices of the powers that be. In short,
Lodder types hold theology over science or belief over truth.
To be fair, your works on internal force -are- suitable as excercise
material for bright high school students. ('spot the errors')
Jan
On 2024-10-14 09:49:11 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 10:42:00 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-10-13 01:01:03 +0000, Bertietaylor said:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 9:52:47 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote:
bertietaylor:
The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode >>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
10 Nov 2023
(All rights reserved)
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ >>>>>>>>
***
Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into >>>>>>>> near space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating >>>>>>>> inertia can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and >>>>>>>> imparting that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
@Arindam (there is no need to use the transparent bertietaylor alias): >>>>>>>
If the aether is fluid-like, which I believe it to be, as opposed to >>>>>>> your belief that the aether is solid-like, then there is a simple >>>>>>> disproof of your "violation of inertia" claim:
There is no violation of inertia or conservation-of-momentum in fluid >>>>>>> mechanics: any unseen/unaccounted for momentum is carried away by the >>>>>>> fluid!
As 'everybody' in the 19th century already knew:
the aether must be solid-like.
A fluid aether cannot support transversverse waves,
and this is what electromagnetic waves obviously are.
As for Woofster's claims about inertia violations:
they are bunk, with or without an aether,
Jan
Another e=mcc chap denying reality of inertia violation by Arindam's >>>>> rail gun experiment.
Where is this work published (in a serious journal)?
Why bother about journals? Why not look at what has been done?
Nothing has been done until it has generated some peer approval,
or at least a tiny bit of peer interest,
Right. Let us suppose (a huge supposition, and almost certainly false)
that Arindam's inertia violation turns out to be correct.
Will he get
credit for it?
No, the discovery will be attributed in the textbooks to
the scientist who described and discussed it in a serious journal.
best he can hope for is a footnote saying "Banerjee claimed some years earlier in popular science sources that inertia violation could occur,
but he provided no verifiable evidence of the claim."
Marie Mikhailovna ManasseĂŻn: few people today have heard of her, and of those few virtually none accept her claim to have discovered cell-free fermentation 15 or so years before Eduard Buchner. OK, her results were published in a serious journal (Ber. dt. Chem. Ges. (1872)), but her experiments were unverifiable, and were very badly designed.
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2024-10-14 09:49:11 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
Where is this work published (in a serious journal)?
Why bother about journals? Why not look at what has been done?
Nothing has been done until it has generated some peer approval,
or at least a tiny bit of peer interest,
Right. Let us suppose (a huge supposition, and almost certainly false)
that Arindam's inertia violation turns out to be correct. Will he get
credit for it? No, the discovery will be attributed in the textbooks to
the scientist who described and discussed it in a serious journal. The
best he can hope for is a footnote saying "Banerjee claimed some years
earlier in popular science sources that inertia violation could occur,
but he provided no verifiable evidence of the claim." I'm reminded of
Marie Mikhailovna Manasseďn: few people today have heard of her, and of
those few virtually none accept her claim to have discovered cell-free
fermentation 15 or so years before Eduard Buchner. OK, her results were
published in a serious journal (Ber. dt. Chem. Ges. (1872)), but her
experiments were unverifiable, and were very badly designed.
Yes, and Bucher even got a Nobel prize for it. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Manaseina>
On 2024-10-15 07:55:23 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2024-10-14 09:49:11 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
Where is this work published (in a serious journal)?
Why bother about journals? Why not look at what has been done?
Nothing has been done until it has generated some peer approval,
or at least a tiny bit of peer interest,
Right. Let us suppose (a huge supposition, and almost certainly false)
that Arindam's inertia violation turns out to be correct. Will he get
credit for it? No, the discovery will be attributed in the textbooks to
the scientist who described and discussed it in a serious journal. The
best he can hope for is a footnote saying "Banerjee claimed some years
earlier in popular science sources that inertia violation could occur,
but he provided no verifiable evidence of the claim." I'm reminded of
Marie Mikhailovna ManasseĂŻn: few people today have heard of her, and of >>> those few virtually none accept her claim to have discovered cell-free
fermentation 15 or so years before Eduard Buchner. OK, her results were
published in a serious journal (Ber. dt. Chem. Ges. (1872)), but her
experiments were unverifiable, and were very badly designed.
Yes, and Bucher even got a Nobel prize for it.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Manaseina>
I had forgotten that Maria Manaseina had a Wikiparticle, and I was
surprised to see that I had edited it in March 2021, removing an
irrelevant reference inserted by someone determined to insert
references to himself in as many pages as possible.
Maybe Arindam could pay someone (not allowed, but not easy to
recognize) to write a Wikiparticle about himself. It's the closest
he'll ever get to fame.
On 2024-10-15 07:55:23 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2024-10-14 09:49:11 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
Where is this work published (in a serious journal)?
Why bother about journals? Why not look at what has been done?
Nothing has been done until it has generated some peer approval,
or at least a tiny bit of peer interest,
Right. Let us suppose (a huge supposition, and almost certainly false)
that Arindam's inertia violation turns out to be correct. Will he get
credit for it? No, the discovery will be attributed in the textbooks to
the scientist who described and discussed it in a serious journal. The
best he can hope for is a footnote saying "Banerjee claimed some years
earlier in popular science sources that inertia violation could occur,
but he provided no verifiable evidence of the claim." I'm reminded of
Marie Mikhailovna Manasseďn: few people today have heard of her, and of
those few virtually none accept her claim to have discovered cell-free
fermentation 15 or so years before Eduard Buchner. OK, her results were
published in a serious journal (Ber. dt. Chem. Ges. (1872)), but her
experiments were unverifiable, and were very badly designed.
Yes, and Bucher even got a Nobel prize for it. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Manaseina>
I had forgotten that Maria Manaseina had a Wikiparticle, and I was
surprised to see that I had edited it in March 2021, removing an
irrelevant reference inserted by someone determined to insert
references to himself in as many pages as possible.
Maybe Arindam could pay someone (not allowed, but not easy to
recognize) to write a Wikiparticle about himself. It's the closest
he'll ever get to fame.
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2024-10-15 07:55:23 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2024-10-14 09:49:11 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
Where is this work published (in a serious journal)?
Why bother about journals? Why not look at what has been done?
Nothing has been done until it has generated some peer approval,
or at least a tiny bit of peer interest,
Right. Let us suppose (a huge supposition, and almost certainly false) >>>> that Arindam's inertia violation turns out to be correct. Will he get
credit for it? No, the discovery will be attributed in the textbooks to >>>> the scientist who described and discussed it in a serious journal. The >>>> best he can hope for is a footnote saying "Banerjee claimed some years >>>> earlier in popular science sources that inertia violation could occur, >>>> but he provided no verifiable evidence of the claim." I'm reminded of
Marie Mikhailovna ManasseĂŻn: few people today have heard of her, and of >>>> those few virtually none accept her claim to have discovered cell-free >>>> fermentation 15 or so years before Eduard Buchner. OK, her results were >>>> published in a serious journal (Ber. dt. Chem. Ges. (1872)), but her
experiments were unverifiable, and were very badly designed.
Yes, and Bucher even got a Nobel prize for it.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Manaseina>
I had forgotten that Maria Manaseina had a Wikiparticle, and I was
surprised to see that I had edited it in March 2021, removing an
irrelevant reference inserted by someone determined to insert
references to himself in as many pages as possible.
Maybe Arindam could pay someone (not allowed, but not easy to
recognize) to write a Wikiparticle about himself. It's the closest
he'll ever get to fame.
Since he seems to have published nothing
(usenet and youtube don't count of course)
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 7:56:20 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2024-10-15 07:55:23 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2024-10-14 09:49:11 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
Where is this work published (in a serious journal)?
Why bother about journals? Why not look at what has been done?
Nothing has been done until it has generated some peer approval,
or at least a tiny bit of peer interest,
Right. Let us suppose (a huge supposition, and almost certainly false) >>>>> that Arindam's inertia violation turns out to be correct. Will he get >>>>> credit for it? No, the discovery will be attributed in the textbooks to >>>>> the scientist who described and discussed it in a serious journal. The >>>>> best he can hope for is a footnote saying "Banerjee claimed some years >>>>> earlier in popular science sources that inertia violation could occur, >>>>> but he provided no verifiable evidence of the claim." I'm reminded of >>>>> Marie Mikhailovna Manasseďn: few people today have heard of her, and of >>>>> those few virtually none accept her claim to have discovered cell-free >>>>> fermentation 15 or so years before Eduard Buchner. OK, her results were >>>>> published in a serious journal (Ber. dt. Chem. Ges. (1872)), but her >>>>> experiments were unverifiable, and were very badly designed.
Yes, and Bucher even got a Nobel prize for it.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Manaseina>
I had forgotten that Maria Manaseina had a Wikiparticle, and I was
surprised to see that I had edited it in March 2021, removing an
irrelevant reference inserted by someone determined to insert
references to himself in as many pages as possible.
Maybe Arindam could pay someone (not allowed, but not easy to
recognize) to write a Wikiparticle about himself. It's the closest
he'll ever get to fame.
Since he seems to have published nothing
(usenet and youtube don't count of course)
Arindam has published a few papers in conferences.
They relate to a range of subjects. From partial match retrieval to rail
guns to the hydrogen transmission network. On stripline circuits,
integrated IFF, and a design for MST radar antenna. He has worked for 30 years in Research and Development. He had a patent from Australia for
the HTN.
He is the greatest master of the English language as evident from all
his posts on Usenet.
As he is an unapologetic brown Hindu and a brahmin at that, he is
subjected to unrelenting oppression from all sides except his close
family and friends.
As he has the Divine on his side he cares not for the machinations of
the ungodly.
Woof-woof
Bertietaylor
On 2024-10-16 08:48:34 +0000, Bertietaylor said:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 7:56:20 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2024-10-15 07:55:23 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2024-10-14 09:49:11 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
Where is this work published (in a serious journal)?
Why bother about journals? Why not look at what has been done?
Nothing has been done until it has generated some peer approval, >>>>>>> or at least a tiny bit of peer interest,
Right. Let us suppose (a huge supposition, and almost certainly false) >>>>>> that Arindam's inertia violation turns out to be correct. Will he get >>>>>> credit for it? No, the discovery will be attributed in the textbooks to >>>>>> the scientist who described and discussed it in a serious journal. The >>>>>> best he can hope for is a footnote saying "Banerjee claimed some years >>>>>> earlier in popular science sources that inertia violation could occur, >>>>>> but he provided no verifiable evidence of the claim." I'm reminded of >>>>>> Marie Mikhailovna ManasseĂŻn: few people today have heard of her, and of >>>>>> those few virtually none accept her claim to have discovered cell-free >>>>>> fermentation 15 or so years before Eduard Buchner. OK, her results were >>>>>> published in a serious journal (Ber. dt. Chem. Ges. (1872)), but her >>>>>> experiments were unverifiable, and were very badly designed.
Yes, and Bucher even got a Nobel prize for it.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Manaseina>
I had forgotten that Maria Manaseina had a Wikiparticle, and I was
surprised to see that I had edited it in March 2021, removing an
irrelevant reference inserted by someone determined to insert
references to himself in as many pages as possible.
Maybe Arindam could pay someone (not allowed, but not easy to
recognize) to write a Wikiparticle about himself. It's the closest
he'll ever get to fame.
Since he seems to have published nothing
(usenet and youtube don't count of course)
Arindam has published a few papers in conferences.
Conference papers are not usually refereed, for the sort of conferences
that I go to.
They relate to a range of subjects. From partial match retrieval to rail
guns to the hydrogen transmission network. On stripline circuits,
integrated IFF, and a design for MST radar antenna. He has worked for 30
years in Research and Development. He had a patent from Australia for
the HTN.
He is the greatest master of the English language as evident from all
his posts on Usenet.
Is he also a painter that would put Leonardo to shame?
What about music? Is he a much better violinist than Yehudi Menuhin ever
was?
As he is an unapologetic brown Hindu and a brahmin at that, he is
subjected to unrelenting oppression from all sides except his close
family and friends.
As he has the Divine on his side he cares not for the machinations of
the ungodly.
Woof-woof
Bertietaylor
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 9:18:48 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-10-16 08:48:34 +0000, Bertietaylor said:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 7:56:20 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2024-10-15 07:55:23 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2024-10-14 09:49:11 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
Nothing has been done until it has generated some peer approval, >>>>>>> or at least a tiny bit of peer interest,
Where is this work published (in a serious journal)?
Why bother about journals? Why not look at what has been done? >>>>>>>
Right. Let us suppose (a huge supposition, and almost certainly false) >>>>>> that Arindam's inertia violation turns out to be correct. Will he get >>>>>> credit for it? No, the discovery will be attributed in the textbooks to
the scientist who described and discussed it in a serious journal. The >>>>>> best he can hope for is a footnote saying "Banerjee claimed some years >>>>>> earlier in popular science sources that inertia violation could occur, >>>>>> but he provided no verifiable evidence of the claim." I'm reminded of >>>>>> Marie Mikhailovna Manasseďn: few people today have heard of her, and of
those few virtually none accept her claim to have discovered cell-free >>>>>> fermentation 15 or so years before Eduard Buchner. OK, her results were
published in a serious journal (Ber. dt. Chem. Ges. (1872)), but her >>>>>> experiments were unverifiable, and were very badly designed.
Yes, and Bucher even got a Nobel prize for it.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Manaseina>
I had forgotten that Maria Manaseina had a Wikiparticle, and I was
surprised to see that I had edited it in March 2021, removing an
irrelevant reference inserted by someone determined to insert
references to himself in as many pages as possible.
Maybe Arindam could pay someone (not allowed, but not easy to
recognize) to write a Wikiparticle about himself. It's the closest
he'll ever get to fame.
Since he seems to have published nothing
(usenet and youtube don't count of course)
Arindam has published a few papers in conferences.
Conference papers are not usually refereed, for the sort of conferences that I go to.
His conference papers are archived. The links are online. Yes the racist European referees threw out his papers but Arindam had better luck with Asians.
They relate to a range of subjects. From partial match retrieval to rail >> guns to the hydrogen transmission network. On stripline circuits,
integrated IFF, and a design for MST radar antenna. He has worked for 30 >> years in Research and Development. He had a patent from Australia for
the HTN.
He is the greatest master of the English language as evident from all
his posts on Usenet.
Is he also a painter that would put Leonardo to shame?
He is a great photographer, much more efficient than da Vinci that way.
And his wife is more beautiful tham Mona Lisa. Arindam too is a stunner
with a magnificent voice. Well known on the Bengali stage and it is said
that his Sanskrit recitations such as the MahaChandiPaaTh are unmatched
with spine-tingling quality.
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
... and it is said that his Sanskrit recitations such as the MahaChandiPaaTh are unmatched with spine-tingling quality.
I just can't bring myself o believe
that it could be superior to Vogon poetry,
Jan
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 9:18:48 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-10-16 08:48:34 +0000, Bertietaylor said:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 7:56:20 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2024-10-15 07:55:23 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2024-10-14 09:49:11 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
Nothing has been done until it has generated some peer approval, >>>>>>>>> or at least a tiny bit of peer interest,
Where is this work published (in a serious journal)?
Why bother about journals? Why not look at what has been done? >>>>>>>>>
Right. Let us suppose (a huge supposition, and almost certainly false) >>>>>>>> that Arindam's inertia violation turns out to be correct. Will he get >>>>>>>> credit for it? No, the discovery will be attributed in the textbooks to
the scientist who described and discussed it in a serious journal. The >>>>>>>> best he can hope for is a footnote saying "Banerjee claimed some years >>>>>>>> earlier in popular science sources that inertia violation could occur, >>>>>>>> but he provided no verifiable evidence of the claim." I'm reminded of >>>>>>>> Marie Mikhailovna ManasseĂŻn: few people today have heard of her, and of
those few virtually none accept her claim to have discovered cell-free >>>>>>>> fermentation 15 or so years before Eduard Buchner. OK, her results were
published in a serious journal (Ber. dt. Chem. Ges. (1872)), but her >>>>>>>> experiments were unverifiable, and were very badly designed.
Yes, and Bucher even got a Nobel prize for it.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Manaseina>
I had forgotten that Maria Manaseina had a Wikiparticle, and I was >>>>>> surprised to see that I had edited it in March 2021, removing an
irrelevant reference inserted by someone determined to insert
references to himself in as many pages as possible.
Maybe Arindam could pay someone (not allowed, but not easy to
recognize) to write a Wikiparticle about himself. It's the closest >>>>>> he'll ever get to fame.
Since he seems to have published nothing
(usenet and youtube don't count of course)
Arindam has published a few papers in conferences.
Conference papers are not usually refereed, for the sort of conferences
that I go to.
His conference papers are archived. The links are online. Yes the racist
European referees threw out his papers but Arindam had better luck with
Asians.
They relate to a range of subjects. From partial match retrieval to rail >>>> guns to the hydrogen transmission network. On stripline circuits,
integrated IFF, and a design for MST radar antenna. He has worked for 30 >>>> years in Research and Development. He had a patent from Australia for
the HTN.
He is the greatest master of the English language as evident from all
his posts on Usenet.
Is he also a painter that would put Leonardo to shame?
He is a great photographer, much more efficient than da Vinci that way.
And his wife is more beautiful tham Mona Lisa. Arindam too is a stunner
with a magnificent voice. Well known on the Bengali stage and it is said
that his Sanskrit recitations such as the MahaChandiPaaTh are unmatched
with spine-tingling quality.
I just can't bring myself o believe
that it could be superior to Vogon poetry,
Jan
Chaps whose minds are permanently warped by their warped view of the
universe cannot see straight.
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 1:45:09 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
Chaps whose minds are permanently warped by their warped view of the
universe cannot see straight.
“‎When you point your finger at someone, anyone, it is often a moment of judgement. We point our fingers when we want to scold someone, point
out what they have done wrong. But each time we point, we simultaneously point three fingers back at ourselves.” – Christopher Pike
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 3:47:27 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 1:45:09 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
Chaps whose minds are permanently warped by their warped view of the
universe cannot see straight.
"?When you point your finger at someone, anyone, it is often a moment of judgement. We point our fingers when we want to scold someone, point
out what they have done wrong. But each time we point, we simultaneously point three fingers back at ourselves." – Christopher Pike
Yes, that means we have to be critical of ourselves all the time. So
when needs must, we can do the *right* finger-pointing at the devils for
the good of all animal, mineral and vegetable - everywhere, for all
time.
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 3:47:27 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 1:45:09 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
Chaps whose minds are permanently warped by their warped view of the
universe cannot see straight.
"?When you point your finger at someone, anyone, it is often a moment of >>> judgement. We point our fingers when we want to scold someone, point
out what they have done wrong. But each time we point, we simultaneously >>> point three fingers back at ourselves." – Christopher Pike
Yes, that means we have to be critical of ourselves all the time. So
when needs must, we can do the *right* finger-pointing at the devils for
the good of all animal, mineral and vegetable - everywhere, for all
time.
Some more words of wisdom for you:
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." (Richard P. Feynman)
You might take his implied advice,
(but I guess not)
Jan
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 13:43:49 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 3:47:27 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 1:45:09 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
Chaps whose minds are permanently warped by their warped view of the >>>>> universe cannot see straight.
"?When you point your finger at someone, anyone, it is often a moment of >>>> judgement. We point our fingers when we want to scold someone, point
out what they have done wrong. But each time we point, we simultaneously >>>> point three fingers back at ourselves." – Christopher Pike
Yes, that means we have to be critical of ourselves all the time. So
when needs must, we can do the *right* finger-pointing at the devils for >>> the good of all animal, mineral and vegetable - everywhere, for all
time.
Some more words of wisdom for you:
Let's see.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the
easiest person to fool." (Richard P. Feynman)
If only he practised what he preached.
Arindam is not yet decided about the e=MCC lot being bigger fools or
bigger scoundrels.
Evidently they have mutated from being fools to being scoundrels in
their reaction to Arindam's physics.
You might take his implied advice,
(but I guess not)
Jan
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 20:43:39 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 13:43:49 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 3:47:27 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 1:45:09 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
Chaps whose minds are permanently warped by their warped view of the >>>>>> universe cannot see straight.
"?When you point your finger at someone, anyone, it is often a moment of >>>>> judgement. We point our fingers when we want to scold someone, point >>>>> out what they have done wrong. But each time we point, we simultaneously >>>>> point three fingers back at ourselves." – Christopher Pike
Yes, that means we have to be critical of ourselves all the time. So
when needs must, we can do the *right* finger-pointing at the devils for >>>> the good of all animal, mineral and vegetable - everywhere, for all
time.
Some more words of wisdom for you:
Let's see.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the
easiest person to fool." (Richard P. Feynman)
If only he practised what he preached.
Arindam is not yet decided about the e=MCC lot being bigger fools or
bigger scoundrels.
Evidently they have mutated from being fools to being scoundrels in
their reaction to Arindam's physics.
Which they want to steal without giving any credit to Arindam. Nothing surprising. Such sorts have stolen entire continents and the resources
of poor nations after learning from the experiences from several
centuries of beating each other up.
Stealing Arindam's works is a trifle for these clever devils.
You might take his implied advice,
(but I guess not)
Jan
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 384 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 62:13:38 |
| Calls: | 8,173 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 13,113 |
| Messages: | 5,864,568 |